The Real Militia Movement Arises
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
posted by Aaron Turpen @ 10:19 PM
0 Comments
Saturday, October 25, 2008
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
The single greatest thing I've ever heard discussed in a presidential debate
From: http://www.dailypaul.com/node/70247
When it was Nader's turn to ask Baldwin a question, I was FLOORED by his choice! (paraphrasing from memory):
"What is your opinion of the Civil War era Supreme Court opinion that gave corporations the same rights as individuals, thus perverting the legal definition of the word "person"?"
Chuck's answer that he was in complete agreement with Ralph that this is one of THE major issues of our times was a defining moment of the debate. The coming together on this issue between a long time idol of the "left" (whatever that means) and another who will appeal strongly to those on the traditional “right“ (whatever that means) is something that needs to be spread far and wide amongst all Americans.
Here is a synopsis of the ruling from http://www.ratical.org/co...
THIS IS THE VERY FIRST INGREDIENT FOR FASCISM!
Of course the reverse side of this tired old coin is that we are now treated as "corporate entities" without our knowledge. Whenever you sign a "contract" with the word "person" in it, you are assumed to have a whole stable of attorneys on retainer to put yourself on even terms with corporations.
This leads us down some wacky rabbit holes like this (link updated) (click where it says "To See My Personal Check Click Here Then Click Zoom Icon). I tried it by scanning the signature line on one of my checks at 4800dpi, and darned if it ain't true! Try it yourself!
Anyhow, this whole subject really needs to be exposed, especially to those on the "left". How can we do it?
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
When it was Nader's turn to ask Baldwin a question, I was FLOORED by his choice! (paraphrasing from memory):
"What is your opinion of the Civil War era Supreme Court opinion that gave corporations the same rights as individuals, thus perverting the legal definition of the word "person"?"
Chuck's answer that he was in complete agreement with Ralph that this is one of THE major issues of our times was a defining moment of the debate. The coming together on this issue between a long time idol of the "left" (whatever that means) and another who will appeal strongly to those on the traditional “right“ (whatever that means) is something that needs to be spread far and wide amongst all Americans.
Here is a synopsis of the ruling from http://www.ratical.org/co...
The biggest blow to citizen constitutional authority came in 1886. The US Supreme Court ruled in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, that a private corporation was a "natural person" under the US Constitution, sheltered by the 14th Amendment [(even though that amendment had been written and ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of freed slaves) [3]] , which requires due process in the criminal prosecution of "persons." Following this ruling, huge, wealthy corporations were allowed to compete on "equal terms" with neighborhood businesses and individuals. "There was no history, logic or reason given to support that view," Supreme Court Justice William 0. Douglas wrote 60 years later. [4]
THIS IS THE VERY FIRST INGREDIENT FOR FASCISM!
Of course the reverse side of this tired old coin is that we are now treated as "corporate entities" without our knowledge. Whenever you sign a "contract" with the word "person" in it, you are assumed to have a whole stable of attorneys on retainer to put yourself on even terms with corporations.
This leads us down some wacky rabbit holes like this (link updated) (click where it says "To See My Personal Check Click Here Then Click Zoom Icon). I tried it by scanning the signature line on one of my checks at 4800dpi, and darned if it ain't true! Try it yourself!
Anyhow, this whole subject really needs to be exposed, especially to those on the "left". How can we do it?
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
posted by Aaron Turpen @ 10:06 PM
0 Comments
The world’s least-free country
By John Silveira
Here’s a quiz: Which is the freest country on earth? The answer’s easy. It’s the United States. Ask anyone. And why are we the freest? Not because we’re the richest. Long before we became the world’s richest nation we still regarded ourselves as the freest, and millions flocked to our shores to enjoy that freedom. The reasons we are free are: First, because of the philosophical basis upon which this country was founded. It is assumed that individuals have rights, e.g., free speech, the right to bear arms, the right of a jury trial before our peers should the government try to imprison us, seize our property, or deprive us of our lives, etc. Second, we have a Constitution that limits the powers of a central government to intrude into our lives.
And third, our rights have been enshrined in the First 10 Amendments to our Constitution.
Many other countries, like England and Canada, also have their own Bill of Rights, but those rights are at the pleasure of the government. It says so right in their laws. So they are not “unalienable” rights. Only our country, in all of history, was founded on the assumption that the individual has rights that exist apart from the government and not at its pleasure. Then, in 1868, the Constitution was amended to say that even the states cannot violate our unalienable rights. Pretty powerful stuff. These things form the basis of our freedom and are the reasons why the United States is the freest country on earth.
So if we can identify the freest country, can we also identify that which is the least free? I’ve tried to find a qualitative way to make that determination, but it’s difficult, because no country has a constitution that guarantees tyranny. Even the constitutions of the old Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China read as if those countries were free. You’d never have guessed that what happened under Stalin and Mao could have happened, just from reading those documents. (Of course, you’d never have guessed we once enslaved a huge portion of our own citizens or screwed the Indians out of a large portion of a continent by reading our Constitution. But that’s another story.)
What I’m getting at is it’s hard to determine qualitatively which is the least free country on earth. So I decided to see if there is a quantitative way to measure it. I found two. First, the country with the most laws would be a candidate for that which is least free. Laws regulate people, so the country which is the least free would surely regulate its people the most. Second, the country with the greatest percentage of its population in jail would also be a candidate for the least free, for obvious reasons. And, if, by chance, some country not only had the most laws but also had the largest percentage of its own population behind bars, we’d at least have a candidate for the least free country on the planet.
So which country has the most laws regulating its citizenry? After looking high and low I discovered that the country with the most laws—not just today, but in all of history is...geez Louise, it’s the United States. We not only have the most laws in all of history, but we also turn out more new laws and regulations to manage our people every single year than most countries turn out in decades.
How can it be that the world’s freest country needs more laws to tell its people what to do than the Soviet Union, Red China, Nazi Germany, or any two-bit banana republic dictatorship? And it’s not like we’ve always had so many laws. Most of them are new. In 1814, when President Madison and the Congress fled Washington, DC, ahead of the invading English troops bent on arson, they took the papers of the federal government with them. It was easy. They loaded all the laws and regulations into a few boxes and left. This was all the federal government had generated to regulate us in the first 38 years of our existence. Today, Congress and anonymous bureaucrats generate more laws and regulations than that in minutes.
Maybe we should consider the other criterion. Which country imprisons the highest percentage of its own citizens? Let’s see, Russia’s up there. And so is the Union of South Africa. And there are some little potentates as we see in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. Hmm, but who leads the list. On, no! Folks, you’re not going to like this. It’s...it’s...the United States, again, heading the list of least free countries. The prime reason is the War on Drugs, the war waged against our country’s own citizens “for their own good.”
When I presented my results to others, some said if you obey the laws, you have nothing to worry about and you’ll still be free. I pointed out that that’s the case in every country. Toe the line and you won’t get in trouble. If the women in Afghanistan wore their burkas and didn’t drive or get an education, then by that definition they could still be free. I also pointed out that Jews in Nazi Germany, blacks in the postbellum South, and many American Indians did toe the line and tried to be good citizens but they still got screwed. So obeying the law doesn’t guarantee freedom.
Another said, despite all our laws, we have safeguards in that we have a jury system and that those laws are filtered through juries. I pointed out that more and more agencies regulate us without juries. E.g., the IRS, family courts, OSHA, the EPA, etc. don’t allow juries. And where juries are allowed the courts exclude people who realize they can nullify bad laws. This is hardly a recipe for freedom.
