Tag Archives: tyranny
“All that exists deserves to perish.” — Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, cited by Karl Marx in his 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852)
Progressives fancy themselves as harbingers of a new world order, and the scions of a utopia never before seen. Yet despite their best intentions, they are the destroyers of civilization and the oblivious instruments of totalitarians. These amoral souls are but the playthings of collectivists, and the handmaidens of incipient tyranny.
The American Founding represents the anti-thesis of the government preferred by those with the kind of craven powerlust that progressives exhibit time and time again. Far from being a new and enlightened being, the progressive archetype was anticipated and deliberately frustrated by those who founded this country.
Before Karl Marx set out to develop a systematic method of destroying the world as he knew it, the world that had enslaved him to labor and the care of his neglected children, he concluded that the whole world was “upside down.” How could he, as a mere philosopher, develop the means to bring the world to a grinding halt — only to be remade by philosopher-kings, such as himself?
Marx settled upon his ideological scapegoat for all the poverty and misery of the world — “capitalism.” This form of economy based on property ownership and currency as an exchange for goods and labor was posited as the barrier between human cooperation, since Marx believed it caused people to mutually objectify and feel alienated towards one another.
Like French revolutionary badboy Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Marx believed that civilization in its present form was corrupt at its very essence. Human beings needed to be emancipated from industrial society (a sentiment former Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi would later echo):
In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.
This in some ways the reflection of an intellectual’s dread, similar to that Adam Smith himself experienced, of the implications of political economy based on increasing specialization. Such a form of economy may be conducive to improved efficiency, but its effect is to narrow the human mind’s perspicacity. This is a legitimate complaint, and one anticipated not just be Marxists, but by the likes of the aristocratic Montesquieu, who was concerned about the influence of pecuniary interests on the nobility of the monarchic spirit.
While Enlightenment philosophers preached the advancement of humanity on the foundation of universal education and the elimination of superstition, later neomarxist philosophers like Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer believed The Enlightenment to be mythos that masked the inherent ugliness of the capitalist system. The material benefit of capitalism was in some ways tacitly acknowledged by this rhetorical shift, even as Marxists took up a cultural form of warfare to justify economic redistribution.
In all fairness, in some ways The Enlightenment did smack of pseudo-religion; in other words, it was an empty replacement for the Christianity that was becoming increasingly questioned among intellectuals (e.g. Spinoza). But the Enlightenment project was crucial for improving the lot of humanity, because it had dismantled the Divine Right of Kings argument for arbitrary rule, a task best exemplified by the work of Locke.
Thus, it is a great irony, though not one wholly unanticipated if one grasps that the state’s defeat would never be permanent, that the self-styled “progressives” of American politics would return Western Civilization precisely back to the arbitrary absolute rule of the state. If might analogize, progressivism takes America back to the status quo ante-bellum, if we take The Constitution to be a kind of treaty, not just between the U.S. and Britain, but between the people and the state.
It is through this lens of history and philosophy that a relatively informed and knowledgeable “conservative,” meaning in this case someone in favor of increasing and expanding the insights and gains of classical liberalism, perceives many bittersweet and tragic ironies.
If one holds that real progress is best exemplified by the development of the scientific method and the fruit it self-evidently bore, the security and productivity that sprung from the mutual societal recognition of private property, the diminishing of superstition’s hold on the human mind, and intolerance for the cultish exaltation of one human being over another, then what has come to pass for “progressive” in the American culture is at best a farce, and at worst, a dangerous and perverse re-institutionalization of a bureaucratic and stultifying form of absolutist rule.
Among the many ironies commensurate with progressivism, one finds that socialism destroys society. The highest degrees of alienation and anomie in the world can be found in post-communist nations, where one can simply not trust his neighbors to refrain from snitching on him for a “thought-crime,” or to withhold from seizing the fruits of his labor, particularly if he makes an effort to excel.
Consequentially, progressivism is anti-progress. In a classic maneuver of ideological inversion, progressives oppose the kind of scientific progress that has come from intellectual freedom. Repeated risk, failure, and breakthrough by the best and brightest, as incentivized by a market (and rarely achieved through government funding), recombined with scientific inquiry driven by healthy skepticism, as opposed to morally and politically influenced group-think, has achieved the greatest progress for mankind in the modern era.
It is with such a “progressive” spirit, which seems in this mind’s eye to be a stodgy and decayed relic of the mid-nineteenth century, especially by comparison to the heady yearning for freedom as embodied by the late eighteenth century, that we must understand that the intellectual elite of America fancy that individual rights are obsolete, and the state granting of privileges and financial rewards based on arbitrary group affiliation and so forth is in any way “enlightened.” We therefore stumble upon another irony — the dismissal of the individual in the so-called interest of “equality.”
Individual rights aren’t archaic — they have been used as the underlying bases for “equal rights” for well over two centuries in this country. Property is an extension of the equal right to self-determination; lawful firearms possession is a part of the equal right to self-defense; and the freedom of speech and conscience recognizes the equal value and worth of each individual. Voting and suffrage are just aspects of political freedom for people to choose their own leaders — provided those leaders don’t violate others’ rights.
Voting takes place as a process to solve the practical matters of where roads are paved, how the military is funded, and so forth. “Democracy” does not determine moral right or wrong, as difficult a concept for modern liberals to grasp that it is. Our rights as sovereign individuals in the universe, created with free choice and only our own lives to live and die, is not up for vote.
The economy should thus reflect that reality that each individual should be equally respected under the law; regardless of incidental characteristics such as skin color or gender. A woman is equal to a man, a white is equal to a black, and so forth. The history of the nation has been the progress towards the equal application of individual rights for all, regardless of progressives’ intentions, and nearly wholly related to the nation’s proceeding from Founding principles as enshrined in The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution.
Burdening citizens unequally, decreeing that certain Americans should pay a disproportionate share for the limited expenses of the state — this has nothing to do with equality. People do not have an “equal right” to remuneration for non-services provided or non-value rendered — this is state-sponsored fraud to justify its enhanced power via economic dictatorship.
Since the Democrat Party feigns that it has bestowed rights to certain social groups (in actuality, the Republican Party emancipated the slaves, voted for the Civil Rights Act more so than Democrats), people believe that the “government” has “freed” them. In fact, the government(s) had enslaved them to begin with!
Note that eleven of thirteen colonies supported Jefferson’s original draft of the Declaration condemning slavery; the Constitution banned slave trade in 20 years, and penalized southern states with three/fifths clause. The Founders and Framers were enlightened men — true visionaries; unlike the short-sighted, vacuous characters of today’s political parties, who squabble and bicker over how much more power and money they can control, rather than leading the country as statesmen with a mind to the historical failures and fortunes of nations and the will to forge a path that increases and enhances freedom.
If the Founders were but petty men of property attempting to secure their own hegemony over a society, then why did they allow for the right to bear arms, through which a people could rise up and overthrow a tyrannical government? Why did they allow for freedom of speech, through which a people could communicate their disdain of a corrupt government? Why did they institute federalism as a way of dispersing federal power and providing for checks and balances? Why did they promote property rights, by which people could accumulate their own fortunes based on their own labor, frugality, and ambition, and trade freely in a voluntary economy?
Progressivism, at its most naked and stripped-down core, corrupts the nation and progressively puts more power into the hands of the central government and its increasingly wanton and craven politicians. If this is the agenda of today’s intellectuals, then what more can be said for them to savor the human misery and suffering their ideas predictably cause?
It is the project of conservatism to disperse political power, essentially equalizing it among the citizenry, and to disperse economic power by putting most decision-making in the hands of consumers and individual laborers. It is an additional note that when a banking cartel masquerading as a legitimate arm of government arbitrarily controls the value of money and interest, one does not live under a remotely free economy.
The promotion of a government that owns our labor, owns our property, and can dictate every significant aspect of our lives is nothing less than a reintroduction of slavery for all Americans. Even the great author on democracy Alexis de Tocqueville recognized this dreadful aspect of socialism.
One should never attempt to cede control over one’s life to others — not only is this unwise and dangerous, as it rests on the blind faith in the goodness of others, but no one can run a human being’s life as well as he or she can, provided there are the right economic and moral incentives in the society to do so. Any conceit on the part of self-imagined intellectual elites is not only vain, but fatal to the vibrancy and vitality of any free people.
It was recently admitted that the world is becoming more equal and better as a whole, precisely because of the spread of global capitalism; but America has nonetheless become worse off due to the reverse tendency — pursuing the failed central planning schemes that these developing nations are fleeing from. The burgeoning Americas of the world, we invite you to take up the mantle of liberty and freedom, for the good and well-being of mankind, and to show this fallen nation that the true progressivism of the world is progressing towards freedom and respect for each and every individual.
