Monday, November 11, 2013

Armistice Day 2013

I'm going to say this here, because few others will understand this rightly. 

Armistice day 2013

I'm DONE with the military! Why?
Because they are nothing but an arm of the exercise of Federal tyranny. 

It may be we have fought just wars in the past. The war against Hitler was one, for sure. BUT, we shoulder a lot about the blame for Hitler because of the humiliating terms Wilson forced in WWI.

Other wars, the War to Prevent Southern Independence, and the Spanish American War were monstrous evils and injustices, as was the Mexican war. They were not wars of defense, but wars of choice and aggression. They were unjust and imperial wars--wars of conquest, oppression and suppression. 

The evils of the war in the Philippines following on the heels of the Spanish American war is little known by Americans, but it is a period of shame that should have awakened the American conscience. But, it did not, because the press made sure few knew of it.

Since that time the young men and women in the American military have been little more than the pawns of the imperial designs of the American military complex and the Yankee, international bankers. 

And they have been duped into growing empire under the euphemism of "serving their country" by  being brainwashed into believing the absurd notion that invading other sovereign nations and killing tens of thousands of their citizens, most of whom are clearly non-military, is "protecting our freedom" and serving Americans. 

Nothing could be more false. The government lies to our military just as they lie to the citizens. To repeat, growing empire is not "protecting our freedoms." Rather, it is taking the freedoms of others--usually in the name of "democracy," and taking our freedoms by making us hated the world over.

I do not blame the youth in our military. I understand how they are yet unable to think with any depth. (If they were they'd not be in the military). 

I understand they have not been trained to think at all--they don't know how to make the critical distinctions needed to understand the lies and contradictions their leaders and politicians present to them. No, I do not blame them. I feel sorry for them. 

No amount of sincerity, no amount of sacrifice under false pretexts, can justify what the military is being used to do in OUR NAME, the name of We the People. 

The government is a renegade institution, lawless, tyrannical, despotic, and aggressive. The government cronies and thugs speak to us about "individual sacrifice for the common good." But they, as rulers of the government, are all out for themselves, at the cost and sacrifice of everyone else. 

The military is brainwashed into serving that institution of liars and usurpers in the name of patriotism and protecting our freedoms. 

I just can't take it. The rhetoric of this day makes me gag. I'm sorry for our young men duped into carrying out acts of tyranny by the false rhetoric of politicians. But to pretend this awful reality does not exist out of consideration of and compassion towards the families of the fallen is to lay the ground work for the making of more victims of Imperial lies and abuses in the future.

You who object say you're a conservative. So am I. 
You who object say you're a patriot. I do not doubt it.  So am I. 

Since we don't agree, I have a simple question to pose in the hope of finding some clarification for our manifest cognitive dissonance: "Exactly what is it you are loyal to?" 

Personally, I favor loyalty to peace, liberty and prosperity, and to treating others as we think we should be treated.

Sunday, November 3, 2013

On the 150th Anniversary of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address

I begin by quoting no friend of the south, the Baltimore newspaper man, H.L. Mencken.

Here is what he wrote on Lincoln's Address:
"The Gettysburg speech was at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history…the highest emotion reduced to a few poetical phrases. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous. But let us not forget that it is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it. Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination — that government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves."

One could say that virtually every statement in the address begs the question in some way. The first, for instance, claims that 87 years prior to the speech our forefathers formed a new nation. But in 1776 13 british colonies individually seceded from Great Britain. The secession succeeding, 13 separate documents of surrender was issued to 13  new,sovereign states or nations, not one document of surrender to a unitary nation-state.

This dedication to the proposition that "all men are created equal," once again begs the question.

Where is this official dedication? It seems it exists only in Lincoln's mind.

If we look at the Declaration we see it is not about equality. Rather, it is about the right of peoples to govern themselves. In other words, the equality of the colonists to the British had its quintessential expression in the form of the right of self-determination-- the right of the ability to rule themselves.

True as that is, in the Law of the Land, the Constitution, there is not only no "dedication" to equality, you can't even find the word equality.

Then, finally, there is the intimation that the union soldiers were fighting for that same right of self-determination the colonist patriots were.

This is totally Orwellian.

It was the union soldiers who were fighting to subjugate the southern Republics, and reduce them to little more than conquered provinces--which they did. It was the Confederate soldiers who were fighting for the right of their people to rule themselves. In this sense, they were on the side of the colonists. It was the union soldiers who were fighting in the spirit of the British soldiers trying to prevent the secession of the colonists.

Then, there is the claim the union soldiers were fighting for the actual existence of the nation. This is another linconian absurdity.

The states remaining in the union compact were in no danger of being overrun whatsoever.  Nor was the home of their general government, Washington DC. The Southern Republics were not staging a revolutionary take over. They just wanted to get the heck out of Dodge--they didn't want to be a part of what they had understood was a VOLUNTARY union.  In other words, they wanted to be free from Washington as their forefathers wanted to be free of George III.

Again, this is nothing but Jacobin-style, Orwellian propaganda on Lincoln's behalf. One could even argue this "nation" he invents exists only in his twisted, totalitarian fantasies. The Founders referred to the Constitutional Compact as "the union," not "a new nation." Union was the most common word for the alliance of nation states. When South Carolina seceded in 1860 the newspaper headlines read "Union Dissolved."

The National Government was never regarded as a unitary sovereign. The National Government lacked sovereignty altogether. It possessed only delegated, limited powers. It was, and Constitutionally remains, a mere Agent of the Sovereign States. The fact that the central government has usurped almost all the sovereignty of the states and the people does not change the reality of its legal status as a mere agent.

Thus, we see just some of the nonsense exposed in Lincoln's famous address, and the lawless fiction upon which "the American Nation"--I refer to it as "Linconia"--- is presently constructed, a lawless fiction in which the Central Government has usurped all power and reduced the sovereign states to mere administrative units.

What of the people's freedom? It is also a fiction. We have no recourse to our crumbling bill of rights. I write here, and people gather here, not as our God given right, but by the gracious negligence of the Central government. We only appear to have rights. And any more our alleged "liberties" and "rights" could be taken under any number of pretexts invented by our Overlords in Washington.

In truth, the logical working out of Lincoln's delusionary inventions and the acceptance of them as "normalcy" has resulted in the increasing LOSS of self-determination of our once sovereign Republics and peoples.

Any man not blinded by years of government school propaganda, buttressed by an ignorant and brain-dead press, could see this. Even a man like Lysander Spooner, a Massachusetts lawyer, staunch abolitionist, no friend of the south, and hater of Lincoln and his minions, could see it  as early as 1866. It was then he wrote something that should be much more famous than Mr. Lincoln's "coke is it" Gettysburg propaganda, but, alas, is not. I shall quote it here and dare any man to use the powers of reason and evidence to refute it.

"The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals. No principle, that is possible to be named, can be more self-evidently false than this; or more self-evidently fatal to all political freedom. Yet it triumphed in the field, and is now assumed to be established. If it really be established, the number of slaves, instead of having been diminished by the war, has been greatly increased; for a man, thus subjected to a government that he does not want, is a slave. And there is no difference, in principle --- but only in degree --- BETWEEN POLITICAL AND CHATTEL SLAVERY. [political slavery is what we're now experiencing in increasing degrees, thanks to Lincoln's FORCED consolidation].The former[political slavery], no less than the latter [chattel slavery], denies a man's ownership of himself and the products of his labor; and asserts that other men may own him, and dispose of him and his property, for their uses, and at their pleasure." – Lysander Spooner (Nineteenth-Century lawyer, abolitionist, entrepreneur)

