Archive for May, 2007

John Wayne A Jeffersonian Liberal

May 31, 2007 1 comment

John Wayne’s 100th

by Doug French


Memorial Day weekend was the kickoff to the summer blockbuster movie season. Lines were long with parents and kiddies waiting to see a boozy pirate generously adorned with eyeliner, a comic-book hero in red tights, and a round-headed, round-bodied green cartoon character. But there was plenty of reason to stay home. America’s favorite movie hero was born a hundred years ago, and John Wayne movie marathons were plentiful on TV.

With so much bad in the world, people look for heroes everywhere, and especially on the silver screen. But just when you think you’ve found a hero, the film star acts out on Oprah, or you watch him gush mindlessly over Al Gore’s convenient environmental lies. Is it any wonder why John Wayne (born Marion Mitchell Morrison) continues to be picked in the top 10, when Harris pollsters ask the simple question: “Who is your favorite movie star?” In fact, The Duke came in number three in this year’s poll, only behind Denzel Washington and Tom Hanks, both of whom had the advantage of actually appearing in new films in 2006.

John Wayne’s last film was The Shootist in 1976, the story of aging gunfighter John Bernard Books who spends his last days in Carson City, Nevada dying of cancer. The Books character utters one of Wayne’s most famous movie lines: “I won’t be wronged, I won’t be insulted, and I won’t be laid a hand on. I don’t do these things to other people and I expect the same from them.” Wayne would die three years later in 1979 at the age of 72. Despite his passing, Wayne continues to be a huge star, and was voted America’s favorite movie star just a dozen years ago, in 1995, a decade and half after his death.

But as popular as Wayne is with the people, the liberal intelligentsia hate him and continue to be infuriated by his popularity. “Thank heaven he’s also a laughable political ignoramus,” wrote novelist Jonathan Lethem in Salon, “a warmongering hypocrite who never served in the armed forces. Thank heaven he’s associated with the western, an easily dismissible film genre. All this gives us the chance to avert our eyes, to giggle or scoff. And we do.”

But John Wayne’s reputation as a war-mongering, rightwing extremist may be more an invention of the media than fact. Wayne spent his time doing movies, appearing in over 200, not pondering political theory. But he did find the privileged and pampered Hollywood elite, whose lifestyles were made by capitalism and money, to be hypocrites. He put protesting college kids in the same category. As pro-war as Wayne is depicted, Biographer Herb Fagen wrote that Wayne believed America’s involvement in Vietnam was ill advised.

Wayne liked to think of himself as a Jeffersonian liberal, according to biographers Donald Shepherd, Robert Slatzer and David Grayson, “subscribing to the principle that government is best which governs least.” He told Dean Jennings of the Saturday Evening Post: “I think government is the natural enemy of the individual, but it’s a necessary evil, like, say, motion-picture agents.”

Unfortunately the Duke hadn’t discovered Murray Rothbard, otherwise he might not have thought government necessary, just evil. But movie critic Mr. First Nighter (AKA Rothbard), had not only discovered John Wayne, but was a big fan. Reviewing one of Wayne’s last films – “McQ” – for the January 1974 Libertarian Forum, First Nighter wrote, “There is no such thing as a bad John Wayne picture…”

Although First Nighter loved Wayne’s performance, McQ was only “workmanlike,” due to a slow plot, and no help from the supporting cast. “Diana Muldaur seems to have only one expression: hangdog, while Colleen Dewhurst – billed on all sides as one of the great actresses of our epoch – croaks her way through a terrible performance.” Lucky for Rex Reed that Rothbard never decided to review films full time.

While establishment critics fell in love with the movies of Bergman, Bunuel and Fellini, Rothbard believed these movies to be without reason and illogical. Mr. First Nighter described Wayne’s Chisumand Rio Bravoas great films, loving the action and that justice prevailed with the good guys winning.

Westerns and Wayne hater, Jonathan Lethem drudges up the old canard “that repressed [homosexual] desire runs through even the dullest westerns, but it’s only one important facet among many – and too often pointing it out provides yet another excuse to ridicule and disregard the genre.”

So, if western heroes are not depicted spending quality time with their wives, they must be repressed homosexuals? “[F]ilms that use male beauty so potently and depict again and again an emotional world that excludes women yet scrupulously denies the possibility of same-sex desire have a hypocrisy at their core – a hypocrisy that can, paradoxically, serve as a battery, a source of creative energy,” Lethem blathers.

Mr. First Nighter sets him straight. “It simply wouldn’t do to have a tough hero slugging it out with bad guys, only to return at night to a home-cooked meal by the Little Woman.” Thus, our western heroes move “mythically onward across the plains, with women dropping out altogether.”

Garry Wills, theauthor of John Wayne’s America: The Politics of Celebritywas anything but a fawning biographer, but admits Wayne’s appeal. “He’s the solid, dependable person who can hold together a wagon train or a cavalry unit, or Marine detachment. And young men look up to him.”

The love of John Wayne is passed down from generation to generation. Fathers and sons watch his movies together over-and-over: Seeing the Duke ride tall in the saddle never gets old. June 11th may be the anniversary of his death, but Marion Mitchell Morrison hated funerals. Thankfully, John Wayne lives on.

May 31, 2007

Doug French [send him mail] is executive vice president of a Nevada bank and associate editor for Liberty Watch Magazine. He received the Murray N. Rothbard Award from the Center for Libertarian Studies.

Copyright © 2007

Doug French Archives

Find this article at:

Congressman Ron Paul Targeted For ‘Destruction’ By US War Leaders

May 30, 2007 3 comments

May 30, 2007

Congressman Ron Paul Targeted For ‘Destruction’ By US War Leaders

By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers

Political scientists from the Russian Political Science Association are reporting today about an ‘unusual’ American Presidential candidate, named Ron Paul, and who is a current US Congressman from the State of Texas, who has so raised the animosity of the United States War Leaders against him that he has been ‘targeted for destruction’ by them.

Though the election for the next American President is not due to take place until November, 2008, the United States procedure for selecting their Presidential Candidates rests upon a series of Primaries where the individual American States select their choices for who will represent them at their Party Conventions.

This type of election system has in the past ‘chosen’, by default, the Presidential Candidates as early as 9 months prior to the actual Presidential election itself.

Read more…


May 30, 2007 Leave a comment


By Jim R. Schwiesow

May 25, 2007

House minority leader, John Boehner, who is known for his candor, expressed his feelings on the immigration amnesty and corporate welfare bill that is currently being debated in the Senate by calling the bill a piece of crap. Actually Mr. Boehner expressed himself in more eloquently blunt terms, but in deference to the tender sensibilities of those who are easily offended by blunt language I have altered the congressman’s words a bit. So we’ll just say that the subject of the “piece of” that the congressman referred to rhymes with “wit.” In actual fact the congressman could have used any number of euphemisms or politically correct words to express his disdain for this treasonous legislation, but apparently to his way of thinking a piece of, uh, crap by any other name is still just a piece of crap.

Too be sure the congressman will come under fire from the mealy-mouthed apologists for the disastrous policies of George W. Bush and his administration and those communist congressional lackeys who do the administration’s bidding in regard to the sellout of the country to the interests of the corporatists. We’re talking here about the same corporatists who have used their ownership of the politicians to completely destroy the nation’s industrial base, and to alter irrevocably the job market to make it infinitely more hostile to American workers and immeasurably more favorable to illegal aliens and the industrial workers of other nations.

If there are still those among us who are unaware that this country is under siege and on the doorstep of an absolute desolation wrought by the presence of twenty plus million illegal aliens who have unlawfully and surreptitiously infiltrated the borders that have deliberately been made porous and easily breached by Mr. Bush and his treacherous henchmen in and out of congress, it must be that they are either mentally vacuous or socially isolated. The bill referred to heretofore will accelerate to full-speed a precipitous slide to the ultimate demise of our culture; the complete destruction of the already crumbling schools and hospitals in the nation and the complete obliteration of an already rapidly dwindling middle-class that pays the taxes that supports these freeloaders, will also be accelerated with deadly potential.

Iowa Congressman Steve King has likened the bill to a “hand grenade” that the Senate will likely pass before the Memorial Day break and toss back to the House as the senators “run for the hills” in their home states. Congressman King very accurately lays the blame for such treachery where it belongs. “The people on the left embrace Marxism,” King said. “Everyone on the Democrat side of the judiciary committee is embracing [this] plan. That tells me that I’m not wrong if I oppose it.” The only thing that Congressman King failed to mention is the fact that it is the George W. Bush Republican administration that is urging these Marxists on in this egregious betrayal of the people of this nation.

The amendments votes and the debate on this “piece of crap” have shown that almost the entire senate is out of step with the will of the people. Individual senators, Democrat and Republican alike, cavalierly ignore the fact that eighty-six percent of the people object strenuously to this bill, or any other bill that resembles it. The congress, both the house and the senate, have picked up on the fact that the people are fickle and forgetful. They know also that the people have no way to remove them from office, other than to vote them out, and in the case of the senate six years between elections is a long time.

The fact that their execrable actions actually constitute malfeasance in office is also meaningless, as they have been granted the enviable status of being subject to no other enforcement against treasonous and criminal conduct other than that of policing themselves. A fat lot of good that does when a majority are involved in the same reprehensible conduct in regard to the sellout of the people and the cave-in to the corporate money mongers. They certainly are not going to convict themselves of malfeasance; it is like asking criminal cliques such as the mafia and the hell’s angels to police themselves. When the people are too feeble-minded to remember the treacherous conduct of their elected senators, their congressmen, or their presidents from one election to the next it sets the stage for a tyrannical freedom repressing government such as we presently have.

The people in this country have every right to rebel. Unfortunately at this stage in our existence a real in the streets revolution is not the answer. In fact it would play into the hands of the tyrants who have seized the power to rule over us like monarchs and dictators. Old King George and confederates would just avail themselves of the dictatorial powers that they have, with the aid of the congress, seized, and declare martial law and finish off what little is left of the Constitutional Republic. An active revolution brought our Constitutional Republic into existence, but at this stage in our history the same would most certainly finish off the pitiful remains of that Republic.

A passive, or non-violent, rebellion is quite another matter. The people have the power; they just do not realize it. If millions of people would unite and throw off the shackles that bind them to a despotic system they could take back control of the government and enjoy a concomitant restoration of their freedoms. If citizens in numbers too great for the government to prosecute would refuse to comply with the many thousands of laws, rules, and regulations that are not supported by the Constitution the pathetic and petty tyrants who populate the government would soon be shaking in their boots. If millions would defy the bureaucratic administrative rules that they have been erroneously led to believe have the force of law, it would shake the government to its foundation. The fact is that these tin pot despots are able to sustain their unconstitutional control only because a majority of the people have enabled them by willingly and voluntarily complying with untold thousands of edicts that have been snatched out of the air and have no foundation in the Constitution.

Like blind sheep the majority in this country file tax returns, willingly allow the withholding of monies from their pay, allow the government to regulate that which is in the realm of personal choice, and capitulate to untold thousands of bureaucratic licensing requirements in regard to their vocations, their property, and their families. In short they allow themselves to be regulated from the cradle to the grave. This compliant majority most certainly enables the government to persecute, prosecute, and incarcerate the few who do have the courage to stand up against the tyranny of the government and the government’s unconstitutional laws. Before I receive a ton of emails asking if I in fact do not comply with these unconstitutional laws, let me just say that I do not want to be among the few who are picked off and railroaded into prison. When I see a real commitment by a very significant number of citizens, I’ll jump on the bandwagon. There is strength in numbers, and significant numbers is what it will take to take back the powers that have been stolen from the people.

