Wednesday, June 29, 2005


There is so much to say, there always is. It seems that there is more to say than there is time in available.

I could talk about the Department of Defense's new policy requiring bloggers in Iraq and Afghanistan to "register" their blogs. Imagine that, I guess they got their lead from China and their mandate to bloggers. You know it is just impossible to tell a lie believably if pesky folks keep telling the other side of the story.

I could post my usual bit about the meaning of the 4th of July, ah but I am certain many of my compatriots will do an adequate job of this.

I thought the other day of posting a detailed rant on the recent Supreme Court rulings and how we paleo-conservatives have gotten it wrong on these issues. We are mad that the court ruled wrongly when our righteous indignation ought to be focused on the fact that the court is even hearing cases dealing with property rights, a States' Rights issue.

I thought of posting a critique of the July GQ article about Christian Exodus. But then I thought and despite the fact that the article portrayed some issues wrongly it was generally fair. Folks will read that article from the perspective in which they live, those that "get it" will understand, others will not. I believe ultimately the article will serve much good for our cause.

A couple months back I asked for some assistance in getting the word out about our new Christian Exodus blog. We considered starting a blog before but the knowledge that the GQ article was coming out spurred us to action. I appreciate the plugs and links that many of my readers provided. Your links assisted us in getting the page indexed by the search engines and listed on blog directories. My goal to have the site "deeply searchable" before the article appeared was achieved thanks to you. All I really hoped for was a tool to allow people that read the magazine article the chance to see a little deeper into us. I hope and pray that we gain a few additional supporters because of these efforts. I view this as a small victory.

Other small victories I count among my blogging efforts include meeting a small group of like-minded souls. My readership is not large but I can name almost everyone that consistently reads, comments or emails me. I have learned much from your opinions and questions and I have been enlightened by your writing.

I ask myself now what ought to rightly be my next goal. I have a pretty firm idea. I believe I have achieved as much as I can at the present through my blogging efforts. I have now a group of folks that I believe I can dialogue with from time to time. I also have found a couple of folks that I see as potential movers and shakers within the paleo-conservative movement (maybe not giants but men of great potential nonetheless). I am gladdened by this. In point of fact the knowledge that there are others much more capable than myself fighting the fight encourages me greatly.

I have decided to cease my blogging activity for a time. I need to fix the mark I hope to leave within our movement, no matter how small history may deem that to be. It will take me some time to work this out and I suspect I will be emailing a couple of you to ask for assistance once I have this idea shaped into an executable plan.

Until then, it has been grand dialoguing with you. I sincerely appreciate each and every person that has taken their time to read my writing on various sites. I will be back with my project firmly in hand and a renewed sense of purpose. Please feel free to email me in the interim, especially to my blogger friends that may write something especially important. I will most likely avoid reading blogs much to quell my urge to blog myself, but I would be interested in occasional reminders to check out particular post, I really mean that.

My heart belongs to God, my love to my family, my duty to my home. May Providence grant us the courage to persevere, the wisdom to overcome and the stamina to endure.

Tuesday, June 28, 2005

Irony defined

" Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land."

New member(s) of the Alliance

Y'all please welcome our newest member in the Rebel Alliance Sarx. I think I will enjoy his posts.

Also check out Brandi over at Book of Beginnings; Story Without End. I am very pleased to have another South Carolina blogger join our alliance.

Monday, June 27, 2005

U.S. Sen. Barack Obama on Lincoln

Obama, who occupies the U.S. Senate seat from Illinois that Lincoln lost to Stephen Douglas in 1858, wrote about how Lincoln shaped his life in an upcoming special issue of Time magazine.

"'I cannot swallow whole the view of Lincoln as the Great Emancipator,' Obama said. 'As a law professor and civil rights lawyer and as an African-American, I am fully aware of his limited views on race. Anyone who actually reads the Emancipation Proclamation knows it was more a military document than a clarion call for justice.'"

Thursday, June 23, 2005

Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes

"A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth often is at war with individual property rights."

Tuesday, June 21, 2005

My dander is up

Below are a few interesting excerpts from a woman named Karen E. Pansler. Some poor woman sent me a dozen emails begging me to "turn from my pagan ways and accept the bounty and peace provided to us by God in the form of our perfect Union". She sent me links and snippets from this Pansler woman as well as other sites such as Justice at the Gates and Global Harvest. This was essentially the inspiration for my last post.

I will comment a bit on some of the more interesting items.

While digging for the origins of hate groups, I unburied the horrifying truth: hate groups are rooted in ancient pagan religions. The Ku Klux Klan, Neo Confederates, and other white supremacist cults are rooted in the occult; therefore, they are anti-Christ. We must pray that the truth will lead them out of the darkness and into the light.

Look lady (if I may presume to call you that - I apologize for my subtle but implied ad hominem attack) it is ridiculous to lump everyone with Southern sentiments into the same bag. To describe me or the folks I associate with as members of a hate group is absurd.

The Celts who worshipped many gods. For example, Celtics held warriors in great regard; therefore, therewere many Celtic warrior and battle gods. This reminds me of the Civil War movie that Neo-Confederates idolize: "Gods and Generals." Yes, the Neo-Confederates glorify warfare and worship Confederate generals just as the Celts worshipped their warrior gods. Simply put, the Neo-Confederates are idolaters; they worship ancestral warring spirits. Many are unknowingly practicing pagan religion.

What can I say, my Stretch Armstrong I had 30 year ago could not bend that much, this is indeed a stretch of an argument.

Meanwhile, every day Neo-Confederate re-enactors brainwash our children with
subtle subversive propaganda disguised as "historical interpretation." Every day, they give their "historical interpretations" to thousands of innocent schoolchildren and organizations such as the Boys Scouts of America. We know what they're doing - programming youth to be Neo-Confederate war heroes. Sadly, their fascination with war heroes leads to a morbid worship of dead Confederates. For example, under the guise of community service, schoolchildren are duped into restoring and maintaining Confederate tombstones and cemeteries. Sometimes Neo-Confederates also restore and maintain early Black cemeteries to cover their true motive - Confederate hero worship - and to underhandedly try to prove their patriarchal attitude toward Blacks. Don't forget - the Neo-Confederates are sneaky! They keep their true motive undercover!

Classic, now we are not only pagans but hypocrites and sneaky nefarious conspirators.

In addition, CSA iron crosses with the words DEO VINDICE mark the Confederate veterans' graves. Deo Vindice means "God Will Vindicate" or "God Vindicates." For the Neo-Confederates, the Confederate iron cross is a symbol of hatred. Like the Nazis, the Neo-Confederates take the cross, a symbol of love and peace, and use it as a symbol of hate and warfare. They replace the cross of Calvary with the cross of hell. Sadly, looking across this cemetery, the Confederate iron crosses conjure up images of Nazi Germany.

You just knew that the association with the Nazi's was coming didn't you?

Specifically, Neo-Confederates are not just members in a subversive organization. They go beyond mere passive membership to overt actions such as teaching doctrines intended to indoctrinate students to push for a second civil war. In other words, Neo-Confederates have a specific intent to further the unlawful aims of the Neo-Confederacy. Clearly, they are planting the seeds of sedition.

Yes, we are bad seditious revolutionaries. Darn it woman have you ever read history?

Because Neo-Confederates willfully reject the truth and set themselves up as idols, as judicial punishment, God sends them blindness so that they believe their lies. As a result, they become perverse calling "evil good, and good evil." The Bible condemns them. "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" (Isaiah 5:20) Simply put, God allows their hearts and minds to be shackled to a strong delusion. Their own willfulness is the cause of their ruin. They are walking in spiritual darkness. However, God is not willing that any should perish. They are suffering from vain self-delusions of grandeur and they must be led out of the darkness and into the light.

Ah yes, call us idolaters too - just in case your other weak arguments were not enough to create a real sense of loathing toward us.

So, when will we take seriously the Neo-Confederate plot to destroy our nation? When these evildoers begin to terrorize us? After their first surprise attack killing hundreds or thousands of Americans? Or, like in Hitler's case, after they already hold political power and are too strong for us to quickly overpower? Remember, we are dealing with religious fanatics who at any minute may dismiss their plans for peaceful, political secession in favor of violent liberation. Of course, it's also possible they're lying about first attempting political secession before resorting to violence.

Good grief you cackling hen, are you now implying we are terrorist? I suppose you would lump us in the same category as the folks that bombed your towers of mercantilism.

My people have never terrorized anyone. When have we demonstrated a propensity to use terror? In our history there has never been a massive slaughter of indigenous people, we have had no "marches to the sea", fire bombings of cities or the unleashing of atomic horror. Can you say the same for the government you worship?

We must act now! Let me repeat, we must act as if they are planning to attack us today. Why are we waiting? Listen to what Patrick Henry said in his famous speech to the Virginia Convention in 1775:

Yes, do listen to Patrick Henry; we do. We hear the voices of brave men calling out across the pages of history.

Enough of this, my apologies for allowing my dander to rise. My apologies for what is apparently a condescending attitude toward this woman because she is a woman. She is wrong and the fallacies of her arguments speak loud enough. There are plenty enough men with equally idiotic notions running around.

Sunday, June 19, 2005

Fathers and Forefathers

I read a very interesting attack on those of us that revere our Southern heritage recently. It seems that some equate our dedication to the heroes of our cause and to our prominent forefathers as nothing any less sinister than pagan "warrior-god" worship.

Ah, before we turn off all consideration of this apparently ridiculous viewpoint let us consider for a moment the real facts.

It is undeniably true that Southern culture was primarily influenced by the Scots-Irish that settled the backcountry. It is also true that The Scots-Irish retained many qualities and attributes - centuries old customs really - and carried these customs with them from Scotland to Ireland and then to America. Among these traits include, rugged individualism, disdain for authority outside of the local community, a warrior spirit, love for home and hearth, a dedication to kin and a reverence for the past - not to mention a personal relationship with God.

The argument that our reverence for the great leaders of our past is based upon Pagan traditions is only partly true. It is only as true as stating that if a group of people enjoyed certain meals before their conversion to Christianity then for that culture to still enjoy that meal after conversion must certainly be a Pagan tradition. That may be an over simplification but I think it is fair to state that God created man and the differences in man and our various cultures. The Celtic peoples certainly were not the first to receive the revelation of Christianity, nor did they readily accept foreigners preaching to them but receive and accept the word they eventually did.

In fact, it may be stated with a lot of voracity that it was within Scotland that the revival of simple Christianity found the most fertile ground. The Reformation had many contributors and many points of significant action but it was within the Kirks and the Presbyterian church in Scotland that much was accomplished. The historic Christianity of the South owes much more to the theology and practice of Scotland than it does to the radical doctrines of the Puritans and the other sects that settled in the North.

The rugged peoples that settled in the upcountry regions of the South came primarily from Scotland (via a brief stay in Ulster Ireland). The migration became around 1670 and continued until the outbreak of the Revolutionary War. My own family made this trip in 1690.

I have read various figures that place the total population of Scots-Irish in the backcountry areas of the South as high as 80% prior to the Revolutionary War. Furthermore these were prolific people, working simple farms. Large families were the order of the day. The smattering of other ethnic groups settling in these areas were ultimately assimilated into the cultural mores of the Scots-Irish.

Certainly the lowcounrty and tidewater plantation owners were not of Scots-Irish stock, they were English in origin and Anglican in religious persuasion. They were aristocratic in world-view. There is much that these people added to our collective culture but they are the minority and did not shape us as a people nearly as much as Hollywood would portray.

It is fair enough to state that the South is a Scots-Irish culture at our foundation. I could go on and on with the justification that this is so but I believe it is undeniable. Our music, our traditions, our religious beliefs, our warrior spirit, our individualism, love of home and kin - all of this are in our blood and a result of the very people that came before us.

So if we admit that many of our traditions are essentially Scottish it seems we might naturally be a target for attack by misguided "religious people". The Celts were the last major people in Europe to receive and accept Christianity. This is due to many facts, not the least of which this hardy, individualistic people looked askance and any intrusion coming north of Hadrian's wall. The Romans tried and failed to convert us to their way of life, the Saxons and then the Normans tried as well. The English succeeded where other failed.

It is important to note that nobody conquered and converted the Scots. Scotland was first evangelized by as Celt known as Ninian around 370 AD. The Scottish people accepted and embraced Christianity within the confines of their culture. There was never the possibility of an episcopalian type organization taking hold in Scotland. The Scots were loyal to strong leaders and to their families but completely unwilling to submit to a top down organizational structure.

Is it really pagan that we retain a healthy respect for our forefathers? I say no and I challenge any "religious"(I say religious because this argument seems to me very un-Christian) person to show me where my God tells me otherwise. Is not honoring the memory of the father of your father a natural extension of the commandment to honor your father and mother? Is the Old Testament not filled with genealogies? If folks that attack our ties to our history are truly fundamental in their interpretation f the Bible they surely must realize these genealogies serve more than one purpose. They are not provided merely to show a progression of time. They show the linkage of a people with their past.

Call me a Pagan if you will, I find this to be a baseless straw-man argument. I am proud to have within me the blood of people that have fought for their freedom for over 2000 years. We were pushed to the northern reaches of Europe in an attempt to escape the tyranny of Rome, We fought the British in an effort top maintain our freedom. We traveled across a great ocean to settle in backcountry areas that only Indians occupied. We fought the British when they refused to recognize our rights and we answered the call of our sovereign States when the Yankee empire made war upon us.

No, I will not forget my ancestors, I am blessed by God to be fortunate enough to have not only an earthy father worthy of respect and honor but also a line of sturdy men that lived, loved, fought and died for simple principles that are my inheritance.

On this fathers day I look to my earthly father with love and also remember all of the fathers in my line that came before.

Thursday, June 16, 2005

The Good Kennedys

Donnie Kennedy is gearing up for a presidential run in 2008. We in the Southern Movement know Donnie for his work with his brother in The South Was Right. This book did so much to bring a voice to the feelings of so many. In a very large part the modern Southern nationalism movement owes its very existence to this book.

James Ronald Kennedy has a new book entitled Reclaiming Liberty which is an articulation of the ideology of our movement developed over the last 14 years. To those that have been involved in the movement during this period you know of the great debates and conversations that precipitated the arrival at a solid ideological base.

We are not there yet. I believe it is imperative that more folks write even more books stating pieces and parts of the foundational issues that establish the justice of our cause. However this latest work is a definite step in the right direction and another weapon in our intellectual arsenal.

Donnie Kennedy plans to run in the Republican primaries in the hope of recapturing some of the conservative and Christian vote that has been so deluded by the lies and manipulations of the neo-conservatives.

What a monumental task that is. I applauded anyone that stands up for our cause. The simple act of bringing visibility to our issues, our goals and our ideology is worthwhile.

What is Donnie's plan?

Donnie's Plan To Free Dixie & America From Washington's liberal/socialist regime.

In 2008 Donnie Kennedy will enter the GOP Presidential Primary. A well organized South will be the base from which the campaign will be launched. This campaign will be plebiscite for Liberty. Regardless of the eventual outcome - and we plan to win -the ideas of Constitutional Liberty and enforceable States Rights will be normalized in America.

Donnie Kennedy will win the majority of the South's GOP delegates. Conservatives in many non Southern States will rally to this movement to overthrow the liberal/socialist regime that has been foisted upon America. Donnie Kennedy's delegates will pose a serious threat to the neo-cons and business-as-usual party hacks who control the GOP. With your help we will hang them on the horns of a dilemma - either accept our candidate on their 2008 ticket and endorse our call for a LBS in their platform or fact loosing the South in the upcoming and subsequent Presidential elections when Donnie Kennedy might initiate a third party effort. See Regaining Liberty by James Ronald Kennedy at

Sounds optimistic you say. Sounds wonderful to me but I would agree it is a bit optimistic. What I do not want to see is yet another flavor of good ideas presented among a choice of one or two other good ideas opposing the monstrous two party system.

It is possible that Donnie may in fact win some victories in the South, but at what cost? The Constitution Party is working hard to build a real alternative party. It is my hope that Donnie works hard with the Constitution party. It is my hope that wise heads come together and take advantage of this situation.

I would love to see Donnie run in the Republican primary. I would love to see him draw out many Southern Christian conservative supporters from the GOP. I would hope that if he can successfully do this that the Constitution Party would take note and put Donnie on the presidential ballot in 2008. It does not mater to me at that point if he ran as the VP on the Constitution Party ticket or as the front man with a CP regular as VP.

This is an opportunity to truly join forces. The Southern movement will rally behind Donnie and he will at least make a few waves in the Southern states during the GOP primary. I believe he will reach out to and draw in many disillusioned GOP Christians.

If everyone (leadership) keeps their egos in check and if every one places the greater cause of a return to Constitutional principles and true liberty as a top priority this may just be the event that could create a real Southern voting block. This could be the thing the Constitution Party needs to rise to the status of a party that can elect candidates - certainly not presidential candidates just yet but the wave of support might enable local and state victories.

I hope and pray that as this situation develops folks take the right road, put aside small differences and concentrate on gaining some real ground.

My hopes are for a Peroutka/ Kennedy ticket in 2008 on the Constitution Party ticket with a whole lot of former GOP supporters rallying to the cause. (this of course after a strong Southern GOP primary showing by Donnie) I would love to see some real victories at the state and local level among Constitution Party candidates and/or fusion candidates - constitutionally minded conservative Republicans running on both the Constitution and Republican party tickets.

Tuesday, June 14, 2005

Open Request

Open letter to my Southron Nationalist, Traditionalist, Paleo-Conservative, Libertarian, Constitutionalist and Patriot friends:

I invite you to take a look at a recent article I rote dealing with the de facto nature of the Federal government (versus de jure). Located HERE

I am attempting to begin and articulation and formation of an ideological foundation of our collective cause. At the very core of all that is wrong in our nation I believe we can trace historically and dispassionately the very events that signaled a departure from the old Republic and the birth of the current system.

I believe every argument and conflict we freedom loving people have with the actions of the current system might be traced to this one event. All else flows out of this departure from the government of our founders, a government based upon law and constrained by the purpose and intent of the Constitution. Our current system is based upon the notion of a "living Constitution" a democracy (as opposed to a Republic) and judge-made law.

I firmly believe that if we can fully articulate this common point of contention, the very event that has allowed all the actions and events we individually and collectively oppose, we might truly find a rally point for our efforts. Abominations like the 14th Amendment, the income tax, Social Security, Abortion, the assault on gun rights, tyrannical police powers and a down hill train approaching socialism all stem from a fundamental change in our form of government.

I invite comments on my post but more importantly I encourage you to take up this effort with me. Write, discuss and consider these issues. It is important that we finally stop fighting against individual, single scope issues and focus instead on the fundamental difficulties with our system. We will only accomplish that with a fully articulated and much discussed argument against that fundamental wrong.

Friday, June 10, 2005

Strained US Army relaxes new officer requirements

Reuters AlertNet - Strained US Army relaxes new officer requirements: "The U.S. Army, facing recruiting woes and a reorganized force, will relax requirements for new officers, welcoming older candidates and allowing more tolerance of past minor crimes, officials said on Thursday"

I mentioned the other day that this entire recruiting thing would have a long-term and significant impact on the quality of the Army. So now minor criminals can join the ranks of the morally decrepit officer corps.

Why is this important? Officers are the leaders of the force. The army already suffers under the strains of affirmative action programs forced upon it in recruiting. We do not recruit the best and brightest if quotas are not met and have not for some years.

Already the organizational culture dismisses men of real character and conviction. It is the officer appointed by Congress that is supposed to be the last bulwark between right and wrong. It is the officer that through their moral courage ought to be standing for what is right.

Without such men the Army becomes nothing more than a tool that politicians might use as they will to wage war no matter how immoral or wrong. It is a weak officer corps that allows prisoner abuses, and violation of the Laws of War as well as common human decent behavior.

Oh yeah, this is big. Turn the leadership into a bunch of moral cowards, fill it with folks that have already demonstrated wrong behavior and you have the recipe for an Army that would march in any direction and fight anyone.

A republic is ought to be restrained by separation of powers in the federal government, sovereignty in the composite states so that nullification might occur and a solid, dedicated and morally incorruptible officer corps leading the armed forces. Such a Republic could never engage in blatant wrong because too many people would have the ability to say "no".

We have lost the sovereignty of the states so nullification is not longer a practical option. Separation of powers is an illusion as evidenced by Bush making war without a Congressional declaration. Now the last straw, the officer corps is being weakened beyond repair. Very soon, as this new crop of criminals rises to real leadership positions the Army will be lead by thugs willing to apply force anywhere, anytime one the mere orders of a man in the White House without regard to the Constitution or moral right.

Thursday, June 09, 2005

New member of the Alliance

Glad to have Tennessee Patriot join with us in the Rebel Alliance.

The Bees are arming themselves

A highly classified intelligence report produced for the new director of
national intelligence concludes that U.S. spy agencies failed to recognize
several key military developments in China in the past decade, The Washington
Times has learned.

The report was created by several current and former
intelligence officials and concludes that U.S. agencies missed more than a dozen
Chinese military developments, according to officials familiar with the report.

The report blames excessive secrecy on China's part for the failures,
but critics say intelligence specialists are to blame for playing down or
dismissing evidence of growing Chinese military capabilities. From The
Washington Times

So spies blame the folks they are spying on for being too "secretive"?

I have done some analysis in my day; I am certainly trained to do this sort of work. From my perspective using nothing more than open-source documents, i.e. things you might find on the Net even if they are buried, this is not surprise at all.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said in Singapore over the weekend that
China has hidden its defense spending and is expanding its missile forces
despite facing no threats.

Now that is classic. The evidence of a fairly aggressive, if subtle, US policy and strategy leading toward the full-on capability of encirclement and containment is everywhere. The words of the policy makers in the current administration prior to 9/11 proved their concern about China’s potential. The various strategies they batted around were certainly nothing less than subtle aggression. You simply cannot muck with another nation to such a large degree and not expect them to feel threatened.

I am no lover of the ChiCom. If we must face them then so be it. To go about provoking a fight and then to claim surprise and ignorance when the dragon bucks up a little and prepares to take you on is intellectually and morally dishonest.

It is no secret to anyone that knows that the Chinese gutted their conventional forces in the last years and cut hundreds of thousands of positions from their enormous army. They did this in an effort to modernize. Their efforts have been to scale their forces, insert technology and develop a real ability to reach out and touch people.

All of this is relevant, it is a fact. We are indeed on a course that will collide with China. The only question that nobody seriously asks is why.

Is it not possible to ignore them, to stand down on our global crusade of democratization, to withdraw from entangling alliances, to restrain our taste from consumerism? Yes it is possible but not likely to happen.

So long as the American people are more concerned with comfort and profit rather than real security and doing what is right there will be politicians all to willing to acquiesce to their desires.

It is far too late for the United States to return to the proper course of armed and vigilant neutrality in foreign policy and economic affairs. The Yankee Imperialist heritage of domination, subjugation and exploitation is written on the backs of us Southerners, the American Indian, Hawaiians, Filipinos and numerous others. Their world in built upon profit. They cannot retreat to a more peaceable way of existence. It is not within the world-view that drives their empire.

We few inheritors of Southern and Christian culture have one real choice. We may align ourselves with the empire-building fools that are so willing to stick our collective hands in the bees' nest just to taste the honey OR we can resolve to separate from this insanity and allow them to fight the battles of their making alone.

Wednesday, June 08, 2005


A little more on the Neo-Conservatives, taken from an article by Michael Blumenthal in the Guardian (yes a liberal wacko but even they get parts of the truth right some time)

But now George Bush is building a leviathan beyond Nixon's imagining. The Bush
presidency is the highest stage of Nixonism...the CIA is being purged, the justice
department deploying its resources to break down the wall of separation between
church and state, the Environmental Protection Agency being ordered to suppress
scientific studies and the Pentagon subsuming intelligence and diplomacy,
leaving the US with blunt military force as its chief foreign policy.

Indeed, George Bush is no fool, he has cobbled together a system that Lincoln, Roosevelt or Nixon could only dream of.

And as for neo-conservatives and their view of principles:

With perfect Nixonian pitch, Cheney remarked in 1976: "Principle is OK up to a certain point, but principle doesn't do any good if you lose." During the Iran-contra scandal Cheney, a republican leader in the House of Representatives, argued that the congressional report denouncing "secrecy, deception and disdain for the law" was an encroachment on executive authority.

No Cheney, secrecy is ok; some things must be kept from public consumption. However, we have an executive and legislative branch. The abandonment of the law and secret cabals within the government are not ok. The founders put checks and balances in place for the very purpose of preventing a few men from dragging the entire nation into difficulty. To this Southern man principles ARE important, much more important than winning short-term gains. The neo-conservatives fail to understand this and that is their major flaw.

Then of course there is this from Howard Dean --

Republicans are a pretty monolithic party. They all behave the same. They all look the same. It's pretty much a white Christian party.

Go hear the audio over at The Nashville Truth.

I almost completely ignore the liberals in my rants nowadays; us paleoconservatives and the neo-conservatives can generally agree the democrats and professed liberals are just wrong. The difference is that to the paleoconservative the liberal position is so far off the scale it is not worthy of debate. It is literally impossible to seriously consider their point of view.

The one thing the liberals do that is ever so damaging to the cause of true conservatives is the very thing Dean has done. By attacking Christianity and implying that the Republican Party is a legitimate home of conscious voting Christians the liberals only serve to legitimize the neo-conic viewpoint. Many Christians feel threatened by such remarks and seek a home of like minded folks, which they naturally come to believe they will find in the Republican Party.
Even when the neo-con and liberal fight they support each other!!

The fate of an Army

"Officials said Wednesday that although the Army will not release its numbers until Friday, it fell about 25 percent short of its target of signing up 6,700 recruits in May. The gap would have been even wider but for the fact that the target was lowered by 1,350" from The Washington Post

This is the fourth month in a row the recruiting goal has been missed.

Prior to four years ago I dedicated a lot of my energy and thoughts to how the course of the Army ought to be corrected. There are many worrisome difficulties that the uninitiated simply cannot see. The massive drawdown of the early 90's served only to accentuate these problems. I recall a lot of good folks leaving and I suffered trough the many bad that stayed.

The Army, and military, in general are far outside of the moral, ethical, quality and organizational position it really ought to hold. All the chatter of transformation is nothing more than mere talk and some shifting of assets. Nobody has seriously addressed the real difficulties; an overgrown and incompetent officer corps that current exists in a higher proportion to troops than at any time previous, an incompetent NCO corps more concerned with achieving rank and privileges than leading and training soldiers, a decay of solid values based upon true American ideals.

Oh yes, I could go on. Back in the late 1990's several strong voices began to emerge and shout the truth. For a time I thought that an army organized and rooted in principles might emerge. Alas, all of those fine men left the service, before retirement (they gave up).

I stopped long ago with real concerns for transforming the military. I serve and do the best I can for the soldiers in my charge (many fine and brave souls). I have come to know without a doubt that the Army is but a reflection of the nation, government and people that it serves. I should expect it to be no better.

I can say only this. The problems lurking just under the surface that were so obvious to honest men in the late 1990's have not gone away. The failure to recruit and the necessary change in policies to keep adequate numbers will only serve to make things much worse in the long-term.

If the neo-conservatives fear China so much they ought to consider fundemental changes before they truly go off and pull the tail of a dragon.

A Republic worthy of defense requires soldiers dedicated to principles upon which the Republic stands. The only occurrence in US history when we have realized this unique combination of principled men and right organization was in the period 1830-1860. Since that time the US government has been served progressively by a "professional" army that looks more and more like a mercenary army.

Of course it might rightly be argued that a Republic that has abandoned its roots to become a Democracy, makes war on other nations based upon lies and false beliefs, allows the murder of millions of innocents within its borders, and denies God his rightful place does not qualify as an entity worthy of defense in any event.

I have said more than I intended, for to me these issues do not matter so much any more. Change must occur but it must happen in culture and values of society in general if ever the military is to truly be righted.

Tuesday, June 07, 2005

Emails concerning my China posts

I am amazed at the amount of email generated by my last three post. Some folks ask if I have slipped off the edge of reality. Other state that my assertions are just too nefarious and nobody in a position of power would actually consider planning policy in such a way.

I can only say that you will never find any neo-con fully articulating what I have assigned to their position. Obviously they could not. How would that look to anyone else. Imagine the response.

"You invaded one country to contain another?"

Those that dismiss that China policy had a great deal to do with the War in Iraq are viewing the world too simply. The world really is not linear to the neo-conservative. They may speak in terms of Good and Evil, this is for public consumption. Behind the scenes their intelligentsias see a much more complex universe.

To demonstrate some of the things that played into the decision to invade Iraq consider this. (all can be gleaned from neo-conic writing if you read enough of it)

1) Ordinary Americans were very supportive of kicking somebody's butt after 9/11. The smallest linkage was enough to satisfy the need for retribution. This provided an opportunity.

2) Fundamentalist Christians are very supportive of any US action that offers more security to Israel. The idea of spreading "democracy" to Iraq sold well.

3) The US policy of Double Containment in the Mid-East (Iraq and Iran) was never more than marginally successful and always in danger of catastrophic failure. In the neo-conic equation the solution was to eliminate a variable. Point one above offered an opportunity to act.

4) As discussed previously, the neo-cons fear China, they are unwilling to propose fundamental changes in trade (consumerism and capitalism reign supreme) and are therefore forced to seek a strategy that allows engagement economically while offering the real threat of containment. The carrot and the stick.

5) Iraq was unlucky enough to have a stupid tyrant as its leader, be strategically positioned geographically where fundamental change would simultaneously support the containment policy against Iran and that of China.

All of these combined to shape a piece of the neo-conservatives foreign policy plans. It was as case of capability meets opportunity.

No one would propose that any one of these items alone were the only reason that we invaded Iraq. As I said it is just much more complicated than that. The invasion was a combination of colliding events that presented opportunities to take the initiative in a much broader strategic arena.

Many folks have written to me to say (I will paraphrase the six letters that expressed this sentiment)

"Hey you might be right. I did not realize that Rice had said those things about containment or that the Chinese themselves feared containment or that think-tanks had thought seriously about the possibly of restricting the flow of oil to China as a containment strategy. So what? China is a threat, just like the Soviet Union was a threat. We need to stand up to them before they get a real chance to threaten us."

Here lies the difficulty. Such a question bespeaks of you and I having a very different world-view. The very thing that the neo-conservatives so desperately want to avoid, i.e. conflict with China is exactly what they will engender.

China, because of historical dealings, has a deeply ingrained distrust of Western trade practices and foreign policy. Their security analyst predicted this move by the west in the early 90's. If they become more hostile, politically or militarily it is because they become akin to a cornered animal.

I do not dispute that this grand plan to encircle and subtly threaten China while concurrently pressuring their social, economic and political institutions MAY in fact work. It just may, then again it could fail. I in my youth stood on a wall in a foreign country and looked eye to eye with the soldiers of the Evil Empire. Young men did the same for 45 years. Containment of the Soviet Union behind walls may have been the only option. If the neo-con plan fails and China, cornered and afraid, retreats behind a wall in the face of an overwhelming enemy and this stalemate encompasses a generation of lives it is abstract failure. This is a distinct possibility that may result from the neo-con strategy.

To the paleo-conservative or Southern Nationalist the problem with this strategy is clear. Historically we have never gone looking for a fight, either in foreign policy or in our individual lives. To be sure we will not meekly sit by and let anyone push us around, either individually or collectively. Our ancestors have demonstrated our willingness to fight in places like Inverurie, Stirling Bridge, Bannockburn, Cowpens, Yorktown and Gettysburg. .We do not start wars, but we certainly fight when required. This is the nature of the Southern people. It is in our blood and can be traced back to the Celts that have so influenced our culture. It is also part and parcel of our Christian upbringing. "Do unto others" is not just words to apply to an individual life, they apply to nations as well.

Look at our heroes, Jesus Christ, William Wallace, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Robert E. Lee, Thomas Jackson. What do their words and actions say about proper conduct toward others? What do their actions say about the nasty business of war?

Look at the heroes of the neo-conservatives. Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin D Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon.

What a cast of characters. Lincoln departed with almost 2000 yeas of western tradition and reintroduced the policy of making war on civilians. Teddy Roosevelt through his meddling in business greatly increased the power of the Federal government. FDR fundamentally changed the nature of government with The New Deal. Lyndon Johnson and his Great Society put the icing on the cake that FDR baked. Of course Nixon and his foreign policy remains the example to present neo-conservatives.

All of these men were pragmatist. They believed the world was too complicated to be held to standards of absolute right and wrong. They were progressives and considered compromise on core issues essential. To them, doing a little evil to perform what they say as a great good was ok.

This thinking applied to The Constitution, to luring other nations into war to achieve some other goal or in expanding the Federal government in ways it ought never to have been expanded to solve some contemporary problem.

It is as simple as this. Southern people have always been a people of principles. As Alexander Stephens said "times may change and men with them, but principles never." The Southerner that is true to blood, kin, home and principles knows these things. We are Paleo-Conservatives that are unwilling to compromise on principles. To us if China is a threat, we will deal with them, but we would not dare consider threatening them first or making war on another country because it presented a grand opportunity to gain a strategic advantage. This is contrary to all that we believe.

There is no middle ground on this issue. A Southern man cannot take a little of the compromisers position and still retain his heritage. Once we embrace the notions that are held by the empire builders, consumerism, unbridled capitalism, socialism, domestic tyranny in the name of security, and preemptive belligerence in the name of security we cease to have any birthright to the heritage of our forefathers.

The neo-conservative worldview is un-Christian, un-Southern, un-American and just plain wrong. It is time we focused our efforts exclusively on rebuilding our culture and gaining our independence from the neo-conservatives and their empire-in-the-making.

Monday, June 06, 2005

One more piece on China

"Amidst the many uncertainties looming over China's future political and economic circumstances, one thing is evident: whatever the pace of economic development may be, China must address its rapidly growing demand for natural energy and resources. Oil will be at the top of this list. Though China's energy mix will continue to be based on coal, with oil accounting for only about 20-25% of its overall primary energy consumption, the supply of this strategic fuel will remain of critical importance to China's security."

This is from a little piece written by the Brooking Institute back in 1999. It discussed in depth the dependencies of the growth of China as a super power with oil.

I just do not make these things up. I have read the tell-tell murmurings in the neo-conic journals for some time now about the need to cut China off at the pump. Iraq was simply too easy of a target with too much support back home. Iraq provides inroads into Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. Yes Gertrude we have troops there as well!!

This is China's back yard; it nearly completes the encirclement and sets the stage for de facto containment.

Consider some additional quotes from the piece relating to China and oil:

"As a result of these trends, the Middle East's share of China's oil imports, fluctuating roughly about 50%, could conceivably grow to 80% or more in the year 2010. Henceforth, with such a heavy dependence on the Middle East for oil, U.S. strategic domination over the entire region, including the whole lane of sea communications from the strait of Hormuz, will be perceived as the primary vulnerability of China's energy supply. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the key objective of China's oil strategy will be to avoid this strategic vulnerability."


"The other instrument used to create the necessary political atmosphere for its "energy-related" ties, is arms sales. Many states selling oil or oil concessions to China - Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Angola and Nigeria - are buyers of Chinese weapons. The purchase of weapons by these countries is viewed by Beijing not only as the construction of close "special" ties with the states, but also as an instrument by which to decrease its energy import bill."


"However, such aspects of U.S. energy policy towards China have become invalid with the reemergence of passionate "containment" sentiment in America. The negative developments in Chinese-American relations during 1999 have demonstrated quite visibly that the motivations for "containment" are deep rooted in the United States and cannot be attributed to the election cycle or current controversies among the U.S. political elite. Beijing could reasonably consider blocking access to their energy resources a possible future phase of "containment" policy. The perception gap between the United States and China will most probably continue to grow in the years to come."

This "possible future phase" is near at hand. Iraq was but the first step. now you know the rest of the story.

For the non-believers of the China Containment policy

"One of Beijing's worst nightmares seems to be coming true. Having apparently steadied the course in the Middle East, the Bush administration is turning to Asia to tame its long-standing 'strategic competitor.' While this particular term has been shelved since 9/11 and Sino-U.S. relations have improved thanks to China's cooperation with Washington's global anti-terrorist campaign there are signs at least from Beijing's perspective that Washington is spearheading multi-pronged tactics to contain the fast-rising Asian giant.

In the eyes of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leadership, the new doctrine of encirclement and containment was spelled out during a visit by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Tokyo, part of a recent tour through Asia. Echoing President Bush's State of the Union address, which pushed a foreign policy predicated upon 'spreading democracy,' Rice noted in a speech at Sophia University that 'even China must eventually embrace some form of open, genuinely representative government.' And she dropped hints that the U.S. would somehow bring about a democratic China through joint actions with its Asian allies. 'I really do believe the U.S.-Japan relationship, the U.S.-South Korea relationship, the U.S.-India relationship all are important in creating an environment where China is more likely to play a positive role than a negative role,' she added.

It didn't help that Rice saluted in her Sophia speech the father of the anti-Soviet containment policy George Kennan )who had just passed away) as one of the 'great architects of American foreign policy.' Kennan had written in a celebrated 1947 Foreign Affairs piece that 'the main element of any United States policy toward the Soviet Union must be that of a long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies." The Chinese must be very nervous about the possibility that Rice - and Bush - will simply substitute PRC for USSR.

After all, it was Rice who coined the phrase "strategic competitor" in a 2000 Foreign Affairs article about the need to adequately take on a fast-emerging China. "It is important to promote China's internal transition through economic interaction while containing Chinese power and security ambitions," she wrote.

Read the full article

Just check the political credentials of the Jamestown Foundation. They are not upset that the US is working a policy of containment, really they are upset that the Chinese have noticed this themselves.

Read the last sentence quoting Rice again:

It is important to promote China's internal transition through economic interaction while containing Chinese power and security ambitions.

The neo-cons have no intention of abandoning trade with China but they have ever intention of encircling and containing the giant.

Sunday, June 05, 2005

Why Iraq?

I will share something with you that will be uncomfortable. People often talk of the nature of the war in Iraq, how it began and the lies that precipitated it. We often talk of the utter and complete disregard for the Constitution in the waging of the war (i.e. no Congressional declaration of war).

None of this answers the real question as to why. Simple answers from the left claim it is all for oil. This is infinitely too simple and obviously born of a strategy on the left to appeal to their constituency. They needed a simple cause to rally against.

We paleo-conservatives also oppose the war but our articulation of our justifications carries little weight in the world of ideas. The fact is people just do not care that Bush violated the Constitution by waging war without a declaration. The Constitution is violated all the time in order to enact various programs that fit the popular desire. People also care little that all of the original justifications have proven to be false. There was no direct linkage between the terrorist and Iraq and Iraq had no real weapons of mass destruction. These are facts, we know them, others know them, but the general population does not care about these "trivialities" and "technicalities"

I believe it is time that we examine what the Republican Party has really become and what their real goals are if we are o articulate our objections completely. When it comes right down to it, there are two very different world views at work on the right.

First a word about the millions of supporters in the "Religious Right" that are the true the enablers of neo-conservative foreign policy. They have a world-view of their own that is much simpler that the complicated puzzle that the neo-con sees. To the religious right the US and Israel reign supreme in all foreign policy decisions. Any action of the US that supports Israel is a good policy in the Fundamentalist viewpoint. This is obviously an oversimplification. Fundamentalist are hardcore patriots that love the United States and fervently believe that the US has a God given role in the defense of the man-made nation-state of Israel. Their zeal toward the latter makes them the perfect supporters of neo-conservatives.

The world as envisioned by the neo-conservative is much more complicated. It is comprised of puzzle pieces that can be shaped and molded to fit an agenda. Their view of the world demands that they actively engage in shaping the pieces of the puzzle. To the neo-conservatives Israel is a piece that fits and the fundamentalist support that like that notion are valuable foot soldiers.

Here are two facts that I will not endeavor to prove. I think that the facts are undeniable but if anyone disputes these please let me know and I will elaborate. These facts are important in the dissection of the neo-cons view of the world.

1) The US is not dependent upon foreign energy supplies out of necessity but rather out of choice. We could in fact turn of the supply and continue on without a glitch for some time.
2) The US is currently unrivaled in the world and without a peer competitor in terms of military might or economic power.

If we accept these two facts then it is obvious that we did not go to war in Iraq because we need the oil. In fact with our current reserves and technological capability we could withdraw completely and never buy another barrel from any of those people and be just fine. We would develop alternative forms of energy.

Oil is however a key piece of the puzzle in terms of who becomes a peer competitor of the United States. Neither China nor Europe has sufficient reserves to turn off the supply. One our both of these nations will someday become a peer-competitor if the United States. (yes the European Union has been set back a few years from becoming a nation so they are less of a threat)

China on the other hand is ripe for an eventual rise to preeminence. They have recently gutted and begun a slow process of rebuilding their military with a preference to technology. They have embraced a socialized form of capitalism to spur industrial and technological growth of their economy. Their development into a true super-power will be slow but it is coming.

Our economy is based upon continuing growth and new markets. The neo-conservatives know it would be a difficult sell to business concerns to avoid a market like China. Likewise American consumers are unwilling to forsake cheap imports from China. Our desire for profit is the very thing that ignites the Chinese economy and will one day allow them to become a peer-competitor.

The neo-conservatives know this. Their strategy is to deny total control of necessary resources to the Chinese now, so that when they day come that the Eastern Dragon desires to raise its head it is incapable of truly doing so.

Their foreign policy is one of preemptive containment. In their mind if the puzzle pieces can be molded today to affect the outcome of events tomorrow then their efforts are worthwhile.

Neo-conservatives are not necessarily evil men. They believe they are global “do-gooders” spreading peace and preventing large wars by waging smaller ones in the name of Pax Americana.

The problems that we paleo-conservatives have with the neo-conservative world-view are many.

First they believe that security can be achieved by controlling the actions of others. They ignore that security might also be achieved by controlling our own actions. If the US exploited domestic reserves of energy and concurrently developed alternative means we could step back from the fray of Middle Eastern affairs. Likewise, if we adopted a more historically American view of the world and foreign policy, especially in terms of alliances we would engender much less hostility.

The most difficult idea to accept for most Americans is the notion that our desire for profit must also be challenged. Why trade with China if we truly believe them to be a future threat? Paleo-conservatism is not Isolationism but it is an ideology that demands trading on our terms. By terms I mean economically fair to us and beneficial to the US in the long-term. To be certain a shifting of our economic world-view would prove painful. But the fact is so long as we are dependent upon unbridled consumerism and capitalism we will never be free of foreign threats. This one topic alone deserves numerous posts.

The proper view of foreign policy for the paleo-conservative ought to be taken form the example of Thomas Jefferson vis-a-vis the Barbary Pirates. We ought to demand the right to trade with those we wish to trade with without interference. If another power threatens this right then we are prepared to empty the treasury to secure our rights. However, neither our economic or military policies should serve to threaten anyone else. We might rightly expect that our interference in the affairs of others will inevitably result in them viewing us as true enemies and the emptying of their treasuries to oppose us.

