The return of 1979

In one of my very first posts I wrote was about the concept of Jus ad Bellum or 'Just War', which are the instances laid out in Law of Nations by de Vattel (1758) of when a Nation State may go to war.  This I expanded upon in Where Angels fear to tread, because in our modern age we have glossed over and completely excised the differences between Public and Private war and what responses are appropriate to each.  Law of Nations is descriptive law that attempts to encapsulate unwritten law which was differentiate by Bracton on the Laws and Customs of England (circa 1250) as the law leges, as opposed to the jus scriptum or written law.  In fact Bracton describes Law of Nations as jus gentium:

What the jus gentium is.

[017] 33The jus gentium is the law which men of all nations use, which falls short of
[018] natural law since that is common to all animate things born on the earth in the
[019] sea or in the air. From it comes the union of man and woman, entered into by the
[020] mutual consent of both, which is called marriage. Mere physical union is [in the
[021] realm] of fact and cannot properly be called jus since it is corporeal and may be
[022] seen;34 all jura are incorporeal and cannot be seen. From that same law there
[023] also35 comes the procreation and rearing of children. The jus gentium is common
[024] to men alone, as religion observed toward God, the duty of submission to parents
[025] and country, or the right to repel violence and injuria. For it is by virtue of this
[026] law that whatever a man does in defence of his own person he is held to do lawfully;
[027] since nature makes us all in a sense akin to one another it follows that for one to
[028] attack another is forbidden.36

The Law of Nations, then, is universal to thinking beings  capable of having families and of defense of self and Nation, as Nation arrives from the union of thinking man and woman in families.  As the presence of families seeking to protect themselves and working with other families is universal in mankind, so are Nations, and yet the jus gentium does not come from Natural Law but from the application of reason and self-governance to our natural liberties and rights.  Thus law of nations is usually spoken of in the lower case, encompassing the entire unwritten part of mankind's activities that fall into it, and in the larger case when citing an individual work within it.  As de Vattel had worked with Blackstone prior to the colonies separating from the Great Britain, that work is predominant and guiding not just in the thought of those Founding the Nation and Framing the Constitution, but actually has direct, upper case citation in the latter.

What Law of Nations describes is the outcome of what many civilizations have formed in the way of rules between Nations and while it concentrates on mostly European Nations, the form of interaction described is one that can be seen globally between all Nations and the States running them.  It doesn't matter what period of history you search (ancient to modern) or where you look geographically (from Southern Africa to Northern Siberia to the Great Plains to the high coastal regions of South America, all of mankind works under law of nations.  de Vattel devotes an entire book (Book III) to warfare, which shows itself as a major part of the activities of mankind, but for the actions seen in Tehran in 1979 and today in Cairo and Benghazi, one must look to the norms and standards of diplomacy between Nations which comes in another book (Book IV).  Ideas presented in both books receive references earlier in the work, but their full fleshing out happens in them as these are major components of Nations.  To get an idea of how this works, here is paragraph 1 from Book IV:

§ l. What peace is.

PEACE is the reverse of war: it is that desirable state in which every one quietly enjoys his rights, or, if controverted, amicably discusses them by force of argument. Hobbes has had the boldness to assert, that war is the natural state of man. But if, by "the natural state of man," we understand (as reason requires that we should) that state to which he is destined and called by his nature, peace should rather be termed his natural state. For, it is the part of a rational being to terminate his differences by rational methods; whereas, it is the characteristic of the brute creation to decide theirs by force.1 Man, as we have already observed (Prelim. § 10), alone and destitute of succours, would necessarily be a very wretched creature. He stands in need of the intercourse and assistance of his species, in order to enjoy the sweets of life, to develop his faculties, and live in a manner suitable to his nature. Now, it is in peace alone that all these advantages are to be found: it is in peace that men respect, assist, and love each other: nor would they ever depart from that happy state, if they were not hurried on by the impetuosity of their passions, and blinded by the gross deceptions of self-love. What little we have said of the effects will be sufficient to give some idea of its various calamities; and it is an unfortunate circumstance for the human race, that the injustice of unprincipled men should so often render it inevitable.

Peace, then, is amongst the civilized of the Earth and those Nations that wish to practice peace should have intercourse and discourse between them so as to iron out differences.  The brute man, the savage man, wishes no discourse and only force to be the way to settle things, to impose his will upon others without their consent.

You are, perhaps, seeing where this is going, no?  How discussions really weren't present in1979 or today?  Is what we are seeing and did see the actions of peaceful, rational man in his Nations, or irrational, brutish man that is uncivilized?  If one cannot distinguish between these things, then one cannot properly distinguish between war and peace as peace is not just the absence of war.  It is not with emotional fervor that I call these actions barbarous, brutish, savage and wholly contrary to civilized intercourse amongst Nations for that is exactly what these actions are stripped of all emotional content but with the ability to judge what is civil discourse and what is attack to get one's way and enforce one's will.

Now what is the source of these actions?  Not the immediate 'this anti-Islamic film inflamed individuals' for it is possible to have heated passion without running riot, without damaging property of another Nation and without inflicting physical and lethal harm to others.  Thus comes the second paragraph of Book IV and the object is still Peace:

§ 2. Obligation of cultivating it.

Nations who are really impressed with sentiments of humanity, — who seriously attend to their duty, and are acquainted with their true and substantial interests, — will never seek to promote their own advantage at the expense and detriment of other nations: however intent they may be on their own happiness, they will ever be careful to combine it with that of others, and with justice and equity. Thus disposed, they will necessarily cultivate peace. If they do not live together in peace, how can they perform those mutual and sacred duties which nature enjoins them? And this state is found to be no less necessary to their happiness than to the discharge of their duties. Thus, the law of nature every way obliges them to seek and cultivate peace. That divine law has no other end in view than the welfare of mankind: to that object all its rules and all its precepts lend: they are alt deducible from this principle, that men should seek their own felicity; and morality is no more than the art of acquiring happiness. As this is true of individuals, it is equally so of nations, as must appear evident to any one who will but take the trouble of reflecting on what we have said of their common and reciprocal duties, in the first chapter of the second book.

Note the last part I put in boldface, and that the individual and nation are part of a scale-free phenomena called 'peace'.  A moral people, seeking happiness, would criticize those who detract from their religion, perhaps seek to have some understanding of how such a thing could come to be made with it being so hurtful to them.  That is the realm of discourse, where passion can and must still play a part, but it also recognizes the rights of others to have their say and put such matters publicly for the benefit of all to hear and understand.  For such morality to be present it must, actually, manifest in peaceful activities that respect other individuals and nations.  Thus it can be said the activities taken in Tehran in 1979, Cairo and Benghazi in the last two days were not ones that were moral nor ones that respected the rights of other individuals or nations.