We have witnessed in the past few months millions of alien law-breakers demonstrating in our streets and parks across the nation. And they have done so with the blessings of a government, which refuses to hold them accountable for their illegality. It is time; no it is way past time for the real citizens of this country to do some demonstrating of their own. Now is the time for a peaceful, non-violent, stand up for freedom and personal liberties, and for a stand against a non-constitutional confrontational government. Real Americans need to pack the council meetings, county board meetings, legislative chambers and general assemblies across the nation, where they should speak loudly, insistently and continually for a restoration of a government for and of the people.

The nation belongs to the people, not to a coterie of piddling politicians and corporate bigwigs. It is the “legal” citizens who are supposed to be the government, and it is way past time that they take back the power that has been seized from them by petty thieves who believe themselves to be possessed of dictatorial powers by a divine right. And if they do not stand, and if they do not take back the power of the people that has been usurped by a run-a-way government, they deserve the fate that awaits them. In short, it is time to stand up, put up, or shut up.

© 2007 – Jim R. Schwiesow – All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

Jim Schwiesow is a retired sheriff with 46 years of law enforcement service. He served with the Unites States Army with the occupation forces in post war Berlin, Germany, and has a total of nine years of military service, which includes six years in the U.S. Army Reserve.

His law enforcement service includes: three years in the military police, fifteen years as an Iowa municipal police officer, and twenty-eight years as the duly elected sheriff of Sioux County, Iowa.

Jim has written a number of articles, which have been published in various professional law enforcement journals.





May 30, 2007 Leave a comment



Coach Dave Daubenmire
May 10, 2007

“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet.” — From Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)

America and Communism. For most of us those are two words that just don’t seem to go together. We all saw the Berlin Wall fall and crumbling with it onto the ash-heap of history was Communism, the brain child of God-hating Karl Marx. “Communism is dead” we have been assured and anyone who tries to present evidence of the false burial is engaging in a much more dangerous ideology, the sin of McCarthyism. In today’s politically correct environment the label of “McCarthyite” has become synonymous with racist, bigot, and homophobe. The facts show, however, that McCarthy was right. Those facts have become an inconvenient Truth, though, haven’t they?

But in some of my recent research I have been struck by a strong resemblance to the beliefs of Communism and the beliefs of those who are currently striving for leadership in America. Now don’t get me wrong, I know Communism is dead because the media has told me so! But, as the old saying goes, “if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.”

Let me clear the air. I am not a Republican and I am not a conservative. The last thing I want is for people to think that I want to “conserve” this mess I currently see in America! No, I am aligned with no political party. To steal a line from Founding Father Benjamin Rush, I am a Christocrat. My allegiance is to Jesus.

The way I see it, neither major political party defends the Constitution. They talk about it when it suits their agenda, but neither party desires to follow it. The leadership of today’s major parties are two thumbs in the same eye.

Some in my family are staunch Democrats and many of my friends self-identify as Republicans, yet, for the most part they share the same values. Each tends to cast a vote based on “pet” issues, usually economical in nature. To be truthful, I am saddened to admit that most of my friends and family really have no idea what is happening in this country. Their loyalty to their “party” has very little basis in what beliefs they hold. They have been convinced that if “their party” gets in power everything will be fine. You see how small the government has become under the Republicans, don’t you? Wasn’t it liberal Bill Clinton who said, “The era of big-government is over?” Is it over?

Words mean things and I am always amazed at how subtle the changes in language are. For instance, what was once known as “mainstream Christianity” has now become fundamentalist, and what was once known as “liberal” has become progressive. Funny isn’t, that we hear a lot about “fundamental extremists” but rarely hear of “progressive extremists”? Who is in charge of giving meaning to words? That guy has a lot of power!

So, I guess from the definitions I just gave you, I would have to categorize myself as a fundamentalist. I am not ashamed of it and I am not afraid to say it. I believe in the God of the Bible and His sovereignty over man. But why is it everyone else wants to hide behind labels? Liberals (which, by the way, I think I hold many liberal positions such as: I am liberal for a baby’s right to choose to live, I am liberal in a person’s right to carry a gun, I am liberal in a parent’s right to choose the type of education he would like for his child, and I am liberal in a person’s right not to have to accept things that are anathema to his conscience…), don’t like to be called that any more. They want to be called “progressive.” I think “Secular Progressives” is the term Bill O’Reilly uses.

But see, that is part of the bait-and-switch that the wordsmiths constantly use. Just when we all figure out what a “liberal” and a “conservative” are, they change the words to try and stay one step ahead of the posse. Being a liberal will not sell well in red-state America, (by the way, shouldn’t Republican states be blue and Democrat states red?) so instead they (quack-quack) call themselves “progressives,” as if that were some kind of new political thought. And a “compassionate conservative” is nothing more than a softer name for the old term “liberal.” Those in the rank and file of both parties still identify themselves by the old terms. They think Democrats are “liberals” and “conservatives” are Republicans. They have not kept up with the ever-changing vocabulary of politics. But, the party leadership understands the game very well.

Last month, due to the prompting of my friend Pastor Ernie Sanders, I discovered a document that every American should read. It is a list of “Current Communist Goals” as read into the Congressional Record on January 10, 1963. Take time to read the 45 goals for the Communist takeover of America. It is chilling. It is as if the list were a “how we did it” written in 2007, rather than a “how to do it” written in 1963!

But here is my point, after you read the list ask yourself two questions. How successful have the Communists been in attaining their goal? How many of these goals would today’s “Progressives” disagree with? In case you didn’t take the time to read the list, allow me to point out a few worth noting:

11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces.
15. Capture one, or both, of the political parties in the United States.
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a “religious crutch.”
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”
29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”
36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

Isn’t it time we started calling a duck a duck? Progressives promote Communism. They hate to be called Communists because they know that baby-boomers would never vote for a Communist. So they are progressives. Think the average Joe knows what that means? Calling a Communist a progressive is like calling Al Sharpton a Reverend.

Look at this list of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, a group of 65 Democratic members of the House of Representatives. They all support the Communist agenda.

But let’s not stop there. What about the “compassionate conservatives”? How many of them aggressively oppose those same Communist goals? How many of the Republican candidates will run on a platform in opposition to those goals? How many of them follow the Constitution? How many of them will call “progressives” Communists? No, they are too busy “reaching across the aisle” making deals with our domestic enemies.

If you are still voting the party line, then you are the problem. The Communists run the schools, media, universities, seminaries, labor unions, and the government. When you put them in power you hand them your own noose. They are not “progressives,” they are Communists. Let’s start calling them what they are.

Communism is not dead. The Communists run America. How do I know? Look at how they walk, watch what they do, and listen to what they say. They told us what they were going to do.

“Quack, quack, quack…”

Order the CDs here.

Do you think like a Christian or a humanist? Did the Founders really separate Church and State? Is Judicial tyranny ruining America? Check out these great teachings by the Coach.

© 2007 Dave Daubenmire – All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

Coach Dave Daubenmire, founder and President of Pass The Salt Ministries and Minutemen United, is host of the high octane Pass The Salt radio show heard in Columbus, Ohio.

In 1999 Coach Daubenmire was sued by the ACLU for praying with his teams while coaching high school in Ohio. He now spends his energy fighting for Christian principles in the public domain.



Remember The USS Liberty!

May 30, 2007 Leave a comment

May 30, 2007
Remember the Liberty!
When Israel attacks, the Pentagon retreats
by Justin Raimondo

It was 40 years ago this June 8 that the USS Liberty – a large, armorless, refitted freighter that was gathering intelligence in the Mediterranean at the outset of the Six Day War – was attacked by Israeli fighter jets and torpedoes. Thirty-four U.S. sailors were killed, and 172 were wounded. The Liberty limped back to Malta. A U.S. Navy court of inquiry was on board investigating the damage, but – for some reason – the investigators were not allowed to proceed to Israel to find out what really went on. Orders from the top echelons of the Pentagon nixed the inquiry, and today, the families of the fallen still haven’t gotten any answers as to why Israel was allowed to get away with it without even so much as a slap on the wrist – nor even any public acknowledgment that it was a deliberate attack.

Far from apologizing, the Israelis have to this day denied that they attacked the Liberty on purpose, and – incredibly – they stoutly maintain that the whole thing was an “accident.” This in spite of the fact that the Liberty was proudly flying a U.S. flag and was easily identifiable as an American vessel. The Israel Lobby has even gone so far as to publish a book, The Liberty Incident, by Jay Cristol, that makes the case for the “accidental” scenario, but the survivors’ families – and a number of credible commentators – aren’t buying it. One of those commentators is the former captain of the Liberty, Ward Boston, who has signed an affidavit stating unequivocally:

“The evidence was clear. Both Admiral [Isaac C.] Kidd and I believed with certainty that this attack … was a deliberate effort to sink an American ship and murder its entire crew. It was our shared belief, based on the documentary evidence and testimony we received firsthand, that the Israeli attack was planned and deliberate.”

Capt. Boston says that Adm. Kidd, who was in charge of the subsequent inquiry, frequently referred to the Israelis as “murderous bastards,” and a number of intelligence experts and U.S. officials seem to concur, albeit not in precisely those terms. Says former CIA director Richard Helms: “The board of inquiry [concluded] that the Israelis knew exactly what they were doing in attacking the Liberty.” Former Secretary of State Dean Rusk says:

“I was never satisfied with the Israeli explanation. … Through diplomatic channels we refused to accept their explanations. I didn’t believe them then, and I don’t believe them to this day. The attack was outrageous.”

Even more outrageous was the cover-up by the Pentagon – and the White House of Lyndon “Hey Hey LBJ, How Many Kids Did You Kill Today?” Johnson. According to officer David Lewis, who was below deck at the time of the attack:

“[6th Rear Fleet Adm. Lawrence Geis] told me that since I was the senior Liberty survivor on board he wanted to tell me in confidence what had actually transpired. He told me that upon receipt of our SOS, aircraft were launched to come to our assistance, and then Washington was notified. He said that [Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara] had ordered that the aircraft be returned to the carrier, which was done. RADM Geis then said that he speculated that Washington may have suspected that the aircraft carried nuclear weapons so he put together another flight of conventional aircraft that had no capability of carrying nuclear weapons. These he launched to assist us and again notified Washington of his actions. Again McNamara ordered the aircraft recalled. He requested confirmation of the order being unable to believe that Washington would let us sink. This time President Johnson ordered the recall with the comment that he did not care if every man drowned and the ship sank, but that he would not embarrass his allies.”

Rather than embarrass his “allies,” the president of the United States caved in to the Lobby and buried the truth about the death of American servicemen under a mountain of obfuscation and official silence. As Tim Fischer, a former deputy prime minister of Australia and a former army officer, put it in The Age:

“If Israel did deliberately attack the most powerful nation on Earth, it knows it can do so and get away with murder. Worse still, U.S. military personnel now know that if the truth is politically inconvenient, they and their legacy are expendable.”

When it comes to the calculations of the Lobby, we are all expendable – that is the bitter lesson we are learning as a futile war in the Middle East not only rages on but threatens to expand beyond the borders of Iraq. Our “ally” Israel is an albatross hung ’round our necks, and it is slowly strangling America’s chances of defeating Islamic extremism in the battle for the hearts and minds of Muslims worldwide. Will no one rid us of this troublesome “ally”?

