Rolling Stone: Pravda for the Trendies
David S. Cohen says “I teach the Constitution for a living.”  Can’t help but think of John 3:10 Yeshua answered him, “You hold the office of teacher in Israel, and you don’t know this?

Mr. Cohen has no business teaching the Constitution, neither by virtue of knowledge nor possession of a mind capable of rational chains of thought, i.e. logic.

His opening argument is aimed at dethroning the Constitution as secular writ.  By establishing that a series of amendments were “required” to improve it, he means to prove that there is no papal-like infallibility attached to it.  I am offended at his presumption that I am an idiot.  Few proponents of the 2nd Amendment are vigilant because of their belief in an infallible Constitution (and Bill of Rights).  Is it possible that he expects some of us to think: “Hmm, there were changes made over the years.  Therefore it is not written in stone.  And so yeah, OK lets just do away with the 2nd Amendment.”

IOW we do not cherish the 2nd Amendment because it is included in the secular writ of the Constitution!  We cherish the Constitution because it guarantees that our government is ours! Unlike all the rest of the governments in the world at that time, ours is conceived by the People, for the purposes of the People, and belongs to the people.  This Nation has created its own government.
Looking back across the Atlantic the framers saw Kingdoms, and Tyrannies that presumed to own the nations they ruled.  Not so here!  Our Nation, America owns the government.  In fact there was a Nation before there was a Constitution!  The nation established a government.  In the philosophy of John Locke we Americans made an explicit social contract.  Locke wrote of implicit social contracts, as theoretical outgrowths of his concept of human nature: as being capable of spontaneous self-organization based upon rational individuals surrendering some small portion of the absolute liberty that would be present in a “state of nature”.  For it is rational to give up some small part of liberty in order to establish a society that would recognize the right of private property, freedom from coercion, and support a common defense against criminals, would-be tyrants and invading nations.
David Cohen is wrong when he presumes that we who stand by our God given rights do so because we believe the Constitution is revealed wisdom, from on high. His examples like the Articles and Amendments dealing with the Vice-President selection, or how the Senate is to be chosen are intramural affairs. They do not effect the scope of the Constitution, but merely alter how it functions in those areas to which it is limited.   Those are issues contained within the fabric of the Constitution. They do not establish or protect the Constitution itself. It is the Second Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights that protects the Constitution, or better: protects the nation from a government that exceeds the scope to which the Constitution allowed it.
I had planned to demonstrate Cohen’s faulty grip on American history as well as his poor reasoning. Lets see how it goes. If it becomes too tangential I will let it go.
It is impossible that someone who teaches the Constitution could with a straight face write: “Much more profoundly, the Framers and the Constitution were wildly wrong on race. They enshrined slavery into the Constitution ….. They also blatantly wrote racism into the Constitution by counting slaves as only 3/5s of a person for purposes of Congressional representation.”
Every high school graduate once knew that the 3/5th’s rule was a compromise between the Free States and the Slave States. Since slaves obviously wouldn’t be voting, including them into the Slave states’ population served to increase the numbers of Representatives and Electoral College members it would have in the Federal Government. The slaves should not have been counted as any part of a person. Since the slavocracy treated slaves as chattel property it was no different than a demand to count horses towards a state’s population in terms of electoral power! If David S. Cohen is unaware of this concept it is impossible for him to be a teacher of the Constitution. But far worse than a fool is a deliberate liar who knows the truth but seeks to hide it or twist it to fit his agenda. No. No way is Cohen unaware of the history of the 3/5th’s rule and its meaning.
Seems as if I cannot let it go. Paragraph upon paragraph of flawed arguments based upon faulty factoids roll down the page of Rolling Stone.
There are others flaws that have been fixed … and still other flaws that have not yet been fixed (such as about equal rights for women and land-based representation in the Senate), but the point is the same — there is absolutely nothing permanently sacrosanct about the Founders and the Constitution. They were deeply flawed people, it was and is a flawed document,…”
We get it. The founders were deeply flawed. And would the David S. Cohen of 1789 be a snide indoctucated rhetorician or a hunchbacked bookworm at the local Talmudic study hall? Surely this 1789 version of the brilliant teacher of the Constitution would have a rather constricted and provincial worldview. But at least one of ancestors got sick enough of the musty book smells and occasional pogroms to sell everything and take boat to the New World. I think that the great Abrahamic grandparent who boldly went forth from Ur would smack young David upside his head!
I am at a loss to read that the issue of equal rights for women has not been fixed.
It is also presumptuous to glibly describe the Senate as a flawed institution in that it is “land based”. I had to click that link to even know to what he referred. Turns out that this “teacher of the Constitution” is either ignorant of the Connecticut Compromise or chooses to not teach it. Anyone with a fleeting acquaintance with the debates and issues of the Constitutional Convention would know that in the Framers’ mind was the fear of democracy untrammeled. The term “democrat” at that time was pejorative. The Framers, unlike our “teacher” were extremely well read on the history of republics; from Greece to Rome to the city-states of Florence and the Cantons of Switzerland. Their bête noir was a popularly elected tyrant. The masses, being uneducated, and thus defenseless against clever rhetoric are vulnerable to being manipulated by power-seeking individuals. Whether the motive is “altruistic utopianism” or naked corruption majoritarianism is a gateway to tyranny.
The House of Representatives was where popularly elected men met to initiate any spending bill. This branch was closest to the direct will of their constituents. The fear of mobocracy prompted a more sedate Senate. Originally the Senators were similar to ambassadors from their state to the Federal Congress. They were to be creatures of their State Legislatures: selected by their State Government and Governors and sent to Washington DC. The Senate thus functioned as a brake on the popular enthusiasms that could sweep through the masses. Since each state had two Senators, the smaller states such as Delaware, and Rhode Island were protected from having their voices drowned out in the proportional numbers of the larger states in the House of Representatives.
Put simply the two functions of the Senate were to represent the States as the semi-sovereign entities that existed prior to the Constitution and to oppose untrammeled majoritarianism. In 1914 the Progressive Wilson shepherded through the 17th Amendment that removed from the State governments any role in the selection of Senators and made them also popularly elected. And apparently this further erosion of the levy designed to channel the majoritarian tide is not enough! No, now the complaint is that the less populated states (mainly rural, mainly NOT the magnet for immigrants, mainly Christian, mainly conservative) have the same representation in the Senate as the more populated liberal states such as California, New York, etc.   DOH! That was why the Framers, deeply flawed as they were, created a bicameral legislature in the first place!
As one can see Cohen’s flawed arguments are built upon piles of stinking misinformation.
Can I muster the strength to read and comment on another of his paragraphs? See below. If nothing is below I have had enough.
Maybe one more:
“Gun-rights advocates like to make this all about liberty, insisting that their freedom to bear arms is of utmost importance and that restricting their freedom would be a violation of basic rights.”   

Not so fast. Most defenders of the 2nd Amendment believe that it is not merely the right to bear arms that is threatened, but it is the right specifically given in the Declaration of Independence of the citizens to rebel and overthrow a tyrannical government.

It seems that the more the government acts tyrannical in some ways the more the urge to disarm the citizenry. Yes, one citizen with a semi-automatic can conceivably in conjunction with like-minded local citizens in a militia stand up against a Federal Government that has thoroughly militarized itself against the people. When Federal paramilitary units of the Department of Agriculture (of Agriculture??) roll up in armored Humvees wearing Kevlar and carrying fully automatic weapons to bust a dairy farmer selling unpasteurized milk, the ability to stand up to that must not be dismissed.
Notice whenever a mass shooting occurs the Gun-Grabbing machine is ready to roll.   Within hours, pre-written speeches, resolutions, and all manner of hyped outrage are unleashed by the lackey-media. None lackier than RS!
We need a mass movement of those who are fed up with the long-dead Founders’ view of the world ruling current day politics.”

By God that sounds like treason! Any University teaching radical overthrow of Constitutional limited government should be banned from being eligible for student loans.

Anti-Zionists are Anti-Semites

Balochistan-Map-1024x901 poster-peoples-big
Anti-Zionists that are not evidently motivated against other “oppressor” nations must be considered anti-Semites.

It would seem to an observer from a distant planet that the Arab people living within the borders of Israel are the sole people without a nation state.
The vociferousness of the BDS movement (to boycott, divest and sanction Israel) is often deafening. Their stridency has made Jewish students on college campuses fearful for their very physical safety. The anti-Zionists claim to harbor neither anti-Semitic nor anti-Jewish sentiment.
I believe the anti-Zionists are in fact anti-Semites. The only question is whether all of them are honest with themselves about it.
I propose an experiment to help distinguish between the Anti-Zionists and the anti-Semites. If the anti-Zionists are truly only opposed to what they consider the unjust treatment of the Arabs they refer to as “Palestinians” then their sense of moral outrage would be equally aroused at the “plight” of other minority populations deprived of “all important” nation state status.
The “Palestinians” are not by a long shot the only minority people with aspirations of nationhood! They are the unique in that their alleged “oppressors” are Jews.
Anti-Zionists that are not evidently motivated against other “oppressor” nations must be considered anti-Semites.
The following list (from Wiki) includes those whose oppressors are not Jews. The silence on campuses and in the UN is deafening.
The following list (from Wiki) includes those whose oppressors are not Jews. The silence on campuses and in the UN is deafening.
Tamils, a majority in southern India, on Sri Lanka they are a Hindu minority in a Buddhist majority state.  They are concentrated in the northwest of the island and are denied their own state.
Kurds, an ancient people.  Saladin was a Kurd.  Some Kurds believe they are the descendents of the Medes.  Whatever their ancient history is, they are a stateless people spread through eastern Turkey, Northern Syria and Iraq, and Northwestern Iran.  They have been persecuted for their refusal to surrender their national aspirations.
Balochi Baluchistan is that region of Pakistan that bulges westward from the Indus and separates Afghanistan from the Indian Ocean.  There has been a low-grade chronic smoldering drive for independence from Pakistan.
Occitan occupied by France.
Andalusians occupied by Spain.
Uyghur are ethnically similar to Tajiks.  They are Muslims in there far west of China.  Ethnic Hans, the majority Chinese have been “encouraged” to move into this region in order to dilute the Islamic presence.  There has been significant bloodshed and persecution of the Uyghurs by the Peoples Republic of China.
Catalonians occupied by Spain; like Andalusia and Basque land.

Catalonian Flag BDS Spain?

Catalonian Flag BDS Spain?

Circassians an unrecognized nationality within Russia.
Tatars see above.
Quebecois, are the descendents of the original French colonists in Canada.  When is Canada going to start their peace process towards a two state solution?
Walloons in Belgium
Chechens, Russia again.
Hawaiians: Hawaii was a sovereign kingdom before its state was overthrown by Americans.

Hawaii Flag

Hawaii Flag

Sami (Laplanders)
France, again.






Post-War Europe has been doing its best to quell nationalistic expression. In the wake of Hitler and Mussolini (and Stalin, but he gets the PC pass) Europe was traumatized by the effects of pathologic patriotism. Hoping to avoid future European wars the EU project was started. The dream was to create a generic “European” loyalty shared by all the States of Europe. It is as if the differences between say Denmark and Greece were no more than those between Massachusetts and Mississippi. As much as our two states differ from one another their citizens share a language, literature, sense of history, and culture still echoing that of the Protestant Enlightenment. Not so Denmark and Greece.

Or Germany and Italy etc.

The ideal of European Union becoming a “United States of Europe” demanded the destruction of nationalism and its underlying patriotism. It was to be replaced by some vague generic “Euro” identity. Only Utopians succumb to the platonic error of believing categories are actual objects to be manipulated. Reality exists ONLY in the Particular!
It is hard for humans to take pride in a category. Once, people took pride in their own country. But that was pride in their particular country, its cuisine, its smells, its local holidays and festivals and so on. Even the merely nominal identification with a particular sect of Christianity added to the sense of belonging to “A People”; not “The People”! Men will not fight for that which they do not feel passionate. Who stands against the Muslim invaders? No “European” will stand. But, an Englishman, a Frenchman, a German will be more likely to exclaim no, non, nein to Muslim invaders.   (And for how many seconds must one wait before the well-indoctucated remind me that there are hundreds of thousands of Muslim Britons, French and Germans? When we hear of a Briton accused of beheading someone, do we think he’s Kentish, or perhaps Saxon, or maybe a Scotsman? Yes, I’m sure when we hear of a Briton accused of beheading anyone we envisage kilts, bagpipes and a very long dirk.)

For instance the various denominations of Euros are adorned with generic historic-looking bridges and other generic landmarks. From the Euro website they “depict the architectural styles from seven periods of Europe’s cultural history: Classical, Romanesque, Gothic, Renaissance, Baroque and Rococo, the Age of Iron and Glass, and modern 20th century architecture. All notes depict typical elements of these periods, such as windows, gateways and bridges.” TYPICAL as opposed to ACTUAL! Is this not the great platonic lie that underlies all utopian totalitarians?

History like nature abhors a vacuum. The deliberate re-molding of European youths to attain a worldview both anti-Patriotic anti-Nationalist has created a society that has zero sense of superiority over any other culture. The de-Construction of Christian Europe was part and parcel of this War On Particulars. Thus we see the descendants of White Christian Europeans unable to recognize aliens from self. This inability to differentiate and protect self from non-self is the sine qua non of AIDS.   An entire continent has been trained to NOT SEE. Full circle:
Europe has deliberately given itself a lobotomy and AIDS!

This deliberate demand to NOT SEE particularities will prevent Europe from seeing her fate: Not See its fate. The full circle from Nazi ideology to NOT SEE ideology will destroy the new Europe.
Is Europe fated to be either Nazi or to Not See?


Regardless of the chances of beating the Democrat nominee, which of the Republican nominees if elected would be most likely to significantly change America in a positive way.

All In The Family: a Socially Conservative Show?







Entertainment Weekly    reported Norman Lear’s comments at the Television Critics Association’s press tour in Beverly Hills.  The 93 year old producer of All In The Family,The Jeffersons and One Day at a Time (and I believe Maude and its spinoffs) announced that he is a “social conservative”.

Many of us who grew up watching those shows see in them the seeds of the Culture Wars that America is losing today.  To read that he considers himself a social conservative was almost as shocking as reading that DW Griffith was a crypto-anarchist.

After pondering Norman Lear’s comment and recalling his trademark shows I think I can rectify his social conservatism with the content of his productions.

NORMAN LEAR is a social conservative!!!?? Did he change? Or was Meathead supposed to be equally as wrong as Archie? If so, the writers totally blew it over the years. Because Stivik, the know-it-all university student who married Archie’s daughter and moved into his house and ate his food and looked down on him as only a leftist could, was portrayed not as equal and opposite to Archie. No, it appeared to me back then that he was supposed to be superior to Archie. He was used to teach us what educated and “with it” young adults were like.
But in retrospect, given Lear’s surprising comment on his being a social conservative another way of looking at All In The Family might be:
The synthesizer of thesis -antithesis was either Gloria or Edith. All the feuds instigated by the politico-cultural polarities of the two men created stress between the women. And their contribution was LOVE. So in a way, though Bunker, a “typical” blue-collar WASP was cast as “reactionary” and racist, he also had a sense of fair play. Michael (Meathead) was cast as a self-righteous know-it-all, who somehow was portrayed as “car~ing” (Michael Savage snide tone implied).
The inevitable clash between the two men was also portrayed as being inflated by male ego. Thus the beginning of the dumbing down of the TV male (hetero) had begun.
And yet… despite the overall radicalism of the show Norman Lear included the key component in society: the subtext of FAMILY LOVE.
It is (or was) his recognition of family love as the mortar that holds society together despite political differences that should have allowed us to see Lear as a cultural conservative. Rather than being shocked and thinking “too little too late” we might have understood that all along he was showing the way; the Conservative way.
The Conservative Way is NOT political. Though Conservatives take part in politics, it is typically in a manner to resist the politicization of culture. For instance Marriage is NOT supposed by Conservatives to be a political issue.
As Lockeans have always maintained, humans in the State of Nature are not atomized beasts, but rather are social creatures. The Bunker family home is where they lived. The issues of the day were out there. But inside, though the issues had their echoes, the reality was that their world was higher than mere politics.

A Proposal to Restore Peace to Europe: Kant or Kalinin

Kalinigrad, FKA as East Prussia with its ancient port city of Königsberg.

Kalinigrad, FKA as East Prussia with its ancient port city of Königsberg.

After two vicious aggressive attacks upon Russia by Germany in a single lifetime, it seemed reasonable at the time to leave Germany divided. The permanent cession of East Prussia and its port of Königsberg to the USSR was accepted by the US and Great Britain, mostly because it was already a fait accompli. And the thought of a resumed war against our former Uncle Joe Stalin was unthinkable.
The ethnic cleaning that the Soviets inflicted upon the Germans (killing or forcing out 200,000) the importation of the Polish minorities from Byelorus, the Ukraine, and “mother” Russia herself.  (from Wiki) was ignored by the West.

From a description of Soviet era Kalinigrad by Allesandro Torello from “SAIA Review of International Affairs Volume 25, Number 1, Winter-Spring 2005:
Tucked away on the Baltic coast is Kaliningrad, a Russian enclave bordered by Lithuania and Poland, both members of the European Union. Once an important Soviet naval base, it has become a passage port for numerous illegal activities. Drug smuggling and human trafficking are the main problems, alongside the smuggling of amber, cigarettes and alcohol. Statistics show the crime rate in the region is 20 percent higher than in mainland Russia, and organized crime controls the illegal activities in the city, fomenting corruption and undermining economic performance. The AIDS incidence in Kaliningrad is the highest in Europe, spread by widespread prostitution and drug use. Tuberculosis and diphtheria are similarly common. Pollution smothers Kaliningrad, spurred by the poor condition of what industry remains and abetted by the region’s investment in technological innovation. Currently one of the poorest areas in Europe—its people are 65 times poorer than the average E.U. citizen—the city is a receptacle of criminality, organized crime and drugs. (Emphasis mine).


Immanuel Kant and the mainstream of European Civilization (for better or for worse [ Kant is the antithesis of Ayn Rand!]) OR—>>>Kalinin


KANT OR KALININ: Stalin, Lenin, Kalinin or Moe Larry and Curly of Soviet Terror

Traditionally in European balance of power diplomacy, Germany was the keystone of any alliance constructed to oppose Russian aggression. With Germany divided, and with East Prussia occupied by the USSR, the implicit palliative was that the USA would replace Germany as the keystone to an alliance system to oppose Soviet or Russian aggression.
70 years later: Germany is unified. It is integrated into the EU. Yet the Russians are allowed still to keep their foot in the door to the heartland of Europe. Kalinigrad (Russian name for East Prussia) remains as a permanent threat on Germany’s left flank. And as such, forces the USA to replace Germany in her traditional role.
The ethnic cleansing done by the Soviets after the war is barely spoken of.
MY PLAN: Russia removes itself form East Prussia. USA removes ourselves from the former Warsaw Pact and USSR Republics.
Germany, France and Britain ought be able to guarantee the Eastern marches of Europe: the Baltics, Poland, Hungary. We do not guarantee those formerly Soviet or Soviet controlled states. But the Europeans do. If there is battle, it will be between Germany and her European allies, and Russia. The battlefield would be, once more in the Blood Lands that suffered so from WW1 through the fall of the USSR. (Geography, unfortunately for them is fixed.)
We remain in NATO but do not deploy into the former Soviet and Warsaw pact states.
In summary East Prussia for US withdrawal to the initial NATO states. Please call to set time for delivery of Nobel Prize.
MY SOLUTION: Russia leaves East Prussia. Königsberg returns to Germany.  America withdraws to previous NATO borders.

Read more:

Absolutely Boycott Absolut Vodka

Not so fast hombres.

Not so fast hombres.

If only people would wake up and see the absolute (pun noted, unintended) parallel between Hispanics in America (USA) and Arabs in Israel much clarity would be gained.
Both believe they were there first. Both are wrong.
The Land of Israel was a barren backwater of the Ottoman Empire. Mark Twain wrote “Palestine sits in sackcloth and ashes. Over it broods the spell of a curse that has withered its fields and fettered its energies…. Renowned Jerusalem itself, the stateliest name in history, has lost all its ancient grandeur, and is become a pauper village; the riches of Solomon are no longer there to compel the admiration of visiting Oriental queens; the wonderful temple which was the pride and the glory of Israel, is gone, and the Ottoman crescent is lifted above the spot where, on that most memorable day in the annals of the world, they reared the Holy Cross. — The Innocents Abroad
Many writers, such as the Reverend Samuel Manning, mourned the atrophy of the coastal plain, the Sharon Plain, “the exquisite fertility and beauty of which made it to the Hebrew mind a symbol of prosperity.”But where were the inhabitants? This fertile plain, which might support an immense population, is almost a solitude…. Day by day we were to learn afresh the lesson now forced upon us, that the denunciations of ancient prophecy have been fulfilled to the very letter — “the land is left void and desolate and without inhabitants.” (The Reverend Samuel Manning, Those Holy Fields (London, 1874), pp. 14-17. W.M. Thomson reiterated the Reverend Manning’s observations: “How melancholy is this utter desolation! Not a house, not a trace of inhabitants, not even shepherds, seen everywhere else, appear to relieve the dull monotony…. Isaiah says that Sharon shall be wilderness, and the prediction has become a sad and impressive reality.” Thomson, The Land and the Book)
The parts of Mexico ceded to the USA after our victory over the corruptocrat regime in Mexico City was sparsely settled. Obsolete mercantilism forced all exports to flow from Tampico or Veracruz.  California was but a series of Missions, where Indians were forced to farm and become good Catholics.

The folkways of El Norte were always peculiar from the Mexican POV. These “northerners” that emigrated to Tejas and Nueveo Mexico were the rugged individualists of Mexico. The Iberian mindset in the Americas was always sited on URBAN life. The system of peonage allowed whiter more European Mexicans the luxury of absentee landlord over farming and mining. The peasants were never interested in ambition for self-improvement. They were NOT of the Bourgeoise mindset.
The very few that sought their own terms went north. The region was populated by the toughest of Indians. The geography was unfit for anything but ranching.
Americans spread west into what was Mexico at the invitation of the Federal District. More settlers, especially ambitious “Yankees” would increase the tax-revenues.
The economy grew and BOTH Americans and Mexicans of El Norte rebelled against their treatment by Mexico City. There were Mexicans and Americans IN the Alamo.
In any case as the USA built dams railroads etc, the region became wealthy. This NEW economy began sucking in Mexicans from the interior; i.e. not El Norte. When Air Conditioning was invented the small cities of the Southwest BOOMED. This increased the need for labor and that attracted  more Mexicans.

This is exactly to the T the story of Arabs in Israel. The European Jews (as opposed to the Ottoman Jews who were as backward as anyone in the region) came and drained swamps, irrigated land and turned Twain’s vacant dusty forlorn land green. This NEW economy sucked in Arabs from Syria as agricultural hands.
Thus SWEDEN and all the enemies of Israel are also anti-Americans.