Category Archives: Elections

UPDATE II: If We’re So Free, Where’s America’s Referenda? (And If We’re So Free, Where’s Our Right To Secede?)

Conflict, Democracy, Elections, Europe, Foreign Policy, Media, Russia, States' Rights

The pack animals of the American media and political establishment seldom fail to shed darkness on whatever topic they tackle. In that venerated tradition, the aforementioned will never stop to ask this: If we Americans are the freest people in the world, why are we not granted a right to a referendum on, say, that “little” legislative blip called Obamacare?

Yeah, I didn’t think the lap dogs and the sheeple cared to pose the question or confront the answer, against the backdrop of the Crimean referendum.

As Crimea exit polls stand, reports BBC News, “about 93 percent back Russia union.”

The quagmires in Ukraine and Crimea are no exception to the darkness-shedding rule. As observed in “Presstitute-Cultivated Ignorance On Ukraine,” “The struggle for Ukraine is a chapter in a series of US orchestrated provocations, which began with the expansion of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) eastward to abut Russia’s borders—an expansion pursued by Clinton, Bush and Obama alike. It gathered momentum with the US-backed attempts to incorporate Georgia and the Ukraine into the North Atlantic alliance.

The next stage in goading the Russian Bear consisted in American-funded NGO political-action groups—many of them backed by George Soros—flooding Russia proper. (“Purple” in Iraq, Blue in Kuwait, Cotton in Uzbekistan, Grape in Moldova, “Orange” in the Ukraine, “Rose” in Georgia, “Tulip” in Kyrgizstan, “Cedar” in Lebanon, Jasmine in Tunisia, Green in Iran, still un-christened in Russia and Syria: Dig around and you’ll find American activists à la Alinsky behind these “color-coded,” plant-based revolutions, blessed and backed by Foggy Bottom.) “A US-NATO military outpost in Georgia and missile-defense installations near Russia” completed the provocation.

Reporting from Yalta, Serge Trifkovic, whose commentary is often featured on Barely A Blog, was asked by NBC News to comment about the referendum underway in Crimea. He sent this along:

Serge Trifkovic, an American foreign affairs analyst of Serbian origin, criticized the United States’ involvement in the upcoming referendum.

“Nobody asked the people of Crimea if they wanted to be transferred from the Russian Federation within the USSR to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic,” Trifkovi? said.

He added that it’s “richly ironic” U.S. leaders appear to be upholding the Soviet Communist Party’s legacy by insisting Crimea must remain part of Ukraine, while Russian President Vladimir Putin is “upholding the right of people to self-determination and liberty.”

Another BAB contributor, our friend foreign affairs analyst Nebojsa Malic, attempted to counter the prevailing propaganda in an interview with RT:

RT: They said Russia is violating Ukraine’s sovereignty. But what about the EU and the US politicians propping up the Maidan opposition before it came to power?

NM: I would say that a far greater violation of sovereignty is actually staging a coup and replacing an elected government of a country with unelected stooges, like the United States has specifically done with the Maidan opposition. There was the intercepted phone call, which we all heard, who the United States government was plotting to install in power. Lo and behold, that’s exactly what happened. That is a violation of sovereignty. Before that is resolved, nobody should really speak about any sort of other violations, real or imagined.

RT: The UK says the new government in Kiev is legit, while Yanukovich didn’t honor the February 21 agreement with the then-opposition and fled. Do they have a point?

NM: Who decides the legitimacy of these things? Normally it would be the Ukrainian people. The last time they were polled, they elected Viktor Yanukovich as their president. The crowd in Maidan didn’t have any sort of democratic legitimacy. What they did have is that they had weapons. And they had money from the West, and the diplomatic support of Western governments. And using those levers, they actually took over power by force on February 22. The agreement that was purportedly achieved between European ministers and President Yanukovich was violated by the Maidan protesters who resorted to violence and forced the issue. So honestly, for the Western governments propping up these rebels, to declare them legitimate is obviously expected. But they don’t get to decide the legitimacy of these things.

RT: We’ve seen how many people in Crimea aren’t happy with the Kiev leaders. Why is the will of the people not taken into account by Western nations then?

