We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Wednesday, June 6. 2007
When freedom is removed from the political equation, and replaced by benevolence, the result is tyranny. Don't all tyrants say they want what is good for some or most of "their people"?
I love the C.S. Lewis observation, which we often quote:
I will trust free markets over government any day of the week.
The problem with all of the "minor" issues - trans-fats, smoking, motorcycle helmets, seatbelts, gun control, etc - is that they eventually add up to an oppressive, dispiriting burden, as in the UK. A quote from the Union Leader article:
That's right. But you can feel like a nut and a crank standing up and opposing each tiny, seemingly well-intentioned step that government takes, even though the imposition of most of these issues is really driven by controlling do-gooder cranks with too much time on their hands. The problem, as I see it, is that these are laws, not advice. Heck - I usually use my seatbelt - especially when I am driving my pick-up, drinking Coors Lite, reading the paper, shooting various animals and shooting various annoying people out the car window, listening to the radio, eating a bagel, talking on my cell, and blogging on my Blackberry - all at the same time, like every normal busy red-blooded American does.
If America doesn't still stand for individual liberty from state power, then what good are we? If we, and our politicians, remove individual liberty from the equations they apply to law-making, what are we?
If laws have to have "Environmental Impact Statements," how come they don't have to have "Freedom Impact Statements"? (I don't think I am the first to say that, but if I stole it, I don't remember from whom.)
Addendum: I should also have re-linked the Cafe Hayek piece on the subject of trans-fats (which government experts insisted upon, just a few years ago, as an improvement over lard) and the food Nazis. A nanny with cops and guns backing her up is worth calling a Nazi, in the sarcastic Seinfeld sense of the term, if you ask me. (See our Mayor Bloomberg satire, which some readers thought might be real.)
Appalling examples delivered fresh, daily, at Moonbattery
Eric at Classical Values has an excellent piece on creeping totalitarianism. His views on the subject sound like ours at Maggie's Farm. A quote:...the problem is, people vote for it, and we live in a democracy. Perry de Havilland has also called the proce
Weblog: Maggie's Farm
Tracked: Jun 19, 05:43
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Remember the do-gooder cranks now have the mailed fist of the trial lawyers behind them. Look at how fast the corporations knuckled under on trans-fats. How many people buying a bucket at KFC really worry about trans-fats?
And it is a non-trivial cost to change recipes etc for the company. Removing the legislation that funds the "do-gooder cranks" by giving them a piece of the settlement pie would slow this down greatly.
You may recall that trans-fats were brought in by the experts as a health improvement over lard.
I don't deep fry very often - it's too much work - but when I do, I use good old lard.
Clearly you have some kind of autism/dyslexia/ADD if you think the government shouldn't be your parent.
Please stand by for mandatory medication.
"The problem with all of the "minor" issues - trans-fats, smoking, motorcycle helmets, seatbelts, gun control, etc - is that they eventually add up to an oppressive, dispiriting burden...."
Great sentence. It tells why nothing is really trivial on this front.
Our professional political class, however, having been in "public service" all its life, hasn't the foggiest idea of what the hell you're talking about.
Wot a deal--at the point of a gun, the gov't takes your money (which = "your time", which = "your life") in trade for a promise--which you never requested--to care for you with it.
Then, since it has now has this public interest in your health, it has rights over your every action.
The "private sector" just means a little due-process is in order, fig-leaf style, before the public interest enforcers find some pretext to kick private rights aside.
Bah. Kelo opened my eyes wide. Of course we need a federal gov't--but good gawd almighty.
If I were a cop I would probably rather work a seat belt check than chase an armed criminal. IMO, this is part of the problem. It is easy and profitable to ticket bar owners for allowing people to smoke. In Canada, one friend who lived in a very rural area had a raving lunatic looking in her windows at 2 am. When she called the police she got an answering service who told her to call back if the guy got violent. He eventually wandered off and was hit by a car. Another city living friend had a guy knock on her door and ask her to call police about a fellow on the street who was threatening another person with a knife. The police answered that since she had not seen the incident they would not respond to a third or fourth party complaint. She said she would call a supervisor to complain and was told, well, good luck with that.
Let's not forget that today is a memoriable day in the continuing fight for Freedom. It's the 63rd Anniversary of D-Day. If anyone is interested we found some good video segments of veterans from the first wave:
1. The two paragraphs in the site's banner at the top of the page were written by two different people.
I couldn't say who wrote the first paragraph, but the second paragraph was obviously written by the person who wrote this screed on 'tyranny.'
