A Window into a Nightmare:

Where a twenty-five dollar contribution to an intellectually bankrupt magazine staffed by incurable halfwits, is all that it takes to defend Christendom and the West.

Where electoral politics are nothing more then a farce designed to give the impression that we still have a republic. Where petty non-issues function as tools to motivate hordes of impassioned activists into electoral warfare.

Where keeping your society safe requires massive injections of fear and paranoia cloaked in a nightmarish garment of deception. Where your liberties are routinely thrashed in support of “keeping you safe” from nightmares concocted by fear mongers masquerading as the guardians of your freedoms.

Where your politicians and media go scouring the globe in search of freshly manufactured monsters to destroy.

Where authentic issues are ignored and never actually dealt with.

Where events on the other side of the world are turned into propaganda that is imbibed daily. Where ubiquitous fear and delusion powers the mania for perpetual war.

Where your neighbors line up at soup kitchens in order to eat, while your government loots the treasury to prop up behemoth financial institutions who are accountable to no one.

Where the government steadfastly denies their wicked agenda until it’s conspicuous. Then they switch gears and tell you its all been done for your own well being.

Where words no longer have meaning, where mass culture is constantly upgrading to newer forms of deviancy. Where what was widely considered bizarre and boorish is now praised as innovation.

Where the heroes of times past are hurled into the dustbin of history in favor of contemporary fabrications that accord obeisance to the propaganda interests of the usurpers.

Where pretentious men in custom tailored suits can lend credibility to noxious nonsense without rebuke, regardless of how much carnage, destruction, and death their brainless dribble has caused. Where these men are lauded as luminaries, experts, and scholars.

Where truth is regarded as toxic. Where a cavalcade of artifice is required to maintain the counterfeit reality presented to us.

Where a fantasy economic system is peddled without interruption to have the serfs believing their declining standard of living and the continuously rising income inequality is a wonderful thing. Where losing your livelihood becomes an “incredible opportunity” and the population waits patiently for bread crumbs to trickle down.

Where one is conditioned to place a premium on the health of the global economy and neglect the well-being of their own.

Where complete and utter deracination is normalized and then promulgated as the path to a brave new world.

Indeed, a window into a nightmare.

Almost everything the government does is unconsitutional...So what's your point?

David Rivkin says the individual mandate is unconstitutional. Did David Rivkin call the Iraq War unconstitutional? The Patriot Act? Indefinite detention without criminal charges and loss of Habeas Corpus? The bailouts?

From Truthout.org

Some conservatives defend the legality of the surveillance program. Among the most prominent has been David Rivkin, a former associate White House counsel in the administration of George H.W. Bush, who has recently found himself debating a series of conservatives who used to be his allies.

Rivkin said his fellow conservatives who call the surveillance program illegal are mostly libertarians and other believers in small government. The critics, he said, do not believe that the war on terrorism is a real war and that the nature of terrorism requires treating the home front like a battlefield.

"Most of the critics don't really agree that this is war, or if they do, they haven't thought through the implications," Rivkin said. "The rules in war are harsh rules, because the stakes are so high."

The Free State Movement

Is nothing but petty anarchism and libertinism by the pious adherents to the marxism of the right. That its descended into a crass movement to extirpate all restraint towards their concupiscence of sex, money, and controlled substances, isn’t shocking. This isn’t the atavism of the founding of the Republic, it’s a bizarre amalgam of Bakunin, Rand, and Nock(The destructive influence of Ayn Rand on libertarianism cannot be underestimated). They ignore the admonition of John Adams that “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” If this is liberty, then give me death.

Why I Hate Modern Conservatism

'Elitist Protection Consumers Don't Need' Veronique de Rugy]

The American Enterprise Institute's Peter Wallison has a nice piece in today's Washington Post. Wallison rightfully argues against treating ordinary Americans like idiots who can't decide for themselves what's good for them.

A niece piece? What does nice mean? Use proper English when pretending to be a Conservative. Nice means something, as all real Conservatives will admit. "He's a nice guy", "he was nice to me" "I'm a nice person". Last time I checked nice guys finish last. National Review really sucks for publishing such a moron. People writing about serious issues should never be "nice" or use such a stupid word, if they really mean or care about what they are writing.

Conservatives have always argued that liberals are elitists who do not respect ordinary Americans; this legislation seems to prove it..

Actually conservatives haven't always argued that liberals are eltitists; this is a modern problem. Any sane, properly educated, person would recognize.

For example, the administration's plan would allow the educated and sophisticated elites to have access to whatever financial services they want but limit the range of products available to ordinary Americans

This has been true of all societies for all time and barring a communist utopia will continue to be so.

This unprecedented result comes about because, under the proposed legislation, every provider of a financial service (a term that includes organizations as varied as banks, check-cashing services, leasing companies and payment services) is required to offer a "standard" product or service — to be defined and approved by the proposed agency — that will be simple and entail "lower risks" for consumers. These standard products are called "plain vanilla" in the white paper that the administration circulated in advance of the legislation.

This is neither unprecedented nor does it necessitate your lamentations.

On that point, George Mason University and Cafe Hayek's Don Boudreaux makes this really great comment:

But let's accept, for argument's sake, the administration's judgment that ordinary Americans can't adequately assess complexity. Doesn't it then follow that Americans' election of Mr. Obama to high office deserves no credit? After all, isn't the task of assessing the merit of one person's ideas on economics, foreign affairs, ethics, law, and other difficult topics extraordinarily complex? Given that Joe Six-Pack and Jane Soap-Opera cannot be trusted with the relatively straightforward task of sensibly investing their own money, how can they be trusted to meet the far more complex challenge of choosing powerful national leaders?

No they cannot Mr. Boudreaux, that's why our Constitution was written for a republic. If Mr. Boudreaux had any idea what he was talking about instead of living within a thirty-year vacuum of history. he'd realize that 4 of the last 15 amendments to the Constitution since our civil war have involved extending the franchise.

From Wikipedia:

The Delaware Constitution of 1776 stated that "Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat, or entering upon the execution of his office, shall (...) also make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit: I, A B. do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration." [6]. This was repealed by article I, section2. of the 1792 Constitution: "No religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, under this State." [7]. The 1778 Constitution of the State of South Carolina stated that "No person shall be eligible to sit in the house of representatives unless he be of the Protestant religion" [8], the 1777 Constitution of the State of Georgia (art. VI) that "The representatives shall be chosen out of the residents in each county (...) and they shall be of the Protestant religion" [9].

Why give the serfs a meaningless vote and work under the pretense they are in control unless you have something pernicious planned for them and seek their approval for your own motives? The last 8 years of George Bush and the Republican party hammer this into my mind incessently.