Sunday, December 28, 2008

In Answer to the objections of Atheists... Auster, Coleman, et al.

Here is an excerpt from Washington's Farewell Address apropos to the discussion, and a strong defense of the position of those mentioned:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness - these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric? (emphasis mine)

Indeed! Who that is a sincere friend to our species of free government can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric? Messers Auster and Coleman, et al, are simply doing what they have to do. And they have the force of a Washington to back them up, whom I invoke.

Read More

Wednesday, December 24, 2008

Christianity -- the West's suicide pact?

The long discussion on religion continues over at Mangan's Miscellany. Let us recall, as apropos to the discussion, Kristor L.'s excellent analysis of genuine Christian teaching vs. the teachings of "liberal Christianity" in this August, 2007 VFR entry, permanently linked in my left sidebar under Select VFR Articles.

Note: I've left a comment at Mangan's to this effect.

Read More

Saturday, December 20, 2008

Darby, Mangan, Auster, Morris -- and disbelief in the central doctine of Christianity

This October 9th, 2007 Webster's post is being bumped to the fore in light of this VFR entry on this Mangan's Misc. entry.

A great and most important discussion, by the way, from all sides.

We've had these discussions before, here and elsewhere, but where have we ever settled the issue? ...


Update: below is my response to certain assertions of commenter "Anonymous" over at Mangan's with Anon's comments highlighted in italics.

Christians claim that there is an all-knowing, all-loving God who created the universe. Several arguments are used to prove God's existence. They are all inadequate.

- A first argument is the Bible: "The Bible says God exists, so he must." The problem is that if we ask a Hindu, a Muslim, a Sikh or a Jew the same question they too will point to their respective holy books as proof of the existence of their Gods.

First of all, this is an oversimplification (perhaps purposeful) of how Christians determine the Bible to be evidence of God's existence. Some Christians may express it in these inadequate terms, but I personally do not know many, if any, that do. If you want to reduce it to a simple statement it would be more along the lines of "The Bible claims to be the Word of God spoken in human language. If this claim is true then God must exist, and he must possess all the attributes that the Bible says he possesses. And he must have communicated his will for man -- his creation -- in man's language." Of course this also means, by implication, that if the claims of the Bible are not true, then the biblical God most likely doesn't exist, which is not to say that some other supreme being does not exist. But the Bible also denies the existence of all deities other than the singular deity it describes and gives testimony to.

Second, why is it a problem for the God of the Bible that if you ask a Hindu he will point to his scriptures as evidence of the existence of Hindu gods? My understanding about Muslims and Jews is that they believe their God to be one and the same God as the God of the O.T. scriptures, so there seems to be at least some unity here, and I do not understand why Anonymous lumps Muslims and Jews in with Hindus. Muslims and Jews deny Christ's deity, and this is one area where they and Christians part ways. But again, I can hardly see how this is a problem for the God of the Bible. Because the book of Mormon exists, and Latter Day Saints profess belief in its teachings presents no problem for the existence of the Biblical-Christian God.

- Christians will sometimes say "The universe didn't just happen, someone must have made it and therefore there must be a creator God." There is a major flaw in this argument. When it starts to rain we do not ask "Who is making it rain?" because we know that rain is caused not by someone but by something - natural phenomena like heat, evaporation, precipitation, etc. A cause (or causes) need not be a being. Even if we believe that a divine being is needed to explain how the universe came into existence, what proof is there that it was the Christian God? Perhaps it was created by the God of Islam.

Again you seem to be completely unaware that the God of Islam purports to be the same God as the God of the Old Testament Bible. Now, admittedly, Christians who understand what the Koran teaches about Allah will emphatically deny that Allah and the Biblical God can be one and the same being. Christians would maintain that one of them does not and cannot exist -- Allah -- because Allah claims attributes that are impossible for God to possess.

- The Christian will of course maintain that the universe does not merely exist but that its existence shows perfect design. But how does the Christian know that it was his God who is behind creation? How does the Christian know that only one God designed evrything? the universe perfectly?

Because if there is such a thing as a Supreme Being (or God, if that is your preference), then logically there can only be one God. If there were more than one Supreme Being then neither of them could possibly live up to their billing. All the Bible is saying about the deity is that He is necessarily a singularity; a simple being with no potentiality ... as opposed to all others. Moreover, no informed Christian that I know of would ever assert that the universe is perfect. Only God is perfect, and he cannot transmit his perfection to a created thing. But how do you know that the universe is not perfect? Why do the vast majority of us agree that the universe is not perfect, that the earth is not perfect, that mankind is not perfect? Is it not that we are somehow endowed with a sense of perfection? How, I ask, by anyone's standards, did we come by this sense of perfection? Don't tell me, by random mutations and chance occurances.

- Christians will sometimes say that everything has a cause, that there must be a first cause, and that God is the first cause. This old argument contains its own refutation, for if everything has a first cause then the first cause must also have a cause. There is another problem with the first cause argument. Logically there is no good reason to assume that everything had a single first cause. Perhaps six, ten or three hundred causes occurring simultaneously caused everything.

My friend, your statement contains its own refutation. The term "first cause" means exactly that -- first -- which means there is nothing preceding it. When we speak of things in terms of their being "first" we usually mean precisely what the term indicates. Our first POTUS, George Washington, was the first president because no one had preceding him in the office. How could they when the office did not before the ratification of the Constitution exist? What Christians actually say is that everything that is not a necessary existence had a first cause. The only thing that Christians assert does not need a first cause is God, the necessary existence who not only needs no cause, but who can't be his own cause.

- Christians claim that miracles are sometimes performed in God's name and that the fact that this happens proves that God exists. If miracles performed in God's name prove the existence of the Christian God, then miracles performed in the name of numerous other gods must likewise prove that they too exist.

You assume that all so-called miracles, or claims of the miraculous, meet the same criteria. You make this assumption based on what? Muslims claim that their holy book is evidence of the miraculous -- that Mohammed who was illiterate must have therefore had Allah's assistance in writing the Koran. This is not even close to the same thing that Christians claim to be miraculous.

- Christians will often claim that only by believing in God will people have the strength to deal with life's problems, and therefore that belief in God is necessary. It is clear, however, that people from non-Christian religions and even those with no religion are just as capable of dealing with life's crises as Christians are - sometimes even better.

Yes; the United States of America, which was founded largely on Biblical-Christian beliefs (some prefer "Judeo-Christian" beliefs) has many equals in the annals of the history of nations.

- According to Christians, God is all-knowing - he knows all the past, all the present and all the future. If this is so, then God must know everything we do long before we do it. This means that our whole life must be predetermined and that we act not according to the free exercise of our wills but according to our predetermined natures.

You make the oft repeated mistake of believing that predetermination and free will are mutually exclusive concepts. But they are not, and this criticism has been answered thoroughly.

Read More

Thursday, December 18, 2008

How long before the U.S. goes belly-up?

Have a look at and contemplate the implications of this GoV entry.

Baron Bodissey writes:

Last night I mentioned the imaginary money that is being used to bail out the favorites of Treasury Secretary Paulson and other members of the Washington Mandarin class. The government has paid off bad bank loans and bailed out failing businesses by borrowing enormous quantities of money from — well, from future taxpayers who will somehow become three or four times richer than they are now under the new Socialist regime.

But it’s even worse than I thought: the level of federal indebtedness has moved beyond mere profligacy into a new realm of total financial fantasy. The national debt is about to surpass the net worth of every man, woman, and child in the USA.

As I said in a comment to the entry, I have no economic expertise, but I can add, and the numbers seem to me not to add up given current longstanding trends. Other commenters have pointed out that debt to net worth ratio needn't favor the latter for a person or an entity to remain economically viable. This is true I think and can be proven by a couple of simple examples. For instance, people frequently make large purchases which exceed their family's total net worth -- a house is a good example, but for some even the purchase of a 30 thousand dollar vehicle exceeds the individual's total net worth, whether he might like to admit it or not. I'm not saying it's wise (for an individual or a government) to do so, but it is pretty commonplace and it doesn't always end in financial ruin.

But again, the issue for me is the number of net taxpayers compared to the number of non-net taxpayers, current and future. What that comes down to in simple terms is the number of people who pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits vs. the number of people who receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes, and what that ratio will be in the coming years.

My view has always been that we have to reverse this trend. And that comes down to a little self-sacrifice on the part of individuals. Yes, it can be painful. But what that's truly valuable isn't painful in acquiring or achieving?

Read More

Monday, December 15, 2008

Yes, they are hightailing it...

...back to Mexico.

