Onesimus Jones

Nuking Japan: Bloody Evil

2011-11-14T22:29:00.000-08:00

The last issue of The Taney County Times ran a jingoistic piece justifying the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I was provoked to send a response (the TCT printed it on 11-23-11).

Mr. Groman’s defense of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki expressed the politically correct version of history so replete in textbooks and so confidently asserted by both Conservatives and Liberals.

The dilemma of whether to end the war by nuking Japan, or permit many more people to die by continuing the war was resolved in favor of the former option, thereby saving many lives. This narrative provides true comfort in the face of our having caused hundreds of thousands of children, women, and old men to die horrific deaths by fire.

Correction: This narrative provides FALSE comfort in the face of our having caused hundreds of thousands of children, women, and old men to die horrific deaths by fire. False, because there was a third option besides, 1.) nuking Japan, and 2.) continuing the war.

Option three was as follows: Instead of holding to our demand for Japan’s unconditional surrender Truman could’ve offered peace feelers granting one concession - that being an assurance that Emperor Hirohito would be allowed to remain enthroned. This likely would’ve resulted in Japan’s earlier surrender, particularly in the aftermath of the massive conventional firebombing of Tokyo by B-29s.

Of course, allowing the Japanese to keep their Emperor would arguably have been too much to concede.

Except for one fact. That’s what we ended up doing, anyway. Emperor Hirohito remained Japan’s figurehead ruler until his death in 1989.

(see quotes from American leaders who disagreed with the decision to use atomic bombs on Japan here:)

http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

Nobel Peace Prizee Obama orders hit on American citizen

2011-10-04T13:31:00.000-07:00

The issue isn't whether Al-Awlaki was evil. He was.

The issue is the President ordering the killing of an American citizen without due process.

Ditto with the government killings of the Weavers and the Branch Davidians.

The Weavers celebrated Hitler's birthday. Creepy!

Trust me - my kids wouldn't be playing at their house. But that doesn't justify federal sniper Lon Horiuchi shooting Mrs. Weaver's face off as she held her child in the doorway of their home.

Probably even Hamilton would be against this; certainly Jefferson would be.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/95959.html

Community Chapel: Was it a Cult?

2011-09-21T16:12:00.000-07:00

Was Community Chapel...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Chapel_and_Bible_Training_Center

(Discussion over the content of this wiki page is here ["onesimuss" is me] ):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Community_Chapel_and_Bible_Training_Center

...a cult?

Depends on how one defines “cult.”

Here are some possible responses to the question when considering seven different definitions:

AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS (incomplete list);

1. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.

Well, we had the authoritarian leader and were generally considered a cult by most.

So any group with pyramid government that does poorly in the polls, so to speak, is a cult.

Ergo, the Catholic church is not a cult (scandals over homosexual and pedophile priests notwithstanding) - but the Fundamentalists are a cabal with potential to turn America into an oppressive theocracy.

2. A system or community of religious worship and ritual.

Liturgical churches are cults, too.

RELIGIOUS DEFINITIONS GLEANED FROM COMMON PARLANCE

3. A group claiming to be Christian which denies the doctrine of the Trinity.

That's enough for the Bible Answer Man. Of course Community Chapel was a cult; what further need have we of proof?

4. A group which claims to have revelation from God apart from the Bible.

All non-cessationist (in regards to utterance gifts of 1 Corinthians 14) churches are cults.

5. A group whose members become separate from their families.

Remember the cult leader who came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law?

Excluding those who deserted spouses for "connections," (I knew dozens who did that) Community Chapel members were much more often ostracized by their families than the reverse.

Some relatives not only regard former members as second class citizens, but - as I know from experience - feel complete liberty to interfere in their personal lives. My meddling kinsman (“meddling” - meaning he undermined my efforts to place my wayward son in a Christian program for troubled boys) formed his own sect that, relative to number of members, was more extreme than Community Chapel (more elitist, more sensationalist eschatology – obsessed with proving that Arnold Shorts-n-sneakers {sp?} is the Anti-Christ, and my kinsman even had a “spiritual” relationship with a woman not his wife – over which he mistakenly sought counsel/ support from former Community Chapel members who never endorsed such liaisons.)

My testimony is that cultic behavior towards family members was evinced by a family member towards me, but not vice-versa.

6. A group which falls into sin and deception.

Did you hear about the church which acquired a bunch of gold and followed their leader into the wilderness? Then when the leader mysteriously disappeared, his brother made a golden calf and led the people into an orgy - a cult for sure. Eve was beguiled by the serpent. When our brothers and sisters are beguiled, they don't get set free by being labeled a cult!

DEFINITION (falsely) ATTRIBUTED TO ATTORNEY GENERAL JANET RENO, but which likely describes the beliefs of many statists:

7. “A cultist is one who has a strong belief in the Bible and the second coming of Christ; who frequently attends Bible studies; who has a high level of financial giving to Christian causes; who home schools his children; who has accumulated survival foods and has a strong belief in the 2nd Amendment; and who distrusts big government.”

The term “Christian;” was originally a pejorative term applied to followers of Christ. Could post-Christian America become a place where Christianity is considered a cult?

COMMENTS

In modern vernacular “cult” is a highly charged term with broad implications. I submit that casual use of the term can only hinder effective communication because of the wide variety of connotations. Motives of those eager to label others as a cult are suspect.

The tabloid television show West 57th Street featured former members of Community Chapel in an episode, c. 1989. One of our former elders was filmed as a regular family man, playing ball with his kids and then decrying the cult that he had left. No mention was made that those weren't his kids with whom he was tossing the ball - he had left his own wife and daughter to marry their mother. But who cares about the truth when there's a cult to expose? A member of my brother's cult, who never attended the Chapel, publicly described Community Chapel as JUST [about]wife swapping. Ask Constance Cumby about the Chapel, and I bet you'll learn it was JUST “new age.” Can't other Christians be regarded as “deceived,” or “prideful,” or just “wrong.” Must they be pigeonholed - JUST “wife swappers,” JUST “new age,” etc. God called people there at the same time He led others away..even after connections started. Note - this is important - the level of involvement of individuals ran the gamut - from those who consciously practiced witchcraft, to those involved in “mega connections” to lesser “connections” to those who didn't “connect” at all.

For what its worth, my own definition, subject to change - of “cult” would include some elements of most of the above (not #7) with the qualification that for a group to be considered a “cult” there must be a prolonged and determined refusal to receive clear corrections, warnings, and/or instructions, and an explicitly stated belief that the group alone is chosen by God above all others.

My testimony

I loved Jesus Christ before, during, and after my involvement with Community Chapel.

My heart was right before God before, during, and after my involvement with this church - even when I was in deception.

Spiritual growth continued in my life before, during, and after my time there.

Community Chapel was a great experience that I would not recommend to anyone!

Doctrine: Christology - What I Believe about Jesus

2011-09-21T15:09:00.000-07:00

There is but one God, the Father.

God, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son.

The words that Jesus says to you He does not speak of his own initiative, but the Father abiding in Him does His works.

He who has seen Jesus has seen the Father.

In Jesus all the fulness of Deity dwells in bodily form.

All authority has been given to Jesus in heaven and on earth.

God has made Jesus both Lord and Christ.

God highly exalted Jesus, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name.

Every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

"And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent."

cp. 1 Cor 8:6; Heb 1:1,2; Jn 14:10; Jn 14:9; Col 2:9; Mt 28:18; Acts 2:36; Php 2:9,11; Jn 17:3

Being a Friend of Israel

2011-09-20T07:26:00.000-07:00

During my twenty years as a Fundamentalist, I often heard it asserted that Christians, and the United States, have a mandate from God to support Israel.

Eschatology, you know.

But most information about Israel and the Middle East is very one sided, eschatology notwithstanding.

For my part, the PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah, et al are evil terrorists.

A caveat, however: so are Mossad, and much of the Israeli high command.

Denouncing the terrorist acts of one side, while giving a pass to the other side...

...is no way to appraise facts.

When Menachim (Nobel Peace Prize winner) Begin's Irgun set off expolosives in the King David Hotel in 1946, it was the largest terrorist bombing in history up to that time.

Then there was the massacre of men, women, and children at Deir Yassin, also carried out by Irgun:

http://www.deiryassin.org/

The attack on the USS Liberty, during the Six Day War in 1967
http://www.gtr5.com/ was not the action of a friend.

Former Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky wrote a book http//www.amazon.com/Way-Deception-Making-Mossad-officer/dp/0971759502 exposing the perfidy of Mossad. The Israeli government tried to block publication in the USA. The late Joe Sobran recounted Ostrovsky's story of Israeli complicity in the attack by Arab terrorists on the US Marines' barracks in Beirut:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/beirut.html

Time for Christians to be consistent in their denunciations of terrorists. Israel wasn't given a pass when they engaged in treacherous behaviour in the Old Testament, and God hasn't changed.

No scripture proscribes honest criticism of the nation of Israel.

Shalom

Defending myself against libelous statements

2011-09-17T01:16:00.000-07:00

For some six years now, there's been a serious accusation against me afloat in cyberspace. It's on a now deactivated forum known as "The Simple Truth Discussion Center," in the section called "The Haven." The accusation is leveled by my brother Phil, from whom I've been estranged for over 15 years, and supported by his family members, who are also his employees.

The accusation is that I publicly exposed a rape victim, through a since deleted post on the Factnet discussion board.

Most who know both my brother and me don't believe the accusation. Indeed, more people have commiserated with me over it than have believed it. Also, the lame threats that accompany the accusation (of legal action against me, and of beating me with a baseball bat) caused many to doubt the character of my brother and his family.

Therefore, while I don't enjoy having such evil ascribed to me in cyberspace, until now I've been silent about it. Would that this was out of some sublime spiritual strength of mine, but the truth is it's been a simple matter of pragmatism.

But now, I've changed my mind about being silent, for these reasons:

1. It has come to my attention that two or more people have construed my silence as an admission of guilt.
2. Others who hear of the accusation might like to hear me deny it.

Ergo, I hereby unequivocally deny that I exposed a rape victim on an internet forum. Phil doubtless has the post in question in his archives - it is noteworthy that nowhere in the thousands of libelous words on the matter did he bother to quote even one (1) word from it.

Please contact me privately if you have questions.

Thank you,

Steve

The Apostle - great movie

2011-06-17T05:49:00.000-07:00

If you have any interest in Fundamentalism, and more particularly Pentecostalism, Robert Duvall's The Apostle http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi1183383833/ is a film worth seeing. Duvall wrote the script, produced, directed, and played the lead role of Eulis “Sonny” Dewey. Such was his passion for this project that he used his own money to finance it when he found no takers in Hollywood. http://www.unomaha.edu/~jrf/apostle.INTERVIEW.htm

The Apostle Sonny embodies the dilemma face by the Apostle Paul: “For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do” (Romans 7:19).