2. If we assume that all of the writers for Maggie's Farm agree with everything he said in this article, it is just stunning how many lies paragraph #1 contains.
Cannot tell what you are referring to. What site?
Not ours. No lies in our first two paragraphs.
Trans-fats or cottage cheese thighs ..be afraid, very afraid
Humor is a great healer and Roanld Reagan knew good timing.
Rendezvous with Destiny ..as true today as ever. RWR
nice site, loophole (can't check out the youtubes until I get wifi fixed). I saw the American cemetery in Normandy with my dad in the late 50s. A tyke never forgets what 10,000 gravestones looks like.
The internicine kerfuffle (oh golly see my big words)...The internal fight within the Republican Party and the possible crossed arm, foot stomping "I'm staying home, the Republicans have done me wronamoebag" is a natural gut reaction to the possible passage of the Illegal Amnesty bill or President Bush's dogged determination to see the Iraq commitment fulfilled ...whatever your poison keep this in mind.
Teddy Roosevelt after hand picking W.H. Taft(1908) as his successor (Taft won) later became unhappy with Taft, challenged him for the 1912 nomination and lost to Taft..He then split the Rep.Party( went Bull Moose) and the Reps. lost the WH to Woodrow "The Weenie" Wilson.
Here's what's up for grabs if we f*uck up and either stay home or fracture the Rep Party.
1. A Dem will get the WH for probably 8 years.
2. That Dem , if Hillary, is a full blown Marxist.".from each according to his abilities to each according to their needs"..she's using cutsey phraseology but the meaning is EXACTLY the same...plus she is a Saul Alinsky/Marxists.
3. VERY VERY IMPORTANT ..the Dems will likely control Congress also, which means after the 2010 census THEY WILL GERRYMANDER THE COUNTRY into districts that are unwinnable for Republicans. The computer technology is easily set up to make every district look like an amoeba or some spittle on the sidewalk. With immigration up they will have a stranglehold on government like never before and the accumulation of wealth will be a thing of the past ..the gov'ment gonna get it and redistribute it.....98% like the Brits.
4. Supreme Court nominations who will all believe in Marx and Gumby...you know "The Constitution is a Living amoeba and it's not what it says it is, it's what we say it is.....Chief Justice Gumby..2012"
5. Many commentators have stated that this is one of the most defining elections in this countries history. I happen to agree....so the Reps don't seem to have a Ronald Reagan in the field..well countires only get those men once every 100+ years......we got no Secretariat to ride either..same 100 year deal...but if we cry baby our way through the nominating process and it calcifies into a cry baby election then the Republicans are DONE..DEEP FRIED ..trans fats and all..think about it next time you start to freak out.
We Conservatives are stuck with the Repubs just like the Lefties are stuck with the Dems. Only we're right about most things and they're wrong, of course.
A word on geryymandering...the states are the political boy that actually does the redistricting...HOWEVER congress has passed several restrictions regarding this process (so much for states rights)...
Also, with a nation now over 305 million people the Congress (Democratic) could easily push for an increase in the number of Representatives from the current 435 to a number much great. This move coupled with gerrymandering could make this a one party country...a dictatorship....WHY...BECAUSE right after that move they could easily reform the Juicial system, increasing the number of Supreme Court Judges AND the number of District Courts....all suited to their Marxist ideology of redistribution of wealth..you wealth .. hell we already have Kelo on the books.....folks this nation in 10 years could be completely redone looking nothing like it does today or WAS everintended to look
Habu is right. Right, right, right. Stupid fricken minor issues--Miers, Ports, even Illegal Immigration, EVEN the WAR, when you come down to how close the Marxists are to fulfilling the world conquest goal laid down so long ago and patiently worked away on ever since.
Jim Cramer ("mad money" guy) dropped out of the side of his mouth the other night that he thought one of the candidates was a full-blown Marxist. One of his joke/not joke asides.
We need to pick a state and all move there, and secede from Hillaryland. How 'bout Vermont, tee hee.
that 'anonymous' is me--computer too is fighting for liberty--
"when you come down to how close the Marxists are to fulfilling the world conquest goal laid down so long ago and patiently worked away on ever since."