So, somehow, I have arrived at a paradox. What, on paper, would appear to be the freest society in the world appears, in practice, to be among the most oppressive. Does this bother anyone besides me?
http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/silveira77lw.html
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
Here’s a quiz: Which is the freest country on earth? The answer’s easy. It’s the United States. Ask anyone. And why are we the freest? Not because we’re the richest. Long before we became the world’s richest nation we still regarded ourselves as the freest, and millions flocked to our shores to enjoy that freedom. The reasons we are free are: First, because of the philosophical basis upon which this country was founded. It is assumed that individuals have rights, e.g., free speech, the right to bear arms, the right of a jury trial before our peers should the government try to imprison us, seize our property, or deprive us of our lives, etc. Second, we have a Constitution that limits the powers of a central government to intrude into our lives.
And third, our rights have been enshrined in the First 10 Amendments to our Constitution.
Many other countries, like England and Canada, also have their own Bill of Rights, but those rights are at the pleasure of the government. It says so right in their laws. So they are not “unalienable” rights. Only our country, in all of history, was founded on the assumption that the individual has rights that exist apart from the government and not at its pleasure. Then, in 1868, the Constitution was amended to say that even the states cannot violate our unalienable rights. Pretty powerful stuff. These things form the basis of our freedom and are the reasons why the United States is the freest country on earth.
So if we can identify the freest country, can we also identify that which is the least free? I’ve tried to find a qualitative way to make that determination, but it’s difficult, because no country has a constitution that guarantees tyranny. Even the constitutions of the old Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China read as if those countries were free. You’d never have guessed that what happened under Stalin and Mao could have happened, just from reading those documents. (Of course, you’d never have guessed we once enslaved a huge portion of our own citizens or screwed the Indians out of a large portion of a continent by reading our Constitution. But that’s another story.)
What I’m getting at is it’s hard to determine qualitatively which is the least free country on earth. So I decided to see if there is a quantitative way to measure it. I found two. First, the country with the most laws would be a candidate for that which is least free. Laws regulate people, so the country which is the least free would surely regulate its people the most. Second, the country with the greatest percentage of its population in jail would also be a candidate for the least free, for obvious reasons. And, if, by chance, some country not only had the most laws but also had the largest percentage of its own population behind bars, we’d at least have a candidate for the least free country on the planet.
So which country has the most laws regulating its citizenry? After looking high and low I discovered that the country with the most laws—not just today, but in all of history is...geez Louise, it’s the United States. We not only have the most laws in all of history, but we also turn out more new laws and regulations to manage our people every single year than most countries turn out in decades.
How can it be that the world’s freest country needs more laws to tell its people what to do than the Soviet Union, Red China, Nazi Germany, or any two-bit banana republic dictatorship? And it’s not like we’ve always had so many laws. Most of them are new. In 1814, when President Madison and the Congress fled Washington, DC, ahead of the invading English troops bent on arson, they took the papers of the federal government with them. It was easy. They loaded all the laws and regulations into a few boxes and left. This was all the federal government had generated to regulate us in the first 38 years of our existence. Today, Congress and anonymous bureaucrats generate more laws and regulations than that in minutes.
Maybe we should consider the other criterion. Which country imprisons the highest percentage of its own citizens? Let’s see, Russia’s up there. And so is the Union of South Africa. And there are some little potentates as we see in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. Hmm, but who leads the list. On, no! Folks, you’re not going to like this. It’s...it’s...the United States, again, heading the list of least free countries. The prime reason is the War on Drugs, the war waged against our country’s own citizens “for their own good.”
When I presented my results to others, some said if you obey the laws, you have nothing to worry about and you’ll still be free. I pointed out that that’s the case in every country. Toe the line and you won’t get in trouble. If the women in Afghanistan wore their burkas and didn’t drive or get an education, then by that definition they could still be free. I also pointed out that Jews in Nazi Germany, blacks in the postbellum South, and many American Indians did toe the line and tried to be good citizens but they still got screwed. So obeying the law doesn’t guarantee freedom.
Another said, despite all our laws, we have safeguards in that we have a jury system and that those laws are filtered through juries. I pointed out that more and more agencies regulate us without juries. E.g., the IRS, family courts, OSHA, the EPA, etc. don’t allow juries. And where juries are allowed the courts exclude people who realize they can nullify bad laws. This is hardly a recipe for freedom.
So, somehow, I have arrived at a paradox. What, on paper, would appear to be the freest society in the world appears, in practice, to be among the most oppressive. Does this bother anyone besides me?
http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/silveira77lw.html
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
posted by Aaron Turpen @ 10:02 PM
0 Comments
We Do Not Live In a Democracy
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
posted by Aaron Turpen @ 9:33 PM
0 Comments
Enjoy the Police State
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
posted by Aaron Turpen @ 9:23 PM
0 Comments
Aaron's Big Fat Electric Wish List
by Aaron Turpen
Here's a list of things I'd like to see either converted to electric or as added accessories to something already electric. These come from my own, real-world experience, so maybe you'll have a list you've could ad to this. Feel free to comment.
Electric Vehicle Conversions I'd Be Willing to Pay For:
A 4x4 pickup truck with enough power to actually pull a mid-sized (weight-equivalent to truck) trailer and the actual ability to go off-road instead of just pretending to, unlike most SUVs.
A long-range, highway-capable (meaning 80mph, not 55) car with four doors and the ability to seat six real people, not undersized Japanese mannequins. I'm 6'3” and 240 pounds, people, I don't fit in your tiny little tuna cans. That's why I don't drive my wife's Honda! Sure, it gets 5,000,000mpg, but I have to use a shoehorn to get in there. Even my ninety pound dog has a rough time with it. My wife, of course, being five-foot-nothin' has no problems at all.
A realistic, 20+hp tractor that uses standard three-point tools and has a front end loader and a useful working time of 12+ hours per charge. I live in Wyoming, so stop the puzzled looks as to why I'd want this.
A cold-weather around-towner for running little errands. Here's the specs: it has to be enclosed, have some kind of passenger heating source, be capable of operating in extreme cold and various bad weather conditions (including high wind and heavy winter), and at least make an attempt at looking cool. Most electric “commuters” and such are made for people who live in LA-LA land and don't have to deal with anything like this. I'm sorry, I can't justify buying a vehicle I'm only going to drive seven months out of the year. Southern California (I prefer the term “Kalifornia” or “Kommunist Republik of”) is only a tiny little piece of America, so stop gearing all your alternative energy efforts towards them and start thinking about the rest of us! I'm sure the Governator will be glad to have some relief from the scrutiny of his very non-green, bulletproof Hummer. OK, enough politics.
Other Electric Improvements I'd Like To Take Credit For Inventing
An iPod dock for my electric lawnmower. Come to think of it, a WiFi link from the lawnmower so I could control it from my laptop would be cool too. I've always wanted to put an oscillating, red light on the front that makes that little “woom woom” sound. Cat and dog-dooty detection sensors would be an added bonus.
An electric collar that automatically teaches my dog all the obedience and fun trucks you see on TV so I don't have to figure out how to do it myself. A valium-dispensing option to calm the laborador down would be a bonus.
Speaking of politics, how about an electric “B.S. Indicator” we could attach to our TV so that while we're watching debates or listening to them on whatever talk show they're on, we could know how high our hip boots really need to be to wade through their...uhh...proposals. Noise-canceling headphones are my current option of choice, so I'd like to see an improvement on this.
How about an enviro-friendly, realistic Presidential candidate? Something with more pizazz than McCain, but less rhetoric than Obama. It'd obviously still have to be a robot like our current options, but would need some real improvement on personality design. Maybe based on the Clintons in their hey-day: the looks of Bill and the drive and bit...er...determination of Hillary. Or perhaps the beloved Reagans, with the looks of Ronald and the wackiness of Nancy? It's political viewpoints wouldn't matter, since all it'd need is a paint job to switch from Republican to Democrat anyway.
Well, there you have them, my electric improvements for a new America in the 21st Century. I'm sure a couple of these will be a springboard for new inventions, further driving the entrepreneurial spirit of this great country. If you do take off with one of these ideas, please give me some kind of credit. Maybe name it the “Aaronator2000” or the “AaronStar” or something. I'd appreciate that.
