 As a brief preface: For us old-timers who over the years in school have had to compete with our betters-of-gray matter (there have been many for me) it is difficult to observe the buffoons who are thrown at us from television, radio, etc. posing as media disciples of intelligent thought. These are the same people who provide such verbiage as: “the ‘amount’ of people” or “’less’” numbers” or any number of irregular and/or incorrect grammar or syntax foibles; not to mention the multitude of falsely stated disclosures, such as “antisemitism”(for those who are language prejudiced, I assume) or Israel is “our” strongest ally in the Mideast (I suppose I am too stupid to find what treaty provides us as a wartime “ally” with them). And, of course, by observing this particular nugget of knowledge I certainly am charged as a bigoted fool . But to conclude the point of this little intro, it was the geniuses of “The Five” on February 12, this new year (this program, of course, is a kissin’ cousin of those other media giants, “Outnumbered” as well as such woeful claptrap as “The view”) that continued the comparison of Minnesota’s recent brawl to the American South and its Confederacy’s “history” of racism and treason, they claim. But onward to my complaint (not really complaining—just pointing out the obtuse offerings of the media etc.). Complaining about these people is like complaining that you have poison ivy because you had to go into the woods to go squirrel hunting. Nothing you can do except scratch; kind of like Yankees—something natural, like rashes and diseases. You try to avoid them if you can. But, One of the group who was on The Five’s Yankee Republican stage that day, Kennedy, I believe (she just goes by the single sobriquet of “Kennedy” with no first or last—a media Paladin-ett, I suppose) blurted out that since Tom Homan had successfully come to Minneapolis and rescued Kristi Noem from the politics of shooting criminals, that Homan could be like U.S. Grant during the “Civil War” when he saved the day. Another of this media intellectual elite, Greg Gutfied, who has apparently learned his history at the knee of The Comedy Hour, stepped in and offered, and supported Kennedy, with the follow-up that Noem would certainly be General McClellan. Homan, Grant. Noem, McClellan. Get it? But they really don’t care (nor do they know). Their only wish is to denigrate the South via insults of the Confederacy that they claim was a treasonous group and are to be aligned with various 20th Century “fascists.” As bad as these people are about understanding Grant and his bloodthirsty mischief, they seem to know far less about McClellan (another subject for these dullards). I had a sixth-grade teacher as a boy who would get so mad at you when you committed some obviously foolish error that she would get right up in your face, wag her finger at you and bellow: “Paul (or whoever) WHERE IS YOUR GRAY MATTER!” A good teacher, and we learned a lot. When you see these media outlets today and their mental midgets pontificating, you can only wonder if they even finished grade school. Naturally the whole bunch cheered almost in a sing-a-long at Kennedy’s analogy as if Dinesh D’souza or Mark Levin were conducting some Republican juvenile delinquent orchestra (the Republican Wagner touch). It is difficult to watch this elementary school type demonstration with its flagrant and foul notion delivered by people who make (I don’t say earned) hundreds of thousands of dollars to reveal a flawed understanding, if not a downright lie; gray matter be damned! And you can be sure that this same bunch are too stupid to realize that their favorite political party will be doomed without the South. And such a notion may not be far off. There are many truthful and capable historians that can unmask the spurious Fox Fivers and the rest of their ilk, if only this media set would listen openly from those who would explain the truth. But they seem not to care. Or maybe they really are as stupid as they offer. Maybe gray matter really is that malnourished with these folks! Sadly, there are many Southerners that will continue to be fooled because they have locked into part of the media that they believe to be “on the right,” and therefore are RIGHT. Wrong! I may or may not be around for the next election, but at this point I am NEVER going to be fooled by these apes again. Not fooled really. It was a kind of foolish trust. And you can be sure that I will never offer these mental midgets of Yankeedom anything close to trust again. I’ve had it with these people. ‘The Five,” “ Outnumbered,” “ The View” ? Gray-Matter’s models of absentia that are lost to gray.
7 Comments
 Is July 4th a date signifying the birth of a nation or the independence of free states? The more we pulsate on July 4th as the birthday of a nation the more we continue to bury what was once a republic. But, more specifically: Voting rights. The right to vote? Prior to the 14th Amendment the phrase “right to vote” did not appear in the Constitution. It then appears (again magically) in the 15th Amendment as a not-so-subtle implication, again, that such “right” obviously was intended to draw inference from and for the Yankee mob who had been propagandized to kill and burn in the name of some new nation-to-be-created by old “Honest” Abe and his ilk. Sham righteousness was their flag, and national democracy was their goal, led by old “H-A” and his Northern (mostly New England) mob. This “Right,” psychologically in place after 1865, and ordered and enforced at gunpoint by national (no longer federal) troops to disarm captives of the South; this new “birth-of-freedom” in its bloody afterbirth largely became the monster national state we serve (we are now the subject, not the object) today. That is where the race to the voting booth began and our precious and so-called exemplary (of course-tongue-in-cheek) courts took on final authority of the Yankee kingdom. A kingdom where democracy was called king though the king’s court was necessarily attended by ochlocratic orientated stooges who are worshiped to this day as the official legal minds. And worshiped they have been. The few responsible men (yes) who had represented and voted in their independent states of the former union (now the nation) now - through political subterfuge - have been eliminated through the courts and national edicts, i.e. amendments. There are no longer amendments to the Constitution because nullification and secession have been eliminated (at gunpoint). Therefore, each change after the 12th Amendment has been an edict. Below is typical of the legalistic (and historical) drivel that is found online as well as at libraries, most certainly. From The Colleges of law: (Boldface is my added emphasis) Who Has the Right to Vote? “There is no constitutional right to vote” sounds like the beginning of a Margaret Atwood novel. But, unlike other rights listed in the Constitution, such as the right of the people to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment, or the right to a speedy and public trial in the Sixth Amendment, the Constitution may not explicitly give U.S. citizens this beloved “right” to vote. Scholars disagree on whether the U.S. Constitution gives Americans the right to vote. Some believe that the right is implicit, embedded in the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, and others argue that the right does not exist. While scholars might not agree whether the Constitution guarantees the right to vote, the U.S. Supreme Court does not hesitate to affirm the notion. In the 1972 decision in Dunn v. Blumstein, Justice Marshall stated, “In decision after decision, this Court has made clear that a citizen has a constitutionally protected right to participate in elections on an equal basis with other citizens in the jurisdiction.” And again in the 1974 Richardson v. Ramirez case, Justice Rehnquist wrote: “Because the right to vote ‘is of the essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government,’… voting is a ‘fundamental’ right.” Note the timeline above directs most discussion after 1865. And, of course, the grasping at Constitutional “straws and maybes.” But onward, Aristotle’s three forms of government and each’s corrupt form:
“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” Thomas Jefferson The problem for anarchists in achieving success is that in order to reach their goal they must have an organized effort. In other words, a system which creates its own paradox—organized anarchy. So, it is true of a mob. There is no thought within a mob that defends itself as properly governing anything other than a mob - which cannot be governed, by definition, i.e. that’s why they call it a mob. This was the tenor in France before finally the mob turned on its own creators and gave them their own up close and personal view of Antoine Louis’s efficient Guillotine. Possibly the first criminal chop-shop. Today, in Minnesota, Minnesotans have problems created of their own making. And it’s too bad (for them). They cannot nullify ICE, they cannot secede from ICE, nor its Lincoln-created national state. And they have no one to blame but themselves. It was from Minnesota that some of the same Yankees who fought for the “right” to vote cloaked themselves in some monstrous lie that they were freeing slaves. Never, NEVER, could they see that they were not “freeing” anyone but were, in fact, enslaving everyone in their new birth of freedom. And it was their Yankee silly-boys such as Hubert Humphrey et al who worshiped the “right to vote” (1965) for everyone (especially down South). Personally, I say to hell with them. But that’s just me.  I recently read an article in The American Conservative written by Senator Rand Paul wherein he is trying to make heads or tails of the intervention in Venezuela i.e. was it an act of war? You may read the article if you wish, but I believe you’ll get the same feeling of doubletalk that Senator Paul got with the usual blather of nonsense from The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) and its reference to “classified” material, and on and on, with same Washington doublespeak that is its language, its non-communication communication. And, of course, “classified” is a bureaucratic concept that means they can conceal anything they want from the people (what some of us call "taxpayers") as long as they can convince them not to try and form a lynch mob. If you took such gibberish to the talk shops of radio, cable news, network news etc. you would get some - probably most - of the hosts immediately to throw out the old threadbare nonsense about: 1) The security of the NATION is at stake (classified) or 2) Some nonsense about checks and balances. The first is disingenuous on its face, if not an outright lie. A NATION of 350 million people cannot be secured except through arrest. The second is a fool’s errand. The clarity of a ten-year old could realize why. Sadly, you will hear a defense of the second from one of those geniuses who are championed as “right-wing” bloggers, or podcasters or whatever or whoever with some idiotic statement such as: The Founders (they cannot or will not say Founding Fathers) gave us a almost perfect system of checks and balances to keep our rights from being usurped. Then they will carry on some more about how we were handed a government so great that it overcame the tyrannical rule of a king - AND by damn we don’t want kings! - they will roar. This screech only covers the fact that they know little of monarchs or their history—especially British history (but that is another topic for another day). But just for the record I am a bit of a ten-year old myself. (Well, I was once). And to these right wing high-IQ wannabees - I ask the following: If Congress passes a law that says no citizen can cross the Mississippi River and the president signs the bill AND the Supreme Court (more geniuses) upholds the law, how, without breaking the law, can anyone cross the river? Please, no nonsense about the Constitution not allowing it. The SCOTUS says the congress and the president were correct in their acts! So, tell me. Could the law be nullified? Could any of the people secede, and form another government? The answers are “no” and “no.” That, the bloggers, et al tell us is treason. Senator Paul, I appreciate your efforts. But you are fighting a losing battle. And you can’t declare such a (battle) war. It would be treason. If I were you, I would just return to “Your” old Kentucky home and say to hell with it! |
