Category Archives: Private Property

The Rise of The Cr-ppy Chris Christie

Ann Coulter, Celebrity, Economy, Elections, Ethics, Free Markets, IMMIGRATION, Morality, Pop-Culture, Private Property, Republicans

“The Rise of The Cr-ppy Chris Christie” is the current column, now on WND. Here is an excerpt:

“Chris Christie’s problem is not his weight, but his character. New Jersey’s popular Republican governor is the consummate backstabbing, slimy, opportunistic politician, who, for good measure, also preaches and practices the dirigiste economics of an Obama (and a “W”).

Gov. Christie is in the news a lot lately, which is just the way he likes it—and the way he has planned it. To say that Mr. Christie hungers for the plum post of US president is a redundancy on par with, “Is the Pope Catholic?”

The governor is no boob, but he knows how to handle boobs, a requirement of public office. And one crucial question Booboos Americanus asks himself when electing a president is whether he’d like to knock back a Guinness with the candidate. A doughnut is as good as a beer.

So on the “Late Night Show” went Christie for a cameo. There he squeezed into a studio seat too small for his girth and humored the hubris sitting opposite him, while scarfing down a doughnut.

Befitting a nation that considers wisdom and intellect as liabilities—cretin celebrities will carry the day in the 2016 presidential run, as they do today. Visibility on late night TV is a requirement of the highest office.

Launched by the Queen of Kitsch, day-time talker Oprah Winfrey, Barack Obama has normalized the cultural carnival that sees a president cavorting with dummies like Dave Letterman and the ladies of “The View.” He now sits at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, where Chris Christie would dearly like to plunk his keister.

Like his predecessor, the next president will need the imprimatur of entertainers with canonical status. “The road to the White House goes through this chair,” a semi-serious David Letterman warned Republican presidential pick Mitt Romney. Romney had flouted the Letterman commandment. Where is he today? On the ash-heap of history.

Another chrysalis within which the American presidency takes shape is the liberal media. And it loves Chris Christie, holding him up as a paragon of the rudderless Republican the GOP ought to be running.

This wasn’t always the case…”

Read the complete column, “The Rise of The Cr-ppy Chris Christie,” now 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 ilana@ilanamercer.com.

JOIN THE DISCUSSION, AND DO BATTLE FOR LIBERTY BY:

• Using the content-sharing icons on Barely a Blog posts.

• At the WND and RT Comments Sections, and on Facebook.

• By clicking to “Like,” “Tweet” and “Share” WND’s “Return To Reason” , and RT’s “Paleolibertarian Column.”

The Peerless Malevolence of Redcoat Piers Morgan

Christianity, Constitution, Founding Fathers, Free Speech, GUNS, Hebrew Testament, Individual Rights, libertarianism, Natural Law, Private Property, Taxation

Below is an excerpt from the current weekly column, “The Peerless Malevolence of Redcoat Piers Morgan,” now on RT (“hoplophobic” in the tagline is courtesy of the editor—I had never heard that word before today. Very cool):

“Piers Morgan is preaching treason from his perch at CNN—and not because he is undermining the dead-letter US Constitution, as some have claimed.

Most people would define treason as a betrayal of one’s country or sovereign. In my book, the book of natural law, treason is properly defined as a betrayal of one’s countrymen—and, in particular, the betrayal of the individual’s right to life, liberty and property. (To your question, yes, this renders almost all politicians traitors by definition.)

A right that can’t be defended is a right in name only. If you cannot by law defend your life, you have no right to life. If you cannot defend your property, you have no right of private property. And if you cannot defend your liberty, you are not a free man.

It follows that inherent in the idea of an inalienable right is the right to mount a vigorous defense of the same rights.

Knowing full well that a mere ban on assault rifles would not give him the result he craved, our redcoat turncoat has structured his monocausal appeals against the individual’s right to bear arms as follows:

1) The UK once experienced Sandy-Hook like massacres.
2) We Brits banned all guns, pistols too.
3) There were no more such massacres.

… This week, the CNN host will be fulminating over the shortfalls of 23 new imperial orders against firearm owners and in furtherance of federal tyranny. Piers believes the president’s extra-constitutional diktats don’t go far enough to void what’s left of the Constitutional scheme (to say nothing of the Hippocratic Oath. The Dear Leader has decreed that, “Doctors and other health care providers … need to be able to ask about firearms in their patients’ homes and safe storage of those firearms”).

Last year, an admirably rebellious Egyptian people revolted against President Mohamed Morsy for issuing a single executive order. America’s “King Tut” issued 23 such directives in one day! But—and by contrast—Piers thinks nothing of this “attempt by the [US] executive to make laws in violation of the Article 1, Sec. 8 of the Constitution” …

… Read the complete column, “The Peerless Malevolence of Redcoat Piers Morgan,” now on RT.