I’m afraid they won’t. The power of the Lobby, as explicated by scholars John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, is as formidable as ever, if not more so. They ensure that there is no real debate over our Middle Eastern policy, either in Congress or in the councils of government policymakers. Their spies are allowed to get away with all sorts of activities that any other foreign power would soon feel Washington’s wrath over. Their demands are considered the starting point for all policy decisions, and they are rewarded for their lack of loyalty to their main benefactor by being showered with all manner of gifts: “foreign aid,” loan guarantees, and technology transfers that have enabled them to build up a military capacity – including nuclear weapons – that knows no rival in the region.

The sinking of the Liberty and the subsequent whitewash of the Israelis is proof – if any more were needed – that Israel enjoys a position of preeminence within the councils of state that belies its small size and relative weakness as a settler colony totally dependent on outside infusions of support.

Critics may aver that this is all ancient history, that there is no reason to bring up the sinking of the Liberty, and even if it wasn’t an accident, it’s time to let bygones be bygones. The Lobby constantly asserts that anyone who even mentions this “incident” is nothing but an anti-Semite, because, after all, why talk about it now? The reason is that it underscores the utter falsity of the argument that Israeli and American interests are uniquely and perpetually in perfect alignment. The Israelis attacked the Liberty, according to several books and a BBC documentary on the subject, in order to prevent the U.S. government from learning of Israeli plans to occupy the Golan Heights – a sliver of land that rightfully belongs to Syria, and which is still causing a great many problems for U.S. interests in the region. The stunning fact of the American government’s complicity in hiding the truth about an attack on its own soldiers is all we need to know about what’s wrong with American foreign policy – and what is the exact source of the problem.

Find this article at:

“Perhaps George Bush Knows Something We Don’t Know”

May 29, 2007 1 comment



By Pastor Chuck Baldwin

May 25, 2007

Those of you who heard my radio program back in 2001 know that I predicted then that George W. Bush would do to the Republican Party much the same thing that Bill Clinton did to the Democratic Party. However, I must confess, I could not then realize the magnitude of that prediction.

Most of us remember that it was the election of Bill Clinton in 1992 that was the impetus for the Republican revolution of 1994. If you recall, a congressional election sweep of the magnitude of 1994 had not been seen in the previous seventy years. It is a truism that Bill Clinton helped to elect more Republicans than the Republican National Committee could ever dream about. Now, the same thing is happening with George W. Bush. In spades!

Read more…

Hey! ‘Bout Those “12 Million” Illegal Immigrants???

May 27, 2007 Leave a comment

” IRS Caters To Illegal Immigrants – 36 million illegal aliens perhaps?
Rated 5 in Multi-topical on May 26, 2007 at 21:31:26 GMT.

“Hmmm… 36 Million, huh? I always guess-timated 50 Million! In any case, those 12 mil figures are bs, and they know it. My 50 mil figure may still be closer to the truth—or…I may be on the low side!”



Do You Consider Yourself a Libertarian?

May 25, 2007 1 comment

Do You Consider Yourself a Libertarian?

Kenny Johnsson interviews Lew Rockwell for The Liberal Post

Find this article at:


Johnsson: Do you consider yourself a libertarian?

Image of Lew Rockwell

Image of Lew Rockwell (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Read more…

Ron Paul and Clemet L. Vallandigham

May 24, 2007 Leave a comment


Ron Paul and Clemet L. Vallandigham

For the past few days (since the Republicrat “debates”), we have published numerous articles by and about Ron Paul. If you are interested, there is a great deal of background info on Paul at the link below:

Now, the question is, will Ronald Ernest “Ron” Paul end up like Clement L. Vallandigham?

The following is excreted from Chapter 18: The Lincoln Cult on Imprisoning War Opponents in Thomas DiLorenzo’s book Lincoln Unmasked: What You are not Supposed to Know about Dishonest Abe. History repeats itself due mostly to historical ignorance, due mostly to State propaganda. Will King George the Bushlet, et al. decide that Paul is guilty of treason? What will we do if that happens?

“Exhibit A” of the Lincoln cultists’ case for imprisoning congressional war opponents is Ohio congressman Clement L. Vallandigham. Vallandigham was appalled and outraged at Lincoln’s illegal suspension of habeas corpus and his mass arrest of political opponents. The congressman’s alleged “act of treason” was a speech he made condemning Lincoln’s “persistent infractions of the Constitution.”

Vallandigham said that the Lincoln usurpations were all done, not to “save the union” but to advance the cause of “national banks… and permanent public debt, high tariffs, heavy direct taxation, enormous expenditure, gigantic and stupendous peculation… and strong government… no more State lines… and a consolidated monarchy or vast centralized military despotism.”

The Lincoln administration charged that these speeches discouraged Ohio boys from joining the military and worse, they encouraged desertion and were therefore treasonous.

Lincoln made a big deal out of handing Vallandigham over to the Confederates who wanted nothing to do with a congressman who favored uniting the North and South. So, Vallandigham lived in exile in Canada for the rest of the war.

thegunny, 419

Think secession!

Support our sponsors:

Options for Homeland Defense, Inc.
Quality Firearms Training

The Warrior’s Press, Inc.
Military Manuals & Correspondence Courses
Outrageous and Banned Books

American Lapel Pins & Emblems, Inc.
Lapel & Hat Pins, Badges, Patches

Extraordinary document from the Corps’ war in Vietnam

May 24, 2007 1 comment

Extraordinary document from the Corps’ war in Vietnam
WarChronicle ^ | May 19, 2007 | David Allender
Posted on 05/19/2007 10:00:20 PM EDT by RedRover
On January 18, 1969, Colonel William White, USMC, concluded an investigation into the possibility of charging Corporal Alvin L. Blackburn with the murder of 13 captured enemy soldiers in Vietnam.

The colonel’s decision was to recommend the corporal for the Medal of Honor. (What happened next is unknown to me.)

Download the original pdf to see documents in this extraordinary case. The file includes: The recommendation by Colonel William W. White, and statements by Corporal Alvin L. Blackburn, Lance Corporal William E. Marcott, and Private Steve A. Kearns, all USMC.

Two of the documents are below. Both reveal an extraordinary story of heroism in the war in Vietnam.

Warning: The language is rough.


18 Jan 1969

From: Colonel William W. WHITE 031 562/9910 USMC

To: Commanding General, III Marine Amphibious Force

Subj: Investigation into the circumstances of the demise of 13 North Vietnamese Army (Regular) soldiers of 22 December 1968

Ref: (a) JAG Manual, par. 5017

(1) Statement of Corporal Alvin L. BLACKBURN Jr. 23 13 039/0311 USMC
(2) Statement of Lance Corporal William E. MARCOTT 24 13 049/0351 USMC
(3) Statement of Private Steve A. KEARNS 24 84 625/0351 USMC
1. As required by reference (a), an investigation was conducted to determine the feasibility of bringing charges of first degree murder, 13 separate counts, against Corporal Alvin L. Blackburn Jr.

2. Follow-up patrols confirm the count of 86 enemy dead and five friendlies at coordinates 82514316. Ten enemy dead were confirmed at 70132921. The ten confirmed at 70132921 were in addition to two decapitated bodies and thirteen enemy forces; hands tied, blind-folded and gagged. Each one had one shot hole in the temple area. Calibre unknown.

3. Friendly casualties consisted of five dead, two wounded, and the miracle (explanation to follow). Lance Corporal MARCOTT, one gunshot wound to left thigh, numerous cuts and scratches. Private KEARNS, numerous shrapnel wounds in back, buttocks and legs in addition to scratches and cuts. Both men suffered from exposure and malnutrition. The team leader, Corporal BLACKBURN, had no visual wounds other than scratches, cuts, and abrasions over the entire body area. Medical examination revealed major concussions and severe internal bleeding; exhaustion, malnutrition and was suffering from shock. Medical records indicate a prior weight of 147 pounds after weight of 102 pounds. That this marine was alive is a miracle.

4. Statements from the soldiers who first came into contact with the Marines (soldiers were from sub unit of 1st Air Cav) validate the initial condition of the Marines. Corporal BLACKBURN was carrying Private KEARNS over his shoulder and had Lance Corporal MARCOTT on a stretcher made of two branches, belts and jackets. KEARNS and MARCOTT were not coherent. Corporal BLACKBURN was, at first impression, coherent; however, it became apparent that he was in some state of shock and. exhaustion. Extracts of the aforementioned statements on the condition of BLACKBURN are indicative: “piece of ground meat” “walking dead” “zombie”.

5. The facts in this case are self-explanatory. (Refer enclosures) It is the undersigned opinion that to bring charges against this Marine would destroy what the Marine Corps and this Country stands for. It is further Recommended that Corporal BLACKBURN be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for his actions on 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25 December 1968.

Respectfully submitted,



United States Marine Corps


I, Steve A. KEARNS, make the following statement on my own free will fully aware of the consequences of false or incomplete statements:

I was a member of a seven man recon team termed DAGGER II. Our mission was to parachute somewhere forward of friendly positions and set up an ambush. We were to be heli-lifted out. The date was 21 December 1968. My team Leader was Cpl A. L. BLACKBURN 23 13 039 and had been my leader for six other missions.

We jumped on the right coordinates but dumb *ss Duke landed in a tree. Brutus (investigator’s comment — “Brutus” was an alias by which the accused was identified by his counterparts) had to climb up and cut him down and then he set us in. This was to have been my last mission before skying to the world and I was really shaking my sh*t. I was set in across from Brutus with Jack, Duke and John flowing left; and Mark, Spook, and Bill flowing right.

Brutus told us a whole f*cking gook company was coming instead of a patrol but, we couldn’t call for an extract because the enemy was too close. Brutus told us to lay quiet and wait till he moved. I had a 12 gauge and two .38s but I wish I had a f*cking tank.

They must’ve been only an inch away before he stood up and he had the barrel of the BAR in this gook’s guts and cut ‘em in half. For about five minutes there was nothing but lead, sh*t and guts in the air. Bill and Spook were backing and blowing gooners left and right. Mark was firing bloopers from about ten feet and blew his own *ss to the deck several times. Duke was lying with a BAR and was cutting loose about b*lls high. I don’t remember John or Jack. Brutus had a BAR screaming from his thigh and throwing grenades like candy at a f*cking parade. I thought maybe Brutus had cracked his marbles but he just calmly waded through the blood and sh*t shouting orders for us and melting his BAR.

I didn’t see it, but Spook bought it and by that time Brutus had made it to where Spook and Bill was. The BAR was actually on fire so Brutus picked up Spook’s 16 gauge and with his own K-Bar began kicking *ss and cutting throats. We didn’t stick around to count but I figure he must’ve got 40 or 50 by himself. About 2 dozen of ‘em threw guns down but Bill just kept blasting then before Brutus knocked his *ss down. There was only three of us, me, Brutus and Bill. I finished off the wounded and since the radio was busted and we knew reinforcements would be coming for the gooners we got out of there fast.

We marched for 13 or 14 hours before we stopped. It was my watch, I guess about 4 or 5 in the morning when they hit us. It only lasted a minute or so and all I did was keep shooting. I was so f*cking tired I could care less. Bill was hollering that his b*lls were blown off and two of the POWs had tried to run but the traps had blown their heads off. Somewhere, I don’t remember when, I caught shrapnel in my back *ss and legs and the pain started coming on when Brutus got to me from Bill. He kept telling Bill that he would make a cute fagaot if he would get false teeth and a beard. I distinctly remember that cause Bill was b*tching that his b*lls were gone and Brutus was trying to make him feel better and for some reason I felt like laughing. I know it sounds crazy but I was laying face down about five feet from them and Brutus was holding Bill’s b*lls and was calling him all sorts of dumb f*cking names trying to convince him that they were still attached. I guess I passed out because the next thing was Brutus standing over me trying to stop my bleeding.

