... and I am NOT a "conservative" ... or am I?

My Nolan Chart

According to the Nolan Chart (based on the "World's Smallest Political Quiz"), I definitely am not "conservative" in the sense that I generally favor social restrictions with my economic liberty. In fact, I appear to be just a bit left of center, a fact that never ceases to amaze me.

However, in 2007, Harrison Bergeron gave a rigorous definition of conservatism in Conservative Heritage Times that also appeals to me, even down to the defense of marriage (though we probably disagree as to whether government should bolster that defense).

In Mr. Bergeron's view, conservatism essentially takes three political positions: to favor limited, decentralized government, preservation of traditional culture, and a rejection of intervention "at home and abroad." What he means by the last is that conservatives are opposed to social re-engineering projects, taking of property to effect equality of outcome instead of equality of opportunity; and of course, military adventures abroad.

By contrast, neoconservatives favor big centralized government, universalism ("local culture at home and abroad are impediments to their globalist agenda"), and global interventionism.

Leon Trotsky

Mr. Bergeron then goes on to show how neoconservatives have even admitted that their philosophy is based on that of Soviet Communist Leon Trotsky. Here are two examples:

President George Bush follows the Neocon/Trotskyite agenda of global liberation in his second inaugural address:

Because we have acted in the great liberating tradition of this nation, tens of millions have achieved their freedom. And as hope kindles hope, millions more will find it. By our efforts we have lit a fire as well, a fire in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power; it burns those who fight its progress. And one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world.

And here is a confession from Stephen Schwartz in 2003 published in National Review, long thought to be a "conservative" publication:

“And the fact is that many of the original generation of neoconservatives had a background of association with Trotskyism in its Shachtmanite iteration; that is, they belonged to or sympathized with a trend in radical leftism that followed the principle of opposition to the Soviet betrayal of the revolution to its logical end. The Shachtmanites, in the 1960s, joined the AFL-CIO in its best Cold War period, and many became staunch Reaganites.
This path had been pioneered much earlier by two Trotskyists: James Burnham, who became a founder of National Review, and Irving Kristol, who worked on Encounter magazine.”

And how does that author feel about Trotsky today?

“To my last breath I will defend the Trotsky who alone, and pursued from country to country, and finally laid low in his own blood in a hideously hot little house in Mexico City.”

Click to enlarge
Trotsky appropriately depicted at lower left

Both liberals and neocons have this agenda, as observed by the Chicago Tribune April 21, 1934 (cartoon at left -- the link explains the roles of the men riding the donkey and the cart).

In other words, neoconservatives are liberals in sheep's clothing. Keep this in mind the next time that Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, or even David Webb try to confuse you or your friends into thinking that neocons are "conservative." And for my part, I will consider the possibility that I am.

Virtual buckeye to Rebellion.

Advice to the Left: Look in the mirror

In the wake of the mass killings committed by Jared Loughner in Arizona, we are now hearing pious words from commentators like MS-NBC's Keith Olbermann (see Washington Post article), who charges that the Tea Party movement is inciting violence with its rhetoric. He also wants us to believe that Sarah Palin's crosshairs logo applied to a list of incumbent Congressmen she wants to defeat are having the same effect, and that Glenn Beck is inciting revolution.


Please.

No one of sound mind condones what Jared Loughner did. He should be prosecuted and given a fair trial according to our rule of law. If he is competent to stand trial and the evidence is conclusive that he committed the crime, he should be tried and, if found guilty, sentenced appropriately.

So far, reports of Jared Loughner's politics have shown considerable ambiguity. The hook the Left seems to be trying to use against the Tea Party and conservative commentators is that he favors a gold-backed currency (honest money). 

I have followed the Tea Party movement very closely almost since its inception, and I can say with complete confidence that neither the Tea Party movement, Sarah Palin, nor Glenn Beck* have ever advocated the use of violence in pursuit of liberty. There may be a few commentators in the extreme fringes of the militia movement doing so on short-wave radio; but they have small followings, and they deserve to be condemned (but not censored) for their views.

It has been evident for several months that the Left has desperately sought to find a violent event on which to hang the liberty movement, and apparently they think they have found one here. But the truth is, the liberty movement believes strongly in the rule of law. Our principal objections to recent Administrations has been their contempt for the rule of law as embodied in the Constitution of the United States.

The Left needs to look in the mirror. Can its followers honestly say that our rhetoric is any more violent than that of Saul Alinsky or Van Jones? Or for those few who can remember history, the radical movements so beloved by the Left in the Sixties, such as the Weather Underground and the Black Panther Party?

