So Arlen Specter done went and done it. Will wonders never cease! Question: Have you ever wondered how much ridiculousness can be crammed into a single article?
Let's see now, Specter's defection is said to possibly give the Democrats 60 votes, which we later read all hinges on Al Franken's prevailing in Minnesota.
The article declares Specter's switcheroo to be a stunning turn of events, and Specter himself said of his decision, as quoted in the article, that the Republican party had moved too far to the right. Hmmm, that sounds oddly familiar for some reason.
Back to the Franken hinge on which this whole proposition of the Senate Demos gaining that magical and coveted sixtieth vote supposedly turns, it is stated that in the event that Franken wins his lawsuit, this would result in the denial of the chance for Republicans to stall legislation. The chance? What chance? Oh, I get it, the specter of the chance in hell Republicans had of stalling democrat legislation in that body when Specter was still donning the mask of a Republican day before yesterday.
No, we're not done yet...
In the next sentence we read that the news of Specter's defection -- brace yourselves for it! -- shocked Senate Republicans who had been hanging on to their ability (otherwise known as their chance in hell) to block legislation by a thread (would that be an actual thread, or a proverbial thread? Methinks it is/was the specter of a thread in any case.)
Accordingly, we read further that Senator McConnell called an emergency meeting of party leaders who had -- brace yourselves again 'cause this is a biggie! -- no forewarning of Specter's intentions to defect. No; not even the specter of the specter of a forewarning, apparently.
Democrats, it is said, were, ahem, jubilant about the development. Apparently Specter's specter even had Senate Demos buffaloed.
Hussein allegedly said to Specter over the phone "we are thrilled to have you." This specter of being genuinely thrilled was skillfully and artfully done, I'm sure.
The Vice President, it is said, had been arguing for weeks the position with Specter the specter that the Republican party had drifted away from him ideologically, that Specter was [now], due to this drift of the Republican party, closer to the democrats. Yes, the specter of Specter was among the few "Republicans" marching in step.
Did I say "ridiculous?" What I meant to say was how much idiocy can be crammed into a single article? Well, besides the amount that the writer is solely responsible for himself, apparenly about as much as can be exhibited in a single day by the specter of leadership on Capitol Hill. Anyway, good riddance to that piece of garbage. Here's hoping he'll start a trend in which several others we know of will enter upon their own specter of defections from Republican ranks.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
So Arlen Specter done went and done it. Will wonders never cease! Question: Have you ever wondered how much ridiculousness can be crammed into a single article?
Sunday, April 26, 2009
As if the preceding two posts to this blog were not enough, I received a report from the frontlines a few days ago relating to the post title.
Now, I'm not particularly friendly to what some would call "organized religion." I'm a Christian, and I strive to follow Christ's teachings. That would include the Old Testament which Christ, several times in the New Testament, confirmed. On the other hand, I'm not opposed to some level of "organized" religion. There has to be a balance struck, and again, I strive [truly] to strike that balance as an individual, as well as in my relation to others outside my personal individuality.
In the particular case in question, and among other serious errors, it was reported to me, from a very reliable source, that the minister of this church announced to the congregation during his "altar call" during last Sunday's service that "if you want to be released from the bonds of traditionalism, then come forward and pray with me and you shall be set free." Well, okie dokie. That's about the point at which I would have walked out. And indeed, according to my informant, that WAS the point at which he walked out of the service, with no intention of ever returning.
Now, in and of itself it isn't that big of a deal if we establish some reasonable context in which the statement was made. But this isn't the case. This is the kind of church in which overweight females actually pray the calories out of their food (you'd think they'd look in the mirror, or step on a pair of scales once in a while), and such as that. It is the kind of church in which the Spirit of God cannot be in attendance unless virtually everyone is acting like a bunch of teenaged idiots at a rock concert or a local nightclub. And etc. You get the idea I think, but let us seal the deal: This is the kind of church in which the impending economic crisis is thought to be exclusive to the world; the kind of church in which the congregation is assured that as long as it pays its tithes, everything (for faithful tithe-paying members in exclusion of all others) will be hunky-dory. Getting the picture?
You see why I find life so interesting? Here we have a "Christian" church (and this is more common than some of you might think) which teaches doctrines that are not only unscriptural, but which also denies God's very nature and essence. But God is not mocked; He will laugh and will have us in derision. Let me put it this way: if you're a so-called "Christian" church, and your sole and exclusive focus is on the book of Revelation, end-times prophesy, name-it-and-claim-it "gospel," then you're so far from genuine Biblical-Christian teaching that you have no earthly business claiming to be "Christian" in any sense of the word. And this whole problem spans the denominations, believe me:
Several years ago one of the neighbor children came to me while I was busy doing some yard work and announced that she'd been "saved." Now, knowing her like I did, I thought this was kind of odd, so I began to quiz her on what she meant by the term "saved." She said that she was in church and the preacher had an altar call in which he invited all of the non-saved to participate. She, of course, participated. As I 'interrogated' her as to what she'd done, I found that she was completely oblivious to what she'd done. First, she didn't know who Christ was. Second, she had no idea about his birth, death, and resurrection. I gave her a few scriptures to read, and said to her that she should go back to the pastor and explain that she wasn't aware, at the time of her "conversion", what it all meant; that she wanted to be saved legitimately. She did so, and reported back to me (with a bit of an attitude this time) that the pastor in question had informed her that he had saved her before, so there was no need to go over it again ... and that she was to communicate this to me at our next encounter, which she did.
Years prior to that particular incident I was working on a job when the lady of the house announced to me that the weather at the time was the "weirdest weather she'd experienced during the course of her lifetime," and that she could "no longer tell the difference [between the seasons]." This occurance, to her, meant that Christ was soon to return in accordance with Revelation. The season in question was Fall, and I simply said to her that I can tell the difference -- all I have to do is look outside and see the changing as it takes place. And accordingly I asked how much time she spent outside the house. (Does geographic location -- in this case 35 degrees North latitiude, 100 degrees West longitude, approx. 750 ft. above Sea Level, and completely surrounded by land -- mean nothing to any American anymore?).
That, my friends, is the state of Christianity in this country. I've seen and experienced it over and over and over again during the course of the last several years. And it isn't getting any better. It is getting worse, and the stain on Christianity and Biblical-Christian teaching is becoming more and more profound as we speak.
I completely understand where many of you non-Christians are coming from when you say things to the effect that religion is unreasonable. But I want you to know that there are some of us 'religionists' who do not deny our physical beings and our physical natures, nor the physical world in which we live. Indeed, we embrace it as essential aspects of who we are. At the same time we do not deny our spiritual sides either. And we believe, with assurance, that our physical existance is governed by physical laws which are more or less immutable. The same applies as well to our spiritual natures.
I ran across Jay Seculow's radio show the other day while driving from one job to another. My interest was piqued because Seculow was talking about the recent release of the report from the Homeland Security Dept., and the UCLJ's actions in response.
When the phone lines were opened a female caller prefaced her concerns with this statement which I'll paraphrase: "I'm sorry, but we've elected a Muslim to the presidency." I don't think the latter part of the statement was actually aired because Seculow intentionally cut her mic in the very midst of her making the statement. Thus, her larger point was not allowed to be made.
Seculow then entered upon a diatribe about how he wasn't going to question Hussein's profession of faith, nor the way in which he chooses to exercise his religion, which, of course, Hussein claims to be Christianity. He didn't come out and say it, of course, but the implication was clear enough -- Jay Seculow is a bought-and-paid-for, holier-than-thou "liberal Christian." You know, one of those Christians who believes in fairness and "tolerance" and non-discrimination as the ultimate goal and ruling principles of any legitimate society. He also, by implication, has a problem with Christianity's exclusivism, as well as with Christians who understand and accept this essential aspect of Christianity. But that doesn't negate the fact that Christianity IS exclusivistic.
Tell ya what, Jay, you go on not questioning Hussein's faith and his exercise of faith (and by extension anyone and everyone else's), while at the same time discriminating against Christian callers bold enough to assert the essential doctrines of the Christian faith. But let me ask you this: what part of Holy writ, and what part of the New Testament and Christ's ministry in particular, do you presume to cite in defense of this "Christian" position of yours? Take your time.
I had something of a disturbing telephone conversation a couple of days ago with someone I highly respect. We were discussing this issue of the Hussein administration's provoking those of us on the right of the political spectrum by a variety of means, not the least of which is the release of the report from the freakish head of the "homeland security dept," declaring conservative, God-fearing, liberty-loving Americans to be more dangerous than Al Quaida. And by the way, I don't use the term "provoking" lightly. I've personally been provoked, intentionally and unintentionally (In this particular case I think it is intentional, and I have my reasons for believing so. But we'll leave that for another discussion.), any number of times during the course of my lifetime, so I generally know exactly what it is when it comes and I'm not going to shy away from stating it. I never have before, why begin now? Nonetheless...
At some point the discussion I was having with the other party moved naturally into the realm of the question of secession. I harkened back to another discussion I'd had with another person only a few days earlier, a discussion in which the other said something to the effect that it would only take one instance of a state declaring itself independent to touch off a violent civil war in which the lines would be drawn and other states would follow suit. The other party to the telephone conversation said to me the following: "True, but by the constitution we have no right to secede from the union." Once again, we're talking about someone I highly respect; someone who was directly influencial in my upbringing.