But what is preventing their 'natural born' U.S. citizen children from returning in twenty years -- after having been raised and educated by foreigners, in a foreign country, under the authority of a foreign government -- and asserting their natural born United States citizenship status, and all the priveleges and immunities thereof? (Hat tip: VFR)

As they say (with enthusiasm): Only in America!

Read More


A good discussion on what constitutes "Americanism" and/or "American Patriotism" may be had here.

Read More

Saturday, December 13, 2008

Lawrence Auster on Islam back up and running permanently

As some of you are aware we've had some sporatic problems with the hosting of the page for at least a couple of months now, a more lengthy time period than I originally anticipated. If I had it all to do over again I would have found a permanent solution as soon as it became evident that the original hosting service was no longer going to work for us.

Nonetheless we've now solved the problem and the page is up permanently as the title indicates. Also, we've changed the way in which your comments and suggestions are to get to me. I'll be receiving them directly to my inbox if you follow the url provided under my introduction to the page.

My apologies to all for the inconvenience incurred while the page was down. And recall that I have the page, among others, permanently linked in my left sidebar under the heading "On Islam."


Additionally some of you may have tried and failed to access the "Historic Documents" link provided in my right sidebar under the heading "Links of Interest" recently. The problem there had nothing to do with myself and was out of my control until just recently. But the link is working now.

Read More

Request for my readers:

Take a look at this American Policy Center article on the danger of a supposed move for a Constitutional Convention. Keep in mind the entries I've done on the subject here at Webster's.

It seems to me that the APC is applying a couple of conflicting standards regarding the Article V Convention, but I could be wrong. The APC certainly employs persons a lot smarter, and more in 'the know' than yours truly.

Let me know what you think in a comment to this entry.

Read More

Sunday, December 7, 2008


A few new articles from various sites have been added under Webster's recommended blogposts in the upper-right sidebar, which, of course, I recommend you read.

Check out the short VFR article heading the list in which Auster points out that,

This is not our society celebrating the beautiful holiday of Christmas. This is the Liberal Controllers of our society carefully teaching children an unnatural and dangerous lie that they would never believe unless they were carefully taught. How many whites will militate against vitally necessary immigration restrictions in the decades to come, how many young white females will be raped and murdered by nonwhites in the decades to come, because of the message of trusting and loving racial aliens that programs like this implant in them?

An alternate title might be "How the Grinch stole the instincts of America's children," and I wrote a comment to the article under that subject line.

Years ago I was doing a job for an elderly retired Oklahoma teacher and we somehow got on the subject of interracial relationships, specifically the growing tendency of white girls to take an interest in black boys. The teacher was very discouraged and heartbroken over what modern society and the modern education system was then perpetrating on what she referred to as "these poor white girls." Her theory was that because these females are emotionally driven they're beginning to take it upon themselves, given what liberal society is teaching them concerning white guilt, to give themselves as sacrificial reparations for the sins that whites have committed against blacks in America, thus putting themselves in very precarious situations.

I imagine that has a lot to do with it.

Read More

Friday, December 5, 2008

Definitive Proof that I was born in Oklahoma...

...even though I've stated otherwise.

Birth Certificate

The image you see is a digital scan of an authentic Oklahoma COLB altered to contain false information about myself for purposes of demonstrating the ease with which someone, virtually anyone can change information on such documents by the use of a cheap scanner, free software, through copy and paste techniques, and very little image enhancement. All else that is needed is the will and a couple of hours of time to achieve this level of quality. A much higher level may be achieved given more time and more desire.

Click on the image above (note the embossed seal on the image, which is genuine and unenhanced) to see the full document. If you're somewhat computer savvy and have an eye for detail you can enlarge the image to discover the places where the document has been intentionally forged, as well as intentionally left discoverable as a forgery in certain places. Others are not so easily discoverable, but Dr. Polarik would have no trouble whatsoever taking our forged document apart piece by meticulous piece.

Update: I've included some additional information, as well as a helpful link, concerning the COLB in the comments section of this article.

Read More

Thursday, December 4, 2008

Time for full enactment of H.B. 1804!

An alternate title might be something to the effect of "Either lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way!" That title would be more pointedly directed at the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, of course, where two key provisions in Oklahoma's Immigration law remain under federal suspension pending hearings on the matter.

Perhaps this recent court ruling on the subject in another state might help the 10th Circuit Court to make the right decision so that we in Oklahoma can get on with the business at hand. Indeed, there are security, as well as economic reasons for requiring that businesses confirm the eligibility of their employees via E-Verify. Of the two aspects mentioned in the article (there are more), I've focused mainly on the economic implications. But the security issue is very important, and a good argument can be made that the provisions in 1804 are necessary on that basis alone.

Incidentally, I think the record needs to be set straight on this little matter. While I can't be at all places in the state at all times, I do get around enough to know that on one point the author is misled into believing that the initial mass exodus of illegals from the State of Oklahoma ... to points unknown ... is an ongoing phenomenon. Not true. In fact, many of those who left the state initially are back. And they're definitely not currently leaving the state in droves as he says. In point of fact, I'd venture an educated guess that the illegal Mexican population in Oklahoma is on the rise again due in part to our inability to enforce certain provisions in 1804, namely sections seven and nine of the law as mentioned above.

The author also forgot to mention that our popular Democrat Governor has some kind of a fetish for Islam and Islamic subversives. It takes the form of something he calls the Governor's Ethnic American Advisory Council. But I guess that's beside the point.

Read More

Wednesday, December 3, 2008

Listen up Sean

For the umteenth time, we have a Senate makeup which is virtually filibuster proof.

I was watching Hannity and Colmes the other night, nunoff election eve for Saxby Chambliss of Georgia. Chambliss was a guest on the show and a lot was made (by Hannity) of the fact that the Republicans enlisted the help of Governor Palin while the Democrats kept Obama off stage in Georgia.

As you know by now Chambliss won the runoff by 20 points. The point though is this, while Hannity was beating the drum that Obama's non-appearance in support of the Democrat opponent of Chambliss was some kind of indication that Obama is a coward, given that Obama ought to be doing all in his power to make the U.S. Senate filibuster proof per the cause of the Democrats, he seemed to be completely oblivious to the fact that on the things that matter most -- on the key issues -- the Senate is already, or, as I've said before virtually filibuster proof. Those key issues of which I speak are so-called 'comprehensive immigration reform', reinstatement of the gun ban, etc.

It's not about Democrat vs. Republican per se, it's about Liberalism vs. Conservatism. And there are at least a couple of Democrats in Republican garb (or RINOs if you prefer) who still hold seats in the U.S. Senate, of which John McCain is one. Harry Reid recognizes this, but somehow Sean Hannity doesn't.

Read More

Sunday, November 30, 2008

Is the Seal the "smoking gun"?

In Dr. Polarik's final report which I originally linked up here, he's provided the reader with numerous images of authentic Hawaii COLBs by which to compare Hussein Obama's COLB posted at his "Fight the Smears" site, as well as other places. Also in the report is an image of a metal stamper similar to what the state of Hawaii likely uses to create its embossed seal on official Hawaii documents.

Most of us have probably seen such stampers in use before, particularly if we've ever had something notarized at a licensed notary public in our own states. The key operative word here is "embossed", as in raised on one side, depressed on the other; as in convex on the one side, concave on the other; as in highly visible from either side of the document in question, even on a scanned copy.

I was nosing around this morning and look at what I found with regard to the State of Hawaii and this issue with Obama's COLB and the lack of an embossed seal on the document as it appeared back in June, 2008. A spokesman for the state of Hawaii, Janice Okubo explained the absence of the embossed seal on the document this way,

The Hawaii Department of Health receives about a dozen e-mail inquiries a day about Obama’s birth certificate, spokesman Okubo said.

“I guess the big issue that’s being raised is the lack of an embossed seal and a signature,” Okubo said, pointing out that in Hawaii, both those things are on the back of the document. “Because they scanned the front … you wouldn’t see those things.”

Okubo says she got a copy of her own birth certificate last year and it is identical to the Obama one we received.

And about the copy we e-mailed her for verification? “When we looked at that image you guys sent us, our registrar, he thought he could see pieces of the embossed image through it.”

Still, she acknowledges: “I don’t know that it’s possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents.” (emphasis mine)

Once again, we're talking about an embossed seal (Okubo's words, not mine), not a rubber stamped seal. These embossed seals are created with a clamping device such as the one pictured in Dr. Polarik's report, equipped with both male and female dies necessary to create the depression in the paper. And most of us have seen them in use as well as their effects on the documents in question more than once. I can hardly believe that an official spokesman for the state of Hawaii would make such a stupid statement as that above, but there ya go. But there's more...

