The Politically Correct Demise of Western Civilization

It’s been awhile since I’ve posted on this blog, mainly because of the depressing state of the media and the predictability of its reporting. Kudos to President Trump for outing this Cerberus of the Swamp. I’m truly amazed at this man’s fortitude. A lesser individual would have succumbed to this unrelenting attack machine. This president has certitude and moxy. President Andrew Jackson would’ve been proud.


Another disturbing revelation is the Democratic party’s unwillingness to protect our borders and the American people from a third-world invasion. These so-called representatives absolutely despise the citizens of this country. It’s as if they are cheering on the demise of the greatest nation known to mankind. This is no longer a perception but a fact and many Americans are sensing the collapse of Western civilization.




I, for one, have devoted a lot of time reading books and watching documentaries on past civilizations. We all know about the fall of the Roman Empire, but there was a civilization that actually ruled this once agrarian town. The first four kings that ruled Rome were Etruscans. The Etruscans had a deep-seated belief that their success would last a thousand years and no further. Sure enough, almost to the date, they were invaded by Gauls, later to be absorbed by Rome. It was a self-fulfilling prophecy. It seems as though the United States is following the footsteps of the Etruscans and we have a political party cheering on our demise.


So what is the endgame of these libtards? What are they expecting to accomplish with this no-border policy? I came across a used book that somewhat answers this conundrum. Ian Morris is a British archaeologist and historian at Stanford University. His book is entitled, Why the West Rules - For Now. His scholarship is impressive, however, you get a sense while reading his book that political correctness encroached upon his style. He seems to be looking over his shoulder. As a matter of fact, he references the great academic purge that occured in the 80’s and 90’s. Here is an excerpt:


To some evolutionists, their critics were morally bankrupt relativists; to some critics, evolutionists were stooges of American imperialism. Through the 1980’s and ‘90s anthropologists fought it out in hiring, tenure, and graduate admissions committees, ruining careers and polarizing scholarship. Anthropology departments on America’s most famous campuses degenerated into something resembling bad marriages, until, broken down by years of mutual recriminations, the couples started leading separate lives. “We no longer [even] call each other names,” one prominent anthropologist lamented in 1984. In the extreme case - at Stanford, my own university - the anthropologists divorced in 1998, formally splitting into the Department of Anthropological Sciences, which liked evolution, and the Department of Cultural and Social Anthropology, which did not. Each did its own hiring and firing and admitted and trained its own students; members of one group had no need to acknowledge members of the other. They even gave rise to a new verb, to “stanfordize” a department.



You get a sense that Professor Morris is in shotgun marriage with his scholarship and the milieu of today’s academia. For instance, he demonstrates throughout the course of his book that the fall of ancient civilizations are due to the “Horsemen of the Apocalypse”: climate change, famine, state failure and migration. Professor Morris even admits that climate change was beyond human control; yet, in a later chapter, he describes attending a seminar at Stanford and lo and behold he subscribes to this man-made global warming nonsense, even though he aptly demonstrated climate change and its effect on civilizations prior to the Industrial Revolution. Go figure.


Another bugaboo that I have with his political correctness is this notion that Islam saved Western civilization and advanced science. Ibn Warraq refutes this nonsense in his book, Defending the West. Here is an excerpt:

Science and philosophy flourished on Musalman soil during the first half of the Middle Ages; but it was not by reason of Islam, it was in spite of Islam. Not a Musalman philosopher or scholar escaped persecution. During the period just specified persecution is less powerful than instinct or free inquiry, and the rationalist tradition is kept alive, then intolerance and fanaticism win the day. It is true that the Christian Church also cast great difficulties in the way of science in the Middle Ages; but she did not strangle it outright, as did the Musalman theology. To give Islam the credit of Averroes and so many other illustrious thinkers, who passed half their lives in prison, in forced hiding, in disgrace, whose books were burned and whose writings almost suppressed by theological authority, is as if one were to ascribe to the Inquistion the discoveries of Galileo, and a whole scientific development which it was not able to prevent.


One of the premises in Professor Morris’ book, as I understand it, is that Western civilization is not based on any particular cultural, philosophical, or religious underpinnings. He sees it as nothing more than geography. He stated that the beginnings of Western civilization began in ancient Mesopotamia and spread from there. Now that was an eye opener. He even declared Islam, at one point and time, was the core of Western civilization. That I have a serious issue with. Sure, Islam invaded and occupied parts of Europe, but that doesn’t make this alien and subversive ideology Western. What I began to notice in his book was a determination to obfuscate real differences between peoples and cultures. This is exactly what the globalists objective is in order to obtain a borderless world order.


Professor Morris’ concludes that in order to avoid the Horsemen of the Apocalypse, we must embrace a “Singularity” by deferring sovereignty to global institutions and thereby advance world-wide social development. This theme is in concert with his theory that Western success is due primarily to geography and that culture and freewill are less than ancillary, or to be more specific “wild cards.”


I have no doubt that globalists and the open-borders crowd subscribe to this ideology. If this “Singularity” ever happens, then we’ll most definitely succumb to a new Dark Age; one where no one can escape a small band of elitist overlords and their minions in media and academia.

United Nations Warns U.S. on Obamacare Repeal

Did you know that repealing Obamacare is considered a violation of international law?  According to the United Nations High Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, the United States no longer has sovereignty over its domestic affairs.  Here is an excerpt from Fox News:

The Post reported that the confidential, five-page memo cautioned that the repeal of the Affordable Care Act would put the U.S. “at odds with its international obligations.”

The warning was sent to the State Department and reportedly said the U.N. expressed “serious concern” about the prospective loss of health coverage for 30 million people, that in turn could violate “the right to social security of the people in the United States.”

Did Barack Obama surrender our sovereignty to a bunch of U.N. bureaucrats?  I wouldn’t be surprised if he did considering the whole Iran fiasco.

Source:

 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/26/un-warned-trump-that-obamacare-repeal-could-violate-international-law.html

Today's American Issues Mirror our Founders/Framers

I can’t count how many times I’ve heard someone say the U.S. Constitution is an antiquated document and doesn’t pertain to our times.  These people couldn’t be more wrong.  First of all, human nature doesn’t change.  We haven’t evolved into angelic beings completely devoid of sin and ambition.  I would say we’ve gotten worse.

Americans in the 18^th and 19^th centuries were God-fearing Christians.  In today’s America, Christians are under attack for simply following their faith.  I believe our Founders would be shocked to see we’ve devolve into a nation of degenerates.

A book entitled, A Child of Fortune: A Correspondent’s Report on the Ratification of the U.S. Constitution & the Battle for a Bill of Rights details the eleventh month odyssey of States ratification.  Many will be shocked to discover that the debates between Anti-Federalists and Federalists mirror today’s politics.  They’ll also find out liberals have bastardized our Constitution and turned our social compact against us.

While reading this correspondent’s report, many will recognize the rural/urban divide.  It was the farmers, frontiersmen and sagacious intellectuals who demanded a bill of rights to protect them and future generations from an abusive central government.

 However, urban dwellers such as merchants, bankers and men of ambition and low-character saw the benefits of a strong central government.  These people would revert to all sorts of misdeeds to stifle and quash Anti-Federalists publications even to the point of destroying printing presses. Some dissenters were harassed into silence.

Thomas Jefferson knew of the corrosive nature of cities.  He wrote the following:

“…I think our governments will remain virtuous for many centuries,” Minister Jefferson predicts to Congressman Madison, “as long as they are chiefly agricultural; and this will be as long as there shall be vacant lands in any part of America.  When they get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, they will become corrupt as in Europe.”

There has been some debate about a “religious test” when allowing foreigners into the United States.  Once again, this is a bastardization of the context on which it was wrought.  The Constitution doesn’t allow a religious test when it comes to holding a federal office.  However, this was an issue of contention in States ratification.  Many delegates wanted to make sure that people in power were honorable Christians.  Their main concern was Popery and the influence of the Catholic Church.  Others were more broad and circumspect.  Henry Abbot, a delegate in the North Carolina convention, said the following:

“…the exclusion of religious tests,” he said, “is by many thought dangerous and impolitic.  They suppose that if there be no religious test required, pagans, deists, and Mahometans might obtain offices amongst us, and that the senators and representatives might all be pagans.”

The preamble might have cost delegates in the Connecticut convention by omitting, “a firm belief of the being and perfections of the one living and true god.”

Paper money and direct taxation was also a contentious issue as it is today along with a strong national defense.  We are not so different from those who founded this country.  The Constitution is just as relevant today as was back then.  Liberals may declaim and defame our history but they can’t deny us our American heritage with living and breathing documents. 

Source:

https://www.amazon.com/Child-Fortune-Jeffrey-St-John/dp/0786116358

Origins of the U.S. Kudzu-esque Administrative State

What in the hell has happened to our unalienable rights of life, liberty and property?  What happened to the federalist principles of self-government established in our Constitution?  In today’s America, those unassailable rights are permissible on conditions set forth by federal government bureaucrats and judges.  This isn’t the America of our Founders.  Hell this isn’t America, period.

The Obama administration exposed the hard reality that we aren’t the country we thought we were.  We’ve been slowly transforming into a European socialist welfare state and it’s been going on for a long time.

An article published in Powerline revealed just how this kudzu-like administrative state has grown by spreading its vines into the very fabric of American culture, and as you can expect, this ideology was nurtured in greenhouses of higher learning.  Here is an excerpt:

Studying administrative law in law school, I don’t think we read anything that raised questions about the legitimacy of the agencies giving rise to to it. We took it as a given and picked up the story with the passage of the Administrative Procedure Act in 1946. We should have taken a look at the question of legitimacy in constitutional law, and probably did, though the standard New Deal account I would have received is extremely misleading.

 Exercising executive, legislative and judicial powers, the agencies are a constitutional anomaly. When it comes to a government of limited powers based on the powers allocated and divided among the three branches, the administrative agencies don’t really fit. I am honor bound to add that the Supreme Court doesn’t quite see things my way, although Douglas Ginsburg spells out elementary principles (and cites some relevant case law) in “Legislative powers: Not yours to give away.”

The origins of the American administrative state began in 1857 when Columbia University hired Francis Lieber, a German immigrant, to teach a new discipline called “political science.”  His successor was another imported German, John William Burgess, who indoctrinated a whole generation of Americans into the “virtues” of administrative sciences including Woodrow Wilson.  This new philosophy is alien to American self-governance.   Here is an excerpt from Living Constitution, Dying Faith:

The birth of American political science created a bastion within the academy for the view that perpetual societal improvement is possible and inevitable, partly because of evolutionary unfolding, but partly with the aid of the right kind of superintendence.   The institutional and theoretical departures implied by this view would have made the new political science unrecognizable to the American Founders, whose “new science of politics” had almost nothing in common with it.  It was certainly the case that the new political science, in its dismissive contempt for traditional political philosophy, and unchanging principles of political right, and ideas and institutions from prior centuries, turned its back on the Founders.  For the most part, it still does.  American political science therefore remains almost genetically incapable of understanding the Constitution of the fathers.

So there it is.  Americans have been indoctrinated into accepting an administrative state that is outright hostile to our very essence.  And now that we’re confronted with a kudzu-esque bureaucracy, citizens are beginning to wonder if we have any recourse before we are completely subsumed by this foreign entity.

  Source:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/02/understanding-the-administrative-state.php

https://www.amazon.com/Living-Constitution-Dying-Faith-Progressivism/dp/1933859709

Calexit: Making America Great Again

Californians and their hordes of illegal aliens want to secede from the United States.  Advocates have organized a petition drive to put nationhood on the ballot in 2018. 

According to Marinelli, the so-called Calexit backers have about 7,000 supporters mobilized to gather signatures statewide for the new California nationhood initiative. The California Secretary of State's office said Thursday the backers of the measure must collect the signatures of 585,407 registered voters to qualify for the ballot. Organizers have until July 25, 2017, to meet the requirement.

"We think it's going to be quite easy for us to make the sell," said Marinelli. "California is a different place and has its own culture, its own history, its own identity, its own world view, and its own ideology in a large respect. So we would feel better off if we can set our own destiny, set our own path forward and not be connected to a lot of these obsolete policies of the American system."

Added Marinelli, "There's a lot of this dysfunction going on in the American system, the corruption in Washington, the animosity within the United States as a whole. So we want to break away from all that and set a new path forward. To establish for ourselves some kind of progressive republic on the western shores of North America."

I’ll sign that petition.  California is a malignant tumor on the body politic.  This union is not a suicide pact and the libtards who infest that state are killing this republic.  Detractors will say the American Civil War settled all notions of secession.  Well, there is a big difference.  The South wanted to leave the union, but the North wouldn’t let them go.  Calexit is a mutual agreement.  These people don’t want to be Americans.  They want to be progressives.  And as far as I’m concerned, good riddance.

Source:

 http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/27/california-succession-movement-starts-gathering-petition-signatures.html

Progressives Proclaim Nation-States Are Obsolete

Have you noticed when liberals lose an election they claim the electorate are a bunch of uneducated toddlers throwing temper tantrums at the polls?  They dismiss voters with a condescending attitude with remarks such as, the peasantry has voted against their own interest.  When it comes right down to it, progressives whether foreign or domestic have a problem with democracy.  What they want are unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats to run our lives without recourse, or due process which is what the European Union is all about.

