Another Illogical Attack on Calhoun

This time it seems the statistically insignificant gaggle of hurt-feeling types want to change the name of the Calhoun Honors College at Clemson University.

200 students and alumni out of hundreds of thousands sign this petition and it makes the news.   We have simply lost the ability to think about things critically!

I suppose this only ends when America has no historical figures of note remaining and no historical narrative to bind us together as a nation.    

The Failing Liberal Agenda

The Twentieth Century was marked by the rise, fall and struggle of three ideologies, Fascism, Communism and its cousin Liberalism.  In the wake of WWI, the old order of princes and kings was thrust asunder, fundamentally changing the system in place since the Peace of Westphalia.  Woodrow Wilson, that great meddler, used the newfound power of the United States to not only usher in the precursor to the United Nations but to play a significant role in dismantling empires and fostering republican and democratic governments across Europe.  The result was the equivalent of a European Spring in the following two decades where democracies failed and gave way to authoritarian communist and fascist governments.  Of course, another war followed and after that almost 40 years of a cold war where the remaining two ideologies, liberalism and Communism faced off. 

What does that have to do with the present you ask?   Consider, America spent the entire Cold War abroad “making the world safe for democracy”.  At home, since the introduction of the New Deal through the Great Society and onwards, liberal policies have been on the rise.  Certainly, there have been occasions and periods where conservatives got a say, the 1980’s to be sure, but on balance, liberalism has been waxing and conservatism waning. 

Yet, despite almost 100 years of continuous victories, liberals seem more desperate now than at any previous point. The social justice movement is simply unhinged, fringe groups throughout the left are – they seem to sense the end.   Ideologies always fail, history has proven this, and modern liberalism is just that, an ideology.  

The simple and inarguable fact is liberalism has exacted a great toll on humanity.  It has destroyed community, man’s connection with his God, the family.   In foreign lands, once noble-sounding ideas have translated into poverty and disease.   Africa is certainly not much better off today than in the age of imperialism.  The wave of liberal democratization that swept the middle-east, with much US encouragement and backing, destroyed lives – many people living in Libya probably wish to return to the predictability of Gadhafi over the uncertainty of a democratic mob. In the United States, statistics prior to 2016 show the middle class shrinking, a trend that progressed for years. Lastly, liberalism, by its nature, requires identity politics to thrive.  Identity politics ultimately divide, rather than unite.

Liberalism is failing, liberals know this – thus their desperation. More than any other explanation this is likely the very reason Donald Trump was elected president rather than some more center-leaning Republican choice.   Trump tapped into the horse-sense of the nation, regular people with common sense realized the foolishness that liberalism has wrought at home and abroad.   To paraphrase Gallagher, they were mad and were not going to take it anymore. Donald Trump, the swaggering guy that did not play nice with politicians, was the answer.

Is the election of Donald Trump the absolute death keel of liberalism?   No.   He does, however, represent a significant change in the American political landscape. He is very likely to serve as a clarion call to liberals to up their game.   His election will likely give birth to a much more bellicose and dangerous form of liberalism.   His election should do the same for conservatives.   We can make America Great Again but only if we actively fight the Cultural War at home, in our communities and at the ballot box.

 Why has Liberalism Failed and What Were the Costs?

The first casualty of liberalism since the election of Trump was the fourth estate, the media.  Conservatives have always suspected liberal bias in the media but it was subtle.  This has become so pronounced, even the liberal media openly write about their “war on trump” and why it is failing.  There is something significant in this.  The egalitarian liberal society that the left envisions cannot exist without a legitimate press.   It is difficult to imagine how or if this ever gets repaired within the current bipolar system.  The election of Donald Trump, by ordinary decent people, scared the liberal elite so greatly that the media could not help but openly prostrate themselves in an attempt to “rectify the situation”.   This is not a point that will be easily corrected, and it bodes poorly for liberalism in general.  If Providence has a sense of humor then it is just that Trump should be the man to face this frontal assault by the media, he is simply unflappable and unfazed by their smears.

Liberals will likely pull out more, if not all stops in the mid-terms and thereafter to undermine and then undo anything and everything “Trump”.  This too will be their failing, just like they used the silver bullet of the media with little effect, desperate actions in the future will only suffice to cement the demise of liberalism, highlight their desperation and demonstrate just how vile and hateful the ideology of “equality and diversity” is.

But why, why should it fail?   On the very face of it, in theory, it has always sounded so “nice”.  

Liberalism is failing in the United States and the West for the same reason it never took hold in Africa and why the Arab Spring ended in such carnage and devastation.  As Alexis de Tocqueville stated in the 17^th century, a point reiterated in Patrick Deneen’s book ‘Why Liberalism Failed”, the ideology relies upon certain preexisting and vibrant societal and cultural norms - communities and family, moralism and religion, and philosophy and art.  Liberalism in the West has sought to systematically destroy each of those norms and replace them.

The idea of equality has been replaced by plutocracy, as liberal economic policies have destroyed large swaths of the middle class.   It has supplanted religious and intellectual freedom for conformity.  Art and craftsmanship have been replaced by consumer products. It has destroyed the family, the foundation of all good cultures.

 Liberalism is dying by its own foolish hands.  It is no longer a viable polite, political alternative as we once envisioned our two-party system. Stripped of the requisite underlying foundations of Tocqueville’s norms it will likely emerge as the sort of oppressive, controlling, tyrannical beast that the other two failed ideologies of the 20^th century became.  The kinder, gentler, compromising version of liberalism we have grown accustomed to has failed, the monster that follows its death remains to be seen.

For conservatives, it is important to understand that we live in a moment of great change.  The election of Donald Trump signaled this, it did not begin it.   Politics in America have likely been transformed forever. The future is in question, what will follow the old political order?  Despite the fact that liberalism has failed utterly, the desperation of its adherents in undiminished, it is in fact greatly accelerated – perhaps to potentially dangerous levels. 

In the wake of the liberalism’s failure, we must remain engaged and redouble our efforts to conserve and protect the foundations of an orderly society – family, Christianity, and individuality within a community.  

What If I am Wrong?

by Barry Lee Clark

I began blogging in 2002, occasionally I look back at some of the topics and subjects and realize I have been absolutely wrong on some matters.  These generally relate to specific policy matters or predictions where some policy may or may not have gone. This is to be expected.   If I were correct on every geopolitical issue I have ever blogged about, there were many, I would be highly paid and on CNN, Fox etc. each night.

Through all of my writing, when I re-read,  I see foundational principles, some have matured and evolved, but they exist as tangible artifacts.  The trouble I find within myself is that the world around me has also evolved and changed - at a rapid pace and for the most part opposite of the principles I have come to believe.  Today, as a thought exercise, I wondered to myself if I am wrong?

Could it be that the progressive, humanist path that the world around me is leaning toward is correct? Does the fact that the majority seem to be on a particular trajectory validate their perspective?  Sometimes, in the quiet moments, one wonders - just for a moment.  Then common-sense prevails.

The center is more left-leaning than ever before, what were once crazed liberal notions are generally accepted by a majority of Americans. The far left is rabid, extreme and frankly frightening in their mob-like mentality.   It is not a far stretch to imagine guillotines in some version of the future if that crowd continues its path.

The intellectual core of the old right has been relegated to obscurity, ignored by the ordinary conservative man as ineffective and vilified by the extreme left as "educated racist" and curmudgeons.  The problem is, these men (the educated paleoconservatives), in my mind and understanding, were and are right.  In all of my reading and dialogue with them, I have never detected racism. But alas, that does not matter.  That word is a powerful tool of the thought police on the left. It tends to silence the voice of those it is applied to.

The first politician I supported after college was Patrick J. Buchanan.  His culture war speech in 1992 was for me a clarion call of understanding and enlightenment. Of course, as John Seiler contends, the Republican party never fought the cultural war that Pat mentioned was already underway.

I spent the 1990's primarily concerned with making a living as a young man and starting a family.  I listened to Rush Limbaugh during that period but by the early 2000's and a tour in Iraq, I had grown tired of partisan politics and our team versus theirs non-sense.

I became attracted again to ideas of history and political science from my days at The Citadel.  I still have fond memories of Capt. John Coussons USN (Ret) and his wonderful lectures.  It was from this foundation I abandoned the dribble of partisan politics and talk radio and found new compatriots.

I rediscovered Pat Buchanan's writing on various sites and through those sites, I discovered men like Dr. Clyde N. Wilson.  I was a big supporter and follower of the League of the South in its early days.  I was attracted to the notion that a way to save the nation was to recognize that the US was still made up of very different people groups.  The South was still the heart of the last vestiges of true conservatism.   The League of the South in the early days proposed revitalization of states' rights and nullification as means to protect the minority of Christian conservatives in the South from the growing and tyrannical majority elsewhere.

In 2002, I began blogging.  I found like-minded other bloggers, we even formed a blog Alliance called the Rebel Alliance.  We blogged about history, conservatism and ways to save the South from the cultural war we had been losing since before Buchanan's speech in 1992.  I ran my first website for a couple years, called The Southern Nationalist. It as not my best work, there were errors, but fundamentally and principally as I look back at that archive I stand by it.

I meet a fellow named Cory Burnell who had an "outrageous" plan to help move Christians from their minority communities in other parts of the US to South Carolina, the group was called Christian Exodus.  I agreed with the concept.   Consolidating voting power in an already conservative state and then applying states' rights principles seemed a good plan.  In principle, I stand by my support of this idea.

Christian Exodus was doomed from the start.  The media had a field day with this, a bunch of crazy Christians planning to move to concentrate their votes.  I was heavily involved and spoke often with Cory electronically and digitally.  He was never what he was portrayed to be.  Dogmatically he represented the sort of Mere Christianity, I believe in.  He was no crazy-man and certainly not a cult leader.  However, the media reaction was to be expected.

What I did not expect was the reaction from conservative Christians in South Carolina.  These ranged from, "we should be in the world but not part of it" to a "toe the Republican party line" of partisan politics as usual.

I started another web project during my dealings with Christian Exodus, The American Secessionist Project. That work began with the principle that all people, in all times and places should have the right to determine their own form of government and that secession was a legitimate means to achieve that.   I had the chance to dialogue with people managing secession movements in Hawaii, California, Vermont, Texas, New Hampshire.  I met, Kirkpatrick Sale, a fascinating fellow, through this project.  He ran The Middlebury Institute.

In my work with the secessionist project I encountered, Dr. Thomas J. DiLorenzo, Dr. Thomas J. Woods Jr., Dr. Walter E. Block and Dr. Donald W. Livingston. The writing of these men inspired and informed me and reinforced principles that were becoming cemented.  We published the first twenty Secessionionist Papers on the site, these would become the nucleus of an eventual book, The Annotated Secessionist Papers, now in its second edition.

