Saturday, May 29, 2010

Memorial day: A Day of Mixed Emotions

Today is a day of families and friends coming together, of lots of hamburgers and hot dogs consumed, of games and patriotic gatherings; a day of parades and speeches about patriotism and sacrifice by politicians who hardly mention those things on other days of the year, a day of bands playing and flags waving and pundits speaking about great wars of the past, American exceptionalism and the necessity of America leading the world, righting all the wrongs of other nations and cultures and showing them the way of freedom and democracy.

Amid this patriotic orgy few know and even fewer stop to reflect on Memorial Day's humble beginnings. It was originally called Decoration Day. It began with widows decorating the graves of the Confederate dead before the end of the failed War for Southern Independence. From there the tradition grew and was adopted by the north as well.

With that, event follows upon event that makes the thought of Memorial Day as it has come to be celebrated, with all of the government myth and propaganda, a day greeted with mixed emotions to say the least.

On the one hand who can speak against the suffering and sacrifice of those who have fallen in past and present wars? These brave souls are among the best America has had to offer. Almost everyone has a relative or friend they can recall who fell in one of the battles the nation has fought. I think of my own best friend from grade school who died in Vietnam. He loved his older brother and admired him above all others. His older brother was a Marine. He wanted to become a Marine. He did...and he died. He died in the swamps of the insect infested jungles of Vietnam ostensibly making the world safe for democracy and keeping it free from communism. At least, that is the rhetoric we have been asked to believe from our central government.

Which brings us to the "on the other hand."

On the other hand we have a government which engaged in many of these conflicts in direct contradiction of the policies and wisdom of the Founders. Their vision of America was a peaceful one. It was a vision of a productive nation, trading with all yet entangling and involving itself in the affairs of none. It was a vision of a militarily strong nation but one which used its strength only defensively to protect the many, not aggressively for the profit and empowerment of a few.

In repeated contradiction of this wise, just and noble policy, the general government has sent generations of our brightest and best to the four corners of the of the globe to die in wars of conquest, intervention and confiscation, indeed, sacrificing the many for the profit of the few.

Ironically, these wars of conquest did not begin in a foreign land, but domestically, with a ruthless invasion of the Southern Republics that had formed a Confederacy and withdrawn from the free compact they joined in 1789.

Few know that while the Southern Confederacy was being unconstitutionally invaded and conquered many areas of the north were also occupied by military rule to control the populace. Held under martial law the rights of thousands of northern citizens were taken away. Those who spoke out were imprisoned and hundreds of newspapers that opposed the policies of the Central Government were shut down and their presses destroyed. The inmates, indeed, had taken over operation of the asylum.

Once the Confederacy was defeated the newly born Empire, with a virtual one party system to rubber stamp Federal policies, turned westward for further conquest, not shirking the policy of genocide for the indians. From there the imperial power of the Empire expanded throughout the world, beginning its international escapades with the Spanish American War, a war carried out under false pretexts, supported by the yellowest of yellow journalism and the most offensive of American jingoism.

The rest, as they say, is history, a history of unnecessary wars, interventions, the brutalizing of citizens of other nations and prolonged occupations. Even the most perfunctory analysis shows gross cognitive dissonance between the actions of the Empire and the policies and intentions of the Founders of the Republic. This does not stop the leaders from cherry picking the words of the Founders to rationalize the government's actions and choices; actions and choices often in diametrical opposition to the desires and wishes of the citizens as well as the Founders.

The wisdom of the Founders has been vindicated a thousand times over by the sorry consequences of the unconstitutional actions of the General Government. As already mentioned, the Founders created a central government of limited powers because they knew of the abuses, mischief and evils that always result when power is usurped and placed in the hands of the few.

Since that American historical train wreck misnamed "The Civil War" the Central government has incrementally usurped every power originally reserved to the states and the people, making the 10th amendment a dead letter in a dead document. Every time the Central government has abused these powers to overreach and go beyond the Constitutional mandate clearly set by the Founders, whether acting domestically or internationally, the consequences have been tragic and disastrous for all but a few––usually "the few" being those who drove the unconstitutional, overreaching policies to begin with. Even when good did result it has almost always been accompanied by tragic, unforeseen consequences, consequences that cause much greater harm than the original conditions the government sought to end by police state-like actions. This is typical of Jacobin-style liberalism.

So Memorial Day is a time a thoughtful American finds to be a day filled with conflicting emotions and sentiments. On the one hand we have the virtue of the self-sacrificing soldier. On the other hand we have the vice of the self-aggrandizing political leaders become pimps of unelected and often faceless international private interests. On the one hand we have the noble soldiers, who understand their service to be one in defense of the freedom of their relatives and neighbors. On the other hand we have the history of the consequences of many of those wars; consequences that demonstrate clearly that the real purpose of those wars was anything but the freedom and well-being of the citizens of the Once Great Republic of Republics called These United States.

No doubt, many will be offended at bringing up such thoughts on this day of "unity." They may even greet such ideas with cries of treason and accuse me and those who agree with me of being unpatriotic. To those I have nothing to say in my defense but few a questions to ask of them.

What is patriotism?
Is patriotism the same as nationalism?
Is Patriotism about whom you are loyal to, or what you are loyal to?
If one is devoted to the policies and persons of the inmates who have taken control of the asylum by force can one be said to be a true patriot and advocate of the purpose for its being brought into existence in the first place: the restoration of sanity? Or are those who point out the abusive policies and mad acts of the inmates the true patriots and guardians of the ideals and intentions of those who founded the asylum? As it is said, in the kingdom of lies true is treason, and by inference, the truth speaker is branded a traitor. Things have not changed much since the days the Jews persecuted Jeremiah.

How wonderful it would be if Memorial Day was a day one could celebrate without inner conflict! Even now it would be possible to forgive if the abuses ended. But in order for that to happen we would have to have real change---not the change Dear Leader speaks of presently, a change that would place even more power into the hands of even fewer persons ruling a world government. To the contrary. Change to the President's mad vision of Brave New World is the very thing that is not needed. It, indeed, is not change at all, but simply more of the same. Only the change of return and restoration of the Founders Sane Old World, a World that insisted the General Government operate within the constraints of Constitutional limitations, is change that offers hope worthy of the name. Only such a restoration will provide the means by which freedom and liberty can be re-elevated to their rightful central place in American life. It is only such a restoration that can end our imperial aggression carried out at the cost of the labors of our citizenry and the blood of our youth. Only a Constitutional restoration will return America to a peaceful and prosperous Republic of free Republics. Then and only then can there be the unalloyed unity of its citizens in the celebration of Memorial Day, a Memorial Day celebrated with the assurance that those patriots of the past who died for our liberty and those of the present who protect it now did not and do not do so in vain.

The Wisdom of Jefferson

This quote from Jefferson is directly related to the previous blog entry. What Washington has done vindicates the sage of Montecello a thousand times over.

“The States can best govern our home concerns and the general government our foreign ones. I wish, therefore… never to see all offices transferred to Washington, where, further withdrawn from the eyes of the people, they may more secretly be bought and sold at market.”

