Tag Archives: Sam Ervin

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

HISTORIC “NO” VOTE IN GREECE. CONFEDERATES AWAKE!!!!!

The Greek People today voted against Central Government and Central Economic Planning by a factor of roughly 2-to-1 (in many hard-hit urban areas 3-to-1). Greece has perhaps turned the tide of the expanding power of the European Community, and we should follow suit here. The Greek people know that a central government based in Brussels, exactly on the opposite Northwest Corner of Europe from Greece in the far Southeast, cannot possibly be expected to act in the interests of a minority people with comparatively little wealth and political “pull” compared with France, Germany, or even Italy.

The people of the South derived their concept of Democracy, much of their philosophy, and their iconic style of architecture from the Ancient Greek Civilization of Demosthenes, Aristotle, Plato, and Saint Paul the Apostle, not to mention their battle flag from Saint Andrew Protokletos, the First Called Apostle, who died, crucified on an X-shaped cross, in Patras on the Northwest Peloponnesos.

Every Southern Constitutional Democrat from Thomas Jefferson through Andrew Jackson to Jefferson Davis through John W. Davis (a West-Virginia Born lawyer, successor to Samuel Tilden in New York Law and predecessor to Robert Byrd who as Democratic Presidential nominee carried the 11 Southern States in the election of 1924, ending his career heroically defending the honor and integrity of the South in Brown v. Board of Education thirty years later) up to Sam Ervin, Price Daniel, Walter F. George, and Strom Thurmond was acutely aware of the Greek Heritage of Southern Democratic-Republican traditions.

The people and politicians of the South should follow the developments in Greece closely—and take note that the only major party which unequivocally advocated a “no” vote was the Golden Dawn…. the most traditionally conservative of all of Greece’s political movements…

R.I.P. Eugene Luther Gore Vidal, October 3, 1925-July 31, 2012—the last aristocratic Democrat, a Sexually Liberated William Buckley—with thoughts on the leftist naiveté that led Timothy McVeigh’s most vocal supporter to misunderstand April 19, 1995 in Oklahoma City Completely….

I for one will never forget those two April 19ths, in 1993 and 1995.  On April 19 in 1993 I was working in the chambers of United States District Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp, one of the most upstanding men I have ever known, and everyone in the chambers was speechless as we gathered around the television to watch the events unfolding in my native Texas, just outside of the town of Waco, where I had stopped a thousand times if once on the way from Dallas to Austin/Lago Vista.  As it happened, I was IN Lago Vista on April 19, 1995—at a horribly dull country club luncheon meeting of the Rotary Club (I might even have been a speaker that day, I don’t remember).

What I saw that Gore Vidal failed to see in his treatment of Timothy McVeigh, the most thoughtful treatment of Oklahoma City anywhere in the media, was that the government had apparently actually implemented the program of domestic terrorism which I had heard predicted by my friends in Washington in 1989-1991—around the time of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union….  Washington Bureaucrats needed a new Perpetual but “Cold” War to maintain their power, and they had predicted with uncanny precision an outbreak of domestic terrorism in the 1990s.

As I have written many times before on these pages, 1963-1972 was the decade of major political figure assassinations in the implementation and justification of domestic and international policy, but 1992-2001 was the decade of domestic terrorism in the implementation and justification of domestic and international policy.  The Watergate Scandal, Jimmy Carter’s naiveté and Ronald Reagan’s major program of “Neo-Con” solidification of the New Deal and Great Society dominated the 1970s and 80s….. but George H. W. Bush (41st President) was ready for a new advance in the Police State and the New World Order, globally speaking…and William Jefferson Clinton was more than obliging to implement that program…. Newt Gingrich and his “Contract on America” took the Congress in the 1994 elections, taking office in 1995.  The crowning achievement of Newt Gingrich’s “Contract” and the Republican Congress in the 1995-1997 term that defined this era in U.S. History was the April 19, 1995 domestic terrorist attack by a supposedly white conservative patriot in the heartland, Oklahoma City, where nothing politically important had ever happened before except for the 1948 convention of Strom Thurmond’s Democratic States’ Rights “Dixiecrat” Party, and the resultant Bill-of-Rights killing AEDPA—the infamous “Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996”.  AEDPA, Newt Gingrich’s triumphant abrogation of Habeas Corpus and the substantive and procedural “due process” protections of the 4th, 5th, & 6th Amendments to the Constitution, laid the foundation for the much more draconian 2001 Patriot Act, which was already prepared and ready to sign when George W. Bush (43rd President) completed his Dad’s plans for the transformation of America into a Corporate-Socialist Dictatorship of Deception…a sophisticatedly postmodernist Communist state within the Global New World Order where two mulatto Secretaries of State (Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice) paved the way for the first mulatto President of (highly controversial) African birth and/or parentage.

Without AEDPA and the Patriot Act, the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act (Senate Bill 1867) could never have passed to finally lay the Bill of Rights in this Country into an unpeaceful grave under that first tragic mulatto President (and what a tragic MULE or mullet he really is…)

I do not understand how anyone as insightful and sophisticated as Gore Vidal could possibly have missed the clear trends and associations in and among the events of 1993-2001, or how he could have suppressed his comments if he saw them, but looking back over his fabled Vanity Fair article and related writings on McVeigh, I simply do not believe that Vidal ever quite could overcome his age, the fact that he was born in north the 1920s and wanted to believe in the grander myth of a good Yankee America…. to accept that just as much as Ruby Ridge and Waco, Oklahoma City and 9-11 were tailor-made designer products to implement and justify the suppression of the American Constitution of 1787.

Perhaps it is easier for those with Southern Heritage to see the modern corruption of our country for what it is, namely the end result of a process of degradation that began in 1861….and is not quite over yet.   Still, I will heartily miss Gore Vidal’s erudite commentary…. I agreed with much of what he said and wrote and the brilliance of his mind was undeniable.

He may have been “conservative” as Hollywood Democrats go, but that just reflects how far left that party (and “the culture of Hollywood”) really have gone….  Gore Vidal was certainly not a Conservative Democrat by comparison with men like the Harry F. Byrds, (Sr. & Jr.), Robert Carlise Byrd, James O. Eastland, Sam Ervin, Olin D. Johnston, John Stennis, Eugene and Herman Eugene Talmadge, Strom Thurmond, or George Corley Wallace.  Nor is his analysis of the post-Constitutional world of America quite as on-point as former Alabama theatrical studies student Suzanne Collins.   But Gore Vidal was a breath of fresh air among the establishment elite—especially compared to other so-called “Eastern Aristocrats” such as the despicable Bushes….who Vidal always staunchly opposed and justly (if insufficiently) criticized.

Here in his memory is Gore Vidal’s Vanity Fair Essay on Timothy McVeigh as a misguided “Sanity Fair” Patriot (rather than, as I would see him, just an extremely well-trained “patsy” who played his governmentally designated role scrupulously and admirably, exactly as Andreas Breivik in Norway and James Holmes in Aurora, Colorado are doing right now, at this very moment):

truth and politics

The Meaning of Timothy McVeigh

Americans were fed the story of Timothy McVeigh’s trial and execution as a simple, unquestionable narrative: he was guilty, he was evil, and he acted largely alone. Gore Vidal’s 1998 Vanity Fair essay on the erosion of the U.S. Bill of Rights caused McVeigh to begin a three-year correspondence with Vidal, prompting an examination of certain evidence that points to darker truths—a conspiracy willfully ignored by F.B.I. investigators, and a possible cover-up by a government waging a secret war on the liberty of its citizens.

Toward the end of the last century but one, Richard Wagner made a visit to the southern Italian town of Ravello, where he was shown the gardens of the thousand-year-old Villa Rufolo. “Maestro,” asked the head gardener, “do not these fantastic gardens ’neath yonder azure sky that blends in such perfect harmony with yonder azure sea closely resemble those fabled gardens of Klingsor where you have set so much of your latest interminable opera, Parsifal? Is not this vision of loveliness your inspiration for Klingsor?” Wagner muttered something in German. “He say,” said a nearby translator, “‘How about that?’”

How about that indeed, I thought, as I made my way toward a corner of those fabled gardens, where ABC-TV’s Good Morning America and CBS’s Early Show had set up their cameras so that I could appear “live” to viewers back home in God’s country.

This was last May. In a week’s time “the Oklahoma City Bomber,” a decorated hero of the Gulf War, one of Nature’s Eagle Scouts, Timothy McVeigh, was due to be executed by lethal injection in Terre Haute, Indiana, for being, as he himself insisted, the sole maker and detonator of a bomb that blew up a federal building in which died 168 men, women, and children. This was the greatest massacre of Americans by an American since two years earlier, when the federal government decided to take out the compound of a Seventh-Day Adventist cult near Waco, Texas. The Branch Davidians, as the cultists called themselves, were a peaceful group of men, women, and children living and praying together in anticipation of the end of the world, which started to come their way on February 28, 1993. The Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, exercising its mandate to “regulate” firearms, refused all invitations from cult leader David Koresh to inspect his licensed firearms. The A.T.F. instead opted for fun. More than 100 A.T.F. agents, without proper warrants, attacked the church’s compound while, overhead, at least one A.T.F. helicopter fired at the roof of the main building. Six Branch Davidians were killed that day. Four A.T.F. agents were shot dead, by friendly fire, it was thought.

There was a standoff. Followed by a 51-day siege in which loud music was played 24 hours a day outside the compound. Then electricity was turned off. Food was denied the children. Meanwhile, the Media were briefed regularly on the evils of David Koresh. Apparently, he was making and selling crystal meth; he was also—what else in these sick times?—not a Man of God but a Pedophile. The new attorney general, Janet Reno, then got tough. On April 19 she ordered the F.B.I. to finish up what the A.T.F. had begun. In defiance of the Posse Comitatus Act (a basic bulwark of our fragile liberties that forbids the use of the military against civilians), tanks of the Texas National Guard and the army’s Joint Task Force Six attacked the compound with a gas deadly to children and not too healthy for adults while ramming holes in the building. Some Davidians escaped. Others were shot by F.B.I. snipers. In an investigation six years later, the F.B.I. denied ever shooting off anything much more than a pyrotechnic tear-gas cannister. Finally, during a six-hour assault, the building was set fire to and then bulldozed by Bradley armored vehicles. God saw to it that no F.B.I. man was hurt while more than 80 cult members were killed, of whom 27 were children. It was a great victory for Uncle Sam, as intended by the F.B.I., whose code name for the assault was Show Time.

It wasn’t until May 14, 1995, that Janet Reno, on 60 Minutes, confessed to second thoughts. “I saw what happened, and knowing what happened, I would not do it again.” Plainly, a learning experience for the Florida daughter of a champion lady alligator rassler.

The April 19, 1993, show at Waco proved to be the largest massacre of Americans by their own government since 1890, when a number of Native Americans were slaughtered at Wounded Knee, South Dakota. Thus the ante keeps upping.

Although McVeigh was soon to indicate that he had acted in retaliation for what had happened at Waco (he had even picked the second anniversary of the slaughter, April 19, for his act of retribution), our government’s secret police, together with its allies in the Media, put, as it were, a heavy fist upon the scales. There was to be only one story: one man of incredible innate evil wanted to destroy innocent lives for no reason other than a spontaneous joy in evildoing. From the beginning, it was ordained that McVeigh was to have no coherent motive for what he had done other than a Shakespearean motiveless malignity. Iago is now back in town, with a bomb, not a handkerchief. More to the point, he and the prosecution agreed that he had no serious accomplices.

I sat on an uncomfortable chair, facing a camera. Generators hummed amid the delphiniums. Good Morning America was first. I had been told that Diane Sawyer would be questioning me from New York, but ABC has a McVeigh “expert,” one Charles Gibson, and he would do the honors. Our interview would be something like four minutes. Yes, I was to be interviewed In Depth. This means that only every other question starts with “Now, tell us, briefly … ” Dutifully, I told, briefly, how it was that McVeigh, whom I had never met, happened to invite me to be one of the five chosen witnesses to his execution.

Briefly, it all began in the November 1998 issue of Vanity Fair. I had written a piece about “the shredding of our Bill of Rights.” I cited examples of I.R.S. seizures of property without due process of law, warrantless raids and murders committed against innocent people by various drug-enforcement groups, government collusion with agribusiness’s successful attempts to drive small farmers out of business, and so on. (For those who would like further evidence of a government running amok, turn to page 397 of my The Last Empire.) Then, as a coda, I discussed the illegal but unpunished murders at Ruby Ridge, Idaho (a mother and child and dog had been killed in cold blood by the F.B.I.); then, the next year, Waco. The Media expressed little outrage in either case. Apparently, the trigger words had not been spoken. Trigger words? Remember The Manchurian Candidate? George Axelrod’s splendid 1962 film, where the brainwashed (by North Koreans) protagonist can only be set in murderous motion when the gracious garden-club lady, played by Angela Lansbury, says, “Why don’t you pass the time by playing a little solitaire?”

Since we had been told for weeks that the Branch Davidian leader, David Koresh, was not only a drug dealer but the sexual abuser of the 27 children in his compound, the maternal Ms. Reno in essence decreed: Better that they all be dead than defiled. Hence, the attack. Later, 11 members of the Branch Davidian Church were put on trial for the “conspiracy to commit murder” of the federal agents who had attacked them. The jury found all 11 innocent on that charge. But after stating that the defendants were guilty of attempted murder—the very charge of which they had just been acquitted—the judge sentenced eight innocent church members up to 40 years on lesser charges. One disgusted juror said, “The wrong people were on trial.” Show Time!

Personally, I was sufficiently outraged to describe in detail what had actually happened. Meanwhile, the card players of 1998 were busy shuffling and dealing. Since McVeigh had been revealed as evil itself, no one was interested in why he had done what he had done. But then “why” is a question the Media are trained to shy away from. Too dangerous. One might actually learn why something had happened and become thoughtful. I wrote in these pages:

For Timothy McVeigh, [Waco and Ruby Ridge] became the symbol of [federal] oppression and murder. Since he was now suffering from an exaggerated sense of justice, not a common American trait, he went to war pretty much on his own and ended up slaughtering more innocents than the Feds had at Waco. Did he know what he was doing when he blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City because it contained the hated [Feds]? McVeigh remained silent throughout his trial. Finally, as he was about to be sentenced, the court asked him if he would like to speak. He did. He rose and said, “I wish to use the words of Justice Brandeis dissenting in Olmstead to speak for me. He wrote, ‘Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or ill, it teaches the whole people by its example.’” Then McVeigh was sentenced to death by the government.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blame it on King Charles I.

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

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

Those were the magic words.

Article V, Section 16 of the Colorado Constitution says:

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

That’s where Charles comes in.

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

Say this for Brits — they have long memories.

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

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

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

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

And…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protected: I will run for the United States Senate from California in 2012.

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below: