Tag Archives: South Carolina

Comparing Catalonia and the Confederacy—States and Nations (with notes on the Monstrosity of Moderation in Media)

SPAIN TRIED AND FAILED TO SUPPRESS A VOTE FOR SECESSION IN ITS WEALTHY NORTHEASTERN CORNER OF CATALONIA TODAY (Sunday October 1, 2017).  According to the latest tally I have seen on the BBC, 2,020,144 Catalan voters cast their ballots in favor of an Independent Republic, centered on the Mediterranean seaport of Barcelona.  These two million plus voters constituted 90.09% of the 42-43% of the eligible electorate who voted, but Spain itself had urged pro-Spanish “no” voters to stay away from the Polls, and the massive police intervention and use of force must have discouraged some….

Although during the past 42 years that “Francisco Franco is still dead,” Spain has acknowledged the right of the several nationalities (Basque, Galician, Catalan) to assert regional autonomy, Spain has declared this vote illegal and non-binding. The Central Government of Spain in Madrid has been arguing ever since the election of the pro-Independence party in September of 2015,  that Catalonia’s vote was going to be “illegal” and they threatened to, and actually did, try to suppress the vote by Police Action.  

Most of the world (which has spoken) has either come out expressly in favor or seems tacitly on the side of Catalans who want independence.  Only Madrid and the Spanish government seem strongly against it—fearful, undoubtedly, of losing prime Mediterranean beach resorts, Barcelona (the second largest city in Spain, seventh largest and “most successful” in all Europe), plus the Balearic Islands (Majorca, Menorca, Ibiza and Formentera).  In essence, Catalonia includes some of the best real estate IN ALL OF EUROPE AND THE CIRCUM MEDITERRANEAN WORLD.  This is indeed “the Spanish Riviera”.

The comparison to the Secession of the Confederate States of America is obvious, but it isn’t getting much currency in the U.S. or British Media, despite the fact that the Confederate States have made a renewed appearance in the news since April, here in New Orleans and around the USA…. and even in the consciousness of the whole world.

So, since nobody else is making the comparison (that I’ve seen so far, anyhow, I will).   In 1860, the Southern states formed (per capita) the richest part of the United States.   Catalonia had better hope that world opinion remains on its side!    Because Spain has its eyes and tax collectors all focused on this rich province, and history tells us that the rich can be laid low when they try to retain their wealth….

For the record, Catalonia was originally, and has always considered itself, a separate “Nationality” (i.e. ethnolinguistic group). During the Middle Ages, the County of Barcelona became the Capital of the “Principality of Catalonia” which later became incorporated into the Kingdom of Aragon.  Aragon, in turn, was one of the most powerful and richest states in the post-Reconquista/Crusader world of the Mediterranean.  Then Aragon, later, under the 15th century reigns of King Ferdinand of Aragon and Queen Isabella of Castile, merged to form the modern Nation-State of “Spain”, leading to 500 years of almost continuous unity, although Aragon and Catalonia have several times reasserted their identities as monarchies or republics.

As James Ronald & Walter Donald Kennedy have shown in their most recent book “Punished with Poverty: the Suffering South, Prosperity to Poverty and the Continuing Struggle”  Columbia, South Carolina: Shotwell Publishing (2016), and as my dearly beloved grandmother always told me, THE SOUTH WAS THE WEALTHIEST PART OF THE UNITED STATES, “before the War” and the poorest part afterwards.   The combined cash value of the crops in any of the three pairs of Virginia and Georgia or Mississippi and Louisiana or North & South Carolina (each pair taken alone) exceeded the cash value of all the manufactured goods produced north of the Mason & Dixon-Ohio River—as of 1860.  But as of 1870, war had irreversibly altered the situation.


While neither historians or any Southerners today doubt that the people of the South overwhelmingly favored secession in 1861, the state legislatures only voted to hold popular votes as referenda/plebiscites/”propositions” in three of the thirteen states and one territory seceding (there were fifteen “slave” states, but a secession vote in the legislature in Maryland was suppressed at gunpoint and the state of Delaware never tried—West Virginia seceded from Virginia but kept its slaves and (ironically) after the war was among the most hostile toward enfranchisement of the newly freed slaves, as evidenced in several of the early major civil rights cases which emerged from that idiosyncratic Appalachian state opposite Ohio that seceded to nullify secession—oh, and Arizona was a territory constituting the southern half of what is now Arizona and New Mexico, but had then all been “New Mexico” until 1861).

In the states that held popular vote referenda, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia, the votes in favor of secession were nowhere nearly as lopsided as the vote held in Catalonia today (Sunday, October 1, 2017), but it should be noted that NO NORTHERN STATE, nor the United States Federal Government, under President James Buchanan, ever questioned or attempted to quash secession in any state.  From South Carolina’s legislature’s first Ordinance of Secession on December 20, 1860, through Louisiana’s secession as the sixth state on January 26, 1861, the popular support for separation from the Union never appeared to waver or be doubtful.


In February of 1861, Texas’ legislature voted to dissolve the state’s barely 16 year old affiliation with the Union on February 1, and a popular referendum was held on February 23, wherein the vote was 3.13:1 in favor of disunion.  

Virginia went through a similar two stage process in April and May of 1861, and the vote there (after Fort Sumter) was 3.53:1 in favor of taking the Old Dominion state into the Confederacy.  Robert E. Lee had opposed secession, but IN THOSE DAYS ONE’S CITIZENSHIP BELONGED TO THE STATE, NOT THE FEDERATION.  It would be comparable to calling us all “Citizens of the United Nations”—maybe some people WANT Global Citizenship, but so far, THANK GOD, no politically viable majority anywhere have ever voted for such a thing.

Finally, in May-June, Tennessee voted to secede, although the popular vote in that state was only 2.21:1 (for reference and comparison, NO PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS EVER WON ANY ELECTION BY A 2.21-1 POPULAR VOTE (although Lyndon B. Johnson came closest in 1964 against Goldwater at 1.58 to 1 comparable to FDR in 1936 against Alf Landon at 1.61 to 1—there being more third party votes in 1936 which reduced Roosevelt’s over all majority win very slightly).


How many of you have been divorced?  No, it’s a serious question.  How many of you have been divorced AFTER taking a vow “Til Death do Us Part”?  I was born an “Anglo-Catholic” (i.e. Episcopalian) and my wife was born Greek Orthodox in Greece.  My parents, despite their vows, split up when I was pre-school/kindergarten and it had a major impact on my life, mostly negative.  I especially regret now, looking back on it, how my grandmother taught me to scorn my own father.  That MIGHT have been a bad thing…  Anyhow, my point was this: my wife Elena and I swore personally to each other, quite aside from the marital vows, that we would never be divorced, that we would always stick together.  And we made collateral agreements that made I think this was actually a genuine promise that we would really keep, but we didn’t.  She hired the nastiest team of divorce lawyers (and their wives) in the entire state of Texas.  She turned into a monster.  Now, I blame the system, not her, but we split up, and it wrecked me.

But, in a sense, as one of my law school professors of international law at the University of Chicago said, “the nations of the world are all in a Roman Catholic marriage with one another.”  Or are they?  Are legal unions really indissoluble?  Most people do not believe that law should stand in the way of divorce, although most marital lawyers want divorce to be as much like an expensive world war as humanly possible.  So: is divorce “normal” or is divorce “treason?”

I have to admit, I led a fairly pro-Southern, sheltered life.  Even when I lived up north and attended Harvard GSAS (A.M., Ph.D.) and the University of Chicago law (J.D.) programs, I never ever heard ANYONE ever call the Southern Confederacy TREACHEROUS or the Southern Confederates called “Traitors”—as a matter of fact, everyone I knew at Harvard kind of went out of their way to apologize for Harvard’s apparent iconography of Yankee imperialism and to point out the rather obscure stained glass windows on Memorial Hall and inscriptions dedicated to the graduates of Harvard who fought for the South—(There were 257, significantly more than you might think, including five major generals, eight brigadier generals, and fully 38% of all Harvard Graduates who died in combat 1861-1865 died in the service of the armies the CSA, including three of those brigadier generals).  

