In Answer to the objections of Atheists...

...to Auster, Coleman, et al.

Here is an excerpt from Washington's Farewell Address apropos to the discussion, and a strong defense of the position of those mentioned:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness - these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric? (emphasis mine)

Indeed! Who that is a sincere friend to our species of free government can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric? Messers Auster and Coleman, et al, are simply doing what they have to do. And they have the force of a Washington to back them up, whom I invoke.

Read More

Christianity -- the West's suicide pact?

The long discussion on religion continues over at Mangan's Miscellany. Let us recall, as apropos to the discussion, Kristor L.'s excellent analysis of genuine Christian teaching vs. the teachings of "liberal Christianity" in this August, 2007 VFR entry, permanently linked in my left sidebar under Select VFR Articles.

Note: I've left a comment at Mangan's to this effect.

Read More

Darby, Mangan, Auster, Morris -- and disbelief in the central doctine of Christianity

This October 9th, 2007 Webster's post is being bumped to the fore in light of this VFR entry on this Mangan's Misc. entry.

A great and most important discussion, by the way, from all sides.

We've had these discussions before, here and elsewhere, but where have we ever settled the issue? ...

**********

Update: below is my response to certain assertions of commenter "Anonymous" over at Mangan's with Anon's comments highlighted in italics.

Christians claim that there is an all-knowing, all-loving God who created the universe. Several arguments are used to prove God's existence. They are all inadequate.

- A first argument is the Bible: "The Bible says God exists, so he must." The problem is that if we ask a Hindu, a Muslim, a Sikh or a Jew the same question they too will point to their respective holy books as proof of the existence of their Gods.

First of all, this is an oversimplification (perhaps purposeful) of how Christians determine the Bible to be evidence of God's existence. Some Christians may express it in these inadequate terms, but I personally do not know many, if any, that do. If you want to reduce it to a simple statement it would be more along the lines of "The Bible claims to be the Word of God spoken in human language. If this claim is true then God must exist, and he must possess all the attributes that the Bible says he possesses. And he must have communicated his will for man -- his creation -- in man's language." Of course this also means, by implication, that if the claims of the Bible are not true, then the biblical God most likely doesn't exist, which is not to say that some other supreme being does not exist. But the Bible also denies the existence of all deities other than the singular deity it describes and gives testimony to.

Second, why is it a problem for the God of the Bible that if you ask a Hindu he will point to his scriptures as evidence of the existence of Hindu gods? My understanding about Muslims and Jews is that they believe their God to be one and the same God as the God of the O.T. scriptures, so there seems to be at least some unity here, and I do not understand why Anonymous lumps Muslims and Jews in with Hindus. Muslims and Jews deny Christ's deity, and this is one area where they and Christians part ways. But again, I can hardly see how this is a problem for the God of the Bible. Because the book of Mormon exists, and Latter Day Saints profess belief in its teachings presents no problem for the existence of the Biblical-Christian God.

- Christians will sometimes say "The universe didn't just happen, someone must have made it and therefore there must be a creator God." There is a major flaw in this argument. When it starts to rain we do not ask "Who is making it rain?" because we know that rain is caused not by someone but by something - natural phenomena like heat, evaporation, precipitation, etc. A cause (or causes) need not be a being. Even if we believe that a divine being is needed to explain how the universe came into existence, what proof is there that it was the Christian God? Perhaps it was created by the God of Islam.

Again you seem to be completely unaware that the God of Islam purports to be the same God as the God of the Old Testament Bible. Now, admittedly, Christians who understand what the Koran teaches about Allah will emphatically deny that Allah and the Biblical God can be one and the same being. Christians would maintain that one of them does not and cannot exist -- Allah -- because Allah claims attributes that are impossible for God to possess.

- The Christian will of course maintain that the universe does not merely exist but that its existence shows perfect design. But how does the Christian know that it was his God who is behind creation? How does the Christian know that only one God designed evrything? And...is the universe perfectly?

Because if there is such a thing as a Supreme Being (or God, if that is your preference), then logically there can only be one God. If there were more than one Supreme Being then neither of them could possibly live up to their billing. All the Bible is saying about the deity is that He is necessarily a singularity; a simple being with no potentiality ... as opposed to all others. Moreover, no informed Christian that I know of would ever assert that the universe is perfect. Only God is perfect, and he cannot transmit his perfection to a created thing. But how do you know that the universe is not perfect? Why do the vast majority of us agree that the universe is not perfect, that the earth is not perfect, that mankind is not perfect? Is it not that we are somehow endowed with a sense of perfection? How, I ask, by anyone's standards, did we come by this sense of perfection? Don't tell me, by random mutations and chance occurances.

- Christians will sometimes say that everything has a cause, that there must be a first cause, and that God is the first cause. This old argument contains its own refutation, for if everything has a first cause then the first cause must also have a cause. There is another problem with the first cause argument. Logically there is no good reason to assume that everything had a single first cause. Perhaps six, ten or three hundred causes occurring simultaneously caused everything.

