Here's a link to a News Channel 8 Tulsa video report of the Tea Party held yesterday in Tulsa. The written report claims that over a thousand were in attendance at the Tulsa Tea Party. If true, this is a fairly impressive turnout for an event first planned only a few days ago. Reports from the OKC Tea Party put the number of attendants at about 200.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Here's a link to a News Channel 8 Tulsa video report of the Tea Party held yesterday in Tulsa. The written report claims that over a thousand were in attendance at the Tulsa Tea Party. If true, this is a fairly impressive turnout for an event first planned only a few days ago. Reports from the OKC Tea Party put the number of attendants at about 200.
Is Gerald Celente all he's cracked up to be among certain television and radio media personalities? I don't know, but it seems like Mr. Celente has put together a pretty impressive portfolio of accurately predicting certain trends before they actually begin to manifest themselves in a significant and noticeable way.
Perhaps like me you've seen Mr. Celente appear recently as a guest on various network news programs such as Glenn Beck's show on Fox News. Of course the guest segments on those shows are always too short to get a good feel for who these personalities are and how believable they may or may not be. Celente is nonetheless capitalizing on the economic uncertainty amongst the folks, thus making a name for himself beyond the confines of New York City and economic elitists. And he's making dire predictions for our short term future, including, yes, 2009.
So what is Mr. Celente predicting for this year, 2009, and how can we get to know him better? See below the fold.
Here's the first segment of Celente's guest appearance on the Alex Jones radio program from Dec. 18, 2008:
Also, here's Celente's appearance on Art Bell's Coast to Coast radio show of the same date:
And here's the first segment of Catherine Austin Fitts's December 19, 2008 appearance on Coast to Coast where she discusses the same topic and in which she offers some down-to-earth practicable steps that individuals can take in order to prepare themselves, their families, and their local communities to best deal with the impending economic collapse. In other words, to become more self-sufficient, self-sustaining, and self-governing on an individual and a local level:
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
I watched the entirety of the president's speech last night, and, of course, the president is in a league of his own when it comes to speechifiying. Let there be no doubt, he is made for public speaking, or is it that public speaking is made for him? I can certainly see how people can be drawn into his web of deceit.
Contrast the President's speech with Governor Jindal's response, and, well, you get the impression of a rank amateur (Jindal) going up against a seasoned professional (Obama). Hey!, I'm just being honest here. Certainly my positions are more in line with Governor Jindal's than they will ever be with President Obama's. An ability to speak well doesn't equal an ability to govern well, and vice versa. But all the hype about this guy Jindal being some kind of Reagan incarnate was quickly laid to waste last night, at least as far as I'm concerned.
Did anyone else get the impression from Jindal's delivery that he thought he was telling a bedtime story to a bunch of kindergartners? Was anyone else insulted by this mode of delivery? Forget about his tacit embrace of open immigration and multiculturalism, his delivery ... sucked!; he bombed it bigtime! I'm no fan of Sarah Palin, but I guarantee you she would have delivered a much better, much more adult-like response. And by the way, conservatives are, in the truest sense of the word, adults. Therefore they require an adult message, for all you juvenile republicans out there.
If you're curious about what Mr. Wilders is doing during his stay in America between times he appears as a guest on various television media programs, Lawrence Auster has an entry up at VFR describing a meeting he attended yesterday in a Manhattan apartment where Wilders spoke to a small group who also saw his film Fitna.
Follow Auster's link to Atlas Shrugged where pictures are posted, and from there you can find, via another link, video clips of the Q & A segment of the meeting.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Monday, February 23, 2009
Geert Wilders, the anti-Islamist Dutch firebrand, is in America and will appear on Glenn Beck's and Bill O'Reilly's shows on Fox News later today. (H/T: VFR)
Update: Videos of Mr. Wilders's appearances on these programs may be had here and here.
In case you're unaware of it, Constitutional Scholar and former Ambassador under the Reagan administration, and several times presidential candidate Alan Keyes has a blog called Loyal to Liberty. Yes, yes, the orange and yellow color scheme is a little ... too much, but the consistent constitutional conservatism -against the orange and yellow background- is a thing to behold.
I've permanently linked Dr. Keyes's blog in the right sidebar under the heading Links of Interest. I may, in the future, move the link to my blogroll. What do you think?
Sunday, February 22, 2009
How exactly do you propose to subject a people under leftist-socialist government who are cultured enough to appreciate both the beauty and serenity of a Beethoven, 6th Symphony (beginning at about 27:00 - my apologies, I couldn't find anything more narrow. But why am I apolgizing?; the entire symphony is outstanding!), and at the same time uncultured enough to appreciate the humor of a Ray Stevens and Black Velveteen Art? Ans: You can't subject them to leftism. Why are you trying? Do you want a war?
Alan Keyes joins the rank of Senator Coburn (arguably the most consistently conservative member of the U.S. Senate; the U.S. Senate's consummate Okie from Muskogee), both of whom have been declared by certain personalities on the left to be insane because they recognize the communistic radicalism of our leftist president and the leftist-socialist Congress, and they dare to wield their influence, publicly pronouncing their opposition to it.
