Tag Archives: Soviet union
One Man’s Thoughts Has Moved To
You can read this article at:
Thank You, Vytautas
Few countries have suffered as much from the global financial meltdown as Lithuania, which has seen its gross domestic product shrivel by 19 percent this year. As the jobless rate soars and the government struggles to pay its bills, one of the biggest casualties has been the Royal Palace.
Hampered by an empty treasury and huge cost overruns, construction has come almost to a standstill on the palace: a white-walled replica of the colossal 15th-century castle complex that once dominated Vilnius’s baroque Old Town and represented the seat of an empire that reached from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea.
The original palace was razed in 1802 by Russia, which demolished it so thoroughly that it even sold off the rubble. Lithuanian nationalists, who have dreamed about resurrecting the castle for generations, finally got their chance after the country of 3.5 million people declared independence from the Soviet Union in 1990.
With the palace about half-built after seven years of labor, Lithuania can’t afford to scrap the project, but it can’t afford to finish it, either. The total price tag has tripled from original estimates, and government officials say they can’t foresee when they will be able to come up with the $70 million necessary to complete the job. “I’m afraid there is truly no chance in the near future for us to finish even such a revered building as this,” Finance Minister Ingrida Simonyte told reporters last month.
Officials said they would slash by one-third the already meager construction budget for the palace next year.
Along with its Baltic neighbors — Latvia and Estonia — Lithuania experienced an economic boom after it joined the European Union in 2004, with plenty of easy credit as foreign investors poured money into the region. The credit bubble popped last year, however, resulting in an enormous reverse flow of capital that has forced the government to implement draconian spending cuts.
The palace complex was supposed to have been done in time for the country’s millennium celebration in July — the 1,000th anniversary of the first recorded mention of Lithuania. (In 1009, a nun in the German city of Quedlinburg wrote that a local missionary, Saint Bruno, had been killed at the hands of pagans in “Lituae,” or Lithuania.)
The palace did briefly open its gates for the Millennium Day ceremony, which was attended by several modern-day royals and heads of state from neighboring countries. Although the public was allowed a peek inside for a few days, the site has remained off-limits since then.
The new palace is intended to remind Lithuanians that their small country — today about the size of West Virginia — was once a great empire, ruling over much of present-day Belarus, Ukraine and Poland.
Supporters of the palace acknowledge that popular backing has waned since the economy crashed last year. But Kazys Almenas, founder of an advocacy group called the Palace Support Fund, said the cost of finishing the project would still barely make a dent in Lithuania’s national budget.
“There are those who like to grandstand — ‘Oh, you’re taking away money from the orphans,’ ” he said. “But eventually there is no question that it will be built. The question is just when.”
Almenas, a retired nuclear engineering professor from the University of Maryland at College Park, was displaced from Lithuania as a child during World War II and immigrated to the United States. He returned to Vilnius in 1999 and has lobbied on behalf of the palace ever since.
He conceded that many Lithuanians still don’t see the need to rebuild a palace that vanished more than 200 years ago. But he argued that the return of the royal quarters was the only way to fill a long-standing void in the city center.
“When the castle was razed, you walked down Castle Street and what was there? Just a bunch of trees. Something was definitely wrong,” he said. “What kind of Castle Street is it if you don’t have a castle at the end?”
One Man’s Thoughts Has Moved To
You can read this article at:
Thank You, Vytautas
Considering the late Senator’s complete record requires digging into the USSR’s archives.
Picking his way through the Soviet archives that Boris Yeltsin had just thrown open, in 1991 Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, came across an arresting memorandum. Composed in 1983 by Victor Chebrikov, the top man at the KGB, the memorandum was addressed to Yuri Andropov, the top man in the entire USSR. The subject: Sen. Edward Kennedy.
“On 9-10 May of this year,” the May 14 memorandum explained, “Sen. Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow.” (Tunney was Kennedy’s law school roommate and a former Democratic Senator from California.) “The Senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.”
Kennedy’s message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. “The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations,” the memorandum stated. “These issues, according to the Senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.”
Kennedy made Andropov a couple of specific offers.
First he offered to visit Moscow. “The main purpose of the meeting, according to the Senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA.” Kennedy would help the Soviets deal with Reagan by telling them how to brush up their propaganda.
Then he offered to make it possible for Andropov to sit down for a few interviews on American television. “A direct appeal … to the American people will, without a doubt, attract a great deal of attention and interest in the country. … If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews. … The Senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side.”
Kennedy would make certain the networks gave Andropov air time–and that they rigged the arrangement to look like honest journalism.
Kennedy’s motives? “Like other rational people,” the memorandum explained, “[Kennedy] is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations.” But that high-minded concern represented only one of Kennedy’s motives.
“Tunney remarked that the Senator wants to run for president in 1988,” the memorandum continued. “Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president.”
Kennedy proved eager to deal with Andropov–the leader of the Soviet Union, a former director of the KGB and a principal mover in both the crushing of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution and the suppression of the 1968 Prague Spring–at least in part to advance his own political prospects.
In 1992, Tim Sebastian published a story about the memorandum in the London Times. Here in the U.S., Sebastian’s story received no attention. In his 2006 book, The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism, historian Paul Kengor reprinted the memorandum in full. “The media,” Kengor says, “ignored the revelation.”
“The document,” Kengor continues, “has stood the test of time. I scrutinized it more carefully than anything I’ve ever dealt with as a scholar. I showed the document to numerous authorities who deal with Soviet archival material. No one has debunked the memorandum or shown it to be a forgery. Kennedy’s office did not deny it.”
Why bring all this up now? No evidence exists that Andropov ever acted on the memorandum–within eight months, the Soviet leader would be dead–and now that Kennedy himself has died even many of the former Senator’s opponents find themselves grieving. Yet precisely because Kennedy represented such a commanding figure–perhaps the most compelling liberal of our day–we need to consider his record in full.
Doing so, it turns out, requires pondering a document in the archives of the politburo.
When President Reagan chose to confront the Soviet Union, calling it the Evil Empire that it was, Sen. Edward Kennedy chose to offer aid and comfort to General Secretary Andropov. On the Cold War, the greatest issue of his lifetime, Kennedy got it wrong.
Peter Robinson, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and a former White House speechwriter, writes a weekly column for Forbes.
What would California look like broken in three? Or a Republic of New England? With the federal government reaching for ever more power, redrawing the map is enticing, says Paul Starobin
Remember that classic Beatles riff of the 1960s: “You say you want a revolution?” Imagine this instead: a devolution. Picture an America that is run not, as now, by a top-heavy Washington autocracy but, in freewheeling style, by an assemblage of largely autonomous regional republics reflecting the eclectic economic and cultural character of the society.
There might be an austere Republic of New England, with a natural strength in higher education and technology; a Caribbean-flavored city-state Republic of Greater Miami, with an anchor in the Latin American economy; and maybe even a Republic of Las Vegas with unfettered license to pursue its ambitions as a global gambling, entertainment and conventioneer destination. California? America’s broke, ill-governed and way-too-big nation-like state might be saved, truly saved, not by an emergency federal bailout, but by a merciful carve-up into a trio of republics that would rely on their own ingenuity in making their connections to the wider world. And while we’re at it, let’s make this project bi-national—economic logic suggests a natural multilingual combination between Greater San Diego and Mexico’s Northern Baja, and, to the Pacific north, between Seattle and Vancouver in a megaregion already dubbed “Cascadia” by economic cartographers.
Devolved America is a vision faithful both to certain postindustrial realities as well as to the pluralistic heart of the American political tradition—a tradition that has been betrayed by the creeping centralization of power in Washington over the decades but may yet reassert itself as an animating spirit for the future. Consider this proposition: America of the 21st century, propelled by currents of modernity that tend to favor the little over the big, may trace a long circle back to the original small-government ideas of the American experiment. The present-day American Goliath may turn out to be a freak of a waning age of politics and economics as conducted on a super-sized scale—too large to make any rational sense in an emerging age of personal empowerment that harks back to the era of the yeoman farmer of America’s early days. The society may find blessed new life, as paradoxical as this may sound, in a return to a smaller form.
