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

Friday, October 24, 2008

Can America survive devoid of religious principle?

Over at Dr. Yeagley has an interesting Journal entry posted which I read quickly this morning and submitted the following comment to:

TM writes:

Interesting post.

A comparison/contrast of the leading principles which have marked the government of the People of America since they first began colonizing the continent in the early 1600s might be helpful:

1. God's principle of individuality vs. modern liberalism's godless individuality, i.e., "extreme individualism."

2. The Christian principle of self-government vs. the liberal/libertarian Christless version of 'self-government', in the latter case an unrestrained self-indulgence called "self-determination."

3. The American Heritage of Christian Character vs. the liberal denial and rewrite of the same, i.e., whatever, if any, connection between the historic faith of Americans and the greatness of the Republic exists, is at most negligible. America is an idea; an idea not unique to any people or any faith. Genuine orthodox Christianity is a perversion of and destructive to the universal idea that is America.

4. Conscience is the most sacred of all property vs. the liberal principle that conscience, whenever it guides one to a conclusion not congenial with the principles of liberalism, is an oppressive restraining influence on 'free' spirits, which children must be taught to violate at a very early age.

5. The Christian form of our government vs. liberalism's radical "secular state", the latter of which claims to deny the existence and legitimacy of moral governance, an easily demonstrated palpably false claim.

6. Local self-government vs. an all-powerful centralized government -- power emanates from the national authority, not the other way around.

7. The Christian principle of American political union, i.e., reciprocal and centrifugal federalism and voluntary union vs. liberalism's government by judiciary and forced political union.

What it all comes down to in the end, though, is worldview, which is the reason I often state "worldview is everything," meaning a person's, and by extension a nation's and a government's worldview ultimately determines the way each conducts his/its affairs, whether this clear fact is recognizable to some or not. Whatever it is, everyone has one (a worldview) and cannot not vie for its institution at every level of government, and always on moral grounds, spurious or otherwise. In other words, whatever their particular worldview instructs them is right (moral) and wrong (immoral) will invariably dictate what form of government they are most attached to. The Federal Representative Constitutional Republic that our founders created is, as John Adams said, wholly inadequate any other than a religious and a moral people.

A frequent commenter there who goes by the moniker "ecology" chooses to answer this way:

Well I do not know about this having to be religious thing. Like who is going to tell me that I am not the right religion and am not "moral". I will just load a round into the chamber and tell you to f*** off. I do not think you have to be any of these mainstream religions to be "moral". In fact I find many reigious people to be covetous and fake. Liars living a lie with cult like tendencies. People need to be raised humble and with a connection to the land and reality. Cheap oil and the new world resources have made us bloated and pudgy. We are basically one massive cargoist cult.

Yes, many self professed religious people are liars and fakes and hypocrites, no one is disputing that. But not all religious people are liars and fakes and hypocrites, at least these are not their defining characteristics, unless we're talking about a religion like Islam which enjoins its followers to lie and fake and engage the act of hypocrisy. I find that many non-religious folks are liars and fakes and hypocrites, so it seems that both religious and non-religious folks have something in common after all, i.e., our common humanities and fallen natures.

Ecology simply makes the common error of missing the big picture. And while I know it's not pc to question someone's patriotism unless it is on the grounds of a rejection and denial of the all-encompassing ideology of liberalism and its principles, I prefer to take my cues from the wisdom of founding fathers such as George Washington, et al:


In his Farewell Speech, George Washington said:

"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." (emphasis mine)

Now, you personally may not be particularly inclined, as some are, to labor to overthrow all religious influence in America (so long as it is Christianity), I do not and cannot know. But you nonetheless "labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness" when you argue that, in direct opposition to Mr. Washington, morality can be maintained without religion. Do you also claim the tribute of patriotism as you labor to subvert these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens? If so it is all in vain.

If this offends your sensibilities that I would dare question another American's patriotism, and particularly on these grounds, then I guess you'll just have to get over it. Ecology, like so many liberals (and nominal conservatives) these days, boldly ignores the wisdom of our eminent founders, throwing caution to the wind as he indulges the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion; that liberty and independency and genuine Republican government can be maintained without both, and this he does as he instructs us that we should teach our children humility and connect them to reality. Well okie dokie.

Once more, he and others like him lack the perspective of a whole view, which is to say that his approach to this subject (and any other) is a part-to-whole approach which he was unwittingly taught during his formidable years, and continues to unwittingly embrace and apply, his self-styled humility and connection to reality notwithstanding. It's understandable and really serves to illustrate the point; the point being that an irreligious society cannot be a moral society; that an immoral society cannot be a free society. I know, I know, that's a complete departure from the conventional wisdom. But if you believe otherwise, then I'd strongly suggest that you open your eyes and take a good look around you.

Read More

Follow-up on a previous entry

You didn't expect me to simply leave it at that did you? The problem with unthinkingly asserting that the constitution, in and of itself, is our "supreme law" is that, as I said in the other post, it is only a half-truth. Here's what the constitution really says about its authority:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. (italics added)

It is the portion of the statement which I've italicized above which is often neglected to the great detriment of truly understanding the authentic claim of the constitution to its own authority. Obviously the constitution is not claiming supreme authority in and of itself, but qualifies its authority to consist, in part, in "all laws made in pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States." This (the whole statement) is our "supreme law," the neglect of which can only lead us to false conceptions as to the supremecy of the constitution.

The highlighted portion of the statement is demonstrated significant by a simple example. Take two individuals who have in common an overall political philosophy, and invariably you will get some disagreement between them on what kinds of laws constitute those "made in pursuance thereof." Imagine then how widely different the opinions of two individuals with disparate political philosophies must be. It is important, therefore, that we have at least a cursory understanding of the constitution and the form of government which it establishes (hint: it ain't a democracy), and that can only come from studying the founding fathers, their letters and other writings on the subject, political speeches, and so forth and so on. In other words, original source documents.

P.S. If you still don't know where specifically in the constitution to look for the foregoing claim to supreme authority, I can only say that it lies somewhere between the opening words of the preamble and the closing of the original document excluding the Bill of Rights and the seventeen additional amendments attached thereto.

Read More

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Birthright Citizenship equals Natural Born Citizenship

What is "natural born" citizenship anyway? Are "birthright citizenship" and "natural born citizenship" one and the same things? Apparently to some Americans they are.

Birthright citizenship is, of course, the idea that originates from the fourteenth amendment citizenship clause:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Wikipedia gets down to where the rubber meets the road on birthright citizenship:

When accorded automatic birthright citizenship based on birth on American soil, a newborn's status is generally unaffected by the legal status or citizenship of that individual's mother or father. (italics added)

Quite so. But as bad and self-destructive as this is, carried to its logical conclusion, let me add that birthright citizenship, once conferred upon such a newborn, and under our current system and definition of "birthright citizenship", can never be revoked so long as they both (the U.S. and the birthright citizen) shall live short of the individual himself formally renouncing his U.S. citizenship, and/or, on proof of treason against the United States.

Additionally there is the little issue of the legality/illegality of the parents of the birthright citizen in question. If you're incapable of following that train to the caboose, I'm afraid there's likely not a whole lot of hope for you.

In his appearance on Meet the Press last Sunday, Colin Powell asked the following, obviously intended as a rhetorical question: "Is there something wrong with a seven year old Muslim kid believing he or she can one day become president?" We all know what the PC answer is, and we now know what Colin Powell's opinion on the matter is -- such an America Powell wants nothing to do with. Notwithstanding that, the non-PC answer is an emphatic YES!, there is something, indeed everything wrong with a Muslim child believing he can one day become president of the United States of America, a Western nation founded on Judeo-Christian values by White European Protestant Christians. But the hard fact of the matter is nonetheless this, liberal dominance has introduced into this country a system of immigration and naturalization by which our mortal enemies can effect a hostile takeover of our country by foreign mercenaries without a shot ever being fired. Indeed, by and with the aid of liberals and liberalism. I.e., birthright citizenship, which is to say "natural born" citizenship.

When Hamilton wrote in Federalist no. 46 that "the Convention have guarded against all danger of this sort...", by which he intended the raising of a foreign "creature of their own" to the presidency, he was working from the original constitution, not that watered-down leftist version we have now. The blatantly stupid and illegitimate concept of "birthright citizenship" would have never even occured, as more than a passing and laughable thought, to our founding fathers and their generation. But as I've pointed out so many times before, WE (heavy on the WE) "hold these truths to be self-evident," and WE (heavy again on the WE) "THE PEOPLE, in order to form a more perfect union," etc., refers not to us, but to them; their generation, unless and until WE, meaning us, formally assert the truths contained therein as our fathers did.

There is some question as to Barack Hussein Obama's, a.k.a. Barry Soetoro's U.S. citizenship status. So far as I'm aware he's never produced a certified copy of his original Hawaiian birth certificate to anyone, anywhere, including the courts. If the document really exists, then why not simply produce it and end all the confusion, the speculation, and the ongoing legal battle? The copy which his people have posted at his website is extremely questionable as far as I'm concerned. I was born in 1965, four years after Barack Obama's birth, and my California birth certificate bears not even the slightest resemblance to Obama's alleged Hawaiian birth certificate posted on the site. The certificate posted there is very modern looking, more resembling a modern title to an automobile than a genuine birth certificate of the era. Moreover, anyone slightly more computer savvy than I am could easily produce such a forgery bearing whatever name they chose to put on it. Indeed, I think I could even do it, computer illiterate that I am, if I put my mind to it. And it's striking how very little information is on the document, whereas my birth certificate is, by comparison to the alleged Obama birth certificate, loaded with information relevant to my birth.

What I should like to see is an example of a Hawaiian birth certificate c. 1961, the year of Obama's birth. Let us compare the two documents.

But to me this issue of birthright citizenship -- which amounts to nothing more than simply being born on American soil -- equalling natural born citizenship must be dealt with post haste. It is the height of stupidity to say that the mere fact of ones birth on American soil, in spite of everything else that is relevant, satisfies the Constitutional prerequisite of natural born citizenship establishing permanent eligibility for holding the highest office in the land. If this is what U.S. law reflects, then U.S. law on this question of natural born citizenship must be completely overhauled, again, post haste.

Read More

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

DANGER Will Robinson!

Is there something wrong with Americans distrusting Muslims and their motives to the extent that they deprive them of holding political office under the United States? According to subversive infiltrator Colin Powell there is. And it is on this basis that Powell recently defected from his party and endorsed Barack Hussein Obama for president of the United States. Has Powell always been a subversive and an infiltrator, an agent of Muslim empowerment in America? I don't know and I don't really care, I mean CAIR. He is now, for all intents and purposes, and that's all that matters to me at this point.

As I said in the post preceding this one, the proof is in the pudding. Powell didn't have to endorse either candidate. That he endorsed Obama, and on the grounds that he endorsed Obama, says all that needs be said concerning his sympathy towards our mortal enemies. According to Mr. Powell the only real Americans are those who are either sympathetic to Muslims and Muslim empowerment in America, i.e., those inclined to dhimmitude, or, Muslim-Americans themselves. No one else need apply.


In the initial entry I wrote:

According to Mr. Powell the only real Americans are those who are either sympathetic to Muslims and Muslim empowerment in America, i.e., those inclined to dhimmitude, or, Muslim-Americans themselves. No one else need apply.

I ask you, is this not precisely what the Muslim holy book teaches its adherents to strive for? What does this make Mr. Powell?

Update: CAIR has a friend in Powell. As I intimated in the initial entry above, CAIR, "America's largest Muslim civil liberties group," whose mission it "is to ... empower American Muslims," has posted an approving response to Colin Powell's public rebuke of non-American Americans, i.e., any person born or naturalized in the United States who is not a Muslim and/or is unsympathetic towards Muslims and opposed to Muslim empowerment in America.

From the CAIR article:

"We applaud Mr. Powell for stating so eloquently and forcefully what should have been said long ago by public officials and candidates for elected office," said CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad. "His statement gives hope to American Muslims who have been disheartened by rising levels of anti-Muslim bigotry in this election cycle."