This film is a work of art, a nuanced picture of part of our cultural landscape. It conveys affection for Pentecostals - yet the characters have unflattering quirks. Its portrayal of zealous faith strikes a middle ground between the gaudiness of a televangelist's program and the hatefulness of Bill Maher's movie, Religulous. It's not a hit-piece or a puff-piece. Pentecostal power wins the heart of a hardcore racist redneck. Pentecostal petulance has grown women quarreling childishly on the church bus.

In the flesh, the Pentecostal preacher clubs his wife's lover with a baseball bat. In the spirit, he shows poor folks on the wrong side of the tracks how to work together and love each other.

Pentecostals are worthy of respect as part of America. You don't have to choose between adoring them and loathing them.

Some personal background information about myself might explain why I so appreciate this movie.

After my conversion to Christianity in 1976, I spent twenty years in Fundamentalist, Pentecostal, and Holiness churches, including over ten in the notorious Community Chapel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Chapel_and_Bible_Training_Center

Those two decades were the best and worst years of my life. During them, I saw and experienced extremes of both: joy and despair; friendship and betrayal; affirmation and abuse; enlightenment and deception; revelation and confusion. I met the love of my life, my wife, and came to know God as my very best friend.

Fundamentalists and Pentecostals were there with encouragement and friendship for me at several key times in my life. They taught me many good things that will always be part of my foundation.

During those years, I also met tremendously gifted people who committed suicide, and others who did unspeakable things.

I wouldn't trade those experiences for anything. Nor would I want to go through them again.

Today, I'm just a Christian, not a Fundamentalist or a Pentecostal. I find their views of the Bible and Christian faith to be truncated. Nevertheless, I'll defend these good people against scurrilous attacks, and denounce the bigotry so often directed at them from those who claim to stand for tolerance and diversity.

And recommend The Apostle as a worthy approach to the subject.

Election 2010: Liberty leads off with a single, no score - top of the 1st

2010-11-03T11:27:00.000-07:00

Memo to Republicans:

Yesterday, Ron Paul was reelected to the House with 76% of the vote.

So much for the wisdom of psuedo-sage Republicans such as McCain, Colin Powell, Lindsay Graham, Trent Lott, et al. You know, the Republicans who - taking their cue from lamestream media - get all paternal and didactic with their admonitions that "extremists (READ: non-statists) can't win."

Conventional wisdom may be convention, but it isn't especially wise.

GOP gains in yesterday's elections will either make them or break them - either result is good for America, in my optimistic view.

If the GOP follows Republican tradition - lofty words about limited government and personal liberty, followed by continued expansion of the State and constantly trying to please the other party and its allies in the dinosaur media - it will become irrelevant, having spurned its friends once too often, while allowing it's enemies to frame the issues.

On the other hand, if new leadership arises in the GOP, willing to lose a few battles, and even some elections (Obama is a good example of this posture), while standing firm on the ideas that got them elected, they will become a true opppostion party, one that could rightly claim the honorable moniker, "Party of No."

At that point, I might even consider becoming a Republican.

Because "extremism" in the defense of liberty is no vice!

Joe Sobran: RIP

2010-10-02T21:26:00.001-07:00

Joe passed away on Thursday, September 30th, 2010 at age 64.

As a young man, he was a protege' of William Buckley's, and for several years his name appeared on the masthead of Buckley's National Review, until the two men had a falling out over American policy towards Israel.

I blame the rift on Buckley, who fecklessly accepted scurrilous charges of anti-Semitism against both Sobran and Pat Buchanan, both of whom had incurred the wrath of Israel's powerful lobby when they deigned to question America's unqualified support of that state.

I've missed Joe's columns the last few years while he's been ill. He had a knack for articulating tertiary positions amidst left and right wing group-think. Here, http://www.sobran.com/columns/ in a column published ten years ago, Joe navigates a cogent course between reactionary, guilt-laden progressivism and obtuse, imperialistic mercantilism.

Joe reportedly came to believe in anarchism during his last years, which saddens me. I'm inclined to believe his once razor-sharp mind was weakened by his many ailments, compounded by the betrayel of many neo-conservative friends.

The United States are Stirring

2010-06-28T16:20:00.000-07:00

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison warned us that if the federal government were ever to become the sole and exclusive arbiter of the extent of its own powers, those powers would always grow, regardless of separations of power, protests, lawsuits, elections, or any other vaunted part of the American system.

The above was put out today by the Tenth Amendment Center http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/ .

The United States weren't brought into union as mere administrative entities of the federal government. The United States are STATES not PROVINCES.

"Checks and balances" don't merely designate different realms of authority for the three federal branches. The Constitution wasn't intended to be a suicide pact, hence checks and balances - as understood by the founders - included, 1.) jury nullification (of unjust laws, or good laws applied unjustly), 2.) state nullification (of federal laws which encroach on states' rights), and the ultimate check on federal power: 3.) secession.

Historically, secession was disallowed by force. But it was never adjudicated. Due process would've exposed the historical fact that states originally joined the union with the explicit understanding that they could leave. Therein was the reason Jefferson Davis was not tried for treason, despite the oft expressed desire of the Republicans to hang him as a traitor.

So, since no logical arguments (including Lincoln's specious ones) were available to forbid secession, the matter was settled with an ad baculum argument (appeal to force, a logical fallacy.)

Jury nullification is still available, technically, though in reality it's negated through abuse of the voir dire, and through judges' misleading instructions to jurors that they are forbidden to rule on the law.

The other check on federal power - state nullification of federal law - is trying to make a comeback. Arizona's defense of Obama's attack on its immigration law, and attempts by states to opt out of Obamacare, are examples.

Anything is possible, but it doesn't look good for the nullification cause, because we've become a nation of compliant collectivists, having been taught unconditional federal primacy by school and television.

I'll adopt a more optimistic view if the Senate Judiciary Committee asks Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan some of the questions posited in George Will's latest column.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2010/06/24/AR2010062403178.html

Such as:

Federalist 45, James Madison said: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite." What did the Father of the Constitution not understand about the Constitution? Are you a Madisonian? Does the doctrine of enumerated powers impose any limits on the federal government? Can you cite some things that, because of that doctrine, the federal government has no constitutional power to do?

Of course, no Democrat would ask such a question. But it'd likewise be a miracle for some patrician Republican to defend the Constitution with such a pertinent query.

I'd love to hear Kagan, Obama, or any Progressive, answer the above four questions. Assuming they'd be truthful, here's a hypothetical transcript:

SENATOR HATCH: In Federalist 45, James Madison said: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite."

Assuming you are familiar with the Federalist papers, and with Madison, can you tell me whether you agree with Madison's understanding of the Constitution?

MS. KAGAN: Yes, I do.

SENATOR HATCH: So, do I understand correctly that you do believe in the doctrine of enumerated powers?

MS. KAGAN: Yes, Senator Hatch, I affirm the doctrine of enumerated powers.

SENATOR HATCH: Does the doctrine of enumerated powers impose any limits on the federal government?

MS. KAGAN: Certainly.

SENATOR HATCH: Can you cite some things that, because of that doctrine, the federal government has no constitutional power to do?

MS. KAGAN: No, Senator, I couldn't comment on cases that might come before the court should I be confirmed.

SENATOR HATCH: So, you affirm that there are limits to federal power, and that Madison rightly said federal powers are few and defined, and yet you can't name even one thing that the federal government is forbidden to do by virtue of the enumerated powers doctrine?

MS. KAGAN: Each case is unique, and brings to bear circumstances unforeseen by the founders.

SENATOR HATCH: You claim to agree with Madison about enumerated powers, yet you seem to advocate a position of unlimited powers. Can you clarify?

MS. KAGAN: Well, Senator, it was Justice Hughes, a Republican, who said "we are under a Constitution, but the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means." I, like Justice Hughes believe the Constitution is to be interpreted according to evolving social realities.

SENATOR HATCH: So, you don't believe in enumerated powers, or in a broad range of powers left to state governments?

MS. KAGAN: Well, I do believe in enumerated powers, and in states' rights, but they are all subject to review as circumstances warrant.

SENATOR HATCH: The Constitution means whatever the court says it means?

MS. KAGAN: Precisely.

SENATOR HATCH: Have you considered that your view - which many would characterize as an activist view - makes a nullity of Article V of the Constitution?

MS. KAGAN: Respectfully, Senator, I vigorously disagree. The amendment process is still available to the Congress, the states, and the people.

SENATOR HATCH: Respectfully, Ms. Kagan, that's not the point. The founders bestowed finite powers on the federal government - you seem to recognize no limits on federal power. Those founders were remarkably prescient, I submit, yet humble enough to know that the Constitution needed flexibility for the unforseen future that their posterity would face. Accordingly, they included Article V, whereby the Constitution may be amended when compelling reasons exist to do so. Yet you, and others who dismiss original intent, amend the law of the land, de facto, by fiat.

I submit that you do not regard Madison as an authority on the document of which he was the principle architect.

Further, I am satisfied that you regard courts as masters, rather than servants, of the Constitution.

Accordingly, my solemn oath to defend the Constitution demands that I opposer your nomination.

Honor America's Fallen Soldiers

2010-05-31T05:43:00.000-07:00

And when Jesus entered Capernaum, a centurion came to Him, imploring Him, and saying, "Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, fearfully tormented."Jesus said to him, "I will come and heal him." But the centurion said, "Lord, I am not worthy for You to come under my roof, but just say the word, and my servant will be healed. "For I also am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to this one, `Go!' and he goes, and to another, `Come!' and he comes, and to my slave, `Do this!' and he does it." Now when Jesus heard this, He marveled and said to those who were following, "Truly I say to you, I have not found such great faith with anyone in Israel. "I say to you that many will come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven; but the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." And Jesus said to the centurion, "Go; it shall be done for you as you have believed." And the servant was healed that very moment. (Matthew 8:5-13,NAS)

Jesus marveled at the Roman centurion’s faith.

Jesus didn’t endorse Imperial Rome - an officer of Imperial Rome endorsed Jesus. The centurion acknowledged a kingdom other than Rome, and a king other than Caesar. And King Jesus received him.

Were Jesus a modern Neo-conservative, he’d have pledged allegiance to Rome, and thanked the centurion for preserving freedom.

Behold, Jesus is no jingoist.

Had Jesus been a modern Progressive, he’d have waxed indignant, chastising the centurion for supporting a regime that upheld slavery, wars of conquest, and occupation of foreign lands.

Behold, Jesus isn’t a political agitator.

King Jesus transcends political views. He called Apostles from the extreme left (Matthew the tax collector), and the far right (Simon the zealot).

He hasn’t come to take sides - He’s come to take over!

Therefore, whether you believe in the justness of some, all, or none of our several wars - honor the heroism of our troops.

Today, Memorial Day, honor the memory of the nearly 1.5 million who didn’t survive the wars we sent them to fight. They did their duty, and paid the ultimate price.

