There’s no varnish that can shine up the next few paragraphs. The race-baiting, race hustler/peddler/scammer Al Sharpton is filling the airwaves and cable news with his one-man campaign to stir-up racial hatred, incite riots and civil unrest. This populist charlatan is doing his ‘best’ work these days to insure the cause of racial harmony is set-back a couple generations. He knows therein lies his hope of ‘best’ success. However, for the rest of us, lies ruin including for African-Americans.
Sharpton began his race-baiting national career via the Bensonhurst incident and co-opting the then 15-year old Tawana Brawley and her false rape charges. Since then, he’s built a continuing corrupt enterprise through his National Action Network. Racing from one potential racial housefire-hustle to the next, Sharpton stokes each one long enough to get the national media inflamed, his donor list pumped up and then runs to the next one.
He’s likely the ‘best’ dissembling, duplicitous-populist-self-promoter to come along in a generation or so. He has little relationship with the truth and, frankly, why should he? The truth, in his skillful hands, has little to no place in the discussion. He succeeds by feeding into longstanding myths and fallacies. His best art is misdirection and the specious statement.
Amazingly, he seems to be doing such a fine job getting the latest string of police shootings, take-downs and incidents converted into a racial detonation that even liberal African-American leaders are beginning to criticize his methods and message. Albeit they’re way too slow and way too late. Conservative African-American leaders have long criticized Sharpton to no avail. Sharpton and his outriggers have the majority of blacks convinced such conservative voices are “Uncle Tom’s.”
Will any of them succeed in taking down such misdirected politics of race? Likely not and here’s why: The entire population has been so long trained in the ‘politics of tribalism’ and the completely fallacious ‘group rights’ concepts. They have done so at the expense of individual rights. So much so that most conservatives seem no better equipped to understand why the message of victim-hood and ‘collective right’ is a fundamental myth. The entire population are forced to talk and think about African-Americans as a tribe because that is the way so many think of themselves. Groupthink is what enables ultimate control, even though it is the most inhuman and inhumane way to think if one actually wants freedom and liberty to be fundamental values of their society and governance.
So many of the most ardent and intelligent conservatives buy into some form of “collective right” artificial construct. They espouse different forms, such as “corporate rights” but it is the part and parcel of the same fallacious special and collective rights concept. They also give rhetorical cover to such artifice as “women’s rights” and “human rights” attempting to avoid the wrath of the politically correct crowd. Instead they should be categorically rejecting same for the myths they represent.
As explained in the 3-part series of articles being posted starting here, the proper understanding and definition of rights lends itself to being endowed only upon individuals. All other attempted applications are myths and totally erroneous. However, more than a century of propaganda and education have done their job well.
This, in fact, is probably the greatest single battle of our age that remains to be finally joined: the elimination of the artificial construct and legal structure that has built-up around ‘special,’ group or collective ‘rights.’ The series of fundamental legislative and judicial errors and legal policy constructions of the 19th and 20th centuries will continue to destroy the cause of freedom and liberty until this battle is recognized and fully joined.
So many Americans of all cultural and ethnic backgrounds have bought-in to the collective right myths to their detriment. However, African-Americans have probably the highest degree of buy-in. They have been co-opted to the highest degree by “limousine liberals” and their own leaders. They fail to recognize how the federal and state plantation of government subsidy, benefit and control has been substituted for the southern plantation of the old south. No whippin’s are needed when benign buy-in can more easily be obtained through taxpayer and deficit-generated largesse and programs. Nor do many seem to realize how it has also generated some perverse cultural or ethnic/racial behaviors.
When a Euro-American gets arrested or commits a moderate to serious crime, even the most heinous, I don’t feel any ‘group guilt’ that somehow it reflects upon me as a Euro-American. How could it? Why could it? I look at and treat every individual one at a time as they come in accordance with how they treat me as an individual.
Not even when some criminal is part of the specific Irish or Scottish (most of my heritage) “tribe” I may happen to belong to, do I feel any ‘group-guilt’ for the acts of that individual. That whole concept is bizarre. How or why I should feel some sort of guilt or responsibility for the actions of another person because we happen to be of the same ethnic, cultural or racial background? That seems a pretty ridiculous concept on its face.
