AOL on Lincoln and Paul

Not that this is scientific at all but the results of this "poll" have been interesting to watch. Nationally, 57% disagree with the following "Ron Paul says Lincoln was wrong to fight the Civil War."

What is encouraging is that in the South (ten states), Vermont, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho and Alaska the numbers run in the majority in agreement with Dr. Paul. These are the states where the League of The South, the Second Vermont Republic, the Alaska Independence Party, and the Lakota Nation live and operate.

Perhaps, despite an egregious education system that does not teach the truth there is indeed hope for devolution and independence. If one can see how wrong that Lincoln was then it is not a great step forward toward seeing what is wrong with all that resulted from his actions.

My question - what is wrong with Texas, Missouri and Hawaii? (Places where people ought to vote differently) Do y'all like living under the yoke of an illegitimate empire?

Half-Naked Vixens

Robin Garrison, an off-duty 42-year-old firefighter, was walking in Berliner Park in Columbus, Ohio, in May when he saw a woman sunbathing topless under a tree.

He approached her and they started talking and getting comfortable, the woman smiling and resting her foot on his shoulder at one point. Eventually, she asked to see Garrison's penis; he unzipped his pants and complied. Seconds later,undercover police officers pulled up in a van and arrested Garrison; he was later charged with public indecency, a misdemeanor....[Read More]

Wow, I am not advocating that people ought to get naked in public parks (unless of course the community thinks that is an ok thing to do). I do not at all believe that the scenario above is "good" police work. A half-naked woman, touching and flirting with a guy is a powerful incentive - many a man has fallen for such a thing. This is clearly entrapment. Bad cops! Bad cops!

That Lincoln Fellow

Anthony Gregory has penned a fabulous piece on the backlash from Russert's attempt to trip Ron Paul up with a question about Lincoln's War.

George W. Bush and the Republican establishment are, if nothing else, Lincolnian,
regardless of what anyone might say. The party of corporatism, imperialism,
centralism, economic fascism, dictatorship, aggressive war, militaristic duplicity, conscription, direct taxation, cronyism and police statism has never strayed much from its 1860s roots. And it has always advanced despotism in the name of liberty and national honor, from Lincoln to Teddy, from Nixon to Reagan, from the Bushes to Benito.

The fact that "conservatives" have flocked to and supported the GOP over the last half century is really more a result of the Democrat parties abandonment of its roots than any real redeeming conservative principles in the GOP itself. I have voted Republican in with the only excpetions a couple of votes for Libertarian and Constitution Party candidates when I had an option. The legacy of Lincoln is written all over the GOP and if it does not shake that legacy, renouncing it outright it deserves to fall and crumble.

But Ron Paul has done something that no presidential candidate of any prominence has done in many, many years — he has challenged the cult of Lincoln, the ideological godhead of the modern American regime. The Federal Reserve, the Income Tax, the Wilsonian empire and now the Lincolnian central state have all
become national issues of discourse again. Thanks, Ron Paul. Once again, you
have told the American people what they need to hear. If we want America to become a free country, we must go further than overturning the legacy of George
W. Bush. We must overturn much more, and replace it with liberty itself. We are
closer to that goal than ever, as the ideological basis for the modern American
system is crumbling at every moment of exposure to Dr. Paul's truth serum.

Indeed he has, but who really wants to listen? To listen to such truth requires a fundemental change in the way one sees the world. It is too comfortable to accept the status quo, not to ask the hard questions and not to hear real truth. No real conservative, no real lover of liberty could look at Lincoln as anything more than a murderous tyrant - a man that simply ignored the law off the land to force his idea of a perfect union upon the people via force.

Paul on Lincoln's War

Tim Russert asked Ron Paul last Sunday on Meet the Press about Mr. Lincoln's War to which Paul said: "No, [Lincoln] shouldn't have gone, gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic."

Anyone that is honest in their study of history knows that Lincoln did not declare war on the Confederate States to end slavery and that he himself never freed a single slave while president. These are facts. What he did do is redefine (by force) the original republic and to do so inaugurated slavery of another sort (the draft). He started the war and invaded the South for the same reasons nations have always invaded other nations - power, control and economics.

What an asinine thing of Russert to attempt, what a brave and noble answer from Paul.

AOL wants you to speak on the issue, go here to express your opinion (vote) on the issue. They ask a simple question "Ron Paul says Lincoln was wrong to fight the Civil War. Do you agree?"

I am amazed at the results - the failure of our civics education is obvious. I am more disturbed at the numbers coming in from the South. Obviously a lot of morons have voted in this poll thus far.

Pillars of Conservative Thought

by Barry Lee Clark

It seems increasingly obvious that the very definition of what constitutes "conservative" is is doubt. That is at least the case with many that claim to be conservatives yet hold values and ideas that are progressive and even liberal or radical. Some claim, erroneously, that there is no true conservative tradition in America - that the United States was born amidst the liberal ideology of the enlightenment and that all we are is a derivative of liberalism. Liberal historians have painted this picture and we conservatives have been all too willing to accept it - we have accepted in large part that liberals have in their lineage men such as Jefferson. We (by that I mean confused conservatives) are left to accept that Adams, Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt must be part of our lineage. This is, of course, false - the last three of those men do not belong in the paragon of conservative heroes (more on that is some later post). Adams perhaps, as a political philosopher for sure as a politician perhaps not.

When we abandon Jefferson as one of the key figures in the development of a uniquely American version of conservative political philosophy we abandon conservative philosophy in its historical context on this continent altogether. We are then left with but the scrapings of conservative thought without the underpinnings - we are let with the makings of an ideology. That is in essence what conservative thought has become, yet another -ism.

What is true conservative thought in terms of the uniquely American style and form? Is there such a creature as a true American conservative?

Clyde Wilson in a 1969 essay entitled The Jefferson Conservative Tradition theorizes that the essential elements of American conservative polity are Republican, Constitutionalist and Federalist in nature. ¹

Republican describes the idea that sovereignty rests in the people but is expressed in the rule of a qualified majority within the bounds of law. The constitutionalist element deals with the notion of the law protecting the people from the government and the individual from the people. This idea is further expressed in the notion that government exists only via delegated powers. The federalist aspect of American conservative thought deals with the decentralized nature of our government, and the indestructibility of the component states.

Within these three pillars, all the entire universe of conservative thought may comfortably thrive. If one removes one pillar from the structure the philosophy falls into the trash heap of mere ideology.

Consider that to be a true republican (small "r") one must inherently view the community as supreme to the state, In a republic citizens of the republic must first be capable of self-governance before they can take an active role in governing others. This means they must become responsible members of the community, contributing in their own way to the common good. A republican sees the true nature of government to serve the community. Individual rights are guaranteed by membership within the community. To a republican sovereignty rests with the people and is exercised by a qualified majority through the states primarily and secondarily through the central government and the limited powers delegated thereto. A republican is a conservator that is in constant battle between the forces of aristocracy and democracy - preserving a fine balance between the two.

Community is the basis of all that is worthy of conserving and a true conservative realizes that a republican government is the best qualified of all forms to preserve community within American culture. It is thus that at various points in our past we accepted religious tests before allowing someone to hold an office of public trust. We did this not because ours was a government formed on religious principles but precisely because it was created to serve a religious community. That community was formed on religious principles and those that wished to be active members of the community accepted as much even if they did not personally adhere to all of the beliefs of the community at large.

Within the concept of community personal responsibility, a key element that must be present in a people that wish to be free was always expressed profoundly. Moral, financial, familial, business and ethical responsibility were traditionally the hallmarks of those that wished to achieve and maintain community membership. These are the traits that a person must demonstrate to be truly self-governing, without such responsibility a person is unfit to govern others (i.e. participate in the political process).

Property qualifications come to mind as a historical benchmark for full investment in the community. Certainly, this was one sure method of ensuring that those that voted had ownership of the solutions they supported. Perhaps this notion has no place in our current system (then again it sounds pretty good to me) but certainly the idea that those on the receiving end of government programs and hand-outs are not "fully qualified" members of the community holds true in my conservative mind. This is exactly the sort of shift in thinking that is required if we are to truly regain the fruits of conservative philosophy. Instead of talking about the benefits of some new program or modifying existing programs the true conservative would ask "who is participating in the conversation and why". Perhaps the answer to many of our woes might best be found in simply asking different questions and attacking different problems altogether. So long as we participate in debates that have as their origin liberal ideology we can and will never be true conservators of our republic.

On the subject of responsibility, we must also address the issue of rights. Conservatives view individual liberty as existing in an ordered society. This again requires diligence and a constant balancing act - as conservators this is the role of true conservatives. It is libertine and dangerous to presume that man has natural rights outside of the community. We were not created (nor did we evolve) as solitary creatures. There is a natural order to the universe, there exists natural law and under that law man lives and has always lived as a social animal/creature/being. Our freedom and liberty springs from the culture and community that we belong to. God gave us certain rights to be utilized responsibly within our communities, our communities give sanction to governments to protect those rights. There is no other way to view rights/responsibilities and remain within the conservative paradigm.

We have failed as conservatives primarily because we have failed to act as the conservators of our community. By this I am speaking of culture, heritage, values, traditions and families. The issue of immigration is a simple on to a conservative. We welcome those that wish to join our community - meaning follow our laws, learn our language, respect our customs and traditions and contribute to society. Anyone that proposes anything other than deportation for that that have not attempted to meet these criteria is not a conservative.


To be a true American conservative one must be a federalist. We may depart from those that termed themselves Federalist during the 1790's and early 1800's and we may agree more with the Antifederalist but in principle, we agree that a system of government that results in a decentralized government with certain specific delegated powers is best. Conservatives view the federal union as a compact between indestructible states. True conservative thought in America has always held that states retained certain powers unto themselves at the formation of the United States - the term states' rights is possibly a misnomer in this regard because these are not rights at all but inalienable powers never given to the Federal government at all, therefore the states do not need a right to exercise such powers as such a right is inherent in the sovereignty of the states. For clarity, the term states' rights suffice, however. A conservative knows instinctively that the federal government has no authority whatsoever dealing in issues such as education, healthcare, retirement programs, directly taxing citizens, speed limits, seat belt usage and a plethora of other initiatives.

Why then do so-called conservatives speak to these issues in terms of modifying existing programs? Why not simply read the Constitution and state unequivocally that any program that the Federal government is involved in that encroaches upon areas reserved to the states should not be modified but eliminated? Beware of anyone proclaiming the mantle of conservative that cannot fathom this point.


Which of course brings us to the constitutionalist pillar of American conservative thought. Despite that fact, the 18th century Federalist violated their charter to simply modify the Articles of Confederation they sold us a document that is the law of the land. As such a conservative realizes that this document is not a means to an end but rather a necessary result of building government - which of course is a necessary evil but a requirement of an ordered society. The Constitution is intended to protect the people from the rulers and the individual from the people. It is also a compact, a contract between the states and the central government that the states gave birth to. A true conservative views the Constitution in the sense that it was written and reads it plainly and literally. A conservative will not stand for altering interpretations of the document depending upon the mood of the polity - there are mechanisms established to alter the wording of the document without subjecting it to various interpretations.


What does all of this say for the current state of conservative thought in our present political arena? It says that there are not many conservatives among us and very few running for political office.

Another Strike at Freedom

The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act (HR 1955) passed through Congress in October without any MSM attention and very little real discussion on the blogshphere. However, this is yet another significant piece of legislation in terms of strengthening the government and stripping the freedom of the people.

Positive Universe summed up the danger within the text of this bill:

...it is important to read the actual bill because it is proposing to study thought not implement actions against persons, yet. The controversial aspects are 1) whether the government should study its citizens thoughts and beliefs as potential threats against itself; 2) the public and even the legislators themselves are not yet engaged in that debate; 3) a lack of clarity as to who wrote and wants the bill; and 4) what sets of actions might subsequently be implemented by such a study. The bill does use provocative terms, and it does make some dangerous assumptions, such as the finding that American citizens are susceptible and gullible to internet-based, terrorist propaganda.

The FBI has historically defined domestic terrorist by their criminal acts. Consider the circumstances surrounding the Aryan Republican Army. Sure these people had what could rightly be termed a radical ideology and they acted to in criminal ways to further that ideology. They key is they became criminals (bank robbers). They were thwarted based upon their criminal behavior - none of their efforts truly furthered their cause. The FBI's stance has been to treat such groups as criminals (when they break the law). They have never attacked the thought process of these groups, instead focusing on the criminal behavior itself.

As far as approach has gone it has worked. There have been no examples of domestic terrorist successfully acting out without a connection to criminal activity. Oh, but you say what about the Oklahoma City bombing. Well perhaps that was an anomaly of one or two ideologues. Then again there is strong evidence that can trace McVeigh to Elohim City.

In any event, just like almost every piece of legislation passed by our Federal masters, the cure is worse than the disease. Let us assume that the cost of true freedom is an occasional wacko in our midst, would we prefer to sacrifice that freedom for the hope of security? Surely we would gain neither in such a case. This bill is nothing more than an additional sacrifice of freedom at the alter of faith in the government - statism no less.

Consider the wording of the bill, read it. They intend to look at thought prior to action as a tool to stop the domestic terrorism that has yet to really materialize. That is enough, in and of itself, to make any freedom loving patriot cringe.

Here is another snippet of interest to anyone interested in States' Rights and the notion that our states can in fact at some point stand up to the Federal Government they created if that government goes too far in violating the compact and usurping too much power unto itself.:

The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

Here we have it, an anti-secession bill in point of fact. The wording may be deceptive at first glance but consider the implications. This gives specific protection to the Federal government from any that would oppose it - that would include the duly elected members of a state government if there were ever to be a real disagreement over the precise meaning of the meaning of delegated and reserved powers.

If for instance Vermont of Hawaii were to actually secede (in Hawaii's case merely reestablish independence) and subsequently restrict the action of Federal agents within their borders the elected officials of the state and the agents of that state could be deemed terrorist.

Perhaps you say a nation should have the right to protect its own existence - but from its own people or from the states that gave it birth? We could look at the example of the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the peril they faced for that act. That is a pretty sad example for the Federal Government to follow - Britain was an Empire jealously clinging to power despite the wishes of the people. Is that what our Republic has become - an empire fearful of the thoughts of its own people? Apparently so.

This bill is less interesting because of the freedoms it threatens (we have plenty of those to rail against). No this is significant because it truly represents an act of an empire in self-protection mode. This is what we have become, this is what drunken hubris has wrought.

Here is what some others have said of this bill (via Positive Universe)

OpEdNews, PA: Telling the Truth Is About To Be Criminalized 2007-12-01 If you are trying to change this messed-up world with your radical educational actions (even if they are pacifist in nature) you will be guilty of facilitating ideologically-based violence, for which you can be prosecuted. If you share your unapproved thoughts with other people and make them think like you do, then all of you are liable to be hauled-off for thought-crimes. Passage of this legislation to control the thoughts and communications of dissident Americans makes clear why our government needed to build all those FEMA camps.

GovExec.com, DC: Rights advocates target domestic terrorism bill in Senate Nov 29, 2007 The National Lawyers Guild and the Society of American Law Teachers also issued a joint statement Tuesday, saying they strongly oppose this legislation because it will likely lead to the criminalization of beliefs, dissent and protest, and invite more draconian surveillance of Internet communications.

Columbus Free Press, OH: S 1959 Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007? must be stopped 2007-12-01 If this bill is passed, and becomes law, your words and actions could be considered terrorism. Bill S 1959 EVISCERATES FREE SPEECH, and empowers the govt. to declare ANYTHING they deem an extremist belief system, instantly makes you a terrorist, resulting in stripping of US citizenship, torture, and/or execution, with no habeas corpus rights, no ability to challenge, even in the US Supreme Court.

Northwest Progressive Institute Official Blog, WA: McCarthy would have loved SB 1959 2007-12-01 The bill would establish a commission similar to Joseph McCarthys House Un-American Activities Committee and could potentially make any sort of political dissent or controversial religious display illegal. Even thinking about such things could get you in trouble.

Tyranny via Paranoia

I do not read the Huffington Post but I ran across a well written piece on the The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act
. He nails all of the key points.

Harman's bill contends that the United States will soon have to deal with home grown terrorists and that something must be done to anticipate and neutralize the problem. The act deals with the issue through the creation of a congressional commission that will be empowered to hold hearings, conduct investigations, and designate various groups as "homegrown terrorists." The commission will be tasked to propose new legislation that will enable the government to take punitive action against both the groups and the individuals who are affiliated with them. Like Joe McCarthy and HUAC in the past, the commission will travel around the United States and hold hearings to find the terrorists and root them out. Unlike inquiries in the past where the activity was carried out collectively, the act establishing the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Commission will empower all the members on the commission to arrange hearings, obtain testimony, and even to administer oaths to witnesses, meaning that multiple hearings could be running simultaneously in various parts of the country. The ten commission members will be selected for their "expertise," though most will be appointed by Congress itself and will reflect the usual political interests. They will be paid for their duties at the senior executive pay scale level and will have staffs and consultants to assist them. Harman's bill does not spell out terrorist behavior and leaves it up to the Commission itself to identify what is terrorism and what isn't. Language inserted in the act does partially define "homegrown terrorism" as "planning" or "threatening" to use force to promote a political objective, meaning that just thinking about doing something could be enough to merit the terrorist label. The act also describes "violent radicalization" as the promotion of an "extremist belief system" without attempting to define "extremist."

That nails it, a commission (remember Joe McCarthy?) to anticipate and root out bad thoughts among the American populace. I still have to ask - where and who is the threat that we are rooting out? When and where has this threat reared its ugly head?

It has not, else all of us regular and mundane citizens would know about it. After all it is impossible to live in a country rife with real sedition, rebellion and terrorism and not actually know about it. Perhaps folks that question the validity of conducting preemptive war (contrary to proper Constitutional controls) are the ones the supporters of this bill are afraid of. Perhaps it is those that actually believe that the Constitution means what it says. It could be anyone that seriously disagrees with the "truths" our masters feed us.

Giraldi continues...

As should be clear from the vagueness of the definitions, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act could easily be abused to define any group that is pressuring the political system as "terrorist," ranging from polygamists, to second amendment rights supporters, anti-abortion protesters, anti-tax agitators, immigration activists, and peace demonstrators. In reality, of course, it will be primarily directed against Muslims and Muslim organizations. Given that, there is the question of who will select which groups will be investigated by the roving commissions. There is no evidence to suggest that there will be any transparent or objective screening process. Through their proven access both to the media and to Congress, the agenda will undoubtedly be shaped by the usual players including David Horowitz, Daniel Pipes, Steve Emerson, and Frank Gaffney who see a terrorist hiding under every rock, particularly if the rock is concealing a Muslim. They and their associates will undoubtedly find plenty of terrorists and radical groups to investigate. Many of the suspects will inevitably be "anti-American" professors at various universities and also groups of Palestinians organized against the Israeli occupation, but it will be easily to use the commission formula to sweep them all in for examination.

Of course the focus will initially focus on the "usual suspects" but if you read the bill closely you see that the paychecks of the commission are tied directly to their findings. The longer they find bogey men to investigate the longer the commission exists and the longer the paychecks keep rolling in. It is thus with much that the government does - "results oriented" longevity is the thing that has kept many useless programs alive in our system. You can bet you bottom dollar that the targets of this commission's investigations will indeed turn toward many non-terrorist but righteously indignant groups.

The view that 9/11 has "changed everything" is unfortunately all too true. It has unleashed American paranoia, institutionalized mistrust of foreigners, and created a fantasy universe in which a US beset by enemies must do anything and everything to counter the alien threat. If it were a sane world, it would be difficult to imagine why anyone would believe that a Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act is even necessary. The United States has spent hundreds of billions of dollars in strengthening law enforcement and intelligence capabilities against terrorists and has every tool imaginable to investigate and make arrests. It has created a whole new bloated and dysfunctional branch of government in the Department of Homeland Security. What is not needed is groups of congressionally empowered vigilantes roaming the country at will looking for "homegrown terrorism."

The only thing that 9/11 really changed was the pace of evolution from Republic to Empire started by Adams, Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson etc. Bush is merely an heir to this bad ideology. Paranoia, blind faith in a defunct system, and general ignorance of basic civic responsibility and history among the population are the factors that have combined to make this all possible at this point in time. There is no reason for bills like this unless those in power actually realize that something is terribly wrong with the system and they truly fear that one day the mass of zombies occupying the land might just wake up and want to change things (with our without the consent of the rulers).

WSJ "not" on Ron Paul

In case you missed it, Friday’s Wall Street Journal ran an article on "Dr. No’ on it’s front page. No, it was not about Ron Paul. The article was written by Sarah Lueck.

It was about Senator Tom Coburn, from Oklahoma, and how he has caused gridlock in the Senate this year. I expected at the very least a mention of Ron Paul the Presidential candidate who is better known as "Dr No" from the House of Representatives. No mention at all.

If you Google "Ron Paul" and "Dr. No", there are over 23,000 pages found. Google "Tom Coburn" and "Dr. No", and you will find 620 pages.

[...]

In the middle of a primary season, the WSJ runs an article on a politician who is not running for reelection, who upon a casual glance, appears like another candidate who is running for president? Is this a coincidence? No. No to the highest degree. It's difficult to comprehend how the editorial board of the WSJ justified front page space for a politician not even seeking the attention, while the most important race in our nation starts January 3, 2008. (from Speak Up Now)

This is really not a surprise but all the same it is disappointing. A significant portion of the American polity has already spoken with their money, time and dedication in regard to Dr. Ron Paul. How can the MSM still ignore him, or in this case make an obvious case to do him a disservice? Perhaps there is not organized conspiracy to corrupt our political system but there certainly is a lot of collusion.

It becomes more apparent all the time that the only solution to repairing our system and restoring the republic is something beyond an election.

Merry Christmas

I sincerely hope that everyone has a very Merry Christmas. As difficult as it may be to do so, I hope that we are all able to look past the shallow Yankee materialism that is ever present and focus on more important things like God and family. One way in which we can culturally secede is to stop participating in this phoney, commercialized version of Christmas. Giving gifts is not necessarily a bad thing but I would rather recieve a gift because the giver thought of me rather than feeling obligated to purchase something in the name of holiday cheer.

While we do not know precisely when Christ was born, His birth has traditionally been celebrated on the 25th of December: may we live every day of next year with the true spirit of Christmas alive within us!

I will probably take a hiatus from blogging for a few weeks. However, I did have a hissy fit over the hubub concentrated about Huckabee's recent political ad. Here are some personal thoughts of mine concerning Huckabee's recent Christmas ad.

Merry Christmas!

Just a Slight Rumble

Perhaps you read my post on the Lakota Freedom Delegation's declaration that treaties between the US and the Lakota Nation are null and void and were essentially non=plussed. That is understandable, we have seen events in the not so distant past that could be compared to this event. We know about the Freemen, we know about the Republic of Texas and what became of their attempts to establish sovereignty and independence. You might say, "what is the difference"?

After all we have what appears to be a group of people that do not hold formally elected positions (within the de facto government of the Lakota Nation) declaring independence and threatening to set up a shadow government, issue liens on land and abjuring the Federal realm. What is the difference you say? This will all just fade away and possibly end up with a few folks arrested.

Perhaps so, then again maybe not.

The fact that Russell Means in not the current president of his tribe it can be argued that the tribal leadership of the Sioux is held illegitimately - you can read about the the history of tribal governments in general and the Sioux and Lakota in particular. I come down on the side of accepting the current governments as de facto indeed but perhaps not de jure and certainly not legitimate in terms of doing what governments are supposed to do - that is serve the best interests of the people it represents.

Tribal governments have done a fabulous job of keeping Indians on the reservation; drunk, unemployed and sick with diseases that the most of rest of the world has long since eradicated. It seems that if their governments are legitimate they have have done a poor job of representing the people.

If the Lakota people (and the people of the affected states in general) get behind this movement it will be legitimate. One must remember that the signers of the Declaration of Independence were not legitimate either, and at the time of the signing there was not a great upwelling of public support. Big things can occur from small beginnings.

Having said that, there is another angle. In 1974 traditional elders of the Lakota Nation sanctioned this action - long before there was a Western style representative form of government the Lakota people were governed by their elders - there is legitimacy to all of this.

Here is the other point that the MSM is ignoring and the State Department hopes will not materialize (but I suspect will occur). Venezuela will likely recognize a free Lakota Nation. You say this is a (half) given and means nothing, granted. What about Bolivia? That nation does not have an axe to grind with the US, per se. Bolivia would receive no great benefit from recognizing the Lakota's bid for freedom. However, I predict that Bolivia will indeed recognize the movement diplomatically (unless the State Department buys off Evo Morales).

This all could be much bigger than folks want to pretend - for the sake of freedom everywhere I hope the Lakota people have the resolve to get behind this movement, no matter that it may mean their shipments of government cheese are disrupted.

Tancredo - No

Several of my friends supported Tancredo a year ago when he put out feelers in consideration for a presidential run. It seems they were wrong on all counts considering that Tancredo today backed out of the race (a good thing) and endorsed Romney (a monumentally stupid thing).

Descendants of Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse break away from US

WASHINGTON (AFP) — The Lakota Indians, who gave the world legendary warriors Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, have withdrawn from treaties with the United States, leaders said Wednesday.

"We are no longer citizens of the United States of America and all those who live in the five-state area that encompasses our country are free to join us," long-time Indian rights activist Russell Means told a handful of reporters and a delegation from the Bolivian embassy, gathered in a church in a run-down neighborhood of Washington for a news conference.

A delegation of Lakota leaders delivered a message to the State Department on Monday, announcing they were unilaterally withdrawing from treaties they signed with the federal government of the United States, some of them more than 150 years old.

They also visited the Bolivian, Chilean, South African and Venezuelan embassies, and will continue on their diplomatic mission and take it overseas in the coming weeks and months, they told the news conference.

Lakota country includes parts of the states of Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming.

It is about time someone took the first step, and who better than those that felt the boot of the American Empire most profoundly. Visit their website, if they are serious about making this stick they deserve our support; self-determination is supposed to be an "American" thing is it not?

Environmentalist Nutjobs

From the LewRockwell blog:

A news report informs us of a proposal by Barry Walters in the "Medical Journal of Australia," for a $5,000 tax on every baby born to couples with more than two children, plus an $800 a year "carbon tax." What a bully, to punish newborn babies in this way! Come on, Barry, pick on someone your own size!

All of this is designed to compensate for the "profligate consumption of resources" caused by humanity. This is but the most recent example of the environmentalists' version of "original sin": we humans don't really belong on this planet; we are trespassers upon the lands and waterways rightfully belonging to other species; and, unless we manage to destroy ourselves through political means, we should at least compensate our victims (who?) in the interim.

Perhaps Mr. Walters looks forward to an appointment as "Handicapper General" in some Al Gore Worldwide State system, wherein he will be put in charge of assessing how much each of us will be forced to pay for the privilege of existing on this planet! In the meantime, might I encourage men and women of his misanthropic disposition to demonstrate the sincerity of their convictions in this matter: let them begin a voluntary association, and whenever a baby is born, have a member of such group commit suicide, so as to offset the differential of the new birth!

By the way, I long ago learned that human beings - among others - emitted carbon dioxide as a byproduct of the respiratory process, and that plants took in such CO2 as part of their photosynthesis. In exchange for all of this, plants emitted oxygen for our intake. This symbiotic process has worked quite well for the life process for millions of years on the planet. Are the environmentalists - like other collectivists - just trying to destroy another marketplace expression?

Looks like they are "upping the ante" again. These environmentalists take an observable fact like global warming and attach so many false implications and false science to it in an attempt to scare people into compliance. Does anyone remember when global cooling was the trend? There are so many obvious questions and observations which should be considered such as the global heating/cooling trend throughout history and the sun. Why is it always about the pestilence of mankind causing these things rather than the more likely cause the sun?

Don't get me wrong. I don't believe that we ought to purposefully pollute and I do believe that we ought to take care of our natural world but the best way to do this is through private property rights.

When I think of environmentalism, the last thing that comes to my mind is rational thought and civilized discourse like this demonstrates:



Finally, here is a documentary that caused a huge wave of debate:

"I am Legend"

I had the chance to attend a pre-screening of "I am Legend" tonight. This movie is loosely based upon Richard Matheson's 1954 novel. I was always fond of the Charleton Heston adaptation "Omega Man", but that version departed from the novel fairly radically.

The movie begins in New York City in the year 2009. Someone has developed a "cure" for cancer using a modified version of the measles. Fast forward three years and we find Will Smith - Dr. LTC Neville - as the last man on Earth (along with his trusty companion Samantha - a German Shepard).

Neville spends his days doing what one might expect in such a circumstance - growing food, scavenging for supplies and diving an assortment of new automobiles (free of an insurance payment or bank note).

Minor Spoiler Alert



Neville is not the last man on Earth. The modified measles virus did in fact cure cancer but in the process it killed 90% of those injected with it. Furthermore, nine percent developed some pretty nasty symptoms - aversion to UV light, a thirst for blood and hostility. Essentially these nine percenters became vampires in the classical sense, moving at night, holding up by day in dark recesses of buildings.

If you have seen "Omega Man" you will expect certain events based upon minor allusions to occurances in that movie. I thought it was a nice touch to keep us all guessing based entirely upon preconceived notions.

I will not ruin any more of the movie, you should see it if you enjoy the "end of the world/survival genre". I will say that the folks up in the SVR ought to raise a little cain at their exclusion at the end; it would have been a nice touch to see the flag at the Vermont location being that of the SVR but all the same we can imagine.

I thought this t be a pretty good film - no gratuitous sex, drugs or language - the science was no so far off to be unbelievable and the story was engaging. It is tough to pull of a movie with one actor for half the film.


Of course I cannot help but comment that the infection might never have spread past New York City at all if the regular people there were ARMED - also the film showed what we know to be true in real life during events like Katrina. That is the government is worthless at actually doing what it was created to do - protecting the people. All those years and all that money spent on doing things the government is not supposed to do meant that when push came to shove the people were left out flapping......Vote Ron Paul.

Zombie Apocalypse

87%

Austin Dating

I was surprised that I scored so low. I have always enjoyed "end of the world" type movies and I hate to admit it Zombie movies are my favorite in the genre. I was certain that I would have scored much higher - perhaps it was that question relating to if I would try to help a group of strangers. This is obviously just a flawed quiz - I would help the group of strangers and still be ok - head shots to all zombies.

Insane McCain

Here we have one of the more insane things said in the debate the other night; spoken by the unhinged John McCain.

I have already addressed the fact that it was Wilsonian intervention that led to WWII, not post war isolationism - the die was alread cast Mr. McCain.

I would add also, as an active duty military officer - I gave Dr. Paul another donation today. You do not speak for us John McCain.

But that we could only live such

Solid advice from a lady:

~ Don't always make yourself the hero of your own stories.

~Don't show a disposition to find fault or depreciate. Indiscriminate praise is nauseating; but, on the other hand, indiscriminate condemnation is irritating....

~Don't be sulky if you imagine yourself neglected. Think only of pleasing; and try to please. You will end by being pleased.

~Don't show repugnance even to a bore. A supreme test of politeness is submission to various social inflictions without a wince.

~Don't fail in proper attention to elderly people. Young persons are often scandalously neglectful of the aged, especially if they are deaf or otherwise afflicted. Nothing shows a better heart, or a nicer sense of true politeness, than kindly attention to those advanced in years.

~Don't wear out your welcome by too long a stay; on the other hand, don't break up the company by a premature departure. A little observation and good sense will enable you to detect the right time to say "Good-night."

A Hawaiian Responds to George Will

George Will:
That was quite a spin you've created. Too bad you are not knowledgeable about Hawa'is history and issues. It's best to get the true facts and then expouse on them. Much of your statements are false and twisted besides being inconsistent. You and others being insistent with the falsehoods and deceit does not make them the truth. This proves that most US Americans do not know what the truth is and promotes the myths and lies as if they are the truth. I can see why there is a lot of controversy among all of you who try to spin with vacuous arguments.

We get weary of your self-proclaimed truths to white-wash the facts. The feeble arguments you bring up are irrelevant to the facts. So let's go over some of the misstatements you and many others have made:

Blood quantum is a US American created policy. There is a reason it was done. You have jumped from 100% Hawaiian Polynesian blood to the "one-drop" rule. Amazingly, you seemed to have flunked math by inferring only 7,000 are full-blooded and the rest have one-drop, which would then be the mass majority of the Hawaiians.

You make a claim that 94 % Hawaiians, Including majority of Native Hawaiians voted for statehood. This is confusing and misleading since you are using the word Hawaiians in different meanings. You all need to get it straight or you will confuse yourselves. Initially, Hawaiians were referred to the Polynesian group who live in Hawaii and of whom it is their homeland, their nation-state. Only recently are you people labelling anyone who lives in Hawaii as Hawaiians. Why not Locals or Hawaiian Islanders, or just islanders. You on the mainland love to redefine and redefine the same labels incorrectly and confuse yourselves thereby giving the wrong impressions.