NM: Western governments generally don’t take will of the people into consideration at all, anywhere ever. The only will that matters to them is their own. So if they want to achieve something, if they want to carve up Yugoslavia or Serbia or Russia or Ukraine or anywhere else, they just find stooges that they can manipulate, install them in power, and then claim that the stooges’ decisions are legitimate because they represent a will of some phantom people or other. And that’s usually how they’ve been doing business for the past two decades. Sooner or later, somebody is going to have to stand up to them and say, “No, you can’t do this. This is against your own rules, this is against everybody rules. Stop.”

MORE of Mr. Malic.

Kosovo, South Sudan, The Falklands, Scotland and Catalonia represent “5 referendums that the West has not taken issue with.”

RT elaborates on on this bit of western hypocrisy.

“Let’s fret about our own tyrants” was and is my advice:

“It is possible that the vote in [fill the blank] is the product of widespread fraud. Real or not, this is none of the United States’ business. This county has been pulverized economically and constitutionally. American livelihoods and liberties have been put into peril. In case the advocates of muscular responses have failed to notice, we’re pinned down like butterflies by our own tyrants.”

UPDATE I: And If We’re So Free, Where’s Our Right To Secede? Just you watch the philosophical fascists that follow Lincoln’s example, as they proceed militarily against fellow Americans should these Americans attempt to peacefully secede. All in the name of … American freedoms, of course.

Jealous: “Crimea voters overwhelmingly approve referendum to secede from Ukraine.”

UPDATE II (3/18): “Crimea secedes. So what?” by Ron Paul:

… What’s the big deal? Opponents of the Crimea vote like to point to the illegality of the referendum. But self-determination is a centerpiece of international law. Article I of the United Nations Charter points out clearly that the purpose of the U.N. is to “develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.”

Why does the U.S. care which flag will be hoisted on a small piece of land thousands of miles away?

Critics point to the Russian “occupation” of Crimea as evidence that no fair vote could have taken place. Where were these people when an election held in an Iraq occupied by U.S. troops was called a “triumph of democracy”? …


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Millennials Deserve What They Get. But Are Boomers Ready For What They’ll Dish Out?

America, Debt, Elections, Family, Healthcare, Pop-Culture, Welfare

My Millennial readers are the best and the brightest. They’ll probably agree that, for the most, theirs is “a generation of idle trophy kids” (a Jennifer-Graham coinage).

Still, America worships youth, no matter how dumb. (The economically nascent Chinese do the exact opposite: revere experience.) To enhance his cool quotient, every Boommer and Gen Xer on TV has been belaboring the theme of generational theft. The country’s national debt amounts to stealing from “our children.” Obamacare sticks it to the kids.


In this vein, you’ve watched John Stossel “taking toys from babies” to instantiate the burden on da babies of $280 trillion in debt and unfunded liabilities.

Avik Roy at Forbes beats on breast: “Why Aren’t Millennials Marching In The Street Over Obamacare?” Roy wants to know. After all, people his age have declared war on the “generation born between 1977 and 1995.”

… by design, this law can work if and only if enough young people are willing to pay premiums far higher than are actuarially fair in order to subsidize workers my age who on average earn far more than the young workers who are subsidizing them. Even if one takes into account that Millennials in the long run eventually will become old themselves and benefit from these subsidies, Obamacare still is an extraordinarily bad deal that effectively would force today’s 18-year olds to pay 18 percent more for their medical care over a lifetime than if each generation paid its own way. Such an age-related tax is unconscionable. Imagine if sales taxes or income taxes included a surcharge for everyone who happened to be a twenty-something. If this idea sounds preposterous, welcome to Obamacare.

Highly productive, wealthy, well-employed, slightly older sorts, who’ve worked hard for what they have, are hard at work generating contempt for their kind.

Lord knows that Millenials—Ms. Graham calls them the “new American idle”—will rise to the occasion. They will dish out contempt and much more. Ask and they’ll oblige.

