Will the real Hussein O. please stand up!

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.

Read More

Hussein O.'s impending impeachment

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.

Read More

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

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.

Read More

Catch 'er if you can

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.

Read More

Important announcement -- you feds take note

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.

Read More

'Wise Latinas' feeling their oats

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)

Read More

Dillon

#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.

Read More

A fundamental flaw in Dr. Keyes's thinking?

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.

Read More

On Hussein O.'s supposed Kenyan birth certificate

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.

Read More

Is it true, what they say about Oklahoma?

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.

Read More

I thought the official line was?...

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.

Read More

Time to initiate another letter writing campaign (initial draft)

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,...

Read More

The prospect for secession looms ever nearer

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.

Read More

Why do the Sarah-haters hate Sarah?

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?

Read More

Promises

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.

Read More

The "Culture of Death" will be accentuated by Obamacare

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.

Read More

You knew it had to come to this at some point

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.

Read More

Pastor Manning: Don't provoke Whitey!

Read More

"Our new King George"

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.

Read More

Key answers critics and naysayers

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.

Read More

What is "racism?"

(Hat tip: VFR)

Read More

Quilted COLB

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

Read More

Term limits again?!

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.

Read More

On the proper role of the federal government

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.

Read More

Is Hussein Obama a royal screw-up, and why?

Chiu Chunling wrote a post over at Loyal to Liberty from whence I extract the final interesting paragraph posted below.

Chiu writes:

Even so, I will make my plea to those without moral scruples. Make the smart choice. This communist revolution thing never works out anyway, not even when upgraded with fascist regulatory and propaganda schemes. And Obama has royally screwed up the whole timetable and provoked a counter-force. The fence is about to be torn down, so you'll be needing a new place to sit. You might even have to stand. Just don't stand with the commies, okay? I know it seems like they're 'the future' and all that, but that's all a bunch of propaganda. Learn from history. Or just ask yourself if you really want to be queuing up for bread and band-aids. (emphasis mine)

I'll admit up front that I'm partial to the view highlighted in italics, and that my partiality to it is the reason it caught my attention as well as why I chose to post it in its own blog entry here at Webster's. Part of the reason I'm partial to it is that I've been saying all along that Obama cannot possibly know what he's gotten himself into. And before the election that he could not possibly understand what he was about to get himself into. Part of the reason I've been saying that is because I don't believe he can possibly understand real people who still possess real souls, his being surrounded all of his life by people who had long since sold their souls to the devil. So he only knows what evil, soul-less people are thinking, and his radical movements are predicated on how he thinks people will react to his destructive policies and his radical drive to impose them; he thinks that all normal people have no souls and no consciences like those individuals who've always surrounded him. Hence, without some outside help from someone who does understand real people, only by blind luck itself can he possibly avoid provoking real people.

It is a serious problem for him. But that's what he gets for thinking he was qualified for the presidency in the first place.

But, of course, he couldn't accomplish any of this without the aid of the radical leftists in Congress who suffer from perhaps a somewhat milder form of Hussein Obama's delusion and misunderstanding of basic human nature of those whose souls remain intact.

Read More

Tennessee Senate pitches 'no-hitter' in Tenth Amendment battle

Below is the text of the article posted at the Tenth Amendment Center.

Tennessee Senate Unanimously Affirms Sovereignty
Posted on 12 June 2009

Today, the Tennessee State Senate unanimously voted to pass, as amended, House Joint Resolution 108 (HJR0108). The resolution “Urges Congress to recognize Tennessee’s sovereignty under the tenth amendment to the Constitution.”

The State House passed the resolution on 05-26-09 by a vote of 85-2.

Tennessee joins Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Idaho and Oklahoma - as the sixth state to have both their House and Senate pass a resolution in support of the 10th Amendment.

The final vote was 31-0. (h/t Steve Rowland)

Read the final version of the resolution below:

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”; and

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and

WHEREAS, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and

WHEREAS, today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; now, therefore,

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ONE HUNDRED SIXTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE, THE SENATE

CONCURRING, that we hereby affirm Tennessee’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a committee of conference and correspondence be appointed by the Speaker of the House and of the Senate, which shall have as its charge to communicate the preceding resolution to the legislatures of the several states, to assure them that this State continues in the same esteem of their friendship and to call for a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government and to seek repeal of the assumption of powers and the imposed mandates.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be transmitted to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker and the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives, and to each member of Tennessee’s Congressional delegation.

