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.

Zero-Sum Game

Dr. Sowell has hit the nail on the head once again in his article of May 4th for Townhall.(http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2010/05/04/race_and_resentment?page=2) 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.

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:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=149729

In response to her article I wrote the following:

Chelsea,

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.

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."