Senior Reverend Barry Taylor, All Saints Church in Beverly Hills, has resigned: WHY?

The circumstances surrounding the resignation of the Reverend Barry Taylor stink of undisclosed Borgia-and-Medici style backstabbing in the Hallowed Halls of All Saints Beverly Hills and the Cathedral of Los Angeles…… Reverend Stephen Huber, All Saints’ Rector for the past several years, alleged a “financial infraction” protected by “the confidentiality of the employment relationship.”

As a “Senior Associate Rector”…I want to know: how and if so how much would Barry have even had access to Church funds? Beyond those necessary to manage his service—AS2, and the collection plates therefrom?

In my personal experience, when a corporation, or a government, wants to get rid itself of someone exemplary, who poses a threat to the establishment, they will either () charge sexual misconduct, () charge financial mismanagement of some kind, () claim that the target individual is insane and mentally unstable. Since the data are easiest to “fake” on the financial front—especially with regard to someone as well-known as Barry Taylor, the choice was obvious…. And yes, I have indeed experienced similar things—but that was back in “bad old Texas”…. not here in Enlightened Southern California…..

I never dreamt it was possible for AS2 to end so soon….

The Reverend Steve Huber, Rector of All Saints in Beverly Hills, is a nice guy. I don’t know him very well at all, but I certainly have nothing against him. Or, actually, I HAD nothing against him until yesterday….. His announcements, by letter and (in Church) sermon, concerning the resignation of Senior Reverend Barry Taylor, however, leaves much to be desired.

I have been following Barry irregularly since 2009, becoming more-and-more fascinated by his special intellect and style of preaching ever since I first heard him give a sermon based in part on references to The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, in 2009, but especially last year and this year (2013-2014).

Last winter, after Christmas, Barry gave a series of sermons entitled “Roots” using vegetal metaphors to analyze the origins and operations of the Christian Church—and expressly relating Christianity to Astronomy, Biology, Ecology, and Evolution.

This past August, Barry gave a phenomenal series of four sermons entitled “Drugs, Art, Sex, and Religion” dealing in part with those topics directly and in part with the modernist psychological analysis of such things, beginning with the writings of Sigmund Freud.

Barry’s Fifth Sermon in August, “Religion without Illusions” (an obvious and not at all illusory) allusion to Freud’s pamphlet pubished 1927: Die Zukunft Einer Illusion, was the culmination and dénouement of this series. But in that fifth sermon of the most amazing series of teachings I have ever encountered in any Church, anywhere, there were signs of something wrong. Barry seemed constrained to speak his mind as forcefully and fully as usual. And all month he had been advertising that there would be a reception after the Fifth Sermon on August 31, 2014, for the parishioners and members of his special AS2 congregation to discuss, criticize, and evaluate his presentations. I know I was not alone in looking forward to that discussion. But it did not happen. And there was no explanation. And Barry disappeared hurriedly out the back door after the sermon.

That was two weeks ago yesterday (August 31). Last week, September 7, Barry again seemed not quite himself. And then yesterday Reverend Huber announced Barry’s resignation….reporting that the Bishop of Los Angeles had demanded it. And Reverend Huber darkly suggested that some sort of “financial infraction” relating to “the confidential nature of the employment relationship” had been committed.

To all that I say “Bollux” and demand to know more.

9-11 + 13 = Happy Anniversary to a Dying Empire

Last night in Beverly Hills, as if to celebrate the eve of this horrible day, there were searchlight helicopters all over town and police in every alleyway of every residential street. What happened? Nothing, so far as I can tell. But the Police State is operating quite well, thank you. No problems in filling the American Gulags. In Los Angeles they arrest and fine people who care for too many unhealthy dogs (if they aren’t veterinarians, but just caring, loving people). In Beverly Hills they arrest and fine people who have more than 4 dogs… or more than 3 dogs and two cats…. I forget the exact formula, BUT I actually know people who have been prosecuted for such things.

Meanwhile, 9-11 has achieved all of its goals: we have lost most of our fundamental freedoms, we are constantly under surveillance, and our country has been flooded with Muslim immigrants precisely to make sure that no one will ever feel safe again, and the original (White & Black) populations of this country will know that this is NO LONGER their land….Blacks are no longer the “dangerous minority” to whites—Blacks and Whites are both being displaced by Japanese and Chinese Asians at the upper end of the socio-economic scale and Mexican and South Asian immigrants at the lower end. Hindus and Pakistanis and Arabs come to replace us in the middle class, management and many professions. So yes, racially conscious politics and policies are still alive and well an living in the United States—it’s just that the world’s all gone Topsy-Turvey.

I would like to see 9-11 transformed into a national holiday where we study “the lies of history” and celebrate our liberation from those falsehoods. Historical truth can be a source of pride or a source of shame—or just a source of valuable psychological insights into the perversity that is the Human Condition. 9-11 should be remembered as a cautionary tale that we must ALWAYS QUESTION THE FACTS and BE SUSPICIOUS AND SKEPTICAL, NO MATTER WHO TALKS TO US.

A friend of mine, and she is a friend, albeit a highly emotional and difficult person, becomes very indignant with me when I disagree with her assessment of other people or situations (or even her own situation). She tells me that friends should support each other no matter what. I say, “sometimes only your best friend will tell you what you really don’t want to hear.”

She cannot understand that I no more would ever say, “I support my friends, right or wrong” than I would say “I support my country, right or wrong.” Although I know that, for many years, “my country, right or wrong” was a prayerful mantra among those who still had faith in their government.

No, we all have a fundamental duty constantly to evaluate what is right and what is wrong. We are not merely entitled to change our judgments, we are duty bound to change our judgments if we learn new facts or see old facts in a new light. The quest for truth is a constant, never-ending struggle and the moment we abandon that quest, we cease to be human.

ANYONE today in America who says they still believe the official story about 9-11 is either a retarded fool or a craven sycophantic liar. And yes, this does appear to include all the editors of “Wikipedia” and “CNN”….and the National Geographic Society….etc. (in other words, everyone in the mainstream).

Imagine America without Banks or Other Government Chartered Monopolies, with real freedom, justice, and security for a lll

This is my Father’s world. I walk a desert lone.
In a bush ablaze to my wondering gaze God makes His glory known.
This is my Father’s world, a wanderer I may roam
Whate’er my lot, it matters not,
My heart is still at home. (Maltbie D. Babcock, 1901)

Mark 11: 15 Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves; 16 And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple. 17 And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves. 18 And the scribes and chief priests heard it, and sought how they might destroy him: for they feared him, because all the people was astonished at his doctrine.

What if we were to drive the money changers out of our homeland, our world which is the Temple of North America? At least all the Federally chartered money changers? Would the world end?

I say that the time has come to redeem our birthrights, to restore integrity and self-reliant freedom to America and the American people. I call this a program of “National Vindicatio” after the Roman legal action for the restoration of real property and res mancipi (the means of production) to their rightful owners.

I propose that the best (and probably the only) way to do this is to abolish all government-chartered and federally-funded monopolies, including the national banks, thus restoring some semblance of America as it existed during the apogee of freedom and Democratic-Republican Society, for the 32 years of about 1829-1861 (Andrew Jackson and Martin van Buren through James K. Polk and Millard Fillmore to James Buchanan).

Thomas Jefferson and John Adams had both died on July 4, 1826, exactly fifty years after the signing of the declaration of Independence, so the new nation had formed and reached a stable maturity. They died roughly halfway through the one-term presidency of John Quincy Adams, the first son of a President to become a President, but most regrettably: NOT the last….nor the worst, by a long shot….

This was the time before internecine warfare caused half a million brothers and cousins to slaughter each other in the name of freedom, before the Income Tax, gigantic corporations, and unified paper currency became the symbols and arbiters of economic life in this land. Andrew Jackson, for all his faults, abolished the Third and last Bank of the United States, and his memory is sacred for that achievement. There were NO national corporations, only state or regional enterprises. There was nowhere either a corporate or prison culture anywhere in North America. There was no standing army, except on the frontier. Imagine America with no national or multi-national Corporations, no greenbacks, and no permanent army. It was not the Garden of Eden, there were Indians who were forcibly and violently dispossessed of their land and slaves who existed as the chattel property of others. But, as Alex de Toqueville observed our ancestors, their world in the third of a century prior to Abraham Lincoln’s war was probably closer to an earthly paradise than anywhere in recorded history since Adam and Eve first transgressed God’s commandments….

What would it look like if we tried to recreate that world today by trust-busting (corporate breakups, using the antitrust laws, but in particular breaking up the banks)? Does it matter that the nation is population roughly 8 or 10 times what it was in those halcyonic three decades 1829-1861? Does it matter that we have grown accustomed to a world defined by corporations and prisons and government financed and sponsored monopolies, including the Federal Reserve Banking system and the eternally standing army, the largest prison system in the world, and a structured economy carved up between corporate chains whose trademark logos and stores look exactly the same whether you find them in the suburbs of Atlanta, Boston, Charlotte, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Jacksonville, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Richmond, St. Louis, San Diego, Seattle, Tampa, Tucson, or Washington D.C., itself.

I submit to you that it could be done based on certain principles of redistribution—not the redistribution of credit-welfare and tax-credits that we have now, but a real redistribution of the material wealth of nation? Could we effectively restore North America’s land and resources directly to the people, instead of insisting that these be held in the Corporate “Industrial Armies” which Marx and Engels first envisioned in February of 1848?

I submit to you that we could have a SUBSTANTIVE, rather than merely formal redistribution of the wealth out of communal “corporate” hands under government sponsorship and back to the people, starting with a guarantee of a homestead (including productive farmland) to every American resident citizen or family who petitioned for such a thing. (Obviously we cannot invite the whole world to our redistributive feast, but there’s no reason why 1% of the population is hogging all the food, drink, and party favors for themselves with the express protection and consent of the government).

This is “Huey Long” style substantive redistribution of property, not Franklin D. Roosevelt-style formal redistribution based on credit. We need to drive the money changers from our midst so that they can no longer control what we do with our property. We must guarantee to every family a home, to each individual healthcare, and we must endow these trusts with the Wealth of the Nation, not with credit-based entitlements which may be withdrawn or canceled at any time.

Strange to say, by putting all property in the hands of private individuals and families, we will not be perfecting communism through this substantive redistribution of wealth. Rather, we will be restoring the means of production to the people, and taking it entirely away from the collective communistic institutions created by the government and “national sponsorship” through tax policy and a banking system which holds all our wealth and only gives us “credit” in return.

Once property is back in the hands of the people, there will always be the risk that greedy individuals will try to create new monopolies and new systems of fraudulent money through the expansion of private banks. But once destroyed, the people will possess the information concerning the truth about banking as a function best carried out in private rather than by government stooges, and it will be incumbent upon the government constantly to remind and reeducate the people regarding the fact that their liberty is only secure if their property remains securely in their hands.