The more correct statement is only 22 percent of the population voted in the so-called plebiscite for statehood of which 94% voted for statehood. Of the 94% military personnel and their families who resided or stationed in Hawaii for at least a year, were eligible to vote. US Americans were allowed to vote; some Native Hawaiians were barred from voting and those who felt they were still Hawaii Nationals refused to vote. The irregularities of the voting and the contents and wording of the ballot was enough to deem it null and void. Only two choices were on the ballot: 1) - remain a territory (taxation without representation) and 20 - become a state (to have a voice in government and vote for the US president). How clever! There was no choice for total independence nor a commonwealth or free-association. There were no international observers to witness the process; only the word of the USA (and we know how good their word is, don't we?).

When ex-press secretary for Bush stated,"..a resolution is non-binding", it brought to mind the Newlands Resolution. This means that resolution for annexation of Hawaii was non-binding, but a wishlist. The Hawaiian Nationals petitioned the US to restore the Queen, her government, and our nation-state back to them. Over 96% percent of the nationals signed that petitions against annexation in 1897 and presented it to the US Congress. That's partly why the Bill for annexation failed and a lack of a treaty of annexation by the legitimate government of Hawaii. Thus the influential powers in Washington resorted to the Newlands Resolution.

Those in Washington, D.C. that were against statehood was afraid of too many Asians in Hawaii and feared their sympathies were communistic and socialistic in nature. Also the Chinese were barred from immigrating to the USA through an act passed in Washington was still fresh in their minds. There again it was racists-motivated.

Here again is your little spin in deception using the term Hawaiians as majority against the Akaka Bill and ill-defined the bare majority of "Native" Hawaiians that support it. Contrary to the spin is that Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians are for and against the Akaka bill and not divisive by their race or ethnicity. Most everyone again fails to recognize the Hawaii Nationals opposition to the Akaka Bill for legitimate reasons. Hawaii Nationals of today stem from the bona fide nationals at the time of the US invasion and occupation.

According to the 1890 census, 84.4% were "Native" Hawaiians/Kanaka Maoli and 15.6% were of foreign origin/multi-ethnic. The Hawaii Nationals comprised of 50.1% of the total population living in Hawaii. The other 49.9% of those residing or working under contracts and of foreign citizenship were mostly from the USA and Asia and the rest were from Europe and various parts of the world.

The only ones that could have and will create racial disharmony have been the overwhelming majority of those from the continental USA who are ignorant of Hawai'is past history and the USA's involvement and what they established to soften and wipe their slate clean. Technically, the Hawaiian Kingdom still exists albeit under US belligerent occupation; this is a fact. We Hawaii Nationals know this and that's why we oppose the NHGE which is a US entity trying to usurp the Hawaiian Kingdom's jurisdiction and authority. The US needs the NHGE as an assemblance of the real thing to make believe it is legitimately negotiating "lands, natural resources, assets, criminal and civil jurisdiction, and historical grievances." We Hawai'i Nationals find this repugnant and criminal.

So let's get this straight once and for all; it would not be secession but de-occupation. Please do some serious research before drawing errant conclusions. The US deep conspiracy, covert and overt actions, the invasion, fake revolution, belligerent occupation, US-established puppet government, non-binding resolution to annex Hawaii, the Ku'e petitions from the Hawaii Nationals protesting against annexation and US actions, violations of the laws of occupation and disregard of Hawaii's neutrality status, US revisionists of the Hawaiian incidents, and the unlawful and illegitimate Statehood Act all lead up to a major cover-up and hoax being passed off as truth.

Your sarcasm is well-noted and taken in disgust. If you were knowledgeable, the seeds of the weed you mentioned began overtly in the 1880s. Your revision of facts are seditious to say the least. It was not Hawaiian residents (as you flip flop the definition) but actually US Americans foreigners in Hawaii involved in the US conspiracy to overthrow the Queen. How quaint that you mention a 2000 court case relating to a separate specific issue. This we won't get into since it deserves to be discussed separately because of a narrow question in the complaint of a complex issue established by the US government. It would be too lengthy to do it here.

It is hypocritical to reference the constitutionality of things implemented by the US government when it still continues to disregard the constitution. I might add that treaties between countries, once ratified, become the supreme law of the land; thus the treaties between the USA and the Hawaiian Kingdom fall into this US Constitutional law. One of the conditions for statehood was part of the state's revenues from Hawaiian lands (not American lands) would go for the betterment of the Native Hawaiians (Kanaka Maoli). The Hawaiian Homestead Act of 1921 was a failure but still kept in the Statehood Act as a guilt-ridden necessity to pacify the Native Hawaiians because of the US criminal actions. This was done to aid in disarming the native population and international outrage while showing US paternalism.

Your following paragraph shows a paltry lack of understanding and knowledge of out government. Say, "Constitutional Monarchy". Now look it up! Hint: The government system of United Kingdom/Great Britain. I surmise that it wouldn't interest you to know that Hawaii Nationals elected two of their monarchs. Your sanctimonious criticism of our country is outlandishly stupid and plain gibberish. What can I say, you're correct that the Queen (and her people) were more enlightened than Akaka, you, and the rest of the US Americans who still think Hawaii is legitimately part of the USA. For us, it is a national/international issue; for you and the rest of US America it is a racist WASP/State (domestic/internal) issue. That's why you are all confused and in La-La Land.

You get a point for this since this is what we've been saying all along but your corporate media and US congress have promoted Akaka's legislation that would create a Native Hawaiian "tribe" as a nation within the nation. Our Hawaiian nation-state still exists and was a multi-ethnic country. The US Akaka Bill shuns a portion of our Hawaiian Nationals as irrelevant and invalidates their existence. The US omits this fact to skirt around the truth that Hawaii is a nation-state and not a part of the USA. To acknowledge them is to recognize once again that the Hawaiian Kingdom's status as a fellow nation as a peer to the USA and other world nations.

You are truly an ultracrepidarian critic with no sense of the facts. It's pathetic that you believe the revised history to further promote it. Hawai'i was taken by force and against the wishes of the Hawaii Nationals. It's like saying the US didn't invade and occupy Iraq but went there to liberate them. How arrogant and asinine of you! By now you should have learned from me that we never chose to be under the racist WASP society of the USA nor your alleged statehood. Get real and don't speak for us.

"The tribal concept simply has no place in the context of Hawaiian history."... because we are a nation-state that was recognized as such throughout the world. We had treaties with more than 25 countries; over 96 legations and consuls throughout the world. We have been established and recognized as a nation-state part of the family of nations which included the USA.

Just because the Native Americans were comprised of one ethnic group doesn't mean they were not a nation, in fact, they adopted and accepted people not of their ethnicity. Israel is comprised of one people who are Jews, a tribe in their history. Splitting hairs with semantics is idiocy. Dhina is a nation; not a tribe. Japan is a nation. UK is a nation although they have clans or "tribes".

Finally, this has nothing to do with the Native Americans, Hispanics, Vermont, Texas, and the Man in the Moon. This has to do with the Hawaiian Kingdom, its people searching for justice and freedom, and the US belligerent occupation of our country, its violations of the laws of occupation, its treaties, its disrepect of Hawaii's neutrality status, and USA crimes. How long will the USA make a mockery of justice, liberty, honesty, freedom, and honor? We love our country as much as you US Americans love yours. The USA must de-occupy Hawaii or it makes a mockery of your own US Pledge of Allegiance.

We, Hawaii Nationals, say "NO!" to the Akaka Bill for obvious reasons.

He Hawai'i au,
Tane AKA: David MK Inciong II
Pearl City, Hawaii

Rolling Stone: Ron Paul: A Republican Takes the Lead Against the War

His anti-war stance has not only helped him bank more campaign cash than Iraq-backer John McCain, it has garnered him more contributions from military families than any candidate in the race.

read more | digg story

Judge removed after jailing entire courtroom

A US judge has been removed from the bench for jailing 46 people after none of them admitted responsibility for a ringing mobile phone in his courtroom. Wow...hubris gone wild!

read more | digg story

Firemen Being Trained to Report Citizens Unhappy with the US Government

Why firemen? Because they can enter your property without a warrant, for inspections, etc... // Next up: Firemen will be trained to carry flamethrowers, find banned books... // Note to any firemen: _thank_you_ for doing your real job, saving lives. Being discontent with creeping fascism doesn't threaten society, but it does threaten the fascists...

read more | digg story

The Choice is Obvious

A Ron Paul presidency will:

let Americans keep more of their own money.

end the IRS.

stop the central bankers’ “inflation tax.”

stop unconstitutional spending leading us to bankruptcy.

stop the financial dependency on China, Saudi Arabia, and other foreign governments.

oppose trade deals and groups that threaten American Independence (incl. the UN, GATT, NAFTA, NAU, WTO, CAFTA, ICC).

protect our privacy and stop the national ID card.

protect our constitutional rights and end the “Patriot” Act.

secure our borders and end illegal immigration.

end “birthright” citizenship for illegal aliens.

bring our troops home from no-win “police actions.”