My friend, your statement contains its own refutation. The term "first cause" means exactly that -- first -- which means there is nothing preceding it. When we speak of things in terms of their being "first" we usually mean precisely what the term indicates. Our first POTUS, George Washington, was the first president because no one had preceding him in the office. How could they when the office did not before the ratification of the Constitution exist? What Christians actually say is that everything that is not a necessary existence had a first cause. The only thing that Christians assert does not need a first cause is God, the necessary existence who not only needs no cause, but who can't be his own cause.

- Christians claim that miracles are sometimes performed in God's name and that the fact that this happens proves that God exists. If miracles performed in God's name prove the existence of the Christian God, then miracles performed in the name of numerous other gods must likewise prove that they too exist.

You assume that all so-called miracles, or claims of the miraculous, meet the same criteria. You make this assumption based on what? Muslims claim that their holy book is evidence of the miraculous -- that Mohammed who was illiterate must have therefore had Allah's assistance in writing the Koran. This is not even close to the same thing that Christians claim to be miraculous.

- Christians will often claim that only by believing in God will people have the strength to deal with life's problems, and therefore that belief in God is necessary. It is clear, however, that people from non-Christian religions and even those with no religion are just as capable of dealing with life's crises as Christians are - sometimes even better.

Yes; the United States of America, which was founded largely on Biblical-Christian beliefs (some prefer "Judeo-Christian" beliefs) has many equals in the annals of the history of nations.

- According to Christians, God is all-knowing - he knows all the past, all the present and all the future. If this is so, then God must know everything we do long before we do it. This means that our whole life must be predetermined and that we act not according to the free exercise of our wills but according to our predetermined natures.

You make the oft repeated mistake of believing that predetermination and free will are mutually exclusive concepts. But they are not, and this criticism has been answered thoroughly.

Read More

How long before the U.S. goes belly-up?

Have a look at and contemplate the implications of this GoV entry.

Baron Bodissey writes:

Last night I mentioned the imaginary money that is being used to bail out the favorites of Treasury Secretary Paulson and other members of the Washington Mandarin class. The government has paid off bad bank loans and bailed out failing businesses by borrowing enormous quantities of money from — well, from future taxpayers who will somehow become three or four times richer than they are now under the new Socialist regime.

But it’s even worse than I thought: the level of federal indebtedness has moved beyond mere profligacy into a new realm of total financial fantasy. The national debt is about to surpass the net worth of every man, woman, and child in the USA.

As I said in a comment to the entry, I have no economic expertise, but I can add, and the numbers seem to me not to add up given current longstanding trends. Other commenters have pointed out that debt to net worth ratio needn't favor the latter for a person or an entity to remain economically viable. This is true I think and can be proven by a couple of simple examples. For instance, people frequently make large purchases which exceed their family's total net worth -- a house is a good example, but for some even the purchase of a 30 thousand dollar vehicle exceeds the individual's total net worth, whether he might like to admit it or not. I'm not saying it's wise (for an individual or a government) to do so, but it is pretty commonplace and it doesn't always end in financial ruin.

But again, the issue for me is the number of net taxpayers compared to the number of non-net taxpayers, current and future. What that comes down to in simple terms is the number of people who pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits vs. the number of people who receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes, and what that ratio will be in the coming years.

My view has always been that we have to reverse this trend. And that comes down to a little self-sacrifice on the part of individuals. Yes, it can be painful. But what that's truly valuable isn't painful in acquiring or achieving?

Read More

Yes, they are hightailing it...

...back to Mexico.

But what is preventing their 'natural born' U.S. citizen children from returning in twenty years -- after having been raised and educated by foreigners, in a foreign country, under the authority of a foreign government -- and asserting their natural born United States citizenship status, and all the priveleges and immunities thereof? (Hat tip: VFR)

As they say (with enthusiasm): Only in America!

Read More

Webster's

A good discussion on what constitutes "Americanism" and/or "American Patriotism" may be had here.

Read More

Lawrence Auster on Islam back up and running permanently

As some of you are aware we've had some sporatic problems with the hosting of the page for at least a couple of months now, a more lengthy time period than I originally anticipated. If I had it all to do over again I would have found a permanent solution as soon as it became evident that the original hosting service was no longer going to work for us.

Nonetheless we've now solved the problem and the page is up permanently as the title indicates. Also, we've changed the way in which your comments and suggestions are to get to me. I'll be receiving them directly to my inbox if you follow the url provided under my introduction to the page.

My apologies to all for the inconvenience incurred while the page was down. And recall that I have the page, among others, permanently linked in my left sidebar under the heading "On Islam."

**********

Additionally some of you may have tried and failed to access the "Historic Documents" link provided in my right sidebar under the heading "Links of Interest" recently. The problem there had nothing to do with myself and was out of my control until just recently. But the link is working now.

