The Colorado Confederatarian

Slippin' away from ye cuz-a two brands-a folk: 1) th' damn fool librul; 'n 2) th' no-account neocon.

It's perty well-knowd how 'em libruls r' comin' at yir liberty 'n yir property 'n yir sovrignty.  They raise taxes 'n spend-att money raised therby like drunkin sailers; they wanna ban yir guns 'n yir tabaccer; they wanna cut off yir edercashunal choice, and wut-not.  But at leas' ye know wut ye git whin ye git th' libruls.

'L-att ain't quite th' case whin it comes t' th' so-called new "conservatives".   They tawk-iss big ole game 'bout strict cornstruction of th' Constitution, individual rights, fiskal responsibility 'n all, but they deliver only sporadukly 'ese days whin it comes t' such thangs.  And since 9-11, they bin jus' as brazen as libruls whin it comes to rights-strippin', as-att ole "Patriot" Act do indercate.  An ole libertarian feller  once sed-iss:  "I lose my rights under both the Republicans and the Democrats.  I just loose them more slowly under the Republicans." 

Reminds me of sumpin' I heard about ole John Senior, a traditionalist Roman Catholic klassics skolar:  Upon bein' told in November-a 1980 that Reagan was beating Carter in a landslide, ole John replied, "Oh, that’s too bad. I was hoping Carter might win. At this point in time it would be more dignified to be killed in the collapse than nibbled to death by ducks."

'L, Colorader, yir losin' yir freedom 'n yir goods to King Bill Ritter 'n th' libruls in big old chunks, now-att they in th' Statehouse, but if 'n whin the Repubs return, y'all'll lose 'em to them nibblin' GOP ducks.  Either way, they 'ventually gohn.

See, it all started back-ere in 1789, whin th' First Confed'racy gave in to the Fed'rulists and they new Constitution, even tho they wuz warned by the Anti-fed'rulists not-ta.  That thar new Constitution created a more "energetic" gummint per Hamilton 'n his boys, but that effektivly mint th' States were to cede they sovrignty (and keep on cedin' it) to th' damn Fed'ruls, the 10th Amendment notwithstandin' (and today it ain't got NO standin').  Ye had-em Alien and Sedition Laws and judishual review and otha thangs like-att, which show'd jus' how it all had become a Washington DC power grab.  The Southland - th' homeland-a all my kin - rebelled from th' git-go but had only limited success in restrainin' th' creation of th' Yankee Leviathan.  Finally, in 1861, the South legally seceded, and begun th' Second Confed'racy.  'N we all know th' end-a-att story.

So thin DC consolidatud its power, and th' race to Empire wuz ohn.  Got us some socialist legislation 'n regs in th' 1930s and 40s, but also a big ole powerful military machine, one so big 'n power that it even made ole Dwight Eisenhower a-feared:

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Wut ole Dwight didn't seem-ta regognize was th' precedent set here in th' War for Southern Independence, 1861-1865, in th' form of how th' Yankees achieved teknologikul superiority over the Rebs.  But I diegriss.

Now we got us a buncha no-account neocons who'r tawkin 'bout the necessity fo' a never-endin' war 'n suchlike.  The to-be GOP candy-date fo' presidint, Juan Mequeno, recintly stated that anothah 100 years in Iraq'd be jus' fine with him.

'Course, such big plans do requare a big ole military, even bigger-'n we currently got.  So, they ain't no '"'L I'll Be" moment whin we lurn fo' example that them dang bluecoats of th' military industrial complex wanna eat up a much bigger chunk-a Colorader thin they already got.  Damn 'em t' hell, I say.  An' I hope y'all'll say it with me, throw some dirt 'n othah shit up in th' air, 'n thin write yir congressmen.

Not that it'll do any good.  See, it's DC we're dealin' with here.  Them damn fool libruls and no-account neocons who run-att place seldom if ever lissen to such pleas.  Cain't nullify they unjust laws 'n regulations, or they'll invade us.  Cain't secede, or they'll invade us.  "Well, just throw the bums out of office at the next election, then!"  Yeh.  Right.  Won't Git Fooled Agin. 

See y'all, it's all FUBAR (y'all gotta Google-att-un or watch Saving Private Ryan), 'n thain't nuthin' kin be done t' fix it.   Wut's mo', 'tain't jus' th' loss of individual freedom and states' rights here in these United States that has been effected by th' Yankees.  Now they seekin' t' make the nations cede they sovrignty in th' name of globalism, that ole "new world order" Bush Sr. tawked 'bout before the Benighted Nations.  Here's wut th' president of th' Council fir Foreign Relations Richard Haass -- an advisur to Mike Huckabee -- wrote in a column in th' Tapai Times back in 2006:

For 350 years, sovereignty -- the notion that states are the central actors on the world stage and that governments are essentially free to do what they want within their own territory but not within the territory of other states -- has provided the organizing principle of international relations. The time has come to rethink this notion. . . .

. . ., states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function. This is already taking place in the trade realm. Governments agree to accept the rulings of the WTO because on balance they benefit from an international trading order even if a particular decision requires that they alter a practice that is their sovereign right to carry out.

Some governments are prepared to give up elements of sovereignty to address the threat of global climate change. Under one such arrangement, the Kyoto Protocol, which runs through 2012, signatories agree to cap specific emissions. What is needed now is a successor arrangement in which a larger number of governments, including the US, China, and India, accept emissions limits or adopt common standards because they recognize that they would be worse off if no country did.

All of this suggests that sovereignty must be redefined if states are to cope with globalization. At its core, globalization entails the increasing volume, velocity, and importance of flows -- within and across borders -- of people, ideas, greenhouse gases, goods, dollars, drugs, viruses, e-mails, weapons and a good deal else, challenging one of sovereignty's fundamental principles: the ability to control what crosses borders in either direction. Sovereign states increasingly measure their vulnerability not to one another, but to forces beyond their control.

Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves, because they cannot insulate themselves from what goes on elsewhere. Sovereignty is no longer a sanctuary.

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."  (William Pitt)

Haass' arg'mint is th' same, ole sireen sohng of "necessity" first sung by the Fed'rulists who wanted the American states to cede sovrignty "in order to form a more perfect union", aginst which the Anti-fed'rulists warned.  As we saw, them Anti-federalists were right.  'N now the progeny of Hamilton and Lincoln want an even more "perfect union", one which serves principlly the interests of the money-men and power gluttons, 'n not th' causes of freedom and good gummint.  Ain't nothin's changed since 1789.  Or 1861.

Wut will ye do, Colorader?  This here state used t' be a right fine libertarian sorta place.  Still is in some respects, but th' damn fool libruls and no-account neocons'r stealin' our tradishnul liberties ever' day.  Will ye sit back like stupid sheeple ' jus' let 'em do it, or will ye stand up 'n do sumpin'?  And if ye do sumpin', are ye really gonna try to effect change thru either one-a-em worthless majur political parties?

Naw.  Seems to ole Snaggle-Tooth that th' time has come t' git mad.  T' git radical.  T' git libertarian.  Time t' start lookin' at th' political alternatives, such as th' Libertarian Party or th' Constitution Party.  Time t' start throwin' our support t' principled politicians like ole Ron Paul.  Maybe even time t' do what 'em ole Rebs tried t' do in 1861.  T' free our state.  T' free this Rocky Mountain region.  T'free oursevves, and our brethren.  Cuz wut's FUBAR cain't be fixed.  Not with no baindaid solushun anyhow.

S. Jones