Thomas Jefferson

The failure of central planning

Read it and weep folks.
Go to the site below to see what the Fed Reserve has done to our $$ since its' creation in 1913. (Keep in mind that from 1813 to 1913 prices did not go up –– like we expect every year––because there was no Fed incompetently setting interest rates as if they could predict and dictate human action, all the while confiscating untold billions in interest from the $$ they issue to We the People in the form of debt by the permission of the treasonous Congress.)

Prices went down between 1813 and 1913 because without the Fed the US $ appreciated. This little site that shows the almost systematic decline of the value of the US $$ is a testimony to the failure of central planning. OBAMA, are you listening you collectivist SoB!

I guess after Obama we'll be speaking of Presidential stature with the caveat of Affirmative Action standards.

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Michael's Story: the logic of the 1964 Civil Rights Act

Michael runs a restaurant. Michael is a pro-life Catholic who has been very active in the pro-life movement. He makes a good living, loves what he does and has become very successful in his neighborhood. Michael decides he's going to no longer be silent about the holocaust that is going on, and posts pro-life signs and puts pro-life literature, displaying them clearly and
prominently in his establishment.
Many customers tell Michael they are behind him, some give him a few unfriendly looks but say nothing. Business remains largely unchanged, except for a new crowd that begins to come in daily. They seem friendly, well educated and pleasant. It's always good to have new customers, Michael thinks.
This goes on for a few weeks, and when he is leaving one evening he notices the building down the street is still open despite the late hour. He then remembered that building was closed down and abandoned in 2006 as part of the economic downturn. Odd, he thinks. There must be a new company that has moved in. So, he gets in his car and drives down to see what's going on. To his shock he finds an abortion center has opened up and he can see young girls entering and leaving the building even though it is past 9 pm. What's worse he sees Planned Parenthood has moved in just across the street in the old mom and pop hardware store that closed last year.
The next day, in the middle of lunch time rush he makes the connection: the new crowd that has been coming in are workers in both these groups--They're on lunch break from destroying nascent human life and making money from contraception and advising young girls to destroy their babies.
Michael is sickened---and here is he with a plate of roast beef and potatoes in his hand to serve to the man who appears to be the head of the clinic.
He feels horrible. He is feeding killers---but it's legal. He notices they see the anti-abortion material but no one says anything.
The following days Michael goes to work, but he's just going through the motions. The joy he once had is gone. All he can think about is that he is feeding murderers. The money they give him is blood money. He has trouble sleeping and become sullen and withdrawn at home. The customers notice the change in him and in the once friendly, homey atmosphere of the restaurant.
To make matters worse, at the end of the week two people, a man and a woman, very well dressed and looking very official, come to the check out counter and ask to speak to the owner. Michael comes forward and they ask if they can speak privately. He leads them to his little office and asks them to sit down.
They refuse and remain standing. The smartly dressed young lady smiles politely and hands him a document. It says the government has received many complaints from patrons about the offensive nature of the literature Michael is displaying, literature that speaks against an act that is legal and protected by the Constitution.
They make him aware of a law forbidding private business owners from placing "controversial" literature in their establishments. They point out the penalty for doing so is a huge fine and even incarceration upon repeat offenses.
Michael is furious. He says it's HIS restaurant! He built it. He's a tax payer! Has he no rights?
Yes, they say. You have rights--but not in your business. Take the stuff away...or else. With that they walk out.
Angrily, Michael removes the literature.
The next day the abortion crew comes in and some of them glance at the spots where the pro-life literature had been on display. They nod among each other with approving glances and snigger and laugh.
Their laughter continues and their talk gets louder. Finally, one in the group orders special drinks. When the drinks arrive he stands and proposes a toast to the owner of the abortion clinic and wishes him a great two week Hawaiian vacation he and his family are about to take. Next, a young woman proposes a toast to the clinic, the success of which is paying for that vacation. Finally, they call Michael over and toast him, and thank him for such great food and tell him how glad they are that such a great restaurant is near by their work.
Michael is speechless. He wishes he could disappear, standing in the restaurant he once loved he wishes he were anywhere but there. He feels like he is dying inside.
Suddenly, he loses it. He bursts out screaming in a barely controlled rage, calling them parasites and murderers. He pushes one man over in his chair and then tries to turn the table over.
Everyone scatters.
Get out, Michael screams, Get out! He can feel his face turning red and his veins bulging out from his forehead and neck. Shaking his fists at them he yells, I don't serve murderers–––killers. Get out!
Two men begin to aggressively move toward Michael but the boss calls them off. The abortion/planned parenthood crew stand shocked in the hostile atmosphere of the restaurant. Michael too is in shock. He notices several other customers get up and begin leaving. Even some supportive of the pro-life position leave because they did not come there to see a violent confrontation but just to have a quiet lunch.
Michael sits with his head in his hands at a table for a long time. He looks up to see only a handful of customers still sitting at tables and the ceiling fans slowing turning.
Michael returns home, and though he is exhausted he sleeps only little, tossing and turning. The next morning he drags himself to work.
Waiting for him at the restaurant door is a policemen and the government man and woman with him.
Michael learns he is guilty of breaking local and federal law, both rooted in the 1964 civil rights law or extensions of it. He learns his restaurant is in danger of getting shut down and he is in danger of going to prison.
Michael is crushed...then becomes furious. He decides he'll fight and does. He hires the best lawyer he can. But when he gets to court he finds that every liberal fascist group there is has poured tons of money into PR, the press, TV broadcasts and the best lawyers in the country. The whole thing is getting national attention.
Michael appears on the O'Reilly factor, but the employees of the abortion clinic exaggerate Michael's outburst in the restaurant. O'Reilly shows a segment of video one of the women took during Michael's outburst in the restaurant. This causes Michael to show his temper and he looks like a hot head to O'Reilly's national audience.
The next day the press paints Michael as a hater, compares him to fanatics who murder abortion doctors. They even drag up and distort events in his past to make him look like a person with deep seated emotion and psychological problems. It seems the local paper found some very old court records where Michael was accused of domestic violence in his first marriage. The press fails to mention that his ex-wife had lied about the violence just to harass him and the charges were dropped and not brought to trial.
Public opinion goes against him.
His outburst in the restaurant is further exaggerated by the press, the video the abortion worker secretly took in the restaurant is showed over and over again on both local and national news, and he is branded as potentially violent---the press insinuates he may even be armed, even though he has never owned a gun. The abortion clinic makes a show of it, hiring armed guards as protection against a possible violent attack by Michael. Clinic workers are interviewed on the local news about how they fear Michael and remember his violent outburst. One woman breaks down crying as she recounts the event.
Michael closes his restaurant and soon exhausts in legal fees what little he has been able to save from the time his restaurant was successful.
Various liberal groups now routinely picket his home, shouting insults and name calling.
In Court Michael tries to argue that there is a great moral difference in not serving someone because of their race and not serving someone because they are a killer. He says those who passed the civil rights act in 1964 has no idea that abortion would ever be legal let alone be conflated with the right of citizens of all races to be served in restaurants.
The state counters that Michael can't know the minds of the legislators in 1964 and what he calls murder out of religious bias the state calls a woman's civil right and protects as legal. As for his "moral" argument, it makes no sense in a court of civil law. The court must keep church and state separate. His moral view is just his subjective bias based upon religious prejudice and of no legal weight. The judge agrees. He loses.
The very next day after the decision several of the abortion and Planned Parenthood employees sue Michael. A week later he is indicted by a grand jury and arrested. He uses the little money he has left to cover his bail.
He loses his house.
Broke, Michael finds life in the town he once loved unbearable. He loses most of his friends. His wife, who is a doctor, has no income because she has been forbidden from practicing, It seem an extension of the 1964 law now requires doctors to not only recommend but even participate in abortion on demand. This is because a recent court decision using the 1964 Civil Rights law concerning private businesses as precedent. The court concluded that no person can bring their private religious and moral views into their jobs, whether it be their private practice or as an employee of a hospital. Abortion, is after all, the law of the land and an approved medical procedure and it must, therefore, be performed on demand--or else.
There is no room for private views, religious or otherwise, in public businesses and services, so the same law that forces the racially biased individual to serve people of all races, religions and cultures in his business, also forces people who hold personal religious views to set them aside and perform what the government has determined to be lawful procedures. The court says at home one can do whatever he or she chooses–––for now. But in public one cannot choose according to his or her personal biases or refuse to act due to issues of personal conscience. If you refuse you have the state to deal with.
Subsequently, Michael is convicted on several counts of battery and the breaking of three different civil rights laws and is sentenced to prison. He appeals the decision but the higher court refuses to hear it. With luck Michael will be out in 2015.
Welcome to the logical conclusion of the 1964 Civil Rights Act––welcome to Facist America!

