Monday, June 28, 2010

Sen. Byrd - RIP

Sen Byrd, D-WV - dead at 92. A statesman, true. A colorful history, sure. The poster child for career politicians, without a doubt.

I am saddened at the news of the passing of a fellow man... but it does not move me one bit to hear that a lifelong career politician will no longer plague the halls of congress. It is a sad day in America when the only way to rid nearly centuries old stalwarts from congress is by way of the grim reaper. A true statesman would have handed the torch off years ago, molding young minds and shaping the future in his community through volunteerism and other terms of service - instead, Byrd lived his life off the taxpayer's teet, raking in the dough while bringing home loads of pork to WV.

I mourn the death of a man... and celebrate new faces in the Senate. It will undoubtedly be another Democrat... but this makes 2012 a likely active year for constitutionalists in WV, as well as across the many states of this union. Here is another prayer to liberty.

Thursday, June 24, 2010

Federal Government Boycotting Arizona?

In a move that is telling of the mounting tension between state governments and the federal government, D.C. has entered into the Arizona Boycott by moving events previously set to take place in the state to other regions, as well as recently drawing legal suit against the state. The boycott came as a response to Arizona's law enforcing federal immigration laws - a law made necessary by the federal government's unwillingness to protect the people of Arizona from high crime and property rights violations caused by illegal border crossings into the state from Mexico. The most recent response from the federal government sends a clear message to the states: fall in line or you're on your own.

Well enough. It is of my humblest opinion that each state, in response to this outrageous turn of events by the District of Columbia, should stand in solidarity of sovereignty. Each state, in their own way, should position themselves to live free of federal funding, and eventually free of federal influence. D.C. derives its current power not by the consent of the people, but by the apathy of the people. They use their force against the people by economic pressures. If we understand their strength and deny them that which they use against us, they become powerless to interfere in the true will of the people.

We are on the precipice of something revolutionary - a great struggle for the minds and hearts of the people of this nation. The time is fast approaching where we will have to ask: Do you stand for liberty, or tyranny? There are two Americas, each is mutually exclusive, and neither can exist with the other. One is an America of absolute liberty, the other is one of tyranny. You either believe in the will of the people to live their own lives freely, or believe in offering up liberty for 'protection' and 'management' from on high. Any man who would surrender their freedom willingly deserves the shackles of slavery that are bound to be placed upon him.

Arizona stands at the end of a muzzle whose buttstock is tight in the shoulder of liberal D.C. The finger of the executive is on the trigger. The fate of a nation is in the crosshairs. This stands to be our Sumter - a federal government's aggressive move against a state of this union. Do we raise our hands in defeat, or our fists in defiance?

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Militarize the US Borders NOW!

The United States is fighting in two shooting wars, actively deployed in countless hot zones, and on stand-by alert in greater regions around the world... in EACH AND EVERY CASE around the world, the United States is actively ensuring control of population movement across borders of these many countries... be they between the Koreas, Afghanistan and Pakistan, Iraq and Iran (and Jordan and Syria)... You name it, and I bet you will find that the United States is actively involved in border security of a number of foreign countries. However, the United States Government refuses to provide the same enforcement along our OWN borders, though specifically I am referring to our Mexican/US border.

FOXNews is reporting that 3500 acres of national Wildlife refuge in Arizona, along the Mexican Border, is now being officially closed to US Civilians due to extreme paramilitary violence from Mexican drug traffickers. Obama's White house is silent. There is US territory that is under siege by foreign nationals and the US Government's response is to close down the area to avoid conflict with the violators... Here Lies the United States!

If the US Government will not call to action, Arizona should call in requests for an all volunteer militia to work as members of the state national guard (not for foreign deployment by the Feds, but for ACTUAL homeland defense)... This group should move into and secure the territory at all costs.

Arizona is under attack. The battle has begun... and the Obama administration ignores... The US Government is no longer willing or capable of protecting the people of this nation. Time to file for divorce... this relationship is plagued with irreconcilable differences!