I stand by all of that.  Time has proven me (and Patrick J. Buchanan) right.  The culture war was never fought, but it was lost.  Centralization of power in the Federal Government has only increased and the tide has not only turned, it has likely washed away any hope of a return to the Americanism and America many of us grew up to believe in.

There was perhaps a moment, I suspect it was in early 2000, just after the abhorrent years of a Clinton administration and before the events of 9/11 that both solidified nationalism and fractured conservatives.  I missed that moment.  I was just waking up from the long sleep of the 1990's and my talk radio addiction.  I surmised this event later, reading what people had written, what they felt and what they believed.  I also began to witness the fracturing of the conservative movement, I did not fully understand all of the "why", that took time, but I witnessed it first hand.

First, there were the anti-war conservatives (paleos mostly and some libertarians), opposed to the neoconservatives that seemed to want to use 9/11 to reshape the world in the way WWII did.  Most ordinary conservative Americans were too caught up in the nationalist rush of emotions to listen to the principles of the paleos.  The Cindy Sheehans of the world, with their wild emotional ranting and action, did not help the cause.  Ordinary conservatives did not want to be associated with someone like that, so most tuned out the paleoconservatives.

(My personal views on the war in Iraq only changed once, during a deployment.  I did not really come to agree with what we were doing or to think it would make a positive difference but the atrocities of the other guys got my dander up.)

Second, and more subtly, there was disaffection within the paleoconservative movement itself.   Where once groups like the League of the South and others identified with something that the 12 Southerners would have embraced many began to realize the culture war was already lost and seek shelter.   Many on the left had labeled these groups racist since the start, but at some point in the early 2000's race did become a focus for some groups.

This happened to one of the fellows I used to write with. One of the members of the Rebel Alliance, my old blogging group left us one day.  I found him years later, still the same guy in principle, but now an Identity advocate convinced that all is lost and his efforts should focus on saving just white Southerners.

Many who were once supporters of paleoconservative principles just grew tired of losing, tired of overly educated people talking about principles while the world burned. They wanted results. Some turned to Identity politics, some gave up in the mid to late 2000s, others embraced neoconservatism. Many more went on to become the "deplorables". 

The result is much like the effect WWII had on the Old Right conservatives - paleoconservatism with its high ideals, principles and talk of political philosophers just fell out of favor and was replaced by more pedestrian and bellicose forms. The election of 2000 and the attacks of 9/11 were significant turning points.

We will never know the cost of a few hanging chads in Florida.  Perhaps the best thing that could have happened for our future would have been if the fruitcake Al Gore had won the 2000 election as opposed to the neoconservative Bush.   Perhaps Gore would have fumbled the 9/11 thing but it is hard to imagine more so that W.  Perhaps four or eight more years of socialist, progressive nonsense would have kept the paleo-right intact.   Perhaps there would have been a chance for principled change and a way to win the culture war and the war on liberty and good government. We will never know.

Instead.  We suffered through Bush and neoconservative wars that served no purpose.  We suffered through Obama and his ushering in moral atrocities we will likely never remove from the law now.

(I had hope in 2008 for Ron Paul, simply because he is such a principled man but he never had a chance)

All of this only served to divide the far right and the far left and isolate men that think, speak and act from sound principles from the debate.  It left the ordinary right and left to choose between a socialist and a populist while Antifa and the Alt-Right clash in the streets.  We are so very divided now, dangerously so.

Academia is lost.  I do not know where men like Wilson or Livingston will come from to teach a new generation.  I was so fortunate to sit in lectures by a man like John Coussons but I cannot imagine in the current state of liberal education someone like him could gain a professorship much less tenure.

Wikipedia, the go to source of knowledge for so many contains such bias and inaccuracies - it is filled with historical revisionist dribble. Those without proper educational and foundational knowledge will never know the truth about people, events and issues.

Social Media is controlled by corporations that at a whim decide who sees what.   The truth will never be found there.

The mainstream media is intolerable.  Fox is nothing but a partisan patsy and all of the others are 24/7 liberal propaganda outlets.  There is no news in the news any longer, no truth to be found there.

What if I were wrong all this time, thinking that my meager voice might help advance the cause of real dialogue?   Perhaps I was, I suspect I will never know if any of my past, present or future efforts have any effect.

I do know, I have not been wrong on principles.

• Christian culture is worth preserving. 
• Natural Law exists and there is a Creator that formed it.
• Revisionist History should be opposed and corrected.  
• Good Government is a government that governs the least and adheres to its own laws.  
• Socialism in any form leads to evil.  
• Progressivism coupled with humanism leads to evil.  
• We do not always know more than the people that lived before us. 
• History, family and culture are important. 
• Might does not make right.

Those principles have been core to everything I have written since I began blogging and in those principles.

Ultimately, I have not been wrong.

I shall keep onkeeping on.  I blog primarily at The Calhoun Institute and barryclark.info

Why They Hate Us-Part II

Many Muslims term the United States as the Great Satan. Americans puff up at this claim. Our Friends in South Korea view us disdainfully, Americans look at them as ungrateful. Mexicans consider the US to be a belligerent bully that has invaded and robbed Mexico of her lands. A dozen other countries can make similar claims to US militaristic aggression.

My topic here is US cultural aggression in foreign lands. Most of us, if we were raised by parents that taught us right and wrong, find occasional if not persistent repulsion in the items that emerge from our televisions. Over the last twenty to thirty years we have been bombarded by ever increasing encroachments on common decency and values. To a large degree we have become immune to the content and may not fully realize just how decadent our society has become.

Consider this

Our Society
· Protects the murder of unborn children
· Flaunts homosexual behavior and lifestyles
· Has abandoned the sanctity of marriage
· Produces some of the worst child molesters in the world
· Produces and consumes pornography of various levels far in excess of the rest of the world
· Worships thugs, gagsters, punks and drug addicts that we call celebrities and sports stars
· Produces corporate executives, government leaders and even presidents that live by no apparent moral code
· Encourages greed
· Discourages selflessness
· Shuns the divine principles of our founding

The world receives MTV, HBO and all manner of other media produced right here. Their perception of us is based largely on what they see. Many have never met true Americans. They judge us by those that we idolize.

Would you fear a neighbor that had no apparent moral base and just happened to be much bigger and stronger than you? If that neighbor also had a demonstrated propensity to kick in the door of the houses of his other neighbors to “set things right” you would certainly fear him. If he also continually flaunted his immorality in front of you, attempted to take economic advantage of you at every turn and continually told you how to live your life you would grow to hate him.

Why does so much of the World hate us? We are that neighbor. The “civilized” world, specifically Europe, tolerates us more because in many ways they are as decadent as we. In nations where people are closer to their God and less able to offer reasons for the US to leave them alone there is little toleration and much hate.

The United States has embarked on a path that will lead to its’ destruction. The War on Terror should have begun years ago by changing the reasons that people hate us. It is too late to become a good neighbor now. The War’s in Afghanistan and Iraq will not solve anything. Capturing a few leaders will not make the problem go away. Men that believe in their principles will follow them. That is really the problem with principles and conviction, you just cannot kill it.

The US lacks the advantage of actually having any principles in this current incarnation of imperial globetrotting. With all of the industrial, economic and military might that the US has this one fact will ultimately cause defeat. Just as the Roman and British armies seldom tasted defeat on the battlefield during the heyday of their empires the US too will remain supreme tactically. Strategically and over time however, this is a war that cannot be won.

People argue that the “terrorist” that struck the World Trade Centers demonstrated a distinct lack of principles and acted as murderers. War is a sad endeavor. I wished intently that the event of Sep. 11th had not of occurred. However, when faced with numerical and technically superior enemies one is forced to use asymmetric tactics. The methods used on the World Trade Center were brutal but effective and one of the few options available to those that wished to strike the US. It could be argued that their methods were no more terroristic than that of a US bomber flying at 20,000 feet dropping bombs on individuals that have no idea they are being targeted, or cruise missiles being fired from hundreds of miles away. The definition of terror is really in the mind of the receiver.

We no longer follow the principles of Just War (Jus ad Bellum). We wage war against foes incapable of resisting and utilize technological wonder weapons that bring terror upon the recipients. The United States was the first modern nation to employ total war in the early 1800's against the civilized Indian nations. It did it again in the 1860s; bringing distruction to a civilian population in the South. The firebombings of Germany and atomic bombs in Japan were just extensions of this trend. Conducting war with a win at all cost methodology has led to a deadening of principles. The US speaks now of reducing collateral damage but as the world sees it the very act of engaging in numerous wars creates the situation of the potential for collateral damage. When this is added to the very real historical evidence that points to the United States govenment as an entity that will sacrifice the civilians of its enemy to achieve victory it is easy to see some of the origin of hate.

The rest of the world hates Yankee imperialism, secularism, commercialism and immorality. I for one cannot fault them for standing on their principles. The US must now fight this War and we as citizens are forced to support it because there is really no way out. We cannot simply stop and come home because nothing has fundamentally changed. The reasons for hatred still exist.

In the final analysis future historians will dissect the causes of the demise of the US Empire just as all historians do with all empires. The economic strain caused by making enemies of the world because we were bad neighbors will undoubtedly be the prime cause they settle on.


Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem
El Cid

chez Nadezhda :: Reasserting US Hegemony: Russian rollback, Chinese containment and Iranian regime change

Back in 2005 I wrote three pieces that met with a lot of read resistance concerning one of the real neoconservative goals for invading Iraq. (Why Iraq, One More Piece on China, Email Responses)
My original theory held that the invasion of Iraq was part of a greater strategy, one of containment of an up and coming peer competitor, China. The excerpt below discusses the multi-faceted necon foreign policy strategy. Notice how this ambitious strategy intersects in many areas, specifically how the control of resources adds to the control of peer competitors and how the spread of democracy (i.e. controllable regimes) aids in the control of resources.

chez Nadezhda :: Reasserting US Hegemony: Russian rollback, Chinese containment and Iranian regime change:
"The U.S. is currently conducting five separate strategic grand offensives:
(a) the roll back of the old Soviet imperial periphery across Eastern Europe, down through the Russian 'Near Abroad' of Ukraine and Georgia and Central Asia;
(b) the on again off again stuttering efforts to isolate China as the new 'Peer Competitor' across both the Asian Pacific rim and also in Central Asia [ed. - and in recent months, competition in Africa has been added to the list];
(c) conduct an international war on 'terrorism' (such as it is);
(d) lead new international cooperation regarding nuclear and WMD
proliferation[ed. - 'lead' is a charitably neutral way of describing the Bush
Admin goals of (i) leaving to the US the determination of which countries are
worthy of obtaining nuclear technology and weapons and (ii) ensuring that no
unfriendly state can achieve deterrence against the US use of force]; and
(e) bootstrap the Middle East into modernity through unilateral American
force of arms.
(Sprinkle 'democracy' on all of the above). "

I stand beside my original contention that the War on Terror is really nothing more than a pretext to accomplish some of the other items on the list. There was simply no other way to invade and transform Iraq without the lies and deceptions concerning terror linkages and WMD.

But alas things have not worked out the way the neoconservatives hoped.

Then, of course, there is this from the Jamestown Foundation concerning who is really winning in Iraq.

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leadership has been at pains not to appear to
be gloating over the American quagmire in Iraq. Yet in terms of geopolitical
calculus, there is little doubt Beijing sees America's worsening problems in
Iraq as beneficial to China's global standing, diplomatically and militarily.
Capitalizing on fissures in the international community over Iraq and America's
war on terror, China has strengthened ties with key members of the European
Union and the United Nations in an effort to counterbalance U.S. hegemony.

And of course there is this from Bill Lind:

In Iraq and Afghanistan, the "Coalition's" defeats continue slowly to unroll. In
Lebanon, it appears Hezbollah may win not only at the moral and mental,
strategic and operational levels, but, astonishingly, at the physical and
tactical levels as well. That outcome remains uncertain, but the fact that it is
possible portends a revolutionary reassessment of what Fourth Generation forces
can accomplish. If it actually happens, the walls of the temple that is the
state system will be shaken worldwide.

Of course the insanity of the entire "democracy building at the end of a rifle" idea is something Southerners know about first hand and should have been the first to vocally oppose this fiasco. Steven LaTulippe puts it best:

America invaded a sovereign nation based on lies and fabricated intelligence.
The general goal seems to have been a form of militarized nation building. This
ideology (which I call "Reconstructionism") is based on the belief that the
Middle East must be destroyed to be redeemed. Like Sherman burning Atlanta or
Truman nuking Nagasaki, the proponents of this theory believe that bombing the
Middle East and leveling its cities will create, somehow, a new beginning for
the region.
Once America has finished trampling out the vintage where the
grapes of wrath are stored, the neocons contend, a more just and modern Middle
East will arise from the ashes.

How to Protect Your Children from Liberal Public-School Indoctrination

How do you protect your children from the toxic influence of the liberal and amoral worldview predominate in the education system?   Conservatives wrestle with this sticky problem as a policy and personal matter.   School, choice, homeschool, private school, getting involved with the PTA are all methods we advocate for and utilize in this noble cause.  The problem, for most ordinary folks, is many of these solutions are out of our control and hands.

School choice and tax vouchers sound like a wonderful idea.  In fact, it may be a much better solution than what seems like no choice.  This comes at a cost.   If the government is giving a tax voucher, they will control to some degree what that voucher is used for.  All programs of government usually start as high ideas, often overlooking the unintended consequences.   Just imagine someday, after lost court battles when that otherwise good Christian school down the road is forced to include some element of the perversion that is public education or else not qualify for voucher use.

Homeschool is another fine option, with a great personal cost.   Not all great parents are cut out to be great academic teachers.   Not all of us want to spend a significant portion of our lives as a teacher, else we might have chosen that path previously.   For those that can, a myriad of resources are available now to the home-school family.  Support groups and activities exist to ensure home-schooled kids are not isolated and many school districts allow homeschooled children to participate in extracurricular activities.  These are all good trends, but the fact remains that for various reasons this is not an option for everyone.  If you have the interest and the ability to teach your children at home this is the very best option to protect them.

“Getting involved” at the school is what good conservative families have done for years.   Yet, this did nothing to stop our public education system from becoming what it is.   Individual teachers have no control of their curriculum, involved parents have even less influence on administrative decisions.   Getting involved and staying engaged is certainly a required action, but it alone will never turn the tide, or protect our children.

A private school is an option that absolutely works for those that can afford it.   The education can be, and often is superior academically to public education, most private institutions are religiously based, so you know their philosophical leanings.  Finally, as a consumer, you have some say, unlike public school where you are just in the way.    However, a private school can be prohibitively expensive and therefore not an option for all.

So what options are available for the rest of us?

Articulate Your Values Early and Often

Teachable moments present themselves at the most unexpected, and often inconvenient times for parents.   In the world of young children, everything can be a point of learning and fascination until they get what they wanted to know and move on.   As parents, we are often too busy or rushed to see and take advantage of these moments.  There is a great power is teaching values consistently over time in small bites starting early.  We must emulate what we want to cultivate.  We have to explain the why to the level of their understanding and interest as they grow.  

Reinforce with a learning and experience program

So you are planning a vacation, it sure does sound nice to head to the beach for a week.  What if you included a visit to war memorial – they are parked near most major beaches on the east coast – and take the opportunity to talk about the why.  Even a trip t Disneyland is an opportunity to talk about the value of the free-market; communist and progressives never built a Disney World!

What about at home?   Perhaps a guided reading program over the summers – incentivized in some way.   There are numerous children and young adult books that directly and indirectly teach conservative values.   Teaching real history is one of the most solid bulwarks to equip a young mind. Also, the lessons related to the value of family, hard work and the consequences of bad decisions found in  numerous works of literature are important and help shape a positive conservative worldview.

Teach character

Much like the notion of articulating our values and why we believe what we believe consistently throughout their lives, we have to model the character we want to see them emulate.   This cannot be a do as I say lesson, it has to be a watch and follow my lifestyle.   Children of all ages are attuned to inconsistencies.  If you do not live the character you speak, how can they trust the other values you hold up as important.

Talk to them

The primary tool of indoctrination is replacing the family unit as a source of strength and guidance with another authority figure.   If your child attends public school you have surrendered much control, they will engage with your child more hours each day that most working parents have available.   You combat this by having authentic conversations with your child early in their life and often.  Listen and let them work the logic of understating things.  Be patient, understanding and open.  Be a person, you are still the authority but be approachable.  In their teen and college years, this ability to dialogue may make all the difference.

Stay involved

You will not change the public school, much, with your involvement.  But if you talk to your child and know what is going on, and by connecting with other like-minded parents you have a much better shot at knowing about any nonsense your children are exposed to.   This provides the opportunity for dialogue, and if you have set the foundation it will make it easier for them to see bad ideas for what they are.

by Barry Clark

America Divided

America’s Great Cultural and Political Divide

POSTED BY: BARRY JULY 2, 2018

America is more divided culturally and politically than at any time since the 1850’s.  Real and authentic dialogue does not occur and violence and the threat of violence increase daily.  We are on a precarious path with potentially dangerous outcomes. (read more)

It’s a sad day for South Carolina independence

Oh, the shame.

South Carolina has become a welfare state, adding to the federal deficit and the tax burden our children will inherit. Our children. Good thing we have all this sand so we have somewhere to stick our heads.

read more by Brian Hicks at The Post and Courier 

State of Surprise: Pat Conroy’s love letter to South Carolina

"There it is again – what you get over and over if you surrender yourself to South Carolina – that great surprising thing. This grand book is simply one more example of it. State of the Heart reminds us of what is best about South Carolina and her many gifted writers, the monumental power of this place to shape our memories into stories and then our stories into art." (via The State)

Rest in peace Mr. Conroy

Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/news/local/article64244597.html#storylink=cpy

The Calhoun Institute Homepage

The Calhoun Institute website is up and running and the first edition of The Calhoun Review is published. 

Secessionist Papers

Secessionist Papers - Book 109 pages

Abstract

Why is it important to talk about secession? Few people that believe secession is a legitimate political theory, right and recourse also believe that in a practical sense it is achievable, reasonable or even preferable. Devolution is a complicated matter and requires a more or less united political will among a people within a region or area – within the confines of modern America it seems unlikely any such will of a sufficient majority will soon emerge, anywhere. The question thus remains, why even discuss the subject? 

It is important to honestly discuss the matter because it goes to the very heart of how the Union of States was formed, what the Constitution was to mean and what relation the central government was to have to the people. Many of our contemporary political problems stem directly from a failure to understand foundational principles. Perhaps in engendering more honest discussions about foundational principles we might actually see contemporary problems more correctly.

Authors

Barry Lee Clark, Brian McCandliss, Michael Peirce, Walter E. Block, Thomas E. Woods Jr., Kevin L. Clauson,Kirkpatrick Sale, Forrest McDonald, Gene H. Kizer, Jr., Thomas J. Lorenzo, Donald W. Livingston

Keywords

• secession

• Political History,
   
• Constitutional Law and
   
• Political Theory

Publication Date

February 20, 2016

Editor

Barry Lee Clark

Publisher

The Calhoun Review

DOI

10.13140/RG.2.1.2347.2405

Publisher Statement

Secessionist Papers (February 20, 2016). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2735290

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2347.2405

Published by The Calhoun Review, 2016

First Edition

Citation Information

Clark, Barry Lee, et. al., Secessionist Papers (February 20, 2016). Available at SSRN:http://ssrn.com/abstract=2735290

Natural Law and Secularism

“Man is known to exist in no part of the world, without certain rules for the regulation of his intercourse with those around him. It is a first necessity of his weakness, that laws, founded upon the immutable principles of natural justice, should be framed, in order to protect the feeble against the violence of the strong; the honest from the schemes of the dishonest; the temperate and industrious, from the waste and indolence of the dissolute and idle. These laws, though varying with circumstances, possess a common character, being formed on that consciousness of right, which God has bestowed in order that men may judge between good and evil.” So wrote James Fennimore Cooper in The American Democrat

One hundred and seventy years later, in Conscience and Its Enemies: Confronting the Dogmas of Liberal Secularism, Professor Robert George offers a modern defense of natural law as an indispensible element of civilized culture and reveals liberal secularism’s widespread intolerance for both the classical and scholastic natural law traditions.

Read More

South Carolina farm launches rent-a-chick program for Easter

This is ingenious

A farm near Charleston, S.C., has set up a rent-a-chick program that lets kids — or empty nesters — look after their very own baby chicks.

Legare Farms on Johns Island charges $25 for the chance to raise the adorable birds for two weeks.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/south-carolina-farm-launches-rent-a-chick-program-easter-article-1.1761331#ixzz2zUCFzspk

September 6, 1984: Ron Paul Warns of Surveillance State - Don't Ever Say...

Another Sheriff that Understands His Duty

Under common law this is exactly what a county sheriff is supposed to do:

Otero County decided to put the State law to thin out the forests to the test and notified the feds.  The US Forest Service threatened to ARREST Congressman Steve Pearce and Otero County Commissioners!  Otero County Sheriff Benny House reportedly advised the feds that if they made any arrests, he would then arrest the feds on kidnapping charges.
On September 17th, keeping his Oath of Office to the Constitution and the People, Sheriff Benny House and his SWAT Team protected the tree cutters.  The feds backed down!  The feds were absent from the Tree Party Rebellion.  This is because within the county, the sheriff is the highest law enforcement authority in the land. (From The Tenth Amendment Center)

We meed more sheriffs in counties across the land to understand that under common law they are the highest law enforcement in their county, no matter who may show up in a federal costume.

Kudo's Sheriff House!

16 Nations Want to Challenge SC Immigration Law

I will not discuss the pros and cons of this law. I do have thoughts on the notion of a foreign nation suing a state. How could they have standing, how is such constitutional?

Well under article III Section 2 such a circumstance is authorized by the Federal Constitution -

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting.... between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

As a 10th Amendment State's Rights fellow I fully support the authority of the State of South Carolina to enact and reasonable and otherwise constitutional and just law. Nowhere within the Constitution can one find verbiage that would indicate that our fair state is not fully within its rights to enact this law. So on what grounds will the case against our state be made? The same as always it seems the 14th Amendment. This amendment was so poorly written and so contrary to the very spirit of the constitution that existed previously it is no wonder that it was never properly and legally ratified.

What a wordy, convoluted piece of work this amendment is and how nefarious it use in denigrating other portions of the Constitution. However, it would appear to me there are words in this poorly written document that no state has ever dared use in defense of state laws.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Beyond the fact that the founders never intended to create US Citizens and the aforementioned little matter of this amendment not even being de jure law it has become de facto law and it is the primary catalyst for much of what our Federal government has become. But consider for a moment the last portion of the first sentence.

"are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside".

Reading this plainly it is clear that every South Carolinian has dual citizenship. The amendment does not call us "residents" it calls us citizens of our state and in legal terms as used here citizen has special meaning.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Under Article 1 Section 8 Congress has the delegated power to "Establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization" but it can be argued, and 18 USC Section 7(C) supports this assertion - the United States may only exercise plenary criminal jurisdiction over lands within a state that the Federal Government owns and the state has consented to the Federal Government jurisdiction.

Thus there are three key points that South Carolina could make in this case that would advance the cause of those of us that love our States more than the Federal government.

1) Dual citizenship does exist as expressed in the 14th Amendment - we are actually citizens of South Carolina not merely residents. This point of fact, argued in law would serve us well later.

2) Although the Congress has the authority to establish uniform naturalization the Constitution did not specifically delegate the Federal government the power to police this within a State's borders.

3) The X Amendment applies and South Carolina's Immigration law could have gone further making it a State crime to reside in the State without meeting the Naturalization and Visa requirements that the Congress has established under their Constitutional authority. There is no need to call a federal agent, the county sheriff could arrest and prosecute an illegal under such a law.

4) The 14th Amendment applies only to citizens as defined by the 14th Amendment - it does not apply to illegals - therefore any Federal government arguments based upon that amendment in opposition to this law are void.

Dr. Clyde N. Wilson on Rebellion

A Little Rebellion

Scandalously, Thomas Jefferson once wrote to James Madison, “I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and is as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.” writes Dr. Clyde N. Wilson -retired professor of History at USC and one of my favorite authors.

He continues:

Persistent misrepresentation of Jefferson’s words here and elsewhere by later generations has obscured what he meant. A dangerous radical? A chronic upsetter of social order? No. Jefferson does not call for an overturn of society and its reconstruction according to some abstract plan. Think of the root meaning of the term revolution. Jefferson, in fact, is mostly satisfied with his society (Virginia), although he is interested in a few small reforms that might broaden its base. So are his followers satisfied with their portions of America. That is why they support him. Despite the hysterical and sometimes insincere denunciations of the New England clergy, the Virginia planter is no Jacobin. As he sees things, any government, with the passage of time and the accretion of abuses and bad precedents, becomes corrupted. It needs to be revolved back to its original principles.

In sum Dr. Wilson argues that the entire reason the Occupy Wall Street movement has any traction at all with its socialist and communist ideas is because conservative America long ago lost its will to fundamentally set the system back to our previous natural and good order.

Burglars Target Shop While Owners at Hospital

ANDERSON COUNTY, S.C. -- While John Olihan was at his wife's side during a chemotherapy treatment, burglars targeted his boat repair shop on Highway 187.

The burglary at J's Marine was the second time thieves had broken into the shop. Twelve hours earlier, Kristopher Paul Liebe was arrested after Anderson County deputies said Liebe was spotted with burglary tools on the property....

Read more: http://www.wyff4.com/news/29668928/detail.html#ixzz1cxDhvqUF

It seems this will all just get worse as the economy continues to fail.

Upstate Power Grab

From South Carolina Campaign for Liberty


Friends of South Carolina,

How does an obscure study by an out of state think tank become the law of the land?

In South Carolina, Hugh Leatherman teams up with his Democratic buddies to create a new government agency tasked with implementing it, that’s how!

You read that right! Republican (in name at least) Hugh Leatherman teamed up with seven Democrats to create a new agency with the authority to, among other things, manage the economy, education, healthcare, infrastructure, and financial structures of 17 counties along I-95.

And from the looks of this e-mail blast from “Ten at the Top,” an NGO (non-governmental organization) working to implement Agenda 21 in the South Carolina upcountry, an I-85 Corridor Authority is likely in the works for the near future, as well.

Leatherman is the sole Republican sponsor of this “I-95 Corridor Authority” bill, S211. His liberal buddies, Matthews, Land, Leventis, Hutto, Williams, Ford, and McGill all co-sponsored the bill with him to create this new agency.

I wrote about this new agency’s power and who will wield itearlier.

Fortunately, the Governor vetoed this bill. However the Senate handily overrode the veto 30 – 10.

Now, we have one last chance to stop this mammoth new agency.  But only if we can get the House to vote to sustain the governor’s veto.

A list of Representatives who voted to create this monstrosity is at the end of this e-mail.

Contact your representative, no matter how they voted the first time, and tell them to sustain the governor’s veto of S211.

This new agency, according to S211, will “oversee the implementation of the recommendations contained in the I-95 Corridor Human Needs Assessment published in December 2009.”

This Assessment makes 64 recommendations for action.  All 64 will become required by law if this veto is not sustained. Some are very specific, but most are very broad, general suggestions, like recommendation 4.4.1, “Encourage consolidation of water services”. How... to what end... with what means? Those questions are not answered and are left up to this new agency to determine. But whatever they determine, they will be required to “encourage consolidation of water services”... by law if this veto is not sustained.And since this edict and many others in this Assessment are not circumscribed with limitations of any kind, they become a wide open avenue to abuse of power and authority.

Here are some of the recommendations that will become law if the House overrides the governor’s veto:

• Recommendation 1.1.4: “Foster greater use of public-private partnerships.”  Yeah... like the SCRA and the Inovista projects that work so well. Insert sarcasm here!
• Recommendation 1.2.1: “Act as a political block.” Really?  Are these counties going to merge into one super county?  Are the needs of Beaufort county the same as the needs of Marlboro County?  And the General Assembly thinks they can be forced to act together as a political block.  Yeah.
• Recommendation 2.1.4: “Broker linkages between people, communities, and industries.”  Huh.   What exactly does that mean?  No matter... if this veto is overridden, it becomes a requirement for implementation and a wide avenue to abuse of power because the Authority can make it mean anything they want.
• Recommendation 2.4.5 is one of my favorites: “Leverage the region’s agricultural base in innovative ways to feed new markets and cultivate agritourism.” Agritourism?  Hahahaha!   Corn mazes are going to save our economy?  That, by itself, should convince folks to never let government plan our economy!

Well, that is just a short sampling. And I haven’t even touched on how it “recommends” that the educational system be improved, or how to “close the infrastructure gap,” or even how to “target disparities in health and social services.”

Maybe I’ll list some more in a future mailing.

Until then, please, contact your State Representative today and tell him to sustain the governor’s veto of S211, The I-95 Corridor Authority Act.  It is vital to the future wellbeing of our state to stop this thing!

Our State Representatives are our last chance to prevent this huge growth in the size, spending, and authority of our state government!

You can find who your State Representative is at this link by entering your zip code.

Below, you can see a list of all the Representatives who voted for this boondoggle and who chose not to vote at all.

The House will vote on the veto on January 10th when they reconvene for the new year.  We need 1/3 of SC House to vote to sustain the governor’s veto so we can stop this agency before it gets created!

Please contact your Representative and tell him or her to sustain the governor’s veto on S211, the I-95 Corridor Authority Act.

Thanks for all you do!

Let me know what your Representative says! I am keeping score.


Best Regards,

Talbert Black, Jr.
Interim State Coordinator
Campaign for Liberty

P.S. Remember, in order to stop this further increase in the power and authority of our runaway legislature, contact your State Representative today and tell him or her to sustain the governor’s veto of the I-95 Corridor Authority.

We must stop the creation of this new state agency that will be given almost unlimited authority and will be directed by the state legislature.

Contact your Representative today!

Original vote record for the I-95 Corridor Authority:

These members voted for the I-95 Corridor Authority:

Alexander, Allen, Allison, Anderson, Atwater, Bales, Ballentine, Bannister, Barfield, Battle, Bingham, Bowen, Bowers, Brady, Branham, Brannon, Brown H.B., Brown R.L., Butler, Clemmons, Clyburn, Cobb-Hunter, Cole, Dillard, Edge, Erickson, Forrester, Frye, Funderburk, Gambrell, Gilliard, Hardwick, Harrell, Harrison, Hart, Hayes, Hearn, Herbkersman, Hodges, Horne, Hosey, Huggins, Jefferson, Johnson, King, Knight, Loftis, Lowe, Lucas, Mack, Mitchell, Moss D.C., Moss V.S., Munnerlyn, Murphy, Neal J.H., Neal J.M., Neilson, Ott, Parker, Parks, Pinson, Pitts, Rutherford, Sabb, Sandifer, Sellers, Skelton, Smith G.M., Smith J.E., Smith J.R., Sottile, Spires, Stavrinakis, Tallon, Thayer, Toole, Tribble, Jr, Weeks, Whipper, White, Whitmire, Williams

These members were present but didn’t vote for or against:

Agnew, Anthony, Bikas, Brantley, Brown G.A., Chumbly, Crawford, Crosby, Daning, Govan, Hiott, Howard, Limehouse, McCoy, McEachern, Stringer, Willis

These were members were absent and didn’t vote:

Hixon, McLeod, Merrill, Pope, Vick

These two were not elected at the time of the vote:

Putnam, Southard

Those not listed voted against the I-95 Corridor Authority.

On Display at The University of South Carolina

Mary Boykin Chesnut’s diary offers a first-person view of the Civil War from the upper reaches of Southern society. She details what it was like to sit atop a house in Charleston, S.C., and watch the shelling of Fort Sumter, and, later, what it was like in Chester, S.C., to receive news of Robert E. Lee’s surrender at Appomattox, with “the Elite of the Confederacy — going and coming — and when night comes … more beds are made on the floor of the landing place. …The whole house is a bivouac.’ Read More

The original diary is housed in Columbia, this is perhaps the best resource for a first person experience of the War from start to finish.  Anyone that has never read the words of Mary Boykin Chesnut has missed an experience.