The Confederate Libertarian

What Happens When Governments Play Economics?

2009-07-07T14:45:00.000-07:00

I'm putting in a shameless plug for one of the blogs I follow, the Confederate Yankee. His article today really demonstrates the horrors of government interference in what ought to be a healthy, recovering economy and instead is putrifying with the disease of corrupt beauracratic meddling.

You will find his article here:

Barack Obama, Economic Battlefield Surgeon

President Obama's current stimulus package increased unemployment beyond what doing nothing would have done. We know, because this is his graph.

Well, it isn't entirely his graph.

The light blue line represents what the Administration said we'd see if we did absolutely nothing. The dark blue line is what Obama said the stimulus would do.

The red dots, however, are reality, the real numbers that Barack Obama and all the Democrats in Congress would rather ignore. Those bright, red dots represent the hundreds of thousands of Americans that have lost their jobs because Barack Obama and the Democratic Party rammed through a massive stimulus bill that none of them read.

I'll repeat that again.

The massive stimulus bill Democrats unanimously voted for has cost America hundreds of thousands of jobs, and Obama wants to leave the option open to do it again.

Obama has become something like a mad battlefield surgeon from the Civil War, hacking off limbs with his crude and barbaric medicine, killing and maiming more than he saves. Our economy is bleeding out due to his hackery and that of the incompetents and cheats his employs.

We don't need any more of his help, and we'll be damn lucky if we survive the medicine he's already prescribed.

WOW. Thank you, Confederate Yankee, for supplying these figures to remind us that playing ostrich doesn't stop what's happening above the sand.

Happy Independence Day!

2009-07-04T06:22:00.000-07:00

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

hen 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.

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 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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But 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. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. 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 refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

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 kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

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 quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

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

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

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.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, 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. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

FIGHT TYRANNY.

Socialism, Hitler, and Obama

2009-06-15T18:45:00.000-07:00

Youtube author's link: http://www.youtube.com/user/machosauceproduction

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwOE8K8CH-8

(Or watch it at the bottom of the blog here. Skip ahead to about 3 or 4 minutes in, that's where it gets really funny.)

I love listening to this video blog, conducted by a well-educated conservative republican who really understands the faults of the current administration. Although I can't personally support the republicans over the democrats as a party (they're currently just as corrupt and pro-spending), I appreciate a sharp wit willing to really attack the stupidities that the left-wing liberals pass for serious arguments on national media.

In case you can't or don't feel like watching the video, let me transcribe the gist of it. After laughing for a while about the absurdity of liberal "racist" outcries, he starts comparing and contrasting Adolf Hitler, Rush Limbaugh, and the democrat-liberals of America. It's hilarious. Here are the main points he makes:

"Rush Limbaugh is a capitalist. Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party were socialists.

------>When the state claims industry and capital, dipping into somebody else's pockets and 'spreading the wealth around,' you know, that thing that you support? That's socialism!

Rush Limbaugh is pro-life. Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party were pro-abortion.

------>Who else is pro-abortion? Oh yeah, you liberals are!

Rush Limbaugh believes that health care and coverage should be left to private industry. Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party believed that health care should be provided by the state.

------>Who else believes that health care should be provided by the state? Oh yeah, you liberals do!

Rush Limbaugh believes in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You liberals think that the planet is overpopulated... oh, except for people of your type.

------>Hmm, who else believed that there was only room for a master-race type?

Rush Limbaugh is a Christian, who knows that the Constitution grants us the right to practice our religion in public. You liberals keep trying to subtract religion from the public, like Christianity.

------>Who else was anti-religious and didn't want his nation to be separated by religion? Oh yeah, Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party. Separation of church and state!

Looks like you liberals have more in common with Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party than Rush Limbaugh does!!!"

May I add that both wanted to disarm the populous? And both had the media on their side? That both wanted to increase federal government control over domestic concerns such as schooling and marriage? Power power power....