Read More

Request for my readers:

Take a look at this American Policy Center article on the danger of a supposed move for a Constitutional Convention. Keep in mind the entries I've done on the subject here at Webster's.

It seems to me that the APC is applying a couple of conflicting standards regarding the Article V Convention, but I could be wrong. The APC certainly employs persons a lot smarter, and more in 'the know' than yours truly.

Let me know what you think in a comment to this entry.

Read More

Webster's

A few new articles from various sites have been added under Webster's recommended blogposts in the upper-right sidebar, which, of course, I recommend you read.

Check out the short VFR article heading the list in which Auster points out that,

This is not our society celebrating the beautiful holiday of Christmas. This is the Liberal Controllers of our society carefully teaching children an unnatural and dangerous lie that they would never believe unless they were carefully taught. How many whites will militate against vitally necessary immigration restrictions in the decades to come, how many young white females will be raped and murdered by nonwhites in the decades to come, because of the message of trusting and loving racial aliens that programs like this implant in them?

An alternate title might be "How the Grinch stole the instincts of America's children," and I wrote a comment to the article under that subject line.

Years ago I was doing a job for an elderly retired Oklahoma teacher and we somehow got on the subject of interracial relationships, specifically the growing tendency of white girls to take an interest in black boys. The teacher was very discouraged and heartbroken over what modern society and the modern education system was then perpetrating on what she referred to as "these poor white girls." Her theory was that because these females are emotionally driven they're beginning to take it upon themselves, given what liberal society is teaching them concerning white guilt, to give themselves as sacrificial reparations for the sins that whites have committed against blacks in America, thus putting themselves in very precarious situations.

I imagine that has a lot to do with it.

Read More

Definitive Proof that I was born in Oklahoma...

...even though I've stated otherwise.

The image you see is a digital scan of an authentic Oklahoma COLB altered to contain false information about myself for purposes of demonstrating the ease with which someone, virtually anyone can change information on such documents by the use of a cheap scanner, free software, through copy and paste techniques, and very little image enhancement. All else that is needed is the will and a couple of hours of time to achieve this level of quality. A much higher level may be achieved given more time and more desire.

Click on the image above (note the embossed seal on the image, which is genuine and unenhanced) to see the full document. If you're somewhat computer savvy and have an eye for detail you can enlarge the image to discover the places where the document has been intentionally forged, as well as intentionally left discoverable as a forgery in certain places. Others are not so easily discoverable, but Dr. Polarik would have no trouble whatsoever taking our forged document apart piece by meticulous piece.

Update: I've included some additional information, as well as a helpful link, concerning the COLB in the comments section of this article.

Read More

Time for full enactment of H.B. 1804!

An alternate title might be something to the effect of "Either lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way!" That title would be more pointedly directed at the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, of course, where two key provisions in Oklahoma's Immigration law remain under federal suspension pending hearings on the matter.

Perhaps this recent court ruling on the subject in another state might help the 10th Circuit Court to make the right decision so that we in Oklahoma can get on with the business at hand. Indeed, there are security, as well as economic reasons for requiring that businesses confirm the eligibility of their employees via E-Verify. Of the two aspects mentioned in the article (there are more), I've focused mainly on the economic implications. But the security issue is very important, and a good argument can be made that the provisions in 1804 are necessary on that basis alone.

Incidentally, I think the record needs to be set straight on this little matter. While I can't be at all places in the state at all times, I do get around enough to know that on one point the author is misled into believing that the initial mass exodus of illegals from the State of Oklahoma ... to points unknown ... is an ongoing phenomenon. Not true. In fact, many of those who left the state initially are back. And they're definitely not currently leaving the state in droves as he says. In point of fact, I'd venture an educated guess that the illegal Mexican population in Oklahoma is on the rise again due in part to our inability to enforce certain provisions in 1804, namely sections seven and nine of the law as mentioned above.

The author also forgot to mention that our popular Democrat Governor has some kind of a fetish for Islam and Islamic subversives. It takes the form of something he calls the Governor's Ethnic American Advisory Council. But I guess that's beside the point.

Read More

Listen up Sean

For the umteenth time, we have a Senate makeup which is virtually filibuster proof.

I was watching Hannity and Colmes the other night, nunoff election eve for Saxby Chambliss of Georgia. Chambliss was a guest on the show and a lot was made (by Hannity) of the fact that the Republicans enlisted the help of Governor Palin while the Democrats kept Obama off stage in Georgia.

As you know by now Chambliss won the runoff by 20 points. The point though is this, while Hannity was beating the drum that Obama's non-appearance in support of the Democrat opponent of Chambliss was some kind of indication that Obama is a coward, given that Obama ought to be doing all in his power to make the U.S. Senate filibuster proof per the cause of the Democrats, he seemed to be completely oblivious to the fact that on the things that matter most -- on the key issues -- the Senate is already, or, as I've said before virtually filibuster proof. Those key issues of which I speak are so-called 'comprehensive immigration reform', reinstatement of the gun ban, etc.

It's not about Democrat vs. Republican per se, it's about Liberalism vs. Conservatism. And there are at least a couple of Democrats in Republican garb (or RINOs if you prefer) who still hold seats in the U.S. Senate, of which John McCain is one. Harry Reid recognizes this, but somehow Sean Hannity doesn't.

Read More

Is the Seal the "smoking gun"?

In Dr. Polarik's final report which I originally linked up here, he's provided the reader with numerous images of authentic Hawaii COLBs by which to compare Hussein Obama's COLB posted at his "Fight the Smears" site, as well as other places. Also in the report is an image of a metal stamper similar to what the state of Hawaii likely uses to create its embossed seal on official Hawaii documents.

Most of us have probably seen such stampers in use before, particularly if we've ever had something notarized at a licensed notary public in our own states. The key operative word here is "embossed", as in raised on one side, depressed on the other; as in convex on the one side, concave on the other; as in highly visible from either side of the document in question, even on a scanned copy.

I was nosing around this morning and look at what I found with regard to the State of Hawaii and this issue with Obama's COLB and the lack of an embossed seal on the document as it appeared back in June, 2008. A spokesman for the state of Hawaii, Janice Okubo explained the absence of the embossed seal on the document this way,

The Hawaii Department of Health receives about a dozen e-mail inquiries a day about Obama’s birth certificate, spokesman Okubo said.

“I guess the big issue that’s being raised is the lack of an embossed seal and a signature,” Okubo said, pointing out that in Hawaii, both those things are on the back of the document. “Because they scanned the front … you wouldn’t see those things.”

Okubo says she got a copy of her own birth certificate last year and it is identical to the Obama one we received.

And about the copy we e-mailed her for verification? “When we looked at that image you guys sent us, our registrar, he thought he could see pieces of the embossed image through it.”

Still, she acknowledges: “I don’t know that it’s possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents.” (emphasis mine)

Once again, we're talking about an embossed seal (Okubo's words, not mine), not a rubber stamped seal. These embossed seals are created with a clamping device such as the one pictured in Dr. Polarik's report, equipped with both male and female dies necessary to create the depression in the paper. And most of us have seen them in use as well as their effects on the documents in question more than once. I can hardly believe that an official spokesman for the state of Hawaii would make such a stupid statement as that above, but there ya go. But there's more...

If the document in question (Hussein O.'s COLB) is authentic, it will have an authentic embossed seal on it made by a machine such as that described above. Obviously the state of Hawaii does not have in its possession innumerable such machines with which they depress official COLBs. The impression left on the document, therefore, will be consistent in great and minute detail with the machine used to create the embossed seal which all of a sudden appeared on the image of Obama's COLB after questions were raised concerning the lack of an embossed seal on the document.

Time to seize the machine(s) and the Obama COLB? ...

Read More

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read More

Have I been vindicated?

I wrote in an entry to this blog back on November 7 that ... well, here's what I wrote:

I predict that under the Hussein Obama administration the new Democrat controlled, virtually filibuster-proof, Congress is going to come to an agreement on "Comprehensive Immigration Reform," by and with the aid of that RINO John McCain, and other liberal RINO Senators. What this means effectively is that Oklahoma's H.B. 1804 (and all other state and local immigration restriction laws), while probably remaining on the books for symbolism's sake, will become shortly nothing more than a dead letter as the all-powerful central government will have comprehensively "occupied the field" of immigration, and comprehensively left no doubt that it "intended a complete ouster" ... of the state and local authorities on immigration restrictionism.

Prepare to be overrun by Mexican and other third-worlders, America! Most of you who support immigration restriction to one extent or the other have literally been dragged kicking and screaming to create your own state and local laws on immigration -- kicking and screaming that immigration is a federal issue and a federal responsibility. Well, believe me when I say that the feds have heard you and they will respond to your dependency in fairly short order. (emphasis added)

So have I been vindicated? Well, certain people in certain key positions of power seem to think so, or that I soon will be.

Here is exhibit A and here is exhibit B.

Read More

Final report released

In connection with the entry preceding this one, and for anyone interested, Computer specialist Ron Polarik has released, as promised, his final report here.

I forewarn you, it is a very long piece. I only had time this morning to read about a third of it. I'll have to get back to it later.

Read More

New development in Obama citizenship issue

(Note: The title of this blog post is a bit misleading. Yes, this is a new development for me and probably most of my readers, but certainly not for Mr. Polarik as you shall see if you take the time to read his article linked below.)

The folks at WorldNetDaily have been covering this issue relentlessly, and seem to have no intention of backing off until the issue is resolved satisfactorily. And I applaud them for their dedication to the cause of holding Hussein O. & Co.'s feet to the fire.

Here's a Nov. 22 WND article in which something of a new development in the case has been revealed. From the concluding statements in the article:

On Janet Porter's Faith2Action radio program today, computer specialist Ron Polarik left no doubt the image posted as Obama's "Certification of Live Birth" from the state of Hawaii was not genuine.

