Our Little Girls

RICHMOND, Va. -- Gov. Timothy M. Kaine said Thursday he would sign legislation requiring all sixth-grade girls to be vaccinated against the sexually transmitted virus that can cause cervical cancer. (Link via Elena Maria Vidal)

First Texas, now Virginia. What on Earth does this say about our society that we have to vaccinate sixth-grade girls against sexually transmitted diseases? I certainly understand the reality of teenage hormones but there is something very different in a world where teenagers fool around with that "one special someone" and a world where they are having "hot monkey-sex" with everybody and anybody.

Perhaps if we thought a little more about the culture around us and the influences our children soak in from the first moment we surrender their development to the television and the Internet we might not need such a vaccine.

In Defense of Christian Exodus

Heidi Cenac wrote a piece in the 10 February Anderson Independent that simply must be repudiated. Read the entire thing and then come back for analysis.

The story begins "objectively" enough -

Some people read the Bible and some people use the Bible.

This is of course a true statement but it is an odd way to begin a fact based article.

Local ministers and religious experts are concerned that Christian Exodus might be the latter.

This would imply that all or most local ministers and religious experts share this view. I wonder if Heidi asked all or most of these people after they were fully informed of what Christian Exodus is all about and what they really envision for government in South Carolina. I doubt that she did because I doubt that most ministers in Anderson fully understand these things right now. Any opinions they could possibly express would be based an upon incomplete understanding of the facts.

As an example of the ignorant views she solicited we have -

Tom Ritchie, pastor at Young Memorial Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, said he has difficulty finding scripture that suggests Christians should take over government.

This is an ignorant response because Ritchie is suggesting that CE desires to take over, that phase implies some tactic other that the utilization of legal precedents. It is a strong term, it connotes negativity. If we applied the term, as used in Ritchie's response, any time one political party achieves a majority we might say that they have "taken over". In reality all Christian Exodus seeks to achieve is a majority in the various law-making bodies. The application of the phrase "take over" is better applied to a coup, something outside of normal legal channels; this is not why CE stands for. He continues:

“I think it’s pretty tragic and pretty frightening stuff,” he said. “If the people of Anderson allow it to happen, we probably get what we deserve.”

So according to Ritchie, if a majority of Christians in Anderson elect lawmakers that observe natural law and respect liberty then the county will get what it deserves. I must question what alternative Ritchie would propose? Would he rather see agnostic, atheist and heathen lawmakers legislating based on secular values? Does he propose that this is a better alternative?

What is truly frightening is the notion that anyone that seeks higher guidance in lawmaking is somehow inferior to someone that relies entirely on human reasoning.

And of course then there is Dan Olinger from Bob Jones -

Those in conservative Christian circles are worried about Christian Exodus’ implication that the church should use the power of the state to enforce biblical morality, said Dan Olinger, a professor in the seminary at Bob Jones University in Greenville.

“We want to be good citizens and participants, but we’re not really interested in using the iron fist of the law to compel people to everything Christians should do,” Mr. Olinger said

Here again we find someone answering a question unrelated to the issue at hand. Ms. Cenac never even attempts to establish that CE desires to "do anything like compel people to do everything Christians do." Why then print a response to an unproven accusation? By printing this response the article implies that it is a known fact that CE does wish to impose some sort of theocracy. Nothing could be further from the truth.

But let us take Mr. Olinger to task for his statement all the same. A careful review of history clearly demonstrates that for most of American history and all of Western history morality has indeed been regulated by law. It is true that we have ever so slowly slipped from an adherence to natural law to secular law. This fact alone does not make the trend a correct course of action.

The preamble of our own Constitution recognizes the fact that man alone is not supreme. We, the people of he State of South Carolina grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

One wonders how we could be grateful on one hand but disobedient on the other. Mr. Olinger suggest that Christians should be mere participants in what ever happens. But if we take his own words, "good citizens and participants", is it not logical that voting, and maybe even voting together for Christian leaders, is not reasonable?

Let's just break this entire thing down. Christian Exodus is nothing more than a group that intends to build a voting bloc. The method is unique in the American but not solely so - it has been done before (successfully in Kansas). Critics make large deal of the fact that CE wishes to return the county and state to a legislative stance closer natural law. People act as if this is something new, or perhaps something old that was tried and failed.

The questions that any Christian in South Carolina ought to seriously ask themselves is this.

