Rem Ad Triarios Redisse

Before There Was Rush There Was...Oingo Boing?

2011-09-03T17:47:00.003-06:00

Perfect System

Punk-Ska-Pop song lyrics By Oingo Boingo

Napoleon and Snowball; Post Glorious Revolution (what would a blog post be with the title of a song "Perfect System" without a nod to the community organizers of Animal Farm?)

Perfect System

"I'm in love with you, I know

And I know that you love me too
I'm in love with you, I know
I'm in love with everyone too
We're all comrades now, you know
We're all brothers under the skin
With a few adjustments now
Living in the perfect system

The adjustment's simple
There's really no pain
You'll hardly notice
Anything has changed
Living in a programmed life
Never really has ups and downs
There's no need for fighting now
There's no reason to wear a frown

A Perfect System
And there's no confrontation
Unnecessary friction
To impede our concentration
We've simply done away with
Unnecessary friction
I live in a system
I've got an occupation
I get enough nutrition
By eating protein biscuits
Recommended by the system
It's routine regulation
I had an operation...!

I'm in love with you, I know
And I know that you love me too
I'm in love with you, I know
I'm in love with everyone too

I can tell by the look
In your blank dull eyes
That you agree, but
I'm not a bit surprised

Living in a programmed life
Never really has ups and downs
There's no need for fighting now
There's no reason to wear a frown

I had an operation
With no adverse reaction
They tampered with my brain some
It helped me see the reason
For living in the system
It helped me see the reason

(We're all brothers in a perfect world)
In a perfect world there's uniformity
(We're all brothers in a perfect world)
In a perfect world there's continuity
(We're all brothers in a perfect world)
There's no need for spontaneity

Perfect system
We're all brothers to the end
Brothers to the end
Brothers to the end
I know and I know that you love me too
(Brothers to the end) I know I'm in love with everyone too
(Brothers to the end) I know we're all comrades under the skin
(Brothers to the end) I know living in a perfect system
BROTHERS TO THE END!"

As stated on prior posts, pop culture has a very real impact on the world around us. Overwhelmingly, the narrative expressed via pop culture is one contrary to America's first principles. Whether it's a ridiculous politically themed episode of Law & Order, or a social justice peddling episode of Smallville, the "moral" of the story is consistent: a collective super state or a global society is morally and intellectually superior to a sovereign, individual liberty based United States bound together by a constitutionally constrained federal government. This is the narrative that gets academic funding via government grant money, it's the narrative we hear on the big and small screen, it's the narrative we hear in pop music, it's the narrative we hear in the news. Anytime I come across someone living in the ideological wasteland of pop culture bold enough to outwardly declare a contrary philosophy I have to grab hold of it.

I was thumbing through some old CDs to add a little spice to an I Tunes library loaded with socioeconomic and political lectures and found Oingo Boingo's "Only A Lad" album. It has been many years since I'd listened to the favorite band of my 80's youth. Oingo Boingo was, and is, probably one of the most unique bands to ever hit the pop/rock scene. Pre indie band, Oingo marched to the beat of not a few different drums. Categorizing their music is impossible because the band's leader, Danny Elfman, covered such a broad spectrum of musical styles over his animated music career. Now, a respectable composer who writes film scores, there was a time when he was a young libertarian with a bit of an Ayn Rand, Orwellian chip on his shoulder that was a very apparent theme throughout the "Only A Lad" album. In "On the Outside" one can't help but feel he detested the fashionable counter culture that predominated the pop scene in the 60's and 70's. We're treated to his take on "middle class socialist brat(s)"and their stated goal of "bringing down the rich" in "Capitalism." He manifests his rejection of the progressive creed that society is to blame for the violent behavior of young criminals in the song that carries the album's name "Only A Lad," "Hey there Johnny! You really don't fool me! You're gettin' away with murder and you think it's funny!" Certainly, there was much in Elfman's music I disagree with, particularly his generalization of Christianity as a net societal negative (i.e. Rand) and a few other things. But at least there is something substantive I can ally myself to here. Does the Elfman of today still harbor the bold and feisty libertarian leanings of his youth? I guess it depends on how many protein biscuits he was force fed by the gate keepers of the entertainment industry.

Take Courage Comrades, Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others

2011-08-25T20:38:00.000-06:00

C.E.C.E.S.P (Coward Enabled Chief Executive Sucker Punch)

2011-08-24T20:13:00.004-06:00

He hit me. I had known he was lurking around somewhere, but I had a lot on my mind and was distracted. My guard was down. I rubbed my eye and felt it start to swell. I looked at him not entirely surprised. There he was. Black suit. Tie. Shades. Nice summer golf tan. The American flag lapel added a sense of irony. Defiance and disdain set in his face and jaw daring me to react. The whole weight and power of the federal apparatus and its liaisons and accompanying trains of sycophants from the academic media complex awaited behind him. There was I. Isolated. Marginalized. Voiceless. I say voiceless because I had called for help from a group I thought were on my side but none came. The leaders of my guys looked embarrassed and severely chastened anyone who motioned to come to my aid. I suppose they were afraid someone in the host arrayed against me might find a connection between them and myself. My flanks exposed, I had fallen victim yet again to the dreaded C.E.C.E.S.P. The Coward Enabled Chief Executive Sucker Punch.

OK. I'll make my point in a less flippant, albeit more boring way. The purpose of a republic is to have reasoned deliberation among the people's representatives when new laws are necessary. In this forum the virulent democratic passions of the body politic tend to be buffered allowing for a more measured, calculated approach to creating a solution to a problem. This is also why we have a bicameral Congress - although the tempering effect intended by the Founding Fathers was significantly watered down by the 17th amendment which declared Senators to be elected by popular vote instead of selected by state legislatures. The federal government was built on the principle of separation of enumerated powers outlined by the supreme law of the land, the Constitution. On January 21, 2009, Barack Hussein Obama made this oath to the American People, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." The language of this solemn oath of office comes from the Constitution of the United States of America, Article II, Section I. Section III of Article II of the Constitution charges the President who takes that oath with executing the law. It clearly states, "he (the President) shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." The Constitution commands the President to execute the law in the clearest terms possible. Both the prerogative of creating law and the ambiguity of choosing which laws to enforce does not fall under the oft abused and inflated notion of executive privilege. The President is under oath to carry out the law, whether or not he agrees with it. Such is the mark of a true statesman. Conversely, following constitutional procedure and adhering to the rule of law is not the modus operandi of a third world leader.

Last week, it came to light that the President, yet again, took upon himself the power to determine which laws he will enforce. Article I, Section 8 itemizes the Powers of Congress. Among these are powers relating to immigration and naturalization, "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws." Currently, the United States has a uniform naturalization law. It is flawed and needs some legislative upgrades. Several proposals have been mulled over by Congress. There are important considerations such as national security, human trafficking, the drug trade, the impact of deportations on families and children of people here illegally, the strain on our social services and debt to name but a few. On December 18, 2010, the DREAM Act amnesty plan failed to pass the Senate. This occurred because the majority of the Senators knew their constituents were not in favor of amnesty. Congress, the legislative body charged with making any and all laws pertaining to the federal Union as per the Constitution of the United States, therefore determined that amnesty was not the answer to the illegal immigration problem.

In a glaringly cynical political move intended to garner a firmer grip on the Hispanic vote for the 2012 election, the President violated his oath of office. On August 18, 2011, the Department of Homeland Security, which falls under the direction of the Office of the President, determined the decision of Congress was wrong. Having thus taken exception to the legislative result of our constitutional process, the White House directed Secretary Janet Napolitano to simply disregard portions of the law. This flies in the face of DHS' mission statement: "ICE is the principal criminal investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security and one of the three Department components charged with the civil enforcement of the nation’s immigration laws. Our primary mission is to protect national security, public safety, and the integrity of our borders through the criminal and civil enforcement of Federal law governing border control, customs, trade, and immigration." Clearly, a conscientious refusal to return people who have entered the United States illegally to their country of origin is a dereliction of DHS' mandated duty to "Protect the Integrity of the Immigration System."

There are two expedients here. First, is the issue of illegal immigration itself. This is not an inconsequential matter and it has far reaching consequences for the nation's future viability. History teaches this clearly. Utopian pipe dreams of a borderless global cabal aside, weak nations are unable to maintain their borders. Weak nations that fail to maintain the integrity of their national borders gradually fail to maintain their sovereignty. Weak nations that fail to hang on to their sovereignty inexorably loose their culture and identity. Weak nations that fail to perpetuate their culture and identity cease to be nations. They become a history lesson for future generations of wise men to ponder over and for the powerful and the masses to ignore. I have written many times concerning the necessity of a functional immigration/naturalization process. The immigration debate has been cantankerously political. Opposing illegal immigration is an unpopular and demonized position to take in public. It is a point of view many seek to undermine as simplistically racially motivated and or xenophobic (another of those manipulative "bic " adjectives used to exert control over people by unjustly shaming them. Used in context of the immigration debate it is intended to make patriotism seem excessive and ugly - the proverbial "ugly American"). The actual motivating logic and reason of substantive nature, rule of law and maintaining national sovereignty and the integrity of the Union while still allowing people to immigrate - legally, are wholly ignored. This is largely because substantive arguments rooted in common sense with a long term view require much more complicated arguments to combat. Which leads to my second expedient - doing something the right way verses doing it the easy way.

In America, the process is truly what makes the nation unique and successful. To throw the process aside is to destroy the country. Barack Obama and his appointees have exposed themselves as incapable of submitting to the government interfering constraints of our constitutional order. It appears the White House ends justify any means necessary. This was seen with the increased economic interference meted out by the EPA upon industry following Congress' rejection of Cap and Trade. It seems the Obama administration is only happy with the deliberative, constitutional model of representative government insofar as the laws passed fit their world view. As another example, in what in later years is sure to be a case study in quintessential politicking, the Justice Department under the direction of the White House has all but openly made manifest that as a matter of policy it will not enforce the Defense of Marriage Act on the grounds that DOMA is inherently biased against homosexuals. Whether one charged with enforcing a law agrees with the premise of marriage between a man and woman being the building block of a healthy, sustainable society or not is irrelevant; the law of the land must be enforced by those bound by oath to do so. It's amazing such a simple and fundamental premise as this can be so blatantly disregarded by those entrusted with such stewardship and with such little public outcry.

It is the sworn duty of the Justice Department and the White House to see the law is executed. If fulfilling such a job description does not yield sufficient job satisfaction for the Justice Department and the White House then it may be suggested a change in career is in order. The Constitution is supposed to create an air of predictability in both things political and economic. Uncertainty is to be expected when the government steps out of its cage. Frankly, I'm tired of the C.E.S.P.

Independence Day

2011-07-03T22:27:00.010-06:00

The 4th of July is on Monday. In spite of the many economic setbacks of recent years Americans still have much to be grateful for. For good reason citizens of the United States can cheer and clap as fireworks flash and crackle in the nation's hot summer night skies. Americans have a wonderful inheritance to celebrate, but with that celebration of freedom ought to come a sober reminder. Historically speaking, man's freedom is the exception. The Fourth of July should awaken within every American a renewed commitment to the cause of liberty and agitate within each citizen a sense of individual duty to jealously safeguard that freedom for their posterity. Sadly, that resolve has been watered down for multiple generations and the unhappy effects of this dilution is manifesting itself in a government that makes ever bolder inroads into areas of authority forbidden it. A gross lack of civic knowledge and general lack of dedication to civic duty are part of the root cause of this alarming trend.  So, while Americans can look back on our nation's history with sincere appreciation (even if many refuse to do this), and can be grateful for their current situation, they must look to the future not only with hope, but also alert apprehension. There is an inverse relationship between civic understanding among the general public and a government that fails to govern within its enumerated powers.

Two recent stories, among many, illustrate this. The first involves American jurisprudence. The judiciary is a crucial element of American government and by its ability to judge law itself is essential for the United States' system of checks and balances. As with any institution it is not immune from imps, however. Judicial activism on social issues and the excesses of tort litigation, such as outlined in Lester Brickman's book "Lawyer Barons," and their effect of usurping legislative processes have long been a serious concern. The judicial branch finds itself more and more extending its influence beyond special cases as it seeks to affect and alter general principles, which are the intended role of the People via the legislature. Now there are powers seeking to exacerbate this republic enervating problem. Americans, with some exceptions, have had the power to vote for judges in their cities and states. This provides at least some road bumps for the judicial functionary's tendency to make law rather than interpret it only. The issue of the election of state and local judges is another one of those concepts that ought to transcend politics because it strikes at the very core of the uniqueness of American government. American Justice Partnership released a study on the state judiciary transformational movement last fall that is worth the time to review: http://www.americanjusticepartnership.com/pdf/Justice_Hijacked_Report.pdf

A quote from the study was an observational bulls eye. I have long determined that the modus operandi of the perpetrators seeking to mutate American society may be legal but it is dishonest in its stated purposes and Machiavellian in character: The quotes reads, "...it, is not illegal. But it is a problem for democracy because it drives issues with cash and then only lets the public know about it after it is old news. That means the public makes decisions about issues without understanding the special agendas of groups behind them. Without more transparency, it amounts to political manipulation." This slight of hand method of altering government paradigms is a similar phenomenon to what the European Union countries experienced who, wondering what happened, now find themselves governed as provinces of a distant power rather than self governing sovereign nations with a potent voice in their affairs.

And this leads me to my next concern.

Executive Order 13575 signed by the President not long ago expands federal powers into what was once considered exclusively the realm of municipal authority. Essentially, this Presidential edict inserts federal power in places it had yet to find a real foothold. It is an Order to empower federal agencies to engineer a society it perceives as at odds with itself and to alter the makeup of the independent character of rural America. Beyond the inescapable fact that this Order will empower the Executive with legal means to circumvent the legislative bodies who are more directly accountable to the people they represent; the danger, yet again, lies in a lack of clear definition, i.e enumerated powers (the 10th amendment seems to be unknown in Washington). Such as, "what is rural?" Who makes the decision as to what is rural and what is not? Who decides what part of a little valley is OK for recreation and what part is OK for farming? What happens to the family whose farm extends into the territory declared recreational? Who decides ways and means, or rather, who decides who gets grant money and who does not? The answer is not one which is consistent with a free society. Those decisions are made by people who are not directly accountable to those whom they govern. It takes decision making further from the people. Often decisions will likely be fall upon bureaucrats who work for a Non Government Organization. People who are much more accountable to the Executive Branch, i.e the President, than the people.

This Executive Order is ominously similar in its stated purposes to those listed by the UN in its Agenda 21; which is basically a means for redistribution of property according to the dictates of another person's understanding of morality. In the past, as now, those who raised concern about the intentions of the UN's Agenda 21 were, and are, alluded to as only the chimerical fancies of right wing conspiratorial freaks. Nonetheless, Agenda 21 is a policy the UN pursued, and continues to pursue, and Obama's order falls in step with it. Again, Americans would do well this Fourth to take time to review the their Declaration of Independence. To understand the Intolerable Acts and other British policies. To question why such actions by the British government angered their ancestors so much before they ignorantly get along and go along policy by policy, executive order by executive order, quasi legislative authority by quasi legislative authority into a top down form of government entirely at adds with their rights protecting Constitution.

In 1776, Americans began a hazardous journey upon which there were no guarantees. Fear gave way to hope and led by the greatest assembly of statesmen the world has ever seen, they declared and won independence. They established a nation based on the rule of law with a wonderful balance of federal power to provide for the common defense and at the same time establish an environment friendly to individual liberty, innovation, and commerce.

The Articles of Confederation were a clear example of why too weak a central government was not ideal. On the other side of the same coin of ruin is government excess. This is the crisis Americans now face. Empowering the government too much weakens our freedom and limits options. The ability to run and hide from this expanding monster is shrinking. If an awakening does not occur soon, those who want to be left alone will find it more and more difficult to obtain that desire, if not impossible, as measures such as those mentioned above become policy. These "progressive changes," to put it in the politically correct vernacular, are in their earliest stages. The harvest, good or bad, has yet to be reaped. With the kind of authority the government, and those politically connected private interests driven by ideology, are growing, we have to hope and pray for a benevolent dictator. For nearly all the avenues for the abuse of power are dilating at an alarming rate. The checks and balances of our brilliant Constitutional Order are being systematically removed as Americans continue to deprive themselves of even a rudimentary understanding of American Civics and the proper role of government as it pertains to themselves and their families. The alteration of the justice system by how justices are elected will bring a brand of politics to America'scities, towns, and rural communities that is alien and detached from the People. It empowers the few at the expense of the many. Add to this the unaccountable agents of federal agencies and its NGO partners that are now empowered to direct the affairs of small town communities and Americans now have something their Founding Fathers would defy vehemently - tyranny.  This Independence Day celebrate by at least spending a few reflective moments reading the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and become reacquainted with their precepts. As America's Founding Fathers would have said, "It is a sacred duty."

Memorial Day

2011-05-30T20:25:00.002-06:00

Amérique, Amérique

2011-05-22T20:17:00.017-06:00

Voluntary virtue as opposed to state imposed virtue can be expressed as the difference between personal liberty and state servitude. Compelled virtue, as would come from the brand of government proposed by today’s crop of politicians, entertainers, and teachers, is no virtue at all, it is simply an expression of forced servitude.

Alexis De Tocqueville said in his introduction to “Democracy in America” “Among the novel objects that attracted my attention during my stay in the United States, nothing struck me more forcibly than the general equality of condition among the people. I readily discovered the prodigious influence that this primary fact exercises on the whole course of society; it gives a peculiar direction to public opinion and a peculiar tenor to the laws; it imparts new maxims to the governing authorities and peculiar habits to the governed. I soon perceived that the influence of this fact extends far beyond the political character and the laws of the country, and that it has no less effect on civil society than on the government; it creates opinions, gives birth to new sentiments, founds novel customs, and modifies whatever it does not produce. The more I advanced in the study of American society, the more I perceived that this equality of condition is the fundamental fact from which all others seem to be derived and the central point at which all my observations constantly terminated.” It seems from De Tocueville’s overall thesis outlined in “Democracy in America” that the critical “central point” from which the American people so impressed him was a form of moral freedom that lead to a higher level of social virtue. Setting aside the academic Philistines and their 20-20 hindsight theses as well as the grant boards that approve funding for their groping studies, America’s greatest asset is the liberty of the common man who is self tempered by morality. No one has accomplished this as fully as the United States of America.

There is justified concern about our future economic prospects owing to our substantial and exponentially growing national debt and the limitations of Keynesian economic theory to curb deflationary pressures on a cyclical economy that needs to reset to a healthy equilibrium. Equally, if not more concerning, is our nation’s growing deficit of personal morality, which I would confidently argue coincides with the decline of the nation’s Christian character. This decline is exemplified in a host of social maladies, many of which aren’t necessarily new, but are simply more prevalent. It manifests itself very clearly in the national breakdown of the nuclear family. Societal changes in social norms and the decline of agrarianism account for changes in the roles of individual family members within individual family units, but they don't account for dysfunction and family dissolution on such a large scale. One need not look long in the pages of the once well studied New Testament to find doctrines that, if lived sincerely even if imperfectly, would prove far more effective than any government program or advocacy group could do with unlimited budgets. These empower government agencies, whereas the personal morality taught by the Gospels empowers the individual to do right of his own accord without having to yield his sovereignty to an agency. A person could spend a fortune to obtain a degree in the social sciences and not for profit counseling certifications yet not garner anything more profound or socially healthy as the simple, easy to understand Golden Rule taught in Sunday School for free - unless you count voluntary donations. John Adams said, "...because we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

The United States collectively has been a nation that operated within the parameters of Judeo-Christian philosophy. There are, as with anything, exceptions that stand apart from this aggregate reality. But the sum total of those exceptions compared to the sum total of cultural norms does not a rule make; a truth the academic community would do well to remember. John Locke said, "if (a person) be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to no body, why will he part with his freedom? Why will he give up this empire, and subject himself to the dominion and control of any other power?" It is the essence of that reality that our Founding Fathers and those who inspired them termed the principle of Natural Law. As with other important concepts that formulate our unique American intellectual identity, the understanding of this critical principle is also on the decline. There is also an alarming rise in the number of Americans who fail to grasp the concept that without economic freedom a nation can not maintain political freedom.

But the aggregate reality is rapidly altering as ideals America at one time embraced, such as Locke's ideal of the common man's nobility and individual worth, fades from America's self understanding. Filling the vacuum created by the loss of our Judeo-Christian traditions is the flimsy philosophy of moral relativism and nihilism. Changes of this kind within American culture spur on a perceptible decline in the moral virtue of the body politic. This affects all levels of our country; but more importantly, it affects our individual and family relationship with our country's institutions. These institutions must exert greater and greater efforts to curtail the decreasing governable character of a growing percentage of the citizenry. This is evident in the continual decline of the relevancy of the 4th Amendment which protects us from unlawful searches and seizures.

Members of a certain political party and persuasion are amassing a federal behemoth that is becoming ever more entrenched and is increasingly exposing itself as diametrically opposed to freedom - even while chanting the words “rights,” “justice,” and “democracy.” The notion that economic freedom and production side economics is evil has all the momentum. This movement enjoys the power of persuasion through pop culture which accelerates it towards its goal of command and control, top down government of the sort that impoverishes swaths of people. When I say economic freedom, I don’t imply corporatism and or cronyism, in which politically connected global corporations receive special favors and consideration. “Too big to fail” is not the mantra of private property, quite the contrary. I mean freedom to take an idea to as level a playing field as possible with the reasonable hope for a potential return exceeding the initial investment. Certainty of the right to retain that reward, the right to private property, for personal use and investment is a vital piece of the market incentive.

With the movement that would stifle this form of economic freedom there can be no compromise. However, to those individuals who are swept up in its current of misinformation, cleverness, and half truths, there can be substantive teaching opportunities and chances to convince or reclaim them to the cause of liberty. If many of these people understood a lack of political freedom is the byproduct of a lack of economic freedom they may not be so zealous in their war on capitalism. In like manner, if the American people as a whole can rekindle their faith, and in so doing their personal morality and virtue, there will follow a massive shift in the national psyche relating to the role of government and its proper place.

As I read "Democracy in America" I could not help but imagine the country De Tocqueville described as a wonderful place to live peopled with citizens of a goodly nature. That wonderful country, America, has now so shifted in its character as to hardly resemble the nation De Tocqueville extolled and sought for his own country to emulate. This shift has gained frightening momentum. Contemporary American attitudes more closely resemble those of the nineteenth century French that De Tocqueville found so destructive to stable, healthy democracy than those of our forefathers. This unfortunate turn did not happen in a vacuum and neither will the restoration of the often unspoken principles and attitudes that can reverse it. Politics will not accomplish this. It cannot. The shift must be cultural in nature and must involve a willing return to our Judeo-Christian roots. No one need suppose by that statement I mean an unreasonable, zombie-like religious zealotry; we have plenty of that in other parts of the world and it's as suffocating to freedom as is socialism and communism. If America wishes to retain its fading inheritance, a natural, organic movement back towards founding principles needs to occur. Then the politics will naturally follow.

And You, Superman?

2011-04-29T12:18:00.003-06:00

It was recently announced that Superman, the Man of Steel, will renounce his U.S. Citizenship in Action Comics. Art and entertainment, sadly, affects the politics of far too many Americans. Not long ago, the people at Marvel Comics killed off Captain America. The upcoming movie about the Captain America character wrote into the narrative a diminishing of his Americanism. Does the irony in that need mention of? G.I. Joe, the action figure formerly known as a Real American Hero, a couple years ago was not an American Hero. He was part of some global force for government lacking transparency and accountability to a civilian authority.

Rather than go into how all this demonstrates the status of our nation's psychology, or psychosis, I'll just comment. I remember a Bugs Bunny cartoon in which our hero, Bugs, found some carrots that scientists had experimented with. When our hero ate them, he gained super powers, similar to Superman. He had the goofy suit and the flowing cape; the whole shah bang. After a bunch of mayhem ensues in which Bugs dodges a hunter and his horse ally, Bugs looses the cigar holder full of carrots. Tragically, the carrots with the super strength additives, doubtlessly NOT FDA approved, fall into the hands of his adversaries. They eat them all. With their chests bulging, fists clinched in heroic superhero pose, and teeth gritted, they make ready to beat Bugs to a pulp. Momentarily stunned, Bugs Bunny shakes off his shock and declares, "This is a job for a REAL super hero!" He dashes to a phone booth, and comes out in full Marine dress uniform singing the Marine anthem.

Since Superman renounced his citizenship he was deported back to his place of origin. This is a letter mailed to Superman via the tax payer subsidized IPS (Interplanetary Postal Service). The face on the stamp I used was Che in a heroic pose. I asked for a stamp of Washington but was told he was an imperialist and if I asked again I'd be put on a list of potential trouble makers.

Krypton
Attention: Superman
600 Cosmic Fictional Drive

RE: The Enlightened Planet That Destroyed Itself and Somehow It's Sole Survivor Thinks He's the End All

Dear Superman,

You have devolved from a fun fictional character who inspired patriotism and defending liberty to a fictional global self important goof. You sir, are a loser, as are the Utopian dunces who give you life. You began as a hero, and have achieved the status of failure. It hurt when Benedict Arnold, a war hero and great leader of men fighting for the cause of independence and liberty, turned on our forefathers at a critical time. It likewise stings to have this kind of back stabbing from a fictional ally. But by thunder, we'll go on without you without apology when we advocate - Truth, Justice, and the American Way. As the real heroes say, Semper Fidelis. Always Faithful. Unlike you.

To The Triarii

P.S. Don't let the door hit you in the cape on the way out.

Is That John Galt?