Read More

A day in the life of a dyed-in-the-wool true believing Obamabot

Dr. Keyes posted an article at Loyal to Liberty titled Obama's Stubborn Coverup Leads to Civil Rights Violations. While I think there's a problem with the article that Chiu Chunling deals with pretty effectively in a couple of comments under the entry, the focus of this post is on the topic of Hussein Obama's eligibility generally, and the self-important arrogant, blatant stupidity of his citizen-defenders particularly.

Commenter smrstrauss writes:

Re: "Barak Obama is not an American citizen at all, having made legal declarations of foreign nationality after attaining his majority."

If you have proof of this, show it. If you are referring to the allegation that Obama became an Indonesian citizen and used an Indonesian passport, a simple telephone call to the Indonesian Embassy in Washington should confirm or deny this. I did call, but please make your own telephone call to check me, and Indonesian authorities say that he was never a citizen and hence never had an Indonesian passport.

TM responds:

I did call, but please make your own telephone call to check me, and Indonesian authorities say that he was never a citizen and hence never had an Indonesian passport.

And you take them at their word, eh? What complete idiocy. It's on the level of thinking that presumes the average American citizen is privvy to the same information and intelligence as the POTUS, or the Congress for that matter.

Why would the Indonesian government (or any of its agents) divulge any information they have - good, bad, or indifferent - about Hussein Obama to little 'ol insignificant you, or me, or any other private American citizen for that matter? What (Indonesian) interest could such a thing possibly serve? You do realize, do you not, that the Indonesian government is most partial to serving its own interests, or what it perceives as its own interests? To do otherwise would be tantamount to treason.

I'm reminded of a discussion I had with a certain Native American commenter at my blog some time back related to this same topic. He said to me, after I'd pointed out the clear anti-American implications of his previous statements, that he had been invited to the White House as a delegate from his tribe (by a Republican president, no less), and that therefore (non Sequitur anyone?) he could have no ambition of destroying America as we've always known it through the "change" agent Hussein Obama. I simply pointed out to him, as I point out in this particular instance, what a laughable argument he was making, as if to say that no-one with ill-intentions towards the United States has ever darkened the door of the White House, under a Republican administration or otherwise.

Again, pure unadulterated idiocy.

Put on your hip-waders y'all, because it's fixin' to get pretty deep in here.

smrstrauss replies:

Re: "and you take them at their word."

Actually, yes. Indonesia has become a Democracy over the last few years, and I have always found the Indonesian people caring courteous and polite. And, like the folks at the Economist and the Far Eastern Review, I really believe that Indonesia is now a democracy. [TM: He/she finds the Indonesians to be caring, courteous and polite. AND he really believes that Indonesia is now a democracy! On these bases does he believe that the Indonesian Embassy would divulge sensitive personal information about Hussein Obama to a private U.S. citizen, over the phone, by simple request. Indeed, they're ready and willing to freely give this information out to any and all comers. All you need to do is let your fingers do the walking. Dear Lord!]

Moreover, they have no reason to lie. [TM: **rolls eyes**] If Obama had become an Indonesian citizen, that is good for Indonesia. It makes the citizens proud. And, it is only you who allege that if Obama had become an Indonesian citizen he would lose US citizenship. No, he would not lose US citizenship. He would become a dual national, and there is nothing in the Constitution that bars a dual national (much less one who was once a dual national) from being president. [TM: insert William James quote here.]

You may disagree with this, but most of us believe it, and the Indonesian authorities are likely to be among this group. If they believe that Obama cannot be affected by having dual nationality in Indonesia (as I do), they have no reason to lie and say that he was never a citizen. [TM: Wow!, why didn't I think of that? The Indonesian government has no reason not to divulve to every Tom Dick and Harry who comes along and requests it, any and all information they have on Obama's relationship to their country. Duh!] They have just as much motive to lie and say that he was a citizen even if he wasn't. [TM: Sure, contradicting Obama's own statements on the matter. But no matter, were it true it would be something for the Indonesians to be proud of. Thus the benefits would far outweigh the costs of a friendly foreign nation officially contradicting an acting president of the United States. Allow me another outburst -- DEAR GOD!!!]

