Friday, December 28, 2007

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?


Thursday, December 27, 2007

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.

Sunday, December 23, 2007

Pillars of Conservative Thought

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 linage 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 suffices however. A conservative knows instinctively that the federal government has no authority whatsoever dealing in issues such as education, health care, 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 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).

Saturday, December 22, 2007

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.

Friday, December 21, 2007

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?

Monday, December 10, 2007

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:



Sunday, December 09, 2007

"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.