My challenge to the Left: Use reason to attack our positions. Stop trying to run us out of the public space. If you want domestic peace, respect honest dissent.

Update 1/10: The Hill, a newspaper and blog reporting on Congress, notes that "Rep. Robert Brady (D-Pa.) reportedly plans to introduce legislation that would make it a federal crime to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a federal official or member of Congress." Of equal interest is the comment below the post by Creed, reminds me that I have a short memory:

But putting cross-hairs on Pres. Bush, while he's making an address, on CNN or adding the words "s[***]er wanted" when his picture is posted on a late-night talk show is all right? Or a "documentary" on the Day the President Died (Bush, of course) That's not inflammatory rhetoric, is it?

 No. Only when it comes from the Right, apparently.


* Faithful readers of this space know that I have vigorously criticized both Mrs. Palin and Mr. Beck when the occasion called for it.

On revolution

The Ohio Republic has repeatedly written on the possibility of revolution. I have thought for some time that a revolution is in the air in this country; even though I think Glenn Beck’s assertion that it has already begun is premature. However, given the rate at which the degradation of our liberties is taking place, as evidenced by the TSA scanners, the Food Safety Act, and (possibly) the proposed rules on “Net neutrality,” I can see the revolution beginning in 2011, instead of 2012 as I had originally thought.

Every revolution is unique, and each affects its society in a unique way. Each is the explosion that follows when pressure builds up beyond the ability of a society’s institutions to contain it. Since the pressure builds up gradually, it is impossible to predict when the explosion will take place – but those who are watching can see the pressure building, and know that one is imminent.

How a revolution ends depends on whether the instigators prevail, as they did in Russia in 1917; and how prepared they are to govern, as the French were not in 1792. It also depends on how the people react to the revolution. Do we surrender to what appears to be an unstoppable force, or do we try to stop the revolution, as the French did in 1968? History shows that revolutions hardly ever end in exactly the way the instigators expect. Hegel’s dialectic is true, albeit not in the way Karl Marx anticipated: the thesis (revolution) is always met by an antithesis (reaction), resulting in a synthesis (society following the revolution). If revolutions do not always end as expected, its ideas (or its scars) will nevertheless continue to influence the society.

Glenn Beck is correct on this point: revolutions begin by creating chaos. No one (including Mr. Beck, if he is honest with himself) can know right now whether his particular recipe is accurate. His theory is that the revolution will involve a bottom-up approach (by union thugs and “progressive” activists on the street), coupled with a top-down one (by officials in the Obama Administration and rich and influential people like George Soros). There certainly is evidence that the radical left will try to pin the chaos on tea party activists and “right-wing extremists.”

We may not be able to avert a revolution, but we can prevent the left from imposing its dictatorship of the proletariat on our country. The left has an Achilles heel: its intellectual arrogance. Every statement they publish, every plan they make, reeks of contempt for the intelligence of the American people and their willingness to act. They think that we will fall for every trap they lay, that we will immerse ourselves in football and Desperate Housewives on the tube until it is too late. They think that those of us who do resist, will do so violently. After all, what other reason can there be for asserting our right to bear arms? The rest of us, they think, will engage in a feckless quest to use our corrupted institutions to reverse decades of policies that they have developed in preparation for this day. The key to stopping the left, then, is to act in ways they do not anticipate.

However, to act in ways they do not anticipate, we need to develop some new ways of thinking. Once the revolution begins, the United States of America-as-we-know-it will cease to exist. Not may, will. All of us who treasure our history and our institutions will experience the stages of grief: denial, anger, loss and, acceptance.

In the war of ideas, the Eastern Establishment must be countered by a libertarian intelligentsia; which, fortunately we do have. We have the Mises and Cato Institutes, Walter Williams, and Chuck Baldwin. In Ohio, we have the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law and the Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions. Ohio has another asset, not evident in very many other states: a cohesive liberty movement. That movement made a mistake in this election by trusting too much in the Republican Party; but it will soon realize that it was a mistake. In our state history, we have protected civil liberties much more effectively than most other states. The reason for this has been the fidelity of our courts to the Bill of Rights in our 159-year-old Ohio Constitution. Obviously, we’re not perfect (as Manna Storehouse and the Constitution Day kerfuffle in Andover attest), but we can be proud of our overall record.

With one exception, we have everything we need to protect our freedom. We have the brains, the movement, and the laws behind us. What we need, and this does not come naturally to Ohioans, is the willingness to use them in creative ways.

In revolutionary times, we must think of ourselves as Ohioans first and Americans second. While the nation remains in some semblance of domestic peace, we must continue to use our existing institutions to resist tyranny; for example, by using our new Republican General Assembly and Governor to nullify unconstitutional federal laws in Ohio. We must uphold the rule of law as long as we can.

