Category Archives: libertarianism

Updated: Dispelling Media Myths About Militias

Conspiracy, Government, Individual Rights, libertarianism, Liberty, Media, Propaganda, Republicans, Rights

If Amy Cooter wishes to follow a real hate group, she should embed with the Southern Poverty Law Center. Cooter spent protracted time with a cross-section of the country’s maligned militias, for a PhD. in sociology, I presume. As hard as the Egg Head from CNN tried to extract from her the line the Southern Poverty Law Center peddles about many patriotic Americans, he came away empty handed (and headed).

Although talker Monica Crowley has blamed Obama for the Missouri State police report entitled “The Modern Militia Movement,” and dated February 20, 2009 (it warned about subversives like … me), I believe it was initiated in the Bush era. Once again, here too, there is no difference between the Republicans, when in power, and the Dems in their statist collaboration to defame the best of America.

Update (March 31): Peter Brimelow:

And the “Hutaree militia”? I’m now old and scarred enough to say openly what as an MSM editor I would merely have cunningly proposed as an interesting hypothesis to some energetic young reporter: I don’t believe it. I don’t believe that any group of white blue collar workers would naturally want to attack the local police, another blue collar group.

I think, as Richard Hoste has argued, that it’s far more likely to turn out to be a case of entrapment by some ambitious prosecutor trying to please his/her political masters.

Updated: The Fair Lady Endorses The Randian

Elections, libertarianism, Liberty, Neoconservatism, Outsourcing, Republicans, Ron Paul, Sarah Palin, Technology

Sarah Palin has donated the maximum allowable in support of Rand Paul’s bid for the Kentucky U.S. Senate seat. Neoconservatives are furious. David Horowitz’s new NewsReal blog offers an attempt at an analysis of the contradictions of a Palin endorsement of a Paul.

Since very few brain cells went into designing the site, I will be unable to quote from it. Not only is NewsReal incredibly busy in a bad, ADHD kind of way, but someone really “clever” has ensured one cannot “Ctrl c” so as to “Ctrl v” any excerpts therefrom. In other words, you can’t cut and paste for quotation purposes.

I’m certainly not going to bother typing this stuff out—no body is. Maybe the web designer thought that the originality of the contents warranted anti-copying software.

Rand Paul’s site, on the other hand, is original in all the right ways and reproducible. Sarah for Rand is here. And yes, “Rand is for real”:

Rand Paul is beating all U.S. Senate candidates in both parties and … has huge Tea Party and grass roots support driving his overwhelming success against establishment politicians and their budget-busting ways.

If Sarah helps send Tea Party Paulites to DC, and snubs establishment Republican oinkers—she will have done America more good than most.

Update: On the petty issue of being able to “cut n’ paste” from the NewsReal blog: Could it be that the webmaster fixed the flaw following my post? I suspect so.

The facility is working now, but another reader informed me just a couple of hours back that “cut & paste” was possible, albeit by right clicking only on the text. I’m glad the facility is working now, pursuant to my complaint.

As to the busy, boggling nature of the site: I fully admit that the youth is more inclined than me to white noise. I like clean, clear, and unfussy. However, as Hollywood has made clear for decades, the older generation has nothing on the youth when it comes to technology, style, smarts, etc.

Enable sarcasm. I live with someone who makes the innards of the toys and telephones our deeply stupid, attention-deficient mites depend on to sustain brain waves. He himself doesn’t use all that crap technology (other than a PC and a cell, when needed). Telling, ha? Most thinking people like clear, clean, and unfussy.

The white-noise producing toys, by the way, are usually made by older people (with advanced engineering degrees)—often Asians, many of whom are older—beavering away under one or two really smart Americans (also older), all in an effort to keep the brainwaves of the younger generation (mostly Americans) from flatlining.

Update II: No-WASP Scholarship (Whites: Wither!)