"Here's a smoking gun," he said. "Apparently Hawaii changes its borders [on documentation] every year. In 2007 it had a certain border, and it's got a 2007 border. However if you dig a little deeper you find it has a 2008 signature and seal," he said.

"Whomever did the forgery was not very clever," he said.

Well, I don't know about all that. I've said before that I could produce such a document, computer illiterate that I am. The issue with the border on the certificate posted at Obama's "fight the smears" website is interesting though. If Mr. Polarik is right that Hawaii changes this border every year, then indeed it is very strange that the border on the document is from 2007 and the seal is from 2008.

Update: I have it on reliable information that the methods Mr. Polarik claims were used to doctor Obama's COLB are entirely possible and involve fairly simple procedures, including the use of various lighting techniques to achieve the illusion of a raised seal on the surface of the document. Hey, that's what we send 'em to school for, know what I mean?

Read More

What an honor!

Look at this entry by The Editrix at her blog. And do not neglect to note the improvement in her blog's header. I love it!

Allow me to publicly thank The Editrix for honoring me this way. I've also thanked her privately with additional information concerning my family reserved for those I count my friends (you know who you are).

Thanks again to The Editrix.

Read More

Vague update on a previous entry

Here's the link to the entry in question, and the update is this: our dialogue on the issue continues.

I wish to thank the party in question for his attention to detail in addressing the concerns of his constituents, namely me. It is this quality in him, among other things, that has compelled me to vote for him and to hold him in the highest possible esteem, his endorsement of the RINO candidate in the late election notwithstanding.

Hey!, we can't possibly agree on everything.

Read More

Petition

Sign this WND petition IF you care about the U.S. Constitution and its provision requiring that a U.S. President be a natural born citizen.

Remember, such a provision implies the means to enforce it.

(H/T: OutragedPatriots.com)

**********

In connection with the point of this and related entries let us recall the principle expressed by the Father of our country in his Farewell Speech:

The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish Government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established Government. (emphasis mine)

Has the Constitutional provision requiring that a president be a natural born U.S. citizen been changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people? Umm, no. There is a faction out there that would like to change this provision, and I do not think they're particularly inclined to do so by an authentic act of the whole people (i.e., by the provisions of Article V) as they surely understand that this is not possible at this time, albeit the idea seems to be gaining ground at an alarming rate with the continued naturalization of great numbers of incompatible foreigners in America. Nonetheless the provision stands and is sacredly obligatory on all, including you Mr. Obama. Produce the document, sir.

Read More

Test your knowledge

(Note: The VFR entry linked below now contains a discussion concerning several questions on the quiz. If you wish to avoid the temptation to read the discussion altogether prior to taking the test, click here.)

I encourage readers to test your civic knowledge by taking a 33 question multiple choice quiz which requires just a few minutes of your time. The link to the quiz is posted in this VFR entry.

I'm not asking that you share your score unless that is your desire. I will say that my score was 90% or above answered correctly.

Read More

Liberals never cease to amaze...

...and we have our share of 'em right here in "conservative" Oklahoma.

I recalled this and other related "horror" stories that have been documented in Oklahoma ever since the provisions of H.B. 1804 went into effect on November 1, 2007 as I had my Oklahoma driver license renewed yesterday. I was prepared for a lengthy delay in receiving my license renewal, but as it turns out this was by far the quickest renewal period I personally have ever experienced. I was in and out of the local tag office, new license in hand, in less than twenty minutes.

From the knee-jerk story linked above:

HB 1804 was aimed at cracking down on illegal immigrants. Instead, this portion of the law is creating unnecessary burdens for people who have lived here all their lives. Coming up with a fix must be a priority for lawmakers. In the meantime, check your license, or you may regret it.

Great advice in the concluding sentence of the article -- check your license or you may regret it indeed. Ask my eldest son. But just because someone has lived in Oklahoma all or most of his life, this does not mean he's a legal citizen of Oklahoma or of the United States entitled to the priveleges and immunities thereof.

These "horror stories" have been reported in any number of publications in Oklahoma since Nov. 1, 2007. But it is the personal "horror stories" that get around by word of mouth that are the most common. I have a friend who is a staunch immigration restrictionist. But when he heard of the difficulties a female friend of his encountered while attempting to renew her expired Oklahoma driver license several months back, his immediate response was very similar to the story linked above. I explained to him in a private discussion on the matter that this was all part of Oklahoma's immigration law, and that immigration restrictionists should be more than willing to go along with tighter restrictions on driver licensing in Oklahoma for the greater good. Initially he was not particularly receptive to my explanation, nor my advocacy for that particular provision in H.B. 1804. But as these sorts of things generally go, once he had time to reflect upon it he began to realize that he and I and all Oklahoma citizens, if we truly support the intent of H.B. 1804, must be willing to make certain personal sacrifices in pursuit thereof when necessary. You know, being willing to incur the "horror" of committing a grand total of three or four hours of our lives (provided we don't allow our licenses to expire once issued) to act in compliance with the provisions of Oklahoma law.

