Saturday, October 31, 2009

Resistance with Cameras not Guns

There is a movement happening in America of resistance with a camera.  Thousands of informed young people are getting active.  They are disillusioned with the government and are tired of losing their individual rights under the Constitution.

Groups like We Are Change and Checkpoint USA are using the internet to inform the general public about the true state of America.  Armed with knowledge and cameras they record town hall meetings on subjects relating to liberties.  They attend protests to cover the police state tactics being used on peaceful assemblies.  They go through random checkpoints to record themselves resisting  searches without probable cause.

This growing number of street reporters is not only clogging the system, but also turning some powerful heads.  We Are Change, for example, has been engaged in ambush journalism on many members of the powerful elite.  They are truly becoming a thorn in the side of the establishment with this NON-violent tactic.

Read a new article on this tactic here.

 

Friday, October 30, 2009

Joint Forces Quarterly: "Don't ask don't tell" about to become "Don't ask, don't care"?

Joint Forces Quarterly is one of the magazines you will find in most flag officer waiting rooms in and around the DC area. It is written and intended to be a publication for senior military officers and decision makers and its contents are reviewed and approved by the Chairman of JCS, ADM Mike Mullen before publication by The National Defense University at Ft. McNair. JFQ is quite simply the Pentagon’s top scholarly journal and sounding board for leading military thought and critical analysis. While reading the most recent issue (in a flag waiting room of all places) I came across an interesting article discussing the Clinton era “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy of allowing homosexuals to serve in the armed forces as long as they keep their sexuality a secret. The author, Air Force Colonel Om Prakash makes a powerful argument that the time is coming near for the military to revisit its policy on gays serving in the military, but he also points out that the only body with the power to make the change is Congress. Here is the current language of DADT.

I am of the belief that homosexuals are “born gay” and it’s not a choice they make in life (to be homosexual). I came to this decision years ago by rationalizing to myself “Why would anyone choose to be gay, to be despised by certain segments of society, to not be a full equal citizen?” My thoughts were somewhat echoed in the JFQ article:

“I wish I could decide who I fell in love with; if someone thinks I would consciously choose such a life where I am forced to live in hiding and fear, knowing the bulk of the population is against you, is just crazy. I can’t help who I am.” “Why would I choose to suffer like this?”

Another point that caught my attention was that homosexuals must compromise their integrity to serve under DADT. I joined the military out of a sense of honor, duty, and patriotism. It also didn’t hurt that it was a better job than the one I had at the time. But nevertheless, I was proud to serve my country and I did so with immense pride. The three core values my service cherished were Honor, Courage, and Commitment. Let’s look at the first, Honor:

Honor: “I will bear true faith and allegiance …” Accordingly, we will: Conduct ourselves in the highest ethical manner in all relationships with peers, superiors and subordinates; Be honest and truthful in our dealings with each other, and with those outside the Navy; Be willing to make honest recommendations and accept those of junior personnel; Encourage new ideas and deliver the bad news, even when it is unpopular; Abide by an uncompromising code of integrity, taking responsibility for our actions and keeping our word; Fulfill or exceed our legal and ethical responsibilities in our public and personal lives twenty-four hours a day. Illegal or improper behavior or even the appearance of such behavior will not be tolerated. We are accountable for our professional and personal behavior. We will be mindful of the privilege to serve our fellow Americans.

I highlighted several words and phrases for a purpose. How can a homosexual be honest and truthful if living a secret life in the closet? Also, if you have read the linked JFQ essay by Col. Prakash at the beginning of this post you will remember reading about the history of DADT, and that it was feared homosexuals serving openly might engage in risky behavior or drug use. I understand the law and rational behind DADT was the geniuses of Congress, and they have neither morals or integrity themselves. But to project their own shortcoming upon gay service members is silly and insulting. Military warriors, regardless of sexual orientation live by a code of integrity. It is the secret code of brothers (and sisters ) of arms. Without it there is no trust, no loyalty, no sacrifice for the betterment of your country. Patriots serve out of a sense of duty to their country and fellow man, and they expect the best out of each other and push each other toward that goal every day. Being gay doesn’t change the equation.

The law also forces unusual personal compromises wholly inconsistent with a core military value—integrity. Several homosexuals interviewed were in tears as they described the normous personal compromise in integrity they had been making, and the pain felt in serving in an organization they wholly believed in, yet that did not accept them.

I fully support lifting DADT, it serves no purpose in today’s military.

Sorry for the poor quality of this post, I wrote and posted this from my phone while sitting in a VW dealership getting my car fixed.

Further reading Joint Forces Quarterly

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Waking up to the Truth

 

It is obvious to most reflective people that our culture is destructive in terms of peace, prosperity, liberty, social justice, and the environment.  This awareness started for me when observing a number of world events that didn’t seem to add up anymore.  My heightened curiosity was due to the profound awakening that I experienced at the birth of my first child.  Although I already did care about the world around me, it suddenly seemed far more vital to me. I’ve been perplexed by the following: • Environmental Devastation • Unprovoked wars for false reasons • Religious violence • Anti-liberty legislation • Severe economic injustice • Global collapse of the financial industry with no accountability • Massive consolidation of industry into cartels • A 2-Party political system working in concert with these cartels • New President with no significant changes • A highly skeptical Swine Flu National Emergency It seems like things have gotten crazy to me and I know I’m not alone.  Like many others, I woke up one day to discover that our culture was upside down and its destruction to our environment is utterly unsustainable.  It reminds me of the Michael Ellner quote, “Just look at us. Everything is backwards. Everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, governments destroy freedom, the major media destroy information, and religion destroys spirituality.” Anger made it too easy to blame the “other” political party, the corrupt government, greedy corporations, different religions, crumbling education, or the mass media.   It eventually became clear that they are all fish in the same polluted sea, and so are we.  We were just as much to blame for we are the system, and only we can change it. Through my information journey I realized a glaring truth, a universal truth some might say, that we are all profoundly connected to each other and our environment, that all of my actions affect the whole, good or bad.  Upon accepting the reality of that we are interconnected, my analysis of our upside down culture became much clearer.  Now, it appears to me that the promotion of a division has been blatantly manufactured to create social conflict and competition to feed a system that primarily benefits the empires of industry. The truth is very simple to discern in our culture when something doesn’t make sense to you.  Just find out who benefits from a crazy event or confusing policy and follow their money trail.  It’s that simple to get answers in our culture based on greed and division.  The cultural ship is fueled by values of greed and power with complete disregard for human suffering while leaving environmental wreckage in its wake. For example, you start to put the pieces together when you realize that our most common of resources on Earth, like water, are controlled by only a handful of private multinational corporations who benefit from humanity’s absolute need for it.  Consequently, when other industry pollutes fresh water they create value out of scarcity for the water conglomerates. When you follow their actions and political influence you begin to realize that governments and industry cartels are one in the same.  In other words, we are beholden to them for all vital resources which force us to participate in the system –thus our very survival enslaves us to the system whether we like it or not. In fact, the oft referred to saying of the elite is “Order out of Chaos, Divide and Conquer.”  Division seemed calculated in every political speech, every advertisement, every religious sermon, every classroom, and every news cast.  The masses buy into this division and they form prejudices about their neighbors, who then form biases towards them.  This division feeds fear, breeds anxiety, which turns to hate, which leads to destructive actions.  It creates a “dog-eat-dog” economy where greed always trumps the environment, compassion, and fairness.  Clearly this is destructive and unsustainable. The absolute truth that we’re all connected to everything leaves us one path forward – sustainability.  Everything from the way we relate to each other, build things, produce food, apply industry, operate government, and much more needs to be transformed with new values of harmony and sustainability if humanity expects to survive.  The good news is that all it takes is to change our values and apply them one person at a time.  In other words, “You must be the change you want to see in the world.” – Gandhi.

 

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Understanding the duty of care and the right to liberty in residential care settings part 2

 Not so very long ago I was delivering training on the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty to a group of workers in a residential home in the West Midlands. The registered manager of the unit was there and when I got to the part about locking doors she said something quite surprising:

“It’s alright Stuart, you can skip this part. It’s not relevant for us.”

I asked her how the issues of locked doors could possibly not be relevant for residential care. She said:

“Because our people don’t go out.”

I asked her why they didn’t go out and she replied:

“Because the doors are locked.”

“Why are the doors locked?” I asked

“Because they’re old.” Came the predictable response.

I’m not really trying to criticise this manager here. I don’t blame her at all for holding this view – it’s rife in UK. Her view is part of a cultural misunderstanding about the duty of Care that has encouraged residential care workers to lock people away for years. So it’s not the people that should be taken to task – it’s the culture. Unfortunately the only way to change the culture is to prosecute the people – hence the new legislation around rights and capacity.

So here’s another principle to consider….

Getting older is not a crime and it is no reason to sentence someone to life imprisonment.

The same is true for learning disability, mental disorder, physical disability etc etc. Social care is not the same as prison and social care workers are not employed to take the place of judges. It is not up to us to decide who can and who cannot exercise the right to liberty.

Care workers can restrict liberty if it’s proportionate and in the person’s best interests to do so but they cannot deprive them of it without authoirsation. This is a major source of confusion and we’ll address the difference between restriction and deprivation in a later article in this series but for now it’s enough to define these principles:

  • It is unlawful to deprive someone of their liberty without legal authorisation.
  • Care workers can only restrict a person’s liberty as part of their care if the person lacks the capacity to decide and the situation is both proportionate and in their best interests.
  • Routine restriction is likely to be a deprivation of liberty(not just restriction) and needs external authorisation

So what do we mean by liberty?