2011-04-28T08:18:00.000-06:00

“Who is John Galt?” Good question. Largely due to the political atmosphere, Ayn Rand’s dystopian opus, Atlas Shrugged, is making a cultural comeback of sorts. Recently, Atlas Shrugged, Part I, directed by Paul Johansson, was given a limited release on the silver screen. The panning of the film on Rotten Tomatoes, far from a conservative bastion, is laughably predictable given the capitalist friendly, pro wealth narrative of Rand‘s vision. That being said, I have not seen the film, and though I intend to watch it when possible, I expect to see a well intentioned project that made due with limited financial resources. That is to say, a so - so film, better than the critics want to believe, perhaps an Indie-like film. Even so, it has the potential to be a breakthrough kind of project with a crucial message the country needs to hear and understand presented in a format long dominated by contrarian views. For too long people who dislike or even hate the United States have controlled the narrative in entertainment and it is costing us things we may never be able to recover, like a Constitutional order under the rule of law. There is such a vacuum of civics understanding in such a large percentage of the voting public that it's now a crisis. Additionally, it seems schools are trending toward a troubling social justice ideology and revisionist history platform. The result is a rising generation of Americans with little understanding of the Wealth of Nations or the Rights of Man - Concepts that were key to the unprecedented, spectacular rise of America as a world leader. Nor is there an intuitive understanding of the vital differences between negative liberties, such as those guaranteed by the Bill of Rights under a government that upholds the Constitution, and the enslaving positive liberties that get such raving academic and media support. Too many Americans have no idea what removing the Constitutional shield that protected them from government will mean in the years to come. Politics alone can’t turn this corrosive trend. Talented people who love liberty in the media must invest more in films, music, and books to shatter the collectivist monopoly on the narrative in the entertainment industry. In essence, people who value freedom will have to learn to “dance faster than the white clown…” as Bradbury stated in his own dystopian opus, Fahrenheit 451. By affecting the culture, the politics will follow. It is an unfortunate reality that freedom has to be advertised thus, but there it is.

“Who is John Galt?” Well, a radio program that sounded suspiciously like NPR (see my earlier post), tried to answer that unforgotten query this morning. Rather than do a full play by play of the questions and responses of the various guests and callers, I’ll summarize. First, all of the callers hated Ayn Rand and the Republican Party. Predictable? Of course. Second, the callers lacking intellectual confidence detoured from the meat of the debate, the reason for the resurging interest in Rand’s books and simply went for subjective insults. For example, a man called opponents of collectivism “infantile.“ A woman called Atlas Shrugged the realm of “teenage intellectuals.“ These jabs are subjective because the same terminology can boomerang and describe their world view and the media which validates that view for them. It’s fun to use adjectives like these but ultimately they are useless, unhelpful pejoratives that don‘t move the debate anywhere. Others simply derided her human inconsistencies. Third, were the commentators and callers who touched on Rand’s atheism and dislike of Christianity in an attempt to marginalize Rand sympathizers. It was pretty clear the purpose of several caller and commentator attacks on Ayn Rand weren’t to denigrate her, per say, but rather to assault what they perceived as a dangerous threat to their illusory utopian hopes - a visible cultural phenomenon espousing a contrarian poison to their ideological hegemony. They challenged the notion that Christian Americans could support her philosophy of individual empowerment and free market economics even when she was an espoused atheist. It was stated as if Rand’s atheist faith produced a contradiction sufficient to put to rest any validity of her free market message in the minds of those pesky Christian libertarians and conservatives - as if her espoused different faith negated her ideals and world view, regardless of how sound some of them might be to the faithful Christian reader. Notice, these kinds of questions had no relevance with the why - that is - why Ayn Rand has made a kind of come back in the public eye. But side topics such as these took a lot of airtime that otherwise might have been allotted to address those all important whys, such as individual freedom, inalienable rights, national sovereignty, a Constitutional order of government, risk and reward free markets, personal responsibility, volunteerism, the destructive tendencies of crony capitalism, and equal protection under the Rule of Law to name a few. It’s important to note the vast majority of Americans who connect with Rand are most likely not Ayn Rand purists but find the overall message in her narrative consistent with their cherished views of the ideals of private property and the Rule of Law established by our nation’s Founders. This leads to the actual philosophical variances the voices on the radio eventually discussed. The ideological arguments employed against those sympathetic with Rand’s view of meritocracy were ultimately unimpressive, and ironically, they very much resembled the arguments Rand put in the mouths of the impeding antagonists who appear throughout the 1,300 pages of Atlas Shrugged.

The root cause of Rand revivalism, a reaction to a command and control economy, is a critical fault line dividing America today. It represents the blossoming of the conflict between two irreconcilable ideologies that will be at war with one another until one emerges the victor. The outcome is still in question, but for reasons cited in my opening paragraph, the momentum is on the side of collectivism. As so clearly stated in today’s radio interview by one of the commentators, “Taxing the rich is a popular position. Tax cuts for the rich is politically untenable.“ Indeed it is. The “Tax the rich” collectivist rallying cry was parroted throughout the program. As I listened, I was reminded of Fiddler on the Roof. In Act One, Tevye says to a wandering intellectual, Perchik, “You know it’s no crime being poor.“ Revolutionary minded Perchik replies, “It is the rich who are the criminals…Some day their wealth will be ours.“ To which Tevye simply says, “If they would agree I would agree!“ Ah, Tevye, my friend, there are many people in desperate need of your simple wisdom.

The Muck Behind the Mask

2011-03-10T10:29:00.001-07:00

Philosophical food for thought. "The soul of every scoundrel is gladdened whenever an honest man is assailed, or even when a scoundrel is untruthfully assailed...The fool who has not sense to discriminate between what is good and what is bad is well as dangerous as the man who does discriminate and yet chooses the bad," Teddy Roosevelt, April 14, 1906, delivered in a speech titled, "The Man With the Muck Rake." So, what is good and what is bad? There's the rub, and the basis of an ideology.

James O'Keefe recently released a video of NPR executives making some embarrassing statements.  The method used to obtain the footage is highly controversial along lines similar to Julian Assange and Wikileaks in that the means and consequences may be frowned upon but the information released is impossible to ignore.  A couple of the more unfortunate sweeping generalizations expressed by Ron Schiller, a senior vice president of NPR were, "The current Republican Party, particularly the Tea Party, is fanatically involved in people's personal lives and very fundamental Christian. I wouldn't even call it Christian. It's this weird evangelical kind of movement." He also stated, with the nodding agreement of another NPR executive seen sitting next to Schiller, that people with ideological philosophies sympathetic with the Tea Party were, "Xenophobic, I mean basically they are; they believe in sort of white, middle-America gun-toting. I mean, it's scary. They're seriously racist, racist people."

Set aside the substance of these outrageous claims and take a moment to look at the soil from which such opinions grow. These two statements express an attitude that has been detectable in NPR's programming for years, as well as, it may be argued without too much difficulty, much of the entertainment industry and news media in general. Schiller was let go as a result of these comments, or rather, in consequence of his comments being made public. Pretense is apparently still a modus operandi of NPR, but National Public Radio, receiver of both private donations and public funding, is going to have a difficult time maintaining its already suspect air of objectivity. Personally, I don't like that Schiller was fired over these comments any more than I approved of NPR firing contributor Juan Williams for comments he made regarding airport security and Muslim travelers last year. Williams' statements were made on air in the course of a debate, and in a controversial move, NPR interpreted his comments as being too provocative to Muslim sensitivities and canned him. Circumstances surrounding Ron Schiller were substantially different. He was in a setting in which he felt he could safely express his real point of view with no filter. Schiller, in my opinion, merely expressed the ideology of the corporate culture that permeates most of the organization which engrossed his professional life. He just got caught when the music stopped without a chair. The opinion he expressed, however sympathetic his superiors may have been to it, was disavowed.

NPR is an interesting animal. It is the subject of much criticism from conservative thinkers, and is sacrosanct to many people who fancy themselves sophisticated, cosmopolitan intellectuals. For myself, its programming used to be an informative and even relaxing part of my morning.  Having grown up in a home with a father dedicated to public education as an administrator I was no stranger to NPR programming, the nightly news, or a variety of news periodicals such as Time, Nat Geo, and Newsweek.  These all contributed to many family discussions and influenced my own personal views of the world. Years ago, however, I turned NPR off.  I rarely visit that part of the dial beyond the Saturday Morning Edition and Car Talk any longer.  There were several reasons for this. First, I found myself more and more in disagreement with NPR's concept of what constituted a news story's angle.  This, I think, was and is a crucial aspect of unexpressed bias. The framework of a story was often skewed to support a particular political point of view at variance with my own. Fair enough. Parts of the story were emphasized and other parts were given minor mention or altogether omitted.  Fair enough. Most likely this manifestation of bias was probably unconscious and influenced by the invisible hand of corporate culture aligned with an ideological world view as opposed to a conscious decision to push an agenda.  Fair enough. Second, the condescending tone began to be insufferable. Fair enough. I can and have been condescending too, although I have made it a point to be less so.  These were, and still are, forgivable offenses. I'm a firm believer in the first amendment so opinions that challenge a particular world view are as worthy of protection as those that support it. The third, and truly the reason for my turning the dial, was the snarky attitude that NPR was objective and unbiased. That was the kicker. It wasn't the subtle opinion that bled through and the selective reporting that ended my listenorship. It was the pious, disingenuous mask of sophisticated objectivity.

The language this man, Mr. Schiller, used is certainly not new.  These kinds of labels have been applied to the Tea Party in the New York Times, the LA Times, the Wall Street Journal (although it's preferable word was xenophobe, not racist), and even Marvel Comics. The list of name callers is a long one. It would be a fascinating study to analyze the television, NPR, and newspaper reporting done of the Tea Party rallies during the health care debate and contrast it to the reporting of the recent public union rallies, which by the way, got alarmingly out of hand yesterday far beyond anything the Tea Party protesters ever did.

Incidentally, I gave NPR another whirl a few months ago and was assailed with a story about a publicly funded design contest in New York for condoms.  The Saturday Morning Edition and the upbeat and fun Car Talk are more than enough public radio for me.

Let My People Go! Who's Asking?

2011-02-05T13:19:00.000-07:00

The events in the Middle East have been something of a watershed in world history. Whether it's for the better or worse remains to be seen. Egypt is of particular significance to the United States due to its shared border with Israel and Egyptian influence over the Suez Canal. Stability in the Middle East is an American imperative due to the rich oil supply and American lack of energy/oil independence. The United States has a fairly strong alliance with Egypt and Israel a cold peace. The eruptions and protests that exploded this past week in Egypt make its future an enigma. As someone who loathes arbitrary rule and totalitarianism watching it implode is exciting. But, understanding the nature of revolutions, one has to wonder once the farmer is tossed off the farm if there isn’t a Napoleon and Snowball waiting in the wings. The situation on the ground has been a mixture of euphoria and widespread lawlessness – theft, destruction of state and private property, and violence. All of this may be a blowing off of pent up steam and the actual beginning of a liberal democracy. That, however, would be contrary to what's followed revolutions in other middle eastern countries over the past several decades. The terrorist organization Hezbollah, for a recent example, won elections in Lebanon in 2005. The displacement of the Shah of Iran back in the Carter era gave rise to the anti Western government now lead by Ahmadinejad. On a side note, it seems odd that there was little support from Western leaders when demonstrators organized against that regime in Tehran. For Egypt, there are few, if any, relevant political organizations capable of filling the power/administrative vacuum outside of the military and the Muslim Brotherhood. In an environment where it’s hard to get food and thugs threaten families and homes it’s all too easy to give credence to the wrong kind of leadership. Still, a secular democracy is what we hope for – not just for the Egyptians – but for Israel and everyone else. We have to hope Egyptians plug there ears when Napoleon, or whatever name he calls himself, starts oinking.

The Long Walk

2011-01-24T19:10:00.005-07:00

"The Way Back," a film based on the book, "The Long Walk, The True Story of a Trek to Freedom," was recently released. In spite of reasonably solid reviews its performance at the Box Office is so far disappointing.

Peter Weir, the film's director, has an impressive resume. "Witness," "Dead Poet's Society," and "The Mosquito Coast" to name a few. The quality of his work in film does not age. "Dead Poet's Society" holds up as well today as when it was released. "Master and Commander," the last film Weir directed, was a beautiful film. Some thought it a little slow, or even boring, and they may have been unsatisfied with the story arc. But for me, it was like watching an engrossing oil painting set in motion. There are few, if any films, that capture the essence of life at sea when England fought to rule the waves as effectively. Given the quality of his prior films, I think that Weir's recent work, "The Way Back," will be a movie that will grow in the minds of the movie going public.

If Weir was able to capture an era and place for "The Way Back" as effectively as he did in "Master and Commander" then I'll be satisfied from a movie goer's perspective. But the story itself is more than a mere movie going experience. "The Way Back" is based on a book written in the nineteen-fifties by ghost writer Ron Downing. Downing had originally been searching for stories about the Yeti. This lead him to a man who claimed to have crossed the Himalayas. Downing based "The Long Walk" on his interviews with the man from Poland, Slawomir Rawicz, to whom his Yeti research had lead. Downing determined that the story he wanted to tell wasn't about the Yeti; rather it was Rawicz's trek over the Himalayas, and more importantly, the reason for the incredible feat. Rawicz recounted an escape from a Soviet Siberian labor camp and a harrowing journey through snow blanketed Siberia, into vast deserts, and over the Himalayan mountains. It was an incredible story of survival. I read "The Long Walk" a couple of years ago and recently read it again. It does detract from the awe of the story that there is solid evidence to suggest Rawicz's part in the story was false. True or not, it is a striking piece of literature and Rawicz tells his story from the well of the human soul. The result is a poetic expression of an understanding of, and genuine compassion for, people who act not only heroically, but kindly in the direst of circumstances. On the surface this focus on human compassion seems odd, given the nature of his experience, or the experience of his character, as a captive of the Soviet Union and the depradations suffered from the gulags, the forced march, and the labor camp.

Whether it was Rawicz who experienced the happenings depicted in the book, or his recounting of another's experiences, or if altogether fiction, I can't say definitively. It's hard, however, to accept that the entire story was fabricated. Some things are difficult to manufacture from pure fiction. I find many of the small, seemingly unimportant objects noticed by Rawicz's character striking and perceptive. Rawicz has a genuine affection for the characters he claims to have suffered severe hardship with.

Be it as it may, fiction, partial fiction, or truthful, the book is well worth the time to read it. Once read, it will never be forgotten. As for transferring this story to the big screen there are a couple critical elements that I hope Weir incorporates in his interpretation. While the hardship and toil certainly draw attention to the story, it was that ever present Christian charity, so often expressed in small but powerful ways that was the heart and soul of Rawicz's book. The picture Rawicz paints is a scathing rebuke of Marxist philosophy, something that is taboo or even heretical in today's Hollywood. Nonethess, to be true to the author's intent, it should be blatantly clear in the film to stay true to the source material. It should also be evident that Rawicz was proud of his beloved Poland and made no apologies for his love of his homeland. This notion of unabashed nationalism often expressed by Rawicz, or his character, is of itself anethema to Marxist and Leninist doctrine, both of which invisioned the elimination of sovereign states and the rise of a global proletarian dictatorship. (Stalin's brand of communism was much different and far more Russian nationalist owing to the events of WWII.) These underlying themes are what drove the character to endure such hardship. It wasn't for fun or adventure. It was to find a path back to the free democracies of the West.

If the film is a film about survival in a harsh environment only, it will be a long, tedious trek of misery - even if it is beautifully filmed. We might as well have some fun and watch a few episodes of "Man vs. Wild" and "Survivorman" then debate who's best at entertaing and who's best at surviving. But if the film incorporates the underlying themes of the source material, it will be an uplifting experience and a good reminder of how precious liberty is and what a man will endure to find it again once its lost.

My response to the responses of the Arizona tragedy.

2011-01-18T06:25:00.002-07:00

The President’s speech last week was probably the most statesman-like I’ve heard him give to date. It was inclusively worded and well delivered. I personally found some of the comments of the individual who gave the invocation a bit strange and inconsistent with a solemn memorial service, but that’s just me.

It is interesting that the focus of the story is often centered on what inspired Jared Loughner's grotesque act of madness. Understandably, I suppose. But I wonder what inspired two of the victims to stand fully exposed between their wives and the lunatic armed with an automatic weapon? Or what inspired a retired old Guardsman and several others, in spite of injuries to themselves, to tackle him? What inspired Americans in that Congressional district to not riot in the wake of a near assassination of such a visible public figure? To me, this is a compelling part of the story and a silver lining around an ugly storm cloud and cause for further reflection.

As for any argument laying the blame at the feet of anyone other than the pan-stricken murderer there is one word I’ll use, though others come to mind – inappropriate. This is a part of the tragedy that concerns me because it could easily be compounded by manipulative pundits and well meaning people alike. It may bring something that is distantly sorrowful to a pervasive intrusion that is closer to home. The Constitution clearly states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

It’s clear the direction the Constitution gives the legislative branch regarding free speech – leave it alone. And I think Congress will, but what about the office of the President? Here, I think is a point of concern and this largely stems from the decades long arbitrary expansion of Executive privilege via Executive Orders and the agencies that enforce them. Contrary to the evidence, let’s assume Loughner did listen to talk radio or read conservative blogs. Would any person who values free speech actually support curtailing political discourse? Would a sidestep of the first amendment through the Executive branch to silence Glenn Beck, or Rush, or the combustible Michael Savage under the guise of national security halt all violent acts of lunacy? Hardly. Do a simple cost benefit analysis. Where does such power to curtail speech and public discourse end? Who decides what constitutes practicing hyperbole without a license and conduct unbecoming a pundit? Who handles oversight of such a powerful apparatus and how do we guarantee its transparency? Let’s go further. What about detestable pornographers and their vile billion dollar industry? Are we going to establish commissions to review high profile cases of rape or infidelity? Using the logic of blaming public discourse and rhetoric for an act of violence could a woman not sue a porno king for emotional trauma because her husband watched porn and then cheated on her? She’d be a rich woman. Furthermore, can a case not be made about wrongful influence of violent television, profanity laced rap music, harsh toned metal music, violent video games, violent movies, violent anime, T-shirts with skulls, ultimate fighting, football, and every other contact sport? What about not outlawing the message itself to preserve the guise of freedom of speech but regulate the mode of delivery to death? Does this sound Constitutionally sound? Is it reflective of a liberty loving nation? Not to me.

It’s easy to state accusations to vent frustration and anguish over a horrible tragedy like what occurred in Arizona, and it’s equally easy to be a detached observer far from the loss of one whose loved ones suffer from loss or crippling injury. That said, I prefer to live in a free country with its risks. Why? Because while I keep a weather eye on the government, in America, the majority of my countrymen would put themselves between the occasional armed madman and a loved one. We, liberals and conservatives alike, are not Jared Loughner and do not deserve to be treated like it, nor do those whose political views are not consistent with our own. Lay the blame upon the person to whom it belongs and let people have their voice.

2010-11-11T20:57:00.000-07:00

The other day I drove past Washington City's office building. The small but attractive city building stands adjacent to a small park carpeted with lush green grass and a few shade trees. In the center of the park stood about fifty American flags. The beautiful red, white, and blue banners were arranged such that each flag seemed to represent a man standing in formation among his fallen brethren. Today is Veteran's Day. I hope we all noticed the flags, and more importantly, what they stand for. Never forget, ever, that we live in a nation that would not exist at all, save it were for the scared young man who refused to leave his post and was often rewarded with death or loss of limb for his courage. Never forget, never take it lightly, that that young man put himself between his nation and the unfeeling dragon. God bless our veterans. God comfort their families whose sacrifice is no less courageous. God bless our nation with men now and always who are possessed of the degree of charity necessary to serve and defend. Thank you to every Marine, Airman, Sailor, and Soldier of every race, color, creed, or religion who served or serves diligently our beloved America.

Connivance of a Clown

2010-09-25T15:47:00.001-06:00

Rather than busy myself with a lengthy explanation on what ought to be painfully obvious about unbecoming behavior exhibited by members of Congress exemplified by a certain head of a Congressional Committee via her invitation to an in-character, under-oath-testimony from a certain court jester I'll ask a question: Who was Incitatus?

The Dough Boys

2010-05-31T20:34:00.006-06:00

What do you see in this old vet's eyes? He doesn't seem too imposing does he? There's an interesting piece of WWI history I read some years ago about the Dough Boys. It took America some time to get into the first world war. America watched from afar as Europe decimated the flower of its youth in trenches and open fields that were gradually bombarded to a fine powder. Neither side ever gained a real tactical advantage but the Germans were able to obtain the upper hand. That is, until the Dough Boys got in their way. Three out of four of these American young men could not shoot at the German soldiers who advanced upon them, and that to me reveals a beautiful characteristic of our Nation. Many around the world may see this gentle nature as weakness or may think it a lack of conviction, but I say the opposite. The rugged Germans, by that time battle hardened and experienced, were unable to break the lines of their unshakable American counterparts. This little detail is unfortunately all but forgotten today as are the Dough Boys that made up the American Expeditionary Force in Europe nearly a hundred years ago. Whatever the underlying political machinations that direct our men into war may have been or may be, it is my conviction our servicemen are, by and large, goodly men of good spiritual character who do not delight in bloodshed nor the terror of those who stand opposite them on the battlefield. Their character and courage are reflective of the nation in which they are raised. Too many of us see only the skewed, perverted point of view that Hollywood presents to us. I hope we'll remember or seek to learn the true nature of our Grandfathers, Fathers, Uncles, Cousins, Brothers, and Sons, in short, our Countrymen.

For an outstanding, unbiased and nonpolitical inside look into the efforts of our present day servicemen and women in the War on Terror, go to www.michaelyon-online.com.

Memorial Day

2010-05-29T16:59:00.004-06:00

Today, outside the grocery store, a pleasant old man with an American Legion cap handed out little hand crafted poppies made of crepe paper and wire. After being ignored by a hurried shopper, his wife asked me if I would please take one. I accepted. She took one of the little handmade flowers out of a plastic bucket and with a kindly smile gave it to me. My eyes burned a little and my throat constricted. I thanked her and went inside the store. A few minutes later, as I left, I again witnessed several shoppers entering the store. The long weekend seemed to give them a one track mind. Several ignored the old man's and his wife's attempts to give them a poppy. I saw a young mother pushing her grocery cart past pause and take the small token from the old veteran. I twisted the wire stem of the flower in my hand as I walked back to my truck. I read the attached tag, "Hand-Made By Veterans." I reflected on the meaning of the poppy flower I held and the meaning of the poem it symbolizes.

Go Lakers

2010-05-12T07:41:00.001-06:00

Last week I became a short term Lakers fan. Yes, me. A long time Utah Jazz stalwart. How did this happen? How could this happen? The Jazz were dominated by a superior Laker team. Pau Gasol has the most annoying facial expressions and reactions since Vlade Divac. How could I possibly cheer for a tall Neanderthal like him when he plays against Amare Stoudemire, one of my favorite NBA ballers? The answer is this: the Suns‘ organization‘s capitulation to the illegal immigrant lobby by altering their team‘s jersey from “Phoenix Suns“ to “Los Suns” on Cinco de Mayo. This was openly done to express political opposition to the state of Arizona's recent illegal immigration bill. Phil Jackson’s chastising call for an apolitical NBA forced my hand to favor the Lakers. “Basketball Without Borders” is fine, Steve Nash. Nations without borders is an entirely different animal. Stick to putting a ball in a cylinder and running a pick and roll.

I could get into the federal government’s constitutional obligation to secure and defend the nation’s sovereign border. I could get into the fact that the Arizona law that sparked the “Los Suns” foolishness does nothing above and beyond what federal law would do if it were enforced. I could get into a long, long line of reasoning why E Pluribus Unum is so vital to national stability and heavily support it with historical precedent. I could do a long overview of how commonality of language is a key element of national unity. I could write pages and pages of the long term dangers involved with the Balkanization of the United States. I could compare and contrast the attitude of the immigrants of yesteryear with the attitudes too many immigrants harbor today and could rest my case on last week’s incident in the Morgan Hill school district. I could analyze the increasing personal need of far too many Americans to be victims of some “ism” or other and its impact on the national psyche. I could address the race relation damages caused by race baiters like agitator Al Sharpton. I could give my heartfelt conviction that the race of the American doesn’t matter. I could declare in the best prose I possess that only his or her allegiance to the Constitution‘s original intent and American tradition are my concern, not ethnicity, not race. I could give substantive reasoning and evidence supporting everything I write and the people who oppose American sovereignty and independence and support the illegal immigrant lobby and a Balkanized America will simply say, “You racist.” Their argument boils down to a prejudicial pejorative, so why bother? Go Lakers.

Exodus to Freedom

2010-04-03T13:16:00.000-06:00

"And the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night. He took not away the pillar of the cloud, nor the pillar of fire by night, from before the people," Exodus 13: 21-22.

To the Chief Judge

2010-03-29T20:27:00.002-06:00

"I seek not for power, but to pull it down. I seek not for honor of the world, but for the glory of my God, and the freedom and welfare of my country." The name of the man quoted and the book within which the quote is found will, for now, remain unsaid. I have posted it here for this reason - there comes a time for strength in defense of that which is just and true. So it has been with good men from Adam to the present day. There are times to compromise, and just as truly, there are truths that can not be compromised. For if we feebly attempt to compromise fallacy with eternal truths then we must take our shameful place with the coward and the traitor. As Einstein said, "it's not the bad people that make the world evil, it is the good people who do nothing." Arise, and be men.

Crossing the Rubicon, Dear Mr. Imperator

2010-03-27T13:39:00.009-06:00

March 22, 2010

The White House
Attention: Mr. President Barak Obama

RE: The Rubicon, The Die are Cast!

Dear Mr. President,

In an unprecedented shove to the chest of the American People, the Democratic Party passed, on a Sunday no less, arguably the largest seizure of states’ and citizens’ power in American history - certainly since the poverty inducing New Deal. In response to Speaker Pelosi’s triumphal procession through the Tea Party protesters as she sported a maniacal grin and wielded a massive gavel, the question is raised: Do you think youself, the members of your cabinet, your czars, the Speaker, and the Senate Majority Leader can ignore the American People indefinitely? How long can you trample federalism and the Constitution under your feet? From what hidden power do you arrogantly assume to insult, intimidate, and mock Americans with impunity?

I begin with a profound quote from an historic piece of Western literature, "The obvious definition of a monarchy seems to be that of a state in which a single person, by whatsoever name he may be distinguished, is entrusted with the execution of the laws, the management of the revenue, and the command of the army. But unless public liberty is protected by intrepid and vigilant guardians, the authority of so formidable a magistrate will soon degenerate into despotism...A martial nobility and stubborn commons, possessed of arms, tenacious of property, and collected into constitutional assemblies, form the only balance capable of preserving a free constitution against the enterprises of an aspiring prince." Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, written, oddly enough, by the Englishman Edward Gibbons beginning in 1776. He completed his historical work in 1788. Quote taken from Chapter 11, "The Constitution in the Age of the Antonines."

This letter is directed to the President of the United States as well as those who serve in cabinet positions. The Stamp Act, as you may recall, passed through Parliament on March 22, 1765 - two hundred forty-five years ago today. It was the harbinger of "No taxation without representation!" Little did George Grenville of the House of Commons know the consequences of that ill fated stroke of the royal pen. Conversely, all too well did William Pitt know the repercussions of such an Act. Yet, the measure passed, and history began its inexorable march as discontent magnified appreciably under the weight and force of “The Intolerable Acts.” Arrogance and deafness cost the Crown its colonies.