The Answer is NOT Blowing in the Wind

2010-05-25T17:26:00.000-07:00

Glenn Greenwald, an apparantly honorable Liberal, wrote a piece for Salon, in which he laments the demise of anti-war fervor apparent in the latest elections.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/05/24/wars/index.html

The article isn't profound, except in one sense: Mr. Greenwald seems to be legitimately anti-war, as opposed to most Progressives who are only anti-war-if-it's-a-Bush-war. Accordingly, Mr. Greenwald connects dots that might've been connected before the election if journalists (sic) had vetted Obama's corporate donations as thoroughly as they scoured the north country for the perfect Palin malediction.

In the 60's, there was a noteworthy anti-war figure, Eugene McCarthy. He epitomized principled opposition to war. His unequivocal and consistent opposition to our military actions in Vietnam was a matter of personal conviction, not just political expediency.

But there were at least two other types of anti-war folks during the 'Nam war: the opportunistic kind, and the treasonous kind.

While observing the changing political winds, Senator Robert F. Kennedy wrung his hands, and made a decison that he, too, was anti-war. Being a media darling, and the brother of a martyred president, his altruism was largely unquestioned as he supplanted McCarthy as the "anti-war" candidate in 1968, after LBJ dropped out of the race. Never mind that the former good buddy of Joe McCarthy (no kin to Gene) was an integral part of the administration which upped our troop presence in 'Nam from hundreds to several thousands - RFK had rock star appeal, and harnessed the naive energy of the idealistic left into frontrunner status for the presidency until the awful night in early June.

Third on the list of anti-war types is Jane Fonda. Her opposition to the war in Vietnam was of the treasonous kind.

Aid and comfort to the enemy is, by definition, treason.

Oh, and schmoozing with NVA anti-aircraft crews is aid and comfort. Getting away with it shows how feckless our government was even forty years ago.

Some people think the Left's reticence to use terms like "radical Islamic terror" is treasonous. Their ire is understandable, especially when those who won't acknowledge the disproportionate level of violence perpetrated in the USA by Muslims, relative to their population, readily issue stern missives about potential (any day now!) violence about to be unleashed by hordes of tea partiers.

But the illiberal Left's duplicity isn't treason. It's stupidity.

The hallmark of the irrational anti-war crowd is cognitive dissonance - they have pre-readied indictments for soon-to-come tea party terrorism (it was oh so disappointing when the Times Square wannabe bomber turned out not to be a tea partier, but a - surprise! - Muslim), but don't you dare draw conclusions when a Muslim officer actually kills a dozen or so fellow soldiers at Ft. Hood.

Well, Mr. Greenwald has discovered that anti-war activity is often as partisan in nature as jingoism. He concludes that the current wars have declined as issues because neither major party benefits from broaching the subject, since the GOP started the wars, and Obama continues them.

Now if only the peaceloving Mr. Greenwald could overcome his Progressive indoctrination and look at the issue of war funding.

More specifically, the Federal Reserve bank's role in same.The ability to create money from thin air, combined with the ambitions of the increasingly imperial presidency, adds up to the endless war scenario that Mr. Greenwald seems to so earnestly deplore. As long as the George Bushes and Barack Obamas of the world have access to a fiat money tree, opportunities to make war will be unlimited.

Mr. Greenwald could start exploring the matter by reading Ron Paul's END THE FED.

One problem: the Progressive party line is to ignore Paul's message and go after Paul and his son, Rand.

Will Mr. Greenwald continue a frustrated existence in the box, or will he venture out? How open minded is this Liberal?

American Idol: John Maynard Keynes

2010-05-20T18:00:00.000-07:00

Keynesian economics is a religion, fervently adhered to by its devotees despite its history of failure.

Obama's Keynesian spending orgy will not lead to prosperity. The most uneducated tea partier grasps this, whereas highly educated elitists have immunized themselves against basic universal truths such as gravity, and serfdom being the plight of the borrower.

Note that Keynes didn't invent the idea of government spending as economic stimulus, just like Marx didn't invent central banking. Keynes and Marx were just audacious enought to collate the theories and utopian dreams of others.

Marx called his compilation "scientific socialism" - not because it was scientific, but because he was sure the proletariat would act out his theories in the laboratory of history, and that he would be counted prescient rather than presumptuous.

Keynes gave an academic gloss to what central banks were already doing, disingenuously implementing central planning while claiming to promote free enterprise.

Of course the proletarians never rise up to validate Marx - they have to be coaxed by professional revolutionaries and community agitators, who in turn are financed by the ruling class who direct central planning.

It isn't pure Marxism or pure Capitalism. It's acquisition of power, and let the masses argue about whether the culprit is Capitalism or Socialism. George Soros and Barack Obama don't care - they are focused on expanding the power of the state.

The results of Marxist-Keynesian central planning have been:

*Removal of financial limitations when war is contemplated. Wars have become larger in scope, and more destructive, as states have financed their war efforts with the blood and sweat of future generations.

*Expansion of the welfare state, creating the illusion that Socialism and central planning lead to lasting prosperity for society. Disillusion regarding this myth is spreading throughout Europe presently.

*Bubble and bust economy. Central banks were suppose to prevent this, but instead have been a primary cause of it. The Great Depression started years after the Federal Reserve bank received its charter. Fed expansion of credit markets created false demands, which led to oversupplies, which led to market crashes.

* Instead of blaming central banks, Keynesians and Progressives blamed "capitalism" and lack of regulation. They are doing the same thing now. "Leading economists," - i.e. the ones in government and on TV - is a euphemism for government-approved economists. Economists of the Austrian School predicted the crash of '29 while "leading economists" were heralding an era of permanent prosperity.

*The free market doesn't coexist with central banking, except in name. Hence, when the bubble economy caused by the Fed bursts, it is counted as a failure of the free market. More regulation is called for. This is like setting a house (the free market) on fire (Fed credit expansion), blaming the house, and then calling for kerosene (more regulation) to be added.

When Harding took office, America was in a severe recession, which would have become a depression had he and Coolidge done what Hoover and FDR later did.

http://blog.conservativetoday.org/index.php/ConservativeToday/Economy/the-severe-recession-of-1920-the-forgott

Rand Paul's primary victory

2010-05-19T10:55:00.000-07:00

Rand Paul handily defeated his opponent in the Republican primary for the Senate seat currently held by Jim Bunning, who is being forced into retirement by Mitch McConell and the party establishment.

Paul's victory is a blow to the following:

*Republican supporters of the Bush bailouts, including McConnell and John McCain.

*The Sarah Palin wing of the tea party movement - i.e. the faction that is fine with the movement being subordinated to the Republican party.

*Progressive Democrats who supported the Bush bailouts, including Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi.

Note that in the realm of boxing metaphors, a "blow" is not a knockout.

Rand Paul is on the November ballot for a Senate seat. He starts out behind - the Democratic nominee, Kentucky Attorney General Ted Grayson, received 29,000 more votes than Paul, and the Democratic primary drew more votes than did the Republican primary.

There are other obstacles in Rand Paul's path:

*Progressives will be demonizing him, misquoting, distorting, and fabricating statements of his. This process is already in full swing in the Progressive blogosphere.
*The Republican establishment has a vested interest in preserving status quo, and therefore will provide only token support for the Paul campaign.
*Lamestream media will emphasize issues raised by Paul's opponents, and give minimal coverage to Paul's articulation of his views on federal spending, the Federal Reserve bank, and the Consitution.
*Like his father, Ron, he is not an orator, or a natural politican.

He could still win - I predict a close election.

Win or lose, he has disturbed the status quo, and moved us closer to realizing this Jeffersonian dictum:

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty

A Liberal Joke is a Conservative Hate Crime

2010-04-24T14:31:00.000-07:00

A teacher's union in New Jersey recently distributed a clever, mock prayer which ostensibly asks for God to take out Gov. Chris Christie. Liberals, and Conservatives with skin, thought it was hilarious.

As a rejoinder, some wiseacre set up a Facebook page which substituted Barack Obama for Christie. Over a million people were signed on last time I checked.

Lefties are going apoplectic, because apparently only Fox and talk radio reported the original story.

Your government, and its media allies wants you to DO AS WE SAY, NOT AS WE DO!

Fighting Corruption With Corruption, the Chicago Way

2010-04-23T10:40:00.000-07:00

FIGHTING CRIME, GANGSTER STYLE

Back in about 1930, a young woman had her purse snatched on the streets of Chicago. Fortunately, she had recently met Al Capone, a prominent citizen, who had given her his card and told her to call him if she ever needed anything.

Within a few hours after calling Mr. Capone, the woman's purse was returned intact, with nothing missing.

From this story we learn that Al Capone was a crime buster.

FROM CAPONE TO OBAMA: THE LINK

The Capone gang opened its hearts to a sociology student named Saul Alinsky. The young scholar, and future community organizer, hung out with Frank Nitti, Jack Guzik, and other Capone lieutenants. They trusted him, and allowed him to be privy to the inner workings of the Capone organization.

Alinsky went on to become a professional revolutionary, agitating for the underprivileged against the powers that be, and teaching principles of community organizing with the goal of taking control of government. He perfected the art of personal destruction of one's foes, always attaching a legitimate cause to divert attention from his own actions.

Alinsky's prize pupil came along after his death in the person of Barack Obama, who used Chicago as a proving ground to start a very successful political career.

Mr. Obama is now reforming Washington D.C.

Notably, his current focus is Wall Street. A specific target is Goldman Sachs, recipient of billions of our tax dollars, and associated with former Treasury secretaries such as Hank Paulson, Robert Rubin, and the current one, Tim Geithner.

Goldman Sachs gave $1 million to the Obama campaign, and Geithner, with the Federal Reserve bank of New York at the time, helped steer bailout money its way.

So naturally, tax evader Geithner, and Chicago pol Obama, are the perfect guys to reform Wall Street and teach Goldman Sachs a lesson it won't forget.

History repeats itself. Just as Al Capone fought crime in Chicago, the pride of Chicago is fighting big money in Washington.

Please give Bill Clinton a job, Mr. Obama

2010-04-18T12:56:00.000-07:00

Bill Clinton: my pick for the Supreme Court.

Yes, I understand that Clinton is an enemy of the Bill of Rights, and a champion of more centralized government. He is a thoroughgoing statist - but no more so than any other Obama appointee would be.

So what would be the upside to a Clinton nomination?

This: Justice Clinton wouldn't be on TV using his considerable dissembling skills to attack our rights. He'd be confined to casting one vote (the same vote any Obama appointee would cast) against freedom, in mostly hidden proceedings, as opposed to stirring up mass hysteria - possibly leading to violence - against freedom loving Americans exercising their first amendment rights of freedom to peaceably assemble and to voice grievances against their government.

This morning on ABC, Clinton regurgitated his favorite calumny against Conservatives, Libertarians, and Constitutionalists, insinuating that anger directed at government is creating an environment that could portend violence, just like in 1995, when, according to President Clinton, Rush Limbaugh helped create an atmosphere that led to the Oklahoma City bombing.

For the record, Clinton's scapegoating of Limbaugh in 1995 was designed to divert attention away from the real inspiration behind the Murrah bombing, which was....

