There are lessons to be learned from Pearl Harbor, 69 years later.
The North County (San Diego) Times published the usual “Pearl Harbor Day” piece this year for the 69th Anniversary of the attack that began WW2 for most Americans.
There are only nine members of the Survivor’s Association in North County left, and most of them spoke to the reporter. Here is some of what they said:
Walsh said, he still considers it an important duty to speak to schoolchildren, telling them about that day, its consequences and what lessons it holds for current and future generations.
"Particularly the high school kids," he added. "Half of them don't even know where the hell Pearl Harbor is ---- that was really startling."
He was referring to a visit several years ago to an Escondido high school, where he was compelled to find a globe to point out the vast span of the war in the Pacific.
Another survivor:
Michelle Leslie's daughter, Lauren, wanted to know: "Is there anything our generation could learn from your generation?"
"Always be prepared, always be on the lookout," answered Greenhouse, who was stationed at nearby Marine Corps Air Station Ewa on Oahu at the time of the attack. "Get your training today, because it will sure help in the future. We were caught by surprise; the main thing is, be prepared for whatever happens."
Today, there are still lessons, great and important lessons, to be learned from Pearl Harbor. Let us ignore the events and the duplicity and conspiracies which preceded it, and which led to it. Let us ignore the propaganda that demonizes one or both sides, the arguments about legality and provocation, and all the rest. Let us even ignore the consequences of the nearly four years of the Great Pacific War which followed.
The lessons we need to learn, in the United States and elsewhere, from that Sunday attack on a huge and unprepared naval base in the center of the Pacific, are the same lessons that need to be learned from battles and events around the world, from the Rape of Nanking to the Soviet-Russian attack on Poland to the invasion of the Falklands to the invasion of Kuwait to bloody Troubles of Northern Ireland and the subways of Madrid.
First, we forget our history, or at least most of us do. Those who remember are both blessed and cursed: blessed because they can see that the same things can and will happen again, and perhaps they can take some action, however small, to reduce the possibility that when these things happen again, that the outcome will be different. But the failure of so many to take any action will haunt them all their lives. Those who forget (or never learned) the history of peoples and nations and wars and technology, are to be pitied indeed: they will suffer more when those events are repeated, and they will drag millions with them into suffering and cruelty and untimely death and all the rest of the evils that man can do to other men. Especially in 2010, there are billions of people – especially in the West and China – who believe that we are in some bizarre era of “post-history” – that the wars and attacks and invasions and diseases and atrocities of the past will never repeat themselves. They are doomed, for that has not been the case for six thousand years, and man has not changed in the last 60 or 50 or 40 years.
Second, Greenhouse’s words are not “trite” or “pro forma” or “hackneyed.” The lesson, for young and old, for today and tomorrow – the lesson that too many will not learn, and that those who learn seem to forget – is to “be prepared, be on the lookout, and get your training now.” Wise words from a very old man: words that 99% of humanity ignore time and again, and ignore to their peril.
Be prepared: enemies change, but the dangers of tyranny, of the power mongers, the sociopaths and psychopaths, the liars and perveyors of evil. Slightly changed perhaps, but still present. The enemies are both internal and external to a nation: as they were in 1941, so they will be in 2011. The tactics and strategies will given new names or scents or colors, but still will be used: lies and promises, appeals to fear and patriotism and always, ALWAYS, twisting of good into evil. And people will still bleed, still scream, and still die. Prepare for the worst, and enjoy anything better. As part of being prepared, set your goals and your objectives. Is it security or liberty, long life or health or family? Events should not set aside your goals as a free man or woman, IF you are prepared.
Be on the lookout: eternal vigilance is necessary, whomever the enemy, whatever the cause, whatever the methods of attack and defense. Do not take first appearances, or “common knowledge” for the truth. Do not listen to any one side of anything. Question everything – especially authority. Understand that what appears to be a solution to one problem will cause other problems, and that opportunity exists for both the good and the evil. Above all, do not allow yourself to be blinded by wishes or ‘normalcy.’
Get your training now. Being prepared and being alert is nothing that you simply happen to do. Americans in the 1910s did not train for the manmade catastrophe of the Great War; Americans of the 1920s did not train for the Great Depression, and those of the 1930s did not train for the Second World War. Americans of the 1990s did not train for the events of the 2000s. Most did not, at least. The list of training to get is endless, but the objectives and the plan must be clear and set forth. Train to survive, with and without technology. Train to raise a family (which includes educating them and helping them survive). Train to create a community, and to identify the threats and dangers faced by a community and OF a community. Train to defend yourselves, your family, and your community against those threats and dangers. And above all, train yourself to do what is necessary so that you are prepared to reach your goals and accomplish your objectives. Such training is physical, economic, academic, political, and spiritual. Without it, no attempt to be prepared or be on the lookout will succeed.
And you will join the 99% of humanity who cannot and will not learn from history, including Pearl Harbor.
Sunday, December 05, 2010
Saturday, December 04, 2010
MADD's Addictive Behavior - The Problem
MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) and its associated organizations (Students... Teachers... etc.) is one of the most prominent and active of the Nanny State's "non-governmental organization" (NGO) allies in remaking American society. Organized as an advocacy and lobbying group, they have more in common with ACORN than virtually any of their members or leaders is willing to admit, and have totally skewed the national scene regarding highway safety.
The referenced article (click on the headline) is a brief look from a politico-religious perspective (and one somewhat right-libertarian) on a growing movement to FIGHT MADD, and to repeal or at least revise the current nationwide ban on drinking under the age of 21.
The legal ban (hardly an absolute ban) on drinking for almost 1/4 of our nation's population is a product of the era of the end of federalism. It is an example of the nanny-state at its worst, and of the triumph of emotion and hype over reason. Passed in 1984 and signed into law by President Reagan in a betrayal of his principles of federalism, it was the product of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, (http://www.madd.org/About-us/About-us/History.aspx) an organization which is the epitome of liberal AND conservative hypocrisy.
Although it was claimed (then and now) that forcing all states to treat thousands of its adult citizens as second-class would "end" the drunk driving menace on American highways, the evidence of the last two+ decades has shown otherwise. MADD claimed (and still does) that it was THE solution to drunk-driving fatalities in this continent, a steady stream of further attempts to solve the problem which supposedly has already been solved is impressive, and sickening: the zero-tolerance laws, the 0.08 blood-alcohol laws, and more. All done in violation of the Constitution and through a very nasty (and sadly effective) mechanism: withholding of highway user trust fund money from the states until they lick the boots of the Congress that supposedly works for them - a form of extortion, since the money being withheld was stolen from the people of the States to begin with.
Like anti-gun activists who push for "just one more" law - indeed, like the drunk who wants "just one more" for the road, MADD and their ilk are addicted to lobbying and laws, proven by the way that they continue to push for more and more laws, more and more punishment, more and more "enforcement" - claiming each time that THIS will once and for all solve the problem.
Like the gun-haters and the alcoholic, MADD is ever willing to lie to themselves and others to get their way. Even in the early 1980s, the majority of DUI deaths were not caused by the 18-20 year olds who have been turned into plebes by this law; far more were the result of older (if not "more mature") chronic drinkers who often are multiple offenders. But to read MADD's own propaganda you would think it is the 18-20 age group - until you study their own statistics very closely. (After all, old alcoholics and drunks make poor "poster children.")
In the same way, in one place they claim that 30,000 lives have been saved "each year" by the 21-law. But when you look at the chart on their home page (use "print screen" to look at it for more than 10 seconds), you find that almost 10,000 of the 30,000 per year drop that they claim happened BEFORE the 1984 law was passed. In fact, in 1986, drunk-driving deaths were back at pre-law levels. And it took a decade (and apparently a lot more laws) for the "30,000" drop to be reached. In fact, since about 1992, the number of drunk-driving fatalities has basically been frozen at just about 20,000 per year. Nor can they deny that (again, by their own claim) there are still 500,000 alcohol-related injuries on highways each year: some "final solution." Worse, they exaggerate about other highway fatalities increasing (claiming a 34% rise in 25 years) by ignoring the billions of miles more we drive each year, and the tens of millions more motorists on the roads in 2007 as compared to 1982. And they totally ignore the last half-decade of steadily dropping fatalities, in both real numbers and per miles driven.
The college presidents (135 of them as of December 2010) have some strong points (http://www.amethystinitiative.org/):
A culture of dangerous, clandestine “binge-drinking”—often conducted off-campus—has developed.
Alcohol education that mandates abstinence as the only legal option has not resulted in significant constructive behavioral change among our students.
Adults under 21 are deemed capable of voting, signing contracts, serving on juries and enlisting in the military, but are told they are not mature enough to have a beer.
By choosing to use fake IDs, students make ethical compromises that erode respect for the law.
Obviously, there are many pros and cons, but they are not calling for an outright change - merely an informed debate. MADD and the usual knee-jerk liberals who believe that NO one can control themselves, don't want to talk about it - except to slander and revile the people suggesting we talk about it.
Both sides are, to a degree, wrong. It is NOT government's place, and especially not the FEDERAL government's place, to regulate alcohol sales, except to prohibit states from collecting tariffs or duties on imports and exports from other states, as provided by the Constitution and the "Commerce Clause" when properly understood and applied. It is ESPECIALLY not government's place to tell people how to raise their children, and to take action which takes away the responsibilities of parents for their children.
In the next part, I’ll look at the solution to the problem.
The referenced article (click on the headline) is a brief look from a politico-religious perspective (and one somewhat right-libertarian) on a growing movement to FIGHT MADD, and to repeal or at least revise the current nationwide ban on drinking under the age of 21.
The legal ban (hardly an absolute ban) on drinking for almost 1/4 of our nation's population is a product of the era of the end of federalism. It is an example of the nanny-state at its worst, and of the triumph of emotion and hype over reason. Passed in 1984 and signed into law by President Reagan in a betrayal of his principles of federalism, it was the product of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, (http://www.madd.org/About-us/About-us/History.aspx) an organization which is the epitome of liberal AND conservative hypocrisy.
Although it was claimed (then and now) that forcing all states to treat thousands of its adult citizens as second-class would "end" the drunk driving menace on American highways, the evidence of the last two+ decades has shown otherwise. MADD claimed (and still does) that it was THE solution to drunk-driving fatalities in this continent, a steady stream of further attempts to solve the problem which supposedly has already been solved is impressive, and sickening: the zero-tolerance laws, the 0.08 blood-alcohol laws, and more. All done in violation of the Constitution and through a very nasty (and sadly effective) mechanism: withholding of highway user trust fund money from the states until they lick the boots of the Congress that supposedly works for them - a form of extortion, since the money being withheld was stolen from the people of the States to begin with.
Like anti-gun activists who push for "just one more" law - indeed, like the drunk who wants "just one more" for the road, MADD and their ilk are addicted to lobbying and laws, proven by the way that they continue to push for more and more laws, more and more punishment, more and more "enforcement" - claiming each time that THIS will once and for all solve the problem.
Like the gun-haters and the alcoholic, MADD is ever willing to lie to themselves and others to get their way. Even in the early 1980s, the majority of DUI deaths were not caused by the 18-20 year olds who have been turned into plebes by this law; far more were the result of older (if not "more mature") chronic drinkers who often are multiple offenders. But to read MADD's own propaganda you would think it is the 18-20 age group - until you study their own statistics very closely. (After all, old alcoholics and drunks make poor "poster children.")
In the same way, in one place they claim that 30,000 lives have been saved "each year" by the 21-law. But when you look at the chart on their home page (use "print screen" to look at it for more than 10 seconds), you find that almost 10,000 of the 30,000 per year drop that they claim happened BEFORE the 1984 law was passed. In fact, in 1986, drunk-driving deaths were back at pre-law levels. And it took a decade (and apparently a lot more laws) for the "30,000" drop to be reached. In fact, since about 1992, the number of drunk-driving fatalities has basically been frozen at just about 20,000 per year. Nor can they deny that (again, by their own claim) there are still 500,000 alcohol-related injuries on highways each year: some "final solution." Worse, they exaggerate about other highway fatalities increasing (claiming a 34% rise in 25 years) by ignoring the billions of miles more we drive each year, and the tens of millions more motorists on the roads in 2007 as compared to 1982. And they totally ignore the last half-decade of steadily dropping fatalities, in both real numbers and per miles driven.
The college presidents (135 of them as of December 2010) have some strong points (http://www.amethystinitiative.org/):
A culture of dangerous, clandestine “binge-drinking”—often conducted off-campus—has developed.
Alcohol education that mandates abstinence as the only legal option has not resulted in significant constructive behavioral change among our students.
Adults under 21 are deemed capable of voting, signing contracts, serving on juries and enlisting in the military, but are told they are not mature enough to have a beer.
By choosing to use fake IDs, students make ethical compromises that erode respect for the law.
Obviously, there are many pros and cons, but they are not calling for an outright change - merely an informed debate. MADD and the usual knee-jerk liberals who believe that NO one can control themselves, don't want to talk about it - except to slander and revile the people suggesting we talk about it.
Both sides are, to a degree, wrong. It is NOT government's place, and especially not the FEDERAL government's place, to regulate alcohol sales, except to prohibit states from collecting tariffs or duties on imports and exports from other states, as provided by the Constitution and the "Commerce Clause" when properly understood and applied. It is ESPECIALLY not government's place to tell people how to raise their children, and to take action which takes away the responsibilities of parents for their children.
In the next part, I’ll look at the solution to the problem.
Thursday, December 02, 2010
Armed People are Polite People
"No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion."
-- James Burgh (1714-1775) was an English Whig politician
Source: "Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses" (London, 1774-1775)
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/James.Burgh.Quote.E94F
A "kingdom" of course, means a nation, an "earthly kingdom." That kingdom may be part of a larger nation, and therefore a community, a neighborhood, a rural area, or a town, county or region.
History shows us that if only warriors (whose reason for existence is to defend the tribe, the vill, or whatever) are armed, their dedication to defense against external threats soon takes second place to bullying the very people that they supposedly are defending. As Burgh says, the unarmed man (or woman) "lives... at discretion." The discretion of the bully. This starts out as a kind of "parental" toleration which becomes contempt and disdain for the unarmed person - who is now somewhat "lower caste," and goes from there.
"A people armed and free forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition and is a bulwark for the nation against foreign invasion and domestic oppression."
-- James Madison
(1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/James.Madison.Quote.3944
Notice that Madison speaks of both internal and external threats. The two are often (but not always) related. Foreign invasion is often triggered by the actions of the same government which is oppressing its people domestically: either because they are greedy and seek more power and more wealth that their own subjects can provide, or because they are willing to seek foreign adventures to distract their subjects from their condition.
But when we consider "domestic oppression" we need to remember that it is not just government that is a source of such oppression: it can be bandits and outlaws (as was often the case in England in the Middle Ages and in the United States in such places as "Bleeding Kansas" of the 1850s and strife-torn Missouri in the 1860s and the vicious gangs of pre-vigilante San Francisco and the mining camps of the 1850s), it can be landowners (such as some of the cattle ranchers of which Louis L'Amour writes) or corporations such as the railroad companies in Texas or the mining companies of Colorado in the 1910s.
Even the most vicious and nasty of thugs - whether hired guns or the owners or the foreman - tend to back down and be much more polite when the people they face are armed and able and ready to defend themselves.
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States."
-- Noah Webster
(1758-1843) American patriot and scholar, author of the 1806 edition of the dictionary that bears his name, the first dictionary of American English usage.
Defined the militia similarly as "the effective part of the people at large."
Source: An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Noah.Webster.Quote.5114
Sadly, this has changed from 1787 to 2010: the Federal Government found pretense to raise a massive band - bands - of "regular troops" - not so much the Regular Army, Army Reserves, and National Guard (which are concerned more with external duties - foreign occupation) but the massive numbers of police agencies and police officers of all types from the small local town forces to the oversized (and heavily armed) urban police forces and sheriffs' offices to the massive State Police and dozens of Federal "law-enforcement" agencies and branches of agencies which are an internal occupation force: THIS is the modern standing army which has taken away liberty.
At the same time, the disarming of American citizens NOT in one of these agencies has proceeded apace: more and more types of weapons considered "military" or (even worse) "law enforcement" in nature have been taken out of the hand of civilians on a variety of pretexts. Reduced to hunting weapons and semi-automatic weapons of small caliber and small capacity, without modern technology such as silencers and night-vision-scopes and specialized rounds, this makes possible the domination of the modern standing army.
And with this disarmament and rise of the standing army of police, the contempt and disdain for the civilian - relatively if not totally disarmed - grows more evident with each passing year. Witness the attitude of the TSA - perhaps not EVERY TSO, but certainly many including supervisors right up to the Secretary of Homeland Security and the White House. Witness the attitude and the evidence of corruption, of concealment of lawbreaking, and rejection of civilian control on anything but a pro forma basis of too many metropolitan and even state forces. As in Europe and Latin America in the past, the uniformed (and plain-clothed) police see no more need for true politeness: the words "sir" and "ma'am" in the mouths of too many police officers is nothing but rote mouthings. When spoken by a man or woman in uniform, one hand on the belt near their pistol, the other hand out for "papers" or on the key of a radio microphone connecting to back-up, the words are meaningless.
In a truly free society, politeness is a necessity because an offended person need not look to a "protector" for succor or assistance - the offended person is armed and capable of responding appropriately to the offense, regardless of age or size or sex or physical condition.
-- James Burgh (1714-1775) was an English Whig politician
Source: "Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses" (London, 1774-1775)
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/
A "kingdom" of course, means a nation, an "earthly kingdom." That kingdom may be part of a larger nation, and therefore a community, a neighborhood, a rural area, or a town, county or region.
History shows us that if only warriors (whose reason for existence is to defend the tribe, the vill, or whatever) are armed, their dedication to defense against external threats soon takes second place to bullying the very people that they supposedly are defending. As Burgh says, the unarmed man (or woman) "lives... at discretion." The discretion of the bully. This starts out as a kind of "parental" toleration which becomes contempt and disdain for the unarmed person - who is now somewhat "lower caste," and goes from there.
"A people armed and free forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition and is a bulwark for the nation against foreign invasion and domestic oppression."
-- James Madison
(1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/
Notice that Madison speaks of both internal and external threats. The two are often (but not always) related. Foreign invasion is often triggered by the actions of the same government which is oppressing its people domestically: either because they are greedy and seek more power and more wealth that their own subjects can provide, or because they are willing to seek foreign adventures to distract their subjects from their condition.
But when we consider "domestic oppression" we need to remember that it is not just government that is a source of such oppression: it can be bandits and outlaws (as was often the case in England in the Middle Ages and in the United States in such places as "Bleeding Kansas" of the 1850s and strife-torn Missouri in the 1860s and the vicious gangs of pre-vigilante San Francisco and the mining camps of the 1850s), it can be landowners (such as some of the cattle ranchers of which Louis L'Amour writes) or corporations such as the railroad companies in Texas or the mining companies of Colorado in the 1910s.
Even the most vicious and nasty of thugs - whether hired guns or the owners or the foreman - tend to back down and be much more polite when the people they face are armed and able and ready to defend themselves.
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States."
-- Noah Webster
(1758-1843) American patriot and scholar, author of the 1806 edition of the dictionary that bears his name, the first dictionary of American English usage.
Defined the militia similarly as "the effective part of the people at large."
Source: An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/
Sadly, this has changed from 1787 to 2010: the Federal Government found pretense to raise a massive band - bands - of "regular troops" - not so much the Regular Army, Army Reserves, and National Guard (which are concerned more with external duties - foreign occupation) but the massive numbers of police agencies and police officers of all types from the small local town forces to the oversized (and heavily armed) urban police forces and sheriffs' offices to the massive State Police and dozens of Federal "law-enforcement" agencies and branches of agencies which are an internal occupation force: THIS is the modern standing army which has taken away liberty.
At the same time, the disarming of American citizens NOT in one of these agencies has proceeded apace: more and more types of weapons considered "military" or (even worse) "law enforcement" in nature have been taken out of the hand of civilians on a variety of pretexts. Reduced to hunting weapons and semi-automatic weapons of small caliber and small capacity, without modern technology such as silencers and night-vision-scopes and specialized rounds, this makes possible the domination of the modern standing army.
And with this disarmament and rise of the standing army of police, the contempt and disdain for the civilian - relatively if not totally disarmed - grows more evident with each passing year. Witness the attitude of the TSA - perhaps not EVERY TSO, but certainly many including supervisors right up to the Secretary of Homeland Security and the White House. Witness the attitude and the evidence of corruption, of concealment of lawbreaking, and rejection of civilian control on anything but a pro forma basis of too many metropolitan and even state forces. As in Europe and Latin America in the past, the uniformed (and plain-clothed) police see no more need for true politeness: the words "sir" and "ma'am" in the mouths of too many police officers is nothing but rote mouthings. When spoken by a man or woman in uniform, one hand on the belt near their pistol, the other hand out for "papers" or on the key of a radio microphone connecting to back-up, the words are meaningless.
In a truly free society, politeness is a necessity because an offended person need not look to a "protector" for succor or assistance - the offended person is armed and capable of responding appropriately to the offense, regardless of age or size or sex or physical condition.
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Stupidity rampant in Arizona
This was posted by a friend to a website in response to the article cited. While his rhetoric is a bit overblown, I think he still makes some great points. - Edward
Arizona: State Senator Proposes New Militia [sic]
http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2010/11/24/harper-proposes-state-sanctioned-militia-to-patrol-border/
Arizona Capitol Times
Sen. Jack Harper, a Republican from Surprise, said he plans to introduce legislation next year that would create a government-sanctioned militia that would be allowed to patrol the border to observe illegal activity and report it to enforcement authorities. Under Harper’s plan, the civilian force would be under the supervision of the Arizona National Guard. Its members would be allowed to carry weapons for self defense. Volunteers would need a fingerprint clearance card or undergo a background check to qualify... The proposal is yet another example of Arizona’s attempt to take matters into its own hands, which arose from a widely shared belief among the state’s residents and lawmakers that the federal government has failed in its job to secure the border. But the idea of deploying a state-sponsored militia on the U.S.-Mexico border raises red flags for some legal scholars. Paul Bender, a professor of constitutional law at Arizona State University, said a civilian militia would not be allowed to stop illegal immigrants from crossing the border because that authority is reserved for the federal government. Any direct action by the state or a militia to stop illegal immigrants from crossing the border may violate the U.S. Constitution, he said...
Arizona Border Patrol by the numbers: National Guard deployment along the U.S.-Mexico border: 559 in Arizona; 284 in Texas; 260 in California; 82 in New Mexico[.] Estimated cost of National Guard deployment for a year: $135 million, which will be shared by U.S.[.]
Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Department of Defense Border Patrol troops along the Southwest border: 17,500[.]
— Source: National Guard Bureau
Commentary
Where to begin? With this many stupid people out wandering around, I’m afraid to even drive through Arizona, much less get out of my car there. Harper may have thought about this a lot, but a scholar - especially a MILITARY scholar, he ain’t. First, militia ARE military when they are called up by ANYONE: local sheriff, state, or federal. They aren’t “civilians” any more. Second, there is no such thing as a “state-sponsored [or “government-sanctioned”] militia” - the state would be activating a PART of the militia under state control. Harper is an idiot, who can’t write a law: he probably can’t READ one, either, and I wonder if he could write directions on how to go home.
Now, on to the next idiot, this “constitutional scholar” at ASU, Bender, who says: “a civilian militia would not be allowed to stop illegal immigrants from crossing the border because that authority is reserved for the federal government. Any direct action by the state or a militia to stop illegal immigrants from crossing the border may violate the U.S. Constitution.” Let me say it again: Bender is an IDIOT. The Constitution gives Congress authority to do exactly TWO things related to immigration IF THAT. Article 1 Section 8 gives Congress power: “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” and Section 9 of the same article gives Congress one other power: “The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.” This did NOT prohibit many states from prohibiting the migration or importation of slaves before that time - or AFTER. It would presumably apply to ANY other persons, as indeed states like California determined that people from certain oriental countries could not migrate to the state, and many states prohibited migration by American Indians.
Now, some people claim that another part of Section 8 gives Congress power over immigration: “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;” This clause, the Commerce Clause, is perhaps THE most abused clause of the Constitution, and is used to justify almost anything. But logically, it does not work: if immigration (actually, migration - emigration AND immigration) is “commerce” then Congress would be able to enact and enforce laws regulating the movement of people across STATE lines as well. And so far, at least (giving no one ANY ideas), they haven’t and can’t do that. The closest they have come was the idea of federal law making it a crime to drag women and minors across state lines for “immoral purposes” - but since the courts have determined that there ARE no immoral purposes any more, that law is gutted. AND IT DOES NOT PROHIBIT STATES FROM ENACTING AND ENFORCING THEIR OWN LAWS. For decades, northern states, smug in their hypocrisy, prohibited slaves from being imported into NY, MA, PA, etc. even when it was still illegal for the FedGov to prohibit importation. States can STILL ban importation of certain fruit from other states, based on health and agricultural issues.
However stupid Arizona’s idea may be, it just is NOT “unconstitutional.” And both Harper and Bender are IDIOTS. There are a few more idiots quoted, but let me move to the end of the article, written by the IDIOTS who call themselves the staff (newsroom and editorial, no doubt) of the Arizona Capitol Times. Two things, and I’m going to drop it: First, the Border Patrol is NOT a part of the “Department of Defense.” It probably SHOULD BE - because there is no authority for anyone OTHER than military troops to be used to defend the country, but it isn’t. No, it is part of that bureaucratic rathole for money called DHS. Second, Border Patrol have “CIVILIANS” and not “troops.” There may be 17,500 “sworn Border Patrol civilian officers” along the SW Border, but everyone tells us that COPS are NOT soldiers. If Border Patrol “sworn officers” are soldiers, then so is EVERY federal “sworn officer” whether they work for the Federal Protective Service or the FBI or the Secret Service or the EPA or the Park Service; and so likely is every state and local police officer, right down to that parking-meter maid and the local dog-catcher. But the “fine newspapermen” (and women) at the ACT are too STUPID to know any different: they are IDIOTS. Of course, if they weren’t so stupid, they would point out that Harper and Bender and the rest ARE stupid.
Arizona: State Senator Proposes New Militia [sic]
http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2010/11/24/harper-proposes-state-sanctioned-militia-to-patrol-border/
Arizona Capitol Times
Sen. Jack Harper, a Republican from Surprise, said he plans to introduce legislation next year that would create a government-sanctioned militia that would be allowed to patrol the border to observe illegal activity and report it to enforcement authorities. Under Harper’s plan, the civilian force would be under the supervision of the Arizona National Guard. Its members would be allowed to carry weapons for self defense. Volunteers would need a fingerprint clearance card or undergo a background check to qualify... The proposal is yet another example of Arizona’s attempt to take matters into its own hands, which arose from a widely shared belief among the state’s residents and lawmakers that the federal government has failed in its job to secure the border. But the idea of deploying a state-sponsored militia on the U.S.-Mexico border raises red flags for some legal scholars. Paul Bender, a professor of constitutional law at Arizona State University, said a civilian militia would not be allowed to stop illegal immigrants from crossing the border because that authority is reserved for the federal government. Any direct action by the state or a militia to stop illegal immigrants from crossing the border may violate the U.S. Constitution, he said...
Arizona Border Patrol by the numbers: National Guard deployment along the U.S.-Mexico border: 559 in Arizona; 284 in Texas; 260 in California; 82 in New Mexico[.] Estimated cost of National Guard deployment for a year: $135 million, which will be shared by U.S.[.]
Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Department of Defense Border Patrol troops along the Southwest border: 17,500[.]
— Source: National Guard Bureau
Commentary
Where to begin? With this many stupid people out wandering around, I’m afraid to even drive through Arizona, much less get out of my car there. Harper may have thought about this a lot, but a scholar - especially a MILITARY scholar, he ain’t. First, militia ARE military when they are called up by ANYONE: local sheriff, state, or federal. They aren’t “civilians” any more. Second, there is no such thing as a “state-sponsored [or “government-sanctioned”] militia” - the state would be activating a PART of the militia under state control. Harper is an idiot, who can’t write a law: he probably can’t READ one, either, and I wonder if he could write directions on how to go home.
Now, on to the next idiot, this “constitutional scholar” at ASU, Bender, who says: “a civilian militia would not be allowed to stop illegal immigrants from crossing the border because that authority is reserved for the federal government. Any direct action by the state or a militia to stop illegal immigrants from crossing the border may violate the U.S. Constitution.” Let me say it again: Bender is an IDIOT. The Constitution gives Congress authority to do exactly TWO things related to immigration IF THAT. Article 1 Section 8 gives Congress power: “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” and Section 9 of the same article gives Congress one other power: “The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.” This did NOT prohibit many states from prohibiting the migration or importation of slaves before that time - or AFTER. It would presumably apply to ANY other persons, as indeed states like California determined that people from certain oriental countries could not migrate to the state, and many states prohibited migration by American Indians.
Now, some people claim that another part of Section 8 gives Congress power over immigration: “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;” This clause, the Commerce Clause, is perhaps THE most abused clause of the Constitution, and is used to justify almost anything. But logically, it does not work: if immigration (actually, migration - emigration AND immigration) is “commerce” then Congress would be able to enact and enforce laws regulating the movement of people across STATE lines as well. And so far, at least (giving no one ANY ideas), they haven’t and can’t do that. The closest they have come was the idea of federal law making it a crime to drag women and minors across state lines for “immoral purposes” - but since the courts have determined that there ARE no immoral purposes any more, that law is gutted. AND IT DOES NOT PROHIBIT STATES FROM ENACTING AND ENFORCING THEIR OWN LAWS. For decades, northern states, smug in their hypocrisy, prohibited slaves from being imported into NY, MA, PA, etc. even when it was still illegal for the FedGov to prohibit importation. States can STILL ban importation of certain fruit from other states, based on health and agricultural issues.
However stupid Arizona’s idea may be, it just is NOT “unconstitutional.” And both Harper and Bender are IDIOTS. There are a few more idiots quoted, but let me move to the end of the article, written by the IDIOTS who call themselves the staff (newsroom and editorial, no doubt) of the Arizona Capitol Times. Two things, and I’m going to drop it: First, the Border Patrol is NOT a part of the “Department of Defense.” It probably SHOULD BE - because there is no authority for anyone OTHER than military troops to be used to defend the country, but it isn’t. No, it is part of that bureaucratic rathole for money called DHS. Second, Border Patrol have “CIVILIANS” and not “troops.” There may be 17,500 “sworn Border Patrol civilian officers” along the SW Border, but everyone tells us that COPS are NOT soldiers. If Border Patrol “sworn officers” are soldiers, then so is EVERY federal “sworn officer” whether they work for the Federal Protective Service or the FBI or the Secret Service or the EPA or the Park Service; and so likely is every state and local police officer, right down to that parking-meter maid and the local dog-catcher. But the “fine newspapermen” (and women) at the ACT are too STUPID to know any different: they are IDIOTS. Of course, if they weren’t so stupid, they would point out that Harper and Bender and the rest ARE stupid.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
"I won't quit."
Ah, yes, we WERE warned. At the one-year anniversary of the First Citizen's accession (or is it ascension?) to power, Mr. Obama told us that he won't quit. And it is clear that he has not, as we pass the 22-month anniversary.
Others have commented on his arrogant stance, his egotism, his concentration on himself and not the Union, his insults and commands, all contained within the incredibly long and stirring speech he made back in January of this year; the same kind of speech we've heard (or at least some of us) from Sgnr. Mussolini, Herr Hitler, Sr. Franco, Sr. Peron, Gospodin Lenin, and Gospodin Stalin. And through the rest of the year, including the mid-term elections, he said the same thing over and over again.
But I want to concentrate on what this promise means to my nation, and to my Union. What does this mean to Wyoming, to Montana or my original homeland of Texas? What does this mean to myself, my children, the rest of my family, my friends, my neighbors, my clients, and the rest of the American people and the people of the world?
It appears that "not quitting" has included:
- Not quitting spending money -another 1.5 trillion on top of the FY2010 budget was planned for FY2011, and so far, as we pass the midpoint of the first quarter, the spending is on track.
- Not quitting borrowing money - as the spending gallops away, the national debt is past $11 trillion and climbing, while more accounting games are played with the Fed's Quantitative Easing 2.0, and more to follow.
- Not quitting printing money - banks and others will continue to "create" more FRNs, either electronic or paper, and inflate the dollar still more.
- Not quit treating more and more Americans as enemies of the state: not just the new TSA procedures (the scanners and patdowns and arrests), but treating soldiers and ex-soldiers, tea-party movement members, conservatives, even some cops like dirt, and worse.
- Practicing reverse racial profiling: black extremists get additional "Get-out-of-jail" cards even after they AGAIN try to intimidate voters; Muslim women are promised "special consideration" by TSA; more and more services are provided for Spanish-speaking clients of government; and more.
- Wasting more and more money - Obama is the most-traveled president in US history, flying in an aircraft that costs nearly $200,000 PER HOUR to fly, and taking hordes of syncophants, including hairdressers and basketball players around the world.
- Continuing to demean US allies like the UK, ROK, and Germany, while sucking up big-time to Arabs and Chinese.
- Enslaving us more and more through evil actions like the ObamaCare edicts, even to the extent of ignoring Congress when it doesn't do what he wants, like taxing carbon emissions.
How much longer can and will this go on? Americans have become extremely long-suffering: we put up with 8 years of Bill Clinton and center-left "socialism lite" and then with 8 years of George W's "compassionate conservative" brand of socialism and a growing police state; are we going to put up with four or eight years of even more blatant socialism and Gestapo-type tyranny? Are we so desperate for life and security and a nanny to tuck us in at night that we give up everything that makes us Americans? Forbid it, Almighty Lord!
Others have commented on his arrogant stance, his egotism, his concentration on himself and not the Union, his insults and commands, all contained within the incredibly long and stirring speech he made back in January of this year; the same kind of speech we've heard (or at least some of us) from Sgnr. Mussolini, Herr Hitler, Sr. Franco, Sr. Peron, Gospodin Lenin, and Gospodin Stalin. And through the rest of the year, including the mid-term elections, he said the same thing over and over again.
But I want to concentrate on what this promise means to my nation, and to my Union. What does this mean to Wyoming, to Montana or my original homeland of Texas? What does this mean to myself, my children, the rest of my family, my friends, my neighbors, my clients, and the rest of the American people and the people of the world?
It appears that "not quitting" has included:
- Not quitting spending money -another 1.5 trillion on top of the FY2010 budget was planned for FY2011, and so far, as we pass the midpoint of the first quarter, the spending is on track.
- Not quitting borrowing money - as the spending gallops away, the national debt is past $11 trillion and climbing, while more accounting games are played with the Fed's Quantitative Easing 2.0, and more to follow.
- Not quitting printing money - banks and others will continue to "create" more FRNs, either electronic or paper, and inflate the dollar still more.
- Not quit treating more and more Americans as enemies of the state: not just the new TSA procedures (the scanners and patdowns and arrests), but treating soldiers and ex-soldiers, tea-party movement members, conservatives, even some cops like dirt, and worse.
- Practicing reverse racial profiling: black extremists get additional "Get-out-of-jail" cards even after they AGAIN try to intimidate voters; Muslim women are promised "special consideration" by TSA; more and more services are provided for Spanish-speaking clients of government; and more.
- Wasting more and more money - Obama is the most-traveled president in US history, flying in an aircraft that costs nearly $200,000 PER HOUR to fly, and taking hordes of syncophants, including hairdressers and basketball players around the world.
- Continuing to demean US allies like the UK, ROK, and Germany, while sucking up big-time to Arabs and Chinese.
- Enslaving us more and more through evil actions like the ObamaCare edicts, even to the extent of ignoring Congress when it doesn't do what he wants, like taxing carbon emissions.
How much longer can and will this go on? Americans have become extremely long-suffering: we put up with 8 years of Bill Clinton and center-left "socialism lite" and then with 8 years of George W's "compassionate conservative" brand of socialism and a growing police state; are we going to put up with four or eight years of even more blatant socialism and Gestapo-type tyranny? Are we so desperate for life and security and a nanny to tuck us in at night that we give up everything that makes us Americans? Forbid it, Almighty Lord!
"Let this be our last Thanksgiving under duress."
Please visit this link and read the article by Murray Sabrin, We are all German Jews now? and comment and support it.
This is a good analysis, and a reminder of what can and has happened in the past.
This is a good analysis, and a reminder of what can and has happened in the past.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Liberty = NO TSA
A friend gave me this website (click on the headline above), which contains images (one or two of which are rather graphic) which encourage people to fight against the TSA.
He pointed out that it is NOT just the latest outrages that should cause us to demand that TSA be outlawed, but the entire concept of illegal searches (whether they are "administrative" or not) and the idea that government has any authority to provide security for private businesses. If terrorists start to threaten to blow up Wal-Marts (and maybe do blow up one or two), is it now suddenly necessary (and does Congress have the authority) to create the "Shopping Security Agency" or SSA?
I, for one, am thankful this holiday for the many, many people who have decided that enough is enough and are fighting back against this kind of gross abuse of our liberty with the excuse of security.
He pointed out that it is NOT just the latest outrages that should cause us to demand that TSA be outlawed, but the entire concept of illegal searches (whether they are "administrative" or not) and the idea that government has any authority to provide security for private businesses. If terrorists start to threaten to blow up Wal-Marts (and maybe do blow up one or two), is it now suddenly necessary (and does Congress have the authority) to create the "Shopping Security Agency" or SSA?
I, for one, am thankful this holiday for the many, many people who have decided that enough is enough and are fighting back against this kind of gross abuse of our liberty with the excuse of security.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Too Simple and Too Easy?
Wayne Allen Root today weighed in on the TSA controversy, in which a barely tolerated situation has suddenly aroused a lot of anger and gotten a lot of press. This was forwarded to me by a friend:
There are two simple solutions to this TSA mess. First and most importantly, hand airline security over to the private sector. Let airlines manage their own security, with their own private security forces. Get government out of the way. Government isn't the solution, they are the problem.
We must put Delta, American, U.S. Air, Southwest and all the other airlines in charge of their own security -- just like all other private sector companies. That puts incompetent bumbling idiots, creeps and perverts, aka TSA agents, on the sidelines. It also ensures the usual private sector success. American business usually gets it right. Businesses will weigh the right amount of security versus customer privacy, civil rights, and satisfaction. And if they fail we as consumers can simply stop using that airline and choose another. The ones who get it right will succeed. The ones who don't will fail. That's called free markets. Capitalism works. Perhaps the U.S. government should allow for it sometime.
....
The simple Part Two of this solution is to end political correctness -- private airlines can best prevent terrorism by adopting the Israeli model of PROFILING. No, not racial profiling, but rather "terrorist threat profiling." No need to argue -- it works to perfection. Israel has the safest airports and the safest airline (El Al) in the world. There has NEVER been a successful terrorist attack at an Israeli airport or airline. Why? Because their security experts rely on profiling, not political correctness. They ask a series of rapid-fire questions of all passengers. There is no time to lie. If you try to lie, it is easy to detect inconsistencies in your story. At that point you are pulled aside for a more detailed screening or body search. But everyone does not need to endure the health threat of major radiation, or the privacy violation of intrusive cavity searches. It is time to leave grandma and my baby daughter alone, and look for real terrorists.
There are two simple solutions to this TSA mess. First and most importantly, hand airline security over to the private sector. Let airlines manage their own security, with their own private security forces. Get government out of the way. Government isn't the solution, they are the problem.
We must put Delta, American, U.S. Air, Southwest and all the other airlines in charge of their own security -- just like all other private sector companies. That puts incompetent bumbling idiots, creeps and perverts, aka TSA agents, on the sidelines. It also ensures the usual private sector success. American business usually gets it right. Businesses will weigh the right amount of security versus customer privacy, civil rights, and satisfaction. And if they fail we as consumers can simply stop using that airline and choose another. The ones who get it right will succeed. The ones who don't will fail. That's called free markets. Capitalism works. Perhaps the U.S. government should allow for it sometime.
....
The simple Part Two of this solution is to end political correctness -- private airlines can best prevent terrorism by adopting the Israeli model of PROFILING. No, not racial profiling, but rather "terrorist threat profiling." No need to argue -- it works to perfection. Israel has the safest airports and the safest airline (El Al) in the world. There has NEVER been a successful terrorist attack at an Israeli airport or airline. Why? Because their security experts rely on profiling, not political correctness. They ask a series of rapid-fire questions of all passengers. There is no time to lie. If you try to lie, it is easy to detect inconsistencies in your story. At that point you are pulled aside for a more detailed screening or body search. But everyone does not need to endure the health threat of major radiation, or the privacy violation of intrusive cavity searches. It is time to leave grandma and my baby daughter alone, and look for real terrorists.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Freedom Filks
For those that do not know the science fiction and fantasy communities, filk songs are a style of folk song in which different words are set to familiar tunes. The saga of the TSA Porn-scanners and Fondling-Pat-Downs has generated several. Here is my nomination for the best two:
Steve Varus, for using Kris Kristofferson's ballad:
Take the ribbon from your hair
Shake it loose and let it fall
Leave your shoes right over there
Now get up against the wall
I'll run my hands inside your thighs
Up your legs and out of sight!
But you can trust the TSA
To help you make it to your flight
We don't profile that'd be wrong
Just ask the ACLU
We'd rather check your nooks and crannies
Every inch of you
Got no life except my job
But I don't mind it's all right
I get to grope you legally
If you want to take a flight
This badge and uniform we wear
Might look like a rent a cop
But your life is in our hands
We like it that way, especially if you're hot
Awful lonely being me
No girlfriend, boyfriend, husband, wife
So let me squeeze you, oooh, right there
If you want to take a flight
You can trust the TSA
You'll be in our dreams tonight
See and hear this at the first link.
Another excellent one uses an old Frank Sinatra song, Come Fly With Me:
Comply With Me*
(With deepest apologies to Sammy Cahn, Jimmy Van Heusen & Frank Sinatra)
Comply with me, before you fly away
Remove those shoes and take a cruise
Through my peekaboo X-ray
Comply with me, I'm your friendly TSA
Comply with me, you domestic coach class bums
If you opt out I'll just give a shout
To my icy-handed chums
Comply with me, bend over here it comes
Once I get all up there where your hair is ticklish
I'll just fish
Got my wish
Once I get all up there you'll be squirming like an eel
You may squeal
At the feel
When we're together
Proctology is such a lovely trade
I'll show you love with my rubber glove
Try not to be afraid
I'd be a perfect gentleman, if you had just obeyed
Comply with me, I'm GS8 pay grade
Janet Napolitano says to spread 'em wide
Have you tried Astro-glide?
Janet Napolitano knows your clothes are off
Head aloft
Turn it and cough
When we're together
Don't crack wise or I'll ruin your whole day
Please don't frown when I pat you down
It alerts the CIA
It's perfectly legal practice except at Gitmo Bay
Comply with me, comply comply
Comply with me, obey, obey, obey!
Check out the security risks on that one! Yeah!
Steve Varus, for using Kris Kristofferson's ballad:
Take the ribbon from your hair
Shake it loose and let it fall
Leave your shoes right over there
Now get up against the wall
I'll run my hands inside your thighs
Up your legs and out of sight!
But you can trust the TSA
To help you make it to your flight
We don't profile that'd be wrong
Just ask the ACLU
We'd rather check your nooks and crannies
Every inch of you
Got no life except my job
But I don't mind it's all right
I get to grope you legally
If you want to take a flight
This badge and uniform we wear
Might look like a rent a cop
But your life is in our hands
We like it that way, especially if you're hot
Awful lonely being me
No girlfriend, boyfriend, husband, wife
So let me squeeze you, oooh, right there
If you want to take a flight
You can trust the TSA
You'll be in our dreams tonight
See and hear this at the first link.
Another excellent one uses an old Frank Sinatra song, Come Fly With Me:
Comply With Me*
(With deepest apologies to Sammy Cahn, Jimmy Van Heusen & Frank Sinatra)
Comply with me, before you fly away
Remove those shoes and take a cruise
Through my peekaboo X-ray
Comply with me, I'm your friendly TSA
Comply with me, you domestic coach class bums
If you opt out I'll just give a shout
To my icy-handed chums
Comply with me, bend over here it comes
Once I get all up there where your hair is ticklish
I'll just fish
Got my wish
Once I get all up there you'll be squirming like an eel
You may squeal
At the feel
When we're together
Proctology is such a lovely trade
I'll show you love with my rubber glove
Try not to be afraid
I'd be a perfect gentleman, if you had just obeyed
Comply with me, I'm GS8 pay grade
Janet Napolitano says to spread 'em wide
Have you tried Astro-glide?
Janet Napolitano knows your clothes are off
Head aloft
Turn it and cough
When we're together
Don't crack wise or I'll ruin your whole day
Please don't frown when I pat you down
It alerts the CIA
It's perfectly legal practice except at Gitmo Bay
Comply with me, comply comply
Comply with me, obey, obey, obey!
Check out the security risks on that one! Yeah!
Friday, November 19, 2010
New owner - Fighting Mad
Liberty is threatened and freedom is in danger.
A very good friend (and distant relation) of mine started this blog and maintained it sporadically for several years now, but has had to give it (and others) up due to a combination of work pressure, political pressure, and just plain a lack of time. So he asked me to take over, and he challenged me to try to make this live up to the potential that it has to spread a message of hope and liberty to Americans and to the world.
Liberty is such a precious and rare commodity through history, that we often fail to appreciate how much we had in the past - and now that we are losing it, it seems little more than a dream. But it is a dream that we CAN reclaim - that we MUST reclaim.
I don't pretend to be the writer or to have the breadth of knowledge that my friend did - and if it weren't for spell-checkers, more people would know that. But I shall strive to live up to his dreams - and to my dreams, of freedom and liberty.
I do (and must) remain even more anonymous than my friend was, but I suppose some secrets will inevitably get out. Of course, in some eyes I am already a marked man for what I've done in the past. So we cannot hope to hide as completely as some folks do. But then, what I am doing is standing up for what is right: I will try not to flee into darkness if someone does not like what I say.
Let me know what you think - I DO like feedback, and ask anyone reading this to toss back some thoughts to me.
A very good friend (and distant relation) of mine started this blog and maintained it sporadically for several years now, but has had to give it (and others) up due to a combination of work pressure, political pressure, and just plain a lack of time. So he asked me to take over, and he challenged me to try to make this live up to the potential that it has to spread a message of hope and liberty to Americans and to the world.
Liberty is such a precious and rare commodity through history, that we often fail to appreciate how much we had in the past - and now that we are losing it, it seems little more than a dream. But it is a dream that we CAN reclaim - that we MUST reclaim.
I don't pretend to be the writer or to have the breadth of knowledge that my friend did - and if it weren't for spell-checkers, more people would know that. But I shall strive to live up to his dreams - and to my dreams, of freedom and liberty.
I do (and must) remain even more anonymous than my friend was, but I suppose some secrets will inevitably get out. Of course, in some eyes I am already a marked man for what I've done in the past. So we cannot hope to hide as completely as some folks do. But then, what I am doing is standing up for what is right: I will try not to flee into darkness if someone does not like what I say.
Let me know what you think - I DO like feedback, and ask anyone reading this to toss back some thoughts to me.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Lessons Learned from our Southern Neighbor
American front - Failed states
Mexico celebrating 200th birthday - Arizona Republic (see link)
"Mexico celebrates its 200th birthday tonight, kicking off a two-day bicentennial extravaganza of lasers, fireworks and music aimed at lifting citizens' spirits in the midst of a recession and a bloody war against drug cartels. Even as crews tested hundreds of lights in Mexico City's main Zocalo Plaza on Tuesday, riot police and armored vehicles practiced crowd-control techniques because of worries that cartels might stage an attack during the festivities. Two years ago, attackers hurled grenades during an Independence Day festival in the central city of Morelia, killing seven people and wounding 132. 'We're in bad shape, as far as violence goes ... but you can't deny people a party if they want to celebrate something,' said Francisco Segura, 52, a building contractor." (09/15/10)
This news story gives us an opportunity to reflect back on the past and present conditions in Mexico. As I’ve mentioned before, borders - whether between two totally separate polities (“national”) or between two associated polities (“states of the Union” for example) are MORE than just imaginary lines on the ground and pretty lines on maps: they are REAL in the minds and actions of people, AND in the differences between the two sides of the border. Nowhere in my personal experience has that been more visible than on the Inter-German Border (IGB) between the Ostzone (East Germany) and the Bundesrepublik Deutschland in the mid 1980s, whether from the ground or especially from the air. But the border between the United States of America and the Estados Unitos Mexicanos (United Mexican States) is also very distinct: from the ground, from the air, and from the society and people. It was the first international border I crossed as a child, and even then, I saw the difference. Today that distinction is even clearer based on the way bullets fly and bombs shatter the night and the way bodies are found, day after day after day.
Why? It is clear in the history of the two nations - and of the states on both sides of the border. The land called Mexico today has a VERY long history - much of it has been “civilized” by the usual standards of historians and archaeologists since 1800 BC. By the standards of libertarians, most of it has NEVER been civilized: its history is one of bloody tyranny and repression and a constant trading of masters and varying degrees of slavery that make pre-1865 slavery in the United States look almost benign. Modern Mexico, like ancient Mexico, is a land and society and people which is VERY different - starkly contrasted - from the United States.
Unlike Anglo-French North America (that is, the part to the north of Mexico), Mexico does not have a history in which a dominant civilization came in and overwhelmed a number of various smaller (and weaker) civilizations and large barbarian areas; a dominant civilization (English-British) built on a painfully developed foundation of human freedom and liberty forged in centuries of conflict and migration and a series of fortuitous events. Rather, Mexico is the product of a clash and then merger of two civilizations that were themselves products of long cruelty and abuse and evils. The clash was initiated and “won” by a newly-merged Spanish civilization that had just emerged from 700 years of bloody tyranny by Islamic forces and a similar period of rebellion and warfare to overthrow that tyranny. In the process, that Spanish civilization had taken on many of the characteristics of its enemy. Facing it was perhaps the most evil and tyrannical empire known in mankind’s long and black history: the Azteca rule over central Mexico. Why do I make that claim? No other human “civilization” has been documented as having not just killed hundreds of thousands (or millions) of its enemies and subjects on the battlefield or in killing fields but by planned and carefully orchestrated mass-human sacrifices in their temples - and no other “civilization” has made a common practice of actually eating the dead bodies of its enemies and subjects. None that I am aware of. Ironically, this clash was initiated by what was essentially a private-enterprise (though officially approved by the crown) free-booting expedition. What they found was a tyranny and society that was even more evil, more perverse, more tyrannical than the Islamic system which they had finally driven off their home peninsula mere decades earlier; and they responded as they had been bred to do.
What developed, in Mexico and the rest of Meso- and South America, can be readily identified as the product of its antecedents: Iberian Islamic, Visigothic Iberian (Hispanic), and Aztec. Even in 2010.
Perhaps the difference between this Mexican civilization and Anglo-American civilization can best be illustrated by looking at this 200th Anniversary of Mexican “Independence.”
The United States celebrates its Independence Day on 4 July, the date of its Declaration of Independence. That incredible document was the product of many, many hours of work, deliberation, prayer, argument, and thought by a body of men which represented all of the thirteen British colonies that formed the original United States, meeting in the most populous and important city in those colonies. Contrast that to the Independence Day of Mexico, which celebrates 16 September, the day that a lone priest (Miguel Hidalgo) in a small and unimportant town (Dolores, Guanajuato) and about 300 of his followers proclaimed rebellion against a French-installed (and therefore technically usurping) Spanish monarchy in support of the deposed Spanish king, and then led an “army” (mob) on a months-long killing spree, failed to conquer Mexico City, and was defeated. Hidalgo was ultimately betrayed and captured on 21 March 1811 and executed on 30 July 1811. It was not until 06 November 1813 - more than two years later - that a Congress was assembled in Chilpancingo and wrote and signed the "Solemn Act of the Declaration of Independence of Northern America" that was followed by six years of war before Spain recognized their independence as the “Mexican Empire” - complete with an emperor. So much for freedom and liberty.
There is NOTHING comparable to this in the history of the United States. NOTHING. It is as though we claimed Independence Day as celebrating the day that Nathaniel Bacon began his Rebellion in Virginia in 1676, or perhaps the 5th of March (the day in 1770 when some Boston citizens attacked British troops and triggered the Boston Massacre), or maybe 16 December (the Boston Tea Party in 1773). But only if Samuel Adams had been a dissolute, immoral, Church of England priest who then led a mob of crazed killers in an attempt to occupy New York and Philadelphia in support of Bonnie Prince Charlie as rightful king of Britain. And only if eight years of war had led to the Treaty of Paris in which the UK recognized American independence and George Washington then declared himself Emperor of United America.
We may, as Americans, decry the many, many mistakes that these United States made, up to the most recent abrogation of our Constitution - mistakes which many of us believe include replacing the Articles of Confederation with that Constitution, the “imperialism” of the Mexican-American War, Abe Lincoln’s Republican (Socialist)-led tyranny and its catastrophic fallout, the nanny-state progressive imperialism of Wilson and Roosevelt, and all the rest. But when we compare American history to the series of catastrophes and evils that make up Mexican history since 1810, it is light contrasted to utter blackness.
Mexico was built on class warfare between the pure Indio (the survivors of centuries of Aztec and Olmec imperialism), the mixed-blood Mestizos, and the relatively pure European descendents, and on religious-political conflicts. Its first empire lasted only two years, followed by the 1824 republic which quickly deteriorated into a military dictatorship (Santa Ana’s) (and led to independence movements in Texas, the Yucatan, and on the Rio Grande). That was followed by the war with the United States and a new attempt to establish a republic, a military occupation by France (and the Second Empire), another republic deteriorating into a dictatorship (Porfirio Diaz), followed by another revolution and another republic (Constitution of 1917), which slid into a one-party “republican” state for more than 70 years. This is a pattern followed by most Hispanic societies and rooted in the 700 years of the Reconquista struggle against Islam in Iberia itself. Only for a brief period of time (from perhaps 2000 to 2006) was there even a shadow of the political life and relative lack of tyranny enjoyed by the United States; then the current troubles began which by 2010 have deteriorated into yet another war: call it “revolution” or “civil war” or “narco-war” as you will. Mexican condemnation of American “imperialism” in annexing California and New Mexico in 1848 and the Gadsden Purchase in 1853) is hypocritical at best, given its several attempts to reconquer Texas, its annexation of Chiapas in 1824, the Soconusco Annexation in 1842, and the Annexation of the Republic of Yucatan in 1848, to say nothing of Mexico’s Indian Wars, which lasted until 1830. At best, Mexico’s imperialism has been less successful than the United States, but no less fervent.
I have many friends and even relatives that are of Hispanic and Mexican descent - virtually NONE of them would ever want to live in Mexico or “enjoy” Mexican (or Hispanic) culture and society and politics. Some of my ancestors were Mexican citizens (in Texas) - others of my ancestors “enjoyed” the attention of the Ejercito Mexicanos (Mexican Army) and Federales for a long time - and the Spanish army and militias for centuries. It was not pleasant, even when compared to having to deal with the US Army for a few decades of the 1800s. Sadly, for 200 years, Mexican celebration of Independence Day has been as great a bitter farce as Independence Day threatens to become in the United States in 2010. At the same time, we should be grateful for object lesson so clearly displayed just on the other side of that “imaginary line” called the border.
Mexico celebrating 200th birthday - Arizona Republic (see link)
"Mexico celebrates its 200th birthday tonight, kicking off a two-day bicentennial extravaganza of lasers, fireworks and music aimed at lifting citizens' spirits in the midst of a recession and a bloody war against drug cartels. Even as crews tested hundreds of lights in Mexico City's main Zocalo Plaza on Tuesday, riot police and armored vehicles practiced crowd-control techniques because of worries that cartels might stage an attack during the festivities. Two years ago, attackers hurled grenades during an Independence Day festival in the central city of Morelia, killing seven people and wounding 132. 'We're in bad shape, as far as violence goes ... but you can't deny people a party if they want to celebrate something,' said Francisco Segura, 52, a building contractor." (09/15/10)
This news story gives us an opportunity to reflect back on the past and present conditions in Mexico. As I’ve mentioned before, borders - whether between two totally separate polities (“national”) or between two associated polities (“states of the Union” for example) are MORE than just imaginary lines on the ground and pretty lines on maps: they are REAL in the minds and actions of people, AND in the differences between the two sides of the border. Nowhere in my personal experience has that been more visible than on the Inter-German Border (IGB) between the Ostzone (East Germany) and the Bundesrepublik Deutschland in the mid 1980s, whether from the ground or especially from the air. But the border between the United States of America and the Estados Unitos Mexicanos (United Mexican States) is also very distinct: from the ground, from the air, and from the society and people. It was the first international border I crossed as a child, and even then, I saw the difference. Today that distinction is even clearer based on the way bullets fly and bombs shatter the night and the way bodies are found, day after day after day.
Why? It is clear in the history of the two nations - and of the states on both sides of the border. The land called Mexico today has a VERY long history - much of it has been “civilized” by the usual standards of historians and archaeologists since 1800 BC. By the standards of libertarians, most of it has NEVER been civilized: its history is one of bloody tyranny and repression and a constant trading of masters and varying degrees of slavery that make pre-1865 slavery in the United States look almost benign. Modern Mexico, like ancient Mexico, is a land and society and people which is VERY different - starkly contrasted - from the United States.
Unlike Anglo-French North America (that is, the part to the north of Mexico), Mexico does not have a history in which a dominant civilization came in and overwhelmed a number of various smaller (and weaker) civilizations and large barbarian areas; a dominant civilization (English-British) built on a painfully developed foundation of human freedom and liberty forged in centuries of conflict and migration and a series of fortuitous events. Rather, Mexico is the product of a clash and then merger of two civilizations that were themselves products of long cruelty and abuse and evils. The clash was initiated and “won” by a newly-merged Spanish civilization that had just emerged from 700 years of bloody tyranny by Islamic forces and a similar period of rebellion and warfare to overthrow that tyranny. In the process, that Spanish civilization had taken on many of the characteristics of its enemy. Facing it was perhaps the most evil and tyrannical empire known in mankind’s long and black history: the Azteca rule over central Mexico. Why do I make that claim? No other human “civilization” has been documented as having not just killed hundreds of thousands (or millions) of its enemies and subjects on the battlefield or in killing fields but by planned and carefully orchestrated mass-human sacrifices in their temples - and no other “civilization” has made a common practice of actually eating the dead bodies of its enemies and subjects. None that I am aware of. Ironically, this clash was initiated by what was essentially a private-enterprise (though officially approved by the crown) free-booting expedition. What they found was a tyranny and society that was even more evil, more perverse, more tyrannical than the Islamic system which they had finally driven off their home peninsula mere decades earlier; and they responded as they had been bred to do.
What developed, in Mexico and the rest of Meso- and South America, can be readily identified as the product of its antecedents: Iberian Islamic, Visigothic Iberian (Hispanic), and Aztec. Even in 2010.
Perhaps the difference between this Mexican civilization and Anglo-American civilization can best be illustrated by looking at this 200th Anniversary of Mexican “Independence.”
The United States celebrates its Independence Day on 4 July, the date of its Declaration of Independence. That incredible document was the product of many, many hours of work, deliberation, prayer, argument, and thought by a body of men which represented all of the thirteen British colonies that formed the original United States, meeting in the most populous and important city in those colonies. Contrast that to the Independence Day of Mexico, which celebrates 16 September, the day that a lone priest (Miguel Hidalgo) in a small and unimportant town (Dolores, Guanajuato) and about 300 of his followers proclaimed rebellion against a French-installed (and therefore technically usurping) Spanish monarchy in support of the deposed Spanish king, and then led an “army” (mob) on a months-long killing spree, failed to conquer Mexico City, and was defeated. Hidalgo was ultimately betrayed and captured on 21 March 1811 and executed on 30 July 1811. It was not until 06 November 1813 - more than two years later - that a Congress was assembled in Chilpancingo and wrote and signed the "Solemn Act of the Declaration of Independence of Northern America" that was followed by six years of war before Spain recognized their independence as the “Mexican Empire” - complete with an emperor. So much for freedom and liberty.
There is NOTHING comparable to this in the history of the United States. NOTHING. It is as though we claimed Independence Day as celebrating the day that Nathaniel Bacon began his Rebellion in Virginia in 1676, or perhaps the 5th of March (the day in 1770 when some Boston citizens attacked British troops and triggered the Boston Massacre), or maybe 16 December (the Boston Tea Party in 1773). But only if Samuel Adams had been a dissolute, immoral, Church of England priest who then led a mob of crazed killers in an attempt to occupy New York and Philadelphia in support of Bonnie Prince Charlie as rightful king of Britain. And only if eight years of war had led to the Treaty of Paris in which the UK recognized American independence and George Washington then declared himself Emperor of United America.
We may, as Americans, decry the many, many mistakes that these United States made, up to the most recent abrogation of our Constitution - mistakes which many of us believe include replacing the Articles of Confederation with that Constitution, the “imperialism” of the Mexican-American War, Abe Lincoln’s Republican (Socialist)-led tyranny and its catastrophic fallout, the nanny-state progressive imperialism of Wilson and Roosevelt, and all the rest. But when we compare American history to the series of catastrophes and evils that make up Mexican history since 1810, it is light contrasted to utter blackness.
Mexico was built on class warfare between the pure Indio (the survivors of centuries of Aztec and Olmec imperialism), the mixed-blood Mestizos, and the relatively pure European descendents, and on religious-political conflicts. Its first empire lasted only two years, followed by the 1824 republic which quickly deteriorated into a military dictatorship (Santa Ana’s) (and led to independence movements in Texas, the Yucatan, and on the Rio Grande). That was followed by the war with the United States and a new attempt to establish a republic, a military occupation by France (and the Second Empire), another republic deteriorating into a dictatorship (Porfirio Diaz), followed by another revolution and another republic (Constitution of 1917), which slid into a one-party “republican” state for more than 70 years. This is a pattern followed by most Hispanic societies and rooted in the 700 years of the Reconquista struggle against Islam in Iberia itself. Only for a brief period of time (from perhaps 2000 to 2006) was there even a shadow of the political life and relative lack of tyranny enjoyed by the United States; then the current troubles began which by 2010 have deteriorated into yet another war: call it “revolution” or “civil war” or “narco-war” as you will. Mexican condemnation of American “imperialism” in annexing California and New Mexico in 1848 and the Gadsden Purchase in 1853) is hypocritical at best, given its several attempts to reconquer Texas, its annexation of Chiapas in 1824, the Soconusco Annexation in 1842, and the Annexation of the Republic of Yucatan in 1848, to say nothing of Mexico’s Indian Wars, which lasted until 1830. At best, Mexico’s imperialism has been less successful than the United States, but no less fervent.
I have many friends and even relatives that are of Hispanic and Mexican descent - virtually NONE of them would ever want to live in Mexico or “enjoy” Mexican (or Hispanic) culture and society and politics. Some of my ancestors were Mexican citizens (in Texas) - others of my ancestors “enjoyed” the attention of the Ejercito Mexicanos (Mexican Army) and Federales for a long time - and the Spanish army and militias for centuries. It was not pleasant, even when compared to having to deal with the US Army for a few decades of the 1800s. Sadly, for 200 years, Mexican celebration of Independence Day has been as great a bitter farce as Independence Day threatens to become in the United States in 2010. At the same time, we should be grateful for object lesson so clearly displayed just on the other side of that “imaginary line” called the border.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Shrove Tuesday
Terrible Tax Tuesday (Shrove or Pancake Tuesday)
Ah yes, welcome to the end of Carnival (Goodbye to Meat; Latin carnem levare, meaning "to take away the flesh"), Shrove Tuesday. For modern lovers of liberty, this day and its history has a lot of meaning. Originally, saying goodbye to meats, fats (hence, French "Mardi Gras" or "Fat Tuesday); was a fact of life: in ancient and medieval times, you finished eating the last of the fresh produce (meat-includinig fats, vegetables, sugar, fruit, etc.) from the last Harvest: in a pre-freezer/refrigeration society, and even before the invention of modern home-canning, that day came inevitably, and you were reduced to the preserved stuff. You had to make sure that you didn't eat eggs that needed to be next season's chickens; that you had enough left to provide the next generations of animals and protein for the spring planting (and wartime) before the new litters were big enough to be able to eat. You had to eat everything up before it went bad: it was better to store as fat in your body than as something moulding and stinking in the root cellar. As it so often did, the medieval (Roman Catholic) church made virtue out of necessity, and dictated that there was to be no consumption of meat, eggs, and sweets during the forty holy days leading up to the Spring festival of Easter; which became Lent. So the three days before the official beginning of Lent (Ash Wednesday) and its contemplation and fasting was supposed to be a period of preparing yourself for the Lenten feast: clean out the house, use up the last of the prohibited foods (the last slices of meat were traditionally eaten on Collop (Slice or Chop) Monday (Rosenmontag) and the fat saved until Tuesday to cook pancakes in), and go see the priest to shrive yourself: hence the English term "Shrove Tuesday" (Also known as Pancake Tuesday, to use the last of the jams and preserves and fat and eggs.)
The clearing out of the foods became (especially for the upper classes, who didn't have to worry as much about starving to death in the next six weeks before the winter wheat and other crops came available and the litters started dropping) an excuse for feasting - and feasting of course means parties. The shriving on Tuesday evening was an excuse to go out and be quite debauched - since the priest would be told everything and "forgive" everything shortly, and you entered the holy season in a state of grace. But. Three days of partying was too much for the medieval and Middle Ages Catholic Church and Carnival was reduced to just one day (officially - by the way, don't tell the Germans). So people partied harder, just shorter, and the Age of Reason gave an excuse to forget the shriving (and any associated repentence, penance, or restitution). When the tradition was carried from France, Portugal, and other European climes to the Americas, it became more, shall we say, intense or concentrated, and today, we have the BIG parties in N'Orleans and Rio-de, and the smaller parties all over the place: excuses for wholesale debauchery and lewdness and all that even Paris or Lisboa would have shunned. A virtue turned on the wheels of if and became a vice - actually, a whole collection of vices.
In the same way, all the virtues of the Republic, here as we enter into an accelerated decline, have spawned vices. As if we know we are entering the Lenten season of the second American civilization, we gorge ourselves to excess, bloated deficits and cataclysmic spending; expansion of military actions and occupations; expanding of government size and "duties" and privileges; fresh and new and huge crops of enemies - usually barbarians - internal and external. The emperor (or First Citizen) parades in his new clothes; the whores of L Street occupy their corners and push out into the street, stopping the traffic; the sluts of the legislative branches invite more and more lovers into bed with them and try to outdo their sisters with more and more obscene tricks. Almost totally oblivious to the fact that tomorrow is Ash Wednesday; when not just repentence but penance and punishment come due: the "Little Judgment" is upon us, however unaware we are of its coming.
It is ironic, and fitting, that all these days of commemoration, days of remembrance, all fall together this year: Lincoln's Birthday, the Iranian Islamic Revolution, St. Valentine's Day, Lunar New Year, President's Day, Collop Monday and Shrove Tuesday and Ash Wednesday. Some predict the end of the "world as we know it," in two and a half-years time, more or less; but the signs of the coming doom are there for us to read. Too many of us are too drunk (or too hungover) to make it to the chapel at midnight and get that cross of ashes marked on our forehead, too blind and too distracted to stop and confess and repent and turn away from the evil of our days; too submersed in the filth of a spiritual and political Bourbon Street to recognize our danger. The meat and fat and sugar and eggs and fresh fruits and vegetables that were laid down in the early days of the Republic, paid for by the blood of tyrants and patriots, has been eaten: the cupboard, the pantry, the cellar, and the silo are all empty - the time of self-denial returns instead to its earlier pagan incarnation as the time of starving and fear and evil expectation: the joy of looking forward to the Eternal's resurrection is not there; because our society's, our civilization's faith is dust. Groundhog or not, shadow or not, the days of winter lay long and heavy before us: and no ordinary political or social or physical winter. No, a fimbulwinter, perhaps, an ice-age winter and spring and summer; a nuclear-winter.
Is there any hope? As the Lord told Elijah (I Kings 19:18) - "Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him." Even in these days of the First Citizen's Carnival, a circus the like of which has not been seen since Nero Caesar, there are still those people who have not bowed the knee, who will still stand for liberty and our rights as God's children: the heirs of Hebrews and Greeks and Romans and Schweitz and Englishmen and Americans who will keep that heritage. I hope that you and I are among that number: who will wear the ash humbly, repenting and making restitution for what we have and for what we look forward to. As for the rest, well, let me quote Sam Adams: "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down
and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
Ah yes, welcome to the end of Carnival (Goodbye to Meat; Latin carnem levare, meaning "to take away the flesh"), Shrove Tuesday. For modern lovers of liberty, this day and its history has a lot of meaning. Originally, saying goodbye to meats, fats (hence, French "Mardi Gras" or "Fat Tuesday); was a fact of life: in ancient and medieval times, you finished eating the last of the fresh produce (meat-includinig fats, vegetables, sugar, fruit, etc.) from the last Harvest: in a pre-freezer/refrigeration society, and even before the invention of modern home-canning, that day came inevitably, and you were reduced to the preserved stuff. You had to make sure that you didn't eat eggs that needed to be next season's chickens; that you had enough left to provide the next generations of animals and protein for the spring planting (and wartime) before the new litters were big enough to be able to eat. You had to eat everything up before it went bad: it was better to store as fat in your body than as something moulding and stinking in the root cellar. As it so often did, the medieval (Roman Catholic) church made virtue out of necessity, and dictated that there was to be no consumption of meat, eggs, and sweets during the forty holy days leading up to the Spring festival of Easter; which became Lent. So the three days before the official beginning of Lent (Ash Wednesday) and its contemplation and fasting was supposed to be a period of preparing yourself for the Lenten feast: clean out the house, use up the last of the prohibited foods (the last slices of meat were traditionally eaten on Collop (Slice or Chop) Monday (Rosenmontag) and the fat saved until Tuesday to cook pancakes in), and go see the priest to shrive yourself: hence the English term "Shrove Tuesday" (Also known as Pancake Tuesday, to use the last of the jams and preserves and fat and eggs.)
The clearing out of the foods became (especially for the upper classes, who didn't have to worry as much about starving to death in the next six weeks before the winter wheat and other crops came available and the litters started dropping) an excuse for feasting - and feasting of course means parties. The shriving on Tuesday evening was an excuse to go out and be quite debauched - since the priest would be told everything and "forgive" everything shortly, and you entered the holy season in a state of grace. But. Three days of partying was too much for the medieval and Middle Ages Catholic Church and Carnival was reduced to just one day (officially - by the way, don't tell the Germans). So people partied harder, just shorter, and the Age of Reason gave an excuse to forget the shriving (and any associated repentence, penance, or restitution). When the tradition was carried from France, Portugal, and other European climes to the Americas, it became more, shall we say, intense or concentrated, and today, we have the BIG parties in N'Orleans and Rio-de, and the smaller parties all over the place: excuses for wholesale debauchery and lewdness and all that even Paris or Lisboa would have shunned. A virtue turned on the wheels of if and became a vice - actually, a whole collection of vices.
In the same way, all the virtues of the Republic, here as we enter into an accelerated decline, have spawned vices. As if we know we are entering the Lenten season of the second American civilization, we gorge ourselves to excess, bloated deficits and cataclysmic spending; expansion of military actions and occupations; expanding of government size and "duties" and privileges; fresh and new and huge crops of enemies - usually barbarians - internal and external. The emperor (or First Citizen) parades in his new clothes; the whores of L Street occupy their corners and push out into the street, stopping the traffic; the sluts of the legislative branches invite more and more lovers into bed with them and try to outdo their sisters with more and more obscene tricks. Almost totally oblivious to the fact that tomorrow is Ash Wednesday; when not just repentence but penance and punishment come due: the "Little Judgment" is upon us, however unaware we are of its coming.
It is ironic, and fitting, that all these days of commemoration, days of remembrance, all fall together this year: Lincoln's Birthday, the Iranian Islamic Revolution, St. Valentine's Day, Lunar New Year, President's Day, Collop Monday and Shrove Tuesday and Ash Wednesday. Some predict the end of the "world as we know it," in two and a half-years time, more or less; but the signs of the coming doom are there for us to read. Too many of us are too drunk (or too hungover) to make it to the chapel at midnight and get that cross of ashes marked on our forehead, too blind and too distracted to stop and confess and repent and turn away from the evil of our days; too submersed in the filth of a spiritual and political Bourbon Street to recognize our danger. The meat and fat and sugar and eggs and fresh fruits and vegetables that were laid down in the early days of the Republic, paid for by the blood of tyrants and patriots, has been eaten: the cupboard, the pantry, the cellar, and the silo are all empty - the time of self-denial returns instead to its earlier pagan incarnation as the time of starving and fear and evil expectation: the joy of looking forward to the Eternal's resurrection is not there; because our society's, our civilization's faith is dust. Groundhog or not, shadow or not, the days of winter lay long and heavy before us: and no ordinary political or social or physical winter. No, a fimbulwinter, perhaps, an ice-age winter and spring and summer; a nuclear-winter.
Is there any hope? As the Lord told Elijah (I Kings 19:18) - "Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him." Even in these days of the First Citizen's Carnival, a circus the like of which has not been seen since Nero Caesar, there are still those people who have not bowed the knee, who will still stand for liberty and our rights as God's children: the heirs of Hebrews and Greeks and Romans and Schweitz and Englishmen and Americans who will keep that heritage. I hope that you and I are among that number: who will wear the ash humbly, repenting and making restitution for what we have and for what we look forward to. As for the rest, well, let me quote Sam Adams: "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down
and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
The Critical Unraveling of U.S. Society
The Critical Unraveling of U.S. Society
WHAT IS COMING?
Today (Tuesday morning), two friends sent me an article I've seen before, a "Firearms Refresher Course" that starts out by quoting George Washington ("A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."). It gets more "radical" from there.
It was interesting that these two should send this to me today. Yesterday, two of the transnational progressive web-magazines (Amped Status and AlterNet) published an article called "15 Signs American Society is Coming Apart at the Seams." (AlterNet and the full report is at Amped Status.)
Reason #14 was that ammunition and gun companies are making billions of dollars and cannot keep up with the demand for weapons and ammunition - "Americans are arming themselves to the teeth!"
Reason #15 was that it is claimed by the august Southern Poverty Law Center that more than 100 NEW militia groups have been formed while the total number of militia members has doubled in the past year. Since millions of us are starving and have no health care and no jobs and no future (according to them), all that is needed is a spark for the nation to be flooded with violence!
The logic of David DeGraw is that the "economic elite" are waging war against the American public, the environment has been destroyed by these elite, current government measures are ineffectual and inadequate and causing still more harm, and we are all gonna die (quickly, in this vast "worldwide" and "national" emergency) unless "the people" does something to retaliate against these "economic elite" and the government that is supporting the "coup." To DeGraw and the progressives he claims to speak for, the First Citizen is nothing but a shill for the "economic elite" and the rest of the Administration and Congress are all tools or members.
Now, this may all sound very anti-statist, and despite the irrational nature of many of the arguments (in the same paragraph we are told that 50% of ALL American children are short of food and have to have government food stamps, and then a few lines later the statistic of 1 in 4 is cited; health insurance is equated with "healthcare;" and such things fill the article), this will find a ready audience among many libertarians, especially "left-libertarians."
But in reality, this is nothing more than the same "anti-statis" rhetoric that has been the stock-in-trade for the bogus ("black-flag") anarchists and the socialists (whether Communists, National Socialists/Fascists/Peronistas/Falangists/etc., the "Christian Socialists" or today's Transnational Progressives) from the beginning. The "CURRENT" State is evil and corrupt and destroying us all, and worse, the current state is allowing the great unwashed masses to be destroyed and at the same time, forcing the populace into a massive (and always unsuccessful) popular uprising. They will be destroyed and the revolt will fail, of course, unless the populace accepts and follows the lead of the elite vanguard provided through sheer altruism by the... by the Progressives which include (strange how this works) some of the very elites and their proclaimed doctrines of salvation that are waging the war in the first place!
THEIR state, of course, will be "darned near-perfect" (to quote a friend) and won't have any of the faults of the current regime: everyone will be fed and have all the medical care and all the jobs and all the education that they need, and everyone will contribute to their maximum ability, and we'll all cut greenhouse gas emissions back to 1900 levels and the grass will be green and the rivers will flow and... ultimately, of course, when all the problems are solved (permanently), the state will wither away to be replaced by (take your pick based on the kind of socialism being highlighted - but some form of the Millenium).
We can't buy into it: this is what the demagogues of Athens and Corinth and Rome and Byzantium all promised; this is what the Levellers (and those who preached the Crusades) proclaimed; this is what those who urged on Wat Tyler and his peasants whispered; what the revolutionaries in the Tuileries fervently believed in 1789 and 1791 and 1848 and 1871; what the rabid Abolutionists in Bleeding Kansas and Harpers Ferry preached; what the Bolsheviks in Petrograd announced; what the Brownshirts in Muenchen and Firenza and Madrid and Buenos Aires marched to support; and the tune that the Red Guard and the Ba'athists and Jim Jones and the Khmer Rouge spilled blood to. Indeed, those who "made" Aaron cast the golden calf, the Caliphs that followed the husband of the widow - and no doubt the first Pharaohs of Kemet (Egypt) - spouted this same line. Self-proclaimed human messiahs are not interested in seeing the state wither away or even be violently put down; they work only for a new state in which THEY call the shots - in some cases, CONTINUE to call the shots, and in which the other 99% of humanity are little more than cattle or (at best) favored pets.
God did not make us to be pets - nor cattle. We cannot let ourselves be seduced into either embracing the man on a white horse or the self-appointed vangaard of the masses - we have to be free and independent and answer to God for our own actions. Otherwise, we have never truly lived.
WHAT IS COMING?
Today (Tuesday morning), two friends sent me an article I've seen before, a "Firearms Refresher Course" that starts out by quoting George Washington ("A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."). It gets more "radical" from there.
It was interesting that these two should send this to me today. Yesterday, two of the transnational progressive web-magazines (Amped Status and AlterNet) published an article called "15 Signs American Society is Coming Apart at the Seams." (AlterNet and the full report is at Amped Status.)
Reason #14 was that ammunition and gun companies are making billions of dollars and cannot keep up with the demand for weapons and ammunition - "Americans are arming themselves to the teeth!"
Reason #15 was that it is claimed by the august Southern Poverty Law Center that more than 100 NEW militia groups have been formed while the total number of militia members has doubled in the past year. Since millions of us are starving and have no health care and no jobs and no future (according to them), all that is needed is a spark for the nation to be flooded with violence!
The logic of David DeGraw is that the "economic elite" are waging war against the American public, the environment has been destroyed by these elite, current government measures are ineffectual and inadequate and causing still more harm, and we are all gonna die (quickly, in this vast "worldwide" and "national" emergency) unless "the people" does something to retaliate against these "economic elite" and the government that is supporting the "coup." To DeGraw and the progressives he claims to speak for, the First Citizen is nothing but a shill for the "economic elite" and the rest of the Administration and Congress are all tools or members.
Now, this may all sound very anti-statist, and despite the irrational nature of many of the arguments (in the same paragraph we are told that 50% of ALL American children are short of food and have to have government food stamps, and then a few lines later the statistic of 1 in 4 is cited; health insurance is equated with "healthcare;" and such things fill the article), this will find a ready audience among many libertarians, especially "left-libertarians."
But in reality, this is nothing more than the same "anti-statis" rhetoric that has been the stock-in-trade for the bogus ("black-flag") anarchists and the socialists (whether Communists, National Socialists/Fascists/Peronistas/Falangists/etc., the "Christian Socialists" or today's Transnational Progressives) from the beginning. The "CURRENT" State is evil and corrupt and destroying us all, and worse, the current state is allowing the great unwashed masses to be destroyed and at the same time, forcing the populace into a massive (and always unsuccessful) popular uprising. They will be destroyed and the revolt will fail, of course, unless the populace accepts and follows the lead of the elite vanguard provided through sheer altruism by the... by the Progressives which include (strange how this works) some of the very elites and their proclaimed doctrines of salvation that are waging the war in the first place!
THEIR state, of course, will be "darned near-perfect" (to quote a friend) and won't have any of the faults of the current regime: everyone will be fed and have all the medical care and all the jobs and all the education that they need, and everyone will contribute to their maximum ability, and we'll all cut greenhouse gas emissions back to 1900 levels and the grass will be green and the rivers will flow and... ultimately, of course, when all the problems are solved (permanently), the state will wither away to be replaced by (take your pick based on the kind of socialism being highlighted - but some form of the Millenium).
We can't buy into it: this is what the demagogues of Athens and Corinth and Rome and Byzantium all promised; this is what the Levellers (and those who preached the Crusades) proclaimed; this is what those who urged on Wat Tyler and his peasants whispered; what the revolutionaries in the Tuileries fervently believed in 1789 and 1791 and 1848 and 1871; what the rabid Abolutionists in Bleeding Kansas and Harpers Ferry preached; what the Bolsheviks in Petrograd announced; what the Brownshirts in Muenchen and Firenza and Madrid and Buenos Aires marched to support; and the tune that the Red Guard and the Ba'athists and Jim Jones and the Khmer Rouge spilled blood to. Indeed, those who "made" Aaron cast the golden calf, the Caliphs that followed the husband of the widow - and no doubt the first Pharaohs of Kemet (Egypt) - spouted this same line. Self-proclaimed human messiahs are not interested in seeing the state wither away or even be violently put down; they work only for a new state in which THEY call the shots - in some cases, CONTINUE to call the shots, and in which the other 99% of humanity are little more than cattle or (at best) favored pets.
God did not make us to be pets - nor cattle. We cannot let ourselves be seduced into either embracing the man on a white horse or the self-appointed vangaard of the masses - we have to be free and independent and answer to God for our own actions. Otherwise, we have never truly lived.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
South Dakota - Declaration of Sovereignty Mark I
I am printing this in its entirety: South Dakota has taken a first (albeit very small and faltering) step back to real freedom. It may not succeed but I pray that it does.
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 1013
A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION, Reasserting sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over certain powers and serving notice to the federal government to cease and desist certain mandates.
WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."; and
WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more and the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and
WHEREAS, today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government and many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and
WHEREAS, any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America, or Judicial Order by the judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of the United States of America by the Constitution of the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of any of the several states or their citizens constitutes a nullification of the Constitution of the United States of America by the government of the United States of America; and
WHEREAS, a number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the House of Representatives of the Eighty-fourth Legislature of the State of South Dakota, the Senate concurring therein, that the State of South Dakota hereby reasserts sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this concurrent resolution serve as Notice and Demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.
Adopted by the House 3 MAR 09, Sustained by the Senate 5 MAR 09. (Note: governor's signature is not required.)
South Dakota is not alone: http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/02/23/state-sovereignty-resolutions/
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 1013
A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION, Reasserting sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over certain powers and serving notice to the federal government to cease and desist certain mandates.
WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."; and
WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more and the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and
WHEREAS, today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government and many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and
WHEREAS, any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America, or Judicial Order by the judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of the United States of America by the Constitution of the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of any of the several states or their citizens constitutes a nullification of the Constitution of the United States of America by the government of the United States of America; and
WHEREAS, a number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the House of Representatives of the Eighty-fourth Legislature of the State of South Dakota, the Senate concurring therein, that the State of South Dakota hereby reasserts sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this concurrent resolution serve as Notice and Demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.
Adopted by the House 3 MAR 09, Sustained by the Senate 5 MAR 09. (Note: governor's signature is not required.)
South Dakota is not alone: http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/02/23/state-sovereignty-resolutions/
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Why the Mainstream Media is dying out
I am far from alone in bashing the old-style mainstream media (MSM) for their behavior - as indeed the continuing bankruptcy and even disappearance of a lot of them (the Rocky Mountain News, San Francisco Examiner, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, etc.) demonstrates. This Sunday is a perfect example of that. It was not a really busy newsday for a Sunday: that merchant captain made another, successful escape attempt from his pirate captors and three pirates got the justice they deserved; three children were shot execution-style in Louisiana; massive riots in Thailand caused the ASEAN meeting to be cancelled; the Zimbabwe dollar is officially toast; Mexico is officially blaming the USA for its druglords being so well armed; and more - yeah, the Obamas went to church today for the first time in months. The Washington Post - that flagship of the liberal, Tranzi, bleeding press - has a special E-mail alert service that you can sign up for to get important news fast. News like the airliner that went into the river in NYC, like Daschle withdrawing his name for HHS secretary, like the pitiful excuse for human trash that shot up an ICE center in NY. You get the picture. If I'd expected anything on their e-alert today, it would have been that Captain Phillips saved the First Citizen's political bacon by making a successful escape attempt there in the Indian Ocean. But no, of course that is not what the publishers who believe that "free flow of information is essential to a successful democracy" chose to fill my in-box with. No, THAT privilege of place was the flash announcement that Mr Obama had "fulfilled a campaign pledge" to give his daughters a puppy. Now, THAT is "essential" to successful democracy, indeed. And the old media wonders just why it is being flushed down the toilet and we are finding other things to line our birdcages with!
Monday, November 10, 2008
Democracy
"Democracy, n.:
- A government of the masses.
- Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of
direct expression.
- Results in mobocracy.
- Attitude toward property is communistic... negating property rights.
- Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate,
whether it is based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice,
and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
- Result is demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, [chaos]."
-- U. S. Army Training Manual No. 2000-25
(1928-1932)
Source: published by the US War Department, Washington, D.C., November 30, 1928
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/U..S..Army.Training.Manual.No..2000-25.Quote.7CCA
Last week, 04 NOV 2008, we practiced "democracy." The Electoral College worked the way it was supposed to, making a fairly close victory (52% to 46%) into a clear "mandate." Of course, only 119 million people voted, out of a total population of 300 million, of which at least 200 million (and probably closer to 240 million) are eligible by age, lack of felony convictions, lack of proven insanity or feeblemindedness, and residence in one place long enough to register and vote. So even with the low number, Mr. Obama is the "choice" of less than a third of the qualified electors: no much of a "mandate."
But more to the point, Electoral College or not, one man-one vote or not, is WHAT we were electing: is it a government administrator; a chief executive? Or is it a monarch? Even dictators can and are elected by popular vote: consider Hitler, Mussolini, and Peron. (Or if you dare, consider Lincoln and Roosevelt and Bush II.) Do we, by the mere act of voting once in four years (twice if you count the primaries), surrender our destinies, our daily choices, to a single man - even if that man is sharing the power to some degree with 535 people in Congress and 9 in the Supreme Court? It appears, too often, that is what we think - or at least, that is how we act.
Whether through the Electoral College or not, the modern American presidential election process claims to be, and appears to be, a "form of direct expression" of the will of the American people.
It is a will I challenge, a process I deplore - not because it is not a good idea to decide peacefully who will be a coordinator, a facilitator, or a organizer, but because NO ONE has the God-given power to determine what I and any other of the 300 million of us can do in our lives, and NO ONE should be given that power through ANY method.
P J O'Rourke has accurately described democracy as "two wolves and a lamb sitting down to vote on what's for dinner." Democracy, sooner or later, comes to the point where it reverses the ancient motto, "Vox populi, vox Dei" (the voice of the people is the voice of God; that is, people will speak in accordance with God's will, or to put it another way "Under God, the people rule") to where the people claim to have BECOME God and believe that EVERYTHING is subject to majority rule vote. It is evil, and more insidiously evil than most, because it sounds so good on the surface.
We will suffer through eight more years of "democracy:" we already have the demogogism, the license, and the agitation; the true discontent and chaos (not anarchy, but chaos) will be here soon enough.
- A government of the masses.
- Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of
direct expression.
- Results in mobocracy.
- Attitude toward property is communistic... negating property rights.
- Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate,
whether it is based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice,
and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
- Result is demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, [chaos]."
-- U. S. Army Training Manual No. 2000-25
(1928-1932)
Source: published by the US War Department, Washington, D.C., November 30, 1928
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/
Last week, 04 NOV 2008, we practiced "democracy." The Electoral College worked the way it was supposed to, making a fairly close victory (52% to 46%) into a clear "mandate." Of course, only 119 million people voted, out of a total population of 300 million, of which at least 200 million (and probably closer to 240 million) are eligible by age, lack of felony convictions, lack of proven insanity or feeblemindedness, and residence in one place long enough to register and vote. So even with the low number, Mr. Obama is the "choice" of less than a third of the qualified electors: no much of a "mandate."
But more to the point, Electoral College or not, one man-one vote or not, is WHAT we were electing: is it a government administrator; a chief executive? Or is it a monarch? Even dictators can and are elected by popular vote: consider Hitler, Mussolini, and Peron. (Or if you dare, consider Lincoln and Roosevelt and Bush II.) Do we, by the mere act of voting once in four years (twice if you count the primaries), surrender our destinies, our daily choices, to a single man - even if that man is sharing the power to some degree with 535 people in Congress and 9 in the Supreme Court? It appears, too often, that is what we think - or at least, that is how we act.
Whether through the Electoral College or not, the modern American presidential election process claims to be, and appears to be, a "form of direct expression" of the will of the American people.
It is a will I challenge, a process I deplore - not because it is not a good idea to decide peacefully who will be a coordinator, a facilitator, or a organizer, but because NO ONE has the God-given power to determine what I and any other of the 300 million of us can do in our lives, and NO ONE should be given that power through ANY method.
P J O'Rourke has accurately described democracy as "two wolves and a lamb sitting down to vote on what's for dinner." Democracy, sooner or later, comes to the point where it reverses the ancient motto, "Vox populi, vox Dei" (the voice of the people is the voice of God; that is, people will speak in accordance with God's will, or to put it another way "Under God, the people rule") to where the people claim to have BECOME God and believe that EVERYTHING is subject to majority rule vote. It is evil, and more insidiously evil than most, because it sounds so good on the surface.
We will suffer through eight more years of "democracy:" we already have the demogogism, the license, and the agitation; the true discontent and chaos (not anarchy, but chaos) will be here soon enough.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Self-Destruction of a Nation
This news story was published recently in one of England's major papers.
UK: Jury decides that threat of global warming justifies breaking the law
Independent [UK]
“The threat of global warming is so great that campaigners were justified in causing more than £35,000 worth of damage to a coal-fired power station, a jury decided yesterday. In a verdict that will have shocked ministers and energy companies the jury at Maidstone Crown Court cleared six Greenpeace activists of criminal damage. Jurors accepted defence arguments that the six had a ‘lawful excuse’ to damage property at Kingsnorth power station in Kent to prevent even greater damage caused by climate change. The defence of ‘lawful excuse’ under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 allows damage to be caused to property to prevent even greater damage — such as breaking down the door of a burning house to tackle a fire. The not-guilty verdict, delivered after two days and greeted with cheers in the courtroom, raises the stakes for the most pressing issue on Britain’s green agenda and could encourage further direct action.” (09/10/08)
I am moderately familiar with Kent and the Maidstone area, having flown in and out of Kent on my last visit to the United Kingdom. It is a pleasant land, lush and green and densely populated (at least by Western standards), but increasingly, it is filled with evil people. Not viciously evil, mind you, but mundanely evil and lacking in thought. I don't know if these Greenpeace activists were local Kentish types, or if they came from elsewhere to do their damage. But clearly, the good burghers of Kent, or at least those sitting on this jury, agree with them.
The particular evil involved here has several elements:
First, there is environism. For all intents, modern "environmentalism" has become a religion with very little reason or rational mental processes involved: thus the "mental" is removed. A particularly large cult within the general "environist" religion is the Global Warming crowd, which these people firmly believe in.
Second, there is a general streak of Luddite belief and practice here. These people presumably live in houses or flats with electricity, running water, and flush toilets. They presumably drive or walk or ride at night. They also work (those that DO work) for the most part in places in which the owners or managers would not be able to employ them without benefit of electricity and all the work it does, including pumping the water (Kent isn't as flat as Kansas, but certainly is flatter than most American states) and treating the waste water that they use and generate. Yet they are willing to destroy one of the plants that provides this basic necessity of life. Luddites are, I am convinced, related to the grasshopper of Aesop's fable.
Third, there is (in addition to the environist lack of intelligence) a general lack of intelligence exhibited both by the vandals and the court (specifically the jury). Even IF shutting down the Kingsnorth power station would prevent an imaginary threat (global warming caused by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse glasses) from coming about, a mere thirty-five thousand pounds sterling of damage is hardly going to shut down such a station for more than a few days. Not only that, but if the wrongdoing is so minor relative to the "needed" action to stop the "greater harm," the applicability of the Criminal Damage Act is questionable at best.
Regardless of the evil demonstrated by the act and the acquittal, this opens a door - a barn door, even a hanger door, for more mischief, more evil, more destruction, more insanity. A court has determined that global warming is a threat which justified £35,000 of vandalism in one location in one county. Now, thousands or perhaps tens of thousands of Greenpeace terrorists and their ilk have a blank check to ravage the infrastructure of England, if indeed not the entire United Kingdom. It applies not just to power stations, but to ANY source of carbon dioxide or some other greenhouse gas: such as cows (methane-generators; methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2), automobiles, motor coaches (buses to Yankees), various factories, and even the Houses of Parliament, which main product is the hot air of its Members, chock full of carbon dioxide. Yes, in that I am being rather silly, but much of the rest is now fair game for vandals - and there will no doubt be an amazing number of pyros, arsonists, and yobs who are suddenly converted to militant Greenpeace-ism if they are caught by the peelers.
It will spread, no doubt, just as the Saxons and Angles and Jutes who invaded Britannia through Kent spread to destroy the ancient Celtic-Roman civilization. And with this sort of tacit approval of the vandals, modern British civilization is doomed.
UK: Jury decides that threat of global warming justifies breaking the law
Independent [UK]
“The threat of global warming is so great that campaigners were justified in causing more than £35,000 worth of damage to a coal-fired power station, a jury decided yesterday. In a verdict that will have shocked ministers and energy companies the jury at Maidstone Crown Court cleared six Greenpeace activists of criminal damage. Jurors accepted defence arguments that the six had a ‘lawful excuse’ to damage property at Kingsnorth power station in Kent to prevent even greater damage caused by climate change. The defence of ‘lawful excuse’ under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 allows damage to be caused to property to prevent even greater damage — such as breaking down the door of a burning house to tackle a fire. The not-guilty verdict, delivered after two days and greeted with cheers in the courtroom, raises the stakes for the most pressing issue on Britain’s green agenda and could encourage further direct action.” (09/10/08)
I am moderately familiar with Kent and the Maidstone area, having flown in and out of Kent on my last visit to the United Kingdom. It is a pleasant land, lush and green and densely populated (at least by Western standards), but increasingly, it is filled with evil people. Not viciously evil, mind you, but mundanely evil and lacking in thought. I don't know if these Greenpeace activists were local Kentish types, or if they came from elsewhere to do their damage. But clearly, the good burghers of Kent, or at least those sitting on this jury, agree with them.
