Fly the Flag proudly today!

If you want to take a stand against a regime that claims total power over you and your property, today's the day to fly the flag of self-determination and resistance to tyranny -- like these folks.

As you watch it catch the July breeze, recall the reasons the Founders asserted their right to self-determination in 1776, and compare those reasons with the train of abuses and usurpations we suffer under today. As you read them below, don't let yourself be lulled with images of angry rioters in three-cornered hats, tea parties, or the Stamp Tax. Instead, think of the USA PATRIOT Act, DC's Open Borders agenda, secret renditions, FISA, and the massive debt created by the illegal and murderous Iraq war.

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

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

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

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

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

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

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

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

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

Every time you see one of your fellow citizens kneel on his red-white-and-blue kneepads today, let the words "totally unworthy" ring in your ears, and imagine, just for a moment, how different life could be. And should be. I think Americans' exaggerated fervor in showing off their patriotism comes from their suppressed realization they're living a lie. Today's CNN poll reveals 69 percent of adult Americans said the signers of the Declaration of Independence would be disappointed by the way the nation has turned out overall. No fooling.

Oh, and have a happy Fourth of July.

The Neocons were right!

Now I finally appreciate the Neocon genius.

Muslims hate us for our freedoms. Duh! Our beloved CIC has been trying to explain that, but I wouldn't listen. Only a naive fool like Pat Buchanan would imagine Muslims resent us for overthrowing their governments, propping up pro-US tyrants in the Middle East, and launching wars against them.

Since Muslims hate us because we're so free, the Neocons are legalizing torture, warrantless surveillance, and curtailing habeas for a brilliant reason -- once the US becomes yet another authoritarian regime, our enemies won't hate us anymore. No more worry about terror attacks.

Why didn't I see that sooner?

Reclaiming the Declaration

It's that time of year. Countless editorials, speeches, blog posts, and articles will jibber about how the Declaration proclaimed the founding of a unified nation whose founding principle of universal egalitarianism justified its intervention at home and abroad.

Let's see if we can adjust some attitudes here. We'll consider this document in both the context of its entirety, and in the times in which it was written.

Op-ed writers always begin and end their loving quotation of the Declaration with the second sentence, as if that sentence summarized the entire document. As you'll see, it clearly does not. The first sentence introduces the reader to the import of the entire document, which is that "We just seceeded from England, and we're gonna tell you why." Read it for yourself:

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

Then comes the famous second sentence:

"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."

But hold on! It doesn't stop there. The second sentence leads to the third:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

So a more accurate summary of what we've read so far would go something like this: "Sometimes different peoples have to part ways with each other, and form their own countries. So that the rest of the world will know what's going on, a people should announce why they seceeded. We believe all peoples have God-given rights, and that governments are created to protect those rights. If government fails to do so to the people's satisfaction, then they have the right to change that government, or, if it's a total mess, create a new one. The one right that protects all the others is the right to self-determination, and no one can tell a people how they should be governed but themselves."

Note that "men" and "people" are used interchangeably. If I were to attempt a one-sentence summary of the Declaration, I'd say, "Every people has the right to self-determination, and we just exercised that right." That's why this document was named the "Declaration of Independence" and not the "Universal Declaration of Human Equality." None of the Founders believed in literal equality, nor in democracy, which they knew always leads to chaos.

So "one nation, under God, indivisible" is clearly an anti-American, anti-Founder statement, which was concocted, by the way, by a utopian socialist who detested what the Founders created. The Declaration's often-overlooked conclusion spells out that each former colony was now an independent country:

That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

Notice that Jefferson used the pronouns "they" and "them" to describe the 13 new nations, as opposed to referring to one, united nation -- which did not exist until Lincoln's centralizing counter-revolution. Lincoln erased the idea that governments exist to serve the people; from now on, the imperial standard that the people exist to serve the government would be enforced once again -- and if it required the sacrifice of 600,000 people to preserve the existing power structure, then so be it.

Of course, the true meaning of the Declaration, like the meaning of "conservative," is just another of the inheritances our handlers have stolen from us.

HIV/AIDS to get special waiver to enter the country

We may have gotten a little carried away with equality. Now a virus has the right to immigrate.

Court Ruling Will Expose Viewing Habits of YouTube Users

Don't worry. You can tell the FBI you downloaded those pro-jihad videos for research.

The Erosion of American National Identity?

Columnist David Broder presents the argument that American identity is indeed dissolving:

Just in time for Independence Day, a conservative think tank has delivered a controversial report asking whether America's national identity is eroding under the pressure of population diversity and educational slackness. ...

And so, the Bradley scholars say, "knowing what America stands for is not a genetic inheritance. It must be learned, both by the next generation and by those who come to this country. In this way, a nation founded on an idea is inherently fragile." ...

When it comes to the treatment of immigrants, the Bradley team sees a real threat in such things as multilingual ballots and bilingual classes. Such accommodations to the growing diversity of the population could lead to "many Americas, or even no America at all," they maintain. "Historical ignorance, civic neglect and social fragmentation might achieve what a foreign invader could not."

But Broder dismisses these concerns. Why, he says, American institutions are as strong as ever. How does he justify his optimism? Because in 1974, the American political system was able to eject Richard Nixon. Case closed.

It's not that clear cut. Problem is, the country has been subjected to some mighty powerful forces since then, forces unleashed on the population by its ruling elites. Since 1970, the immigrant population has quadrupled, with Latin America and Asia supplying most of the increase -- a direct challenge to our European foundations. In 1974, "multiculturalism" was not the official culture of America. With the inevitable Balkanization of multiculturalism, various peoples are generating -- and feeling -- centrifugal forces away from the traditional American core.

You know it's true, and here's the latest evidence:

A jazz singer shocked some Denver residents after replacing the words to the national anthem with those of the "Black National Anthem" during the annual State of the City address this week.

Rene Marie was asked to sing "The Star-Spangled Banner" before Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper delivered the annual address on Tuesday. Instead, she sang the lyrics of "Lift Every Voice and Sing" — a hymn commonly referred to as the "Black National Anthem" — to the tune of the national anthem, MyFOXColorado.com reported.

That's just one example, and we've all seen many others. More are on the way.

The First Declaration of Independence

... was right here in Charlotte, North Carolina, and wouldn't you know those ornery Scots-Irish were behind it? George Will pens a well-needed history lesson here:

The impatient patriots here had splendidly short fuses in 1775. Those who tilled the startlingly red clay or who lived in the town named for George III's wife Charlotte might have been bemused had they foreseen the annual hoopla that commemorates July 4, 1776.

What occurred that day in Philadelphia might have been a Declaration of Independence, but the first such was enacted here on May 20, 1775. Presbyterians, meaning most Mecklenburgers, were incensed by Anglican meddling from London, such as the Vestry and Marriage Acts of 1769, which imposed fines on Presbyterian ministers who conducted marriage ceremonies. Marriage as a political issue is not just a recent phenomenon.

Take that, Philadelphia.

Bush's Finest Moment as President

... occurs as he tours the country surveying the damage he's done to it. From the Onion, of course.


Bush Tours America To Survey Damage Caused By His Disastrous Presidency

Another Bush official is leaving

You realize what THIS means, don't you?

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Joe Hagin will be leaving his job this month, according to White House spokesperson Dana Perino. ...

Combined with experience during the first Bush presidency, Hagin has served 14 years in the White House.

Hagin was a behind-the-scenes player, who had a huge role in the post 9/11 reorganization of the U-S government and how terrorist responses would be reformed.

Now we can all look forward to another insider blockbuster exposé about the Bushies! Yay!

No evidence needed under terror profiling plan

You read that headline correctly -- no evidence needed for the Feds to gather information on an American subject citizen. Because old-fashioned ideas like "due process" and "probable cause" are just SO pre-9/11. After all, what do you want to be, safe or free?

Actually, that wasn't a real question -- the choice is already being made for you:

The Justice Department is considering allowing the FBI to investigate Americans for terrorist activities without evidence, instead relying on a "terrorist profile" which includes ethnicity and religious affiliation.

Rather than having evidence of terrorist activities, the FBI could launch an investigation based on a profile that could also include visiting countries known for terrorist activity and having access to weapons or military training.

Clearly, these aren't the only red flags that could raise suspicions. It's pretty easy to figure out that anything a government official doesn't like can be used against you. Do you read the wrong books, visit the wrong web sites, or belong to questionable organizations? Before you answer "no," don't forget that the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has worked closely with the Federal government in the past, has condemned the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), and NumbersUSA for their "ties to white supremacists." And in post-9/11 America, such ties clearly mark you as a terror suspect. As Jessica Stern, a lecturer at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, wrote in Foreign Affairs, “Al Qaeda has shifted its mission, even aligning itself with neo-Nazis and white supremacists who are sympathetic to its new focus of fighting a ‘new world order.’” If you've ever visited those sites, downloaded articles from them, or -- God help you -- joined or donated money, you could be a target for Federal investigation.

But don't worry -- as long as you fly the right flag, avoid trouble-makers, and say the right things, there's nothing to worry about.

And don't forget -- freedom of speech is one of our most cherished possessions ...


... so we have to make sure you don't abuse it.

'Communist torture' used at Guantanamo Bay

Shock and awe all over the blogosphere about how the US learned its torture techniques from the very best:

A CHART outlining "coercive management techniques" for US interrogators at Guantanamo Bay was copied verbatim from a 1957 US Air Force study of Chinese communist techniques used during the Korean War to obtain confessions - many of them false - from US prisoners. ...

Reporting the origins of the chart, the paper said it was the latest and most vivid evidence of the way communist interrogation methods the US has long condemned as torture became the basis for interrogations by the military at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp, and by the Central Intelligence Agency. ...

The CIA is still authorised by US President George W. Bush to use a range of secret "alternative" interrogation methods.

Why the surprise? Alert commentators saw this one coming years ago. Georgie Anne Geyer was one of them:

Every once in a while, in very different parts of the world, I hear varieties of the same refrain about how to choose – or not choose – your enemies.

It always goes something like this: “Be careful who you fight, for you may become like them.” When you go a little deeper, you find that this makes sense. The passions of conflict are so strangely interwoven that it is not uncommon for one party to a conflict to unwittingly take on the characteristics of the other.

So I wondered last week whether we had not, in fact, absorbed some Soviet-style behavior during the Cold War.

Of course DC took on the characteristics of its old Red enemies. It even appropriated some of their core policies, which we've commented on before:

Like its old rival, the Soviet Union, the US projects itself as a “proposition nation” uniquely committed to equality, human rights, and diversity. The Soviets had likewise asserted that their forces represented the triumph of the Enlightenment virtues of liberation and equality.

Khrushchev launched a campaign to bring communism to the African nations emerging out of the 19th century’s colonial empires, hoping to utilize resentment against the West to set up client states throughout the continent.

Interestingly, the more immediate result of Khrushchev’s focus on communist revolution in the former colonies in Africa was felt in the US. The Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson administrations, despite the private prejudices of many top leaders, committed the US to a Civil Rights agenda at home to diminish the appeal of “African Socialism” at home and abroad.

If a government adapts totalitarian ideas, totalitarian strategy, and totalitarian goals, what can you expect from it, sooner or later?

Totalitarian behavior, of course.

Obama's Patriotism Oration

Here's Steve Sailer doing what he does best: pointing out the absurdities of our political class:

Obama gave a big speech on patriotism in Independence, Missouri, the equivalent of his then-much celebrated race speech in Philadelphia.

"On a spring morning in April of 1775, a simple band of colonists ... They did so not on behalf of a particular tribe or lineage, but on behalf of a larger idea. The idea of liberty. ...

Throughout my life, I have always taken my deep and abiding love for this country as a given."

I guess this is how he would explain that there is absolutely no mention of his deep and abiding love for his country in his 442-page autobiographical "Story of Race and Inheritance:" It's "a given." He didn't have any room to mention it.

As I pointed out yesterday, the O is clearly saying that loyalty to land and people don’t define patriotism, but “noble” ideas do. Check out the second paragraph of his talk -– the “simple band of colonists” who took up arms against the British empire, we're told, "did so not on behalf of a particular tribe or lineage, but on behalf of a larger idea."

And of course, he’s wrong — Otis, Adams, and others based their actions on how Parliament had violated their traditional rights as Englishmen. The American Revolution was a conservative revolution — it aimed at restoring historical standards of how citizens are to be treated by their government, rather than inventing new standards.

Repudiating the Neocons

Bush, to use his father's expression, is in deep doo. Even National Review and Fox News agree. First, in a campaign report entitled Bush and Congressional Job Ratings Hit Historic Lows, Fox says this about the W legacy:

With far more Americans identifying themselves as Democrats than Republicans, President Bush’s job rating has hit a new low, according to the latest FOX News poll. Three in 10 Americans (30 percent) now approve of the job Bush is doing as the nation’s leader, with 6 in 10 disapproving.

While disapproval of the president has been higher (for example, 61 percent in both July and March of 2007), his approval rating has never sunk this low before.