Friday, May 21, 2010

Constitutional Heresy

Heresy comes from a Greek word that, roughly translated, means "choice," or "selection." Heretic, those who practice heresy, is a term the Church used for those who accepted part of the teaching of the Apostles while denying other, equally essential parts.
Instances of heresy arise when one is faced with two seemingly contradictory, or conflicting doctrines and chooses to embrace one while rejecting the other.
For instance, faced with the seeming logical contradiction between fate and human free will, one denies free will and insists everything is predetermined, fated and freedom is an illusion.
The common human experience of the mystery of paradox is not limited to religious doctrine and theology. It permeates virtually every aspect of human experience and existence, including civil, social and political theory. One sees it even in physics.
Dr. Rand Paul, Republican nominee, has come under fire for trying to escape the Constitutional heresy that has gone viral for decades now in the increasingly toxic atmosphere of political correctness. For his candor he has been accused by some of racism (ho-hum). Specifically, he is attacked because he disagrees with one of the nine points of the civil rights legislation passed in the 60s.
He makes the following statements:
1. He, personally, is against institutional racism or racism in any form and says government funds should never be used to support institutions, businesses or associations that promote or practice discrimination in their hiring or service for reasons of race, culture or sexual preference.
2. At the same time, he questions the right of government to force a private business or association to serve, hire or associate with anyone they choose not to.
3. He says without any government legislation this sort of behavior will be very limited because of public reaction. Simply put, few people would give stores and companies run by bigots any business at all. As a consequence, businesses would either end their practice of discrimination or simply go bankrupt.
What is Paul doing? He is trying to throw out the dirty bathwater of racism and unjust discrimination without throwing out the baby of American Liberty.
In debating this issue with Jon Stossel this morning on FOX news Meagan Kelly began one of her points by saying, "Say you walked into a restaurant..."
Whoa, I say. You can just depersonalize it like that. That avoids the elephant in the room: the individual.
You're not just walking into a restaurant, you are walking into someone's restaurant.
That "someone" may have labored for years to be able to open that restaurant. Did the government labor and sacrifice to purchase even one napkin on the restaurant's table? Did the government take the risk of becoming self-employed, mortgage a home or put relatives at risk who loaned the family entrepreneur money? Did anyone in the government look with concern about what would become of the novice restauranteur's children as they slept at night? Did anyone in the government labor seventy hours a week, week after week, giving up vacations, benefits, often sacrificing his own salary to make payroll?
Yet, the government wants to not only increase the risk that the restaurant owner will fail by increasingly unjust taxation, it wants to add insult to injury by dictating whom the restaurant owner must serve and hire.
He has done the labor, he has made the sacrifices, he has taken the risks, yet he is not free to make the choices he prefers while larger and larger amounts of his profits are confiscated from him by the same ones who are dictating his hiring policies---policies that must be obeyed under threat of law suits and even imprisonment.
Those in political power are practicing Constitutional heresy in order to hang on to power. They seek to make political hay by being shown to be heros of racial and sexual equality, even if it means doing all they can to destroy the liberty of individuals, preventing them from running the businesses they own as they see fit.
It is a horrible precedent.
It is reasonable to say a government which must serve all without bias cannot use tax dollars to promote discrimination against individuals or groups. ( I hasten to point out government has never done that anywhere but on paper).
But it is unreasonable to lay those same restrictions and requirements on the individual citizen who alone has labored and sacrificed for what he owns.

When the government places restrictions on what an owner can do with his property or business the government, in effect, is saying, you don't really have any private property or ownership.
The heretic who embraces the doctrine of equality over and against liberty must, de facto, deny true ownership and the citizens right to private property.
Ownership means you have power over your property. You can choose what to do with it. If others can come in and dictate policy their exercise of control, implicitly, is saying you are not the real owner, they are. In fact, you are even owned by them. You not only own nothing, your liberty is also an illusion.
You are a slave, but your masters simply choose not to remind you of it by placing chains on you that can be seen.

Heresy throws everything out of balance and proportion. In our age the heresiarchs have used equality like a crowbar to dismantle every thing else in the American Constitution and every thing unique in American life, including that unique American treasure, liberty.
Liberty rooted in Charity should be at the heart of every aspect of American life and law. When liberty is driven out and replaced with the ugliness of Government legislated mandates and police state enforcement tactics charity departs. Rather than resulting in true brotherhood, trust and good will, such tactics increase hatred, resentment and malice between groups, as our present society proves after almost two generations of Government Gestapo tactics being used to enforce equality in virtually every aspect of American social and political life.
Ironically, the one place equality does properly belong, equality before the law, is the one place equality is becoming increasingly scarce.
No, no matter what Al Sharpton might say, race does not determine "justice"––money does. If the O.J.Simpson trial proved nothing else it proved that. If you're rich you get a very different form of justice than if you're poor or even of modest means. Justice in America is only for the few, for only the few can afford it.