Perhaps you will say in your preferred vernacular, “Condemn this man and his heresy to exile! This man insinuates revolt! This man is a traitor! This man tries to justify violence! ” Wrong. I am simply reciting history so it doesn’t repeat itself, Mr. President. Any sting, if indeed you are still capable of feeling such discomfort in consideration of your country‘s happiness and welfare, felt by the reading of American history must surely arise from a self imposed sense of guilt. Such a pang is, as I hope you’re still sensible enough to perceive, a sensation wrought by an unfolding understanding of harm and injustice committed against those whom you ought to consider your countrymen. The guilty take the truth to be hard and they rage against it by bearing all kind of false witness. Are you that manner of man?

So, in a figurative sense, allow me to jab my finger in your chest since you took such great pleasure in doing so to me. Under your administration, there has been an explosion of growth of federal power. This is an un-American and ominous trend our Founding Fathers would find reprehensible. Well was it said and affirmed by them, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. 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.

In reading these words, can you say your attitude toward government resembles the Founder's and Lincoln’s (whom you profess to pattern yourself after) vision of government of the People or is it more similar to the monarchical approach of King George? One begs answer to the question, are you naïve or possessed of an un-American spirit? Which is it? The jury is still out, but one truly hopes it is the former and not the latter, for one of these is surely more easily to forgive.

That Speaker Pelosi recited some of these words from the Declaration of Independence, poorly I might add, as an affirmation of her triumph over the American People was nothing short of blasphemy. For how can one who truly believes these words condemn American citizens to what will surely become a life of servitude under the all searching eye of a terrible master centralized in Washington D.C.? The answer is obvious, it cannot be. No one who believes in the wisdom of the Founding Generation of the United States would pass or support such an intrusive piece of legislation.

Americans, in voting in your favor by the slimmest of margins during the Presidential campaign, did not give you a mandate to destroy our Constitution and establish a foreign and alien government over them. Americans did not give you a blank check. They did not give you permission to trample the Constitution. Though it is commendable you kept your word by signing the Executive Order to further the guise of prohibiting federal dollars to pay for abortions, you do not have the authority to alter Congressional legislation. America looses either way, Mr. President. Either your dictatorial edict overrides the decision of our legislative body, or federal dollars are spent to simultaneously eradicate unwanted population growth and permit promiscuity of unbridled masses - furthering along the devastation of the nuclear family. The health care bill brought before you was either to be signed and affirmed as presented to you or vetoed. That’s the Constitutional procedure. Does the procedure matter to you, Mr. President? Was the procedure of Constitutional checks and balances politically inexpedient for you? The procedure, it would seem given yours and other prevalent Democrats’ posturing and behaviors, is irrelevant so long as your intolerable agenda moves along. Progressive! You say with fist and chin raised defiantly as if to the face of a hated enemy. I say regressive. Mr. President, regressive- as in decline. You are proving to be the President of decline which your scorned opponents said you‘d be. President of Decline is and will be your legacy unless you radically alter your attitude toward those whom you ought to deem your countrymen. That is and will be your legacy unless you make the necessary policy adjustments beginning with sticking to proper Constitutional procedures as well as defending those Constitutional procedures when attacked. Barak Obama, President of Decline will be your legacy unless you forsake the philosophy of a government of and for government and begin to govern with the consent of the governed. Infamy and ignominy will be yours unless you truly embrace hope and change your approach to government in thought, word, and deed.

I close with a couple of quotes that may or may not be appropriate. The first quote is taken from an old World War II book published in 1946; the contextual period was April 9 and 10, 1940, "The occupation of the Norwegian capital was a masterpiece of treachery. For months Germany had been scheming with a group of Norwegian traitors led by Major Vidkun Quisling. The invasion was brilliantly planned and executed. All strategic points were occupied simultaneously. The Norwegians, ill prepared for resistance, were dazed by the speed of the occupation and the paralysis of the machinery of government engineered by Quisling. The occupation of Oslo was typical, the forts in the fjord were given orders not to fire and the electrically controlled mines were disconnected. Air raid alarms sounded but the Nazi planes dropped leaflets, not bombs. The population was further deceived by the arrival of military bands which played steadliy for hours. Meanwhile tanks and guns had been poured into the city."

The second quote is one I've quoted before and one that every government official must reflectively confront before, during, and after making a decision. The terrible truth and accuracy of this quote is expressly confirmed in the above quote. It is from Marcus Tullius Cicero, a man who watched his nation tear its free republic to ribbons, said he, "A nation can survive its its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear."

Ursula

2010-03-22T19:10:00.001-06:00

Dej a vue

2010-03-22T19:03:00.001-06:00

The Stamp Act passed by Parliament on March 22, 1765 - two hundred forty-five years ago today.

It was the harbinger of "No taxation without reprsentation!"

"The obvious definition of a monarchy seems to be that of a state in which a single person, by whatsoever name he may be distinguished, is entrusted with the execution of the laws, the management of the revenue, and the command of the army. But unless public liberty is protected by intrepid and vigilant guardians, the authority of so formidable a magistrate will soon degenerate into despotism...A martial nobility and stubborn commons, possessed of arms, tenacious of property, and collected into constitutional assemblies, form the only balance capable of preserving a free constitution against enterprises of an aspiring prince." Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, written, oddly enough, by the Englishman Edward Gibbons beginning in 1776. He completed his historical work in 1788. Quote taken from Chapter 11, "The Constitution in the Age of the Antonines."

The Enemy Within

2010-03-22T09:01:00.001-06:00

http://www.terrellaftermath.com/

Dear Bureaucrat, Thanks but No Thanks

2010-03-20T17:03:00.001-06:00

Dear Congressman,

I do not ask your pardon. You do not answer to the President. You do not answer to the Speaker of the House. You do not answer to the Senate Majority Leader. You answer to the People of your District. Do not vote 'Yea' on the Senate bill. Government promises of its kind have been made before. It would be wrong to say government promises of greener grass on the government side of the hill end in misery. Wrong indeed, for the misery doesn't end. It endures and it swells like a malignant tumor. If you can't see the reality of cause and effect in terms of economic reality compared to classroom theory then you have no business being a U.S. Congressman. I voted for you before; that however, appears a mistake - especially as this abuse of federal power may come down to one or two votes.

You have not been outspoken in the defense of Constitutional law as it pertains to this, the singles largest expansion of federal power in the history of our Country and its inverse relationship with the Commerce Clause, Article I, Section 8. That is an outrage. It's even more of an outrage given this is not occurring in a vacuum. Case law has already circumvented Constitutional safeguards which could defend us from such despotic inroads as this health care legislation. The tenth Amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This is clear language as to the limits of federal power and the plenary powers of the individual states. Yet, as a bow-tie wearing buffoon said with a brushing wave of his hand on a news segment today, "The federal government's supremacy over the states has been decided by precedent." What better proof, what better demonstration, of the delusional nature of trust in restraint of government once it is granted extraordinary power. Giving government the reigns on health care, and student loans as well, is a shocking disservice to the next generation. It is impossible not to forsee the day, when all of these schemes dramatically fail and new planners plan new fixes, that some future bow-tied fool from the ranks of intelligentsia defends the next-gen legislative outrage on the grounds that the 2010 Health Care Bill set precedent that Congress has the right to regulate BOTH economic activity AND inactivity. Each generation will suffer under a larger and larger bureaucracy that encroaches more and more into their personal lives. Promise by promise, law by law, the day will come when states are no longer states, but provinces, when cities are no longer cities, but fiefdoms, when citizens are no longer citizens, but peasants, when America is no longer America, but just another third world country peopled with hopeless masses.

One final thing. If there is one lesson that should be made plain by the outrageous behavior of the Democrat leadership during this battle for America's future liberty, it is this: There is no room in their Party for middle of the road, blue dogs.

Good day to you sir,

2010-03-15T18:59:00.005-06:00

Dear Congressman, Senator, Mr. President and staff,

This letter is intended to convey the frustration, anger, and growing sense of powerlessness of my friends, neighbors, and family. It is directed to yourself and to all the officials in the House and Senate as well as the President and his administration. This letter is written to a government that is less and less of the People and seems more and more representative of a foreign and alien state.

If the tone of this letter is cynical it is due to an irritable fatigue brought on by the incessant conduct of a whiny government that refuses to take “no” for an answer. The reason for such aggravation can be expressed no more poignantly than by the bizarre words of Speaker Pelosi, “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.” There is a bitter disconnect brought on by a government that plugs its ears to voice of the People, declares itself fully cognizant of what the People want and seems incapable of separating theoretical wish lists from reality, and then seeks to proceed without the consent of the governed. The result will be, as it has in the past, to instate colossal policies that are hostile to states’ powers and corrosive to the individual citizen’s rights and his or her constitutional protections. Perhaps your motives are pure, but that is immaterial. Is this the opinion of merely an obstructionist who lacks real philosophical, principled objections? Answer for yourself.

The American People have spoken plainly and in language easily to be understood so that even a bureaucrat can understand. They do want health care reform. They do not want reform that results in government care. They do not want the President's health care plan. They do not want the Senate bill. They do not want the House bill. There may be portions of these bills that are reasonable enough to consider but with a bill over 2,400 pages long how can anyone know?

These suspect bills in their entirety are absurd and do not warrant the term legislation. Each instead deserve a more ominous name - dictation. And don't for one moment think that word is used merely as hyperbole. Upon what is such an accusation as this based? 1) The blatant bribes and buying off of votes. 2) The incessant insistence that the American masses are incapable of understanding an issue as “complex” as health care. 3) The proliferation of notions that government knows best and individuals and private industry are defunct. 4) Open hostilely to the free market and the corresponding denial of the inescapable economic realities that affect health care costs. Not care, sirs and madams, not quality of health care, but COSTS. 5) The hollow promise of “fixing” the bill after it’s passed! 6) Finally, the adamant denials later exposed as bold faced lies: 1) No tax payer dollars to fund abortion. 2) The government plan will lower insurance premiums. 3) Full disclosure and transparency with health care debates televised on CSPAN. 4) No backroom deals. 5) No government bureaucrats stepping between Americans and their doctors. Time, basic understanding of economic principles, and analysis have proved these proclamations to be the opposite of what they declare is true. Again, with a bill over two thousand pages long, what other un-American demons are hiding as yet to be made known?

These issues, and others, suggest in the aggregate a terrible trend in America - a trend in which government represents itself. It is against this, the rise of the machine, that so many Americans stand resolutely opposed. You are supposed to be the unbiased referee and umpire, not a player in the game. If you want in the game, leave your post, and let another ref call the game according to the established rules.

So Congressman, so Senator, and so Mr. President and all the President’s men, will you, in the face of posterity and in a moment of infamy, move forward against the People’s will? Will you, by your approval of this modified travesty, solidify your standing as another yesman from the beltway band of bureaucrats who accelerated the shattering of America’s future? Two hundred years from now, will historians look back upon your names with contempt identifying you as dupes and or deviants who wrought the overthrow of the liberty of the American people? For that is what is at stake - liberty, the freedom to choose one‘s happiness or misery. One sixth of the American economy gobbled up by a central authority at the stroke of a pen. And as an added insult, total centralization of student loans. Government will have the reigns on both education and health care. Such usurping of this kind of power and control at the federal level is an abomination and affront to the Constitution.

Or will you prove unworthy of such accusations? Will you prove to be the hero and the statesman you promised to be when running your campaign? Will you be the Congressman who stood for unchanging principles? Will you be the Senator who defended individual liberty without apology? Will you be the President who stood up to special interests to whom you owed favors and instead pledged allegiance to your countryman in word and deed? Will you be representatives Americans can take pride in now and forever?

Americans know the promises made by representatives in the past. Promises of minimal government footprints in household budgets have proven laughable. Social Security - failing. Medicaid - failing. Medicare - failing. The expansion of the welfare state and the war on poverty - a contemptible failure that obliterated the nuclear family among our poor and created a self sustaining voting block for politicians of the lowest order. Today American is given new promises in the form of a health care bill. It is stunning that such a bill as this new expansion of government power over the health of individual citizens was even brought up for a vote - that it was even conceived. The individual mandate, for example, is a blatant violation of the 9th and 10th amendments. The idea of government health care being constitutional is a gross overestimation of the Congressional powers of commerce. It is also an apostate philosophy regarding the enumerated Congressional powers in the Constitution’s public welfare clause, which many in Congress manically interpret as a Congressional blank check.

Why not just go along and get along? Aside from the ridiculous notion that this thing will reduce costs and lower the exploding deficit, this is what is at stake: A Constitutional government based on unchanging principles, or no Constitution at all. For if the Constitution can be altered or ignored to satisfy the whims and vicissitudes of populist fads and special interest factions then why have a Constitution at all? The answer is simple, under this interpretation there is no Constitution, for there is no continuity.

You, as civil servants, are not alone in your guilt. It may rightly be said that many of the American People are getting the representation and the corresponding legislation they deserve. Servitude is a just compensation for a people who dazedly stumble through lives of pleasure seeking and willful ignorance. It is no exaggeration to say that many of you were elected by this very component of the body politic. It is not true of the whole, however, and the whole need not suffer for the faults of the part. Cicero’s words of disappointment directed at the people of Rome aren’t entirely true for Americans as a whole yet, but are well worth mentioning, “Do not blame Caesar, blame the people of Rome who have so enthusiastically acclaimed and adored him and rejoiced in their loss of freedom and danced in his path and gave him triumphal processions and laughed delightedly at his licentiousness and thought it very superior of him to acquire vast amounts of gold illicitly. Blame the people who hail him when he speaks in the Forum of the 'new, wonderful good society' which shall now be Rome's, interpreted to mean 'more money, more ease, more security, more living fatly at the expense of the industrious.' Julius was always an ambitious villain, but he is only one man."

If Cicero lived today and he were commenting on the internal catastrophe brewing at America’s door he might say, “Do not blame the Democrats or Republicans, blame the people of America who have so enthusiastically acclaimed and adored them and rejoiced in their loss of freedom and danced in their paths and gave them triumphal processions and laughed delightedly at their licentiousness and thought it very superior of them to acquire vast amounts of wealth illicitly. Blame the people who hail them when they speak in the Forum of the 'new, wonderful good society' which shall now be America’s, interpreted to mean 'more money, more ease, more security, more living fatly at the expense of the industrious.” Take special note of the last sentence. Do Americans put your name in place of the demagogue Caesar who promised free land and grain to the plebain masses? “______ was always an ambitious villain, but he (she) is only one man (woman)?”

Today, there are many a Patriot in Cicero’s image who are giving life support to the America they inherited and love dearly. Were it not for these unknown patriots you would have no country to govern. Some of them could remain quiet no longer and protested peacefully in the hundreds of thousands. They need not be named, you know who they are and by what name they are rightly called.

As irrelevant as you feel the words of Rome’s greatest statesman and philosophical renaissance man Cicero may be, listen. The consequence of choice is in the rubble and it teaches a profound lesson. Banish any thought of signing "Yea" on that health care monstrosity from your mind. Turn from it as if it were a liberty killing toxin. You need not be told of the tsunami that will justly smash your chances of re-election if you vote in favor of this 2,400 page plus health care debacle. But set the re-election issue aside. This bill is not about you or your colleagues across the aisle. This bill is about the future viability of the America that the world envies. This bill is about saddling posterity with opportunity crushing debt and deficits and a suffocating bureaucracy. This bill is about dictating, not governing. This bill is about health care costs - increasing them. Get the message: Americans are tired of fitting the bill for the theoretical projects of childish academics and legislators and then having no choice but to live in their ruin.

Let it not be said of yourself that when goodly Americans who love their Country as they love themselves look in your eyes and perceive your countenance that their thoughts mirror those of Marcus Cicero as he confronted Cataline in the final hour of the Roman republic, “He, not I, is the future of Rome. My day is passing before my vision, but his (the demagogue and usurper Cataline) is just dawning, the day of power in the hands of the furies, the centaurs, the oppressors, the Pan-stricken, the bloodthirsty and overweening and frightful, the tyrants and the unutterably corrupt and deathly. Nevertheless, if only for a little I must delay that day, and write on the walls of Rome the warning for future and as yet unknown nations to read, lest they fall into the very same pit."

May the genius of the Founding Fathers prevail so liberty may also prevail. May Cataline’s inevitable hour not come for generations and, as Cicero says, “…if only for a little…delay that day.” That is your duty, Congressman, Senator, Mr. President and all his men. That is your duty. Who will you be, Congressman? Senator? Mr. President? A statesman or ambitious villain? It's your choice. Govern so that the American People retain their right to do the same.

2010-03-07T09:34:00.000-07:00

“It’s kind of sad when normal love of country makes you a super patriot.” John Wayne

Take Me Out to the Ballgame

2010-02-13T16:59:00.016-07:00

The Roman Senate

"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried..."

Winston Churchill

From a distance, politics is a game of showmanship - actors performing on a stage delivering lines written by someone else with a less presentable face. He or she with the best presentation wins the day. From Athens to the Roman Senate and from the British Parliament to the US Congress, actors and salesmen wearing scratchy togas or stuffy business suits have dramatically swayed the course of history. The People largely go along with it willingly. It's not too anecdotal to state most Americans comprehend that cloying words fed to them by candidates in political races are over sweetened half truths and sometimes outright lies. Americans, at least many of them, aren't naive. Solemn faces worn by politicians "fighting for the American People" don't fool them. They see thru the stoic masks and discern detachment and raving self interest underneath. But Americans downplay their healthy cynicisn. With a shrug they tolerate photo-op- manufactured concern, ambiguous declarations, Botox, and bleached teeth smiles as part of the democratic package. After all, it's infinitely better than a beret sporting militant dictator who makes life and death decisions based on his mood. The strength of an inherited republican Constitutional order allowed citizens of America this luxury for an extended period of time. But luxuries are fleeting, as Americans would be well to understand.

What has Casey At the Bat to do with citizenship in a republic? A lot and nothing.

"The outlook wasn't brilliant for the Mudville nine that day;

The score stood four to two, with but one inning more to play,

And then when Cooney died at first, and Barrows did the same,

A pall-like silence fell upon the patrons of the game.

A straggling few got up to go in deep despair. The rest

Clung to that hope which springs eternal in the human breast;

They thought, "If only Casey could but get a whack at that —

We'd put up even money now, with Casey at the bat."

But Flynn preceded Casey, as did also Jimmy Blake,

And the former was a hoodoo, while the latter was a cake;

So upon that stricken multitude grim melancholy sat;

For there seemed but little chance of Casey getting to the bat.

But Flynn let drive a single, to the wonderment of all,

And Blake, the much despised, tore the cover off the ball;

And when the dust had lifted, and men saw what had occurred,

There was Jimmy safe at second and Flynn a-hugging third.

Then from five thousand throats and more there rose a lusty yell;

It rumbled through the valley, it rattled in the dell;

It pounded on the mountain and recoiled upon the flat,

For Casey, mighty Casey, was advancing to the bat.

There was ease in Casey's manner as he stepped into his place;

There was pride in Casey's bearing and a smile lit Casey's face.

And when, responding to the cheers, he lightly doffed his hat,

No stranger in the crowd could doubt 'twas Casey at the bat.

Ten thousand eyes were on him as he rubbed his hands with dirt.

Five thousand tongues applauded when he wiped them on his shirt.

Then while the writhing pitcher ground the ball into his hip,

Defiance flashed in Casey's eye, a sneer curled Casey's lip.

And now the leather-covered sphere came hurtling through the air,

And Casey stood a-watching it in haughty grandeur there.

Close by the sturdy batsman the ball unheeded sped —

"That ain't my style," said Casey. "Strike one!" the umpire said.

From the benches, black with people, there went up a muffled roar,

Like the beating of the storm-waves on a stern and distant shore;

"Kill him! Kill the umpire!" shouted some one on the stand;

And it's likely they'd have killed him had not Casey raised his hand.

With a smile of Christian charity great Casey's visage shone;

He stilled the rising tumult; he bade the game go on;

He signaled to the pitcher, and once more the dun sphere flew;

But Casey still ignored it, and the umpire said "Strike two!"

"Fraud!" cried the maddened thousands, and echo answered "Fraud!"

But one scornful look from Casey and the audience was awed.

They saw his face grow stern and cold, they saw his muscles strain,

And they knew that Casey wouldn't let that ball go by again.

The sneer has fled from Casey's lip, the teeth are clenched in hate;

He pounds with cruel violence his bat upon the plate.

And now the pitcher holds the ball, and now he lets it go,

And now the air is shattered by the force of Casey's blow.

Oh, somewhere in this favored land the sun is shining bright,

The band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light,

And somewhere men are laughing, and little children shout;

But there is no joy in Mudville — mighty Casey has struck out."

By Ernest Lawrence Thayer

Hypothetically speaking, what is the problem if the Constitutional government Americans have enjoyed for over two centuries ceases to function? So what if the United States gradually adopts a philosophy at odds with its founding theories of political science? The proof is in the pudding, so to speak. One of the key aspects of Americanism is federalism. What is federalism? Federalism is a political philosophy engineered and instituted by America's far seeing founding generation. Why federalism? Well, George Washington's opinion of government was shared by many Americans of his day. The Father of Our Country said, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." Without question, the American experience with the outrages of agents of the British monarchy helped mold this conclusion. "Taxation Without Representation" was a driving revolutionary force fueled not so much about frustration with paying taxes, but more accurately about the right to have a say in where taxes were spent. Americans in Washington's day, Tories excepted, loathed the idea of strong central government. This is evident by the furious debate over the question of union of the colonies and what kind, if any, central government among the separate states was to be established. Thomas Paine's sentiment "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one" is also illustrative of early America's disdain of Europe's tired system of Ruler's Law. Indeed, the phrase "Don't tread on me" embodied the attitude of the pesky citizens, or rabble as the English would lable them, of the New World.

The American experience of the twenty years prior to the Revolutionary War and the poor performance of the Continental Congress provided recent case studies of what not to do. It is today, and was then, a known fact that the Articles of Confederation were more a failure than success. A stronger central government was needed to maintain peace between the thirteen states, allow commerce, and to ensure a powerful deterrent and united front against foreign aggression. The Federalist Papers outline this all exceptionally well. The brilliant men who established the United States of America knew man's natural tendencies toward abuse of power. They understood the good and the bad of the Classic Era of the Romans, Jews, and Greeks. Just as important was their acceptance that most Americans understood this to be true as well. They, the authors of the Constitution, therefore engineered a government of checks and balances to block man's ability to exert dominion over his fellows by setting up three separate but equal branches of government.

Simply put, federalism provides a means of distributing power in such a way as to make agents of government, always suspect, subserviant to the voice of everyday citizens. Under federalist philosophy, government still possesses enough authority to maintain union and to avoid the vicissitudes of pure democracy. It is a bottom up form of governing and a watershed in political science that puts the Old World European monarchical model to shame.

Today, federalism is unquestioningly in decline. There are many reasons for this. Some of it is the People's fault for being too trusting of government or too lazy to become involved. Internationalism and globalism as proselytized by the self proclaimed intelligentsia are certainly to blame, but that is a topic for later. A root contributor to the ongoing reversal from a government of the people to a people for the government is a type of Darwinist school of thought applied by most lawyers, educators, actors, judges, pundits, and legislators. The reasoning of the moral relativist that denies eternal truths gave rise to the idea that America's Constitution is a "living breathing document." This apostate ideology is almost universally accepted today, taught as an absolute truth, or since Providential truth is taboo, perhaps highly superior would suffice. This mode of thinking is the engine driving many Republican and most Democrat social initiatives today. Take health care as a glaring example of total disregard of federalist philosophy and a blind adoption of the theory of an evolutionary Constitution.

That's not to say there isn't elbow room. The Constitution, as intended by its framers, has some flexibility built into via Constitutional Amendments. These allow the government to respond to certain problems that may unfold. There are, however, limits. These amendments should be exceedingly rare because the federal government does not have plenary powers. The states have plenary powers. This is, according to federalism, because the People are closer to the agents of state governments - which is a key aspect of federalism - the further away from a person the seat of government is, the less police powers that particular seat of government has. Checks and balances as well as the Bill of Rights constitute mooring lines put in place to ensure an upright ship going forward from a needed amendment. When those mooring lines are cut for short term political expediency - or to meet the demands of a fringe special interest group - the ship of state, as is presently known, will eventually capsize. What emerges beyond that incident can easily be determined by an honest review of history. "Beware the Ides of March."

What happens when Churchill's "Great Republic" forgoes its Constitutional order to pattern itself after the Old World's "the stupid masses" top-down governing methodology?

"Oh, somewhere in this favored land the sun is shining bright,

The band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light,

And somewhere men are laughing, and little children shout;

But there is no joy in Mudville — mighty Casey has struck out."

Praemonitus Praemunitus

2010-01-30T21:17:00.005-07:00

Does this guy look happy?

Photography provides people of the twenty first century a very narrow but poignant medium that captures slivers and grains of history. It is a literal blink of the eye burned on paper. The captured contrasts of light and dark yield glimpses of episodes of immense proportion. Capturing historical instances both great and terrible is a rare achievement for a photographer and often times happens by pure accident. One iconic photo I’ve thought about often the past couple of years is titled “The Weeping Frenchman.” In the foreground, a pleasantly dressed man wearing a pin stripe suit with a white shirt and tie is caught on film the day reality caught up to France and its people. Perhaps he is a small business owner. Maybe he's a lawyer, doctor, or a local government official - a husband and father. More subtle in the surrounding crowd, but no less substantial in importance, are other persons. The frozen behaviors of his neighbors and countrymen exhibit different reactions to events unseen by the camera. There is a well dressed woman whose face sits sternly under her lady’s hat. She claps in approval but her eyes can not belie an internal anguish. There is a man whose face is neutral, almost serene and approving. The cause of the weeping Frenchman’s dismay parades in force under his beloved national monument, the Arc De Triumph in Paris. Propagandized young men furiously goose step in high leather boots by the thousands. It is one of the darkest episodes in the history of the world. The day to plan the defenses of the city is passed. Now each Parisian will face the nightfall in his or her own way - as helpless observers to bear whatever burden the conquerors wish.

What did the Weeping Frenchman think of newspaper articles written about the upstart thug named Adolf Hitler and his rabble rousing pamphlet, “Mein Kampf” in 1925? May be the news was sympathetic or concerned with other events. Did he raise an eyebrow in 1933 when German students at the University of Berlin, a sophisticated center of learning, burned books by Jewish Authors? The Nazis were a tiny minority of the German body politic. 1936 came and the Germans signed an Axis pact with Italy. In 1938 Hitler annexes Austria. In 1938 the Jews within reach of Nazi influence suffered the terror of Kristallnacht. Well, 1940 came with a proverbial bang in France. Our Weeping Frenchman sure doesn’t look happy now. As the Romans used to say, before their demise, Praemonitus Praemunitus - “Forewarned is Forearmed."

