According to the ABA, there are 1.3 million lawyers in the United States. Over 25% are in New York and California. The increase in the 20th century has been from 114,000 in 1900 to over a million in 2000. The population increased from 76,000,000 to 272,000,000 over the same period. The arithmetic shows a nine-fold increase in lawyers and a three-and-a-half-fold increase in people.

Apparently, there was a race to law school for many during that period, and the race has only slowed a bit until today, sailing well into the 21st century.

A large number of runners in the race, however, tripped over the tortoise with the goal to learn the law, it seems. Either that or the tortoise was going slow enough, himself, to take in the “learning” and they failed to understand the slow and deliberate method that he pursued for knowledge; they being too intimidated by the Socratic method and such masculine skill-sharpeners. The lawyer-wannabees just wanted to BE lawyers, I guess.

Acquiring legal proficiencies and histories was more like a necessary evil. But what the hell, if you can scrounge a law degree from some liberal-happy-shack like Yale, Stanford, or Berkley ad nauseum and then sell same to the public at 500 bucks or so an hour, who cares what you know?

Lawyers are analogous to those T.V. side-show historians who don’t make the big bucks perhaps, but still don’t know diddly squat after graduating from any one of a plethora of useless universities. Those fellows (lawyers and historians) are spread pretty evenly among all T.V. outlets. Even clowns need work despite the dying circus.

Fox may be the worst but then Fox has always been in the henhouse of conservatives. Fox is no more than MSNBC with too much lipstick.

But back to the barrister buffoons:

The point is many people seem to believe a great deal of these lawyers aren’t worth $5.00 an hour, let alone five hundred dollars an hour. And I’m speaking equally of the “never heard of set” and the “often on T.V. experts.”

For those who remember the O.J. Simpson trial, or for those of us who are alive and remember the Watergate episode, all should remember the blistering, blustering news and the cabal of lawyers paraded before the public daily. Its history was a constant serving of opinionated pretentious legalese-news slop. This trend has not ceased in 50 years.

In the Watergate watershed many lawyers went to jail. Many who didn’t probably should have. Many, as usual, ran for Congress. Sadly, many were elected.

Presently (back to the future), on any given day or night you can see one speaking, or spoken to, on T.V. He may be the host or he may be the guest. Or both guest and host may each be a lawyer.

The concept of the “constitutional lawyer” seems to be a command statement for many lawyers on media cable and network “shows.” That is, many of the attorney guests are brought on as CONSTITUTIONAL lawyers.

What are the rest of the million-plus or so? Non-Constitutional Lawyers?

The U.S. Constitution Is only about six thousand words (without amendments). Most of my mates and I in 9th grade civics class, eons ago, fathomed it, generally.

And anyway, what constitution? One of 50 state constitutions, or the “big” one that has become known as “The Law of the land” and is usually described as a document that provides for some magical—though nonexistent—checks and balances (such was lost in 1865). Now we have legal silliness, if not stupidity. And you can be sure there are plenty of idiots around who will call the big one a “national” constitution. They may or may not call it “federal” but they will mean “national” because they don’t know the difference. Talk-Radio is filled with these mental midgets and it continues to fertilize the minds of man daily.

They may never understand that some of us never stand or salute a “National Anthem,” but always willingly stand or salute “The Star-Spangled Banner” (and Dixie).

This so-called “Law of the land” in one of its own “Articles” (IV) requires 50 republics if there are 50 states (supposedly states in a union, and not simply adjacent counties) that by definition, necessarily have rules that “constitute” governance (without rules it isn’t a republic).

As an example of the big one and the typical legal mind(s) that examines it, as Constitutional lawyers, consider the following:

Keep notes sometime on these T.V. lawyers (and historians), and listen to how many times the subject of a trial will come up and some Denny Dimwit (constitutional lawyer) of the ABA, etc. will say quite adamantly that the man charged with a crime has a right to a trial by a “jury of his peers.”

The “Founders” were almost immediately, post 1787, thrown into the process of amending The often acclaimed “Greatest document devised by man,” before they had any hope of getting at least three-fourths ratifications (by the states, not the conglomeration of people). This first action taken under Article V became known as The Bill of Rights. These were the first ten amendments.

These “Founders” were not discussing a Bill of “Rights” that some man-made constituted document could give to men. These Founders had no such authority to create rights even if they claimed such. They were discussing God-given rights that men were endowed with (by their Creator).

Therefore, the concept of an “impartial jury” as opposed to the popular media ballyhoo of “Jury of one’s peers” was what they found in their deliberation (and prayer) and was what God probably had in mind.