Eloquently? Forcefully maybe, but eloquently?

Well, that's what happens when Muslims in America become empowered to the extent they are now, these people become emboldened and begin coming out of the woodwork. CAIR, and Muslim residents of America in general, will in turn become more emboldened with such friends and advocates in high places. And we all know what that means.

"Is there something wrong with some seven year old Muslim kid in America believing that he or she could be president," you ask Mr. Powell? Uh, the short answer is yes.

Read More

Sunday, October 19, 2008

Powell turns his back on America

Former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, appearing this morning on Meet the Press, formally lent his endorsement to Senator Barack Hussein Obama's leftist campaign for the presidency on the basis, in Powell's words, that Obama "has the ability to inspire." No, I'm not making this up. But it gets worse:

President Bush's first secretary of state criticised his own party for allowing the campaign to turn negative.

"I'm also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the [Republican] Party say... such things as 'Well, you know that Mr Obama is a Muslim'.

"Well the correct answer is, 'He's not a Muslim, he's a Christian, he's always been a Christian'. But the really right answer is, "What if he is?' Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer is 'No', that's not America."

Mr Powell said he remained a Republican though he thought his party was moving too far to the right.

The Republican party is moving too far to the right? You must be kidding me! If the Republican party isn't moving far enough and fast enough for you to the left, Mr. Powell, then I'd suggest, sir, that you abandon it as you've done your country and officially join that other party where you belong. And take McCain with you while you're at it, eh?

Oh, and let's not neglect the minor issue of Powell's Islam-embracing dogmatism which states that America is not America that prefers Christian leaders over Islamic ones. Thus Americans who prefer Christians over Muslims, according to Mr. Powell, are not true Americans.

Here's the irrefutable evidence for Powell's betrayal of America, he could have refused to endorse either candidate, yet he chose to officially endorse Barack Hussein Obama and all the leftist anti-American baggage he carries with him. Not to mention that he states in no uncertain terms that even if Obama were a Muslim, he would still endorse him for POTUS.

Look for a Powell appointment in an Obama administration. And look out America, the Muslims have their agents and infiltrators everywhere, at all levels of government.


On further reflection I think I get it now. I was initially looking at Powell's statement about the Republican party moving "too far to the right" as separate from his statements about America not being America unless it fully embraces Islam to the extent that it would elect a Muslim president. But the two statements work hand-in-glove. That's really the only way they make any sense considering the obvious fact that the Republican party is increasingly moving to the left, not to the right as Powell asserts. As Powell sees it, however, the Republican party is moving in the opposite direction, and here's why -- he sees that a growing segment of the Republican base is finally opening its eyes to the fact that Islam ain't all that president Bush has cracked it up to be, i.e., a great and peaceful religion hijacked by radicals. Since Republicans constitute the vast majority of folks who are finally beginning to see the light about Islam, and beginning to speak more openly about it, which is a danger to Islamic influence in America, Powell therefore concludes that the Republican party is moving too far to the right. With this covert agent of Islam it's about America's attitude toward Islam. It's all becoming very clear to me now.

Or is it simply Powell's sense of relative motion that causes him to see the Republican party as moving too far to the right? In other words, is Powell himself moving to the left at a faster pace than the bulk of the Republican party thus creating in him the relative sense that the Republican party is moving to the right, when in reality it is Powell that is moving to the left, as I said, at a velocity exceeding that of the Republican party?

Note to Mr. Powell: It was long ago discovered that the earth is not the center of the universe, if you catch my drift.

Read More

Don Wildmon on the upcoming

Donald Wildmon, Founder and Chairman of the American Family Association (AFA) has sent the following AFA Action Alert to the organization's subscribers, one of which I happen to be:

Please vote! Our children's future depends on it!

October 15, 2008

Dear Terry,

In my 70 years, I have never seen an election where coverage was so one-sided and biased or where censorship by the liberal media was so widely practiced and where media coverage was so slanted as I have seen in this election process. Their plan is working. The only chance conservatives have is to make sure they care enough to vote.

If the liberals win the upcoming election, America as we have known it will no longer exist. This country that we love, founded on Judeo-Christian values, will cease to exist and will be replaced by a secular state hostile to Christianity. This “city set on a hill” which our forefathers founded, will go dark. The damage will be deep and long lasting. It cannot be turned around in the next election, or the one after that, or by any election in the future. The damage will be permanent. That is why it is so important for you to vote and to encourage friends and family to vote. This is one election where your vote really counts.


Translation? Vote the thoroughly non-conservative Republican ticket or all will be forever lost and you will have contributed to the final destruction of America. As a Christian and a conservative, a father of six children and a patriotic American, this cuts deep, which is the intent, no? But as I've pointed out so many times before, it's a false conception that my vote, as a citizen of the state of Oklahoma, is going to, in any way, shape or form be a difference maker in the presidential election. The same applies to you if you do not live in a swing state. Therefore, what would my vote cast for the Republican ticket accomplish other than to add yet another number to the McCain-Palin "mandate" should McCain manage to squeeze out the victory? I can't allow my vote to be misused that way. However, it is vitally important, as it always has been, for us to vote in the state and Congressional races, preferably according to the biblical admonitions on choosing our rulers.

No; my vote in this presidential election will be a protest vote, which is to say that I will not vote McCain-Palin, irrespective of the esteem in which I hold Mr. Wildmon. As I advised someone who was wailing and knashing his teeth over my not taking the Kerry candidacy seriously prior to the 2004 presidential election, "if you Democrats want us to take your candidate seriously then you need to nominate a serious candidate on the Democrat ticket." The exact same principle applies to the GOP, which in no way, by my estimation, can any longer be considered as representing Conservatism, or Republicanism for that matter, except, as I've also pointed out before, in a quickly eroding relative sense. I personally don't care to contribute further to that erosion.

I'm not seeking absolute conservative and Republican purity, but the two are already watered down enough, don't ya agree? A little coffee with your water anyone? No? So be it. But don't ask me to choke down your lukewarm watered-down concoction.

