Category Archives: Paul Revere

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

Name This Manifesto The Old Millstone Around My Neck

Aisle 6
All or Nothing, Aisle 6
WASHINGTON, DC—DATELINE OCTOBER 27, 2003. Forging an identity in these uncertain times is not an easy task for someone who has prided himself on his independence, first and foremost, from most of the reckoning powers pursuing his support or demise, whichever comes first. As a result of this hesitancy, the Scenewash Project has little to promote but is simply a slowly developing critical work-in-progress concerned foremost with identifying in fresh terms the strategic forces now influencing the corrosive state of American politics, its public policies, both foreign and domestic, and in postulating, after careful consideration of the formidable body of evidence, a compelling worldview better suited to these uncertain times which try humanity's collective soul, contaminate our air, corrupt our speech, implode our habits, regale our future, and break our very wills to contribute to a sane and friendly but progressive and fearless community.

We have considered this task a worthy occupation to the end of our lives, if need be, because we believe that the original promises of these United States of America still beckon, and that the American political experiment, despite its follies and excesses which certainly require checking, is superior to any the world has yet seen. We will not prepare for a collapse of the West, just because a few malingering malcontents clamour for world revolution, whether it be from a Marxist, Maoist, or an Islamist perspective, but shall fight these perspectives while calling for a more focussed revitalization of America's own backyard.

Now more clearly understood as a rather ordinary attempt to peel back the layers of a conflicted mental landscape where art and politics beat each other up while few are they the wiser, we will express ourselves in terms of the past and the present, and will not appeal to an uncertain future which fatalists of every tradition, especially those of religion, of politics, and of science, pay homage to and usually broker every prejudice and every pride in vainglorious attempts to thrust the spirit of humanity onto the flaming pyres of god, gold, state, and imperialist superstition.

These dialecticians who worship the binary while faithlessly praising the unitary, operate on misguided principles which presume dialectics is an inclusive exercise of expression rather than the polarizing noise only well-entrenched and sometimes well-meaning fools and their followers, unquestionably trapped in status and nuance, can embrace.
Originally conceived as a wrecking ball to schoolboy aspirations, this site has no choice but to erupt from the silent passages of time and truth by urging a return to those same aspirations, reflecting a growing inversion of the individual artistic urge and its involuntary suppression by the forces of a co-opting culture. This culture is a mythology in which the artist, the politician, the ordinary citizen and varied patrons are forced by necessities of survival to conspire with lessons and insults to separate the vigorous mind from the expansive spirit with shop-worn tautologies and fantasy, eschewing the everyday, the mundane, the merely indifferent, rendering as obsolete the witnesses of this takeover.

A fading youth spent in ceaseless searching, knocking, seeking, and digging only to discover little of lasting value is one whose only inspiration translates an energy dedicated to the enumeration of differences between zero and nothing, self and the other, in recovering value and anti-value based not on a system of indulgences, individually or collectively wrapped, but on an absolute proof that language is mere alphabet dirt and slogans are only wordsuck. Languages run amuck become dangerous constructs perhaps of better service when fashioned into ploughshares of silence than into callous weapons of feathering alienation and mass confusion. Unless followed by actions appropriate to productive language, language has become nothing more than a functionary of aesthetics, and its practitioner, a co-opted pretender.

To that end, we offer few strategies or discernable guideposts to the currently self-enchanted. We have no use for those satisfied warriors of the establishment, those who wear the stripes of our enemies, smile the crooked smile, and walk the crooked mile beautifully camouflaged behind the mysteries of selfishness. We shall show how they also have no use for us. With a multitude of theories calling for bombs and abortion, no one is safe in this calculating world. Of course, we—the radical centrists— refuse to be pigeonholed, not by the haranguing extremists nor by the denizens and addicts of apathy. If we are a hybrid breed of political creature, so be it.

We, however, boast of a singular aim. To articulate a well-considered argument describing what we believe to be the only hope for America and the world, and that hope, in a phrase, is progressive centrism. The center is nearly always dismissed by the polarizing POWERS OF ENTRENCHMENT as mushy or wishy washy, unable to make up its minds. We however, believe that it is these polarizing powers of the Left and the Right, who fight false wars on false battlegrounds, who make well-choreographed concessions in lucrative soundbytes and photo op activities merely for appearances sake who have truly betrayed this country, and this planet.