So if there remains any question that we have, indeed, completed the destruction of American freedom with this latest election, there you have it. We have just put into the highest seat of authority in the United States a young, inexperienced, charismatic nationalist who wants to suppress defensive rights (such as gun ownership, the right to speak out, the right to educate your own children, etc) and increase government power and spending. All while taxing the populous, borrowing without intent to repay, and promising "change" and a better future.

Mein Führer, anybody?

This man will be able to propose laws, pick Supreme Court justices, instigate political deals with other countries, and act as our spokesman to the world, among many other things. That's just what he can do legally. Illegally, he's already seizing companies and nationalizing them, deposing business leaders to replace them with men who support his policies, and selling them to foreign interests, against the American public will. Without the Constitutional right to do so, he is GRANTING himself the authority to rend free markets apart and socialize health care, business, and the country as a whole.

Tell me with a straight face that Hitler supported civillian autonomy and freedom. Tell me that Obama wants the same. Seriously.

The Electoral College

2009-06-10T18:41:00.000-07:00

Let us recap: during the American Revolution, the colonies sought freedom from tyranny. The thought ran: "if some far-off place with little in common with us has decided to exploit our labors to their own benefit against our interests without our say-so, we should rebel. First we'll try legal suit--then resort to violence."

Huh. Sounds familiar.

So now that I have covered how the Constitution deviated from the original ideas of the Founding Fathers (over the howling protests of people like Thomas Jefferson and, notably, Patrick Henry) by illegally granting the federal government far more power than intended, let me cover why that was such a bad thing.

The Myth of Federal Democracy in America

The electoral college proves itself every 4 years to be one of the most illogical and least understood systems in all of American government. Although in theory designed to somewhat protect separate state input, its attempt at reconciling state voting with true democracy quite simply... fails.

The way that it works now, a tiny state with a large population gets more say than a large state with a smaller population. Sounds fair, right? If each state got one vote only, a voter in Vermont would have less say in politics than a voter in Montana. So if voters of every denomination (republican, conservative, democrat, liberal, green, libertarian, etc) were equally spread throughout the country, the system makes a lot of sense. It's still a true democracy, right? No matter where you live your vote counts the same because regions don't really matter. It's all about population.

But regions do matter. America is not one, united, homogenous people. The cultures divide across regional lines. It only takes a glance at the voting maps to see that the country does not show up an even purple! Blue states cover certain areas, red states claim others. Occasionally a state surprises everyone, but the general rule says that you can predict the outcome of each state based on which region it's located in.

If you don't believe this, let me ask you: what response would you get if you asked a New York City resident to suddenly move to the Bible Belt in the South? How about asking a beach Californian to transplant to West Virginia?

The cultures of certain areas of our country differ radically. The South has its own unique dialect, religious character, ethnic demographics, history, economy, political position, and social culture. In other lands, that's enough to argue that it deserves status as a separate nation.

So regions do matter. Unfortunately, the electoral college attempts too much to compromise between democracy and state-voting. The country simply cannot be ruled fairly by a population count. The masses of New England will always outvote the sparser lands of the West, the Midwest will outpopulate the South. Tiny Vermont has more of a say in the government than massive Virginia, simply because of population density.

Again, in an evenly distributed nation, true democracy would work and the electoral college's system wouldn't matter. But while the college fails at recognizing regional importance, it also flubs the democratic aims by trying its compromise: recall those elections where the candidate who LOST the popular vote still won by grabbing a few key states in the electoral college. In such a system, the entire South can vote for one man, and never see him elected. It fails.

How about an alternative?

Recognize, for once, that the country does not spread out evenly-- and so divide accordingly. North, South, Midwest, Southwest, Northwest. Let the states of each region jointly elect their own presidents. Let every region send its president to Washington, and let these form a presidential council instead of the single-man office of president. Return to a confederation, a union of separates, rather than trying to force together clearly distinct nations (a tactic that has exploded in wars elsewhere as well--just look at the 'countries' of Africa!).

Why propose such a divisive solution?