Pharaoh Who Knew Not Joseph

2010-01-23T18:33:00.002-07:00

“I dread nothing so much as the exercise of ungranted and doubtful powers by this Government. It is, in my opinion, the danger of dangers to the future of this country. Let us be sure that we keep it always within its limits.

“If this great, ambitious, ever-growing corporation becomes aggressive, who shall check it? If it becomes wayward, who shall control it? If it becomes unjust, who shall trust it? As sentinels of the country’s watchtower, I beseech you to watch and guard with sleepless dread that corporation which can make all property and rights, all states and people, and all liberty and hope, its playthings in an hour, and its victims forever.” Benjamin Hill, Georgian Senator, 1878.

A 2.5 Trillion Pound Lump of Coal

2009-12-24T06:16:00.006-07:00

Language is a powerful tool. It may even be the powerful tool. There is an old proverb, “The pen is mightier than the sword.” Obviously, the playwright who first coined this phrase didn’t envision a knight armed with a double edged broad sword being disarmed and impaled by a mousy nerd armed with a feather pen. So, is this phrase a simple metonymic adage uttered by a nineteenth century stage actor who caricatured Cardinal Richelieu mere hyperbole used for dramatic effect in a stage play and nothing more? Or does it contain an ominous and or glorious tone of truth? And, more importantly, why does it matter?

The Torah, The Bible, The Twelve Tables, The Magna Carta, The Ninety-Five Theses, The Mayflower Compact, The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of the United States. Each of these exercises in the art of language had a groundbreaking impact on the overall history of the West (and in turn the world at large) in a most profound way - for better or worse - the better speaking for myself. Language directs the arm to the sword or the plowshare and all the activities in between. It is the medium by which the rising generation learns to navigate through life using the knowledge acquired by those who went before. It has the power to do good and to do harm.

Today, interrupting our Christmas cheer, is the unwelcome, assertive face of the government Grinch. Hoping We the People will be so entwined in finding the perfect gifts for loved ones, the Senate, in its self important madness, is voting on a bill that will impact over 1/6th of our economy, and more importantly, our health and our liberty.

This past October, a reporter asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi where the Constitution stated the House of Representatives had the authority to mandate that Americans buy health insurance and where it had Constitutional powers enumerated to it to impose fines and even assign jail time to non purchasing offenders. She angrily responded thus, “Are you serious? Are you serious?” In a moment of sheer contempt for Americans who actually care about their Constitutional government, Speak Pelosi verified the fears of many of us who suspect career politicians care little for Constitutional constraints.

The House passed their health care reform bill by the slimmest of margins. Then it was the Senate’s turn. Yet again, the American People were made a mockery of by the bureaucrats in Washington DC working in buildings paid for and maintained on the taxpayer‘s dime. The 1 a.m. vote held on Monday morning for the Reid Amendment (an amendment of bribery to lock in Nebraskan Senator Nelson’s support to garner that essential 60th vote) was positioned in such a way as to ensure the Senate will vote “Yay” on its massive health care bill by Christmas Eve morning and stay within Senate rules. Whatever the benefits, and I use that term loosely, inherent in this thing for the American people are, they will not take effect for at least four years. This prompts the question: “What’s with the insane hurry, Senator?“ The short answer is this - the more the American People see of this bill, the more enraged they become.

Just yesterday, S.C. Senator Jim DeMint (R) pointed out one of the reasons this bill is being passed in the literal dead of night and early in the a.m. on the Eve of a major federal holiday by reading an ominous passage from the bill’s page 1020:

“…it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection."

Is this for real? A bill with over 2,000 pages that could not possibly have been fully read by those voting on it let alone scrutinized which can not be amended once enacted? Can it be this is no longer our country? Has our government been usurped by a body of foreign delegates? These questions are only partly hyperbolic. The vast reservoir of appropriate adjectives that could be used in describing this asinine exhibition of political behavior I will try to control. I will instead lay out as linear an argument against this unconstitutional travesty as my limited legal understanding will allow for.

Here is the crux of the matter: Does the federal government’s power have limits? Or it could be asked this way: Do bureaucrats in Washington DC have unlimited access to your wealth, assets, and liberties at their beck and call?

The answers to these fifty trillion dollar questions largely depend on who the inquiries are posed to. Ask Harry Reid or one of the sixty Senators who over the weekend agreed to support the behemoth health care bill and he or she must answer “No” to the first question, and “Whatever we deem proper for the common good - it‘s Constitutional if we say it‘s Constitutional” on the second. I suppose pervasiveness of a philosophy so blatantly alien to the Constitution’s original intent should be expected. We the People have quietly tolerated the most expansive and liberal interpretation of the Constitution as a “living breathing document” since the Wilson administration introduced the first aggressive progressive order of business beginning in 1913. Act of Congress by Act of Congress, Supreme Court ruling by Supreme Court ruling, and Executive Order by Executive Order, the march away from Constitutional checks on federal power has been slow but steady over the past 100 years.

Yet, there are instances in which this unconstitutional pace was anything but slow. A federal watershed occurred during the Roosevelt administration which saw arguably the greatest expansion of federal power pre Obama administration. In its attempt to control the price of wheat through reducing supply, Congress passed the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 to limit the acreage utilized for its production. A farmer, Roscoe Filiburn, grew additional wheat on his farm to feed his family and his livestock. The federal government caught wind of his insolence and he was commanded to burn the additional crop and pay a fine. When challenged, the Supreme Court ruling in Wickard v. Filburn upheld the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. This expanded the scope of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause found in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. Prior to this Court decision, interpretation of the powers found in the Commerce Clause were restricted to prohibiting one state imposing tariffs on another state and transporting goods and produce across state lines on roads, railroads, and waterways. That all changed after Congress passed the Agricultural Adjustment Act and the Supreme Court’s upholding of it. In Wickard v. Filburn, the Supreme Court ruled that even though one farmer didn’t impact overall commerce, a number of farmers in aggregate did and therefore fell under the commercial authority of the legislative branch of the federal government.

The Senate health care bill will be a watershed of watersheds as far checks on federal power goes. Of the many faults (those the public is aware of) that this bill has: federal funding of abortion, unintended (intended?) incentives for businesses to drop employee health care, increased taxes, unintended (intended?) increases in private health care insurance premiums, taxing of medical supplies, and unintended incentives for businesses to hire applicants with higher household incomes to name only a few, the most terrible is the individual mandate because it assails the essence of Americanism. This ill conceived piece of legal tripe overthrows the United States as we know it.

A legal requirement to purchase health care insurance will allow Congress nearly unlimited power under the Commerce Clause. How? Go back to Wickard v. Filburn and its significance. The Supreme Court ruled that because Farmer Filiburn was a willing participant in a commercial enterprise - growing wheat - any activity related to growing said crop, the Court found, was therefore subject to the authority of Congress to regulate.
Set aside the fact that the Constitution has phrases such as “herein granted” (which is followed by an actual list of clearly specified powers) as wells as the phrase “enumerated powers” which distinctly identify the reach of the central government is, in truth, limited. The word “activity” in the logic for the Supreme Court’s ruling in 1938 is the fulcrum. Congress, per the Supreme Court, constitutionally has the power to regulate commercial activity of any kind. NOT commercial inactivity, such as refusing to purchase health insurance. Congress could determine any special interest cause as economic and thereby decree that the failure of an individual to participate has an impact on commerce in the aggregate and falls under their regulatory powers. This could be used every which way till Sunday, particularly with today’s unfortunate harvest of bureaucrat. Whether the Supreme Court would uphold such a blatant over reach of Congressional power remains to be seen.

Some have argued that citizens are required to purchase auto insurance and it is therefore reasonable for the government to require the purchase of health care insurance. But a citizen does not have to drive, he or she can walk or ride the bus. Furthermore, the streets and highways citizens drive on are, in fact, owned by the government therefore agents of the government are empowered to make the rules thereon. The government does not own us. They do not own our choices to buy or not to buy. But if this bill passes, Congress can make any law so long as they can make the argument that our inaction has an economic impact - per the Commerce Clause.

Another important aspect with respect to the auto insurance argument is that of States rights. An individual state may have the authority under its plenary powers to mandate a person buy health insurance but Congress per Constitutional limits does not. (Note that Massachusetts is a “right to health care” state and is within its Constitutional state powers to offer every one of its citizens a substandard health care plan providing America a good example of what not to do, by the way.) By Congress claiming they have the powers vested them by the Constitution to force Americans to purchase a good or service they are inappropriately usurping powers of the States as well as the individual citizens. States rights are a key aspect of our federal system which in turn is a major factor differentiating a republican “state” from an imperial “province.”

When it becomes clear the argument that Congress has authority to force citizens to purchase a good or service fails the Class of Activities test against the Commerce Clause, the next wobbly arrow in the quiver of both the House and Senate bills’ proponents is the oft misunderstood “General Welfare” clause in the first paragraph of Article I, Section 8 (also mentioned in the Preamble which affords no branch of government any power):

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States …”
Set aside the fact that in 1787 the term or word “Welfare” did not entail the doleful contemporary meaning attached to it today and review what Congress shall “have power to” do:

Lay and Collect Taxes'
Lay and Collect Duties
Lay and Collect Imposts and Excises
Pay the Debts
Provide for the Common Defense
Provide for the General Welfare of the United States NOTE: NOT General welfare of the Citizens of the United States

Under the General Welfare Clause, Congress has power to oversee the daily affairs of government, or in other words, the union. Per this clause, they, members of Congress, can raise money for the Common Defense and for the daily operations of the United States government to maintain the union itself. Nothing else. The power to oversee the affairs and administer to the needs of individual citizens is NOT given to any body of the federal government by our constitutional order. Failure to differentiate the United States (government) from Citizens of the United States is where many good intentioned people go wrong when interpreting the expanse of their government‘s role in the lives of American citizens. It may be added that there is a vast difference between a man who is a peasant and a man who is a citizen. America was meant to be a nation of citizens.

Note that the Bill of Rights emphasizes this clearly:
Amendment 9 “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Such as, the right to say, “I do not want to pay for health insurance.” And also the right to suffer the consequence of that choice, I might add.
Amendment 10 “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Congress does not have Constitutional access to a blank check. Nor does it, nor any other branch, nor the three branches combined, have a grant of absolute power. This is a government of the People, by the People, and for the People, or was.

Tomorrow morning, barring a bizarre miracle, the Senate will pass its health care bill with all its outrageously overreaching tricks on limits of power. In spite of the fact that the majority of Americans do not want the kind of “reform” the White House, Senate, and House say they want, the agents of government are moving ahead at a furious pace. Tomorrow, within the taxpayer funded sparkling halls of government, they, the victors, will wear the solemn faces of statesmen as they express cloying words of concern and care for their constituents, the defeated American People. Worse than the highly likely economic fallout we will incur as a result of the cost of this act of insanity, worse than the fact that the Senators voting on this bill will not be subjected to the limitations they impose on us, worse than the tax payers subsidizing union Cadillac health care plans, worse than the contempt the inhabitants of the beltway express toward honest, taxpaying Americans, worse even than the federal funding of abortion, is the terrible cost this will exact on our individual liberties and our quality of health care. Oh, we’ll go to work, business as usual on Monday, December the 28th, 2009 after enjoying the traditional and beautiful Christmas holiday with family. It’s December the 28th, 2015, December the 28th, 2020, December the 28th, 2025 and so on that will be the problem. This is a burdensome cost imposed on the future of all in behalf of a minuscule body of a few self serving and or well meaning quislings determined to meet an arbitrary deadline. This is not about health care reform.

The adjectives are starting to vibrate into the tips of my fingers, and before I write something as angry and inappropriate as the natural man within would like, I’ll finish with this thought: The Constitution, the document that propelled a nation to world economic, cultural, scientific, and military global super power faster than any other nation in history (including Greece, Rome, and China) was designed by men of far greater character, wisdom, vision, and intelligence than the vast majority of the babbling people now operating governmental machinery who seek a permanent alteration of our Constitutional order. I highly recommend a reading of the Federalist Papers Numbers 41 thru 51 by James Madison, who is largely regarded as the Father of the Constitution.

Saigon?

2009-12-06T16:41:00.015-07:00

LBJ and McNamara

The President gave a speech last week at the United States Military academy in which he announced another 30,000 American servicemen would deploy over the next six months to reinforce our forces in the Afghan theater of war.

Setting aside the relevant differences among the Jacksonian, Hamiltonian, and Jeffersonian philosophies on American foreign policy, war, simply put, is outlasting the enemy. This is something even an amateur historian such as myself understands. Remove the enemy's will to fight and achieve something the President failed to mention in his calculated speech - victory.

Now the President’s speech was one of the most unilaterally American speeches I’ve heard him give to date. For this, I tip my hat to President Obama. Internationalism, while made reference to, gratefully was not the theme of this speech. The President brought up some valid points that can not be dismissed. The problem, however, is these good points, valid as they may be, are conflicting. They illustrate either a lack of resolve, or expose that the White House has an undefined Afghan War policy. Perhaps both in varying degrees.

This dichotomy is starkly shown in two key ideas. First, the President plead for Americans to buy into the strategic reasoning for a continued fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Particularly referenced were their ties to the 9/11 attack, and the terrible possibility of our shaky ally Pakistan and its nuclear arsenal falling under Taliban control. Retribution for the costliest military strike on American soil in American history and preventing the authors of that strike from obtaining nuclear capabilities seems reason enough to see the conflict through.

The unfortunate problem is, the President did not communicate the will to see the conflict through to victory. This lack of commitment is illustrated by the date set by the President for withdrawal. Why is this significant? Put yourself in the place of a head of household in Afghanistan making choices that you determine the most likely to lead to self and family preservation. Would you help the U.S. Marines or the Taliban? If you were a politician in Pakistan, would the knowledge the U.S. planned to draw down its forces a year after the surge lead you to a Pro Western/American platform or a Pro Street platform? If you were a Marine, would the timetable for withdrawal boost your morale or peripherally distract you from your mission?

President Obama’s speech had several heart felt admonitions asking for support of our war effort. Yet, there are serious reasons to question the present administrations’ commitment to winning the War on Terror. The administration recently made the irresponsible decision to try the captured 9/11 terrorists in New York City in a civil court instead of a military tribunal. Just blocks from ground zero, the foreign operatives who authored and executed the most horrific attack on American soil in its history will receive an unprecedented civil defense. As a historical side note, Nazi operatives captured in the United States received no such nicety during WWII. They were given trial by military tribunal and then shot. Additionally, last week an announcement was made that three Navy Seals would face court martial for giving the terrorist who hung the charred bodies of four executed Americans from a bridge in Iraq a fat lip. Finally, the ROE (rules of engagement) our Marines and soldiers have to fight under give the initiative to the enemy. As seen in the courts-martial of the Navy Seals, too often Americans are finding aggressive action by our troops to seek and destroy the enemy punished as a type of war crime.

Now the President’s point on writing blank checks to fund these wars was spot on. We simply don’t have the resources to carry on the costs of war forever. The United States is under no obligation to deplete its wealth and squander the blood of its youth in behalf of another country. Again, however, this illustrates the mixed signal. On the one hand, President Obama wants to assure Americans there is a limit on how much they'll be asked to spend to nation build. On the other hand, the President’s confession of our inability to sustain the cost of prosecuting the war is a sign to the enemy they are winning the war of attrition. It communicates that they have the advantage of time and space. It makes our Afghan and Pakistani allies worry about their future safety. Remember the atrocities of the Killing Fields in which millions were slaughtered when the United States withdrew from Vietnam. Should not the President, therefore, make a decision that clearly outlines one or the other policies? On to victory with all its costs, or withdrawal in defeat and suffer the consequences? Either option, withdrawal or conquer, will surely come with a high cost. The question is, will either of those costs be higher than the pricey bill charged at the end of the middle road which ultimately leads to one or the other anyway?

The plan in the President’s speech voiced a middle of the road policy that is not so much about achieving victory but saving face. And in spite of the President’s denial of the comparison, this smacks of the Vietnam War: an undeclared war of half measures that ended in failure. Fight to win, endure, overcome and force the enemy to accept our terms - Commit all to victory, or bring our boys home. Anything less is unworthy of the sacrifice asked of those Americans manning their positions on the front line.

Raising the Colors Since 1776

2009-11-11T20:48:00.056-07:00

Raising the Colors - Under the Guns of the Enemy

Yesterday was Veteran's Day, and this past Tuesday the Marines celebrated their 234th birthday. I mean no disrespect to the other branches of the service, myself having been a "smurf" for a time in the Air Guard, by singling out the Marines. But the Marine Hymn, to me, epitomizes the American Spirit stirring within the American fighting men of every branch of service. Indeed, it stirs something proud and unconquerable within the patriotic American citizen not currently serving. I can't read these lyrics without hearing brass trumpets in my head and feeling the song's inexorable cadence. Of all the bodies I've heard sing this Hymn over the years in film, on radio, or via recording, none are as moving or beautiful as hearing the untrained voices of Marines, old and young alike, sing it.

"From the Halls of Montezuma To the Shores of Tripoli;

We fight our country's battles In the air, on land and sea;

First to fight for right and freedom

And to keep our honor clean;

We are proud to claim the title of United States Marine.

Our flag's unfurled to every breeze

From dawn to setting sun;

We have fought in ev'ry clime and place

Where we could take a gun;

In the snow of far-off Northern lands

And in sunny tropic scenes,

You will find us always on the job--

The United States Marines.

Here's health to you and to our Corps

Which we are proud to serve

In many a strife we've fought for life

And never lost our nerve;

If the Army and the Navy

Ever look on Heaven's scenes;

They will find the streets are guarded By United States Marines."

On this week in which the American People reverence Veteran's Day, something must be remembered and not forgotten. Regardless of individual opinions on foreign policy and what one thinks America's role should be on the world stage, the United States is a nation at war. It has been so for years, though most citizens wouldn't know it. What does it mean to be at war? For most, very little - at least in the short run. The politically expedient naif's favorite time frame. That blessed period of time in which the self serving enjoy their day in the sun. The quiet before nasty historic trends seize their due. In the short run life goes on: business as usual. Or rather, as usual as can be under the present economic crisis that's been exacerbated by federal expansion and centralization of private institutions. The shopping mall has the latest fashions. There is no rationing of rubber or food. There is an abundance of entertainment venues. I ask again, what does war, that awful word spoken with such passion by people who claim to be for peace, mean to the average American? It means at this very minute, a young man in a uniform with an American Flag patch on his shoulder has eyes out surveying a hostile horizon. His pals may be cleaning the rifle actions of their M-16s while he stands watch. Hungry, tired, thirsty, lonely - it doesn't matter how uncomfortable he is. There he stands sentinel until relieved. He may die this minute in the sights of an enemy sniper. An IED may blow apart the Humvee out from under him tomorrow while on patrol - or the next day, or the next. He may have close friends die in like manner. He may have to render life saving first aid to an enemy combatant who just killed one on his squad mates. He may loose his legs, sight, hearing. He may see innocent people die at random. He may smile at a curious child who looks up at him with wide, brown eyes. He may be saddened at the sight of a little boy hobbled or maimed by a landmine or gunfire then sorrowfully open his wallet to look at his family's picture. He yearns for home and longs for family. This is war.

There are moments of near incapacitating terror and long stretches of sheer boredom, but his training and devotion to duty are sufficient to tame his fear and and shun temptations of carelessness. Nearly always out of sight, hiding behind innocent people, or massing in Mosques termed "off limits" by lawyers five thousand miles away, his scurrilous foe, a cut throat reminiscent of dark age barbarians, takes pot shots at him and his fellows. Always the enemy stays out of reach, always he fears open battle. Time is on his side and is against the men who are tasked with executing policies largely written by individuals who would shudder at the sight of a BB gun. The adversary uses the ultra restrictive ROE (rules of engagement) outlined by civilian leaders as a most effective weapon while our Marines and soldiers are forced to march in the open, stand in plain sight, hold their fire, endure a vacuum of civil leadership. Leadership, a most generous description of politicians who lack even the courage to declare there is an enemy. Our men are prompted to beg for reinforcements that weither will not come, or will come much to slowly. In spite of this they man their posts, stand their ground, and walk their patrols. An ocean away, his Country burns in an invisible, consuming fire.

America is hardly aware of the efforts of some of the best young men and women she claims as her own. Worse, her armed forces in the current theaters of war seem an afterthought to those who wield the power of command over them. My vindictive over the disgraceful nonchalance of the present Commander-in-Chief I will save for another day. Suffice it to say, I wore a grim expression when I heard the hollow, uninspiring phrases that proceeded from the mouth of our unengaged Commander-in-Chief on Veteran's Day. Incredulous, I listened to his disgraceful response to the Fort Hood Terrorist attack last week. The unworthy public relations ramblings of a man who neither ascribes to the exceptional nature of his Country nor its People rang empty in my ears.

So it is to history to which I turn for inspiration. Leo Grin, from http://www.bighollywood.breitbart.com/, posted a four-part series of Veteran's Day appropriate essays titled: "For Conservative Movie Lovers: John Ford, John Wayne, and 'They Were Expendable." His Part 2 of the series is the source for the above photograph. The flag, captured in color film during the actual battle on Midway Island, was raised in defiance of the Japanese dive bombers that swarmed en mass directly above. As Japanese pilots strafed and bombed the little island, a small crowd of young Marines struck and raised Our colors. Flapping furiously amidst billowing black smoke, raging fires, roaring aircraft engines, thumping anti-aircraft guns, and shouting men, that war tattered standard glowed unconquered. All of this was captured on film and put together in John Ford's "The Battle of Midway," a twenty-minute documentary which can be viewed in its entirety on YouTube or on Part 2 of Grin's "Expendable" series.

Grin's rebuke of the narcissistic sophisticates of our day who make light of our past or try to spin our military and those who support them as victims and dupes is spot on, "It’s indescribably sad to realize that, in our time, many people now laugh at the exact same footage that made those women weep. They watch old movies like The Battle of Midway and they cackle at the narration, groan at the music, and dismiss it all as a hokey and corny reminder of an absurdly innocent and gullible age. They sit in self-satisfied judgment of the rubes of the past, safe and smug in their twenty-first century superiority, drunk on their impregnable sense of entitlement and sophistication.

'We forget. Always, we forget. We forget how much mental strain Americans of that time were under. We forget that the first six months of World War II saw America lose battle after battle in the Pacific. Thousands of husbands and sons were killed. A steady stream of 9/11-sized disasters shook the country’s psyche, one after the other, boom, boom, boom. Everyone knew people who died, or were trapped in murderous concentration camps, or were at that very moment risking their lives every day in faraway lands, possibly never to return."

So much of maintaining a nation hinges on not forgetting. Remember, the ink on the Declaration of Independence would be meaningless if it weren't for a militiaman and his long rifle. The Emancipation Proclamation would not have unchained one slave had it not been for the infantryman and his musket. Jews, and not the Jews only but Catholics and any other Nazi antagonist group, would not be living anywhere in Europe were it not for the GI and his M1 Garand. The same can be said for the War on Terror today, though the outcome is uncertain. Thank you veterans, old and young, thank you for your service. God bless you. God bless your families and the homes they live in. God bless your Country.

Dear Mr Congressman

2009-10-31T15:00:00.013-06:00

Oct 30, 2009

RE: Health Care Reform

Dear Congressman Matheson,

Your recent communication regarding health care reform warrants a response. I am a social and fiscal conservative who believes in adhering to Constitutional Law as intended by the Founding Fathers of this nation. I am a care giver to my wife, who suffers disability through gastro paresis and a myriad of related complications. Our daily cost without insurance would be in the thousands of dollars. With insurance it means we live in a small home and live frugally but have sufficient for our needs. Health care reform as presented by the Democrat leadership is based upon a specious and manipulative argument that will cost the American people dearly in terms of choice, taxes, and quality of care.

The bill is an elongated, bipartisan monstrosity, and were this not so serious, it would be comical. Are We the People to be content with a mere three days to review and comprehend nearly 2,000 pages of legalese on a topic of such magnitude and of a personal nature as a governmental takeover of health care? Would you take the time to read a ten page letter if I sent it to you? How about a hundred page letter spelling out the pitfalls of centralized planning and the erosion of individual liberties that accompany it? How about a 2,000 page letter detailing the same to be read in three days, and like it or not, that thesis, if it could be called such, would be enacted regardless of your protestations?

Public option gradually means public period. Surely Congressmen, you see the long term repercussions of a public option’s impact on private sector insurance? When this, “reform” doesn’t resolve the problem, what is the next step? More powers yielded to far away government officials removed from my home, cares, and family?

This legislation will have a direct and burdensome impact on me, my wife, and everyone I know and love. Data is coming forth that identifies added taxes which will penalize insurance companies and in turn those with existing health care plans. The insurance companies will pass their tax costs on to me. Do you really think a piece of legislation is going to alter the cost of an IV feeding? Or an MRI? No, it won’t. This is wealth redistribution and is not apposite to either a free people or a free market and is a foreign doctrine. Will this health care reform spur on medicinal advances and treatments or slow them down? Do you really believe that government involvement is going to enhance technological advancement?

Am I happy with my insurance? No. Would I like to see the gradual increase in year-over-year out-of-pocket expenses slow down or stop? Of course. Do I have the slightest confidence that government, one of the most inefficient organizations I can name, will actually help me and my family? I must answer with a resounding, NO.

Where is tort reform, Congressman? Where is the clear language that states I, with my limited income, will not be subsidizing a person who is in my country illegally with free health care? Why are We the People at the brink of financing abortion? Where, in recorded history, has centralized planning on this scale ever enhanced responsiveness? Have you, Mr. Congressman, read the GAO’s fall update on the long term fiscal outlook of the Federal Government‘s projected spending compared to projected GDP? Is that to be disregarded as the partisan politics of hate? Have you considered the real potential, and likelihood that rationing will eventually occur as the debt surpasses GDP many times over? Where is the mercy in cutting Medicare? Is it just to say to an old man who paid into Medicare much of his working life that his access to care is reduced to give someone else access to care who paid nothing in the name of mercy? What were the arguments for and against Medicare when it was legislated, I wonder?

Congressmen, I voted for you. Many are watching the voting behavior of you and your colleagues. People heretofore politically inactive are awakening. It has been, in every sense, a rude awakening. I don’t know who this government is answering to, but as far as can be determined, it is not the American people.

