Sunday, January 29, 2012

Hypocrisy in Four-Part Disharmony

       I'm seeing a four-part hypocrisy being played out by Americans and Israelis, which is going to end up in a moral smashup that Christians and Jews are responsible for, but for which they will blame God, or Satan, or the Muslims, or the Left, or whoever else they can find.


     The Obama Administration is quite rightly concerned about the fact that a bunch of US Marines recently pissed on the bodies of Afghans that they killed, and photographs of this act were distributed everywhere.  This was an intentional insult, violating longstanding traditions of honor and respect among both warriors and people of good will around the world, and at the very best, the US Government knows there will be "blowback," even though everyone professes to be "shocked" that congressman Ron Paul would dare to suggest that America has created many of its own foreign policy problems.

     Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, the Democratic Party -- or at least its liberal wing -- has represented itself as being concerned about international relations from a perspective of liberal values, common humanity, and so forth.  And so far as I have heard in the recent flap about the pissing ceremony, top administration officials have said the right things about "outrage," "American values," and calling for the usual "thorough investigations."  They have let it appear as if they really care.

     But this rings totally hollow to the entire rest of the world, which is fully aware -- much more aware than Americans who view all of reality through a very polarized media filter -- that the US has been expanding its "drone attack" strategy in Afghanistan and wherever else, indiscriminately blowing men, women, and babies into the next world.  This thoroughly undermines the legitimacy and credibility of Hamid Karzai, our own puppet in Afghanistan, who is seen to be unable to protect his own people from American excesses. (He can only "protest to NATO.")  To add insult to injury, our government then piously "holds Karzai and the Afghan people responsible for their own security."  But in sober fact, pissing on dead bodies is the least of our nation's outrages upon the common people of Afghanistan.  They are being carelessly murdered and maimed by the dozens, by the hundreds.

      I suspect that the (somewhat naive, and somewhat phony) hope-and-change humanitarian image of the Obama administration has been permanently ruined.  But we must acknowledge that much of the inconsistency of the Obama Administration can be traced to the extreme pressure of politically-minded Christians and politically-minded Jews who are reinforcing each other's self-delusions, at the expense not only of the credibility of the Administration, but also of the moral welfare of our country.


     The Republican Party is an elephant that has been fed a cocktail of Koolaid and Prozac.

     The Christian Right wing of the Party has been drinking Rapture Koolaid for at least twenty-five years.  Its idea of foreign affairs comes partly from the British-Israelism of the Puritans, and partly from the dispensational imagination of Hal Lindsey types (Late Great Planet Earth), revised and updated by Tim LaHaye and the Left-Behind scenario, sugared up by faith-healers and "Dominionists" who have the answers to all our ills and are ready to "take charge, bless God."  The most consistent advocates of pre-emptive war and torture as an acceptable policy have been -- and are -- impudent "evangelicals."

     Their ideal America is apparently similar to their idea of Heaven:  vaguely beautiful, and very much like an everlasting Protestant church service.  Their idea of a Restored America seems to be a sort of cross between Disneyland and The Truman Show.  A clean, well-ordered, and prosperous Potemkin village.  There is No Drinking, No Smoking, and No Unapproved Sex.  But War is OK, as long as you are Pro-Life.  If it wears a uniform, salute it.  If it wears camo, fawn all over it.  And nothing can go wrong for them because Jesus is going to save them from any consequences of anything.  Thus, they are mistake-proof.


     The other wing of the Republican Party is dominated by the Neo-conservatives, whose economic and political roots go back deep into the Finance-Business-Corporate-War philosophy that gave the Republican Party its inception in the 1850s and has never ever left it.  Currently, the Neo-Cons are operated by a more or less cohesive group of Zionist Jews (some of whom are religious in a political sense, while others are re-packaged Trotskyites), who apparently think that whatever the government of Israel does, says, or thinks should become American policy, and that to disagree with them indicates a criminal degree of anti-Semitism.  Their idea of New Israel appears to be some sort of a cross between Atlantic-City-on-the-Mediterranean, and a kitsch-y "HolyLand" for religious suckers and pilgrims.   They are enthusiastically joined and blessed by a multitude of "evangelical Christians" (who are also religious in a political sense).