Of course as Nations have States to support them, those States fall under the sovereign power of the Nation.  There are responsibilities for those who are vested with such sovereign power and their activities are the ones in which nations interact with each other.  Responsibilities beget obligations and the sovereign has obligations as a manifestation of the power of the nation:

§ 3. The sovereign's obligation to it.

This obligation of cultivating peace binds the sovereign by a double tie. He owes this attention to his people, on whom war would pour a torrent of evils; and he owes it in the most strict and indispensable manner, since it is solely for the advantage and welfare of the nation that he is intrusted with the government. (Book I. § 39.) He owes the same attention to foreign nations, whose happiness likewise is disturbed by war. The nation's duty in this respect has been shown in the preceding chapter; and the sovereign, being invested with the public authority, is at the same time charged with all the duties of the society, or body of the nation. (Book I. § 41.)

If government is to have peace it must seek it not just for its people but for those nations it interacts with.  The obligation to peace is put in trust to a Nation's government, and it is a grant of responsibility, obligation and power (although that will vary from Nation to Nation, the Nation as a sovereign power is said to have the whole power) by those in the Nation to that government.  It may not be a grant by consent, and thusly any government that takes up the sovereign power without consent is doubly responsible for its activities.

In the case of 1979 that was (and remains) the government of Iran, in Cairo it is the government of Egypt, and for Benghazi it is the government of Libya.  The outcomes of such activities are the responsibilities of the governments of each nation and what happens determines the course of that nation: are they to put forward the rule of law and diplomatic discourse or are they to endorse such activities?  And what are the outcomes of these courses of action?  Depending on which course is taken, the destination is set, and that is not by emotions but by the actions of the sovereigns involved.  In Iran and Egypt the governments did not decry such activities, nor did they offer up to have a rule of law applied to the individuals doing such actions.  In Libya, as far as can be discerned, there is a willingness to seek out the miscreants involved in murder of the US Ambassador and bring the proper laws involved into play (whatever they are).

Taking the last case first, as it is the closest we have come to expect from responsible actors as nations, even though the activities are horrific.  Much later, starting in paragraph 80, are how Ambassadors are to be treated, and this is important in the Libyan case:

§ 82. Particular protection due to them.(197)

This safety is particularly due to the minister, from the sovereign to whom he is sent. To admit a minister, to acknowledge him in such character, is engaging to grant him the most particular protection, and that he shall enjoy all possible safety. It is true, indeed, that the sovereign is bound to protect every person within his dominions, whether native or foreigner, and to shelter him from violence: but this attention is in a higher degree due to a foreign minister. An act of violence done to a private person is an ordinary transgression, which, according to circumstances, the prince may pardon: but if done to a public minister, it is a crime of state, an offence against the law of nations; and the power of pardoning, in such case, does not rest with the prince in whose dominions the crime has been committed, but with him who has been offended in the person of his representative. However, if the minister has been insulted by persons who were ignorant of his character, the offence is wholly unconnected with the law of nations, and falls within the class of ordinary transgressions. A company of young rakes, in a town of Switzerland, having, in the night-time, insulted the British minister's house, without knowing who lived in it, the magistracy sent a message to the minister to know what satisfaction he required. He prudently answered, that it was the magistrates' concern to provide for the public safety by such means as they thought best; but that, as to his own part, he required nothing, not thinking himself affronted by persons who could have had no design against him, as not knowing his house. Another particular circumstance, in the protection due to foreign ministers, is this: — according to the destructive maxims introduced by a false point of honour, a sovereign is under a necessity of showing indulgence to a person wearing a sword, who instantly revenges an affront done to him by a private individual: but violent proceedings against a public minister can never be allowed or excused, unless where the latter has himself been the aggressor, and, by using violence in the first instance, has reduced his opponent to the necessity of self-defence.

Libya can try such people, but the place they can, nay must, reach trial is in the domain of the sovereign offended.  If you kill the US Ambassador clemency, guilt or innocence cannot be determined in Libya but only by the US.  That is the normal, ordinary course of affairs between nations that have regularized diplomatic intercourse via the exchange of diplomats.  If the US recognizes such a government then that government has the obligation to seek out those who do such crimes and hand them over.  There can be initial trial in Libya, yes, but any sentence is held in abeyance until they can be tried in the US.

No matter how piss-poor the current Libyan government is, they at least are acting by civilized norms and must be worked with and supported in their actions to bring those individuals in for trial.  If they act in bad faith, seek to shield such miscreants or otherwise dissemble their intentions by their activities, then there are other means to go through to ensure compliance with the responsibilities and obligations of the sovereign power in Libya.

That now leaves the similar cases of Tehran 1979 and Cairo, in which the US Embassy grounds were invaded (twice in Tehran, once in Cairo to-date).  This requires a look at the Embassy, which are part of where the Ambassador does his work:

§ 110. The ambassador is exempt from the civil jurisdiction of the country where he resides.

SOME authors will have an ambassador to be subject, in civil cases, to the jurisdiction of the country where he resides. — at least in such cases as have arisen during the time of his embassy; and, in support of their opinion, they allege that this subjection is by no means derogatory to the ambassadorial character: "for," say they, "however sacred a person may be, his inviolability is not affected by suing him in a civil action." But it is not on account of the sacredness of their person that ambassadors cannot be sued: it is because they are independent of the jurisdiction of the country to which they are sent; and the substantial reasons on which that independency is grounded may be seen in a preceding part of this work (§ 92). Let us here add, that it is in every respect highly proper, and even necessary, that an ambassador should be exempt from judicial prosecution even in civil causes, in order that he may be free from molestation in the exercise of his functions. For a similar reason, it was not allowed, among the Romans, to summon a priest while he was employed in his sacred offices:1 but at other times he was open to the law. The reason which we have here alleged for the exemption is also assigned in the Roman law: "Ideo enim non datur actio (adversus legatum) ne ab officio suscepto legationis avocetur,2 ne impediatur legatio."3 But there was an exception as to those transactions which had taken place during the embassy. This was reasonable with regard to those legati, or ministers, of whom the Roman law here speaks, who, being sent only by nations subject to the empire, could not lay claim to the independency enjoyed by a foreign minister. As they were subjects of the state, the legislature was at liberty to establish whatever regulations it thought most proper respecting them: but a sovereign has not the like power of obliging the minister of another sovereign to submit to his jurisdiction: and even if such power was vested in him by convention, or otherwise, the exercise of it would be highly improper: because, under that pretext, the ambassador might be often molested in his ministry, and the state involved in very disagreeable quarrels, for the trifling concerns of some private individuals, who might and ought to have taken better precautions for their own security. It is therefore, only in conformity to the mutual duties which states owe to each other, and in accordance with the grand principles of the law of nations, that an ambassador or public minister is at present, by the universal custom and consent of nations, independent of all jurisdiction in the country where he resides, either in civil or criminal cases. I know there have occurred some instances to the contrary: but a few facts do not establish a custom: on the contrary, those to which I allude, only contribute, by the censure passed on them, to prove the custom such as I have asserted it to be. In the year 1668, the Portuguese resident at the Hague was, by an order of the court of justice, arrested and imprisoned for debt. But an illustrious member of the same court4 very justly thinks that the procedure was unjustifiable, and contrary to the law of nations. In the year 1657, a resident of the elector of Brandenburg was also arrested for debt in England. But he was set at liberty, as having been illegally arrested; and even the creditors and officers of justice who had offered him that insult were punished.5

