Smoky Mountains Sunrise
Showing posts with label Statism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Statism. Show all posts

Thursday, March 8, 2012

Canadian Father Arrested for Girl's Picture of Toy Gun

Just when we were beginning to think that western Canada might be a good place to escape to in the tragic event that Obama's lease is extended, comes this story on the heals of provincial authorities in Alberta telling homeschoolers they cannot teach their children that homosexual acts are sinful.  The world has truly gone mad. Where did "the free world" go?


By Thandi Fletcher

Daddy, are you mad at me? Those were the first words out of the mouth of a scared little girl to her father when he was released this week after being charged with possession of a firearm because of a picture she drew at school of a man holding a gun - which turned out to be a toy.

Monday, December 5, 2011

Neither Gingrich nor Romney Favors Limited Government


If you thought 2012 would bring change to government, think of it more as rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The two leading candidates at the moment on the right are not champions of limited government.

Read the rest of this entry >>



Saturday, October 9, 2010

State Snatches Baby from Oath Keeper Patriot

Of all the grassroots, freedom-loving organizations that have emerged in response to threats from statist, fascistic socialists, perhaps no group is more in keeping with the intent of America's founding fathers than Oath Keepers.

Oath Keepers is a national network of currently serving military, reserves, National Guard, veterans, Peace Officers, Fire Fighters, and their supporters who promise that they will honor the oaths they have taken, and will not obey any unconstitutional order "to disarm the American people," conduct warrantless searches, "detain American citizens as 'unlawful enemy combatants,'" work to impose martial law, invade or subjugate any state, blockade American cities, put Americans in detention camps or "make war against our own people."

The following story about the state of New Hampshire snatching a new born baby because the father is a member of Oath Keepers underscores the need for the organization and makes clear that American rights and liberties are under siege.

This outrage reminds us that the hour is late if America is to be saved from the ruling elite transforming it into something that would be repugnant to our founders. Indeed, we have the Second Amendment because our founders understood that the day might come when Americans would have to defend their liberties against oppressive government. Among many such quotes from the founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson said that "Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God," and George Washington believed "a free people ought to be armed." Richard Henry Lee, a Senator in the First Congress advised that "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms..."

Americans are rising in defense of liberty and our priceless national patrimony. The totalitarian statists are losing, but as the following story and so many others in our news today make clear, it is their desperation that makes them most dangerous.


State snatches baby when dad accused of being 'Oath Keeper'
'You could be on 'the list' and then child protective services might come'

From WorldNetDaily
By Bob Unruh

A 16-hour-old newborn was snatched from her parents by authorities in Concord, N.H., after social services workers alleged the father is a member of Oath Keepers.

The organization collects affirmations from soldiers and peace officers that they would refuse orders that violate the U.S. Constitution, in light of what they perceive as the advance of socialism in the U.S.

The father, Johnathon Irish, told WND that the affidavit signed by Child Protective Service worker Dana Bicford seeking government custody of newborn Cheyenne said the agency "became aware and confirmed that Mr. Irish associated with a militia known as the 'Oath Keepers.'"

Irish, in an interview with WND, said officers and other social services workers ordered him to stand with his hands behind his back, frisked him and then took his daughter from him and his fiancé at Concord Hospital where the baby had been born.

Read the rest of this entry >>


Tuesday, March 16, 2010

ObamaCare: An Urgent Message to Our Catholic Readers


You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt lose its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is good for nothing any more but to be cast out, and to be trodden on by men.

(Matthew 5:13)
The Catholic Health Association has recently endorsed the Democrats' health care bill. This organization is comprised of 600 hospitals, hospices, long-term care facilities, and 3 of the largest HMO's in the nation. They are a network of institutions that may have some association with religious orders or the dioceses in which they operate, but they do not have the authority or competence to represent the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church. That they use the name "Catholic" to endorse policies antithetical to the Church is an attempt to sow confusion, undermines the authentic teaching of the Church, and is a grave sin.