It is sad commentary that I and others like me, people engaged in their communities and toiling to be self sufficient, are compelled to watch with jealous eyes every move our government makes. It’s as if a tireless thief entered a naïve man’s blessed and happy home under the guise of a watchman. The thief then invites many unwanted guests into the home in which he was intrusted. The mob then engages in riotous, damaging behavior inflicting ruin which may prove irreparable. The man, seeing his property value and children’s inheritance diminish before his eyes, demands the carnage cease, and that the intruders depart. He is called names, intimidated, declared a fraud in his own house, and then ignored.

Your vote on the Hate Crimes Bill was a severe lack of judgment. You aided the undermining of the first amendment by voting “Yea” on that noxious legislation and have part in effectively establishing a privileged class based upon their chosen behavior. The threats, bullying, and damages inflicted against Prop 8 supporters in Californian present an example of the narrow mindedness and inherent hypocrisy of the loathsome Hate Crimes bill. Would this please Washington? Would it Please Lincoln? Please do not duplicate that level of politicking with our health.
　

　
Sincerely,

A Very Concerned Citizen
　

From the Crow's Nest

2009-10-24T18:36:00.023-06:00

Frederick Fleet, 4/14/1912 11:30 p.m.,

"ICEBERG, RIGHT AHEAD!"

Debt Held by the Public as a Percent of GDP (Gross Domestic Product)

"Weaknesses in the economy and financial markets—and the government’s response to them—have contributed to near-term increases in federal deficits, which reached a record level in fiscal year 2009. While a lot of attention has been given to the recent fiscal deterioration, the federal government faces even larger fiscal challenges that will persist long after the return of financial stability and economic growth. As shown in figure 1, GAO’s simulations continue to show escalating levels of debt that illustrate that the long-term fiscal outlook remains unsustainable. In little over 10 years, debt held by the public as a percent of GDP under our Alternative simulation is projected to exceed the historical high reached in the aftermath of World War II and grow at a steady rate thereafter.

...Although the timing of deficits and the resulting debt buildup varies depending on the assumptions used, both simulations show that the federal government is on an unsustainable fiscal path.

...roughly 92 cents of every dollar of federal revenue will be spent on the major entitlement programs and net interest costs by 2019. This is due largely to a substantial increase in interest on federal debt. "

The Federal Government’s Long-Term Fiscal Outlook, Fall 2009 Update,
United States Government Accountability Office:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10137sp.pdf

The above is a forecast of the catastrophic failure the non-revenue generating, obese enterprise known as the Federal Government has our course and heading set toward. Contact your Congressmen: http://www.congress.gov/, and Senators at http://www.senate.gov/ and give them a serious talking to. I'd say contact the house at the Pennsylvania Avenue location but don't bother. The tenants are too busy ostracizing the churlish Fox News organization, laying plans to centralize yet more massive portions of the economy, and wooing popular musicians at lavish parties - fiddling while Rome burns. Not that we'll see much response from the legislative branch, but with enough incoming calls, emails, and letters and with midterm elections on the horizon, it may just have an impact. The government must understand that their total disregard for fiscal discipline will no longer be tolerated. The ballot box is fine, but it doesn't occur often enough to impact the behavior of the trained donkey and elephant circus attractions. You must take the time to contact your elected representatives and voice outrage at this madness. Spread the word also to those within your sphere of influence. Remember, this is about a country, not an infernal political party, so when someone gets defensive and feels maligned, remind them their greater call is that of an American citizen. The reality is they most likely will react to this information in the same way regardless of which party they affiliate with - fury and contempt against the chicanery found in the halls of government. Love of country and love of a country's standing government are not the same thing.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. 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." Declaration of Independence, 1776, Thomas Jefferson

(Statue of Commodore John Barry, Independence Hall - the statue's posture speaks volumes)

The seriousness of national debt and the closely related currency problems can not be understated. Crucially, the costs and debts factored into the GAO's forecast do not even include the fantastic financial burden of universal health care nor the economic anchor of cap-and-trade, which is essentially an international wealth redistribution program. The urgency to derail this inexorable march to national oblivion intensifies by the day. Again, take the time to contact your representatives. Shake them from their group-think mentality.

How will other nations which use our currency as a reserve view this nonpartisan data? Over the past several months http://www.marketwatch.com/ has subtly reported on multiple calls from G20 nations to detach the world economy from the US Dollar and use another currency as a reserve or create a new, one-world currency. My first posting "Dollars and No Sense" addresses the importance of maintaining a separate monetary system apart from a global political body as it relates to our liberty and sovereignty. The impact of world governments dropping the dollar alone would have on the value of your savings, retirement, and 401K is enough for a lifetime of sleepless nights. Worse still, the disintegration of the greenback propelled by foreign governments' monetary policies could literally destroy the social stability that Americans have enjoyed as a general rule since the Civil War. Yes, it is that serious, in my opinion. Ignoring it is unacceptable unless you want to be remembered as the worst generation in American history.

Some added takes on short term monetary policy (today through possibly five years from now) that seem apposite to the discussion:

The Federal Reserve Chairman is walking a tightrope in the short run - When to contract the money supply, or in other words, when to raise interest rates? The simple step of officially stating an intent to contract the money supply raised confidence in our dollar abroad a few weeks ago. The world is watching our monetary policy as well as our spending comparative to GDP very closely.

Aggregate Demand is equal to Consumption + Investment + Government Spending + Exports - Imports. The biggest of these factors is consumption. The problem with a consumer based economy, however, is that if rates go too high too soon, the lion's share of what little spending is occurring in the present economic dearth will likely decrease. This would lead to deflation, the real killer in the Depression era 1930s. Essentially, deflation impacts prices across the board as fewer dollars chase after more goods and services - a car that costs $15,000 today might cost $13,000 in three or four months. This is the ghost in the Japanese economic machine that caused "the lost decade." On the surface, lower prices sound great, but when we examine the effect of a deflation caused reduction in consumer spending in a consumer based economy it's not hard to determine businesses by the thousands would close up shop. Instead of purchasing a car today, I would reason, it'll be a lot cheaper in a few months, I'll wait. That is the underlying consumer motive in a deflationary economy. Demand is less than supply. When demand is low, economic activity is low. When economic activity is low, job growth is low and unemployment is high.

The opposite specter is the one already discussed, inflation. A failure by the Fed to shore up the money supply at the right time means your money is worth less today than it was yesterday, a lot less. Take, for example, my experience in Jamaica. When I first arrived on the island the cost of a bottle of Coke was $12, by the time I left two years later, it was $24. If a Jamaican had a 401K of $50,000, two years later it had roughly the buying power of $25,000.

The above issues are why our Founding Fathers, with the exception of A Hamilton, loathed the idea of a central bank.

Be cognizant of what this GOA report means to the next generation in addition to your own future wealth and peace in the long term. To pay the burgeoning national debt incurred by the Federal Government the Federal Reserve will be forced to further inflate our currency which will lead to exceedingly high inflation and likely national bankruptcy. Again, is it likely the rest of the world will sit back and use our dollars while this is going on? Perhaps the Fed's expansion of the money supply will be done in conjunction with a reduction of social services, defense spending, infrastructure, police, etc and a massive tax increase. Is this the future you envisioned for yourself?

Can't happen here? Ever hear of a beautiful passenger ship that someone was fool enough to suggest was so well engineered that "God himself couldn't sink her?"

Graph originally posted at http://www.americanthinker.com/ by Steve McCann, "The Debt Death Spiral," Oct 24, 2009.

Sunrise or Sunset?

2009-09-26T00:37:00.014-06:00

The Delaware had been crossed. The Hessian garrison at Trenton routed and its commanding officer perished. Total victory had been achieved. But it was temporary. With bayonets fixed, the British eagerly moved upon the ragged American Continental Army with intent to break the back of the main body of armed resistance to the Crown. There was only one way of escape, the Assunpink Bridge. With the rear guard holding the line against the enemy, the American army systematically made its way across the tiny, narrow bridge while musket shot and artillery fire rang about. The urge to panic was ever present. Of the event David Hackett Fischer says, “Nearly all of the Americans got safely across the creek. Howland (quoting Major Beale’s diary) wrote that “the bridge was narrow and our platoons in passing it were crowded into dense and solid mass, in the rear of which, the enemy were making their best efforts.” George Washington rode up and sat his horse quietly beside the bridge. Every man who crossed the bridge passed close by him. Private Howland wrote, “The noble horse of Gen. Washington stood with his breast pressed close against the end of the west rail of the bridge, and the firm, composed, and majestic countenance of the General inspired confidence and assurance in a moment so important and critical. In this passage across the bridge it was my fortune to be next the west rail, and arriving at the end of the bridge rail, I was pressed against the shoulder of the general’s horse and in contact with the general’s boot. The horse stood as firm as the rider, and seemed to understand that he was not to quit his post and station…” Again the men spoke of his “composure” in a critical moment, and the infantry rallied to his quiet leadership,” The Crossing, page 300 - 301.

It’s been over two centuries since, and where is the man on the white horse today? Our nation stands on the precipice of catastrophe as it stumbles about like a once proud and prosperous man given to too much hard drink. Villains and strangers bump into our shoulders and feign insult and injury if we dare look them in the eye. Our civil servants are become our uncivil masters insulting us with every ignominious adjective their small minds can conceive. Deviant tricksters dope the minds of our People with licentious productions and hollow imitations of goodness and charity. As a wounded man with senses enervated by a steady opiate drip, we sign the line on the contract we’re told to execute and thereby name the heirs of our estates - strangers - hateful, envious, and foreign.

Where is the man on the white horse to marshal our courage? Where is the voice of Cicero checking the ambitious and calling the citizenry to awaken and defy tyranny to its face? Where is George S. Patton, the terror of the Nazis and the fearless antagonist of the depravity the Nazis symbolize? Where are the champions of Western Civilization? Where is the Can Do American leading the way and singing of liberty with head held high? About us we see retreat from America, chaotic and panicked, with hosts of quislings and sycophants herding the flight along the crooked, vacillating path toward dictatorship. Stop running away. Face the enemy, terrible as he is with his many faces, withstand his hating gaze. Defy him. Who else there but us? The man on the horse is not to be found, his day and duty are fulfilled. Cicero’s voice is now only an echo and is a whisper of warning. General Patton fell upon his enemy and laid him to waste, and now himself lies among the vanquished. The last vestige of Western Civilization, the great nation that is passing before our eyes, is crumbling as the earth beneath its mighty pillars is subverted by fools and deviants. The cynicism and mockery spilling from the sneering mouths of both foreigner and men who ought to be counted as brethren and countrymen punish the goodly American and assail his sense of patriotism and love of country on a daily basis. Dictators step on our own soil and defecate on our Country and curse its People, and in so doing make a mockery of every young man lying in marked and unmarked graves. The devourer of nations’ mouth is watering in anticipation as the hated mightiest and goodliest of the great and terrible nations of the earth falters.

The novel, Pillar of Iron by Taylor Coldwell has a truly haunting passage in its novelized biography of my hero Cicero. As he, Cicero, sat in the Consul’s Chair amidst the Senate, he faced off with one of the Roman Republic’s most villainous and dangerous internal enemies, Cataline. This paragraph summarizes the entire 700 page book, “Cicero watched the eloquent and direful face before him and knew all the ghastly thoughts that raced like lightning through the blazing eyes. He said to himself: He, not I, is the future of Rome. My day is passing before my vision, but his is just dawning, the day of power in the hands of the furies, the centaurs, the oppressors, the Pan-stricken, the bloodthirsty and overweening and frightful, the tyrants and the unutterably corrupt and deathly. Nevertheless, if only for a little I must delay that day, and write on the walls of Rome the warning for future and as yet unknown nations to read, lest they fall into the very same pit,” page 547.

Wherein (yes, archaic use) the United States is a nation founded not only on the remnants of the classical era Greco/Roman civilizations but largely on Judeo-Christian philosophy it seems relevant to quote one of the greatest of the ancient Hebrew prophets in tones similar to the passage quoted above, “Therefore, my people are gone into captivity, because they have no knowledge; and their honorable men are famished, and their multitude dried up with thirst. Therefore, hell hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure; and their glory, and their multitude, and their pomp, and he that rejoiceth (in these), shall descend into it,” Isaiah 5.

It is also of import to look at the other side of coin. To quote the intractable John Adams, "These are the times in which a genious would wish to live. It is not in the still calm of life, or the repose of a pacific station, that great characters are formed. The habits of a vigorous mind are formed in contending with difficulties. Great necessities call out great virtues. When a mind is raised, and animated by scenes that engage the heart, then those qualities which would otherwise lay dormant, wake into life and form the character of the hero and the statesman," John Adams, David McCullough, page 226.

The will of the People is only as potent as their understanding and knowledge. When the will of the People is lax, then the ambitious can carve whatever state suits their ego and enhances their status. Then, when the citizenry wakes up with reflexes and faculties quickened by anger and resentment, and the powers that beset their wits wilt away by the same, they’ll find the sun has set on the day of action, and the pride and dignity of the American people will seem nothing more than a short lived, happy dream that becomes more and more faint and hard to remember, until it will be as if it never was. But, I hope, among the hordes of fad fumbling lemmings, there are still a few lions whose eyes blaze with the type of liberty referred to by our founding fathers. “The ides of March are come.” “Aye Caesar; but not gone…” (15) Shakespeare

Perhaps, small and unimportant as we are against the inexorable macro trends descending upon us, if we hold the line long enough, and delay the terror that is the unbridled natural man from usurping dominion over us, the man on the white horse will come. And with him will come strength and surety. The gray areas that destroy and desiccate Our will and give shadows for the oppressors to find comfort would then wilt away before flourishing clarity and vitality. America is worth it. In spite of what garrulous would be statesmen with rubber spines and fine fluffy words say, our Country is noble and founded upon eternal principles that blesses man and gives him dignity. My home may be small and old, but by the principle of private ownership guaranteed me by the Constitution, the Law of my Country, it is mine. The highest civil or military official in the land may not enter through my door without my leave and permission. In this, I have a measure of dignity; I am sovereign and neither kneel nor bow before any earthly prince or king. My country is a blessing to me. It is sacred. God bless the United States of America.

Not Worth .99 Cents

2009-09-19T20:18:00.005-06:00

Impatiently and in a hurry I walked behind the exceedingly slow grocery shopper. I reminded myself she was some one's grandma and tried to not look annoyed. My obsessive compulsive urge to get where I was going hummed and vibrated in my bones. One step. Another step. I suppressed a groan. One more step. Almost to the shopping carts and out of the way...If I were an open aggressive rude person as opposed to a passive contemplative rude person I'd have strode ahead of her with a taciturn, "Pardon me," and no backward glance. It is astonishing how such a small object as a single person can command the entire space of an entryway to a grocery store. Something I run into a lot, actually. Both the left and right flanks of these slow movers are covered by common decency, making it near impossible to pass them without looking like the proverbial jerk.

Hemmed in by my concern not to appear rude and a pair of size 5 sneakers propelled, or perhaps gently encouraged along, by aged bones, I looked for a distraction. The Red Box provided me with one. I have only rented a single movie from the Red Box, "Get Smart," which was a decent flick and in spite of the fact I walk by the Red Box every day to take our deposit to the bank, I returned it five days late - remembering the movie was on my desk only when seeing the vending machine.

A quick glance up and down the labels advertised at the Red Box made me feel like I was in a third world country. There was not one film that looked worthy of two minutes of my life, let alone two hours. A warning should have been listed on every single one, "WARNING! The Surgeon General has found this material may be hazardous to your IQ!" As the song about the Grinch goes, "Stink! Stank! Stunk!" With the millions and billions of dollars Hollywood has to work with and all they produced was another slasher movie, another potty humor debacle, another low brow comedy.

By the time I finished scanning the bile for rented viewing the old grocery shopper was edging her squeaky shopping cart through the automatic door, which opened for her. Glad to finally be able to get around her I headed to the second automatic door, which failed to open because I walked into the sensor's field too quickly. I bonked my nose on the glass and looked up at the offending sensor. I reset my glasses and half smiled. As I entered the supermarket I saw the little old lady pick up a loaf of bread in her spindly fingers. After taking in the bread's smell she smiled and set it gently in her cart and continued her long journey to the distant produce section.

Catiline's Comeuppance

2009-09-06T21:04:00.011-06:00

Van Jones, the “Green Jobs Czar,” just resigned. Good riddance. I have already commented on the undesirability of the Czars in general on a prior post. The man in question is on record on multiple occasions proclaiming Marxism as the way of the future for America. Probably, lamentation of racism, partisan politics, and conspiracy will wail in various tones over the media. The eulogy will no doubt portray this man as a martyr. The spectacular silence on his background and former affiliations by a huge section of the media is again illustrative of a bias that is becoming increasingly difficult to associate only with conservative blowhard bell ringing. “Objective” journalism is indicted by its own reporting, or lack thereof. You will find it difficult to find any report by any major news network on this man’s fanaticism. Most of the self indictment that lead this man to reluctantly resign is in video format and not in print.

Van Jones’ philosophies and ideas are repulsive to self respecting Americans who understand what he represents. And what does he represent? An advocate for racial reciprocity and “social justice“ using social injustice as a means to that end. Van Jones is what our Founding Fathers would term a rascal and an agitator - one must be a little familiar with Washington and Adams to appreciate the depravity those terms are intended to convey. To express what this man represents, and the magnitude of the consequence of giving men such as Van Jones free reign to advance their un-American causes with impunity, I again turn to Cicero. In his furious prosecution of the conspirator Catiline, Rome’s foremost statesman and patriot indignantly states:

“For my part, I am certain that these men are going to meet their doom, that the punishment long due for their treachery, wickedness, and self indulgence is either imminent or at the very least on its way…My consulship can not cure these men; but if it removes them, it will have extended the life of our state not for some short period…There is no foreign people we need be afraid of, no king capable of making war on the Roman people: on land and sea…The internal war is all that remains: the plots are within, the danger is within, the enemy is within! Our struggle is against decadence, against madness, against crime…Whatever can be cured, I will somehow cure; but whatever has to be cut out, I will not allow to remain as a cancer within our state. So let them either leave or stay in peace - or, if they stay but keep their present intentions, let them expect what they deserve!” In Catilinam II 173 & 174.

I shall never tire of quoting the unapologetic defense of liberty and law (you can't have one without the other) by its ancient advocate, Marcus Tullius Cicero. Is it possible Van Jones is unworthy of Cicero’s vindictive as an enemy within? Judge for yourself. Here are some of the man’s own words:

“I met all these young radical people of color – I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, ‘This is what I need to be a part of.' I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary. I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th. By August, I was a communist.” (How many millions of people died under communism of starvation?)

“We agreed with Lenin's analysis of the state and the party. And we found inspiration in the revolutionary strategies developed by Third World revolutionaries like Mao Tse-tung and Amilcar Cabral.” (Do you know how many millions of people Mao Tse-tung is responsible for putting to death?)

This goes beyond his expletive laced rant against Republicans. Partisan politicians scamper around to further their own careers and engage in routine mudslinging to make the opposition’s stains appear darker than their own. This is to be expected in political marshes. Van Jones, however, is indicative of a new low. He helped establish STORM (Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement) which, of the 9/11terror attacks, proclaimed “We honored those who lost their lives in the attack and those who would surely lose their lives in subsequent U.S. attacks overseas.” Furthermore, he signed a document blaming the US government for the 9/11 attacks so it could justify further “imperialism.” He claims only “white” kids are capable of serial killing and massacres such as the horror at Columbine. He claims “white people” are purposely poisoning “people of color.” The videos of this man exclaiming such sensationalisms are all over the internet. Again, don’t expect to find them on the “trusted” news sources. Is it made up? I wish it were.

This man had no business being given any public trust by any public official, let alone the Chief Executive. When bureaucrats endeavor to aggrandize designs foreign and at odds with Americanism, then the People must arise and make their voices heard or future historians looking back on America will echo Tacitus of Rome,

“Opposition [I.e to Augustus} there was none; the boldest spirits had succumbed on stricken fields or by proscription lists; while the rest of the nobility found a cheerful acceptance of slavery the smoothest road to wealth and office, and, as they had thriven on revolution, stood now for the new order and safety in preference to the old order and adventure.” Annals 1.2.1

There is no joy in seeing the shame of this man‘s self dismissal. He, like many, is a victim of Marxist sophistry and elitism. Those who converted this man to their twisted world view care little for him or his disgrace. They care even less for the cause of America, my home nation from which I look to discern a greater and more charitable nation past or present and find none. Van Jones submitted his intellect and talent to proselyte others to the lie of centralized planning and racial superiority, a vice which I loath in any form - for there are few things which degrade a man’s dignity more than to say, “I am of a superior race,” however such statements are masked. I’d say I pity him. But impotent intellectuals of his sort and ambition find a way to inflict themselves again and again upon a witless populace - like a tireless, ravenous shark that has been kicked in the gills and swims away leaving an ominous calm only to return all the more aggressive. He still has his uses for those who detest the America I love. Stay vigilant. This is not the only individual given public trust by the present administration with strange sympathies foreign and unholy. Stay aware. It is the only defense We the People have.

The Louisiana Purchase

2009-08-24T19:52:00.005-06:00

Don't ask me how I ended wasting ten minutes looking this up, but it is crucial that this information get out. According to Wikipedia the geographical names of the Mullet are:

"Ape Drape: Riverside, CA
Norco Neck Warmer: Norco, CA
Hockey Hair: Canada, Sweden
Achy Breaky Hair: Nashville
Mullet: (classic and widely accepted, much as Coke is a synonymous with Cola) Hoboken, NJ
Forbidden Hair: Europe
Shom: Florida"

"Despite its negative reputation, the mullet remains a moderately popular hairstyle among certain social groups in various Western countries. In Spain it can be widely identified in the streets of cities like Barcelona. The Spanish mullet is generally shorter and lighter than a classic mullet, only using the last inch or so of hair above the hairline. It rarely extends beyond the neck. Also in Spain, the mullet is associated with two different ethnic groups: young Gypsies and young separatists from the Basque Country."

"It is also fairly popular among the 18–34 age group in some East European countries, notably Romania, where it is most popular among high school aged males. In the U.S. and Canada, the mullet is particularly associated with blue collar men, fans of country and heavy metal music, soccer fans and ice hockey players, as well as many lesbians. In the UK the mullet is most commonly associated with thugs, David Shales, Pat Sharp or with Central and Eastern Europeans, particularly professional footballers. In Australia the haircut is associated with Bogans and Australian rules football players, particularly those from the 1980s, as well as Lebanese Australian youths. In Germany, the hairstyle has once again become popular, and is often worn by working class youth, especially those of Turkish immigrant origin. There it is commonly referred to as "Vokuhila" - vorne kurz, hinten lang (short at the front, long at the back). In India, a rather mild and fashionable version of a mullet is rather common, it is known in South India, notably Tamil-Nadu, as a "Funk" haircut."

"In recent years, the mullet has enjoyed resurgent popularity among the hip set, becoming commonly known as "Le Mullet" or a "Fashion Mullet", in particular the emo sub-culture, probably due to its association with 1980s retro kitsch."

"In European countries the mullet has regained popularity, especially in Ireland, due to the huge eastern European immigration there, with styles such as the "v-mullet" and the "box mullet". The v-mullet is similar to mohawk but wider, with a "V" shape at the back and the "box" being like the old 80's mullets just shorter and straighter, usually people put color in the back, such as blond and red. Both these styles are generally popular amongst the eastern Europeans in Ireland and occassionally the scangers and culchies."

"The mullet's stronghold, by far, within Europe, is still Spain, particularly in Barcelona, in the the province of Catalonia, from where it seems to be re-infecting the remainder of the country at an alarming rate. However, the Catalans have, in fact, never left the mullet behind, even for a brief period, like most of the rest of the world did. At one time, however, the Spanish were at risk of losing their title as 'mullet capital of Europe' to the Czech Republic."

"However, the Czechs have since moved on and enjoyed more modern hairstyles. However, the Spanish, stook with it through thick and thin, despite it being lost in time to the rest of the universe. This is another old-fashioned haircut that the Spanish seem to love and refuse to let go of. In Spain, it is particularly popular amongst those who support bullfighting."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mullet_(haircut)

Victory Chocolate Ration Increases: From 30 oz. to 20

2009-08-15T18:42:00.020-06:00

"Death Panel," "Birthers," "Deathers," "Nazis," "Brown Shirts," the hyperbole marches on all over the place. The recent Palin "Death Panel" blast regarding the government option health care bill has taken a lot of heat on the news over the past week. The phrase is low brow and easy to make fun of. It fits the simplistic mold the New York and LA media barons have of Christian, middle American, mouth breathing yokels like Palin and myself. The reality that sparked the allegedly dorky phrase, however, is a little more difficult to mock. An editorial at American Thinker gives a bit of insight - http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/death_panel_is_not_in_the_bill.html

The issue surrounding the phrase in question is health care reform. Am I satisfied with the buffoons at Empire Bluecross Blueshield, my insurance company? Not for a moment. They have laid hundreds of thousands of dollars of unpaid costs on my and IHC's doorsteps. IHC, a private institution, has taken the brunt of this expense upon itself. Does there need to be some kind of reform? I would say yes. It is preposterous a health care provider should pay for the care it provides to an insured patient. It is equally lame that an insured patient should pay for care he or she receives when insured. Travesty is the word that comes to mind. Some kind of reform is in order. A public option as proposed by the government? PUBLIC? A political entity having authority over matters of health? Laughable - if not so frightening.

While I was in Salt Lake this week, my normal twenty minute daily news browsing was chopped down to several MSNBC affiliates and one CNN affiliate. The condescending tone the anchors took over people with concerns about a public health care "option" was rather aggravating, and again, illustrative of a poorly disguised bias - a topic for another time. I have met no one who would benefit more than Tiffany and I would, theoretically, from a public option. And yet, I vehemently oppose it.

I do so for principle and practicality. On principle, this is nothing but Caesar-esq demagoguing to expand the welfare state and centralize more power - I could care less about the motive - the results are what they are. In spite of dismissive remarks of legislators who add a chuckle with a brush of the hand at the supposed absurdity of "socialism," the present proposal that the President and Congress want to rush through is at best a precursor to a communal system of healthcare. Government involvement dumbs down nearly any enterprise it touches. This reduces the choices of the People on a matter of the most intimate nature - their health, and that of their mothers, fathers, children, siblings, grandparents - people they see, know, and love.

