The national government gives no dignity, but plenty of preference, tyranny, and death

If there ever was a week in our Union’s history demonstrating that the national government must always be suspected of being the enemy of Americans, their liberty, and their social cohesion, this past week surely was the one.

Barack Obama and his party redoubled the national government’s marked preference for Black Americans, and not only by pretending that more Blacks are killed by racist Whites, than Whites by racist Blacks. As troubling, they also encouraged and then unleashed what can only be described as a lynch mob bent on destroying a historical symbol that means — and should mean — something important, tangible, and worth honoring to many more Americans than the number of half-baked but rabid Democratic haters who believe it is their right to destroy any piece of U.S. history with which they disagree or which casts a truthful light on the issues that define their party’s history, namely, slavery, secession, civil war, segregation, and socialism.

Black Americans have been legally free for nearly 150 years, and yet the truth is that they were kept in subjugation by the Democratic Party until the 1960s and have now re-enslaved themselves by their unquestioning allegiance to the same party, one that still keeps them poor and dependent. If the Democratic haters could burn or steal every Army of Northern Virginia battle flag in America, it would not change the fact that Black Americans remain oppressed by a Democratic Party that is, quite ironically, led today by a Black overseer.

In the past week, we also have endured a prize piece of nonsense from Justice Kennedy, who, in his god-like munificence, awarded “dignity” to another group of national government-preferred Americans — those of diverse sexual orientations — and decreed, because it cannot be proven, that the Supreme Court is empowered by the Constitution to define marriage to be whatever the Court says it is, not what even the slightest bit of commonsense would know to be the truth: that marriage can only occur between one man and one woman. Coming soon, one supposes, the dignity-hawking Justice Kennedy and his quartet of aging and addled hangers-on will decree that night is day, hot is cold, short is tall, winter is summer, and 320 million Americans should behave as directed to by judicial diktats concurred in by a judicial gadfly, an empty suit, and three empty dresses.

The idea that the national government or the Supreme Court can give any American “dignity” is a cynical and vote-craving fantasy. All human beings are created with dignity, an attribute which results from the fact that they are made in the image and likeness of God. History, of course, is the story of men and women striving to preserve their innate, God-given dignity against their own flawed and at times depraved human nature, as well as against relentless efforts by those who govern them to destroy their dignity as humans and citizens and then re-create them as unquestioningly obedient and unthinking automatons.

Black Americans may mistakenly think that Obama enhanced their dignity by inciting hatred toward the population of the once-Confederate South and the historically literate, but in fact they were only thrown a bone by their oppressors, men and women who will expect to be repaid with what they most prize, mindless, unanimous voting by Blacks for the Democratic Party. And Gay Americans may well believe their dignity has been elevated by Justice Kennedy’s tyrannical decision, but sooner or later reality will dawn on all but the most deluded and show that no matter how many ways you choose define “marriage” there is only one correct definition.

And what of those who are not and never will be among the national government’s preferred groups? Well, for tens and perhaps hundreds of millions of southern, religious, and commonsensical Americans, the national government’s unconstitutional restraints on free speech — usually called political correctness — are likely to limit truth-speaking for a time. But those who Obama and Kennedy incited hatred against are unlikely to forgive and forget that they were ostracized, ridiculed, and defamed by a national government that increasingly rules to please what it deems to be noble minorities, while those who work hard, raise families, educate children, and pay taxes are left to take the hindmost. This method of ruling in any country, if prolonged, knowingly courts civil war.

Lastly, during this infamous week all Americans were bombarded by the mindless chanting or scrawling of slogans like “Black lives matter” and “All lives matter”. Perhaps such sentiments are true in some of the world’s nations, but in America they are meaningless and, indeed, laughable.

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, the crazed Democratic Party Gauleiter Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and all of their Democratic colleagues do not believe that any human life matters except their own. Endangered species matter, beached dolphins matter, stray cats and dogs matter, but human lives — never. These folks, an earlier Supreme Court diktat, American women, and money-hungry, first-do-harm doctors have murdered nearly 60 million American infants since 1973, thereby leaving all modern genocides but Mao’s looking pretty pale in comparison.

While Obama, Mrs. Clinton, and Representative Pelosi were chanting the foregoing slogans to their electoral colonies in Charleston, San Francisco, and elsewhere, the murder-for-hire doctors of the American Medical Association were merrily and profitably dismembering infants at a pace that earns the fanatic if depraved approval of the Democratic Party.

Now, how is that for respecting the dignity of all human beings? In Justice Kennedy-speak, the act of murdering infants probably awards them constitutionally protected dignity-in-death. For the sane, however, the enormous, Stalin-like callousness and blood lust of both the infant murderers and their Democratic advocates and protectors make the long-eliminated practice of slavery in America appear to be a minor historical indiscretion, while simultaneously making the legalized murdering of infants a far greater and more justifiable goad to civil strife than slavery ever was.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
Posted in Articles | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Keep it flying – the Confederate battle flag is an American flag

Well, the Charleston killings appear to have unleashed those who lead the Democratic Party and most of the U.S. media — that may be a redundancy — to make every effort to not only make race relations worse in the United States but to strain them to the breaking point if at all possible. Why? Two reasons really. First, with a grafter, liar, agent-of-multiple-foreign powers, and Benghazi-butcher like Hillary Clinton to lead them in the next presidential election, the Democrats need to make sure that Black Americans turn out in huge numbers in 2016 to vote against their own dearest interests and ensure they get at least four more years of the Obama policies that have economically ravaged the Black community economically.

Second, as the Democrats turn their post-Charleston focus toward a campaign to ban flying the Confederate battle flag — which fits nicely with their rank idiocy of wanting to put historical bit-players like Harriet Tubman or Eleanor Roosevelt on the ten-dollar bill to replace the irreplaceable Alexander Hamilton — Obama, Clinton, and their lieutenants intend to continue erasing from U.S. history any episode, person, or religious influence that does not please them, especially the fact of Democratic responsibility for slavery, civil war, segregation, and minority-domination of the national government. While doing so, they and their media toadies will shame, damn, and demonize any person who dares object to their absurd, party-line version of this nation’s history, a version that when taught truthfully would show their party to be the traditional and relentless scourge of Black Americans.

The tragedy of the U.S. Civil War, which was brought on by the Democratic Party and its unnecessary interventionist war in Mexico, was not only that it was fought, but that it was fought before it had to be fought. The South’s leaders feared what they believed the newly elected Lincoln administration would do in future years, not because of what Lincoln had promised to do during the just-concluded presidential election campaign. Indeed, Lincoln had repeatedly gone out of his way to stress with great clarity that he planned to do nothing that would either damage the South’s economy or revoke the constitutional guarantees protecting slavery that the South had secured in the Constitution. Southern leaders did not trust Lincoln — and his so-called “Black Republicans” — and so they declared independence and launched what really was an unnecessary and preemptive war, not unlike the one the Neoconservatives started in Iraq in 2003. The new Confederate States of America thus threw the dice and lost all they intended to win and most all of what they desired to preserve. One can only hope that history will repeat itself in regard to the Neoconservatives — and soon.

At its start, the Civil War was not fought as a war to free the slaves, but rather as a war to maintain the Union; in 1861, a war waged by the U.S. government to free the slaves — as Lincoln recognized — would have been very unpopular in the North and clearly unconstitutional. It was not until 1863, and then only as a war measure not a change in the Constitution, did Lincoln issue the Emancipation Proclamation and thereby begin a move toward the destruction of constitutionally sanctioned slavery. This move would have been terminated at Appomattox if the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments had not been adopted by the Congress and the states. (NB: Oddly and perhaps ultimately tragically, those amendments, like the original 1787 Constitution, failed to state that the American Union is to be perpetual. They thus left a situation in which secessionists had been utterly defeated in war, but also one that left secession as a valid response to real or perceived tyranny, and it is a response to tyranny that was pretty clearly approved by the Founders in the Declaration of Independence, by the tenets of the Reformed Protestant Christianity on which America was founded, and by that most rare characteristic, plain commonsense.)

So the war was fought and over 620,000 Americans were killed between 1861 and 1865. The war was fought for many reasons. In the North, to preserve the Union, put down “Southern traitors”, and, as the war proceeded, to forever end the institution of slavery in the United States. In the south, the Confederates fought not only to preserve the Constitution’s protection of slavery, but, equally, to defend the South’s agricultural economy and way of life, to maintain governing practices that gave primacy to county and state governments and abhorred national-government intervention, and to preserve the localist and communitarian culture that dominated the South even as it varied from state to state, all of which were intertwined with the institution of slavery.

The South’s defeat either undermined or destroyed much of the foregoing, and also left nearly 300,000 Confederate dead and many tens of thousands more maimed. In addition, no region of the United States has ever been as economically devastated and depopulated by war as was the Confederacy. Post-war reconstruction brought military government to the South, and under it the national Democratic Party and its southern affiliates labored mightily to re-subjugate the newly free Blacks, eventually succeeding by implementing Jim Crow laws; motivating the birth of the Klan and then protecting it; establishing separate-but-equal schools and public facilities; and enacting codes of lawful segregation — all of which Democrats defended in a fight to the death until the 1960s. In U.S. history, from the ratification of the Constitution to the economic devastation wrought by Obama on contemporary Black Americans, the men and women who run Democratic Party, from Jefferson and Jackson forward, have been the ferocious enemy of Black Americans entering the mainstream of American life, to this day bending every tool of political power — especially in the areas of free trade and unlimited, illegal immigration — to keep them angry, unemployed, mired in poverty, and politically and economically dependent in a manner that approaches quite near to re-enslavement.

And now, to maintain the Black community in their thrall, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and likely all of their party’s leaders — and Republican fools like Mitt Romney — will work to ban Americans or their elected representatives from flying one of the nation’s “other” flags, the Army of Northern Virginia’s battle flag. Why it should be permissible to fly the Grand Union Flag, the flag current during the war of 1812, the anti-British “Don’t treat on me” flag, the Black Panthers’ flag, or any other flag that has played a role in our national history is unfathomable, so long as Old Glory is always at the highest point wherever it is flown — as it is in South Carolina.

As noted, the Confederate flag in question was carried into battle by one of America’s three greatest armies, the Army of Northern Virginia. Under the superb command of Marse Robert that army’s battle flag came close to being a national flag of an independent Confederate States of America. Thank God it did not. But neither were those who fought under that banner executed, imprisoned, permanently disenfranchised, or exiled, as the losers in most other civil wars have been. As Lincoln advised, U.S. Grant and William T. Sherman “let ‘em up easy”. Thereafter, the battle flag was flown for some bad purposes, as the emblem of the Klan and the Democratic Party’s southern wing, but also for one indispensable positive purpose — the slow but steady rejoining of north and south.

The flag of Lee’s army flew at innumerable annual reunions of regiments from both sides of the war, as well as national meetings of the veterans of both armies. The flag’s message — then and now — is one of deserved pride in the Confederacy’s principled and valiant, if losing fight against the Union; of reverence for southern war dead and untold numbers of amputees; and a stubborn determination to preserve what is best in the South’s traditional localist and communitarian lifestyle. At the same time, the flag flew over a region that gradually grew to again love the Union it had attempted to leave, and which today probably contributes a larger proportion of its young men and women to the U.S. armed services than any other region of the nation.

In one of the last great gatherings of Civil War veterans from both sides at Gettysburg on 3 July 1938, President Roosevelt recalled for the now elderly and quickly dwindling numbers of Johnnie Rebs and Billy Yanks that in November, 1863, another president had spoken on the same battlefield. “Lincoln,” Roosevelt said, “spoke in solace for all who fought upon this field; and the years have laid their balm upon their wounds. Men who wore the blue and men who wore the gray are here together, a fragment spared by time. They are brought here by the memories of old divided loyalties, but they meet here in united loyalty to a united cause which the unfolding years have made it easier to see. All of them we honor, not asking under which flag they fought then—thankful that they stand together under one flag now.” As Roosevelt spoke, the Stars-and-Stripes and Stars-and-Bars fluttered weakly next to each other in the little bit of wind that blew on that sultry day.

In closing his speech, President Roosevelt reminded the wizened former enemies that the restoration of national unity was Lincoln’s most important message in his address at Gettysburg in 1863.

That is why Lincoln—commander of a people as well as of an army—asked that his battle end “with malice toward none, with charity for all.” To the hurt of those who came after him, Lincoln’s plea was long denied. A generation passed before the new unity became accepted fact. In later years new needs arose, and with them new tasks, worldwide in their perplexities, their bitterness and their modes of strife. Here in our land we give thanks that, avoiding war, we seek our ends through the peaceful processes of popular government under the Constitution. It is another conflict, a conflict as fundamental as Lincoln’s, fought not with glint of steel, but with appeals to reason and justice on a thousand fronts—seeking to save for our common country opportunity and security for citizens in a free society.

Like it or not, the Confederate Battle flag has and does play an important part in American history and society; it is a symbol of what we had, what we lost, and what we are now still in many ways working to recover. To ban that flag for the sake of making political hay for cynical Democratic authoritarians like Obama and Clinton — and to please the academy, the national media, and that fool Romney — would be a costly mistake and yet another disservice to American history.

A crazed young racist killed those nine Black Americans while they were studying the bible in Charleston. He used the Confederate battle flag as a symbol of his hatred, and to ban that much and rightly honored flag as a consequence of one man’s murderous action would be to shame and indict the entire South as racist entity, and, just perhaps, kindle in some small measure regional animosities toward what is still far from a perpetual union.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
Posted in Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Yet again, Barack Obama exploits the dead for his political goals

Nine black people shot dead in their church in Charleston, South Carolina, apparently by a young and mentally disturbed white man. A tragedy. A time for sympathy and prayer. A time for empathetic silence.

Enter Barack Obama. Hustling through some trite words of condolence, this man proceeds to demand the elimination of the 2nd Amendment, and to suggest that the murders are more evidence of a pervasive racism in the white community by inferring the killings are linked to a “dark” period of American history.

This savage and utterly self-centered man simply cannot resist ruthlessly exploiting dead people — adults and children –and their grieving families and communities to advance his and the Democratic Party’s increasingly inhuman and authoritarian agenda.

It is hard to know which is more reprehensible, this man’s exploitation of the dead to satisfy the personal goal of negating, and thereby stealing, the right to bear arms that is the birth-right, and so the property, of all Americans, or this man’s relentless and despicable effort to intensify racial hatreds in the country.

Mr. Obama has been and is a curse on the United States and on all Americans. He has intentionally shredded parts of the U.S. Constitution, and especially is obsessed with abrogating the 2nd Amendment, knowing that as long as it exists his and his party’s goal of one-party, arbitrary rule will never come to pass. He also deliberately has done much more than even the late and unlamented George Wallace to divide Americans into mutually hostile racial groupings.

Some years ago, after the Oklahoma City bombing, President Clinton said it is absurd to argue that a U.S. citizen could love his country and despise his government. Barack Obama, since 2008, has not only proven Clinton to be dead wrong, but has behaved and spoken in precisely the manner necessary to create many tens of millions of U.S. citizens who love their country dearly and despise their national government with a white-hot passion.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
Posted in Articles | Tagged | Leave a comment

Insanity’s definition is sending more U.S. ground troops to Iraq

There seems to be great Republican resistance to the idea that their interventions in Iraq and the Muslim world are the main cause of both the mess in Iraq and the growing and increasingly powerful worldwide Islamist movement. To the extent that Hillary Clinton and other Democratic senators and congressmen joined the Republicans in illegally delegating the war-declaring power to George W. Bush there is a point to the Republicans’ resistance. The correct formulation of the statement is that both parties are equally responsible for the mess in Iraq and for the formidable Islamist foe that now exists. Also a correct statement is that the bulk of both parties now want the United States to become an even stronger motivator of and recruiter for the Islamists by expanding the military re-intervention in Iraq that began in the summer of 2014. Before that occurs it would be best to review a few facts:

–The 2003 invasion of Iraq was approved by both parties and driven by the Neoconservatives in both parties. There was no need for a war in Iraq. Even if Saddam Hussein had WMD he was not a threat to the United States, and because we have none but parasitic allies in the Middle East, we needed to let them fend for themselves. (NB: We need to do this now.)

–Saddam Hussein was our best ally in the war against the Sunni Islamists, an ally that we did not have to cajole, pay, or urge to act against the Sunni militants. That he diddled around with and funded the Palestinian fighters is true, but he was reliably lethal — for his government’s own interests — when it came to killing mujahedin trying to transit or set up shop in Iraq. Without Saddam to hold the center of the Arab world and block the insurgents’ easy east-west movement, we now have a mujahedin theater of operations that extends from Morocco on the Atlantic, to Jakarta in the Pacific, and from the North Caucasus in the north, to Nigeria in the south.

–The U.S. military and its allies were defeated in Iraq. They were all shackled by political constraints and by suicidal rules-of-engagement, but U.S. generals dutifully played the role of toadies by telling the public there was “no military solution” in Iraq. There is always a military solution to war and, if it is not implemented, defeat is certain. (NB: This is equally true of the Afghan War.)

–All U.S. military personnel killed, wounded, or maimed in Iraq were a waste of our most precious assets. They were led to defeat by two presidents, myriad generals, and congresses that clearly never had any intention of winning the wars they started. (NB: (a) This is equally true of the Afghan War; (b) The cost of not winning either war has been the shredding of the 4th Amendment, and will be further constraints on civil liberty in the future.)

–U.S. Iraq policy in the Bush and Obama administrations was made by men and women who either cannot tell the difference between theory and reality, or were cursed with the feckless Ivy League educations that in the last four administrations have marched this country at quick step to the rim of hell. Saddam’s rule was brutal not only because he was brutal but because authoritarian government is the only way to keep Iraq united and the country’s Sunnis and Shias away from each other’s throat. The constant refrain by Obama, Cameron, Hollande, and other NATO leaders that there will be an “inclusive government” in Iraq — that is, Sunnis, Shia, Kurds, and Sufis amiably working together — is witness to either their deceit or stupidity. From March, 2003, until today there was never a chance of creating an inclusive regime in Iraq. It will not happen in the future.

–The now canonized “Surge” achieved a temporary halt in the mujahedin’s progress in Iraq, slowed the pace of U.S. casualties, and — as planned — got the Iraq war minimized on the agenda of the 2008 McCain-Obama presidential debates. But the most important long term result of the surge was that it pushed the mujahedin out of Iraq into Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon and so allowed them to regroup, rearm, and — as we now see in the Levant, Iraq, Libya, and elsewhere — live to fight and win another day. At bottom, the surge was a cynical political scheme and tactical military act concocted by a political general. It was not meant to defeat the enemy, only to buy time for the politicians.

–The current call by most Republicans and many Democrats to return 10,000 or 20,000 U.S. ground troops to Iraq will not change the situation there except to make it worse; what more than 100,000 troops could not do, will not be done by a fifth or tenth of that total, especially when the foe is four times larger than it was a decade ago and the Iraqi regime’s forces will not fight. In addition, the Sunni-Shia bloodletting that has occurred in the last 30 months all but ensures a full-scale and perhaps regional sectarian war. This is the best possible outcome for a bankrupt and militarily worn out United States, and hopefully one that even supreme bumblers like Obama, Kerry, McCain, Graham, and multiple retired U.S. generals cannot prevent.

–The political demand for those troops is driven by U.S. politicians who refuse to recognize that they have warred and spent the United States into something akin to an over-the-hill Madam — John McCain in drag comes to mind — who deludes herself into believing that her now sagging attributes are as powerful as ever. We command no respect among the Islamists who see the U.S. government as afraid to kill them and their supporters; afraid to suffer casualties; and relatively indifferent to the reality that it is a superpower that regularly losses wars to insurgent forces with no air cover and limited heavy weaponry.

–The political demand also comes from the Israel-First-owned Neoconservatives in both parties who caused the 2003 invasion of Iraq believing that it would enhance the security of their country of first allegiance — Israel. They now realize that the Iraq war has likely signed Israel’s death warrant and so are desperate to undo the damage done to Israel for which they alone are responsible. Grasping at straws, for example, Neocon Charles Krauthammer last week said the answer in Iraq was to directly arm the Kurds and Sunni tribes to fight the Islamic State. This sophomoric strategy was applauded by other Neocons, not one of whom asked why the Kurds and Sunni tribes would fight and die to reestablish the power of the Iran-backed Shia tyranny in Baghdad that the U.S. government and its allies knowingly installed and then silently watched persecute Iraq’s Sunnis.

The bottom line in all of this is the uncontestable fact that there would be no ISIS today if there had not been a U.S.-led invasion and occupation of Iraq. There is no question that the Neocons’ Iraq war afforded the Islamists opportunities to successfully internationalize their movement, expand their manpower and financial resources, and seize and hold large tracts of territory. None of these achievements would have been even remotely possible for the mujahedin if Saddam’s regime still governed Iraq. The voices now calling for more U.S. troops in Iraq are not American voices; they are the voices of panic-stricken agents of a foreign power who have no qualms about driving the United States deeper into debt and wasting the lives and limbs of more of America’s soldier-children. Though oracular sounding, these are alien, anti-American voices that must not be heeded.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
Posted in Articles | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

America has no enemy more dastardly and lethal than the Neoconservative

Those men who wrote our Constitution made it perfectly intelligible to anyone who cared to read it. They also left some flexibility in its articles to ensure that as time passed and circumstances changed the document would remain viable as the indispensable protector of the republic they created and of the liberty of citizens who delegated a limited amount of their sovereign power to the national government through its provisions. And after a long and often  angry ratification debate, the first congress added a bill of rights to the Constitution as that document’s first ten amendments. These amendments were fully as clear as the text — perhaps more so — but less flexible than the body of the document because they dealt with the tenets of republican liberty which, if regularly and deliberately violated by the national government, would require that Americans, to paraphrase Jefferson, demolish the existing government and erect a new one that would better safeguard their liberties and their republic’s security.

In recent decades, however, Americans have been treated to an endless stream of politicians, academics, lawyers, and pundits who describe the opaqueness of the Founder’s Constitution and the need for “experts” to decipher or infer what the document means. As a result, we now have presidents who take the country to war on their whim; politicians who are legally bribed by “campaign contributions” from rich individuals, corporations, labor unions, and foreign lobbies and governments based on an absurd reading of the Constitution; a public that is increasingly endangered by flamboyant blasphemers who seek violence and war under the protection of the First Amendment; and the routine criminality of executive branch officials who refuse to obey their oath of office to execute the laws. We also have the overwhelming majority of both political parties willing to destroy the Fourth Amendment in the name of providing for national security against an enemy they have resolutely refused to either stop motivating or militarily annihilate. Together these realities amount to a more-than-full justification for Americans to recall that, as Jefferson wrote, “it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

In the midst of America’s third consecutive despotic presidency — each more despotic than its predecessor, and all more than Nixon — the citizenry now sees two singularly courageous individuals standing up and saying the destruction of the Fourth Amendment must stop. The junior senator from Kentucky, Mr. Paul, and FOX’s senior judicial analyst, Judge Andrew Napolitano, have been and are saying that it is unconstitutional for any congress and/or president to order NSA to collect the electronic communications of all Americans. (NB: Note to Congressman Gowdy: Can’t you get Hillary Clinton’s e-mail from NSA? Or is the unconstitutional collection system rigged so the corrupt elite are exempt?) If the U.S. educational system was not run by people who yearn and work for despotism, and if that system taught civics and history instead of political indoctrination, the senator and the judge would not be so alone in their opposition to tyranny. (NB: Perhaps the sheep-like silence and passivity of much of the public toward this deliberate and cynical violation of their constitutionally protected rights is the best reason for destroying the federal Department of Education at the first opportunity.)

Those who support the destruction of the 4th Amendment, of course, do so because they have knowingly failed to provide for the security of the United States since Osama bin Laden declared war on the nation in August, 1996. The threat from al-Qaeda, and now from its progeny, the Islamic State, exists and is still growing because we have had three presidents who refused to either stop motivating the Islamists to attack us or to annihilate them, their supporters, and their infrastructure with U.S. military power. Instead, they have made Americans pay with the currency of their soldier-children’s lives and limbs and their liberty for the government’s deliberate failure to protect the republic against enemies foreign and domestic. Indeed, the last three presidents and their lieutenants have provided the bulk of America’s domestic enemies, and their transparently unconstitutional and enemy-protecting behavior is ample, accumulated justification for Americans to begin to look for ways to devise ”Guards for their future security.”

Last Thursday evening (21 May 2015) on Bret Baier’s excellent “Special Report”, Judge Napolitano concisely and clearly explained the intention of the White House and Congress to continue their illegal evisceration — it began with the Mr. Bush’s Patriot Act — of the Constitution’s 4th Amendment. Napolitano convincingly made his point and then another panelist — the Neoconservative Charles Krauthammer– replied that he was “dead wrong.” Krauthammer and his Neocon brothers, who labored mightily for the 2003 invasion of Iraq (lost war 1), the 2014 re-intervention (lost war 2), and now for the return ground troops to Iraq to lose again — pray God, three strikes and they are exiled to Israel — have been accurately described by the erudite political scientist Claes G. Ryn as the “New Jacobins”.

The new Jacobin does not want competition in prescribing the right model [of government]. … The new Jacobin is convinced that he knows what is best for all mankind, and if much of mankind shows reluctance to follow his lead, it is to him a sign that injustice, superstition, and general backwardness or a misconceived modernistic radicalism is standing in the way of progress. The new Jacobin is not content with voicing his own ideas and letting the peoples of the world make their own decisions. They must recognize the superiority of his principles. Governments that do not do so appear to him perverse. … The world must be rid of unenlightened, undemocratic societies. If persuasion and diplomatic pressure fail, the forces of democracy should be willing to resort to military means, especially against powers that have the temerity of openly defying the United States. The new Jacobin desires strong, activist government that can enact what he considers virtuous purposes.*

Intolerably, individuals fitting Professor Ryn’s description dominate both American political parties and for decades have made foreign policy for the United States. Since the early 1990s they have brought America constant war and its reliable companion, the steadily broadening erosion of constitutional liberty. The names of these people are well known. Beyond Krauthammer, the following are, to name just a few, members of the Jacobin/Neocon fold: Hillary Clinton, Marco Rubio, Madeline Albright, Lindsey Graham, Jeb Bush, Joseph Lieberman, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Barack Obama John Boehner, Joe Biden, Bill Kristol, John Bolton, and the 90-plus Senators who did not join Kentucky’s junior senator in defending the 4th Amendment. All of them, to judge by their words, believe it is the absolute right of the United States to intervene politically and militarily abroad wherever and whenever it chooses, and to impose by force what they define as “universal values”.

But their words are lies, there are no such things as universal values. There is only one value common to all men in all times and that is the universal lust for gaining and exercising arbitrary power, and that power is exactly what the Jacobin/Neocon crowd is after. They want power abroad and they want power over the American citizenry at home. They have proven they cannot attain power abroad — having lost every war they started — and they cannot get power at home unless Americans permit them to continue to systematically hollow out the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

On that score, however, they are incrementally succeeding, and this success is the reason that Americans must begin thinking about what “new Guards for their future security” might be appropriate. And to ensure U.S. citizens can realistically discuss all options for preventing or destroying tyrannical government at home, the Founders left them the Second Amendment. After all, as Jefferson asked in 1787, “And what country can preserve its liberties, if the rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.”

*Claes Ryn, America the Virtuous, 2005, p. 26

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
Posted in Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment