Realism of “Taxation without representation” and Voting

So I saw a report about how some areas throughout America are trying to pass laws giving non-citizens of the US voting rights (I believe they are talking about legal non-citizens). Those trying to do this are justifying it on the bases that these non-citizens who are here and trying to obtain citizenship, are working and paying taxes and since they are paying taxes and yet can’t vote then their rights of “No taxation without representation” are being violated. Actually we have some cities and municipalities who have extended the privilege to vote to non-citizen in local election but not in State or Presidential elections.

Well first there is no such right in the US Constitution. “No taxation without representation” was an American political slogan that when back prior to the American Revolution. Even after the American Revolution the idea of “No taxation without representation” remained just an idea not an actual right.

Fact is many American citizens pay taxes without representation. We can only vote regarding to the district in which we live. Many people may live in one place but work in another. Such as someone who may live in a suburbs and works in a city. A city may collect a wage tax from those who work in the city but yet those who live out side the city cannot vote in city election, which could determine an increase in the city wage tax. This is also applies to those who may live in one State and work in a neighboring State. Those who live in another state cannot vote in the state they work in but yet they will have to pay taxes to that state. Unless something changed recently, I believe the residents of Washington D.C. (citizens) have no voting representation in congress but they can vote in Presidential election which only has been enacted since 1961.

Truth is the US Constitution doesn’t even declare voting as a right. It basically outlines the qualification for one to be a voter. Unlike free speech, religion or press and etc, the fact is voting is more of a privilege much like a drivers license. So if you meet the qualification to be a voter then you have the right to have the privilege to vote.

Look when I hear someone has achieved US citizenship and is going to vote I am thrilled to hear it. I don’t even care who they are going to vote for, I am just happy that they as a new American citizen what’s to be part of the process.

So to those who want to use “No taxation without representation” or voting as a right as a justification to give non-citizens the privilege to vote, you’ll have to come up with something better.


UR

Time for Halloween

It’s October which means Halloween. Halloween is my favorite time of the year.

So here is a few of my favorite Halloween stuff.

A haunted house story I heard when I was a kid by Brother Dave Gardner



Bobby (Boris) Pickett



Ghoultown with Elvira, The Mistress of the Dark



Zombie Ghost Train



Rob Zombie a true Halloween master.






And what would Halloween be without Alice Cooper.









HAPPY HALLOWEEN!

Grettysburg Visit

Back in August I took a trip to Gettysburg Civil War Battlefield. I took some pictures with a disposable camera. Why a disposable camera you ask? Well because I'm a bad tourist, I forgot my good camera. Anyway I'm posting some pictures from that trip.

This is a map of the Battle of Gettysburg.

From http://americancivilwar.com/civil_war_map/battle_of_gettysburg.jpg

Now my pictures of my visit.

This is MacPherson Barn as we look to the west. In this area know as MacPherson Ridge just west of the city of Gettysburg.
         
This barn is where the Battle of Gettysburg began at 8am July 1st 1863 when Union calavry confronted Confederate infantry heading east. The barn I believe was turned into a makeshift hospital during the battle.

This picture is Eternal Light of Peace Memorial just north of the west end of the city.

This is located north of Macperson Barn. From this hill Confederates forces under the command of Maj General Robert Rodes attacked Union forces at MacPerson Ridge and Oak Ridge at 1pm July 1st 1863.

This a veiw looking to the south from Eternal Light of Peace Memorial towards MacPerson Ridge and Oak Ridge.

This is along Oak Ridge is north of the west end city of Gettysburg and south of the hill where the Eternal Light of Peace Memorial.

This is where Union forces held strong against Rodes attacks but by 3:30pm July 1st 1863 the Union lines began to fall apart here and at MacPherson Ridge. The Union had to fall back to the south of the city to an area known as Cemetery Ridge which is at the south east of the city.

After the first day of battle Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee felt confident that his 70,000 man force could take on the Union's Maj. General George G. Meade 93,000 man force.

This is a view from Confederate lines along Seminary Ridge looking towards Union lines at Cemetery Ridge. Confederates set up on Seminary Ridge on July 2nd 1863.

These are views looking south east across the field that on July 3rd 1865 that Picketts Charge took place. This is a  Confederate position north from where Picketts Charge began which would come from the right of the photos.

This is the Virgina Memorial.

From here Picketts charge began.

This is a view from Confederate lines of Lt. Gen. Longstreet on Warfield Ridge looking across area known as the Peach Orchards, the Wheatfields and Devil's Den. In the back ground are two hills. The big one on the right is known as Big Round Top the little one on the left is known as Little Round Top. The Union forces were position on these hills as well as in the Peach Orchards, the Wheatfields  the Devil's Den.

On July 2nd 1863 at 4pm Longstreet attacked Union forces in the the Peach Orchards, the the Peach Orchards, the Wheatfield's and Devil's Den. As well as trying to attack the undefended flanks of the Union troops on the Round Tops.

This is a view looking down from Little Round Top towards Devil's Den.

This is a view from the Wheatfields looking up at Little Round Top.

This is a veiw from Little Round Top looking towards the north west across the Wheatfields and Peach Orchards. The statue is Union Officer Brig. Gen. Warren who was Gen. Meade's chief engineer who was first to alert Union officers about Confederate movements which allow the Union to bring reinforcements to defend postions.

As Union was defending thier flanks at Little Round Top they were also defending thier north east side at Culp Hill and Spangler's Spring.

This is the Pennsylvania Memorial.

From this area at Cemetery Ridge on July 2nd 1863 Union artillery held the Union line alone until late in the day when Gen. Meade was able bring in reinforcements from Culp Hill and other areas to strengthen Union center positions along the line.

By dusk of July 2nd 1863 the Union forces were able to repell continuous assaults by Confederate forces.
On July 3rd 1863 Confederate forces in the late afternoon committed an all out right assault on Union center lines in what would be known as the High Water Mark. Confederates sent a 12,000 man force to attack the Union center this was known as Pickett's Charge.

By the end of this three day battle the estimate of casualties of killed, wounded, captured and missing vary but one estimate is; Union forces about 23,000 and Confederate forces about 28,000.

As I visited this hallow field I stood in awe it is almost incomprehensible to even know what it was like to be here at the time of battle I cannot imagine what it would be like to be a soldier during these three days having cannon firing and blasting craters and shrapnel flying in all directions only to shred any human near by. Bullets flying thru the air ripping the bark off of trees and tearing thru the flesh of your friends. To feel that you have know control over your own fate and only trusting in God whether you will survive or not. Today many of us would choose to run and feel no shame in it but at that times honor was everything you would not want to be a coward not only would it bring shame on you but you family as well. But even worst would be abandoning you friends in arms and yes the same friends you may have to watch die during battle.

I also can’t imagine just being a witness to these events. To live in the city of Gettysburg or in a near by farmhouse. To listen to cannon fire and rifles. To hear the yells and screams of the soldiers. To see the wounded, the dead and dying. To see a landscape stripped and scar. But not just the sights, the sound but also smells of gun powdered and decaying flesh of the dead. Then once all the soldiers leave you have to rebuild.

Truth is the Civil War should not just be defined by its battles and its Officers but by the men who fought it. The majority of soldiers were not rich or owned slaves and many of them were poor immigrants and new to this country. Slavery may be the cause that we accept today as the reason for the Civil War but there were many more reason other than the Civil War that brought men to these battles.


See Gettysburg Battlefield Map


UR

To be, or not to be an ape. That is the question.

This was a great article, "Is infidelity natural? Ask the apes", by Wendy Shalit, Special to CNN September 2, 2010.