Dr. Keyes writes:
Until a friend sent me an email about it on Friday, I hadn't read Senator Coburn's speech. But on Thursday evening in Hastings, Nebraska, when asked about Obama's policies, I said that he is a radical communist, and that if Americans who care about liberty (i.e., who don't want to put a stake in its heart?) do nothing to stop him he'll bring about the destruction of the United States.
I just have a couple of things to say about this: whenever the left declares a person to be insane, that person is probably on the right track. Saying that someone is insane because he strongly opposes the policies of a president and a Congress which will destroy all remaining vestiges of Republican liberty is itself a form of insanity, or at least of self-delusion. In any event, it's not insanity to oppose a policy initiative if you believe, and publicly pronounce your belief, that it presents your country with an existential threat. That's like saying someone who establishes and adheres to rules for the better ordering of his home and family, and who pronounces the reasons for which other forms of family government are incompatible with the safety and happiness and the perpetuation of his family, is somehow insane. Which is basically what leftists believe about family autonomy.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Be careful about the way you state your opposition to Obama and his policies, or you may be treated to a visit from the Secret Service.
I'll tell you what, this guy Barack Hussein Obama must be the Secret Service's worst possible nightmare. As a radical leftist with a radical leftist Congress to back him up and he it, and given that radical leftists possess little to no will or ability to exercise self-restraint, and given as well that there are a bunch of crazies out there who are equally incapble of exercising self-restraint, and we don't know who exactly they are, law enforcement agencies across the fruited plain are on hyper alert for anyone who openly expresses his disdain for Hussein's destructive leftist policies. And since they're on hyper alert for speech that might possibly be construed as threatening towards the president, or that might incite violence towards the president, this means that the Secret Service's workload under Obama must be enormous by comparison to the same respecting the last few administrations. I wonder how much stimulus money is earmarked for the hiring and training of more Secret Service field agents to protect Obama?
Anyway, you can read Dr. Yeagley's interpretation of what happened to a gentleman in Oklahoma City on February 12 when he was followed and eventually pulled over by a police officer because he had taped to the tailgate of his pickup a homemade sign which read "Abort Obama, not babies" here. Dr. Yeagley also has a video interview with the man posted in the entry.
In connection with the video posted at the AFB, and also with the Democracy or Republic entry posted below, some of you may be interested in this Oct. 2007 AFB discussion on limiting government via governmental balance.
The discussion initially got a little heated between myself and our libertarian friend ol' shep, but we finally came to an understanding agreeing that re-establishing governmental balance is a superior concept to that of placing artificial arbitrary restrictions on government in order to limit its power to do evil. If you care to read the discussion avoiding all of the initial hostility exhibited between myself and ol' shep, you can start about here (Note: I was writing at that time under the pen name D. Webster.).
Also, for a better understanding of what "Balanced Government" is as we at the AFB have attempted to explicate it, see my AFB article What is Balanced Government?. I need to make some revisions to the article, but the basic concepts are all there. Also, the article, in fact both of these AFB articles are permanently linked at the top of this blog's left sidebar under the heading Select AFB Articles.
Friday, February 20, 2009
I'm making my way through the hundreds of remaining emails I've received to my inbox over the last couple of months. Personally, when the number exceeds a couple of hundred, I start to get a little nervous and completely committed to filing those whicha apply under their proper files. Everything else gets summarily deleted.
My regular and trusted correspondents are encouraged to continue emailing me - you know who you are.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Gates of Vienna is plugging a new documentary video - Homegrown Jihad - showing evidence of terrorist organizations and at least 35 individual terrorist training camps scattered about across the U.S.:
Baron Bodissey writes:
Martin Mawyer, Jason Campbell, and the other brave people of the Christian Action Network have spent the last three years researching, videotaping, and gathering material for their documentary Homegrown Jihad. They have done the country a tremendous service, and I recommend that you visit the CAN site and get yourself a copy of the DVD.
While I too encourage you to visit the CAN site and watch the trailer video, and certainly order your own copy of the movie which I intend to do, may I express a minor quibble with the use of a certain term, as well as to offer an alternative?
Is it possible for us to agree to stop referring to these Muslim terrorists living and training in America as "homegrown"? Admittedly it's a catchy word, but homegrown seems to me to imply that they were born and raised and educated in America, which I'm sure is true for some of them, but surely the vast majority of them are not "homegrown," and they didn't become jihadists while living on American soil. Rather, they are grown and developed elsewhere, or foreign-grown if you will, and make their way to, and manage to stay in, America via a variety of avenues, legal and illegal. Therefore I suggest that we stop using the term "homegrown" in relation to this particular group of jihadist terrorists, and replace it with "home-based" until such time as we gain smarts enough to remove them from American soil and repatriate them back to the lands from whence they came. At which point we'll no longer need the term to distinguish between them and foreign terrorists and terrorist organizations. They'll all just be jihadist mercenaries confined to the lands of their forbears.
Am I asking too much or being too nitpicky?
Here's a rather unstimulating example of liberal bassackwards, self-destructive "stimulus" thinking. The idea goes something like this (really!, I'm not making this up):
If you want to grow government and government interference into the lives of individuals, and simultaneously fund a given socialist pet project that you've been itching for years to pass (say, SCHIP), because nobody else is sinful enough to fund it, then what you do is to take a given thing that society, at the given moment in time, finds repulsive (say, tobacco use), and you impose a tax on it which you've previously denominated and thoroughly secured in the minds of the folks, a "sin tax." (There are also things denominated "luxury taxes" - a luxury is, of course, a sin unto itself in liberal society - one of which the Oklahoma legislature wisely repealed a few years ago, but not before it had collected from yours truly an irretrievable hefty fee based on same. Hint: they didn't do this of their own volition, or because of their wisdom.)
Nothing wrong with taxing something society deems as agregiously sinful, right? Well, I suppose not, unless said tax, combined with state and federal taxes already imposed on tobacco use, is so heavy and burdensome on said group that they'll be forced to find ways around having to pay it, i.e., cutting back on their tobacco use, and/or, quitting altogether, etc., there being no other alternative left to their discretion, their all-wise, all-powerful federal masters leaving them no other means of escape.
How brain-dead can these people be? I'm serious! They actually think that they can impose a new federal tax on a product, a tax that is almost double per pound what the product (current state and federal taxes included) costs currently, and this will result in a manifold increase in federal revenue sufficient to fund SCHIP from henceforth and for always, presumably, or at least until the next culturally unacceptable practice, and its practitioners, makes itself/themselves manifest as prime candidates for excessive taxation (say, fast food eaters). This is the very reason, my friends, that the federal government has absolutely no business taxing (or reaching) individuals, or the habits, bad as they may well be, of individuals. Who do you know that doesn't have some bad habits?
Here's my appeal to anyone out there with half a brain cell left: Do you want the central government deciding what is exceedingly sinful and what is not sinful, and taxing you accordingly? If your answer to that question is anything other than an emphatic NO, then I'm afraid you need to seek psychological help, and fast.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Yes, one of them was recently subjected to a typical Muslim honor killing, or should we say a typical Muslim honor beheading? Or should we say the victim was honored with a beheading?
Small consolation to his decapitated wife that her husband, acting the part of a good Muslim following the example of his demented prophet in sawing her head off with a knife as the culminating event in a marriage fraught with abuse and violence (I wonder how many times he raped her?), will sit the rest of his days in a prison cell where he will become an even more dedicated and a more perfect Muslim, I'm sure.
Explain to me again why we invite these people to live in our country and participate in our political process, and to enjoy all the priveleges and immunities thereof, including the right to a speedy trial, trial by jury, fifth amendment protections, and the rigth to state provided legal representation? On second thought, don't.
From the story linked above:
The couple had two children, ages 4 and 6, DiPirro said. Muzzammil Hassan also has two children, ages 17 and 18, from a previous marriage.
Question: Is Mr. Hassan's first wife's head still attached to her body? Presumably all of his children remain in one piece.
One of the most destructive and oft repeated lies that was ever perpetrated on the American public is the lie that immigration is an exclusively federal issue:
Most opponents also point out that immigration is a federal issue, and most legislators say Congress should handle it – Texas has a budget to pass, jobs to create and public schools to monitor, all in less than five months.
Many of this year's bills are unsuccessful repeats from the last session, when only three immigration bills – out of 72 – ultimately passed. Supporters acknowledge that most were kept at arm's length even by devout conservatives such as former House Speaker Tom Craddick, R-Midland, who felt they belonged in Congress. And the measures face even longer odds under a moderate speaker and a House that is almost evenly divided now among Republicans and Democrats.
Am I the only one to see that immigration has a direct impact on all of the above (Texas's budget, creation of jobs, the monitoring of public schools, etc.)? Moreover, am I the only that sees that the unwillingness of the Texas legislature to deal with the immigration issue and to declare it a "federal issue" which belongs in Congress is what's leading Texas and the Texas legislature to become ever more democrat(ic) and liberal?
Allow me to echo the prediction of Mark Krikorian who recently said in a video-interview dealing with the subject of immigration that Texas will soon follow in the footsteps of California in that it will become a swing state progressively moving more to the left until it is firmly in the Democrat column. Why? Because as I've pointed out more times than I care to count, immigrants to this country are, and always have been since the inception of this country, by and large, natural democrats. Among the best explanations for this tendency among immigrants to gravitate to the Democrat party was stated by Noah Webster who wrote:
Many of them come here with violent prejudices against arbitrary government, and they seem to make no great distinction between arbitrary government and a government of laws founded on free elections.
They don't make a great distinction between the two because they do not and cannot know the difference. In other words, the regimes they've lived under all of their lives, and the regimes their parents and grandparents have lived under all of their lives, etc., have always been oppressive and arbitrary. This being all they've ever known, how could they possibly be aware of the difference (I'm speaking in generalities; I admit of the occasional exception, as did Mr. Webster)? Moreover, whenever our government acts in a way that does not suit them or their way of thinking, how could they possibly understand the distinction between the arbitrary enactments of their own governments and the lawfully executed legislative enactments of our own?
The bottom line here is that it is, always has been and ever shall be, a losing proposition for non-democrats to cater to immigrant groups whether they be Hispanics or any other ethnicity. The best that can possibly be accomplished by doing so is to corrupt your party's principles for the sake of gaining votes you're never going to get, and to simultaneously alienate your base which will result in a net loss, not a net gain, of voters loyal to your party. In other words, to turn your state and your nation over to liberal multiculturalist Democrats.
Wake up Texas!
Readers familiar with this blog immediately recognize the On Islam label in the post title. For those new, or relatively new to the blog, On Islam is the title of a section in this blog's left sidebar containing permanent links to sites and articles by authors who are knowledgable about the subject of Islam, its propagation and advancement in the West, and the ultimate reason its [Islam's] adherents seek empowerment in the West.
The propagation and advancement of Islam in the West is obviously a major concern of this blog and its owner, and I'm on constant lookout for articles and authors who are knowledgable and informative on the subject. Indeed, as I wrote in the introduction to to my webpage Lawrence Auster on Islam,:
The purpose of the page is twofold: it is to provide the inquisitive seeker of information concerning Islam with factual material on the nature of the religion of Mohammed which you may have heretofore been unacquainted with or simply unaware of. ...
Likewise, it is one purpose of this blog, and the specific purpose of the On Islam section of the blog, to provide the inquisitive reader with the same type of factual material taken from the Quran and other Islamic sources, and to allow him to draw his own conclusions from the material presented.
I do not pretend to be open minded when it comes to the advancement of Islam in America and the West. Indeed, I freely own that I'm vehemently oppose it and anything that leads to Islam's westward advancement; specifically Muslim immigration to America and the West. Why? Because, very simply stated, Islam in practice means nothing less than an attempt at complete and utter world domination by various means including, but certainly not limited to, religious deception. And since Muslims are the practitioners of Islam, or Islamic world domination, then they do not belong in this country or the West. In other words, I know enough about Islam at this point to justify closing my mind to any and all attempts to sugar-coat what Mohammed's "religion" is all about, and/or, any and all stated attempts to eviscerate from the historical record who and what this piece of garbage Mohammed was. And I know enough about it to know that "radicals" did not "hijack" a great religion on Sept. 11, 2001. Islam may well be by some standard a "great religion", but it most certainly has never been hijacked by radical islamists unless you consider its demented radical founder to have hijacked the very religion he himself invented and became the embodiment of by his own barbaric, murderous, anti-semitic, pedophile example - the example that all good Muslims are to follow.
I cannot acquiesce in what appears to be a new innovation on the final stanza of Berkeley's famous poem:
Westward the course of Islam takes it way.
The first five acts already past, a sixth shall close the drama with the day.
Time's most violent offspring is the last.
Notwithstanding all of that, I'm happy to report that a permanent link to a worthy site has now been newly added to the On Islam section of this blog. Thanks to Mr. Winn for his scholarly service in this cause, and thanks to Gates of Vienna commenter Henrik R. Clausen for turning me and other GoV readers on to the site. I hope you'll take the time to visit and read it, particularly the online book Prophet of Doom.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Okay, I get it - you can voluntarily choose not to pay federal income taxes. The government will in turn force you to comply with its imposition of taxation on your person through a variety of means, including incarceration if you persist in volunteering to opt out of paying your taxes. Thus paying taxes is voluntary in the United States unlike some European countries we know.
This blog has been incessantly pointing out that the new Congress and Obama Administration will be seeking to overthrow state and local immigration laws as well as to simultaneously resurrect and impose "Comprehensive Immigration Reform," a.k.a. the Senate Amnesty bill. And it's not just a matter of what they want to do, it is a matter of what they can do, and will do, now that they are in complete control of the reins of government.
The article to which I link states in the subtitle that "This time around the circumstances are more favorable for passing reform legislation", which is one of the biggest understatements concerning federal legislation I've personally ever read.
"More favorable"? Umm, this time circumstances are not simply "more favorable", they are, without a doubt, absolutely favorable; in other words, it's going to happen. I don't think certain people understand how liberalism actually works. If you think liberal, drunken-with-power, politicians give a hoot about several hundred thousand calls and emails opposing a given piece of legislation, you've got another think coming.
Posted by Terry Morris at 8:36 AM
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
...will wonders never cease?!
I know, I know, nobody likes a smart alec, but I can't help feeling completely justified in reacting this way. Plus, I'm not really out to win anyone's approval anyway. If you don't like my attitude, move on. If you can put up with it for a couple of more paragraphs, continue reading.
When are people going to wake up? The U.S. Senate, as I've said numerous times since the results of the late election came in, is a filibuster proof Senate precisely because there are a number of RINOs who occupy seats in the U.S. Senate. Obama and the Democrats, I guarantee you, know this. All of this hope and hype about the Democrats needing to be very careful so as not to lose the support of three rogue Republican Senators which was supposedly hanging by a proverbial thread is herein effectively shown for what it is, just that - hype, and hope.
I listened with disgust yesterday to the talking heads claiming that Senate Democrats had at least better be on pins and needles unless they wanted to lose the fragile support of the three lone Repulicans who they'd barely, through tough back room negotiations, managed to swing to their side on the "stimulus" package. Right. And now we learn that not only did they somehow manage to keep their support while simultaneously growing the bill, they managed to do so with the removal from the Senate bill of the House's stipulation for the inclusion of E-Verify to protect American workers from their jobs going to illegal aliens.