Americans could easily conflate British complaints with our own very real problems in Washington D.C.  We too have unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats running our country.  We too have global elites mocking nation-states and our representative republic.  These snobs are in government, big business, and in the media.  Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post is a perfect example of this mentality.  He recently wrote an op-ed parroting the standard globalists’ diatribe.  Here is an excerpt:

 I hope U.S. voters are paying attention. The Brexit solution is pure counterfeit but the underlying issues are real. In Britain as in this country, working-class incomes are stagnant, and immigration, to some, seems out of control. Globalization seems to benefit the well-off and well-educated at the expense of everyone else. The temptation is to take refuge in nationalism — forget the rest of the world, take care of our own, fend for ourselves. Build a wall.

That is Trump's message. But the gap between what he promises and what he can possibly deliver is even wider than in the Brexit example.

It is a cliche to say that we live in an interconnected world, but that is the truth. Globalization is a fact and cannot be repealed by referendum — or, for that matter, by slogans printed on baseball caps. Nor can technological progress be reversed by any amount of ranting and raving.

According to Eugene Robinson and his ilk, the nation-state is obsolete; democracy is obsolete.  There is no such thing as a United States of America there is only an America and its going to have to join the world by forgoing sovereignty and embrace a borderless society which will be run by a priestly sect of bureaucrats and global businesses who know what’s best for you and the world because plebeians are too stupid to look out for their own self-interest.

Brexit is a repudiation of foreign, bureaucratic rule.  Donald Trump’s success at the polls is a repudiation of global elitest rule.  However, if there is one lesson to be learned from decades of progressivsm it is they don’t give up.  National sovereignty is under attack and will be for the foreseeable future.

   

Source:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/os-ed-eugene-robinson-trump-brexit-062916-20160628-column.html

America is in a Prerevolutionary Period

A general consensus, whether by republican or democrat, is the American people are being ruled by a corrupt oligarchy.  However, there is a difference in opinion as to whom this oligarchy consist and how to remedy this situation.  Democrats, at least the ones I know, decry the sins of capitalism and want our D.C. masters to put a choke hold on profit mongers, or take over their businesses altogether.  I see Washington D.C. as the epicenter of corruption and cronyism and the only way to correct course is to repeal Progressive Era initiatives and amendments and return to federalism as dictated in our Constitution.

Whatever our disagreements, one thing is for certain: we are in a prerevolutionary period.  Here are a few examples as outlined in Washington’s Blog:

84% of all Americans believe political leaders are more interested in protecting their power and privilege than doing what is right

81% percent believe the power of ordinary people to control our country is getting weaker every day as politicians of both parties fight to protect their own power and privilege

80% believe the federal government is its own special interest primarily looking out for itself

79% of all voters believe we need to recruit and support more candidates for office, at all levels of government, who are ordinary citizens, rather than professional politicians and lawyers

78% believe that the Democratic and Republican Parties are essentially useless in changing anything, because both political parties are too beholden to special interests to create any meaningful change

76% of Americans agree with the statement that America cannot succeed unless we take on and defeat the corruption and crony capitalism in our government

75% believe that the US government is NOT working for the people’s best interest

When people believe they are disenfranchised and powerless against a government that acts like an occupational force, bad things follow.

 Source:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/02/overwhelming-majority-americans-believe-parties-corrupt-change-anything-americans-want-revolution.html

Islamic Contributions to World Mirrors 7th Century

I cannot count how many times Americans have been lectured to about Islamic beneficence to the world and particularly Western civilization.  Barack Obama, once again, was compelled to weave fantastical stories of Muslim contributions to the fabric of our founding and heritage.  Anyone with an iota of curiosity laughed at such nonsense. 

I am no longer amazed at this man’s obsequious praise for this death cult.  As a matter of fact, I’m beginning to wonder why the mark of the beast isn’t emblazoned on his forehead.

Here are today’s Islamic contributions to the world.  I’m sure it mirrors their 7^th century accomplishments since nothing has really changed for these people except prosperity from oil which wouldn’t have been possible without Western toil, technology and innovation.

Islamabad writer Dr. Farrukh Saleem pointed out in 2005 indisputable facts about the Islamic world.

Combined, 57 Islamic countries are the world’s poorest and most illiterate:

The GDP of 57 Muslim countries is less than $2 trillion;

Muslims comprise roughly 22 percent of the world’s population but only produce less than 5 percent of global GDP;

20 percent of Arabs live on less than $2 per day;

The average growth rate of per capita income in the Arab world hovers around .5 percent per year [worse than everywhere else except for sub-Saharan Africa];

60 percent of Muslims worldwide are illiterate;

50 percent of Arab women cannot read.