Affirmative Action, Ilana Mercer, Labor, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, libertarianism, Multiculturalism, Outsourcing, Private Property, Race, Racism, The West

VDARE’S SLEUTHHOUND Rob Sanchez has uncovered a scandalous tidbit that might amaze even those (like himself) who deal daily with the workings of the Treason Class:

Bill Gates Scholarships Exclude White Kids [Poor whites too]

By Rob Sanchez, VDARE.COM

When I saw a webpage by the “National Policy Institute (NPI)” titled Bill Gates: White kids not eligible for my scholarships I thought it was just a baseless rant. The commentary didn’t provide any references which added to my skepticism that it was a hoax

Bill Gates has made his scholarship fund off limits to white teenagers. The Gates Millennium Scholarship fund is financed by a $1 Billion endowment Bill Gates made in 1999. The fund explicitly denies eligibility to white students.

“Students are eligible to be considered for a GMS scholarship if they: Are African American, American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian and Pacific Islander American, or Hispanic American;”

I decided to do some research in order to debunk this rumor before it starts racing through the internet. Much to my displeasure I confirmed that it’s true that the Bill Gates scholarship intentionally excludes white people. Actually it excludes many races besides Caucasian. Keep reading to understand how I came to that conclusion — and don’t worry — I will provide enough references to make your head spin!

The first place to go is the source — the Gates Millennium Scholarship home page. The NOMINEE PERSONAL INFORMATION FORM 2010 reveals a few disturbing surprises — scroll down to Item #8 where you will find that U.S. Residency is required, and then you must choose from the following choices:

* U.S. Citizen
* Permanent Resident / National

If you are a permanent resident or a foreign national you are required to enter your “COUNTRY OF CITIZENSHIP”. So, in other words you don’t have to be a U.S. Citizen but you do have to be a legal alien, which might mean nothing more than having a student visa. It might sound like anybody in the world is welcome to apply for the scholarship but item #9 quickly disproves that idealistic notion. My first impression is that somebody made a mistake on the form:

Race/Ethnicity – REQUIRED (YOU MAY CHECK ONLY ONE, EVEN IF YOU IDENTIFY WITH MORE THAN ONE OF THESE GROUPS. IF CHECKING AMERICAN INDIAN/ALASKA NATIVE,ASIAN PACIFIC ISLANDER AMERICAN, OR HISPANIC AMERICAN, ALSO IDENTIFY A TRIBE OR ETHNIC SUBGROUP IN THE BOXES PROVIDED.)

You must choose one of the following:

* African American
* American Indian / Alaska Native
* Asian Pacific Islander / American
* Hispanic American

By now you have noticed that “Caucasian” isn’t offered as a choice but at this point I thought it was a mere oversight. The FAQs page gives answers to some of the obvious questions:

If a person is applying for their permanent residence or U.S. Citizenship are they eligible to apply for the Gates Millennium Scholarship?

A student is eligible to apply for the Gates Millennium Scholarship if (he or she) is a citizen, national or legal permanent resident of the United States

What are the requirements for the American Indian/Alaska Native designation for Gates Scholar Nominees?

American Indian/Alaska Native students will be asked to provide proof of tribal enrollment or certificate of decent from a state of federally recognized tribe if selected as a GMS candidate finalist.

What are the eligibility criteria for the GMS program?

Students are eligible to be considered for a GMS scholarship if they:

• Are African American, American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian Pacific Islander American or Hispanic American • Are a citizen, national or legal permanent resident of the United States

What ethnic groups comprise Asian Pacific Islander Americans?

Asian Pacific Islander Americans include persons having origin from Asia and/or the Pacific Islands. Asian includes persons having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent. Pacific Islander includes persons having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawai’i, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands. Citizens of the republic of the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau are also eligible to be nominated.

The NPI report isn’t new news as you will see from the following papers.

Theodore Cross, writer at the The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, wrote a paper in 1999 that discusses the history of the Bill Gates scholarship: “Bill Gates’ Gift to Racial Preferences in Higher Education“. Make no mistake, Cross thinks it’s a darn good idea that Gates discriminates against whites, and he isn’t very subtle about it either:

Racial conservatives are correct. The huge billion-dollar Gates Millennium Scholarship program is racially discriminatory. The terms could not be cleaner. Whites may not apply!