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

JOIN THE DISCUSSION, AND DO BATTLE FOR LIBERTY BY:

• Using the content-sharing icons on Barely a Blog posts.

• At the WND and RT Comments Sections, and on Facebook.

• By clicking to “Like,” “Tweet” and “Share” WND’s “Return To Reason” , and RT’s “Paleolibertarian Column.”

Piers Morgan Preaching Treason From Perch @ CNN (Pinko Pukes Abound Among Foxettes)

Britain, Celebrity, Constitution, Free Speech, GUNS, IMMIGRATION, Individual Rights, libertarianism, Liberty, Media, Natural Law, Political Philosophy, Private Property, Propaganda

From where I’m perched, Piers Morgan is guilty of preaching treason from his perch @ CNN—and not because he is devoting his time to undermining the US Constitution. For “all vestiges of natural justice in the Constitution lie buried under the rubble of legislation and statute.” Rather, Piers is a traitor for using his perch at CNN to advocate against the people’s natural right to defend their sacred lives.

More crucially, Piers is not guilty of preaching treason for preaching against the government, or the dead-letter Constitution. The more men so preach, be it on the left or the right—the merrier. Treason, in my book, is an act against The People’s natural rights to life, liberty and property (later today I will explain to the perplexed why the right of self-defense is an extension and a prerequisite of the right to life).

What Piers is doing is preaching treason against The People.

But is not the agitation for the violation of individual rights an act of free speech? In libertarian law—the only universally just law—there is no free speech without private property. You can’t deliver a disquisition in my living room without my explicit permission, as owner of the abode. But from your property, you may preach whatever is in your heart: hate, love, violence, etc.

Is Piers preaching treason from private property (CNN)? Probably. Is asking for his deportation, as some Americans are, a use of force, or just an exercise of free speech, to counter Piers’ true hate speech? Is deportation a use of force? Besides being a royal pillock, Piers Morgan is an immigrant from the UK.

You can see why the penalty some of our countrymen seek for Piers may be disputed by libertarains.

Ultimately, what Morgan is doing is reprehensible. The man disgusts me.

On a positive note: I started this blog yesterday, prompted by the site of the pillock Piers’ blockhead on my TV screen, interviewing a retarded PhD from “the crap country of Britain.”

Much to my delight, my husband sent me a petition calling for Piers’ deportation on the White House’s publicly supported website. It’s worse than useless, and may be disputed in libertarian law, but it warms the cockles of this heart.

UPDATE (Dec. 24): “Oh, how we suffer for the female suffrage! I once vowed to ‘give up my vote if that would guarantee that all women were denied the vote.'”

There is no shortage of pinko pukes on Fox News, especially among the women folk. “Anyone who wants a gun must go through state training and a certification process over a number of months,” writes Elizabeth MacDonald (whom I quite liked), “if not a year, similar to what police officers go through. That process would include a deep-dive background check. All gun sales or exchanges must be registered with states and towns.”

Megyn Kelly and her cretinous colleagues (I guess viewers were meant to focus on Kelly’s stripy bottom. The rest of the segment was senseless):

Lead me to the vomitorium.

Google Goes Galt

Britain, Business, Economy, libertarianism, Natural Law, Private Property, Taxation

Hurray. Google Goes Galt, as a sickly Starbucks (what do you expect from people who burn their coffee beans) prepares to “‘voluntarily’ hand more money over to the UK Government.”

With their unbounded enthusiasm for state power, British protesters prefer that their omnivorous state own what belongs to Amazon, Starbucks and Google. But Google Big Guy has other ideas. Libertarian ones.

“Google boss: ‘I’m very proud of our tax avoidance scheme'”:

The head of the internet giant Google has defiantly defended his company’s tax avoidance strategy claiming he was “proud” of the steps it had taken to cut its tax bill which were just “capitalism”.
In an interview in New York Eric Schmidt, Google’s Chairman, confirmed the company had no intention of paying more to the UK exchequer. … “It’s called capitalism. We are proudly capitalistic. I’m not confused about this.”
He also ruled out following Starbucks in voluntarily handing more money over to the UK Government.
“There are lots of benefits to [being in Britain],” he said.
“It’s very good for us, but to go back to shareholders and say, ‘We looked at 200 countries but felt sorry for those British people so we want to [pay them more]’, there is probably some law against doing that.”

For a background on the British assault on tax havens, please read “Could Her Subjects Be Making Kate Middleton Sick?”