Feasibility And Realities Of Secession

Feasibility And Realities Of Secession

October 27, 2010

courtesy Greeneliberty.org

(Editor’s note: I chose this one because this is a guy who is beginning to have thoughts about secession, and hasn’t thought it all the way through yet. We were all at this point once.)

Due to apparent or at least perceived incompetence of the Federal Government to resolve the problems facing the nation, there has, over the last few years, been a resurgence of a secession movement in North American States. This time it is not just the Southern States that are debating the possibility of peacefully seceding from the Union, but a wide range of States. At last count there were 22 States that had some form of secession bill being considered in their legislatures.

For the most part, this is not the firebrand revolutionary movement of the 13 original State’s secession from England or the armed rebellion of the Southern States to form the Confederate States of America in the early 1860s. There are some individuals and organizations that advocate armed rebellion and hate in general. But for the most part the articles I have read advocate secession as a peaceful and legal matter.

Some advocate that the United States is too big and complicated for a central Government to oversee and control, that the politicians in Washington are self serving if not outright corrupt, there is too much diversity across the nation to be controlled by a central “every law fits all” government and that the current Democrat and Republican parties are out of touch with reality and needs of the people they are supposed to be representing.

There is a strong resentment of Federal encroachment into daily and personal matters in order to gain more power and control. Most of the authors, whither they are expressing a personal or and organization’s point of view, predict an economic crises brought on by the spending policies of Washington. Many quote American and foreign economic experts that support these predictions.

There is a general consensus among those advocating or seriously discussing secession that the United States will weaken substantially if there is another 9/11 type disaster or the Dollar becomes so inflated that a financial crises ensues. This along with a prevailing opinion that the current President is weak, inexperienced in any aspect of Government and will not act effectively or timely enough to forestall the break up of the Union.

The possibility of a continuing recession and downturn to a full-blown depression could well set the stage for secession. With the current continued expenditures by the Federal Government without solid plans to reduce the current and future budget deficit, other than print more money, I tend to believe that the piper must be paid somewhere down the line. Continued job loss and the resulting loss of taxes simply throw fuel on the fire.

Most of the authors I have read on this subject extend the view that they wish the President well and hope that solutions can be identified and enacted to keep the Union together. They are not optimistic that this will happen based on the politics as usual between the White House and Congress. The writers seem to look at secession as plan B. We need a plan to fall back on if and/or when the crisis hits. There are, of course those that dismiss the idea that secession could ever happen and anyone that takes it serious is a nut job. I suspect many of the Greeks and Romans felt that nothing could weaken and topel their governmsnts. Humans do not learn well from History.

The legal aspect that makes secession an option are based primarily on the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In effect this Amendment gives the Federal Government specific duties or obligations such as printing money, defense of the citizens and the like. Those obligations not specifically delegated to the Federal Government are retained by the State Governments.

The problem has been that the Federal Government over the years has been slowly but surly encroaching on the State’s responsibilities. This is usually done by offering the States money with the stipulation that if they accept the money the Federal Government has a major say in how the moneys are used and thus control the States with the strings attached to Federal money and threat of cutting off the funding.

Another tactic is simply to ignore the Constitution. If the President’s party sufficiently controls the Congress, they can enact legislation and have it well in effect before a court case gets to the Supreme Court. Even if it does go to the Supreme Court the decision will be based on the politics of the Justices at the time as much as compliance with the Constitution. Another approach not often used, is that of President Andrew Jackson who once said, when the Supreme Court ruled against one of his actions, “Alright, they have made their decision, now let them enforce it”.

Some of the States, Texas and Alaska in particular are, challenging the Federal Government in the form of bating them using the second amendment, which relates to firearms. As most of us know the Federal Government has enacted laws that require certain firearms to be federally licensed and sold only by a licensed dealer to another licensed individual. There are federally mandated laws requiring security checks and tracking paperwork on all gun sales. Texas and Alaska are in the process of challenging the Feds by enacting a law that in essence forbids any Federal regulation of weapons manufactured in Texas and intended for sale only in the State of Texas. This they feel is not a matter delegated by the States to the Federal Government.

It is the intent of these States, at least in theory, to enact their right to withdraw from the Union if the Feds attempt to force regulation on weapons manufactured and sold inthose States. Other States are following suit with similar legislation. At this time I believe Oklahoma is the only State to have enacted legislation that says the State has the legal right to remove itself from a unity to which they willingly agreed to participate.

The preceding is simply to give the reader a reference point for the following discussion. Almost all the literature I have seen has concerned itself with cheerleading or dismissing the secession movement or offering the legalities and theory about how much better or worse off we will all be if the Union breaks apart. Some articles even go so far as to give detailed community organization and dispensation of local justice plans, much like that in China.

The things I have not seen speak loudly by their absence. What are the practical obligations that the money strapped States are going to have to shoulder if the Federal Government breaks apart either totally or partially.

The thing I see happening immediately is an economic challenge if not crisis for each independent State. They will be faced with printing their own money. Will that money be called a Dollar, or something else? How will the money be valued against the other world currencies? Will the new money be backed by gold or silver or some other commodity? They will need to completely redo their tax system. Will income tax be collected or some other means of funding the new Government? There are a myriad of financial and banking questions that need to be discussed and thought out before a State secedes.

One such question I am very interested inis what happens to those people drawing Social Security or Retirement income from the Military or Federal Civil Service. I am one of those people whose total income comes from retirement from the Federal Government. Will the State take on those huge obligations, If not the new Government might not last too long. There are a large number of Federal/Military/Social Security retirees, especially in the South where a large block of states are again discussing secession.

Another area that needs to be considered is that of the Military. Yes each state has its own National Guard establishment which I am sure they will continue to maintain. However there are many States that have very large contingencies of Active duty and Reserve troops and vast land areas that station and house these troops and on which they train and work. It appears to me that the States would not be able to shoulder the huge cost of these troops and facilities.

Closing these facilities would mean a very large number of young men and women being released into a jobless society at one time. If I were one of these people I would tend to be more than a little mad and probably very bitter. It was bad enough for us that came back from Vietnam and were caught in the major downsizing of the military in the early 70s. Again a group of voters or activists to go along with the retirees who may not be receiving enough if anything to live on.

A single sovereign Nation/State will need a diplomatic corps to not only deal with other nations but to the several other Nation/States. The world is full of wolves that will come knocking at the State’s door if not just knock the door down. A single State is much more vulnerable than the Federal Union. How, for instance, would the border states individually be able to defend against annexation by Mexico, or Alaska by Russia. The best answer I can come up with is a mutual defense agreement between the individual Nation /States, and with the Federal Government, if there is one, governing the States that did not secede.

There are many other potential problems that need be thought out before secession from the Union. Things like tariffs, interstate commerce, infrastructure repair, reciprocity of laws, debt resolution between the States and what might be left of the Union, law enforcement and expedition of criminals between the Nation /States and the rest of the world and on and on.

After considering the problems involved with each individual Nation/State dealing with world and the money and economic problems, I believe that it would be impractical for any length of time. A more practical approach would be the formation of a overall governing body that the Nation/States could legally join or leave. This governing body would in a large degree resemble the old Confederate Government. There would be some outstanding differences.

I have read both the Provisional and the final Confederate Constitution. Those documents were for the most part a tweaked United States Constitution. Those parts of the Federal Constitution that were felt to be unacceptable to the Southern States were about the only things changed.

If the writing of a new Constitution for a Confederation of Nation/States becomes necessary there will need to be a much more changed document. For one thing the Southern States in the early 1860s were for the most part of the same mind and had the same issues causing them to leave the union.

This is not true now. There are States from the Northeast, Northwest, South, West, Southwest and Middle America that have Secession movements or discussions ongoing.

The people of the various States must also consider that the Federal Government is like any other strong central government and is capable of killing a very large number of it’s citizens to maintain its grip on power. Just saying we quit probably won’t work out very well. At least not unless the Feds are in such financial crisis that they cannot afford to pay the armed forces.

Secession leaders and advocates are pushing a peaceful (Gandhi and King style) and legal secession using protests, sit-ins, strikes, boycotts and the like. Good luck with that. I predict there will be some, if not a lot of bloodshed involved. Maybe it is just me and my pessimistic view of politicians, but I have a hard time seeing the President and powerholders in Washington saying “off you go, it was fun while it lasted, best of luck on your new endeavors, we will really miss you but if your Governors/Presidents are in the area do have them drop by and see us” More likely there would be a large explosion in the various State Capital buildings and a large presence of tanks and military forces in the Capital Cities.

I served in the United States Government as a Soldier and Civilian, in war ravaged and peaceful areas of the world for almost 40 years and it breaks my heart to be seriously talking of States seceding from the Union. It is a shame that our politicians have brought us to this sorry situation. I still have some hope, though not much, that common sense will prevail and a way will be found to preserve the Union. So many have given so much for this country of ours, it would be unconscionable to let them down.

New discovery takes scientists a step closer to quantum computers

New discovery takes scientists a step closer to quantum computers

July 03, 2010

Taking a step nearer to quantum computers, University of Maryland researchers have used a unique hybrid nanostructure to show a new type of light-matter interaction.

They also demonstrated the first full quantum control of qubit spin within very tiny colloidal nanostructures (a few nanometers)- a feat that brings them closer in efforts to create a quantum computer.

According to the authors and outside experts, the new findings further advance the promise these new nanostructures hold for quantum computing and for new, more efficient, energy generation technologies (such as photovoltaic cells), as well as for other technologies that are based on light-matter interactions like biomarkers.

“The real breakthrough is that we use a new technology from materials science to ‘shed light’ on light-matter interactions and related quantum science in ways that we believe will have important applications in many areas, particularly energy conversion and storage and quantum computing,” Nature quoted lead researcher Min Ouyang, an assistant professor in the department of physics and in the university’s Maryland NanoCenter, as saying.

“In fact, our team already is applying our new understanding of nanoscale light-matter interactions and advancement of precise control of nanostructures to the development of a new type of photovoltaic cell that we expect to be significantly more efficient at converting light to electricity than are current cells,” he added.

The researchers have created a patent-pending process that uses chemical thermodynamics to produce, in solution, a broad range of different combination materials, each with a shell of structurally perfect mono-crystal semiconductor around a metal core.

In the current study, the researchers used hybrid metal/semiconductor nanostructures developed through this process to experimentally demonstrate “tunable resonant coupling” between a plasmon (from metal core) and an exciton (from semiconductor shell), with a resulting enhancement of the Optical Stark Effect.

This effect was discovered some 60 years ago in studies of the interaction between light and atoms that showed light can be applied to modify atomic quantum states.

“Metal-semiconductor heteronanostructures have been investigated intensely in the last few years with the metallic components used as nanoscale antennas to couple light much more effectively into and out of semiconductor nanoscale, light-emitters,” said Garnett W. Bryant, leader of the Quantum Processes and Metrology Group in the Atomic Physics Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

“The research led Min Ouyang shows that a novel heteronanostructure with the semiconductor surrounding the metallic nanoantenna can achieve the same goals. Such structures are very simple and much easier to make than previously attempted, greatly opening up possibilities for application. Most importantly, they have demonstrated that the light/matter coupling can be manipulated to achieve coherent quantum control of the semiconductor nanoemitters, a key requirement for quantum information processing,” he added.

The researchers agree that their new findings were made possible by their crystal-metal hybrid nanostructures, which offer a number of benefits over the epitaxial structures used for previous work.

Epitaxy has been the principle way to create single crystal semiconductors and related devices.

The new research highlights the new capabilities of these UM nanostructures, made with a process that avoids two key constraints of epitaxy-a limit on deposition semiconductor layer thickness and a rigid requirement for “lattice matching.”

The study has been published in the latest issue of Nature.

The Last Bastion of Freedom – The Internet

Coming Revolution:

The Last Bastion of Freedom – The Internet

http://stuffblackpeopledontlike.blogspot.com/

Figuring things out for yourself is practically the only freedom anyone really has nowadays. Use that freedom. – Starship Troopers

Newsone.com is one of the finest Web sites on the Internet, a portal into a world that few could imagine exists. Those who erroneously label SBPDL a “hate” site do so because we publish “hate facts” yet Newsone.com – which utilizes the moniker For Black America – might be the ultimate purveyor of hate facts.

Constantly publicizing stories that only add fuel to the fire burning secretly in every non-Black person’s mind, Newsone.com only enhances unflattering stereotypes with tales of Black people engaging in regrettably stereotypically behavior.

We have stated that Black people love to be Black, and no Web site provides more validity to this claim then Newsone.com.

Publishing a story today on ‘Google Instant’ and how this new service of Google doesn’t censor searches involving Black people engaging in stereotypical behavior (thus confirming the notion that the entire world can see), Newsone bemoans the lack of analytical compassion on the part of a program that assumes what you are thinking:

Have you ever tried to type “why do black people…” You should try it now, because you won’t be stopped by Google Instant. In fact, you will be prompted with lovely and harmless phrases such as:

-why do black people have big lips
-why do black people like watermelon
-why do black people say aks
-why do black men like white women
-why do black people have nappy hair


And the results that come up for plain “why do black people have” offer up strains of racism that must rival what comes up for “white power.” My favorite: A Yahoo Answers post titled, “Why do black people have a tendency to be violent, racist and unintelligent when it comes to everything?” Good question. So glad Google Instant makes it faster than ever to find the results!

The article points out that search terms that might lead a person to a “hate” Web site are blacklisted, joining the illustrious ranks of pornography in popularity or notoriety (depending on which way you look at it).

It’s funny when you think about it: people in not only America, but the world over are searching for ideas and terms on the Internet that in the real world they would never dare say aloud. Instead, the World Wide Web delivers people the ability to figure things out for themselves, unfiltered and objectively (when one looks at a random search engine return).

The NAACP looks for nefarious white people at Tea Party rallies without realizing that the Internet is the tool of Black Run America’s (BRA) demise. And worse, Web sites like Newsone.com and AOL Black Voices publish stories that only augment those cyber-warriors with more information to spread among friends through list serves, blogs, E-mails and forums.

While putting the SBPDL book together and receiving many E-mails from people excited about having a print edition of this site so they can disseminate it among friends, SBPDL realized something important: Courage will always be the only ally one needs when espousing an idea that runs counter to the prevailing orthodoxy of the day.

Contrary to what we have been taught regarding a post-racial society, Mein Obama is presiding over a polarization of the races unlike any previously recorded in Pre-Obama American history.

Funny, if you had been on the Internet that fracture would have been obvious. Especially if you viewed the message boards of stories from across the nation posted on mainstream news sites:

Although you rarely hear racial insults on Main Street these days, there’s a place where unashamed bigotry is all too easy to find: tossed off in the comments sections of some of the Internet’s most popular websites, today’s virtual Main Street.

Internet anonymity has removed one of the strongest barriers to the type of language that can ruin reputations and end careers.

Do these comments reflect a reversal of racial progress? Is that progress an illusion while racism thrives underground? What kind of harm are these statements doing? Could there be any value in such venting? And what, if anything, should a free society do about it?

“We’ve seen comments that people would not make in the public square or any type of civic discussion, maybe even within their own families,” said Dennis Ryerson, editor of The Indianapolis Star. “There is no question in my mind that the process, because it’s largely anonymous, enables people who would never speak up on Main Street to communicate their thoughts.”

At the newspaper’s website, moderators delete individual racist comments that are brought to their attention, and will take down a whole thread if such comments persist. On some stories that are expected to provoke racism, the entire comments section is disabled beforehand, a practice shared by a growing number of newspapers.

On a single day recently, racially offensive online remarks were not hard to find:

In a comment on a Yahoo News story about a black civil rights era photographer revealed to be an FBI informant, someone called blacks farm animals who “were not and are not wanted in this society.”

Another commenter wrote, “We all know who MADE America what it is today, and we also know which group is receiving hefty tax dollar pay outs… so until the tables turn the only thing you should be saying is ‘thank you’ to all the hard working (whites) who gave you the life you now take for granted.”

BlackVoices.com story about two black sisters jailed 20 years for an $11 robbery, someone used several crude epithets to suggest that the judge was a white racist.

A USAToday.com story about demographic changes in the nation’s kindergartens turned into open season on Latinos. “Go to any ER, school, jail and see first hand what race is over consuming precious US resources?” one comment said. Another complained in ugly terms about Latino birthrates.

Some believe such comments indicate that racism has not declined as much as people may think. Joe Feagin, a sociologist at Texas A&M University, said a study he conducted of 626 white college students at 28 institutions revealed thousands of examples of racism in “backstage,” all-white settings.

Those who despair over the direction the United States moves in need only consult the Internet to see which way the prevailing winds truly blow. Without compunction, Black Web sites promote stories that would make even the most hardened white racists blush.

The Internet is a place people are figuring out truths on their own, exercising freedom in a way that undermines BRA’s authority completely.

Disingenuous White Liberal’s (DWLs) can only look on with horror at the freedom the Internet provides, as they rest comfortably in their white enclaves they have created that separate them from their Black playthings over whom they so love to dote. As long as they remain  in classrooms for observations, that is.

Freedom to make up your own mind… it’s becoming increasingly clear that the majority of people have decided that stereotypes of Black people are best left to discuss over the Internet or in private conversations where lowering their voices and furtive glances are unnecessary.

Censorship is the only way to counter this freedom, but the problem to this is obvious: a majority of people know the ideas behind Black Run America are fallacious; and currently, they only have the Internet as a medium to investigate, discuss, and speak these truths.

What happens if you take that away? You have a majority of people who have already made their minds up but are denied the one medium they used to vent frustrations that have been building for generations.

France begins Greek-style meltdown. Socialism + Open Borders = Collapse.

France begins Greek-style meltdown. Socialism + Open Borders = Collapse.

France holds itself up as a Socialist utopia, with the shortest work week, longest vacation time, and earliest retirement age in Europe. All of which is supported by a massive tax burden. Meanwhile millions of immigrants were allowed to flood its cities from Africa and the Middle East.

Only 63% of all non-retired adult African immigrants in France hold a job! The figure among native born French is 81%. Immigrants have not only become chronic abusers, but they have much larger families than the native French. The result is that France can no longer pay for them and must cut Socialist entitlements to the taxpaying workforce to continue paying welfare benefits, which go disproportionately to the immigrant population.

34% of all non-EU immigrants in France live in subsidized housing. 44% of all Sub-Saharan African immigrants are on welfare. 32% of North African immigrants are on welfare. 20% of African immigrants are collecting unemployment benefits.

20% of immigrant households contain five or more people. Only 10% of the households of native French have five or more people.

This data comes from: Immigration and the dependence to the welfare system: The case of France, published January 2010.

Anti-White movement on the attack!

NAACP publishes report attacking CofCC.

locust: Anti-White movement on the attack!

The NAACP, a militant race lobby, has targeted the CofCC in a 96 page “expose” on “racism” in the TEA Party movement. The NAACP is holding a national press conference tomorrow.

The report focuses on the CofCC and a fictional story about John Lewis and Barney Frank. The so called “spitting/n-word” hoax, which did not actually happen. The alleged incident was captured on video camera, and none of the spitting or racial slurs even took place.

We would love to debate NAACP leaders one on one, but we know they would never agree to that. However, media may call CEO Gordon Baum at 636-940-8474 for interviews. The webmaster for CofCC.org can be reached at 843-821-5720.

For more information on the NAACP, click here.

NAACP Illustration for new report. Grasping at straws, the NAACP appears to be declaring three widely used historical flags to be “racist” symbols. To see report, click here.

Author of NAACP Tea Party report is hard-core Marxist/Stalinist.

Leonard Zeskind, the main author of the NAACP attack on the TEA Party movement, is not a “colored person” and only interested in advancing Marxism (and his own bank account).

The NAACP chose a hard-core Communist and Mo Dees style con artist to pen its expose.

Zeskind published a book on “white racism” in 2009, which was a flop. He makes a living charging money to give speeches about “white racism,” and is trying to build a rival SPLC-style left-wing fund-raising hustle. On his profile with his booking agent he is listed under “Jewish Interest Speakers.” He is listed as having written articles for left-wing publications in the US and extreme-leftwing publications in Europe and Britain. He has even written articles for the openly Marxist “Searchlight” magazine in Britain.

In 1973, Zeskind surfaces as the leader of a militant Marxist group in Kansas City, known as The Sojourner Truth Organization. Literature for the group quoted mass murderer Joseph Stalin and called for “Revolution.”

In 1978, Zeskind penned an article for an openly Marxist Urgent Tasks, in which he calls for communist revolution.

In 1980, Zeskind is profiled in Kansas City Magazine. They called him a menace to “non-violent groups” on the left.

In 1986, Zeskind is listed as a leader in the National Anti-Klan Network[NAKN]. A heavily armed militant group closely connected to the American Communist Party. The Communist Party publication described the NAKN as “pro-Peking Stalinist.”

Sources.

In November 2009, Zeskind opened the IREHR, his own rival SPLC. His vice president is a former director of the Center for New Community, another wannabe SPLC  fund-raising hustle that never went anywhere.

The purpose of the IREHR is to solicit donations using outlandish shock articles that portray the majority of all Americans as “racists.”

The IREHR is much more openly militant than the SPLC. It states that anyone who suggests that “America is a Christian nation,” is an “Anti-Semite.” It also says the “overwhelming majority of white people continue to take for granted the relative privileges accruing to their skin color.” Meaning that most whites are somehow, someway subtly abusing non-whites.

The IREHR also says it is dedicated to “Native American Sovereignty Rights.” A mission statement that is hypocritically in direct odds with their stated goals of a “multi-racial, multicultural society.”

Neo-Con kingpin attacks the TEA Party movement.

Neo-Con king Karl Rove, who’s policies wrecked the Bush administration and severely hurt the Republican party, had the audacity to attack the TEA Party movement. Karl Rove is supported by the liberal “Neo-Con” McCain/Graham/Bush crowd, but widely despised by both the left and the right.

From Politico.com

Karl Rove credits the tea party with bringing new energy to the right but says that when you take a look at the grass-roots movement, it is “not sophisticated.”

“I meet a lot of tea partiers as I go around the country, and they are amazing people,” said the ex-adviser to former President George W. Bush in an interview with Der Spiegel.

But structurally, Rove said the tea party has little in common with the Reagan Revolution that has powered the conservative movement for decades.

“It was also a well-organized, coherent, ideologically motivated and conservative revolution,” Rove said of the Reagan Revolution. “If you look underneath the surface of the tea party movement, on the other hand, you will find that it is not sophisticated.

“It’s not like these people have read the economist Friedrich August von Hayek,” Rove added. “Rather, these are people who are deeply concerned about what they see happening to their country, particularly when it comes to spending, deficits, debt and health care.”

The lack of experience is an issue, Rove said. “Most have never been involved in politics before. This is their first experience, and they have the enthusiasm of people who have never done it before.”

 

Cyber Attack- First Stage of coming American Revolution?

Tea Party Ally FreedomWorks Targeted in Cyber Attack

Locust: the left has been attacking conservative web sites for some time now. Just as China has been attacking US government sites, one would suggest that this nation is now in a state of war between political factions, this could be the First Stage of coming American Revolution?

 

According to the Wall Street Journal, a “mysterious” cyber attack reportedly struck the computer servers of FreedomWorks, a conservative grassroots organization frequently in the news for its outspoken support for the tea party movement. As the organization launched a major new fundraising initiative Thursday, FreedomWorks officials suspect their computer systems were attacked deliberately:

The attack crippled the site at about 9:45 a.m. just when the fund-raising drive was publicized on the radio by conservative talk show host Glenn Beck. The group estimates it lost about $ 80,000 in potential donations as it struggled to bring its site back online.

An “autopsy” showed a highly sophisticated hacker struck at 6:55 a.m., the group said, setting the stage for the eventual meltdown. The server was wiped out, though group officials said no data was lost or stolen.

“We think the idea was to take our site down until after the election,” said Kara Pally, web developer for FreedomWorks. “This was politically motivated.”

FreedomWorks’ spokesman Adam Brandon also suggested the computer malfunction was likely caused by external interference.  “To us, it’s no coincidence this happened the day our Beck money bomb was announced,” he said.  The fundraising “money bomb” was a goal of raising $ 200,000 between now and the Nov. 2 election to help conservative political candidates facing tough midterm election races.  “It‘s like the tea party movement’s been hacked,” Brandon said.

Western Cities’ New Religion

Western Cities’ New Religion: Worshipping GSBFs (Gigantic Smiling Black Faces)

http://www.antiwhitemedia.blogspot.com/


p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: “Times New Roman”; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }When archaeologists wake our dry bones in 9000 years, they’ll know what many of us don’t, that we – even inadvertently – worship Gigantic Smiling Black Faces.

Yes, GSBFs are now in all our major cities, both in Europe and North America, on even the most innocent and suburban thoroughfare, replacing our old kings and statesmen and gods and heroes. (The ads featured in this post are from Finland, the US, and Germany!)


They tell us what to buy, these faces. They tell us how to feel and what to think. Their smiles are an impanated host of the new religion, force-fed through the eye of even the most stalwart agnostic with quotidian regularity. Suck it down, bottom dweller.


You there, walking past, minding your own business, taking your dog for a walk: Grovel before the mighty GSBF!

In China, and in the East in general, they plaster their great leaders on walls. It is now no different in the silly-vilized West. We now have the Big Other before whom we must remain ever humble, pliable, and obedient.

Human memory backup on hard disk!

Human memory backup on hard disk!

Posted on 10/21/2010 by gp

A top scientist has claimed that in the next two decades, people will be able to back up the human brain including all of the memories.

Award-winning Raymond Kurzweil, 62, told 500 guests at a sponsored ”future talk” event in Vienna, Austria, that the human brain backup was now already technically possible.

“I believe that within the next 20 years we will have thousands of nanobot computer machines in our blood that will heal our bodies, improve our performance, and even be able to back up all the contents of our brains, just as you backup your files on a computer,” a newspaper quoted Kurzwell as saying.

“That means they would back up every thought, every experience, everything that makes us an individual,” he added.

Kurzweil has notched up a string of pioneering computer inventions including voice recognition technology during his career.

“It may sound far-fetched but in the early 1980s, people thought I was crazy for predicting the emergence of the world wide web by the middle of the 1990s; but it happened, and on the schedule I predicted,” he said.

At 15, Kurzwell created a programme that could recreate music in the style of the great composers, which earned him a visit to the White House and an interview with President Lyndon B. Johnson.

He also built the first machine that could read written speech for the blind for his friend Stevie Wonder – for whom he also later made a revolutionary musical synthesizer capable of recreating real instruments.

Kurzweil has 19 honorary doctorates and now advises governments, scientists, military and business people across the world on a variety of technology-related issues.

The Balkanization of Barack’s Party and Food Stamp nation

 

The Balkanization of Barack’s Party

By Patrick J. Buchanan

[Also see: Diversity Is Strength! It’s Also…A Lot Of Problems For Democrats (Richly Deserved), by Steve Sailer]

After John McCain’s defeat, even amateur political analysts could see a trend ultimately fatal to the Republican Party.

Ninety percent of McCain voters were white, and 90 percent Christian. But Christians have fallen to 75 percent of the population and are sinking, and white Americans have fallen to 66 percent of the population and are headed for minority status by mid-century.

The handwriting is on the wall. Soon, even GOP sweeps of two-thirds of the white vote that Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan managed will not be enough to capture the presidency. And as the GOP base contracts, the Democratic coalition —due to mass Third World immigration, anchor babies and higher birth ratessteadily expands.

Yet, within the Barack Obama coalition—over 60 percent of Asian-Americans, 68 percent of Hispanics, 78 percent of Jews, 95 percent of blacks —fissures and fractures have become visible, not only along racial and ethnic lines, but along issue and ideological lines.

“The high-profile Florida Senate race” between Gov. Charlie Crist and Tea Party favorite Marco Rubio, writes The Washington Post, “has evolved into a battle that is tearing apart Democrats.”[As Fla. tea party's Rubio surges, Crist and Meek turn firepower on each other, By Philip Rucker, Washington Post, October 1, 2010]

How so? Florida Democrats nominated Kendrick Meek, the only African-American with a shot of sitting in the U.S. Senate in 2011. While Meek’s chances remain slim, Al Gore has gone in for him, and Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are coming, in the name of party solidarity.

However, Meek’s former House colleague, Robert Wexler, who represented Palm Beach County while Meek represented Broward, has “all but ordered the state’s many Jewish voters to back Crist.”

Should Meek lose because Jewish Democrats, on Wexler’s orders, cut him dead for Charlie Crist, black bitterness at this betrayal of their only hope for a U.S. senator will be off the charts.

What is Wexler thinking?

Black-Jewish tensions inside the Democratic coalition have also arisen in recent years, as Jewish contributors have poured money into races to defeat black members of Congress seen as hostile to Israel.

Two smaller minorities, Muslim- and Arab-Americans, also vote Democratic, are growing rapidly in numbers and, like many African-Americans, take the side of the Palestinians as an oppressed Third World people of color.

Yet, this is by no means the only fracture.

Proposition 8, the California referendum to outlaw same-sex marriage, won the support of a majority of Hispanics and 70 percent of African-Americans. Black preachers implored their congregations to march to the polls and vote down the abomination of homosexual marriage, which gays, lesbians and liberals regard as the great civil-rights cause of our era.

On social issues like abortion, Hispanics and blacks, two of the most churched peoples in America and the most deeply religious in the Democratic coalition, regularly vote against white liberals.

Yet, African-Americans at 40 million and Hispanics at 50 million, now living side-by-side in the cities, also clash over spoils and turf. In New Orleans, black majority resentment at Mexican workers coming in and taking the jobs rebuilding the city spilled out into public acrimony.

In California, Hispanic and black gangs are engaged in what one sheriff calls “a civil war of the underclass.” In U.S. prisons, black-white violence now takes a back seat to black-Hispanic violence.

On referenda to cut off social services and keep illegal aliens from getting driver’s licenses, blacks vote solidly conservative. And, understandably for black Americans, as they have been displaced as the nation’s largest minority and now have rivals for diminishing social welfare benefits and the fruits of affirmative action.

On racial and ethnic preferences in hiring, promotions and school admissions, Asians are classified with whites and are increasingly the victims of reverse discrimination. Asian-Americans’ interest in equal justice under law and no discrimination against their children must eventually drive them, especially Japanese-, Chinese- and Korean-Americans, out of Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition.

Where disparate Democrats still find common ground is on growing the government and redistributing the wealth from the private to the public sector, from those who have to those who have not.

When the pie is expanding, everyone can have a larger slice. The crisis of the Party of Government, however, is that we have entered an era where most Americans distrust government and many detest government. Second, with the national debt surging to 100 percent of gross domestic product and a third consecutive deficit running at 10 percent of GDP, we are entering a time of austerity, a time of shared sacrifice.

Now, it is not who gets what, but who gets cut.

When black District of Columbia Mayor Adrian Fenty picked Korean-American Michelle Rhee to shape up D.C. schools, and she fired scores of black teachers as incompetent, Fenty was soon history. The black wards east of the Anacostia River voted against Fenty six to one.

Successful politics, it is said, is about addition, not subtraction.

But, in the coming age in America, it will also be about division.

 

Population Apocalypse Delayed—But Not Cancelled

By Donald A. Collins

It was a heavy immigration weekend here in Washington, DC.

The Federation for Immigration Reform‘s National Advisory Board meeting was held October 3 at the Washington Court Hotel,

Subsequently, over the next three days I attended three more conferences, two with Professor Paul Ehrlich, the Stanford biologist, ecologist and demographer, author of the celebrated 1968 book amazon The Population Bomb.

At the FAIR meeting, I talked to Ira Mehlman, the organization’s veteran Media Director, about the growth of human numbers to their present historic levels—a phenomenon which has totally failed to engage the attention of world leaders. I again mentioned to Ira my deep concern about the trend toward what many experts regard as unsustainable world.

Ira challenged me. He said I could not prove my point to most audiences, except to the converted groups with whom I regularly consort. He pointed out that Thomas Malthus’ predictions proved wrong as did those of Paul Ehrlich.

Of course, Ehrlich, stoutly and correctly in my view, maintains that his predictions in The Population Bomb—mass starvation in the 1970s and beyond—were wrong only as to their timing. Stupendous corroborating research has come out in recent years, including an important August 2010 paper by Professor and MD, David Pimentel, an entomologist, and his Cornell colleagues. This comprehensive assessment of planetary limits notes that the likely sustainable limit of our world might be 2 billion—if we can use renewable energy and curb natural resource use. Others guess lower, one even as low as 100 million worldwide!

At the sessions including Ehrlich, a number of other experts well-known for their credentials in the ecology, environment and population fields joined him in presenting data showing that our planet is in a state of “over shoot”—the present number of humans, utilizing resources both renewable and non-renewable, will not be able to sustain their present lives, regardless of redistribution. The only way humans will survive is through a substantial reduction in our numbers. (See my US Immigration Reform Is Vital—But World Population Growth Coming Like A Tsunami and my Heading for a World Apocalypse? in the Summer, 2010 issue of the Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies).

But Ira opined in effect that, if the sky is going to fall, the time is not now—and no one can know when it will be. Until then, he said, I and my population reduction colleagues, including Ehrlich, will be dismissed Chicken Littles.

Ira argued: “You can never win the sustainability argument.” He says while he may well agree with the science, not one leader of a major country is taking to the political action necessary to curb population and immigration.

Ira says, very plausibly: “Why not argue ‘desirability’—that having more people does not improve things and why do we need more?” People can see the environmental degradation, the crowding, even the Third World starvation, in grisly TV stories!

But the downside of Ira’s gentle approach—saying less growth is simply desirable rather than essential—is that it will surely not be heeded, any more than apocalyptic warnings based on the scientific research and graphic horror stories discussed in the other meetings I just attended.

I applaud Ira’s optimism that a “desirability package” might prove persuasive to the Main Stream Media, the Establishment environmental groups such as The Sierra Club, etc. and to the presently unconcerned world leaders.

But you should be aware that this blindness did not prevail just 40 years ago in the US.

Back in 1971, in his book Breeding Ourselves To Death, Lawrence Lader, a veteran population writer, vividly reported the high level of support for family planning among top US leaders including Ike, Nixon and Johnson.

Negative Population Growth published a paperback 30th Anniversary Edition, containing the original introduction by Paul Ehrlich and his new introduction written in November 2001: Ehrlich said then: “[T]he sad thing is that population limitation (to say nothing of consumption control) has fallen off the government and public radar scopes in the US.”

The striking thing is that our US leadership so well understood the urgency of family planning in the 1960s up to the issuance of the Rockefeller Commission Report in 1972. Then the enactment of the Helms Amendment in 1973, forbidding Foreign Aid funds for family planning, began a long period of drift to indifference.

It is all too clear that the Roman Catholic hierarchy, both in the USA and the Vatican, played a key role in ending this sharp focus on family planning. The 40 years of indifference, initiated by the Catholic hierarchy but tacitly accepted by many for fear of attack, will be remembered as having an impact on the world far greater than the behavior of the Church’s clergy with young men. In my opinion, it was an immoral attack on women and their families. At one of the meetings I attended this week, Dr. Stephen D. Mumford documented to a rapt audience with quotes from Catholic sources that the Church cannot retreat on contraception, although its teachings are obviously ignored by Catholic laity, because it would undermine the dogma of Papal Infallibility. (See Why the church can’t change by Dr Stephen D Mumford).

Let me close by asking you readers this urgent question:

  • Do you believe the human race can sustain its present population levels—as well as the next two or more billions that seem destined to arrive in this century?

Smart people, such as Ehrlich and the late Garrett Hardin, and countless thinking scientists, know that the present level of population in the US is already unsustainable.

 

Food Stamp Nation

By Patrick J. Buchanan

“The lessons of history … show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit.”

These searing words about Depression-era welfare are from Franklin Roosevelt’s 1935 State of the Union Address. FDR feared this self-reliant people might come to depend permanently upon government for the necessities of their daily lives. Like narcotics, such a dependency would destroy the fiber and spirit of the nation.

What brings his words to mind is news that 41.8 million Americans are on food stamps, and the White House estimates 43 million will soon be getting food stamps every month.

A seventh of the nation cannot even feed itself.

If you would chart America’s decline, this program is a good place to begin. As a harbinger of the Great Society to come, in early 1964, a Food Stamp Act was signed into law by LBJ appropriating $75 million for 350,000 individuals in 40 counties and three U.S. cities.

Yet, no one was starving. There had been no starvation since Jamestown, with such exceptions as the Donner Party caught in the Sierra Nevada in the winter of 1846-47, who took to eating their dead.

The Food Stamp Act became law half a decade after J.K. Galbraith in his best-seller had declared 1950s America to be the world’s great Affluent Society.

Yet, when Richard Nixon took office, 3 million Americans were receiving food stamps at a cost of $270 million. Then CBS ran a program featuring a premature baby near death, and told us it was an infant starving to death in rich America. The nation demanded action, and Nixon acted.

By the time he left office in 1974, the food stamp program was feeding 16 million Americans at an annual cost of $4 billion.

Fast forward to 2009. The cost to taxpayers of the U.S. food stamp program hit $56 billion. The number of recipients and cost of the program exploded again last year.

Among the reasons is family disintegration. Forty percent of all children in America are now born out of wedlock. Among Hispanics, it is 51 percent. Among African-Americans, it is 71 percent.

Food stamps are feeding children abandoned by their own fathers. Taxpayers are taking up the slack for America’s deadbeat dads.

Have food stamps made America a healthier nation?

Consider New York City, where 1.7 million people, one in every five in the city, relies on food stamps for daily sustenance.

Obesity rates have soared. Forty percent of all the kids in city public schools from kindergarten through eighth grade are overweight or obese.

Among poor kids, whose families depend on food stamps, the percentages are far higher. Mothers of poor kids use food stamps to buy them sugar-heavy soda pop, candy and junk food.

Yet Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s proposal to the Department of Agriculture that recipients not be allowed to use food stamps to buy sugar-rich soft drinks has run into resistance.

“The world might be better … if people limited their purchases of sugared beverages,” said George Hacker of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. “However, there are a great many ethical reasons to consider why one would not stigmatize people on food stamps.”

The Department of Agriculture in 2004 denied a request by Minnesota that would have disallowed food stamp recipients from using them for junk food. To grant the request, said the department, would “perpetuate the myth” that food stamps users make poor shopping decisions.

But is that a myth or an inconvenient truth?

What a changed country we have become in our expectations of ourselves. A less affluent America survived a Depression and world war without anything like the 99 weeks of unemployment insurance, welfare payments, earned income tax credits, food stamps, rent supplements, day care, school lunches and Medicaid we have today.

Public or private charity were thought necessary, but were almost always to be temporary until a breadwinner could find work or a family could get back on its feet. The expectation was that almost everyone, with hard work and by keeping the nose to the grindstone, could make his or her own way in this free society. No more.

What we have accepted today is a vast permanent underclass of scores of millions who cannot cope and must be carried by the rest of society — fed, clothed, housed, tutored, medicated at taxpayer’s expense for their entire lives. We have a new division in America: those who pay a double fare, and those who forever ride free.

We Americans are not only not the people our parents were, we are not the people we were. FDR was right about what would happen to the country if we did not get off the narcotic of welfare.

America has regrettably already undergone that “spiritual and moral disintegration, fundamentally destructive to the national fiber.”

Tribalism Returns to Europe

 

Tribalism Returns to Europe

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Is Europe’s adventure in international living about to end?

At Potsdam, Germany, this weekend, Chancellor Angela Merkel told the young conservatives of her Christian Democratic Union that Germany’s attempt to create a multicultural society where people “live side by side and enjoy each other” has “failed, utterly failed.”

Backing up her rueful admission are surveys showing 30 percent of Germans believe the country is overrun by foreigners. An equal number believe the foreigners come to feed off German welfare.

Merkel had in mind the Turks who came as gastarbeiters, guest workers, in the 1960s. Some 2.5 million now live in Germany.

Arabs and East Europeans have come more recently. One survey puts the Muslim population at 5 million.

“Multikulti is dead,” says Horst Seehofer of Merkel’s sister party, the Christian Social Union of Bavaria. He wants no more immigration from “alien cultures.” Turks and other Muslims are not learning the language, he contends, not assimilating, not becoming Germans.

Awareness of deep differences with Turkish neighbors became acute for Germans when, grieving in solidarity with America after 9/11, they learned that Turkish sectors of Berlin were celebrating Islam’s victory with barrages of bottle rockets.

Like all of Europe, Germany grows nervous.

This summer, Thilo Sarrazin, who sat on the Bundesbank board, published “Germany Abolishes Itself,” which sold 300,000 copies in seven weeks. Sarrazin argued that Germany’s Muslim population is intellectually inferior and unable or unwilling to learn the language or culture, and mass immigration is destroying the nation.

No rightist, but a stalwart of the socialist party, Sarrazin was forced out at the Bundesbank. Half his socialist party stood by him.

Across Europe, there is a resurgence of ethnonationalism that is feeding the ranks of populist and anti-immigrant parties that are gaining respectability and reaching for power.

Austrian nationalists triumphed in 2008 when the Freedom Party of Joerg Haider and the Alliance for the Future of Austria together took 29 percent of the vote. The Swiss People’s Party of Christoph Blocher, largest in Bern, was behind the successful referendum to change the constitution to outlaw minarets and prohibit the wearing of burqas.

Hungary’s Jobbik Party, which to the Financial Times “sits squarely in Europe’s most repulsive arch-nationalist tradition and which blames Jews and Roma for the hardships of other Hungarians,” pulled 17 percent of the vote this year and entered parliament with 47 seats, up from zero seats in 2006.

The Sweden Democrats just captured 6 percent of the vote and entered parliament for the first time with 20 seats, joining right-wing folk parties in Norway and Denmark.

Geert Wilders, a rising figure in Dutch politics, was charged with hate speech for equating Islam and Nazism. In June, his Freedom Party swept past the ruling Christian Democrats, who lost half of their strength in parliament. “More security, less crime, less immigration, less Islam—that is what the Netherlands has chosen,” said Wilders.

In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy—one eye on Jean-Marie Le Pen’s National Front, the other on the 2012 elections—rejecting cries of “Nazism” and “Vichyism,” is dismantling Gypsy camps and deporting Gypsies to Romania. Milan is now following the French lead.

What is happening in Europe partakes of a global trend. Multiracial, multi-ethnic, multicultural nations are disintegrating.

Russians battle ethnic Muslim separatists in the North Caucasus. Seventy percent of Americans support an Arizona law to identify and expel illegal aliens. Beijing swamps the homelands of Tibetans and Uighurs with Han Chinese. India fights secession in Kashmir, Nagaland and the Naxalite provinces.

“Wars between nations have given way to wars within nations, “ said Barack Obama in his Nobel Prize address.

Ethnonationalism tore Mikhail Gorbachev’s Soviet Union and Josip Tito’s Yugoslavia into 22 separate nations, and is now tugging at the seams of all multi-ethnic states. Globalism is in retreat before tribalism.

But the awakening of Europe’s establishment to the shallow roots of multiculturalism will likely prove frustrating and futile.

With her fertility rate below replacement levels for 40 years, projected to remain so for the next 40 years, Germany will lose 12 million of her 82 million people by 2050. Her median age will rise eight years to 53, and 40 percent of all Germans will be over 60.

Germany’s problem is insoluble. She is running out of Germans.

Yet if her welfare state is to survive and her industries are to remain competitive, Germany will need millions of new workers.

Where are they to come from, if not the Third World? For not one European nation, save Iceland and Albania, has had a birth rate for decades that is not below zero population growth.

Baby boomer Europe decided in the 1960s and 1970s it wanted La Dolce Vita, not the hassle of children. It had that sweet life. Now the bill comes due. And the bill is the end of their tribes and countries as we have known them.

Old Europe is dying, and the populist and nationalist parties, in the poet’s phrase, are simply raging “against the dying of the light.”

 

Europe’s Revolt of the Pampered

By Patrick J. Buchanan

For the fourth day running, France has been crippled by strikes. Airlines are canceling flights. Travelers making their way to Paris from DeGaulle and Orly face long delays.

Tourists are stranded. The Eiffel Tower was closed. Rail and subway traffic into the city has been curtailed. By shutting down refineries, French oil workers may cause a shutdown of gas stations and force the government to raid the strategic petroleum reserve.

Millions have gone on strike. One in 10 high schools has been closed. Students at secondary schools and universities march beside workers and block entrances to paralyze the educational system.

And what is the cause of this national tantrum?

President Nicolas Sarkozy has moved through the National Assembly and is pushing through the Senate a measure raising the retirement age for state pensions from 60 to 62.

For if France does not raise that retirement age, its social security system will face a $58 billion deficit by 2018. Sarkozy’s reform follows his victory in repealing a decade-old Socialist law that mandated the 35-hour workweek in France.

What world, one wonders, are these French living in?

Around 2050, those high school and college students will be near or above today’s retirement age of 60. Who do they think is going to pony up for their pensions? Are they not aware of what is coming for France and Europe?

Today, 23 percent of French men and women are 60 or older. That will rise to 33 percent by 2050, when there will be one French worker for each French retiree, if 60 is retained as the age of retirement.

Today, 5.5 percent of French men and women are 80 or older. By 2050, that doubles to 11 percent.

Who do the French strikers think is going to pay the taxes for the medical expenses of this infirm and aged ninth of a nation?

Where the median age of the French is 40, in 2050 it will be 45. But that number disguises a far drearier reality.

Since 1970, the fertility rate of French women has been below the 2.1 children needed to sustain France’s population, what demographers call zero population growth. For the next four decades until 2050, the fertility level of French women is projected to remain roughly 15 percent below ZPG.

Yet France’s population of 62.6 million is projected to make a healthy leap to 67.7 million. How can a population continue to grow when the birth rate for almost 80 years running to 2050 is below replacement level?

Answer: As the French retire, age and die, France is filling up with immigrants coming to replace the departed and departing French, and the millions of French children who were never born because their potential parents did not want them.

Where are the immigrants coming from?

Some come from Eastern Europe. But more are arriving from Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and the former French colonies of the sub-Sahara. Arabs and Africans are populating cities like Marseilles and Grenoble, and filling up the burgeoning banlieues around Paris, where every few years, they go on a tear and burn thousands of cars. For Paris police, the banlieues are off-limits, except when traveling in platoons.

These immigrants do not bring the occupational skills, education or language abilities of French youth. Most will not earn the wages and salaries of native-born French, and thus not contribute the same level of taxes to sustain a welfare state constructed by a Socialist Party that has ruled France on and off for decades.

With the end of the 35-hour workweek and retirement at 60, the peeling back of social welfare benefits granted to the French in the salad days of socialism has only just begun. They can march and protest and strike, but they cannot avert the inevitable.

What is true of France is true of Europe, where not one nation has a fertility rate that will replace its native-born. Among Russians, Ukrainians, Estonians, Lithuanians and Latvians, the death rate already exceeds the birth rate. These countries have begun to pass away. And their neighbors will follow.

With the financial crisis of 2008-09, followed by the threatened debt default of one or more of the European Union PIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Spain), all of Europe also seems to be slashing defense budgets to save all they can of their welfare states.

Which raises questions we debt-swamped Americans cannot put off forever. Why, 65 years after World War II, are we still defending these nations? When Europe has more wealth, more people and a more lavish welfare state than we do, why should we impose sacrifices on our people to pay for the privilege of defending her people?

Instead of borrowing from Europe to defend Europe, why do we not charge them for providing that protection? If we are going to play Romans, why not demand tribute, as the Romans did?

America is the first empire in history to pay tribute to its satraps.

 

 

Seven Freedom-Principles That Are Not Negotiable

Seven Freedom-Principles That Are Not Negotiable

By Chuck Baldwin

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

“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.”

I would argue that we, like our patriot forebears, have also endured “patient sufferance.” For at least a half-century, we have patiently endured the erosion and abridgment of our freedoms and liberties. We have watched the federal government become an overbearing and meddlesome Nanny State that pokes its nose and sticks its fingers in virtually everything we do. We cannot drive a car, buy a gun, or even flush a toilet without Big Brother’s permission. We are taxed, regulated, and snooped-on from the time we are born to the day we die. And then after we are dead, we are taxed again.

In the same way that Jefferson and Company patiently suffered up until that shot was fired that was heard around the world, we who love freedom today are likewise patiently suffering “a long train of abuses and usurpations.” In fact, I would even dare say that these States United have become a boiling caldron of justifiable frustration and even anger.

Accordingly, it is incumbent upon us to very seriously and thoughtfully examine those principles that we absolutely will never cede or surrender. We have already surrendered much of the freedom that was bequeathed to us by our forefathers. We are now to the point that we must define those principles that form our “line in the sand” and that we will not surrender under any circumstance.

Either that, or we must admit to ourselves that there is nothing–no principle, no freedom, no matter how sacred—that we will not surrender to Big Government.

Here, then, are those principles that, to me, must never be surrendered. To surrender these liberties to Big Government would mean to commit idolatry. It would be sacrilege. It would reduce us to slavery. It would destroy our humanity. To surrender these freedoms would mean “absolute Despotism” and would provide moral justification to the proposition that such tyranny be “thrown off.”

  • The Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Men without guns are not free men; they are slaves. Men without guns are not citizens; they are subjects. Men without guns have lost the right of self-defense. They have lost the power to defend their families and protect their properties. Men without guns are reduced to the animal kingdom, becoming prey to the Machiavellians among them who would kill them for sport or for their own personal pursuits. As King Jesus plainly ordered, “He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” (Luke 22:36) This we will do—at all costs.

  • The Right to Own Private Property

Like the right of self-defense, the private ownership of property is a God-given right that is rooted in the Sacred Text. As God told Moses:

“Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour’s landmark, which they of old time have set in thine inheritance, which thou shalt inherit in the land that the LORD thy God giveth thee to possess it.” (Deut. 19:14)

In fact, the history of Western Civilization is replete with the examples of free men who were determined (even at the cost of their very lives) to defend the right to own property. Without private property rights, men are reduced to serfs and servants. Like chattel, they feed themselves by another’s leave. This we will not do.

  • The Right to Train and Educate Our Children

Education has never been the responsibility of the State. From time immemorial, education has been the right and responsibility of the family. This, too, has its foundation in the Sacred Volume: “And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.” (Eph. 6:4)

Therefore, the absolute right of homeschooling or private/parochial/Christian schooling must never be surrendered. Homeschooling, especially, is fundamental to freedom. It is not a coincidence that throughout history, most totalitarian governments forbade parents homeschooling their children.

Any government–federal, State, or local–that forbids, or even restricts, the right of parents to homeschool their children has taken upon itself the uniform of a tyrant.

  • The Freedom of Speech and Worship

Speech and worship are matters of the heart and conscience (Luke 6:45; John 4:24). Only tyrants seek authority over matters of the heart. But, of course, that is what tyrants do: they seek to control men’s thoughts and beliefs.

Hence, the alternative media is essential to liberty: the Internet, short wave radio, as well as independent magazines and periodicals. It is almost superfluous to say that there is no such thing as a free and independent press among the Main Stream news Media today. In fact, the major media more resembles a propaganda machine than it does a free press.

The same can be said for most of the mainstream churches in America today. They more resemble havens for politically correct, Big-Government ideology than they do bastions of Bible truth. Therefore, home-churches and non-establishment churches are increasingly requisite to a free people.

  • The Right to Determine One’s Own Healthcare

The marriage of Big Government and Big Medicine has created a healthcare monster. Already, the dispensing of medical treatment is micromanaged by Big Brother in a way that has resulted in skyrocketing costs and inferior care (and in some cases, even death). President Obama’s universal health care initiatives that are sure to come (in one form or another) will only exacerbate an already untenable situation.

Free men and women absolutely have the right to refuse vaccinations for themselves and their children. Forced vaccinations (of any kind) are an assault against the very foundation of freedom. Free men have the right to choose their own physicians, their own hospitals, their own insurance programs, etc. They also have the right to refuse any and all of the above.

God is Creator. He is also Healer (Exodus 15:26). Therefore, how men choose to seek God’s healing is a private matter between them and God. Alternative medicine is a right. Already, our military personnel are used as human guinea pigs to test a variety of drugs and chemicals. Public schools also require forced vaccinations. And now the push is on to force the general population to take the Swine Flu vaccine. At the current pace, it won’t be long until all alternative medicines and treatments will be illegal and the federal government will be America’s doctor. This is not acceptable.

  • The Right to Life

2000 years of Western Civilization have perpetually reconfirmed that life is a gift of God. Both Biblical and American history repeatedly honor God as the Source and Sustainer of man’s existence. Therefore, evils such as abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia must be vehemently resisted. It is bad enough that any government (especially one such as ours) would legalize abortion, but the concept of FORCED abortion, infanticide, or euthanasia could only be regarded as a despotic attack on life and liberty of the gravest proportion. In fact, under Natural Law, such an attack would remove said government from the protection of Heaven and would place it in a state of war.

  • The Right to Live as a Free and Independent People

God separated the Nations (Genesis 11). Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that we Americans maintain our independence and national sovereignty. We simply cannot (and will not) allow ourselves to become part of any hemispheric or global union.

There they are: seven freedom-principles that are not negotiable.

As Jefferson said, we are “disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable”.

But cross these lines and free men must do what free men must do: “Throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Dr. Chuck Baldwin is the pastor of Crossroad Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida. He hosts a weekly radio show. His website is here.

 

 

 

Stop Voting!

Stop Voting!

(I am reposting this 2009 article, since we are coming up on another mid-term election.)

Sounds almost treasonous, doesn’t it? But lovers of liberty must consider this very radical action.

This election cycle has become interminably long and boring. The worst possible candidates from the Republican and Democrat parties have floated to the top, much like what you see when you glance down into a toilet bowl.

This situation in which the nation finds itself is not uncommon. The state primaries, caucuses and major party conventions have a long and checkered history of corruption. Primaries, caucuses and conventions have been occurring for scores of decades.

The “political system” virtually guarantees that the most corrupt, the best liars, the most compromising, becomes the presumptive candidate. Both candidates are also the politician of their party most willing to violate the Constitution by continuing an unlawful war, and by initiating and approving the highest amount of unconstitutional Federal spending.

Think about it. McCain, Palin, Obama and Biden. Out of over 300 million people in the United States, these four people are surely not the most qualified, the smartest, the most educated, the most experienced candidates to run the Federal government of the United States, are they?

There’s an old saying, “Actions speak louder than words.” Said another way, “If you want to know what a person values, don’t listen to what they say, only watch what they do.” Think about it. The political system in America is populated with men and women who give lip service to the Constitution, but then go on to vote for every unconstitutional spending bill presented to them. They talk about the virtues of our constitutional republic, and then act to subvert and violate that very system of government.

A pure constitutionalist has no place, and no political base, in America in 2008. Consider the candidacy of Rep. Ron Paul during the Republican primary season. Paul couldn’t get arrested, much less have a legitimate shot at winning or even to be noticed by mainstream media.

So why do I strongly urge you to stop Voting?

1. The illegitimacy of the vote. Look at the situation of paper ballots versus electronic voting. It has been proved beyond doubt that voting machines all across America have been manipulated to change outcomes of elections. In light of the proven fact that you cannot be sure your vote counts, why continue voting?

2. Illegitimacy part II. Consider the incontrovertible facts of national elections…and many times, state and local elections. In 2004, about 125 million people had their votes counted. (Many hundreds of thousands more people actually voted, but their votes did not count for a variety of reasons…don’t get me started!) But elections for decades now break in this statistical fashion:

40% vote Republican

40% vote Democrat

20% undecided are in the middle.

Realistically, the Republican and Democrat voting blocks cancel each other out automatically. So if you’re a registered Republican or Democrat, your vote is wasted. The time you spend voting is wasted. Tell that to all of the people you know who tell you that voting for a third-party candidate is a wasted vote!

It is the 20% in the middle that decides the election. Specifically, 10% plus one vote decides the winner.

Look at the rough numbers from the 2004 Presidential race:

Total votes 125,000,000

Republican 50,000,000

Democrat 50,000,000

Undecided 25,000,000

“Undecided” statistically splits in half:

Winner 12,500,001 (10% plus one vote)

Loser 12,499,999 (10% minus one vote)

So, in a nation of 300 million people, a little over 12 million people, or 4%, actually decide the Presidential election.

The statistics fall much the same in elections in which a candidate identifies with a political party. If you have a local state legislative race where Republicans and Democrats face each other, that race will be decided in much the same way as a national race.

3. Consider that, under Robert’s Rules of Order, an organization holding a vote must have a quorum in place for the vote to be legitimate. But, in American political elections, where’s the quorum?

Presidential candidates regularly consider their election “a mandate from the people.” But think about this: How small would the total number of voters have to be before a candidate would refuse to take office? If 100 million voters stayed away from the polls in November, and only 25 million nationwide voted instead of 125 million…would the winning candidate shun the victory? My gut feeling is that the candidate would still accept the outcome. And why not? There’s NOTHING in the law that I know of that prevents the winner from taking office…a veritable bottomless pit.

With an election system in place in America that is hopelessly corrupt, participation as a voter only encourages those in power…and those seeking power…to continue with the corrupt and illegitimate election system.

So, if you continue voting, you’re part of the problem, not part of the solution.

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

© Copyright 2010, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.