I don’t often post things like this, as I’m more inclined to let things stand on their own merit. In this case, the information is so important that I think my readers should acquaint themselves with the discussion. If you’re not familiar with the ongoing battle within the Catholic Church, or you’ve not encountered discussions of the Great Reset, it’s time you become familiar with the global movement to strip you of your liberties. Clearly, former Apolostolic Nuncio Carlo Maria Viganò is familiar, and issued the following letter to President Donald J. Trump on the 25th of October, 2020. Whether you’re a Catholic or not, the struggle described pertains to all Americans, as it outlines the critical nature of this election in the global struggle between good and evil. Please read the attached PDF:
Open LetArchive for the ‘Global Revolution’ Category
Former Apostolic Nuncio Viganò Writes Open Letter to President Trump You MUST READ
Friday, October 30th, 2020An Open Letter to the President from an Arch-Bishop You Must Read
Monday, June 8th, 2020Most of my long-time readers will remember that I was raised to be a Catholic. Many of the causes of my discontent with the church are subjects dealing with the conduct of the church, its hierarchy, the behavior(s) of some of those who would claim to lead it, and the various cover-ups that have become the signature of an historic religious institution that has lost its way. With that in mind, I want you to read this letter from Arch-Bishop Carlo Maria Viganò. He’s been an agent of reform in the church, attempting to right some of the very wrongs about which I and so many others have complained. In this case, he offers to give you a glimpse into the nature of the devils against which he wars, and he makes clear that he is a natural ally to President Trump, to patriotic Americans, and indeed all people of good will everywhere. I don’t ordinarily discuss religion on this site because it is so divisive, but I think upon reading this letter, all Americans of good will can recognize the good in men where we find it, whatever our religious beliefs(or even lack thereof.) It’s in this spirit that I offer you an amazing, astonishing open letter to President Trump, first made available late Saturday. I think you will profit from the time spent reading it, as the Arch-Bishop concludes with a prayer in his war against the Invisible Enemy:
(It’s a three page document, the controls should appear at the top of the document)
Open_Letter_President_Donald_TrumpThe War on America
Wednesday, June 21st, 2017There have been a number of considerable turning points in American history, and I believe we have reached another. After 9/11, one of the conclusions of the Commission set up to investigate the attack concluded, among other things, that one of the reasons the attackers had been successful is that while through the 1990s, al-Qaeda had been in an openly-declared war against the United States, for the most part, our government had conducted itself as though no war existed, taking little action against al-Qaeda despite a ratcheting escalation against our nation, with attacks at the Kobar Towers, The USS Cole, the embassies that came under attack in Africa, and numerous other less infamous attacks. The critique of the 9/11 Commission on this point was correct, and in many ways, it should have served as a warning that history provides a nation for its future remembrance and consideration, but it seems the lesson is lost on our people and our politicians. As bad as al-Qaeda or ISIS may be, and as mortifying as their campaign of terrorism and murderous intentions may be, I believe we now face a more virulent threat, one that threatens to destroy not only people and planes and buildings, but America itself. Here, I do not mean “the United States,” but instead the very idea that is and has been “America,” writ large across history’s pages. Most frightening of all, it seems too many Americans are blissfully unaware, but what we now face is an irrational enemy that rivals al-Qaeda in their evil intentions, and possesses one significant advantage in its war against us: They are of us. They are among us. They are everywhere around you, and their hatred of America is no less sincere, and no less vengeful. Ladies and gentlemen, we are in a war undeclared in words, but a war nevertheless affirmed by their actions, and it is a war on everything we love. We must adopt the appropriate mindset.
I have cited here before the amazing and simultaneously terrifying similarities between the radical left and militant Islam. In terms of the peculiarities of their respective grievances with America, it would seem at least superficially distinct, but upon closer examination, one begins to note that in truth, there are very few differences that amount to much. One might argue, for instance, that the radical left supports extended special rights and protections for homosexuals, whereas militant Islam seems to be most comfortable when heaving homosexuals from rooftops, such that one would never think that the two groups could have much in common, but I beg you reconsider. For the radical left, homosexuals are just another pressure group in their endless war of identity politics. The “LGBTQ community” is merely another vehicle for the advance of their deepest socio-political ambitions, which care not in the least for the actual people one whose behalf they claim to advocate. Note instead that in a choice between supporting militant Islam and conservative Americans, the left gleefully chooses the former, since the latter is their true enemy.
In the same way, militant Islamists would seem to share no particular affinity for leftists, until you consider their ruling philosophy. It is true that while the left is generally secularist in its thinking, and militant Islam is thoroughly religious on its face, both seek the same basic union: Leftists desire the aggregation of all power and law under a secular government, removing all individual discretion of any kind, including thought or expression, while Islamists seek to remove all obstacles to a theocracy that likewise eschews any notion of the individual human being. Both claim the supremacy of their respective goals; to carry out either ultimate plans requires the forceful subsumption of all human discretion under their immediate martial control. In theory, this distinction between the secular and religious would seem a broad difference, but in practice, it requires the same ultimate series of oppressive undertakings, requiring the absolute suppression of the individual in any personal dimension.
We have arrived in a state of our culture in which the more committed radical leftists now take up arms to carry out their own sort of Jihad against Republican legislators. What makes this different from the parade of political assassins of the left in times gone by is that here, the Jihadist didn’t care so much about a particular target, but was instead motivated by extraordinary hatred against the core ideas of America. He shot Congressman Scalise, but Scalise wasn’t a specific target, except inasmuch as he happened to be a Republican. What signals to me the onset of the open war against America is not merely the attack waged by this leftist goon, but instead the disgusting, despicable reaction of the whole leftist media and political establishment that immediately set out to justify and rationalize the attack, turning to blaming the victims of the attack, intimating that Scalise(and all Republicans) deserve what they get.
At the same time, the radical left, which is now nearly the whole body and appendages of the mainstream media and the government bureaucracy are now aligned to destroy President Donald Trump. As you will have known, I am not Trump’s greatest advocate, but he is after all the duly elected President of the United States, is qualified to hold that office, and he seems to be setting about fulfilling his duties despite my sometimes significant disagreements with his policy preferences. This circumstance is wholly unacceptable to the virulent radical left. They will remove him from office, one way or the other, and indeed, any Republican who would follow him, not because he is all that far from the more moderate folk in their political party, but because he is of the opposition, and that he might manage a mildly conservative thing or two, and reverse some parts of the drive toward their ultimate goal: The complete subjugation of any remaining philosophically American people, and the unrelenting demolition of the underlying idea that had been Americanism.
The war being conducted against Trump is spawned of the radical left’s stranglehold on the mass media(not merely the news media,) and the stranglehold they have on the bureaucracy that is the deep state. They are coordinating to destroy him, as evidenced and typified by Comey’s leak to his friend, and by the official state as made plain by the unmasking of Michael Flynn and unknown (as yet) others in and around the Trump campaign and administration. None of this is accidental, and it all has the same underlying purpose: De-legitimize Trump in preparation for removing him from office, legally if possible, forcefully if they can provoke it among one of their more violent lunatics, or by political destruction in 2020 if nothing else succeeds. They have the whole of the mass media, the news, and the entire extended welfare state and security bureaucracy of the government at their immediate disposal, and while Trump clearly knows he’s under attack, I don’t think he’s quite yet grasped how thorough his challenges are, or how even to begin fighting for his own survival.
This sickening, depraved assault on the Trump presidency is really just an extension of the radical left’s war on us. He’s actually a proxy for the obstacle we present the left in their war on America and Americanism. What Trump must now do, and I hope someone close to him will prevail upon him to recognize it, is to defend himself and the country with all the power of the presidency, by every available means. Trump could be creative and intelligent in this respect, but he must find the right sort of strategic and tactical thinkers to carry it out. The executive branch is gigantic, and most agencies and departments of the US Federal Government fall under the President’s direct control. If Trump wishes to win this war, he must begin where his power is strongest under our constitutional system, and that means making an all-out war against the bureaucracy and its innumerable hangers-on.
Hiring freezes are nice, but that’s barely a pimple on the behemoth’s backside. His watchwords should be: “Reorganize and restructure.” At present, the bureaucracy of the whole Federal Government is structured in a manner optimal to its growth and further aggregation of power. It is staffed with people who are most frequently hostile to the idea that is America, and the people throughout the country who still cling stubbornly to those ideals. More, Trump is in a position to use the bureaucracy’s own arguments to demolish it. Trump can do something none have ever dared to do before, and sweep out so much of the Federal leviathan. You might ask how Trump could accomplish this. Here are just a few ideas:
- Move whole departments and their headquarters of the Federal Government out of Washington DC and its immediate surrounds, justifying it as an example of trying to get all the nation’s most critical eggs out of the same vulnerable basket
- Eliminate whole sections and sub-departments of various agencies on the basis of a “green” movement, trying to make the federal government more environmentally friendly by reducing its size and carbon footprint.
- Instruct the bureaucracy to release Obama era working papers, various and sundry studies, and all manner of leftist undertaking all in the name of open, honest, and transparent government. Consider even a campaign of declassifying information where it has no further relevance to national security
- Replace every bureaucrat above the rank of janitor, driving them off with new policies justified in various ways, and removing perquisites where they exist. Take away government-issued vehicles and issue bicycles. Take away work-owned cellular phones from all but the absolutely most critical personnel as a cost-saving measure.
- Similarly, eliminate Internet access as both a security measure and a cost-saving measure except for those whose jobs absolutely require it.
Obviously, this is far from an exhaustive list, but you can let your imagination run away a little bit with these sorts of approaches. There’s no end to the ways in which the bureaucracy can be brought to heel, but it’s time, finally, for Trump to begin that job in earnest, if not as a purely utilitarian approach to government reform, then at least as a matter of his(and our) defense.
Donald Trump needs to recognize that the radical left is at war with America every bit as zealously as are al-Qaeda and ISIS. Even now, their more virulently maniacal members are being motivated to real attacks and real violence against Americans and Americanism. For precisely the same reason they help to cover up militant Islamists’ attacks in the media, and with the same undeniable political agenda, their intention is to conceal this war against America and Americans as long as possible. The time is coming when this war may enter a new and more dangerous phase, when the violence will become increasingly routine and more accepted in the mass media, and if you watch what is happening in Europe with militant Islam, you begin to grasp what is afoot for America, now under attack by radical leftists. Trump is the only person in a position in our government to openly oppose all of this, and while he may be active on Twitter, it’s time for him to become more activist in his defense and defense of the Republic. After eight long years of a president openly hostile to America and Americans, and a media all too willing to redefine even what those words mean on his behalf, it’s time for President Trump to live up to his “America First” proclamation. He’ll need our support if he’s to succeed, but first, it’s time for him to strike back, and the power of the presidency is a very nearly unlimited weapon in the fight against the colossus that is the Federal bureaucracy.
One might ask how going after the bureaucracy will stanch the radical left’s war on America, but the truth is that initially, it will cause them to react somewhat more reflexively and perhaps violently to the change, but if they are permitted to fester longer, it strengthens them, and it offers them comfort. The Federal government is their “safe space,” and it’s time to pull that particular rug from beneath them. Every time the deep state launches an attack on Trump or his administration, and each time some mad-cap leftist carries out an attack against peaceful Republicans, the virulent left is heartened. To win this war, Trump is going to need to break their spirit, and hearten the actual Americans who remain among us. Taking on the bureaucracy is entirely within his constitutional scope. Delaying this a moment longer is merely to yield more ground to an unrelenting, irrational evil. When Trump pointed out that the news media are effectively an enemy of the people, he was right, and perhaps much more so than simplistic evaluations of his more bombastic proclamations reveal, but also, I fear, more than he knew at the time. It isn’t just the media, however. Specifically, it’s the radical leftist media, a near hegemony that is in league with the deep state, and indeed, the entire Washington DC establishment.
President Trump doesn’t need to openly declare war against the left, at least initially. What this war against America requires is a substantive response, and that response should come in the form of a complete demolition of the deep state bureaucracy, shamelessly and tirelessly using the full palette of presidential powers contemplated by our constitution as the chief executive presiding over the executive branch. He won’t need to declare it, because the leftists will scream at the tops of their shrill little voices, and the remnant of America will understand the source of the noise, and be heartened. It’s a war, and we ought to have such lesser skirmishes while it’s still possible in order to preclude the many deeper tragedies the left will beget if unopposed. There is still time to save America, and it’s time for President Trump to launch the counteroffensive, as only the President has the authority to do. If the left is not stopped soon, the disasters that will be visited upon the shrinking remnant of America will be more thorough than those that either al-Qaeda or ISIS can begin to realize. The radical left is every bit as dangerous as the militant element of Islam, and it’s time to do something about it.
Is It Inevitable?
Sunday, May 13th, 2012
Rightscoop.com picked up on a fascinating call Mark Levin took on his show on Friday evening, and what made the call interesting on its surface was the subject matter, and the identity of the caller, Nicholas from Paris, France, and why he thought the world was in trouble given his country’s swing to the hard left in the recent election. The caller was concerned for the US, and the notion that we are turning into France. While that’s very important, and certainly bears examination, there’s something else in this call that I found revealing. I want you to pay attention to what Mark Levin says in response, and what it portends for our future, here in the US. It’s not that it wasn’t clear, but that the context of the call actually serves to hide the worst, most frightening aspect of what was said in the exchange, and if you’re like me, you heard it too:
Levin responds by re-stating the caller’s root question:
“Your question though is “how do you get out of this?”
He then warns the caller that the answer isn’t pleasant:
“I’m going to tell you and you’re not going to like it.”
“The system will have to collapse before it can be rebuilt.”
Think about the context of this remark. I don’t believe Levin intended it to be taken this way, but everything he tells the caller about France applies to our domestic political situation, including the way we “get out of this.”
I offer this to you because in my few spare moments lately, I’ve been giving some thought to the apparent futility of many of our efforts. We hear from this caller that in his country, there is only the socialist answer for everything, and I wonder how familiar that this has become to us. Whether it’s the leftist front and the Democrat Party, or the Republican establishment with their so-called “compassionate conservatism,” all of the answers are big-government, and all are oriented toward socialistic ideas and ideals.
This may come as a shock to a few, but I have long thought that what Levin here admits is true, and that in logic, this system cannot be sustained indefinitely is clear, but the fact that we will likely go through an excruciating collapse is less clear to many people. The reason is simple, and Levin makes the argument correctly: There are too many people who depend upon this socialist welfare state. There are too many interests invested in continuing as-is, and virtually none interested in stepping back from it. The idea behind “austerity” is to try to get back to a sustainable basis, but as you can see from Europe’s results over the last few weeks, austerity simply won’t hold up over the longer run because people are too consumed with short-run comforts, particularly those obtained without effort through the welfare state.
If you believe that same mindset isn’t prevalent here in the US, you’re mistaken. We are not immune to this thinking, and there is every evidence that we are on the same course, though perhaps a half-step or so behind. This causes me dread, because what I am coming to believe is that until this country collapses, we will never rebuild it, and I am terrified that those who rebuild it will not be of the same character and temperament as those who established this nation in the first place. More, I think we may see horrifying conditions erupt along that path, with violence unlike any we have seen or known since the Civil War, and perhaps much worse. In short, collapse seems inevitable, but what that collapse may bring could be even worse, and there is no guarantee that we will emerge as anything even roughly approximating the nation we had known.
It is true to say that Obama and his acolytes will have a hand in driving us over the precipice, and indeed, they already have, but let us be circumspect in our evaluation of our situation: The establishment wing of the GOP has been right there, guiding us in that same direction, albeit somewhat more slowly, but no less indefatigably leftward. Mitt Romney might be our next President, but if so, what of it? He, who established Romneycare in Massachusetts will be no more likely to lead us away from socialism than, for instance, Nikolas Sarkozy in France. In fact, it’s fair to say that Sarkozy is probably a fair analog to the sort of “conservative” leadership Mitt Romney offers, which is to say: It’s not conservative, and it will not change our general direction, or the long-range result. It will serve as merely one more delay or postponement.
It’s not my intention to cause you undue worry, but it is important that we remain somewhat clear-headed in our view of what it is we’re out to accomplish. We may see a complete collapse of our country, and it may get as ugly as ugly gets, but I also believe, like Levin admits here, that it is probably inevitable. What it means to the greater body of the American people is that if you ever wish to return to a free society, you had better start agitating and educating on behalf of such a society now. Historically, few of the societal makeovers through which nations proceed are bloodless, never mind painless. More importantly, however, only one came out as well as our adopted Constitution, but what it has demonstrated is that statism, given any loophole, either in the law, or in the culture, will multiply, magnify, and overpower all the restraints thought to have been place upon it.
Our founders attempted to give us a Constitution that would withstand such turmoil, but in the main, avoid it. It was an imperfect document, but it offered the best shot at a nation built on the basis of individual liberty the world has yet known. It’s restraints upon the aggregation and growth of power in the Federal government were not strong enough, and while they may have been plain in the language of our founders, still the language was not plain enough to prohibit the power hungry from perverting the meaning, not merely of the text, but of the very words that are used throughout. The academics have taken “the people” to mean a collective body, rather than “all individual citizens,” and in this way, we are slowly having our liberties stripped away and delivered to collective notions of “rights,” all to the detriment of individuals.
Ladies and gentlemen, Levin may indeed be right about this, whether he intended it or not, and it’s another warning you should take care to heed. We are in desperate trouble, and much of it arises from the very contradictions that are slowly consuming us. Many Americans claim to be “constitutional conservatives,” but I wonder what commitment there is to that idea in practice. Are you willing to undo all the statism that this characterization should imply? I am, but for my part, I recognize that I am of some tiny minority that would be considered “extreme” both in France, and in the United States, in “polite” political circles. I read the US Constitution plainly, and I am versed in the context and meaning in which our founders wrote it. I neither wear the rose-colored spectacles by which one might imagine into existence rights that cannot exist in logic, nor do I wear the dark masks of those who wish to conceal their grasp for more power.
Our nation cannot survive on its current course. Cannot. Will not. Whether the election in November provides us another four years of the aggressive, lurching tyranny that is Obama, or the more careful, plodding nanny-statism of the Sarkozy-like Romney, the direction is the same, with only the speed along our course varied by the result. The fundamental issue that confronts us in our time is the same as that which confronts the French or the Greeks, and what would be required to see the salvation of our nation is that which people across Europe now seem to refuse: Austerity. Austerity is merely the willingness to tell oneself “no” in the short-run, at pains on behalf of a better long-run, and to date, I have yet to see any evidence that a majority of voters (never mind legislators)anywhere are inclined to such self-imposed discipline. Knowing this, the end of the story may indeed rest in the sentence uttered by Mark Levin:
“The system will have to collapse before it can be rebuilt.”
If it’s true of France, and one could suppose that it is, one might ask whether it isn’t also true of the United States. What will we be, as a nation, and as a people, when we have been reduced to a sort of atavistic tribalism in which volitional production is replaced with legalized looting of one’s neighbors? What will the context of that culture impose on the sort of law and governance that emerges? Do we dare to hope it might in any way resemble the masterpiece of 1792, much less exceed it? My pessimism on the subject may reflect my own recent experiences, but history’s judgment is no less worrisome. If we are to become again a free people, we must change our course entirely. We must identify our malady, and cure it. Instead, what we now seem to do is to pretend it away. Until we learn to say “no” and to mean it, we are merely bringing a birthday cake ablaze in candles and gaiety to a what is instead a terrible funeral, with a dirge as our melody. For those who have mistakenly thought “it could never happen here,” however one might define “it,” the simple truth may be that we’re already well on our way.
It may well be inevitable.
The Dissolution of the Social Compact
Wednesday, February 29th, 2012On Tuesday evening, Mark Levin posed a question on his radio show that bears serious consideration by we conservatives, and I think it’s time we discuss it. It’s not a matter of winning any longer, but whether we can stave off disaster. What Levin wondered aloud was whether our nation might be saved at all. He asked if it is too late, because there are too few people remaining who will oppose the advance of statism. Are we too few? Is it too late? Is the America we had known doomed? If so, what will we have instead? Our Republic stands on the brink of collapse, and the question we now face is what we can do about it. The signs are all around us: If we don’t turn things around in 2012, it may be that we never will.
Identifying the problem we face is simple, and it’s really what Alexis de Tocqueville proposed when he wrote Democracy In America. Among all of the other important and prescient things he warned, these may have been the two we should have etched in stone on the steps of Congress, and on every class-room door in the country:
“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” ― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America
That helps to describe our predicament, and this punctuates it:
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.” ― Alexis de Tocqueville
Our nation is now just more than 200 years on from the adoption of our current constitution, and it seems that the cause of Tocqueville’s warning is being realized before our eyes. Barack Obama is effectively a dictator, overturning laws by failing to enforce them, and by promulgating regulations that have no legal basis in authority under our Constitution. Our people, a majority of them, live substantially by taking from others, and those who produce their living have been indoctrinated to supine servitude. This isn’t the nation of our founding, and our current president’s enmity to the constitution to which he has sworn an oath demonstrates our dire situation. Many judges no longer see any reason to restrain themselves to the content or context of the laws on the basis of which they’re allegedly ruling, and they reach out to international case law for precedents that conflict with our own constitution. Under these conditions, our Republic cannot survive, much less flourish, and we are headed for darkness.
Part of what my professional life entails is the process of evaluating threats and vulnerabilities, and projecting organization capabilities for confronting them. Applying that technique to our current situation, for individuals who consider themselves conservative, never mind libertarian, I think we’re going to see a revolution of radical statists, and I believe this has been the aim of George Soros and his pack of radical cohorts. Our options are going to be just three, and you had better begin to consider them:
- Submit – Accept the country is going to become a radical socialist state complete with a police-state front
- Flee – Leave the country in search of friendly shores that will accept you
- Fight – Take up arms against it, risking life, limb, and property
These aren’t pleasant options, no matter which we consider, but let’s look at them. To submit would mean to maintain immediate physical safety, but it also means giving up virtually all personal sovereignty. I’m not cut out for this option, because I’m not one who respects claims of arbitrary authority over my life, or the way in which I choose to live it. I’m not one who abides by theft, whether carried out by a hoodlum in a darkened alleyway, or in the open by a federal bureaucrat. I don’t accept the idea that my life, liberty, and property are rightly subject to the aggression of other men, whether alone, or as a mob. This means that for me, I’m not inclined to submit, but every person will be forced to make their own choices. I fear too many will lie down in order to avoid harm, because in point of fact, the last century has been a progression of this sort of incremental surrender.
I don’t wish to surrender my country. I’m not the sort to flee from tyranny, although I must admit that I’ve done so before. I live out in the country precisely because I could not abide the growing tyranny in a municipality that orders its residents to have so many shrubs, so many trees, and what sort of decorations they can place on their own properties. I could not abide it, so I moved a short way out of the city, and in a matter of a decade, that city annexed properties quickly advancing upon me. At that point, I moved my family and my horses to an even more remote locale, and set up the farm where I expect that I will find some peace for the remainder of my days. This won’t be the case, however, if the federal government becomes the sort of coercive police state that leftists desire. There will be no escape to the country, and the only choice will be to flee the country altogether.
As I’ve reported, there have been some people, including filmmaker James Cameron who have fled to New Zealand, but the problem for most of us is that few can afford that move, and countries like New Zealand are smart enough to refuse easy immigration. Where then shall we go? The geographical isolation that has served America as a protection promises to serve now as a prison. Canada? Mexico? These are our choices, and neither looks very promising to most Americans. I can’t imagine that Mexico will offer much promise, and Canada won’t absorb us all. In my view, this sort of flight isn’t feasible for me, or for most Americans, which then brings us along to the option nobody wants to consider.
Fighting a counter-revolution is a deadly affair, particularly when the power of government is in the hands of the revolutionaries. From the outset, they will have command of the entire military, the police, and indeed, the entire array of government institutions, and since the media serves the revolution in most important ways, they’ve already created a willing propaganda arm. They control the horizontal and the vertical, so communications will become an impossibility. How do you wage a war against such a force? How is it possible to win? There is a very good reason that peoples the world over flee from or submit to large scale national social tyrannies: These are easier than fighting. These pose less danger.
What sort of country have ours become that we must even consider the revolutionary tyranny that is now creeping toward us, gathering inertia? I do not wish to seem as though I’m a doomsayer, but the truth is that we’re in very real national distress. Across the vast expanses of this country, there are probably fewer than one in six who I would consider committed patriots who believe we should maintain this republic as framed by our constitution, but still fewer who are willing to fight to preserve it. I doubt we could must five million patriots who would step forward and take up arms in defense of the republic, and make war against the people who have slowly usurped our system of government.
I am not asking or urging anybody to do anything, except think. I’d like you to consider the meaning of all of these things, and what you are willing to do to preserve what we all claim to love so dearly. Is our liberty to be abandoned without a fight? Is our freedom really to be eclipsed in this generation? Why are we going on quietly about our lives? The Tea Party was launched with the intention of creating a push-back, but the Tea Party has been largely silent in the last year. The problem is that without some rallying cry, we’re sliding more quickly toward the national catastrophe that now awaits in the gaping maw of the social welfare police-state. The other problem faced by those who would be inclined to fight if it comes to it is that we don’t have a single bright line for the trigger for a fight. What is that trigger? What is the thing that if the government undertakes, we would immediately respond with war?
This reminds me of the story of Wyatt Earp standing down a mob: “Sure, you’ll get me in a rush, but who wants to be first?” This is a question nobody likes to consider, because nobody wants to be first. Perhaps that will change, and perhaps it’s not yet as bad as that implies, but at some point, we’ll reach that climax at the pace in which we’re now rushing toward tyranny. All I’m suggesting to my fellow Americans is that now is the time to think these things through. What will we do in defense of our constitution when those sworn to uphold it decide instead to set it aside? What will be that condition under which we will no longer abide the transgressions? It’s easy to make brave oaths, today in the shrinking protection our liberties provide, but if our social compact is to be dissolved, it will no longer be a matter of oaths but instead a course of actions that we must consider.
As Islamists Take Control Of Egypt, Where Is Bill Kristol?
Monday, December 19th, 2011Earlier this year, William Kristol over at the Weekly Standard couldn’t wait to mock conservatives who were watching the developments in Egypt’s Tahrir Square with trepidation, knowing how this revolution would ultimately end: In a tyrannical Islamic state not unlike Iran. Kristol drew stunningly wrong-headed conclusions from the erupting “Arab Spring,” and he and his pal Rich Lowry over at the Nation Review enjoyed a good laugh at the expense of concerned conservatives who wondered about the possibilities of a growing Islamic hegemony in the region. The laughter has ceased, and if Kristol was honest, he’d write an essay explaining all the ways in which he had been wrong, and apologize to all of those who he had earlier mocked. Of course, don’t expect that from Kristol, because he’s a true DC insider, and he won’t have bothered to note that in Egypt, the Islamists are now coming to power, precisely as more wary and rational conservatives predicted.
What should have been apparent to Mr. Kristol is that there can be no ‘Arab Spring’ under the control of Islam, and it was clear to most rational observers from the outset that an Islamic Republic of some sort would be the result. Kristol thought otherwise, but like all good establishment writers, he hedged his bets a little when it became apparent things were not going so wonderfully as he had supposed, but that didn’t stop him from making the most absurd statement:
No more. The Arab winter is over. The men and women of the Greater Middle East are no longer satisfied by “a little life.”
This is the sort of delusional hyperbole that characterized much of Kristol’s writing on the subject at the time, and it’s one more instance in which what he wishes to be true leads him to write as though it had been true. Now that Islamist groups are winning the elections, and will clearly come to dominate the government of Egypt, and as protests again turn violent, one might reasonably ask what Mr. Kristol now says about all of this, having earlier declared the “Arab Spring” in full bloom. The answer: He hasn’t offered anything more on a subject that has turned into a rough spot given his early judgments on the matter.
Meanwhile, on the ground in Egypt, the facts are making a strong case in the form of violence that Mr. Kristol’s hopeful wishes for the future have been superseded by the evidence of the “false spring” with which he covered his bases. This situation remains fluid, but the outcome seems less in doubt as the Islamist factions are clearly sweeping aside any pro-Democracy factions in the elections. What this will likely mean is that before all is said and done, we’re going to be faced with an increasingly radicalized Arab world, with terrible consequences for Israel, and indeed, the entire region. This is one of the reasons Kristol’s wishful thinking was irresponsible and dangerous: Too many took to heart a false sense of security about the state of things in the region, and too many came to believe there was nothing about which Americans should worry. As is now clear, that’s an unmistakable falsehood, and as it stands, we’re likely to see a growing movement in Egypt that will be more openly hostile to Israel, and more apt to discard its treaty commitments. What Bill Kristol’s shameful mocking of conservative doubters of the “Arab Spring” had accomplished was to cause Americans to avert their eyes from the danger, but we won’t be able to remain willfully blind to it much longer. The question thus becomes: When will Kristol finally open his?
Occupy Wall Street Versus Tea Party: Are They Similar?
Saturday, November 19th, 2011The left wing media is doing its level best to portray the Occupy Wall Street movement as being the younger version of the Tea Party. Their assertion rests on the notion that the OWS folk are “really all about the same things.” This is a lie. The two groups have nothing in common; not in tactics, conduct, mindset or intentions. The truth is revealed by the fact that the Democrat Party couldn’t wait to denounce the Tea Party, but they can’t wait to embrace the Occupiers. Had even a handful of Tea Party folks behaved in a manner akin to what we’ve seen from the Occupiers, the media would have spent even more time defaming them. Remember the lies: “The Tea Party is a bunch of angry, old white people motivated by racism who hate the government.” These had been the basic talking points in media. Oddly, there is no media caricature of the Occupiers, although one has developed among Americans without media assistance: “Occupy Wall Street is a bunch of anti-capitalist ne’er-do-wells, revolutionaries, and they are dominated by antisemitic and leftist thugs.” The American people see the difference even if the media deny it.
The Tea Party arose out of a frustration with runaway government spending under the one-party domination of the Democrats, who in 2009 found themselves in control of all branches of government. The Tea Party consists of people from all walks of life who are indeed a bit more mature on average than the Occupiers. It shows in their conduct as well as in their stated goals. Their intention has been to elect people who will respect the constitution and its limitations on government. Their rallies have been entirely peaceful, and police have never had to arrest them. They filed for and received permits, they observed local ordinances, and they otherwise conducted themselves in a manner aimed at avoiding becoming an inconvenience to the communities in which they were protesting. When their events completed, they picked up the grounds, and they left every venue cleaner than they found it. Their organizers generally had made accommodations for sanitary purposes available, and there was no trail of filth left in their wake. When their protests and rallies were concluded, they went peacefully back to their lives as Americans. While many of them have serious disagreements with the cronyism in Washington DC that spreads its tentacles into the private sector, they nevertheless believe in the American Republic as established, and the great boon to humanity that is capitalism. They have been self-funded, self-organized, and self-directed. Let’s be clear: The Tea Party is a real political organization, if a bit diffuse, but nevertheless aimed at actual political change, and they’ve had some substantial success.
Contrast this with the Occupiers who are younger on average, have no electoral goals to speak of, and instead seem to be vague in their ideas about what it is they are after. There is a mix of ideologies present, but the main body is decidedly leftist, and decidedly anti-capitalist. The only part of the constitution they seem to value is the First Amendment’s protections of free speech and peaceful assembly, while they test the legal limits of those rights at every turn. They seem not to have noticed that somebody is funding their activities, and that those food deliveries are coming from somewhere. They seem not to realize that they’re being directed and organized by people who aren’t present, and never will be. In their encampments, there have been rapes, beatings, stabbings, shootings, widespread drug use, every possible form of public lewdness, and a general disrespect for law, private property, and the communities in which they have taken up their occupations.
Their ideology is so vague on its surface that all you can discern is that they’re unhappy about something, and it seems to arise from a sort of general hatred of big businesses, banks, and their executives, but they can’t tell you anything about which they’re upset in concrete terms. Instead, they whine about millionaires and billionaires while some people of that precise description send them lunch. They don’t have a goal, but their leadership is going to give them one: Anarchy and revolution. The Occupy Wall Street movement has been nothing but a sham and a front for anti-American, anti-Capitalist, anti-freedom Marxists, and these poor dolts, most of them educated since the fall of the Soviet Union, don’t have any clue what that really means. If they have any interest in elections, they haven’t indicated it. I have seen no talk of electing “Occupiers to Congress.” They’re not capable of that.
The glib leftists in the media now tell us: “Well, both groups are anti-establishment.” Really? Which establishment? The Tea Party is against the political establishment in Washington DC, the unofficial institution that has corrupted the US Constitution. They’re against a DC establishment that spends their money like water. They’re against the Republican establishment, that too often dominates that party with its interests. The Occupiers oppose a different establishment: The establishments of private property as expressed in corporations, profits, earnings, and business. In short, the establishment that the Occupiers oppose is the establishment created by the US Constitution. Neither can they redistribute wealth nearly so well as they would like, nor can they steal by law so easily as long as the establishment of the civil society and the rule of law remain in place. The establishment their leadership hopes to undo is the that bulwark of law that our founders erected. The establishment the Tea Party opposes is the corruption of government and capitalism intended to destroy the Constitution.
Following the aims of the Occupiers would lead us to overthrow the US Constitution. Following the goals of the Tea Party would permit us to uphold and defend it and even to restore it. This is no small distinction, and it’s key to the left’s endless propaganda in favor of the Occupiers: They want an end to this country as you have known it, and they are working diligently to bring it about. The Occupiers have almost nothing in common with the Tea Party except in the most superficial sense: They’re both protest movements, and they both oppose some establishment, but the character of their protests and the nature of the establishments against which they rally are very nearly perfectly and diametrically opposed. They couldn’t be more different. After spending the last three years hammering the Tea Party, you might now ask why the media is trying to link the Occupiers to them. The answer is simple: They’ve done their polling research and found that the American people have more positive regard for the Tea Party, but have very rapidly realized the Occupy Wall Street movement is nonsense. They’re also trying to create a false equivalence for another purpose: To make the two interchangeable in the minds of Americans. Thankfully, the vast bulk of the American people are not that stupid, and that notion simply will not sell. The American people have seen the difference. It’s too late to pretend otherwise.
Sign of the Times?
Friday, November 18th, 2011I received an interesting phone call from a friend I hadn’t talked with in a month or so, and it wasn’t that his questions were so surprising as it was that his timing seemed so preposterously coincidental. Another acquaintance had recently forwarded me the article from the American Thinker by John Fricke, Should I buy a gun? This brings me to the subject of my long-time friend’s call. It wasn’t that he wanted a gun, as he has enough firearms to defend his family, but in a related matter, he wanted my opinion on the subject of preparedness, and to examine with him his own list of emergency items. In short, he wanted to compare notes, because like the author of the American Thinker piece, he has begun to wonder if he ought not become a good bit more prepared.
I told him what I tell anybody who asks my opinion: More prepared is better than less prepared, and prepared at all is better than unprepared. That’s a truism, but the point should be clear, and it’s something we’ve discussed together here before: Given the state of the country, Americans should be prepared in to survive for a time without any outside assistance.
Americans should be prepared at a moment’s notice to defend themselves, their families, and their property. They should be prepared to survive without the benefit of a grocery store for weeks, or even months. They should have all the things necessary to “rough it” without electricity for heating or cooling or refrigeration. They should be prepared to administer basic first aid, and have at least the bare minimum of survival items. As I suggested to my friend, list the top 100 things he and his family members use daily, and what would be the low-tech, sustainable substitutes. Radios, flashlights, candles, and all of those things come easily to mind, but less obvious things like soaps, disinfectants, water purification tablets, and other basic necessities are often overlooked. He assured me that he has a generator, but I asked him bluntly: What’s the fuel consumption rate on your generator? How many days worth of fuel do you expect to have on hand? He looked paused and said: “You know, that’s a good point. I can only store so much fuel, and it goes bad sitting in gas cans.”
I explained to him how we too have a small generator, but we also recognize we can’t store enough fuel for any protracted period, so we rotate what we have stored through our vehicles, filling the vehicles from the stored cans of fuel, and refilling them instead of the vehicles. This keeps our survival supply fresh, and it enables us to ensure we’ll have a little fuel for a bad spot. It won’t last long, but at least I’ll brew that coffee every day for a few weeks until that runs out too, and we convert to instant.
One of the things I told my friend, and in his case it’s not so important, is that many people who really don’t routinely hunt, or otherwise use firearms will frequently purchase a gun, and some ammo, put it on a shelf, and never look at it again. Let me suggest to my readers that if you happen to be in that group, or close to it, or you have family members who are, you should take some time to actually learn the safe use and maintenance of your firearms. It’s one thing to be able to shoot it when there is no time pressure and no particular reason but sport, but it is another when you are faced with the situation of defending yourself or your loved ones. It’s best to spend a few boxes of ammunition preparing for self-defense than to discover too late that you haven’t prepared.
Do you have an infant or small children? They have particular nutritional needs that may well not be met by a standard adult ration. You also need to think about other items. Special medications? Do you have pets? Most of us do. What will you do when the dog food runs out? Or will you be dining on Kung Pao Fido every day for a week? My apologies, but there is a point at which we must consider the very real question of what becomes of our pets, and maybe my tasteless remark will be the thing that causes you to consider it. Whatever you can do to prepare for that possibility now will potentially save you and those you love many hardships later.
Most Americans live in tightly packed neighborhoods. Are your neighbors preparing? What of those in your church congregations, or other faith-based or social organizations in your community? If you alone on your block are prepared, and things take a turn for the worse on the national level, how long do you suppose you’ll maintain your preparations if too many of your neighbors are not so well-prepared? Your wit may be the life of the block party on the 4th of July, but when the dark of winter comes, and yours are the only lights lit on the street, and some of your occupation-inclined neighbors become annoyed at your wealth of light, how long do you suppose it will be before somebody decides you need to share your wealth?