Read More

Technical difficulties

To readers who use the page from time to time, I'm aware of the recent problems with the Lawrence Auster on Islam page, and I'm working on a permanent solution. The page is temporarily fixed and is usable from its current url which should present readers with no further difficulties, but it will soon be moved to a different url, at which point I will post an update and provide the new address here at Webster's. My apologies for any inconveniences this situation has caused users of the page.

Thanks to the individual who initially made me aware of the problem. You know who you are.

Note: Articles continue to be added to the page as they are discovered from archives or newly written. If you've not used the page in a while you might want to check it out. If you're not familiar with the page at all allow me to present you with an excerpt from my page introduction:

The Purpose of this page:

The purpose of the page is twofold: it is to provide the inquisitive seeker of information concerning Islam with factual material on the nature of the religion of Mohammed which you may have heretofore been unacquainted with or simply unaware of. It is also intended to bring to one central location a collection of Lawrence Auster's best and most important writings on this subject for the convenience of the serious reader who wishes to refer again to one or more of Mr. Auster's excellent articles on the religion of Islam, and how it affects, or potentially affects, you and I and all Americans.

Lawrence Auster has written many articles on the nature of Islam and its incompatibility with Western thought and culture. Can the religion of Mohammed ever be reconciled with Western ideas and expressions of government? Should America's first amendment religious protections apply to Muslims? Moreover, is Islam compatible with the first amendment establishment and free exercise clauses? How about the freedom of speech, and of the press, or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble for a redress of grievances? Are there moderate Muslims? Is there such a thing as a moderate Islam? Is Islam, as President Bush says, truly a "religion of peace?" These are just a few of the questions Mr. Auster explores in his numerous and broad writings on this subject.

Be sure to check it out in any case. There's a broad range of titles from which to choose covering the problem with Islam from several interesting and informative angles.

Read More

What does the Constitution really say?

This is one of those "attention to details" issues that may not particularly bother you (although I can't imagine why it wouldn't) but it bothers me immensely, which is not to say that what I think matters much in the grand scheme of things, but an actual reading of the Constitution with an eye for detail will yield that I am right nonetheless.

I recently had an email conversation with someone who, at one point in our conversation, referred to the U.S. Constitution as "our Supreme Law." As I've pointed out any number of times and any number of different ways before, both directly and indirectly, the statement and various derivatives of the same is only half true, and I object to its popularity and common usage as part of the modern American lexicon. It should be obvious, on reading the whole phrase from whence such contractions are extracted, how such a statement, taken for granted as it is, can be misleading and damaging to the whole truth of what the constitution states about its supreme authority.

And by the way, if you're at a loss as to where specifically to look, it won't hurt you to read or even scan the entirety of the document. I'm not going to give you chapter and verse. Sorry. Some of you, I'm afraid, are not as familiar with the Constitution as becomes good citizenship (Not singling anyone out, but if the shoe fits, wear it.).

Read More

Saturday, October 18, 2008

Who got Barack Hussein, a.k.a. Barry Soetoro into this mess to start with?

(Note: Readers interested in this issue will want to read this WND piece as well.)

Answer: His mother. Of course 18 yr. old Stanley Ann Dunham could not have known at the time that her son what's-his-name? would, later in life, have the highest of political aspirations and the personal political prowess, nor the then future political climate in America (re: liberal dominance), necessary to make a go of it. But, you see, life is a series of personal choices, and those choices have consequences irregardless.

The saddest part, perhaps, of this whole sorry story is that many Americans could really care less whether Obama meets the Constitutional qualifications to be POTUS or not, which means, essentially, that they're enemies of the United States and its governing Constitution. Obama is their lord and savior, and you know what that means -- it means that any provision in Article II, U.S. Constitution that might prohibit Obama's becoming president, and all laws made in pursuance thereof, is trumped by Obama's Messiah status. Something tells me, though, that the same people would act the purest of Constitutional purists were the same questions surrounding a candidate for the presidency which they opposed. Such is the duplicitous nature of unregenerate man.

Here's a little background (Hat Tip: Call Me Mom):

It makes accessible to the general public some of the serious questions about Obama's citizenship status that have been vetted almost exclusively in the conservative web world. More important than the questions and allegations is the refusal of the Obama campaign to provide what should be the simplest response to an action brought in federal court: a certified birth certificate from Hawaii.


A lifelong Democrat who has held political office and been a Pennsylvania state committeeman, Philip Berg, has brought suit over the real questions raised by the absence of a valid Obama birth certificate. His narrative of the various questions Obama has refused to answer is devastating. Graphics and sound are well-deployed to avoid tedium as data is conveyed in a way that allows viewers to absorb it. When he contrasts Obama's behavior when challenged (use perfectly valid legal technicalities to delay) with John McCain's full disclosure of all documentary evidence under a similar challenge (remember the flap over his birth in the Panama Canal Zone? -- who raised those questions, anyway?), there is no doubt in a viewer's mind that there is something seriously wrong here.

Here is a story I read on the issue a week or so back:

... In Obama's case, Berg argued, a minor child follows the naturalization and citizenship status of his or her custodial father. Obama's Indonesian stepfather, Lolo Soetora signed a statement acknowledging Obama as his son, giving Obama natural Indonesian citizenship, which explains the name "Barry Soetoro" and his Indonesian school documents. Loss of US citizenship, under US law in effect in 1967 required that foreign citizenship be achieved through "application." Which, according to Berg, is precisely what happened to Obama when his mother married Soetoro and the family moved to Indonesia.

When Obama and his mother moved to Indonesia, Obama had already been enrolled in school—something that could not have happened under Indonesian law if Soetoro had not signed an acknowledgment (the application) affirming that Obama was his son and that he was Indonesian. Thus, it was deemed that Obama was an Indonesian State citizen. ... Furthermore, under Indonesian law, if a resident Indonesian citizen married a foreigner—in this case, Lolo Soetoro marrying Stanley Ann Obama—she was required to renounce her US citizenship.