The answer to this question is surprising to many people. Liberty is much more than simply locking doors.  Basically all our rights are liberties. They are freedoms which means the same thing. All UK citizens have the right (the liberty) to do certain things and also to be free from certain types of abuse such as assault or discrimination.

Rights are given to us by law and so they can only be removed from us by legal process. This is why so many previously routine practices in social care have had to change – even preventing a person from using the toilet when they want to or from choosing what they would like to wear is a restriction or deprivation of liberty and so we must follow legal process in order to stay within the law.

Don’t panic though – this doesn’t mean that you need to go to court every time you set a menu in residential care. It simply means that you must make sure you follow the new legal procedures ‘in house’ for most decisions. This in because most decisions would amount simply to restriction of liberty – something you can authorise for yourself so long as you understand and can justify why you are doing what you do.

To make sense of this we need to talk briefly about the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

The Mental Capacity Act came into effect in 2007. The ‘Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards’ took effect in April 2009. Both are based upon the Bournewood judgement in the European Court of Human Rights (HL vs UK).

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2009/09/02/112480/the-bournewood-case.html

They radically alter how we must deal with people in our care. Many previously routine care practices could now be unlawful.

Principles of the Mental Capacity Act

At the heart of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 are five underpinning principles:

  • An assumption of capacity – until it can be shown that the adult cannot make their own decisions;
  • The right for individuals to be supported to make their own decisions – people must be given all appropriate help before anyone concludes that they cannot make their own decisions;
  • That individuals have the right to make eccentric or unwise decisions;
  • Best interests – anything done for or on behalf of people without capacity must be in their best interests and;
  • Least restrictive intervention – anything done for or on behalf of people without capacity should be the least restrictive of their basic rights and freedoms.

Essentially this means that before we take away a person’s right to make their own decisions we must be able to show that they cannot decide for themselves because they lack the capacity to do so. It is not enough to say that we thought they were making a mistake – that is their right. The only starting point is the assessment of capacity – not diagnosis or unwise decision-making. After all we all have the right to make unwise decisions – that’s how it should be.

So how do we assess a person’s capacity?

First we need to realise that capacity assessments only apply to a person’s ability to make this particular decision at this particular time.

Having capacity means being able to perform the four stages of decision-making. In other words can the person:

  • understand the information relevant to the decision;
  • retain that information long enough to decide;
  • Use and Weigh that information;
  • Communicate their decision.

Only if we can reasonably show that a person lacks the capacity to decide for themselves may we presume to decide for them. Even then it’s more than simply doing what we think is right – there’s a specific checklist that we need to follow when working out what is right. This is called the Best Interests checklist and is defined in the Mental Capacity Act code of practice.

http://www.dca.gov.uk/menincap/legis.htm#codeofpractice

 The checklist includes:

  • Equal consideration and non-discrimination;
  • Considering all relevant circumstances and information (including written information);
  • The likelihood of the person regaining capacity;
  • Permitting and encouraging participation;
  • Special consideration for life-sustaining treatment;
  • Advance decisions;
  • The person’s wishes and feelings, beliefs and values;
  • Lasting Powers of Attorney;
  • The views of other people.

Bear in mind that the obligation to consult relatives etc does not mean that you must do what they tell you to. There are certain formal circumstances where people can tell you what NOT to do (refuse consent under a Lasting Power of Attorney for example) but nobody can tell you to do anything that you think is professionally inappropriate.

Remember also that this is a delicate issue because of confidentiality. However, if we can speak to others we must in order to get a proper feel for what would be in that person’s best interests as an individual.

Do not do this without consent if the service-user has capacity to decide for themselves.

So to summarize the points raised in this second part of the series:

  • It is unlawful to deprive someone of their liberty without legal authorisation.
  • Care workers can only restrict a person’s liberty as part of their care if the person lacks the capacity to decide and the situation is both proportionate and in their best interests.
  • Routine restriction is likely to be a deprivation of liberty(not just restriction) and needs external authorisation
  • Liberty means the right to self-determination
  • Capacity means the ability to make this particular decision at this particular time
  • People with capacity to choose can do so unless a formal, legal reason exists to prevent them such as a court order or the Mental Health Act
  • The Mental Capacity Act protects people’s rights to choose
  • If the person lacks capacity then in most cases the decision-maker will be the person delivering the care or treatment
  • Follow the best interests checklist when making decisions for other people who lack the capacity to decide for themselves.

The Trojan Horse

“Beware of Greeks bearing Gifts”

Or in this case, Democrats.

This saying comes from the Trojan War between the Greeks and the people of Troy.

The Greeks constructed a giant horse (horses were worshiped by the Trojans) and hit men inside because they were unable to breech the walls of the city after 10 years of siege.

Then the Greeks faked running away, leaving only the Horse.

The Trojans celebrated their victory and wheeled the giant horse into the city.

In the middle of the night the Greeks came out of the horse and slaughtered the Trojans.

Unable to breach the walls of public opinion on how great it would be for the government to decide who lives and who dies they retreated at the end of August and created the the Baucus Bill. A bill without the “Public Option” that had “bi-partisan support” (1 sad sucker of a Republican in Sen. Snowe).

Hurrah!

And just now the Greeks (Democrats) have decided to re-brand their original goal yet again.

The Orwellian re-branding yet again of  Socialized National Care.

If you can’t dazzle them with your magnificence, baffle them with Orwellian BS.

And signal ahead of time that it was all a Trojan Horse.

In an appearance at a Florida senior center, the Democratic leader referred to the so-called public option as “the consumer option.” Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., appeared by Pelosi’s side and used the term “competitive option.”

Both suggested new terminology might get them past any lingering doubts among the public—or consumers or competitors.

“You’ll hear everyone say, ‘There’s got to be a better name for this,’” Pelosi said. “When people think of the public option, public is being misrepresented, that this is being paid for with their public dollars.”

So, since the government has no money unless they take it from you, where are they going to get it?

Or that’s right, they can just print and let someone else worry about the deficit later…

But this is the same Nancy Pelosi who said it wouldn’t raise the deficit?

So where are they getting the money?

One Answer: They don’t care.

Real Answer: From you. The Public. Bend over, the biggest enema in this country’s history is about to be shoved up your ass!

The entire Baucus Bill process was a sham.

Wonder if Sen. Baucus knew all along? Ya Think…

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), a centrist whose healthcare bill did not include a public option, said in a statement that he would support “any provision, including a public option, that will ensure choice and competition and get the 60 votes needed to pass the Senate.”

This being the same guy who said that the public option had no chance.

Talk about a Dog and Pony show!

The Democrats want their Holy Grail (read Helen of Troy) and nothing shall defeat them.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Monday that Senate Democrats will include in the health care reform bill a government-backed health insurance program that allows states to opt out if they can come up with an alternative.

“I think it’s the fairest way to go,” Reid said of the “opt out” proposal.

The “opt out” proposal would set up a national insurance plan with government seed money and be run by a private, not-for-profit board. Under the proposal, states would have to prove they can provide comparable coverage in order to exit out of the federal plan. The plan would also negotiate rates with providers just like private insurance companies do, presumably keeping premiums on a level playing field with the private industry.

The measure is one of a host of different so-called public options being considered in the Senate. Though the public option seemed off the table in the chamber just one month ago, it gained traction in recent weeks as Democratic leaders floated versions meant to be more appealing to party moderates.

The key phrase being : “Under the proposal, states would have to prove they can provide comparable coverage in order to exit out of the federal plan”

Meaning if you the state doesn’t have something that is EXACTLY like the Government’s plan it can’t opt-out.

Which is precisely what was in HR3200, only it was the insurance companies ans employers.

Which is a Trojan Horse.

And if the state does manage to opt-out will the taxes be opted out as well?

I very much doubt it. Don’t you. The old double whammy. The State-run Government health care and the Government health care. Yeah, that’ll bring costs down. And it will be the State’s fault for opting out so they won’t be able to or they’ll have to opt-in later in defeat.

And won’t you have the lack of portability now that is one of the main root causes of this whole mess?

But that was never going to happen anyhow. That’s the Orwellian Trojan Horse, the “op-out” is the horse.

“I’m always looking for Republicans,” Reid said. To slaughter like the Trojans in the dead of night maybe.

After Reid spoke, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs issued a statement in which President Obama congratulated Democrats for their “hard work on health insurance reform.”

“While much work remains, the president is pleased that at the progress that Congress has made. He’s also pleased that the Senate has decided to include a public option for health coverage, in this case with an allowance for states to opt out. As he said to Congress and the nation in September, he supports the public option because it has the potential to play an essential role in holding insurance companies accountable through choice and competition,” Gibbs said.

Only your choice is mandatory and provided by the government and the competition is far from fair.

He has never changed his mind and never will.

The rest is just so much smoke.

So he has looked down from inside the horse to see if it’s safe to come out and slaughter the Trojans and take the city after a long siege.

So are you asleep, Trojans?

 

 

 

 

Sunday, October 25, 2009

Greyhound bus passengers get searched

Attempts to halt American’s ability to travel freely within our borders are expanding to Greyhound bus terminals.  No travel without papers and permission.  This is America.