But when that peace ends, the rule of law at the federal level will go with it. In preparation for that day, we have three very high priorities: we need to strengthen our organized state militia to augment the National Guard to protect us from externally-generated violence; we need to establish a mechanism for using silver in everyday transactions (honest money); and we need for all of us to start thinking, buying, and as practicable, manufacturing locally. And we need to start on all three priorities now. As I wrote earlier, we cannot predict the day the revolution will begin, but we can sense that it will begin very soon. It could be today – it could be a year from now; but we need to prepare now.

In so doing, we will do one of two things, both protecting our liberties. If the rest of the United States proves to be of the same mind as we are, we will all defeat the “progressives” and save the union. Otherwise, we will be prepared to declare and sustain our independence.

It's not a good week for journalism at The Ohio Republic...

Fast on the heels of my errors on S.510, I have been advised that Glenn Beck lied to his viewers when he claimed that Wilmington, Ohio, did not receive any government money for its recovery. And official sources back up Mr. Beck's critics. According to the Advanced Recipient Reported Data Search:

• The City of Wilmington received $246,623.00 in stimulus money;
• The Wilmington City Schools received $2,295,625.38; and
• Wilmington College received $59.818.00

In addition, Clinton County (of which Wilmington is the county seat) received more than $4 million in stimulus grants.

It is very disappointing to see a trusted source distort the truth in this fashion; but I would be doing my readers (and for that matter, myself) a great disservice not to report my errors when they are discovered.

If you want to see Glenn Beck in Wilmington Dec. 15, go ahead. But don't make the same mistake I did. Do some followup research!

Glenn Beck coming to Wilmington Dec. 15

Update Nov. 22: The statement below that Wilmington is recovering without government help is not true. Here is the correction.

I probably like Glenn Beck a little too much for my own good. I know he doesn't get it about Lincoln, is too pro-war any war to suit me, and has a bit too much of the huckster in him. On the other hand, it is obvious he has a good heart and has presented in a popular, easy-to-understand way basic the principal concepts of U.S. history and Judeo-Christian morality.

The story of Wilmington (county seat of Brown Clinton* County in southwestern Ohio a bit northeast of Cincinnati) has clearly touched his heart. Wilmington (population 12,000) was a freight hub for DHL, when that company decided to close it in November 2008. Two-thirds of the town had been employed by DHL.

However, the town is recovering, without governmental help. Apparently, most of the help is coming from local churches. Mr. Beck is visiting the town to show it off to America as an example of recovery without governmental help.

* My mistake. See comments for additional discussion.

Virtual buckeye to the Ohio Liberty Council on Facebook.

Of puppets and men

Yesterday, some of my Facebook friends were all atwitter* about Glenn Beck’s series about George Soros, "The Puppet Master?” The evidence I have seen (not all of it from Mr. Beck – for example, go to muckety.com) verifies Mr. Beck’s statements about George Soros’ associations with organizations backing an extremely socialist agenda for the United States. In addition, a Google search on Mr. Soros lists many instances where Mr. Soros himself has been very open about his intentions.

But one thing troubles me. There is no question that Mr. Soros is very wealthy. According to Forbes (Sept. 10) he is the 14th richest American with a fortune of $14.2 billion. But even with that kind of money, it is difficult to understand how he can afford to give hundreds of millions of dollars to political causes without significantly decreasing his own wealth.

So here is my conspiracy theory, which has backing from some admittedly unreliable sources on the Internet. I think Mr. Soros is a front man for the Rothschilds. Proving such a connection will be difficult, because the Rothschilds are extremely secretive people (you will note, for example, that no one in that family appears in the Forbes list of the world’s richest people). And, for that matter, neither does anyone surnamed Rockefeller. Let me stress here, that while such theories have been used to support anti-Semitism, my conclusions are only against the power brokers, not Jews in general. **.

So I have a suggestion for Mr. Beck and his Blaze news organization. Start investigating the connections between Mr. Soros and the Rothschilds and Rockefellers. But be very careful. I suspect that, once you start down that road, your life will be in great danger.

In general, I believe that pursuing conspiracy theories is a waste of time – so why do I advocate investigating this one? Because the enemies of freedom are extremely wealthy and extremely powerful. The more we know about them – and the more they are exposed, the better we will be able to deal with it. Shine a flashlight on the rats and they will scatter.

There is a linkage between U.S. foreign and immigration policy that is detrimental to our interest (check out the connection between the Rockefellers and the American foreign policy establishment through organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission), the systematic robbery of the American people by Wall Street bankers through the Federal Reserve Bank, and the bankrupting of the federal and state governments. This linkage betrays an agenda that seeks a global concentration of power and wealth. These linkages are public record and are easily verifiable.

This is truly a battle of good vs. evil. Obviously, we cannot win it alone; but with God’s help, the wisdom to make the right calls, the willingness to dare greatly, and hard work, we shall win it.

Update Nov. 10:
Here is some additional background on George Soros, from The Blaze.

* sorry, couldn’t resist the temptation…
** For one thing, while I am a Christian, I have Jewish friends, and I am a life member of a Jewish college fraternity.

Telling the truth about Lincoln

Continuing Glenn Beck week at The Ohio Republic:

Historian and persistent Lincoln critic Thomas DiLorenzo explains (in LewRockwell.com) how Mr. Beck has distorted history in his defense of Abraham Lincoln -- which is, at best, ironic, given the often controversial truth Mr. Beck has expressed on other historical subjects.

Specifically, Prof. DiLorenzo cites these falsehoods:

• Mr. Beck refers to the Confederate Constitution as the "Slaveholders' Constitution." As Mr. DiLorenzo points out, and I can confirm from my own reading, the Confederate Constitution was almost identical to that of the United States, Where it differed, it further limited the powers of the federal government by limiting its President to one six-year term, giving its President a line-item veto (a power that state governors were beginning to receive in state constitutions at the time), outlawing protectionist tariffs and subsidies to corporations, and removing the "General Welfare" clause.
• Mr. Beck echoes the widely-held misconception that the War between the States was about slavery. It was not. It was about states' rights. Granted, the Confederates used states' rights to protect slavery -- but the difference is important, because states' rights covers a whole lot of territory that has nothing to do with slavery -- and as Prof. DiLorenzo points out, the strongest defense of slavery at the time came from Lincoln himself, in support of the Corwin Amendment. Lincoln didn't care about the slaves -- he wanted only to preserve the Union for the benefit of the New York bankers who supported him!
• Mr. Beck has "adminrably" (to Prof. DiLorenzo) attacked the notion of "collective salvation" in every context except Lincoln's. As Prof. DiLorenzo points out, the spirit of the age in the North was of collective salvation -- by purifying the lives of the people as a whole through the temperance movement, abolition of slavery, and the abolition of Roman Catholicism.

Glenn Beck urges his listeners not to take his word for it, but to research the facts for themselves. I agree. Especially when it comes to the facts about the War between the States, which Mr. Beck insists on distorting in the service of neoconservative statism.

CAN a church burn the Koran? Yes. Should it? No.

On this issue, Glenn Beck gets it right (The link is mine):

What is wrong with us? It’s just like the Ground Zero mosque plan. Does this church have the right? Yes. Should they? No. And not because of the potential backlash or violence. Simply because it is wrong. The more I reflect on what happened on 8/28 the more I realize the amazing power of GOOD.*

We must be the better person. We must be bigger than our problems. Bigger than the times in which we live. Burning the Koran is like burning the flag or the Bible. You can do it, but whose heart will you change by doing it? You will only harden the hearts of those who could be moved. None of those who are thinking about killing us will be affected, but our good Muslim friends and neighbors will be saddened. It makes the battle that they face inside their own communities even harder.

Let us rise above the current levels and elevate ourselves and our country. The only thing this act would prove is that you CAN burn a Koran. I didn’t know America was in doubt on that fact.

Let’s prove to each other that while there are many things we can do, there are maybe many more things that we choose not to do.

* I agree on this point also, but it still doesn't take away from the fact that his Lincoln- and military-worship works to undo our efforts to restore liberty in this country.

Glenn Beck: You're still not getting it

I find much to like about Glenn Beck. I admire his willingness to witness for God on his program, his courage in connecting the dots of those who are trying to destroy our country, and his emphasis on the virtues of faith, hope, and charity.

With this in mind, I had great hopes when I began to listen to his 8-28 Restoring Honor rally in Washington, which is still going on as I write this. However, I had to turn it off. I was beginning to get sick.

For all of his commitment to liberty, and I believe that commitment is genuine, he has a blind spot. He still thinks that liberty and union are compatible goals at this point in our history. He still cannot distinguish between respect for the sacrifices of our military, and the fact that they are being used for evil purposes.

He wants us to return to God, while he and 300,000 other people are prostrating themselves at the altar of nationalism. The Biblical record is clear that God does not care about maintaining empires. He causes them to be built, and causes them to be destroyed, according to His purposes. That he has no use for blind nationalism should be clear from the fall of Israel and Judaea in the books of the Kings, and of Babylonia in the book of Daniel.

As to honor, isn't honor being faithful to your values, abroad as well as at home? Is it not respect for God, even to the point of understanding when God's will and the nation's are moving in opposite directions?

Oh, to be sure, I had some clues this was going to happen. I was disappointed when he chose the steps of Lincoln Memorial for the site of his rally; for he chooses to honor the man who, more than any other, began the process of destroying our Constitutional government. Then, when I heard that one of his featured speakers was going to be Sarah Palin, I knew that the message I had hoped to hear from him was going to be, at best, corrupted. I certainly am not alone in this assessment. Ron Paul argued essentially the same thing in the Foreign Policy website only yesterday. (Other concurring voices have arisen. See the updates at the end of this post.)

Please understand, I'm not totally naïve. I know there are times when we must protect our country from attack, and that we must be prepared to sacrifice lives to do it. In fact, we live in such a time right now. If ever we needed a military to defend our homeland from invasion, it is now -- in Arizona! But the policy of the feds is to sacrifice lives to protect oil and somehow reform very traditional Islamic societies in Iraq and Afghanistan -- not to provide for the national defense.

We must face up to the fact that terrorism, of which 9-11 was a symptom, is partially our fault. I am not defending Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, or the imam who wants to build the Islamic cultural center in New York. What they are doing is despicable, and they need to be neutralized. But al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and that imam would not have the support they do against us, if we had followed George Washington's wise counsel and minded our own business -- something we have not done since at least 1845, when we decided to poke into Mexico to pick up some additional territory.

We say we believe in liberty and justice, but what gives us the right to say that our ideas of liberty and justice are the only legitimate ones? The experience of Iraq and Afghanistan should serve as harsh reminders to us, that carrying out our ideas of liberty and justice require a mature understanding of the Western concept of the rule of law over men -- a maturity that neither society yet enjoys.

Can we really speak of honor when we persist in upholding a system that is broken beyond repair?

Where is honor when we talk about economic opportunity, then preserve the Federal Reserve Bank that steals from them by issuing funny money; when we pursue environmental policies on the basis of questionable science; or admits immigrants into this country with no expectation that they will speak our language and respect our laws and traditions?

These are the times that try men's souls, as Thomas Paine once wrote. Glenn, that includes you. Prayerfully consider the possibility that we live in a time when united we fall, divided we stand. It's not conventional wisdom, and it certainly was not what we learned in school. But in a world that is being increasingly oppressed by multinational corporations and overcentralized governments, it may very well be the truth.

Update 8/28: Chuck Baldwin also appears to agree with me when he writes that we need a revolution, not a movement. Here are two brief excerpts:

The American people need to wake up to this [truth]: a “conservative” movement–even a conservative Tea Party movement–will not save us. The only thing that will save us is an old-fashioned State revolt... As long as freedom lovers are content to remain satisfied with the status quo by allowing party politics and media celebrities to dominate their efforts, there will be no stopping this socialist avalanche that is crashing down upon us.

The Tea Party movement of 2010 (if left free of Big-Government neocons) could certainly translate into positive developments this November; that is for sure. A revival of the “Ron Paul Revolution” in 2012 could also make a significant contribution, but it is
going to take a State revolution to seal the deal. I, for one, am ready.

Update 8/29: Concurring opinions from several young men at Free South Carolina (video). Great quotes: "Managed dissent is not dissent." "The United States very cleverly learned from these other totalitarian and repressive societies: As long as there are these little outlets for people's tension and exasperation. The vast majority of them will be content to express their dissent this way. Ultimately, it is not dissent. It is peaceful, it is non-meaningful, it is non-change inducing."

More warnings for the Tea Party Nation

Chuck Baldwin, who was the Constitution Party's Presidential candidate in 2008, has added his voice to those warning that the Tea Partiers are being co-opted by opportunistic establishment Republicans like Sarah Palin and Rob Perry, echoing many of the concerns expressed in this space on Monday and yesterday:

I say again, be careful, Tea Party Nation. You are being infiltrated. You are being compromised. You are being neutered. Stick to your principles. Stick with the Constitution. Keep opposing unconstitutional, preemptive wars. Keep calling for the abolition of the Federal Reserve. Keep fighting for less taxes, reduced federal spending, and states' rights. Keep opposing the Patriot Act and the New World Order. Don't abandon Ron Paul. Be wary of people such as Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. You don't need "big name" celebrities to give you credibility. As Samson's strength depended on
keeping his hair uncut, your strength lies in keeping your principles intact. And unless you want to wind up like the Republican freshmen in 1994, avoid Newt Gingrich like the plague!

Even worse, a professed Tea Partier is running against Ron Paul for his Congressional seat! I agree with Rev. Baldwin -- if that isn't a sign the movement is being infiltrated, I don't know what is!

And here's yet another concurring opinion (which is the source of some of Rev. Baldwin's remarks) from Jane Hamscher at the Huffington Post.

More evidence that Goldman Sachs owns the Federal Government

The Feds are now a subsidiary of Goldman-Sachs. Check out this video. Yeah, I know. Glenn Beck again -- but this time it's not about secession. Watch the video and draw your own conclusions. And remember, you saw it here first.

Virtual buckeye to Rob Williams at Vermont Commons

Glenn Beck interviews Thomas Naylor

I have expressed some reservations about Thomas Naylor, though not in this blog.
Some of my readers have reservations about Glenn Beck.

So, why am I touting yesterday's video* of Glenn Beck interviewing Thomas Naylor? Because it is an honest, sober reflection on the real state of secessionism today. It is beginning to catch on in America. I have seen it in Ohio, from reports of friends, and from the growing number of favorable comments to this blog.

* There is also a transcript for those who prefer not to run the video.

Tea Parties, Media Lies, and Small Business

I recently joined LinkedIn, a social networking site for business professionals. I have been amazed at the variety of interests that it has attracted, including this query posted by a businessman:

”I just watched a town hall type show moderated by Glenn Beck with the audience made up of folks who attended tea parties all over the US. Quite enlightening really. The crowd was quite a cross section of race, occupation, age, political idealogy, etc. Not at all what I've seen/heard portrayed in the main stream media. ”Anyone else see this show and/or have any thoughts?

”Also ..... I'm particularly interested in views/opinions on how the Tea Parties represent small business concerns/issues. If you have any comments on that specific aspect please chime in. “

The writer than added what LinkedIn calls a “clarification” after he received some incredibly vitriolic comments about talk-show host Glenn Beck:

”Please try to keep your answers professional and respectful in tone. Having an "opinion" is fine but express it appropriately. Thanks.”

Here is my explanation:

The tea parties reflect an emerging trend that is changing the way Americans view their politics. Traditionally, we have looked at "left" (Democrats, liberals, advocates for proactive government) vs. "right" (Republicans, conservatives, advocates for limited government). Those labels worked reasonably well prior to 1980; but with the rise of Ronald Reagan, the Republican agenda became confused -- the party no longer supported just limited government, but also a range of issues promoted by the Religious Right. This then morphed into what we now call "neo-conservatism", which allowed for a proactive government as long as it supported either an aggressive military posture or Religious Right values.

We are now at a point where the Republican Party (and technically, I am still a Republican) has become intellectually bankrupt, possibly beyond all repair. This leaves many Americans who favor limited government without a credible political home. It also has led to us viewing the political landscape not as a linear Liberal-Conservative continuum, but as a spatial one with the other axis being Statist-Libertarian. [This typology is based on the work of David Nolan.]

The followers of President Obama might fairly be described as liberal statists; those of John McCain as conservative statists; some of the very strong environmentalists as liberal libertarians; and the followers of Ron Paul as conservative libertarians. I also attended the tea party in Columbus, and found that the people were normal American citizens who simply want to return the country to a place where people can take responsibility for their own lives, without having government tax and regulate all incentive for personal growth out of them.

I personally don't care what media or what personalities support or oppose the tea parties -- the important thing is that the voice of their participants be listened to. While small businesses are as diverse in their concerns as the products and services they offer, I understand the principal concerns of small business, generally, are excessive taxation and regulation that tends to discriminate against small business owners (but often favoring large corporations). These concerns are almost in perfect alignment with the goals of the tea party movement.

Question for the Left: What is your real problem with State sovereignty?

Ever notice that when bloggers on the Left dislike an idea that makes sense, they resort to childish namecalling, without even addressing the issue?

Here are two examples, both from yesterday, attacking Chuck Norris' take on secession on the Glenn Beck program:

Daily Kos: “Chuck Norris and Glenn Beck Want to Cut-and-Run”
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/3/9/22263/22336/239/706594

drinking liberally in new milford: “Will the GOP upChuck on Norris support?” – also includes attacks on Sarah Palin:
http://drinkliberal.blogspot.com/2009/03/will-secessionist-sarah-upchuck-on.html

The most unfortunate thing is, there are grownups who take them seriously.

Update on New Hampshire and our own Sovereignty Resolutions

On Saturday, I reported that the New Hampshire House State and Federal Relations Committee reported out its sovereignty resolution (HCR0006) with the status of "ITL", which I have learned means "Inexpedient to Legislate." I still wonder what drew them to that conclusion. Conspiracy theorists could have a field day with that.

On a related note, talk show host Glenn Beck, who has been fond of satirizing secessionism, may be finally getting it. He interviewed Rep. Dan Itse, the sponsor of the New Hampshire resolution, which is in a YouTube video.

Here in Ohio, most of the comments on the Ohio resolution have been encouraging, but I have to answer one hostile comment in this space. The writer ("Anonymous", of course) asks, "so what's their strategy? wait for stimulus money and then give the finger to the .gov?"

This question is off base for two reasons. First, neither The Ohio Republic nor the great majority of proponents of this resolution are in favor of the stimulus package. In fact most of us call it "porkulus", because it does a better job of sending money to favored projects than it does directing funds toward real economic stimulus. As we noted earlier, a Federal tax holiday would be cheaper, and would be far more effective, because it would let us save or spend our own money as we see fit.

The other reason the question is off base is that the Federal Government has no money of its own. Never did. "Federal funds" consist, either directly (through the personal income and excise taxes) or indirectly (through corporate taxes) of money taken from our pockets as the result of our work. The fact that the Feds can take our money and place all kinds of restrictions on it before the State can use it should be an outrage to all of us! Even worse, the mandates that accompany so-called "Federal funds" are now bankrupting the States, since they often require "matching funds" for their projects that are taken from our State tax dollars! It has been estimated that 46 of the 50 States are facing budget shortages this year. The fact that the problem is so universal should point to the real culprit -- the District of Coercion.

The Ides of Texas

It was November 8, a Saturday night in Austin, Texas. About a quarter past seven, KLBJ host Patrick Timpone was interviewing Congressman Ron Paul, when Rep. Paul dropped a little bomb. Responding to a question from Mr. Timpone as to whether he could be persuaded to run for Governor of Texas in 2010, Rep. Paul answered that he did not consider himself the right person to run for that office. He then added in jest, "I might come up and say we should secede from the Union, and then they'd run me out of town." (located at 19:38 in this file).


Mr. Timpone rather liked that idea, and pursued it with some questions which almost sounded as though he were prodding Rep. Paul to consider secession more seriously. A few days later, Yahoo Answers posted a question as to whether Texas could make it as an independent nation. The answers from Texas were enthusiastic for secession, and quite convinced that it could be done. The movement gained legs on the Ron Paul forums as well, with one writer noting that Larry Kilgore had garnered some 27% of the vote in the Republican primary for U.S. Senator (225,783 votes) on an explicitly secessionist platform!


Then on November 25, the discussion went national on the Glenn Beck program. Unfortunately, Mr. Beck decided to have more fun with it than anything else. His division of the U.S. into six nations was funny, but totally out of touch with North American geography and existing secessionist movements (Mr. Beck and his map are at left).

The most important development was the buzz in the blogosphere, where both supporters and opponents of the idea began to take it seriously. Don't take my word for it, just Google "texas secession" to get an idea of what I mean. This is a major step forward for North American secessionism.

This is not to say that most Americans are ready to have secession on their radar screen; only that the idea is less laughable than it was even three months ago.

However, despite the groundswell of Republican support for Mr. Kilgore, Texas secessionism has some serious problems. First, except for Mr. Kilgore's campaign (he is now running for Governor in 2010), there is no really organized movement for Texas secession. A number of organizations have been created since the mid 1990s, but tended to get caught up in the so-called "patriot" movement aligned with the militias that became well known at that time. Those organizations splintered into several small, competing groups. Today, Texas secessionism remains badly fragmented.

In addition to the Texas groups, the League of the South has a Texas chapter, whose goals appear to be closely aligned with that of the general organization.


Texas is a big state, with a distinct culture and a past history as an independent nation (1836-1845). It is obviously viable as an independent nation. The challenge for Texas secessionism is to root out the crackpots and to get everyone else on the same page. Ron Paul might have the political acumen and credibility to pull it off as Governor, and perhaps Larry Kilgore could, too. One thing is sure, it will take very strong, determined leadership to build a movement that will generate any hope of success.

This just in: Secessionism is “politically incorrect”

The Middlebury Institute held its second annual Secessionist Convention in Chattanooga, Tennessee last week, which attracted delegates from 14 organizations in North America and two in Europe. They also invited the mainstream media. Anyone who still believes that the “mainstream” media report objectively should take a look at these links.

The most widely distributed article was by Bill Poovey of the Associated Press (reproduced in the Columbus Dispatch) . Nothing was written about the actions of the convention. Instead, it focused on the Convention’s co-sponsor, the League of the South, whose avowed purpose is to restore the Confederacy. The article devoted considerable space to the alleged racism of that organization, citing documents from the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization that tracks hate groups in America. It also quotes that organization and a professor in North Carolina as expressing “surprise” that the “far left” New Englanders in the Middlebury Institute would cooperate with the Southern “racists.”

This supposedly objective news story packs a great deal of misinformation into a small space. It is true that the Southern Poverty Law Center has characterized the League of the South as “the center of the racist ne0-Confederate movement,” (article) but bases its argument on the opinions of its founder Michael Hill and white supremacists who are not necessarily involved with the organization. It also ignores the League of the South’s own statement on racism, which explicitly states the following:

“The LS disavows a spirit of malice and extends an offer of good will and cooperation to Southern blacks in areas where we can work together as Christians to make life better for all people in the South. We affirm that, while historically the interests of Southern blacks and whites have been in part antagonistic, true Constitutional government would provide protection to all law-abiding citizens — not just to government-sponsored victim groups.”

(Formal statement, dated June 21, 2005 is in the appendix at the bottom of the linked page).

Unfortunately, the very next paragraph of the FAQ also promotes “Anglo-Celtic” culture, which undoubtedly makes the organization unattractive to African-Americans; but to call the organization racist is an assertion more deeply rooted in the desire to discredit the League of the South and the entire secessionist movement, than on fact. It is an application of the “politically correct” effort to discredit secessionists using guilt by association.

The Middlebury Institute addressed this issue in its Statement on Collegiality, which notes that the nature of the secessionist movement causes it to diverse organizations with aims (other than secession) that may strongly disagree with the aims of others. As the Middlebury Institute’s director, Kirkpatrick Sale, wrote:

“People turn to secession because they want their own form of government, on their own terms, and hope to create a state that will live out their beliefs, principles, ideals. It is no more justifiable for one organization to question or criticize or castigate those goals if they work toward a Christian-directed government that outlaws abortion and adultery than if they work for a secular democracy favoring gun-control and same-sex marriages. The beauty of secession is that it looks toward having a world where those and many other kinds of states can exist, free and independent, and not impose its ideas on others or have others’ ideas imposed on it.”

I have already stated that an Ohio secessionist movement must be non-racial.

Mayur Pahilajani’s article in All-Headline News was essentially a shorter version of Bill Poovey’s; but in reducing its length, gave it a much more objective presentation.

The Independent, a British newspaper, repeated the assertions about the League of the South, but also threw in some other biases, including a characterization of the Middlebury Institute as a “left-wing” organization (it is not -- it is just a secessionist think tank), a close association with Vermont politics (not just its independence movement), and citing the 1868 Supreme Court decision Texas v. White (“The Constitution in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States.”) as the final word on the subject, as though the Supreme Court never revisited its own opinions. This is, of course, the “politically correct” orthodoxy preached by Abraham Lincoln, which appears to be the only tenet of American government that is too sacred to be revisited.

Finally, we have CNN talk-show host Glenn Beck, weighing in October 4, with this biased opener: “Tonight, here`s what you need to know. United we stand, and divided we fall.” Throughout the interview, he expressed disbelief that views as divergent as the Second Vermont Republic’s and the League of the South’s could come together in a single movement. When he did get it, he was so scared that he abruptly ended the interview.

I noted at the beginning of this long post that none of the “mainstream media” reported on what they did at the convention. Their final document, adopted October 4, is known as the Chattanooga Declaration, which is reproduced below:

“We, the delegates of the Secession movements represented at the Second North American Secessionist Convention, acknowledging our differences, yet agree on the following truths:
1. The deepest questions of human liberty and government facing our time go beyond right and left, and in fact have made the old right-left split meaningless and dead.
2. The privileges, monopolies, and powers that private corporations have won from government threaten everyone's health, prosperity, and liberty, and have already killed American self-government by the people.
3. The power of corporations endangers liberty as much as government power, especially when they are combined as in the American Empire. Liberty can only survive if political power is returned from faraway and self-interested centers to local communities and States.
4. The American Empire is no longer a nation or a republic, but has become a tyrant aggressive abroad and despotic at home.
5. The States of the American union are and of right ought to be, free and self-governing.
6. Without secession, liberty and self-government can never be sustained, and diversity among human societies can never survive. ”

It saddens me to acknowledge that they are correct – correct about the corporations, and correct about describing the United States of America as an “empire” that has become a tyrant abroad and despotic at home. Thomas Jefferson would have been proud.