This perspective may seem especially fanciful at a time when the political tides all seem to be running in the opposite direction. In the midst of economic troubles, an aggrandizing Washington is gathering even more power in its hands. The Obama Administration, while considering replacing top executives at Citigroup, is newly appointing a “compensation czar” with powers to determine the retirement packages of executives at firms accepting federal financial bailout funds. President Obama has deemed it wise for the U.S. Treasury to take a majority ownership stake in General Motors in a last-ditch effort to revive this Industrial Age brontosaurus. Even the Supreme Court is getting in on the act: A ruling this past week awarded federal judges powers to set the standards by which judges for state courts may recuse themselves from cases.
All of this adds up to a federal power grab that might make even FDR’s New Dealers blush. But that’s just the point: Not surprisingly, a lot of folks in the land of Jefferson are taking a stand against an approach that stands to make an indebted citizenry yet more dependent on an already immense federal power. The backlash, already under way, is a prime stimulus for a neo-secessionist movement, the most extreme manifestation of a broader push for some form of devolution. In April, at an anti-tax “tea party” held in Austin, Governor Rick Perry of Texas had his speech interrupted by cries of “secede.” The Governor did not sound inclined to disagree. “Texas is a unique place,” he later told reporters attending the rally. “When we came into the Union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that.”
Such sentiments resonate beyond the libertarian fringe. The Daily Kos, a liberal Web site, recently asked Perry’s fellow Texas Republicans, “Do you think Texas would be better off as an independent nation or as part of the United States of America? It was an even split: 48% for the U.S., 48% for a sovereign Texas, 4% not sure. Amongst all Texans, more than a third—35%—said an independent Texas would be better. The Texas Nationalist Movement claims that over 250,000 Texans have signed a form affirming the organization’s goal of a Texas nation.
Secessionist feelings also percolate in Alaska, where Todd Palin, husband of Governor Sarah Palin, was once a registered member of the Alaska Independence Party. But it is not as if the Right has a lock on this issue: Vermont, the seat of one of the most vibrant secessionist movements, is among the country’s most politically-liberal places. Vermonters are especially upset about imperial America’s foreign excursions in hazardous places like Iraq. The philosophical tie that binds these otherwise odd bedfellows is belief in the birthright of Americans to run their own affairs, free from centralized control. Their hallowed parchment is Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence, on behalf of the original 13 British colonies, penned in 1776, 11 years before the framers of the Constitution gathered for their convention in Philadelphia. “The right of secession precedes the Constitution—the United States was born out of secession,” Daniel Miller, leader of the Texas Nationalist Movement, put it to me. Take that, King Obama.
Today’s devolutionists, of all stripes, can trace their pedigree to the “anti-federalists” who opposed the compact that came out of Philadelphia as a bad bargain that gave too much power to the center at the expense of the limbs. Some of America’s most vigorous and learned minds were in the anti-federalist camp; their ranks included Virginia’s Patrick Henry, of “give me liberty or give me death” renown. The sainted Jefferson, who was serving as a diplomat in Paris during the convention, is these days claimed by secessionists as a kindred anti-federal spirit, even if he did go on to serve two terms as president.
The anti-federalists lost their battle, but history, in certain respects, has redeemed their vision, for they anticipated how many Americans have come to feel about their nation’s seat of federal power. “This city, and the government of it, must indubitably take their tone from the character of the men, who from the nature of its situation and institution, must collect there,” the anti-federalist pamphleteer known only as the Federal Farmer wrote. “If we expect it will have any sincere attachments to simple and frugal republicanism, to that liberty and mild government, which is dear to the laborious part of a free people, we most assuredly deceive ourselves.”
In the mid-19th century, the anti-federalist impulse took a dark turn, attaching itself to the cause of the Confederacy, which was formed by the unilateral secession of 13 southern states over the bloody issue of slavery. Lincoln had no choice but to go to war to preserve the Union—and ever since, anti-federalism, in almost any guise, has had to defend itself from the charge of being anti-modern and indeed retrograde.
