Enough Of The Lies!

For too long, we here in the Christmas-celebrating American community, have been lied to regarding the number and nomenclature of certain antlered nordic mammals. For a long time, there were eight reindeer: Dasher, Dancer, Prancer, Vixen, Commet, Cupid, Donner, and Blitzen. Then, in a mere marketing ploy gone horribly wrong, a ninth arrived on the scene that we were expected to believe had a nose that somehow glowed brightly enough to pierce an arctic snowstorm. The American citizenry proved itself estraordinarily slow to discomfiture in such widespread acceptance of such pap, an acceptance which has endured for generations.

Enshrined in song, they are known as Rudolph and his eight fellow reindeer pulling Santa's sleigh. To this, I say, "Fiddlesticks!" There are in fact TEN reindeer! Before the introduction of the lantern-nosed Rudolph, there were The Nine: Dasher, Dancer, Prancer, Vixen, Commet, Cupid, Donner, Blitzen, and the heretofore unheralded Olive. What's that, you say? You've never heard of Olive, the boisterous and impolite reindeer that was as bottomless a pit of insults as Santa's bag was of toys? Look at the text of the popular hymn again:

Rudolph, the red-nosed reindeer, had a very shiny nose.
And if you ever saw it, you would even say it glows.
Olive, the other reindeer, used to laugh and call him names!
They never let poor Rudolph join in any reindeer games.

Notice, while The Nine shut Rudolph out of the games, it was only Olive that added insult to injury. While it is lost to the mists of time and forgetfulness, some time ago, a coverup occurred to blot out the existence of Olive.

As nasty as the truth of history sometimes is, I believe it is important to see the world not as we wish it to be but as it is. There are in fact TEN reindeer pulling Santa's sleigh...not nine.

Only when we embrace Truth can we begin to heal and our children sing their songs aright.

Stop the lies.

Prayer For Honor

Heavenly Father, Creator, Providence, First Cause of ALL things, I am in awe of Who You Are and What You have Done. The universe and the earth within it are full of Your Glory and cannot help but constantly sing Your Praise. History, with all its sorrows, bears witness to your lovingkindness and unfailing love for all us. I cry out to You for there is nothing that can separate me from Your Love.

I am flabergasted that You would Love me thusly, such a pitiful wretch as I am. I have sinned against You for as long as I can remember and more. I ask you again to wash me afresh of my sin and blot out my transgressions, for even clean I tremble to come into Your Presence. My thanks for providing me a way to come before Your Throne knows no tongue to be adequately expressed.

It was for freedom that You have Made me free, and not only my own. How then can the enemies of the liberty of all men not also be the enemies of Your Own Heart? Surely, there there are those enemies of freedom that, even now, are beseeching You to aid their cause. The Progressives in America claim your Name and the Name of Your Son in the belief that the reduction of liberty is godly. I have come to realize, by Your Grace, that the worst Progressive is a religious one--less capable of entering Your Kingdom than a camel can leap through the eye of a needle.

My one petition to You, Father, is on behalf of all Americans and on behalf of all mankind everywhere who yearn to live free. I know without a doubt that the enemy is at work in every land to silence the voice of liberty wherever it resounds. I have long believed that his strongholds where elsewhere far from my country. I can no longer deny that his eye, his strength, and his wrath are in these times with his utmost fury focussed upon the United States of America, the last hope of liberty on earth.

In just a matter of hours, millions of Americans will gather in my nation's capital in the name of Honor. It is my prayer, LORD, that You Will Pour out Your Blessings on this assembly as they make a profound stand for liberty. For with Your Blessing, they cannot stand unnoticed. At such a time as this, as You Have Done throughout history, Send Your Mercy to our land, Save us from Your Wrath and the destroying revolution the enemy intends for us. Renew the promise of liberty in our land that we may once again and purely shine the light of for freedom and justice in a world benighted in slavery and tyranny.

Let the pretenders be confused and exposed. Let those devoted to the cause of liberty and honor be strengthened and encouraged. Let there be no doubt who we really are.

Above all, Let the Name of the LORD be Magnified and Praised.

I pray all these things in the name of Jesus, and I also ask Your Grace to Hear the prayers from those who do not yet know You and believe yet love liberty as I do.

Amen.

No, you still can't hear me now.

One reaction to the landslide passing of Missouri Proposition C came from US Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO): "Message received." Really? The Senator went on to say, "I think I have to work very hard at making sure that Missourians understand all the positives things that are in the bill." Is it worse that you aren't really receiving the message as you claim or that you have indeed received it but have chosen to ignore it? I am sick of this reaction by politicians in the federal government to the will of the people.

But my frustration does not end there. Much of the reaction in the press has been that the passing of Prop C is merely symbolic, that it is another message sent to Washington DC, or a portent of things to come in the general election a few months hence, and nothing more. I vehemently disagree with all of the above! As a Missouri voter, I was given the opportunity to decide whether I wanted to be free to choose whether to purchase health insurance, free to choose how to pay for health care for myself and my family, all without the threat of penalties or fines for exercising that freedom. I wanted to preseve this freedom for myself and my children. I also cast my vote in favor of Prop C to protect the the freedom of my neighbors, even if they wanted to remain in the bondage of Obamacare, because Prop C does NOT mean that all Missourians will be exempt from the federal mandate in the particulars of the state law.

The only message I might be sending to anyone is "Leave me alone, let my state be prosperous, let me be free to care for myself and my family as I see fit."

Racism Versus Demographics

On this day that the leading race advocacy group with the racist name made an announcement that pushes them towards the brink of either ignobility or irrelavence, there are a few thoughts that come to mind.

First, I think to myself about the apparent whiteness of the Tea Party movement in question.

I am quite sure there are many other-than-whites within the movement and that coverage of the movement is largely deliberately selective. There are, of course, a shockingly large amount of "colored people" in the Tea Party movement. One need only search YouTube for a minute or two for the shock to wear off. The fact yet remains that the public gatherings are comprised obviously of a large majority of white people.

Of course, if this were a Kenyan tea party movement, the National Association for the Advancement of Noncolored People (the fictional race advocacy group headquartered in Nairobi) might make a proclamation which brings into question the seeming racist nature of such a movement. Why else would the Kenyan tea part movement be so unilaterally dark-skinned if they were not racist? I might point out that 75% of the US population is other-than-hispanic white/caucasian, but that would be racist, so I won't. Further, among the 12% of us who are "colored," 90% of them tend to vote for Democrats and DNC agenda, which always stand against and mock the platform of liberty upon which the Tea Party movement (the real one in America) stands.

So, of course they are seemingly few and far between, but it's not because they are being systematically liquidated, I promise. That would be the Progressives' bailiwick. (And, boy, did it realy take off in another national socialist movement across the pond!)

Further illustrating the point is a question we have been asking for a decade now: If Islam is fundamentally a peaceful religion, why do we not see more a defense of this claim from the mainstream Muslim laity? Can it be that the answer to that question is similar to that when asked why there are so few "colored" people at Tea Party assemblies?

And now, a bit of therapeutic nit-picking on my part...

"We felt the time had come to stand up and say, 'It's time for the tea party to be responsible members of this democracy and make sure they don't tolerate bigots or bigotry among their members,'" NAACP President Ben Jealous said ahead of the debate. "We don't have a problem with the tea party's existence. We have an issue with their acceptance and welcoming of white supremacists into their organizations," he said.

Really? To which deocracy do you refer? We are not yet a democracy, Mr. Jealous.

If there are there Black Panthers in your own party that you similarly appear to tolerate, you'll let me know and remedy the situation, I'm sure.

Lastly, to say that you have an issue with the tea party's "acceptance and welcoming of white supremacists" is to say that I don't approve of tigersharks because they smoke weed all the time. That would be propaganda built upon a lie. You really should know better, Mr. Jealous.

Dunlap Broadside

This is Yale's copy of the Dunlap Broadside. Can't read it? Okay, here it is again, at least the first quarter or so of it:

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

We must ask ourselves, Why do we celebrate Independence Day? A question that must follow is, Why do we celebrate it on July 4? The answer to that question is a dangerous one, because the Declaration is the answer.

"Well, Junior, it's because that's when the Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence."

Dangerous, because the question that must follow is, "What does that Declaration say?"

To answer to THAT question is to shine a light of illumination into the darkness toward the mind's ultimate freedom. For this preable is the most consice and profound statement of Natural Law the world has ever seen.

Dangerous, because The enemy of Natural Law must necessarily be evil; evil because he goes against the Creator mentioned here--whether He be an entity, or it be an accident (I have heard "First Cause" used as a universal name for the Creator)--and indeed sleeplessly works to usurp the authority of Natural Law.

The answer to that third question, "What does the Declaration of Independence say?" is what the Enemy does not want us to hear.

We know it was dangerous for the signers.

Would you sign it today?

Salute To Veterans Air Show

I took my family to the Salute to Veterans Air Show at the Columbia Regional Airport south of Columbia, Missouri this morning. It was already warm when we arrived at 10:30 am, and the parking was becoming less ample. After a short hike, we made it onto the tarmac, set our lawn chairs down, and went for even more of a stroll to gawk at the sleeping aircraft. We saw bi-planes of the Great War, magnificent fighters and bombers of WWII, and modern helicopters, fighters, and jumbo jets used for mid-air refuelling, reconnaisance, troop transport, etc. Among this menagerie of might and terror which keeps us free were the A-10, MH-53, P-51, B-25H, and P-38. Here are a few photos of the magnificent and terrifying instruments of death and freedom I took at the event:

After an impressive series of parachuting maneuvers by Canadian troops, an A-10C from Tuscon put on an exhibition of its flying capabilities, followed by an even more awe-inspiring F/A-18 Hornet...a very loud one.

One interesting moment that could have or should have been made even more interesting occurred during the A-10's show. A couple of leftovers from the 1960's went strolling through the large crowd of spectators wearing placards which read: "Who Would Jesus Bomb?"

Funny

The interestingness quotient was kept low by this author's restraining his profound urge to walk up to them to answer their question thusly: "People...who want...to kill...you..." and then saying, probably half-facetiously, "maybe," probably.
I don't know if anyone else even noticed them, all attention was fixed upon the skies.

Today, I pass along my feeble thanks to our airmen who very powerfully keep us free.

Imminent Eschatological Perturbances

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
-- William Butler Yeats

This was written in the aftermath of a war that was supposed to end all wars. That war, the false boom and the three-decade depression which followed--which in itself contained an epic and truly global conflagration--were all brought about by leftist Bolshevic communism in the east, a rightist national socialist Europe, and progressive utopianism in America.

Europe is about to fall into chaos yet again. The neo-nazi cancer is metastasizing in Germany, and the Red Bear has a giant Dragon as a sparring partner in the fight for global dominance against an America that is seen as shrivelling--cowering in progressive shame over the sins of individual liberty and a capitalist prosperity that has made her poorest the envy of the world.

Europe is begging Greece to abandon government-run healthcare and rampant deficit spending while Washington DC continues to churn out bailout after bailout after bailout. Behind the scenes, meanwhile, a framework for "fundamental transformation" is being built--merely for emergency purposes, of course. You know, just in case. But remember, we don't have to worry anymore because the recession is behind us now.

Back to normal, everybody. Go about your business, go about your fun. Just try not to be racist or argumentative. We are in a post-debate era.

Isn't that nice?

Now, if only we can find our Archduke Ferdinand before it's too late...

If only we can stand up....

Be ready.

Would you vote for a candidate for US Senate?

"What? What did you just say?"

Tell me you didn't just think that! Until the past year or so, there has never been a time when I questioned the idea of voting for candidates for the US Senate. What's weird about that? We vote for our state Senates and for our US House, why not vote for US Senators, too? So the question goes unanswered.

Until today (or these days). In anno domini 2010, The Constitution, in it's specifics and its intentions, has been revisited like never before across the fruited plain, o'er the mountains, through the prairies, and to the oceans white with foam. The cat was let out of the bag that was designed to restrain it a hundred years ago, but the people and the states are fixin' to renew the bulwarks that kept the cat there in the first place.

In order to do this, we must constantly be asking each other and ourselves a lot of different questions. The renewal movement of which I write is calling into question even some amendments to the Constitution. So, without further ado, today I'd like to start by asking you, good reader, this:

Should we repeal the Seventeenth Amendment?

This is the text of Amendment XVII ...

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies:
Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to
make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as
the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any
Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

Before Amendment XVII, a US Senator was elected by his state legislature, as per Article I, Section 3: "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote."

Compare this with Article I, Section 2: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature." For the purposes of this discussion, this passage indicates that the representatives for the House are to be chosen by the People of each state.

As we can see, it was the intent that the Senate be the legislative body that represents the States while the House represents the People. This important distinction was made to help prevent the United States from degenerating into such hellish democracies as the framers were witnessing across the pond in Robespierrean France--where, to put it briefly, the majority wolves let the minority sheep have a say in what went on the menu.

In 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment was ratified by 36 states, placing the election of Senators in the hands of the people (a 37th state subsequently ratified it) with Utah rejecting the amendment. Although a Reign of Terror has not necessarily occurred as a result, thanks in large part to other measures of republican security still in place in the Constitution, what we have now is a bicameral federal legislature that is elected wholly by the people of the union. Former Senator Zell Miller (GA), perhaps my favorite Democrat of the 20th-21st Centuries, said this upon retirement: "Direct elections of Senators … allowed Washington’s special interests to call the shots, whether it is filling judicial vacancies, passing laws, or issuing regulations."

What do you think? We know we are far from the representative republic the framers had intended; is the Seventeenth Amendment a significant obstacle to a renewal of that republic? Is the general government or the states better for placing the direct elections of US Senators in the hands of the general electorate? Or would it be better to repeal A. XVII?

No Fate

"The future's not set. There's no fate but what we make for ourselves." At least that's what John Connor was taught...in a fictional story. Perhaps, however, the lesson still applies today. For my sanity's sake, I hope so.

Despair has largely been the end result of my thoughts concerning current events, politics, and the state of my nation these days, if I can call it that anymore. At any rate, to be quick about it, I have been depriving myself of an outlet for these feelings, and that in itself may have been what has kept me down. Something a little less fictional has been said that a free republic cannot stand without debate. If this is true, then perhaps I have been shackling myself needlessly.

This may also be seen as something of a sin, what's more. Galatians 5:1 is a command, is it not? "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery." This has passage has been growing on me for the last five to seven years, and I have seen it exemplified most astonishingly in friends I had least expected.

Why despair if there is no fate but what we ourselves make? My despair is in large part a product of the notion that a snowball has been rolled onto a slipperly slope a hundred years or so ago, and its velocity seems to have taken on an apparent inevitability and an inescabale totalitarian doom awaits us even here in America. I don't want that. I want to believe that it does not have to be that way.

To conclude, what I want to do here is to free my mind. Maybe my freedom here will serve to free others as well. I don't know. But I hope you will join me again for more freedom.