It is of no small consequence that the President has dozens of "czars," including a "health czar," under his direct authority. The name "czar" of itself is noxious and brings to mind pre-Bolshevik Russian authoritarianism. These "czars" by and large are not approved by Congress - circumventing Article II, Section II of the Constitution, which ensures civilian checks over the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for..." There is a valid criticism of the prior administration's approach to "executive privilege." To avoid embarrassment, the Bush administration refused to allow Karl Rove to answer before the House Judiciary Committee on the grounds of executive privilege. This is classic slippery slope power play politics and illustrative of why I am so adamant about paying attention to these things. Now we're looking at over three dozen Presidential appointees who answer to the President only. The President, Obama, or his successor, can side step Congressional oversight by simply declaring executive privilege. One of these "czars," unhappily, is assuming in some form or other authority over health care. Of course, this is portrayed as for the public good as a means of efficiency to help speed aid to the less fortunate.

Have you heard of a movie called "My Summer Story?" Probably not. It is the sequel to the renowned "A Christmas Story." Though mostly a forgetful interpretation of Jean Shepherd's short stories, there is one memorable scene in the film. A widowed neighbor of Ralphie ("You'll shoot your eye out," remember him?) looses her home and all her possessions to foreclosure during the tail end of the Great Depression. The narrator describes the situation. The widow, standing stern faced and helpless on her front porch above the balding auctioneer who enthusiastically gesticulates among the inventory of her home's furnishings. The auctioneer holds her deceased veteran husband's WWI dough boy army helmet for sale - "cheap" he says. The less than enthusiastic crowd stands silent. The narrator, a grown up Ralphie, states that none of the widow's neighbors purchased nor even bid on a single item. Her home and possessions sold only to those people who came from far away and did not know the widow, or her dead husband. To me, there is a truth in this that has shadows of similarity to the planned economy of a distant power.

With this in mind, I highly recommend reading the three posts on my brother Andy's blog, http://www.freeyesfree.blogspot.com/ "Freedom vs. Rights: Man's Fundamental Rights" for good commentary regarding negative contrasted with positive liberties.

In practicality, the enormous cost of a public option will lead to less health care - specifically for certain members of the population. Eventually, the cost will catch up with GDP. This has proven true in the socialized programs of other nations, England in particular. It is a fallacy to assume a dollar sent through the crooked tunnels of DC can come out the other side unmaligned and anywhere near its prior value before its stupefying journey to Washington began. Is there any government program - ever - that stayed within its proposed budget - even within four times its approved budget? If so, it is the exception. In Tiffany's situation, with the market incentive gradually removed as the swelling apparatus of government shoves it aside, or greatly reduces it, it is less likely the miracle cure we hope for will be invented. It is also all to likely after several years of tax payer funded health care and government inefficiency that budget shortfalls will force the government to start auditing high cost cases, and act as the detached, bureaucratic monstrosity it is.

To close, I'll add a bit from a book I just finished. Favoring history or biography books, it is rare for me to spend time reading a novel. As this book is a metaphor that illustrates the negative utopia that short sighted Utopian revolutionaries ultimately create, I felt it worth the time. If you've read any of my prior posts, you'll notice a familiar theme in this quote from the book, "They could be made to accept the most flagrant violations of reality, because they never fully grasped the enormity of what was demanded of them, and were not sufficiently interested in public events to notice what was happening. By lack of understanding they remained sane. They simply swallowed everything, and what they swallowed did them no harm, because it left no residue behind, just as a grain of corn will pass undigested through the body of a bird," 1984, George Orwell, page 156.

Party Slogans:

WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

(Big Brother Is Watching)

Brave New World vs. Land of the Free and Home of the Brave

2009-08-04T19:31:00.005-06:00

"A nation can survive its its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.

For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear," Cicero, defending himself in the Senate from banishment. The very men whose machinations eventually lead the overthrow of republican government in Rome watched in triumph as the former consul and loyal disciple of representative government endured the shame of being banished.

Before the final usurpation occurred, Cicero's friends had this to say to him and his warning voice, "We do not meddle in politics. Rome is prosperous and at peace. We have our villas in Caprae, our racing vessels, our houses, our servants, our pretty mistresses, and our comfort and treasures. We implore you, Cicero, do not disturb us with your lamentations of disaster. Rome is on the march to the mighty society for all Romans," indeed, a brave new society from which there was no return.

We don't have a Marcus Cicero in government today. There is no champion of liberty and Constitutional government walking the halls of Congress. There is only us. Who are We? It remains to be seen. Of Caesar and the Roman people, Cicero lamented, "Do not blame Caesar, blame the people of Rome who have so enthusiastically acclaimed and adored him and rejoiced in their loss of freedom and danced in his path and gave him triumphal processions and laughed delightedly at his licentiousness and thought it very superior of him to acquire vast amounts of gold illicitly. Blame the people who hail him when he speaks in the Forum of the 'new, wonderful good society' which shall now be Rome's, interpreted to mean 'more money, more ease, more security, more living fatly at the expense of the industrious.' Julius was always an ambitious villain, but he is only one man."

He with ears to hear, let him hear, then let him stand while there's still something worth standing for. Ignorance is bliss, but is only so until the awakening comes with its terrible face and harsh hands.

The Cicero Quotes provided from a speech given by THE HONORABLE MILLARD F. CALDWELL Justice - Supreme Court in 1965, read Justice Caldwells entire speech at http://www.aapsonline.org/brochures/cicero.htm

The Pomerium (Part II)

2009-08-03T23:27:00.023-06:00

“The aspiring genius of Rome sacrificed vanity to ambition, and deemed it more prudent, as well as honorable, to adopt virtue and merit for her own whosesoever they were found, among slaves or strangers, enemies or barbarians…Their partial distinctions were obliterated, and they insensibly coalesced into one great nation, united by language, manners, and civil institutions, and equal to the weight of a power empire…The grandsons of the Gauls who had besieged Julius Caesar in Alesia commanded legions, governed provinces, and were admitted into the Senate of Rome. Their ambition, instead of disturbing the tranquility of the state, was intimately connected with its safety and greatness…

So sensible were the Romans of the influence of language over national manners that it was their most serious care to extend, with the progress of their arms, the use of the Latin tongue…

Such was the general division of the Roman empire into the Latin and Greek languages…

they no longer possessed that public courage which is nourished by the love of independence, the sense of national honor, the presence of danger, and the habit of command. They received laws and governors from the will of their sovereign, and trusted for their defense to a mercenary army…

But the calamities of Italy had gradually subdued the proud consciousness of freedom and glory. In the age of Roman virtue the provinces were subject were subject to the arms, and the citizens to the laws, of the republic; till those laws were subverted by civil discord, and both the city and the province became the servile property of a tyrant. The forms of the constitution, which alleviated or disguised their abject slavery, were abolished by time and violence, the Italians alternately lamented the presence or the absence of the sovereign whom they detested or despised; and the succession of five centuries inflicted the various evils of military license, capricious despotism, and elaborate oppression. During the same period, the Barbarians (non Romans) had emerged from obscurity and contempt, and the warriors of Germany and Scythia were introduced into the provinces as the servants, the allies, and at length the masters of the Romans whom they insulted or protected. The hatred of the people was suppressed by fear… ” Edward Gibbons, “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” excerpts from pages 24 - 36 & 640. Note, these quotes represent a moving object, national policy, not a static monument lying lifeless in a museum. What is the difference in the theme from the first quote and the last quote?

“By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community,” John Jay, Federalist Papers.

How do the above excerpts relate to illegal immigration and national health and vitality?

Jumping from ancient history to the present day we find, as we often do, a familiar ring to familiar trends and can be thus justified in presupposing an identifiable end. If we take contemporary historiography at face value that the Mexican American War of a century and a half ago was unjust and unilaterally an act of US belligerency, does that justify deluding American rule of law today and the near future? This question again raises the specter of reparations, which is becoming a common theme in today’s acerbic political environment for justifying acts of injustice.

Several studied assumptions based on realist rationality that American independence and nationalism are better for the overall happiness, peace, and safety for the highest percentage of Americans of all demographics are:

The citizens of the United States have a far greater chance of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness under the American model of government than one found anywhere else on the globe presently in operation. The movement toward globalizing government and eradicating present day national boundaries is a fallacious utopian enterprise that gives traction to illegal immigration and vice versa.

The argument of liberal vs. conservative ideologies too often is a useless circus. Americans need to come to an understanding of the differences between negative and positive liberties as well as their contrasting long term effects. So called positive liberties are a common utopian ideal within globalist circles; the globalist is often motivated to form a collective or planned economy. An exceptional commentary on this phenomenon outlined on a smaller scale can be found in the August edition of The American Conservative. The article titled “Prague Autumn” comments on the dissolving effect the EU has upon the individual nations of Europe. In particular is the pesky Czech Republic. The Czech Republic’s attempts to maintain identity and sovereignty against the EU juggernaut have a haunting familiarity to the American traditionalist. The rhetorical question Peter Hitchens poses, “..if you no longer have such things to decide where you laws begin and end, are you a nation or a province?” is a question that is now too late to ask in Europe. Is that so for America?

The United States is an exceptional nation. The world has nothing that can afford an American a better guarantee of individual liberty than the US Constitution unimpeded by world courts and legislative bodies.

It is the first and foremost responsibility of both the government and the immigrant to see that American tradition and culture is adopted, and that it is enriched not mutated. If such is not the desire of either of these parties than such party is held in contempt of the American People and should themselves be summarily dismissed from office or to their country of origin.

Hindsight historians, the double standards that often accompany their opinions, and backward looking demagogues notwithstanding, reparations, insofar as they are not applied to ensure equality of opportunity but to enforce an unnatural equality of objects, is an injustice. Too often, those rewarded are not those originally injured, and those made to pay are not those who committed the original injustice in the first place.

All peoples were, at one time or other, have been on both sides of history.

As is inferred in the ending paragraph of the posting titled “The Pomerium,” the issue of illegal immigration is not based on racial exclusion, but of law, order, and allegiance. It is a matter of putting the interests of the People of the United States of America first and foremost without apology. America answers to Americans - review the definition of sovereignty.

Again, the policy of this blog is to dismiss political correctness for the poison it is. It is not diplomacy, it is not kindness and charity. It is manipulative and insincere. Despite the outrage of any who would feign moral high ground against this declaration, I state this as a matter of reality. There is only so much of the third world the United States can ingest without itself developing third world characteristics. Illegal immigration is unacceptable for America and unjustifiable - millions of legal immigrants respect our law and follow through with the naturalization process - why shove these to the back of the line in favor of those who show contempt of our law and our country? The rate of legal immigration, however, should never exceed the ability of the nation to acclimate migrating peoples regardless of where they migrate from. Pat Buchannan’s book “State of Emergency” presents a strong, data supported argument for any who wish a more thorough and annotated commentary on the impact immigration had, has, and will have on the nation - good and bad.

Enrichment vs. mutation and national survival vs. national dissolution are the endgame and reason why this issue is not to be taken lightly.

Nationalism is not a pejorative, and according to the opinion of this blog, it is not the leftist progressive nor the Neo Conservative definition of the term. Though their motives and means of selling their policies differ, both believe America has an obligation to expend her blood and treasure to carry the world on her shoulders. We the People are an independent nation whose primary responsibility are the People we see and rub shoulders with in our own neighborhoods, churches, schools, and businesses.
Cultural relativism is dismissed as fantasy - this is proven by the very issue of illegal immigration. If all was truly relative, why immigrate? American culture is worth preserving.

Accusations of racism or the use other ignominious labels to intimidate and silence are the tools of a naïf or bully. If you lower yourself to hiss such rubbish you’ll find one day, in a moment of honest circumspection, that you are the one possessed of the narrow mind infected with prejudice.

Let’s now define some key terms:

Illegal immigrant *: somebody who has entered a country illegally
Immigrant *: somebody settling in country: a newcomer to a country who has settled there
Legal *: permitted by law: allowed under the law
Allegiance *: loyalty to ruler or state: a subject's or citizen's loyalty to a ruler or state, or the duty of obedience and loyalty owed by a subject or citizen
Archaeology *: study of ancient cultures through remains: the scientific study of ancient cultures through the examination of their material remains such as buildings, graves, tools, and other artifacts usually dug up from the ground
Amnesty *: prosecution-free period: a period during which crimes can be admitted, or a general pardon
Sovereignty *: independence: the right to self-government without interference from outside influence, a politically independent state
Border *: line dividing two areas: the line that officially separates two countries or regions, or the land on each side of it
Nation *: people in land under single government: a community of people or peoples living in a defined territory and organized under a single government
Citizen *: legal resident of a country: somebody who has the right to live in a country because he or she was born there or has been legally accepted as a permanent resident
Empire *: lands ruled by single authority: a group of nations, territories, or peoples ruled by a single authority, especially an emperor or empress
Republic *: political system with elected representatives: a political system or form of government in which people elect representatives to exercise power for them
Subject *: somebody treated or acted upon, person ruled by another
Conquest *: subjugation of enemy: the process of taking control of a place or people by force of arms
Succumb *: give in: to be unable to resist or oppose something

Simply listing the definitions of these words ought to shed light on the topic of immigration for a thinking person. Every word listed above is relevant in the analysis of the illegal immigration problem. As mentioned in “The Pomerium” the cause and effect timelines are not measured in days, weeks, or months. They are to be analyzed in terms of years and decades.

Look, for a moment, at the history between Mexico and the United States. Mexico declared its independence and removed itself as a vassal state of Spain not long after the United States secured its independence from Britain. Thus, the United States and Mexico both began as infant states at very close to the same time. What we see in history between the two countries is almost the reverse of what is happening today. For the American, this should be a lesson from which to learn very carefully. Though the migratory flow has reversed, the reason for the reverse demographic trends of contraction and expansion does differ. The macro motivation of Manifest Destiny is a different one than the futile economic conditions many hard working Mexican people find themselves struggling with at home.

In looking at the past, we find that George Santayana was indeed right about it repeating itself. The Mexican American War in the 1800s centered around the Texan Republic and the stream of American Manifest Destiny squatters, or illegal immigrants if you will, who according to Mexican General Manuel de Mier Y Teran’s account were, “…colonists of another people, more progressive and better informed than the Mexican inhabitants, but also more shrewd and unruly; among the foreigners are fugitives from justice, honest laborers, vagabonds and criminals, but honorable and dishonorable alike travel with their political constitution in their pockets, demanding their privileges, authority and officers which such a constitution guarantees.” "The West", Geoffrey C Ward, page 69. This isn’t exactly flattering commentary for either peoples, but it’s probably as accurate an account as any on the make up of the different demographics in Texas that eventually went to war with each other.

What social forces were in play? A large proportion of the peoples of both California Alta and Texas had more cultural, religious, and philosophical similarities with the United States than they did with Mexico. They had little or no loyalty to the Mexican State. In summary, the Mexican government was willing to allow American squatters into their territory. When Mexican authorities began to insist this burgeoning group of foreign people adopt Mexican political and religious culture it bred resentment. Agents of the Mexican government sought to implement this policy by force which bred resentment. Resentment gave way to violent revolt.

Violent revolt lead to open war. When Texas fought for succession and won significant military victories the territory filed for admission into the Union and was actually denied. Mexico rejected monetary offers to purchase Texas, and the US sent an army into lands Mexico considered its sovereign territory. The United States Army won a series of victories and then advanced upon Mexico City. Binding and agreed upon by both states, the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed marking the Rio Grande as the present day border between the two young nation states.

Americans must be awakened to the harshness with which history treats apathetic and oblivious peoples. Generations after the Alamo, there is a movement within the Latino community who have a goal of a similar, albeit reverse, succession sought for by the first Texans. La Raza, a growing special interest group and strong advocate for illegal immigration and open borders, has succession as its goal openly listed in its charter. It is an openly anti American engine given credence by spineless American politicians. Given the condition of Mexico, one has to wonder upon what basis the leaders and followers of such an organization would establish such an objective? The answer to that rhetorical question may lie within the English translation of the name, La Raza.

With the never ending Palestinian/Israeli peace debacle plaguing the West Bank in mind, let’s take La Raza’s goal to full fruition. United States politicians, wracked with guilt of past American aggression and ignoring the plight of American people who had nothing to do with Guadalupe Hidalgo today, cede back America’s southwest territories. What happens to the European, Asian, and African peoples who live in what was once the Southwest United States?

Now, in our hypothetical political intrigue, let us assume the Native American tribes came forward and demanded cession of lands from the United States. Upon what grounds would they be denied? What if England did the same thing? What if Russia called the White House and demanded Alaska be returned because it was purchased at far too cheap a price? What of France and the Louisiana Purchase? What of Hawaii, which already has a strong secessionist movement - see S. 147, the “Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act - look at the arguments levied by those who favored this bill as it relates to the precedents set for the Indian Nations in the continental United States.

This is the problem with the backwards thinking of the reparations argument - by what authority do you say enough is enough? Will you say that every person in the United States with more than fifty percent European heritage depart the continent? And go where? Will you classify them as unwanted second class citizens who are reluctantly allowed to stay? Who will take them in? Indeed, once the precedent is set, the nation known to the world as the United States of America is undone. Americans who fail to see the danger here think too much in terms of today, where they're too focused on micro issues while blind to the macro.

It is therefore foolish, even if the American victory over Mexico in 1848 is assumed as unadulterated belligerency, to yield to the nonsensical notion that America must repent by yielding her present day territory to Mexico.

So let’s look at this another way - the globalist/zero border way of the enlightened pop culture student. A point of view easily quashed by one word - results. What, in the performance of the UN, leads you to believe a massive empire of nations turned provinces is preferred to individual sovereign states? The UN’s track record in Africa and the middle east is worse than absurd. Corruption and ineptitude are two words that scarcely scratch the surface in describing the UN and its hypocrisy.

Immigration policy must demand acclimation of American custom, language, and history. Nothing less than that will guarantee an America for tomorrow. The fact that America is the most successful melting pot on earth is not lost here. No other nation has been more accommodating to new comers than America is (the argument that America is imperfect and has short comings is a cop out used by people, mostly home grown Americans, who suffer from an
incorrigible case of ingratitude) I believe in my country and her principles. Her principles, if lived by the majority, are true and sufficient for the success of any people. Were the Anglo American race to vanish in a puff of abortion, divorce, and contraception and the Latinos were to raise our fallen banner, pick up the torch of liberty, and cherish the history and customs of my country I would be at peace and content.

It may seem off topic on the surface, but for a few paragraphs it seems appropriate to touch upon written council of our Founding Fathers. The Federalist Papers” are an exceptional literary achievement written by three men under the pseudonym “Publius“ during a time of great uncertainty in America. The reason the Federalist Papers are made mention here is that today there is a similar dichotomy impacting the Union’s identity in present day America as in post colonial America. John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton essentially made the cause for a unifying government based on individual liberties and rights guarded by Constitutional safeguards implemented within an upgrade of past republican models. It was written during a period of rampant anxiety. The Constitutional Convention had been held but nothing was decided. Would the states remain separate nations tied only by weak treaties? Would they become as the European states, monarchical and authoritarian? It was uncharted territory and the debates about how best to ensure the People had the necessary liberties to pursue happiness and well being were as intense an ideological battle as any before or after. Unity, faction, checks, balances, economy, Navy, army, trade, foreign affairs, tyranny, democracy. In his arguments, Publius touched heavily upon the fallacies of the natural man and his tendencies toward unrighteous dominion and faction.

A post Revolutionary War, pre United States of America man or woman would have read in their morning edition of the Independent Journal or Daily Advertiser the words from the feather pen of Publius, “It is impossible to read the history of the petty republics of Greece and Italy, without feeling sensations of horror and disgust with the distractions with which they were continually agitated, and at the rapid succession of revolutions, by which they were kept perpetually vibrating between the extremes of tyranny and anarchy. If they exhibit occasional calms, these only serve as short lived contrasts to the furious storms that are to succeed. If now and then intervals of felicity open themselves to view, we behold them with a mixture of regret arising from the reflection, that the pleasing scenes before us are soon to be overwhelmed by the tempestuous waves of sedition and party rage. If momentary rays of glory break forth from the gloom, while they dazzle us with a transient and fleeting brilliancy, they at the same time admonish us to lament, that the vices of government should pervert the direction, tarnish the luster, of those bright talents and exalted endowments, for which the favored soils that produced them have been so justly celebrated,“ Federalist Number 9.

But Publius also verbalized the dignity and man’s divine potential he is endowed with. Of the Constitutional Convention Publius says, “Happily for America, happily we trust for the whole human face, they pursued a new and more noble course. They accomplished a revolution which has no parallel in the annals of human society. They reared the fabrics of governments which have no model on the face of the globe. They formed the design of a great confederacy, which it is incumbent on their successors to improve and perpetuate. If their works betray imperfections, we wonder at the fewness of them. If they erred most in the structure of the union, this was the work most difficult to be executed; this is the work which has been new modeled by the act of your convention, and it is that act on which you are now to deliberate and to decide.,” Federalist Number 14.

All of these subjects and more were commented upon by the men who gave Publius’ pen life with profound understanding of history, natural law, and philosophy. It is one of the most convincing secular literary works on realism as it pertains to man’s interaction with man ever recorded. Jay, Madison, and Hamilton took it upon themselves to convince Americans they were, indeed, Americans. They may be Boston Men, Virginians, and North Carolinians. They may be Puritan, Catholic, Jewish, or Anglican. They may be German, English, French, Spaniards, or Dutch but they were above all else, Americans. The argument was essentially for all these various ethnicities and differing brands of Judeo Christians to embrace the concept of E Pluribus Unum. One from Many.

“I submit to you, my fellow-citizens, these considerations, in full confidence that the good sense which has so often marked your decisions will allow them their due weight and effect; and that you will never suffer difficulties, however formidable in appearance, or however fashionable the error on which they may be founded, to drive you into the gloomy and perilous scene into which the advocates for disunion would conduct you. Hearken not to the unnatural voice which tells you that the people of America, knit together as they are by so many cords of affection, can no longer live together as members of the same family; can no longer continue the mutual guardians of their mutual happiness; can no longer be fellow citizens… Hearken not to the voice which petulantly tells you that the form of government recommended for your adoption is a novelty in the political world; that it has never yet had a place in the theories of the wildest projectors; that it rashly attempts what it is impossible to accomplish. No, my countrymen, shut your ears against this unhallowed language. Shut your hearts against the poison which it conveys; the kindred blood which flows in the veins of American citizens, the mingled blood which they have shed in defense of their sacred rights, consecrate their Union, and excite horror at the idea of their becoming aliens, rivals, enemies.“

Amnesty and illegal immigration gradually destroy our national independence. The United States of America is a sovereign nation that peoples from all across the globe have sought diligently to be a part of, legally. For the earliest Americans, the victory over the British at Yorktown, the ratification of the 1783 Treaty of Paris, the formulation of the Union and ratification of the Constitution, and the later War of 1812 effectively legitimized the Declaration of Independence’s claim that: “… as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.” This is Our Declaration to not only the British, but every other nation state and people who live upon the earth, near and far. It is this Declaration which America invites all he adopted sons and daughters to embrace. Let all who wish to be a part of Our Nation, make this Declaration their own and severe former ties and loyalties forever, let them become independent and free. If they cannot, they needn't come; they mustn't come, or the Declaration will become null and void.

Beware the Ides of March

2009-07-19T18:27:00.012-06:00

With all the distractions of life in the modern age, reading historiographies, biographies, and the classics are often set aside as an unnecessary luxury. Perhaps now is a good time to dump that opinion. George Santayana in his Reason and Common Sense, Volume I said, “Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Now and again, I’ll divert the normal rampage to a simple book recommendation. You may notice a number of quotations throughout this blog from a personal hero of mine, Marcus Tullius Cicero from the “Cicero Political Speeches” translated by D.H. Berry, a book I highly recommend. The speeches of Marcus Cicero not only give us a glimpse of the ancient world of Roman politics, they illustrate some striking similarities between modern western world politics and the machinations of the ancient. The cadence, rhythm, and use of language by Tully is second to none. He is a man whose words and deeds are worth study and reflection. Western Civilization’s awakening from the dark ages owes a great deal to this man.

The background of each speech outlined throughout the book provides additional insight into the maneuverings of a high stakes political chess game in which the fate of the ancient world's most successful and free republic was at stake. A devout patriot and thoughtful philosopher, Cicero observed the country he loved through the eyes of its people of all classes, and this, I think, was what made him a patriot in the deepest sense. In Cicero's speech "In Catilinam IV," his unapologetic declaration against usurpers could be spoken with truth today, "In fact, is there a single person here who does not regard these temples, the sight of our city, the possession of freedom, and indeed this light of day and the very soil of our shared homeland as not just dear to him, but a source of joy and delight? It is worth your while, too, conscript fathers, to take note of the feelings of the freedmen. They by their own merit have obtained the rights of citizens, and sincerely consider this their home - while certain others who were born here, and born to the best families, have thought of it not as their homeland, but as an enemy city," page 200. Such language, to me, is near poetic, it is profound, and in the end, tragic.

We feel the inevitable force of history when we read some of Cicero's final words recorded in his Phillipic speeches directed against the tyrannical Marc Anthony, "Look back, I ask you, Marcus Antonius, look back at last on your country. Think of the people from whom you are sprung, not of those with whom you live. With me, do as you will: only make your peace with your country. But this is for you; I shall shall speak for myself. I defended this country when I was a young man: I shall not desert it now that I am old. I faced down the swords of Catiline: I shall not flinch before yours. Yes, and I would willingly offer my body, if the freedom of this country could at once be secured by my death, and the suffering of the Roman people at last be delivered of that with which it has long been so pregnant. If nearly twenty years ago in this very temple I declared that death could not be untimely for a man who had reached the consulship, with how much more truth could I now say 'for an old man'? In fact, for me, conscript fathers, death is actually desirable now that I have discharged the responsibilities of the offices I attained and completed the tasks I undertook. Two things alone I long for: first, that when I die I may leave the Roman people free - the immortal gods could bestow upon me no greater blessing; and second, that each person's fate may reflect the way he had behaved toward his country," page 270. Beheaded, his hands cut off, and his tongue jabbed with pins by the vindictive wife of Marc Anthony, one may question the validity of Cicero's words in that last sentence. Yet, we see through the ages, that the greatness of Marcus Tullius Cicero, consul and patriot of Rome, dwarfs the infamous, self interested tyrant, Marcus Antonius. I have read and reread this book, it is a must for any library.

