As of this writing, Rep. Ron Paul—the ultimate outsider and quintessential anti-establishment presidential candidate—is the favorite to win the Iowa caucuses, scheduled to take place on January 3, 2012. Polls such as Insider Advantage and Public Policy Polling place Paul in the lead, at 23 and 24 percent respectively, to Mitt Romney’s 20 percent and Newt Gingrich’s 14 percent.

From ignoring Congressman Paul, the Republican Party establishment and mainstream media have moved to strategizing on how to discount his lead, and likely win, in Iowa.Especially exercised is the Republican Party of Iowa. Its functionaries seem willing to delegitimize Iowa poll results—and the importance of the Iowa caucuses as harbingers of things to come in the national convention—if these don’t fall in line with the Party line. Apparently, caucus-goers who dare to “reward” candidates “who are unrepresentative of the broader party” deserve to be discredited.

What Grand Old Party apparatchiks cannot accept is that voters are coming around to reality dictated truths. And when “[t]hings fall apart; the center cannot hold.” Against this backdrop, I was interviewed, on December 15, by the Russia Today (RT) television network, a broadcaster that does not abide herd behavior. Topics covered: The rise of Ron Paul, his rivals, and the Representative’s chances of parlaying his accomplishments in Iowa (to be repeated, we hope, in the Granite State and South Carolina) into a national win.

On Wednesday, Sept 7, patriotic Germans received bad news. A group of jurists and economists had petitioned the German Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe. Their case was that Germany’s “participation in the euro rescue fund packages” undermined the democratic and property rights of German citizens, as elected officials had little say in these deals.

The high court rejected these arguments, although it did crack a Teutonic joke: Presiding judge Andreas Vosskuhle recommended that, in the future, the people’s representatives get more involved in deciding how the money of constituents is distributed.

The contagion of the sovereign debt crisis in Europe has been exacerbated by the financial collectivism imposed by the Eurozone and the wider European Union (EU), whereby the more productive member-states foot the bill for their profligate neighbors. The latter “PIGS” states are Portugal, Ireland, Greece, and Spain.

And now Italy; it is teetering because of the Italian government’s liabilities—compounded, as in Greece, by the insatiable demands of an ever-accreting oink sector.

A world perfected by global central planners is one in which wealth consumers live at the expense of wealth creators; where the rich are coerced into paying for the poor, the North for the South.

In this increasingly centralized dispensation, financier-cum-philanthropist George Soros holds sway. Soros has generally acted against the sovereign coin, and as a proxy for centralized power and bankers. Just last year, Soros attempted to muscle Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel into printing and inflating her country’s currency—perhaps not to Weimar-Republic levels, but to Obama banana-republic standards.

The Obama administration had seconded Soros when he urged Germany to look to the U.S., “Where President Barack Obama has spent vigorously and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has created money for the greater good.” Back in 2010, Soros had also scolded Germany for refusing to be “the deep pockets helping out the profligate southerners.”

“The man who broke the Bank of England” is also far more scathing about European- than American monetary policy. This alone should give one a feel for the financial state of these Unites States. Never content with the level of subsidy provided by the more industrious North Europeans to the slothful South, Soros, says the New York Times, has implicated “the lack of an authoritative pan-European body to handle a banking crisis of this severity.”

Beavering alongside his pal George Soros is socialist Dominique Strauss Kahn, a man who gained notoriety in the US for his dalliance with a hotel charwoman, who then framed him for rape. (Alas, the slut failed to get the better of the socialist.) To European patriots, however, Strauss Kahn is better known for political rape—for helping to herd them by stealth into a supranational European State and… blocking off all the exits.

In his capacity as an advocate for the collectivist, European super-state, Strauss Kahn, friend to Soros, spoke more explicitly in 2010 of “the need for a European Budgetary Authority to underpin the euro.” As reported by FT.com, Strauss Kahn warned that the “launching of the euro was only a first step. You can’t have a single currency without having a more coordinated economic policy.”

Hence the form of bondage known as “Eurobonds.” “The idea of collective liability,” the Wall Street Journal explained, “is often referred to as ‘Eurobonds,’ [and] has been floated various times since last year.” If European Keynesians—the “fattened aristocracy of economic experts”—have their way, the North will be coerced into working for the South via “Eurobonds.”

Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy will have to resist this bondage. It will not be easy. Against the better instincts of his boss, Merkel’s own Finance Minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, supports an integration of Europe’s “national economic policies,” so that they can “act as a single borrower.” In other words, borrow and inflate the currency in unison.

The collectivist European super-state’s illiberal American supporters—the most notorious of whom were concentrated in the Bush State Department and National Security Council—have generally ignored patriotic Euroskeptics. The WSJ made veiled mention, the other day, of “Conservative politicians in Germany and other northern European countries ,“ who “have previously dismissed the [aforementioned] proposal as a violation of the European ideal, in which countries cooperate but remain responsible for their own fiscal affairs.”

But Euroskeptics have long since rejected the absurd claim that the EU colossus would or could advance their interests. What is next for these subversives, now that the German high court has rejected their argument from sovereignty?

Who knows? The politicians, however, had better beware: Ordinary Germans have come to realize that adding an overarching tier of tyrants—the EU—to their own government has benefited them as a second hangman enhances the health of a condemned man.

The notion that not raising the debt-ceiling must necessarily result in the US defaulting on its debt is nonsensical. In so asserting, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is talking tripe. “Tim” has warned of an “economic catastrophe” should the government’s credit limit not be increased, and has guaranteed that a “failure to raise the limit would precipitate a default by the United States.”

“Tim,” whose capacity for economic reasoning is tiny, has confused “debt obligations” with “other expenditures.”

As explained by U.S. Senator Pat Toomey, in a January 19 Wall Street Journal op-ed, “The amount of money required to continue to make payments on all the U.S. government debt is a small fraction of the amount of revenue the U.S. government raises.” Blogging for the Library of Economics and Liberty’s EconLog, David Henderson made quick work of the Geithner fallacy:

The treasury secretary “is effectively saying that if the government wants to spend x and has only enough money to spend 0.67x, then not spending on the other 0.33x is a failure to keep an obligation. In a political sense, that might be: the government has made a lot of spending promises to a lot of people. But in an economic sense, it’s not. On the narrow issue of whether failure to raise the debt limit would necessarily mean U.S. government default on its debt, Toomey is right and Geithner is wrong.” Here’s the simple math, courtesy of Rep. Ron Paul: “Interest payments on our federal bond debt likely will amount to about $500 billion for fiscal year 2011, an average of $41 billion per month. Federal tax revenues vary by month, but should total around $2 trillion to $2.5 trillion for FY 2011– an average of perhaps $180 billion per month. So clearly the federal government has sufficient tax revenue to make interest payments to our creditors. For now, those interest payments represent about 12 percent of the total federal budget.”

On reflection, the US Treasury takes in enough loot to pay down the interest on the debt as well as a portion of the principal. Matching federal spending with federal revenue: what a concept! And what a tonic to our moribund economy that would be!

To the soul of the subject: The engorged organisms (Anthony D. Weiner is a sample) that currently control the economy from DC can discharge their responsibility to creditors without authorizing more borrowing. To do so, however, they will have to cease their many unconstitutional endeavors, and break the promiscuous promises they’ve made to certain voters at the expense of the vassals, out of whose hides these “promises” are carved.

As it stands, Republicans—and a few Democrats, one of whom has even cosponsored an amendment to cap federal spending—have done no more than perform a budgetary Bonnie and Clyde: If Democrats want to continue the heist and run deficits and debts to eternity, they will need to promise—nudge-nudge; nudge-nudge, know what I mean? know what I mean?”—budget cuts, preferably in the trillions. Or, introduce, not necessarily pass, a balanced-budget amendment.

Another tactic taken by the competing gangs of lawmakers is to guarantee an economic apocalypse if the US government doesn’t continue borrowing apace. This is something the sniveling House Republican Speaker John Boehner has hinted at, but failed to parse. “Apocalypse Now” forecasts cannot be verified, which is why politicians, their in-house economists, and other vested interests make them.

Above all, the emperor’s experts want you to believe that the values and virtues ordinary mortals hold themselves to don’t apply to government; that macroeconomics and microeconomic are two separate solitudes, governed by different laws. But the laws of economics are natural, not political, laws. These very laws Thomas Jefferson was enunciating when he warned that “the greatest danger came from the possibility of legislators plunging citizens into debt.” (Excerpted in “Liberty, State & Union: the Political Theory of Thomas Jefferson,” by Professor Marco Bassani.) “We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude.”

