Friday, November 20, 2009

Jefferson's Declaration

copied with gratitude from:

In my opinion, which, at least for now, is still legal, this is one of the finest accomplishments of the Human mind.



The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all 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. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

— John Hancock

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

Sunday, November 8, 2009

The Continuum, pt. 2

There is a continuum, or a line, in human politics. At one extreme is absolute tyranny – the absolute subjugation of the individual by the state. Popular myth has it that at the opposite extreme is anarchy – the total absence of law or control of any type. Total freedom is bad because folks could do anything to anyone, and nothing could stop them. After all, absolute freedom means the freedom rape and kill, right? Total freedom is anarchy, right? The law of the claw and fang – survival of the baddest, right?

Hogwash. Drivel. Intellectual bulls***. This myth is a product of those who would enslave us. A bloody clever thing, too, aimed at getting us to eagerly put the shackles on our own ankles.

Freedom is generally defined as the absence of control, or some variation on the theme. That part is almost correct. It is the absence of external control, but it is not the absence of consequence.

Action might be defined as that which produces consequences or results. Certain actions, such as dropping something, have physical consequences. Physics and chemistry have their own sets of consequences, all or most of which are predictable to a high degree. It is when we introduce the volition of Man that things get a bit abstract. H. Sapiens can choose how to react to the actions of others. When people became sufficiently house broken to establish laws, the idea of institutionalized consequences came into being.

The law was never meant to keep people from doing things. In its purest form, it does not interfere with our agency. Rather, the law is meant to assess negative consequences that overshadow any positive, or pleasurable consequences that might come from an action. Strangling some silly jackass might be enjoyable, but it is bound to get you talked about in circles in which you’d rather not be discussed. Or, as a bumper sticker quite aptly observes, some people are alive only because it’s against the law to kill them.

This is a crucial point: the law is not meant to stop anyone from doing anything. When the over-civilized professor says we don’t need guns because the law will protect us, he’s missing the point. The law can’t keep anyone from doing anything, and it was never meant to. It was meant to say, “You do whatever you think is right, Bucko, but we’re gonna be right up your kilt if you cross this line.” If Bucko thinks it’s right to rob someone, he’s going to do it. The law might come along afterward and take all the fun out of it for him, but it’s going to happen. Unless, of course, the victim happens to have a shooting iron handy. Unlike the law, a .45 can stop a criminal act, but that’s a different essay.

At the anti-tyranny extreme of the continuum, there is freedom. It is freedom for all people. That means you can do whatever you want, unless it keeps your neighbor from doing what he wants, because he’s free too. How can the term “freedom” apply to a situation where one person might be coerced, assaulted, or forced into anything by another person? For animals, freedom might be defined as utter, savage anarchy, but we aren’t talking about animals.

We’re talking about human beings. Human beings have the capacity to make value judgments – to weigh alternatives – to exercise self-control – to do what they believe to be right, rather than submit to the promptings of XYZ gland.

At the freedom end of the continuum, everyone is free to think, to learn, to decide, and to act on those decisions, but they are not free from the consequences of their actions! If a free man decides to rape a free woman, and she doesn’t let daylight through him, the law still has authority to step in and levy consequences. Likewise, if a free woman has an idea, and turns it into a successful business, and pours labor into it for years, and finally starts turning an astonishing profit, she is free to do so. She is also free to keep the wealth generated, and do with it as she pleases. If she thinks it’s right to help the poor, or support a starving artist, or to help buy a stealth bomber to “…teach a little schooling to a native army corps,” well, she’s free to do any of those.

There can be no such thing as the freedom to enslave. What an obscene idea! Such idiocy could only be produced by that type of brain damage associated with extended exposure to professors. Who else could say that freedom means the power to destroy freedom? Who else could define freedom as the state of being a kept lapdog of the welfare state, whether on a reservation or in the French Quarter?

No, freedom is not slavery, and never was. It is not slavery to the state, nor to a gang, nor to that nebulous, amorphous “society,” nor to any man nor woman. It is not freedom from the consequences of our actions, be they acts of the savage latent in H. Sapiens, or acts of the most sublime nobility and grace, also latent in H. Sapiens. Freedom is the freedom to act, and to win or lose.

Now after saying all that, and struggling for the right words, I find in my inbox an excerpt from Ayn Rand sent to me by my brother. The feisty Russian battleaxe nailed it, as usual. I can’t top this… and “battleaxe” is a term of endearment and respect.

"It is obvious what the fraudulent issue of fascism versus communism accomplishes: it sets up, as opposites, two variants of the same political system; it eliminates the possibility of considering capitalism; it switches the choice of 'Freedom or dictatorship?' into 'Which kind of dictatorship?' -- thus establishing dictatorship as an inevitable fact and offering only a choice of rulers. The choice -- according to the proponents of that fraud -- is: a dictatorship of the rich (fascism) or a dictatorship of the poor (communism). That fraud collapsed in the 1940's, in the aftermath of World War II. It is too obvious, too easily demonstrable that fascism and communism are not two opposites, but two rival gangs fighting over the same territory -- that both are variants of statism, based on the collectivist principle that man is the rightless slave of the state -- that both are socialistic, in theory, in practice, and in the explicit statements of their leaders -- that under both systems, the poor are enslaved and the rich are expropriated in favor of a ruling clique -- that fascism is not the product of the political 'right,' but of the 'left' -- that the basic issue is not 'rich versus poor,' but man versus the state, or: individual rights versus totalitarian government -- which means: capitalism versus socialism." - philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand (1905-1982)

Sic Semper Tyrannis

The Continuum, pt. 1

First, let’s iron out some terminology. There are people in this country whom I consider mortal enemies of myself and those who think like I do. Such mortal enmity – and I use the term “mortal” deliberately because it will, if left unchecked, lead to murder – must be addressed at the highest possible level of thinking and expression. Not to say that my thinking and expression are the highest level attainable, rather that this will be the highest level of which I’m capable. Words mean things. Words control how we think and how we organize things in our heads. (I was using the phrase “words mean things” 20 years before Rush used it, and I got it from Leonard Piekoff.)

A political science class I took at UNM several years ago (early 80’s) attempted to find effective labels for the different political ideas. The textbook posited that liberals wanted change and conservatives wanted the status quo. That won’t work, though, because it doesn’t take into account the situation in which they exist. If they live in liberty, this theory says the liberal wants to move away from it and the conservative wants to remain in it. On the other hand, if they live in tyranny, the liberal wants to move away and the conservative wants to stay.. This simple contradiction makes the theory unusable. The liberal of one generation would be the conservative of the next.

When I brought that up, the professor said that maybe liberals want very rapid change, and conservatives want slower change. Well, that didn’t do anything for me, either, because it left unanswered the same question – what sort of change do they want? At this point, he dropped the subject of change and said that liberals wanted less government and conservatives wanted more, to which I blew a big raspberry, as even back in those days, people calling themselves conservatives were howling for smaller and less government, and people calling themselves liberals were regulating everything under the sun.

Okay, he said, liberals are on the left and conservatives are on the right.

Huh, said I. What the hell does that mean? He said people on the left want less government and more freedom, and people on the right want more government and less freedom. I couldn’t believe this clown was a tenured professor and couldn’t see the hole in his arguments. He couldn’t define liberal in any meaningful way, so he substituted the term left for liberal, and used the same lame non-definition, and got huffy when I shot it to pieces.

During all this, the class was chiming in occasionally. I heard that conservatives were old and liberals were young, that conservatives were for the rich and liberals were for the poor. The guy with the shaved head said conservatives were Christians and liberals were Jews. I heard that liberals were for socialism and conservatives were for dictatorship. I mentioned the national socialists, but not one person in the class recognized the Nazi party by that name.

At this point, I started working on finding definitions of political thought that would hold enough water for me to work with them. It was years before I did. A former US Congressman from Ohio, Bob McKewen, nailed it. I saw Bob speak on stage in Salt Lake City in the mid-90’s. I sure hope he doesn’t mind my using his idea, but it is the only thing that has ever made sense to me. In the spring of 2009, I saw Glenn Beck develop the same model on his TV show, but he didn’t credit Bob. Maybe Glenn came up with it on his own. After all, when you look at it, it’s bloody obvious!

In the whole history of human politics, there have been but two major ideas. First is the idea that people ought to be free to do whatever they want. Second is the idea that someone else ought to control them, and they should be allowed to do only what their masters command. At the extreme of the second idea we find total, absolute despotism. Most people will tell you that at the extreme of the first idea, we find total anarchy, but that is not correct. I’ll get into that, but for now, I’ll use the fact that there are two extremes. There is a continuum between these two extremes, and all political philosophy exists somewhere on that continuum. If we think in terms of liberty or tyranny, it eliminates pointless argument and semantic hairsplitting. For the purposes of this essay, I’ll call people on the tyranny end “statists,” because they believe in the ultimate power and rectitude of the state. (And no, I don’t mean New Mexico, Texas, Vermont, etc..) People on the other end will be called “individualists,” because they believe in the right of the individual to be free.

When I say I detest Democrats, liberals, and the new left, most people assume that I must love Republicans, conservatives, and the right. Nothing could be further from the truth. I hate the former is because they are ‘way down toward the tyranny end of the line. I hate most of the latter for the same reason. For example, in the recent presidential campaign, you couldn’t spit on the difference between John McCain and Barack Obama. Obama started off bragging about how he was going to gut American liberty, and McCain, rather than offering a different principle, offered a different level of gutting.

So where does most political debate in the world occur? On the statist side of center. If you started at the statist end of the line and walked toward center, the first people you’d see might be the Mullahs in the despotic theocracies of Africa and the Middle East. Then you’d encounter the two-bit punks and bullies like Idi Amin and Papa Doc Devaulier. Then you’d hit Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, the Bolsheviks, Chicoms, and Soviets, all clustered together, and right after that, snuggled up against them, you’d find the likes of Barack Obama and Lincoln. (Though if blood shed in pursuit of tyranny were a qualifer, you’d have to put Lincoln on the statist side of any other American.) A few steps more and you’d be all over John McCain, and a few steps further you’d find the Bushes, John Kennedy, and sundry American personalities. Ronald Reagan would be one of the last you’d see, but when you walked out of that crowd, you’d have a clear and unpopulated view of the center of the continuum, still a long way ahead of you.

There hasn’t been a real freedom-loving and –respecting leader in the White House in many, many years. Reagan was the closest, but if you look closely at his philosophy, he didn’t advocate freedom for the sake of the individual human being; he advocated freedom because it would allow more people to make more money and thereby pay more taxes, to enable more government programs. This is basically the position of American slavery apologists – that slavery was made moral because humanely-treated slaves would produce more, so the masters would take good care of their slaves out of self-interest. And even so, Reagan was much further from tyranny than his Republican descendants.

The current crop of Democrats are more statist than any elected officials in American history, including the likes of Franklin D. Roosevelt. The current crop of Republicans is about one short spit away from them. A few, like Tancredo and Romney may be a little further, but I have never heard a Republican refute statism by saying human beings ought to live free.

So, instead of saying I detest Democrats or liberals, I say I detest statists. That not only allows me to conceptually combine big government-loving Republicans with their Democrat soul mates, it also answers those who assume that because I detest Obama I must love McCain. I’ve met perhaps a half-dozen people who knew what a statist is, so the term is guaranteed to start conversation, which is a good thing. Several people to whom I’ve explained this model have been delighted to have found a way to express what they believe. They’d been stuck for so long in the position of letting the statists and their lapdog media define the terms of the debate they didn’t realize anything else was possible. It breaks my heart to hear reasonably intelligent people say they don’t care about politics because there’s no difference between the two sides – as if we were forever and unalterably stuck with the present situation, which isn’t two sides, at all!

We have been offered a false choice – between tyranny of the Democrats or tyranny of the Republicans. The two parties have cast themselves as opposites, which is patently absurd. If one end of the continuum is absolute dictatorship, what is the other end? The popular answer is that it is anarchy. After all if dictatorship is too much government, the opposite ought to be no government, at all, right?

Sic Semper Tyrannis

Ice cream and manure

Compromise is like mixing ice cream and manure. It doesn’t help the manure, and it ruins the ice cream.

It is demanded that we compromise with the fascists. “Reach across the aisle,” is the term. Don’t cling to your values so fanatically. Give up a little of your cherished freedom, so we can have a little of our cherished tyranny. That’s it. You give up some of your freedom so we can have some of our tyranny.

First of all, compromise isn’t some warm and fuzzy method of getting along with people. It’s a model for selling your soul. Supposedly, we are told, in compromise, everyone is happy with the outcome, because everyone gets something they want. It enables us all to move forward, together. Bull.

Take a bucket of manure and add a teaspoon of ice cream. What have you got? A bucket of manure. Now take a bucket of ice cream and add a tablespoon of manure. What have you got now? You still have a bucket of manure. How does that become, “…everyone gets something they want?”

Compromise is not a process of examining alternatives to find what’s best. That’s called – are you ready for this – decision making. I have ideas. You have ideas. We hammer it out and decide which is the best course. The operative concept here is best. It’s not part of mine and part of yours. It’s what’s best. It may well be all mine or all yours – or neither. Maybe we’ll realize we’re both wrong and settle on something entirely different. Decision making works when people are working toward the same objective. Two or more people with the same objective can hash things out and come up with a course that’s best. It has nothing whatsoever to do with compromise.

Actually, compromise can work in a similar setting, but only with small groups or couples. As long as everyone involved is pursuing the same objective, compromise can be survivable, and even practical. We’ll do some things your way, Dear, and some things mine, and maybe next time we’ll trade off. Okay? Great. Let’s get on with life as married folks.

Where compromise is never survivable or even moral is when the parties involved have different objectives. Let’s say one person wants to preserve a constitutional government and a free republic. Let’s say the other wants to strike down the constitution and establish a fascist dictatorship. How preposterous is it to say we’ll do some things your way, and some mine? We’ll have fascism this year, then you voluntarily step down and we’ll have a republic for a year. Or maybe, we’ll have fascism on the even days, and a republic on the odd. Or maybe we’ll have fascism in the states that start with letters A through M, and…. This is the soul of compromise.

Remember when Bill Clinton said that American were going to have to give up some of their cherished liberties in order to be safe from gun crime? He really said that, and in the most patronizing, snotty way – “…their cherished liberties…”

We cannot compromise with evil. We cannot compromise with poison. We cannot compromise away things which can never, ever be regained. We cannot compromise on moral principles, because once lost, we will have become them – those who demand that we give up some good to make room for their evil.

We will be called extremists. Let’s look at that. There are two parameters to our political premises: the extremity of the position, itself, and the strength with which we cling to it. For example, one might hold an extreme position on global warming and advocate pulling the plug on all power generation on earth, but lack the commitment necessary to volunteer to be the first to freeze to death. On the other hand, one might hold a much less extreme position, such as reducing auto emissions over the next ten years, and be absolutely unshakable in one’s commitment, accepting no compromise, whatsoever.

In most cases, moderation is the same as compromise. Moderation means not extreme in your positions or your commitment. It’s okay to be pro-liberty, as long as you’ll accept tyranny to a certain extent. It’s okay to be pro-life, as long as you’ll accept murder to a certain extent. It’s okay to be for liberty, as long as you’ll accept chattel slavery to a certain extent.

We are told that with moderation or compromise, everybody wins. Horse hockey. If I’m totally evil and you are totally right, and we compromise, who wins? Does Good win by giving Evil something it couldn’t get on its own? Hell, no. Evil wins. No matter how small or insignificant the compromise, Evil wins. As Rand said, “In any compromise between food and poison, only death can win.”

When someone calls you an extremist, it means he can’t refute your position, so he’s going to condemn you for not accepting his at face value, in spite of the fact that he can’t defend it, himself. It means you got ‘im, and he can’t answer you. Have you ever had someone tell you, “You are 100% right, you extremist SOB?” When people agree with you, they don’t give a rip how extreme your view might be. (Hear that, Hannity? Stop condemning our enemies as extremists. We’d better get to be as extreme as they are, or we’re dead meat!)

Barry Goldwater, who is not quoted nearly enough nowadays, said, “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” [1]

A moderate is a person who lacks the integrity or guts to stand up for something and say, “I’m for this, and if you don’t like it, uncase your colors and start the ball.” A moderate would rather give the victory to evil than to stand accused of being steadfast or confident.

Here is William Lloyd Garrison, an antebellum abolitionist. Quite the madman of his time, by all accounts. But read this and absorb the fire from it. Ponder his metaphors. Apply his commitment to our present situation, and see if our history does not teach us the truth.

“I am aware that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not wish to think, or to speak, or write, with moderation. No! No! Tell a man whose house is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; -- but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.” [2]

Let us not be moderate. Let us be extremists. Let us be the uncompromising SOB’s they fear with all their miserable, lying, dungheap souls. Let us never give them an inch for which they haven’t fought and suffered and bled.

There is no moderation in shackles. There is no compromise in the bullet marks in the firing squad’s wall. There is no give and take in the noose, or the guillotine, or the gas chamber, or the Makarov slug. There is a point in the process of compromise and moderation when all that has gone before – all the mealy-mouthing and crawfishing and point dancing and semantic slight-of-hand – ends, and the only sound to be heard is the wailing of the widows and orphans, and the wind whistling through the broken windows in desolated factories where free men and women once forged the foundation of the greatest republic on earth.

Sic Semper Tyrannis Rebsarge

[1] Goldwater’s speech accepting the Republican nomination for the presidency –

[2] Garrison’s article from the inaugural edition of “The Liberator” -

Friday, November 6, 2009

More reason to throw the bums out.

Check out this old video:

This video is very interesting. I'd seen it before, but had forgotten about it until I got from Uncle George a few days ago. It does not, as the text implies, refer to anything Obama's government is doing. If you look at the ticker along the bottom, it was made when oil had reach an all-time high of $3-something, which dates it about two years ago. The issues it mentions, like the DREAM act and others, have been shelved for a while, although there's no doubt they are still very much a part of the liberal/fascist dream.

The video talks about some really terrible, stupid, destructive legislation. My vocabulary - even my sergeant vocabulary - is utterly inadequate to describe how awful this stuff is. Good ol' Lou did a great job in bringing it out, too!

But here's the crucial point for us today: this stuff was the product of a government at least partially controlled by Republicans! GW was in the White House, and he never spoke up against it. The entire legislature, including John McCain, were totally sold out to it. Even after the American people reared up on their hind legs and raised enough hell to make them drop it for the time, none of them, including Republicans, ever denounced it or repented of their effort to pass it. Many of those Republicans are still in office.

How can we ever hope to alter our nation's drift toward fascism if we allow men and women like that to remain in office? Their capacity to do us harm is limited only by the Democrat's unwillingness to let them into the circle of power. That sounds crazy, doesn't it? That we are blessed by the fact that the Democrats are such narrow-minded cretins they can't recognize the enormous power resting within their reach. If they could break down their own bigotry enough to work with the Republicans who tried to jam this sewage down our throats, there is no way the Constitution could stand up to them. We'd be lost, and all our children's children would wonder if the legends of liberty were just urban myth.

We need to clean house, completely. We need to vote out every incumbent in the government, from the White House to the dog catcher. Those who make up "the government" must be made to know that, first, they work for us, and second, that we can and will put their sorry backsides on the streets! The only way to tame the beast of fascism that thrives in the guts of our government is with a draconian, wall-to-wall, floor-to-ceiling sweep.

Yes, we'll probably throw out a few good ones, and I know there are a few good ones. But it's like a gangrenous leg; you have to take some healthy tissue to save the life of the body. If they are good, we can let them back in. They'll come back to a government that has been cleansed and reshaped and redefined in the model of our constitution, and won't that be a happy day!

Democrats and Republicans can work together on this. It can cross all ideological lines. It will define those who are irreversably our enemies, because they will fight against this. It's not a bad thing to know who your enemies are. The moment we start thinking, "But he's one of ours," this effort is doomed. We have to look our Democrat friends in the eye and say, "You get rid of all yours, and I''ll get rid of all mine." It won't matter if we put more Democrats back in there. I'm not talking about changing the demographic makeup of the government, though that would be pretty sweet! I'm talking about giving everyone in the government such a terrific slap up 'side the head they'll never forget it.

That last point bears emphasizing and repeating. It's okay if we replace Democrat with Democrat and Republican with Republican. The objective is to clear out the entire edifice of government so that whoever or whatever fills the void will have a very fresh, clear vision of an electoral massacre of shattering proportions. They will know who the boss is.

Personally, I could live with a Democratic legislator or bureaucrat who knows his place in the world. It would be a lot easier than living with a Republican in the same office who looks down his nose at me and believes in his heart of hearts that he has been sent to control all aspects of my life.

Watch this video, but don't let it make you rail against the Obama government, because this bill wasn't one of theirs. It was the product and the pet of many who are in the government now, and are telling us they are our friends, and that they stand for us because of that little "R" by their names in the paper. Let's get rid of 'em. Every last, stinkin', lyin', depraved one of 'em.

If you think this has merit, pass it along.

Sic Semper Tyrannis,

They're all Demopublicans

(I deleted it before getting it copied here, but on 5 Nov, I got a 5-line reply from the RNC that said, “Thank you for playing. Better luck next time.”)

To the RNC, 23 Oct., 09

I have been registered as a Republican since the early '70's, when I started voting. That is about to end. I am very near the point of renouncing my membership in the GOP and registering as an independent, even though that will keep me from voting in primary elections in New Mexico.

"... a decent respect for the opinions of Mankind..." Oh, wait. You have forgotten the man who wrote that, or what the words meant, or what the document meant.

The GOP has become a mockery of what it was supposed to be. It no longer stands for individual liberty, for capitalism, for decency or liberty or peace through strength. It has taken a stand against all those things. It has put up candidates like John McCain, who was such a fascist collaborator that if he'd been in Italy in 1944, he'd have been paraded naked through the streets of Rome. John McCain is the one man most responsible for Barack Obama being in the White House. Had McCain run a campaign based on the principles of individual liberty, he'd have been swept into office like no other candidate in history. As it was, we were faced with the choice of Obama or Obama Lite. I spit on John McCain. As for his military record, remember that Adolph Hitler had an Iron Cross from WWI, and they didn't give those things out like candy!

Since the election, you have virtually shunned and castigated Sara Palin, who, though less than perfect as a candidate, excited and moved conservatives in America more than anyone since Ronald Reagan. And a lot of the people who were raving the praises of Sara Palin didn't particularly care of Ronald Regan because he was anything BUT a free-market capitalist. In so doing, you have explicitly said you want to truck with the likes of me, a Marine veteran, working man, good father, deeply Christian, committed to liberty and the rights of the individual human being.

In short, the Republican National Committee has consistently done everything in its power to turn its back on those of us who love our liberty, our country, the quality of life we have been given by free men and women... in short, the Republican Party has come to stand for all I hold despicable in politics, not by being different from the Democrats, but by being identical to them.

I don't want your apologist, middle-of-the-road, compromise-with-the-devil, gutless, bedwetting candidates. I want someone who will stand up to these unrepentant fascist sonsofbitches running this country and say, "That's enough, you fascists sonsofbitches!"

The only thing we should be "reaching across the aisle" with is a right fist swung from the hip pockets - or a bayonet.

I'd like to know what the leadership of the party has to say about this letter. I'd like to know if anyone up there has the guts to reply to it.

Sic Semper Tyrannis,

Saturday, October 31, 2009


Homosexuality is not a crime, and I don’t think it should be punished by law. I don’t hate or even dislike homosexuals. There’s no question that I have many more homosexual friends than I am aware of. Frankly, I don’t give a damn about a person’s sexual proclivities. I very much give a damn about their character and their willingness to say they don’t give a damn about my sexual proclivities, and I’m not seeing much of that nowadays!

My personal belief is that homosexuality is not a genetic predisposition. It is counter evolutionary and counter survival for the species. I’m too much of a Darwinist to believe otherwise. As for the scientific evidence to the contrary… well, we’ve seen science be wrong, and we’ve seen it twisted and used for political purposes, haven’t we? Homosexuality fails the determinism test both spiritually and evolutionarily. Evolution would not tolerate a trait that is anti-reproduc- tion. A just and loving God would not create a whole class of people just so He could kick them around – although He will allow them to make all the bad decisions they wish. (Yes, genetically linked things like diabetes or heart disease are a fact, but it is only our technology that has allowed folks with these traits to live long enough to reproduce them. There is no technological sustenance for homosexuality.)

I do not think same-sex marriage as an extension of the state is a good idea. Yes, it is a religion-based principle, and I do not apologize for that or back down from it. I think homosexuality is a sin, and sins are between the individual and God, and none of my business. But there is a point when that sin does become my business, and that is the point at which a government that I am forced to pay for is coerced – or leaps whole-heartedly - into legitimizing it.

Here’s a huge hypocrisy in the same-sex marriage argument. If I say, “God doesn’t want us to institutionalize same-sex marriage,” that’s an intrusion of religion into the law. But it’s not an intrusion when some jackass says, “Well, bleep you and your god and your standards and your law! We’re gonna do this to your government, with your money, and right in front of your bleeping children. And if you object, we’re gonna crucify you for trying to push your standards on us!”

The fact is that law is supposed to be based on moral principles, and short of totally banning and forbidding all religious thinking, there is no way to categorically prevent religious principles from impacting the law. Any such premise would be a form of thought control, anyway. It would be like the hate crimes laws – laws that punish not behavior, but motive – laws against what a person thinks, rather than against what they do. Is there anything more absurd or obscene that to say it’s worse to assault someone because you hate them than to do it just for the heck of it? Or how about the people who practically rioted against the Mormon Church after Prop 8 was defeated in California saying, in effect, “Everyone has the right to speak freely, even if they disagree with us, as long as their opinions have nothing to do with religion?

It would be disingenuous for me to say I get all my moral principles from my religion because I had most of them before I got religion. But my religion backs them up and helps me stand by them with a sense of rectitude I never had before. So, because my moral standards are now religious, does that bar me from participating in the government? Am I only allowed to vote for principles that don’t agree with my religion? What kind of hellish, contradictory existence would that be?

Should I be able to prove my principles outside the context of my religion? Hell, yes! I think that’s a prerequisite for anybody who wishes to be fully self-aware. But when have we ever required anyone to prove their principles before they vote on ‘em? Are you prepared to live in a country where no one is allowed to participate in the government unless they can prove there is no religious content to their thinking?

Here’s something to consider: why is the government involved in marriage, at all? Why should heterosexual marriage be sanctioned by the state? If a couple is concerned about contract law, or community property, etc, let them make a domestic contract with the state as sponsor. On the other hand, if it’s a matter of being joined in the name of God, let them get married in a church. If a church will marry two men, or a man and a chicken, or two men and a chicken, that’s the church’s business, and I shouldn’t have to pay for it. I don’t think there should be any laws against marriage of any kind, because I don’t think the government should be involved in it, at all.

I don’t agree with marriage as a creature of the state, period. Now, we’re never going to sell that in this lifetime, so we have make a decision. Some don’t like paying taxes to a government that won’t marry gays. I don’t like paying taxes to a government that does marry gays. Somebody’s gonna feel screwed. (Actually, they’ll probably come up with enough stuff to make everybody feel screwed!) Shall we just put it to a vote? Sort of like it says in the Constitution? What fertile ground for a states’ rights movement!

While I don’t hate gays, I don’t want them proselytizing my kids, who have enough crap coming at them without that! I have worked in environments filled with predatory lesbians, and have seen families destroyed and lives irreparably damaged by their depredations. I hate that, and I won’t apologize for hating it, and I won’t back down.

I am really, really sick and tired of these people slamming their sexuality in our faces and demanding that we recognize it, praise it, teach our kids it’s okay – hell’s bells, that it’s preferable – that we are required to pay for their neuroses and trauma, that we’re monsters or Nazis if we try to teach our kids to be straight. How about this ... entity that Obama appointed to keep our schools safe saying that plays like “Romeo and Juliet” are malicious and harmful stereotypes that keep people from embracing homosexuality? Oh, that doesn’t piss me off too much! How is appointing someone like that to a job paid for by my taxes – and a job of tremendous power and authority over me and my kids – not every bit as hideous as forcing atheist cadets to march in an Infidel Flight? It’s the same double standard we’re seeing in everything else: opposing aggressive public homosexuality is a religious intrusion, but using the power of the law to make it the standard is enlightened and honorable. Horseshit! I stand against both sides of this false dichotomy because they are really the same thing.

And yes, I have the same reaction to people who teach my kids that promiscuity is preferable to chastity. Encouraging my daughters to be whores is just as bad as encouraging them to be dykes. To repeat – and to emphasize – I have nothing against homosexuals, and think they should have full rights and protection under the law. But… It’s hard enough to explain to my 9-year old daughter why some women suck penises in public bathrooms, when I’m at least allowed to tell her it’s wrong.

I bitterly resent the fact that I risk prosecution by the state for telling her it’s wrong for men suck penises in public bathrooms. I’m sick and tired of having the glories of homosexual fellatio shoved down my throat. (Choice of words not intentional, but I think I’ll let it stand.)

We are seeing the institutionalization of such despicable behavior in our government at all levels. Yes, Bush had some appointments that I detested, and so did Reagan, and it still sets my teeth on edge to hear people talk about Reagan being such a great capitalist and libertarian. But if it was wrong for them to do what they did in the semi-discrete manner in which they did it, how is it so wonderful for this current pack of looters to do it right in our faces, not giving a flying rat’s empennage about morals, ethics, liberty, free will, individualism, personal choice, or a single one of the principles I was brought up to cherish and defend?

Mad? You betcha.

Monday, October 12, 2009

The Institutionalization of Racism


Barack Obama ran an explicitly racist campaign, and his presidency has done more to exacerbate racial tension and anger in the US than anything since Malcolm X’s “White devils” tirades.

I have seen racism, and have participated in it, and have a personal testimony of its hideousness. It is one of the worst, if not the very worst, of all human behaviors. It degrades and humiliates the victim, and desensitizes and trivializes the perpetrator.

Without going into all the gruesome details, I will simply say that I have felt the dehumanizing slap of racism across my face, and have felt the corrosive blistering of it burning in my own heart. It is terrible, and it is a very, very hard habit to break. Over the past 40 years, I have striven, with the help of many wonderful friends and teachers, to rid myself of this curse. I’m probably about 98% clean. It crops up once in a while, and always leaves me feeling filthy and ashamed. Each such occurrence provides an opportunity to get rid of one more little disgusting piece of the past.

One of the most powerful statements I’ve read is Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream that someday his children will be judged, not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their characters. Amen, Brother King. I have the same dream for my own children. In my opinion, this is an excellent definition of racism: that people are judged by their skin color, rather than by their character.

Now comes Barack Obama. During his campaign, almost daily, he stated that he was uniquely suited for the job because of his skin color. He claimed special knowledge or insight because of his skin color. His being Black would make him a better president than his opponent, who wasn’t Black. He and his party pounded the race issue. If elected, he would be the First Black President. His wife said she was ashamed of her country for considering anything but race. Any criticism of him was laid to racism. Millions of his supporters said they’d vote for him only because of his race. The chant, “Yes we can,” long a Hispanic anthem in the form of “Si se puede,” was everywhere. Its prominence in the campaign linked Hispanics with Blacks against Whites. A large number of statist Whites said they would or did vote for Obama strictly because of his race.

Since his inauguration, there has been no letup in the torrent of racist invective and hubris. Every critic of him or his policies is accused of racism. To be anti-fascist is to be anti-black. To be pro-Constitution is to be anti-black. To resist destroying our children with debt is anti-black.

He appointed a woman to the Supreme Court in spite of – or perhaps because of – her statement that, being a Latina, she was wiser than any White judge. He has defended racists like Jeremiah Wright and Van Jones, even giving Jones unprecedented power over our nation as the so-called “green jobs czar.” He has chummed up to Hamas and Hezobolah, Iran, Hugo Chavez, and every two-bit racist madman to come down the pike. He has spat upon his own countrymen and our allies.

I hate to say it, but when I see a car driven by a Black person, and it has an Obama bumper sticker, I wonder, “Did this person vote for Obama because he was Black, or because he is a fascist? In spite of his character, or because of it?” I never felt this way before. What do Blacks think when they see me or hear me speaking against Obama? Do they think I’m a racist? If that was their sole motivation in voting for him, I don’t see how they could think otherwise. Since race was the only factor in their decision, anyone opposing them must have been an opposing racist.

There were surely people who voted against Obama out of racism, although not in the numbers the fascist press would like us to believe. Should I wonder if the White person with the McCain bumper sticker were racist or fascist? Interesting question. McCain didn’t really put up anything resembling a rebuttal or refutation of Obama’s racist, fascist campaign. In fact, he seemed intent on copying Obama and legitimizing him. John McCain is a fascist sympathizer, and if this nation were Italy or France in 1945, he’d have been shaved and paraded through the streets naked – if he weren’t lynched. (Yes, John McCain was a brave and dedicated warrior for America, but as a presidential candidate, he was and remains a disgrace, with his mealy-mouthed apologizing for liberty and the Constitution. Adolph Hitler had a terrific war record, too.)

Barack Obama is not an American president. He is most emphatically not a people’s president. He is a Black president, and a fascist one. He has driven a racial wedge between Blacks and Whites. He has made racism the coin of this realm, as institutionalized as it was in Nazi Germany. Those who voted for him because of his race essentially sold their souls, and the soul of an idea equality’s greatest spokesman pronounced in such superlative and thundering words 41 years ago.

And what did they sell it for? This? A two-bit megalomaniac on a spending binge with other people’s money? Barack Obama doesn’t even have the character to be a real tyrant. He’s a punk, and he’d be a punk regardless of his complexion.

Sic Semper Tyrannis,

Thursday, October 8, 2009


In America today there are those who think the Obama government is taking the US toward a fascist dictatorship, and they are really ticked off about it. I’m in this group.

Then there are those who seem to approve the Obama administration because they hated Bush, or because they believe the media bilge about moving toward a more egalitarian, humane, democratic republic.

The third group is the problem. They think the Obama government is not doing enough to take the US toward a fascist dictatorship, and they are really ticked off about it. They are vocal, politically savvy, and skilled at propaganda and sleight of hand, or misdirection. They are utterly implacable and will not submit to reason or argument. They must be defeated, hopefully by ballot.

We of the pro-liberty camp have a passion for arguing. We will engage anyone and pound them to rubble with fact after fact. We tend to have a relatively optimistic view of our countrymen; we believe they can be cured with enough facts. This is an altogether good and noble attitude, but it’s wasting time and resources at a horrendous rate.

The second group says, “An all-powerful national government is the best way to ensure the liberty and prosperity of the individual citizen.” They have looked at some set of information and drawn a conclusion that, though absurd to the rest of us, they hold with passion and commitment. These people are mistaken in their idea of to what ends certain policies and principles will lead, but might, with sufficient injection of fact, be cured.

Members of the third group, however, say, “Freedom is bad. Dictatorship is good. We love Barack Obama and his government because they are taking us away from that wretched Constitution and toward dictatorship.” Facts are probably not going to change these people’s minds– certainly not the same set of facts that may work for group two. These people are not mistaken about where their policies will lead. They know exactly where they are taking us. They looked at their values, developed a plan to achieve them, and are driving that plan right down our throats. They want fascism.

We have been trying to convince the fascists that their ideas will lead to fascism. They have been willing to let us spend ourselves in such fruitless pursuit, and have studiously continued to push their agenda to those in the second group. We’re getting our backsides kicked in this crucial theater.

We need to be carrying our arguments to the second group, not the third. That’s going to be tough to do because of the prejudice against capitalism and liberty that has been pounded into Americans from pre-school on up, and because of the staggering amount of propaganda and misinformation being pushed by the news and entertainment industries. That it will be difficult does not excuse us from the attempt.

I suggest that the place to start might be to ask every politician and bureaucrat who comes in range if they believe people ought to be free. Do they subscribe to the idea that individual liberty is a good thing? Do they believe that all people should have the right to do with their money as they see fit? To raise their kids as they see fit? To deal with whichever doctor they see fit? To listen to the talk show host of their choice? There is no end of things to ask about, because their policies will impact everything in our lives.

We must ask these questions in public, where others can hear the responses. If we ask our congressvermin, “Do you think your ideas will lead to tyranny,” they can argue or waffle or redirect. Most likely, they will step out of the zone in which we have initiated combat and try to bait us into engaging them in a space of their own choosing. They will try to get us to argue about some pointless, esoteric thing, knowing most Americans are unable to see the redirection for what it is. It is very, very hard to resist the bait, for they are the universal masters of bait and switch!

Their strongest tactical edge is that they understand their objective. Like Grant in the summer of ’64, they are not lured into the vainglory of “On to Richmond.” They never forget their mission: to destroy the enemy in the field. To destroy us, they must retain the second group. They do not care about converting or convincing us, and we must take the same approach to them. The victor will be the side that controls that second group.

We must be prepared for the response, which will be savage and instantaneous, and will come from all sides. If we ask our senator if he believes people ought to be able to profit from the sweat of their own brows, he will likely turn on us instantly. His objective is not to defend himself, but to sway group two. He might counter by asking something like, “Are you trying to say the Black people of America don’t deserve a break? What are you, some kind of a Klansman, or something?”

I honestly believe that if we do not face this fire, we will face an altogether different sort when we’re led to the wall.

So the point of this essay is this: It is pointless to tell the fascists that their policies will lead to fascism. We must concentrate on exposing their true agenda to the second group. One way to do this is to ask very direct questions in public. If you write letters, and get replies like the one I got from Mr. Bales, in Sen. Udall’s office, make them public. There are surely other ways, and I’d love to hear your ideas.

Be strong. Do not flinch from duty. As my Mom used to say, bow your neck, back your ears, and get after it.

Sic Semper Tyrannis,
Reb Sarge

Letter to Barry

Thursday, 8 Oct., 2009

Mr. President, I would like to offer you the use of some of my friends. You don't seem to have any that are not sodomites, pedophiles, terrorists, mad dog racists, Bolsheviks, fascists, tax cheats, or other criminal vermin.

Actually I have a great many friends who are none of these things, nor of any other generally despicable bent, and would more than happy to introduce you to them.

All my love,
Reb Sarge

Friday, October 2, 2009

naked, smirking evil

I sent the following letter to my Congressional delegation and President Obama on 17 August, 2009. I received the usual form swill from four of the five legislators, and nothing from Obama. Then, on 16 September, I got a real little gem from Michael Bales, on the staff of Senator Tom Udall, (D) NM

Let’s look at the letters. First is my letter to them.

I have a very serious question that occurred to me in the context of national health care, but I believe has far wider implications to the relationship between the American people and their government.

Could you please show me where in the Constitution the national government is given authority to send a man with a gun to take money from my neighbor, (and please do not be so disingenuous as to claim the IRS is not a lot of men with guns) give me a few pennies on the dollar of my neighbor’s money, and keep the rest to pay the wages of the guys with the guns.

I have searched the US Constitution over and over, but can’t find that. Could you please point out to me what I’m missing?

And Mr. Bales’ reply:

Dear Mr. Reb Sarge,

Thank you for contacting Senator Tom Udall with your question of where in the Constitution the Congress is given the power to levy and collect taxes.

The Senator asked that I contact you with the answer. The power to tax is delineated in Article I, Section 8, clause 1, of the Constitution which states:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States;

There is only one express exception to federal taxing power found in the United States Constitution. Article I, Section 9 provides “No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State.” I hope this answers your question.

Michael Bales
Legislative Correspondent
Office of Senator Tom Udall

In my opinion, Bales’ letter expresses in crystalline terms what we can expect from the current government. It is my hope that by making this matter known to the public, we might awaken some who have been complacent or undecided, and galvanize some who have been overwhelmed by the assault on our liberty.

At first, I couldn’t believe that anyone could think this was a legitimate response to my question. I wrote to Bales, directly, and asked if he’d actually read my letter, or if Udall had just told him to quote from the Constitution. He replied on 21 September that he had, indeed, read my letter. It is my opinion that the attitude expressed by Mr. Bales is an exquisite illustration of what can be expected from this government, and why.

My question had nothing to do with taxation. It asked how the government could justify looting one person for the benefit of another, with a large cut of the loot going to the government. Bales says the authority “…To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States…” equates to the authority to loot the nation to support whatever purpose those in government choose. I decided to examine this, one phrase at a time to see if there is any legitimacy in Bales’ position, of it is simply a blatant perversion of the Founders’ intent.

In the present context of nationalization and redistribution of wealth, the questions on the table are the bailouts, subsidies for various industries, the stimulus program, and the nationalization of health care. There is also a war in the Middle East, the support of which has been a subject of much debate.

Only one of these issues deals with the common defense, and ironically, that is the only one upon which the government is reluctant to spend anything other than the blood of our sons. Equally ironically, the war is the only one that is supported by the majority of the people. Since the common defense does not seem to be a priority for our government, I think it is safe to say Bales did not mean to use it as justification for looting us.

The general welfare, by definition, includes everyone, as in “the welfare of people, in general,” so any doctrine that establishes a population of sacrificial sheep to be bled and sucked dry by the rest of the population can’t apply here. Can Bales possibly mean to say that IRS thugs constitute the general population? Perhaps he means that anyone who works for a living and tries to pay his own bills – or the children of such people -is not part of the general population. Could he be saying that the destruction of our freedom is in the best interests of our children?

As a matter of fact, he could, at that. The American Progressive has always been the enemy of liberty. When the Weimar Constitution gave the German government the authority to control every aspect of the lives of the German people, from reproductive matters to who worked at which jobs and lived in which cities, to what was published or broadcast in the news or entertainment media, to how much anyone earned or what foods they could buy, the American Progressives and liberals hailed the document as the finest piece of politics ever to come down the pike. They loved it. They supported and praised the German delegates who walked out of the convention because the constitution left too much power in the hands of the people.

The general welfare clause has been used for years by looters wishing to define themselves and their supporters as “general” and everyone else as sacrificial sheep. This particularly odious little argument is worthy of an article – or a book – in itself, and we don’t need to get into that rathole here. I will say here only that anything purporting to be for the “general” welfare, like “common” defense, must benefit the entire population, including children who will someday grow up to be blood drinkers or sheep. Therefore, the general welfare clause cannot justify the scenario in my original question.

The only remaining phrase that Bales might be using deals with the debts of the United States. Let’s look at that. The government is talking about taking responsibility for trillions of dollars in medical bills, bad loans, and autoworkers’ wages. It is promising to simply give away billions more to “stimulate the economy,” apparently under the premise that money spent by the government has some magic stimulating effect that is lacking in money spent by citizens. There’s no end to the debt. There’s more debt headed our way in the next few years than has been accrued in the history of the Republic. Can Bales seriously mean to say that the Constitution allows the creation of trillions of dollars in debt in the interest of paying off a few billion?

You know, he just might, at that. Bales is clearly part of that Progressive intelligentsia elite who think they are so much wiser than the rest of us, and are somehow endowed by their Creator with the authority to enslave us for their own purposes, according to their own values and to our own benefit.

And that, Brothers and Sisters, is what this is all about. It isn’t about health care, or bailouts, or stimulus plans. It’s about one group of people seizing the power of life and death over another group, not on the premise of self-defense or criminality, but out of arrogance and greed and lust for power. That’s it, pure and simple. This whole flap is about whether some people are so much smarter and better than the rest of us that we must be made to shut up and do as we are told… Oh, and pick up the tab, too, please.

Chief Justice John Marshal said, “The power to tax is the power to destroy.” Truer words have never been uttered. It is the belief of those presently in our government that the authority to tax is, literally, the authority to destroy any part of the population they wish – to destroy any aspect of our culture or our liberty that annoys them. They know it; they acknowledge and admit it; they glory and revel it in; they throw it in our faces.

One of Rand’s characters asked, “What is it hell is supposed to be? Naked, smirking evil?” Well, folks, here is naked, smirking evil. These people are committed to the destruction of our Republic, of our lives, of our prosperity forever. They believe they are empowered to do so by the Constitution, and endowed with some moral omniscience that places them on a plane well above the rest of us low-grade commoners. They are not misinformed or mistaken. They know precisely what they are doing, to where it will lead, how they’ll go about it, and what they’ll do to anyone who tries to stop them. You can’t change their minds by giving them more information. You can’t show them they are wrong about where their policies will lead. If you say, “Your policies will destroy America and plunge our children into a fascist dictatorship,” they will look you in the eye and say, “Well, duuh!” These people are monsters, bent on raping our Republic and feasting on its entrails. They are not misinformed but well-meaning loyal opposition, and to treat them as such would be make a pet of a rabid wolverine. They are maggots from the intellectual sewers of mankind.

But they are not invincible. They have not thrown over the Constitution yet, and it is still a very powerful force in our society. Let us use it to stop them. If we don’t use the Constitution, we will have to use armed force, for there is no third option. They will not simply go away, and they cannot be convinced by reason or argument, no matter how eloquent or unassailable. We must throw them out of office – every slimy, stinking one of them. Just to make sure we don’t miss one, we need to turn over the entire edifice of government in America, from the ward level to the White House. Our war cry must be, “NO INCUMBENTS!”

Sic Semper Tyrannis,
Reb Sarge

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Udall's staff on slavery.

On 17 Aug, 2009, I wrote a letter to my congressvermin. I got the standard typewritten thorazine from each of them, but today (16 Sept.) I got an email from one of Senator Udall's staffers that just blew my mind!

Here's the letter I wrote to them:

I have a very serious question that occurred to me in the context of national health care, but I believe has far wider implications to the relationship between the American people and their government.

Could you please show me where in the Constitution the national government is given authority to send a man with a gun to take money from my neighbor, (and please do not be so disingenuous as to claim the IRS is not a lot of men with guns) give me a few pennies on the dollar of my neighbor’s money, and keep the rest to pay the wages of the guys with the guns.

I have searched the US Constitution over and over, but can’t find that. Could you please point out to me what I’m missing?

And here is the letter I got today, from Michael Bales. Do these guys really think the question was about the authority to levy taxes? They can't possibly be that stupid! This is terrifying! This clown seems to actually think the Constitution intended the authority to levy taxes equates to the authority to enslave.

Thank you for contacting Senator Tom Udall with your question of where in the Constitution the Congress is given the power to levy and collect taxes. The Senator asked that I contact you with the answer. The power to tax is delineated in Article I, Section 8, clause 1, of the Constitution which states:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States;

There is only one express exception to federal taxing power found in the United States Constitution. Article I, Section 9 provides “No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State.” I hope this answers your question.

Michael Bales
Legislative Correspondent
Office of Senator Tom Udall

Lower costs, my foot!

The current flap about “controlling health care costs” baffles me on several points. Here’s one. The government is talking about health care insurance, and paying all these medical bills.

Hmmm, says I.

Let’s say I were buying a loaf of bread, and the storeowner wanted $100 for it. I’m filled with despair because I have about five bucks, and I’m hungry. Along comes this tall, good-looking black fellow in a really sharp suit, and he says, “I’ll tell you what. I’ll take some money from this fund I have here, and I’ll pay the other $95.”

“Great,” says I, and out I go with the bread. But later, I hear the black fellow say on TV that he has lowered the cost of bread.

Like bloody hell, he did! If anything, he guaranteed bread will ALWAYS cost at LEAST a hundred bucks a loaf! He didn’t lower the price; he just paid what the jerk in the store was asking. You don’t seriously think the store owner, having tasted blood, and knowing where he can get more, will ever actually lower his price, do you?

But then comes the really aggravating part. I gets to thinking, “I wonder where that fund he mentioned came from?

And then it hits me; that fund was taken from me, in the first place! That crooked sonofabitch took my money – and a lot more than the $95 he paid for the bread – and invested it in a guaranteed level of inflation that would choke a Weimar banker, and then had the unmitigated gall to brag to me that he’d lowered the cost of my bread! He didn’t lower a flippin thing! All he did was make sure the cost would never come below $100, and took from me the money I might have used to pay for the bread, in the first place.

Let’s break this down a little more. The government has passed laws and allowed – nay, encouraged and mandated – practices that have caused medical costs to go through the roof. Now, rather than actually doing anything to reduce those costs, they are going to rob me, my children, and every future generation of Americans in order to pay the costs they have created. And, of course, pay themselves a handsome wage for their hard work.

Ah, Fascist America! Ya gotta love it!

Sunday, September 13, 2009

The real reason for this blog

What do y'all think about this? As of right now - 1242pm, mountain daylight time, on 3 Sept., 2009, this is an original email. It isn't being forwarded from some unknown source. I wrote it and am sending it to my friends and family.

I'm thinking we need to clean house in our government. I mean, get every incumbent out of office. Every, stinkin' one of them, whether Democrat, Republican or Independent, liberal, moderate, or conservative, left, right or middle. Just nuke the government, from the city level to the federal legislature.

Won't that mean getting rid of some good ones, too? Yup. All two or three of 'em. The point we need to make, right now, is not about what we judge good or bad, but that the government answers to us, the voters. There are very few innocent parties in government, anyway, and those that are decent will be welcome to come back later. In fact, it might be a good idea to do the same thing again in two years.

How can we get all sides to agree to this? That's why I say just get rid of everybody. The point, again, is not so much with whom they are replaced, but that we kick their miserable behinds out of office. If you want to replace a Democrat with another Democrat, or a Republican with another Republican, that's fine. Remember, we aren't trying make a point of what we want right now. This is a show of pure, brute power, to let all who would run for office that they are dealing with some highly incensed voters.

The instant we start picking and choosing, whether based on party or quality, the whole thing will instantly disintegrate into the kind of mindless bickering that got us here, in the first place. I'll give up all of my incumbents if you'll give up all of yours. Mine are demonstrably as despicable as yours, anyway. I'd like to replace them with candidates I like, but at this point, the main necessity is to show them who's boss.

Can you imagine the impact on people with entrenched power - those who have been in office for 15 to 30 years - of suddenly finding themselves sitting on the curb with their suitcases at their feet? I honestly believe that, if We, the People of the United States, (neat turn of phrase, that!) can pull this off, we will be rewarded with a government that is VASTLY more responsible and responsive.

What do you think? I'd like to ask that this be forwarded as much as possible. If there's any merit to it, at all, it will be accepted and forwarded again. If not, it will be trashed and forgotten.

Saturday, September 12, 2009

Health care - the current issue

LETTER TO ALL three of my congressvermin, plus Obama 17 AUG 09

I have a very serious question that occurred to me in the context of national health care, but I believe has far wider implications to the relationship between the American people and their government.

Could you please show me where in the Constitution the national government is given authority to send a man with a gun to take money from my neighbor, (and please do not be so disingenuous as to claim the IRS is not a lot of men with guns) give me a few pennies on the dollar of my neighbor’s money, and keep the rest to pay the wages of the guys with the guns.

I have searched the US Constitution over and over, but can’t find that. Could you please point out to me what I’m missing?

What's your angle?

It would be helpful to me - and maybe others - to see the kind of letters folks are writing to their congressvermin and the vermin-in-chief. If you have a letter or letters that you are proud of, I'd like to read 'em.

Most especially, if you have letters that have drawn anything other than the canned, staff-written puss that I've been getting from my own vermin.

Do you suppose maybe my opinion of them as vermin is affecting their response? I hadn't thought of that! Oh, crap! What if I'm going to have to be civil to them?
This isn’t about health care. It isn’t about green jobs. It isn’t about bail outs or bonuses or stimuli. And it sure as the devil isn’t about race. It’s about liberty, and liberty is about life.

People create their wealth by labor, intelligence, and their own value judgments. People can redistribute – ie, spend or invest – their wealth as they see fit. They are capable of doing this entirely on their own. They may choose to not support some causes or programs that are favored by folks in the government.

The problem isn’t that The People don’t have the wealth to do something. The problem is that they won’t do it if left to make the decision freely. The folks in government, being certain that their own decision-making ability, or morality, or value structure is superior to that of the folks outside government, feel the need to override the freely-made decisions of the latter.

No government can claim more wealth than the combined, aggregate wealth of its People. Folks in the government can’t create wealth to support their causes because a government produces nothing but force. They can only take wealth from the People and give it to those causes or programs of which they in the government approve. How do they take that wealth? Under threat of force. Try not paying your taxes for a while. Sooner or later, some character with a gun will come to your door and invite you to go with him. Refuse, and you’ll get a better look at that gun.

Things the folks outside government approve of survive on the value judgments of the People. Things the folks in government approve of survive on wealth taken from the People and from the things of which they approve by force of arms.

No government exists as some soulless thing, entire of itself, with its own being. A government is a collection of individual human beings. When someone says the government can do something better than the People, they are really saying that this group of folks over here is smarter than that group over there.

By whose authority does anyone say such a thing? By what omniscience do they say who is smarter? What on earth or under Heaven gives one randomly-selected group of people the right and the power to deprive another group of the right to make their own value judgments? From whence comes this authority for an all-knowing government to say, “My values are superior to your values, so by the power of this gun, I hereby lay claim to the work of your heart and hand in order that I might use it for my own purposes?”

That’s what this is about. That’s why I, like Thomas Jefferson, pledge undying hostility to any form of tyranny over the mind of man.

Thursday, September 10, 2009

On soap and education

Mark Twain said, "Soap and education may not be as sudden as a massacre, but are probably more deadly in the long run."

Throughout my life, I've tried to make myself clean and smart, but some folks have said I'm just dangerous. We'll see.

Just starting

Well, this is sort of like walking into what you didn't realize was a biker bar. I'm standing just inside the door, letting my eyes adjust, wondering what the hell I'm doing here. Y'all be gentle with me; this is my first blog.