Let a million boycotts bloom

The idea of boycotting the 2008 Summer Olympics has been raised in the Blogosphere and the MSM over China's outrageous conduct in Tibet. The fact that this conduct has been ongoing for decades should be no surprise to anyone, but China has received a pass until now for many reasons.

China's growth as a regional power has benefited us in the West. In the 1970's, they provided a potent counterbalance to the USSR, allowing the Western powers to maintain growing and vigorous economies in the face of Soviet power, rather than developing a full wartime economy with all the deprivations and dangers that would imply. The USSR's wartime economy paid to subjugate its empire and face against the Western alliance and China.Unable to sustain these expenditures, the USSR collapsed, ending the Cold War.

China's economic growth, powered as it is by supplying the West with inexpensive consumer goods has reduced the inflationary pressure that the huge growth of government in the West creates, allowing a large fraction of the population to maintain middle class lifestyles that otherwise would be unobtainable. (Only massive cuts in government taxation and spending would achieve the same result) The proliferation of inexpensive goods also powers the rise of the "big box" retail segment of the economy; providing jobs and opportunities to millions of people with limited prospects across North America.

But these goods for us are only temporary and situational. China wants the world to respect her and treat her as "The Middle Kingdom" (in the Chinese world view, the centre of the Universe), and uses foreign trade and currency as tools to achieve her goals. The Olympics are a giant propaganda fest for the Chinese, and they had seen it as their global "coming out party" to take their place on the world stage.

Given the strong incentives to maintain the status quo, Western government will not institute a full boycott of the 2008 Olympics. There will be the usual hand wringing and statements to mollify the masses, but the games will go on and China will attempt to capitalize on this opportunity.

Freedom, like Free Speech, is really a self help project. While the Presidents and Prime Ministers of the world talk about Tibet and China's human rights record, we the people can take concrete and effective actions starting now to change things.

First off, look at your purchases. What do you really need that is made in China? While it may be impossible to completely eliminate Chinese goods and services from your shopping list or portfolio, you can certainly cut down on your financial contributions to China's war chest. Retailers will respond to lessened demand by dropping or substituting Chinese products with ones from other sources.

Second, directly ask your retailers to substitute Indian goods for Chinese goods. India is cost competitive with China, but shares many of the values of Freedom, Property Rights and Rule of Law with Canada and other Western nations. We can maintain the benefits of low cost consumer goods and support our friends at the same time.

Third, let all your media outlets know you will not be watching, listening to or reading about the Olympic games. Let all their advertisers know as well. Limiting the coverage of the Olympics also limits the ability of China to send their spin over the air. The media will respond to threats to their viewer ship and advertising monies by airing other shows and covering something else.

If one million Canadians were to do this it would have a huge impact. One million people is a market share too big for any Canadian retailer to ignore, and their behavior and purchasing decisions would have to change because of the actions of you, the readers. If big and small retailers shift their purchasing away from China, it will start to hurt the Middle Kingdom in the pocket book. Even minor layoffs in China have the potential to create ripples of unrest, and for a brittle society like China, that is something the Communist Party cannot allow.

The cost to you is low, the risk is minimal, but the potential payoff is immense. If Chinese behaviour can be curbed in Tibet, then their intransigence and hostility towards the West in other areas (such as their support for the murderous regime in the Sudan, or human rights violations within China) will also be defanged; we can maintain the boycott until we are satisfied with their behaviour, and no one has to wait for the politicians.

Act now. Free Tibet.

HRC debate going mainstream

The ongoing battle for the right to free speech in Canada has finally leaked from the Blogosphere and is starting to enter the mainstream of consciousness through the MSM. Ezra Levant lists several stories in this post, and sees evidence of an organized counter offensive by HRC's to state their case in the media and defend their positions of power and privilege, which is an expected response.

Reading Levant's post and following the links reveals how far we have fallen in this Dominion of Canada; the senior HRC officers who speak for the HRC's have such weak and ineffectual arguments and apply the power of the State in such nonproductive ways that they are essentially conceding there is no actual purpose being served by them. At the same time they betray a colossal arrogance, presuming to override the laws of Canada at their whim and bypassing existing procedural and judicial process to do so and bristling with offence when their activities are exposed for inspection and questioning.