When Standard & Poor’s cut the American credit outlook to negative, the Financial Post’s Terence Corcoran mocked the credit ratings agency’s “special talent for arriving at the morgue and predicting the demise of the deceased.”

Indeed, the United States has already passed on as the world’s economic leader. Having flouted Jefferson for too long, America has succumbed to public debt, the “fore horse for oppression and despotism,” after which “taxation will follow, and in its train wretchedness and oppression.”

So far, the revolt against The Transportation and Security Administration has resulted in very little fundamental change, other than exemptions for special interests. By fundamental change, I mean the restoration of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”

One misconception that lingers is that the traveler can choose between the Scylla of the scan and the Charybdis of the enhanced pat down. Even if you select what to you is a lesser evil, your TSA dominator or dominatrix could still pull you over for a once-over. After opting for the photons as opposed to the fondle, “a bladder cancer survivor from Michigan, who wears a urostomy bag that collects his urine,” “was pulled to the side to be patted down by a TSA agent.” Such stories abound.

A mushy-headed maxim held in the US is that to be a victim—of crime, terrorism, one’s own stupidity—is to be automatically conferred with oracular wisdom. The time was ripe to hear from relatives of those murdered on 9/11. At least two such Delphic sources have praised the home-grown terrorism of the TSA, advising Americans to play along with these probe-and-grope routines.

I give you “Mary and Frank Fetchet, whose son, Bradley James Fetchet, was killed on Sept. 11. [They] have … issued a statement in support of the new measures, citing the failed Christmas Day plot last December as a reminder that ‘comprehensive security measures’ are still needed.”

Another true believer is Alice Hoagland. Apparently, the fact that her son was killed in the Twin Towers gives her the (ostensible) authority to advocate for the rogering and radiating procedures.

What can I recommend as resistance? Name and shame the perpetrators.

WE LIVE UNDER THE LAW OF RULE, AS OPPOSED TO THE RULE OF LAW. State workers are thus often shielded from the consequences of crimes they commit in the course of performing their “duties.” Taking care to work around such legal protectionism, fliers who’re frisked should document the name of the particular TSA perp who pawed them, and expose him on the Internet. Footage of the victims is everywhere, but the agents—the stars in these horror films—remain nameless and faceless. Name, shame, and dissociate from them.

The TSA is but one government department. All other departments are like it. Bureaucrats write most of the laws under which we live and labor. For this reason, some of us use the term “Managerial State” for the Thing “The Huckster” and “The Hannity” call “our freedoms,” “our democracy.” We really have very little of the first. As bad as mobocracy is, we are, in truth, managed by unelected apparatchiks.

As a mother—as a human being with a heart—it was particularly hard seeing children subjected to the cruelty of strangers. Watching footage of the kids down whose miniature trousers TSA goons have been reaching (including the heroic, iconic little Mandy Smith and her father in his reprehensible abdication)—I could not help but wonder: Where in all this has the FLOTUS been?

Never-ever could I condone such state sadism. Not against innocent adults. And most certainly not against children—not even against the president’s kids. Yes, it occurred to me, if only fleetingly, that the thought of Malia being mauled or Sasha scanned might make their mother speak up. The girls’ only flaw, however, is to have been born to a dreadful cur.

Make that two.

If Michelle Obama had experienced a gut reaction to the ordeal inflicted by her husband’s administration (begun under his predecessor) on travelers and their tots—she was not letting on. The First Lady, as you know, is in touch with her gut—and the gut of every kid in the country. The FLOTUS of the fat-based initiatives “cares” enough to decide what America’s bloated babes will ingest, but not enough to weigh-in when their bodies are being invaded by state workers.

WHERE ARE THE MEN in all this? This is no country for men. Emasculate them, feminize them, make them over in the image of woman—and they’ll sacrifice their own children to the state. Having been “liberated” from the natural instinct to protect their own, one can hardly blame men. Women most certainly don’t have a case against their compliant partners. The state as parent and protector: Is this not what most modern women have strived for?

