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