This is later reinforced in paragraph 113 and elsewhere in Law of Nations.  When the Embassy of another nation is broken into, that is not an act of civil invasions but one of law of nations contravention.  When it is private individuals doing such invasion, it is not civil trespass but a violation of the treaties between the nations involved which gives rise to an escalated tensions between the nations involved.  The government of those people doing the invasion is responsible for a response: is it the course of civil process by the course of law, or is it upholding the law breakers?  When it is the latter case it is giving backing to the action that then moves it from the realm of civil dispute to one of dispute between nations.  In other words it transforms from mere civil trespass, to be sorted out by diplomacy and civil proceedings, to one where an actual invasion is given backing which is a casus belli, a cause for war.

When the sacrosanct nature of agreements between Nations, in exchanging ambassadors or other public ministers in search of peace requires this as it is the civil, rational and natural movement of men to seek peace amongst themselves.  When that is transgressed and backed by the sovereign power of a Nation, peace can no longer be said to be the object of its desire.  There is always an opportunity for diplomacy, of course, but that must be taken by that nation backing the transgressors, not by those being invaded.

Those doing the invasion, not being in uniform, not adhering to the standards of law of nations or the rules of war, are now conducting a military operation outside of both.  This moves us back to Book III, the one on warfare and who gets to make it:

§ 4. It belongs only to the sovereign power.(137)

As nature has given men no right to employ force, unless when it becomes necessary for self defence and the preservation of their rights (Book II. § 49, &c.), the inference is manifest, that, since the establishment of political societies, a right, so dangerous in its exercise, no longer remains with private persons except in those encounters where society cannot protect or defend them. In the bosom of society, the public authority decides all the disputes of the citizens, represses violence, and checks every attempt to do ourselves justice with our own hands. If a private person intends to prosecute his right against the subject of a foreign power, he may apply to the sovereign of his adversary, or to the magistrates invested with the public authority: and if he is denied justice by them, he must have recourse to his own sovereign, who is obliged to protect him. It would be too dangerous to allow every citizen the liberty of doing himself justice against foreigners; as, in that case, there would not be a single member of the state who might not involve it in war. And how could peace be preserved between nations, if it were in the power of every private individual to disturb it? A right of so momentous a nature, — the right of judging whether the nation has real grounds of complaint, whether she is authorized to employ force, and justifiable in taking up arms, whether prudence will admit of such a step, and whether the welfare of the state requires it, — that right, I say, can belong only to the body of the nation, or to the sovereign, her representative. It is doubtless one of those rights, without which there can be no salutary government, and which are therefore called rights of majesty (Book I. § 45).

Thus the sovereign power alone is possessed of authority to make war. But, as the different rights which constitute this power, originally resident in the body of the nation, may be separated or limited according to the will of the nation (Book I. § 31 and 45), it is from the particular constitution of each state, that we are to learn where the power resides, that is authorized to make war in the name of the society at large. The kings of England, whose power is in other respects so limited, have the right of making war and peace.1 Those of Sweden have lost it. The brilliant but ruinous exploits of Charles XII. sufficiently warranted the states of that kingdom to reserve to themselves a right of such importance to their safety.

That step of saying that the citizens have acted in accordance with the sovereign power is one that changes the activities of those citizens and gives them military legitimacy.  They are not legitimate military actors, however, by any standard and any future actions by such non-military actors is one that comes under law of nations as well:

§ 34. Na-

Nations that are always ready to take up arms on any prospect of advantage, are lawless robbers: but those who seem to delight in the ravages of war, who spread it on all sides, without reasons or pretexts, and even without any other motive than their own ferocity, are monsters, unworthy the name of men. They should be considered as enemies to the human race, in the same manner as, in civil society, professed assassins and incendiaries are guilty, not only towards the particular victims of their nefarious deeds, but also towards the state, which therefore proclaims them public enemies. All nations have a right to join in a confederacy for the purpose of punishing and even exterminating those savage nations. Such were several German tribes mentioned by Tacitus — such those barbarians who destroyed the Roman empire: nor was it till long after their conversion to Christianity that this ferocity wore off. Such have been the Turks and other Tartars — Genghis Khan, Timur Bec or Tamerlane, who, like Attila, were scourges employed by the wrath of Heaven, and who made war only for the pleasure of making it. Such are, in polished ages and among the most civilized nations, those supposed heroes, whose supreme delight is a battle, and who make war from inclination purely, and not from love to their country.

That is what such nations are, are they not?  The ones that incite their people to kill not to protect society, not to protect territory or property, not to any sane reason and without justification.  These are so-called 'rogue nations', although getting modern man to understand that civilization is at threat from such nations has been difficult, if not impossible to do.  When private individuals take to war with no sovereign grant or oversight, no sovereign accountability, that is unlawful war:

§ 67. It is to be distinguished from informal and unlawful war.

Legitimate and formal warfare must be carefully distinguished from those illegitimate and informal wars, or rather predatory expeditions, undertaken either without lawful authority or without apparent cause, as likewise without the usual formalities, and solely with a view to plunder. Grotius relates several instances of the latter.⁵ Such were the enterprises of the grandes compagnies which had assembled in France during the wars with the English, — armies of banditti, who ranged about Europe, purely for spoil and plunder: such were the cruises of the buccaneers, without commission, and in time of peace; and such in general are the depredations of pirates. To the same class belong almost all the expeditions of the Barbary corsairs: though authorized by a sovereign, they are undertaken without any apparent cause, and from no other motive than the lust of plunder. These two species of war, I say, — the lawful and the illegitimate, — are to be carefully distinguished, as the effects and the rights arising from each are very different.

§ 68. Grounds of this distinction.

In order fully to conceive the grounds of this distinction, it is necessary to recollect the nature and object of lawful war. It is only as the last remedy against obstinate injustice that the law of nature allows of war. Hence arise the rights which it gives, as we shall explain in the sequel: hence, likewise, the rules to be observed in it. Since it is equally possible that either of the parties may have right on his side, — and since, in consequence of the independence of nations, that point is not to be decided by others (§ 40), — the condition of the two enemies is the same, while the war lasts. Thus, when a nation, or a sovereign, has declared war against another sovereign on account of a difference arisen between them, their war is what among nations is called a lawful and formal war; and its effects are, by the voluntary law of nations, the same on both sides, independently of the justice of the cause, as we shall more fully show in the sequel.⁶ Nothing of this kind is the case in an informal and illegitimate war, which is more properly called depredation. Undertaken without any right, without even an apparent cause, it can be productive of no lawful effect, nor give any right to the author of it. A nation attacked by such sort of enemies is not under any obligation to observe towards them the rules prescribed in formal warfare. She may treat them as robbers,^(146a) The inhabitants of Geneva, after defeating the famous attempt to take their city by escalade,⁷ caused all the prisoners whom they took from the Savoyards on that occasion to be hanged up as robbers, who had come to attack them without cause and without a declaration of war. Nor were the Genevese censured for this proceeding, which would have been detested in a formal war.

