Just can't make the connection

In the comment section of the previous entry to this blog, Chiu Chunling and I have been discussing this mind-boggling phenomenon which seems to indicate that people are ill-prepared, or simply incapable of making the connection between American exceptionalism and the ingredients which created that exceptionalism.

Chiu wrote to me:

Even leaving God aside...how can Americans view the enormous disparity between their prosperity and that of any other nation and not understand that it has something to do with the principles of personal freedom and responsibility? The mind boggles, or at least mine does. Do Americans think, like cargo cultists, that this wealth simply fell out of the sky because of our brightly colored flags?

And I reply.

Relatedly, there's a discussion ongoing in a new thread at Loyal To Liberty -- Dr. Alan Keyes's site -- in which a commenter called "moniquemonicat" writes:

New World Order Prince Obama can put 10 Hispanics in his cabinet, Hispanics will still hate him.

I replied to this assertion in this manner:

"New World Order Prince Obama can put 10 Hispanics in his cabinet, Hispanics will still hate him."

Yeah, to the tune of about 67% that voted for him. If Hispanics hate Hussein Obama, they sure have an interesting way of showing it.

He ought to install ten Muslims in his cabinet. Then Muslims can (still) hate him to the tune of about 90% that voted for him. And etc...

Another commenter named Angelopeter answers my comment about the Hussein Obama-Islam connection in this manner:

[T]here are some muslims that believe that Obama is indeed their awaited saviour, "imam," that will force the world to submit to islam. Because one of the signs written of in the koran, is that this "imam," will captivate the youth through his words, and shall give to the poor (wealth redistribution).

Yes, you read it right, "some" (generally the term, so used, indicates a relatively small number, or a minority).

Sure, I was being ironic, as well as a little facetious in my comments, but I was dead serious about the main point. My numbers are also accurate to the man. Why can't people (Christian-Americans in particular) make such simple connections? The question still stands, and it, as Chiu iterates in the other thread, boggles the mind.

On 'birthright citizenship'

Writing for examiner.com from Atlanta, Ewa Kochanska (what is that, Russian?) reports on a Georgia Congressman's amendment proposal aimed at ending so-called 'birthright citizenship' for children born on U.S. soil to alien parents.

Ewa Kochanska writes:

Congressman Nathan Deal, who’s running on the Republican ticket for Governor of Georgia, has called for a change to the 14th Amendment known as “birth right citizenship” which grants an automatic citizenship to any child born on U.S. soil.

The 14th Amendment was ratified on July 9, 1868 to protect the rights of freed slaves:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Deal argues that the founding fathers never meant for this Amendment to help illegal immigrants stay in America.

I don't want to get too nitpicky, but that last line in the excerpt above sticks out like a sore thumb. Of course the founding fathers had nothing to do with the fourteenth amendment, and I hardly think that Congressman Deal argues otherwise. No; that's Ewa putting words in the Congressman's mouth. I imagine his argument is that the framers of the fourteenth did not intend that the amendment be used to help illegals stay in America, or something to that effect.

Ewa continues:

The immigration laws are often difficult to enforce when dealing with people who have raised families on the U.S. soil, but they never established a legal status. The authorities are frequently placed in a morally troubled position when they have to deport a breadwinner of a large family where he or she is the only one with an illegal immigration status. The issue becomes even more pronounced when both of the parents are in U.S. illegally, but their children are citizens. A lot of immigration agencies and human rights groups called the separation of families inhumane and un-American as well as bad for the economy; if a large family loses their only breadwinner they all end up on welfare.

Representative Deal and his supporters propose that a child born in U.S. should be granted a citizenship only if at least one of the parents is a citizen, legal permanent resident (legal immigrant), or serving in U.S. military.

On the U.S. soil? A child born in U.S.? A slip of the tongue like that can be excused once, but she does it over and over again in the article such as when she says "The issue becomes even more pronounced when both of the parents are in U.S. illegally,..." Ewa, what dialect of the English are you speaking?