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
Here's a list of things I'd like to see either converted to electric or as added accessories to something already electric. These come from my own, real-world experience, so maybe you'll have a list you've could ad to this. Feel free to comment.
Electric Vehicle Conversions I'd Be Willing to Pay For:
A 4x4 pickup truck with enough power to actually pull a mid-sized (weight-equivalent to truck) trailer and the actual ability to go off-road instead of just pretending to, unlike most SUVs.
A long-range, highway-capable (meaning 80mph, not 55) car with four doors and the ability to seat six real people, not undersized Japanese mannequins. I'm 6'3” and 240 pounds, people, I don't fit in your tiny little tuna cans. That's why I don't drive my wife's Honda! Sure, it gets 5,000,000mpg, but I have to use a shoehorn to get in there. Even my ninety pound dog has a rough time with it. My wife, of course, being five-foot-nothin' has no problems at all.
A realistic, 20+hp tractor that uses standard three-point tools and has a front end loader and a useful working time of 12+ hours per charge. I live in Wyoming, so stop the puzzled looks as to why I'd want this.
A cold-weather around-towner for running little errands. Here's the specs: it has to be enclosed, have some kind of passenger heating source, be capable of operating in extreme cold and various bad weather conditions (including high wind and heavy winter), and at least make an attempt at looking cool. Most electric “commuters” and such are made for people who live in LA-LA land and don't have to deal with anything like this. I'm sorry, I can't justify buying a vehicle I'm only going to drive seven months out of the year. Southern California (I prefer the term “Kalifornia” or “Kommunist Republik of”) is only a tiny little piece of America, so stop gearing all your alternative energy efforts towards them and start thinking about the rest of us! I'm sure the Governator will be glad to have some relief from the scrutiny of his very non-green, bulletproof Hummer. OK, enough politics.
Other Electric Improvements I'd Like To Take Credit For Inventing
An iPod dock for my electric lawnmower. Come to think of it, a WiFi link from the lawnmower so I could control it from my laptop would be cool too. I've always wanted to put an oscillating, red light on the front that makes that little “woom woom” sound. Cat and dog-dooty detection sensors would be an added bonus.
An electric collar that automatically teaches my dog all the obedience and fun trucks you see on TV so I don't have to figure out how to do it myself. A valium-dispensing option to calm the laborador down would be a bonus.
Speaking of politics, how about an electric “B.S. Indicator” we could attach to our TV so that while we're watching debates or listening to them on whatever talk show they're on, we could know how high our hip boots really need to be to wade through their...uhh...proposals. Noise-canceling headphones are my current option of choice, so I'd like to see an improvement on this.
How about an enviro-friendly, realistic Presidential candidate? Something with more pizazz than McCain, but less rhetoric than Obama. It'd obviously still have to be a robot like our current options, but would need some real improvement on personality design. Maybe based on the Clintons in their hey-day: the looks of Bill and the drive and bit...er...determination of Hillary. Or perhaps the beloved Reagans, with the looks of Ronald and the wackiness of Nancy? It's political viewpoints wouldn't matter, since all it'd need is a paint job to switch from Republican to Democrat anyway.
Well, there you have them, my electric improvements for a new America in the 21st Century. I'm sure a couple of these will be a springboard for new inventions, further driving the entrepreneurial spirit of this great country. If you do take off with one of these ideas, please give me some kind of credit. Maybe name it the “Aaronator2000” or the “AaronStar” or something. I'd appreciate that.
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
posted by Aaron Turpen @ 8:42 PM
0 Comments
Friday, October 24, 2008
BankTron
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
posted by Aaron Turpen @ 9:56 AM
0 Comments
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Christians and the Pro-Life Ploy
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/dilsaver1.html
by G.C. Dilsaver
Leaders in the Catholic and other conservative pro-life churches are almost making it mandatory this presidential election that the faithful vote for McCain or, more to the point, vote against the pro-abortion Obama. But is this single-issue pro-life exhortation really in harmony with authentic Christian tradition? Are these leaders really showing that they are of the mettle of their predecessors, from the Apostles to St. Thomas Beckett to Cardinal Mindszenty? Or instead are these Christian leaders more aligned with those predecessors who all too often compromised the faith and kowtowed to political power, the world, the flesh, and the devil? This essay advances that it is the latter.
The Pro-Life Ploy
Indeed, the pro-life ploy is perfectly demonic: in holding out the illusionary possibility of destroying an evil an even greater evil is fed. But what can be more evil than killing babies? It is that which is the cause of this killing and myriad other evils. Indeed, as atrocious as abortion is, it is nonetheless a symptom. Our nation is not vicious because it allows abortion, rather it allows abortion because the nation is vicious.
It is good that church leaders are finally showing some spine in regards to politics and the crime of abortion, but this is neither remarkable nor prophetic. In doing so they are merely reacting to the most gruesome and sensational symptom of a systemic evil. But tragically the election of another Republican will not take care of the symptom; at the very best (don’t hold your breath) it will remand it back to the states. Abortion will remain, legal or illegal. However, it is certain that voting for either the Republican or Democratic candidate will strengthen the systemic evil that is the current Republican-Democratic political axis, and the powers that manipulate that government. Also be certain that the last thing the national government wants to do is remand anything back to the states, much less to the community, church, or family. Indeed, Roe v. Wade is the rotten fruit of the Federal government’s usurpation of state’s rights.
The systemic evil that must be primarily combated is the rise of the most omnipotent State in history, both on the domestic and international level. Under this State, and abided by mind-boggling advances in technology, totalitarianism has the potential of reaching an apex of power and control undreamed of by past despots. The future is ominous indeed, for already this State contravenes its own constitution. Already this State ignores international law in its kidnapping and torture of suspects. Already this State justifies its attack of other countries under the immoral concept of pre-emptivity. Already this State has free license to spy on its citizens. Already this State claims the right to intrude itself into the family, even to the extent of confiscating children. Already this State imprisons 1 in every 100 of its citizens, a quarter of the world’s entire prison population. In short, already this State is fascist, viewing itself as omnipotent and beholding to nothing.
While ultimately this unprecedented totalitarian State is an international-united-states, domestically it is the United States of America and is represented by the Republican-Democratic political axis. These political parties are but two sides of the same ticket; a tag team that take turns every four or eight years beating up on the hapless American populace who nonetheless continue to cheer them on with "USA, USA" thinking these parties are actually wrestling each other. Yes, the Democrats and Republicans are two sides to the same ticket: and that ticket is a one-way ticket to fascism. It is the ticket to the attempted destruction of any remnant of authentic Christianity and a ticket to the reign of an antichrist, if not the antichrist. Supporting this regime, this Republican-Democratic axis of evil, is not pro-life; it is pro-death, both physically and spiritually. It will not end abortion, but quite the contrary, it will metastasize the culture of death, killing the bodies of its opponents and the souls of its proponents.
The urgent case in point shows an example of this culture of death. One would think U.S. pro-lifers would care about the Iraqi unborn just as much as they care about other unborn babies. A baby in-utero is neither Christian nor Moslem, neither American nor Iraqi. In Iraq how many unborn have died along with the millions of civilians that have been killed or maimed by the USA’s destruction of infrastructure, aerial bombing, and depleted uranium bombs. These depleted uranium bombs also have the added "military" advantage of causing spontaneous abortions and birth defects. However, I’ve yet to hear one single denouncement of this from the "traditional Catholic" pulpits I frequent, and only extremely rarely from the "Christian pro-lifers" I encounter. Indeed, the pro-life movement’s new found darling, Mrs. Palin, is silent on the Iraqi special needs children debilitated by our special bombs. Of course, Bomb-Bomb-Iran McCain couldn't care less. He is the same fellow who bombed innocent civilians in North Vietnam when Nixon decided to stop risking our own soldier’s lives and concentrate our military efforts on terrorist blanket bombing of North Vietnam population centers. Anyone that supports a candidate that gleefully looks forward to the bombing of innocent civilians (born or unborn, Christian or Moslem) in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and the devil knows where, is not pro-life, and surely not a good Christian!