Government unconstitutional legislation and ruthless enforcement has all but destroyed the possibility of charity, brotherhood and cooperation among groups in America. Hatred, poverty, irreligion, perverse values, destruction of the family and suspicion have increased with the intrusive actions of government. But government agencies are not the only ones driving the issues and poisoning the waters of social cooperation and good will. They have lots of non-government help that is gladly using the power of government for their own advantage.
The race and class warfare pimps and demagogues who profit from these issues use every opportunity to increase their personal power bases, regardless of the social outcome for either those they claim to defend or those they oppose.
They either do not see or do not care that the corrupt means of government policy they both use and promote for their advantage can and will also be used to their disadvantage at another time.
In contrast to these race and class hucksters, more and more Americans, including Dr. Paul, do know and care that every time we increase the power of government we decrease our own liberty and move ever closer to slavery and a servile existence in which an all-powerful, all-controlling government micromanages every part of our lives.

Dr. Paul knows with the rest of us how often liberty has been sacrificed on the altar of the modern mania of unrestricted enforcement of equality in every nook and cranny of the lives of private citizens.
Sadly, the Constitutional heretics who have nothing but contempt for individual liberty and an obsession with the exercise of control and coercion over others have long ago seized the reigns of power. They sit in the high seats of honor. And whenever their doctrine is challenged they howl like rabid wolves and their hit squads are sent to the four winds of modern media to spread the cry of racism across the lands.
How long will these wolves who devour liberty be able to cry racism to render the effect they desire: more and more power?
When will their cries be heralded for what they really are: the school yard bully tactics of avoiding substantive engagement on the real issues by going straight for the jugular and attempting to discredit the personal character of their opponents by name calling?
The answer to that question is blowing in the wind. Some progress has been made, but vast multitudes still remain in the deep trance-like sleep in which Government lies and miseducation has placed them. An ignorant, scarcely educated, semi-literate people, deprived of the tools of critical judgment and thought, is a people ripe for the sound-byte propaganda the enemies of truth and liberty sitting in the halls of political power have become so fond of.

And so it goes in present day America. The place that used to be the land of the free, the land of individualism, independence and liberty has a government ruled by demagogues and tyrants who that now brand a man who loves liberty and seeks to restore it a racist, and a man who seeks to exercise his liberty a criminal, all the while it honors and panders to those who use unconstitutional government race and class social engineering as a means of increasing their own wealth and power. Those few among them who really want to do good seem totally ignorant of the fact that ignoble means used to achieve noble goals can result in an increase of evil and injustice. Such are almost always the unintended consequences resulting from corrupt means. Present day America is exhibit A as proof of this truth.

The use of ruthless and inappropriate means of imposing equality in every aspect of American life has created greater social disharmony, disparity and factionalism than ever, to the point that the whole social fabric of America is in danger of rupturing.
Heresy always throws every thing out of balance and out of proportion. Heresy always causes great evil, not because of the essential thing it advocates, but because of the equally essential thing it denies or places out of order. Heresy always creates factionalism, hatred and suspicion. Heresy always drives out charity and restrains and suppresses liberty. Liberty suppressed results in a people abused and oppressed. Sooner or later, there is always a grave consequence for such sustained and widespread injustice.
Equality has wrongly been made the teleological raison d'etre of the American experiment and placed as the central purpose of every American law and the core intent of every American social action. Until we expose this heresy for what it is and restore Liberty to its proper and central role in American life there is little hope for what little remains of our once great and free Republic. Instead, the poisonous weed of tyranny will become permanently rooted in our lands and Liberty, utterly vanquished, will once again wander the earth like a beggar in search of a people who will give her a home. Already she is shod and her loins are gird for the journey.

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

It's time to give a big Texas thank you!

This morning Trey Grayson showed why he is going to lose to Rand Paul in his bid for another senate term in Kentucky: lying by half-truths, voting with one of the two big government parties for more big government and big spending and being an establishment toady. Here are the specifics.

First, he said he was not a Washington insider (lie) and didn't have a father who had been in Washington for 20 years (true). But, he doesn't mention that Dr. Ron Paul, Rand's father, has been the no. 1 outsider in Washington for that whole time---unlike Grayson, Paul has voted against his party's policies time and time again in support of the Constitution. Next, Grayson said Rand would be no where without outside money from non-Kentucky residents. True. Rand has gotten money from lots of Tea Party folks from Maine to California supporting him. But Grayson does not mention the flood of non-Kentucky money he has received from the RNC, as the establishment golden boy. Finally, he mentions how he is so concerned about the over-spending in Washington, but neglects to say that if frugality were religion his come to Jesus moment would be an only a recent event---if that. The fact is, Grayson, unlike Ron Paul, has voted the party line with almost no exceptions; just the kind of guy the RNC loves.

While this is stomach turning and of immediate concern Grayson's half truths and distortions are not the focus of our real concern here. What we want to do is send a big Texas thank you to the voters of the 14th district of Texas that have repeatedly voted for Dr. Paul and kept him in Washington fighting for liberty and standing up for the Constitution. While many districts and areas have voted for political good ol' boys and hucksters like the late John Murtha, boys that would "bring home the bacon" so we can "get ours," the Texas 14th district has opted to send a man to Washington with the courage to stand on principle and become virtually the lone defender of the Constitution and individual liberty in Congress.

While Dr. Paul deserves our undying thanks for his tenacity and fortitude, we would be remiss if we ignored the good people of the Texas 14th for continuing to choose him to represent the interests of all Americans.

Their combined fidelity is beginning to bear fruit after long years of being ignored, mocked, lied about and laughed at by the Country Club Republican phonies and pretenders that infest and infect the halls of Mordor on the Potomac.

In contrast, the policies of the two Big Government Parties are beginning to bear analogous albeit sorry fruit; fruit that is diseased and rotten on the vine. It is yielding nothing less than the Grapes of Wrath for Americans and may cause what the Southern Confederacy failed to cause a century and a half ago; the break up of the states into different and competing Republics.

If, indeed, it all comes to the dissolution of the American Empire, there will be no army that can cruelly invade and enslave a whole people to save it, for the division will no longer be merely regional, pitting northern materialism, banking and industrialism with southern agrarianism. Ironically, the divisions will be numerous and widespread in large part because of the growing cultural and racial diversity of the populace, which has been the consequence of the refusal of the Imperial Government in Washington to act to secure the borders. Washington's anti-citizen policies cannot help but eventually backfire and serve to play a great role in the Empire's dissolution, just as Rome's loss of control of their borders hastened that empire's collapse just over a millennia and a half ago.

This time the centre will not hold, for the centre has shown itself to be corrupt, dissolute and feckless and, systemically, beyond repair; a ship of state that can no longer remain afloat.

If the American Republic is to be saved from its present "on life support" status, it will be Dr. Ron Paul and those who stand with him and follow him who will be responsible for its healing and restoration.

When and if that day comes I hope the voters of the Texas 14th will not be forgotten---and I hope and believe the voters of my home state of Kentucky may receive similar accolades for having sent his son, Rand, to support and continue his father's devoted service to American Liberty.

Sunday, May 16, 2010

The Armadillo is embracing Liberalism--you should too!

Prior to Arizona's new Immigration law I was pretty much on the side of the Conservatives. But now I'm seriously thinking of joining the protesters. The reason is, without knowing it, I have obviously been persecuted by the state of Texas and taken for a sucker by the Federal government. The protests in Arizona have made me painfully aware of how I've been discriminated against and unfairly treated. I don't see why I should not receive the same treatment illegals have been given. Let me share an example to explain what I mean.