Greyhound bus passengers get screened, pat down in special TSA operation

Heavy Travel Restrictions at Greyhound

“…the agency’s Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response, or VIPR, teams stage periodic operations at bus and train stations, ports and other transportation centers. They began work in December 2006.

Thursday’s daylong event was the first at a Greyhound station in Florida, said John Daly, TSA security director for the Orlando region.”

1876 Liberty Torch - Stereoscopic Animation

1876 - Colossal hand and torch "Liberty"

The French planned for the statue to be completed and presented to the United States on July 4, 1876, but a late start and subsequent delays prevented it. However, by that time the right arm and torch were completed. This part of the statue was displayed at the Centennial Exhibition in Philadelphia, where visitors were charged 50 cents to climb the ladder to the balcony. The money raised this way was used to start funding the pedestal. [source: wiki]

To view the complete collection in full resolution, visit clicksypics.com.  To find out how these are created, go here.

Saturday, October 24, 2009

Our Greatest Treasure - Freedom

The flourishing of liberty, democracy, and constitutional government is the goal of this administration as it is the greatest wish of Americans and that Americans have for all peoples of the world. We pray that we’ll all come to enjoy what we consider our greatest treasure – freedom.

Remarks on Signing the Human Rights and Day of Prayer
for Poland Proclamations, December 10, 1982


Proud Reagan Conservative by PhraseCatcher
Browse more Conservative Bumper Stickers

Pronk Paintings--Videos

I have started a new blog, Pronk Paintings, www.pronkpainting.wordpress.com

that has all my previous posts and videos related to art.

I will continue to post my art related posts on my blog Pronk Palisades, www.raymondpronk.wordpress.com

as well as Pronk Paintings.

The videos are also posted on my  YouTube channel,  A PRONK STUDIO VIDEO, www.youtube.com/raymondpronk

Enjoy.

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Many Meetings

Well, there are many of them, aren’t there?  First the missing Gandalf turns up abruptly by Frodo’s sick bed; then we meet Elrond and Arwen; then Gloin; then Bilbo; then Strider under a new name.  It is a chapter of discovering old friends and discovering new things about old friends.  It is a chapter that gives one the impression that something is afoot, and that the impending council is going to be an explosion of discoveries and strange tales.

All this takes place against the backdrop of my favourite place in all literature:  the Last Homely House east of the Sea.  I noticed during this re-reading how little Tolkien actually tells us about the appearance of this house.  Sometimes it seems more like a country manor with a garden, and sometimes more like a Gothic abbey or even an intricate medieval city.  Perhaps this ambiguity is intentional.  Tolkien indulges in very little description of Rivendell, but what he tells us is significant.  Rivendell retains the memory of good things from all the places of Middle Earth, and it reminds each person of what he loves best.  It is “a perfect house, whether you like food or sleep or story-telling or singing, or just sitting and thinking.”  It has nooks and crannies and Elves of every stripe.  As Pseudo-Dionysius might have put it, Rivendell is variety in unity and unity in variety.

Along with the peaceful harmony of variety, Rivendell is a place of the peaceful harmony of different orders of beings.  By this I mean Elves (themselves possessing varying degrees of greatness), Men, Hobbits, and even Dwarves.  (Surprisingly, except for occasional references, the old feud between Dwarves and Elves seems to be dropped in the Last Homely House).  There is what might be called a “cordial consent of being to being”* throughout the house of Elrond.  For it is a House and not a Court; and Elrond is a host, and not a king.  The great of the world pass through such a place and rub shoulders with the comparatively insignificant, all with the greatest amiability and enjoyment.  The Elves themselves are sometimes “like kings, terrible and splendid,” while others are “merry as children”—and they coexist with perfect amicability.

There are few incidents in the Lord of the Rings that I love as much as Bilbo, the old Hobbit, requisitioning the appearance of Aragorn, the Heir of Isildur and rightful King of most of Middle Earth, to help him work out a rhyme in a little ditty he is composing for the amusement of the Elves.  And Aragorn comes, not because Bilbo is his equal, but because the two are friends, and greatness and smallness do not matter in a such place.  In much the same way, when Frodo is seated (to his dismay!) at the table of the great during Elrond’s feast, his feelings of smallness vanish as he enters into conversation and enjoyment with his neighbors.

What I am trying to gesture at with these ramblings is something I find foreign to our world and way of thinking.  For there is a hierarchy among the intelligent beings in Middle Earth—not merely a hierarchy of position and personal qualities, such as we find in our own world, but a radical hierarchy of essences and species and internal powers.  Our own modern-day quibbles over the equality of the sexes and the races vanishes like a star in the sun in the world of Middle Earth.  For in Middle Earth, the inequalities between Hobbits and Men and Elves are greater, involving the exercise of immaterial powers over persons of lesser degree—involving even the ability to inhabit a suprasensible world in addition to the sensible one.  Yet in houses like Rivendell, this radical hierarchy does not create envy or oppression among the ranks of beings, but rather concord and mutual respect.  There is dominion without domineering, giving-of-place without fawning, and above all, merriment and good humour in putting up with both one’s betters and inferiors.

After all, at the end of the day, the setting of Rivendell gives us the chance to enjoy what some never enjoy in our own world.  In how many places could such a diversity of ranks and privileges co-exist without perversion and abuse?  Rivendell satisfies our desire that Hobbits should be Hobbits and not Elves; that Elves should be immortal and not Men; that Men too should be what they are—some Kings, some innkeepers, and some children—and that all should enjoy the best that their order offers.

 

*A phrase of Jonathan Edwards’.  Sometimes a Protestant can sound just like a Thomist.

Attack on the Cross Where Does It End

The right for a cross that has been standing in the Mojave Desert since 1934 has become a case for the Supreme Court. The ACLU, which brought the case, claims that the cross places a greater value on the sacrifices of Christians over those of other faiths who have died in service to the country.

To make such an argument is just the latest chapter in the never ending battle to remove religion (regardless of faith) from the United States. The ACLU has become the point group for the movement to have Atheists dominate all of our beliefs. The Christian Chapel at the Naval Academy is one of the most beautiful building I have ever seen. When does the ACLU demand that it be torn down?

All individuals who paid the supreme sacrifice deserve our thanks and appreciation. I do not want to diminish the contribution of anyone of any faith who has served our country, however one should take note of the number of crosses at Normandy or Arlington as a comparison.  Unless my history lessons were wrong this country was founded by Christians. Perhaps it is time for the MAJORITY which are of the Christian faith to stand up and be heard. Enough is Enough.

As an aside why is it wrong to have a cross but not wrong to build foot washing stations in public restrooms for Muslims?

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Dumbworms, ho!

TJIC reports on a developing non-situation:

  • There’s no problem… so let’s get government involved!

So there is a product that might contain an effective (but illegal under our inane drug laws) ingredient.

There is also another product, entirely unrelated to the first, that does not contain this ingredient.

An adult, with help from another adult, buys the second product, that does not contain the ingredient.

Looks like an advanced case of the journalism majors.

Am I The Only One Who Noticed This Potential AGW Chicanery?

Luckily, Christopher Monckton’s current U.S. lecture tour has (finally) awakened some outside the hyperverse to the possible loss of our representative republic via an International Climate Treaty. If (and when) signed by His Wholly Reluctance God/King Obama, such a treaty still requires ratification by 2/3 of the Senate.

Monckton said, during an interview yesterday with Glenn Beck–thanks for pitting him on the air, Glenn–that Obama’s Myrmidons plan to circumvent this possible roadblock by having it ratified by a simple majority vote. But it could be far simpler than that.

The Kerry-Boxer Senate Thermageddon bill, which Lurch insists on calling a “pollution reduction” bill rather than a “climate change” bill because he (amazingly) realizes the scientific jig is up on AGW, contains a section on International Obligations. It has been left blank–”to be filled in later.”

With what, pray tell?

What could a Eurotard-wannabe Senator funded by an America-hating millionaire harpy wife—who already supports all manner of eco-bullshit through laundered Heinz Foundation donations—possibly put in there?

But our senators would never allow that, you say. What–you don’t actually expect them to read it, do you?

Sunday, October 18, 2009

This is only the beginning, they won't stop now...

David Davis

One tends to run out of descriptive superlatives, for use to describe the depredations of the GreeNazis, and to describe what it is that they have in store for the rest of humanity. It is only slightly comforting that no nations outside Western Europe or North America are going to pay heed to them, except with machine-guns and flame-throwers.

It is, indeed, both very heartening and exciting to note that no “climate change protests” at coal-fired power staions, are oging on in Chindia or North Korea or the USSR, or even in Venezuela or France.

I really have nothing more to say about these murdering droids (Demonstrators, under the banner the Great Climate Swoop, included supporters of three pressure groups – the Camp for Climate Action, Plane Stupid and Climate Rush), except that the State which they love, since it keeps and proposes to keep such meticulous records of everyone – including them presumably – will be their ultimate downfall. If it does not sweep them up in its maw as latterly-redundant-useful-idiots, which helped it to ultimate power and are therefore now superfluous, then records will exist which will enable vengeful and starving mobs of Sovereign Individuals to go after, kill, barbecue and eat the said droids. It’ll be the least we can do for them, literally.

Saturday, October 17, 2009

Be Ready.. "CHANGE" is about to take on a new meaning..

