Thursday, May 20, 2010

Robin Hood, Rand Paul and Courage

Out in theaters last weekend is the latest cinematic interpretation of Robin Hood. Directed by Ridley Scott and starring Russell Crowe as the eponymous hero, something atavistic is on display that is oddly out place in Black Run America (BRA).

In the 1991 version Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, political correctness dictated that Morgan Freeman was a necessary addition to the lily-white cast starring Kevin Costner:

If nothing else, ROBIN HOOD: THE PRINCE OF THIEVES is resolutely politically correct, positing a feminist Marian, adding women to the band of merry men, and inventing the incongruous Azeem, a black Muslim. Costner's surprisingly portly Robin is less a dashing force of justice than a decent kind of guy forced by circumstance to do the right thing because the wrong thing--embodied in the flamboyantly wicked Sheriff of Nottingham--is so obviously unacceptable. He's a Robin Hood for an age when no one believes in heroes.

Playing the role of Azeem (an entry in the hallowed collection of Fictional Black History Month), Freeman was depicted as technologically superior and advanced to the wayward English Luddites and gave a rousing and inspiring speech that energized the bandits Robin had collected to storm the castle and save the virginal Maid Marion from the would be ravages of the dastardly Sheriff of Nottingham.

He helped deliver a child, despite the protestations of Friar Tuck and provided a chemical compound that turned out to be gunpowder.

Gone in the 2010 version of Robin Hood is any semblance of political correctness.

Most recently BBC produced a version of Robin Hood that had Friar Tuck portrayed as a Black male. For some, this might be a welcome addition to the mythology of Robin Hood as a diverse cast ostensibly appeals to a diverse audience. Historically though, this inclusion of a Black character amid the white inhabitants of Sherwood Forrest is akin to casting Clint Eastwood to play Nelson Mandela in a biopic on his life.

Historically inaccurate and ludicrous as these castings of Black actors to play comrades of the merry men of Sherwood Forrest might be, the Ridley Scott version drops all sensibilities of appeasing to the current zeitgeist.

SBPDL decided to see the film and quickly surmised a masterpiece was unfolding before our very eyes as only celluloid can deliver.

We’ll spare you detailed plot points from the movie and just say it represents something truly sinister: opposition to evil. Recall the words of the Declaration of Independence that were quoted reverently by Nicolas Cage’s character in National Treasure:

"But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations,
pursuing invariably the same object,
evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism,
it is their right, it is their duty,
to throw off such government, and
to provide new guards for their future security."

Like Pat Tillman, Robin Hood (in this version) was critical of the military campaign that was leading to the financial ruination of the realm. He still fought in the Crusades and followed King Richard the Lion Heart, but in one poignant scene gave his earnest opinion of the war, only to be rebuked by him as “brave, honest and naïve.”

Standing up to what is wrong and indecent may seem a difficult task. This movie shows it is necessary and vital through the constant usage of the term, “Rise and rise again until lamb becomes lion”.

Most people understand there is something fundamentally wrong with America, or more precisely Black Run America (BRA). CNN has been designated the official news provider for BRA and watching this channel gives one entry into the mindset of Disingenuous White Liberals (DWL) and the Black mindset through the opinions of Roland Martin.

Rand Paul recently won the Republican primary for the Senate seat in Kentucky and appears to be the front-runner against his Democratic opponent in the November election. Castigated for his views on the rights of private businesses and ownership which run counter to Civil Rights the son of Ron Paul is on the defense for his beliefs. What does he do, defend them? Yes, but he invokes the name of the true father of modern America, Martin Luther King, Jr. in the process:

"What I've always said is, I'm opposed to institutional racism, and I would have--if I was alive at the time, I think--had the courage to march with Martin Luther King to overturn institutional racism, and I see no place in our society for institutional racism," he said in response to a first question about the act.
"You would have marched with Martin Luther King but voted with Barry Goldwater?" asked an interviewer.
"I think it's confusing in a lot of cases in what's actually in the Civil Rights Case (sic)," Paul replied. "A lot of things that were actually in the bill I'm actually in favor of. I'm in favor of--everything with regards to ending institutional racism. So I think there's a lot to be desired in the Civil Rights--and indeed the truth is, I haven't read all through it, because it was passed 40 years ago and hadn't been a real pressing issue on the campaign on whether I'm going to vote for the Civil Rights Act."