Ron Paul has:

never voted to raise taxes.

never voted for an unbalanced budget.

never voted to raise congressional pay.

never taken a government-paid junket.

never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

voted against regulating the Internet.

not participated in the lucrative congressional pension program.

repeatedly been named the “Taxpayers’ Best Friend” in Congress.


Congressman Ron Paul is serving his 10th term in the U.S. House. Dr. Ron Paul has delivered over 4000 babies. He served his country as a Flight Surgeon in the Air Force and the Air National Guard. Ron has been married to his wife, Carol, for 50 years. They have five children and 18 grandchildren.

A True Conservative.

Since my return to SC to attend to my father's affairs I have reevaluated my previous disgust with the small showing of support for Dr. No. Perhaps my neighbors were shamed into putting out their Ron Paul signs by my pleadings a couple weeks ago. I can say honestly and unequivocally that in my part of SC the Ron Paul signage is currently running 20:1 over anything else. In fact I can only think of one example of a sign for another candidate (Romney) and that is in front of the only Mormon household in the area. My mother received a nice mailing today from the Paul campaign - those contribution dollars seems to be well spent. Now that most of my other business has been attended to I plan to visit the campaign headquarters in the nearest city tomorrow to meet a few of the ground troops and make a donation in person.

I told a fellow today - half jokingly - that Ron Paul is the only man to throw his hat in the ring actually qualified to be president since Thomas Jefferson. I thought about that a bit after our conversation and I think I was actually correct - no half joke required. (Alan Keyes and Pat Buchanan excepted perhaps)

Debate Round-Up

I will comment on just a few items from the CNN/YouTube Republican debate.

McCain's claim that isolationism was the direct cause of WWII was ludicrous. It was Wilsonian interventionism that allowed the punitive outcome of WWI that caused WWII. Get your facts straight.

Huckabee's praise of his program to give scholarships to children of illegals was interesting - in an decidedly wrong sort of way.

The idiotic conspiracy question directed at Ron Paul was trivial and low. Paul handled it as well as it could be fielded in 90 seconds.

McCain with the near tear in his eye as he described illegal aliens as "God's Children" in need of our help. I thought that is what our generous foreign policy was all about - to help all of God's children in their lands - not when they come to ours and break our laws.

Romney proved at almost every point that he is not a man I would vote for to hold the office of dog catcher. Guilliani was what we should expect - a wolf attempting to wear sheep's clothing. It was slightly interesting to see Romney and Guiliani beat each other up but ultimately that just wasted air time that could have been better utilized allowing someone with real conservative ideas to speak.

Huckabee talked a good game for the most part but his comments about spending what was necessary on the space program demonstrate that he does not grasp the predicament we are in.

Thompson looked cadaverous but did not say anything really offensive that I can recall. I thought it a bit inane of him to waste his 30 seconds for a commercial about him and his position attacking two of the other idiots.

Seven of the men seem to believe that radical Islam is really a threat - a bigger threat than say the Soviet Union with thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at us for half a century. It is amazing that we faced that demon down without war but seven of the eight are all for globe-trotting adventures aimed at routing out a few thousand radicals that cannot even successfully rule backward nations such as Afghanistan or Somalia. They think these people are actually a threat to us. Let them build their caliphate, build an army and a navy and a economic system to support it and then threaten us and I will personally call for the crusade. As it stands they do not have a chance to do anything more than cause trouble here and there on a relatively small scale.

Only one candidate had the chance to talk about the pending DC Gun ban case going before the Supreme Court and that was Gulliani. He had the nerve to state that he believed the 2nd Amendment was intended as an individual right but with restrictions. Talk about speaking to both sides of an issue. We found out that Romney, Gulliani and McCain do not actually own firearms. (but Gulliani does own matching stiletto heels for his black dress that could count as a weapon you know).

Finally, I am not sure why CNN decided to include the question about the Confederate Battle Flag - perhaps to try and place someone in what would seem to be an untenable position. After all the status of the flag is not the purview of the president or the federal government. However, they included the flag question any way. Romney bit off on it and stated something to the effect "that flag should not be shown, it is divisive". Perhaps he needs a history lesson - maybe he should read Lieutenant Colonel Frematle's (of Her Majesty's Royal Dragoons) account of the Army of Northern Virginia's march into Maryland and Pennsylvania. As Clyde Wilson once wrote (and I paraphrase) "It would be wonderful if black Americans viewed their heritage as a diverse experience rather than merely that of slavery and oppression". If "That" flag is divisive it is because folks do not know of the sacrifice that blacks and whites in the South made under that banner. The question had no place in the debate but it was there and Romney proved himself a moron in his answer. Thompson handled it fairly well but I presume and assume that Ron Paul would have said something to the effect "That flag is part of the history of many of our states and their people and the place the flag holds in those states is up to the states and the people to determine, not the federal government or the president."

John McCain proved himself to be wholly unqualified for further service in elected office - I recall during the campaign of 2000 in a debate in SC where Alan Keyes mopped the floor with McCain on simple constitutional issues - so much so that McCain actually lost his composure.

It is a shame that there are so many candidates at this point - so many that those on the left and right of the stage are not heard enough. Tancredo has it right on immigration but wrong on much else, notably the war; leave him off the invite list. Duncan Hunter - thanks for building the wall but don't show up any more please. I can see why some of my friends are misled about Thompson, I think we need to leave him in future dialogues to unravel what is wrong with him for them. The three front runners you have to leave obviously (not counting McCain as per above). I would love to see three hours of just those men and Ron Paul hosted by Lou Dobbs, Alan Keyes and Pat Buchanan with questions from ME and a few select friends. I would love to see everyone explain how their ideas are 1) conservative 2) constitutional 3) really good for America.

A Reader Responds To My Last Post

Dear Author,

I'm curious as to why you make the parenthesized inclusion 'send me your hate mail' after the comment 'the system will not allow such'. (refering to a Ron Paul victory)

The old media does not provide me with current information, historical information or articles that would inspire me to vote for my candidate of choice which is Ron Paul.

I get that from articles such as yours that I read on the internet. Why would I send you hate mail?

I would say that everything from the old media to vote tampering to even worse things can happen to prevent the election of Ron Paul as President. That would be a realists point of view. But then that would just be acknowledging the hurdles that need to be overcome to achieve the reality of victory.

If evil triumphs when good men do nothing, then we better do something. That's the correct reality. It also requires the correct estimation of effort. But of course we want to agree there's such a thing as failure so that we can have a reason to fail, so we don't have to be cause.

There is no excuse for any failure that ever occurred any place in history, except this: There was just not quite enough carry-through or push-through. That is all that is necessary for this which is a just cause. That is my reality.

Time For A Change

I read a post the other day and I cannot now recall where or by who but the point that the author made was that the Ron Paul Revolution will be short lived. Those disaffected souls that now support Dr. No will not throw their support behind any of the other GOP candidates and there is not another Ron Paul on the horizon to galvanize the troops and keep the revolution alive (assuming that Dr. Paul does not win the election).

Without discussing those assumptions much further I will simply say that I agree for the most part - what the author proposed is probably a realistic outcome. The fact is real conservatives do not have a home in either party. There is nothing conservative about the Republican or Democratic approach. One wishes to curry favor with the masses by transferring wealth through government programs, the other wishes to curry favor with big business by providing subsidies and protection. The end result of both approaches is bigger government, each approach is progressive, neither approach conserves anything that was or should be in our society.

In the 1980's many believed that conservatism had been vindicated after the failed attempts of Barry Goldwater in 1964 to win the presidency and not only thwart the Great Society but push back the nefarious New Deal.