The "peers" version evolved early from Magna Carta and was English dogma at the time (and still is) whereby men were judged by those who knew each other best. For example, a group of plumbers(today) would best know whether a plumber had been righteous or whether he was telling the truth or not with regard to a piping system he had installed. A similar concept can be seen in parents and their children (as opposed to someone else's children).

But an impartial jury means, something else: that there should be those who are willing to listen to testimony without prejudice or preconceived notions.

And the “Founders” considered that this was a better concept. That is a “peers” jury would always be rife with the temptation to inject the (modern phrase) “Good Ol’ Boy” justice. In other words, the "jury of one's peers" was REJECTED by those who drew up the document for presentation to the states.

And an impartial jury doesn’t necessarily mean one that has not heard about the case or spoken about it. And the nonsense of sequestering juries so as not to have their impartiality tainted is ludicrous. Is the jury pool assumed to be a collection of morons that cannot deflect rumor or hearsay from the public’s outcry? If the answer is, they cannot be trusted with certainty, then why isn’t the judge in the dusty little hotel room, incommunicado, along with them? Isn’t he supposed to be impartial, with certainty? He is allowed to read the newspaper but the “idiot” jurors are not?

This is the sort of undercurrent of pseudo-Constitutional thought that gets fences built around capitol buildings—and worse.

But, on any given channel, on any given night, some Harvard law scholar will pronounce that everyone has a right to a trial by a "jury of his peers." And, yes, the lawyer probably really does have a law degree. God knows why!

​Hank Johnson, a congressman from Georgia, is a lawyer and he believes the island of Guam might tip over if too many Marines land on it.

But to the specific point: The most important personage in the courtroom, aside from the defendant, are the jurors, NOT the judge. And judging by the standards of law schools these days, it is possible (maybe even probable) that the jurors are more knowledgeable of the law than the judge (see Emmet Sullivan in Michel Flynn case, speaking of idiots and morons).

But more to the point, where does this sort of fictitious bilge come from without comment—or correction?

Carrying that point to the law, somehow, we have an almost worship of many in government as if they are deities. The Supreme Court (a misnomer if there ever was one) is often ballyhooed as "our greatest legal minds." Good grief, they are simply nine lawyers. Nine lawyers. And one of those cannot define a woman. One wonders if she has a common DNA with Hank Johnson.

So, if silliness of law via constant reverberations from the legal-beagles, such as “trial by a jury of his peers,” remains, who will teach the teachers?

The point is, with a limited free press (Big Tech's scissors) and many in the "Media" utilizing free press as something akin to a teenage graffiti message, what we now have is an educated public akin to public education. If that’s the case, we might as well leave the border open. Let all the idiots in. They will keep familiar company, at least in Washington, D.C.

OR put them on T.V., where insanity obsesses and senselessness sells.

Send them to law school?

​Then send the rest of us to hell. That’s where we’re headed anyway. After all, law seems to be history.

The following is an excerpt from an article by a man named Troy Cauley. It is titled “Hindsight” and was first printed in the Southern Partisan over 30 years ago. If one can appreciate anything beyond “modernity” as to life’s heart such as: family, tradition, manners, love, friendship and at the same time cease worshipping gold, silver, technology, “industrial revolutions” and the Federal Reserve (The Devil’s  gatekeeper for man) this excerpt is, while not an elixir, a wonderful description and a light salve for life as perhaps God meant it to be lived, as on-this-earth flawed and sinful man.

This concept is for conservatives who truly “conserve” and understand characteristics such as Jeffersonianism’s heartbeat of localism and self- governing. Conservatism is not Ayn Rand and/or foreign wars.

God made His “chosen people” into twelve tribes—not a single “national” one.

When most people (I hope) look into their past, the locus AND focus are on the home, the family—and to those kind memories that God has planted in us.

Now, enough of my babbling. Mr. Cauley from here:

Technological progress in the past century has been outstanding in the field of transportation. Let’s illustrate it. When I was a small boy in central Texas (1930s) we lived about nine miles from the county seat, a town of three or four thousand people. In the fall we took a bale of cotton to town in a wagon. With a load of this sort, the team of horses walked about four miles an hour along the dirt road, thus taking a little over two hours for the trip. A short time ago (1980s) I flew from Texas to California in a 747 jet in about the same length of time. That looks like incredible progress. Let’s examine it more closely.

On the flight to California I saw virtually nothing of the country. From an elevation of 36.000 feet, all we saw were some weather-beaten clouds. Our seats were narrow and jammed together, but I visited with no one.  Nobody showed any interest in me. I was in a crowd but it was a very lonely crowd.

