Sunday, November 30, 2008

Is the Seal the "smoking gun"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read More

Thursday, November 27, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read More

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Have I been vindicated?

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

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

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

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

Here is exhibit A and here is exhibit B.

Read More

Final report released

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

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

Read More

Sunday, November 23, 2008

New development in Obama citizenship issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read More

What an honor!

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

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

Thanks again to The Editrix.

Read More

Vague update on a previous entry

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

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

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

Read More

Saturday, November 22, 2008


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

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



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

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

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

Read More

Test your knowledge

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

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

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

Read More

Friday, November 21, 2008

Liberals never cease to amaze...

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

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

From the knee-jerk story linked above:

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

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

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

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

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

Read More

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read More

Monday, November 17, 2008

Subject to the tyranny of dead men

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

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

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

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

Dr. Yeagley writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read More

Sunday, November 16, 2008

Question of the decade

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

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

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

Read More

Friday, November 14, 2008

Understanding the Constitution

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

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

Read More

Surprise, surprise

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

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

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

Read More

Sunday, November 9, 2008

Patriotism and qualifications for national political office

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

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

And I reply:

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

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

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

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

Read More

Saturday, November 8, 2008

A couple of firsts for me in the late election

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

Read More

Friday, November 7, 2008

The late election and what it portends for immigration restriction

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

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

Read More

Thursday, November 6, 2008

Governor Palin's Ignorance

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

Mr. Zarkov writes:

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

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

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

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

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

Read More

Monday, November 3, 2008

The Bible and the election

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read More

Saturday, November 1, 2008

What's in a name?

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

Racists!; Extremists!; Wackos!!!

Read More

Why White Americans are going to vote for Hussein Obama

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

America has always been run by White Christian men!

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

Read More