1. Will there children be better off in a secular or Christian society?
2. Is society really better off without some constraints on morality?
3. Who better to make laws, a Christian or a secularist?
4. Who better to vote with, Christians or secularist?

What it Means to be Occupied

by Jim Hanks Jr.

On 13 January, 2000, 139 years to the day after South Carolinians opened fire on Fort Sumter, State Senators Arthur Ravenel and Glen McConnell, both of whom had staunchly supported the flag, led the vote to take it down. Just five days before, Senator Ravenel had attended a flag rally, where he had encouraged them to continue their fight. Later, Senator Andre Bauer observed that,, "once McConnell and Ravenel signed up for it, the fight was over." Why did they do it?

Some say that, in McConnell's case, a deal was struck concerning the preservation of the Hunley in Charleston. At the time McConnell reflected that, "the hour has come as it came with General Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia." They claimed to be acting as statesmen, compromising for the good of all. They claimed that they were laying the flag issue to rest. South Carolina would be respected and left alone to honour its past as its citizens chose without interference from outside. This was an end run around the flag haters, they boasted. The flag had to come down, but only so far and, through compromise, the stature of the Confederate heritage movement had taken a step forward.

On May 11, 2000, the South Carolina House of Representatives, led by David Wilkins, gave final approval to the bill removing the Confederate flag from the Capitol dome. In preparation for the compromise he had attended a secret meeting with black leaders - held, appropriately enough, at a funeral home. "I didn't tell anybody that I was going," Wilkins said later.

Why did he attend a secret meeting while planning to betray those he was sworn faithfully to serve? Here is what David Wilkins said about his reasoning: “With the Republicans hosting a high-profile presidential primary in 2000, the national media glommed onto the flag as a hot story. The state's reputation took a national beating. Network TV crews set up at the State House, the flag on the dome in their backdrops. The more we hesitated to do something about it, the more we allowed people outside our state to define who we were."

Those are David Wilkins' own words. He did it to impress the Yankee news media. And he did it for the Republican Party, the party of Lincoln. No army was threatening us this time, just the Yankee news media's biased, bigoted, pompous, and self-serving opinion. Do you think it mattered to David Wilkins what people in our sister Southern states thought of us?

I am proud of Mississippians for their flag, and congratulate them when I meet one. Did David Wilkins honourably represent the millions of us who love, honour, and support the flag. No. It was the news media people from California and New York he was concerned about. And George Bush, too—he wanted most of all to impress George Bush. How the Yankee news media defined us and what George Bush thought of him mattered more to David Wilkins than how we define ourselves.

What did David Wilkins accomplish? On 9 June, 2005, David Wilkins became the U.S.
Ambassador to Canada after resigning from the South Carolina House of Representatives where he served for 25 years-11 as speaker of the House.

What are we left with? Of the flag "compromise" South Carolina historian, Walter Edgar, opined that, "The legislation passed and South Carolina was able to put behind it a divisive period in its history."

How so? The NAACP continues its boycott of South Carolina, and the NCAA continues its ban on post-season events in South Carolina, a ban that was put into effect after the flag came down. Moreover, in 2004 the NCAA voted to continue the ban, stating that "significant change
had not taken place in South Carolina." On 4 August, 2006, www.blackamericaweb.com reported that, 'the NCAA will consider expanding its ban of championship events in South Carolina, possibly disallowing baseball and football teams from hosting post-season games, because the Confederate flag is displayed on Statehouse grounds."

That's what we got. Now we know what David Wilkins got. Business as usual in the Empire.

It is Our Flag

The Confederate Battle Flag is not the sum and total of everything the South or South Carolina was or will be. The period between 1861-1865 is not the only period of note in our history. The plain fact is WE KNOW THAT. Some folks fail to understand that we know that.

(Washington Post)A Confederate heritage group plans to challenge the NCAA's ban on championship events in South Carolina as long as the Confederate flag flies on the grounds of the state capitol.

In 2001, the NCAA barred any of its predetermined postseason tournaments from South Carolina. The organization is considering a request from the Black Coaches Association to extend the ban to sports where teams earn a chance to host playoff games, such as baseball or football.

It is nice to see that the SCV still has some fight in it -

The NCAA has "no business getting involved in the politics of this or any other state," Randy Burbage, commander of the South Carolina division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, said yesterday. "The NCAA should stick to sports -- something they should know something about -- and stay out of politics in South Carolina."

South Carolina has a history stretching back over 400 years. Our history is part of the larger story of Southern history but more importantly it is our story - it belongs to each South Carolinian, the good and the bad of it all is our story - we are good Sandlappers.

Folks from parts elsewhere just don't get it - that flag would have long ago been placed in museums, on grave stones and flown at reenactments if it were not for the constant meddling from outsiders - government and otherwise. Each time somebody from the outside tries to tell South Carolina or South Carolinians what to do the flag assumes a current significance. It has come to symbolize a current fight to preserve what is ours - our rights, our culture and our freedom. The Battle Flag has significance today as a symbol of all that we were and will be simply because folks that have no business telling us what to do keep trying.

You keep pushing and we will keep pushing back! It is our flag and it is our right to do with it as we please.

Blue Laws in Anderson

First reading of an ordinance to permanently suspend the Blue Laws was approved Tuesday night by the Anderson County Council. Blue Laws prohibit residents from buying anything other than groceries or medicine before 1:30 p.m. on Sundays. (Anderson Independent)

I cannot imagine why such a proposal came up in the first place. Even if you were to theoretically remove the notion that the Sabbath should be respected, not working on Sundays is a cultural thing. It is a time to spend time with that which is really important. Working and making money are means to an end; in the culture I grew up with family were infinitely more important - even to all of my unchurched neighbors. From the story above we find the answer.

"I'm a Yankee," said David Allan, a Liberty resident. "You can get rid of all the Blue Laws you want to. If a business wants to be open, they should be able to stay open. If they want to be closed, they should be able to stay closed."

I am generally in agreement that government ought not attempt to legislate morality - at least not on small things. I am for individual freedom and responsibility - however as a paleoconservative I am fully willing to accept local government encroachment on individual rights if that encroachment protects longstanding community traditions and the local culture. In reality this "encroachment" does not in any way offend individual rights. In the current example a fellow like David Allan never has to live or work in Anderson County - he does not have to even visit. It was his option to come to Anderson. When you move to a place you should be willing to accept and attempt to integrate into the local culture - in this case family and faith have traditionally been more important than profit. Mr. Allan you might have done well to figure that out before you came down our way.

The fact is it is ok to slow down the pace of life a little - take time out to focus on what is really important. These are the traits that have made our culture so great - it is a shame to sell all of that for a few extra hours at the Wal-Mart!

The United States, America and The People revisted

[4th-of-July]

It is again time for Americans of all ilks to place meat on grills celebrate the essence of being Americans. All patriotic occasions dedicated to the symbols of the United States cause me much anguish, it has been ever increasingly so for the last ten years.

I am not un-American, I am certainly not un-patriotic. I love my country, its people and the principles upon which it was built. I loathe the federal government and all that the United States has become. It is entirely possible to have it both ways. The United States government is merely the current executive agent exercising central power. My country and my countrymen are merely subjects to that entity. The flag in the past was meant to represent us, it is now used by them. Many of my countrymen fail to see any difference at all.

Liberty and freedom will not be restored on the North American continent by the under the three national governments. Mexico is a complete failure; Canada has progressed far down the road toward socialism and decay. The United States government long ago abandoned its principles, true direction, republican form of government and Constitution. It is now leading the way toward leviathan.

Being an American and celebrating the 4th of July ought to mean remembering those 13 colonies that each individually declared their independence from the crown and asserted their status as FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES. It is the spirit of those colonies and their people that we ought to celebrate. True nationhood and sovereignty cannot long live in large collectives. Union and collectivism is beneficial for trade and unity of effort toward common goals but such efforts ought never be confused with nationhood. We should look to our proper countries for a true restoration of liberty.

Citizens of Vermont, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Alaska, all of the Southland, Native American tribes and anyone else that desires to establish liberty in our time in their home take note. Celebrate the spirit of those brave citizens of thirteen free and independent states. Reflect on what they gained and what has been lost under the umbrella of Union. Liberty in our time will only come from the local level. Be a citizen of your home first, an American second and refuse to be a subject to the American Empire.

Two years ago on the occasion of the 4th of July I wrote a piece entitled The United States, America and The People. I believe those words still have relevance and have included parts here for this 4th of July.



First of all what is America? In terms of the common usage it is really a confused concept. It is in reality the embodiment of nation-groups of people with a shared history and a shared culture. To be certain within the American cultural group there are many very well defined subcultures; some of these are differentiated enough to qualify as full-blown cultures and people groups on their own. Within what we call Americans exist several bona fide countries. Some have existed in the community of nations as free and independent states. All retain their sovereignty no matter their current condition.

America is not a nation in terms of existing in one particular form of government. Many countries, even most countries, presuppose the current national government that represents them. As one example Russia, as a country, was represented by the Czar. During the revolution of 1917 Russians did not cease to be Russians and take on the mantle of Soviets. Russia was merely submerged for a time under the Soviet Union. When the Soviet Union fell, Russians remained Russia; the notion of a country of Russian had never ceased to exist.

The people groups that comprise America have had many governments represent them. We were represented at the signing of the Declaration of Independence by thirteen sovereign and newly independent States. We were represented by a Confederated central government from 1781 until 1791. We did away with that government and created a new central government under the Constitution. No matter what form or name the central government has taken the underlying fact that America still exists, as a nation-group of people, has remained unchanged.

The notion of America predates that of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. In fact we began as a people soon after colonization. Shared values, a common sense of purpose, the belief that man ought to be able to determine his own destiny with his own hands and the aid of God, these things bound us together early.What then of the People? We, those fortunate enough to have inherited the birthright that is the American ideal, comprise The People. In 1776, we acted through our sovereign states to demand independence for us and all of our off-spring. This was not the birth of the United States; it was simply the birth of freedom. It was the assertion of the inalienable rights of The People to establish for themselves the forms of government that best suited their needs and values.Americans, i.e. The People, enjoyed for almost eighty years the right and privilege under the Constitution the right to self-government on most matters through their State government. Prior to that, The People enjoyed this privilege to a great degree under the Articles of Confederation and earlier still to a surprising degree of profoundness under the Royal Charters proceeding independence. During the majority of over four-hundred years of American history The People have exercised and enjoyed great latitude in matters at the State level.

The United States is but the executive agent of the will of the people and the formal representation of America. It is neither The People nor America. It is a separate entity that was created to serve the needs of these two other entities. If the United States as a government were to be replaced by a different central government we would remain Americans. If the various States were to reassert their sovereignty and elect to discontinue their participation in the union we would remain Americans in much the same way that Europeans remain European no matter the form of various national governments or unions of states (i.e. European Union).The notion that The United States as an entity is irrevocably meshed with that of America or The People is a dangerous one and acceptance of this idea can and will invariably lead to tyranny. If The People cease to hold dear their right to establish their own form of government and if patriotism to America is so interwoven into patriotism to a government we have no hope of recourse.

Americans of all our various sub cultural groupings must come to agree that it is more important to be an American than it is a citizen of the United States. Better said, it is more important to be a citizen of your state than an citizen of the United States. Being Americans guarantees us the right to self-determination and perpetual freedom. It gaurantees us the right to retain our countries even if we choose to allow our free countried to enter into compacts with others (i.e. united states) Being Citizens of the United States guarantees us only preeminence in the world (for a time) while our true values and principles are eroded and stolen at home.

As you ponder the aftermath of this weekend's celebrations also consider the bold statement of freedom by The People and their States way back in 1776. Try to remember what being American really means. When you feel a surge of patriotism at the waving of the flag remember where that emotion and loyalty truly belongs.Our allegiance is to God, our families, our home, our country and then the government that represents us. So long as that government represents us well it is fit to stand. Whenever it may cease to serve its intended purpose it deserves neither our respect nor our loyalty. That is a very American point of view.


BTW, my old buddy IKANTSPEL recently wrote an excellent piece that drives home the point that the only way to fix what is wrong is the change the system entirely.

Douglas Wilson wrote a pretty amazing piece describing why and how things will fall for the United States government, reemphasising why it is important to place our loyalties with our true various countries.

also be sure to read Happy Secession Day by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

America; patriotism; Independence Day; Secession Day

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.

Scots-Irish Southern

Ignorance and the Ongoing War Between the States

"In many respects, the War Between the States will never be over. Some contribute this to the talk of reparations for slavery and the ridiculous belief that any symbol of Southern heritage is a symbol of bigotry and hatred. While those things may be symptoms, they are not the root cause. The reason for this ongoing conflict is a profound ignorance of Southern culture and the complete lack of understanding for the brave men and women who fought to defend their homeland against an invader."