Janet Reno, Clinton's attorney general.

Timothy McViegh, like all far-right vigilantes, had no affinity for Rush Limbaugh. He was outraged by two incidents of government tyranny:

The assassination of Vicky Weaver at Ruby Ridge, Idaho by the FBI, under President George H.W. Bush (R-TX);
The tank and commando assault on the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas, orchestrated by Reno for President Clinton (D-AR), which resulted in the incineration of several dozen men, women, and children.

Note that government tyranny has bipartisan support. Retired Senator John Danforth (R-MO), headed the official commission to minimize government culpability in the Waco assault. Surprise! The patrician Danforth absolved the federal government of serious wrongdoing! (See the Cato report and other sources showing the injustice of this.)

In the Ruby Ridge incident, FBI assassin Lon Horiuchi was charged by the local prosecutor, but Fed muscle pushed the matter into federal court, where... Surprise! Federal power was vindicated by federal power!

Decent Americans across the ideological spectrum were appalled by these incidents. I'm still plenty pissed about them, myself.

Some indecent Americans were upset, too, and a couple of them decided to take on the federal leviathon all by themselves. McVeigh and Terry Nichols were inspired by Bill Clinton and Janet Reno, not by Rush Limbaugh.

(Memo to Progressives: In the above paragraph, I deliberately used the word "indecent" to describe domestic terrorists.)

Some indecent Progressives, such as Bill Maher, Arianna Huffington, Keith Olberman, and Rachel Maddow, pretend that acts of government tyranny such as at Waco and Ruby Ridge never occurred, and that patriots who are angry with government for committing generational theft to the tune of $12 trillion and counting are to be dismissed as cranks and nascent terrorists.

(Memo to Progressives who believe rights are bestowed by government, not by God, and that concern about expanding central government amounts to stupidity: In the above paragraph the same adjective was applied to you as was used to describe domestic terrorists. I likened you to domestic terrorists, because you are domestic enemies of our Constitution.)

The Weavers and the Branch Davidians were not people with whom the average tea partier would associate. But Obama and his friends in the media and in the blogosphere work around the clock to suggest otherwise.

If Obama's Progressive allies succeed in making pariahs of tea partiers and other patriots, why would patriots not fear that their government would target them as it did Ruby Ridge and Waco?

Here I must inject some disclaimers for gentle souls who might have genuine concerns about my position vis-a-vis certain aforementioned racists and cultists:

***BEGIN DISCLAIMERS***

1. I approved of the death sentence given to McVeigh, and would have approved the death penalty for Nichols as well.
1a. But it was Janet Reno, not Rush Limbaugh, who inspired those two.
1b. Patriots don't start wars. We first pursue every legal remedy. Then, we engage in civil disobedience.
1c. Some of us offer imprecations to God, per the examples in the Psalms.
1d. We take up arms as a last resort.

2. Lon Horiuchi should not have been allowed to assassinate Vicki Weaver with impunity.
2a. The Weavers observed Hitler's birthday with the likes of Richard Butler and others.
2b. For that reason alone, I'd never have allowed my children to play with the Weavers' children.
2c. But I still don't think Lon Horiuchi should have been allowed to assassinate Vicki Weaver with impunity.

3. I generally eschew sensationalist doctrines predicting apocalyptic showdowns between government and religious folks.
3a. It would be great if the government hadn't given credence to such fantastic eschatology by sending tanks to Waco.
3b. But tea partiers and other patriots don't think the Waco outrage justifies violence - though...
3c. ...Some far-right fringe groups do. But they aren't inspired by Limbaugh, Beck, or even Breitbart. They are energized by the actions and policies of the last four presidents, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama.

4. These disclaimers are for gentle souls. Corrupt souls, the priggish Progressive element, will call me a racist or terrorist no matter what I say, in order to avoid dealing with facts.

***END DISCLAIMERS***

And now, with government power expanding, American patriots are concerned about the future of freedom. The powers that be have turned a deaf ear to their concerns, and furthermore, President Obama never misses an opportunity to cast aspersions on their character.

Historically, governments demonize certain groups before moving to silence them.

We, the People, assert our constitutional rights.

They, the Plutocracy, answer, "shut up!"

Wrong answer.

We, the People, discovering that our government and its claque despise us, encourage one another with our heritage:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security...

Oprah: "Poverty is over in Cook County!"

2010-04-01T08:53:00.000-07:00

Oprah Winfrey announced today that a group of about 100 celebrities have covenanted together to end poverty in Cook County, Illinois, this year.

Ms. Winfrey said: "War on poverty was declared over forty years ago, and $trillions have been spent by government in that war - yet this community continues to suffer. Today, we declare, not war, but victory, over poverty."

Ms. Winfrey and other famous Chicagoans have been meeting secretly for several months, outting together the ultimate wealth redistribution plan. Recently, through the influence of Barbra Streisand, magnificoes from outside of Chicago became part of what is hoped will be a model of egalitarian social justice for communities across America.

Here is the plan in a nutshell:

Ms. Winfrey and the group of 100 - all millionaires, and many billionaires - will each henceforth retain only $900,000 per year of their after tax income. All money over that amount will be donated to the less fortunate of Cook County.

The celebrities also agreed to limit themselves to two homes apiece; all other real estate holdings will be liquidated, and the proceeds redistributed to the less fortunate of Cook County.

Ms. Winfrey, speaking near the old location of the Capone gang in Cicero, on the south side, said, "Progressives have been very generous with other people's money, and demanding greater regulating of business and more taxes from the wealthy to support social programs. Today we stop waiting for others to do the right thing, and we put ourselves forth as examples of how the very rich can lift others up."

Specific numbers were not disclosed, but Onesimus Jones has learned that by the end of 2010, about $8 billion dollars will be distributed among the poorest two million residents of Cook county, about $4,000 per person. Projections for 2011 call for about $5,000 per person for the same group.

Other celebrities making the covenant with Oprah include: Barack Obama, Tim Geithner, Michael Moore, Barbra Streisand, Jon Stewart, Al Franken, Jesse Jackson, Tim Robbins, Sean Pean, Ellen Degeneres, Steven Spielberg, and Arianna Huffington. The complete list will be released later this month.

Oprah wanted to announce the covenant on New Year's Day, but details took longer to finalize, delaying the announcement until April 1st.

Branson free paper promotes Census collectivisim

2010-03-15T13:13:00.000-07:00

The Branson Independent, published thrice weekly, purports to welcome letters to the editor.

But not, apparently, letters that challenge the accuracy of the paper's reporting.

I wrote a letter responding to the current Census hype, prompted by the front page item in last Wednesday's (March 10th) Independent.

No room for my letter, or any letters, as of yesterday's paper. My guess: important news like Madonna's marriage advice trumps trivial matters like the destruction of the U.S. Constitution.

Here is the letter:

Dear Editor,

On your front page today is this assertion:"Those who know what the Census is about, know that it's aboutsecuring funding for residents who live in every county, each villageand each municipality across the state and throughout the United States."Does anybody read the Constitution anymore? Article I, Section 2 of that unconsulted relic informs us that the Census is about apportionment in the House of Representatives.
The 2010 Census will determine whether Missouri is represented in the House by eight or nine members. Knowing the difficulty of amending the Constitution, judges, lobbyists, and legislators have nullified it instead, expanding thethe Census into a tool for central planning. Having taken money fromthe current and future residents of the states, the government sends it back to said states, after deducting a rather substantial handling fee, which is used to create jobs - government jobs, that is.
Imagine what Missourians could do if, instead of sending our money to D.C. and lobbying to get some of it back, we just kept it here. If the Commerce Department simply concentrated on getting an accurate count, rather than collecting data for collectivist schemes, there would be no need for massive campaigns begging the citizens to fill out the Census forms, or painful reminders of the ongoing abuse of our founding fathers' work.

Last Night's Speech from the Throne

2010-01-28T13:16:00.000-08:00

The pomp and splendor that attends a State of the Union address befits a king more than a chief executive of a constitutional republic.

Then again, what does our Constitution have to do with our increasingly regal presidency, which has incrementally appropriated monarchial powers for well over a century?

Since Wilson, every president has (with occasional exceptions, e.g. Carter in 1981) declined to simply send a letter to Congress conveying the state of the union. They've all opted for an ostentatious entry into the House chamber, transforming an administrative duty into a royal pageantry.

The President-King ascends to the dais and admonishes his subjects. The nation curtsies. Every network preempts regular programming - unthinkable that his majesty might appear on just one channel.

Washington kept his address to about ten minutes. Jefferson declined to appear, on grounds that doing so was akin to the English monarch's "Speech from the Throne."

Modern presidents, who mostly wouldn't make pimples on the aforementioneds' arses, tend to speak for an hour or so, demagogueing for the Welfare State, the Warfare State, or both (FDR, LBJ, both Bushes). No attempt is made to justify the various expansions of government on constitutional grounds. Always, there is a crisis in need of government action.

The very staging of such an event precludes humility, or even a modicum of the restraint that our Constitution was designed to impose on government.

The Imperial Presidency is not new. Culpability for this lamentable fact runs across the spectrum.

Blame the Supreme Court for abandoning Original Intent in favor of some contrived, organic constitution which inhales and exhales with every statist scheme emanating from academic pinheads. Instead of amendments, this constitution has shadows and penumbras, which one has to have special dispensation to read.

Blame the Congress, for abdicating it's duties and responsibilities. Members inveigh against unpopular wars, but fail to exercise their obligation and power to defund them. They recoil in mock horror at abuse of power from the executive branch, while creating evermore executive departments. They place sole blame on the president for budget deficits, when spending bills originate exclusively in the House.

Blame We the People. We don't vet candidates. We don't read the Constitution. We stay loyal to one of the parties, when both have proven to be the chief threats to our liberties.

While presidential hubris is well entrenched, Barack Obama carried it to a new level last night.

For seventy minutes he waxed petulant and imperious, lashing out at the Senate, the Supreme Court, oil companies, affluent people, Constitutionalists, and opponents of global warming dogma. Here was his broadside against the latter:

I know there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on
climate change.

Our radical young president acknowledged and dismissed his opponents all in one breath. You can't do that and make a credible claim to being open to the ideas of others.

Oh, but you can dissemble - claiming to eagerly desire dialogue, while what you mean is: "we are going to discuss the matter, and then we are going to do it my way."

Truth is relative, according to the original Chicago organizer, Saul Alinsky. Insolence, he taught, is the proper attitude for a change agent. Obama, as a Chicago organizer, taught Alinsky's methods. Now he is using them against the Constitution, and anyone who in any way opposes him.

Even after pushing federal deficits to unprecedented levels, Obama continued to blame our debt problem on Bush. Then he told the most blatant of several lies - that he is going to bring down the deficit beginning in 2011. Obama knows that those who can count and connect dots will make the following observation:

Taking spending to record levels over the next year, then freezing a portion of said spending, WILL NOT REDUCE THE DEFICIT!