The Two Party Axis of Evil
"Vote pro-life." If only the battle between good and evil was so simple. But it’s not, for evil is deceptive and insidious. When one becomes myopic and single-issue oriented one is easily hoodwinked, for one’s field of vision is already curtailed. Indeed, he usually becomes blinded to his own personal issues, especially those that require real courage to confront.
Christian pro-life leaders are right, for aside from all the other issues, right or wrong Obama advocates, his abortion stance makes it a very simple and closed case: a Catholic or other pro-life Christian cannot vote for him or his running mate, the apostate Catholic Biden. So it is a no-brainer that one can’t vote for Obama, but it takes only a bit more brains (maybe a bit-of-brains should be a poll requirement) or a smidgen of true Christian spirit to see that one can’t vote for McCain either. An orthodox Christian must hold that voting for any overtly pro-abortion candidate is intrinsically evil. But so is voting for a totalitarian warmonger like McCain, though it seems that only wise or authentic or uncompromising Christians realize this.
The Christian single-issue advocates are in effect, if not always in intent, minimalists and compromisers. What they are urging is what a functional conscience with but the slightest sense of natural law and moral rectitude would urge. These single-issue Christians fail to see the bigger picture, the essence of the evil itself, because they compartmentalize their faith. It is safer than living that faith out in its totality and it is safely political and issue-oriented rather than dangerously militant and prophetic. Being pro-life becomes militant and prophetic, it becomes heroic and a personal encounter with Christ Crucified, most especially for those who endure a pregnancy that is somehow tragic. But for most of us being pro-life remains an issue, even the banner issue of our conservative politics and our Christian faith.
But Christianity can’t be reduced down to issues or politics. It isn’t liberation theology nor neo-conservatism nor dispensationalism, all of which fall under the category of a semi- or anti-Christianity. Not only is Christianity not merely political, it is not merely moral. You can’t reduce the faith down to a moral code much less one moral position, no matter how serious that position is. To do so does irreparable damage to that faith and, as such, best assures the defeat of the moral position one advocates.
Christianity is much more than politics or morals: it is a fully integral, all pervasive, all transcendent though eminently practical worldview. Both parties on the vast majority of issues, on their all-pervasive worldviews, are incompatible with, indeed hostile to, the Christian worldview. Thus there are many other issues that disallow a Christian from voting for either Obama even if he were pro-life or McCain even though he claims to be pro-life. True, one could be more easily deceived and not know that a vote for McCain is a vote for that which is antithetical to Christianity; but isn’t such deception in keeping with the insidious tactics of the demonic?
Means and Ends
In traditional Christian morality a good end never justifies an evil means, and even if it did an evil means never procures a good end that lasts. A strikingly relevant case in point was the Fascist government in Italy. Mussolini’s state banned abortion, birth control, and homosexuality activity. As a Catholic I hold these things as intrinsically evil and their curtailment good. However, supporters of Italian fascism, even those who supported it primarily for the advancement of these moral issues, are responsible for facilitating a cataclysmic evil. This evil culminated in Catholics sheepishly submitting to national conscription and participation in an unjust and horrifying war. In addition, it led to the subsequent weakening of Catholic culture, morals, and faith in Italy and to the final eradication of European Christendom. The result now being a de-Christianized Italy that fully accepts those very moral issues some sought to address by compromising with the fascist regime. If even a fraction of the effort and sacrifice that was squandered by Italian and other Catholics in World War II had instead been brought to missionary efforts the world would be looking at the rebirth of Christendom rather than its demise.
Moral decadence always comes in the wake of war. Indeed among Catholic countries, erstwhile totalitarian Italy and Spain have the lowest birthrates in the world due to rejection of the Church’s moral teachings on sexuality and marriage. Compare this to the erstwhile victims of totalitarianism, Ireland and France, which still have the highest birthrates. The lesson being, you can’t compromise with a totalitarian regime even for a single issue, for that issue, along with a host of others, will only be gravely exacerbated in the long run.
Catholic weren’t so taken in by the blatantly pagan Nazi movement and the Catholic regions of Germany remained the last bastion of opposition to it. Indeed, Catholics biggest weakness in regards to Nazism was tolerating it because it wasn’t as blatantly atheistic as Communism. Today Catholics and other pro-life Christians are asked by their clergy to tolerate McCain and the Republicans to avoid Obama and the Democrats. This tactic is akin to supporting Communism to destroy Nazism. However in this case the chances of eradicating the evil of abortion are zilch. Just as there was little difference between the Communists and the Nazis there is even littler difference between the American Axis of the Republicans and Democrats. They are both socialist and totalitarian. Indeed, it is a hoax being played on the American people to make them believe there is a difference. Unfortunately for a people raised on TV and other fantasies this hoax is easily perpetrated.
There is a Unifying Issue
We have abortion because of the break-up of the family and the ensuing moral decadence, not because of Roe v. Wade. Why do we have the breakup of the family? It is because the family has been supplanted by the State (and the corporation). In actuality families have absolutely no rights in the United States, indeed, children can be taken from the home on mere suspicions. Yet it is the family that is ever the last bastion against tyranny.
Christians must realize that the evil of abortion, like all moral evils, will only be eradicated when the populace converts from its neo-paganism. This is the job of the Church, not the current government, which itself is neo-pagan in its self-worship. Indeed, there is an indisputable correlation between the waxing of the State and vice and the waning of the family and virtue. As the State becomes more totalitarian its citizens become more vicious and as the citizens become more vicious the State becomes more totalitarian. Thus to end abortion we must defeat the totalitarian State and increase personal virtue. The most effective way of increasing personal virtue is to restore the sacrosanct status of the family. A strengthened family plus a weakened State equals a moral virtuous populace equals less abortion.
Note well that patriotism is not nationalism. Patriotism is a virtue, nationalism is a vice. Love of one’s soil, one’s family, one’s clan, one’s (in some way) homogeneous community is the essence of patriotism. But nationalism, and more so today than ever, undermines all of that. The central principle of traditional Christian social thought is subsidiarity. Subsidiarity holds that all social and governing functions should be implemented at the most local level possible. Thus the locus of authority should be the family, then the neighborhood, and then the community; as opposed to the State. It’s Dad’s responsibility and competency to police Junior not Officer Storm Trooper’s. In other words, the Christian principle of subsidiarity upholds regional rights, community rights, and family rights! It holds that the State (and even the police!) exists to serve the citizen and the family.
This cause of family, of community, and region – of subsidiarity – against the totalitarian State is the closest Christians have to a single issue. More exactly it is the unifying issue because all else flows both in morals and politics from this. Thus Christians should be fighting tooth and nail against the omnipotent national government, which means they should be in militant opposition to either major party, to either Obama or McCain, which are puppets of the State.
The Good Means to the Lasting Ends
The end of abortion is not a quick fix. It has taken 500 years for Christendom to be unraveled completely and it may take another 500 years, if God so wills it, for a new Christendom to fully arise. This rebirth entails a moral and spiritual dynamics, not a political and judicial one. For a Christian the most evil element of abortion is the mortal sin of the perpetrators – not the death of the infant, as sorrowful as that is. It is the spiritual death of this country and the choking out of authentic Christianity that is the essential evil we must confront. It wouldn't matter if all abortions were outlawed tomorrow, abortion would still remain and the evil that emanates from a decadent populace and an omnipotent state would continue to increase.
Fight abortion not by feeding the State leviathan so it can gobble up the saved unborn 18 years later in a draft or sooner in some other form of indentured servitude or indoctrination or incarceration; but rather by strengthening the autonomy of the family, the community, and the natural and sociological regions of this country. Fight abortion by reestablishing the sacrosanct status of the home, which is itself the womb of community and Christianity. Fight it by being uncowed by the police state. Fight it by rejecting legal positivism, the ideology that holds that just because the state declares something to be legal or illegal it is. Fight it by studying truth, especially the ancient truth of our Western Christian civilization. Fight it by becoming virtuous and holy. Fight it by heroically preaching the Gospel in lifestyle and words. Fight it by the prophetic witness even if it includes "civil disobedience." Fight it by being open to life and valuing of all human life even when those lives are deemed to be "enemies" or "non-persons" by the state. Fight it by establishing families united in sacrosanct indissolubility. Fight abortion by fighting the ungodly regime in Washington that rapaciously seeks to supplant both faith and family.
Conclusion
Dear Christians, refuse to offer a pinch of incense by refusing to punch the ballot for either official Republican-Democratic Axis candidates. Refuse to offer tribute to the gods of American socialism, totalitarianism, and imperialism and their incarnation in the president. Resist participation in this sham election. The USA is the most powerful and hence the most dangerous nation in the history of the world. Its potential for evil is absolutely unprecedented. If there is not a reversion to the constitution then totalitarianism is inevitable. If this reversion does not occur the only hope for our country will be in those willing to give their lives as witnesses to Christ against the antichrist of the State. Whoever occupies the Whitened Sepulcher House this January is a tool of the powers and principalities of this world and of the devil. And all who facilitate the legitimacy of this sham election are, at best, the devil’s dupes, at worst his minions.
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
by G.C. Dilsaver
Leaders in the Catholic and other conservative pro-life churches are almost making it mandatory this presidential election that the faithful vote for McCain or, more to the point, vote against the pro-abortion Obama. But is this single-issue pro-life exhortation really in harmony with authentic Christian tradition? Are these leaders really showing that they are of the mettle of their predecessors, from the Apostles to St. Thomas Beckett to Cardinal Mindszenty? Or instead are these Christian leaders more aligned with those predecessors who all too often compromised the faith and kowtowed to political power, the world, the flesh, and the devil? This essay advances that it is the latter.
The Pro-Life Ploy
Indeed, the pro-life ploy is perfectly demonic: in holding out the illusionary possibility of destroying an evil an even greater evil is fed. But what can be more evil than killing babies? It is that which is the cause of this killing and myriad other evils. Indeed, as atrocious as abortion is, it is nonetheless a symptom. Our nation is not vicious because it allows abortion, rather it allows abortion because the nation is vicious.
It is good that church leaders are finally showing some spine in regards to politics and the crime of abortion, but this is neither remarkable nor prophetic. In doing so they are merely reacting to the most gruesome and sensational symptom of a systemic evil. But tragically the election of another Republican will not take care of the symptom; at the very best (don’t hold your breath) it will remand it back to the states. Abortion will remain, legal or illegal. However, it is certain that voting for either the Republican or Democratic candidate will strengthen the systemic evil that is the current Republican-Democratic political axis, and the powers that manipulate that government. Also be certain that the last thing the national government wants to do is remand anything back to the states, much less to the community, church, or family. Indeed, Roe v. Wade is the rotten fruit of the Federal government’s usurpation of state’s rights.
The systemic evil that must be primarily combated is the rise of the most omnipotent State in history, both on the domestic and international level. Under this State, and abided by mind-boggling advances in technology, totalitarianism has the potential of reaching an apex of power and control undreamed of by past despots. The future is ominous indeed, for already this State contravenes its own constitution. Already this State ignores international law in its kidnapping and torture of suspects. Already this State justifies its attack of other countries under the immoral concept of pre-emptivity. Already this State has free license to spy on its citizens. Already this State claims the right to intrude itself into the family, even to the extent of confiscating children. Already this State imprisons 1 in every 100 of its citizens, a quarter of the world’s entire prison population. In short, already this State is fascist, viewing itself as omnipotent and beholding to nothing.
While ultimately this unprecedented totalitarian State is an international-united-states, domestically it is the United States of America and is represented by the Republican-Democratic political axis. These political parties are but two sides of the same ticket; a tag team that take turns every four or eight years beating up on the hapless American populace who nonetheless continue to cheer them on with "USA, USA" thinking these parties are actually wrestling each other. Yes, the Democrats and Republicans are two sides to the same ticket: and that ticket is a one-way ticket to fascism. It is the ticket to the attempted destruction of any remnant of authentic Christianity and a ticket to the reign of an antichrist, if not the antichrist. Supporting this regime, this Republican-Democratic axis of evil, is not pro-life; it is pro-death, both physically and spiritually. It will not end abortion, but quite the contrary, it will metastasize the culture of death, killing the bodies of its opponents and the souls of its proponents.
The urgent case in point shows an example of this culture of death. One would think U.S. pro-lifers would care about the Iraqi unborn just as much as they care about other unborn babies. A baby in-utero is neither Christian nor Moslem, neither American nor Iraqi. In Iraq how many unborn have died along with the millions of civilians that have been killed or maimed by the USA’s destruction of infrastructure, aerial bombing, and depleted uranium bombs. These depleted uranium bombs also have the added "military" advantage of causing spontaneous abortions and birth defects. However, I’ve yet to hear one single denouncement of this from the "traditional Catholic" pulpits I frequent, and only extremely rarely from the "Christian pro-lifers" I encounter. Indeed, the pro-life movement’s new found darling, Mrs. Palin, is silent on the Iraqi special needs children debilitated by our special bombs. Of course, Bomb-Bomb-Iran McCain couldn't care less. He is the same fellow who bombed innocent civilians in North Vietnam when Nixon decided to stop risking our own soldier’s lives and concentrate our military efforts on terrorist blanket bombing of North Vietnam population centers. Anyone that supports a candidate that gleefully looks forward to the bombing of innocent civilians (born or unborn, Christian or Moslem) in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and the devil knows where, is not pro-life, and surely not a good Christian!
The Two Party Axis of Evil
"Vote pro-life." If only the battle between good and evil was so simple. But it’s not, for evil is deceptive and insidious. When one becomes myopic and single-issue oriented one is easily hoodwinked, for one’s field of vision is already curtailed. Indeed, he usually becomes blinded to his own personal issues, especially those that require real courage to confront.
Christian pro-life leaders are right, for aside from all the other issues, right or wrong Obama advocates, his abortion stance makes it a very simple and closed case: a Catholic or other pro-life Christian cannot vote for him or his running mate, the apostate Catholic Biden. So it is a no-brainer that one can’t vote for Obama, but it takes only a bit more brains (maybe a bit-of-brains should be a poll requirement) or a smidgen of true Christian spirit to see that one can’t vote for McCain either. An orthodox Christian must hold that voting for any overtly pro-abortion candidate is intrinsically evil. But so is voting for a totalitarian warmonger like McCain, though it seems that only wise or authentic or uncompromising Christians realize this.
The Christian single-issue advocates are in effect, if not always in intent, minimalists and compromisers. What they are urging is what a functional conscience with but the slightest sense of natural law and moral rectitude would urge. These single-issue Christians fail to see the bigger picture, the essence of the evil itself, because they compartmentalize their faith. It is safer than living that faith out in its totality and it is safely political and issue-oriented rather than dangerously militant and prophetic. Being pro-life becomes militant and prophetic, it becomes heroic and a personal encounter with Christ Crucified, most especially for those who endure a pregnancy that is somehow tragic. But for most of us being pro-life remains an issue, even the banner issue of our conservative politics and our Christian faith.
But Christianity can’t be reduced down to issues or politics. It isn’t liberation theology nor neo-conservatism nor dispensationalism, all of which fall under the category of a semi- or anti-Christianity. Not only is Christianity not merely political, it is not merely moral. You can’t reduce the faith down to a moral code much less one moral position, no matter how serious that position is. To do so does irreparable damage to that faith and, as such, best assures the defeat of the moral position one advocates.
Christianity is much more than politics or morals: it is a fully integral, all pervasive, all transcendent though eminently practical worldview. Both parties on the vast majority of issues, on their all-pervasive worldviews, are incompatible with, indeed hostile to, the Christian worldview. Thus there are many other issues that disallow a Christian from voting for either Obama even if he were pro-life or McCain even though he claims to be pro-life. True, one could be more easily deceived and not know that a vote for McCain is a vote for that which is antithetical to Christianity; but isn’t such deception in keeping with the insidious tactics of the demonic?
Means and Ends
In traditional Christian morality a good end never justifies an evil means, and even if it did an evil means never procures a good end that lasts. A strikingly relevant case in point was the Fascist government in Italy. Mussolini’s state banned abortion, birth control, and homosexuality activity. As a Catholic I hold these things as intrinsically evil and their curtailment good. However, supporters of Italian fascism, even those who supported it primarily for the advancement of these moral issues, are responsible for facilitating a cataclysmic evil. This evil culminated in Catholics sheepishly submitting to national conscription and participation in an unjust and horrifying war. In addition, it led to the subsequent weakening of Catholic culture, morals, and faith in Italy and to the final eradication of European Christendom. The result now being a de-Christianized Italy that fully accepts those very moral issues some sought to address by compromising with the fascist regime. If even a fraction of the effort and sacrifice that was squandered by Italian and other Catholics in World War II had instead been brought to missionary efforts the world would be looking at the rebirth of Christendom rather than its demise.
Moral decadence always comes in the wake of war. Indeed among Catholic countries, erstwhile totalitarian Italy and Spain have the lowest birthrates in the world due to rejection of the Church’s moral teachings on sexuality and marriage. Compare this to the erstwhile victims of totalitarianism, Ireland and France, which still have the highest birthrates. The lesson being, you can’t compromise with a totalitarian regime even for a single issue, for that issue, along with a host of others, will only be gravely exacerbated in the long run.
Catholic weren’t so taken in by the blatantly pagan Nazi movement and the Catholic regions of Germany remained the last bastion of opposition to it. Indeed, Catholics biggest weakness in regards to Nazism was tolerating it because it wasn’t as blatantly atheistic as Communism. Today Catholics and other pro-life Christians are asked by their clergy to tolerate McCain and the Republicans to avoid Obama and the Democrats. This tactic is akin to supporting Communism to destroy Nazism. However in this case the chances of eradicating the evil of abortion are zilch. Just as there was little difference between the Communists and the Nazis there is even littler difference between the American Axis of the Republicans and Democrats. They are both socialist and totalitarian. Indeed, it is a hoax being played on the American people to make them believe there is a difference. Unfortunately for a people raised on TV and other fantasies this hoax is easily perpetrated.
There is a Unifying Issue
We have abortion because of the break-up of the family and the ensuing moral decadence, not because of Roe v. Wade. Why do we have the breakup of the family? It is because the family has been supplanted by the State (and the corporation). In actuality families have absolutely no rights in the United States, indeed, children can be taken from the home on mere suspicions. Yet it is the family that is ever the last bastion against tyranny.
Christians must realize that the evil of abortion, like all moral evils, will only be eradicated when the populace converts from its neo-paganism. This is the job of the Church, not the current government, which itself is neo-pagan in its self-worship. Indeed, there is an indisputable correlation between the waxing of the State and vice and the waning of the family and virtue. As the State becomes more totalitarian its citizens become more vicious and as the citizens become more vicious the State becomes more totalitarian. Thus to end abortion we must defeat the totalitarian State and increase personal virtue. The most effective way of increasing personal virtue is to restore the sacrosanct status of the family. A strengthened family plus a weakened State equals a moral virtuous populace equals less abortion.
Note well that patriotism is not nationalism. Patriotism is a virtue, nationalism is a vice. Love of one’s soil, one’s family, one’s clan, one’s (in some way) homogeneous community is the essence of patriotism. But nationalism, and more so today than ever, undermines all of that. The central principle of traditional Christian social thought is subsidiarity. Subsidiarity holds that all social and governing functions should be implemented at the most local level possible. Thus the locus of authority should be the family, then the neighborhood, and then the community; as opposed to the State. It’s Dad’s responsibility and competency to police Junior not Officer Storm Trooper’s. In other words, the Christian principle of subsidiarity upholds regional rights, community rights, and family rights! It holds that the State (and even the police!) exists to serve the citizen and the family.
This cause of family, of community, and region – of subsidiarity – against the totalitarian State is the closest Christians have to a single issue. More exactly it is the unifying issue because all else flows both in morals and politics from this. Thus Christians should be fighting tooth and nail against the omnipotent national government, which means they should be in militant opposition to either major party, to either Obama or McCain, which are puppets of the State.
The Good Means to the Lasting Ends
The end of abortion is not a quick fix. It has taken 500 years for Christendom to be unraveled completely and it may take another 500 years, if God so wills it, for a new Christendom to fully arise. This rebirth entails a moral and spiritual dynamics, not a political and judicial one. For a Christian the most evil element of abortion is the mortal sin of the perpetrators – not the death of the infant, as sorrowful as that is. It is the spiritual death of this country and the choking out of authentic Christianity that is the essential evil we must confront. It wouldn't matter if all abortions were outlawed tomorrow, abortion would still remain and the evil that emanates from a decadent populace and an omnipotent state would continue to increase.
Fight abortion not by feeding the State leviathan so it can gobble up the saved unborn 18 years later in a draft or sooner in some other form of indentured servitude or indoctrination or incarceration; but rather by strengthening the autonomy of the family, the community, and the natural and sociological regions of this country. Fight abortion by reestablishing the sacrosanct status of the home, which is itself the womb of community and Christianity. Fight it by being uncowed by the police state. Fight it by rejecting legal positivism, the ideology that holds that just because the state declares something to be legal or illegal it is. Fight it by studying truth, especially the ancient truth of our Western Christian civilization. Fight it by becoming virtuous and holy. Fight it by heroically preaching the Gospel in lifestyle and words. Fight it by the prophetic witness even if it includes "civil disobedience." Fight it by being open to life and valuing of all human life even when those lives are deemed to be "enemies" or "non-persons" by the state. Fight it by establishing families united in sacrosanct indissolubility. Fight abortion by fighting the ungodly regime in Washington that rapaciously seeks to supplant both faith and family.
Conclusion
Dear Christians, refuse to offer a pinch of incense by refusing to punch the ballot for either official Republican-Democratic Axis candidates. Refuse to offer tribute to the gods of American socialism, totalitarianism, and imperialism and their incarnation in the president. Resist participation in this sham election. The USA is the most powerful and hence the most dangerous nation in the history of the world. Its potential for evil is absolutely unprecedented. If there is not a reversion to the constitution then totalitarianism is inevitable. If this reversion does not occur the only hope for our country will be in those willing to give their lives as witnesses to Christ against the antichrist of the State. Whoever occupies the Whitened Sepulcher House this January is a tool of the powers and principalities of this world and of the devil. And all who facilitate the legitimacy of this sham election are, at best, the devil’s dupes, at worst his minions.
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
posted by Aaron Turpen @ 12:14 PM
0 Comments
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
The 50-State Secession
From: http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2008/tle485-20080921-03.html
by Paul Bonneau
There have been rumblings about secession lately. The blue-state liberals talked it up a bit after the last election, and most readers here probably have been following the goings-on in states like Vermont and Alaska.
One thing that has struck me about these is their air of unreality. If the god-king Lincoln managed to get the (rump) nation to prevent 7, and then 11 states from seceding almost 150 years ago, killing 600,000 Americans in the process, then what chance does a single state now have against a much more powerful and entrenched federal government, that runs the largest empire on earth? "The secession question has been settled."
And it is hard to argue against this point. Whenever anyone thinks of, say, Vermont leaving, they just shake their head. Little old Vermont with the U.S. as a neighbor? Yeah, right...
But, what if all 50 states seceded at about the same time? Then, little old Vermont starts to look pretty viable. Its neighbors would be not the U.S., but New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York and Quebec! Vermont could go on its own, or join with one or several of these in confederation. As to Quebec, if 50 states seceded, could a subsequent Canadian secession not be far behind?
Well, fine, you say. But how can you get all 50 states to secede when one is all but impossible?
Is it really that unlikely? The large problems with one state seceding is its lack of viability and the objection of the criminals running the federal government. But a 50-state secession erases both those problems. That in turn makes it a concept that is not instantly dismissed, in the minds of people who think on it. Strangely, 50 state participation may make secession more possible than one.
There was a bit of grafitti on a highway overpass in Portland, Oregon, that stayed there for a very long time. It said, "U.S. out of Oregon!" A lot of people, across the spectrum, would love to give Washington, DC the boot. A 50-state secession is a way to do that, without worrying about repercussions as the Old South had to deal with.
Arizonans angry about lack of federal control on the border? They could now do it themselves. Wyomingites mad about federal meddling in bear and wolf populations? Cheyenne would now be in control. Oregonians hating the federal invasions of other countries? Oregon would no longer be a part of it. People in all western states thinking BLM and Forest Service land should belong to their own states, not controlled by a federal government and Senators from New York or California? Their lands would be restored to them. Southerners wanting to feel proud of their heritage? A new secession would validate their past, and end Lincoln worship.
"Dump D.C." could become a very popular bumper sticker.
But how could a 50-state secession happen?
Think "North American Union". At some point, the ruling class is going to push this, probably when the dollar has been killed off and the "amero" is to be foisted upon us as a replacement. A big gun confiscation is likely to be part of this package. That's the time people will be thinking most about national sovereignty, borders, and associations with others. If they have no alternative, then the NAU seems inevitable. But there is an alternative, the 50-state secession, and a lot of people will like this alternative! If the pressure builds in enough states, and some of them start sending resolutions of secession to Washington, DC, then others may jump on the bandwagon. "NAU? No, thank you. We prefer to go our own way instead."
This might even happen after the NAU is established. Americans would feel little allegiance to an NAU, making the secession idea even more palatable to them.
The resolutions could read something like this: "If at least 30 other states send resolutions of secession to the federal government, then the State of X will from that point on be independent, and no longer under control of the federal government." That way, the early ones would not be out there, twisting in the wind.
No doubt the first thing that would happen is the creation of regional confederations; for example, Oregon, Washington state, British Columbia. Neighboring states and provinces may join this "Cascadia" such as Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and Alberta. The Dakotas might go with Minnesota and Wisconsin. Other states like Texas and California might just go it alone.
The American Empire, like all empires, is about to end. A 50-state secession would be the least destructive, most promising path to that end. It would restore the early promise of America, that has been all but lost in the last several decades. Dump D.C.!
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
by Paul Bonneau
There have been rumblings about secession lately. The blue-state liberals talked it up a bit after the last election, and most readers here probably have been following the goings-on in states like Vermont and Alaska.
One thing that has struck me about these is their air of unreality. If the god-king Lincoln managed to get the (rump) nation to prevent 7, and then 11 states from seceding almost 150 years ago, killing 600,000 Americans in the process, then what chance does a single state now have against a much more powerful and entrenched federal government, that runs the largest empire on earth? "The secession question has been settled."
And it is hard to argue against this point. Whenever anyone thinks of, say, Vermont leaving, they just shake their head. Little old Vermont with the U.S. as a neighbor? Yeah, right...
But, what if all 50 states seceded at about the same time? Then, little old Vermont starts to look pretty viable. Its neighbors would be not the U.S., but New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York and Quebec! Vermont could go on its own, or join with one or several of these in confederation. As to Quebec, if 50 states seceded, could a subsequent Canadian secession not be far behind?
Well, fine, you say. But how can you get all 50 states to secede when one is all but impossible?
Is it really that unlikely? The large problems with one state seceding is its lack of viability and the objection of the criminals running the federal government. But a 50-state secession erases both those problems. That in turn makes it a concept that is not instantly dismissed, in the minds of people who think on it. Strangely, 50 state participation may make secession more possible than one.
There was a bit of grafitti on a highway overpass in Portland, Oregon, that stayed there for a very long time. It said, "U.S. out of Oregon!" A lot of people, across the spectrum, would love to give Washington, DC the boot. A 50-state secession is a way to do that, without worrying about repercussions as the Old South had to deal with.
Arizonans angry about lack of federal control on the border? They could now do it themselves. Wyomingites mad about federal meddling in bear and wolf populations? Cheyenne would now be in control. Oregonians hating the federal invasions of other countries? Oregon would no longer be a part of it. People in all western states thinking BLM and Forest Service land should belong to their own states, not controlled by a federal government and Senators from New York or California? Their lands would be restored to them. Southerners wanting to feel proud of their heritage? A new secession would validate their past, and end Lincoln worship.
"Dump D.C." could become a very popular bumper sticker.
But how could a 50-state secession happen?
Think "North American Union". At some point, the ruling class is going to push this, probably when the dollar has been killed off and the "amero" is to be foisted upon us as a replacement. A big gun confiscation is likely to be part of this package. That's the time people will be thinking most about national sovereignty, borders, and associations with others. If they have no alternative, then the NAU seems inevitable. But there is an alternative, the 50-state secession, and a lot of people will like this alternative! If the pressure builds in enough states, and some of them start sending resolutions of secession to Washington, DC, then others may jump on the bandwagon. "NAU? No, thank you. We prefer to go our own way instead."
This might even happen after the NAU is established. Americans would feel little allegiance to an NAU, making the secession idea even more palatable to them.
The resolutions could read something like this: "If at least 30 other states send resolutions of secession to the federal government, then the State of X will from that point on be independent, and no longer under control of the federal government." That way, the early ones would not be out there, twisting in the wind.
No doubt the first thing that would happen is the creation of regional confederations; for example, Oregon, Washington state, British Columbia. Neighboring states and provinces may join this "Cascadia" such as Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and Alberta. The Dakotas might go with Minnesota and Wisconsin. Other states like Texas and California might just go it alone.
The American Empire, like all empires, is about to end. A 50-state secession would be the least destructive, most promising path to that end. It would restore the early promise of America, that has been all but lost in the last several decades. Dump D.C.!
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
posted by Aaron Turpen @ 2:07 PM
1 Comments
Citizen, Go Back to Sleep
List at this link
This is how we got this way
Your eyes were closed, that's how they'll stay
Ours are open, and shall remain
Watching over night and day
If you have nothing to hide
You have nothing to fear
We keep you safe at night, so
You won't mind if we are everywhere
We're the eyes behind your mirror
We're the sun when the sky is clear
Citizen, go back to sleep
Whatever happens we will see
If you have nothing to hide
You have nothing to fear
We keep you safe at night, so
You won't mind if we are everywhere
We made the laws while you slept
We did it all without your help
What will we think of next
To protect you from yourself?
Citizen, go back to sleep
Whatever happens we will see
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
This is how we got this way
Your eyes were closed, that's how they'll stay
Ours are open, and shall remain
Watching over night and day
If you have nothing to hide
You have nothing to fear
We keep you safe at night, so
You won't mind if we are everywhere
We're the eyes behind your mirror
We're the sun when the sky is clear
Citizen, go back to sleep
Whatever happens we will see
If you have nothing to hide
You have nothing to fear
We keep you safe at night, so
You won't mind if we are everywhere
We made the laws while you slept
We did it all without your help
What will we think of next
To protect you from yourself?
Citizen, go back to sleep
Whatever happens we will see
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
posted by Aaron Turpen @ 1:15 PM
0 Comments
Too Big to Fail?
