(Thanks, J. :)

(MY SENSE OF IT is that everyone is talking past each other. I don't think folks are accurately receiving what it is Anna is transmitting, and perhaps vice versa. The matter cannot resolve while that is so. Folks need to pull back a bit and ponder whether they really are seeing/hearing clearly.)

Reader J. writes:

***************************************************************************

California Fallacies

California fallacies: (1) self-contradiction, (2) straw-men, (3) ignorance, (4) propaganda, (5) pot calls kettle black.

1. Self-contradiction. Anna said many times that the Civil War was a mercenary conflict having nothing to do with Americans. The North winning has nil to do with Article IV Section 3. That clause held before and after. Stipulate that secession is un-Constitutional. Article IV Section 3 has nothing to do with secession.

2. Straw-men. (a) No one in the New California 51st state movement wants to leave the USA. The movement wants to apply lawfully and peacefully Article IV Section 3. (b) No one seeks to "just redefine ... and relabel ... without any obligations to the other States and other people." The movement goes county by county and follows lawful procedures. Actually most California counties are excited and begging to join.

3. Ignorance. There is a real Californian insurrection underway. Anna has not addressed it, but Paul Preston has, many times, on air. He has named the parties who do want California to break from the USA as a UN protectorate of separate country. They plot violence to get their way. These are Obama holdovers and such ilk. A LOT OF THESE INSURRECTIONISTS ARE IN SACRAMENTO STATE-OF-STATE GOVERNMENT. They opened an "embassy" in a foreign country. They have a covert alliance with China and gang-bangers from Latin America promised a piece. One defected and spilled the beans to a patriot meeting. These players are the insurrection threat. Anna never mentions them. Honey, we love you, but get a clue. Stop calling the good guys wicked and ignoring the devils.

4. Propaganda. Dramatic words like "secession" and "insurrection" and "hotheads" avoid Article IV Section 3. It's in the same Constitution Anna seeks to enforce. Why can she not handle this topic? It's uncivil and irrational behavior. I am mystified by her aggression but it has no footing in 18th or 21st century reality.

5. Pot and kettle. Insurrection talk got me thinking. I mean no disrespect, and like Anna. I just find myself wondering. Is she a queen, that she can "dissolve" an American assembly, as the Queen of England can parliament in a crown colony, or veto its laws? Surely at some point, American State assemblies become superior to Anna, such that she can no longer "dissolve" them? When does that shift occur? Hasn't it already? Will Anna ever tell us? When in American history was any single human able to "dissolve" any government without a plebiscite? Or for that matter, any group of states dissolve another's government by voice vote? If an assembly exists, why is it not already supreme, able to make its own determinations, whether Anna likes them or not? If Anna holds supreme power over assemblies, isn't she a one-woman monarchist insurrection? Just asking because no one else is. I am not being sarcastic. I want answers such questions, and Americans deserve them. Anna's rulership seems little different than "emergency powers" or "continuity of government" or "suspend the Constitution" stuff worrying conspiracy circles, and rightly so. It just seems to me that once an assembly is formed, that's it, Anna has nothing more to say about it. Convince me I'm wrong? Will she keep dissolving assemblies until she has the America she wants?

***************************************************************************