Tag Archives: globalism

Jerry O’Neil: Are you willing to give up your freedoms to big government? August 7

Posted: Sunday, August 7, 2016 9:00 am
By JERRY O’NEIL | 0 comments
Do you want a one-world government? Would it lead to world peace if the United States surrendered our sovereignty to a global government? Or does an all-powerful government always lead to genocide as happened in China under Mao, Russia under Stalin, Germany under Hitler, and Cambodia under Pol Pot?
While I understand the longing for peace in our time, I am against a tyrannous global government. Let us at least keep the freedoms we have protected under the First and Second Amendments of the United States Constitution. George Soros, Gov. Bullock, Sen. Tester, Common Cause and the Montana Public Interest Research Group are associated with Stand with Montanans, A Project of Common Cause Montana, and they are taking actions to repeal the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Their proposed repeal is at: https://movetoamend.org/wethepeopleamendment.
4560729 Asse Western Region Instory (copy)Snappy’s SparkNWMT Fair 250×300
If this group is successful in their attempt to amend the Constitution, I believe our freedoms of speech, press and association will become:
“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech of the individual, or of the government approved press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble as long as they do not use their collective resources for political purposes, and to individually petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
They would also include in their amendment a provision to prohibit or limit candidates spending their own money on their campaigns, thus making it so the town drunk would receive as much campaign funding as the resourceful and sober candidate.
On June 23, I attended a meeting of over 200 people at the University of Montana Law School meeting room in Missoula. Jeff Clements, President of American Promise and co-founder of Free Speech for People chaired the presentation.
I asked Mr. Clements if the We The People Amendment would reinstate the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Law that limited broadcast ads mentioning an opposing candidate within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election? I also asked if it would bar the NRA from sending out their postcards endorsing pro-gun candidates?
Some other questions I was prepared to ask him regarding the effects of their proposed amendment to the Constitution included:
— Will churches have to register with the government if they organize their congregation to lobby against abortions?
— Will the We The People Amendment make it illegal for corporations to own newspapers with which they can publish political editorials and endorsements prior to elections like the Copper Kings’ newspapers did before the advent of TV?
His answer to these questions was, “We will have to pass the amendment to the Constitution before we can find out the answers to these types of questions.”
One desire for many of the 200 people in the conference room is to overturn the decision in Citizens United v. FEC. That decision overturned the McCain-Feingold Act and permitted Citizens United, a non-profit group, to assemble together and publish a video expose of Hillary Clinton that would air within 30 days of an election.
Maybe that is why Hillary Clinton has publicly stated that if she is president, whether through Supreme Court appointments or constitutional amendments, she will overturn Citizens United.
I used to wonder how in so many countries around the world the people were persuaded to give up their freedoms without a fight. I now see how it is done. In 2012 the citizens of Montana agreed to remove the constitutional protections protecting our freedoms of speech, press, association and petition when they passed I-166 with a 75 percent majority.
I-166 was sold to the public on the catch phrase, “Corporations are not people,” but its ultimate effect will be to destroy the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution if the “moderate Republicans” and Democrats who met at the law school get their way.
Are we willing to limit the people’s rights and help the globalists institute a one-world government?
O’Neil is a resident of Columbia Falls and former Republican legislator.

http://www.dailyinterlake.com/members/opinion-are-you-willing-to-give-up-your-freedoms-to/article_a64921b6-5c26-11e6-b7b1-6f2e41d02161.html

Do McDonald’s and Walmart Epitomize Communism or Capitalism? (A debate ongoing with Robert Stark of Santa Barbara and Robert Hurt of Clearwater)

Dear Bob & Robert:

You have read my response to Robert Stark’s incoherent and erroneous complaint regarding Capitalism as inimical to social hierarchy and the maintenance of elite classes and tastes, and now you ask me to risk wasting my time since I can never convince you of anything, but I’ll give it my best whirl here:
Communism arose (and still arises) from the desire to break down all social and cultural (i.e behavioral and material) class barriers between people.

This egalitarian tendency is what leads some to assert that communism and Christianity are compatible, or that Thomas Jefferson foresaw and advocated communism in the Declaration of Independence. Communism, most simply and purely defined, is radical egalitarianism—making every person like every other person.
I should note as an aside that while I understand both the 1776 Jeffersonian and the primitive Christian antecedents of communism, as a moral precept regarding the commonality of human needs and wants, both Jefferson and the primitive (i.e. Roman and Mediaeval) Christian Churches were inimically opposed to credit lending and banking of any kind. “Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven” said Jesus, and then he drove the money changers out of the Temple, saying “You have made my Father’s house into a den of thieves.”

The next day, Jesus then washed his apostles feet before the last Supper and instructed them to serve one another and the people, as he served them, although he was their leader, the first to die and the first to be reborn—his Father’s great gift to all mankind.

Jesus and St. Paul both emphasized a certain leveling effect of the Christian concept of the salvation of the soul—but they asked that this be done as a matter of charity and giving, and voluntary service. Jefferson, for his part, fought Federalists Hamilton and Adams bitterly over the question of the banks, which he correctly regarded as the arbiters of slavery—as debt, throughout history, has always been the fundamental basis for slavery (since Ancient 3rd Milleniums Sumerian, Second Millennium Early Babylonian times and probably long before—as acknowledged in the Hebrew Bible’s celebration of the 7 year “Jubilee”—marking the period relief from debt established in and derived from Mesopotamia).

Marx & Engels’ Communist Manifesto published in London in February 1848 sought to establish an eternal system of debt to centralized institutions from which there would never be another Jubilee until the end of time. Their Manifesto systematically focuses in turn on every aspect of this leveling process: urban and rural life should be the same. Agriculture and Industry should be the same. Men and women should, as nearly as biologically possible, be the same.

In short: all barriers between, all distinguishing characteristics differentiating people should simply be erased. No one should own or consume more than s/he needs to survive, so there is some acknowledgment of differential need, but no one should own real estate, which is the fundamental basis of all social existence. Karl Marx and his followers directed that education should be restructured so as to mould all individuals into good servants of the communist plan.

As I have pointed out and written and rewritten so many times, the sinister hidden fact behind the Communist Manifesto and Marx’ entire career was the practical reality envisioned by Marx (great grandson and grand-nephew of the Rothschilds, especially Mayer Amstel Rothschild): leveling of all classes and destruction of all boundaries between people could only be achieved through central banking and leveraged buyouts through inflationary credit, and the abolition of gold and silver as monetary bases.

Although Marx & Engels focus on the leveraged buyout of land in the Manifesto, it is fairly clear that the only way that all systems of production and distribution of all industrial and agricultural goods could only be ultimately centralized through the same system of central bank financing of large “industrial armies…..especially in agriculture”, just as the only way to create a centralized apparatus of roads, highways, canals, and vehicular transport for the centrally produced products could only happen through government credit—making predatory pricing possible to wipe out all the small merchants, shop-keepers who were the very heart of capitalism which Marx & Engels so thoroughly despised.

And exactly what has Walmart done? Throughout the world, Walmart has driven small vendors out of business, even out of existence. Walmart has destroyed all vestiges of private business in countless towns and neighborhoods throughout America, Canada, and the world.