On the trip to town with the bale of cotton, we visited with fellow travelers along the way. We exchanged hearty greetings with neighbors as they sat on their porches. My brother and I had the whole back-end of the wagon in which to roll, tumble and wrestle. We saw field-larks in the pasture and heard their cheerful calls. Bob-white quail thundered out of the bushes along the fencerows. Jackrabbits raced off for the cover of the post-oaks. The trip was a big success even before we got to town.

In a sense, of course, all of this is trivial. But in a broader sense, it is highly illustrative of a basic fact: human nature is better adapted in a simple technology than to a highly complex one. People cannot live happily in a society of bread and circuses, especially when the bread has little or no nutritional value and the circuses consist mainly of endless hours of television depicting violence, vulgarity, and unclassified stupidity. The movies aren’t much (if any) better. A large part of the use of alcohol and other drugs can be traced to a basic cause: boredom. Boredom bred of routine factory jobs, impersonal “personal services” jobs, watching spectator sports instead of participating in true play, “dating” with uninteresting and generally inadequate partners, driving to and from a detested job through ever-growing traffic jams; you can expand the list for yourself…
​

What is the difference between the media and “the” Hollywood? Not much. Both are at best C minus actors, with limited skills and even more limited cerebral charging. For example, the media has a herd of folks that pass everyday as “reporters,” “journalists,” “political analysts” or some supposedly (promoted as) razor-sharp professional pundits—take your pick: legal, historical, economic, etc. It doesn’t matter—at least to them. Like the Hollywood slobbering actors, the media slobbers with nonsense from commentators that sounds as if Ed Wood produces the world’s daily news and comment, and does it as well as he did with the ghost of Bela Legosi.

Ed Wood, R.I.P.

The two things they (Hollywood and media) always have in common is they have makeup splashed on them, and a camera held on them. However, there is a third commonality: They are, for the most part (and at best) mediocre in the various fields that they respectively claim to represent. As long as they are picturesque or pretty (or at least not ugly), they get the big screen presentation that is entertaining for whatever "fans" cheer for them.

In the past half of a century, contemporary Hollywood actors both (actors/actresses) have won multiple "Best" Acting awards when their skills are mostly an ability to deliver less-than-Shakespearian dramatics like F*** you! Or Holy S***! This is the "method" of the give-him-an-Oscar crowd. Poor writing brilliance, perhaps, but then writers have poor subjects in both Hollywood and the media from which to feed for feedback. Again, C minus at "best".

But all love themselves; so, honesty to the fan of fiction is much like honesty to the viewer of the news media.

And the pay ain’t bad. Not as good as drug cartel profits but about as useful. And both are addictive, that is, applause and getting high. Will Smith and Robert DeNiro race to the stage presentation to throw punches or curse—sophistication from the cheap seats. Joe Scarborough and Brian Kilmeade seem to identify as giggling schoolboys. And that Gal-Friday of Scarborough's reminds me of Buffalo Bob and Howdy Doody chatting.

And with a cast of dozens and dozens in both outlets, the imagination can run wild insofar as crudeness, classlessness, and often just plain stupidity.

The media also exercises the same arm of self-aggrandizement that Hollywood does, absent the Oscar awards. That is to say, the media’s rendition of the mutual admiration love-in. Often this is pointed at themselves while their dastard deliveries point to the South while claiming always, always, always to possess an all-knowing brilliance of mankind and their crème de la crème of love and happiness, that damn shining light on some Yankee hill.

This is the media's moment of OSCAR! Their news, their startling revelations (called news) about what they call fools of the past, are shorn up by today's PRESENTISM. They smile, oh so virtuously, through the T.V. make-up powder that reveals the clown look of the clown mind. But the phony smile, like the profanity used by Hollywood, is the media's metier. If these people had to reason or resolve for survival or analyze the past for understanding the present, they would drop like Tyrannosaurus Rex.

Their soul belongs not to any truth or virtuous truism, or certainly not to any roots of what they may have learned at the knee of any father (God forbid)-figure.

To them, study, or perhaps fortuitous knowledge of the Socratic Paradox means, they perceive, nothing more than that maybe a guy named Socrates chose the wrong fraternity at Harvard or some other bastion of bastardized waived literacy throughout the "university community."

In former days one could read a newspaper or print magazine with articles or essays written with at least appropriate and apposite chronicled topics assayed (whether correct or misplaced). Today the media and its various news outlets are like believing the barker at the state fair when I was a boy. The freak shows they barked for were fun but mostly untrue.

Hollywood? Once you could see movies with actors using dramatic or comedic dialogue that struck your imaginative emotions. Today they can't seem to deliver a line unless it sounds like my drill instructor's introduction on our first day at Parris Island, many many years ago.

Like Paul Harvey used to say on the radio: "Any fool can cuss." Well, that seems to fit, considering.

And Harvey was one of the few with media class.

Pence and the Men of the Bible.

Christ seemed to pick many of his followers, disciples, etc., from the “dustier’ side of the masculine highway. That is, the single, or biggest, “goody-two-shoes” seemed to be Judas who collected and squeezed the money while at the same time feinted concern for the poor.

Now, many of so-called “conservatives” like Mike Pence, do their Jesus walk—the one Judas tippy-toed around—because they know their voter. We have several of those in Texas. They’re as rancid as the one(s) from Indiana.

The Republicans have a bunch of those guys (Judas ones) who pretend to be conservatives but are about as much so as Bill or Hillary or Obama or Schumer or Shi… er, Schiff, and on and on. The list is much longer than the short list of the conservative efforts of Goldwater, Reagan and, well duh…, the list is short. Father Abraham bred not many good guys. And abortion was in short supply in his day, anyway. So, Lincoln simply was empty in more than one way.

The Democrats themselves are so filled with sodomy, pedophilia, ochlocracy (their DNA), and such other political feeble-mindedness that, like sewage, you simply hold your nose as they pass under the bridge.

These are the kinds of Democrats who don’t have to sell their nonsense these days.
LBJ and that sort of hard-core political hacking and selling have gradually faded into the unnecessary doings with the infamous political monster of the 1965 Voting Rights (so-called) Act. Of course, the seed was planted with the equally monstrous 15th Amendment a century and a half back. This is the first constitutional hint that somehow a “right” to vote had been endowed to us by God ( I wasn’t aware that God said we could vote on murder, sodomy, etc.). Anyway, with every Tom, Dick, and Harry who has warm blood voting, the mob rules. And the truth be known, the Republicans are as Democratic as the Democrats.

Nowhere is this voting concept even hinted at in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights (addendum of initial amendments).

The point, the message? Nothing that hasn’t been said by God, or through His disciples: Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God."
No way around that fact. Not in my case, for dang sure.

But then, clownish fellows like Mark Levin, et ilk, promote a child-like concept of political parties and their enterprise. The Democrats (nor any political party) were not responsible for the ill-perceived “racial-problem” histories of the United States or the Western world, or the world itself, for that matter, contrary to Levin’s historical silliness that the Democrat party was created to issue evil edicts toward blacks.

Not segregation nor wholesale lynchings nor venomous vocabulary vulgarities. Nor…AND ALL STAND NOW AND ROAR—DRUM ROLLLLLLLL: SLAVERY!!!

This has been the reach of the Republican party from its beginning-- sanctimony and lying.

The Republican Party? Hardly, though not through thoughtful deliberation. Remember these contemporary idiots and their ilk back to 1865 have been selling the lie that they freed the slaves. And by god, they did it with a great Civil War to prove that their "truth is marching on." Fools like Grant, psychopaths like Sherman, and liars like Lincoln led the march. Satan's own trinity.

And men like Levin or Linsey Graham or Mitt Romney seem to well-remember their party’s roots—illegal and dishonorable wars.

So, if there is scum covering the Democrat’s pond (and there is), there are cheap tawdry Republicans who have trot lines set in the same kind of waters. They are not fishermen, they are killers of fish.

Like Judas, little “Jesus Boys,” such as Mike Pence, who seems hardly Christ-like, pretending to NOT serve God and Mammon, but will surely serve the Deep State.

Pence, a candidate for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, said in a statement on Tuesday (August, 1) that the indictment against Trump "serves as an important reminder: anyone who puts himself over the Constitution should never be president of the United States."

Now, I suspect Mike Pence has little knowledge of the U.S. Constitution despite his having a law degree (hell, even Joe and Hunter Biden each have one of those—I guess—maybe they share one) but good ol’ Mike will tell everyone how much he loves Jesus and America.

Listening to him spew inane comments about the Constitution leaves one (me) with the belief that he would fail a 10-question multiple choice exam necessary for certain ninth graders to pass on the Constitution, a few decades ago

His knowledge of Jesus may be better. But I’d bet a nickel that his concept (not knowledge) of Judas is more complete.

Mark Levin is another lawyer who demonstrates limited skills regarding history, political parties, etc. But he keeps a picture of Abraham Lincoln when spewing his pro-Republican anti-Democrat waffle.

Makes you wonder how many of these party types from either side really think the political trick pulled off was by Barrabas.

​But then he had Pontius Pilate as his counsel.

Every man returns to whence he came;
As he is prized of the Maker’s soul.
Every man who knows the land,
From God’s pottery to the unleavened whole.
Surrounded within,
At the end,
By tears, and dirt and roses.