And National Review sees disaster ahead for Republicans:

Currently, voters are voting for Senator Barack Obama over Senator John McCain, 46% to 38% respectively. Sixteen percent (16%) are undecided. This vote is being driven largely by President George W. Bush’s low opinion ratings. Those favorable to President Bush (37% total) are voting for Senator McCain 74% to 15% for Senator Obama. Those unfavorable to President Bush (54% total) are voting for Senator Obama 69% to 14% for Senator McCain.

Not that I look forward to what the leftist, anti-Western Obama is going to attempt once he's in power, but it is gratifying to see how the American people are rejecting the Neocon agenda of endless war and global hegemony. Those who vote against a "third Bush term" do so because they're using all the veto power they have against the delusional Neocon program. Voters have no appetite for it anymore, no matter what chickenhawks like Bill Kristol and Dick Cheney imagine.

McCain and Obama: alien twins

Decisions, decisions. Do we want Open Borders to promote conservative values, or liberal values? I just can't make up my mind. Both candidates make such a convincing case:

In their June 28 speeches to the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO), John McCain and Barack Obama seemed to be competing to see who could do a better job of pandering to open-borders advocacy groups. Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama demonstrated that for voters who say that respecting the rule of law and securing the border should be top priorities, there is no candidate with a serious chance to win the White House in 2008.

These are your choices, folks. Yes, this is what it's come to. As this piece concludes:

The unhappy reality is that on the issue of illegal immigration, you can barely tell John McCain and Barack Obama apart.

Sebesta Award winner!

This week's Sebesta Award for moronic writing on the subject of multiculturalism goes to the anonymous (of course) editorial writer responsible for this gruesome sing-song praising urban diversity:

Vibrancy is what happens when longtime Cliff dwellers bump up against the surge of gay couples fixing up their Wynnewood homes not so far from Latino families imbuing Jefferson Boulevard with a gritty mercado atmosphere.

Vibrancy is what happens when white-collar professionals and blue-collar laborers sit shoulder-to-shoulder at restaurants like the Charco Broiler, Tops Cafe and El Ranchito.

And vibrancy is what happens when agencies like Casa Guanajuato serve immigrant families a few blocks from historic, big-steeple churches like Cliff Temple Baptist.

Wow.

Toward the end of this brainless chant about what multiculturalism should be comes this admission of what it actually does to communities:

The Jefferson Boulevard Business Association's members would like their street to include a wider mix. That's why they are fighting daily against graffiti, working on better lighting and signage, and trying to attract businesses. ...

Given how much the economy of Dallas – and Texas – depends upon immigrant students making progress, the quality of this region's schools is crucial. ...

A challenge remains, though, for other schools. Sunset and Adamson high schools inherit students from Mexico with limited English skills. How will they progress?

How indeed? Crime, dismal economic conditions, urban blight, gangs, and poorly performing schools are the real results of demographic upheaval. But you don't get a Sebesta award for tough-minded analysis. You have to earn it -- by believing that homogenous, stable populations are not only dull, but bad, and that multiculturalism's dismal track record is only a temporary distraction from its sunshiney potential. It only takes a little creativity. As this wretched piece concludes:

We will search for the right strategies on all these fronts. This district sits in the heart of Oak Cliff, but it is a microcosm of the challenge for Dallas and Texas. By rising to the occasion, this potentially vibrant community can show our city and state the way.

Hmmm. Maybe he's right. The consequences of multiculturalism in a community don't have to be plummeting property values and crime. Just because demographic upheaval's historically been a sign of a dying civilization, rather than an ascendent one, doesn't mean it always has to be that way. With enough tolerance, creative ideas, and a little bit of love, a happy, happy multicultural future could await us.

Look! There's a unicorn ...


and a rainbow ...

Obama, then and now

Obama then:

Obama missed the February vote on that FISA bill as he campaigned in the "Potomac Primaries," but issued a statement that day declaring "I am proud to stand with Senator Dodd, Senator Feingold and a grassroots movement of Americans who are refusing to let President Bush put protections for special interests ahead of our security and our liberty."

Obama now:

"Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as president, I will carefully monitor the program," Obama said in a statement hours after the House approved the legislation 293-129.

So, as the prospect of personally exercising the power of an imperial president becomes more likely, Obama now likes the idea of the Federal government spying on Americans. Well ...

This isn't so much about Obama as it is about his supporters. We already knew all we needed to know about Obama when he announced to the world he coveted the unnatural power concentrated in the Oval Office. Only an egomaniac would desire such a thing. Like Bill Clinton. Or John McCain.

What's funny is that Obama's lemming-like supporters think they're getting something new with Obama. Looks like the same ol' DC power grab to me.

Democratic Party official accused in Satanic rituals

From Durham, North Carolina, the town that gave us the Duke non-rape fiasco, comes this story:

Allegations that a local Democratic official and her husband were involved in Satanic rituals that included shackling people to beds, caging them and depriving them of food and water have horrified county party leaders.
Joy Johnson, 30, a third vice-chairwoman of the Durham County Democratic Party and vice chairwoman of the Young Democrats, was charged Friday with two counts of aiding and abetting.

So -- Democrats are Satan-worshipers? That's news?

No wonder Sam Francis called the Democrats the "Evil Party."

The new patriotism in the age of Obama

Our post-racial candidate gives us the post-American definition of patriotism:

For a young man of mixed race, without firm anchor in any particular community, without even a father's steadying hand, it is this essential American idea - that we are not constrained by the accident of birth but can make of our lives what we will - that has defined my life, just as it has defined the life of so many other Americans.

That is why, for me, patriotism is always more than just loyalty to a place on a map or a certain kind of people. Instead, it is also loyalty to America's ideals - ideals for which anyone can sacrifice, or defend, or give their last full measure of devotion.

Yes, let's forget those silly notions about love of land and people. The new, improved patriotism is about love of abstract ideals.

But what if the country next door comes up with even better ideals? Your country's ideals of justice and equality can be trumped by the promise of justice, equality, and jobs for all. And free health care. In response, your country could match those alluring ideals, only to be out-bid when the competition promises all citizens a free puppy, too.

Wouldn't you want to immigrate there? After all, it's racist to profess loyalty to the land or the people, so why shouldn't we completely ditch the old-fashioned idea of heritage and complete the transition to consumers -- and competitive consumers at that, always looking for the best deal? Patriotism would be just another commodity in the global market, like capital, labor, and raw materials. That way, we eliminate such unfair standards as accident of birth. Sounds fair to me.

Lieberman: U.S. May Face Terror Attack In 2009

Say it ain't so, Joe:

Sen. Joe Lieberman warns the United States will likely face a terrorist attack in 2009 and feels Republican presidential nominee John McCain will be better prepared to handle the imminent attack than Democratic rival Barack Obama.

"Our enemies will test the new president early,” Lieberman says during on interview Sunday on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

“Remember the truck bombing of the World Trade Center happened in the first year of the Clinton administration, and 9/11 happened in the first year of the Bush administration," he notes.

Time out!

Now wait a cotton-pickin' mintute! All this time, we've been assured that Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq was launched to PREVENT terrorists from attacking the US. Yes, the hows of this process were a little hazy -- I recall something about Iraq being "flypaper" that would somehow lull all who hated Americans into directing their fire at National Guard volunteers instead of flying more jets into New York.

And now Lieberman says it was all for nothing?

Wake Up, America. We're Driving Toward Disaster.

Since it was founded in 1994, the League of the South has been warning anyone who'd listen that DC's other-worldly, over-centralized policies were taking us down the wrong road. Restoring local self-government wasn't just about greater efficiency, or citizen accessibility, or even the restoration of morality to government -- though all of those were genuine motivations to stop the slide toward empire. The ultimate justification, though, for the League's stance was that big, over-centralized government inevitably leads to tyranny, war, and ruin, and the signs that we're approaching a cliff at 80 miles an hour are increasingly clear.

In other words, the Southern Cause isn't about nostalgia, legalism, or the "Lost Cause," but ultimately about survival, both cultural and physical. Now the warning signs are so clear, none but the most delusional can ignore them -- increased, rather than decreased, instability in the Middle East, worsening the always nervous oil market, sending prices to new, terrifying highs; the credit crunch, with its deadly effect on the housing market, a direct result of the Neocons' foolish overseas borrowing to pay for the "liberation" of Iraq, also worsened by egalitarian home mortgage policies that trump rational business decisions; rising crime, including frightening increases in immigrant gang activities, the inevitable result of DC's de facto Open Borders policies; and an out-of-control citizen control mechanism that claims the power to dissolve the 4th amendment and other basic freedoms, even habeas corpus.