So, I confess I was shocked, bowled over in fact, while I was standing in line at the very first public debate held in New Orleans on a steaming day in July in 2015 and an exceedingly unpleasant and unattractive woman in line started talking about how Confederates were all TRAITORS.



Some writers take poetic license, some take journalistic license.  But let’s face it: some writers DO NOT DESERVE A LICENSE.  Allen C. Guelzo is such a writer, and yet he writes for the Wall Street Journal…. and this is a disaster.  This USED TO BE a conservative, respectable journal***.   But no decent or respectable conservative would ever write that:

“As a Yankee, I find it a little difficult to grasp why monuments to Lee are here in the first place.  He lost, and if there is one sin American culture still prefers to bury from sight, it’s losing. Worse, Lee committed treason against the flag and the Constitution.  And behind that is the ugly truth that the Confederate cause was, when all the rhetorical chaff is swept away, designed to protect Chattel slavery, the singular birth defect of the American republic.” 

This is one of those sad moments when I have to admit I’m glad I’m not Chairman Mao or Uncle Joe Stalin…. because if I were, Guelzo would be TOAST—there wouldn’t be enough left of him to fill a matchbox, I promise.


So, if secession didn’t bother the outgoing President James Buchanan, or if it bothered him he didn’t do anything to stop it.  Buchanan was a Democrat, but he was a PENNSYLVANIA DEMOCRAT—a Yankee….the only Pennsylvanian ever to be elected President and the last President born in the 18th century.  

Buchanan supported his own Vice-President, John C. Breckinridge, in the election of 1860—Breckinridge being the choice of the “Southern Democrats” over Stephen Douglas of Illinois.  Breckinridge became a Confederate general—that’s right folks, the Vice-President of the United States who came in Second in the Electoral Vote and Third in the Popular Vote in 1860 became a Confederate General.  Was he a traitor too?  

I ask you (and Guelzo) somewhat rhetorically: IF the Vice-President of any country decides to take up arms agains that Country—don’t you suppose that there are some MAJOR issues at stake?  If James Buchanan believed that he had no constitutional power to stop secession, where did Abraham Lincoln get the idea that he had that power?

For the moment, I will leave that idea to you, but recommend to all my readers the words of James Ronald Kennedy and Walter Donald Kennedy, but also of Von Mises Institute Economist Thomas James DiLorenzo.

But is it significant that England would surely have allowed Scotland to opt out of the UK if Scotland had voted to do so several years ago?  Is it significant that Spain is trying very hard to look like a bully as it tries to bully Catalonia into submission, but that the world will almost certainly accept Catalonian secession in fairly short order?

***The Wall Street Journal was a feature of life in and around my maternal grandparents’ home in Highland Park in Dallas from the time I went to live there at age 6 years, two months, until my grandmother’s death in May 2001.  I respected it as perhaps the best newspaper in all of North America—I even arranged to have the WSJ delivered to Hacienda Chichén (and later the adjacent Casa Victoria) when I lived there, and made it the headquarters of my Harvard-Peabody-National Geographic-Chichén Itzá Archaeological Project 1983-1988.  Arranging such things by courier delivery from the Aeropuerto Internacional de Cancún in the 1980s was no piece of cake.


Scary White People in New Orleans ……(BOO!)

Do “Scary White People” in New Orleans support “the deification of Robert E. Lee” as part and parcel of “the false history of the Lost Cause?”

No? Well, I don’t think so either, but those were some of the more memorably idiotic lines uttered (the first by only one speaker that I heard, but the second two were repeated several times by different speakers) at the twin meetings on Confederate Monuments in New Orleans earlier today, Thursday, 13 August 2015 at City Hall, 1300 Perdido.

The whole day was frustrating and infuriating. I stayed for all of the first meeting but not the procedural votes afterwards, went over to Tulane to do some library work and returned in the evening for the second session.

I finally walked out after an hour and a half of the second meeting that started at 6:00 p.m. (New Orleans Human Relations Committee) when some hopelessly misguided and unintelligent white woman was explaining how she told her second grade son that Robert E. Lee was a traitor. The same woman had just said that she wouldn’t dream of buying a house on Jefferson Davis Parkway and that Lee’s statue had always made her uncomfortable since she moved to the City in 2001.

Many (mostly black) people said that they felt the same way around statues of Beauregard, Davis, and Lee that a Jew might feel around statues of Hitler, Himmler, or Goebbels. These and other statements of those in favor of the removal of the Confederate Heroes’ and Battle of Liberty Place Monuments were so completely asinine as to qualify most of the speakers for the booby hatch.

But what the day was really about was the despicable level of historical IGNORANCE and cultural PREJUDICE, coupled with Political Opportunism, of the American People, or at least those who showed up at City Hall in New Orleans today seeking removal of the monuments to the Old South’s greatest generals and leaders….

First prize for best speech among the “Pro Southern Heritage” side of the argument goes to a beautiful lady with a French Creole name, Desirée—who claims a 300 year old family lineage going back to some of the greatest names in New Orleans and Louisiana history all the way back to before the founding of the city.  This was exactly the kind of lady my Natchitoches-born grandmother had always hoped I would marry when I went to Tulane, but, alas, it didn’t happen, I went “Greek” instead). But this particular lady was full of fire and passion—and if Desirée wants to run for Mayor I promise her 1000% support…

That was the short version of what I saw. What I felt was that a real race war, or at the very least a new and very hostile period between Stalinist mind control and historical manipulators and traditional Southerners.
The Stalinists were about 3/4 black and 1/4 white, while the traditionalists were overwhelmingly white with two or three reasonable black people daring to speak out.
I guess that “Stalinists” are predictably a nasty bunch, but these particular Stalinists were much more hateful than I expected—the lady “Latoya” who spoke about “Scary White People” was merely the most preposterous of them all. (The white people in presence were not scary at all—I wish they had shown a little more backbone—much too much apologizing and saying they hated the thought of offending anybody. If any word applies to the white crowd, it was “Scared.”
But Latoya was part of a “Take them all down” poster bearing click that was seated right behind me on the second row center behind the main public speaker’s podium, and they were vocally demonstrative and disruptive throughout, and I felt a great deal of hate from them and all who spoke against the moments.
I felt absolutely no hate among the white supporters of “maintaining the monuments,” just varying degrees of frustration for the most part, but I did feel a great fear on the part of the white people—fear of being called Racist or White Supremacist, fear of being called “traitors” perhaps.
Only one white person (and I can’t even say it was me), talked about the Stalinist mood of the event…..
As the evening ended, one bright clarion bell of hope sounded: Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has declared his opposition to taking down New Orleans’ Confederate Monuments—it would be strange indeed for Hindu-American ethnic Bobby Jindal to turn out to be the savior for the monuments repeatedly decried today as monuments to White Supremacy and White Racism….and to the suppression of all black and brown peoples….
So who knows?  Maybe, just maybe, like Dinesh d’Souza, Indians have a better perspective on the cycles of caste, conquest, and colonialism even than do most Americans, black or white….  though that certainly would NOT explain the offensive behavior of Nikki Haley, the Governor of South Carolina, another Hindu-American…….

A dialogue on Texas Family Law and Texas Family Courts……restating my oft-stated position….

▪   CEL III      …he might see how psychology is used as a tool of social oppression and control…. just as in the movie, just as in Texas Family Courts—I was hoping I’d get a reaction from you on that point since you have some experience there….

11:10pm      Ellyn Trayne  What is your specific objection to the Texas Family Code or do you object to all of it?

