State Of The Feral Fascist Regime Address

We love getting email like the one to follow, not only because we are endlessly puffed up by praise, but because we are so danged proud to have such smart readers around here.

Hello Bernard Bearheart:
I hope you and your family are well. Your blogs are valuable to my wife and I. Customarily we share reading them to each other over our morning espressos, which can at times cause a double hit :-).

Not having TeeVee channels, I was reduced to listening to Obama's State of the Union on the radio last night (the first time I've ever heard him after 5 years in office). For some inexplicable reason I was reminded of a scene in the movie "Waterworld" where the captain of the Exon Valdez called his crew together to renew their hopes with the promise of finding "Dry Land" soon. He got them all hyped up with his rhetoric and at the same time an assistant was sprinkling cigarettes on the crew. Love the metaphors here. So they all ran back to their oars and started rowing. The captain turned to Kevin Costner's character and said something to the effect, "that'll keep the dumb bastards rowing for several more weeks.

So during Obama's speech I was looking for his promise of "dry land," and think I fond it by counting the repetition of unusual words, something I used to do with Bush's speeches during his build up to war,

The narrator said Obama was taking an extra long time getting to the podium because he was stopping along the way and taking pictures of the audience with an Ipod. That might be the first product placement in a State of the Union address. It was a routine opening with mention of something President Kennedy said, and immediately in his next sentence he said, "a decade of war is ending--our troops are coming home" After the lengthy applause he completely dismissed the subject for the rest of the speech and went on to his version of saving the economy.

That is where he said "middle class" on 9 occasions, often referring to a renewed promise that Americans will be able to rise to middle class by their hard work and talents.

It appears that the promise of "dry land" will be the increase of opportunities to become middle class, with the guvs help and guidance of course. In our generation we never openly spoke of an American class structure. We all knew it was there but stayed in some sort of silent denial. How things have changed.

I listened to the republican speaker afterwards and his use of the term, "middle class" went off the page. He used it in nearly every sentence, told how he came from low class and rose up. I was flabbergasted.
Did he and Obama exchange notes beforehand , have the same speech writers, or what? Or is this promise of"dry land" from an agenda directed by the elite in hidden places.

Best wishes, [a great reader]

First, yes Obama and Rubio are controlled by the same agendas, handlers and shadowy figures.  There's not a whit's worth of difference between any of them, now that Ron Paul is gone.

More on that in a moment, but first a pause so that we can all get our espressi together and start chewing on the carcass du jour.  Also, a Happy Valentine's Day to all.  May we all be so lucky as to have a spouse like our great reader with whom to share espresso and articles over the morning grapefruit.

It's also the fifth anniversary of my boarding the plane to begin my self-imposed exile from a totalitarian regime by coming to wild and wooly place called Indonesia.

On to the carcass...

The State of the Union address and the 'response' of the other half (rather than side)...what a joke it has become.  Either I am more cynical (check) or these things have truly become farcical theatrics that openly mock the intelligence of the audience (check).  It turns my stomach to listen to them any more, and like our great reader, I have hardly noticed Obama's presidency other than to duly note that he once also lived in Indonesia.  But heck, even the Indonesians don't care about that any more.

I very much appreciate the great reader's comparison to the film Waterworld.  I happen to think it is very under-rated, though Kevin Reynolds' ham-fisted directing did tend to overshadow the wonderful metaphor and simile in the script, especially the scene mentioned by our great reader.  But I have to be careful or this will turn into an examination of the film rather than a critique of the Obamanator.

Since our great reader took such pains to write a great letter, we took the time (and held back the urge to upchuck) to watch the State of the Regime address.

The first thing I always notice at these annual pep rallys were the fasces and the banner of the British East India Company that framed and provided backdrop for this theater.

Duly noted were all the references to the Middle Class, but what I noted was the repeated idea that people must be 'brought up' to such status.  This tells me that the Middle Class no longer exists, since America is no longer trying to preserve it (see Reagan's SOR speeches) and is now trying to replenish it.