Some have said that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) should condemn the Catholic Health Association for its advocacy of policies that would fundamentally change our country. However, the USCCB is itself a voluntary association of bishops with no more authority to teach, govern and sanctify than the Catholic Health Association, and we have seen how the USCCB has engaged in the same sorts of deception.


While it is the responsibility of individual bishops to address broad, moral concerns, to teach the faith, govern the local Church, and administer the sacraments, Catholic social teaching recognizes that it is primarily the responsibility of Catholic laymen to work out the details of a just, truly human, and Christian society.
Sadly, many Catholic leaders have become advocates for reforms that are in direct contradiction to long established and carefully stated moral teachings of the Church.

As we have noted before, there are wolves in prominent positions throughout the Church. We think the late Pope Paul VI had them in mind when he spoke of "il fumo di Satana nel tempio di Dio" ("the smoke of Satan in the Temple of God.") In regard to the Obama administration's effort to fundamentally transform America by seizing command of one sixth of America's economy, every Pope since the time of Marx and Engels has condemned socialism. Socialism was condemned in the 1878 papal encyclical Quod Apostolici Muneris by Pope Leo XIII. It was even more thoroughly critiqued and condemned again by that Pope in the landmark encyclical Rerum Novarum, when he wrote:
"Hence, it is clear that the main tenet of socialism, community of goods, must be utterly rejected, since it only injures those whom it would seem meant to benefit, is directly contrary to the natural rights of mankind, and would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonwealth. The first and most fundamental principle, therefore, if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property."
It was denounced in the 1931 letter Quadragesimo Anno in which Pius XI famously wrote that "no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist." Other twentieth century Popes have been clear on this issue, including Pope John Paul II in his encyclical Centesimus Annus, which commemorated the 100th anniversary of Rerum Novarum.

My fellow Catholics, we are confronted with evil the likes of which we have never encountered before. This week will be a pivotal moment for our nation, in which we decide whether we will be a people of the government, or have a government of the people. Will we take the side of those carrying out Lenin's prescription for destroying a society by debauching its currency, or will we affirm Winston Churchill who wrote that "the destiny of man is not measured by material computation?" Will we agree with Ronald Reagan who said that as "government expands, liberty contracts"? Or will we side with Obama, Pelosi and Reid in their seizure of private sector industries and our freedoms?

Churchill wrote that "When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we are spirits-not animals."
Now is the time to affirm what our Church taught so clearly before schismatics created confusion. To affirm truths about the dignity and freedom of man, we must stand like those faithful clergy and laymen who died for their faith in the last century, rather than relent to totalitarian statism and socialism.

It is a time to remember the thousands of Catholic servicemen and women who lived and died for faith, freedom, individual rights and opportunity, and where the possibility of being forced to pay for the state-sanctioned murder of infants was unthinkable. It is time to affirm and be faithful to the commitment made and the graces received in the Sacrament of Confirmation. We are obliged and duty bound to protect our nation from false notions about man and society that have so recently gained a foothold in our country after they were thoroughly discredited in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.

The Democrats' plan for health care in America, whether it contains specific language sanctioning taxpayer funding for abortion or not, is anti-life and evil. It fundamentally changes the nature of our society, our relationship to government, undermines our economic security, makes government the final arbiter as to what health care you should receive, rations health care, and ultimately decides who lives and who dies. And does anyone think that a President who has voted to let infants surviving abortion die of neglect, will not find ways to advance his demonic culture of death? Our Secretary of State has lectured Brazil in just the past week on why they should sponsor this kind of infanticide.


The American poet James Russell Lowell wrote:
"Once to every man and nation, comes the moment to decide,
In the strife of truth with falsehood, for the good or evil side;"
Mid-Lent is a good time for every Catholic to decide on which side one will fight. Will we support policies from the pit of Hell, or will we resist, call our Congressmen, and take whatever actions are appropriate to our state in life to ensure that such legislation is not passed? And if it is passed, will we ensure that the next Congress rolls it back and fundamentally changes the direction in which our country is headed? One cannot be both Catholic and socialist.

God has a plan for your life. It is no accident that he created you for this time. Raise your voices and, in the words of the prophet Isaiah:
"Arise, shine, your light has come, and the glory of the Lord rests upon you ...nations will come to your light and kings to the brightness of your dawn."