If the document in question (Hussein O.'s COLB) is authentic, it will have an authentic embossed seal on it made by a machine such as that described above. Obviously the state of Hawaii does not have in its possession innumerable such machines with which they depress official COLBs. The impression left on the document, therefore, will be consistent in great and minute detail with the machine used to create the embossed seal which all of a sudden appeared on the image of Obama's COLB after questions were raised concerning the lack of an embossed seal on the document.

Time to seize the machine(s) and the Obama COLB? ...

Read More

Thursday, November 27, 2008

Birth Certificate-Gate cont.; what does it mean?

This whole issue with Hussein O.'s missing, vaulted, sealed, protected, non-existent, whatever, authentic birth certificate is finally beginning to get some attention, even among skeptics. And by the way, I'm not berating anyone for their initial skepticism on this complicated issue. A healthy degree of skepticism concerning an issue as grave as this is never bad. But we should not allow a healthy amount of skepticism on the validity of the claims against the legitimacy of BHO's posted birth certificate to turn extreme and thus prevent us from discovering the truth of the matter, whatever that truth turns out to be. We must realize that there actually are people out there who would literally stop at nothing, including the doctoring (or the actual manufacture) of Obama's COLB, to install him as president.

To paraphrase Mr. Jefferson, our leaders and the people behind them are as honest as anyone else, and not more so.

So you're going to tell me you've not met up with innumerable dishonest people during the course of your lifetime; people capable of forging their own false identification documents for their own perceived self-interested purposes, and others who help them do so for their own purposes? If so I simply say to you that you ain't been around long, and/or, you ain't been paying attention.

But for those of you who have experience enough to better inform you, let us say, hypothetically, that it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Hussein O. is not a natural born U.S. citizen prior to, or early in his actual presidency. What would be the result? A commenter named Mark has speculated over at Reflecting Light that Congress would quickly initiate an amendment proposal to retroactively qualify Hussein O. for the presidency, and that the requisite number of states (three fourths) would happily ratify it as a show of their non-racism and non-discriminationism.

Well, respectfully to Mark, liberal domination in America notwithstanding, I do not think that is a very likely scenario. Why? Let's just say that the majority of states voted against, not for Obama. Mark's fear reminds me of the fear among many, conservatives in particular, to petition Congress for an Article V Convention to propose amendments. Such fears render us impotent to protect ourselves and our interests, and the provisions of the U.S. Constitution intended for the purpose, effectively null and void.

But I'd be very interested in your take. What do you think would likely happen if the above scenario became reality?

Read More

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Have I been vindicated?

I wrote in an entry to this blog back on November 7 that ... well, here's what I wrote:

I predict that under the Hussein Obama administration the new Democrat controlled, virtually filibuster-proof, Congress is going to come to an agreement on "Comprehensive Immigration Reform," by and with the aid of that RINO John McCain, and other liberal RINO Senators. What this means effectively is that Oklahoma's H.B. 1804 (and all other state and local immigration restriction laws), while probably remaining on the books for symbolism's sake, will become shortly nothing more than a dead letter as the all-powerful central government will have comprehensively "occupied the field" of immigration, and comprehensively left no doubt that it "intended a complete ouster" ... of the state and local authorities on immigration restrictionism.

Prepare to be overrun by Mexican and other third-worlders, America! Most of you who support immigration restriction to one extent or the other have literally been dragged kicking and screaming to create your own state and local laws on immigration -- kicking and screaming that immigration is a federal issue and a federal responsibility. Well, believe me when I say that the feds have heard you and they will respond to your dependency in fairly short order. (emphasis added)

So have I been vindicated? Well, certain people in certain key positions of power seem to think so, or that I soon will be.

Here is exhibit A and here is exhibit B.

Read More

Final report released

In connection with the entry preceding this one, and for anyone interested, Computer specialist Ron Polarik has released, as promised, his final report here.

I forewarn you, it is a very long piece. I only had time this morning to read about a third of it. I'll have to get back to it later.

Read More

Sunday, November 23, 2008

New development in Obama citizenship issue

(Note: The title of this blog post is a bit misleading. Yes, this is a new development for me and probably most of my readers, but certainly not for Mr. Polarik as you shall see if you take the time to read his article linked below.)

The folks at WorldNetDaily have been covering this issue relentlessly, and seem to have no intention of backing off until the issue is resolved satisfactorily. And I applaud them for their dedication to the cause of holding Hussein O. & Co.'s feet to the fire.

Here's a Nov. 22 WND article in which something of a new development in the case has been revealed. From the concluding statements in the article:

On Janet Porter's Faith2Action radio program today, computer specialist Ron Polarik left no doubt the image posted as Obama's "Certification of Live Birth" from the state of Hawaii was not genuine.

"Here's a smoking gun," he said. "Apparently Hawaii changes its borders [on documentation] every year. In 2007 it had a certain border, and it's got a 2007 border. However if you dig a little deeper you find it has a 2008 signature and seal," he said.

"Whomever did the forgery was not very clever," he said.

Well, I don't know about all that. I've said before that I could produce such a document, computer illiterate that I am. The issue with the border on the certificate posted at Obama's "fight the smears" website is interesting though. If Mr. Polarik is right that Hawaii changes this border every year, then indeed it is very strange that the border on the document is from 2007 and the seal is from 2008.

Update: I have it on reliable information that the methods Mr. Polarik claims were used to doctor Obama's COLB are entirely possible and involve fairly simple procedures, including the use of various lighting techniques to achieve the illusion of a raised seal on the surface of the document. Hey, that's what we send 'em to school for, know what I mean?

Read More

What an honor!

Look at this entry by The Editrix at her blog. And do not neglect to note the improvement in her blog's header. I love it!

Allow me to publicly thank The Editrix for honoring me this way. I've also thanked her privately with additional information concerning my family reserved for those I count my friends (you know who you are).

Thanks again to The Editrix.

Read More

Vague update on a previous entry

Here's the link to the entry in question, and the update is this: our dialogue on the issue continues.

I wish to thank the party in question for his attention to detail in addressing the concerns of his constituents, namely me. It is this quality in him, among other things, that has compelled me to vote for him and to hold him in the highest possible esteem, his endorsement of the RINO candidate in the late election notwithstanding.

Hey!, we can't possibly agree on everything.

Read More

Saturday, November 22, 2008


Sign this WND petition IF you care about the U.S. Constitution and its provision requiring that a U.S. President be a natural born citizen.

Remember, such a provision implies the means to enforce it.



In connection with the point of this and related entries let us recall the principle expressed by the Father of our country in his Farewell Speech:

The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish Government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established Government. (emphasis mine)

Has the Constitutional provision requiring that a president be a natural born U.S. citizen been changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people? Umm, no. There is a faction out there that would like to change this provision, and I do not think they're particularly inclined to do so by an authentic act of the whole people (i.e., by the provisions of Article V) as they surely understand that this is not possible at this time, albeit the idea seems to be gaining ground at an alarming rate with the continued naturalization of great numbers of incompatible foreigners in America. Nonetheless the provision stands and is sacredly obligatory on all, including you Mr. Obama. Produce the document, sir.

Read More

Test your knowledge

(Note: The VFR entry linked below now contains a discussion concerning several questions on the quiz. If you wish to avoid the temptation to read the discussion altogether prior to taking the test, click here.)

I encourage readers to test your civic knowledge by taking a 33 question multiple choice quiz which requires just a few minutes of your time. The link to the quiz is posted in this VFR entry.

I'm not asking that you share your score unless that is your desire. I will say that my score was 90% or above answered correctly.

Read More

Friday, November 21, 2008

Liberals never cease to amaze...

...and we have our share of 'em right here in "conservative" Oklahoma.

I recalled this and other related "horror" stories that have been documented in Oklahoma ever since the provisions of H.B. 1804 went into effect on November 1, 2007 as I had my Oklahoma driver license renewed yesterday. I was prepared for a lengthy delay in receiving my license renewal, but as it turns out this was by far the quickest renewal period I personally have ever experienced. I was in and out of the local tag office, new license in hand, in less than twenty minutes.

From the knee-jerk story linked above:

HB 1804 was aimed at cracking down on illegal immigrants. Instead, this portion of the law is creating unnecessary burdens for people who have lived here all their lives. Coming up with a fix must be a priority for lawmakers. In the meantime, check your license, or you may regret it.