It’s safe to say that the moms of the Fox News Blond Squad were with The FLOTUS. One of these interchangeable females implied that the interminable complainers at the terminals were no more than an insignificant group of noise-makers. Kirsten Powers, a liberal member of that squadron, expressed her satisfaction with the porn protocol. Her sympathies, she said, go out to TSA workers.

Yes, “It’s Hard Out Here for a Pimp.”

In its quest for “a more perfect union, a more perfect world,” no less, President Barack Obama’s State Department has issued a “Universal Periodic Review on Human Rights” in the United States, in which it has tattled to the U.N. High Commissioner about the errant ways of Arizona. On page 23 of this grandiosely titled bit of pomposity, under the heading “Values and Immigration,” it is stated:

“A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world. The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined.”

The reference here is to Arizona’s attempts to exercise its naturally licit right, and obligation, to protect its law-abiding citizens from the consequences of a full-on, lawless, frequently dangerous foreign invasion.

As the Mexican free market economist Ricardo Valenzuela has argued, “The only thing that Arizona has done is to approve the laws they consider necessary to promote a civilized way of life for their societies. The new Arizona law doesn’t penalize immigration. The law only gives the police force the tools to secure the rule of law.” The difference between Arizona and Mexico, notes Valenzuela ─ who is concerned with retaining the conditions for prosperity in the US and creating these in Mexico ─ is that the first enforces the rule of law and the latter doesn’t know the meaning of those words.

Face it, if not for the US Supreme Court’s established hostility, over the years, to the Constitution’s original intent; to its Tenth Amendment, and to the devolution of powers not enumerated to the states and to their individual inhabitants ─ the federal government would have almost no role in deciding how porous the borders of the “free and independent states” ought to be.

“The Congress shall have Power To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”: This is as close as Section 8 of Article I in the Constitution of the United States comes to addressing what the Supreme Court has decided categorically speaks to immigration into the US.

Fifty five delegates convened in 1787 at Philadelphia’s Independence Hall, to carve out the contours of this Constitution. Imagine those magnificent men making the case that the people of the colonies they represented ought to sit idle should their homesteads be overrun by trespassers and their families and friends imperiled. Imagine those very men arguing for a future central authority that acted as the sole arbiter in deciding who would breach the perimeters of their respective home patches.

Inconceivable.

If we lived in the old decentralized republic of absolute property rights, land owners in border communities would be policing and defending their properties and the commons. They’d have stopped the ongoing influx in its tracks. Whereas America’s modern-day community leader is suing Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio for being a “bad gringo, a racist, and a bully”; community leaders in early America ─ as historian David Hackett Fischer tells it ─ often required an immigrant to furnish them with an affidavit from the Old Country, attesting to good character, before being permitted to settle among them. In that republic of blessed memory, trespassers would never have made it past private land owners. Back in those days when self-defense was not merely nominal, aliens traipsing and trashing land not theirs, as they now do with impunity, would have been repelled by land owners — by force. Thus would the habit have been extinguished for good.

Brussels is now the Mecca to which America turns for moral direction. Alas, around the time of the Constitutional Convention, King Leopold I of Belgium had not yet been born. But it is inconceivable to think of George Washington complaining, say to King Louis XVI, about (the heroic) whiskey rebels of west Pennsylvania for testing his tyrannical impulses.

The Tenth Amendment center has a list of model legislative initiatives designed to help beat back America’s federales. Nullifying the Federal Healthcare act is one (thank you Virginia, Utah, and Idaho). Preventing the federal government from commandeering a state’s National Guard is another. Additional Tenth-Amendment momentums include keeping the federal government from regulating state firearms, commerce, the use of honest money (gold, silver) and dope.

But more than anything, immigration is fueling the fever of freedom. For it plays out at the interstices of the most cherished of individual rights: the rights to life and property. Virginia’s Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has, consequently, ruled that state law enforcement officers are allowed to check the immigration status of those stopped or arrested legitimately. At least eleven other states have taken their cues from Cuccinelli, Governor Jan Brewer, and 81 percent of the registered voters of Arizona, and are standing up to the president.

There are those who contend that any impetus to restrict immigration is always and everywhere predicated on aggression against non-aggressors. This is the case only if one believes that telling someone, “No, you can’t go there” is tantamount to violence.