As the country is embroiled in two foreign wars, massive unemployment, financial meltdown and social unrrest all caused by the present and past administrations the presently serving civil servant in the white house is getting ready to take treason to a new all time high.. Remember the words “DOMESTIC ENEMY”  because it may soon define you. As Barry Sotero prepares to sign a UN document that will strip American sovereignty and surrender national control to the illegitimate scum in the UN his failure to reinforce American GI’s he and his co-conspirator Bush sent into combat in a foreign land finally makes sense. Hear8ing last night that the 10th Mountain is not going to Iraq or Afghanistan I was confused until I read this..

UN-FCCC-COPENHAGEN-2009

un-fccc-copenhagen-2009

I know some will cringe at their mis-perception of my implied paranoia but when you put all the pieces of the puzzle together the picture it shows is nothing less that criminal. This so called treaty must not be signed by obama, must not be ratified by the posers in congress and failing those it must be rebuked soundly by the American people or WE WILL BECOME THE FINAL VICTIMS OF OUR OWN LAZINESS AND STUPIDITY.

If you do nothing to counter this with your elected servant in congress to show even minimal displeasure you deserve what you get because of it and you will not like what they have in mind for you. If you are aiding and abetting this treason and fail to rethink and come to your sense than you have made your bed and time will tell if you hopped in the right one.

Ask yourself these questions..

Why are they not sending troops to reinforce Afghanistan ?   Do they think they’ll need them here to put down riots and rebellion ?

Why have they made a show of militarizing the police in near every city for riot control ?

Why have they forced the financial collapse of the economy by their intentional actions in the mortgage market ?

Why are they not concerned about our security on the borders ?

Why are they forcing “health care legislation when the only benefit from its passing is govt control of the citizens ?

Why are they giving newly developed rocket technology to communist china ?

WHY INDEED..

If the picture you paint with the answers to these questions is one of naive disinterest that stuff thats blurring your vision is scat from having your head up your ass too long.



http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/un-fccc-copenhagen-2009.pdf

Militarized police, power grabs, forced govt takeovers of industry, media collusion in treason, and on and on…

The kenyan pimp is gonna make his move soon.. this document, imo, will be the kicker.. watch for the military preps, 10th mountain stayed home after Iraq trip canceled.. stalled reinforcements in Afghanistan.

Americans need to redress publicly the military and civil servants duties under their oaths.

Be Ready.

Thursday, October 15, 2009

2009 ... and in a Faraway Country Of Which We Know Little...

David Davis

Daniel Hannan is directing fire upon the EU BuroNazis, but for how long can Klaus stand, against EU commands to his own politicians to “impeach” him? The EUBastards must truly fear a Cameron rearguard action on Lisbon. Wonder why?

English libertarians have not, historically, taken the EU very seriously. It’s just them silly EuroNazis mountebanking about in the way they love to, and it’s over there somewhere, and it was only going to be about “regulating”  pipe-cleaners and fish. But now it starts to resemble the dark sprites in the Ark-opening-scene towards the end of “Raiders of the Lost Ark”, we should worry.

Aleister Crowley on Politics

In lieu of a real post, here are some choice quotes on politics by Aleister Crowley. Enjoy!

“[Newspapers] can always prove to you that it is necessary, and patriotic, and all the rest of it, that you should suffer intolerable wrongs.”

“All explanations are intended to cover up lies, injustices, or shames. The Truth is radiantly simple.”

“The average voter is a moron. He believes what he reads in newspapers, feeds his imagination and lulls his repressions on the cinema, and hopes to break away from his slavery by football pools, cross-word prizes, or spotting the winner of the 3:30.”

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Refounding America #1

Ok, Let’s get this out in the open.

I admire Glenn Beck.

Before you hit the “X” and close this blog out, let me tell you why.  He shows a clarity of thought and courage that is sadly rare in media today.  Of course, the humor isn’t anything to laugh at.  Actually, it really is something to laugh at.

One of his ideas I really admire is his concept of “Refounding America”.    I decided that reclaiming and bringing America back into line with the original founding ideas is not only a worthy goal, but a necessary one.  It is my FIRM belief that socialism, what we’re turning towards, is not the most effective way of doing things.  I believe that it’s a failed policy that only drives a country into destruction.  I only have to look at Rome to recognize that “Bread and Circuses” don’t work.

OK, Keith Olbermann does the same thing, political commentary with humor.  True.  The difference is that Olbermann is more interested in verbally assaulting and ridiculing those who represent a differing opinion.  He often has snide comments with little to no true thought behind his thought.  He made one comment regarding the “billionth” of the cost that health care will cost us compared to the companies that Halliburton that we send to “Kill our children”.

When you look beyond the acidic and inane rhetoric, you’ll find that he’s simply a charlatan, Olbermann, and the Rush Limbaugh of the left.

Do we have the same on our side?  Yep, Bill O’Riely springs to mind off the top of myself, Rush Limbaugh is up there.  But let’s not dismiss Glenn Beck because he’s using humor to express a little sense.

But, I’ve just completely digressed into something I never intended to go into.  The point of this post is to start looking at bringing our nation back into line with the views that we created this country on.

Let’s admit something right now.  The constitution IS a living document.  Article V establishes a method to adopt amendments to it, allowing a mechinism which allows for changing social needs.  It’s like a grumpy old man.  You can change his mind, but you’re going to bring the whole town against him to change his mind.  It’s like the constitution.  It can change, but an OVERWHELMING portion of the population has to agree that a change is warranted.

But, one thing will never change is the foundation of the Constitution.  The foundation still remains the individual liberty of each and every person.

From the Preamble :

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

That is a strong statement, probably the most statement of all our founding documents.  It places the entire idea of America into context.  Our Fathers believed that the whole point of breaking away from England was to get out from the thumb of “Mad” King George III.

So, what’s different today?

The only thing different from Mad George and what we’re developing into is the type of tyranny.  Instead of one man’s crazy whims we’re subjected to 535 individuals that we put there?  Like the colonists, we are having policies that we don’t want.  Policies that we believe are going to destroy us and our individualism.  Yet, there is so much apathy out there that we can’t find the resolve to recognize and change the course that a lot of us don’t wish to go down.

Bill made a great statement thata really underlines what I believe.  Paraphrased : You can’t expect the government to make policies that benefit only Michael Lockwood.  Thanks Bill.  Of course they can’t.  Of course, when you take one man’s fate and place it in the hands of 300 million American, he’s going to be trampled by the mob.    That’s the problem with such systems as socialism.  They are completely foundationally unable to ensure the fairness of the individual.

“But Michael, we’re not being forced to give up our freedom!” 

Crap.  Humans are lazy.  With a few exceptions, your average human isn’t much different than the monkeys that we evolved from.  Believing anything else is fooling yourself.  Like all animals, Mankind looks for simple ways to do thing, find ways to  take the easier route.  I don’t like it, but I refuse to kid myself.  When I start kidding myself, I lose perspective.

If an average American is going to be provided with two options, which are they going to choose?  The easy one.

When we allow progressive judges to positions that, often, shove their interpretation of the constitution and the law down our throats, we give up our freedom.

When we elect congressment to a body that we all KNOW is corrupt and insensitive to our needs, we give up our freedom.

Join me.  Join Glenn Beck. Our founding fathers didn’t envision a socialist country.  They didn’t want a government that didn’t listen to the people they represent.

God Bless

Kill a cow and win a Metro

…or save the planet!

David Davis

I thought these guys, of whom I never have heard, sound amusing. As it is with all nasty, wicked and deliberate destroyers of humanity and freedom, it is time to laugh at the Enemy Class: as loudly and as profitably as possible, as that will annoy it, get it stamping about in a focussed and cruel way, and enrage the humourless buggers even more.

So we know where to Lay The Mines, then.

(Mines are good: “Princess” Diana was bad. Mines should merely not be permitted, on pain of anihilation, to specific people and States which oppose liberal Capitalist societies and individual liberty. They are thus like Nuclear Weapons. “Diana”  misunderstood the problem, probably on purpose, and therefore was deliberately answering the wrong question in view of the Enemy-Class-Media, which is now why we don’t have any mines available to us. All this will have to be the subject of another essay when I decide I am pleased to have the time.)

Sunday, October 11, 2009

A CITIZEN'S DUTY

Even though written in the mid 1800’s this bears striking similarity to todays current governmental and political situation.. One wonders what his writings would say if he were alive in modern America ? One can only imagine at his reaction..

God Help America.

On the Duty of Civil Disobedience

by Henry David Thoreau

[1849, original title: Resistance to Civil Government]

I heartily accept the motto, “That government is best which governs least”; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe–”That government is best which governs not at all”; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which the will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it. Witness the present Mexican war, the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure.

This American government–what is it but a tradition, though a recent one, endeavoring to transmit itself unimpaired to posterity, but each instant losing some of its integrity? It has not the vitality and force of a single living man; for a single man can bend it to his will. It is a sort of wooden gun to the people themselves. But it is not the less necessary for this; for the people must have some complicated machinery or other, and hear its din, to satisfy that idea of government which they have. Governments show thus how successfully men can be imposed upon, even impose on themselves, for their own advantage. It is excellent, we must all allow. Yet this government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way. It does not keep the country free. It does not settle the West. It does not educate. The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way. For government is an expedient, by which men would fain succeed in letting one another alone; and, as has been said, when it is most expedient, the governed are most let alone by it. Trade and commerce, if they were not made of india-rubber, would never manage to bounce over obstacles which legislators are continually putting in their way; and if one were to judge these men wholly by the effects of their actions and not partly by their intentions, they would deserve to be classed and punished with those mischievious persons who put obstructions on the railroads.