It was hard to tell whose blood was whose since he was bleeding all over. Neither Bill nor I could walk and we still had 13 POWs so Brutus did the only thing he could. He had a choice, take the POWs out or us. I don’t know what I would have done. Brutus just looked at Bill, then me, and I was really scared, more scared than when the whole company of gooks came at us, because he had blood everywhere and was shaking and his eyes. God, man, his eyes were white. I’m not sh*tting you white. Like a robot he walked up to each one and said “God forgive me” or something like that and shot each one in the head.

Then he loaded 2 shotguns, strapped them to each leg. He took off his clothes and ours to reduce weight. All he had was a belt a .38, 2 shotguns, 2 K-Bars and some ammo. He had used all of our first aid shit. He made a litter out of branches and belts and he alternated between carry one of us and dragging the other. We hadn’t eaten for several days and I was flashing off and on but every time I woke up we were still moving. One of the last things I remember before waking up in the cross was staring at his back. I was lying face down on this stretcher thing, and seeing the dried blood caked over the straps on his shoulders.

Without b*llshitting, I don’t think I could have done it. I owe him my life and so does Bill. If they burn him I’ll be the first in line to waste the b*stards that try it…and that’s no threat, that’s a blood oath.







May 23, 2007 Leave a comment

With all the TV, newspaper, and Internet coverage of the current immigation flap, I have seen little, if anything, noteworthy regarding deportation of illegals. Of course, most articles do indicate a brief disclaimer that deportation is “impossible,” “out of the question,” too costly,” etc.

In other words it’s just not PC!

But, what is wrong with just going ahead and deporting illegals? Everything, apparently.
I even posted this question on several online blogs–same result, people just don’t want to suggest or agree in any way that we should deport illegals. They are quite…cautious.

They have been prompted by our politicians, the MSM, etc. to know what is nice and what isn’t. Nobody is going to stick their neck out. Even on the online sites that proudly claim to be conservative and or libertarian, posters are indeed very cautious of seeming to agree with anyone who might be advocating just plain deporting of legals. Such sites, however, are not always composed of those who are truly conservative or libertarian. Maybe you’ve noticed that too. All these years of the conditioning by the government school system (indoctrination), the MSM, Hollyweird, peer pressure, etc. have taken its toll–there are no exceptions to this, we are all affected to one degree or another.

So, w/o further ado, I’ll go ahead and post this notwithstanding that we know that it will strike a chord with some of you real Americans out there, who will likely remain silent, while only the know-it-alls, usual malcontents, etc. may reply.
But I’ll post it anyway–there, I feel much better now.


Dick Gaines
The “Original” Gunny G

What Do You Expect?

May 22, 2007 2 comments


To America’s Generals….

“According to recently published reports, the Bush administration quietly approached several retired four-star generals last March about accepting a newly created position to coordinate military and political/diplomatic activity in Iraq. None accepted. One of those who refused was highly decorated retired Marine Corps Gen. John J. Sheehan, who was quoted in The Washington Post as saying, “So rather than go over there, develop an ulcer and eventually leave, I said, ‘No, thanks.’ ” How unreasonable indeed it was of the president of the United States to ask a retired Marine Corps four-star general — during a time of war — to do something hard, particularly at the risk of an upset tummy. “


GyG Response:

****************************** *************************

Ya gotta remember … today’s generals, retired and otherwise, are not of the MacArthur, Patton, Puller, Carlson, LeMay genre. These guys came up in the New America, the “hippy” and “me”generations, educated, socialized, and indoctrinated in the gub-mint schools, socialist msm, Hollyweird, etc., etc. What should one expect??? They talk it up good, and claim that they’re even “better” than the old timers–but it’s all bs, as any of the few remaining real Americans should clearly see.(1984 has come and gone.)


DailyPosts/Archive GyG @ FURL…
Please Forward!
Want On GyG’s E-Mail List?
ADD  In Subject Line….
GyG’s Globe and Anchor! –Sites & Forums

The Ron Paul Rebellion, Sovereignty, Stopping America’s Suicide!

May 21, 2007 2 comments

The Ron Paul Rebellion, Sovereignty, Stopping America’s Suicide!

Ron Paul, member of the United States House of...

Ron Paul, member of the United States House of Representatives from Texas. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

May 21, 2007
New Articles

Ron Paul & the GOP: I Told You So
I told you so. The two Republican debates (MSNBC and FOX [Faux] News) and the fallout proves my point exactly. It is truly remarkable to see the vicious attacks against Congressman Ron Paul by his own party. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, an apparent relative of Elmer Fudd, stated the day after the FOX {Faux} debate that Ron Paul not only shouldn’t be allowed to participate in future debates, but he shouldn’t be allowed in the GOP!……

Read more…

Amnesty Or Treason? – Vote Or Don’t Vote?

May 21, 2007 Leave a comment

Amnesty Or Trason? – Vote Or Don’t Vote?


For those of you who say that the new immigration bill now pending represents not only amnesty but treason–I agree. And I do not care to waste time arguing whether or not this may be technically correct or not with those who think otherwise.. I fully expect that, like so many previous cases, this bill, regardless of terminology, will become law. Perhaps that is what it will take to wake people up–but will it then be too late; is it now too late?

Providing that Ron Paul or Tom Tancredo will not be a presidential candidate in 2008, I will not vote Republican again. I will vote Libertarian or Constitution Party, etc.

Whether or not what ever candidate I choose has a chance of winning matters not. Today, more than ever, it is time I vote my conscience without regard to the odds of the “game” involved, etc. Further, I may very likely decide not to vote at all. And please don’t bother to advise me that if I don’t vote that I have no right to complain as to the outcome of the election. That is BS, too.

Maybe more people should consider what I have written here. In the event that some others may have interest in my words here, be advised that many have also written and spoken on this topic, and several examples are provided below , lest ye think this is original with me.

Just my own personal outlook on things, folks.


llegitimi non carborundum

Dick Gaines

Ron Paul On Immigration Reform

May 19, 2007 Leave a comment

Immigration Reform in 2006?

by Ron Paul


With the November elections looming, politics is taking priority over sensible policy. It appears congressional leaders have no intention of addressing the issue of illegal immigration this year, preferring not to tackle such a thorny problem for fear of angering voters one way or another.

But this is a mistake. The American people want something done about illegal immigration now – not next year. All sides in the immigration debate agree that the current, “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” policy cannot continue. That’s why I am joining several of my colleagues in demanding that the Senate vote this month on a border security bill already passed by the House earlier this year. I truly believe border security is the most important issue for millions of Americans.

Both the Bush administration and congressional leadership have promised to spend the next two months addressing national security issues. But real national security cannot be achieved unless and until our borders are physically secured. It’s as simple as that. All the talk about fighting terror and making America safer is meaningless without border security. It makes no sense to seek terrorists abroad if our own front door is left unlocked.

Although the border security bill already passed by the House is a good start, Congress needs to pass broader legislation this year based on the following simple points:

First, physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must have control over who enters our country before we even begin to consider complicated immigration reform proposals.

Second, enforce visa rules on those already in the country. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport individuals who overstay their visas or otherwise violate U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that some of the 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.

Third, reject amnesty. If we reward lawbreakers who enter this country illegally with citizenship, then any new laws Congress might pass likewise can be ignored. Reform must begin with a new mentality that immigration laws will be enforced.

Fourth, end welfare-state incentives for illegals. Americans are quick to welcome immigrants who simply wish to work hard and make a better life for themselves. But taxpayers cannot continue to pay when illegal immigrants use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.

Fifth, end birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the perverse incentive to sneak into this country remains strong. Citizenship involves more than the mere location of one’s birth.

Finally, completely overhaul the legal immigration process. The current system is incoherent and unfair. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.

If we keep these points in mind, immigration reform does not need to be complicated or expensive. It does, however, need to happen this year.

September 12, 2006

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

Ron Paul Archives

Find this article at:

Ron Paul In The News – Students For Ron – Blog, etc.

May 19, 2007 Leave a comment


Meet Ron Paul

Ron Paul

Congressman Ron Paul is an independent Republican from the 14th district of Texas. He was a flight surgeon in the United States Air Force and a physician by trade. Born in Pittsburgh, PA, Dr. Paul graduated from Gettysburg College and received his doctorate at Duke University.

Ron Paul has served in Congress for 17 years and is appropriately known as the “Taxpayers’ Best Friend” and the leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital. If it is not authorized by the constitution, it is not the responsibility of the federal government. The Founding Fathers would be proud.

Join us in support of Congressman Ron Paul in 2008!


Ron has never voted to raise taxes.
Ron has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
Ron has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.

Ron voted against the Patriot Act.
Ron votes against regulating the Internet.
Ron voted against the Iraq war.
Ron voted against NAFTA and CAFTA.
Ron votes against the United Nations.
Ron votes against the welfare state.
Ron votes against reinstating a military draft.

Ron votes for conservative principles.
Ron votes to cut government spending.
Ron votes to lower healthcare costs.
Ron votes to end the war on drugs.
Ron votes to preserve civil liberties.
Ron votes to secure our borders with real immigration reform.
Ron votes to eliminate tax funded abortions and to overturn Roe v Wade .
Ron votes to protect religious freedom.


May 19, 2007 Leave a comment


“This morning, the Wall Street Journal published an editorial endorsing the Kennedy McCain Immigration Bill with the proviso that it unfairly restricted immigration to persons with the greatest skills, and still provided too many barriers to entry. This afternoon, they published their readers’ responses, which can be summarized in one word: Outrage!”


WAKE UP AMERICA! Just possible it may not yet be too late…

Maybe there’s a few real Americans out there!!!!!
Do they have the xxxxx to follow through now and back bigbromofo down!???
We’ll see….



May 19, 2007 Leave a comment


Ron Paul Rocks!

May 19, 2007 Leave a comment

Ron Paul Rocks!

by Karen Kwiatkowski


I am ashamed to admit that I’ve been watching Ron Paul’s recent political acts with fingers and toes crossed, breathless.

Seeing Ron Paul educate Wolf Blitzer earlier this week, after his astoundingly fantastic performance in the second Republican debate, makes me sorry I had lost my faith in the power of truth, the power of courage. I’m sorry that I didn’t believe in possibility that a serious person in the American political arena would commit that most radical act of speaking truth to power.

And in doing it, not only survive, but thrive!

A famous Orwell quote captures what is happening. “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” And while many have been working to prepare ground for truth and freedom in this country, I think we will note that the first shots in this revolution have been fired by Ron Paul.

Orwell had glimpsed what would become the modern political state, globally engaged in endless wars, fighting shadowy enemies who constantly change, because they never really mattered anyway. What mattered, and what still matters, is war, with its handmaidens Fear and Public Amnesia. Without fear and amnesia, holding on to domestic political power in the American neoconservative oligarchy becomes risky, uncertain.

Ron Paul is speaking truth to the whole world, with patience and patriotism flowing in equally generous portions. Like the young David, he is received by the dogs of war with sneers, self-important snarling, threatening stares. Like David, he seems almost unarmed and even unprepared for the great battle to come. But like David, he is unafraid. Like David, he understands what he believes in and knows it to be consistent with all that is good and just.

On the other hand, his political opponents, in both parties, do not truly believe in what they are saying. The neoconservative evangelical Republican Party seeks the 2008 presidency and the neoconservative socialist Democratic Party seeks the 2008 presidency. It isn’t because they believe in something – instead, they seek to access domestic power and maintain the status quo – an enriching and profitable status quo for people and organizations in power, I might add.

I’m not just saying this because I am excited about Ron Paul’s candidacy and the possibility of his presidency. Recall if you will, the first Republican debate, when the candidates were asked about National ID cards. Some of the other candidates began to respond, clonelike, each confusing the national ID card with some vague undeveloped ideas they have about security for the country. Their reptilian brains were drumming “Security, Security, Must Look Good on Security.”

Then Ron Paul gets to answer the national ID card question. It is unnecessary and would have little to nothing to offer in terms of national security. Oh, and then he firmly rejected it. Like a real man!

Immediately, the candidates – even some who had already spoken, rushed and stumbled to agree or at a minimum, move toward the Ron Paul position. I recall Guiliani saying something like he would only have a national ID card for aliens. Huh? My mother says if you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all. Let me then say this: Rudy Guiliani has the biggest reptilian brain of all the candidates.

Ron Paul offers real change, and a real way ahead for America that includes not just an embrace of the original constitutional outline of small government, but something we can really partake of each day – free economics, free speech, free will. Further, Ron Paul promises something that is valuable and precious to Americans who belong to a political party – any political party. Ron Paul offers a chance to share a real sense of our country as glorious and honorable, a joyful, fearless land of opportunity and of peace.

Because make no mistake, the United States has not been glorious and wonderful, and certainly not free and peaceful, for many decades.

I am excited about Ron Paul and his campaign. I have ritualistically voted since 1978, usually as a Republican, later as a libertarian, and last fall I voted for Virginia Senator Jim Webb, a Democrat. I’ll ritualistically vote for Ron Paul in 2008, if I can. But far more than that, I am pleased to be humbled by each new day of the Ron Paul campaign – to witness the raw power of ideas and debate – after such a long hiatus of ideas and debate from the American political game.

The Greek concept of happiness, eudaimonia, keeps coming to mind whenever I think of Ron Paul as President. It is about faithful and right action, not human exultation or social extremes. It is about the happy and fulfilling marriage of knowledge and virtue. It is about reality over fantasy, faith over existentialism, doing good over doing evil.

In other words, Ron Paul rocks!

May 19, 2007

LRC columnist Karen Kwiatkowski, Ph.D. [send her mail], a retired USAF lieutenant colonel, has written on defense issues with a libertarian perspective for, hosted the call-in radio show American Forum, and blogs occasionally for and Liberty and Power. Archives of her American Forum radio program can be accessed here and here. To receive automatic announcements of new articles, click here.

Copyright © 2007 Karen Kwiatkowski

Karen Kwiatkowski Archives

Find this article at:


May 18, 2007 Leave a comment


Rudy Takala
May 18, 2007

“So we fought against this curse [of thinking]. We tried to forget our lessons, but we always remembered…. We looked upon Union 5-3992, who were a pale boy with only half a brain, and we tried to say and do as they did, that we might be like them, like Union 5-3992, but somehow the Teachers knew that we were not. And we were lashed more often than all the other children.” – Prometheus of Ayn Rand’s “The Anthem”

Recently, Hamline University decided to place a conservative student on probation because he thought improper things. His name was Troy Scheffler.

Following the massacre at Virginia Tech, the conclusions to anyone who noticed that the campus was a gun-free zone were obvious. Guns discourage crime; taking away the only realistic means of defense encourages crime. In the words of an e-mail that Troy Scheffler sent to university President Linda Hanson, “There are plenty of students complaining that this wouldn’t have happened if the school wouldn’t have banned their permits a few months ago. I just don’t understand why leftists don’t understand that criminals don’t care about laws; that is why they’re criminals. Maybe this school will reconsider its repression of law-abiding citizens’ rights.”

According to one news article, “Hamline officials took swift action. On April 23, Scheffler received a letter informing him he’d been placed on interim suspension. To be considered for readmittance, he’d have to pay for a psychological evaluation and undergo any treatment deemed necessary, then meet with the dean of students, who would ultimately decide whether Scheffler was fit to return to the university.”

I found out about the matter in a student-wide e-mail from Linda Hanson. “In conformity with the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act and our internal policies, Hamline will not release any information regarding the student’s allegations…. Hamline University is committed to protecting the privacy of our students and to ensuring a safe and secure environment for the entire Hamline community,” the story goes.

When you hurt the feelings of liberal students, of course, they never feel safe. So to keep myself from violating the concept of a “secure environment” by committing the forbidden act of debating the issues of the day, I’m going to constrain myself to quoting some of those who commented on the article:

“I say he should sue this crackerjack university to the highest extent of the law, and should receive his degree with high honors, in absentia.”
“Universities are out of control, and ….



May 18, 2007 Leave a comment


By Cliff Kincaid

May 18, 2007

In a desperate attempt to make Rudy Giuliani out to be the hero of Tuesday night’s debate, Fox News is continuing to attack Texas Congressman Ron Paul for something he did not say. In the latest installment of this campaign, John Gibson of Fox News says that Paul “suggested that the U.S. actually had a hand in the [9/11] terrorist attacks.” No, what he said was that U.S. foreign policy was a reason why Osama bin Laden attacked America. This is a fact.

Gibson’s comment shows how Fox News has been eager to slant the news in favor of Giuliani, who claimed in his famous response to Paul that the congressman had said that the U.S. “invited” the 9/11 attacks. That was false, too.

Some would say that Ron Paul’s foreign policy views, in this day and age, are somewhat naïve. But Giuliani’s assault, assisted by Fox News, which co-sponsored the debate, goes so far over the line that an honest media watchdog has to say something. Gibson, trying to make Paul’s comments about 9/11 into “The Big Outrage,” claimed that he was a member of the 9/11 truth movement, the group that claims the terrorist attacks were orchestrated by some kind of secret cabal of U.S. officials. He compared Paul to Rosie O’Donnell, who suggested 9/11 was an inside job.

I have written extensively about this movement, rebutting their contentions and complaining about their claims being picked up by hate-America media such as Al-Jazeera. But this is not what Paul was saying during the debate. His point was that the U.S. has been deeply involved in the Middle East for decades and that Islamists have reacted with violence and terrorism. Indeed, bin Laden mentioned it in his 1996 declaration against America. Paul was correct to say this is considered “blowback” by the intelligence community and that the role of U.S. foreign policy in the attacks was mentioned in the 9/11 commission report.

Is this such a big revelation? The Islamists, after all, did not attack us for nothing. Indeed, we have been under attack by Islamic radicals for decades. Is it such a big surprise to hear somebody say that the 9/11 attacks were linked to U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East?

Ron Paul is not denying that the Islamists were responsible for 9/11 and should be hunted down and held responsible. He is only talking about their motives. Other factors, of course, include the nature of their brand of fanatical Islam.

Ron Paul is being viciously attacked over this issue because some people don’t want to consider the implications, which Paul is honest enough from his perspective to spell out. These implications are that the U.S. should withdraw from the region, supposedly to spare the U.S. from any further attacks. That is the Ron Paul approach, and he claims it is what President Reagan would do. It may be naïve to some, but he cites Reagan’s withdrawal of U.S. troops from Lebanon after 241 of them were murdered in a suicide bombing. He thinks no good can come from U.S. involvement in such an irrational part of the world…..



Hmmm…Something About That Debate, Ron Paul, Jewel-iani, and FoxNews???

May 17, 2007 Leave a comment

Hmmm…Something About That Debate, Ron Paul, Jewel-iani, and FoxNews???


“A visibly agitated Rudy Giuliani cut Paul off. “That’s really an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of Sept. 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq,” the former New York mayor said. “I don’t think I have ever heard that before, and I have heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11.”

It took another long-shot candidate, Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, to straighten Paul out, however. “Whether or not we were in Iraq, they would be trying to kill us, because it is a dictate of their religion,” Tancredo explained. “And we have to defend ourselves.”


And just who the hell is Jewel-iani, of all people, to cut off Ron Paul, AND “HOW” WAS HE “ABLE” TO DO SO!–was not FoxNews running the show there???

Wellll….just maybe there’s something to that “other” story about the debate being “rigged” after all!!!!!



“Gunny Bob” Speaks Out Against Muslims…

May 15, 2007 1 comment


“Gunny Bob” assails Muslims after Fort Dix attack
By Dick Kreck
Denver Post Staff Columnist
Article Last Updated: 05/13/2007 09:14:58 PM MDT

Don Imus paid the price for his crude remark about Rutgers female basketball players, but “Gunny Bob” Newman has defamed an entire religion and, so far, gotten away with it.

Read more…


May 15, 2007 1 comment

The passer-by who confronted and killed the gunman in last Friday’s police shooting was an expert marksman who used to alarm his neighbors by firing guns on his own property, court records show.

“I am an ex-Marine and an expert shot. I don’t miss what I shoot at,” Gregory Floyd, 49, told police officers who searched his home in 1997.

Authorities have decided not to charge Floyd in Friday’s shooting, ruling he was justified when he fired at Liko Kenney, 24, just moments after watching Kenney shoot and kill Franconia Police Cpl. Bruce McKay.

Kenney’s uncle, Bill, said he is not angry at Floyd.

“I thank him,” Bill Kenney said yesterday. “He did an amazing thing.”

A “loner” by reputation, Floyd has declined to speak with reporters since the shootings. A woman who answered the phone at his house Sunday said, “This is a private, unlisted, unpublished number. Please don’t call again.”

Residents in the rural White Mountains town of Easton, home to about 280 people, said they tend to keep away from Floyd, just as he keeps away from them. His property on the southern edge of town is said to be guarded by Rottweilers.

“He’s the type of person I’d be very leery of,” said Bob Every, the town’s former police chief.

Court records show Floyd has had several run-ins with the law over the years. His record includes a 1998 conviction for attempting to knee a police trooper in the groin and a 1997 indictment, later dismissed, for being a felon in possession of weapons.

Authorities searched Floyd’s cabin exactly 10 years ago this week after neighbors told then-chief Every they thought Floyd was discharging “fully automatic weapons” on his property, according to documents on file in Littleton District Court.

Floyd at one point apologized for shooting a gun, telling neighbors he was “shooting to scare off bears so his son could sleep,” the documents say.

A search of his house turned up six guns, including a Glock 9mm pistol, an Ithaca 12-gauge shotgun and a Rugar Black Hawk handgun, but no automatics.

Floyd and his wife, Michelle, had moved to the area from Townsend, Mass., about six months before that. A record check in that state showed that while there had been arrests for assault with a dangerous weapon, the charges were dismissed.

One day after the May 1997 search, Floyd was charged with criminally threatening a contracted meter reader from the New Hampshire Electric Coop. Floyd allegedly instructed his son, “Go inside and get the pouch.” His son, according to the report, said, “Mom is awake. I could not get the gun.”

Investigating troopers claimed Floyd told them he could have given them a “third eye.”

“I know you wear vests, so I could have put it right between the eyes,” he said, according to the papers. “I was sitting on my Ruger.”

The case was twice continued that summer. One time was because the troopers would be attending the funeral of two state troopers killed in Colebrook on Aug. 19, 1997.

Minutes before the trial was to have started in October, the case was dropped. There was a heavy police presence in the court that day.

Also in June 1997, Floyd was charged with, and later indicted for, being a felon in possession of weapons, after a records search in Georgia turned up a 1981 felony conviction for selling marijuana.

Those charges were dismissed after Floyd’s attorney, Gerry Boyle, successfully argued that the Georgia conviction would not have constituted a felony in New Hampshire in 1981.

He was also charged with simple assault for attempting to knee a trooper in the groin and was given a suspended one- to three-year sentence in the New Hampshire State Prison, according to an order issued on May 28, 1998. He was placed on probation for three years, with the stipulation that he not possess any firearms.
In motions seeking the return of the firearms in August 1998, court papers noted that the guns belonged to Floyd’s wife. She reportedly intended to sell some of them and have the others secured in a locked safe in Manchester.



The Second American Revolution

May 14, 2007 Leave a comment



A little more than 230 years ago, the most important, significant, and profound revolution in the history of the world occurred, a revolution based on a single concept, individual liberty. The result of that revolution was the creation of the most prosperous, free, and cultured country the world has ever known. That revolution was the American revolution.

About 70 years ago, seven men planned another revolution, completely unlike the American revolution. It would not be “political” and would not be carried out by means of violence or war as the American and all other political revolutions have been, because the ambitions of those men were much higher than the mere replacing of one political system with another. They were aiming at nothing short of a world-wide revolution that would entirely change the minds of men, replacing all of Western Civilization with a new “cultural paradigm” that would usher in a word-wide totalitarian utopian state.
Most of the world has never heard of this revolution, and more significantly, most people are unaware that it has thus far been completely successful. The world-wide totalitarian state is already in the wings and about to makes its entrance, and when it does, it will be enthusiastically embraced, because the concepts that made Western civilization possible have been completely replaced in the minds of men, even in America, and no one notices or even understands what it is that has been lost.

The Second American Revolution

Unless you have lived in the United States over sixty years, it will be almost impossible for you to see or believe the extent of the changes in American society and culture since the end of the 50s, changes so profound they constitute a second American Revolution. The first revolution brought the highest levels of individual integrity, freedom, prosperity, cultural achievement, and happiness ever seen in this world, the second revolution has produced a culture dominated by vice, crime, squalor, misery, an accelerating deterioration of every value and principle the first American Revolution was about, and most importantly, the almost total loss of individual freedom. The fact that most people believe they are “free” and love the culture and society that now dominates America is evidence of the success of that second revolution. One of the seven men that spawned that revolution, Antonio Gramsci, predicted that using the media, education, and, “mass psychology,” men would learn to “love their servitude,” indeed, would not even recognize that it is servitude.



Molon Labe, Ilario Pantano Asks For Help

May 13, 2007 Leave a comment


Molon Labe, Ilario Pantano Asks For Help

Molon Labe, Ilario Pantano Asks For Help

Three years ago, I was leading Marines in Fallujah. Two years ago, with lawyers that many of you helped pay for, I walked into a courtroom at Camp Lejeune to face off against prosecutors in a fight for my life.

Today, I am back in the fight, and ask for your help in defending a team of true American heroes. Drawn from the elite ranks of “Force Recon,” the hand-picked men of Marine Special Operations (MARSOC) are literally the best of the best, and instead of being honored they are being investigated for simply doing their job. Our commandos became the latest victims of rushed judgment and political posturing when they were accused of using “excessive force” to defend themselves during a suicide car-bomb triggered ambush targeting the Americans because some purportedly innocent Afghanis got caught in the cross-fire. But that day on March 4, 2007 in the town of Bati Kot, Afghanistan, our Marines became the victims of more than just suicide bombers, they were caught in the teeth of a thoughtfully engineered media ambush that has ensnared them, and by extension the U.S., in the Taliban’s fight to wrest control of Afghanistan from the Karzai government.

The Taliban was banking on world opinion arriving at the simple and “obvious” conclusion that our men were responsible for the tragically inevitable loss of life consequent to commandos responding as they are trained to do when faced with the kind of attack that days later would kill nine troopers from the 82nd. The story, neatly packaged for global media consumption, made the April, 15, 2007 cover of The New York Times with the accusatory headline: “Marines Actions in Afghanistan Called Excessive.” Not the first time they’ve gotten it wrong. The paper has a history of incendiary finger pointing that, put mildly, is at odds with the realities of ground combat. For example, last year they decried Task Force Black’s methods as extreme (NYT, 3/19/06:”Task Force 6-26: A Grim Portrait of U.S. Abuse”). Of course, the Times never acknowledged that three months later (as a result of those methods) one of the most notorious terrorists in the world, Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, was brought to justice by the very same men of TF Black.

Even if our enemies have become adept at using the all-to-willing American media as a weapon to weaken our national resolve, how can a rational person simply assume that if innocent life was lost, our men did something wrong during that March 4 incident? Illogically high expectations about pinpoint accuracy and target discrimination in a fire-fight are the fantasy of armchair-academics and videogame players. Men on the ground know that war is sloppy and rough. Combat is not a noun or a place that you are “in,” but rather a verb, a thing that you “do” to other people. Principally, combat is imposing your will on the enemy by violence of action and the ugly truth is that the process kills all kinds of people: good ones, bad ones, and yes, even our own. When our expectations of success and precision are unrealistic it threatens not only our service men, it emboldens our enemy, and it breaks our will to stand and fight. Suggesting that these highly trained and seasoned Marines acted indiscriminately is preposterous for two key reasons: the first is what we know about the threat that they faced; the second is what we know about the caliber of these Marines.

The threat from suicide attacks and other terroristic activities in Afghanistan has been covered extensively by Alisa Tang’s writings for the Associated Press, who has recorded the massive surge in violence there, noting, “The Taliban and other militant groups are committing war crimes by targeting Afghan civilians, killing nearly 700 last year according to a report issued [on April 16, 2007] by Human Rights Watch.” Wow. That’s not a DoD statistic or some talking-head general, that’s the NY-based rights group that also reported that, “of at least 350 bombings, 136 were suicide attacks. Eighty were on military targets but they killed nearly five times more civilians than security personnel.” Compare 136 suicide attacks in 2006 with only 21 the year before and only six the year before that. What explains the exponential growth? What explains four suicide bombings last week on May 5, 2007 with only two security personnel killed? There is no military objective being achieved in attriting their own forces and wasting resources, but they are creating pressure on the government with every civilian slaughtered.

Suicide attacks on the Coalition to provoke a reaction is the only “military” tactic the Taliban can rely upon to divide the people from the government and Coalition forces, and sadly, it appears to be working. “Afghans can no longer accept or understand civilian deaths from international military operations,” said President Hamid Karzai on May 2, 2007. Okay, but does anyone else see the problem here? The Taliban are using tactics that kill five civilians for every soldier and yet Coalition forces are getting the blame? Clearly, Karzai is feeling the political heat, and our Marines are paying for it. With the understanding that the Taliban are adept at killing civilians to apply pressure, let’s re-examine the actions of our MARSOC forces when they fended off the attack on March 4, and which led to this investigation.

It is patently obvious that the Taliban knew that staging a complex attack on our troops from multiple directions in the middle of a town of 60,000 likely would yield civilian casualties, both from the initial attack and from the American response. In other words, civilian casualties were the evil intent of the attackers all along. It seems so elementary, but that conclusion seems to have escaped the Air Force Colonel (deputy to commander of Special Ops in Afghanistan, General Kearney) assigned to do the follow-up investigation, and who by the way has no combat experience. But I suppose it’s easy to miss things when you wait four days to “investigate” witnesses and evidence in a town more reminiscent of Fallujah-ville than Mayberry.

Whether it was the Taliban’s brutal control (three more suicide bombers in the days after the original attack on our Marines) or just honest to goodness poverty, I wasn’t the least bit surprised that any evidence of the March 4 attack had vanished, maybe because I’ve fought in the squalor of the third world and the no-combat Air Force investigator hadn’t. But I was shocked and saddened when General Kearney allowed himself to be duped into reporting that, “We found no brass that we can confirm that small-arms fire came at them.” C’mon General, we collect up our brass here in North Carolina, and we’re not even starving! More troubling was the general playing patsy to the Afghanis by kicking the MARSOC unit out of country before the so-called “investigation” was even conducted. It may have alleviated some short-term pressure on Karzai and the Coalition presence, but it has opened the door to the Taliban to turn up the heat, because clearly we cannot take the pain.

We all understand the so-called bigger strategic picture, but when is hanging Marines out to dry the way to achieve our ends in the Global War on Terror? It certainly appears that when General Kearney dispatched his no-combat Air Force “fact finder” he had already made his mind up about the facts. “My investigating officer believes those folks were innocent….We were unable to find evidence that those [Afghanis] were fighters.” (Christian Science Monitor, 4/16/07). What about the pictures of bullet-scarred Humvees General? Are any of those “innocents” the same ones that were targeted two weeks after those remarks when a U.S. led raid hit three buildings in the same town on April 29, 2007 and captured automatic rifles, rocket propelled grenades, bomb-making materials, vests with loaded ammunition and a weapons cache? It certainly wasn’t law-abiding “civilians” that fired upon the Coalition then, and I’m sure the six terrorists who were killed (two being female, one of whom was a teenager) can speak volumes about the extent of Taliban control. So too can the five Taliban that were captured for interrogation by Coalition Forces. The most compelling evidence of the complicity of the population of Bati Kot in the attacks on the Americans (and the subsequent framing of the MARSOC Marines) is the way the locals immediately blocked off the main road (Highway #1), on April 29, 2007 just as they did following a March 4, 2007 attack on a Marine convoy. “We have testimony from Marines that is in conflict with the unanimous testimony from civilians at the sites,” said the general. Unanimous? The kind of unanimity that results when an AK-47 is pointed at your child or a head is lopped off to make a point? The kind of Taliban-sponsored “unanimous” that results in “civilian” protests with as many as 500 Afghani males challenging the action of the Coalition, calling for “Death to Bush” and “Death to Karzai”?

On the other hand, what we know about these Marines is simple and honest: I actually do know them, and I am lucky enough to count some of them as my friends.

I will tell you that they are the very best of the warrior profession. They embody an ethos that few understand and that even fewer dare to achieve. The average age of the Marines on patrol was 27 years old (with two combat tours under their belts) and they had spent much of that time in combat or training for combat with the very best commandos of every branch of service and nationality from the SEALs to the British SAS. They had already conducted 39 missions since their arrival in Afghanistan and they were finely tunedm even conducting a vehicle mounted machine gun shoot the day prior to the ambush on March 3, 2007! These were not loose cannons, as they have been made out to be. They are the Corps’ most professional – truly the best of the best with leadership averaging four combat deployments and almost seven overseas deployments. One of the Officers in the ambush had volunteered for duty despite having recently recovered from a gunshot wound to his thigh in Fallujah, nearly losing his leg to an amputation. He had to fight the doctors off, and then later he would run the Marine Corps Marathon. Not to mention all the gunners on the convoy were Direct Action Special Reconnaissance Marines hand-picked to deploy as the first Marine Special Operations Company! At the very least, these fine Marines deserve the benefit of the doubt. That so many in the media – and even their beloved Corps – have already deemed them guilty of some crime is a travesty.

Flush with the their media victories in Iraq, Al Qaeda and the Taliban are looking to duplicate their divisive tactics in Afghanistan in an effort to fracture the Coalition and further despirit the American people. But this time they picked the wrong Marines.