From: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul486.html
by Ron Paul
In the midst of highly unpopular bailouts of Wall Street, many justifications have been given about why Washington feels the need to act. Some claim that capitalism and the free market are to blame, but we have not had capitalism. If you compare our financial capital to our aggregate debt, this would be obvious. In the same way, we have not had a truly free market. The monetary manipulations of the Federal Reserve, a complex tax code, the many “oversight” agencies and their mountains of regulations show that we are far removed from a free market economy.
Another unsatisfying argument is that certain entities have to be bailed out because of their economic importance. Supposedly, some entities can be so big, so important, that no matter what they do, citizens must perpetually sustain them.
Even limited government has a basic duty to defend against force and fraud. Some argue that force is somehow permissible just because the entity engaging in it is "economically significant." But one could use this reasoning to prop up slavery. It could be deemed unfortunate but economically beneficial, and indeed these arguments have been used historically to deprive people of their liberty. But slavery should never be tolerated regardless of any economic benefit, just as systemic fraud should not be tolerated. Some banks on Wall Street should fail. Fannie and Freddie should fail. They are perpetrating fraud against the people. Yet, government insists on rewarding behavior which should instead be investigated, prosecuted, and punished.
There has been much evidence of fraud at Fannie and Freddie, but when one man, Franklin Raines, defrauded the organization out of millions of dollars through illegal accounting tricks, and ends up agreeing to pay back just a fraction, one could argue that it was well worth it to him. Fannie went on to only get more deeply involved in subprime mortgages after this investigation. Several organizations are suffering right now precisely because the free market is trying to work and punish mismanagement, if only the government would get out of the way and let it. Perhaps banks are not lending to each other because they know that complicated accounting standards, created in part to defend against confiscatory tax policy, enables false fiscal pictures to be presented, which erodes trust. But this is not a time for the government to step in with more burdensome and complicated regulations, or more foolish liquidity injections. This is a time for some banks to fail, and remaining banks to deal honestly and transparently once again. More regulations will only result in more lies.
Just as economies that turned away from slave labor had a transition period, our economy would transition as well, but in the end, if we turned to honest, sound money and a truly free market, we would end up with a more just society, founded on truthfulness and decency, not subject to the violence of force or the whims of fraudulent institutions. Unfortunately, it seems we are headed into a new era of slavery, however, where all taxpayers will be forced to render to the Fed and big banking interests the bulk of the fruits of their labor, possibly through higher taxes but definitely through the eroding force of inflation.
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
by Ron Paul
In the midst of highly unpopular bailouts of Wall Street, many justifications have been given about why Washington feels the need to act. Some claim that capitalism and the free market are to blame, but we have not had capitalism. If you compare our financial capital to our aggregate debt, this would be obvious. In the same way, we have not had a truly free market. The monetary manipulations of the Federal Reserve, a complex tax code, the many “oversight” agencies and their mountains of regulations show that we are far removed from a free market economy.
Another unsatisfying argument is that certain entities have to be bailed out because of their economic importance. Supposedly, some entities can be so big, so important, that no matter what they do, citizens must perpetually sustain them.
Even limited government has a basic duty to defend against force and fraud. Some argue that force is somehow permissible just because the entity engaging in it is "economically significant." But one could use this reasoning to prop up slavery. It could be deemed unfortunate but economically beneficial, and indeed these arguments have been used historically to deprive people of their liberty. But slavery should never be tolerated regardless of any economic benefit, just as systemic fraud should not be tolerated. Some banks on Wall Street should fail. Fannie and Freddie should fail. They are perpetrating fraud against the people. Yet, government insists on rewarding behavior which should instead be investigated, prosecuted, and punished.
There has been much evidence of fraud at Fannie and Freddie, but when one man, Franklin Raines, defrauded the organization out of millions of dollars through illegal accounting tricks, and ends up agreeing to pay back just a fraction, one could argue that it was well worth it to him. Fannie went on to only get more deeply involved in subprime mortgages after this investigation. Several organizations are suffering right now precisely because the free market is trying to work and punish mismanagement, if only the government would get out of the way and let it. Perhaps banks are not lending to each other because they know that complicated accounting standards, created in part to defend against confiscatory tax policy, enables false fiscal pictures to be presented, which erodes trust. But this is not a time for the government to step in with more burdensome and complicated regulations, or more foolish liquidity injections. This is a time for some banks to fail, and remaining banks to deal honestly and transparently once again. More regulations will only result in more lies.
Just as economies that turned away from slave labor had a transition period, our economy would transition as well, but in the end, if we turned to honest, sound money and a truly free market, we would end up with a more just society, founded on truthfulness and decency, not subject to the violence of force or the whims of fraudulent institutions. Unfortunately, it seems we are headed into a new era of slavery, however, where all taxpayers will be forced to render to the Fed and big banking interests the bulk of the fruits of their labor, possibly through higher taxes but definitely through the eroding force of inflation.
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
posted by Aaron Turpen @ 10:46 AM
0 Comments
ProLibertate: Fare Thee Well, and Get Ye Lost
For the past eight years, Republicans have diligently cultivated the doctrine of Fuhrerprinzip and nurtured the Cult of the Imperial Presidency. In two weeks the harvest will start to come in as the voters ratify the reign of His Ineffable Holiness, Obama the Blessed (peace be upon him).
By no later than next Spring, the Republicans -- who will deservedly be reduced not merely to the status of minority party, but that of an unpleasant political afterthought -- will be force-fed the nettles that sprouted from the seeds of despotism they planted during Bush the Lesser's first term.
Between the passage of the post-9/11 Authorization for Use of Military Force (aka the Enabling Act) in 2001, and enactment of the Military Commissions Act just before the 2006 mid-term elections, the Republican Party demolished every remaining restraint on executive power.
In the past few weeks, amid an economic disaster precipitated in large measure by Republican-approved public profligacy, Republicans (with the honorable and consistent exception of Washington's sole statesman, Rep. Ron Paul, and a handful of others) eagerly collaborated with Democrats in creating an economic dictatorship operating out of the Treasury Department. They also authorized the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars to socialize the costs of fraud and criminal corruption on Wall Street.
Bush the Lesser thus ends his lamentable reign by presiding over the greatest redistribution of wealth in human history. This accomplishment makes a very nice matched set with the Bush Regime's other significant achievement, a fully functioning system of totalitarian control that is only now beginning to make its presence felt in tangible ways.
Read the whole thing here: http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2008/10/fare-thee-well-and-get-ye-lost.html
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
By no later than next Spring, the Republicans -- who will deservedly be reduced not merely to the status of minority party, but that of an unpleasant political afterthought -- will be force-fed the nettles that sprouted from the seeds of despotism they planted during Bush the Lesser's first term.
Between the passage of the post-9/11 Authorization for Use of Military Force (aka the Enabling Act) in 2001, and enactment of the Military Commissions Act just before the 2006 mid-term elections, the Republican Party demolished every remaining restraint on executive power.
In the past few weeks, amid an economic disaster precipitated in large measure by Republican-approved public profligacy, Republicans (with the honorable and consistent exception of Washington's sole statesman, Rep. Ron Paul, and a handful of others) eagerly collaborated with Democrats in creating an economic dictatorship operating out of the Treasury Department. They also authorized the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars to socialize the costs of fraud and criminal corruption on Wall Street.
Bush the Lesser thus ends his lamentable reign by presiding over the greatest redistribution of wealth in human history. This accomplishment makes a very nice matched set with the Bush Regime's other significant achievement, a fully functioning system of totalitarian control that is only now beginning to make its presence felt in tangible ways.
Read the whole thing here: http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2008/10/fare-thee-well-and-get-ye-lost.html
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
posted by Aaron Turpen @ 10:41 AM
0 Comments
Cartoon Mania
-----
Got comments? Email me, dammit!
Permanent link for this article which can be used on any website:
posted by Aaron Turpen @ 9:54 AM
0 Comments