Great advice in the concluding sentence of the article -- check your license or you may regret it indeed. Ask my eldest son. But just because someone has lived in Oklahoma all or most of his life, this does not mean he's a legal citizen of Oklahoma or of the United States entitled to the priveleges and immunities thereof.

These "horror stories" have been reported in any number of publications in Oklahoma since Nov. 1, 2007. But it is the personal "horror stories" that get around by word of mouth that are the most common. I have a friend who is a staunch immigration restrictionist. But when he heard of the difficulties a female friend of his encountered while attempting to renew her expired Oklahoma driver license several months back, his immediate response was very similar to the story linked above. I explained to him in a private discussion on the matter that this was all part of Oklahoma's immigration law, and that immigration restrictionists should be more than willing to go along with tighter restrictions on driver licensing in Oklahoma for the greater good. Initially he was not particularly receptive to my explanation, nor my advocacy for that particular provision in H.B. 1804. But as these sorts of things generally go, once he had time to reflect upon it he began to realize that he and I and all Oklahoma citizens, if we truly support the intent of H.B. 1804, must be willing to make certain personal sacrifices in pursuit thereof when necessary. You know, being willing to incur the "horror" of committing a grand total of three or four hours of our lives (provided we don't allow our licenses to expire once issued) to act in compliance with the provisions of Oklahoma law.

It used to be in Oklahoma that an expired license was no big deal to renew, I can personally attest. Indeed, I once learned that my license was several months expired during a routine traffic stop. The officer simply requested that I "take care of it immediately" which I was very happy to do. It is now more difficult to "take care of it" due to the provisions of H.B. 1804. So, as the story above puts it, and to reiterate, if you're an Oklahoma citizen and you possess a valid Oklahoma driver license, don't let it expire or you might regret it. On the other hand, you may well be in for a treat, prepared as you should be for the worst, yet hoping for the best.

But it's funny, I've personally been reminded several times during the course of this month when showing my driver license not to allow it to expire. You know, neighbor and fellow citizen taking care of neighbor and fellow citizen. All part of the master plan, knee-jerk liberalism notwithstanding.

Read More

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Hussein O. & Co. swear upon the altar of Deception: We will not produce an autentic birth certificate!

Heading the list of entries under my Recommended Blog Posts section in the upper-right sidebar is a newly added WND article by Joseph Farah on the question of Hussein Obama's citizenship status and the Obama camp's refusal, in the face of these looming questions and speculations, to produce an authentic Hawaii birth certificate for BHO.

Mr. Farah asks the exact question I asked in my initial post on the subject at this blog -- why? What good is it doing anyone, continuing to add fuel to this speculation on Obama's actual country of birth by refusing to produce something as easily aquired upon request as a person's own birth certificate? What can be the motivation behind Obama's refusal to produce the document, the simple production of which would put to an end virtually all speculation on the subject for once and for all time? Well, let me rephrase that last thought: at this point in the game, because of Obama's refusal to produce the document, I doubt that even doing so now would be sufficient to satisfy some people's minds. But can you blame them? Be honest you leftists, if the same questions surrounded a candidate you opposed -- you know, a "radical right-wing nutjob" -- you and your leftist media outlets would be all over this demanding the production of an authentic birth certificate establishing the natural born citizenship qualifications of the "radical right-wing nutjob" candidate in question.

There have been any number of articles written on this subject over the last several months and weeks, some of which I've already linked up at this blog, others of which I have not. In addition to the WND article linked above, I'm adding a couple more from there and other sites below.

While this recent W-4 post has nothing to do with this subject, a short discussion on the topic was set off in the comments to the post, to which I contributed a couple. Zippy Catholic answers my initial question to him by saying to me that everything else about Obama being so bad, he just cannot personally take an interest in this question on Obama's eligibility for the presidency. And I reply. Blackadder interjects assuring me that Phillip Berg is nothing more or less than a crank. Also Blackadder provides the readership with a link to a article concerning the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate. But as others have pointed out, the document the Obama camp produced is not a birth certificate, it is a certificate of live birth.

I read a couple of days ago that Mr. Berg's lawsuit, while it has garnered the most attention throughout media outlets including the blogosphere, is far from the only lawsuit filed demanding the production of an authentic Hussein Obama birth certificate. Several people from various states have filed similar lawsuits. Add to the list Obama's old nemesis from his Senate campaign in 2004, Alan Keyes (scroll to the bottom of this page for other WND articles on this topic.). Is Mr. Keyes a crank too?

Why is it that I'm seeing a similarity here between President Clinton's defiant refusal to answer questions before a Grand Jury investigation of the Monika Lewinsky scandal and the defiant attitude displayed by the Obama campaign on the questions surrounding his constitutional eligibility to the presidency?

Read More

Monday, November 17, 2008

Subject to the tyranny of dead men

As I've written elsewhere, I'm not particularly inclined to be tyrannized by the living, much less by dead men. But that's just me. If you are inclined that way, well, that it is your problem, not mine, and I'm not going to make it my problem. Which is to say that I won't be tyrannized by your proclivity to be tyrannized by a dead generation, period.

Certain of my commenters, both very recently and further back in time, have said to me in very dogmatic terms that certain policies and agreements now existing were created by folks no longer existing and way before I was ever thought of. This fact to these persons means that therefore I (and by extension most everyone now living) have nothing to say about it; that we the living are subject, without review or revision, to the laws of dead men. It is, whatever it is, written in stone from henceforth and for all time. End of story, say they.

What a slave mentality this is! I'm not sure I can put a finger on the exact cause of this mindless, slavish mentality seemingly prevalent among the masses, but the public education system in American, such as it is at this moment in time, can't be helping matters any. And it can't be helpful that we've opened the door wide to peoples and cultures and traditions which can have little knowledge or understanding of what freedom is and how to maintain it, and thus to pass it on to posterity.

It is in this vein that Dr. Yeagley (who I seem to recall once argued this very line with me here at Webster's. I'd have to go back and check the archives to be sure) has an interesting entry up over at concerning certain internal governing characteristics of the Comanche Tribal Constitution and the term restrictions (term limits) it imposes on its Chief Executive Officer. Dr. Yeagley complains (and his complaint is warranted in my opinion, irrespective of who currently occupies the seat) that the Comanche constitution established by dead men contains a flaw that needs to be corrected by none other than the living. What a novel concept! Yeagley's complaint is not only leveled at the imposition on the Chief of the tribe himself, but the imposition on the Comanche people which denies them the right to select a given Chief as many times in succession as they themselves choose to select him. Yeagley goes further even, complaining that the very institution of elections is not a Comanche tradition; that [dead] White men imposed this institution on the Comanche people in 1934, though I don't get the impression he's arguing that the entirety of the Comanche constitution should be scrapped.

Dr. Yeagley writes:

Nick Tahchawwickah and I see precious value in our present leadership. We recently presented a proposal to the Comanche Business Committee about an amendment to our Comanche Constitution that would insure continuation of that leadership. When a true leader appears among the Comanche, we think the people have the right to maintiain his leadership as long as they want. Under our current Constitution, imposed by the Bureau of Indian Affiars in 1934, our chiefs can remain in office only for two consecutive terms. Then they must be out of office, at least one term, before they can run again. This is certainly foreign and contrary to the old Comanche ways. Leaders were [n't] 'elected' in the first place. They evolved into the position by natural selection. And they certainly were never "changed" regularly by scheduled elections. This is a bit bizarre for Comanches, actually. Tahchawwickah and I want an amendment which will allow unlimited terms. (The new, proposed Constitution, which hasn't come to a vote yet, does not even address the matter of terms or term limits.)

I personally find very interesting Yeagley's choice of terms in the foregoing paragraph. For instance where he invokes the language of Darwinian natural selection. But that's a side issue not necessarily related to this post. The main point is that Dr. Yeagley's complaint (again, a valid complaint in my opinion) is with the imposition of a dead generation of White men on a living generation of Comanches, the illegitimacy of which I've been arguing all along. Dr. Yeagley asserts that living Comanches have the right to adjust their Tribal Constitution to their own liking, or, as the Declaration of Independence puts it:

...that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to create new guards for their future security. ...organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

And I most certainly agree. This is just a no-brainer, one of those "self-evident truths" spoken of in the DoI -- that governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. The governed in the foregoing statement are minimally the living. They're more than just the living, of course, but that's what they are at a bare minimum. Beyond that bare minimum as applies to the Comanche People and their governing Constitution, they (living Comanches) have every right to determine for themselves what qualifications are requisite for their own citizenship, for their own leadership and so forth and so on. If the general sense of the Comanche People is that term limiting their Tribal Chief is bad for Comanches, then let them remove this imposition from their governing constitution.

We've had our own discussions (though I don't recall taking the issue up here at Webster's) about the illegitimacy of term limiting our governors under the United States, particularly the term limit imposed on the presidency by the 22nd amendment, U.S. Constitution, which serves as a good example for us to look to. It is one of those things that when you get into the depth of the subject you begin to realize how very detrimental to good politics term limits are, notwithstanding their popularity among the ignorant masses, as well as the "good intentions" of those who advocate for term limits. But beyond that, term limits can be nothing more and nothing less than depriving the People of a choice they may have otherwise made in exclusion of them. The best way to regulate the amount of damage a bad politician can inflict is to hold regular elections, and to make him subject to impeachment and prosecution according to law. If you have a policy in place which artificially regulates how long a given politician can serve in a given capacity, then you end up with that "lame duck" situation that generally attends the second terms of U.S. Presidents. In other words, I would argue, and have argued, with regard to this concept of term limits, that a good politician can be made bad and that a bad politician can be made worse by the very institution of (artificial) term limits itself.

But of course it is all written in stone now, so I have no say in the matter. I should therefore take my place as a slave to the policies and enactments of dead men.

Read More

Sunday, November 16, 2008

Question of the decade

Or more accurately, this is the question which has been begging to be asked of the left ever since the inherently radical ideology of liberalism became the dominant and ruling belief system in America. It is a theme I've hit on here and elsewhere numerous times over the last several years articulated more succinctly:

Does it not occur to the left that at some point the non-liberal non-persons may rise up and start to defend themselves?

It bears repeating what I've said any number of times before, "anything taken to the extreme is bad." But there's more to the saying than what is apparent on the surface, as is always the case. Leftists do not really want to bring down upon themselves and their sacred ideology the level of resistance that their actions, intended or otherwise, are bound to provoke at some point if allowed to continue on pace. As those of us who are actually familiar with the founding principles upon which this country was originally established so well recognize, "...all experience has shown that mankind is more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves." BUT...

Read More

Friday, November 14, 2008

Understanding the Constitution

(Note: In my right sidebar under the fifth heading "Links of Interest" is a permanent link to the Federalist Papers there for your perusal. I've written before that it was through my own reading and study of the Federalist Papers that I came to the knowledge of how destructive to our form of government the fourteenth amendment has been, original intent of the framers of the fourteenth notwithstanding. Subsequent amendments have further worked to the destruction of the federal principle so vital to our system, and the fourteenth amendment (original intent notwithstanding) paved the way to this destruction. A good familiarity with the Federalist Papers is essential to understanding the original intent of the men who sat in the Constitutional Convention. And there's the added bonus of discovering the great genius of these great Americans in devising the balanced system that they did.)

If you think you understand the Constitution, the depth and breadth of the principles contained therein and the form of government it establishes, here is a lengthy excerpt from the introduction of a new book on the subject titled "Defending the Republic" which will help you discover how much (or how little) you know and understand about the constitution in reality.

Read More

Surprise, surprise

The presidential "candidate whose middle name happens to be Hussein," according to a study reported in this article from whence the preceding quoted phrase was taken, received 89 percent of the Muslim vote on Nov. 4.

Many Muslim Americans also changed their party affiliations for this election. The country's Muslim population, estimated at between 7 to 8 million, has traditionally voted along conservative, Republican lines. Today, more than two thirds of American Muslims polled say they consider themselves to be Democrats, while only 4 percent see themselves as Republicans (29 percent identified themselves as Independents.) The shift began in 2004—in part because of the GOP's mishandling of civil liberties, from wiretapping American citizens to detaining Muslims in the United States and Guantanamo without trial, and because of the war in Iraq. This year, many more were drawn into the Democratic party by Obama himself. Muslims across the country were captivated by the senator's promise of unity and hope. On the Muslim-Americans for Obama Web site (, their mission statement includes the following: "That we support Barack Obama because, among other reasons, he rejects the politics of fear, challenging our nation to embrace its collective identity, where each American has a stake in the success and well-being of every American."

Yes, I can see where Muslims in America seeking Muslim empowerment in America would support the candidate whose middle name just happens to consist of a random arrangement of a random selection and number of consonates and vowels plucked at random from the English alphabet. But the joke's on them, right. The arrangement of the letters in the president-elect's middle name has no actual relation to Islam or to Muslims. And so what if it did, right? According to Colin Powell that's not America, and therefore not American, those elements in America which prefer those that just happen to be their own kind, that just happen to be closer to their own complexion, those who just happen to have names resembling their own, and whose religious upbringing just happens to most resemble their own.

Read More

Sunday, November 9, 2008

Patriotism and qualifications for national political office

Over at Dr. Yeagley informs me that my definition of the term "qualified", applied to Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates, does not align with a true conservative, modern definition of same, when in actuality my definition does not align with Yeagley's liberalized definition of the term "qualify" and its derivatives:

Terry, "qualification" these days, to a true conservative, means simply to know what it means to be American, by a studied Constitutional definition, and to love America.

And I reply:

I'm sorry Dr. Yeagley, I respect you and your opinion, but I cannot get onboard with what you've written above, which to my way of thinking is simply a lowering of standards for the sole purpose of making people like Governor Palin fit into some kind of 21st century (or something) definition of the term "qualified."

What you're describing in your definition is patriotism. Patriotism does not a qualified V.P. candidate make, albeit it is important that a V.P. candidate be a patriot, which, as you say, disqualifies Hussein Obama.

Okay, this started out as a long post in which I was going to show why the corruption of these terms by illegitimately making them synonymous with one another, as Yeagley has done above, can in no way be considered "true conservatism," modern methods and good intentions of some notwithstanding. But then I thought better of it, deleted everything I'd written in that vein, and decided to take another approach.

I'm asking for my readers, conservative and liberal alike, to either defend Yeagley's definition of these terms or to refute it in a comment to this entry. Anyone who wants to contribute to the discussion is very welcome to do so, but if you're simply going to engage the tack of insulting this or that contributor, or Dr. Yeagley himself, then I'm simply going to delete your posts (you know who you are). Fair enough? Good, then let the conversation begin.

Read More

Saturday, November 8, 2008

A couple of firsts for me in the late election

The first "first" was that I, for the first time since I've been voting, did not vote in the presidential election. That and another first I shared with Rick Darby over at Reflecting Light in a comment to this election day posting.

Read More

Friday, November 7, 2008

The late election and what it portends for immigration restriction

I predict that under the Hussein Obama administration the new Democrat controlled, virtually filibuster-proof, Congress is going to come to an agreement on "Comprehensive Immigration Reform," by and with the aid of that RINO John McCain, and other liberal RINO Senators. What this means effectively is that Oklahoma's H.B. 1804 (and all other state and local immigration restriction laws), while probably remaining on the books for symbolism's sake, will become shortly nothing more than a dead letter as the all-powerful central government will have comprehensively "occupied the field" of immigration, and comprehensively left no doubt that it "intended a complete ouster" ... of the state and local authorities on immigration restrictionism.

Prepare to be overrun by Mexican and other third-worlders, America! Most of you who support immigration restriction to one extent or the other have literally been dragged kicking and screaming to create your own state and local laws on immigration -- kicking and screaming that immigration is a federal issue and a federal responsibility. Well, believe me when I say that the feds have heard you and they will respond to your dependency in fairly short order.

Read More

Thursday, November 6, 2008

Governor Palin's Ignorance

A. Zarkov observes in a comment at VFR that Governor Palin's alleged ignorance concerning the great land mass Africa, otherwise known as one of the six inhabitable continents on the earth, is not necessarily as far-fetched as some might think.

Mr. Zarkov writes:

When we went to school (I was born and educated in New York City), we had a lot of geography, a subject not generally taught any more.

Indeed. I'm assuming that Mr. Zarkov attended public school at least twenty years before I attended public school. By the time I attended school, the subject of geography was no longer taught as a distinct subject unto itself, which it most certainly is. It was, rather, crammed in with the new and progressive, and therefore good "social studies" program, and therefore its fundamental principles, distinctive to itself as a subject unto itself, were wholly neglected during my education in the public schools. Or maybe I was sick the day they taught the basics of geographical science at my public school. Everything I've learned since about geography is the product of independent research and study.

Mr. Zarkov says in his post that a study was conducted in the 1980s which found that a third of Harvard seniors at the time didn't even know the causes of the changing of the seasons. That's an amazing statistic if it is at all close to the truth. But maybe the year the study was conducted was just a bad year for Harvard University. LOL I don't doubt that it's true, nor that it continues to be true, and I have a lot of anecdotal evidence to support the validity of the claim, albeit my anecdotal evidence does not include Harvard graduates to my knowledge. Nonetheless it is a general ignorance of the basics of the subject of geography that I've personally observed.

But think about this for a second, if what Mr. Zarkov is saying is true (and I'd put good money down that it is true), my school age children, with exception of the youngest who is four, know more about the physical planet they live on than at very least a third (and probably more) of Harvard seniors know. That's the disaster of public education in America. It is quite disturbing to contemplate the implications of the fact.

I wonder how many average college graduates today would have any clue what you were referring to if you asked them to describe the land and water hemispheres? Or how about this one, why is it that the hottest and the coldest days of the year generally lag two months behind the longest and the shortest days of the year respectively? Or how about this, what effect does the shape of the earth have on climate in various places on the surface thereof? How about altitude? What about geographical position, latitude and longitude? At what rate of speed does the earth rotate on its axis? What effect does this have on climate? If I were to give them two balls -- one representing the earth, the other representing the sun -- and were to ask them to show me the position of the earth on June 21st of the year in relation to the sun, could they do it?; could they place the earth accurately in its proper position?, and explain why they placed it there?, etc. You know, general stuff that my eleven year old daughter can answer.

Read More

Monday, November 3, 2008

The Bible and the election

I realize that the contemporary view is that religion and politics do not, and should not, mix. The whole of modern American society is infused with this false belief, but people don't actually believe it anyway when you get down to where the rubber meets the road. One's religion does, and forever will, inform one's politics. True, we can't legislate morality ... as long as it's Christian morality. All other versions of morality (non-Christian morality) is not only acceptable but encouraged in modern American politics. As I've said so many times before (and I invite anyone to refute the principle with a good argument), all laws are founded on morality, someone's morality.

Matthew Fontaine Maury once observed that "the Bible is authority for everything it touches." I agree. So, since I agree, I offer the following opinion. If the Bible says anything on politics, then it is authority for that particular aspect of political philosophy. If it says anything about what our standards should be for choosing our rulers, then it is authority for the making and observing of those standards.

So does the Bible have anything to say about choosing our rulers; about what standards and principles we should apply to their selection? Indeed it does, and we're wise to pay particularly close attention to the details, especially in this farce of a presidential election:

Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you.

The elective franchise carries with it a heavy burden of responsibility and of duty. The two candidates we're offered in this election in no way, so far as I can tell, meet these simple, reasonable qualifications (If you think either of them does, I should like to hear why.), therefore, since no other candidate for the presidency is included on the Oklahoma ballot, and since the Oklahoma ballot does not make accomodation for a write-in candidate, I shall abstain in the presidential election.

For those of you who know the scriptures, you're encouraged to offer others, Old and New Testament, which speak to this issue. The scripture I've posted above serves very well the purpose of this post, and that is why I chose it.

Read More

Saturday, November 1, 2008

What's in a name?

Imagine that someone by the name of Hussein Abdullah Mohammed, or some such, were running for Choctaw Indian Chief. Imagine that this same Hussein Abdullah Mohammed (or some such) could not and/or would not provide proof of his degree of Indian blood when requested by a suspicious member of the Choctaw tribe. What would be the likely reaction from Choctaw Indian voters?

Racists!; Extremists!; Wackos!!!

Read More

Why White Americans are going to vote for Hussein Obama

There are a variety of reasons for which White Americans will be voting for Hussein Obama in the upcoming, depending. But when you boil it all down -- when you get down to where the rubber meets the road -- it can be summed up in a statement made to me by a young twenty-something White female a few days ago:

America has always been run by White Christian men!

There you have it, a vote for Obama is really, to many Whites as well as others armed with the vote, a vote against the influence and leadership of White Christian males in our society. These people do not give a hoot about Obama per se, as I've been saying. What they do care about, and the goal they're trying to achieve in voting for Hussein Obama, is ending White Christian male influence in American politics -- you know, "breaking their bands asunder and casting away their cords from among us." What better way to begin the final push towards that process than electing to the highest office in the land a non-white, non-Christian citizen of the world like Obama?

Read More

Thursday, October 30, 2008

The Saga continues

Below is the latest in the ongoing saga between a dyed-in-the-wool irrational leftist coward and yours truly:

Jayrock writes:

I never said I didn't understand the constitution. Also I like how Terry, like many other ring wing extremists, with great hubris, insists that anyone that doesn't align themselves with his own narrow minded idea of what an American is, is a traitor and is plotting to ovethrow the government. This also apparently merely voting for Obama makes you an enemy, not of him, but of the COUNTRY.

TM writes:

Above is a prime example of leftist irrationality. Jayrock complains that I took his words concerning himself and followed them to the caboose. To the Jayrocks of the world one can state that he doesn't study the constitution, but if he doesn't say explicitly that he does not understand the constitution then all his statement means is that he doesn't study it; that he can and does understand it without studying it. The Jayrocks of the world believe that they can act in perfect accordance with the constitution without (admittedly) having studied it. If this is true it can be by none other, beyond the miraculous or divine intervention, than pure accident.

Beyond that, after vehemently complaining that I revealed the implied meaning of his explicit statements, calling me a head case for doing so, Jayrock engages the tack of reading into my statements about Jayrock that it is my (apparent) position that simply voting for Obama makes one an enemy of America bent on its destruction. Uh, Jayrock, where explicitly have I said that? A: I haven't, nor have I implied it.

The difference is that Jayrock's statement -I don't study the constitution- leads directly to the conclusion that he cannot understand the constitution (imagine Jayrock's reply to me if I claimed an understanding of his people and its heritage, yet admitted that I do not study the history of the Indian People). Whereas my statements about his support for Obama do not necessarily lead to his conclusion derived therefrom that I think simply voting for Hussein Obama means that you're an enemy of the United States, which simply does not follow from my statements.

Indeed, implicit in my statements about voting for Obama is the idea that one may ignorantly cast a vote for the man without being an enemy of America, avowed or otherwise. If it were my position that simply voting for Obama, or for McCain for that matter, or any other candidate, makes one an enemy of the United States, I wouldn't beat around the bush about it, I'd simply come out and say it.

But when you boil it all down, I'm very disappointed in Jayrock. I was working under the impression that Jayrock, unlike most leftists, had the guts to say what he really feels about America and to stand by those statements when confronted on them. At least that would be respectable. But it turns out that Jayrock is just another dyed-in-the-wool irrational leftist coward who lets his mouth overload his hind parts, then attempts to defend himself by casting aspersions at the feet of his opponents. Too bad.

The bottom line is this, if leftists do not want to be called on the carpet for their statements and the implied meaning of their statements, then they need to exercise a little self-discipline and avoid making statements which imply they are avowed enemies of the United States and its governing constitution. But that, of course, would be inconsistent with a leftist worldview; a worldview which teaches its blind adherents that they should be able to make any statement to the effect with absolute impunity. Jayrock is a good example of how modern society has failed America's youth.

A sad commentary, but that's the way it is.

Read More

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Are we destined for a showdown?

Here's a VFR entry that seems to me to have real potential; potential to generate among the outstanding VFR readership one of those great, quality discussions we've come to expect from the source. Here is my poor, but well intentioned submission to the entry:

You wrote:

I don’t think that this seizure of power is about to happen, and, if it did happen, I think the peoples of the West would rise up in rebellion and there would be civil war throughout the West until its leftist and foreign masters were thrown off, at the cost of massive devastation.

My thoughts more or less exactly, so naturally I think it well said, vile Auster sycophant this indicates I must surely be. ;-)

Seriously though, the stars are all aligning for an ultimate showdown (violent or otherwise, depending on a variety of factors we simply cannot foresee) between the historic West and its peoples and the leftist West and its foreign subversive, infiltrating, jihadist mercenaries. We can rest in the presently small comfort of knowing that if and when whitey finally awakens collectively from his slumber, he will take whatever actions he deems necessary to self-preservation. And he will prove himself, again, a worthy and unconquerable opponent.

As has been said before, God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it.

Read More

Attention Arizona Voters

In a comment to my entry yesterday, a poster appearing under the name politics 101 leaves the following message intended to inform Arizona voters of the leftist attempt to deceive them with their ballot initiative Proposition 202.

(To the poster who left the message, rest assured that the people of the state of Oklahoma overwhelmingly support LAWA and its groundbreaking sanctions on unethical Arizona employers. And we despise with you any and all attempts from the left to deceive the voters of Arizona into supporting any ballot initiative meant to undermine the provisions of LAWA. It is vital that Arizona voters understand the true nature of this initiative and vote overwhelmingly in opposition to it, thus sending a clear message to leftists across America that an informed and determined citizenry cannot and will not be deceived by such tactics as employed in this initiative; that the left deceives itself in perceiving Americans so naive and so easily deceived as to cast their collective vote in favor of the destructive Prop 202.)

To Arizona voters:


This November 4th Election
Arizona Prop 202 – Stop Illegal Hiring Fraud for Arizona voters.

Arizona has the most effective, non-discriminatory employer sanctions law in the nation. It has been upheld in four court challenges. The Legal Arizona Workers Act, which went into effect Jan. 1, 2008, requires all Arizona employers to use the E-Verify program. E-Verify is an essential tool to assure a legal workforce. It achieves an accuracy rate of 99.5 percent by matching names, birth dates, Social Security numbers and, in some instances, photos for job seekers.

As early as October of 2007, before the new law went into effect, Arizona saw positive results. Illegal workers were leaving voluntarily. Fraudulent documents and identity theft that were previously used were no longer enough to obtain employment.

The Stop Illegal Hiring Act (Prop 202) was drafted for a consortium of businesses, chambers of commerce, and trade associations seeking an endless supply of cheap illegal labor. Those organizations would profit from a modern-day form of slavery − exploiting illegal aliens. Those same groups were responsible for legal efforts that were rejected by District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
When legal challenges were thrown out, those groups devised Stop Illegal Hiring. This brilliant scheme is so deceptive. It counts on Arizona voters to only read the title and not pay attention to the contents. These authors of this proposition believe that the 70-75 percent of Arizona voters who want only legal workers employed will not look at the details.
Here is their deception.

The “Stop Illegal Hiring Act” guts the primary enforcement mechanisms of the current employer sanctions law and in actuality it is Employer Amnesty. It was designed to make sure you cannot prosecute employers if they use the I-9 process or the E-Verify program even if they are proven to have cheated the system:

• It abolishes required use of E-Verify. The initiative’s backers cleverly buried this key point on page seven. Even Governor Napolitano has stated that E-Verify is a very simple process and takes only minutes to accomplish. It would return E-Verify to a voluntary program and allow employers to resume the former “wink and nod” method of verifying employment eligibility through the I-9 process. Federal Judge John Walker blasted the current federal I-9 process, “The I-9 documents (that workers present to companies) are fraudulent.” Proposition 202 backers wish to perpetuate the same verification system that has been proven over 20 years to be rife with fraud and identity theft. If an employer complies with the I-9 requirement (which we know is not enforced by the feds) a court cannot find them guilty.

• It requires Arizona to wait until the Federal Government has taken action against an employer before the state takes action. We all know how ineffective and useless the Federal Government has been.

• It exempts thousands of Arizona employers by offering the use of the same standards that have not worked in the past. It removes corporations from the definition of “license.” It has introduced language to subject an employer to sanctions “if the employer has more than four employees and pays hourly wages or salary in cash and not by check or direct deposit to a financial institution” and fails to make withholding deductions, fails to report new hires to the Department of Economic Security or fails to provide coverage for workers compensation. The same provisions already exist for violations by employers with just one employee. It also provides that out of state employers (who are licensed in AZ) are not governed by the employer sanctions law.

• It eliminates the Silent Witness portion of the current law. All complaints regarding employer violations of the law must be written and signed. This would stop employees from reporting violations. Anonymous tips are an important tool in taking criminals, including serial killers, off the streets.

• It imposes an impossible standard of proof. High-level managers who are not officers or owners could hire illegal aliens with impunity, and would not face any enforcement.

Arizona citizens are not as naïve as this proposition's sponsors assume!

The truth is Stop Illegal Hiring (Prop 202) allows employers the ability to continue to hire illegal aliens with impunity.

Don’t let the name fool you, this proposition will nullify Arizona’s current Fair and Legal Employment Act and make hiring of illegals easier with less chance of penalty.

Proposition 202 is simply Employer Amnesty.

Vote No on Proposition 202.

Don Goldwater

As I said in the other post, such examples of deceptive tactics employed by the left are in no way surprising to those who understand what the left is all about fundamentally. Indeed, the left could not have ever established its current dominance in America without employing various and sundry methods of deception, exploiting the goodness and the good will of average Americans. But it's all deception at bottom which constitutes the left. So we should not be shocked whenever the left acts like the left; whenever leftists employ fundamentally leftist tactics to move their points.

The parallels between the left and Islam are striking, as was mentioned in the other entry, perhaps the most striking example of which is the aforementioned Deceptive Quality inherent to both inordinate belief systems. But this deceptive quality inherent to both belief systems has a fundamental drawback and fatal flaw, it deceives its own adherents into believing that their deceptions will forever go on undiscovered.

Read More

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

An extreme example of a self-evident truth

I've written before about the abject stupidity of giving people citizenship under the United States while allowing them to retain their citizenship status under another soveriegn nation (name one), and vice versa. This can result in but one outcome -- one of the two will be preferred over the other by the individual possessing dual citizenship, and he will exercise his citizenship priveleges in the less favored of the two in a way that he perceives is the advantage of the nation and people to which he commits his loyalties.

Below is a good example of what I'm talking about, albeit an extreme and an unusually open one. Nonetheless, apply the principle (which is irrefutable) to others who enjoy and utilize the same benefits as the commenter below, yet are more stealthy in their subversive activities. This comprises the domestic enemy that we really need to be worried about:

Jayrock writes to me:

Terry quite the contrary I don't have a loyalty to YOUR people or what they stand for. I am American Indian. I'm not a Republican on a witch hunt, sorry, or I take that back...I'm not.

In other words, Jayrock has no loyalty to white-devil America or its government, past, present or future, but he enjoys the benefit of having dual citizenship under the U.S. and his particular Indian tribe to which all his loyalties are devoted, or so he thinks. And he intends to use his U.S. citizenship priveleges as part of a subversive scheme to destroy MY people and everything that WE stand for. And how is Jayrock going to do this? He's going to vote for Obama change, of course. Even someone as brain-dead as Jayrock knows that Obama represents the antithesis of what America has historically stood for, and this is the reason he supports him. It's not that Jayrock gives a hoot about Obama per se, it is that, to Jayrock's way of thinking, Obama is a useful pawn for achieving his (Jayrock's) ultimate end of destroying White America for its sins against his people. A once in a lifetime opportunity to punish Whitey has come Jayrock's way, and he isn't about to miss the taking advantage of it. He doesn't seem to realize that if his ends are achieved Native Americans will fall with us.

Update: My Indian opponent, Jayrock, has pulled an arrow from his quiver and launched it with his thirty pound Native American bow.

Read More

Political Liberalism, governmental imbalance, and the Deceptive Quality

In my June 15, 2007 AFB article, What is Balanced Government?, I wrote the following concerning my theory of an internal healing quality inherent to Balanced Govenment:

... Having put quite a lot of thought to it, I have concluded that there's a quality inherent to balance that is somewhat elusive under a mere cursory investigation. For my own purposes I have denominated this "the non-deceptive quality." For the sake of putting a definition to it, I will say this: Balanced Government does not abide deception, or the practice thereof. ...

I quote that passage from the article because it was brought to mind as I read this commentary by Tom Tancredo over at the Team America site. Here is an excerpt from the article:

The opponents of immigration enforcement have stooped to a new low in Arizona with their latest attempt to undermine the state's workplace verification laws. After exhausting their usual tactics, they are resorting to outright and intentional deception of the voters. This November, Arizonans will vote on Proposition 202; which will be described to them as such:

"Stop Illegal Hiring" Act is an initiative designed to crack down on unethical businesses who hire illegal immigrants. This initiative targets employers who hire workers and pay under-the-table in cash, which fuels illegal immigration in Arizona. It revokes the business license of employers who knowingly or intentionally hire illegal immigrants. This initiative increases penalties for identity theft, as illegal immigrants often use stolen identities to conceal their undocumented status...

If this were all I knew about Prop 202, I'd wholeheartedly support it; and the initiative backers are hoping that voters won't learn anything about the initiative beyond the title.

Read the rest of the article to find out what the real motive behind this proposition is.

My purpose here is not to criticize for the sake of criticizing, particularly someone I greatly admire like Mr. Tancredo, but his rhetoric implies that he gives credit where credit is not due. I understand why Tancredo would feel compelled to use the language contained in the opening sentence, but isn't what these liberals are doing purely consistent with the inherent nature of their political ideology? What is political liberalism in truth but deception? Have Arizona liberals really "stooped to a new low" in attempting to deceive the People of Arizona into throwing down the very walls which they themselves only recently erected for their future security? It may be a new tactic, or one we're not used to liberals employing to achieve their ends, but it's in no way a "stooping to a new low" for liberals, as if to say that this new method is below even them.

My impression is that Tancredo's rhetoric, well intended and righteously indignant as it is, serves to illustrate the vital necessity of our accepting the reality of what liberalism truly is, and to what extent it will go in order to achieve its ends. Until that time we cannot begin to understand by what means we must restrain it, given that it cannot and will not restrain itself; that it must be restrained, if it is to be restrained at all, by a force outside itself.

I say to you in the words of the Psalmist that liberals are the heathen of the earth raging and imagining a vain thing saying, let us break their bands assunder and cast away their cords from among us.

Incidentally the exact same thing applies to the problem of Islam. Like liberalism Islam is an inherently deceptive belief system which literally knows no bounds to its ability and willingness to deceive by any and all means in pursuit of its ultimate ends. Islam has but one objective and it will stop at nothing to achieve it. The same applies to liberalism.

Read More

Monday, October 27, 2008

What good can possibly come from an Obama presidency?

Well, some seem to think that conservatism will be revived by an Obama administration. It's an interesting theory, and one can only hope, but I have my doubts. Nonetheless, that's their story and they're sticking to it.

If you've been following the flap over Obama's inability, or worse unwillingness, to prove his citizenship status by simply producing a valid birth certificate, thus ending all the controversy, all speculation and doubt, and the deepening of distrust among a large segment of this society that his neglect is creating, then you need to read the latest here and follow the links provided.

As to Dr. Yeagley's entry, frequent commenter and zealous Obama supporter Jayrock offers this bit of opinion on the matter:


You go from this ludicrous statement,

" No one can sincerely question or reasonably object to anyone else's citizenship"

To Obama allowing and christening everyone into the country and declaring them American if they wish to be.

First of all it's pretty surreal that you are lamenting your right, such that it is, to question another's citizenship. I don't feel that fear but maybe it's because I have better things to do then go on witch hunt's for American citizens, that's just me though.

And more to the point, don't you think at this point in the game the question of whether Obama is a citizen or not has been answered? Do you honestly think that the American government would not have vetted Obama at this point? Do you honestly believe our government has somehow overlooked this very important detail?

Is this all the Republicans have anymore? Is this what you people have been reduced to?

I mean really!? It's quite pathetic!

Yes; Jayrock has better things to do, I'm sure, than to worry himself with the prospect that he might actually be supporting a non-citizen for the presidency; a person who, if he is an actual citizen, and/or a natural born citizen, cannot, or worse, will not produce documentation to prove it and set everyone's mind at ease; a person who was a member of and attended a known America-hating black African church for twenty years yet claims that he knew nothing of Jeremiah Wright's vitriolic hatred for America until recently when it was exposed (you'd think someone would have exposed that fact sooner, no?), his ties with known, unrepent terrorists and all the rest. Yes, I see what Jayrock means, it's all just a waste of time for any self-respecting Obama zealot. I don't know about you, but I can't think of anything that could possibly be more pathetic than that.

This attitude among Obama supporters really bothers me. I myself recently had a somewhat heated discussion with a young twenty-something woman in a public market over an Obama presidency and what it portends for America. This young white woman was quite uninformed about virtually everything in this man's questionable past, admittedly so, and in that light it wasn't a fair fight by any means. I even almost felt sympathy for her and her ignorance on a couple of occasions, but it did not deter me from pointing out the fallacy of her thinking or her ignorance of the subject matter, albeit I did tone it down a bit. She was quite well programmed, however, to respond with the usual liberal Americaner-than-thou accusations and invectives. You see, America has always, according to this woman, been run by white Christian men and it is high time that we had a change; we must have a change!, and what better person than a non-white, non-Christian, America-despising leftist to initiate and see through to its end that ... change? The gods have finally smiled upon America and sent us a savior, and we must respond favorably to this Messiah or we will forfeit all that the benevolent gods are offering us. Beyond that, it is simply the height of unfairness to call Barack Hussein Obama, a.k.a., Barry Soetoro, etc., by his given Muslim name. And being unfair, particularly in this vein and towards someone as obviously benevolent as our new Messiah, I learned during this exchange, is quite unAmerican. And so it went.

This, my friends, is what public education has wrought on your children.

But the ruling of the Judge is quite interesting and thought provoking, as well as the articles and some of the comments to the articles which may be had via Yeagley's links. Happy reading.

There is at least one positive that comes from Obama's run for the presidency, posers and agent infiltrators for Muslim empowerment in America like Colin Powell are officially coming out of the closet. That can't be bad.

Read More

Sunday, October 26, 2008

What is liberalism?

Here's a good post on a subject near and dear to some of us, and which we've discussed numerous times before here and elsewhere:

In this post, Zippy Catholic decries the lack of an "anchor political conservatism" which would be an effective counter to the dominant core worldview of the liberal.

The first commenter on the thread asks for a definition of liberalism, and then asks "What is the antithesis of liberalism?"

I've read the existing comments, and there are several, but it seems no one has come up with a solid definition as requested. We've covered similar territory on this blog, as my longtime readers will remember. So I won't attempt to re-plow that same ground, but any of you who can offer a good definition of liberalism are welcome to do so.

A good definition of liberalism. hmmm.

I also read Zippy's entry yesterday and thought I'd try to keep up with the discussion as it unfolded. Here is W-4 contributor, Lydia McGrew's latest comment to the entry, followed by my response to Lydia:

Lydia writes:

But people are always noting how ethical liberalism really is. For example, racism is a sin. Or I have just been debating a bit with two rather extreme liberals who obviously believe that not agreeing to be an organ donor is a sin. Not that they use the word "sin," but they definitely believe it is wrong, to the point that your wishes should be ignored. Racists should be punished. And so forth.

I think the contradictions inherent in liberalism as we are discussing it here are so rampant that there may be no _consistent_ picture of liberalism understood on its own terms, because it just isn't internally consistent.

TM to Lydia:


Liberalism is consistently inconsistent; therein does its internal consistency lie. If it weren't internally consistent in some way it would instantly destroy itself.

You are right, though, that liberalism founds its specious claims on ethics and morality, always. Here again it is found consistent. The whole idea that "you can't legislate morality" is founded on the idea that it is wrong, unethical -- IMMORAL -- to legislate morality, that is, a morality that is inconsistent with the doctrine of liberalism, thus the claim is self-defeating because it's good, right -- MORAL -- to legislate that which is consistent with the doctrine of liberalism. Liberals love to legislate morality, and indeed cannot avoid doing so -- liberal morality -- while in the same breath insisting that we can't, or shouldn't.

Virtually all, if not all (I tend to believe the latter), laws are founded on a moral perspective, someone's moral perspective. Even the most immoral piece of legislation (abortion legalization as an example) is founded on a moral perspective, i.e., that it is wrong (immoral) to deny a woman's right to choose.

It is quite literally impossible for moral beings to be or act otherwise.

Speaking of which, I've always denied the legitimacy of the term amoral. To my way of thinking (yeah; it's pretty black and white) moral and immoral exhaust the options when we're talking about moral beings, therefore the term amoral, as applied to moral beings in whatever capacity, is illegitimate. To say our society is "amoral" (an argument I've heard used several times before), in my opinion, is a misdiagnosis. If I'm right that it is a misdiagnosis, then what does this portend for the results of the treatments that we prescribe on the basis of this misdiagnosis? Well, that's a subject for another post, I guess.

The main thrust of this post is this -- can we lay down a good, solid, concise definition of liberalism? I think I have a pretty good one if anyone should care to see it, but I will caution you that it is not sophisticated, nuanced, or otherwise intellectually driven. It is, to the contrary, very simple and very concise, and strikes at the heart of what I personally believe liberalism boils down to at bottom, notwithstanding the claims of some of its adherents...

Read More

Saturday, October 25, 2008

(Webster's) Founding quote of the day

This is one of those features that I enjoy so much over at The Maritime Sentry. No; I'm not planning a Webster's Founding quote of the day, it is a function taken up by others whom I respect, and I will not invade on their territory. However, I don't see anything wrong with an occasional "Founding quote of the day" here at Webster's, particularly given that this blog frequently highlights the wisdom and authority of the founding generation.

Below is my first installment:

The brief exposition of the Constitution will unfold to young people the principles of republican government; and it is the sincere desire of the writer that our citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the BIBLE, particularly the New Testament or the Christian Religion.

-Noah Webster, History of the United States c. 1834

Read More