For Whom The Belle Tolls

Share

Time to start a revolution my friends. It’s now official. Pia Varma - our very own Liberty Belle - is a candidate for the US Congress (here).

She faces a well-entrenched and corrupt Democrat political machine in Philadelphia and they will surely fight hard and dirty to keep her out. That’s precisely why we all need to stand shoulder to shoulder in defense of liberty.

Show the world who we really are. Will we allow Socialism to continue to enslave millions or shall we draw our own line in the sand? This has to be the point beyond which they will not go, that point from which we will not retreat.

In šā’Allāh

Lamenting The Things We Lost

Share

Ok, I give up!!! It’s impossible to enjoy life in an atmosphere of irrational assumptions, unrealistic expectations and after-the-fact determinations of guilt in matters wherein the rules are compounded and interpreted so arbitrarily that one would have to possess a God-like prescience to even muddle through this labyrinth of abominable asininities (deep breath). We are expected to play the game based upon rules known only to the other side. And they have they audacity to fault us when we fall short. Oh, I may have failed to mention that the “they” to whom I refer is not government; its women.

Is it really a coincidence that the people responsible for fostering the adversarial relationship between the people and their government are the same people responsible for fostering similar contentiousness between men and women? Yes, I fault those 60’s and 70’s era Cultural Marxists. C’mon you had to have seen that one coming. When considering the attack on common sense which prevails in matters of public policy, one cannot not help but see the similarity vis-a-vis interpersonal relationships.

I regret that I never had the pleasure of living at a time when men were allowed to be men with all the boorishness worthy of our genetic makeup. Sure we were expected to be gentlemen but that did not equate to the feminized version of gentlemanly behaviour common to today’s standards. I have it on good authority that we once were expected to pursue the target of our affections with zeal. We understood that her reluctance and protests were just part of the game. Any woman worthy of our affections was worthy of the chase. And real gentlemen could distinguish playful protest from honest disgust. Sure there were those of our species who occasionally failed to understand when they were playing above their skill level. There were those who did not know when to apply the breaks. But did that really justify torching the rule-book? Did we really have to kill the patient to cure the disease? Talk bout your reductio ad absurdum.

If we're attentive we're smothering you. If we need you we're co-dependent. If we don’t need you we're emotionally bankrupt. And if we dare to ask what the rules are you say, (let’s all say it together) "Well if you don’t know I’m certainly not going to tell you." Today, men are expected to know beforehand what to do and when to do it but if we misjudge the situation we not only risk rejection, we risk prosecution. That’s right. It’s no longer a matter of try and fail, then move on; today it’s try and fail, then go to jail.

Years ago, women swooned over Humphrey Bogart because he was aggressive, self-assured and dare I say, cocky. “Pompous, conceited and arrogant” were not epithets, they were compliments. For years women read dime-store romance novels featuring leading men who forcefully took the woman in his arms and stole that kiss while her knees buckled. Today, he would be prosecuted for sexual assault. Once upon a time, men were required to chase his love interest even to the point of risking public embarrassment. Today, this would be considered “stalking.” Pursuing the modern woman is so precarious that unless she is standing in front of you waving semaphore flags to guide your every move, the prudent course of action is no action. Frustrated women then turn to the deep, insightful wisdom found in Cosmopolitan Magazine and popular films such as “He’s Just Not That Into You” which tells them that if he’s cautious, he’s either gay or disinterested. What planet am I on!?! Isn’t this the epitome of “damned if you do; damned if you don’t.”

That famous scene in “Gone With The Wind” wherein Rhett Butler takes a resisting Scarlet O’Hara into his arms, kisses her aggressively, sweeps her off her feet then carries her up that famed Tara staircase, made millions of women instantly fall in love, not only with the character “Rhett Butler” but with the person of Clarke Gable (here). And his intentions were not subtle. Her feigned offense at his boorish behaviour didn’t dissuade him in the least. Why? Well, frankly my friends, he didn’t give a damn. But that was 1940. Lamentably no studio would green-light a “Gone With The Wind” these days unless the director agreed to include a final scene showing Rhett Butler being tried and convicted of sexual assault. The great culture of the South may have disappeared in the winds of war in the 1860’s, but common sense itself has in the winds of the cultural wars waged in the 1960’s.

Don’t get me wrong my friends, I thoroughly enjoy the women’s movement (especially when walking behind it). But is this turn of events really what those well-intended activists of yesteryear actually sought to engender?

The United "STATE" of America

Share

On 11, January 2010 US President Barack Obama issued an Executive Order to effect the Establishment of the Council of Governors. Citing the authority granted him under Public Law 110-181 §1822 (a.k.a. the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008), the President’s order goes further than any Federal action to date to blur, if not obliterate, the distinction between the Federal government and the States. And with every step in this direction this supposed union of 50 sovereign States gets every-closer to being one giant entity of central planning and control.

Contrary to the wild assertions of an army of Conservative bloggers and media personalities, this order does not establish Martial Law. In fact, this scheme is so deleterious in and of itself, that such unfounded and irrational scenarios are wholly unnecessary.

Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the US Constitution and the principles upon which it was founded could see that the underlying law, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008, is nothing short of 600 plus pages of well-crafted verbal gymnastics intended to circumvent Constitutional limitations on Federal authority. But as this law entered the record without public outcry or legal challenge we are forced to consider how the President found in it the authority to create a new Federal agency dedicated to merging the States’ National Guard with the military forces of the US Government. For that we turn to Section 1822 thereof which reads in its entirety:

“The President shall establish a bipartisan Council of Governors to advise the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the White House Homeland Security Council on matters related to the National Guard and civil support missions.”

Consider that the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008 ostensibly governs measures which the Federal government may employ in the event of a national defense emergency such as armed insurrection or nuclear/chemical/biological attack within the territory of the United States. Nothing in the body of the Act expressly or implicitly grants the President the authority to employ such measures under any other circumstances. Moreover Section 1822 does not grant the President the authority which he so casually arrogates to himself, to synchronize and integrate State and Federal military activities in the United States (See §2(d) of the President’s Executive Order). This is why the actual language of law and regulations is so crucial.

President Obama does not limit his authority in this regard to matters related to national defense emergencies. A fair reading of the order reveals that he intends to remove the National Guard from the authority of the Governors of the various States and place them under the authority of the US military command now and in perpetuity.

It is true that any future President may issue an Executive Order quashing that of President Obama, but as we all know, once a government scheme has been enacted it becomes inviolable; sacrosanct!!. It would therefore be folly to reset on the mere assumption that a future holder of the office of the President will abolish this council and uphold the Constitution. History is replete with too much evidence to the contrary.

Unfortunately there is little that can be done to thwart this abomination at this stage. But perhaps this will serve as a rallying call to all Americans to scrutinize the voting records of those who seek your vote in elections and more importantly ascertain their principles and the philosophy upon which those principles are predicated.

Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009

Share

Ever hear of H.R. 4173? What about, the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009? Still nothing? Well, that’s not surprising. Your trusted and devoted Representatives on the House Financial Services Committee have been feverishly working on this legislation since the last summer. And fortunately for you, it managed to clear most major Congressional hurdles under cover of the public furor over Health Care Reform. After all, they didn’t want you to worry your pretty little heads over such confusing and innocuous matters like, “Wall Street” and “bank failures” during the holidays. Don’t you just love the way they always have your best interests at heart?

The bad news is, this new legislation when (not, “if”) passed, will create at least four new Federal regulatory agencies. It also grants heretofore unimaginable powers to the Federal Reserve to police risk and take over any US company which it deems a threat to economic security and stability. Now correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the Federal Reserve that same institution that is not actually subject to government control? So they are granting this entity the power to literally plan, control and coordinate all economic activity as it sees fit.

You should know that H.R. 4173 also protects “Americans from unfair and abusive financial products and services” and “enables regulators to ban inappropriate or imprudently risky compensation practices.” Does anyone care to specifically define these statements? How does one objectively define terms such as “unfair” and “inappropriate” in such a way as to ensure that persons looking to start a new fund or financial services venture can accurately plan their activities. That is the essence of “rule of law.” Laws must be written with such clarity that any lay person is able to determine which course of action is both profitable and permissible. It allows one to properly gauge exposure. But with language like this, financial services will be nothing more that a roll of the dice and the only people capable of determining whether one’s actions are permissible or not will be those who promulgate and enforce the rules. Worst of all such determinations will as always, be made after-the-fact. That’s right, you will have no way of knowing if you’ve violated the rules until some bureaucrat makes the call. Contrary to the claim of House Financial Services Committee Chairman, Barney Frank, these are not “mere common sense rules of the road.” Pardon me but when I elect to drive my car, I do so fully aware of the rules and risk of violation. I know that I risk losing my life, liberty and/or property for breaking actual laws and not just behaving in an “unfair” or “inappropriate” manner.

Based on what I’ve seen thus far, most Americans don’t really find this all that alarming. So prepare yourselves for yet another phase in the road to serfdom. Not to worry though, I hear they’re doing wonderful things with chains and cages these days.