     Both groups are on Prozac.  Supposedly for the sake of a visionary New American Century, wedded to the Greater Glory of Israel, they are really pursuing a less-noble agenda -- mutual financial and political advantage over their underclasses, which are the poor in both countries -- largely, but not exclusively, Arabs, Hispanics, and blacks. In order to achieve this, they have created conditions of perpetual war for both countries, and they are currently working rapidly to create matching police states.  They do not care about the consequences of "blowback" on the people of the United States or the people of Israel.  They imagine that they are doing God's will, or that they are going to force His hand.


     It is true that the Israeli citizens-on-the-street have mixed feelings about all this, so one can hardly charge them with full-blown hypocrisy.

     (They do have a small but credible peace movement.  They do have activists who have strenuously done bridge-building with their Arab citizens as well as the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, both Christian and Muslim.)

     But the vast majority, alas, are too uninformed, or too apathetic, or too distracted, or too scared, to effectively question the policies of the Israeli government, media, and security apparatus.  For all their reputation of independence and intellectual vigor, they are too subservient to their own elite masters to influence much of anything.


     What, then, is the hypocrisy in four parts?

     Pretending to want peace and humanity, while nourishing their addictions to fear and war.

*       *       *

In reference to point 4, here is an article which gives an idea of what the Israeli citizens-on-the-street have to deal with, and who runs their political campaigns as well as America's.

Thursday, January 26, 2012

The Constitution Is Not A Virgin

     The Constitution is not a virgin.  

      On the contrary, she has been abused, despised, and ignored from her earliest youth.

     A read of history suggests that the Constitution was conceived to be a streetwalker, at least in the mind of one of the Founding Fathers, Alexander Hamilton.  (The street he had in mind was Wall Street, which was already the financial center of the US in 1787).

     Though she was betrothed to sound money (only gold and silver coin), she was used to justify Federalist currency speculators as early as 1789, at the commencement of the very First Congress.

     After growing to full maturity with the Bill of Rights in 1791, she was soon forced onto the back of a white horse to bless and justify the Treasury Department's little war on citizens in the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794.  She was very badly mishandled by the Federalist establishment when the Alien and Sedition Acts travesties were perpetrated in the later 1790s, and she was tortiously treated by Chief Justice John Marshall, et al., on more than one occasion in the early 1800s in his rivalry with Thomas Jefferson.

     The Party Men who had charge of her bungled the election of 1800, and began the assault upon her "checks and balances" with the passage of the Twelfth Amendment, which enshrined the "Party Ticket" in the electoral college ever after.

     Thankfully, her clauses permitting the abolition of slave trade were honored in 1808; but her compromised arrangements about slaves and taxation were used to justify arguments denying any civil rights to those not taxed, as not being persons.  Her silence about race was taken to loudly justify slavery and every other abuse.

     Her rules regarding treaties were used to circumvent her, and justify outrages against the natural law, and natural citizens, with the deportations of Indian citizens to distant territories.

     Bankers and speculators bypassed her provisions against appropriations of money for longer than two years by loading her down with bonds and other debt instruments to feed their greed and fulfill their manifest destinies.

     After about three-score and eleven years of being alternately worshipped as a false goddess and ignored as an inconvenient whore by the Parties, she was gang-raped, killed, and ripped in half by the Lincoln Republicans and their Banker-Corporate masters on one side, and the Cotton Men and their silly Scarlett O'Hara's on the other.

     For the next hundred years or so, her murderers practiced various forms of necrophilia upon her, outrage upon outrage, dissolving the sovereignty of her states, calling corporations persons, driving over her corpse with Big Business, Big Government, Big Labor, Big War, Big Deal, Square Deal, New Deal, Fair Deal, Yellow Press, Red Scare, Great Society -- and now our own Perpetual International Security State with its Forever War.

     She was buried out of sight by a swarm of lawyers and a small corps of money-men.  Her body is hidden under the great slab of the Federal Register, which is itself buried under a vast mountain of bank notes.  Probably the old Ark of the Covenant will be exhumed before she is.

     I fell in love with her as a school-boy, about the same time I fell in love with geometry, or even sooner.  Even then, it was just a picture of her that I fell in love with, as I now know.  Even I am far too young to remember her; left only with old stories, many of them false.

     Dismembered corpse she is, long buried and gone;  but I confess I still love the old girl, even with her warts.  Her false lovers, rapists, and murderers?  Not so much.  God forgive me.