Now, it's not just "right-wing" pundits who recognize that things are falling apart, but liberals, too. James Kunstler has a great piece arguing that America's infinite consumption, infinite growth, and world-wide empire are not only unsustainable, but suicidal. His recommendations sound like a position paper from the League of the South Board of Directors:

So what are intelligent responses to our predicament? First, we'll have to dramatically reorganize the everyday activities of American life. We'll have to grow our food closer to home, in a manner that will require more human attention. In fact, agriculture needs to return to the center of economic life. We'll have to restore local economic networks -- the very networks that the big-box stores systematically destroyed -- made of fine-grained layers of wholesalers, middlemen and retailers.

We'll also have to occupy the landscape differently, in traditional towns, villages and small cities. Our giant metroplexes are not going to make it, and the successful places will be ones that encourage local farming.

(As a heads-up to readers, stand by for some exciting new activism strategies from the League leadership -- something we've been working on for some time.)

For now, let's just take a look at where the attitudes that led to these self-destructive policies came from. As Kunstler says, the notion that we can have, or should have, anything we want is both delusional and suicidal. The most concise expression of this philosophy is from the atheist writer Ayn Rand. As she wrote, appropriately, in The Virtue of Selfishness:

Nothing is given to man on earth except a potential and the material on which to actualize it. The potential is a superlative machine: his consciousness; but it is a machine without a spark plug, a machine of which his own will has to be the spark plug, the self-starter and the driver; he has to discover how to use it and he has to keep it in constant action. The material is the whole of the universe, with no limits set to the knowledge he can acquire and to the enjoyment of life he can achieve.

Contrast that view of man and nature with the traditional Southern view, best summarized by Richard Weaver in The Southern Tradition At Bay:

"But nature is not an opponent, as ancient systems of belief could have instructed us; it is the matrix of our being, and as such scientists we are parricides. Piety is a realization that beyond a certain point victories over nature are pyrrhic." (p. 16)

That's the change in direction we now need so desperately, from that of greed, selfishness, and unbelief, to that of honor, patriotism, and piety.

Details to follow ...

Quote of the day

"To tar the sacrifices of the Confederate soldier as simple acts of racism and reduce the battle flag under which he fought to nothing more than the symbol of a racist heritage is one of the greatest blasphemies of our modern age." James Webb, Senator and former U. S. Navy Secretary.

Shots heard 'round the world fired near Charleston

Think the American War for Independence was fought and won in the North? That's because most textbooks were written and published there. Here's a bit of history all Southerners can be proud of:

Most American school children have heard stirring stories of the battles of Concord Bridge and Lexington Green, relatively minor skirmishes fought by the Minutemen of Revolutionary lore. These were fought in April 1775, and at Concord Bridge was fired the "shot heard 'round the world." But it was at an unfinished, palmetto-log fort on Sullivan's Island where the cannon shots heard 'round the world were fired. There, 425 Americans fought off a British invasion fleet of 20 ships, foiling an early attempt to occupy Charleston, then the largest and most important city in the colonies south of Philadelphia.

The Battle of Fort Sullivan marked the first American victory over a substantial British force in the Revolution.

The last such victory was at Yorktown, Virginia, 7 months after Guilford Courthouse in North Carolina.

Gun Control

Steve Sailer nails it once again. The whole point of the Bill of Rights was not to define, much less grant, certain rights to the American people. The point was instead to strictly limit the powers of the new Federal government. The rights and powers of the people were expressed and protected by their sovereign State governments -- and they were protected by State militias:

The other big change is that the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the states until the 14th Amendment of 1868. For example, Connecticut had an establishment of religion until 1818. So, the ratifiers weren't establishing an absolute right of gun ownership, they were just preventing the federal government from infringing it.

Winners and losers in Heller

Thursday's Heller ruling was not a victory for freedom, or gun rights, or anything worth defending. It was a victory for government supremacists and their camp-followers.

Just to get a feel for what this ruling means, check out this provocatively titled news story: Gun Ban Ruling Sets Up Bay Area Legal Battles. You don't even have to click it to see where this is going: a "Red-State" ruling incites Blue States to re-assert anti-gun laws, the National Rifle Association fund-raising machinery revs into high gear to stop the Red-State gun-grabbers, millions flow into NRA coffers, NRA lobbyists cart donations to politicians, and the music goes 'round and 'round.

If you think the NRA is pro-Constitution, recall how they took a pot shot at the most consistent, most principled defender of the Constitution a few years back, Ron Paul of Texas:

A staunchly pro-gun-rights lawmaker has repeated his opposition to legislation that would protect firearms manufacturers from liability suits, despite a report that the National Rifle Association may pull its support for him in the next election.