Every part of landed man is carved by the mind of God.
The dew and dust and such mud it forms
Brings to those who love that soil.
The sinew, the might to stand all storms.
Surrounded within,
At the end,
By tears, and dirt and roses.

No man lies alone in the soil of whence he rose;
Often beside friends, oft-tendered dominion from God.
Homed by farmer, by tiller, by sun-faced soldier;
Whistled, petted, collared and wept, facing holy sod.
Surrounded within,
At the end,
By tears, and dirt and roses.
​
The countryside has such places wherefore there is rest,
So green with time as all the soil once turned by plow,
Under the knoll is a bit of wood, burlap, or steel.
A rest is peace, as any recall honors a holy vow,
Surrounded within,
​At the end,
By tears, and dirt and roses.

The richness of the land and ground, reveals the once-bled gray;
That signs are marked by glowing courage deep within blood dirt,
So clear and honorable are those who stand erect.
Even time spent over saved graves will ever salve the hurt.
Surrounded within,
At the end,
By tears, and dirt and roses.

Oh, home, that home, always reveals the march of life.
It runs and runs to the end, then lights the ground with flower.
And such as who will always pray, know no empty chest
That did not call back in time, finding the glory and power.
Surrounded within,
At the end,
By tears, and dirt and roses.

Occasionally, if you tune your ears toward the radio or television with the constant chat and talk, you will pick up certain casual remarks such as just happened to be carried by David Webb the other day. “We had a ‘Civil War’ and then moved on,” was his statement.

Webb seems a nice enough guy, and honestly attempts to present himself as a “conservative.” The quotation marks are for emphasis, meaning that the word is a label he carries without seemingly knowing what the word means. Same could have been said of Rush Limbaugh and his acolytes over the years.

Again, mostly nice guys, but have been turned away from conservative truth via a conglomeration of would-be patriots who think the fighting at Saratoga in 1777 was a great battle for national brotherhood, when in fact, one of the first (New Hampshire was first) to draw a sword for independence, with its own declaration of independence, was Virginia in June of 1776. And Virginians fought NOT in a newly found NATION magically founded on July 4th, 1776 but in a Union of independent states for which they were part, in the name of strength bringing peace. That each was an independent state was stated in the July 4th DOI after their own, earlier, DOI, and just as all of the colonies had signed.

Conservative is written as a script of “conserving.” And conserving has one purpose—to keep that which is wholesome and worthy, and keep it intact. Keep the good, abandon the bad. It does not mean war, money, and social godliness (small “g”) for the flesh of man to be loved and honored. Nor does it mean politicians can promote themselves through their slabbering and slobbering drivel in hopes of having their personal replica, as a self-portrait or marble statue, adorning the halls of the so-called “nation’s capital”—at least it seems we’ve moved away from such sloppy labels of politicians and their narcissism and at least call Washington, D.C. what it is—The Deep State. Mostly, “deep” into the public pockets.

Liberal is not a bad moniker, nor belief, as long as the bearer is not a “liberal”. Probably no one in the Deep State or its media whores get the irony here. However, they don’t know what liberal means, thus irony starves because of them. But then…smile Emoji. Let’s continue.

Politicians are, for the most part, horrible men. And finally, thanks to the modern political gods, horrible men and women. Equality comes from man, not God. So, "ladies" you've come a long way (how many of y'all are really blonde?). Now you, too, can participate fully in a land half-filled with degenerates and sexual deviates.
Politicians call it Woke. Men call it Weak. I can hear the strains of "America the Beautiful" gently and smoothly in the background as the Woke-sters hum.

Praise the Lord, Yankee Doodle! And crown the good with brotherhood?

Most of these radio chatterers and politicians are well-meaning fellows (some are not and they are particularly proud of their Southern hatred—He who hath an ear let him hear, Mark L.) and count Southerners as friends who were misguided but have redeemed themselves at places like San Juan Hill, Meuse-Argonne, Normandy, Iwo Jima, Chosin Reservoir, and Khe Sanh (for the record, a disproportionate number of Southerners fought [and died] in these battles).

Of course, any sacrificial bloodshed offerings by Southerners against The British soldiers circa 1775-1883 are coincidental to any honor, as the Southern kidnapping and killing (mostly through labor) of negroes took top priority, so say contemporary Yankee blowhards raised in today’s academic world.

A new world of academics absent Dickens or Tocqueville, of course.