Sarah Palin is in the news for a change, not for the most significant thing she has done of late, but for the least significant. Scrap that: Joining the Fox News lineup of analysts is hardly inconsequential, although it is a bad move.

The most important of Palin’s recent maneuvers was to pooh-pooh CPAC. As Politico reported, “Palin had declined an invitation to address the Conservative Political Action Conference next month calling it a forum that will place ‘special interests over core beliefs’ and ‘pocketbook over policy.’

“Was a GOP-Palin political divorce in the offing? Is Palin preparing to part company with “politics as usual” ─ the tired slogan she and Sen. John McCain coined for their campaign? (Palin, of course, had embodied unusual politics on the local level.)

I had sincerely hoped that Sarah Palin had come to realize that reviving the rigor-riddled Republican Party would be like trying to breathe life into a corpse. Neither possible, nor desirable. The CPAC snub, coupled with Palin’s endorsement, last year, of the Conservative Party’s Doug Hoffman for the 23rd Congressional District of New York, made it look like she was indeed galloping away from the “GOP, RIP.”

More promising developments followed. Palin will be headlining the First National Tea Party Convention, in Nashville, TN, scheduled for February. She’ll be joined by Michele Bachmann. And, as David Shyster advertised negatively on MSNBC, by WND’s founder and CEO, Joseph Farah.

Against this bright background, Sarah Palin suddenly switched gears and joined the Fox-News pack as one of its jack-of-all-trades experts.

Unfortunately, the governor has a propensity for rambling, run-off sentences, peppered with grating gerunds. Pearls of wisdom are often lost in the prolix answers she gives. Then there is Mrs. Palin’s mindless militarism. You can’t make this up, but on leaving the gubernatorial office, for instance, Palin scolded the media thus: “In honor of the American solder, quit making things up.”

Someone ought to tell Mrs. Palin that idolizing the military ─ and the missions it executes on behalf of its political masters ─ amounts to the worship of Moloch, not the Almighty.

Paramount for Palin, then ─ at least if she wants to survive the ravages of future Fey (Tina) satirization ─ is to fashion herself as an expert, not as a generalist. On energy and environmental issues Palin is indeed an ace. When it comes to the ins-and-outs of the oil and gas industry ─ ownership, extraction, contracts and leases ─ Sarah Palin is as sharp as a tack. On both the philosophical and pragmatic levels, she grasps the urgent need to commercialize America’s abundant resources.

As regards the personal: Because Palin comes from a clan that has lived-off the land by necessity, Mother Palin cherishes “Mother Earth.” (Once a fisherwoman, Sarah lived through an oil spill that decimated her family’s food-supply and living.) Alaska runs in Sarah’s blood stream; its wild life, its seascape and landscapes, as well as man’s reliance on both for muse and … meat.

Money Quote: “Hollywood needs to know: We eat therefore we hunt.”

This Alaskan Diana, goddess of the hunt, is carnivore and conservationist.

From Alaska, lushly described on every page of Going Rogue, cut to the Palin parade on Fox News. In no time at all, Palin was clucking over the merits of the two-party cartel. We are a two-party system, she told Glenn Beck. “The Republican Party, the planks in our platform are, are the best, strongest planks upon which to build a great state, Alaska, a great country.” And while Palin confessed to being tempted to flee the duopoly, she vowed to remain a Republican.

Palin’s assertion is pie-in-the-sky; not pragmatism but falsehood. The Democratic and Republican parties ─ each operates as a necessary counterweight in a partnership designed to keep the pendulum of power swinging in perpetuity from the one entity to the other.

The standstill state-of-affairs hinges on bamboozling party supporters. As my WND colleague Vox Day has observed, no sooner do the Republicans come to power, than they move to the left. When they get their turn, Democrats shuffle to the right. At some point, McCain reaches across the aisle and the creeps converge.

The Constitution the colluding quislings only ever conjure as a weapon against the opposing, fleetingly dethroned faction. If only Sarah Palin recognized and acted on this intractable reality.

©By ILANA MERCER
WorldNetDaily.com
January 15, 2010

States across the country are rediscovering and reasserting the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Quaint, I know, but to the federal government were delegated only limited and enumerated powers (Article I, Section 8): 17 to be precise. Most everything it does these days is extra-constitutional.