But nearly a century and a half has passed since Johnny Rebel whooped for the last time. Slavery is dead, and so too is the large-scale industrial economy that the Yankees embraced as their path to victory over the South and to global prosperity. The model lasted a long time, to be sure, surviving all the way through the New Deal and the first several decades of the post-World War II era, coming a cropper at the tail end of the 1960s, just as the economist John Kenneth Galbraith was holding out “The New Industrial State,” the master-planned economy, as a seemingly permanent condition of modern life.
Not quite. In a globalized economy transformed by technological innovations hatched by happily-unguided entrepreneurs, history seems to be driving one nail after another into the coffin of the big, which is why the Obama planners and their ilk, even if they now ride high, may be doomed to fail. No one anymore expects the best ideas to come from the biggest actors in the economy, so should anyone expect the best thinking to be done by the whales of the political world?
A notable prophet for a coming age of smallness was the diplomat and historian George Kennan, a steward of the American Century with an uncanny ability to see past the seemingly-frozen geopolitical arrangements of the day. Kennan always believed that Soviet power would “run its course,” as he predicted back in 1951, just as the Cold War was getting under way, and again shortly after the Soviet Union collapsed, he suggested that a similar fate might await the United States. America has become a “monster country,” afflicted by a swollen bureaucracy and “the hubris of inordinate size,” he wrote in his 1993 book, “Around the Cragged Hill: A Personal and Political Philosophy.” Things might work better, he suggested, if the nation was “decentralized into something like a dozen constituent republics, absorbing not only the powers of the existing states but a considerable part of those of the present federal establishment.”
Kennan’s genius was to foresee that matters might take on an organic, a bottom-up, life of their own, especially in a society as dynamic and as creative as America. His spirit, the spirit of an anti-federalist modernist, can be glimpsed in an intriguing “mega-region” initiative encompassing greater San Diego County, next-door Imperial County and, to the immediate south of the U.S. border, Northern Baja, Mexico. Elected officials representing all three participating areas recently unveiled “Cali Baja, a Bi-National Mega-Region,” as the “international marketing brand” for the project.
The idea is to create a global economic powerhouse by combining San Diego’s proven abilities in scientific research and development with Imperial County’s abundance of inexpensive land and availability of water rights and Northern Baja’s manufacturing base, low labor costs and ability to supply the San Diego area with electricity during peak-use terms. Bilingualism, too, is a key—with the aim for all children on both sides of the border to be fluent in both English and Spanish. The project director is Christina Luhn, a Kansas native, historian and former staffer on the National Security Council in Ronald Reagan’s White House in the mid-1980s. Contemporary America as a unit of governance may be too big, even the perpetually-troubled state of California may be too big, she told me, by way of saying that the political and economic future may belong to the megaregions of the planet. Her conviction is that large systems tend not to endure—“they break apart, there’s chaos, and at some point, new things form,” she said.
The notion that small is better and even inevitable no doubt has some flavor of romance—even amounting to a kind of modern secular faith, girded by a raft of multi-disciplinary literature that may or may not be relevant. Luhn takes her philosophical cue not only from Kennan but also from the science writer and physicist M. Mitchell Waldrop, author of “Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos.”
Even for the hard-edged secessionist crowd, with their rapt attentiveness to America’s roots, popular texts in the future-trend genre mingle in their minds with the yellowed scrolls of the anti-federalists. “The cornerstone of my thought,” Daniel Miller of the Texas Nationalist Movement told me, is John Naisbitt’s 1995 best seller, “Global Paradox,” which celebrates the entrepreneurial ethos in positing that “the bigger the world economy, the more powerful its smallest players.”
More convincingly, the proposition that small trumps big is passing tests in real-life political and economic laboratories. For example, the U.S. ranked eighth in a survey of global innovation leadership released in March by the Boston Consulting Group and the National Association of Manufacturers—with the top rankings dominated by small countries led by the city-state republic of Singapore. The Thunderbird School of Global Management, based in Arizona, has called Singapore “the most future-oriented country in the world.” Historians can point to the spectacularly inventive city-states of Renaissance Italy as an example of the small truly making the beautiful.