Once you read this, I would encourage readers to look at Ezra Levant's entire site for detailed descriptions of how the HRC operates as a Star Chamber; allowing blatant conflict of interest and collusion between "complainants" and "investigators", manipulating or creating "evidence" and so on. Mark Steyn, another Canadian author under attack by the HRC has a great deal to say on his site as well, as well as Connie and Mark Fournie.

You too can have a say, go to this site and look up you Member of Parliament. They need to hear from their constituents that HRC's have no purpose in a Liberal Democracy under the Rule of Law, and should be disbanded. Get writing.

I will give Ezra the last word as to why we all need freedom of speech to protect us from the arbitrary power of the State:

I know a little bit about South Africa and the end of Apartheid. It happened because of the decision by the white minority to relinquish power. That decision came about because of a relatively free debate -- a debate in which "offensive" ideas, like the equality of all races, was permitted in the main. There was some censorship, of course -- and, of course, that censorship was used by the Apartheid government to muzzle its more rambunctious critics. And that's the point: weak and powerless people often have no other remedy besides free speech. It was the case with the suffragette movement in the 1920s, with the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s, and the anti-Apartheid movement in South Africa in the 1980s.

Dion: "Next Election About the Environment"

Yeah.

Stick with what you know?

Except that the closest DeYawn ever got to doing anything about the environemnt was naming a pet.

And then there's this...

"At the next election, it's unavoidable that the environment, climate
change, the green revolution we need to make, will be at the core of the
campaign,"

Hmmm, wouldn't this lead to the Libs going head to head with the Greens? A veritable battle of Titans! I can see it now, a political cage match between Dion and May. Like watching Pee Wee Herman mud wrestle Rosie O'Donnell for a bag of low fat, soy infused organic rice cakes.

905 Call 911

The Liberal Party of Toronto.

"But that building and rebuilding also requires a party to speak to
Canadians about Canada. The Liberals speak to Torontonians about
Liberals."

Signs of the Collectivist Apocalypse (SOTCA)

It is obvious to anyone who reads Atlas Shrugged, that throughout it, the policies and programs undertaken by the ubiquitous Thompson government and the so called Peoples States, combined with the altruistic and nihilistic tendencies of anti-heroes like James Taggart and Wesley Mouch are leading to the final destruction of society. Indeed the book culminates in a collectivist apocalypse and the escape of the heroes and heroine to Galt’s Gulch.

Like the canary in the mineshaft I seek to warn you all that we may be looking at the same fate somewhere down the road.

So just to keep tabs on the situation I introduce a recurring theme to Uncommon Sense, a chirp here and there which I will call…

Signs of the Collectivist Apocalypse (SOTCA)

My first entry is about the US Treasury and a sweeping power grab by its new Head

The regulatory blueprint proposes eventually vesting new powers in the Federal Reserve as a "market stability regulator" -- effectively formalizing a role the central bank already has adopted recently by expanding the list of financial firms which can borrow directly.

It would give the Fed authority to demand that all financial system participants supply it with full information on their activities and grant the Fed a right to collaborate with other regulators in setting rules for their behavior.

Woosh!!! Super Finance Cop to the rescue!

Hold on a sec... Weren't these the same guys that were at least partially responsible for the sub-prime fiasco? Foxes in Hen houses anyone?

The great Cash and Cars Giveaway

Or How Dalton Made us all Pay

WINDSOR, Ont. - Ford of Canada will use a $17-million investment from the Ontario government as part of a $168-million plan to reopen the Essex engine plant in southwestern Ontario, but the company warned Monday it will not expand the project further without direct participation from the federal government.

Excellent Dalton McSquirmy throwing good money after bad, just to be threatened by the Ford company that it will all be for naught if they don't get more!!!

It's almost like he wants to be the Premier of a have not province...

Liveleak strikes back.

** 30/3/2008: Liveleak Update **

On the 28th of March LiveLeak.com was left with no other choice but to remove the film "fitna" from our servers following serious threats to our staff and their families. Since that time we have worked constantly on upgrading all security measures thus offering better protection for our staff and families. With these measures in place we have decided to once more make this video live on our site. We will not be pressured into censoring material which is legal and within our rules. We apologise for the removal and the delay in getting it back, but when you run a website you don't consider that some people would be insecure enough to threaten our lives simply because they do not like the content of a video we neither produced nor endorsed but merely hosted.