"The politics of change," Alinsky's concept as applied by Obama, calls for masses of people to be mobilized in the cause of deliberately vague ideology. The hope is that the masses will be naive enough, or too busy, to notice that the Emperor has no clothes.

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.!

In other words, the Wizard doesn't want you to notice the specifics of what he says about the deficit. Just trust him to be your brain, your heart, and your courage.

And get that damn Toto out of here before he gets on talk radio or Fox news and exposes the whole charade!

Class Envy: Tool of Tyrants

2010-01-21T13:23:00.000-08:00

Alinsky, patron saint of community organizers, including our current president, saw life as a struggle between Haves and Have-Nots. Freedom is found by the Have-Nots taking power away from the Haves.

The theory works well in the classrooms of tenured Marxist professors. In history, not so much. The Have-nots rid France of King Louis XVI. The result: an obtuse monarch was replaced by a bloodthirsty mob. Order was restored by the imperious tyrant, Napolean. In Russia, the Czars were autocratic and out of touch with their subjects. Lenin rallied the Have-nots, then he and Trotsky instituted a reign of terror, which gave way to a tidal wave of terror in the person of Stalin. Life is not a struggle between Haves and Have-Nots. It is an inner struggle between flesh and spirit. Does Christ rule in my heart, or does my own corrupt flesh rule?

Obama is still blaming the out of control federal deficit on Bush, even though he will add as much debt in his first two years as Bush did in eight. Obama ran for president as an advocate for the Have-Nots against the Haves - yet bailouts for the uber-rich continue, while the unemployed are basically told, "be thou warmed and fed." Obama ran as the fill-in-the-blank candidate. "Hope" and "change" - deliberately vague terms. What were you hoping for? Unsophisticated voters inserted every pipe dream they ever held, and looked to their Messiah (he did run with a messianic theme) to fulfill....

Oops. Obama-flesh is no more sanctified than Bush-flesh, although it promises much more.

Let's pray that a Stalinesque figure doesn't step in to pick up the mess.

One full year of Obama

2010-01-20T10:36:00.000-08:00

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works...

One year ago today, President Obama directed this cheap shot at advocates of constitutional government. His comments - dismissive of those who would reduce the central government back to its legal limits - echoed candidate Obama's bigoted remarks about people in mid-America who "cling to their guns and their bibles."

Out of the other side of his mouth, Obama made conciliatory remarks about working with opponents and receiving their ideas. He meant, of course opponents who agree with him about an unlimited role for government.

Marginalizing the millions of Americans who don't like the ongoing nullification of the tenth amendment apparently wasn't enough.

All major news outlets were expected to spread palm leaves, and make a straight path for the One.

One news outlet offered token resistance (they allow air time for dissidents). Obama's minions declared war on Fox.

The war didn't go so well. It only enhanced Fox's standing as the favored source for news broadcasts, and increased the profile of their mostly conservative programming.

This entire episode was emblematic of the ineptitude of the new administration. There was the terror inflicted on Manhattan by the surprise flyover of Air Force One, the appointment of Wall Street insider/ tax evader Tim Geithner to run Treasury, and the appointment and firing of self avowed Communist and "truther" Van Johnson as one of the "czars."

Finally an Islamic jihadist in our own army killed 14 people at Ft. Hood, and Obama responded with less vigor than was shown against Fox.

All of this contributed to a Republican victory in the Massachusetts Senate race yesterday.

Contrary to the chirpy Sean Hannity's annoying comments today, Brown's victory does not amount to a repudiation of big government in America, least of all in Massachusetts.

The electorate of Massachusetts, which inflicted five decades of Kennedys in the Senate on us, has not turned away from its love of Statism, or its affinity for Socialism.

Harvard elitists - reflecting the mindset of most New England voters - accept big government as a given, but have judged Obama as a failure in implementing it. It might even be unfortunate if this setback causes the administration to learn discretion, thus hiding its contempt for those who deign to dissent.

The risk is that Obama will learn to hide his contempt for working Americans and succeed.

That would be bad for America.

Three Courageous Southerners

2010-01-17T09:47:00.000-08:00

This week marks the birth dates of three courageous Southern men:

Martin Luther King - January 15th

Robert E. Lee - January 19th

Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson - January 21st

King is honored with a national holy day. For the growing percentage of working people who are employed by government, or by government regulated business, (full disclosure: I'm in that favored category) it's a welcome day off. Federal employees enjoy ten of these national holy days, courtesy of the involuntary donations the government collects from less privileged Americans.

Personally, I'm not enthused about holy days in honor of flawed humans. Christmas commemorates the birth of the only flawless human, and is an exception, with one caveat: Jesus was certainly not born around winter solstice. Nevertheless, hearing "...come let us adore him..." - in public, in post-Christian, lawyer-laden, America - blesses my soul.

Objecting to holy days for humans - Columbus Day, MLK Day, Presidents' Day (nee' Washington's and Lincoln's birthdays) - doesn't negate the fact that birth dates of great people do afford opportunities to reflect on their legacies.

Enter Martin Luther King, Robert E. Lee, and Stonewall Jackson.

The three have two things in common: They were Southerners, and they were remarkably courageous.

Many Conservatives object to honoring King because of his philandering, plagiarism, and Communist associations. Count me among those that see those things as fair game for discussion.

And to reiterate, I don't care much for holy days that honor mere men, anyway.

Where I part with many Conservatives is in my genuine admiration for King's courage. I also happen to appreciate his oratorical skills.

Martin Luther King knew for several years that he was a likely target for assassination, yet he continued to speak out boldly, publicly, for what he believed.

While King's consorting with communists is censorable, let's save some contempt for certain of his contemporaries…like the cowardly reprobates who killed four little girls in the 1963 Birmingham church bombing, eh?

I also happen to admire him as an orator. For me, words like, "I have a dream....," and judging men by "the content of their character, not by the color of their skins," are keepers, rightly preserved for the ages. Our current crop of race mongers - Sharpton and Jackson; Eric Holder and Jimmy Carter - are frauds largely because their collectivist politics lead them to regard color over character.

My other two courageous Southerners are at least as worthy of honor as MLK. But there character is often impugned because of their association with the lost cause of Southern Independence.

Lincoln referred to both Lee and Jackson as traitors, which is remarkable because in the spring of 1861, he offered Lee command of the entire Federal army, on the recommendation of then top General Scott, who regarded Lee as the finest officer in the Army.

Lee declined the offer, resigned his commission, and the rest is history...

...Except that history has been distorted.

The average person has been greatly misinformed about the War for Southern Independence.

But in school we learned Lee and Jackson fought to preserve slavery.

Wrong! They fought to preserve Virginia, when she was invaded by what was to become the most powerful army ever formed up to that time. These invaders marched through Washington D.C. singing John Brown's Body, an ode to the terrorist who once pulled four men out of their beds and murdered them in cold blood.
(Julia Ward Howe, whose husband helped finance Brown's ill-fated takeover of the Harper's Ferry arsenal, changed the words of John Brown's Body into a horrendous ditty celebrating the slaughter of secessionist southerners. Millions of Christians have sung The Battle Hymn of the Republic in church, oblivious to the fact that they are equating the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of other Christians with God's work.)

Lee unequivocally opposed slavery. Jackson – the Rosa Parks of his day - demanded that the young black people in his Sunday school class be allowed to sit with him in the front of the church (for context consider that Lincoln regarded blacks as inferior and advocated sending them all out of the country).

If Lee and Jackson fought for slavery, Ike and Patton fought for Stalin.

Robert E. Lee carried on friendly correspondence with Lord Acton, the British statesman who said "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely." Lord Acton wanted Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia to prevail, because he saw that Lincoln's victory would be a victory for "might makes right."

Where are the wise and courageous of our age who will overcome the ignorance and cowardice that threatens to enslave from it's fortress in Washington D.C?

Inane Race Baiting while they destroy our economy

2010-01-12T13:18:00.000-08:00

It's somewhat gratifying to see the Democratic party's hypocrisy on race relations so blatantly displayed in the Harry Reid matter. The unique dance stylings of Eric Holder, Al Sharpton, and their ilk have given some comic relief as the party in power is momentarily diverted from their quest to destroy our nation's economy.

Every political or religious group has its double standards; but nobody models hypocrisy with as much elan as modern Progressives.

Let's make one thing perfectly clear: Harry Reid's comments about candidate Obama's "light-skinned" appearance and speaking patterns "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one" were simply Senator Reid's unvarnished appraisel of current Realpolitik; they weren't racist by any reasonable standard.

They were only racist according to criteria advanced by Progressive race hucksters to slander Conservatives.

Trent Lott made a comment on Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday to the effect that Thurmond should have been elected president when he ran as the "States' Rights" candidate back in 1948. Because Southern states rights' advocates supported racial segregation, Lott's remarks were taken out of context, and he was forced to resign his post as Senate majority leader.

Common sense would tell you that Lott was just trying to say something complimentary on a momentous occasion - the Senate was not on the verge of reinstituting segregation. Furthermore, Thurmond had long since renounced segregation, and would certainly not have won reelection so many times had he not done so.

Moreover, States' Rights, sans segregationism, was and is a valid political position, according to our national Constitution.

Harry Reid ought to resign his leadership position, just to maintain the delusion that his party's posturing on race relations has merit.

Then, hopefully, the good folks of Nevada can throw his sorry butt out of our government - not for these bogus charges of racism, but for his efforts to destroy our nation's economy, by creating record amounts of fiat money.

Said fiat money will result in inflation of our currency, which will lead to higher prices for neccessary items, including food and energy. This will hurt low and middle income people the most, and will belie the idea president's promise not to impose further taxes on them.

Let's not forget bipartisanship.

Throw out the Republicans, too!

Happy Anniversary Habeas Corpus

2009-12-18T10:58:00.000-08:00

Today is the ninth anniversary of the 2nd US Court of Appeals ruling against President Bush's denial of due process to Jose Padilla.

Suspension of the writ of habeas corpus by Bush and Rumsfeld was an outrage, and I am personally grateful that the court ruled it so. Various liberal and libertarian groups filed amicus curiae briefs in the case, also cause for appreciation.

Among more complex legal issues - which I'll leave to the experts, was the simple fact that suspension of habeas corpus, during time of calamity, is granted to Congress, not to the President. This can be discerned by any literate person reading Article 1 of the Constitution, and I'm once again grateful that this simple point of law was noted by the legal experts on the court.

There is a downside, however. Almost nobody seems to recognize the original precedent for the unlawful actions of the Bush administration in this matter.

George W. Bush, in depriving a U.S. citizen of his right to the writ, was following the example of the most revered Republican in American history, a demigod whom our nation has honored with a temple.

Abraham Lincoln incarcerated hundreds of citizens who opposed his war against the South, locking them up without charging them with any crime. When Justice Taney, acting as a circuit judge, ordered a writ of habeas corpus, the federal marshall, on Lincoln's orders, declined to execute it. Moreover, Lincoln actually issued a warrant for Taney's arrest, but couldn't find anyone compliant enough to carry it out.