11:21pm      CEL III          A series of closely related and interlocking concepts:
(1) Judicial Discretion knows no boundaries in Family Court.
(2) The entire bill of rights is subordinate to this jurisdiction and “the best interests of the child” is the most cynical standard of decision in the world.
(3) Family Courts routinely suppress procedural as well as substantive due process rights.
(4) (Relating to my former friendship and deep admiration for Valorie W. Davenport): Texas USED to have the strongest protection for First Amendment rights in the entire United States (as the Texas Supreme Court affirmed in Davenport v. Garcia—her first big case). 
(5) Family Courts routinely ignore that and will punish parents (and children even) for purely expressive, communicative acts.
(6) The Family is the Template for the Larger Society, and when the rights of individuals can be trampled inside the home, as between the most private and personal relationships of one family member to another, they effectively have ceased to exist for society as a whole.
(7) On a broader historical level, I believe that the First Amendment was enacted in large part to prevent the Anglican Book of Common Prayer (my Church, oddly enough) ever from being enacted at the Federal Level—my interpretation of the phrase “respecting an establishment of religion” is that it would be construed to bar Congress from legislating on ANY topic covered by the Church of England’s Book of Common Prayer. This clearly excludes all aspects of marriage, childbirth, education, and family life: it should be absolutely outside the realm of Federal Power.
(8) If we accept the doctrine of “incorporation” of the First Amendment promulgated most enthusiastically by the Supreme Court between “Gitlow v. New York” 1925 and “Lemon v. Kurtzman” in the early 1970s (several cases, Lemon I, Lemon II, etc.) but clearly reaffirmed in the recent Second Amendment cases, “D.C. v. Heller” and “MacDonald v. City of Chicago“, the STATES are likewise forbidden to legislate in ANY are covered by the Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England, which is roughly co-existensive with the Seven Sacraments of all Christian Denominations which keep to the Sacraments…
(9) And yes, this IS my “Short Answer” to your question…. if you were ever to work with me, you’d get to know the longer version…. (lol!) after about a year or so…. because I’m very passionate about it.

11:30pm          Ellyn      The Family Courts, like all other courts, and lawyers are for the most part corrupt. It is no longer, or maybe never was, about the “best interest of the child.” Judges need money for elections. Lawyers that give lots of money to a judges reelection campaign typically get the law contorted in whatever manner to their favor, regardless of facts or best interests.

11:36pm       CEL III       It’s just that the standard of decision, “Best Interests of the Child” is so vague and amorphous it gives maximum free reign, I think to that omnipresent tendency towards corruption. In some fields there are still fairly rigorous standards of proof, although it seems that those fields are pretty much only occupied by those fields of law controlled exclusively by extremely large and wealthy law firms like the first one I worked for when I first finished my judicial clerkships (Cadwalader, Wickersham, & Taft) or the ones that two Tulane (2L) girls sitting next to me at Kyoto at 4920 Prytania were talking about last night at dinner—one was going to Jones Day and the other to Hogan & Hartson…. they made me positively ill talking about the rigors of shopping to impress their bosses and colleagues at these firms. “To hell with the law, to hell with justice, to Hell with absolutely everything we’re working for $10,000 a month this summer so that we can go SHOPPING.”

11:38pm     Ellyn         What legal standard would you consider more reasonable in determining child custody?

11:43pm      CEL III      Don’t you get it? I don’t think the State Courts have any business being involved at all, with the sole exception of where there is a contract between the parties—an actual, written contract. I want to go back to a world where people have to depend on their parents, and on each other, for honorable behavior. In this sense, I guess, I am a true anarchist: I simply do not believe that State Court Judges should be able to invade the private precincts of family life at all. I think these are the realms of life left up to the people, and such “Non-Governmental Organizations” as they might voluntarily imbue with dispute-resolution power, and I guess by “NGOs” in this case I mean primarily Churches. I take a radical position because I believe that the Family Courts do only harm and no good. I really and truly, honestly and sincerely, have never seen a Family Court right any wrong or make any bad situation better. I have seen Family Courts drive people to do bad things who would not have done them otherwise. Effectively, these Courts were the first front, I think, for trying to drive ordinary people stark raving mad….

11:46pm       CEL III        When I say that “the Texas Family Code is Unconstitutional,” I basically mean that, in addition to being incompatible with the Federal Bill of Rights, the existence and practice of the Texas Family Code and the Texas Family Court system are even more incompatible with Article I, Sections 1-29 in particular. (Some of the recent amendments are pure crap, I admit…)

11:46pm          CEL III       But the Texas Bill of Rights really is MUCH stronger than the US Bill of Rights, incorporating as it does many provisions of the English Bill of Rights Adopted in 1689…

11:48pm            Ellyn Trayne     Well, I am afraid I think a lot of children would not be alive today, if the fathers were not ordered to pay child support.

11:49pm             CEL III     Well, you know, that’s because of the general breakdown of the Family, isn’t it? When a woman’s parents are divorced, and she has no home to return to for whatever reason, the Family Code becomes incorporated into Title 42 of the United States Code as an element of the Welfare System…

11:49pm             CEL III       Can you name, perhaps, the most famous Deadbeat Dad in all of Texas History, revered in song and story, mythologized in movies?
Possibly the most famous deadbeat dad in all of United States/North American history?

(Hint, he died in March 1836….. )

11:52pm         Ellyn      Bowie, Crockett? I’m guessing here.

11:54pm         CEL III        Well, you’re very close, but no…. I think it would have to be Colonel William Barrett Travis of South Carolina. His children all survived because their mother went back to live with her family on their farm/plantation—that’s just how people lived back then. It goes to the root definition of the relationship between Freedom and Responsibility. When the people depend on government to arrange their most private affairs, they are no longer free….

11:55pm         Ellyn Trayne      But with the breakdown of the family, some protections needed to be put in place to protect the mother’s rights.  
Hey you said Texas.

  Scratch that, you said Texas History.

11:56pm            CEL III     Question of chicken and egg: the breakdown of the family was CAUSED by governmental regulation promoting the same…. the family could possibly begin to regenerate if the State were kicked out of the home…. What do you mean by “Hey you said Texas.” ?? …

11:58pm           CEL III     William Barrett Travis is most famous as commander of the Alamo, author of the letter “We are besieged by six thousand Mexicans…. I will never surrender or retreat.”

South Carolina only needs another 800 signatures on ONE of its petitions for secession—Please help the Palmetto State, homeland of secession in 1860, Petition the Whitehouse for its Independence (again)—in Memory of Strom Thurmond and Frances Marion, the Swamp Fox—SIGN FOR THE BONNIE BLUE FLAG THAT BEARS A SINGLE STAR!


Peacefully grant the State of S.C. to withdraw from the United States of America and create its own NEW government.

As the founding fathers of the United States of America made clear in the Declaration of Independence in 1776:

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

“…Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and institute new Government…”

Created: Nov 10, 2012




24,200 as of 12:56 am Pacific, November 24, 2012

You’ve already signed this petition

If Senate Bill 1867 Passes—it REALLY is time to purge the Senate of All Supporters of Indefinite Detention in any form for anyone under the power of the American Government!

INDEFINITE DETENTION WITHOUT TRIAL FOR ANY REASON IS FAR WORSE THAN ANY OTHER CRIME THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE COMMITTED.  No amount of murder or mayhem committed by one or more random terrorists can equate with transforming America into a Police State, and our entire population into prisoners, or so I believe, just as Patrick Henry argued at St. John’s Church in Richmond on March 23, 1775 just four weeks before the first shots of the American Revolution. And so I will believe and maintain until the day I die.  I cannot believe that any Senator who claims to be an American, much less a Patriot, would vote for Senate Bill 1867.  Has it passed by the time you read this?  If so, then America is in even deeper trouble than I knew…  Apparently, all that has definitely happened at this point is that the ameliorative amendments proposed both by Democratic Senator Mark Udall of Colorado and Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky (which would have removed the indefinite detention provisions) both failed:


Senate Floor Wrap Up for Tuesday, November 29, 2011

NOV 29, ’117:36 PM


1)      Mark Udall (CO) amendment #1107 to S.1867, the DoD Authorization Act; Not Agreed to: 37-61

2)      Paul amendment #1064;  Not Agreed to: 30-67 (60-vote threshold)

So the title of this 700 page bill is “Department of Defense Appropriations” but what certain sections of the text do is to destroy the last vestiges of the Constitution in this Country forever.   Whatever was not wiped out by Newt Gingrich in 1996 as part of the “Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act”, whatever survived the carnage of the 2001 “PATRIOT” Act, and subsequent renewals, and the 2007 Real ID Act, will be obliterated by S1867-PCS (Indefinite Detentions in the Defense Appropriations Bill 11-29-2011).  Please take note of sections 1031- 1032 and of course 1033 and 1034 in particular….