The movie is back up.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7d9_1206624103

Hey! Islamofascists, UP YOURS!

Fitna Update.

The vast majority of responses I've read to this movie waiver between a relieved sigh that the movie is not as provocative as feared, and insinuating that Geert Wilders is trying to provoke the violence that they fear.

My question, and the question that every rational person should be asking is; Is there anything in the film that is not true?

The answer is of course, no. So why defend the indefensible?

The fact is the people calling on us to not provoke are saying that we (the west) should just ignore the problem. They believe that if we just shut up and don't mention the fact that these people have sworn to butcher each and every one of us then everything will be okay. They seem to believe that we should ignore the Jihadists warnings because the possibility of them living up to their murderous ideal is so slim? They want us to spew inoffensive politically correct platitudes till we reek in the hope that the terrorists will suddenly like us.

Where have I heard of that policy being forwarded before?

Oh, I remember, only then the slogan wasn't "Don't provoke" it was "Peace in our time."

Breaking the power of the Progressives

The thing that I can't understand is that in the polls both Conservatives and Liebrils are very close to being tied. What could it possibly take for these people to see that party for what it is?

This interesting question was posed on Army.ca, but I'm sure many people on both sides of the fence are asking that very question, and wondering how to change these numbers for their own benefit.

The past strength of the Liberal Party resides in the fact that many powerful groups benefit from the growth and implementation of "Progressive" ideology (i.e. government and quasi government unions, bureaucracies, government companies like the CBC and farmers and businesspeople who have discovered how to milk the system). These interest groups will go to very great lengths to maintain their hold on power. The Liberal Party and their beneficiaries have also discovered how to manipulate the population, using the promise of social programs to bribe the voters, inversion of language to disguise concepts (think about what "progressive taxation" really means, for example), and the use of ad hominem arguments and contrived scandals to suppress or eliminate debate on various topics. Controlling institutions like schools, the media and the courts also ensures things go the way "they" want. Progressives attempt to control the input, the dialogs and the output, just like every other totalitarian ideology throughout history.

For Canadians, the fight against the HRC's may represent the first crack in the Progressive's armour. HRC's operate as "Star Chambers" to enforce the memes of Political correctness, and as currently constituted operate beyond the law. Once this battle is joined fully, it may occur to many people that there are lots of other bureaucracies and government agencies which also infringe upon our rights and freedoms, and action must be taken against them as well. Political parties which have strong ties to these institutions also need to be taken down.

I know this is a battle which will be fought against with all the weapons in the Progressive armoury, and all the more difficult since most of these people and institutions have access to the resources of the State itself. There is a sea change coming as more and more people have finally realized that what is going on outside their houses and inside their lives no longer matches with the picture Progressives (of any political party) try to paint. The rise of the CPC and corresponding small Classical Liberal parties at the provincial level (Wildrose Alliance, Saskatchewan Party, Reform Ontario) suggests to me that enough people are becoming engaged and there is now a real chance this battle can be won in the end.

The Liberal Party is currently riven by internal divisions and lack of resources, but rest assured the Progressives will continue to prop it up so long as it holds the promise of power and riches. Once it is clear the Liberal Party no longer can carry on as a brokerage party and offer the spoils of the State to its supporters, they will desert it for the NDP, Bloc and Green parties to whatever extent they offer rewards to their supporters.

We'll either die free or we die trying.

Fitna

WARNING: The film contains hate speech, and persons in the film call for the murder of entire nations, the establishment of a totalitarian theocracy, praise Hitler and the holocaust and denounce liberalism, democracy and rational thought.

Also contains graphic visual content.

UPDATE: After hearing a/another prominent Canadian Muslim defend Islam as a religion of peace on CTV Newsnet this afternoon in response to the film I have just tried the video link again only to be informed that LiveLeak has removed the film because of credible threats on the lives of LiveLeak employees.

Peaceful eh?

Found It again.

Two systems battle for our souls

In Canada, we have an interesting split in our approach to things. The "west" is entrepreneurial and freewheeling, while the "east" is rule bound and bureaucratic. It is the Two Solitudes of Hugh Maclennan and Lord Durham. It is Trudeau with his determination of a single rightness that must be imposed versus a pragmatic acceptable of the possible and the reasonable.

Throughout most of human history, the top down model predominated. This worked fairly well through most of prehistory and history, since it essentially replicates the "authoritarian" leadership style taught to military leaders as being appropriate in emergencies. For most of human existence people lived in a constant state of emergency and there was little time to resolve problems before a large hungry animal or sword stroke resolved it for you.

The development of democratic and free market systems took a long time and is not fully accepted even now. Much of the success of the "Progressive" movement comes from manufacturing or exploiting emergencies then imposing "solutions". Institutions like the Academie Francaise and others attempt to systemically organize and categorize facts to provide the elite with the "best" solutions, but there is a fatal flaw to this in the long term; these organizations are biased to provide solutions pleasing to the rulers while to be truly effective they need to provide empirically correct solutions. If they are pleasing all the time their position is assured until they are swept away in some disaster they failed to avert, while if they strive to be "correct" all the time they run the risk of displeasing their masters and losing their position. The elite is also aware of the problem to some extent; if the solutions they implement "work", they remain on the throne for another season, while if they fail, they will be overtaken by some disaster as well.....

I suspect that societies based on the impersonal nature of the free market and the unfettered nature of individual freedoms gain their strength from the fact they ultimately do not have to answer to anyone, but are measured against an objective and empirical reality. (Ayn Rand’s ghost is sitting on the couch and having a cigarette while I write this). You might say or do something which upsets someone, or propose and implement a plan which no one else agrees with, but if your arguments are better or the results can be replicated and are better than previous results, why then these ideas and processes will filter into the general population and be adopted by almost anyone.

This is ultimately intolerable to the first category of rulers and wannabe dictators, which explains why “Progressives” employ such a wide ranging series of strategies to suppress discussion (Political Correctness, speech codes, HRC’s etc.) and devote so much time and effort to ignore or suppress facts, figures and metrics. Why debate a real climate scientist when the ad hominem attack of shouting "Climate Change Denier" is a so much faster and easier way to stop the debate?

This explanation is a bit different from the more common explanation of top down and hierarchical systems being brittle and inflexible in the face of unexpected problems, but I think it answers the question “why” such systems fail in a more understandable way than the usual appeal to interactions increasing at a geometric rate until they are unmanageable. After all, the Chinese civilization has been around for a long time with few stumbles, they have managed to discover a way of minimizing the damage that pleasing the Emperor can do to the system with a fairly strict system of meritocracy at the bureaucratic level.

Ultimately, there really is a point where complexity overwhelms the system, and equally there are real emergencies that require hands on attention by leaders assuming authoritarian powers. Liberal Democracies are still the best at dealing with these situations, any number of solutions are potentially available and leaders like Churchill, Roosevelt, Thacher or Reagan are waiting in the wings to try to find the best solution. Competing illiberal societies have a shortage of solutions and leaders, and that is why they fail in the end.

Canada had gone far down the illiberal, top down system favored by "Progressives". A look at the eastern half of the nation, where these attitudes have gained the greatest power is also a look at mostly have not Provinces and a greedy and timorous outlook on life. Here is where the demand for handouts and patronage is the loudest, where opposition to Canada taking a role as a "Leading Middle Power" is the strongest and where bureaucracy is most entrenched. The western half of Canada is less imbued with demands for patronage, handouts and bureaucracy, and as a result has become more dynamic in many fields.

Since Canada has been dominated at the federal level by "Progressives", our national decline is in direct proportion to how much Ottawa has been dominated by the imposition of a top down and hierarchical political culture. The current government can make limited gains against the tide, but must content itself with a process of slow starvation of the organs of bureaucratic power for now. Even in a majority situation, I suspect the process of reversing the culture will not be easy, and the cultural attitudes of the eastern provinces will be transmitted for a generation or more via university graduates, businessmen addicted to government handouts and the provincial and municipal governments desperate to cast blame on external factors to hide their own mistakes and maintain their positions of power.

For the reader, we must now work to overturn the top down and hierarchical systems wherever we find them. The current battle against the CHRC and all its clones is an important first step. Similar battles are being fought in other venues, such as the fight for Western grain farmers to sell their own product without State intervention, or Ontario taxpayers to control their own earnings. Its time to roll up our sleeves, and get to work.

An Inconsistent Truth

More Global Warming Heresy...

"Yeah, you know, like when you put your car into reverse you are causing it to enter a period of less rapid forward motion. Or when I gain a few pounds I am in a period of less rapid weight loss."

Huh?

Beg your pardon?

Religion of Litigation

Defame Islam, get sued?

Hey Islam… Get stuffed!

I await your indictment.

This aught to be good, Zip vs the Muslim World.

An Inconsistent Truth

The Anti-Global Warming Dog Pile

It’s a full tilt, body slamming, turf eating, elbow and knee filled fact frenzy!

http://davidwarrenonline.com/index.php?id=858

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=377568&p=1

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=364265

http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2008/03/couple-of-inconvenient-facts-in-another.html

Add your links in the comments.

Little Kremlin on the Prairie

"The product of ones effort belongs to the person who made that effort in the first place and it is their undeniable right to do with it as they wish"

h/t - Making Sense with Nicholls

It's All About The Oil!!!

Yes it is.

There, feel better?

I do.

Now for the truly dense I’ll explain why. Bear with me, this next part involves actual principals of international relations, not just clichés and utopian cravings.

In this world there exists a concept we call sovereignty. The simple explanation of that notion for the purpose of this post is that nations have the right to act in and with their national self-interest in mind. There is nothing, no law, and no power that can usurp the ability of nations to exercise this self determination. The only thing limiting the ability of each nation to exert this sovereign power is their individual ability to back up their sovereignty with that other weapon in the arsenal of the modern state, the use of force.

Now, back to the war in Iraq. Yes, it is all about the oil. Eight out of the US’s top 15 oil suppliers hail from the Middle East. Those nations represent approximately 40% of the US’s oil supply. You do the math.

Oil is black gold, and in this case it is most certainly a major reason for the war. It is in the USA’s national self-interest to ensure that it has all the resources necessary to maintain the growth and stability of its economy. Today, tomorrow and always.

The US, acting in its self-interest needed to send a straightforward message to the nations of the Middle East. That message was “Do not screw with our supply”. It was delivered with shock and awe aforethought, it was not a mistake, there was no confusion, there was no failure of intelligence. The weapon of mass destruction that America feared was a threat to America’s supply of oil.

The preceding may have offended some sensibilities but I’m not done yet. You see America’s rough and ready pursuit of rational self-interest is also in our self interest. The US economy is the world’s largest economy; it is the engine of the world’s economy and our largest trading partner by far. If the cost to ensure the safety of that economy is one murderous dictator or one hundred it is well worth it.

So the next time some greasy utopian moron complains that it’s all about the oil, stop equivocating, repeat after me…

Yes it is.

What Do You Know, They Do Get It

They just don't like it...

Tax cuts by Conservatives leave government hamstrung: Critics

For me this is an "Oh Yeah Baby!" moment. Hamsring and handcuff the government? By all means, and don't forget to hobble and shackle it while you're there.

I don't want government to come running with bags of money (our money) every time a business gets a fiscal bloody nose, and there are damn few (if any) economic situations either global or national that will not, or can not correct themselves in a free market. Don't believe me, take his word for it.

"Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney signaled that he sees a glimmer of hope that financial markets are righting themselves, and cautioned authorities against overreacting with new rules that might ultimately hurt the economy."

Seems like Ms Rand is two for two...

"The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, and to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law."

Participatory Economics

Some people have no sense of history. I recently came across a post on the London Fog which attributed the idea of Participatory Economics to a Michael Albert. A quick perusal of the post and the related article on Wikipedia (I know, but it is a fast and easy first reference) gave me enough information to know that I had seen this idea before, and to predict the ultimate denouement of any society foolish enough to adopt it.

Participatory Economics, or Parecon as is is sometimes called, is one of the bizzare offshoots of Socialism. It seems most closely related to Communitarianism, or maybe an extension of the Cooperative movement's ideologies. The tangled logic that Michael Albert and his supporters use to explain the theoretical advantages of Parecon is worth reading if only to hone your own skills in debate. Don't let the fact that human nature, economic incentives and historical evidence is completely ignored or discounted by Parecon theorists dissuade you; it is important to know and understand how the other side thinks and frame their arguments. Incidentally, the very premise of Parecon and its socialist cousins is that people are not free agents, and cannot take actions to change their circumstances inside the framework of free market democracies. One only has to listen to the musical stylings ofDavid Allan Coe to undercut that argument.