But, to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at one no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it.

After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest. But a government in which the majority rule in all cases can not be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which the majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience?–in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right. It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation on conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience. Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents on injustice. A common and natural result of an undue respect for the law is, that you may see a file of soldiers, colonel, captain, corporal, privates, powder-monkeys, and all, marching in admirable order over hill and dale to the wars, against their wills, ay, against their common sense and consciences, which makes it very steep marching indeed, and produces a palpitation of the heart. They have no doubt that it is a damnable business in which they are concerned; they are all peaceably inclined. Now, what are they? Men at all? or small movable forts and magazines, at the service of some unscrupulous man in power? Visit the Navy Yard, and behold a marine, such a man as an American government can make, or such as it can make a man with its black arts–a mere shadow and reminiscence of humanity, a man laid out alive and standing, and already, as one may say, buried under arms with funeral accompaniment, though it may be,

“Not a drum was heard, not a funeral note,
As his corse to the rampart we hurried;
Not a soldier discharged his farewell shot
O’er the grave where out hero was buried.”

The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus, etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgement or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens. Others–as most legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, and office-holders–serve the state chiefly with their heads; and, as the rarely make any moral distinctions, they are as likely to serve the devil, without intending it, as God. A very few–as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, and men–serve the state with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated as enemies by it. A wise man will only be useful as a man, and will not submit to be “clay,” and “stop a hole to keep the wind away,” but leave that office to his dust at least:

“I am too high born to be propertied,
To be a second at control,
Or useful serving-man and instrument
To any sovereign state throughout the world.”

He who gives himself entirely to his fellow men appears to them useless and selfish; but he who gives himself partially to them in pronounced a benefactor and philanthropist.

How does it become a man to behave toward the American government today? I answer, that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it. I cannot for an instant recognize that political organization as my government which is the slave’s government also.

All men recognize the right of revolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable. But almost all say that such is not the case now. But such was the case, they think, in the Revolution of ‘75. If one were to tell me that this was a bad government because it taxed certain foreign commodities brought to its ports, it is most probable that I should not make an ado about it, for I can do without them. All machines have their friction; and possibly this does enough good to counter-balance the evil. At any rate, it is a great evil to make a stir about it. But when the friction comes to have its machine, and oppression and robbery are organized, I say, let us not have such a machine any longer. In other words, when a sixth of the population of a nation which has undertaken to be the refuge of liberty are slaves, and a whole country is unjustly overrun and conquered by a foreign army, and subjected to military law, I think that it is not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize. What makes this duty the more urgent is that fact that the country so overrun is not our own, but ours is the invading army.

Paley, a common authority with many on moral questions, in his chapter on the “Duty of Submission to Civil Government,” resolves all civil obligation into expediency; and he proceeds to say that “so long as the interest of the whole society requires it, that it, so long as the established government cannot be resisted or changed without public inconveniencey, it is the will of God. . .that the established government be obeyed–and no longer. This principle being admitted, the justice of every particular case of resistance is reduced to a computation of the quantity of the danger and grievance on the one side, and of the probability and expense of redressing it on the other.” Of this, he says, every man shall judge for himself. But Paley appears never to have contemplated those cases to which the rule of expediency does not apply, in which a people, as well and an individual, must do justice, cost what it may. If I have unjustly wrested a plank from a drowning man, I must restore it to him though I drown myself. This, according to Paley, would be inconvenient. But he that would save his life, in such a case, shall lose it. This people must cease to hold slaves, and to make war on Mexico, though it cost them their existence as a people.

In their practice, nations agree with Paley; but does anyone think that Massachusetts does exactly what is right at the present crisis?

“A drab of stat,
a cloth-o’-silver slut,
To have her train borne up,
and her soul trail in the dirt.”

Practically speaking, the opponents to a reform in Massachusetts are not a hundred thousand politicians at the South, but a hundred thousand merchants and farmers here, who are more interested in commerce and agriculture than they are in humanity, and are not prepared to do justice to the slave and to Mexico, cost what it may. I quarrel not with far-off foes, but with those who, neat at home, co-operate with, and do the bidding of, those far away, and without whom the latter would be harmless. We are accustomed to say, that the mass of men are unprepared; but improvement is slow, because the few are not as materially wiser or better than the many. It is not so important that many should be good as you, as that there be some absolute goodness somewhere; for that will leaven the whole lump. There are thousands who are in opinion opposed to slavery and to the war, who yet in effect do nothing to put an end to them; who, esteeming themselves children of Washington and Franklin, sit down with their hands in their pockets, and say that they know not what to do, and do nothing; who even postpone the question of freedom to the question of free trade, and quietly read the prices-current along with the latest advices from Mexico, after dinner, and, it may be, fall asleep over them both. What is the price-current of an honest man and patriot today? They hesitate, and they regret, and sometimes they petition; but they do nothing in earnest and with effect. They will wait, well disposed, for other to remedy the evil, that they may no longer have it to regret. At most, they give up only a cheap vote, and a feeble countenance and Godspeed, to the right, as it goes by them. There are nine hundred and ninety-nine patrons of virtue to one virtuous man. But it is easier to deal with the real possessor of a thing than with the temporary guardian of it.

All voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers or backgammon, with a slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong, with moral questions; and betting naturally accompanies it. The character of the voters is not staked. I cast my vote, perchance, as I think right; but I am not vitally concerned that that right should prevail. I am willing to leave it to the majority. Its obligation, therefore, never exceeds that of expediency. Even voting for the right is doing nothing for it. It is only expressing to men feebly your desire that it should prevail. A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority. There is but little virtue in the action of masses of men. When the majority shall at length vote for the abolition of slavery, it will be because they are indifferent to slavery, or because there is but little slavery left to be abolished by their vote. They will then be the only slaves. Only his vote can hasten the abolition of slavery who asserts his own freedom by his vote.

I hear of a convention to be held at Baltimore, or elsewhere, for the selection of a candidate for the Presidency, made up chiefly of editors, and men who are politicians by profession; but I think, what is it to any independent, intelligent, and respectable man what decision they may come to? Shall we not have the advantage of this wisdom and honesty, nevertheless? Can we not count upon some independent votes? Are there not many individuals in the country who do not attend conventions? But no: I find that the respectable man, so called, has immediately drifted from his position, and despairs of his country, when his country has more reasons to despair of him. He forthwith adopts one of the candidates thus selected as the only available one, thus proving that he is himself available for any purposes of the demagogue. His vote is of no more worth than that of any unprincipled foreigner or hireling native, who may have been bought. O for a man who is a man, and, and my neighbor says, has a bone is his back which you cannot pass your hand through! Our statistics are at fault: the population has been returned too large. How many men are there to a square thousand miles in the country? Hardly one. Does not America offer any inducement for men to settle here? The American has dwindled into an Odd Fellow–one who may be known by the development of his organ of gregariousness, and a manifest lack of intellect and cheerful self-reliance; whose first and chief concern, on coming into the world, is to see that the almshouses are in good repair; and, before yet he has lawfully donned the virile garb, to collect a fund to the support of the widows and orphans that may be; who, in short, ventures to live only by the aid of the Mutual Insurance company, which has promised to bury him decently.

It is not a man’s duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any, even to most enormous, wrong; he may still properly have other concerns to engage him; but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support. If I devote myself to other pursuits and contemplations, I must first see, at least, that I do not pursue them sitting upon another man’s shoulders. I must get off him first, that he may pursue his contemplations too. See what gross inconsistency is tolerated. I have heard some of my townsmen say, “I should like to have them order me out to help put down an insurrection of the slaves, or to march to Mexico–see if I would go”; and yet these very men have each, directly by their allegiance, and so indirectly, at least, by their money, furnished a substitute. The soldier is applauded who refuses to serve in an unjust war by those who do not refuse to sustain the unjust government which makes the war; is applauded by those whose own act and authority he disregards and sets at naught; as if the state were penitent to that degree that it hired one to scourge it while it sinned, but not to that degree that it left off sinning for a moment. Thus, under the name of Order and Civil Government, we are all made at last to pay homage to and support our own meanness. After the first blush of sin comes its indifference; and from immoral it becomes, as it were, unmoral, and not quite unnecessary to that life which we have made.

The broadest and most prevalent error requires the most disinterested virtue to sustain it. The slight reproach to which the virtue of patriotism is commonly liable, the noble are most likely to incur. Those who, while they disapprove of the character and measures of a government, yield to it their allegiance and support are undoubtedly its most conscientious supporters, and so frequently the most serious obstacles to reform. Some are petitioning the State to dissolve the Union, to disregard the requisitions of the President. Why do they not dissolve it themselves–the union between themselves and the State–and refuse to pay their quota into its treasury? Do not they stand in same relation to the State that the State does to the Union? And have not the same reasons prevented the State from resisting the Union which have prevented them from resisting the State?

How can a man be satisfied to entertain and opinion merely, and enjoy it? Is there any enjoyment in it, if his opinion is that he is aggrieved? If you are cheated out of a single dollar by your neighbor, you do not rest satisfied with knowing you are cheated, or with saying that you are cheated, or even with petitioning him to pay you your due; but you take effectual steps at once to obtain the full amount, and see to it that you are never cheated again. Action from principle, the perception and the performance of right, changes things and relations; it is essentially revolutionary, and does not consist wholly with anything which was. It not only divided States and churches, it divides families; ay, it divides the individual, separating the diabolical in him from the divine.

Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men, generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse. Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform? Why does it not cherish its wise minority? Why does it cry and resist before it is hurt? Why does it not encourage its citizens to put out its faults, and do better than it would have them? Why does it always crucify Christ and excommunicate Copernicus and Luther, and pronounce Washington and Franklin rebels?

One would think, that a deliberate and practical denial of its authority was the only offense never contemplated by its government; else, why has it not assigned its definite, its suitable and proportionate, penalty? If a man who has no property refuses but once to earn nine shillings for the State, he is put in prison for a period unlimited by any law that I know, and determined only by the discretion of those who put him there; but if he should steal ninety times nine shillings from the State, he is soon permitted to go at large again.

If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of government, let it go, let it go: perchance it will wear smooth–certainly the machine will wear out. If the injustice has a spring, or a pulley, or a rope, or a crank, exclusively for itself, then perhaps you may consider whether the remedy will not be worse than the evil; but if it is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then I say, break the law. Let your life be a counter-friction to stop the machine. What I have to do is to see, at any rate, that I do not lend myself to the wrong which I condemn.

As for adopting the ways of the State has provided for remedying the evil, I know not of such ways. They take too much time, and a man’s life will be gone. I have other affairs to attend to. I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to live in, but to live in it, be it good or bad. A man has not everything to do, but something; and because he cannot do everything, it is not necessary that he should be petitioning the Governor or the Legislature any more than it is theirs to petition me; and if they should not hear my petition, what should I do then? But in this case the State has provided no way: its very Constitution is the evil. This may seem to be harsh and stubborn and unconcilliatory; but it is to treat with the utmost kindness and consideration the only spirit that can appreciate or deserves it. So is all change for the better, like birth and death, which convulse the body.

I do not hesitate to say, that those who call themselves Abolitionists should at once effectually withdraw their support, both in person and property, from the government of Massachusetts, and not wait till they constitute a majority of one, before they suffer the right to prevail through them. I think that it is enough if they have God on their side, without waiting for that other one. Moreover, any man more right than his neighbors constitutes a majority of one already.

I meet this American government, or its representative, the State government, directly, and face to face, once a year–no more–in the person of its tax-gatherer; this is the only mode in which a man situated as I am necessarily meets it; and it then says distinctly, Recognize me; and the simplest, the most effectual, and, in the present posture of affairs, the indispensablest mode of treating with it on this head, of expressing your little satisfaction with and love for it, is to deny it then. My civil neighbor, the tax-gatherer, is the very man I have to deal with–for it is, after all, with men and not with parchment that I quarrel–and he has voluntarily chosen to be an agent of the government. How shall he ever know well that he is and does as an officer of the government, or as a man, until he is obliged to consider whether he will treat me, his neighbor, for whom he has respect, as a neighbor and well-disposed man, or as a maniac and disturber of the peace, and see if he can get over this obstruction to his neighborlines without a ruder and more impetuous thought or speech corresponding with his action. I know this well, that if one thousand, if one hundred, if ten men whom I could name–if ten honest men only–ay, if one HONEST man, in this State of Massachusetts, ceasing to hold slaves, were actually to withdraw from this co-partnership, and be locked up in the county jail therefor, it would be the abolition of slavery in America. For it matters not how small the beginning may seem to be: what is once well done is done forever. But we love better to talk about it: that we say is our mission. Reform keeps many scores of newspapers in its service, but not one man. If my esteemed neighbor, the State’s ambassador, who will devote his days to the settlement of the question of human rights in the Council Chamber, instead of being threatened with the prisons of Carolina, were to sit down the prisoner of Massachusetts, that State which is so anxious to foist the sin of slavery upon her sister–though at present she can discover only an act of inhospitality to be the ground of a quarrel with her–the Legislature would not wholly waive the subject of the following winter.

Under a government which imprisons unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison. The proper place today, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less despondent spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles. It is there that the fugitive slave, and the Mexican prisoner on parole, and the Indian come to plead the wrongs of his race should find them; on that separate but more free and honorable ground, where the State places those who are not with her, but against her–the only house in a slave State in which a free man can abide with honor. If any think that their influence would be lost there, and their voices no longer afflict the ear of the State, that they would not be as an enemy within its walls, they do not know by how much truth is stronger than error, nor how much more eloquently and effectively he can combat injustice who has experienced a little in his own person. Cast your whole vote, not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence. A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then; but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight. If the alternative is to keep all just men in prison, or give up war and slavery, the State will not hesitate which to choose. If a thousand men were not to pay their tax bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them, and enable the State to commit violence and shed innocent blood. This is, in fact, the definition of a peaceable revolution, if any such is possible. If the tax-gatherer, or any other public officer, asks me, as one has done, “But what shall I do?” my answer is, “If you really wish to do anything, resign your office.” When the subject has refused allegiance, and the officer has resigned from office, then the revolution is accomplished. But even suppose blood shed when the conscience is wounded? Through this wound a man’s real manhood and immortality flow out, and he bleeds to an everlasting death. I see this blood flowing now.

I have contemplated the imprisonment of the offender, rather than the seizure of his goods–though both will serve the same purpose–because they who assert the purest right, and consequently are most dangerous to a corrupt State, commonly have not spent much time in accumulating property. To such the State renders comparatively small service, and a slight tax is wont to appear exorbitant, particularly if they are obliged to earn it by special labor with their hands. If there were one who lived wholly without the use of money, the State itself would hesitate to demand it of him. But the rich man–not to make any invidious comparison–is always sold to the institution which makes him rich. Absolutely speaking, the more money, the less virtue; for money comes between a man and his objects, and obtains them for him; it was certainly no great virtue to obtain it. It puts to rest many questions which he would otherwise be taxed to answer; while the only new question which it puts is the hard but superfluous one, how to spend it. Thus his moral ground is taken from under his feet. The opportunities of living are diminished in proportion as that are called the “means” are increased. The best thing a man can do for his culture when he is rich is to endeavor to carry out those schemes which he entertained when he was poor. Christ answered the Herodians according to their condition. “Show me the tribute-money,” said he–and one took a penny out of his pocket–if you use money which has the image of Caesar on it, and which he has made current and valuable, that is, if you are men of the State, and gladly enjoy the advantages of Caesar’s government, then pay him back some of his own when he demands it. “Render therefore to Caesar that which is Caesar’s and to God those things which are God’s”–leaving them no wiser than before as to which was which; for they did not wish to know.

When I converse with the freest of my neighbors, I perceive that, whatever they may say about the magnitude and seriousness of the question, and their regard for the public tranquillity, the long and the short of the matter is, that they cannot spare the protection of the existing government, and they dread the consequences to their property and families of disobedience to it. For my own part, I should not like to think that I ever rely on the protection of the State. But, if I deny the authority of the State when it presents its tax bill, it will soon take and waste all my property, and so harass me and my children without end. This is hard. This makes it impossible for a man to live honestly, and at the same time comfortably, in outward respects. It will not be worth the while to accumulate property; that would be sure to go again. You must hire or squat somewhere, and raise but a small crop, and eat that soon. You must live within yourself, and depend upon yourself always tucked up and ready for a start, and not have many affairs. A man may grow rich in Turkey even, if he will be in all respects a good subject of the Turkish government. Confucius said: “If a state is governed by the principles of reason, poverty and misery are subjects of shame; if a state is not governed by the principles of reason, riches and honors are subjects of shame.” No: until I want the protection of Massachusetts to be extended to me in some distant Southern port, where my liberty is endangered, or until I am bent solely on building up an estate at home by peaceful enterprise, I can afford to refuse allegiance to Massachusetts, and her right to my property and life. It costs me less in every sense to incur the penalty of disobedience to the State than it would to obey. I should feel as if I were worth less in that case.

Some years ago, the State met me in behalf of the Church, and commanded me to pay a certain sum toward the support of a clergyman whose preaching my father attended, but never I myself. “Pay,” it said, “or be locked up in the jail.” I declined to pay. But, unfortunately, another man saw fit to pay it. I did not see why the schoolmaster should be taxed to support the priest, and not the priest the schoolmaster; for I was not the State’s schoolmaster, but I supported myself by voluntary subscription. I did not see why the lyceum should not present its tax bill, and have the State to back its demand, as well as the Church. However, as the request of the selectmen, I condescended to make some such statement as this in writing: “Know all men by these presents, that I, Henry Thoreau, do not wish to be regarded as a member of any society which I have not joined.” This I gave to the town clerk; and he has it. The State, having thus learned that I did not wish to be regarded as a member of that church, has never made a like demand on me since; though it said that it must adhere to its original presumption that time. If I had known how to name them, I should then have signed off in detail from all the societies which I never signed on to; but I did not know where to find such a complete list.

