Tag Archives: Lyndon B. Johnson

Comparing Catalonia and the Confederacy—States and Nations (with notes on the Monstrosity of Moderation in Media)

SPAIN TRIED AND FAILED TO SUPPRESS A VOTE FOR SECESSION IN ITS WEALTHY NORTHEASTERN CORNER OF CATALONIA TODAY (Sunday October 1, 2017).  According to the latest tally I have seen on the BBC, 2,020,144 Catalan voters cast their ballots in favor of an Independent Republic, centered on the Mediterranean seaport of Barcelona.  These two million plus voters constituted 90.09% of the 42-43% of the eligible electorate who voted, but Spain itself had urged pro-Spanish “no” voters to stay away from the Polls, and the massive police intervention and use of force must have discouraged some….

Although during the past 42 years that “Francisco Franco is still dead,” Spain has acknowledged the right of the several nationalities (Basque, Galician, Catalan) to assert regional autonomy, Spain has declared this vote illegal and non-binding. The Central Government of Spain in Madrid has been arguing ever since the election of the pro-Independence party in September of 2015,  that Catalonia’s vote was going to be “illegal” and they threatened to, and actually did, try to suppress the vote by Police Action.  

Most of the world (which has spoken) has either come out expressly in favor or seems tacitly on the side of Catalans who want independence.  Only Madrid and the Spanish government seem strongly against it—fearful, undoubtedly, of losing prime Mediterranean beach resorts, Barcelona (the second largest city in Spain, seventh largest and “most successful” in all Europe), plus the Balearic Islands (Majorca, Menorca, Ibiza and Formentera).  In essence, Catalonia includes some of the best real estate IN ALL OF EUROPE AND THE CIRCUM MEDITERRANEAN WORLD.  This is indeed “the Spanish Riviera”.

The comparison to the Secession of the Confederate States of America is obvious, but it isn’t getting much currency in the U.S. or British Media, despite the fact that the Confederate States have made a renewed appearance in the news since April, here in New Orleans and around the USA…. and even in the consciousness of the whole world.

So, since nobody else is making the comparison (that I’ve seen so far, anyhow, I will).   In 1860, the Southern states formed (per capita) the richest part of the United States.   Catalonia had better hope that world opinion remains on its side!    Because Spain has its eyes and tax collectors all focused on this rich province, and history tells us that the rich can be laid low when they try to retain their wealth….

For the record, Catalonia was originally, and has always considered itself, a separate “Nationality” (i.e. ethnolinguistic group). During the Middle Ages, the County of Barcelona became the Capital of the “Principality of Catalonia” which later became incorporated into the Kingdom of Aragon.  Aragon, in turn, was one of the most powerful and richest states in the post-Reconquista/Crusader world of the Mediterranean.  Then Aragon, later, under the 15th century reigns of King Ferdinand of Aragon and Queen Isabella of Castile, merged to form the modern Nation-State of “Spain”, leading to 500 years of almost continuous unity, although Aragon and Catalonia have several times reasserted their identities as monarchies or republics.

As James Ronald & Walter Donald Kennedy have shown in their most recent book “Punished with Poverty: the Suffering South, Prosperity to Poverty and the Continuing Struggle”  Columbia, South Carolina: Shotwell Publishing (2016), and as my dearly beloved grandmother always told me, THE SOUTH WAS THE WEALTHIEST PART OF THE UNITED STATES, “before the War” and the poorest part afterwards.   The combined cash value of the crops in any of the three pairs of Virginia and Georgia or Mississippi and Louisiana or North & South Carolina (each pair taken alone) exceeded the cash value of all the manufactured goods produced north of the Mason & Dixon-Ohio River—as of 1860.  But as of 1870, war had irreversibly altered the situation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Shsf–rh4PE

While neither historians or any Southerners today doubt that the people of the South overwhelmingly favored secession in 1861, the state legislatures only voted to hold popular votes as referenda/plebiscites/”propositions” in three of the thirteen states and one territory seceding (there were fifteen “slave” states, but a secession vote in the legislature in Maryland was suppressed at gunpoint and the state of Delaware never tried—West Virginia seceded from Virginia but kept its slaves and (ironically) after the war was among the most hostile toward enfranchisement of the newly freed slaves, as evidenced in several of the early major civil rights cases which emerged from that idiosyncratic Appalachian state opposite Ohio that seceded to nullify secession—oh, and Arizona was a territory constituting the southern half of what is now Arizona and New Mexico, but had then all been “New Mexico” until 1861).

In the states that held popular vote referenda, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia, the votes in favor of secession were nowhere nearly as lopsided as the vote held in Catalonia today (Sunday, October 1, 2017), but it should be noted that NO NORTHERN STATE, nor the United States Federal Government, under President James Buchanan, ever questioned or attempted to quash secession in any state.  From South Carolina’s legislature’s first Ordinance of Secession on December 20, 1860, through Louisiana’s secession as the sixth state on January 26, 1861, the popular support for separation from the Union never appeared to waver or be doubtful.

SOUTHERN SECESSION PLEBESCITES

In February of 1861, Texas’ legislature voted to dissolve the state’s barely 16 year old affiliation with the Union on February 1, and a popular referendum was held on February 23, wherein the vote was 3.13:1 in favor of disunion.  

Virginia went through a similar two stage process in April and May of 1861, and the vote there (after Fort Sumter) was 3.53:1 in favor of taking the Old Dominion state into the Confederacy.  Robert E. Lee had opposed secession, but IN THOSE DAYS ONE’S CITIZENSHIP BELONGED TO THE STATE, NOT THE FEDERATION.  It would be comparable to calling us all “Citizens of the United Nations”—maybe some people WANT Global Citizenship, but so far, THANK GOD, no politically viable majority anywhere have ever voted for such a thing.

Finally, in May-June, Tennessee voted to secede, although the popular vote in that state was only 2.21:1 (for reference and comparison, NO PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS EVER WON ANY ELECTION BY A 2.21-1 POPULAR VOTE (although Lyndon B. Johnson came closest in 1964 against Goldwater at 1.58 to 1 comparable to FDR in 1936 against Alf Landon at 1.61 to 1—there being more third party votes in 1936 which reduced Roosevelt’s over all majority win very slightly).

IS FREEDOM TO CHOOSE REALLY TREASON?

How many of you have been divorced?  No, it’s a serious question.  How many of you have been divorced AFTER taking a vow “Til Death do Us Part”?  I was born an “Anglo-Catholic” (i.e. Episcopalian) and my wife was born Greek Orthodox in Greece.  My parents, despite their vows, split up when I was pre-school/kindergarten and it had a major impact on my life, mostly negative.  I especially regret now, looking back on it, how my grandmother taught me to scorn my own father.  That MIGHT have been a bad thing…  Anyhow, my point was this: my wife Elena and I swore personally to each other, quite aside from the marital vows, that we would never be divorced, that we would always stick together.  And we made collateral agreements that made I think this was actually a genuine promise that we would really keep, but we didn’t.  She hired the nastiest team of divorce lawyers (and their wives) in the entire state of Texas.  She turned into a monster.  Now, I blame the system, not her, but we split up, and it wrecked me.

But, in a sense, as one of my law school professors of international law at the University of Chicago said, “the nations of the world are all in a Roman Catholic marriage with one another.”  Or are they?  Are legal unions really indissoluble?  Most people do not believe that law should stand in the way of divorce, although most marital lawyers want divorce to be as much like an expensive world war as humanly possible.  So: is divorce “normal” or is divorce “treason?”

I have to admit, I led a fairly pro-Southern, sheltered life.  Even when I lived up north and attended Harvard GSAS (A.M., Ph.D.) and the University of Chicago law (J.D.) programs, I never ever heard ANYONE ever call the Southern Confederacy TREACHEROUS or the Southern Confederates called “Traitors”—as a matter of fact, everyone I knew at Harvard kind of went out of their way to apologize for Harvard’s apparent iconography of Yankee imperialism and to point out the rather obscure stained glass windows on Memorial Hall and inscriptions dedicated to the graduates of Harvard who fought for the South—(There were 257, significantly more than you might think, including five major generals, eight brigadier generals, and fully 38% of all Harvard Graduates who died in combat 1861-1865 died in the service of the armies the CSA, including three of those brigadier generals).  

So, I confess I was shocked, bowled over in fact, while I was standing in line at the very first public debate held in New Orleans on a steaming day in July in 2015 and an exceedingly unpleasant and unattractive woman in line started talking about how Confederates were all TRAITORS.

Wall Street JOURNAL MODERATE MUGWUMP: Allen C. Guelzo

“A YANKEE VISITS CHARLOTTESVILLE, WHERE GEN. LEE IS UNDER COVER.”

Some writers take poetic license, some take journalistic license.  But let’s face it: some writers DO NOT DESERVE A LICENSE.  Allen C. Guelzo is such a writer, and yet he writes for the Wall Street Journal…. and this is a disaster.  This USED TO BE a conservative, respectable journal***.   But no decent or respectable conservative would ever write that:

“As a Yankee, I find it a little difficult to grasp why monuments to Lee are here in the first place.  He lost, and if there is one sin American culture still prefers to bury from sight, it’s losing. Worse, Lee committed treason against the flag and the Constitution.  And behind that is the ugly truth that the Confederate cause was, when all the rhetorical chaff is swept away, designed to protect Chattel slavery, the singular birth defect of the American republic.” 

This is one of those sad moments when I have to admit I’m glad I’m not Chairman Mao or Uncle Joe Stalin…. because if I were, Guelzo would be TOAST—there wouldn’t be enough left of him to fill a matchbox, I promise.

UNLIKE THE SPANISH GOVERNMENT IN CATALONIA ON SUNDAY OCTOBER 1, 2017—NO POLICE OR TROOPS TRIED TO STOP THE SOUTHERN LEGISLATURES FROM SECEDING OR THE PRO-CONFEDERATE POPULAR VOTES FROM HAPPENING

So, if secession didn’t bother the outgoing President James Buchanan, or if it bothered him he didn’t do anything to stop it.  Buchanan was a Democrat, but he was a PENNSYLVANIA DEMOCRAT—a Yankee….the only Pennsylvanian ever to be elected President and the last President born in the 18th century.  

Buchanan supported his own Vice-President, John C. Breckinridge, in the election of 1860—Breckinridge being the choice of the “Southern Democrats” over Stephen Douglas of Illinois.  Breckinridge became a Confederate general—that’s right folks, the Vice-President of the United States who came in Second in the Electoral Vote and Third in the Popular Vote in 1860 became a Confederate General.  Was he a traitor too?  

I ask you (and Guelzo) somewhat rhetorically: IF the Vice-President of any country decides to take up arms agains that Country—don’t you suppose that there are some MAJOR issues at stake?  If James Buchanan believed that he had no constitutional power to stop secession, where did Abraham Lincoln get the idea that he had that power?

For the moment, I will leave that idea to you, but recommend to all my readers the words of James Ronald Kennedy and Walter Donald Kennedy, but also of Von Mises Institute Economist Thomas James DiLorenzo.

But is it significant that England would surely have allowed Scotland to opt out of the UK if Scotland had voted to do so several years ago?  Is it significant that Spain is trying very hard to look like a bully as it tries to bully Catalonia into submission, but that the world will almost certainly accept Catalonian secession in fairly short order?

***The Wall Street Journal was a feature of life in and around my maternal grandparents’ home in Highland Park in Dallas from the time I went to live there at age 6 years, two months, until my grandmother’s death in May 2001.  I respected it as perhaps the best newspaper in all of North America—I even arranged to have the WSJ delivered to Hacienda Chichén (and later the adjacent Casa Victoria) when I lived there, and made it the headquarters of my Harvard-Peabody-National Geographic-Chichén Itzá Archaeological Project 1983-1988.  Arranging such things by courier delivery from the Aeropuerto Internacional de Cancún in the 1980s was no piece of cake.

 

Identity, Language, and Symbolism at Charlottesville, Virginia: American vs. Foreign, Patriotic vs. Subversive, Confederate vs. Communist

Cover Photo, No automatic alt text available.

 
your Profile Photo, Image may contain: 1 person, indoor 

What exactly happened in Charlottesville? Several people invited me to go along. I was not optimistic. The Left-Wing media have had a field day, especially with the fact that Trump isn’t (yet) participating in the show of condemnation for White Supremacists…. BUT WHY are White Supremacists playing into the hands of the liberals by dressing as Klansmen and Nazis and using slogans that evoke those eras and their distinctive rituals?

The problem is one of choice of language and symbolic expression…. People rally around what they know, if they rally at all, and because of LEFTIST propaganda, all that most people know about the traditions of White Supremacy are the KKK and the Nazis—the left even chooses and frames our language and symbolic expression for us. That is the tragedy….

I would prefer to call myself a Traditional (Jacksonian) Southern Democrat, a Jeffersonian Democratic-Republican, or just an old-Fashioned Confederate (never a “Neo-Confederate”—sounds like “Neon”) …. But as late as the Watergate hearings in the 1970s, it was still the SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS in Congress who were the forefront of White Resistance to Integration. Why don’t White Resisters try to retake the Democratic Party, or at least the name and heritage of the Democratic Party? Why not quote Sam Ervin or Herman Talmadge or John Stennis or (the early, Dixiecrat) Strom Thurmond, or George Wallace or Theodore Bilbo? Why not resurrect the Red Rooster flag? (I’m looking for posters and other Party insignia with that Rebel Rooster…. PM me if you have any and are willing to sell…)

But when I try to explain all this, nobody understands. The level of historical awareness is so low among young people that very few Whites even fully understand what happened in the 1940s and 50s. What was the first “modern” Civil Rights Act of 1948 about? [Answer, mostly about “lynching”—i.e. public non-institutional but open and transparent capital trials and execution of sentences of death “by the consent of the governed”].

So, how and why was lynching outlawed? How did lynching operate and why did lynching exist in the first place? [Answer: most rural communities and small towns did not have effective police forces up through the 1950s and even into the 60s, so the people were responsible for their own safety and security, and lawyers were very expensive for everybody]. Do most people know that President Harry Truman was absolutely AGAINST the Civil Rights Act of 1948 but was coerced into signing it? Harry Truman said that the use of institutional courts vs. popular justice was a “POLITICAL QUESTION” in which the Federal Government should not intervene….

What was the Southern Manifesto, for instance??>>>(Answer: it was a brilliant document [drafted by Southern Democratic Senators, almost unanimously except for Al Gore’s father from Tennessee and Lyndon B. Johnson from Texas] attacking Desegregation on Constitutional and Historical grounds].). Who was George Corley Wallace? Who was Strom Thurmond? Who was Orval Faubus? Who was Lester Maddox? Theodore Bilbo? Almost NOBODY involved in American politics knows the answer to most these questions. (I doubt even John McCain, Lindsey Graham, or Hillary Clinton can answer them accurately). 

Comments
Claire Marie Kallenbach
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 7 hrs

Manage

Fernando Cortes
Fernando Cortes I don’t mean to sound like a reductionist but like I said the other day, it’s all about IQ.
Strategizing, planning, thinking things through instead of letting emotions dictate our actions.
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 7 hrs

Manage

Charles Edward Lincoln
Charles Edward Lincoln I honestly think it’s education and information rather than IQ…. true, there are a lot of low intelligence people in the “Alt-Right”, but Richard Spencer is not one of them… and neither is Jason Kessler… Nor is William Daniel Johnson—but his (Johnson’s strategy) is just to lie so low that nobody ever sees him….
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply ·

1

· 1 hr · Edited

Manage

Rick Crockett
Rick Crockett I would not allow such to associate with any group I was a part of. I am aware the KKK was only originally a justifiable reaction to the post civil war deconstruction but their validity is long past and their origins tarnished by 20th and now 21st. cenSee More
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply ·

1

· 7 hrs

Remove

Mary Barlow
Mary Barlow There were no klansman out there dressed in robes.
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply ·

3

· 7 hrs

Manage

Charles Edward Lincoln replied · 12 Replies · 48 mins
Why couldn’t they have just all shown up in Confederate Uniforms playing Blues, Gospel and Country Music if they wanted to make an “All-American/All Southern Statement”??? Robert E. Lee, to the best of my fairly intense knowledge of history, never staged an URBAN torchlight parade (taking into account that, before electricity, his army may have advanced by torchlight at night…. which is an entirely separate issue…)
Linda Pearl Scott
Linda Pearl Scott They were not white supremacists the issue was removal of the statues and many blacks were against that as well

Image may contain: 1 person, text
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply ·

5

· 6 hrs

Manage

Kenneth Day
Kenneth Day KKK and Nazi thing is mainly in the US but they are often state or Antifa operatives. They are turning this great victory into a loss and should be expelled from Altright and publicly named to stop then sabotaging the movement. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7g85VejT0chttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UpF8H1ZjcwSee More

LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · Remove Preview · 6 hrs · Edited

Manage

Jack Trayner
Jack Trayner The white race is most definitely under attack. We cannot allow our identity to be shaped and shrunken by our enemies. Personally I am a European National Socialist, that really is who I am.
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply ·

2

· 5 hrs

Manage

Don Carter replied · 2 Replies · 41 mins
Brent Fallin
Brent Fallin See my page, Charles.
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 5 hrs

Manage

James L. Hicks
James L. Hicks We are under assault we can’t get bogged down by what commies think of apparal. Been a debate that’s went on for decades. I don’t care if your dressed like Ronald McDonald if your willing to punch a commie in the mouth and fight for our children’s future.
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply ·

2

· 5 hrs

Manage

Charles Edward Lincoln replied · 8 Replies · 1 hr
Alexander Perez
Alexander Perez These people are not “white supremacists” as much as they are European nationalists that realize there is an even bigger issue than just removing a confederate statue. The fight against communism and anti-european cultural marxism!
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply ·

2

· 4 hrs

Manage

Rebecca VanZant
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 3 hrs

Manage

Meira Rossum
Meira Rossum I KNOW!!! Makes me insane seeing whites completely screw themselves. Handed anti-whites all the ammunition they could want.
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 2 hrs

Manage

Don Carter
Don Carter · Friends with John Hoopes

Are you a White Supremacist? If so, feel free to explain to why you feel you are superior to me?
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 2 hrs

Manage

Charles Edward Lincoln replied · 36 Replies · 55 mins
Anthony Crowe
Anthony Crowe Can we really stigmatize the whole movement just because some people who were pro-Nazi and KKK showed up?
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 1 hr

Manage

Hide 12 Replies
Charles Edward Lincoln
Charles Edward Lincoln Anthony Crowe: WE certainly didn’t “really stigmatize the whole movement”—but the Mainstream media did….and everyone in charge of organizing should have known that they would. That’s MY point. I am TOTALLY in favor of historical revision regardinSee More
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 1 hr

Manage

Don Carter
Don Carter · Friends with John Hoopes

Charles Edward Lincoln, is there any reason my kids should have to walk by a statue celebrating the confederacy? It’s confusing and disappointing. You try explaining it to your 6 year old child.
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 1 hr

Manage

Kenneth Smith
Kenneth Smith Don Carter Yes, you should have to walk by Confederate statues, because the descendants of those Confederate soldiers live in the area and put them up.
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 1 hr

Manage

Charles Edward Lincoln
Charles Edward Lincoln OK, Don Carter, again, you’re forcing me to do the opposite of my original intention, but I’ll tell you how: in 1861, the Federal Government was taken over by a Marxist-sympathizing President and a heavily Marxist-influenced political party dedicated tSee More
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 1 hr · Edited

Manage

Don Carter
Don Carter · Friends with John Hoopes

Charles Edward Lincoln, I appreciate your knowledge on history and your willingness to share your view on it. I hope we will have more discussions in the future. I have to be up early for work. Goodnight.
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 55 mins · Edited

Manage

Don Carter
Don Carter · Friends with John Hoopes

Kenneth Smith, Please write how I should tell this to my children and how it is ok and should not bother them.
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 53 mins

Manage

Charles Edward Lincoln
Charles Edward Lincoln The Southern ideals of individual liberty coupled with responsibility and self-determination are the rock-bottom core of the American dream. The North opposed those ideals. Good night everybody!
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 52 mins

Manage

Don Carter
Don Carter · Friends with John Hoopes

Yet they owned Human slaves and they justified it by race??? “individual liberty”
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 49 mins · Edited

Manage

Charles Edward Lincoln
Charles Edward Lincoln Don Carter Definitely got to go to bed but, human slavery is a widespread feature of cultures all over the world, NOT unique to the Southern United States.

In fact, all over Africa at the time, slavery was still very common, and remains a real aspecSee More

LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 38 mins

Manage

Kenneth Smith
Kenneth Smith Don Carter “Kenneth Smith, Please write how I should tell this to my children and how it is ok and should not bother them.”

Because it is a memorial to soldiers who valiantly fought and many died. That it is a memorial to Confederate war heroes and veSee More

LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 28 mins · Edited

Manage

Kenneth Smith
Kenneth Smith Don Carter -Yet they owned Human slaves and they justified it by race??? “individual –

Some did, most did not. The US Constitution contains slavery as a protected class of labor, so it was the law of the land.See More

LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 15 mins

Manage

Kenneth Smith
Kenneth Smith https://youtu.be/4OdG2vcO1gU

Waylon Jennings sings the Civil War song “An Old Reconstructed”.
YOUTUBE.COM
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · Remove Preview · 8 mins

Manage

Dirk Darcy
Dirk Darcy Excellent article based upon intelligent observations and articulated brilliantly.
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 31 mins

Manage

Charles Edward Lincoln
Charles Edward Lincoln Linguistic usage point to Kenneth Smith: Armies do not “occur” they are organized and built by military leaders with political and economic backing…. No army ever spontaneously or inexplicably “occurred” anywhere…. Sorry, I’m tired nd cranky… I obviously totally agree with you on all substantive issues…
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply ·

1

· 29 mins · Edited

Manage

“All Glory Laud and Honor, to Thee Redeemer King”—54 Palm Sundays….Sundays of the Passion, Ox Blood Vestments, Isaiah 50, Psalm 31

Isaiah 50: 4-9

The Lord God has given me the tongue of a teacher, that I may know how to sustain the weary with a word.  Morning by morning he wakens—wakens my ear to listen as those who are taught.  The Lord God has opened my ear, and I was not rebellious, I did not turn backward.  I gave my back to those who struck me, and my cheeks to those who pulled out the beard; I did not hide my face from insult and spitting.  The Lord God helps me; therefore I have not been disgraced; therefore I have set my face like flint, and I know that I shall not be put to shame; he who vindicates me is near.  Who will contend with me?  Le us stand up together.  Who are my adversaries?  Let them confront me.  It is the Lord God who helps me; who will declare me guilty?

I was born on the hundred and first day of a leap year, in a year when that 101st day just happened to be Palm Sunday… This is normally the hundredth day of the year in non-leap years such as 2013.  So I always cheat and celebrate my birthday twice every year—once for secular purposes on the hundredth day of the year birthday and another for “spiritual purposes” on Palm Sunday.  

Today, March 24, is only the 83rd day of the year but it starts a fortnight and a half of birthdays of so many people who have been important in my life.  The State Department’s John K. Naland, my best friend in my college years at Tulane, celebrates his birthday tomorrow, March 25, on the day that MIGHT have been selected for Christmas at the Council of Nicaea but lost by a narrow vote to December 25.   On Wednesday Peyton Yates Freiman and his brother Andrew turn 30.  Jon Drew Roland, Fernando Robles Castellanos, Beatriz Repetto Tio de Maldonado and Apolonio Betancourt Ruiz.

The year I was born, Dwight D. Eisenhower was President, Richard Nixon was Vice-President, Earl Warren was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Lyndon B. Johnson was Senate Democratic leader and Price Daniel, Sr., was Governor of Texas.  The Oscars for “Best Picture” and “Best Director” (Billy Wilder) in that 33rd year of the Academy Awards went to a movie which is nearly totally forgotten called “the Apartment” (which is only now remembered at all because Kevin Spacey dedicated his 1999 Oscar for the  brilliant American Beauty to Jack Lemmon’s performance in the Apartment.)  Go Figure!  On the whole it was a really horrible year but none of that was my fault.  Price Daniel, Sr. being the Governor of Texas was the best aspect of the time, politically speaking, although the Governorship of James (“Jimmie”) Houston Davis in Louisiana was the cultural and artistic highlight (singing “Sunshine, You Are My Sunshine”).  

Today I learned several things I never knew before—the name “Palm Sunday” is not traditional—it only started being used officially in the Episcopal Church in the 1928 prayerbook, but that’s the Book of Common Prayer I grew up with and I just never noticed the difference between that and my mother’s older English Church Prayerbook where it is called “The Sunday of the Passion.”  In admiring the Cathedral Dean’s Vestments, I learned that the color of Holy Week is not (at I had always thought) “Crimson” (like the Harvard Doctoral gown I wore exactly once in my life for graduation in 1990), but a much more Anglo-Saxon or Chaucerian sounding “Ox Blood Red.”   

Psalm 31: 9-16    IN TE, DOMINE SPERAVI

Have mercy on me, O Lord, for I am in trouble; my eye is consumed with sorry, and also my throat and my belly.

For my life is wasted with grief, and my years with sighing; my strength fails me because of affliction, and my bones are consumed.

I have become a reproach to all my enemies and even to my neighbors, a dismay to those of my acquaintance; when they see me in the street they avoid me.

I am forgotten like a dead man, out of mind; I am as useless as a broken pot.

For I have heard the whispering of the crow fear is all around; they put their heads together against me; they plot to take my life.

But as for me, I have trusted in you, O Lord.  I have said, “You are My God.”

My times are in your hand; rescue me from the hands of mine enemies, and from those who persecute me.

Make your face to shine upon your servant, and in your loving-kindness save me.

Why is Senate Bill 1867 so bad? In the Exercise of Absolute Power, Justice Forbids Status Crimes and Requires Blindness to all Categories of People (Prejudicial legal Classification of “Protected” or “Disfavored” Groups ALWAYS violates due process and leads down a short, steep, and very slippery slope straight into Totalitarianism)

Someone named “Jonathan” wrote in and asked: “So I’m just curious to know whether you would extend miranda rights to foreign terrorists operating on American soil? Why should an American who joins say Al Qaeda be entitled to a trial or a lawyer or any other right under our Constitution?”***(note below)

My answer to these questions [and the pathetic Senate debate excerpted here from the December 7, 2011 Daily Show with Jon Steward (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-december-7-2011/arrested-development)] is that, contrary to current civil rights practice in the United States, governmentally imposed categories and mandatory categorization of people NEVER promotes equality but ALWAYS tends to support and advance both tyranny and real inequality.  Nobody said it better than Rand Paul: “Detaining citizens without a trial is not American.”

By contrast, voluntary categorization, classification, and all assertions of identity originating from the people are among the surest guarantors and symptoms of freedom and genuine equality.  In fact, I would submit that the voluntary and intentional creation and maintenance of identity is one of the Great Traditions of the United States of America which has defined some of the greatest and most distinctive events in the history of this Continent, from the settlement of the Pilgrim Nonconformist Separatists in New England in the 17th Century through the “Great Awakening” of the 18th Century, the Mormon emigration Westward (and many smaller “separate community, separate lifeway” experiments) in the 19th Century (including the Amish), right up until the Cultural upheaval of the 1960s, when “Hippies” and “Flower Children” sought to give a new meaning to Freedom in America.   The decision to maintain cultural separateness has historically been protected by the United States Supreme Court in the greatest of its “substantive due process” decisions (e.g. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 401 (1923) and Wisconsin v. Yoder,  406 U.S. 205, 232—233 (1972)).**  

I would go so far as to maintain that involuntarily classifying people  or sorting them into “favored” and “disfavored” groups as a matter of law without trial always leads to violations of due process.  No movies or other literature ever illustrated this inherent injustice in the prejudicial and discriminatory processes of classification and labeling people one way or another than V-for-Vendetta in 2005 and Paul Verhoeven’s Black Book in 2006.  

I would also say that the only real PURPOSES people EVER have in classifying their fellow man (and woman) into involuntary groups is to deny them due process, and that this is simply intolerable under the American Constitution.

Note that the Bill of Rights contains no categories of persons, but only restrictions on the power of government: absolutely and unqualifiedly stated.  Rather, Amendments I, II, IV, IX, and X refer simply to “the people.”  Amendment V refers to “no person” and “any person”, since criminal prosecutions are almost always, by definition, brought on a one-by-one individual basis.  Even Nazi Germany, for example, never indicted “the Jews”, nor, during the 1950s, were there ever prosecutions against “the Communists”.  Due process of  law simply does not allow for categorical indictments.

Finally, Amendment VI refers only to “the accused”, again an individual classification.  (Despite the customary usage of the masculine gender throughout the bill of rights when referring to individuals, no one has ever suggested that the framers intended these rights only to apply to men: it was the grammatical economy of the time not to say “he and she” or “his and hers” or “him and her” as it is sometimes thought more acceptable to do now.)

So these are the major reasons why, in response to Jonathan’s question, I believe that “Miranda rights” (i.e. the full inventory of rights Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights) should be extended to all “foreign terrorists operating on American soil.”  To do otherwise would be to “prejudge” both who is foreign and who is a terrorist, and would  make both words “foreign” and “terrorists” into prejudicial, disfavored categories exactly analogous to “Negro” under Jim Crow in the South, “Jew” in Nazi Germany, and “Bourgeois” or “Capitalist” in Stalinist Russia.

What the 1996 AEDPA, the 2001 PATRIOT Act, and the Senate in passing S.B. 1867 have done, though, is actually MUCH worse than MERELY “discriminating against foreigners and terrorists” and in fact, much worse than “merely discriminating against, Blacks or Jews or even (to give two give two examples of a super-irrationally feared and overused but extremely vague pair of categories in modern law) “Sex Offender” and “Illegal Immigrant.”  No, the Category of “Terrorist” alone is “void for vagueness” as a matter of law.  See Papachrisou v. Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 169-170 (1972), and Kolender v. Lawson (Kolender v Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1982), attached here in adobe.pdf):

. . . “As generally stated, the void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357, 75 L. Ed. 2d 903, 103 S. Ct. 1855 (1983). 

(On the whole, the text of Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville is more amusing for its analysis of how the distinction between “idle rich” and “vagrant” under the City of Jacksonville, Florida’s “Vagrancy” ordinance blurred into meaninglessness….Papachristou v City of Jacksonville 405 US 156 92 SCt 839 02-24-1972).  “Terrorism” as a status crime under S.B. 1867 or category of criminal conduct is void for all the same reasons as was “vagrancy.”

What the Senate has done in S.B. 1867 is worse than “mere discrimination” against any of those categorical groups because in each case (Black, Jew, Sex Offender, Illegal Immigrant) there is at least a fairly narrow and objectively determinable set of traits or characteristics which define membership in the group.  There may be ambiguity at the edges, people of mixed race and ethnicity, “sex offenders” convicted of “statutory rape” where the girl lied about her age in  an objectively credible way, cases of “illegal immigration” where family hardship brought or kept people together for mutual support in violation of immigration laws, but on the whole, Blacks, Jews, Illegal Immigrants, and Sex Offenders all know who they are, and they can either “lie low” or decide to leave the country if they are able.

What is so totally monstrous about the category of “terrorist” in particular and “foreigner operating on American soil” is that theses terms are simultaneously vague, overbroad and subject to arbitrary and capricious application to the degree that even racial categories and categories based on convictions for violation of laws are not.    And in the context of modern America, merely calling someone a terrorist MAKES them a terrorist, especially (but not only) when it is a member of the government making the accusation.  To allow denial of Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to individuals accused of terrorism is simply to allow the government to deny these rights to anyone it wants, whenever it wants, for any reason it wants.  We now have a “Government of the Dictators, by the Dictators, and For the Dictators” (as Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address should honestly and probably have been written).   The dictatorial decision about who is a terrorist is left open—WIDE OPEN.   The Office of the Attorney General of the State of Texas (Greg Abbott and James Carlton Todd) have been calling the author of this blog a “dangerous paper terrorist” since 2005.  (Yes, I admit it, I have occasionally thrown paper airplanes at government buildings in protest against policies with which I disagree, OK?   So I guess that means I’m off to Guantanamo Bay? or the Domestic Equivalent?   In fact, when arrested by Live Oak at the edge of the Suwannee River on the order of Houston Federal Judge Lynn N. Hughes in August 2006, they raised the prospect of Guantanamo Bay for me in Jacksonville, only half joking…at most half….or maybe not at all I’m still not sure, but here I am in West L.A./Santa Monica).   It is not trivial at all.  They have been throwing around these terms like “paper terrorist” ever since 9/11, and the purpose is, frankly, to create an atmosphere of terror and prejudice against the people so labelled.  After that experience, I just “went with it”.  But even in 2005, there was another disbarred attorney (Zena D. Crenshaw NJCDLP “National Judicial Conduct & Disability Project) who came in from Indiana to help Francis Wayne Williams-Montenegro with my family law case in 2005.  She tried to show that the Attorney General was trying to prejudice the Court against me (it was difficult to make the Williamson County 395th Judicial District any more prejudiced against me than it was) by calling me “the most dangerous paper terrorist” in Texas, but it didn’t go anywhere.  Zena rightly predicted that they were trying to sweep all Judicial Reform activists into the category of “terrorists.” In fact, Judicial Reform, Anti-Income Tax/IRS Reform, Prison Reform, Anti-Big Oil Activists, we’re ALL terrorists now.  The FBI has guidelines and we “fit” even before S.B. 1867 became law.  I said to Zena in 2004-5 and I say now that to be accused of anything so preposterous is a “red badge of courage” and I wore it proudly (still do in fact), despite the fact that my saying so on videotape resulted in my getting arrested AGAIN in December 2007 in Mexico City and brought to Los Angeles (this time on the order of Judge Janis Graham Jack of Corpus Christi, in the same Southern District of Texas in which Judge Lynn N. Hughes sits, and which George H. W. Bush [Bush 41st] calls “home”).

The way “Jonathan’s” questions above are written actually illustrated just how bad S.B. 1867 is: After asking whether I would “extend Miranda Rights to foreign terrorists operation on American soil” (I submit that such rights have existed ever since the adoption of the Bill of Rights and the problem is not “extending” such rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, but in taking them away), “Jonathan” then asks: “Why should an American who joins say “Al Qaeda” be entitled to a trial or lawyer or any other right under our Constitution?”

This question is probably the scariest of all, if serious and not merely rhetorical. My answer is simple: BECAUSE AN AMERICAN WHO JOINS AL QAEDA IS STILL AN AMERICAN, THAT’S WHY.  But Again, to Repeat, and this is SO IMPORTANT: the Bill of Rights do not discriminate between Citizens and Non-Citizens, Americans and Non-Americans, just “people” and “persons” (so the only categorical distinctions made implicitly, if any, would be those between “people” or “persons” and animals [sorry, PETA][or plants I guess—wheat plants have any Constitutional rights before being eaten…even for arbitrary and capricious purposes as being ground into flour and made into extremely unhealthy and fattening cakes or cookies….]) .

But then that does wrap up this little exercise about why S.B. 1867 is such a very bad law: Americans can be characterized as “terrorists” and reduced to ashes by such categorization.    And it could be that “Jonathan” has more confidence in the meaning of these terms than I do.  I happen to believe that “Al Qaeda” was basically created and established, fostered, aided, and abetted, by the Bush-Reagan administration and set loose to create “domestic terrorism” to justify the very repression of civil liberties which have taken place since the Fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989-90 and the consequent evaporation of the Cold War as a reason for suppressing freedom and the Bill of Rights.  So I think “Al Qaeda” is a government made fraud, that 9/11 was a U.S. government-sponsored “false flag” attack, and that Oklahoma City MAY have been a government-sponsored incident of false terrorism.  (Please view this brilliant 5 minute summary, text also copied below at Note*: http://www.corbettreport.com/911-a-conspiracy-theory/)

In support of these hypotheses of mine, I can only point to patterns of history: from 1963-1972, from John F. Kennedy through George Corley Wallace,  a series of public assassinations by public shootings of “troublesome” non-conformist politicians took place in a waive of “lone gunmen” with no precedent in American History, and no tradition that survived.  The failed attacks on Ford and Reagan were just that, failures, and were easily traceable either to Squeaky Fromm/ Manson or John Hinkley personal and family psychological problems.

It is hard to believe that the generation that came of age during the decade 1963-1972 simply bred a series of “lone gunmen” who acted without obvious motive (but all happened to oppose, directly or indirectly, the policies and power of Lyndon Baines Johnson, even though John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr., and George C. Wallace were all at least nominally allies or at least in the same [Democratic] Party at one time or another, though Wallace ran Third-Party [American Independent] in 1968 and Malcolm X, though he hated all Democrats “categorically” as “Dixiecrats” was partially allied with Johnson on the question of Civil Rights).

It is equally hard to believe that another Decade long episode, namely the series of incidents of Domestic “Terrorism” or at least confrontation between Federal and Private parties that the Government sought to characterize somehow as “terroristic” from Ruby Ridge in 1992-9/11/2001, was merely a historical accident and not planned.  ALL the major terrorist acts since 9/11 have occurred in Europe….THAT is the legacy of 2001-2011.  Every decade has a different set of problems, with no overlap at all between the “Assassination” decade and the “Terrorism” Decade (unless you count the early 70s epidemic of hijacking which led to early restrictions on air-travel as partly overlapping with the decade of assassination).   No, it seems that the Government picks its crisis formula based on what it wants to achieve and then “stages” criminal acts and history accordingly.   So, Jonathan, whoever you are, does this answer your question?  Do you really want to live in a country where they can decide, tomorrow, that YOU are a terrorist and lock you up forever?

****I know only a few Jonathans… I hope that “Jonathan” who is the author of these questions is posing them only for rhetorical purposes to test my commitment to moral consistency and philosophical coherence.  Because, if the author of these questions is serious, and if he reflects widespread opinion in America, then…. I’m even more depressed about the passage of Senate Bill 1867 than I was before.  I can only hope this Jonathan is Dr. Jonathan Harris Levy (Brimstone & Co.)(http://www.brimstoneandcompany.com/), formerly attorney for noted Orange County Dentist Orly Taitz and (the one and only) other William Howard Taft Law School graduate I’ve ever encountered, because that would just confirm my suspicion that Orly supports the 93 bad guys who voted for this bill….  If it’s anyone of any higher level of academic achievement in law than the William Howard Taft Law School involved in presenting these questions, well that’s just demoralizing….

**If we desire homogeneity in this Country, we are well on the way to a “shake and bake” society of people no more different than one box of hamburger helper is from another.  I do not personally desire such homogeneity, but I think it is best left to the people to make voluntary associations and define local color and establish meaningful cultural diversity by devolving power downward rather than concentrating it upward.

Note*:

Everything you ever wanted to know about the 9/11 conspiracy theory in under 5 minutes.

(Watch FrenchGermanSpanish or Portuguese translations of this video.)

TRANSCRIPT: On the morning of September 11, 2001, 19 men armed with boxcutters directed by a man on dialysis in a cave fortress halfway around the world using a satellite phone and a laptop directed the most sophisticated penetration of the most heavily-defended airspace in the world, overpowering the passengers and the military combat-trained pilots on 4 commercial aircraft before flying those planes wildly off course for over an hour without being molested by a single fighter interceptor.

These 19 hijackers, devout religious fundamentalists who liked to drink alcoholsnort cocaine, and live with pink-haired strippers, managed to knock down 3 buildings with 2 planes in New York, while in Washington a pilot who couldn’t handle a single engine Cessna was able to fly a 757 in an 8,000 foot descending 270 degree corskscrew turn to come exactly level with the ground, hitting the Pentagon in the budget analyst office where DoD staffers were working on the mystery of the 2.3 trillion dollars that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had announced “missing” from the Pentagon’s coffers in a press conference the day before, on September 10, 2001.

Luckily, the news anchors knew who did it within minutes, the pundits knew within hours, the Administration knew within the day, and the evidenceliterally fell into the FBI’s lap. But for some reason a bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists demanded an investigation into the greatest attack on American soil in history.

The investigation was delayedunderfundedset up to fail, a conflict of interest and a cover up from start to finish. It was based on testimonyextracted through torture, the records of which were destroyed. It failed to mention the existence of WTC7Able DangerPtechSibel EdmondsOBL and the CIA, and the drills of hijacked aircraft being flown into buildings that were being simulated at the precise same time that those events were actually happening. It was lied to by the Pentagon, the CIA, the Bush Administration and as for Bush and Cheney…well, no one knows what they told it because they testified in secretoff the recordnot under oath and behind closed doors. It didn’t bother to look at who funded the attacks because that question is of “little practical significance“. Still, the 9/11 Commission did brilliantly, answering all of the questions the public had (except most of the victims’ family members’ questions) and pinned blame on all the people responsible (although no one so much as lost their job), determining the attacks were “a failure of imagination” because “I don’t think anyone could envision flying airplanes into buildings ” except the Pentagon and FEMA and NORAD and the NRO.

The DIA destroyed 2.5 TB of data on Able Danger, but that’s OK because it probably wasn’t important.

The SEC destroyed their records on the investigation into the insider trading before the attacks, but that’s OK because destroying the records of the largest investigation in SEC history is just part of routine record keeping.

NIST has classified the data that they used for their model of WTC7′s collapse, but that’s OK because knowing how they made their model of that collapse would “jeopardize public safety“.

The FBI has argued that all material related to their investigation of 9/11 should be kept secret from the public, but that’s OK because the FBI probably has nothing to hide.

This man never existed, nor is anything he had to say worthy of your attention, and if you say otherwise you are a paranoid conspiracy theorist and deserve to be shunned by all of humanity. Likewise himhimhim, and her. (and her and her and him).

Osama Bin Laden lived in a cave fortress in the hills of Afghanistan, but somehow got away. Then he was hiding out in Tora Bora but somehow got away. Then he lived in Abottabad for years, taunting the most comprehensive intelligence dragnet employing the most sophisticated technology in the history of the world for 10 years, releasing video after video with complete impunity (and getting younger and younger as he did so), before finally being found in a daring SEAL team raid which wasn’t recorded on video, in which he didn’t resist or use his wife as a human shield, and in which these crack special forces operatives panicked and killed this unarmed man, supposedly the best source of intelligence about those dastardly terrorists on the planet. Then they dumped his body in the ocean before telling anyone about it. Then a couple dozen of that team’s members died in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan.

This is the story of 9/11, brought to you by the media which told you the hard truths about JFK and incubator babies and mobile production facilitiesand the rescue of Jessica Lynch.

If you have any questions about this story…you are a batshit, paranoid, tinfoil, dog-abusing baby-hater and will be reviled by everyone. If you love your country and/or freedom, happiness, rainbows, rock and roll, puppy dogs, apple pie and your grandma, you will never ever express doubts about any part of this story to anyone. Ever.

This has been a public service announcement by: the Friends of the FBICIANSADIASECMSMWhite HouseNIST, and the 9/11 Commission. Because Ignorance is Strength.

If you would like to help the fight for “corny old values” like Truth, Justice, and the American Way, for Family, Home, and Freedom, and to add one Senator for the Bill of Rights and against Indefinite Detention, against the PATRIOT ACT, and against the use of United States Troops in this Country against its own citizens, please support Charles Edward Lincoln, III, for U.S. Senator from California.  We are fighting one of the most entrenched establishment seats in Congress—Dianne Feinstein who tried to make cosmetic changes in S.B. 1867 to hide and disguise its truly oppressive nature (and to claim she had “done the best she could”, perhaps?)—and we ask you to send your check or money order to Lincoln-for-Senate 2012 to Charles Edward Lincoln, III, 952 Gayley Avenue, #143, Los Angeles, California 90024.  Call 310-773-6023 for more information.