WEBSTER'S BLOGSPOT

An Essay concerning the citizenship provisions of the fourteenth amendment...

2010-10-02T14:29:00.005-05:00

[Introductory note: The essay which follows was written in response to the growing and seemingly pervasive tendency in our nation to ignore the fundamental principles of our governing constitution and all laws made in pursuance thereof, or, the Supreme Law of the Land.

Article VI of our Constitution states that only laws made pursuant to the constitution are supreme, meaning that U.S. laws not made in pursuance of the constitution are, by virtue of this stipulation, not supreme, and actually null and void. That, of course, doesn't prevent their being adopted and enforced, but the constitution says what it says in any event, and in spite of the variety of ways it is misconstrued and misapplied. Additionally the tenth amendment was added to the constitution as a more explicit statement of this fundamental governing principle, declaring that powers not delegated to the U.S. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the People. Hence, federal law does not necessarily “trump” State and local laws, and immigration is not an exclusively federal issue, contrary to popular opinion on both counts.

No single constitutional provision has been more abused pursuant to the exchange of blatant falsehoods for fundamental constitutional principles than that containing the citizenship provisions of the fourteenth amendment. If the collective mind of the American People can be successfully persuaded that all persons born in the United States are, and of right ought to be U.S. citizens, regardless of the status of their parents at the time of birth and in spite of the actual provisions established by the fourteenth amendment, then persuading it, by inference, that virtually everything preceding the citizenship provisions of the fourteenth amendment is, for all intents and purposes, null and void, is not that difficult a task to accomplish. Under such circumstances, Congress may simply, as certain elements within our society assert with the backing of various federal courts, “occupy a field and intend a complete ouster” in order to establish federal supremacy over State and local governments and the powers reserved to them by Article VI and amendment X of the constitution. Meaning simply that the People and their State and local governments are slaves to the whims of the federal government, a condition of servitude which is unacceptable to a free People. It is, after all, a foundational principle of our venerable form of government that by the consent of the governed governments are formed deriving from them their just powers. Everything to the contrary notwithstanding.

Therefore, the purpose of the following essay is to establish that the citizenship provisions of the fourteenth amendment, contrary to what seems to have become the general consensus in our nation, were written, approved and ratified with the understanding that as a complete procedure it was intended to exclude all persons born in the United States who are subject to a foreign jurisdiction, legal and illegal “immigrants” excluded alike. Until we correct the record on this important issue and restore in our people a regard for the sacred obligation imposed by the constitution as written, we will continue to see the erosion of our constitution and its fundamental principles, and the final establishment of an absolute federal tyranny over these States.]

An Essay concerning the citizenship provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment: why the subject to the jurisdiction thereof stipulation prohibits admission to the rights of citizenship of three distinct classes of persons born in the United States.

by Terry Morris

Is it now true, or has it ever been true, that our governing constitution declares that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside?” That seems to be the general consensus among a certain element of modern American society, both as to the principle of the matter and as to fact, and one which certain 'scholarly' members of this faction within our society attempt to perpetrate upon the rest of us with the admission of very few, if any, exceptions to the rule. Consider the following case in point.

Within the first paragraphs of his August, 2010 column written for Bloomberg News laughably titled “Born in the U.S.A.: A history lesson,” Columbia University professor of history, Eric Foner, offers his enlightened view of the citizenship provisions of the fourteenth amendment, to wit:

...the amendment establishes the principle of birthright citizenship. With minor exceptions, all those born in this country are American citizens, whatever the status of their parents. (italics added)

Thus begins our veritable 'history lesson' with the establishment of nothing short of a false premise almost at the very outset. Namely, that with minor exceptions to the rule, the principle of 'birthright citizenship' applies to all persons born in the United States.

It is a sad state of affairs, indeed, which has brought us to this ungrateful place in our history as a nation; a place in which we are constantly bombarded with this kind of revisionist history, both in the electronic and the print media. But were we to read no further into professor Foner's “history lesson,” we could rest comfortably in the assurance that virtually every conclusion which follows the excerpted passage above is invalid (with minor exceptions, of course), based on the principle that the establishment of a false premise usually results in the formation thereupon of a false conclusion. Nonetheless, inquiring minds want to know what, to Professor Foner's mind, constitute the 'minor exceptions' to birthright U.S. citizenship he alludes to above.

Foner is predictably eager to explain:

In a sense the 14th Amendment wrote into the constitution the results of the Union's triumph and the destruction of slavery. It begins by defining as citizens all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” -- language meant to exclude Indians, deemed to be citizens of their respective tribes, and American-born children of foreign diplomats. (emphasis added)

Foner's explanation I've emphasized in italics is, of course, referring to the language he puts in quotes. His conclusion as to the meaning of this language per the intent of the framers thereof brings several questions immediately to mind:

In general, what about the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” does Professor Foner not understand? More particularly, what exactly about this stipulation's inextricable connection to the first does he not understand?

How on earth could an accredited Professor of History employed by a renown American University possibly come to the conclusion that this language was meant to exclude the two classes of persons he mentions above and none other? Is it really possible that someone whose primary business is “scholarship” somehow fails to understand the fundamental meaning of the term and the importance of this term's fundamental meaning to his profession in particular? Moreover, why would someone with his credentials say something like that in a syndicated newspaper article read by millions of people all over the United States unless he is (1) supremely confident that his view of the subject is the historically accurate one, or (2) he is supremely confident that his view of the subject will be accepted by the general readership as the historically accurate one? Does he not understand as well that he ruins any credibility his status confers on him by assigning too narrow a meaning to this stipulation in disregard of all evidences of its intended broad application? Does he even care? Or might his simply be a case of “easy come-easy go,” whereby people tend to grossly underestimate the value of things they have not actually earned?

It is said that “a text taken out of context is a pretext.” By attributing to the subject to U.S. jurisdiction clause of the fourteenth amendment the extremely limited meaning he's assigned it as the intent of its authors bequeathed to posterity, Professor Foner wrenches the phrase out of historical and written context, thus establishing a pretext. It has also been truthfully said that “there is nothing so absurd than when you repeat something often enough, people begin to believe it.” Let us not fall victim to this absurdity of believing a thing based on its having been oft-repeated to us.

The purpose of the following paragraphs is to correct the record on this vitally important subject by helping those not as yet familiar with the citizenship provisions of the fourteenth amendment, and the intent of the framers thereof, to familiarize themselves with both, thus becoming armed with historical and logical fact with which to refute the false assertions of persons such as Professor Foner and others, and to expose them for the frauds and impostors that they truly are. Were professor Foner a serious historian truly dedicated to preserving the integrity of his work, he would not engage in the business of purposely misleading people as to the history of the citizenship provisions of the fourteenth amendment. Nor would he do so were he a serious American dedicated to the preservation of the U.S. Constitution and its focus of securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

The irrationality of complicating a simple matter

As to the issue of deductive reasoning, one of the very first questions that occurs to candid minds upon reading Professor Foner's explanation of the language in question is, “then why on earth didn't the framers of the fourteenth amendment simply state it that way within the provision itself before they approved it and sent it to the States for ratification?” Are we to assume that it never occurred to them that the subject to the jurisdiction thereof language might possibly be used to exclude more classes of persons than they themselves intended by it? Why would they risk a broader application of the principle by future generations if their intention, for once and for all time, was to formally make it the Supreme Law of the Land that all persons born in the United States, excepting two classes of persons only, are citizens? Certainly “all persons born in the United States, excluding tribal Indians and children of foreign diplomats,” is much more easily understood by all persons in all times to say what Professor Foner attributes to the language as written. Keep in mind that it is Professor Foner who is saying this, not me, and as we shall discover, certainly not the framers of the fourteenth amendment.

Foner's mention of the provision's application to Indians in particular implies that he's aware of the debate that occurred between Senators in the 39th Congress upon the question of whether to add the words “excluding Indians not taxed” to the language originally presented, although he seems not to have understood the perspective the overall contents of this debate furnishes to the provision in question. Ultimately, of course, this particular motion was rejected and it was decided to leave the second provision exactly as it was offered and as we see it now, a fact which itself disproves Foner's theory and all arguments he has crafted, or shall ever craft, to support it.

Working upon the assumption that the framers of the fourteenth amendment were not collective or individual morons, we may further assume that the language in question was chosen with the broad idea in mind of excluding several classes of persons Professor Foner thinks should be included. While the persons Professor Foner thinks should be included is not in question, mere assumptions will not suffice to prove our point as to the framers of the fourteenth, anymore than his opinion on the matter will to prove Foner's. Therefore, let us investigate the matter, putting our respective theories to a more reliable test. And let the best theory win.

What was to be the scope of the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” stipulation?

According to Professor Foner's thesis, the scope of the provision as intended by the framers is, or was, extremely narrow, meant only to exclude tribal Indians and the children of foreign diplomats from admission to U.S. citizenship. Meanwhile, the scope of the all persons born or naturalized provision was, according to Professor Foner, meant to be extremely broad, including virtually all children born in the U.S. regardless of the citizenship status of their parents, or, the political jurisdiction to which they are subject. Here we have a theory, consistent in all its parts and conditions, accrediting to the citizenship provisions of the fourteenth amendment a virtual all-inclusive ideology.

This is what Foner means in his statement declaring that “with minor exceptions, all persons born in the United States are citizens, etc.” In other words, Professor Foner's perspective on the matter is extreme and utterly imbalanced, whereas he attributes virtually all relevancy or importance to the first stipulation, while leaving very little room for application of the second, with the “minor exceptions” he cites of course. This sort of imbalanced perspective is analogous to purposely over-inflating by eighty percent of the manufacturer's suggested pressure the left-front tire on one's vehicle while simultaneously under-inflating its opposite by the same amount, then taking it onto the open highway and driving it thirty mph over the speed limit. In addition to being stupid and self-destructive, this sort of procedure is also dangerous and illegal, as well as immoral.

Foner's view of the subject is as blatantly incorrect in the issue, in light of both the provision itself as written and the Senate debates upon the question of its inclusion to head the fourteenth amendment, as it is plainly stupid and dangerous to drive a vehicle on a public roadway following our analogy above, ignoring both the plain recommendations stamped on the tire itself and the poor handling of the vehicle in question as a result. In either case those of us who choose to engage in this kind of behavior incur the same basic problem, destruction of ourselves and our posterity.

While the Senate debate itself does support Foner's claims as far as his claims go, we must understand that the language “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” cannot possibly have meant to the framers of the fourteenth amendment that it was to exclude tribal Indians and the families of foreign diplomats only, for the content of the debate also reveals, and much more importantly, that in general the scope of the second provision was to be more broadly applied than Mr. Foner suggests or wants to admit; it was not intended to exclude those classes of persons only, in other words, but to encompass within its scope of exclusion all classes of persons subject to a foreign jurisdiction, to include “immigrants” to the United States (legal or illegal) and their American-born children.

Missing the point of the debate over “Indians not taxed.”

We've established that Professor Foner at least knows something of the Senate debate in question, but it appears by Foner's argument that he places too much significance on the debate's treatment of Indians, as though the conclusion he's formed upon it is that since the discussion was initiated and pursued upon this specific question of the provision's probable affects on tribal Indians as a distinctive class, that this necessarily means that the second provision was included in the language to deal with that question in particular but did not touch on any sort of general disqualification. Which, and as we shall show, is a very erroneous view.

What the debate actually reveals, in point of fact, is that this provision was included as a generally applicable disqualification; that the question of its pertinence to Indians arose as an afterthought in the body of the Senate because a few Senators thought that the language could be misconstrued to subject tribal Indians to U.S. jurisdiction, thus having an effect opposite their intentions per this class of persons, with whom the United States were under treaty obligations. This general disqualification is the part of the fourteenth amendment that the Eric Foners of the world reject or simply dismiss because it doesn't align with their liberal/progressive world view and everything that flows therefrom. After all, if they're liberals or progressives themselves, then everyone else ought to be or should have been, right? While somewhat beside the point, we must understand that the fundamental nature of progressivism is that it is oppressive. Nonetheless, Senator Howard of Michigan initially explained the language of these provisions in the following, unambiguous terms:

This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. (italics added)

For the sake of argument, and only for the sake of argument, one may grant the remote possibility that this first portion of Senator Howard's more expansive opening remarks introducing this language could be read, in and of itself, to define the citizenship provisions as Foner suggests they were intended to be defined. One may not read this opening portion of the statement, however, outside the context of his entire introductory statement, nor of the entirety of the debate which ensued, without incurring the censure of attempting to establish a pretext.

Senator Howard continues his introductory remarks:

This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to families of embassadors (sic) or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons....(italics added)

But of course!

While Senator Howard does not specifically mention tribal Indians “not taxed” in these statements, the ensuing debate quickly reveals that his intention and that of his colleagues was to exclude them as a distinctive class of persons not subject to U.S. jurisdiction. But that's really beside the point as it relates to our discussion, and one suspects that Professor Foner knows that it's beside the point in spite of his making it a central point per the second stipulation.

Here we have Senator Howard establishing the proper context in which to read the subject to U.S. jurisdiction provision of the clause in question, which is that in addition to its excluding at least three distinct and broad classes of persons according to Senator Howard, it is inextricably connected to the first provision, forming with the first a two-part procedure. Unless the phrase “with minor exceptions” means all American-born foreigners, all American-born aliens, and all American-born persons belonging to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the United States (which seems rather “major,” not “minor”), then we seem to have confined the second provision's language to too narrow a scope according to Senator Howard's explanation above.

According to Prof. Foner, though, this provision was only meant to apply to tribal Indians and American-born children of foreign diplomats. As we can see in Senator Howard's statements introducing this language, however, and as we shall see in the statements of other Senate members of the 39th Congress, it was intended to exclude many more than those comprising these two classes of persons Foner mentions.

Indeed, the contents of this debate reveals that had the body of the Senate understood the scope of the provision in question in the very limited, idiotic sense that Prof. Foner interprets and demands it should be applied, they would have rejected it out of hand and opted for a broader version excluding those classes of persons aforementioned. Are we to take Foner's explanation over the explanation of the very person who originally proposed that the citizenship provisions be added to section one of the fourteenth amendment and the body that approved it? Certainly not. We are authorized to conclude the following, however, based on the entirety of Senator Howard's statements above.

First, Senator Howard's statement that “this will not include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, etc.,” obviously meant to him that it excludes these persons, for the opposite of include is exclude and the term “not include” is another way of saying exclude. To say otherwise is to violate all three elemental laws of rational thinking, I.e., the law of non-contradiction, the law of identity, and the law of excluded middle. At the risk of belaboring the point, saying that a thing will not include x,y,z, is to say that it excludes x,y,z. Most any third grader understands this simple concept, and Senator Howard certainly understood it.

Second, Senator Howard's choice of words otherwise is instructive in its own right. Note that he makes a distinction between those he calls “foreigners” and those he deems to be “aliens” in the second sentence. Note also that his word “aliens” is disconnected from persons he describes as “belonging to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers” by the insertion of a comma between the two classes. So that his stated intention by this language was to exclude from the rights of citizenship, until such disabilities are lawfully removed, three distinct classes of persons. According to Senator Howard the classes of persons to be excluded by the provision in question are as follows:

(1) American-born foreigners,
(2) American-born aliens and,
(3) American-born persons belonging to Ambassadors, etc.

So that his words in this sentence might just as well read: “This will not include persons born in the United States who are foreigners; this will not include persons born in the United States who are aliens; and this will not include persons born in the U.S. who belong to families of ambassadors,” etc. Or, if it be our preference, “this will exclude persons born in the United States who are foreigners; this will exclude persons born in the United States who are aliens; and this will exclude persons born in the U.S. who belong to families of ambassadors, etc.” Senator Howard simply shortened these phrases as a matter of brevity, but either way we state it conveys the exact same exclusionary message.

(Tribal Indians born in the United States would in general fall under the second class of persons as we've listed them, while a few of them would fall under both the second and third classes of persons to be excluded by these provisions.)

Of particular note is that in each of the above instances a distinct class of persons born in the United States is excluded by the provision according to Senator Howard. In other words, and according to Senator Howard, simply having been born in the United States, or within its limits, is insufficient qualification for admission to U.S. citizenship; in addition to U.S. birth one must also be subject to the jurisdiction thereof, just as the provision plainly states.

We may safely assume that Senator Howard and others anticipated that many persons besides tribal Indians and those belonging to foreign diplomats would in future be born in the United States, who were not, by virtue of their birthplace alone, subject to U.S. jurisdiction. This being the case, the 39th Congress deemed it necessary to exempt such persons, whomever they were and from whence ever they came, from becoming automatic shareholders in the rights and duties of U.S. citizenship.

Did Senator Howard wrongly distinguish between foreigners and aliens?

It may be necessary to better understanding Mr. Howard's distinction between the terms “foreigner” and “alien” -words we sometimes use interchangeably- to exercise the first element of scholarship and research the proper definitions of these terms as he himself probably understood them in 1866. Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language defines the word “alien” thusly:

Alien:
1. Foreign; not belonging to the same country, land or government.
2. Estranged; foreign; not allied; adverse to; as, principles alien from our religion
And,

Alien: A foreigner; one born in, or belonging to, another country; one who is not a denizen, or entitled to the privileges of a citizen.

Whereas the 1828 defines the word “foreigner” in these particular terms:

Foreigner: A person born in a foreign country, or without the country or jurisdiction of which one speaks. A Spaniard is a foreigner in France and England. All men not born in the United States are to them foreigners, and they are aliens till naturalized. A naturalized person is a citizen; but we still call him a foreigner by birth.

And how does the 1828 define a citizen as to the United States?:

In the United States, a person, native or naturalized, who has the privilege of exercising the elective franchise, or the qualifications which enable him to vote for rulers, and to purchase and hold real estate.

Regarding U.S. citizenship, recall that Senator Howard declared in his opening address to the Senate body above-recorded that “This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.

We see that Mr. Webster too makes a distinction between a foreigner and an alien in his phrase “and they (foreigners) are aliens till naturalized.” According to Webster's 1828, then, a foreigner as to the United States is simply someone born outside the geographical or political boundaries of the United States. That is, it is a matter of physical or actual birthplace which determines whether he is a foreigner or a native. Whereas an alien is someone who may be born here or elsewhere (one born in, or belonging to, another country), yet is subject to a foreign jurisdiction. That is, it is a matter of personal allegiance which establishes political jurisdiction as to himself. According to these definitions, all foreigners (or persons born in a foreign country) who have not been naturalized are aliens. All aliens (or persons subject to a foreign jurisdiction) are not, however, foreigners. Some persons are both foreigners and aliens, which is to say that they are born somewhere other than within the political or geographical boundaries of the United States and are subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign government. Such are our own “illegal immigrants,” so called.

The distinction to be made between the terms foreigner and alien is in one sense comparable to that to be made between the terms immigration and naturalization. Whereas in the latter case we sometimes mistake the federal government's constitutional authority to establish an uniform rule of naturalization with control or regulation of immigration to this country. By comparison to the former case, we sometimes exchange the term “foreign” and its derivatives, with the term “alien,” and vice versa. But these terms, as we've shown, have distinctive meanings which apply to themselves exclusive to all others. And this is the reason that Senator Howard used the terms foreigners and aliens separately, to signify different things, or identify distinct classes of persons to be excluded from citizenship, in the same sentence.

Additionally, it is important to understand that the United States cannot simply subject persons to its jurisdiction whenever it decides to do so without authority to do so and without the consent of the persons supposedly subjected. That's a matter of individual choice on the one hand, and of constitutional authority on the other. Only totalitarian regimes exercise this kind of illegitimate authority over those persons it unilaterally deems to be its 'subjects'. And the United States as a totalitarian regime is no different than any other totalitarian regime. Doing so is also tantamount to declaring war on the foreign governments whose legitimate jurisdiction these persons are actually under, whether it is by their own choice or that of the government whose jurisdiction they're under. In any event, it isn't any better for the United States to unilaterally subject someone to its authority than it is for their own government to do the same. In fact, it's arguably worse. Being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is by no means an unqualified good, contrary to what a certain thoughtless, dependent element of our society seems to believe.

So we see that there is no mistake; no misplaced comma in Senator Howard's statement above. While some may be tempted, at first glance, to combine the two latter classes of persons Senator Howard describes into a single class by reading his words thusly: “aliens belonging to the families of ambassadors, etc.,” this is not the way it is recorded in the Congressional Globe, nor the way he intended it. He properly makes a distinction between foreigners and aliens, and between those classes of persons and persons belonging to Ambassadors or Foreign ministers accredited to the United States. Which is to say that he was identifying three distinct classes of persons to be exempted by the second of the citizenship provisions of the fourteenth amendment, as shown above.

Yet Mr. Foner's column declares that since in 1866,

...just about anyone who wished to enter the U.S. was free to do so.

this necessarily means that the framers of the fourteenth amendment could not have intended by its second provision to exclude that class of persons we call today “illegal immigrants,” or, at least, not their American-born children (a non-sequitur if there ever was one). Which, besides ranking among the most absurd arguments I've ever seen or heard, falls flat in the face of Senator Howard's own words above-cited. Clearly Senator Howard intended by this language to exclude the children of immigrants to the United States, legal and illegal 'immigrants' alike. If people like Professor Foner could read such provisions aside from the mind-numbing influence of their leftist ideological bent and their modern-centric view points, it would be abundantly clear to them that far from including virtually everyone within the scope of its citizenship requirements, the fourteenth amendment, as recorded, excludes several classes of U.S. residents, legal and illegal alike.

Besides, Foner fails to add perspective to his assertion stating that “just about anyone who wished to enter the U.S. was free to do so” during the era in question. “Free to do so” in what sense? Once again, Foner makes the inadmissible mistake of applying an irrelevant circumstance as though there is some relevance in the fact to the establishment of fourteenth amendment U.S. citizenship. Did the central government consider, at the time, control or regulation of immigration to this country an exclusively federal issue as it seems to consider it now? Certainly not. Moreover, did the fourteenth amendment formally transfer authority to control or regulate immigration from the State governments to the central governing authority? Did it remotely touch on the subject of immigration to this country?

But as Noah Webster once stated concerning man's faculty of reason, “but reason, without revelation, and without cultivation, is a miserable guide. It often errs from ignorance, and more often from the impulse of passion.” We may also here invoke the principles of the adage which states that “it is hard to reason someone out of that which they have not reasoned themselves into to begin with.” I very much doubt that the fault of Professor Foner's erroneous judgment on these issues can be attributed primarily to ignorance on his part, but to his attachment to, and investment in, the principles of open-borders multiculturalism and the passionate impulses this policy and its opponents excite within him. He does, however, personify a very great, societal-wide problem in modern America.

As a generation, we moderns tend to place far too much significance on the “legal” vs. “illegal” status of U.S. residents subject to a foreign jurisdiction. Simply being in the United States “legally” does not necessarily mean that the person or persons in question are subject to the full jurisdiction of the United States. Indeed, the whole idea of legal immigration to the United States implies that the persons thus denominated are not, per their legal immigrant status, under the complete jurisdiction of the United States, else they wouldn't be deemed “immigrants,” “temporary workers,” or whatever one likes to call them. Thus, these persons cannot, as such, be citizens by virtue of the express provisions of the fourteenth amendment and in spite of what the Prof. Foners of the world assert to the contrary. This is so obvious a point that our even feeling the necessity of mentioning it is an assault on our very beings. But it gets even worse.

From the ridiculous to the absurd, and beyond

But to give credit where credit is due, and in spite of the ridiculousness of his denying its being of any relevance beyond the extent of those specific cases he cites, Professor Foner at least acknowledges the existence of the second of the two citizenship requirements of the fourteenth amendment. In the case of certain other writers, however, they do not merely discount the importance of the second provision, they omit it altogether as though it does not, nor ever did, exist. Consider USA Today's DeWayne Wickham in his more recent syndicated column disparagingly titled: “Tea Party is today's 'know nothing' movement.”

Mr. Wickham writes:

Never mind that the Constitution says “all persons born or naturalized in the United States” are citizens. They [Tea Party candidates] want to undo that constitutional provision.

The Constitution says thus and thus, and Tea Party candidates want to “undo” the born or naturalized stipulation of the fourteenth amendment? I beg to differ on both points. In addition to the establishment of yet another false premise, we seem to have here a classic case of “the pot calling the kettle black,” to wit:

The first and obvious question one familiar with the citizenship provisions of the fourteenth amendment should ask Mr. Wickham is why he has omitted any mention of the second part of the provision in his column? By contrast to Professor Foner who denies its applicability in most cases, Wickham does not as much as offer a hint of its existence in his piece, as if to say, without actually saying it, that it doesn't exist. But, of course, were he to say anything about it, it would clue some people into the fact of its actual existence, which he fears, of course, would defeat his apparent purposes. People like this do not want us reading the actual words of the constitution, they want us to read what they say the constitution says and to take them at their word. But these people are no more authorities on the constitution than the Pope is the Vicar of Christ.

The second question is, of course, in what way precisely do Tea Party candidates want to “undo” the first requirement according to Mr. Wickham? In other words, saying that a specific group of persons (political candidates in this case) want to undo something is one thing; showing evidence that they want to undo it is quite another. As we all know all too well, anyone can say anything and get away with it a lot of the time depending, but what evidence does Wickham show to support his claim against Tea Party political candidates? The answer is none. Wickham seems to be of the high-minded persuasion that his opinion on the matter is evidence enough of the fact, but it's quite impossible to undo that which isn't done in the first place. As we've shown, the constitution does not say that “all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. are citizens.” Hence, this having not been done, it cannot possibly be undone.

The answer to the second question is that they don't want to undo the all persons born or naturalized stipulation, anymore than I want to undo it. Besides the fact of my clear understanding of what they're trying to undo in actuality, the evidence itself suggests that what they do want to undo is this practice of the federal government of ignoring the relevance of the second of these provisions as inextricably connected to the first, and the impact that this long-established habitual practice has had upon our society, both materially and psychologically.

Persons like myself rail about the fourteenth amendment's citizenship provisions, not because we wish to “undo” them, but because we've come to understand that virtually all of us have been conditioned to place all significance on the all persons born or naturalized provision at the expense of the and subject to the jurisdiction thereof stipulation. We've further learned that these stipulations form a pair; a matching set, as it were, the one no more or less important than the other.

But since Wickham raised this question of a certain class of persons wanting to undo constitutional provisions, what more evidence do we need than the omission of one part of an inseparably connected two-part procedure to show that the person who commits the act of omitting it seeks to undo the entirety of the procedure, if not the whole constitution? Before we know it, “all persons are citizens” will be the cry of these enemies of the constitution and representative Republicanism. Indeed, that is the cry of a certain element of our society already whereas some assert that the term “illegal alien” is a wholly illegitimate term, incompatible with what they term “Americanism” and the U.S. Constitution. Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth or common sense.

Parts 1 and 2 of a two-part procedure are both essential to the completion of a process:

As mentioned above, the first sentence of the fourteenth amendment inscribes a two-part procedure. All Persons are declared to be citizens therein who are (1) born or naturalized in the United States and (2) subject to the jurisdiction thereof. In other words, one must accomplish or adhere to both of these procedures to qualify for U.S. citizenship and the entitlements of U.S. citizens. We can know this, among other ways, by the inclusion of the conjunction “and” inseparably connecting the necessary procedures, which is to say, in a manner of speaking, that they work hand-in-glove. Consider:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens, etc. (italics added)

The provision does not say “or,” nor does it say “and/or” (both of which is absurd in this context), but it says “and.” Consider the absurdity imposed on these provisions as separated or disconnected by the word “or.” The provision would then read:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, or subject to the jurisdiction thereof, etc.

(“And/or” imposes the exact same absurdity upon these provisions.)

The absurdity of this rendition obviously consists in its making citizens of persons not subject to U.S. jurisdiction equally with those who are. So that persons may or may not be subject to U.S. jurisdiction and still be citizens entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens so long as they successfully meet the requirement of the first provision, or, they're simply born in the United States. Which, of course, is absurd. Meaning, of course, that Mr. Wickham's assertion above, and Mr. Wickham himself, therefore, is absurd.

Certainly persons born in the United States to alien parents subject to a foreign jurisdiction are themselves, at least in part, subject to a foreign jurisdiction, thus aliens, thus ineligible for U.S. citizenship until their status changes by some authentic act such as naturalization. Since naturalization procedures do not apply to minor children, those born in the United States to alien parents subject to a foreign jurisdiction cannot be naturalized citizens. Nor do they qualify for birthright citizenship. Thus, they cannot be citizens per the fourteenth amendment.

Not to insult the intelligence of the reader, but do you make it a habit of walking around in public with one shoe on and one shoe off? That is precisely what the Wickhams and Foners of the world would have us do regarding the citizenship provisions of the fourteenth amendment.

A simple illustration

We've established in the preceding section that United States citizenship, according to the fourteenth amendment which formally establishes and defines it, involves a two-part procedure, the two parts or ingredients being inextricably connected. This is to say that non-compliance with one or the other, or both of these procedures, means that the person or persons to which they apply are not qualified to be United States citizens. This is easily illustrated by way of the following example.

Some time back I received a notification letter in the mail from the U.S. Census Bureau. This notification was sent to inform me that, within a few days, my residence would be receiving a “very important survey” called the “American Community Survey” as part of the 2010 U.S. Census program. The notification further instructed me that,

When your questionnaire arrives, please fill it out and mail it back promptly.

Note that my instructions regarding my responsibility per the survey, precisely like the fourteenth amendment's citizenship clause, contained two requirements necessary to completion of the process joined by the connective word and. Meaning that I was to (1) answer the questions on the survey, AND (not “or,” not “and/or,” but and), (2) send the completed survey back to the Census Bureau. As an aside, I was also informed in my notification letter that “your response to both (the 2010 Census and the American Community Survey) is required by law,” and that “Title 13, as changed by Title 18, U.S. code, imposes a penalty for not responding.” The penalty to be imposed was not specified.

Quite obviously, failure on my part to follow either or both of these instructions results in non-fulfillment of the intended process. If I (1) fail to answer the questions on the survey, and/or, if I (2) fail to mail the completed form back, besides my being subject, therefore, to the imposition of an unspecified “penalty,” the process itself has been railroaded. While this particular process ought to be railroaded due to the invasive nature of the questions on the survey, having no connection to the purposes of a census, the point is that the process is incomplete by virtue of my failure to follow the instructions provided me; it is railroaded whenever one fails to follow both of the procedures required. And the very same principle applies in the case of U.S. citizenship under the provisions of the fourteenth amendment. Again, persons must be born or naturalized in and subject to U.S. jurisdiction to qualify for U.S. citizenship. There is no legitimate way of getting around this simple truth, though our own experiences bear witness to the fact that there are numbers of illegitimate ways of getting around it, not the least of which is general dissemination of false “facts” and half-truths like we've seen above.

Thomas Jefferson understood this concept very well. Upon his entrance to the office of the presidency, Jefferson discovered that his predecessor, John Adams, had signed and sealed a number of commissions for federal justices of the peace in Alexandria, and had left them on the desk of the department of state undelivered. Mr. Jefferson having forbade their delivery, Marbury, being named in one of them, applied to the Supreme Court to have them delivered by the Secretary of State (Madison). Recognizing that it had no constitutional jurisdiction in the case, the court took no legal notice of it. But the chief justice, John Marshall, went on to explain that the court would command the delivery had it jurisdiction. Which, of course, was an instruction to the lower courts having jurisdiction in the case should Marbury apply to them. In a letter to Justice William Johnson concerning these events, Jefferson laments:

Besides the impropriety of this gratuitous interference, could anything exceed the perversion of the law? For if there is any principle of law never yet contradicted, it is that delivery is one of the essentials to the validity of the deed. Although signed and sealed, yet as long as it remains in the hands of the party himself, it is in fieri only, it is not a deed, and can only be made so by its delivery. In the hands of a third person it may be made an escrow. But whatever is in the executive offices is certainly deemed to be in the hands of the President; and in this case, was actually in my hands, because, when I countermanded them, there was as yet no Secretary of State.

In other words, the appointment must be made (signed and sealed) and delivered before it becomes a deed. Both elements of the deed are essential to its becoming a deed, as with my instructions from the Census Bureau; as with the citizenship provisions of the fourteenth amendment.

In my particular case, the so called “American Community Survey” in my possession remains valueless to the Census Bureau as long as it remains in my possession, whether I've answered its questions and sealed it in its envelope or not. As long as the second requirement (delivery of the completed survey to the Census Bureau) is not fulfilled, the process is not completed. But in answer to Mr. Jefferson's question, yes, modern application of the fourteenth amendment's citizenship provisions exceeds the perversion of the law perpetrated by judge Marshall in the Marbury v. Madison case.

From whence do the citizenship provisions of the fourteenth amendment emanate

Getting back to Professor Foner's rendition of the clause in question, it was mentioned a number of times above that a lively Senate debate concerning whether to add the words “excluding Indians not taxed” within the citizenship clause of the fourteenth amendment, was initiated by Senator Howard's explanation to that body of whom the clause in question would include and exclude within the mantel of its protections. At one point in the debate, Senator Johnson of Maryland addressed the floor and read from the Civil Rights Bill from whence the citizenship provisions of the fourteenth amendment derive:

That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens. (italics added)

Certainly immigrants in the United States, legal and illegal alike, are subject to some foreign power or other inasmuch as tribal Indians of the era were subject to the jurisdiction of their tribal governments exclusive to the United States.:

Mexican immigrants are subject to the jurisdiction of the government of Mexico;

Italian immigrants are subject to the jurisdiction of the government of Italy;

Chinese immigrants are subject to the jurisdiction of China and so on, so long as these persons retain the status of “immigrant” or “migrant” as it were.

Although an Italian or Mexican or Chinese immigrant in the United States is, by virtue thereof, partially subject to the jurisdictions of both his parent state and of the United States. But the provision in question requires that persons be subject to the full or complete jurisdiction of the United States. That is, not subject, in full or in part, to any foreign power. Senator Trumbull explains:

The provision is that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to complete jurisdiction thereof.”... What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means. (emphasis added)

Not owing allegiance to anybody else. This certainly includes tribal Indians and immigrants, legal and illegal alike.

That is all it can mean because the mere fact of migration to this country, or to any other for that matter, does not serve, in and of itself, to completely release such persons from political subjection to the jurisdiction of their native countries. After all, and as it applies on an individual basis, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they (immigrants to the U.S.) should declare the causes which impel them to the separation (from their native State), when in the course of human events it becomes necessary for these persons to dissolve the political bands which have connected them to their native People.

Since this specific class of persons -- Indians not taxed -- did owe allegiance to someone else, namely their tribes and tribal governments, these persons were to be included within the general exclusion prescribed by the subject to the jurisdiction thereof stipulation. For neither were such persons in general born or naturalized in the political United States proper, nor subject to its jurisdiction. To paraphrase one Senator on this particular topic, “we make treaties with them (Indians); it would be absurd for us to make treaties with ourselves.” His point was simply that treaties are political agreements made between sovereign governments, each government acting in behalf (or supposedly so) of its own citizens subject to its jurisdiction.

On the subject of the naturalization of Immigrants

There is, of course, a legal process which immigrants to the United States may apply for and pursue; a process which is mainly intended to establish full transferral of allegiance from their native country to the United States. That process is called “naturalization,” and involves several steps to complete. It is no more “racist” to require immigrants to conclude this process prior to being admitted to U.S. citizenship than it is racist to require Mr. Foner or anyone else to follow the necessary procedures to becoming an accredited professor of history at a renown University prior to his hiring. Then again, we have a legal process by which to transfer reserved powers from the States or the People to the United States, but its mere existence does not prevent the central government's usurping these powers nor the States or People tacitly surrendering them to that entity without a fight.

Professor Foner writes:

The amendment's authors didn't retreat in the face of blatant racism. When they wrote “all persons,” they meant it.

Not quite. “Blatant racism” aside for the moment, the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence clearly shows without a shadow of doubt that they meant all qualified persons, for the establishment of qualifications (as in the plural) directly follow the words “all persons.” We may read it thusly: “All persons who meet the following qualifications are citizens, that they be born or naturalized in the United States and subject to her jurisdiction.” For what possible purpose could it serve to add qualifications where no qualifications were meant to apply, or to add a second where one (birthplace alone) is sufficient? This provision does not say that all persons are citizens; it does not say that all persons born in the United States are citizens. The Professor Foners of the world may read the citizenship provisions of the fourteenth amendment any ol' way they wish to read them, that is their prerogative. But neither he nor anyone else is authorized to publicly and unilaterally assign to them any other meaning or application than the one assigned to them when they became, for all intents and purposes, the Supreme Law of the Land. If he and others wish to change the meaning of these provisions and the way they affect the body of the text of the U.S. Constitution, Article V of same prescribes a process by which this may be done legitimately.

But in any event, perhaps better would it have been had the framers of the fourteenth amendment carried the language of the Civil Rights Bill, word-for-word, over to the fourteenth amendment. Or, perhaps, they might have adopted Senator Trumbull's language above. Or even that of Senator Johnson:

Now, all that this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power – for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us – shall be considered as citizens of the United States. That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. If there are to be citizens of the United States entitled everywhere to the character of citizens of the United States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States. (emphasis added)

In other words, the children of immigrants were to be excluded by the second provision.

But, of course, it shouldn't be necessary to italicize the phrase above because that is what the actual language of the fourteenth amendment was understood to mean at the time it was adopted, and it is what any faithful reading of the provision reveals was its original meaning today.

And, of course, we may assert as well that these provisions have an opposite effect as regards non-citizens. Which is to say that a definition of U.S. citizenship, besides establishing what creates the character of citizen between himself and the United States, also establishes what creates the character of non-citizen between that person and the United States in the issue, and I know of no better way to distinguish between citizens and non-citizens than the fact of political subjection to a foreign jurisdiction regardless of one's actual place of birth. So that contrary to Professor Foner's assertion in his piece stating that,

There is no reason to believe the children of illegal immigrants are any different [insofar as they can be good citizens like anyone else].

there is every reason to believe that this class of persons can't be citizens, much less "good citizens," until the disability imposed upon them by the second provision of section one of the fourteenth amendment is removed by legitimate and legal process. Which is to say, until they become naturalized which precipitates admission to the rights of citizenship.

But one tires of this constant stating of personal opinion on a matter as though it were unmitigated fact. There is no reason to believe that the children of illegal immigrants can't be good citizens like everyone else? And how, pray tell, does Professor Foner draw that idiotic conclusion? Like many other “Americans” Professor Foner degrades the value of U.S. citizenship to virtual meaninglessness. While the U.S. dollar plummets in value due to hyper-inflation, so too does U.S. citizenship due to the advent of hyper-liberalism. But I suppose the adage holds true still that anything not earned is very often grossly undervalued by the person or persons possessing it.

But as is further revealed in the debate aforementioned, this section of the fourteenth amendment (the amendment to the amendment, as it were) having been taken directly from the Civil Rights Bill, was meant to mean precisely the same thing, though the language was altered in the former, per the committee that reported it:

I read now from the civil rights bill as it passed:

That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign Power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens.

What did these words mean? They meant something; and their meaning as they are inserted in that act is the same meaning which will be given to them if they are inserted in the first section of this constitutional amendment.

Yes, one would certainly think that the meaning ascribed to these words in the civil rights bill would carry over with them to the fourteenth amendment, given that the language was taken from the civil rights bill itself. But we see, one hundred fifty years later, that that is no longer the case. The meaning generally assigned to these words now is laid down in the words of our scholarly professors and newspaper columnists across the fruited plain. And as long as we continue to allow them to assign their own meanings to the words which comprise these provisions, in spite of historical evidences contradicting them, they will continue to assert dogmatically that, in the words of Professor Foner, “when they said “all persons,” they meant it.” In actuality, of course, and as we've thoroughly established by now, what they meant was all qualified persons, or, persons not subject to a foreign jurisdiction, which excludes at least three distinct classes of persons comprising several millions of U.S. residents individually.

To whom, or to what classes of persons, then, does automatic birthright citizenship apply?

The fourteenth amendment establishes automatic birthright citizenship for the children of U.S. citizens, and onlyfor the children of U.S. citizens who are themselves subject to full U.S. jurisdiction, or, who owe their allegiances to none other than the United States. This includes non-alien persons, or foreigners by birth, who have completed the naturalization process, or, naturalized citizens.

This is because birth parents can only confer on their offspring that which they themselves possess at the time of giving birth. Namely, and in the case of immigrants, their subjection to the jurisdiction of a foreign government, or non-subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States, as it were. Whichever be the case, the key point to remember is that since immigrants (legal or illegal) are either subject to a foreign jurisdiction, and/or, not subject to full U.S. jurisdiction, they cannot automatically confer upon their offspring the second of these stipulations in spite of their having been born within the political and geographical boundaries of the United States.

To meet the requirements of the second provision, or, to become subject to U.S. jurisdiction, immigrants who retain the status of immigrant must successfully complete the naturalization process, subjecting themselves to the full jurisdiction of the United States/undoing their subjection to a foreign Power. Then, and only then, may their children, born in the United States, qualify for automatic birthright citizenship established by the fourteenth amendment. That's not what I say, it is what the plain language of the fourteenth amendment says. It is what the Civil Rights Bill, passed by the 39th Congress says. It is what the Senate debate concerning this provision reveals as we've shown above.

But our illustrious newspaper columnists would have it another way. And they're not about to allow some obscure constitutional stipulation that virtually no one knows about or cares about (and they want to keep it that way), to get in the way of their achieving their ultimate aim, which is the final overthrow of the subject to the jurisdiction thereof stipulation, and any connection it has to establishing U.S. citizenship. Some of them dismiss its importance, others omit it altogether as though it doesn't exist, as we've seen above. Both methods are as invalid as they are self-destructive and stupid.

The conclusion of the matter is this, newspaper columnists and the publications which print them, who advocate birthright citizenship for all persons born in the United States without further qualification in direct contradiction of the entirety of section one of the fourteenth amendment and the Supreme Law of the Land, are absolutely untrustworthy and enemies of the constitution, as written. They ignore or omit key constitutional passages, as well as all historical evidences which do not align with what their philosophy teaches them the constitution ought to say. If it ever occurs to them at all, they ignore the importance of a formal, constitutional transferral of authority from the States or the People to the United States, or vice versa as the case may warrant. Likewise do they ignore the importance of a formal transferral of allegiance from a foreign jurisdiction to that of the United States, her governing constitution and her people. They are more or less disingenuous, more or less unfaithful, more or less scam artists perpetrating a scam on an unsuspecting public. They are as honest as other men, and not more so. They are, in fact, traitors to be trusted, therefore, about as far as you can throw them. Which, in most cases, isn't very far.

On the enrollment at birth program

Though it has little to do with the principles involved with the discussion above, “enrollment at birth” does bear on the importance of the issue of the second citizenship provision of the fourteenth amendment. We must understand that the federal government knows what the fourteenth amendment says in actuality, as opposed to what our imminent Professors of History and newspaper columnists propose that it says. To successfully avoid the subject to U.S. jurisdiction provision, or to make an end-run around it, so to speak, the federal government uses its “Social Security” Administration to effectively and procedurally sidestep the provision.

Under current United States policy, children born in the United States to alien parents subject to a foreign jurisdiction, while unqualified for birthright citizenship by virtue of their parents' non-citizen status, have no need of so called “automatic birthright citizenship” in any event because they have it in effect.

Regardless of citizenship status, birth mothers are asked by hospital staffers who receive their instructions from on high, to fill out a form requesting for their child a birth certificate and enrollment into the federal Social Security program. At the moment birth mothers consent to enrolling their newborns into Social Security, either tacitly or actively, that child becomes, as far as the federal government is concerned, subject to the full jurisdiction of the United States, thus satisfying, to the collective mind of the federal government, the requirement of the second citizenship provision of the fourteenth amendment.

This is not the same thing as automatic birthright citizenship, which, as we established above, is reserved for the children of United States citizens, but it effectively, and for all intents and purposes, accomplishes the same thing. Since alien birth mothers cannot automatically transfer to their newborns U.S. jurisdiction since they cannot confer on the child what they themselves do not possess at the time of giving birth, they can (and do on a regular basis) subject them to U.S. jurisdiction with the help of the federal government, hospital staffers and enrollment at birth.

Whether or not “enrollment at birth” is constitutional, is another question in itself. Since the federal government is authorized to establish uniform rules of naturalization, but not authorized to control or regulate immigration to any State in this union by the constitution, my own opinion is that enrollment at birth is an illegitimate and unconstitutional procedure. But then again, I personally do not believe that Social Security itself is constitutional since no amendment to the constitution has yet to transfer authority from the States or the People to the United States concerning the so called “social security” of U.S. citizens. I know we have the general welfare clause in Article I, section 8, but the establishment of a general “social security” is stretching it quite a bit:

Mr. Jefferson:

On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the constitution [or its amendments] was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.

But in any event,...

once enrollment at birth is accomplished, then the rest of section one of the fourteenth amendment is deemed by the federal authority to automatically apply to the child enrolled and to his immediate family by extension. Hence, States may not make or enforce any laws which abridge the privileges or immunities of these citizens, nor may States deprive them of life, liberty or property without due process of law. And the Congress has authority to enforce these provisions by appropriate legislation, whatever “appropriate legislation” as to these persons and the stipulations applied to them is deemed to mean.

Hence, all of this hand wringing concerning birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants is really just a moot point on both sides of the question, unless and until the federal enrollment at birth program ceases to exist, and/or, States and local communities begin to treat as mere acts of federal usurpation of powers not granted, federal control or regulation of immigration to this country.:

But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the larger society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such. -Alexander Hamilton, Federalist no. 33

Until that time, and not before that time, children born to U.S. citizen parents stand to gain no citizenship advantage over children born to alien parents via the former's entitlement to automatic birthright citizenship. In other words, and as it now stands, automatic birthright citizenship may just as well apply to American-born children of alien parents subject to a foreign jurisdiction. By the same token, automatic birthright citizenship may as well not apply exclusively to children born to citizen parents subject to full U.S. jurisdiction.

Concerning the issue of “Indians not taxed” being excluded from U.S. citizenship:

I have personally met up with some resistance to this particular question whenever I explain that “Indians not taxed” were originally excluded from U.S. citizenship by the provisions of the fourteenth amendment. While I understand that certain persons would be offended by this particular exclusion based on their understanding of U.S.-Indian relations, I must point out that there is no reason to be offended by it unless one thinks that U.S. citizenship is somehow superior to tribal sovereignty and the citizenship derived therefrom. I personally do not believe that this is the case, and for any number of reasons which I'll discuss in another essay.

A simple illustration that virtually everyone can understand

2010-09-13T11:47:00.005-05:00

Several months back I received a notification from the U.S. Census bureau informing me that, within a few days, I would be receiving from their offices a "very important survey" called the "American Community Survey."

While I was assured in the letter that my residence was chosen "randomly;" that I wasn't chosen personally for receipt of this survey (which I very highly doubt is the case for reasons I won't discuss in this particular entry, except to say that I'm pretty resistant to what I consider to be invasive questions having nothing to do with the purpose of a census), my instructions included in the letter were to:

When you receive your questionairre, please fill it out and return it promptly.

Notice that I'm required to accomplish two separate but connected tasks, per the conjunction and. First, I'm to answer the questions on the survey. Second, I'm to return the completed survey to the Census Bureau. If I fail to do one or the other, or both, then the process is railroaded, or, not completed.

While most everyone can understand the truth of this simple illustration, a lot of people can't seem to apply the exact same principles to the citizenship clause of the fourteenth amendment, though the exact principles apply.

There are two stipulations in that provision connected, as with my instructions from the Census Bureau above, by the conjunction and. Both of these stipulations must be met, according to the language of that provision, before the process of admission to citizenship can be accomplished.

Most of the newspaper columns I've read on the subject, including this gem, claim as a fundamental constitutional principle this idea of automatic birthright citizenship for the children of aliens subject to a foreign jurisdiction. But these writers must not be very confident in their arguments since they tend to ignore, dismiss or, in some cases, omit the second provision in this clause.

To qualify for automatic birthright citizenship, one must be born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Meaning that the provision applies to children of U.S. citizens exclusively.

But it's all a moot point anyway, and on both sides of the issue, given that the federal government has made it all too simple and easy for birth mothers subject to a foreign jurisdiction to meet the second provision by enrolling their newborns into the social security program. In effect, these children are birthright citizens via enrollment at birth program conducted by the Social Security Administration. Thus, the children of American citizens derive no advantage whatsoever over children of illegal immigrants per this requirement. And unless and until (1) enrollment at birth ceases to exist, and/or, (2) States tell the federal government to shove it on this issue of supposed federal supremacy in immigration law making, they never will again derive any kind of advantage from that provision.

Note: Here is an article relevant to this subject, and to which I've added several comments.

How they get by with it?

2010-08-30T10:40:00.003-05:00

I really need to collect my thoughts on this issue, but I think I can manage to get the point across.

As I've written time and time again, the federal government uses (or, misuses) the citizenship and equal protection provisions of the first section of the fourteenth amendment to establish an absolute federal tyranny over these States. We see the results of this work of their hands in Judge Susan Bolton's recent ruling per Arizona's immigration law; in the Tenth Circuit's rulings concerning Oklahoma's immigration law, in the removal of Ten Commandments monument in Stigler Ok.; in the Supreme Court's ruling in Kelo vs. New London a few years ago, and we could go on and on and on. But how do they get away with it?

Well, the simple answer is that we let them get away with it. The longer version involves something that many people are not aware of. It is called the federal "enrollment at birth program" sponsored by the Social Security Administration.

The fourteenth Amendment states that all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. Notice that there are two conditions to establishing U.S. citizenship -- born or naturalized AND subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

The Senate debates in the 39th Congress cover these aspects of the amendment pretty thoroughly, and the intent of the framers of the fourteenth amendment comes through loud and clear. But the issue at hand is that through this illegitimate practice of enrolling children into Social Security at birth the federal government meets the second of these two conditions, particularly with respect to children of parents subject to a foreign jurisdiction.

Mothers who have recently given birth inside an American hospital have some understanding of how this works. Hospital nursing staff ask the mother to fill out several forms, one of which contains a question about enrolling your baby in Social Security. Mothers may answer "yes" or "no" to this question, then sign their initials beside their answer. However, standard practice, I've learned both the hard way and through investigation into the matter, is for the nurses to answer "yes" for the mother in the case that she refuses to fill the paperwork out in the hospital, or, if she answers "no," and then to initial the question for her. This really does happen! I've seen it with my own two eyes. My wife refused to fill this paperwork out for one of our children in the hospital, and what I've just described to you happened, not once, not twice, but three separate times. All of which paperwork was ultimately destroyed. Their final approach was to threaten to not release the baby to our custody when my wife was released from the hospital, until she completed the application. To which I asked: "where is the law or statute that gives you this authority?" They answered that "well, it isn't a law, it's hospital policy." Then I asked whether I needed, therefore, to bring the sheriff with me when I came to pick them up? They said that wouldn't be necessary. Thought not.

Anyway, as bad as all of this is (and it is bad!), the point is that through the enrollment at birth program, the federal government subjects newborns to its jurisdiction, and immediately begins to apply the equal protection and due process clauses of the fourteenth amendment to such child. Whether the child's parents are aliens (legal or illegal) subject to a foreign jurisdiction is, at that point, no longer an issue. The child himself is subject to U.S. jurisdiction via enrollment at birth. Hence, all State and local laws affecting him are, thereby, subject to federal review, and/or, revision. Even before they take actual effect. Thus, if the federal government determines that a State law has the mere potential to inconvenience a certain group of persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction, it may strike out those provisions in the law. That's how the feds gutted Oklahoma's law of its most effective provisions. And it is the way it will ultimately gut Arizona's law. Popular monuments will continue to disappear from State and local government properties, religious emblems will continue to be removed from emergency vehicles, private property will be taken more easily "for public use," and on and on and on.

We have a serious constitutional crisis on our hands, folks. And we'd better start coming up with ways to solve it.

On the methods, purposes and legitimacy of corrective Constitutional Amendments

2010-08-25T16:39:00.005-05:00

Constitutional Scholar, Professor Rob Natelson, has written an interesting article posted at the Tenth Amendment Center concerning State initiated amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

By the way, the italicized descriptive I used in the previous sentence I sort of coined several years back when I discovered the procedure while reading the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. Natelson's descriptive is a bit different than my own, whereas it is denominated in his article the state-application-and-convention method -- a minor piece of trivia that only matters if someone is interested in searching the archives of this blog for my own posts on the topic of State initiated amendment proposals. Anyway,...

Below is a relevant excerpt from Natelson's article.

Mr. Natelson writes:

The Founders created the state-application-and-convention process primarily as a way to rectify federal abuses of power. The Founders recognized that clarifying and corrective amendments might become necessary even when the proper reading of the document seemed clear. The Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Amendments all are examples of clarifying and corrective amendments.

Precisely! And I think it may be time for another known as the 28th. Which is Fourteen multiplied by two. Hmm. ;-)

My conversation with Senator Coburn

2010-08-20T14:09:00.004-05:00

Yesterday evening I was able to meet Senator Coburn at a local Town Hall gathering. We had a short one-on-one conversation in a hallway shortly after the meeting was over. Below is an email I sent Senator Coburn today which should serve to explain the content of our short conversation.

Dear Senator,

Amending the constitution is supposed to be the Peoples' last resort method of solving serious constitutional issues before they become crises. A constitutional crisis exists whenever any part of the government simply ignores its provisions or refuses to obey them. Federal law does not necessarily trump State and local law regardless of whether the Congress “occupies a field,” and “intends a complete ouster.” And tacit acquiescence only matters while States are willing to simply “go along.” That is, if the constitution still means anything outside modern interpretation of the fourteenth amendment.

I personally find only one thing in the fourteenth amendment objectionable to myself. Namely the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” By this phrase every other constitutional principle preceding it is effectively declared null and void, with the possible exception of the thirteenth amendment. We still have the original constitution but its principles only mean something in context of the fourteenth amendment citizenship provisions. What portions of it that we still observe in American politics and outside that context are only done as a matter of convenience to the central government. If or whenever it decides to usurp State and local authority in those matters, it will do so through the federal courts via the fourteenth amendment citizenship clauses. Count on it. This is the way things are and have been done for many decades in American politics. And it will not change until an explicit and authentic act of the whole People alters the way the game is played because liberalism dominates our politics whether we like it or not.

Therefore, my idea for amending the constitution to clarify the intent of the fourteenth amendment is far from being the “stupid idea” you said it was when I mentioned it to you this past Thursday in McAlester. Closing the borders is all well and good and I certainly agree that that needs to be done. But has the loudness of our declamations resulted in sealing the borders? Has it stopped this talk about granting amnesty to the tens of millions of illegal immigrants already here? Has it forced attrition on any of them as yet? Has it done anything to solve this “birthright citizenship” for children of illegal immigrants issue? Keep in mind also that I'm not proposing repeal of the fourteenth amendment, only clarification of its intent for our generations.

But there's a much bigger underlying principle you seem to be missing in all of this debate over State immigration laws, and etc. Ultimately it's not about whether the federal government has neglected in the past, or will continue to neglect in the future, its responsibility to protect our borders. No; what this is all about at bottom is that the constitution reserves to the States and to the local governments power to control or regulate a host of items within their own borders, without federal intervention and at their own discretion. Immigration is one of these reserved powers. Several States, including Oklahoma and Arizona, have made worthy attempts in recent years at exercising their discretion in this immigration matter, but to no avail. Simply stated, their most effective efforts have been railroaded by the federal courts who invariably cite the fourteenth amendment citizenship and equal protection clauses as their just cause for usurping the rest of the constitution. This method cannot be allowed to continue much longer or our fate as a nation is already sealed. And if you think you can get the federal courts out of the business of doing this short of amending the constitution to prevent it, well, I think you're very naïve about the power of the federal courts and the ability of anyone to pressure them into anything they don't want to do. As long as the fourteenth amendment exists as the courts have interpreted it, and without clarification from the People, the federal judiciary is going to continue following this pathway of establishing an absolute federal tyranny over these States.

The personality that I am will not allow me to simply complain about a thing without offering a viable alternative to it. Below is my attempt at solving this veritable constitutional crisis before it gets out of hand (it may well already be out of hand) and we're forced into a situation that none of us wants:

A proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to transform the meaning of the fourteenth amendment back to its original intent; to end government by judiciary; to reinvigorate the principles of the constitution as written; to reintroduce the doctrine of reserved powers and to end the practice of admitting to the rights of citizenship at birth persons born in the United States to foreigners illegally residing therein. We introduce this amendment proposal as a means to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, and to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.:

Section 1: The fourteenth amendment to this constitution shall not be construed by the United States or by any State to admit to the rights of citizenship, or subject them to their jurisdiction, children born to immigrant parents illegally residing within the United States, or subject to a foreign state, at the time of their birth. Persons born in the United States to alien parents temporarily and legally residing therein shall be subject to all terms and conditions, privileges and immunities, expressly provided for in their parents' visas and the laws of the States wherein they reside. The United States retains the power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, but no State shall be compelled by the United States to admit to the rights of citizenship, nor subject them to their jurisdiction, any person or persons involuntarily.

Section 2: No State shall be compelled to house, harbor, educate, provide food or medical services, grant safe passage to or otherwise assist immigrants illegally residing within its borders, nor to conform its laws affecting such residents to the laws of the United States except those made pursuant to the constitution and this article. The exercise of Powers reserved by the constitution to the States or to the People shall be left to their discretion. No reserved power shall transfer to the United States except by process of amendment, but the United States may exercise reserved powers upon application to and express consent of the legislature of the States wherein they propose to exercise them.

Section 3: The Congress is hereby suspended for the term of twenty years from further enacting laws affecting immigrants to the United States or to any State, and no form of amnesty for illegal immigrants shall be granted or recognized during the term of suspension. No State shall be compelled by existing U.S. law to receive immigrants of any race, color, nationality or kinship.

Section 4: Congress shall have power to enforce the terms of this article by appropriate legislation, but no construction of its provisions, or of the provisions of any other article of the constitution which shall be effective at the time of its adoption, shall ever be effective to establishing unconditional federal supremacy in law making, nor shall the provisions of this article affect the citizenship of persons born or naturalized within the United States prior to its adoption.

Section 5: The terms and conditions of this article are hereby exempted from judicial review.

While I certainly understand that issues will be raised with this proposal as written, it forms a good workable model for ending judicial and federal tyranny via the fourteenth amendment in our generation. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to leave them a free and balanced constitutional government to work with. What they do with it from there is, of course, up to them.

As I've barely skimmed the surface of how the federal government abuses the fourteenth amendment citizenship provisions to its own purposes, please engage me in further discussion on this matter at your convenience.

Respectfully,

Terry D. Morris Jr.
McAlester, OK

We live in a world of constitutional illiterates

2010-08-08T19:20:00.002-05:00

Over the last couple of months I've read several editorials by several different newspaper authors decrying Arizona's disregard for a "fundamental constitutional principle" in making their own immigration law.

What is the fundamental constitutional principle commonly cited by all of these writers? That "federal law trumps State law" of course. Yeah, and "immigration is a federal issue" too. Right.

One editorial writer, Mike Jones of the Tulsa World, cites Article VI, supremacy clause, and dogmatically asserts that this provision means that federal law trumps State law without condition or circumstance, thus obliterating the meaning of the provision. Another editorialist declares that Arizona's law must not stand because it violates the constitution by usurping federal power. Hmm., let's investigate the matter for ourselves:

First, Article VI, supremacy clause declares that federal laws made in pursuance of the constitution are supreme to State and local laws. Can we agree on that?

Second, the tenth amendment declares that the powers not delegated to the federal government by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the States, etc. Can we agree on that?

Third, Article I, Section 8 delegates to the federal Congress authority to make an uniform rule of naturalization. Surely we can agree on that.

Fourth, since naturalization is not immigration and vice versa (we can agree on that, can't we?), and since, therefore, the constitution neither delegates authority over immigration to the federal government, nor prohibits it to the States (uh oh, this one is liable to stick in someone's crawl), and since only federal laws made pursuant to the constitution are declared by the constitution to be supreme over State and local laws,

And,...

since Arizona's law in no way infringes upon the federal government's power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization,

Therefore, I can only conclude that not only is Arizona's immigration law completely constitutional, but that since it IS made in pursuance of the constitution as written, unlike federal immigration law, that Arizona's immigration law trumps federal immigration law, per Article VI, Supremacy clause and the Tenth Amendment.

Good day!

Invisible Contracts -- caught in our own snares

2010-02-27T11:46:00.002-06:00

I won't go into a long dissertation on either the importance of the subject at hand, nor on the contents of the documentation which comprise it. I simply want to turn you on to something someone turned me onto recently while in a meeting between associates in my area. The subject is, of course, Invisible Contracts which we voluntarily (remember, the 14th Amendment only makes involuntary servitude illegal in America, not voluntary servitude) enter into in our commercial lives. The snares which we lay for ourselves by voluntarily agreeing to the terms of the contracts aforesaid, is the payment we receive in return for our lack of self-governing, independent qualities.

Disclaimer: I'm not agreeing with or endorsing the author's beliefs per his Mormon education.

Hiatus

2009-12-21T08:39:00.001-06:00

I'll be away from the computer for a couple of more weeks. Y'all keep after 'em in the meantime.

Isn't this just wonderful?!

2009-11-30T16:03:00.004-06:00

What we have here is not a failure to communicate (which is a problem we've discussed before), it is a failure to understand or comprehend, on the parts of certain individuals so-inclined, the clear and undeniable principle that consolidation of government power into a single governing entity (per what we have now with the central controlling agency -- the so-called federal government) results, invariably (that is, no matter what angle you're coming at it from), in the destruction of freedom or liberty, and the entire basis on which this Republic was founded.

I don't need to quote founders such as Jefferson to solidify my point, it is as it is. But it's sad, and deeply demoralizing. Although I do take heart in the fact that such State Reps as Oklahoma's own Charles Key (founder of the modern Tenth Amendment movement), et al, are working tirelessly to secure the rights guaranteed to us in the written Bill of Rights per Tenth Amendment Resolutions and their offspring, nullification laws on such things as "federal health care" and "gun legislation," among others. (I know this because I've had email conversations with these legislators.)

Anyway, to those of you who cling to the idea that the fourteenth amendment is useful to securing (individual) liberty, I simply say to you this -- name for me specific incidences of how it has served to do so over the past century and a half post introduction and ratification. I rest my case. Whatever the "good intentions" of its writers, as was predicted by many at the time, it has served to enslave the general American populace to supreme rule via the central government. The history is what it is, I can't change it, and wouldn't if I could.

Switching gears

2009-11-28T00:22:00.002-06:00

I hope everyone had a nice Thanksgiving this year, and that for those of you who traveled to have Thanksgiving with family, that you're arriving safely back home.

Anyway, I thought it might be a nice change of pace to switch gears a little bit, so I'm recommending that you visit Craig Winn's Yada Yahweh blogtalkradio program when you get the time. Specifically one or more of his shows in the very intriguing "The Great Galatians Debate" series which are accessible at the site.

Let me know what you think, if you should like, in a comment to this entry.

Federal government bombs Pearl Harbor...

2009-11-24T00:27:00.005-06:00

--awakens sleeping giant with a terrible resolve?

How many times have I said over the last few months that Hussein Obama and the Socialist Democrats are moving the ball forward way too fast, way too aggressively on such items as the infamous 'stimulus' package, 'federalizing' health care and etc., resulting in the alarm they've engendered within a significant and growing proportion of the general American populace?

There's a good discussion ongoing at VFR in which commenter Mark P. touches on this exact point.

Mark P. writes:

Basically, the Left is attempting to do too much, too fast, with way too many changes occurring in too short a time, with results experienced too sson to allow memories to fade. They are too impatient, probably due to the short-term thinking of the new cohort of liberals.

Yep. And though Auster's entry concerns itself with health care specifically, and which Mark P. is mainly speaking to, I suspect that like me Mark understands that it goes beyond federalizing health care.

The Democrats are -- under Hussein, Pelosi, Reid -- fast and furiously, and with reckless abandon such as we've never witnessed in this country, trying to ram every God-forsaken leftist-communist item they can while they can down our throats. And they somehow expect Americans (particularly self-governing producers) to simply lay down and take that b.s.?

I personally think they overestimate the extent of the damage liberalism has already done to the American spirit and psyche. Perhaps not on a conscious level, but the world is to them as they perceive it to be anyhow. I'm not saying that liberal dominance hasn't caused a lot of practically irreparable harm to the country, such as creating a large dependent class, fostering an entitlement mentality amongst certain and sundry demographic groups, constitutional and civic illiteracy and a host of others. I'm simply saying that government indoctrination hasn't quite worked out the way they planned it for a bunch of us. Some of us, evidently, and in spite of all of their efforts to train us up in the ways of the all-encompassing ideology of liberalism, were just too stupid (or hard-headed), evidently, to get it.

I've said before that my education just didn't take because I wasn't that interested in it to start with. No one ever expected or otherwise demanded me to achieve academic excellence, so I didn't because I had no reason to. No; I just did what I had to do, nothing more, nothing less. Which is to say that I maintained something like a B- average throughout my educational career because that was all that was required of me. And as you probably already know, it takes very little effort to maintain a B- grade average, so little in fact that one rarely needs to take a book home or "study" in any meaningful sense of the word. Indeed, I missed so many days of school, so many assignments and tests one year in H.S. that about 2/3 of the way through the semester I finally decided to start attending classes on a regular basis and pull my average up from an F to a high C. That is all it took, going to class, completing my assignments, memorizing test answers and such.

Anyway, I don't rightly know how I got off on that tangent, except to say that I think I was trying to lead to a point, which is this -- perhaps liberalism is, unbeknownst to itself and its wild-eyed kooky advocates and promoters, its own worst enemy what with its low expectations and standards. You know, if you begin with low standards for academic achievement, and you create an entire educational apparatus (curriculum, methodology, philosophy and so forth) lining up with those low standards, then maybe it contains its own inherently self-destructive mechanism which is bound to self-initiate at some point along the way. Generations come and they go, and liberalism continues its march forward until it reaches its apex. After which point, what? -- that which goes up must come down, following the laws of physics? I don't know, but it's an interesting thesis that might be worth pursuing further.

Y'all be sure to read the VFR discussion linked above.

When a low-level grunt goes way too far

2009-11-20T20:34:00.007-06:00

(Note: The entry has undergone some revision since first posting.)

Allow me to set the stage for you: On three separate occasions while driving across a bridge near my home, a bridge currently under fairly intensive constructive maintenance, a certain flagman has copped an attitude with me in particular. With me! I mean, if you're a flunkie flagman and you feel the irrepressible urge to cop an attitude with someone while in performance of your duties, I'm definitely not the one to do it with.

These incidents became progressively worse each time, culminating in the events that unfolded below.

The first was fairly innocuous; the flagman did cop a slight attitude with me, but since (I flatter myself) I'm a pretty fair-minded person with experience enough to know that sometimes people just have bad days, or bad moments as it were, I just let it go, acting as though it never happened. As an old friend and mentor used to say to me, "you can never be sure what's going on in an otherwise decent person's life that may be contributing to his acting abnormally or out of character on certain occasions, under certain circumstances or pressures." In other words, I gave the flagman the benefit of the doubt on this first occasion. The second incident was significantly worse, and I responded only by giving him one of those "don't let it happen again" looks as I passed by him. His glaring response on this occasion indicated that he wasn't smart enough to know when he was up.

The third incident was, by far, the worst. Having gotten behind a rock-hauling truck and trailer on my way to work several mornings ago, I was traveling at a very low rate of speed. When the truck stopped in front of the flagman's station, the flagman began waving it forward. At least this was my impression. Seconds later, and with the truck not responding, the flagman began to flail his arms in the air as if to say "go, dammit go!" I wasn't sure whether he was telling me or the trucker to go, so I erred on the side of caution given that the road in question is very narrow under normal circumstances, not to mention while under construction. Anyway, a mere two or three seconds later, the flagman began to flail his arms into the air even more aggressively, apparently cursing in the meantime to add insult to injury, and pointing directly at me. At this point there was no question about who his aggressive posturing was intended for. So, here's what I did in response...

I very calmly pulled up beside this belligerant little (actually he was about a hundred pounds over weight, by my estimation) punk, rolled my window down, and proceeded to give him a stern and forceful piece of my mind, to wit:

"Hey, son!, I strongly advise you to drop the attitude ... NOW!" He replied: "why?" "Because, whether you realize it or not, you're working in the capacity of a public servant, and I'm the damn public, first off," I said. "I was waving at you to go," said he. To which I replied, "I thought you were waving at the truck ahead of me. But that's irrelevant, your display was completely uncalled for and unacceptable." His response?: "What are you going to do about it?"

Now, no more than ten years ago (ask anyone that knows me) I'd have unloaded out of my vehicle and thrown him into the lake -- with extreme prejudice -- without even a second thought at such a display of inappropriate, provoking behavior. But, of course, he's ten years too late, in my particular case, for that manner of dealing with his over-the-top, belligerant attitude. So I replied, as he turned and began walking away, "I'll have a talk with your boss, do you understand me?" He replied over his shoulder, "he's right there," pointing at a vehicle parked on the side of the road behind and to the right of me. I said, "no; you don't understand -- I don't want to talk to a flunkie supervisor on the job site, I'll be talking to the man!" At which point I drove away.

I didn't want to talk to his immediate supervisor because I'm versed enough to know that there's a lot of inter-company loyalty that exists between flunkies like that. So, I simply began calling the main office of his employer. No one answered that day as everyone was out of the office. But they called me back early next morning, and we got it all straightend out over the phone (apparently mine isn't the first incident they've had to deal with involving this particular individual). But I also explained to the caller that I either know or am acquainted with everyone who lives in my neighborhood; that at least three of these individuals, off the top of my head, would worry about the consequences of their literally wiping the pavement up with him, as a response to his same belligerance towards me, after they'd already committed the act. Much like I likely would have done ten or more years ago. That is, assuming I could have caught him (my experience is that overweight does not necessarily mean slow in the running sense). Some of these people can move fairly fast, depending on how threatened they feel. But anyway,...

What's the moral of the story? I don't know. I know that several days later the flagman in question is no longer working at that particular job site. It was never my intention to have him lose his job, nor to have him moved to another location, though I did suggest to his superior that if he couldn't handle the job's public service related requirements, then they might look to finding him another position, more suitable to his ... peculiar talents.

Anyway, another day, another dollar, and another product of liberalism brought low. Such is the burden that falls invariably on the shoulders of those of us who still understand that "tolerance" of certain anti-social behaviorisms can be as destructive, if not more destructive, than any form of intolerance. Both on an individual and a societal level.

Pastor Manning headed for the Clink?

2009-11-19T18:20:00.001-06:00

Trivia time

2009-11-19T07:32:00.003-06:00

Question: What is, stacked vertically, taller than the Empire State Building and the Washington Monument combined, growing exponentially, is pink in color, the demand for which has once already exhausted the nation's pink paper supply, and is the brainchild of World Net Daily editor Joseph Farah?

That's right:

Should I take back what I said the other day about Social Cons?

2009-11-18T07:30:00.003-06:00

Below is posted the content of an email I sent to Lawrence Auster just a few moments ago:

Is someone reading VFR?

Look at the email below from Tim Wildmon of AFA, particularly the first bolded sentence. Keep in mind that AFA and Dr. Dobson's groups (Focus on the Family and its political arm CitizenLink) are closely aligned, and, I think (actually I know, but I can't go dig up evidence of this right now), are in regular communication with one another.

Are we seeing some progress here amongst the Social Cons? I can't agree with the idea conveyed further in the email stating that we must attack abortion funding in the bill as a separate issue from the entire bill itself. In case the bill passes. This is all but conceding defeat. No! We must attack the bill as a whole as a clear violation of the constitution, because that's the only basis on which it can be defeated, with or without abortion funding, with or without healthcare for illegal aliens, with or without so-called 'death panels', with or without healthcare rationing, with or without criminalization for non-compliance. Etc.

But are we seeing some progress?

The AFA Action Alert email is posted in its entirety below.

Stop the Washington takeover of our health care system
Urgent: Contact your senators today!
November 17, 2009

Dear Terry,

The Senate may vote as early as Thursday to move on its version of the government takeover of health care.

At the president's urging, Democrats are expected to use a parliamentary maneuver which will enable them to strip the pro-life Stupak-Pitts amendment from the House bill and push through a bill that will involve the use of your taxpayer dollars and mine to pay for abortions.

It must be clear that we oppose the Democratic health care legislation under consideration with or without protections for unborn human life. The Democrats' plan will increase the cost of health care, require rationing of care to seniors, create 111 new bureaucracies, and increase the already bloated federal deficit by a staggering amount.

But we also must make our voices heard any time and every time human life is at stake. Should a health care bill unfortunately reach the president's desk, we must do everything in our power to see that it does not use taxpayer funds to kill unborn children. Conservative estimates are that taxpayer funding of abortion under the government takeover will increase the number of abortions by one-third.

Take Action

E-mail your senators today and urge them firmly but politely to oppose the Washington takeover of our health care system with or without protections for unborn human life. Please also tell them to keep the Stupak-Pitts pro-life amendment in the health care bill that will keep the government from funding abortion, should the bill pass. (bolded text in original email)

I'm pleased to see that Mr. Wildmon and AFA have taken the position above of opposition to the 'healthcare' bill whether it contains abortion funding or not. Hopefully they can influence Dr. Dobson's groups to do the same. But the bottom line for me is this, if this monstrous government take-over of healthcare in America is successfully passed and signed into law, we are left with very few peaceful means (State level nullification laws, for instance) to prevent the wholesale desruction of life, liberty, and property which we have heretofore declared to be our unalienable individual rights as human beings and as Americans, subject to and protected by a written inviolable constitution.

I ask again in the words of Patrick Henry: Is life so dear; is peace so sweet???

Sarah and Barack, peas in everyone's pod

2009-11-18T04:39:00.005-06:00

What is the single, common(est) denominator between Sarah Palin and Hussein Obama? In a comment to the VFR entry, The Freepers on Laura Wood on Sarah Palin, frequent commenter Clark Coleman explains his recent epiphany of sorts about Sarah Palin,

It suddenly occurred to me when reading this blog entry that Sarah Palin is the conservative version of Barack Obama. Many of us (even Obama himself) noted that Obama was a blank canvas on which his followers could project their political hopes. Why? Not because of his political experience or capabilities or clearly stated policy positions, but because of his personal life story. E.g., Obama is going to be a post-racial unifier. What was there in his past to indicate such a thing? Nothing. In fact, just the opposite. But his followers had hopes, you see. Ditto for numerous other policy areas where people had hopes not based on his statements or past actions.

Sarah Palin is a dyed in the wool conservative who will lead the GOP out of the mushy moderate wilderness. How do we know this? By reading her pronouncements on immigration, feminism, etc.? Obviously not. Rather, it is because of her personal life story. She is a small town girl, one of us flyover-country types, who identifies with us and not the Beltway elite. We can project all our conservative hopes on her. Because of her personal qualities, she is a conservative political blank canvas, ready for us to paint to our liking, just as Obama was for white liberals.

LA replies to Clark Coleman:

I think this is an important, basic insight into the Palin phenomenon..

Further, your analysis also explains the left's overwrought reaction to her. Earlier today I was saying to a friend, "Why do people love her so much, and why do people hate her so much? Neither makes sense." In fact, as your comment makes me realize, the left loathes and fears her for the same illusory reason that the right loves and adores her: both sides imagine her to be some super conservative. Both sides are taking her biography, her symbology, as representing something real about her politics.

The right and the left are having this huge, bloody battle over Sarah Palin in Plato's Cave, fighting over illusory images.

In a short follow-on entry directing readers to comments in the discussion, LA boils it down even further:

Clark Coleman has a good explanation of why so many conservatives believe—without any evidence or record to back up the belief—that Sarah Palin is a great conservative. She is the conservative version of Barack Obama, a blank screen on which people project their hopes. I add that liberals hate her for the same reason that conservatives love her. (emphasis mine)

It's a good point and it ought to be stated with as much simplicity as often as opportunity arises. Liberals hate Sarah Palin for the exact same reason that conservatives love her, and without what?, without any evidence or record to back up the belief about her that they both hold in common.

Not to toot my own horn (I wouldn't do that! ;-)), but I said as much very early on in one of several short exchanges between Auster and I in the Great Palin Debate of 2008:

TM to LA:

Here's the subject line of an email I received yesterday from Dr. Dobson's CitizenLink newsletter:

Dr. Dobson: McCain's choice of Palin: "Outstanding."

Outstanding?

I don't get the immediate display of enthusiasm among "conservatives" for this choice. Not only does she not have a political record to speak of, but nobody really knows anything of substance about her. Is it that they were just so dismayed and disgruntled by their nominee that McCain's choice of a pro-life, pro-gun, anti-homosexual rights (female) running mate far exceeded all their expectations?

It seems like President Bush's phrase "the soft bigotry of low expectations" could be easily customized to fit this situation.

LA replied:

It's not true that she does not have a political record to speak of, and that nobody really knows anything of substance about her. The issue is whether she has the background to be president, not whether she has a political record to speak of.

TM replied:

Okay, she has a political record that consists of her time as governor of Alaska, and as mayor of the city of Wasilla (population: ten thousand).

You're right about what the issue is. And in my opinion she definitely does not have the background to be president. But who does in this race?

By the way, I never did, that I recall anyway, follow up on my statement in the exchange where I said that Bush's phrase could be easily customized to fit this situation, so allow me to do so here. We may call it, if you like, "The false conservatism of high expectations."

As has been said so many times before, modern Americans are so utterly steeped in liberalism that very often they don't know that they're liberals; that their words and actions are almost altogether liberal. Which is probably a good partial explanation for why study after study has shown that most Americans identify themselves as more conservative than liberal. And yet. But then again, I don't put too much stock in the results of most "studies" anyhow. So the point, at least as far as I'm concerned, is probably a moot one. Which begs the question, why'd I raise it in the first place? :-)

End of initial entry.

**********

I should like to add that we now know quite a bit more about Sarah Palin, her politics, her family life and so on, than we did during the initial stages of the Great Sarah Palin Debate conducted between August and September of 2008. Indeed, the debate itself revealed, or helped to reveal, or put in proper perspective, a lot about Sarah Palin that was not formerly known or understood by the average American, conservative and liberal alike. It's one of the things I most appreciate about VFR, and why I read and participate in the discussions there on a daily basis.

The bow, what does it mean?

2009-11-16T08:48:00.004-06:00

Here we have Obama again debasing the presidency, and the United States by extension, with what is apparently going to be standard procedure for this rogue whenever he meets with a foreign Monarch, dictator, whatever. But what does it all mean?

See Auster's article, Obama marks the path for future West/non-West relations here, where several readers, including yours truly, offer their perspectives, and/or theories. Sorry y'all, I'm generally not a big conspiracy theorist, but I just don't trust this dude and those that advise him at all. I think they're all criminals, and accordingly think and act like criminals. Of course they're way better at it than your average, low-level petty criminal scum. But of course this makes them worse and more dangerous than your average criminal scum.

Also, and as a side note, I take serious exception to Daniel H.'s comment stating "I didn't think that he [Obama] could go lower than Bush but he has." I've seen some form of that statement made around the blogosphere numerous times over the last several months, and every time it just gets under my crawl. What did they think Obama was? Why in the name of heaven did they believe that Obama, with the boatload of baggage he carried to the presidency, was going to be somehow better than Bush, who, whatever your differences with his policies, is at least an American born-and-raised? It just kills me when people say stuff like that. I personally had a lot of issues with Bush while he was president, namely his constant reiteration that Islam is a religion of peace, his right-liberalism/neoconservatism, his fiscal policies, NCLB, the Patriot Act, etc., just off the top of my head. I mean, the list is long and distinguished. But to say or imply that you somehow thought that Obama couldn't possibly be any worse is just, well ... ridiculous.

Social Cons aiding and abetting Congress and the President in destroying America?

2009-11-15T06:33:00.024-06:00

Sad to say, but yes, it's true. Evidently unbeknownst to themselves. Indeed, they somehow think they're thwarting the genocidal designs of the federal government by taking issue with the abortion funding in the 'healthcare' bill.

Chiu Chunling's initial comment to the previous entry reminded me of the email notification I received on Nov. 9 from CitizenLink directing subscribers to a 'victory' piece written by CitizenLink editor Kim Trobee. As I indicated in my reply to Chiu's comments, I had intended to do a short write-up about it but it had slipped my mind. Anyway, better late than never I suppose. Here are the last few sentences from the Trobee article:

Now, attention turns to the Senate, where lawmakers soon will consider their version of health-care reform. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said his bill will "look markedly different" from the House offering.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, said pro-lifers must continue to contact their lawmakers.

"We will remain vigilant and shift our efforts to the Senate," she said, "to ensure that these same pro-life protections are added to the Senate bill."

Better still, try these sentences on for size:

Ashley Horne, federal policy analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said there were numerous troubling aspects of the bill in addition to the life concerns.

"Many of those fall outside our area of expertise," she said. "That's why Focus on the Family Action remained neutral on passage of the overall bill and focused our efforts on the important abortion funding issue."

Huh?! Educate thyself! Or otherwise get the hell out of the business of attempting to do that which you're ill-equipped and ill-prepared to do in the first place.

This kind of thing is precisely the reason the pro-life lobby is generally looked down on and distrusted by the larger, more well rounded conservative community. And rightfully so in my opinion. They're so obsessed with abortion that they're otherwise rendered ill-equipped and ineffective in protecting the God-given rights of all Americans, including the rights of the unborn. What in heaven's name do they think they're accomplishing with all of this misdirected and ultimately wasted effort? I guess they gotta do something to occupy their time. But is it really necessary for them to engage in counterproductive, counterinuitive behavior as a matter of occupying that time? I suppose so. But I can't see any good reason to just let it go unchallenged.

And "Neutrality"! Someone ought to remove that concept from the American vocabulary. It's about as illegitimate a concept as that associated with the term "amorality." "Neutral," "amoral" -- am I seeing a similarity here? But I digress...

Evidently they can't see that they cannot ultimately win this fight on these grounds. The problem with 'government healthcare' is, well, government healthcare. Not abortion funding, not services provided for illegal aliens, not 'death panels,' etc. Those are all problems, sure, but they're not THE problem. Nor do they combine to form THE problem.

The federal constitution provides no avenue by which the federal Congress may simply effect a hostile take-over of the healthcare industry, such as it is, in America. The only way it can legitimately be done is via the provisions of Article V and a legal transfer of that authority from the states and the People to the central government. Or, to paraphrase General Washington, "by a solemn and authentic act of the whole American People," anything short of which leaves the existing constitution as it always has been, "sacredly obligatory on all." End of story. (BTW, when was it exactly that Washington's Farewell Speech was removed from our political scriptures in America? I must have missed the memo on that.)

But here we have a lobbying group, supposedly "conservative," supposedly "pro-life" which has resigned itself to the idea that the central government is somehow authorized to run roughshod over the constitution at its will and pleasure (not their area of expertise, don't ya know), an idea which defies both its supposed conservatism and its pro-life claims. So instead of attacking the root of the problem as they should if they're going to attack it at all, they go after single provisions in the bill, incidental to THE problem. In this case abortion funding.

The problem here, as we see, is that they're willing to tacitly go along with the blatantly unconstitutional healthcare 'reform' package and the unconstitutional means Congress is using to effect it, so long as the feds make the empty promise, in return for their support (which they claim is a "neutral" position), that no abortion funding will be attached to the bill. That's being "neutral," eh? Could have fooled me. And when (not "if") the feds eventually add abortion funding back into the bill, before or after it becomes "law" -- it matters not -- what will the pro-life lobby do then? Ah, there'll be a bunch of handwringing; a lot of wailing and knashing of teeth issuing forth from these people. That is, until the new wears off or they otherwise tire of it and move on to begging their federal masters not to add additional provisions for the funding of late-term and partial-birth abortions. All the while remaining "neutral" on government-run healthcare, appealing, of course, to their lack of expertise on the subject of the whole enchilada.

Such are the actions of abject slaves, and/or, of would-be totalitarians, not of freemen. And I should like to know how any slave, or group of slaves (granting the pro-life lobby the benefit of the doubt here, only because I don't believe their intentions to be evil), can ever accomplish the goal of protecting the lives and liberties of the relatively strong and healthy among us, to say nothing of the most vulnerable in our society? Ans: They can't. Period.

Is life so dear or peace so sweet? Forbid it Almighty God!

If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?

The CitizenLink article is posted in its entirety beneath the fold.

11-9-09

* Print This Article
* Forward to a Friend

Pro-Life Amendment to Health-Care Reform Passes in House

by Kim Trobee, editor

Representatives vote to prohibit federal funding of abortion.

An amendment prohibiting government funding of abortion in the House version of health-care reform passed on Saturday by a vote of 240-194.

The Stupak-Pitts amendment was the culmination of an effort by Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats to insert language similar to the Hyde Amendment.

The Hyde Amendment restricts abortion coverage under Medicaid.

Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., said the coalition of pro-life lawmakers remained determined.

"We felt strongly about it," he said. "We were not going to vote or even let (health care) come to the floor for a vote with language that would fund abortions."

Many Democrats had maintained their plan would not include funding for abortions, but closer inspection revealed it would do just that.

Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, said Democrat leaders spent months "misrepresenting" the plan.

"The bipartisan House vote is a sharp blow to the White House's pro-abortion smuggling operation," he said. "But, we know that the White House and pro-abortion congressional Democratic leaders will keep trying to enact government funding of abortion and will keep trying to conceal their true intentions, so there is a long battle ahead."

Ashley Horne, federal policy analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said there were numerous troubling aspects of the bill in addition to the life concerns.

"Many of those fall outside our area of expertise," she said. "That's why Focus on the Family Action remained neutral on passage of the overall bill and focused our efforts on the important abortion funding issue."

Now, attention turns to the Senate, where lawmakers soon will consider their version of health-care reform. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said his bill will "look markedly different" from the House offering.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, said pro-lifers must continue to contact their lawmakers.

"We will remain vigilant and shift our efforts to the Senate," she said, "to ensure that these same pro-life protections are added to the Senate bill."

One final note: I don't doubt the sincerity or the 'good intentions' of the pro-life lobby in trying to protect the lives of the unborn by lobbying Congress to remove provisions from the 'healthcare bill' aimed at destroying life and the advancement of the 'culture of death.' The same may be said of those who concern themselves exclusively with the provisions granting services to illegal aliens, and so forth and so on. The point is simply that the efforts and resources of these various groups are horribly misused and misguided. Their interests and that of their followers (not to mention that of the unborn) would be a lot better served if they would direct them to the recommendation and advocacy of the passage of State level nullification laws and otherwise ignore the central government and its unconstitutional actions on health care and a variety of other issues. But we seem to be particularly adept at pursuing such misguided, miscalculated adventures in America. It isn't like the pro-lifers are the only ones doing it.

P.S. Is it just me, or does this whole hopelessly ineffective movement seem to be headed up by emotionally driven ... women? Que the attack dogs.

The Rise and Fall of the CAIR Empire?

2009-11-14T07:56:00.003-06:00

Two or three days ago I read a Gates of Vienna article referencing another online article claiming that CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) is currently on a long-running, steep, irreversible decline, both in terms of membership and of donations received. Thus in terms of influence.

My initial, instinctive reaction to both articles was pure skepticism. Skepticism on the level of that I experienced a couple of weeks ago when the MSM was reporting that 'healthcare reform' lacked the support needed to pass it in the HoR. Though nothing could possibly be more satisfying to my mind than to witness the decline and fall of the CAIR empire. And the quicker the better.

Let us review what the basic foundational mission of the CAIR organization is, in CAIR's own words as attached to each and every article posted at its website. And as we read, let us recall the words generally attributed to William James (though I have it on good authority that he wasn't the first to say it) which state, "there is nothing so absurd than if you repeat something often enough people begin to believe it."

Here is the statement, quite literally plucked at random from an article currently posted at the site:

CAIR is America's largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization. Its mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding. (bolded text added)

Before we move on, I want to re-emphasize the importance of the bolded statements above. Everything else in that statement, with the possible exception of the first sentence (and that's if we strike out the 'civil liberties' part), is just a flat-out bald-faced lie. Which, by the way, Islamists are particularly good and proficient at.

Muslims don't give two hoots about "enhancing understanding of Islam." Indeed, they know that to truly enhance understanding of Islam in Western society is counterproductive, thus destructive to their ultimate goal. Which is precisely why they exploit the freedoms afforded by our system to enhance misunderstanding of Islam(President Bush may well be their greatest success story to date.). But it ain't their fault that we're generally too stupid to understand this. Likewise, they could care less about "encouraging [real] dialogue." The only kind of 'dialogue' they care about 'encouraging' is the kind that conceals the true nature of their religion, passing it off to be "peaceful" and whatnot. Again, they can't be faulted for our collective lack of discernment on this point. Neither do they care anything for the 'protection of civil liberties,' except insofar as their ultimate mission to rule the world in the name of Allah is thereby advanced. After all, what Muslim country is there in existence today, or that has ever existed in the history of the world, which has at any time placed any kind of significance or import on the 'protection of civil liberties?' Take your time.

Anyway, getting back to the bolded text in CAIR's statements, what might be gained by the all-important, self-proclaimed, constantly repeated CAIR mission of empowering 'American Muslims?' Well, of course, and as I've pointed out numerous times before at this place and others, empowering 'American Muslims' means nothing less than disempowering American non-Muslims. It being a simple mathematical fact that the whole is exactly equal to the sum of its parts. If, therefore, 'American Muslims' are currently short on 'empowerment' by CAIR's estimation, then the only way to make up the deficit is to wrench power away from those who currently have it. Which is to say, again, to disempower non-Muslim Americans. The question then must be asked, at what point in the process of empowering 'American Muslims'/disempowering of American non-Muslims will CAIR and others be satisfied that 'American Muslims' are sufficiently empowered/American non-Muslims are sufficiently disempowered? Let us put the question to CAIR communications director Mr. Ibrahim Hooper. Mr. Hooper:

I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future," Hooper told the Minneapolis Star Tribune in 1993. "But I'm not going to do anything violent to promote that. I'm going to do it through education. [TM: You go girl! Every subversive, hostile organization in America needs a "communications director" just like you!]

Quite so. Well, we can't all be foot soldiers/would-be suicide-killers/assassins, now can we Mr. Hooper? Your job, by Allah, is to "educate" (i.e., promote misunderstanding of Islam) your way into a position to overthrow the U.S. government and our governing institutions and to replace it with Islamic Sharia Law, while the low-level, crazy-eyed, nutjob grunts like Hasan plan and carry out terrorist attacks on non-Muslim Americans as an integral part of the selfsame mission. Suicidal(istic) attacks that you, sir, and every last one of your co-conspirators secretly support, right? Right.

But I digress. The point of this entry is/was originally, and as indicated by the post title, to discuss whether or not CAIR is truly failing in its mission to empower 'American Muslims' via the process of enhancing misunderstanding of Islam, of encouraging self-serving, misleading, taqiyya consistent dialogue, of 'protecting' Muslim 'civil liberties' at the expense of all others, and of building liberty-destroying coalitions with the non-discerning among us, by way of all of these? World Net Daily has an article up this morning in which it discusses CAIR's post-Ft. Hood Massacre-boasting of its Muslim-favorable influence on the American media, otherwise known as the MSM. Yes, including Fox News.

My question is simply this: Is this a desparate attempt by CAIR to re-take some lost ground; to regain control over their ultimate destiny? Could it be that my initial, gut reaction to the story of CAIR's demise as reported at GoV was all wrong? Is it possible that we're seeing a resurgence of the spirit that ultimately prevented Flight 93 from hitting its intended target on that fateful day? One can only hope.

A spate of new Non-Islam Theories of Islamic Extremism about to be unleashed

2009-11-11T05:20:00.003-06:00

Technically this new wave of a well established means of explaining away the Islamic cause of Islamic extremism has already been unleashed. But it will take us some time to quantify and delineate between the various (new) theories in written form. In the meantime, let's review the characteristics common to the existing and documented Non-Islam Theories of Islamic Extremism per Lawrence Auster:

LA writes:

Islam in its concrete particulars is too alien and threatening to liberal Westerners for them to acknowledge its existence as it really is. So they keep putting Islam into this or that Western-centric conceptual box in order to make Islam seem familiar and assimilable. But because these non-Islam theories of Islamic extremism are all false or inadequate, new theories, or new variations on old theories, must keep being invented. The never-ending compulsion of Western intellectuals to explain uniquely Islamic beliefs and institutions in non-Islamic terms expresses the very essence of liberalism, which is to deny the existence of human differences that really matter.

The prerequisites:

(1) Denial by liberal Westerners that Islam is what it is in its concrete particulars. Resulting in,

(2) a propensity amongst leading Western writers and thinkers to place Islam, or a particular instance of Islamic violence or terrorism (such as Hasan's recent jihad on Ft. Hood), inside a sort of walled-in Western-centric conceptual framework in an attempt to explain it in terms other than the unacceptable, disallowed framework of Islam being the cause of Islamic extremism.

(3) But since every single Western-centric theory of Islamic extremism, or any combination thereof has proved, thus far, to be inadequate or utterly false, and since admitting the actual truth about Islam as the source of Islamic extremism would at once destroy the leading and dominant principles of modern liberal society, which itself is unacceptable, therefore,

(4) such individuals engage themselves in a continual and frantic search for, and discovery of, new Western-centric conceptualizations of Islam by which to explain, in acceptable (i.e., liberal) terms, the propensity of its adherents towards acts of violence.

Hence we see with this latest Islamic attack on Ft. Hood -- an attack committed by an individual who doesn't fit the current Western-centric profile formerly established in the preceding Non-Islam explanations for Islamic extremism, i.e., he wasn't poor or marginalized, he wasn't uneducated, etc. -- the introduction of a spate of new Non-Islam Theories of Islamic Extremism unleashed in verbal form. Of which the preceding blog entry contains but one.

Dr. Phil and Medicine Woman tell us how a guy like Hasan can snap at a moment's notice

2009-11-09T07:19:00.003-06:00

(H/T: GoV)

First of all, let me apologize to my readers for hosting such mindless nonsense. But this kind of attitude, this kind of suicidal idiocy, my friends, is what we're up against in modern, liberal, suicidal America.

So, is Medicine Woman, aka Shoshana Johnson, telling us in her own way that she could snap at anytime too since she apparently feels ... deeply? Nice that she declares herself to suffer from PTSD. Not only is she another government welfare case, but she's got herself a crutch to lean all the days of her life.

Craig Winn discusses Hasan's Jihad on Ft. Hood and the evil that did nothing to prevent it

2009-11-08T20:54:00.004-06:00

Thoughts on the Ft. Hood Massacre

2009-11-06T07:37:00.003-06:00

You probably don't want to know what I really think on the subject because I paint all Muslims living in America with the same broad anti-Western, anti-American brush. Every last one of them is a liar and a subversive infiltrator, not in any way to be trusted in my opinion, particularly in the officer ranks in the U.S. military.

CAIR condemned the attack in a press release yesterday, you say? LIARS!!!

Oath Keepers shooting themselves in the foot. Or, SPLC and leftism 1 -- Oath Keepers 0

2009-10-31T10:01:00.017-05:00

(Note: The entry has undergone some minor revisions since first posted.)

(Note: Robert Gomez has posted a thoughtful response to my critical comments under the Oklahoma Oath Keepers discussion thread mentioned below. And I reply.)

While browsing the Oklahoma Oath Keepers message forum last night, I ran across this discussion started by Oklahoma State Director Robert Gomez.

Mr. Gomez writes:

Since I joined the group I have not seen nor gotten the impression from any writings on our group’s forum to suggest that any of the Oklahoma group members have any feelings other than a deep love of our Republic and its foundation the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

With that said.

The media and former President Carter’s comments along with Speaker Pelosi’s innuendos are stirring up the notion that anyone opposed to the current administration and its policies are racist.

The Oath Keepers as an organization cannot nor will not be linked to anything other than the truth.

We are a group of concerned citizens that took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and we vow to continue to uphold or reaffirm that oath.

We must stay focused on the real issues that threaten the Republic and not be distracted or fall into the traps they are setting for opposition groups. Racism or any type of discrimination will not be tolerated by the Oath Keepers.

Later in the thread Mr. Gomez mentions the SPLC and its depiction of the Oath Keepers as a "racist" organization. Other commenters quickly join in to the "Racism or any type of discrimination will not be tolerated by Oath Keepers" solo began by Robert Gomez in his initial entry. And the thread accordingly deteriorates into a leftier-than-thou chorus of commentators singing the worshipful praises of the ruling principles of modern American society -- absolute equality and non-discriminationism. One commenter in particular declares that she not only supports and celebrates racial and cultural diversity (and the more the better!), but that she cannot possibly function well without it, nor can this society presumably by her reasoning, or by inference. She follows up on the point, saying that she cannot understand why anyone would want to surround themselves with people ethnically, culturally, religiously like themselves, adding "yuck!" Of course, she's probably not telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth on this point, but whatever. After all, she isn't under oath here. Or is she?

After reading the comments in the thread last night and sleeping on it, I returned to the thread this morning and posted the following "racist" comment:

TM writes:

Well, first of all, the hate-obsessed leftist SPLC wouldn't garner to itself the slightest attention, positive or negative, in a healthy, self-confident (as opposed to self-loathing) society not dominated by the destructive influence of liberalism. Second, the race-baiters and hate-baiters at organizations like the SPLC et al, are always going to deem such organizations as this one as inherently racist, homophobic, xenophobic, ad infinitum. That is their job.

Since there aren't enough real racist haters out there for the SPLC and others to concentrate their efforts on, they accordingly go after groups like this. But the onus is on them to prove their charges, not on the Oath Keepers to prove its innocence. Speaking of which, some of you seem to be convinced that the latter is the case, not the former. Hence, you expend all kinds of effort trying to prove your non-racism and the non-racism of the Oath Keeper organization by extension, showing why you can't possibly be a racist and etcetera ("I love diversity," "I don't have a racist bone in my body," "I have a lot of friends who are black," and the like.). This approach of yours, which gets repeated over and over and over again in a variety of ways tends to place severe restrictions on the ability of such organizations to tackle the tough issues.

Personally, I ain't real sure what the term "racism" means anymore, or whether it has a fixed meaning that we can all rely on at any given moment under any given set of circumstances. It can't possibly mean the hatred of a fellow human being based entirely on the color of his skin because the term is constantly applied to people who are anything but. But speaking for myself, and only for myself, being realistic about and speaking candidly about racial and cultural differences, about the destructiveness of mass immigration and multiculturalism and etc., cannot be said to be "racist." If it can, then at least 80% of Oklahoma's population is "racist" by definition, since it supports the provisions of H.B. 1804 by that very margin.

But anyway...

I'm beginning to understand now why the Oath Keepers chose, from the great abundance of far stronger examples of their supposed point, to include the footage from the aftermath of Katrina in N.O. in their promotional video that I posted the other day. They're trying to show how non-racist they are, which seems to be a main, if not THE main focus of the group as it stands now. (Actually, I realized this several days ago, so it's technically not accurate to say that "I'm beginning to realize...," but that's beside the point)

But my overarching point is really very simple -- if "racism" and if "discrimination of any kind" (I ain't real sure whose definition of these terms we're applying, but I have my suspicions) will not be tolerated by the Oath Keepers, which is to say that open and candid discussion of racial and cultural differences, of mass third-world immigration to the U.S., of the comparative dependency of one group of people vs. the comparative independency of another group of people, of one group's relative dedication to the principles of the constitution and our form of government vs. another group's relative hatred for those principles, and etc., will not be tolerated by the Oath Keepers, then what purpose can they possibly serve more than being enablers for the SPLC and its destructive, America-hating agenda?

I could say a lot more on the subject, but I'll save it for the comment section.

More on the negligent parent front

2009-10-30T07:56:00.003-05:00

We've had this discussion before. And here we go again. It's getting worse, y'all, not better. And it's going to continue to get worse, not better. Call me what you will (I've likely been called worse by better), but there's simply no way in hell that I'd ever, in a million years, place any of my children in a situation like that, including the boys but especially the girls. Indeed, as I've said several times before, I don't consider it one of my parental responsibilities to go about destroying their natural defense mechanisms endowed in them by their Creator. Quite the opposite.

Speaking of which, I learned only yesterday that we have a group of workers, of Mexican descent, working across the way in our neighborhood. Apparently one of them had the idea the other day to stop his vehicle and talk to two of my daughters while they were walking to a friend's house about a block away. To which the girls beat a path back to the house. But the larger point is that apparently the individual in question is looking to get his *ss in a sling.

Why Oath Keepers?

2009-10-28T03:41:00.003-05:00

Following up on the previous entry, where in the comments section I disapprovingly mentioned Streiff's comments under his own RedState art...hit piece, here's a sampling of what I was talking about:

Streiff writes:

[...]

The Civil War established states can’t secede from the Union contra “oath keeper” point 5.

The Civil Rights movement could not have succeeded without the direct use of federal troops without the consent of the state government, contra “oath keeper” point 4.

If you are comfortable taking the left’s point of view on Jose Padilla while taking the side of Orval Faubus on segregation and Jeff Davis on slavery feel free because that is what this group is doing.

Scare quotes AND non capitalization of proper names! Whoa!, this guy's unstoppable!

I'm sure glad that he helped to clear the fog from my head with the two points above. Otherwise I'd still be trying to see my way clear to understanding why it is that states and local governments can never have authority to protect themselves and their citizens against federal tyranny in the form of disarming American citizens contra "bill of rights" point 2; of conducting illegal searches against them contra "bill of rights" point 4, and so on.

Let's take "bill of rights" point 2, which states:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Read it carefully again. Obviously the wild-eyed lunatics who wrote that were high on hemp or something. Hence federal prohibition on the farming of hemp and manufacture of hemp products. All non-lunatic, genuine Oath Keepers like Streiff know, for example, that any firearm capable of firing, and/or of being manipulated to fire, purposely or not, more than one round per trigger pull can never be safely entrusted to the care and ownership of private American citizens. Only wild-eyed, dangerous lunatics like the "oath keepers" and the hemped-up provocateurs who wrote point 2 of the "bill of rights" believe otherwise. Hence the dire need for federal gun laws contra "oath keepers" point 1; and of enforcement of federal gun laws contra "oath keepers" point 7. And etc...

After all, federal prosecution, disarming and subsequent imprisonment of David Olofson, contra "oath keepers" points 1 and 7 respectively, could never have succeeded without federal intervention. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. How about you.

Oath Keepers: Not on our watch!

2009-10-25T22:44:00.004-05:00

Watch this moving video:

Here's the Oath Keepers website, which I'm adding to my blogroll.

You should know that there's already a fairly sizeable controversy brewing over this fledgling little organization. And not necessarily from a quarter that you'd initially suspect. That is, unless you have a pretty good understanding of the difference between small-c conservatism and large-C Conservatism. I admit that the lines of distinction between the two are sometimes difficult to discern. But by the same token they're sometimes pretty darn clear, as in the case that I'm about to present.

Now, I'm not a follower of "Red State." I've been to the site no more than two or three times, and that was at least a year ago, probably longer. I don't even recall, to be quite honest, why the site didn't appeal to me to begin with. But judging by what I read at the site earlier, I think it's safe to assume that it turned me off primarily because it is, at best, small-c conservative, which I regard as part of the problem, not the solution.

In any event, certain particulars of the forthcoming Red State article by Streiff have already been addressed by the Oath Keepers. Nonetheless, the article is copied and pasted below in its entirety. Without further comment from me. We can discuss it in the comment section if you like.

The Malignant Nature of the Oath Keeper Movement

Oath Breakers Not Oath Keepers

Posted by Streiff (Profile)

Wednesday, October 21st at 2:22PM EDT

321 Comments

Truly malignant ideas crop up in a democracy with the frequency of toadstools after a summer rain storm. Most of these ideas are dismissed by the great majority of citizens after public debate in one fashion or another. Some of the ideas hang on despite evidence to the contrary (sorry Texas was readmitted to the Union and the Income Tax was ratified by the requisite number of states) but attract no real following.

Truly pernicious ideas, however, seem benign at first glance but in truth strike at the heart of our system of government. The “Oath Keeper” movement is one of those ideas.

At first blush, who can object to the 10 orders they say they will not obey. Until you start examining each of them in detail (we’ll put aside for now the mindboggling assertion in Lexington/Concord was precipitated by an attempt to “disarm” Americans).

1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people.

2. We will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects — such as warrantless house-to house searches for weapons or persons.

3. We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to trial by military tribunal.

4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state, or to enter with force into a state, without the express consent and invitation of that state’s legislature and governor.

5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union.

6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.

7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.

8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control” during any emergency, or under any other pretext. We will consider such use of foreign troops against our people to be an invasion and an act of war.

9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies, under any emergency pretext whatsoever.

10. We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

In the case of a smallpox, or similar, outbreak it would not be unreasonable for any government to direct that a municipality or geographic area be put under quarantine. I would think most everyone would agree that would be a good thing. If there was an armed insurrection in some area of the country, I’d find it hard to object to warrantless searches of homes and the disarming of persons in the area of operations. We need look no farther than the actions of Louisiana governor Kathleen Blanco in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina to see the utter imbecility of the federal government waiting for a state governor to declare an emergency before intervening. The nonsense purveyed by this group would have prevented Lincoln from opposing Secession and, more recently, it would have prevented Eisenhower from integrating public schools in Little Rock.

These principles, if they deserve to be called that, are nonsense and against the American tradition of government as it has been understood since the Whiskey Rebellion was suppressed by George Washington.

Were flogging bad history the only issue at hand, I wouldn’t be writing this. I’d be encouraging them to get a degree in education and teach civics in junior high. But it isn’t. On one hand the oath these people take is meaningless as they seem to be people who aren’t currently bound by an oath anyway. But as a career infantry officer I am gravely offended that they could be encouraging some number of military members to break rather than keep their oath of office. As a conservative I am offended that anyone on my side of the political spectrum would support such un-American nonsense.

When you take the oath of office as a member of the Armed Forces you do not take on the character of a freelance constitutional scholar.

As a commissioned officer you are appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate (yes, this is true for even second lieutenants), and you serve at the pleasure of the President.

Your oath reads:

“I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.”

Read the oath carefully. There is not an Obama Exception to the oath. There isn’t a proviso that this oath is subsidiary to some grander more important oath you’ve taken. You agree to “well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office.” To men of honor and integrity — which, in an ideal world, should be the minimum requirement to hold a commission — your word is your bond, if you’ve taken this oath with mental reservations about the intentions of the President, you’ve already violated your oath. So you aren’t an “oath keeper” but an “oath breaker.”

For enlisted men the rules are even more clear.

“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

Read it again, slowly and carefully:

I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me

You’ll note there aren’t ten exceptions here. The Uniform Code of Military Justice places a significant burden off proof on anyone who disobeys an order on the grounds that the order wasn’t lawful. And once you’ve made the effort, the system doesn’t treat full-time soldiers and part-time constitutional scholars like Michael New with great deal of respect.

As a conservative I’m truly offended by this nonsense. This type organization, seemingly equal parts Walter Mitty and the black helicopter crowd, enables the left to lump all opponents of Obama together into a lunatic fringe that will then be studiously ignored. The Tea Parties were taken seriously by lots of members of Congress precisely because they were not lunatics. Polls show we are winning people over to our ideas. Why would anyone opposed to the Obama regime think this organization is a good idea?

In 1783, we were at a critical point in our struggle for nationhood. We had won independence but the form of government which would succeed the British monarchy was clearly up for grabs. There were calls for General George Washington to lead the nation either as a monarch or military dictator. In response, Washington went before the Continental Congress on December 23, 1783 and resigned his commission. That action, captured in a painting by John Turnbull on display in the Capitol Rotunda, paved the way for our republican system of government and our tradition of the civil supremacy in civil-military relations.

My advice to the “oath keepers” is just that. Keep your oath. If you want to make political decisions about how the military and police are used in this country, resign your position and agitate to your heart’s content. If you remain in uniform your oath binds you to the government and absent clear reason to the contrary, and none of the ten reasons set forward by the Oath Keeper organization meet that standard, you have a legal and moral obligation to faithfully carry out the duties given to you.

We are in a tough fight with this administration for very high stakes. The stakes, however, do not justify us checking our brain and our sanity at the door and signing onto truly bizarre and un-American ideas like those set out by the Oath Keepers.

A wee bit more parenting could go a long, long way. But then, where would that leave the totalitarians?

2009-10-25T01:43:00.006-05:00

The Baron has posted an excellent article by GoV's Swedish correspondent LN, called "Why do Swedes behave like Swedes?". The topic of the article, which I've given away in the title of this entry, is one that is certainly near and dear to my heart, as well, I know, as some of my readers. Below I've excerpted a couple of paragraphs from the article which had me going "Amen!" as I read. Without further ado,

LN writes:

Dr. Gordon Neufeld is a clinical psychologist from Canada with a reputation for penetrating to the heart of complex parenting issues, and the author of the internationally recognized book Hold On to Your Kids — why parents need to matter more than peers. Dr. Neufeld’s message was that the younger generation’s lack of adult contacts in the Western world is one of the most disturbing and misunderstood trends of our time — peers replacing parents in the lives of our children. Dr. Neufeld has dubbed this phenomenon peer orientation [jämnårigorientering], which refers to the tendency of children and youth to look to their peers for direction: for a sense of right and wrong, for values, identity and codes of behaviour.

But peer orientation undermines family cohesion, poisons the school atmosphere, and fosters an aggressively hostile and sexualized youth culture. It provides a powerful explanation for conformism, aggression, schoolyard bullying, and youth violence; its effects are painfully evident in the context of teenage gangs and criminal activity. It is an escalating trend that has never been adequately described or contested until Hold On to Your Kids. Once understood, it becomes self-evident — as perhaps do the solutions.

Pardon me while I say, once more, Amen!.

I'm reminded that it was Horace Mann who first introduced a series of changes into the Massachusetts schools way back in the 1840's which would eventually lead to full-fledged John Dewey style, mind numbing progressive education in America's public schools. Hence Mann is affectionately known by his modern acolytes as "The Father of Public Education" in America, not so affectionately by those of us who clearly see the error and eventuality of his ways having come to full fruition in our public schools and the half brain-dead members of our society that the public schools are largely responsible for producing today.

I have in my possession a facimile edition of Noah Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language. Published in the front of the edition, in a series of "green pages" as they're called (which aren't included in the online editions that I've seen), is a reference to Mann's destructive influence on America's education system. Elsewhere we find that the implementation of Mann's plan for public education in America, under which the state, via the creation of a powerful state "Board of Education" which Mann himself was selected to head (imagine that), at first received strong resistance and righteous indignation from a select but precious few respected educators of the era who could see and actually predicted where Mann's state-run progressive education would eventually take us in America. Too bad that Mr. Mann's plan eventually won out over a more commonsensical, American approach to education. The importation of foreign ideologies and ideologues has ever been a bane on our society. But I guess that's a subject for a whole 'nother post.

Islamites spew venom at the West from their Dead Island perch

2009-10-24T23:57:00.011-05:00

Note: The caption at the top of the video is a complete misrepresentation. These Islamites aren't "insulting" Geert Wilders, as if to say they're simply calling him bad names or something. Insofar as they speak of Wilders by name, they make no bones about what punishment they have in store for him should he ever drop his guard. What idiot among us doubts that these freak followers of their freak prophet Mohammed wouldn't saw his head off with a dull knife right there in the streets of London if they could get their hands on him? But, of course, it isn't just Mr. Wilders's life they threaten, but the lives of all non-Muslim Westerners, including your children and mine.

History, methinks, is bound to repeat itself once again. Terry didn't raise his *kids to be no fools, nor to succumb to jihadist threats and acts of aggression. So we got us a little problem here, don't we.

*I actually hate using that word "kids" in reference to my offspring because sheep have kids, people have children (Katherine Dang). And words most definitely mean something. Occasionally I'll make an exception, which I did in this particular case for purely stylistic reasons. And yes, I apply the exact same rule in verbal communications as I do in writing. On the other hand, given the way some children tend to behave, I can see why their parents choose to refer to them (or is it themselves?) in animalistic terms.

Call me "Mr. Nobody"

2009-10-22T17:43:00.002-05:00

Here we have an idiotic Democrat(ic) member of Congress putting his idiocy on open display before God and everybody.

Democrat idiot on the supposed authority of Congress to force Americans to purchase health insurance:

"Why would you say there is no authority? I mean, there’s no question there’s authority. Nobody questions that."

Again, call me Mr. Nobody. Heavy on the Mister!

By the way, when exactly was it that Congress' (unlimited) authority on this issue became unquestionable? I must have been sick that day.

A minor mishap turned bigger than first thought

2009-10-20T01:37:00.005-05:00

I'll likely be away from the computer for the next couple of days. I don't completely understand why, but I'm assured that this is indeed a pretty bad injury that requires some special attention from surgeons more capable than we have locally. Mr. Auster has posted at VFR the text of an email I sent to a few internet friends which explains the situation in a bit more detail.

Thanks in advance for your prayers and well wishes. I'll be back to give you an update as soon as possible.

Update, Oct. 23rd:

The docs pinned Sarah's arm back together in surgery early Tuesday morning. She was released from the hospital at noon Wednesday, and was home by 3:00 pm same day. Other than a slight swelling issue that we monitored closely all night Wednesday-Thursday, she appears to be doing exceptionally well. We have an appointment scheduled with the docs this coming Monday, when, if everything is a go, they'll put her arm in a more permanent cast. I'll let you know how that went in another update next week.

Update, Oct. 27:

Everything looked good on X-ray yesterday, and accordingly Sarah got her hard cast put on. Doc says they'll check it out again in three weeks, when, if all looks ok, they'll pull the pins out of her elbow. Ouch.

Where do these people get this stuff?

2009-10-18T06:57:00.007-05:00

I mentioned in a comment to this Webster's entry Jack Hampton's blatantly naked, false portrayal of the Mayflower Compact as America's first and failed attempt at socialism. I had determined, at that point and after some reflection, that it wasn't worth pursuing with Mr. Hampton a series of posts to correct him on his mistake, but changed my mind at length.

TM:

Jack Hampton wrote:

By the way the first experiment in socialism in this country came with the Pilgrims it was called the Mayflower Compact. It failed miserably.

Well, the Pilgrims did try socialism, and it did fail miserably as you say. But we don’t call that the Mayflower Compact. Or at least I don’t call it that.

Now, I don't think I was being disrespectful in the way that I challenged Hampton's false assertions about the Mayflower Compact. In point of fact, I was consciously doing my very best not to be disrespectful towards Mr. Hampton, albeit I did find his depiction of the Mayflower Compact to be ignorant at best, stupid at worst. But then again, given his uncanny ability to smell out a real racist 5,280 words off as demonstrated in his succinct, to-the-point reply to Lawrence Auster's post in the thread, what would make me think this uncannily sensitive nose of his wouldn't also pick up on the scent of the real motives beneath my 'respectful' challenge of his assertions on this particular point as well, notwithstanding my attempt to cover it up? Anyway, here is Mr. Hampton's wise-*ss reply to my critique of his comment:

Terry
That was what it was called. I guess you can call it a baseball game if you wish.

Well, I guess I had that one a-comin'. Nonetheless I replied in actual hopes of getting an answer:

No it isn’t what it was called. Who told you that?

And that's the question that I'd like to have answered -- where do these people get this stuff?

Well, after making my usual rounds this morning I got to thinking about it again and decided to pursue the question a bit further by Googling the search words "Mayflower Compact, America's first attempt at socialism." Below is a pertinent sampling of what came up:

zbdent (1000+ posts) Fri Feb-24-06 03:27 PM
Original message
Were you aware that the Pilgrims who died did so due to Socialism?
And not disease, nor the fact that a lack of good medical treatment, nor the fact that they landed in the Northeast at the early stages of winter and not being able to grow crops? (I've also heard about how they could have lived high on the hog if they didn't think that shellfish was evil - lobster, you know . . .)

This had the misfortune to print simultaneously in three Akron papers on Thanksgiving day, 2004 (Akron Beacon Journal, West Side Leader, and the Montrose Sun). Pretty much a "trifecta" . . . and all three papers printed it word-for-word, and had the exact same author.

Here's the drivel (which really dumbs things down to make a rightie point):

"The story of Thanksgiving

This year, let's try to get the Thanksgiving story right. The Pilgrim fathers came to the New World so that they could be free to practice their religion the way they wanted to and to force everyone else to practice it that way, too. Before establishing their colony, they met together and signed the infamous Mayflower Compact, in which they pledged to work together, build common housing, till common fields, share alike in the resulting crops.

Not surprisingly, they found that this primitive form of socialism didn't work in practice. All were willing -- eager, even -- to share the output; but few were willing to work much for the benefit of others. Consequently, not much was produced, and all they shared were shortages and suffering. In fact, almost half of them died the first year from malnutrition and related illnesses.

Those who survived finally wised up, abandoned socialism and decided to let each family own and till its own fields and keep its own produce. This switch to a basically free-enterprise system paid off, and the resulting abundant harvests produced the country's first agricultural surplus. Then -- and only then -- they gathered together and celebrated the first Thanksgiving.

So let us not forget what this day really represents: a time to give thanks not only for the bountiful plenty that we enjoy; but also for the free-enterprise/free-market socioeconomic system that makes it possible."

We see in the first paragraph of the alleged article, allegedly printed in three separate Akron newspapers, Jack Hampton's understanding of what the Mayflower Compact was and what it entailed. Namely that it is responsible for the establishment of a tried-and-failed, and ultimately abandoned socialist system in Plymouth Colony. Indeed, the author of the alleged article goes further than Jack Hampton, attributing to the "infamous" Mayflower Compact these specific agreements between the signers -- that they pledged [therein] to work together, to build common housing, to till common fields, and to share alike in their resulting productions.

Methinks that Jack Hampton and the author of the article above would both do well to actually read the Mayflower Compact, rather than to rely on what they've gathered on the subject from various blogs and websites on the internet, then to arrogantly and dogmatically reverberate it as if it were indisputable documented fact. In which case, by the way, such people really do deserve, in my opinion, to be taken to the proverbial woodshed where they ought to, in a sane and just world, receive a good and thorough lashing for their apparent disdain of independent scholarship. After all, if there are no negative consequences for ill behavior, the behavior itself tends to get worse, not better.

Nonetheless, as I was reading the comments submitted under the post I was pleasantly surprised (pleasantly surprised because Democratic Underground is a far left message board, if you didn't already know it) to read a more accurate accounting in comment no. 17. To wit:

The Mayflower Compact did not create a socialist arrangement, it was a very short document for quasi-democratic rule, and was made on the voyage [TM: actually it wasn't made "on the voyage", which can only be taken to mean somewhere between Great Britian and the Eastern shores of America out in the middle of the Atlantic where the relatively healthy among them were preoccupied with taking care of the sick, and of generally trying to keep the Mayflower afloat] because of already existing factionlism. The agreement that made them "share" was the corporate contract with their financers, a joint stock company of Merchant Adventurers(in the original agreement most were not colonists), who were to supply the cost of their trip and manufactored needs, with payment from the colonists of all their work and specific trade goods, for seven year, at which time the corporate property would be divided. Many of the persons had no money to put up as part of this corporatist arrangment, so they were in fact signed indentured servants agreements for the seven years. Essentially this was originally a kind of Plantation organization, which the indentured servants didn't like much. This is where much of the strife and contention came from, and essentially they ended up with many financial woes and eventual reorganization of the joint stock company, where some of the colonist's bought up the shares. So far from socialism this was corporatist capitalism at it's worst.

Anyway, if you're a leftist, a 'moderate liberal' or some sort of right-liberal who has some kind of deeply ingrained adversarial opinion of the Mayflower Compact, what it allegedly states and the signers' reasons and intentions in organizing themselves into a civil body politic therein that some wild impulse tells you you have to share with everyone, allow me give you a free piece of advice that I think will serve you well: It might not hurt to read the actual document in conjunction with Bradford's History of Plymouth Plantation before you go about exposing yourself, in front of God and everybody, as the ill-informed know-nothing that you are. In other words, take what you read on the internet and in the newspapers with a grain of salt. Trust but verify, as the saying goes, if in fact you feel you have any reason whatsoever to trust what you're being told in the first place.

But in any event, though I've yet to satisfactorily answer the question I asked in the title of the post, I may, however, have inadvertently established, within a fifty mile or so radius, the actual geographical position of Jack Hampton's residency, not to mention one or more of three newspapers that he reads with intense interest and credits with impeccably adhering to the highest possible journalistic standards of accuracy and truth in reporting. Pretty amazing stroke of luck, eh?

Where the rubber meets the road on "equality"

2009-10-17T14:03:00.004-05:00

In a new entry today at VFR, Lawrence Auster gets down to it in two paragraphs:

Lawrence Auster writes:

Everyone wants to be superior

Contemporary America says it believes in the equality of all groups and cultures, but in reality none of those groups or cultures believes in equality. Each group wants to be superior and dominant. Blacks don’t want to be equal, they want to be superior and dominant. Homosexuals don’t want to be equal, they want to be superior and dominant. Hispanics don’t want to be equal, they want to be superior and dominant. Muslims don’t want to be equal, they want to be superior and dominant. Feminist women don’t want to be equal, they want to be superior and dominant. The only group today that doesn’t want to be superior and dominant, the only group that sincerely believes in the equality of all groups, is the historic Anglo-European majority population and culture of the United States.

The non-liberal truth is that in any given society, one group or culture must be dominant and set the tone and standards for the rest. There is thus no substitute for making the decision as to which group or culture will be dominant, or, by continuing to bleat about the wonders of equality, passively letting that decision be made for us by others. Liberalism has no answer to this problem, because its only answer to all problems is to call for more equality. I therefore propose that the traditional, Anglo-European majority culture of this country, shorn of its suicidal liberal belief in the equality of all groups and cultures, be the dominant culture.

Mr. Auster's entry reminds me of several related entries, both recent and not-so-recent, archived at this blog. As to the latter, there was the entry dealing with the Congressional Republicans' ecstasy at now being in the minority. As to the former, there was the entry where we concluded that school segregation was the answer to the dilemma of having whites-favorable rules applying to non-white school students.

On Limited Government and racism

2009-10-16T07:15:00.003-05:00

In a comment to the preceding entry Chiu Chunling wrote:

This is why the argument over who is racist is so pointless. Jack Hampton goes on to (inadvertently) make a pretty good case that racism is a necessary characteristic of any society which wants to be around in the long term.

I don't believe that to be the case, but I certainly do believe that a society which tries to eradicate racism will only succeed in institutionalizing oppression directed towards those groups with the most actual value to that society.

People tend to fall into the idea that whatever government permits is therefore endorsed. That can only be true in totalitarian society. A limited government permits much that it is simply prohibited from forbidding.

It is a mark of how far America has strayed, that almost no one can spontaneously imagine what limited government would suggest.

Which I thought was so good that it deserved a separate entry all to itself. Take some time to think on what Chiu is saying here. Deconstruct his statements, if you will.

How to distinguish a real racist from a ...

2009-10-14T19:49:00.003-05:00

...I mean a ... umm, what I mean is a ... a non-real racist?

Lawrence Auster subitted a comment at FrontPage Magazine criticizing David Horowitz's vision of America:

Horowitz:

White European-American culture is a culture that the citizens of this nation can take enormous pride in, precisely because its principles, revolutionary in their conception and unique in their provenance, provide for the inclusion of cultures that are non-white and non-Christian (and which are not so tolerant in their lands of origin).

Auster:

David Horowitz writes:

“White European-American culture is a culture that the citizens of this nation can take enormous pride in, precisely because its principles, revolutionary in their conception and unique in their provenance, provide for the inclusion of cultures that are non-white and non-Christian (and which are not so tolerant in their lands of origin).”

So, according to Horowitz, white European-American culture is good, and the main reason it is good is that it includes non-white and non-Christian cultures. The greatest thing about white European-American culture is that it allows itself to be progressively changed into a melange of nonwhite, non-European, non-Christian cultures and peoples.

Now think about the fact that Horowitz’s vision—assertively pro-America, with the defining thing about America being the fact that it includes ever greater numbers of non-white and non-Western peoples and their cultures—presents itself as the “conservative” vision today, as distinct from the leftist, anti-American vision which Horowitz opposes.

Think of the choice between left and “right” that Horowitz offers us.

On one side, the anti-American left, which openly declares its intention to end white Christian America, by changing America into a nonwhite, non-Christian country.

On the other side, the pro-American “right,” which openly declares its intention to end white Christian America, by changing America into a nonwhite, non-Christian country.

Someone named Jack Hampton instantly smelled a rat, umm, I mean a rar (Real [American] Racist) upon reading Auster's comments:

Jack Hampton:

Why do I smell a real racist.

ROTFL!!!

Webster's

2009-10-14T01:13:00.002-05:00

I've added several new links to articles I've been reading in the "recommended blog posts" section in the upper right sidebar.

Great article today at Loyal to Liberty

2009-10-12T13:00:00.003-05:00

Here again I jump through a couple of unnecessary hoops in order to create a direct link to Dr. Keyes's excellent article. In this case I think it's worth the extra effort.

(BTW, the reason I don't generally like doing this is because it creates a scenario in which a failure to establish the link is more likely. Which, of course, means that in the event of a failure, then it has to be done all over again. I.e., a simple waste of time and effort. And I can be very impatient about things like that. But I really should be taking this up with Dr. Keyes, shouldn't I?)

I love the "super nanny"

2009-10-11T16:28:00.003-05:00

Why do I love her? Because she is the exact epitome of what not to do as parents! Let me repeat that, Supernanny is the exact epitome of what not to do if you are a parent -- I don't care how you look at it.

Let's get down to where the rubber meets the road, ummm, Supernanny. No matter what you do or recommend, you can never, under any circumstances, equal the amount of exterior encouragement that I, a father of six, receive on almost a daily basis, from those outside our circle of influence. "You have the best behaved children I've ever seen" isn't an exception, but the rule we see over and over agaiin when in public, irregardless of where we might make an appearance. People approach us to tell us this, for goodness sakes. What possibly about your approach to parenthood could at all convince me that you have a superior approach? Answer: Nothing. Not only are you British, which itself is a mark against you, but you're a woman too, which doesn't exactly make me particularly comfortable with your particular approach to child-discipline. But then again, I regard child-discipline in terms of expressly not putting so-called "child-safety-locks" on the cabinets and whatnot.

Yes, it's a "lack of committment" on my part, this tendency to parent children in a way which excludes proper parenting. But I personally challenge you to give me a better solution. Yeah; Supernanny is hereby invited to my home. She'll not only be amazed at what happens here, but her whole show will have been completely refuted. End of story.

Is anything possible with God?

2009-10-11T14:40:00.003-05:00

Well, no. Anything that is possible is possible with God, unlike human ... beings. It isn't like God is being that involves no restriction on His being, well, being. God can't possibly create a rock that is too heavy for Him to lift, as an example. But He can create a rock that is too heavy for created beings to possibly lift, human technology and enginuity notwithstanding. That is the essence of God. He can do certain things, and he cannot do certain other things. We (human beings, created intelligent beings) can relate to this only as a limited being can relate to unlimited being. By calling God "unlimited," while asserting his "limitlessness" am I not contradicting myself? Well, in a sense, yes. In another sense (the God-sense), no. God is unlimited in his ability to do that which is possible to do. Human beings cannot ever achieve that level of possibility no matter what. We'll never be able to create a rock that is impossible for us to lift, in other words, if it were at all possible for us to "create" a rock in any event.

But, in the end, I'm simply inviting others to share their view or understanding of theology. Given that we have some very intelligent, very informed commenters here, I have nothing but intense interest in their particular views on this subject.

The floor is yours...

Three hours of Chaos at the Capitol

2009-10-10T07:35:00.004-05:00

(Everyone seems to be having such fun with this that I thought I'd give it a shot.)

Washington: President Barack Obama was awarded, Friday morning, the distinguished Nobel Peace Prize. Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, in her Capitol office at the time, reportedly received word of the momentous event from an aid in her office.

"That's when all hell broke loose" said a capitol security guard. "We had to put the entire capitol complex on lock-down for three and a half hours" he continued.

"We were brought in with our dogs, and every office in the building, every nook and cranny on the grounds was searched for explosives" said the Captain of the Washington Bomb Squad.

One Republican Congressman stated that "I really thought this was the real deal; I thought we were all going to die."

A visitor awaiting a 9:00 am scheduled appointment with Rep. Keith Ellison (Muslim, Minn.) said he heard the outburst and was initially startled by it -- "It was like I was back in my native country again. I thought at first, "can this be real,? can the Sons of the Ummah really have gained access to the capitol building in infidel America? And without my being notified?" said CAIR-Minnessota spokesman Yusuf Achman Mohammed Ali, who declined to comment on the nature of his scheduled meeting with Rep. Ellison.

The chaotic scene was apparently initiated early Friday morning when an aid to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi received news that President Barack Hussein Obama had been chosen to receive the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.

"As far as we can determine," said a capitol spokesperson and member of the Muslim brotherhood in Washington "this whole mess started when the aid broke the news to Ms. Pelosi in her capitol office. "Her office door was wide open" continued the spokesman "and when someone yells in here, well, the sound is very amplified."

There is some disagreement as to what was actually said, but several unnamed sources reported that they heard the words "Yahoo!" followed immediately by "Allah Akbar!" and "death to fascism!"

Ms. Pelosi admits to yelling out the word "yahoo" upon hearing the news, saying "it was just spontaneous, it just came out; I don't know where it came from, but I'm very proud I said it."

Pelosi insists, however, that she's sure she didn't use any Islamic expressions during the outburst. "I was so excited to hear the news that I don't really remember what I said exactly, but I know that I didn't say "Allah Akbar."

"What I probably said is Call-a-doc-tar!, an expression she insists she's been using since she was a young girl when her father first introduced the expression to her while they were visiting a California theme park. "We got on this huge wooden roller coaster. I was very nervous. My father looked over at me as we began to top the first rise and exclaimed "call-a-doc-tar!" "That's how the expression first came into being, and I've been using it ever since, both at times of great anxiety and of great personal excitement."

Asked whether she used the words "death to fascism," Ms. Pelosi replied "probably -- is there a problem with that?"

Speaker Pelosi declined an invitation to apologize for the disruption her outburst apparently caused, saying "what is there to apologize for? All I did was to express my overwhelming approval of the most legitimate and judicious awarding of this great prize in its entire history. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, and therefore no reason to apologize. Had I been in a crowded theater at the time the aid brought this to my attention, I would have said the exact same thing with the same amount of enthusiasm. I repeat: Call-a-doc-tar!"

Yet to be determined is whether additional cries of "Allah Akbar" heard by a number of witnesses were the result of echos in the halls of the capitol or of different persons throughout the building spontaneously repeating the phrase. "It was probably just echos" said one capitol security guard, "we have no plans to further investigate the matter."

Great shadows

2009-10-09T16:37:00.003-05:00

"It takes a tall man to cast a great shadow!" Well, isn't that the conventional wisdom? Of course. Unless we're talking about the setting of the sun:

I saw a wonderful quote in response to this utter farce earlier today:

"When small men cast long shadows, you know the sun is setting." Lao Tzu

By the way, have y'all ever noticed that all athletes, playing at night under artificial lighting, always cast long shadows?

Artificial lighting -- hmmm.

Overturning Roe

2009-10-09T15:10:00.003-05:00

This entry is purely intended as a reminder to readers that the abortion discussion at Loyal to Liberty continues with the addition of two new lengthy comments (double posted under the thread) by Chiu Chunling.

On one side of the question we have Dr. Keyes who disparages the states' rights argument because it allows for the continuation of the legal practice of abortion in America. On the other side we have Chiu Chunling who denies the validity of the federal argument because it ... allows for the continuation of the federally mandated legal practice of abortion in America. (I hope my summation of the argument is factually correct.)

This is such an important and thought provoking discussion, and given that it has moved several posts down the page both at Loyal to Liberty and with my reference to it here, that I'm going to do that which I normally wouldn't do, which is to say I'm going to jump through a couple of unnecessary hoops in order to embed, in the following words -- a direct link to the entry in question.

End of initial entry.

Because you deserve it!

2009-10-09T10:13:00.004-05:00

Our German correspondent, The Editrix, turns us on to a study, the results of which seems to indicate that -- brace yourselves! -- that 'eco-friendliness' can and often does coincide with a greater tendency to lie and cheat and steal. Which brings this question to mind,

Several years ago (as one example among numbers of them I could cite) I stopped at the drive-thru window at the local bank to cash a pay check. As was and is my habit, I re-counted my cash back and discovered that the teller had in fact overpaid me in the amount of $300. At which point I promptly returned to the window, advised the teller of her mistake and returned the overage. My question is this, had I spent the previous week doing eco-friendly work and making eco-friendly purchases in exclusion to all others when possible, might I have considered myself worthy of the $300. bonus, the mistake an "act of Providence" or some sort of good karma finally catching up to my noble deeds/bad karma finally catching up to the teller, the bank, or whomever would eventually eat the loss? Well, I imagine that if I were an eco-nut I could probably just about excuse any sort of immoral behavior I ultimately involved myself in at the expense of others, others who might well be eco-friendly themselves, but certainly not as advanced and deserving as me. After all, the spirit of the universe was smiling on me that day. How insulting must it be to this great spirit for someone to reject its special favors? Speaking of which, I think I've just answered a question that's been puzzling me for the last several years. ;-)

Breaking News: Missing link(s) found!

2009-10-08T15:19:00.005-05:00

So someone went to digging and they uncovered a slave in the woodpile. Among other things. Will wonders never cease!

As one of the commenters at Lucianne.com (#68 I think) points out, put as much effort into discovering Obama-the-husband's roots and you've got yourself a real human interest story -- How America's first alien-in-chief overcame all the odds stacked against his ancestry, leaping tall buildings, mighty natural obstacles and unassailable eligibility requirements in a single bound. (H/T: VFR)

Continental Congress 2009

2009-10-08T05:45:00.002-05:00

I thought readers would probably find this interesting, particularly if you're supportive of the TEA Party movement, the Tenth Amendment movement and so forth and so on. Per the usual with such videos posted on YouTube, there are related videos that you might also want to check out. Additionally here is the Continental Congress 2009 website where you may read more about this idea, the procedures for voting for delegates from your state, and etc. I leave it to you to find your way around the site.

I'm sure I'll be discussing this in a future entry soon. So stay tuned. In the meantime feel free to share anything you have to offer on the matter in the comment section of this entry.

What Big Bird really wanted to say

2009-10-07T09:17:00.001-05:00

Little Green Footballs -- I'm kicking one right about now

2009-10-05T15:27:00.006-05:00

You know, I don't think I've ever made a single reference to ... well, that site, well, since this site has been in existence. Ta Da! But, you see, that site has been, among conservative bloggers, some kind of epitome for conservative thinking expressed in writing, though I cannot possibly imagine why.

Allow me to put Chuckie-cheezie-Johnson in his place: You're worse than a menace, sir; you're a conservative-poser (I.e., a deranged leftist) by everyone's estimation. Good riddance to you you piece of garbage.

No apologies, no appeals to his higher ... whatever ... just, you know, what it is.

P.S., Chuckie (here comes one of those appeals I swore off of earlier), can I get a 'little green football' with your signature on it? Not that I really want one, but I'm purty sure I could sell it, at this point, for at least a couple hundred bucks in any event, which would certainly help me out financially, umm, dude.

By the way, please don't designate my site as one deserving of your ultimate (inernet) disapproval. Oh, you bastard! But can I get a charles johnson signed lttle green football for my efforts nonetheless? No? Ain't that a peach!

Tell ya what, Chuckie, why don't you and I have a meeting of sorts down here in conservative-central?-- you could express your idiotic understanding of conservatism and I could kick your ass for your efforts. How about that? No? Thought not you leftist piece of dung. Can I get a rain check?

How Oklahoma saved the Union -- not

2009-10-05T13:47:00.003-05:00

Hey, look, I don't particularly appreciate digs on Oklahoma citizens (affectionately known internally as "Okies") by outsiders. In point of fact, ask one of my local (migrant, misinformed) neighbors about all that (we had a little -- potentially major, though it didn't turn out that way in the end -- disagreement on that recently), anymore than I appreciate digs on my country by outsiders. On the other hand, as an Okie, I feel imminently qualified to, and particularly justified in, criticizing my own state. All others need not apply.

And here we see the tried and true stupidity of democratic ficklness once more set in stone. But, of course, I'm not arguing against the legitimacy of democratic government on a local level, I'm simply agreeing with the ancients that democratic government can be the worst possible of all forms of government. And when you have a stupid people stupidity will ultimately rule the day.

Isn't democracy just wonderful!?

Once again, Heavy on the WE

2009-10-05T12:57:00.003-05:00

Dr. Keyes's latest Loyal to Liberty entry highlights the recent exchange between he and Chiu Chunling. We have, of course, been having a discussion on the topic here for the last several days, one-sided as it may well be. But I'm happy to report that Dr. Keyes recognizes the imortance of the exchange nonetheless.

I wrote in a comment to the post the following:

Terry Morris said...
Very good, sir! I'm personally very happy to see that you alerted your readers to this important exchange.

By the way, I used to be one of these people who demanded a strict interpretation of the constitution on a national level. I changed my attitude towards that when I realized that (abortion being one of the key issues) there was no hope left that the federal government would ever, under current conditions, reverse its position on 'a woman's right to choose,' but that several of the states, including my own, would, without flinching, via the ninth and tenth amendments, tell the feds to take a hike on this and other vital issues ('gay marriage' and so forth).

What we musn't ever forget is that the founders established a government suitable for themselves and the founding generation. "We (heavy on the WE!) hold these truths to be self-evident" doesn't necessarily apply to us, as I've attempted to point out innumerable times in the past. But it still does, in certain cases, apply to WE, as in us -- my state being one of a few examples. How long can this possibly remain so under the current (acceptable) system?

By all means, though, do take the time to read the exchange as Dr. Keyes has posted it under the new article. It is more instructive as such than otherwise posted.

(By the way, it's difficult to link to a specific article at Loyal to Liberty due to some kind of setting deal I'm not really qualified to tackle. Hence, my links to Loyal to Liberty-the site, vs. links to specific posts as with other sites. Pardon my incompetence.)

Why am I wrong to take the position I take?

2009-10-03T11:35:00.006-05:00

In attempting to find some Webster's reference (which I think there is) to commenter Chiu Chunling's assertion which I quoted in the previous post, I found this comment (which I included as a comment) to one of my posts,

Terry Morris said...
It occurs to me that some folks who read this post might think I'm being a bit radical in stating that I refuse to participate further in the schemes of the federal government. A couple of points to make on that:

1) As Thomas Jefferson so aptly put it, "resistance to tyranny is obedience to God." And as one of my favorite H.S. teachers put it to me in 1984, "you better be radical about something." [TM: I actually saw this teacher at a football game last Friday night, though I didn't introduce my 25-year-older self as a matter of ultimate respect).

2) If I choose to limit my personal participation in the federal government's schemes to rob me and others of the wealth we create to fund policies and projects that we do not agree with and would not otherwise support, by legal means, what is radical about that?

Let's put it this way, I can choose to work x number of hours or y number of hours. If x is the number of hours I need to work to keep my family up with minimal participation on my part in the government's program, and y is the number of hours I need to work to to support my family and make a maximum personal contribution to the government's program, I'm simply choosing option x as opposed to option y. This means I'm opting out, to the greatest extent possible, of the federal government's tax-and-spend policies.

You think I'm wrong to do so? I challenge you to support that assertion.

This challenge still stands.

"Race war," "Civil war" -- how to equate the two

2009-10-03T09:53:00.006-05:00

Chiu Chunling once wrote, in response to a black racist commenter at Loyal to Liberty that "if you don't want a race war, then don't start one.

I think the same principle applies with regard to civil war and the war of ideas which instigates it. As I wrote this morning at the Tenth Amendment Center,

Terry Morris Says:
October 3rd, 2009 at 7:45 am

Congress is doing a fine job of working out details of the healthcare bill, what???

I’ll tell you what, when Congess (or any other government entity) can show me where it (or any other government entity) has any legitimate business whatsoever involving itself in healthcare, then I’ll agree or disagree with the assertion that Congress is doing a fine job of it. As it is, the only ‘fine job’ Congress is doing is the job of overthrowing the principles of the constitution. Which too many people recognize to allow to go off without a hitch.

In other words, if Congress does not want a civil war, then it’s best advised not to start one. End of story.

Of course, I'm not at all convinced that the current Congress does not want a civil war, and am persuaded that it, somewhat like so-called "thrill-seekers" may actually think it wants one. If that's the case, then its members seem oblivious to the fact that their side cannot possibly win such a war. This ain't 1860 after all. But whatever. Most so-called "thrill seekers" do actually recognize that they're very likely to end up on the 'winning' side of things despite the danger inherent to their pursuits. Otherwise they wouldn't do it, or otherwise devise ways of making their pursuits, well, less dangerous. But what about the current Congress? Perhaps they're kind of, sort of, in-a-way something like Grizzly Man (who was violently eaten by one of the objects of his affection). Who knows.

Another bludgeoning waiting to happen

2009-10-01T02:13:00.004-05:00

What did I say the other day about worthless parent-figures who indulge and actually encourage unacceptable behavior from their children? Something about their bragging about how head-strong or strong-willed (re: undisciplined) their children are, as if to say that (1) this is a quality unique to that particular child (Newsflash: it ain't!), and (2) that being a strong-willed, disrespectful, unruly, assertive smart-mouth is a particularly laudable quality for a five year old to possess. But then of course, if these people thought otherwise they would have nipped that little problem in the bud long before little Grace turned five.

Well, anyway, apparently this sort of thing is so commonplace today that they actually pay people to write columns to the effect, letting all of the other negligent parent-figures off the hook for abrogating their authority and creating ungovernable monsters then turning them loose on a semi-conscious society. Here's a snippit from the article in question:

In the end, it's all for naught. Sooner or later all of us fathers of daughters arrive at the same place: time is fleeting, and our precious little girls are leaving, and too soon, and more than likely on the arm of some scheming longhair who isn't good enough for our angel and doesn't have the sense to know that the bill of a baseball hat goes in the front.

In all actuality this type is very likely perfectly suited to your little angel. You know, the same precious little girl who at five years old had already begun to borrow lines from her mother's playbook:

Like all fathers, I don't want to be left behind, but looking back I realize that Grace had already begun to pull ahead when she was about 5 years old. I was a Mr. Mom back then, and she got mad at me one day because I stepped on her My Little Pony or some other egregious act. She yelled: "Daddy, you're stupid!" I sternly [TM: yeah, I bet] told her that sort of behavior was just not OK and she needed to say she was sorry. She put one hand on her hip, looked me in the eye, and said, "I'm sorry you're stupid."

What?! You didn't realize that little Gracie picked up that attitude towards you from her mother-figure? What planet are you on, man?!

By the way, when's the next big horrorcore rap concert, ummm, dad? Not to worry though. I'm sure you'll sternly inform Miss Gracie that horrorcore rap music is bad, bad, bad. Just before she, hand on flinched hip, looks you square in the eye and informs you that you'll be taking her or she'll find herself another ride. After all, she's sorry you're too stupid to understand that she likes what she likes and that's all the justification she needs for doing it. But your stupidity ain't her problem now is it.

Best of luck to you, sir. You're definitely going to need it.

The Government Can

2009-09-30T21:20:00.004-05:00

I don't know who put the video together but evidently s/he doesn't know that Lincoln and Grant aren't founding fathers -- make the founders roll over in their graves, what?. It's pretty funny though, and I figured you needed a good three minute laugh about now. Just ignore the founding father video bit.

Call Me Mom on the Islam problem

2009-09-30T13:21:00.002-05:00

This problem with the incompatibility of Islam with Western civilization is, of course, a subject of intense interest to yours truly. Indeed, I created, a couple of years back, a webpage dedicated entirely to this very problem, and I've written about the subject numerous times since this blog has been in existence.

Frequent commenter here and sole proprietor of Irate Tireless Minority Call Me Mom has a new and interesting perspective on this problem, here. Don't neglect Lawrence Auster's Separationism-consistent solution to the Islam problem here, here, and here.

Quote of the Day

2009-09-30T13:01:00.005-05:00

This "Quote of the Day" comes from Dr. Keyes's blog Loyal to Liberty and our own frequent commenter Chiu Chunling:

Chiu Chunling writes:

In war (and you are fighting one now), one must consider tactics and strategy, not just the final objective. The objective should be a nation where abortion is not merely prohibited by Federal law, but unthinkable to the citizen of good standing. [TM: for context, read Dr. Keyes's latest entries.]

Certainly, if you know (as opposed to not knowing) what your final objective is then the means to your end become more clear.

BTW, by 'the war we are fighting now,' Chiu isn't referring to the so-called "war on terror," or whatever we're calling it now.

Back

2009-09-30T12:53:00.003-05:00

We actually made it back home late yesterday evening (around 9:30pm local time). At which point I scanned my regular reads, including the comments here. Interesting.

I feel a "quote of the day" coming on ... in the next post.

Departing rant

2009-09-25T09:39:00.005-05:00

We'll be leaving shortly, going out of town for the next several days, during which time I'll be away from the computer. We should be back at home around Tuesday of next week, but nothing's written in stone. It all depends on whether we get everything done in the allotted time frame, which depends on other unknown factors. But anyway...

This whole situation with Emma Niederbrock and her parent-figures bothers me intensely. I can't put out of my mind what pitiful excuses for "parents" Emma's mother and father truly were, right up to the point that they got sixteen year old Emma and themselves bludgeoned to death by a twenty year old crazed lunatic killer wannabe that they did not even know yet brought into the fold like he was some kind of trusted member of the family. But I don't rightly know which is more pitiful -- Emma's parents and their idiotic, head-in-the-clouds attitude towards parenting, or their defenders who say that manipulative teenage girls can be completely uncontrollable.

I know a little bit about this myself. Being the father of three daughters, among which are one teenage daughter and another pre-teen daughter. Not to mention that my home is like teen and pre-teen girl grand central station at times, very often in fact. Not to mention further that I work with teen and pre-teen girls on a regular basis in a coaching capacity. I know all about how they manipulate (or attempt to manipulate), not just their parents but other authority figures in their lives, including yours truly. I know all about it, believe me. What they don't know is how I turn that to my and their and society's advantage.

You can't fool a fooler, as they say.

I discuss the parental ineptitude of Emma Niederbrock's parent-figures a bit in the comment section of this post. In point of fact, not only were they inept parents in spite of all their credentials and achievements, they were inept adults. Which isn't by any means uncommon in today's world, but these people were an exceptional case in point. I'm interested in your thoughts.

P.S. My wife had to listen to this stuff half the night last evening. I thought I'd try to spare her some of it today. But somehow I don't think I've quite got it all out just yet.

Tenth Amendment Governor

2009-09-25T08:45:00.003-05:00

Randy Brogdon announces his candidacy for the governorship of Oklahoma. World Net Daily has the story.

So you DO know who your children are meeting on MySpace

2009-09-24T06:32:00.009-05:00

Auster has posted at VFR a follow-up entry on the quadruple "horrorcore" related murder in VA that I wrote about here the other day. Included in the VFR entry is an AP article which helpfully fills in some of the gaps left in the case by previous reports.

Let me simply say that I sit here, having just read the AP story a few moments ago, and I'm quite literally stunned, STUNNED by what I've just read. I've known of some pretty horrible parents in my day, but Emma Niederbrock's parent-figures take the damn cake. Unbelievable!

Mood: Disgusted, Outraged!

(Note: In the other entry I mistakenly wrote that Emma Niederbrock's father was a Baptist minister. He was, in fact, a Presbyterian minister, which I've changed the entry to reflect.)

Ending white racism in America's public schools

2009-09-24T03:42:00.003-05:00

Question: When statistics show that eleven percent of students in a given school district in America account for thirty six percent of all suspensions in said district, what is to be done about it? Well, I guess you need to know more.

Okay, blacks account for seven percent of all students in the district in question, while they account for sixteen plus percent of all student suspensions. Native Americans make up only four percent of the student body yet they account for twenty percent of all student suspensions in the district. Still need more information? The majority of teachers in the district are white. And we all know that white people are racists whether we want to be or not. Yes, that includes all you high falutin leftier-than-thou liberal white educators. Also, as with tests and curriculum (not to mention educational methodology) designed to favor whites, so are school rules designed to favor white students over minority students. Therefore it's a reasonable assumption to make that suspendable offenses in this particular district include, but are not necessarily limited to, behaviors that white students generally do not engage in, while certain ethnic minority students have a higher tendency to do. Indeed, it's probably safe to say that these kinds of offenses comprise the bulk of suspendable offenses in this particular school district. You know, minor things like, say, carrying a gun to school, selling drugs on campus, threatening and/or attacking members of the faculty, defacing school property, gang related activities -- stuff like that. Couple that fact with the other factors aforementioned, and, well, you begin to grasp the nature of the problem that's causing this disparity in the numbers of minority suspensions vs. white suspensions -- white racism. Now that you know the nature of the problem, how do you address it?

I have an idea. It's a lot different than the plan our school district has put into place, and a lot simpler too -- school segregation.

What is America's moral responsibility to the rest of the world?

2009-09-23T11:37:00.011-05:00

If you're not a regular follower of Dr. Keyes's blog Loyal to Liberty as I am, you may be interested in his entry The USA- A special nation with special responsibilities and the discussion that ensues.

I think Dr. Keyes is more-or-less arguing for the "proposition nation" theory of America (i.e., America is an idea), a theory of America that I personally do not wholly reject, but one which I think can very easily be taken too far as it tends to set aside or dismiss certain aspects of historic Americanism that are unique to America and its founding, namely the original overwhelming WASP majority.

I'm by no means an expert on this, nor do I claim to be (how's that for unnecessary repitition?), but I think that simple common sense will teach us that there has to be a connection between the loss of freedom in America and the dilution of that majority. Perhaps I personally make too much of it, or, perhaps not. You be the judge.

To be clear, Dr. Keyes is one of my favorite, most respected provocateurs of American idealism, but the favoritism and respect I personally afford him has little to do with my larger respect for the American Idea of Nation-making.

As I wrote in a comment to Dr. Keyes's entry:

Dr. Keyes wrote:

Those who talk about the "American" idea of freedom" have already abandoned it.

I don't think that's necessarily true, although it's probably true as a general rule. People sometimes (hesitantly) use descriptives like this in an attempt to make a finer point. But of course "freedom" is expressed and exercised differently in America than it is in other parts of the world where it exists or has existed. Taken as a whole I'm not sure that America represents no-holds-barred Randian libertarianism, although there seems to be that (growing) element.

I certainly agree that any genuine notion of liberty begins with a belief in the Sovereign God of the universe and his will for His moral creatures. But then again, that's what I would personally call the "American idea of liberty" since this nation is unique among nations in that vein. After all,

"...is it not that in the chain of human events the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked to the birthday of the Savior of the World?..."

In any event I think this is an important discussion to have, and I look forward to your next edition in the series.

And the next for that matter. In any event I'll be closely monitoring Dr. Keyes's follow-on entries. I don't particularly give two hoots about black or white Americanism, only about Americanism, black or white. On the other hand, I've opened myself up to all manner of criticism. So be it.

The (real) Spirit of '87

2009-09-22T10:50:00.004-05:00

In a nice article posted at the Tenth Amendment Center, Timothy Baldwin (son of Chuck Baldwin) writes the following,

[T]o suggest that state sovereignty always give way to the national power is to completely do away with the line. It is in fact to destroy even the natural law of self-preservation. If you accept Corwin’s proposition of “getting back to the constitution”, you might as well throw the tenth amendment in the dump, along with the freedom it protects.

which concepts are of intense interest to me, witnessed by the fact that I've written about them numerous times at this blog including at least one entry in which I suggested (tongue in cheek, of course) that we make this false and dangerous doctrine of federal authority always trumping state authority official amending it into the constitution and settling the issue once and for all time. Indeed, we could simply scrap the entirety of the U.S. Constitution and replace it with this simple doctrine, for as I've also said before, to scrap the 9th and 10th amendments is the same thing, for all intents and purposes, as scrapping the entirety of the constitution.

In a comment directed at Mr. Baldwin's above statements, I wrote the following:

To suggest that state sovereignty always give way to the national power is to completely do away with the line.

Precisely correct! It is, in point of fact, a contradiction in terms the suggestion that state sovereignty can in any way exist alongside an all powerful central authority to which the states must always yield. One of the fundamental laws of logic is the law of non-contradiction (A cannot be non-A), which such a concept palpably violates and is therefore of no legitimate authority whatsoever, which is to say that rational people are in no way bound to observe it nor anyone who propagates such blatantly false illogical conceptions.

It is in fact to destroy even the natural law of self-preservation.

Well, the law itself cannot be destroyed. It can, however, be undermined to the extent that for all intents and purposes (governmentally speaking) it is non existent. And that’s what it invariably comes down to, now isn’t it. Indeed, the law of self-preservation applies as well to the national government as it does to the states and to the people. In asserting unlimited arbitrary power over them, the national government, in point of fact, is destroying itself and the reason for its existence. And we all know what the Declaration says about that — “Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [the preservation of the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], it is the right of the People to alter or abolish it…”

In the end, and as I think Mr. Baldwin intimates further down the article, it all comes down to a clash of worldviews (doesn't it always?). Worldview A holds that there are certain inviolable principles perpetually at work in the physical universe and, acknowledging that these principles and laws exist, seeks to operate within the boundaries therein prescribed insofar as they can be dileneated, while Worldview B rejects the idea that these principles and laws really exist as anything more than the false conceptions and inventions of [lesser-evolved] minds led astray. Worldview B seeks, therefore, to ignore them, everything being to such people "relative" except, of course, the idea that "everything is relative" which is not relative but a fixed and immutable law of the universe. Setting aside the contradiction here, is this the one and only fixed and immutable law of the universe, this idea that everything is relative? I don't know, it gets a bit confusing given that such people also palpably contradict themselves in dogmatically asserting that "we can't legislate morality" while at the very same moment, and in fact in the very issue itself, pushing intensely for the ... well, ahem ... the legislation of morality.

Anyway, do read the article in full. Baldwin helpfully lists at least twelve instances in which the Articles of Confederation and the U.S. Constitution contain the same principles. Not that it really serves our purposes since the constitution establishes an all-powerful central authority designed to eventually suck all other state and local authority into its ever-growing, ever more violently destructive vortex.

Them founding fathers, they was a shifty bunch, wasn't they!

It's 2009 -- Do you know who your children are meeting on MySpace?!

2009-09-21T15:37:00.006-05:00

Lawrence Auster covers the quadruple homicide in Virginia of a Presbyterian minister, his ex-wife and daughter and the daughter's best friend here, here, and here.

Very disturbing stuff! Make your way around the MySpace community these young, impressionable elois were heavily participating in starting here, MySpace page of murder victim Melanie Wells, where she wrote on Sept. 13:

SFTW was f***in amazing, back in Virginia now, be back in West Virginia on Wednesday. I MISS EVERYONE!!!Mood: havin a blast
Posted at 7:43 PM Sep 13.

If you're a parent at all concerned about your childrens' mental and physical well being, you'll be shocked.

The Constitution according to Nancy

2009-09-21T12:28:00.003-05:00

Nancy-baby (H/T: Tenth Amendment Center):

The 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that "the powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states… or to the people. But the Constitution gives Congress broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce. Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life, from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production. Since virtually every aspect of the heath care system has an effect on interstate commerce, the power of Congress to regulate health care is essentially unlimited. (bolded in original).

Translation (as if you needed one):

The Tenth Amendment, U.S. Constitution is inoperable and meaningless, and has been for a long long time. Why this obstructionist, divisive amendment was ever added as part of the Bill of Rights is anyone's guess. Surely the founders didn't expect the states to make the mistake of ratifying it. But whatever. That was then, this is now. And the joke's on them.

Since Congress has successfully used the commerce clause to control various aspects of American life, building line upon line, precept upon precept, the sky is now the limit. Indeed, given that virtually (qualifier added as merely a matter of form) every aspect of everything done in America effects, in some way, shape, form, interstate commerce, the power of Congress to regulate all aspects of American life is unlimited. Challenge my authority and I'll bury your sorry constructionist, literalist, originalist, traditionalist *ss!

She forgot to mention that Congress only need "occupy the field" and "intend a complete ouster" in order to take absolute control over any subject matter. But she's clear enough methinks. The central government is [essentially] all powerful, and by its good graces alone does it allow the states and the people to retain any portion of their sovereignty and autonomy. Thus, if you care to retain what little you have left, you had better bow down before the U.S. government and its Communist power brokers and beg for its mercy and forgiveness. For has it not been written, "if the People ask bread [their government] will not give them a stone."

Et tu, Joe?

2009-09-18T03:23:00.004-05:00

Again I ask this fundamentally critical question: What the hell, and by what legitimate authority, is the central government doing nationalizing healthcare?! Secondly, what possible usefulness is the Republican party to the preservation (or restoration, as it were) of limited Constitutional government when everything we hear from it and its acolytes concerning this healthcare business, among other things, amounts to no more than the equivalent of "we're moving too fast in the right direction."?

As I've said numerous times before, if the Republican party is not a viable vehicle for conservatism, then it is useless. Period. After all, it's a poor dog that won't wag its own tail, a poorer dog still that bites the hand that feeds it. But beyond that, and perhaps more importantly, if the Republican party and its acolytes are nothing more than liberal progressives at heart donning the specious mask of conservatism, then it and they are my avowed enemies, more dangerous even than Hussein and the openly Communist Democrats.

Which is the more dangerous enemy to a free people and their constitutional form of government -- an openly Communist Democrat or a covert Communist Republican?

Though regrettable, it's also understandable that the average Joe isn't fully aware until it's too late of how his government is systematically destroying his fundamental liberties, even as he pays obedient, patriotic tribute to it. But Joe Wilson isn't your average Joe. Joe Wilson is a Republican U.S. Congressman supposedly trying to represent the best interests of his constituents, namely South Carolinian citizens in particular and the larger U.S. citizenry in general. He knows what's going on legislatively in the U.S. government, and he knows what's been going on under other administrations. Indeed, before he was vocally against illegal alien healthcare coverage per his "You lie!" outburst last week, Kerry-like Joe Wilson was silently for it, as Ilana Mercer brings out in this WND article.

To be fair to Mr. Wilson and his Republican colleagues, it is possible, I suppose, that he has experienced a genuine change of heart or some kind of epiphany on this illegal alien question. I'll very cautiously give him the benefit of that doubt because it actually does happen, albeit I'm also quite sure that leftier-than-thou Joe Wilson is a strong proponent of the principles of absolute equality and non-discriminationism. At the same time I think it's very safe to say that Joe Wilson and most other Congressional Republicans actually agree with and advocate the principles of nationalized healthcare, they just think, as I said above, that alien-in-chief Hussein and the openly Communist Democrats are going too far too fast, which is the exact definition of the U.E., which we apply exclusively to liberals. If we're right in doing so, then what does this make Joe Wilson?

While Wilson was right to call out the alien/liar-in-chief for his blatant lies and his provocations of the opponents of 'Obamacare,' Joe Wilson and his RINO colleagues ought to be severly reprimanded for passing themselves off as conservatives, which they're clearly not. But then again, Wilson and his RINO colleagues very likely don't have a clue about what conservatism and its fountainhead is in the first place. In the unlikely event that they do understand what conservatism is, they obviously disagree with it. They have, in other words, the form of conservatism but deny the power thereof.

What, then, is the solution to this rampant problem of non-conservative, non-Republican Republicanism, which is epitomized in the former RINO Arlen Specter? To be quite honest I don't rightly know, except to say that a return to Balanced Constitutional Government, whereby destructive liberal progressivism attempting to pass itself off as something else -- conservatism -- would be more easily recognizable and thus manageable, is essential. But any genuine "conservative" position on nationalized healthcare must begin with the premise that centralized healthcare is not only constitutionally inconsistent, it is, in point of fact, self-destructive and unAmerican if the objective is in fact "to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity" through the creation and maintenance of a "more perfect Union." Of course, many of us know perfectly well by now that this is not the objective of Congressional Democrats OR Republicans, who are all (admitting as always the occasional exception) demagogues well versed in paying an obsequious court to the People. Meanwhile they systematically do everything in their power to destroy the Peoples' lives, their liberties and the means of their wealth.

See you there next year

2009-09-14T07:02:00.002-05:00

Unfortunately I wasn't able to attend this year's march-on-Washington TEA rally, nor was I able to attend our local TEA rally held in conjunction due to another pre-scheduled obligation. Indeed, I wasn't even able to watch the historic event on television, but I did get a call from Dad on my cell while en route to our event who said to me "this is big, big!"

Our friend, Rick Darby, files this report from the frontlines. I particularly liked the message on the sign a woman carried filed in Rick's report:

One woman bore a sign that said, "Don't make me come back here next year."

I won't lie to you and say that I ever had more than a passing notion to be in attendance at this year's Washington TEA Rally, but I will say this -- I'm setting aside time right now to be in attendance at the next one. Indeed, I know a lot of people who know a lot of people who know a lot of people, and so on. And while I'm not nearly the 'community organizer' that it seems Hussein was in his prime, I think I can help put together a fairly sizeable bus tour for next year's event should it come to that, which I'm fairly certain it will. And there's no time like the present to get started on it.

Anyway, thanks to Rick for taking the time and effort, and shouldering the expense of traveling to Washington for this historic event. And thanks, Rick, for filing your report. Catch ya on the flipside.

If looks could kill, RIP Joe Wilson

2009-09-11T11:38:00.003-05:00

Sorry I couldn't post a shorter version, but, you see, the shorter versions I checked are of lesser video quality. In any event, watch Nancy Pelosi's reaction to Rep. Wilson's outburst at around 2:20 of the video. Is that the feared "look" that we so often hear about? You couldn't have elicited a better expression of outrage had Nancy bore Hussein her insignificant self. But then again, maybe she did, who knows?

Congress poised to criminalize Self-government and Independence

2009-09-10T07:46:00.006-05:00

In a short column written for the Washington Post, Ezra Klein explains why the Town Halls during the Congressional break are likely not to effect the final outcome of the health care debate which he considers something of a foregone conclusion. In other words, says he, Congress is most likely going to pass the health care bill, and the alien-in-chief is, of course, going to sign it into law. This in spite of all the opposition fireworks we saw at tht Town Halls last month.

Klein's take on the matter is almost identical to my own, which I've expressed here and elsewhere a number of times over the past months since the health care debate was first initiated in Congress. My perspective on this issue is a pretty simple one -- Democrats, who currently hold a clear super majority in the House, and a not so clear but nontheless large majority in the Senate, have been chomping at the bit since they lost their majorities back in 1992, waiting for the moment they would regain power enough to push their socialist agenda through without serious opposition.

I'm not much of a candy eater myself and never have been, but I'm reminded here of when I was in basic military training. For about the first two and a half to three weeks of basic training, my comrades and I were all deprived of, among other things that before we'd taken for granted, access to any kind of candies and soda pops. When we were finally let out onto the break area for an hour one evening, well, I must have eaten about six candy bars and drank about as many pops. Again, I've never liked candy very much, but the idea that I had been denied access to it for upwards of two and half weeks drove me to injest as much of it as I could while I could for fear I might not get another chance, or that it might be long in coming. I think that's similar to what's happening here. If you give them free reign, or virtual free reign, if but for a couple of hours, so to speak, the Democrats and the RINOs in both houses of Congress are almost sure to take full advantage of it, and damn the consequences, really. Like myself at that youthful age, they're very much immature and display a real lack of self control (not to mention common sense). Indeed, I would say that our word for the 'Gamers' -- "Arrested Adolescents" -- applies in this case as well. On the other hand, Mr. Klein and I could both be completely wrong about this, not about the immaturity and hell-bent attitude on display in the U.S. Congress, but about the ultimate passage of the health care bill. I don't think so (that we're wrong), but there is that remote possibility. We shall see in due time.

Klein's article is posted beneath the fold. (H/T: VFR)

The State of Health-Care Reform

The research seems pretty convincing that impressive speeches don't do much to transform the dynamics of presidential approval. But then, tonight's speech doesn't need to do much. And it doesn't need to do much because health-care reform is in pretty good shape. Bills have now passed four of the five relevant committees. The outlier committee, the Senate Finance Committee, is circulating its outline and seems likely to pass a bill within the next week or so.

At that point, the bills will go to the floor of the House and Senate, where passage isn't certain but seems pretty likely. And once the bills pass the House and the Senate, final passage of the conference report (the merged bill) is a good bet. And the president's signature is then a sure thing.

That's the context for Obama's speech: It's sort of health-care reform's version of the State of the Union. And the State of the Process is strong: The legislative politics of health care are in considerably better shape than August would have suggested or the ongoing coverage has really articulated (in part because the Finance Committee was gummed up until this week).

Obama's job, then, isn't all that difficult: It's bringing public perceptions of the health reform process closer in line with the underlying reality. And that underlying reality is that the bills are fundamentally pretty similar, there's a fairly high level of consensus, and there are some crucial elements that need to be worked out over the next few weeks, and seem like they will be. The town halls made health-care reform seem chaotic and incomprehensible and disorderly, but at the moment, it's really anything but. In fact, it's closer to agreement than it ever has been before.

The 'Gamers' must just love Mikey Tyson

2009-09-07T11:42:00.003-05:00

In connection to our discussion on 'game', I was reminded of an interview I saw several years back on Fox News with the arrested adolescent, militant, foul-mouthed punk Mike Tyson. The name of the female interviewer somehow escapes me, but Tyson's description of women as "hos" (among other inappropriate terms) and his certifiable behavior in that particular interview does not.

Anyway, I want to post the video of the interview. Does anyone recall the name of the female (former) Fox News Reporter, that conducted it?

Thanks.

And by the way...

2009-09-06T12:00:00.002-05:00

In connection with the preceding post, I'm not endorsing everything that Dr. Keyes says on a given subject. Particularly, in this case, his remarks concerning desegregation and school integration. But on this issue of Hussein's eligibility we're definitely on the same page.

Dr. Keyes -- a common sense approach to the eligibility issue

2009-09-06T11:03:00.004-05:00

(H/T: LoyaltoLiberty.com)

Repeat after Bob

2009-09-06T10:41:00.007-05:00

I don't like the guy, I don't have to like the guy, I'm not going to like the guy." -Bob Beckel on G.W. Bush

Actually, that's probably not an exact quote, but it's close enough. I did a quickie google search for it, but couldn't find it in the allotted time. Anyway, he said it, trust me.

Allow me to say the same as an expression of my personal opinion of the Alien-in-Chief Hussein Obama. I would say more, but it wouldn't be appropriate for a G-rated blog.

Hey!, it's (somewhat of) a free country still!

Got 'Game?'

2009-09-06T08:54:00.006-05:00

I haven't read all of the articles collected under this entry, not to mention the outside articles linked up under certain titles, and I didn't really involve myself in the debate at all, though I thought it was interesting, albeit disturbing in certain respects. I did send Auster a couple of emails on the subject, however, one in which I seconded his description of the 'Gamers' as "these kids", saying that I thought that description pretty well summed it all up and going on to explain how a real dominant male (something these man-children (male adolescents trapped in a man's body) have apparently never actually been exposed to) such as my dad (among certain other dominant males I've had in my life) would have handled me as a young man had I ever expressed to him the low view of women which seems to be the basis of the gamers' approach to, well, "manhood." Which, and as I explained to Auster, after my dad quite literally hit me so hard that I would have had to unzip to spit, he would have gone on to remind me of all the female loved ones in my life.

To refer to women in general in such offensive, degrading, and dare I say unmanly terms as the gamers use is to refer to my grandmothers, my mother, my sisters, my aunts, my female cousins ... my own wife and daughters in such terms. My dad's way of handling it is the way a real man handles that class of ungovernable punks of which we speak. Let them hope they never meet up with one and mistakenly choose to share their view of women with him. In the first place, they wouldn't know how to recognize a real dominant male, because, as I said, they've unfortunately never been exposed to one. Thus, they don't know when to speak and when to shut up; when to 'let their yeas be yea, and their neas be nea.' But in any event I suspect that about 98% of them, give or take, are just full of sh*t to start with. You can make lemonaide out of a lemon, but you can't make a real man out of an arrested (male) adolescent.

'Green' Black Nationalist Communist cut loose

2009-09-06T08:18:00.006-05:00

Is this what New York Daily News columnist Michael Goodwin meant when he said that "If he's (Hussein O.) the man we thought he was, he'll now choose to make peace, before the country concludes he's the mistake."?

Oh wait!, Goodwin was speaking of Hussein's (you know, the man who's so far turned out to be the polar opposite of the the man we all thought he was) nationalized health care scheme, that's right. What we're talking about here is the 'resignation' of one radical Black Communist 'Czar' that he (Hussein O.) appointed to a high level position under the USSA.

The full WND article is posted below the fold.

'Green Jobs Czar' Van Jones resigns
WND's 5-month series of exposés leads to White House's 1st casualty
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: September 06, 2009
1:18 am Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Van Jones

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's "Green Jobs Czar" Van Jones quit late last night after pressure mounted over his extremist history first exposed in WND.

The last straw for Jones was being caught on tape in an expletive-packed rant, directly attacking Republicans in the Senate who he said abused their majority position in the past to push legislation through. He admitted after the statements were released that the comments were "inappropriate" and "offensive."

"They do not reflect the experience I have had since joining the administration," Jones said in the statement.

Jones was also linked late last week to efforts suggesting a government role in the Sept. 11 terror attacks and to derogatory comments about Republicans.

When the White House press corps grilled White House press secretary Robert Gibbs about Jones on Friday, a reporter asked how the administration could reject "conspiracy theories" about his birth certificate while employing someone who previously charged the U.S. government with masterminding Sept. 11.

Get Glenn Beck's 'Common Sense' ... The case against an out-of-control government: Inspired by Thomas Paine

Gibbs said only that Jones "continues to work in the administration," a non-ringing endorsement that set the stage for his ouster. Jones' name appeared on a petition calling for congressional hearings and other investigations into whether high-level government officials had orchestrated the 9/11attacks.

Jones flatly said in his statement that he did not agree with the petition's stand and that "it certainly does not reflect my views, now or ever."

As for his other comments he made before joining Obama's team, Jones said: "If I have offended anyone with statements I made in the past, I apologize."

In April, Aaron Klein, Jerusalem bureau chief for WND.com, broke the first major story on Jones who was identified as a self-described radical communist and "rowdy black nationalist" who said his environmental activism was actually a means to fight for racial and class "justice."

Farah goes too light on Kennedy electors

2009-09-02T07:27:00.003-05:00

Joseph Farah writes at WorldNetDaily concerning the sick revelation about Ted Kennedy and his twisted approach to Chappaquiddick. Farah asks the question in the title of the article, "How sick was Ted Kennedy." Let me answer that:

About as sick as the moral ingrates that elected him to the U.S. Senate time after time after time after time.

Someone wrote once years ago something to the effect of "If Teddy Kennedy is a murderer, a moral ingrate, a drunk, and all the other negative things people say about him, then how is it that he keeps being re-elected to the U.S. Senate?" The answer given went like this: "You've just described his constituency." To which I said, and say, Amen.

Farah concludes his article this way:

And that's all Ted Kennedy ever did with regard to Chappaquiddick – pretend that he was sorry. He was only sorry he got caught. He had no way out. So he threw himself on the mercy of the misguided people of Massachusetts, and they had the bad judgment to accept it and foist him upon the rest of us for far too long.

Well, that's all fine and good, but if we refer to the ingrates who elected Kennedy over and over again in nicey-nice terms like "misguided," and attribute to them nicey-nice conditions as merely displaying poor or "bad judgment," then we're simply not being honest about it. And why? Because we fear that being too brutally honest in a matter that requires brutal honesty in order to get to the root of the problem will earn us some ugly descriptive that we haven't been called already a thousand times before? God forbid!

Anyway, R.I.H. (you can figure it out) Ted Kennedy. I have no doubt that the people of Massachusetts will elect someone in your place just as bad or worse than you ever thought of being. For I very highly doubt that there is any shortage of Ted Kennedys in Massachusetts, and I'm quite certain that there exists no shortage of voters there eager to put them in national political office.

Rifqa Bary

2009-09-02T06:59:00.003-05:00

Yes, I know about the case and I support the ongoing efforts to protect this young girl from her father who has apparently threatened to murder her, in accordance with Islamic law (and as has been done before in America), because she is an apostate. But protecting Rifqa from her father, noble as the cause is, does nothing to protect the West from the influence of Islam, which is altogether bad. Let us recall that the whole purpose of CAIR is to empower Muslims in America. As I've pointed out any number of times before, empowering Muslims in America equals disempowering non-Muslims. Because, you see, the whole is exactly equal to the sum of its parts. Let Muslims be empowered in their own homelands. There ain't enough room for us and them on the same continent.

Auster writes about the Rifqa Bary case in this VFR entry, from which I extract the following important passage:

While every effort must be made to protect Rifqa, I cannot refrain from pointing out that as long as the main emotional energies of anti-jihad activists such as Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller go to protecting individual Muslims who are threatened by other Muslims, they are scooping water with a thimble while the sea is pouring through the dikes. The main emphasis of the anti-jihad movement must not be on protecting individuals who are threatened by Islam in the West, but on removing Islam from the West, by stopping and reversing the immigration of Muslims into the West. If your main concern is to protect our society from Islam, then your main agenda must be to stop and reverse the growth of Islam in our society. If your main concern is to protect individuals from Islam, then you will ignore that larger picture and allow our society to continue to be Islamized, and the individuals you want to protect will be lost in any case, along with all the rest of us.

Will the real Hussein O. please stand up!

2009-08-21T07:15:00.003-05:00

Question: Had Hussein O. just come out during his campaign last year and told everyone in explicit terms what he is in actuality, would the electorate have rejected him? I'm guessing no. (Keep in mind that Bill Clinton's marital infidelity and dirty-dealing, not to mention his poor management of the state of Arkansas as Governor were well known prior to his elecion to the presidency, in spite of what the liars that voted for him say to the contrary.)

But apparently some Hussein voters are now getting cold feet, as demonstrated in this New York Daily News column by Michael Goodwin (H/T: VFR), titled (of all things) "Health care debate confirms this is not the Barack Obama we elected."

Can you believe that?! What kind of idiots are these people?! And isn't democracy just a wonderful thing! Here's what the title of the column ought to read:

Health care debate confirms this IS, without the slightest doubt remaining, the Hussein Obama we elected.

But the original title doesn't let us down. No; the article goes on to further demonstrate how completely oblivious and idiotic some people really are. To wit:

Where have you gone, Barack Obama? Where is the sunny-side-up young man who promised to inspire and unite an unhappy nation?

Gone into the partisan sinkhole of Washington, that's where. Like some novice swimmer too confident of his own ability, Obama is suddenly finding himself in water over his head. [TM: Dear God!]

His flailing, including a foul habit of demonizing dissent, is not pretty. And that brief foray into e-mail tracking of critics showed a win-at-any-cost side.

Where is the appealing man we elected? Where is that Barack Obama?

Let's find him quick because the whole nation is paying the price for this impostor's irrational exuberance. Or hubris.

Say what?! You must be (expletive withheld for PG viewers) kidding me! This guy can't possibly be serious!

The column unfortunately continues:

Writing in The New York Times, he guaranteed everything for everyone: "If you don't have health insurance, you will finally have quality, affordable options once we pass reform. If you have health insurance, we will make sure that no insurance company or government bureaucrat gets between you and the care you need.

"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan."

Those claims would be credible if they were a multiple-choice question, where only one is true. To say they can all happen at once is a crock, and the country knows it.

Heck, throw in a free puppy for everybody, too.

Ha, ha. As to that last line, I have a better one which I lifted from a favorite movie of mine:

Why don't you just score the winning touchdown for Notre Dame while you're at it.

But anyway, the author finishes out the article in fine style, keeping with his main theme throughout -- you know, our superhero is bound to emerge again real soon:

If he's the man we thought he was, he'll now choose to make peace, before the country concludes he's the mistake.

"The man we thought he was." Let that sink in real deep, y'all. You live in the midst of a bunch of absolute morons. These people have real responsibilities, they drive on your highways, they enter into marriage contracts and then break them on a whim, they actually make critical decisions on a daily basis. And they vote in your elections. If they're the moral paragons that they pass themselves off to be, then they'll voluntarily recuse themselves from participation in the next election as demonstrably unqualified ... before the country decides that the liberal principles of absolute equality and non-discriminationism are a mistake.

Hussein O.'s impending impeachment

2009-08-19T13:39:00.002-05:00

I've dealt with this several times to date, but not in an entry to this blog as I recall.

Ray Acosta Sr. writes at the Tenth Amendment Center:

Not to worry. As soon as Obama’s popularity gets low enough, he and all his cronies will be impeached.

Here's the deal in any event:

(1) You can't impeach the first black president no matter how low his approval ratings get. We live, my friends, in liberal dominated society. Get used to it, or do something about it.

(2) Even if you could, again, it isn't going to happen because those comprising the body invested with the impeachment responsibility have signed on to the Hussein agenda. Thus, if they impeached him, they'd be implicating themselves. Once again, it ain't going to happen on that basis alone.

(3) Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Hussein was re-elected in 2012 BUT that Republicans re-took the majority in both houses of Congress. Hussein still wouldn't be impeached. Why? See rule no. 1. And if that isn't enough, refer to rule no. 2.

P.S. Lindsey Grahamnesty is a jackass (i.e., a liberal) from way back. Get that through your heads.

The antithesis of liberty -- the anti-liberty 'Obamacare' opposition

2009-08-14T06:21:00.004-05:00

Dr. Keyes has written an article for WorldNetDaily called "Unhealthy for Liberty" from which I excerpt the following passage:

Though even some of the critics of the Obama faction's health sector proposals speak as if the problem with it lies in the fact that they are reaching for too much too quickly, this criticism begs the most important question: What are they reaching for?

Thanks to Dr. Keyes for pointing this out, it is a vital point to make.

From my point of view there is at least some advantage to our side due to the administration's aggressive, radical 'overreaching' (and I use the term very loosely here), but it does nothing to change the facts that what they're reaching for, at its very roots, is dictatorial totalitarian government, which is altogether unAmerican and must be stopped -- not merely resisted, stopped!

Dr. Keyes puts it in very simple terms:

The problem isn't that they are overreaching.

Again, thanks to Dr. Keyes for pointing this out. It is precisely correct. Indeed, as I've intimated above, that they're aggressively 'overreaching' works more to our side's advantage than theirs. And as I've said before here and elsewhere, I do not believe that they have the mental (or moral) capacity necessary to recognize that they need to scale it back IF they are to have any hope of advancing their agenda, ummm, peacefully. Not that advancing their agenda peacefully is necessarily their goal. Nonetheless, Keyes is right to point out that the perception which attributes to them the sin of 'overreaching' is mired in a false premise, namely that it's not what they're reaching for that is wrong, but the breakneck speed and wreckless driving in pursuit of the what that is wrong. This is, I believe, a great example of what Lawrence Auster has denominated the unprincipled exception. In the event that you're not familiar with the term, read Auster's explanation here.

Dr. Keyes continues:

It is quite simply that what they are reaching for is wrong – wrong for the quality of health care, wrong for the individual liberties of Americans, wrong for the preservation of constitutional government that secures the liberty of the American people.

Amen! A right principled position if there ever was one -- as opposed to taking an unprincipled opposing position wherein the best (albeit flawed) argument one can articulate 'against' government takeover of the healthcare industry (among others) is that we're not quite ready for a complete government takeover of xyz industry just yet. In this case there's no higher principle on which one founds his opposition to a given thing. No; he isn't necessarily opposed to government-run anything per se, he just thinks everyone is better served if totalitarianism continues to be implimented bits-and-pieces at a time, or, that the rate of speed at which it is advanced should be increased by slight yet steady increments. Because, you see, he thinks that that is the American way.

Catch 'er if you can

2009-08-13T07:18:00.004-05:00

Well, ahem, somebody could and did.

Watch the video. These people obviously ain't real smart (is it any wonder that they couldn't achieve the simple task of cobbling together a genuine-looking COLB for Hussein Obama?). At about 1:20 in the video Jackson-Lee addresses the 'we are a dying breed' remark of 'Dr.' Mayer, indicating that she (Jackson-Lee) is working on legislation which will increase the number of primary care physicians in America -- you know, that 'dying breed' that Mayer spoke of, as being one of; that breed that apparently can only be revitalized as part of the 'Obamacare' package. Not true at all! We just need more people like 'Dr.' Mayer to step up to the plate, and we'll have an abundance of primary care physicians in this country, on the government payroll.

Continuing her comments on the topic, Jackson-Lee speaks of the difficulty of getting young people (approx. 2:00 in the video, using her son as an example) to go to the doctor for preventative care. The obvious answer to that dilemma, though Jackson-Lee doesn't state it explicitly, is to force people to receive 'preventative' care. Well, that's actually not completely true. You can entice certain people to go to the doctor when they get the sniffles IF it is free to them. In those cases it isn't a matter of forcing them to do something they don't want to do, but of enticing them to do what they wouldn't do otherwise, that is if they had to pay for it out of their own pockets. But that doesn't take away from the fact that the government will most definitely try to force people to receive 'preventative' care and health assessments against their will. And all that that implies.

Important announcement -- you feds take note

2009-08-08T11:37:00.003-05:00

I sent a short email to Mr. Auster earlier today regarding the 'Obamacare' initiative, the full text of which I include below:

Ray G. wrote:

What if people didn't cooperate with it's (sic) mandates?

People like me won't cooperate with its mandates. And damn the consequences. I'm not particularly inclined to radicalism, but this has just gone too far already. Oklahoma is my country now.

Again I say to all of you, watch Oklahoma. We won't stand for this sh...crap. I may be an early casualty, but my state will eventually (and in short order) come along, hide and watch. It is just that simple. Secession draws ever nigh. And if my state isn't the first to do so, I'll be thoroughly disappointed ... from my prison cell.

'Wise Latinas' feeling their oats

2009-08-07T08:42:00.002-05:00

Check out Auster's consecutive articles on the subject, here and here. (Note: I've embedded the links to the articles in the order they were posted at VFR)

Dillon

2009-08-06T14:11:00.003-05:00

#41 is former H.S. teamate Richard Dillon. Besides being a distant cousin, Dillon (still a good friend), was the greatest football player I personally ever met up with ... and I personally met up with some great ones, believe me. I went to see him play at many OU games during the mid-1980s. But of particular significance to me (and I assume him) was the game in which his collegiate career was, as a Senior, abruptly ended by injury. Dillon will, I assume, confirm this. The only picture I have to confirm this is a local newspaper article -- The Healdon Herald -- Sports section. Wherein Dillon and I, on the sidelines of the Oklahoma bench, are discussing his (career-ending) injury.

A fundamental flaw in Dr. Keyes's thinking?

2009-08-06T10:42:00.003-05:00

Let me state at the outset that I highly respect Dr. Keyes, his historical knowledge, his influence and abilities, his generally superior moral positions, which my regular readers already know. Anyway...

I was reading Dr. Keyes's latest Loyal to Liberty entry earlier today when I ran across this line,

Dr. Keyes wrote:

...bereft of the choices that today allow many to determine for themselves the moment at which they surrender with dignity to the inevitable prospect of their mortality.

which didn't set real well with me. Allow me to attempt an explanation:

Okay, death is inevitable. We agree on that. And to die with dignity is certainly better than dying in an undignified way. This (a 'dignified' death) must be one of the primary goals of every living human being for himself and his loved-ones (it probably extends beyond his loved-ones, but let's establish that limitation for our purposes here).

Well, I acknowledge that insofar as any human being has legitimate control or authority (or "choice") over human life (and death), it is the individual whose life is in question, and extends no further. But I think there's a fundamental flaw in that sort of thinking, a flaw that ultimately leads, or has led, to the dire situation we're in now. No human being, in my humble opinion, possesses any kind of power over human life, including his own. As he did not give himself life, he cannot, on his own whim, "decide" when, and/or, under what particular circumstances to give it up, 'dignified' or not. Ultimately he has no control over it anyway, he just thinks he does. Which is an indication of his underlying lack of faith in the giver of life, The Sovereign God of the Universe.

Anyway, I thought it might make for an insteresting discussion, both here and at Loyal to Liberty. I decided to bring it here for my own purposes, which are altogether self-interested. So sue me.

On Hussein O.'s supposed Kenyan birth certificate

2009-08-04T10:22:00.002-05:00

I was out of town (and way out of the loop) when this story broke, and I'm just now beginning to learn about it. I may or may not have more to say about it later. Chances are that I will have more to say about it. But anyway, I hope my readers will express their opinions on the subject under this post. Thanks.

Is it true, what they say about Oklahoma?

2009-08-04T09:55:00.004-05:00

Nora Brinker sent me an email yesterday under the subject line "Did you know about this?", containing a link to this examiner.com article. I sent an affirmative reply to Nora --Yes, I do know about, and can confirm that the legislation is legit. But the assertion that all of our illegals have fled the state is false. Many of them fled initially when H.B. 1804 first took effect back in November of 2007. Two key provions in the law (Sections 7 and 9 specifically), however, have been under federal suspsension since July of 2008 (actually I think it may have been late June, 2008, when the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals preemptively passed down its ... opinion that these provisions probably violate federal immigration law, but who's keeping count?), and under the protection of this illegitimate 10th Circuit opinion, many of our illegals have returned to the state. Indeed, I was in Ardmore, Ok., over the weekend, and it was almost shocking to me, the number of illegal Mexican aliens walking around there as opposed to where I live. Shocking I say because it was almost like I was in another state that happens to border ours to the South.

Anyway, how do I know that these illegals are, well, illegals? Let's just say that if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, and otherwise conducts itself like a duck, chances are very high that it probably is a duck.

I thought the official line was?...

2009-08-04T09:21:00.003-05:00

Sen. John McCain, (RINO)- AZ, on the 'birth' issue:

All I know is that that came up during the campaign, and there was never any credence given to it," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said. "In these days of the blogosphere, a lot of things are given weight that shouldn't be. I didn't ever look into it specifically, but no one in my campaign ever found anything, were given anything, or searched for any information that would lead us to believe that was the case.(emphasis mine)

But hasn't it been the position of the leftists and the RINOs that Hussein O. has been/was 'thoroughly vetted' and whatnot?

Liars all! But not to worry, people who lie like this have to build lie upon lie, falsehood upon falsehood, until their entire house of cards comes crashing down upon them. Which is the precise reason that it is so vitally important to continue to pursue this momentus issue all the way to the goal line. The self-deluded opposition notwithstanding.

Time to initiate another letter writing campaign (initial draft)

2009-07-31T07:59:00.004-05:00

Esteemed Sirs,

By changing the language in the amendment proposal such as you've done, you're essentially acknowledging that the federal government possesses unlimited power over the states and the people thereof, and that all federal law supercedes state law, contrary to the ninth and tenth Amendments, U.S. Constitution, and in accordance with the doctrine of the enemy. What is more, given that the language in the amendment was changed upon receipt of a slightly veiled threat from the U.S. Attorney General, you give the lasting impression that you have no heart for the fight, and that the good citizens of Oklahoma bear the same deficiency, which is to say a severe lack of spine. How then, esteemed Sirs, can any other state currently, or in future, embroiled in the sovereignty movement trust that this uniquely conservative, God fearing, liberty-loving state will be with them in good times and bad, in sickness and in health, for richer or for poorer, till death do us part?

My suggested reaction?: "Bring it on!"

Your servant,...

The prospect for secession looms ever nearer

2009-07-26T08:14:00.003-05:00

I'm self-admittedly a bit biased on this topic, but y'all really do need to pay particularly close attention to the goings on in Oklahoma. I flatter myself that I have a pretty good sense of the general attitude of the citizenry in this state. I may be a bit more radical and outspoken about my intentions than most Okies are comfortable with, but you can write it down that there really is a "silent majority" here in Oklahoma that the other side is currently doing all it possibly can do to provoke to action.

Vanishing American has been writing quite a bit lately about the ominous 'healthcare' initiative. I personally do not see how it can be stopped at this point. And stopping it at this point would merely amount to a delay in its adoption anyway. On the other hand, states like mine will most definitely take action to protect their citizens against such insanity. Which, when you boil it all down, comes down to an all-out assault on fundamental liberty. Good health is not a guarantee, nor is it a "right." Of course, I already know that the 'healthcare' bill isn't intended to make the citizenry more healthy, but to destroy personal liberty. Which is the reason that it must be resisted with the firmest, manly kind of resistance we can possibly muster. You may be asking "where are all the men?" I say to you again, watch Oklahoma. The process will take some time, and the impatient among us (who I think are not as firmly dedicated to the cause as they like to let on, generally speaking) will continue to let loose their criticisms of non-binding resolutions, the ineffectiveness of the TEA rallies, etc., etc., etc... And yet the steady and resolved among us will continue to march on. I'm not sure that I fit well into either one of those categories, but I know that a lot of my brethren do. Hide and watch.

Why do the Sarah-haters hate Sarah?

2009-07-19T10:10:00.002-05:00

There's a pretty good discussion on the topic at VFR in which several posters posit their own theories on what is the source of this irrational visceral hatred of someone as real and genuine, and non-threatening (personality wise) as Sarah Palin.

So, what do you think? Why do the Sarah-haters hate her so much?

Promises

2009-07-18T13:14:00.003-05:00

If I handed you a hundred dollars, would you promise to go out and win the Oklahoma Lottery with it and give me half the proceeds? Just asking. Why? I don't know, I just thought that with all the lies ... umm, I mean promises ... we're hearing from the leftist Congress and the illegitimate Obama administration (yes, he's thoroughly illegitimate) that the question should be asked.

I'll tell ya what, I'll promise to do the same if you'll send me, C.O., a (valid) check for five dollars in the mail. Tell all your friends.

The "Culture of Death" will be accentuated by Obamacare

2009-07-18T11:16:00.003-05:00

Vanishing American discusses the healthcare bill in "Time to be concerned" here. I've added a comment under the article in which I respond, by first hand experience, to one of VA's prescient comments concerning the undoubted effect of the bill.

I wrote:

...particularly those whose judgment is clouded by age or illness or medication, will find themselves signing agreements to forgo resuscitation in the event of some medical crisis,...

I know from first hand experience that this already happens with more frequency and less resistance (from the only people who can legally put up an effective resistance) than one would care to admit. Not once, but twice I've personally stood in the way of this or otherwise alerted people that had the power to stop it. Both instances involved aggressive family members of the victims bent on accelerating their respective deaths. In one case I was actually banned from visiting the individual in question under the pretense that I was "upsetting" him too much, making his imminent death unnecessarily uncomfortable for him. I was threatened with physical removal from the hospital and everything else. Nonetheless I was persistent in the fight, and we finally won. And alas, my friend yet lives a normal productive life in spite of it all. And that was two years ago. Once we were able to get him off the high doses of drugs they were daily giving him, his recovery soon followed.

Anyway, you're right, the healthcare bill will most certainly create a situation in which we'll see this kind of thing happening with much more frequency.

A few of my occasional readers will know something of the two incidents I've alluded to above. Fewer still understand the minute details of the individual cases. While I don't really care to get into all of it here, I will say that I learned some very valuable lessons in the first go-round which better prepared me to deal with the situation in the second (which was actually a lot more intense than the first), not the least of which is that family members do not always have the best interests of their ill relatives in mind, in spite of the appearances they give off. They're very good at what they do too; very manipulative, very deceitful in their show of concern only for the "dying" victim of their schemes. Indeed, I can say without the slightest hesitation that often they want them dead, and the quicker the better. For various reasons not necessarily related to some monetary reward they're expecting, but that's a motivation too. I can say too that these people are very aggressive about the way they seek to accelerate their deaths, and they will "out" anyone who presumes to stand in their way. These kinds of people are evil, and in their cases blood damn sure isn't thicker than water.

The moral of the story is simply this: Be extremely cautious about who you trust to oversee your medical care, including blood relatives. Choose them wisely while you're still in relatively good health and a state of mind unaffected by large doses of potent medications. Believe me, the advice is both warranted, and well placed.

You knew it had to come to this at some point

2009-07-15T07:47:00.006-05:00

Hussein Obama's ineligibility is destroying the entire command structure of the United States military. It has begun.

(Note: There's an interesting discussion concerning this situation ongoing at VFR.)

Update (July 18): A federal judge, as reported in the Ledger-Enquirer, has now dismissed Major Cook's case on grounds that the military's revocation of his deployment orders also serve to revoke his standing in the case. How convenient.

Pastor Manning: Don't provoke Whitey!

2009-07-13T00:37:00.001-05:00

"Our new King George"

2009-06-30T05:49:00.003-05:00

Tenth Amendment Center commenter DWalla created this poster for displayal at a TEA rally in his area. Of course, Hussein Obama would be more appropriately portrayed as a King of Saudi Arabia than in the garb of an 18th century British Monarch. But the poster makes a pretty good political point nonetheless. And I've asked DWalla whether he can make one to go with that represents our leftist Congress as the New British Parliament. But then again, that wouldn't really be representative of what they actually are either.

Key answers critics and naysayers

2009-06-30T03:51:00.003-05:00

The Tenth Amendment Center's newly inaugurated weekly podcast show has already featured such notables as Gary Marbut of Montana gun rights fame, and constitutional scholar and historian, Prof. Rob Natelson. Both interviews were well conducted and very informative, as I've mentioned in previous entries.

This week's guest on the show is Ok. Republican Rep. from district 90 (lucky dogs!) Charles Key, who is considered by some to be the founder of the modern tenth amendment resolution movement, among other notable achievements which we won't get into here. Indeed, though Mr. Key doesn't seem much inclined to toot his own horn, and he, accordingly, doesn't mention it in the interview, I'm pretty sure that he actually introduced a version of our tenth amendment resolution during his first stint in the Okla. House of Representatives back in 1990s. Of course he was way ahead of his time then. Besides, Oklahoma's legislature was then controlled by liberal democrats even though the people of the state were then (as well as now) by and large conservatives. But we've rectified that little situation, and Charles Key, thank goodness, is again representing the good people of his district.

Do go over to the Tenth Amendment Center and listen to the interview, though. It's only about 20 minutes long, and Key answers the critics and the naysayers who musn't have anything better to do than to critize the tenth amendment movement as being "ineffective," "just a resolution," "not really serious," and so forth and so on. Recall also that after the Oklahoma legislature overrode the Governor's veto of the measure, Key answered the question of whether secession might be in the cards basically by saying that Oklahoma will not dismiss any option available to us. And he's damn sure right about that.

What is "racism?"

2009-06-30T01:18:00.003-05:00

(Hat tip: VFR)

Quilted COLB

2009-06-29T23:51:00.003-05:00

The official toilet paper of White House staffers. Right handed users need not apply.

Term limits again?!

2009-06-25T08:37:00.002-05:00

There's probably not a single political issue out there that unites more disparate factions than the term limit issue. Would-be government reformers seem to align on this issue almost to the man.

A few days ago I was reading a discussion involving term limits at the Tenth Amendment Center. Everyone was pretty much in agreement that we need to install term limits in the federal constitution, but one commenter in particular made the statement that term limits is a "no-brainer." Which is to say that if you don't support the popular idea of term limiting the federal Congress, then you're something like the village idiot.

Well, I must be the village idiot. And village idiot that I am, I dared to challenge this individual on his assumption. Anyway, the moral of that particular story is that if you lack a good workable knowledge of the constitution and its explication in the Federalist Papers, you best not tangle with someone that possesses it. Oh, I was nice about it; I didn't engage in any personal attacks (what would have been the point?). But when I suggested that this individual might want to read the Federalist Papers to gain a better understanding of the federal constitution, and why the framers included certain provisions therein while leaving others out, I was informed that I was the one that didn't understand the constitution, and that the Federalist Papers offered no instruction on the subject because that was the government they (the framers) were trying to improve when they wrote the Constitution. Well, at this suggestion I simply advised that my interlocutor google the terms "Federalist Papers," and "Articles of Confederation," because it seemed he might be confusing the two. These young whipper-snappers!, I don't quite know what to think about 'em sometimes. ;-) I tend to think, though, that the modern educational apparatus in America, with all of its concern about "self-esteem," absolute equality and so forth and so on, has a tendency to bring out the very worst in individuals and they lack a certain humility and deference that is proper for the relatively uneducated and inexperienced to possess. But that's just a theory and it's beside the point...

A few days later the question arose again under a different article at the Tenth Amendment Center. Same basic results -- people jumping on board advocating for a term limit amendment added to the federal Constitution. And again I felt I needed to challenge this position. But let me just say, without going into a lot of detail, that (1) the founders were well aware of so-called "career politicians," the avarice, inrigue, ambitions and so forth that they possess. Yet they still didn't include term limits (modern definition) in the federal constitution. And (2) the constitution the founders created is a complete working system; a system that, like any other system, when you begin mucking around with it making changes and alterations which, on the surface, appear to be "limited" you later tend to find that they have unintended, unforseen negative consequences which affect the whole structure, and therefore the whole effectiveness as to its original intent, of the government as the founders originally designed it. But our founders didn't leave us without explanation on this point of term limiting the federal Congress. We may read something about it in Federalist no. 64, among other places.

But my main point about federal term limits is this -- I personally couldn't ever support a constitutional amendment that alters the original fundamental structure of the federal government, or that undermines its design and its legitimate purpose. We've done that enough times already with everything from "birthright citizenship" for the children of illegal aliens, to the imposition of a federal income tax, to the "democratic" election of our Senators in the 17th amendment, to limiting the terms of presidents, etc. And this is the very reason I've never supported the FMA. I'm a strong advocate of traditional marriage, but I don't want some federal beaurocracy engaging in fraud, waste, and abuse, issuing marriage licenses and taking ultimate control of the marriage issue. No; my consistent position has been that I can never support a given amendment proposal unless it can be shown to be in keeping with the original intent and design of the government. And when you get down to where the rubber meets the road, this popular clamoring for federal term limits is simply an attempt to establish more mob rule. We've got enough of that already, in my humble opinion. Besides, what makes people think that a state like Massachusetts will not replace a Ted Kennedy with a clone of Ted Kennedy as soon as he's out, I will personally never know. If the people can't control themselves without term limits, how in God's name are they going to control themselves with them? And as our founding fathers were quick to point out to us, we can't always know that people are on the right side of an issue for noble reasons, and vice versa. In other words, don't think for a minute that everyone is on board with term limits because they want to "limit" the size and influence of the federal government. Let me tell you something -- probably the vast majority of people vying for federal term limits have an opposite goal in mind. But, you know, we moderns tend to think that democracy is the ultimate in good government.

On the proper role of the federal government

2009-06-15T02:21:00.003-05:00

When you've got 52 minutes to spare, follow the link provided to the Tenth Amendment Center and listen to Michael Boldin's podcast interview with Constitutional scholar and expert Prof. Rob Natelson.

The interview is well conducted, and Mr. Natelson's answers and explanations are very informative. Also on the page are links to articles published by Mr. Natelson, as well as a link to some of his fuller length essays on subjects related to the constitution.