In last week’s Cherokee Scout, it was announced that our county commissioners have approved the construction of a new courthouse.  Click here to read the full story.   Read more »

This is the question I recently asked a friend after she had explained for about 30 minutes how her husband was wrong in his thinking about their business operation and how she was right.  This was a familiar theme, sometimes about child-rearing, but today about management of the business that he worked in day to day and considered his, but that she served as an officer.   Her signature is required for major changes.

“What do you mean?” she asked.  I told her that even if she was 100% correct in her assessment of the situation, continuing to argue her position was a guaranteed way to maintain the status quo.  So did she want to continue to be “right” or would she rather be effective?  Did she REALLY want change?  After about 20 (seemed like 200) relapses into explaining why she was right, we finally got to a strategy that might be successful.

Sound familiar?  Have you ever seen an email from a fellow patriot saying their position is right, they won’t tolerate sitting at a table with someone who is so “off-base”, or that because of name-calling they are taking their group and leaving the table?  Same situation.  They may be philosophically and historically and all other ways 100% correct, but ineffective just the same.  (Of course, not one of us is often 100% correct).

“But we can’t compromise our principles!” you hear.  Of course not, but what principles are we discussing?  Freedom of speech, sisterhood, respect for others, willingness to join hands to work toward a common goal despite differences?  Or are we talking about purity of vision, integrity and honor interpreted as a need to associate only with those who agree?

Could our problems sometimes stem from structural issues?  A top-down operation in which members are not aware of decision-making and structure and operations are not transparent (i.e. posted for all to see) leads to rebellion, especially if the purpose of the group is to promote freedom.

So what was the strategy that is now working with my friend and her husband?  Instead of explaining to him what he did wrong at the office (which is not part of her responsibility as an officer), she just listens and says, “Interesting.  I wonder what will happen next.”  No more arguments.  Now they are able to discuss the business advantages or disadvantages of investing in new equipment for the office without sliding into the old circular arguments about how the office is operating.  In other words, they work together on the issues they actually share, and avoid arguments and blame about the ones not essential to their working structure and purpose.  All good marriages, business partnerships, and successful associations must use strategies like this to be successful. 

Can patriot groups withdraw from fighting about issues in conflict while still maintaining ties for working on common goals? Or at least agree to debate with respect? Has anybody actually read history?  Our founding fathers came up with amazing agreements, but they certainly weren’t on the same page when they started, or even regarding many issues not in the Constitution when they finished. 

If we want to elect candidates who will actually uphold the Constitution we need to work together.  Some groups are focused more on education and awakening the people, trusting awakened citizens to then vote for the best candidates.  Still others focus on rallies and demonstrations to promote their message.

If we want to know what sister groups are doing across the state and read ideas from other patriots (knowing we won’t agree with everything) then we need a communication network.  NC Freedom has served over 8,000 of us.  It’s a great place to publicize individual group projects.  It isn’t perfect, and is about to undergo some structural changes. 

I hope to see more and more cooperation and civility between patriot groups.  But if it is more important to be right, and to defend our own particular brand of patriotism against all others, then we can wish fondly for an effectiveness we will never achieve.

Sharon Sbrocco

Is Independence Caucus the best mechanism whereby we can come together here in NC and be EFFECTIVE in our efforts to get politically conservative candidates elected?  As the former NC District 11 GOOOH leader, I have concluded YES (especially for 2012).  Skip to the last paragraph if you want to know how I think I-Caucus compares to GOOOH.

The Asheville TEA Party/PAC has chosen the Independence Caucus for its method of choosing candidates to endorse.  That means ATP members will no longer be the only ones voting on these decisions.  Read on to learn how I-Caucus endorsed candidates are chosen.

I-Caucus really believes in the importance of early candidate selection.  They also have been successful in getting many patriot groups together to work through their process – and it’s the LOCAL people in each state who choose the candidate to endorse, not anyone from a central office.

ALL candidates are invited to request to be vetted.  First the candidate commits to yes answers to 70% of the vetting questions (chosen by all I-caucus delegates at an on-line convention at the beginning of this election cycle).  Then he/she moves to the interview, which is conducted by leaders from the state in which the candidate is running, and the interviews are recorded.  Next ALL I-Caucus members of that state have about 2 weeks to view the answers to the questions and the interviews.  Then it is the state members who vote on whether to endorse, NOT some central  ”leadership committee”.  Alternatively, the state and local leaders can choose to have voting only from the district which the candidate will represent or serve.  A candidate must get 70% of the voting members agreeing to endorse (60% if multiple candidates for one office) to be endorsed.  If this doesn’t happen there is no endorsement.

 The questions were chosen by all I-caucus delegates at an on-line convention at the beginning of this election cycle.  The questions will be revised at a similar convention this coming January for the next election cycle.  A member can become a delegate by contributing $40 (which also gets you a polo shirt).  But remember being a member and voting on the candidates costs nothing.