The Pomerium

2009-07-10T21:49:00.020-06:00

Perhaps no other violation of the rule of law in contemporary governance is as egregious as that of illegal immigration and our government‘s role in enabling it. The very integrity of the sovereignty of the United States is at stake in this highly charged, divisive issue. Thus far, no argument, insinuated or overtly levied, in support of illegal immigration and open borders carries sufficient weight to alter the opinion of this blog. This issue goes beyond the Mexican government’s ineptitude in the performance of its duty to provide a forum within which its people can pursue life, liberty, and happiness. It goes beyond our own government’s ineptitude in securing our nation’s sovereignty by enforcing existing naturalization/immigration law in addition to its monetary and economic philosophies. It is my postulation that illegal immigration is a symptom of other ailments, which on the surface seem entirely separate issues. Namely, the chief causes constituting the root of the problem’s origin can be traced to the following:

Keynesian economics and the departure of the US monetary system from the gold standard to the debt standard

Roe vs. Wade and its impact on the native population growth, or lack thereof

The government power class dependent upon the welfare state to maintain positions of control and influence

Cultural decline, loss of historical perspective, and with these, a decline in national dignity

Moral & Cultural relativism.

These seemingly separate threads braid together into the massive rope Americans seemed destined to hang themselves with. Illegal immigration is a product of the aforementioned causes. It is a self inflicted violation of the sovereignty of the United States of America through disdain and apathy among the governing class and the body politic in general. It, in very real terms, presents high potential for the entire overthrow of the American Republic in due time. Such an event would usher in all the long enduring, virulent excess that attends the power vacuum of a failed state. The real question is not the validity of this theory, which is heavily fortified by volumes of historical precedent, but rather the point in question is this: How far has the nation traveled the road of dissolution relative to the point of no return? It is important to understand the timetable of cause and effect in reference to this issue is not necessarily measured in months, years, or election cycles, but of decades. It is thus more relevant to your children than to yourself.

This topic will take multiple postings to cover. As a point of beginning, the most common talking points in favor of illegal immigration will be summarized. They will be addressed in more detail in later posts. Some of these arguments are rooted in valid concerns, some are simply excuses and politically motivated with little or no concern for any party involved. The summation of all of these arguments, the valid *, the half truths **, and the disingenuous *** is insufficient to justify the amnesty bills which will be proposed in Congress in the near term.

Illegal Immigrants do jobs Americans won’t do **

Illegal Immigrants are an overall plus to the American economy **

Illegal Immigration Amnesty is a humanitarian cause **

National borders are no longer relevant, ie role of global citizen trumps the role of national citizen ***

The southwestern present day United States once belonged to Mexico and thus the US has no no claim to justify enforcement of immigration and naturalization laws nor to secure the border: essentially the reparations argument **

It’s impossible to defend the border ***

Deporting Illegal Immigrants breaks up families *

Opposition to Illegal Immigration is an expression of racial hatred or prejudice ***

America is unilaterally to blame for the drug trade and thus the reprehensible, war level violence on the southern border forcing people into flight ***

We are a nation of immigrants **

The Amnesty Bill of 1984 did not result in chain migration **

Opponents of illegal immigration are xenophobic and anti-immigration ***

As with any debate, there are the opposing opinions, and the indecisive center. Repetitious exposure to the above arguments via various methods of packaging has had success among Americans predisposed with antipathy against the United States (these would be the people to whom the blog posting titled, “The Tale of Two Pledges“ was written for); it has little impact, if any, on Americans who retain a measure of national pride and consciously maintain a connection with their national heritage. Sadly, a great deal of Americans, the majority in fact, simply choose to ignore either argument. They tend to be swayed by the effectiveness or entertainment value of the message delivery (sophistry) as opposed to the substance (IE long term cause and effect) of the message. This realism averse, massive fence sitting category of citizens represent the absent audience to whom the post, “The Pox” was directed.

Illegal immigration is a violation of our law on a massive scale involving and affecting millions of people of both nations. Why is the rule of law so crucial? Why care? Simply put, the rule of law is vital for a free republic to function. Rule of law is the opposite of the arbitrary, tyrannical rule of centralized authority. Rule of law essentially is restraint of government and empowerment of the common man by giving him rights. The Magna Carta of 1215 is a simple example of the improvement of every day living for the common man under a rule of law vs. a rule of men. We need not delve into the chaos and futile nature of the dark ages other than to mention its descriptive name and identify it as predominately a rule of men era.

The Magna Carta was groundbreaking in this respect - even the King of England was not above the law. Arbitrary decisions were frowned upon as out of bounds and eventually as illegal. This effectively created a semblance of predictability - antisocial behavior resulted in a known outcome for both the governing and the governed. Conversely, socially favorable behavior resulted in rewarding outcomes. Contracts involving trade could be enforced under rule of law - a critical element to inspire risk taking in a market economy. By taking risks, society, meaning all classes of society, advanced. The fact that instances of corruption exist wherein the law is circumvented to give or obtain false advantage by erecting a façade does not alter the reality that the rule of law is preferable to an arbitrary government, or no government at all. Nor does it excuse the violation and corruption of established law. One not need look hard to ascertain this reality; nations decline, or continue to flounder, when corruption becomes, or is, the norm. As rule of law erodes, so does the nation itself. The peace and prosperity of her common people become increasingly illusive until they are impossible to obtain. This leads us directly to illegal immigration - a People in flight.

The willingness to work, and work exceedingly hard, of the first and second generation (drug and human traffickers as well as violent criminal elements excluded) of illegal immigrants is well enough established. It is thus a testament to the onerous circumstances the lower rung of productive Mexican citizens exist under amidst their homeland that so many millions endure the rigors of crossing the deserts and often choose to live in poverty within the United States. There are many elements in play here which will be addressed further in future postings. Some of the following are politically and or socially taboo; nonetheless, they are critical elements if the overall problem is to be understood:

The Mexican government, in spite of its vast natural resources, able human capital, and dual ocean access is an abysmal failure - and it must be noted that our government is following suit

There is, or was, opportunity for people willing to work in the United States due to a labor shortage (NOTE: this was a driving force before the recession, but if and when the boom/bust economy grows another bubble it will again require a labor force larger than the native/legally naturalized population can cheaply provide)

Elements within the United States lure impoverished foreign nationals with welfare programs indirectly funded by a debt standard monetary policy (or, the economist‘s preferred term, “credit based monetary system”)

American employers take advantage of a labor force willing to work cheaper than the native/naturalized work force artificially depressing wages for the lower echelon of the native/naturalized American labor force

The tens of millions of illegal immigrants residing in the United States represent a massive boon to the consumer base upon which our credit based monetary economy is dependent

A major source of national revenue for the Mexican government is wealth drawn from the United States via legal and illegal immigration. It is therefore a conflict of interest for the Mexican government to put domestic measures in place to curtail illegal immigration.

The illegal immigration debate subsided after the American People overloaded the Congress with protesting phone calls in 2007. Regardless of the will of the American People, the Federal government will impose this amnesty legislation upon them. Congress and the President will propose a new amnesty bill. They will play games with the bill’s nomenclature to divert attention away from the bill’s true nature and purpose. It should be noted the “one time” amnesty bill passed by Reagan in 1986 was followed up by at least six other amnesties. The illegal immigration problem swelled from several million to the tens of millions after 1986. Amnesty leads to future amnesty, the precedent is established even if the so-called "chain migration" did not materialize (yet). Now, as we face a quadruple sized amnesty bill two decades later, we can expect accusations of racial hatred or bigotry levied against those opposed to it. Phrases such as “Xenophobe,” “Nativist,” “Bigot,” “Hispanophobe,” and some new clever names to boot will be used indiscriminately to destroy the reputations of anyone who outwardly opposes illegal immigration. Amnesty will place additional financial burden on the American people, particularly those of lower income classes. Also, this is not a single issue occurring in a vacuum. It will happen as we nationalize health care at tremendous cost to yourself and the American People. It will occur as the cost of Cap and Trade begins to take its toll on industry, disposable wealth, and American standard of living. Write your Congressman, Senators, the White House, the news papers, your friends, your family.

This is not just your access to the fading American dream that is at stake. More importantly, it’s the next generation’s future. Let America be accountable to Americans, and let Mexico be accountable to Mexicans. Let those Mexicans who truly love our Country and her flag as their own come and take their place as our brethren, as countrymen, as Americans who pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America. Let them come and learn of us and partake of our heritage and make it an inseparable part of their being. But let them come through the proper channels, let them forsake their former country. In so doing they will enrich the melting pot of the greatest of nations and take a rightful place among the countless immigrants from every corner of the earth who did the same. They will infuse a much needed shot of love of industry and conservative social values into the ailing body politic of the nation. If this is unacceptable to a person or group of people, then such should remain in their country of origin and seek to better their homeland, and let us live as we have, in happiness in and among, our own.

There is applicable truth to all peoples in the words of Thomas Paine, "What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; it is dearness only that gives everything its value."

Spirit of 1776

2009-07-04T12:50:00.006-06:00

God give us men! A time like this demands

Strong minds; great hearts, true faith, and ready hands.

Men whom the lust of office does not kill:

Men whom the spoils of office cannot buy;

Men who possess opinions and a will;

Men who have honour; men who will not lie;

Men who can stand before a demagogue,

And damn his treacherous flatteries without winking;

Tall men, sun-crowned, who live above the fog,

In public duty and in private thinking,

For while the rabble, with their thumb-worn creeds

Their large professions, and their little deeds,

Mingle in selfish strife - O! Freedom weeps

Wrong rules the land, and waiting Justice sleeps.

poem by Josiah Gilbert Holland

Exhibit "A"

2009-06-14T21:40:00.029-06:00

"I am for the prisoners at the bar..." John Adams speaking of his eight very unpopular clients: eight British soldiers charged with the murder of several Bostonians in what we know as The Boston Massacre, quotation from John Adams, by David McCullough, page67. Owing to his rigid adherence to his philosophy that a free country must needs be governed by "law" and not "of men," Adams, in the face of becoming a pariah in his beloved Massachusetts, defended the King's soldiers because he was determined, that for his part, his country was to be a country ruled by the steadiness and predictability of law. "Facts are stubborn things...and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictums of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams, page 68. This case was a defining moment not only in Adams' life, but for the United States as a whole. This was one of those proverbial defining moments, follow the crooked populist path, or trod the rough but straight road of statesmanship. The world is inundated with self serving leaders who took their nations down the former road. Very few, took the latter, and Our Nation was one of them. This post, and a few that follow, will address the rule of law vs. the rule of men.

The rule of law appears to be changing against our hopes. To review Exhibit "A" of an incipient movement toward arbitrary governance, we need not look further than President Obama's Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor who famously is quoted as saying in 2001, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." The three words that ought to bother the objective reader are "better," "white," and "male." Why would she bring this type of language into a public argument about judicial qualifications and credentials? Furthermore, Sotomayor is on record on other occasions expressing similar sentiment.

To be sure, it would be dishonest to suggest we are not products of our surroundings to some extent and thereby unique in our approaches to analysis, compassion, and logic. Sotomayor says in response to the backlash, “Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage,”
Critics focus on Sotomayor speech in La Raza journal, Alexander Bolton 05/27/09 http://www.thehill.com/. This appears reasonable, and it is a statement that could rightfully be expressed by anyone. After all, absolute objectivity is impossible. Yet, regardless of natural inclinations inherent within us all, a Supreme Court justice is obligated to exert all powers of discipline to suppress any bias or prejudice in carrying out his or her duties. Like John Adams said, "Facts are stubborn things...whatever our inclinations," and it can be added, truth is true regardless of perspective. Given Sotomayor's overt, and appartently self accepted bias, one wonders of her ability to carry out her oath of office. "According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

Actions speak louder than words and justice is blind. Given her decision on the Ricci v. DeStefano case as well as her membership in the National Council of La Raza (Espanol for "the race"), it is understandable her "white male" statement received such outrage, as well it should. "I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society," Sotomayor's and Obama's Identity Politics Leave Blind Justice at Risk: Can Sotomayor keep her biases in check? For the Constitution's sake, we'd better find out, Robert Alt quoting Sotomayor, U.S. News and World Report posted at http://www.heritage.org/. Her conspicuous bias and willingness to apply and justify that bias as a positive, or superior qualification, is proof enough to disqualify her from one of the nine seats on the highest court in the land. A person with this philosophy really has no business sitting on any court, period.

The Ricci v. DeStefano decision was justified by Sotomayor on the basis that the advancement exam questions favored the white and Hispanic firemen over the African American fireman applying for the promotion. This decision, which will be challenged, opens up a new debate on the issue of laws, which are constant for all, vs. men, which are fickle and changing. Equality of opportunity under Constitutional law vs. forced equality of outcome in spite of the Constitutional law.

The other justification, it may be argued, is reparations. The notion of reparation is a well meaning, by wholly unconstitutional outrage. Reparations is this - a policy of watering down a present citizen's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness on the premise that prior members within his or her demographic maligned prior citizens of a protected class. It unjustly denies a person employment advancement and or removes a disproportionate amount of his or her property in the name of social justice. Done for the purpose of disseminating said advancements and or property to specified groups, reparations is a recipe for undoing the meritocracy engine so vital to our nation's health and progress. Aside from the "two wrongs don't make a right" maxim, look at in terms of daily life. What if it were your son who had invested many months of study and outperformed the man who received the promotion? What if it had been you? Would you feel you lived in a just society that valued fairness? More importantly, can you make the argument on the basis of logic that justice had been served? Only on the basis of wrongs in one era justify wrongs in another may you find a slight thread of logic. Caution to the one who seeks to hang his argument on such a thin line, those young men vying for promotion had nothing to do with slavery or bigoted policies of the past; therefore, injustice served upon them in the name of justice is exactly the populist philosophy Adams defied, "whatever may be our wishes...the dictums of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts."

A second point of great concern for those to whom the Constitution is not merely scribbles on parchment is Sotomayor's statement, which she dismisses as jest, regarding legislation from the bench of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, indeed a gross violation of Constitutional checks and balances, "All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is -- Court of Appeals is where policy is made," Sotomayor. Perhaps this judge should read the charter of American Liberty. The Constitution affords no ambiguity for ambitious judiciaries to take legislative license, Article I, section I, of the Constitution states, "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." Clearly, the powers of legislation are given to the legislative body, no where does Article III of the Constitution mention that policy (legislative powers) are vested into the Judicial branch of the federal government. In Writings of George Washington, Washington warns, "The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one and thus to create, whatever form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power and proneness to abuse it which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position...But let there be no change by usurption; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed," 5000 Year Leap, W. Cleon Skousen, pages 213&214, Skousen quotes Fitzpatrick's Writings of George Washington, 35:228.

Is this the usual bantering and nitpicking we've come to expect in the two party system? The reader will make his or her own mind up as to the answer. "How sweet a thing is freedom! How superlative are our rights as citizens!" Marcus Cicero, In Verrem 11.5, translation by D.H. Berry, Cicero Political Speeches, page 91. Let the wise man understand the sweetness of liberty made possible by the rule of law, and let him guard with jealousy his Constitutional rights, and let him rise up and declare that which is unconstitutional to be that which it is, unconstitutional and averse to his happiness.

Chosen Few

2009-06-06T08:33:00.010-06:00

Twice in the last century the United States of America was obliged to save Europe from itself. In this era of apologies and near groveling in behalf of our beloved Country, it does well for Americans to remember the greatness of their Nation, which greatness is a direct result of the valor and charity of her sons and daughters under the eye of Providence. The anniversary of D-Day is an essential reminder to America, to Europe, and to the rest of the world, that the good people of Germany, France, Poland, Holland, etc. who, living with the daily terror of the Nazi regime, did not look for deliverance in vain. Others, thinking all was lost, were to find they were not forgotten and alone.

For the honorable German who, with sorrow, watched his nation descend into the unimaginable, the following passages seem to sum up what he and like minded German people must have felt walking in the shadow of Adolf Hitler. Indeed, the good German, hopeless but dutiful, may have whispered this under eyes and ears of the ever present SS to a select few who held his total trust, "Already the danger is so great, for every individual, every class, every people, that to cherish any illusion whatever is deplorable. Time does not suffer itself to be halted; there is no question of prudent retreat or wise renunciation. Only dreamers believe that there is a way out. Optimism is cowardice. "We are born into this time and must bravely follow the path to the destined end. There is no other way. Our duty is to hold on to the lost position, without hope, without rescue, like that Roman soldier whose bones were found in front of a door in Pompeii, who, during the eruption of Vesuvius, died at his post because they forgot to relieve him. That is greatness. That is what it means to be a thoroughbred. The honorable end is the one thing that can not be taken from a man." "Optimismus ist Feigheit" by A Paul Weber, Paul Weber (1893-1980) was a German artist, illustrator and social commentator. His anti-Nazi activities resulted in his imprisonment from July to December 1937, passage by Oswald Spengler, Man and Technics, 1931.

In retrospect, given that help did come in the form of Sherman tanks, P 51 Mustangs, helmeted silhouettes dressed in fatigues, and in the faces of teenagers and twenty somethings who marched into the jaws of Hell, they, the patriotic Germans who loved their fatherland and hated Hitler, may concur with the words of Winston S. Churchill's preface of his grandfather's historical writings, "I have called this work The Great Republic, the term my grandfather used with fondness to refer to the United States, upon which - in Britain's (and we can add Germany's) darkest hour - all his hopes of salvation and ultimate victory were focused. I have dedicated this work to the soldiers of the English-speaking world, whose heroism and tenacity through six long years of war brought Nazi Germany to unconditional surrender and the Allies to victory," "The Great Republic," Editor's Preface, by Winston Churchill, London, April 23, 1999.

Listed here are a couple of passages I've come across in a couple of books I've read on the historic invasion to bring to mind some of the events of that day, 65 years ago.

"Look out Hitler, here we come!" 101st airborne trooper, days before D-Day, "Band of Brothers," page 66, Stephen E. Ambrose. Ambrose says of the paratroopers aboard their C-47 aircraft, "Thus did 13,400 of America's finest youth, who had been training for this moment for two years, hurl themselves against Hitler's Fortress Europe," page 70.

"It was obvious that we were badly outnumbered and that the Germans were well emplaced and planned to defend St.-Come-du-Mont stubbornly. So there we were, 200 yards north of St.-Come-du-Mont meeting superior fire from a major force. We had no automatic weapons, no radios, only our semiautomatic rifles and a few pistols," page 305, "D-Day", Stephen E. Ambrose quoting Captain Sam Gibbons, the Airborne in the Cotentin.

Of the GIs assaulting the beaches, "A few men had already gone through. I could see them picking their way up the slope. As I started up, I saw the white tape marking a safe path through the mines, and I also saw the price paid to mark that path. A couple of GIs had been blown to death and another was being attended to by a medic. As I passed, I could see that both his legs were gone and tourniquets were being applied. In the weeks that followed, I was to see much worse, but that particular memory remains with me still," page 424, "D-Day", Stephen E. Ambrose, quoting Private Harry Parley.

These are quotes of some of the survivors of the great crusade to free Europe. Many did not survive and remain across the ocean, far from home, resting, awaiting. Cicero, in one of his final speeches before he was murdered by Mark Anthony's thugs, said "...I have discharged the reponsibilities of the offices I attained and completed the tasks I undertook. Two things alone I long for: first, that when I die I may leave the Roman people free - the immortal gods could bestow on me no greater blessing; and second, that each person's fate may reflect the way he has behaved towards his country," "Cicero Policial Speeches," translation by D.H. Berry, page 270. This would indeed appear a pajorative against the fallen were our existence limited to what our physical eyes see. But Cicero, a philosopher and firm believer in Natural Law and its Author, knew Man's soul extends beyond mortality, and that the valiant in this life have a wonderful "fate" to look forward to in the next life. When I look at the rows upon rows of white markers where the slain rest, I think of the many comforting words We have available in the King James Bible, "Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life..." Book of John, chapter 5:28-29.

Tomb of the Unknown

2009-05-22T10:48:00.014-06:00

"Let no neglect, no ravages of time, testify to the present or to the coming generations that we have forgotten as a people the cost of a free and undivided republic," excerpt from General John A. Logan's General Order No. 11 on May 5, 1868. First, the notion of a day set aside as a day of remembering came as an order from the national commander of the Grand Army of the Republic for army veterans to reverence the graves of Union and Confederate casualties following the tragic Civil War. Gradually, state by state, it was observed by all the Northern States, and then the entire nation officially observed the day following WWI as a day to remember all American war dead.

Photo from http://www.civilwarphotos.net/ Union dead at Gettysburg

Memorial Day is a day of American reflection, not celebration. I can not say it better than General Logan, to quote again from his General Order No. 11, "Let us, then, at the time appointed gather around their sacred remains and garland the passionless mounds above them with the choicest flowers of spring-time; let us raise above them the dear old flag they saved from dishonor; let us in this solemn presence renew our pledges to aid and assist those whom they have left among us a sacred charge upon a nation's gratitude, the soldier's and sailor's widow and orphan." As I read this passage, I must admit to not have done my duty sufficient to remove pangs of guilt. Perhaps, that is the purpose. Perhaps that inner reflection prevents us from ungrateful forgetfulness in thought, word, and most significantly, deeds. We must have a day of Memorial.

Above our small bookshelf sits a glass encased American Flag. It had lain on Tiffany's Grandpa Staples' casket on the day of his burial. Grandpa Staples served in the US Navy aboard the USS Wichata in the Pacific theater during WWII in which he endured the three dimensional terror of war at sea, from submarine threats to Kamikaze attacks. My Grandpa Burr, who we're blessed to still have with us, flew bombing missions as a bombardier aboard a B-17 Flying Fortress in the hostile skies over the fiercely contested European theater of the War. Both men returned and raised their families honorably. As with the hosts of their fighting brethren, they would have preferred to have been left alone, but they answered the call of duty, and served.

Contemporary pop culture, which sadly has the lion's share of influence on American psyche, has caricatured, maligned, and at welcomed seldom intervals, honored the American Fighting Man, but it, and those of us who rely upon it for our understanding of sacrifice and duty, do a grave injustice to these men and those who lie quietly in marked and unmarked graves. Arguments, whether overtly levied in the halls of Congress or insinuated in a screen play, of jingoism, xenophobia, imperialism, expansionism, Wilsonian "arsenal for democracy" etc all are philosophical word battles that could not be fought were it not for the GI, the Marine, the Airman, or the Sailor. These who must not only suffer the horrors of war, but live with the harrowing reality of inflicting such horrors upon their fellow man make such debates by self important people possible.

I came across a pivotal moment in American history while reading David Hackett Fischer's book, "Washington's Crossing" which, to me, is indicative of the prevailing spirit of the majority of those who served and serve in the armed forces under the the Star Spangled Banner. New Jersey, December 31, 1776. Days following the Continental Army’s successful assault (first victory in fact) against the Hessian garrison at Trenton, that involved the famous Delaware crossing, the enlistments of the Continental Army were to expire. The men were exhausted and worried about their homes and families with good reason. This was a pre WalMart age. Food had to be sown and herds looked after for the largely agrarian society to survive. Perceiving this deserved desire to go home and the impact it would have on the War, Washington agonized over how to convince his army to reenlist for continued service in “The Glorious Cause” of independence.

He promised money and pressed upon the men's sense of duty to stay and press on, but when “the drums beat for volunteers…not a man turned out.” (Washington’s Crossing 272). It is difficult for us, living behind walls guarded by the most feared and efficient military on earth, to imagine the stab of disappointment wrought in the heart of the American Commander in Chief, George Washington, as he unsuccessfully urged with the might of his soul for men who then constituted the Continental Army to continue the fight against England rather than assume someone else would take their turn and carry on.

One may ask why “The Cause” was so urgent in Washington’s mind. Certainly, if the fight was lost, he would indeed be tried for treason against the Crown and loose his life and property. Motivation enough, one may suppose, to plea in such sincerity. Yet, it seems unreasonable to assume that selfish motivation would inspire men to continue in such tribulation. In the words of a Continental sergeant, Washington then “wheeled his horse about,” and said, “My brave fellows, you have done all I asked you to do, and more than could be reasonably expected; but your country is at stake, your wives, your houses, and all that you hold dear. You have worn yourselves out with the fatigues and hardships, but we know not how to spare you. If you will consent to stay one month longer, you will render that service to the cause of liberty, and to your country, which you probably can never do under any other circumstances.” (Washington’s Crossing 272-273)

This call to arms struck a deeper chord which touched the souls of the men who stood among the ranks of that ragged, ill fed army. When the drums rolled again, the formations were manned and resolved to carry on, every tired man in his duty to “The Cause.“ This willingness to serve came at tremendous cost to many of them. Historical records estimate the number of casualties among these men at fifty percent killed in combat, by the elements, or in the writhing agony of disease, such as small pox and dysentery.

“These are the times that try men’s souls: the summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it Now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.” Thomas Paine, December 1776 “The Crisis.” The words would ring as hollow as a political campaign promise if men then and now didn’t live them in actual form and take up arms in defense of their country.

The stories of men who exemplified the spirit of "The Crisis" over the course of our Nation's history are legion. I'll add one more story of a great patriot who suffered great injustice at the hands of the ungrateful fools in pop culture. His name was James Stockdale. Political junkies may recognize him as the running mate of Ross Perot. In researching for a small essay I came across James B Stockdale and recalled the SNL skits caricaturing him as a mean faced, white haired stick in the mud who only would say, "Gridlock!" In my no nothing late teens/early twenties I thought the skit was funny, and that's all I knew of this man for some time.
Sadly, it would take me over a decade to ask, "Who was this guy?" If you'd like to know, go to http://www.achievement.org/ and get a brief bio on this great patriot and veteran of the Vietnam War. The picture below is of Mr. Stockdale seeing his family for the first time after seven years of torture, starvation, solitary confinement, and unyielding refusal under the most extreme, repetitive mistreatment to discredit his beloved country. I can't look at this man's gentle eyes in this photograph and not be grateful to the God of Heaven that Our Nation should be blessed with such Men. We have a duty to never forget.

"O beautiful for heroes proved In liberating strife. Who more than self their country loved, And mercy more than life! America! America! May God thy gold refine Till all success be nobleness And every gain divine!"

Third Verse, "America the Beautiful"
Katharine Lee Bates

Ig - no - rant

2009-05-02T08:37:00.036-06:00

Unknowledgeable, oblivious, or even quarrelsome are some ways of defining the word "ignorant." I was foolish enough to take a magazine titled, "The American Conservative" to work so I'd have something to read for a few minutes every couple of hours.

The American Conservative is a rare journalistic periodical that gives a written word platform for conservative academics and intellectuals. By and large, the magazine does not use the hyperbolic oratory rhetoric some of the conservative talk radio hosts mix in with their analysis and commentary. The subjects range from criticizing Neoconservative foreign policy, to France's role in NATO, to Keynesian vs. supply side economic theories. Certainly, the authors of the magazine are not "ignorant" of the events they discuss and report on. So, the other day, after foolishly leaving a small magazine brazen enough to print "Conservative" on its cover without apologetic derogatory adjectives, I found the word, "ignorant" printed in black marker on the cover. No big deal, right? Possibly.