Maybe, if they were an immediate part of my family…however even then, if we’re not a family of criminals, I might feel ashamed but not guilty of anything. If 95% of all Scots-Irish Americans were committing virtually all the crime, doing all the drugs, having all the abortions, had the highest rate of divorce and dysfunctional families, it casts no reflection on me whatsoever, nor should it. Why would it? I don’t do any of those things.
Afro-Americans, or any minority, allowing themselves to continue buying-in and be exploited by such concepts like racial shame, guilt or anything like it due to the actions of others, are a mystery to me. Anymore than I should or would feel some form of racial guilt because earlier and other Europeans and Euro-Americans at one time enslaved, hated or segregated African-Americans. Such views are complete and utter bullshit. All people are individuals, free and independent to conduct their lives in any manner they choose as long as they respect my rights to do the same.
People that feel and act as collectivists are allowing others to define, control and keep them on that plantation without true freedom, liberty and self-determination. It is precisely that control which has obviously greatly harmed their culture and family structure. In fact, it has damn near destroyed the culture and family structure for so many. Yet, they persist in believing the myth, handed to and controlling them, willingly embraced. As long as they do, others are in charge of them and they have given up their actual individual rights without even a fight.
European-Americans are next in line with their own form of state and federal plantation with corporate and personal loan or direct subsidies, tax credits, loan guarantees, grants and the like. Here it’s not so much a cultural but an economic plantation they live on. It is both in the thinking that groups have rights, are owed something or entitled as a group that locks all the groups onto the government plantation. It is also what keeps America divided so the race-baiters and haters and political opportunists of all stripes can take advantage. Primarily it keeps the government in control of the plantation, to the detriment of all people.
The shootings of Michael Brown and Tamir Rice, and the take-down of Eric Garner, each was an individual event with its own circumstances. The only pattern here is that each was committed by people, each with their own prejudices, poor training, bad behaviors, personal foibles and agendas. However, until all Americans are properly educated into what actual rights, freedoms and liberties truly are, the negative reinforcement pattern we are in will continue. To the extent that justice is not done in each case and outcome, we ALL suffer the loss. The tragic thing is that the current paradigm of mass ignorance and disinformation disallows justice instead of serving it. And, it allows the political opportunists of both political stripes to use each incident for their own self-serving political agendas to keep Americans divided and true rights, liberties and freedoms on the ropes. It enables centralized control to be the true nature of governance in the United States.
Note: This article is the second in a three-part series that will discuss the issue of rights, the intended formation and organization of our government and how that relates to the issue of state nullification and interposition, among others in the future. Readers may first wish to review Part 1, prior to continuing with this article.
There is a common and objective understanding of rights that stands apart from personal belief or opinion. Or, at least, it should be “self-evident” if one understands that term. By “common,” is meant the understanding that is universal to all individual sentient, thinking beings that understand the concept of “I” and how, in context, they relate the same understanding (knowledge and respect for rights of other individuals) to all other individual thinking, sentient beings one may encounter.
By “objective,” is meant the understanding that best implements a successful, cooperative and voluntary exchange of all things regarding life, liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness and property. Or, for any other thing that is discovered to fall within a direct extension of those rights or others discovered to be truly held in “common” amongst all individuals (“reserved” rights).
Those things mostly fall into the area of Liberty. You own yourself which means you exclusively own your rights. Liberties and freedom are how you exercise your exclusive ownership of those rights. In terms of governance, government based on protection of individual rights and liberties is the only successful way found so far to govern any large population of people for the long-term. That makes freedom and liberty paramount.
However, there is an opposing view that says there is no such thing as an objective view common to all. The opponents believe all rights and liberties are subjective and that even true unalienable rights can be selectively restricted or subordinated in favor of abstractions called “group” or “collective” rights. Strangely (or maybe not), such beliefs range from those who identify themselves as everything from “strict Constitutionalists” to “living Constitution” believers. Can that opposing view actually be operative and true?
It would seem obvious it cannot unless, of course, one believes analogies such as ‘new math’ changes the actual operation of things like gravity or electricity, too. Maybe if we apply Common Core learning techniques to gravity it will be more forgiving and enhance our self-esteem? Or, further applied to unalienable rights, have us believe that such things as my right to life and self-defense are not immutable as well. On the contrary, there is obviously such a thing as self-evident truth in regard to rights and liberties that obliterates the subjective view.