I know by now many of you have grown weary of this war and long to tune out the barbarism and the political buffoonery that fills the airwaves, but you must not. Some will wring their hands and say, “Let the system run its course.” I can tell you from personal experience that we cannot afford to loose these men or put them through a media circus only to later be exonerated. We cannot wantonly destroy the careers of our most capable war fighters in a fool’s gamble to curry favor with foreign governments or mollify factions within our own. I ask you: where do the volunteers to fill our overtaxed ranks come from when they see the way we treat not just our warriors, but our best warriors?

There is more hanging in the balance then simply the fate of these honorable men. You have been generous with your time and your money, and I for one am grateful to the thousands of you that saw fit to stand with me once before, but I am calling on you again. Join my mother, Merry, the founder of, and me in working to get the word out about these valorous Marines and help us to raise awareness and money for their legal defense (seven lawyers have been retained so far). Fortunately, the identities of these Marines have not been divulged and we all hope they can go back to the business of keeping us safe and free just as soon as this investigation is over. Remember, this is not about attacking the military, this is about defending it from itself.

Molon Labe,
Ilario Pantano



May 11, 2007 Leave a comment

“…Wartime PC danger
E-mails from U.S. military officers in Iraq and Afghanistan have exposed an alarming, politically correct practice that is endangering the lives of troops serving in those conflict zones.
According to the officers, U.S. troops are being forced to carry unloaded weapons on most U.S. bases because commanders are more worried about a “negligent” discharge than the very real likelihood of a terrorist attack by an insider on the base. The rule is all the more disconcerting because these troops are in areas where they receive combat pay.
Defense officials say the fear of “negligent” weapon discharge is due to lack of training and is different from concerns about accidental discharge, which involves a mechanical malfunction that rarely occurs.
“This selection of political correctness and safety concerns over force protection contrasts markedly with combat experience in World War II, Korea or Vietnam, where soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines were required to be armed — with loaded weapons — at all times,” one official said.
“This is a gross failure of leadership, and in all likelihood has contributed to the U.S. casualty rate,” the official said. …”

Please Continue Reading, CLICK-BELOW…

Please Forward!


May 10, 2007 Leave a comment


There is a discussion over on Free Republic (FR) involving the 1984 film, Red Dawn–the flik involves a scenario where the USA is unexpectedly invaded by the enemy, and the reaction of Americans to it. Links are provided below to both FR and an online run-down on the movie itself. Your responses here and/or on FR would be interesting, I’M sure.
Red Dawn
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an archived version of this page, as edited by (Talk ) at 22:03, 10 May 2007 . It may differ significantly from the current version.
Revision as of 22:03, 10 May 2007 by (Talk)
(diff) ← Older revision | Current revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Red dawn (disambiguation) .
Red Dawn
Directed by John Milius
Produced by Sidney Beckerman, Buzz Feitshans
Written by John Milius
Kevin Reynolds
Starring Patrick Swayze
Charlie Sheen
Lea Thompson
Harry Dean Stanton
Powers Boothe
Jennifer Grey
C. Thomas Howell
Music by Basil Poledouris
Cinematography Ric Waite
Editing by Thom Noble
Distributed by MGM/UA Entertainment Co.
Release date(s) August 10, 1984
Running time 114 minutes
Language English
Budget 4,200,000 USD
IMDb profile

Red Dawn is a 1984 film by John Milius about an invasion of the United States by the Soviet Union, and the resulting guerrilla actions of a group of American high school students in the fictional town of Calumet, Colorado. The movie features Patrick Swayze, C. Thomas Howell, Lea Thompson, Charlie Sheen, Jennifer Grey, and Powers Boothe.

Produced in the last decade of the Cold War, Red Dawn has become something of a cult classic and has become a touchstone of 1980’s pop culture. Red Dawn was the first movie to be released with a PG-13 rating ( The Flamingo Kid was the first film to actually receive the rating, but was not released for 5 months after certification.)

* 1 Plot summary
* 2 Backstory
* 3 Themes
* 4 Development
* 5 Taglines
* 6 Trivia
* 7 Cultural references
* 8 See also
* 9 References
* 10 External links

[edit] Plot summary
Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details follow.

The plot is based around a Soviet and Cuban/ Latin American invasion of the United States in the late 1980s, igniting a world war . The story is about young people resisting the resulting Soviet occupation.

In the small Colorado town of Calumet, a normal fall morning is interrupted by a massive airdrop by airborne forces into the town. After a massacre at their high school, a small group of teenagers who flee into the hills to escape the Soviets with a small amount of rations and hunting weapons. Eventually the youths begin an insurgency against the Soviet-allied occupational forces. The group call themselves the Wolverines after their school’s team/mascot and proceed to set ambushes, use sniper attacks, booby traps, and raid the occupiers’ supply depots and convoys.

Over time, the Wolverines are joined by a downed fighter pilot, Tanner, who instructs them in more formal military tactics. the Wolverines liberate a “political prisoner camp” in town where the Soviets had rounded up citizens whom they thought might offer resistance to their occupation.

Eventually, they make a disastrous foray to the front lines of the war in a Rocky Mountain pass where American and Soviet tanks are engaging each other, resulting in the death of Tanner (the pilot) and Arturo, known as “Aardvark.”

The field commanders of the occupying forces now view the Wolverines as a serious threat. They had first tried terror tactics, executing groups of civilians following every Wolverine attack, however, this resulted in the civilians lending increasing support to the the insurgents. Strelnikov, a counterinsurgency specialist, arrives to declare that there will be no more reprisals against civilians. Strelnikov instead sends a commando squad into the mountains – where they are ambushed and killed by the the Wolverines.

The group finds a tracking device among the dead commandos. Daryl, the son of the collaborating mayor of the town, admits that the Soviets had forced him to swallow a tracking device, explaining that he only did it as a result of coercion. Jed shoots the sole Russian survivor of the commando squad but is unable to bring himself to kill his friend. Robert shoots Daryl in cold blood, prompting the group to realize that there is no way to avoid the evils of war. The Wolverines break camp out of fear of additional raids by the Soviets.

Things become increasingly hard for the Wolverines; their morale has eroded as the war of attrition takes its toll on their numbers. The Soviet occupation forces are pushing them to the breaking point, although thanks to the Wolverines, the Soviet hopes for keeping the civilian population shocked into complacency and unable to fight back have all but collapsed.

The remaining Wolverines are then ambushed while eating food from crates dropped from a passing Soviet convoy they had intended to attack. Several heavily armed Mi-24 helicopter gunships appear and attack the Wolverines, and though Robert is able to disable one with an RPG, they suffer losses, Robert is one, choosing to die in a hail of gunfire, and the other is Toni. Strelnikov arrives after the battle, implying that the food from the convoy was in fact used as bait to set up the attack.

The Wolverines numbers are down to only four; Jed and his brother Matt, and Danny and Erica. Jed and Matt realize that they can’t outlast the Soviets and if they keep fighting they will all die. Matt tells Danny and Erica to head for “Free America,” insisting that some of their number must survive. The two brothers, meanwhile, stage a diversionary attack on the Soviet occupation’s headquarters in town so that Danny and Erica can escape. Jed and his brother are both shot and mortally wounded by Strelnikov, although Jed manages to shoot and kill him as well. Jed staggers away as he carries his brother in his arms. Bella, the Cuban colonel who has commanded the occupation forces from the date of the invasion, has the chance to shoot the two brothers, but decides to let them go. Bella had been composing a letter to his wife just minutes before the attack, telling her he was planning on handing in his resignation. Jed staggers away with his brother to a park bench to wait out his final moments. Meanwhile, Danny and Erica successfully escape into “Free American” territory.

The film’s epilogue suggests that the United States won the war several years later; a plaque is displayed with ” Partisan Rock” in the background, which pays tribute to the Wolverines killed in action, and reveals that the events in the film occurred during the “early days of World War III.”


GIFTS OF SPEECH -by Claire Wolfe

May 2, 2007 1 comment

Speech Before the Arizona
Libertarian Party Convention
by Claire Wolfe
Libertarian Activist

April 19, 1997

In November, 1995, I sat down and wrote the words, “America is at that awkward stage; it’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.” That’s a line a lot of you have become familiar with, and to the extent that other people have also become familiar with it, it has a lot to do with Arizona libertarians pushing that message.

Well, I wrote that a year and a half ago, the book was published about six months ago, and now here we are, April 19, 1997. Is it time to “shoot the bastards” yet? This is a question a lot of us have been pondering.

We signed our oath, most of us, we signed our pledge not to initiate violence. We’re the good guys. We know that. But I have heard so many people — good, responsible, ordinary people — talking about whether we might be reaching the time that we should “shoot the bastards”.

I think one of the best comments on this came from Vin Suprynowicz, who interviewed me when the book was published. Actually, of all the things said in the interview Vin made the best comment; he said that we have reached the time when it is morally right to “shoot the bastards”, but it is not yet practical to do so.

I do believe that a fight is inevitable, whether that’s a fight in the streets or the trenches, or whether that is some sort of confrontation that may not involve arms but may nevertheless involve violence and head-to-head action. I think that’s inevitable, and I think more and more people are coming to the conclusion that it is.

April 19th, as you all know, is a day in history when many people have taken up arms, when they have been forced to take up arms. Peaceable people in Lexington and Concord, desperate people in the Warsaw ghetto. Even when they had no hope, or little hope, they took up arms. But here we stand, and although a lot of us have arms with us, or not far from us, we’re not ready to “take up arms” yet. But I hope we’re preparing ourselves. I hope we’re at least thinking about it. In the last year and a half, since I originally wrote those frustrated, angry words, things have gotten a hell of a lot worse. And it’s almost scary how little the disaster that we’re in the middle of has been acknowledged.

For instance, just four — I don’t want to call them laws or acts of legislation — four abominations that Congress has come up with in the time since I originally wrote those words. We’ve got a federal database of all employed people, or, that is, all people who get conventional jobs. That’s been done in the name of “tracking deadbeat dads”. However, you might be a single mother with five kids you’re taking good care of; you might be a single guy who never intends to get married. You’re going in that database. Why? What does that have to do with “deadbeat dads”? I don’t know. I can’t figure it out. Along those same lines, we now have pilot projects being started, under which you cannot get a job unless your employer first gets permission from the Social Security Administration by scanning your card through a reader connected to a database in Washington, DC. Isn’t that cute? Some Social Security bureaucrat decides whether or not you can ever get a job in this country.

We’ve also got a medical health care database that will be on line in about a year. This was part of the “moderate” Kennedy-Kassebaum health care act — you’ll be pleased to know that this is “moderate”. Everything about your medical history will go into this database, including speculation on the part of your doctor, who may observe that you’re an “armed and dangerous wacko”. He’s not going to tell you that, but it goes in your records and goes in the database. (NOTE: Please see comment at the end of this transcript.)

The fourth one that is really for me the “line in the sand” issue is the national ID card that we have just begun to hear about in the last couple of months. Has everybody heard something about that? Well, for the few who haven’t I’ll just review quickly.

At the end of the 104th Congress there were about two paragraphs added into several hundred pages of legislation that requires that by October, 2000, all states will be issuing driver’s licenses that you must have your Social Security card to get one, and they will have certain “security features”. These are not defined in the law, but they may include: retinal scans; fingerprint scans; other data on your driving history, health history, criminal history, so on. (NOTE: The U.S. Secretary of Transportation is currently in the process of writing the regulation on this.)

And by October 2006, you will not be able to get any government service at any level without having one of these driver’s licenses. You will not be able to get a passport. If your local utility company is the government you will not be able to get water to your house, or electricity to your house, and so on. My Christian friends, of course, are calling this the “Mark of the Beast”, and I don’t think they’re wrong. I think they’re right.