Note: You may reprint this cartoon provided you link back to this source. To see more CDN Branco cartoons, click here.
Brandon Raub: Victim of Tyranny in America
The End of Liberty is Near
I find the current situation in our nation both frightening and ironic. The frightening part took a more serious turn a few days ago. On Thursday August 16, 2012, former Marine Corp member Brandon Raub, decorated for valor in both Iraq and Afghanistan, was “detained”; not arrested but “detained”, by federal, state, and local authorities. He was taken from his home in handcuffs, without charge, and is being held indefinitely pending a “mental competency hearing” before a judge (http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2012/08/brandon-raub-ndaa-arrest-video-2449432.html). And what is his “crime”? Mr. Raub was so bold as to criticize the federal government; Barack Obama, Eric Holder, politicians in both political parties, and bureaucrats who ignore the Constitution and do as they please without the consent of the governed. Raub had the temerity to make references to the “Ron Paul Revolution”. His rhetoric is undoubtedly strong, direct, and to the point; but it is no where near criminal, or the ravings of a lunatic, from what I have seen. His ire is directed at the actions of government officials who have sworn an oath to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America” but instead choose to ignore their oath of office, and their sworn duties as elected and appointed officials. Were his comments irrational, threatening, terroristic, or seditious? I don’t see them as being outrageous at all. His posts are reflective, and critical, of the current activities by government agencies, bureaucrats, politicians, etc. (http://www.facebook.com/#!/raub.brandon ).
The ironic side is even more disturbing. Once again I hear the New Black Panthers making public threats against “crackers and their babies”. In internet radio programs that they proudly make public, these “people” call for black people to go into hospital nurseries and throw bombs into rooms full of “cracker babies” (http://www.examiner.com/article/new-black-panther-leader-kill-white-babies-by-bombing-nurseries ). They boldly call for the murder of all white people and pose on facebook with AK-47 rifles, with their faces covered of course, and again boldly call for the murder of people because they are white. This comes on the heals of a leader of the group stating in a video several months ago that “I hate white people, all of them. Every cracker needs to be killed, all their children, all their babies, etc.” (http://www.wnd.com/2010/07/175817/). Hate speech?? Racism?? I guess not!!
I wonder why the FBI, state police, and local police have not rounded up this bunch, those who are so boldly and publicly making terroristic threats against white people on an almost daily basis. They have also made threats against delegates to the Republican National Party Convention in Tampa, Florida (http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/08/14/NBP-Threaten-Cracker-Republican-Tampa-Convention-Wont-Be-Tolerated-Our-Feet-Will-Be-On-Your-Necks ) yet we see no SWAT teams going after them.
And why is Louis Farrakhan allowed to spit out the vile crap he does? He actually threatens the life of Barack Obama and not a word is said, no denunciation, no “investigation”, nothing but silence http://rushlimbaughreport.blogspot.com/2012/04/did-louis-farrakhan-threaten-obama.html. Isn’t this hate speech??? Isn’t this racist?? Isn’t this terroristic (http://www.examiner.com/article/new-black-panther-leader-malik-zulu-shabazz-asks-the-ballot-or-the-bullet) ??
I don’t really wonder why the hate from the Black Panthers and Farrakhan is ignored, I know why (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/dont-miss-the-connection-obama-and-holder-delivered-to-office-by-black-panthers-owe-them-some-favors/). It is ignored because they are black and they hate America. And because they are black and hate America they can say whatever they please, and do whatever they please, without any recrimination from this band of criminals now in charge of our government. (One disclaimer: black conservatives aren’t given the same leeway as the Pink Panthers.) White people aren’t allowed to spout such tripe. Ted Nugent made a political reference a couple of months ago and was descended upon by Secret Service people. He wasn’t arrested but was interrogated for much less than what we hear out of the mouths of black radicals espousing murder and sedition.
Brandon Raub was targeted because, besides being a white patriot, he stood up to a tyrannical government that is well on their way to subjugating We the People. The “Patriot Act”, the most unconstitutional piece of legislation ever signed into law, gives a criminal government the right to arrest and hold anyone they choose; without charges, without a warrant, and without a trial for as long as they wish to do so. It came from a Republican controlled Congress and was signed by George W. Bush, a Republican “moderate”. From this we got the Department of Homeland Security, the TSA, and the FEMA camps. By the way, for those who called me a conspiracy theory nut two and a half years ago, welcome to the reality of the FEMA camps. They were built in 2009 and are being financed and staffed with money in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, passed almost unanimously in both houses of Congress and signed by Obama in December.
This same NDAA 2012 allows for the “arrest without charges, and indefinite detention without trial” (Sections 1022 and 1023), for those accused of being “potential terrorists” or supporting anyone suspected to qualify. This means that anyone who speaks up for Brandon Raub could be denounced and also “detained” as Raub is being “detained”. It seems odd to me that these provisions don’t apply to the New Black Panthers. If there was ever a reason to “detain” people for making terror threats it is this bunch of hate mongers. They spew their diatribe of hate and terror threats all over every medium of communication available without so much as a word from Obama, Holder, and the rest of the criminals sitting in Washington D. C.
A double standard does exist and the lame stream media, including FOX News Network and much of conservative talk radio, is complicit. Not only do the lame streams ignore the violations of the Constitution going on every day, they actually cheer lead for those committing the violations. Our liberty, our Republic of the United States of America, is teetering on the edge of extinction and very few in any media seem to have the courage to really speak boldly about what is happening. Mark Levin and Michael Savage have been rather vocal but most of the”biggies” sidestep this issue of such bold tyranny in all branches of government.
Carrying the water on the most serious issues of liberty is left to those of us who have no national voice and lack the wealth many media darlings protect with their silence. And what about us “little people”, the “peasants”? Two days after the “detention” of Brandon Raub I saw posts on facebook by many who are fearful and plan to “be more careful of what they write” so as to avoid catching the eye of the federal government. This is exactly the plan of those who have violated the rights of Brandon Raub. If they can silence us by making a public display of his fate they win. Every despot in history has used this tactic of fear and intimidation. How many will cower in fear due to Raub’s treatment; one hundred, one thousand, ten thousand, one hundred thousand? I WILL NOT COMPLY!!! I AM A MAN!!! I AM AN AMERICAN!!!
The founding fathers pledged “their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor” through “the protection of Divine Providence” to establish the United States of America as THE beacon of freedom throughout the world. Many gave their lives to establish, and many more have given their lives to preserve, the concept of freedom we are guaranteed “by nature and nature’s God” in the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the United States of America. It is incumbent on those of us who inherited that liberty given by so many to restore what has been lost, and to leave the full measure of freedom to those who come behind us. Our responsibility is to honor those who came before, those who stand for liberty now, and those who will inherit what we leave them.
Brandon Raub is one who is standing for liberty now. If we cower in fear because of his treatment we will have abandoned the efforts and sacrifices of so many and will leave a future of tyranny, slavery, despotism, and poverty to those who follow us. Our commission, our responsibility, is to stand for liberty now, regardless of the cost to ourselves.
Everyone who reads this needs to ask themselves a question: “If not now, when; if not me, who?” Will you stand with Brandon Raub now? https://fundrazr.com/campaigns/8LqA0?psid=30813f268825455cb13753f3ef838728) Will you honor George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, and the others who forged this nation out of tyranny? Will you stand in honor of those who have lost life, limb, and possessions through 236 years of fighting to preserve this freedom? Will you stand in honor of those fighting tyranny in Third World toilets in the Middle East, those who are trying to defeat Islamic nut cases before they can hit us again? Will you honor those who will inherit the future from you?
“All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.” Thomas Jefferson.
“Today is the day, there will be no tomorrow for liberty if we fail now because we cower in fear.” Bob Russell August 2012
I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.
August 19, 2012
Today, despite the fact that their country is rapidly approaching $16 trillion in debt, there are millions of Americans wondering when they are going to get “their fair share” of what their country “owes them”. Thanks to continued distortion and misrepresentation of the facts by those in whom they have misplaced their trust, these Americans are clueless to the reality that the “hope and change” they were promised will never materialize, never come to fruition.
Not one single time in the history of human civilization has a nation taxed and spent its way into prosperity. That today so many Americans continue to believe they are “entitled” to “their fair share of free stuff” proves that P.T. Barnum was right many times over.
