Tag Archives: Thomas Jefferson

“Der Anarch”—Asserting our Sovereign Individuality and Sovereign Citizenship as not only “Anarchen” but also “Ubermenschen” is the only path to resist Totalitarianism in the United States and around the World

Posted on April 13, 2013 by Charles Edward Lincoln III | Leave a comment

You see a lot of insults being heaped these days at the core Constitutional concept of “the sovereign citizen” as a political or philosophical movement these days, as if it were conjured up by a bunch of illiterate hillbillies who just want to hide their moonshine & pot-liquor from “the feds” and the “revenuers.” Credible reports from all over the United States suggest that local police are everywhere being taught to watch out for the dangerous “sovereign citizens” who assert their constitutional rights “too often or too loudly” as subversive terrorists. My perspective on such matters is: MAY THE LORD OUR GOD BLESS, KEEP, AND PROTECT ALL SUBVERSIVE TERRORISTS WHO FIGHT FOR THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, JUST AS HE KEPT AND PROTECTED PATRICK HENRY, GEORGE WASHINGTON, THOMAS JEFFERSON, JAMES MADISON, BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, and ANDREW JACKSON BEFORE….

And ever since Liza Mundy published my identity as an “Anarchist” (she left out the “Traditional, Jeffersonian, Southern Constitutionalist” modifiers to that label) in the Washington Post on October 6, 2009, I have repeatedly been asked to explain myself—how can I be an “anarchist?” Doesn’t that mean I just want “chaos?” Well, up to a point, I will admit that “chaos” to me seems preferable to computer driven and enforced high-tech “order.” I would rather live in Early Anglo-Saxon or Norse Viking Society or at the edge of the Western Frontier in 18th Century Virginia than in any of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, George Orwell’s 1984, or Jerry Brown’s Barbara Boxer’s & Dianne Feinstein’s California 2013.

But it happens that living in a “leaderless” society and accepting no man as an arbiter of YOUR OWN DEFINITION of “good and evil” (or going beyond such things) has a very respectable historical pedigree…. Today I just want to celebrate Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche and Ernst Jünger— http://www.ernst-juenger.org.

Ernst Jünger was an anti-Nazi German Conservative and Intellectual of the highest calibre and standing. He lived until the age of 102, from 1895-1998, beating even my grandmother Helen for longevity (she only made it to 101).

My political philosophy is fundamentally anti-modern and therefore truly “conservative” whereas Naziism, like George H.W. Bush’s & George W. Bush’s Socialist-Corporatism (which includes Obama and the Clintons, by the way), is fundamentally modernist—embracing technology as a means of oppression and control by monitoring.

No “Traditional, Jeffersonian, Southern Constitutionalist” could possibly tolerate the Department of Homeland Security, the National Defense Authorization Act, or any of the now thousands of related executive orders. GHW Bush, GW Bush, WJ Clinton, HR Clinton, and BH Obama are all fundamentally students and followers of Stalin, Mao, and perhaps even Hitler. (1)

I am much more a student and follower of Ernst Jünger.

Jünger was among the forerunners of magical realism—a very broad topic into which I think you could integrate everything from Joss Whedon’s Buffy-the-Vampire Slayer TV Series to Terrance Malick’s films (include “To the Wonder” and “Tree of Life”). A friend of mine from the Ukraine recently commented that Jünger’s view of life and the current historical trajectory involves the “re-mythologization of the world,” the protection, preservation, and restoration of individual imagination, instinct, intuition as major factors in world politics and society.

My supplement to this is that all historical interpretations and political philosophies are essentially mythologies informed by more-or-less gross reorderings of the events of individual, local, regional, national, continental, and global existence. The mythology of American Constitutional Law depends entirely (these days) on the so-called “Civil War” of 1861-1865, except to the degree that it is supplemented by the post-1945 One World Religion of the Taboo Holocaust and the Credal virtues of the United Nations.

Jünger’s vision in The Glass Bees (1957, German title: Gläserne Bienen), of a future in which an overmechanized world threatens individualism, could be seen as a direct critique of Artificial (robotic) Intelligence and even this “Aryan Traditionalism” you’re looking at (which reminds me so much of “The Santa Fe Plateau and New Age Alchemy” of Yosi Taitz, Daylight Chemical, and similar companies….)

Jünger was an entomologist as well as a soldier and writer, a “manly man” but sensitive poet with training in botany and zoology, as well as a soldier, his works in general are infused with tremendous details of the natural world.

One of Jünger’s most important literary contributions was the metahistoric figure of Der Anarch (“the sovereign person”), which evolved from his earlier conception of the Waldgänger, or “Forest Goer”. Der anarch is Jünger’s answer to the question of survival of individual freedom in a totalitarian world, and it is ten thousand times more relevant today than it was 57 years ago as he was writing. It is developed primarily through the character of Martin Venator in his novel Eumeswil. Der Anarch IS not only the original “Sovereign Citizen”, at least the original “post Hitlerian” sovereign citizen, he is also a Nietzschean Ubermensch, with the capacity to retake his sovereignty from tyrants and maintain it, like the Superman, even in the forest, even in the Mountains, even in the Desert.

I totally believe in the sovereignty of each person and I hate the notion that the sovereign citizen has become the object of such ridicule in our society—a terrorist profile in the target of DHS. What is clear is that we need to reassert our freedom in more articulate and fluent ways. Fluency is required and intellectual heritage must be asserted because of the intellectual snobbery bred into us and our by the 20th century. This snobbery led to such atrocious and fraudulent (incomprehensible) disasters as George W. Bush having degrees from both Harvard and Yale (it’s amazing what money can buy) and Obama attending Columbia, Harvard, and (worst of all) actually teaching at the University of Chicago—teaching constitutional law, no less, at MY alma mater as a successor to Michael W. McConnell—a concept which simply shocks and derails me.

Academic snobbery, which L. Frank Baum once ridiculed as a “Wogglebug Education” even after the Wizard’s dispensation of Brains to the Scarecrow was not a factor in the foundation of America, by men whose minds and mental capacities are simply beyond equal anywhere. No, lack of degrees and academic affiliation quite simply didn’t bother the extremely well-educated under-institutionalized Founding Fathers of the USA such as Patrick Henry and Benjamin Franklin one little bit….and didn’t actually have much of an impact on intellectual or philosophical careers in the 19th century either—consider that Richard Wagner never went to a music conservatory, Charles Darwin dropped out of Medical School and only grudgingly completed a degree in divinity at Cambridge, which he, oddly enough, never really used….and the lack of formal education completed by such legendary U.S. Presidents as Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln is a part of every schoolboy’s and schoolgirl’s learning—or at least it used to be before modern education norms set in.

In this same spirit, Ernst Jünger rejected all the titles and honors offered him by Hitler’s Third-Reich, and when assigned as a cultural attachee during the occupation of Paris, chose to hang out with subversive and degenerate artists… This is the true legacy of a genuine Anarchist, and the world would do well to remember how important the “leaderless” spirit can be when “Obama’s going to change things….Obama’s going to make it happen” as some of the children’s school songs now go….

(a) Unlike so many modern critics of 20th-21st century totalitarianism, I cannot automatically group Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco in the same list as Stalin and his Soviet successors, or Roosevelt and his Keynsian modern American Successors. I think Hitler was in fact much more of an ordinary person than any of these others, but at the same time he had higher and more “humane” [i.e. romantic, not necessarily rational or sensible] ideals than either of the Bushes, the Clintons or Obamas, however grotesquely inept he may have been in achieving, implementing, or realizing those ideals.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged 1861-1865, 1984, Abraham Lincoln, Aldous Huxley, Anarchists, Andrew Jackson, Anglo-Saxon, Barbara Boxer, Benjamin Franklin, BH Obama, Brave New World, Buffy-the-Vampire-Slayer, California 2012, Cambridge, Chaos, Charles Darwin, Citizenship, Civil War, Daylight Chemical, Department of Homeland Security, Der Anarch, Dianne Feinstein, Die Anarchen, Ernst Jünger, Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, George Orwell, Germany Conservatism, GHW Bush, Glass Bees, Gläserne Bienen, GW Bush, Hitler, HR Clinton, illiterate hillbillies, Individuality, James Madison, Jeffersonian, Jerry Brown, Joss Whedon, leaderless society, Liza Mundy, magical realism, Mao, moonshine, National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA, Norse Viking, October 6 2009, Patrick Henry, Resistance, revenuers, Richard Wagner, Santa Fe Plateau and New Age Alchemy, Southern Constitutionalist, Sovereign Citizen, Sovereign Citizen Movement, Stalin, subversive terrorists, Taboo Holocaust, Third Reich, Thomas Jefferson, Traditional, Ubermensch, United Nations, Washington Post, WJ Clinton, Yosi Taitz

SUBURBIA & EXURBIA: Creatures of the Communist Manifesto, Targets of Agenda 21 (the Elite Struggle to Perfect its Vision for World Control)

Posted on March 19, 2013 by Charles Edward Lincoln III | Leave a comment

Compare and Contrast Agenda 21 and the Communist Manifesto:

Manifesto of the Communist Party:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrdmjBAX0E0&feature=player_embedded

Vacillation, 180 degree aboutfaces, and unpredictability, “arbitrary and capricious” decision-making, constitute regular themes in the history of tyranny from time immemorial: the Egyptian Pharaoh Akhenaten (Ikhnathon, Khuenaten, Amenhotep IV) may have been the first arbitrary and capricious tyrant interested in social reform. He not only abolished all the prerogatives of the Ancient Egyptian Priesthood (who largely controlled and administered agricultural production and food storage for the entire Nile Valley—the most fertile stretch of land in the world, until the Aswan High Dam was completed….the construction of this murderous dam was another idiotic “from the top” elite decision made arbitrarily and capriciously without any regard for ecological process or the reality of how Nile River Valley fertility had been maintained at the top of the world food chain for over five thousand years).

Akhenaten also ordered a forced resettlement and demographic redistribution of the Egyptian “power elite” the entire decentralized nobility of Egypt to be concentrated around him (like planets around the sun…) at a brand new city, El Amarna, designed and decorated strictly according to the new king’s desire to make himself, and his “one God, the Sun Disk Aten” the center of a brand new agricultural, biological, cultural, demographic, economic, fiscal, geographical, historical, ideological, knowledge dispensing, legal, moral, normative, official, political, and social world order. Akhenaten’s tyrannical experiment was so disastrous that he (and his son/heir Tutankhaten/Tutankhamen) were so despised that they were stricken from the already two thousand year old dynastic king lists of Egypt, and their described in later history (e.g. Manetho) as the time of the Leper Kings…. Now writers from Sigmund Freud (Moses & Monotheism) to Jan Assmann have of course been intrigued by the chronological correlation between the reigns of Akhenaten/Nefertiti/Tutankhamen and the “Shashu-Hapiru” “Exodus” led by Moses, but whether this was the inauspicious start of monotheistic Hebrew Religion, Judaism, Christianity and Islam is entirely beyond the scope of the present essay.

I mention Akhenaten’s first the tyrant decrees only because his was the first recorded episode of forced resettlement and urban redesing or “urban planning” for the sole purpose of ideological purity and to make cities the expression of a supreme ideology.

In our time, really over the past 165 years since February 1848, we have seen Communist ideologues in the tradition of Akhenaten first decree that cities are bad, then engage in 140 years of continuous “suburbanization” an decreased demographic density, only to suddenly start turning around sometime in the late 1980s-1990s and start decreeing that CITIES are good, the SUBURBS and SUBURBAN LIVING are evil, that all ecological disasters come from DIFFUSE DEMOGRAPHICS with high consumption (i.e. easy, high quality) lifestyles. Starting with the “urban renewal” under Ronald W. Reagan followed by the accession of King George H.W. Bush in 1989, the ideological trend continued so that urban dwelling now epitomizes sacrifice and limited living in comparison to the grotesque and ecologically flagrant excesses of the high end consumer lifestyle to which the world living in the suburbs has become accustomed.

IS IT ONLY a coincidence that the final excessive bulge of suburban development under Clinton & King George W. Bush ended in what appears to have been a preplanned, premeditated mortgage foreclosure holocaust with the intended purpose of abolishing the suburbs?

It is hardly news that Karl Marx & Frederick Engels, between the two of them, effectively invented the modern social sciences—ALL OF THEM. Oh, to be sure, Political Philosophy & Practical Theory had existed since at least the time of Plato and Aristotle, and economics had existed at least since the 18th Century and the writings of Adam Smith. But Sociology & Anthropology certainly had no pre-Marxist existence at all, and were formed as academic disciplines largely in reaction and response to the Marxist theory of Cultural Evolution.

The Communist Manifesto of February 1848 was primarily an exhortation to action (in the form of World Revolution and the resultant obliteration of “culturally normative, moral and political reality” as know prior to that date). But it contained amazing little nuggets which have haunted the world ever since.

It is unclear to me what the origin of the Manifesto’s advocacy of an abolition of the distinction between urban and rural living may have been. I have no ready explanation for why human populations should NOT have both urban and rural components. To me it seems quite natural that civilization, among its other “discontents”, involves a division of labor and of interests which align very nicely along the division of society into urban and rural foci.

But for whatever reason, I suppose primarily the abolition of all sources of differentiation between human beings, Marx and Engels proposed a progressive elimination of the distinctions between urban and rural living, and the Social Sciences have been obsessed with this distinction and its significance EVER SINCE.

But not only to the academic mind, but also to the “applied social sciences”—political and social engineers of what has come to be known as “urban planning” or “community development”, the distinction between the city and the countryside has become a major preoccupation.

After 1850, for the very first time in both Great Britain and America, and then in the rest of the world, we witness the conscious development of “less dense” urban peripheral settlement which rapidly became known as “suburbia.” The decrease of population density BY DESIGN was consistent with the Communist Manifesto and hence with social sciences.

There was an academic movement at the University of Chicago Department of Sociology in the 1920s-1940s under the direction of Dr. Robert Redfield to study and deepen our understanding of what he called “the Folk-Urban Continuum”. It turned out the definition of this continuum almost always depended on local history and politics rather than direct in situ cultural evolution, but the Marxist plan was that “cultural evolution by design” was meant to shape the future.

And so it was that first London and then Boston and New York and New Orleans developed “suburbs” whose houses and land tenure regimes were somewhere between “high density urban” living (characteristic of the boroughs of Manhattan and Queens, for example) and true rural areas. Cambridge and Somerville Massachusetts and the “Boston Back Bay” were 19th century examples of suburban developments in the United States, but even the City of Jefferson and Faubourg Livoudais in New Orleans (aka “the Garden District”) had this characteristic of low density suburbs gradually added on to the city.

By the 1960s, everything was up to date, even in Kansas City, and “suburban development” had gone about as far as it could go in Overland Park and Leawood, and in North Dallas and all around the Houston Beltway, and all along the western edge of Chicago, never mind throughout the San Fernando Valley and Orange County in the great metropolitan agglomeration of suburbs that grew up around the originally tiny railroad terminus city Los Angeles and became monstrously unified as a single political entity in the County of that same name, along with a few stubborn smaller cities like Pasadena, San Marino, Beverly Hills, Long Beach, and Santa Monica.

After some stagnation and malaise during the 1970s, under Ronald W. Reagan, American EXURBIA was born to continue the Communist Manifesto’s plan to break down the distinctions between urban and rural. For the past 33 years, people have been putting “suburban” houses on mega-lots of 2-10 acres all around the country, eating up valuable farm and orchard and ranch land while producing nothing, and it seems that the barrier between urban and rural had finally really and truly been abolished. Nobody knew where they lived any more: in a city or suburb or exurb, and it just didn’t matter because everybody had CARS, Fords fulfillment of Freud’s advocacy of instant gratification without much effort.

And then, even in the ashes of Ronald W. Reagan’s promise to restore capitalism and sound government and economy to America, starting with the most deceitful and dishonest of all politicians, namely George H.W. Bush, his sons, the Clintons, and their-jointly anointed Kenyan-born heir and preserver Barack Hussein Obama, Agenda 21 was born: the first major totalitarian ideal since the Communist Manifesto (namely global world-movement ENVIRONMENTALISM).

Now, oddly enough, the primary target of Agenda 21 is the SUBURBAN and EXURBAN lifestyle born in, created-developed-and-elaborated by Communism. Even more ironic is how the primary opponents of Agenda 21 are those who value and treasure the suburban and exurban lifestyles and decry the One World Government and Wealth transfers implied by Agenda 21.

The Social Sciences have now all magically turned against the suburbs and back in favor of the cities and promoting DENSE, TIGHTLY PACKED URBAN LIFESTYLE—basically going back to living the way Abraham and his family lived in Ur before they decided to seek an less densely populated “promised land” deeded them by covenant some days west of Ur in what must have seemed (at that time) much like the empty California of the 1850s—a land of milk and honey….

The arrogance of elite social engineers is staggering to me. I personally hold Harvard Ph.D. in Anthropology & History so I think I know something about elitist Social Science arrogance, especially since I took this over to the University of Chicago somewhere in the late interim between the socialists of Robert Redfield’s & Barack Obama’s eras when the U of C was pretending to be a “conservative” and “free market oriented” island in Academia…. under the leadership of such nominally anti-Marxist non-Keynsian monetarist fence-sitters as Milton Friedman and the members of the “Chicago School of Law & Economics”….

Knowledge is freedom—this I have always believed in the spirit of He who taught us, “Know the Truth and the Truth will Set You Free.” I suggest that the true-anti-Marxist, anti-Collectivist, anti-Agenda 21 counterrevolution should focus on returning each family to autonomous food production and the genuine self-sufficiency that only such production can provide. The great modern technological innovations of Solar Power and Wind Power as sources of electricity should be harnessed on the individual, family, and at largest multi-family neighborhood level so that “freedom from the grid” will again become a reality.

I look to my Southern Agrarian ancestors and the Southern Literary movement known as “the Fugitives” which saw virtue and autonomy in the truly rural world of the Old South as an inspiration. The Southern Agrarian Tradition has its roots in the philosophies of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson who looked to truly rural production as the primary source of wealth and power in society. Agenda 21 advocates, through the mechanisms of communist totalitarianism, the world of elitist power control over people which can ONLY exist in cities, densely packed cities….which have always been the grounds most inimical to freedom….. America’s freedom has diminished directly and proportionally to the increase of its cities, and this is a pattern to be reversed. How ironic that the world planning elite has now gone back on itself, against one of the original tenets of the communist manifesto from which it derives all of its inspiration and “academic” authority as creator/masters of the social sciences…..

OH FOR A REBIRTH OF THAT RED-ROOSTER CROWING WORLD!

Note: I acknowledge and look back to my freshman year at Tulane (1975-1976) with great nostalgia for my introduction to the literature of the Fugitives and Southern Agrarians in a course called “Crisis in Culture as Reflected in Modern Literature” that I took from Cleanth Brooks, one of the last survivors of the Southern Agrarian Movement.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged "the Fugitives", Abraham, Adam Smith, Agenda 21, Akhenaten, Amenhotep IV, Ancient Egypt, Ancient Egyptian Priesthood, Andrew Jackson, Anthropology & History, applied social sciences, arbitrary and capricious decisionmaking, Aristotle, Aswan High Dam, Barack Hussein Obama, Beverly Hills, Boston Back Bay, Cambridge, cities inimical to freedom, City of Los Angeles, Cleanth Brooks, Communist Manifesto, Communist Manifesto of February 1848, covenant, demographic redistribution, Egypt, El Amarna, Exodus, Exurbia, Exurbs, Faubourg Livoudais, February 1848, First Forced Resettlement for Ideological Purposes, Folk-Urban Continuum, forced resettlement, Frederick Engels, freedom from the grid, George H.W. Bush, Ikhnathon, Jan Assmann, Jefferson City, Karl Marx, Kenya, Khuenaten, Kuenaten, land of milk and honey, Leawood Kansas, Leper Kings, Long Beach, Los Angeles County, Moses, Moses & Monotheism, Nefertiti, Nile Valley, Overland Park, Pasadena, Plato, Political Philosophy, Power Elite, preplanned premeditated mortgage foreclosure holocaust, promised land, Robert Redfield, Rural, San Marino, Santa Monica, Sigmund Freud, social sciences, social sciences shaped by Marxism, Solar Power, Somerville, Southern Agrarian, Suburban, Suburbia, Suburbs, Sun Disk Aten, the Clintons, Thomas Jefferson, Tutankhamen, Tutankhaten, tyranny, University of Chicago, Ur, Ur of the Chaldees, Urban, Wind Power

For Remembrance Sunday/Veterans Day—who was our foe and what was our quarrel? Did our enemies actually threaten our freedom, or were the wars of the 20th century all ploys for the destruction of freedom? At this time we should remember what they died for, and the price they paid for peace, even more than the individuals who died—we should remember our heritage, and Samuel J. Tilden….

Posted on November 10, 2012 by Charles Edward Lincoln III | Leave a comment

In Flanders Fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

Who was exactly the foe? What was our quarrel with the foe? What major issues of freedom or democracy really separated Kaiser Wilhelm II’s Germany from King George V’s England? Why should the United States and Canada have fought for the destruction of the Austro-Hungarian Empire? It seems that all of the major nations involved in World War I (except POSSIBLY Tsarist Russia) were already headed (prior to World War I) towards one closely related formulations of “Social Democracy” in which “public welfare” outweighs “Freedom” and “Constitutional Government” and preponderant values.

Yes, it’s Remembrance Day/Remembrance Sunday again, as it always is just one week after Bonfire Day when we “Remember, Remember the Fifth of November” and that’s just three days after the Day of the Dead, All Souls and All Saints Day. It’s not for nothing that a now retired (and free) house-elf of mine named Antonio Rodriguez said that November was the saddest month of the year, “cuando se nota que se alargan las noches es el mes más repleno de mis memorias….el día se acaba muy rapido, cuando recordamos que así de repente pasa la vida“¹.

This November, the re-election of Barack Hussein Obama has inexplicably saddened me, depressed me so much more than I expected. Because I fully expected Obama to be re-elected, and I had no enthusiasm for Romney at all—zero, zip, zilch. But it somehow feels that night has really fallen now. Nobiscum semel occidit brevis lux, dormienda est una nocte perpetua, said Catullus², as if presaging Antonio’s autumnal depression by 2000+ years.

So for this November, I am going to suggest that we sing dirges in the dark for the day that Freedom Died. I am not at all sure which day we should call the final death of American Freedom, it has been such a long, slow process. And after all, truthfully, I write this memorandum with the full (and not even terribly uncertain) expectation that I will not be arrested for writing this piece, not today Saturday November 10, nor Sunday November 11, nor even on Monday November 12…..

But as sure as 6079 Winston Smith knew he would receive that final bullet to the head in 1984, I feel certain that, eventually, another good Judge appointed by some de facto President with the advice and consent of an unthinking senate will summon me formally or informally and “want to talk to me” again, about my writings, or about my protests. It will happen under color of law, just as it did when those wonderful Southern District of Texas Judges Lynn N. Hughes and Janis Graham Jack “wanted to talk to me” in 2006-2008. I left Texas because I really didn’t want to talk to them anymore, and they’ve left me alone since. But I know that with the passage of time they or their successors will deprive me of my liberty without due process of law, for having written this, or some other challenge to the eviction or enclosure of the free from their land, or death of the brave in their homes….