I sincerely hope the contempt they’ve ginned up for themselves sits well with Boomers and Gen Xers. Since Millenials are big on Obama—and thus deserve everything they get, from more debt to ZerO. Care—I’m sure they’ll also grow into the idea of rationing care for their elders (death panels).

Politically, Millennials were among Barack Obama’s strongest supporters in 2008, backing him for president by more than a two-to-one ratio (66% to 32%)

Be careful what you wish for, stupid. There is no need to teach your precious progeny still more disrespect for their elders.

like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

UPDATE II: Beware Of Liberals In Libertarian Drag (Ditto In Conservative Clothing)

Elections, Homosexuality, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Left-Liberalism, libertarianism, Liberty, Racism

“Beware Of Liberals In Libertarian Drag” is the current column, now on WND. An excerpt:

… True to type, Robert Sarvis’ same-sex marriage sanctimony is not only pious, but specious. By Wikipedia’s telling [the libertarian lite, third-party candidate in the Virginia gubernatorial race] “supports same sex marriage and says it is a personal issue for him because his own marriage, which is biracial, was illegal in Virginia 50 years ago.” (By the same token, why not support affirmative action, on the ground that it, too, wasn’t the law “in Virginia 50 years ago”?)

True libertarians toil to keep the state out of marriage altogether. In furtherance of liberty, Uncle Sam’s purview must be curtailed, not expanded. On this score, let our gay friends and family members lead the way. Let them solemnize their commitment in contract and through church, synagogue and mosque (that will be the day!). Once interesting and iconoclastic, gays have become colossal bores who crave nothing more than the state’s seal of approval. Go back to the days of the Stonewall Riots, when the police’s violations of privacy and private property were the object of gay anger and activism.

Invariably deployed to encroach on private property and police subversives, the political construct that is “discrimination” (“sexism, racism, blah, blah”) ought to be opposed by the party of individualism. So long as the individual keeps his paws to himself, let him think, speak, associate and dissociate at will. …”

The complete column is “Beware Of Liberals In Libertarian Drag”. Read it on WND.

If you’d like to feature this column, WND’s longest-standing, exclusive paleolibertarian column, in or on your publication (paper or pixels), contact


At the WND Comments Section. Scroll down and “Say it.”

On my Facebook page.

By clicking to “Like,” “Tweet” and “Share” this week’s “Return To Reason” column.

UPDATE I: CNN’s chief national correspondent, John King, offers the “nitwork’s” analysis of Terry McAuliffe’s victory in Virginia, as he segues into an analysis of the New Jersey race, where, he contends, the same variables are at work.

JOHN KING: Chris, this one will be studied because this race was so close. Virginia is the governor’s race and Virginia is a tug of war evenly divided on the big major issues. Let’s take a closer look at Terry McAuliffe’s win. Start by looking at all this red. If you glanced at this map, you would think the Republican won, right? Look at all that red across Virginia.

Terry McAuliffe owes his victory right there, just like President Obama in 2008 and 2012, the more populous Washington suburbs. It’s the fastest growing part of the state, more moderate voters, younger voters, a rising Latino population. That is why Terry McAuliffe has his narrow win, all due to big support in the Washington, D.C. suburbs.

Let’s take a closer look at how he did it. I’ll explain what I mean about that tug of war. Look at this, the electorate, almost evenly divided, 51 percent women, 49 percent men. Women were the majority of the electorate and a majority of those women just barely went for Terry McAuliffe. Higher number in the suburbs, this mattered hugely, a slight gender gap, but enough to help Terry McAuliffe.

Helping him despite this, look at this, here’s one thing that’s changing in Virginia. We used to think of this as reliably red, a conservative southern state, 44 percent of the electorate described themselves as moderate. It is not the conservative state it used to be. Support among moderates and liberals put Terry McAuliffe just barely over the top.

Chris, over the top despite very strong opposition to the president’s health care plan, 53 percent oppose Obamacare in the state of Virginia. This is what kept Ken Cuccinelli close at the end. Look at this, 81 percent of Obamacare opponents supported the Republican for governor. This is what kept this so close, closer than most of the late polls. The recent opposition to Obamacare hurting the Democratic candidate, the president is under water in Virginia and yet the Democrat won just barely, the president’s disapproval rating.

Here’s how. Terry McAuliffe told the people of Virginia that Ken Cuccinelli was part of the Tea Party crowd that shutdown the government. Virginia voters blamed the Republicans more than the president. Those who blamed Republicans for shutting down the government, remember how close, especially Northern Virginia is to Washington, D.C. a big factor there.

Lastly, Terry McAuliffe made the point, not just on Tea Party issues, but controversial issues like gay rights, abortion. Half of the electorate thought Ken Cuccinelli was too conservative for the state of Virginia. Of those voters, look at that. That’s your margin of victory. Push them on the Tea Party, the social issues, get turnout in the Northern Virginia suburbs.

That’s why Terry McAuliffe narrowly will be the next governor of Virginia. People will study the exit polls looking ahead to 2014 and especially 2016 where Virginia is still important when it comes to presidential politics.

CUOMO: Very interesting. Seems to reflect they had the right issue with Obamacare, but didn’t go about it the right way. Let’s go to Jersey where it’s very different there. It’s really all about the man. How did you see what it means for Governor Chris Christie?

KING: Look, he is now the premier brand in Republican politics. You can say that just flat out. Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, some of the Tea Party guys are with the Republican base. The way you validate yourself in politics is you win elections. Look at that. This has been one of the bluest of blue states in America especially in presidential politics. Chris Christie filling in everything except urban Newark with red so Chris Christie will carry this forward.

I’m sure this will hang on his wall somewhere and mail this to Republican activists all around the country saying look what I did in my state. Let’s move over to the New Jersey exit polls, a sweep. He’s running against a female Democratic candidate, Chris Christie not only wins men, he wins women and both big.

Of course., Chris Christie Republicans tend to win the white vote but remember, Chris, what happened to John McCain among African-Americans and Latinos in 2008, what happened to Mitt Romney among those same constituencies. Let’s look at this. Now Barbara Buono did win African-Americans, but Chris Christie will brag about this.

Look at this number here, 21 percent of African-Americans voted for their Republican governor to re-elect him. Not only did he get 21 percent, he more than doubled his take from four years ago. So Chris Christie can make the case, I can broaden the Republican base. Have you seen that in a long time? That’s red.

The Latino vote, 9 percent of the vote in New Jersey is colored red because Chris Christie actually carried the Latino vote by five, six points there, 51 percent. Remember what happened to Romney and McCain in places like Florida, Nevada, New Mexico. This a powerful message for Chris Christie that I can put the swing states back into play.

If you move over and look at little bit more. It’s clear the people of New Jersey like their governor, but you want to talk about 2016. I’m going to leave that one for you. Superstorm Sandy 84 percent — 84 percent of the people said he handled Sandy well. That was a big personal factor for him. Now we go to 2016 to see if Chris Christie can make the case as he travels the country.

CUOMO: Here’s the segue way. You showed the numbers there. Last night, the governor won with women, which was surprising, showed strength, but however when we talk about the woman, Hillary Rodham Clinton, the story changes even though a man named John King told me to listen for what you don’t hear said. What do we see?

KING: It’s a close race. The state hasn’t gone Republican for president since 1984. It’s a close race. Hillary Clinton is still ahead by four points. Chris Christie’s message to Republicans can be I can guarantee New Jersey, but if he’s competitive in New Jersey he’s probably competitive in places like Pennsylvania and Ohio as well.

These are the races up in 2014 Republican governors. Iowa, that’s up. There’s a place called Ohio that’s up. There’s a place called South Carolina that’s up. You know where I’m going here. He’ll get a chance to test his appeal in the states that matter most when we pick presidents.