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, voted to oppose H.R. 1036, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, because he said he feared it would be an unconstitutional enhancement of federal power. As WorldNetDaily reported, the bill passed the House earlier this month 285-140.

But because he voted against the bill, the NRA may drop its support of Paul in the future, according to Chicago Sun-Times syndicated columnist Robert Novak.

The NRA is part of the problem. It agrees with DC that DC is the source of our rights, and that any meaningful effort to preserve those rights must be waged there. It's a single-issue organization, with all the blinkered energy and cash that define -- and limit -- such groups. All too often, they take stands that seem to advance their abstract, isolated goal, but in the long run hobble them. The Ron Paul case was just one such example.

DC, of course, is the big winner in this ruling. Once again, we have been persuaded that the Federal government defines its own power, and what our rights are. And all the "conservative" pundits and bloggers nod like bobbleheads that this is a good thing.

Doesn't sound like any kind of pro-freedom victory to me. And when will we ever learn?

Obama Supports FISA Legislation

Well, lookee here -- Obama reveals himself to be nothing more than -- a politician:

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) today announced his support for a sweeping intelligence surveillance law that has been heavily denounced by the liberal activists who have fueled the financial engines of his presidential campaign.

In his most substantive break with the Democratic Party's base since becoming the presumptive nominee, Obama declared he will support the bill when it comes to a Senate vote, likely next week, despite misgivings about legal provisions for telecommunications corporations that cooperated with the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program of suspected terrorists.

For all his talk about reinventing politics, and changing the way things are done in Washington, Obama, in his pursuit of the ultimate political prize, is simply playing the game.

Here's the simple truth: no one aims for supreme power unless they REALLY want it.


So don't think for a second that Obama, should he win, will start dismantling the machinery of power once he possesses it. President Obama will keep the DC war machine well-oiled; he'll either find an excuse to stay in Iraq, or expand the war in Afghanistan. And there's always Iran.

The man savors political tug-of-war, enjoys wielding power. Like all the others attracted to the unnatural power of the chief executive, he's an addict reaching for that ultimate fix. If he grabs it, and feels it in his hand, he's not about to let go -- he would never transform DC into a pacifist, feel-good Woodstock, no matter what the frightened Republicans claim. They, all of political animals, ought to know better.

How switching language can change your personality

The complex creature that is man will never be fully comprehended. However, we do know that the mother tongue is a vital part of who we are, and this story confirms that:

Bicultural people may unconsciously change their personality when they switch languages, according to a US study on bilingual Hispanic women.

It found that women who were actively involved in both English and Spanish speaking cultures interpreted the same events differently, depending on which language they were using at the time.

It is known that people in general can switch between different ways of interpreting events and feelings – a phenomenon known as frame shifting. But the researchers say their work shows that bilingual people that are active in two different cultures do it more readily, and that language is the trigger.

The various languages are much, much more than just different words and sounds for expressing the same meanings and feelings. Language profoundly shapes our thoughts, and defines and proclaims our shared personality with our historic community.

John O'Donohue, the Irish poet and philosopher who spoke Gaelic as his native language, was best known for his book Anam Cara — Gaelic for "soul friend." In the ancient Celtic church, a spiritual guide was an anam cara, someone with whom you could share your innermost thoughts. Language was a vital concern to O'Donohue, who saw it as the most important bridge to loved ones, connecting all to the beloved community, defining and informing you of who you are. O'Donohue wrote, "With your soul friend, you can say who you are. With this love, you are understood as you are, without mask or pretension. Where you are understood, you are at home."

And when we are surrounded by those we do not understand, we are not at home. Nor do we know who we are anymore.

Those are the social, cultural, and spiritual stakes of our fight for survival as a people.

Sooner Sense

Hooray for Oklahoma!

The Oklahoma House of Representatives passed a resolution informing DC it had gone too far, and they weren't going to take it any more. Better yet, the Oklahoma House went on to instruct DC to “cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.”

As this article correctly states, the language of the long-neglected 10th Amendment couldn't be plainer:

While much of the U.S. Constitution invites legitimate debate as to the “Framer’s Intent,” the twenty-eight words which comprise the Tenth Amendment are as unambiguous as they are forgotten.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

One of the clearest and most compelling proofs that our Founding Fathers indeed envisaged a limited federal government, the Tenth Amendment is a vital safeguard against an overreaching central authority.