Oh, I remember a time when comparing a human to an animal was an insult but now it’s a justification. I’m not going judge the act of infidelity. I’ve known friends who have cheated on a spouse. But they were honest and took responsibility for their action and let the chips fall where they may. Most cases it was an end to a marriage and in a few the marriage survived. Look we all have made bad choices in life at sometime or another. But now the scientific community is weighing in and saying that the cheater is not at fault, they are not responsible for their indiscretions. It’s an inherited instinct. They studied animals and since humans are animals the same rule apply, right? I think Wendy Shalit hit it on the head.

“Let's face it -- the new "science" of infidelity is just not very scientific. It certainly provides a convenient "out" to deny personal responsibility, but anyone who buys this "science" is missing out on the best parts of being human: the freedom that comes from self-control and the intimacy that can only come with commitment.”

If we are going to except that it is natural to behave like animals then what’s the point of the human brain. Why be given the ability to create, problem solve, reason or to think in concepts of right and wrong or good and evil? What about one of the things that separates from the animal, the ability to make choices? Perhaps, where scientists are thinking they are explaining our misbehaviors they are really finding out the truth, that we are de-evolving as a species.

It certainly seems the concept of responsibility and shame is dying out. Now it’s seems it’s more of a world of ego, narcissism and self-centeredness. More and more I see people thinking law/rules or just common courteously doesn’t apply to them. Stupidity and even drunkenness seems to be accepted now. But is this de-evolution, are we regressing? Or is this self will run riot and we are choosing to be like apes?

So when a person cheats on a spouse that person has chosen to for fill a desire of sex, animal can’t make those kinds of choices. Plus humans make plans. So when humans continue to cheat they make plans to do so. Animals don’t make plans. So for a person to use the excuse that scientific research has proven that they are not responsible for their infidelity or misbehavior. Well then are they saying they’re not capable to make choices? The only humans I know that have a no understanding of right from wrong or lack remorse or guilt are psychopaths or sociopaths.

I think it’s our minds that separate us from all other animals including apes, whether it is an act of God or we are a freak of nature, I’ll let you decide. It is said that we are created in God’s image, I think not so much in the physical sense but we are talking about ability to think and to create or destroy and that we have free will and freedom of choice from using are primitive instinct or not. Animals I believe don’t have that choice. Then again I sometimes stop and look around and think; Yea, we’re freaks of nature.

What it comes down to is choice, to be or not to be, an ape.

But you know sometimes I wish I was an ape-man.





UR

“The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men gang aft agley”

Most are more familiar with the standard English version “The best laid schemes of mice and men go often askew” from the poem "To a Mouse, on Turning Her Up in Her Nest with the Plough" by Scotsman Robert Burns in 1785. Jason Levin an Oregon middle school teacher who was willing going to great lengths to crash and bring down the Tea Party Movement quit his teaching job before the school district fired him. School district apparently did an investigation on the teacher but did not release any information.

“Levin, a media lab technology teacher at Conestoga Middle School, drew international attention last spring after creating crashtheteaparty.org. The now defunct site had said it was part of a national movement to "dismantle and demolish the tea party by any nonviolent means necessary."


The site encouraged people to infiltrate the tea party, then misspell protest signs, make wild claims during interviews and perform other public actions that would damage the public's opinion of the tea party.”

Are we sure we are talking about a middle school teacher and not a middle school student?

“In a now deleted post on his "Crash the Tea Party" Web site, he called on his supporters to collect the Social Security numbers -- among other personal identifying information -- about as many Tea Party supporters as possible at the numerous rallies that took place on Thursday, Tax Day.


"Some other thoughts are to ask people at the rally to sign a petition renouncing socialism. See just how much info you can get from these folks (name address, DOB, Social Security #). The more data we can mine from the Tea Partiers, the more mayhem we can cause with it!!!!" he wrote.”

How old is this guy? So would it be ok Mr. Levin if someone took your personal information and misused it and put you through hell? Of course it’s different, right? Well maybe it’s just me but I see this as immature and self-center act.

“Levin has said he would seek to embarrass Tea Partiers by attending their rallies dressed as Adolf Hitler, carrying signs bearing racist, sexist and anti-gay epithets and acting as offensively as possible -- anything short of throwing punches.”

Really Mr. Levin, you want to dressing up as Hitler to embarrass the Tea Party? Sir, get a life. You really have nothing better to do with yourself? Are you really that afraid of a group that is basically a Libertarian movement that supports lower taxes and smaller government. Mr. Levin you as a teacher should realize Hitler and the Nazi Party not only was about being anti-Semitic but was Socialist that believed in big government and government control of people. So it’s kind of stupid to be dressed up Hitler and go to a small government and less interference in people’s lives rally, isn’t it? Ah! That’s right Mr. Levin was a teacher for a public school which depends on government funding by tax payers. So big government and taxes is good for them.

When I was in public school many many years ago the teachers weren’t paid much and lucky to a modest pension. I remember that it wasn’t uncommon to see your teacher working as a clerk in a store when school was out for summer break. I liked the majority of my teachers and even then I felt they were underpaid. But when I was in High School I started to asked them why did you become a teacher? Now a couple males teachers said they became teachers to keep from going to Vietnam but they as well as the rest of the male and female teachers said because they love teaching and that they don’t teach because of the money or the benefits or the respect because there isn’t any. But it was because they really love to teach. But I wonder about many teachers today. I’m sure there are those who love teaching but would many of them today be willing to do it if it was 20 plus years ago.

Anyway let’s get back to the Tea Party thing.

“In a recent interview with Talking Points Memo, Levin said of his plans, "Our goal is that whenever a Tea Partier says 'Barack Obama was not born in America,' we're going be right there next to them saying, 'Yeah, in fact he wasn't born on Earth! He's an alien!'"

Mr. Levin seems to have a problem Birthers whom some go to Tea Parties but Mr. Levin what about liberal 9/11 Truthers? Will you going stand up to a Truther as well? Personally I don’t waste my time with either one. Until there is real evidence and not conspiracy theory I have more important things to worry about. Are all Tea Party members Birthers? I doubt it.

Look whackos show up to all political events. They show up liberal events and conservative events and everywhere in between. So will a racist or far right nut show up to a Tea Party? I have no doubt they will, but is the Tea Party sexist, anti-Semitic, anti-gay and racist? I’m sure many on the left will say yes, and there are certain members of the media and liberal bloggers that have been working hard to find any little thing that they can use to discredit the Tea Party but yet just can’t seem to bring them down. The Washington Times did interview at least three people “whom are black”.

“The Washington Times caught up with several health care bill protesters, all three of whom are black, and asked their thoughts on the allegations regarding the racial epithets.

Bill Owens Jr., a Tea Party Express leader from Las Vegas, said he did not experience or witness any racial hostility.


"I had a chance to be among these people. It's not about pigmentation. You have race issues going on all the time; however, I'm not seeing anything significant from these rallies. It's just not there," he said. "Does a person find a racist once in a while? . . . Sure, you find that anywhere. These people are concerned about the issues of where you stand, not what color you are."

Charlene Freedman, a health care bill protester from New Jersey, has been to Washington four times, since she first attended the 9/12 rally. When asked if she witnessed or heard any racial hostility from the crowd, she said: "Absolutely not . . . just well-wishers. I didn't see color. They didn't see my color. We're just American citizens, and we're here to say, 'Keep America free.' I’ve heard nothing about racism . . . nothing at all."


Jay Jarbo came to the health care protest from Atlanta and explained: "I just want to see them follow the Constitution, and they're not doing that. Anyone that tries to throw around the racial thing, just squash it, because this has nothing to do with race. I haven't heard anyone say anything about race at any one of these events," Mr. Jarbo said. "Honestly, this is the type of thing people bring up to distract from the real issues, and it's always about race in this country, and its always the last card in the deck that everyone plays."

Just to make clear I’m not a Tea Party member but I do agree with some of the things they state that they are for; like lower taxes and smaller government. But I’m a moderate or independent Republican. So Republicans would call me a RINO “Republican In Name Only”, all because I don’t vote straight Republican. But that’s my right as an American.

Mr. Levin should think about this. If some racist right wing loon shows up to a Tea Party gathering spout hateful things but now thanks to Mr. Levin the Tea Party can excuse them as some liberal infiltrator. Oh well, “The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men gang aft agley”

UR

Return of the Record Album?

So I was reading this article on CNN.com “Who's still listening to vinyl?” and it took me back. In my life time I’ve seen record albums (LP, 78s & 45s), 8 tracks, cassettes, CDs and now MP3s. Well I haven’t done the MP3 thing yet. I know some twenty something(s) who are now into getting records and enjoy listening to them. Of course to me it would be nostalgic to them it’s “Retro”. Ah getting old.

I remember when records were thought to be replaced by 8 tracks. This how my first record collection started, I got them handed down to me from my older brothers mostly Beatles, Rolling Stones and The Who, but I also got 8 tracks. 8 tracks had a great sound and you could take them with you, if you had an 8 track player in your car or a portable player. You could even select a song by clicking thru tracks if your player had that capability. The draw backs of the 8 track was many times it had to change tracks in the middle of a song and they were kind of cumbersome to carry around and of course if the tape broke. First 8 tracks I bought with my own money I saved from doing chores was an Alice Cooper album.

Then came the cassette, it was smaller than an 8 track but the sound quality was not as good a record or an 8 track but as teenager who cares. It was portable and you could play it anywhere there was a cassette player. Plus you could take a blank tape and copy a record album to it and play it in your car. But again a draw back with a cassette tape was if the tape broke or got tangled up in the player. Probably the biggest problem with cassettes is you couldn’t select a song. You had to either fast forward or rewind and keep hitting play until you find the beginning of a song. First cassette was a Beatle album. Needless to say I had many 8 tracks and cassettes but it was records that favored.

Record LP albums were great. First you had a great sound but what was even better was the covers and sleeves the records came in. They had either photos or cover art and sometime you found a poster or a collectable photo or a gift certificate. I remember how I would slide the record out, put it on the turn table then set the stylus (aka needle) on the record and sit back looking at the album cover as you waited for the song to start. Your eyes fixed on the cover you ears listening to the low hiss and crackles or pops of the grooves; I was just waiting in anticipation of the first note or sound. Then lost in the sounds of the record and lost visually in the cover or the slide out the sleeve which usually had liner notes and read it over and over. I remember I knew an old man who had a record player set up in a laundry room of an apartment building in the apartment complex I grew up in and I would go over and sit with him as we listen to old 78 records. These records were heavier feeling than modern vinyl records and if you drop them they would break. But I would sit there with him listening to old operas, classical, big bands and crooners. To me this was just as magical as listening to my contemporary vinyl records. The great thing was the imaginary journey you take through the music and even the covers of the records. You couldn’t take the music with you. You had to stay in one place, you could only go as far has you could hear it. Oh and my first record album I bought with money I saved was a David Bowie album.

So the draw backs for records was not being able to listen to it on the move but the other draw back was that you wanted to listen to just one song you had to careful place on the right grooves which could be a pain. But you could usually find a 45 record and even cooler was sometimes lucked out and got a good song on the B side. Another problem was your records had two sides and when one side was done you had to go over and flip it over to listen to the rest of the record. And having the same problem with 8 tracks and cassettes what is one going to do?

Well, the answer was the CD. The CD seems to be the answer for uninterrupted play. That was the selling point. Oh yea, and you were saving trees. CD’s were small and come in plastic cases with less paper. Of course later it became bad to have all those plastic cases floating out there and getting thrown away, so then CDs came in hard paper sleeves and then back to plastic cases. Anyway, CDs sound isn’t bad but not quite same as records and you could take it with you and play it on a portable CD played then CD players became fashionable in cars not to mention if you had a disk drive in you computer. You can select song tracks and even select random play. But what I didn’t like about CD’s was that it comes in a case that is like 5” by 5” give or take an inch. Sure it’s convenient but you can barely see the cover and if you open it you either have fold out or a booklet which either way even with young eyes you need a magnifying glass to read it. Unlike the 12” by 12” record album cover. Oh well as disappointed as I was with the demise of records I accepted it and began getting CDs. But so far I have resisted MP3s which to me is nothing but creations of an A.D.D. society. My first CD well not sure those days are little fuzzy but it might have been a best of ELO or Brian Eno or maybe Ramones.

But I am hopeful with an apparently resurgent of the record albums I won’t be the last generation to enjoy the magic that comes with whole package of a vinyl album and the imaginations that is inspired.

A friend the other day told me he heard a report that our future will lack American inventors because today’s youth lack creativity and imagination. I’m sure there more to it than the lack of records but that’s a post for another day.

I may venture deep into the back of my closet and bring out what few records I have left and play them. Oh wait I don’t have a record player anymore. Rats, screwed again!

UR

Changes

I’m currently making changes to my blog. So over next few days or weeks things may change and hopefully nothing will be lost.

I will be trying different things as I experiment and become familiar with features.

I like to extend my thanks to The Editrix for her helpful suggestion. Being new at all this, constructive suggestions are always welcome. Feed back is welcome.

If anyone like to make a suggestion please feel free but all changes are my choice. If I don't use your suggestion please don't take it personal.


Thanks,
UR

What were the Founding Fathers Thinking?

Today there is much debate over the meaning of the separation of Church and State and part should religion should play in the government. What were the Founding Father’s view about religion especially Christianity in America. For me to understand the Founding Fathers and the views of separation of Church and State and to what extent religion should play in government, one must understand the politics and religious concepts of Europe in the 1700’s going back to the 1200’s.

The U.S. Constitution has it’s root with the Magna Carta. The original Magna Carta written in the 1215 and original had 63 clauses. This document was between the lowest level of nobility called Barons/Freeman and the King but really had little to do with the majority of the population (about 90% to 95%) known as peasants who were not considered free so this document didn’t apply to them. King John signed under duress, but as soon as rebel forces left London King John renounced it because of a clause (clause 61), which basically made him King in name only. This started a civil war in England. The Pope stepped in and backed King John. The Pope declared the Magna Carta as shameful document to be forced on a King with the threat of violence. The Pope saw this as an attack on the Church’s authority over the King and Church territory. The King was supposed to answer to the Pope and the Pope was God representative on earth.

King John died during the civil war in 1216 his young son became King Henry III. Representatives for young King Henry III sign a new version with the clause that upset King John taken out and more clauses taken out in 1217. Henry III in 1225 at the age 18 signed an even shorter version and the final version was signed by Henry’s son Edward 1st in 1297. Edward 1st was best known as Longshankes who re-imposed royal authority over his people including the Jews in England known as the “Statute of the Jewry”.
The only reason Edward signed the most recent version of the Magna Carta was not because he believed God gave men rights but because he need English Freemen and Nobles to support him and his fight with the Scots and William Wallace and Robert the Bruce.

Now before the 1517 pretty much everyone in Europe was Catholic and the Pope and the Catholic Church had a lot of say even with the Royal houses of Europe. It wasn’t until the mid 1600’s did groups in England begun to assert the belief that the Magna Carta should represent all without distinction of class or status. But after that there were other documents enacting the will of God. In Britain the King or Queen of Britain was Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Elizabeth 1st who was a Protestant started this.

