I watched a T.V. movie the other night wherein the female lead cussed and killed and punched guys around; a normal part of the plot these days. Women have won their struggle to become E-quality of men. Sacrificing the explicit notice of male and female, the implicit of ladies and gentlemen, no longer are we burdened with great men or great women. Now we allowed only great people: chair-people, cow-people, work-people-ship, games-people-ship; oh, well--oink.

I admit to being a male-chauvinist pig. To hear from the left and right (conservatives have no voice on cable news) about our brave men, and women, getting shot and maimed doesn’t exhilarate me the way it seems to others.


All of this may seem to be a ramble, and perhaps it is though its intended structure is toward a point. That is, through all of my oink beliefs I believe that the greatest person that America ever produced was not only a Southerner, but a woman. That woman, that person, was Helen Keller. I defy anyone to name anyone of any prominence (or not prominent) who did more with less than she did. When before the age of two you are blind, deaf and effectively mute, life is dang sure a hill to climb.

With the help of another woman of immense dedication and backbone, Anne Sullivan, a hard-headed Irishwoman who wouldn’t quit, Miss Keller became the first blind and deaf person to graduate from college (Ratcliffe). Afterwards she became a world-wide speaker (her speaking abilities were stunted in childhood by her deafness), and author of almost a dozen books. She operated both regular and Braille typewriters. She was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom.


Her politics were (as with Mark Twain, her friend) what would be today called “extremely left.” She was a socialist, a suffragist, a founder of the ACLU; and often these were vehicles in her goals to help the blind (Personal note: my own maternal grandmother taught music to blind students in the 1930s at the Mississippi School for the Blind).


But it does not matter to me what her politics or motives were. Her politics and mine may be on different horizons, but it has always been in my heart since I was a boy, that Helen Keller is, perhaps, the greatest example of God’s admonition that there need be no impossible. I believe He gave her for us. And because of Him she was our greatest American--and a lady.

​I wish I could have spoken with her. I wish I could have spoken with Robert E. Lee.
​

Lee Sam and Abner were settin’ on the porch drinking ice-tea one day when the Yankee from Boston come running his Honda Civic up the road to the house. He stopped, and as it was July and hadn’t rained in a month, the dust kinda poured over his car when he stopped.

He got out a coughing and fussing and fuming, as most Yankees do, as they’re always in a hurry and so always got something botherin‘ ‘em.

“Why can’t you pave this road?” He coughed.

In this case the dust was botherin’ him. Lee Sam and Abner turned and looked at each other conveying an obvious thought (to them) that if he’d drive half as fast he’d get choked ‘bout half as much.

Abner Scratched his ear and pointed at the flock that was settlin’ after the Honda had scatterd ‘em .

“If we was to pave it, them chickens wouldn’t have near-bout as much peckin’ room.”

“Well, Hell why don’t you at least put down some gravel?” the Yankee said.

“Gravel cost money. Dat dirt come wid de land.” Lee Sam said. Besides, chickens can’t peck through gravel. And Abner jus now told you ‘bout de chicken situation.”

“Well, why don’t you buy chickens and eggs at the store? Then you could have a nice yard.”

“Don’t want a nice yard. What’d we do with a nice yard?” Abner said. “Then we’d just have to water it. Hose water cost money. Rainwater don‘t.”

“Besides,” Lee Sam took over the persuasion, “ Dem chickens keep de termites away.”

The Yankee stepped up on the porch and handed the pair a package, too big to have fitted in the mailbox at the end of the road, which is the reason he had to drive down the road in the first place.

“Well, you can get chemicals to get rid of termites.”

“You gotta keep on buying chemicals. Chickens can redo themselves,” Abner said.

“Say, wuz you a mailman when before you wuz here?” Lee Sam asked.

“Indeed, I was. I’ve been a mailman for ten years.”

“Why den, did you leave New Jersey or whatever it wuz up there you wuz livin’ in?”

“Boston. It was Boston,” the mailman said. “Well, wad you come down here for?” Abner asked. He glanced at Lee Sam.

“Well I got tired of the cold winters; the crowds everywhere; everybody pushing and a shoving and in a hurry; the smokestacks with the toxic fumes pouring out; and food prices were so high. And freeways and parking lots was taking over everywhere. I just ask for a transfer so I could go south where there’s blue skies and warm weather and not so many people to bump into. I needed to live a more relaxing life you might say.”

“Got time for a glass of tea?” Abner asked.

​“No thanks. Got to hurry and finish my route.” The Yankee and the Honda sped down the road in a cloud of dust.

Oliver Anthony’s song “Rich Men North of Richmond” has exploded in the face of the Washington narcissists and their Woke weasels and weasel-etts. The concussion has loosened a rumble, particularly among the cackling hens who once craved “equality” but now realize the old expression that “It’s a man’s world” may have meant something other than it was “literally” (that so often ill-used word) so.

And the initial crowd, from many years back, of Title 9 warriors and cheerleaders happily has gathered up allies along the way—not understanding or realizing what trashy allies would greedily latch on.

Rich MEN North of Richmond. Men? What men?

Rich Eunuchs North of Richmond would be more appropriate. Nothing but Woke women up that way to rule. Rules by fools. The degeneration of both creation and political republicanism that would make Eve proud that she lied, lives, in that cold corrupt northern clime north of Richmond.

"Woke" had its birth (and afterbirth) in the "women's movement." It spilled over and gave birth to other movements: racial, sodomy, abortion…and generally any idiotic concept that one could conjure through the human imagination. The litany of these things always had Washington standing by to support, praise, and, of course, fund (with kickback votes in return) with taxpayers’ money (charged of course to their 30 trillion-dollar debt).

And the bill has always come back to the Roosters and Rednecks. But the final debt will be on the henhouse’s books. Oh, yes. The Roosters will crow and the Rednecks will swear, but the cackling will continue with; “It’s his fault.” If one dies, both die.
These hens also have learned, though still may not admit it, that there are not two genders of people, but there are two sexes of people. For the public school and university crowd, “words” have a gender, “people” have a sex. But employing sanity to persuade, is not contemporarily “de rigueur” for the Woke weasels. They bow to the “ladies.” Weasels have no courage.

Those bureaucratic lovers of Life by the Potomac are perhaps worrying that their “progressive” constituents are, in all their stupidity, being taught through some redneck musical twang that Sex and the Single Girl was a book written by Helen Gurley Brown for the liberated woman and not a high-class bourgeois sex vacation for the nouveau riche. It is (was) not a “Love Boat” manual for Jeffrey Epstein’s island of paradise for rich jackals. Or maybe…hmmm, who knows? Maybe Brown was actually a sheep in wolf clothing!

But whatever subliminal poetry Mr. Anthony intends, government believes itself to be mammon’s altar; and Anthony’s song is a great high-pitched bleating.

That altar expects receipt of all sacrifice from sex, sex deviations and derivations to taxes and screaming sheep. Perhaps it is the Anti-Doxology: “Praise Deep State from whom All Blessings Flow”?

And taxes always go up, and up and up when labyrinths of so-called government are created out of bureaucratic mental magic. Someone has to pay. Stupidity produces nothing, and corruption cost plenty.

Rednecks, also, are sinful, but they don't believe in sin. They are ashamed of it. They don't believe they can be cured, only saved.

Roosters no longer crow, alerting all that the sun is rising. They crow because all the corn in the yard has been eaten by perverts, green monsters, and spoiled children who are paraded before international cameras explaining how the world works, works badly, and must be corrected.

But even deeper is the revelation that Brown's instructions and recommendations wrought the same sassy and silly solutions as per Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. The underlying message was that Men and Women are the same, ipso facto equal in “mind and body.”

“RMNOR” isn't the end-all and be-all of return fire at the Woke and Washington crowd. But it has enough buyers out there in the best-seller and #1 I-Tune crowd to get the attention of the progressives, whether congressmen, senators, judges, governors, or local district attorneys and mayors.

As one of the so-called generations (Z, X, Boomer, whatever) remembers and states; “roosters rock.”

Whether or not it (RMNOR) lasts, considering the various publications and reports of testosterone shortage in the U.S. is anybody’s guess. We’ll see. Man-shortage is the problem. Not the sperm count—the delinquency count.

If you not only hear the words, in song, but observe Mr. Anthony’s face, the lines in it, the focus of his eyes, and, as well, absorb the spirit of his composition you see not just someone who turned down several million dollars for the golden opportunity for gold; but you see the eyes, the facial lines and the vision of not only a man, but a gentleman, we hope—if and only if, there is TRUTH there. Certainly, there are still a few of that breed. Culture and strength? No sale to the media trash (the body whole).

But, down South we know well the scalawag, and we know well the gentleman-- and the lady. We have seen the vileness of the one and the honor of the other. Hopes are that this will be a song of the second. Time will tell.

And contrary to the caricature clownish floor speakers and babblers in Congress, there is no such thing as a “gentlelady”. Women who are ladies are such, often in spite of men, not because of them.

Sing us a happy tune master and musician: For the farmer, worker, mother, father, brother, sister, soldier—taxpayer, and blood-shedder all.

Raise your voice so that others of the timbre of Thomas Paine and Patrick Henry are wakened to shout, again. And to those men in their graves who haunt and heckle today’s monstrous “people” in Washington, D.C.; the same people who lie to us and steal from us. Split their eardrums with song; chase their blackened spirits into fires hotter than hell!

Sing it from your Virginia home, and sing it loud, and sing it long, Boy.

​Sing it!

DON’T THREAD ON ME!

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.  ​