So right now, let’s remember the Declaration of Independence that American men have been fighting and dying for since 1776, and let us remember that the government of the United States, since at least 1933, and possibly a long time before that, has become so oppressive and intrusive into our everyday lives as to render laughably trivial all of the oppressions and intrusions complained of in that remarkable text penned by Thomas Jefferson and the Committee of Five….(John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Robert Livingston, and Roger Sherman were the other four).

Let us then think of the limited, Democratic-Republican, form of government framed in the summer of 1787, and how that was revered as a “new covenant” between the people and a “more perfect union” than had ever been created before. Americans started dying for the Constitution in the War of 1812 for the first time, but well over half a million died in 1861-1865, and one third of the United States were laid to ruin and waste, over constitutional disagreements.

From that time on, from the reconstruction which began during that War Between the States and Continued until Samuel J. Tilden gave up the Presidency he had fairly won in 1876 to Rutherford B. Hayes. Tilden gave up the Presidency to which he had been elected to avoid a second Civil War, but in his “concession speech” delivered eight months after the election, on June 13, 1877, in the City of New York which had elected him, and to which he had given both the greatest Public Library and Public Park and most honest government of any City in the world, he foresaw America’s future of bought and bartered elections.

As reported in the New York Herald on page 3, in column 2:

Everybody knows that, after the recent election, the men who were elected by the people President and Vice President of the United States were “counted out,” and men who were not elected were “counted in” and seated .

NO PERSONAL WRONG.
I disclaim any thought of the personal wrong involved in this transaction. Not by any act or word of mine shall that be dwarfed or degraded into a personal grievance, which is, in truth, the greatest wrong that has stained our national annals. To every man of the four and a quarter millions who were defrauded of the fruits of their elective franchise it is as great a wrong as it is to me. And no less to every man of the minority will the ultimate consequences extend. Evils in government grow by success and by impunity. They do not arrest their own progress. They can never be limited except by external forces.

MUST NOT BE CONDONED.
If the men in possession of the government can, in one instance, maintain themselves in power against an adverse decision at the elections, such an example will be imitated. Temptation exists always. Devices to give the color of law, and false pretences on which to found fraudulent decisions, will not be wanting. The wrong will grow into a practice, if condoned-if once condoned.

In the world’s history changes in the succession of governments have usually been the result of fraud or force. It has been our faith and our pride that we had established a mode of peaceful change to be worked out by the agency of the ballot box. The question now is whether our elective system, in its substance as well as its form, is to be maintained.

THE QUESTION OF QUESTIONS.
This is the question of questions. Until it is finally settled there can be no politics founded on interior questions of administrative policy. It involves the fundamental right of the people. It involves the elective principle. It involves the whole system of popular government. The people must signally condemn the great wrong which has been done to them. They must strip the example of everything that can attract imitators. They must refuse a prosperous immunity to crime. This is not all. The people will not be able to trust the authors or beneficiaries of the wrong to devise remedies. But when those who condemn the wrong shall have the power they must devise the measure which shall render a repetition of the wrong forever impossible.

Should we remember and mourn Samuel Tilden’s concession as the day that Freedom Died in America? I know that my great-grandparents were only children or teenagers on that day, and they still believe in American Freedom, even living in the South which had been conquered (but which was at least partially freed by the “Compromise of 1877″ which led to Samuel Tilden’s giving up the Presidency).

For the next 50 years, American Freedoms slipped away slowly but surely in the name of “beneficial” governmental regulation, starting with vast grants of undeveloped Western Lands to the railroad companies in the 1860s-1870s. During the War of 1861-1865, many strange things unrelated to the wars happened, including the creation of the Department of Agriculture in 1862, the first branch of government lacking any roots in the original constitutional conception of the Federal Government.

The power of the Union, and the fall of the Confederacy, were both related to the relative development of the railroads in the North and South³. But it was after the war, during the Reconstruction Presidencies of Andrew Johnson and Ulysses S. Grant, that these “Imperial” railroads became so great as basically to be threats to the supremacy of the United States government. And the railroads spun off subsidiary “support” industries such as steel and coal, and eventually oil, which themselves threatened to consume the United States Government, and in fact, did so.

The great railroads grew and acquired astronomical powers in the years 1865-1900 in both the U.S. and Canada as a result of the vast giveaway of public land to the private sector (the earliest form of “corporate welfare”). Another political compromise resulted from the tensions created by the increase in the power of the railroads: ten years after Samuel J. Tilden’s concession speech, the first post-War Democrat to be elected, Grover Cleveland, a New York successor of Tilden, approved the governmental regulation of the railroad industry by the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1887, which was the first “Independent Commission” created outside the constitution (and was dissolved only in 1996 under the Presidency of another Democrat, William J. “Bill” Clinton). That same year, Congress voted to elevate Lincoln’s non-cabinet level “Department of Agriculture” to the full cabinet, and Grover Cleveland signed this bill in 1889. By several extensions including the Hatch Act of 1887 and the Smith-Lever Act of 1914, the Federal Government, by and through the Department of Agriculture, extended both regulatory and educational functions to every county in the United States of America.

Few people today even blink at the idea that Federal power over our everyday lives should have begun in the Department of Agriculture, but on Remembrance Day, I think these are things to be remembered….and up to a point, they are things to be regretted and mourned. NOTHING in the Original Constitution (never mind the Declaration of Independence) would have allowed for the Federal Government moving into the fields of agricultural production and education but this was the path that “social democracy” took in the United States—slow but steady step-by-step infiltration.

Regulation and the destruction of the original constitutional form of government continued with the Antitrust Acts of the 1890s which, again, were designed to restrain the major industries which the Federal Government had brought into being in the USA during and after the war between the states. And finally, the Federal Reserve and the Income Tax capped the merger of Federal and Inter-state Corporate business during the Presidency of Woodrow Wilson (although both policies were formulated by Republicans Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft).

During this same half century (1865-1915), other innovations were taking place in America that destroyed the original framework of limited government, in particular, concerns for “public health” became paramount. Starting with the creation of a Department of Chemistry inside the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and culminating Theodore Roosevelt’s “Biologics Act of 1902″ and “Food and Drug Act of 1906″ the government somehow found itself always wiser and more capable of judging what made the public healthy than any private choice or consumer (market-based) decision-making….and this trend towards “consumer protection” culminated with the Constitutional Amendment permitting Federal Prohibition in 1919.

As is well-known, the “Prohibition Era” led to the first ever “crime wave” in U.S. History, and evasion of government regulation has become the chief “non-violent” form of crime ever since (with major “violent” episodes during Prohibition and the “War on Drugs” of course leading to ever greater suppression of human rights in the name of public safety.”

Today, we cannot turn on or off the electric lights or water in our homes without being directly or indirectly subject to massive Federal regulation, supplemented and implemented by the States.

So did American Freedom die on the day that the Food & Drug Act was implemented in June of 1906? If so, it died a very quiet death. Or did American Freedom die the day that Prohibition was repealed under the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt which decided that Constitutional Amendments were no longer going to be necessary to regulate commerce, because it was going to be so easy just to appoint Judges to the Supreme and Circuit Courts who could discover new and previously unrecognized powers to regulate in the Interstate Commerce Clause of Article I of the Constitution.

And to think that, if only Roosevelt had been around to threaten to “pack” the Courts in the 1850s, slavery could have been abolished by Congress without a Civil War, without a Constitutional Amendment, just by KNOWING that the Interstate Commerce Clause permits the regulation of how many chickens a farmer raises for his own and his family’s consumption without ever putting those chickens or their eggs into the stream of interstate commerce….

In fact, in the era of Obama, slavery probably could have been abolished by executive decree without any input from Congress at all…. what a shame that the 19th century was filled with such antiquated notions as “genuine democratic-republican decision-making” limited by the “express powers granted to the Federal government in the constitution.”

So let’s see now—what was our quarrel with Germany during World War I again that led to November 11 being called first “Armistice Day,” then “Remembrance Day”? Austria-Hungary, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland had all taken major steps towards “Social Democracy” ahead of the United States, and the United States was basically 20-30 years behind on this particular curve…..

In a strange but true way, the last war that was fought anywhere in the world over real constitutional disagreements was the American War Between the States, and in that war, and in reconstruction culminating in the Hayes-Tilden Compromise of 1877 after the Election of 1876, Freedom and Constitutionally Limited Government suffered a permanent defeat from which they have never recovered.

So Constitutional government died a slow but painful death. And somehow, the greatest pain is NOW upon us, as we face another four years under Barack Hussein Obama.

¹ “By the time you can notice that they nights are getting longer, that is the month most filled with memories….the day ends quickly, and this forces us to remember that so quickly does life itself pass.”

² “When for us the brief light has past, we must sleep in eternal night.”

³ A great popular song, “The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down” sung by Joan Baez and Johnny Cash among others, sentimentally commemorates the role of train travel in the War Between the States—but the South’s inability to expand its railroad infrastructure during the war was without doubt one of the key infrastructural reasons for the failure of the Confederate States of America in the first ever Marxist-shaped and envisioned war of “Dialectically Conflicting Modes of Production”:

Virgil Caine is the name and I served on the Danville train ‘Til Stoneman’s cavalry came and tore up the tracks again.

In the winter of ’65, we were hungry, just barely alive. By May the tenth, Richmond had fell; it’s a time I remember, oh so well.

The night they drove old Dixie down: And the bells were ringing. the night they drove old Dixie down. And the people were singing, they went, “La, la, la”.

Back with my wife in Tennessee, when one day she called to me “Virgil, quick, come see, there go the Robert E. Lee”.

Now I don’t mind choppin’ wood, and I don’t care if the money’s no good, Ya take what ya need and ya leave the rest. But they should never have taken the very best.

The night they drove old Dixie down: And the bells were ringing, the night they drove old Dixie down; And all the people were singing: they went, “La, la, la”.

Like my father before me, I will work the land. And like my brother above me, who took a rebel stand.

He was just eighteen, proud and brave, but a Yankee laid him in his graveI swear by the mud below my feet. You can’t raise a Caine back up when he’s in defeat.

The night they drove old Dixie down—And the bells were ringingThe night they drove old Dixie down; And all the people were singing. They went, “Na, na, na”.

The night they drove old Dixie down: And all the bells were ringing, the night they drove old Dixie down; And the people were singingThey went, “Na, na, na”

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged Antonio Rodriguez, Armistice Day, Austro-Hungarian Empire was a Social Democracy, between the crosses row on row, Bonfire Day, Catullus, Committee of Five, Confederate States of America, Constitutional Freedoms, Danville Train, Danville Virginia, Declaration of Independence, Department of Agriculture 1862, Department of Agriculture 1889, Department of Chemistry, dialectical conflict, Election of 1876, Eleventh Hour of the Eleventh Day of the Eleventh Month, Federal Role in Agriculture, Federal Role in Education, Flanders Field, Flanders Fields, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Grover Cleveland, Hatch Act 1887, House Elf, In flanders fields the poppies blow, Interstate Commerce Commission 1887-1996, Joan Baez, John Adams, Johnny Cash, June 13 1877, Marxist conflict, modes of production, New York Central Park, New York Herald, New York Public Library, November 11 1918, November 11 2012, November 5 1605, November 5 2005, November 5 2012, Railroad Land Grants in the West, Railroads as government created monopolies, Remembrance Day, Remembrance Sunday, Robert Livingston, Roger Sherman, Rutherford B. Hayes, Samuel J. Tilden, Smith-Lever Act 1914, Social Democracy, Social Democracy in Austria-Hungary, Social Democracy in Imperial Germany, Social Democracy in the UK, Social Democracy in Third Republic France, Social Welfare, The Night Old Dixie Died, The Night they Drove Old Dixie Down, Theodore Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson, United States Department of Agriculture, Veterans Day, Virgil Caine, Welfare Democracy, Who was our Foe?, William Howard Taft

A New Red Dawn Over America—Obamacare & the Police Power in Arizona are Upheld—the Constitution again ruled DOA at the Supreme Court (full text of the Supreme Court’s Worst Two Decisions of the Week attached)

Posted on June 28, 2012 by Charles Edward Lincoln III | Leave a comment

Chief Justice John Roberts is rapidly becoming my least favorite U.S. Supreme Court Justice in history. First, in 2007, the debut innovation of “the Roberts Court” was Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, then a followup kick in the face of freedom under the name of Ashcroft v. Iqbal and now this week (on Monday, June 25, 2012) Arizona v. United States (Arizona v US) and, today Thursday, June 28, 2012, yet another day that will live in infamy: NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS et al. v. KAREN SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES (NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS et al v SEBELIUS SECRETARY OF HEALTH).

It’s been a really bad week for the Constitution and for the American people, and a very good day for Obama’s flourishing Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Oh yes, and what a nice present for Hillary Clinton as she celebrates lasting longer as U.S. Secretary of State than any other of the 96 individuals to hold that office—and we were all sure she was just a joke back in the early 1990s when she was pushing a National Health Care System which looked an awful lot like what we’ve got now with Obamacare.

First with regard to Arizona v. US: The expansion of the American Police State seems never-ending, as the late great Strom Thurmond’s States-Rights Democratic Party Platform very accurately predicted in 1948. The great triumph of the Civil Rights Movement in the United States over the past 64 years is quite simply this: all oppressive acts of government, so long as they are applied equally to White people as well as Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and all others without Racial, and only with Economic and Political, Prejudice, will be upheld. But try asserting any constitutional right other than your right to be on an equal footing with all other slaves, and man YOU ARE DEAD MEAT!!!! States Rights got a minor boost last year when an individual right to sue under the Tenth Amendment was recognized, but this year the 162 year trend towards the complete suppression of State Sovereignty marches forward unabated….

The main issue regarding Arizona’s immigration statutes was whether the individual states of the Union have any right to make more restrictive laws regarding residence and citizenship than the United States as a whole. Under the expressly anti-States’ Rights 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court said NO. But, if the Arizona police want to go around harassing people on the highways, they are free to do so, so long as they are willing to say they suspect that every blonde-haired & blue-eyed caucasian must have recently entered illegally from Sweden or Norway perhaps…. The Supreme Court, these days, never seems to miss an opportunity to enhance the power of the police to oppress the population at large.

With regard to the “Obamacare” case, I can only say I’m NOT even as surprised by this result as I was not by the result in the Arizona immigration opinion. Ever since Franklin D. Roosevelt gave up his plan to “pack” the Supreme Court, there is no infringement on the economic liberty and personal choices of the American people which the Supreme Court finds too trivial to be worthy of Federal Enforcement. The only comment-worthy deviation from predictions was that Chief Justice John Roberts in this case came up with the novel notion that the U.S. government can tax anything and anyone it wants to for any reason, including non-compliance with a mandatory insurance purchase requirement, and that this punitive tax or purchase choice makes it all “OK.”

Of all the commentary and punditry that came out on Thursday after the decision, two of the most “spot on” that I saw were first) the article describing John Roberts’ “Liberal Apotheosis”:

After Thursday’s Obamacare ruling, Supreme Court Justice John Roberts became a minor deity to some liberals for voting to save Obamacare. But just days before Roberts’ apotheosis, liberals lamented that the “conservative” Supreme Court was taking America down a dangerous path. (http://news.yahoo.com/obamacare-ruling-liberal-apotheosis-john-roberts-035207618.html)

The “Liberal Apotheosis” of John Roberts? ”Apotheosis” of course, means transformation into a god—and what did the pagan gods of Olympia or Pharaonic Egypt do? Exactly what any god can do: A “god” can work Miracles, first Make and then Bend the all Rules, Change the Natural Order of Things…. I suppose my own religious notions, such as they are, posit an unchanging God defined by the phrase from the old BCP: “as it was in the beginning, it is now and ever shall be, world without end amen” which seems curiously absent from most Episcopal services these days. I equate God with Nature, and while I believe rather fervently in Evolution, I believe Evolution operates according to certain utterly unchanging rules, such as the laws of thermodynamics, which even the discovery of man’s ability intentionally to split or fuse atoms could never quite change.

And yet the Godlike role of the Supreme Court in making and bending rules seems more than a bit undemocratic. So that is the second part of the analysis we need to perform today: Was Roberts’ decision to side with Obamacare entirely a matter of political strategy?

The American Concept of Constitutional Judicial Review predates Chief Justice John Marshall. The Supreme Court’s decision Chisholm v. Georgia 2 U.S. 412 (February 1, 1793)(Chisholm v Georgia, 2 U.S. 419, February 1 1793) triggered the (I would now say very unfortunate) move to enact the 11th Amendment during the First Term of the Presidency of George Washington. But Chief Justice Marshall’s notions of judicial review shaped the Court, much to his cousin Thomas Jefferson’s dismay and disgust. I recall hearing the story of Marbury v. Madison and judicial review in my Freshman year at Tulane, from Professor Jean Danielson in Political Science H103, where I met my long-time college years best friend John K. Naland, now a long-time veteran of the U.S. State Department. Professor Danielson explained the political genius of Marbury v. Madison was that it empowered the Court while respecting the political boundaries of the time. Chief Justice Marshall knew that, as President Adams’ last major appointee, any decision made in favor of the appointment of Adams’ minor “midnight judges” including William Marbury would simply be ignored by the new Democratic-Republican administration of Jefferson (with James Madison as secretary of state and the defendant in the case) as an act of political partisanship on the part of a Federalist appointee favoring Federalist appointees. On the other hand, to uphold Secretary of State Madison’s power to refuse to honor the appointments made by President Adams would seem like craven capitulation without legal or moral integrity. So, in a result which no one ever anticipated, Chief Justice John Marshall carefully reasoned and soundly declared the statute authorizing the appointment of Magistrates in the District of Columbia to be an unconstitutional act in excess of Congress’ power under the Constitution—and the role of the U.S. Supreme Court as Constitutional arbiter of the United States was established forever—or, at least, for a long time.

That particular “long time” ended in 1936, which, as a another commentator/pundit on the Obamacare decision pointed out, was the last time in history that the United States Supreme Court overturned a major piece of Congressional legislation as Unconstitutional. Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s first term as President was unlike anything the United States had ever since, including George Washington’s First Term. In Washington’s First Term, the constant debate in Congress was whether the Federal Government had power under the Constitution to do much of anything at all. The spirit was decidedly “conservative” in the sense of cautious, even as a new nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal was being launched as a more formally organized “corporate” type of enterprise (the Articles of Confederation were much more analogous to a “partnership” among the States—with each partner having a nearly full veto power).

During FDR’s First Term, there were also many in Congress who asked whether the Federal Government had the power to do a great many of the things the New Deal proposed to do, from the NRA to the TVA (National Recovery Administration to the Tennessee Valley Authority). But from 1933-1937, such questions were not asked in a cautious or even skeptical voice regarding what Congress and the Federal government could legitimately do, but in the desperate and panicked voice of people who saw and feared “you are taking our lives, our fortunes, our sacred honor” from us. Those people sought recourse against the reckless usurpation of Federal Power in the Supreme Court, and in the years 1933-1937, the Supreme Court struck down 29 Congressionally passed statutes signed by the President as part of the New Deal.

Roosevelt’s first hundred days and all that followed provoked an unprecedented clash between the Supreme Court Justices and the “New Deal” alliance of the legislative and executive branches. At Roosevelt’s instigation, Congress in the 1930s enacted a series of laws ostensibly, supposed, aimed at ending the Great Depression and restoring the nation’s economic well-being, but in fact aimed at shoring up the American Elite, especially the Banking system, from the threat of a Communist and/or Fascist revolution analogous to those taking place in Europe at the same time. Of eight major “program” statutes to come before the Court, only two were upheld. Laws that were struck down included the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933, and the Bituminous Coal Conservation Act of 1935. The Court came under heavy fire for its decisions, and Roosevelt proposed a controversial plan to increase the size of the Court, presumably to ensure a majority sympathetic to the New Deal.

Shortly after the plan was proposed, the Court defused the issue by upholding a series of revised New Deal laws. Dominated by economic conservatives, to which group even late 19th/early 20th Century “Progressives” such as Oliver Wendell Holmes were (by comparison, anyhow) the Court threw out numerous laws Congress enacted to protect workers and consumers. The conflicts peaked in 1936. The Court threw out twenty-nine laws during that period, but the last of these was in 1936, when when the court invalidated a federal law that limited work hours and prescribed minimum wages for coal workers.

Everything changed in 1937 when, FDR Proposed the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 on March 9 of that year in one of his legendary “Fireside chats” whereby he jumped over the Congress and all Constitutional Separation of Powers and asked the American people directly to endorse and support his programs. The public reaction was overwhelmingly negative, almost the first time the 33rd President had seen any of his initiatives draw such opposition. But the Justices of the Supreme Court saw the writing on the wall—mene, mene, tekel upharsin—and when faced with the two major cases challenging Social Security (the ultimate authority and most direct antecedent for Obamacare), the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the most massive fraud ever perpetrated on the American people—the law creating a “Social Security Trust Fund” with the bribed cooperation of the States—into which Social Security Trust Fund not one dime of real money (certainly not one dime of the 14 Trillion dollars paid since 1937 in Social Security Taxes) has ever been paid.

Helvering v. Davis (05-27-1937 Helvering v Davis 301 US 619 57 SCt 904 Jusice Cardozo endorses the SS Trust Fund Fraud) and Steward Machine Company v. Davis (Charles C Steward Mach Co v Davis) thus effectively marked the end of the Supreme Court as an independent branch of government. The new mantra was not “that government is best which governs least” but instead, “The concept of the general welfare is not a static one”…. “Needs that were narrow or parochial a century ago may be interwoven in our day with the well-being of the nation. What is critical or urgent changes with the times.” (Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619, 641, 57 S.Ct. 904, 909, 81 L.Ed. 1307, 1315 [1937])

From that time forward Courts held that there appeared to be only four (all extra-constitutional) prerequisites to a finding that a spending clause measure and condition attached to it are valid: (1) The federal power is used for a legitimate national purpose, i.e., promotion of the general welfare (Charles C. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 at pp. 585–590, 57 S.Ct. at pp. 890–92 [1937], 81 L.Ed. at pp. 1290–1293); (2) the condition is related to a legitimate national goal (Charles C. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, supra, at pp. 590–591, 57 S.Ct. at pp. 892–93, 81 L.Ed. at pp. 1292–1293; See also Note, Federal Grants and the Tenth Amendment: ‘Things As They Are’ and Fiscal Federalism (1981) 50 Fordham L.Rev. 130, 140–141); (3) the condition is related to the purpose of the federal funds whose receipt is conditioned (FCC v. League of Women Voters (1984) 468 U.S. 364, 104 S.Ct. 3106, 3132, 82 L.Ed.2d 278, 309 (Rehnquist, J. dissenting); State of Okl. v. Schweiker, 655 F.2d at pp. 407, 411); and (4) the condition is unambiguous (Pennhurst State School v. Halderman, 451 U.S. at p. 17, 101 S.Ct. at pp. 1539–40 [January 23, 1984])(Pennhurst State School And Hosp v Halderman).

It was in the spirit of such a “living constitution” that Chief Justice John Roberts allied himself with the enemies of limited government on June 28, 2012. And it is in that sense, much like the Supreme Court in 1937, ruling in Roosevelt’s favor in both of the Social Security Cases, Helvering and Charles Steward above, that Chief Justice John Roberts “saved the Supreme Court” (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/did-chief-justice-roberts-save-supreme-court-103301790.html). More likely, Chief Justice John Roberts just danced on Chief Justice John Marshall’s grave and said, “You think that failure to follow the Constitution is Judicial Treason? Well, let’s see what you’re going to do about it now.” According to that same article, Chief Justice Roberts had told the Senate at his confirmation hearings:

“Judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rules; they apply them,” said Roberts at the time. “The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules, but it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ballgame to see the umpire.”