Now I could go into a long post and describe the various ins and outs of the theory, and rip holes in the flimsy fabric with arguments drawn from classical economics and history, but this has already been done for us, and much better. I knew I had seen the basic premise of Parecon and its ultimate denouement before; Ayn Rand laid it out in her 1957 novel "Atlas Shrugged" in the story of Starnesville and the destruction of 20th Century Motors . Novelists apparently have a better understanding of history and real life than economists.

Hurry!

For all of you who want to strike a blow for freedom, read this post from Free Dominion and write the CHRC at the address given. Remember to maintain a polite and professional attitude. CC your letter to your local media outlets (print and electronic) as well as your local Member of Parliament, and blogburst this everywhere you can.

The more people who respond and the greater the exposure given to this issue, the better our chances of ending this assault against our freedoms and liberties! Die free or die trying.

http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=96805

CHRC taking submissions on issue of closed hearing! WRITE!

The CHRC has said that they will take submissions from the public on the issue of the closed Warman v Lemire tribunal hearing, but the submissions must be made by March 17th.

Please write a polite and professional letter to Ms Jessie Cyr outlining why you believe the hearing should be public.

If you can't write a polite letter, PLEASE DON'T WRITE. You will only hurt our case.

Here is my submission:

Quote:

March 12, 2008 Canadian Human Rights Tribunal 160 Elgin Street 11th Floor Ottawa, ON K1A 1J4 Tel: (613) 995-1707 Email: gcyr@chrt-tcdp.gc.ca Attn: Ghislaine (Jessie) Cyr - Registry Officer Re: Warman v Lemire (T1073/5405) Dear Ms Cyr I am writing to request that the Warman v Lemire tribunal hearing that is scheduled for March 25, 2008 be open to the public. It has come to our attention that evidence will be given that suggests that CHRC investigator Dean Steacy created an anonymous account on a website we owned shortly before a CHRC complaint was filed against us. In addition, the Warman v Lemire case has become widely known on the Canadian internet, and many website owners feel that the outcome of this case will have far-reaching implications in regard to their free speech, and that of their members. We feel that the presence of media and public observers would serve to increase security at the hearing. Since members of the internet community wish to see this matter dealt with in a speedy and professional manner, it is our desire to help maintain a safe and peaceful environment so that the Tribunal feels safe keeping the hearing open and public, so many sets of eyes will be on the lookout for disruptors. Thank you very much in advance for considering this request. Sincerely, Connie and Mark Fournier

We'll either die free or we die trying.

The title of today's post comes from a line in the movie "Chicken Run", when Ginger rallies the flock to board the untested escape airplane immediately, before the farmer can put the birds in his newly repaired "pie making" machine.

While Chicken Run is a humorous spoof of classic WWII prison camp movies, the fundamental message of striving against all odds to preserve life and liberty shines through quite clearly. Yet when we look around us what do we see? The vast majority of our population sits idle, content to watch "American Idol" or discuss who gets voted off the island as if these were topics of real importance or concern. Even when something is truly compelling or important, it is either dismissed with a sound bite, twisted for partisan advantage or both. One only has to look at the reportage of Afghanistan in the Canadian media to understand. The news reporters are always sure to insert the number of Canadian dead, without really attempting to say why they died or what was so important that their friends and comrades willingly continue to serve under conditions of extreme peril.

Even within Canada, we need to step up to the plate. Many readers in the Blogosphere (and increasingly in the media) are now aware of the heroic efforts of Ezra Levant, Connie and Mark Fournier and Mark Steyn to fight for our rights to freedom of speech and expression, but seriously, what have you, the reader done to help them? A small donation to offset their legal expenses? Letters of support to your local newspaper? A message to your elected officials that these star chambers are not on in a free and democratic society?

The fight to maintain our rights and liberties is ongoing. The service and sacrifice of the men and women of our armed forces or brave individuals like Ezra, Connie or Mark maintain liberty for this generation, our sons and daughters will have to be prepared to continue the fight for their children, and so on down the line. Even when the odds are overwhelmingly against us, as honorable people there is really no other way to go:

Ginger: Listen. We'll either die free chickens or we die trying.
Babs: Are those the only choices?

Yes, they are the only choices

Building a Cult: Destroying an Ideal

The only thing more disturbing than a reversal of the separation of church and state is the creation of a church of the state.

I'm reminded of other cults of personality, from the damaging though benign to the murderous and destructive to the ruthlessly lethal.