If only they had to obey their own laws
Nov 17th, 2010 by Ken Hagler

How many fed­er­al laws would I be break­ing…. …if I sug­gest­ed that the world would be a bet­ter, clean­er place if this per­son and all his syco­phants choked to death on cans of caf­feinat­ed alco­hol?

I note that Sch**er adds a nice incon­gru­ous touch:

Let This Serve as a Warn­ing to Any­one Who Tries to Ped­dle Dan­ger­ous Bev­er­ages to Our Kids, Do it, And We Will Shut You Down

[The Ulti­mate Answer to Kings]

Nat­u­ral­ly I don’t spend much time in gov­ern­ment build­ings, but I know that both pris­ons pub­lic schools and cour­t­hous­es have drink­ing foun­tains. I don’t think there’s any bev­er­age on Earth that’s killed more peo­ple than water…

What the election is really all about
Nov 1st, 2008 by Ken Hagler

Pre­pared head­lines for Wednes­day. It all comes down to a choice between the left-wing social­ist and the right-wing social­ist.

South­ern­ers pre­fer a social­ist who will redis­trib­ute the wealth from the tax­pay­ers to gov­ern­ment employ­ees (mil­i­tary), agri­cul­tur­al inter­ests, and cor­po­ra­tions with “defense” con­tracts. They also pre­fer some­one who bombs lots of for­eign­ers in the name of “nation­al great­ness.”

North­ern­ers pre­fer a social­ist who will redis­trib­ute wealth from the tax­pay­ers to gov­ern­ment employ­ees (non-military), the urban poor, and union mem­bers. They also pre­fer some­one who will bomb lots of for­eign­ers (albeit with less brava­do) in the name of “human rights.” [ Blog]

That’s what pres­i­den­tial elec­tions are, today: decid­ing which social­ist war­mon­ger you want rul­ing the Evil Empire. “Change” was nev­er one of the choic­es.

On collectivism
Nov 1st, 2008 by Ken Hagler


Larken Rose has penned yet anoth­er essay in his TMDS series (The Most Dan­ger­ous Super­sti­tion: the belief in imposed author­i­ty). He explains what col­lec­tivism is, why it always leads to vio­lence, and why Oba­ma, McCain, and every oth­er Repub­li­can and Demo­c­rat can­di­date are all col­lec­tivists.

[End the War on Free­dom]

It’s a good, and lengthy, arti­cle that cov­ers some of the same ground as The Road to Serf­dom. The fol­low­ing is from his con­clu­sion:

Bar­rack Oba­ma is a col­lec­tivist. Despite the usu­al window-dressing
and euphemisms which con­ceal the true nature of what he advo­cates,
he is, in every way, an advo­cate for the idea that every indi­vid­ual–
and all wealth–is the prop­er­ty of the col­lec­tive, as rep­re­sent­ed
by “gov­ern­ment.” In oth­er words, he believes in com­mu­nism.

So should every­one vote for John McCain? No. Mr. McCain is also a
col­lec­tivist. In fact, with very rare excep­tions, ALL Demo­c­rat and
Repub­li­can politi­cians are col­lec­tivists, as they have been for
many decades, even back when they were feign­ing con­cern about the
“spread of com­mu­nism.” So why did I focus on Oba­ma? Because, unlike
Mr. McCain, Mr. Oba­ma seems to have a lot of enthu­si­as­tic sup­port
from well-meaning, albeit mis­guid­ed, Amer­i­cans. As with Bill
Clin­ton, Mr. Oba­ma makes the advo­ca­cy of wide­spread gov­ern­ment
vio­lence, theft and oppres­sion sound both noble and use­ful. It is

So if all of the above was not intend­ed to make you vote for
someone–and it cer­tain­ly was not–then what is being sug­gest­ed?
Intel­lec­tu­al hon­esty. First, I want peo­ple to under­stand what the
self-proclaimed “lead­ers” are actu­al­ly propos­ing, because it is not
“hope,” or “change,” or “progress,” or any of the oth­er vague, feel–
good rhetoric being fed to the gen­er­al pub­lic. It is what EVERY
gov­ern­ment “leader” always pro­pos­es: more pow­er for the state, less
free­dom for the peo­ple. They pre­tend to have the purest motives for
it, but the means to their goals will ALWAYS be less free­dom for
you, and more pow­er for them.

After peo­ple real­ize that, next I want them to be hon­est about
their OWN beliefs and agen­da. If, for exam­ple, you sup­port any of
the col­lec­tivist redis­tri­b­u­tion plans and pro­grams pitched by both
major par­ties, then I sim­ply ask that you drop the cha­rade, set
aside the euphemisms and obfus­ca­tions, and do it open­ly and
hon­est­ly. If you believe that there is some­one some­where whose
sup­posed “need” enti­tles him to what my time and effort have
pro­duced, with or with­out my con­sent, then pick up a gun, come to
my house, and take it from me your­self. Don’t hide such destruc­tive
evil behind elec­tions, leg­is­la­tion, and polit­i­cal rhetoric. Do it
open­ly and hon­est­ly, or don’t do it at all. If you give your vote
to ANY col­lec­tivist, you are just as guilty of rob­bing me, and
rob­bing a cou­ple hun­dred mil­lion oth­er peo­ple, as if you had done
it your­self. But in addi­tion to being a thief, you’d also be a
fraud and a cow­ard, because you lie (maybe even to your­self) about
what it is you advo­cate, and don’t have the spine to go do it

Truth in advertising
Oct 28th, 2008 by Ken Hagler

Get disappointed by someone new

I came across this amus­ing bumper stick­er—it’s prob­a­bly the clos­est we’ll ever see to an hon­est cam­paign ad. How­ev­er, I think it’s too opti­mistic. Expe­ri­ence sug­gests that if Oba­ma does indeed win the elec­tion, the Obames­si­ah cult will praise him to the heav­ens for con­tin­u­ing to do exact­ly the same things that Bush has been doing for the past eight years, while the Bushe­viks will con­demn him as the Antichrist for doing exact­ly the same things that Bush has been doing. And of course none of them will ever acknowl­edge that their “beliefs” have reversed overnight, any more than they did when Bush replaced Clin­ton.

»  Substance:WordPress   »  Style:Ahren Ahimsa
© Ken Hagler. All rights reserved.