It used to be in Oklahoma that an expired license was no big deal to renew, I can personally attest. Indeed, I once learned that my license was several months expired during a routine traffic stop. The officer simply requested that I "take care of it immediately" which I was very happy to do. It is now more difficult to "take care of it" due to the provisions of H.B. 1804. So, as the story above puts it, and to reiterate, if you're an Oklahoma citizen and you possess a valid Oklahoma driver license, don't let it expire or you might regret it. On the other hand, you may well be in for a treat, prepared as you should be for the worst, yet hoping for the best.

But it's funny, I've personally been reminded several times during the course of this month when showing my driver license not to allow it to expire. You know, neighbor and fellow citizen taking care of neighbor and fellow citizen. All part of the master plan, knee-jerk liberalism notwithstanding.

Read More

Hussein O. & Co. swear upon the altar of Deception: We will not produce an autentic birth certificate!

Heading the list of entries under my Recommended Blog Posts section in the upper-right sidebar is a newly added WND article by Joseph Farah on the question of Hussein Obama's citizenship status and the Obama camp's refusal, in the face of these looming questions and speculations, to produce an authentic Hawaii birth certificate for BHO.

Mr. Farah asks the exact question I asked in my initial post on the subject at this blog -- why? What good is it doing anyone, continuing to add fuel to this speculation on Obama's actual country of birth by refusing to produce something as easily aquired upon request as a person's own birth certificate? What can be the motivation behind Obama's refusal to produce the document, the simple production of which would put to an end virtually all speculation on the subject for once and for all time? Well, let me rephrase that last thought: at this point in the game, because of Obama's refusal to produce the document, I doubt that even doing so now would be sufficient to satisfy some people's minds. But can you blame them? Be honest you leftists, if the same questions surrounded a candidate you opposed -- you know, a "radical right-wing nutjob" -- you and your leftist media outlets would be all over this demanding the production of an authentic birth certificate establishing the natural born citizenship qualifications of the "radical right-wing nutjob" candidate in question.

There have been any number of articles written on this subject over the last several months and weeks, some of which I've already linked up at this blog, others of which I have not. In addition to the WND article linked above, I'm adding a couple more from there and other sites below.

While this recent W-4 post has nothing to do with this subject, a short discussion on the topic was set off in the comments to the post, to which I contributed a couple. Zippy Catholic answers my initial question to him by saying to me that everything else about Obama being so bad, he just cannot personally take an interest in this question on Obama's eligibility for the presidency. And I reply. Blackadder interjects assuring me that Phillip Berg is nothing more or less than a crank. Also Blackadder provides the readership with a link to a FactCheck.org article concerning the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate. But as others have pointed out, the document the Obama camp produced is not a birth certificate, it is a certificate of live birth.

I read a couple of days ago that Mr. Berg's lawsuit, while it has garnered the most attention throughout media outlets including the blogosphere, is far from the only lawsuit filed demanding the production of an authentic Hussein Obama birth certificate. Several people from various states have filed similar lawsuits. Add to the list Obama's old nemesis from his Senate campaign in 2004, Alan Keyes (scroll to the bottom of this page for other WND articles on this topic.). Is Mr. Keyes a crank too?

Why is it that I'm seeing a similarity here between President Clinton's defiant refusal to answer questions before a Grand Jury investigation of the Monika Lewinsky scandal and the defiant attitude displayed by the Obama campaign on the questions surrounding his constitutional eligibility to the presidency?

Read More

Subject to the tyranny of dead men

As I've written elsewhere, I'm not particularly inclined to be tyrannized by the living, much less by dead men. But that's just me. If you are inclined that way, well, that it is your problem, not mine, and I'm not going to make it my problem. Which is to say that I won't be tyrannized by your proclivity to be tyrannized by a dead generation, period.

Certain of my commenters, both very recently and further back in time, have said to me in very dogmatic terms that certain policies and agreements now existing were created by folks no longer existing and way before I was ever thought of. This fact to these persons means that therefore I (and by extension most everyone now living) have nothing to say about it; that we the living are subject, without review or revision, to the laws of dead men. It is, whatever it is, written in stone from henceforth and for all time. End of story, say they.

What a slave mentality this is! I'm not sure I can put a finger on the exact cause of this mindless, slavish mentality seemingly prevalent among the masses, but the public education system in American, such as it is at this moment in time, can't be helping matters any. And it can't be helpful that we've opened the door wide to peoples and cultures and traditions which can have little knowledge or understanding of what freedom is and how to maintain it, and thus to pass it on to posterity.