But the messages of these chatterers are far beyond what had/has become known as "Independence Day." So…

It was the Virginians, through Thomas Jefferson who for the most part offered the well-known July Fourth Declaration of Independence for the additional 8 states (5 had already seceded: South Carolina, New Jersey, New Hampshire-first to secede, Rhode Island, and Virginia) for a signal of strength in its battle against the English Crown and the Crown’s constitutional parliament (not personally against King George III as some histrionic-historian idiots claim).

As a matter of fact, the real battle was one caused as a result of the smaller commercial interest fighting against the East India Company (the Google monster of the day) and its cooperate welfare of the day--EIC wanted lower taxes than everyone else, wrapped around the traditional mercantile system*.

It was under the July Fourth Declaration of Independence that 13 former colonies seceded from the British crown and declared (in the document itself) themselves free and independent states of the world. They declared themselves no nation! They wanted NO nation. They wanted and chose a republic union! They fought and bled for this concept and not the corrupt NATIONAL BASTARD living monstrously today in a once proud Southern city.

The Virginians, their fellow Southerners of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Maryland nor most colonies to the North excluding Hamiltonian national statists wanted a nation, nor necessarily fought for one at Saratoga (considered the turning point of the Revolutionary War by many) or any other place. As far as that goes most of the battles and slugfests, men and materials took place in the Southern states (colonies before July 4).

A republic of 13 independent states was later formed (1781) under articles establishing a republic confederation and by unanimous consent, later, 1787-1790 this same republic abandoned itself and ratified a new constitution after the independent states agreed to come together in convention for structure.

This constitutional government (as a union) lasted until 1861 when the Union split over the South’s paying disproportionately for Union costs and the North treating the constitution as no more than by-laws within a fraternity clubhouse. It was at this time that Lincoln and his Yankee army invaded the new Republic of The Confederate States of America. The Yankee army overwhelmed The Confederate States of America (C.S.A.) with large numbers of European socialist immigrants and Northern mercenaries and through monstrous burnings, lootings, and pillaging forced the South into surrender after 4 years of war.

At that time Yankee racism and reconstruction began its long march through the South. The North didn’t beat its weapons into plowshares, it beat the South into a “national submission.” No longer a union, now a national state. Today, as now known, The Deep State.

No?

One famous writer and journalist, H.L. Mencken, had a view that rarely came up in
the Yankee North. It has been passed along often, however, down South. It has never been clear whether this was due to Yankees' inability to read or their wanton disregard for truth. Many down South have a rabid opinion on this. The vainglorious Gettysburg Address was Mencken’s target.

Though a Southerner, Mencken often drew on his notorious cynicism regarding the South. “The Sahara of the Bozart” was one of his prominent cultural darts. Mencken could make Donald Trump look like Pinky Lee.

But he took truth and history where he found it, especially when it came to the Southern Confederacy. One of his most famous critiques, as stated above, is of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, and Mencken’s analysis of it is also one his most often quoted down South and most muted up North: Up North is where all those Harvard and Yale and Columbia and Dartmouth and on and on HISTORIANS live. But they wrote for the victor, not for the archives. Or as David Webb et al says: “We fought a ‘civil war’ and moved on.”

​Mencken’s critique of the Gettysburg Address:

If there are blacks, negroes, colored people, people of color…pick for your own… and any of you want reparations (money, I assume) from me, then my message to you is, “Get lost.” Unless you steal it from me through the so-called national government you are not getting a dime from me.

I don’t owe you anything. Not for work, not for indentured service, not for what the untutored academics and politicians of the world call “slavery.” Slavs were Rome’s problem not mine. And if you have your little feelings in a twit because your great-great-great-great grandpa got highjacked in Africa two or three centuries ago, that’s too bad. Take it up with your tribal (black, negro, colored, etc.) ancient functionaries who highjacked them in the first place and tied them with ropes and vines, then took them to the African coast to European human flesh traders on the west coast or to the African deserts to the north and sold them to other human flesh traders.

And if you insist on blaming white settlers in America, take it up with the New
England Yankee traders who bought them and traded them in the first place. Ninety-three percent of course went to either South America or islands nations of the Caribbean and West Indies.

Or take it up with the same slave merchants who fed their brother-textile-mills in the north from slaves working (for them) in the South, where about 5% of the slave population in the American Union ended up.

And last but not least, if you insist on reparations because of some “Jim Crow” cry-in-the-dark, at least quit bellyaching about the Confederate States of America. For those of you who take time to read (I realize there are many in politics who can’t) at least take a peek at Pulitzer Prize-winning Author C. Vann Woodward's The Strange Career of Jim Crow. Then go chat with your self-righteous Yankee (particularly the New England bunch) historical comic-book journalists and cable news clowns (Fox at the top of the list).

Then at least try and look at your so-called friends (BLM, Antifa, NAACP, etc.) with their socialistic Clockwork Orange futuristic history-to-be-desired. Your best interests at heart? Oh, sure!

In the meantime, the most important thing about July the Fourth, until Yankees learn to yield the truth, is that on that particular day, Vicksburg surrendered to the monster U.S. Grant and the people who treated and considered negroes with the most contempt, Yankees.

​After Vicksburg, Mississippi and much of the South did not celebrate July Fourth until Pearl Harbor. And then they did it because they sent thousands to defend Yankees in the World War. Something, speaking personally, I don’t believe they Yankees would have ever done for their “National; brothers in the South,” had the roles been reversed.

Gregg Jarrett like all of the “journalists” on Fox Cable writes a book and, apparently, as part of remuneration, can market the book through the cable broadcast (marketing is the backbone of selling books). In this case, he has written something called The Trial of the Century.

This version of such a thing which apparently (in Jarrett’s mind) rises above the Trials of Nuremberg, or of the Rosenbergs, or even O.J.'s loosely extra-legal extravaganza-“dream-team" brouhaha—which is really the bottom line on the law today—showmanship, is, of course, the Scopes “Monkey” Trial. 

That is John Scopes, the Tennessee teacher in 1925  who was tried for violating a Tennessee law named the Butler Act, which was really a promotion for the ACLU, Clarence Darrow (he who held no law degree), and a show for the blowhards of the Yankee North who of course with their Puritanical self-love are the nation’s shining-light-happy-city-on-a-hill, or some such Yankee bile spewed by the flaggers of truth; like their (Yankee) monstrous tales and lies of the old Southern Confederacy and its flags of St. Andrew. 

But: The truth in the Butler Act:  

“Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee, That it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the Universities, Normals, and all other public schools of the State which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, to teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals. (my emphasis).” 

The law did not prevent the teaching that there was, in fact, a conception (there was no theory proper—not by the scientific method, in any event)*devised by Charles Darwin called Evolution and he expounded at length via subsequent thoughts and writings on the subject. Darwin’s own literature was in the schools and was not disallowed. The law BANNED nothing. 

Tucker Carlson was banned. Charlie Darwin was not. Go figure, Fox! 

The law simply said that Darwin’s theory could not simply deny, as a fact of science, on Monday what Sunday School teachers had taught on Sunday.  

Jarrett, like most of the wisdom wannabee wags at Fox Inc., has offered the usual decades-old silliness of (I suppose his assumption is of a national government with God-given rights assigned by Himself through the Northern “Civil War” national priest concept) we the people of Tennessee were crucifying the First Amendment.  Jarrett doesn’t seem to bother (haven’t read the book—have only heard him describe contents several times) with the First Amendment’s inclusion of religion i.e. the Monday judges can eradicate the Sunday blather, so to speak. But Sunday school teachers on Monday must go to hell (sorry, couldn’t resist reading judges’ minds). 

Besides marketing means selling books not defending them.  

As to the ACLU and/or Clarence Darrow? If such is your taste in intelligent thought, then it begs the question regarding intelligent thought.     

Each time Jarrett appears on Fox he has his book in hand. And carrying his traditional media-sissy and sad drooping facial lines, he declares some savior, like agnostic Darrow, has saved us from hell or high water and his book proves it. 

Perhaps. But probably not. A better text on the subject as a single example would be Edward Larson’s Summer for the Gods (Pulitzer Prize, 1998). This I did read. 

Darrow had no law degree but read for the law; something acceptable at the time, and possibly more useful than today’s law schools which like most schools have become a clown show for pretend academicians and their pretend students. Socrates and his method rot in the earth. 

Even Lincoln followed this method (reading for the law) and while he was tagged with the misnomer, “Honest” he did acquire a modicum of shrewdness that serves him well in politics, even if he did spill buckets of American blood and bare publicly lie after lie for a cause he knew was a lie. But, like Darrow, he could find the courthouse and “promote” rather than persuade. Bottom line: The agnostic Lincoln made money, gained office, and spilled others' blood. 

This is the same place today’s media comes in. It is the same position held in abeyance to the virtually lawless and Godless. Uneducated rubes who live by the cliché and historical histrionics. 

And they are useful scribblers only to modernity and its decadent social order (or disorder). They can, in fact, read and write. They just have few ideas and less interest in what they write. 

Once schools carried the message that “God is the law.” Today, the schools carry the message that “The Law is God.” 

*The scientific method has five basic steps, plus one feedback step: 

1. Make an observation. 
2. Ask a question. 
3. Form a hypothesis or testable explanation. 
4. Make a prediction based on the hypothesis. 
5. Test the prediction. 
6. Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions. 