Simply a must read over at the SRR

Global IQ: 1950-2050

"Doesn't it seem like the world is getting dumber with every passing year? Well, maybe it is! "

I knew intuitively this to be true.

As art declines, will civilization follow?

"I'm not pro-Gates or anti-Gates. I don't really care, one way or the other, since the artists are footing the bill, as opposed to taxpayers. What does concern me is the ridiculous outpouring of praise for this ambitious but somewhat shabby enterprise. The fact is, 'The Gates' doesn't mean anything. And the fact that it doesn't mean anything should mean something to us � it should mean that this work doesn't deserve to be labeled 'great art.' "

I must admit, I thought to myself "what the heck is that about". I have traveled the world and seen great and marvelous things. I have also seen not so great things. This to me is just a bunch of tarps flapping in the wind....

The United States, America and The People

I have engaged in several conversations with various people as of late that have shined a glaring light on a major misconception. It seems that in the mind of many it is impossible to differentiate between these three entities. It is a major flaw in one's thinking and limits any subsequent arguments not to be able to tell the difference.

First of all what is America? In terms of the common usage it is really a concept. It is the embodiment of a nation-group of people with a shared history and a shared culture. To be certain within the American cultural group there are many very well defined subcultures; some of these are differentiated enough to qualify as full-blown cultures and people groups on their own.

America is not a nation in terms of existing in one particular form of government. Many countries, even most countries, presuppose the current national government that represents them. As one example Russia, as a country, was represented by the Czar. During the revolution of 1917 Russians did not cease to be Russians and take on the mantle of Soviets. Russia was merely submerged for a time under the Soviet Union. When the Soviet Union fell, Russians remained Russia; the notion of a country of Russian had never ceased to exist.

The people groups that comprise America have had many governments represent them. We were represented at the signing of the Declaration of Independence by thirteen sovereign and newly independent States. We were represented by a Confederated central government from 1781 until 1791. We did away with that government and created a new central government under the Constitution. No matter what form or name the central government has taken the underlying fact that America still exists, as a nation-group of people, has remained unchanged.

The notion of America predates that of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. In fact we began as a people soon after colonization. Shared values, a common sense of purpose, the belief that man ought to be able to determine his own destiny with his own hands and the aid of God, these things bound us together early.

What then of the People? We, those fortunate enough to have inherited the birthright that is the American ideal, comprise The People. In 1776, we acted through our sovereign states to demand independence for us and all of our off-spring. This was not the birth of the United States; it was simply the birth of freedom. It was the assertion of the inalienable rights of The People to establish for themselves the forms of government that best suited their needs and values.

Americans, i.e. The People, enjoyed for almost eighty years the right and privilege under the Constitution the right to self-government on most matters through their State government. Prior to that, The People enjoyed this privilege to a great degree under the Articles of Confederation and earlier still to a surprising degree of profoundness under the Royal Charters proceeding independence. During the majority of over four-hundred years of American history The People have exercised and enjoyed great latitude in matters at the State level.


The United States is but the executive agent of the will of the people and the formal representation of America. It is neither The People nor America. It is a separate entity that was created to serve the needs of these two other entities. If the United States as a government were to be replaced by a different central government we would remain Americans. If the various States were to reassert their sovereignty and elect to discontinue their participation in the union we would remain Americans in much the same way that Europeans remain European no matter the form of various national governments or unions of states (i.e. European Union).

The notion that The United States as an entity is irrevocably meshed with that of America or The People is a dangerous one and acceptance of this idea can and will invariably lead to tyranny. If The People cease to hold dear their right to establish their own form of government and if patriotism to America is so interwoven into patriotism to a government we have no hope of recourse.

Americans of all our various sub cultural groupings must come to agree that it is more important to be an American than it is a Citizen of the United States. Being Americans guarantees us the right to self-determination and perpetual freedom. Being Citizens of the United States guarantees us only preeminence in the world (for a time) while our true values and principles are eroded and stolen at home.

As you ponder the aftermath of this weekend’s celebrations of the bold statement of freedom by The People and their States way back in 1776 try to remember what being American really means. When you feel a surge of patriotism at the waving of the flag remember where that emotion and loyalty truly belongs.

Our allegiance is to God, our families, our home, our country and then the government that represents us. So long as that government represents us well it is fit to stand. Whenever it may cease to serve its intended purpose it deserves neither our respect nor our loyalty. That is a very American point of view.

Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem
El Cid