Sunday, May 31, 2009

Just Say No To Big Government


From the Campaign for Liberty
By Jack Hunter

Frustrated with Gov. Mark Sanford's refusal to accept $700 million in federal stimulus dollars and his opposition to the state budget, S.C. Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell addressed the governor in an open letter this month, writing, "Time and again, you have failed to address problems in a constructive manner and proactively work with the Legislature to find solutions."

Noting Sanford's constant opposition to the Republican-dominated state legislature, McConnell added, "While the attacks you have launched may have been intended to build your national image as a reformer, in the final analysis, the work of a true reformer is measured not by words or TV ads or by press releases, but by what he or she has been able to accomplish."

McConnell has a point. But it's also nearly impossible to accomplish anything when there's only one reformer.

There are two types of "conservative" Republicans. The first type believes that government is broken, but simply needs Republicans to better manage it, while the other believes we need to actually reduce government. The first type can enjoy long careers by peppering their continuing support for the status quo with conservative-sounding language. The second type tends to make fewer friends because their career-long language consists of telling Democrats, Republicans, and even their constituents one word: "No."

Texas Congressman Ron Paul earned the name "Dr. No" in the House of Representatives for opposing most legislation brought to the floor. During his tenure in Congress, Sanford joined Paul in saying "no" more than any other congressman. Would America have been better served if Paul and Sanford tried to work more with the rest of the legislature to help bring us to our current state? Or might we have been better off if there were more leaders willing to consistently say "no" to more laws, more spending, and more government in general?

Consider the example of New Mexico's own "Dr. No," former Republican Gov. Gary "Veto" Johnson, who earned his nickname for vetoing 750 bills from 1995 to 2003, more than all the vetoes of the other 49 governors combined. Johnson also cut the growth of his state's government in half, privatized half of the state's prisons, reduced state employees by 1,000, oversaw the longest period without a tax increase in the state's history, and left office with a budget surplus. No doubt, New Mexico leaders wanted to spend as much money as South Carolina's legislature or any other state government. But Johnson constantly said "no," and was able to do some good.

The bloated budget and massive debt that continues to plague the state of South Carolina is a microcosm of the bloated budget and massive debt that continues to plague the entire United States. Everyone from across the political spectrum will generally agree that such reckless behavior is a problem and we cannot go on forever conducting business as usual. Yet when any leader dares to reverse course by saying "no," such leaders will invariably find themselves being attacked for daring to obstruct business as usual. The same state legislature that created our current economic woes are the same leaders who are now saying Sanford is the problem, as if a more cooperative gubernatorial extension of themselves would be preferable and somehow produce different, better results.

When Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980, the new president hung a portrait in the White House of his hero, President Calvin Coolidge. Author Ivan Eland described Coolidge as a president who believed the United States had too many laws. He once said, "We would be better off if we didn't have anymore ... The greatest duty and opportunity of government is not to embark on any new ventures." But as it was in his own time, Coolidge's conservative philosophy remains unpopular today, where "good" or "great" leaders are always defined as those who expand the power of government to accomplish certain goals. The opposite is also true, and it was for this reason that Time magazine once felt compelled to declare Sanford one of America's "worst governors" for his habit of constantly opposing government.

I'm often criticized for bashing Republicans, but I do so because it's hard to take most of them seriously. Any Republican who talks about "fiscal responsibility," yet spends as much as any Democrat, whether at the national or state level, is completely worthless. Unfortunately, this description fits the bulk of the Republican Party. Most Republicans aren't the least bit serious about their conservative rhetoric.

And as America continues to spiral downward the longer spending goes upward, the few, serious conservatives willing to say "no" to government will always get the loudest "yes" from me.


The "Southern Avenger" Jack Hunter is a conservative commentator (WTMA 1250 AM talk radio) and columnist (Charleston City Paper) living in Charleston, South Carolina. See his blog.