Funny, 20 years ago I would have thought myself crazy for believing that. Times do change. And thank the stars for this here internet thingy.
I've said this before in other forums but to this day we do not know what Bill Clinton did in the Soviet Union when he went there illegally in the 1960's. We DO KNOW that Inturista the Soviet Unions "escorts to all visitors at that time were KGB..
We also know for a fact that immediately upon his return he became an organizer for anti war protests in Britain..The was the EXACT thing the Soviets were working toward but had not been able to move forward much.
We know that Hillary's Masters disseration was on the workings of Saul Alinsky, author of "Revolution for Radicals" and others. She idolized the man..BUT that dissertation has been locked away by the university and they will not allow the public to read it...at her request!!! It is the ONLY one in that sequestered position.
The question can reasonably asked about Bill Clinton...was he recruited by the KGB? Was his pact with Hillary to work for the presidency and then do a turn around and help elect her a perfect Marxist fit?
Bill Clinton at that time and up to today fits all of the traditional intelligence tradecraft catagories for recruitment...MICE is the acronym
It is a reasonable assumption he was recruited.
"Destroying Democracy: How Government Funds Partisan Politics" by James T. Bennett, Thomas J. Dilorenzo was published in 1986.
In it they describe just what the title says. But even more telling is a conclave the Democratic strategists had for positioning the party going forward. At the time they were openly using phrases such as "economic democracy" and "social democracy" to describe what the Democratic Party stood for. The problem was that they recognized that those were too close to Marxist phrasology to resonate with the American electorate......so they decided that a new word or phrase would have to be installed.....the word they chose to put out to all party organizations and members was....PROGRESSIVE.
One can easily trace the change in codewords....it's all ther in black and white history..the Dems went from wanting "economic democracy" to being "Progressives" within about six months....meanwhile they now have George Soros and Norman Lear (All in the Family) and People for the American Way working for marxism here in America.
On this site Discoverthenetworks if you choose a sub topic and point and click in the grey areas of the right hand side you'll get a real education of how extensive the network is..If you want to blow your mind just hit the big grey button and allow time for it to load ......you'll freak out.
That's David Horowitz' project. A guy who has been on the inside of the "progressive" movement --and understands it utterly.
Horowitz is a hero. Read his autobiog:
NJ..I agree totally with you and BL. Horowitz was the frontlines of the left for many many years. I believe he was the editor /publisher of "Ramparts" which was the leftest word of truth back in the day.
He finally decided that what he was creating was "The Road to Surfdom"
That he is, that he is, a hero.
Habu, if the Clintons were working for USSR, they sure whipped onto PRC in a hurry, when the soviets temporarily fell.
I'll never forget--no one should--the horror that went on under Reno, when FBI agents were all over the Los Alamos ring--and Reno sat on it for six months after the reports were verified ironclad.
Newspapers later explained it all away, of course, but the Riadys made a fortune, many witnesses hauled ass &/or disappeared, Win Ho Lee got a wrist slap, Al Gore drank too much iced tea, and the ChiCom submarine forces ended up with a ten year 'stolen march' on MIRV technology, among other things.
And what of it? Oh, another "Clinton scandal" promoted by the VRWC, (yawn).
Clinton was and is a very clever dangerous man. Hillary is even more dangerous because her libido seems moridund and thus renders her impervious to maturnal feelings. She's a stone cold Marxists, but what does the average voter know of such things? You can bet Soros knows, and Norman Lear and Pacifica Radio and the never ending list Horowitz has provided us.
And you are exactly right. Clintons pivot to the PRC was as graceful as any Baryshnikov move. We know he sold us to the Chinese. And his NSA man Sandy Berger prior to coming onto the Clinton staff had the PRC as his biggest client..the skids were well greased.
I am positive that somewhere in the NSA, or at MenwithHill, ot Alice Springs there exists intercepts that would rock our world about Bill Clinton's treachery.
BL...when I was "with" IBM in Beverly Hills I had a client, Jay G. Foonberg, of Foonberg and Franzel. At that time, early 80's they had China as a big client. Just google foonberg+china and you will get a few hits. Other people I worked with were interested in that relationship too.
...never did develop anything but that was still the early years of our relationship with China.
It's a huge, and completely hidden-in-plain-sight, matter. It's just dumbfounding how he did in full view, masquerading the well-honed 'small' scandal to misdirect the thing so ugly no one wants to look at it or think about it.