And What has McDonald’s done? Together in lock step with its mirror image brand names Burger King, Jack-in-the Box, and Wendy’s and stylistic variants like Sonic, and ethnic cuisine variants such as KFC, Popeye’s, and Taco Bell, McDonald’s has led the way in revolutionizing how and what people eat—down to the lowest common denominator—exactly what Robert Stark was complaining that capitalism did.
The construction and opening of a Walmart just next door to Teotihuacan, the largest and most extensive ruined city remaining from all of ancient, pre-Hispanic, Mexico, symbolizes to me the triumph of American-style Fabian Communism over all other forms of living and modes of production.
Yet this IDEAL of the LCD among people was NOT a Capitalistic idea, but a communistic idea.

Walmart & McDonald’s fulfill, more than any system invented in the Soviet Union, the class-leveling purpose of communism. EVERYTHING is available under one roof, of modest-to-good quality at the lowest possible price, prices made possible only by government credit extension to fund the unitary GLOBAL, WORLDWIDE centralized production and distribution of agricultural and industrial goods.

I wrote my earlier piece in response to Robert Stark’s commentary that he disliked Capitalism because Capitalism created Walmart and McDonald’s. Robert Stark could not be more wrong. Not only do Walmart and McDonald’s manifest the ideological and more importantly PRACTICAL apogee of communist aspirations for material and class leveling and merging of all classes through centralized global systems of production, distribution, and planned consumption, but Walmart and McDonald’s were NOT CREATED BY CAPITAL—i.e., by hard money investing.

Rather, in the aftermath of World War II, supermarkets and retail chains expanded and expanded ever further with governmental sponsorship though systems of direct Federal Reserve Lending and tax credits. A&P and Sears had their origins in the Railroad monopolies of the late 19th century which in turn arose from Abraham Lincoln’s first great experiments in central economic planning, the vast “credit” extended to these companies by enlisting the US Frontier Cavalry and Infantry, organized after the Civil War for the First Time as a permanent, large standing army, to preserve, protect and defend NOT the Constitution of the United States but the three great Transcontinental Railroad corporations and their land holdings—larger units of regional planning than the Tennessee Valley Authority or any other project of FDR’s New Deal, and to support the central planning of the economy of the West implied by these brainchildren of the 16th President and his Whiggish and Hamiltonian antecedents.

But the A & P, Safeway, Sears Roebuck, and other similar predecessors and antecedents were but Fabian gradualist stepping stones on the way to the perfected communism of Walmart & McDonald’s, in which all discrimination, really and truly, is ended, except for the discrimination of the integrated corporate-financial government against the people….

So compare Jeffersonian and Christian notions of equality with Marxism: only Marxist Communism, born of the Rothschild’s family lineage, advocated the use of central banking and leveraged buyouts through inflationary credit as the means of abolishing private property and centralizing all production, distribution, and standardizing all consumption in the world. In other words, only Marxist Communism had designed and prepared a road map for how to coerce the entire world into uniformity and submission.

And uniformity and submission are exactly what Walmart & McDonald’s have achieved to a degree unparalleled in the history of the world. Now they could not have done so without the Federal Reserve, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, and Citibank, and those entities could not have existed without the blessings and tolerance of the United States President, Congress, and Supreme Court in utter subversion of the Constitution, as well as the teachings of (at least) the  Christian Bible.

In final response to your (Bob Hurt’s) and Robert Stark’s questions, I would say that the only relic of capitalism to be found at Walmart or McDonald’s is the cashier’s (whether automated or human) acceptance of cash payments in the legal tender known as Federal Reserve Notes which, by “evolutionary” heritage, trace their ancestry to notions of actual capital. The relationship between Federal Reserve Note Dollars and Capital, however, is exacty the same as the relationship of a heathen (Roman or Greek) Ghost to the human body—that relationship was called a “Shade” (Umbra) or shadow— and so, in conclusion, I would say that the cashier’s receipts of FRNs at Walmart and McDonald are merely the ghostly shades of capitalism, the mere transactional formalities of paying—against which Marx and Engels never protested.
In fact, Karl Marx always presumed a “cash” economy and wrote of the State Collecting rents from all real property, of a progressive income tax, and of minimum wages. The mere existence of cash, however, in the form of inflationary credit units, has no more relationship to capitalism than wind does to the spirit which animates a living body.

Remember, Remember, the Fourth and Fifth of November…..Argo, the Iran Hostage Crisis 33rd Anniversary Today, and Guy Fawkes’ Day Symbolism in the Confused Stew of Race, Religion, & Identity in the Western World

NOVEMBER 4: ONE OF THOSE DAYS THAT WILL LIVE IN INFAMY

Ben Affleck’s recent (excellent) movie Argo reminds us that on November 4, 1979, a mob of Iranian students breached the walls and “occupied” the American Embassy in Tehran, which they proceeded to hold for another 444 days until Ronald W. Reagan became took his oath of office as President, largely as a result of Jimmy Carter’s shame in not being able to resolve the crisis or liberate the hostages beforehand.  The feeling in this country and the world was that Carter would never go to war to defend American Honor, and that Ronald Reagan would, even though the best he ever really did was to invade the tiny island of Grenada to defend against about 200 Cuban medical students…..

Last month I attended a distinctly pro-Iranian lecture by Mark Weber at the IHR (Institute for Historical Realism) in Orange County, but Argo reminded me of how angry and personally offended I felt by the seizure of my country’s embassy in Iran.  The repeated presentation of the disgraceful history of the US & British subversion of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh’s brief progressive democratic interlude in Iran is a stain on America’s honor, and Great Britain’s, which is hard to overcome.  Especially considering we allowed Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and other distinctly anti-Democratic countries to nationalize and manipulate our oil markets in 1973 with little or no resistance at all.  “Argo”, along with last year’s “The Big Fix”  both start out with reminding us of Mossadegh, once Time Magazine’s “Man of the Year” (of course, so was Hitler, once, Time’s “Man of the Year”).  At his Imperial trial in Shah Reza Pahlavi’s courts of justice, Mohammed Mossadegh answered the charge of treason as follows:

Yes, my sin — my greater sin and even my greatest sin is that I nationalized Iran’s oil industry and discarded the system of political and economic exploitation by the world’s greatest empire. This at the cost to myself, my family; and at the risk of losing my life, my honor and my property. With God’s blessing and the will of the people, I fought this savage and dreadful system of international espionage and colonialism …. I am well aware that my fate must serve as an example in the future throughout the Middle East in breaking the chains of slavery and servitude to colonial interests.”

BUT WAS THE SHAH OF IRAN REALLY SO BAD?

I confess that, during my youth, at least in part because of my dearly departed Grandfather’s support and extreme enthusiasm for the Shah’s fabled “White Revolution”, I had intensely respected, even admired, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi for his work in westernizing Iran and for brining the U.S. and Iran close together as partners against World Communism.  The Shah’s policies sought to modernized Iran (making Iran more like Sweden, was his stated goal) liberated women from some of the harshest effects and constraints of Sharia Law, including a ban on the horrific practice of female circumcision.  

I went to a fairly unusual high school in Hollywood and there had the chance to learn the views several aristocratic (secular Muslim, Westernized) Iranian “foreign exchange” students who were very strong supporters of their King and Emperor.  Finally, I know that my grandfather’s positive views of the Shah were by no means unique to him, one of my best friends for most of the past 40 years has been one Helen Sorayya Carr, named after the Shah’s beautiful half-German Empress (Shahbanu) or Queen (Malakeh), named by her father Denzel Carr, a Professor of Linguistics at Berkeley, for the most ancient beauty Queen of the West (Helen of Troy) and the most modern beauty Queen of the East (Sorayya of Isfahan).  Obviously, and for many good reasons, that Shah or Iran was well-liked in the United States and Europe—he was “one of us” trying to assimilate his country with ours and trying to raise his population from the Middle Ages to the 20th Century…… Mark Weber in his speech had very little to say about the Shah…. 

But the portrayal of the Shah in “Argo” (or at least its portrayal of the spirit and causes of the Iranian Revolution) is that Reza Pahlavi was a tyrant on the level of, if not even worse than, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.  There was no justice in the American invasion of Iraq, or the subsequent execution of Saddam Hussein and many of his regime’s top officials.  There is certainly no apparent justice in the fact that we supported the Shah but invaded Iraq to overthrown Hussein while all during this period we have done nothing but support the House of Saud and related regimes in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Yemen, and the United Arab Emirates.

And of course, as Mark Weber correctly pointed out in his presentation at IHR, immediately after the overthrow of the Shah, Iraq and Iran went to war and at THAT time it seemed that the US could and should support Saddam Hussein as the Secular Muslim opponent of “Lunatic” Islamic Fundamentalism under the Grand Ayatollah Sayyed Ruhollah Mostafavi Musavi Khomeini.  Saddam Hussein seemed like the great beacon of progress and Westernization in the Middle East.

Isolation and Non-Interference are the Best Policies Available.  

It is very confusing to be a 52 year old Anglo-American and look at Iran and Iraq today.  I cannot do anything but regret that we ever violated President George Washington’s counsel in his Farewell Address that we stay clear of all foreign entanglements.  The bottom line is simply this: the United States has done no good at any stage by interference in the Middle East: we certainly did terrible injury by opposing Mossadegh and participating in his overthrow in 1953—there is simply no doubt about that.  We did no good by supporting the Shah of Iran afterwards, but frankly he was so rich from Oil, especially after 1973, that whether we supported him or not seemed quite irrelevant.  

One recurring theme in US-Middle Eastern Politics is that we (in the US) seem to put Israel First, no matter what it costs to do so.  Dinesh D’Souza strongly supported the pro-Israeli position in his movie “Obama 2016” which also made more than passing reference to Iran….and Obama’s seeming non-opposition to Iran, despite the continual beat of war drums throughout his Administration.  Mark Weber made the excellent case that the blindly pro-Israeli policies of the United States are extremely destructive to the future of our relationship with the Iranian people—UNDER ANY GOVERNMENT, PRESENT OR FUTURE—and of course, Ron Paul concurs 100% in this view, and it is for that reason that the pro-Israeli lobby in the US has all but banned Media coverage of Ron Paul and his successor Gary Johnson…..

We, the American people, should simply keep our noses OUT of other countries’ affairs.  Freedom is fundamentally the freedom to be left alone, and every sovereign country on earth deserves that freedom from interference by the US, Russia, China, the UK, or France—or an aggressive Iran or “Brazil” of the Future…

Separation of American Interests from foreign interests is consistent with maintaining real diversity in the world, and I am in favor of real diversity.  Iranians should develop Iranian culture as Iranians see fit, but they should mostly develop it in Iran, and yet I live in a city sometimes called “Irangeles” and find myself enlisted to assist in mediating constant bickering and civil disputes between Iranians and non-Iranians, but also between Jewish Iranians and Islamic Iranians (especially in Beverly Hills), and even between Iranian Jews and Non-Iranian Jews.  

It’s enough to make one wonder: where DID all the blonde California beach girls go?  How DID West Los Angeles become Irangeles after Iranians overtook and then outnumbered Armenians as the largest Middle Eastern Population in California?  “Middle Eastern Population in California?”—oh yes, there’s a large Mosque on Shaw Avenue in Fresno not far from Cal-State Fresno—although there’s still a monument to William Saroyan, Armenian-American novelist and Playwright, in a park in his native Fresno close to the courthouse……

Again speaking as a 52 year old American WASP, I cannot comprehend the religion of Islam at all.  I despise the Muslim oppression and suppression of women—I have known too many Egyptian women, in particular, who have been subjected to the almost unspeakably inhumane savage and brutal practice of female circumcision (which according to WHO reports results in approximately 10% fatalities).

I cannot believe that such practices (and worse yet, the “Muslim grooming” of young English and French girls) are not only being tolerated among immigrant populations in France, Great Britain and the USA but are actively condoned by the Archbishop of Canterbury in the name of “diversity” and “tolerance” and saying that adoption of some form of “Sharia Law” in the UK is all but inevitable.  I say: it is avoidable—just say no and vote Front National, BNP/English Resistance…. which is a good point to move over to another point about today’s dates:

A Day Which has Lived in Infamy (Justifiably or Otherwise) for 407 years now—Was the Protestant Reformation about anything important other than Nationalism and Autonomy from Rome?  (Probably Not….)

Tomorrow, on November 5, we remember that Guy Fawkes was a Catholic who wanted to blow up the Houses of Parliament in 1605, or so they say, because he wanted to oppose the final triumph of Protestantism in England embodied in the recent accession of Catholic Queen-of-Scots Mary Stuart’s son, James I and VII, to the throne of a finally united kingdom of what was not yet called “Great Britain”.  

The Gunpowder Treason and Plot, as described in the history books anyhow, has to be one of the lamest conspiracy theories ever.  How exactly, I would love to know, could Catholic, Jesuit (and therefore automatically suspect in early Jacobean London), co-conspirators LEASE strategically located space (i.e. make a written contract)  and then use this space solely for the purpose of managing to get 36 Barrels of Gunpowder into a strategic location to blow up the House of Lords at the Palace of Westminster in July, keeping them there until November 5, without ever being discovered?  And all this happened during a time of plague and pestilence in London?   And all of the participants were already well-known Papists suspected by the crown of treason?  

The history of the “Gunpowder Treason and Plot” stinks of being a Stuart-Crown initiated “false flag” episode like the explosion of the Battleship Maine, the Reichstag Fire, and of course, the most recent, 9-11-2001, as being a staged event to organize and inspire loyalty to an at best shaky oligarchy…..  James I & VII was considerably smarter than his son, Charles I, and much more likely to have ordered and pulled off a “false flag” attack that would define history for a long time to come….  So in retrospect now, I strongly suspect, as I have to admit I did from “Day 1” of the 9-11 business, that Guy Fawkes was just another Patsy, like Lee Harvey Oswald, made to take the blame for something that was carefully planned just to use him as a symbol to be burned in effigy every year just after Halloween—-“Penny for the Guy?”

V-for-Vendetta Revisionism?

The movie “V-for-Vendetta” that was filmed for the 400th anniversary of the Gunpowder Treason and Plot made the Patsy into a symbol of heroic resistance which appealed deeply to me and to many around the world.  The Guy Fawkes’ mask has turned the “Guy” into a symbolic of Patriotic resistance completely inconsistent with the historical reality, so that the revised myth of “The Fifth of November” as a great revolutionary people’s insurrection against oppression is just as phony as the original “False Flag” Jacobean cover story about a Papist Plot to blow up the House of Lords was…..

But what are the elements that the myths have in common?  Both the original theory of the Gunpowder Plot as “Compassing the Death of the King” and causing a major Catholic (counter-reformationist) insurrection in England and the “V-for-Vendetta” version both focus on religious identity and intolerance as key elements of statehood and established power.  “Guy” Fawkes was often ridiculed as “Guido” because he used allegedly used this Italianate version of his name in correspondence with Jesuit “co-conspirators”, in short, Guy Fawkes became the first “real Guido.”

And so it is, of course, just another ironic if little-known fact of history that the first Guido to make a name for himself was not an Italian at all but an Englishman: Guido Fawkes, a.k.a. Guy Fawkes.   There is, to be sure, no evidence whatsoever that the Real Original Guido wore Armani Exchange T-shirts and artfully distressed jeans or that he tended to strut and flex steroid- pumped up muscles.  (Modern ethnologists from New Jersey & Staten Island report that the call of the Guido is bellowing, and frequently slurred, invariably starting with the sound, “Yo,” followed all too often by some creative variation on an expletive beginning with the letter, “F”).

In V-for-Vendetta the disfavored religion is Islam and the disfavored ethnics or behavioral subgroups are Muslims and Homosexuals.   Ever since the movie came out, it has occurred to me that the Patriotic fervor of the anonymous, amnesiac character who wears the Guy Fawkes mask would (in the modern world) be shared largely if not predominantly by people who supported some version of the conservative “Norsefire” platform on which Chancellor Adam Suttler and his government stood.  But the use of Guy Fawkes’ image as a paradigm for revolutionary action and advocacy transcends right and left—the mask is as popular among members of the (mostly but not exclusively left-wing) “occupy” movement as well as the “We the People” anti-IRS tax protestors.

I suspect that Natalie Portman and the other luminaries who participated in the making of “V” would tell you that their movie is a paradigm in favor of multiculturalism and diversity—where everyone can be united “behind the mask” no matter what their ethnic or religious affiliation and/or origin.

But “Guy Fawkes’ Day” used to be called “Pope’s Day” as well as “Gunpowder Day” and it was a celebration of anti-Catholicism and Protestant Triumph.  I was born into a Southern Protestant family in which Catholicism was strongly frowned upon on one side and fairly strongly favored on the other, albeit under the rubric of “Anglo-Catholicism” and adherence to the notion of Jacobite Stuart monarchism and “Charles the Martyr” day on January 31. “Charles the Martyr Day” commemorates the admittedly unjust and more than slightly appalling execution of King Charles I and the equally unjust and more than slightly appalling “Commonwealth” of Oliver Cromwell.  Cromwell and his son created little more than a beetle-browed Puritan dictatorship with no long-lasting heritage or accomplishments.

Cromwell’s “Commonwealth” Dictatorship was replaced after a mere 11 year experiment by the Stuart Restoration of Charles II which shaped and formed “all the best” of England basically as it was to be until 1914.  The death of Charles II with tons of illegitimate children but not one single legitimate heir led to a Guy Fawkes’-like “Hiccup” in the formation of modern England, namely the reign of Charles’ brother James who was overthrown for trying to restore, for the last time in England, Roman Catholicism as the official religion.

Modern readers are reasonably suspicious of religion.  Even those of us (like me) who may be going to Church on Sunday have only limited confidence in any creed.  Philosophy and Science, including Anthropology and Evolutionary Biology, have taken a huge toll on what we can unquestioningly “believe” or not.  I love my Church—the Episcopal Church, part of the Anglican Tradition, but I do not believe in its embrace of multiculturalism AT ALL.  Rather, I love the fact that in the past, and especially in my past—my personal and family history—that Church embodies all that is AGAINST multiculturalism and globalism in favor of “Anglicanism.”  I would define “Anglicanism” as the English people’s worship of themselves, primarily, as being created in the image of God—how’s that for an anthropologically reasonable, post-Vatican II liturgically blasphemous explanation of my Church and my Faith?

The modern ethnocentric Anglican has to address the political correctness of multiculturalism.  I do so as follows: we must choose and define our own identities.   Not merely do we have the INALIENABLE right to do so, we MUST do so.  We must define our own identities and try to keep and develop them for our children for the sake of preserving real diversity in the world, for the purpose of FOSTERING more “micro-diversity” and hence “micro-evolution” in the world.  We must not shrink from our obligations.

England should NOT become a Muslim country, nor should Sweden or Norway or Denmark or the Netherlands or France or Greece.  I that sense, I stand by Chancellor Adam Sutler and “Norsefire.”  However, it is only by a “Guy Fawkes” like uprising” led by the BNP or “English Resistence” or “UKIP” or some group like that who can make it happen.

About the United States—what is this country and what should it be?  Los Angeles and New York (and up to a certain point, Chicago) are cities culturally dominated not by Muslims but by Jews, even if demographically Jews remain a minority.  Henry Waxman represents me in Congress (actually, he doesn’t represent anything about me, but I guess it’s more appropriate to say “I live in his Congressional District”).  I did not vote for him, but I have no confidence in Bill Bloomfield for whom I did vote.  (New York Mayor Republican Mayor Bloomberg endorsed Obama—I find this appalling, although I did not vote for Romney, I voted for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Candidate (by mail, I sent my ballot in last Tuesday).   I might have written in one of several other candidates but the California Legislature has for the time-being at least all but outlawed write-in candidates and I have voted Libertarian more than any other party ever since I decided in 1992 never to vote Republican again after George H.W. Bush’s treason on both the tax question and the invasion of Iraq—-which some propose that we now follow by the Invasion of Iran…)

Of course, adding to the confusion about Iran, as noted, Ronald W. Reagan owed his election in no small part to President Jimmy Carter’s complete ineptitude in defending American honor around the world, especially in Iran.  And yet, 5 years into the Reagan Presidency, a good-looking Colonel named Oliver North was on all the Radio and Television stations defending his PURCHASE (with White-House approved fund) of ARMS FROM Iran for sale AGAINST U.S. Law to the Contras in Nicaragua.  Huh?  I almost decided never to vote Republican again after that.  Reagan knew that the Revolutionary Islamic Republic of Iran was the chief enemy of the United States after the Communist Soviet Union and China, and he was clearly authorizing this Colonel North to give “Aid and Comfort” to the Iranians by doing business with them, paying them for guns to a cause which Reagan personally supported, although the Congress of the United States had barred official support of it, namely the Contras (Anti-Sandinistas) of Nicaragua. And yet I made the mistake, as did many Americans, of voting for George H.W. Bush in 1988 and that led to the first U.S. invasion of Iraq (for the heinous crime of overthrowing the Kuwaiti monarchy??????) and my final defection from the Republican Party.  THERE WAS NO EXCUSE FOR OUR INVASION OF IRAQ in 1991 or in 2003, and THERE IS NO POSSIBLE EXCUSE FOR US TO INVADE IRAN NOW.

I for one unequivocally oppose all American adventurism and imperialism abroad.  I agree with Pat Buchanan that we are “A Republic, not an Empire”, and I hope that over the next few years we can restore the American Republic and work towards a restoration of American Identity—“Los Angeles”, not “Irangeles”—with no disrespect to the rights of the people of Iran to maintain their own culture and civilization as they see fit, and as they have done without Anglo-American assistance for most of the past 4,000 years since Susa, the Sassanians, and Persepolis….

As a Former President of College Republicans I say Emphatically: the Modern Republican Party has betrayed all its principles, the Party of Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum is a disgrace to the memory of Alfred M. Landon, Robert A. Taft, and Barry M. Goldwater

On Facebook late Saturday night Sunday morning, as the Republican Primaries lumber on to either one or the other of two inglorious conclusions: Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich….

 Mike Harris The Republican Party died when Bush the lesser was appointed dictator by the supreme court, and was not lawfully elected. Gingrich is an israeli stooge and anyone stupid enough to vote for him is a dolt.

7 hours ago ·

Charles E. Lincoln I’m afraid that for me, as a former President of College Republicans, the Republican Party died during Iran-Contra. Reagan was elected in large part because of the disgrace the United States suffered abroad under Jimmy Carter after the overthrow of our ally (and very decent, pro-Western Middle East Progressive), the Shah, when our Embassy and all its staff were taken as hostages and we did nothing, or at least nothing very meaningful. When Reagan allowed his staff to do business with Iran, even if allegedly for the purpose of helping the Anticommunist Nicaraguan Contras, the phrase that came to my mind was that “treason” is aiding and abetting the enemies of the United States. I can’t unwrap that in my mind! And then, although I voted for George H.W. Bush in 1988, and even raucously celebrated his victory (the last time I ever considered myself a Republican), when George Herbert Walker Bush went back on his campaign slogan of “read my lips” and solemn promise of “no new taxes”, I just couldn’t take it anymore. The modern Republican Party is the corporate terrorist party of lies and evisceration of constitutional, human, and property rights. The modern Democratic Party is the corporate terrorist Party of Socialistic Slavery and the evisceration of constitutional, human, and property rights. Barry Goldwater wanted to overturn the New Deal-Federal Reserve Bank-IRS regime and Ron Paul seems to stand for the same thing. But is there any hope? Any hope at all? We have to elect pro-Constitutional members of Congress and the Senate, build a coalition to support any potential Constitutional President. How on earth did our country sink so low? Newt Gingrich is a totally committed globalist and enemy of the Constitution…for me, his role in sponsoring the 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act which all but abolished Habeas Corpus was decisive—that AEDPA just paved the way for the 2001 Patriot Act and last year’s NDAA abolition of the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments…. Damn Newt Gingrich to Hell in my opinion!

Is Diversity Dangerous? Is Globalism Hazardous to the future of Darwinian Fitness? Is the West’s Embrace of Diversity the final death sentence for diversity both in the west and elsewhere? Is Diversity Just one big Globalist Plot to end World History and Natural Evolution? Probably so, probably so….

Is Maintenance of Cultural and Genetic Diversity Critical to the Future of the Human Race?  What is the best road to achieving such maintenance?  By globalism and homogenization or by a policy of “good fences make good neighbors” and “vive la difference?”

Accuracy in Media published the article reproduced below almost 9 years ago.  These are not QUITE my views, honestly, because what I believe about diversity runs more like this: Diversity is the fountainhead of evolutionary strength, but it requires the maintenance of voluntary isolation and the freedom to be different, even to cultivate differences, to let those differences flourish, and for each individual to choose the boundaries he wants to impose on his or her own life.  In other words, I believe that homogenization thwarts the evolutionary purpose of allowing small pools of cultural or genetic diversity to crystalize and formulate (cultural) or accumulate (physically) distinctive characteristics and patterns of adaptation which can then compete.  Most evolutionary experiments (both of the genetic/phenotypic/physical and cultural/learned/psychological & linguistic varieties) are failures but some are successes—and if everybody in the world is just subjected to this one big “shake and bake” formula of one-world global mixing and diversification for the purpose of atomizing and isolating individual differences so that they can achieve neither genetic nor social dominance, even locally, then this destroys the very raw material of evolution and change, and diversity is a terribly dangerous thing.  The French, as always, have a phrase that encapsulates my belief about diversity: “vive la difference!”—but “La Difference” and only flourish where there are cultural and physical boundaries which create cultural and genetic isolation.  Globalism is the death of both history and evolution, and I do not favor the acceleration of these deaths.  Globalism by merger of all the diversities of the planet’s great cultural and genetic diversity will only result in a monotonous hamburger-helper world where everyone looks basically alike, listens to the same music, watches the same dumb and dumber TV, buys the same fast foods from the same chains and drinks the same sodas (we’re almost there right now, right?).  “Good fences make good neighbors” and they also permit the survival of cultural and genetic diversity.

Diversity Can Be Dangerous

MEDIA MONITOR  |  BY REED IRVINE AND CLIFF KINCAID  |  JULY 30, 2001

. . . it estimates whites will fall below 50% and become America’s largest minority.

America is rapidly becoming a more racially diverse nation. Whites fell from 80% of our population in 1980 to 69% last year. The percentage of Hispanics, who may be of any race, nearly doubled. They overtook the blacks, who made only a modest gain to 12.3% of the total. Asians, Pacific islanders and native Americans made a big gain, rising to over nine percent of the total population. Whites made the largest gain numerically, but in percentage terms they were the only group whose percentage of the total fell, and it was a large fall— 11 percentage points.

The Census Bureau sees these trends continuing through the year 2060, when it estimates whites will fall below 50% and become America’s largest minority. It predicts that nearly all of the erosion of the white majority will be the result of a big increase in the number of Hispanics, Asians, Pacific islanders and native Americans. If the predictions it made five years ago are any indicator, the bureau is underestimating the increase in the Hispanic and Asians populations. The predictions of what last year’s census would show were far short of the actual increases for those two groups.

Many people, including President Bush, believe that more diversity will actually strengthen and improve our nation. The administration is proposing legalizing some three million illegal immigrants from Mexico. If that is done, the flow of illegal immigrants will no doubt increase, speeding the day the white majority will vanish.

It is true that we have had great success in absorbing immigrants and converting most of them into good Americans. But the success of the melting pot in the past is no guarantee that it will succeed in the future. Diversity is great up to a point, but when the minorities expand in number and power and there is no majority capable of maintaining law and order, government of the people, by the people and for the people may well perish from this part of the earth.

Diversity of language, customs and culture tends to divide, not unite. We have had two serious race riots in Seattle and Cincinnati this year. England has experienced an outbreak of race riots in the Midlands in recent months, clashes between whites and immigrants from Pakistan and Bangladesh that lasted for days and left behind great property damage and seething anger. In California Mexican immigrants who have risen to positions of power openly talk about the reconquest of the territory Mexico lost in the Mexican-American war.

If America ceases to be a majority white nation, it may not remain one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all. In Africa, millions of blacks have been butchered by other blacks. In the Balkans white Christians and Muslims are at each other’s throats. In Sri Lanka the Sinhalese and Tamils have been fighting a bitter war for decades.

We worry about global warming, a threat based on an unproven theory. America’s white majority is shrinking rapidly, and we blithely encourage more and more immigrants, hastening its elimination, and giving no thought to the possible consequences.

Reed Irvine is the former Chairman of Accuracy In Media and Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of the AIM Report.

What do these labels or statements really tell you about a person? S/he’s a “Convict” and a “Felon?” S/he’s “Disbarred?” S/he’s been “Sanctioned” or S/he’s a “Conservative?” or “Democrat?” or “Republican?” or “Libertarian” or “Liberal?” or “Constitutionalist?” or [OH NO!] “Birther?” In my case, I suggest they all add up to “Conflict-Tried and Litigation-Proven American Patriot!” or “Realist who knows just how rotten the system really is and knows it from the inside.”

I am, as many readers of this blog will know, a convicted felon and a disbarred attorney who has been severely sanctioned for spearheading a crusade to have the Texas Family Code declared unconstitutional.  But just start with “Felon” and “disbarred”: Isn’t that a frightening pair of labels?  I must really be a seriously bad guy, don’t you think?  Or is it worse to think that between 1-3% of the United States population either is or has been incarcerated, or on probation or on parole or otherwise severely constrained in the exercise of their personal liberty?  And many of them stigmatized FOR LIFE as “convicted felons?” I only care because I know these labels will be used against me.  A “Felon” in the usual sense of the word, is someone found guilty of a crime which COULD have carried more than a year sentence.  Of course, as the reader of this blog knows, my favorite “Felon” is and remains a lady named Nancy Jo Grant from Arcadia, Florida, sentenced to 15 years probation (and actually held for six months in County Jail in 2008), who is a “convict” because she was “convicted” of the unauthorized practice of law—for maintaining a prison ministry passing out information to inmates telling them about the Florida and Federal guarantees of “Speedy Trial” and how they were entitled to immediate release if they had not been tried within a certain statutory time frame.  Oh, she was really terrifying, Nancy Jo Grant at the height of her activity—she threatened positively dozens of prison guard jobs if she had succeeded in getting all of the prisoners released to whom she passed out truthful and undeniably accurate information.

Similarly—“Disbarred” means that you were once a licensed attorney but your fellow attorneys and judges found you rocked the boat just once or twice (or in my case about forty thousand times) too often and so they had to get rid of you “for the integrity of the system”—because anyone who advocates change and seeks to break down barriers and build up individual freedom cannot possibly be a “man of integrity” with “due respect for the legal system.”  I thought being “disbarred” was significantly worse than being a “convicted felon” until I met former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore this past week in Atlanta—here was a man who, because of his own spiritual devotion and dedication to freedom of religion protected by the First Amendment was forcibly removed by judicial action from his very high office as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama—not for any JUDICIAL action he took, mind you, but for daring to advocate a central place for the Ten Commandments—recognized jointly, severally, and equally by each of the leading monotheistic religions in the world (Judaism, Christianity and Islam)—as the foundation of all law.  If I suffered some mild indignities by being disbarred, Chief Justice Moore suffered worse by being dis-benched (the word “debenched” looks and sounds too much like “debauched” and the only “debauchery” in Justice Moore’s story is the intellectual and moral debauchery of those who removed him from office, and while “dethroned” is probably a historically more accurate term for the removal of judges from their large chairs perched atop daises above the heads of their “subjects”—I think much too highly of Chief Justice Moore to put him in the same category with most of the judges I know—those I have personally worked for and/or studied under all excepted from this general characterization, criticism….or damnation.  I do feel that the general damnation, criticism, or characterization of judges as monarchical petty-tyrants is warranted for most of the modern judiciary….especially but not limited to Texas Judges Federal and States James R. Nowlin, Sam Sparks, Michael Jergins, James R. Clawson, Jeanne Meurer, Lynn N. Hughes, Janis Graham Jack.

And no, I don’t have any respect for judges who hide behind the shield of “absolute judicial immunity” and lawyers who hide their gross incompetence and/or corrupt character and policy purposes behind the shield of the most illegitimate state-sponsored monopoly in the world: the state sponsored monopoly on free speech and advocacy in the courts, the one context where speech might actually have a PROFOUND AND DIRECT IMPACT on individual people’s lives and the future course of history at the same time, simultaneously.  Let people speak freely EVERYWHERE, but not in Court: oh “heaven forfend” that we should enjoy the blessings of liberty to speak freely in court.  You see, no matter how unjust a prosecution is, no matter how unconstitutional or unwarranted a criminal statute might be, no matter how utterly devoid of due process of law a judicial process in a civil or criminal case might be, the judges and prosecutors all have absolute judicial (or prosecutorial) immunity—or at least they claim they do.  Of course, I have repeatedly argued and continue to argue that the 1996 Amendments to 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983 and 1988 actually codified the holding of the United States Supreme Court in Pulliam v. Allen which they purported to overrule, and reduced the threshold for piercing judicial immunity from “actions taken in the complete absence of jurisdiction” (a nearly impossible standard to overcome—in that any lawfully seated judge obviously has SOME jurisdiction to do SOMETHING, even if it’s just issue reprimands….) to “actions taken clearly in excess of jurisdiction” which might be a relative or objective standard, which at least theoretically, in front of SOME judges and juries COULD be breached….or crossed, or whatever it is you need to do to get past a threshold of judicial (or prosecutorial) immunity….

Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 104 S.Ct. 1970, 80 L.Ed.2d 565 (1984) and the 1996 amendments to 42 U.S.C. §§1983/1988.  The common body of language consists in (1) the use of the phrase “conduct clearly in excess of jurisdiction” with regard to attorneys’ fees and damages and (2) the principle that judicial immunity is not a bar to prospective declaratory or injunctive relief against a judicial officer acting in his or her judicial capacity:

Our own experience is fully consistent with the common law’s rejection of a rule of judicial immunity from prospective relief.  We have never had a rule of absolute judicial immunity from prospective relief, and there is no evidence that the absence of that immunity has had a chilling effect on judicial independence.

Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. at 537, 104 S.Ct. at 1978.

Congress enacted §1983 and its predecessor….to provide an independent avenue for protection of federal constitutional rights.  The remedy was considered necessary because “state courts were being used to harass and injure individuals, either because the state courts were powerless to stop deprivations or were in league with those who were bent upon abrogation of federally protected rights…..(every member of Congress who spoke to the issue assumed that judges would be liable under §1983).

Id.,  466 U.S. at 541, 104 S.Ct. 1980.

As it happens, I didn’t do a single second in jail or even handcuffs for my felony.  It was just a Federal Judge’s way of ruining my life—or trying to—because on August 31, 2000, the day I gave up my law license in Texas, I can tell you that I HAD NOT EVEN BEGUN TO FIGHT.  It was only meeting a State Court Judge, Michael Jergins of Williamson County, and all his corrupt cronies, that really turned me into a man who would dedicate the rest of his life to fighting for (I don’t care HOW corny it sounds): TRUTH, JUSTICE, AND THE AMERICAN WAY.  As a matter of fact, I consider these labels (“Felon” and “Disbarred” and “Sanctioned”) as “Red badges of courage” which I earned by hard work in the fight against a corrupt judiciary and an even more corrupt and unconstitutionally monopolized legal profession.  I have learned a lot of hard lessons, in particular, and if I have gained knowledge of anything that I think is important or special, it’s what I learned about the United States’ Heart of Darkness during those 54 days December 8, 2007-February 2, 2008: we do NOT live in a good country, or a free country, or a just country.

I consider these labels proof that I mattered enough to pose a danger to someone, although not necessarily for the “crimes” I was alleged to have convicted.   My “felony” was the misstatement of two digits in my social security number in an application for a non-interest-bearing checking account at Wells Fargo Bank in an otherwise complete and correct application to open a non-interest bearing checking account in November 1996.  “BRANDED”!  “LABELLED FOR LIFE AS A DANGEROUS UNDESIRABLE IN SOCIETY.”  Oh, by the way, Wells Fargo Bank never noticed the problem, nor did anyone else since the accounts were non-interest bearing, and although the account application was filled out in my own hand, the original was lost, so tampering with the numbers on the original by erasure or white out or whatever was never excluded as a possibility.  Try as my Texas persecutors and their emulators elsewhere might (while trying to impose “reciprocal discipline”, they cannot make this more than it is.  Recently some on-line critics of mine has dug all this up and tried to make something of it, but they couldn’t even settle for the reality that only two numbers of my social security number were misstated, they had to exaggerate it to three, and thereby illegally and improperly published my social security number—except that they published it INCORRECTLY so as to try to make the charges against me worse than they were, BY ONE DIGIT!  Idiots and pathetic fools at that.  I forgive them for they have absolutely no idea what they’re doing or saying or (probably) even why.

A United States District Judge for the Western District of Texas (James R. Nowlin) got me in his gunsights over the civil rights cases and in essence hired my former housekeeper in open court to testify against me (my housekeeper Marcelina was seemingly a very sweet, kind, and good North-Mexican-born lady with very poor linguistic skills in English who did not even sign the original complaint proffered against me under her name).  Either she or someone in her family made up some gibberish or the Lago Vista police officers who wanted to get rid of my seven suits against them in 1997-1998 made up some gibberish and Judge James R. Nowlin officially ordered an investigation of me by the U.S. Attorney, the FBI, and the “Admissions Committee” of the Western District of Texas—which was entirely Judicially appointed).  To say that Judge Nowlin ordered them to crucify me would of course be an exaggeration—he merely ordered them to try to find some, in fact ANY colorable grounds to disbar me—and so they did.

So, since I was indicted on December 7, 1999, I have developed a very new and comprehensive perspective on what this label “FELON” means.  Because in my case I say it means almost NOTHING, except that my wife Elena did not want me to risk going to trial in Federal Court after, during my judicial clerkships and externships, I had told her that roughly one person per year walks out of any Judge’s Federal Court free after receiving a Federal indictment—and that’s only if the government has such a weak case that congress has to amend the law to make it possible to indict more people.

I never “did any time” on my felony indictment, but as readers of this blog also know, I did do first one week and then 54 days in 2006-2008 for various bogus judicial orders approximating charges of “contempt for failure to appear”—both in cases wherein I had and continue to severely (and I think very accurately) question and challenge the personal and subject matter jurisdiction of the court.  But still, some ignorant folks think that just the fact that you’ve done time in jail means you’re a dangerous person.

What I found out in jail, frankly, was that most people incarcerated don’t belong there.  I have said of the Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles that the “convicted felons” with whom I shared most of December 2007 and early January 2008 were a more distinguished group of people than I’ve met anywhere outside of the Harvard Faculty Club, Boston’s Tavern Club, or the Washington D.C. Cosmos Club (and in fact there’re some overlapping members in all FOUR groups….and I was NOT the only one….but we won’t go into that too much).  I still deeply regret the horrible fate of my fellow detainees Moshe Leichner and Vance Fecteau, who will remain in my mind among the finest people I have ever met in my life, intellectually, emotionally, ethically, and spiritually.  Those who can hold their heads high while serving not only time but their fellow inmates in prison are noble men indeed.  Moshe Leicher was one of those people who remind us that Jesus Christ and all his Apostles were Jews, and Jesus himself and several apostles also socially condemned and “convicted felons,” whose real offenses were to challenge the powers that be and perhaps succeed a little too much in doing so.   I only wish that I could achieve the moral stature of some of those wrongfully and purposelessly incarcerated people I have known in jail, deprived of life, liberty, and property by this sadly perverted but still dream-filled country in which we live.  Tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, of hardworking Mexican and other Latin American born nationals rot in American prisons.  If similar numbers of unemployed American tourists were arrested for their drunken pecadillos in Cancun, Acapulco, Cabo San Lucas, or Mazatlan, I daresay that the United States would demand an invasion of Mexico to free them.  And yet Mexico sits by silently and does nothing for its unjustly imprisoned masses in U.S. Custody.

So I am a convicted felon and a disbarred attorney, and at age 50 I am trying to decide what to do with the rest of my life, and I look at two other labels: Democrat and Republican.  Now mind you, there are plenty of prominent Democrats and Republicans who have also become convicted felons and worn the same orange pajamas or jumpsuits that I wore for 54 days at MDC Los Angeles, the Oklahoma City Transfer Center (one of the bleakest spots on earth) and other places.   But what is a Democrat and what is a Republican?

So much could be written about that question—so much always is.  “Democrat” usually implies “Liberal” and “Republican” usually implies “conservative,” but I recently found this wonderful website: http://www.democraticreformparty.com on which I find Barack Obama criticized as a socialist with slightly dictatorial leanings who likes to be called a “leader.”  I remember Democratic Senator Samuel James Ervin of North Carolina and Republican Senator Howard Baker of Tennessee, both veterans of the Senate Watergate Committee of 1973-1974, and how they and Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona ended up on the same side of many issues, among them that Richard Nixon should resign.  (I always had a soft-spot for Howard Baker because, like my Dad, he was a navy man in World War II, and like me, he was a graduate of the undergraduate College of Arts & Sciences at Tulane University in New Orleans; much more imposing and inspiring, Senator Sam Ervin, who as I did later, spent his graduate years at Harvard, was constantly quoting Shakespeare and the Bible, and in his manner of doing so seemed to me, when I was ages 13-14, to be the most eloquent and well-educated man alive).

There are not many senators of the calibre of those three (Ervin, Baker, & Goldwater) around today.  As a matter of fact, aside from another Democrat, Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, I cannot think of any.  Goldwater’s great claim to political success, of course, was that in losing the 1964 Presidential Election, he nevertheless cracked open the “Solid South” and opened the door to Republicans taking over large parts of the “Southern White” element of the Southern White-Northern Labor Coalition which together elected every Democratic President from Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt through John Fitzgerald Kennedy and Lyndon Baines Johnson (despite Johnson’s loss of the “Deepest South” to Goldwater in Fact).  (At the Tenth Amendment Summit in Atlanta February 25-26, 2010, I did have the pleasure of meeting yet another large group of conservative democrats who have organized under the label “Liberty-Democrats” at http://www.newlibertydemocrats.com, who recognize that the most repressive terms in American politics, aside from “liberal” and “welfare” is “progressive”—my son Charlie says that he and I are both “Victorian Liberals”, really fairly extreme….).

The issue that has troubled America the most from approximately 1619 onwards is the issue of race.  The Democratic Party was once “Solid” in the South because it supported first the maintenance of slavery and then of segregation, and to atone for its sins became the party that elected the First Half-Black Man (formal racial label “Mulatto”) President, Barack Obama, who also happens to be the First President Elected who, by all traditional standards of evidence, is probably NOT an American citizen, and is therefore a fraud and a usurper and generally a disgrace to this country, quite apart from the fact that he’s a raving socialist who wants this country to turn into something that can only be described as “distinctly unAmerican.”  (OH, because I believe this little scandalous scenario, I must also bear to suffer another insulting label: I am also called a “Birther”, and all the “Pro-Obama, anti-Birthers” and some of the “Birthers” rejoice in criticizing me because of those other “labels” I bear, which may or may not really mean anything, but sure can hurt a guy’s employment prospects sometimes….I mean really).  But you see, by contrast with the Democrats, the Republican Party was created to free the slaves, it’s first President won power while advocating that slaves should all be returned to Africa but achieved at least their nominal freedom but only to the effect of enslaving or at least impoverishing the Southern Whites, and now the Republican Party is the best haven for scared White Suburbanites and blacks who wish they were White Suburbanites or at least wouldn’t mind if their son or daughter married one….except that most of the scared White Suburbanites are really quite comfortable with the idea of millions of blacks in chains—so long as they’re called CONVICTED FELONS AND KEPT SAFELY AWAY FROM SOCIETY).

If I had any political power or influence I would instigate a reform of the United States Criminal Code.  There are just too many crimes on the books.  Everyone is a criminal RIGHT NOW whether they know it or not.  How many of you can be sure that you never wrote down your social security number incorrectly? How many of you can be sure that you never made any of hundreds if not thousands of indictable errors in filling out your tax returns or other government forms?  As Ayn Rand wrote many years ago that the proliferation of crimes in the criminal codes of the Western nations meant that all of us would eventually be subject to arrest at any time at the whim of the government.  That is basically how I became a convicted felon, you see: United States District Judge James R. Nowlin did not like or appreciate the fact that I was bringing civil rights lawsuits on behalf of white suburbanites who did not wish to be subject to unlawful arrest in the white suburbs, and this is just not what the civil rights laws or movement was supposed to be about.  Civil Rights Reforms in the 1950s and 1960s were just meant and supposed to be a meaningless and temporary concession or series of temporary concessions to keep African-Americans from turning Communist during the Cold War, and once the Cold War was over, all pretenses concerning the Federal Government’s interest in Civil Rights or Equality or any of that garbage could be pretty much summarily dropped, and the Government never wanted those laws to apply to White People anyhow, or so the U.S. Judges so often tell us.

Another thing I would do if I were ever elected to public office is I would reinvigorate the Civil Rights Laws and make them truly Colorblind, even as I would also allow all ethic groups in this country their own rights to separate development and self-determination to the degree that this were feasible after all the “shake and bake” years of enforced “diversity” in the schools and neighborhoods and workplaces.  We have a “shake and bake” globalist President and he’s not the least little bit interested in helping black men and women stay in their homes or get houses or avoid foreclosure or be economically independent so that they can avoid spending their lives in prison.  NO, Barack Obama shows no sign of caring that African Americans are many times more likely to end up in jail than they are to end up owning their own homes.   Nor does he show any sign of wanting to curtail the abuses, infringements, and abridgements of civil rights effected by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, the Patriot Act, the Real ID Act, and every other vile product of his miserable predecessors the totally Globalist, Freed0m Suppressing, Bush-Clinton-and-Bush Administrations (Democrats and Republicans merged into one during those years, if they hadn’t already under Reagan, the great conservative hope who not only saved Roosevelt’s New Deal but also Johnson’s Great Society—and expanded them both while utilizing all the worst elements of the Military-Industrial Complex about which Dwight Eisenhower had warned us).

If I had elective office or any political power, I would try to emphasize that the greatest difference is not between what the parties stand for today, but what they stand for today and stood for at various and sundry times in the past.  As a Democrat, I would try to resuscitate the honor of Samuel James Ervin and Howard Baker in the tradition of James W. Davis and Alfred Emanuel Smith.   As a Republican, I would say that Senator Barry Goldwater and Governor Ronald W. Reagan represent the best of the modern party tradition of individual freedom, individual responsibility, and limited government, but that President Ronald W. Reagan was nothing less than a catastrophe for the country.

If we have to have a British Citizen for President, how about Lord Monckton of Brenchley? I’ll start his “exploration committee” right now….

IS THE EUROPEAN POLICE STATE GOING GLOBAL?

by the Lord Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

monckton-1(Dec. 17, 2009: Copenhagen) — Today the gloves came off and the true purpose of the “global warming” scare became nakedly visible. Ugo Chavez, the Socialist president of Venezuela, blamed “global warming” on capitalism – and received a standing ovation from very nearly all of the delegates, lamentably including those from those of the capitalist nations of the West that are on the far Left – and that means too many of them.

Previously Robert Mugabe, dictator of Rhodesia, who had refused to leave office when he had been soundly defeated in a recent election, had also won plaudits at the conference for saying that the West ought to pay him plenty of money in reparation of our supposed “climate debt”.

Inside the conference center, “world leader” after “world leader” got up and postured about the need to Save The Planet, the imperative to do a deal, the necessity to save the small island nations from drowning, etc., etc., etc.

Outside, in the real world, it was snowing, and a foretaste of the Brave New World being cooked up by “world leaders” in their fantasy-land was already evident. Some 20,000 observers from non-governmental organizations – nearly all of them true-believing Green groups funded by taxpayers – had been accredited to the conference.

However, without warning the UN had capriciously decided that all but 300 of them were to be excluded from the conference today, and all but 90 would be excluded on the final day.

Of course, this being the inept UN, no one had bothered to notify those of the NGOs that were not true-believers in the UN’s camp. So Senator Steve Fielding of Australia and I turned up with a few dozen other delegates, to be left standing in the cold for a couple of hours while the UN laboriously worked out what to do with us.

In the end, they decided to turn us away, which they did with an ill grace and in a bad-tempered manner. As soon as the decision was final, the Danish police moved in. One of them began the now familiar technique of manhandling me, in the same fashion as one of his colleagues had done the previous day.

Once again, conscious that a police helicopter with a high-resolution camera was hovering overhead, I thrust my hands into my pockets in accordance with the St. John Ambulance crowd-control training, looked my assailant in the eye and told him, quietly but firmly, to take his hands off me.

He complied, but then decided to have another go. I told him a second time, and he let go a second time. I turned to go and, after I had turned my back, he gave me a mighty shove that flung me to the ground and knocked me out.

I came to some time later (not sure exactly how long), to find my head being cradled by my friends, some of whom were doing their best to keep the police thugs at bay while the volunteer ambulance-men attended to me.

I was picked up and dusted me off. I could not remember where I had left my telephone, which had been in my hand at the time when I was assaulted. I rather fuzzily asked where it was, and one of the police goons shouted, “He alleges he had a mobile phone.”

In fact, the phone was in my coat pocket, where my hand had been at the time of the assault. The ambulance crew led me away and laid me down under a blanket for 20 minutes to get warm, plying me with water and keeping me amused with some colorfully colloquial English that they had learned.

I thanked them for their kindness, left them a donation for their splendid service, and rejoined my friends. A very senior police officer then came up and asked if I was all right. Yes, I said, but no thanks to one of his officers, who had pushed me hard from behind when my back was turned and had sent me flying.

The police chief said that none of his officers would have done such a thing. I said that several witnesses had seen the incident, which I intended to report. I said I had hoped to receive an apology but had not received one, and would include that in my report. The policeman went off looking glum, and with good reason.

To assault an accredited representative of a conference your nation is hosting, and to do it while your own police cameramen are filming from above, and to do it without any provocation except my polite, non-threatening request that I should not be manhandled, is not a career-enhancing move, as that police chief is about to discover to his cost.

Nor does this incident, and far too many like it, reflect the slightest credit on Denmark. We must make reasonable allowance for the fact that the unspeakable security service of the UN, which is universally detested by those at this conference, was ordering the Danish police about. The tension between the alien force and the indigenous men on the ground had grown throughout the conference.

However, the Danish police were far too free with their hands when pushing us around, and that is not acceptable in a free society. But then, Europe is no longer a free society. It is, in effect, a tyranny ruled by the unelected Kommissars of the European Union. That is perhaps one reason why police forces throughout Europe, including that in the UK, have become far more brutal than was once acceptable in their treatment of the citizens they are sworn to serve.

It is exactly this species of tyranny that the UN would like to impose upon the entire planet, in the name of saving us from ourselves – or, as Ugo Chavez would put it, saving us from Western capitalist democracy.

A few weeks ago, at a major conference in New York, I spoke about this tendency towards tyranny with Dr. Vaclav Klaus, the distinguished economist and doughty fighter for freedom and democracy who is President of the Czech Republic.

While we still have one or two statesmen of his caliber, there is hope for Europe and the world. Unfortunately, he refused to come to Copenhagen, telling me that there was no point, now that the lunatics were firmly in control of the asylum.

However, I asked him whether the draft Copenhagen Treaty’s proposal for what amounted to a communistic world government reminded him of the Communism under which he and his country had suffered for so long.

He thought for a moment – as statesmen always do before answering an unusual question – and said, “Maybe it is not brutal. But in all other respects, what it proposes is far too close to Communism for comfort.”

Today, as I lay in the snow with a cut knee, a bruised back, a banged head, a ruined suit, and a written-off coat, I wondered whether the brutality of the New World Order was moving closer than President Klaus – or any of us – had realized.

Source: http://sppiblog.org/news/is-the-european-police-state-going-global