The flip side of this is that you have no proof that he was an Indonesian or had an Indonesian passport. There are claims that in order to get into an Indonesian school you had to be an Indonesian citizen. But this is simply not true. There were schools that accepted foreign students, so it wasn't against the law. Moreover, in the schools that did require you to be an Indonesian citizen, it was easy enough to just say that you were an Indonesian citizen and get away with it--no requirement for proof. [TM: Oh, so he's a liar in any event. Must be that Muslim bloodline.]

Finally, it was actually difficult to become an Indonesian citizen specifically because the did not accept dual nationalities. Since a US child cannot renounce US citizenship, and the Indonesian authorities know that, if they made him an Indonesian they would be creating a dual national, and since they did not accept dual nationality, they would not nationalize US children--only US adults, who were legally entitled to renounce citizenship.

There is absolutely no evidence that Obama became an Indonesian citizen and the Indonesian government says that he was never an Indonesian citizen. [TM: Yeah, you already told us about your phone call to the embassy.] There isn't even proof that he was adopted by his stepfather. If he had, there would have to be a document proving it filed in a district court in Indonesia. [TM: Ya don't say. But wait, they say there isn't any such document, I almost forgot. And, of course, since the Indonesians are such a selfless, caring, and dare I say honest democracy, they could never be part of any coverup protecting Obama's infamous past. That is, if he had one.]

TM replies:

No, he would not lose US citizenship. He would become a dual national, and there is nothing in the Constitution that bars a dual national (much less one who was once a dual national) from being president.

Let me give you a free piece of advice:

If you're going to defend Hussein Obama against accusations of ineligibility based on Article II, U.S. Constitution (and all laws made in pursuance thereof, etc.), then you should at very least get on the same page with the folks at FighttheSmears.com. As it is you contradict the clear implications of the postings on the site itself, to wit:

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.”

Ask yourself this very simple question: If there's no prohibition against a dual "national" serving as Chief Executive Officer of the United States, and perhaps more importantly, if the Obama camp truly believes that no such prohibition in U.S. law exists, then what would be the point of Fight the Smears posting an excerpt from an article specifically addressing the question of dual citizenship and denying that he retains dual citizenship status in the first place? Moreover, why wouldn't they just answer the accusation the way you did if this were the case?

And...

you think, because you think that Indonesia is a democracy, that their status as a democracy means that they're automatically going to divulge personal information about the current occupant of the White House to a private U.S. citizen whose motives they can have no knowledge of if there's any potential whatsoever of such information negatively affecting his presidency, and/or the relationship between the U.S. and Indonesia? You must be completely outside your mind.

End of initial entry.

Read More

When all things are seen as on a par

Here's the beginnings of a discussion that may or may not prove to be fruitful. We shall see in time.

Someone named Dale Caruso posted the poem by Martin Neimoeller which I'm sure you've all heard some version of at one time or the other. Here is the text of the poem Caruso posted at the Tenth Amendment Center with Mr. Caruso's preparatory comments added:

There was a poem was written by Martin Niemoeller in 1946. It has been varied over the years to apply to different causes … but the original message carries a powerful moral impact;

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me–
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Yes, yes, by the time they got around to getting me they'd already long since disposed of everyone else. You know, the communists, the socialists, the Jews and trade unionists, etc. There I stood alone, with no one there to back me up -- you know, the communists and the socialists, friends I never knew I had.

Well, the poem did receive a couple of approving comments in the thread, to wit:

Michael Boldin writes:

The pastor Martin Niemoeller commentary is as relevant today as it ever was. We can’t just turn our heads because “they” are coming for someone we don’t like. Every time the government takes more power and violates another person’s rights is another step closer to you.

Jeff Matthews adds:

Exactly! That’s why I hate to see “enlightened” people submit so easily to laws that target the “unenlightened,” such as smokers and drinkers.

Huh?! I'm reminded here of the passage "...and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidding appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues and ending tyrants." (Can yo believe I had to look that one up? That's ok, I knew exactly where to find it. ;-))

Well, you know, with the approval rating of the poem quickly growing, I thought I might as well enter the fray.

TM writes:

Smokers and drinkers? Well sure. Certainly many of the same folks that support imposing “sin taxes” on personal practices and habits they don’t particularly care for as individuals, or that are not currently in vogue, engage themselves in practices and habits equally repulsive and self-destructive which they would never support the imposition of excessive taxation on. But Communism; Socialism? These are totalitarian philosophies of government which are completely and utterly antithetical to American Representative Republicanism. And the Constitution does, afterall, guarantee to each state in this union a Republican form of Government.

Apples and oranges you’re comparing here.

Jeff Matthews replies:

Not apples and oranges at all. Take the new bill that just passed into law by Congress submitting jurisdiction over tobacco to the FDA. Now, the FDA will have all sorts of fun running a tobacco-related political agenda.

The point I made above was that this is Unconstitutional, but the majority does not care because they support such usurpations against the minority. Divide and conquer.

It is directly on point to Michael’s comment that, “We can’t just turn our heads because “they” are coming for someone we don’t like. Every time the government takes more power and violates another person’s rights is another step closer to you.”

Okay, I'm a little bit confused now. Let's see what the following will yield:

TM:

So you’re saying the government has no more legitimate interest (neither authority) in preventing the spread of an ideology antithetical to itself within its jurisdiction, than it has tampering with the personal choices of individuals which can in virtually no conceivable way present it with an existential threat and has no ideological preferences one way or the other? Are we losing something in translation here? I’m a little confused.

Stay tuned. Or, of course, you can jump in there anytime. Because, you see, before they elicited a non-approving response out of me, they'd already scared away everyone else. You know, the Christians and the conservatives, the non-egalitarians, etc. ;-)

Read More

On the destruction of local self-government/"establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states"

(Note: The entry has been updated below.)

By now you've all undoubtedly read about the Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals' ruling on the matter of a local Oklahoma county's display of the Ten Commandments on the courthouse lawn, brought about by a single, solitary individual who was (gasp!) "offended" by such display, thus filed a complaint.

Our frequent and insightful commenter, Chiu Chunling disagrees with me on this point, but I, nonetheless, cannot fail to mention the establishment of a constitutionally recognized dual citizenship in that pesky fourteenth amendment, U.S. Constitution which has provided the impetus for the federal courts to deem all governmental entities, down to the smallest most local level, mere agents and arms of the "federal" government.

Notwihstanding that, how anyone in his right mind can derive from the unambiguous phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." that the judicial arm of the central government has any jurisdiction, and/or, authority over the procedures (or displays, as it were) of a county or municipal government (re: local government) is beyond me. Our county and municipal governments in the State of Oklahoma are not arms and agents of the federal authority in any event. Whenever they become that, tyranny reigns supreme.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invaribly the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government, and to create new guards for their future security.

But I've also quoted, many times, Hamilton from Federalist #84:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.

On the subject of the liberty of the press, as much as has been said, I cannot forbear adding a remark or two: in the first place, I observe, that there is not a syllable concerning it in the constitution of this State; in the next, I contend, that whatever has been said about it in that of any other State, amounts to nothing. What signifies a declaration, that "the liberty of the press shall be inviolably preserved''? What is the liberty of the press? Who can give it any definition which would not leave the utmost latitude for evasion? I hold it to be impracticable; and from this I infer, that its security, whatever fine declarations may be inserted in any constitution respecting it, must altogether depend on public opinion, and on the general spirit of the people and of the government.3 And here, after all, as is intimated upon another occasion, must we seek for the only solid basis of all our rights. (italics added)

If I thought there was the slightest chance in hell that any relief was to be had via our "illustrious" legislators in Congress whose prerogative it is to tell the federal courts to take a proverbial hike in this matter, you can bet I'd be doing all in my power to persuade them to do so. As it is, though, I think it's more or less a collaborative effort.

Posted below the fold is the NewsOK article on the subject.

DENVER — An appeals court ruled Monday a Ten Commandments monument on the Haskell County Courthouse lawn in Stigler violates the Constitution because its primary effect is to endorse religion.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 3-0 against the 8-foot-tall monument in a challenge brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma and a Haskell County resident who said it offended him.