 It is true that the delegates writing the questions did not include anything about term limits.  They explain that term limits do not appear in the Constitution.  If we improve the participation in voting and educate the people we will limit terms via voting.  However, this question could be included at the next convention in January. 

Why am I promoting this instead of GOOOH in this article?  I think both can still work, but I-Caucus is more likely to be effective.  It will be active EARLY in the process – GOOOH has no definite plans to do this.  I-Caucus is clearly NOT a third party, while GOOOH functions in many cases (especially NC) as a third party without a platform.  Independents, Republicans, Libertarians and Democrats are more likely to participate in I-Caucus even though a few staunch party members may drop out if the candidate chosen is not their party’s candidate.

If all or almost all of the conservative patriot groups throughout our state work together to promote one candidate for each race, we will have a MUCH greater chance of winning.  I-Caucus provides a proven mechanism and experience from all over the country to do this.

Comments, anyone?  Check them out at http://www.icaucus.org/ and tell me what you think.

Let me begin this article by giving total credit and extending my gratitude to the many unnamed (in this article) psychologists, theorists, and researchers who have developed the theory of DEINDIVIDUALIZATION.  I was able to compose this article as a direct result of their professional training and experience; their many hours of hard work; and the fact that they have unselfishly shared their expertise and the results of their research in the literature.  I have attempted to employ their findings as a way of understanding what may be happening in America government today. Read more »

The Cherokee County 912 group hosted a judges’ debate in Brasstown on July 17th. The following video shows a portion of the event’s question and answer session. Every prelude to mass genocide has been the removal of the people’s ability to defend themselves. The founding fathers recognized the importance of the people’s right to defend themselves against the government which is the purpose of the second amendment. This right makes the judges’ answers in the video worth considering when you vote in November. Read more »

The Daily Caller has uncovered documents that show members of the mainstream media conspiring to kill stories about President Obama’s former pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

It was the moment of greatest peril for then-Sen. Barack Obama’s political career. In the heat of the presidential campaign, videos surfaced of Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, angrily denouncing whites, the U.S. government and America itself. Obama had once bragged of his closeness to Wright. Now the black nationalist preacher’s rhetoric was threatening to torpedo Obama’s campaign.

The crisis reached a howling pitch in mid-April, 2008, at an ABC News debate moderated by Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos. Gibson asked Obama why it had taken him so long – nearly a year since Wright’s remarks became public – to dissociate himself from them. Stephanopoulos asked, “Do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?”

Watching this all at home were members of Journolist, a listserv comprised of several hundred liberal journalists, as well as like-minded professors and activists. The tough questioning from the ABC anchors left many of them outraged. “George [Stephanopoulos],” fumed Richard Kim of the Nation, is “being a disgusting little rat snake.” Read the rest after the jump.

Here we have the Tea Party, one of the nation’s most organic, Athenian, democratic movements, being attacked by a political organization—the NAACP—that is among the most sclerotic, dinosaurian, and cadaverous of America’s political groupings. Read the full article here.

by Scott Lazarowitz

A recent poll showed that 55% of Americans believe that Barack Obama is a “socialist,” and many Americans believe that the nation is on the “road to socialism.”

The road to socialism? Where have these people been for the last 75 years? America has been a socialist – as well as fascist – nation for many decades, especially since FDR’s New Deal. Socialism primarily is public ownership of wealth, property and the means of production. So, of course Obama is a socialist. He has expressed that.

For some reason, many people mistakenly believe that Social Security, an important outcome of the New Deal, is a program in which some of Americans’ earnings are taken and put into some kind of “savings account,” to be available to them when they retire. In actuality, Social Security is a real-time redistribution of wealth scheme administered by the State, in which income is taken from producers and redistributed to non-producers, mainly retired persons and the elderly. LBJ’s Medicare program is an extension of this.

Further examples to show that Obama is a socialist include his vote as a U.S. Senator in favor of the Wall Street Bailout, often mistakenly seen as an example of “capitalism,” but which was actually an example of socialism: redistribution of wealth from the middle-class workers and producers to the already rich Wall Street bankers and financial executives.

Obama also clearly supports the ongoing military socialism through the wars he has been continuing and strengthening abroad: redistribution of wealth from American workers and producers to defense contractors, consultants and lobbyists, oil executives and Wall Street bankers, which really has been a main objective for American wars throughout the last century. As the late USMC Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler would say, “War is a Racket.”

And as the late economist Murray Rothbard put it, regarding World War I:

Woodrow Wilson’s decision to enter the war may have been the single most fateful action of the 20th century, causing untold and unending misery and destruction. But Morgan profits were expanded and assured.

Things have not changed in 100 years.

Obama’s stated intention has been for redistribution of wealth as a means to help the poor, the underprivileged and so on. But his unstated intention is the same as all politicians of his ilk: to reach into as much private wealth as possible as a means towards expanding State power and control.

Many people also mistakenly believe that Obama’s medical takeover is “socialized medicine,” but we already have socialized medicine in Medicare as mentioned, and other similar programs. ObamaCare is actually a fascist program.

Fascism is another major aspect of FDR’s New Deal, which gave us an untold number of regulations, mandates and enmeshments between business and government. Fascism primarily is State control over privately owned property, wealth and industry. All government mandates and regulation of private economies are examples of fascism. ObamaCare consists of one mandate and regulation after another of private doctor-patient relationships, patient/doctor-insurance company relationships, and a laundry list of medical related industries.

In addition to ObamaCare fascism and Obama’s strengthening of his own executive dictatorial powers as president, some other examples of Obama’s fascism include his new financial regulations, and the environmental regulations that he used as a means of interfering with Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal’s duty to protect the people of Louisiana from the oil spill that threatens their livelihoods.

While allowing doctors’ practices, HMOs, and insurance companies to continue to be privately owned, the federal government will nevertheless dictate to them how their contracts and associations will be run. However, given a variety of factors, this dictatorial control over the medical industry will most likely lead these still privately owned interests into bankruptcy, much like what the federal government has done to the financial and mortgage lending industries, and the federal government will most probably take upon ownership, as well as control, of much of these industries.

That is where Obama’s communism comes in. The “road to socialism”? No, already there. Fascism? Already there. But are we on the road to communism? You betchya!

Communism is, by and large, complete State ownership and control of all industry, wealth and property, and the means of production. So far, we have seen this from Obama in his leading the charge of confiscation of much of the automobile industry, as well as the federal government’s ownership of much of the mortgage and finance industries. And eventually, most likely, the entire medical industry.

Whether Obama is intentionally implementing a communist America by way of long-planned “stealth,” as some people have suggested he is doing, or whether he has a communist agenda by way of his long-time partnership with admitted terrorist bomber and “small-c communist” Bill Ayers, or whether Obama follows the teachings of “radical community organizer” (or “communizer”) Saul Alinsky, is actually not as important as Obama’s actual actions as president.

So far, we have noted that Barack Obama is:

A Socialist. He supports public ownership of the means of production, redistribution of wealth from some segments of society to others.

A Fascist. He supports State control over private industries and the means of production, and just about every aspect of citizens’ daily lives.

A Communist. He supports State ownership as well as control of industry and the means of production.

But what isn’t Obama?

A Capitalist.

Barack Obama is not a capitalist because he opposes voluntary exchange, private property rights, voluntary contracts, associations and markets free of State intrusions, and under the Rule of Law. The true capitalist, voluntary exchange-private property system that coexists with individual liberty is exactly what the American Founders believed in, for which they fought a Revolution to have and preserve for their posterity. This capitalist system is the only system that exists under the Rule of Law that protects all individuals in such a society from the theft and trespass of others including agents of the State.

In contrast, socialism, fascism and communism all institutionalize the violation of the Rule of Law as they institutionalize the violation of all individuals’ inherent rights to life, liberty and justly acquired property.

In those totalitarian systems, the individual is a sacrificial animal for the collective, and a serf for the State.

Alas, America has not actually experienced true capitalism, at least not since the U.S. Constitution was written and ratified, and especially not since the presidency of hardcore banking and monetary fascist and warmonger-business protectionist Abraham Lincoln.

The choice for America is whether to continue on the road to communism, or to turn back, dismantle all of it, and restore our freedom and prosperity.

July 15, 2010

Scott Lazarowitz is a commentator and cartoonist at Reasonandjest.com.

Copyright © 2010 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Dr. Dan Eichenbaum explains the basis of our government, natural law and freedom:

It seems that were we to form a coalition to stand and fight against the global cabals that are intent upon the overthrow and destruction of the United States of America, that we are perhaps designing our own demise. For indeed the plan is so comprehensive and so long established and its adherents so powerful, that we would seem to be David to Goliath.

However, the God-planted desire within man to be free is a force that has proven, over the centuries, to be able to overcome any dictatorship. Its God-given authority refutes any demands of slavery. Its tenants have flowed through the spirits of free men for all those centuries, to untether them.

As long as free men will demand their God-given freedom, their designer will continue to be their advocate and should those free men call upon their Creator, as their advocate, then the power of the cabal becomes as dust to the wind. For, in truth, who can stand against the insistence of the Creator; who would continue to stand should he shake his fist in the face of the Creator and demand that He abdicate? Who has ever fought against the Lord of Host, the God of armies and been declared the victor.

So, shall free men rise up once again and demand their freedom? Shall we once again declare our independence? Will we once again bow our knee, turn to our Creator and enlist his aid, that we might be who we are?

WE SHALL SEE…

For indeed the task that lies before us is simple: turn to our Creator and live as free men or turn to ourselves and sink deeper into the abyss of slavery.

–Dr. John Bennett