Numbers 4 and 5 have never survived Darwin’s theories.  ​

A word of warning to Puerto Rico: before you get excited about statehood; remember that once you get into the swamp, you can’t get out. The swamp-creatures own you: lock, stock and soul.

Remember, there was no such thing as an American “civil war.” Regardless of the modern pseudo-historical illiterate’s checklist. There were two wars of secession. One began in 1775 and the good guys won. The other began in 1861 and the other guys won. Puerto Rico, you cannot come into a union of states any longer. It no longer exits. It has been relabeled a nation. It has even turned a beautiful poem of music called The Star-Spangled Banner, honoring the courage of union into some bastardized Wagner-style march of the godly state called The National Anthem.

You can only give up your land and people to the national (nation) swamp. States have become national counties. And its quicksand will suck you under.

And war upon war upon war will be the suction that kills your sons, and now thanks be to the dastardly and moronic wonder-woke idealogues, your daughters too, shall bleed equally.

Union years, 1787-1861, two wars both legally declared by the union’s congress. National years. 1861-present, 9 or 10, not counting the 20the century multiple Banana Wars. Three of the entire number legally declared by the national congress. And those were promoted and primed by for congress by the “nation’s” presidents: Spanish American (where you became a national territory), WWI (Wilson’s War) and WWII (FDR’s War).

Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World- by Patrick Buchanan is praiseworthy to many veterans of post-WWII service (including me).

War is a Racket by Smedley D. Butler, Major General, U.S.M.C. (twice awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor).

This same national swamp with its thugs and professional bureaucrats will demand to know how much money you make so they can take as much as they want either by direct confiscation or if you are a bit short, they will use the printing press to inflate your earnings to zero--the perfect oxymoron.

They will spend it (confiscated or printed) on the Military Industrial Complex and its endless undeclared wars and then pretentiously stand beside coffins with hands over hearts as they “honor” the dead whom they have allowed to be killed or maimed. They lick their bureaucratic chops at the thought of American blood soaking Ukrainian ground.

If you thought Viet Nam was a bloody trick, you’ll love a Black Sea bloodbath. Hell, you can get 58,000 (Viet Nam KIA) with one bomb. Welcome to the your new “nation.”

This same nation will demand your sons fight in its wars, not in your own defense. And now will even demand your daughters do the same since they have eliminated God’s creation of male and female and created a Uni-human being. No longer will they allow pithy little aphorisms such as “Boys will be boys.” Now they will only allow that “Boys will be boys or girls--their choice.”

They will seduce you with seemingly clever little concepts that you are joining some grand magna cum political doctrinal called a Constitutional Democracy. Yes, or even more cleverly a Constitutional Republic. They get away with this foolish blather because it has provided a monster called public education: The Devil’s way to turn children into fools. The first, “Democracies” don’t have “constitutions” because they don’t use or need them. The mob determines everything. The second, “Republics” by definition have constitutions, therefore redundancies usually are subterfuge.

But it gets worse. You will come into a national morass of voters, many of whom couldn’t count to 3 if you spotted them the first 2 digits. This is of course under the nonsensical concept that there is an inherent “right to vote.” Once, under union there was a concept that rights were all from God. No more. After all, for example, God said “Thou Shalt Not Kill.” He didn’t attach a little addendum, “Y’all kick this around, vote on it and let me know if you agree.”

And don’t be fooled by the same bums (thugs and bureaucrats) babbling about the glorious Constitution. That sucker went dead when the union went dead. Anyway, most of them have never read it or even know it in its inherent simplicity (about 6000 words in basic English).

And, of course, you will be joining this great nation that is supposedly governed by some of the most corrupt and stupid people that ever crawled out of the primeval ooze. This national congress has morons who declare the world is coming to an end in a decade or so. And they have one guy who thinks that too many people standing on an island will cause it to tip over.

This nation even has elected a guy (the president?) who is called something goosey like “The Leader of the Free World." Whatever do you suppose that lunacy means? To this claimant title he was elected? Is such a description in Article II of the Constitution?

The present one is a demented quack who couldn't find the men's room at the Y.M.C.A. And if he did, he wouldn't know which side his zipper was on.

But you guys come on, Puerto Rico. Join this wagon load of manure now called a nation, once honorably known as a union. But as bad as the bureaucrats and thugs are; as bad and dumb as the congress is; as dopey and corrupt as the president is--you ain't seen nothing until you see the little gal standing in the wings if the president resigns. If you thought Nancy Pelosi was a clown,,,

But come on. And like I said, bring your checkbook.

​Como esta usted amigos and amigas. Sorry, I meant amigxs.