Thus, an objective understanding and definition does not lend itself to complete misnomers (or discussion shorthand) such as corporate rights, animal rights, housing, health, food, or any other kind of “special rights.” Special rights are “group rights” which is to say, they are meaningless abstractions similar to the idea of the “social mind.”
So do group rights have any legitimacy? Not likely. Select groups within a population can have no special rights outside those rights everyone has. Such a belief is the complete inversion of everything self-evidently contained within the meaning of “rights.” Those so-called “special rights,” if legitimate in any part, could only entail what the Founders designated “delegated powers.”
What then, are “delegated powers?” Obviously, delegated powers can only come from individual rights as direct extensions of those rights. Delegated powers cannot then, by definition, exceed or usurp the original individual right. Delegated powers are a direct subset of individual rights granted to things or entities, such as governments whether local, state or federal, corporations or other such groups or entities. “Entities” are not living breathing persons but fictional “persons” and so do not obtain and are not endowed with rights, only granted those delegated powers by the original holders of rights: individuals.
Next, to understand how delegated powers work, comes the definitions of the two great classes of rights: unalienable and alienable. The root word in both is “lien.” A “lien” is an “encumbrance, claim or contract” against a right. “Unalienable,” then, means those rights cannot have an inherent claim, encumbrance or contract against them through your birth or at any time in your life, unless you consciously and voluntarily create one. No other person can hold a pre-existing claim against your life, liberty or Pursuit of Happiness and property or enforce one not voluntarily entered into.
The law-abiding retain all unalienable rights at all times. Subsequent to your birth no valid claim can be created against those rights unless you or your natural assigns create it or can’t defend against a legitimate claim established by another. “Alienable” means others can have a claim, encumbrance or contract against rights. However, to pursue a claim requires “due process.” That’s how “all men are created equal” under the law. Next, comes the delegation of power.
A delegated power is not a surrender of a right. It is a temporary contracting of a component of a right. That extremely important distinction seems to be lost on many. Another way to look at it is a temporary loan of each individual’s sovereignty. When a population of people, within specific geographic boundaries, each loan a portion of their individual sovereignty (as in “The People”) that act creates a government or other entity from grants or delegations of power.
However, a delegated power has to be recoverable. A delegated power cannot, by definition, exceed the original grant from the right. No government can legitimately lay ultimate claim to ownership of any right or subsequent delegation of power while operating in your stead. A government process cannot be created that legitimizes converting a right into a privilege. That process itself would be illegitimate.
So where does that leave such ideas as, “collective rights?” If one understands the definitions given above it’s self-evident there is no such thing as “collective rights.” Even when organized into legal entities groups only have “collective delegated powers,” to operate under, not rights. Those entities may then have further delegations by representative government entities to commercial ones to enable such things as Licenses, Charters, Registries, Permits and Articles of Incorporation, etc., granted by the state. Those could be called “2nd tier powers.” That is a tenuous connection to anything that could be actually considered a “collective right.” Very tenuous, indeed. It certainly cannot exceed the right of individuals.
Another attempt has been made since the 30s to establish the concept of “human rights” and conflate the term with “individual rights.” It, too, is a propaganda trick of manipulative centralizers, mostly liberal but sometimes conservatives attempt to co-opt the term, too. All humans each have individual rights but no one has additional set of “human rights” as some kind of collective set of rights beyond their individual rights. It is clever, though, how Abraham Lincoln’s old adage has worked so well for so long: “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.” Lincoln was not an unknowing practitioner of his own saying.
With the foregoing understanding of rights vs delegated powers how about we dive into some of the crucial issues, such as State Powers, Nullification and Interposition, the Compact Theory of states and so forth in Part 3?
Note: This article is the first in a three-part series that will discuss the origin of rights, the intended formation and organization of our government and how that relates to such issues as state nullification and interposition, public lands, jurisdiction and the production of a “free, independent people and states.”
“The problem is choice.” That line, uttered by the character Neo in the 2nd installment of “The Matrix: Reloaded” movie series, exemplifies most current dilemmas we face in the United States Republic and around the world, today. It’s not for nothing that “The Matrix” and “The Hunger Games” are two of the most globally-popular story and movie franchises of the opening years of the 21st Century. Such popular movies are a barometer of other things happening across cultures.
The problem of fundamental choice, continually facing the protagonists in both of those franchises, is critical in determining whether humans will be free or enslaved as individuals. The two storylines are globally popular for exactly the same reason. Individual choice in desiring to be free is the ultimate driver of all human affairs, most typically exercised in political terms in resistance to tyrannical control and enslavement.
The issue of our choice in governance is paramount and whether it will result in a fully centralized or ultimately distributed system in the United States. As is always true, the best choice can only be made in a fully-informed manner. No one would seriously argue that it is possible to design, build and maintain a modern electrical power grid without the fundamental understanding of Ohms Law and each of its permutations.
Yet, we find in America of the 21st century most citizens and voters, elected officials, bureaucrats and media believe we can run an advanced, modern Republic without as much as a rudimentary understanding of natural law, rights, liberties and free market economics. Or, for that matter, an actual understanding of the original architecture of that Republic. Most citizens fail at every turn to recognize their role as sovereign, to practice it beyond the most minimal duty of voting once in awhile. In fact, the average American is propagandized to believe that a “sovereign” is equivalent to a terrorist, even though every American in our system, by definition, is a sovereign. They must further believe that such systems as ours run on autopilot.
Centralized government systems may, for a few decades at least, appear to operate adequately then fall under the weight of myriad bureaucracies spawned under such misunderstood architectures. The history of the 20th Century traces that path over and over again. Each centralized government system fails successively. Some last only a few years, some decades depending on the degree of centralization and coercion. A few may even last beyond a century when apparently benign (though not actually), if they fail to successfully revolve into more distributed systems. The more centralized and coercive, the faster the failure. Because they are centralized, when they fail, they fail catastrophically from the center radiating outward in every aspect.
Distributed systems are much more robust and resilient against massive failure while operating very well at higher rates of internal productivity. All systems in nature are mostly distributed in a manner as to not fail all at once. Many sub-parts can fail over and over and keep coming back. While individual species of plants and animals can and do fail completely, the system of life and nature as a whole are robust enough to continually replace the failures with new or adapted species. The only possible extinction level events for life as a whole likely involve the complete and utter destruction of the planet. And, if humans become smart enough at some point, even that eventuality can be avoided by finding a redundant planet or habitation point to carry the population and a lot of other earth species.
Resolution of this obvious disconnect in governance (being more and more centralized) during the next couple decades will not only determine the fate of those of us here in the United States but likely most of the rest of the world. The ultimate issue is tyranny vs freedom. The main constituencies involved are the collectivists vs the individual.
No one can seriously argue against the fact that the federal government was set-up to be limited and minimally centralized. Yet, the debate now usually circles around just how unlimited and centralized it will be. The rubicon has been crossed. In either case, most people erroneously believe that “limited” is synonymous with efficient. However, the fact remains, the federal government was not set-up to be efficient, only limited.
If it was set-up to be efficient we would have a Unitary government. We would have something akin to a General Secretariat and “President-for-Life” or “Emperor,” not a Congress and regularly-elected President’s. Even our centralized portion of government, only granted power for an extremely limited federal system, was purposefully further divided with checks and balances to keep it limited. Anyone who brings up the efficient government argument in context to the federal government is barking up the wrong tree. Fascism, in the 20th century was found to be efficient government and also ultimately most efficient at creating death and destruction.
Centralization as the sole organizing principle is demonstrably failing virtually everywhere; socially, politically, financially and culturally if one cares to look objectively and non-ideologically. That’s for good reason. Coerced collectivism and centralization is fundamentally at odds with both natural order and consequently, human behavior. Whether that order has been endowed by a Creator or cosmologically (meaning via scientifically defined laws) organized changes nothing in the self-evident universe we live in. In the universe of Man, what is, simply is. That’s the “self-evident” part. “New math” could change the definition but not the operation of gravity, nor can personal opinion change the fact that “all men are created equal….”
For almost the entirety of the last century the government and institutions of government and society have been busily persuading or demanding of us that our key organizing principle must (or will) always be centralized. Even as their functions multiplied and they obviously became even more inefficient, bloated and unwieldy. That has been occurring even though the original architecture, organization and implementation of our system of government and economics was set-up to be minimally centralized and maximally distributed by the Founder’s.
For the last 80 years, first through contemporary fashion (clamoring to be led to safety) and later increasing misdirection, no effort has been spared by a super-majority of our educational, social, cultural and political institutions to insure that centralization is our only key organizing principle for all government. The last few years, as these efforts have increased, the debate has engaged on many discussion threads and exchanges online, in public forums or privately on the subjects of natural law, the Declaration and the Constitution. Those exchanges include Constitutional scholars and law professors, elected officials at all levels, informed conservatives and liberals on a whole slew of related issues.
No matter how complex or in-depth the issue one finds that each time any higher-level disagreement is encountered it almost always comes back to a fundamental disconnect on just a few very important first principles and terms. Most of the time it involves just two areas: individual rights vs delegated powers or “collective rights.” For many it involves a basic misunderstanding of the definition of “rights.” Many individuals struggle to properly apply the correct definitions to their immediate or extensive thinking or to understand how those things apply to common governance and the functioning of the intended Republic vs the “Republic” we have.
Where does all this prologue lead us? Back to the problem of choice and whether we choose to have a centralized government dominate us or a distributed government represent us. In Part 2, the discussion will move to the definitions and understanding of rights vs delegated powers and how they apply to a variety of current issues and topics.
The case of Payette County, Idaho resident Alma Hasse, highlights the increasing lack of transparency, innate corruption and growing routine violence exerted against any citizen who attempts to peaceably petition or protest their government and its actions. Combined with the growing routine militarization of police and their training, the basic lack of respect for individual rights that training and practice initiates, is making cases like Alma’s almost a daily occurrence across America.
Alma was arrested on alleged “trespassing” (a charge that wouldn’t fly and the county is currently trying to make-up something else) and contempt charges at a public meeting on Oct. 9th and held for a week at the county jail. What did Alma, a law-abiding longtime county resident, farmer and grandmother do? She had the temerity to say “Excuse me,” and ask for a “point of order” at a Payette county commission hearing on Oil and Gas development regulations.
I’ve personally spoken to Alma and we’ve exchanged a few emails over the last several months on the issue of fracking and O&G development in Payette and Gem Counties. Alma is a dedicated “fracktivist,” as the media loves to call those with an environmentalist bent, against fracking. I largely disagree with her environmental positions on the issue. I believe the best approach is to stick with overturning the fundamental property rights abuses that current O&G development practice have allowed under legislation passed in 2012 in the Idaho statehouse.
The subsequent rulemaking this year by the O&G Commission pursuant to that and other legislation has compounded the problem by writing the lease acquisition and development rules to the extreme advantage of the O&G drillers and producers and large landowners, at the expense of small private landowners and rights holders. The protection of property rights for all owners and holders of those rights should be paramount, not just to large landowners and rights holders. Government and the law especially should not favor private producers and drillers over the small rights holders. Yet, currently it does.
So while Alma, environmentalists and fractivists have entirely different approaches, we agree that the processes involved, with regard to government in regulating the activities, must be lawful, objective and fair to all parties. When government favors some private parties and entities over any individual rights, the process and system is innately corrupted. In any and all cases, private citizens have the right to peaceably assemble and object to the behavior of government officials, procedures and actions.
They also should expect that no government, at any level, has the power to arrest and incarcerate law-abiding citizens for simply objecting in a public hearing and asking for a point of order. It’s amazing that so many people don’t realize the innate violence of such government behavior. For heaven’s sake, these thugs took a week out of her life to sit behind bars in a dirty jail cell. Took her freedom, her liberty and her dignity. They did it to Alma for a week at the whim of a County Commissioner so people think “no big deal.” I say, “let’s do it to them” and see what they say!
A friend, Lee Rice, was subjected to even more violent behavior on a bogus traffic stop in 2011. Watch the video at the link and be appalled. Lee was severely injured in the takedown. It is a complete lack of respect for individual rights on the part of the officers that don’t use their brains because the training over-rides all like Pavlov’s dog. The common idea that everyone has to immediately comply with every order of a uniformed government thus, when no laws are being broken, is a new and frightening phenomena in America. It would have never been tolerated two generations back. It must be heavily resisted now.
The increasingly Orwellian and dictatorial behavior of government bodies and the policing power is Un-American, against freedom and liberty and is steadily destroying the Republic. I may not agree with Alma Hasse but as peaceful, law-abiding citizens we all have the incontrovertible right to seek redress and voice our objections. Our government, at all levels, is increasingly moving towards a “Hunger Games-like” scenario from total lack of government transparency, routine surveillance of the population to egregious violations of civil and individual rights by violent militarized police. There are consequences to such behavior.
Alma Hasse and many like her are the canaries in the coal mine that should set off alarm bells all across the country and in every American’s mind. President Kennedy stated it well when he said, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” More recently Claire Wolfe stated it more directly, “America is at that awkward stage. It’s too late to work within the system to fix anything and too early to start shooting the bastards.”
If the bastards keep going in the direction they’re currently heading some day, sooner than most think, they will arrive at the destination everyone fears. If everyone keeps sitting on the couch and doesn’t join Alma, Lee, me and the small number of others out there fighting to protect all of our rights, one day soon they’re coming for you, too. Pericles, a famous Greek statesman, 2500 years ago knew the score when he wrote, “Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn’t mean politics won’t take an interest in you. ”
What will YOU do then, when it’s too late?
Let’s not mince words here. Last Tuesday’s election was a blow-out for the Republicans. Well, at least for those who voted. President Obama, his policies and leadership were thoroughly trounced by a so-called “wave election.” However, Republicans should also not fool themselves that the latest re-arrangement of deck chairs means much of anything will change in the next two years. There is nothing in this election that says “America Wins.” This was the lowest turn-out election, at 36.4%, since 1942!! There was no “shift to the right” in the country. It was more like very few were able to “shift off the couch” to get out and vote. The political class is just playing musical chairs in Washington.
With that turn-out Republicans retook the Senate and the Governorships with the votes of a little bit more than 18% of the registered electorate, on average. Since 31% of the adult population never registers to vote even once that means that less than 13% of the eligible adult population decided this election. Wave election? What utter Bullroar! What a democracy we’ve got, eh?
Unfortunately, many of those folks (the couch potatoes) WILL likely come out in much larger numbers to vote in 2016 as they did in 2008 and 2012, particularly as more chaos ensues in 2015 and 2016. If the Repubs get nothing done in the next two years, they’ll be toast AGAIN. They’ve got just two years until the next “wave” comes along. Good luck with that! With lots of bluster and false flourishes we’ll soon see again that neither Republican or Democrat “waves” have any real impact on changing the rate of growth of government, the federal budget or Washington’s control of the economy and the country. Capitol City is in control throughout the federal districts.
Republicans trying to claim otherwise are engaging in nothing but smoke and mirrors. The only thing proved in this election, across the nation, is that Republicans won. However, not conservatives. IN THIS Republican Party that’s a severe and clear distinction. Maybe 2016 will prove to be the time for that once-in-100-years 3rd party wave. I guess only if Americans with some real cojones get off the couch.
In the meantime, ObamaCare will not be repealed (though the Supreme Court may knock it down a few notches), the budget will not be cut, no government programs will end. Debts will continue to spiral, the currency, commodity and equity markets to oscillate all over the landscape and, meanwhile, the false recovery to sputter out into the next big downslide.
But please take note from 2008: Has any debt been reduced? Any liabilities cleared? Any jobs returned? NO? Then where does recovery come from other than falsified statistics, outright lies and verbal sleight-of-hand? Where, in fact, has anything been fixed or government reduced in the last 40 years by this crazy see-saw of so-called “wave elections?”
Our overseas interventions and deployments will continue apace wherever the President deems necessary and the “War Lovers” of the Left and Right collude in Congress to allow it. Our forces will remain dangerously spread out and overextended around the world meddling in countries where we should have never been in the first place. Especially not for most of the last century. We are now dangerously close to having the whole mess collapse around our ears in the form of unrelenting “blowback.” And where will the money come from for that? While the beat goes on…
In my home state of Idaho, possibly the worst candidate Republicans have ever put up for statewide election barely won a narrow victory over her Democrat opponent in the State Superintendent of Public Instruction race. The incumbent Governor, along with nearly every other Republican establishment hack in the state, won re-election. Idaho will remain dependent on 35+% of it budget from federal spending. We will remain at or near dead last in almost any important category of economic, educational and independent indicator of freedom. The state will remain an 86,000 square-mile federal reservation and the beat goes on…
All the silly trumpeting going on by mainstream Republicans and a few rockhead “conservatives” will not make it much past March, 2015 as ongoing reality continues to crash the Party. Americans will see for the umpteenth time how badly served they are by both sides. Will they repeat the insanity again or perhaps finally wise up and actually change direction. There is little time to move away from the conventional wisdom, status quo thinkers dragging us to our doom in this country. Stay tuned…..