In the past, if the police stopped me here in Texas, even for a tail light being out or a crack in my windshield, they expected ME to produce a valid driver's license and an up to date proof of insurance and proper documents pertaining to the car I'm driving.

What an outrage! But that's not all.

Even if my documents were in order and I was uncharacteristically cooperative and respectful, the officer always took my license and documentation, went back to his car, opened up the computer there, fed in my information and checked my entire background, seeing if I had any prior convictions, if I was wanted in Texas or any other state, if I owed money for unpaid traffic tickets, if I was in arrears on child support payments, or if I had warrants in other places---or anything else in my background that might give him an excuse to ticket me, perform a search on my person, or arrest me and confiscate my car––which I would have to pay a large amount of money to get back even if I was proven innocent or a victim of mistaken identity. And I would have virtually no legal recourse to recoup damages and expenses. After all, the officer is just doing his duty to keep the peace and make sure ALL the laws are enforced. My cost and inconvenience would just be the cost of maintaining a just, safe and free society.

To Hell with that. Now I know better. I see now, thanks to illegals bravely protesting, that the Government has been treating me and other citizens like we're drooling idiots that just fell off the turnip truck. NO MORE! This boy knows better now and he will no longer stay silent.

In the past I put up with it all because I believed it was the standard procedure everyone had to experience so the "public good" could be maintained. But apparently, what I and other citizens have been putting up with is not standard procedure. Nor is it for anyone's good except, perhaps, the government's. But there's good news dear citizens, all is not lost. There is a privileged class that doesn't have to bear up under these indignities and I want to be a part of them.

You should too!

Therefore, I'm throwing all my support behind the illegals protesting. But I'm not stopping there. I'm also thinking about revoking my citizenship so I can join them and have more liberty to carry on my business without the abuses of legal encroachments, demands for my identity, a full investigation into my past every time my left rear turn signal fails, or, get this, even paying income taxes.

What's more, I'm thinking about moving to California to join the beautiful people! I hear as an illegal there I can get free medical treatment, my children can go to college for free and I don't have to produce any documents regarding my finances or personal life in order to purchase a home.

How cool is that!

I only wish I'd thought of this earlier. I'm just writing this to you, my fellow citizen/victims, as a public service, in the hope you might follow the same path, take advantage of the liberties and services afforded illegals and join me grooving out on Huntington Beach. Let me know if you're coming and I'll see if I can pre-apply you for a marijuana medical card. Don't worry about paying for the "medication." You can get your "prescription" filled with money from government medical entitlement programs.

What fools we American Citizens have been working and saving when we could have all the stuff we need for free. All we need to do is just revoke our citizenship! It's just that easy.

What could we have been thinking?!?

Thursday, May 13, 2010

Talking Nonsense and Gibberish

On Neil Cavuto's Your World today Imogene Lloyd Webber said in England they believe healthcare is a right. I cannot believe she understands what she's saying. If she did she would realize she's talking nonsense.

A right is something we're born with––it is God given and intrinsic to your being––you don't have to inquire of another for it, resubscribe or send for more through mail order.

A good is something we require or need that demands the service, labor or cooperation of another. We must seek outside of ourselves to get the goods we need, and this may involve resubscribing, sending for a item thorough mail order or showing up on time for an appointment. And for those things we or someone else must pay.

There's more. Imogene seems to be unaware that when muddleheaded modern thinking confuses goods we need with rights, and social policies are implemented accordingly, a slave society is the, de facto, result.

I say this because when a service or a product is wrongly declared to be a right it means, in effect, that we can demand the labor or production of a certain class or group of citizens and expect to get it as an entitlement without the strict necessity of remuneration, because the good they labor to produce or provide has been made our RIGHT to possess regardless of our ability to pay.

If claiming a right to the fruit of another's labor is not slavery I don't know what is? If funds are taken by force from my neighbor to pay for an item the state has declared as my right to posses, the time it took my neighbor to earn the money forcibly taken from him was time he labored as a slave.

There's more. Once government begins can anyone say just where government will stop in creating rights from thin air? What will be next? The right to food? If so then can I expect some glad day to walk into super markets and take what I please to feed me and my family? What about shelter? Will there be a time I can demand a house from a contractor without compensating him?

How are the services and products of a nurse, a doctor or a pharmaceutical company any different from those of the grocer, the farmer or building contractor? We need all those goods to live––we are certainly not born with them. We exercise our natural rights to labor to earn the funds to procure those goods we need. Why should healthcare and medicines be free but food and shelter must be paid for?

Whether she is aware of it or not, Imogene cannot be saying that healthcare is a right like, for instance, our free will, or liberty. That is absurd. She is simply talking nonsense and gibberish unless a distinction is made between natural and positive rights.

Natural rights, as we've said, are given by God and intrinsic to our nature. Jefferson, in the Declaration, says such rights are given to us by "the God of Nature."

In contrast, Positive rights are those a group or a government declares to be made rights arbitrarily, for their own particular (or peculiar) reasons.

So, what Imogene is really saying is the British Government has decided to create a positive right out of thin air based upon the subjective ideology of some in England who have seized enough political and legislative power to make said invented "right" the law of their land and confiscate funds from British subjects through taxation to cover the expense.

What the powerful in England seem not to see, along with Imogene, is that in their desire to actualize the good of healthcare for all they have resurrected an age old evil which had only recently been vilified and expunged from their society: slavery.

Through nationalized healthcare slavery has sneaked back into England through the backdoor held open by the Fabian socialists.

They might protest saying that what they are doing is far from chattel slavery. But the truth of the matter is there is no different in principle, but only in degree, between chattel and political slavery. Past ages blessed with better thinkers saw that truth with crystal clarity.

If rights come to be regarded as state created rather than God given I have the following questions:

If the state, not God, is the giver of rights can the state also take rights away---even the ones we previously understood to be natural rights from God?

If the state usurps the place of God and becomes the sole Giver of rights can it also justly ask its citizens or subjects to commit atrocities like those the Nazis committed and not have them held personally responsible for crimes against humanity?

As more and more rights are created will we all be required to become the full time slaves of an all-powerful state in order to actualize the utopian dreams of some?

As we come ever nearer to actualizing the utopian dream of the powerful elite is it possible the dream of those few might become a nightmare from which the rest of us cannot awaken and from which we have no recourse, alternative or escape––except, perhaps, that of state administered euthanasia?

Monday, May 10, 2010

Will the Real Government Please Stand up?

The Declaration of Independence is a document justifying man's right of self-government, the realization of which often requires an act of secession.

If secession as a means of self-government was available to our Founders but forbidden to us, regardless of the number and degree of abuses we suffer at the hands of the central government, we must conclude the whole American experiment in Liberty and man's right of self-government is dead, and has been since 1865. It was then Supreme court chief justice and Lincoln appointee, Salmon Chase, all but danced on Jefferson's grave, while gleefully proclaiming, "States rights died at Appomattox."