I won't bore you with all the gory details of my response to this assertion, except to say that I was taken completely aback by this mode of response from this particular individual, and eventually entered upon this bit of explanation:
Now let's put some thought to this and forget about what we've learned from the talking heads and all the pundits and whatnot. Let's get it down to a fundamental and a personal level: Let us say that you enter into contractual agreement with a neighbor. The other party eventually begins to violate the clear, explicit terms of the contract to your hurt. You petition the other party to faithfully honor the terms of the contract, but to no effect. In fact, the other party snubs his nose at your petitions and remonstrances and enters upon even greater and clearer violations of the terms of the contract. Do you have the right at some point to declare yourself no longer bound by the terms of the contract in the interest of protecting yourself and your posterity, or do you consider yourself (and your posterity) a slave to the other party no matter how egregiously he's violated his end of the bargain, and no matter how clear it is that he will never amend his ways?
The answer, of course, is obvious. And the other person answered, of course, correctly. I then continued:
So, has the central government violated its end of the bargain which we call the Constitution, and for how long has it been doing so? Have certain of the states petitioned the central authority to cease and desist? Are they not doing so as we speak? ... Is there any indication that the central government is anything but deaf to the voice of justice and consanguinity? Is it not, as we speak, provoking certain of the states and the people thereof to secession? Does my analogy not apply on a grander scale?
Prudence indeed will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes. And accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind is more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves. BUT ... whenever a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government, and to create new guards for their future security.
Now, call me a radical if you will. But if Washington and Jefferson and Madison, the two Adams's, et al, were here today, you can rest assured that they'd be radical right along with me. In other words, I count myself in pretty fair company. With my forbears, I'm not particularly inclined to be enslaved by anyone or any entity, as I've said many times before. On the other hand, I personally have no interest in enslaving anyone else to my way of thinking. So it goes both ways. If you do have such an interest, or you think you have such an interest, and if you're going to continue to misuse the constitution in pursuit of that interest, then you and I have a problem.
Anyway, the telephone conversation ended on a good note. I was confident it would because the other person isn't unreasonable, he was just misinformed, and hadn't put a whole lot of personal reflection to the question. That latter part was what surprised me most in this particular instance.
Friday, April 24, 2009
April 24, 2009
Dear Mr. Morris,
Thank you for contacting me regarding the eligibility of Barack Obama to be President of the United States, specifically regarding whether he is a "natural born citizen". I appreciate hearing from you, and I apologize for the delayed response. [TM: I don't recall when exactly I wrote to Senator Coburn about this issue, but it's been a while back.]
You are right to be concerned anytime a possible violation of the Constitution appears to have occurred. You are not alone in your concern about this issue and I understand how important it is. As a U.S. senator, I consult the Constitution nearly every day and strive to make sure my decisions and positions are in line with that seminal document.
With that said, I believe President Obama meets the constitutional requirement to be President.
States play a critical role in the election of federal representatives. It is each state's responsibility to determine the eligibility of those running for federal office. In the 2008 election, all 50 states placed candidate Obama on their ballots leading to his election.
However, there are two pieces of legislation that will address this issue in the future. First, in the Oklahoma House of Representatives, Rep. Ritze has introduced HB 1329. The bill requires any candidate filing with the Oklahoma State Election Board to provide proof of citizenship by providing a "state government-issued birth certificate with a raised seal." I hope the Oklahoma State Legislature will give serious consideration to this bill and I hope more states will reform their ballot access laws to ensure federal candidates must affirmatively prove their eligibility.
Second, in the U.S. House of Representatives, Rep. Posey recently introduced HR 1503. The bill requires any federal candidate's campaign committee filing with the Federal Election Commission to produce a copy of the candidate's birth certificate. If the bill makes it to the Senate, I would likely support it.
Thank you again for contacting me. I am encouraged to hear from citizens like you who are committed to ensuring the Constitution is followed strictly. Your vigilance for American liberty is inspiring. Please do not hesitate to contact me again in the future if I may be of assistance to you.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Noah Webster, who has gone down in history as America's Schoolmaster, once wrote that:
These United States present the first example in modern times of a government founded on its legitimate principles...
Mr. Webster was, of course, a contemporary of the founding fathers, and in point of fact was a founding father, albeit he does not get the same recognition as do some of the premier founding fathers such as Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, Washington, et al. Indeed, I've often said of Webster that he is one of the most under-quoted and under-appreciated of our founding generation, which is to say the real "greatest generation," what's-his-name's book title notwithstanding. But there's not a single person in American History who contributed as much to the proper education of American youth as Mr. Webster, who also once stated that "the education of youth is of more consequence than the making of laws or preaching of the Gospel, because it is in a good education that the foundation for law and Gospel rests for its success." And accordingly another epithet that has attended his name throughout the course of our history is that of The Father of American Education. Read that again: The Father of American Education. Yes, American Education should be distinctive from all others. That is, if we want to keep our Constitutional Republican form of government.
Getting back to the intial quote above, Mr. Webster did not simply leave it at that. He was a voluminous writer who spoke 26 languages. As I've written numerous times before he denominated the United States a Federal Representative Republic, each term in the descriptive having a particular meaning and the terms combined having its own distinctive meaning, of course. I'll be writing more about this in upcoming entries.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
At VFR we read, once again (**rolls eyes**), the "articulation" of the simplistic view among men which states that reason alone is to be our guide in everything, at all times, and under the inexaustible minutia of conditions and circumstances which we as human beings experience. My God!, what kind of kool-aid are these people drinking? Do they pay any attention to the goings-on around them?
Here is my comment to the VFR entry:
Terry Morris writes:
Humorous on one hand, sad and dangerous on the other, that Andrew Dalton has put his full faith in his own ability to reason properly and correctly, when all of human experience (as well as his own experience whether he cares to acknowledge it or not) hath shown that mankind is particularly disposed to reason incorrectly, as the faculty of reason without cultivation, without experience, and without revelation, is a miserable guide which often errs from ignorance, and more often from the impulse of passion.
His own words are his own undoing. To claim someone has rejected reason altogether on the basis that that person rejects the pitifully ignorant, sophomoric notion that reason alone is to be our sole and exclusive guide, and thus to count him a savage, is to reveal oneself as completely detached from genuine reason, not to mention humility. But as long as he's managed to convince himself, I guess that's all that matters as far as the poor soul is concerned.
LA replies to me:
I like your paraphrase of Mr. Jefferson.
Ah, we have a glimmer! It is satifying indeed to see that Mr. Auster recognized my paraphrase of Mr. Jefferson. But so far as he's concerned I would expect no less. Any Trad-con worth his salt would immediately identify the first part of my paraphrase as originating with Mr. Jefferson and the DoI. BUT...
...how many among you can identify the original source from whence the second part of my combination paraphrase emanates? Just yell it out when you know! ;-)
Yes; put me on Homeland Security Dept.'s watch list for making such a wild-eyed, crazy, nutty, dangerous assertion. Because, you see, there's no truth more evident to my mind than the truth I've selected above for the post title. It's a truism I've long known and understood, and one I've advanced and propagated within my circle of influence during the same lengthy period of time. This single fact makes me, according to Homeland Security chieflette-in-drag, Janet Napolitano -- of open borders, immigration-policy-is-the-exclusive-domain-of-the-federal-government fame, more dangerous than the growing, increasingly influenial and empowered, Muslim population in this country. But let's get down to where the rubber meets the road, shall we?...
If I voluntarily (the only legitimate kind of contract) enter into contract with another person or entity, and the other person or entity has clearly violated the explicit, plain terms of the contract, evincing a design to reduce me under his absolute control or sway extraneous to the terms of the contract, then I have the right (and the duty under certain circumstances) to declare myself, and by extension those persons whom the contract affects but have yet to establish a viable voice by which to restrain the other party's tendencies to oppressive excess, no longer bound by the terms of the contract as the other party is interpreting and applying them.
That's about as simple a principle as there possibly can be. Any third-grader is capable of understanding it, just as any third grader is perfectly capable of understanding that no one has the right to reach into his pocket as a means to support the other's profligate habits and dependency. Where I come from we call it self-preservation.
When we apply the principle on a larger scale -- say, to the states as parts of the federal union of these states -- then the phrase in the post title, and the principle undergirding it, becomes abundantly clear. To say otherwise is not only unreasonable or irrational, it is a verbal act of aggression against the other party/parties to the contract. And who can forget President Clinton's infamous opinion/proclamation before a worldwide audience regarding a movement to secession among some Russian states in the 1990s during his presidency when he said something to the effect that we (Americans) had settled the question on whether a state or states could rightfully secede from a political union during our own "civil war."? Pardon me for saying it, and with all due respect, sir, but your opinion on that matter, Mr. President, sucks! We know for whom your totalitarian leftist statement was really intended, but I've always wanted to ask you by what authority you presume to speak for the rights (or non-rights) of other states and other peoples?
But here's the problem when it comes to the common folk...
We've so long neglected or otherwise re-written our glorious history that The People no longer understand what the American Revolution was and what it was all about fundamentally. The principle of Voluntary Union is an alien concept to this generation, truly. To speak about it outside a small circle is to speak an alien dialect which is "Greek" to the other side and to those "educated" by the other side. Nonetheless this nation, as Vanishing American correctly writes in this blogpost, was created in the aftermath of a movement to secession after it became abundantly clear that the Mother Country was going to continue to exercise arbitrary rule over the thirteen colonies from a distance of 3000 miles (in spite of the founders' repeated petitions), and that their British brethren were also deaf to the voice of justice and consanguinity, lending the force of their support to their government's illegitimate arbitrary policies regarding the American States. It is, in point of fact, a history of repeated injuries and usurpations pursuing invariably the same object, evincing a design to reduce them under absolute despotism with at least the tacit consent of their British brethren. And such a prince or government, as demonstrated in the DoI, is not fit to rule over a free people.
And speaking of being properly fit for a particular job or profession during one's adult life, Noah Webster wrote in his 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language that "Education is all that series of instruction and discipline intended to enlighten the understanding, correct the temper, form the manners and habits of youth, and fit them for usefulness in their future stations." (emphasis added) Under the same word he further wrote that "Education in arts and sciences is important, but a religious education is indispensible," and that "a heavy responsiblility rests on those parents and guardians who neglect these duties."
Now, if you think that fitting one for usefulness in his future station(s) is to make him a dependent and servant of his protector and bread giver the "federal" government, and/or, an advocate for and immovable defender of the same, ever learning but never coming to the knowledge of the truth, then I would suggest to you that you are an enemy of America and of Americanism. And I suspect that a great many of you who advocate for this line of "reasoning" and this kind of "education" are of relatively recent immigrant stock. But we'll leave that for another post.
Once again, put me on the watch list. I'm going to end up on it irregardless at some point (if my name doesn't already grace the document), what with my absolute dedication to the cause of liberty, of self-government, and of a defense of God-granted unalienable rights as explicated by the founding generation and circumscribed in our founding documentation. By that definition, an unapologetic right-wing extremist I most definitely am. It's all a matter of perspective. And from the perspective of the radical left, I'm an extremist of the first order. Yes, little ol' me. How about you?
No King but King Jesus!; No Government for a Free People than a Government founded on (and operating according to) its legitimate principles!
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Five more states have been added to the list of states which have introduced their own Tenth Amendment Resolutions in their legislative bodies bringing the total to date to 33. Here is the (continually) updated list posted at the Tenth Amendment Center. Among the newly added states are Texas and Wisconsin.
I haven't seen any "official" estimates of the actual numbers of protesters who were in attendance at yesterday's historic event. It was a very busy day for us, but we did manage to be in attendance at a local TEA Party rally. As I indicated in an earlier post on the subject, my intention was to attend a rally in Tulsa or OKC. But plans are subject to change, as you're all well aware, and so is the case with our original intentions for yesterday's events.
I would estimate that there were about 200 people at our local rally, which was held between 12:00 and 1:00pm. A pretty impressive turnout for our fledgling little town. More impressive, though, was the percentage of drivers-by supportive of our group's efforts -- probably along the lines of two thirds favorable, a few folks short of a full third who seemed utterly clueless about what we were doing out there, and only one passer-by that I'm aware of who had guts enough to yell from his moving vehicle an opposing viewpoint in the form of "Obama's da Man!" Assuming he really thinks so, my advice to him would be that he stop thinking as a matter of moral responsibility to his fellow man.
Otherwise, I'm a bit ashamed of myself for having neglected to put my calligraphic and artistic talents to good use prior to the event. Few and far between they were, but there were present at the event, nonetheless, some outstanding original pieces of artwork in their own rights that people were carrying around, or otherwise wearing, displaying their messages (hopefully pictures will be posted at the site later today). The Pen, as they say, is mightier than the sword, particularly when wielded by those with panache.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
...under The Mother Country ain't dead yet files. (H/T: Gates of Vienna)
Apparently You Tube has disabled embedding of this video "by request." I link to the You Tube version nonetheless because from my end the audio is of higher quality.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Excerpted below are a few paragraphs selected almost at random from Lawrence Auster's excellent speech -- A Real Islam Policy for a Real America -- given at the Preserving Western Civilization Conference, February 8, 2009 in Baltimore, Maryland (The full text of the speech is here.):
The key to this liberal ideology is the belief in tolerance or non-discrimination as the ruling principle of society, the principle to which all other principles must yield. We see this belief at work in every area of modern life. The principle of non-discrimination must, if followed consistently, destroy every human society and institution. A society that cannot discriminate between itself and other societies will go out of existence, just as an elm tree that cannot discriminate between itself and a linden tree must go out of existence. To be, we must be able to say that we are us, which means that we are different from others. If we are not allowed to distinguish between ourselves and Muslims, if we must open ourselves to everyone and everything in the world that is different from us, and if the more different and threatening the Other is, the more we must open ourselves to it, then we go out of existence.
The dilemma suggests the solution. What is now unthinkable, must become thinkable; what is now unsayable, must become sayable; and ultimately it must replace non-discrimination as the ruling belief in society. I know that this sounds crazy, utterly impossible. But fifty or a hundred years ago it would have seemed crazy, utterly impossible, that today's liberalism with its suicidal ideology would have replaced the traditional attitudes that were then prevalent. If society could change that radically in one direction, toward suicidal liberalism, it can change back again. It's not impossible.
What I'm saying here is nothing fancy or metaphysical, it's something that all people know by common sense. We live within these two dimensions--the better and the worse, the more like and the less like--in everything we do.
That is, we did live within them, until modern liberalism came along and said that it's wrong to discriminate between higher and lower, it's wrong to discriminate between better and worse, it's wrong to discriminate between like and unlike.
The equality principle of modern liberalism says that unassimilable immigrants must be permitted to flood our society, changing its very nature. It prohibits normal authority such as the authority of parents and teachers over children. It banished the very idea of a morality that men ought to follow. And even God is banished if he's a God who has any claims on us.
This is the ubiquitous yet unacknowledged horror of modern liberalism, that it takes the ordinary, differentiated nature of the world, which all human beings have always recognized, and makes it impossible for people to discuss it, because under liberalism anyone who notes these distinctions and says that they matter has done an evil thing and must be banished from society, or at least be barred from a mainstream career.
This liberalism is the most radical and destructive ideology that has ever been, and yet it is not questioned. Communism and big government liberalism were challenged and fought in the past. But the ideology of non-discrimination, which came about after World War II, has never been resisted--it has never even been identified, even though it is everywhere. What is needed, if the West is to survive, is a pro-Western civilization movement that criticizes, resists, and reverses this totalistic liberal belief system that controls our world. ...
I just became aware that Auster has posted a permanent link to the speech in the sidebar of VFR only an hour or so ago while visiting the site and trying to catch up a bit. It's good to see the speech posted at VFR in its entirety. And perhaps we might think of adding it to the Lawrence Auster on Islam page in the near future.
Speaking of which, if you happen to be new to Webster's and you've not yet become familiar with the articles and pages I have permanent links posted to in the sidebars of the blog for ease of accessibility, if you will look under the heading On Islam in the left sidebar there is a permanent link to the page in question which we created over a year ago.
If you are familiar with the page but haven't been there in a while, you will notice during your next visit that the page has undergone something of a facelift in recent months. This was not my idea, nor am I particularly satisfied with the looks of the page by comparison with the original. But I do give some latitude to the individual who handles the technical aspects of putting these kinds of things together for me. And on that latter note, I have some other ideas for additional pages to add to the blog (not related to Islam) hosted by my own website in the relatively near future that I'll be sharing with you. Stay tuned.
Concord, April 15, 1775.
Whereas it has pleased the righteous Sovereign of the Universe, in just indignation against the Sins of a People long blessed with inestimable Priveleges, civil and religious, to Suffer the Plots of wicked Men on both sides of the Atlantick, who for many Years have incessantly laboured to Sap the Foundation of our public Liberties, So far to Succeed that we See the New England Colonies reduced to the ungrateful alternative of a tame Submission to a State of absolute Vassalage to the Will of a despotic Minister--or of preparing themselves Speedily to defend, at the Hazard of Life, the unalienable Rights of themselves and Posterity, against the avowed Hostilities of their Parent State, who openly threatens to wrest them from their Hands by Fire and Sword.
In Circumstances dark as these it becomes us, as Men and Christians, to reflect that, whilst every prudent Measure should be taken to ward off the impending Judgments, or prepare to act a proper Part under them when they come; at the Same Time all Confidence must be withheld from the Means we use; and reposed only on that GOD who rules in the Armies of Heaven, and without whose Blessing the best human Counsels are but Foolishness--and all created Power Vanity;
It is the Happiness of his Church that, when the Powers of Earth and Hell combine against it, and those who should be Nursing Fathers become its Persecutors--then the Throne of Grace is of the easiest Access--and its Appeal thither is graciously invited by the Father of Mercies, who has assured it, that when his Children ask Bread he will not give them a Stone.
THEREFORE, in Compliance with the laudable Practice of the People of GOD in all Ages, with humble Regard to the steps of Divine Providence towards this oppressed, threatened and endangered People, and especially in Obedience to the Command of Heaven, that binds us to call on him in the Day of Trouble----
RESOLVED, That it be, and hereby is recommended to the good People of this Colony, of all Denominations, That THURSDAY the Eleventh Day of May next be set apart as a Day of Public Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer; that a total Abstinence from Servile Labor and Recreation be observed, and all their religious Assemblies solemnly convened, to humble themselves before GOD under the heavy Judgments felt and feared, to confess the Sins that have deserved them, to implore the Forgiveness of all our Transgressions, and a Spirit of Repentance and Reformation--and a Blessing on the Husbandry, Manufactures, and other lawful Employments of this People ; and especially that the Union of the American Colonies in Defense of their Rights (for which hitherto we desire to thank Almighty GOD) may be preserved and confirmed,--that the Provincial and especially the Continental CONGRESSES may be directed to such Measures as GOD will countenance.--That the People of Great Britian, and their Rulers, may have their Eyes open'd to discern the Things that shall make for the Peace of the Nation and all its Connections----And that AMERICA may soon behold a gracious Interposition of Heaven, for the Redress of her many Grievances, the Restoration of all her invaded Liberties, and their Security to the latest Generations.
By Order of the Provincial Congress,
JOHN HANCOCK, President
Saturday, April 11, 2009
I understand the temptation to look on the scheduled Tax Day TEA Parties (and those scheduled on other significant dates in American History) as ineffective means to an end which is ultimately unattainable, thus as seeing them as simply going through the motions with no possibility of their having the desired effect. But let's not be too quick to judge their effects; the combined effects of the Tea Parties and of other similar efforts we are currently engaged in, shall we?
Also, I want to avoid comparing our modern TEA parties to the historical Boston Tea Party that the Sons of Liberty conducted in which they cast whole shiploads of the detested beverage into Boston Harbor. To make such a comparison is like comparing apples and oranges.
Historically our current TEA protests are more comparable to the decades' long struggle between the American colonies and the British government, in which the colonials engaged in a variety of means to protest the arbitrary imposition of taxes placed on various items, as well as the arbitrary claim to authority over the American colonies from the British ministry. During the course of this struggle the American colonists engaged in a variety methods of peaceful protestation finally culminating in events like the Boston Tea Party and the formation of the Continental Congress from whence the Declaration of American Independence ultimately came forth. A broad accounting of the events that ultimately led to America's declaring its independence from the British government may be found within the document itself, to wit:
The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
So we see in these excerpts from the Declaration that our current methods of protestation follow closely the methods of our colonial forbears. And you'll have to excuse me for feeling a special connection between myself and our forbears, but as God is my witness I have been writing letters to Congressmen and Senators, as well as letters to the editor, etc., for umpteen years now reminding both our rulers and our brethren of the Declaration's pronouncement that "...and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind is more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves...but when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government...". And what have I generally received in return for my trouble? Basically the same treatment the founders received initially for theirs.
Now, had I my way about it the stage we're currently at in this struggle would have taken place fifteen years ago. But I have no control over that. Providence has a way of constructing events according to His timetable, not ours. And it's certainly not my place to questions His timing. My place is to hear the clarion call when it comes and to conduct myself accordingly.
So, will the combination of our efforts ultimately yield dividends favorable to the restoration of government of, by, and for the People, striking a proper balance between the various branches and spheres of our unique form of government? I don't think any of us can know that for sure, but I'm putting my money down that eventually they will. And as I said, I'm committed to conducting myself accordingly, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence and an appeal to Heaven for the rectitude of our intentions.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Allow me to go on a rant for a few lines and then you can have the floor with my general blessings. I seriously worry about people sometimes, whether they actually have any appreciable ability left in them to reflect and reason for themselves outside the influence of the mainstream media and the "news" and ideas they are fed. Certainly many people I know are obviously oblivious to the way their thinking is controlled by the powers that be, even though they are relatively independent minded and "conservative" on a variety of issues. You know, relatively in the same sense that John McCain is an immigration restrictionist as compared to some others we know.
Beyond that, there is a severe lack of respect and of proper deference paid to the founders and their wisdom in establishing our form of government, the various and sundry mechanisms installed for its maintenance and perpetuation, and the reasons they gave for including them as parts of the whole (Dr. Keyes actually addressed this problem Monday night during session 2 of his webinar conference). And it's not just a lack of knowledge, it is a lack of any real desire to acquire independent knowledge on the subject.
Just yesterday I was involved in a discussion with some friends and acquaintances who were exhibiting these telltale characteristics when the subject of abolishing the outmoded electoral college came up. Believe me when I say that it weren't long until I'd heard all I could possibly take before interjecting and adding my buck twenty-five's worth (yes, I count my informed opinion on certain topics to be worth a lot more than two cents). Since everyone was in complete agreement on the topic save me, and since I remained silent during the intial phase of the conversation, everyone else was feeding off of one another's blatantly ignorant, impulsive statements, until the point, as I said, that I felt I had to interject. I won't bore you with the entire content of my little speech (you can read the main points thereof in the Federalist Papers), but I will give you a paraphrase of my initial remarks, to wit:
Wait just a minute! First of all I think that everyone involved in this conversation up to this point has shown a severe lack of respect for the founding fathers and their wisdom, calling the electoral college system "stupid," "unfair," and the like, as if to say that they didn't think the mode of electing president through very well as an integral part of a complete system of government the likes of which the world had not before, nor has since known. So let's at least give them a little credit before we go off half-cocked leveling implicit accusations against them that, were we to put the proper amount of study and reflection to the question, would likely yield a completely different attitude.
Sadly I could see the MEGO (my eyes are glazing over) effect already setting in by the time I'd finished my opening statement. Everything else was, therefore, just a wash as people quickly began dispersing. But I felt compelled to go on anyway. They were all still within hearing distance, so they couldn't simply ignore me, try as they may.
Now, I realize that people don't particularly care to be corrected in that way. But I wasn't singling anyone out. In fact, quite the opposite. Nonetheless, as I initmated above, I think people tend to be willingly ignorant. I don't know why exactly they're like that except, I suppose, that it is easier to be fed information than it is to acquire it by one's own efforts and scholarship. And accordingly people tend to prefer the path of least resistance, which is to say whatever path requires the least effort on their parts. But you'll have to forgive me for holding that if you're of average intelligence, you can read and comprehend with average proficiency, and you claim to care about America and its preservation, then you ought to be held to a standard of scholarship and reflection requisite to all of the above whether you like it or not. Particularly when such people engage in spouting off an opinion about something they obviously haven't the first clue about. If they wish to argue that position on the merits, then that's clearly something altogether different, and something I can respect though I may strongly disagree.
But you know what they say: opinions are like a person's, umm, backside, everyone has one and they all stink.
End of rant.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Things are going to be slowing down considerably here at Webster's during the next several weeks. Some of you know of my coaching duties, and this is the time of year when that becomes something of a major priority around here, i.e., STATE (we're in a fair position to do well again there.). So four hours a day, four days a week are now devoted to that pursuit exclusively until the first weekend in May.
Beyond that, there is so much going on in the world of politics that I can hardly keep up with it and maintain some semblance of a normal life. Two hours each Monday night are devoted to attending Dr. Keyes's live Webinar conferences until the series is finished in June (please consider joining us; I'll ask all the questions. ;-)). Then we have the TEA parties to plan for. On that latter one, I've been on the phone virtually all day recruiting people to attend with me. At this point I'm not sure whether I'll be in Tulsa or OKC on April 15, but you can rest assured I'll be at one of those two places on that day ... with as many as I can successfully coerce into going with. Then, of course, since I'm not independently wealthy, I have to earn a living.
Everyone please give a warm welcome to Chiu Chunling -- a frequent commenter, with very good insights, over at Dr. Keyes's Loyal to Liberty site. Read Chiu's comments both here and at Loyal to Libery, you'll see what I mean.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
TEA has in this generation suddenly taken on the usefulness of a simple acronym signifying Taxed Enough Already, a rather uninspiring sort of a slogan meant to rally concerned citizens to organize and attend various TEA parties in cities around the country as mentioned in this WND report. The report cites numbers collected from Don Wildmon's American Family Association (AFA) claiming that nearly 1,600 individual tax day TEA parties are currently scheduled to convene in unison on the date with more being added daily in spite of the lack of inspiration in the slogan. Nonetheless,...
Will you be in attendance at one of these rallies? If so, will you, or have you invited others in your circle to be in attendance with you?
Think about it: if each scheduled tax day TEA party manages to rally merely an average of 100 people, and if we assume that 2,000 TEA parties will be organized and held on April 15, then 200,000 citizens will have gathered themselves in various cities around the United States for the express purpose of conducting a unified protest of the illegitimate "change" policies of the Obama administration and the leftist-socialist Congress. Which policies include, but are not limited to (of course) indebting future generations of Americans (our children and grandchildren) to the tune of trillions of dollars due to our insatiable appetite for increasingly living above and beyond our ability and means to fund our extravagant lifestyles so prevalent among our citizens in our generation. Which the socialists call "stimulus," and in exclusion of which the pitifully dependent among us cannot imagine a future worth living; a future in which the full faith and credit of the United States and of her people will have been utterly and irreparably destroyed.
But who cares about that, right? Better to destroy the reputation of the United States in attempting to temporarily maintain our current lavish lifestyles than to hunker down and tighten up our collective belt as an exercise of self-sacrifice intended to save America's reputation, its full faith and credit among the nations of the world, thus extending the blessings of liberty to our posterity. That seems to be the prevailing attitude currently in America, does it not? But some of us do care, enough to be in attendance at an upcoming rally near us though it may be a temporary inconvenience. On the other hand, some of us do not. You know who you are.
Of course, if there were an event scheduled for the day that certain individuals really cared about beyond an inclination to offer patriotic lip service in a half-hearted show of support of the movement (you know, a really important event like a college football game or something), then those people wouldn't have any trouble making the necessary arrangements to be in attendance enthusiastically cheering on their team, particularly if attendance at the event was to cost them nothing above the price, perhaps, of a half of a tank of gas -- reckon how many millions of Americans manage to make provision to attend the college football game of their choice on a given Saturday during the fall of each year, not to mention those who tune their team's games in on their televisions? How many of these people at least pay lip service to the principles undergirding the TEA party rallies? What is a mere 200,000 people in comparison?
Am I speaking of people like you? If what I've said above has elicited in you angry emotions, then very probably yes. If not, then probably not, with no apologies in any case forthcoming. As they say, "if the shoe fits, wear it." If it doesn't, then why are you offended?
Numerous entries found in the archives of this blog deal with the Tenth Amendment Resolution movement specifically, and/or otherwise reference the tenth amendment as being, for all intents and purposes, a dead letter insofar as its intent as part of the Bill of Rights is concerned.
In this October 15, 2008 entry I offer a proposal for shoring up as well as maintaining the importance of the tenth amendment for generations to come, and for preventing the judiciary's ruling on the matter.
Here is the text of the proposal as I wrote it in October:
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.