We call these modern day actors: terrorists.  They are in the same class as pirates as the objective of war when done by private individuals without sovereign grant is not material: power, lust, greed, or just wanting to see the world burn are all one and the same in Private War which is illegitimate in all circumstances.  A Nation condoning and sponsoring such is an enemy of all mankind.

Unfortunately the State of Iran and Egypt are now in that category and are abusing their sovereign power meant to protect their people and using that power to inspire the activity of war to no lawful effect and no good end for mankind.

I have no hatred for the people of Iran or Egypt.

Their governments are monsters as their actions now tell you that.

It is civilized to wish that the people of these Nations had governments worthy of them to seek peace for them amongst their fellow nations of the Earth.  Such is not the case and the remedy has already been stated, if one can but read and reason.

Present through the lens of the past

Watching Dinesh D'Souza'z presentation of Obama's America 2016 was an exploration of the themes that have showed up in the immigrant experience in America as seen through the prism of not only Barack Obama but that of Mr. D'Souza.  Simple, factual presentation of his own background allows D'souza to present a contemporaneous view of Barack Obama's life that is not something that native born Americans experience.  This matters due to the roots of D'Souza coming from India and Barack Obama's parents coming from the US and Kenya.  More directly, Barack Obama Sr. would marry a woman of the US left, the far left, in the era of the Cold War.  It is to be remembered that the far left of the US picked up on 3rd World Anti-Colonialism that was fostered by the USSR.

The historical record of Barack Obama's life is what it is: one can disagree with ideologies, viewpoints and even simple analysis (to a degree), but the facts are what they are.  Barack Obama was brought up with his father, a 3rd World Anti-Colonialist, having bad traits washed from him by Obama's mother, particularly in respects to her second husband.  As her husband moved to embrace capitalism, she sent Barack back to her parents (who were also of the US left) so as to protect him from the shifting ideals and ideology of her new husband.  Gaining Frank Marshal Davis as a mentor that was a close friend of Barack Obama's maternal grandfather, put a hard basis for a pro-Communist viewpoint in Obama's early life.  The recounting of Obama's life, thereafter, is following his own footsteps and talking to the people who knew Obama and, most importantly, Barack Obama, Sr.

I grew up in the Dragon Year cohort, which is separated my a handful of years from both Obama and D'Souza and thus did not have their direct experience of the US left and its influences from the 3rd World Anti-Colonialist movement.  Those few years are enough to take that movement from a vital one (bolstered by the numbers of the Baby Boomer generation) to one of intellectual exhaustion.  Unlike these men I also grew up in a more crunchy form of socialist household, one that adhered closer to First International views and criticized later ones and those of Progressives.  Thus by the time I hit my time at University, I had a grounding in the rhetoric and intellectual methodology of the US left, although I had serious problems with its basic underpinnings.    With that said, those students that were on the left appeared to be losing interest in the actual underpinnings of their own ideology.

There is a fundamental  problem with 3rd World Anti-Colonialism as it was propagated in the US upper educational system: it couldn't explain why Western   Colonialism (or Imperialism via support of 3rd World regimes) was bad, while that of Communist expansion were either good or just not to be mentioned or glossed over.  If the imposition of economic exploitation is bad when done, then it is the activity that is bad, not the economic system of which power is doing it.  Yet at every turn capitalism was bad and communism good when attached to the same activity.  The disparity of wealth happened under both types of economic system, and there was no way that native regimes could pay for finished goods without regard if it came from East or West.  This is hypocrisy of the highest order, and yet is constantly whitewashed by those holding it whenever it was pointed out to them.  If the activity is one that is exploitative, then how can it be sanctified or whitewashed by any who support it?  And if there is a difference, then what is it and why can the same activity be good when done under different auspices if the activity, itself, is bad under any condition?

Without underpinnings in understanding ideology and sociology, or even just the basic rhetoric of socialism, there is no case that can be made and, worse still, it can only be a negative case when it is made as socialism has not uplifted any people to prosperity as a society, but only a select few apparatchiks who run the system.  Like capitalism.  3rd World Anti-Colonialism as a form of communism  puts a blame on capitalism for exploiting countries when those countries, on their own, did not have the basis for utilization of their resources.  That is due to a lack of skill sets amongst the general populace necessary to perform the tasks of creating and running an industrialized economy. 

As D'Souza points out, the colonial experience of India was one in which education was spread but upward mobility was sharply and precisely limited by the British.  After moving out from being a colony, India attempted 3rd World Socialism as helped by the USSR.  Which didn't work.  Yet the basis for creating a capitalist society had been left by the British in the form of an educational system and a bolstering of a merchant class (one of the areas somewhat available in India for advancement).  Socialist attempts did not bring about an economic base with prosperity and a general uplifting of the human condition, while capitalism did.  In talking to Obama's half-brother about his book, we find that he points out that the way Kenya went with 3rd World Anti-Colonialism actually retarded the growth of the Kenyan economy in comparison to other countries that were at the same or lower economic level in comparison.  Indeed, South Africa lasted longest under the colonial banner of the UK, and came out the best prepared to advance economically which led him to the argument that Kenya would have done better to have remained as a colony for another few decades.

In other words: colonialism isn't all bad.

India was able to actually leverage its education system and the higher general education of its population as compared to pre-colonial times to finally step away from socialism and start letting its people become productive and build the industrial infrastructure to support a modernizing Nation.  South Korea, that had been far more backward than Kenya and war ravaged has turned itself around into a modern, industrialized Nation even though Kenya had a head start on it at the time of Kenyan independence.

Yet the talking points from the US left that has imbibed in 3rd World Anti-Colonialism tell that colonialism and imperialism (as witnessed by the 19th century global land grab by colonialist powers) are only negatives and have no positive artifacts to them.  Yet there are examples of just the opposite of where colonial rulers have actually established educational systems, a relatively orderly bureaucratic system and even the nucleus of what could become a middle class.  If the caste system could not be wiped out in India, the excesses of it, particularly towards women at the death of her husband, could be stopped as well as death cults that struck fear into the population at large.  These are no minor tasks as they weren't being addressed under any prior ruling regime and continued as artifacts of Indian culture for centuries and longer prior to British rule.  On the flip side the Belgian Congo is an example of actual and deep exploitation and impoverishment of natives by a colonial power.  The counter to that are places like Indonesia, Malaya, S. Africa and (up to just recently) Egypt.  Where anti-colonial forces and revolutions have prospered, the systems put in by the colonialist powers have been diminished, repudiated, attacked or just abandoned to the detriment of the general population wherever that has happened.  Land redistribution does very little good if those on the receiving end don't know how to use it and, even worse, since 1970's era 'green revolution' methods require relatively large scale farms the efficiencies of such large scale agriculture are not only dismantled but can not come about until smaller land holders agglomerate back under a larger, incorporated farm system.