I have paid no poll tax for six years. I was put into a jail once on this account, for one night; and, as I stood considering the walls of solid stone, two or three feet thick, the door of wood and iron, a foot thick, and the iron grating which strained the light, I could not help being struck with the foolishness of that institution which treated my as if I were mere flesh and blood and bones, to be locked up. I wondered that it should have concluded at length that this was the best use it could put me to, and had never thought to avail itself of my services in some way. I saw that, if there was a wall of stone between me and my townsmen, there was a still more difficult one to climb or break through before they could get to be as free as I was. I did nor for a moment feel confined, and the walls seemed a great waste of stone and mortar. I felt as if I alone of all my townsmen had paid my tax. They plainly did not know how to treat me, but behaved like persons who are underbred. In every threat and in every compliment there was a blunder; for they thought that my chief desire was to stand the other side of that stone wall. I could not but smile to see how industriously they locked the door on my meditations, which followed them out again without let or hindrance, and they were really all that was dangerous. As they could not reach me, they had resolved to punish my body; just as boys, if they cannot come at some person against whom they have a spite, will abuse his dog. I saw that the State was half-witted, that it was timid as a lone woman with her silver spoons, and that it did not know its friends from its foes, and I lost all my remaining respect for it, and pitied it.

Thus the state never intentionally confronts a man’s sense, intellectual or moral, but only his body, his senses. It is not armed with superior with or honesty, but with superior physical strength. I was not born to be forced. I will breathe after my own fashion. Let us see who is the strongest. What force has a multitude? They only can force me who obey a higher law than I. They force me to become like themselves. I do not hear of men being forced to live this way or that by masses of men. What sort of life were that to live? When I meet a government which says to me, “Your money our your life,” why should I be in haste to give it my money? It may be in a great strait, and not know what to do: I cannot help that. It must help itself; do as I do. It is not worth the while to snivel about it. I am not responsible for the successful working of the machinery of society. I am not the son of the engineer. I perceive that, when an acorn and a chestnut fall side by side, the one does not remain inert to make way for the other, but both obey their own laws, and spring and grow and flourish as best they can, till one, perchance, overshadows and destroys the other. If a plant cannot live according to nature, it dies; and so a man.

The night in prison was novel and interesting enough. The prisoners in their shirtsleeves were enjoying a chat and the evening air in the doorway, when I entered. But the jailer said, “Come, boys, it is time to lock up”; and so they dispersed, and I heard the sound of their steps returning into the hollow apartments. My room-mate was introduced to me by the jailer as “a first-rate fellow and clever man.” When the door was locked, he showed me where to hang my hat, and how he managed matters there. The rooms were whitewashed once a month; and this one, at least, was the whitest, most simply furnished, and probably neatest apartment in town. He naturally wanted to know where I came from, and what brought me there; and, when I had told him, I asked him in my turn how he came there, presuming him to be an honest an, of course; and as the world goes, I believe he was. “Why,” said he, “they accuse me of burning a barn; but I never did it.” As near as I could discover, he had probably gone to bed in a barn when drunk, and smoked his pipe there; and so a barn was burnt. He had the reputation of being a clever man, had been there some three months waiting for his trial to come on, and would have to wait as much longer; but he was quite domesticated and contented, since he got his board for nothing, and thought that he was well treated.

He occupied one window, and I the other; and I saw that if one stayed there long, his principal business would be to look out the window. I had soon read all the tracts that were left there, and examined where former prisoners had broken out, and where a grate had been sawed off, and heard the history of the various occupants of that room; for I found that even there there was a history and a gossip which never circulated beyond the walls of the jail. Probably this is the only house in the town where verses are composed, which are afterward printed in a circular form, but not published. I was shown quite a long list of young men who had been detected in an attempt to escape, who avenged themselves by singing them.

I pumped my fellow-prisoner as dry as I could, for fear I should never see him again; but at length he showed me which was my bed, and left me to blow out the lamp.

It was like travelling into a far country, such as I had never expected to behold, to lie there for one night. It seemed to me that I never had heard the town clock strike before, not the evening sounds of the village; for we slept with the windows open, which were inside the grating. It was to see my native village in the light of the Middle Ages, and our Concord was turned into a Rhine stream, and visions of knights and castles passed before me. They were the voices of old burghers that I heard in the streets. I was an involuntary spectator and auditor of whatever was done and said in the kitchen of the adjacent village inn–a wholly new and rare experience to me. It was a closer view of my native town. I was fairly inside of it. I never had seen its institutions before. This is one of its peculiar institutions; for it is a shire town. I began to comprehend what its inhabitants were about.

In the morning, our breakfasts were put through the hole in the door, in small oblong-square tin pans, made to fit, and holding a pint of chocolate, with brown bread, and an iron spoon. When they called for the vessels again, I was green enough to return what bread I had left, but my comrade seized it, and said that I should lay that up for lunch or dinner. Soon after he was let out to work at haying in a neighboring field, whither he went every day, and would not be back till noon; so he bade me good day, saying that he doubted if he should see me again.

When I came out of prison–for some one interfered, and paid that tax–I did not perceive that great changes had taken place on the common, such as he observed who went in a youth and emerged a gray-headed man; and yet a change had come to my eyes come over the scene–the town, and State, and country, greater than any that mere time could effect. I saw yet more distinctly the State in which I lived. I saw to what extent the people among whom I lived could be trusted as good neighbors and friends; that their friendship was for summer weather only; that they did not greatly propose to do right; that they were a distinct race from me by their prejudices and superstitions, as the Chinamen and Malays are that in their sacrifices to humanity they ran no risks, not even to their property; that after all they were not so noble but they treated the thief as he had treated them, and hoped, by a certain outward observance and a few prayers, and by walking in a particular straight through useless path from time to time, to save their souls. This may be to judge my neighbors harshly; for I believe that many of them are not aware that they have such an institution as the jail in their village.

It was formerly the custom in our village, when a poor debtor came out of jail, for his acquaintances to salute him, looking through their fingers, which were crossed to represent the jail window, “How do ye do?” My neighbors did not this salute me, but first looked at me, and then at one another, as if I had returned from a long journey. I was put into jail as I was going to the shoemaker’s to get a shoe which was mender. When I was let out the next morning, I proceeded to finish my errand, and, having put on my mended show, joined a huckleberry party, who were impatient to put themselves under my conduct; and in half an hour–for the horse was soon tackled–was in the midst of a huckleberry field, on one of our highest hills, two miles off, and then the State was nowhere to be seen.

This is the whole history of “My Prisons.”

I have never declined paying the highway tax, because I am as desirous of being a good neighbor as I am of being a bad subject; and as for supporting schools, I am doing my part to educate my fellow countrymen now. It is for no particular item in the tax bill that I refuse to pay it. I simply wish to refuse allegiance to the State, to withdraw and stand aloof from it effectually. I do not care to trace the course of my dollar, if I could, till it buys a man a musket to shoot one with–the dollar is innocent–but I am concerned to trace the effects of my allegiance. In fact, I quietly declare war with the State, after my fashion, though I will still make use and get what advantages of her I can, as is usual in such cases.

If others pay the tax which is demanded of me, from a sympathy with the State, they do but what they have already done in their own case, or rather they abet injustice to a greater extent than the State requires. If they pay the tax from a mistaken interest in the individual taxed, to save his property, or prevent his going to jail, it is because they have not considered wisely how far they let their private feelings interfere with the public good.

This, then is my position at present. But one cannot be too much on his guard in such a case, lest his actions be biased by obstinacy or an undue regard for the opinions of men. Let him see that he does only what belongs to himself and to the hour.

I think sometimes, Why, this people mean well, they are only ignorant; they would do better if they knew how: why give your neighbors this pain to treat you as they are not inclined to? But I think again, This is no reason why I should do as they do, or permit others to suffer much greater pain of a different kind. Again, I sometimes say to myself, When many millions of men, without heat, without ill will, without personal feelings of any kind, demand of you a few shillings only, without the possibility, such is their constitution, of retracting or altering their present demand, and without the possibility, on your side, of appeal to any other millions, why expose yourself to this overwhelming brute force? You do not resist cold and hunger, the winds and the waves, thus obstinately; you quietly submit to a thousand similar necessities. You do not put your head into the fire. But just in proportion as I regard this as not wholly a brute force, but partly a human force, and consider that I have relations to those millions as to so many millions of men, and not of mere brute or inanimate things, I see that appeal is possible, first and instantaneously, from them to the Maker of them, and, secondly, from them to themselves. But if I put my head deliberately into the fire, there is no appeal to fire or to the Maker for fire, and I have only myself to blame. If I could convince myself that I have any right to be satisfied with men as they are, and to treat them accordingly, and not according, in some respects, to my requisitions and expectations of what they and I ought to be, then, like a good Mussulman and fatalist, I should endeavor to be satisfied with things as they are, and say it is the will of God. And, above all, there is this difference between resisting this and a purely brute or natural force, that I can resist this with some effect; but I cannot expect, like Orpheus, to change the nature of the rocks and trees and beasts.

I do not wish to quarrel with any man or nation. I do not wish to split hairs, to make fine distinctions, or set myself up as better than my neighbors. I seek rather, I may say, even an excuse for conforming to the laws of the land. I am but too ready to conform to them. Indeed, I have reason to suspect myself on this head; and each year, as the tax-gatherer comes round, I find myself disposed to review the acts and position of the general and State governments, and the spirit of the people to discover a pretext for conformity.