UPDATE II: Beware Of Liberals In Libertarian Drag And In Conservative’s Clothing. Via Mr. Buchanan:

According to Chuck Todd of NBC, though heading for a blowout, Christie rebuffed a desperate plea to come down to Virginia for a few hours to help Ken Cuccinelli, whose late surge almost won the state.

like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Sisters Love Uncle Sam

Elections, Feminism, Gender, Socialism, The State

It’s true. “Sisters love the state.” From “Fluke’s No Fluke; Sisters Love Uncle Sam”:

Andrew Kohut, head of the Pew Research Center, dates the statism of American women to the 1980s, a function of “Ronald Reagan’s assertive foreign policy,” but also of the female affinity for bigger government. Kohut confirms that, “Then, as now, women [have] tended to favor a larger role for government programs than do men.”
John Derbyshire traces remarks about the ladies’ lack of proclivity for liberty to 391 B.C.
“That was the year Aristophanes staged his play ‘The Assemblywomen,’” Derbyshire documents in “We are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism.” “In the play, the women of Athens, disguised as men, take over the assembly and vote themselves into power. Once in charge, they institute a program of pure socialism.”

George Orwell, whose insights into these matters were very deep, also noticed this. He has Winston Smith, the protagonist of ’1984,’ observe: ‘It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of orthodoxy’ (p. 88).

Having lived in communist China “in the years just after Mao,” Derbyshire seconds Orwell. “If you wanted to hear … utterly unreflective parroting of the Party line, a woman was always your best bet.”

Libertarians like to imagine that their constituency is differently derived than that of the Republicans. However, the fantasy that women flock to liberty is just that, a fantasy. I’ve attended those libertarian gatherings in which, after “subtracting the dragged-along wives and girlfriends from these events, the normal male-female ratio of the remainder is around ten to one.” …

At, John Hayward updates his readers on the blight that is “the single woman society,” with reference to the race in Virginia:

The Virginia governor’s race was yet another example of the massive voting gap in a huge demographic: single people, particularly single women. According to exit polls, Republican Ken Cuccinelli won handily on the “hard” issues facing Virginia voters, and won most other demographic slices, but Democrat Terry McAuliffe won big with single people, crushing Cuccinelli by nearly fifty points among single women.
A similar dynamic could be observed in the 2012 presidential race, where the Obama campaign made a very concerted effort to win over single women
…The single female demographic doesn’t get hung up on details. Another of the new liberal icons, Wendy Davis of Texas, couldn’t answer basic questions about the abortion legislation she opposed with a purportedly heroic filibuster. Now she’s claiming she is actually kinda sorta “pro life” when you think about it. This is true of all the emotional appeals directed at single female society – lack of knowledge is not only overshadowed by passionate conviction, it can be a point of pride. Critics who dwell on the fine print are portrayed as somehow dishonest, using tricksy legalistic nitpicks to injure great idealistic crusades. The liberal hero of the hour cares so very, very much that they cannot be bothered to learn what anything costs, or explore the ramifications of the laws they champion….
… That’s another thing about the single female society: it’s not just a matter of dependents voting to preserve or increase their personal benefits. They are highly receptive to the notion of government-managed compassion, fearful of the cold terrors of the predatory wasteland that lies beyond the comforting light of Mother Government’s home fire, even when they personally are not much affected by particular policies.


While you’re at it, revisit “Fluke’s No Fluke; Sisters Love Uncle Sam” in its entirety.

like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Conflict of Interest And Media Corruption

Democrats, Elections, Journalism, Media, Morality, Republicans

Conflict of interest equals corruption. It is the modus operandi of major media in America. It is why affiliates of large news organizations see nothing outrageous about producing documentaries and miniseries about Hillary Clinton in the ramp up to the 2016 elections.

What can Republican candidates expect from the media mafiosi in the 2016 Republican primary debates? If past is prologue, Republican candidates will be “deposed” by the Democratic operatives of CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, etc. That’s how Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Reince Priebus put it. So one wonders what took GOP invertebrates so long to stand up to the farce of Democratic special interests (most media) moderating or sponsoring the Republican election debates.

Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Reince Priebus said NBC and CNN must halt their Hillary Clinton programming or the RNC won’t partner with them for the 2016 Republican primary debates.


NBC Entertainment has announced plans to produce a mini-series about Hillary Clinton starring Diane Lane, while CNN has announced plans to produce a feature-length documentary about Clinton that will air in theaters and on the network. Both networks have stressed that their news divisions will have no part in the projects.