In an age of political spin, pandering, and equivocation, it's refreshing to see elected representatives taking a truly courageous stand:

... the resolution’s lead sponsor—State Rep. Charles Key—was nearly as unambiguous as the language of the Tenth Amendment in explaining his desire to protect America’s “forgotten” right.

“The more we stand by and watch the federal government get involved in areas where it has no legal authority, we kill the Constitution a little at a time,” he said. “The last few decades, the Constitution has been hanging by a thread.”

Here, I have to dissent. The Constitution isn't hanging by anything -- it fell into the ash-heap of history decades agao. Today, it's an empty form, reduced to little more than a word game for ambitious politicians and judges who compete to see who can best warp its words into whatever suits their immediate purpose.

Heidi Beirich receives well-earned promotion at SPLC

With today's release of “Behind the Veil," a video exposé of the "anti-immigrant" movement, Heidi Beirich rises from her role of the Torquemada of the Southern Poverty Law Center to its Leni Riefenstahl.

As the publicity release for the video announces:

In the video, Beirich of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)—the nation’s premier monitor of hate groups—discusses SPLC’s research on organizations such as the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), NumbersUSA, and the Social Contract Press.

In the Riefenstahl tradition, Beirich draws the viewer into the video's movement and message with an alluring grace that can only be described as Beirichy. I found myself utterly bewitched, and totally convinced by the video's subtle and well-researched political message: Immigrants are good, and restrictionists are evil.

Produced by La Raza (translation: "Das Volk," ) the video reveals that those who would stop the uncontrolled human flood across our borders may pretend to care about security, and upholding Federal law, but are actually violent racist extremists who should be mercilessly hounded, arrested, tortured, and forced to attend sensitivity classes:

On the one hand,” says Beirich, “the anti-immigrant system is based on pandering to the extremists that you know will join your ranks, back you, fund you, and attend your events. On the other hand, it tries to use groups like FAIR to present a more moderate face that seems disconnected from these folks, but really at the end of the day, isn’t.”

Congratulations, Heidi! Leni would be proud.

The Southern grievances

Here's an interesting online debate you'll want to check out. It's a fairly objective, though still skewed, look at the background to the War to Prevent Southern Independence. Here's a sampling:

This does not sound like an oppressed population. If anything, it sounds like the North had more right to fear for its autonomy than the the South did. The South had gained more property and had been given the right to impose their definition of property on Northern states. Where the autonomy and lifestyle of anyone other than themselves were concerned, they didn’t care — and for the most part they got their way.

So why did the South secede? What were the injustices?

And in response:

Since the beginning of the Republic, great care was taken to balance the sectional interests of North and South. But the election of Lincoln and Hamlin, both from the North, shocked Southerners. As North Carolina’s governor John Ellis noted:

“Two persons have been elected to the offices of President and Vice-President exclusively by the people of ONE SECTION of the country…A clearer case of foreign domination could not well be presented.”

When war came, it was clear that it was a war between two economic and political systems, as opposed to the post-war propaganda that it was a great, noble war of liberation. In the real world, nations do not go to war to do good deeds; they go to war for power, land, and treasure.

Feel free to join in.

McCain the conservative candidate?

What says "conservatism" more than promoting the homosexual agenda and amnesty for illegal aliens? Darned if I know! Because John McCain is definitely a real conservative -- he says so himself, and Bob Dole, Mr. Conservatism himself, agrees. And look! He's friends with the Log Cabin Republicans:

GayPatriot has exclusively learned that presumptive Republican Presidential nominee Senator John McCain held a personal meeting with the head of the national gay Republicans organization, the Log Cabin Republicans. Log Cabin President Patrick Sammon confirmed his meeting with Senator McCain earlier today. [25 June]

And the amnesty lobby likes John McCain, too:

Sen. John McCain took some grief from the Left for keeping a tight handle on who he invited to his secret meeting with Hispanics in Chicago last week. And he took some grief from the Right for apparently promising at that meeting to pursue a pathway to citizenship for some illegal immigrants.

The grief from the Right continued today. Anti-amnesty crusader Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., wrote McCain a letter calling him out on the meeting, questioning McCain's commitment to pledges made earlier in the campaign, and snarkily invoking McCain's "Straight Talk" mantra.

The LCR crowd wants to expand the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples who can adopt children, and President Bush himself assured us Latinos bring their strong family values with them when they violate our borders. So when McCain becomes president, this country will just be knee-deep in family values.

If he doesn't blow us all up first.