“Being by God's Ordinance, according to Our just Title, Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governour [sic.] of the Church, within these Our Dominions, We hold it most agreeable to this Our Kingly Office, and Our own religious Zeal, to conserve and maintain the Church committed to Our Charge, in the Unity of true Religion, and in the Bond of Peace;”

Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of 1563
Article XXXVII
Of the Civil Magistrates

“Where we attribute to the Queen's Majesty the chief government, by which titles we understand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended, we give not to our princes the ministering either of God's word or of sacraments, the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen doth most plainly testify: but only that prerogative which we see to have been given always to all godly princes in Holy Scriptures by God himself, that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil-doers.

The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England.

The laws of the realm may punish Christian men with death for heinous and grievous offences.

It is lawful for Christian men at the commandment of the Magistrate to wear weapons and serve in the wars.”

James the 1st of England (aka James the VI of Scotland) was a Protestant and for whom the King James Bible was commissioned by and is named after. King James 1st also wrote the Divine Right of Kings, which states that a king only has to answer to God and God detest rebellion.

True Law of Free Monarchies by King James in 1598,

“ As there is not a thing so necessary to be known by the people of any land, next the knowledge of their God, as the right knowledge of their allegiance according to the form of government established among them, especially in a monarchy (which form of government, as resembling the divinity, approacheth nearest to perfection, as all the learned and wise men from the beginning have agreed upon, unity being the perfection of all things), so hath the ignorance and (which is worse) the seduced opinion of the multitude, blinded by them who think themselves able to teach and instruct the ignorants, procured the wrack and overthrow of sundry flourishing commonwealths and heaped heavy calamities threatening utter destruction upon others.”

Kings are called gods by the prophetical King David because they sit upon God his throne in the earth and have the count of their administration to give unto him. Their office is "to minister justice and judgment to the people," as the same David saith; "to advance the good and punish the evil," as he likewise saith; "to establish good laws to his people and procure obedience to the same,"as divers good kings of Judah did; "to procure the peace of the people," as the same David saith.”

He goes on about a Kings position in society. King and the law and explaining that a King is like a father and his subjects are his children and so on. Then ends with the following.

“I grant, indeed, that a wicked king is sent by God for a curse to his people and a plague for their sins; but that it is lawful to them to shake off that curse at their own hand, which God hath laid on them, that I deny and may do so justly. Will any deny that the king of Babel was a curse to the people of God, as was plainly forespoken and threatened unto them in the prophesy of their captivity? And what was Nero to the Christian church in his time? And yet Jeremiah and Paul (as ye have else heard) commanded them not only to obey them but heartily to pray for their welfare.

It is certain, then (as I have already by the law of God sufficiently proved), that patience, earnest prayers to God, and amendment of their lives are the only lawful means to move God to relieve them of their heavy curse.”

“Next, in place of relieving the commonwealth out of distress (which is their only excuse and color), they shall heap double distress and desolation upon it; and so their rebellion shall procure the contrary effects that they pretend it for. For a king cannot be imagined to be so unruly and tyrannous but the commonwealth will be kept in better order, notwithstanding thereof, by him than it can be by his way-taking. * * *

I grant, indeed, that a wicked king is sent by God for a curse to his people and a plague for their sins; but that it is lawful to them to shake off that curse at their own hand, which God hath laid on them, that I deny and may do so justly. Will any deny that the king of Babel was a curse to the people of God, as was plainly forespoken and threatened unto them in the prophesy of their captivity? And what was Nero to the Christian church in his time? And yet Jeremiah and Paul (as ye have else heard) commanded them not only to obey them but heartily to pray for their welfare.

It is certain, then (as I have already by the law of God sufficiently proved), that patience, earnest prayers to God, and amendment of their lives are the only lawful means to move God to relieve them of their heavy curse”

In 1611 the King James Bible was finished. King James had a man the name of Thomas Helwys imprisoned for petitioning the King for separation of Church and state. Thomas died in prison in 1616.

In Europe you had Kingdoms that accepted certain religions as their official religion. France, Spain and the Holy Roman Empire were Catholics and Britain was Protestant. At this time in history it was common for countries to have an official religion. This was the history the Founding Fathers knew. This was the mixture of God and politics they knew. Until the influence of Enlightenment Movement.

The Age of Reason was in the 17th century which the sciences were on the rise and political debates were being made about the existence of God. Then the Age of Enlightenment that began in Europe somewhere 1680 1700 and ended around 1800. Both these periods were pushing religious theocracy out as well as Monarchy powers. The basic idea of the Enlightenment Movement is to humanize religion. Enlightenment philosophies rejected the idea of original sin. It rejects revealed religion principals. Philosophers introducing the idea that God maybe the creator of all thing but God does not interfere in mans life. Mans relationship with God is a private one.

Thomas Paine’s “Age of Reason” written 1792 and published 1794,

“I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.

I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavouring to make our fellow-creatures happy.

But, lest it should be supposed that I believe many other things in addition to these, I shall, in the progress of this work, declare the things I do not believe, and my reasons for not believing them.

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.

All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.”

Even though this was written about a year or two after the Constitution this was a view point that was circulating amongst some of the Founding Fathers as well as some of the people of the time.

The Founding Fathers were men of different beliefs and different understanding of God. They didn’t agree with each other on issues of politics and religion. The ideas of the Age of Enlightenment that began in Europe were in America and the Founding Fathers not only having knowledge of European history and but also were learning the ideas and philosophies of the Enlightenment period. Thomas Jefferson went as far as creating his own Bible which is known has the Jefferson Bible. Jefferson edited the New Testament, which he removed portions such as angels, Jesus’ miracles, Jesus’ genealogy, the trinity, prophesies and most importantly the resurrection.

From the “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth” aka the Jefferson Bible

60: And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.

61: Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.

62: Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid.

63: There laid they Jesus,

64: And rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.

Jefferson ends it there with no resurrection. Much of what Jefferson edited is considered the foundation of Christianity. Jefferson wanted to eliminate what he considered religious dogma and the supernatural aspects. He basically wanted just the ethical teachings of Jesus to be important. Some of his contemporaries agreed with him but many disagreed him and yet tolerated his right to such views.

Founding Fathers understood the potential danger of a government or a leader who claims the will of God as reason for control the will of the people. This is why religion is separate from government and the Founding Fathers did not want to take any chances of allowing the government or leadership to fall under the concept of divine right of kings.

“As our president bears no resemblance to a king so we shall see the Senate has no similitude to nobles. First, not being hereditary, their collective knowledge, wisdom, and virtue are not precarious. For by these qualities alone are they to obtain their offices, and they will have none of the peculiar qualities and vices of those men who possess power merely because their father held it before them.” - Tench Coxe, September 28, 1787

UR

I'm a Zombie

Well, I thought I would have time to blog but as always life throws curves.

I am burned out thanks to work. I can’t seem to get any thoughts together. I’m a zombie.

I’m really tired but I just seem to go on. I seem to have no enthusiasm or passion for anything. Anger use to fuel me but I seem to have no energy for anger. Depression? Maybe but I’ve been through work burn out before and I get through it. In my younger days I would just quit my job and find another job but not anymore. I’m getting to old, have to many responsibilities and the economy is not good to take chances. I need to be thankful I still have a job.

Hopefully this zombisim will break soon. Good news is that there is some work for my company is on the horizon. Bad news it won’t start until late summer. We still need more work between then and now.

UR

Still Alive

Well I’ve been fighting a head cold so I haven’t well or felt like writing. Plus I’m buried at work. I also need to learn how to use things here a blogspot like putting links into my post.

I’ve had things I wanted to address in posts but just feeling to tired. Such as the Mojave Desert War Memorial Cross being stolen. President Obama saying that information is a distraction. Understanding the world that Gen X grew up in and formed us.

Oh well maybe soon.

UR

A Couple Thoughts

First I was watching the Senate Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Investigations hearings on Goldman Sachs. The Senators particularly Sen. Levin (D-MI) were grilling members of Goldman Sachs and their part in the financial crisis. It was amazing how little these Senators understood how Wall Street works or they were covering their own asses. The Senate committee that Wall Street should be like a savings account and everyone’s investment should be safe. But the reality is as it was explained by those testifying it’s more like gambling. Believe it or not there are people who are looking for risky investments because the payoff is better. In other words you can play it safe and bet on the sure thing but the return will be small or you can take a risk and bet on the long shot which will make you more money sooner. Now I’m not a financial person so I won’t try explaining. But basically people wanted risk and they got it and they lost. People were warning that the housing bubble was going to burst but no one knew when but people kept betting on it and they lost. Of course our government doesn't want to take any responsibility in all this even though they have blood on their hands.

Side thought one time a house was considered a home but during the housing bubble a house was an investment.

Now let’s go to immigration. Arizona has passed the first State immigration law. Now of course this is causing a lot of commotion. Arizona has tried to reach out to the federal government but to no avail. So Arizona had to take matter into their own hands. All this law does is give State and local police the right to ask for proof of legal status i.e. Green Card or equivalent proof. Now the confusion is whether the law allows them to just walk up and ask or if it’s just during a criminal investigation.

See immigration is strictly falls under the Federal Government. It’s the Federal Governments job to deal with legal and illegal immigrants. But the States are the ones that have to deal with the cost and most problems created by illegal immigrants. Here is the strange thing in most States if an illegal immigrant is arrested and even they go through the court system and even if they go through the prison system, they are not deported. They are simply released back into the community. Why? Because the States can’t hold them or afford to transport them and the Feds don’t have the resources to pick them up. Just imagine if the worst illegals were sent back after they served their sentences instead of being simply released back into society. But this will not mean much if the Feds don’t secure our southern boarders. Or we can convince Mexico to become our 51st State which I think would be easier.

What’s surprising is that many other countries in the world have a lot stricter laws about being in their country illegally than we do.

UR

Why Scottish Independence Will Never Die

“It's not death if you refuse it... It is if you accept it.” James O’Barr

Scotland hasn’t been an independent country for at least 300 years. Many would say it’s been a lot longer. Regardless, today Scotland is not an independent country. It is still part of a union under the control of a foreign government and monarchy. The union is known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and North Ireland i.e. the UK or Britain. It is made up of North Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England.

At one time this also included the whole of Ireland but in 1919 Ireland waged a war for independence. In 1922 Ireland became a Free State but North Ireland remained under British control and by 1937 it was a sovereign state. By 1949 Ireland completely left the British Commonwealth and became the Republic of Ireland and a true independent nation. North Ireland is still part of the UK.

Today Scotland may have a devolved government and many freedoms but they are not a sovereign body and the Parliament of the United Kingdom located at the Palace of Westminster in London, England has last say over any decisions made by the Scottish Parliament. The British can even abolish the Scottish Parliament regardless of public opinion.

Many have heard of William Wallace the great Scottish patriot who waged a war for Scottish independence from England from 1297 to his execution by the English in 1305. From the times before and after Wallace the Scots have desired nationhood. For over 700 years Scots have fought to be their own people. Through the years English Monarchs would invade Scotland and even though they won many battles they never broke the spirit of the Scot. In 1745 after the Jacobite Uprising, King George II and the Parliament of Great Britain passed the Act of Proscription which was created to destroy the clan system, ban Highland dress (i.e. the kilts), tartans, bagpipes, teaching Gaelic and even public gatherings. Punishments for violating the Act could range from a fine to imprisonment and even being sent off to a penal colony. The Act was repealed in 1782. During the 18th and 19th centuries the Lowland and Highland Clearances were taking place, in which Scots at many times were forcibly removed from their lands. Many ended up in Australia, Canada and America.

But today Scots have it better that their ancestors. Many of those in Scotland may fear Scottish Independence because they are unsure what kind of future they may have or what kind of government they will end up with. But I ask them to think about when America won its independence or when Ireland won its independence. Many had the same fears and concerns. No one, not even the leaders, was sure what would happen but they both made it. And there is no reason why the Scots would not as well.

So do Scots really want to be called British or do they want to be called Scots and Scots only? Do they want a country that has the right to self determination and that answers to no one? Do they want Scottish Independence to die? Do they want all those who went before them that lived through oppression and died to have died for nothing? I believe deep inside every Scot is a desire to be Scottish and a country they can call their own.

Now is the time for Scots to stand and call for Independence. Now is the time for all to stand and say they want Scotland to be Independent. It is time for one united Scottish choir to raise their voices so that they can be heard even in the highest points of heaven. Governments will never hear the voice of one but they cannot ignore the single voice of the many.

Scots may have been oppressed. Scots may have been sent into exiled. Scots may have been killed. But Scots and Scottish culture have survived and the idea of Scottish Independence with them.

After all these centuries I ask myself, why have the Scots not died away and just become known as British or why have their desire for Independence has not died? This is when the quote from the graphic novel “The Crow” by James O’Barr pops into my head “It's not death if you refuse it... It is if you accept it”.

UR

And The Controversy Still Continues

It’s been 145 years since the American Civil War and the controversy still continues. Gov. Bob McDonnell of Virginia while declaring April as Confederate History Month in Virginia made a speech, which he failed to mention slavery as the main issue for the war. This of course is a big mistake to make. McDonnell apologized and stated that slavery was the main reason for the Civil War. But for some it seem the real issue is that Confederate soldier are being remembered. I’ve recently read an article called “Were Confederate soldiers terrorists?” by Roland Martin, a CNN political analyst who stated,

“And I will never, under any circumstances, cast Confederates as heroic figures who should be honored and revered. No -- they were, and forever will be, domestic terrorists.”

But is it fair to lable all Confederate soldiers as "domestic terrorist"? Now I could bring up the fact there were the tariffs that were imposed on the Southern States by the Federal Government. Or the fact that even though Abraham Lincoln opposed slavery when he became President he wasn’t going to interfere with it. In fact when the Civil War broke out in 1861 President Lincoln ordered that Union Generals were not to free slaves even in captured area under Union control. In 1862 in a letter to New York Tribune Lincoln said,

“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”

Then a month later he issues the Emancipation Proclamation. But in 1863 Lincoln wrote a letter to James Conkling who was have a meeting of loyal Northern Unionist in Illinois, which at the time Lincoln could not come to the meeting and in his letter he addressed the frustration and anger about the length of the war and the Emancipation Proclamation that many Unionists had. Lincoln said,

“You say you will not fight to free negroes. Some of them seem willing to fight for you; but, no matter. Fight you, then, exclusively to save the Union. I issued the proclamation on purpose to aid you in saving the Union. Whenever you shall have conquered all resistance to the Union, if I shall urge you to continue fighting, it will be an apt time, then, for you to declare you will not fight to free negroes.”

This shows that even Northerners had issues about fighting to free slaves. Many Union soldiers went AWOL when Lincoln issued Emancipation Proclamation.

What’s my point? Well, the fact is that when we look at history we always make the mistake to put our views, values and morals of today on those of history yesteryears. Yes today we know slavery is evil and wrong and with strong convictions, even though it continues in many countries in the world today, but in the 1800’s it was a different mind set. Many Northern States took up to 50 + years after abolishing slavery in their State to actually eliminating it from their State and the elimination of slavery for several States was only 15 years before the war and I believe New Jersey still had slaves into the war.

First, back in those days cheap labor was important and a worker rights wasn’t. In the South slavery was the norm but in the North child labor was a norm. Children worked in factories and mines. Today we would say it was wrong. During the time before and after the Civil War the Government was in the West forcing Indians on reservations and those who refused were hunted down like animals. Today we say that is wrong. Plus during the Civil War Indians on reservations were shorted on supplies and money promised to them because the Government need to use it to fight the Civil War. Was that right?

Just to understand the majority of Southern Confederate soldiers did not have slaves. Slaves were a rich mans luxury. Yes many Officers in the Confederacy did have slaves and many Officers did not. Wealthy slave owners did not have to fight because they had slaves so they were exempt from fighting. Wealthy Northerners were able to pay to get out of the War. So this is why the Civil War was known as the poor man’s war. Many in boarder states had to chose sides and sometimes this divided families.

Why would poor Southerners fight in a war about slavery when they don’t own slaves? See whether you like it or not the culture of slavery was the norm for many of these men even though they didn’t own slaves, it was just the way it was to them. They didn’t know any better. The times were different then. For them they were fighting for what they saw as a States Rights issues and yes slavery was part of that States Right at the time. Another reason was conscription and draft. Even though many may have originally volunteered but their enlistments was extended. Then many were eventually drafted. In the beginning both sides thought it would be a short war, about a yearlong was the general view. But by 1962 both sides knew this was not going to be the case.

Another reason was out of State loyalty. We must remember in those days loyalty to ones State trumps the loyalty to the Federal Government. Most people of those days identified themselves with great pride by the State they came from. Your State was your home. Even Union Troops units were identified by their States. This was a custom that went back before the Revolution War with State militias. But after the end of the Civil War this custom people once had has became less and less the case.

We have to remember that in those days there was no radios, TV, Internet, Twitter, Blogging or any form of instant mass communication accept maybe telegraph. News from other parts of the country could take days to reach most people. Newspapers of those days were typically local and probably written by a local journalist who came from the same culture as the reader, that’s of course if you could read. Most information was word of mouth or it came from local politician or your local minister and typically their views reflect the normal cultural understanding of that community.

Not only is it important to remember the horrors that Blacks had to endure has slaves in the south but also as free men in the north. History should never be simplified, it needs be kept honest and kept in it’s proper context of time. History should be complex because it’s about people and people are complex.

The Civil War is one of the most important wars in American history. My solution to all this is simple instead of April being Confederate History Month it should be declared Civil War History Month and all aspect should be reviewed honestly whether it be good and bad for all this is an important part of American History.

UR

Please let them keep it

Thanks to New Agers, Native Americans are becoming more guarded about their culture, spirituality and religions, which I believe is a good thing.

When it comes to Native American cultures professional New Agers steal it; they corrupt it and change it to fit the New Agers ways. Professional New Agers always want something to sell and they like to sell spirituality. You can have spirituality but you don’t own spirituality and you cannot sell what you do not own.

Native Americans are just people like anyone, same strengths and weaknesses with many of the same worries and concerns and problems like family, health, economics, jobs, alcoholism/drug addiction and many others things that we are worried about. The biggest concerns they have that we don’t, is survival of a tribal culture and having to walk between two worlds/cultures. I heard an Indian woman explain her daily difficulty she had going from her life on the Rez to her job off the Rez in the city and at the end of her work day going back to Rez life. The difficulty of going from Indian time to non-Indian time and then back. She described it as being a very difficult transition on a daily bases and having to learn to walk in two worlds.

American Indians are not a mystical people they just people, but people of a different culture. Their spirituality is what gets them through things. But many American Indians do lose their way just like non-Indians. They get lost in drugs and alcohol just like non-Indians and yes some lose their spirituality just like non-Indians.

Some Indians practice a traditional Indian spirituality, some practice a Christian based spirituality and some mix the two. Spirituality is about your relationship with God. Everyone can have a Spirituality without religion it make no difference whether it be Christian or Indian. Truth is there is no one “Indian spirituality” it varies from tribe to tribe. As Natives Americans vary from tribe to tribe so does their spirituality and rituals. It’s a culture thing, a tribe thing. It’s what makes them who they are. It’s sacred and must be kept that way. It’s their heritage.

The non-Indians who want to embrace Native American spirituality tend to reject Christianity for some reason, perhaps it’s the praying or rituals or maybe the rules or the bible. Well Indians do pray. Indians tend to pray for others or their people. Typically rituals are used for specific purposes to gain understanding of themselves. In some cases to discover what purpose the Creator has for the individual and they have to fulfill that purpose if they don’t bad things can happen to the individual. Even Indians and their God have rules. These are not things to be taken lightly. I would never recommend doing it under a New Ager it can harm or even kill you. Even though a New Ager would be easier because you just have to pay to do it. It’s different with Indians.

I’ve met New Agers who claim to practice a Native American culture or should I say lifestyle but yet they were vegetarians, against hunting, against guns, are pacifists and have anti-military tendencies. But the Indians I’ve met seem to love meat, many like to hunt, many have guns, not afraid to fight and not anti-military, either they were in the military or had a relative in the military. Indians did fight over territory, food and even for revenge. Most tribes had its allies and enemies. Even before the Europeans arrival war was part of American Indian lives. Indians had a very complex culture. New Agers try to simplify it, which is dishonest and degrading. New Agers like to try to make people believe America was one big peaceful commune and all Indians got along. Indians did war with each other but from what I can tell they did not have religious wars. Win or lose it was what was meant to be. If one tribe beat another tribe it was because they had better warriors or it just was their day. Sometimes you eat the bear and sometimes the bear eats you. It’s the way of nature.

If you learn a way of spirituality you should treat it like a gift and either keep it or give it away. But no worries, professional New Agers are very good at changing and charging. It’s all about what feels good and providing others at a price to feel good. I remember one Indian referred to New Agers as the “Doe Nation” which was a play on words for “Donation” because they almost always want finical “donation”. But for Indians it’s all about life, culture and heritage. Please let them keep it and if they want to share it they will.

UR

Just Life Stuff

I’m sorry I haven’t posted any thing new lately. Work and life has me a little busy and it’s been a little difficult to focus on a topic. I do have a couple things written up to post on American history and a something on Scottish Independence. I just haven’t had time.

I work in for a construction company and my job is to bid work and try to get us work. Construction is really slow and we are about out of work. We have been getting under cut on our bids and not winning jobs but I know we are not alone I’ve heard this from others as well in different areas of construction.

I’ve been through tough times before but this is the worst I’ve seen. Our company has had layoffs and if things don’t change I maybe next. Thing is this is happening all over the industry so I probably will have a hard time finding a job.

So I should look at the positives. If I lose my job I’ll have 18 months of unemployment and I can keep my health insurance for 18 months. I’ll have more time to write and sometimes change of career can be a good thing.

There look I posted something. Funny how things work out.

UR

So What Now?

Well the Health Care Plan/Reform has passed and was properly voted on. So now I’m trying to figure out what the hell it is and what it will do, good and bad. Unfortunately none of the talking heads or our politicians is of any help. Because it seems that everyone has a horse in the race, ideology wise.

This basically means we Americans will have to learn it the hard way. If this is the beginning of Socialized Medicine maybe I should move to a country with Socialized Medicine. At least they have it pretty well figure out even if it may not considered the best. I would at least know what I’ll get and how to get it and what will be coming out of my pocket. Besides I always hear that countries in Europe and Canada have more of a mellow lifestyle than we have in America which if true has to help ones quality of life.

Now the bulk of this does not take effect until 2014. In the mean time our government will begin collecting money from people. Sure it will start with the wealthy and business owners. But it will flow down to the middle class and even lower middle class. I have never known a U.S. Government budget has ever ended up under or even at budget. Typically it ends up way more than the original budget.

Now I listen to Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s speech on the floor talking how this is equivalent to the passing of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Really Nancy? How are those programs doing? Not good from what I hear.

