User Profile: UnreconstructedLibertarian


Member Since: October 20, 2010


123 To page: Go
  • [1] September 18, 2014 at 1:17pm

    Since we’re talking about Korn: the Bassist, Reginald Arvisu, has a similar testimony.

    I get a kick out of “Holier than Thou” Christians – who forget that John the Baptist emerged from the wilderness wearing animal skins and eating everything the Jews thought irreparably “unholy”. Indeed, everything about him in both appearance and action was offensive to the “sensibilities” of the audience he had (both then and obviously now). But, the Word was more powerful. Might want to ponder on that for a while. I fear that many who esteem a personal “righteousness” on earth may be getting their rewards here – with none to come later. “…depart from Me, I never knew you”.

  • [2] September 15, 2014 at 11:11am

    The irony here is that a quick search of where these naturally “high” areas of lithium occur led to a cursory observation that it is HIGHEST in what we now know to be extremely conservative areas.

    The material cited was done before lithium became a mainstream drug for “mood altering”. Its a free e-book, but the areas of concentration are listed in the sample provided.

    The absolute HIGHEST concentrations of lithium in the soil, and by association surface water sources, would be in the Appalachian Highlands. As the TV show “Moonshiners” used to declare in their opening montage; ” A people absolutely allergic to government in any form”.

    Conclusion: dosing the water supply with additional amounts of Lithium may not have the desired effect our Progressive Overlords may want. As it turns out, a bit of mental clarity may in fact be the nemesis of the Progressive movement (as if we didn’t already know that!).

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] September 5, 2014 at 10:06am

    The Historic irony is: Holder is laying the groundwork for a new “Segregation”. Since its obvious that no white person can act as an authoritative figure in a black community (particularly police), then only other blacks will be able to do so.

    In those designated “black communities”, there will also be “two laws” – a “black law” and “white law”. A double standard of law that allows the privileged race to be excused (in Holder’s view, that is black) and the disfranchised race being persecuted (in Holder’s view, this is white).

    Even in a “best case” scenario, no Police Chief will be able to look at Holder’s actions/words and not decide that to alleviate racial claims against their “practices”, he’ll have to hire black officers exclusively to patrol black neighborhoods and have an all-black riot force to escape scrutiny.

    Holder is an example of the “Reconstructionist” mindset. Ignorant of history, he doesn’t understand that his attitude and application is what created the debacle of 1866-1871 and gave birth to both the KKK and Jim Crow. If Holder’s “ideal” is pushed forward, he will effectively become the new father of Segregation in the US. His own racial animus demonstrates to perfection “separate and un-equal”.

  • July 3, 2014 at 9:15pm

    I think if these “scholars” want to review a piece of Jefferson’s work and dissect its language, they need to read the Virginia Resolution of 1798.

    It would put their mind at ease regarding Jefferson’s intentions toward “government”.

  • [8] May 7, 2014 at 1:25pm

    Typical Liberal attack.

    They are usually guilty of the very thing they accuse. The proverbial “guilty pigs who squeal first”.

    Its not an attack upon gay marriage, its an attack on the 1st Amendment.

    The Progressives of both parties are not truly interested in “gay rights”, but are using the opportunity to destroy the basic 1st Amendment right of Free Speech for all.

  • April 18, 2014 at 10:43pm

    Maryland was the State most illegally kept in the “Union”. Lincoln had their entire State legislature arrested and held without cause or due process. Their legislature was about to convene a secession convention and the prognosis was not good. So, he arrested them and prevented their lawful, constitutional assembly.

    Ironic, in that if Maryland had been allowed to meet and did in fact secede, Washington DC would have been surrounded by another country.

  • April 18, 2014 at 10:38pm

    You are not much of a “Classical Liberal”, if you don’t understand that there was no such thing as a “Citizen of the United States” – until the 14th Amendment. You were a Citizen of your State prior to that time, and no other laws applied to you unless enumerated in the US Constitution. “Citizen” was by virtue of your State, participation in Union was by compact upheld by the State itself.

    This was the accepted understanding of the relationship prior to the War, with every available treatise on the Constitution available at the time being explicit in this fact. Only the Reconstruction Acts (primarily the 14th Amendment) changed that. Meaning, prior to the War – the people of any State had the explicit right to secede if they felt like this: “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” (Declaration of Independence)

  • April 18, 2014 at 10:24pm

    The Georgia Declaration continues:

    ” After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.

    All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon. Time and issues upon slavery were necessary to its completion and final triumph. The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity.”

    Sound familiar in our day and age? How about excitable topics, Constitutional and State’s Rights, being challenged to further a larger agenda? Gun rights, gay rights, and social upheaval being fomented to create an even further despotic Central Government.

  • April 18, 2014 at 10:12pm

    Crony Capitalism was more likely a co-equal cause of the War of Northern Aggression.

    The Georgia Declaration lays it out pretty plainly:

    “The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government,… The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests…The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day.”

    Responses (1) +
  • April 18, 2014 at 9:32pm


    Article 1, Section 9 of the CS Constitution meant that the Congress could not pass a law ending slavery. It DID NOT prevent the States from ending slavery on their own.

    The answer to this, and was envisioned by the CS, is in fact your reference to Article IV Section 2. One must ask themselves why have this Constitutional provision if some mix of free and slave states/territories would not be present in the future? Why would it be necessary to declare that the lawful property held in one state be honored in another, “and the right of property in slaves shall not be thereby impaired”. It was to avoid within their country the situation that already existed between slave and free states.

    The fact is that the year the war broke out, the upper south (VA, TN, NC, AR) had emancipation bills on the floors of their respective Congresses. Consequently, those States’ secession declarations do not mention slavery as a cause of secession.

    Prior to the war’s outcome and the yankee invention of “Incorporation Doctrine”, people understood that the 2nd Amendment limited the Federal government from creating any gun law, but the States could (which was the situation until the McDonald SCOTUS decision). Similarly with the CSA article 1 section 9, which was a complete disabling of the Confederate government to make that decision, only the States themselves.

  • January 30, 2014 at 10:20am

    Impeachment Hell! Its time to start talking Secession.

    If Obama was the only Communistic Idiot to worry about, I’d say perhaps impeachment. Our government has obviously been overtaken by Communists, Socialists, and/or Mercantilist/Fascists to an irrepairable degree. The machinations of “elections” have only proven to be a modern ruse. We now only choose amongst providers of the “slop of choice” to the trough that has become the public treasury – and the majority of the populace have become the hogs fattened for slaughter.

    We are, evidently, a nation of pedantic cowards. Our ancestors would have already acted upon this with righteous conviction. We’ve wasted our heritage like spoiled children. The further we go down this road, the more painful the redirection will be.

  • January 23, 2014 at 5:43pm

    The Fury,

    How ’bout you come n’ Gitsum?

    We’ve been waiting for folk like you for 153 years. Quit wasting time and bring it.

    Deo Vindice.

  • January 23, 2014 at 10:34am

    This is what the “public” school system was designed to do – place all of societal activity under the jurisdiction of the state.

    The answer is to abolish public support, via tax dollars, to education. Thereby decoupling the entire educational process from political agenda and whim. If no Federal dollars were involved, they would not have any “say-so” in this regard.

    Of course, we can do that voluntarily by private educational means – but at a great disadvantage as not only are we being monetarily raped to further the “educational” political agenda, but then must bear the double-dip expense of educating our children in addition to the tax rapine.

  • January 23, 2014 at 9:58am

    Ironic you should mention the “second solution” of Article V. The Constitution quoted in my original post only provided for the “second solution”, meaning the Congress itself could neither propose nor pass Constitutional Amendments – only a duly assembled convention of the States.

    That Constitution being, the Constitution of the Confederate States. I encourage you to read the two Constitutions of 1861 side by side.

  • January 22, 2014 at 5:26pm

    This is really only a ploy to immigrate more “blues” into your “red” state. Or, at the very least, economicly empower the blues over the reds. Its been done there before, a time called “Reconstruction”.

  • [-1] January 22, 2014 at 5:12pm

    What if the “Commerce Clause” of the Constitution read like this…

    “To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; but neither this, nor any other clause contained in the Constitution, shall ever be construed to delegate the power to Congress to appropriate money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce”

    Would the “Affordable Heath Care” Act have been constitutional?

    Or, what if Section 8 of the Constitution began…

    “The Congress shall have the power, To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises for revenue, necessary to pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and carry on the Government …; but no bounties shall be granted from the Treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry…”

    “bounties” in the orginal context meaning “subsidies” in our current time.

    Would we be constantly tossed about in our economic situation by self-centered political whim? Would modern corporatism be replacing and/or dependent on government on any level within our country?

    A large “Kudo” to whomever can find those Constitutional propositions: because they actually existed – and a bloody war was fought to silence them.

    Responses (1) +
  • January 22, 2014 at 4:45pm

    The Left-Right political spectrum in Europe is not the same as in the U.S.

    In Europe, it is a repesentation of purely Socialistic systems of government. Left being pure Communism, Right being pure Facism and/or Monarchy. From a European perspective, according to their political spectrum, Nazism is “right-wing”.

    The American spectrum is quite different, where both Communism and Facism are extreme “left-wing” (total government), Anarchy is the terminus of the “right” end (no government at all).

    So, if the author of this article relied on and quoted a european source – they misrepresented the political spectrum as we understand it here in the U.S. In Europe, anything “right of center” in the American understanding does not exist.

    And to be factual – is ceasing to exist in U.S. government as well. Dems and Republicans being equally guilty in the demise.

    Responses (1) +
  • September 9, 2013 at 6:32pm


    When the time comes – your Bretheren will be with you until we are finally free.

    We always have been – always will be.

    Deo Vindice – from Tennessee

  • June 30, 2013 at 1:16pm

    First, I want to say that “Yankee” is defined by Attitude, not Lattitude. However, I will also say that “attitude” is more prevalent in America by lattitude than not.

    “Yankee Christian” is an American manifestation of a problem that predates the US, and found its genesis in the early days of the belief itself. The seed of which can be seen in the NT basis of disagreement between Paul and Peter.

    Basicly, its the corruption of the term and function of Christianity to include government by force. Its basic tenent is “salvation by works”, in which one’s salvation is within the control of the human and their own sense of righteousness before God, rather than placing God in the primary role of both Savior and Keeper. Its the common belief that what one believes is their righteousness, should be forced upon others by secular law and conformity. Their churches are rigidly hierarchal and centralised with all control far beyond the address of its adherents. Its second tell-tale tenent is the interjection of a human “authority figure” between the sinner and God in order to effect salvation.

    In other words, yankee churches function exactly like our current government does.

    What American history fails to remember is why the Puritans (Yankees) were persecuted in Britain – as they were the remnants of Cromwellian Britain. Study the English Civil War of Cromwell if you want to understand the mindset and its implications prior to the US revolution.

  • June 30, 2013 at 11:39am

    I’m going to side with the League of the South on this issue. I’m sick of “New Jersey” based groups, and all other yankee crusades/crusaders. Damnned yankee christians are as bad as their atheistic cohorts – both are fanatical idiots possessing zeal without knowledge.

    I really miss the south of my youth. Cordial discussion does not exist anymore. I truly miss those spirited southern discussions that knew where the line was that crossed the honorable boundaries of each party. To step over that line meant instant conflict in the most physical and intimate means possible. I realize now that it was infinitely more wise to let these issues be resolved directly by the smallest party possible – than to let them fester into general warfare.

    What we have now is a bunch of “Rob Squires” transplants who can disrespect you with finger waving and a flood of vitriolic, profanity laced spittle – and not have to worry about getting their arse kicked. They can demean, abuse, and do all manner of harm to anyone not subcribing to their brand of fanaticism – passing “anti-violence” laws that protect their own brand of extreme psycological violence.

    If the South doesn’t free itself of this occupation through Independence, it should at least review the laws in its States to redefine “threat”. Its about time we regained the lawful ability to kick these jackwagon’s arses. We’re so “polite” because otherwise formerly meant you had a fight coming – soon.

    Responses (5) +
123 To page: Go
Restoring Love