Another thing I noticed was the continual appeal to 'the children'.  This is a common theme with propagandists.  People instinctively want to protect their children, so it is a common weapon of fascist states to use that instinct to get the masses to rally around the flag.  Even more than 'Middle Class', Obama kept appealing to 'the cheeren' as a means to activate emotional responses and shut down reason.

The most sick-making parts of this display of media mind control were the 6 minutes of non-stop applause for a man who has stated his intent to kill American citizens and subvert the Constitution with fiat rulings, euphamistically called 'Executive Orders'.  Everyone who clapped at any time during this display of 'might makes right' is an accessory to heinous crimes.  The cut-aways to congress-critters listening in rapt attention should offer a definitive list of just who is the enemy of the people, and not one of them were al Qaeda or Muslim Brotherhood.

I didn't have the stomach to watch Marco Rubio's 'response'.  I will note that his name derives from "Mars" and "ruby" or "red".  Mars, of course, is the god of war and red is definitive color associated with Mars.  He is one of the top contenders for the 2016 republi-craps presidential nomination, so we should keep a wary eye on him.  He's following the same path that Obama did back in 2004, when he was an unknown senator from Illinois.

As a public service, we offer the following list of thoughts raised by the propaganda spectacle.  They are listed in the order in which they occurred while muddling through this clap-trap so the readers can follow along at home:

• Government is the engine of the economy
• Cutting back on government spending jeopardizes entitilements
• Soaking the rich will save everything
• We should drop the pretense of a two-party system
• New jobs can only come from outside, not from innovation in new technology at home
• 3-D printing will save America
• The president can and will issue decrees to subvert the congress' role as the legislative body
• Government will control the individual's consumption of energy for your own good
• The sole purpose of education is to produce worker bees
• No Child Left Behind is repackaged but it's still child worship\
• There is no middle class and government's job is to try and recreate it
• Immigration reform is needed to attract the smart people America no longer has
• Women are still unequal (go on pull the other one) and fathers are all deadbeats
•  America no longer needs to send troops overseas, now it can bomb civilians by remote
• Africa is a new battleground against "terrorists"
• Computers and the internet are evil and must be controlled
• America reserves the right to kill its own people but will not tolerate it in other countries
• America's military is central to American hegemony
• Lawyers will save America's electoral process
• Government will use children to achieve ANYTHING
• Government doesn't like it when the populace can fight back

 A good wordsmith can couch any amount of terror and suffering in lofty language and emotional appeals, but it doesn't change the core messages.  America is in decline.  It (the government) sees military adventurism as its only recourse for survival.  Nothing, including American citizens, will stand in the way of the government's survival.  And finally, the children are the property of the state to be educated any way the state sees fit to promote itself and its corporate sponsors.

Yes, it's a disgusting state of affairs and one about which real, unbrainwashed Americans are alarmed.  Granted we've been hearing this rhetoric so much for so many years that most of us can't remember when people had a healthy suspicion about the motives and actions of their government.

And for those, including Obama, who still worship the memory of JFK, his most famous quote is pure fascist rhetoric: "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."  Compare that to:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

I rest my case.

Thanks RF!

The unanimous Declaration of the fifty disunited States of Amerika,

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

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all humans are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain innate Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath 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.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these States; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present Executive of the Federal Government is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Congress and Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together secret assemblies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has ignored Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of TSA Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Crimes which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas (Guantanamo, et al.) to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these States:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty; and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on trumped up Charges to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Mexican drug-lord Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Servant of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Federal servants. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their controllers to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of Amerika, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these States, solemnly publish and declare, That these United States are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the Federal Government, and that all political connection between them and the District of Columbia, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
------------------
If you see somewhere in these words, a justification to throw off the yoke of bankster tyranny and to assume your sovereign and individual right to be free and to answer to the Creator for your actions, then perhaps the time has come for action.


The men who wrote this document (with some minor changes to update it) were protesting a 3% tax, among other grievences.  How much is stolen from you at gun point, I mean in taxes?


Happy Fourth.

Texians Draw Fire

As is often the case, any argument in favor of an independent Texas usually draws heated responses.  Most run to the fact that Joint Resolutions of Congress fairly annexed Texas into the Union, and that the election of 1845 was fair and legal, both points of which are patently false.  But, let's allow one of our more articulate readers make the points:

I have no problem with your opinions as expressed on your blog - we are all entitled to our own opinion. We are not, however, entitled to our own facts.

"The US president Polk was elected partly on a platform to get Texas into the Union.  The only problem was that Texians had no desire whatsoever to join.  Any vote that came up was soundly defeated."

This is a complete falsehood. The referendum on annexation received 94.4% of the vote in favor of joining the USA.

OCTOBER 13, 1845
Annexation ordinance and state constitution submitted to the Texas voters for approval. (The vote tally on November 10, 1845, was 4,254 to 267 in favor of annexation; the total vote, compiled January 1, 1846, was 7,664 to 430 in favor of annexation.) 
Sure, you can claim that was illegal as well, but you certainly can't use the argument that the people of Texas were against annexation. And, if you claim that was illegal, you can't turn around and say that secession was OK because of a referendum.

As far as annexation via resolution being unconstitutional in the US:

DeLima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1 (1901)
"A treaty made by that power is said to be the supreme law of the land, as efficacious as an act of Congress; and, if subsequent and inconsistent with an act of Congress, repeals it. This must be granted, and also that one of the ordinary incidents of a treaty is the cession of territory, and that the territory thus acquired is acquired as absolutely as if the annexation were made, as in the case of Texas and Hawaii, by an act of Congress."

And as far as secession, it was illegal once Texas' government and people chose annexation:

Texas v. White, United States Supreme Court, (1868) 
"The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States." The court did allow some possibility of the divisibility "through revolution, or through consent of the States."
Q. E. D.

Sorry, but by the standard of "the Will of the People," the people of Texas consented to annexation in 1845, and the nation they chose to join did not have an opt-out clause. They should have read the fine print. Actually, not even the fine print - the preamble says "to form a more perfect union." You don't get a "more perfect Union" by allowing states to leave at a whim.

Texas can be independent via the 49 other states agreeing to it, or by fighting and winning a war of independence. Good luck with either option.

One more small detail (and believe me, I skipped a LOT of items that are inaccurate in your post): Texas did indeed join the Confederacy. 

On March 23, 1861, the Texas Secession Convention ratified the CSA Constitution.

http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/secession/23march1861.html

The people of the State of Texas assembled by delegates in Convention, ordain, That the Constitution of the Confederate States of America, adopted March 11th, 1861, by the Congress of the Provisional Government of said Confederacy, for the permanent government thereof, subject to ratification by the respective States, is hereby ratified, accepted, and adopted for the purposes therein expressed on the part of this State, acting in its sovereign and independent character.

This reader did a fine job of making my points, and I wish to thank him or her (was not clear from the information provided).  And to finish the argument, I simply need to point out that the words, "annexation of foreign countries" do not appear anywhere in either the Constitution of the united States or of The Republic of Texas.  Therefore, Joint Resolutions of Congress have no validity under either system of law.  It was no more legal or valid than the annexation of Iraq, which is also a captive nation of war.


So, let's examine the points one at a time, shall we?

The vote tally on November 10, 1845, was 4,254 to 267 in favor of annexation

 I re-iterate the point that annexation has no force under either Texas nor US law, nor under international law. Furthermore, 4,521 votes were registered in that referendum.  At the time, Texas had a registered population of roughly 200,000 people.  Damn it, Jim!  I'm an artist, not a mathematician, but that looks to me like about 97% of the population opposed, or at least didn't give a rat's (expletive) about joining the US.  And that assumes that the election was fair and lawful, which they rarely are.


Strike three comes with the vote to secede in 1861, which saw a 4-to-1 ratio vote in favor of independence a mere 18 years later.
Just to close the case, there were several attempts to vote Texas into the Union before the one cited by the reader, and those were completely rejected.  Thus, I question the veracity of the election, since the turn-out was so low and since it went in favor of Union, which had been rejected so many times before.


To address the reader's other point here, I did not claim that the 1845 election was illegal, I said that the 1865 election was, since only those who swore allegiance to the Union were allowed to vote.  Hardly a fair referendum, I'd say.


The reader goes on to quote DeLima v. Bidwell, which was decided 40-odd years after the fact and is the basis for the globalist take-over of the US at the present time through treaties such as Kyoto and Agenda 21, which any red-blooded Unionist would surely point to as treasonous.  I hardly find that conclusive, since grandfathering is considered illegal in our current system of law.  It's akin to outlawing the use of cars and then throwing anyone in jail who once used one before the enactment of the law.  And none of that argument makes the word "annexation" appear in the Constitution.  My copy is still bereft of any mention of the word.


Under international law, only a treaty has any force of law.  Joint Resolutions of Congress do not appear anywhere in the ICC or other international codes.  We are talking about relations between nations.  The reader is assuming a relationship akin to statehood.  Quite different beasts, that.


The reader goes on to say that the Union does not have an opt-out clause, yet in the First Amendment, the right of the people to associate is well understood and has considerable precedent.  The right of contract is also a fundamental part of Western law.  Joining an organization involves both association and contract.  If one party fails to live up to its obligations, then the other party has the absolute right to dissolve its bond.


This concept is at the very heart of the Declaration of Independence.  By the reader's argument, the colonies did not have the right to dissolve their bond with England, and so the very existence of the Union is without substance, therefore it does not have the power to annex or otherwise create States within itself.


By extension, if I were to join the Kiwanis Club under certain obligations and conditions, and the Kiwanis failed to meet their part of the bargain, I would not be allowed to quit the Club.  This argument is false prima facie.


The reader points to the concept of 'a more perfect Union.'  Yet, I would argue that not only was the Union dysfunctional at the time Texas and the Confederacy seceded, but in fact has become more so since that time.  Therefore, since the Union has failed to perfect itself, and has devolved from its original state, therefore ipso facto the States have not only the right but the obligation to dissolve from the Union, and seek to form yet a more perfect one outside the existing bounds.


As for the point about joining the Confederacy, the reader points to Texas' ratification of the Constitution of the CSA.  To that, I simply state that Texas acted in every way as a soverign nation, with president and Congress whose powers and activities were in every way equal to the president of the Confederacy and the US.  Does that sound like a subordinate state to a union to you?  I didn't think so.


I thank the reader for his or her well-reasoned argument and citations.  I agree that it is hard to sort out the truth in a land where autocratic fascism has rewritten the history books.  However, I also have the advantage of being a seventh generation Texian and the son of a politician/historian.  My information comes a bit more direct from the horses' mouth than most textbooks dare provide.


My family's root far exceed those of either the US or the Republic of Texas.  We helped found the Republic.  We also support and uphold the autonomy of the indiginous nations of the Comanche, Kickapoo, Lupan Apache, and Navajo, as well as others.  As conquered peoples of the American empire, we can certainly sympathize with their plight.


Sailing around planting flags does not claim the soil, any more than five flags on the face of the Moon make it the sole possession of the US.  The native rights of those who live on and work the soil are supreme, in any course of law.  That is something established in English law as far back as the Magna Carta, and even as far as Roman administrative law.  While the reader presents a fine argument, there are numerous holes in it, including presumptions and prejudices that hold no weight.  


I have posted the email in toto and I leave it to the good folks who come here daily to decide.  I clearly stated in my original post that I had neither the time nor the space to present the entire argument.  Therefore, there are many parts missing.  I invited the reader to examine the facts for themselves, just as I did.  I hope it is clear that I do not make decisions lightly or without ample proof.


In summary, I offer the words of Thomas Jefferson, who built a fine argument in favor of dissolving ties with England, that most Americans can find little fault with:

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

And from the Texas Declaration of Independence:

"When a government has ceased to protect the lives, liberty and property of the people, from whom its legitimate powers are derived, and for the advancement of whose happiness it was instituted, and so far from being a guarantee for the enjoyment of those inestimable and inalienable rights, becomes an instrument in the hands of evil rulers for their oppression."

I see no further need to argue the point.