In his lawsuit, Berg demanded a copy of Obama's Certificate of Citizenship, a document Obama needed for to regain his citizenship—which was lost in Indonesia. He will have that document only if the proper paperwork was filed with the US State Department when Obama returned to Hawaii in 1971 since that is the only way Obama could regain his US "natural born" status. Berg is convinced that Obama was never naturalized in the United States after his return. Obama returned to his maternal grandparents in Hawaii without his mother. Since she is the only one who could have filed for the reinstatement of his citizenship, it is unlikely it ever happened. If it did, his Certificate of Citizenship would affirm his right to seek the office of President. Without it, Barack Obama is just another resident alien who can't even legally hold his seat in the US Senate. if I was in the Republican National Committee, I would be joining Philip Berg with the full force, and pocketbook, of the GOP.

If we lived in a more ideal society, i.e., a society that was three parts sane one part insane, instead of the inverse, and only minimally brain dead, then there would be no need for all this speculation on Obama's natural born citizenship status. It wouldn't matter at all as concerns his qualifications or the lack thereof for the presidency because the fact that he was sired by a Kenyan would raise enough questions as to the character and loyalties of his family (on both sides) to nip in the bud any political aspirations a young Obama might have had. But as I've noted before, the same applies to that piece of garbage Bill Clinton, and I don't think there's any question as to his natural born citizenship status.

But what does Snopes have to say on the matter?

Yes, "birthright citizenship" and "easy-citizenism" are matters that we're ultimately going to have to deal with in this country. By Snopes's estimation an illegal Mexican woman, as an example, can cross into the country to have her baby whereupon said infant is an automatic natural born citizen of the United States entitled to all the priveleges and immunities thereof for once and for all time barring a renunciation of them by the individual himself. God forbid that U.S. law penalizes someone, anyone, for their parents' mistakes. What injustice! They must be forever eligible to the highest office in the land. But why limit the presidency to those whose lucky fate it was to be conceived by parents willing to flout America's laws to have them born here?

Now if we could just rid ourselves and our system of that awful, antiquated system that those xenophobic nutjobs who sat in the Constitutional Congress in 1787 hamstrung us with -- the electoral college mode of appointing the president -- we could do the world's posterity the justice that it so rightly deserves. You don't believe me when I say the framers were xenophobic nutjobs? Consider:

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment.

There you have it. I rest my case.

Read More

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Alliances to save the country

In an age in which we're seeing our country's constitutional principles being flouted from on high as just so many words that no longer apply because conditions have changed and we're so much more enlightened now than our fathers were (Ha!), and in which we see little, if any, resistance at the lower levels to these impositions on us from those that quite literally have no power that WE do not lend them, temporarily, under the conditions that they use them wisely and properly and honor the conditions of their oaths; when someone comes along saying he will begin advocating for a restoration of the federal principle in an effort to save the country from impending doom, that person is tugging at my heart strings:

Dr. Yeagley wrote:

I'm going to start campaigning for states rights. Maybe we can plug in the US Constitution at that level. Washington is truly hopeless at this point.

Good to have you onboard, Dr. Yeagley! Without a restoration of the federal principle in America, we are truly doomed. While you're at it, please consider joining forces with those of us who advocate for an Article V Convention for proposing amendments.

There is a Constitutional process, little known to most Americans and never yet exercised, for wresting power from the central government back to the states and to the People where it rightly belongs. And it is tailor made for such a time as this. Indeed, times like these is the very reason the founders inserted this little known gem into the Constitution. This process is, as I dubbed it for my own purposes years back when I first discovered it, "The state initiated method" for proposing amendments, which is to say that it only involves Congress and the national authority as acting on the sidelines, so to speak. The People, by merely calling such a convention, assert themselves and their authority over the national government.

It would involve no less than what George Washington described in his Farewell Speech as "a solemn act of the whole People of the United States," simply to initiate, much more to see it through to its end. At this very moment in time we have the required number of states (two thirds) to initiate this method on something like the FMA if we so choose, and probably enough states to meet the requisite number required (three fourths) to ratify such an amendment. But my preference would be to initiate the process under some overarching banner under which would fall such amendment proposals as the FMA, review of the judicial power, and so forth.

In the end what I personally should like to see by this method a propping up of the ninth and tenth amendments; a reassertion of the principle that power emanates from the People, not from the unaccountable and despotic central government.

I've written about it many times, and several times recently, at my blog and elsewhere if you or any of your readers care to check it out.

Read More

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

New Article by FOAVC co-founder

Friends of the Article V Convention co-founder Joel S. Hirschhorn has written a new article, the entirety of which he posted in a comment to my October 14 entry You want a solution? Here ya go.

As the blogger comment section isn't designed to accomodate a full length article, and since the "recent comments" feature of this blog seems to have some kind of a glitch which allows it to post new comments only intermittently, I've re-posted the article below.

Thanks to Mr. Hirschhorn and to all the folks at FOAVC for the fine work they're doing there advocating for an Article V Convention. Ours is the beginning of a new alliance I'm sure.

When the Federal Government Fails the People

by Joel S. Hirschhorn

The hardest thing for Americans to do right now in this presidential election season is to fight distraction and, instead, focus on the failure of all three branches of the federal government. And also to resist the propaganda masquerading as patriotic obligation that voting will fundamentally fix the federal government. The real lesson of American history is that things have turned so ugly that electing a new president and many new members of Congress will at best provide band-aids when what is needed is nothing less than what Thomas Jefferson wisely said our nation would need periodically: a political revolution.

The basis for this view is that the institutions of the three branches have been so corrupted and perverted that they no longer meet the hopes and aspirations embedded in our Constitution.

It is easy to condemn George W. Bush as the worst president in history. The larger truth is that the presidency has accumulated far too much power over the past half century. This has resulted from the weakening of the Congress that no longer, in any way, has the power of an equal branch of government, not that any recent Congress has shown any commitment or capability to execute its constitutional authorities. Concurrently, we have become accepting of a politicized Supreme Court that has not shown the courage to stop the unconstitutional grabbing of power by the presidency and in 2000 showed its own root failure in choosing to select the new president.

Worst of all, modern history has vividly shown Americans that the federal government has usurped the sovereignty of the “we the people” and of the states, and has even sold out national sovereignty to a set of international organizations and the greed of corporate-crazed globalization.

The current economic and financial sector meltdown is just another symptom of deep seated, cancerous disease of government that has sold out the public because of the moneyed influence of the corporate and wealthy classes of special interests. The serious disease is a long festering unraveling of the constitutional design of our government. Each of the three branches of the federal government is totally unequal to each other and completely incapable of ensuring the constitutional functioning of each other. Checks and balances have become a fiction.

These sad historic realities have been produced because of an all too powerful and corrupt two-party political machine that has prevented true political competition and real choices for voters. This two-party system has thrived because of corruption from money provided for Democrats and Republicans to maintain the status quo that is the ruination of our constitutional Republic.

Yet the hidden genius of the Founders and Framers was to anticipate how the Republic would most likely unravel under the pressures of money and corruption. Unknown to nearly all Americans is a part of the Constitution that all established political forces have worked hard to denigrate over our entire history. They fear using what is provided as a kind of escape clause in the Constitution, something to use when the three branches of the federal government fail their constitutional responsibilities. What is this ultimate solution that those who love and respect our Constitution should be clamoring for?

It is the provision in Article V to create a temporary fourth branch of the government – in the form of a convention of state delegates – that operates outside the control of Congress, the President and the Supreme Court, and that has only one single function: to consider proposals for constitutional amendments, just like Congress has done over our history, but that must also be ratified by three-quarters of the states. One of the most perplexing questions in American history that has received too little attention is simple: Why have we never had an Article V convention?

One possible answer might be that what the Constitution requires to launch a convention has never been satisfied. But this is not the case. The one and only requirement is that two-thirds of state legislatures apply to Congress for a convention. With over 600 such state applications from all 50 states that single requirement has long been satisfied. So why no convention?

Because Congress has refused to honor the exact constitutional mandate that it “shall” call a convention when that requirement has been met. Simply put, Congress has long broken the supreme law of the land by not calling a convention, and virtually every political force on the left and right likes it that way. Why? Because they have learned to corrupt the government and fear an independent convention of state delegates that could propose serious constitutional amendments that would truly reform our government and political system to remove the power of special interests and compel all three branches to follow the letter and spirit of the Constitution.

With great irony, the public has been brainwashed to fear an Article V convention despite many hundreds of state constitutional conventions that have never wrecked state governments, and that in countless cases have provided much needed forms of direct democracy that have empowered citizens and limited powers of state governments.

There is only one national, nonpartisan organization with the single mission of educating the public about the Article V convention option and building demand for Congress to convene a convention. It is the Friends of the Article V Convention group that has done something that neither the government nor any other group has ever done; it has been collecting all the hundreds of state applications for a convention and making them available to the public at

With a new president and many new members of Congress, now is the ideal time for Americans that see the need for obeying the Constitution and seek root reforms to rally behind this mission of obtaining the nation’s first Article V convention. The new Congress in 2009 should give the public what the Constitution says we have a right to have and what Congress has a legal obligation to provide. Always remember that the convention cannot by itself change the Constitution, but operating in the public limelight it could revitalize what has become our delusional and fake democracy. The main thing to fear is not a convention, but continuation of the two-party plutocracy status quo. Sadly, no presidential candidate, not even third-party ones, has spoken out in support of Congress obeying the Constitution and giving us the first Article V convention.

[Joel S. Hirschhorn is a co-founder of Friends of the Article V Convention and can be reached through]

Read More

Draft Amendment

One of the problems with modern America, as I see it, is that we have a government severly out of balance. Recently I've been hitting, rather incessantly, on the fact that the tenth amendment is, for all intents and purposes, a dead letter. This is not a new revelation to me, but more examples of what I've known for years keep coming forth, as is natural under certain conditions.

Let me put it to you this way, whenever Congress, or the federal judiciary can simply declare, with impunity, that a constitutional principle no longer applies because of some arbitrary, extra-Constitutional reason like "Congress has occupied the field and intended a complete ouster" -- a basis on which, unchecked, the central government can overthrow every constitutional right reserved to the states and to the People -- and the states, not to mention WE THE PEOPLE, are not so much as even alarmed by this tendency of the central government to absorb into itself all powers formerly reserved to themselves respectively (re: powers denied the central government), then you have a huge problem on your hands which requires immediate attention and subsequent action.

Under these conditions, the statement "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.," or that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.," is a nice saying'n'all, but really, how are these sayings meaningful; in exactly what way do they, in and of themselves, prohibit the central government from encroaching on the rights of states and of the People? Answer: They don't. Thus the ninth and tenth amendments are dead letters; thus the People and the states wherein they reside are slaves to the central government.

Now, let me be clear, the central government didn't just all of a sudden devise a collusive strategy and conspire to overthrow the Peoples' rights. And even if it had done so, which it didn't, that doesn't mean the People do not themselves bear some, if not most or all, of the ultimate responsibility for what has occured. There's no government in the world, including the United States, that can enslave a free people. And you can quote me on that.

But here is my point:

At some point the People must reassert themselves and rein in their government. And they must, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, "create new guards for their future security." The purpose of this "creation of new guards" is obviously to prevent, insofar as is humanly possible, their government from usurping its proper Constitutional authority. It is in this vein that I've drafted the following rewrite of the tenth amendment, U.S. Constitution:

Section I: The People reserve to themselves and to the states wherein they reside all powers not expressly delegated to the United States by the Constitution.

Section II: The several states which at any time are part of this union, and from the date of the ratification of this article, shall at every fifth leap year succeeding, call a convention for review of the Constitution, and on the applications to Congress of two thirds of the state conventions for Constitutional review, the Congress shall be compelled to call a convention for addressing the states' concerns. The states shall determine, by two thirds majority vote, and at every third convention interval, by what mode to direct the Congress to act, but the fifth article of the Constitution, or any provision thereof, shall not be infringed.

Section III: The People prohibit review of this article by the Federal Judiciary, or preemption thereof by the United States, but the Judiciary may act as advisory to the Congress.

Readers are welcome and encouraged to try their own hand at it with whichever Constitutional provisions you think most need shoring up. And that was my purpose in the draft amendment above, it is a reassertion of an original Constitutional principle, and a strengthening thereof. Sections II & III reveal yet other purposes.

Read More

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Let me reiterate:

If we're really serious about the need for a Federal Marriage Amendment, then let's start talking seriously about a way to actually effect it while simultaneously erecting barriers to abuses thereof by the currently unaccountable national authority. Otherwise I maintain my opposition, not to protecting marriage, but to the FMA.

Call me crazy.

Read More

You want a solution? Here ya go:

The other day VA wrote in an entry at her blog condemning those who seem to have a real talent for being critical of people who would dare complain about the wrongs and injustices perpetrated by our government on the people of America yet do not offer any practicable solutions. It's as if these people think that if you don't have a ready-made point-by-point solution to offer them, then they are duty bound to try to silence you. Meanwhile they offer no solutions themselves, and as VA rightly pointed out in her post, merely engage in that which they so vehemently object to. Where I come from we call that "irrational."

Yes; I've been subjected to the exact same treatment by the exact same type personalities. I personally think these people just simply like to argue for the sake of propping up their own egos. But we must remember, this is the age of the "one-size-fits-all,ten-step program" for solving all your problems. The irony is that there are about a gazillion of these one-size-fits-all, ten-step programs for solving all your problems out there. LOL

But look, if you're one of the aforementioned people and you demand that complainers like myself offer a solution rather than just complain, boy do I have a humdinger for you! It was originally written as a comment to an entry over at Dr. Yeagley's place, but I couldn't get it to post there for some reason so I'm posting it here. But I forewarn you, it ain't no ten-stepper, if that's what you're lookin' for:

TM to Dr. Yeagley:

Dr. Yeagley,

I hope you decide to keep up and running. As Mike said, we need all the patriots we can get and then some ... now more than ever! Popularity has nothing to do with it, principle has everything to do with it. Genuine Patriots willingly sacrifice themselves in the face of looming danger.

You're right about states' rights. The re-establishment of federalism as a governing principle in America is vital to our ultimate survival. Speaking of which, I think I need to return to my roots; to the fundamentals. It used to be, not so long ago, that I refused to refer to the national government as the "federal government," it being incorrect from a historical and an originalist perspective to refer to the national entity as anything other than just that. Using the term "federal government" is incorrect terminology precisely because there's nothing "federal" about a centralized national government which has more or less destroyed the federal principle in America. It's really a contradiction in terms. The correct denomination for the form of government the (original) U.S. Constitution establishes is a "Federal Representative Republic." Words mean something, and if we don't resolve to use these words properly as they apply to our government, the average American Joe will always associate the word "federal" with the national government, and will continue to operate in a brain dead world in which he has no clue what the founders intended by the term "federal;" he'll never understand the national-federal structure that the constitution establishes, and so on and so forth.

On this idea of secession...

While I think secession is an option which has to remain open to us, it is a last resort option because it means nothing less than all-out civil war. Can you imagine what an all-out 21st Century American civil war would look like?! It would make our other civil war look like child's play. So the secessionist movement (which seems to be gaining some momentum, by the way) in America is, in and of itself, an ill-conceived movement in my opinion. To repeat what's already been said before, "be careful what you wish for." As someone named Jake put it in a comment to a recent LA Times story about the secessionist movement,

"if we could somehow restore to the states enough rights to check the power of the federal government, secession would not be needed."

Jake is on to something here. He realizes that secession has to remain an option -- a last resort option -- to us, but I think I detect in his tone that Jake is effectively saying "there has to be a better way; surely someone knows of a way to restore the federal principle while avoiding the awful spectacle of an American civil war that secession from the union would most definitely bring about."

Happily for all of us there is such an option, a constitutional option, that we've never, as a unified group of states under the banner of a singular purpose, tried before. It's a little gem tucked away in Article V, U.S. Constitution that few Americans even know about. There are two legitimate ways, you see, of proposing amendments to the constitution, either the Congress does it within itself, or, the People do it through their state legislatures. Either way, though, the constitutional prescription must be followed. That simply means, in the latter case, that two thirds of the states must petition Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments. In such a case, the language of the article states that the Congress "shall" call a convention. Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist no. 85 the language of this method to mean the obvious, that the language is preemtory, that it leaves no discretion to Congress. In other words, if these conditions are met, Congress must call a convention for proposing amendments. I should also clarify that this is not the same thing as calling a "constitutional convention," in which the whole of the constitution would be considered for revision or alteration. It is simply what the language in the article describes it as, a convention for proposing amendments, and if certain of those amendments are adopted by three fourths of the states then they become part of the constitution.

There are several reasons we should advocate for this method, and this method only, of setting our government aright, not the least of which is that it is the only method available to us that would effectively require the sanction of the whole people of the United States and would thus set off a nationwide debate involving all Americans of all ranks who have enough moral fortitude left in them to give a hoot about the life destroying nature of our present government. Many apathetic Americans would thus be aroused to make a contribution to the cause because they would know that their contribution would actually mean something, something significant.

Now, I'm well aware that there's an element out there ('conservatives' in particular) that fears basically any attempt or design to alter or change, or even clarify our constitution, and therefore, in knee-jerk fashion anytime the idea is brought forth, tries to quell it with loud declamations and ominous predictions about what amending the constitution portends. I admit that I'm not real sure what it is these people are trying to conserve. I've shown many many times that the ninth and tenth amendments aren't worth the paper they're written on, thus the U.S. Constitution isn't worth the paper it's written on. The ink was barely dry on the fourteenth amendment before the courts began to use it to destroy the last vestiges of freedom left to the states and to the People -- those constitutional rights and principles that the civil war itself did not destroy. I don't know about you and your readers, but I should rather live under a form of government in which I'm relatively sure what the terms and conditions are as opposed to a form of government in which its agents pretend it to be one thing yet is something altogether different in reality.

Let the debate begin...

Now if someone will come along and kindly reduce this solution to ten separate steps under one overarching purpose, then we can have a gazillion and one of these programs in existence. Any of you criticizers, you cynics and detractors out there wanna give 'er a shot, hmmmm? Thought not.