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

The Leading Cause of Conflict over the Next 20 Years: Climate Change?

In a not so veiled attempt to push through another nanny state piece of legislation, the Democrats are bulking up their efforts to build the case for Carbon Taxing and other sweeping environmental controls. In doing so, CA Sen. Boxer (D) stated that the biggest threat to world security over the next twenty years is going to be climate change. Let's investigate this claim.

A look at recent conflicts will support the claim that conflicts arise for two main reasons: revolution and/or resources. In the post WWII era the world has been witness to countless armed conflicts on nearly every continent. Within the last twenty years, to provide scope of argument, the following conflicts existed:
1. Gulf War - Iraq invades Kuwait for fuel resources. Significant US resource impact - US leads war to retake Kuwait.
2. Congo Wars - US pulls support for Zaire dictator (put in place to combat communism in Africa) and revolution commenced. US not involved in conflict.
3. Chechen Wars - After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the break up of satellite states in Eastern Europe, traditional Russian territories declared independence and revolution commenced. Russia fought for resources against a revolutionary population, claiming Chechens had no legitimate claim to the territory independent from Russia.
4. Kargil War - India and Pakistan fight for land resources for strategic advantages in the Kashmir region. No US involvement.
5. Kosovo and Yugoslov Wars - a series of conflicts of revolution in a post Soviet bloc country. US NATO involvement.
6. Civil wars in Rwanda, Algeria, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, East Timor, Czechoslovakia, Chad, Nepal, Liberia
7. Invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan for resources/political reason by the US
8. Israel-Palestinian conflicts - including Lebanon attacks, Intifada, Gaza conflicts, etc for Land resources and revolution by the Palestinians
9. Russian invasion of Georgia - civil conflict turned international for land resource reasons by Russia
10. Genocide in Sudan - race war between Black Africans and Arabs for land resources
There are many other conflicts not listed for reasons of brevity, but the consistent cause of conflict remains true: resource or revolution. If the Senator from California is attempting to conclude that Global Warming/Climate Change is going to cause a shortage of resources, thus be the cause of violence, I would argue that constant variation in weather patterns has been cause for population movement and/or adaptation to meet the living needs, and is no new concept. To make the claim that climate, not overpopulation in limited resource regions, is a leading factor is simply propaganda.

Furthermore, I would conclude that the greatest struggle in the next twenty years is NOT going to be caused by climate change, rather by revolution due to failed world economic and police state ventures. Economic power shifts will shun failing economic giants and favor those industrial giants rising to power. The power shift will weaken influences over certain regions and lead to shifting borders and alliances. As the Untied States loses the ability to defend allies, new alliances will have to be formed around the world in order for other countries and regions to best defend their interests and resources. The climate plays no role in these most likely scenarios.

Resources will continue to be scarce in regions with little to begin with - North Africa and regions within the middle east. Wars in these regions, however, are likely to be religious and race based rather than resource based. Such revolutionary class wars/conflicts, I predict, will lend to one of two conclusions: a strong Middle East with greater world influence under a United banner (The Islamic Union), or a perpetually war torn region of political conflict and eventual nuclear war.

In all cases, climate change is of least concern over the next twenty years as the leading cause of international conflict. Be not fooled by the death throws of the Nanny State liberals desperately attempting to ram propaganda and their unconstitutional agenda down the throat of America (and the world). Simple observation and trend analysis, as well as a little logic and reason are useful in annihilating their fanciful theories and leftist agenda.

Wednesday, June 2, 2010

We Fight Because You Are Here

"All we ask is, to be let alone" The will of a people to self determine, free from outside government's influence over the internal affairs of a group of self governed, is the strongest cause for war in recent history. However, recent increase in central government size and influence has triggered a near collapse of modern society - economically and socially.

The Declaration of Independence proclaimed that it is the right of the people to cast off political ties when the governed are no longer represented. On this basis of thought a war of Independence, the American Revolution, was fought. The Americans wanted the freedom to self govern, with the simple message to the British: All we ask is to be let alone.

During the war between the states, the series of secession from the Union by southern states came as solidarity to the same cause - self determination, free from the dictatorial influence of the growing northern states. Jefferson Davis gave word as to how the north could end the war, simply by going home, when he stated: All we ask is to be let alone.

The push for land and resources through the Midwestern states was met with heavy resistance by the civilizations already living and hunting on these grounds. The Plains Indians sued for peace on many occasions, only to be slapped in the face by the imperialist US Government determined to claim ownership over land and natural wealth by way of 'Manifest Destiny'. As the tribes of the great plains bore witness to mass occupation of their lands and the eradication of their herds, they engaged in the great Indian Wars with the United States. They fought because the US had invaded their sovereign lands, though through treaty upon treaty they promised peace, if only their lands would be let alone.

Arizona fights, through new laws, against Mexico and the inept US government, because the Mexican Civilian population has invaded their sovereign land. All they ask is to be let alone.

Tibet fights against the Chinese government for the continued occupation of their historically native lands. All they ask is to be let alone.

And so goes the story, time and again. A people, a land, a will to be independent is disregarded by another outside entity... and war ensues. Such is the struggle of recent history.

Enter the Palestine issue. The land that was once entirely known as Palestine under British Control was mandated to be split into two entities upon British withdrawal from interest in the land. The United Nations passed a resolution approving the
creation of two states, Israel and Palestine, with full sovereign authority. Shortly after the vote, there were riots in Israel/Palestine, and after British withdrawal there was a full scale invasion by Egypt, Syria, and Jordan in which Israel captured and held defensive positions of lands against outside forces - the difference between the 1947 UN partition lines and the 1949 armistice lines – or roughly the map of Israel as we know it today (with the Gaza Strip and the West Bank). The issue with the Israeli/Palestinian is a little more complex than “All we ask is to be let alone”; however the concept is very much the same: self determination.

Assuming a starting line of 1948, when Israel declared Independence and was subsequently recognized by a plurality of world governments, the intent of the region was a two state division of the land – mutually sovereign governments, laws, and land. The war of 1948-49 was brought about because, where Israel had an organized governmental structure, the Palestinian Arabs were basically ‘claimed’ by foreign kings, thus the kings fought for land. Fast forward this struggle 60 years and though the players may have changed, the maps and issues remain virtually the same.

Today the concern lies with the independent state of Palestine and the right to self determination of her people. There are those extreme views that decry the existence of Israel and call for her destruction, however, peace is never found in extremism, rather in moderation. It is in moderation where cooler heads can prevail.

Let us use the analogy used above – we fight because you are here – and compare it to tribal lands in the United States. During US expansion treaties were signed strictly defining US territory and Tribal territory. Through settlement and military action in support of white settlers the tribes were drawn into war, time and again, to defend their sovereign and treaty protected land. The Supreme Court, in 1980, ruled that the use of military force and settlement of the Sioux lands was in violation of the treaty of Fort Laramie. The US Justice system determined that treaty defined lines should protect from settlement of another’s sovereign land. As the “last best hope” for humankind, one would have to at least surrender themselves to some logic and reasoning of the United States.

This brings me to a conclusion – that the United States’ silent alliance with Israel is in direct violation of the lessons already learned through bloodshed on our own land. The continued silence and inaction over increased settlement of one nation by the other is in violation of US law as well as UN law. The people of the Palestinian state should be given the freedom of self determination and sovereignty. As well, the natural tendency to resist occupation of Palestinian sovereign lands (as defined by the 1949/1967 armistice lines) can only be expected by a people who simply want to be left alone.

*this does not include the Gaza problem where Hamas maintains a political platform of absolute destruction of Israel... this is extremism, and there is no way to peace but through reason and moderation.