Unique among nations, the United States of America professes to and actually does protect freedom of speech. Enshrined in the First Amendment, but not granted by it, is the freedom for all to speak their minds and to be free from having their lives destroyed for doing so. This freedom has consistently been interpreted very broadly by the Supreme Court.
The American Nationalist movement is currently rudderless, adrift on a sea of perils where every shore offers opportunity if only one can be reached. We are leaderless1, our platform is non-existent, and our plans are underdeveloped or wholly absent. Wars are won or lost on resources, logistics, and strategy, in that order, and make no mistake: We are at war.
Net neutrality1 will, almost certainly, increase the cost of end-consumer2 connections. The logic behind this is simple and requires only minimal understanding of economics; in short: requiring equal treatment of all data will mean that capacity increases will be the only way to ensure quality of service for important or time-sensitive data3; such increases in capacity will, necessarily, be inefficient4; increased inefficiency means increased operating costs5; and the consumer always pays.
While dissent flows naturally from the fundamental, inalienable Right of Freedom of Speech, it does not encompass rioting, looting, assault, and other forms of domestic terrorism. Further, Freedom of Speech is not a shield behind which those set upon the destruction of our Nation, our Culture, and our Civilization may hide. There are ideologies and there are beliefs so inimical to our ways and to our institutions that they cannot, and will not, be tolerated. It is incumbent upon every true citizen to defend this Nation from all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to hold true to our pledge:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
These are not idle words and they are not spoken in vain. By these words we declare, and by these words may others judge, our honor, as loyalty, to our Nation, to our Culture, and to our People. May these words give strength to our allies and strike fear into the hearts of our enemies, may traitors quake at their utterance, and may our heirs, a thousand years hence, still hear our echoes even as they join their voices to the growing chorus. So help us God.
The “President’s Page” is a recurring section in the OC Lawyer magazine (the primary publication of the Orange County Bar Association). In that section, the president of the Association often lays out his priorities, comments on developments in the law, et cetera. In large part, the “President’s Page” presents the president of the OCBA with his best opportunity to address the OCBA membership as a whole.
While it is, at present, only in the fever dreams of the far (read: insane) Left that President Trump is anything even akin to a dictator, should we, at some future point, find ourselves in a situation where President Trump is on the verge of transcending the restrictions of the Constitution, it will be because of the Left. The response to the handful of Executive Orders issued by President Trump in the last week and a half has been nothing short of actual insanity. What the Left hopes to accomplish with these tactics (if they can even charitably be called that) is anyone’s guess at this point. However, it is worth noting that the actual effects are far different from anything the Left likely intends.
For decades, the American Left1 has worked to erode Western Culture and Western Civilization. Seldom has the Left encountered an anti-America, anti-West cause behind which it wouldn’t readily rally. Through a combination of propaganda2; infiltration and corruption of the legal system3; creeping Governmental intrusion into the private lives of citizens4 and into the economy5; and a campaign of harassment, intimidation, coercion, persecution, and outright violence against political opponents, both actual and perceived, the Left has slowly eroded the fundamental freedoms and liberties that have, for nearly a quarter of a millennium, defined the Republic and made America unique amongst Nations. Finding themselves suddenly disempowered after so long virtually unopposed, the Left is now terrified of what an ascendant Right might do. For once, the Leftists may be right.
Continue reading An Ascendant Right, a Terrified Left
On 18 April 1775, a middle-aged man in Boston sat, almost certainly in his study, and, as a warm fire crackled1, set quill to paper. That man was General Thomas Gage, and the letter he wrote to Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith contained an order, an order that became the proximate cause of the American Revolution. The contents of that order? A command to march on Concord and “seize and [destroy] all Artillery, Ammunition, Provisions, Tents, Small Arms, and Military Stores whatever”.
Continue reading The Second Amendment, the Supreme Court, and Hillary Clinton
For those not keeping score, Hillary Clinton is on scandal seven hundred and forty-three1 of her (over)long political career. The scandal du jour (at this point, du mois or de l’année might actually be more apropos) is the fact that Hillary Clinton kept a private email server in her closet and used it to send emails concerning private and public matters, and that some of the emails that transited2 that server contained classified information. At least this is the narrative that most news outlets have been pushing. In reality, the emails and the email server have very little to do with the intense voter backlash Clinton has experienced subsequent revelations about her numerous email scandals3. In reality, it is the scandals themselves, numerous and often heinous as they are, that are the source of this abiding interest in the email shenanigans.
Continue reading Hillary Clinton’s Emails and Email Server
What follows is an argument built upon a number of premises, some of them more contentious than others. Should you reject any of the main premises, you will necessarily reject the conclusions1. If, however, you find that you agree with all of the (main) premises, you must necessarily accept the conclusions. If you find that you reject any of the premises, then this argument may not be for you, and that is not unintentional. This argument is meant for those who 1) believe in the Natural Law and 2) believe that human life begins at some point prior to birth2. If you, incorrectly, believe that either of the foregoing points is untrue (or you’re the sort of person who likes to double down on mistakes and believe them both untrue), I still welcome you to continue reading if only for curiosity’s sake.