Theodore Cross hasn’t been very sympathetic in other writings either: The Folly of Setting a Grand Theory Requiring Race Neutrality in All Programs of Higher Education“, 2000.

If you believe that there should be no room whatsoever for any race-conscious policies in higher education, have a careful look at the legions of university programs that are now in place. You may then change your mind. In fact, what you see may cast some doubt on the theoretical underpinnings of the Hopwood ruling banning all considerations of race in student admissions.

Cross has written many other papers, like for instance: “Barack Obama is the Superior Choice for African-American Voters“, 2007.

For the first time in the history of our country, a black man has a credible chance of becoming president of the United States. After the long nightmare years of slavery, lynchings, Jim Crow, and enduring race discrimination, one would expect that, in the upcoming presidential primary contest, Illinois Senator Barack Obama would be the overwhelming choice of black American voters.

I want to conclude with a few other opinions mostly because it’s interesting to see the cold and indifferent ways discrimination against Caucasians is discussed in academic circles, and how widely it’s understood that the Gates scholarship is discriminatory.

Towards an Establishment Clause Theory of Race-Based Allocation after Grutter: Administering Race-Conscious Financial Aid“, Maurice R. Dyson, Southern Methodist University, Law School, 2004

Thus, there is a multi-layered analysis of private choice. The private choice of donors to restrict aid on the basis of race and the private choice of scholarship recipients to direct the aid to whatever institution would be acceptable. This accounts for why a Gates Millennium scholarship or United Negro College fund might withstand strict scrutiny for each involves private donors and private recipients without any university intervention.

The Impact of the Gates Millennium Scholars Program on Selected Outcomes of Low-Income Minority Students: A Regression Discontinuity Analysis, Stephen L. DesJardins, Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education, University of Michigan and Brian P. McCall, Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota. October 2006

The Gates Millennium Scholars (GMS) program, funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, was established in 1999 to improve access to and success in higher education for low-income and high-achieving minority students by providing them with full tuition scholarships and other types of support.

Estimates are provided for each of the minority groups covered by the scholarship (African Americans, Asian Americans, and Latino/a students).

Considering all of the open talk that has occurred for over a decade of time about the Gates scholarship, it’s truly amazing that whites have been so silent. Maybe they don’t care whether their kids get lucrative scholarships, or maybe they feel that designated minorities deserve preferences. Go figure!

[Rob Sanchez] @ 3:15 pm, 2 February 2010

Update I: The fact that this is Gates’ money and he has the right to use it as he pleases should never preclude discussion on the ethics of the man’s deed—a man who has the ear of the US legislature and who works tirelessly to displace American workers.

I’ve said it again and again: on this forum, the discussion does not end with the libertarian law. The real debate is whether civil rights law, which is on the books despite my opposition to such a species of law, ought to be used against this excuse of a man. Reasonable people will disagree on this matter.

Gates uses his influence to ensure taxpayer’s money is used to subsidize imported, redundant, cheap labor. His company is a labyrinth of well-policed, multicultural, volitionally adopted regulations. Some would argue that Hayim’s method is fair game; others will disagree.

Update II (Feb. 5): I find myself addressing and readdressing many of the same pet arguments to which readers prefer to cleave. What about a learning curve? Or, how about addressing the response I gave to a particular pet argument, instead of making me rehash it? That’s one way to advance the debate.

Or, we could compromise: I’ll keep addressing your oft-repeated pet argument. For my efforts and time, you, in return, can buy my book or donate to the site.

Myron, this is a repeat performance.

I agree that “voluntary affirmative action is perfectly acceptable by private firms, but far more problematic when undertaken by government.” Contrary to the civil servant, the private person’s freedom of association ought to be sacrosanct. State institutions don’t have the prerogatives of private property.

But you’ve already advanced the wickedly wrongheaded opinion that whites hurt by affirmative action are playing victim. Instead of petitioning the courts, they should go gentle into that good night. (Easy to say when you’re not one of those whites who gets tossed aside.)