In support of my statement above, I also present a portion of Andrew Johnson's State of the Union Speech, given December 1867. At that time Johnson was outraged at the behavior of the Radical Republicans and the military occupation of the Southern Republics. He fought back with this official executive statement, which, sadly, foreshadows the tyranny with which the American Republics and peoples will be visited by this Central Agent gone wild--an Agent that is now TOTALLY OUT OF CONTROL:

"...candor compels me to declare that at this time there is no Union as our fathers understood the term, and as they meant it to be understood by us. The Union which they established can exist only where all the States are represented in both Houses of Congress; where one State is as free as another to regulate its internal concerns according to its own will, and where the laws of the central Government, strictly confined to matters of national jurisdiction, apply with equal force to all the people of every section. That such is not the present "state of the Union" is a melancholy fact, and we must all acknowledge that the restoration of the States to their proper legal relations with the Federal Government and with one another, according to the terms of the original compact, would be the greatest temporal blessing which God, in His kindest providence, could bestow upon this nation. It becomes our imperative duty to consider whether or not it is impossible to effect this most desirable consummation. The Union and the Constitution are inseparable. As long as one is obeyed by all parties, the other will be preserved; and if one is destroyed, both must perish together. The destruction of the Constitution will be followed by other and still greater calamities. It was ordained not only to form a more perfect union between the States, but to "establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." Nothing but implicit obedience to its requirements in all parts of the country will accomplish these great ends. Without that obedience we can look forward only to continual outrages upon individual rights, incessant breaches of the public peace, national weakness, financial dishonor, the total loss of our prosperity, the general corruption of morals, and the final extinction of popular freedom. To save our country from evils so appalling as these, we should renew our efforts again and again."
Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, State of the Union address, 1867

And as a fictional southron, Forest Gump was fond of saying, "That's all I've got to say about that."

Saturday, November 2, 2013


I have been listening to defenders of President Petulant Prevaricator on TV until I could scream. I don't know who's the more dishonest, them or him. Now, it's my turn.

Say what they might, it's perfectly clear, what we have here is a lying, loud mouthed, know-nothing crook and confidence man, a low-life who will say any and every thing to expropriate the thing he most desires from you. 

Parse his words how ever you may choose. Parse them and parse them again, and continue parsing them until they are so parched and desiccated from parsing as to be incoherent and meaningless (which I assume is the desired end for the now "CYA" party). 

No matter how you parse them, it is perfectly clear to any clear headed person whose brains are not washed of its powers of reason by blind ideology, that the president's words were meant to mislead and deceive the American people into supporting a thing they would never have support had the WHOLE truth been told them. 

Failure to tell the whole truth is breach of contract and prosecutable by law. Failure to tell the WHOLE truth under oath is prosecutable under our perjury laws. 

Riddle me this: How is it the president is held to a lower standard when he makes promises to the American people than tens of thousands of average Americans are each day in courts and contract signings? Is it okay for POTUS to look straight at the American people and lie, just because everyone has come to think our politicians being crooks and liars is now acceptable SOP? This is an outrage!

Now, when you consider Clinton and his parsing of the verb "is" (I thought I knew what it meant until he opened his corrupt mouth) and now Obama, we're left with only one choice, it seems, a choice the Corruptocrats will just love, since it involves one of their favorite go-tos for campaign $$$: the ABA. 

Specifically, it seems whenever we hear a Democrat politician speak from now on we're going to need our own personal lawyer to explain what their words could possibly mean and their possible political and practical ramifications.

Maybe you're a fool. But my mother didn't raise a fool.(I tried. Lord knows, I tried. But she wouldn't let me.) Once someone has lied to me, and then, when confronted with the lie, that person adds insult to injury by lying to me again in the form of some absurd, far fetched equivocation that he or she stupidly thinks will convince me that the first lie wasn't a lie--I'm done with them! 

But, as many of y'all know, the old armadillo was done with that loud mouthed flim flaming confidence man a LOOOOOONG time ago. 

And as Forest Gump was fond of saying, "That's all I have to say about that.....FOR NOW!"