Now, strangely enough, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote a very different kind of opinion in 1820:

The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty. Cohens v State of Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 5 L.Ed. 257, 6 Wheaton 264 (March 3, 1820)

There is a great deal of confusion among the commentators and pundits, I think, about what “Judicial activism” really means. I would NOT call Chief Justice John Marshall a Judicial Activist—although, indeed, he advocated throughout his 35 years on the bench a considerably more positive role for the Court in preserving the Constitution than Chief Justice John Roberts has shown to date. ”Judicial Activism” does not mean “striking down unconstitutional laws”—”Judicial Activism” as a term should be reserved for reshaping or restructuring the laws in the absence of Congressional Authority to do so. The “Warren Court” from 1953-1971 was the epitome of “judicial activism”—the Supreme Court during those two decades effectively rewrote the laws of the United States and told CONGRESS and the STATES what to do, rather than vice-versa.

In the case of Obamacare, Chief Justice John Roberts acts his role as an umpire very poorly. He has seen the foul, called it (under the commerce clause) and “covered it up” under the guise of the taxing power, which (in reality) is even less constitutionally justified than the commerce clause rationale (which at least has the past 75 years of tradition—however illegitimate, behind it).

And so was the U.S. Constitution rewritten in 1937 to allow for first the “relatively” modest program of Social Security and now, 75 years later—on the occasion of the 75th Annual Hunger Games (cf. Suzanne Collins, Catching Fire [2009] and Mockingjay [2010], both New York: Scholastic Press)—Obamacare comes forward to cap the fraud by, in Chief Justice John Roberts’ view—a non-coercive, mere “Tax” on those who do not buy governmentally mandated insurance… and of course, jail for those who do not pay their taxes.

SO WHAT IS THE SHORT-TERM SOLUTION? NULLIFY OBAMACARE! I should say that, without any hesitation whatsoever, I absolutely endorse and support the Tenth Amendment Center’s position on Obamacare (this Los Angeles based think tank is just one of the brightest stars on the Political Horizon—of our New Red Dawn):

Now that the Supremes have crushed Constitutional limits once again, the next step is to focus all our energy on a state and local level to NULLIFY this – and every other – unconstitutional act.
We have model legislation for yor state. Ready to go right now. Press your state reps to introduce this bill today, or for the next legislative session.
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/legislation/federal-health-care-nullification-act/
Please SHARE this information widely!
*******
We need your help to continue this work, and help people take the next step at the state level. Please join us, and help nullification happen! Whether it’s $500 or $5, every bit of help right now is crucial!
Please visit this link to help now:
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/donate/
*******
Thomas Jefferson told us that when the government “assumes undelegated powers” a nullification is THE “rightful remedy”
James Madison said that states were “duty bound to interpose….to arrest the progress of evil”
Today’s ruling is an assumption of undelegated powers, and evil is advancing. The time to act in support of nullification in your area is NOW! Please share the model legislation for Obamacare with as many people as possible, and please chip in as generously as possible to help us push this campaign aggressively.
While the task is difficult, our cause is just.
Concordia res parvae crescunt,
(small thing grow great by concord)
Michael Bolding
Tenth Amendment Center
==================================================
Our mailing address is:
Tenth Amendment Center
123 S. Figueroa St
Suite 1614
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Our telephone:
213.935.0553

AND WHAT DO I DO AS I WATCH ALL THIS TRANSPIRE?

I sigh. I cry. And sometimes I just want to lie down and die. This is not the land of my birth, even though on the map it generally looks like it should be the same country as it was in 1960.

The transformation over the past fifty two years is simply horrific. 52 years was a key cycle of time among the Aztec, Maya, Mixtec, Tarascans & Zapotec in ancient Mesoamerica, and I can only say that I feel a certain sympathy for how an Aztec born in 1518 might have felt looking at the wreckage of his once proud nation in 1570 after 52 years of Spanish conquest, rape and pillage. Like an Aztec born in the last year before the arrival of the Spanish, I have grown up and come to age watching my own people (the American Middle Class, especially Protestants of European descent) reduced to second class status, my people’s most attractive and beautiful women taken as prizes by the conquerors, my nation’s heritage and values denigrated, suppressed and taught in the schools as nothing but “heresy” from the New World Order.

I do speak Spanish fairly well and have spent many of the happier moments in my life in Mexico and elsewhere in the Hispanic World, from Bogotá to Barcelona, and I keep in touch with many friends and acquaintances of a Constitutional mindset from those parts of the world. When they ask me what I consider to be the greatest single constitutional development under the Presidency of Barack Hussein Obama, I tell them without hesitation: N.A.D.A. (aka Senate Bill 1867, you know, the statute that effectively repealed the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments that passed the Senate 93-7 last December).

→ Leave a comment

Posted in 2012 Election Campaign, Brave New World, Constitutionalist, Democratic-Republican Party, Jeffersonian Democracy, National Defense Authorization Act, Senate Bill 1867, Social Security, The American South & Confederate States

Tagged 14 Trillion Dollars, 1518, 1570, 1948, 1960, 1975, 52 Years, Arizona immigration, Arizona v United States, Ashcroft v Iqbal, Aztec, Aztec Empire, Bell Atlantic v Twombly, Chief Justice, Chisholm v Georgia, Court Packing 1937, February 1 1793, George Washington, Health & Human Services, Helvering v Davis, Hillary Clinton, James Madison, Jean Danielson, John Adams, John K. Naland, John Roberts, Judicial Procedures Reform Bill, Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, June 25, June 25 2012, June 28, June 28 2012, Karen Sibelius, Marbury v Madison, Maya, Michael Boldin, Mixtec, National Health Care, NRA, Nullification, Obamacare, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Pennhurst State School, Police State, Social Security, Social Security Taxes, States' Rights, States-Rights Democratic Party, Steward Machine Company v Davis, Strom Thurmond, Supreme Court, Supreme Court of the United States, Tarascan, Tennessee Valley Authority, Tenth Amendment Center, the Roberts Court, Thomas Jefferson, Tulane University, TVA, Washington's First Term, William Marbury, Zapotec

Candidate Statement 2012: For Freedom and Real Social Diversity, “Jeffersonian Democracy” defines everything we call “Freedom”.

Posted on December 28, 2011 by Charles Edward Lincoln III | 1 Comment

It Is My Intention To Run For United States Senator In The Non-Partisan Primary Election Currently Scheduled For June 5, 2012—

I intend to run on the following statements:

ALL FINANCIAL AND GOVERNMENTAL MONOPOLIES, AND LEGAL IMMUNITIES FOR WRONGFUL TAKINGS OF LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PROPERTY MUST END, WITH FULL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THOSE ILLEGITIMATE MONOPOLIES AND TAKINGS. Government licensing and government regulation of the economy are inherently destructive to the public welfare they seek to protect.

I STAND FOR THE RESTORATION OF A JEFFERSONIAN FEDERAL DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLIC wherein governmental intrusion into private life is limited by the constitution, reserving all powers to the people!

My interim campaign managers in this venture are: in Orange County: Renada Nadine March (949) 276-1970 and Aurora Isadora Diaz (714) 767-3311; Ed Villanueva in San Diego County (858) 231-5033; as well as my Campaign Treasurer, National Coordinator, and longtime personal trustee Peyton Yates Freiman (512) 968-2666.

Anyone interested in promoting “diversity” in the Democratic Party and U.S. Senate by electing a Conservative, sound money, pro-Private Property, pro-Common Law, pro-10th-Amendment, Libertarian Candidate to replace the hopelessly establishmentarian and politically correct Senator Dianne Feinstein, who has played a leading role as member of the Senate Committees on the Judiciary and Intelligence in approving and ratifying the corruption which shackled America, should seriously consider backing me for Senate.

To elect anyone with my “outsider” credentials and background would “send them a message” inside the Washington Beltway that the people are uncomfortable and dissatisfied with the Status Quo and want real change.

My specific platform planks are:

(1) restoration of full First Amendment rights, and the abolition of all forms of governmental regulation of speech and expression, including the elimination of penalties for advocacy and repeated submission of petitions for redress in the Federal Court system.

One of my favorite passages in the Gospels is Luke 18:1-8, the Parable of the Unjust Judge—which tells of a Judge to whom a widow repeatedly brings her petition for redress, and which Judge finally grants her relief rather than hear her plea again. Apparently, in Ancient Israel, it was unimaginable that any person would be penalized for repeatedly seeking justice—even it was by no means certain that this particular widow or any person would obtain anything by her efforts. The Federal Courts, with Congressional support, have all but cut off the power of the people effectively petition through the Courts. Federal Courts seem to exist only for the benefit of large corporations and law firms. This particular corruption must end, even though, harking back to one of the passages in the Hebrew Bible, it is an ancient problem.

The following, from Isaiah 59, seems to me to embody my own frustration, and the frustration of many I know, with the Judicial System and its most numerous “officers of the court” who are the lawyers (one of my Great Grandfathers was a Judge & Justice in Louisiana—according to family legend he had a plaque on the walls of his chambers which read, “Dead Lawyers Lie Still”. ISAIAH 59:

4 No one calls for justice;
no one pleads a case with integrity.
They rely on empty arguments, they utter lies;
they conceive trouble and give birth to evil.
5 They hatch the eggs of vipers
and spin a spider’s web.
Whoever eats their eggs will die,
and when one is broken, an adder is hatched.
6 Their cobwebs are useless for clothing;
they cannot cover themselves with what they make.
Their deeds are evil deeds,
and acts of violence are in their hands.
7 Their feet rush into sin;
they are swift to shed innocent blood.
They pursue evil schemes;
acts of violence mark their ways.
8 The way of peace they do not know;
there is no justice in their paths.
They have turned them into crooked roads;
no one who walks along them will know peace.
9 So justice is far from us, and righteousness does not reach us.
We look for light, but all is darkness;
for brightness, but we walk in deep shadows.
10 Like the blind we grope along the wall,
feeling our way like people without eyes.
At midday we stumble as if it were twilight;
among the strong, we are like the dead.
11 We all growl like bears;
we moan mournfully like doves.
We look for justice, but find none;
for deliverance, but it is far away.
14 So justice is driven back,
and righteousness stands at a distance;
truth has stumbled in the streets,
honesty cannot enter.
15 Truth is nowhere to be found,
and whoever shuns evil becomes a prey.

(2) restoration of full Second Amendment rights, on the grounds that the power of the people to defend themselves against government is the necessary backup to the freedoms secured by the First Amendment (an all-powerful army and police force with the monopoly of legitimate violence is simply incompatible, in both the long and the short term, with meaningful individual or social freedom). We must reinvigorate the concept of the civilian militia, composed of every adult man and woman in society.

Switzerland and Israel both follow this model of public participation, which just shows that there are no guarantees of anything in life or politics: Switzerland by its rigid neutrality has avoided direct involvement in all the wars of the past century, while Israel has been in a state of nearly constant war since even before its creation 63 years ago in 1948.

In the United States, we have somehow combined both worlds: up until 1992, we had enjoyed a century of nearly complete domestic peace. Discounting several dozen essentially disorganized and nearly random urban riots relating to the Labor movement in the 1890s and the Civil Rights and Vietnam War Protest movements in the late 1950s-early 1970s, there was no serious conflict or “state of hostility” on United States soil following the withdrawal of occupying forces from the South in 1877 and the dawn of the “Decade of Domestic Terrorism” which ran from 1992-2001, and led to the transformation of American government and the near obliteration of civil rights.

(3) freedom of contract from governmental interference of every kind;

To fully implement this phrase would eliminate such a large portion of the United States Code and the work of lawyers generally that overtaxed pulp-tree farms (and recycling plants) everywhere would heave a sigh of relief. Just as an example, the IRS code and many Federal Courts frown on contracts for barter or exchange—meaning that the most basic instinct of exchange of goods, labor, or services of any kind for negotiated substantive value without assigning any formal cash value has been very nearly made a Federal crime.

(4) reduction in governmental subsidies with a goal towards ultimate elimination, of corporate welfare, individual welfare, and all programs which foster dependency on the state rather than freedom and social-interdependence of people on each other as equals—again of absolutely every kind;

(5) reduction in governmental power over all aspects of human life, but including especially but not limited to all regulations which tend to affect individuals as members of families, and to alienate the individual from his family as a considered governmental “benefit” or “service” in support of “domestic relations” laws; and also including all regulations which tend to impose uniform philosophies or beliefs, or enforce normative standards of human philosophy, religion, or ideology of any kind.

Returning to the point about the First Amendment above, a free society (such as existed in the United States during the Colonial, Early Republican, and up through mid-19th century period at least) must foster the development of new and divergent lifestyles based on emergent new philosophies rather than trying to straightjacket society and culture into a “one-size” fits all narrow menu of politically correct and socially acceptable choices.

(6) abolition of government programs such as massive environmental regulation (including the construction and maintenance of dams and nuclear power plants) which necessarily increase the dependence of the people on the government and government controlled monopolies for their very survival;

(7) the abolition of all kinds of official immunity, including but not limited to judicial and prosecutorial immunity, for violation of civil rights, and especially for those violations and abuses of office which design or promote private or unofficial political and “social engineering” goals;

(8) any and every attempt by the state or federal government to regulate or control family organization in the name of “public welfare”; here again, multiple apparently opposing interests may be reconciled creatively. The interests of so-calle “social conservatives” will be served because the Federal government would no longer subsidize the state-sponsored breakup of families, pitting husbands and wives against each other in an eternal redistributive battle which ultimately enriches only lawyers and empowers only Judges and social workers. Moreover, the power of Churches, Religious, Philosophical, and/or even Private Social or cultural groups to institute, promulgate rules, and regulate marriage and the education of the young will be restored.

However, persons of a socially liberal bent will find that the abolition of all civil and criminal restrictions on “gay marriage” and any other (victimless, voluntary) “alternative lifestyles” will lead to complete individual choice and private decision-making, limited only by individual imagination and the criminal laws against physical injury and slavery of any kind.

In a truly free society, if the Unitarian Universalist and other churches wish to solemnize gay marriage, they shall do so according to their own rules and regulations without leave or license from any state officer. But at the same time, the Conservative Presbyterians and Southern Baptist Convention will be free to ban and forbid membership to any individuals choosing what appears to these groups an “ungodly” lifestyle. The marketplace of ideas, in short, will be open to all competing models, and the triumph or failure of any ideology will be utterly without beneficial or detrimental consequences in the law.

(9) a restoration of strict construction of the constitution and civil rights as respecting life, liberty, and property ownership;

(10) a complete restructuring of the banking and government finance systems, including but not limited to abolition of the Federal Reserve and the Federal income tax;

(11) a restoration to the people of the power (and the duty) to structure their own lives and social relations by contractual agreement without governmental interference, the major legitimate function of the courts being to enforce and judge the fairness of private contracts, including but not limited to marriage contracts and other agreements relating to domestic relations, such that the marriage license and state-sponsored divorce should be forever abolished and erased from the American social scene, restoring true freedom of association and freedom of religion to the people so that MEANINGFUL cultural and social diversity can flourish in the absence of regulation. In this connection, all victimless crimes should be abolished, and the definition of “crimes against society” or humanity should be strictly limited to those behaviors which actually place real individuals in physical danger. ”Moral” or “Mental” injuries such as the consequences, for example, of merely “hateful” expression (without associated conduct such as assaultive behavior) must no longer be allowed to be a cause for criminal punishment (although tortious actions for “emotional distress” and other forms of non-physical victimization would be greatly expanded and liberalized, although subjected to the funnel and fulcrum of trial-by-fully-informed juries).

(12) corporate and professional, like governmental immunity, should be abolished or at least severely curtailed so that corporate, like governmental, officers, cannot hide behind legal shields while they wield immensely destructive financial swords, (

13) electronic voting should be carefully and independently monitored and subject to citizen audits, as should all governmental actions, but electronic voting should be supplemented by duplicative paper ballot receipt systems where the voter casts his vote electronically, but then casts and keeps a confirming paper copy of his vote, so that recounts will have double and triple built in security systems,

(14) all ancient prerogative writs, including quo warranto should be restored and forever guaranteed to the people,

(15) Federal judicial rules should be reformed in favor of freely amended pleadings and limiting the discretion of judges to dismiss complaints based on subjective criteria such as “plausibility”, while the right to decide all matters of credibility and fact-finding should be strictly reserved to juries, which should also have the power to decide whether laws are fairly applicable in each individual case.

I submit that I am a candidate for all the people. As an individual, I was born a “WASP” from the Upper Middle Class of White America, and for much of my life I thought of myself as a “Goldwater-Reagan” Republican, albeit with deep admiration for Conservative Democrats such as populated the South through at least the 1970s. But as an Anthropologist and Historian, I should hope I have a deeper than average appreciation for the mechanics and implications and demands of REAL socio-cultural and political diversity.

And because of my unusual individual life-history, I should find a “common table” with traditional elements of the California “Blue State” Democratic coalition including California’s Hispanics (I am fluent in Spanish and support official bilingualism in Government and the Court System on what you might call “the Canadian Model”), as California’s African Americans (I have suffered more than my share of unjust judicial and financial oppression and I recognize that they have been uniquely victimized as a group), along with California’s labor unions, for whom I would always defend the rights of freedom to organize, freedom to associate, and freedom to negotiate and contract without governmental interference.

Finally, I think that my social-”diffusion of power” program regarding lifestyle choices and values should appeal not only to every ethnic group belonging to the California “plurality of diversity” but also to every Californian who shares in this state’s tradition of eccentricity and the embrace of real normative divergence. The socialist tyranny which has characterized California politics and social policy during most of my lifetime stands in marked contrast to the real diversity of the California population—at least by origins. All who enjoy support California’s diverse makeup must admit that such diversity cannot meaningfully coexist with homogenization through coercive unitary educational, financial, and legal systems. “Good fences make good neighbors” and the freedom the build good fences and maintain actual distinctions is one of the freedoms to whose protection I am most deeply committed.

Above all I think I will appeal to California’s homeowners and property owners of every ethnic and class background: like no one else in this or any other race, I will fight first and foremost to restore the integrity and reality of private property against all Federal Tax-based schemes and programs of securitization and transfers of real ownership as a result of corrupt banking and lending laws. A

s an anthropologist and archaeologist, I think I have a better appreciation for the cultural history and diversity of all groups in California than anyone else, and understand the importance of maintaining identity and actual diversity by avoiding forced assimilation of any and every kind: “Vive la difference.”

As strongly indicated above, I also support absolute freedom of expression and religion, and would work to remove all Federal Support for or mandates involving state licensed or controlled marriage or relating marriage or support to the social security system, which has turned the State Family Courts into surrogate Federal Tax Collection facilities for the purpose of welfare and wealth redistribution.

As a United States Senator I would demand proof of the legitimacy and honest integrity of all our programs, institutions, and officers, including but not limited to the monetary system (the value of the dollar, the threat of renewed inflation), the Federal Reserve Banking System as a whole, every branch of the Federal Government, and yes, even of the Presidency and of the current occupant of the White House.

I would specifically fight in the U.S. Senate for amendments to the Civil Rights Statutes of Titles 18, 28, and 42 which would amendments would ensure the color blind application of the civil rights laws. “Equal opportunity under the law” must flourish and promote itself as among the greatest of American Values, not so much as a divisive but unifying slogan and ideal in our courts—available to the members of the DAR and recent immigrants alike.

I would also fight for the repeal of the recent National Defense Authorization Act, the Patriot Act, and the Real ID act, FISA, and the secure restoration of meaningful Habeas Corpus, and the removal of every sort of unnecessary governmental program intruding upon or regulating any aspect of business or private life.

My approach to developing a policy for California’s ecological and environmental would be simple: nature is best, all modifications of nature which pervert demographics from their natural tendencies are bad. In particular, no more dams should ever be built with Federal Funds and those dams which exist now should be subjected to retrospective environmental assessment to see which can be removed to restore rivers and lakes to their natural configurations. I think that the restoration of natural hydrology will ultimately lessen the need for governmental regulation and intervention in economic and social life, as well as solve many of the most pressing environmental threats to all life on earth. I will support every sort of incentive to develop non-fossil fuel energy bases EXCEPT hydroelectric based on damming our rivers. Deserts should probably remain dry rather than the site for suburban sprawl. Restoration of natural water flows will decrease the tendency for the United States Federal Government and State Governments to become modern day examples of “Oriental Despotism.” Energy independence for the individual household and family or local communities through wind and solar power is the ideal to be preferred.

Please consider supporting me in my attempt to shake up the California Democratic Party and Washington establishments! In sum, and conclusion, I would just offer as a Haiku-like motto

“Jeffersonian Democracy” defines everything we call freedom.

Statement originally published on May 20, 2011 @ 1:54, & May 21, 2011 @ 2:08 AM

→ 1 Comment

Posted in 2012 Election Campaign, Civil Rights Removal, Constitutionalist, Democratic-Republican Party, Dianne Feinstein, Foreclosure, Gospel of Luke, History and Civilization, Isaiah, Judicial Immunity, Law, Mortgage Crisis, Movies & Philosophy, National Defense Authorization Act, Oriental Despotism, Perfection of Interests in Foreclosed Property by Eviction, Plato, politics, UCC Perfection of Interests, Uncategorized, United States Senate

Tagged 1992-2001, Beverly Hills, Candidate for Senate 2012, constitution, Decade of Domestic Terrorism, Dianne Feinstein, Diversity, divorce, Domestic Relations, First Amendment, Free Exercise, Freedom of Association, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech, Freedom to Petition, Isaiah 59, judicial immunity, Luke 18: 1-8, Marriage, Monopoly, monopoly on violence, Orange County, Parable of the Unjust Judge, Prosecutorial Immunity, Renada Nadine March, state bar monopoly, state monopoly, Theodore Kyriazis, Thomas Jefferson, to Abolish State-Sponsored Monopoly

May 1, 2011—May Day—Any Revolution in 2012 Needs to Start NOW!

Posted on May 1, 2011 by Charles Edward Lincoln III | Leave a comment

Lots of “New Age” books predict the beginning of a new era, or a radical transformation of global consciousness and awareness, beginning in 2012—roughly correlating one interpretation of the Ancient Maya Calendar to predictions about the future. It happens that I studied the Ancient Maya, as my primary area of specialty, among several other ancient civilizations, during my years in Anthropology, Archaeology, and History, 1975-1992. By some weird coincidence, the Ancient Maya Temple most commonly illustrated on the dustjackets and covers of paperbacks about the transformations owing to the Maya Calendar is the Castillo at Chichen Itza, one of the most widely visited archaeological sites in the world today, which also happens to be the subject of my 1990 Doctoral Dissertation “Ethnicity and Social Organization at Chichen Itza, Yucatan” submitted to the Department of Anthropology at Harvard University, under the Chairmanship of the late Gordon Randolph Willey—a true philospher king among professors if ever there was one. In that dissertation I explored a great many things, from observations about linguistic terms, phrases in hieroglyphics, or stratified trash heaps and ancient house floors and pottery fragments which could never be interesting to anyone other than the most enthusiastically focused Maya specialist, to concepts like cycles of conquest and rulership articulated through metaphors of ethnic domination, on the one hand, and, on another three-part social and governmental organization as a universal principle of cultural, economic, and political evolution, ultimately leading me to a “natural law” theory of the United States Constitution. I ultimately left archaeology and history because I felt oppressed by and in the real world, and a need to try to make things better—to challenge the corporate-governmental obliteration of the individual which, sadly enough, is something one can definitely feel operating on university campuses and in academics in general. In short, I started my adult life on the half-island (Halbinsel, Peninsula) of Yucatan, and in the socio-cultural island of academics at Harvard, but I weighed life on that island and I found it wanting. (Still, it makes an interesting introduction and theme to talk about running in 2012. I will turn 52 next year, and 52 was a very significant age or era in ancient Mexico/Mesoamerica—the nearest thing to a “Century” in their calendar in fact, in terms of delineating historical time periods or eras.)