Evoking the MLK defense in Black Run America is a sure-fire way to renounce any connections to the racism and bigotry and Paul is groveling when confronted with the awesome power of BRA.

We have stated it time and again here at SBPDL: any attempt to dismantle the Federal Government will be construed as racist. As Tea Party members demand that the size of the government be curtailed, Black people, DWLs and worse, Crusading White Pedagogues will demand for even greater governmental powers.

Libertarians who worship at the altar of Ayn Rand fail to realize their ideas when seen to conclusion would result in the vast dismantling of the entire structure of BRA, with millions of Black people safely ensconced in high-paying public sectors jobs suddenly forced to compete in the so-called free market.

Daring to privatize BRA would be the doom of middle-class Black people who rely on cushy lifetime jobs as government bureaucrats. The rate of Black employment in the Federal Government is truly astonishing (only to be outdone by the McDonald’s Corporation), as Black over-representation in nearly every agency means that they will fight tooth and nail against any attempt by Tea Party, Libertarian, or offspring of Ron Paul who dare try and curb spending and waste.

It won’t happen. Libertarians are individuals who lack any sense of community and commonality to engage BRA decisively and would rather engage people in pointless, mind-numbing debates that rely on the theoretical and the largely impractical.

Reason magazine, one of the main organs sustaining Libertarian opinion (also slandering any of those who oppose egalitarianism as Ron Paul once did) published a review lauding Robin Hood:

The new Ridley Scott film Robin Hood, which has opened to mixed reviews on its merits as entertainment, is also drawing some critics' political ire. In New York's leftist weekly, The Village Voice, Karina Longworth laments that "instead of robbing from the rich to give to the poor, this Robin Hood preaches about 'liberty' and the rights of the individual" and battles against "government greed"; the film, she scoffs, is "a rousing love letter to the tea party movement." On a similar note, the New York Times' A.O. Scott mocks Robin Hood as "one big medieval tea party":

You may have heard that Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor, but that was just liberal media propaganda. This Robin is ... a manly libertarian rebel striking out against high taxes and a big government scheme to trample the ancient liberties of property owners and provincial nobles.

Whatever one may think of Scott's newest incarnation of the Robin Hood legend, it is more than a little troubling to see alleged liberals speak of liberty and individual rights in a tone of sarcastic dismissal. This is especially ironic since the Robin Hood of myth and folklore probably has much more in common with the "libertarian rebel" played by Russell Crowe than with the medieval socialist of the "rob from the rich, give to the poor" cliché. At heart, the noble-outlaw legend that has captured the human imagination for centuries is about freedom, not wealth redistribution—and this is reflected in many previous screen versions of the Robin Hood story…

Of course, the idea of Robin Hood as an early socialist has had a lot of currency as well. Ayn Rand declared the fabled outlaw a symbol of evil—taking from the productive and giving to the parasites—in her novel Atlas Shrugged; on the other side of the political spectrum, a coalition of international aid groups in England recently made him their mascot when they proposed a "Robin Hood tax" on high-profit industries to help the poor in developing nations. But the original Robin Hood, while he has many different faces, is above all a fighter for freedom from tyranny—and that's what made him a legend.

In the Libertarian mind those with cash are automatically the heroes, titans of industry and above scrutiny. After all, the invisible hand of Adam Smith has smiled upon thee. SBPDL does not begrudge anyone with money and joins in praising those who devise clever manners in accumulating large sums of cash, whether it is legitimate business, sound investing or more providential manners. In most cases, SBPDL believes greed is good.

However, equating everything with the market is fatuous and inane. Sometimes people must rise against evil, standing for principles. Ask any veteran if they went off to war to defend some vague notion of free markets or individual liberties that would be used to justify the legalization of the most base and amoral behavior.

Libertarians refuse to acknowledge race, believing it to be a sinister form of collectivism to pit group against group and curtail individual freedom. If only Black people would understand the importance of individual ambition and self-reliance instead of relying on the government, they argue, then we could cut government spending, balance the budget and live in harmony singing songs, holding hands all the while lighting up on cannabis.