So those four things, among many, many others, have all been snuck in on us lately. But the reason I pick these four is something that a friend pointed out to me. This friend says, “These four are slave laws.” Many other laws that have been imposed upon us recently are bad laws, but these are slave laws. They all enable the federal government to track its property — you, and you, and you, and me — its property.

They can monitor our health just the way that farmers monitor the health of their cattle. If they don’t think we’re being properly productive they can deny us the jobs, or they can make sure that we’re in a job that they like. It’s here, now, that we have to stop this. I hope we can stop it without violence, but we do HAVE to stop it.

What I’d like to focus on today are some things that I think we as individuals can do, and some of the things that I think that libertarian party organizations can, or perhaps should, do to prepare for the hard times that are going to come when the day arises that we say, “No! It stops here! It stops now!”

I wish for just this little moment that we were all a bunch of Marxists, or Democrats, or something, because then I could say, “Comrades! You must do this! Comrades! You shall do that!” But we’re libertarians, and it’s only, “Hey! You’ll do what you want to do; I’ll do what I want to do. You’ll do what fits your personality; I’ll do what fits my personality.” And that is the way it has to be. That’s our strength and our weakness.

But there are a couple of things that I would say that I think everybody here, and everybody who professes to be a libertarian should do. One is to get the income tax out of your own life, however you have to do it. Get it out! In every other presentation I’ve ever given before I’ve said, “Oh I understand that if you have a regular job, or if you have children, or if you have a lot of nice possessions it’s riskier for you to do it. But I’m coming to the point where, I’m sorry, we can’t feed the beast. We’ve got to stop feeding it. That’s all there is to it. All of our great professions of principle in the world are nothing if we don’t stop paying the ATF, paying the FBI, paying the IRS.

The other thing that I hope everyone will do is resist this national ID in some way or another. Refuse to get the driver’s license, drive without it, whatever you have to do. Refuse to give the information, protest, scream, rescind your social security number, whatever.

Rescinding your social security number is another thing that I would have said a year ago, “OK, it’s an option, but it’s a grandstanding option. It’s waving and saying, ‘Hey, hey, I’m a troublemaker. Put me on a list.'” But I am going to be rescinding my social security number formally, writing to the Social Security Administration and saying, “Nope. Not my number, folks.” It may be a grandstanding gesture, but that number is a slave’s number, and I’m getting rid of it, pure and simple.

Now a lot of people — a lot of people here — are doing these things already. I know people right here in this group who haven’t paid taxes in years. I know people in this group who don’t have a driver’s license, who have rescinded their social security numbers, or whatever, and I think that’s great. In fact Rick White came up with a really good term the other day when we were talking. He talked about “individual secession” as a means of combating the government. We were talking about ways of avoiding violence, and he suggested “individual secession” as a means of accomplishing that. I think it’s great, and I think we all need to do it.

But I also think that the result of quiet secession — of just quietly withdrawing your consent, your support, your participation in the system — the result of that is something like what happened in the Soviet Union. Eventually the system collapses, but what’s left? You have black markets. We like black markets, because they’re free markets. But they are corrupt markets that are run by gangsters, eventually. We need free, open markets. We need to declare freedom and live it publicly, instead of by hiding.

I think individual secession is good, but we need to make noise doing it. And not polite noise. We libertarians are very polite people, very well-mannered. We sign our little pledge, and we do the right thing, because that’s the kind of people we are. But we need to make noise. We need to say, “I’m withdrawing. I’m withdrawing, and here’s why, and come get me.”

And that goes against everything I personally believe. One reason you never heard of Claire Wolfe until six months ago was that although I’ve been an activist, I have tried to keep a low profile and tried to be really quiet, because I didn’t want the IRS knocking on my door, or kicking it down as the case may be. I didn’t want the ATF coming in to say hello at four in the morning. But I don’t care any more. I do not care any more, and I think we’re coming to a confrontation point anyway, and if that’s what happens, so be it. I think there are a lot of other things that you can all do and probably all are doing; probably a lot of you are ahead of me. That’s why I like coming down to Arizona; I learn from what people in Arizona are doing. But certainly, withdraw to the extent that you can from the banking system.

Set your political priorities — don’t waste your time on things that aren’t working. Like for me, I was always always sitting down writing stupid letters to my congressperson, as if my congressperson cared. I felt like I was doing something. But one of the things I’ve learned since those days is to do is prioritize. And that means don’t even bother any more. Don’t even talk to them any more.

I think everybody should be studying warfare, in one way or another. Whether that’s the personal warfare of going up to Gunsite and learning how to shoot in combat situations or whether that’s studying The Art of War, reading books by Mao, or Che Guevara, or Sun-Tzu. I think we all need to be doing that, even if we don’t want the confrontation. None of us want the confrontation, but I think we’d better be prepared for it in those ways.

I think we should all be getting out of government jobs — with one exception. With one exception, and this is something I’ve just been thinking about. I’ve decided that over the last thirty years some wonderful libertarian has been running the IRS’ computer system. And I say, “Thank you out there, whoever you are, and keep it up! Good job!” So anybody who’s in a position to do unto the ATF or unto the EPA what has been done to the IRS, definitely go for it.

One of the things that we can do, whether we’re looking for confrontation or not, is to establish some virtual communities. And here’s where Michael Voth comes in. Michael of the Coconino libertarians, and Kevin Burt of the Laramie County libertarians of Cheyenne Wyoming, cooked up this notion of “cousin counties.”

You know how we have “sister cities” all around the world? Well, we now have a “cousin countyship” between Laramie and Coconino libertarians. We don’t exactly know what we’re going to do with it yet, but we have our own “virtual community”, and it is somewhat of an act of…well I don’t think we care enough to defy the national hierarchy, but we’re going to make connections despite the hierarchy.

Some day we may need a “safe house” in Coconino; some day they may need a “safe house” in Laramie County. Some day we may need to be stations on an underground railroad for getting patriots to safety. We may need to be stations on a supply line, and we have that connection established. We have a relationship with each other already, and we’ll do what seems appropriate with it.

That, unfortunately, brings us to the national party, or higher-up-the-line parties. I think — and this is just a personal viewpoint — that the best thing that the state party could be, or the best thing that the national party could be for individual libertarians is a support group to help us establish networks with each other; to help us keep connections with each other; to help us learn from each other; what works and what doesn’t work; what did they try over in Alabama that might work in Nevada, or that was a disaster and might not work anywhere?

Your state organization is great for that, I think, to the extent that I know it. Unfortunately you’re one of the few that is. And unfortunately, of course, we have National. The national party. The commissariat of Washington, D.C. What is the national party? It is a top-down fund-raising organization that is into telling us what we should do, not learning from us and helping to spread it around.

And certainly some of the things that we should not do, according to National…we should not have people like L. Neil Smith at our gatherings. He has been declared “unfit” by the national party. And I hope you all recognize that. [Applause for Smith, who was sitting in the audience.]

Also, a year or so ago, those of us who got the “Libertarian Volunteer” got an issue that listed the “twelve most terrible things” that have ever been done at local party meetings. One of them was to discuss “Should There Be A Libertarian Party?” I mean, that’s shocking. How dare we talk about such a thing?

So here we are at a time when we need individualism, autonomy, quick action and networking, being saddled with this sort of dinosaur with the little pea-brain up here in Washington, DC, trying to communicate down to us, thinking we’re its tail or something. They are so busy trying to be like the other folks in Washington, D.C. that they are very quickly forgetting that they are libertarians.

But I’m sure they’re quite good at fund-raising; I’ve hear wonderful tales about their fund-raising. In fact, something quite interesting that I heard the other day indirectly from Neil: Harry Browne is criticizing me as one of the people who was damning him for his fund-raising and odd campaign spending practices. Well, I never did. I would have. I would have been happy to, because of what I have heard from Vin Suprynowicz and Neil Smith and other people. But it didn’t happen.

So, National is giving us enemies lists and fund-raising corruption, among other pleasures of politics. Heck, they’re headquartered in the Watergate, after all! What are we going to do with these people? They think that success is raising a lot of money whether it goes to any good cause or not. They think that success is being invited to the cocktail parties with the Democrats and the Republicans. They think that success is having libertarianism favorably mentioned in the Washington Post.

OK, if I were favorably mentioned in the Washington Post, I would do everything I could to change my ways! Wouldn’t you? Who wants to be favorably mentioned by people who think that every bit of dissent is hate speech? Who think that anyone who is not a Republican or a Democrat or in the mainstream is some sort of crazy? No. No thank you. Hunh-unh. No thanks.

We try very hard to be acceptable. The national party is trying to be acceptable and there’s nothing wrong with that. It’s human. I mean we want to be accepted from the moment we’re born. But the question is, to whom do we want to be acceptable?

I don’t want to be acceptable to the same people that the national party wants to be acceptable to. I want to be acceptable to you guys. And I want you to be acceptable to me, because we are going to need each other some day. I want to be with you when we prepare.

I don’t care whether you’re preparing even for the same eventuality that I’m preparing for. I don’t care if you’re a pacifist. There is room for many differences. But we’ve got a role to play, and it’s we, not national, who are going to play that role.

Something is going to happen. I wish I could tell you what it was. I’ve been talking to people and everybody’s going through the same thing — “Well, I think it might be this”, “I think it might be that”, “I think it might be the other” — we don’t know. But it’s coming. Whether it breaks with the suddenness of an earthquake, or whether it comes like a storm that you can see rolling toward you for hours, it is coming.

And the big question for all of us, when this hits, is, “Do I want to be polite and acceptable or do I want to be FREE?”

Free, of course! I mean, it’s easy, right? It’s easy! So let’s do it! I have absolute confidence you guys are going to be able to do it. And when it all comes down, I want to be here, if not physically in Arizona, I want to be in your virtual community.

So thank you for your guts. And thank you for having me here. And thank you for being brave enough to talk about things that National doesn’t want you to talk about, and to do things that National doesn’t want you to do. My congratulations and gratitude to all of you.

NOTE on the health care database:

I have since been fiercely corrected on this point. I may have been overstating the present danger of such a database, though I believe the danger remains grave for the near future. The health care bill (available from the Library of Congress’ Thomas web site as HR 3101 or Public Law 104-191) establishes a federal database for reporting medical fraud and abuse. I don’t believe this is the problem, however it was part of the confusion. Later, in Sections 1171-1175, the bill outlines a plan for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to set standards for the electronic transmission of all health care data. These “standards” do not constitute a database, and I thank the critic who corrected me on that issue.

However, the secretary is directed to set one standard by which all medical data will be electronically communicated. The standard must include a “unique identifier” for every individual whose medical information is ever transmitted (Sec. 1173). In doing that, Congress is clearly allowing the Clinton administration to create a de facto single, nationwide system to which federal (and other) bureaucrats will have easy access, almost certainly via our social security numbers. If this does not rapidly become the feared federal database, it will nevertheless allow the government, researchers and others to run rampant through the various private or state databases that will use the federally defined standard. I regret any confusion. But I urge you to keep your eyes open and your heads up…not that it will do you much good when bureaucrats are secretly slurping your medical data — law or no law — into their computers.

© 1997 and 1998 Claire Wolfe. This article may be reprinted for non-commercial purposes, as long as it is reprinted in full with no content changes whatsoever, and is accompanied by this credit line. The article may not be re-titled, edited or excerpted (beyond the limits of the fair use doctrine) without the written permission of the author. For-profit publications will be expected to pay a nominal reprint fee.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,220 other followers