1619 Project Has No Credibility

How can the 1619 project be taken seriously?

History is what happened. Sometimes, most of the time, people write what happened, or rather their version of events. Ignoring previous recorders and observers on the formation of the USA is simply creating a new version of events to the liking of one ignorant of real events.

The New York Times (NYT), has little credibility when it comes to fidelity to actual events. The paper hid the Holocaust. They hid the Katyn massacre. Now they promote what are clearly racist lies about the nature and character and even the beginnings of the USA. The NYT has a never ending record of distortion of modern events. They are clearly biased to some liberal view of nearly every matter under the sun. Yet we are supposed to believe their commentary and support for the 1619 Project.

The author of the project, NIcole Hannah-Jones, has little credibility either. She clear has made racist statements to the effect that white people are racists.


Yeah, ok. Some people being racist does not mean all people are racist. That applies to all people and people groups. While she offers the disclaimer that she herself is not racist, her comments in the article above give up her lie about that.

“the white race is the biggest murderer, rapist, pillager, and thief of the modern world,”

Wow. You can’t make this stuff up. With such a gross and broad generalization, it is clear that her mind is not that of a real thinker, and certainly unqualified to evaluate the events of North American history from 1492 to present. Not, at least, in my opinion.

The founders of the USA were caught in the ugly realities of their day, just as we are. Opportunity was found, however, against great odds I think. That opportunity led to the authoring of truly inspired documents. And those documents have led to the development of the most tolerant, creative, powerful, economically viable, exceptional nation, country and culture in the history of the world.

The real question is, how long can it last, especially when some people are trying so very hard to distort it and destroy it.

God Bless America!

The Individual Sovereign

“A well regulated militia being necessary to security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

The power to bring death is the assurance of individual sovereignty. The ability to control that power is what makes civility. From hunting food, to defending self, family and community, the ability and skills necessary to kill provide an individual not only with the means to survive, but to thrive and make decisions about polity within the civil society.

Without the power of death, the individual is not really sovereign at all. With that, the individual is vested with a great deal of responsibility to be ethical, morally guided by strong principles to protect his family and community. How can I be assured that my choices are honored if I have not the power to threaten, to depose tyrants, if I have not the power they have assumed to themselves?

Yet, if I abuse that power, I do not deserve that power. In essence this is the definition of crime. Killing and murdering are two distinct things, though the act may look very similar. It is the individual abuse of powers vested in the individual by natural law. The right must be exercised only for defensive or survival purposes, or be lost. The community being threatened by such abuse, now has the responsibility to remove the sovereignty from such an individual. Indeed, one who demonstrates inability to control power over life and death, must not be allowed to have that power any longer.

This is also why those who have demonstrated no disposition to crime, be vested with the right, the authority to keep and to bear arms. This right must not be infringed lest it be lost. It is the responsible person who is the “well regulated.” The mature man, free and strong must protect these values from his position of strength, his position of having the power of lethality. For if the responsible person is infringed upon, then he is vulnerable to the unscrupulous, victim to the irresponsible, and eviscerated by any who abuses the power over life and death, be it scoundrel or force of government. But if he remains free, without infringement, then he can protect and preserve and encourage the civil society.

Choosing to participate in the civil society is an act of the individual sovereign. It is an act of one with the power over life and death. But if that participation is to remain in force, there is the need to freely, but responsibly exercise the use of deadly force. Herein lies the rub with modern society in the United States. It is as though the individual no longer has the choice of participation. This is the offense of “political correctness.” I may not agree with the apparent choices presented by pop culture or media or government. My choices are not honored in the social contract. My choices not being honored, how then am I to remain sovereign?

“When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, …” (Declaration of Independence).
I do not know whether this necessity has come upon us just yet. Yet! Yet, it seems to fast approach! The time has certainly come to declare the causes which impel us toward possible separation. I’ll keep that for later.

First, to address our options. The second amendment must stand unfettered. I mean all the current infringements operating against it must fall down. Spurious laws infringing it must be repealed. The arguments as to which those are will be too many to cover here, but to suffice it to say, the federal government has become too powerful when it blocks us from enjoying the freedoms of natural law.

The second option is to exercise the 5th article of the constitution. This means the states must regain their original powers of censure over the federal government. A convention of the states may bring amendments, or repeal amendments as seen fit to reduce the power of the federal government from this posture of threatening both individual sovereignty and state sovereignty.

Simply voting is not an option, unless preceded by a massive spiritual awakening, thereby voting in the properly moral people to offices across the land. The federal government is currently operating out of sync with the people. Expecting the federal government to reform itself is laughable at this point.

If the United States of America is to thrive on, individual sovereignty must be addressed at all levels. The rights of the individual have been abrogated at nearly all levels. Currently, across the nation, anti second amendment forces are gathering momentum to infringe upon this most sacred and powerful authority granted to individuals by natural law. The more they succeed, the closer we are driven to the inevitable, the collapse of the civil society, the fall of the social contract, that course of human events in which we must chart a new course. In that course, we will “…appeal to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions.” (Declaration of Independence). For it is with our individual sovereignty that we must forge ahead.