The particular evil involved here has several elements:
First, there is environism. For all intents, modern "environmentalism" has become a religion with very little reason or rational mental processes involved: thus the "mental" is removed. A particularly large cult within the general "environist" religion is the Global Warming crowd, which these people firmly believe in.
Second, there is a general streak of Luddite belief and practice here. These people presumably live in houses or flats with electricity, running water, and flush toilets. They presumably drive or walk or ride at night. They also work (those that DO work) for the most part in places in which the owners or managers would not be able to employ them without benefit of electricity and all the work it does, including pumping the water (Kent isn't as flat as Kansas, but certainly is flatter than most American states) and treating the waste water that they use and generate. Yet they are willing to destroy one of the plants that provides this basic necessity of life. Luddites are, I am convinced, related to the grasshopper of Aesop's fable.
Third, there is (in addition to the environist lack of intelligence) a general lack of intelligence exhibited both by the vandals and the court (specifically the jury). Even IF shutting down the Kingsnorth power station would prevent an imaginary threat (global warming caused by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse glasses) from coming about, a mere thirty-five thousand pounds sterling of damage is hardly going to shut down such a station for more than a few days. Not only that, but if the wrongdoing is so minor relative to the "needed" action to stop the "greater harm," the applicability of the Criminal Damage Act is questionable at best.
Regardless of the evil demonstrated by the act and the acquittal, this opens a door - a barn door, even a hanger door, for more mischief, more evil, more destruction, more insanity. A court has determined that global warming is a threat which justified £35,000 of vandalism in one location in one county. Now, thousands or perhaps tens of thousands of Greenpeace terrorists and their ilk have a blank check to ravage the infrastructure of England, if indeed not the entire United Kingdom. It applies not just to power stations, but to ANY source of carbon dioxide or some other greenhouse gas: such as cows (methane-generators; methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2), automobiles, motor coaches (buses to Yankees), various factories, and even the Houses of Parliament, which main product is the hot air of its Members, chock full of carbon dioxide. Yes, in that I am being rather silly, but much of the rest is now fair game for vandals - and there will no doubt be an amazing number of pyros, arsonists, and yobs who are suddenly converted to militant Greenpeace-ism if they are caught by the peelers.
It will spread, no doubt, just as the Saxons and Angles and Jutes who invaded Britannia through Kent spread to destroy the ancient Celtic-Roman civilization. And with this sort of tacit approval of the vandals, modern British civilization is doomed.
Sunday, March 09, 2008
E-mail scam spam!
Having fun.
Well, lookee here! I just got this wonderful opportunity in my e-mail (actually, in my spam drawer). I'd ask you to share in the "booty" with me, as well, if you are really interested, but...
It looks almost real. On a whim, I googled Andy Burnham, MP, and found out, lo and behold, that he is a REAL person! And even a REAL Labor MP in the UK. Your usual Nigerian scam letter is from some wrong-side-of-the blanket by-blow of some African general or president who isn't even a real person, or some made-up ex-colonial bureaucrat going on about mysterious plane crashes and secret diamond deals from fake mines in Angola. But EPE (UK) Ltd is a real company, and they really do specialize in filtration products; they are located in northern Wales and a a subsidiary of a German firm headquartered in Ketsch, a few miles southwest of Heidelberg. Mr Burnham is 38, an up-and-coming young star in the Labour Party and really is in High Chancellor Gordon Brown's cabinet. And being a Labor MP, he is probably crooked enough to have done an under-the-table deal like that with his bent counterparts in Moscow!
Of course, like almost all Nigerian scam letters, this one doesn't quite live up to the standards necessary for a really good scam. It is easy enough (at least for the select audience I'm sending this to, but sadly NOT to the general American public, especially many under the age of 30 or so) to see that the grammar is not up to the standards of a graduate of Fitzwilliam College in Cambridge, even if he HAS been a Labourite since age 14 and a good trades union member. And while Mr. Burnham was the Chief Secretary to the Treasury (though with no background in economics or finance; I don't know what he read at Cambridge), until 24 JAN 2008, he is now Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, a vastly more important job which indicates that he is being groomed for bigger things in the Labour party. The letter is almost two months out of date.
Much as I would LOVE to turn this over to the local Leigh constituency branch of the British libertarian party, or even the Tory or Social Democrat-Liberal branch to use as ammo to attack the most likely corrupt "Honorable" Burnham, MP, it probably is obvious even to the average Leigh voter that this is bogus.
Now, my point. If we can see this as the fraud it is, why on EARTH do we allow politicians to constantly defraud us on similar "share-the-wealth" schemes like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, oil-company taxation, $700 billion "investment schemes" and such like? Mr. Burnham most likely is NOT the author of this pathetic little scam spam, but based on his career and his associations, he is probably party to far bigger swindles than the mere 14 million GBP supposedly involved in this; like the vast increase in NHS funding which has been so touted by both the Blair and Brown Labourite governments and which has led to longer waiting lines than ever for basic medical care in the UK.
I will bet that if I were incredibly stupid and wrote back to "Burnham" I could not get him to give me any references or testimonials as to the 1.7 million he is offering to share. But every day, I read glowing reports in the newspapers and hear much the same on radio about how wonderful single-payer health care (like Britain's NHS or Canada's) is so wonderful and needed in the USA, and how the politicians in Congress and the Legislatures and the Administration are going to solve all our problems and make us all wealthy and healthy and happy... It doesn't make what the politicians are promising today in the USA any less a scam than what "Burnham" is offering in this e-mail. Much of government today is nothing more than a more carefully crafted and more successful Nigerian scam, Ponzi scheme, or pyramid scam. And I hope we can not forget it, and help other people to see that is the case, as well.
The original scam e-mail:
Dear Friend,
I am The Rt Hon. Andy Burnham MP, (Chief Secretary to The Treasury UK) I was a member of a committee that Brokered a deal between EPE (UK) Ltd, an oil Filtration Company that executed an oil filtration contract for the Russian Government during the regime of Tony Blair who just stepped down for Gordon Brown our New Prime Minister. We the committee members had an Over invoiced amount of £14,000,000.00 which we Had kept aside for ourselves but could not share Immediately. The Change of the office of the prime Minister has presented an opportunity for us to share The money amongst ourselves hence my contacting you.
My share of the booty is (£1.750,000.00) One Million seven hundred and fifty thousand GBP. Due to my Position as an MP in UK here. I can not invest the Money here or have a foreign account hence I am Seeking a reliable person who will receive this money on my behalf for investment purposes. The money was Deposited in a non investment holding account with a Bank here in UK.
I am sincerely seeking your assistance to receive this Amount. Please if you can assist in investing this Fund in any good investment in your country or any Country of your Choice. If you agree to Help, you will be entitled to 10% of the total amount While we will agree on your commission on the Investment later. If you are willing to assist, get back to me with Your Full Name, Address and contact details.
The Rt Hon Andy Burnham MP
Well, lookee here! I just got this wonderful opportunity in my e-mail (actually, in my spam drawer). I'd ask you to share in the "booty" with me, as well, if you are really interested, but...
It looks almost real. On a whim, I googled Andy Burnham, MP, and found out, lo and behold, that he is a REAL person! And even a REAL Labor MP in the UK. Your usual Nigerian scam letter is from some wrong-side-of-the blanket by-blow of some African general or president who isn't even a real person, or some made-up ex-colonial bureaucrat going on about mysterious plane crashes and secret diamond deals from fake mines in Angola. But EPE (UK) Ltd is a real company, and they really do specialize in filtration products; they are located in northern Wales and a a subsidiary of a German firm headquartered in Ketsch, a few miles southwest of Heidelberg. Mr Burnham is 38, an up-and-coming young star in the Labour Party and really is in High Chancellor Gordon Brown's cabinet. And being a Labor MP, he is probably crooked enough to have done an under-the-table deal like that with his bent counterparts in Moscow!
Of course, like almost all Nigerian scam letters, this one doesn't quite live up to the standards necessary for a really good scam. It is easy enough (at least for the select audience I'm sending this to, but sadly NOT to the general American public, especially many under the age of 30 or so) to see that the grammar is not up to the standards of a graduate of Fitzwilliam College in Cambridge, even if he HAS been a Labourite since age 14 and a good trades union member. And while Mr. Burnham was the Chief Secretary to the Treasury (though with no background in economics or finance; I don't know what he read at Cambridge), until 24 JAN 2008, he is now Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, a vastly more important job which indicates that he is being groomed for bigger things in the Labour party. The letter is almost two months out of date.
Much as I would LOVE to turn this over to the local Leigh constituency branch of the British libertarian party, or even the Tory or Social Democrat-Liberal branch to use as ammo to attack the most likely corrupt "Honorable" Burnham, MP, it probably is obvious even to the average Leigh voter that this is bogus.
Now, my point. If we can see this as the fraud it is, why on EARTH do we allow politicians to constantly defraud us on similar "share-the-wealth" schemes like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, oil-company taxation, $700 billion "investment schemes" and such like? Mr. Burnham most likely is NOT the author of this pathetic little scam spam, but based on his career and his associations, he is probably party to far bigger swindles than the mere 14 million GBP supposedly involved in this; like the vast increase in NHS funding which has been so touted by both the Blair and Brown Labourite governments and which has led to longer waiting lines than ever for basic medical care in the UK.
I will bet that if I were incredibly stupid and wrote back to "Burnham" I could not get him to give me any references or testimonials as to the 1.7 million he is offering to share. But every day, I read glowing reports in the newspapers and hear much the same on radio about how wonderful single-payer health care (like Britain's NHS or Canada's) is so wonderful and needed in the USA, and how the politicians in Congress and the Legislatures and the Administration are going to solve all our problems and make us all wealthy and healthy and happy... It doesn't make what the politicians are promising today in the USA any less a scam than what "Burnham" is offering in this e-mail. Much of government today is nothing more than a more carefully crafted and more successful Nigerian scam, Ponzi scheme, or pyramid scam. And I hope we can not forget it, and help other people to see that is the case, as well.
The original scam e-mail:
Dear Friend,
I am The Rt Hon. Andy Burnham MP, (Chief Secretary to The Treasury UK) I was a member of a committee that Brokered a deal between EPE (UK) Ltd, an oil Filtration Company that executed an oil filtration contract for the Russian Government during the regime of Tony Blair who just stepped down for Gordon Brown our New Prime Minister. We the committee members had an Over invoiced amount of £14,000,000.00 which we Had kept aside for ourselves but could not share Immediately. The Change of the office of the prime Minister has presented an opportunity for us to share The money amongst ourselves hence my contacting you.
My share of the booty is (£1.750,000.00) One Million seven hundred and fifty thousand GBP. Due to my Position as an MP in UK here. I can not invest the Money here or have a foreign account hence I am Seeking a reliable person who will receive this money on my behalf for investment purposes. The money was Deposited in a non investment holding account with a Bank here in UK.
I am sincerely seeking your assistance to receive this Amount. Please if you can assist in investing this Fund in any good investment in your country or any Country of your Choice. If you agree to Help, you will be entitled to 10% of the total amount While we will agree on your commission on the Investment later. If you are willing to assist, get back to me with Your Full Name, Address and contact details.
The Rt Hon Andy Burnham MP
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Augustine on government
Taken from "The City of God" Book IV, Chapter IV:
Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies? For what are robberies themselves, but little kingdoms? The band itself is made up of men; it is ruled by the authority of a prince, it is knit together by the pact of the confederacy; the booty is divided by the law agreed on. If, by the admittance of abandoned men, this evil increases to such a degree that it holds places, fixes abodes, takes possession of cities, and subdues peoples, it assumes the more plainly the name of a kingdom, because the reality is now manifestly conferred on it, not by the removal of covetousness, but by the addition of impunity. Indeed, that was an apt and true reply which was given to Alexander the Great by a pirate who had been seized. For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, "What you mean by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, while you who does it with a great fleet are styled emperor."
Augustine here talks about a situation which libertarians today recognize, a principle which IS taught in Scripture: that morality is defined neither by numbers (democracy) nor by power (all the various forms of tyranny): it is defined by God. It is just as wrong, just as evil, just as sinful for ONE man to use the threat of force to steal a penny from you as it is a band or community of 100, 1000, 10,000 or 300 million. And the other way around.
What Augustine did NOT elaborate on is that there IS no justice in great nations or kingdoms, or even in lesser ones: there is pretense of justice but only God is just. Men who employ force to impose their will on others are by definition, unjust.
Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies? For what are robberies themselves, but little kingdoms? The band itself is made up of men; it is ruled by the authority of a prince, it is knit together by the pact of the confederacy; the booty is divided by the law agreed on. If, by the admittance of abandoned men, this evil increases to such a degree that it holds places, fixes abodes, takes possession of cities, and subdues peoples, it assumes the more plainly the name of a kingdom, because the reality is now manifestly conferred on it, not by the removal of covetousness, but by the addition of impunity. Indeed, that was an apt and true reply which was given to Alexander the Great by a pirate who had been seized. For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, "What you mean by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, while you who does it with a great fleet are styled emperor."
Augustine here talks about a situation which libertarians today recognize, a principle which IS taught in Scripture: that morality is defined neither by numbers (democracy) nor by power (all the various forms of tyranny): it is defined by God. It is just as wrong, just as evil, just as sinful for ONE man to use the threat of force to steal a penny from you as it is a band or community of 100, 1000, 10,000 or 300 million. And the other way around.
What Augustine did NOT elaborate on is that there IS no justice in great nations or kingdoms, or even in lesser ones: there is pretense of justice but only God is just. Men who employ force to impose their will on others are by definition, unjust.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
HOPE? (intro)
Is there hope for freedom, for liberty, anywhere in the world in this year of Grace 2007?
Do we have anything to tell us that we CAN enjoy the freedom that is our heritage?
Do we have anything to tell us that we CAN enjoy the freedom that is our heritage?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)