Well one thing I do know is apparently America finally has a Queen. She doesn't have to worry about being voted out of Congress and until Republicans regain the House of Representatives no Democrat will stand up to her.

So here's to Her Royal Majesty Queen Nancy I. Just keep spending our money on yourself. No its OK, we really don't mind. We're just serfs working for you. Right?

UR

My Review of Yeagley's “St. Patrick’s Day Wish”

So I said I would comment on David Yeagely’s blog his post “St. Patrick’s Day Wish” March 17, 2010.

I would like to apologize for the length of this post, just too much to address.

Well, first he starts off by stating how he could not find any serious stories on St. Patrick’s Day and was curious why. He then proposes this question;

"Is the holiday just too ‘white’? Too Western European? Too ethnic, and therefore, to be avoided?"

Well of course he goes right to race. But Yeagley even went deeper. He still could not figure out why there wasn’t more serious coverage. Yeagley said,

"I’m still curious why there weren’t more stories in the national news on the actual St. Pat’s day. I found one AP story, “Irish at home, worldwide cheer St. Patrick’s Day,” by Shawn Pogatchnik, no less. But just the little exercise of having to search for some serious story in the national news made me wonder a wee bit. (Actually, a lot.)"

Are you saying, shall I dare say it? Conspiracy. Oooo, a conspiracy. Yup you figured it out, the Health Care Plan that Congress has been working on and that the Media has been focused on was only a red herring. You’re brilliant! It was President Obama’s plan to screw the “white” Irish Americans. Bwahahahaha! Come on Yeagley the media barely covers St. Pat’s Day. Even the traditional Irish Prime Minister’s visit to the White House on St. Patrick’s Day that goes back 15 years goes on with very little coverage over the years.

Let’s move on. Well he then goes back to the Aryans and the Celts.

Yeagley said;

“Recently, I have acknowleged the view that the foundational Aryan race is not Teutonic, but Celtic. I have looked more and more into this, and considering the available information, I’m more or less convinced.”

Well Aryan was neither. Aryan was classified as a sub-group Indo-Iranian language under the language group of Indo-European. But it originated from a word “arya” as well as deviations of “arya” which meant “pertaining to speakers of Indian/Iranian language.” or “pertaining to ourselves”. In Vedic Sanskrit texts it took on the meaning as of being noble, or righteous and even as of born in to a high caste. In the 19th century a German by the name Max Muller who was Philologists mistakenly referred to the Aryan as a race. He corrected his statement once he found out how people interpreted it. He said "The Science of Language and the Science of Man cannot be kept too much asunder…” In other word linguistics and anthropology should be kept very separate and should not be mixed together.

Then again all this means nothing to Yeagley because he would simple dismiss all this as liberals trying to cover up the truth about the Aryan race. If I posted these arguments at his site I would be called liberal all because I dare to disagree.

Now for the Celts. Celts were not a race, it was a language first then it grew into a social culture that shared a language, religion, and social organization but by all accounts never had a central form of government. But it is mainly the language that connected them but had diverse characteristics. Basically it was a group of many tribes that shared some social characteristics but mostly shared a language. As tribe intermingled and traded with each other and those outside cultural evolutions happened. The Celtic speaking tribes’ culture evolved from the Hallstatt culture in originating in present day Austria in the late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age and the La Tène culture in present day Switzerland in the Early Iron Age. Archeological evidence shows two distinct Hallstatt cultures, Eastern and Western. There seem to be no evidence of a significant cultural break between the Hallstatt culture and the La Tène culture. Celtic tribes were autonomous, they traded with who they like and attacked who the wanted even if it was another Celtic tribe. The Celts as well as the Irish Celts known as the Gaels were never a unified people or nation.

I saw some people who commented to Yeagley calling themselves as Celts. Truth is you may have Celtic ancestry but if you can’t speak a surviving form of Celtic such as Gaelic your not a Celt/Celtic. Tá brón orm ach is beatha teanga í a labairt.

Then again all this means nothing to Yeagley because he would simple dismiss all this as liberals trying to cover up the truth about the Aryan race. If I posted these arguments at his site I would be called liberal all because I dare to disagree.

So let’s get to the Irish. He says:

“How is it that the Celts, the Irish in particular, ended up in such misery by the 18th and 19th centuries?”

“The poverty-stricken, drunk, illiterate laborer–against whom there were actual laws in early American history? The Irish that came to America were truly the bottom of the British barrel.”

Well short answer is it was land grab by the Normans, Anglo-Normans, English, Protestants, a Puritan man name Cromwell and a famine that created a gentleman’s genocide due to English indifference. Pretty much what happen to American Indians here in America. Cromwell in 1649 to 1653 Cromwell went Ireland to bring the Irish under English control and suppress the Catholic Church. By the time he was done half the population of Ireland was gone. Either due to war, disease, or ship of to English colonies abroad has slave labor. By the 1800 Irish were second class citizens in the own country actually if you were Irish Catholic you were a third class citizen. English landlords control the lands and were basically the only employer the Irish have. Irish typically had to rent land and homes from the English landlords. But the English government for centuries really just wished the Irish would go away or die off. When the Great Famine hit in the 1840’s the British government basically decided to due what could be called a gentleman’s genocide. The British government decided to do nothing and let nature take its course.

Yeagley said,

“The poverty-stricken, drunk, illiterate laborer–against whom there were actual laws in early American history? The Irish that came to America were truly the bottom of the British barrel.”

Nothing like throwing in some stereotypes. The only reason the Irish that came to America as “truly the bottom of the British barrel.” Is only because the British government and British social system stuffed them to the bottom of the barrel. Imagine whites discriminating against whites.

Yeagley said,

"The Irish were all Catholic, all Democrat, and all settled north of the Mason-Dixon line.”

Umm. No! This again is a stereotype. A majority of immigrant Irish was Catholic and once in America some even converted to Protestant to give them an advantage. Irish did not come to America as Democrats, there was no such thing in Ireland. Irish look at anyone or any party that would help them. But it ended up the Democrats who courted the Irish. Yeagley should read about the United States presidential election of 1884 and James G. Blaine.

Yeagley said,

“the Irish came to profound success. Though the early days were plagued with violence, gangs, filth, and poverty, with hundreds of thousands of Irish men working in mines, factories, and sweatshops, eventually, they came to own the industries they worked for!”

Umm ok? Yeagley you do know not every Irish neighborhood was like the Five Points as portrayed in the “Gangs of New York”, right? But you forgot it was mostly the Irish who organized labor and created the foundation of Unions in this country. Still like them Yeagley? Hmm, I wonder why you forgot that.

Yeagley said,

“I know to this day Ireland is still used as a haven for international outlaws and rebels of every grade. Mabye that’s prejudicial, but, Ireland is in a constant state of turmoil, it seems. Such a small spot on the globe, it makes a mighty noise.”

Right, another stereotype. I’m sorry is he talking about the Republic of Ireland or British controlled North Ireland. Regardless it’s been pretty peaceful for the passed 10 yrs

Yeagley said,

“But they don’t seem as hysterical as the German people. Their tempers are generally wreak on themselves.”

Hmm. Sounds like Yeagley has an issue with someone.

Yeagley said,

“Perhaps if the Irish could focus on a larger vision, the grand, historical place they should hold, they could put something together in the way of white leadership. Again, I cannot accept the Teutonic approach, and the harrowing echo of that whole Nazi bit. The white race needs something quite different from that drone of disaster. A very different kind of leadership is needed. Let the red heads have a crack at it. They’re not afraid of a fight, for sure… We need rather to see that Irish enegy focused on a broader picture, a bigger goal, like, leadership of the white race.”

Oh good, more stereotyping, fighting and red heads.