Lincoln had no legal right to deny habeas corpus, but is only mildly criticized by feckless historians due to his iconic status, sealed by his martyrdom.

The lesson for imperial presidents is clear: If you wish to jail citizens with impunity, you better instigate all out war within our borders first. If you happen to be an imperial president from the Left, you will have the advantage of a fawning, courtier press.

Hitler Praised by Bush official!

2009-11-05T10:12:00.000-08:00

Exclusive to Onesimus Jones from intrepid reporter Beau Gus LeScribe

Beau is French!

In a recent speech to a group of high schoolers, Bush(1) communications director Nicolle Wallace(2) praised Adoloph Hitler(3) as one of her two favorite philosophers, with Mother Theresa being the other.

Ms. Wallace's(2) remarks were widely reported on talk radio, internet blogs, and Fox News, but completely ignored by major broadcast news, cable giants CNN and MSNBC, and even PBS.

However, PBS ran a story last night warning of the dangers of talk radio. Several grim prigs supported the party line: "talk radio hosts don't check facts." Most remarkably, Nicolle Wallace(2) herself was featured denouncing Fox. Not one word about Ms. Wallace's(2) high regard for the Feuhrer(4). Nor were any specific "unchecked facts" promulgated by talk radio mentioned.

Bush(1) administration spokespersons state that Ms. Wallace's(9) remarks were taken out of context - she only meant to credit Hitler(3) for his political strategy, not his tendency to murder human beings by the millions. "Real journalists find nothing newsworthy in a government official making one favorable comment about Hitler(3)," said an obtuse ideologue from a rightwing(5) blog. +

~Beau Gus LeScribe is a self-described rousseauite, and publishes the quarterly journal Robespierre Redux. Mr. LeScribe has agreed to provide progressive input to this blog from time to time.

CORRIGENDA

As our guest writer, Onesimus Jones wishes to give wide latitude to Mr. LeScribe in sharing his progressive views. But we must correct blatant factual errors. Mr. LeScribe is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts. Therefore, his piece was footnoted where egregious errors were found, and following is a list of true facts in relation to said footnotes:

1. Obama (not Bush)

2. Anita Dunn (not Nicolle Wallace)

3. Mao Tse-Tung (not Adolph Hitler)

4. The Chairman (not the Fuehrer)

5. leftwing (not rightwing)

Limbaugh vs. Race Czar Sharpton

2009-10-13T13:23:00.000-07:00

Last February, Attorney General Eric Holder lamented our collective reticence to discuss racial issues, calling us a "nation of cowards."

Ironic that Mr. Holder's Democratic Party, led by his boss, does more than the Ku Klux Klan to hinder candid discourse on race.

Witness: The de facto race czars of the United States, Reverends Al "Tawana Brawley" Sharpton and "Jesse Hymie-town" Jackson.

Jackson, besides disparaging the Jewish population of New York, also used the "n" word while expressing a desire to castrate Barack Obama. He and Sharpton, (who would - were real journalists not extinct - be widely known as a racist huckster over his affinity for framing white men in rape hoaxes) led the charge to malign Rush Limbaugh as a racist.

Perhaps Eric Holder, or his boss, could make a public statement to marginalize these two hucksters as go-to guys in matters racial. President Obama could say something presidential, like "They acted stupidly," and then have them over to the White House for a peace brew.

Such gestures would help facilitate the sort of public discourse ostensibly called for by Holder. I say this because the latest target of Jackson, Sharpton, and other Progressive magnificoes is Rush Limbaugh - a man always willing to discuss race.

Limbaugh makes arguable assertions on racial matters (e.g. his theory about Donovan McNabb). Since he's a conservative, his comments are called "polarizing" by the same Progressives who tacitly affirm confirmed slanderer Sharpton's unassailableness.

Holder's silence, as Sharpton defines the acceptable boundaries of race discussions, indicate there's really no need for such discussions. Holder should retract his lamentation, and Obama should name Sharpton: Race Czar, de jure.

But in their hearts, even Progressives don't really equate dissenting opinions with racism. Hence, despite having thousands of hours of Limbaugh oratory to choose from, the Left couldn't find an actual statement from him sufficient to manufacture their latest crisis/ opportunity. They had to fabricate one to support their priggery:

I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.

Now that's racism. It tops the list of several sites I found by googling "Limbaugh" and "racist."

But it's a lie. Mendacious Progressives have disseminated the quote without even a courtesy call to Limbaugh for verification. Rick Sanchez, who masquerades as a journalist at CNN, is one of many who put the quote out as a fact. After Limbaugh's public reprimand, Sanchez - usingthe same good judgment as when he left the scene after killing a pedestrian while driving drunk - remained undaunted. Instead of a retraction and apology, he asserted, in effect, that he was justified by Limbaugh's alleged other racist statements.

Speaking of vehicular homicide, the impetus for the Left's latest attempt to demonize its opposition was Limbaugh's attempt to become a minority owner of the St. Louis Rams. The Rams employ Leonard Little on their defensive line - who also killed someone while driving drunk.

Had Mr. Little killed a dog, rather than a mere human, the Left would no doubt be as outraged over his association with the highly ethical National Football League as they were with Limbaugh's.

Change has come to America.

"Peace, peace" - when there is no peace.

2009-10-09T09:24:00.000-07:00

Theodore Roosevelt was an unabashed war monger. Perhaps the only war he ever found distasteful was the Russo-Japanese war of the early 2oth century. For his part in brokering an end to that war, TR received the Nobel Peace Prize.

Woodrow Wilson campaigned for re-election in 1916 with the slogan "he kept us out of the war" [i.e. WW I], while he was, in fact, maneuvering to get us into the war. Wilson jailed those who spoke against our entry into the war (eg. socialist Eugene Debs). At the end of the Great War, Wilson promoted the League of Nations, a world body from which he could presumably tyrannize other peoples the way he tyrannized Americans. For his efforts on behalf of the League, and for his other work at Versailles (which paved the way for WW II), Wilson, naturally also received the Nobel Peace Prize.

Finally, today, after ninety years, another sitting president receives the Nobel Peace Prize. Barack Obama is clearly the most deserving of the three presidents to be so honored.

Iconic Myths Worthy of Destruction

2009-10-07T11:01:00.000-07:00

What do these nine statements have in common?

1. Republicans are fiscally conservative and believe in smaller government.

2. Democrats are staunch defenders of the first amendment.

3. Herbert Hoover responded to the stock market crash with laissez-faire economic policies.

4. FDR lifted the country out of the Great Depression.

5. Robert E. Lee fought for the South because he wanted to preserve slavery.

6. Ulysses Grant fought for the North because he wanted to end slavery.

7. The Puritans were teetotalers.

8. The Constitution's commerce clause was always understood to authorize federal regulation of all business activity.

9. The Constitution's general welfare clause shows that the founders favored central government primacy over states' rights.

Pose these assertions as true or false questions to several randomly selected college graduates, and each will be marked "true" by the majority.

The nine assertions have this in common: they are widely believed, and completely false.

Recommended reading: 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask by Thomas E. Woods.

Lies and the Lying Liberals Who Slander Glenn Beck

2009-09-19T16:47:00.000-07:00

Glenn Beck may have surpassed Rush Limbaugh as chief bugaboo of the Left.

OLBERMAN BESTOWS CREDIBILITY ON BECK

Progressives’ visceral hatred of Beck was evident during the 2008 presidential campaign when they (Media Matters, Think Progress, and Keith Olberman) promulgated the lie that he (Beck) had, in earnest, asked televangelist John Hagee if Barack Obama was the Antichrist. Actually, Beck - tired of emails from gullible fundamentalists touting Obama as the Antichrist - asked the question facetiously. He was tweaking Hagee, who – ever his self-important, didactic self - answered in the negative.

Progressives eschew civil discourse, preferring always to hurl shit and see if it’ll stick to their opponents. The above named culprits fed their fecal story to the parrot-Left. Instantly, nuance-free liberals across the land gleefully sought to one-up each other with excretions of mock horror over the gullibility of Beck and his audience. The lovely folks who opine at the Huffington Post hadn’t been so giddy since Nancy Reagan broke her leg. The jackals ate what Olberman the zookeeper fed them, - the text of Beck’s Hagee interview - and never bothered to check the context, or listen to the audio to hear the inflection in Beck’s voice.

The unreflective Left remain oblivious to the irony of having epitomized the obtuse certitude they so decry on the Right. Looking for a mea culpa? Take a number and wait. Progressives haven’t renounced their ideological forebears’ love affair with Stalin yet; they aren’t about to forsake Olberman and his ilk for the truth.

ATTENTION LIBERALS: STOP BECK!

A year after they disseminated the fable of him affirming sensationalist eschatology, the progressive Left is feeling more threatened than ever by Glenn Beck.

Beck has the third most popular talk radio program, and has moved from CNN to Fox on television. Less of a partisan Republican than Limbaugh or Hannity (talk radio’s top two), he’s been unrelenting in his pursuit of any person or group he perceives as a threat to liberty. Notably, he was the driving force behind the resignation of Van Jones - a communist appointed by President Obama to one of the coveted czar positions.

Obama is under fire from his fellow progressives for not defending Jones. Bill Maher, ranting on Conan O’Brien’s show, expressed disgust with the president for caving to Beck. During his diatribe, the fact-resistant Maher implied a fraternal association between Beck and “birthers,” but never mentioned that Jones is a “truther.”

Nor did Maher address the salient issue regarding Jones (that he’s a self avowed communist) - not surprising, given the historical affinity between communists and progressives.

Let’s be clear: Birthers (who insist Obama’s not an American citizen) and Truthers (Bush and/or Israel orchestrated the 9/11 attacks) are equally deficient in the critical acumen department.

Let’s be even clearer: Communists and Nazis both represent ideologies of mass murder. (Phrase borrowed from Accuracy In Media’s Cliff Kincaid)

Progressives wouldn’t want birthers or Nazis in government.

But they’re fine with truthers and communists.

Progressives have earned our mistrust. Don’t believe anything a progressive says without corroboration from a non-socialist source. Don’t refuse to hear the substance of what Glenn Beck says because of the barrage of ad hominem attacks being unleashed by the media.

The fact that shots are being fired at the messenger doesn’t render the message invalid.

MEMO TO BILL MAHER

Bill:
Progressives always assume, and never ask. So you’ll peg me – wrongly - as a Glenn Beck sycophant. And, although I’m not a “birther,” you nevertheless would consider me stupid, because I have faith to believe in micro-evolution, but not macro-evolution. Worse, I believe in God, and His son, Jesus Christ.

You are doubtless one of those special people who - when you fly from LA to New York – refers to the area where I live as “fly-over country.” Admittedly, I shake my head incredulously at the stubbornness and ignorance I sometimes observe here in the Ozarks. But, unlike you, I also look for redeeming qualities and character strengths in the natives here; I desire to have relationships with other people characterized by mutual respect.