Well, anyway, I was going to say something about (American) birthright citizenship. Ewa's article goes on to list some of the countries that have their own birthright citizenship clauses. Nice company we're keeping. But as I've said before, I don't care for the idea of 'birthright citizenship' for anyone, including the children of American citizens. I suppose the argument in favor of birthright citizenship for the children of natives involves the idea that these children are raised and educated to be patriotic, Constitution-loving Americans. Therefore, they should be granted citizenship by birth alone exclusive to all others. Certainly the children of natives ought to be given preference over the children of non-natives. But isn't citizenship also a choice?; a choice to be made by the individual himself, not one that we should be making for him?

Here's an idea:

Make citizenship for natives contingent upon the individual's will and his desire to become a full U.S. citizen. So he doesn't get around to making his application until he's thirty five. So what? Certainly he would be given preference over everyone else applying for citizenship based on the fact that he is native born. He would also qualify as a 'natural born' citizen, because he is himself native born, birthed by native born parents. (Awesome!, he's still eligible to be president, albeit not until he's almost fifty. What injustice!)

I know, I know, it ain't ever gonna happen. I guy can wish, though, can't he?

Vindication

Regarding the preceding blog entry, I wrote to Mr. Auster this morning:

What a great article (or discussion) Tyrannical Atheism has turned out to be! Excuse me while I bask in being vindicated citing that particular VFR article as my prime example of why VFR is the premier Trad-con site. ;-)

Outstanding work! Thank you.

Perhaps it is simply a matter of, as they say, beauty being in the eye of the beholder. There is certainly an element of truth in that statement, and I don't deny it. But I saw this coming early on with Tyrannical Atheism, partly because I'm familiar with the quality of readership at VFR, partly because it's (that is, Tyrannical Atheism) a subject of intense interest for yours truly.

As has been said before, "extreme individualism is as dangerous to liberty as any form of collectivism." See Mr. Auster's reply to a reader whose answer to the collectivism he sees in our society is the aforementioned extreme individualism. The reader supposes he wishes for a society that, well, isn't a society; a society that has no identity, no purpose, no nothing but a universal recognition and following of extreme individualism. He supposes this only because he's never lived in such a ruthlessly individualistic society.

As I've suggested before, why don't we build these extremists a city somewhere off in the mountains, self-contained, self-'governed', completely independent of our society and check in on them from time to time to see how they're coming along in their 'development' away from the extremes of extreme individualism and all that that implies. Make it so number one.

View From the Right (VFR) -- Home of Traditionalist-Conservative Apologetics

I've written, since the inception of this blog, any number of favorable items about Lawrence Auster's VFR. I've also written several items critical of VFR. But I make no bones about the fact that I've written many more of the former than of the latter.

I don't comment as much at VFR as I used to, but it doesn't mean that I have some problem with Auster or his site. Nor does it mean that I neglect keeping up with VFR articles as they're posted. As you all know, there are a number of factors which govern whether we make a contribution to a site or not; opportunity, time, whether one is knowledgable enough (or, possesses humility enough to admit it) on a given subject to speak intelligently on that subject, etc., these are all factors which govern when and how, and to what extent one makes (or doesn't make) such contributions.

Mr. Auster often delves into subjects that are, quite frankly, beyond my personal ability to add anything of any real significance. In such cases, though I often find the articles interesting, informative, and intriguing (the three-I's?), I'm really not able to add anything comment-wise, so I just keep my proverbial trap shut like a good little reader. ;-) But here's the point...

I've often said of VFR (and Lawrence Auster), that it is, in my opinion, the Premier Trad-Con site on the internet, notwithstanding the naysayers, the critics, the Auster-skeptics and detractors (Yes, I'm aware of them and their arguments -- some of them have apparently made it their life's purpose to refute virtually anything and everything Auster has to say on any subject).

I maintain today that VFR is the Premier Trad-con site. And here is a good (singular) example of why I say so.