The ACLU said the decision means "the county cannot continue to display it on the courthouse lawn. That said, nothing prevents any individual, group, or congregation from publicly displaying the same monument on their own property — and we would defend their right to do so.”

An attorney for the commissioners said the judges erred "for many reasons” in Monday’s decision, and he cited Supreme Court decisions in similar cases to support his conclusion. Attorney Kevin Theriot said he is recommending to the commissioners that they ask all 12 judges of the court to reconsider the decision of the three-judge panel.

Monument endorses religion, judges say

The monument was erected in 2004.
The Haskell County commissioners’ authorization of the monument "had the impermissible principal or primary effect of endorsing religion in violation of the Establishment Clause” of the Constitution, the judges wrote in a 52-page decision.

The establishment clause of the First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” The judges said the Supreme Court has interpreted the clause to mean a government action must not have a primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion.

The judges wrote that, "in the unique factual setting of a small community like Haskell County,” the Christian origins of the monument’s erection "tended to strongly reflect a government endorsement of religion.”

Monday’s decision overturned a 2006 ruling by a Muskogee federal judge who concluded the commissioners did not overstep the constitutional line "demarcating government neutrality toward religion.”

Circuit Judge Jerome Holmes of Oklahoma City, a conservative appointed by former President George W. Bush, wrote the decision for the Denver-based appeals court.

End of initial entry.

**********

Update: A short discussion on this topic has been had over at the Tenth Amendment Center where commenter Patrick Henry Lives first sounded the alarm. Also, he's written a supportive letter to the Haskell County Board of Commissioners and posted it in a comment under the thread. Here is the text of his letter:

Haskell County Board of Commissioners
E Main Street
County Courthouse
Stigler, OK 74462-2439
Phone: (918) 967-4352
Fax: (918)967-3290

Dear Board of Commissioners,

It was with saddened hearts that we learned of the recent ruling of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals declaring that the display of the Ten Commandments was an unconstitutional “endorsement of religion.” However, we were greatly encouraged by the statement of Commissioner Mitch Worsham indicating it was your intention not to obey or to take the monument down. We write to strengthen and confirm you in that resolve.

It has been the sovereign right of the People of the several States to acknowledge God in our public places since before the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock. All of our nation’s organic documents acknowledge Christ and God. This is historically true. The Tenth Amendment reserves to the States and to their peoples all powers not given to the federal government nor prohibited by the Constitution to them. The First Amendment prohibition against an Establishment of Religion applies by its express terms only to Congress. The usurpation of reserved States Rights by liberal, activist judges cannot override the written Constitution nor can it obviate our duty before the Majesty in Heaven. We must obey God more than men. We implore you not to yield to spiritual wickedness in high places by surrendering your ground.

Oklahoma recently passed a Tenth Amendment Resolution claiming sovereignty under the U.S. Constitution. To date, 34 States have followed or are following Oklahoma’s example in telling the federal government to cease and desist it unlawful intrusion into and usurpation of reserved States’ Rights. To bring this matter to an immediate Constitutional confrontation and crisis, we encourage you to petition the Oklahoma Legislature to enact legislation making it unlawful for any officer of the State or any of its subdivisions to obey a federal court judgment purporting to invade reserved States’ Right by ordering the removal of any monument displaying the Ten Commandments, the Cross of Christ, or other acknowledgement of God as the Supreme Majesty in Heaven, who alone is the author of our being, the guardian of our liberties, and the wellspring of our happiness.

God bless you as you endeavor to persist in your moral courage and resolution to resist the unlawful acts of a usurping federal judiciary. Better that Oklahoma secede from the Union than to abandon its duty to its citizens and to God.

Sincerely,

Patrick Henry Lives

Read More

What would be the result of secession?

There is a school of thought that says of secession that, pacifists that we (modern Americans) are, there would be no agressive counter-movement by the central authority were a state or a group of states to secede from the union.

At the Tenth Amendment Center Jeff Matthews argues this position (albeit he doesn't use the term "pacifists," but I think this is essentially what he's getting at).

Jeff Matthews writes:

No way we’d have civil war if one or more states seceded. Not in these days of thinking we Americans are above the fray. We have it in our minds that civil wars and unrest are for the Middle East and perhaps, Korea, but not for here. We are far too good a people for that. There is no way the feds would even dream about it. They’d be pissing their pants, thinking about what to do, but there is no way, they’d invoke martial law and start shooting, dropping bombs, throwing grenades, and launching rockets. Not if it happened now.

Ha, ha.

No disrespect intended, but sometimes I have to wonder about these people, about their personal experiences, their upbringings, etc., -- what it is that convinces them to believe that any government, including (or especially) our own, cannot be provoked to take up arms against its own citizens. The thinking, in my opinion, besides being pretty naive, is a bit dangerous as well.

I personally cannot imagine a scenario involving the secession of one or more states in which the central government would not see it as a hostile act by the offending party/parties. Thus, I cannot imagine a secession scenario that would not involve aggressive action by the central government eventually resulting in bloodshed. So Jeff and I are on opposite ends of this particular spectrum. Okay, I'll grant a 1% chance that a state or states would be allowed to secede from the union peacefully, with no immediate violence done to them on behalf of the union. But that's about all the chance I'd give it. And notice that I said immediate.

Does it never occur to people that it's easy to be pacifistic whenever pacifism is made easy? Sorry if it sounds a little too cliche', but isn't it the truth? I mean, what need have our northern neighbors the Canadians of a strong, viable military? What need of national strength and masculinity when the most powerful nation on God's earth shares a continent and a border with you? However, whenever someone feels like he's being backed into a corner and fears for his life, he's liable to come out swinging. But our government isn't run by a bunch of pacifists anyway. They just like to give that impression because they think it's in vogue. Besides, I hold that any government capable of a Waco style massacre is capable of just about anything.

Update: The discussion took off after I mentioned in the thread the implications of the Waco massacre.

Patrick Henry Lives wrote:

The one thing about Waco, though, was that it was secretly torched. Attacking a seceding State would have to be open and overt war, so the dynamics are different. At Waco, they had to conceal the arson and murder of 80 people, including women and children, and thus play homage to virtue and moderation by hiding what they wre really like and lengths they willing to go to. With a seceding State they could not conceal the aggression and killing. The whole facade of pretending to be righteous would have to be shed.

Jeff Matthews follows up:

Also, Waco was perceived as a small group of nutjobs. It’s far different than taking on a whole state.

TM replies,

You guys are making the point and then missing it. What do you think a seceding state would be made to look like but a bunch of nutjobs hostile to the United States? C’mon.

and further:

…even by a (large) segment of its own citizenry, by the way; a segment of the citizenry that enjoys a form of dual citizenship - state and national.

Hannibal Barca weighs in:

Constutional convention or secession…This is why it is important - NO, it is CRUCIAL, to take over the state legislature. Everything else is smoke and mirrors. The tenth amendment is about the states. We should be focusing on the states. We should be looking at pulling people out of office via recall. We shouldn’t be waiting to just vote them out. Rip them out.

The good news is that WE THE PEOPLE happen to live in the states, not WE THE FEDERAL GOVERNNMENT.

TM follows up on Patrick Henry Lives's comments:

“The one thing about Waco, though, was that it was secretly torched.”

True. But let me just point out that that was after the ‘compound’ and the people in it were ruthlessly attacked (by land and air) by a bunch of jackboot thugs who had already tipped off the media and everything else. So what, in reality, is different about it?

The ATF wasn’t too concerned about the image it was going to project, other than it concerned itself pointedly to projecting the image of POWER wielded for the noble cause of ‘justice’. Not to mention that there was a fifty one day ’standoff’ in which all manner of evil and lewd and lascivious behavior was going on at the hands of our illustrious government law enforcement officers taking their orders straight from the top (granted, this was all concealed). But the Congressional hearings on the matter, in which such things came out, were an absolute joke in which the government was made to look like the innocent and noble victim of a bunch of religious crazies in spite of it all.

Yeah; I can see that happening again.