Even though this is neither here nor there for liberty, many of us still wanted to see Mitt Romeny get off his knees and quit apologizing to his media inquisitors, who kept berating him for the Good Life he had led.

like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Delusions Of Democracy

Classical Liberalism, Democracy, Elections, Middle East, South-Africa, States' Rights, Taxation

We now have some idea of the strength of Egyptian discontent, courtesy of the Wall Street Journal: “22 million …—a large number considering Egypt’s estimated population of 93 million people.” The numbers are derived not from a poll, but from revelations about a “signature-gathering campaign called ‘Tamarod’ or ‘Rebel.’”

Needless to say, this does not constitute good data about public opinion in Egypt—which only a few months back trended toward the Muslim Brotherhood—although the size of the petition and the corresponding demonstrations give an idea of the groundswell across the country.

Some Westerners worry about lack of power-changing political mechanisms in such backward places as Egypt. The worrywarts are deluding themselves that the stagnant politics of the Euro, Anglo-American hemispheres and their protectorates provide these mechanisms.

Delusions of democracy

When “Vlaamse Blok” (Flamish block), Belgium’s largest party, became too much of a threat to the powers that be in that country, the Belgium Supreme Court declared Belgium’s largest party (“Vlaamse Blok”) a “criminal organization” and ordered its dissolution.”

Lawmaker Geert Wilders, leader of the Party for Freedom, has been similarly assailed in The Netherlands, except that he and The Demos stand up to and outfox The Establishment that wishes to bring them into compliance.

An entire book was written about what mobocracy has wrought on the minority of South Africa, now that a dominant-party state has been blessed as free and democratic by the West.

A point made in said book, Into the Cannibal’s Pot, is that South Africa’s authentically liberal party in all its permutations has always been more classical liberal than left-liberal. Thus the Democratic Alliance’s Helen Zille is never as contemptible as a left-liberal American Democrat. We won’t insult the woman! I’d sum-up Zille with these words: She tries her best with the few powers she has retained. These powers have been subsumed in the national government, which will always and forever be a social-democratic black affair that represents the needs of tax consumers.

Ultimately, there is not much Zille can do for the whites (and colored) who vote for her, and who pay the lion’s share of the country’s taxes. There is near no devolution of powers to South Africa’s provinces. “The province’s powers are shared with the national government.” Like in the US. We still whimper about states’ rights but we’ve lost these as well as many of our individual liberties.

The tiny racial minority that constitutes the tax base of South Africa has no representation in a country that votes strictly along racial lines, and in which there is no veto power or meaningful devolution of powers to the provinces in which the assailed minority might prevail politically. The aforementioned book points out that the great Zulu chief Dr. Mangosuthu Buthelezi was one of the good guys of South Africa; the Mandela’s mafia—the ANC—is the bad element. Buthelezi, being a free market man, fought for the devolution of power rather than its concentration in a dominant-party state (the endgame of the ANC and its Anglo-American buddies). He was tarred as the bad guy by the same axis of evil, with the New York Times in the lead.

In any case, we should not look down on the Egyptians from the dizzying heights of our despotic democracies. Can we in the US dethrone our emperor du jour? Not really. Not with any meaningful consequences. Impeachment mechanisms don’t work, and neither do “democratic” elections, because the Democratic and Republican parties have each operated as counterweights in a partnership designed to keep the pendulum of power swinging in perpetuity from the one entity to the other. As my fellow libertarian Vox Day once observed, no sooner do the Republicans come to power, than they move to the left. When they get their turn, Democrats shuffle to the right. At some point, the zombie John McCain reaches across the aisle and the creeps converge.

“Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn almost got it right when he said, ‘Fifty-one percent of a nation can establish a totalitarian regime, suppress minorities and still remain democratic.’ Correction: All that can be achieved with only 51 percent of the vote, making the slogan ‘freedom begins at the ballot box’ a very cruel hoax indeed.

At least the Egyptians have stumbled upon an effective way to make their sons of 60 dogs (an Egyptian expression for politicians) tremble in their palaces. Game. Set. Match, Egyptian people.

like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint