The first of the scheduled fourteen part Loyal to Liberty, live interactive Webinar series hosted by Alan Keyes is now officially in the books. Even after having procrastinated until the eve of the first session to register for the meeting, only then to learn that there was a problem with my paypal account which prohibited me from completing the registration process initially, I did finally manage to get myself registered and was in attendance, a full fifteen minutes early, for the meeting. Several individuals, however, were not so fortunate as I.
At the scheduled start time for the meeting (9:30pm ET), there were only about four or five people present as I recall. In order to accomodate the majority who had not yet logged on to the meeting, Dr. Keyes extended the start time by about fifteen to twenty minutes, during which time most of the remainder of the people who were ultimately in attendance came straggling in one at a time. Although a few others came in as much as 45 minutes to an hour late. My understanding is that several people actually never showed up.
There was time made prior to the intitial presentation by Dr. Keyes for the participants to check their microphones and become familiar with the various features of the forum. Which was a good thing since this is a rather new technology, or, it's at least new to most of us laymen I would suspect. Some people were obviously having trouble getting their microphones to work, I being one of them even though I'd tested it before entering the forum.
In short, there were obviously some problems during the maiden session, most of which were related to a lack of familiarity with the service and its functions. Those kinds of problems will tend to disappear over time, and I expect a much smoother second session.
All of that aside, Dr. Keyes gave an initial presentation which probably lasted upwards of thirty minutes in which he shared a number of insights. I jotted down a few notes during the presentation, and I'll try to transmit them to you in a way that is coherent (I'm a rather poor note taker).
The subject of last night's conference was, of course, Preserving the Constitution. Dr. Keyes started his presentation out by saying, according to my notes, that the challenge would not be an easy one because our people and our leaders no longer appreciate our form of government. He then moved naturally into a short dissertation on the need for Balance, or a balanced understanding of our Constitution and the form of government that it, in fact, establishes. Of course this was music to my ears, Balanced Constitutional Government being a main theme on this blog (see post label "Balanced Government"). My next note has to do with a six-hour-long Alexander Hamilton speech mentioned by Dr. Keyes, under which I have written that Hamilton discussed "the problem with government itself," and "maintaining a stable democratic system." A final note on Hamilton's speech I have written in my notes is that he basically broke people down into two classes, 1) The Princes, or the ruling class (people who have an ambition to rule over others), and 2) everyone else (people who hail from a range of backgrounds and possess a great variety of talents and giftings, but who have no particular ambition to rule over others.). I have no further notes on Hamilton's speech written down, but if memory serves Dr. Keyes carried this discussion forward relating that Hamilton discussed in the speech, again, how to strike a proper balance governmentally between the two classes so that the ruling class couldn't gain an improper ascendancy over the non-ruling class and vice versa, and the general need for both as essential parts of a balanced system. Dr. Keyes then went on to talk about the inherent instability of democracies, using the African country of Zimbabwe as a prime example (I can't speak to that, not being familiar with the history of Zimbabwe.). According to my notes Keyes's presentation ended on the subject of Zimbabwe and a limited discussion on its transition from a government run by the few, or an oligarchy which enjoyed economic success at the expense of justice, to a mob-rule style democracy in which everything was lost [For a clearer understanding of Dr. Keyes's position on the problems with Zimbabwe and how he relates it to America, see Dr. Keyes's new article Zimbabwe in America's Future?]. Dr. Keyes then invited the participants to join in a Q&A session.
Unfortunately for me only a few minutes into the Q&A session we had a thunderstorm pass over causing my internet connection to fail, and I spent the vast majority of the remainder of the meeting trying to reconnect to the conference. So, I missed most of the Q&A session, as well as the open discussion session which followed. The only note I have written down from that portion of the meeting is a notation concerning Dr. Keyes's mention of the scriptural admonitions that Christians are to be as salt and yeast, which Dr. Keyes spoke to a bit pointing out that both salt and yeast, although when added have significant effects, are added in very small proportions to the whole. I had, prior to losing my connection, indicated that I had a question for Dr. Keyes, but as fate would have it the thunderstorm prevented his giving me the floor. At this point I don't recall why the question came to me, but I intended to follow it up with a question about Balanced Constitutional Government as well. I jotted the initial question down as the last entry in my notes:
"Will a society based on Biblical-Christian principles and values reflect a particular form of government, and if so, can you speak to what form of government such a society will generally reflect?"
Overall I thought the first session went relatively well, and I'll certainly be in attendance at the next one. If for no other reason than to see whether we've made any progress in the way of preparations, successfully logging on, and learning how to properly use the functions of the webinar service. I hope to see you there too!
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
The first of the scheduled fourteen part Loyal to Liberty, live interactive Webinar series hosted by Alan Keyes is now officially in the books. Even after having procrastinated until the eve of the first session to register for the meeting, only then to learn that there was a problem with my paypal account which prohibited me from completing the registration process initially, I did finally manage to get myself registered and was in attendance, a full fifteen minutes early, for the meeting. Several individuals, however, were not so fortunate as I.
Monday, March 30, 2009
If you'd planned on doing so but, like me, have procrastinated, or if you're only learning of this now and you wish to participate, don't forget to register for the first Loyal to Liberty live interactive webinar scheduled today, Monday, March 30, 9:30pm. Enrollments are being accepted until 6:00pm Monday (I'm assuming CST).
Sunday, March 29, 2009
As if it weren't bad enough that we have a Muslim sympathizer --who attended Muslim school in Indonesia and recalls that one of the sweetest sounds from his early childhood was the Muslim morning call to prayer-- in the White House, now we learn of the "under the radar" effort by [empowered] Muslim community leaders, working in conjunction with the first Muslim member of Congress, Keith Ellison, to help install Muslims in key positions in the Obama Administration.
Now, don't get the wrong impression. I'm not at all surprised by this revelation. This is exactly what we should expect from Muslims living in America now that they have someone sympathetic to Islam and Islamites [serving] in the highest executive office in the land. And as they become more numerous and more empowered we can expect them to more aggressively seek to infiltrate more and more key positions of power under the United States.
Under Dr. Keyes's excellent post United by Right, I attempt to identify the root cause of the confusion and disagreement between libertarian commentator Silent Consensus, and the majority of commenters under that and earlier threads at the site.
Here is an excerpt from my latest comment to the entry:
Re the irreconcilable differences between Silent Consensus and the majority in this forum:
I think what we have here is a failure to communicate. Yes, yes, it's an overused line, but that doesn't negate the fact.
There are three minimal requirements for intelligent conversation to occur: 1) an intelligent mind capable of transmitting a thought, 2) an intelligent mind capable of receiving a thought, and 3) a common mode of communication between them (a common language).
I personally find that it is almost always that third one that gets in the way of carrying on an intelligent conversation between minds. We speak the same (English) language, yes, extracting our words from a common store or reservoir, but at the same time we assign to them different significations, primary and secondary, depending on our philosophical beliefs. Thus, we're really speaking different philosophical dialects of the same language, which acts as a barrier or an impediment to our being able to transmit and receive thoughts with normal clarity. And it goes without saying that a high degree of clarity is an absolute must when attempting to carry on intelligent conversations with someone else, political, religious, whatever.
I, of course, encourage you to follow the link to the entry and read the entirety of the comment in which I quote John Jay from Federalist no. 2 where he lays it down as essential to, and inseparable from, the growth and development of the founding generation into a body politic sufficiently prepared and uniquely qualified to establish "general liberty and independence," the societal cohesion necessary to accomplish the formidable task.
Which, of course, has implications for us and our ability to maintain general liberty and independence, in our time, as well. Something I ultimately chose not to delve too far into in the post, opting rather to keep my focus primarily on the confusion, and what I deem to be the source of the confusion, that Silent Consensus is creating in the forum. Jay's observation is important as it applies to us nonetheless. And I'll have more to say on it here later.
Loyal to Liberty commenter chiu chunling writes in part:
Silent Consensus isn't a libertarian, though he makes free to mouth such arguments. He simply is trying to set up a straw-man idea of freedom to establish a problem that can only be solved by totalitarianism.
I believe that self-government means self-determination, and further that self-determination depends on self-control and self-restraint. I simply use a conceptually consistent idea of "self" as being an entity which has the potential for independent existence, which is to say, I do not mean only the body, which is dependent for its composition and continuation on circumstances.
This response to my comment is, on some level, meant to refute what I said concerning libertarianism's idea of what the term self-government primarily signifies. But in fact it solidifies the point. Where chunling indicates that he believes that self-government means self-determination and further that self-determination depends on self-control and self-constraint, he's simply acknowledging my simpler version of the exact same idea, namely that the primary signification of self-government is self-control, self-constraint, not self-determination. This is not what Silent Consensus believes, and his IS a libertarian understanding of the term self-government.
Now, maybe chunling counts himself among libertarians and was thus offended by my comments. Fine. But as I've said many, many times before, there are libertarians, and then there are Libertarians. A pure Libertarian like Silent Consensus has a strong sense of the absolute autonomy of the individual, or, extreme individualism. Chunling is not a pure libertarian, Silent Consensus is.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
I wrote in a recent entry about the organization "People for the American Way," saying there that the members of, and people otherwise friendly to, that organization can have no conception of what People truly for the American Way know to be the genuine American Way.
Reckon the People for the American Way will ever understand what the People for the American Way are all about, or the extent of their power? Nah. So I guess we'll just have to keep teaching it to them.
As you can see, two states have been added (Idaho and South Carolina), according to this map, to the number of states which have now passed their Tenth Amendment Resolutions in their legislatures, bringing the total to four. The number of states which have introduced their own resolutions remains at 28.
Here is a collection of Webster's entries containing the label "Tenth Amendment," several of which deal specifically with the Tenth Amendment Resolution movement, its initiation and its progress to date; others of which relate to the Tenth Amendment Resolution movement, or the need for such a movement amongst the various states, indirectly.
I went back into Webster's archives recently and added the label to several posts from several months back which relate directly to the movement. But I've written about the tenth amendment and how the central government has trampled upon it any number of times in the past, dating back, as far as this blog is concerned, probably to shortly after the blog's inception. I'll work up a more complete collection of entries on the topic as I have the time and the will.
In the meantime, you can simply enter the words "tenth amendment" into the "search blog" feature, and all of the blog entries I've written containing the words "tenth amendment" will come up. No; this still doesn't exhaust the list of entries I've written relating directly or indirectly to the tenth amendment.
In a footnote added to his follow-up article on the M.I.A.C. Report, Chuck Baldwin -- named among three third-party presidential candidates, supporters of whom the report declared to be "prone to violence" and "militia membership," as I wrote about here -- observes that the means utilized to bring about the rapid death of this report can and must be used wherever we find the tentacles of tyranny positioning themselves to crush our beloved liberties.
*Notice, too, that we did not need the major media to achieve this victory. We cut off this one branch of the tyranny tree without the help of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX NEWS (with the exception of Glenn Beck), or even the Drudge Report. Victory was achieved with the weapons of talk radio, syndicated Internet columns, Internet blogging, local news media, and word of mouth.
You see, folks, we can achieve victory without the major media. But we must stay focused and actively involved in our respective State governments. "We the people" are still the power of this country. And don't let anyone deceive you into believing anything else. Therefore, take heart in knowing that your diligence convinced the State of Missouri to rescind its atrocious MIAC report. Now, don't let it stop there. Let's faithfully cut off the tentacles of tyranny wherever we find them. Amen?
The main article is posted here. (H/T: OutragedPatriots.com)
Additionally Bob Unruh of WND has filed a similar report critical of the MIAC report and its contents:
Citing ALIPAC, Unruh writes:
The 'Missouri Documents,' as they came to be called, listed over 32 characteristics police should watch for as signs or links to domestic terrorists, which could threaten police officers, court officials, and infrastructure targets.
"Police were instructed to look for Americans who were concerned about unemployment, taxes, illegal immigration, gangs, border security, abortion, high costs of living, gun restrictions, FEMA, the IRS, The Federal Reserve, and the North American Union/SPP/North American Community. The 'Missouri Documents' also said potential domestic terrorists might like gun shows, short wave radios, combat movies, movies with white male heroes, Tom Clancey Novels, and Presidential Candidates Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and Chuck Baldwin!" ALIPAC wrote.
I don't know about you, but this to me reads more like a list of items that would be of concern to your typical All-American native son (or daughter). That is, when he wasn't busying himself with playing or coaching baseball, eating grandma's apple pie at a family gathering, instructing his children in the art of self-government, or doing volunteer work for his local church and his local community. Or, of course, writing at a political blog. ;-)
Friday, March 27, 2009
I've written several times before at this blog and elsewhere about the common mischaracterization of the U.S. Constitution, by folks at all places on the political spectrum alike, as the "Supreme Law of the Land." I've quoted before William James who is accredited with the saying "there is nothing so absurd than if you repeat something often enough people begin to believe it" (although Thomas Jefferson made the statement long before William James came along, and Jefferson himself picked the phrase up from elsewhere) as it applies to a variety of mischaracterizations and misunderstandings about what is actually said in the constitution and other founding, and otherwise historical documentation.
The phrase "separation of church and state" was never written into the U.S. Constitution and yet many people still believe that it was, and is. You can argue that the phrase is consistent with the provision contained in the first amendment, but you can't argue that the phrase anywhere appears as such in the constitution, or in any amendment thereof. I've also written before about the Declaration of Independence's phrase "All men are created equal" and the way that some tend to leave out the term "created", rending it "all men are equal." Now, I don't know about you, but to me there is a huge difference between the two statements and their respective implications. And of course there are those people out there who mistakenly attribute a phrase from the DoI to the Constitution and vice versa, among other misapplications that are worse, much worse even. But it's all there in black and white for anyone who really gives a hoot about what the actual words are, and in which document they are actually found. The fact remains, though, that we simply have too many sheeple living in our midst who internalize these misquotes and mistatements because they're simply too lazy to check it out for themselves. There can be no good excuse for this, none, not for anyone who claims to believe in the principles contained in the DoI, the U.S. Constitution, etc. Particularly for folks who have access to the internet. Yet these types of mistakes abound even at times among otherwise intelligent, thoughtful, articulate, patriotic people.
With respect to the idea bandied about all too often in today's dumbed-down Constitutionally illiterate America, someone will invariably come along and make a statement while arguing a point with me that goes something like this: "...after all, the Constitution IS the Supreme law of the land." Some people will state it more forcefully, utilizing more blatant forms of sarcasm and condescension: "Well, you obviously don't know what you're talking about, nor have you read the Constitution because it says clearly that it is the Supreme Law of the Land." Or how about this one: "You have no right to question the authority of the supreme law!" The way I reply to these various assertions of the same theme is generally dictated by the impression I get from how the statement was made in context of the discussion. But generally speaking I want people to correct their own mistakes through their own research, so I might reply in this fashion: "You might want to look at that again. See Article VI, U.S. Constitution." --Yes, it's important to direct them to the right article, because although they're fond of parroting the statement, they don't know where to find it and there's no way in hell they're going to read through the first five articles to find it. Other times I will simply correct the person in question quoting the whole phrase from the Constitution establishing constitutional supremacy. Which method I choose in a given circumstance may seem arbitrary to some, but believe me, it is usually not. It all depends on the context of the discussion and the individual I'm dealing with - what sort of characteristics he or she exudes during the conversation. But anyway...
The reason I bring this up again is because I was recently involved in a discussion (actually several discussions) over at Alan Keyes's blog "Loyal to Liberty" in which this statement about the constitution being, in and of itself, the Supreme Law of the Land was made on at least a couple of different occasions. In the context of that particular discussion I chose the option of quoting the entire phrase establishing constitutional supremacy, explaining that the distinction between the two statements - the half truth that the constitution is the supreme law, and the whole truth contained in the entire statement - is, from my point of view, a very important, even a vital distinction to make precisely because we're generally in agreement as to the question of constitutional supremacy, where we disagree, however, is in what kinds of laws and treaties and so forth are "made in pursuance thereof." Therein is where Republicans and Democrats, Independents and Libertarians, Religionists and Atheists, Conservatives and Liberals, etc., ad infinitum, tend to part ways. Why? Because this is all dictated by one's worldview, which is generally determined by one's religion or the lack thereof. And yes, the "lack thereof" can easily become, exuding all the essential characteristics of, a religion unto itself (which I think is because human beings are spiritual beings, and there's no way of getting around it, no matter how hard we try).
Again, I want people to realize where it is actually that their differences lie on this question of constitutional supremacy, but more importantly to connect that common source of differences on the subject with what the constitution states about it. Making the half-truthful, last-ditch argument that the Constitution is the Supreme Law, which implies that the other party either doesn't understand this, or that he/she disagrees with the principle, is generally not very helpful in these conversations, not merely because it is a half-truth, but because it is generally meant to elicit a certain kind of response. Nor generally is the other person's reaction very helpful, which usually comes down to something to the effect of "how dare you question my belief in the principle of constitutional supremacy; you think I don't already know this moron?!" But if we can get people to read the entirety of the statement and to begin to reflect upon it, seeing that they'd been previously misinformed, or, incompletely informed as it were, then they might just begin to ask themselves such questions as "under what constitutional principle or authority does the national government encroach upon the rights reserved to the states and to the people respectively in their own spheres of activity?", "how is it that laws made under the authority of the United States, and treaties so made, which trample upon the whole bill of rights, can be said to be made in pursuance of the principles of the U.S. Constitution, or under its authority?", etc., then we may actually be doing something useful, not only useful to the person(s) we are conversing with and the onlookers, but also to ourselves; we may have actually helped to set them upon a journey that will eventually result in their independency from those characters and demagogues who feign a unique understanding of the constitution and our system of government winning to themselves proselytes via the use of half-truthful statements such as those mentioned.
And this is why I say that the term "unconstitutional" is way overused in today's society, again by folks all across the political spectrum. If anything is blatantly unconstitutional, it is the idea bandied about that the constitution is, in and of itself, the "Supreme Law of the Land." It is un-constitutional, or, not-constitutional because there's no basis in the constitution for it, none. In fact, quite to the contrary as I've shown above. But I digress. Very few things I think there are that are as clearly unconstitutional as folks on both the right and the left would have us believe. The same folks, of course, would have us believe that in-and-of-itself constitutional supremacy is fundamentally constitutional when clearly it is not. How then are we ever to trust them on items they declare to be "unconstitutional" when they don't even understand the first precepts of constitutionality in the first place?
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Be sure not to miss the long discussion ongoing under Dr. Keyes's article Notre Dame: Promoting the Glamour of Evil, an article that the leftist organization "People for the American Way" pays its unapproving tribute to, as well as a connected leftist blogger who declares Keyes's site, in typical leftist vernacular, to be "hate-filled." (see the linked articles beneath the comments to the post, one of which will now be this one.)
As I observed in a comment submitted under the entry, self-proclaimed "right wing watch(ing)" leftists are apparently barely capable of writing a sentence out without the word "hate," or some derivative thereof, being incorporated. Whenever the so-called "Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)" decides to release its report on Keyes's site, let us count the ways in which it uses the descriptive "hate" and all the derivatives thereof. These people are obviously obsessed with "hate."
But it's all good. When you attract the attention of leftist groups such as the self-deluded falsely named People for the American Way, you can rest in the assurance that you're doing something right. The folks at that organization haven't the capacity for understanding what the American Way is or entails, which is why they're relegated to casting aspersions and invectives in the direction of those who do.
I said the following in a parenthetical remark under the initial entry:
(see the linked articles beneath the comments to the post, one of which will now be this one.).
The latter part of that statement is no longer, at the time of this writing, the case because shortly after this entry was registered as a link under Keyes's article, it inexplicably disappeared. Indeed, three links which were formerly listed under the entry have since disappeared, including the hostile links that I mention above in the initial entry.
What exactly this means, I'm not clear on at this point. But I'm going to moniter the fate of future links to Keyes's articles, both approving and disapproving, to see what happens there. I'll let you know what I find. Perhaps it's just a temporary anomaly, I simply do not know at this point. But I seem to recall another of my linked posts all of a sudden, and inexplicably disappearing under another of Keyes's articles. If that is the case, though, it seems to have re-appeared, as inexplicably as it disappeared before. Weird.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Chuck Baldwin writes at NewsWithViews.com My Response to M.I.A.C. Report:
By now, readers should be familiar with the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) report dated 02/20/09 and titled, "MIAC Strategic Report: The Modern Militia Movement." In this dreadfully malicious and slanderous "law enforcement sensitive" secret police report, Governor Jeremiah (Jay) Nixon; John Britt, Director of the Missouri Department of Public Safety; James Keathley, Colonel, Missouri State Highway Patrol; and Van Godsey, Director of MIAC categorize certain citizens as being potential violence-prone "militia members." I would venture to guess that more than 75% of the entire population of the United States would fit the MIAC's broad definition of someone who would fall into the aforementioned category.
According to the MIAC report, if you oppose any of the following, you could qualify for being profiled as a potential dangerous "militia member":
The United Nations
The New World Order
The violation of Posse Comitatus
The Federal Reserve
The Income Tax
The Ammunition and Accountability Act
A possible Constitutional Convention
The North American Union
Universal Service Program
Radio Frequency Identification (RFID)
Again, I would bet that at least 75% of the American people would oppose at least one or more items on the above list. Well, according to the MIAC report, that is sufficient to make them potential dangerous "militia members."
Uh, yeah, count me among the 75% ... several times. Indeed, count about 98.9% of everyone I know among the 75% who disagree with one or more of these, perhaps in most cases fewer times than I, or maybe not to the extent or with the same passion that I oppose many of the items on the forgoing list, but opposed they are to better than 50% of the named items nonetheless.
I must be particularly dangerous given that I strongly oppose virtually every single item on the list, though I've never been a member of any militia group and don't know any members of any militia group, at least to my knowledge. And I didn't vote for Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, or Bob Barr in the late election. In fact, I didn't vote in the presidential election at all. But if these three are indeed on this list, then I imagine I'll vote for one of 'em in the next election if I have to write his name in, and of course, if I'm still a free man at that point. Yet more evidence that I'm a particularly particularly dangerous individual, "prone to violence" and militia membership. I'm feeling kind of special right now, can you tell?
So much for pleading the fifth, eh?
Auster has an entry up at VFR today entitled Why Britain is not dead, under which he posts an exchange he recently had with British citizen Keith J. who gives us hope that Britain still has significant life left in her, in some ways more life even than we in the United States.
It's funny that Auster posted this because it was only a few days ago that I had a pleasing experience which made me think, as opposed to what I'd been seeing and reading had led me to believe before, that the mother country does have life in her. Be sure and read Keith's response to LA. And if you're interested in the evidence I was pleasantly introduced to, see here and here.
While we and our British cousins seem to possess the same tendency of being easily entertained by dance and sport and showmanship, these are the kinds of things that penetrate to the souls of civilized Western peoples, and truly move us, as evidenced by the reaction of the audience. Personally I was as moved by the reaction of the British audience to these performances as I was by the performances themselves.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
One of the big topics of discussion of late over at Alan Keyes's Loyal to Liberty site has been the issue of Hussein Obama's eligibility. Dr. Keyes has tackled the issue today in a new article entitled Biden's Gridiron Humor- Is Obama Laughing? in which he discusses the ridicule Congressman Posey is being subjected to for daring to propose legislation which would require that future presidential candidates document their eligibility.
Why the ridicule from the left over a proposal for a piece of legislation that makes as much sense as Congressman Posey's simple, Constitution respecting proposal makes?
Dr. Keyes observes:
Ridicule is a standard tactic of deceivers trying to discredit anyone who draws attention to their dishonesty. With respect to the eligibility issue, however, it requires very little thought and just a modicum of common sense to see through the ploy. The reason for mobilizing the jeering section is also clear. Admitting that in future it would be appropriate to verify the eligibility of candidates for President strongly implies that it would be appropriate to do so now.
An outstanding and a salient point indeed! And one that all of us should be making every time one of these leftist hacks jeers and ridicules anyone who respects the constitution enough to try and prevent its being trampled upon like last week's newspaper.
Incidentally, an Oklahoma Congressman has introduced similar legislation in our state legislature. I haven't kept up with the progress of the bill, nor with its popularity among our legislators. But given the controversial nature of some of the measures they've taken up over the last couple of legislative sessions, with jeering and ridicule from the usual suspects on virtually all sides, I imagine they won't shy away from tackling this issue head-on either.
I'll get on it, though. Promise.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
You'll have to pardon my getting a good laugh out of this story, but this guy really lets this judge have it, something along the lines of the way Vicki Weaver gave a federal judge a written piece of her mind just before an FBI sniper-thug, working under rules developed from an FBI profile of Vicki worked up from her letter, ensured that she wouldn't live to do it again.
In that sense the story isn't at all funny. It is hilariously funny, however, the way this person sarcastically rips this judge apart. But I guess some people just can't see the humor in it:
Jesse Merrell told WND he was reacting to Judge James Robertson's decision to throw out a case challenging Obama's eligibility because the issue had been thoroughly "twittered."
Merrell sarcastically gave the judge a "good-for-you."
"How dare people use a flimsy thing like the Constitution to darken your sanctimonious door!" he wrote to the judge. "The insane idea that a blue-gum baboon slashing our Constitution has to prove U.S. citizenship – as our silly old Constitution demands – is too absurd to consider in the sacred chambers of the tiny tin gods of the Potomac, adorning the royal purple and sipping Jim Jones Kool-Aid [TM: That's poison laden Kool-Aid, for anyone that doesn't know].
"Thanks to smug, slimy shysters like you, Obama gets a free ride – snootily stomping on our foolish Constitution, which supercilious idiots like you have long ago shredded for their own stupid opinions!" Merrell continued in the letter, a copy of which he provided to WND.
He finished with his speculation on what "ought" to happen to the judge, a physical act not appropriate for a family-oriented report.
That last bit there about Merrill's speculation on what ought to happen to this judge, and WND's pronouncing it to be "not appropriate" for a family-oriented report, having read what had preceded it, was the initial line that had me laughing out loud. I quickly regained my composure and proceeded to read on, not expecting that the story would get even better, but simply that I would learn more about what caused the extent of Merrill's anger towards the judge.
Boy was I in for a pleasant surprise! Jesse Merrill apparently had a few choice words for the federal marshals that visited him at his home, after which visit he quickly fired off yet another scathing letter to the judge in question, excerpts from which are also posted in the WND article. Be sure to read it.
I don't know about you, but I'm just dying to learn what exactly Merrill's thoughts were as to what ought to happen to this judge. I guess we'll never know, but it probably relates in some way to what happened to Merrill's fourth great grandfather. Personally I think a good public tarring and feathering would suffice to do the job in most cases. As related in the story, Merrill's anger at this judge's decision is a direct result of the judge's insolently trampling on the constitution, using for his excuse to do so a blatant lie concerning the public's awareness of Barack Obama's eligibility issues two years prior to his running for the presidency. And he expects to be able to get away with this with impunity? Yeah, a good tarring and feathering would work wonders in his case.
In connection with the two preceding entries, the reason I'm feeling such pride in my country and my state should be fairly obvious with the knowledge that my state, Oklahoma, is one of only two states in this union who have passed in both houses of their legislatures their versions of the tenth amendment resolution. Oklahoma's bill passed the House and Senate by margins of 83-13 and 25-17 respectively.
Also recall that Oklahoma was on the forefront of introducing and passing into law state initiated immigration legislation. And in specific connection with this post, Oklahoma's constitution also affirms our Judeo-Christian, European heritage, which of course is deemed "uncivilized" by certain leftist organizations in America.
The map I've posted is unfortunately a bit out of date, showing only 26 individual states which have introduced their own tenth amendment resolutions. There are now, by my tally, 28 such states and counting. The two additional states not represented on this map being Nevada and Ohio.
Also keep in mind that when one house of a given state's legislature "kills" a bill such as this in committee or whatever, it doesn't necessarily mean that the bill is forever dead. Sometimes legislatures and legislative committees are simply rejecting a specific bit of language in a measure, essentially requiring that the objectionable language be re-written or altogether stricken, and the measure re-submitted. I think that is likely the case with the New Hampshire resolution, the language therein being very strong and threatening. But, of course, I have no way of being absolutely certain that is the case.
Nonetheless, essentially the same thing can be said without such purposefully threatening effrontery. I mean "cease and desist, otherwise we're going to war" and such as that doesn't seem very, ummm, diplomatic. And it is, after all, that the states have a diplomatic relationship with, and carry on diplomatic relations with foreign governments through, the central government.
So, you guys keep trying up there in New Hampshire. There may well come a time for strong language such as contained in your resolution, but I don't think that time is now. You can always add it later when the central government, in direct defiance of the various states and their wishes, continues to abuse its powers and encroach upon your rights under the ninth and tenth amendments. Let the record show that you did not provoke the central government, but that the central government and perhaps certain states in this union ignored your petitions and remonstrances:
The Unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America
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.
Change a few words around using that as your model, and you've got it.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Guess who was a guest speaker at the event. See at 7:40 of the video.
As bad as I hate to admit it, I think Michelle Obama and I have something in common, albeit for totally opposing reasons. I don't think I've ever been more proud of my country (not to mention my state) than I am right now. Michelle's pride in America, however, being newfound and of the frivolous superficial nature that it is, can't possibly hold up in the face of this kind of growing opposition to her husband's illegitimate policies.
Sorry Michelle, so short was your love affair with your country. But you loved her for all the wrong reasons, and those kinds of relationships are doomed from the beginning.
Friday, March 20, 2009
(Note: this entry has been edited and expanded)
If you've ever had any warm fuzzy feelings about the work of the Southern Poverty Law Center - which should be renamed as Lawrence Auster suggests - or its (remote) dedication to preserving Western civilization counting it as some kind of ally in our cause. Or, if you've simply not known much about the SPLC and what it's up to at all, then you need to read this and put your hopes and expectations firmly and finally to rest.
If that isn't enough, then I suggest you take the time to explore the site, which boasts in its headline that it is "keeping an eye on the radical right" (what about the radical left, and who exactly decides what constitutes radicalism on either side of political neutrality?), further.
Here's a snippit:
Seventy people, including a few well-known mainstream academics, joined prominent white nationalists and academic racists gathered in the Four Points Sheraton at the Baltimore/Washington International airport last month for the first-ever “Preserving Western Civilization Conference.” Its aim: to defend “America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and European identity.” But not much civilized was said there. Rather, the discussion centered around claims that blacks are not as intelligent as whites, immigrants are destroying America, and Islam is no religion of peace — it’s expansionist, intolerant, militant, and seeks to destroy.
In other words, to claim that a given non-white race is less intelligent as a whole than the white race, that mass third-world immigration to America is a threat to America's existence as we've always known it due in part to the intelligence gap, and that Muslim immigration to America in particular, or otherwise friendly relations with Muslim nations and peoples because of the hatred of Western civilization inherent to Islam, presents us with an existential threat if not quickly curtailed is, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, uncivilized speech. And if it's uncivilized speech, then what ultimately must be done about it? I'll be generous and give you three tries at the answer. Better still...
Let's have a little fun with this question and make it a multiple choice. The question restated is as follows:
What must ultimately be done about people interested in preserving Western civilization, or, "defending America's Judeo-Christian Heritage and European identity," it being inherently racist, bigoted, hateful and altogether uncivilized to engage in such pursuits?
a) Nothing, they're entitled to their hate-filled, racist, bigoted opinions.
b) They must be sought out, rounded up, and placed in re-education camps.
c) They must be imprisoned for life; such people cannot be reformed.
d) It's not feasible to put them all in re-education camps, nor to imprison them all, economically or otherwise. We must, therefore, deprive them of their so-called "unalienable" constitutionally secured rights, and implant them with electronic satellite tracking devices capable of tracking their every movement and every (attempted) purchase.
e) None of the above.
Note: The answers I've given are not meant to be exhaustive of all the possibilities. Certainly I could have come up with several others, as well as being more detailed about what each scenario might involve by necessity of its nature. But if you feel like you have better answers than those I've offered, then by all means feel free to post them.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
What's up with her is this, she's taking the exact position on illegal immigration and border security that she took as Governor of Arizona - leave the flood gates open wide until you're dragged kicking and screaming, three years ex post facto in the case of her governorship, to begin the process of closing them. This woman doesn't belong within a thousand miles of the homeland security department, which ought to tell us something about the judgment, and/or the intentions of Barack Hussein Obama, and the distance that ought to forever separate him and his kind from the presidency.
Certainly I have a soft spot in my heart for America's wounded veterans, being myself a military veteran and coming from a family of veterans, some of which were wounded in battle. But I'm simply not eloquent enough, among possessing other deficiencies, to make a proper case for them in opposition to the Obama faction. Thankfully, though, Alan Keyes is gifted enough to make such a case, and has no qualms about doing so.
Mr. Keyes writes:
Apparently Obama has no sense of the special debt the nation owes to those who answer its call to arms. He has no sense at all of the need to encourage that answer now and in every generation, by making it clear that as a nation we will stand by those who are weakened, maimed and wounded, not just until their service ends, but until God calls an end to the lives that they have laid on the line for our good. Sadly, this is the mindset we should expect from someone so fascinated with the Marxist ideology, which has again and again produced heartless leaders who believe that people exist to serve the state, or the administrative whims of Party dictators.
In this context his call for mandatory national service takes on an ominous aspect it might otherwise not have. It's one thing to ask free people to give service to a nation that respects their willing acceptance of their duty. It's another to demand that it be given without respect for the character they show, and the sacrifices they have to endure. Such respect is the token of our understanding that when free men and women do their duty, they show character not submission. It is the token that we know as Lincoln did, that their wounds are the nation's wounds, to be cared for from the common store not only of our goods, but of our love of liberty and country.
Do follow the link provided and read the entirety of the entry posted at his blog. It's well worth your time.
I'm happy to add a permanent link to a new website, The Tenth Amendment Center, under the heading Links of Interest in the right sidebar of this blog.
I was led to the site while scanning the newest articles and following a link to one of them posted at OutragedPatriots.com (also permanently linked under the same heading) earlier, and was pleased to find during my visit to The Tenth Amendment Center site that in addition to providing the service (to those of us with an intense interest in the subject) of posting frequent updates chronicling the growth of the movement and the progress of the individual Tenth Amendment Resolutions as they make their way through the legislative process in the various states, the site administrators have included a permanent link to the AFB in the site's blogroll, which was a pleasant and unexpected surprise.
Now you'll have a reliable place to go where you can quickly bring yourself up to current on the progress of the individual resolutions and the movement as a whole. Go tell all your friends.
Meanwhile, the "freestaters" are givin' 'em hell up in New Hampshire. They don't take too kindly, and they certainly do not simply submit, to law enforcement officers and government officials attempting to bully their way onto their private properites without a proper warrant, among other things. They're not particularly inclined to answer questions of the authorities which they are not required by law to answer, frequently (and very respectfully I might add) educating their law enforcement and goverment employed antagonists as to what questions they are required by law to answer, and what questions they are not required by law to answer. And they make it a point to keep a video camera with them at all times, which seems to be a very good deterrant to abuse of power from what I've seen. One of them made a good and salient point in one of the videos I watched, he said in very concise terms following the N.H. Legislature's striking down of their Tenth Amendment Resolution proposal, "When peaceful revolution is prohibited, violent revolution is inevitable." Google it.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
There has been a lot of speculation on this question, and I've personally been involved in several online conversations where individuals offer their own theories as to why, apart from the possibility that there may be something damaging to Obama in this document, Obama would continue to refuse to release it. Devvy Kidd touches on one such speculation in an article she wrote for NewsWithViews.com.
Devvy Kidd writes:
Obama has controlled the birth certificate issue from day one. He continues to do so. This keeps all of us wondering, filing Freedom of Information Act requests and lawsuits. I think even to the most staunch Obama supporter, it's obvious by now that Obama refuses to release his vault birth certificate because he has something to hide. Or, maybe not. Maybe Obama's refusal is simply to keep everyone running around chasing lawsuits. Remember, he can pull it out for release to the media anytime he wants. Timing in life is everything as they say - especially in politics. (emphasis mine)
I think Devvy is wrong about Obama supporters who know about this issue believing his having something to hide as the reason he refuses to release the vaulted birth certificate. But the scenario I've highlighted in italics is a possibility that I and many others have speculated on before. I personally think it a rather remote possibility given that the "timing" Devvy speaks of would need to be near perfect on Obama's part, which would require an almost prophetic knowledge of future events which would eventually lead to the moment of truth at which Obama would suddenly, after having spent millions of dollars and countless hours in the courts preventing it, release the document.
Then, of course, there is the little matter of the supposed COLB image posted at Factcheck.org and elsewhere, which is almost certainly a forgery. The questions surrounding that matter - which are legion - are not simply going to vanish the moment Obama produces his vaulted birth certificate, assuming that he ever will under any circumstances, and I'm sure that he and his inner circle must know this.
The very best way for Hussein to undermine and destroy his seemingly flawless image would be, to my mind, releasing his vaulted birth certificate to the public thus raising more questions about why he concealed it for so long to begin with even if (or particularly so) there's nothing damaging, to him or a family member, on it. But perhaps I'm missing something. In any event, I think the greater likelihood is that there is, in fact, something on the document that is damaging to Obama himself, whether it be his actual place of birth, that his father is not actually Barack Hussein Obama I, or whatever.
Besides, who can trust a president who incessantly compares himself to Lincoln, and that, at the same time, has, for political purposes intentionally devised and perpetrated this elaborate diversion to keep his political opponents, including those of us among the common citizenry, occupied chasing after bird's eggs? Now why would he do that and risk the fallout that would certainly follow once the scheme had been exposed?
If I'm missing something important here, please let me know.
(Note: I wrote the draft form of this entry about a week ago, and have just gotten around to adding the relevant links and making the proper corrections.)
Call me "out of the loop", a Johnny-come-lately, or whatever, but the fact is that I've only recently discovered the great wealth of videos archived on the internet. There are, I've discovered, quite literally millions of You Tube videos of various lengths and covering a great variety of subjects, and that's just You Tube. It was in the process of my personally discovering and delving into this unbelievably massive archive of accessible You Tubes that I ran across, for the first time, the interesting story of an eccentric sort of a fellow by the name of William Cooper.
Without going into a lot of detail about him (you can check it out further if that is your desire), Bill Cooper was a conspiracy theorist who was quite convinced that there's a very real and present shadow government in existence which operates behind the scenes and which really controls what goes on in our society moving us ever closer towards a one world government, or, The New World Order. While everyone else (all other nation-states) is basically already on board with this plan, and/or, too weak and slavish to effectively resist it, so the theory goes, we Americans have been slow to join the party thus thwarting the evil designs of the shadow government that really, in spite of all (external) appearances to the contrary, rules over us, albeit not yet completely.
William Cooper made it his life's purpose beginning around the late 1980s up until his untimely violent death on Nov. 5th, 2001, at the hands of Apache Co. law enforcement officers, to, via printed media and low-band radio primarily, to inform the general public of what he believed to be, as I said, the real existence of a shadow government controlling events in the U.S. and elsewhere for the purpose of convincing Americans primarily that a little bit of temporary security in exchange for essential liberties was/is increasingly necessitous in the modern world, thus ushering in the final push by this shadow government towards American acceptance of, and acquiescence to the NWO; to government of, by, and for secret societies.
Now, early in these endeavors of Cooper's he made some wild claims that are simply scientific impossibilities and utterly ridiculous. For instance, during one of his early presentations in 1991 Cooper claimed, among other things, that the moon has an atmosphere and that human beings have colonized the moon for decades, showing pictorial "evidence" of the fact, no less. First of all, if naked eye observations of the moon aren't enough to convince you that the moon has no atmosphere to speak of, let me suggest that you purchase yourself a moderate sized telescope and spend hours and hours, as I've done, observing it that way; up close and personal as they say (a telescope capable of resolving Casini's Division clearly should suffice). There are no cloud formations on the moon, ever, period. If there were, it stands to reason I would have seen them at some point during at least one of my hundreds of observing sessions. Second, due to this lack of atmosphere on the moon the environment there is so utterly hostile to life in general, and human life in particular, that it would be impossible to sustain colonization of the satellite. Such a costly, idiotic endeavor would it be that it would soon be abandoned if anyone ever had the notion to attempt it in the first place. But of course if Plebians exist as some folks seem to believe, then that opens up a whole other realm of possibilites. ;-) That's all beside the point except that it establishes that any claim Bill Cooper made during the last ten to twelve years of his life is at least questionable on these grounds, even though it seems that he later backed away from making such ridiculous assertions as these, focusing rather on claims that are more plausible. It was a good move on his part if his purpose was for serious people to be able to take him seriously.
Notwithstanding all of that (yes, even the bit about cloud formations and human colonies in old photographs of the moon), I find this man and his life to be very fascinating indeed. But the circumstances which surround his death are what really intrigue me about the man and his efforts to widely disseminate his beliefs. Can it be true that Bill Cooper was really gunned down by county law enforcement people late one November night in 2001 according to the official story? Why wasn't local law enforcement informed of what was going to happen on Bill's hill that night; why did they only find out about it after the initial gun battle ensued and Bill lay dead a few feet from the front door to his house on his front lawn? The whole episode and the official story explaining the incident resulting in Bill's death stinks to high heaven of the distinctive odor of an elaborate, collaborative, government cover-up.
We know from the happenings at Waco and Ruby Ridge, and other such incidents that federal agents have successfully infiltrated various groups and organizations passing themselves off within the given group or organization as just one of them, sympathetic and friendly towards their views. It happened at Waco, it happened at Ruby Ridge, no question about it. With respect to Ruby Ridge, for instance, there's no question that had one of these agent-infiltrators not befriended Randy Weaver and his family and coerced him into selling the agent illegal firearms, the incident that happened on Ruby Ridge in which Weaver's 14 yr. old son and wife were both cold-bloodedly murdered by (federal) law enforcement thugs would never have occured. I'm not saying Weaver was right in following the instructions of the officer, or that it was in any way a wise choice to make, I'm simply saying that he who committed the greater sin ought to be made an example of, which would never happen, but nonetheless. There's no shortage of unprincipled jackasses out there willing and eager to follow orders to the "t", particularly when there's little to no chance they'll ever be held personally accountable for their following orders and special rules of engagement. And if you believe that Vicki Weaver was not the ultimate target of FBI snipers at Ruby Ridge, let me say with respect that you've been duped. The FBI profile of Vicki tells the whole story on that point.
At Waco the ATF had agent-infiltrators who had befriended the Branch Davidians for the sole purpose of taking the group down in a show of federal power rivaling that of jackboot Nazi storm troopers. The element of surprise was lost, of course, and the rest is history. You've all seen the videos of these jackboot thugs having their rear ends handed to them during the initial assault on the Branch Davidian "compound." After which the federal thugs in the ATF and sister agencies declared vengeance to be theirs, indiscrimately killing men, women and children in the most brutal way imaginable to any decent human being, all to save face and avenge the blood of their comrades in arms. The extent of human depravity and to which it has taken over unaccountable federal government "law enforcement" agencies is, in a word, sickening almost beyond belief. Which brings me to my point.
As we've seen in the examples of Waco and Ruby Ridge and others less publicized but no less brutal, cowardly, terroristic, and abjectly immoral, it is not uncommon at all for federal agents to infiltrate various local groups and organizations with the ultimate goal in mind of justifying their existence and the extent of their powers, and increasing upon them at the expense, of course, of our constitutional liberties. And this with virtual impunity, not to mention a surprising amount of public sympathy towards these rogue federal mercenaries, which is the same thing essentially as tacitly consenting to their goal of creating a real despotism in which there can be no such thing as unalienable rights.
In Bill Cooper's case it is officially reported that Apache county law enforcement coerced him out of his house operating under the disguise of rowdy yougsters whooping it up down the road from his home, a problem Bill had dealt with on numerous occasions before at the request of his land-owning neighbors. Bill's own high alert level and refined paranoia regarding the deceptive power of federal law enforcement was not enough to prevent his being duped into believing what he was seeing and hearing on his hill that fateful night.
Do you see where I'm going with this? Are you beginning to get suspicious? You should be. Ask yourself the following questions:
First, why would county officers choose this particular means to lure Bill from his home, and all that that implies assuming they didn't just get lucky and hit on the right combination by chance? Second, why wasn't local law enforcement notified as to what was about to go down, if for no other reason than as a way of preventing its unanticipated interference with the designs of the sherriff's office, potentially causing a clash between local and undercover, plain dressed county law enforcement officers ... or was it informed contrary to the official story? Third, has Apache Co., Arizona Sherriff's dept. been infiltrated by undercover federal officers otherwise acting as normal members of the local community? Have your State, county, or local law enforcement agencies been infiltrated by undercover feds? Have your local, county and state law enforcement officers become the willing agents of federal law enforcement; the veritable arms of federal usurpation of power against U.S. citizens? And what does this portend as pertains to the defense, and the means of defense of your liberties? Did the feds learn a good lesson in the high profile cases cited above, thus altering their strategy in pursuit of the same goal? What of value can we learn from Bill Cooper's death?
I'm personally not inclined to believe that it's at all necessary for secet societies operating as the real movers and shakers to control, through events and sets of events, the opinions of Americans at any given moment at this particular juncture of our history. After all, why do in secret what you can do openly with the tacit consent of a largely dependent governed? On the other hand, our founding fathers warned us in writing about the existence then of secret societies, secret clubs, and secret intrigues attempting to effect laws and policies extraneous to the legislature, and that if this ever became the rule in America we could bid a fond farewell to our Constitution. At this point in the game nothing can be lightly dismissed.
Date: Wednesday, April 15th (Tax Day), 2009. Time: Time of individual gatherings varies from late morning to late afternoon. Place: A city or town near you. Event: "Tea Party" - protesting the tax-and-spend socialist policies of the Obama administration and the Socialist-Democrat Congress.
Unlike the last Tea Party gatherings, this event is planned a month in advance which should be ample time for most of us to make plans and arrangements to attend the event to be held nearest us. My family and I will likely be attending the Tea Party in Tulsa on this date. Please let me know in a comment to the entry whether you intend to attend the Tea Party gathering on this date nearest you.
Note also that some organizations have planned Tea Parties on other significant dates such as July 4th. A great day to have one. I can't think of anything better, or more American, to do on Independence Day than to shun the detested policies of a government consisting of leftist ideologues whose opposing colleagues are generally way more about show than they are about go.
The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America:
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. 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 to provide new Guards for their future security.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Something was mentioned in the comments to the Loyal to Liberty post linked in the previous entry about Alan Keyes's lawsuit challenging Obama's eligibility to serve as POTUS being dismissed in a CA court. Predictably another poster - The Silent Consensus - responded asserting dogmatically that Obama is a natural born U.S. citizen citing factcheck.org as the last word on the issue, and calling lawsuits challenging his eligibility "ridiculous," which is, of course, itself ridiculous. When I challenged this individual's assertions, saying that, given the evidence we have available to us at the moment, the best he can possibly do is to admit he has no way of knowing either way whether Obama meets the natural born citizen requirement, this individual responded by saying that me and others who question Obama's natural born citizen status should bring lawsuits against Obama presenting our evidence in courts of law.
Wait a minute!, didn't this person say before that to raise questions about Obama's eligibility is ridiculous speculation, and that those who do so should immediately cease and desist? Why then the sudden change in his response to my reply to him? Because he realized, after I replied to his fallacious assertions, that he was engaging in the very act itself that he was complaining about in, albeit misapplying to, others his opponents, i.e., pure speculation on Obama's natural born citizen status stated as fact. In other words, he does not and cannot know, given the information available to us, whether Obama meets the natural born citizen requirement or not, as I've stated since day one when I first became aware of this issue. Where this individul carelessly and wrongly projects his own mistake on those who have an opposing view is in that he accuses us of claiming to know whether Obama is a natural born citizen or not. That isn't the case at all. We're not saying we know he's not a natural born citizen, we're saying we do not know whether he is or not, and that it is up to him (Obama) to prove that he is. Otherwise the Article II natural born citizen requirement is made, for all intents and purposes, null and void. That's one reason Alan Keyes and others have called it a "Constitutional Crisis", because, by extension, if that particular stipulation can simply be ignored, then any other constitutional stipulation imposed on the President or anyone else can also be ignored, thus making the entire U.S. Constitution and the reason for its existence null and void.
With respect to the other assertions he makes in his reply to me, I don't even care to touch on the ridiculousness of The Silent Consensus' assertion that I, as a private citizen, should file a lawsuit challenging Obama's eligibility except to say that that's not up to me to do for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the straining on an already overstressed legal system such lawsuits would place upon it. And, of course, that he doesn't seem to understand that citizen support of properly conducted lawsuits in this vein is the very best, most viable way for private citizens like myself to see them through to their conclusions. Had The Silent Consensus offered a more commonsensical, constitutionally consistent suggestion such as alerting our elected representatives in our state and national Congresses to our concerns on this issue, effectively asking them to conduct our business in this regard in our steads, which is, of course, the reason we elect them to begin with, then I would have no basis on which to question his motives or his ability to reason through such questions, and the correct methods for dealing with them, properly. But, of course, many of us who have these concerns and do have the ability to reason through this correctly have already alerted our elected representatives to our concerns on this issue, so his extra-constitutional suggestion is just insulting, and that's as nicely as I can possibly put it.
Notwithstanding all of that, and as has been said many, many times before, the solution to this is very, very simple: Produce the birth certificate, either voluntarily on Obama's part, or by compelling him to do so on ours. Until he does so voluntarily (with or without a little nudging on our parts), Mr. Obama is himself THE fuel which supplies the fire of speculation, in effect supercharging it with the money and effort he seems to be willing to expend making sure his vaulted birth certificate never sees the light of day. Which makes any and all calls to cease raising the question the most ridiculous appeal, not to mention the single biggest waste of time, that was ever made in the history of the United States.
So I say to the "Silent Consensuses" of the world, please stop wasting everyone's time with appeals that will never go anywhere until Obama does the one thing necessary to end the speculation. Otherwise, not only do you raise questions about your motives, but also about your ability to approach this subject objectively. Which makes anything you have to say on the issue utterly useless nonsense which no rational person is obliged to take seriously or lend any serious consideration to other than in the way I've done here, which is to say to correct false premises and false assertions, which, as we all know, invariably wind up leading to false conclusions.
Friday, March 13, 2009
In an entry at his blog criticizing Michael Steele and his position on abortion, Alan Keyes offers the following interesting observations:
The problem is, of course, that matters of justice, of right and wrong, always involve individual choices. The choice to rob, lie, cheat and murder are all individual choices. The choice to rape, kidnap and enslave another is an individual choice. The choice to serve or not to serve someone in a restaurant, on account of their race, is an individual choice. Obviously the real issue is not whether individuals are free to choose between right and wrong. That's been clear since Eve made her fateful decision to eat the forbidden fruit. The issue is when and whether they have the right to choose as they do. (emphasis mine)
Here's the problem as I see it:
I agree with probably 100% of Keyes's article, minus the line which seems to equate the refusal of restaurant owners, etc., to "serve" people based on race or whatever, with theft, rape, and murder. It may be morally repugnant to do so in some cases (race based), but to equate it with murder and rape and theft is, in my opinion, more morally repugnant.
As an independent business owner, do I have the right to refuse to hire a prospective employee based on his race (or sexual orientation, for that matter) if I so choose? Most certainly! Have I murdered, raped, or otherwise stolen from he or anyone else in doing so? Most certainly not!
What the "federal" government has to do with that, I have absolutely no idea. But, as I've said numerous times before, I don't have to go along with it, and won't. Go ahead and try to collect taxes from my business, if you will, on these premises. Otherwise ... put me in jail. What purpose - and whose interests - does either serve? My appeal, at this point, is to my state legislature. ...
I wrote in July, 2007 about this project which I was, before that date, unaware of, even though the project was then well underway. Earlier today it occured to me that I hadn't been keeping up with the progress of the project, so I went to the project website and lifted the photo you see to the left.
...and if so, why are we so upset with Bernie Madoff?
That's the question I posed to VFR readers who have a better grasp of our economic system and how it [actually] works than I do. Only a couple of readers have responded; one says no, the other, yes.
What do you think?
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Dr. Keyes is considering an idea that some of my readers may be interested in, so I thought I'd pass the information along in case you hadn't noticed it yet.
Dr. Keyes writes in his blog's sidebar:
Based on comments and suggestions that are coming in via email and other sources, I am considering the possibility of hosting weekly, interactive live webinars based on the materials being offered, and topics being discuss, here on Loyal to Liberty. Participants would have to be properly equipped for online audio and video interaction. To cover costs I would have to charge a fee, of course, in the neighborhood of $25 per 1-2 hour session, with a three month subscription (roughly 12 sessions) for $150. Given the start-up costs involved, I don't want to use very scarce resources to set this up unless there's enough interest to pay for it. If offered, would you sign up for or subscribe to such live webinars? If there's enough response (I'll need at least 50 seriously interested people) I'll move ahead.
If you are interested please take the following poll. Also email me at firstname.lastname@example.org so that I can send you registration details in the event this goes forward.
Y'all check it out and let him know whether or not you would be interested.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Senator Martinez, RINO-Fla, on Obama's eligibility issue:
Presidential candidates are vetted by voters at least twice – first in the primary elections and again in the general election. President-Elect Obama won the Democratic Party's nomination after one of the most fiercely contested presidential primaries in American history. And, he has now been duly elected by the majority of voters in the United States. Throughout both the primary and general election, concerns about Mr. Obama's birthplace were raised. The voters have made clear their view that Mr. Obama meets the qualifications to hold the office of president.
Article VI, U.S. Constitution:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Question for Senator Martinez:
Exactly where does the constitution stipulate that [majority] voter opinion in either case supersedes the Constitution?
Additionally, I'd like to know where Senator Coburn - arguably the most consistently conservative member of the U.S. legislature - stands on this issue (and why), so I've written him to this effect. Stay tuned.
Starting today, and for the next thirty days, the Department of Health and Human Services will be "accepting comments from the public on a proposal by the Obama administration to completely rescind federal regulations placed into effect by former President Bush that protect the right to conscience for healthcare workers…. The regulation mandated federally funded health institutions to certify their compliance with existing federal laws that uphold the rights of doctors and nurses to refuse a medical service on religious or moral grounds." ... (emphasis mine)
Do read the rest of Dr. Keyes's excellent article on this most important topic, but sear in your minds and don't lose sight of the phrase I've italicized in the above quote because it is central to the issue here.
If and when this policy goes into effect, the only option I can see left to healthcare professionals who are conscientious objectors is for them to resign their positions with the institutions in question and seek employment elsewhere - at health institutions not federally funded. Good luck to them in that. It ought to serve as a real test of the dissenting individual's faith. I personally think that few of us have the moral fortitude of taking the John Galt option when that is the only choice left us, but maybe people aren't as wedded to their lavish lifestyles as I would tend to believe. I can guarantee you, though, that few, if any, health institutions that currently receive federal funding are going to be willing to forego it when this policy is instituted. There's nothing "free" in this world, my friends. And if you're receiving "federal funding", directly or indirectly, you're going to pay dearly for it. Just ask "tax exempt" churches what the cost of their tax exempt status is. On second thought don't. They probably don't have any clue.
Posted by Terry Morris at 4:13 AM
Monday, March 9, 2009
When it comes to its biographical article on Barack Hussein Obama, some are saying not. Indeed, if you access the current Wiki piece on Obama you will find a note at the top of the page declaring that the article has been closed to editing pending the resolution of disputes over the inclusion in the article of less than glowing facts about Obama's questionable past associations, political, religious and otherwise.
Okay, okay, they don't quite put it that way, but what else are we to make of this protection of the page as it now exists given the glowing nature of the article but that the page is being "protected" from the inclusion of facts about Obama's past that don't speak particularly well of him? The principle expressed in the adage "birds of a feather flock together" is universal, thus it applies equally to Barack Hussein Obama and George W. Bush. What then is a supposedly objective information outlet doing whitewashing the associations of one high profile individual while not granting the same privelege to the other, if indeed it is objective and strives to be objective?
Otherwise, however, the article seems to be a pretty good biographical sketch of Barack Hussein Obama, his personal life and professional and political careers. So it's not that the article is completely useless. It's just not very reliable as a source for Obama's questionable activities and past associations. And I personally have my doubts that it ever will be. Liberalism again wins the day, which is precisely what one would expect in liberal dominated society.
So it is that Wikipedia is yet one more example among many that liberalism is the dominant and ruling ideology in modern America.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Apparently the folks at ABC News think that when small-town Oklahoma has a dispute with its acting police chief and his miscreant incompetent police force such that they all abandon their posts, along with the Mayor, Vice Mayor, and the City Attorney, this must mean that the city's people are in a state of anarchy and that the county sheriff's office had to be called in to restore order.
Well, what ABC and the national news media deems to be anarchy, we in small-town Oklahoma call self-government, self-reliance, self-sufficiency; a law unto ourselves. Having those things (Mayor's office and police force) is a luxury, not a necessity, particularly in the short term. You see, it is impossible that Ringling, Oklahoma will ever degenerate into a state of anarchy, resignations of the City's entire executive department notwithstanding. There are too many good, law-abiding, God-fearing gun owners there, if you know what I mean. And everybody, including the vagabonds, knows it and doesn't dare push it for fear of the consequences. I know, it's my home town, and the majority of my family on Dad's side, not to mention a lot of long-time friends not-to-be-messed-with, still live there.
Read the ABC News story. It's laughable. And do read some of the ridiculous comments from the sheeple who apparently believe everything they read, because, well, you know, ABC and the national news media would never hype anything or get their facts wrong. But, you know, people tend to project on others what would happen with similar circumstances in their own cases, not realizing that the people in small-town USA aren't nearly as prone to be dependents as their big-city counterparts. Hey, that's just the way it is.
Reckon who tipped off ABC on this one, and what is his affiliation with Russell Goldman? I could probably get it in three tries or less - (former) Mayor, Vice Mayor, Police Chief. :-) (Hat tip: Dad)
Friday, March 6, 2009
Senator Jon Kyl, (RINO) Az., is the man in question. Apparently he believes Snopes is the final authority when it comes to "internet rumors" concerning this and other matters of national import. All Hail Snopes!:
From WND's article:
Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., has referred constituents raising concerns over President Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval Office to an online "fact" organization that relies for its answer partly on information from the Obama campaign.
The response from Kyl to an Arizona constituent was revealed just one day after a Florida WND reader alerted WND to the fact Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., had told him that Obama's eligibility was affirmed by voters who supported him in the Democratic primary and general elections in 2008.
The response from Kyl to a voter who asked about Obama's ability to meet the constitutional requirements for president said:Thank you for your recent e-mail. Senator Obama meets the constitutional requirements for presidential office. Rumors pertaining to his citizenship status have been circulating on the Internet, and this information has been debunked by Snopes.com, which investigates the truth behind Internet rumors.
See what I mean when I say that the U.S. Senate, as it currently exists, is a filibuster-proof Senate? It doesn't matter what the specific piece of legislation or issue is, Obama and the (openly) socialist-democrats will be able, in any case, to peel off enough "republicans" to get their measures through.
By the way, we need this designation (RINO) placed beside the names of all elected Republicans who are, rather than the usual (D)/(R) that we're accustomed to getting. Shame on any and all who refuse to use this alternate designation.
Monday, March 2, 2009
While Barack Hussein Obama has to date never produced his long form birth certificate establishing his "natural born" U.S. citizenship status as required explicitly by the U.S. Constitution, Article II, which results in no one knowing for sure whether Hussein meets this requirement as a legitimization of his presidency and all of his enactments as POTUS, we can be assured of one thing -
Barack Hussein Obama IS a natural born Muslim, and beyond as we are about to be informed by someone in the know..
At Gates of Vienna we read excerpts from a Forbes article written by a Muslim woman, Asma Gull Hasan, who writes in part:
Perhaps it is my — and most Muslims’ — loyalty to the umma that is behind our insistence on seeing Obama as Muslim. Islam survived and continues to survive because Muslims believe we have to respect and take care of each other, as members of the umma. If we were to start excluding members, or revising our broad guidelines for admittance, the very essence of the community feeling that is important in Islam, that gives me and other Muslims comfort everyday, would be undercut.
So when Obama says he’s not Muslim, my umma mentality says I know better. Once you have a Muslim parent, especially a dad, you’re in. Whether you like it or not, Muslims all over the world see you as one of them. (emphasis mine)
There you have it. As I wrote in a comment to the GoV entry, "Hussein Obama may not be a natural born U.S. citizen, but he is definitely a natural born Muslim and all of Islam knows it." So while we in the Uni ... ummm ... fractured States argue over whether Hussein is a Muslim or not, there is, for all intents and purposes, absolute unity on the question within Islam - Barack Hussein Obama IS a natural born Muslim, thus he'll always be a Muslim. Muslims, by Allah, have no choice in this matter. Once you're in, you are regardless how you got in, and in the strictest sense possible, IN. Or as it's so well put in the Eagles' song Hotel Isla ... er ... Hotel California,
"you can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave."
In other words, once your fraternal parent makes the mistake of checking you into the elaborately adorned hotel of Islam in the act which results in your conception - or especially once she makes this mistake, to be more exact - you are, in point of fact, and by no right of choice or free will inherent to your being, a lifelong Muslim; a prisoner of Islam not of your own device.
Resistance is futile.
Furthermore, I find it quite ironic indeed that no single (non-Muslim) liberal Hussein Obama supporter can be any more sure of Obama's natural born U.S. citizen status (minus perhaps a few inner circle elites) than any opponent of Obama can be. Yet they defend him to the hilt, saying emphatically and dogmatically that they both can and do know that Obama is a natural born U.S. citizen, and not just beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond, in fact, any doubt, reasonable or otherwise.
Notice how close this "thinking" is to the thinking of Miss Hasan and the Muslim comminity in general as concerns Hussein Obama's lifelong status as a birthright Muslim. She and they know all about Hussein's denial that he is a Muslim, his self-proclaimed conversion to/acceptance of Christianity, yet they refuse to believe that he is not in fact a Muslim. And based on what? Not on anything he himself says about it, or any evidence he produces to support what he says about it. No; they believe he's a Muslim, and perhaps more importantly they refuse to disbelieve he's a Muslim, or to even entertain such an heretical thought, because Islam was conferred on him, not at birth but at conception, by his Muslim paternal parent Barack Hussein Obama I. So in strictness Barack Hussein Obama (or any person conceived in Islam, for that matter) is not a birthright or a natural born Muslim, he is by conception a Muslim, or, a natural conceived Muslim if you will. (This guy is an honor killing waiting to happen.)
This, my friends, is fundamentalist Islamism at its most basic elementary level. And I want us to realize that this is coming from someone who some of us, in our self-righteous quest to find and show the good that exists in pure evil, would call a "moderate" Muslim, which is to say someone not directly and actively involved in Jihad against the infidels, i.e., all non-Muslims but with a particular emphasis on Jews and Christians - Islam's greatest and most capable enemies. This sort of thinking inherent to Islam is the kind of thinking that naturally progresses, as Muslims become more self-aware and seek to become more Mohammed-like, or to express their faith in a more genuine Muslim fashion through various stages at various rates of speed depending on the individual, and eventually arrives at its natural climax - full-blown Islamism, or, world domination in the name of Allah. This woman, Miss Hasan, has thus crossed over the rubicon as all Muslims, everywhere and at all times, are susceptible to doing. Once that happens there is virtually no chance of ever crossing back over.
But let us reflect as well on the fact that modern Western liberalism contains some of the very same elements or building blocks that we see in Islam, thus revealing to us that they both emanate from the same source. Liberalism is at its core, as with Islam, deceptive and fundamentally oppressive, not merely towards those who exist outside its destructive mind-altering influence mind you, but towards those also who have been taken in by its deceptive lure. Keep in mind too, and as an illustration of the point, that when pressed on the question of Hussein's natural born citizen status liberals will make as a last-ditch argument, as Miss Hasan does above concerning his status as an Islamite, that he is, in point of fact, a natural conceived American, by which they mean to say that liberalism trumps any and all explicit provisions in the U.S. Constitution including the natural born citizen requirement imposed on U.S. presidents. Irregardless of whether Hussein actually is a natural born U.S. citizen according to U.S. law made in pursuance thereof, liberalism has redefined what the term means. It's basically that simple. Thus we as a nation have crossed over the rubicon.
Liberalism only cares about the U.S. Constitution insofar as it can be utilized to advance its own destructive ideology, as is the case with Islam. When you boil it all down liberalism is arguing that it matters not whether Hussein was actually born on American soil; it matters not the circumstances surrounding his birth - his mother's age, Hawaiian law at the time, his father's British/Kenyan citizenship at the time of his birth, etc... - what matters most, and the only thing that matters to a liberal when you boil it all down, is that Barack Hussein Obama was conceived a liberal with a liberal's genetic makeup, thus he is a natural conceived U.S. citizen, a status which overrules everything else including the Constitution's natural born citizen provision contained in Article II. We see again when such arguments are made by liberals that they themselves have too crossed over the rubicon and into the realm of leftist extremism.
The implications of these ideologies taken to their extremes, which is the natural course for them both as they are both radical ideologies as inherent to their natures, should be strikingly obvious and quite disturbing to anyone not yet completely brainwashed by either/or; to anyone who has not yet taken that fatal step across the rubicon. Which is the reason our founding fathers built in certain components integral to our system of government as safeguards to prevent such radicalism from becoming dominant in America thus destroying the very foundations upon which this once great Republic was built. Many of those essential components were long ago compromised and some have since been destroyed, of course, which opened the way for modern liberalism to do exactly what the founders were trying to prevent in establishing the components as integral to the system to begin with - the prevention of our collectively taking that fateful step over the rubicon and into the realm of extreme self-delusion and self-destructiveness, which is modern liberalism.
God help us all.