Because it prevents exactly the problems that started the American Revolution. The colonies called the king a tyrant, not because monarchy itself was so terrible after the Magna Carta, but because they were a separate nation (unique ethnicity, dialect, culture, industry, conditions and economy) ruled without representation by a foreign dictator. Exactly as happens when the entire South votes against one candidate, and the North elects him anyways to control the entire country. Foreign dictator. Tyrant.

Does this sound like an extreme interpretation? Consider this: in the 1860 presidential election, Abraham Lincoln DID NOT APPEAR ON THE SOUTHERN BALLOT. Nine entire states refused to even vote for him. An entire, enormous region of the 'country' rejected the man the other half of the country put in power.

Imagine that China and America were one country, and all of America voted for an American who supported American interests, but China (with more people to vote) elected a Chinese communist anyways.... who then supported policies detrimental to American beliefs, society, and (most especially) American business and economy. Imagine it. Now imagine how the South must have felt when told that their votes had meant absolutely nothing and the man they had published an ultimatum against now had power over the country.

And we wonder why they rebelled??? I wonder why we don't call them heroes!

The second American Revolution against tyranny may have failed, but the spirit of freedom from regional dictators ought to be remembered. Not crushed under the slanderous label of 'treason.'

So much for American democracy.

Marxism!

2009-06-01T07:54:00.000-07:00

The economic abuses of the North against the South in the mid-1800's may seem shocking, but how many Americans are really looking at the economic horrors of this new Obama-manic government??

Here's what the Russians have to say about our laughable plight:

American capitalism gone with a whimper

It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.

True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.

Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.

First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our "democracy". Pride blind the foolish.

Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and denominations" were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the "winning" side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the "winning" side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America.

The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.

These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison. Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them?

These men, of course, are not an elected panel but made up of appointees picked from the very financial oligarchs and their henchmen who are now gorging themselves on trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another. They are also usurping the rights, duties and powers of the American congress (parliament). Again, congress has put up little more then a whimper to their masters.

Then came Barack Obama's command that GM's (General Motor) president step down from leadership of his company. That is correct, dear reader, in the land of "pure" free markets, the American president now has the power, the self given power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private companies, at will. Come hither, go dither, the centurion commands his minions.

So it should be no surprise, that the American president has followed this up with a "bold" move of declaring that he and another group of unelected, chosen stooges will now redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee of automobile policies. I am sure that if given the chance, they would happily try and redesign it for the whole of the world, too. Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK's Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our "wise" Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.

Again, the American public has taken this with barely a whimper...but a "freeman" whimper.

So, should it be any surprise to discover that the Democratically controlled Congress of America is working on passing a new regulation that would give the American Treasury department the power to set "fair" maximum salaries, evaluate performance and control how private companies give out pay raises and bonuses? Senator Barney Franks has led this effort. He stresses that this only affects companies that receive government monies, but it is retroactive and taken to a logical extreme, this would include any company or industry that has ever received a tax break or incentive.

The Russian owners of American companies and industries should look thoughtfully at this and the option of closing their facilities down and fleeing the land of the Red as fast as possible. In other words, divest while there is still value left.

The proud American will go down into his slavery with out a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker.

_____

Well, that really sums it up. Zimbabwe. Wow.

Good luck, America.

NB: St. Francis on Welfare =)

2009-05-28T07:29:00.000-07:00

"Maxim X. It is not lawful to take the things of others to give to the poor. It is a sin worthy of punishment, not an act deserving a reward, to give away what belongs to others."
~St. Francis of Assisi
(Works of the Seraphic Father, p. 140)

State Constitutions: A Quick Overview

2009-05-27T16:01:00.001-07:00

In order for me to address how Southern secession was legal it seems pertinent that I quickly cover what 'legal' means in America when speaking of states' rights and statehood.

To begin, what are the states anyway? Modern students appear to think of them as simply a local division of the grander government, like a county. Still, most Americans will even now recognize that the idea of our states came from the colonies. Here's Hannis Taylor's summary from Due Process of Law and the Equal Protection of Laws:

"When the tie of political dependence that bound the colonies to the mother country was severed, the English provinces in America rose to the full stature of sovereign states. When the Revolution took place the people of each state became themselves sovereign; and so soon as they took into their own hands the powers of sovereignty, the prerogatives and regalities which before belonged either to the crown or the parliament, became immediately and rightfully vested in the state."

In other words, the English colonies recognized themselves as sovereign regions, with needs, beliefs, and cultures separate from English government, and declared themselves independent nations. Immediately state constitutions came out, such as the 1776 Virginia Constitution (http://www.nhinet.org/ccs/docs/va-1776.htm).

Although the 13 separate colonies joined together their defenses to rebel against the British and German soldiers attacking them, their ultimate goals clearly centered upon individual independence and protection from regional (British, in this case) tyranny. One might even call their various constitutions paranoid; nothing could convince them that a distant, large, and powerful government interfering directly with their lives and economy could be anything but corrupt and tyrannical.

Since the Magna Carta, in the English tradition anything legal must be codified, enumered and set down in writing like a constitution in order to be legitimate. So after the Declaration of Independence these paranoid 13 put together and wrote down a plan for a shared system of independent and primarily sovereign states called a Confederation. The Articles of Confederation, sadly, exercised too much restraint in outlining their unity--and the government of this con-federation of states could do, essentially, nothing beneficial for its 13 members. They needed a federal union.

"A federal union is the joining together of sovereign states under any form of confederation more permanent than a mere alliance, wherein each state surrenders a part of its sovereignty for the common good of all, without the surrender of its individual right to regulate such internal affairs as concern it only.” --The origin and growth of the English constitution, Hannis Taylor

Thus, a new attempt at a constitution sprang out of a semi-legal meeting of non-governmental representatives at the Philidelphia Convention. This new document outlined a balanced, three-branched federal government with some legitimate powers to control things, enforce taxes, and limit the resistance of the states. It also only required 9 of the 13 to accept it, extra-legally at non-congressional conventions, for the new form of government to go into action.

People freaked. The men divided into federalists and anti-federalists debating whether this more powerfully centralized government would be capable of avoiding the very corruptions they had just given lives to escape from. Friends and family had died in an effort to prevent exactly these powers from ever belonging to a central government!

Finally, they compromised and agreed that this central federal government could work, IF limited entirely by a detailed and untouchable Bill of Rights that would specifically retain ALL other powers for the sovereign states joining this union.

Each state drew up a new constitution or submitted their existing document as their half of the contract in admittance to this new government. A list of when each state submitted and ratified their own constitution may be found here: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/slg/constitution.phtml

Lord James Bryce observes in The American Commonwealth that “State Constitutions are the oldest things in the political history of America, since they are linked to the royal colonial charters that created the earliest English settlements.” Each state government outlined by such a document, therefore, retains the initial concept of separation of regional governments. Andrew Jackson himself, though a unionist, very succinctly expresses the whole philosophy entailed by such a system:

"This right to secede is deduced from the nature of the Constitution which, they say, is a compact between sovereign States who have preserved their whole sovereignty and, therefore, are subject to no superior, that because they made the compact, they can break it when, in their opinion, it has been departed from by the other States." --Proclamation to the People of South Carolina, December 10, 1832.

The Founding Fathers clearly treasured independence and sovereignty. Every contract had a means of severence should the terms no longer be honored. The states entered into this Constitutional contract for the sole reason of mutual benefit--and, most importantly, NOWHERE in the Constitution do the signers agree that this contract is unbreakable. The states therefore retained the right to secede (a right never mentioned in the Constitution as prohibited by the federal government, and therefore protected by the 10th Amendment), and had every legitimate reason to do so when the system turned abusive.

Which takes us to the abuses--a topic for another day.

So For Starters: The Flag Today

2009-05-27T05:54:00.000-07:00

An interesting blog by Brad Warthen covers this issue in detail, so anyone particularly interested in the modern right to fly the flag should definitely check him out. In the meantime, I would like to highlight a specific quote from his May 16th 2007 blog, which I think sums up the issue at hand:

(on presidential candidates' responses to South Carolina's right to fly)

"Among the Republican candidates, Rudy Giuliani has the right answer -- to the extent that any non-South Carolinian could have the "right" answer. He says it's a matter for South Carolinians to decide.

Indeed it is that and only that. That's why I disagree so strongly with the NAACP's approach -- trying (without appreciable success, I might add) to get the rest of the world to FORCE the flag down by hurting South Carolina economically. Even if such a strategy worked -- which it can't, believe me -- nothing would be accomplished. You'd still be left with a state perceived -- and perceiving itself, sullenly, resentfully -- as a place that WANTS to fly the flag, but has been forced not to."

(http://blogs.thestate.com/bradwarthensblog/2007/05/john_mccain_is_.html#comments)

That, essentially, presents the problem with American federal thinking. Because individuals or small groups might want to do something that might be taken as offensive by ignorant bigots in other areas, we as a larger collective unit should force them to obey the democratic tyranny of the majority elsewhere. If the government won't yet do it, then hey, we should complain to the world to make them make this impudent little area that thinks it's free stop doing what we don't like. Such as expressing themselves and their pride in their cultural history. Such pride can only be allowed when we say so. And freedom of expression as protected by the Constitution only protects who we say it does...

Brad Warthen's analysis correctly points out Giuliani's fairness on this issue. Libertarians everywhere should be sickened by the mere fact that with wars, economic crises, disease, etc to deal with, the government of our immenseley powerful and influential country wastes time and funding by making the suppression of a regionally significant cultural symbol an issue for debate. Purely on that basis I make it a point to fly the Confederate flag. I hope that many people will ask me my reasons for having it there by my door--so that by informing people of the federal transgressions against the Constitutionally protected rights of the states, I can (maybe?) spread the libertarian spirit a little more each day, and ask more citizens to protect us all from tyranny.

State's Rights: The Federal Enemy

2009-05-27T05:30:00.000-07:00

To begin this blog merits a few words of explanation.

I am not a racist. I cannot understand the pure ignorance and bigotry required to actually believe that a person's worth and intellect differ based upon color, language, ethnicity, head shape, slave-status, etc.
I do not support slavery. Though viable as a desperate economic means of forcing labor when unpleasant manual effort becomes necessary, though history certainly supports it in every culture globally, and though I do understand why previous cultures would have used it, I still feel that to forcibly subjugate any human being to the arbitrary will of another without just cause cannot be anything but wrong. Now, do I object to criminals in prison being required to work on the roads, etc? No. But slavery as I have defined it is unquestionably wrong.
I am not un-American. In fact usually I get in trouble for my patriotism. I have served in the US Army because I believe in duty to country, I think that the pampered hippy brats who spit on our troops and slander America abroad should be deported so they can enjoy the 'freedoms' of some other country, and I think that anyone paying taxes deserves a say in our nation's government.

Now, with those out of the way, let me also state my view on this particular instance in history.

The South should have won.

Actually, more to the point, the war should not have been fought. Most American history teachers now brainwash our youth into believing that America is one, federal nation, that the name "United States" is actually just an outdated term meaning nothing, that this is how it should be, and that the Confederates were traitors to this single, unified nation.

My objective in this blog (and I would LOVE to hear any additional support or proovable facts that any readers should wish to contribute) is not to offer a history lesson, but rather to collect and present data showing just how wrong the classrooms currently are. More importantly, I want everyone to look at this and draw the parallels between the situation in the 1860's and the current situation today--where the federal government may or may not decide that IT alone controls whether gays can marry, whether abortion should be legal, whether religions should be censored, etc. No matter which way your views on such matters lie, I hope that everyone will join me in understanding the inherent corruption in regional tyranny, and dread the day when a wealthier, more influential region will once again take over the federal government to impose its will upon those who have no voice in the matter based solely on where they live.

My objective, if you will, is to remind everyone of state's rights, of liberty, and the reasons we became independent from tyrants in the first place.

Thank you for reading.

Search Engine Submission - AddMe