Here's a link to a News Channel 8 Tulsa video report of the Tea Party held yesterday in Tulsa. The written report claims that over a thousand were in attendance at the Tulsa Tea Party. If true, this is a fairly impressive turnout for an event first planned only a few days ago. Reports from the OKC Tea Party put the number of attendants at about 200.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Shun the detested beverage!
Hunker down people, things are fixin' to get rough!
Is Gerald Celente all he's cracked up to be among certain television and radio media personalities? I don't know, but it seems like Mr. Celente has put together a pretty impressive portfolio of accurately predicting certain trends before they actually begin to manifest themselves in a significant and noticeable way.
Perhaps like me you've seen Mr. Celente appear recently as a guest on various network news programs such as Glenn Beck's show on Fox News. Of course the guest segments on those shows are always too short to get a good feel for who these personalities are and how believable they may or may not be. Celente is nonetheless capitalizing on the economic uncertainty amongst the folks, thus making a name for himself beyond the confines of New York City and economic elitists. And he's making dire predictions for our short term future, including, yes, 2009.
So what is Mr. Celente predicting for this year, 2009, and how can we get to know him better? See below the fold.
________________________________________________________
Here's the first segment of Celente's guest appearance on the Alex Jones radio program from Dec. 18, 2008:
Also, here's Celente's appearance on Art Bell's Coast to Coast radio show of the same date:
And here's the first segment of Catherine Austin Fitts's December 19, 2008 appearance on Coast to Coast where she discusses the same topic and in which she offers some down-to-earth practicable steps that individuals can take in order to prepare themselves, their families, and their local communities to best deal with the impending economic collapse. In other words, to become more self-sufficient, self-sustaining, and self-governing on an individual and a local level:
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
On Obama's speech and Governor Jindal's response
I watched the entirety of the president's speech last night, and, of course, the president is in a league of his own when it comes to speechifiying. Let there be no doubt, he is made for public speaking, or is it that public speaking is made for him? I can certainly see how people can be drawn into his web of deceit.
Contrast the President's speech with Governor Jindal's response, and, well, you get the impression of a rank amateur (Jindal) going up against a seasoned professional (Obama). Hey!, I'm just being honest here. Certainly my positions are more in line with Governor Jindal's than they will ever be with President Obama's. An ability to speak well doesn't equal an ability to govern well, and vice versa. But all the hype about this guy Jindal being some kind of Reagan incarnate was quickly laid to waste last night, at least as far as I'm concerned.
Did anyone else get the impression from Jindal's delivery that he thought he was telling a bedtime story to a bunch of kindergartners? Was anyone else insulted by this mode of delivery? Forget about his tacit embrace of open immigration and multiculturalism, his delivery ... sucked!; he bombed it bigtime! I'm no fan of Sarah Palin, but I guarantee you she would have delivered a much better, much more adult-like response. And by the way, conservatives are, in the truest sense of the word, adults. Therefore they require an adult message, for all you juvenile republicans out there.
Wilders in America, cont.
If you're curious about what Mr. Wilders is doing during his stay in America between times he appears as a guest on various television media programs, Lawrence Auster has an entry up at VFR describing a meeting he attended yesterday in a Manhattan apartment where Wilders spoke to a small group who also saw his film Fitna.
Follow Auster's link to Atlas Shrugged where pictures are posted, and from there you can find, via another link, video clips of the Q & A segment of the meeting.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Monday, February 23, 2009
Wilders in America
FRI (For Reader's Information) ;-)
In case you're unaware of it, Constitutional Scholar and former Ambassador under the Reagan administration, and several times presidential candidate Alan Keyes has a blog called Loyal to Liberty. Yes, yes, the orange and yellow color scheme is a little ... too much, but the consistent constitutional conservatism -against the orange and yellow background- is a thing to behold.
I've permanently linked Dr. Keyes's blog in the right sidebar under the heading Links of Interest. I may, in the future, move the link to my blogroll. What do you think?
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Question for leftists:
How exactly do you propose to subject a people under leftist-socialist government who are cultured enough to appreciate both the beauty and serenity of a Beethoven, 6th Symphony (beginning at about 27:00 - my apologies, I couldn't find anything more narrow. But why am I apolgizing?; the entire symphony is outstanding!), and at the same time uncultured enough to appreciate the humor of a Ray Stevens and Black Velveteen Art? Ans: You can't subject them to leftism. Why are you trying? Do you want a war?
Read MoreDriving a stake into the heart of Republican government
Alan Keyes joins the rank of Senator Coburn (arguably the most consistently conservative member of the U.S. Senate; the U.S. Senate's consummate Okie from Muskogee), both of whom have been declared by certain personalities on the left to be insane because they recognize the communistic radicalism of our leftist president and the leftist-socialist Congress, and they dare to wield their influence, publicly pronouncing their opposition to it.
Dr. Keyes writes:
Until a friend sent me an email about it on Friday, I hadn't read Senator Coburn's speech. But on Thursday evening in Hastings, Nebraska, when asked about Obama's policies, I said that he is a radical communist, and that if Americans who care about liberty (i.e., who don't want to put a stake in its heart?) do nothing to stop him he'll bring about the destruction of the United States.
I just have a couple of things to say about this: whenever the left declares a person to be insane, that person is probably on the right track. Saying that someone is insane because he strongly opposes the policies of a president and a Congress which will destroy all remaining vestiges of Republican liberty is itself a form of insanity, or at least of self-delusion. In any event, it's not insanity to oppose a policy initiative if you believe, and publicly pronounce your belief, that it presents your country with an existential threat. That's like saying someone who establishes and adheres to rules for the better ordering of his home and family, and who pronounces the reasons for which other forms of family government are incompatible with the safety and happiness and the perpetuation of his family, is somehow insane. Which is basically what leftists believe about family autonomy. Read More
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Attention Obama Opposers:
Be careful about the way you state your opposition to Obama and his policies, or you may be treated to a visit from the Secret Service.
I'll tell you what, this guy Barack Hussein Obama must be the Secret Service's worst possible nightmare. As a radical leftist with a radical leftist Congress to back him up and he it, and given that radical leftists possess little to no will or ability to exercise self-restraint, and given as well that there are a bunch of crazies out there who are equally incapble of exercising self-restraint, and we don't know who exactly they are, law enforcement agencies across the fruited plain are on hyper alert for anyone who openly expresses his disdain for Hussein's destructive leftist policies. And since they're on hyper alert for speech that might possibly be construed as threatening towards the president, or that might incite violence towards the president, this means that the Secret Service's workload under Obama must be enormous by comparison to the same respecting the last few administrations. I wonder how much stimulus money is earmarked for the hiring and training of more Secret Service field agents to protect Obama?
Anyway, you can read Dr. Yeagley's interpretation of what happened to a gentleman in Oklahoma City on February 12 when he was followed and eventually pulled over by a police officer because he had taped to the tailgate of his pickup a homemade sign which read "Abort Obama, not babies" here. Dr. Yeagley also has a video interview with the man posted in the entry.
Limits or Balance, or both?
In connection with the video posted at the AFB, and also with the Democracy or Republic entry posted below, some of you may be interested in this Oct. 2007 AFB discussion on limiting government via governmental balance.
The discussion initially got a little heated between myself and our libertarian friend ol' shep, but we finally came to an understanding agreeing that re-establishing governmental balance is a superior concept to that of placing artificial arbitrary restrictions on government in order to limit its power to do evil. If you care to read the discussion avoiding all of the initial hostility exhibited between myself and ol' shep, you can start about here (Note: I was writing at that time under the pen name D. Webster.).
Also, for a better understanding of what "Balanced Government" is as we at the AFB have attempted to explicate it, see my AFB article What is Balanced Government?. I need to make some revisions to the article, but the basic concepts are all there. Also, the article, in fact both of these AFB articles are permanently linked at the top of this blog's left sidebar under the heading Select AFB Articles.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Email inundation
I'm making my way through the hundreds of remaining emails I've received to my inbox over the last couple of months. Personally, when the number exceeds a couple of hundred, I start to get a little nervous and completely committed to filing those whicha apply under their proper files. Everything else gets summarily deleted.
My regular and trusted correspondents are encouraged to continue emailing me - you know who you are.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Homegrown Jihad?
Gates of Vienna is plugging a new documentary video - Homegrown Jihad - showing evidence of terrorist organizations and at least 35 individual terrorist training camps scattered about across the U.S.:
Baron Bodissey writes:
Martin Mawyer, Jason Campbell, and the other brave people of the Christian Action Network have spent the last three years researching, videotaping, and gathering material for their documentary Homegrown Jihad. They have done the country a tremendous service, and I recommend that you visit the CAN site and get yourself a copy of the DVD.
While I too encourage you to visit the CAN site and watch the trailer video, and certainly order your own copy of the movie which I intend to do, may I express a minor quibble with the use of a certain term, as well as to offer an alternative?
Is it possible for us to agree to stop referring to these Muslim terrorists living and training in America as "homegrown"? Admittedly it's a catchy word, but homegrown seems to me to imply that they were born and raised and educated in America, which I'm sure is true for some of them, but surely the vast majority of them are not "homegrown," and they didn't become jihadists while living on American soil. Rather, they are grown and developed elsewhere, or foreign-grown if you will, and make their way to, and manage to stay in, America via a variety of avenues, legal and illegal. Therefore I suggest that we stop using the term "homegrown" in relation to this particular group of jihadist terrorists, and replace it with "home-based" until such time as we gain smarts enough to remove them from American soil and repatriate them back to the lands from whence they came. At which point we'll no longer need the term to distinguish between them and foreign terrorists and terrorist organizations. They'll all just be jihadist mercenaries confined to the lands of their forbears.
Am I asking too much or being too nitpicky? Read More
Liberalism: Fund pet social(ist) programs by defunding them in the issue
Here's a rather unstimulating example of liberal bassackwards, self-destructive "stimulus" thinking. The idea goes something like this (really!, I'm not making this up):
If you want to grow government and government interference into the lives of individuals, and simultaneously fund a given socialist pet project that you've been itching for years to pass (say, SCHIP), because nobody else is sinful enough to fund it, then what you do is to take a given thing that society, at the given moment in time, finds repulsive (say, tobacco use), and you impose a tax on it which you've previously denominated and thoroughly secured in the minds of the folks, a "sin tax." (There are also things denominated "luxury taxes" - a luxury is, of course, a sin unto itself in liberal society - one of which the Oklahoma legislature wisely repealed a few years ago, but not before it had collected from yours truly an irretrievable hefty fee based on same. Hint: they didn't do this of their own volition, or because of their wisdom.)
Nothing wrong with taxing something society deems as agregiously sinful, right? Well, I suppose not, unless said tax, combined with state and federal taxes already imposed on tobacco use, is so heavy and burdensome on said group that they'll be forced to find ways around having to pay it, i.e., cutting back on their tobacco use, and/or, quitting altogether, etc., there being no other alternative left to their discretion, their all-wise, all-powerful federal masters leaving them no other means of escape.
How brain-dead can these people be? I'm serious! They actually think that they can impose a new federal tax on a product, a tax that is almost double per pound what the product (current state and federal taxes included) costs currently, and this will result in a manifold increase in federal revenue sufficient to fund SCHIP from henceforth and for always, presumably, or at least until the next culturally unacceptable practice, and its practitioners, makes itself/themselves manifest as prime candidates for excessive taxation (say, fast food eaters). This is the very reason, my friends, that the federal government has absolutely no business taxing (or reaching) individuals, or the habits, bad as they may well be, of individuals. Who do you know that doesn't have some bad habits?
Here's my appeal to anyone out there with half a brain cell left: Do you want the central government deciding what is exceedingly sinful and what is not sinful, and taxing you accordingly? If your answer to that question is anything other than an emphatic NO, then I'm afraid you need to seek psychological help, and fast.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Typical "Muslim-American" couple
Yes, one of them was recently subjected to a typical Muslim honor killing, or should we say a typical Muslim honor beheading? Or should we say the victim was honored with a beheading?
Small consolation to his decapitated wife that her husband, acting the part of a good Muslim following the example of his demented prophet in sawing her head off with a knife as the culminating event in a marriage fraught with abuse and violence (I wonder how many times he raped her?), will sit the rest of his days in a prison cell where he will become an even more dedicated and a more perfect Muslim, I'm sure.
Explain to me again why we invite these people to live in our country and participate in our political process, and to enjoy all the priveleges and immunities thereof, including the right to a speedy trial, trial by jury, fifth amendment protections, and the rigth to state provided legal representation? On second thought, don't.
**********
From the story linked above:
The couple had two children, ages 4 and 6, DiPirro said. Muzzammil Hassan also has two children, ages 17 and 18, from a previous marriage.
Question: Is Mr. Hassan's first wife's head still attached to her body? Presumably all of his children remain in one piece. Read More
Another impotent State Legislature inadvertently reveals the reason for its impotency
One of the most destructive and oft repeated lies that was ever perpetrated on the American public is the lie that immigration is an exclusively federal issue:
Most opponents also point out that immigration is a federal issue, and most legislators say Congress should handle it – Texas has a budget to pass, jobs to create and public schools to monitor, all in less than five months.
Many of this year's bills are unsuccessful repeats from the last session, when only three immigration bills – out of 72 – ultimately passed. Supporters acknowledge that most were kept at arm's length even by devout conservatives such as former House Speaker Tom Craddick, R-Midland, who felt they belonged in Congress. And the measures face even longer odds under a moderate speaker and a House that is almost evenly divided now among Republicans and Democrats.
Am I the only one to see that immigration has a direct impact on all of the above (Texas's budget, creation of jobs, the monitoring of public schools, etc.)? Moreover, am I the only that sees that the unwillingness of the Texas legislature to deal with the immigration issue and to declare it a "federal issue" which belongs in Congress is what's leading Texas and the Texas legislature to become ever more democrat(ic) and liberal?
Allow me to echo the prediction of Mark Krikorian who recently said in a video-interview dealing with the subject of immigration that Texas will soon follow in the footsteps of California in that it will become a swing state progressively moving more to the left until it is firmly in the Democrat column. Why? Because as I've pointed out more times than I care to count, immigrants to this country are, and always have been since the inception of this country, by and large, natural democrats. Among the best explanations for this tendency among immigrants to gravitate to the Democrat party was stated by Noah Webster who wrote:
Many of them come here with violent prejudices against arbitrary government, and they seem to make no great distinction between arbitrary government and a government of laws founded on free elections.
They don't make a great distinction between the two because they do not and cannot know the difference. In other words, the regimes they've lived under all of their lives, and the regimes their parents and grandparents have lived under all of their lives, etc., have always been oppressive and arbitrary. This being all they've ever known, how could they possibly be aware of the difference (I'm speaking in generalities; I admit of the occasional exception, as did Mr. Webster)? Moreover, whenever our government acts in a way that does not suit them or their way of thinking, how could they possibly understand the distinction between the arbitrary enactments of their own governments and the lawfully executed legislative enactments of our own?
The bottom line here is that it is, always has been and ever shall be, a losing proposition for non-democrats to cater to immigrant groups whether they be Hispanics or any other ethnicity. The best that can possibly be accomplished by doing so is to corrupt your party's principles for the sake of gaining votes you're never going to get, and to simultaneously alienate your base which will result in a net loss, not a net gain, of voters loyal to your party. In other words, to turn your state and your nation over to liberal multiculturalist Democrats.
Wake up Texas! Read More
New addition to "On Islam"
Readers familiar with this blog immediately recognize the On Islam label in the post title. For those new, or relatively new to the blog, On Islam is the title of a section in this blog's left sidebar containing permanent links to sites and articles by authors who are knowledgable about the subject of Islam, its propagation and advancement in the West, and the ultimate reason its [Islam's] adherents seek empowerment in the West.
The propagation and advancement of Islam in the West is obviously a major concern of this blog and its owner, and I'm on constant lookout for articles and authors who are knowledgable and informative on the subject. Indeed, as I wrote in the introduction to to my webpage Lawrence Auster on Islam,:
The purpose of the page is twofold: it is to provide the inquisitive seeker of information concerning Islam with factual material on the nature of the religion of Mohammed which you may have heretofore been unacquainted with or simply unaware of. ...
Likewise, it is one purpose of this blog, and the specific purpose of the On Islam section of the blog, to provide the inquisitive reader with the same type of factual material taken from the Quran and other Islamic sources, and to allow him to draw his own conclusions from the material presented.
I do not pretend to be open minded when it comes to the advancement of Islam in America and the West. Indeed, I freely own that I'm vehemently oppose it and anything that leads to Islam's westward advancement; specifically Muslim immigration to America and the West. Why? Because, very simply stated, Islam in practice means nothing less than an attempt at complete and utter world domination by various means including, but certainly not limited to, religious deception. And since Muslims are the practitioners of Islam, or Islamic world domination, then they do not belong in this country or the West. In other words, I know enough about Islam at this point to justify closing my mind to any and all attempts to sugar-coat what Mohammed's "religion" is all about, and/or, any and all stated attempts to eviscerate from the historical record who and what this piece of garbage Mohammed was. And I know enough about it to know that "radicals" did not "hijack" a great religion on Sept. 11, 2001. Islam may well be by some standard a "great religion", but it most certainly has never been hijacked by radical islamists unless you consider its demented radical founder to have hijacked the very religion he himself invented and became the embodiment of by his own barbaric, murderous, anti-semitic, pedophile example - the example that all good Muslims are to follow.
I cannot acquiesce in what appears to be a new innovation on the final stanza of Berkeley's famous poem:
Westward the course of Islam takes it way.
The first five acts already past, a sixth shall close the drama with the day.
Time's most violent offspring is the last.
Notwithstanding all of that, I'm happy to report that a permanent link to a worthy site has now been newly added to the On Islam section of this blog. Thanks to Mr. Winn for his scholarly service in this cause, and thanks to Gates of Vienna commenter Henrik R. Clausen for turning me and other GoV readers on to the site. I hope you'll take the time to visit and read it, particularly the online book Prophet of Doom. Read More
Monday, February 16, 2009
Krikorian v. Nadler
Bible vs. Koran
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Harry Reid making an ___ of himself
Okay, I get it - you can voluntarily choose not to pay federal income taxes. The government will in turn force you to comply with its imposition of taxation on your person through a variety of means, including incarceration if you persist in volunteering to opt out of paying your taxes. Thus paying taxes is voluntary in the United States unlike some European countries we know.
Looming on the Horizon
This blog has been incessantly pointing out that the new Congress and Obama Administration will be seeking to overthrow state and local immigration laws as well as to simultaneously resurrect and impose "Comprehensive Immigration Reform," a.k.a. the Senate Amnesty bill. And it's not just a matter of what they want to do, it is a matter of what they can do, and will do, now that they are in complete control of the reins of government.
The article to which I link states in the subtitle that "This time around the circumstances are more favorable for passing reform legislation", which is one of the biggest understatements concerning federal legislation I've personally ever read.
"More favorable"? Umm, this time circumstances are not simply "more favorable", they are, without a doubt, absolutely favorable; in other words, it's going to happen. I don't think certain people understand how liberalism actually works. If you think liberal, drunken-with-power, politicians give a hoot about several hundred thousand calls and emails opposing a given piece of legislation, you've got another think coming.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
"Stimulus" bill passes Senate,...
...will wonders never cease?!
I know, I know, nobody likes a smart alec, but I can't help feeling completely justified in reacting this way. Plus, I'm not really out to win anyone's approval anyway. If you don't like my attitude, move on. If you can put up with it for a couple of more paragraphs, continue reading.
When are people going to wake up? The U.S. Senate, as I've said numerous times since the results of the late election came in, is a filibuster proof Senate precisely because there are a number of RINOs who occupy seats in the U.S. Senate. Obama and the Democrats, I guarantee you, know this. All of this hope and hype about the Democrats needing to be very careful so as not to lose the support of three rogue Republican Senators which was supposedly hanging by a proverbial thread is herein effectively shown for what it is, just that - hype, and hope.
I listened with disgust yesterday to the talking heads claiming that Senate Democrats had at least better be on pins and needles unless they wanted to lose the fragile support of the three lone Repulicans who they'd barely, through tough back room negotiations, managed to swing to their side on the "stimulus" package. Right. And now we learn that not only did they somehow manage to keep their support while simultaneously growing the bill, they managed to do so with the removal from the Senate bill of the House's stipulation for the inclusion of E-Verify to protect American workers from their jobs going to illegal aliens.
I'm shocked, SHOCKED!
I don't know how much more of this my heart can take. Is it possible, with the Democrats occupying less than 60 seats in the Senate, that Congress will pass so-called "Comprehensive Immigration Reform," thus effectively nullifying all of the work that has been done at the state and local level to do what the central government has neither the will, nor the basic instinct to do, i.e., preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States?
Say it isn't so.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Republicans ecstatic over congressional losses
Well, not exactly over their losses, but they're apparently ecstatic to finally be back safely and securely in the minority, and it took big losses in two elections to get them there, hence they're really ecstatic about their losses:
It’s not that they were glad to lose. There are a lot of indignities involved in being the minority, and a pretty small minority at that. But talk to Republican lawmakers and insiders these days, and they speak as if an enormous weight has been lifted from their shoulders. Some of that weight was named George W. Bush, but in a larger sense, Republicans are relieved to be free of the burden of running things.
Free of the burden of running things? Hmmm.
Anyway, do read the entirety of the article, it's interesting what congressional Republicans are quoted as having said recently per their minority status. They'd likely be that much more ecstatic had a few more Republican Senators been peeled off in the late election, but I imagine the infamous three probably weren't up for re-election this go-round.
And what about Lindsay Grahamnesty? Does he epitomize the apparent inability of congressional Republicans to be in the majority and to be conservative at the same time? The only way conservatives can be true conservatives is when they're in the minority?
I'm not sure what good it does anyone for congressional Republicans to be unanimous in their opposition when even their unanimity, due to a simple lack of numbers, cannot stop a single measure the socialist party wants to put through. In other words, with conservatives like this, what need have we of liberals? Read More
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Reminder
My original post on the topic being now pushed down the page, I thought I'd post a new entry reminding you to watch the five segment interview with Mark Krikorian, author of The New Case Against Immigration, both Legal and Illegal, which is now complete and posted online here.
Note: Scroll down the page to find other interesting interviews, including a post election interview with the newly elected Chairman of the RNC, Michael Steele, in which Mr. Steele discusses his impression of the personality type of Mr. Obama.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Happy Birthday!
A question that often comes up in our discussions is whether there is really a God? Today is the birthday of my wife, my best friend and most trusted confidant for the last 22 years. What is the proof that there is a God? My wife. Why do I say this? Because I fervently prayed for her as a young college student in an isolated dorm room some 23 years ago; a perfect match if there ever was one.
Happy Birthday! I love you more than ever, as always.
On the issue of state sovereignty
Read this WND article to see what my state, Oklahoma, and others are currently doing to check the tendency of the federal government to usurp it's constitutional powers and become completely despotic and tyrannous under Obama and the socialist Obama regime.
Oklahoma's bill is HJR 1003, the text of which may be accessed here, "Search Text of Measures", 11th item on the list.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Mixed up President for a Mixed up America
At the National Prayer Breakfast held yesterday morning in Washington, President Obama - Mr. A woman's right to choose his own self - uttered these memorable words:
There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being. This much we know.
Yeah, but you ain't God, right Mr. President? And besides, it all depends on what we mean by the term "innocent," doesn't it? Muslims do not consider Christians and Jews, nor anyone otherwise non-Muslim to be "innocent," and Allah doesn't condone the murder of innocent human beings, isn't that right, sir? A human child conceived in a mother's womb is not innocent if the persons determining the definition of the term innocent for our purposes also determines that child, at any stage in the pregnancy, to be a threat to the health and well-being, physical or otherwise, of the "mother", and/or, if the child in question is determined to be a threat to the environment via overpopulation, isn't that right our Sovereign Lord, Barack Hussein Obama I? Then of course there's the little matter of when a blob of human tissue actually becomes a human being, which, of course, is above your weasel paygrade, ain't that so?
One other thing we know about the gods and what they do and do not condone is that they most certainly do not condone any opposition to your policies. That we know for an absolute certainty. Read More
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)