Americans have watched a “progressive” big government take over the banking industry, use taxpayer funds to purchase auto companies, seize control of the healthcare system, waste hundreds and hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars on failed “green energy” “investments” and usurp the student loan process. While this was taking place, the nation plunged deeper into debt, had its credit rating downgraded, suffered continued job losses, experienced stubbornly high unemployment, stagnant economic growth, higher food prices, rising energy costs, the abandonment of border security, a reduction in national security and growing disrespect for America on the international stage.
How did America get from where it was in 1960 to where it is now?
America’s Founding Fathers have been discredited and disrespected, its Constitution has been assaulted and ignored, and most importantly; reverence and respect for God is no longer viewed as a national necessity.
America is the land of Liberty, E Pluribus Unum and In God We Trust. If Americans are to continue to hold the truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, Americans must return to reliance upon their Creator. America must restore being one nation, under God.
America’s Founding Fathers fought a war for freedom from this form of slavery. They risked everything that they had. They risked their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. And while doing so, they established the idea that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
That is not freedom from religion. That is freedom of religion. It states that America will never be a theocracy.
George Washington, historically remembered as the father of his country said: “Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
A new generation of Americans must now declare to themselves, their fellow Americans and to the world that they would rather die free than live as a slave to “progressive” big government. That they will exercise their right to worship as they see fit, and defend the right of every other American to do likewise.
Another inspiring President once said: “You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children’s children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.”
I had an experience this last weekend that affirmed my concern for the future of this nation. The Oklahoma State Republican Party had a special State Committee Meeting concerning charges of corruption and voting irregularities at the 1st District Convention in Tulsa back in April. The Ron Paul delegation felt they were disenfranchised by the way the convention was administered. This has been in contention since then and has not been resolved yet. At our regularly scheduled meeting in May, on the day before the state convention, this issue was brought up and discussed ad nauseum. When time came to vote to affirm the 1st District results, or tell them to reconvene, the matter was tabled to be brought up at the convention the next day.
The issue was never addressed at the convention as problems with certifying delegates sent everything into a tail spin of controversy with rules being ignored and general chaos ensuing, resulting in the Ron Paul delegation convening their own convention in the parking lot at the end of the day. My weekend of May 11-12, 2012 (Oklahoma State Committee Meeting and Convention) would have been more productive if I had stayed at home and hit myself with a hammer all weekend. It was the most despicable example of political maneuvering that I have ever witnessed. It was very apparent to me that rules did not matter, parliamentary procedures did not matter, and the general attitude of those running the convention was that Romney is the nominee and nothing else matters. Romney was not the nominee in spite of Governor Mary Fallin claiming he was, a statement which was greeted with loud boos and only made things worse. It was all down hill from there as chaos reigned and nothing got done.
Move forward to the June 9, 2012 State Committee meeting. It was called to resolve the 1st District Convention issue and became more of the same. Both sides presented their cases before a vote was taken by the assembled committee members. The State Committee consists of the party chairmen and vice-chairman from each of the 77 counties plus a state committee man and woman from each county. I don’t know how many were actually there but I know many were not attending. I might as well have stayed home also the way things turned out.
The issue of concern to me is how the process finished up after both sides had given their two cents worth. During the question and answer period that went on for way too long, I asked if I could present a motion. I was told “not yet” by Chairman Matt Pinnell. When the time for questions was up and Pinnell called for motions I raised my hand to present my motion. Although I was within 30 feet of the chairman he called on Carolyn McCarty, the National Committee Woman, who was standing in the very back of the room. She presented the same motion I intended to present 15 minutes or so before. The vote was taken and it was decided to accept the 1st District results. Jake Peters, the representative of the Paul contingency, stated that he would take this to the National Committee and bring it up at the convention if necessary.
I was told after the meeting that Mrs. McCarty had been asked in advance to propose a motion in support of the 1st District results. This shows me that everything was worked out in advance and the meeting was a slam dunk for keeping the establishment intact and preventing any semblance of conservatism from gaining a foothold in the party in Oklahoma. It was apparent to me that no one outside of the establishment would be given any place in this circus.
I believe I was ignored because I am a frequent critic of the activities of the Republican Party, at both state and national levels, and they did not want to take the chance that I might make a motion to stand with the Paulbots although I have made it widely known that I don’t support their candidate or their tactics.
This is the problem I see with the Republican Party. They are not responsive to We the People unless we stand with the establishment. Conservatism was run out of the party many years ago and will not be allowed back in without a fight to the death. New World Order globalists own the party at the national level and anyone wanting to gain ground at the state level must follow the dictates of the RNC.
Our nation is in critical condition and fading fast. The elections in November, if they are allowed to occur, will be a farce of the highest order. Both parties are likely to do everything, fair or fowl, to win. With the current leadership of the Republican Party we can look forward to more of the New World Order agenda should Romney win. New World Order globalism will be the order of the day and those who stand for freedom and the Constitution will not have a voice in the future of this once great nation, regardless of which party wins. Sadly, I see the demise of liberty perpetrated by both political parties in their quest for personal power over We the People. Neither party represents the citizens of this nation, nor will either allow the citizens any voice in government short of another Revolutionary War. Only those willing to bow before politicians and sell their freedom need apply. Obama, Reid, and Pelosi or Romney, McConnell, and Boehner; either way We the People lose. Dictatorship and tyranny are on the doorstep, prepare for the worst.
June 11, 2012
Contempt is defined as: An act of deliberate disobedience or disregard for the laws, regulations, or decorum of a public authority, such as a court or legislative body.
It is no wonder that the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee will consider holding Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress on June 20 relating to the ongoing Fast and Furious ATF gun trafficking scandal.
During the House Judiciary Justice Department Oversight committee hearing on June 7th, it became abundantly clear that Attorney General Eric Holder has complete contempt for congress.
Setting aside for a moment the topic of Fast and Furious – a disastrous ATF operation to allow guns to cross the border into Mexico, and then determine at which crime scene they re-surfaced thereby tracking their purchasers – Mr. Holder’s contempt became clear as congressperson after congressperson asked Mr. Holder why they had not received an answer to a prior inquiry. Mr. Holder made it clear from his answers that he had made little or no effort to follow-up on congressional inquiries, whether they came from republicans or democrats.
In his efforts to obfuscate, delay, or outright refuse to answer questions, Mr. Holder made it clear that he holds himself beyond the reach of congressional oversight, and possibly even believes that the law is whatever Mr. Holder thinks it is at any given moment.
Ms. Lofgren (D-CA) began her questioning by saying “When you were last before us in December, I asked you about a case involving the seizure of a domain name called Jazzone.com for alleged copyright infringement. In December, you said you were unfamiliar with the case, but that you would look into it. Since that time, not only have not heard from you, but new details have surfaced.” It was clear from his answer that Mr. Holder had not looked into the case.
Chairman Lamar Smith then asked Mr. Holder, “Mr. Attorney general a number of members today have made requests from you of information. When can they expect those requests to be responded to, two weeks or so? To which the Attorney General replied, “We will do the best that we can as quickly as we can, I’m a little surprised that we have not responded to at least some of the things in connection with the last time I was here.” Indicating that he had not followed up on any of them.
Mr. King (R-IA) said “Just in picking up on the chairman’s remarks, I point out that I had a series of questions that I asked on December 8th here, and although we haven’t pressed relentlessly for those responses, I haven’t seen them and so I’m going to be submitting a new request from December 8th and additionally for this today.”
Mr Franks (R-AZ) quizzed, “Mr. Holder on April 27, 2011 members of this committee asked you to give us information surrounding the decision by justice to forgo prosecution of the un-indited co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation case. This is the largest terrorism financing case in US history. You refused to comply with this request and you still have not prosecuted despite there being what many consider to be a mountain of evidence against these jihadist groups, at least one of which now says it is working inside your agency to help advise on the purge of counter terrorism training materials. We are told that this mountain of evidence which outlines the jihadist network within the United States amounts to 80 bankers boxes full of documents. This evidence was turned over to the court and much of it was given to the jihadist’s defense lawyers. Members of this committee and other committees would like to review this evidence, whether it has to be on a classified basis or not. Would you commit today to give us provide us with those documents which comprise the government’s case in the Holy Land Foundation trial?”
Eric Holder replied, “It’s hard for me to answer that question.”
Mr. Franks responded, “No it’s not, it’s just will you or will you not?”
Holder: “I will take a look at your request and see if it is appropriate or not….”
Franks: “Well we made the request on April 27th of last year and ah so far it hasn’t happened”
Louie Gohmert (R-TX) also asked Mr. Holder if they would get the documents the government provided to the defendants in the Holy Land Foundation trial, and again Holder evaded. Gohmert then asked if Holder ever demanded to know who authorized Fast and Furious. Holder replied that he asked the Inspector General to look into it.
Mr. Chaffetz (R-UT) asked if Mr. Holder would make himself available to four members of the committee to sit down and answer some questions about what they have seen in the Fast and Furious evidence.
“I’m not sure there is a lot more I can say,” was Holder’s response.
Chaffetz then asked, “did you personally read the letter Speaker Boehner sent to you?” Holder replied, “Yes I got that letter.” Chaffetz asked again, “Did you read it?” “Yes.” Then Chaffetz followed up “Did you respond to it?” Holder replied, “The deputy attorney general replied to it.”
It is evident from his evasionary tactics that the Attorney General of the United States has no intention of being straightforward or forthcoming in providing any detailed information to congress about the activities of his office, and that they ought to just leave him alone to do what he sees as his job.
Congress has no choice but to vote on contempt charges. We will see what the oversight committee decides on June 20th.
Christians the Key to America’s Future; But They Are Failing
2 Chronicles 7:14 is the Answer
“if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves, and will pray and seek my face, and will turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear them from Heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land.” 2 Chronicles 7:14
Christians hold the key to the future of America and they are failing in their mission to preserve the freedom given to us by God Himself. The Israelites of old got tired of following the prophets God gave them to oversea their nation and clamored for a king. God wanted them to follow Him but acquiesced to their demands and let them pick a king. They picked Saul and he eventually drove them into slavery because he followed his own human desires and forgot where the real power came from.
Eventually, David was appointed by God through the prophet Samuel. Saul did everything he could to destroy David but God protected him until the time for his reign was at hand. David eventually sinned with Bathsheba and had her husband killed in battle. He paid a very dear price but when he repented and came back to God he was forgiven. When David’s grandson became king, the nation of Israel divided and began growing in their rebellion and even began worshipping idols. For the next few centuries God allowed them to be defeated by their enemies and ended up in slavery, with their nation completely destroyed.
Today America is following the same path, and will be punished for it’s arrogance in the face of God’s love and kindness. We have been given a great nation, formed from the blood of freedom loving men and women, and defended with the blood of freedom loving men and women for generations, generations that add up to 236 years of freedom from the tyranny of the King of England, or any other tyrrant. We have been given a nation, formed upon “Divine Providence”, but are throwing it away. We are on the verge of losing that freedom because we no longer look to God for our freedom, we look to men who have proven themselves to be interested only in giving a voice to their own evil desires in our society.
I continually hear the “anyone but Obama” chant from Christians who look to Mitt Romney as their savior. “Only Mitt Romney can save us from the tyranny of Obama”, and “not voting for Romney is voting for Obama” are the words I am chided and ridiculed with. In a conversation with my pastor a few weeks ago he spoke of a conversation he had with a “Christian” man a couple of years back. This man told my pastor that he was “prayerfully pro-choice”. My pastor had the same thought that hit me immediately, “you’re an idiot!!!!”(I would have voiced my thoughts but he was more discreet).
Rebellion against God is the malady that is destroying our nation. Abortion is accepted as “a woman’s right to choose”. That right to choose, at least as I read the Bible, ends at conception. God formed us in our mother’s womb it says in Jeremiah 1:5, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you. I ordained you a prophet to the nations”. I have been chided with “where is the word ‘abortion’ mentioned in the Bible?” so many times it sickens me. No, the word “abortion” is not in the Bible, but then the word “rapture” is not in the Bible either. I believe that everyone knows what the word “rapture” refers to and I don’t know any Christians who deny the Rapture is going to take place, regardless of what we call it. I believe “caught up” is the most commonly term used. I don’t know where the word “rapture” came from and don’t really care. The point is I understand the concept, regardless of the actual word or term used, as in the references to abortion in today’s vernacular.
“Gay rights” is another misnomer that too many Christians find acceptable under the political correctness tab. In 1 Corinthians 6:9, the Bible states very plainly that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God. I don’t know how anyone can construe that verse as God accepting homosexuality as “normal”. He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because Lot could not find five “righteous men”. In the context of the story I find that to mean he could not find five men who were not homosexuals.
Now I read that a new version of the Bible is being published that promotes, and even celebrates, homosexuality. How can any Christian not find that abhorrent? Churches are even ordaining openly homosexual men and women into the ministry in celebration of their “enlightenment and tolerance”. How can we expect God to honor this nation when that is the order of the day, not only in government, the courts, and secular society, but in our churches?
Some churches are now merging Christianity with Islam; calling is “Chrislam”, and once again celebrating their “enlightened” selves. Islam denies the divinity of Jesus Christ and that is acceptable in the name of “tolerance” to some church groups and some Christians? I don’t get it!!! I don’t care how people live their lives in private but society accepting what God calls evil is not the right thing to do. Tolerance and acceptance of these things is not what God calls for in His Word. Jesus called for us to “love the sinner but hate the sin”. Loving the sinner is not the same as enabling and accepting the sin.
Now we find Christians in such fear of another four years of Barack Obama that they will throw God aside and call me names because I refuse to vote for Mitt Romney, a man who openly embraces both abortion and “gay rights”. Romney is a Mormon, allegedly a Christian, but I don’t hold that against him. I know others who are Mormons but hold a much different attitude than does Mr. Romney. What I take issue with is his pandering to the evil that is destroying our nation in order to be “tolerant and inclusive”.
People are being deceived, as is stated will happen in the end times. Right has become wrong and wrong has become right. Standing on biblical principles today in America is cause for ridicule and derision. Calls of “bigot, homophobe, hater, right-winger”, and other vile names are used in order to marginalize and intimidate those who stand on Christian values, to silence any opposition. God is being pushed aside by those “enlightened ones” who know better and are more “tolerant and inclusive”. Those of us who stand by biblical concepts are treated ever more profanely as days go by.
Another four years of Obama may be “all my fault” but I cannot abandon God’s principles to gain the favor of those who are willing to abandon those same principles in order to be accepted in society. When the day of God’s judgment comes to the United States of America as a nation will you be able to say that you stood your ground and did what you could to stop the slide to oblivion? Many people laugh at and deride me now, and many who read this will add their voices of derision and laughter to the cacophony I now hear; but I think of the people who laughed at and derided Noah, until the rain started.
Voting for Romney because he isn’t quite as bad as Obama is not the answer to our nation’s woes. The spirit of fear gripping most Christians today is harmful to us personally and as a nation. That “spirit of fear” gripping our nation is rebellion against God. Until we are willing to stand and fight what seems to be a hopeless fight we will continue to lose because God will not be with us. How many times did the ancient Israelites win battles against hopeless odds because they put their faith in God instead of man? David beat Goliath because he stood when others were afraid to stand. David’s faith in God brought him through an impossible battle because he stood on that faith when the leaders of Israel failed to do so. Joshua at Jericho and Abraham rescuing Lot and the other captives with a token force of warriors are but two more examples of what we can do if we look to God instead of looking to man.
I will write in the name of John Albert Dummett Jr. (www.johndummett.us ) when I step into the voting booth in November. “He can’t win” and “you are wasting your vote” are the popular comments I hear, and that is most likely correct in a fearful and secular nation. John stands for the same values I stand for, and takes the same ridicule for his principles that I take. I will not vote out of fear of Obama and I will not vote for the lesser of two evils ever again. I am also voting for Dwayne Thompson (www.dwaynethompson.org ) in the Congressional race in my home district (Ok 2nd) because he stands on God’s principles, not on what sounds fancy to voters. Both of these men will tell you that God is the answer to our problems, not politicians. That is why I support them, because I believe in their message, and in God’s message. They desire to follow God’s word and the Constitution.
Somewhere, sometime, somehow we have to turn this nation around. There is only one way to accomplish that task and that is to get back to our founding fathers’ example. They relied on “divine providence” to lead them and I believe they did a bang up job of creating a nation that is the most free and most prosperous ever created. They didn’t do it by accident and they didn’t do it by relying on fear. They created our nation and our Constitution by prayer and by following the concepts laid out in God’s Word, the Holy Bible. We must get back to that concept if we are to survive as a free nation under the protection of Divine Providence. Any other concept will be met with continued failure and eventual slavery, poverty, tyranny, and death.
Compromising God’s Word is not an option for me. Voting for Romney would be a compromise of the most precious gifts God has given me and I will not do that. Regardless of who wins in November those of us who stand on our Christian principles and values will suffer greatly in this nation because evil will reign. God will not be with a nation who does not want Him and will not force anyone, or any nation, to follow Him. He will have His way in the end. Will you be there, regardless of the cost personally? Will you take the insults and derision to stand for God and the principles that were used to make our nation great or will you play it safe before man?
It may already be too late for America. Noah’s boat may have already sailed, but I am among those who still believe there is time for repentance. There are those crying in the wilderness for repentance of a sinful nation. Those voices are not being heard at this time and it is sad that is the case. A nation, One Nation Under God, is falling away from the very source of power that created it and will pay a terrible price very soon. 2 Chronicles 7:14 is the answer but too many Christians are failing to seek the right answer.
I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility give to me by almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.
May 29, 2012
My opposition to Mitt Romney has drawn a great deal of criticism from a variety of people. It seems my vote is the only one in the nation that actually counts. While that is flattering in one respect I find it rather disingenuous in another respect. Why is it that my refusal to vote for the lesser of two evils is the only factor in the destruction of our once great nation? I find more than enough reasons to refuse to vote for Mitty the Poo, the all-white Obama, based on my Christian faith and Mitty’s propensity to deny his faith in almost everything he stands for politically.
I have a great faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to carry me through whatever evil comes my way. To me, voting isn’t a question of voting for the one who is less dangerous than the other. My vote is based on what I believe God would have me do, on the standards set by Him and recorded in the Holy Bible. I will vote based on who I believe to be in compliance with God’s Word and the Constitution of the United States of America, a document written by men who took much of the content from biblical principles and guidelines.
Mitty the Poo, the all-white Obama claims to be a Christian man, a Mormon. I don’t care which church he is affiliated with, that is not my concern. My concerns about Mitty go so much deeper. How can a man who proclaims to be a Christian support abortion on demand? God’s Word says that he “knew us before we were even in the womb”. Does that not accentuate the idea of life at conception to a Christian? I understand that there are cases that can be made for abortion in instances of rape, but that is not where Mitty stands on the issue. How can a “conservative Christian” support the joke of the “gay rights” issue? I don’t agree that homosexuals should be hung from the nearest tree but I don’t believe they should be given special rights not afforded to the rest of us either, and neither does God’s Word. How can a man who claims to believe in the Constitution not believe in the rights of We the People to keep and bear arms as stated in the Second Amendment? How can a conservative candidate support Obamacare, a travesty that Mitty actually authored and has supported for several years?
God’s Word tells us to stand strong on biblical principles and to live our lives by His core values. People who will vote for Mitty out of fear of Obama are neither putting their faith in God, nor their trust in His “divine providence”.
Voting out of fear brought Adolph Hitler to power in Germany. People feared another stint with the Weimar Republic and voted in a guy who promised to “fundamentally transform” Germany. We are facing the same situation today. People fear what Obama will do in a second term, rightfully so, but are not looking at the other choice realistically. The mantra is “anyone but Obama, as long as it is Mitty”, and discounting any other option.
I will not vote for Mitty the Poo, the all-white Obama in November. I WILL NOT COMPLY with the party-line “vote for our guy because he isn’t quite as dangerous as the other guy” mentality. You see, I find Mitty to be just as dangerous as Obama in many respects. In addition to the items listed earlier, Mitty also has been bought and paid for by George Soros and the New World Order cabal. In case you haven’t heard, Soros has publicly endorsed Mitty as the best candidate for the Republican Party. That is enough on its own merit to stop me from voting for him, but isn’t the only reason I stand on. I hear people make a big deal out of the Olympics and how Mitty “saved” the event. What people are surprised to learn when I mention it is that Mitty “saved” the Olympics with $450 million federal tax dollars given to him by George W. Bush. This same money was denied to Mitty’s predecessor. I find that rather curious. If the money was insignificant to the treasury but vital to the Olympics, why wasn’t the money given to the first guy, and who did this money actually go to? And when you go look at how he balanced the state budget without tax increases you will find a substantial “federal tax donation” to the state treasury.
I will cast my vote for a man who I believe will actually stand up to the New World Order globalists and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, and We the People, against all enemies foreign and domestic. I want a President I can believe will do what is right, not just “hope” he will do what is right.
Voting for the lesser of two evils and hoping for a better candidate next time is not the answer. I heard that, and bought into it, many years ago. I voted for Bob Dole, one of the worst candidates that has ever run for the office of President of the United States, but he was “better than the alternative and we could get a better candidate the next time around”. It worked once because we wound up with Ronald Reagan but hasn’t worked out so well since then. I bought it again four years ago when I voted for the McCain/Palin Republican Party ticket. I actually voted for Sarah Palin, hoping they would win and McCain would die of a heart attack the next day and leave Palin as the President. I think that much of John McCain, and I remember how Mitty ran second to McCain in 2008. Four years ago Mitty was less conservative than John McCain but now he is miraculously the most conservative candidate available? Naw, I’m not buying the same 3 legged horse again.
My vote will be cast for John Albert Dummett (www.johndummett.us), as a write-in candidate if necessary. Wasting my vote? Voting for Obama? Insuring Obama gets a second term? NOOOOOO!!!!!!!!! I am exercising the discernment given to me by God and casting my vote for the man who will follow God’s Word and the Constitution rather than voting out of fear of another Obama term. I will vote for a man who will put what is best for the nation ahead of what is best for his cronies and the New World Order globalist cabal that so many of the Washington “elite” cater to.
I also hear the “he can’t win” line from people I talk to, and undoubtedly will hear the same from many who read this article. Can’t win? Why can’t he win? He “can’t win” because of all of the people in America who would rather vote for evil out of fear of the other evil running. Mitty the Poo doesn’t really have any support from conservative voters, and certainly not TEA Party people. If everyone who will vote for Mitty out of the fear of another four years of Obama would vote for John Dummett it would be a slam dunk win for conservative values, for God’s values, and for We the People. More importantly, it would be a victory for our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren.
We can never regain our freedom by voting for the lesser of two evils. We the People can only win if we have the courage of our founding fathers. I wonder how many people said George Washington could never beat the British, armed with the strongest army and the strongest navy in the world at the time. I wonder how many people cheered Neville Chamberlain when he came back from Europe with a paper signed by Adolph Hitler that guaranteed “peace in our time”, a peace “guaranteed” by selling Czechoslovakia to Hitler? I wonder how many people were joyous of the pact signed between Hitler and Stalin that prevented Germany from invading Russia in World War II. Oh, wait a minute; don’t I remember reading that something went wrong there?
Signing contracts, including voting, with evil out of fear of a greater evil is not in the best interests of anyone, particularly the future of our nation. Our Republic is gone and nearly to the point of no return. We now live under a dictatorial oligarchy and are in danger of finding ourselves living under a tyranny akin to that of Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, China, and many other repressive governments.
If you don’t have the courage to stand up for freedom now when will you find that courage? Will you stand and fight when they come for your bible, your guns, your food, or your home? Will you fight when they come to round your family up to be sent to the FEMA camps, also authorized under a Republican president and Congress? Or will you simply pack your one allowed suitcase and trod off to the slaughterhouse like the Jews did in Nazi Germany? Those willing to bow to tyranny out of fear now will not be willing to stand up for freedom when things get much worse. The Secret Service has already tried to intimidate Ted Nugent into submission over his remarks at the NRA convention a few weeks ago.
John Dummett (www.johndummett.us ) has received visits from the FBI, found his e-mail suddenly and mysteriously shut down, his computers hacked, and is receiving death threats. This is only the beginning. Those who believe things will be better under Mitty need to look at the last “conservative”/moderate president we elected. This “conservative”/moderate, along with a Republican Congress, and in addition to the FEMA camps, gave us the “Patriot” Act, Homeland Security, and the TSA. The last conservative/moderate Republican president did more to destroy our freedom than Bill Clinton. That “conservative”/moderate was George W. Bush.
Now is not the time to compromise with evil. Now is the time to stand up for freedom and vote for a man who is offering us a truly conservative platform. People who say I am wasting my vote or voting for Obama are wrong. Those voting out of fear of another Obama term are the ones wasting their votes. I am voting from a positive position, voting for a man I believe will follow through with what he promises and give us a presidency we can once again be proud of. I am voting for freedom now, not the hope that “someday” we will have an acceptable Republican candidate who will truly stand up for the values of God and our founding fathers.
Today, more than ever, we need a staunch conservative voice in the White House. We need more staunch conservative voices in Congress. John McCain, Orin Hatch, Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and the others who routinely ignore the Constitution in favor of Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi are not leaders. They are only interested in currying favor with despots to keep their seat in the back of Obama’s tyranny bus. All of the dictatorships I listed earlier have their parliaments or congresses but they are only rubber stamps of a dictator, men and women who will do whatever they have to do to keep their seats of power, wealth, and prestige.
We can no longer afford to vote out of fear. Our nation is teetering on the brink of outright dictatorship and appeasing despots never works out well for the pawns in the appeasement. We the People must show the courage of our founding fathers and those who have sacrificed their lives to preserve our freedom over the last 236 years. Voting for Mitty the Poo is appeasement, trying to curry favor with New World Order globalists who have nothing more than their own power. Voting for John Albert Dummett is a vote for freedom now and in the future.
April 23, 2012
Just when the average American thinks today’s government could not fall any further out of touch with reality…N.Y.C. Mayor Bloomberg has stopped food deliveries from charitable organizations that feed the homeless under the guise that… the homeless people of N.Y.C are just too fat! You just can not make this stuff up folks: From The Daily Caller we see the headline, NYC ban on unhealthy food at homeless shelters irks volunteers . Have churches and synogogues in N.Y.C. been proven guilty of poisoning the homeless with rotten meat or dangerous pesticide-laden veggies, causing Mayor Bloomberg’s nanny-state thugocracy to crack down on the folks feeding the homeless here? Not quite, as can be seen in the above-linked DC article: (emphasis added)
The source of the new ban is a mayor’s office policy memorandum. Mr. Stier, a senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research, who obtained a copy of the memo just weeks ago after being tipped off by a local cleric who said that his religious organization was being bullied by the city for providing food that allegedly contained too much salt and fat content to the homeless or near-homeless, senior citizens who were too aged to work, and recovering drug addicts and alcoholics.
Of course as with many nanny-state totalitarian edicts, the charities weren’t informed by the Mayor’s memorandum ahead of time, instead finding about the new N.Y.C. prohibition against donating food to homeless shelters until they showed up with donations:
“Churches and synagogues have been bringing food to city shelters for decades,” said Stier, a lawyer and a former official in Mayor Rudolph Giuliani’s administration. “Now they’re being turned away. Shelter managers told them they were forbidden by the city’s homeless department bureaucrats from accepting the food. The charities had to throw away the food.”
Of course in Mayor Bloomberg’s common sense ideologically-depraved world, denying food to the homeless will….. keep them from getting too obese. Homeless drug addicts will also be made “healthier” by the bureaucratic takeover of Bloomberg’s homeless food donations mandate by limiting the fat and salt content in any food donated to feed them. Of course, someone will still have to provide “healthy” food to the homeless and needy people of N.Y.C. Who will that be, hand-picked people from another long line of crony-capitalists from the Bloomberg organization whom are ready to reap massive tax breaks with their support for Bloomberg’s new “healthy homeless” policy? How will the more expensive “healthy food” for the N.Y.C homeless be paid for? How about the possibility of imposing more stealth tax increases on the already highest-taxed city in America to pay for this scheme, all under the guise of helping people?
Big government enforcer, Mayor Bloomberg and company are trying to imply that this healthy food mandate for homeless shelters will lead to “revolutionary” new ideology in eating habits across America in the future. Will the next starving homeless person you see eating out of a dumpster in N.Y.C. stop to read the ingredients label for salt and fat content before eating it? Only in Liberal La-La-Land would anyone actually believe that big-government excuse for Mayor Bloomberg’s latest round of tyranny, posing as concern for the “healthy” feeding of the homeless in N.Y.C.
The American Left has pushed the United States to the brink of Constitutional crisis. Whether or not the left agrees with conservatives regarding the unconstitutionality of its preferred laws, the perception of millions of Americans is that the country is in political crisis. This is the state of the nation because what have widely been agreed-upon as the “rules of the game,” as implied in liberal democracy, are being replaced in piecemeal fashion by progressives whose primary agenda is to unfetter the government. Whether or not some of the left’s methods of transforming the country should be considered illegal or unconstitutional is the subject of this essay.
The New Left rationalizes its “fundamental transformation” of the nation, with the tacit endorsement of using extra-constitutional or even unconstitutional means, by appealing to a crusader-like mission to remedy the supposed structural injustices of our legal system. Among the left’s devices of transformation are the linguistic redefinition of terms like “freedom” and “equality,” thereby impacting public law, and the opportunistic and pragmatic employment of power.
For the purposes of this article’s argument, the left’s motives will be assumed to be laudable and its ends moral. What will be focused on are the means of the left’s value-transmission and whether or not specific practices should be considered illegal or unconstitutional. The same moral framework intrinsically applies to the right. Although current issues like the proposed crackdown on pornography are not addressed, like reasoning applies to all ideological and political content. But the focus will specifically be upon the New Left, since its agenda is currently driving the dominant political party.
The New Left has undertaken a programme of utilizing culture as a method of ingraining its values into a public highly resistant to the temptations of socialism. The institutions that animate public discourse – the schools, universities, entertainment and news media, the courts – are indisputably dominated by intellectuals whose sympathies tend toward the political left.
Yet is it the power of the left’s ideas that has led to the fait accompli? Or has it been the abuse of the state’s apparatus to effect political change that is the explanation for the left’s success in certain institutions? Successively answering these two questions leads us to the distinction between a reasonable difference of opinion and active, ongoing sedition.
Ideas in and of themselves cannot legally be treasonous, but they can be seditious. As one dictionary points out, “Sedition is any act, writing, speech, etc., directed unlawfully against state authority, the government, or constitution, or calculated to bring it into contempt or to incite others to hostility, ill will or disaffection; it does not amount to treason and therefore is not a capital offense.” Yet the same dictionary points out that sedition is the “incitement of discontent or rebellion against a government.” There is a tension in the American public’s view of what constitutes sedition and treason and this can be explained by our nation’s ideologically charged history.
In American history, the Founders were considered by the British to be seditious or even treasonous. They thus staked “their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honors” when they rebelled against the Crown. But by the end of the eighteenth century, the U.S. government had already passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which suppressed political speech deemed to be a threat to the interests of the state. The Wilson administration continued this dark legacy of speech repression with its passage of the Espionage and Sedition Acts, which anarchists and socialists particularly rued. The subsequent Red Scare and the McCarthy era are commonly pointed to by left-leaning academics as exemplars of free speech suppression of the worst type. But scratch the surface of these cries of foul-play and one finds that the hard left actively suppresses speech whenever it is politically expedient or the conditions are ideologically favorable.
Although the practice should not be commended, the suppression of speech should not be illegal so long as the institution is privately owned or operated. But what crosses the line of amorality into immorality is the practice of an institution that receives federal funds or subsidies suppressing free speech or engaging in speech with political implications (a broader definition than is currently accepted). The reason this practice is morally indefensible is because the fruits of a citizen’s labor should not be confiscated or purposely diminished in value in order to finance speech that may run against an individual’s freedom of conscience. This runs directly contrary to any “open society.”
Thus, it is immoral for public schools, universities, or state-financed media outlets to receive federal funding and to promote a political ideology that is not in accordance with the agreed-upon rules of the game. It is immoral to promote coercive means, as implied in the advocacy of the use of state force, in order to impose one’s ideology on others or to silence one’s intellectual opposition. Yet this is precisely what the progressive left does on a routine basis in our schools and universities, as countless testimonials online avouch.
The intolerance of the “tolerant” left when it comes to ideology is rapidly becoming infamous. But whether or not those on the radical left vehemently disagree with those on the so-called right is not the point. Communists, socialists, fascists, racists, homophobes, xenophobes, Islamophobes have that right.
Neither is it the point that the content of the left’s speech may sometimes be seditious by nature, in the sense that progressives occasionally support unconstitutional means for imposing their contrarian morality upon others. This is sometimes the case.
The point is that the radical left’s behavior of suppressing the speech of its ideological opponents, whether in our public schools, colleges, universities, or publicly funded media ought to be illegal. This brings us to the next dilemma, which cuts at the core of free speech rights. The conclusion is the ultimate solution to the problem of public funds being utilized to promote sedition.
The New Left: Institutionalizing Sedition
The modern struggle over freedom of speech can be traced to the post-McCarthyite era, when many radicals reacted by insisting on absolute freedom of speech on our college and university campuses. The Berkeley Free Speech Movement (FSM) embodies such a movement. FSM leader Mario Savo put his aims such:
The First Amendment exists to protect consequential speech; First Amendment rights to advocacy come into question only when actions advocated are sufficiently limited in scope, and sufficiently threatening to the established powers. The action must be radical and possible: picket lines, boycotts, sit-ins, rent strikes. The Free Speech Movement demanded no more — nor less — than full First Amendment rights of advocacy on campus as well as off: that, therefore, only the courts have power to determine and punish abuses of freedom of speech. The Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate endorsed this position on December 8, 1964 by declaring against all University regulation of the content of speech or advocacy — by a vote of 824 to 115.
Yet as with many political matters with the left, the issue is not the issue. Professor of Sociology William Peterson at California-Berkeley wrote the following of the FSM, as cited in Ayn Rand’s essay “The Cashing In: The Student Rebellion” as found in The Return of the Primitive:
The first fact one must know about the Free Speech Movement is that it has little or nothing to do with free speech. If not free speech, what then is the issue? In fact, preposterous as this may seem, the real issue is the seizure of power.“
This is the real crux of the issue: whether or not the left is attempting to abuse and refuse public access to speech in order to promote its accrual of power. The aspects of public discourse known as political correctness, hate speech, free speech zones (implying one is not free to speak elsewhere), the Fairness Doctrine, FCC regulations, net neutrality rules, or other speech codes, when accompanied by the state subsidy, advocacy, or suppression of certain kinds of speech, should be struck down as unconstitutional. Likewise, peacable protest in a public forum should not be restricted.
Yet the left restricts speech whenever it is politically expedient or ideologically favorable to do so. One can trace the left’s usage of free speech as a shield to advocate seditious ideas to the movement’s hardline communist thinkers.
Many might think this is controversial statement or a bridge too far in argumentation. But ideological literacy and the ability to navigate the terrain of the abstract leads one to this conclusion. If one examines the history of ideas, one is not persuaded that the left’s switch from classical liberal assumptions to essentially socialist ones happened as if from out of nowhere. With that in mind, Lenin said:
“Freedom is a bourgeois prejudice. We repudiate all morality which proceeds from supernatural ideas or ideas which are outside the class conception. In our opinion, morality is entirely subordinate to the interests of the class war. Everything is moral which is necessary for the annihilation of the old exploiting order and for the uniting the proletariat. Our morality consists solely in close discipline and conscious warfare against the exploiters.”
When one recognizes that the American left rejects “bourgeois morality,” all of its idiosyncrasies and apparent hypocrisies when it comes to freedoms and rights become crystallized into an integrated understanding. And as the socialist Nikolai Bukharin wrote in the “The Programme of the World Revolution“:
The following is now clear to the workers and peasants. The party of the Communists not only allows no freedom (such as liberty of the press, speech, meetings, unions, etc.) for the bourgeois enemies of the people, but goes still further and demands of the government to be always ready to close the bourgeois press, to break up gatherings of the enemies of the people, to forbid their lying and libelling, and sowing panic; the party must mercilessly suppress all attempts of the bourgeoisie to return to power. And this is what is meant by dictatorship of the proletariat.
This is not to purport that all members of the left are communists or even recognize themselves as socialists. There are divisions on the left and major distinctions between de Tocqueville liberals, progressives, social democrats, democrat socialists, Fabian socialists, Maoists, Marxist-Leninists, and so on. But resorting again to the often-overlooked collection of essays written by Ayn Rand on the New Left, cited above, we can begin to appreciate the connection between socialist goals and “democratic” or “pragmatic” means:
The general tone of the reports was best expressed by a headline in the New York Times, March 15, 1965: “The New Student Left: Movement Represents Serious Activists in Drive for Changes.” What kind of changes? No specific answer was given in the almost full page story – just “changes.” Some of these activists, who liken their movement to a revolution, want to be called radicals. Most of them, however, prefer to be called “organizers.” Organizers of what? Of deprived people. For what? No answer. Just “organizers.”
Delving deeper into the background of two specific radicals, Saul Alinsky and William Ayers, both of import in terms of their association with the current president, we find indispensable linkages between what is widely considered on the right to be socialist or communist in thinking and the radical pragmatic terms of the father of community organizers Saul Alinsky.
Leftists hold up Alinsky as an innocuous toiler on behalf of the working class because they agree with his ethical ends and because he justifies their power lust. A passage from Jim Geraghty’s article “The Alinsky Administration” shows the left’s moral equivocation of New Left radicals with The Founding Fathers:
Alinsky sneered at those who would accept defeat rather than break their principles: “It’s true I might have trouble getting to sleep because it takes time to tuck those big, angelic, moral wings under the covers.” He assured his students that no one would remember their flip-flops, scoffing, “The judgment of history leans heavily on the outcome of success or failure; it spells the difference between the traitor and the patriotic hero. There can be no such thing as a successful traitor, for if one succeeds he becomes a founding father.” If you win, no one really cares how you did it.
Alinsky is right in that history is written by the victors. But he is wrong in that there is a moral equivalence between rebelling from tyranny and imposing tyranny. The Founders’ goal was to free men from political coercion and economic enslavement (see the “rough draught” of The Declaration of Independence, e.g.), not to utilize the state to economically restrict, manipulate, or exploit citizen-laborers or otherwise determine the winners and losers in the economy. Again, this cannot be justified as moral by any stretch of the imagination. These counter-revolutionary practices are nakedly tantamount to wielding sheer power and building for power. Another passage, from Ryan Lizza’s “Barack Obama’s Unlikely Political Education“:
The first and most fundamental lesson Obama learned was to reassess his understanding of power. Horwitt says that, when Alinsky would ask new students why they wanted to organize, they would invariably respond with selfless bromides about wanting to help others. Alinsky would then scream back at them that there was a one-word answer: “You want to organize for power!”
Years later in 2007, The New Republic’s Ryan Lizza interviewed then-senator Obama and found him still “at home talking Alinskian jargon about ‘agitation,'” and fondly recalling organizing workshops where he had learned Alinsky-esque concepts like “being predisposed to other people’s power.”
When confronted with public discussion about Obama’s verifiable Alinsky ties, leftists either shrug or deny them. Now, it is not illegal or seditious to community organize, per se, like our president did. It should not be purported that the concept of empowering the “underprivileged” is ethically wrong, either. But what is wrong is using the government as an aegis to deprive others of private property and to redistribute the expropriated funds to any political clients, whether they are members of an underclass or corporations. This political activity is not protected by The Constitution even by stretching the General Welfare Clause or the Fourteenth Amendment; and for good reason. The effects are particular in that these political activities harm certain parties and benefit others (including the redistributive party). So why does the left claim this activity is moral, and therefore, should be legal (and due to the deformation of the law, is legal)?
Implied in the left’s moral claims, to elucidate the ethical clash between left and right, is the concept best expressed in Michel Foucault’s “The Subject and Power, “A society without power relations can only be an abstraction.” Yet this supposed bit of sophisticated insight is a grotesquery. It does not harm another person in society for an individual to better himself, or to voluntarily collaborate with a group, or to labor for a commercial enterprise. Selling one’s labor is not akin to slavery because labor is a necessary aspect of human existence; and by extension, working within a capitalist society is in no way tantamount to slavery or is it morally relatable to the state’s coercive expropriation of the fruits of citizens’ labor, whether the state is democratically elected or not. Voluntary labor is not akin to slavery nor is it akin to indentured servitude; one can abstain from participating in the market. The fact that a person will starve or be relatively deprived without providing valued labor in a market does not make the capitalist system unjust, it makes the reality of being human what it is. One is not entitled to force another person to labor on one’s behalf; a disabled person is not able to labor and therefore, it is our nation’s shared value of protecting life that justifies the public policy of subsidizing that citizen’s living expenses.
Thus, bearing this legal and moral argument in mind, when conservatives are disturbed by the political activities of the community organizer Saul Alinsky or those of the unrepentant domestic terrorist and avowedly communist William Ayers, the latter being politically associated by his own admission with the president, we are not distraught about a mere difference of opinion. We are concerned about the left’s seditious activities, particularly when they are accompanied by state force. Whether or not one supports sedition is besides the point; it cannot be moral to impose one’s views on another using force. The entire concept of morality is gutted. We can now expand on the divergence in moral thinking between Constitutional conservatives and the hard left, and why the latter should be considered wrong on the issue of using state force to effect extra-constitutional and unconstitutional change.
The American left commonly dismiss “right-wing” arguments because they believe that power structures are inescapable (in other words, voluntarism is illusory because society irresistibly conditions men’s thinking). If there is so such thing as private property, a minority irrefutably controls something that others do not; this drives the left to seek out the “democratization” of the economy. They see this as a pragmatic means of supplying the means to meet the needs and wants of the masses.
What many on the right call the communist or socialist left is by all appearances an activist left animated by a stripped-bare, non-ideologically driven bent to resolve “issues.” Since power is inherently a part of politics, those on the left reason, there is no point quarreling about immoral means, but rather we should all be getting on with furthering moral ends. Those who get in the way are inherently wrong.
But it cannot be shirked off that one cannot remedy evil by committing or tolerating evil. One cannot remedy injustice by committing injustice. There is moral condemnation on the left of such judgmental thinking and certitude, which is labeled either simplistic or outright authoritarian. True, principles are simplistic; but their application to reality is infinitely complex and they constitute the difference between what is moral and immoral.
Our political system of liberal democracy is a political mechanism for allowing the settlement of ideological differences in a civil society. But when coercive power is utilized by one party over another, ideology is besides the point. There is an objective standard for morality, as Ayn Rand points out. Killing another person is not a matter of ideology, it is a matter of physically ending another person’s life. Stealing is not a matter of ideology, it is a matter of forcibly taking something that does not rightfully belong to a given person, all considerations about the production of the given product implied. There are objective ways to determine morality. Not everything is subjective or “ideological” in the dismissive “that’s just your opinion” sense.
So let us reframe the issue and address the key problem. The New Left program of cultual marxism creates a dilemma – is it legitimate to change the culture using legal, constitutional means in order to unconstitutionally change the political system?
The threshold of when sedition becomes treason is met when political power is used to violate individual rights, such as life, liberty, and property. Property rights are violated when wealth is confiscated and used for ways that go well beyond the protection of life and property. Liberty is restricted when laws are passed that impair one’s ability to express himself or to make his own living. Life is violated when a human being is allowed to be killed without legal repercussions or when people are sent to war against their will and without due process.
Censorship or violation of individual rights cannot be justified by appeal to ideology. There is no right to tyranny. There is no moral justification for de facto slavery. The underpinning argument for all civil rights legislation is that all men are created equal in a legalistic sense. Yet the left undercuts the foundational basis of our laws by advocating policies that tacitly imply freedom is enslavement and race is an insurmountable handicap. Thus, progressives undermine our legal system when they pass laws that undercut property rights and the freedom of association, which implies that men are not created equal and therefore need special state privileges.
The left’s remedy for perceived injustice is often more injustice. Instead of appealing to reason, the left resorts to force when it suppresses public speech. It often does so on the grounds of protecting minorities or the underprivileged or some other group. But the harm of a verbal or negative injustice is greatly outweighed by a coercive or positive one. One does not empower some citizens by impairing other citizens’ rights; one only establishes a condition of enfeebled dependency on the state.
Likewise, one cannot harm another by failing to perform a duty or service for another person. Such reasoning cannot be a basis for rights, properly understood. Men are not born slaves or indentured servants of other men, whether directly or via the aegis of government. One is not owed anything by virtue of merely existing.
Thus, there is no right to tyranny. There is freedom of sedition; yet there is no freedom to commit treason, as is entails establishing a dictatorship (nominally proletarian or otherwise). The weapons of words are allowable in the arena of political combat; but once those words are put onto paper as laws and undercut the Constitutionally protected individual rights of speech, association, religion, and self-defense, words can become treasonous.
The president accumulating power in the executive branch is a form of sedition, but it is not treason unless the legislative branch of government rules it so. The government is effectively usurping legislative power by shifting it into a fourth branch – a bureaucratic one, insulated from the legislative branch by a wall of separation, erected through uncompetitive federal labor laws. The market does not affect government as it does the rest of us (at least those of us the government does not rig the game for). But the legislative branch needs to counteract this assault on The Constitution or the legal recourse is lacking.
The president took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend The Constitution of the United States. Yet, the credentialed constitutional scholar complained that The Constitution says what the government cannot do to people, but it does not say what the government can do for people on their behalf. The president has the right to hold such seditious views. But the president does not have the right to commit treason by imposing his preferred brand of tyranny on fellow citizens through democratically elected office.
The solution to the problem of “political correctness” being used to erode Americans’ rights is to support the marketization of education and to oppose the federal funding or subsidization of any and all specific ideological or political content. The lynchpin institution is education. Re-establish it as an open forum for political ideas, and the restitution of classical liberal values and liberal democracy follows. This makes the difference between the public’s acceptance of the legitimacy of unconstitutional rule or rejection of it. On such a mission the nation’s fate as a free country or a socialist tyranny depends.
In two previous articles we looked at the way the media is brainwashing American citizens into accepting tyranny and what can be done to stop the trend. Ben Kinchlow wrote a very interesting and on target article talking about the media and their methods of subjugating We the People using brainwashing techniques.
We don’t have to continue down this road of apathy and acceptance that is taking us to tyranny, poverty, and slavery. We can stand up and take our country back but it will require courage on our part. It takes courage to stand up for freedom but what is courage?
The 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence showed a great deal of courage. If the colonies had lost the war they would have all been rounded up and executed. They knew the chance they were taking by putting their names on that document; it was there for the entire world to see. There was no hiding, no way to excuse what they had done, no turning back once they had signed. They knew what they were doing and that their lives were in the balance. These men showed just as much courage as those who faced the muskets, bayonets, and cannons of the British army. Our founding fathers had the courage of their convictions. They knew what freedom meant and they knew what it would take to have that freedom. They pledged “their lives, their fortunes, and their Sacred Honor” to the cause of freedom, not only for themselves but for generations to come.
Courage isn’t just facing death on the battlefield. Courage is also standing in the face of ridicule and derision. Courage is standing for a cause when there is seemingly so much opposition and so little support. Courage is standing in the face of hopeless defeat and saying; “Not here, not now, not on my watch”. Courage is being a leader, not sitting back where it is “safe”. Our founding fathers showed courage. Most of them never stepped foot on a battlefield yet showed the same courage as those who fought throughout the Revolutionary War, and in subsequent wars.
Today we face a tyranny similar to that of King George III. We face a Congress and an occupant of the White House, King Barack I, who ignore the very document these men so courageously gave to us, The Constitution of the United States of America. We face a media apparatus complicit in the denial of our basic freedoms. It is up to We the People to rectify the media and politician problem with knowledge and courage.
Seeing the problem is a key component, but knowledge without action is useless. If fear of the future and the acquiescence to tyranny is acceptable, you will never know a better life, only a decaying future fraught with tyranny, poverty, and slavery. When enough people have the moral strength and courage to break from the template and refuse to accept what is happening to us we will win. On that day we will see victory over those who are slipping our freedom out from under our very feet.
John Dummett and Tim Cox , both mentioned in the previous article, are two of the leaders out there trying to make a difference. One is running for office, the other is recruiting grassroots people to run for Congress, and people to help them. John is ignored by the media while taking on Barack Obama’s eligibility, but still he continues in his quest for the truth. Restoring the Constitution and the freedom it affords is his number one goal. Where does your favorite mainstream presidential candidate stand on this issue?
There are others trying to save this republic. Some run for office, others do campaign and organizing work in their communities, many more make calls for support of candidates, some give financial support, and all of us can vote for freedom or accept tyranny. We have good people at the grassroots level within the Republican Party trying to regain control for We the People. The leaders are out there. They need the support of those of us who profess to want a real alternative. Here is that alternative. You can pick up the gauntlet and earn your freedom or you can sit back and accept less and less until you accept tyranny, poverty, and slavery.
Will you be part of a future of freedom or will you sit back and accept the inevitable future being painted by the media and their political allies? Will you accept the life afforded by a dictator who promises you everything but delivers only what HE decides you need; or will you take a stand for a future of freedom, self-determination, personal responsibility, and prosperity?
The Constitution offers opportunity for those who will have it. The media, along with Democrat and Republican establishment political machines, offer a mediocre promise that will never be kept. You can stand for freedom now or bow to tyrants later. If you can’t see that by now I don’t know what else to tell you. We can no longer buy into nor participate in the hype. We cannot compromise the Constitution, and the future of freedom, by voting for the lesser of two evils.
At this time I am hard at work from within the Republican Party, trying to help those who would return the party to We the People. It can be done but it will take a commitment from people who have the courage to step outside the box and stand up for freedom. In this case it truly “takes a village”. Will you meekly vote, out of fear, for what the establishment offers you or will you stand for true freedom from elitist tyranny? Are you willing to be a part of the village that restores our nation to the vision of our founding fathers? Do you have the courage to stand in the face of ridicule, threats, and mockery to save the future of your nation? Will you step outside the box and support a dark horse or will you submit to the party establishment, accept their offer of “this or else”, and continue on a course towards slavery and tyranny?
If you wait to act until you don’t have any other choice you have already lost, our republic will be lost. Waiting until we are forced to fight for our lives is not courage, it is animal survival. A cornered animal isn’t a brave animal, it is a desperate one. Being cornered and desperate isn’t the way to fight this battle. The final door to the trap won’t shut until we are all the way in. You don’t have to continue walking into the trap; you can stop at the door and say NO!!! John Dummett and Tim Cox are two men who offer us a real alternative. Will you take them up on their offer or will you continue into tyranny, poverty, and slavery?
I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.
March 10, 2012