The glossing over of the benefits of capitalism, industrialization, private ownership of land, and actual job creation that necessitates an educated population are, at best, glossed over and receive head shaking from modern leftists to, at worst, questioning if having a good education system, modern economy and jobs is actually a good end goal for these societies.  What had started as a semi-rigorous religious outlook by Marx had, by the 1980's, lost all attempts at intellectual rigor and just wanted the patina of intellectualism by spouting good-feeling slogans without actually thinking what the preconditions for them actually are.  A utopian vision of society that has no realistic and well thought out anchor points to reality, that have the faults of its linkages unaddressed and those that do the criticizing attacked, is a recipe for not just disaster but slaughter on a scale unimaginable to the modern mind.  A modern mind that has, within its knowledge scope, two World Wars and the use of WMDs.

What had once been a relatively civilized, if authoritarian, economics viewpoint had morphed, by the mid-1980's, into a system that was now equating those who fought under no flag, for themselves and whatever grandiose slogans they offered, and did so without benefit of a uniform, accountability structure or even popular support as being the direct, exact equivalent of those who were held accountable, did have support, fought by rules of warfare, and had a civilized infrastructure around them.  Yet those at the beginning of the socialist project would have called those fighting without even the barest attempt at civilized behavior barbarians and, more importantly, destructive to industrialized society and the prospects of ever getting to socialism.  By embracing the USSR communist vision and talking points before the collapse of the USSR, by embracing sloganeering over methodology and rigor, and by ignoring the lack of cohesion between grand feel-good visions and the actual state of human nature, the modern left that joined with the 3rd World Anti-Colonialist movement had become not anti-colonial but anti-West and anti-civilization as they excused any and all deviations from civilized behavior as 'necessary to the cause' which is said in various ways.

The surest way to leaving modern leftism behind is to deploy the methodology and rigor of the old 'crunchy' socialists of the First International to these latter-day leftists inspired by socialism and communism, but who are unable to apply any rigor to their ideals and ideas.  By simply pointing out that private property capitalism is a necessary part of the creation of the pre-conditions for socialism because it must create a broad-based system of education to better exploit the working class is a key part of socialism that the modern Left can't even address nor understand as an intellectual concept.  You don't have to be a dyed in the wool socialist to find the intellectual vacuity of modern leftism (and its anti-colonialist cohorts) but just point out that under the dogma they are seeking and its end goals, that it makes no sense at all.  You don't even have to believe the underlying premises of old line socialism to do that, just point out that the end result of abolishing private capital and putting the State in control before the preconditions of Marx are met (and those do, by golly, vary greatly even in Marx's own works) is the worst of all systems that has no need to uplift and educate the poor that the private capitalist has, and just exploit the workers to the end of the State: State Capitalism.  The concept of State Capitalism didn't start with the Right but with the Left and was the exacting criticism applied to the USSR, Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, Communist China and any place where the industrial preconditions laid out by Marx were not present.  I found that vacuity just by pointing out that rigor to those who were in University attempting to figure out their own leftism and the lack of any actual intellectual knowledge about the underpinnings of their belief system were astounding, then and now.  One can appreciate the intellectual rigor of the old left and that the basis for it is misplaced, but the new left preferred slogans to rigor, feeling good about being smart rather than applying mental capacity to actually understanding what it was they were saying, and hand waving that all of this would come about in a peaceful way when all evidence from the past of their own movement had demonstrated just the opposite, not to speak of the broader history of mankind as a whole.  There is a high degree of resonance with Mr. D'Souza as he recounts his early time in the US and trying to talk sense to those on the left who approached the overseas students and had no clue about what the actual conditions were overseas in their Nations of origin.  That was true throughout the left a decade later and to see that it had already been present a decade earlier was not surprising at all.

Dinesh D'Souza by being conservative in the late 1970's didn't get to see the decay of the modern left in the US from the inside and only recognizes the artifacts of it as a social commentator and conservative from the outside.  From the inside his recounting of how Barack Obama came to his beliefs, indeed took up the dreams from his father which were anti-colonial/pro-communist makes a lot of sense.  The disjointed life that Barack had with missing father in Hawaii, going overseas, his mother re-marrying, his step-father doing well in life and his mother sending young Barry back to her leftist parents, his time in Columbia University, Harvard, his Chicago mentors, traveling to Kenya after his father's death, associating with Bill Ayers... all of that leads to a form of US leftism that is anti-colonialist, pro-communist and wholly destructive to society as it cannot reconcile itself to the fact that the high ideals only impoverish people.  Keeping his father's dream alive is keeping a toxic viewpoint going and embracing it, thoroughly.  This meant a move away from intellectual rigor, and shifting the focus of the anti-colonialist prism to the American experience and utilizing the leftist structure in the US to rise to power.

If the US had shame still left from the era of Jim Crow racism, then electing Barack Obama as a 'uniter' meant that those doing the electing had never bothered to ask: just what was it that needed uniting?  If the goal is to create one America, isn't that contrary to the espoused values of multiculturalism and giving hosannas  to the differences in cultures within the US?  When one speaks about what they wish to achieve, and those goals are high, then one must ask 'what have you achieved that makes you think you can get this done?'  None of the lofty and intellectual rigor that used to be in the Old Left, that examination of methodology and seeing if those means were to any ends that were part of the long term goal, are present in Barack Obama, because he has flat-out been unable to state what the means to the end goals are and what they mean to each and every citizen of the United States.  And if his vision is that of anti-colonialism, then when he talks about the need to bring down the 1% then he isn't talking about the rich in America, but all Americans as even the lowliest beggar in the US, the homeless in the US, those gone without a job and having lost their wealth due to the housing market, that all of these people are still much, much richer than any average citizen in a 3rd World Nation.  As pointed out by those D'Souza interviews (and I do paraphrase to get past some of the intervening steps of loss of productivity and sovereignty), the way to redistribute wealth globally is to diminish the rich and make everyone poor and turn the clock back not just to the pre-colonial period but, by and large, to a pre-industrialized one as well with only a very few Nations having any productive capacity at all... and they will have nuclear weapons.  America, you see, under the leftist goal of 'no nukes', means no nuclear devices for America and a severely crippled industrial base unable to recover past productivity due to crushing debt and the welfare state.