You, on the other hand, prefer to denigrate those you consider less enlightened; your contempt for them making it impossible to impart any knowledge you might otherwise share. Yet you marvel that millions balk at the idea of being ruled by those who share your (so called) progressive views.

I’m well pleased to be considered stupid by a pompous ass such as you.

It is for posterity that I want to refute just one lie that you perpetuate about those of us in the Resistance: We do not get our worldview from Glenn Beck.

In fact, Glenn is being indoctrinated by me, and others of like mind. From my cave here in the Shire, I use The Force to send subliminal messages through the Matrix to Beck. The goal: to take the Neo out of his Neo-conservatism.

There is no guarantee of success, but Glenn Beck’s views have been in flux (as opposed to rigid Republican or doctrinaire Democrat). He has recently rejected some key components of progressive historiography. As a result he now repudiates the iconic status of presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Just this week, I heard him refer to the latter as an “imperialist.” He also makes frequent mention of the tyrant Wilson jailing those who opposed his push for entry into World War I.

TR and Wilson consistently finish near the top of the occasional presidential rankings that plague our society. Progressive education - the legacy of John Dewey in our government schools - has produced compliant tools such as yourself, willing to exalt men who imprisoned dissenters and destroyed thousands of lives through needless wars.

Progressives such as you masquerade as opponents of war when it advances your progressive agenda, but were silent when Clinton bombed the hell out of Serbia. Nothing new under the sun: Robert Kennedy was at his brother’s side when our troop strength in Vietnam was expanded from 700 to nearly 15,000. But in March 1968, RFK put his finger in the wind and discovered he was adamantly opposed to the war.

Eugene McCarthy’s principled opposition to the war was upstaged by a rock star.

If Glenn Beck continues his journey out of the dark side, he will ultimately renounce America’s worldwide military presence. He will also abandon the view that the Republican Party has been corrupted over the years, and affirm that the GOP was corrupt from its inception. He will proclaim that states’ rights are the foundation of the Bill of Rights, not a heresy conjured up by Klansmen.

If Glenn Beck continues to follow where the facts lead, Mark Lloyd – Obama’s man at the FCC - will need all the guidance his hero, Hugo Chavez, can give to try to shut down talk radio.

The Republican Party: Historical Enemy of Liberty

2009-09-12T15:37:00.000-07:00

A Republican president initiated a bloody war, citing a grave threat to national security. Those challenging the lawfulness or morality of the war were branded as disloyal and swept aside by a flood of jingoistic demagoguery masked as patriotism. Enemies were imprisoned for years without being charged; habeas corpus was suspended.

As the death toll mounted, the national defense justification wore thin - so the war was deftly morphed into a crusade for democratic government. Being a wordsmith, the Commander in Chief used his considerable verbal skills to obfuscate his contempt for the Constitution, framing those whose land he invaded as the aggressors.

One wouldn’t describe the oratorically challenged George W. Bush as a wordsmith, so the rogue president described above is, obviously, Abe Lincoln.

The first Republican president imprisoned thousands of people for criticizing his war, and shut down several newspapers. The grandson of Francis Scott Key, a newspaper editor, was imprisoned for a couple of years in Ft. McHenry, where his grandpa had written our national anthem.

Abe Lincoln invented a law against secession, the threat of which, along with nullification, was the chief check on government power. During the War of 1812, several of the New England states threatened to secede. Their decision to remain in the Union was based on practical grounds – no serious objections were raised on legal grounds.

Moreover, Virginia had ratified the Constitution with the understanding that she could withdraw from the Union at any time.

Lincoln’s Real Agenda

Lincoln plainly stated that the war wasn’t about ending slavery, but preserving the Union, which he claimed was his “solemn” duty.

As a mercantilist, Lincoln’s real priority was looking out for the interests of his corporate friends and continuing to collect protectionist tariffs from southern ports. He was shrewd enough to play both sides of the slavery issue, so that while enraging southern fire-eaters, he could garner tentative support from some of the radical abolitionists.

Abe’s agenda - corporate welfare for railroads, a central bank, and protectionist tariffs – couldn’t coexist with states’ rights.

So Abe invaded Virginia, and made the tenth amendment a nullity. His war killed 620,000 of the country’s most virile males (projecting to six million dead in modern America), and transformed states into de facto provinces.

The Great Emancipator held racist views (admittedly typical for the day), believing in the superiority of the white race. He worked diligently to find a way to colonize blacks out of the United States. His home state of Illinois was one of several northern states that forbade immigration of free blacks.

We Hate War, But We Love Shooting Southerners

Progressives who oppose the Iraq War glibly accept the carnage heaped on the old South for the one happy result: slavery’s demise. Students learn that the Civil War (it wasn’t actually a “civil war,” but we don’t have time) was a great advance for liberty.

Does anyone remember a classroom “what if?” discussion of what might’ve happened to the institution of slavery had Lincoln not made war on the South?

Some thoughts for discussion, should a daring teacher wish to venture out of the unreflective, progressive box:

· Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas, and Tennessee would’ve stayed in the Union.
· A constitutional amendment would’ve passed ending slavery in the United States.
· The seven state CSA would’ve been subject to trade embargoes from most of Europe and the USA.
· In addition to the South facing disapproval and boycotts from the rest of the civilized world, anti-slavery southerners (like Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson- but those two Virginians would’ve stayed in the Union) would’ve lent their influence to the abolitionist cause, rather than having to protect their country from an invading army.
· While slavery lingered in the Deep South, escaped slaves wouldn’t have had as far to flee (Tennessee is closer than Kentucky), nor would the North have been legally obligated to return them to the South.
· Even allowing for some skirmishes, slavery would’ve ended with 500,000 fewer deaths, and with less rancor between the races; there would’ve been no KKK.

Students are taught to disapprove of the betrayal and slaughter of the Indians, but not to reflect on the fact that these were carried out by the same Republican stalwarts who destroyed the South: Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, Custer et al.

Exporting Republican Imperialism

After destroying states’ rights and breaking numerous treaties with the Indians, Republicans sought to expand their empire. McKinley and Hearst maneuvered the country into war with Spain, thereby acquiring Guam and the Philippines. The expansion of America’s reach into the South Pacific set the stage for our future war against Japan, as well as the debacles in Korea and Vietnam.

The Spanish-American War also propelled Theodore Roosevelt to national prominence, and ultimately the presidency.

TR was a genuine war monger. No hypocrite –he eagerly risked his life at San Juan Hill, then as a middle-aged ex-president wanted to take a regiment to France during the Great War. Woodrow Wilson wouldn’t allow it.

He was the first progressive – a statist and an imperialist. He advanced Lincoln’s contempt for states’ rights into a disregard for the sovereignty of other nations.

Prohibition (of Secession) Ends

TR and his friends wanted to build a canal in Colombia, but the recalcitrant Colombians wouldn’t come to terms…

…Whereupon Teddy reversed Abe Lincoln, and decreed that secession was acceptable – for the Colombian province of Panama. The American fleet was positioned off Colombia’s coast to provide moral support for the secessionists, and the new nation of Panama subsequently proved amenable to making a deal for a canal.

The Republican Party has never been about limited government (individual Republicans excepted, e.g. Calvin Coolidge) or fealty to the Constitution, unlike the Democratic Party, which was an opposition party until Woodrow Wilson – who took imperialism to new levels, jailed political opponents, and set the stage for the Democrats to equal the Republicans as usurpers of power under FDR.

Republicans and the Legacy of Hamilton

Republicans are the historical heirs apparent of the Federalists, the party of Alexander Hamilton (who, despite having lost a son in a duel, agreed to duel Aaron Burr), who advocated primacy of the central government, and hated Jefferson, who believed in states’ rights. Federalists opposed the Bill of Rights – these first ten amendments to the Constitution were agreed to only when it became clear ratification would fail otherwise.

The Federalists disbanded after they made themselves odious with the Sedition Act. Patriots were not pleased about citizens being arrested for disagreeing with the government.

They were replaced by the Whigs, the party of Henry Clay and of Abe Lincoln, before he became a Republican.

Two Parties: Zero Opposition to Expanding State Power

After Wilson and FDR established the Democrats as both the Welfare State and Warfare State party, Republicans marketed themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility, free enterprise, and national security - aided by the Democrats’ association with the likes of Alger Hiss, and the consternation felt in some quarters by the bigger, more intrusive government left in place by the New Deal.

In reality, government has continued to grow under both parties. The tenth amendment remains a nullity.

Government grew under Reagan. There were mitigating factors. Tip O’Neill’s Congress never submitted a balanced budget, and the military had been dismantled under Carter (under whom families of some enlisted men were getting food stamps). Still, some libertarians and conservatives (e.g. The Heritage Foundation) were unhappy that Reagan didn’t try line item veto - knowing it would be challenged in court - and let the Democrats bear the entire stigma for out of control spending.

Reagan gave us George H. W. Bush, who gave us more government, and the first Gulf War, which logically led to the current Iraq malaise.

After Clinton, George W. Bush, allegedly a “conservative,” ended his tenure with a $trillion plus bailout of failing banks, adding to the Republican legacy of disdain for the Constitution and affinity for deficits, and making way for a socialist disciple of Saul Alinsky to spearhead an unprecedented assault against the remaining restraints on government power.

The Democrats are the historical home of progressive Stalinists, and have done nothing to extract the country from its worldwide military obligations. They have been just as devoted to lining the pockets of special interests as Republicans, and have opposed corporate welfare in word, but not in deed.

Nevertheless, it was the Republican Party that originally nullified the Constitution, promoted empire building, and displaced our democratic republic with a democracy – undermining the rule of law, and making our country vulnerable to mob tyranny after the tradition of the French Revolution.

Reasonable liberals - an oxymoron?

2009-09-10T14:08:00.000-07:00

Politically conservative person seeks discussion forum to occasionally engage in discussions with liberals, progressives, and others on the political left without first being subjected to neo-Stalinist diversionary tactics.

A word of explanation - by neo-Stalinist diversionary tactics, I refer to the common practice of accusing every opponent of Obama's policies of being a racist, a disciple of Fox News, or a Limbaugh sycophant. Also, it gets tiresome, when asserting that Obama is a socialist, of being told that "socialist" is code for the N word. I have a dictionary, and I use it. The two terms are not synonymous.

It's not that my sensitive ego can't withstand a barrage of agitprop masquerading as discourse. It's a matter of logistics. I have limited time - not enough to waste defending against baseless charges from ideologically rigid people with no tolerance of other views. A member of my family is a communist - I'll contact her if I need a condescending and contemptuous response to my ideas.

Anyone aware of an internet forum that fits the bill, I'd greatly appreciate a heads up.

John Calvin and the perils of Theocracy

2009-09-07T13:02:00.000-07:00

John Calvin turned 500 years old this year.

As a Pentecostal, I obtained special access to heaven to attend a gala birthday bash in his honor.