So really what I got out of his post “St. Patrick’s Day Wish” of March 17, 2010. Is that this was all about the Nazis screwing up the idea of the white race as the master race. So now he is trying to re-associate the mythology of the Aryan race with the Celts. This is a pathetic attempt to give white supremacy a new white face i.e. the Irish and Celts.

Yeagley said, “That’s me wish fer the Irish, this St. Paddy’s Day. Éireann go Brách!”

I say, Póg mo thóin!

UR

No More Yeagley, Please

I was surfing the Internet and went to a site that I have abandon due to its tone and the direction its Webmaster chosen to take it in. But I do like to pop in once and a while because I do find it silly and I get a good laugh out what is posted.

This site is run by a guy named David Yeagley who is part Comanche on his mother's side and European ancestry on his father side in other words Yeagley is part Indian and part white. He is an enrolled member of Comanche Tribe but did not grow up on or lives on the Comanche Rez. He is also a follower of the Seventh Day Adventist and is a far right conservative who is totally fixated on race. He believes that races should not intermingle sexually and that whites in America should be the masters and decide what is best for America particularly WASP’s or Evangelical Christians. He even talks about the Great White Throne. Not sure what that is, maybe a toilet?

On his Blog he recently wrote a post titled “No More Nazis, Please” dated March 12, 2010. Now as a follower of history I found it hilarious. He basically tries to portray Hitler as a man with good ideas who lost his way and got off track. But this is typical for Yeagley to get more wrong than right.

He goes on to talks about the Celts. Apparently Celts only have red hair and that they were the true Aryan people. He refers to the Celts as a race. Well, the Celts were not so much a race as in physical identity but a people that shared a common culture, religion and language. Now my understanding is according to Nazi mythology Aryans were blond hair blue eyes and of Nordic origins. Well Celts were not Nordic, they were in central Europe and the British Isles. I believe the Nazis were trying to tap into the Viking thing. The Nazis wanted to be the new Vikings. But what is funny is that Yeagley admires the Scots but has little respect for the Irish and they were both Celts. As of today Yeagley posted on his Blog a commentary on the Irish which I will comment on in another post.

The odd thing is Yeagley profess his love for the Jewish people but yet portrays Hitler as either misunderstood or as a man who started off with a good idea about nationhood but went off track. What I can't understand is how do you say you love the Jewish people and say that the Holocaust was the only real act of genocide but yet quote or referred to Mein Kampf and even once with a link to a Hitler praising/Holocaust denial site. Such as this post called “The Hated White Race” June 16, 2009 Yeagley wrote,

“It seems Hitler had a point when he referred to “the hated white race.” (Mein Kampf, p.325.)”

Really Yeagley what is your fascination with Hitler and Mein Kampf?

Another funny one was his post called “Jihad Jane: Ultimate Muslim Trophy” March 11, 2010 on the American female terrorist knows as “Jihad Jane”. Because she is white blond and blue eyed which in Yeagley’s mind is the ideal physical representation of the white female. And because she became a Muslim and other white blond women are having relation with non-white men, he believes that the white race is dead. Yes that’s right, if you’re a white women with black or brown hair you are apparently not really white. I guess in his eyes you’re a lesser white. Kind of explains his love for Ann Coulter. Now I love the one statement he made in that post. Yeagley said, “If I were a white man,” Well wasn’t your father white? This at least makes you a half white man. So you are choosing not to be white. If you are so proud of the white race and so concern about it why not be honest and declare at least being half white?

One time he posted this article about how two young blond white girls who sang pro-white race songs and he was outraged that they criticized and were condemned for their songs and he posted picture of them. Well as soon as you saw the picture of these girls that were wearing tee shirts with the Have a Nice Day Smiley Face with a Hitler’s mustaches on it. Plus after you read the article you knew exactly that these girls were promoting white supremacist beliefs and members at his own site pointed it out to him, he just continued to defended them as not promoting Nazi beliefs. But only after he apparently he posted about this at another site and it was pointed out how wrong he was, he then quickly recants his support for these little white blond girls. He pleaded ignorance and explained that he didn’t read the whole article. Oh please, you post the picture with Hitler Smiley Faces on their shirts that was pretty clear what they were about. I still get a good laugh out of that.

But that’s what he does when caught, he pleads ignorance and that he is naïve. Yea ok, whatever. You know there is nothing wrong with loving ones owns race, it’s when you begin to hate other races or believe your race is superior to all others is when it becomes a problem.

I’ll give him credit though, he is good at writing things in a way that allows him to back peddle and wiggle out of being accused of anything or he simple pleads ignorance. Brilliant if I must say.

Another hilarious thing is that if you do argue with him and he can’t win he just stops posting or start talking in circles. But what typically happens is one of his loyal members, which are becoming less and less of, will take over the conversation and talk in circles or will simple just insult you depending on who it is.

What Yeagley fails to understand is that the so call white race has never been one big happy white family and never will. We are made up of different cultures and more importantly different individuals who have and will always have different opinions and views. We have probably had more wars with each other and killed more of our own over the centuries than with others.

So with his stereotyping of race, his fixation on race and inaccurate understanding of history all I can say is, No More Yeagley, Please! I can barely catch my breath from laughing my ass off.

UR

Health Care Bill? What Is It?

I can’t believe what is happening in Washington.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi said about the Health Care bill, “But we have to pass the health care bill so that you can find out what is in it,”

What?! Oh come on Nancy! That’s the best you can do. You really don’t know what’s in it, do you? If you don’t know what’s in it then who the hell does. Apparently no one does.

Even if anyone knows what’s in it they can’t explain it. I have not heard about one expert who worked on this thing, just politicians and not politicians who are doctors or economist but plain career politicians and just one party politician, Democrat. So have I read the bill? No, I haven’t. Have you ever tried to read a piece of legislation written by Congress much less a 2000 plus page bill? If you’re not bleeding from the eyes and are in need of shock therapy halfway through it, well you a better person than I. But I did watch the Senate debates on the bill and apparently not many of the Senators did.

Now what is sad is that Taiwan when putting together their government run Health Care system put together a blue ribbon panel of economist and heath care experts. They researched other countries Health Care systems and came up with the best plan possible. Taiwan a country that is smaller than the US in population, spent more time on research with experts than one of the largest world leader countries. I mean come on this means Taiwan is smarter than us.

Then look at Switzerland. A country that didn’t allow women to vote until 1971 actually put together a plan and had a national referendum and let the people vote on whether they want Health Care or not. The people voted for it. Then here in America the cheerleader of Democracy around the world won’t even give its people an initial vote on whether we want it or not. A European country that only gave the woman the right to vote 39 years ago is more democratic than us. Is it no wonder why no one takes us serious.

Look I believe our Health Care system needs to be fixed and is becoming too expensive for people. I’m not even closed minded to a Universal Health Care but I just want it done right and thought out. If we’re going to fix it lets fix it together. If we’re going to create Universal Health Care then let work together to create the best plan ever and not some half and half bastardization of a system.

So Nancy, stop spending our tax money on yourself. You are a U.S. Representative not a bloody Queen. If you know what’s in the bill then explain it in detail. If you don’t then it would be irresponsible for you to vote on it.

Oh yea Sen. Reid, I saw the Senate debates on Heath Care. Why were you on the floor so little? Why were other Democrat Senators on the floor had to explain your bill? If you wrote the 2000 plus page bill then why were you not the one on the floor explaining it? Did you write it? Do you even know what’s in it?

President Obama said enough talk, he said it deserves an up or down vote. Yes a vote not a trick to slide it threw without a vote. If it isn’t voted on, it will make our system of government hypocritical.

Oh well a quote come to mind. As the story goes, at the end Constitutional Convention in 1787, a person outside asked Benjamin Franklin as he left, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" Franklin without hesitation said, "A republic, if you can keep it."

UR