     I still believe in the Resurrection of the Dead.  As long as a few people love her best ideals, and take the protection of them seriously, there is hope.

*       *       *

     I recently posted the other half of this musing, "The Resurrection Of The Constitution."  Comments always welcome.

     For another look at the Constitution, here is a link to a brief essay by Clyde Wilson, "The Founding Fathers Guide To The Constitution."


Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Annuit Caeptis

Annuit Caeptis

Lord, elect the man

who will protect our faith

with very scientific weapons.

-- Justin Adams

Justin comments:  The title is taken from one of the Latin phrases on the posteriors of our Greenbacks; a close translation would be, Our undertakings are approved.

Sunday, January 22, 2012

The Limits of Mathematical Consciousness

       There are three kinds of people, the saying goes -- those that can count, and those that can't.  And that right there might well describe the limits of mathematical consciousness.  End of post.

       But let's hear from some other people before we let the subject go.  Albert Einstein, no slouch in the discipline of mathematics, has been quoted as saying, "Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts."

       Which is a good saying, I think.  Don't you?

       But there is a catch here: maybe Einstein didn't say it.  Researchers into the matter of correctly attributing quotations suggest that the quotation should be credited to a professor of sociology, William Bruce Cameron, who said something very like this in publications back in the 1950s and 1960s.   Should we accept the word of a sociologist on matters mathematical?

       Or maybe it was a physician who said this first.  Or a religious writer.  You can see the results of current research in a post at the website, Quote Investigator.  Maybe we should establish a quote of our own, that would go something like this: "Not everything that has been quoted is properly attributed, and not every idea that is worthy of attribution comes from an authoritative quote."

       You can quote me.  Or say it yourself.  Or find that someone has beaten us to the punch-line.

       Back to mathematics.  Benjamin Disraeli, a British prime minister of the 19th century, is famously quoted as saying, "There are three kinds of lies:  lies, damned lies, and statistics." (Statisticians, pollsters, accountants, economists, politicians, census takers, and actuaries, take note.)

       Once again, it is possible that Disraeli didn't say this, even though Mark Twain thought he did.  And neither of them was a professional mathematician, and thus may have lacked certain refinements of mathematical consciousness; but each of them had important things to say -- and think -- and the history of human consciousness would be poorer if either of them had not lived.

       John von Neumann, a twentieth century mathematician and physicist and logician of remarkable breadth and brilliance, said,  "There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about."

       Mathematical consciousness has enjoyed especial prestige since the days of Sir Isaac Newton and his disciples, for whom God was, among other things, a consummate Mathematician.  From that day to this Mathematics has been more or less the Handmaid of Science, or the Queen of the Sciences, depending upon whom you listen to.

       But there are limits.  It is by no means certain that all things, or all important things, are quantifiable; or that they "can be mathematically modeled"; or even that they can be mathematically symbolized.  Like life.  Or love.  Or liberty.

       Or dimensionality.  Or thought.  Or consciousness.  Or personality.  Or beingness.  Or even the wagging of a dog's tail.

       I think that mathematical consciousness, once it is self-aware, begins to wonder about meta-mathematical consciousness, and . . . much else.  It is good to welcome other voices, other possibilities.

*       *       *

Your thoughts are most welcome, even if they are limited!  (Or unlimited.)

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

What Conservatism Is This?

Guest post by Ben Carmack

Indiana, my home state, prides itself on being one of the most conservative and Republican states in the Union. In the past 50 years, Indiana has voted for a Democrat for president only twice. 

In such a milieu of conservatism, looking at a few stories in the newspaper in the last couple of weeks, I have been left asking, This is conservatism?

Gov. Mitch Daniels, the man many people wanted to run for president this year with the fiscal conservative seal of approval, is pushing two big pieces of legislation in his final year in office. In 2010, Republicans won big majorities in both houses of the Indiana legislature.

His legislative agenda? Right to work and a statewide smoking ban.

Union members and Democrats are doing all they can to resist right to work, as they should. As any good conservative should know, there is no "right" to work. If one offers one's labor for hire, one must accept the terms given by the employer. Often these terms can become inhumane, which is why we need government to act as economic umpire, ensuring workers' rights.