Fortunately for Black people, they understand the importance of group cohesion and use it for their collective advantage and survival.

In the onslaught of vitriol Dr. Rand Paul receives at the hands of the main stream media (NPR and CNN come to mind) those paying attention see the awesome power of BRA at work and concurrently, the fear they see in the ideas he espouses.

Middle American Radicals still exist and though many still hide behind the clumsy rhetoric of liberty and freedom - evoking the name of Martin Luther King, Jr. when any hint of racism is detected as the ultimate repellant against such dangerous thoughts - the ultimate fight will continue to elude them.

The Civil Rights movement and the laws created in its wake ensured forever the continuation of sins (real or imagined) by all white people against Black people. DWL’s atone for those daily, while Libertarians and Tea Party followers repent continually by wallowing in saccharine speech that constantly praises MLK, the father of BRA and individual most responsible for its continuation.

The 2010 version of Robin Hood introduces a dangerous idea that few seem to grasp: Courage. In the face of likely defeat, defiance and audacity is the only ally.

Rise and rise again until lamb becomes lion’, is heard no less than 15 times in the film. When asked what that means, Robin simply states, “courage.”

Rand Paul has shown he has courage. He finds few words but detectable feigned praise to bestow to the memory of the father of this nation, MLK. Yet he stands firm in the onslaught of invective from the media.

SBPDL recommends Robin Hood, a movie replete with a mesmerizing score (reminiscent of Batman Begins), dazzling sets and complete with idea long since dead in BRA: courage.

This is no Libertarian movie, as a Libertarian movie would largely be set in a dingy, smoke-filled basement with four disheveled and ill-groomed virgins debating the virtues of private property, private enterprise and the importance of the gold standard. Midway through the film, one of the characters mothers would come down reminding the 30-year-olds engaged in self-effacing discourse it was time for dinner.

No, Robin Hood is a film that dares praise men of action who find mere debate trivial. Worse, it shows the ideas of liberty, freedom, common law and the rights of man grew in lowly, white-bread England. People fought and died for these ideals, instead of the latter-day nitwits who wax intellectually and pontificate about the ideal society where the free market will solve all ills.

A distinct people fought for centuries over these ideas and have yet to perfect them. Now, Rand Paul and his Tea Party followers believe that BRA will go quietly into the night due to the profound correctness of their theories and ideas. As we are witnessing, BRA is sharpening knives to throw at Paul with uncanny precision.

Limited government is an idea that white people fight for as they band together in Tea Parties across the nation and that DWLs and their Rainbow coalition of supporters in BRA refuse to endorse, knowing full well what an implementation of such policies would bring.

As we stated in the review of The Second Civil War, BRA will do everything to crush its opposition and survive. Even in the face of the largest ecological disaster in recent history, opinions that counter the prevailing political attitudes are verboten, regardless if they come from the prodigious mind of a recognized genius in physics like Dr. Katz. Major damage will continue to be inflicted upon the Gulf of Mexico by oil, but at least no one will have their feelings hurt by Dr. Katz politically incorrect thoughts.

Every generation gets the Robin Hood they deserve. In the 1990s, the politically correct Kevin Costner version served as the perfect fodder for the decade, accurately depicting the mindset of those in charge.

However, the 2010 account has a much more poignant message for those who live in this dark time: courage. Never waver from it.

Arizona is the beginning. Rand Paul might be the next step.

Rise and rise again until lamb becomes lion.


CWN said...

Yeah, let's kiss that commies's ass, MLK. He sure was a great guy. Phoney christian, plagiarizer, womanizer, prostitute user, adulterer, communist supporter, drunkard, bisexual.

I much rather have a MLK day, and not washington's birthday. Screw the first president and greatest general of the Country's history. That is not important, made up myths about some degenerate black guy are more important.

I like Robin hood's message to a point. It can come off as socialist. You know, spreading the wealth around. But, I also like the part about standing up to tyranny and an oppressive government. And I have no problem taking back the money from the government and giving it back to the people. The government does steal our money. But I do have a problem with taking from the rich and giving it to other people. Take from the government, fine, but, it is socialist to take from citizens and give to other citizens. I believe Russel Crowe and Scott were talking about how they would like to see a sort of Robin Hood tax on people in reality. That is just socialist garbage. Ofcourse they do come from europe, socialist wonderland that it is.