Monopolistic Patents on things like money (the banking system), the expression and transmission of ideas (the educational and legal system), the use of force in self-defense (the army and police systems), and even on the chemical resources, minerals, crops and animals on which we depend to live (i.e. Pharmaceuetical combinations and “GMOs” = Genetically Modified Organisms) are unnatural and incompatible with human freedom. We can exist without such monopolies and we can still guarantee that every person within our boundaries can have a fair share of the wealth of Our Father’s World…. and never gain allow our Father’s World to be turned into a Den of Thieves….

For further information on the Nation Vindicatio of America’s property rights herein proposed, please call Michael Lenaburg at 626-639-7037 or Gonzalo Diaz at 424-239-4627.

Richard Wagner: the Founder of the Modern Theatre, Theatrical Style, and Godfather of Modern Love?

What a strange irony that the artistic creator of what is arguably the greatest music created by man in all of human history, the inventor of the modern stage and theatrical style, and the author of beautiful poetry and transformational tellings of ancient myth as Richard Wagner should be remembered by the world at large, as a matter of popular culture, for his anti-semitism.

And in relationship to that quote attributed to Hitler, “Whoever wishes to understand National Socialist Germany must know Wagner,” for which I still cannot find or verify a single time and place source, what an irony that the Man who dreamt of German Conquest and Domination of the World single-handedly, or as single-handedly as any ruler could, made inevitable the mass destruction of Germany and Austria, and yet is primarily remembered for his “destruction” of the Jews.

The term “Holocaust” is an ancient Greek term for “sacrifice by fire” or as the term is so often translated in the Bible, “a burnt offering.” The Ancient Kings of Israel and Judah routinely sacrificed their own children as “burnt offerings”—this is a commonplace among the Western Semitic people, best documented archaeologically from the several decades of Harvard University excavations at Carthage in Tunisia (founded by the Phoenicians who sailed west from Tyre and Sidon in modern Lebanon, as closely related to the ancient Israelites as any people of the world could possibly have been). Pits filed with burnt children sacrificial victims are among the most commonplace “major ritual and ceremonial” finds at ancient Carthage.

The purpose of all human sacrifice is to generate new life. It is well known that, early in his Chancellorship, Hitler urged the emigration of Jews to Palestine, and the Constitution of Palestine as a Jewish Homeland. It is also well known that within 36 months and a fortnight of Hitler’s April 30, 1945 suicide in the Berlin Bunker, the State of Israel was announced by David Ben Gurion on May 14, 1948. Furthermore, it is all but universally acknowledged that but for the “Holocaust”, Israel would most likely never have come into existence as a Jewish nation and homeland.

So was Adolf Hitler really the extreme nemesis of the Jewish People of the World? Or was Adolf Hitler really the Godfather of Israel, much as he was the Godfather of the United Nations and a single world in which nations (including, presumably, eventually, both Germany and Israel, as well as the United States, the United Kingdom, England, France, Spain, Italy, Scotland, and Ireland, are all to be abolished?

Nietzsche is famous for his axiom: what doesn’t kill us makes us stronger. Did Hitler know or could he have envisioned that his actions would lead to the destruction of Germany? His best generals all believed that this end was foreseeable. So did Hitler know or could he have envisioned that on the barely cold ashes of Nazi Germany, Israel would be built?

So who provided the greatest number of sacrificial lambs for the “burnt offering” or Holocaust offered to create the state of Israel? Was it the Jewish Victims of Nazi Oppression, or was it the People of Germany who saw their world bombed and obliterated to smithereens? How lost more lives? Who gave more children? Are these not legitimate questions for historical dialogue and research?

Wagner Bicentennial Symposium
Evil Genius:
Constructing Wagner as Moral Pariah, Part 2

Brenton Sanderson

3,016 words

Part 2 of 4

Wagner’s Racial Thinking

In addition to his concern about the baleful Jewish influence on German culture, Wagner, under the influence of Darwinism and the French racial theorist Arthur de Gobineau, became increasingly concerned about the fate of the White race generally. Wagner met Gobineau in Rome in 1876, and then again in Venice in 1880 when he read the French author’s bestselling An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races which had been published 25 years earlier.

Wagner thought that Gobineau had demonstrated in this famous essay that “we should have no History of Man at all, had there been no movements, creations, and achievements of the White man,” and was taken with his pessimistic notion that Western society was doomed because miscegenation would inevitably lead to the degeneration of the White race.

He nevertheless disagreed with Gobineau’s claim that this degeneration was unstoppable. In his essay “Hero-dom and Christianity,” Wagner writes that:”We cannot withhold our acknowledgment that the human family consists of irremediably disparate races, whereof the noblest well might rule the more ignoble, yet never raise them to their level by commixture, but simply sink to theirs.” The Jews, however, offered a unique exception to this general rule:

The Jew, on the contrary, is the most astounding instance of racial congruence ever offered by world history. Without a fatherland, a mother tongue midst every people’s land and tongue he finds himself again, in virtue of the unfailing instinct of his absolute and indelible idiosyncrasy: even commixture of blood does not hurt him; let Jew or Jewess intermarry with the most distinct of races, a Jew will always come to birth. [1]

While accepting many of Gobineau’s basic premises, Wagner, in his 1881 essay about the German people entitled “Know Thyself” rejects the idea of complete Aryan superiority and writes about the “enormous disadvantage at which the German race . . . appears to stand against the Jewish.” Furthermore, when Gobineau stayed with the Wagners at Wahnfried for five weeks in 1881, their conversations were punctuated with frequent arguments. Cosima Wagner’s diary recounts one exchange in which Wagner “positively exploded in favor of Christianity as compared to racial theory.” Wagner proposed that a “true Christianity” could provide for the moral harmonization of all races, which could, in turn, help prevent the physical unification of the races, and thereby the degeneration of the White race through miscegenation:

Incomparably fewer in individual numbers than the lower races, the ruin of the white races may be referred to their having been obliged to mix with them; whereby, as remarked already, they suffered more from the loss of their purity than the others could gain by the ennobling of their blood. . . . To us Equality is only thinkable as based upon a universal moral concord, such as we can but deem true Christianity elect to bring about.[2]

Wagner had first developed the idea of a revolutionary new Christianity in the opera text Jesus of Nazareth (1849), which depicted Jesus as redeeming man from the materialism of the “Roman world . . . and still more, of that [Jewish] world subject to the Romans. . . . I saw the modern world of the present day as a prey to the worthlessness akin to that which surrounded Jesus.”[3] Wagner here drew heavily on Kant’s critique of Judaism. Enslaved to the Law, the Jews had rejected Jesus’ message of love; Jewish egoism and lovelessness had led Judas to betray him. The Jews had preferred “power, domination . . . [and] the loveless forces of property and law, symbolized by Judaism.”[4] Wagner’s hope for the emergence of a “new Christianity” to act as a bulwark against miscegenation and the degeneration of the White race has not transpired, although some Jewish commentators see it as having being realized in the ideology and practice of National Socialism.

For the Jewish music critic Larry Solomon, in Richard Wagner “all the racist historical models from Luther to Fichte, Feuerbach, Gobineau, Hegel, Schopenhauer, and Chamberlain, come to full maturity.”[5] Yet, despite the irate epithets routinely directed at Wagner, most of his assertions are objectively true — not least his many warnings about the dangers of the Jewish economic and cultural domination of Western nations. The evidence shows that the races are unequal intellectually and physically, and race mixing does lead (on average) to the cognitive decline of the more intelligent racial party to the admixture. It should also be noted that Wagner’s racial views were mainstream opinions at the time he expressed them — not least among the leading Jewish intellectuals I cited in my review of Jews & Race — Writings on Identity and Difference 1880–1940.[6]

Wagner’s views on the Jewish Question strongly paralleled those of the leading Zionist Theodor Herzl. Both Wagner and Herzl saw the Jews as a distinct and foreign group in Europe. Herzl saw anti-Semitism as “an understandable reaction to Jewish defects” brought about by the Jewish persecution of gentiles. Jews had, he claimed, been educated by Judaism to be “leeches” and possessed “frightful financial power.”[7] For Herzl, the Jews were a money worshipping people incapable of understanding any other motives than money. Kevin MacDonald notes in Separation and Its Discontents that Herzl argued that “a prime source of modern anti-Semitism was that emancipation had brought Jews into direct economic competition with the gentile middle classes. Anti-Semitism based on resource competition was rational.” Herzl “insisted that one could not expect a majority to ‘let itself be subjugated’ by formally scorned outsiders that they had just released from the ghetto.”[8] Pianist and conductor Daniel Barenboim notes that “Wagner’s conclusion about the Jewish problem was not only verbally similar to Herzl’s” but that “both Wagner and Herzl favored the emigration of the German Jews.”[9] Despite their convergence of opinion on the Jewish Question, Herzl avoided the opprobrium that was posthumously heaped on Wagner; intellectual consistency being the first casualty of Jewish ethnic warfare through the construction of culture.

Jewish Responses to Wagner’s Ideas

Basically ignoring whether Wagner’s views on Jewish influence on German art and culture had any validity, a long line of Jewish music writers and intellectuals have furiously attacked the composer for having expressed them. In his essay “Know Thyself” Wagner writes of the fierce backlash that followed his drawing “notice to the Jews’ inaptitude for taking a productive share in our Art,” which was “met by the utmost indignation of Jews alike and Germans; it became quite dangerous to breathe the word ‘Jew’ with a doubtful accent.”[10] Wagner was surprised by the hornet’s nest he had stirred up, and in a letter to Liszt noted that “I seem to have struck home with terrible force, which suits me purpose admirably, since that is precisely the sort of shock that I wanted to give them. For they will always remain our masters — that much is as certain as the fact that it is not our princes who are now our masters, but bankers and philistines.”[11]

Wagner’s critique of Jewish influence on German art and culture could not be dismissed as the ravings of an unintelligent and ignorant fool. Richard Wagner was, by common consent, one of the most brilliant human beings to have ever lived, and his views on the Jewish Question were cogent and rational. Accordingly, Jewish critics soon settled on the response of ascribing psychiatric disorders to Wagner, and this has been a stock approach ever since. As early as 1872 the German Jewish psychiatrist Theodor Puschmann, offered a psychological assessment of Wagner which was widely reported in the German press. He claimed that Wagner was suffering from “chronic megalomania, paranoia . . . and moral derangement.”[12] Cesare Lombroso, the famous nineteenth century Jewish Italian criminologist branded Wagner “a sexual psychopath.”[13]

In 1968 the Jewish writer Robert Gutman published a biography of Wagner (Richard Wagner: the Man, his Mind and his Music) in which he portrayed his subject as a racist, psychopathic, proto-Nazi monster. Gutman’s scholarship was questioned at the time, but this did not prevent his book from becoming a best-seller, and as one source notes: “An entire generation of students has been encouraged to accept Gutman’s caricature of Richard Wagner. Even intelligent people, who have either never read Wagner’s writings or tried to penetrate them and failed . . . have read Gutman’s book and accepted his opinions as facts.”[14] The long-time music critic for the New York Times, the Jewish Harold Schonberg, described Wagner in his Lives of the Great Composers as: “Amoral, hedonistic, selfish, virulently racist, arrogant, filled with gospels of the superman . . . and the superiority of the German race, he stands for all that is unpleasant in human character.”[15]

Another prominent refrain from Jewish commentators like Jacob Katz, the author of The Darker Side of Genius: Richard Wagner’s Anti-Semitism, is that Wagner’s concern about the Jewish influence on German culture stemmed from his morbid jealousy at all the brilliant Jews around him like Mendelssohn, Meyerbeer and Heine. Taking up this theme, the music writer David Goldman insists that: “Wagner ripped off the scenario for his opera ‘The Flying Dutchman’ from Heine and knocked off Mendelssohn’s ‘Fingal’s Cave’ overture in the ‘Dutchman’s’ evocation of the sea. Wagner tried to cover his guilty tracks by denouncing Jewish composers he emulated, including Giacomo Meyerbeer. Wagner was not just a Jew-hater, then, but a backstabbing self-promoter who defamed the Jewish artists he emulated and who (in Meyerbeer’s case) had advanced his career.”[16] Boroson, writing in the Jewish Standard, likewise claims that Wagner’s envy of Meyerbeer’s success “played a pivotal role in Wagner’s suddenly becoming a Jew-hater.”[17]

Numerous sources trace Wagner’s anti-Semitism to his perception that a clique of powerful Jews (led by Meyerbeer and Halévy) had thwarted the staging of his Rienzi in Paris, and “at his dependence on money lenders, mostly presumably Jewish, at this time.”[18] Carr notes that from early in his career Wagner’s profligacy “put him in hock with moneylenders who were usually Jews.” Already in Magdeburg where he courted his first wife Minna, “he railed at having to deal with the ‘Jewish scum’ because ‘our people’ offered no credit. In Paris he pawned his goods to Jews and did work he felt was menial for, amongst others, Maurice Schlesinger, a Jewish music publisher. Schlesinger’s cash helped ward off starvation but that made the struggling composer feel no better.”[19] Magee notes that the two-and-a-half years Wagner spent in Paris trying and failing to establish himself was “the worst period of deprivation and humiliation he ever had to suffer.”[20]

Invoking Freud and the Frankfurt School, the Jewish music writer Marc A. Weiner in his Richard Wagner and the Anti-Semitic Imagination, claims that: “Wagner’s vehement hatred of Jews was based on a model of projection involving a deep-seated fear of precisely those features within the Self (diminutive stature, nervous demeanour and avarice, as well as lascivious nature) that are projected upon and then recognized and stigmatized in the hated Other.”[21] Weiner’s view echoes that of the Jewish psychiatrist Theodore Rubin who views anti-Semitism as a “symbol sickness” that involves envy, low self-esteem, and projection of one’s inner conflicts onto a stereotyped other.[22]

All these various theories, where Wagner’s criticism of Jewish influence is made a scapegoat for his own psychological frustrations, vastly overemphasize the irrational sources of prejudice and effectively serve to “clothe the Jews in defensive innocence.”[23] According to these theories, anti-Jewish statements are never rational, but invariably the product of a warped mind, while Jewish critiques of Europeans and their culture always have a thoroughly rational basis.

Another well-worn theory has it that Wagner may have been part-Jewish, and that his anti-Semitism was his way of dealing this unedifying prospect (a variation of the “self-hating Jew” hypothesis). It is claimed that Wagner’s biological father was not his presumed father, the police registrar Friedrich Wagner who died of typhus shortly after Wagner’s birth, but his stepfather, the successful actor and painter Ludwig Geyer. However, there is no evidence that Geyer had any Jewish roots. In his biography of Wagner, John Chancellor states plainly that he had none, and that: “He [Geyer] claimed the same sturdy descent as the Wagners. His pedigree also went back to the middle of the seventeenth century and his forefathers were also, for the most part, organists in small Thuringian towns and villages.”[24] Magee is even more categorical, stating that: “Geyer was not Jewish, and it had never occurred to anyone who knew him to think that he might be. He came from a long line of church musicians; for generations his forebears had been Lutheran cantors and organists in the town of Eisleben. There was nothing Jewish about his appearance that might have misled people who were ignorant of his background.”[25]

Chancellor blames Friedrich Nietzsche for first raising the question of Geyer’s possible Jewishness to add extra sting to his charge of illegitimacy, after the philosopher famously fell out with Wagner after years of close friendship. In his 1888 book Der Fall Wagner (The Case of Wagner) Nietzsche claimed that Wagner’s father was Geyer, and made the pun that “Ein Geyer ist beinahe schon ein Adler” (A vulture is almost an eagle) — Geyer also being the German word for a vulture and Adler being a common (but not exclusively) Jewish surname. Magee, while agreeing that Nietzsche undoubtedly intended to rile Wagner with the suggestion of his possible Jewish ancestry, believes Nietzsche’s words also represented a jibe of a quite different kind.

Wagner, a provincial with a regional accent, a lower-middle class family background, and a long personal history of penury, had risen late in life to walk with kings and emperors; and somewhere along the way (strikingly reminiscent of Shakespeare, this, as so often) he allotted himself a coat of arms. This was revealingly (it shows what he thought his descent was), the “Geyer” coat of arms, prominently featuring a vulture against the shield while the kings and emperors would have been displaying their royal or imperial eagles. I think it is more than likely that Nietzsche was being sarcastic about Wagner’s self-promotion to the arms-bearing ranks of society with his “a vulture is almost an eagle.”[26]

If, as has been often claimed, Wagner was concerned with denying the possibility that Geyer may have been his father (because of Geyer’s possible Jewish ancestry), why would he have adopted the Geyer coat of arms and insist it be prominently displayed on the cover of his autobiography? This obvious fact apparently did not deter Gutman who contended that Richard Wagner and his wife Cosima tried to outdo each other in their anti-Semitism because they both had Jewish roots to conceal. While offering no proof whatsoever that Geyer was Jewish, Gutman maintained that Wagner in his later years discovered letters from Geyer to his mother which led him to suspect that Geyer was his biological father, and that Geyer might have been Jewish. Wagner’s anti-Semitism was, according to Gutman, his way of dealing with the fear that people would think he was Jewish. Derek Strahan recycles this discredited theme in a recent article, noting that:

Geyer’s affair with Wagner’s mother pre-dated the death of Wagner’s presumed father, Friedrich Wagner, a Police Registrar who was ill at the time young Richard was conceived, and who died six months after his birth. Soon after this, Wagner’s mother Johanna married Ludwig Geyer. Richard Wagner himself was known as Richard Geyer until, at the age of 14, he had his name legally changed to Wagner. Apparently he had taken some abuse at school because of his Jewish-sounding name. Could his later anti-Semitism have been motivated, at least in part, by sensitivity to this abuse, and by a kind of pre-emptive denial to prevent difficulties and suffering arising from prejudice?[27]

According to the only evidence we have on this point (Cosima’s diaries, 26 December 1868) Wagner “did not believe” that Ludwig Geyer was his real father. Cosima did, however, once note a resemblance between Wagner’s son Siegfried and a picture of Geyer.[28] Pursuing the theme that anyone who expresses antipathy toward Jews must be psychologically unhealthy, Solomon draws a parallel between Wagner and Adolf Hitler in that: “Both feared they had Jewish paternity, which led to fierce denial and destructive hatred.”[29] For Magee, these theories, which are now widely entrenched in the Wagner literature, are the “crassest falsehood,” and: “The idea that Geyer might have been Jewish, or even that Wagner thought that he might have been, is pure fabrication, distilled nonsense.”[30]

Notes

[1] Richard Wagner, “Hero-dom and Christianity,” trans. by William Ashton Ellis, In: Richard Wagner’s Prose Works Vol. 6 (London: 1897; repr. 1966), 275–84, http://users.belgacom.net/wagnerlibrary/prose/waghero.htm

[2] Richard Wagner, “Know Thyself,” trans. by William Ashton Ellis, In: Richard Wagner’s Prose Works Vol. 6 (London: 1897; repr. 1966), 264–74, http://users.belgacom.net/wagnerlibrary/prose/wagknow.htm

[3] Quoted in Paul Lawrence Rose, German Question/Jewish Question, 361.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Larry Solomon, “Wagner and Hitler,” http://solomonsmusic.net/WagHit.htm

[6] Brenton Sanderson, “Jews and Race: A Pre-Boasian Perspective,” The Occidental Observer, February 1, 2012, http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2012/02/jews-and-race-a-pre-boasian-perspective/

[7] MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents, 57.

[8] Ibid., 54.

[9] Daniel Barenboim, “Wagner, Israel and the Palestinians,” http://www.danielbarenboim.com/index.php?id=72

[10] Richard Wagner, “Know Thyself,” Ibid.

[11] Magee, Wagner and Philosophy, 352.

[12] Quoted in Martin Kitchen, The Cambridge Illustrated History of Germany, Ibid.

[13] Christopher Nicholson, Richard and Adolf: Did Richard Wagner Incite Adolf Hitler to Commit the Holocaust (Jerusalem: Gefen Publishing House, 2007), 131.

[14] Monsalvat website, “Parsifal and Race: Wagner’s Last Card,” http://www.monsalvat.no/racism.htm

[15] Harold Schonberg, The Lives of the Great Composers (New York: W. W. Norton, 1997), 268.

[16] David P. Goldman, “Muted: Performances of Wagner’s music are effectively banned in Israel. Should they be?” Tablet, August 17, 2011, http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/music/75247/muted

[17] Warren Boroson, “Richard Wagner — The Devil Who Had Good Tunes,” Jewish Standard, August 7, 2009, 16.

[18] Michael Steen, The Lives and Times of The Great Composers (London: Icon Books, 2005), 464.

[19] Carr, The Wagner Clan, 83.

[20] Magee, Aspects of Wagner, 26.

[21] Marc A. Weiner, Richard Wagner and the Anti-Semitic Imagination (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1997), 6.

[22] Theodore Isaac Rubin, Anti-Semitism: A Disease of the Mind (New York: Barricade, 2011), 12.

[23] Quoted in MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents, 58.

[24] John Chancellor, Wagner (New York: HarperCollins, 1980), 6.

[25] Magee, Wagner and Philosophy, 358.

[26] Ibid., 360.

[27] Derek Strahan, “Was Wagner Jewish: an old question newly revisited,” http://www.revolve.com.au/polemic/wagner.html

[28] Quoted in John Deathridge, Wagner: Beyond Good and Evil (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2008), 1.

[29] Solomon, “Wagner and Hitler,” Ibid.

[30] Magee, Wagner and Philosophy, 358.

Curbing (Abolishing) Official Immunity for Federal and State Officers: Executive, Judicial, and Legislative, following where Senators Sam Ervin & Strom Thurmond of North & South Carolina led the way

The “law” of absolute judicial immunity not only cannot be found in the Constitution nor in any statute, but in fact offends the Constitution and common sense, when articulated as follows:

     Judges enjoy absolute immunity from liability for damages for acts performed in their judicial capacities.  Immunity exists for “judicial” actions; those relating to a function normally performed by a judge and where the parties understood they were dealing with the judge in his official capacity. 
      The policy behind this principle is that judges must be free to act in a manner they view proper without fear of subsequent personal liability.  This rule is deemed essential to preserve judicial independence.  
       A judge’s errors may be corrected on appeal, but he should not have to fear that dissatisfied litigants may hound him with litigation charging malice or corruption. Imposing such a burden on judges would contribute not to principled and fearless decision-making but to intimidation.
      The immunity afforded judges is quite broad and applies to all acts performed in the exercise of judicial functions. Judges are immune from liability even for corrupt or malicious acts. Liability exists only where a judge acted in the “clear absence” of all jurisdiction or performed an administrative task not embraced within the judge’s judicial duties.
Olney v. Sacramento Bar Association, 212 Cal.App.3d 807, 260 Cal.Rptr. 842 (July 28, 1989)(citations omitted).

Obviously, being a judge by these standards rights right up there with the Divine Right of Kings or even divinity itself!  Nice work if you can get it, I guess, but can we tolerate such immunity for judges, prosecutors, and even (effectively) for the police and other officers of executive and judicial function if we are to remain in any sense a free society?  “Jurisdiction” limits judicial power, as do doctrines of “judicial discretion”—but if immunity remains absolute, regardless, and only clumsy, indirect, highly technical, and cumbersome appellate remedies exist, do judges not in fact rise higher in the real power hierarchy of earth than all the gods of the Ancient Nile, Greek Olympus and Norse Valhalla combined, inferior only to the One Creator of the Universe, who for unknown reasons rarely intervenes directly in human affairs?

I oppose all sorts of official immunity: executive, legislative, and judicial, but I especially deplore and oppose absolute immunity for judges to take actions without jurisdiction which infringe upon or violate constitutional rights.  If elected to the United States Senate, I promise to fight vigorously to construe all civil rights laws to apply to judicial and prosecutorial misconduct, as well as to executive “police actions” and legislatively authorized derogations from the Bill of Rights and other fundamental constitutional protections.  I will work to strengthen and ensure the colorblind, race neutral, application and construction of 42 U.S.C. §§1983, 1985, 1986, and 1988, which the Courts currently only apply and construe in favor of African-Americans (and occasionally but atypically Hispanics or Asians) against Whites.   White Caucasian Americans must have equal rights to assert violations of their Civil Rights, even when the civil rights involve commercial,  contractual, or proprietary violations rather than race-based violations, but as I have often stated on this blog, I do contend that the judicial constructions of 28 U.S.C. §1443 and 42 U.S.C. §1981-1982 actually DO constitute race-based infringements upon the equal rights of White Caucasian Americans to invoke the provisions of these statutes in their own defense in cases of non-race-based discrimination and oppression under color of law.  But now on to the general concept of immunity, and the roles of Senators Sam Ervin and Strom Thurmond in fighting these concepts.

“POLITICAL PROCESS” labels the mechanism by which societies allocate decision-making authority.  ”AUTHORITY” means “POWER”.  ”POWER without CONSEQUENCES FOR ABUSE” defines “ABSOLUTE POWER”, and “ABSOLUTE POWER” equates (in societies possessing relatively well-developed judicial systems) with “ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY” from civil suit or criminal prosecution for official derogations, deviations, excessive use or application, infringement, or violations of any stated limits on power or action, especially when these result in the derogation, infringement, or violation of the rights or powers of others.   English Political language contains an ancient aphorism that “Absolute Power corrupts Absolutely.”  In my opinion, that aphorism needs to be expanded as a constitutional norm that “Absolute Immunity corrupts Absolutely.”  And the simple truth is that in modern America, both Federal and State Officers, Executive, Judicial, and Legislative, possess something very close to absolutely immunity for all crimes, torts, and violations of the constitution which they may choose to commit in their “official capacity.”

This problem stands as a central focus of my life and career since at least 1995 when I first perceived that Family Court Judges in Texas possessed unreasonable power and discretion to infringe on the Constitutional rights of litigants in family court actions, and that the law itself, through such hopelessly vague concepts as the statutory power of Family Court Judges to rule “in the best interests of the child” when a marriage is “irretrievably broken” constituted a wild derogation from the constitutional norms of due process of law applicable in every other field.  ”Best interests of the child”, and/or “irretrievably broken” as formally enacted statutory norms, constitute extreme legislative breaches and violation of constitutional rights to due process and equal protection, in my humble opinion.

On February 15, 2012, an opinion came down from a Florida District Court of Appeal which reversed a final decision rendered 19 days after my fiftieth birthday in 2010, on the grounds that “the circuit court did not have jurisdiction to render a final order disposing of the case.”  ”A trial court lacks jurisdiciton to render a final order while an appeal from a non-final order in the same case is pending and, if the trial court does so, the final order is a nullity.”  ”A trial court may proceed in a cause pending a non-final appeal and dispose of any matter not in form or effect interfering with the power and authority of the appellate court to make its jurisdiction effective, but the trial court may do so only short of final disposition.”  “This may all sound like legal gobbledegook to some…but jurisdiction is not a question a court can take or leave, and a judgment entered without jurisdiction is void.”  Many other aspects of this case offer promise and possess extreme interest to all who care deeply about the Constitution as a guiding light for the life of the United States of America, but those aspects must await the briefing of a Motion for Rehearing and, eventually, remand to the Circuit Court from whence this particular appeal arose.

In citing and quoting this very recent decision of an intermediate appellate court in Florida, I mean only to ask the question: should a judge so described by his immediate court of appeals not be held personally liable for acting in the complete absence of jurisdiction?  If his actions caused harm, why should any immunity at all attach to “judicial conduct” undertaken without jurisdiction, since “jurisdiction is not a question a court can take or leave, and a judgment entered without jurisdiction is void.”  

Only the bravest and most eccentric and idiosyncratic of all recent politicians have ever dared to confront the question of immunity head on.  Among these are Sam Ervin and Strom Thurmond.

The Senatorial career of North Carolina Senator Sam Ervin began and ended with questions of legislative and executive immunity, respectively, which rocked the nation between 1954 and 1974, respectively, namely the investigations into the conduct of Wisconsin Senator Joseph Raymond McCarthy (1908-1957) and President Richard Milhous Nixon (1913-1994).

Ervin’s 1954 role in leading to the censure of Senator McCarthy for making irresponsible allegations constitutes a curious (and effectively unique) abrogation of or exception to the most basic and fundamental concepts of “legislative immunity” in that McCarthy’s conduct which Ervin’s inquiry deemed “censurable” occurred almost entirely in the context of Senate Debate’s and proceedings, and consisted entirely of verbal conduct.  In that sense, McCarthy’s censure differed from all but one of the other nine censures rendered by the Senate in United States history, which mostly commonly have concerned non-debate related issues such as financial irregularities (Hiram Bingham 1929, Thomas J. Todd 1967, Herman Talmadge 1979, and David Durenberger 1990), physically fighting on the Senate Floor (Benjamin R. Tillman and John L. McLaurin 1902) and breaches of secrecy (Timothy Pickering 1811 and Benjamin Tappan 1844).  Of these eight, only Pickering’s conduct, a breach of secrecy during 1811, actually occurred on the Senate floor during Senate debates, and even so was only very vaguely comparable to the censure against McCarthy.  Senator Sam Ervin’s role in leading the censure of McCarthy is notable as the most severe censure ever for conduct almost clearly within the meaning of the Constitution’s Article I “debates” clause (protecting members of the U.S. House and Senate as “be[ing] privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Session of their Respective Houses, and in going to and from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”  In this connexion I consider Ervin’s role in prosecuting McCarthy historymaking: it shows (or at least suggests) that members of Congress must be held responsible for their role in obstructing or interfering with justice (and other constitutional rights) even while participating in senate proceedings.

As important and historical as Ervin’s early work with the investigation of Joseph McCarthy may have been), Ervin achieved immortality by his monumental and most memorable role on the world stage as Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Watergate, 1973-1974. Richard Milhous Nixon’s extremely ambiguous place in United States and World history began as a communist-baiter (in the House, largely contemporaneous with McCarthy’s in the Senate), but ended as a communist-appeaser (seeking “Detente” with the Soviet Union and beginning the “sellout” of America to Maoist China), whom the Senate (including Republicans such as Barry Goldwater) forced to resign because of a twisted and bizarre serial episode of abuses of Presidential power in connexion with the Watergate Scandal.  Senator Sam Ervin earned worldwide reverence as  advocate for the nation’s conscience while this writer was in High School in Hollywood, California.  Senator Sam Ervin’s final year in the Senate oversaw the collapse of the Nixon Presidency, in large part due to Sam Ervin’s commitment AGAINST Executive Privilege (as Nixon referred to his claim of immunity from prosecution or even inquiry regarding his domestic actions taken as President against American citizens in the name of National Security).

As an aside, I pledge that if I should achieve election to the United States Senate—Senator Sam Ervin would serve as my role-model on almost every issue.  I would fight both legislative and executive immunity and simultaneously uphold the Bill of Rights against all legislative infractions including the “no knock” laws which Ervin fought, which have now become routine nationwide.  Ervin, like his South Carolina cohort Strom Thurmond, feared the advent of the Police State in America long before it became fashionable or even acceptable to do so among most of the Southern and Western U.S. Middle Class—who have a terrible habit of confusing and conflating their perfectly reasonable political opposition to cultural social change with a need for legal repression and suspension of the Constitution.   All constitutionalists must deplore such confusion and conflation, for without the Constitutional protections for our freedom, no hope remains for our traditional cultural or social norms whatsoever.

Now, ironically enough, everything that Nixon did (and covered up) during Watergate is now not only legal, in the aftermath of Federal “National Security” legislation passed in 1996-2011), but Nixon’s (and his White House staff’s) conduct and career of constitutional infringements and violations pales and seems of little consequence or importance compared with what President’s now have “statutory authority” to do.  The recent National Defense Authorization Act, in particular, provides legislative statutory authority for the president to order “indefinite detention” of “terrorists” which (as a pair of connected concepts subject to wildly abusive application) is exactly analogous to the vaguest provisions of family law mentioned above regarding judicial authority to rule and render in the “best interests of the child” whenever a marriage is “irretrievably broken.”

I have in any event focused on the career of North Carolina Senator Sam Ervin because he was one of my first “media heroes” and I first dreamed of studying and applying myself to the resuscitation of American Constitutional Law while watching him preside over the Watergate hearings.

Less known and less famous (and much less politically correct in the modern context) to celebrate is Senator Sam Ervin’s role as the co-author of the “Southern Manifesto” with Senators Strom Thurmond of South Carolina and Richard Russell of Georgia.   The “politically correct” way to look at this document requires calling it a reactionary racist response to Brown v. Board of Education and the subsequent orders of the Supreme Court of the United States requiring school desegregation.  But forced desegregation and integration caused social chaos, first in the South, and only slightly later in the North, causing murderous race-riots even in such “liberal” citadels as Boston, Massachusetts through the mid-1970s.   Just as I have often observed that Brazil never experienced anything approaching the level of racial hatred or tensions known in the United States, precisely because emancipation took place gradually and without force there in the Brazilian Empire (and in fact in every nation of the Americas EXCEPT first Haiti and then the United States), the use of force to accelerate the implementation of social change is almost always destructive.

The authors of the Southern Manifesto saw this destructive waive being unleashed by the Supreme Court in America, and they also perceived, correctly, that pitting black against white constituted a means of destabilizing society and increasing the power of the Federal government (in particular) over the people, and of accelerating the empowerment of the police state.

The authors of the Southern Manifesto against forced school-integration rightly focused their criticisms on Chief Justice Earl Warren.

As I like to point out, Earl Warren’s life-long commitment to civil rights manifested itself early on in his career as Attorney General and Governor of California when he supervised the hateful and purposeless, in fact counterproductive, internment of hundreds of thousands of (as the newsreels of the time and even early “Batman” movies recited over and over again) “shifty-eyed Japs”, the Second Generation or “Nisei” as they called themselves during World War II.

In any event, Senators Sam Ervin and Strom Thurmond led the ultimately failing Southern Resistance against Earl Warren’s Court and what became, effectively, America’s Second “War Between the States”, although this time more ink spilled in the Courtrooms than blood on the streets.

For purposes of this present topic of immunity, I will end with my repeated hymn of praise to Senator Strom Thurmond for his crafty drafting of the 1996 Amendments to the Civil Rights Action, 42 U.S.C. §§1983, 1988(a).   The United States had handed down its most dramatic and emphatic “anti-Judicial Immunity” opinion in 1984, in the decision of Pulliam v. Allen, which has been my personal favorite Supreme Court decision for more than a quarter of a century now.  Pulliam v Allen 466 US 522 104 SCt 1970 80 LEd2d 565 (May 14 1984).  In 1996, Strom Thurmond proposed a relatively minor amendment to 42 U.S.C. §§1983 & 1988 to clarify the application of this provision to judicial officers.  Under Thurmond’s leadership, Congress amended the Civil Rights Statute to clarify that judges would only be liable for judicial actions taken “clearly in excess of jurisdiction” in the statute, and this language exactly tracks Justice Blackmun’s language in his opinion in Pulliam v. Allen (footnote 12) which reviews the tradition of limiting judicial immunity to matters “clearly within their cognizance” or “clearly within their jurisdiction”, in full (Blackmun here was in fact quoting Blackstone!).  Writing of the Judges of England, Blackstone in Volume 3 of his commentaries at pages 112-113 stated that if these Judges,

in handling of matters clearly within their cognizance, they transgress the bounds prescribed to them by the laws of England; as where they require two witnesses to prove the payment of a legacy, a release of tithes, or the like; in such cases also a prohibition will be awarded. For, as the fact of signing a release, or of actual payment, is not properly a spiritual question, but only allowed to be decided in those courts, because incident or accessory to some original question clearly within their jurisdiction; it ought therefore, where the two laws differ, to be decided not according to the spiritual, but the temporal law; else the same question might be determined different ways, according to the court in which the suit is depending: an impropriety, which no wise government can or ought to endure, and which is therefore a ground of prohibition. And if either the judge or the party shall proceed after such prohibition, an attachment may be had against them, to punish them for the contempt, at the discretion of the court that awarded it; and an action will lie against them, to repair the party injured in damages.

The Southern Manifesto co-authored by Sam Ervin & Strom Thurmond (and Richard Russell?) did not expressly cite Blackstone but began:

The unwarranted decision of the Supreme Court in the public school cases is now bearing the fruit always produced when men substitute naked power for established law.  The Founding Fathers gave us a Constitution of checks and balances because they realized the inescapable lesson of history that no man or group of men can be safely entrusted with unlimited power. They framed this Constitution with its provisions for change by amendment in order to secure the fundamentals of government against the dangers of temporary popular passion or the personal predilections of public officeholders.”

The consequences of this language include the assertion that public officeholders (including judges) must be liable for the consequences and injuries caused by their derogations from and violations of “established law.”  Just as in the recent Florida case decided above, where a judge enters a decision in violation of well-and-long established law relating to jurisdiction and scope of authority, that Judge renders nothing but a personal statement with personal consequences, for which that Judge should be personally liable.
I ask here: should any Judge enjoy immunity from prosecution for civil rights violations and/or suit for civil rights violations when that judge violates the letter of the Constitution, especially when a litigant points out that violation to the Court and no excuse (such as a Constitutionally declared war or surprise invasion) exists to suspend the Constitution temporarily…. and temporarily only… I have often had occasion to refer to 1996 USCCAN 4216-4217 which affirms that these amendments do not establish absolute immunity for judges.  I submit that Strom Thurmond authored the 1996 Amendments to the Civil Rights Action to ensure that Judges (like Chief Justice Earl Warren) could and would be held liable for their actions taken “clearly in excess of jurisdiction.”  Unfortunately, to date, neither the State nor Federal Courts have recognized the importance of these amendments, and continue to enforce Absolute Judicial Immunity.
The doctrine of “qualified immunity” also arose out of Watergate, particularly in the case of Mitchell v. Forsythe, 472 U.S. 511 (June 19, 1985) in which the Supreme Court limited former Attorney General John Mitchell to merely “qualified immunity” rather than “absolute immunity.”  Oddly enough, the standard the Supreme Court applied to the Attorney General of the United States involved a determination of what a “reasonable person” would know about the law (reasonably or unreasonably, most people in the United States today know almost nothing about the law, which explains why lawyers run amok and control the country).  Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the Attorney General of the United States would enjoy qualified immunity, “so long as his actions do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”
         Rather unsurprisingly, in practice, interlocutory appeal of any and every trial court determinations of qualified immunity plus a very pro-defense, anti-plaintiff judiciary means that even for prosecutors and police officers, “qualified immunity” is difficult to distinguish from “absolute immunity.” 

I know that my critics often accuse me of writing overly long-and-windy commentaries on my blog, and I suppose this will constitute one of my more offensive pieces.  I submit that the American public have become too used to short sound bytes and non-analytical thinking, and I hope I can encourage a more “in depth” and historically-based approach here.

Regarding legislative immunity, I recently discovered a very interesting and historically based article by a journalist name Chuck Murphy (Colorado Constitution and History of Legislative Immunity):

Murphy: Colorado’s legislative immunity rooted in 17th century England

Blame it on King Charles I.

He dissolved Parliament, made Oliver Cromwell famous and is as responsible as anyone for the get-out-of-jail-free card Rep. Laura Bradford of Mesa County used last week.

Bradford, R-Collbran, was pulled over Wednesday night on suspicion of driving while intoxicated after a Denver officer saw her make an improper lane change. But after failing a roadside sobriety test, Bradford mentioned that she was on her way home after a legislative function at a Colfax Avenue bar.

Those were the magic words.

Article V, Section 16 of the Colorado Constitution says:

“The members of the general assembly shall, in all cases except treason or felony, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the sessions of their respective houses, or any committees thereof, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either house, or any committees thereof, they shall not be questioned in any other place.”

That’s where Charles comes in.

By the time he took the crown in 1625, England had a robust Parliament and Charles was determined to put them in their place. He declared the divine right of the king to rule as he chose, and, after a series of confrontations, dissolved Parliament. Four years later, he did it again — and this time, he put much of the body’s leadership in prison. He was eventually defeated by Cromwell and lost his head — literally.

Say this for Brits — they have long memories.

It was 60 years later when Charles’ second son, James II (Dismal Jimmy), ascended to the throne. He wanted to impose Catholic rule on a deeply skeptical nation, and it did not go well. Within four years, he was deposed by his daughter Mary, and her husband, William of Orange. They are better known today as William and Mary.

Parliament had invited them to take over, but with certain conditions, partly based on the naughty behavior of Charles I. One of those was the 1688 Bill of Rights, which said in part:

“That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;

“That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal;”

And…

“That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.”

A couple hundred years went by before 1876, when Colorado was working on its latest version of a state constitution designed to get us admitted to the union. By then, we had the U.S. Constitution and the work of several other states to crib from, including an 1859 effort from Kansas:

“For any speech or debate in either house, the members shall not be questioned elsewhere. No member of the Legislature shall be subject to arrest — except for felony or breach of the peace — in going to or returning from the place of meeting, or during the continuance of the session; neither shall be he subject to the service of any civil process during the session, nor for fifteen days previous to its commencement.”

Look familiar? It all leaps right out of 17th-century England.

Now, say what you will about Gov. John Hickenlooper — he is impetuous, and he does on occasion show signs of a temper — but he is not about to lock up members of the legislature, not even the House, if he doesn’t get his way. I’m certain of it.

These immunity clauses exist in a majority of state constitutions today (legislators know a good thing when they see it). Arizona has discussed getting rid of theirs after their former Senate majority leader avoided arrest on a domestic-violence charge by invoking legislative immunity. His girlfriend was arrested while he went home, provoking well-placed outrage.

Legislators have no right to any protections not enjoyed by every other citizen, period, and most don’t avail themselves of this constitutional provision anyway. Even Bradford denies that she intended to avoid arrest by mentioning where she was coming from.

So who in Colorado’s legislature will take up the charge to rid our constitution of this anachronism? We amend the document all the time, with mixed results, but this seems like a no-brainer in an election year.

All it takes is a proposal to get it on the ballot. A majority of Coloradans just might go along.

Chuck Murphy: 303-954-1829, cmurphy@denverpost.comortwitter.com/cmurphydenpost

Read more:Murphy: Colorado’s legislative immunity rooted in 17th century England – The Denver Posthttp://www.denverpost.com/murphy/ci_19849376#ixzz1mpThOiJt
Read The Denver Post’s Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse

Symbolic Attacks, Disasters, and Massacres as Political Manipulation and Staged Ritual “Historical Metaphors” of “Mythic Realities”

http://www.les-attentats-du-11-septembre-vus-par-une-conspirationniste.com/photo-1984814-10-NYT-1921_jpg.html

(Don’t worry….Almost all of the posts in this link are in English). The French seem far more sophisticated in understanding conspiracies and lies in government than the Americans or British… The Classical Structuralist, father of modern French theoretical anthropology and student of mythology and comparative religion (Claude Lévi-Strauss’ inspiration and predecessor), Georges Dumézil wrote about this phenomenon in myth and legend in the 1920s one book and a separate review article, “Le crime des Lemniennes: rites et légends du monde égéen,” (1924), and “De quelques faux massacres,” Revue turque d’anthropologie (1927).

So is all the world a stage, and is “official” world (political) history nothing but staged ritual “historical metaphors” of “mythic realities?”  Such an interpretation is consistent with the studies not only of Dumézil but of more recent structuralist anthropologists Clifford Geertz and Marshall Sahlins.  It is perhaps because of the French leadership in the structured study of mythology that they understand political realities so much better than the more idealistic British and American populations.   The French population is increasingly turning towards Marine Le Pen and the Front National while the American electorate apparently ignores Ron Paul and 9-11 truthers as “delusional” in Newt Gingrich’s cynical words….

The problem is that in the modern world, we expect “news” to be “true” and our expectation that the Government is honest with us is so great that most people do not consider very deeply the possibility that the government is den of lying thieving criminals who go into government precisely because they know that this is the one business, where the criminal mind is rewarded most extravagantly, with the least possible consequences…  I honestly cannot say I ever believed the 9-11 mythology, but I have never seen such a convincing array of data that the figure of 6,000,000 murdered in the concentration camps was in fact a pre-fabricated mythological number itself.  The significance of this array of newspaper quotes and articles is hard to contradict.  I am totally open to anyone who wants to dispute the possibility that all these predictions of 6,000,000 deaths and the final figure of 6,000,000 after WWII is merely a coincidence.  I have neither the time or the inclination to go into deep historical research about this point myself, but I believe that this is an excellent example of historical revisionist research—in that it suggests, even if it does not prove conclusively, that the “historical” fact was envisioned first as a “mythic reality”, and then enacted, and performed and the incorporated into “constitutional” mythology—which no one ever dares to challenge.  

This is a valid rendition of a structural anthropological theory to explain a modern historical and political pattern…. from the destruction of the Battleship Maine to the Bombing of Pearl Harbor to  the Tonkin Gulf Incident and finally…. all the events of the decade between Ruby Ridge in 1992 and 9-11-2001…

Now that Freedom has been Outlawed, only Outlaws will be Free (and yes, I’m one of them!) FREE THE CITIZENS OF PRISON PLANET!

Is a Felony Indictment a Shame? A reason to deny voting or civil rights? Or is it a Red Badge of Honor? Remember that Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee, among others, for endorsing their firm belief in the Constitution of Limited Government, were both deprived the right to vote and their civil rights, and even the right to call themselves Citizens of the United States after the forced annexation and re-integration of the South after 1865.

Now, in these days of the 21st century when arrest and detention without charges, trial, appeal, or habeas corpus have been authorized by Congress and signed by the President, much as they were in the period 1861-1865, I submit to you that we are ALL either criminals or members of the oppressive elite or (in the cases of 99% of the elite) BOTH! It is time to recognize that freedom has been outlawed, and now only outlaws will be free, so being a criminal and being a Patriot have merged more closely and completely than at any time since 1776. We must all risk the King’s Hangman and Gallows if we are ever to call ourselves “Free” again….Damn the Establishment! Damn the Government! Bring it all down, now…. by voting for those who will free the citizens of Prison Planet.

A friend commented (on Facebook) after the Presidential Primary Debate held on Monday, January 16, 2012:

Santorum stands by his decision to restore felons right to vote – Santorum lost my vote!

A few comments were in order, I thought, and since this is a year in which I am running for office and talking about honesty and openness in government, it is a story which I cannot tell too often:

I am writing to you “off-screen” about your latest post on Facebook—about Santorum and whether felons should be allowed to vote. It’s a subject regarding which I have very strong feelings and if you’ll study my blog (http://charleslincoln3.com/about I think you’ll see why. You see, my Dear Tabitha, you have a convicted Felon among your Facebook friends. If you’re embarrassed by that fact and wish to “unfriend me”, I would perfectly understand, but you see, the law and morality are totally out of joint—in fact, they have nothing to do with each other, in fact, I would say that, up to a point, all Patriots have a DUTY to disobey the law. Again—if this makes you feel uncomfortable or sounds too radical for you, I will understand, but I hope not. Here is my “true confession” to you, gentle Tabitha: I was convicted of the heinous “felony” of misstating two digits out of my social-security number in an application for a non-interest bearing checking account. This was all part of a ploy to disbar me in Texas—I had become MUCH too inconvenient a person to be allowed to continue to practice law, but they knocked me down over and over again, in spite of that. They made up all sorts of other garbage that they put into a five count indictment back in December 1999, but it was of no avail—the Defense Attorney whom I ultimately hired burst out laughing when he read the indictment, it was so bad. But they wanted to get rid of me, I had an 7-8 year old son and was still (at that time) married to his mother, and she didn’t want her son’s father to face trial–and frankly, since it was all “Front Page” news in Austin back then, she wasn’t sure she could stand the publicity of trial, so I took a plea bargain (trade off: no jail-time at all, a trivial fine, but I would give up my license). Ayn Rand had predicted this state of affairs in the 1940s when she pointed out that soon, there would be enough crimes that any person, at any time, could be convicted of anything, and locked away. Of course, under NDAA now, they don’t have to go to that trouble. I would like to publish this reply on your front page but if it would embarrass you for everyone to know you had a Fiendish Felonious Friend on Facebook, I wouldn’t want to do that to you. But the simple truth is this: most people in prison, especially Federal Prison, are individuals you would like to know in your daily life, that you would be proud to introduce to your friends and neighbors at Sunday dinner. They are mostly non-conformists and dissenters of various kinds. They were targeted by people in power, either to increase the power of those who already had it, or the wealth of those who already had it. Most inmates in prison are a threat, yes, but NOT to you—they are threats to the government and the less than 1% of the power elite that controls our nation and the world. If you’d like to discuss this with me further, we could do so, you could write to me at lincoln_for_california@rocketmail.com, and maybe we could even talk (my telephone number is 512-968-2500). I would urge you, whatever you do, to consider that the greatest criminals of our time are in charge of the United States Government, including the Courts, including the Courts of Florida even. Beware of the idea that there is any “justice” in the criminal justice system, and reflect on this question: in any application for any document, is it possible that you ever transposed two digits of your social security number or wrote down the wrong number, when everything else was right on the application? Is it possible you would have even done this while opening a new bank account? If you are positive you have never misstated your social security number, I would ask you—how CAN you be so sure? (That is the “felony” of which I was convicted… I hope you will not judge me too harshly…

“Behold El Capitan,” “Remember the Maine,” Guy Fawkes’ Day, September 11, and the Culture of Deception

Some of my happiest days as an undergraduate at Tulane University were spent in Dixon Hall under the tutelage of my voice and singing instructor Francis Monachino, long-time Chairman of the Tulane & Newcomb Music Departments and a great and inspiring teacher.

My first part in any major production at Tulane was as “Senor Amibile Pozzo, Chamberlain of Peru” in John Philip Sousa’s Comic Operetta El Capitán (Premiered in April 1896 in Boston & New York). I never realized it at the time, but this comedy had great historical significance, and may have played a part in launching 20th Century America’s Culture of Deceit and Deception.

The plot is pure farce, on its face: “El Capitán” is in fact Don Enrique Medigua, a fictional Spanish Viceroy of Peru, which was in reality the richest of all the dominions in the New World, whose production of gold, silver, and agricultural products far outstripped even Mexico during the 16th, 17th, and 18th Centuries. Don Medigua fears assassination by rebels, and secretly arranges for the murder of the (real) rebel leader known as “El Capitán” (so the real rebel leader plays no part in the operetta). Unbeknownst to the rebels or anyone except his Chamberlain Pozzo, Don Medigua disguises himself as El Capitán and sabotages the rebel movement from within, but not before allowing the beautiful Estrelda, daughter of the former Viceroy, to fall madly in love with him based on his reputation as a fierce terrorist and warrior. Don Medigua’s actual wife and daughter think he has been kidnapped by the rebels and have Pozzo pretend to be the Viceroy so that the Spanish born Aristocrats of Peru will not lose hope and despair. An enterprising band of rebels then capture Pozzo, believing him to be the real Viceroy, and bring him before El Capitán who is, of course by this time in something of a pickle. But Don Medigua disguised as El Capitán has so completely exhausted the rebels by his “mis-leadership” that the rebellion collapses, the Spanish nobility wins, and the story ends “happily.”

A thought that never occurred to me when I was playing Pozzo at 16 (to Anthony Laciura’s brilliant performance as Don Medigua/El Capitán) now seems so obvious to me: was it mere coincidence that the most popular writer of military marches in American history composed this operetta less than two years before the sinking of the Battleship USS Maine in Havana Harbor on February 15, 1898. Most historians now concur that the Maine, the second armoured cruiser (pre-dreadnought Battleship) in the U.S. Navy, was deliberately sunk by its crew for the sole purpose of inciting American popular opinion in favor of America’s first “World Wide War” of expeditionary conquest (i.e., the direct precursor of Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq). El Capitán exemplifies the literary, historical, and/or dramatic trope that certain ideas appear first as a comic joke and then are later taken seriously: if John Philip Sousa’s operetta was not the template for the sinking of the Maine, it is nevertheless a remarkable historical coincidence that Don Medigua first murders and then impersonates his enemy in order to defeat him in a popular drama that was still playing all over the United States when the USS Maine blew up.

And yes, I write all this at the close of Guy Fawkes’ Day, November 5, 2011: Remember, Remember the Fifth of November, the Gunpowder Treason and Plot; I know of no reason why the Gunpowder Treason should ever be forgot. I like to pat myself on the back and brag that no sooner had Osama bin Laden been named as the perpetrator of 9-11 than I predicted with great confidence that he was the new Gunpowder Plotter, and that 9-11 was the new 5th of November. I predicted that bin Laden’s name would endure forever beside Guy Fawkes, but unfortunately, I had no role in producing the amazing movie based on that theme which came out in 2005, on the 400th Anniversary of the original Gunpowder plot in 1605.

V-for-Vendetta remains, to my mind, probably the finest political movie of the century, and I mean the past hundred years since the beginning of the cinematic film industry, not just the 21st Century in which we have lived for barely 11 years. Natalie Portman and Hugo Weaving marvelously portray the principle characters in this story which explores all the possibilities of the use of the Guy Fawkes gunpowder story, and this movie has in turn given a new birth of metaphoric and dimensional analysis to the study of false flag attacks, false heroism, and the role of government as “first among all liars.”

There is not a shred of doubt that the movie V-for-Vendetta is the story of 9-11, metaphorically, allegorically, fictionalized as Britain under a pseudo-Fascist (Adam Sutler, whose name is awfully reminiscent of Adolph Hitler) instead of the United States of America under a pseudo-Republican (George W. Bush), in future time rather than historical, but with so many direct references to 9-11 and associated events…. well, it’s just incredible.

Also incredible to me is that the Wikipedia article on V-for-Vendetta does not even mention the parallels between the Sutler regime’s use of false-flag bioterrorism against the British people and the (9-11 “Truth Movement’s” theory that the) Bush regime used false-flag air terrorism against the American people. To me, the parallels are inescapable: the producers of V-for-Vendetta analyzed the same facts concerning recent history as those which gave rise to the 9-11 Truth Movement and came to the conclusion that terrorism originates not (primarily anyhow) with real Muslim extremists but with governments who see the “genius” of fear and use it against their own people to suppress civil liberties and maintain power.

The Muslim terrorists (in both North American and Western European modern history and V-for-Vendetta mythology), to the extent that they are real, are rather like Guy Fawkes in the 17th century. Modern Muslim terrorists, like Papist plotters of the past, have great value as symbols and embodiments of a real but rather vague threat to the national identity which justify the use and maintenance of real power. The Papist threat in England could only materialize when it comes in the form of a Catholic King (like King James II Stuart, grandson of James I, against whom Guy Fawkes allegedly plotted, and younger brother of Charles II who had no legitimate offspring [although he had literally dozens of illegitimate children by his mistresses]. The tumultuous history of 17th Century Stuart England focused on the maintenance of royal power through popular fear of Catholicism, balanced against royal fear of popular power manifested through Cromwell’s Civil War and Commonwealth (including the Regicide/Martyrdom Murder/Execution of King Charles I on January 31, 1649 after a preposterous “show” trial of the King for treason) and finally the “Glorious Revolution” of 1688-1689 which firmly established the modern Constitutional Monarchy of Great Britain ruled by Parliament.

In Adam Sutler’s England, like George Bush’s America, maintaining fear of Muslims among the people supported the repression of the historical “English Freedoms” secured under Elizabeth I, James I, Charles II, and William III & Mary II. If there are real fears of Muslim domination in America, they are coming to fruition under George W. Bush’s successor, “Barack Hussein Obama” whose name resoundingly echoes both “Osama” (bin Ladin, the modern Guy Fawkes) and the former dictator of Iraq whom George W. Bush decided to eliminate to maximize control over a nation which simply did not accept the “Bush doctrine” of Global government under US control.

Any way you look at it: elaborate governmental lies concerning faked attacks and falsified heroes have been used to justify strong central governments for a very long time now. It is hard to say whether the original Gunpowder Plot was real or staged. The “November 5″ plot on King James I and his wife and Court MIGHT have been real, and if so, it was a REALLY stupid plot (there was not enough Gunpowder under the houses of Parliament or any other explosive technology available in 1605 to have blown through and killed the King). Even if successful, the plotters had no Papist “nominee” lined up to become King of England on King James’ death, and James’ eldest son at the time, the future Charles I, was only two weeks short of five years old on November 5, 1605. (But admittedly, if James AND his children had been killed, legitimate succession at that point might have been very difficult, in that no English Monarch since Henry VIII had had any children: all of Henry Tudor’s children: Edward VI, Mary I, and Elizabeth I, died childless, possibly in part a testament to their own horror at their father’s gruesome “family and marital” life and history).

Other historians have seen Guy Fawkes as a “Patsy” (scapegoat) comparable in real role and status to Lee Harvey Oswald in the assassination of John F. Kennedy, being the “Fall Guy” for the “False Flag” Gunpowder Plot just as “9-11 Truthers” (including this writer) believe that Osama bin Laden was merely the “Patsy” for the events of 1998-2001 and afterwards which gave rise to the USA Patriot Act of 2001 and all the subsequent greatest suppressions of English and American liberties in the entire history of both nations since the reign of Henry VIII (who died 102 years and 3 days before the execution of Charles I, on January 28, 1547).

The study of “false flag” terrorism and warfare is a rising subject of historical deconstruction. It is stark testimony to the general lack of confidence people have in the U.S. government that a large number of people (polls differ) disbelieve the “official stories” of the Warren Commission concerning the events of November 1963 in Dallas, the origins of the Vietnam War in the “Gulf of Tonkin” incident the very next year, in August of 1964, and the subsequent stories of the events in the 1990s at Ruby Ridge (Idaho), Mount Carmel (Waco, Texas), Oklahoma City, the US Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, and finally 9-11 itself in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania. Pearl Harbor, the trigger for World War II, was obviously not a “False Flag” attack (there is not and has never been any doubt that the Imperial Japanese Navy was correctly identified as the culprit, and that it acted under official orders from Tokyo). But many Americans (and others worldwide) believe that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt had despaired of ever finding a politically adequate or emotionally sufficient excuse to embroil or involve the United States into World War II, and so he either expressly invited the Japanese to attack or at the very least intentionally disabled the U.S. Naval and air forces around Hawaii in early December 1941.

The governments of the United States and the United Kingdom, in this day, appear to be governments based on a culture of pure deceit and deception. All governmental pronouncements and actions should be regarded with the most stringent suspicion. As one of the newscasters says in V-for-Vendetta “we just report the news, we don’t make it up….that’s the government’s job.”

March 6, 2011—Remember the Alamo! (and Goliad too!)

What more can anyone say? ”Remember the Alamo and Goliad too!” My grandparents Helen and Alphonse Meyer took me to visit the Alamo as almost the first thing to do in Texas when I arrived to live with them in Dallas, Texas after my parents split up. This move was the first extremely strange transition in my life: my maternal grandmother Helen and her butler named Kermit went to pick me up and take me from my parents, whom my grandparents considered to be neglecting me. This was in 1966, long before the State of Texas made its is business to interfere in every possible event in every family’s life. And as unorthodox as this method of making child-custody transfer might sound to the modern reader, it might possibly have been the case that my parents were in fact neglecting me because my mother only showed up in Dallas quite a bit later, not having noticed my absence for sometime. Anyhow, all of this happened the summer after I turned six.

And so it was then that “Remember the Alamo” became the first “Patriotic Slogan” I ever remember learning. I obviously had already learned “God Save the Queen” first, but I was very young and don’t remember actually learning that particular salute. But I do remember my grandparents teaching me to Cheer outloud “Remember the Alamo” although I’m not sure where I was supposed to use this cheer or to whom I was supposed to address it. I recall my grandfather, “Al”, stopped the family at some particularly significant place around the Alamo and led us in a private family prayer for the fallen heroes.

Though himself the grandson of a British peer of the realm, my grandfather was born in Galveston and steeped in Texas history and patriotism. In his opinion, he insisted it was just as important, if not more so, to remember Colonel Fannin and the March 27 massacre at Goliad as it was to remember the Alamo, because more men died at Goliad, and they died more brutally, having been executed in cold blood. So this initial tour of South Texas in 1966 also included a trip to Goliad and finally to the San Jacinto Battlefield and the Battleship Texas.

But unlike William Barret Travis’ “I am besieged…I have sustained continual Bombardment & cannonade for 24 hours and have not lost a man….I shall never surrender or retreat” February 24, 1836 letter from the Alamo, Colonel Fannin had left no eloquent written testimonial to pass down and post on the library wall. Nor have dozens of movies been made about Fannin and Goliad, certainly nothing like John Wayne’s “The Alamo“. This great mythical movie (historians say not a single scene in the picture can be directly related to any document-based “fact”) was completed and released the year I was born in Texas (1960) on October 24, which just happened to be the day my parents arrived in London on the Queen Mary. This particular cinematic extravaganza just happened to have been made in Texas ONLY over John Wayne’s efforts and objections.

Happy Shahan was a rancher in southern Texas [Wayne’s team constructed an “Alamo Village” near Brackettville in Kinney County, on the old “Camino Real” between San Antonio and El Paso, just a few miles from the Rio Grande and Mexican Border]. …. [Shahan’s] big break came when he secured The Alamo (1960). John Wayne had originally decided to make the film in Mexico where he owned land. However, it quickly became apparent he would face a boycott from the Daughters of the Republic and it was politically expedient to make the film in Texas (Rothel, 1990: 13-15). http://www.buseco.monash.edu.au/mgt/research/working-papers/2006/wp36-06.pdf

It is one of those passing ironies of the interaction of history and myth that Wayne wanted and originally planned to film his Epic of Texas Independence in the State of Durango, Mexico, which to Wayne at least and the other producers looked much more like Texas “should” have looked in 1836 than Texas in recent times ever could have looked. John Wayne also owned a ranch in Durango and made several other films there. The point is that the reenactment of history is a matter of politically powerful myth—and apparently the Daughters of the Republic of Texas believed that to make a movie about the Alamo in Mexico would somehow be “taboo”—even though Wayne certainly would have been right in pointing out that, of course, when the Battle of the Alamo was fought, and for the three hundred years preceding the siege, Texas had been politically and legally defined (in European law and cartography at least) as part of Mexico—first as part of the the Viceroyalty of New Spain, then as part of the Empire and finally the Republic of Mexico).

There is some unfortunate documentation in the record of diaries left by certain Mexican officers that Davie Crockett in particular and other nearly legendary heroes may not have died quite as heroically as portrayed in the movies, but the simple truth is that the Texas Revolution started to defend the Mexican Constitution of 1823, and the defenders of the Alamo flew a flag to prove that point. In 1836 there was no conflict between Anglo and Hispanic (Mexican) Creoles in Texas—there was only a conflict between dictatorship and Democratic-Republican Government. Any modern attempt to recast the Texas revolution as an Anglo-Hispanic race-oriented dispute have to deal with the fact that the Texas Declaration of Independence was written by the Tecoh, Yucatan-born Mexican Statesman Ernesto de Zavala and that Texas and Yucatan both separated from Santa Ana’s Mexico and formed an independent alliance—and although both Yucatan and Texas applied for U.S. Statehood, somewhat tragically, only Texas was admitted. Yucatan Governor Justo Sierra O’Reilly made the mistake of trying to seek admission for Yucatan as a “free” state—despite the existence of a Plantation economy throughout the Peninsula—and the South at the point relied much too heavily on the Missouri Compromise of 1820 *(later declared unconstitutional in Scott v. Sanford, 1857) and did not wish to allow “free” states both south and north of the Dixie Heartland. The Yucatan Peninsula would have made a fine addition to the United States, and the Yucatec Creoles and Maya an amazing enrichment of the United States population (both White and Native American). It is easy to see how the outcome of the war of 1861-65 would have been different, if it had happened at all, had Yucatan been part of the Confederacy….instead of the most pro-Imperial province of the Hapsburg Emperor Maxmillian’s shortlived “Imperio Mexicano”.

Ernesto Zavala’s house in Merida still bears a plaque celebrating the historical contacts between Texas and Yucatan and is preserved as a historic landmark. In Texas, there is not only a “Zavala” County but also a building on the Texas State Capitol grounds, just southeast of the South Facing domed statehouse, named after him, the Zavala building—it is the State Archive and Historical Records building. During the Short-Lived Republic of Yucatan, which declared its independence (without bloodshed) in 1838, two years after Texas, Texas and Yucatan jointly developed a very small Naval force to patrol the Gulf of Mexico between Galveston and Progresso.

Justo Sierra O’Reilly’s travel to Washington applying for admission to the Union is the subject of quite a bit of writing in Mexico, and he is a controversial figure in that he was seeking (among other things) a U.S. alliance against the Maya uprising known as “The Caste War of Yucatan”. Yucatan’s separatism from Mexico preceded the U.S. War with Mexico in 1846-48, but Justo Sierra O’Reilly’s interest in seeing Yucatan admitted continued even after the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo confirmed the transfer of California, Texas, New Mexico, what is now Arizona, Nevada, and Utah to the United States in 1848. Yucatan was officially neutral in the war with the United States but many in Sierra O’Reilly’s position supported full annexation and integration, even while the stars and stripes flew over Chapultepec Castle under the immediate intendency and command of one Colonel Robert E. Lee, nephew of a signer of the Declaration of Independence in 1776. Some Mexicans regard Sierra O’Reilly as a traitor like Benedict Arnold or Aaron Burr in the U.S., but those who fly the (suppressed) flag of the independent Republic of Yucatan regard him as a hero. Justo Sierra O’Reilly wrote a very disappointed “Impresiones de un Viaje a los Estados Unidos e Canada” which used to be and probably still is in print in Yucatan, although I haven’t noticed it on the bookstore shelves in recent years. Yucatan’s separatist tendencies survived a long time after O’Reilly. Empress Carlotta, even in her madness later in life, recalled the especially warm welcome she and her ill-fated husband received in Yucatan, and there was an active separatist movement in Yucatan as late as the 1960s.

One could say that the de facto annexation of Cancun and the East Coast of Quintana Roo as an American colony (at least during Spring break, but for most of the winter tourist season) starting in 1971 was the final death blow to Yucatec separatism—in that one can now hear significantly more English spoken on the streets and beaches of Cancun than one can on the streets of Miami or Miami Beach…

Completing the First 1% of the Third Millenium….

I remember New Year’s Eve, December 31, 1999 in New Orleans—what an amazing party it was. My then 8 year old son rode on my shoulders as we were crushed among the crowds at Jackson Square. I recall we had a really good view and nearly a perfect vantage point at one early point about an hour before midnight, but got distracted by something and then by midnight we were just in the square crushed by what seemed like millions, looking at the fireworks from the Riverwalk by the Old Jax Brewery. Elena and I had discussed when deciding it was time to “get pregnant” with Charlie that it would be fun to have a child who would remember the transition between the 20th and the 21st century, and having Charlie in 1992 was almost the last chance to have such a child. Charlie was born during Hurricane Andrew in 1992 on August 23, 1992, in Palm Beach, Florida. It was an amazing event. We were on the first page of the Palm Beach Post the next day—a beautiful picture of Elena holding Charlie with me on the telephone in the background. We knew we were going to have a boy and it was a foregone conclusion he was going to be Charles Edward Lincoln IV, but we added the name “Andrew” as a second middle name, and among other oddities, the windows of St. Mary’s Hospital in West Palm Beach were all duck-taped with gigantic X-es, which on the horizontal hospital windows looked like transparent Scottish flags bearing St. Andrews’ Crosses.

This holiday vacation, as I mentioned before, is the first time since 2001-2002 that Charlie and I have been able to spend the entire Christmas and New Year’s holiday together. The fact that we have done so (in California) as well as the fact that we spent the past two summers together in Cambridge, Massachusetts, is a tribute to Elena K. Lincoln’s spirit and willingness to compromise and/or admit de facto defeat or mistake, in the face of her de jure victory in Court, which was the event or series of events which changed my life, and caused me to take the paths I have taken in life since 2002.

Yes, during the past decade, the first 1% of the Third Millenium, I dedicated my life in large part to attacking the Texas Family Code, a tradition which I continue now in Florida, and would like to begin in California. The Texas Williamson County Family Court establishment was my first great confrontation with a major establishment. The City of Lago Vista Police abuse cases in my hometown/backyard in 1997-98, which ultimately got me disbarred in the W.D. Texas and , were just a very mild warmup to what became a major anti-establishment civil rights and reform career. Lago Vista Police Chief Frank Miller and his “prize” officer Bart Turek were my first major civil rights adversaries, but I did not hate them or even particularly dislike them. They had just instituted and upheld a misguided and injurious police policy in Lago Vista. The people I came to hate were those who destroyed my family and took my son away from me for during 2002-2007, with only a few respites. I have dedicated my life to exposing the lies and the evil embodied by Williamson County Judge Michael P. Jergins, Laurie J. Nowlin, J. Randall Grimes, and Michael Davis, as well as their henchment such as the crew of psychologists including Don Jones.

But this moment, these two weeks with my son, overlooking the Pacific Ocean, with the low hills of Catalina Island in the background, is one of the sweetest moments of my life, and I thank God, and Elena for it. I should note that I invited Elena here to share this moment not once but many times. There’s enough sleeping space here for three to be in private rooms, as was proved when Peyton and Charlie were both here for Thanksgiving. But Elena demurred, preferring to go to Cancun, ironically enough, since the Yucatan Peninsula was where Elena and I met in 1985.

Anyhow, to everyone out there, I wish a glorious and prosperous New Year 2010, and I hope that whatever happens to me, Charlie, and Elena, and to everyone else, that the next decade will be as full of emotional, psychological, and spiritual growth as the past decade has been for me. In every defeat and setback I have found the inspiration to move forward and see deeper truths and meanings, and for such experiences I can only be thankful to all who gave me such opportunities, even if they meant me harm by doing so. The absolute rock bottom low-point of this decade for me was clearly the death of my grandmother Helen in May 2001. But not a day goes by that I do not recall fondly and given thanks for the century of life my grandmother enjoyed on earth and at all the time I shared with her and her husband, my grandfather Al, who predeceased her by 21 years in 1980. The high points of the decade were all spent with my son, and none were higher than our days on Harvard Square and in California.

On this beautiful New Year’s Day looking West, I remember and give thanks to all my good friends and allies during the past ten years (whether we’re in contact to this day or not), in particular to my trustee, Peyton Yates Freiman, a more honest and truer soul does not exist! I also recall my oldest friends Helen S. Carr (the only person not related to me by blood who has remembered every birthday, Christmas, and intercardinal solstice or equinox to me since the 1970s) and John K. Naland, but also to my newest best friends just made in 2009, Robert J. Ponte, Dennis & Milenne DeLeon, Renada Nadine March, and (irony of irony’s, because I first heard of her as an adversary) Lisa Liberi. In this transitory life, in this “shake and bake” world we live in, there are many people who were once important to me whom I never see anymore, even if I have not forgotten them, but I hope that my new friends from 2009 will remain with me always.

No inventory of my most steadfast friends could ever be complete without “honorable mention” of Lisa Cook, my sister-in-law in Michigan, who talked to me and understood me and listened to me for years when to do so meant that her own husband’s family (my wife Elena’s relatives) would heap scorn upon her during “the war years” when Elena was calling me “Not Family, but Cancer in the House.” Lisa was always there for me and I tried always to be there for her, even when nobody else was. Charlie’s Brazilian Godmother Helir Arlotta from Palm Beach and Tarpon Springs, Florida, falls into this same category…. I don’t have Lisa’s new telephone number (I tried to reach her over the holidays) and Helir has vanished, but we do not and will not forget each other, I’m sure.

Throughout it all, the priests at St. Luke’s-on-the-Lake in Austin provided genuine friendship and support—and I will never forget them even though I might never spend much time in Austin again. Father James P. Jameson, a fellow Harvardian, Father Philip May, and Father Mike Wyckoff were there for me (during the “war years” with Elena) when I had no one else to whom I could turn. They are true Christians, true gentlemen, and truer friends than I ever deserved. Father May was actually willing to meet with me and Charlie in secret in 2005, to provide “aid and comfort” like the Church Martyrs of old….

I remember more often that they will imagine possible the close relationship I had over three years of tumultuous conflict with my steadfast attorneys during the “War Years” (withe Elena of 2003-2006 Francis Wayne Williams Montenegro and Valorie Wells Davenport. They worked mostly for free, certainly without any profit, and their dedication to my cause was incomparable, encapsulated in Francis Williams’ statement that he would support me even if threatened with a firing squad, and I believe he meant it at the moment, even though he and Valorie, once actually faced with an “offer they couldn’t refuse” by way of extortion or a “constructive bribe” from the Deputy Texas Attorney General James Carlton Todd, Mike Davis, J. Randall Grimes, and the obviously intimidated visiting Judge James F. Clawson (who replaced Jergins after the Federal suits), ultimately gave up the struggle rather than face sanctions. Francis and Valorie also introduced me to two good people Corinne Irwin and Rod A. Dal Sasso. I remember and pray for my late father Charles Edward, Jr., who supported my struggles until he could not stand to hear about them anymore.

I remember my friends in the Southern District of Texas early mortgage note battles: Dan Swank, Jacques S. Jaikaran, Mike Palma, Robert Bruce, and David A. Sibley (who despite some ironic vicissitudes, started off a friend and returned to friendly status) from 2006 and Jon Drew Roland, my first trustee and closest friend and ally from 2004-2007.

Daniel Louis Simon of Liberty Hill joined my crusade against the Texas Family Courts and Code and has become a steadfast and probably last-long friend. He holds the dubious distinction of having been sanctioned for following my lead against the Texas Family Courts and Code by Judge Walter Smith, who sanctioned Dan and me jointly and severally to the tune of $150,000.00 in March 2008 for the sole purpose of preventing us from continuing our crusade against the Texas Family Code in Federal Court. His continued friendship and support is a great comfort to me, and I hope I can provide the same for him.

Between January 2005 and September 2007, I went through major ideological transformations in my life, realizing that the “normal” paths to reform were all but closed in the United States. It was during these years that I also met and first had the privilege of meeting and working with Senator Jerry O’Neil of Columbia Falls and Kalispell, Montana. Many friends, even on this ten year list, have already come and gone out of my life, but I hope Jerry will remain my friend for all the rest of the days we might both be living on earth. He is the truest Patriot I know, one of the greatest constitutional scholars of the “Old School”, and one of the most honorable men on earth (in addition to being, as my son says, “the coolest guy I ever met”).

I remember my Florida friends and accomplices Nancy Jo Grant, Bob Hurt, Bill Trudelle, Pearl Lanier Bryan, and Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson. Nancy is a hero who should be known to all Patriotic Americans. Bob, Bill, & Pearl have provided me with so much support and courage. Pearl is a warrior among warriors. Kathy Garcia-Lawson is in so many ways my soulmate, with regard to our parallel paths crusading against (respectively, the Texas and Florida) Family Law and Domestic Relations Courts. Kathy is such a paragon of the devoted, virtuous spouse committed to and still in love with her husband, even after five years since he left her, I can only stand in awe of her. Kathy breathes new meaning into the words “family” and “until death do we part.” Kathy’s funny, sassy, and spunky daughter Alexandra, and all of their friends whom I have met in Palm Beach Gardens, especially Claire and Rebecca. I love Kathy, her character, and her mind, and hope that she and I will also forever be friends. And yes, in connection with a person to whom Kathy introduced me, I even will toast on this day Orly Taitz whose affection and company “woke me up” in so many ways up through November 4, 2009—May she find peace and harmony and achieve freedom from want and freedom from fear sufficient that she might break free from the golden shackles that hold her prisoner in what may be a comfortable or even palatial prison.

And I would especially like to remember Vance Fecteau and Moshe Leichner, whom the Federal government continues to hold in prison, who were my closest friends during the worst 54 day period of my life, and who made even that extreme low moment a much brighter, more enlightened, and so more bearable moment. I doubt that it will happen within the next decade, but I pray for a day when America and the rest of the world will be truly free again, when 1-2% of the population will no longer be incarcerated or on supervised release of some sort, when crimes will be established and measured only by their actual injury to others, so that no person will ever again be incarcerated merely to increase the arrest rates and the prison population so that large corporations owned by major politicians can make larger profits. I can honestly say that all my experiences in the past decade have educated me and made me a better person and patriot.