Update: I've been informed that the second link goes to VFR's main page, instead of to the VFR article I intended. I've tried to correct this, twice, but to no avail, so, the title of the article, posted May 22, 2009, 10:40pm, is: Tyrannical Atheism. Scroll down the main page to access the article. At present it is the fourth article listed.

Where's the beef?...

...and where's the Birth Certificate?!



Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily has started a campaign to install billboards posting the question all over the United States.

Now there's a campaign I can make a generous contribution to.

Good Article

At The Tenth Amendment Center is posted a good article by Patrick Krey entitled "Constitutionalism 101." My belief, at this point, is that we've already crossed over the rubicon. Yes, it's a fatalistic viewpoint, but it doesn't mean I think such articles or attempts to re-assert the bounds of power originally laid down in the Constitution are meaningless, or exercises in futility as it were.

Here is an excerpt from the final section of the article titled The Future of Constitutionalism:

It is human nature to be tempted to “read” one’s personal feelings into the Constitution. Doing this allows someone to declare anything they like as constitutional and anything they dislike as unconstitutional. That approach of substituting one’s personal beliefs for the supreme law of the land is in direct conflict with our nation’s founding. It’s bad enough when individuals do it in the course of their personal lives, but absolutely unforgivable when our public officials do it in their representative capacity.

Yes, readers will recall that I've stated many times that I think the term "unconstitutional" is an overused, misapplied term from both the left and the 'right'. As I've explained before, the term is used to describe something that the person using it doesn't particularly care for all too often. My personal preference, therefore, is the term "extra-constitutional." If a thing is blatantly unconstitutional, then fine, by all means let's use the term in those cases. Otherwise, let's not be so careless as to declare something not constitutional that is not clearly unconstitutional. As for you ungovernable (unrecoverable) leftists, well, you have your reward.

Otherwise, as I read through the article I kept finding myself anticipating that the fourteenth amendment might be cited directly by the author because of the destructive way in which it has been interpreted and applied by the courts. But no such luck. The only real reference made to that amendment is when the author cites a passage from Raoul Berger, author of Government by Judiciary, The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment. But recall as a prime case in point, that the SCOTUS, in its majority opinion in the case Kelo et al, vs. New London, referenced the fact that the fourteenth provided the teeth by which it (the Court) could "take private property for public use" at its own whims. Prior to the establishment of the fourteenth, the court proclaimed, this was almost impossible given the ambiguous language of the founders in the 'takings clause.' Hmmm.

Then there's the declaration made so often today that the Constitution is the "Supreme Law of the land." Again, this is something I've covered countless times before. I do tire of repeating myself, and I know you tire of it as well. But the fact is that the Constitution is not, in and of itself, the Supreme Law of the Land. Read it again. Please.

Anyway, do read the article in its entirety. I have a lot more to say on the subject, but I'm completely out of time this morning. Maybe one of you can help kick off a discussion in the comments section. See ya on the flipside. :-)

On the powers of government

As any decent coach will tell you, the fundamentals are the most important parts of an athlete's game, for they are the building-blocks on which everything else in the athlete's career rests for success.

I've often said that the principle applies as well in politics (and religion). Whenever our 'game' begins to suffer, at the individual, and/or the team level, it's probably time to put considerable time and effort into revisiting and re-establishing the fundamentals. Successful coaches spend a great deal of time on the fundamentals during the "off season." No; it isn't particularly fun or interesting, but it is necessary.

One of the main problems with politics (and religion) in America, as I see it, is that we have long-since abandoned any pretense of establishing and securing a good foundation in the fundamental principles of legitimate government. Interesting that we should neglect this duty when it has been made so easy for us to cheerfully abide in it. America's Schoolmaster, Noah Webster once said of this government that it "presents the first example in modern times of a government founded on its legitimate principles." Well, that was then and this is now, but how did he mean?