I've read about those lofty goals during the 1980's and the US Left is stuck in the 1980's when it isn't stuck in the 1960's, and there is a disjointedness to the slogans, to the goals, and to the rhetoric and lack of logical rigor that is breath-taking.  Unwilling to study history, save through a PC lens that has pre-determined outcomes and results and must ignore anything that contradicts those results, a fantasy ideology is fostered about the past and what a great place the pre-colonial, pre-industrial era was.  Anyone who wishes to read about those pre-colonial, pre-industrialized times without the rose colored PC glasses should do so and then add in the every so often WMD and applying that set of scenarios to the modern world may experience a certain horror that awaits the US.

In Barack Obama's vision of 2016.

Picking Paul Ryan

Unless you have been hiding under your bed or under a rock the past few hours, presumptive Presidential nominee Gov. Mitt Romney has picked Rep. Paul Ryan as his running mate.

There are some things that have changed in this race, because of that, and others that remain the same.  I've said this a number of times in a few places, but it bears repeating:

This election is not about candidates, not about parties, not about personalities.  It is about the size, scope and power of the US federal government.

All else is distraction.  Your job is to keep your eye on the target, do not flinch with the exploding shiny objects as they are ephemeral.  To permanently alter the course of this Nation away from its Statist and decrepit ends, you must vote and you must make sure that everyone you know is registered to vote.  To do so go to Wall Builders as they have a site up to allow you to check the registration status of individuals.  Too many 'conservatives' are sit on the side complainers unwilling to even register to vote.  Ask them if they are willing to do the simplest thing necessary to change things so that they can stop complaining and become an active critic that matters to their fellow citizens.

Ask them if they have any honor.

Give them the low-down on what honor means:

HONOR

Do as You say.

Say what You mean.

Mean what You do.

There are no excuses brooked in this.  If they have already registered, make sure they will honor their duty to society, the thing that We the People acting as Caesar ask of you to do: vote your conscience.  This IS a rendering unto Caesar, make no mistake about it, and is a requirement of our civilized society to do with a representative democracy.

From Lincoln we have learned that you can fool all of the people, some of the time; some of the people, all of the time; and all of the people some of the time.  You can't fool all of the people, all of the time.  Sit this election out, and you are just a fool and have been fooled and will continue to be in that 'some of the people, all of the time' group.  

Your vote does matter and there is no brooking this question. 

This is not part of one's duty to God but to the service that you agree to by being part of civilization.  Civilization is not a gift but a life-long occupation you get from the moment you can rationally think.

Anyone who complains, who doesn't register or won't vote is a fool.  You may want to find a better sort of friend that no longer includes fools.  Better to be friendless and committed to the hard work of civilization and upholding your responsibilities to it than to accept authoritarian barbarism delivered with a sweet smile and a set of chains to hook you up to the chattel car.  A civilized person will be dead long, long before that point, defending their life, their liberty and their inalienable right to pursue happiness.

Do I think Mitt Romney is a hot and great candidate?  No.  Yes I have a variety of reasons on that.  I don't have to like a man to vote for him.  He has some character.  The person we have as President is a character, and a composite one, at that.

Is he a lesser evil, like all we have been presented with in the latter part of the 20th and first decade of the 21st century?  To a degree, yes.  That is a distraction.  Your job is to get good people elected locally, from the neighborhood level on up, to start removing the claws and tentacles of the beast of government, and to stop it from sucking the life blood of this Nation out and putting our inalienable rights in danger at every turn.  You can start to limit evil and start removing choices from it.  You can't get to there from here without voting.

Did I mention that YOU have to be registered to vote and have a commitment TO VOTE on the assigned day?  06 NOV 2012.  It is printed on most civic minded calendars.  It is a date.  Keep it.

The job of curbing the extent, the reach of government begins with YOU not the government.  If you self-govern, abide by the laws (at least to the degree that you can as the evil concept of making so many laws that you are in danger of violating any of them by just being alive is now seeing fruit), be a good neighbor and help your neighbor... even that smelly guy at the end of the block who passes out on the sidewalk far too frequently... yeah, that guy... do you live at the end of the block and pass out frequently?... imagine what a horror HIS LIFE must be.  Reach out to help that sot.  Once he is sober he can tell you to keep out of his life!  You will find no good deed goes unpunished.  Let that sot know that if he ever needs help, he can knock on your door and get it.

Notice the part government plays in that?  Zip.

Nada.

You are not depending on government for getting the guy into rehab.  That is HIS decision to make, not ANYONE ELSE'S which includes YOU.  You can look up the number to a rehab clinic if he asks you to do so.  But that poor sot may have other problems of which being drunk and passed out is just a minor side-effect.

Say, is he registered to vote?

Find out. 

He might not get sober enough for this election, but might make the next one... which will be a LOCAL election.  For you to create a better society you must not only be willing to help out that drunken sot at the end of the block who tends to rant too much and not take showers that often, but go and vote.  Of the two, voting is the more difficult one.  He might even be able to give you some insight into that.

Bet you thought this 'civilization' stuff was going to be easy, huh?

These critical fundamentals of being kindly to your fellow man, taking responsibility to make sure that those heading to hell in their own hand-basket know they have a hand ready to get them out of it, and upholding your duty to your fellow man by telling Caesar what to do.... these don't change.

Notice how this isn't about Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney or any other thing beyond you being a good person, saying 'hey, no thanks' to government 'help', and then being willing to help others.  And VOTE THAT WAY?  Geez, wouldn't it be great if more people did this?

The enemies of liberty seek to beguile through theft via government... taxation is legalized theft to do a few small things, but handing that hard earned money over to those  who didn't earn it because THEY DIDN'T EARN IT and are UNWILLING TO EARN IT, that is theft of a greater sort.  Beyond the mere wasteful spending of government on overhead, forms, layers of bureaucracy that yields no better results save to ask for a larger bureaucracy (and this is thievery as well)... is the belittling of our fellow man saying that they are entitled to be kept alive for the sole reason that they are ALIVE.  Sorry, you gotta earn your keep and prepare for a bad life.

Are you prepared to practice the principles necessary to get to the good ends of man helping man instead of saying, 'Hey, Caesar!  You take care of this guy, ok?'  I'm sure Jesus said to deliver the sick and poor unto Caesar... no, wait a sec.... you're supposed to take care of those folks.  So sorry!  If you want to stop having money thefted from you via taxation, that means you have to pick up your end of that deal.  And no matter how much fancy and nice language you put up to this, it is destruction of the moral will of individuals to be individual and to be a vibrant member of society and to uphold the good of society so that government can get on with the few things necessary to protect us from attack.  That in no way relieves YOU of the obligation to protect yourself, your loved ones, your neighbors or your property from attack, either.

I suggest you be well armed.  Others tend to forget that what you earn is yours, not theirs.  Government is just at the top of the list, it is not the list entire.

So what has changed in the Presidential race?

