Darby on the TEA protests

Rick Darby of Reflecting Light has a good piece of advice for those of us who were in attendance this past April 15 at a Tax Day TEA Party near us. I.e., all of you potential domestic/homegrown terrorists out there.

Rick's advice? Read it for yourself.

I said once before at this blog that the chosen TEA acronym (Taxed Enough Already?) was/is a rather uninspiring bit of phraseology. And I add further that it really misses the point. But ultimately I tend to think that the TEA rallies, whatever the chosen acronym might be, represent a more (pardon the term) 'comprehensive' understanding of a deeper and more pervasive problem. People may not yet understand the root of the problem, of which excessive taxation is merely a symptom or an effect, but we'll get there eventually.

As has been said before, scum rises to the top (can there be a more profound example of the principle than the current occupants of the U.S. Congress and the White House?). I've personally always thought this natural phenomenon, as it manifests itself in government and politics, is ultimately a good thing, for it gives us, if we'll put any measure of reflection to it at all, some idea of what lies beneath the surface. And that is ultimately where we'll need to turn our undivided attentions in order to make the appropriate corrections necessary to clear out the scum residing at the top and elsewhere.

Read More

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read More

A couple of firsts for me in the late election

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

Read More

Parody of the travelling libertarian, or, National Lampoon's Libertarian Family Vacation

Here is a very funny post over at Reflecting Light. Something tells me that this guy would find something governmentally evil and liberty destroying in the existence of "the world's largest ball of yarn." Consider:

Future libertarian of America (FLA) questions libertarian (anti)-authority figure:

Daddy, why is it that you make me sit still while riding in the car?

Libertarian anti-authority figure ponders on FLA's question for at least three full seconds,

Questions like these always give me pause. There's the standard party line "because your moving about in the car while daddy is driving can be dangerous," but wait, since not all movement in a car is dangerous and exceptions are sometimes made to the rule, the party line is not valid - it never is.

and then proceeds to respond:

No; the real reason daddy makes you sit still in the car is because he can.

Besides, if the government had not arbitrarily made riding in a trailer illegal, you'd be there right now free to move about as you like. So in reality daddy only makes rules for you to follow as a result of government arbitrarily making rules for him to follow. See what I mean, honey, about the evil arbitrary nature of government and how it destroys individual liberty? Never forget this lesson.

Now please, sit back down, buckle up, and stop asking these stupid questions which any libertarian worth her salt already knows the answer to.

If you've ever argued with a libertarian about whether any and all rules and standards and limits are "arbitrary," then you know exactly where I'm coming from. For instance, are speed limits arbitrary? Libertarians think they are, all reasonable arguments to the contrary notwithstanding. To a libertarian, governments set "arbitrary" limits on the speed at which you may drive your car in a given area simply because they can. The same applies to most everything else with libertarians, right down to government at the most local level.

Read More

Parents obey your children, for this is right in liberal society

I've bemoaned the fact before that children in America increasingly are being raised with a growing sense of self-worth and filial empowerment, feeling themselves equal, if not superior to their parents and elders. It's an upside down worldview that finds anything good or right or proper in destroying the natural, God-ordained relationship between parent/elder and child. But as I've said before, anytime you begin to try to improve on God's perfect design, you're messing up.

But really, when you think about it, what other outcome might one expect in a society where liberalism is the dominant ideology? Since we're all God's children, and therefore owe due respect and subordinance to him who is our Father in Heaven, and since liberalism, when you boil it all down, is just an extreme form of rebellion against God and His authority over his creation, doesn't it stand to reason that liberal empowerment would result in the empowerment of children over their elders, among other evils?

Poetic justice? In that sense I would have to say yes. But it doesn't mean I revel in it.

Read More

The highs and lows of Muslim student Visas

How many Muslim student visas does the United States government indiscriminately pass out these days, less than seven years post-9/11? Well, according to these figures last year represented the first year since 2001 that 100,000 plus student visas were granted citizens from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan.

Rick Darby has a few thoughts on the subject that are very much worth your time. Here's a sampling:

How many are can't be known until they act so as to remove any doubt, but let's be charitable and say that no more than 5 percent might be people we need to worry about. That's a mere 5,494 out of 109,878 admitted. Last year.

Charitable indeed! But the point is well made. 5,500 potential covert jihadits legally granted access to our country under the auspices of furthering their educations at an American University ain't nothin' to sneeze at.

Read More

A little election humor to take your mind off the pain

Every time a presidential election rolls around, it seems, there's someone out there who predicts the assassination of a candidate should he/she be so (un)fortunate as to win the election and become the next president. This presents the supporters of the candidate in question with quite the moral dilemma, as Rick Darby notes:

So, the United States of America can't even wash itself clean of its sins by electing a blackish president. It is cursed unto the last generation. Obama could sweep every state in the Union, but the sick soul of the land of cotton will rise up and take its vengeance. "Vote for Obama — He'll Make a Change Before He Meets His Maker." "Mark Your Bullets, er, Ballots for Obama."

This would seem to present the good left-liberal with a dilemma. Will electing the man who carries the pigment be sentencing him to capital punishment? If he is indeed a marked man, then the liberal who pulls the lever will be morally equivalent to the one who pulls the trigger.

Well, if the one who pulls the lever knows that his choice, if elected, is a "marked man", then, yes, he would be the moral equivalent of the one who pulls the trigger. But, of course, how could a leftist liberal not know this given his perspicacious understanding of the racial hatred that actuates ... other than leftist America?

But Mr. Darby doesn't leave us hanging on how to account for this problem, he provides us with a solution to the dilemma, in a style all his own.

Read More

Credit Where Credit is Due

I hate to say it, but I'm going to have to agree with Rick Darby when he says he has to hand it to the Muslims. I don't like it anymore than he does, but he's also right that Western liberal politicians buckle at the knees at the mere threat of Islamic violence. Indeed, often it doesn't even amount to an actual threat, but an implied threat or the mere thought that an action might result in a threat.

Mr. Darby writes:

I've got to hand it to European Muslims, I really do. They are running rings around the governments of countries like Britain and Holland. Muslims clever; non-Muslims stupid.

What are they doing that's so smart? Well, either by a planned strategy or just an instinct for gnawing at the infidel's soft bits, they have figured how to advance Islamization in slices. Instead of one big confrontation, a thousand small ones.

I personally don't quite know what to make of it. Either it's the strategy of a genius or it's just dumb luck, as Rick suggests, that the Muslims have happened on the right combination here to dhimmify the European contintent in small slices. Whatever it is, though, it's definately working. Muslim world conquest continues unabated.

And, of course, this ties right into Auster's formulation that Mohammed was a Successful Hitler. Mr. Auster actually refers to Allah's prophet as "one of the great geniuses of history.":

Truly, Muhammad was one of the great geniuses of history, a successful Hitler as I have said, to keep getting people, even fourteen centuries after his death, voluntarily to embrace his program of self-abnegation, the willing surrender of their mind and identity....

And he notes some of the same disturbing phenomena that Mr. Darby recognizes in his entry. Whatever you do, don't miss either of these excellent articles.

Read More

Wanted: Trans-gender, multi-racial, bi-sexual who be lookin' jolly good in uniform;

Contact Scotland Yard for more information.

I was out and about earlier making some rounds I've neglected the last few days, and lookie here what I found!

Rick, you've done it again, sir. I have but one thing to say: What, he's not too straight too? Where's the outrage?

Read More

Can one be a Traditionalist Conservative, while not being Christian?

Rick Darby of Reflecting Light asks this very intriguing question in a thread over at VA's, as well as asking for answers. And I presume he means he's seeking an answer from anyone willing to attempt to give him one. Well, I'm willing, so here goes...

Rick writes:

Can I be a traditionalist conservative while admiring the Vedantic tradition of India (the Upanishads, not all the superstitious rubbish that modern Hinduism has accreted) and Buddhism? Can I be a traditionalist conservative who doesn't believe in the literal truth of the New Testament, the physical resurrection of Jesus, or the doctrine that Jesus sacrificed himself to save mankind from its sins? A traditionalist conservative whose spiritual practice is meditation and trying to be a decent person?

TM answers:

While my familiarity with Buddhism is very lacking, and of the Vedantic tradition of India much more so, I think the larger question Rick is asking is whether he, or any other American, can be considered a traditionalist conservative while not believing in the Christian doctrine of Chirst's deity.

I think the answer to the question is an emphatic yes, as long as such an individual does not fail to recognize the great influence of Christianity on Western culture, and the establishment of the United States as one step in the progress of that Western culture. Many people, in denying the doctrines of Christianity also deny its positive and direct impact on Western civilization and this nation, or at least try to minimize it to the extent that they claim an equal influence from all religions on the foundation of America, which I think cannot be supported with any substantial amount of factual evidence.

So I think people who embrace teachings of religions other than Christianity while rejecting Christian teachings, so long as they don't try to discredit Christianity's dominant influence on the development of Western culture and tradition, but instead recognize and acknowledge it, can indeed be traditionalist conservatives, and effective apologists for it. From what I've read of Rick (which isn't much to this point, I shamefully admit), I haven't come away with the impression that he seeks to minimize the influence of Christianity on Western civilization.

I'm also thinking in terms here of Kristor L.'s Apologetic comments to that VFR thread where he says that Christianity has historically not been afraid to acknowledge certain doctrines of other religions.

Read More