One hard-won right of the working class is the right to organize and to form unions. When workers can bargain collectively, they can cut deals that result in better wages and working conditions. They can fund training for one another, and increase the standing of their trade or profession, much like the old-time medieval guilds.

Protections and dignity for workers in an industrial system do not come from the free market. The free market will tend to enrich the most economically powerful, who tend to be the holders of property and capital, who in turn tend to be the employers and "job creators." However, if strong unions exist and are allowed to thrive, workers can be protected of their own accord, without coercive government intervention.

"Right to work" legislation takes away the right of private unions and private businesses to make arrangements that require would-be hires to join a union and pay dues as a condition of employment. It is active government intervention in the private marketplace to weaken workers' rights and place more economic power in the hands of the wealthy.

How can such government intervention be "conservative"? What values are being conserved? What noble traditions does "right to work" come from? Surely not any that we should want to continue. Do we want to go back to 19th Century factory conditions, when workers functioned essentially as industrial slaves? Do we want to "conserve" that?

Then there's the smoking ban. 

How can anyone call himself a conservative and support a state regulating the people's private vices? Human beings have been smoking tobacco for hundreds of years. They have breathed it and smoked it and inhaled it, often to excess, which has resulted in health problems in old age. The fact that some people over-consume and destroy their lives in old age does not make smoking tobacco a grave sin that the state must regulate. 

Tobacco smoking has its benefits. It is social. It is fragrant. It is relaxing. Do these benefits count for nothing? Does the bad behavior of marketers in the tobacco corporations outweigh the relative innocence of the product itself? Marketers are the problem, as they usually are, not the smokers, producers, waiters or convenience store clerks. 

Money men who only know how to generate revenue and are otherwise clueless about the life of the world are the real cancer of our time, not people who smoke tobacco in a restaurant or bar. I would hazard that the stress and dis-ease induced by mindless consumption causes far more death and destruction than any mere cigarette. After all, why were we at war in Iraq for 9 years if not to maintain an economy of mindless consumption?

Good grief. What's a conservative to do these days? Certainly not vote Republican.

Sunday, January 15, 2012

After Christian Shenanigans, Santorum Is Anointed

      This is a combined post by 
Robert Heid 
Dr. J. Michael Bennett (Doctor Future)

Robert Heid says:

       Thanks to Doc Future for calling attention to the article linked below, which tells us not only who the "Social Conservatives"  (read "Christian Right")  have "thrown their support behind," but the shenanigans which had to be used to accumulate that support.

Doc Future says:

Evangelical Mafia Anoint Their Minion, 
Bully and Intimidate Their Christian Followers Into Compliance 
Rather Than Independent Analysis

       Our Christian "leaders" do not trust American Christians to discern and make their own informed decisions regarding societal matters -- Robert and I saw this first hand as witnesses at the "Values Voters Summit" in October, 2011 -- instead, they will do that decision-making for them, and send the edicts out to the masses, supported by intimidating guilt, and the support of corporate-sponsored Christian media!  I wonder how much money they expect to ultimately make for this -- the head of the Iowa Christian conservative group is reported to have demanded up to a cool million dollars from Santorum for his endorsement!   (Not that Santorum gave in to the extortion.)

       Our evangelical leaders have now collectively endorsed a  man who is:
       (1) a self-professed Knight of Malta (who formally swears to defend the papacy, Rome and the Maltese principality, and "defend the Christian faith" as their Crusader forebearers did, while wearing their own Crusader capes and swords), and 
       (2) an official endorser and campaigner for Arlen Specter, a strong Republican supporter of abortion (and author of the "U-turn bullet" theory in the Warren Commission).

       Apparently he has all the right pedigree to meet the high standards of our wizened (and well-compensated) representatives of the "Christian conscience" of America!  (Even though the Knights of Malta are well known for running the Nazi "rat-lines" to get the Nazi officers out of Germany and from the Nuremberg trials.)
       Why are our other Christian leaders silent about this?  Are they intimidated by these insiders?  Do they not care?  Dare they agree with their findings? 

Robert Heid adds:

       I predict that the "Social Conservatives,"  -- in this case apparently led by Tony Perkins, Gary Bauer, and James Dobson -- are going to experience "blowback" over this, from several directions:

       Blowback from other conservative Christian leaders and rank-and-file who do still do not support Santorum.  Santorum ran a distant third and received only one vote in six at the Values Voters Summit.  (Ron Paul won the Values Voters Summit.)  Who took it upon themselves to reverse this at a private "summit meeting" in Texas?

       Blowback from the other Republican candidates who were shut out.  Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and others have a right to be lastingly resentful at the treatment they have received from these manipulative people.  Why should they "fall in" behind Santorum?

       Blowback from the primary.  Unless Santorum decisively defeats Romney in South Carolina, which I do not foresee, I think it is over for him.  And with that, the Christian leaders will have reduced their future significance to just about zero.

       And if Santorum does decisively defeat Romney in South Carolina, expect blowback from the Banks-and-Big-Business guild that created the Republican Party in 1856 and has owned it ever since.  They carefully chose and vetted Mitt Romney, probably as much as four years ago; they are funding him, running his campaign, and pre-empting the delegate-selection process as we speak.  They have made a heavy investment, and they are going to protect that investment.  One primary win does not a nomination make in the Republican party, unless it is a win by the heir presumptive.

       I'm sorry that the Christian Right is going this route, because they could have made a real  difference about many important things.  But with their love of war, love of money, false sense of power, and very bad choice of spokesmen and office-holders, I think they are out of favor with both God and man.

       For those of us who are their fellow Christians, this is going to be a shame, and we are likely to feel some of the blowback ourselves.  Who can trust us?  Who can count on our good judgment? 

Thursday, January 12, 2012

The Truth Will Make You Free, But . . .

       I love the words of Jesus when He said, "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."  For many centuries now, the people of good will have heard or read these words, and more or less ordered their lives by them.  They are good words.  Great words.

       Even the CIA discovered them!  Apparently they liked them so well that they have become the motto of that very secretive, very un-free organization.  (Which makes one wonder if they were sincerely -- or just cynically -- meant, at the official beginning of that organization in 1947.)

       So, "the truth can make you free."

       But, the truth can also get you in trouble, as the Master well knew.  And St. John, who wrote down the Master's words, knew for a fact that the truth could get you jailed, exiled, or killed by the political establishment.

       Naturally and spiritually, I am encouraged to see people in my own country, and around the world, and myself included, waking up to fresh truth and new insights.  May it be.

       But may I offer a word of prudence?

       The political establishments of the world are not likely to have warm, fuzzy feelings about this trend.  At least they never have before.

       It might be time to dust off the old Boy Scout motto, "Be prepared."  Or the Master's words about "Counting the Cost."

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Three Good Reasons Not to Like the "Good Doctor"

Guest post by Hobbert Ryde

He accuses our very own Wealth Cartel of Dirty Money.

He accuses our very own War Cartel of Dirty Murders.

He accuses our very own Show and Tell Cartel of Dirty Lies.

I'd say that's reasons enough.  But wait, there's more.

Your so-called "Good Doctor" is All Wrong.

And that's good news for all the rest of us.  There aren't any bad guys over here; they're all over there.  I heard it on Fox News.  Hell, I heard it at church, and you don't get any truer than that, buddy.

I can personally tell you right now how I know that your so-called "Good Doctor" doesn't know anything.  All he was ever trained to do was to look at sick people, figure out what was wrong with them, and try to get them well.  What a brainless dweeb.  I mean, what could be easier than that?  That right there tells you he was just in it for the easy money.

And he's wasted a big part of his life taking care of women, and babies.

And a guy like that should be . . . President??

We need a man's man right now.  Somebody with real balls, like George W. Bush, or General Petraeus, or Rick Santorum.
. . 

(Psst! What's a "cartel"?)

*       *       *

Comments welcome.

Thursday, January 5, 2012

The Outlook For The New Year

       I know that lots of good folks find it hard to believe their friends and relatives.  I have lots of friends and relatives who have a hard time believing me.  And come to think of it, I have a hard time believing them.  So let's just call it a wash.

       But would you take a few moments to follow this link to Paul Craig Roberts' post?

       Thirty years ago, Dr. Roberts was active in government.  In fact, he was a respected Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration.  His professional credentials (as a political economist) and his love for America are beyond any reasonable dispute.

       If you seriously disagree with what he has to say, I welcome your making a credible case for your viewpoint.  And always, comments are most welcome:  pro, con, funny, serious, or just plain otherwise.

Tuesday, January 3, 2012

The Resurrection Of The Constitution

       I write this for my Christian libertarian friends.

       In an essay published in 2002 Joseph Sobran wrote:   "In short, the U.S. Constitution is a dead letter. It was mortally wounded in 1865. The corpse can’t be revived. This remained hard for me to admit, and even now it pains me to say it."

       To me, Joe Sobran has the stature of a political prophet, and I take his words to heart.  He knows whereof he speaks:  "The corpse can't be revived."

       Nevertheless, I wish to offer two encouraging words about the Constitution's future.  But I begin, instead, with a meditation on Holy Scripture.

       It is written that the following words were spoken by the Lord of All Worlds, of whom it is also written that His words shall never pass away:

An evil and adulterous generation 
seeketh after a sign; 
and there shall no sign be given to it, 
but the sign of the prophet Jonas: 
For as Jonas was 
three days and three nights in the whale's belly; 
so shall the Son of man be 
three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

The men of Nineveh 
shall rise in judgment with this generation, 
and shall condemn it: 
because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; 
and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here. 

The queen of the south 
shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, 
and shall condemn it: 
for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth 
to hear the wisdom of Solomon; 
and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.

       The Lord of All Worlds here demonstrates His ability to bring all manner of disparate things together in one speech, in His one consciousness:  an Evil and Adulterous Generation (then living but now dead these past two thousand years); a disobedient but beloved Prophet; a remarkable Whale; Himself; the Heart of the Earth; the Men of Nineveh; the Queen of the South; the Judgment; the Wisdom of Solomon; and a Greater Than Solomon.

       He seems to be indicating that by some means known to Himself, He will bend Time and Space in such a way that at the Judgment, people of one generation will be able to confront the people of another. All of Reality, it would seem, will be able to perceive Itself with a remarkable clarity.  Interesting.

       May I suggest a further word of my own, which might, by some logic, follow from the previous words.

The Founding Fathers 
will rise in judgment with this generation, 
and shall condemn it:  
because they ordained a Constitution 
to protect, guide, and inspire you.  

They thought to restrain you 
from your lust for power and control over others, 
and guard your own liberties 
by defending the equal liberties of your neighbor; 
and you would not be restrained, 
and you would not be guarded.

       And to this I add a second word:  

The Constitution will have its day.  

       I truly believe this.

       The day of judgment is already upon us in the United States, as it is written:  Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision.  May the judgment fall first and hardest upon the usurpers of power and the deadly wolves; may the foolish sheeple learn from their circumstances and be spared the worst.  But come what may, if the precious rights and the holy vision remain in the hearts of a few, the spirit is preserved and the resurrection may come.

       Do I speak merely as a wishful thinker?  I do not.

       At the commencement of the Nineteenth Century, Napoleon Bonaparte was quoted as having said,  "All religions have been made by men."  And in the arrogance of his own self-anointing, he brought the scourge of war and death to all of Europe.  Nevertheless, he is also quoted as saying, "The Bible is no mere book, but a Living Creature, with a power that conquers all that oppose it."  Did he actually say this?  How would I know?  But if he didn't say it, he should have; because it came literally true upon his own head.

       In the middle of the Twentieth Century, in my father's day, Joseph Stalin said sarcastically of the Pope, "The Pope! How many divisions has he got?"  I'm not sure Stalin or anyone else ever got around to counting them, however few or many there were; but forty years later, in my own lifetime, they were enough to dismantle his entire Soviet empire.

       Courage, friends.  Napoleon's god was War, and the Bible defeated him.  Stalin's god was the Monster, and the Church defeated him.

       The tyranny of today is Mammon.  You cannot serve God and Mammon.  Against Mammon is the Spirit of the Lord.  And where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is Liberty.

       I believe that the Spirit of the Constitution will prevail.  In time.

*       *       *

       I first drafted this post a year ago, in December 2010, but never published it.  It seems appropriate to do so now, what with the latest kicking of the corpse by the Congress, the President, the Republicans, the Democrats, the Christians, the Jews, and the others.

       There is a famous essay by Albert Jay Nock, published in 1936 during another dark time for the people and their liberties.  Read  Isaiah's Job, and discover "The Remnant."

       And if you would like to form your own opinion of the validity of the Vision of George Washington, you can do so.