In other words, the tenth amendment is now feckless and superfluous –– an anachronistic relic, unable to accomplish its purpose: protect and defend the people's right of self governance. Which brings us to our point:

Either we must see the Federal laws and central governance of the past century and a half as illegitimate, having been seized power by brute force rather than constitutional means, or all government in America prior to that was illegitimate.

At their basis these two governmental paradigms are incompatible in both principle and purpose. Both cannot be authentic, both cannot be valid.

One is an imposture.

The Excuse Cloaking the Reason

Jesus berated the Pharisees, saying they swallow a camel but strain at a Gnat.
That perfectly describes the stated attitude of the modern political left in regard to the situation on the US southern border.
Opining, as they do, that profiling might be a possible danger of Arizona's new law and using that hypothetical as a justification for continuing to do nothing but fiddle around as Phoenix burns is the height of absurdity, irresponsibility and political cowardice. For Obama to attack Arizona while self-righteously giving lofty little sermonets saying what is really needed is "comprehensive reform" (whatever the Hell that means) is the apex, the very summit of misplaced concerns and priorities.
Only a fool would believe that such are the real concerns of liberal politicians. Americans are not complete fools, and they know whenever a politician appeals to principle in taking a stand it is because he sees a personal practical advantage in doing so. In short, American's know an issue like "profiling" is just an excuse to cloak the real reason for liberals taking the position they do. More on that below.
Mordor on the Potomac seems to be utterly heedless of the fact that Arizona, along with many other states, is in grave crisis and on the brink of collapse. To be honest, one gets the sense the Obama regime could care less.
History records that whenever the Romans were in crisis they suspended their normal laws and conditions and did what had to be done until the crisis was solved. After the crisis they returned to their republican form of government.
No one wants racial or ethnic profiling to be SOP in America--but when circumstances force a choice between preserving strict policy on profiling (or some similarly politically correct notion) or saving an entire state and its people from falling into financial collapse and social anarchy the choice for any sane person is clear.
Unfortunately, the mad obsession of politicians for holding on to power and soliciting votes by pandering to special interest groups prevent the vast number of them from being declared with the vast majority of humanity as "sane."
With that in mind, it is not so unreasonable to conclude that the only time the leaders of the Central Government would actually suspend the laws and the Constitution and "do what needs to be done" to "restore order" would be when said restoration would provide them with an opportunity to actually attack, intimidate and kill US citizens––especially those from "fly over country" or the South.
But chaos is driven by illegals is quite another matter. Because, once established and "naturalized," they will form a formidable voting constituency no politician would want of offend. Therefore, our leaders can be counted on to exercise uncommon restraint and forbearance on them, even in the face of all out illegal alien driven anarchy.
If that happens the Feds may send troops to Arizona--but not to restrain, arrest and kill violent and rioting illegal aliens. Au contraire, the targets of their mission will be US Citizens. After all, the citizens surely must have "provoked" and "antagonized" the illegals. Past events have made it clear that, in the Central Government's view, everyone's outrage and anger is justifiable save that of US Citizens. It is the Citizen who is the problem, not the Illegal.
Sound absurd? The only other time the Feds had an excuse to attack and kill Americans and strip them of their rights they did so with a relish and fury that shocked the whole civilized world.
Since Obama is such an avowed admirer of Lincoln, one wonders just which Linconian acts of ruthlessness and tyranny Obama had studied most closely and which ones he hopes to be able to implement as a means of realizing "change". One also wonders what excuse he will use to cloak his real reasons?

Armadillo unabashed dictionary

Socialism: Government of the redistributionists, by the redistributionists and for the redistributionists.

Sunday, May 9, 2010

Zero-Sum Game

Dr. Sowell has hit the nail on the head once again in his article of May 4th for Townhall.( There he discusses the recent phenomena of black students beating up Asian students. It is a worthy read, which, unfortunately will not be read by those who need to read it most.

Dr. Sowell asks just why blacks have been attacking Asians, who obviously never had anything to do with past injustices done to blacks.
He concludes it is the old green-eyed devil, envy: resentment.
Here he has uncovered an old problem finding traction in a variety of contexts and circumstances, a traction exacerbated and encouraged by those with collectivist sympathies.

Cain's murder of Able is history's first recorded murder. What drove Cain to do such a heinous act? It was envy. Cain's envy of and hatred for Able existed because Able's sacrifice was accepted while Cain's was not. The pain of rejection and envy of Able's success were not very different from what drove these black students to attack Asians. But Asians should not feel picked on or singled out. Blacks commonly attack other blacks who are achieving as well. So, at its root, we have here a malice driven, not by race, but by the fact that another's good work and success exposes one's own short comings and failures.

It's been a while since I've read the account but I believe upon Cain's rejection God exhorts him to do well himself and he will be accepted. Then God warns if he does otherwise he is in danger---"sin is at the door." Millennia later the evil and the message seem to remain unchanged---which in some odd way is comforting; that we haven't changed all that much inwardly means the restrictions, prohibitions and consequences people experienced then can and should still be taken seriously, and the moral messages in Scripture cannot be set aside today without terrible consequences.

Heedless and perhaps even contemptuous of these truths, modern "thinkers," including our Dear Leader, Chairman O, often imply we can set aside the old ways since modern discoveries have eliminated many of these ancient superstitions and replaced them with a higher, more noble, more compassionate--dare I say it, more utopian vision; we don't have to be entrapped by the old, antiquated way of rewarding good behavior and punishing bad.

In fact, according to modern liberal thought, such reward and punishment models are the products of superficial, simplistic and shallow thinking--they are things modern neanderthals we call "conservatives" might think. But, so they continue, we liberals are deeper and more enlightened. What we see is the achievement of one person is at once the cause and effect of the inequities suffered by another; one cannot climb the mountain of success without digging his heel into the faces of those who lag behind, resulting in their failure. This is unjust and unfair. Therefore, our labor as a society should not be that of rewarding the achiever with real success while offering nothing more than encouragement for the slacker, accompanied by a warning. This does society no good. What is needed is the removal of the perceived inequities that prevent parity in achievement (a.k.a. equality of outcome).

Educational achievement, it seems, is to our Dear Leader O, what economic achievement and vocational success also seems to be to him: a zero sum game. Put simple, the more money I make the less you can make, the more math problems I will answer rightly the more you will, as a consequence, have to answer wrongly.

Much of Dear Leader O's rhetoric implies that there is only so much achievement, only so much economic/vocational success available. In such a context the gain of some results, de facto, in the loss of others, creating unacceptable inequities. These inequities are all the more unacceptable when the losses fall mostly on certain ethnic or social groups. Therefore, the function of society in general and government in particular is to intervene and level the playing field by whatever means the situation requires.

This is the Marxist, collectivist vision par excellence, born of what Nietzsche called "resentement". And it is as decidedly false as it is UnAmerican. It is the mentality of the slave, and that, no doubt, is just where collectivist leaders want those who follow them.

Thursday, May 6, 2010

Pelosi's suggestion?

Just click on the image to see a larger version.

More on the Federal Jihad

Ms. Chesea Shilling has written something I did not think could exist in today's climate: an article on Southern symbols that is even handed. For this I congratulate her. Her full article can be found at:

In response to her article I wrote the following:


I just read your article on the Marines and the Confederate flag. I want to personally thank you for writing a fair article. Amid all the hatred from the left and the present scourge of political correctness, no one stops or cares to stop to ask a Southerner just what the Confederate Battle Flag and other Southern Symbols mean TO HIM. They never think it can mean anything other than the racial hatred ascribed to it by the tyrannical victors in an attempt to cover up their crimes against humanity and the Constitution and hide the real reason the war was fought: Northern Imperialist Greed.

My experience is that when an endeavor is virtuous its goals can be stated plainly and up front. But when an endeavor is driven by evils such as tyranny, rapacity and the lust for power the true reasons cannot be stated, ergo a false, unhistorical reason is proffered as a justification for their evil acts accompanied, of course, by the ever-popular tool of the propagandist: the belligerent, indignant and self-righteous shouting down of any and all objecting voices.

It's all necessary. After all, who bothers with inconvenient and unimportant historical facts when you've got an Empire to Rule?

The question now arises as to why the South is hated? Why are Southerners under nothing less than a cultural reign of terror and an oppressive Federal Jihad to outlaw all things Southern? Why are Southerners shouted down and prevented from stating their reasons for honoring their failed war for Independence and their ancestors who died in that struggle?

I'll tell you why: The South is hated, not because the Southern Cause and its symbols meant and mean slavery, but because it represents that foundational, that quintessential American liberty without which there is no real America: Self Rule.

The same forces that caused, directed and financed the war in 1861 are still driving and financing that same Federal Government today, and they fear and hate the principles of American Liberty and Self Rule even more than they feared and hated them a century and a half ago. Their use of false history and the spreading of the propaganda of race and class warfare upon ignorant political and social factions who are all too willing to believe them, represent their primary means of denying Southerners and other honest men who would tell the truth about our history their right to be heard.

The lies persist in the form of false, historically unverifiable reasons for the invasion of the Southern Republic and the ultra-pious, pseudo-religious nationalistic, mythological rhetoric centered around a hated tyrant made into the grotesque combination of a martyred saint and Greek god.

Until the day arrives that the Nation can come to terms with its history and tell the truth about itself the principles and ideals of our Founders will simply remain what they've become under Centralized Federal rule: hollow phrases politicians drag out every election cycle and use to end their speeches, all the while what's left of American Liberty is being eroded daily by the same instrument that began the erosion: The Mutant Grotesquerie into which the Central Government created by our Founders metastasized in 1861-65.

But the real truth comes out, even from the lips of our enemies. It was in 1865 that Stanton or Seward (I don't recall which) said, "Our purpose is to cause men to love their nation more than they love their state." In other words, love this abstraction of galloping Empire more than the actual soil of Duncanville, Tx, Dallas County or the glorious Republic of Texas. Never!

It was also at that time Supreme Court Chief Justice and Lincoln appointee, Salmon Chase, all but danced on the grave of Thomas Jefferson as he joyfully, albeit unwittingly, stated the truth for the Federal invasion of the Southern Republic, "States Rights died at Appomattox." In other words, Centralization has triumphed! And as it was then so it is now, the only change being a fortiori.

Meanwhile many non-Southerners who come to the truth by reading honest history are often amazed at why Southerners have persisted and refuse to forget. The truth is Southerner's, like the Captive Israelites in Babylon, had sooner forget their right arms than forget the air of Liberty we once breathed, and like General Leonidas Polk, deep in our hearts we understand that "resistance to tyranny is service to God."

Thank you once again for at least being fair enough to see and state, if but briefly, the Southern point of view rather than just parroting the malicious cant of that devourer of Liberties, the Tyrannical Leviathan on the Potomac.

Sunday, May 2, 2010

That Which is Afoot

There is a principle that is operative in the United States that has permeated every aspect of life here and affects every citizen on a daily, almost hourly, basis. It is an undeclared principle and has enjoyed no official enshrinement in our documents to date, yet it has been on the ascendency for decades and decades.

This principle has been present in seminal form since the beginning of the founding of the Republic in 1789 but worked well behind the scenes save for an occasional rupture here and there, until it burst forth into the sunlight in all its green/gold glory and gore in 1861 and began its rapid, yet unofficial, take over of the garden of the Republic, choking out all else and silencing all other voices. That principle has a name. It is called "Anarchy."

Now I'm sure many dear readers will object. They'll say, "This is stuff and nonsense and we won't stand for it. Why, we have lots of order in America. Why we have more laws, more enforcement and more control and more means of control and order than ever before in our history." All that is quite true. I will answer such an argument by pointing to Hillarie Belloc's insistence that the modern age is characterized by the triumph of quantity over quality. If quantity and control were the issue I would have to declare my dear readers correct and beat a speedy and embarrassing retreat. But the issue isn't quantity---the issue is one of content, of quality.

I insist that those who would buttress the objections of Dear Reader focus only on the "how much" while ignoring "what kind." Of course, in our present politically correct anarchic atmosphere that makes perfect sense. After all, inquiring into quality is an act of discrimination, and we know that discrimination, like profiling, is out of style in our Sham Republic (or as some have come to know it, "Sham Pow")

Exactly what is being supported by the massive amounts of power, money, technology, media, police force and our inscrutable labyrinth of laws, growing in number as they are beyond the power of any man to count or understand? It is a radical form of relativism, and relativism is the bad-boy offspring of anarchy. But you say, the laws are based upon precedent and their consistency is preserved thereby. I answer, even if your logic is flawless your conclusions will all be wrong if your starting presupposition is false. In turn, if your precedent is wrong all you build upon it will be increasingly corrupt and unjust. You will have built a structure of lawlessness by means of a lawful process. But to say more on this is beyond scope of my powers and even if it weren't it would take us too far afield of the subject at hand.

With that in mind and before I encounter any further objections let me explain what I have come to understand by the word "anarchy." I don't ask for Dear Reader to agree with my understanding, I only ask for him to consider my statements in the light of that understanding and decide for himself whether I be right or wrong. G. K. Chesterton, in his book "Eugenics and Other Evils" wrote, "Anarchy is that condition of mind or methods in which you cannot stop yourself. It is the loss of that self-control which can return to the normal." In another place in the same text he says, "The modern world is insane, not so much because it admits the abnormal as because it cannot recover the normal."

In such a world, in such a time, in such a nation, in such conditions, the abnormal becomes the normal mode of operation and identified as normalcy. All the ordering and controlling powers are then used to enforce the foundational principle of the effects of disorder, iconoclasm and chaos--- anarchy. What's more, since it has become the ruling principle the primary force supporting that principle does not come from once sedate and solid citizens turned into mad men running wild in the streets breaking windows. Rather, it comes from the seemingly ordered and debated filled halls of governmental power---when that happens the expressions of anarchy, one law, one judgment, one action at a time, are issued forth in ever increasingly oppressive forms from the top down.