I'm shocked, SHOCKED!
I don't know how much more of this my heart can take. Is it possible, with the Democrats occupying less than 60 seats in the Senate, that Congress will pass so-called "Comprehensive Immigration Reform," thus effectively nullifying all of the work that has been done at the state and local level to do what the central government has neither the will, nor the basic instinct to do, i.e., preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States?
Say it isn't so.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Well, not exactly over their losses, but they're apparently ecstatic to finally be back safely and securely in the minority, and it took big losses in two elections to get them there, hence they're really ecstatic about their losses:
It’s not that they were glad to lose. There are a lot of indignities involved in being the minority, and a pretty small minority at that. But talk to Republican lawmakers and insiders these days, and they speak as if an enormous weight has been lifted from their shoulders. Some of that weight was named George W. Bush, but in a larger sense, Republicans are relieved to be free of the burden of running things.
Free of the burden of running things? Hmmm.
Anyway, do read the entirety of the article, it's interesting what congressional Republicans are quoted as having said recently per their minority status. They'd likely be that much more ecstatic had a few more Republican Senators been peeled off in the late election, but I imagine the infamous three probably weren't up for re-election this go-round.
And what about Lindsay Grahamnesty? Does he epitomize the apparent inability of congressional Republicans to be in the majority and to be conservative at the same time? The only way conservatives can be true conservatives is when they're in the minority?
I'm not sure what good it does anyone for congressional Republicans to be unanimous in their opposition when even their unanimity, due to a simple lack of numbers, cannot stop a single measure the socialist party wants to put through. In other words, with conservatives like this, what need have we of liberals?
Sunday, February 8, 2009
My original post on the topic being now pushed down the page, I thought I'd post a new entry reminding you to watch the five segment interview with Mark Krikorian, author of The New Case Against Immigration, both Legal and Illegal, which is now complete and posted online here.
Note: Scroll down the page to find other interesting interviews, including a post election interview with the newly elected Chairman of the RNC, Michael Steele, in which Mr. Steele discusses his impression of the personality type of Mr. Obama.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
A question that often comes up in our discussions is whether there is really a God? Today is the birthday of my wife, my best friend and most trusted confidant for the last 22 years. What is the proof that there is a God? My wife. Why do I say this? Because I fervently prayed for her as a young college student in an isolated dorm room some 23 years ago; a perfect match if there ever was one.
Happy Birthday! I love you more than ever, as always.
Read this WND article to see what my state, Oklahoma, and others are currently doing to check the tendency of the federal government to usurp it's constitutional powers and become completely despotic and tyrannous under Obama and the socialist Obama regime.
Oklahoma's bill is HJR 1003, the text of which may be accessed here, "Search Text of Measures", 11th item on the list.
Friday, February 6, 2009
At the National Prayer Breakfast held yesterday morning in Washington, President Obama - Mr. A woman's right to choose his own self - uttered these memorable words:
There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being. This much we know.
Yeah, but you ain't God, right Mr. President? And besides, it all depends on what we mean by the term "innocent," doesn't it? Muslims do not consider Christians and Jews, nor anyone otherwise non-Muslim to be "innocent," and Allah doesn't condone the murder of innocent human beings, isn't that right, sir? A human child conceived in a mother's womb is not innocent if the persons determining the definition of the term innocent for our purposes also determines that child, at any stage in the pregnancy, to be a threat to the health and well-being, physical or otherwise, of the "mother", and/or, if the child in question is determined to be a threat to the environment via overpopulation, isn't that right our Sovereign Lord, Barack Hussein Obama I? Then of course there's the little matter of when a blob of human tissue actually becomes a human being, which, of course, is above your weasel paygrade, ain't that so?
One other thing we know about the gods and what they do and do not condone is that they most certainly do not condone any opposition to your policies. That we know for an absolute certainty.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
That a committee of conference and correspondence be appointed, which shall have as its charge to communicate the preceding resolutions to the Legislatures of the several States; to assure them that this State continues in the same esteem of their friendship and union which it has manifested from that moment at which a common danger first suggested a common union: that it considers union, for specified national purposes, and particularly to those specified in their federal compact, to be friendly to the peace, happiness and prosperity of all the States: that faithful to that compact, according to the plain intent and meaning in which it was understood and acceded to by the several parties, it is sincerely anxious for its preservation: that it does also believe, that to take from the States all the powers of self-government and transfer them to a general and consolidated government, without regard to the special delegations and reservations solemnly agreed to in that compact, is not for the peace, happiness or prosperity of these States; and that therefore this State is determined, as it doubts not its co-States are, to submit to undelegated, and consequently unlimited powers in no man, or body of men on earth: that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the General Government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy; but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non foederis), to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them: that nevertheless, this State, from motives of regard and respect for its co-States, has wished to communicate with them on the subject: that with them alone it is proper to communicate, they alone being parties to the compact, and solely authorized to judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it, Congress being not a party, but merely the creature of the compact, and subject as to its assumptions of power to the final judgment of those by whom, and for whose use itself and its powers were all created and modified: that if the acts before specified should stand, these conclusions would flow from them: that it would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights: that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism -- free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power: that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go. In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. That this State does therefore call on its co-States for an expression of their sentiments on acts not authorized by the federal compact. And it doubts not that their sense will be so announced as to prove their attachment unaltered to limited government, whether general or particular. And that the rights and liberties of their co-States will be exposed to no dangers by remaining embarked in a common bottom with their own. That they will concur with this State in considering acts as so palpably against the Constitution as to amount to an undisguised declaration that that compact is not meant to be the measure of the powers of the General Government, but that it will proceed in the exercise over these States, of all powers whatsoever: that they will view this as seizing the rights of the States, and consolidating them in the hands of the General Government, with a power assumed to bind the States, not merely as the cases made federal, (casus foederis,) but in all cases whatsoever, by laws made, not with their consent, but by others against their consent: that this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority; and that the co-States, recurring to their natural right in cases not made federal, will concur in declaring these acts void, and of no force, and will each take measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution, shall be exercised within their respective territories; and... (emphasis mine)
Quick!, someone grab a mirror, I think this dude might be breathing afterall! I'll definitely be sending out a few letters and emails to selected politicians in the coming days.
(The state of Washington has drawn up a similar resolution.)
What does this mean? Both the state of New Hampshire and the state of Washington voted Barack Hussein Obama in the presidential election, 54.3% and 57% respectively. It seems somewhat peculiar, therefore, that these resolutions would originate in these particular states. Nonetheless it is in Oklahoma's interest to join these states and draft a similar resolution in behalf of re-affirming our unalienable rights under the Constitution and the ninth and tenth amendments. After all, and as I've said several times before, our immigration law, H.B. 1804 is, you can bet your bottom dollar, just one of the many things currently in the sights of of the wild-eyed nuts (Reid, Pelosi, et al) in the leftist federal Congress and the Hussein administration. Once more, I'll be sending a few emails to select Oklahoma House and Senate members asking them to propose similar protective measures in our state. And I certainly encourage you to do the same in your own states.
Watch this interview with Mark Krikorian, part two of a five part series not yet complete, if you're interested in the fiscal case against immigration.
Of course the concerns of immigration restrictionists go beyond fiscal problems created by influxes of immigrants, and Mr. Krikorian's book certainly deals with more than the economic impact immigrants in large numbers present, hence the need for five separate parts in this series. Here is the main page where you can access all five parts of the interview once the series is complete.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Jeff in England, writing in this VFR entry brings an interesting perspective on the impending economic crisis. Indeed, I too have had these very thoughts, particularly of late, but for a period of years as well. And I'll admit to you that I've even longed for this to happen to a certain degree.
I see this financial crisis as the "calvary" in regard to the immigration situation. Whereas a reversal in immigration to the West was near unimaginable before, it is now conceivable though still unlikely. In addition, financial collapse might destroy the West even if it slows immigration as well.
Jeff expresses a concern, however, that if things deteriorate elsewhere -- Mexico and other third-world countries -- that this will leave our immigrant populations with no alternative but to stay in their newly adopted countries. And I respond.
Also keep in mind that highminded liberals, once they begin to feel the real effects of the economic crunch, will begin to question whether it is wise to continue funding entitlement (dependency) programs originally intended for American citizens when they can barely afford to keep their own heads above water, if they can even afford that much. So in a sense, and if Jeff is really on to something here (and I think he may be), it's not only the economic crisis that is a Godsend, it is the election of a Socialist president and a Socialist Congress in the midst of an impending economic crisis, both bent on intensifying the economic crisis situation, that is a Godsend.
The Lord do work in mysterious ways.
...and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.
It is too bad indeed that we lack the collective discernment to know a demagogue and budding tyrant when we see one. But that is the reality, and you can rest assured that no collective "awakening" is forthcoming anytime in the near future.
Here is Farley's email:
I'm mad...I'm steaming mad! We knew it was coming, and we told you about it for weeks before the inauguration. But, knowing the naked truth and actually watching it happen in front of our eyes are two different things. And now, as we predicted, the socialist gravy train is in full steam.
Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid--the three stooges of the left--have unashamedly stacked the decks and dealt the cards in their game to turn our republic into a full-scale European socialist regime.
STOP THE SOCIALIZATION OF AMERICA! HELP MINUTEMAN PAC ALERT AMERICA NOW!
Here's Nancy Pelosi's response on a Sunday morning talk show to a question about nationalizing U.S. banks:
"Well, whatever you want to call it... If we are going to put money into the banks, we certainly want equity for the American people. In other words, if we are strengthening [the banks], then the American people should get some of the upside of that strengthening. Some people call that nationalization."
Yes, Nancy, we call it "nationalization" because that's precisely what it is!
Folks, here's what "nationalization" of U.S. banks really means for you and me...certainly NOT more "equity for the American people." No! What nationalization of the banks really is about is the control of all major financial institutions in America. That means that as majority stockholder is these banks, the federal government gets to decide how the banks will use YOUR MONEY!
Now, this quote was perfect timing. You see, it was revealed simultaneously by fellow patriots-in-arms that part of Nancy Pelosi's "perks" for being Speaker of the House is a private jet. Yes, flying first-class apparently isn't good enough. But wait, that's not the outrageous part....
...Upset that her private Speaker's jet had to stop to refuel enroute to California, she ordered a new 200-seat jet that can fly directly to California with no stops. YES, SHE DID THAT! Guess how much that 200-seat jet costs per week to operate...are you sitting down? EVERY WEEK OF THE YEAR, Pelosi's jet costs you and me--taxpaying American citizens--$120,000!!! That's $480,000 per month!!! Per year? $5.75 MILLION!!!
Yes, all that in the midst of a deep recession verging on a depression...
That's how our "leaders" in Washington are dealing with the economy. Want to know how else they're gonna use our money? Simple. They've already shown us...
STOP PELOSI AND REID FROM CONTROLLING YOUR MONEY! HELP MMPAC FIGHT NOW!
Remember the infamous State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) that passed the House of Representatives with flying colors just days ago? Well, just as we warned and despite vehement objection, Senate Democrats slid the bill onto the floor and to a quick vote.
YEP! SCHIP is now on the president's desk and waiting for his signature! AND BELIEVE ME, HE WILL SIGN IT!
If you recall, SCHIP is the despicable legislation that will force the states to offer free health care to ALL children in the United States, regardless of their parents' income AND regardless of their citizenship. Yes, children of illegal aliens will now get FREE health care...no questions asked.
AND YOU'RE GONNA PAY FOR IT!!!
But, that's just the beginning...
HELP MINUTEMAN PAC STOP FREE HEALTH CARE FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS! JOIN THE EFFORT NOW!
By now you've certainly caught wind of the massive $900 billion "stimulus package" that Obama has promised and that has just passed the House of Representatives. Yes, this so-called stimulus is now in the Senate and may likely pass and be sent to the president's desk as well.
But, here's the question: why does this hallmark, record-breaking, first in our history, "stimulus package" include tax rebates for illegal aliens? Yes...IN FACT IT DOES! Never mind that the vast majority of the tax rebates are going to folks who don't pay taxes...a very large chunk of those rebates are going to illegal aliens who don't even have a legitimate social security number!
So, we're left to wonder--after illegal aliens take their free money back across the border--what exactly are we stimulating here? And with all that free money--YOUR MONEY--going out the door, what do you suppose is going to stop more illegal aliens from coming over the border to get their checks too? That's right! NOTHING!
That's why it shouldn't come as a surprise at all when we learned that Obama's illegal-alien aunt was somehow granted exemption from deportation.
SHOULD ILLEGAL ALIENS GET TAX REBATES? HELP US STOP FREE MONEY TO ILLEGAL ALIENS!
I could stop here...I'm already mad enough. But, we've pledged to keep you, our fellow patriots, informed. And there is much more afoot in the nation's capitol than even we expected.
Perhaps you've followed the proposed "Card Check" legislation. If not, here's the gist...
Liberals in Congress have proposed a nicely-worded bill called the Employee Free Choice Act (Card Check). Sounds like a good idea, right? Employees having the freedom to choose? Surely it's a no-brainer. WRONG!
We shouldn't be shocked at all to find that liberals in Congress have given a name to a bill that describes exactly the opposite of what it really does!
In a nutshell, "Card Check" allows union bosses to force employees of businesses to join the union--even if they don't want to. That's fundamentally un-American!
We all know that liberals in Congress are in the pockets of Big Labor union bosses who pour hundreds of millions of dollars into elections and special interest lobbying in Washington!
So, if and when "Card Check" is secretly forced through Congress and signed by President Obama...what's the first thing you suppose Big Labor will do? Yep, they're gonna target all those illegal aliens in the country and force them to sign up for the unions!!!
With all the free money, union jobs, and no threat of deportation, who do you suppose illegal aliens will be voting for in 2010? Right again! The liberals who gave them the free money and free jobs! AND ONCE AGAIN, YOU'RE GONNA PAY FOR IT!
DON'T LET THE UNIONS RECRUIT ILLEGAL ALIENS! HELP MMPAC STOP "CARD CHECK"!
Now you can see why I'm so steaming mad. In the course of just two weeks, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have shoved through the Congress the largest shift toward Socialism in the history of our Republic!!! And with 4 years of this, they've only just begun!
But Minuteman PAC will not stop fighting! We continue to lobby in Washington to reveal to patriot Congressmen the life-threatening details in these bills and how they promise to kill the Republic. WE WILL NOT STOP PRESSING FORWARD!
In addition, we are already gathering forces and identifying our key leaders for the 2010 election. Dozens of patriot-leaders are already stepping forward to answer the call. WE WILL HELP ARM THEM AND SEND THEM TO CONGRESS! And we're preparing now to defend at all cost those patriots, like Duncan Hunter, already in Congress...fighting the fight and standing strong against the creep of socialism.
Last, we are stepping up our voter education efforts. Americans MUST know what our government is doing to us and to our country. Educating and activating voters is an expensive prospect, but somebody has to do the heavy lifting.
HELP MINUTEMAN PAC RAMP UP AND REARM FOR 2010! WE MUST RETAKE GROUND!
One final reminder as well. We hinted at it in previous updates. A MAJOR candidate announcement is coming soon, which the Minuteman PAC will be heavily involved in. I can't let the cat out of the bag just yet. But, soon. And when we do, it will shake the rafters. We'll need ALL the help we can get when the time comes. Stand by and be ready...
For the republic,
I thought readers might find this CIS report interesting and informative. Here is a summary of the report which makes for much quicker reading if you're short on time. Also, see this angry rebuttal published at a site called America's Voice -- I'm so glad America has a voice, aren't you? It reminds me of the time the GOP sent out to "select" Republicans a questionaire concerning President Bush's "initiatives," in which those select few of us who received the questionaire were informed that we spoke for Republicans in our areas, so it was vitally important that we fill out and return the questionaire so that the voices of the masses might be heard through us. I was so excited to learn that I spoke for hundreds, maybe even thousands of Republicans in my area, and I was so certain that they'd be equally excited to know that I was speaking for them, and that the GOP selected me to be their voice without even consulting them about it, that I sent a nice letter to the GOP telling them how I really felt about it. But I digress...
I question some of the findings in the report, particularly the overarching claim, or conclusion, that the Latino movement to the left in the late election is part of a broader electoral movement to the left; a movement which includes white males among other conservative demographic groups.
With all due respect to Mr. Gimpel, I think he leaves out of his study a couple of important factors. First there is the reality that many Americans like myself abstained in the presidential election, albeit I'm not sure there's a way to measure that number of voters accurately. Second, there is the reality that John McCain was such a poor candidate in virtually every conceivable way; that in terms of appeal he is simply out of Obama's league. When the choice is between two liberals, and everybody knows it, so-called "moderates" are going to go with the leftier and the more attractive of the two candidates every single time.
But my biggest beef with the report is the conclusion drawn from the numbers that Latino voters simply do not care about immigration policy ... as part of a broader electoral attitude. I think that is just naive at best; as if to say that Latinos do not identify with their cultural and ethnic heritage, that when push comes to shove, so to speak, Latinos are culturally and ethnically neutral.
Anyway, here are the concluding paragraphs of the report:
In summary, the 2008 election has no clear implications for immigration policy making and for a very straightforward reason: Neither candidate campaigned on the issue, nor was it clear that their positions were appreciably different.
Over the long term, Republicans can expect to enlarge upon their voting margins among Latinos as Latinos become more prosperous and move into areas of existing Republican Party strength where they can develop ties to other GOP adherents. As it stands, what separates Republican-identifying Latinos from Democrats is primarily religion and income. Involvement in Evangelical church circles is clearly associated with Republican Party gains among Latinos, but promoting religious conversion seems like an unusual and possibly controversial way to go about building a base of party support.
As long as Latinos remain in lower income brackets, an outcome virtually assured by sustained high levels of unskilled immigration, the Democrats will continue to maintain their lopsided edge. American ethnic history has shown that the path to Republican Party identification is a slow and multi-generational one. The greater the education and skills deficit new immigrants arrive with, the longer this political migration process will take.
I'm interested in your take.
I decided to read a bit more at the site presumptuously named "America's Voice," and I ran across this item which is apparently a speech given on August 21, 2008, to the Police Foundation of the city of Phoenix, by the city's Mayor, Phil Gordon who states in his opening remarks:
When this nation was founded, no one ever conceived or imagined that immigration enforcement was an issue that would ever fall to mayors and local police departments. But because of federal neglect -- here we are.
Now there's a politician totally disconnected from his nation's history. And I'm quite certain he isn't alone in this uninformed thinking. In fact, I'll bet he's in the majority among his peers.
Now, it's one thing to argue that the federal government ought to have exclusive authority in the realm of immigration standards and enforcement, but it is quite another to assert, dogmatically even, that no one ever conceived or imagined that local governments and law enforcement agencies would be tasked with enforcing immigration laws in their own backyards. This guy obviously doesn't know squat about the original U.S. Constitution. He obviously thinks that (if he's ever bothered to even read the phrase) the granting of hte power to create a "uniform rule of naturalization" to the national government is the same thing as sole and exclusive federal authority in the realm of immigration law and law enforcement. It is not.
What is worse is that the folks who presumptuously claim to represent "America's Voice" have this tripe posted at their website, as if there is anything factual about it. They don't know or understand the difference either. They have an agenda -- Comprehensive Immigration Reform -- and anything they perceive to be helpful in forwarding that agenda, any "authority" they can cite to push their agenda through, they will.
This is a good example of one of the biggest problems we face in this country. What our Mayor is complaining about is the fact that his state legislature created immigration legislation which, naturally, put it on local authorities to enforce. Just as is so common these days, our Mayor hasn't even given the law time to work; he hasn't even given anyone time to make the proper adjustments, which they will in time. Our Mayor expects instant results, and when they don't come, instantaneously, he screams and yells at the top of his lungs saying stupid things like "no one ever imagined local governments would be tasked with enforcing immigration laws." Then comes along a group presuming to speak for the American People and they publish that crap. It is the same thing that happened shortly after Oklahoma's immigration law went into effect. The first time someone suffered the God-awful inconvenience of having to provide a birth certificate as proof of citizenship for driver license revewal, due to their own neglect no less, people started screaming and hollering about how "unjust" this new law was. These same folks, incidentally, were staunch opponents of Oklahoma's law before it ever went into effect.