It is in this vein that Dr. Yeagley (who I seem to recall once argued this very line with me here at Webster's. I'd have to go back and check the archives to be sure) has an interesting entry up over at BadEagle.com concerning certain internal governing characteristics of the Comanche Tribal Constitution and the term restrictions (term limits) it imposes on its Chief Executive Officer. Dr. Yeagley complains (and his complaint is warranted in my opinion, irrespective of who currently occupies the seat) that the Comanche constitution established by dead men contains a flaw that needs to be corrected by none other than the living. What a novel concept! Yeagley's complaint is not only leveled at the imposition on the Chief of the tribe himself, but the imposition on the Comanche people which denies them the right to select a given Chief as many times in succession as they themselves choose to select him. Yeagley goes further even, complaining that the very institution of elections is not a Comanche tradition; that [dead] White men imposed this institution on the Comanche people in 1934, though I don't get the impression he's arguing that the entirety of the Comanche constitution should be scrapped.

Dr. Yeagley writes:

Nick Tahchawwickah and I see precious value in our present leadership. We recently presented a proposal to the Comanche Business Committee about an amendment to our Comanche Constitution that would insure continuation of that leadership. When a true leader appears among the Comanche, we think the people have the right to maintiain his leadership as long as they want. Under our current Constitution, imposed by the Bureau of Indian Affiars in 1934, our chiefs can remain in office only for two consecutive terms. Then they must be out of office, at least one term, before they can run again. This is certainly foreign and contrary to the old Comanche ways. Leaders were [n't] 'elected' in the first place. They evolved into the position by natural selection. And they certainly were never "changed" regularly by scheduled elections. This is a bit bizarre for Comanches, actually. Tahchawwickah and I want an amendment which will allow unlimited terms. (The new, proposed Constitution, which hasn't come to a vote yet, does not even address the matter of terms or term limits.)

I personally find very interesting Yeagley's choice of terms in the foregoing paragraph. For instance where he invokes the language of Darwinian natural selection. But that's a side issue not necessarily related to this post. The main point is that Dr. Yeagley's complaint (again, a valid complaint in my opinion) is with the imposition of a dead generation of White men on a living generation of Comanches, the illegitimacy of which I've been arguing all along. Dr. Yeagley asserts that living Comanches have the right to adjust their Tribal Constitution to their own liking, or, as the Declaration of Independence puts it:

...that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to create new guards for their future security. ...organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

And I most certainly agree. This is just a no-brainer, one of those "self-evident truths" spoken of in the DoI -- that governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. The governed in the foregoing statement are minimally the living. They're more than just the living, of course, but that's what they are at a bare minimum. Beyond that bare minimum as applies to the Comanche People and their governing Constitution, they (living Comanches) have every right to determine for themselves what qualifications are requisite for their own citizenship, for their own leadership and so forth and so on. If the general sense of the Comanche People is that term limiting their Tribal Chief is bad for Comanches, then let them remove this imposition from their governing constitution.

We've had our own discussions (though I don't recall taking the issue up here at Webster's) about the illegitimacy of term limiting our governors under the United States, particularly the term limit imposed on the presidency by the 22nd amendment, U.S. Constitution, which serves as a good example for us to look to. It is one of those things that when you get into the depth of the subject you begin to realize how very detrimental to good politics term limits are, notwithstanding their popularity among the ignorant masses, as well as the "good intentions" of those who advocate for term limits. But beyond that, term limits can be nothing more and nothing less than depriving the People of a choice they may have otherwise made in exclusion of them. The best way to regulate the amount of damage a bad politician can inflict is to hold regular elections, and to make him subject to impeachment and prosecution according to law. If you have a policy in place which artificially regulates how long a given politician can serve in a given capacity, then you end up with that "lame duck" situation that generally attends the second terms of U.S. Presidents. In other words, I would argue, and have argued, with regard to this concept of term limits, that a good politician can be made bad and that a bad politician can be made worse by the very institution of (artificial) term limits itself.

But of course it is all written in stone now, so I have no say in the matter. I should therefore take my place as a slave to the policies and enactments of dead men.

Read More

Question of the decade

Or more accurately, this is the question which has been begging to be asked of the left ever since the inherently radical ideology of liberalism became the dominant and ruling belief system in America. It is a theme I've hit on here and elsewhere numerous times over the last several years articulated more succinctly:

Does it not occur to the left that at some point the non-liberal non-persons may rise up and start to defend themselves?

It bears repeating what I've said any number of times before, "anything taken to the extreme is bad." But there's more to the saying than what is apparent on the surface, as is always the case. Leftists do not really want to bring down upon themselves and their sacred ideology the level of resistance that their actions, intended or otherwise, are bound to provoke at some point if allowed to continue on pace. As those of us who are actually familiar with the founding principles upon which this country was originally established so well recognize, "...all experience has shown that mankind is more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves." BUT...