Read More

Monday, October 13, 2008

But wait!, might secession (or the threat of secession) be our only option?

Yesterday I wrote that the secession movement is an ill-conceived movement that can accomplish nothing, if followed through to its end, but fracture of the country and civil war, followed by, if the country could survive a modern civil war at all, tyranny of the victorious part over the losers. And I offered what to me is a more sensible plan, an Article V state initiated convention for proposing amendments.

I can quote many founders and many founding documents on this, but for the time being, and since I'm a bit short on time this morning, let's consider a few excerpts from Washington's 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 'til 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.

All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction; to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community, and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans, digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things to become potent engines by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

As I've written before, the full text of Washington's speech is well worth your time to read and reflect on often. It, along with the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, the Federalist Papers, the Monroe Doctrine, and perhaps a few others should serve as our political scriptures.

Recently as well I wrote about the supposed "exclusive" authority of the federal government over immigration, and the illegitimacy of this false doctrine. I wrote there that the basis on which this illegitimate doctrine is founded -- where Congress has "occupied the field" and intended a "complete ouster" is a dangerous and an unAmerican doctrine which effectively and for all intents and purposes makes the constitution, or any stipulation contained therein reserving to the states and to the people certain powers not explicitly granted to the national government, null and void.

I wrote in yesterday's post concerning Article V that the state initiated method for proposing amendments had miraculously managed to survive the assault on the constitution let loose in its full fury since the establishment of the fourteenth amendment. As an aside, there is some pretty solid evidence that the fourteenth amendment was not ratified by Congress according to the constitutional prescription. It shouldn't surprise any of us that the defeated southern states which opposed the amendment would have their Congresses dismissed and more favorable Congresses installed in their places by the all-powerful oppressive federal regime.

But to get on with the point of the post, and to summarize what my investigation has yielded on the subject thus far, it seems that the federal courts have once again struck down a clear constitutional provision intended by the founders as a (to use a modern expression) backup to the backup. And on what grounds have they colluded with Congress to overthrow the constitution? Well, apparently the docrine of federal preemption in all things governmental (read: tyranny and oppression!) is more deeply ingrained than I'd originally thought.

Now if you'll kindly pardon me, I think I'll get started eating my crow. (More later when I've had time to digest some of this ... crap.)

I still maintain that the secessionist movement, in and of itself, is an ill-advised movement, UNLESS it is part of a larger strategy intended to regain control of our government by peaceful constitutional means. And let's be clear about what the stakes are here -- this whole concept, as I've said so many times before, that the federal judiciary is the last word on the constitution is as illegitimate and unAmerican a concept as there ever was or ever shall be. There are times, my friends, when we must act in direct defiance of our government; when we must abjectly deny its self-proclaimed authority over all matters constitutional, and reassert our power as the ultimate and final arbiters of the constitution. Otherwise we're nothing more than slaves subject to the whims of an arbitrary government, whether we realize it or not.

What am I proposing?

Much will need to be added to my initial thoughts on this, but the following is basically what I'm proposing.

First, irregardless of what the federal courts have ruled and on what illegitimate basis they mean to collude with Congress and subject us to their oppressive arbitrary rule, I reject their arbitrary authority and rulings out of hand. The constitutional prescription for calling a convention for proposing amendments is not in the power of either Congress or the federal judiciary or the Executive branch to change or overthrow. It is the power reserved to the people through their state legislatures, by explicit constitutional decree, and to none other. I therefore declare any ruling to the contrary null and void. The first point then is this, let the federal courts rule as they will on this subject then laugh them into derision.

Second, we can use a recent example to show that the people still retain to themselves ultimate and final authority on matters constitutional, and that our federal "masters" will cower to the will of the people when and if the people assert themselves -- the killing of the Senate Amnesty Bill.

Third, we need to combine forces with groups such as the Secessionist movement to effect our ends of setting our government aright.

Fourth, we need to advocate for an Article V convention as a singular purposeful movement throughout the states under the banner of some overarching theme, i.e., the restoration of Balanced Constitutional Government. The purpose here is to show unity under a common theme and singularity of purpose. The problem thus far with effecting an Article V convention, as I see it, is that there has been no national unity of purpose; no movement among the states that could effect the requisite number (two thirds) of states needed, at any single time, to effect the convention. No; the applications of the states are, though they line up under common motives in certain cases and do meet the requisite number required, spread out over the course of time, and therefore easily dismissed by the federal Congress as just so many separate applications which, in and of themselves, and spread out over time as they are, do not meet the requisite number laid down in Article V.

The purpose in point four can be summed up this way: Get the requisite number of states on board and under a common overarching purpose in a relatively short span of time, say, five years. If the requisite number of applications are made, under a common overarching banner and within a short span of time, by the states, Congress cannot simply ignore them as they have over the course of our history. If Congress inadvisedly chooses, under these conditions, to declare that it has "exclusive" authority in proposing amendments, then the people would be actuated to take immediate action.

The four points I've drafted above are not intended in any way to exhaust those things we need to do in order to effect an Article V convention. Surely persons a lot smarter than I am and more Constitutionally astute can either add to, take away, or revise what I've written in the four points to better suit our purposes. The main point is to devise the bare bones of a plan and a strategy to save the constitution and our people. Any additional thoughts from my readers are greatly appreciated.

One last thing, I realize that there is a fear that the entirety of the federal constitution might be overthrown if such a convention were to be held. I would answer this fear in a couple of ways -- First, I personally don't believe this outcome has a chance in hell of ever happening. The People, by a solemn act of themselves as a whole, will never "scrap" the entirety of the U.S. Constitution. Too many Americans believe its principles to be sacred and inviolable. Second, as I've shown here and elsewhere, the federal government has already effected the overthrow of the constitution for all intents and purposes. As long as we permit it to believe it has all and exclusive power and authority; that it is the final arbiter, and not the people, nothing will be done to change it and federal government will continue to assert its prentended power in actuality until all, including any window of opportunity left to us to rectify the situation and rein the federal government in, will have been lost.

Read More