“We must affect our country as our parents,
And if at any time we alienate
Out love or industry from doing it honor,
We must respect effects and teach the soul
Matter of conscience and religion,
And not desire of rule or benefit.”

I believe that the State will soon be able to take all my work of this sort out of my hands, and then I shall be no better patriot than my fellow-countrymen. Seen from a lower point of view, the Constitution, with all its faults, is very good; the law and the courts are very respectable; even this State and this American government are, in many respects, very admirable, and rare things, to be thankful for, such as a great many have described them; seen from a higher still, and the highest, who shall say what they are, or that they are worth looking at or thinking of at all?

However, the government does not concern me much, and I shall bestow the fewest possible thoughts on it. It is not many moments that I live under a government, even in this world. If a man is thought-free, fancy-free, imagination-free, that which is not never for a long time appearing to be to him, unwise rulers or reformers cannot fatally interrupt him.

I know that most men think differently from myself; but those whose lives are by profession devoted to the study of these or kindred subjects content me as little as any. Statesmen and legislators, standing so completely within the institution, never distinctly and nakedly behold it. They speak of moving society, but have no resting-place without it. They may be men of a certain experience and discrimination, and have no doubt invented ingenious and even useful systems, for which we sincerely thank them; but all their wit and usefulness lie within certain not very wide limits. They are wont to forget that the world is not governed by policy and expediency. Webster never goes behind government, and so cannot speak with authority about it. His words are wisdom to those legislators who contemplate no essential reform in the existing government; but for thinkers, and those who legislate for all tim, he never once glances at the subject. I know of those whose serene and wise speculations on this theme would soon reveal the limits of his mind’s range and hospitality. Yet, compared with the cheap professions of most reformers, and the still cheaper wisdom an eloquence of politicians in general, his are almost the only sensible and valuable words, and we thank Heaven for him. Comparatively, he is always strong, original, and, above all, practical. Still, his quality is not wisdom, but prudence. The lawyer’s truth is not Truth, but consistency or a consistent expediency. Truth is always in harmony with herself, and is not concerned chiefly to reveal the justice that may consist with wrong-doing. He well deserves to be called, as he has been called, the Defender of the Constitution. There are really no blows to be given him but defensive ones. He is not a leader, but a follower. His leaders are the men of ‘87. “I have never made an effort,” he says, “and never propose to make an effort; I have never countenanced an effort, and never mean to countenance an effort, to disturb the arrangement as originally made, by which various States came into the Union.” Still thinking of the sanction which the Constitution gives to slavery, he says, “Because it was part of the original compact–let it stand.” Notwithstanding his special acuteness and ability, he is unable to take a fact out of its merely political relations, and behold it as it lies absolutely to be disposed of by the intellect–what, for instance, it behooves a man to do here in American today with regard to slavery–but ventures, or is driven, to make some such desperate answer to the following, while professing to speak absolutely, and as a private man–from which what new and singular of social duties might be inferred? “The manner,” says he, “in which the governments of the States where slavery exists are to regulate it is for their own consideration, under the responsibility to their constituents, to the general laws of propriety, humanity, and justice, and to God. Associations formed elsewhere, springing from a feeling of humanity, or any other cause, have nothing whatever to do with it. They have never received any encouragement from me and they never will. [These extracts have been inserted since the lecture was read -HDT]

They who know of no purer sources of truth, who have traced up its stream no higher, stand, and wisely stand, by the Bible and the Constitution, and drink at it there with reverence and humanity; but they who behold where it comes trickling into this lake or that pool, gird up their loins once more, and continue their pilgrimage toward its fountainhead.

No man with a genius for legislation has appeared in America. They are rare in the history of the world. There are orators, politicians, and eloquent men, by the thousand; but the speaker has not yet opened his mouth to speak who is capable of settling the much-vexed questions of the day. We love eloquence for its own sake, and not for any truth which t may utter, or any heroism it may inspire. Our legislators have not yet learned the comparative value of free trade and of freed, of union, and of rectitude, to a nation. They have no genius or talent for comparatively humble questions of taxation and finance, commerce and manufactures and agriculture. If we were left solely to the wordy wit of legislators in Congress for our guidance, uncorrected by the seasonable experience and the effectual complaints of the people, America would not long retain her rank among the nations. For eighteen hundred years, though perchance I have no right to say it, the New Testament has been written; yet where is the legislator who has wisdom and practical talent enough to avail himself of the light which it sheds on the science of legislation.

The authority of government, even such as I am willing to submit to–for I will cheerfully obey those who know and can do better than I, and in many things even those who neither know nor can do so well–is still an impure one: to be strictly just, it must have the sanction and consent of the governed. It can have no pure right over my person and property but what I concede to it. The progress from an absolute to a limited monarchy, from a limited monarchy to a democracy, is a progress toward a true respect for the individual. Even the Chinese philosopher was wise enough to regard the individual as the basis of the empire. Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government? Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man? There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly. I please myself with imagining a State at last which can afford to be just to all men, and to treat the individual with respect as a neighbor; which even would not think it inconsistent with its own repose if a few were to live aloof from it, not meddling with it, nor embraced by it, who fulfilled all the duties of neighbors and fellow men. A State which bore this kind of fruit, and suffered it to drop off as fast as it ripened, would prepare the way for a still more perfect and glorious State, which I have also imagined, but not yet anywhere seen.

Thursday, October 8, 2009

Mariah Carey--Video

 

    Mariah Carey – Through the Rain

 Mariah Carey – Always Be My Baby http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QapwJpAe7w

 

Mariah Carey – Never Too Far/Hero

Hero

Mariah Carey – Fantasy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbsgDpT6Jnk   Mariah Carey – I Still Believe http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfQX8psmLDM

 

Mariah Carey – Hero http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLC73DB7jE8

 

Mariah Carey – Butterfly

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VNCeaxADws

  Mariah Carey – We Belong Together http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoBdt9L_DPA   Mariah Carey – Touch My Body

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzxR8OH-fDQ

  Mariah Carey – Shake It Off

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eLy9p14ntc

 

Mariah Carey – Honey

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-xk1oSi5JQ

 

Mariah Carey – Don’t Forget About Us

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE-St7cfoKo

 

Mariah Carey – Bye Bye

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYWOxuh33dw

 

Mariah Carey – Through The Rain

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EetzQsoiknE

 

 Mariah Carey;Boyz II Men – One Sweet Day

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzeMzo_4pxA

 

 

Background Articles and Videos Mariah Carey

“…Mariah Angela Carey (born March 27, 1970) is an American R&B singer, songwriter, record producer, and actress. She made her recording debut in 1990 under the guidance of Columbia Records executive Tommy Mottola, and became the first recording artist to have her first five singles top the U.S. Billboard Hot 100 chart. Following her marriage to Mottola in 1993, a series of hit records established her position as Columbia’s highest-selling act. According to Billboard magazine, she was the most successful artist of the 1990s in the United States.[3]

Following her separation from Mottola in 1997, Carey introduced elements of hip hop into her album work, to much initial success, but her popularity was in decline when she left Columbia in 2001. She signed to Virgin Records but was paid to leave the label the following year after a highly publicized physical and emotional breakdown, as well as the poor reception given to Glitter, her film and soundtrack project. In 2002, Carey signed with Island Records, and after a relatively unsuccessful period, she returned to the top of pop music in 2005.[4][5]

Carey was named the best-selling female pop artist of the millennium at the 2000 World Music Awards.[6] She has the most number-one singles for a solo artist in the United States (eighteen; second artist overall behind The Beatles),[7] where, according to the Recording Industry Association of America, she is the third best-selling female artist and sixteenth overall recording artist.[8] In addition to her commercial accomplishments, Carey has earned five Grammy Awards, and is well-known for her vocal range, power, melismatic style, and use of the whistle register. She is ranked as the best-selling female artist of the U.S. Nielsen SoundScan era (third best-selling artist overall),[9] with shipments of over 62.5 million albums in the U.S.[10] and has sold more than 200 million albums worldwide.[11][12][13][14][15][16]

…”

 

Mariah Carey on Barbara Walters Oscar Special

Mariah interview on The View 2005

Mariah Carey Through the Rain Video + Interview

 

Related Post On Pronk Palisades Abba–Videos The Beach Boys–Videos The Beatles–Videos Bee Gees–Videos The Byrds–Videos Ray Charles–Videos Joe Cocker–Videos Judy Collins–Videos Perry Como–Videos Sam Cooke–Videos John Denver–Videos Bob Dylan–Videos Roberta Flack–Videos Aretha Franklin–Videos Marvin Gaye-Videos Michael Jackson and Jackson Five–Videos Elton John–Videos Janis Joplan–Videos Olivia Newton-John–Videos The Mamas and Papas–Videos Joni Mitchell–Videos Roy Orbison–Videos Elvis Presley–Videos Queen–Videos Lionel Richie–Videos The Rolling Stones–Videos Linda Ronstadt–Videos Diana Ross and The Supremes–Videos Carly Simon–Videos Simon & Garfunkel–Videos Frank Sinatra–Videos Bruce Springsteen–Videos Rod Stewart–Videos Barbra Streisand–Videos Songs Singers and Songs: Musical Artists–Videos Switchfoot–Videos James Taylor–Videos Shania Twain–Videos Village People–Videos The Voice of An Angel–Hayley Westenra–Videos Tammy Wynette–Videos