Also, maybe in the Robin hood movie with Kevin Costner, Morgan freeman's character was a foretelling of the future of England. Being over run with Muslims. The number one name in London for a boy is muhammed. They simply were showing the future.

James O'Meara said...

This is the best, certainly the best, succinct, explanation of why "Libertarianism" is poison for Whites.

"Rational individuals" will never prevail against BRA as a race; of course, those who make enough compromises will "prevail" and be hailed as "rugged individualists" to be admired and copied for "success".

How much longer even that can be done in BRA is questionable, since "rationalists" and "free marketeers," as well as "open borders" types, fail to understand that our institutions are the product of a particular race, and won't survive the transition to BRA [South Africa, anyone?]

Libertarians are part of the problem; they share the same assumptions as BRA but just want to take it back a few steps to 1898. Not only won't that happen, as you point out; if it did, the whole thing would just start all over again.

Rand Paul himself [creepiest name since Nathaniel bRANDen] has already left his father's non-interventionism behind and professes love of Israel; as you point out, he's already invoking MLK. By the time he's elected he'll be indistinguishable from Arlen Specter.

Anonymous said...

I'm totally with you CWN.

I was pleasantly surprised by "Robin Hood's" portrayal of the government as the bad guy.

On another note:

The media, hollywood, academia and pop culture constantly try and persuade us that the problems that this country faces are due to white people, Christians, men, and rich people (in whatever combination you choose). But imagine for a moment that you removed all of those "troublemakers" from this country. America would be like South Africa is going to be in about 5 years: a complete craphole that relys on foreign aid not to starve to death.

Don't believe the political correctness. Educated, moral, white people are the only thing that separate America from a banana republic.

Pretty much anything that you hear from a liberal or moderate politician is complete b.s. and you can bet that in fact the opposite is true.

Our federal government is gigantic, faceless, heartless and ruthless. Our freedoms are being eroded everyday in the name of diversity, fairness and security.

A recent example of government

Anonymous said...

One of your best posts yet. Far better written and much more relevant than anything one will ever read in the New York Times or the WSJ. Dead on about why libertarians are useless. They hold NO PRINCIPLES. I'm reminded of the line from the 60's saint John Lennon's "Imagine" tune.

"Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too"

No, Mr. Lennon, I cannot imagine such a horrible existence. A life where there is nothing worth dieing for is not a life worth living. Just like Light has no meaning without Dark, Life has no meaning without Death, and Good has no meaning without the existence of Evil. So also Liberty cannot exist without the active rejection and declaration that there are ideas antithetical to its existence.

"Live and let live"? I call BS... We've been had by the idea of tolerance. Tolerance of all means we have nothing left to hold dear.

Until next time,
-The Last American in my neighborhood

Hirsch said...

"The Ridley Scott version drops all sensibilities of appeasing to the current zeitgeist."

Does this movie not devolve in the last act into yet another CGI-infested piece of crap? Putting aside political leanings, the Errol Flynn version is still superior to either this or the Costner version. Not that consensus is everything, but a quick search on willl show the curious that some fairly intelligent and trustworthy people thought this movie was shit.

I remember SBPDL once alluding to watching "Face-Off" with Travolta one night, so I will just be diplomatic and say that this site is a good source for original perspectives on race, not so hot on advice about which movies to see.

Regarding Rand Paul, he needs to wake up and realize that as a politician,if he doesn't compromise his ideals and kiss some black ass fast, he is going to damage himself politically.

His father already has the uninvited support of the Stormfront neanderthals, and whether he realizes it or not, just by having the balls to advocate that private institutions remain private, as he did on Rachael Maddow (God, what a smug gym teacher dyke of a bitch) he may pick up some supporters he doesn't want.

Stuff Black People Don't Like said...


To an extent, CGI is utilized in the 2010 'Robin Hood'.

I despise the Costner version and agree with you on the Errol Flynn 1937 version being the finest of all the Hood's. Incidentally, I bought the two-disc special edition of that film last Sunday and really enjoyed it. Pre-Obama America wasn't that bad of a place, was it?