Organizer Martin Bucer wanted to surprise John at home, but the guest list was too large for John’s 10,000 square foot mansion to accommodate. Instead, Michael Servetus invited John over to his place (15,000 square feet) - ostensibly for a barbeque – a ruse that worked beautifully. A great time was had by all, and John acknowledged the irony of being invited to a “barbeque” at Michael’s house, even while raising a toast to his good friend.

Upon returning to Earth, I pondered Calvin’s impact in the world.

My first thought was the horrendous burning of Servetus.

This brilliant but stubborn man, having escaped from Catholics (who would have executed him), ventured into Geneva - a thriving theocracy whose leading citizen - Calvin - had warned him not to come, on pain of death.

True to his word, Calvin (who had been annoyed by several unsolicited letters from Servetus) was the leading witness for the prosecution, and Servetus was burnt as a heretic.

This appalling episode is merely the most famous of several in which Christians were executed by other Christians in the name of orthodoxy.

Church history is replete with examples of the perils of a theocracy. Both Catholics and Protestants used state power to tyrannize dissenters and non-conformists.

Servetus's crime was dissent from the doctrine of the Trinity. This gives me extra pause, since I am also non-Trinitarian.

The outrage against Servetus notwithstanding, John Calvin is largely responsible for the separation of civil government from church government in our country. Separation of church and state wasn’t conceived by Progressives concerned about government enforced social mores, but by Calvinists (who had been on the receving end of more persecution than they had doled out) desiring to protect the Church from a meddling state.

Christians in colonial America wanted no part of a theocracy dominated by any religious sect, or a theocracy where the state is god.

Accordingly, it was through the efforts of anti-Federalists – mostly Calvinist in their theology - that the Bill of Rights was included in our Constitution.

The god of statism is currently the greatest threat to our liberty. Progressive socialism advances with slogans fitting a religious revival: "change you can believe in."

"Yes we [i.e. government] can."

Progressives (the old, but new, trendy label preferred by militant collectivists) spread fear of a fundamentalist takeover of the government even as said government ensures the transfer of all the nation's wealth to itself through debt monetization.

Similarly, the Progressives of the 1930's used Nazism and Fascism as bugaboos, while their idol, Stalin, secretly worked with Hitler to plunge the world into unprecedented chaos.

To be sure, religious tyrants have oppressed far too many humans throughout history.

But unrestrained states, of the kind that Obama and his progressive cohorts seek, have murdered or enslaved hundreds of millions - in the last century alone.

We are in peril of becoming serfs in a theocracy where there is one god, the State, whose prophet is Obama.

Progressive democracy is tyranny

2009-09-02T13:43:00.000-07:00

World War II began seventy years ago yesterday, with the invasion of Poland by the Wehrmacht. Two weeks later the Red Army entered Poland from the east, per a secret protocol between Hitler and Stalin.

World War II was Socialism's gift to the world. History's two most prominent socialists exemplified what bipartisanship can accomplish.

The War is thought of as a struggle between freedom and tyranny. Actually, the Nationalist Socialists and the Internationalist Socialists put aside their differences to ensure hegemony of some form of Progressive Socialism in eastern Europe.

Hitler deserves all the contempt history has heaped on him, but Stalin hasn't received his due as Der Fuehrer's equal in terms of suffering imposed upon humanity. This is partly due to the large number of Stalin apologists among western intellecual elitists in the 1930's and 1940's - such as New York Times reporter Walter Duranty and The Nation magazine.

Communists and Nazis obfuscated the issue of statism vs. liberty by plunging the world into a bloodbath where the heresies were provincialism and racism on one side, and atheism and imperialism on the other.

Provincialism and Racism lost - two happy outcomes of the War.

Unfortunately, Imperialism and Atheism were victorious, and perhaps 100 million people were subsequently murdered by imperialistic, atheistic states.

Fascism survived the war, too, because it can adapt itself to internationalist and progressive causes such as global warming and massive printing of fiat money.

"Progressive" is the preferred term for modern fascism, because government schools still teach that "fascism" is evil.

Students are conditioned to think only within dichotomous paradigms: Democrat vs. Republican; Conservative vs. Liberal; Left vs. Right. Therefore the average citizen doesn't contemplate whether the government ought to continue to expand (on constitutional grounds), whether proffered solutions may be worse than the problems they purport to solve, or the future effect when $trillions in new debt is monetized.

Rather, students are taught that we are a democracy, in which the salient issues are: 1.) which party governs the ever expanding state, and 2.) which party's ethics (such as they are) are superior.

Government schools don't facilitate thought as to whether the state should continue to expand.

They are, after all, GOVERNMENT schools.

Hence, with a populace ignorant of American history, and of the Constitution, government growth continues under the guise of "democracy."

Politicians of every stripe - liberal, conservative, Democrat, Republican - tout the virtues of "Democracy."

"Democracy:" the talking point that is seldom derided as a "talking point."

Democracy: "Two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner." An apt description (yes, I'm aware of the petty scuffle over the quote's origin).

Democracy: What the French Revolution was all about. An obtuse king was overthrown by the people.

"The people" - euphemism for "a mob."

Pathetic as Louis XVI was, he was a pillar of virtue next to Robespierre.

In eighteenth century France, Democracy led to the guillotine, regicide, and finally....Napolean.

Obamacare vs. the Constitution in the Show-me state

2009-09-01T14:06:00.000-07:00

All Federal employees take an oath to defend the Constitution, though most of them haven't ever read it.

A case in point: Federal employee Claire McCaskill, a United States senator from Missouri.

Senator McCaskill was recently challenged about the constitutionality of government involvement in health care. In her response she opined "...I will not support a government takeover of the healthcare system. But that doesn't mean that there's anything in the Constitution that prohibits it..."

Comrade McCaskill is either ignorant or dishonest in her assertion, because the Constitution certainly DOES prohibit government takeover of the health care system.

"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."

That's the tenth amendment, which proscribes most of what the Federal government does these days.

The United States is not delegated any power to govern health care by our Constitution. Collectivists like Senator McCaskill will cite the "general welfare" clause, which is a statement of purpose, not an enumerated power - notice the term "general." The tenth amendment clarifies the "general welfare" clause, not vice-versa - otherwise the amendment is rendered void of meaning.

Working folks don't have time to read 1000 page bills being rammed through Congress (the politicians don't even read them). But any literate person can take a few minutes to read the Constitution, which if adhered to, would put a halt to this tsunami of progressive tyranny we are observing.

Democrats, Republicans, and Fascists

2009-08-21T13:28:00.000-07:00

What is a Fascist?

Judging by modern usage, the term is an all-purpose epithet to be hurled when one is displeased with the views of another, but is not inclined to offer specific arguments of said views. Indeed, the term has been rendered nearly meaningless by it's indiscriminate overuse.

This is unfortunate, because Fascism is a fairly recent phenomenon in history - one with such tragic effects that we would do well to watch for it's reappearance, rather than using the term as a vague and adolescent polemic to demonize political opponents.

Near the end of WW II, George Orwell lamented:"...the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else... almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’."

So what is a Fascist, really?

From Wikipedia (as also the above quote): "The term fascismo was coined by the Italian Fascist dictator Benito Mussolini and the Neo-Hegelian philosopher Giovanni Gentile. It is derived from the Italian word fascio, which means 'bundle' or 'union', and from the Latin word 'fasces'.... Mussolini defined fascism as being a collectivistic ideology in opposition to socialism, classical liberalism, democracy and individualism. He wrote in The Doctrine of Fascism: 'Anti-individualistic, the fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only insofar as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal will of man as a historic entity.... The fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value.... Fascism is therefore opposed to that form of democracy which equates a nation to the majority, lowering it to the level of the largest number.... We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century. If the nineteenth century was the century of the individual we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State.' "

Mussolini's definition carries some weight, since he coined the term, and ruled the first modern fascist state. Of course, like all tyrants, Mussolini's primary objective was to obtain and keep power. To this end, he eventually subordinated his fascist ideals to the nationalist socialism of Hitler.

Likewise, the early hero of the Progressives, Joe Stalin, found it in his heart to align himself with Hitler in 1939 (the secret police of the two tyrants had collaborated surreptitiously for years).

Progressives - who love to accuse their opponents of being FASCISTS! - ignore the fact that their ideological forebears idolized the man who allied himself with Der Fuehrer, which event precipitated World War II.

After Mussolini's fascist ideals became more or less identified with Nationalist Socialism, the de facto definition of 'fascism' might well be stated thusly: "socialism with a capitalist veneer" - as in fact someone has done. In practice what this means is that the Fascist State becomes the sole arbiter of whether particular corporations succeed or fail.

In a Fascist State, those who please the State may do business, those who displease the State go under.

The identities of companies which please a Fascist State become known during times of economic upheaval.

I.G. Farben found favor with Hitler; General Electric, Warren Buffet, and George Soros have special places in Barack Obama's heart.

How ironic that George Bush, after being recklessly called a 'fascist' for years, was not so called when he and Treasury Secretary Paulsen pushed throught the first of the $Trillion plus Federal bailouts, which were forced even upon banks who didn't want the money.

This blatantly FASCIST action was voted for by John McCain.

Odd that the Democrats didn't hurl the 'f' word against the Republican nominee, given their persistent and mindless use of it against opponents of abortion, advocates of welfare reform, and supporters of wars with which they disagree.

But a blatant FASCIST takeover of a huge section of the private sector produces no such polemics.

Why not?

Perhaps because Senator Barack Obama voted for the bailouts, too.

History repeats itself - seventy years ago this month, the idol of the Left signed a pact with the bugaboo of the Left. The Monsters put aside their petty ideological differences to serve the greater bad.

George Tiller, R.I.P. ?

2009-06-14T13:35:00.000-07:00

Abortionist George Tiller was murdered at his "church" recently. The Church doesn't need more reproach brought upon herself, so I hope Tiller’s slayer turns out to be a member of Fred Phelps's "church" or some other disreputable group. Deception takes many forms, including the kind that leads people to erroneously believe that they have received the mantle of Phinehas (Numbers 25:6ff).

Pro-life groups from Right to Life to the more activist Operation Rescue have always been unequivocally opposed to violence. Rogues such as Paul Hill, who murdered an abortionist several years ago, are used as stereotypes by pro-abortionists, but the facts don't support the insinuations.Paul Hill was rightfully executed, and if Scott Roeder is guilty of the premeditated murder of Tiller, capital punishment would also be appropriate, absent mitigating circumstances, such as if Tiller mutilated a loved one of Roeder's.

It should be mentioned that in 1991 I participated in Operation Rescue's "Summer of Mercy" -- a long term, peaceful protest conducted at Tiller's clinic in Wichita. I enjoyed a day of fellowship with 50 other Christians in the custody of the Wichita police. I don't foresee being involved in such activity again, but it was a positive experience. It was also a personal catharsis after having imbibed a toxic, pro-choice doctrine on abortion promulgated by a perverse "pastor" in a church to which I once belonged.

I hope George Tiller came to Christ before expiring.