How, though, to get from big to small? Secessionists like Texas’ Miller pledge a commitment to peaceful methods. History suggests skepticism on this score: Even the American republic was born in a violent revolution. These days, the Russian professor Igor Panarin, a former KGB analyst, has snagged publicity with his dystopian prediction of civil strife in a dismembered America whose jagged parts fall prey to foreign powers including Canada, Mexico and, in the case of Alaska, Russia, naturally.
Still, the precedent for any breakup of today’s America is not necessarily the one set by the musket-bearing colonists’ demanded departure from the British crown in the late 18th century or by the crisis-ridden dissolution of the U.S.S.R. at the end of the 20th century. Every empire, every too-big thing, fragments or shrinks according to its own unique character and to the age of history to which it belongs.
The most hopeful prospect for the USA, should the decentralization impulse prove irresistible, is for Americans to draw on their natural inventiveness and democratic tradition by patenting a formula for getting the job done in a gradual and cooperative way. In so doing, geopolitical history, and perhaps even a path for others, might be made, for the problem of bigness vexes political leviathans everywhere. In India, with its 1.2 billion people, there is an active discussion of whether things might work better if the nation-state was chopped up into 10 or so large city-states with broad writs of autonomy from New Delhi. Devolution may likewise be the future for the European continent—think Catalonia—and for the British Isles. Scotland, a leading source of Enlightenment ideas for America’s founding fathers, now has its own flourishing independence movement. Even China, held together by an aging autocracy, may not be able to resist the drift towards the smaller.
So why not America as the global leader of a devolution? America’s return to its origins—to its type—could turn out to be an act of creative political destruction, with “we the people” the better for it.
—Paul Starobin is the author of After America: Narratives for the Next Global Age, recently published by Viking, a division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204482304574219813708759806.html
“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”
~ Benito Mussolini
We are now entering an era where not only is your patriotism questioned but the word traitor is bandied about with abandon by the usual suspects in DC whenever one is disappointed or outraged by the latest usurpation of liberties and freedom from the central government and the Offal Office in the WAFL (War Against Freedom and Liberty) House formerly known as the White House.
Little did we know that in 1917 Woodrow Wilson and Vladimir Lenin started an ideological race to see whether America or Russia would form the perfect Soviet union. Fast-forward to the last decade of the Busheviks and Obamunism and it appears obvious the Russians came in second and we took the Gold Medal. The collectivist efforts of the Government Supremacist Party with its Democrat and Republican wings have finally paid off and we are entering the home stretch where the Federal Government now takes ownership in major corporate ventures, the entire banking system and the national security apparatus is being used to seal the deal. I would submit the system is doomed but it does not mean the DC regime won’t take the rest of us down with it.
Now, we are asked to pledge our support and monies to a government that is not only out of control and extra-Constitutional but seeking to turn America into a Stalinist hellhole flying a Green Swastika.
So, what is treason and what is traitor?
The Constitution of the United States, Article III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. The more conventional definition means one’s refusal to acknowledge the legitimacy of the present government or performing services for foreign nations like spying or fighting as the Patricios did during the 1848 Mexican-American conflict.
Pay attention to the second clause. Who in America truly thinks we were destined to become a stronger imitation of the pathetic Soviet structure of state organizing principles embracing the worst economic nostrums, the brutality of occupation behavior by the central government toward its citizens ensuring the creation and nurturing of a special class of rulers in our own American nomenklatura? I would suggest that our rulers in DC are adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort because they are contravening the Constitution and the spirit and letter of limited governance on a daily basis.
Let me make one more clarification that will alienate some readers. My reference to patriot is lower case much like my use of libertarian. I have no use for the conspiracists, religionists and opportunists who use the capital-P Patriot nomenclature as a thin disguise for their lack of intellectual rigor or a red, white and blue excuse to avoid their financial obligations (I am not referring to taxes). Whether the Christian Identity church or the self-styled Patriot lawyers who plead their cases before government courts, I am not interested.
It is high time to revisit the definitions because the gulf between our rulers and the people is ever widening and the knives are coming out. The question actually becomes who is the traitor. Those who seek to lift the Constitution above men to substantiate the rule of law or a rule by men who hold themselves above the Constitution in interpretation. I have commented before that the Supreme Court is the use of robed government employees to expand and approve the growth of the Leviathan state at the expense of individual liberty with an imprimatur of legitimacy and it has proven out.
