JOHN E. writes:
My wife and I have discussed the phenomenon of Ann Barnhardt on a few different occasions. We both find her intriguing and have basically concluded about her what she concludes about herself – that she is an anomalously masculine woman, that masculinity does not find its optimum expression in her because she is a woman, and that her manner and activity would find a better vehicle of expression in a man. This is not to criticize what she is doing, or to say she should refrain from doing it.
One thing in her, on the other hand, that is an unmistakable expression of femininity is her ability to … how do you say … suggest men ought to be doing some work, the seed of which suggested activity resides with great potency at the moment only in her mind. The ability to “suggest” is a very feminine quality that should complement the masculine very wonderfully. It reminds me of something I heard from somewhere, perhaps a priest’s homily, that the woman cultivates human life from the physical seed implanted within her womb from the man, while the man cultivates great human work from the spiritual and intellectual seed implanted within his heart and mind from the woman.
The greatest example of a woman planting this seed, if we allow it to be called that, is that of our Blessed Mother, most notably in her suggestion to our Lord that something needed to be done on behalf of the newly-wedded couple at their wedding feast when they ran out of wine, thus prompting the first recorded miracle of our Lord in the Gospel. However, just as there is a particular time when the man’s seed will bear fruit in the woman, and it would be futile and even crude for the man to insist that it be otherwise, so also there is a particular time when the woman’s suggestion will bear fruit in the mind of the man, and if the woman insists otherwise we are then allowed to become keenly and painfully aware of what the meaning of nagging is. And just as the woman has little or no control over the time when she will bear fruit, so often neither does the man have control over when he is to bear his fruit and take action. I hope that Miss Barnhardt understands this. Something tells me that she does, because rather than complaining about men not being willing to take action, she calls on us to pray to God for this thing.
If I were allowed to make a deal on behalf of all men with all women, I would encourage women to continue, as Miss Barnhardt has, to make their lovely and feminine suggestions to men, but with the understanding that they must be ready to defer and desist when a man says, “My hour is not yet come.”
— Comments —-
The question is not whether she is too masculine or preaching to males, the question is whether she is sane enough to be walking our streets. Please do not enable someone with such a high level of emotional illness.
The more I read her, the more pathetic a figure she becomes. She is a thirty-six-year-old who is headed to prison by choosing not to render unto Caesar. I’ll just say a prayer for her and stop reading her nonsense.
Terry Morris writes:
Yolande wrote: “…the question is whether she is sane enough to be walking our streets.”
Oh good grief! I hope Yolande will be kind enough to elaborate on that statement, because inquiring minds want to know upon what basis the Yolandes of the world would diagnose Miss Barnhardt as clinically insane: Is it because she opposes a criminally insane, totalitarian-statist government; is it because she refuses to pay for abortions via personal income taxes; is it because she demands fiscal responsibility from her government; is it because she nailed Romney for throwing the presidential election; is it because she opposes sodomy and sodomite marriage; is it because she’s a constitutional constructionist; is it because she made an eight-part economic video exposing the criminality of the U.S. government and warning of the impending economic collapse; is it because she understands the incompatibility of Islam with historic Western civilization; is it because she can see the handwriting on the wall; is it because she believes America will eventually Balkanize, or is it just because she’s sort of a loud-mouth? Not necessarily in that order.
As I’ve said many, many times before, modern American “Christians” would gladly crucify our Lord given the chance.
Mr. Morris adds:
Apparently Paul thinks that Jesus’s admonition to “render unto Caesar” means that whatever Caesar (the federal government in our case) claims to be his is automatically his by virtue of his claim to it. Even that, or especially that, which belongs exclusively to God. So I guess O’care is constitutional after all.
It is precisely this kind of thinking that has brought us to our current predicament. Yes, yes, “federal law [automatically] trumps State law” simply by virtue of its being law, and the federal government need only (1) occupy a field, and (2) intend a complete ouster in order to take over (also known as “usurp”) any given State or local power. I know, I know. And damn the Constitution too. And all the sheeple said “amen.”
Thank God our founding generation wasn’t inclined to think that way.
Judging from other comments Paul made about Barnhardt that were not for publication, I don’t think that’s what he meant.
Jesse Powell writes:
Ann Barnhardt seems to be the most “interesting” person on the radical right today in America. She is surely controversial. It should be kept in mind that Barnhardt comes from the Patriot Movement; she is not a “Traditionalist” in the sense that this blog is a part of a wider Traditionalist Movement. The Patriot Movement is particularly concerned with the rule of law and government tyranny and there are lots of “big talkers” and violent rhetoric coming from them. In this context Barnhardt is simply “putting her money where her mouth is” more than most.
Barnhardt first became a “big name” by publicly burning the Koran and taunting the Islamic Jihadists to “come and get it” while giving out her address. It should be kept in mind though that what prompted Barnhardt’s protest was not Muslims rioting against Terry Jones burning the Koran, it was Lindsey Graham saying, “I wish we could find some way to hold people accountable,” in reference to Terry Jones. Barnhardt’s protest was more directed against government tyranny as represented by Graham’s statement than it was against radical Islam or Islam in general. [It appeared to have been directed against both. She strongly opposes Islam.]
After Barnhardt already had some fame based on her Koran burning then came the theft of customer segregated accounts by John Corzine at MF Global. The theft by a high ranking Democratic crony of Obama is what prompted Barnhardt’s tax strike. Not only was this blatant corruption and an undermining of the rule of law but it also directly harmed the commodity trading business she was in, casting doubt on the safety of her client’s money.
What I find most interesting and encouraging about Barnhardt is her cultural views. She has come out publicly against women’s right to vote and she often talks about the importance of masculinity in the culture; how it is missing. In addition she frequently condemns homosexuality and abortion and is a Roman Catholic often promoting and explaining her actions and positions in religious terms. The Patriot Movement is bigger than Traditionalism by a wide margin so I am happy to see a prominent Patriot activist supporting patriarchy and conservative cultural positions; it indicates such views are gaining ground.
As for Barnhardt’s “call to action” with her tax strike; that part bothers me. Her tax strike is certainly courageous and motivated by positive and legitimate moral principles but I think it unwise to “stir up trouble” at this stage of things. I am not so alarmed by the reelection of Barack Obama, I think things are continuing to move in the same direction they have been moving in for a long time. More importantly time is on our side; in the current cultural and political environment Christian Patriarchy and affiliated political movements are growing. Liberalism is in the ascendancy but Conservatism is growing faster than Liberalism in proportional terms. The current environment is not preventing Conservatism from expanding. Since time is on our side there is no need to rush things, there is no need for us to be seeking out confrontation.
It’s not a question for Barnhardt of what is the most effective strategy. At least I don’t believe it is. She is opposing a deeply immoral government, and it is irrelevant whether her movement is growing or not.
Joe A. writes:
I am amazed at some of the opinions of the Godsend, Ann Barhardt.
First off, she is hardly masculine. What today’s effeminate man sees as masculinity an older generation called nothing less than righteous indignation. In many ways, Ann reminds me of my sainted mother who often said, “Of course a woman can and should take charge – but only if the men won’t”. Today’s man is so emasculated he lacks even the words to describe what is lost.
This is to say, Ann is rising to the occasion because no man will do it for her. Indeed, I see a steady stream of commentary advising her to cower, lest she offend Our Royal Masters and be thrown into the dungeon.
There is nothing wrong with this nation that could not be fixed immediately if the Straight, White, Christian Male would “man up” and command it stop.
So my outrage and condemnation is placed squarely on the shoulders of the effeminate men of the United States who let women do the dirty work – even as combat soldiers and politicians. Condemnation is a form of damnation — a curse. So yes, I pronounce Holy Damnation on the spineless, yellow bellied men of America who allowed this ungodly mess to happen on their watch, leaving it for the womenfolk to right.
P.S.: Who the devil cares about prison anyway? My forefathers shed and spilled much blood to earn Liberty. Mere prison would have counted unworthy among the “mangled bodies of [our] countrymen”.
“Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say what should be the reward of such sacrifices? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!”
– Samuel Adams, speech at the Pennsylvania State House, August 1, 1776.
The “Straight, White, Christian Male” is too busy playing rock and roll at his megachurch. He’s too busy grooving to his own feel-good God to wage a fight for his own culture.
I’ll refrain from picking on Miss Barnhardt. She has enough to deal with without a lot of advice from people like me who she does not know and who doesn’t know her.
Advocating a refusal to pay income taxes implies one is going to engage in violence right now. Prison follows from such refusals, and one must fight to stay alive in prison.
Advocating pulling all of our money out of banks (a view held by some tax protestors) would lead to an economic collapse and a depression overnight. Unemployment was 25% in the Great Depression, and people starved to death. Communist membership rose. Unemployment among blacks and Hispanics would be about 40-50%. And we know violence is rampant in those communities already. They are not going to sit back and just envy those with buried gold.
Even Bill Oreilly is worried about what he referred to as the growing aggressiveness on the left and those on the right spoiling for a fight. He was talking in the context of a FoxNews interviewer being attacked by union thugs for simply asking a question.
As the American Civil War and all other wars show, war is hell on earth. It is a last resort. We have millions of like-minded people out there, as the South did before some hotheads decided to go to war. We need to keep working towards a nonviolent solution and not become hotheaded. Let’s look at what Jews have accomplished with their tiny numbers; imagine what we could accomplish with about 150 million people. There is plenty we have to sacrifice before resorting to violence.
Thanks to Terry Morris and Joe A. for the more accurate analyses on the question of Ann Barnhardt. Well said!
To Paul’s first statement: Nonsense!