Over the past week I have been enthralled with the reporting of the upheaval of a society in Northern Africa. A 42 year despot's regime is crumbling around him, his people collectively rejecting his form of government. A rebellion, a revolution... or simply a protest?
Report after report identifies that cities are in the control of 'protesters'... that security is being handled by protesters... and that military forces are switching sides to join the protesters.
So I ask, at what point do we identify the protesters as opposition military forces? When do they cease to be peaceful protesters and begin being rebel forces?
"Public Opinion"... the choice words of the day. Regardless of your stance on the Libyan rebellion, be ever cautious of the thought control the media has over you, the reader.
If Qaddafi was reported as attacking and retaking military bases and coastal cities from rebelling civilians joined by military personnel who have renounced loyalty to the regime and joined the rebellion, one would be so inclined to look at the situation and say, "ah... civil war. Maybe Qaddafi should suspend Habeus Corpus and march his soldiers into every town and burn them until he can be assured that his country, his nation, is secure."
Instead, we hear of peaceful opposition "skirmishing" with Libyan military, and protesters "shooting down" Libyan jets.
What may have begun as anti-government protests has become a rebellion - a civil war. At what point does the media recognize this?
Showing posts with label Civil War. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Civil War. Show all posts
Monday, February 28, 2011
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Does the Next US Civil War Begin over Energy?
It started when Arizona passed a law clarifying the state law enforcement's role in enforcing existing immigration laws of the United States. Mostly without understanding current laws, without reading the new AZ law, and acting solely on emotion, Liberals across the nation began speaking out against Arizona. What followed was a solidarity to a cause of Arizona Boycott, led by Los Angeles City Council and Mayor. The first shot across the economic bow of Arizona - the new Fort Sumter.
Arizona has fired back, and is threatening to literally go nuclear - that is, they are threatening the LA city council and mayor that if they do not vote to lift their boycott Arizona will move to stop the flow of power to the city of Los Angeles. Arizona provides about 25% of Los Angeles' energy.
If Arizona succeeds in cutting power to Los Angeles, through similar laws that require all Texas produced power to be used solely in the state of Texas, one would have to wonder what the next volley of attacks will be. Perhaps massive moves of population from southern California into Arizona for the purpose of civil unrest, followed by Arizona cutting off water to California... Who knows...
I believe the war between the states is being defined, is based on energy and state resources, and will be the test of which regions live and which have become overly dependant on their neighbors. The states who have built infrastructure based on resources and self sufficiency will survive, and naturally those who cannot exist independently will not. LA, an oasis in the deserts of Southern California, is a region that cannot sustain, and thus cannot survive.
Welcome to the Change we can all believe in - Regional energy wars within the United States!
Arizona has fired back, and is threatening to literally go nuclear - that is, they are threatening the LA city council and mayor that if they do not vote to lift their boycott Arizona will move to stop the flow of power to the city of Los Angeles. Arizona provides about 25% of Los Angeles' energy.
"I received your message; please receive mine. As a statewide elected member of the Arizona Corporation Commission overseeing Arizona's electric and water utilities, I too am keenly aware of the 'resources and ties' we share with the city of Los Angeles," Gary Pierce, a commissioner on the five-member Arizona Corporation Commission, wrote.The response from Los Angeles Mayor's Spokesman David Beltran:
"If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation."
"We're not going to respond to threats from a state which has isolated itself from the America that values freedom, liberty and basic human rights,"What the elected officials from LA seem to forget is that their state and city have nearly the same law on their books. They refuse to acknowledge the impact of illegal immigration on the economy and budget of the states, as well as the increased violence and crime associated with the black markets thriving in the illegal immigration pipeline - including human trafficking.
If Arizona succeeds in cutting power to Los Angeles, through similar laws that require all Texas produced power to be used solely in the state of Texas, one would have to wonder what the next volley of attacks will be. Perhaps massive moves of population from southern California into Arizona for the purpose of civil unrest, followed by Arizona cutting off water to California... Who knows...
I believe the war between the states is being defined, is based on energy and state resources, and will be the test of which regions live and which have become overly dependant on their neighbors. The states who have built infrastructure based on resources and self sufficiency will survive, and naturally those who cannot exist independently will not. LA, an oasis in the deserts of Southern California, is a region that cannot sustain, and thus cannot survive.
Welcome to the Change we can all believe in - Regional energy wars within the United States!
Thursday, March 25, 2010
The Era of Terror
In the wake of the Healthcare vote, the fundamental change between government and the subjects of the government, there have been about ten reports of mild violence aimed at Congressional figures, both Democratic and Republican. From threatening letters to bricks, and the now reported bullet hole in a Republican Congressman's office window, there has been a rash of mild violence as Americans find themselves at their wits end with such a radical and fundamental shift in the structure of our government.
Do I condone violence against elected leaders? No.
Do I understand? Sure I do.
No action is meaningless. Such actions seem to be misplaced acts of aggression in the build up of tension between the people and the government... but one thing is certain - they are not, as the Democratic Majority Whip declared, 'acts of terror'! They are criminal acts that echo the mounting frustration by citizens that the congress and the federal government in general are out of control.
I had previously questioned the use of the term "terror", as Homeland Security released their updated briefing last year ahead of the Tea Parties, classifying members of the Tea Party as 'potential terrorists' or 'likely terrorists'. It seems that criminal acts of violence classify as 'acts of terrorism' when there is political gain by the victim in the media, and thus a sympathetic ear by the consumer subject of the union.
The labelling of "terrorist" marginalizes a message while emotionalizing, and as such confusing, the facts on the ground. It is true in the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan as much as it is here in the United States:
* A terrorist is one who targets civilians for the purpose of mass emotional response for political gain.
* An insurgent is one who fights a standing army or leaders of an occupying force by guerrilla tactics.
* A criminal is one who breaks the law in threats and attacks on political figures or private citizens.
I warned that as tensions escalated in the United States, as the battle lines were defined between the subjects and the citizens, that the power of persuasion by mass emotional manipulation would be the most effective and widely used tool. As many are reporting now, it is the intent of the left to insight 60's style liberal violence by the right in order to marginalize our counter position... We are witness to the yet another tactic of the left in their aggressive onslaught of liberty by continued manipulation of the masses!
Reject the wrongful and emotional classification of 'terrorism' given to these criminal acts. Take the fight to the states and courts, and push local government to support sovereignty and nullification actions. Tear the curtains off the windows of the liberal leftists doghouse through legal avenues... reject their policies to the core. And most importantly, call them out on their wrongful and emotional attempts at mass manipulation in the wake of their tragic miscalculation!
Do I condone violence against elected leaders? No.
Do I understand? Sure I do.
No action is meaningless. Such actions seem to be misplaced acts of aggression in the build up of tension between the people and the government... but one thing is certain - they are not, as the Democratic Majority Whip declared, 'acts of terror'! They are criminal acts that echo the mounting frustration by citizens that the congress and the federal government in general are out of control.
I had previously questioned the use of the term "terror", as Homeland Security released their updated briefing last year ahead of the Tea Parties, classifying members of the Tea Party as 'potential terrorists' or 'likely terrorists'. It seems that criminal acts of violence classify as 'acts of terrorism' when there is political gain by the victim in the media, and thus a sympathetic ear by the consumer subject of the union.
The labelling of "terrorist" marginalizes a message while emotionalizing, and as such confusing, the facts on the ground. It is true in the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan as much as it is here in the United States:
* A terrorist is one who targets civilians for the purpose of mass emotional response for political gain.
* An insurgent is one who fights a standing army or leaders of an occupying force by guerrilla tactics.
* A criminal is one who breaks the law in threats and attacks on political figures or private citizens.
I warned that as tensions escalated in the United States, as the battle lines were defined between the subjects and the citizens, that the power of persuasion by mass emotional manipulation would be the most effective and widely used tool. As many are reporting now, it is the intent of the left to insight 60's style liberal violence by the right in order to marginalize our counter position... We are witness to the yet another tactic of the left in their aggressive onslaught of liberty by continued manipulation of the masses!
Reject the wrongful and emotional classification of 'terrorism' given to these criminal acts. Take the fight to the states and courts, and push local government to support sovereignty and nullification actions. Tear the curtains off the windows of the liberal leftists doghouse through legal avenues... reject their policies to the core. And most importantly, call them out on their wrongful and emotional attempts at mass manipulation in the wake of their tragic miscalculation!
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
The Perverbial Terd in the Holiday Punchbowl
Healthcare. Obamacare. Socialistcare.
Call it what you will, but Nancy Pelosi's promise of a "Christmas Gift" is nothing short of the end of the Union of the States as we know it. If Pelosi's House leaves the bill untouched and rushes it through to a majority vote, the President will make light work with his pen and sign the largest take-over of the private sector in history into federal law.
Interestingly enough, there is still hope for those of us who refuse to live within the borders of a soviet regime. NULLIFICATION - a power not used by the states for roughly 180 years, since before the failed war for southern independence, but a power reserved by the states nonetheless.
Nullification, a tool allowing a state to restrict federal law within the sovereign borders of a certain state should a state determine that such a federal law is unconstitutional.
If a single state nullifies the healthcare law, you can be sure that a cascade of nullification will take place in suit - leading to a potential stand-off between the federal government and the states not seen since the rebellion of the 1860's.
Easy money would go to Texas or Alaska nullifying healthcare law first. If I had to guess I would say that the two governors are going to be jockeying for position as to who nullifies first. Of course it takes an act of the state houses as well, but the governors of each of the two "rebel" states have a lot of sway in light of recent events.
Assuming that one will follow the example of the other, you could expect to see a rapid succession of like minded states: Vermont, South Carolina, Idaho, Florida, Utah, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota... perhaps even Virginia... states with a rich tradition of anti-federal government and pro-state government roots.
IF, and I say if lightly, the states begin the nullification process, the United States will find itself in a constitutional crisis. If the states declare that they hold more power than the federal government, then the certain states will (or may) begin to nullify other ridiculous federal laws, triggering what could be described as secession from the Union. If the states begin picking away at the unconstitutional federal regulations, there is but one "court" to declare their move unlawful... the only court, as was proven by Lincoln's invasion of the southern states, is the court of open war.
This brings up a few very interesting questions:
1. Would certain states nullify the unconstitutional health bill?
2. If they do, will there be a succession of nullification?
3. If there is, is Obama willing to go to war with the states, like Lincoln, to "save the Union"?
4. If he would, what would that war look like?
Assuming questions 1-3 are answered with "yes", what would such a war look like?
Most every state has a federal military base, similar to South Carolina's Fort Sumter. If the stand-off escalated, one would assume that the states would request federal personnel to be removed from the sovereign territory of the state or states. This could be done by State Guard taking the military bases by force, or isolating them to force removal. Such an invasion/altercation would be used to justify aggression by NORCOM federal troops against civilian and military personnel of a given state... and the story plays out like the early days of the American Southern Rebellion in 1861. One would have to assume that there would be early assassination attempts on current state leaders to "cut off the head of the snake", placing the states under federal martial law, etc.
Of course this is speculation, but a logical look at a potential series of events to unfold in the very near future.
What IF Obama takes over the private healthcare system? What IF the states nullify? What IF it leads to the dissolution of the United States?
We are on the brink of something powerful - and in the history books a new chapter will be written.
God protect us all!
Call it what you will, but Nancy Pelosi's promise of a "Christmas Gift" is nothing short of the end of the Union of the States as we know it. If Pelosi's House leaves the bill untouched and rushes it through to a majority vote, the President will make light work with his pen and sign the largest take-over of the private sector in history into federal law.
Interestingly enough, there is still hope for those of us who refuse to live within the borders of a soviet regime. NULLIFICATION - a power not used by the states for roughly 180 years, since before the failed war for southern independence, but a power reserved by the states nonetheless.
Nullification, a tool allowing a state to restrict federal law within the sovereign borders of a certain state should a state determine that such a federal law is unconstitutional.
If a single state nullifies the healthcare law, you can be sure that a cascade of nullification will take place in suit - leading to a potential stand-off between the federal government and the states not seen since the rebellion of the 1860's.
Easy money would go to Texas or Alaska nullifying healthcare law first. If I had to guess I would say that the two governors are going to be jockeying for position as to who nullifies first. Of course it takes an act of the state houses as well, but the governors of each of the two "rebel" states have a lot of sway in light of recent events.
Assuming that one will follow the example of the other, you could expect to see a rapid succession of like minded states: Vermont, South Carolina, Idaho, Florida, Utah, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota... perhaps even Virginia... states with a rich tradition of anti-federal government and pro-state government roots.
IF, and I say if lightly, the states begin the nullification process, the United States will find itself in a constitutional crisis. If the states declare that they hold more power than the federal government, then the certain states will (or may) begin to nullify other ridiculous federal laws, triggering what could be described as secession from the Union. If the states begin picking away at the unconstitutional federal regulations, there is but one "court" to declare their move unlawful... the only court, as was proven by Lincoln's invasion of the southern states, is the court of open war.
This brings up a few very interesting questions:
1. Would certain states nullify the unconstitutional health bill?
2. If they do, will there be a succession of nullification?
3. If there is, is Obama willing to go to war with the states, like Lincoln, to "save the Union"?
4. If he would, what would that war look like?
Assuming questions 1-3 are answered with "yes", what would such a war look like?
Most every state has a federal military base, similar to South Carolina's Fort Sumter. If the stand-off escalated, one would assume that the states would request federal personnel to be removed from the sovereign territory of the state or states. This could be done by State Guard taking the military bases by force, or isolating them to force removal. Such an invasion/altercation would be used to justify aggression by NORCOM federal troops against civilian and military personnel of a given state... and the story plays out like the early days of the American Southern Rebellion in 1861. One would have to assume that there would be early assassination attempts on current state leaders to "cut off the head of the snake", placing the states under federal martial law, etc.
Of course this is speculation, but a logical look at a potential series of events to unfold in the very near future.
What IF Obama takes over the private healthcare system? What IF the states nullify? What IF it leads to the dissolution of the United States?
We are on the brink of something powerful - and in the history books a new chapter will be written.
God protect us all!
Monday, November 30, 2009
EU Times - Obama Orders 1 Million Troops in Prep for US Civil War
H/T to Opus#6 for linking this story:
Is the United State's President preparing for a civil uprising? According to the EUTimes' report posted November 28th, Russian Officials seem to be reporting an expected 'homeland troop build-up' of one million US deployed active military. The report indicates that Obama is expecting absolute civil unrest before the Spring.
I have previously posted opinions on Russia's expected US break-up here, have speculated on the Federal Government's plan and preparation to wage a civil war against the people here, and the destructive nature such a war would have on the citizens of the US here.
What many people fail to realize is that a comparison to the US Civil War for a situation such as the one in which we are finding ourselves is flat ignorance. The US Civil War of the mid 19th century was no Civil War. A Civil War is one in which there is a struggle for control of the government and the rule of a country. During what should be referred to as the War for Southern Independence there was no attempt to overthrow the US government, rather to be left alone and live under a form of government differing from that of the north. What we are faced with, instead, is a potential for mass rebellion by the people, not by a region of states.
The likelihood of full scale rebellion in the US is low, lacking organized resistance or leadership. The triggers, as suggested in the report are the bankrupting of the US economy and the destruction of the US dollar - both of which are happening before our eyes without organized resistance. Barring some large scale government invasion of the private sector, such as would be needed for gun confiscation, it is more likely that the subjects of the US will wait out the problems until 2010 elections, or press their state governments for nullification of any unconstitutional law.
Full scale rebellion, though, unlikely...
Is the United State's President preparing for a civil uprising? According to the EUTimes' report posted November 28th, Russian Officials seem to be reporting an expected 'homeland troop build-up' of one million US deployed active military. The report indicates that Obama is expecting absolute civil unrest before the Spring.
Russian Military Analysts are reporting to Prime Minister Putin that US President Barack Obama has issued orders to his Northern Command’s (USNORTHCOM) top leader, US Air Force General Gene Renuart, to “begin immediately” increasing his military forces to 1 million troops by January 30, 2010, in what these reports warn is an expected outbreak of civil war within the United States before the end of winter.
I have previously posted opinions on Russia's expected US break-up here, have speculated on the Federal Government's plan and preparation to wage a civil war against the people here, and the destructive nature such a war would have on the citizens of the US here.
What many people fail to realize is that a comparison to the US Civil War for a situation such as the one in which we are finding ourselves is flat ignorance. The US Civil War of the mid 19th century was no Civil War. A Civil War is one in which there is a struggle for control of the government and the rule of a country. During what should be referred to as the War for Southern Independence there was no attempt to overthrow the US government, rather to be left alone and live under a form of government differing from that of the north. What we are faced with, instead, is a potential for mass rebellion by the people, not by a region of states.
The likelihood of full scale rebellion in the US is low, lacking organized resistance or leadership. The triggers, as suggested in the report are the bankrupting of the US economy and the destruction of the US dollar - both of which are happening before our eyes without organized resistance. Barring some large scale government invasion of the private sector, such as would be needed for gun confiscation, it is more likely that the subjects of the US will wait out the problems until 2010 elections, or press their state governments for nullification of any unconstitutional law.
Full scale rebellion, though, unlikely...
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Patriotism, Love of Liberty is Radical Extremism in America
The Associated Press ran a story picked up by Fox News, reporting on an individual assessment done by the Southern Poverty Law Center which warns that Right Wing Extremism is on the rise... the driving factor for the rise? Hatred of a Black President, or so says the report.
What is equally disturbing is the "lumping" that is taking place... in some cases it is subtle, but the overall intent is not without notice.
The report mentions the "Aztlan" situation - but calls it a conspiracy. Ask anyone vaguely familiar with La Raza (Like our new Justice Sotomayor), and you will surely gain full knowledge of the open plan to recolonize the American Southwest for future desires to break away from the US as Aztlan. Watch the following video... and ask yourself - is this a radical conspiracy made up by Right Wing Extremists or an actual movement?
It goes on to demonize those who dislike paying taxes, those who own or embrace the ownership of "assault rifles", and finally, compares the entire lot to Timothy McVeigh.
There are a few things happening here... It begins by attempting to make your opponent seem illogical - painting them as looney, irrational, and paranoid. Once this is accomplished, the propaganda corps (aka the Media) can use reports such as this to make reference to the paranoia that has been documented by such esteemed groups, such as the SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center).
Let me be perfectly clear - there is a smear campaign in full swing. ANY AND ALL opposition to the liberal agenda (and that includes the agenda Bush was pushing too) is being openly condemned as Racist, Hateful, and Un-American. This swarm of attacks by the Government and their lapdog groups, such as the SPLC, is a pre-emptive strike against those who dare to stand up and question the legality, morality, or ideology of the Ruling Class. We are being targeted as radical, and the threat of the full force and might of the US Government is in tow - as was seen when the DHS released their report on "Extremist Groups" back in March/April, allowing "law enforcement" to treat protesters like terrorists.
I am reminded of a statement made by an old professor (not of mine, rather of the recent past):
The truth behind the militia movement, the separatist movement, the anti-government movement, or any other "right wing extremist" thought pattern or ideology is simple.
"There was a dream that was [America]... It shall be realized.
Not to romanticise this in any way... but the idea is simple... the hero always fights against the oppressor. When the US government becomes oppressive to her people, trading liberty for security, it is then when a hero is needed. Reagan stated that the most dangerous armament is the will of free men... how prophetic those words!
Questioning our government is never extreme. Preparing for the unknown is never extreme. Dreaming of something more, something that can be... it is never extreme...
What is equally disturbing is the "lumping" that is taking place... in some cases it is subtle, but the overall intent is not without notice.
The report mentions the "Aztlan" situation - but calls it a conspiracy. Ask anyone vaguely familiar with La Raza (Like our new Justice Sotomayor), and you will surely gain full knowledge of the open plan to recolonize the American Southwest for future desires to break away from the US as Aztlan. Watch the following video... and ask yourself - is this a radical conspiracy made up by Right Wing Extremists or an actual movement?
It goes on to demonize those who dislike paying taxes, those who own or embrace the ownership of "assault rifles", and finally, compares the entire lot to Timothy McVeigh.
There are a few things happening here... It begins by attempting to make your opponent seem illogical - painting them as looney, irrational, and paranoid. Once this is accomplished, the propaganda corps (aka the Media) can use reports such as this to make reference to the paranoia that has been documented by such esteemed groups, such as the SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center).
Let me be perfectly clear - there is a smear campaign in full swing. ANY AND ALL opposition to the liberal agenda (and that includes the agenda Bush was pushing too) is being openly condemned as Racist, Hateful, and Un-American. This swarm of attacks by the Government and their lapdog groups, such as the SPLC, is a pre-emptive strike against those who dare to stand up and question the legality, morality, or ideology of the Ruling Class. We are being targeted as radical, and the threat of the full force and might of the US Government is in tow - as was seen when the DHS released their report on "Extremist Groups" back in March/April, allowing "law enforcement" to treat protesters like terrorists.
I am reminded of a statement made by an old professor (not of mine, rather of the recent past):
"death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment" - Robert Maynard HutchinsIt is the return to apathy and indifference that the mainstream figures, and the SPLC, are hoping for. They strive for an unmotivated mass of consumers with no anchor in core fundamental beliefs. They desire the neutering of an activist society, especially one whose idea of liberty differs so vastly from their own. Let there be no mistake - these are nothing more than politically motivated false reports with a clear agenda - an agenda of mass misinformation.
The truth behind the militia movement, the separatist movement, the anti-government movement, or any other "right wing extremist" thought pattern or ideology is simple.
"There was a dream that was [America]... It shall be realized.
Not to romanticise this in any way... but the idea is simple... the hero always fights against the oppressor. When the US government becomes oppressive to her people, trading liberty for security, it is then when a hero is needed. Reagan stated that the most dangerous armament is the will of free men... how prophetic those words!
Questioning our government is never extreme. Preparing for the unknown is never extreme. Dreaming of something more, something that can be... it is never extreme...
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Observations from the Tea Party and Lessons Learned
Crowd Control
First and foremost, I have never seen Police Officers so relaxed during a large scale protest of between 5000-10,000 individuals. From my location, which was along Broadway, State Troopers and other officers were largely smiling, happily discussing issues with protesters, and generally at ease. At no time did I notice that police were on edge, even during the peak of the protest when the crowd swelled and there was a lot of movement of a large amount of people. Namely, this can be attributed to the fact that conservative protesters were angry, but carried a gentile disposition. The left has labelled us as right-wing nuts for our protests - but reality would indicate that we were a group of intelligent, level headed citizens, wishing only to carry a clear message: Individual Responsibility is NOT Dead!
Our message
Signs present were vast, but there was one major message - stop government growth and spending. Signs were present that expressed individuals being "tea'd off" at both Dems and Rep politicians, which was an underlying theme of these parties - non-partisan with a common message of government accountability. Some protesters related government spending to government sponsored abortion, as Obama's funding for pro-abortion programs is just that - federally funded murder. Some protesters went satirical, some were serious - stating that "we will fight you for it" referring to resisting Socialist America. My sign read: Hope, Change, Obey with pictures of Hitler, Stalin, and Obama - with a supporting document on hand - the DHS briefing targeting "right wing extremists". It was my intention not to distract from the tea theme, but to draw attention to the specific targeting of political dissent as enemies of the state. This melded with the ultimate theme of government growth and encroachment - which includes spending - on state and individual rights. About 400 pictures were taken of me and my sign - some from media - and some with video cameras. The intent of the video camera was clearly to catch a "right wing nut" compare Obama to Hitler, but my level headed response was such: "What Bush did in growing government and government spending, Obama is perfecting. I am here in support of states and individual rights protected by the 9th and 10th amendment to the Constitution. Many others are here in protest of the growth in spending and the encroachment of government beyond constitutional bounds." Needless to say, I doubt my response will actually make the cut - opting instead to use footage from less-articulate protesters.
Media and Leftist Reporting/Blogging
Media coverage on site was minimal, and national coverage by news organizations other than Fox was mocking or non-existent. In fact, Local Denver 9 o'clock news on Fox 13 (after American Idol) led with a story about a transgender murder, and after the first five minutes no mention, not even in the introduction highlight of stories for the day, did they mention the protests. Fox Cable News, this morning, ran a story which I was unable to watch, but the headline was "Media Mockery" with aerial footage of some of the events of the day. Leftist Blogs are calling the tea parties failures, indicating that the gathering of 200,000+ protesters, each easily representing 10 who couldn't attend because they had jobs, was little more than right wing extremists - twisting messages on signs to fit an agenda of perceived racism, etc. In Denver, how could you consider one of the largest protests ever at the state capital a failure? Media bias bent on talking down to angry citizens, marginalizing our message and purpose, and deterring individuals from joining the angry majority. In short, the left and the liberal media are attempting to dismiss the meaning, seriousness, and potential impact of these protests. In fact, the most stunning sign in Denver read "I hate that you have made me a protester"... the general feeling of many who were in attendance as well as those not able to make it... How dare our government radicalize core conservative values - and how dare the media marginalize our protest! Hugh Hewitt played a clip on his radio show during the protests in which a CNN or MSNBC reporter began yelling at a protester in the middle of an attempted interview - indicating my next topic - the left just don't get it
The Left Just Didn't Get It
Obama made a speech in regard to the tax day protests, admitting that he didn't fully understand why folks were protesting, as he had just cut taxes for certain individuals. Some counter-protesters (all four of them) held signs saying "Just Shut Up and Pay Your Taxes". General Liberal Media rejected the protests as simple partisan venting with no major implications on American Politics - going so far as attempting to back up their case with a "poll" from their website which indicates that "most Americans support the stimulus packages". On every level it is very clear - the Left just don't understand why Conservatives and Libertarians are enraged.
As such, let me spell it out for our, ahem, slower friends...
1. A majority of us on the right didn't support Bush's stimulus spending. Bailouts, entitlements, etc - these are all failed economic programs that do nothing more than stagnate economies - take special note of Japan's economy during the 90's, where bail-outs and entitlements to the citizens increased debt and did nothing to stimulate their economy - we are in the same trap. The left claims that free market killed the economy, but they are lying... it is the encroachment of these failed socialist economic principles that killed the economy, but they on the left used a wool blanket lie that "Bush was in Charge, he is a conservative, so therefore conservative free markets failed". In philosophy 101, this is clearly identified as a false logical argument... also known as an attempt to make something appear true when it is, in fact, not... Bush was a social conservative, NOT an economic conservative... These are two very different and distinct issues that the left want to confuse, but it must be our role to tell the truth.
2. The right don't mind paying taxes - we just want to eliminate unnecessary taxes. We pay more than our fair share. We want an overhaul of the tax system - to a flat or fair tax. Make those in the lower tax bracket buy a stake in America - make them pay a flat rate of 18%... the same rate that the wealthy should have to pay... This rate is proven to promote maximum economic growth - anything less and there is not enough for "social balance", anything more and there is incentive to cheat taxation (and less incentive to succeed).
3. We want the government to curb spending. We want the government to eliminate debt owned to foreign nations.
4. We want the government to return to the Constitutional Republic structure on which it was founded... with smaller federal government, and more control at the local and state levels... re-enact the 9th and the 10th amendment, returning powers to the states, and reducing the role of the federal government to within the boundaries of the constitution.
5. We want the government out of businesses, out of banks (including the Federal Reserve - which is a private bank), out of mortgages, etc. Reduce your size and your role to the powers given to you by the people in the founding document - the Constitution. You have taken an oath to support and defend it - now do so!
6. And we want you and the government to leave our f-ing guns alone! We have a right to arm ourselves for personal, property, and civil defense as an unorganized militia. This is not a right from the government, but a natural right of existence.
To our friends on the left who still don't get it... You want equal outcome for all, we want equal opportunity for all... there is a difference. We should all have the opportunity for success without interference from other forces - least of all the government! We should not ensure that, regardless of level of effort or level of personal contribution, we all get the same product. This is the mindset that de-motivates and de-incentivizes a population, and as such removes or reduces the amount of individuals able or willing to strive for success. We want a reward system for success... you want a reward system for status-quo.
In closing - we will not be marginalized, we will not be cast aside. We will accept that you are radicalizing us, and we thank you for the motivation. We are stronger, smarter, and proven ideals that all free men strive toward. You are weaker, more easily duped, and support ideology that has failed throughout human history.
We will win - you will lose!
First and foremost, I have never seen Police Officers so relaxed during a large scale protest of between 5000-10,000 individuals. From my location, which was along Broadway, State Troopers and other officers were largely smiling, happily discussing issues with protesters, and generally at ease. At no time did I notice that police were on edge, even during the peak of the protest when the crowd swelled and there was a lot of movement of a large amount of people. Namely, this can be attributed to the fact that conservative protesters were angry, but carried a gentile disposition. The left has labelled us as right-wing nuts for our protests - but reality would indicate that we were a group of intelligent, level headed citizens, wishing only to carry a clear message: Individual Responsibility is NOT Dead!
Our message
Signs present were vast, but there was one major message - stop government growth and spending. Signs were present that expressed individuals being "tea'd off" at both Dems and Rep politicians, which was an underlying theme of these parties - non-partisan with a common message of government accountability. Some protesters related government spending to government sponsored abortion, as Obama's funding for pro-abortion programs is just that - federally funded murder. Some protesters went satirical, some were serious - stating that "we will fight you for it" referring to resisting Socialist America. My sign read: Hope, Change, Obey with pictures of Hitler, Stalin, and Obama - with a supporting document on hand - the DHS briefing targeting "right wing extremists". It was my intention not to distract from the tea theme, but to draw attention to the specific targeting of political dissent as enemies of the state. This melded with the ultimate theme of government growth and encroachment - which includes spending - on state and individual rights. About 400 pictures were taken of me and my sign - some from media - and some with video cameras. The intent of the video camera was clearly to catch a "right wing nut" compare Obama to Hitler, but my level headed response was such: "What Bush did in growing government and government spending, Obama is perfecting. I am here in support of states and individual rights protected by the 9th and 10th amendment to the Constitution. Many others are here in protest of the growth in spending and the encroachment of government beyond constitutional bounds." Needless to say, I doubt my response will actually make the cut - opting instead to use footage from less-articulate protesters.
Media and Leftist Reporting/Blogging
Media coverage on site was minimal, and national coverage by news organizations other than Fox was mocking or non-existent. In fact, Local Denver 9 o'clock news on Fox 13 (after American Idol) led with a story about a transgender murder, and after the first five minutes no mention, not even in the introduction highlight of stories for the day, did they mention the protests. Fox Cable News, this morning, ran a story which I was unable to watch, but the headline was "Media Mockery" with aerial footage of some of the events of the day. Leftist Blogs are calling the tea parties failures, indicating that the gathering of 200,000+ protesters, each easily representing 10 who couldn't attend because they had jobs, was little more than right wing extremists - twisting messages on signs to fit an agenda of perceived racism, etc. In Denver, how could you consider one of the largest protests ever at the state capital a failure? Media bias bent on talking down to angry citizens, marginalizing our message and purpose, and deterring individuals from joining the angry majority. In short, the left and the liberal media are attempting to dismiss the meaning, seriousness, and potential impact of these protests. In fact, the most stunning sign in Denver read "I hate that you have made me a protester"... the general feeling of many who were in attendance as well as those not able to make it... How dare our government radicalize core conservative values - and how dare the media marginalize our protest! Hugh Hewitt played a clip on his radio show during the protests in which a CNN or MSNBC reporter began yelling at a protester in the middle of an attempted interview - indicating my next topic - the left just don't get it
The Left Just Didn't Get It
Obama made a speech in regard to the tax day protests, admitting that he didn't fully understand why folks were protesting, as he had just cut taxes for certain individuals. Some counter-protesters (all four of them) held signs saying "Just Shut Up and Pay Your Taxes". General Liberal Media rejected the protests as simple partisan venting with no major implications on American Politics - going so far as attempting to back up their case with a "poll" from their website which indicates that "most Americans support the stimulus packages". On every level it is very clear - the Left just don't understand why Conservatives and Libertarians are enraged.
As such, let me spell it out for our, ahem, slower friends...
1. A majority of us on the right didn't support Bush's stimulus spending. Bailouts, entitlements, etc - these are all failed economic programs that do nothing more than stagnate economies - take special note of Japan's economy during the 90's, where bail-outs and entitlements to the citizens increased debt and did nothing to stimulate their economy - we are in the same trap. The left claims that free market killed the economy, but they are lying... it is the encroachment of these failed socialist economic principles that killed the economy, but they on the left used a wool blanket lie that "Bush was in Charge, he is a conservative, so therefore conservative free markets failed". In philosophy 101, this is clearly identified as a false logical argument... also known as an attempt to make something appear true when it is, in fact, not... Bush was a social conservative, NOT an economic conservative... These are two very different and distinct issues that the left want to confuse, but it must be our role to tell the truth.
2. The right don't mind paying taxes - we just want to eliminate unnecessary taxes. We pay more than our fair share. We want an overhaul of the tax system - to a flat or fair tax. Make those in the lower tax bracket buy a stake in America - make them pay a flat rate of 18%... the same rate that the wealthy should have to pay... This rate is proven to promote maximum economic growth - anything less and there is not enough for "social balance", anything more and there is incentive to cheat taxation (and less incentive to succeed).
3. We want the government to curb spending. We want the government to eliminate debt owned to foreign nations.
4. We want the government to return to the Constitutional Republic structure on which it was founded... with smaller federal government, and more control at the local and state levels... re-enact the 9th and the 10th amendment, returning powers to the states, and reducing the role of the federal government to within the boundaries of the constitution.
5. We want the government out of businesses, out of banks (including the Federal Reserve - which is a private bank), out of mortgages, etc. Reduce your size and your role to the powers given to you by the people in the founding document - the Constitution. You have taken an oath to support and defend it - now do so!
6. And we want you and the government to leave our f-ing guns alone! We have a right to arm ourselves for personal, property, and civil defense as an unorganized militia. This is not a right from the government, but a natural right of existence.
To our friends on the left who still don't get it... You want equal outcome for all, we want equal opportunity for all... there is a difference. We should all have the opportunity for success without interference from other forces - least of all the government! We should not ensure that, regardless of level of effort or level of personal contribution, we all get the same product. This is the mindset that de-motivates and de-incentivizes a population, and as such removes or reduces the amount of individuals able or willing to strive for success. We want a reward system for success... you want a reward system for status-quo.
In closing - we will not be marginalized, we will not be cast aside. We will accept that you are radicalizing us, and we thank you for the motivation. We are stronger, smarter, and proven ideals that all free men strive toward. You are weaker, more easily duped, and support ideology that has failed throughout human history.
We will win - you will lose!
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Civil War Begins in Mexico
The Mexican Government is deploying "Federal Police" to Juarez, Mexico, to begin combat operations against the army held by the anti-government drug cartels.
Mexico's 145,000 man standing army is being challenged by the 100,000 man rebel army held by the heavily armed and better funded drug cartels.
The implications on the United States is severe -
1. Obama's administration is using the increased tensions to support a permanent Brady Bill, banning assault rifles and placing other harsh restrictions on US gun-owners to stop weapons moving south in support of the cartels. Of course this is a sham cover for Obama's and the Left's hatred for weapons, and the personal responsibility and liberty associated with them.
2. Increased violence along I-25 corridor as a main vessel of drug traffic, as reported by the FBI
3. Increased violence in border towns. If this becomes a full-scale shooting war, towns like El Paso will be hit with stray bullets, mortars, etc.
4. Refugees from a war torn northern Mexico will need to seek asylum in the United States - if they seek refugee status it is one thing, but if they can prove a need for asylum, they become quasi-citizens... A massive refugee flux along the border would either need massive FEMA coordination, UN coordination, or otherwise transport refugees across the US to thin the numbers/impact of the refugees. You thought Illegal Immigration was bad......
5. This will be a burden on the US taxpayer, will involve US or state military, and will require some aspects of rationing food and fuel... for all intense and purpose, a war on our southern border will further cripple the otherwise stagnant economy - potentially destabilizing regions of the US...
Regions which should be on high alert -
- All border towns/cities
- portions of towns which have a high Mexican immigrant population (Southern California, portions of Northern California, Phoenix, Tucson, Albuquerque, Denver Metro - especially those with Interstate corridors allowing fast transportation from the border regions
- cities/towns with already high gang and drug violence
I do not see how this is going to end quickly. The Mexican Government is nearly matched man-for-man, is out-funded by the rebels, and has the advantage of guerrilla warfare.
Mexico's 145,000 man standing army is being challenged by the 100,000 man rebel army held by the heavily armed and better funded drug cartels.
The implications on the United States is severe -
1. Obama's administration is using the increased tensions to support a permanent Brady Bill, banning assault rifles and placing other harsh restrictions on US gun-owners to stop weapons moving south in support of the cartels. Of course this is a sham cover for Obama's and the Left's hatred for weapons, and the personal responsibility and liberty associated with them.
2. Increased violence along I-25 corridor as a main vessel of drug traffic, as reported by the FBI
3. Increased violence in border towns. If this becomes a full-scale shooting war, towns like El Paso will be hit with stray bullets, mortars, etc.
4. Refugees from a war torn northern Mexico will need to seek asylum in the United States - if they seek refugee status it is one thing, but if they can prove a need for asylum, they become quasi-citizens... A massive refugee flux along the border would either need massive FEMA coordination, UN coordination, or otherwise transport refugees across the US to thin the numbers/impact of the refugees. You thought Illegal Immigration was bad......
5. This will be a burden on the US taxpayer, will involve US or state military, and will require some aspects of rationing food and fuel... for all intense and purpose, a war on our southern border will further cripple the otherwise stagnant economy - potentially destabilizing regions of the US...
Regions which should be on high alert -
- All border towns/cities
- portions of towns which have a high Mexican immigrant population (Southern California, portions of Northern California, Phoenix, Tucson, Albuquerque, Denver Metro - especially those with Interstate corridors allowing fast transportation from the border regions
- cities/towns with already high gang and drug violence
I do not see how this is going to end quickly. The Mexican Government is nearly matched man-for-man, is out-funded by the rebels, and has the advantage of guerrilla warfare.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Is History Repeating Itself?
Read this blurb on the fall of the Soviet Union:
The policies that ripped the Soviet Union apart were those tending away from socialist central rule, and allowing private capitalist ventures.