Saturday, May 30, 2009

Yankee Genocide Still Here


From NewsWithViews
By Alan Stang

Our source for the present discussion is War Crimes Against Southern Civilians, by Walter Brian Cisco (Pelican, Gretna, Louisiana, 2007). It is important to establish that the spiritual and political inheritors of the war criminals who committed those crimes do not deny them. They ignore them, hoping that if they say nothing those crimes will fade away; and so far they have been successful. Remember, the winner of a war writes the history of the war. They will respond only if their crimes become sufficiently known.

It is important to correct the record. The crimes and the criminals need to be named. More, they must be explained, because the motives that inspired them continue to motivate the men who run our country, regardless of political party. As we shall see, little has changed. Only if we drag this continuing horror into the light do we have a chance of exorcising it.

Let’s begin with a revealing contrast. In 1863, Confederate General Robert E. Lee invaded the North. The South by then had suffered two years of Yankee crimes and some Southerners thought the invasion was their chance to retaliate. Not so, said Lee. In a proclamation he reminded his men that “the duties exacted of us by civilization and Christianity are not less obligatory in the country of the enemy than in our own.”

“The commanding general considers that no greater disgrace could befall the army, and through it our whole people, than the perpetration of the barbarous outrages upon the unarmed and defenseless and the wanton destruction of private property, that have marked the course of the enemy in our own country. . . .”

Remember that at the beginning of the war Lincoln offered Lee command of the Union army. Imagine the humane result had he been able to accept. We make war “only upon armed men,” said Lee. Taking vengeance for the “atrocities of our enemies” would lower ourselves and offend “against Him to whom vengeance belongeth.” What atrocities is he talking about? Our source is divided into the states of the Confederacy. Let’s begin with Missouri.

Union Brigadier General James H. Lane: “We believe in a war of extermination. I want to see every foot of ground . . . burned over – everything laid waste. . . .” Whoa! A war of extermination? Why? Wasn’t the restoration of the Union the goal of all this? Wouldn’t that have been accomplished simply by occupying the offending states? As we shall see, some other motive was at work.

But so it was. Civilians, male and female – yes, female – died by the hundreds in diseased Yankee jails. The Yankees stole everything they could lift. Lane himself stole a carriage, a piano and women’s dresses. My favorite was his chaplain, Rev. Hugh D. Fisher, who stole the altar furnishings from an Osceola church. He needed them for his own church in Kansas. “Brethren, let us worship.”

A long caravan of stolen property wound its way to Kansas. Arson, theft and murder became commonplace. No citizen was allowed to own guns or ammunition. At war’s end, vast sections of Missouri were uninhabited. Lane’s policy of extermination had been imposed.

General William T. Sherman wrote that “rebel” farms should be given to immigrants from the North. “Enemies must be killed or transported to some other country.” Deported Missourians left the state in miles-long wagon trains laden with household effects. Foraging Yankees robbed and killed them on the way. One report speaks of a road “crowded with women and children, women walking with their babies in their arms, packs on their backs and four or five children following after them . . . .”

There is a word for all this. At the time, the word had not yet been coined. It is “genocide.” Indeed, that is what the UN calls forcibly removing one population and replacing it with another. Genocide was settled Yankee policy imposed from the top.

In Tennessee, pastors were told to declare allegiance to the Union. They refused and were jailed. Episcopal rector George Harris was arrested and told to pray for Lincoln or be hanged. Happily, he was able to escape. The Yankees used his church to store munitions. The Communists would later do something similar to churches in Russia. The Yankees closed every church in Murfreesboro and all the schools in Nashville. In that city, there was an election for circuit court judge and the secessionist won. He was arrested, charged with treason and sent to the penitentiary.

How did the Yankees treat blacks? In Athens, Alabama, they raped a slave girl at the home of Charlotte Hine. At the John Malone plantation, they went to the slave quarters and raped again. A black woman charged a soldier with the crime; his commanding officer refused to prosecute: “I would not arrest one of my men on Negro testimony.” Doesn’t your Communist school textbook say the Yankees had come to free the slaves, not to rape them?

In New Orleans, Cpl. William M. Chinock raped Mary Ellen De Riley, a black woman. He was fined $40 and reduced to private. Captain S. Tyler Reed fired his pistol at William Bird, a black boy, and put out an eye. His sentence? A reprimand. Major General Benjamin Butler, known as the “Beast,” made crooked millions in New Orleans, committed outrageous atrocities and was the only Union commander the Confederacy called a criminal. After the war the people of Massachusetts elected him Governor, proving that, with some noble exceptions, they were already as stupid as they are now.

In occupied Virginia, Union Brig. Gen. Robert H. Milroy wrote his wife that “my will is absolute law – none dare contradict or dispute my slightest word or wish . . . both male and female tremble when they come into my presence . . . I feel a strong disposition to play the tyrant among these traitors.” Wow! They actually trembled, Bob? So then, you must have been something like a god, correct?

In South Carolina, “. . . The free blacks who made up Charleston’s force of firefighters struggled heroically to protect their city and its people.” Free blacks? In South Carolina? Trusted to run the fire department? Hmm!

In Louisiana, Union brigadier general William Dwight wrote: “The scenes of disorder and pillage . . . were disgraceful to civilized war. Houses were entered and all in them destroyed …. Ladies were frightened into delivering their jewels and valuables into the hands of the soldiers by threats of violence toward their husbands. Negro women were ravished in the presence of white women and children.” The Union, forever! Hurrah, boys, hurrah.”

“The home, barn, and store of Samuel Schmulen were looted and burned. . . . Benjamin George, a fifty-year-old slave who lived nearby . . . tried to help his neighbor at least try to save the store. The effort was in vain. Then a group of drunken soldiers surrounded George, demanding to know why he, a black man, would try to assist this white Southerner. They demanded his money, and when George pleaded that he did not have any, one of the soldiers shot him in the right thigh. He survived the wound but was crippled for life.”

The forced evacuation of Atlanta saw “aged grandmothers upon the verge of the grave, tender girls in the first bloom of young womanhood, and little babes not three days old in the arms of sick mothers, thrown out upon the cold charity of the world.” A Yankee reported, “The African Methodist Episcopal Church, built by the colored people with their hard earnings, was also demolished by our soldiers.”

Union war criminals even introduced a criminal scheme later perfected by Chicago gangsters. One of them told a lady he had orders to burn her house, but, “I’ll insure it for fifty dollars.” Selling “insurance” against their own depredations was one extortion technique they used. “You buy my insurance or I breaka you head. Capish?”

In Columbia, South Carolina, Union terrorists stole everything. “Purses, watches, hats, boots, overcoats . . . were taken from victims, white or black.” A witness says: “Commissioned officers, of a rank so high as that of a colonel, were frequently among the most active.” They took the rings from the fingers of a dying woman. They urinated on the beds. They opened graves in search of lucre and left the corpses on the ground.

But here is la pièce de résistance. “Countless women had earrings ripped from bleeding ears.” A foreign diplomat wrote: “I have myself seen a lady with the lobes of both ears torn asunder.” Witnesses saw soldiers torching the Catholic convent. “What do you think of God now?” they shouted to the nuns. “Is not Sherman greater?. . .”

In St. Landry Parish alone, in western Louisiana, there were 1,596 free blacks just before the war. Some owned sugar plantations and slaves. What? Yes, blacks owned slaves. Invading Yankees were shocked. One Connecticut officer was indignant because they dared “call themselves Americans.” The Yankees stole from these free blacks as well as from the whites.

In Nashville, in September, 1862, blue bellies couldn’t find seats in a crowded theater. They ejected blacks from the “Negro gallery,” beat them and threw them down the stairs. After enjoying the performance, they attacked every black they found in the streets. In Gallatin, in May, 1864, they torched two new schools for black children, murdered one freedman and swore they would kill every black in town.

In southeast Georgia there were many free blacks who had accumulated substantial property. Indeed, so had hard working slaves. Union goons stole it all, even threatening black wives. In some cases, black husbands had to rescue them. They stole everything from a black nurse and killed her animals. “Honey, I never knowed a Yankee that wasn’t mean as dirt. . . . What can you spec from a hog but a grunt.”

And finally, in Columbia: “One black woman . . . was raped by seven soldiers of the United States Army. She then had her face forced down into a shallow ditch and was held there until she drowned.” William Gilmore Simms reported how “regiments, in successive relays,” committed “gang rape on scores of slave women.” On the Sumter District plantation, the corpses of eighteen black women were found. Each had been stabbed in the chest with a bayonet. Yankee war criminals had done with them.

Remember, these are just a few examples. You really need to read the book. So what are we looking at? Obviously it is considerably different from the mostly mythical war to “free the slaves” your high school textbook told you about. Notice that it is motivated by an insane, messianic fury. The war criminals are enraged, utterly out of control. About what? Obviously not about slavery. Men outraged by slavery do not rob, rape and murder slaves. And remember that chief war criminal Lincoln was as foul a racist as ever lived, even discomfited other racists, staunchly defended slavery and wanted to ship American blacks “back” to Africa.

No, what drove these Yankee war criminals insane was that the Southerners had dared to come out from under, to say no to the Leviathan state, to total government, to go their own way. They had expressed their freedom through secession. They had invoked their inalienable right to depart.

A debate endures about whether they had the constitutional right to secede. I don’t know why. I can solve the problem for all time. The Founding Fathers seceded from England. In the Declaration of Independence – the nation’s birth certificate – they said that whenever a people find their government oppressive, they have the right to alter or abolish it. To argue that there is no right to secede is to say that only a few years later, these same men, would concoct a document – the Constitution – in which they would deny themselves that blood-bought right.

Indeed, there were a few incipient attempts to secede before Lincoln. No one tried to argue that secession was illegal. One area that seriously considered secession was New England. What? Yes. And all through the Twentieth Century, did not the United States vociferously advance the right to secede for other people? We even fought a couple of wars, and lost thousands of the best of the best, to ensure the independence of South Korea and South Vietnam. Could there possibly be a straight-faced argument that other people deserve independence but we do not?

The Founding Fathers did not create slavery; they inherited 150 years of it. Many Southern slaves were sold to the South by Yankee slavers who no longer had need of them. Slavery was an intolerable stain on the American record. That stain could only be expunged by total abolition. Other countries, including Russia, abolished it without violence. Only ours did so at the cost of some 600,000 men and the destruction of the Union, by men who claimed to revere it and who had owned slaves themselves – and who did all this to keep the South in economic subjection.

But even this is not the core. Remember the strutting Yankee generals who confused themselves with God. Indeed, remember the terrorist assertion that insane mass murderer Sherman actually outranks God. Consider the messianic fury we have mentioned. Something more than mere greed was at work.

It is literally a satanic perversion of Christianity, a perversion pretending to be Christianity, which erupts time and again across the centuries. From time to time people who are smarter than God appear, usurpers who have the temporal power to do the job right. If you disagree with them they burn you at the stake. If you try to get out from under them, they scream you are a rebel. You have betrayed them. They will rob and rape you, they will kill you; they will invade and burn your country to the ground, to persuade you to see it their way. Either do that or die. They are disciples of Satan.

The reason this is so relevant is that this very mentality rules the nation today. That is why the federal juggernaut is so merciless, so confiscatory, so totalitarian. Reconstruction continues, not just of the South; this time of the whole nation, conducted by men consumed by hubris, who believe they can improve upon God.

But Sherman is still dead. God is alive.


Alan Stang was one of Mike Wallace’s original writers at Channel 13 in New York, where he wrote some of the scripts that sent Mike to CBS. Stang has been a radio talk show host himself. In Los Angeles, he went head to head nightly with Larry King, and, according to Arbitron, had almost twice as many listeners. He has been a foreign correspondent. He has written hundreds of feature magazine articles in national magazines and some fifteen books, for which he has won many awards, including a citation from the Pennsylvania House of Representatives for journalistic excellence. One of Stang’s exposés stopped a criminal attempt to seize control of New Mexico, where a gang seized a court house, held a judge hostage and killed a deputy. The scheme was close to success before Stang intervened. Another Stang exposé inspired major reforms in federal labor legislation.


(Reprinted with permission of the author.)