In the United States with its two party system, the aggragate lobbies and special interests attest plainly to this phenomenon of hypocrisy which disrepects and excludes (while still clamouring for its vote) the progressive centrist. These dialecticians who worship the binary while faithlessly praising the unitary, operate on misguided principles which presume dialectics is an inclusive exercise of expression rather than the polarizing noise only well-entrenched and sometimes well-meaning fools and their followers, unquestionably trapped in status and nuance, can embrace.

The byword is moderation in all things but truth. Extremism is killing us all. Polarization is the sword that fertilizes the fields of plenty with the blood of innocence, and rots the crops of destiny. Our manifesto is not the place for specific criticism, but the Scenewash Project web site will by the best laid plans of mice and men, embrace this dialectical mission.The Left and the Right must be reeled in.

We believe that the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the writings and spirit of Thomas Paine are a good place to start.

The greed of the right and the stupidity of the left have rendered the vast majority of us useless, oppressed by the perfumed stench of their theories and their actions. The salt of the earth purifies and preserves. Where do we begin this purification process? Who will be our leaders? Is it possible that a renewed sensibility can arise from the falsifying political landscape now pulled taut like a rubber band by the existing powers that be? We don't know, but we insist on trying.

We are reminded of this metaphor. Jesus of Nazareth was walking along the road to anywhere. The mother of two of his disciples who were brothers, rushed up and voiced her desire that he grant her wish that one of them sit on their master's left hand (wing) and the other to sit on his right. The Nazarene's reply was simple and to the point: "You don't know what you are talking about. He went on to describe that the rulers of the heathen exhibit hierarchies of the strong who oppress the little ones, but it must not be so among them, the chosen. I add a footnote. Among the common folk there is a general consensus that politics is the mother of all harlots. Thus, I derive my notion of the "progressive centrist" as originating with this tale.

There must be a better way to fix what ails us than rupturing the rubber band while trying to maintain the status quo or sending the globe into unfathomable chaos as many on the far left and far right would advocate, each according to their own specific madness.
In another of the synoptics, the story is retold without the mother's presence, but it is the brothers themselves who approach their teacher with this request for special position and honors. The remainder of the incident is identical to the other.

It is clear. The Left and the Right each boast a portion of the TRUTH, which can be likened to a rubber band that has no beginning and no end. The progressive centrist inhabits the area within the circle created by the band itself, open and free space loosely formed and with equal access to the truth which lies along the circumference of the band. Both parties in the extreme meanwhile haplessly mark battle lines shouting war cries and stretch the band of truth as far as they can by pulling it deep and taut into their own camps, tightening and oppressing the more central and observable truths and those populations which dwell inside the once freely-circulating circle.

Once the tightened rubber band has been pulled to its extreme limit and has been popped, truth no longer exists in its most perfect sense with no beginning and no end, of equal benefit to all, but becomes the ultimate weapon of deception, far worse than the chartable deceptions of the band-tightening oppositional parties in their constrained tugs of war. Surely we can recognize the political landscape in this metaphor.

There must be a better way to fix what ails us than rupturing the rubber band while trying to maintain the status quo or sending the globe into unfathomable chaos as many on the far left and far right would advocate, each according to their own specific madness. So while we recall that the life and works of Thomas Paine are a good place to begin analyzing the difference between zero and nothing, the left and the right, extremism and moderation, life and death, we acknowledge that we do not live in his time, and therefore, must invent new methods to render equality, peace and plenty equitably upon the earth.

What say ye?

So, there is much work ahead of us, and we promise only this:

To experiment with the strident advances of web technology and design, deploying each to an oddball degree, while avoiding the genuflection of a generic stylism which furnishes the cynic with a strategic mouthful of pleasure while leaving us sad and purposeless. We will commit to compiling a point and counterpoint latticework mapping the existing political schematic as we find it. We shall then parse, and emerge with what we consider to be the radical centrist position along this latticework.

To furnish enough raw material to keep us busy through the thick years of our recorded visitation. To live the literary life along the bold, new terms of hypertextual reality, scratching out both an artistic body of visual work to match the music in our heads, keeping our eyes on our own pages and thus working to defeat the demons of boredom that envy and indifference can frequently induce and inadequately generalize while keeping free from the entanglements of frenzy the world mandates with its emphasis on competition and so-called originality. To work the gravitational pull of our own simple orbit, one field of inertia at a time...

Birther Nation: Evidence Of Things Not Seen By Media Types

MUCH DISCUSSION LONG AND WEARY, STRONG AND SCHOLARLY, sane and savage, still cloaking the profound audacity in this cover-up of President Barack Obama’s birth certificate has traded this nation's proud heritage for a handful of sand. The same simple burdens of proof that candidates great and small before him have had to answer still clutter the sandy beachhead along which this man walks three years after stepping into the light for a run at this nation's world's most revered office.

Obama (Above It All)
Obama (Above It All)
Let's review, shall we? Why has this son of a Kenyan and his minions spent millions of dollars stonewalling the cases piling up in courts around the country? Why has every document produced, and provided as proof of his birth place ended up being an easily detected fraud that no one in authority yet questions it, when basically what invalidates his presidency is much simpler and already admitted—he is NOT a natural-born citizen as understood by those that wrote that phrase into the Constitution regardless of where he was born.

The verified requirement for President of the United States as outlined in the Constitution and ratified by the States is the following:

“No Person except a natural born Citizen… shall be eligible to the Office of the President… ”

The Constitution does not explain the meaning of "natural born". On June 18, 1787, Alexander Hamilton submitted to the Convention a sketch of a plan of government. Article IX, section 1 of Hamilton's plan provided:

No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.

However, on July 25, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, presiding officer of the Convention:

Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born

Now there are those who choose to obfuscate what the Constitution and its authors has, since its adoption in 1788, defined what the term “natural born Citizen” means, preferring to assume it means born within the physical United States boundaries. Big mistake, and an intentional one.

It is absolutely amazing how a "typical Obama supporter" will swiftly shift his outward demeanor when confronted with this eligibility issue, from winsome cordiality to a vicious attack spirit. I've witnessed it, and have had it directed at me personally, face to face, from a senior State Department anti-terror specialist, a self-professed Scoop Jackson Democrat, and let me assure you, it ain't pretty. It's as if they have suspected all along but cannot admit the truth has not been properly vetted, and have no other choice but to deal with the issue with violent outbursts designed to immediately cease the conversation.

Throughout the Constitution, the writers used the term citizen numerous times but only here did they offer a specific classification of citizen, differentiated even from the naturalized citizen identified elsewhere. The founders would not have inserted into the all-important governing document a quite specific designation, or type of citizen, except to insist upon a specific designation and purpose for its usage.

Admittedly, one of the few shortcomings of our founding document, highlighted by this controversy, is the lack of referential definitions for certain terms. As some terms were thought to be of common knowledge by educated men, it was thought unnecessary to include them. One such definition that has garnered much controversy was the well-regulated Militia; likewise is the term “natural born citizen.”

This document, however, has provided us a methodology and a roadmap to solving certain mysteries. Congress is the bi-cameral body charged with the handling of legislation. Within the Constitution the founders placed guides that may assist us in determining where we may find certain information.

Article 1, Section 8 defines the enumerated powers of Congress and within that we find: “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations.”

In a correspondence between Benjamin Franklin and Charles William Frederic Dumas, Franklin stated, “I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations.”

Ah, yes. Those were the days. Not only where these great men of early America familiar with the “Law of Nations” but they consulted it frequently.

It should not be surprising that within Emerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations the term “natural-born Citizen” was defined as: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Notice the plural use for parentage.

Based upon the idea of a singularity of allegiance, the contrary position when a citizen whose father was born outside the US and the son inside the US arises due to a position of dual allegiance between his own birth country and the country of his father. Vattel stated it this way: “I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

The implication that should circumstances place the nation at odds with the nation of a president’s father, the president may not be able to bring himself to wage war, if necessary, against that nation which he may empathize on his father's account.

Which brings us to the controversy we seek to resolve—how do we interpret the constitutional meaning of “natural-born citizen?” Given that the Constitution is the basis of our law, and IS LAW, in and of itself, we should look at the Constitution through statutory construction.

First; a review of the “plain meaning” of the text has probably been the greatest cause of concern in determining the meaning, since the term is not used in general language today outside of this context, and obviously being overlooked by those in political power, it appears to be of little use.

This case clearly justifies the implication for singularity of allegiance and the striking language that relates directly back to the definition found in Vattel’s “Law of Nations” requiring even the parents of a an American President both be citizens.
Second; should the “plain meaning” of a term not prevail then one must determine the original intentions of the person or people that wrote it. This is not always an easy task; as time progresses the nuances of language and even meanings of words change. A prime example is the word “welfare,” when used today most everyone thinks of grants from the government in the form of money, food stamps, housing assistance, etc. But back in the late 1700’s and early 1800’s welfare meant simply “Happiness; Success; Prosperity.” (Now read the section in the Constitution that directs government to “promote the general welfare.” Takes on a whole new meaning doesn’t it?)

But having documentation from those who framed the Constitution telling us rather emphatically that they consulted a resource “frequently” and one of the few, if only, use was that of Vattel giving the meaning as that of a singularity of citizenship of the parents, and especially the father, we must (unless we are habitual Leftists) give weight to this meaning.

Third; should the prior two methods not be productive then one must look outside of that to the historical, and contemporary writings of the time to see if anything supports a particular point of view. And though there are very few writings dealing with the term “natural-born citizen” we do have a number of writings dealing with the concept of “dual allegiance” that aligns with Vattel’s definition of “natural-born.”

In 1794 President Washington in a letter to John Adams stated: “the policy…of its [immigration] taking place in a body (I mean settling them in a body) may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the Language, habits and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them. Whereas by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures and laws: in a word soon become one people.”

Here we see a distinct ideal of ensuring a nation that was not plagued with divided or dual allegiances that people coming to America should “in a word soon become one people.” This is the exact sentiment that Vattel was driving with the “natural-born citizen,” a single allegiance to the United States. And we know today, with transcontinental transportation and massive illegal immigration that this presumption of assimilation is no longer true.

Finally we must turn to any legal precedence that may aid us in our determination. In the case of Minor v. Happersett (1874) we find the following:

“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens."

This case clearly justifies the implication for singularity of allegiance and the striking language that relates directly back to the definition found in Vattel’s “Law of Nations” requiring even the parents of a an American President both be citizens.

If we contrast this with the total lack of evidence to the contrary then this evidence becomes overwhelming that Vattel’s definition must clearly be the defining voice.

So where is the deception you ask? The deception lies in that thousands of politicians and countless government and academic lawyers insist there is no way to determine the meaning of a phrase used by our founders in the Constitution of the United States, the basis of the Law of our Nation, and operative for over two hundred years.

Yet, scores of ordinary citizens, and dare we say—natural born citizens—all around the nation have been screaming this simple truth and no one listens. In truth I totally believe they know exactly what is going on, but it does not serve their pernicious agenda and using Alinsky Rules, the end justifies their means.

Battle Flag
Battle Flag
Politicians astride the government purse do not fear what pockets of citizenry know because they have come to understand that unless an organized rebellion results they can simply dismiss each outcry as a the paucity of conspiracy theorists as in "Who are you going to believe, some kook or your own government?"

Or they simply vilify good people who believe in and wish to return to the United States Constitution, or voice displeasure with abortion, or advocate for gun rights, or belong to a Constitutional militia, or post Ron Paul bumper stickers, or become “natural-born citizen” adherents by depicting all these good American citizens as potential terrorists… oh wait—they’ve already done that!

So don't fret when you attract the typical ad hominem response from the left. Remember they don't examine the facts; they attack the messenger instead. That is how and why the left invented the name "birther" in the first place.

UPDATE: Here's the kicker. People on the left claim to embrace science. They claim to be better educated than their knuckle-dragging conservative opposites. So why not embrace the concept of scientific inquiry? Question everything, even your assumption that there is no way an announcement could be placed in a Hawaiian newspaper unless the event happened in Hawaii. Has anyone ever forged a birth certificate? Are all the birth certificates produced by the state of Hawaii 100% genuine? Has there ever been a state worker in Vital Records who has been willing to do a favor?

We have probable cause here. Obama's bio from 1991 claimed he was born in Kenya (and that bio was only "corrected" in 2007). The birth certificate coaxed out by Donald Trump last fall to be posted at the White House web site has numerous indications that it isn't genuine. This rather unmysterious fact (any first year Photoshop user knows which way the coverup blows) has been much circulated, so there's no reason the Left (and other obtuse career-savvy folks like Bill O'Reilly) should not know of these details. Why will they not put on their "objective" glasses and expose themselves to a little scientific inquiry, and see where that takes them?


MORE FROM TODAY'S Project archives...
[display-posts]


Five Insensitive Quotes (Don't Lose Your Head)

enslavement
Modest Islam (Enslavement?)
TODAY, EVEN AS THE CREEPING ISLAMIC SHA'RIA SERPENT continues to form its image, continues to feather its pernicious beds of disinformation, and continues to procreate its flesh and cultural fomentation along our shores and into every strategic outland once known as Western Civilization, we offer four "insensitive" memories from the Watchtower:

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" —Edmund Burke

America's constitution with its bill of rights our greatest asset against the evils of an aggressive power, foreign or domestic. However, we each must understand her strength of meaning, and fight with her not only in our hearts and minds, but we must be prepared when the clarion call comes for a more blood and guts resolve. We no longer live in peaceful times. We can no longer listen with pinched smiles to men and women who lie to us, and want only to enlist us in a fight our our natural affectations. We must no longer extend the hand of friendship to those whose only desire to is replace us, not respect us.

"Pointing out that Islam is violent, bigoted and misogynistic is not an act of violence. It is not a call for violence. It is a call for sanity. "—Daniel Greenfield

"Political Islam has annihilated every culture it has invaded or immigrated to by destroying the host culture."—Bill Warner

The West, preoccupied with pleasuring itself, is drunk on pride, arrogance, foolishness, profanity, licentiousness, greed, irony and godlessness. It embraces the folly of every powerful culture that has lost its way, its foundation, its resolve. Islam has destroyed far too many cultures and civilizations because the host country were deceived into believing that a peaceful coexistence is possible. Once gaining the demographic upper hand, Islam withdraws its shiny smiling self and out come the sharpened knives of aggression.

"A person who demonizes his culture and promotes the colonization of his country by other, even openly hostile peoples, is no longer considered a traitor, as he previously would have been. On the contrary, he is applauded by those in prominent positions in politics, academia and the mass media. The person who is treated as a traitor is anyone who shows any signs of loyalty to traditional nations that constitute hated rivals of enlightened universalism.—Fjordman

Distortion and loss of its native language as the voice of revolt signals the first paradigm in the sudden depreciation of a culture. Lingering patterns of cooperative appeal and uncooperative friction informing and testing competitive cultures, always the chess game of winning the imaginable begin to fade away. When one power stumbles, another is quick to seize its opportunity to improve its niche in the global dynamic.

"The truly and deliberately evil men are a very small minority; it is the appeaser who unleashes them on mankind; it is the appeaser’s intellectual abdication that invites them to take over. When a culture’s dominant trend is geared to irrationality, the thugs win over the appeasers. When intellectual leaders fail to foster the best in the mixed, unformed, vacillating character of people at large, the thugs are sure to bring out the worst. When the ablest men turn into cowards, the average men turn into brutes."—Ayn Rand

The religion of peace offers nothing but eternal war. The activists of peace are busy pushing nothing but disgust and dissent. Somewhere in all this surreptitious flash, there must be a reckoning power that can hold against the false claims of men who know little of true work, but who speak both for and against those who do, depending on the scowls of a misplaced allegiance...

As We Awaken The Sleeping Giant

Vallely
Major General Paul E. Vallely, Ret.
MANY OF US WHO WERE ALIVE during World War II and slightly thereafter may remember the famous quote regarding America being the “sleeping giant.”

“Be fearful of waking her!” Do not wake a sleeping giant. This is an idiom which means: Do not disturb/annoy/provoke someone powerful who was not disturbing you in the first place. Japan woke a sleeping giant when they invaded Pearl Harbor.

Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto is portrayed at the very end of the 1970 film Tora! Tora! Tora! and in the 2001 film Pearl Harbor, as saying after his attack on Pearl Harbor [was quoted in the film], “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.” The quotation was abbreviated in the film Pearl Harbor (2001), where it merely read, “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant.”

Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

Randall Wallace, the screenwriter of Pearl Harbor, readily admitted that he copied the line from Tora! Tora! Tora! The film’s producer, Elmo Williams, had found the line written in Yamamoto’s diary. Williams, in turn, has stated that Larry Forrester, the screenwriter, found a 1943 letter from Yamamoto to the Admiralty in Tokyo containing the quotation. However, Forrester cannot produce the letter, nor can anyone else, American or Japanese, recall or find it.

In The Reluctant Admiral, Hiroyuki Agawa, without a citation, does give a quotation from a reply by Admiral Yamamoto to Ogata Taketora on January 9, 1942, which is strikingly similar to the famous version:

“A military man can scarcely pride himself on having ‘smitten a sleeping enemy’; it is more a matter of shame, simply, for the one smitten. I would rather you made your appraisal after seeing what the enemy does, since it is certain that, angered and outraged, he will soon launch a determined counterattack.”

Yamamoto believed that Japan could not win a protracted war with the United States, and moreover seems to have believed that the Pearl Harbor attack had become a blunder—even though he was the person who came up with the idea of a surprise attack. The Reluctant Admiral relates that “Yamamoto alone”—while all his staff members were celebrating—spent the day after Pearl Harbor “sunk in apparent depression.” He is also known to have been upset by the bungling of the Foreign Ministry which led to the attack happening while the countries were technically at peace, thus making the incident an unprovoked sneak attack that would certainly enrage the enemy.

After the war, a similar rumor disseminated among occupation insiders that upon learning the attack had been a success, Admiral Yamamoto had said to those around him, “Gentlemen, we have just kicked a rabid dog.” This would have been a tactical metaphor and not intended as an insult, since he was generally fond of America and Americans.

Today we play politics to death. We talk amongst ourselves and the politicians talk and talk in Washington. While I know rational thinking may ultimately rule, rational thinking without emotion ignores the passion that lights the fire of definitive action; and now is the time for definitive action.
Similar to the above quotation was another that, while real, was widely misinterpreted in the US press. Yamamoto, when once asked his opinion on the war, pessimistically said that the only way for Japan to win the war was to dictate terms to the White House, requiring them to eventually invade the United States and march across the country while fighting their way to Washington—i.e., Japan would have to conquer the whole of the United States. Yamamoto’s meaning was that military victory, in a protracted war against an opponent with as much of a population and industrial advantage as the United States possessed, was completely impossible—a rebuff to those who thought that winning a major battle against the US Navy would end the war. However, in the US, his words were recast as a jingoistic boast.

In a recent discussion with friends, we explored the issue of whether the United States is a “Sleeping Giant” any more, and if it is, what percentage of the population would constitute that “sleeping giant?”

Best estimates indicated that maybe 10-15% of America now would be considered the “sleeping giant” and the remainder of population is unaware of the serious threats to the United States, or are truly asleep at the “switch” and clueless to our continuing demise and weakening as a people and country.

Mohammad
Mohammad In Arabic
I listen to the unfolding, ever more negative news each and every morning and the continuing ineptness so clearly on display by our elected and appointed leaders. At once, while struck with horror, I now feel strangely disconnected from the passions it stirs in me. I walk the river near my home with my dog into the sunshine of Montana and I want, and expect something to be occurring in this country that will awake America today. Even here in the beautiful and rugged mountains of western Montana people are hiking, golfing, strolling, smiling and acting as if nothing of any momentous consequence is occurring in or outside the United States. Our belief in our safety and security is being shattered, yet strangely, people seem to continue as if there is nothing to worry about too deeply.

There are so many more threats and risks to our families today then before 9/11 and thousands upon thousands of Americans have been killed across the globe since. While walking my dog, I look at the faces of people with these thoughts in mind, and I see people who look strangely blank or “normal.” But this is not normal. This is acting normal in the face of insanity. Therefore, I cannot remain calm, I must act.

I find myself thinking about World War II and the refusal of the United States to aid the millions of people being killed by the Nazis. The safety of our American sanctuary was shattered by Pearl Harbor and we woke up. Denial was no longer an option, and isolationism was no longer the rule of the day. Today we play politics to death. We talk amongst ourselves and the politicians talk and talk in Washington. While I know rational thinking may ultimately rule, rational thinking without emotion ignores the passion that lights the fire of definitive action; and now is the time for definitive action.

Personally, I do not believe in turning the other cheek. Yet, I do not want to become what I so despise—a fanatic driven by virulence and hatred as to do violence. I do not sanction any kind of fanaticism, because fanaticism feeds on itself and is driven by blind emotion. It demands unquestioning obedience and intolerance, rather than acceptance of diverse and genuine viewpoints. However, I do not believe in passivity either. Nothing goes away until you are willing to take a stand that says: “you may not cross this line because if you do, this will be the consequence.” Well, I am convinced that this line has been crossed. You hurt my people, you hurt my country – you hurt me.

I do not excuse dishonesty, corruptness, and behavior by members of Congress and the White House. Behavior counts, character counts! If a child of mine is threatened, I become a lion. If my people are threatened I feel a personal sense of violation that I need to react to in much the same way. If my country is threatened, my patriotism soars to its highest level, and my blood boils. Punishment for this transgression of my person and my country’s boundaries and way-of-life is essential; it is in my opinion, mandatory as a citizen. Instead of our current dissolution and chaos, we must reunite and roar like the lion we are, the father who is reacting to a wrong done to his child.

Enough politicking and talk

Action and retaliation are crucial. We have been so afraid to be the lion, afraid to be seen as the bad guy, that we have NOT drawn the line in the sand and said: “you may not cross this line or these are the consequences.” To take a stand is not being the bad guy. It is quite the opposite, it is to be lauded; taking a stand with very clearly defined consequences is being responsible. We need to do more than simply reacting, we need to be pro-active.

I believe we must reclaim our status as courageous warriors, as outraged fighters, as the parents of the child that has been set upon, and say to those that have crossed the line and caused us pain: “there will be reprisal and punishment.”
I want to see our people; our fellow citizens do just that, not just as a reaction to the current economic and security threats, but on a continual basis. It’s the equivalent of being a parent who is afraid of being firm and setting boundaries, letting their child run out of control for fear we may be thought the ogre, and then reacts only situation by situation, each time confirming softness instead of resolve. That parent needs to step back, size up the situation and say this is what MUST be done now, so we do not have to face it again.

The response must be reprisal and punishment, in a manner that is civil, yet unmistakable in message, it has to go far enough to forestall similar activity in the future. We must change our political philosophy, awaken from our lethargy, erase our apathy and above all, we must abide by our well designed Constitution.

Similarly, it must be conveyed that it is folly and foolish for other countries to confuse our softness and courtesy with weakness. However, we ARE, more than ever, a soft country. Politically, we make so many mistakes; most in the name of misguided politics, foreign perceptions ill-understood, and isolationism. We do not speak out strongly enough about abuses to people in so many other countries, and the blatant evil that exists.

To confuse our softness with weakness is beyond STUPID, it is perilous and self-defeating, and you cannot fix STUPID with politicians who think and act as they do here at home today. When this country is threatened, when our allies face any external threat, we can be very dangerous, and our enemies need to understand this with clarity and utter fear. At home, concerning our internal problems and our outward projection, we, as a unified country, must change that perception for our country’s safety. We must act now, decisively.

I believe we must reclaim our status as courageous warriors, as outraged fighters, as the parents of the child that has been set upon, and say to those that have crossed the line and caused us pain: “there will be reprisal and punishment.”

In our American Exceptionalism, one borne of varied and mixed cultures, peoples with differing origins, of diverse religious affiliations; putting aside our petty differences which keep our combined culture fragmented, is crucial. I am one of those “Sleeping Giants” that has been awakened and want you to be awakened, and join me as a “Sleeping Giant” freshly awoken, a giant no longer asleep that sees the light of day before it is too late and is willing to ACT.

Please America...

Help Us Stir the “Sleeping Giant!”

MG Paul E. Vallely, US Army (Ret)
Chairman of Stand Up America

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?

An Old But Good Argument Revisited

constitution_quill_pen
The Constitution of the United States of America
OUR US CONSTITUTION IS THE BEST the world has ever seen, and the oldest one still in use. Still, it is far from perfect. The Anti-federalists pointed out many weaknesses and pushed for the Bill of Rights. Imagine where we would be without the Bill of Rights. Still, if you honestly read the Constitution, and study it well, you will find that the Anti-federalists were right. The Constitution put everything in place for the states to be reduced to mere districts. The Civil War was began as the ultimate rejection of this idea.

Since then, the Federal Goverment has encroached upon not only the states, (14th Amendment; 17th Amendment), but even local government (Civil Rights Acts is the prime example of this). A few specific dangers provided by the Anti-federalists include: 1) No check on federal judicial power; 2) No check on the power of the Federal Government due to the "welfare" clause; 3) Complete and unquestionable (by the states) taxing authority given to the Federal Government.

Many believe that the Constitutional Debate was about states rights, but that's not true. Some delegates argued for elimination of the states altogether. Keep in mind the Federalists won one of America's first PR battles by seizing the title of "Federalist" for themselves and leaving the opposition with "Anti-federalist". At the time the word "confederacy" and "federation" meant exactly the same thing. The Federalists were actually Nationalists and the Anti-federalists were the true Federalists. Whatever party or movement comes out of all this present day crisis, if we are ever given another chance at freedom and self-government, we must address the issues pointed out by the Anti-federalists.

Wayward Son