A magazine with the provocative word "conservative" in its title should not have been laying around a place of business, OK, true enough. But this tiny intrusion is a small-beans expression indicative of a larger, metastasizing social movement that is very troublesome to anyone who values freedom of speech. This social movement justifies stifling political dissent and even thought using, oddly enough, tolerance as the primary source of moral authority.

Take, for example, the vitriol directed at Carrie Prejean, the Miss America contestant who gave a politically incorrect response to a loaded pageant question regarding homosexual marriage. That recent hurtful episode demonstrates an underlying pretext within the subconscious of far left proselytes and preachers. It's difficult to find who is more revolting, the people who bombard this young woman with obscenities, or elites disagreeable to her viewpoint who substantiate the infantile tantrums of the name callers so other would-be out-of-the-closet social conservatives learn to keep their unpopular opinions to themselves.

Ironically, we continually hear about the "bold" and "daring" producers, writers, and actors who champion alternative lifestyles as well as left leaning, and even far left leaning philosophies. When they dare this so called risky work, it is strangely to rousing applause and group acceptance. Isn't it more "bold" and "daring" to voice a contrary opinion in the face of people who boo, hiss, and spit at you for your beliefs as Ms. Prejean has done? Would you say Ms. Prejean was "ignorant," or the reactionaries? Have you heard her full reply to the question posed by Perez Hilton during the pageant? Do you find it strange a Miss America contestant's comments on any subject are scrutinized so heavily?

The pictures listed above were posted with an editorial written by Charles Winecoff (who happens to be a gay conservative) on the website http://www.bighollywood.breitbar.com/. I've always kept an interested eye on pop culture because it plays such a big role shaping the opinions of our youth and disinterested adults. I had not visited this website before early this morning; and oddly, the first article I read on the site was by Winecoff, who recounted a little incident he had at his job in Hollywood which was not that dissimilar to the mystery marker vandal in my office. While on break he printed an Internet article from a major news organization with a headline challenging President Obama on some policy item. Before he could grab his document from the printer someone had stamped the word "Declined" on the first page. He was agitated and put his irritation to pen, or keyboard. The rest of the piece was a brief outline on the dangers and psychology of group think and the pervasiveness of this mentality in certain circles.

"Ignorant?" The picture with the GI and his cup of Joe is one I've seen over the years on various websites. The caption is always different. The first time I came across it it read, "How about cheering for our side for once, liberal moron?" I hate to admit I found the line funny juxtaposed with an incongruously cheerful GI raising his cup in a toast. Such a statement could certainly deserve the adjective "ignorant" (the quarrelsome definition of "ignorant" seems to fit). Were this the kind of literature our unknown editorialist came across in my office I'd understand the "ignorant" label; I've come across dozens of political cartoons that were simply a stinging jab at the opposing view. Cartoons of this nature can easily boomerang on political cartoonists by changing names or inputing a different issue. But this wasn't an insulting political cartoon or bumper sticker, it was political thought in print, and because it dared advertise the word "conservative" a disagreeing party was compelled to give it a an ignominious label.

One more thing, then I'll give it a rest, for now. Last week I was obliged to stand in line at our bank to deliver our a.m. deposit. "Green TV" was the station airing on the courtesy flat Hi-Def screen for waiting bank patrons to watch. Some of the green message is objective and makes sense, and certainly the long suffering bank tellers humored me often enough by enduring my opinionated presence. Waste reduction, recycling, and protection of endangered species are valid causes. Who likes to see some one's trash lying around, smog, or statistics showing the number of California Condors remaining? But there are seriously disturbing holes in the global climate change theory and the use of the world "ignorant" to stifle reasoned debate on the subject is the common excuse for refusing to discuss the other side of the argument. The History Channel, The Discovery Channel, The National Geographic Channel, major news networks, cartoons, music videos, the list goes on, insinuate or overtly preach the "man made, or anthropogenic, global climate change" doctrine regularly, and often times it's the same program rebroadcast. And this "Green" channel has an evangelical zeal for this theory.

"The science is settled." Well, there are a couple of massive cracks in the man made climate change case that, if nothing else, warrant exploration given some of the radical legislation being brought to legislative assemblies in the name of "man made climate change" that have national as well as individual sovereignty ramifications. Some of these concerns will be outlined in a brief posting when time allows.

I laughed at a sequence I'd seen a day earlier with one of the Green TV program hosts going on a ponderous walk after a discussion on climate change. The camera panned out and the host was seen thoughtfully walking under a massive billboard of the famous, strangely colored Obama election poster, the one that kind of reminds me of a Che Guevara T-shirt. Goebbels would have been proud; all that was missing was the tank parade (now I'm using "ignorant" hyperbole). This by itself, is funny to me. But in conjunction with the tone of other programming I'd see for the three to five minutes twice per day while I stood in line, once in early afternoon the other early evening, the humor in it seemed to tank, no pun intended.

A particular Green TV spot with a middle aged woman as hostess helping a couple calculate their carbon footprint left me just short of irate. Inside this couple's house, after rolling her eyes, sighing in disgust, and shaking her head as the carbon tons piled up, this woman pointed at the husband, and said, "You are a crime against nature." This couple recycled, they weren't wasteful, they were conscious of the Eco system and had invited this host into their home to determine what more they could do to improve energy efficiency. These people were living as most Americans do, who work, have a family, a home, and a life, and they were in this woman's words, "a crime against nature." This again relates to the use of the word "ignorant" touched upon earlier as it is tactically employed to diminish opposing points of view. This woman's accusation also brings up another point perhaps worthy of exploration on a later day: how can you commit a crime against an object devoid of consciousness of any kind? Nature doesn't think, love, or feel, reward or punish. God does that thru giving us behavioral agency and allowing cause and effect to run its course. Is a religious sect arising in which nature is the Deity and object of worship as opposed to the Christian God? What will the effects be if such is the case?

In the spirit of shedding light on the strategic use of language manipulation to achieve societal ideological victory, I'm working on a fictional story called "The Istophobe" in which people in a successful, happy town have their lives, heritage, and ideas destroyed by single word labels. One by one, they are forced to wear a chain around their neck with words ending in "ist." Each "ist" becomes an unproductive member of the town's society as he or she is shunned, exiled, and vanishes from among the masses. As the townspeople become isolated and marginalized, power centralizes, and the once pleasant town surrounding the growing ivory tower of the villainous character "Ambishun" crumbles to ruin. "Ignorant?" Here's you label.

An Evening Among Extremists

2009-04-16T00:22:00.024-06:00

"Rage. Goddess, sing the rage of Peleus' son Achilles, murderous, doomed...and the will of Zeus was moving toward its end," The Iliad, page 1, first stanza.

In a fantastic twist thought possible only in the realm of quasi political fictional thrillers like "24" or in the imaginings of a conspiratorial fanatic, a US government agency has declared a massive segment of the American population a potential enemy of the state. In what can legitimately be called government sanctioned racial/political profiling justified under the guise of rooting out the next Timothy McVeigh, the federal government, under the direction of Secretary Napolitano, lists as potential terrorists the following Caucasian demographics: Recent War Vets, Men Suffering Extended Unemployment, Gun Owners Outspoken on the Second Amendment, and Opponents to Illegal Immigration. Any one of the factors above may constitute probable cause of suspicion of an individual.

The following are segments taken from the official document (if you are concerned these passages are taken out of context you may do a simple Google search of "(U//FOUO) Rightwing Extremism" to read the document in its entirety):

"Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment"

"This product is one of a series of intelligence assessments published by the Extremism and Radicalization Branch to facilitate a greater understanding of the phenomenon of violent radicalization in the United States. The information is provided to federal, state, local, and tribal counterterrorism and law enforcement officials so they may effectively deter, prevent, preempt, or respond to terrorist attacks against the United States. Federal efforts to influence domestic public opinion must be conducted in an overt and transparent manner, clearly identifying United StatesGovernment sponsorship."

The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans likely would attract new members into the ranks of rightwing extremist groups, as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for violence against the government. The high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists in anticipation of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primaryconcern to law enforcement.

Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities."

Among other so-called Red Flags for law enforcement officials to monitor and assess are concerns over globalization, abortion, gun/ammunition registration legislation, and a dislike of President Barak Hussein Obama (which opinion is presupposed to be based on the Chief Executive's race as opposed to his policies and behavior).

On April 16th, The Wall Street Journal quoted the Homeland Security Secretary as saying, "Let me be very clear: We monitor the risks of violent extremism taking root here in the United States. We don't have the luxury of focusing our efforts on one group; we must protect the country from terrorism whether foreign or homegrown, and regardless of the ideology that motivates its violence," find the entire article at the following website: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/16/napolitano-stands-rightwing-extremism/ Homeland Security is tasked with stopping terrorism, as Napolitano says. Yet, the issue isn’t the mission of Homeland Security. We all want any kind of terrorism stopped. The issue is vagueness. What separates a real threat from simple political dissent guaranteed by the first amendment? Freedom of speech and right of assembly are threatened in a real way.

Your local police department received this document. Also troubling, an earlier, similarly ominous document was made public a couple weeks ago titled "The Modern Militia Movement-Missouri MIAC Strategic Report 20Feb09 " that actually categorized supporters of certain political candidates, citizens who believed in states rights (essentially a federal system specified in the tenth amendment of the Constitution in which all powers not specified as being lent to the federal government were retained by the states themselves. The states created the federal government and not the other way around), and citizens opposed to heavy taxation as potential militia members. To be sure, terror is terror. If a man with the will and means to destroy a building, or injure a police officer, or hurt citizens can be stopped, the government has a duty to stop him and We the People have a duty to sustain the efforts of the agents involved. What's true for one terrorist must be true of all: Muslim Jihadists, ELF, ALF, and White Supremacists alike.

Napolitano's intent, whether partially politically motivated or entirely altruistic, is irrelevant. There is a swath of room for deviant officials to take undue liberties to infringe on privacy of and very possibly persecute law abiding, patriotic citizens merely for political views. The first amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Does the aforementioned Homeland Security document reinforce the first amendment? Is it a stretch to say a person in a position of power could use profiling to stifle political thought? Years ago, a friend of mine had an on and off spat with a disgruntled neighbor. After a hot argument, the neighbor called Child Protective Services on him and levied a false accusation to get even. Agents of this government agency went to his little boy's school and pulled him out of class to question him without the knowledge of my friend or his wife. Agents then came to his house where they questioned he and his wife separately. After a brief investigation, it was discovered the charge was baseless. My friend's name is on record as having been investigated for child abuse. Of course, Child Protective Services did not instigate this, it was initiated by an angry neighbor. Now, let's apply the elements of that incident to the present day, and I again ask, is it a stretch to say a person could abuse this policy and use it as a means to a political end?

As well as a lethal political weapon, this could be a drag on the overall War on Terror. As police departments get more involved in tracking political activists, and using somewhat arbitrary judgements to discern the so-called extremists from the harmless political dissenters, it is all too likely the real terrorists, whatever race, creed, or rally they cling to, will find the ability to move and operate much easier. This type of foolish government stretching makes the citizenry less safe, and in fact, can create the very movements it is designed to crush. If a militia or a so-called domestic terrorist cell needed a recruiting tool Napolitano just provided one.

There is no word that will mount government sanctioned military action against US citizens faster than "militia." Not Blood, Not Crip, Not MS13, not Mexican drug cartel, but the word "Militia." It draws the wrath of jealous government agencies like no other. Perhaps we ought to ask, how is it that the government was able to smash such a wide scale militia movement in the ninties, as it claims, but seems unable to do so with any of the other gangs listed above? The reason, in my opinion, and please excuse the digression, is MS13, the Bloods, and the other legions of street gangs that run violently amok in our ever expanding urban jungles are a threat to Us, whereas a militia is a threat to the government.

This is the type of arrogant, ideological government action that the flag "Don't Tread on Me" was designed for. Do you realize, that by my making this type of statement, I myself could be considered a potential terror suspect? By blogging this opinion I could be construed as a potential militia member and a threat to the state according to the Department of Homeland Security? I certainly hope this raises eyebrows. The quote, "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely," by Lord Acton, is most fitting.

Let me add this. I just spent the evening attending our local "Tea Party." I’d have actually preferred to name it something like “Constitutional Convention 2009,“ but Tea Party works. Gatherings of this kind are not in my comfort zone. Chants, cheers, and clapping are just not in my nature in a large social gathering. But the purpose of the Tea Parties was worth the social discomfort, because in my analysis, American citizens are in real danger of loosing key Constitutional rights. I recruited friends and family to take part over the past couple of weeks. Again, something very uncomfortable to me. My family and friends have family, household, career, and community responsibilities; they do not wish to be seen as malcontents or people of excess of any kind. They are conservative; they are thoughtful people who quietly sacrifice for each other, their neighbors, and even strangers, and they do so of their own free will - the significance of which can‘t be understated as its worth to the overall nation. These are patriots who were drawn to assemble not by hatred, not by desire to destroy, not by the excitement of a new popular fad, but by concern and love for their country.

The gathering had originally been intended to take place at a small park with a little pavilion in the center of town. A spring storm hovered around all day darkening the sky; it sporadically dropped a few minor snow flurries so the event was moved to a building at the nearby state college. My buddy Chris and I left work at the same time to attend. I followed behind his pride and joy, a BMW with a sunroof. As we drove down the road I saw a medium sized American flag emerge from the sunroof and its bright colors Red, White, and Blue earned a few quirky looks at stop lights. When we arrived, we parked and walked to the designated building looking for Tiffany and other family and friends.

As we walked I observed who was there. The people present represented a broad range of generations from toddler to senior citizen. Flags of all kinds flapped in the cold spring breeze. Old ladies with poster board signs, young mothers, old vets who inched along with walkers - all gathered inside the college’s student union building. Inside, it was crowded and stuffy, but full of bright eyes. I saw neighbors, old college classmates, family, friends, and strangers. As I expected, there were a couple of guys who made me, and had to have made others, a little uncomfortable who were dressed in fatigues with mesh masks. I'm bothered when I can't look at a person's eyes, but I'm sure Homeland Security would take note of these men in particular.

We met up with my dad, who couldn't stay long because of obligations he had to the Boy Scouts. Chris and I linked up with Tiffany and her Mom and with Dirk his wife, Maria, and baby boy, Eli. When we entered the ball room where the stage was set up everyone was singing. When people saw Tiffany was in a wheelchair they moved aside and helped her get to a place where she could see the stage. There were a few musical numbers and short speeches by local representatives. The two Republican Senators, Bennett and Hatch, were vigorously booed when the MC announced they would not be in attendance. The best speakers were the nobodies, the average people who had helped organize not for any political capital they might gain, but because of the same reasons I choose to attend.

There was nothing spectacular that happened. No dramatic historical moment that will live on in bronze statues. Certainly nothing the news would cover. After all, who wants to see a bunch of average looking middle class conservatives? But several times I felt myself drawn to the faces of the people around me. The little boy on his dad’s shoulders singing along with the songs, the young mother with three children clinging to her legs, the old veteran with his American Legion cap, the giant biker with the handle barred mustache, my friends Chris and Dirk from work, my Mother in Law, my little sister in law, and my wife, Tiffany in her wheelchair proudly showing everyone who passed by the yellow Gadsden flag she brought from home. Many times this evening, I had what I have always known reaffirmed, I love my country, because I love my countrymen, and I want my countrymen to be free. It is in them, the simple middle class families who have no antidefamation league to rise to their defense, who know of their heritage, who serve silently, on whom my hope for our country rests.

The first line of the Iliad seemed to express what was in my heart after I read the Homeland Security report on domestic terrorism. It just seemed like another outrage in a long series of unbelievable affronts to our Republic. It is a testament then, to those people the federal government seems to find cause to suspect as enemies, who tempered my anger and gave me hope; not a distant government official who speaks with a sugar tongue, not an assigned caseworker, not an aid worker on the state's dime, but simply remembering rubbing shoulders with my countrymen.

The Pox

2009-04-14T22:53:00.006-06:00

"The people of Rome, viewing with a secret pleasure, the humiliation of the aristrocracy, demanded only bread and public shows and were supplied with both by the liberal hand of Augustus. The rich and polite Italians, enjoyed the present blessings of ease and tranquility, and suffered not the pleasing dream to be interrupted by the memory of their old tumultuous freedom." Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Page 39.

What is the context here? It is the root cause of the transition from Rome the Republic, to Rome the dictatorship under the rule of the Caesars. Was Augustus Ceasar the cause of tyranny? No. Was Julius Ceasar, the great general and leftist populist the cause of tyranny? No. Men of great capacity and insatiable ambition are merely symptoms of a worse sickness ailing a body politic. Apathy empowers the wrong sort of men. Apathy is a pox to liberty. Long enduring apathy is unforgiveable. Apathy demonstrates a gross level of ingratitude. Apathy of the many begets ambition from among the few, and the apathetic many earn the ambitious designs imposed upon them. Liberty, on the other hand, is work. Liberty is vigilence. Liberty is earned on a regular basis. It is never secure, it is never guaranteed.

Read the gentle, cautioning voice of George Washington, our greatest President, in my opinion, given at his farewell address:

"The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize.
But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts."

Part of this warning centers around faction and party, but the underlying cause such vices take root Washington kindly alludes to. It is apathy. It is the inability of the public to discern and perceive movements and agents of such movements whose goals are contrary to the common good and the individual good.

Apathy enables the wrong doer. Apathy enslaves the next generation. Apathy in a Republic, in which citizens are duty bound to be at least informed, is an expression of utter contempt of liberty. The willfully ignorant person deserves the master who takes the intiative from him. Perhaps it is a benevolent master, much like Augustus was. Or, perhaps a time comes when a "Pharoah who knew not Joseph" assumes the throne and sets the rules. How much use is the proverbial candle hidden under a bushel?

What is the cure for a free body politic dying from the ailment of apathy? Would you say our nation is an invigorated, robust sovereign state today? If so, why? What is it that makes a sovereign nation exceptional? In contemplating these questions it may be well to remember the point of fact is not the destination we find ourselves in today, it is the direction the trends of today are taking us to. Given the status of the patient, what is the prognosis in five years? Ten? Twenty?

2009-04-10T06:35:00.007-06:00

Tale of Two Pledges

Pledge of Allegiance:

I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag
Of the United States of America
And to the Republic For Which It Stands:
One Nation, Under God, Indivisible
With Liberty and Justice For All

Pledge of nothing:

We Pledge Allegiance to No Flag
There is No United States of America
And No Republic for Which to Stand
No Nation, No God, Divided
With Anarchy and Lust For All

When policy, attitude, behavior, or discussions about our Country are analyzed, which of these two pledges are they more consistent with? Is it a stretch to suggest pop culture is in line, or if not in line, at least overtly sympathetic with the second pledge? Is it a stretch to suggest pop culture is a major instructor driving the direction of the opinions of young people who lack life experience? How about higher education? Which of these two paragraphs is most consistent with the predominent viewpoint of academia? What would a person's reaction be were you to suggest they epitomize the Pledge of Allegiance? What about the suggestion they exemplified the Pledge of nothing? Which of these two pledges, if lived, will generate the healthiest society? Or perhaps the question could be asked this way, what percentage of the population must live a pledge, either one listed here, to dictate the outcome of the whole? Or is it merely relative? Would the outcome be the same regardless of which pledge the majority strived to live by? How would the person who strives toward the first pledge answer? How about the person more sympathetic to the second?

2009-04-07T19:58:00.001-06:00

We the Government of the United States, in order to establish a more perfect economy for our constituents, abolish justice, insure domestic upheaval, provide for the common defense of our positions of power, promote the welfare of foreigners, and to choke the blessings of liberty to the People and their posterity, do desecrate and diminish the Constitution in behalf of the Corporations, Unions, and Special Interest Political Caucuses of America.

The Declaration of Dependence
When in the course of inhuman events, it becomes necessary for central government to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with the People, and to assume, among the powers of partisan politics, the separate and unequal station to which the laws of narcissism and narcissism’s idol entitle them, an indecent disrespect to the opinions of the People requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation from the will of the People, and to seek the will of the ruling class.
We hold these truths to be self evident, that all governing classes are equal, they are endowed by their idol with certain unalienable rights; that among these are death of sovereignty that hinders wealth, liberty to pick and choose when laws are applicable, and the pursuit of billions of dollars and more special interest votes. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted over men, deriving their unjust powers without the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of dissonance from among the governed becomes destructive to these ends, it is the necessity of the governing and elite classes to silence and abolish it…
…We, therefore, the governing class of the United States of America, in general Congress assembled, appealing to ourselves for the wiliness of our intentions, do, in the name, and by our authority, solemnly publish and declare, that these united markets are, and of our right ought to be, bound and dependent states: that they are chained to allegiance to foreign trading partner nations, and that all political disassociation between them and foreign nation states is, and ought to be dissolved; and that, as bound and dependent states, they have no power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, nor to do other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And, for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on ourselves, we mutually pledge your, that is you the People‘s lives, your fortunes, and your sacred honor.

2009-04-06T20:57:00.001-06:00

Rem Ad Triarios Redisse

"It Has Come to The Triarii." The phrase is from Latin "Rem Ad Triarios Redisse." It is military in its origin, and to understand its significance to me, some explanation on the Roman battle formations must be given.

In the days of the republic, Rome used three basic formations (excluding auxilliaries): Hastati, Principes, and Triarii. If all went well, the two latter units did not see combat. If the battle went poorly, the Hastati would fall back and the Principes then enganged the enemy. Observing beyond the fray the third formation awaited. Shoulder to shoulder, bended on one knee, spears aimed at the sky, with banners lowered, the disciplined Triarii observed. If the Principes' formation began to break as well, the Triarii would stand and raise their banners to present to the enemy a new and formidable obstacle. Shields and spears were deployed to form a dense picketline that represented Rome's last line of defense. "It has come to the Triarii" is a phrase of alarm, but there is still hope, because the toughest of the three formations has yet to fight.

The phrase, used here as a metaphor, seems appropriate for the troubled citizen. There is a chaotic, oblivious retreat from Constitutional safeguards and proven institutions, some of which will be occasionally addressed on this blog. For the observant, the cost of failure on the battlefield of ideas and principles has all too real consequences that can only end in similar tragedies to those mournful echoes of bygone civilizations analyzed and pondered over in recorded history. It is time for the Triarii to raise their banners and provide that last hope of our Country's safety, honor, and future. To think the bizarre and foreign notions taking a stanglehold in the hearts and minds of our neighbors will fade like a teenage fad must no longer be the status quo.

2009-04-06T13:09:00.003-06:00

Dollars and No Sense

A few weeks ago, our Treasury Secretary put his foot in his mouth in a discussion regarding the future of the U.S. dollar and its function as the world reserve currency. As you may be aware, government spending has reached critical mass which impacts the future value of American currency, and in turn, our standard of living and our economic liberty. Subjecting our economic soveriegnty to a global currency undoes what was won in the Revolutionary War, specifically it forsakes our independence. To men like Geithner, and a host of others around him and who worked before him, we are an economy and a social experiement, not a nation or country. This is evident in his (and many others') attitude toward an overt expansion of Treasury powers in addition to his open willingness to consider caving to global pressure to set aside the dollar at some point.

The point made in my brother Andy's blog (http://www.freeyesfree@blogspot.com/) is excellent -centralization of power on a global scale will most likely be an intrusive and imposing power; something most Americans have little if any understanding of. There is nothing, and I mean nothing, the world has to offer us as far as individual liberties and safeguards of individual liberties that improves upon what we already enjoy under the US Constitution (which is under assault from among our own - imagine if it were put under the unfeeling scrutiny of foreigners). To yield any power to tax, print currency, set interest rates, determine what business ventures warrant financing, and to punish what is interpreted as bad behavior, etc is to subjigate our Constitution, which is to say our Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness to an arbitrary authority. The tool of the Arbitor of our Liberty, the Constitution, will be subject to the populist leanings of a distant power. Remember, or perhaps read about, the real meaning of Taxation Without Representation in context of an average man working to support a family with limited resources. The issue wasn't actually paying the taxes, it was the notion of a FOREIGN body levying how much tax was levied and where those funds were to be spent with little or no consideration to those paying the taxes. Establishing a global currency means establishing a global government, whatever it is called, it is in effect a government - control the money supply - control the people. I.e Taxation Without Representation.

You have to ask yourself - If a dispute arises between Constitutional Law and international law, which is supreme? What powers would our government yield to this global source of control? Would it be a federal system in which certain powers not specified by the global government are retained by the individual "sovereigns?" Don't we see a massive encroahment on state's rights by our own federal government? Can we expect it to be different on a global scale which, in my opinion, has an inferior set of liberty safeguards? What if international law says it's hatespeech and punishable by fine or imprisonment for a church to teach marriage is between a man and a woman? Or what if international law makes it illegal to own a firearm? Or what if international law says a Catholic, Mormon, or Lutheran is unqualified for office based on their religious beliefs surrounding popular social issues like abortion and gay marriage? This entity enforcing international law will most certainly have agents whose agenda will be that of the global power structure. It is all too likely an informant system will need to be developed to prevent insurrection and challenges to said power structure from gaining momentum. These notions, so long relegated to the conspiratorial UN haters, is a step closer to being a reality once a global currency is issued as legal tender.

The probablity of the globization end game is this - From We the People, to we the regulated, we the ruled, we the community - gone is the sovereign individual and his own goals, his own path, his own successes and failures, gone is the joy or sorrow he earns in his journey thru life as he grows in the direction his free choices have taken him. Gone is the liberty men by the millions have died for. In the place of liberty's warm glow, a comfortless, cold light on a distant shore. Perhaps men such as Geithner, Bush, and Obama, or women such as Clinton and Pelosi believe a gradual yielding of our soveriegnty to be harmless to Our liberty. Perhaps their intent is pure. The driving force of intent, however, has little to do with the action of consequence, and the harshness of effect. Having know freedom myself, having seen life as a son and brother among freemen, having laughed among friends who also are freemen, and heard their philosophies and ideas, having seen the glow in the eyes of the defiant individual, and recoiling at the thought of that glow dimming to darkness via servitude, and in the Spirit of '76, I say Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death. To all those who take lightly their duty, I quote the great statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero from his Phillipic speeches which he forcefully delivered in the face of rising tyranny, "May the fate of every man reflect the way he has behaved toward his country."