When we boil it all down to the fundamentals, there are but three powers of government: The legislative, or the planning/decision-making power; the executive, or the power to put the plan to execution; and the judicial power, or the power to judge the effectiveness and efficiency of the plan, and to advise alterations when determined necessary.

Now, I'm not talking about the separation of powers, or the so-called branches of government, both of which are integral parts of our constitutional form of government. Remember, I said the fundamentals. Those aspects of government are not the fundamentals, they are merely built upon the foundation of the fundamentals, or, they are logical extensions from the fundamentals, which are the powers of government.

I said above that it seems odd to me that we should neglect to attend to something made so easy for us. What do I mean by that statement? Well, if we'll take the time to actually read the Constitution once in a while, we'll find that in the opening sentences of Articles I, II, and III the powers of government are laid down in their simplest form. Everything following those first sentences in each article respectively, is built upon the foundation, recognition and establishment of that specific power of government, to wit:

Article I, section 1, U.S. Constitution:

"All legislative Powers herein granted..."

Article II, section 1, U.S. Constitution:

"The executive Power shall be vested in..."

Article III, section 1, U.S. Constitution:

"The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in..."

And there's no way of getting around it. Those are the fundamentals of government, those are the powers of government. Each individual is a complete 'government' in himself, for he (generally unknowingly but nonetheless) exercises these powers of government on a daily and a continual basis. He may not be very good or efficient at it due to any number of factors, but he does so nonetheless. Anything he does outside himelf, or outide his immediate family interests, however, requires that others be involved acting in capacities built upon the foundation of one or other of the powers of government depending on the nature of his relationship to the others. I could give innumerable examples of the way this works, but I don't really think I need to. The main point here is to get us thinking in terms of the importance of the fundamentals to good government.

Once again, if government is failing or breaking down, then it's probably high time we spent a good deal of time and effort on re-establishing the fundamentals. And that all starts with the individual, for as they say "the whole is exactly equal to the sum of its parts."

On the Class of 2009

My wife and I attended the H.S. graduation ceremonies of a nephew and his class this past Friday night. A couple of notes on the ceremony:

(1) Is quoting Dr. Seuss by the honored graduating students some kind of a trend we're going to have to endure for the next decade? If so, I may rather stay home and send my graduate a nice card and some money. At the last two graduations we've attended long passages from Dr. Seuss have been quoted. But I guess that when you raise up a generation on Green Eggs and Ham, The Cat in the Hat, etc., well, you get what you pay for.

(2) How many scholarships are given out these days? At this particular ceremony a large amount of the time was spent in (formally) handing out college scholarships to various students. It sort of reminded me of Little League Baseball, where everybody gets a trophy. But maybe I'm too cynical; maybe there were simply an inordinate number of outstanding students in this particular class.

(3) One of the honored students -- Salutatorian or Valedictorian, I don't know which -- mentioned, in a very satisfied tone of voice, that her generation had witnessed the first election of an 'African-American' to the presidency. She said that the world as we know it would soon change because of Hussein's election. She doesn't know how very right she is in that respect. Otherwise, she's in for a big let-down. But I imagine that because of Obama she's inspired to become ... whatever it is she's inspired to become.

Well, enough of that already. I liked the keynote speaker. I don't recall his name, but his bio was pretty impressive. He was also fairly straight-forward in his speech, while working into the speech some funny and witty lines as well. He wasn't the best speechifier in the world, but he was a real person with real experiences, self-made, self-motivated, and all of that. He alluded, in the speech, to the fact that the goal of a proper education is to prepare one to be useful in his future stations (now where have I heard that before?). I hope that the graduates paid close attention to his good advice ... and that their parents and their community have well prepared them to follow it. As for our graduate, I know this is the case.

On the intolerablest of all possible sins

There is a semi interesting discussion ongoing at Dr. Keyes's site Loyal To Liberty in which the intolerablest sin imaginable -- intolerance -- is mentioned several times back and forth between posters. (Might this be yet another case of leftier-than-thou posters sparring with one another about who is, well, the leftier of the two, which are always fun and entertaining exchanges? Well, not exactly, but close.)

I thought a word on tolerance was in order, so I posted a comment to the thread. It also seemed appropriate that I should mention in the comment the blatantly false liberal idea that we can't (or shouldn't) legislate morality. If liberals truly believe that we can't/shouldn't legislate morality, then why do they do it? The answer is that they don't really believe in the concept. What they actually believe is that legislating specific kinds of morality (i.e., non-liberal morality) is absolutely not permissable, liberal morality being excepted, of course. As I've said many times before, here and elsewhere, it's not a matter of whether we can or should legislate morality, it is rather a matter of whose morality will be legislated.

Anyway, here's what I wrote in the post:

A word on "tolerance" if I may:

Perhaps it needs to be pointed out to some in this conversation that people don't tolerate that which they agree with, they embrace it. Tolerance implies disagreement, thus those who embrace a thing and (self-righteously) count it as the highest form of tolerance are simply lying to themselves. Likewise, people who say that a person is intolerant because he expresses opposition to, or non-embrace of a thing, indict themselves. But if anyone can show me an ideology that is more intolerant (not to mention destructive) than liberalism in any case, I'd sure like to see it.

Then there's the liberal fallacy that says "we cannot legislate morality."

For our purposes here, let's throw the illegitimate word "amorality" on the ash heap where it belongs and act like adults with some semblance of common sense. As if moral beings can be morally neutral.

But if it's true that we cannot legislate morality, as liberals are so fond of saying, then why do liberals (they're the ones that incessantly make the statement, and I'm including among them right-liberals), well, legislate morality, liberal morality?

Whenever you make a distinction between right and wrong, good and evil, you've just taken a moral position. Does anyone know of any law on the books that is not founded in a moral position, someone's moral position?

Let's take abortion as our example since this thread is about abortion. Correct me, but isn't the argument, at bottom, that it is wrong, thus immoral, to deny a woman's right to choose? Isn't that what we constantly hear from the pundits, the talking heads, and our illustrious liberal politicians ("Republicans" included)?

Quote of the day

"Why would I want to rule anything out?" "Why would we take a position that says 'We really don't like this but we're only going to go so far?'" -Rep. Charles Key (R), OK House of Representatives

Good question!

Read the USA TODAY story to find out why I've declared Mr. Key's statement the quote of the day. (H/T: The Maritime Sentry)

How could we ever take such a position?

Another Tenth Amendment update: Congress and Executive branch, check your mail

The Oklahoma Senate sealed the deal in our state, joining the OK House in re-passing our Tenth Amendment Resolution, overriding Gov. Henry's veto of the bill. I said this would happen, a couple of weeks back as I recall (time gets away from me these days), in a comment I left on the subject over at The Maritime Sentry. (In the same comment I also said that the days of my state turning the helm over to spineless liberals are finished.)

The good people of Oklahoma have spoken through their legislature, both on this issue as well as on the immigration issue, the latter of which in part (in those provisions which give the law real teeth), incidentally, remains held up in the Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Obviously the Tenth Circuit means to stall on hearing the case until the feds pass 'comprehensive' immigration reform, i.e., the [Senate] Amnesty Bill.

We're not finished speaking in Oklahoma by a long shot. There will be a bill introduced in that body protecting the citizens of Oklahoma against 'federal' usurpation of our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. And it will pass, easily.

Once again I reiterate, we're in for a helluva ride here. Y'all ready? Better be!

A guide to the TEA rallies, for dumm... leftists

Irate Tireless Minority of one, Call Me Mom, has posted a pretty good analogy at her blog attempting to explain for leftists what the TEA rallies are all about. If you've read any of Call Me Mom's posts concerning the TEA Parties (at her personal blog, and at the AFB), specifically the Madison WI Tea Party which she attended, then you are well aware that she apparently took copious notes while there. Either that, or she has a photographic memory.

Call Me Mom writes:

It seems that the MSM and others of the collectivist mindset do not quite understand the reasons behind the tea party movement. I thought a helpful illustration might be of assistance. It's not an exact parallel, but close enough, I hope, for basic comprehension.

In my mind, as well, I think, as in the minds of the founding fathers, government is like an unruly child that must be watched over every second of the day, lest the entire family come to harm through his mischief. Let's say, for the sake of this illustration, that our unruly child has become a college student and we, his parents, sent our credit card with him to use for certain, very specific expenses or in case of emergencies. This is not money we have, but money we are willing to work in the future to provide for those specific expenses. He was fairly responsible at first. After a few blips here and there, we have gone on with our lives and not paid much attention to the totals on the credit card statement.


We have just received a bill for several trillion dollars. The extra zeros caught our attention. We thought "how could that possibly be correct?" After checking with the company, we have been assured that it is indeed correct. Our unruly child, bereft of our close attention, has been behaving badly. He seems to have decided that, since we are(or were)the richest family on the block and since he has a credit card that seems to have no limit, there's no reason he shouldn't help others as well as himself. In fact it looks as though our unruly child has decided that he can provide for the entire world...as long as he has our credit card. He seems to believe that it is his duty to do so, since he has the means...our credit card. He has purchased houses, food and medicine for his friends, his friend's relatives and strangers. He has even allowed thieves to come into our home and take our things for themselves. These thieves are not required to follow our rules, but we are supposed to treat them as honored guests no matter how they behave because our child thinks they will return his generosity with a like measure of their own.

We have invited our unruly child to a tea party to explain the consequences of his actions.

As I've said a couple of times before at this blog, I don't particularly care for the "Taxed Enough Already" acronym because I think it really misses the larger point of what the TEA rallies are all about -- they're not just about excessive spending and taxation, although that is certainly part of what they're about. At the same time I haven't expended any effort in coming up with a better slogan, so there ya go. But like I said above (and in a comment to the post via email since I'm having trouble posting comments at her blog) Mom's analogy is a good one. In the end, though, leftists aren't going to get it because they're the ungovernable spendthrifts who have racked up the credit card bill.

Beyond that, after they'd robbed from Peter to pay Paul to the point that Peter said "enough!" and demanded repayment, they started to look for get-rich-quick schemes in which to 'invest' borrowed money on someone else's name in order to cover their losses, and in an attempt to hide from their parents what they'd done. And you know that there are any number of get-rich-quick schemes and schemers out there. And when that fails we have the lottery and gambling casinos on virtually every corner now. These 'gaming' casinos are particularly enticing to ungovernable spendthrifts such as those unruly children Mom alludes to. Indeed, I would be willing to bet my last dollar that upwards of 80% of those who frequent these casinos, and/or play the lottery, do so on someone else's dime, keeping with Mom's analogy. In other words, I'd bet that the vast majority of 'gamers' are people who receive some kind of government assistance; that they receive in benefits more than they pay in taxes. Anyone care to wager with me on that point?

But anyway, do read the rest of Mom's entry. Also, Mom was kind enough to post my comments to the entry which I sent to her, as I said above, via email. In that comment I make a suggestion as to what ought to be done to our illustrious leaders who brazenly continue to squander the wealth of productive Americans on unruly vagabonds. And I still ain't smiling.

Can there possibly be a more ridiculous figure...

...than the likes of 'Speaker of the House' Nanci Pelosi?

Can anything political possibly be more embarassing to that segment of the general public which makes anything resembling a contribution to the betterment of the society at large, than Nanci Pelosi as the Speaker of the House of (United States) Representatives?

Just a thought.

State legislators acting like state legislators

Representative Key mentions in the video the coercive influence of the 'federal' government over the States in which the former will threaten to withhold 'federal funding' for state programs if the latter refuse to go along with the central government's encroachments on states' rights and the right of the People to govern themselves, or, more properly, when the feds offer a pot of beans in return for our birthright -- a pot of beans that, incidentally, originates with the states and the people thereof. Of course this all has to come to a head at some point.

In another place Mr. Key has suggested as a response to this manipulation tactic that states collect taxes from their citizens internally, essentially denying the central government its current limitless ability to tax the citizens of the several states to its own purposes extraneous of the states. Under such a system the states would not only check the alarmingly out-of-control growth and influence of the central government, but they would also manage their own affairs, build, maintain and repair infrastructure, etc., etc., etc. What would be left to the central government would, theoretically, be enough for it to function in its proper, constitutional role and no more.

Now, I realize that there are some problems with this idea that will need to be worked out. First of all it is a radical departure from the way we've been doing things in this country for umpteen years now. But I ask you, isn't a radical departure from business as usual exactly what we must have if we are to survive, both as states and local communities, and as a nation? The same may be argued of the central authority's role in controlling immigration. That didn't stop several of the state governments from initiating their own immigration laws -- with saber-rattling and gnashing of teeth all around.

I think Charles Key is onto something with his proposed solution above. And, indeed, I've argued the same for several years now. I don't know exactly what this means except that we both think alike; that we both think like Okies, whatever that implies.

Eventually one must arrive at the fundamental aspects of our natures. Among the unalienable rights that each of us retains in our various capacities is the right to life, to liberty, and to the pursuit of happiness. All of these imply the right to self-preservation, and the means to secure it. If that means denying the central government the means with which to destroy us at the state, local, and family levels (which it most certainly does), then that is just the way it is. As I've said numerous times before, some of us aren't particularly inclined to be enslaved by anyone, dead or living. If you are so inclined, that's your problem, not mine. I'll see you on the frontlines.

Tenth Amendment update

As reported at the Tenth Amendment Center, lawmakers from various states, including Randy Brogdon of Oklahoma, on May 5, 2009 issued a Joint Announcement on State Sovereignty:

Over the course of decades, there have been increasing federal mandates and acts designed to effectively step in and legislate the affairs of our various states from Washington D.C. Federal usurpation into state affairs severely limits the ability of state governments to operate according to their citizens’ wishes. We believe that the best government is one which governs closer to the people…. The current price of erosion of states’ rights exceeds $11 trillion. Without the countless attempts in Washington to duplicate and micromanage our states’ affairs, much of this debt could have been avoided.

Amen, and amen. But don't these legislators know that the all-powerful 'federal' government can simply "occupy the field" and "intend a complete ouster" of the state and local authorities, and, poof!, it's done? Apparently they didn't get the memo on that. Or, if they did get the memo, they simply reject it, as do I.

Brace yourselves, y'all, we're headed down a road that hasn't been traveled, nor maintained, in quite some time. We'll have to clear away trees and overgrowth, and fill the potholes as we go along.

Randy Brogdon on the specter of Specter's 'defection'

I wrote about the specter of Senator Specter's defection from the Republican party on April 29, and asked the question "how much idiocy can be crammed into a single article?" As was made strikingly evident in the article in question, it all depends on the idiot writing the article, as well as the idiots on all sides whom the writer quotes. In that particular case it was like unto a couple of dozen circus clowns exiting a V.W. But anyway,...

Oklahoma Republican State Senator Randy Brogdon of Owasso released a public statement concerning Arlen Specter's 'defection' on April 28, in which Brogdon stated the following:

Every day, dozens of 'conservatives' in Congress defect to the other party when they join with Obama by voting for new government programs, increased deficit spending, and billions in federal earmarks," said Brogdon. The only difference is that Senator Specter finally admitted he is in lockstep with the Democratic [sic] leadership. (emphasis added)

My only beef with that portion of Mr. Brogdon's statement is his referring to the Democrat 'leadership' as the 'Democratic' leadership. But that's a whole separate issue which basically boils down to semantics.

Randy Brogdon obviously gets it. He knows that Senator Specter was, while donning the mask of a Republican, nothing more than a subversive and an infiltrator, and that he is/was far from being alone. Few 'conservatives' (not to mention liberals) seem to be able to come to this understanding on their own. I can't tell you how many conversations of very recent antiquity I've had with (nominal) conservatives in which they express genuine anguish over the fact that the official U.S. Senate numbers are now 59 Ds, 41 Rs. If, they say, that jackass prevails in Minnesota, we are all but doomed. But we're already all but doomed, and we have been since January 20. There aren't 41 reliable Republicans in the U.S. Senate, and there weren't 42 a couple of weeks ago. Are you kidding me? The Minnesota situation is not only bogus, it is a diversion. And any conservative worth his salt ought to be smart enough to know it.

(I think too many of you are putting way too much stock in what Sean Hannity and the like have to say on the matter. Pay more attention to the public statements of Senate 'Republicans' like Olympia Snowe, John McCain, what's-his-name from South Carolina (I know his name, do you?), and etc., all of which have said publicly, on the heels of Specter's 'defection,' that the Republican party is becoming too conservative; that the Republican party needs to become more inclusive, blah, blah, blah. In other words, they seek to destroy the Republican party from within. Y'all don't understand that?)

As I've said numerous times, there are enough RINOs in that body to pass any self-destructive, anti-American (yes, anti) piece of legislation that comes down the pike with several to spare for another issue -- you know, so that one or two don't have to take all the flac all the time, and be outed themselves subversives and infiltrators, which they most definitely are nonetheless. And John McCain, my friends, is among them. Speaking of which, thank you Senator McCain for your service and your suffering in Vietnam. Now please be gone from public life before we have to drum you out. Comprehende Amigo? And that goes for the rest of you infiltrators. But I digress...

I did want to mention that Senator Brogdon is running for the governorship in Oklahoma. Someone as clear-headed as Brogdon, who sees the subversive nature of the Arlen Specters of the world and the danger it poses to conservatism, definitely has my endorsement.

Brogdon was also among those Oklahoma legislators who refused a specially made copy of the Koran from Governor Henry's illegitimate, falsely named, secretive Muslim front group which I've also written about at this blog. Does anyone think that so-called "council" will remain intact under a Brogdon governorship? Furthermore, does anyone believe that our Tenth Amendment Resolution would be vetoed under Brogdon's leadership? On the immigration front, Governor Henry did sign Oklahoma's immigration bill into law, but not before he was dragged kicking and screaming, in fine Janet Napolitano style, to the signing table, announcing to the public that "immigration is an issue exclusive to the federal government." Later when the law was challenged, Governor Henry indicated that it was up to the courts to decide whether Oklahoma has the right and the responsibility to its citizens to protect them and our state against invasion. I've already thoroughly refuted the abjectly stupid (not to mention, dangerous) assertion that immigration is federal issue exclusive to the federal government by its own decree, so I don't think I need to go over it again. Given Brogdon's positions on other issues, how do you think he'd come down on the immigration front, particularly on Oklahoma's unalienable right to protect herself from her enemies, foreign and domestic?

Governor Brogdon -- it has a nice ring to it, don't ya think.

The Government and GPS

What could a 'federal' government agency -- in this case the U.S. Census Bureau -- possibly need, or otherwise plan to do with the exact GPS coordinates of a private U.S. citizen's home?

Call Me Mom has a good answer.

Get thee hence, Satan

Well now, Governor Henry (unsurprisingly) vetoed Oklahoma's Tenth Amendment Resolution passed in both the House and Senate by large margins. Also unsurprisingly the Oklahoma House of Representatives just re-passed the same resolution. The Oklahoma Senate now takes up the issue.

G-g-g-gov'nor, what were you thinking?

Never mind. Don't think. Just watch closely ... and take copius notes. Jackass!

Darby on the TEA protests

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

Rick's advice? Read it for yourself.

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

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