My father was a Goldwater Republican (I was even named after Mr. Goldwater), I was a Reagan Republican. However something significant occurred between 1964 and 1980. Two significant things in fact. First, the real roots of the Republican party were always there. The GOP owes its very existence to the Federalist/Whig brand of ideology that is responsible for so much of what is wrong with he republic today. It was the Federalist that abandoned their charter to alter the Articles of Confederation. The Federalist gave us the Alien and Sedition Acts, the first legislated tyranny since the revolution. It was the Republican Party that single-handily redefined the Constitutional limits of federal power and killed States' Rights and Federalism. Republicans annexed Hawaii against the will of their monarch and people. The Republican Party played a large role in the idiocy of prohibition - something any conservative knows the Federal Government has no authority or role in. It is the Republican Party that has again passed tyrannical legislation in the form of the Patriot Act and redefined jus ad bellum to include the noxious notion of preemptive war. It is the Republican Party that champions the rights of non-human, soulless corporate entities.

For all of the evils and nonsensical ramblings of the socialist democrats and their flaky ideas regarding nationalized medicine and other inane ideological blunders - the Republican Party is not one inch more Conservative. The two major parties are just different sides to the same coin.

Many of my kin, blood and cultural, rejoiced in the 1980's with the rise of the Religious Right -"Finally, we will put things right". For all of the good intentioned notions of the rank and file followers of the Moral Majority and other similar groups the result and impact on American politics was even more disastrous than the nonsense surrounding prohibition. If the Religious Right was a truly conservative movement - in terms of conserving what America was and should be - their efforts at social conservatism would have been focused almost exclusively at the state and local level. Their national efforts would have focused on true conservatives that understood the Constitution, the 10th Amendment and the nature of federalism and states' rights. Instead of acting as conservatives these groups acted as progressives, seeking to use the political system to effect change, change that required an increase in the role and power of the federal government. That was certainly not a conservative approach.

One day they will see that what you give to the federal government it is hard to take back. Perhaps there was a moral majority in the 1980's but what happens when there is an "immoral majority" that seeks to use that very same federal government power that they foolishly established? You wanted to define marriage, tell states about abortion, define prayer - would you want a majority of heathens doing the same? It will happen because of foolish progressivism in the name of "doing good" and we will be powerless to stop it if the precarious majority fails.

Religious conservatives dismiss Ron Paul because he will not come out and say things like -"If I were president I would work for (insert whatever moral legislation you wish)". This is precisely because Paul understands the Constitution and the dangers of progressivism. It seems we Christians are much happier supporting a reformed Rudy (hey Robertson says he is ok), or one of the other fellows because they take a stand on a moral issues (they talk a good game). We are missing the point, it is not the place of the federal government to regulate these issues, we ought to seek a man that would put these issues back where they belong - with us at out state houses.

Perhaps the Ron Paul revolution will be short lived - then again perhaps the pundits are wrong. Perhaps, just maybe true conservatism will again thrive, perhaps the supporters of Paul will not just fade away (win or lose). Third parties in the 20th Century have not fared well therefore maybe it is high time that the Republican Party became relegated to third party status. If folks that call themselves conservative fully understood what being a conservative meant there would not be a Republican Party - it would have been thrown on the ash heap of history in 1864 or soon thereafter and certainly it would not enjoy the support from otherwise good intentioned folk it counts on today.

If there is the be a Ron Paul revolution (i.e. conservative revival) I welcome it, I sincerely hope it shakes the very foundation of the current political system of a bad choice and an awful choice. It is unlikely that the Republican machine can or will be reformed from within as so many have hoped for - the basic ideology is just all wrong, their heritage of wrong is written all over the party. The only hope is to throw the system away and start anew.

I pray that Ron Paul wins the election but I am prepared for the possibility that the system will simply not allow such (send me your hate mail). This makes me no less of a supporter, it makes me a realist, it means I am committed for the long haul. I am fully prepared to adjure the realm, weather many moons of socialist democratic rule to stand true to conservative principles. A philosophy such as conservatism cannot die so long as people remember. It is time to stop compromising with a system that respects neither the law upon which our nation is built or the principles that gave that law birth.

I challenge you, if you are a true conservative, if you are truly an heir to the legacy of Jefferson and those men that envisioned a republic, not a socialist mobacracy then you must examine your entire concept of politics in America. If you continue to be blinded by the dog and pony show presented by the faux conservative GOP you are either a fool or an enabler.

It is time for a revolution (although it is not a revolution at all it is merely a revival of our conservative heritage and right thinking about the role and nature of our central government). Turn off the talking heads, read the Constitution and support Ron Paul and come what may refuse to ever go back to the role of loyal subject to a party that is neither conservative nor right.

Harold Leroy Clark December 1937 - November 2007

In the midst of my family's journey across the North American continent, I was awoken at midnight last Monday in a small town in western Kansas by my wife - my father had died an hour earlier.

We had to continue on to California - it was complicated but for various reasons, the best course of action was to drive on and then fly back home. I sit now in a hotel room waiting for my flight tomorrow, the first available.

Death is inevitable, we all know this. My father was the strongest man I ever knew. He had a stroke several years ago, just months after retiring early in order to enjoy full-time the outdoor activities he enjoyed most. The after-effects of the stroke restricted his activity greatly, he never drove again. Subsequent strokes took away his dignity, privacy and independence. Earlier that year he was diagnosed with ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease).

When I left for Korea two years ago my father suffered from the effects of his strokes but he could still get around. He could still do things and we could pretend that he was still the man he had always been. I could take him fishing or take him out to work on things and even though we both knew he was not the same we never admitted it to each other. He would tell me point blank to give him the keys and let him drive and I could play it off by saying,"daddy you may be able to stand up to mama but I cannot if I give you the keys she will get me." He could not do the work he had always done but I could always pretend that he could and make up for the rest myself. He never let on for a minute that he was diminished in any way and I never viewed him as anything other than the man I had always known.

When I returned from Iraq the last time I had terrible nightmares. I spent much of my leave at his house, my boyhood home. Even though he suffered as he did, when I closed my eyes at night at his house I felt safe - safe in a way I did not feel at my own house. It was not realistic but as a then 37-year-old combat veteran, I felt that my 67-year-old disabled father was somehow protecting me from the demons in the world just as he had when I was a child. I slept better hearing him snore down the hall and knowing he was there.

When I returned from Korea last month after an absence of two years my father was much changed. Although he was just diagnosed with ALS he was already in the process of the disease by a couple of years. If you do not know about ALS I can tell you simply it is a terrible affliction. Your mind remains but slowly your muscles and nerves fail you. The changes, the deterioration can be dramatic and noticeable over just a few months. I cannot describe the agony of seeing the man you most respect, fear and admire tremble and shake trying to lift his hand to his mouth.

I left South Carolina with assurances from his doctor that my father would be there this December when I planned to return with my family for our last Christmas together. We are never promised a tomorrow - I will not have that last Christmas with my father.

My father was a man's man - a Marine, Christian and an avid outdoorsman. He could and did work me into the ground on many occasions. He never let anyone within his circle of concern go without. If something was broke he was going to fix it or get someone to fix it. If something needed doing, he just did it. He was never one to sit still often, he worked and that was his recreation. I do not mean that he abandoned his family for material gain - not at all. He made sure to get home for supper - after supper, he always worked; in the garden, in his building or doing something for someone.

He was gifted with that special common-sense only wise men gain.

His Christianity was simple and sincere. We disagreed from time to time precisely because I made my Christianity too complicated. He always ensured that I was in church as a child and young man and he always lived his beliefs. He did not drink or swear (often) and was never profane. He treated my mother with respect, took care of her and loved her.

My mother always said he was proud of me but I never really achieved the feeling that he respected me, perhaps he did or maybe he remembered that kid that screwed things up. He was always there to pick me up from any mistake - and there were many over the years, a heck of a lot of them between the time I was 16 and 25. He never abandoned me, no matter that I should not have been doing what I did, he probably told me not to and it was just stupid of me in any case.

I cannot do justice to this man in words I might write. He did not change the world but by his hand and example he changed me and made me who I am. I will miss him. He has gone on to a better place but I will miss him all the same.

by Barry Clark

Irony

Earlier today my family and I began our journey from my home in South Carolina to the foreign Republic of California to report for my next assignment. I mentioned in an earlier post my frustration with the changes that have occurred over the last two years in my home and my disappointment with the pace at which ordinary, otherwise good people have accepted - lock, stock and barrel - the lifestyle of the empire. By that I mean of course the live for now consumerism that so defines "American" culture. The sort of thing that allows a person to be happy selling their soul for a mortgage in a subdivision, commuting a hour or more to a job that keeps them away from the important things in life, i.e. home and family. I am talking about the sort of attitude that sees nothing wrong with blind loyalty to an institution that no longer follows its own rules or serves the people that it was created to serve. Yes I am talking about a people forsaking wholesale the legacy their ancestors bequeathed them in in turn accepting the lifestyle and values of their conquerors.