Dr. Javaid Laghari adds that 40 percent of the Muslim states’ population falls below the poverty line

Source:

http://constitution.com/islams-contribution-to-the-world/

http://costonscomplaint.blogspot.com/2012/12/behold-mark-of-beast.html

Immigration Lawyer: Jorge Ramos Has No Moral Authority

We’ve all heard the horror stories about “migrants” making their way from Central America into Mexico.  We’ve seen pictures of rape trees where victims’ panties are hung from branches.  So it’s a little grating being lectured by Mexican government officials and their agents in the United States like Jorge Ramos.

Rafael Alejandro Hernández is also appalled at the audacity of people like Jorge Ramos.  He is a Cuban lawyer living in Mexico and is on the frontlines battling Mexico’s hypocrisy and inhumanity.  Here is an excerpt from his op-ed lambasting Mexico’s renowned double agent.

“Mr Ramos, you as Mexican citizen have no moral authority whatsoever to criticize U.S. immigration policy.

“You claim to be a journalist not a politician. But Mr Donald Trump threw you out only because you were impertinent and completely out of line. Your behavior was shameful. In fact you weren’t even asking a question. You were making outright declarations. Some journalist!

“Every week thousands of Cubans migrants to Mexico are arrested, beaten, extorted and swindled by the Mexican gov. in collusion with the Castro tyranny! But I’ve never heard you utter a peep against the Mexican government over this, Mr Jorge Ramos! And you claim to be a proud and vocal Mexican citizen, Mr Jorge Ramos!

“Why not come to your Mexico and try telling President Pena Nieto that deporting Cubans to Castro means they’ll live in a prison. Why not practice what you preach, Mr Ramos?

“You denounce the U.S.–a country that opened its doors to you, yourself, sir–but you refuse to utter a peep against your native Mexico, that deports Cubans not because they’re delinquents–but as a matter of policy.

“I’m speaking to you as someone who was jailed for 49 days in a Mexican prison for migrants and freed only after a hunger strike where I almost died.

“Next time you attend a Trump press conference you might ask permission to speak, and wait your turn like all the others. And since you seem to like to talk without permission, Mr Ramos, come to Mexico and try that stunt!”

Better yet, try that stunt as a woman.

 Source:

 http://moonbattery.com/?p=62682

http://townhall.com/columnists/humbertofontova/2015/09/04/migrant-to-mexico-defends-trump-denounces-ramos-n2048159/page/full

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/12/central-america-migrants-rape_n_5806972.html

Son of Illegals: America is Evil

It’s bad enough Americans have to put up with self- loathing citizens who constantly whine about the evils of our country; its worse when we ”import” them.  Students from the University of California, Irvine submitted a resolution to ban the American flag from the lobby of the student government.  It was written by student Matthew Guevara:

“Flags construct paradigms of conformity and sets homogenized standards for others to obtain which in this country typically are idolized as freedom, equality, and democracy…freedom of speech, in a space that aims to be as inclusive as possible can be interpreted as hate speech.”

Wow! What a horrible construct.  Who knew freedom, equality, and democracy was such a hateful paradigm. 

Ami Horowitz, a political satirist, interviewed Guevara.  Independent Journal Review published the following:

Horowitz: “Tell me the environment created when the American flag was kinda hanging there in that room.”

Guevara: “It was creating a very hostile environment…”

Horowitz then set up a perfect logical trap:

Horowitz: “What people don’t understand is that sometimes to be inclusive, you have to exclude things you don’t like.”

Guevara: “Exactly…sometimes you have to exclude things.”

And got Guevara to admit some dark stuff:

Horowitz: “You’d be equally uncomfortable with the Nazi flag, or the ISIS flag in that room, correct?”

Guevara: “Yeah. Yeah, no question about it.”

Horowitz: “Can you identify evil in this world?”

Guevara: “The U.S.”

Lastly, Horowitz set another trap–this time, getting Guevara to directly contradict himself:

Horowitz: “Where are your parents from?”

Guevara: “Mexico.”

Horowitz: “And why did they come to the United States?”

Guevara: “To try and find work, a better life. The ‘American Dream.'”

Horowitz: “Instead, they found this oppressive American country.”

Guevara: “There is no such thing as class mobility. That’s an illusion.”