Ladies and gentlemen, I don’t wish to frighten anybody, but having served in the Army, and knowing the value of the Boy Scouts’ motto, I want you to consider this all very carefully. I know that many of you will have friends and neighbors like some of mine, who are perpetual grasshoppers to your diligent anthill. I know. Still, encouraging them to consider the reality of our situation is perhaps worthwhile. Tell them to start putting up a few extra cans of food on each shopping trip. The worst thing that can happen is they have a lot extra to give to a canned-food charity drive. In a pinch, it may be the difference between a satisfying if not altogether sublime dining occasion, and the feeling of empty in the pit of their bellies.
Of course, there are those who will never prepare. They simply assume that either they’ll somehow “get theirs” or that nothing bad will ever happen. Watch out for these people. These are the folks who will later come calling with ill intent, and you shouldn’t take for granted that they’ll do you no harm. An empty belly has motivated many people to acts of evil. The best thing about being prepared is the ability to be a good neighbor in hard times. Even if you’ve prepared only enough for you and your own family, by being prepared, you can reduce the burdens you might otherwise place on others. Readers of this blog are the prepared sort anyway, but what my friend’s call and John Fricke’s article should remind us is that we do indeed live in dangerous times. There’s no substitute for preparation, and whether it’s the ability to defend yourselves, or feed yourselves, you should be mindful that the world the statists have created is subject to turmoils from which none of us will be immune.
I’m sure I’m not as prepared as I would like to be, but I’m positive I’m better prepared than many. What about you? Are you ready? Part of our country seems prepared to “go Galt” while the rest continues as though nothing unusual is happening. It’s a sign of the times in which we live that crises of monumental proportions are brewing, and so many Americans remain woefully unprepared.
That shouldn’t include you.
Occupiers Threaten Shutdown
Thursday, November 17th, 2011Brace yourselves: Today is the day the Occupy Wall Street movement intends to shut down New York. They plan to shut down Wall Street, and they plan to shut down the subways. While they claim to be non-violent, yesterday an Occupier was arrested after threatening violence using Molotov cocktails against Macy’s, and saying that they would burn the city down. This man proclaimed: “We’re gonna burn New York City to the [expletive] ground.” The video below actually led to the man’s arrest yesterday evening. This gives some indication of what at least some of the protesters intend, but organizers still insist they are non-violent. This video strongly suggests otherwise:
This isn’t a joke. These misguided people are being used as a base for socialist agitation, and they’re putting up the anarchist front to carry out the violence. New Yorkers should be prepared to seek refuge against violence, and find alternate means of transportation. Also, with all of this chaos, it’s the perfect opportunity for terrorists of another sort to strike. People really should remain vigilant in this environment, because there will be any number of participants who wish to incite a riot, and there will be any number of other elements who will wish to use such riots as cover.
All of this demonstrates clearly why Mayor Michael Bloomberg should be tossed by the electorate. Anybody who has the reins of power in such a vast city, and yet fails to responsibly confront this sort of anarchical movement for most of two months really has no business in that position. Of course, Bloomberg is a billionaire tool, so it’s really not surprising. Let’s just hope that this doesn’t get out of hand, and the violence that some protesters are threatening never materializes.
One must wonder if their intention to block access to subways isn’t an attempt to incite violence. I could easily understand how somebody blocking my path to my timely arrival at my job, particularly in these woeful economic conditions, could easily cause me to lose my composure if somebody were preventing me from access to transportation. There will be those who see this as a threat to their jobs, and thus their families and their financial lives. That’s the intention of the Occupiers with this move, and it’s almost certain to cause serious trouble.
As I said, they claim “non-violence,” but their actions are designed to provoke it. It’s been clear what would happen when these poor fools outlived their usefulness to their masters as a mostly peaceful camp-in. It’s that time. Be careful out there.
Occupy Protests Unsafe for Women
Wednesday, November 2nd, 2011The Occupiers have a serious problem, and it’s cropping up nationwide, and even internationally. From reports gathered around the country, the Occupy movement is seeing a wave of sexual assaults among their own numbers, and finally, after being hushed by the organizers, the word is getting out. There is a general sense that the Occupy protest sites are unsafe for women particularly, but in general, for anybody of any description. Combined with the escalating violence we’ve witnessed over the last week or so, isn’t it time we begin to get a handle on all of this? Of course, it’s not getting the mainstream coverage it should, and as BigGovernment.com revealed last week, there’s a good reason: Some of the reporters covering this story are involved in the organization. Cozy? You bet! The problem is that when it comes to the reporting on this allegedly “organic” protest, the media still isn’t telling you who is behind this, or what is going on at the protest sites.
In Baltimore, one woman says she was raped, and she begs for the event to be shut down. The unidentified woman told Fox 45 WBFF that she was raped, and she said that nobody from the protest movement would help her. It’s a sad story, but it’s becoming increasingly common at the Occupy rallies. BigGovernment.com has the video.
On the international front, Occupy Ottawa(Canada) is having similar problems. You can watch a video clip about complaints over sexual assaults at their rally:
Back in New York, at Zuccotti Park, some Occupiers are talking openly about the problem, but they’re trying to shift blame onto police. They claim the police are intentionally ignoring problems of this sort, while directing homeless people to join the Occupiers in Zuccotti Park. I find the claim laughable, because what this woman actually tells us is that the problem is real:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGFeJ6gmJAE
Brandon Darby, writing for BigGovernment, posted an article on the danger to women at the Occupy rallies.
It’s a zoo, and as long as public officials like Mayor Bloomberg continue to turn a blind eye to what is going on, I expect conditions to worsen at these rallies. It’s time to send the Occupiers home, and it’s time for the police to step in and vigorously pursue the people committing serious crimes in the movement. The Occupiers seem willing to shelter the criminals, and they make a good deal of noise about their “security committees,” but all they are really accomplishing by not bringing reports to the police is to aid and abet the felonious among their number. For some of these people, it’s time to Occupy Jail.
Occu-Pests Vote to “Liberate Oakland”
Monday, October 31st, 2011In the latest story of the bizarre sense of inflated self-importance of so-called Occupiers, these loons in Oakland have actually voted for a proposal that would seem to instigate a complete shutdown of the city. Of course, I realize this is California, so I suppose it’s possible they could make this happen, but I want to know from these totalitarians: On whose authority? In whose name? By what right do you claim to have the authority to shut down the city of Oakland in order to carry out your protest? They are planning this action for November 2nd. I think it’s clear that these people are prone to violence, prone to dictatorial demands, and clearly a mob of Bolshevik ne’er-do-wells who have designs on overthrowing our nation.
Let’s take a look at their proposal as posted on their website, shall we:
We as fellow occupiers of Oscar Grant Plaza propose that on Wednesday November 2, 2011, we liberate Oakland and shut down the 1%.
We propose a city wide general strike and we propose we invite all students to walk out of school. Instead of workers going to work and students going to school, the people will converge on downtown Oakland to shut down the city.
All banks and corporations should close down for the day or we will march on them.
While we are calling for a general strike, we are also calling for much more. People who organize out of their neighborhoods, schools, community organizations, affinity groups, workplaces and families are encouraged to self organize in a way that allows them to participate in shutting down the city in whatever manner they are comfortable with and capable of.
The whole world is watching Oakland. Let’s show them what is possible.
Bear in mind that they actually voted on this. They actually claim the right to shut down a City of four-hundred thousand people on the basis of a vote among 1607 people, some of who are undoubtedly not residents of Oakland. If you wonder about the legitimacy of their claims to being the “99%,” you’ve just had it answered: They are able to count votes in their pathetic crowd, and yet they are unable to recognize that they are not even 1% of the town in which they’re rallying. This is really disturbing, not because their math skills seem flawed, but because of what it indicates about their mind-set: They are willing to interfere with the lives and livelihoods of 400,000 fellow citizens on their say-so. Who elected them? Who appointed them?
Nobody.
This is what “Democracy” looks like?
Looks more like a mob trying to justify its actions by pretending to act democratically.
Here’s a video on youtube of their vote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfT3dx7SGm8
These are dictatorial thugs who believe they have the right to impose such things on an entire city of people, most of whom signify their disagreement by their absence. I certainly hope that the authorities there, famously liberal, remember that this crowd of ne’er-do-wells do not speak for the citizenry of Oakland. This is just one more bit of evidence to show you who these people are, and what they believe. When they run around chanting “we are the 99%,” you can know with certainty what they must know too: They’re lying.
Protester Says Collapsing American Government Will Be Necessary
Thursday, October 27th, 2011This professional idiot from Chicago is serious. Meanwhile, I get comments from his fellow idiots who say the Occupy movement isn’t anti-capitalist. Yes, sure. We believe that. Do these squatters think we’re not paying any attention to what they’re doing and saying? Do they think we are as clueless as they pretend to be about who is funding all of this? Please. Don’t insult my intelligence. These are radical Marxists, and if you find a few poor dolts among them who aren’t, they have no clue to what they’ve attached their support. This guy with his laundry list of social program demands is just a communist agitator. Yet we’re told they’re not anti-capitalist? Let’s be honest about it: These people want America to end as you had known it, or as your grandparents had known it. They do not speak for me. All of them should read this: The Morality of Money
H/T to the Blaze for finding this video:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0085M-1cUA]
Occu-Pests Don’t Speak For Me
Thursday, October 27th, 2011I am tired of the notion that these people speak for the 99% of us who are not billionaires. I’ve grown frustrated listening to their complaints, offered with feeble-minded attacks on wealth, money, and the general notion of capitalism. There’s a problem with those who lead these Occupy efforts: They don’t give a damn about this country, its people, or any of the things about which they pretend to care. Instead, what interests them is cultural rape. They intend to change this country without your consent, in its laws, in its culture, and in its economics. The leaders of the OWS movement are simply predators, and while they claim that violence is against their principles, they incite it, they provoke it, and they use the poor misguided folk who are following them to act as their buffer. BusinessInsider published an interesting piece on the larger aims of the Occupy movement, and I’m afraid the American people have no idea about how thoroughly these people have developed their designs on America. They’re going to attempt to re-write your Constitution, while you sleep, and as you watch the latest news on the silly stories of the day.
They imagine themselves as a modern-day version of the framers of our current Constitution, laboring in secret to present us with a new Constitution, in order to save us from ourselves. Let me state emphatically that if they manage to carry off this coup d’etats, I will oppose them, and violently, if need be. Let me throw down a marker now, so that all may know my position: If the Occupiers, their leaders and benefactors succeed in trying to foist on the great mass of the American people some foreign system of government, which it now seems is their clear intent, I will be among the counter-revolutionaries who they will be forced to kill. Write it down. Bookmark it. I will not surrender to these people, because in the main, they do not have my consent, and they do not speak for me. Ninety-nine percent? My ass!
Ladies and gentlemen, I would like for you to consider what the Occupy movement really has in mind. This isn’t about the typical complaints, and it isn’t merely about some bankers, some tax rate, or some scheme for redistributing your wealth. It’s much more insidious than that, and you need to know that when the poor schmucks who follow the lead of this manufactured movement wind up looking stupid on television, it’s not because the movement has no firm goals, as we all first thought, but because the rank-and-file Occu-Pest doesn’t know what those goals actually are. In order to understand what it is that they’re going to attempt, you must first understand some history, and I’d beg of my readers to educate themselves with a sense of urgency. The leadership of this movement is trying to create a bit of theater, in mimicry of a historical event, and you must understand its importance if you’re to have any hope of confronting them. You in the Tea Party had better pay close attention, because many of you will already know this history, but I am going to show you how they intend to use the weight of history against you and your beloved Constitution. If you wish to know how they are going to attack you, you must know that the past is prologue. You must know that none of this is really new, but the manner in which it will be done is novel. Finally, I think we can begin to see what they intend, and for once, I think you ought to know it so that you can do something constructive in opposition.
First, I would like you to acquaint yourselves with the Committees of Correspondence. These were shadow governments that our founders formed in order to confront the British empire. These committees were used to oppose the British and essentially superseded the colonial legislatures. This was the method by which we eventually arrived at the pre-revolutionary state that would lead to the Declaration of Independence and our ultimate separation from the British. It is important to understand that those who are leading the Occupy movement are attempting to carry out something similar, although their desired ends are much different. They intend to use a seemingly democratic movement to undermine freedom via the state, and they intend a quiet take-over. Many have referenced their intentions, but it’s clear that most don’t quite understand.
The first thing necessary to their movement is the claim to legitimacy. This is the meaning of all of this “99%” garbage they’re throwing around. The truth is, they don’t speak for one percent of one percent of one percent of Americans. Nevertheless, this will be their claim, and they will try to establish the providence of that claim through the use of media. As we’ve seen, many in the media are in bed with the Occupy movement, and in at least one case Breitbart has uncovered, they are the media. Don’tbe surprised when you find that they are now going to claim to be of you, by you, and for you, the American people. Last week, I reported to you their plan for a national assembly, and now here’s their plan for creating this illusion:
1. The Occupy Wall Street movement, through the local general assembly, should elect an executive committee comprised of 11 people or some other odd number of people that is manageable for meetings. Ideally this committee should represent each city in the U.S. that is being occupied.
2. The executive committee will then attend to local issues such as obtaining permits, paying for public sanitation and dealing with the media. More important, the executive committee shall plan and organize the election of the 870 delegates to a National General Assembly between now and July 4, 2012.
3. As stated in the 99% declaration, each of the 435 congressional districts will form an election committee to prepare ballots and invite citizens in those districts to run as delegates to a National General Assembly in Philadelphia beginning on July 4, 2012 and convening until October 2012.
4. Each of the 435 congressional districts will elect one man and one woman to attend the National General Assembly. The vote will be by direct democratic ballot regardless of voter registration status as long as the voter has reached the age of 18 and is a US citizen. This is not a sexist provision. Women are dramatically under-represented in politics even though they comprise more than 50% of the U.S. population.
5. The executive committee will act as a central point to solve problems, raise money to pay for the expenses of the election of the National General Assembly and make sure all 870 delegates are elected prior to the meeting on July 4th.
6. The executive committee would also arrange a venue in Philadelphia to accommodate the delegates attending the National General Assembly where the declaration of values, petition of grievances and platform would be proposed, debated, voted on and approved. The delegates would also elect a chair from their own ranks to run the meetings of the congress and break any tie votes. We will also need the expertise of a gifted parliamentarian to keep the meetings moving smoothly and efficiently.
7. The final declaration, platform and petition of grievances, after being voted upon by the 870 delegates to the National General Assembly would be formally presented by the 870 delegates to all three branches of government and all candidates running for federal public office in November 2012. Thus, the delegates would meet from July 4, 2012 to sometime in early to late October 2012.
8. The delegates to the National General Assembly would then vote on a time period, presently suggested as one year, to give the newly elected government in November an opportunity to redress the petition of grievances. This is our right as a People under the First Amendment.
9. If the government fails to redress the petition of grievances and drastically change the path this country is on, the delegates will demand the resignation and recall of all members of congress, the president and even the Supreme Court and call for new elections by, of and for the PEOPLE with 99 days of the resignation demand.
10. There will NEVER be any call for violence by the delegates even if the government refuses to redress the grievances and new elections are called for by the delegates. Nor will any delegate agree to take any money, job promise, or gifts from corporations, unions or any other private source. Any money donated or raised by the executive committee may only be used for publicizing the vote, the National General Assembly, and for travel expenses and accommodation at the National General Assembly ONLY. All books and records will be published openly online so that everyone may see how much money is raised and how the money is spent each month. There will be no money allowed to “purchase” delegate votes as we have in the current government. No corporate “sponsorship”.
(H/T Business Insider.com)
This is a continuing attempt to make all of this look organic, but more importantly, to legitimize it and to pretend that they speak with authority for the ninety-nine percent they claim to comprise. In effect, they are trying to create the appearance of an analog to the 1770s and the Committees of Correspondence. Of course, the next part of their plan is even more insidious, and it is to replace the US Constitution by methods not unlike those employed to replace the Articles of Confederation, except that they will have nothing like the support among the American people that supported revising our Articles of Confederation. Back when it was first suggested that our first form of government (Articles of Confederation) be revised, that’s what the delegates had been tasked to do. Instead, they crafted an entirely new constitution and presented it for ratification. In some contexts, this might have been considered a treason, except that any such claims have been made moot by the subsequent ratification and adoption of our Constitution. Most Americans forget that George Washington was our first president under this current constitution, but that he was not the first President of the United States. Under the Articles of Confederation, that was the presiding member of Congress, who happened to have been Samuel Huntington (March 1, 1781 – July 9, 1781.) Most people don’t know this because they aren’t taught it, along with so much else in our precious history.
Once you realize what Soros and the others who are driving this intend, it becomes obvious what their methodology will be: They intend to speak on your behalf, and to trump up a movement to convince those in government that they are speaking on your behalf. There’s only one way to prevent this, and you should fight against it with full resolve. Confront them by telling your representatives in Washington DC that the Occu-pests don’t speak for you. Confront them by telling the media, loudly and often, that the Occupiers don’t speak for us. They’re trying to capture the legitimacy born of their 99% claim, but you and I know they don’t speak for anything like the 99% they claim. It simply doesn’t exist. There is no overwhelming desire on the part of the American people to replace or radically amend the United States Constitution. I will consider all such radical propositions as they are: Acts of treason. Also, be aware that this other phony movement, Americans Elect, exists to try to change the way we elect Presidents. It’s full of Soros shills too, and as I’ve reported before, I cannot trust anyone or anything related to the aims of that man or the multitude of organizations he funds and backs and manipulates.
This movement is being manipulated for one ultimate purpose: To destroy and replace the US Constitution. There is nothing else but that goal. I consider the people leading these Occupiers as fomenting insurrection, while actively plotting treason. I realize many of the rank-and-file Occupiers don’t understand this, however there will come a point at which they will begin to endanger the Republic, and in their mindless, unthinking support of this Marxist movement, they are assisting to destroy the United States. In the sense specifically, they don’t speak for me. They don’t speak for ninety-nine percent, or anything near that number. They are the loud and vociferous cacophony of ne’er-do-wells who have in largest measure contributed to our current state of presumptive decline.
Ladies and gentlemen, these people and their leadership do not speak for me. They do not speak for anybody I know personally. I don’t know any person who actually supports them. I don’t know a soul who thinks we should ditch our Constitution, never mind by the dictates of some Marxist cabal of Soros flacks. I don’t know one person, anywhere in my extended circle of friends and family who actually believes in anything the Occupiers are espousing. None. Maybe you do, but I’d like to know from my readers: Do they speak for you? Do they? Is George Soros acting on your behalf? Somehow I doubt it, but rather than make any assumptions, as the Occu-Pests have done, I’m not willing to speak for others. If the Occupiers don’t speak for you, you should let your government, and the media, and every person you can find to tell them that fact.
They don’t speak for me, and I’d rather die than submit to the mobocracy they envision.
Occupy Wall Street: Fail
Wednesday, October 26th, 2011The Occu-Pests are beginning to realize that while they’ve been camped out in Zuccotti Park, and elsewhere around the country, they’ve merely provided a distraction from other news that has permitted banking to go on as usual. As I reported here over the week-end, the actions of Bank of America/Merrill Lynch, and JP Morgan should have caught the attention of anybody concerned about the continuing threat of a US debt crisis, but everyone is distracted with Gaddafi’s death, and several other over-hyped issues, including the Occu-Pests. The problem is that the Occu-Pests are mostly Marxists, being organized by people friendly to the administration that is actually carrying out the very policies the Occupiers seem to oppose.
What they haven’t figured out, yet, is that they are being used as a distraction. The longer they sit in their tents and march in the various venues around the country, they’re being made into the bad guys because they truly are a nuisance, and some lesser proportion of their number are prone to violent acts and vile behaviors. In short, they’re shooting themselves in the foot. Each day they remain on station, they are decreasing their impact and merely giving cover to bad government policies.
Last Friday, on Rolling Stone, one of these Occu-Pests laments that “Washington still doesn’t get it.” I’ve got news for the poor fool: Washington “Gets it” quite well, but you, on the other hand, do not. Washington understands very well that the longer you occupy Wall Street, the more cover they will have. At the end of his article, Matt Taibbi posits this:
“If anyone thought OWS has already done its job, and Washington has gotten the message already, think again. They’re not going to change until the protesters force them to change, it seems.”
This is maniacally self-aggrandizing, and it’s also delusional. “Force?” Does Matt Taibbi really believe that they can “force them to change?” They number in the hands-full of thousands, but even a mass march of perhaps a million or more Tea Party types was unable to “force them to change.” Or is Mr. Taibbi admitting of a willingness to use actual violence? If he is, he has even less grounding in reality than I had suspected. There is a simple fact that Mr. Taibbi doesn’t understand, but he eventually will, one way or the other: The protesters at OWS are being used. Their numbers are insignificant to anything but a publicity stunt, a photo op, and a distraction. This sort of protest will have no effect against the greater will of the American people. The very people who have helped to create the OWS movement have been using them as cover for their own agenda right along, but the OWS folk have been too naive to realize it. George Soros, who is indirectly behind much of this, must be laughing at the harrumphing going on among the OWS folks about their lack of impact. They’re having exactly the impact they were supposed to have: While they protest, Soros and his pals are looting the future of this country and the OWS people shriek at Wall Street.
It’s sad in one sense while fitting in another that as they protest for notions none of them seem too firmly to grasp, they’re being played by the very people who have organized them there. They still believe they’re an organic protest, but it’s laughable to suggest, and besides, to the degree there is any real grass-roots activism, it is being steered by those who have stage-managed this entire side-show. Now here’s the real problem they face, these poor Occu-pests: The day is quickly approaching when they will have out-lived their usefulness, if it hasn’t happened already, and then the people who helped organize them are going to make examples of them in the name of “maintaining order.” Watch and see what happens. If these poor fools stick around very long, the powers who brought them forth will use agent provocateurs to instigate violence, and it will be made to look like the Pests themselves initiated it. George Soros reportedly met with Police Commissioner Ray Kelly in New York, so it’s possible that the hammer is about to fall on the hapless Occu-Pests. I’m not certain that this isn’t part of what caused the riot Tuesday night at Occupy Oakland. I think the natives are getting restless, and the provocateurs are pushing things. This is how they will create the spectacle in which the Occu-Pests will be sacrificed. It’s sad to think that these poor knuckleheads have been so thoroughly duped by their leadership, but there you have it. There’s a reason they’re known as “useful idiots.”