Some say this monstrous bill has already passed (http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-charleston-sc/jim-demint-votes-to-give-federal-governmnet-controversial-new-powers)(giving a tally of votes including, of course BOTH of California’s Senators Boxer and Feinstein voting in favor) but I can’t verify whether it has or not as of 1:42 AM on the Senate’s official website: 



Proposed by “Democratic” Senator Carl Levin of Michigan and supported by Arizona’s John McCain and South Carolina’s Lindsay Graham (both Republicans), this monstrosity would undermine the very notion of freedom in America.  It must be stopped.  Every senator who votes or has already voted for this bill must be removed from office—NO EXCUSES, NO EXCEPTIONS.

At this moment I would particularly like to challenge a former associate of mine, Dr. Orly Taitz, D.D.S., Esq., to answer whether she would have voted for S. 1867 or not if she were a United States Senator?  I submit to you that whatever her answer, Orly most likely would have voted for it exactly as California’s current Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer appear to have done.  This is what delineates a real Patriot and a Real Constitutionalist from a fake: so ORLY, COME OUT AND I DOUBLE DARE YOU TO TELL ME, AND THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA, that you would vote against the Defense Appropriations Bill to Prevent this criminal abolition of American Civil Rights from becoming law.  I dare say that none of the allegedly Republican Candidates for Senator announced for 2012 would have voted against this bill at all.  It is time to Purge the Senate of all who support indefinite detention in any form by anyone acting under the Power of the American Government.  ORLY, WHERE DO YOU STAND?  With real Patriots or against them?  

I confess that, on reflection, I believe that Orly Taitz’ stand on constitutional eligibility for President: namely that a Presidential Candidate be required to present a certified long-form birth certificate, is terribly reminiscent of the “Real ID” Act of 2007—where do you stand on that, Orly, should every American have to prove Identity beyond reasonable doubt?  Is Identity not an Element of Freedom?  The simple truth is: wherever he was born, Obama is a Socialist bordering on being a Communist, and he obviously aspires to absolute power and dictatorship.  IF the American people could get over the fact that he’s black AND went to Harvard and taught at the University of Chicago (which isn’t really all that unique a set of credentials, honestly, some people have very similar resumés even though they aren’t black, for instance—I’m one of them)—IF the American people could get passed the idea that you just have to vote for a nice-looking black man and that NOT to do so is racist….well, the people of the United States might just be able to focus on the facts that Obama is totally wrong for America and totally out of sink with American values, whether he was born in Hawaii, Indonesia, Kenya, or some as yet unspecified place in the shifting sands of Waziristan.  It’s what people are, what they stand for, and do that should matter most.  THAT is the American way.  Obama has NEVER done anything except support Communism and/or Socialism advanced by Central Banking Systems, exactly according to the model of the Communist Manifesto of 1848.

If you would like to help the fight for “corny old values” like Truth, Justice, and the American Way, for Family, Home, and Freedom, and to add one Senator for the Bill of Rights and against Indefinite Detention, against the PATRIOT ACT, and against the use of United States Troops in this Country against its own citizens, please support Charles Edward Lincoln, III, for U.S. Senator from California.  We are fighting one of the most entrenched establishment seats in Congress—Dianne Feinstein who tried to make cosmetic changes—and we ask you to send your check or money order to Lincoln-for-Senate 2012 to Charles Edward Lincoln, III, 952 Gayley Avenue, #143, Los Angeles, California 90024.  Call 310-773-6023 for more information.