What made the new 'Robin Hood' stand out to me was the score. Movies with a top-notch score can stand out from those that might be artistically better, but lack powerful music.

"King Arthur" had a score that the movie didn't deserve, as I'd say it is one of Hans Zimmer's best.

As to why "Robin Hood" got poor reviews, I'd recommend reading them and you'll find many attacked the movie on political grounds, lamenting the socialist story of old for a Tea Party of new.

Knocking 'Face-Off'? This might out my age, but that was the first rated R movie I saw at the theater and I have always enjoyed a manic Nic Cage performance and Travolta is a believable bad-guy.

I agree completely with you on Rand Paul, and your view of his father. Hearing someone advocate private institutions on her show was incredible.

Maddow is worse than a gym teacher, mind you. At my high school and middle school we had some very cute gym teachers that were obvious lesbians, but with Maddow you realize she really wishes she had a penis.

But on a lighter note... I'm big into film. I have way to many DVDs and have begun dabbling on a script.

I do believe that "Point Break" is the finest film ever made, so that could taint my views on movies in some peoples eyes.

Anonymous said...


"Limited government is an idea that white people fight for as they band together in Tea Parties across the nation and that DWLs and their Rainbow coalition of supporters in BRA refuse to endorse, knowing full well what an implementation of such policies would bring."

When government increased tenfold under that phony cowboy Bush, did the brave tea party white folk fight or did they kiss his ass?

When the bush administration spit on the Constitution, did they fight or did they kiss his ass?

It will be interesting to see how Rand Paul's plan of eliminating the EPA plays out today.
Our government just allowed a foreign corporation to poison thousands of miles of coast line and bring an entire industry to its knees.

How will Sarah Palin explain this one to those "real Americans"? Many of them rely on that industry for their livelihood.

I'm all for smaller government, because a smaller government can better serve the people. What all citizens need to be wary of is this nation being put up for sale on the auction block.

The real story is how you guys are being lied to by both parties. Barry the half breed's health and financial "reforms" bills were both corporate sponsored jokes.

Remember the government answers to the people, corporations answer to their shareholders, and some of those look like me.

Don't believe me, lets watch how much BP pays for the mess they caused.

Barry the half breed is nothing more than a white dude in black face. He is continuing the policies of the presidents before him. Yeah, BRA indeed.

-Black guy

Anonymous said...


I despise the Costner version and agree with you on the Errol Flynn 1937 version being the finest of all the Hood's. Incidentally, I bought the two-disc special edition of that film last Sunday and really enjoyed it. Pre-Obama America wasn't that bad of a place, was it?

I have to agree with you about Errol Flynn's version being the best. As for Costner, he is a awful actor that lucked out with the film No Way Out. It was a predictable movie, but a decent spy thriller.

-Black guy

Phalluster said...

Face-off is a damn fine film. My own favorite is 'The 13th Warrior'.

Stuff Black People Don't Like said...

Black guy,

As usual, you bring up a great point. Not to date me, but during my undergraduate years I used to verbally attack people who put "W" stickers on their car and yet, didn't volunteer to fight in the war on terror.

Most conservatives looked the other way when Bush (and Reagan) disregarded the Constitution.

The BP incident is quite interesting and I'm glad you brought that up. Corporations do have quite the ability to stifle political debate.

We have already been sold though. America is nothing but a corporation now anyways. When you see the great film, The Second Civil War, there is a poignant scene that illustrates this point perfectly.

However, to your point on Barry O: I would say the policies the Black empowerment being the primary goal of the Federal Government have been in place since Eisenhower had Federal Troops forcibly integrate Little Rock. Since then, government programs (Great Society, Head Start, the continuation of Affirmative Action in every sector - private or public - to enhance the Black middle class, and diversity programs being mandated at every college and every business in America) have been utilized to help Black people rise above conditions believed to be caused by white racism.

The War on Poverty were fought to help alleviate problems primarily in the Black community.

Yes, America has been sold to conglomerates. But those businesses still operate under the same rules of BRA.

I have been itching to do an entry on the television show "The Office", a show that gets away with all sorts of amazing digs at forced diversity and the acquiescence of white managers to their Black employees lethargic work ethic (think Michael Scott and Stanley).

A satire on corporate America in season six had an episode devoted solely to a Diversity Management Training Program:

"The Office" writers don't intend the show to be racist, but it comes off that way.

Hirsch said...


You are certainly right about scores outshining films. Conan the Barbarian (the Schwarzenegger version) was a decent film, but the score was a thing of beauty. Incidentally, that film took a lot of guff from politically correct critics such as Roger Ebert. They did not like the image of a Teutonic white man slaying the evil dark shape-shifter played by James Earle Jones. I thought Jones turned in a fine, hammy performance well-suited to the Sword & Sorcery genre.

Incidentally, writers such as Robert E. Howard (Conan) and H.P. Lovecraft (Weird Tales) had some strange perspectives on race, though there seemed to be a lot more ambivalence than xenophobia, as their critics will claim.

I suppose though, with the trend in Hollywood, that the next Conan will be played by Will Smith or Jamie Fox.

Anonymous said...

"When government increased tenfold under that phony cowboy Bush, did the brave tea party white folk fight or did they kiss his ass?"

This is a legitimate criticism, and I'll respond with what I believe represents the type of response you'd get from most TEA Partiers.

First: for better or for worse, unlike Barry, we trusted Bush. Up until his prescription drug bill, most of his deficit spending was military-related, and he did keep us safe, so he got a pass, although tenuous. After the prescription drug bill, we all shook our heads, and started counting the days to his exit.

Barry comes along and campaigns on FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY, and although most of us did not believe him, we didn't suspect that his mendacity would be so epic. Even those of us without fancy degrees are street-smart enough to know that there are not enough "rich" to pay for Barry's out-of-control spending, which means ultimately we're going to be taxed to the gills in order to pay for his socialist programs.

Comparing Bush's spending with Barry's is like comparing two unpaid personal loans, one for $20 and the other for $200.
When your friend fails to pay you back $20, you'll be annoyed, but you won't lose sleep.
When your other friend fails to pay you back $200, you'll likely hunt him down and beat the living shit out of him.

Bush was annoying, but Barry needs his ass kicked.

Anonymous said...

"Face-off is a damn fine film. My own favorite is 'The 13th Warrior'."

Agree on both, but when critiquing film, it is important to distinguish "entertainment value" versus "Oscar value".
"Face-Off" is an absurd, ludicrous, yet HIGHLY ENTERTAINING and FUN film.

Anonymous said...


I'm going to check out those links you posted.
The office is hands down one of the best sitcoms on TV. Anyone that finds something racial out of it needs their head examined and have the stick removed from their rectum.

The funniest was when the boss did a Chris Rock routine during sensitivity training.

-Black guy

Porter said...


You said:
"Regarding Rand Paul, he needs to wake up and realize that as a politician,if he doesn't compromise his ideals and kiss some black ass fast, he is going to damage himself politically."

Was this sarcasm or your attempt to explain the criteria for a Profile in Courage medal? If Paul compromised his ideals and kissed black ass then that would differentiate him from precisely zero of the other 534 members of congress.

And so if he compromised his principles and joined that august body of cynical opportunists in Washington, you would view this as the preferable outcome? Odd.

"His father already has the uninvited support of the Stormfront neanderthals, and whether he realizes it or not, just by having the balls to advocate that private institutions remain private, as he did on Rachael Maddow (God, what a smug gym teacher dyke of a bitch) he may pick up some supporters he doesn't want."

Perhaps I miss your point here as well. Is this to suggest that he moderate his positions to better accomodate the blacks who hate him (and you by the way) for fear that he will attract racially aware whites who you find unaesthetic?

In any event, your fear that Paul might damage himself politically by making a logical and principled stand will mercifully be allayed soon enough. Like his father before him, when pressed he'll fold like an unscrewed lawn chair. It will take days not weeks for him to genuflect at the MLK alter. I hope you'll be pleased.

Porter said...

Sometimes L'Roi's foolishness would elicit a belly laugh from Buddha.

"When government increased tenfold under that phony cowboy Bush, did the brave tea party white folk fight or did they kiss his ass?"

Tenfold? As one uneducated in ebonics math I'll plead ignorance as to what this term might mean within America's "vibrant" communities. Though in English, tenfold means by a factor of 10. So in eight years under Bush the government grew 10 times as large?

Clinton's last budget was for $1.9 trillion. Bush's last budget eight years later was $3.1 trillion. This means the government didn't quite grow tenfold...actually not even twofold. This did however represent 6.3%/year average growth: an absurd and unsustainable rate, and one of the many reasons Bush was a disaster.

By the way, Barry is out of the gate with a 10.7% average annual growth rate. Hopefully he will continue this path to insolvency and we (like the many dead white citizens of Zimbabwe) will get to carry wheelbarrows full of trillion dollar bills to the grocery store.

Anonymous said...

Greed is good?! I don't think you know what greed is if that is your opinion.
A person who accumulates wealth honestly and doesn't want to be taxed unfairly or spread and give it away to those with less isn't greed.
Corporations that hire overseas instead of fellow Americans to pay incredibly cheap wages to foreign workers as well as shipping them here to do the same is greed and is destructive. Unbeknowst to BRA, it also helps speed up its own expiration date.
I think the "stealing from the rich, give to the poor" line is not to be taken literal so it can't be equated with socialism(wealth redistribution) and probably relates more to unfair taxes laid upon those unable to oppose the abuse.

CWN said...

I actually like the movies the postman and water world my self. I like the postman movie because of the taking back America from tyranny stance. Ford Lincoln Mercury was a beautiful black man.

Water world was fun cheesiness. Long haired costner, one eyed Dennis Hopper.

Point Break was a good movie. " I am an FBI agent!" Hearing that in reeves's surfer dude voice is wonderful. And who wouldn't love jumping out a plane with no parachute?

Anonymous said...

What is so leftist about this movie is not Robin's struggle against the goverment ,but rather the whole crusade-guilt thing.

After Scott's politically correct crusader movie Kingdom of heaven i didn't expect any less.who would after seeing politically correct Templars and tolerant Muslims in a medieval movie?

When i heard the narrator in the trailer saying "returning from the crusades,Robin...." i already knew that this will be another European-guilt trip.Richard Lionheart was a great statesman,but in this movie he was portrayed like some bearded barbarian from a biker gang.


I actually never payed attention to James Earl Jones being black in conan the barbarian.I found his performance to be very good.Conan's two companions were Asian ,and Jones' top dogs were both White.I don't see anything racist in this movie.but that is not the point for those critics.They don't want to see White vigilance,vengance or masculinity in general.I believe they fear that the pussification of white men,which the leftist worked on for decades now, could be reversed by such movies.they did the same with 300.Whites are only allowed to be manly avengers when it's against other evil Whites as in Braveheart,or the millions of WW2 movies.

Silent Running said...

Spot on, SBPDL. In my experience, when it comes to the race question libertarians hold a fanaticism that is rivaled only by their leftist cousins. For the past few months I've been following the antics of a man named Mike Vanderboegh, founder of the Three Percent movement. While his ideas regarding an impending civil war in this country mostly mirror my own, his uber-libertarian philosophy hamstrings his movement. The man positively worships blacks. (See this and this.) You and he share a fascination with the city of Birmingham, but for very different reasons.

At his site, any but the most fawning comments on race are banned as "collectivist," which is a word used in the same way that leftists use "racist."

Libertarians like Vanderboegh are prone to conspiracy theories and think that the state is the first, last, and only source of evil in the world, and without the state all would be goodness and light. Muslims are nothing but a bogeyman created by the state to distract the masses, black-on-white violence is the result of meddling by the state, etc. As you said, libertarians have no cohesion. Any broad movement that doesn't recognize a good greater than the individual, whether it be nation, people, or God, is doomed to failure. The day a libertarian jumps on a hand grenade for the sake of individual liberty, I'll stand up and take notice. Until then, libertarianism will remain a child's philosophy.

Also, I'm not sure I agree with you on Rand Paul. He was certainly courageous in taking the stand he did, but Maddow expertly turned him into another pathetic white man bleating "I'm not racist! Please believe me!" Not believing that race matters in the least, he was utterly unprepared for Maddow's onslaught. I think his candidacy is sunk.