 Retired Colonel Douglas Macgregor is the kind of officer a man would appreciate as a superior; at least to an enlisted man of my vintage of some sixty years ago (USMC). He is also, in my opinion, the kind of officer who in this “modern” era has understood, and apparently still does, the military in most every aspect, from molding fighting MEN (yes! one of the many things he understands) to the deployment of armies regarding most aspects of strategy and the concomitant tactical building blocks of that strategy.
He also seems well-read in the history of both war and politics. He doesn’t seem to accept the well-known dictum by Carl von Clausewitz: “War is the continuation of politics by other means” as a Nineteenth Century model for the United States’ Twentieth Century War Powers Act. Charles Linbergh was a wiser (and better) man than ilk such as Mark Levin. If we have allies, we require treaties with them. Colonel Macgregor also seems to be a well-read student of history and has the greatest measure of economics that drive historical politics and war, with worldwide varieties of those kingdoms and confederacies throughout the world. As a multiple theater combat veteran one would assume he has seen blood and death up close. He doesn’t seem to need the Washington (pretentious) elites to tell him about causes of war or the authority of the government (ours) to engage in them. That last part is written constitutionally (the one in 1787, not the 1781 one), whether or not the above “elites” can read or not. It would not surprise many to learn that many probably can’t, at least in English. Often in the past months Colonel Macgregor has, via You-Tube, Substack, or other media means analyzed the Iran war in terms of fortune and/or a probable finality that the Old Testament prophets would applaud, i.e. it has a doomsday coloring for the U.S. at its end. And that day is straight ahead. As a postscript to his many offerings, he has spoken of the rotted-out Washington Uni-Party and the political disease it has become, and what such disease has done to our American Constitution; or probably more accurately what said constitution has become—a magnificent failure! Colonel Macgregor has offered the opinion that a new constitution is needed because the Washington crowd or the Uni-party (or whatever) has violated the 1787 one to the extent that it might as well have been written in invisible ink. I agree. However, his note of ill-use and corruption is simply a recollection and update of the violation in the disagreement of sovereignty in 1861-65. Colonel Macgregor suggests a new constitution and a “national” one at that. Does he not see that the “unpleasantness” of 1861-65 was what gave us the “national” monster we have today? It was after that sad episode of constitutional corruption that the union became nation, and the Star-Spangled Banner would be discarded in favor of something called a National Anthem. He has said that the constitution of 1787 is outdated. It is. But that has not been caused by a war with Iran but was accomplished by Nineteenth Century political thugs long ago. The corruption today is fostered by the lineage of those same political hacks, liars and bloodletters of yesterday. Some things never change. I agree with Colonel Macgregor that we need a new constitution. But if it is not one of union instead of nation, not one without misunderstanding of sovereignty then it is a waste of time and it too will end on the landfill of corrupt bureaucracy. Remember that the corrupted beast of government we have now under our constitution (article IV, Section 4) guarantees a “republican” form of government to each state: Stand and laugh, and laugh and laugh! But if we create a new national one, we will not have the last laugh. And we won’t be any better off. We’ll just die laughing.
0 Comments
 As I get older and closer to checking out, I find it difficult not to laugh at the foolhardy decisions from “public servants” governing the greatly proclaimed: “city on a hill” and its so-called “exceptionalism.” To laugh is the generous first calling for such nonsense, revulsion probably a more appropriate one, at least for many of us old guys. (Old guys understand the infinitive “to conserve”). This enigmatic city-on-a-hill concocted by shiftless Yankees-belying-a-“Pilgrimage” perfection shines its light (?) like a weakly lighted candle, and any exceptionalism is a mystery of, or to, anything that is actually exceptional within a political, legal and social population that is, well, let’s call it what it is, or has become, witless! Such a population seeded by Yankee puberty, political adolescence and increasingly vulgar dialectics. The fictional Phillip Nolan gave the right message to the wrong people. Yes, that’s the word for most of the population devoted to modern politics, the media and a sizeable corral of those who believe in some loosely defined “right to vote.” These are witless idealogues in a dimly lighted urban zone of brain fog and smog. They are the ones who love to say we are a “Democratic Republic.” Such a government is like a brothel with patrons having no outreach to penicillin. It is these same idealogues who don’t understand that a federation is confederated. Such are not two separate constructs. The United States federation states that it guarantees each state a republican government. Republican governments necessarily have no “right to vote,” if for no other reason than such a right does not exist; at least if such rights come from God. He does not allow us to vote but demands we obey His laws. We don’t get to vote on them. Stumbling before God cannot fall back on the excuse that we just didn’t “get out the vote.” When thinking the opposite of witless, think, as thoughtful thinkers apparently did not think (without thinking): You must be 35 to run for president but you have the “right” to vote at 18. You must be 30 to run for the senate, but you have the “right” to vote at 18. You must be 25 to run for the house, but you have a “right” to vote at 18. The imperative clauses were suggested by men who had wit. The conclusions are demanded by men who are nitwits, i.e, witless. Supposedly you can be a Supreme Court justice with a lifetime appointment (which you don’t actually get, though such drivel is nevertheless spoken by those who misunderstand the previously mentioned infinitive) and through sworn testimony reveal without question to be either a liar or a fool. No? Contemporary bawdy babble? Question for a perceived witless judge-lawyer (nitwit) witness: What is a woman? Answer: “I don’t know?” Liar or fool? Only two choices. There can be no third choice. The paradox would be that if you think there is a third choice, then you necessarily are one of the first two. The vicious and phantom ghost rider in the sky called a “right to vote” has given us a group of 435 representatives who each represent approximately 800,000 people (including criminals et numerous) with virtually no communication of one to the other. Write to your congressman? First, you are assuming he can read! And if he can, he probably doesn’t care unless you are sending money. Such chaos is an infection of nation, not union. But to speak of this is to be a barbarous traitor flying the wrong flag. Phillip keeps raising his ugly head. Republics have rules written in convention by the people. Democracies have mobs who burn rules (and often people). Democracies survive but for nationhood and the pruning of men. Republics can survive only in union. Lincoln said he was saving the union. But he created a nation behind his talents(?) as a corporate lawyer to fatten his wallet. Any union needed to die. And it did via murder. This same right to vote gives us 100 of the most mediocre (and in some cases simply dishonest) men representing no longer their individual republics but their national dependent counties of state. The “Left” and the so-called “Right” both can be excused (but not to be authorized) because the descriptive word for them is children. And they will never grow beyond that level, expressively. I don’t see how. They are stunted. They are very much like the fictional children who landed on a fictional island during a “war.” The leaders and followers are all childish (obviously) and they seek a beast that truly is imaginative, though they cannot imagine it, so - a paradox. Paradoxes are connived in Hell. Spiritual mysteries are splendors from Heaven, e.g. The Holy Trinity: Three persons in one and one in three. The Holy Trinity is mysterious. The right to vote is a paradox. Lord of the Flies comes from the notion of Beelzebub. In William Goldings novel Lord of the Flies, a fictional view of the results of adolescents marooned on a small island choosing a right to vote is presented. When the adventure ends with an adult discovering what their little democracy has developed: a feral and warlike society - the adult is overcome with disappointment and can only look out to sea with disgust. If daddy has a wife and three children and declared the family will vote as a democracy what is the guess as to what supper will be each evening? Meat and vegetables for each or a Banana Spit for each? Flies spread their wings and disease and famine spread! The exceptional city on a hill is sick and starving. It has created its own Anaconda plan. Irony, irony, and irony! |