Jeff Matthews replies:

You are all letting your imaginations get the better of you. Our federal government will not start a war with a seceding state. Think about it and tell me who will. Congress? Not on your life! The President? Fat chance. It will not happen. The feds would rather write them off than suffer the blow in the world’s eyes of having a civil war - not to mention the cost of such a war.

TM replies to Jeff:

Jeff,

A flyover state like Oklahoma (perceived by the general public to be populated by a bunch of ungovernable backwoods hillbillies) secedes. Upwards of thirty percent of its citizens cry foul. The U.S. government has an interest in that thirty percent because they are also U.S. citizens who disagree with Oklahoma’s move to secession. On top of everything else that group would be perceived as victims of an aggressive majority population whose rights would be threatened, and the U.S. government would be pressured (as if that would be necessary) to come to their rescue. And on and on and on.

Now, you can say I’m letting my imagination run away with me, but it doesn’t make it so. And you can’t simply say “not on your life,” “fat chance, it isn’t going to happen.” That’s a bit weak, don’t ya think? But what in God’s name does the fed care about world perception on the subject of a seceding American state? ‘The World’ routinely puts down such movements. So whose side do you think it would take?

I can imagine any number of scenarios involving secession that would ultimately result in bloodshed, but I can’t imagine a single scenario that would not. Nonetheless…

I’m content to leave it at that. We’ll undoubtedly see eventually because a state will definitely cross over that rubicon at some point in the not too distant future. And I imagine that others will soon follow. Until then, it’s all just speculation on our parts. But I’ll wager a cup of coffee on it if you like. ;-)

Jeff replies:

I see the issues you raise, Terry. I imagine it is possible to manufacture a “Fort Sumter” scenario all over again.

I find the whole scenario kind of eerie in a “Hotel California” sort-of way. “You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.”

TM replies:

Jeff,

Believe it or not I’ve actually quoted that exact Hotel California line myself (several times) in these same kinds of discussions.

And don’t get me wrong; I’m not saying that a state seceding would necessarily result in an immediate aggressive counter-move by the national government (although that, to me, seems like the most likely scenario if some latitude is given to the term “immediate, for the reasons I’ve already listed and more.). On the other hand, I can hardly envision a “fractured” America (an America that does not universally recognize a single central governing authority) that could live in mutual peace and harmony for very long. So when I say that secession means civil war, I’m saying that a fractured America, from the very moment that it fractures into different (independent) governing entities and onward, is an America whose exposure to internal disputes automatically increases exponentially. Independent governing entities have, by nature and by necessity, authority to enter into treaties with other nations and states, coin money, provide for its own defense, declare war, and so forth and so on. So in the end, it all boils down to internal disorder between the various governing entities, and civil war. At least that’s the way I see it. And let’s face it, there’s no love lost between certain states and certain others in this union. But anyway…

I will add further comments as they're posted.

Also, not that I'm trying to cover every possible scenario, or to mention every single contingency that would ultimately factor into a likely scenario (as if to say that I'm capable of it in any event), because I think it is important that different perspectives be offered, but I cannot fail to mention that in addition to the "upwards of thirty percent" of U.S. citizens that the U.S. government would be "bound" to defend, there are also the "birthright" children that the government would consider, under such a scenario, wards of the state. Again, I think the Waco incident is a good analogous example of how this might all play itself out.

Update: Jeff Matthews responded to my last post above:

I see it not as a matter of will everyone think what everyone else does is okay after a secession. I highly doubt that. We certainly don’t agree with all that England or France does, but we get along with them just fine (for the most part).

I see no problem existing that way and being the happier for it.

I would as soon see the Union stick together, but these clowns in D.C…. They are ruining it for all of us.

I chose not to respond under the article because I figure it's probably time to let the discussion die in that particular thread. Plus, I wanted to give Jeff the final word, since it's his article'n'all. ;-) We can take the subject up again somewhere else. However, let me just say that in his comments above Jeff reveals more lack of discernment. First of all, comparing the severing of the United States into two or more independent sovereign governmental entities to our relationship with Great Britian and France, et al, is like comparing apples and oranges. To have mentioned our relationship with Canada and Mexico, given that we share the same continent and are not separated by a whole ocean, would have been a better example, but it would still be apples and oranges. I trust that you understand why.

Read More