Read More

Understanding the Constitution

(Note: In my right sidebar under the fifth heading "Links of Interest" is a permanent link to the Federalist Papers there for your perusal. I've written before that it was through my own reading and study of the Federalist Papers that I came to the knowledge of how destructive to our form of government the fourteenth amendment has been, original intent of the framers of the fourteenth notwithstanding. Subsequent amendments have further worked to the destruction of the federal principle so vital to our system, and the fourteenth amendment (original intent notwithstanding) paved the way to this destruction. A good familiarity with the Federalist Papers is essential to understanding the original intent of the men who sat in the Constitutional Convention. And there's the added bonus of discovering the great genius of these great Americans in devising the balanced system that they did.)

If you think you understand the Constitution, the depth and breadth of the principles contained therein and the form of government it establishes, here is a lengthy excerpt from the introduction of a new book on the subject titled "Defending the Republic" which will help you discover how much (or how little) you know and understand about the constitution in reality.

Read More

Surprise, surprise

The presidential "candidate whose middle name happens to be Hussein," according to a study reported in this article from whence the preceding quoted phrase was taken, received 89 percent of the Muslim vote on Nov. 4.

Many Muslim Americans also changed their party affiliations for this election. The country's Muslim population, estimated at between 7 to 8 million, has traditionally voted along conservative, Republican lines. Today, more than two thirds of American Muslims polled say they consider themselves to be Democrats, while only 4 percent see themselves as Republicans (29 percent identified themselves as Independents.) The shift began in 2004—in part because of the GOP's mishandling of civil liberties, from wiretapping American citizens to detaining Muslims in the United States and Guantanamo without trial, and because of the war in Iraq. This year, many more were drawn into the Democratic party by Obama himself. Muslims across the country were captivated by the senator's promise of unity and hope. On the Muslim-Americans for Obama Web site (Mafo2008.com), their mission statement includes the following: "That we support Barack Obama because, among other reasons, he rejects the politics of fear, challenging our nation to embrace its collective identity, where each American has a stake in the success and well-being of every American."

Yes, I can see where Muslims in America seeking Muslim empowerment in America would support the candidate whose middle name just happens to consist of a random arrangement of a random selection and number of consonates and vowels plucked at random from the English alphabet. But the joke's on them, right. The arrangement of the letters in the president-elect's middle name has no actual relation to Islam or to Muslims. And so what if it did, right? According to Colin Powell that's not America, and therefore not American, those elements in America which prefer those that just happen to be their own kind, that just happen to be closer to their own complexion, those who just happen to have names resembling their own, and whose religious upbringing just happens to most resemble their own.

Read More

Patriotism and qualifications for national political office

Over at BadEagle.com Dr. Yeagley informs me that my definition of the term "qualified", applied to Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates, does not align with a true conservative, modern definition of same, when in actuality my definition does not align with Yeagley's liberalized definition of the term "qualify" and its derivatives:

Terry, "qualification" these days, to a true conservative, means simply to know what it means to be American, by a studied Constitutional definition, and to love America.

And I reply:

I'm sorry Dr. Yeagley, I respect you and your opinion, but I cannot get onboard with what you've written above, which to my way of thinking is simply a lowering of standards for the sole purpose of making people like Governor Palin fit into some kind of 21st century (or something) definition of the term "qualified."

What you're describing in your definition is patriotism. Patriotism does not a qualified V.P. candidate make, albeit it is important that a V.P. candidate be a patriot, which, as you say, disqualifies Hussein Obama.

Okay, this started out as a long post in which I was going to show why the corruption of these terms by illegitimately making them synonymous with one another, as Yeagley has done above, can in no way be considered "true conservatism," modern methods and good intentions of some notwithstanding. But then I thought better of it, deleted everything I'd written in that vein, and decided to take another approach.

I'm asking for my readers, conservative and liberal alike, to either defend Yeagley's definition of these terms or to refute it in a comment to this entry. Anyone who wants to contribute to the discussion is very welcome to do so, but if you're simply going to engage the tack of insulting this or that contributor, or Dr. Yeagley himself, then I'm simply going to delete your posts (you know who you are). Fair enough? Good, then let the conversation begin.

Read More

A couple of firsts for me in the late election

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

Read More

The late election and what it portends for immigration restriction

I predict that under the Hussein Obama administration the new Democrat controlled, virtually filibuster-proof, Congress is going to come to an agreement on "Comprehensive Immigration Reform," by and with the aid of that RINO John McCain, and other liberal RINO Senators. What this means effectively is that Oklahoma's H.B. 1804 (and all other state and local immigration restriction laws), while probably remaining on the books for symbolism's sake, will become shortly nothing more than a dead letter as the all-powerful central government will have comprehensively "occupied the field" of immigration, and comprehensively left no doubt that it "intended a complete ouster" ... of the state and local authorities on immigration restrictionism.

Prepare to be overrun by Mexican and other third-worlders, America! Most of you who support immigration restriction to one extent or the other have literally been dragged kicking and screaming to create your own state and local laws on immigration -- kicking and screaming that immigration is a federal issue and a federal responsibility. Well, believe me when I say that the feds have heard you and they will respond to your dependency in fairly short order.

Read More