Horowitz: “Your mother, she must be so proud that her son is going to a major university…”

 He states there is no such thing as class mobility in the United States.  I imagine it would be difficult for his parents to climb the social ladder if they came here illegally which I have no doubt.  Yet, he is going to college, and probably at taxpayers’ expense.

Something tells me Guevara hangs the Mexican flag in his room.  I wonder if he’ll go back to his homeland when he gets his diploma, after all, Mexico is renowned for the opportunities they provide for their citizens, so much so, 20% of its natives are here in the United States.

Viva Mexico!

Source:

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/09/412969-hilarious-video-political-satirist-schools-matthew-guevara-student-tried-ban-american-flag/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=owned&utm_campaign=morning-newsletter

America Needs an Arrogant Man to Confront an Arrogant Government

What America needs is fundamental transformation from the Age of Obama.  A top down government is not what this country was founded upon and the only way we the people can reestablish the moorings of life, liberty and property is to elect a president who has a fundamental understanding of what made this country great.

What America needs is a lion, not a RINO.  We need a president that will not be cowed by a dishonest media and a political party that caters to an underclass of teat squawkers that contribute nothing to society.  This is not an easy undertaking.  It will take a president with self-assurance, fortitude and yes, arrogance to endure a cacophony of vitriol and lies that would subsume a regular human being.

We’re beyond the happy warrior stage in American politics.  What we need is a modern day Andrew Jackson.  Old Hickory looked upon his enemies with contempt and action.  And they feared him.  Everyone knew Jackson didn’t make empty threats. 

When South Carolina threatened to secede from the Union over onerous tariffs, Jackson sent warships off the coast of the Palmetto State and promised to hang Vice President John C. Calhoun from the highest tree.  The Nullifiers knew Old Hickory meant business.  Jackson’s character and force of will won the day.

When the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a banking cartel, The Bank of the United States, in the infamous McCulloch v. Maryland case, President Jackson declared the following:

To this conclusion I cannon assent…Congress and the President as well as the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. It is as much of the duty of the House of the Representatives, of the Senate, and the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented…The opinion of the [Supreme Court] justices has no authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over judges, and on that point the President is independent of both. The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive…but to have only such influence as the force of their reasoning may deserve.

Andrew Jackson vetoed the charter for The Bank of the United States.  He then addressed the evils of centralized government.  Here is an excerpt from his message to the Senate:

It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government. Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth can not be produced by human institutions. In the full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society-the farmers, mechanics, and laborers-who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their Government. There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing. In the act before me there seems to be a wide and unnecessary departure from these just principles

America is in need of another Andrew Jackson.  We need a president who’ll take on the special interest, federal bureaucracy, and rogue federal judges.  We need an arrogant man to confront an arrogant government.

Source:

http://www.examiner.com/article/the-john-c-calhoun-andrew-jackson-feud

http://costonscomplaint.blogspot.com/2010/11/states-have-mandate-to-oppose-obamacare.html

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/ajveto01.asp

Latino Tribalism Could Balkanize the United States

An immigration study has concluded tribalism will become evident around year 2050.  Latin Americas invasion of the United States is estimated to be around 29% of the population by that time and will continue to grow. 

What does this mean for the United States?  Will Anglo-Saxon Protestant values that forged, shaped and made this country great survive this onslaught?   Immigration analysts doubt it.

"By the sheer force of numbers, the kinds of adults that Latino students become will dramatically shape the future history of this country, as the former white majority becomes a minority population, at least in terms of number," said the study provided to Secrets. It sits behind a paywall.

"Latinos have become more than an electoral voting bloc, emerging as strategic actors in major processes of democratic social transformation," they added.

And they warned that there could be a backlash as whites try to hang on to power.

"In fact, the current struggle that persists in Arizona may well be a bellwether for the potential backlash that is bound to ensue in others parts of the nation, as the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant population no longer enjoys the political security associated with their past majority status," said the authors.

"Over the past four decades, Latinos in the United States have emerged as strategic actors in this process of socio economic transformation. This so-called Latinization of the United States comes at a time of increasing social polarization and class inequalities. These forces assert themselves economically, demographically, culturally and politically in the workplaces and in Latino everyday life," added their analysis.

Whites will lose more than political security.  The country could balkanize if these young Latinos don’t acculturate.  I don’t see that happening because of their numbers and the fact we’re living in an age where Americans have no moral compass and are self-loathing.  It is probable the United States could end up like Rome. 

Source:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-cites-latinization-of-u.s.-warns-of-backlash-against-whites/article/2569442