Forced to accept piles of paper from the federales, for “federally mandated increases in spending on Medicaid and education,” some states have realized that the price is too steep. Not only would they have to obey the occupying force; but states could expect to splinter under the statist burden of a panoply of programs prescribed by the Healer-in-Chief, who would play them like hooked fish.

So, governors and state representatives are invoking that which ought to have been the law of the land: the ingenious Tenth Amendment. In short order, at least twenty eight states resolved to reclaim the people’s “unalienable rights,” by beating back the federal occupier and voiding unconstitutional federal laws.

Sights set on sovereignty, Montana’s Democratic Governor Brian Schweitzer has signed a bill rejecting any federal meddling with arms and ammunition that are made in Montana and stay in the Big Sky State.

They may not call it interposition and nullification, but legislators in the Texas and Utah state legislatures are planning to practice the doctrine Thomas Jefferson and James Madison perfected in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798.

Writes historian Thomas E. Woods, Jr.: “The Virginia Resolutions spoke of the states’ rights to ‘interpose’ between the federal government and the people of the states; the Kentucky Resolutions used the term nullification – the states, they said, could nullify federal laws that they believed to be unconstitutional.”

“Jefferson,” explains Woods, “considered states’ rights a much more important and effective safeguard of people’s liberties than the ‘checks and balances’ among the three branches of the federal government.”

And for good reason. Judicial review was intended to curb Congress and restrain the executive. But the unholy federal trinity — the judicial, legislative, and executive — has simply colluded in an alliance that has helped to abolish the Tenth Amendment.

But what happens if you are of the ossified opposition — a neoconservative, or the kind of Republican for whom the manner in which Abraham Lincoln sundered the federal structure was both constitutional and moral? Why, then, you’re in a bit of a pickle.

These days neoconservatives are celebrating signs of local self-government, not for love of liberty and an appreciation of states’ right, but because they mistake the awakening for a mere revolt against the ruling rat pack (Democrats). To his credit, Harvard graduate Ben Shapiro is a bright neoconservative, who’s well aware of the contradiction inherent in his sudden support for the states in their lunge for liberty:

The federal response to the slavery question was quick and right – President Abraham Lincoln’s Civil War restored for all time the founding promises of the Declaration of Independence. Despite the Civil War, however, the legacy of Jim Crow further eroded the moral authority of states’ rights. And the federal government, wielding the ethical imperative of racial equality, stepped in. States’ rights advocates were forever branded as bigoted Orval Faubus types, standing in the doorways of segregated schoolhouses.
Now states are surprised to find that their ability to resist federal directives has been all but extinguished. They are surprised that they are no longer able to set their own standards regarding social, economic or criminal policy. They are surprised that through a combination of moral blindness and drooling greed, they surrendered their role in the constitutional system.

Surrendered? Not quite. “Honest Abe” was victorious in the War Between the States because, to vanquish the South, he invalidated the Constitution and violated the compact and comity between the sovereign states. Lincoln created a reality on the ground by brute force, not by constitutional warrant. This savagery owed little to the Constitution.

Neoliberal Chris Matthews of MSNBC had a similar reaction when Governor Rick Perry made it plain he would be asserting Texas’ rights. “That’s the kind of talk we heard in 1861. That’s what killed 600,000 Americans,” hollered the “Hardball” host.

By this lame logic, secession or state sovereignty is proscribed because last it was invoked, a bully launched a war. Or, as Kirkpatrick Sale, director of the pro-secession Middlebury Institute, countered: “The victory by a superior military might is not the same thing as the creation of a superior constitutional right.”

Sovereignty, of course, can be resuscitated; and the lost Constitution restored.

The pathology caused by an overweening federal government is fueling the fever of freedom among the states and their people ─ it is the fever a healthy organism develops to fight-off an invading pathogen.

… I [moreover] join real conservatives and libertarians like Richard Weaver, Felix Morley (one of the founders of Human Events), Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, and Pope Pius XII in condemning the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yet my left-wing critics seem quite happy to get in bed with defenders of all these things in order to join in their condemnations of my book. Taking a casual view of mass murder is thus morally preferable to having sympathy for the old republic. What more do I need to know about these people?”