". . . a republic, if you can keep it."
They ignore it because it contradicts cultural Marxism. More than 4,000 white farmer have been murdered.
The respected American organization, Genocide Watch writes: ‘[the murder of] Afrikaner farmers and other whites is organised by racist communists determined to drive whites out of South Africa, nationalise farms and mines, and bring on all the horrors of a communist state’.
BERNANKE CAN’T IGNORE THIS QUESTION FOREVER — Why can’t we get out of crisis mode?
Rick Santelli Rages: “What Is Bernanke So Afraid Of?”
hint: ” . . . because then the economic chickens come home to roost and the real crisis begins.”
www.salon.com/2013/06/13/grow_up_libertarians/
I’m actually responding to a friend who cited the article and says that he’s visited “libertarian” countries in Africa and SW Asia. I think it may be beyond the ability of these people to understand, but I wrote back anyway:
Afghanistan and Congo are not libertarian. Look for private justice and private security. Medieval Iceland is an oft cited example, albeit an imperfect one – people voluntarily chose clans for their protection.
Another is the Not-so-wild West which had a lower murder rate than most modern American cities. Wagon trains had private constitution. The original meaning of the term “outlaw” was someone declared to be outside the protection of private law. Meaning, private security would not protect him. This seems like a much more sensible means of punishment then *Forcing* victims to pay for the food, lodging and entertainment of their aggressors.
In the not-so-wild west civilization grew faster than the state, but unfortunately, the state and its many psychopaths caught up. So if you want honest example looks there, or to Medieval Iceland, the clan structure of Ireland, the thousands of kingdoms of Germany prior to Bismark and unification.
If you just want to call libertarians childish, as the article does, I would say: fuck you. What’s childish is thinking that a man with a gun can solve all the world’s problems. Health? The government will do it. Education? The government will do it. Consumer protection? Government. Raising children? Restricting commerce? Delivering little pieces of paper back and forth? Deciding whether I can put raw milk in my own body? Government. Government. Government. Government. That’s a very mature and nuanced perspective.
:D
MSNBC is essentially getting obliterated in the TV news market, losing roughly 20% of their viewers in the last 12 months.
Apparently, there’s only so much pure propaganda that the people will tolerate, given that MSNBC has long been considered almost part of the Obama administration itself, given its extreme liberal bias.
(Read more)
I sense fear among the fiat establishment, and I love it.
Volatility is a serious problem, if you’re trying to put together a currency, rather than a vehicle for financial speculation. If the currency of a country ever fluctuated as much as bitcoins did, it would never be taken seriously as a medium of exchange: how are you meant to do business in a place where an item costing one unit of currency is worth $10 one day and $20 the next? Currencies need a modicum of stability; indeed, one of the main selling points of bitcoin was that it couldn’t be destabilized by government institutions. But that comes as scant comfort to people watching the value of a bitcoin behave like some kind of demented internet stock during the dot-com bubble.
In reality, then, bitcoin doesn’t really behave like a currency at all. In terms of its market value, it looks much more like a highly-volatile commodity. That’s by design: bitcoins were created to be the most fungible commodity the world had ever seen – to the point at which they would effectively erase the distinction between a commodity and a currency. (Read more)
And the dollar is stable???
This picture reminds me of how easily people like David Frum divorce themselves from their feverish advocacy of policies after all the death and destruction has been wrought.
Glad the Gun Owners of America are getting some publicity instead of the traitorous NRA.
States with the most gun control laws have the fewest gun-related deaths, according to a study that suggests sheer quantity of measures might make a difference.
But the research leaves many questions unanswered and won’t settle the debate over how policymakers should respond to recent high-profile acts of gun violence.
In the dozen or so states with the most gun control-related laws, far fewer people were shot to death or killed themselves with guns than in the states with the fewest laws, the study found. Overall, states with the most laws had a 42 percent lower gun death rate than states with the least number of laws.
The results are based on an analysis of 2007-2010 gun-related homicides and suicides from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The researchers also used data on gun control measures in all 50 states compiled by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a well-known gun control advocacy group. They compared states by dividing them into four equal-sized groups according to the number of gun laws.
The results were published online Wednesday in the medical journal JAMA Internal Medicine.
More than 30,000 people nationwide die from guns every year nationwide, and there’s evidence that gun-related violent crime rates have increased since 2008, a journal editorial noted.
During the four-years studied, there were nearly 122,000 gun deaths, 60 percent of them suicides. (Read more)
ABC Provides the echo chamber: