The Patriot's Wake-Up Call

The Mosque Mask: Why Neo-Cons are as bad their espoused Progressive enemies

2010-08-04T19:47:00.000-07:00

I have been invited to groups on facebook, drawn into conversations with seemingly less-mature “conservative” thinkers, and generally annoyed by sycophantic apparatchiks on talk radio like Sean Hannity concerning this seemingly-pressing “controversy.” You all know to that which I refer, the “Ground Zero” mosque.

On a recent drive home from the firm I heard the “friend” of every caller, that “Great American,” railing on how, because the Imam who heads said mosque “refuses to condemn Hezbollah” and advocates “Sharia law compatibility” within the U.S., of course the mosque should be blocked by governmental force from being constructed and the Imam and his ilk should be investigated by “the F.B.I. and the Department of Homeland Security.” He went on to state that when a person’s intellectual positions pose a direct threat to, or fundamentally oppose, the Constitution or “the American way of life,” a similar fate should befall any such “enemy of the state.

Pardon my French, but WHAT THE HELL?

It is not that I am surprised by the GOP stooge’s response in this matter. However, I am utterly disappointed by the numerous callers who poured onto the lines to rally behind Hannity.

Ironically enough, the next segment Hannity went on to resume his critique of “Big Government” and its myriad ills. How can one mind be so contradictory and not explode?

However, back to Hannity’s argument. He honestly stated that, because Homeland Security had a standing investigation directed at the Imam, and because Hezbolllah is a “known terrorist entity,” and, ostensibly, the Imam supported that entity, the Imam was now subject to “common sense” curtailing of fundamental constitutional rights.

In short, because Hannity does not agree with the Imam, Hannity is in favor of governmental persecution of the man simply because of his objectionable stance.

The following are two arguments which need to, and have not been, posed to pinhead non-thinkers like Hannity and his Neo-Con friends.

1.

Thought, and almost always words, are not crimes. Thinking and speaking is all that has been asserted to be the extent of the Imam’s “crimes.” Despite Hannity’s contention to the contrary, the Imam’s words are not tantamount to “yelling fire in a crowded theater.”

It is well-established legal concept that for one to have committed an inchoate crime, i.e. conspiracy toward or attempted sedition/treason in this case, one must make a substantial step or actually agree to commit such an act with others, in order for a crime to have been committed.

Said commission of crime is the only auspices upon which one can have his liberty to think and speak as he chooses curtailed. Simply put, the concept advanced by Hannity, et al. is the quintessential “slippery slope.”

Ironically, Hannity often rails against the much-feared “fairness doctrine,” and goes on and on about how such legislation would only stand as a thinly-veiled attempt by his detractors to “shut him up.” More often than not, he then wraps himself in the American Flag and speaks with a cracking voice about how political disagreement and debate stand at the bedrock of American society.

It seems as if, on this one issue and many others (can you say Patriot Act?), Neo-Cons and Progressives are on the same page. The only constant thread remaining amongst the two groups being BIG GOVERNMENT TRAMPLING UPON THE CONSTITUTION FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER!

2.

Has it been that long that Hannity and his ilk have forgotten their “outrage” at the same Department of Homeland Security lionized in this instance? Remember M.I.A.C.? It seems as if Mr. Hannity must, to remain consistent, approve of the censorship and labeling as “terrorists” Tea Party goers, libertarians, Ron Paul supporters, and even returning veterans.

Should the Tea Parties be investigated for their links to right-wing “extremist” terrorist entities? Should their right to disagree and perhaps even to own property be curtailed, because some find them dangerous?

I am sure the much-maligned Progressives find the bulk of Hannity's political stances to pose just as substantial a threat to the American way of life.

That is precisely the reason one does not advocate the intervention of Big Brother into any disagreement. Unless of course, you are statist authoritarian piece of human refuse, as I wholly suspect you are.

So, what lesson are we to take from this whole distraction? If you lie down with dogs, you get fleas; and, if our Republic is to stand we need to watch with whom and for what reasons we advocate that which we do. If you got a problem, pick up a marker and poster board and tell someone, but don’t sell your eternal rights for the momentary thrill of frustrating your enemies

Easter Thoughts. Christ is Risen!

2010-04-07T07:54:00.000-07:00

I thought this would be appropriate for the Paschal Season. I pray you all have a glorious and blessed Bright Week.

Messianic prophetical passages of the Old Testament are key to legitimacy of not only God’s inspired word; but in them also lies the power derived from the literal nature of the one foreshadowed within them. Over three hundred passages contained within the Old Testament are described by scholars as, at the very least, analogous, if not blatantly saturated with, messianic intimation. The overwhelming consensus among Christian theology scholars is that these, almost all, to the letter, point to Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah promises by God in these ancient messages. Proponents of Christ’s divinity have calculated that the chances of another fulfilling anything close to the amount of prophecy fulfilled within the thirty three years of Christ’s life are virtually one in the hundreds of billions. Christ’s fulfillment of the law and the prophecy of the Old Testament are the rock upon which most analytically-minded Christians build their belief on Christ as their redeemer, and are the basis of their refuge within Him; in that He is “The Truth,” the one and only Son of God ,the Messiah. Christ’s, and others’ within Christ’s life, literal and sometimes verbatim fulfillment of theses prophecies sits in the crux of the Christian movement, and are integral to the understanding that Christ is indeed the singular avenue of communion with, and absolution by, God the Father. This literal mind set is the vein in which a good bulk of these passages were written, and is central to a theme of true faith. Perhaps this theme is better explained by Dr. A.A. van Ruler.

“It is not good enough to point only to the prophetic, ethical knowledge of God that shines out in the form of the New Testament Christ in which the brightest rays of the Old Testament find a common focus… From the Old Testament standpoint Jesus Christ is either of theological significance only as a historical fact - as an act of God in the history with His people Israel - or He is of no significance at all”1

In this paper I will enumerate eight specific aspects of the twenty second Psalm, cited most liberally by scholars as one of, if not the most strictly adhered too, and literally fulfilled, Messianic scripture within the Old Testament. Which both not only defines it as accurate, but through it’s fulfillment, ensconces Christ as the “Truth” as well.

“My God, my God why have you forsaken me?”2 The Psalm opens with a plea of an abandoned man, embodied, at the time it was written, by King David in the face of an uprising by his half son, Absalom. However, nearly a thousand years later, on Calvary, Christ, dying on the cross, reiterates this phrase in the face of his own persecution, betrayal, and feeling of God’s distance in His time of most need.

“But I am a worm, and no man; I am the scorn of men and despised by the people. All they see me laugh me to scorn: They shake the head saying, He trusted and rolled himself on the Lord that he would deliver him. Let Him deliver him seeing that He delights in him.”3 The sixth verse is a testament to the betrayal and hate felt by Christ, from the very people he had healed, raised from the dead, and been welcomed as a king by only a week before. The seventh and eight verse of the Psalm are with slight variation a direct quote of the mocking crowd and Pharisees witnessing Christ’s crucifixion. The verbiage of the Psalm runs almost totally parallel to that described and related in the gospels of the New Testament especially that found in the twenty-seventh chapter of Matthew. The origin of some of the most scathing mockery, i.e. that of the Pharisees, is a testament to the inexorable power of the Lord to fulfill His word through/in spite of whatever earth-bound conflict may oppose its fulfillment.

“I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint. My heart is like wax; it is softened and melted down within me. My strength is dried up like a fragment of clay pottery my tongue cleaves to my jaws;”4

Authorities agree that the out of joint bones and perhaps the heart of wax, due to the immense blood loss suffered in crucifixion, can be directly correlated to Christ’s experience on the cross. Other nuances, however, of this passage are more spiritual in nature, and yet, even so, no less palpable in its relation of both the agony and overall spiritual victory won for us all on Calvary, as Christ conquered death by death.

“I was poured out like water and all my bones were scattered” (ver 14). “I was poured out like water”, when my persecutors fell: and through fear, the stays of My body, that is, the church, My disciples were scattered from Me. “My heart becomes of melting wax, in the midst of my belly.” My wisdom which was written of Me in sacred books, was, as if hard and shut up, not understood: but after that fire of My passion was applied, it was, as if melted, manifested, and entertained in the memory of My church.”5

The latter part of this passage, many believe, is yet another literal and quantifiable example of utter fulfillment. Fulfilled, in this case, in the book of John chapter nineteen; when knowing that His mission had been accomplished, Christ speaks of thirst.

Verse sixteen of the Psalm is, at one time, one of the most concrete and blatant examples of literal fulfillment, and also one of the most ardently contested aspects of the entire text. “[A] company of evildoers has encircled me, they pierce my hands and feet,”6 this excerpt from the verse can most undoubtedly be applied to the crucifixion, in that Christ’s hands and feet were nailed to the cross. However, opponents to Christ’s divinity claim that the original Hebrew used in the Psalm differs in the intimation of the word commonly translated as “pierced.” The focus of the controversy lie in the two similar Hebrew words of KeAri, meaning to pierce like a lion, and Kari, meaning in actuality to puncture, later modified to pierce. The Christian literalist retort to this dilemma is embodied in the following quote.

“The two may be easily confused. Since the Hebrew had no written vowels – only vowel sounds - some think the confusion may have resulted from a misunderstanding in pronunciation. Craigie offers this view and says that the “like a lion” rendition “presents numerous problems and can scarcely be correct”. Even the very liberal Interpreter’s Bible which repudiates the passage as being prophetic of the crucifixion of Christ, says that “like a lion” does not make sense in the context.”7

“I can count all my bones: they gaze at me,”8 verse seventeen; in most opinions, is a direct commentary and description of a two-fold fulfillment on Calvary. One, the visibility of bones was not an uncommon occurrence in reference to scourged prisoners, in that the use of the “cat of nine tails” was in common implementation in this time period. This mode of whipping was renowned for its ability to separate flesh from bone, and leaving gaping holes in the skin and musculature enough for bone to show through. Two, in Luke chapter twenty-three the crowd of mockers and mourners that followed Christ to his crucifixion is described, this is a most probable source of the gazes embodied in the passage.

The casting of lots to divide the clothes of the Messiah, by centurions at the scene of the crucifixion, described in John chapter nineteen, are yet another example of strict contextual adherence to verse eighteen of the Psalm. This verse describes the exact behavior expounded upon in John’s gospel. Use of the word raiment is significant in the Psalm, in that a raiment is most commonly defined as a seamless tunic of sorts; one close in nature to that reportedly worn by Christ during His ministry.

Verse twenty-two of the Psalm is one that, while having little to do with the passion on Calvary, has much to do with the identity of the persecuted man, Himself. “I will declare Your name: in the midst of the congregation will I praise you.”9 The significance of this passage is that, over and over again in all four gospels, a large portion of Christ’s ministry does, in fact, take place on the temple grounds. His ministry focused at these times on a convergence of faith in the true and living God, and a direct affront to the God presented and enthroned in hypocrisy by the Pharisaical leadership of the day.

Verse thirty-one of the Psalm personifies and expounds upon the victory over the tyranny of sin afforded us by Christ, in the fulfillment of His purpose and mission on Earth. This final victory is foreshadowed in the verse, “They shall declare His righteousness to a people yet to be born – That He has done it.”10. This final phrase in all but direct syntax and verbiage is mirrored by Christ in Chapter nineteen, verse thirty, of John’s gospel, when Christ proclaims victoriously that “[i]t is finished.” The culmination of victory and the relief of ultimate sacrifice in the face of hatred, and a saving of a people in spite of themselves, I feel, are most appropriately expressed by St. Augustine.

“‘The generation to come shall be declared to the Lord.’ The generations of the New Testament shall be declared to the honour of the Lord. ‘And the heavens shall declare His righteousness.’ And the evangelists shall declare His righteousness. ‘To a people that shall be born, whom the Lord hath made.’ To a people that shall be born to the Lord through faith.”11

In conclusion, one is left with an overriding awe at the purity and accuracy of the fulfillment of the events described in the Psalm, and the almost mirror image of said events depicted in the gospels. Awe for God and the faithful nature of both He and His word. In this vein, one is confronted with no choice but to focus on the prophecies yet to be fulfilled within the Bible as not merely a representation of possible events, but more of a diagram for the end of the age ushered in by the universality of redemption embodied within Christ risen. For one to choose to accept Christ as a literal fulfillment of prophecy, and, at the same time, deny or rationalize the validity of fulfillment yet to come, would be to undermine the analytical basis upon which one’s salvation lies. In essence, as Paul said, a form of godliness which denies the power within it. The power of God’s words and His promises lie, in part, in the fulfillment of divine prophecy. So, to deny the inevitability of the total fulfillment of all prophecy is the definition of the absence of faith. As a Christian, I feel the compulsion, if not the duty, to expect the resurrection of the dead and a life in the world to come; in short, if God inspired it all for His ends, then those ends will never be left loose. Perhaps Paul Boyer puts it best.

“Most Christians throughout history have believed in God’s providential oversight of history. Most still do today, to judge by the formal creedal statements of all major Christian groups… who teach that God at the beginning of time determined a specific, detailed plan for history.”12

I believe that this statement is essential to true faith in God as our Master, and as evidenced by Psalm twenty-two, as Christ as our savior.

Ryan Sorba versus Students for Liberty - "Gays at CPAC controversy"

2010-02-24T08:46:00.000-08:00

Said controvesy can be seen here.

I think the real argument is over the application of not rights in general to homosexuals, but rather the authority being vested in them, as a protected class, to claim a violation of said rights because they are homosexual. Other groups are assigned such a power based upon their being classes of people who cannot choose whether to be a member of said class, i.e. women, racial groups, etc.. Even the most vehement of homosexual activists describe their sexual orientation as a "lifestyle choice," as most assertions that homosexuality is a biological phenomenon have been dismissed scientifically. (For example here) The argument turns on whether a special and particular power to redress "discrimination" should be vested in a group that simply makes a volitional choice? Further, should true lovers of liberty criticize those who choose to exercise their liberty by refraining from associating with people who make such choices?

There may be made a certain argument that discrimination against those without a choice as to their situation in life should be curbed, but that argument, however suspect constitutionally, is not, by any means, analogous to the one made by homosexuals. Should homosexuals be restrained in exercising their constitutional right, absolutely not, as such an infraction upon their rights represents a slippery slope to everyone's rights being infringed. However, to infringe upon the rights of all to associate with whom they wish, simply because such freedom is seen as a deleterious consequence of another's choices, is truly and unabashedly unconstitutional and averse to liberty as a concept.

Homosexuality is admitted and proven to be a choice, all choices have consequences. Even JS Mill would agree. Being free from the consequences of one's choices is by no means a constitutional right. I feel that those asserting themselves as lovers of liberty should not support anyone who would make such assertions, as it stands as totally antithetical to their espoused beliefs.

However, must Ryan Sorba be such a douche in making such a point? See, I just did it quite nicely without being a flaming idiot pandering to biases of a biased audience.

Norfolk Virginia Tax Day "Tea Party" - 15 April 2009

2009-09-03T19:39:00.000-07:00

A Young Patriot’s Manifesto

It has been over a year since I have posted, mia culpa. I have been diligently at work in Law School. However, I did have time enough to give the following address to the Norfolk Virginia Tax Day "Tea Party." Feel free to comment.

Generational theft. I’m sure you all think I will be speaking to the fact that our country is incurring debt at a rate once thought unimaginable outside the Soviet Union; a rate that amounts to approximately 10% of our gross domestic product per year. I’ll bet you expect me to decry this tithe to government as a disease that can only be cured by Liberty and shrinking of the Beast that is the modern Federal government. However, this spending is simply a symptom of the greater disease.

The pathology that plagues our nation is one that germinated in the academy, strengthened itself under the codling wing of the media, has evidenced itself for the last 60 years as a seemingly benign malignancy, and has now, having gone undiagnosed out of both fear and apathy, become a threat to our very existence as a free people.

The disease is statism, the belief that all problems that one faces can be cured by government. Tantamount to a religion, our children in state-run schools learn to revere and are indoctrinated to have faith in its sacraments daily, its liturgical mass is celebrated in the halls of congress, its praises are sung by the mass media and voting population alike.

The state has become, in the minds of many Americans, a panacea, a cure-all. We have opted, in the face of daunting free will and an even more harrowing possibility of failure, to cede our God-given choice to those awaiting with baited breathe to retake the reigns of our will that they lost at Lexington and Concord. They know they “can,” because they have. They “hope” that our disrespect for history and our distain for absolute truth will guide us into their awaiting trap. They know it is only a matter of time before the “change” that has been the dream of the few comes to fruition.

Some of you may be thinking, “I never consented to any such thing,” but the fact that we stand here today for the reasons we do evidences the tacit fact that none of us have done enough. We have been too sedated in front a flickering box, too insulated by our things and our egos to notice that our nation has been stolen right from beneath our noses.

The greatest generation fought to end tyranny abroad and yet allowed a “new deal” that introduced us all to it here. The my father’s generation brokered the deal to exchange autonomy for equality in the hopes of a “great society,” and are just now awaking to the result of their folly. The true pity resulting from these facts, is that my generation is diametrically split as to whether autonomy is a good thing or not. They have been so indoctrinated (at the tax payer’s expense I might add) that they question whether the freedom to choose their own destiny is even a good thing. They debate as to whether the ability, to choose their own schools, to choose their own health care, to choose how they spend their own money, to choose their own leaders, to choose what they say, what they think, how they worship their God is at all beneficial.

They have not been taught history, so they are not aware of the oppression, death, destruction, heartache, and bloodshed that has resulted every time a people has given up their freedom in the name of ease. The Romans had circuses and bread. Napoleon took espoused liberte and egalite and wove a net of tyranny. The Soviets promised land and bread. In turn, others now offer “hope” and “change.” Sadly, my generation has become so self-absorbed that such unpleasant realities are rebuffed only with old standby, “whatever.”

We have become so focused on the differences amongst us, and so wary of emotionally stunting each other, that we have become what can only be described as analytically retarded. Our children are no longer taught how to think syllogistically, but are rather taught how to view injustice as cultural peculiarity, that freedom is oppression, that 2+2 can equal 5 if that is what you feel, or any other Orwellian doublespeak one can imagine.

Only in modern times has the ability to argue a salient point through concrete fact been rejected so vehemently by those who rely solely upon how they feel. For example, it is no longer glaringly apparent that increased governmental spending and lower taxes cannot co-exist, or that the larger and more activist the government becomes the less freedom the people who live under it are afforded, or that once you make poverty comfortable the less motivation there is to break the bonds of it. You may feel this unfortunate, but I posit it is as deliberate. It makes good sense to keep the new generation of worker bees as dronelike as possible.

So, I wake up each morning say my prayers thanking God for another day’s worth of breath as a citizen of the last great hope of man on Earth. I then flip on the news and watch as my birthright as an American is being slowly and methodically sold without my consent for the proverbial bowl of beans. As I watch, I vacillate in my sentiment as to whether I am witnessing the death throws of a republic or that same republic ripening for the rebirth of true Liberty in our time.

I harken back to my time as a younger man reading Alexis Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, noting in the margins the phrase “is this now?” by a passage where Tocqueville observed that the greatest danger to our then fledgling republic was the tendency of Americans to be “so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom,” that “the American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money,” and that “if despotism came to be established in the democratic nations of our day, it would have other characteristics:” than those that have preceded it, “it would be more extensive and milder, and it would degrade men without tormenting them.”

Degradation is exactly what we face today as a free people. Degradation of our rights both to our property and the produce of our industry, degradation of our currency, degradation of our sovereignty, and, worst of all, degradation of our humanity.

We are illegally forced to pay an unconstitutional unaportioned income tax that was enacted to pay interest collected to a private bank that lends us our own currency. We are insecure in the ownership of our homes as the high court of the land has allowed them to be taken to increase further the tax revenue. The Fed prints our money at such a staggering rate that it boggles the mind; all so our pandering so-called leaders can fraudulently incur debt only so that they may continue to sit high atop their inscrutable perch.

We are tagged, licensed, poked and prodded like little more than cattle. We are told how we can apply our industry, how we must raise and educate our children, where we may proclaim the name of our God, what words we may use, and what thoughts we may have. Our choice is removed from us in the name of convenience, our rights are removed from us in the name security, our fortune is taken from us in the name of fairness. In the eyes of those who represent us (and I use that term loosely) we are no longer citizens of a free republic, but rather simply a source of revenue.

That assertion may jar some, however, its evidence is born out every time the American people are silenced. Every time we flood the halls of congress with calls decrying the out of control spending and are ignored, every time we demand a wall be built and it is not, every time we publicly declare our morals and are told they are unconstitutional; we are silenced. To be free men, we must be treated as such, rather we are treated as serfs who’s only utility lie in our ability to finance the agenda of the few.

Men some 230 years ago felt the same injustice. These were great and learned men. Men of status and wealth, but also of conviction and courage. These men were willing to sacrifice their lands, their titles, their fortunes, and their lives if need be in the name of an idea, a dream dreamt since the dawn of civilization. They wrote,

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

They were willing to stand not only for themselves, but their posterity as well. They were willing to be labeled radicals. They were willing to stand and perhaps die as men rather than bend their knees and live as anything less. They went on to write,

“when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”

I stand here today not advocating revolution at arms, but rather a revolution within the minds of all Americans; a revitalization of the founding principles of this great nation. A new reverence for Liberty, and renaissance of the boldness that defined that generation.

Our forefathers imagined a nation of entrepreneurs, of self sufficient dreamers who would risk the frightening specter of the unknown in hopes of its possible reward. A nation where one could take such a risk secure in the knowledge that, should one fail, one’s countrymen, not the state, would be there to dust him off and help us all move forward towards the future. That such brothers would do so in a spirit of Christian charity and not as a result of governmental coercion and theft.

Later on in his work Tocqueville watched in awe, something that to us seems rather mundane. He marveled at American ingenuity and described how a group of men, when facing a felled tree in their path, simply moved the tree and went about their business. At what did he marvel? The fact that none of the men sought approval or permission or even help.

That same ingenuity and boldness, a characteristic that has defined America for over two centuries, is one that is being leached from us all, as more and more of our resources and resolve are being replaced with dependency upon governmental initiatives. Tocqueville observed that the greatness of America lie in our insistence on blazing new trails, not slouching down the primrose path. We must insist, not just today, but every day, upon our right to blaze our own trail. In short, we must insist on our liberty. We must insist upon the ability to fail and to excel.

I have watched two generations of men in my family blaze their own trails through their own blood and sweat. My grandfather, a man who came to this country not speaking the language, who more often than not ate lard sandwiches as his school lunch, helped vanquish tyrrany on two oceans, built his own home, and put two children through college. My father, a Vietnam vet, a teamster, a man I watched nod off at the dinner table many times – too exhausted even chew – but nevertheless put me through school and was never late on his mortgage payment.

Don’t get me wrong, and begin to think that I pity them or even look upon them as the exception to the rule. We have all watched much the same from our parents or grandparents. Rather, I look upon them with envy. I envy them for the freedom and pride they have felt in accomplishing the goals they set out to and have achieved through sheer will and prayer. I envy them for the nation in which they lived; which they served. I envy the fact that they could dream, that they could work in good faith for that which they dreamt. I envy them that they could actually own their homes, that they could defend them, they could make money and save it, they could raise their children without fear.

The world my generation and I face is one in which none of those things are guaranteed, and they become less and less likely with every passing day. The truly palpable irony is that I and my children and my children’s children will pay for the privilege of never having to make a choice. I will pay for my nation’s funeral. In effect, I will finance my own enslavement.

Our only chance to avoid that fate is to remind the politicians in D.C. that their privilege to both wield power and to control the purse strings are indeed limited and enumerated. The Constitution still has effect, despite how passé that assertion may have become. We must stand and say with a united voice that the nineteen powers granted the Federal government are the entirety of their influence, and declare with vehemence and dedication to cause that we will no longer allow a document which every man and woman in service to our country has sworn to uphold, be bastardized by those few who feel themselves above it. We must remind them that no man is above the law, and we the people are the ones who define those laws.

Thomas Aquinas said that an unjust law is no law at all. I do not propose Anarchy, but rather a truly representative republic. We the people are the only barrier to tyranny, and we cannot allow our complacency to usurp our call to duty.

Generational theft. We have not merely been robbed of our treasure, but also our respect. Both the respect due from those that govern us, but respect for ourselves as well. We have ceded our chance to live the American dream by default, and are now duty-bound, if in nothing else than in reverence to those who have sacrificed their dreams so that we may live out ours, to oppose this usurpation of power.

At this point, we have no choice but to stand together and warn those who would trample our liberties, “Don’t tread on me.” In this season of resurrection and rebirth, we must declare our insistence upon resurrecting that which seems all but dead, we must declare our rebirth as free men and women. Men and women allowed the opportunity, no the blessing, of having a say in our futures, of having a say in how our money is spent and how our nation is governed. We must remind those who would abscond with our rights as Americans that those who would seek to govern us, do so only upon our consent. That we have not consented to the theft that they have perpetrated, and that we will no longer stand idly by and simply endure their overreaching power.

So, back to my aforementioned vacillating sentiments. Today is a moment which will represent a turning point in the history of our republic. It will either be the moment that the people of this country opened their eyes and refused beyond threat, coercion, pandering, or bribe to close them again, or it will be the moment when we looked upon the world as it really is, when we saw the injustice being commited upon us, and, overwhelmed with the enormity of it all, sold our liberty once and for all. However, I must remind you as another great once did, “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And…that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

We will define our times, and my generation will be forced to face our futures either way. Today can be a beginning or an end. We can do more, or give up the right to complain. I for one will stand today, will stand tomorrow. For, without liberty, life ends and simple existence begins. Yes I will stand, and I beg of you to continue to stand as well. And when we have done all to stand we will all stand therefore.

Pyrrich Victory: Heller v. D.C and Why the Good May Be the Enemy of the Constitutional

2008-07-18T18:29:00.000-07:00

First I must apologize for the length of time between posts, but this story had to be told in its entirety for it to make sense. That story, of course, is the story of the United States Supreme Court case D.C. v Heller, and how we as Americans may have been granted a privilege were a right once stood.

The Second Amendment of the Constitution states:
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

The Heller case is the much-publicized case that questioned the constitutionality of the comprehensive Washington D.C. handgun ban that also insisted upon any weapon in the home being unloaded and disassembled. In the 26 June 2008 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States “benevolently” found that the right outlined in the Second Amendment was indeed an individual one for the purposes of self-defense within one’s home, and that such a ban would preclude citizens from exercising said right. Justice Antonin Scalia, in his extensive and in-depth exegesis of the verbiage within the amendment, proved this rather evident assertion using the context and common intent behind the specific wording of the amendment in the colonial era in which it was written.

Scalia was so meticulous and diligent in order to prove once and for all that the amendment was not intended solely as a provision guaranteeing the rights of the people to maintain a militia, and was thus not only a community right enjoyed by such citizens who participate in militia activities. That position was espoused in the 1939 case of United States v. Miller, which, to most familiar with the normal proceedings in juris prudence, was all but orthodox in its argumentation, delibration, and finding.

The case involved the ownership and transportation of a sawed-off shotgun by two admitted criminals, Miller being one. Miller asserted a right to ownership of the shotgun under the second amendment. This claim eventually made its way to the Supreme Court. However, as the initial briefs were submitted to the courts prior to the oral arguments, Miller’s attorney informed the Court that he could no longer locate his clients and had subsequently not been supplied with sufficient funds to submit a brief. He thus waived his right to submit a brief and encouraged the Court to render their decision based entirely upon the state’s brief. This turn of events provided the rather “progressive” Court at that time a blank canvas upon which to frame their decision. Their decision itself was, for all intents and purposes, a total departure from any semblance of an originalist interpretation of Constitutional verbiage and intent. It, in effect, rendered the final clause of the Second Amendment, “…[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” as surplus and thus meaningless language.

The Court made their decision predicated upon the recently-enacted “National Fire-Arms Act” (1934) and the vastly-extended “Commerce Clause” of Article One of the Constitution. The Court asserted that the ownership of such a weapon was in no way germane to the presence or function of a well regulated militia, and that ownership of such a weapon could therefore be prohibited/infringed upon. Through this decision, the Court inexorably bound the clearly individual right of fire-arm ownership, and ipso facto the right to defend oneself, to the common societal right toward defense of the state, i.e. militias. Up until last month, Miller was the only case in the Court's history dealing with the Second Amendment.

Mr. Justice Reynolds wrote in the actual decision on the Miller case :
“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense…The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.”

Scalia asserts in his 2008 decision, some seventy years later, that, contrary to the finding in Miller, the rights asserted in the Second Amendment did in fact refer to both the militia and the individual as having rights to both firearm ownership and self-defense within one’s home. To many, this was the best of all possible outcomes for Second Amendment advocates and represents the penultimate blow struck for gun owners throughout the U.S.

However, to those paying close attention, the Heller ruling represents a metamorphosis of the Second Amendment from the assertion of a right whose nature and meaning were up for further discussion, to a governmentally allowed and regulated privilege whose nature as such had now been precedentially cemented. The fact is, despite doing his due diligence as to the verbiage of most of the Amendment, Scalia seemingly avoided the meat of the Amendment for gun-owners, and what seems to be the crux of the case with reference to the ability of the state to regulate ownership of firearms. Say, like the D.C. gun ban.

Once again, I am referring to the “shall not be infringed” clause of the Amendment. Scalia instead asserts the compelling interest of the state in “reasonable” regulation of the right. So, in all likewise “reasonable” assessment of the Court’s treatment of the Second Amendment, one can only conclude that “inalienable” right of every individual to own a firearm is reduced to nothing more than a government-regulated and granted privilege. Consequently, the Heller decision represents very little change from the Miller decision, in that they both allow for restriction of the right. The substituted privilege, by even the most optimistic conceptualization, gives the state the opportunity to “regulate” and thus mold the right to bear arms into something that by no means resembles what the founders seemed to have in mind as the provocation behind the right's assertion. The reason behind the right, at its root, is to provide opportunity for the people to sluff off tyrannical government. The availability of palpable resistance to a tyrannical government was, and is, at the core of the successful continuation of a free state. At least according to the founding fathers of this nation, as this belief is echoed continually throughout their writings.

Could Scalia’s apparent apprehension to address this pivotal verbiage within the amendment be due to the Bush administration’s rather ambivalent Amicus Brief presented to the court? Said brief can only be described as less then friendly to those who believe in either true fidelity to the actual verbiage of the Constitution, or to those who hold dear their right to own firearms without governmental restriction. A right which such patriots believe is articulated quite clearly throughout the Second Amendment as a whole, and the “shall not be infringed" clause in particular.

The Court’s decision that the government can “reasonably” regulate the ownership of firearms is tantamount to a slippery slope to tyranny, in that, government's definition of "reasonable," as born out in myriad examples in the past, is one that is all but narrowly tailored. The "infringement" on the right by government is what the amendment explicitly precludes. Thus, the Heller decision is anything but a victory, and simply represents a legal precedent for the government's ability to "regulate" a right they are explicitly barred from restricting in the Constitution. Can anyone tell the difference between regulation and restriction in the governmental paradigm?

The ability to “reasonably” restrict gun ownership has already proven itself an open door to quasi-removal of the right altogether. On 16 July 2008, Washington D.C. city council and Police Department released the latest incarnation of the D.C. handgun ownership policy. They seem to have simply disregarded the Heller decision totally, as they now require that, once again, all handguns be stored disassembled and unloaded or with trigger locks. They also require the jumping through of other Orwellian hoops by citizens simply trying to exercise their right as Americans. These hoops include ballistics tests, fingerprinting, background checks, fees, waiting periods, etc. President of the Gun Owners of America, Larry Pratt, who has been critical of the ruling since its announcement, was all the more critical of this latest attempt to restrict the right. He stated, "It is no wonder that the District is awash with lawlessness. The contempt for the law starts in the city council chambers." The new D.C. regulations allowed for the main plaintiff in the Heller case, Dick Heller to register only a 22-caliber revolver in the district, as all semi-automatic handguns are forbidden. In all estimations, Heller's "fight for freedom," was rendered a farce.

Does this come as a surprise to any of us? I can answer for myself with an unequivocal NO. D.C. officials know that under the new regulations, those who would have standing before the court to contest the laws, would have to be convicted under them, and would thus be fighting to stay out of jail. This is tantamount to restriction from not only ownership of a weapon, but from rdress of grievances as well. Conversely, the government has unlimited resources to defend its own tyrannical policies, and will do so according to D.C.'s mayor Fenty.

“Citizens should only be allowed to own guns if they are given a government permit, and the permit should only be issued if there is a "good reason" for possession or or "genuine need." In particular, permits to own guns for self defense should not be issued unless the applicant proves that he is in immediate danger.”

Is this a quote from Scalia’s decision or from some arcane Huxley- created fictional character? Eerily it is neither. It is rather a quote from the United Nations Disarmament Programme's publication, How to Guide: Small Arms and Light Weapons Legislation. The publication expresses the dire necessity of international "harmonisation" of gun laws. Could this have been the source of Scalia’s apprehension to address the pivotal clause? For all intents and purposes, the opinions of the U.N. and Scalia differ only negligibly. The U.N. simply states bluntly what Scalia allows the government to achieve, the licensing of a privilege.

The fact is the agenda has been set on a global scale, and that the incremental approach to the stripping of the last holdouts, American public, of their only avenue to resist tyranny is not a new tactic. Aside from the myriad incremental restriction in the American past, like the above-mentioned National Firearms Act etc., recently government and those who "own" (please click on that link if no other) it have ramped up their attacks on the Second Amendment right.

This point merits the discussion of some less-publicized activities toward that end.

Perhaps the most clever example of these incremental and covert tactics is the apparent purchase and subsequent stemming of production of and “outsourcing” of ammunition producers by the Carlyle group. Consequently, the price of ammunition in the U.S. has risen exponentially in the past few years. As I have articulated above, governments bent on curtailing the right of gun ownership will not stop simply at the law, and will move around it when all else fails. This ammunition coup exemplifies this contention expressly. Ironically enough, the Carlyle Group is a secretive investment group in which both the Bush and Bin Laden families are heavily involved. Once again, the "conservative" paragon proves himself less than friendly to the orthodoxy he so vehemently espouses to export to other countries.

Think about it, without ammunition what good are guns? This seems to be a pattern, however, these are by far not the first examples of Bush administration officials going after Second Amendment rights. In 2007 OSHA attempted to brand ammunition as “explosives” and severely limit the amount of ammunition that any citizen could store.

The historical record of tyrannical government proves that one of the initial steps toward enslaving a people is the removal of their ability to defend themselves. Nature rarely presents armed sheep, in fact, often being unarmed is what designates one as a sheep.

The sad truth is, that in a fallen world, the ability to defend oneself is the ability to inflict one’s will on any given situation. Thomas Hobbes put it best when he wrote, "A man cannot lay down the right of resisting them that assault him by force, to take away his life." If one cannot defend oneself in any meaningful way, then, by definition, one cannot prevent another from inflicting his will on whomever he chooses. Logically, those who would abuse others often choose those who can offer the least resistance, namely the unarmed. This concept is at the root of all sociological, economic, and even psychological thought, i.e those impaired in any way from repelling or atleast competing with the advances of another are rendered as less effective actors. In fact, it is the basis for having law in the first place. Hobbes continues, "During the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that conditions called war; and such a war, as if of every man, against every man." Self-preservation is an inherent instinct that only a government intent on abusing it station as such would seek to subdue.

Despite the above-elaborated instances of governmental infringements on our ability to defend ourselves, perhaps the most prolific example of this habituation to sheephood takes the form of psychological warfare. The use of phrases in the “lame-stream” media like “gun violence” and “gun deaths” encourage one to associate acts of violence that happen to be perpetrated with a firearm as a direct result of the presence of said firearm. This assertion totally ignores that people have been killed in heinous manners since the beginning of time. Ask Abel. The advent of firearms is simply a step in the evolution of man’s ability to better kill one another. Within the paradigm explained above, to remove an actor’s ability to defend oneself effectively, that actor’s effectiveness is inhibited. It’s like bringing a knife to gunfight, and, even then, if one were dispatched at the end of a blade, one could not blame the blade for it's deadly point. Neither can one blame a firearm for being the harbinger of death. Man is the most deadly weapon of all. All the more reason that every man should be afforded the opportunity to repel another man with nefarious intent.

Conversely and unfairly, reality shows us that in conflicts throughout the world in which governments participate, deaths caused by firearms are not called “gun violence” but rather casualties. The state does not bar itself from the use of “deadly” firearms, only its citizens. Instead, being well armed is instead often posited as the definition of a nation’s strength. Despite the fact that, when one looks at the historical record, individuals, especially free individuals, act far more rational than the state and have taken far less life. Yet we are saturated with media images demonizing the "irresponsible" civilian with a gun.

Take the story of Joe Horn for example. Mr. Horn is a law-abiding citizen of the state of Texas. Texas law allows the use of deadly force in the defense of property. Mr. Horn, against the advice of a 911 operator, shot two men in his own back yard in suburban Pasadena Texas. He was later called a “cold-blooded killer” by the widow of a man Horn shot and killed.

The man was in Horn’s yard, in the process of absconding with Horn’s neighbor’s property, and could have been armed. The man was also a felon, drug-runner, and had been deported several times back to his native Colombia. Despite these facts, Horn was vilified rabidly by those in the media for his violent behavior and his lack of compliance with local law enforcement. All the while the same media liars ignored the dead man’s same disregard for the law. In short, Horn was convicted in the "media court" of not remaining the victim he was instructed to be by agents of an edifice that has a vested interest in his remaining in such a role. Law enforcement agencies need victims, or who will they be protecting? All that would be left in the absence of victims is draconian tyranny and needles intervention in our lives. Without the illusion of safety, the interest of the state in controlling every aspect of our lives would become abundantly clear. If we were rendered bold and stripped of our fear, our minds would not be as malleable and accepting of our gradual enslavement.

In such an instance as Horn's, the media ubiquitously ignores the fact that the police are, by design, a reactionary force. They investigate committed crimes and cannot actually stop most from happening. In short, they show up to pick up the bodies or console the rape victim. Consequently, the only effective force against the actual committal of crime is the armed citizen. Not vigilantism as some would assert, but the free and autonomous individual defending his own life, family, and property. Just as the founding fathers envisioned from a “just citizenry." Just as Horn did.

Mr. Horn was brought before a Grand Jury, harassed and called a racist by activist, protested by anti-gun advocates, and made out to be a monster. Despite no charges ever having been brought against Horn, the message sent to the citizenry of the U.S. is clear. “Do not defend yourselves, depend on government for your well-being, and hope that the criminal that intends you harm observes your state’s gun laws.”

In fact, the exact opposite bears itself out to be true, as evidenced by the effectiveness of the Washington D.C.’s handgun ban to deter violent crime, or Virginia Tech’s “Zero Tolerance" zone’s effectiveness in deterring that massacre (rather large wink). Further, those states that allow their citizens to defend themselves in all instances by allowing open or concealed carry of weapons tend to have far lower instances of violent crime. So, in essence, it is not factual and analytical thought which determines societies perception of firearms and government’s regulation of them, but rather it is simply the specious psychological arguments. Once that conclusion is excepted, one may begin acepting the implications of the fact that the first step toward mind control is the separation of the victim from rational thought.

We must insist that the rights given by God and articulated in the United States Constitution are respected. Also, we must stem the incremental degradation of them. We must be vigilant, and open our eyes to these tactics. If nothing else, we must refuse to be the generation who gave away what so many died to keep, our freedom. Vote, campaign, write letters to the editor, protest, and refuse to let our God-given rights be lost in a sea of apathy.

How Far Down Does the Rabbit-Hole Go?

2008-06-20T11:27:00.000-07:00

I was doing my due-diligence and researching for these posts when I came across this youtube video. What do you think? I would love to hear your thoughts. Just click on the link, and I will read your comments. Hopefully I will garner enough information to post an educated post soon in the future.

Oil and Government: "Big Brother" in the Black

2008-06-19T08:41:00.000-07:00

The facts are that the United States’ interest lie submerged in a viscous black substance. Our infrastructure, our economy, and our livelihoods depend on access to it. Many of our “enemies” and “allies” also depend on access and the sale of it. It is a multi-trillion dollar industry, and has ties to most others. In short, we need oil, and we have been habituated to, and have become dependant upon, its being accessible. In reality, our lives depend on it.

Recently this issue has come to the forefront of our minds with the skyrocketing global petroleum prices. Those from the right and the left have their espoused reasons for this scourge on the U.S. economy. The right blames the environmental movement for hamstringing the oil companies and limiting their access to oil fields and refinery construction. The left blames war and profit mongering amongst the elite for driving rising prices; and asserts the use of oil should be stemmed all together.

However, “Big” oil has millions of acres of oil fields that they refuse to develop. U.S. allies in OPEC limit supply to markets despite an exponential rise of demand from the third world. Environmentalist refuse to explore plausible technology and/or attack possible replacements for oil from the same environmental stance they take with oil, i.e. ethanol uses too much land for corn or nuclear power is too ecologically risky. Thus no substantive changes or adjustments are made. A wise man noted, “[i]nsanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” President Carter tried to tax windfall success and failed miserably. The environmentalists, by their own admissions, have done little to stem the impending global ecological crisis. Although, most with open minds realize there is little for humanity to do in respect to ecological phenomenon. So, are all these people insane, or is there a different agenda?

What does get done? The answer to this question is perhaps the best place to start.

Results include: (1) an increased regulation of free markets, (2) the continued assertion that oil companies are being held back from their "true potential" despite their surpassing all profit records, (3) higher taxes, (4) more governmental subsidy, (5) more failed governmental projects toward should-be private research and development for “alternatives,” and (6) a continuous relationship with those who fund and support our supposed "enemies" across the world (Saudi Arabia etc.).

What do all these things have in common? They lead one to believe that government has tried nothing substantive, and yet are all out of free market ideas. Further, they lead to crippling high oil prices, an atmosphere of fear and desperation, the continued polarization of the American public along partisan lines, and public calls for ANY solution to this problem.

I heard yesterday, in a Democratic response press conference to Bush’s proposal for more drilling, words that made the whole mess seem clear to me. The concept of governmentally controlled oil industry was posed as an option. Finally, all the contradictions, the ineffectual responses, and flippant disregard by oil companies make sense. The facts are that huge economic interests have a long precedent of "becoming" government. Look at the original board of the Federal Reserve. The only things to be lost by oilmen from this proposed transition from private to public interests are the taxes paid and the cost of R&D (which of course you and I will now pay).

The fact is that money lost its import to these elites a long time ago, and thus a loss in monetary profit is tertiary to the actual aims. They have come to realize that power is the ultimate commodity, and oil is power.

Will the same people be in charge of this staple of our infrastructure if indeed it becomes nationalized? Of course they will, who better for the job? This is simply a mechanism to relieve us of yet another aspect of our autonomy by those who care little for money an have sold their souls for power. They do know that we do care dearly for money, and will act as consumers accordingly. This causes the dreaded variable of consumer choice.

In the proposed new system, we will pay for oil whether we want to or not, through taxes. Even if one chooses to ride a bike or walk, in a socialized petroleum system, you will be an oil consumer. Makes allot of sense for “Big” oil to “throw” this game and, in its frustration and defeat, turn to government for “help.” However, an even more ingenious scheme would posit these oilmen as villains to be vanquished by the righteous government. Perhaps even an amalgamation of the two involving disingenuous pressure brought on all sides toward one seemingly unavoidable answer, nationalization of the American oil industry would be most efficient? Sound familiar Barak?

Such a scenario would make this transition "the will of the people." Ironically, with this gluttonous foe ("Big Oil") vanquished, the same will rise from the ashes to consummate the oil monopolies that their fathers and forefathers could not. Given the fact that the governmental and economic “powers that be” are noticably from “old” money made from oil, the transition will be an easy one. "Oil families" include the Rockefellers, the Rothschilds, the Morgans, the Vanderbilts, the Warbergs, the Bushs, et al. The fact is that government is the biggest business in the world. If an enterprise is small enough to be quashed, that enterprise is considered competition and blocked from success. Conversely, if an enterprise is considered large enough to be useful it is consolidated into the governmental fold.

Ancillary benefits for big government include: (1) the demonization of private free markets(read competition), (2) increased popular desensitization to the presence of and beholdeness to government, (3) the ultimate opportunity to “lose” more money without question, (4) opportunity to require more in taxes, (5) increased opportunity to gobble up private property for "public purpose," and (6)a further opportunity to mingle oil interest with expressed national political interest and thus provide an auspices to continue their wars and intrigue on the global stage.

This is an incremental command economy takeover. One more giant step towards "Big Brother." Once again, the brilliance of it is, is that we, the American people, will consent; no, beg for this intrusion of government into our lives. In effect, we will sell our proverbial souls for that tempting free bowl of beans.

We at least have the chance to choose. Those under the thumb of our “enemies” in the Middle East do not. The elite in those countries are power hungry oilmen as well, and have committed this coup long ago. They control their populous in many of the same ways. Bait, switch, and posit the “other” as the source of all problems as they continue to consolidate control.

Kind of makes one wonder what the actual difference is between the ourselves and our posited "foes." Except for, of course, we choose our own enslavement, and thus cannot complain. However, we are "bringing democracy" to those "poor" souls, so they can be burdened in a more uniform and subtle manner.

It seems that government all over the world is getting bigger. Is that simply another case of insanity, given the bloody precedent that big government brings with it? Or is it another case of an agenda covered up by a false conflict and offered for consideration to the masses wrapped in a false choice? We need to wake up and see that we are being enslaved. It is not about being rich or getting more oil in the greater scheme of things. It is as it has always been, even in the days of "hydraulic empires" when water was the most desirable commodity, the ultimate goal of these ancient, large, and evil interests is to CONSOLIDATE POWER.

Quick Update (25 July 2008): With the recent governmentalization of huge financial institutions, one can look at this opinion piece in a whole new light. I wrote this months before the "bailouts" (read buyouts) of Freddie and Fannie. Just something to think about in reference to my prognostications in this piece. Not so "far-fetched" now huh?

Another Update (22 June, 2010): In the context of the recent BP "accident," it seems as if we have moved one gigantic step toward oil nationalization. But I am sure I am just a huge conspiracy "nut."

Again, given the false paradigm presented to the American people, the left wants to constrain the free market and the right is a power hungry mob, we are playing the fool. However, the same agenda is accomplished.

B.P. will get what they want, and will make billions. Government will accomplish its goal of strangling our lives with more invasive taxes and control over our lives. We will remain slaves. I hate being right!

Memorial Day 2008

2008-05-30T11:30:00.000-07:00

This Memorial day holiday, I spent the entire weekend with my family in our nation's capitol. As always the experience was moving and inspiring. To be surrounded by the memories of such great men, is to be immersed in the greatness, the tenacity, the dedication to cause that has formed "the last great hope of mankind on Earth." However, this trip played a more immediate role in its form of inspiration towards my affinity for freedom. That weekend I was surrounded by the modern tyranny of statist atheistic political correctness, and was left with a bitter taste in my mouth for the current state of affairs in America .

Sunday afternoon on the mall, my family and I endeavored to visit the WWII memorial, as my parents had yet to see it. Simply being surrounded by that shining ode to "the last full measure of devotion," is a catalyst to reflective thought. I sat with probably a hundred others with my feet bathing in the refreshing fountain pool. With my family by my side, I reflected on my two great uncles who fought in the "Battle of the Bulge" and on Iwo Jima respectively, and of my recently-deceased grandfather who had been on both oceans as he served in the U.S. Navy. I thought of how many millions of people died in that valiant crusade to rid the world of totalitarian, authoritarian, and evil regimes. I thought of men younger than I storming beaches thousands of miles away from their families as I sat not feet from mine. I thought of the toll in blood that such a crusade had exacted, and the willingness, no eagerness, with which those who served rendered themselves as sacrifices on the altar of freedom. I also, surprisingly felt envious of them. I felt envy for their having a cause so altruistic and pure, an America, a freedom so easy to sacrifice for. One free of onerous government, with actual upward mobility, and one that still asked God's blessing upon it. In short, an America where truth was still sought and righteous indignation embraced.

As my eyes were about to well with earnest tears, I heard a voice state in a vacant and thoughtless tone, "Please exit the pool, the sign says no wading!" I looked around to see who was being chastised for such and infraction and realized quite abruptly that it was at me that the admonishment had been targeted. I then surveyed the dozens of others engaging in the exact same activity as I, and realized that in order to reach my family and I the police officer that had issued the admonition had to pass dozens of others. As I pulled my feet form the pool I asked the officer, "what about all the others?" That, apparently, in the "People's Republic of Columbia," is tantamount to treason.

The diatribe that followed was a monument to just the same authoritarianism that some sixty years ago the men to who's memory the monument had been erected, fought. The officer was rude, repugnant, and insulting. He questioned my patriotism, my family's integrity, and threatened to handcuff my mother if she continued to ask anymore "stupid questions" (Mind you, my mother is a frumpy forty-seven year old woman, who poses as much of threat to anyone as the average head cold.). He warned my mother that she needed to exit the pool at a more rapid pace, and was sure to remind us that he indeed was the "poe-leese," and that we were to follow his every command quickly and quietly, and to stop talking about rights. As the coup des gras, under further threat of arrest, he demanded we exit the monument that our tax dollars had contributed to (not to mention the same paid his salary).

I feel I must explain that during this whole exchange, not one voice was raised, outside of the officer's of course, and that no dispersions were cast upon him personally. However, the term "brown-boot" may have been bantered about in reference to his acumen as an officer of the law. But, he did act like a thug, and as the initial adrenaline wore off from the altercation, certain realities enraged me beyond belief.

As we walked towards the Lincoln Memorial, thoughts raced through my mind, and I would like to expound on some of them further before we move on to the next chapter of this calamitous story.

I could not help but realize the bulk of fellow "waders" were of foreign descent. In today's politically correct climate, they apparently have been rendered immune to such diatribes and abuse.

I wondered why.

Then it occurred to me. The "silent majority", as termed by R.M. Nixon, has been, over the last few decades, conditioned toward certain behavior patterns. The "worker bees" are not expected to ask questions, and so, when we did, our actions and words probably shook the statist sensibilities of the officer to their very core. We are not vehemently protected by the ACLU and its ilk. We are not a "protected class" or members of an oppressed or revered culture. We are simply expected to fund our own relegation to obscurity, bare the burden of governmental attempts at redemption from societies ills (the problems we created), and are by no means permitted to question our new roles. We have been told "our role" as the oppressors, and are now relieved of our right to dissent. Our time has come and passed. This is the root of Rush Limbaugh's "angry white men." Mind you this attribution has no racial or class identity. Simply being of some resource, of some industry, and of some pilferable means relegates you to this unenviable position in society. If you went to college it was because you were rich or white, if you have some money it is because you're a thief or opportunist, if you have self respect it is at another's expense.

In the hopes of "glass half-full," I was willing to dismiss this scene as an anomaly. Perhaps the officer was having a bad day, and I was "reading too much into" this freak occurrence.

The next day we decided to attend the national Memorial Day Parade. We were surrounded by throngs of people. Most, again, were of foreign descent, which lent itself heavily to the tourist atmosphere. As I have been a tourist in foreign atmospheres, I begrudge them no experience that America has to offer.

However, during the invocation and subsequent singing of the National Anthem, the lack of respect for my culture's mores was palpable. I endured as the Korean family talked through the entirety of the "Star Spangled Banner", and that another group refused to either stand or remove their hats during the opening prayer.

Despite my frustration with those that perhaps did not know better, my infuriation with my fellow countrymen's apparent total lack of respect was all-encompassing. This bubbling displeasure was not quelled at the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. To my amazement, they left out the "under God" part. This was followed by a couple behind me expressing their assent to this bastardization and their glee at my now-apparent disgust with my surroundings. Their exact quote: "What if you're an atheist, get over it."

Needless to say, not long after this, my family and I staggered away from this heretical display, following our overhearing an entire conversation taking place during a moment of "silence" and the playing of taps. We were thoroughly exasperated by the depths of politically correct depravity that is now embodied by our nation's capitol and the lack of both civic knowledge and national pride displayed by its inhabitants.

Our nation has sunk to new lows. Once those who critiqued our nation (some violently so) had a rational and discernible basis for their critique. Their disrespect for some aspects of America was an act of civil disobedience in hopes of her reform. In the present day, the world has devolved to what can only be described as ubiquitous ignorance. Our sins are those of omission rather than commission, and our complaints rest only in a lack of satisfaction of our latest and thus most dire desire.

These thoughts all but cemented my earlier sentiments as truth. We are being dumbed down, relegated to the role of ants in a colony who's only responsibility is to uphold the status quo, our pride in our God and our nation are being defined as "archaic" and "insensitive", and, most of all, our sovereignty as a nation is being slowly eroded in the name of increased unity.

We are the "Brave New World." We are saturated with ignorance and separated only by the status we wear on our jeans. We are the "Vanity Fair" from Pilgrim's Progress, and we are ripe for enslavement.

Subtle Attacks on Christianity

2008-05-21T12:22:00.000-07:00

Barak Obama's statements about us "red-staters" in "fly-over country", in reference to our God and our guns, betrays a bias that merits discussion. In a world rife with fears over religious "extremism", one in which the nightly news is saturated with scenes of carnage from around the world of "religion run amok", I have noticed a trend with regard to the treatment of Christians by bureaucratic governmental agencies and major media outlets alike. That trend can only be defined as disdain. The attempt to mitigate Christianity to a government and media-labeled "loony bin" is palpable.

The demonization of religious fundamentalism has long been with us, however, the blatant couching of a Biblical world-view as something that is only for zealots and those who take religion just a little "too seriously" has been incrementally inserted into the public mind, and is something of a new "tactic" undertaken by those with a vested interest in mitigating the Judeo-Christian basis of the American experience. In the treatment of stories like the "Branch-Dividians" in the mid-1990's and lately the Mormon community in Texas, the assertion that anyone who would take religion to heart is in some way mentally deficient or emotionally disturbed has been propagated not by overt statement, but rather by the dismissive and critical pallor under which these stories are presented.

This hue of dangerous eccentricity, by any definition, is one distinct from that which is cast over the traditions and epistemic stances of any other major world religion. The relativistic "kid gloves" worn to handle these other faiths are visibly absent. In other words, the urge to rationalize, legitimize, and normalize (bordering on idolize) the abhorrent behavior within other religious groups, for some reason is not present in the discourse on Christianity. In a society where an Islamic "honor killing" or the Hindu practice of "Satee" can be tolerated without so much as a peep of objective distaste, and can even be presented in an intellectual context as a "unique" practice of another "culture" that holds an ancient and significant role in said culture, (that, by the way, cannot be criticized due to the state-imposed lack of objective footing for fear of the inference of "right" and "wrong", or offending someone unless they happen to be a Christian conservative), how then can a Christian' s individual choice towards spanking, abstinence, the right to life, or love of family be criticized as backwards, archaic, or even "abusive?" The double standard is now, more than ever within American society, a brightly drawn line that marks a stark juxtaposition. No matter your doctrinal differences with him, if David Koresh can be labeled a "nut-job" by most for shooting at ATF and FBI agents bent on invading his home through windows with guns in hand, and yet millions of Muslim globally are treated as "victims" when the world erupted in violence in the wake of an editorial newspaper cartoon; in a society where Muslim foot baths are placed in airports in hopes to make said people feel welcomed and where Christian children are prohibited from silent prayer in school, how can anyone deny the evident nature of the two distinct and separate standards used to judge, well, Christianity and "everyone else?" Perhaps now, one's motivation toward tangential and hurried judgement of Koresh and his ilk, even within the Christian community, merit self-examination. In short, are you a "nut job" for what you believe?

If one were to lend even tertiary credence to the above statements, then one owes it to oneself to examine the probable cause behind the modern American media and governmental disdain for Christianity. Why do they hate us so much? My answer, we don't fit the mold of the modern homogenized globalized society. We don't feel "it takes a village" to raise our children, but rather would like to school them in our homes. We don't believe in the Oprahesque all-inclusive dogma of a "higher power", but rather accept a singular God and avenue to salvation. We don't see children as a "punishment" like Barak Obama (or B.O. for short), but rather see them as blessings from God. And finally, and perhaps most germane to our discussion, we will always choose our God over our government. We refuse, contrary to the contemporary trend, to deify governmental policy as the savior of all, and rest in our assurance that the nature of man, even in its most righteous incarnation, is inherently flawed and doomed to fail. We refuse to subjugate our beliefs behind the Clinton-contrived veil of "private life" and are called to live out our calling in service to our God. In short, we owe God our most stringent allegiance, and are specifically called not to subdue that allegiance especially due to governmental compulsion. We are, for lack of a better term, the new "counterculture."

As with prior definitions of counterculture, the current zeitgeist and powers-that-be are made uncomfortable by even a hint of the differences we embody, i.e. the Divine Presence within our lives. We are, as alluded to by the term "culture war," locked in what can only be described as a dialectic confrontation of Hegelian proportions. However, unlike prior clashes, we, as the counterculture minority, are not seen as upstarts by the current societal members, but rather as an oppressive regime to be sloughed off in hopes of a newer more free existence of man. We are the last true impediment toward the anticipated acme of human evolution foretold since the dawning of the enlightenment. In the absence of objective standards and individual rights born out of the Christian construct, future generation will no longer be judged by standards, and have no expectation of individual rights nor culpability. With Christianity dead, man can be the "animal" that he has dreamt of being since Darwin. On top of those concepts, we are the last threat (outside of the Muslim world, and we all know what is happening there) to the new non-judgemental and all-inclusive religion that is, for lack of a less trite term, humanism. With all of its governmentally enforced diversity and acceptance, the only law is that judgement based on any assertion of universal truth is not allowed. And, like any other circular argument, defeats itself by positing the absence of a standard as the standard, the absence of God as god, a disdain for faith as the only acceptable manifestation of faith.

We are under attack. Our rights are being subverted with rounds of applause, as evidenced by the recent scandal in a Wisconsin Christian school, where children who were thought by state officials to have been "abused" (read spanked) , and were forced to disrobe by a state thug. The minds of the next generation are taught to resent Christianity by outlets like M.T.V. The world in which we must live is one where homosexuality is embraced and marriage is scoffed at, one where fully developed fetuses are pulled from their mother's womb and murdered, where higher education is nothing more than indoctrination toward atheistic statism, where the rights of animals are held in higher regard than humans. As the prophet Isaiah stated, "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil."(Isaiah, 5. 20) I for one will not be counted in the number of those who do so. Scripture calls us to be "as wise as serpents and as Innocent as doves."(Matt 10.16) To turn a blind eye to the fact that Christianity is both decaying and being systematically condemned and marginalized would be a choice towards ignorance. We must make the stance that our so-called "conservative leaders" won't. We must reject the false choices presented to us as a body politic. We must make a stand, and when we have " done everything to stand. Stand therefore." (Ephesians 6.13-14) If revolution is what it takes, then revolution it must be. Perhaps the Spanish revolutionaries stated it best when they said "it is better to die on one's feet than live on one's knees." So, be unpopular, be a "religious zealot", be a "Bible thumper", if not for yourselves then for the next generation.

And for you non-religious conservatives, keep in mind that the existence of God as he is defined within Judeo-Christian culture and the United States Constitution, is the entity, whether actual or purely legal, that guarantees the rights you hold so very dear. If God were to be expelled from the modern mental lexicon, that would leave only government as the source from which all freedoms flow. If you are not made a man by God. then you are made a "citizen" by government.