The policies that are ripping the United States apart are those tending toward socialist central rule, disallowing freedom and private capitalist ventures.
The United States' move toward "change" is a move toward what the Soviet Union was locked into for nearly a century... the only thing missing is the use of military force to ensure obedience and loyalty to the central government... just wait - Obama's "citizen corps" will start that - and if not, any states or regions attempting to cross the new socialist government be warned, there are now measures in place to take down any "citizen unrest". Refer to my previous Post "How a Republic becomes an Empire"
Imagine the wikipedia post being read in 20 years:
A little artistic freedom - but the parallels are eerily similar... am I the only one noticing this? Any comments - any discussion?
The Soviet Union's collapse into independent nations began early in 1985. After years of Soviet military buildup at the expense of domestic development, economic growth was at a standstill. Failed attempts at reform, a stagnant economy, and war in Afghanistan led to a general feeling of discontent, especially in the Baltic republics and Eastern Europe. Greater political and social freedoms, instituted by the last Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, created an atmosphere of open criticism of the Moscow regime. The dramatic drop of the price of oil in 1985 and 1986, and consequent lack of foreign exchange reserves in following years to purchase grain profoundly influenced actions of the Soviet leadership.
Several Soviet Socialist Republics began resisting central control, and increasing democratization led to a weakening of the central government. The USSR's trade gap progressively emptied the coffers of the union, leading to eventual bankruptcy. The Soviet Union finally collapsed in 1991 when Boris Yeltsin seized power in the aftermath of a failed coup that had attempted to topple reform-minded Gorbachev.
The policies that ripped the Soviet Union apart were those tending away from socialist central rule, and allowing private capitalist ventures.
The policies that are ripping the United States apart are those tending toward socialist central rule, disallowing freedom and private capitalist ventures.
The United States' move toward "change" is a move toward what the Soviet Union was locked into for nearly a century... the only thing missing is the use of military force to ensure obedience and loyalty to the central government... just wait - Obama's "citizen corps" will start that - and if not, any states or regions attempting to cross the new socialist government be warned, there are now measures in place to take down any "citizen unrest". Refer to my previous Post "How a Republic becomes an Empire"
Imagine the wikipedia post being read in 20 years:
The United States' collapse into independent nations began early in 2010. After years of US military buildup at the expense of domestic development, economic growth was at a standstill. Failed attempts at reform ("change"), a stagnant economy, and war in Afghanistan led to a general feeling of discontent, especially in the California and Texas Republics and New England States. Reduced political and social freedoms, instituted by the last US leader, George W. Bush, created an atmosphere of fear and increased criticism of the Federal Government. The dramatic drop of the price of oil in 2009, and consequent lack of foreign exchange reserves in following years to purchase Carbon Credits profoundly influenced actions of the US leadership.
Several US States began resisting Federal control, and increasing libertarianism led to a weakening of the central government. The US' trade gap and continued "stimulus" handouts, combined with excessive foreign loans progressively emptied the coffers of the union, leading to eventual bankruptcy. The United States finally collapsed in 2012 when Joe Biden seized power in the aftermath of a failed coup by Hillary Clinton that had attempted to topple reform-minded Barack Obama.
A little artistic freedom - but the parallels are eerily similar... am I the only one noticing this? Any comments - any discussion?
Friday, February 13, 2009
The Cost of Maintaining a Union
When a Union is beneficial to all parties involved, it is applauded by members - old and new alike. When the Union becomes toxic to certain portions, is it not justifiable to cast off allegiance to that Union and develop a form of self-governing that is healthier for those individuals?
You may be thinking to yourself - is this another anti-Federal Government rant? Or perhaps that I am playing to the Civil War topics springing up due to Lincoln's 200th birthday.
In this case, I know what many of you may be saying - Lincoln did what was necessary to preserve the Union at all costs... the war was justified, as the Union is a perpetual necessity for our way of life...
What if we applied, as was my original intent, the logic to the Soviet Union - whose demise in 1990/1991 was applauded across the United States.
Specifically, let's look at Georgia and Ukraine - two areas that are under threat of "reabsorbtion" by the Russian federation. The invasion of Georgia last summer drew criticism and outrage from Americans... and the threat of Russia to reclaim Ukraine is drawing further cries of a renewed Cold War with the Imperial Bear that is Russia...
...but with what double standard do we look at Russia that we fail to see the resemblance to our own situation during the American Rebel War, the Southern War for Independence, often referred to as the Civil War.
Lincoln was given a free pass to break law after law, conduct campaigns of genocide, and plague the South with other forms of Crimes Against Humanity... all in the name of preserving the Union. Honest Abe suspended many of the rights protected by the constitution - and the average citizen forgets that those rights are NOT granted by the government, rather listed as protected FROM the government.
Applying the logic of Lincoln, we should applaud and encourage Russia in a quest to re-unify the Soviet Republics... especially the Ukraine, who was one of the founding Republics of that Union.
Lincoln's war changed the face of the nation - where it was once seen as the collective "these United States", it became the unified "The United States" under one infinitely strong central government. It replaced the humble Constitutional Republic with an Imperial Superpower, locking the future of the nation into continued foreign entanglements - something which Washington warned against in his farewell address to the nation.
Is it prudent to do whatever it takes to maintain a union?
If so, would you argue for the invasion of Ukraine and Georgia so passionately as you defend the invasion of the seceded states of the Confederation?
At what point is a perpetual union of independent states overshadowed by a union of vassal states to a central government, and thus subject to the terms of Independence as outlined by our forefathers who declared a broken union between the colonies and the British Empire?
Is there ever a case to defend both sides of the argument? Dare you try?
You may be thinking to yourself - is this another anti-Federal Government rant? Or perhaps that I am playing to the Civil War topics springing up due to Lincoln's 200th birthday.
In this case, I know what many of you may be saying - Lincoln did what was necessary to preserve the Union at all costs... the war was justified, as the Union is a perpetual necessity for our way of life...
What if we applied, as was my original intent, the logic to the Soviet Union - whose demise in 1990/1991 was applauded across the United States.
Specifically, let's look at Georgia and Ukraine - two areas that are under threat of "reabsorbtion" by the Russian federation. The invasion of Georgia last summer drew criticism and outrage from Americans... and the threat of Russia to reclaim Ukraine is drawing further cries of a renewed Cold War with the Imperial Bear that is Russia...
...but with what double standard do we look at Russia that we fail to see the resemblance to our own situation during the American Rebel War, the Southern War for Independence, often referred to as the Civil War.
Lincoln was given a free pass to break law after law, conduct campaigns of genocide, and plague the South with other forms of Crimes Against Humanity... all in the name of preserving the Union. Honest Abe suspended many of the rights protected by the constitution - and the average citizen forgets that those rights are NOT granted by the government, rather listed as protected FROM the government.
Applying the logic of Lincoln, we should applaud and encourage Russia in a quest to re-unify the Soviet Republics... especially the Ukraine, who was one of the founding Republics of that Union.
Lincoln's war changed the face of the nation - where it was once seen as the collective "these United States", it became the unified "The United States" under one infinitely strong central government. It replaced the humble Constitutional Republic with an Imperial Superpower, locking the future of the nation into continued foreign entanglements - something which Washington warned against in his farewell address to the nation.
Is it prudent to do whatever it takes to maintain a union?
If so, would you argue for the invasion of Ukraine and Georgia so passionately as you defend the invasion of the seceded states of the Confederation?
At what point is a perpetual union of independent states overshadowed by a union of vassal states to a central government, and thus subject to the terms of Independence as outlined by our forefathers who declared a broken union between the colonies and the British Empire?
Is there ever a case to defend both sides of the argument? Dare you try?
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Pat Buchanan's take on Lincoln's War
Pat Buchanan is riling up the Republicans who live in praise of Lincoln, and the Democrats who live in praise of Obama - Lincoln reborn (apparently).
There was a post in THE CHRONICLE MAGAZINE questioning how responsible Mr. Lincoln's war actually was for the continent.
A good read - This is the stance that I took during my Advanced American Studies course regarding the Civil War period... it really pleased me to watch my instructor and liberal classmates squirm when I questioned the idol status of Mr Lincoln, and the Heraldry of the Northern Soldiers - while they equally demonized my ancestors who so nobly fought for independence from tyranny.
As I said in my previous post, Mr Lincoln clearly had an impact on the reconstruction of these United States... The Southern Rebellion and Reconstruction era marked the death of the truest and purest meaning of the 9th and 10th amendment to the constitution, and replaced them with the inferred understanding of "perpetual union" - a phrase which existed in the Articles of Confederation, but which were purposefully left out of the Constitution. Historical texts would indicate that some founding fathers wanted it in, and revisionist historians would lead you to believe that this "inferred" right of the Union trumped the right of secession.
There is a fundamental question that I have to ask folks on this topic - which document guides their philosophy: the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States?
If it is the Constitution, great - you are dedicated to the rule of law, regardless of how imperfect that law may be - it is a document subject to change - for better or worse - take special note of prohibition... a constitutional amendment banning alcohol, leading to one of the greatest eras of organized crime, and alcoholic consumption!
If it is the Declaration, better! This document is unchanging - boldly giving the finger to the King of England. The words declare that ultimate freedom and liberty beat in the hearts of every man... The words have remained unchanged for nearly two and a half centuries... and will remain ever unchanged. The truth was written that day.
I can usually gage the caliber of character by the way that an individual answers this question... though I hold my cards very close to my chest...
Please read Mr Buchanan's interesting question on the idolatry of Lincoln, and question Liberty - as it has been taught to us... does it meet the definition of Liberty on which this country began its first rebellion?
There was a post in THE CHRONICLE MAGAZINE questioning how responsible Mr. Lincoln's war actually was for the continent.
A good read - This is the stance that I took during my Advanced American Studies course regarding the Civil War period... it really pleased me to watch my instructor and liberal classmates squirm when I questioned the idol status of Mr Lincoln, and the Heraldry of the Northern Soldiers - while they equally demonized my ancestors who so nobly fought for independence from tyranny.
As I said in my previous post, Mr Lincoln clearly had an impact on the reconstruction of these United States... The Southern Rebellion and Reconstruction era marked the death of the truest and purest meaning of the 9th and 10th amendment to the constitution, and replaced them with the inferred understanding of "perpetual union" - a phrase which existed in the Articles of Confederation, but which were purposefully left out of the Constitution. Historical texts would indicate that some founding fathers wanted it in, and revisionist historians would lead you to believe that this "inferred" right of the Union trumped the right of secession.
There is a fundamental question that I have to ask folks on this topic - which document guides their philosophy: the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States?
If it is the Constitution, great - you are dedicated to the rule of law, regardless of how imperfect that law may be - it is a document subject to change - for better or worse - take special note of prohibition... a constitutional amendment banning alcohol, leading to one of the greatest eras of organized crime, and alcoholic consumption!
If it is the Declaration, better! This document is unchanging - boldly giving the finger to the King of England. The words declare that ultimate freedom and liberty beat in the hearts of every man... The words have remained unchanged for nearly two and a half centuries... and will remain ever unchanged. The truth was written that day.
I can usually gage the caliber of character by the way that an individual answers this question... though I hold my cards very close to my chest...
Please read Mr Buchanan's interesting question on the idolatry of Lincoln, and question Liberty - as it has been taught to us... does it meet the definition of Liberty on which this country began its first rebellion?
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Russian News Media Reports: US Collapse in 2010
Russian Professor Igor Panarin has been predicting for ten years that the US will collapse in 2010, but post-election uncertainty, mixed with general economic uncertainty in the United States has given Prof. Panarin's theory new steam.
The Wall Street Journal reports:
The Wall Street Journal reports:
"There's a 55-45% chance right now that disintegration will occur," he says. "One could rejoice in that process," he adds, poker-faced. "But if we're talking reasonably, it's not the best scenario -- for Russia." Though Russia would become more powerful on the global stage, he says, its economy would suffer because it currently depends heavily on the dollar and on trade with the U.S."
He based the forecast on classified data supplied to him by FAPSI analysts, he says. He predicts that economic, financial and demographic trends will provoke a political and social crisis in the U.S. When the going gets tough, he says, wealthier states will withhold funds from the federal government and effectively secede from the union. Social unrest up to and including a civil war will follow. The U.S. will then split along ethnic lines, and foreign powers will move in.
California will form the nucleus of what he calls "The Californian Republic," and will be part of China or under Chinese influence. Texas will be the heart of "The Texas Republic," a cluster of states that will go to Mexico or fall under Mexican influence. Washington, D.C., and New York will be part of an "Atlantic America" that may join the European Union. Canada will grab a group of Northern states Prof. Panarin calls "The Central North American Republic." Hawaii, he suggests, will be a protectorate of Japan or China, and Alaska will be subsumed into Russia.
"It would be reasonable for Russia to lay claim to Alaska; it was part of the Russian Empire for a long time." A framed satellite image of the Bering Strait that separates Alaska from Russia like a thread hangs from his office wall. "It's not there for no reason," he says with a sly grin.
Interest in his forecast revived this fall when he published an article in Izvestia, one of Russia's biggest national dailies. In it, he reiterated his theory, called U.S. foreign debt "a pyramid scheme," and predicted China and Russia would usurp Washington's role as a global financial regulator.
Panarin, an ex-KGB analyst, may be overstating Russia's role in the restructuring of the United States - a sort of ex-Soviet Fantasy...
However, what he has to say is highly intriguing - regarding the collapse of the US... a prediction that has been made here and on many other blogs recently. He states plainly that "mass immigration, economic decline, and moral degradation will trigger a civil war next fall and the collapse of the dollar". Though he may be wrong about the restructuring, the wheels may be in motion on the structural collapse...
Mass immigration, upwards of 20+ million, has strained the United States economy, and was the cause for much tension throughout the nation within the past three years - including demonstrations in the streets drawing millions of individuals on both sides of the struggle.
The current economic decline has placed a strain on the people of this nation, but the government may not necessarily lose power due to the loss of income - they can create money and perceived wealth. The conflict would arise, economically, if the US is bankrupted by the demand for immediate debt repayment by Saudi's and China, as well as others who hold US Treasury debt. Such an international strain on relations would weaken the US' role in world affairs, and thus weaken the power of the Federal Government - placing an increased focus on regional governments (as indicated by Panarin in his "going gets tough" comment).
The moral degradation serves to weaken the influence politicians have on the people. As their political pull is weakened, they must substitute force - such as authoritarian assaults on civil liberties (i.e. Patriot Act). See recent political scandals from 1960 - current.
Ahead of uncertainty, the US population has armed itself - as reported on this blog - and has begun preparing for self defense from government incursions within the US. Unlike the first US civil war, the second stands to begin not as two opposing governments, but as the government against her people... a true rebellion, if you will. This is, of course, unless Obama can pull off a miracle and calm tensions in the US, and stabilize international affairs that may trigger such pressures from outside. Unfortunately, it looks like Russia is ready to strike while this iron is hot...
What our Russian friend fails to realize is that the collapse of the US would trigger world economic collapse and widespread territory grabs - not just by forces such as Russia and China, but by well armed regional forces within the United States as well. I imagine the following scenario is much more likely than the events of Panarin's proposed outcome:
* The United States Treasury is bankrupted by a Bail-out to several states' governments, but uncertain international economic times stop foreign countries from buying the debt.
* Oil imports to the United States slow to a near halt as Russia, China, and the Middle East form an alliance in the absence of the US' ability to pay it's debt
* The United States makes an appeal to the United Nations for international economic and energy stimulus, which it receives after agreeing to suspend much of the US constitution and become subject to International Law and the International Court. Obama gladly signs the treaty.
* The US Army 1st Infantry Division, currently deployed to Northern Command, is ordered to begin the mandatory collection of civilian armaments. Civilians are instructed to relinquish all weapons to the determined checkpoints within 30 days.
* Texas and other Midwestern/southern states refuse to comply with the Federal Mandate, and fall back on their State Constitutions - they call up their state National Guards to defend State Government institutions as a show of force against Federal Authority. Private Militias are encouraged for regional protection in these areas.
* Internet and telephones lines are cut - eliminating the civilian use of networking and communication
* Other private militias secretly cashe their weapons, as do private citizens in other states. The Black market opens a flood of munitions into the United States.
* Texas secures it's airspace, and ceases or confines all US military bases - taking control of all military equipment. Neighboring states' private militias assist in this effort, causing the US army to establish checkpoints in other regional states, making mass arrests and detention of free citizens now labelled as terrorists. President Obama appeals for UN Peacekeepers to assist in securing the region after first hot combats erupt during struggle for military bases.
* Alaskan forces move to secure the northern oil fields and the southern ports, as well as a troop build-up in the Bering Straight region. Alaska declares independence, taking with it the Canadian Yukon and British Columbia.
* Quebec declares independence from Canada, causing Canada's government to peacefully dissolve.
* Russian forces secure extreme northern lands formerly belonging to Canada - claiming the sparsely populated NW Territories and Nunavet - they are undisputed in these regions, but are unable to effectively advance south or into Alaska.
* The United States suspends the 2010 congressional elections, Obama suspends those portions of the Constitution under Presidential War Powers.
* The UN and NATO send forces into the Northeast to secure international interests
* Russia moves forces into Ukraine and Georgia beginning a new regional conflict
* Obama concedes the loss of Texas and portions of bordering states - opting to isolate and calm tension in the region, but refuses to release the thousands of detained militia fighters, sparking an outrage throughout the nation, and putting into question the security of the world - now entirely at war...
Of course, this is all speculation and the stuff of debates... Are we headed into a civil war / world war... economic crisis is usually a good indicator for such conflicts, so is political uncertainty. We surely have these two throughout the world. I have heard private mumblings of uncertain times - and now there is international question as to the future of the US as a world power...
As a betting man, let's just say that it is my suggestion to keep your powder dry. You may need it soon. Of course, I pray that the government stops its growth, stops its authoritarianism, stops its socialism, and stops its internationalism...
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
2 Year Stall in the Senate - Our Only Hope
As the votes continue to be tallied, it is now clear - The Liberal Democrats do NOT have their Super Majority. The count looks to be Democrats 56, Republicans 44, assuming that Lieberman continues to caucus with the Democrats - if not, that would make it 55/45 - enough for a 2 year stall while we figure out how to act like libertarian conservatives again!I am reminded of Star Wars scene of Leia - only this time, it is "Hold on Senate - You're our only hope!"
The Senate Results in the 4 remaining close-call states:
99% Reporting in Alaska: R-Stevens 106351 (49%) to D-Begich 102998 (48%)
Since Steves is now a convicted felon, I believe that the process is that the seat will be opened for Sarah Palin to appoint a replacement. Fingers crossed for Todd Palin.
75% Reporting in Oregon: R-Smith 525942 (48%) to D-Merkley 510999 (46%)
Smith is the incumbent, and a necessary hold for the Northwest Republicans
100% Reporting in Minnesota: R-Coleman 1210940 (42%) to D-Franken 1210370 (42%)
Coleman is the incumbent... this race will be recounted - but I feel that Coleman will retain this seat.
99% Reporting in Georgia: R-Chambliss 1834836 (50%) to D-Martin 1723760 (47%)
Chambliss is the incumbent, and it looks like this seat is safe from recount.
A stall in the senate could slow the appointment of liberal justices, block ultra liberal social policy (like Freedom of Choice act and Fairness Doctrine), and hold out for the 2010 election, at which point the country may be ready to balance the power at the federal level.
One thing is for certain, to those on the right, who are anti-Authoritarian / anti-Socialist - an Obama election was a slap in the face - the same way a Lincoln election was a slap in the face to Southern States. Lincoln was a radical who promised fundamental change in America. A true historian knows that the fundamental change was not about slavery, but about state's rights and the sovereignty of states. Obama has the notion, the desire, and the momentum to finish the job started by Lincoln - eliminating the States as sovereign entities, and eliminating the ability of the people to self govern. Lincoln accomplished his task by the use of military force. Obama will take the White House with combat troops deployed to the US, and with the battle cry of a 'civilian military police force' - with the same power and funding as the US military... perhaps it is not 1984, but 1860...
One thing is for certain - those 4 senate seats may be all that is keeping this country together.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Epitaph for America
Here Lies Liberty
1776-2008
A Republic, Unkept
What was born out of the hearts and minds of men much nobler than we, was laid to rest by a conspiracy of the generations to acclimate mankind to the suffering of evil. Liberty, born from the blood and tears of the brave, once shook her fist in defiance of tyranny, now so suddenly finds herself succumb to tyranny's strangle. A struggle through the ages, let pass by complacency.
The birth of liberty was a roar in the hearts of our forefathers, yet so fragile that a single whisper could destroy it's existence. Our fathers crafted liberty from the scorched sands of time itself - a new experiment where man was free to live as he saw fit. An idea so abstract that it defied the logic of history, it was said that such a Republic could only survive if we could keep it.
Liberty gave birth to innovation that defined the presence of man upon this earth - creatures of invention attempting the impossible and succeeding. It was not free men who laid claim to the dreams of success, but it was free men who made it possible. Liberty gave wings to man, lifting him for the first time into the endless skies. Liberty gave man the moon, a feat of our crowing achievement - the endless opportunity of unconditional freedom. Liberty gave man technology to communicate, providing a forum for free and limitless ideas and imaginations.
Liberty has inspired song, poems, and novels. It is longed for by those who lack it. Man yearns for this experiment of personal freedom. It beat in the heart of Americans, and spread throughout the world like a thousand burning embers landing in the dried fields of less fortunate men's hearts - igniting a blaze, a passion for liberation of the self. Men from around the world felt the burning in their chest and joined the land of the free.
But a dark cloud had come over the land, bringing with it the winds of time. The lessons of history, blown away by the resurgence of tyranny, have been lost to many - the many needed in this generation to stand in defiance of tyranny, and, if necessary, spill their blood so that others may soon not forget what noble gift we have neglected. History's lesson is that man is disposed to suffer evils rather than cast aside that to which they have become accustomed. It is a lesson that tyranny knows well, and has become so shrewd at calling upon.
In the heart of every man lies the ability, but the will is lacking. In the lacking of will towards liberty, her death was merely a matter of time. Where once free men fought oppression, it is now welcomed and cheered as it is cast upon our fellow man. The initiation of force for the battle cry of fairness and equality is the battle cry of the cowardly - and has become the battle cry of this nation.
It is not fairness and equality that breeds freedom, but a strong back and a steady hand - hard work and dedication to the cause of freedom and liberty. The will and want to pull the self up from the depths is the inspiration from one man to the other to do the same.
Alas, the treasury has been pillaged, and the wealth of the nation distributed amongst those who choose to do less. They have become so accustomed. And with the destruction of the national wealth, comes the destruction of the personal wealth, for what good does wealth do if it is limited to one hard working free man?
Where the cries of freedom where once heard echoing across the nation, now only are whimpers of each according to his need from those according to their ability.
The freedom of the self has been eroded, and with it, liberty.
So today, we are witnessing liberty being laid to rest - not to solemn tears of the many, but to thunderous applause from around the world. In the hearts of those men across the nation who recognize the loss, those who feel the void deep within their soul, it is the task of these men to no longer endure as the powers of tyranny re-establish themselves. On the hallowed ground where we lay liberty to rest, in the hearts of these men, a pledge must be made to carry the banner of freedom - be not afraid to refresh the tree of liberty. For so long as the ember burns within the heart of a single man, the prospect that freedom will once again shine in the hearts of many is a possibility.
Passionately signed, and with the deepest of sympathy,
Liberty's Child,
Steven Merrill Nielson
on this 21st day of October, in the year 2008
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Democrats Can't Turn it Off! Propose ANOTHER $150 Billion "Economic Bail-out"
In January I posted a blog ripping the United States for the "entitlement" bail-out, and the Fed's answer of simply "printing more money" to stimulate the economy.
The $500 Billion was distributed. The gas prices continued to rise and the economy continued to teeter. The debt incurred did nothing to save the economy, just buy off the Plebs.
In March, I complained about Secretary of Treasury, Henry Paulson's, plan to "streamline" the economy by turning over the US treasury to the Federal Reserve. I stated:
In June I warned about Socialists in the Democratic Party, and their intentions to nationalize the oil industry - following in the footsteps of Hugo Chavez. I suppose I should have also warned of the Socialists in the Republican Party, and their overall intention of seizing absolute power over the United States, and ultimately the world through markets, then politics.
In July I angrily declared my wavering allegiance to a socialist tending government, led by the most liberal Big Government President in the History of the United States, GW Bush.
And NOW, the Democrats are proposing ANOTHER $150 Billion in bail-out moneys to be paid to the states in order to continue funding failed social programs within those states. Luckily, House Republicans are fighting this additional bail-out - but we have seen how easily these clowns buckle if tax breaks are offered to archery shops and bicycle commuters.
Look, readers - I am going to be blunt. This crap has GOT to stop!
The federal budget last year was $2.6 Trillion - and next year's budget is over $3 Trillion. This DOES NOT include the $1.5 Trillion in bail-outs that the Federal Government has raped from the "treasury" in the name of "fairness" or "stabilization". This maneuvering has nothing to do with security or stability... it has everything to do with circumventing the Constitution, creating an expedient government, and granting that new government unlimited power - see Paulson's new role.
Our government has failed, and we are losing our liberties. The government is mired with corruption, greed, and incompetence - and they are using their skills to imprison us in debt - ensuring continued subjugation under this government take-over.
What power do we have to stop these actions?
We have a vote in November, but I fail to see an end with a new Congress. Many incumbents will come back to hen house, foxes all. And the new Congressmen in races across the United States show no drive and no ability to stop this monster.