Once this has been seen it is easy to understand that the most fearful, effective and destructive of all anarchies and the most difficult to identify and defeat does not come not from masses of average souls gone mad due to perceived injustice or privation, but our lofty and detached leaders--gone mad; mad, not from privation and penury, but from opulence and excess; mad with power, with greed, with love and devotion for themselves as they narcissistically contemplate the transcendent beauty of their own wit and wisdom.

Famously, Lord Acton rightly said, "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." What he failed to say is that the fruit of absolute power is the institutionalization (read "normalization") of disorder and chaos---anarchy in the form of government, lawlessness in the form of law, arbitrariness as the principle of precedent. When that happens the most common name we give it is not anarchy but tyranny. No matter the name, a rose by any other name would smell so sweet...

These institutional takeovers of anarchy have done more damage and destroyed more lives than all the rabble of history running wild in the streets or all the barbarian hordes sweeping across continents stealing, confiscating, raping and pillaging.

Why is this? It is because as long as anarchy is seen as an alien force it is always met with some consistent and considerable resistance. Attila was a not greeted by wildly applauding crowds as he swept across Asia to the European Continent. He wasn't given the keys of the cities, honorary doctorates by venerable institutions, prestigious international awards, universal praise by elites and top leaders, nor was he offered great sums of money to accept speaking engagements or given red carpet treatment when speaking at commencements. No. He was resisted and this consistent resistance slowed his progress, diminished his successes, and lead to his ultimate undoing.

But once anarchy becomes the operative principle from within a system, once this abnormal and destructive thing is regarded and ubiquitously spoken of by all the opinion makers as normal, its progress is swift and sure, its effects are frightening and devastating. Resistance is regarded as seditious, for the enemy of the people is now within and has been officially declare a friend, while the true friend is now declared the enemy and tagged with slanders like "extremist" or "bigot" or "hate monger" or "traitor" or "divisive" or many other such related titles.

We have many famous examples of these institutional take overs and the normalization of the abnormal in history and they have always lead to destruction, violence, dissolution and chaos. There are so many of these examples it would be tedious for the reader to wade through an all-too-familiar litany, so we will limit ourselves and mention only a few. The classic example of anarchy that helped kick off the modern statist mania for the Thing is that of Henry VIII. In America we see its first manifestation in Lincoln, who was so successful that he was followed by other eager albeit lesser demagogues such as TR, Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Jimma Cata, George II, and the new flavor of the month who would be King of Kings, Barack H. Obama.

The fruit of such cowardly leadership (I say "cowardly" because tyrants are always cowards, for those who are always looking out only for themselves and concerned only with their own image and appearance above all else are always cowards, and cowards always do the cowardly thing, which usually takes some form of bullying) took the first successful American form in the unconstitutional invasion of the newly born Southern Republic in 1861. It is now supporting another invasion, this time from, not to, the South. No, the Seven Southern Sisters have (unfortunately) not arisen from the dust of history to fight back once again for their constitutional rights---that would be the the normal fighting back and resisting the lawlessness and arbitrariness of the exercise of unconstitutional power. No, this southern invasion is coming from our Mexican and other South American neighbors, and it is just one form of anarchy that they are exporting to us, free of charge---that is why it is costing so much!

Our reaction to the recent anarchy and it multifaceted expressions shows just how deeply anarchy has rooted itself into the American psyche and how successful its charade as the "normal" has become. Let me explain with a simple example.

Now, the normal reaction to such an invasion of a border would be what nations have normally done throughout recorded history: assert their right to sovereign borders and act accordingly. That would be the end of it. But anarchy is lawlessness, and when the law makers and law enforcers refuse to act to enforce lawful and sane laws they are making themselves the slaves and handmaidens of anarchy. One would expect this from the top down for society's wise leaders commonly do the most foolish things. But in the present instance of the Southern Invasion we are seeing something quite different. We are seeing citizens in the streets protesting against their own best interest and in support of anarchy. This can only mean one thing, and that is a great number U.S. citizens are suffering from a national form of Stockholm syndrome. They have developed hatred for themselves and sympathy for those whose policies and actions cannot but result in the ultimate destruction and enslavement of the citizens and the disintegration of the Nation. After all, what nation that refuses to defend its borders can long preserve its identity and sovereignty?

In the midst of this bawdy and barefaced uprising of the folks protesting against their own best interest and in support of anarchy the voices of protest (a.k.a. voices in support of normalcy) are barely audible. When they peep through they are quickly shouted down by slanders.

If this were the only expression of citizens supporting anarchy within America's borders it would be highly disturbing. But analysis shows that the principle and operation of anarchy has hardly any resistance in any area of American life, governance and industry, whether private or public. What's more, the resistance that does exist has, up to now, seemed utterly feckless and impotent. Thus, every officially approve act is an act against the best interest, health and liberty of the citizens and the land.

One now looks for an a fortiori repeat of what happened in 1861, only the green shoot breaking forth today will not attempt to even rationalize its presence and abusive effects. No excuse will be given and none will be needed. It will show itself openly as the noxious weed of tyranny, announcing the Constitution to officially be what it has long been in practice: unconstitutional, and the Republic officially dead. It's obituary will appear in every newspaper and become the lead story of every evening news broadcast. It will be heralded as a glad and happy event precipitating our freedom from the suffocating and anachronistic constraints of the Constitution. Thus, the event will be celebrated as "liberating" or "freeing" under such a pretext. But no one will think to stop and ask precisely what is being liberated and freed and for what purposes. Besides those questions are beyond the citizen's right to ask and his capability to apprehend the answer. No need to bother, for it will be too late anyway.The Strong Man who can and will rule with an iron fist will have already come forth, unresisted and uncontested as the symbol of this great "liberation" and from there he will begin to do his worst to the helpless and hapless citizens.

Anarchy will then begin its Golden Age in the land of Washington, Jefferson and Patrick Henry. Anarchy will be in such full control that the nation will not only be no longer able to regain normalcy, the nation will have forgotten any such thing as normalcy ever existed, let alone that it ought to be recovered. Besides, there will be no time to reflect upon such things since all the citizen's time and efforts will be required to love, labor for and please Dear Leader and perfectly conform to his clear and orderly pronouncements.

Our national madness will then see a qualitative development, for we will no longer be in that mild form of madness that we see everyday in ourselves, our friends, our families and our co-workers; that common, neurotic and weak human condition of admitting the abnormal while being unable to recover the normal––while persisting in the effort. We will have advanced to the psychosis of calling the abnormal our greatest and highest good while actively persecuting those dwindling little islands of normalcy that still exist in the hinterlands of our liberty forsaken shores. The normal, on that day, will become universally slandered as perverse and its protagonists hunted down like dogs and arrested as criminals. On that bright day those obedient to Dear Leader will all hold hands, face the bright and rising sun and chant together, "I was my enemy but no more,
Government is my one true Friend,
work my rest, slavery my freedom,
Sacrifice for my one true Friend
my only purpose and joy."