So I found out for myself that no man is an island (nor is any woman). But in the modern world, insular thinking is promoted as socially useful. We are all urged to act like atoms and to assume that we can live our lives unconnected to each other and to society. We should accept our place in the world and just have as much fun or fulfillment as we can, and not try to change things. I was born in 1960 and sometimes regret I was not born a decade or so earlier, because the decade of the 1960s, when I was just a baby, toddler, and prepubescent boy, was the last time people completely rejected individual helplessness. Those who were either the children of WWII or post-war “baby boomers” born from 1940 right up until the mid-1950s seem to have had a chance, an opening, to see the world as “their oyster” and to try to remake it. They believed in love and revolution. In 1968 there was a world-wide student uprising comparable to few global events except for 1848 and 1918. For the most part the radicals of the 1960s failed, but some of them were my teachers and professors in college, and their influence on me was huge, even if I only adopt their optimism and belief in the possibility of change, and not in their specific ideologies.

I think that the time has come for a new revolution, a new birth of freedom. The world has grown progressively more stale and repressive throughout my life. Selfish ideologies have been exploited by the state and corporate powers-that-be to destroy genuine activism, genuine popular political involvement, discourage real corporate consciousness, and above-all to weaken the family and small-community groups of every kind.

That the California elections of 2012 will be a largely non-partisan is a mixed blessing. I see my own politics as more a derivation of the time of Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe where the chief political party in the United States was called the Democratic-Republican Party. I would rather see myself as a Constitutional Democratic-Republic affiliated with those third-fifth Presidents than any other political group in history. I would admire Andrew Jackson without qualification for his abolition of the Bank of the United States, but he presided over and commanded the trail-of-tears and the removal of the Five Civilized Tribes from my native South—and it is almost impossible to forgive him that particular offense, series of genocidal offenses.

So if I run for United States Senator in 2012, it will be as a Democratic-Republican Constitutionalist, and since there are no parties planned for the February 2012 election, I will just state my basic positions and as time goes by articulate the ways in ways and on which issues I would most strongly disagree with the incumbent, an extremely wealthy woman and entrenched establishmentarian named Dianne Feinstein. Suffice it to say that she is active in the following committees and subcommittees, and my policies in all of these fields, shaped by my own life-experience based ideologies, are close to the polar opposites of Senator Feinstein’s:

Committees

Committee on Appropriations (Feinstein Supports Every kind of Government Welfare and Bailout—supported by the twin pillars of confiscatory taxation and massive government borrowing—I oppose both)
- Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies (in particular—I would liberate the Food and Drug Administration from control by “Big Pharma”—so that “experimental” drugs available in Europe and Asia could be more readily introduced, at much less cost, than in the United States today—deregulation is competitive freedom but deregulation is also deflation of prices—deregulation is also REAL freedom because I would fight to end the war on drugs, repeal all Federal restrictions on the sale of “recreational” drugs, and release EVERY Federal prisoner convicted ONLY of drug-related offenses).
- Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (The Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution should no longer be the basis of 99% of Federal Legislation and Jurisprudence—the power of the Federal Government to invade people’s lives must be cut down to the “original” (extremely limited) concept of Congressional power to regulate interstate commerce;
- Subcommittee on Defense (there is no greater set of welfare programs today for both corporate and private America than defense spending—this must end, or at least be radically curtailed until we can audit the foreign consequences of our recent adventures overseas, at least to the point of estimating the number of innocent civilians killed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya as a direct result of American intervention and policies in those countries).
- Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development (Known by the Anthropological and Historical name of “ORIENTAL DESPOTISM”–the original and most ancient form of governmental economic subsidies and social control through social welfare was through irrigation and other water-redistribution programs—these are, by and large, horrible perversions of nature and ecological disasters—no federal money should ever go to build or maintain dams—many existing dams should be torn down and decommissioned, their social and ecological consequences are so disastrous—and yes this means I would support a federal policy of de-urbanizing parts of Southern California)(The Opposite of “Oriental Despotism” is the kind of individual freedom that could come from non-centralized systems of electrical production which can even be produced at the neighborhood or family home level—including solar and wind power—diffusion of technology in these fields will clearly result in “a new birth of freedom” and the expenditure of governmental funds to educate and enable people to learn and control such technologies will ultimately lead to a diffusion of centralized power in each of the political and energetic and corporate senses).
- Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies (Chairwoman) (The abuses of private property rights by well-meaning ecological programs can go on ad infinitum, and are close related to dependence on centralized power sources addressed and described above).
- Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies **(ALSO related to the decentralization of power sources described above).
Committee on the Judiciary (the Federal Judiciary has become callous and impervious to all but corporate interests—the Federal Judiciary must be restored as the bullwark for constitutional rights and individual liberties—of the common man and his family against the oppression of local oligarchies, what the authors of the Federalist Papers called “the tyranny of local majorities”—but at the same time the Federal Courts must be purged of political judges who serve the amplification of Federal Power and insulate the Federal and State Governments from accountability—Judicial Immunity must be radically reduced and restrained, and Federal Judicial review of governmental activities at both the State and Federal level must be afforded the power already implicit in so many under-used statutes relating to civil rights and governmental oversight).
- Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts (“ditto”—repeat the above paragraph here—-Congress should prohibit the Federal Courts from requiring State Bar admission of any attorney applying to practice in Federal Court—a “bar admission” test at the Federal level is long overdue—and no requirement of graduation from an ABA Law school should be required either—any person who can pass a Bar Examination, oral and/or written, should be allowed to practice before any Federal Court, but the exams should NOT be graded by the judges before whom lawyers are meant to appear, argue, and whom they are hired to persuade).
- Subcommittee on the Constitution (“ditto”—repeat all of the above paragraphs here—Congress should expressly repeal the judicial abstention doctrines including Rooker-Feldman and Younger v. Harris—the private bill enacted to this precise effect for the sole benefit of Terry Schiavo should be made a public law of general application—the Courts refused to hear her case regardless, but if they get used to the idea that they are REQUIRED to take all cases within their constitutional jurisdiction—there might be many changes in the American Civil Rights Landscape).
- Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs (“ditto”—but especially repeat the paragraph above about ending the so-called “War on Drugs” and releasing all Federal prisoners who have been convicted of no factual crimes other than those based on drug-trafficking and/or ownership).
- Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Refugees (Another huge population of innocents inhabit our prisons—immigrants who came to this country with no more criminal intent than my own ancestors did—namely to make a better life for themselves—America cannot be a lifeboat for the world, but we cannot criminalize conduct which is inherently good—that by which people seek honest work to provide for themselves and their families—rather, we need to abolish the beacons of welfare and work-free social benefits which bring the least desirable immigrants in, and liberate business from labor controls and regulations which render American productivity all but impossible, and require that Americans depend like parasites upon the productivity of the rest of the world, many of whom respect our money only because of our military might and brutality, euphemistically called the “Full Faith and Credit” of the United States)
- Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security (Dianne Feinstein is one of the staunchest supporters of the 2001 Patriot Act, its extensions and amendments, the 2007 Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act (FISA), and their predecessors including the 1996 Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act [AEDPA] which all but abolished the ancient writ of Habeas Corpus in the United States—I will fight tirelessly for the repeal or judicial demolition of all of these oppressive laws on the grounds of constitutional violation and infringements—FISA must be the first to go followed by the Patriot Act and AEDPA—No Longer Can America be Prison-Planetary Center of the World).
Committee on Rules and Administration
Select Committee on Intelligence (Chairwoman)(all aspects of the Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Drug Enforcement Agency, and the Arms, Tobacco, and Firearms agency must rolled back or abolished; the Department of Homeland Security must be abolished; there is no constitutional authority for Federal Police Forces within the United States—only the foreign activities of the Central Intelligence Agency can be tolerated, and those must be made to conform strictly with the Law of [Civilized] Nations).

In short, compared to Senator Dianne Feinstein I am indeed a Red Revolutionary—and so I announce my candidacy on May Day, and ask for your contributions and support. I will probably need to raise five-to-fifteen million dollars even to have a shadow of a chance. Just by way of comparison, this is what Barbara Boxer’s Finances looked like—and she was a “shoe in” for reelection in 2010— last year (according to http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00006692):

Cycle Fundraising, 2005 – 2010, Campaign Cmte

Raised:	$29,331,343
Spent:	$29,537,796
Cash on Hand:	$603,248
Debts:	$25,000
Last Report:	Friday, December 31, 2010

Top 5 Contributors, 2005-2010, Campaign Cmte

Contributor	Total	Indivs	PACs
EMILY’s List	$366,637	$360,608	$6,029
University of California	$97,890	$97,890	$0
Girardi & Keese	$92,000	$92,000	$0
News Corp	$75,400	$70,900	$4,500
Time Warner	$71,850	$61,850	$10,000

Top 5 Industries, 2005-2010, Campaign Cmte

Industry	Total	Indivs	PACs
Lawyers/Law Firms	$2,006,477	$1,862,106	$144,371
Retired	$1,461,076	$1,461,076	$0
Women’s Issues	$1,153,692	$1,122,797	$30,895
TV/Movies/Music	$966,958	$876,158	$90,800
Democratic/Liberal	$699,196	$676,740	$22,456

Now, even though I have a place right next door to UCLA, I doubt that the University of California will support me, and especially because I am a former lawyer, who opposes the State Bar and legal monopoly generally, I am unlikely to receive any significant support from members of the legal profession. On the other hand, the Entertainment and Movie Industry? Well, in the past five years I’ve dated one B-/C+ Movie Actress, one or two or three “models” and…. yeah there was that former swimsuit model from Israel too, but I suppose I shouldn’t really count on her support….ehem….. Oh and for Easter I went to church with Tom Hanks….. so who knows? Maybe he’d see a certain “Forrest Gump” potential in me…..and then again, maybe not……

But you see, unlike last year (2010), when I thought about running, as of this date I already have already spent the first couple of hundred dollars, having campaign business cards printed up and I have even given out a few dozen—starting last week on Easter Sunday, another day for which the color red is traditional—celebrating the Resurrection—which as I told people, is another metaphor for saying, “THE PEOPLE WILL RISE AGAIN. Albeit that modern Easter Red is normally paired with white, though more with green than blue—in celebration more of the “Rites of Spring” and the reemergence of the green world than of “true blue” valor…. But it will take plenty of fool-hearty courage to go against Diane Feinstein and actually try to win/unseat her, in a non-partisan free-for-all.

I am a victim of several modern trends in law and politics, social engineering and credit finance, and it is for those reasons and because of those experiences that I am running:

(1) Nine-Eleven years ago I lost my licenses to practice law in Texas, Florida, and California, in that order, due to the practices of Judicial Despotism and “Integrated” State-Bar Monopolistic practices—as a consequence I am against all schemes of state-professional licensing, all systems of state-regulated monopolies, and all restrictions on freedom-of-speech, freedom-of-advocacy, and freedom of expression and association. Indirectly, but only indirectly, my professional setback also resulted from the increasingly totalitarian identity laws in the United States which make us all dependent more on our social security numbers than anything else—the disbarment pretext (since the Federal Judges who agreed and conspired against me couldn’t very well state that they hated me for bringing multiple civil rights suits on behalf of non-ethnic, non-minorities) was an indictment for misstating two digits of my social security number on an application for a non-interest bearing checking account at Wells Fargo Bank on Congress Avenue in Austin in November 1996—a mistake which was never noticed by the bank until United States District Judge James R. Nowlin (now retired, Western District of Texas) appointed an FBI investigator Nancy Houston to tail me for two years and find something against me, or else.

So I also oppose the social security system as a system of national identification, quite apart from my belief that as a system of social-welfare it has been catastrophically mismanaged and makes a mockery of honest government. I have come to realize that the society security system is one leg of a triangular system involving the Federal Reserve Bank, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Federal Social-Welfare system, which together delineate the “Brave New World” in which we live, in which individual freedom (including individual identity), private property, the family, and capitalism are all simultaneously being wiped out in favor of atomized citizenship in a totalitarian-corporate-governmental oligarchy based on the polar opposites of common ownership and common dependency.

My proposed solutions are: (1) abolish the requirement that attorneys belong to “integrated State Bars” controlled by the Judiciary—in fact, abolish the licensing of attorneys all together eventually, so that judges have little or no control over the advocates who appear before them, (2) abolish the social security system all together—start over, if there is political will to do so, from scratch, or just let private investment and insurance take over the fields of retirement and income security—where these fail, I would advocate Christian Socialism—by which I mean that we should all follow the teachings of that certain famous Jewish Rabbi born in the time of Augustus Caesar who advocated that everyone should sit at the same table and eat the same bread and wine—and he urged people to do this against all social norms and governmental orders, rather than following them. One need not believe in either his virgin birth or divinity to recognize that his philosophy is morally superior to state mandated redistribution of wealth, or that it is as morally consistent with Buddhism and Pagan Redistributive Feasting as with any other customs.

(2) Not coincidentally, I think, the economic hardships brought about by my professional loss of standing and income triggered my exposure to a second round of disasters—namely in family and domestic relations law. To make a long-story short, by September 18, 2002, I found myself in front of, and at the mercy of, another brutally despotic Texas judge, this time of the State Family Court variety, named Judge Michael Jergins of the 395th District Court in Georgetown, Williamson County.

Judge Jergins epitomized everything that a judge should not be, and briefly summarized the abuses of our times by explaining to me that whatever he said to do or not to do was in “the best interests of the child” and that he considered any deviation from his orders to be “felony-level child abuse”, even when his orders concerned my speech to and communication with my then ten year old son Charlie about what HE considered best for him.
I have since realized that the most insidious welfare abuses are those committed by child-protective services and “state social engineer” judges like Jergins and their cohorts of guardians ad litem, attorneys ad litem, social workers, counselors, psychologists etc.

Over the past decade, I have developed a simple solution here also: the family courts must all be abolished, and the Federal Sponsorship of their “child protective services” through Title 42 Welfare programs simultaneous erased from the map of the world. My work in Texas and Florida has convinced me of a simple truth: Family Courts and the regulation of the Family by the state is the antithesis of the spirit, if not the letter, of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, and Ninth Amendments to the Constitution, as well as to the “impairment of contracts” clause of Article I and the Fourteenth Amendment. So all family courts need to be abolished—marriage and family organization should be returned totally to the people and such private institutions as they wish to foster, be these Churches or Mutual Assistance clubs or anything else. My late aunt Mildred on her death bequeathed away a large collection of fine fur coats to the benefit of a battered women’s shelter which accepted no state or federal funds at all, but existed only through private contributions. In such settings, the government does not become an institutional terror which replaces private abuse with public abuse.

(3) As a consequence of both my financial decline as a result of disbarment by a judge-run lawyer’s monopoly and my oppression by the family courts—I ran into the third problem set—loss of property through foreclosures resulting from predatory lending. Mortgage finance abuse and redemption is in fact the field that occupies most of my time these days.

The solutions, again, are relatively straightforward but draconian in their impact on the banking and financial interest at the heart of the world Status Quo: abolish all federal regulations permitting and promoting the securitization of debt—creating black ink out of red ink generates economic incentives almost as perversely counterproductive to social and economic well-being as the anti-production, hiding and evading ideology of the Federal Income Tax.

In short, we need a nation free from murderous foreign policies coupled with massive fraud, deceit, and deception at home.

In the spirit of the 1960s—”Let the Sun Shine, Let the Sun Shine In…” and in the spirit of earlier populists—let our Campaign Song be—”This Land is Your Land, this land is my land, from California, to the New York Island—from the Redwood Forests, to the Gulf-Stream Waters—this land was made for you and me.” But above-all—

VIVA LA REVOLUCION!

→ Leave a comment

Posted in 2012 Election Campaign, Barbara Boxer, Campaign Finance, Constitutionalist, Democratic-Republican Party, Dianne Feinstein, Foreclosure, Forrest Gump, Henry Ford & Sigmund Freud, History and Civilization, Judicial Immunity, Law, Mortgage Crisis, mortgage foreclosure help, Plato, Plato's Republic, politics, Psychology and Manipulation, Tom Hanks, United States Senate

Tagged "War on Drugs", Andrew Jackson, Barbara Boxer, campaign finance, Constitutionalist, Democratic-Republic Party, Dianne Feinstein, Federal Judiciary, Federal Prisons, Five Civilized Tribes, Forrest Gump, Immigration, Income Tax, IRS, James Madison, James Monroe, judicial immunity, Private Bills, Public Laws, Removal of Southern Indians, Rooker-Feldman, Social Security, Terri Schiavo, Thomas Jefferson, Tom Hanks, Younger v. Harris Abstention

Give me Liberty or Give me Death—March 23, 1775 to March 23, 2010—the more things change, the more things stay the same…..

Posted on March 23, 2010 by Charles Edward Lincoln III | Leave a comment

(my thanks and appreciation to Kaatcya for reminding me that today was the day)

I encourage everyone to read the immortal words of one of America’s patriotic greats during the founding of the union of these United States of America and make that determination to come true. I would urge everyone to read these words day in and day out as our country is being taken over by the left. On the same day Obamacare is signed into law by a likely illegally sitting president, 14 states have filed suit against this nation killing legislation, including one with a Democratic Party attorney general (Louisiana). Of course, in the days of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Samuel Tilden, Grover Cleveland, Al Smith, and even later (Strom Thurmond in 1948-64, Theodore Bilbo, George Wallace, John Stennis, Sam Ervin, and Robert Byrd, the Democratic party stood above all for limited government, State’s Rights, but all that was, as they say, a long long time ago, in a galaxy far away…when I was young(er). More states may come and probably will and they will be increasingly bipartisan. The shots have been fired and the alarms sounded. Of course, Obamacare does not differ in any significant way from the program Hillary Clinton proposed and pushed for in 1993-1995, and there is no doubt that Obamacare is not significantly MORE repugnant to the Constitution than Social Security, the IRS, the Federal Reserve Bank, or fully 98.9% of the entire United States Code and Code of Federal Regulations Currently in effect.

235 years ago on this date, Patrick Henry spoke the following life-and-world-changing historic words at the Anglican (Established Colonial Church of England, now Episcopal) Church of St. John in Richmond, VA (ironically enough, the same city where the first suit against Obamacare was filed today). And though the events and individuals are different, the bondage and effects are just the same, if not much worse, today.

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free– if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending–if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained–we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable-and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace– but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

I testify to everyone receiving this e-mail that I will refuse under compulsion to buy any insurance plan I am forced to purchase and that I will refuse to pay any penalties for failure to comply with however Obamacare is defined. I will go to prison before I pay any penalty and even then I will not pay. I will doubly make that commitment since I have no firm proof that the putative president that signed this law was qualified to do so as a natural born U.S. citizen under Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, not to mention that this law violates the 10th & 14th Amendments of our Constitution.

March 23rd, 1775 & March 23rd, 2010 were days of infamy in America. We must march to overturn the tyranny being imposed upon us Americans, even if it costs us our lives – and who knows, it way well do so.

I make this additional commitment to you, my brothers and sisters, as our Founding Fathers did in preparation of the signing of the Declaration of Independence:

And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged "Give me Liberty or Give me Death", a galaxy far away, Andrew Jackson, Grover Cleveland, John Stennis, March 23 1775, Medicare., Obamacare, Patrick Henry, Richmond, Robert Byrd, Sam Ervin, Samuel Tilden, St. John's Church, States' Rights, States' Rights Democrats, Strom Thurmond, Theodore Bilbo, Thomas Jefferson, Virginia

Tag Archives: Thomas Jefferson

“Der Anarch”—Asserting our Sovereign Individuality and Sovereign Citizenship as not only “Anarchen” but also “Ubermenschen” is the only path to resist Totalitarianism in the United States and around the World

Candidate Statement 2012: For Freedom and Real Social Diversity, “Jeffersonian Democracy” defines everything we call “Freedom”.

It Is My Intention To Run For United States Senator In The Non-Partisan Primary Election Currently Scheduled For June 5, 2012—

I intend to run on the following statements:

I STAND FOR THE RESTORATION OF A JEFFERSONIAN FEDERAL DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLIC wherein governmental intrusion into private life is limited by the constitution, reserving all powers to the people!

Give me Liberty or Give me Death—March 23, 1775 to March 23, 2010—the more things change, the more things stay the same…..

Pages

Recent Posts

Top Posts

Archives

Blogroll

cell phone

Foreclosure

General

Health

Mortgage info

principal reduction

Products

robert ponte

Spirit

wow mobile

Follow “TIERRA LIMPIA by Charles Lincoln”

Tag Archives: Thomas Jefferson

“Der Anarch”—Asserting our Sovereign Individuality and Sovereign Citizenship as not only “Anarchen” but also “Ubermenschen” is the only path to resist Totalitarianism in the United States and around the World

Rate this:

SUBURBIA & EXURBIA: Creatures of the Communist Manifesto, Targets of Agenda 21 (the Elite Struggle to Perfect its Vision for World Control)

Rate this:

In Flanders Fields the poppies blow Between the crosses row on row, That mark our place; and in the sky The larks, still bravely singing, fly Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow, Loved and were loved, and now we lie In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe: To you from failing hands we throw The torch; be yours to hold it high. If ye break faith with us who die We shall not sleep, though poppies grow In Flanders fields.

Rate this:

A New Red Dawn Over America—Obamacare & the Police Power in Arizona are Upheld—the Constitution again ruled DOA at the Supreme Court (full text of the Supreme Court’s Worst Two Decisions of the Week attached)

Rate this:

Candidate Statement 2012: For Freedom and Real Social Diversity, “Jeffersonian Democracy” defines everything we call “Freedom”.

It Is My Intention To Run For United States Senator In The Non-Partisan Primary Election Currently Scheduled For June 5, 2012—

I intend to run on the following statements:

I STAND FOR THE RESTORATION OF A JEFFERSONIAN FEDERAL DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLIC wherein governmental intrusion into private life is limited by the constitution, reserving all powers to the people!

Rate this:

May 1, 2011—May Day—Any Revolution in 2012 Needs to Start NOW!

Committees

Cycle Fundraising, 2005 – 2010, Campaign Cmte

Top 5 Contributors, 2005-2010, Campaign Cmte

Top 5 Industries, 2005-2010, Campaign Cmte

VIVA LA REVOLUCION!

Rate this:

Give me Liberty or Give me Death—March 23, 1775 to March 23, 2010—the more things change, the more things stay the same…..

Rate this:

Pages

Recent Posts

Top Posts

Archives

Blogroll

cell phone

Foreclosure

General

Health

Mortgage info

principal reduction

Products

robert ponte

Spirit

wow mobile

Follow “TIERRA LIMPIA by Charles Lincoln”

In Flanders Fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.