Category Archives: Sons of Liberty

When We Look At Ted Cruz, We See the Alamo

the_alamo
The Alamo Today

It was not until the last 24 hours, after 13 days of siege, that a real battle ensued. In the battle, the Alamo defenders fought valiantly and nearly all were killed including Jim Travis, Jim Bowie, and Davey Crockett.

The defense of the Alamo allowed General Sam Houston to build a large enough army to route Santa Anna and his men. “Remember The Alamo” was a constant battle cry at the Battle of San Jacinto, six weeks later. In the battle that lasted only 18 minutes, roughly 630 Mexican troops were killed and 730 captured while only 9 Texans died. Three weeks after being captured, Santa Anna signed a peace treaty, paving the way for the Republic of Texas.

The men who fought and died in Texas were ordinary people who took up arms to defend a great country. With the threat of death hovering above them for 13 days, they refused to leave their post (yes, a very tiny group did) and surrender. Even Davey Crockett, a man who already served as a United States Congressman, took up arms to defend Texas. Nearly all politicians today can learn a very big lesson from the men who lost their lives. There is a greater good besides your own self-interests. Politicians need to stop their petty differences and make the correct political sacrifices even if it costs them their career. They must be able to stand up to the political correctness without worry about what the consequences might be.

Ted Cruz is a Texan, and he acts like it. He is not afraid of demonizing his own party and possibly sacrificing his career in order to bring our country back to what the founding fathers fought for. The American people have had enough of the political correctness that has been drowning this country and holding us back from the being the great power we used to be. Washington should mark this day, March 6, as National “Remember the Alamo” day in honor of those who gave their lives and the selfless sacrifices they made.

Read it all.

Quotes About Revolution

250px-JeanGenet-HansKoechler1983-cropped
Writer Jean Genet
Prudence ... will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn 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.—THOMAS JEFFERSON, Declaration of Independence

The revolution you dream of is not ours. You don't want to change the world, you want to blow it up.—JEAN-PAUL SARTRE, Dirty Hands

A people contending for life and liberty are seldom disposed to look with a favorable eye upon either men or measures whose passions, interests or consequences will clash with those inestimable objects.—GEORGE WASHINGTON, letter to General Thomas, July 23, 1775

Revolutions have never lightened the burden of tyranny. They have only shifted it to another shoulder.—GEORGE BERNARD SHAW, Man and Superman

It's the well-behaved children ... that make the best revolutionaries. They don't say a word, they don't hide under the table, they eat only one piece of chocolate at a time. But later on they make society pay dearly. —JEAN-PAUL SARTRE, Dirty Hands

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure. —THOMAS JEFFERSON, letter to W.S. Smith, Nov. 13, 1787

Make the Revolution a parent of settlement, and not a nursery of future revolutions.—EDMUND BURKE, Reflections on the Revolution in France

9th Circuit Laugher
Some People Prefer Government Endowments
That humanity and sincerity which dispose men to resist injustice and tyranny render them unfit to cope with the cunning and power of those who are opposed to them. The friends of liberty trust to the professions of others because they are themselves sincere, and endeavour to secure the public good with the least possible hurt to its enemies, who have no regard to anything but their own unprincipled ends, and stick at nothing to accomplish them.
WILLIAM HAZLITT, Characters of Shakespeare's Plays

Do people demand a really just system? Well, we'll arrange it so that they'll be satisfied with one that's a little less unjust ... They want a revolution, and we'll give them reforms -- lots of reforms; we'll drown them in reforms. Or rather, we'll drown them in promises of reforms, because we'll never give them real ones either!!—DARIO FO, Accidental Death of an Anarchist

If we behave like those on the other side, then we are the other side. Instead of changing the world, all we'll achieve is a reflection of the one we want to destroy. JEAN GENET, The Balcony

A little rebellion now and then is a good thing and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. —THOMAS JEFFERSON, letter to James Madison, Jan. 30, 1787

I can imagine no man who will look with more horror on the End than a conscientious revolution­ary who has, in a sense sincerely, been justifying cruelties and injustices inflicted on millions of his contemporaries by the benefits which he hopes to confer on future generations: generations who, as one terrible moment now reveals to him, were never going to exist. Then he will see the massacres, the faked trials, the deportations, to be all ineffaceably real, an essential part, his part, in the drama that has just ended: while the future Utopia had never been anything but a fantasy. —C.S. LEWIS, The World's Last Night

They never fail who die
In a great cause: the block may soak their gore:
Their heads may sodden in the sun; their limbs
Be strung to city gates and castle walls—
But still their Spirit walks abroad. Though years
Elapse, and others share as dark a doom,
They but augment the deep and sweeping thoughts
Which overpower all others, and conduct
The world at last to Freedom.

—LORD BYRON, Marino Faliero

The right to rebellion is the right to seek a higher rule, and not to wander in mere lawlessness.—GEORGE ELIOT, Felix Holt

Resistance to improvement contradicts the noblest instincts of the race. It begets its opposite. The fanaticism of reform is only the raging of the accumulated waters caused by the obstructions which an ultra conservatism has thrown across the stream of progress; and revolution itself is but the sudden overwhelming and sweeping away of impediments that should have been seasonably removed.—HORACE MANN, Thoughts

The history of the human race always has been, and most likely always will be, that of evolution and revolution.—LEWIS F. KORNS, Thoughts

It is far more easy to pull down, than to build up, and to destroy, than to preserve. Revolutions have on this account been falsely supposed to be fertile of great talent; as the dregs rise to the top, during a fermentation, and the lightest things are carried highest by the whirlwind. And the practice of this proposition bears out the theory; for demagogues have succeeded tolerably well in making ruins; but the moment they begin to build anew from the materials that they have overthrown, they have often been uselessly employed with regard to others, and more often dangerously with regard to themselves. CHARLES CALEB COLTON, Lacon

A constitution imperiled justifies revolution.—EDWARD COUNSEL, Maxims

As to the history of the revolution, my ideas may be peculiar, perhaps singular. What do we mean by the Revolution? The war? That was no part of the revolution; it was only an effect and consequence of it. The revolution was in the minds of the people, and this was effected ... before a drop of blood was shed. —JOHN ADAMS, letter to Thomas Jefferson, Aug. 24, 1815

If we would trace our descents, we should find all slaves to come from princes and all princes from slaves: But fortune has turned all things topsy-turvy, in a long story of revolutions.—WELLINS CALCOTT, Thoughts Moral and Divine

Revolution does not insure progress. You may overturn thrones, but what proof that anything better will grow upon the soil? —E.H. CHAPIN, Living Words

Some men hope for revolution but when you revolt and set up your new government you find your new government is still the same old Papa, he has only put on a cardboard mask.CHARLES BUKOWSKI, Notes of a Dirty Old Man

A Spiritual Failing of The Left

Sarah Palin
May she take another shot some day...

HOLD ON TO YOUR HAT HARRY. I don't think I can let you off the hook that easily—I think we can agree that the problem with the most liberal of the liberals—those who want to engage in political talk at the dinner table, and then woe to you if you disagree, is at heart spiritual. They remind me of those people referred to in the old Hebrew testament who built that tower in Babel so they could be like God.

Wasn't there also a reference to them by Dostoyevsky, the fussy Russian writer? The liberal mind set seems to be: stay up in heaven God. We've got this. We're on the job. We can handle it. And if you're not proud of us, we'll take the credit anyway. And so they continue to make a mess of things, by any means necessary. Thus their disdain for people like humble but decisive George W. Bush, or more recently, Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann who exhibit something I would call a humble arrogance. The political hoi polloi and even their leadership however seem to best operate from a position arrogant humility often seen in money-grubbing televangelists.

But like a good watch, Sarah Palin takes a lickin' but she keeps on tickin' and you can read that any damn way you please.

On July 3, 2009, Palin announced that she would not run for re-election in the 2010 Alaska gubernatorial election and would resign before the end of the month. In her announcement, Palin stated that since August 2008, both she and the state had been expending an "insane" amount of time and money ($2.5 million) responding to "opposition research", 150 FOIA requests and 15 "frivolous" legal ethics complaints filed by "political operatives" against her. She also dovetailed to a decision to not seek re-election and to resign from office in an effort to would being a lame duck politician who is ineffective or is "milking" the taxpayers by drawing a paycheck and funding useless travels. Adding, "I'm not putting Alaska through that...

Palin and her husband Todd had personally incurred more than $500,000 in legal fees defending against ethics charges brought against her as governor even though all the complaints were dismissed. Lt. Governor Sean Parnell, said it “really had to do with the weight on her, the concern she had for the cost of all the ethics investigations and the like—the way that that weighed on her with respect to her inability to just move forward Alaska’s agenda on behalf of Alaskans in the current context of the environment.” The Alaska Governor transfer of power to Sean Parnell occurred in Fairbanks on July 26, 2009.

In December 2010, new rules governing Alaska executive branch ethics, stemming from Sarah Palin's tenure as governor, took effect. "These include allowing for the state to pay legal costs for officials cleared of ethics violations; (and) allowing for a family member of the governor or lieutenant governor to travel at state cost in certain circumstances..."

White Nationalism?

An interesting comment to an AT article on the history of race inertia from the earliest beginnings of the United States of America caught my attention and will always seek to find adequate articulation, not because of my own consuming interest, but because of how urgent a question it seems to be for so many in the quest for survival who put all their marbles on the race card...

Race is a classification system used to categorize humans into large and distinct populations or groups by heritable phenotypic characteristics, geographic ancestry, physical appearance, and ethnicity, and in some senses is a natural reaction to the other in a world of danger and obfuscation. In the early twentieth century the term was often used, in its taxonomic sense, to denote genetically diverse human populations whose members possessed similar phenotypes, but is it truly the final salvo in sorting out one's identity from that of another when developing hostilities between ethnic groups divided on the basis of racial group or skin color seem unavoidable. All too often the color of one's skin does trump so many other measures of a human being's faith, power, and glory.

girls
Power goes to the prepared and the committed...

WHITE WAS THE 19th century's way of saying "Euro-American in terms of culture, values, and behavior." Henry Ford wrote of "the White Man's Code" as late as 1922 even though he hired Blacks and paid them the same wages he paid Caucasians in the same jobs. No law at the time said he had to do that. At the time, however (e.g. when Kipling wrote "The White Man's Burden,") Japan was the only advanced nonwhite-majority nation on earth. Civilized therefore equaled "white" although it was recognized that not all ethnic Caucasians were advanced or even civilized. A Venn diagram would show "civilized" as a subset of "white" (Japan being the sole exception) and not the other way around.

This does not mean that people of nonwhite origins cannot and do not adopt Euro-American values. Japan made a collective decision to do that in the mid-19th century. African-Americans, Asian Americans, and so on have Euro-American values and are therefore what Kipling and his contemporaries would have called "white." Kipling's "Gunga Din" in fact recognizes that a nonwhite person can have these values and adhere to them better than an Englishman; the light-skinned Briton admits at the end, "You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din." The poem in fact judges the characters not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character, which was entirely consistent with Kipling's membership in a racially-diverse Mason's lodge in India (see "The Mother Lodge").

What stinks about the Third World is not the color of its skin (which includes all three races) but rather the content of its character. I refer very specifically to Sharia and other militant "Islamic" beliefs, and Europe ought to prevent their immigration and expel the ones already there.
Furthermore, other non-Caucasian countries are now highly civilized as shown by Freedom House's ratings for places like Taiwan and South Korea, while Caucasian-majority Russia along with the racially Caucasian Palestinians and Iranians (Aryans, in fact) are rated "Not Free." What stinks about the Third World is not the color of its skin (which includes all three races) but rather the content of its character.

The economically and socially advanced nature of Euro-American nations over the rest of the world, even regions with substantial oil wealth, is proof that our way of life is superior and theirs is inferior. A society that, for example, prevents girls from going to school (as is the case in parts of Afghanistan) denies itself half of its human potential up front and will therefore be inferior.

The proper conclusion is therefore that anybody who shares our (Euro-American) values, attitudes, and behavioral codes is "one of us" regardless of his or her appearance or ethnicity, and anybody who subscribes to an inferior Third World culture—the kind that keeps the people ignorant, squalid, and poor—is "one of them" regardless of his or her appearance or ethnicity, and is therefore an undesirable. I refer very specifically to Sharia and other militant "Islamic" beliefs, and Europe ought to prevent their immigration and expel the ones already there.

Open Letter to Congressman King

propking
Forget Stopping Crime, The Left Loves It
We appreciate the dedication and value the work you are accomplishing with your House Committee on Homeland Security hearings regarding the recruitment and radicalization of Muslim immigrants, most lately your focus on al Shabaab.

But we also want to know when will the loving law-abiding patriotic citizen be urged to boldly speak out on de rigeur issues such as calling for nominalizing the steady flood of Islamic immigration pouring into our communities and our institutions without being made to feel that we are saber-rattling racists and hatemongers of the worst order?

When will we be urged to come clean, shaking off this mantle of dhimmitude, and finally being allowed to admit that we are at war with Islam, simply because they say they are at war with us, contrary to what Presidents Bush, Obama and other duplicitous leaders in the West and the Middle East have insisted?

Freedom and liberty are no excuse for bad behavior, but neither is the stifling of free speech or pride in the traditions of one's own nation. Our jobs have been shipped overseas, and now our culture is being stolen by usurpers who statistically care nothing about America but a third world life in a once prosperous state they wish to remake in their own image. As constitutional conservatives, who cherish what our forefathers fought and died bringing forth, this era of leadership has become a national disgrace. So, we just have one question.

Is there any hope that Homeland Security will wise up and stop the madness?

The US Constitution Is As Plain As the Federalists (Who Wrote It)

THE SECOND AMENDMENT SECURES FOR the individual a right to keep and bear arms to preserve the security of a free state. A plain and solid reading of the language our forefathers fought and died many of them to leave us as our greatest American inheritance is not solely a restriction on the federal government. It is a restriction on ALL governing bodies. As one will note upon reading it, there are no local, state, federal or UN qualifiers. This amendment fears and contradicts ALL levels of government.

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Arguments about the Second Amendment are always exercises in etymology, and turn on lynchpin definitions of a single word or another. We should point out that the Federalist concepts would only allow the phrase "well regulated" to mean, and thus it still means simply—prepared and quickly ready for action,—not to be confused with some knee jerk variation of half-blind power-seizing heavily controlled by a government deconstuctionist's impulsive reworking of the term. What would be the point in that?

A "free" state standing is the form of government established by the Constitution as it was originally written and intended. If not, pray tell, what on earth were they trying to establish? Many have noted that the Second Amendment makes itself plain as to where the right to keep and bear arms resides: It is a right of "the people."

We must agree. For we notice that the writers acknowledged three different entities when describing to each the powers that are called into existence with the ratification of the founding document of this nation.

The entity designated the states is not the primary issue in the Second Amendment. Enumerated elsewhere are the powers of the states. The same holds true for any specified powers the governing bodies of the United States of America are called to exercise. So let's be clear. This specific power of the right to bear arms is given specifically to The People all within the sensibilities informing the federalist republic the founders struggled to invent.

Man is bestowed by God the Creator of Natural Rights the primary right to defend himself, his family, and his community against aggression to the quiet enjoyment of these rights, even against an unjust government, foreign or domestic, as it infringes his own natural liberty. And when utilized as an effective tool in the sporting conservation of natural wildlife while providing food for the tables of tens of thousands of numbers of families, it defies common sense to consider abridging this very sacred right, a right when infringed is the very definition of social oppression.

The people of this country are guaranteed quiet enjoyment of their liberties with the responsibilities they command. We are taught, or at least, we once were taught never to sacrifice liberty for some temporary security, for he who does deserves neither liberty nor security.

The Second Amendment reinforces the principle the Declaration of Independence embraces wherein it was recognized that We the People have the God-given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and the right to resist by a show of arms when specifically an oppressive government has breeched the peaceful call of liberty incumbent to a Free State.

All manners of public airing and effective redress of grievances become ineffective or unavailable in the case of an immediate threat against our life, liberty, and property, regardless of what Karl Marx or Mao Tze-Tong believed. This is the argument in a nutshell. One does not have a viable "right" unless he also has the ability to protect and defend it. We must agree, emphatically, as Americans, as rationalists, as seekers of liberty—the anti-constitutionists of whatever political persuasion have no standing until a greater power arrives.

Doesn't the recent Norwegian tragedy with all its ready-made hyperbole and suspicious evidence of the killer's ideological pedigree prove our point, all the more plainly, one more time. Norway's population has no access to guns, not even the police. And yet...

Dreaming Of Honor, Honoring the Dream

WE THINK THIS IS AN ACT that is long overdue…If you agree, please share it with as many people as you can. Let’s start a movement!
1. Term Limits. 12 years only, one of the possible options below.
A. Two Six-year Senate terms
B. Six Two-year House terms
C. One Six-year Senate term and three Two-Year House terms
2. No Tenure / No Pension. A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.
3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security. All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people.
4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.
5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.
7. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.
8. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/11.

The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.