We now see that there is nothing the Federal government can recognize as a brake or impediment to whatever power they wish to exercise. We have sophisticated men and women going through intellectual rationalizations of torture and the imposition of institutionalized physical pain on men who have no Constitutional rights whatsoever. Washington, with a sweeping gesture of overbearing arrogance, participates in the largest multi-trillion dollar money-laundering exercise in the history of man to satisfy bankster special interests and does not allow the bill-payers to see where or what the money is doing and discourages the borrowers to repay the monies loaned.
So it appears as if we are laboring under a tyranny that would make George III blush. The Tea Parties have at least encouraged some Americans to look at their roots. I, for one, agree with the recent Tea Party critic on LRC that the events are far too civil but the time for mischief is coming. The original Boston Tea Party did not file EPA impact statements or ask permission to smash the state.
The point is that treason is usually the term employed by the besieged statists when they discover someone has parted the curtain or discovered their tailors are using vapor fabric. The eminent Lysander Spooner would inform you it is no treason at all to oppose bad laws.
The Congress has even gone so far as to question the use of wiretaps that catch them in the net when they betray their country to a foreign power which are the very authorizations they themselves enjoined against the American people. CongressCreature Jane Harmon obviously has loyalty issues that are much more germane to the traditional understanding of traitorous behavior:
Lo and behold, Jane’s had an epiphany. She now “think[s] the question is about … did our government abuse the rights of American citizens, including members of Congress, with legal or illegal wiretappings…” It seems that compromising yourself on tape focuses the mind about as wonderfully as hanging does. And catch Jane’s conflating “members of Congress” with “American citizens.” What a wit!
What an ingenious defense from the same Congress that has appointed the illiterate Janet Napolitano to head up the Department of Fatherland Security which is presently hounding the right-wing terrorists of the nation who either agree with the Constitution or served in the military. A tangled web we weave. So, so (your best Joe Pesci imitation), let me get this straight. I am a traitor if I wish to observe the Constitution as the highest law of the land using strict constructionist interpretation but I am a loyal American if I seek to exercise leniency or influence on the outcome of a spy debacle by AIPAC. Just so you know that justice turns in the way we have cynically come to expect in DC, the espionage charges against the AIPAC defendants have been dropped.
The Tea Party in 1775 was a traitorous act by Britons against Britain and a necessary event to sever the illegitimate rule of a faraway government (much like DC but more mild and principled) which sought through taxes, regulation and military occupation to lord over a people who wanted none of it. It was a traitorous act in the sense it refused to any longer recognize the legitimacy and span of control exercised by a many-tentacled imperial beast reliant on a host to draw energy and power from much like a remora. DC is the sine qua non of the modern phenomenon of a Remora Nation. It represents the last gasp of a grasping, imperious and unprincipled kakistocracy (government by the least qualified or most unprincipled citizens) desperately clinging to power for the sheer sake of it.
We are in a unique situation in these united States as opposed to the Colonists. We have founding documents in both the DI and the Constitution (dare we say the unfairly maligned Articles of Confederation) that can be used as a measure of performance and a report card for our rulers in DC. They have failed. The whole Progressive and Neoconservative project is in an ascendant position that will either collapse or seal the fate of all freedom-loving Americans. I would suggest that we are strikingly similar to the Soviet Union in the 1980s with the implementation of policies that are nonsensical, dangerous and economically illiterate. They are conducting themselves much like a nomenklatura bent on securing their fortunes and immunity before the whole rotten system known as modern twentieth-century American governance rips asunder under the weight of its stunning contradictions and absurdly vicious behavior to its host population.
My point is that the traitors aren’t us; it is every man and woman who places their allegiance to a contemporary power structure in DC and not to the foundational documents that animated the Founding. In the end, the government-media complex is a powerful propaganda tool which may succeed in identifying Americans who want limited or no government as traitors, so there it is. If a traitor is the American who takes a stand, draws a line in the sand and stands against the Red Tide emanating from DC, count me in the ranks. I love my country but fear my government.
“…it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds…”
~ Samuel Adams