You did so with respect to the case of Frank Ricci, a firefighter from New Haven, Connecticut. Ricci was denied a promotion because he bested all the blacks in the department on a test 77 other candidates took. City officials didn’t like the results, so they voided the test, and put the promotion on hold until a less sensitive test could be developed – one that better screened-out proficiency and ability.

I covered the issue in “Beware of Absolut Libertarian Lunacy.” Somewhere in the BAB archive is a thread similar to this one.

White men like Ricci are NOT seeking equality of results much as blacks do through coercive civil rights laws. Most are wronged for excelling. These whites are not petitioning for special favors; but against them. If anything, Ricci asked only that the city accept inequality of outcomes; accept that not all are created equal.

Flipping them the finger is worse than flippant; it’s twisted.

Back to what y’all can do to make up for my dedication to supplying you with a forum and patiently addressing repetition (such as Hugg’s devotionals to the Republican Party). The publisher of Broad Sides, who also supplies Amazon, tells me that those of you who spoke of buying the book in bulk for your errant friends and relatives most certainly have not done so.

I’m waiting.

Update IX: Massachusetts Musical Chairs (Brown WINS; Dems Blame…)

Conservatism, Democrats, Elections, Feminism, Gender, libertarianism, Media, Politics, Republicans, War

Finding a conservative instinct in a “conservative” female writer is near impossible. Kathleen Parker, the yin to neoconservative David Brooks’ yang, zeros in on the essence of State Sen. Scott Brown, the Republican vying with Attorney General Martha Coakley to fill Ted Kennedy’s U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts.

The second most important thing to Parker, as noted in her column about the candidate who is fast gaining on the Coakley character, is that, “He’s a Mr. Mom to his busy wife, a Boston TV news reporter.” Like most “conservative” women, Parker makes the candidate’s feminist and family bona fides front-and-center.

But we’re not here discussing the mediocrity of Parker’s saccharine sweet, gender-specific, unremarkable prose, but the banality of the “JFK Republican,” Scott Brown. Basically Brown likes senseless war more than futile welfare.

Brown’s wishy-washy platform notwithstanding, you don’t need CNN to tell you that, “A GOP victory in overwhelmingly Democratic Massachusetts could give Senate Republicans enough votes to block Obama’s health care plan. It also could shatter assumptions about the competitiveness of politics in the progressive Northeast.”

Brown has opened up a lead of 4 percentage points.

According to the Suffolk/7 News survey, Brown is grabbing 65 percent of independent voters, with three in 10 pulling for Coakley. And 17 percent of Democrats questioned said they’re supporting Brown.
If Brown pulls an upset and defeats Coakley, the Democrats will lose their 60-seat filibuster-proof coalition in the Senate. The shift could threaten the party’s priorities on health care and a range of other issues.

Brown’s election could mean the defeat of Obama’s healthcare bill, and that’s a good thing.

Otherwise, it’s all more musical chairs between the mamzers.

Update I (Jan. 18): If he wins, and it looks like he will, Brown will be on the next flight to DC to cast a vote in the Senate to kill the bill. As I understand it, Brown does not need to await confirmation to vote. His vote will be perfectly legal. If Democrats pull any procedural mischief, there will be riots.

The most liberal, Democrat-favoring state in the country—I believe Massachusetts has not elected a Republican to the Senate since the late 1970s—is rejecting Obama’s policies, or at least some of them.

This is a turning point in current Democrat-Republican dispensation. It’s a serious blow to blowhard Barack and a kick in the pants to Ted Kennedy, his “legacy” and possy. Some overall gains for liberty may result, although homeostasis within the duopoly will ultimately be restored.

Remember, “The Democratic and Republican parties each operates as a necessary counterweight in a partnership designed to keep the pendulum of power swinging in perpetuity from the one entity to the other.”

Update II (Jan. 19): Not a peep from the media about this gentleman. Thanks to Myron for introducing Joe Kennedy, an independent candidate.

I skimmed his short platform. Kennedy’s a patriot. A tad weak on immigration, as he dares to speak only of the illegal kind, and cleaves to the, “We are a nation of immigrants” mantra. Still, Kennedy is better than most any establishment Republican.

Update III: Michelle Malkin clobbers David Frum in a post on Brown: “Brown has run on the core Tea Party issues of fiscal responsibility, limited government, and a strong national defense, while appealing to a broader swath of voters by emphasizing integrity, independence, and willingness to stand up to machine politics.” Read the complete post for the Frum bits.

Update IV: From Salon’s Joan Walsh, who has the aura of a wound-up, puritanical Martha Coakley, to Brother Eugene Robinson of the WaPo; to MSNBC’s Chris Matthews and the pretty, empty-headed Norah O’Donnell—the malpracticing media seems intractably unwilling to apply analytical acid to what’s unfolding in Massachusetts.

In Obama’s election, the Left saw a heavenly celestial alignment of the political stars. The media had been blessed at last with a son. “For Unto Us A Son is Born,” blah, blah. In the near dethroning of a Democrat in the liberal miasma that is Massachusetts, the ponces above see only logistical and tactical missteps.

The latest from Fox News: “Republican Scott Brown has taken the early lead in the Massachusetts special election, an unexpectedly competitive contest that could have significant implications for President Obama’s agenda in Washington.”

Update V: BROWN HAS WON. Associated Press:

In an epic upset in liberal Massachusetts, Republican Scott Brown rode a wave of voter anger to defeat Democrat Martha Coakley in a U.S. Senate election Tuesday that left President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul in doubt and marred the end of his first year in office.

Coakley has conceded.

Update VI: Want proof that Olby is bonkers? Here is what the MSNBC host said of the center-right, senator elect from Massachusetts:

“In Scott Brown we have an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, tea-bagging supporter of violence against women and against politicians with whom he disagrees.’
— Keith Olbermann, host of MSNBC’s Countdown, in a virulent rant against the Massachusetts candidate”

Michele Malkin: “… there are more long faces at MSNBC than at an aardvark convention.”

Here’s an image courtesy of Chris Matthews PR:

Update VII: Joan Walsh pleads, under the guise of an impartial postmortem: “this is a referendum on Coakley’s campaign, not on President Obama (thought I’ll get to him later.) She blew it … Coakley didn’t lose because of doubts about the health care reform bill…”

That’s settled, then. If Dems run good campaigns, they should be alright.

Walsh’s woman’s wiles tell her that this Republican victory in Massachusetts, achieved because the candidate rode a populist, tea-bag wave, has nothing to do with Democratic overreach. “In fact,” she assures her readers, “the problem has been under-reaching, and failing to deliver on campaign promises. But it’s going to take a lot of work on Obama’s part to bring those two poles within his party together. Exactly a year after his inauguration, it’s time for Obama to lead.”

Blessed be the boobs for they have inherited the earth.

Note Walsh’s dark demands that “agendas” be delivered on by hook or by crook.

The winner, Brown, disagrees. Campaigning “from the Berkshires to Boston, from Springfield to Cape Cod,” the voters of the Commonwealth told him they did “not want the trillion-dollar health care bill that is being forced on the American people.”

Odd that. (Even odder was Brown’s smarmy allusions, in his victory speech, to playing basketball with the president. Did you get the impression that the Republicans’ golden boy was looking forward to hobnobbing in high places? That disturbed me. The liberals, on the other hand, didn’t appreciate his crass peddling of his daughters as “available.” Cheap and inappropriate, that’s for sure.)

Update VIII: A good summery of the diabolical options Dems have been weighing, vis-a-vis the health care bill, soon to be laid to rest (we hope).

Update IX (Jan. 20): I’m hanging at Salon for a bit. Sometimes one just has to experience, or endure, a full frontal of the stuff. You tend to forget how repulsive the beltway liberal really is. Another insight into the seismic dethroning of Dems in Massachusetts courtesy of the Salon scribblers: “Massachusetts is filled with sexist voters.”