The neo-conic notion that preemption against some potential future threat from China, now in Iraq, is a vicious circle sort of logic. The very thing they wish to avoid is the thing that will become reality.

Thursday, June 02, 2005

What I am reading

I have either just finished up or I am in the process of reading several books. I generally do not read a single book at any one time. Usually I begin several and pick them up at various times depending on what strikes my interest at the moment.

Books I have recently finished.

The Grey Book Blueprint For Southern Independence by The League of The South.

I would hardly call this a blueprint, at 84 pages (not including the appendices) it is really much more of a birds eye overview. While I enjoyed the book there is little meat contained within for those of us that have read and thought on the issue of independence.

That being said that I still recommend this to any and all, newbies and old hands alike. The most interesting revelation was the clear articulation of current LOS thoughts and strategies for a renewal of our culture that will eventually lead to independence. Many of us have been criticized over the last couple years for stating that our culture is just not right for talk of independence. Many of the hardliners call us sellouts for this opinion. The simple truth is that if we cannot restore a Christian based culture that respects the principles for which our ancestors fought and lived any notion of independence is foolish.

The LOS has come to terms with this. The revitalization of culture and the moral and spiritual foundation of culture play a key role in current strategy. This little book portrays that well.

I am encouraged with the forward that describes this book as but the first in an ongoing series. I wrote to Dr. Hill (with no response) about the light handed and general approach given to several issues. It seems to me that we have within our midst fully qualified subject matter experts that could present detailed articulation of issues with real meat on the bone. All in all this effort is a good start.

Critique of Pure Education by Robert W. Wilson

Another small book but infinitely insightful, one I highly recommend to parents concerned with the education of their children. Wilson makes the case that homeschooling is the best method of education for our children. In fact his formula of educating to achieve a whole person, grounded in the truth and fully capable of thinking, writing and speaking seems an exceptionally workable plan to develop leaders to carry our cause forward in future generations.

Pure education will develop Christian thinkers and statesmen that are truly able to lead us back to righteousness in civil government. If we within the paleo-conservative/Christian/Southern movements are serious about restoring culture then homeschooling is a serious tool we must all put in our kit bag.

Books I am currently reading

Born Fighting How the Scots-Irish Shaped America by James Webb

I have only skimmed chapters and read points of interest thus far. I have been interested in the treatment of religious influence and the points dealing with that aspect of Scottish influence have served as a nice adjunct to another book I am reading currently.

The Rise of Evangelism by Mark A. Noll

I have dug into this well written book in great detail. As a historian I am particularly fascinated with the movements of thoughts through time. I highly recommend this book to anyone that wishes to understand the formation of dominant theological thoughts in the United States.

Romans Chapters 9 through 11

I have read and re-read these chapters with renewed understanding and insight. I have read different translations (although I prefer the KJV almost exclusively). I have used the numerous ample resources on the Internet, especially to dig into almost each and every word and its root. I will likely have much more to say on these chapters in the future.

Wednesday, June 01, 2005

More on Fundementalism

My last post on Fundamentalism left a lot to be said. Mark highlighted this when he asked in his comment what my point was.

I should clarify. The very definition of a fundamentalist is elusive. It all depends on who is actually using the term and who they are speaking of. By the standards of most non-Christians I am a fundamentalist. Using their definition a fundamentalist is generally defined as someone that believes in the inerrancy of the Bible, is politically conservative, believes it is the call of all Christians to spread the Gospel (evangelism) and accepts salvation through Jesus Christ.

That is a pretty broad based definition and is utterly unfit for this discussion. The general agreements held by Christians that fit the above description are far greater than disagreements; it matters little if non-Christians fail to see the nuances and subtle deviations in world-view.

Of course to some Christians the subtle differences, especially in theology are all that matters in the application of manmade labels. Among Protestants the Calvinist are probably the most dogmatic in this regard. In their view there are essentially two camps, those that accept the Five Points of Calvinism and those that do not.

It is just not that simple. Many denominations that began as Calvinistic have adopted what Calvinist would term as Armenian doctrine. Of course a robust study of the early differences in Calvinism and Armenianism demonstrates that there was not two camps. The Armenians simply rebutted some of the five points and Calvinist returned fired by essentially declaring that two camps existed; those that were with them and those against.

In the big picture this is not the issue at hand either. There are Biblical points to support aspects of both views. Many fine men of God have dedicated their lives to defending one view or the other.

This does little to define what I mean by fundamentalism. To be certain the Armenian/evangelical camp far and away comprises the bulk of what Christians would term as fundamentalist. I am not damning all Armenians however.

The debate over Dispensationalist and Covenant Theology is likewise also another possible dividing point between what I term fundamentalism. The heavily reliance in most dispensational churches on premillennial doctrine surely has an enormous impact on their world view. This in and of itself is not the dividing line.

My definition of fundamentalism would include the following

1) Belief in the inerrancy of the Bible (this is a good thing and I agree)
2) Call to evangelism (again I agree)
3) Salvation through Jesus Christ (agree)
4) The belief that they are politically conservative (here we disagree, they are not conservative and on this point I will elaborate further)
5) Adherence to dispensational and premillennial theology (I have no problem with the belief in the pretribulation rapture if that is how a man interprets the Bible. I will elaborate my difficulties with this item below)

Points four and five are the areas that cause me the greatest consternation with fundamentalist.

First the idea that they are conservative, that they actually believe this fascinates me. The article in my previous message (written by a moderate that I obviously do not agree with entirely) mentions that one of the tenets of fundamentalism is the "intermediate goals" of: eliminating the Public School System, homeschooling, and severely limiting the government.

What a fascinating notion. The fundamentalist, under the leadership of men like Farwell, Robinson and Dobson, vote squarely for the Republican Party. Anyone that truly considers the GOP a conservative party is beyond my ability to reach with words.

When has the Republican Party limited government in the last 35 years? (23 of those years a Republican sat in the Whitehouse) Does the Patriot Act limit government? Has any Republican president truly attempted to eliminate the Department of Education or the myriad of Great Society and New Deal programs that burden us so and stray so far from the original intent of the Constitution?

Has the Republican Party stood up to protect the unborn or the sanctity of marriage? To steal the words of Reagan is America better off now than 35 years ago? Is it more moral, does the government reflect a more conservative and limited role?

This is the political party of choice for fundamentalist.

Point five is closely related to the discussion above and is likely the very reason that so many fundamentalist blindly support a party that is little better than democrats or socialist. The belief that this must be the end of days and that the true Christian purpose must be to support and encourage the second coming engenders a strange world view. Without being offensive this mentality is akin to that of a death cult. 'The end is near, prepare!!'

My Bible tells me no man knows the time. History tells me that many men in the past have wrongly predicted that theirs was the end of days.

What makes Hal Lindsey and Tim Lahaye any different?

What if they are wrong? What if this is not the end of days. What if mankind persists for another 2000 years? Can any premillineal dispensationalist know for sure? Can anyone but God alone know? Is it the place of a Godly and righteous man to forsake the birthright of his children and their children based upon his hope of rapture in his lifetime?

This is the crux of my issue with fundamentalist. God love them, they intend well, but they are simply wrong-minded. Being yoked with a political party that only pays lip service to true Christian values is unbiblical. The notion that god can use wicked men to achieve his purpose does not excuse the conscious decision of a Christian to “do a little evil to achieve a great good”. God will use who he will, it is not for us to decide who we will compromise with. Our calling is simple and straight forward. We are to be an example but we are also to be separate.

These compromisers are who I define as fundamentalist and it is at those folks that I aim my ire. Mark my friend, that was my point

Tuesday, May 31, 2005

Please do not call me a Fundamentalist

I am reading a fascinating series of books dealing with the history of evangelism. On the one hand evangelism was probably the greatest thing to happen to Christianity since the Day of Pentecost. On the other hand the ramifications of watered-down doctrine, "heart-felt" religion and misplaced theology stemming from the notion that everyone can interpret the Bible independent of historic Christianity has been the greatest point of failure in the Church.

I often look at men, leaders supposedly, like Dobson, Farwell, Robinson and others and ask "how can they so blindly and obediently support the Republicans and their utter failure to restore any Godliness to America". Worse yet, how can they sit by as millions of unborn are murdered, we have begun the murder of the infirmed, God is pushed from every public venue, our nation no longer lives under the civil law of the land (The Constitution) and we wage war unconstitutionally and based upon the most blatant lies.

How do men that are supposed to be leaders acquiesce to such things or even support the commission of such acts by their public acclaimations for the men and government that perform these abominations?

Is it personal greed and moral decay? I hope not. I believe it is flawed theology, a theology that states the world is at an end and all we have to do is support Israel and we will all be carried off is a grand escape. How amazing it is that this notion is less than 200 years old. Mathew, Mark, Luke and John (the men that walked with Jesus) made no reference to this. Even Paul contradicts the notion that the nation State of Israel is the chosen children of God in Romans 9-11.

I am a Baptist but I have pondered over the years over issues that just did not sit right with me. As I read and study I have come to know that dispensationalist theology is not the doctrine of the historic Baptist confession. It is a world-view that calls Christians to inaction and even flawed action.

I believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, I am staunchly conservative, paleo-conservative in fact, but I am NO FUNDAMENTALIST. I daily become more disturbed by the weakness of fundamentalism and the flawed ineptitude of their activism and world-view.

Fundamentalism is the chief bed partner of neo-conservatism. Without the suport of the "religious right" there would be no neo-conservative threat and the most us true conservatives would have to worry about opposing would be the wackos on the left.

The fundementalist choose to sit on their butts and wait for the rapture or worse yet support ungodly politicians. I choose action and a life that glorifies God and attemtps to keep his covenants and our rightful birthright to freedom and dominion.

More on this later
Theology and Takeover of the SBC

By William H. Stephens Brentwood, TN

Fundamentalists believe the rise of the state of Israel is a fulfillment of God's covenant with the Jews.

Dispensationalists believe the Old Testament promises to Israel were not reinterpreted by Jesus to apply to the Church. They are, instead, an unchanging covenant with Israel. They believe the covenant is being fulfilled today as the Jews are established in modern Israel. Such events as the rise of the European Common Market is seen as the prophesied revival of the Roman Empire; eastern events are seen as the gathering together of the kings of the east; most of all, Israel's return to the Holy Land demonstrates we are in the last days.

Martin Marty of the University of Chicago is the best-known church historian in America. He wrote in an article "Fundamentalism as a Social Phenomenon," in the Review and Expositor, that there "were Protestant fundamentalist Zionists in America before Jewish Zionism took hold."

In the late 1800s, William E. Blackstone was a tireless dispensational leader to this end. Yaakov Ariel, professor at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, echoed Marty. He pointed out that Blackstone "asserted that the United States had a special role and mission in God's plan for humanity, that of a modern Cyrus: to help restore the Jews to Zion. God chose America for that mission on account of its moral superiority over other nations, and America would be judged according to the way it carried out its mission." (New Dimensions in American Religious History: Essays in Honor of Martin E. Marty.)

Since that time, great events have quickened the dispensationalists' spirit: World War I, the British takeover of Palestine, the Zionist movement and Israel being established as a nation, other wars, famine, natural disasters, and even the Gulf War.

Yaakov Ariel claims no event has had such an impact on dispensationalist thinking as the Six-Day War, in which Israel was immensely successful against overwhelming odds. The victory allowed the Jews to take over the historic sites of Jerusalem.

Fundamentalists now dream of the rebuilding of the Temple, which they believe must take place before Christ can return.

This conviction about modern Israel has driven fundamentalists to seek a close relationship with the Israeli government, and pressure U.S. policy to support Israel. They have established a Temple Mount Foundation in Jerusalem and have involved themselves in such Jewish issues as Jewish immigration from Russia. Dozens of pro-Israeli fundamentalist organizations have emerged in the United States.

The late Menachem Begin, former prime minister of Israel, appointed a special liaison for American evangelicals; Israeli officials speak at fundamentalist conferences, and evangelists meet with Israeli leaders as part of their touring schedules in Israel.

Observers of the SBC takeover may recall how thoroughly this dispensationalist agenda spilled over into the SBC. Ed McAteer, the SBC fundamentalist head of Religious Roundtable, tried very hard to have a resolution passed that would have expressed the denomination's carte-blanche support for anything the state of Israel chooses to do militarily.

The effort was rejected by the Convention, for the dispensational viewpoint is held by a lower percent of followers than leaders. To compensate, McAteer held a press conference to issue a pro-Israeli statement, signed onto by top SBC leaders Charles Stanley, Bailey Smith, Jimmy Draper, W. A. Criswell, Paige Patterson, Zig Ziglar, and Paul Pressler. This intent is not just political; it is a deeply held religious view and is not negotiable.

If the U.S. is to fulfill its role in prophecy, it must support Israel; the SBC will be a tool to pressure U.S. policy to that end. Thus, one driving force behind the SBC takeover was to use the Convention as a power base to affect U.S. policy toward Israel.

Fundamentalists believe the United States is the nation assigned by God the work of aiding Israel in these end times. Some people may regard dispensationalism's strong commitment to Israel simply as a theological difference of opinion. But the conviction has a tentacle that reaches into U.S. politics and has brought about a coalition with the right wing of the Republican Party.

God's intention to use the United States is not essential to His plan; if the U.S. will not cooperate both morally and politically, God will find another nation. But dispensationalists fervently want the U.S. to fulfill its role and intend to see that it does.

To accomplish this end, the United States must solve its moral problems, must become purer by biblical standards.

Believing the end is very near, fundamentalists have placed the redemption of America on a fast track through two alliances, Reconstructionism and the Republican right wing.

Reconstructionists hold that God’s plan is for the world to be governed by Old Testament law. The effort to accomplish this type of government is part of what God meant when he commanded us to subdue and rule the earth (Gen. 2:26-28). The goal is the world, but the focus is on the United States.

Fundamentalism and Reconstructionism can never truly merge, for Reconstructionists are post-millennialists. They believe Christ will return only after the world is ruled for a thousand years by Christ through His Church.

However, fundamentalists have bought into much of the socio-political program of Reconstructionism, as William Estep, professor of church history at Southwestern Seminary, has discussed in Revolution Within the Revolution, published by Eerdmans in 1990.

Gary North is currently the leading Reconstructionist leader in America. He views the conflict as God vs. Satan, Christianity vs. secular humanism, the family vs. the state. Secular humanism has captured judges, educators, mainline church officials, and “especially seminary professors.”
Estep asserts that “the Reconstructionist movement represents the New Right’s extreme flanks, but common concerns, presuppositions, and goals characterize every segment of the movement.” The two views have in common the quest to make America a Christian nation by legislation.

If Reconstructionism were to succeed, the U.S. Constitution and legal system would be eliminated. Fundamentalism does not cherish that goal, but they would fix the Constitution by amendments to accomplish their goals; and they have bought into some intermediate goals of Reconstructionism.

One is to eliminate the public school system, which teaches secular humanism and evolution, and breeds atheism and New Age views.

Moreover, the Old Testament teaches that children should be taught at home. Another intermediate goal is to limit government severely. Decision-making must be moved to local levels; government must get out of all but essential activities such as utilities and keeping the peace.

The national model for fundamentalists is the colony of Massachusetts, which was established as a church-state. The nationally- known Presbyterian pastor James Kennedy (Coral Gables, Florida) uses that colony's history to prove the United States began as a Christian nation.
Ironically, Massachusetts persecuted Baptists worse than any other colony and did not include religious freedom in its state constitution until the mid-1800s.

Church historian Leon McBeth of Southwestern Seminary points out in “Baptist or Evangelical: One Southern Baptist’s Perspective” how little evangelicals understand the Baptist view of separation of church and state, that “their ancestors were in power when ours were in prison.”
One need only read Jimmy Draper’s If the Foundations Be Destroyed to realize how dangerously involved with Reconstructionism some SBC fundamentalist leaders have become.
Unlike Reconstructionists, fundamentalists do not want the government to fall; they want it to remain viable but committed to fundamentalist goals. The process by which the religious right has become bedfellows with the Republican right, including the involvement of the SBC leadership, has been documented especially well by Rosenberg.

The alliance has come at a cost to their prophetic voice. Fundamentalists have endorsed unworthy politicians because the persons have agreed to a fundamentalist platform; they have behaved toward their opponents unworthily in attempts to win at all costs.

The alliance with a political party has brought fundamentalists into “open alliance with capitalism” and caused them to regard “economic prosperity as a providential sign of sanctity,” writes Bloesch. Even a reading of the very good book, Evangelical Affirmations (an outgrowth of a defining conference on evangelicalism) reveals the wide commitment to the Republican Party among even moderate evangelicals.

Some readers, perhaps, and certainly some church members may consider these shenanigans and dispensational views to be unrelated to their lives and churches. To awaken them from lethargy, let them consider how many Sunday School teachers in their churches teach whatever appears in the literature, and how many church members are influenced by the sermons they hear.

Because the time is short, some Fundamentalists believe that the United States must be rescued from its rapid fall into moral decay by limiting liberty.

Fundamentalism’s theology holds that we are in the last days before Christ’s return.
This point is wrapped up in the previous discussion on fundamentalists’ embracing of the Reconstructionist agenda, but it deserves some separate comments. Fundamentalism identifies several areas of moral decay: amorality, abortion, evolution, atheism, and pluralism. Related issues include a strong military defense, family, the evil of forced busing, prayer in the public schools, and free enterprise. (Bloesch, op. cit., p. 29).

The greatest culprit is “secular humanism”; some fundamentalist writers make this the Great Enemy and gather the other topics under its umbrella.

In an interview by Washington Post staff writer Sidney Blumenthal, Tim LaHay asserted that secular humanism is this nation’s official religion, the result of a conspiracy which began with transcendentalists, Unitarians, and atheists. They conspired to make public education compulsory and teach secular humanism under the guise of democracy. The conspiracy continues today. (Sidney Blumenthal, “The Religious Right and Republicans.”)

The late Francis Schaeffer, perhaps the best-known Fundamentalist theologian, charged that secular humanism is itself a religion “which the government and courts in the United States favor over all others!” (A. James Reichley, “The Evangelical and Fundamentalist Revolt.”)
This statement sounds like something out of Peretti’s novels. The only way to overcome secular humanism, Schaeffer believed, is to get control of government into different hands. The prominence of the conspiracy theory is obvious. This is part of the fundamentalist world view; it lies behind their fear that liberty has run amok and must be restrained.

Ralph D. Winter is the fundamentalist General Director of the U.S. Center for World Mission. In response to a presentation made by Kenneth Kantzer on Christian Ethics, Winter protested that Kantzer introduced one theme into several of his points “what itself can be terribly dangerous, namely the idea that we must above all be free.”

To this disclaimer of the value of freedom, Winter added a parenthetical comment: “I recall with chagrin how naively in my youth I accepted that famous line from the Declaration of Independence—‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’ What a poison for any nation to drink!” (Ralph D. Winter, “Response to Kenneth S. Kantzer.”)

One could hardly cite a more damning quote to demonstrate how some fundamentalists fear freedom. But the quote is not extraordinary. Harold O. J. Brown, professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, insists that tolerance should be public policy, a view that reflects Reformed theology. (Harold O. J. Brown, “Evangelicals and Social Ethics,” Evangelical Affirmations, p. 279.)

Reformed theology is that held by churches that have descended from the “major” reformers like Luther and Calvin, who believed in a union of church and state. Tolerance sounds broad-minded and accepting, until its meaning is considered. Baptists have always insisted that toleration is not sufficient; government cannot be granted the right to determine what is to be tolerated and what is not. Toleration is miles short of religious freedom.

Brown’s hero is Constantine, who labored to make Christianity the favored religion of the Roman Empire. Today in America, he believes, we have no moral consensus and we have no authority who can establish consensus. “Now,” he concludes, “we are in the situation where there is neither an emperor nor a consensus, and it is likely that we cannot get along indefinitely without both.” (ibid., p. 279.)

This sounds very much like a call for state-sponsored religion. Brown prefaced his point by asking a rhetorical question: “But what are Christians to do when no one Christian is the “autokrator” with the power to change things, but rather many individual Christians would have to enter the political arena in order to affect the ethics of society? Shall they dare less than Constantine?” (ibid., p. 278.)

Have not those of us who have written and edited literature in the past written and published what we believed to be true? Have not our pastors proclaimed their convictions from the pulpit? Will current SBC leaders do any less? How long will it be before fundamentalist theology appears in SBC literature and is preached from SBC pulpits?

Tuesday, May 24, 2005


As close as I can tell 25 May 2004 was the birth date of Southern Loyalist. Twelve months and 210 posts on this site and what do I have to show for it?

I am a Large Mammal on TTLB, 317 incoming links according to Google, Pagerank 5 according to Google and a mere 6,917 visitors according to SiteMeter. In fact I average only 41 unique visitors per day!!!! Heck I doubt I have really changed the mind of any of the folks that come here, people already agree or not.

So what is it all for? I wonder that all the time. All the same this is a nice hobby and I still hope for that one solid convert from the dark side of the prevailing world view.

Monday, May 23, 2005

Tillman's Parents Are Critical Of Army

Former NFL player Pat Tillman's family is lashing out against the Army,
saying that the military's investigations into Tillman's friendly-fire death in
Afghanistan last year were a sham and that Army efforts to cover up the truth
have made it harder for them to deal with their loss.

More than a year after their son was shot several times by his fellow Army Rangers on a craggy hillside near the Pakistani border, Tillman's mother and father said in interviews that they believe the military and the government created a heroic tale about how their son died to foster a patriotic response across the country. They say the Army's "lies" about what happened have made them suspicious, and that they are certain they will never get the full story.

"Pat had high ideals about the country; that's why he did what he did,"
Mary Tillman said in her first lengthy interview since her son's death. "The
military let him down. The administration let him down. It was a sign of
disrespect. The fact that he was the ultimate team player and he watched his own
men kill him is absolutely heartbreaking and tragic. The fact that they lied
about it afterward is disgusting."

I do not blog about the war or my comrades still engaged in the fight any longer. Since I returned from Iraq my view of the war has soured beyond anything I thought possible before.

I wrote this piece about Pat Tillman back in April of last year. It is sad to see that the story of this young man and his sacrifice for ideals he held has come to such a nasty end.

One fact is very clear to me and has been for a very long time. The Empire is not concerned with right or wrong in any terms other than what advances the goals and objectives of empire itself.

Sunday, May 22, 2005

Banners Flapping in the Wind

I recall not long ago as my beautiful wife and I snuggled up on the couch late one night watching some movie that I had suggested a question she asked of me. I do not recall the movie, it was something medieval, there was the obligatory battle and of course in medieval battle everybody seems to bring the banner.

My wife asked me why everyone thought to bring the nice colorful flags. I would certainly not insult her; she simply does not care much for history. If given a real choice that particular night she would have been perfectly happy to watch HGTV. I can only imagine that she thought everybody brought the colorful banners as an overt way demonstrating their distinct sense of fashion and style.

If only it were so simple. If you know a little about history you know that in a feudal society there were no standing armies at the national level. Kings were forced to depend upon their vassals to show up when called to fight whatever enemy the king faced.

Banners represented the various nobles and to the enemy these banners represented value in the ransom that might be gained from capturing the owning noble. In very simple terms these banners were distinct expressions of fashion and style and an overt sign of the importance of the owner. (so my wife is right like always)

Of course the downside of warfare in the feudal age was that a king could not always be certain that his vassals would show up when called. They may stay home, they may be unprepared and show up with fewer troops than anticipated or they may have even sold out to the other side.

Since I have taken a much more active involvement in what I can only term as activism I have begun to see numerous analogies with feudalism. (stick with me here)

To be certain there is no central king calling out all the various organizations to do battle against our common enemy. In this there is a difference. But two facts are clear. 1) we do have a common enemy and 2) numerous organizations do battle with our common enemy alone in single battles.

What do I mean? Well our common enemy I describe here. To summarize what I mean by a common enemy, consider this.

Prolife organizations organize, educate and battle legislation that permits the murder of unborn children and the growing trend to murder the infirmed.

Gun rights activist organize to fight against increasing unconstitutional federal encroachments on the right of the citizens to remain armed.

Christians organize locally and nationally to fight immorality of various sorts.

Some organize to save public schools from the abyss that the public education system currently resides in. Homeschoolers refuse to fight and decide instead to save their children. Homeschoolers often face legal challenges in exercising their parental rights.

The southern movement has dozens of organizations dedicated to restoring culture or defending heritage.

Some conservative groups organize to fight for smaller, more fiscally responsible government, others like the Constitution party fight for an outright return to government under the Constitution.

And of course there are a dozen more movements and agendas I could add to the list. Within each movement there is often several groups striving for the same goals. I will not name names for fear of offending anyone but just take a look around. Mr. X starts Restore America, Mr. Y starts Americans for this, Mr. Z starts Christians Against That.

Do you get the idea? Hundreds of banners representing hundreds of organizations.

Ah but you say the agendas of these various groups are different. They were each created to fight a different fight.

Sure enough true. But.

They face the same enemy, and each time they take to the field individually they face great numbers. What would happen if all groups took to the field at one time and attacked the core of the enemy?

The real enemy is people that hold ideas that are wrong. Better stated our common enemy is wrong thinking about the nature and role of government, the foundation of our system, what powers government ought to have and ought not have and what exactly right government should look like.

We fight separately and fail to win. If we were to place government on the right path, and restore it to the proper foundation would we really have to worry about protecting our culture from government or defending the unborn or curbing governmental excesses? Would our rights as citizens to keep and bar arms be threatened? If the federal government was no longer in the public school business would we have to fight them over what sort of system communities set up?

It is all just too simple. We have a common enemy and a common fight. Why it is so difficult for us to come together for a common purpose eludes me. Maybe it is ego, everybody wants their banner. Everybody wants their own little organization fighting the good fight. If that is the case it is a sad commentary.