Look, I am a realist. I know that the South no longer exists anywhere but in small, scattered pockets and even in those enclaves the influence of a foreign value system in obvious. I hold out no real hope or dream of a free or independent South in my life time. At the same time I am not a defeatist. I do believe it is possible for a people to reclaim their heritage and live true to their historical heritage.

I mentioned previously how disheartened I was during my visit when I tried to discuss issues of culture, values and priorities with otherwise good people in my home. I moved my departure date up by a few days in part because of my disillusionment. Therein lies the irony - and here is the story.

I was supposed to finally meet, face to face, my compatriot on this blog - IKANTSPEL. My early departure and scheduling difficulties made this impossible. Thus, my family and I packed up the truck and headed north for a quick visit with relatives in North Carolina and then on toward California.

As we traveled through a town called Traveler's Rest I noticed a store named "Dixie Republic" and simply had to perform a u-turn and investigate. There was a tremendous amount of activity - they flew several flags out front. I thought it would be a grand opportunity to pick up a couple of items with my beloved Palmetto tree and crescent moon. I also hoped they would have a book or two I have not read that I could add to my collection.

I found the Palmetto trinkets I sought, I enjoyed a bowl of brunswick stew while listening to a live bluegrass band and I found a couple of books I have not read. I also had the the distinct pleasure of meeting and talking with Dr. Clyde N. Wilson who was there signing books and enjoying himself. The thing about this gentlemen is that I agreed with him before I knew of him or had read anything he has written. I defer to his age, his experience, his "letters" and his intellect but my agreement with him is not a mere acolyte arrangement. I consider him one of my living heroes his voice and ideas but my admiration is not hero worship.

I must admit, however, I was a bit nervous when I first met him. My nine year old daughter remarked on that fact later. I am not certain as to why - but I was.

I found him to be as interesting in person as on paper. Our conversation was easy and natural. I honestly felt as if I knew him and had known him for some time. It was as if were had been singing from the same hymn book for years previous.

Other folks of note were there as well. I was privileged to meet again Robert Hayes, chairman of the SC LOS. I also had a lively discussion with Walter Brian Cisco, author of War Crime Against Civilians. This is of course not to mention all the good folks perusing the store, eating stew and listening to the band.

The North Carolina border is just a few miles north of the store. As I pulled away and out of my home state I was struck with the irony of it all. I began my journey disillusioned. I left when I did because of the disillusionment and because of that I happened up this store at that hour. Life is strange.

Feds Raid Liberty Dollar

This is all over the blogsphere and I decided to copy what I posted on my personal blog here.

The FBI and Secret Service conducted a raid on the Liberty Dollar office in Evansville, Indiana. It appears that that gold, silver, and records were seized. The following is taken directly from their website:

I sincerely regret to inform you that about 8:00 this morning a dozen FBI and Secret Service agents raided the Liberty Dollar office in Evansville.

For approximately six hours they took all the gold, all the silver, all the platinum and almost two tons of Ron Paul Dollars that where just delivered last Friday. They also took all the files, all the computers and froze our bank accounts.

We have no money. We have no products. We have no records to even know what was ordered or what you are owed. We have nothing but the will to push forward and overcome this massive assault on our liberty and our right to have real money as defined by the US Constitution. We should not to be defrauded by the fake government money.

But to make matters worse, all the gold and silver that backs up the paper certificates and digital currency held in the vault at Sunshine Mint has also been confiscated. Even the dies for mint the Gold and Silver Libertys have been taken.

I surmise that Ron Paul's candidacy might have something to do with this insofar as he has finally brought monetary policy into the debates. I think that there are more of us "kooks" who demand sound money than anticipated. After all, why raid them now? They have been around since 1998. I guess they don't want any competition against the declining dollar and the forthcomming Amero.

Corporatism = Socialism

AnarchoCatholic reminds us that "[a] potentially undying legal entity which separates ownership from control, is created by, sustained by, and subject to the state, and removes liability from human beings conducting affairs which affect all of society doesn't seem to jive with anything resembling a free market"─Corporations Aren't Capitalism. (via Western Confucian)

Of course I would add that Corporatism + Socialism + Nationalism + Militarism = Fascism

What Happened to My Home?

My visit to my native South Carolina has been disheartening to me, to phrase it mildly. The advance of suburbia that I mentioned in an earlier post is more profound than I first surmised in my initial survey. It seems that everywhere I go I see massive changes in the landscape. Everyone seems to be in the business of selling the family farm to make way for some new profane subdivision.

When I look at a field or patch of woods that I hunted as a child/young man and see now houses for 100 or more families I am bewildered. Something like that occurring here or there is significant but when it occurs over and over it is bound to fundamentally change the very nature of the culture. Country roads that were once quiet and peaceful are now torrents of traffic as silly commuters make their way to silly jobs each day. This is simply an unsustainable way of life - folks will realize this someday when they no longer have the option of paying $70 to fill up their glorified mini-vans (I guess they call them SUV's but I just see boxes on wheels with very little sport or utility involved).

I have been most disturbed with conversations I have had with otherwise good people about Pat Robertson. Around here most folks are evangelicals and they are the sort that generally believe a man if he simply says he is a good Christian. It is because if this that I know of several good people that over the years sent money to the likes of Oral Roberts, Jim Baker and now Pat Robertson. A lot of these same folks believe that Bob Jones is square in his biblical teachings. I have found it impossible to point out that Robertson is obviously a fake, a man deluded by the power he has come to wield. How on Earth could any moral man, much less a Christian support a man that endorses someone like Giuliani? I just don't know.

More disturbing is that most of the people that should be squarely behind Ron Paul have never heard of him. I have to blame this on the generational differences in how folks acquire information.

I visited a Wal-Mart today - because I found that the two hardware stores I patronized in the past are now out of business. It is not an exaggeration to state that 30% of the customer base in the store when I was there was Mexican. This is in a small (historically rural) town in South Carolina. I cannot get over the change two years has wrought.

I am seriously considering cutting my vacation short and leaving within the next two days for my next duty assignment. I know at least that weird things are to be expected where I am going. I do not have the heart to see the changes in my own home firsthand.

Rifleman's Prayer

Oh Lord, I would live my life in freedom, peace and happiness, enjoying the simple pleasures of hearth and home. I would die an old, old man in my own bed,
preferably of sexual overexertion.

But if that is not to be, Lord, if monsters such as this should find their way to my little corner of the world on my watch, then help me to sweep those bastards from the ramparts, because doing that is good, and right, and just.

And if in this I should fall, let me be found atop a pile of brass,
behind the wall I made of their corpses. (ht Freeholder)

Ok either you get it or you are running away in the belief that I am a murderous, bloodthirsty sociopath. I get it. I see both the truth and the humor of this. - On other unrelated notes-

Today I returned to my native land after an absence of over two years. Much has changed. Apparently I need to brush up on my Spanish - the small Mexican enclave in the small town near my home has grown tremendously while I was away. Amazing that!

I was encouraged to hear Ron Paul advertisements on the radio - on my way to the gun shop. As I said I have not been able to purchase a new "toy" in two years. I treated myself to a Bulldog Pug .44 revolver and Winchester lever action 30-30. The wife was not please but after paying for her to bask in Hawaii for 6 days her protestations were semi-muted. It is all good!

An absence of two years is just enough time to measure and gauge the spread of "sprawl". I did not count but I noticed numerous instances of long time businesses that are now gone - replaced by cookie cutter shops, restaurants etc. A place loses its character when this happens.

When I was in a little town on the North Shore of Oahu last week I noticed little signs and bumper stickers stating "Keep the Country Country". Perhaps Mr. Wendell Berry's influence is greater than I imagined or maybe people everywhere realize the importance of maintaining their little piece of the world.

I plan to spend the next several days before heading out on the second phase of our move ( a cross country drive), hunting, sleeping (vacations are tiring) and trying to talk my fellow South Carolinians into supporting Ron Paul.