We have the ability to petition our government for redress of grievances. Alas, no court would uphold a fight against what the government is doing.
And we have the right to take powers from the federal government, granting them to the states in special elections and state constitutional changes - challenging the federal government on their authority over state's sovereignty.
There is a dangerous trend. There seems to be no stop in sight.
So I ask, what are YOU willing to do to secure freedom?
Martin Luther King Jr, while detained in the Birmingham Jail:
Is there no-one willing to do something?
The $500 Billion was distributed. The gas prices continued to rise and the economy continued to teeter. The debt incurred did nothing to save the economy, just buy off the Plebs.
In March, I complained about Secretary of Treasury, Henry Paulson's, plan to "streamline" the economy by turning over the US treasury to the Federal Reserve. I stated:
"What Paulson has done here is set a dangerous precedent, in that the failure of private industry is no longer going to be allowed to happen. What is going to happen instead is that the government will subsidize failing businesses to keep them open, and keep their employees working... on an indirect government salary.The government was intended to be inneficient, so as to protect the people from spontaneous and bad legislature, which would lead to heavy burdens of Tyranny. Streamlining the government is an overt attempt to sidestep the intentions of the Founding Fathers.
THIS IS THE ABSOLUTE COLLAPSE OF THE FREE MARKET."
In June I warned about Socialists in the Democratic Party, and their intentions to nationalize the oil industry - following in the footsteps of Hugo Chavez. I suppose I should have also warned of the Socialists in the Republican Party, and their overall intention of seizing absolute power over the United States, and ultimately the world through markets, then politics.
In July I angrily declared my wavering allegiance to a socialist tending government, led by the most liberal Big Government President in the History of the United States, GW Bush.
"The treasury is being plundered to the thunderous applause of the masses. The burden to bail-out the vain and covetous leeches of our society is being placed on our own pocketbooks... We are being given marching orders by a government that won the vote, but represents no more than 1/4 of the population respectively - that marching order is "On to the Gallows!" - for in this day we are seeing the death of the last best hope in the world."In September, I warned of the dangerous parallel between the recent actions of the United States and the death of the Roman Republic in favor of the Roman Empire. It should also be noted that the same process was followed, legally, in Germany, leading to the rise of the Nationalist Socialist party. Extreme Debt, National Pride, Government Hand-outs and Bail-outs buying allegiance - then the rise of Socialist Hitler to cap it all off.
This month, I have discussed the increased occurrence of violation of the Federal Government's contract with America, the Constitution. The people's liberties are being cast aside in favor of consumerism. Consumerism, of course, is the rally cry for a one-world government supporting perpetual production, consumption, and taxes for political power."The value of the US dollar has decreased by 96% since the inception of the
Federal Reserve, the Federal Debt has gone from $0 to nearly $10 Trillion in the
same amount of time (and has continued to increase an average of $2.32 billion per day since September 28, 2007!) , and the Federal Government is making no plans to stop spending (especially under Obama). The taxpayers of the United States seems not too concerned about this debt, as we have been cultured into a "credit" state of mind, and distracted by commercialism and reality TV constantly demanding that we "watch and vote" - as if it made some sort of a difference in the world! The burden of the debt is over $30,000 per US citizen - more than a years pay for most Americans. Such a burden forces the citizenry into a state of "constant work" in order to survive - thus removing the mind of the masses."
And NOW, the Democrats are proposing ANOTHER $150 Billion in bail-out moneys to be paid to the states in order to continue funding failed social programs within those states. Luckily, House Republicans are fighting this additional bail-out - but we have seen how easily these clowns buckle if tax breaks are offered to archery shops and bicycle commuters.
Look, readers - I am going to be blunt. This crap has GOT to stop!
The federal budget last year was $2.6 Trillion - and next year's budget is over $3 Trillion. This DOES NOT include the $1.5 Trillion in bail-outs that the Federal Government has raped from the "treasury" in the name of "fairness" or "stabilization". This maneuvering has nothing to do with security or stability... it has everything to do with circumventing the Constitution, creating an expedient government, and granting that new government unlimited power - see Paulson's new role.
Our government has failed, and we are losing our liberties. The government is mired with corruption, greed, and incompetence - and they are using their skills to imprison us in debt - ensuring continued subjugation under this government take-over.
What power do we have to stop these actions?
We have a vote in November, but I fail to see an end with a new Congress. Many incumbents will come back to hen house, foxes all. And the new Congressmen in races across the United States show no drive and no ability to stop this monster.
We have the ability to petition our government for redress of grievances. Alas, no court would uphold a fight against what the government is doing.
And we have the right to take powers from the federal government, granting them to the states in special elections and state constitutional changes - challenging the federal government on their authority over state's sovereignty.
There is a dangerous trend. There seems to be no stop in sight.
So I ask, what are YOU willing to do to secure freedom?
Martin Luther King Jr, while detained in the Birmingham Jail:
"We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws."I would draw on the spirit of this rebellious attitude. I would use this quote to declare:
We are living in a New Socialist Society, where certain principles dear to freedom loving individuals, such as our civil liberties, are being suppressed - and I am openly advocating disobeying this countries coming anti-freedom laws! There will come a time when we all must chose - do what is right, or do what is easy. The Declaration of Independence reads: all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
Are you willing to stand up for this country, or live by the new "laws"? Is the loss of freedom so sufferable that you will openly applaud the actions of this federal government in your silence?
Are there no true patriots left in this nation?Is there no-one willing to do something?
Monday, October 13, 2008
The Importance of Secessionism
Anyone who has been around this blog for some time knows that I was a die-hard Huckabee supporter, not because of his religious beliefs, but because of his commitment to State's Rights. Unfortunately, the Republican Party selected a candidate who could care less about the constitution in general, especially the 9th and 10th amendments. Luckily he selected a VP candidate who fully respects a state's right to vote on their status with the union. Sarah Palin has reached out to legitimize the struggle of a group of "10th amendmenters", called the Alaskan Independence Party, simply requesting the vote which Alaskans were never granted - on whether or not they wanted to join the union.
In the light of the new powers granted to an un-elected official, the Secretary of Treasury, which are unbound and unchecked allowing this individual with no responsibility to the voters to exercise unconstitutional force on the free market, we have to ask ourselves what rights we still retain.
When our founding fathers constructed the proposed union, they established the rules for an inefficient government to avoid tyranny, and followed up their governmental structure to ensure that the government understood that it's existence was at the pleasure of the citizens of the individual states... not the other way around.
The Bill of Rights was 10 of 12 proposed amendments, guaranteeing that certain rights were specifically cited as being "off limits" to the functioning of the supposed small federal government.
First, there was a protection of speech, press, practice of religion, protest, and protest against government for grievances.
Second, there was a protection of the individual's right to self preservation, by way of arming the self.
Third, there was a protection of private land - namely against occupying federal forces.
Fourth, there was a protection of the self against search and seizure.
Fifth, there was a protection of the self against self-incrimination, unreasonable trials, and protection of private property against governmental growth.
Sixth and Seventh, there was a protection of the self via jury of peers, and reasonable due process of law.
Eight, there was a protection of the self against unreasonable punishment and torture by the government.
Finally - the ninth and tenth amendments stated clearly that rights not explicitly called out did not mean that those rights were not rights of the people, and that any power not explicitly given to the federal government in the constitution was therefor a power retained by the STATES and the PEOPLE of the states.
These last two points are the most powerful of the entire constitution - declaring that the power of the states is superior to the power of the federal government. This includes the power of secession from the union, a right not discussed in the constitution, thus retained by the states and the people to decide.
Unfortunately, our country went to war over the right of secession once before... though history would indicate that it was a war over slavery, the truth being told, the war was over the right of a state to opt out of a union that fails to represent or operate on behalf of the people of that state.
As I was saying, in light of the recent NEW POWERS, unchecked powers, that the federal government has just granted itself over the people, the markets, and the states... we have to ask ourselves what rights we still retain, and what power we still have over the federal government... Truth be told, those rights and powers are gone. The answer in plain sight is none. But let's discuss technicalities, and the strength that they have.
Technically we have the right to secede from the union, to cast off a form of government that no longer represents the will of the people or the states. It is the last right of the people to keep the federal government in check - stating loud and clear that it is the people who retain the power, not the government. If the people of this nation, of these collection of states, understands that they are not subjects of the federal government but rather the power behind a once "more perfect union", we can better understand our rights and our purpose for living in this nation.
I would propose a show of force across the nation - a ratification of the collective state constitutions, citing the rights retained by the 9th and 10th amendments to the US Constitution, explicitly stating that the right of the state does, in fact, include the right to secede from the Federal Union of the United States. This is not a proposition that any governor is going to propose - it has to be a grassroots effort of the people of the collective states.
Once this effort comes to a head, the Supreme Court decision of Texas v. White (in which the 1869 SCOTUS ruling indicated that the Constitution did not permit states to secede from the Union - the decision was 5-3), will come into question. Fortunately for the argument of future state's rights of secession, the decision of the court included a statement:
The right to secession benefits each state, and the people of the United States, as a protection against an overbearing federal government. Unfortunately, the people of this great nation feel defenseless in the current state of the economy and the strict authoritarian federal government that has sprung up in the name of freedom. What freedom does a caged dog have?
Am I advocating a civil war? I would argue that we are in the midst of a "cold" civil war - a class war, a war of values, a war of power over the people... and the people are losing. I am not advocating violence.
What I am advocating is that the People of the United States understand their rights... understand that we do not have to live in a country of corruption and tyranny at the upper echelons. And we do not have to sit idly by as we watch the powers of a KING granted to an unelected Cabinet Member of the Executive Branch.
I am advocating that We the People of the United States of America take back this country - take back our personal rights, and stop living under constant supervision, regulation, and fear of our government!
I am advocating for the freedom of the people of the several states/regions to decide whether or not the Federal Government has grown beyond its usefulness.
Secession is not a resolution that should come lightly. It is a decision that brings into question the very existence of the United States, and the ties that have bound our people together. It is necessary, from time to time, to have the option to pressure the Federal Government into submission on behalf of the people.
Our politicians swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America - but I wonder if any have read it lately or understand what it actually says, or what it MEANS!?!
In the light of the new powers granted to an un-elected official, the Secretary of Treasury, which are unbound and unchecked allowing this individual with no responsibility to the voters to exercise unconstitutional force on the free market, we have to ask ourselves what rights we still retain.
When our founding fathers constructed the proposed union, they established the rules for an inefficient government to avoid tyranny, and followed up their governmental structure to ensure that the government understood that it's existence was at the pleasure of the citizens of the individual states... not the other way around.
The Bill of Rights was 10 of 12 proposed amendments, guaranteeing that certain rights were specifically cited as being "off limits" to the functioning of the supposed small federal government.
First, there was a protection of speech, press, practice of religion, protest, and protest against government for grievances.
Second, there was a protection of the individual's right to self preservation, by way of arming the self.
Third, there was a protection of private land - namely against occupying federal forces.
Fourth, there was a protection of the self against search and seizure.
Fifth, there was a protection of the self against self-incrimination, unreasonable trials, and protection of private property against governmental growth.
Sixth and Seventh, there was a protection of the self via jury of peers, and reasonable due process of law.
Eight, there was a protection of the self against unreasonable punishment and torture by the government.
Finally - the ninth and tenth amendments stated clearly that rights not explicitly called out did not mean that those rights were not rights of the people, and that any power not explicitly given to the federal government in the constitution was therefor a power retained by the STATES and the PEOPLE of the states.
These last two points are the most powerful of the entire constitution - declaring that the power of the states is superior to the power of the federal government. This includes the power of secession from the union, a right not discussed in the constitution, thus retained by the states and the people to decide.
Unfortunately, our country went to war over the right of secession once before... though history would indicate that it was a war over slavery, the truth being told, the war was over the right of a state to opt out of a union that fails to represent or operate on behalf of the people of that state.
As I was saying, in light of the recent NEW POWERS, unchecked powers, that the federal government has just granted itself over the people, the markets, and the states... we have to ask ourselves what rights we still retain, and what power we still have over the federal government... Truth be told, those rights and powers are gone. The answer in plain sight is none. But let's discuss technicalities, and the strength that they have.
Technically we have the right to secede from the union, to cast off a form of government that no longer represents the will of the people or the states. It is the last right of the people to keep the federal government in check - stating loud and clear that it is the people who retain the power, not the government. If the people of this nation, of these collection of states, understands that they are not subjects of the federal government but rather the power behind a once "more perfect union", we can better understand our rights and our purpose for living in this nation.
I would propose a show of force across the nation - a ratification of the collective state constitutions, citing the rights retained by the 9th and 10th amendments to the US Constitution, explicitly stating that the right of the state does, in fact, include the right to secede from the Federal Union of the United States. This is not a proposition that any governor is going to propose - it has to be a grassroots effort of the people of the collective states.
Once this effort comes to a head, the Supreme Court decision of Texas v. White (in which the 1869 SCOTUS ruling indicated that the Constitution did not permit states to secede from the Union - the decision was 5-3), will come into question. Fortunately for the argument of future state's rights of secession, the decision of the court included a statement:
The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual,This indicates that if the multitude of the states, and the people of the states, indicated that the right of secession was a right retained by the states by the 9th and 10th amendment, then secession could be voted on by any given state and enacted against the federal government's rule.
and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place
for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through
consent of the States.
The right to secession benefits each state, and the people of the United States, as a protection against an overbearing federal government. Unfortunately, the people of this great nation feel defenseless in the current state of the economy and the strict authoritarian federal government that has sprung up in the name of freedom. What freedom does a caged dog have?
Am I advocating a civil war? I would argue that we are in the midst of a "cold" civil war - a class war, a war of values, a war of power over the people... and the people are losing. I am not advocating violence.
What I am advocating is that the People of the United States understand their rights... understand that we do not have to live in a country of corruption and tyranny at the upper echelons. And we do not have to sit idly by as we watch the powers of a KING granted to an unelected Cabinet Member of the Executive Branch.
I am advocating that We the People of the United States of America take back this country - take back our personal rights, and stop living under constant supervision, regulation, and fear of our government!
I am advocating for the freedom of the people of the several states/regions to decide whether or not the Federal Government has grown beyond its usefulness.
Secession is not a resolution that should come lightly. It is a decision that brings into question the very existence of the United States, and the ties that have bound our people together. It is necessary, from time to time, to have the option to pressure the Federal Government into submission on behalf of the people.
Our politicians swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America - but I wonder if any have read it lately or understand what it actually says, or what it MEANS!?!
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
McCain/Palin - Eeking Out Victory in '08?
After watching the lack-luster Presidential Debate last night, and reading the headlines over the past few days regarding presidential politics, I am willing to hedge my bets. John McCain and Sarah Palin will win the electoral vote by a spread of 10 points - 274 to 264, Colorado being the deciding vote and leaning McCain by less than 10,000 votes.I am willing to predict that Obama/Biden pick up huge victories in NY and California, giving them a 2 million vote spread in the popular vote - bringing about the same arguments we saw after 2000, where Gore won the popular vote and Bush won the electoral vote, sparking disputes whether the electoral vote is representative of the will of the people.
In fact, the electoral vote is what keeps this country a Republic - and saves us from a mob-ruled Democracy in the Federal Government.
Barack Obama is going to have a tough race over the next few weeks. There is finally some more in depth reporting regarding his questionable associations, his economic policy, and his record. Obama's headlines this week include ACORN voter registration fraud on the order of tens of thousands in battleground states, Breaking his promise to his wife regarding smoking, Democrat tactics (including hacking e-mail accounts) in intimidating supporters of McCain and Undecided Voters... Dissenters of Barack Obama are going to spend the next few weeks ripping the Junior Senator apart, and it will be enough to swing the undecided voters in the traditionally red states back in to the McCain/palin camp.
McCain will take Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina by about 5%.
McCain will take Ohio and Colorado by 2%.
It will be tight, but the negative message about Obama is only going to be muted by Obama pumping tens of millions into counter ads attempting to repair his image - money that has been questionably raised - breaking numerous federal election laws... which will be made well known.
The upside is that this will all be over in a few weeks, and we will see the uneasiness in the markets settle down a bit, and the country will begin to move forward in one direction or the other.
Under Obama, we can be sure that the markets will hit about 8000 as investors pull out their money to avoid the "threshold of wealth" in the sights of Obama's "fairness tax". Small business and large business alike will be motivated to hide funds or under-perform to avoid the higher taxes. There will be a motivation for restraining business growth, whcih will lead to the elimination of actual economic growth. Jobs will disappear, unless the Federal Government creates a jobs program for the Green Energy "industry" which will actually be the Green Energy Administration - and jobs will be under the Federal Government Payroll.
Under McCain, there is at least some hope for allowing the American people the opportunity to fix their situation as part of a reprise of personal responsibility in spending, health, and energy. There will be tax breaks for all, spending reductions across the board, and an end to Bush's Big Government Boom! There is some hope with McCain's policy of ousting corruption in lending, lobbying, and leadership that the government will shrink, taxes will stay low, and local governments will feel the pressure to take over where the federal government has intruded on their authority.
There will be no unity in 2008. If McCain wins, the angered and trained Obamanites will partake in the practice of civil disobedience. Leftist Fascism will be at an all time high through Code Pink, ACORN, and Move-On groups trying to quiet the conservatives/Republicans from conducting a clean-up operation in our government. It will be no better from the left than it is now, under Bush - because those on the left HATE anyone who disagrees with them. If Obama wins, there will be tactics from the right to stall any of his policies from becoming law. There will be a massive failure of the government to operate under these extreme bills and regulations (which is why the congressional and Senate races are more important than the Presidential race).
Either way, we are at a societal crossroads in America. The left has become so left that socialist/communist would be a compliment to them. The right has been abandoned for the middle-left, and those who remain on the right are radically outside of common thinking, even if they are spot on classically for American Politics.
Assuming I am right, and McCain/Palin wins, there is hope that the future of the country will begin it's pendulum swing back to the center, giving hope for true reform in government towards a smaller, less authoritarian "master" federal government.
Assuming I am wrong and this nation continues left, there could be a collapse of the Union under the pressure of the overbearing federal government - leading to possible civil war, or in the least a new form of a confederation between states or regions. What happens next in America is anyone's guess... but as it was once said: Keep your powder dry. Save your resources and be prepared for anything, because uncertainty is staring us in the face!
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
When in the Course of Human Events...
The Declaration of Independence, written by men no longer able to idly allow usurpation of their natural right to freedom from tyranny and excessive and burdensome law, has been forgotten by most and ignored by more. What is worse, the importance and relevance of this document is further il-understood in the context of the sequence of events which have recently elapsed.
Over the weekend, the United States ceased to exist as a free nation, as a nation of free men.
This statement has been closer to reality for some time, but the events of the last week have ensured an end to the free society which was so nobly defended by the blood of our forefathers - the same blood that now boils in my veins.
The United States Government, under the guise of security in the financial markets, has simply cast aside the Constitution - a document which identifies the limited government which was allowed by the free peoples of this nation to be established with the limited roles of providing for the common defense of this nation and it's people - and have instituted in it's place an entity with limitless power over finance, business, banking, and the very core of the market system.
This nation ceases to be a Republic, and has now boldly stated that Republics are unnecessary - instead relying on a socialist democracy where the mob rules and the government remains in power of business, jobs, and the once free market. Free thinking minds need not apply - the United States of Freedom has officially gone bankrupt.
Free thinking men continue to do nothing, insisting instead that it is actually a good thing for an entity of once limited power to have unlimited power over businesses - and now has the ability to cease failing businesses for the cause of financial security.
Benjamin Franklin noted: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
So what about those of us who acknowledge the error in the government - what choice do we have but to dissolve the political bands between ourselves and the Federal Government - to declare that we are the Harbinger of Liberty, the protectors of our inalienable rights! Experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
Our Federal Government has violated the contract in which WE ALLOW THEIR EXISTENCE. They have proclaimed themselves rulers of their people, masters of the land, and have shown intent to bring slavery and military force upon her people.
The Federal Government is guilty by their own admission of the following:
*It has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies with the purpose of combat against citizens in protest against them
*It has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power, usurping jurisdiction from rightful local citizens.
*It has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving its Assent to their Acts of unwanted Legislation:
- For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us
- For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent
*It has violated the trust of the people, conducting unreasonable search and seizure of persons and property without just cause or due process under the guise of Homeland Security and the "patriot act"
*It has moved to establish itself as superior in all matters where rights and laws are naturally reserved for the people or the states, including but not limited to marriage, education, and local security
*It has established evidentiary proof against itself to be called into question its intention of treason against the good will of the free people of the nation
All these actions occur in violation of the contract between the people and the government. We are under siege, yet we remain distracted and indifferent to action.
My recent near detention at the SeaTac airport in Seattle Washington emboldened me to action. I refused to cooperate with additional screening three hours after I went through security as the TSA agents conducted "random searches" of citizens at my gate. My refusal was on the grounds of the 4th amendment protection against unreasonable search or seizure without probable cause - unless they could present me with a warrant or some other document authorizing such a search of my secure person. They were unable to provide a warrant, and unwilling to show me an authorizing document to conduct this additional and unreasonable full body search. Their response to my protest was to call in their management, who was equally unable to cite any directive or authority to conduct such a search, and when fully frustrated that they could not beat me in a battle of constitutional wits, they threatened to have me arrested. I answered back that there is no need to show unnecessary force, when all I am requesting is documentation of their right to search my person. Needless to say, after a 25 minute stand-off, I took down their names and their position and informed them that i intend to file a full complaint - and allowed them to perform their search under my protest so that I could board my plane. I am currently investigating legal action against the TSA for failure to provide warrant or authority to conduct unreasonable searches under force.
And I call into question any citizen who is unwilling to question the actions of our government. What has this society become? Am I mourning the death of the Republic while others are celebrating the birth of whatever our nation has become?
We should never forget that a government that ceases to act on behalf of the people becomes an enemy of the people. This is just as true today as it was in 1776 - when our Founding Fathers - those brave souls - proclaimed that enough was enough.
Over the weekend, the United States ceased to exist as a free nation, as a nation of free men.
This statement has been closer to reality for some time, but the events of the last week have ensured an end to the free society which was so nobly defended by the blood of our forefathers - the same blood that now boils in my veins.
The United States Government, under the guise of security in the financial markets, has simply cast aside the Constitution - a document which identifies the limited government which was allowed by the free peoples of this nation to be established with the limited roles of providing for the common defense of this nation and it's people - and have instituted in it's place an entity with limitless power over finance, business, banking, and the very core of the market system.
This nation ceases to be a Republic, and has now boldly stated that Republics are unnecessary - instead relying on a socialist democracy where the mob rules and the government remains in power of business, jobs, and the once free market. Free thinking minds need not apply - the United States of Freedom has officially gone bankrupt.
Free thinking men continue to do nothing, insisting instead that it is actually a good thing for an entity of once limited power to have unlimited power over businesses - and now has the ability to cease failing businesses for the cause of financial security.
Benjamin Franklin noted: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
So what about those of us who acknowledge the error in the government - what choice do we have but to dissolve the political bands between ourselves and the Federal Government - to declare that we are the Harbinger of Liberty, the protectors of our inalienable rights! Experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
Our Federal Government has violated the contract in which WE ALLOW THEIR EXISTENCE. They have proclaimed themselves rulers of their people, masters of the land, and have shown intent to bring slavery and military force upon her people.
The Federal Government is guilty by their own admission of the following:
*It has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies with the purpose of combat against citizens in protest against them
*It has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power, usurping jurisdiction from rightful local citizens.
*It has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving its Assent to their Acts of unwanted Legislation:
- For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us
- For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent
*It has violated the trust of the people, conducting unreasonable search and seizure of persons and property without just cause or due process under the guise of Homeland Security and the "patriot act"
*It has moved to establish itself as superior in all matters where rights and laws are naturally reserved for the people or the states, including but not limited to marriage, education, and local security
*It has established evidentiary proof against itself to be called into question its intention of treason against the good will of the free people of the nation
All these actions occur in violation of the contract between the people and the government. We are under siege, yet we remain distracted and indifferent to action.
My recent near detention at the SeaTac airport in Seattle Washington emboldened me to action. I refused to cooperate with additional screening three hours after I went through security as the TSA agents conducted "random searches" of citizens at my gate. My refusal was on the grounds of the 4th amendment protection against unreasonable search or seizure without probable cause - unless they could present me with a warrant or some other document authorizing such a search of my secure person. They were unable to provide a warrant, and unwilling to show me an authorizing document to conduct this additional and unreasonable full body search. Their response to my protest was to call in their management, who was equally unable to cite any directive or authority to conduct such a search, and when fully frustrated that they could not beat me in a battle of constitutional wits, they threatened to have me arrested. I answered back that there is no need to show unnecessary force, when all I am requesting is documentation of their right to search my person. Needless to say, after a 25 minute stand-off, I took down their names and their position and informed them that i intend to file a full complaint - and allowed them to perform their search under my protest so that I could board my plane. I am currently investigating legal action against the TSA for failure to provide warrant or authority to conduct unreasonable searches under force.
And I call into question any citizen who is unwilling to question the actions of our government. What has this society become? Am I mourning the death of the Republic while others are celebrating the birth of whatever our nation has become?
We should never forget that a government that ceases to act on behalf of the people becomes an enemy of the people. This is just as true today as it was in 1776 - when our Founding Fathers - those brave souls - proclaimed that enough was enough.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Cold War Bias Towards Russia?
After writing my previous blog, I began reading more about the conflict in Georgia. I refreshed my history of the region, the Soviet rule of the area, the wars in the region after the Soviet collapse, and the rise of the current government.
Armed with this knowledge of the area, I forced myself to look at the cold hard facts surrounding the conflict, applying the same logic I have for other conflicts or struggles for independence, and take into account my hesitation towards anything Russian due to growing up in the Cold-War / anti-Soviet 80's. In the spirit of fair journalism, I am going to address some questions regarding the situation.
1. Is Russia's response adequate?
2. Is Georgia the actual aggressor?
3. What claim to autonomy do these geographical regions actually have?
Let me start by answering the the questions in reverse order.
3. The country of Georgia houses a couple of autonomous regions, existing in de facto independence from the Georgian government since the civil war of 1992-1993. During this war, the worst fighting took place in the Abkhazia region (in the Northwest region of the country). During this conflict, upwards of 200,000 ethnic Georgians were victims of genocide at the hands of the Abkhaz peoples and the Russian military forces remaining in the area. The Ossetian peoples of Central Georgia also declared de facto independence from the central government, intending to join with North Ossetia (which is part of Russia proper). The territories have acted autonomously, with numerous attempts by Georgian officials to extend autonomy under Georgian unity (such as statehood / confederation). The autonomous regions have refused, demanding their own independence.
By natural law, one would conclude that the cessation of violence after the civil war indicated a region of territorial delineation. That is, the de facto autonomy was recognized by both sides - both of which should be party to continued peaceful existence as sovereign territories as decided by the civil war. This is the very basis for the Declaration of Independence - casting off one form of government to create one better suited to the people, as they so desire. The territory lines of Georgia are little more than old Soviet map lines, but did nothing regarding the actual make-up of the region. Therefore, both regions have a legitimate claim to call for independence from Georgia - just as do the Palestinians have a legitimate claim to autonomy, as do the Kosovians, as do the Sioux. What is expected is fair and legal recognition of their claim.
Is it dangerous to draw map lines based on ethnicity? Indeed. But if it is necessary to establish areas of greater autonomy with a loose confederation in order to maintain peace throughout the world, then by all means, so be it.
2. The current conflict is a case of he-said / she-said. Who fired the first shot? Who started the war? If separatist forces in the autonomous regions had been committing acts of aggression towards civilians or government forces of Georgia, then Georgian forces are well within their means to bring peace and order to a region recognized as their own territory. However, reports would indicate a widely unreported series of events in which Georgian forces pushed their forces towards the South Ossetian capitol of Tskhinvali where they then began a bombardment of the civilian population. If this is, in fact, the case, I firmly believe that the Georgian government was out of line. It is one thing to send troops into the city and maintain martial law under constitutional powers, ensuring peace and rule of law. However, attacking civilian populations of another ethnicity is a crime.
3. If Georgia is, in fact, the aggressor against the Ossetian people, then Russia is absolved of my previous harsh criticism. Russia is performing the task of ensuring freedom, and ensuring that genocide is no longer a tool of war.
It is the policy of the US to ensure that the enemy is incapacitated when we enter a conflict. We ensure a swift victory and unconditional cessation of attacks against our forces and civilians. This is the tactic the Russians are employing, saving the US the trouble of having to intervene.
However, it was not long ago that Soviet forces used this same tactic to erect the iron curtain around these very same people... so it is with a cautious hand that I endorse such actions by the Russians.
Is there a cold war bias? Indeed. I feel it, as does the rest of the world. It comes in a time when Russia is still defiant, and interested in asserting their strength on Europe in the form of Energy, and the West in the form of alliances (with Iran, Syria, etc). As much as the United States is the sleeping giant, theUSSR Russians are the the sleeping bear. Intervention in these conflicts could, as I hinted in the last post, lead to another conflict between the two world super powers.
It is this fact that is causing the world community to call for Russia to act with reserve.
Depending on the outcome of Russia's actions, we may see a Russia with greater influence in the region as a partner with the US in peacekeeping throughout the world... or we may see a new foe to the United States in a struggle to maintain superiority in influence around the globe.
So I ask now, what is the role of the US in defending an ally? What is the role of any super power in defending against genocide? And is there room for two super powers doing good on the world stage?
Armed with this knowledge of the area, I forced myself to look at the cold hard facts surrounding the conflict, applying the same logic I have for other conflicts or struggles for independence, and take into account my hesitation towards anything Russian due to growing up in the Cold-War / anti-Soviet 80's. In the spirit of fair journalism, I am going to address some questions regarding the situation.
1. Is Russia's response adequate?
2. Is Georgia the actual aggressor?
3. What claim to autonomy do these geographical regions actually have?
Let me start by answering the the questions in reverse order.
3. The country of Georgia houses a couple of autonomous regions, existing in de facto independence from the Georgian government since the civil war of 1992-1993. During this war, the worst fighting took place in the Abkhazia region (in the Northwest region of the country). During this conflict, upwards of 200,000 ethnic Georgians were victims of genocide at the hands of the Abkhaz peoples and the Russian military forces remaining in the area. The Ossetian peoples of Central Georgia also declared de facto independence from the central government, intending to join with North Ossetia (which is part of Russia proper). The territories have acted autonomously, with numerous attempts by Georgian officials to extend autonomy under Georgian unity (such as statehood / confederation). The autonomous regions have refused, demanding their own independence.
By natural law, one would conclude that the cessation of violence after the civil war indicated a region of territorial delineation. That is, the de facto autonomy was recognized by both sides - both of which should be party to continued peaceful existence as sovereign territories as decided by the civil war. This is the very basis for the Declaration of Independence - casting off one form of government to create one better suited to the people, as they so desire. The territory lines of Georgia are little more than old Soviet map lines, but did nothing regarding the actual make-up of the region. Therefore, both regions have a legitimate claim to call for independence from Georgia - just as do the Palestinians have a legitimate claim to autonomy, as do the Kosovians, as do the Sioux. What is expected is fair and legal recognition of their claim.
Is it dangerous to draw map lines based on ethnicity? Indeed. But if it is necessary to establish areas of greater autonomy with a loose confederation in order to maintain peace throughout the world, then by all means, so be it.
2. The current conflict is a case of he-said / she-said. Who fired the first shot? Who started the war? If separatist forces in the autonomous regions had been committing acts of aggression towards civilians or government forces of Georgia, then Georgian forces are well within their means to bring peace and order to a region recognized as their own territory. However, reports would indicate a widely unreported series of events in which Georgian forces pushed their forces towards the South Ossetian capitol of Tskhinvali where they then began a bombardment of the civilian population. If this is, in fact, the case, I firmly believe that the Georgian government was out of line. It is one thing to send troops into the city and maintain martial law under constitutional powers, ensuring peace and rule of law. However, attacking civilian populations of another ethnicity is a crime.
3. If Georgia is, in fact, the aggressor against the Ossetian people, then Russia is absolved of my previous harsh criticism. Russia is performing the task of ensuring freedom, and ensuring that genocide is no longer a tool of war.
It is the policy of the US to ensure that the enemy is incapacitated when we enter a conflict. We ensure a swift victory and unconditional cessation of attacks against our forces and civilians. This is the tactic the Russians are employing, saving the US the trouble of having to intervene.
However, it was not long ago that Soviet forces used this same tactic to erect the iron curtain around these very same people... so it is with a cautious hand that I endorse such actions by the Russians.
Is there a cold war bias? Indeed. I feel it, as does the rest of the world. It comes in a time when Russia is still defiant, and interested in asserting their strength on Europe in the form of Energy, and the West in the form of alliances (with Iran, Syria, etc). As much as the United States is the sleeping giant, the
It is this fact that is causing the world community to call for Russia to act with reserve.
Depending on the outcome of Russia's actions, we may see a Russia with greater influence in the region as a partner with the US in peacekeeping throughout the world... or we may see a new foe to the United States in a struggle to maintain superiority in influence around the globe.
So I ask now, what is the role of the US in defending an ally? What is the role of any super power in defending against genocide? And is there room for two super powers doing good on the world stage?
Old Habits Die Hard – Russian Empire in Georgia
Michael Phelps wins his second gold medal, the US and China continue to lead the medal count… and in page A14 news Russia invades some country.
In fact, that “some country” is Georgia.
Now before you Southerners lock and load your rifles in defense of your Southern Brothers, rest assured the Ruskies are not in the Peach Orchard…
Georgia is a country south of the Russian Chechnya region which is an ex-Soviet Republic. Georgia is also the United States’ biggest ally in the war in Iraq, second only to Great Britain.
Georgia is also a NATO Promissory – recently promised membership into the military defense treaty of NATO. Such promise of defense should guarantee instant reaction from the President of the United States:
Even after this attention, the Russians continue to attack regions of the Sovereign Georgia territory, in defiance of the United States’ call for cessation of violence.
Unfortunately for Georgia, this is not the limit of Russian involvement. In many regions of Georgia since the fall of the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation has been aiding the separatist movement in Georgia, including an ethnic cleansing campaign in the early 1990’s in certain regions of the country. Georgia’s increasing reliance on Washington is cause for great concern from Moscow, who has made attempts in recent months to show greater influence in the ex-Soviet region – especially after missile defense platforms have been agreed upon for regions of Eastern Europe.
What should Washington’s response be when one of her most trusted and most reliable allies is invaded and pummeled by Russian bombs?
If we do nothing, our allies in the fledgling democracies will be increasingly hesitant to rely on the US for security in their separation from the Soviet Union (Now the Russian Federation… but led by the same groups of folks). If we do nothing, violence and murder will befall our most trusted friend in Iraq.
If we act, it may lead to war with Russia… the doomsday clock moves closer to midnight. The US has mended relations with Russia, but an act of aggression in defense of an ally could lead to a resurgence of the Cold War – this time, however, the Russians have the backing of a huge anti-US sentiment worldwide… something that was absent for so many years after the US helped lead the world to victory in WWII.
The ultimate question is this: does a country have the right to enforce rule of law within their own borders, assuming rule of law includes retention of sovereign lands from secessionist forces backed by a foreign country?
If this is the definition of a Civil War, then what role should the US take in defending an ally in their civil war if Russia becomes involved on the side of the antagonist separatists? What is the price of freedom and sovereignty?
=====Update=====
The United States has begun assisting Georgian Soldiers back to their country from Iraq, to the cry of "foul" from Russia's Putin, who said that the US presence would hamper efforts for Russia to resolve the conflict. The resolution Russia is looking for is victory, and the claiming of the territory for their own. The presence of the US means that this outcome will likely not be the case... Yes... hampering their outcome.
In fact, that “some country” is Georgia.
Now before you Southerners lock and load your rifles in defense of your Southern Brothers, rest assured the Ruskies are not in the Peach Orchard…
Georgia is a country south of the Russian Chechnya region which is an ex-Soviet Republic. Georgia is also the United States’ biggest ally in the war in Iraq, second only to Great Britain.
Georgia is also a NATO Promissory – recently promised membership into the military defense treaty of NATO. Such promise of defense should guarantee instant reaction from the President of the United States:
Even after this attention, the Russians continue to attack regions of the Sovereign Georgia territory, in defiance of the United States’ call for cessation of violence.
Unfortunately for Georgia, this is not the limit of Russian involvement. In many regions of Georgia since the fall of the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation has been aiding the separatist movement in Georgia, including an ethnic cleansing campaign in the early 1990’s in certain regions of the country. Georgia’s increasing reliance on Washington is cause for great concern from Moscow, who has made attempts in recent months to show greater influence in the ex-Soviet region – especially after missile defense platforms have been agreed upon for regions of Eastern Europe.
What should Washington’s response be when one of her most trusted and most reliable allies is invaded and pummeled by Russian bombs?
If we do nothing, our allies in the fledgling democracies will be increasingly hesitant to rely on the US for security in their separation from the Soviet Union (Now the Russian Federation… but led by the same groups of folks). If we do nothing, violence and murder will befall our most trusted friend in Iraq.
If we act, it may lead to war with Russia… the doomsday clock moves closer to midnight. The US has mended relations with Russia, but an act of aggression in defense of an ally could lead to a resurgence of the Cold War – this time, however, the Russians have the backing of a huge anti-US sentiment worldwide… something that was absent for so many years after the US helped lead the world to victory in WWII.
The ultimate question is this: does a country have the right to enforce rule of law within their own borders, assuming rule of law includes retention of sovereign lands from secessionist forces backed by a foreign country?
If this is the definition of a Civil War, then what role should the US take in defending an ally in their civil war if Russia becomes involved on the side of the antagonist separatists? What is the price of freedom and sovereignty?
=====Update=====
The United States has begun assisting Georgian Soldiers back to their country from Iraq, to the cry of "foul" from Russia's Putin, who said that the US presence would hamper efforts for Russia to resolve the conflict. The resolution Russia is looking for is victory, and the claiming of the territory for their own. The presence of the US means that this outcome will likely not be the case... Yes... hampering their outcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)