The above is now the new focus.

Remember it.

Keep your eye on the target.

Ignore distractions, and they will be outrageous.

Make sure your friends are registered to vote.

Make sure your friends vote.

Make sure YOU VOTE.

And after that be a beacon and light of liberty to others, holding out a hand in friendship and yet prepared to confront those that only have a fist ready for you.

This is not the end of the procedure.

It isn't even the beginning of the end.

It isn't even the end of the beginning.

Depending on how much of this you already do you are either in Square 1 and saying 'where the hell am I?' or a few squares down the road.  Getting to GO is a long, long, long way away and every decision you make will become a gamble on yourself, your neighbors, your life and your Nation.

Every.

Single.

Decision.

Keep your eye on the target as it is the light of liberty and freedom for all mankind.

Government can't build that.  ONLY YOU CAN.

Isn't life grand?

Home workshop–Router Table–Phase 1

Put this in the list of 'things eating up my time that keep me from posting'.  Yes that is getting to be a long list.  As I have to measure out my energy and, thusly, my time, projects have to be done in small steps so that I can reach natural completion points in case life gives me something else to do.  Past postings on my SKS, putting in extra parts to my workbench and things like getting an EMP cabinet up are examples of this and I have a few more in the deck beyond this like getting EMP screens set up for some appliances, I'll have to be putting up a small shed on the back deck and then putting a solar power system in that, to name but a few.  Each is done step-wise, usually by scoping out the size of the project, making sure raw materials figured out and ordered, then getting to the project itself.  All told my workbench project ate up about 1o months, total, but had a few other things going on during it.  The idea is to use any physically productive time well to the point where downtime means complete rest.  Sometimes days of it.

For all of that the router table is finally at a point where it is no longer a bunch of cut up lumber scattered on my workbench.  Three weeks ago I would have had little to show but that.  Today I have the pieces cut and partially assembled to be well into Phase 1 of the process: getting the router portion of the internal framework nearly complete.

The objective of this router table is to take the old router bench top's table and put it onto a framework to secure it in the new table.  The new table is to have a height equal to the workbench (34") and be on casters to do that.  Much of the wood that I have on-hand is gently warped from gaining small amounts of humidity over the past couple of years, just enough to make it a hassle but not enough to commit to a major planer to get it down to flat surfaces and lose a bit of width.  Beats me how other people do it, but that's how I'm doing it: if I need planing I can take a hand planer or a block plane out for that and small stuff I can do on the table saw.

Now onto the pictures!

Entering the shop this is what greets you:

Loverly, no?

The entire thing is going to be made on 30"x48" 3/4" Baltic Birch plywood on the exterior.  The interior is whatever wood I have in the shop like the 'white wood' from HD or splendid if very dirty planks I got from a skid used to deliver some outrageously large item (those pieces are of oak and pine from what I can tell).  The very top is the support structure for the Veritas steel router table top (I got mine at Lee Valley tools) and it is in the 'just complete enough to find out where the cuts didn't go exactly right' stage.  It's mission is to sit 3/16" below the top of the table so that the router table top is flush with the rest of the top.  That larger surface will be another piece of 30x48 ply.

That large area in the center will be where my Hitachi M12V2 router (purchased reconditioned at Big Sky Tool) will be suspended under the table.  I'm planning on putting a small scissors jack there and getting the router's elevation adjusted by that, which is a much later part of the process, but I already do have the jack.

And what router table is worth its salt if it doesn't have drawers?  The carcass has space for 5 aside and a large one in the bottom (which I might sub-divide into 1 or 2 smaller drawers).  I left space above the bottom drawer and the top drawer opening for running anything from the rear of the cabinet to the face of it.  There will have to be at least 2 switch boxes (router and dust collector) and one 2.5" blast gate for getting a tube feed to the router fence (or any hose attachments I might want to use).

3/4" plywood is the base of the interior space.

From the side:

Not a lot to see here, save the drawers from the side.  I used a dado blade to put in 1.4" deep dados for those 3/4" strips that will be the supports for the drawers.  The bottom strips likewise have 1/4" deep dados for the side and interior supports, including the interior plywood base.

The rear shows a bit of spacing at the rear of the shelves for yet to be inserted pieces to give the entire thing structural stability.  Those will be nominal 4" pieces to insert, which means the drawer space from side to side is 3.5", ergo the drawers will be 3.5" square faces and up to 24" long (which seems impractical to me).

Seen is a piece with a clamp that needs just a touch more dado work as it is just about 1/16" out of alignment, which I found out by getting a clean crack on the end trying to finger place it.  What can be seen on the near end of that is the amount taken off the side (done to all the pieces) so as to fit better into the space that will be cut out of the plywood top for the router table top.

Notable on the top is oily dirt from a piece that came from the skid.  As no one is going to see it, it is left as-is.  This is true of all non-visible pieces, they are unfinished and unsanded: if they need sanding/finishing, that is a detail piece of work I'll do by hand or with a multi-tool.

Taken from the reverse angle on the other side of the workbench.

One of the problems is that the non-square, non-planed wood gives slightly out of tolerance heights when I get to the top.  This will be addressed, as the old song goes, 'Shim, shiminey... shim, shiminy... shim, shim, pushee...'  Or something like that, anyways.  Yes, shims are the answer to such things.  How the drawers can line up and the top not, that is a question I will leave for the mystics.  Still it is very close and that is all that matters.  Sanding, planing, minor rip cuts... that should take care of the rest plus shims.

What you can't see...

Casters.  Bought from Harbor Freight, cheap, on sale.  I put in knock down inserts into the plywood, pounded them home and used 1/4-20 panhead bolts to attach them.  Made sure the little brake pedal actually shows on two sides so the thing can be properly kept in place, too!  Did a quickie Tung Oil finish on the bottom, just once using a 1 part oil to 4 part thinner (limonene) ratio.  In the hot outside air it evaporated extremely fast.  I left it 'as-is' as no one will most likely see it or care about it.

This is my bench top router table from Veritas.  It is steel, 24" x 16" with rubber bumpers inset to the inside of the table.  Thus those will be on the inside of the top part of the larger table top.  I will be moving from the side router table supports to ones that use T-Track for the fence and anything else when I get this put into the table.  Basically this gets to transition from a very nice bench top to a more standardized table system, for things like jigs.  Or larger boards.  I have nothing against the Veritas system, save that it needs to expand a bit to give me more space so that I can reclaim shop space.

What a mess, huh?

That's the back of the Veritas system.  I have one of those cute, two-way dust collector hose systems with a cup right up under the bit and a hose to the fence.  The hose to the cup stays, the hose to the fence will be replaced with a separate 2.5" feed.  The rest of the stuff is in-process supplies, tools, and other assorted junk that needs to find a home associated with the router.  Getting all the router equipment into one place, where it is easy to find, is a massive priority.

Seen off to the right in the very first picture in all of this is the Ridgid shopvac I'm using for this affair.  It is my ersatz dust collector and general shop cleaning vac.  In off-line storage I have a small dust collector that makes a real racket (from Steel City) and it should also fit into the space in the rear of the table.  The problem is that if I run that and any other piece of equipment, I trip the breaker for the room.  If I need to really clear the air, I can turn that on using an outlet port for a Big Gulp hood and throw that on top of something and leave the room.

One of the 'nice to have' things in the table would be a special drawer for my saw blades in the rear of the table.  Neither the vac or dust collector will take up all the space and I'll have about 5" to play with under the table top in the rear.  Plenty of space for rear drawers or (if I'm really clever) to make the rear part of the table a flip-up affair to get to a storage space under it.  That may be beyond my capability at present, so drawers are a better answer.

With the front area semi-complete, I can put up the sides, internal wall (between the router area and the rear dust collection area) and begin running piping and tubing for the dust collection system, and the power cables to run everything.  Inlets with immediate single outlet boxes in the rear will allow me to run power cables back to the rear and get a single feed for each of the router and dust collector with switches in front.  Doors to get to the rear area (or lower rear area) will be cut out and concealed hinges put in for them, thus allowing easy access to the vacuum area.

When this is done all the routing tools get a home in one place, the dust collection gets centralized (and ports standardized), the table that all of this sits on gets to be folded up to go away someplace, and workflows get straightened out when everything has a home to go to.

After this comes a stand for the miter saw, a stand for my bench grinder (now sitting off-line due to lack of space) and the slow cleaning out to get at the raw materials necessary to build this stuff.  With smaller stands and a home for the dust collecting detritus (fittings, hoses, etc.) another table can come down and the stuff under it can get shelved because the shelves will then be accessible!  Glory Be!  While there will still be large pieces of equipment, they will be mobile and easy to move, and those that have work tops will have a common height so that they can serve as run-out tables, supports or other fine things as yet undecided.  I might even put together a proper stand for my drill press so that its table can be at a common height... then I might even get to put together a seamless workflow utilizing everything... what a thought!  Then, maybe, a special table for small piece finishing and firearms cleaning that I can SIT AT!

More than a body can handle, I know.

I learn a lot along the way by trial and error and this is necessary knowledge. Right now it is one step at a time.  They are small steps, yes, but steps nonetheless, until I can get to that day when I'm doing something other than building equipment to do things I want to do.  Making the tools to make the tools so I can actually get to make things I want to make.

Mine eyes have seen the glory...

Yes, yet another bit of commentary by me at Hot Air (on the Ted Cruz victory) that I'm recycling into a post.  More thoughts on this at some future time, but that will be more a summation of past posts and outlooks.  This is just a short, sweetened condensed version.  Anyone having read my works over the years will know exactly where I'm coming from and all standard non-fixing of spelling, syntax, etc. is in place:

Do note that Ted Cruz didn’t win because of MONEY.

He won because of commitment from individuals to support his campaign and to mail envelopes, place phone calls, and talk up his campaign with friends, co-workers and other like minded people. The stars of the Senate, Sarah Palin and the rest of the ‘leaders’ are only ‘leaders’ in the sense that the abolitionist movement had ‘leaders’: the movement set the tone, tenor and direction and a few were able to voice it better and help spur it on, but they in no way led the movement, itself.

This is the horrifying part to the two parties and the elite establishment. What the Tea Parties have done is coalesce, create leaderless organizations that are distributed, grass-roots and committed in a way that saves the most time to get the most results for the input given. Outspending a candidate isn’t going to change commitment for those who have had to go through the gauntlet of fire by the MFM and the simpatico elite establishment. You may not get a political ‘leader’ on the other side of that, but you do get an individual and a movement that is purified by fire in the crucible. Bring on more fire, pour it on, and the movement gets stronger as it winnows out the extras, those things that don’t fit and begins to concentrate on the pure beliefs of those involved. Then you reach out to those elements that remain unpurified, incorporate them and welcome THEM to the crucible. Not all will be allies, not all will be able to take the heat but the best from them will step forth to join with the larger movement.

In 2009 Statehouses started to change hands and not just into Republican hands but to those following the Tea Party – the beliefs of those elected were getting scrutiny and a number will be melted out by the fire.

By 2010 Scott Brown was a shot across the bow, followed up by many salvos against the elite establishment. This was not about winning elections, but to start the purification process on the elite politicians in the Republican party to start melting their power base away from the inside. You couldn’t win all those races, but you could win enough to prove the point and to establish the marker of the future.

In 2011 more Statehouses started to shift, and this was not just to Republicans but to an organized grass-roots that sought no leaders and, instead, welcomed spokesmen. By joining with other organizations and finding out what fit from them since the self-organization began, these other organizations found out that some of what is good from them gets incorporated into the larger movement, but that the movement is independent of them.

That gets you 2012 where a coalescing can get behind Ted Cruz and others, while Senators and Club for Growth now find itself against a FreedomWorks candidate in a run-off… spokesmen and ‘leaders’ are not blindly followed, and good citizens willing to risk the fire of derision and hatred spewed at them for their positions on smaller government and greater personal liberty get backed.

This is the horror to the elite establishment in both parties and the Left as a whole: the more they attack the more people come to understand those that they oppose and find them to be friends and neighbors with common-sense attitudes and simple involvement and understanding in politics that the complex fails on high, and the simple succeeds on low. Now Freedom Works reaches out to other Nations, Japan, Australia, Serbia, Israel, Italy, Greece, even into China to support those who see the rights of man as individual and personal liberty and freedom as the greatest force for good for all mankind. We will not always agree with our friends in other Nations and the venues they must choose for themselves: but we can reach out to support them in what they do.

This works.

Tyrants of the world, behold! The word of freedom and liberty with self-governance is now being whispered in the darkest corners of tyranny. And this time we vow never, ever, to forget these lessons and why freedom and liberty are the basis for the common good amongst men. The Tea Party was just the first ray of light on the horizon… soon the vast number of rays shall show the source of them and the powerful will tremble in fear.

ajacksonian on August 2, 2012 at 7:22 AM

Yes, there is something larger than just Ted Cruz, the Tea Parties and the other list of usual suspects trotted out by the MFM going on.  The establishment that they wished to yoke mankind to is falling apart because it just doesn't work.  Something that does work is already in place with each and every individual on the planet who comes to realize that they are the greatest moral actors on Earth because they are here, now, to exercise their free will to the betterment of themselves and their fellow man.

Tyrants shall tremble.

Dictators shall fall.

And the dross of tyranny will once again meet freedom and liberty unleashed not just in America, but everywhere as we uphold the promise and understanding of our Founders.  All men are, indeed, created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain, inalienable, rights – that amongst those are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness which we call Fortune.

This is the job handed to you, to me, and to each and every person on the planet.