Why am I wrong to take the position I take?

In attempting to find some Webster's reference (which I think there is) to commenter Chiu Chunling's assertion which I quoted in the previous post, I found this comment (which I included as a comment) to one of my posts,

Terry Morris said...
It occurs to me that some folks who read this post might think I'm being a bit radical in stating that I refuse to participate further in the schemes of the federal government. A couple of points to make on that:

1) As Thomas Jefferson so aptly put it, "resistance to tyranny is obedience to God." And as one of my favorite H.S. teachers put it to me in 1984, "you better be radical about something." [TM: I actually saw this teacher at a football game last Friday night, though I didn't introduce my 25-year-older self as a matter of ultimate respect).

2) If I choose to limit my personal participation in the federal government's schemes to rob me and others of the wealth we create to fund policies and projects that we do not agree with and would not otherwise support, by legal means, what is radical about that?

Let's put it this way, I can choose to work x number of hours or y number of hours. If x is the number of hours I need to work to keep my family up with minimal participation on my part in the government's program, and y is the number of hours I need to work to to support my family and make a maximum personal contribution to the government's program, I'm simply choosing option x as opposed to option y. This means I'm opting out, to the greatest extent possible, of the federal government's tax-and-spend policies.

You think I'm wrong to do so? I challenge you to support that assertion.

This challenge still stands.

Read More

Tenth Amendment Governor

Randy Brogdon announces his candidacy for the governorship of Oklahoma. World Net Daily has the story.

Read More

Important announcement -- you feds take note

I sent a short email to Mr. Auster earlier today regarding the 'Obamacare' initiative, the full text of which I include below:

Ray G. wrote:

What if people didn't cooperate with it's (sic) mandates?

People like me won't cooperate with its mandates. And damn the consequences. I'm not particularly inclined to radicalism, but this has just gone too far already. Oklahoma is my country now.

Again I say to all of you, watch Oklahoma. We won't stand for this sh...crap. I may be an early casualty, but my state will eventually (and in short order) come along, hide and watch. It is just that simple. Secession draws ever nigh. And if my state isn't the first to do so, I'll be thoroughly disappointed ... from my prison cell.

Read More

Time to initiate another letter writing campaign (initial draft)

Esteemed Sirs,

By changing the language in the amendment proposal such as you've done, you're essentially acknowledging that the federal government possesses unlimited power over the states and the people thereof, and that all federal law supercedes state law, contrary to the ninth and tenth Amendments, U.S. Constitution, and in accordance with the doctrine of the enemy. What is more, given that the language in the amendment was changed upon receipt of a slightly veiled threat from the U.S. Attorney General, you give the lasting impression that you have no heart for the fight, and that the good citizens of Oklahoma bear the same deficiency, which is to say a severe lack of spine. How then, esteemed Sirs, can any other state currently, or in future, embroiled in the sovereignty movement trust that this uniquely conservative, God fearing, liberty-loving state will be with them in good times and bad, in sickness and in health, for richer or for poorer, till death do us part?

My suggested reaction?: "Bring it on!"

Your servant,...

Read More

The prospect for secession looms ever nearer

I'm self-admittedly a bit biased on this topic, but y'all really do need to pay particularly close attention to the goings on in Oklahoma. I flatter myself that I have a pretty good sense of the general attitude of the citizenry in this state. I may be a bit more radical and outspoken about my intentions than most Okies are comfortable with, but you can write it down that there really is a "silent majority" here in Oklahoma that the other side is currently doing all it possibly can do to provoke to action.

Vanishing American has been writing quite a bit lately about the ominous 'healthcare' initiative. I personally do not see how it can be stopped at this point. And stopping it at this point would merely amount to a delay in its adoption anyway. On the other hand, states like mine will most definitely take action to protect their citizens against such insanity. Which, when you boil it all down, comes down to an all-out assault on fundamental liberty. Good health is not a guarantee, nor is it a "right." Of course, I already know that the 'healthcare' bill isn't intended to make the citizenry more healthy, but to destroy personal liberty. Which is the reason that it must be resisted with the firmest, manly kind of resistance we can possibly muster. You may be asking "where are all the men?" I say to you again, watch Oklahoma. The process will take some time, and the impatient among us (who I think are not as firmly dedicated to the cause as they like to let on, generally speaking) will continue to let loose their criticisms of non-binding resolutions, the ineffectiveness of the TEA rallies, etc., etc., etc... And yet the steady and resolved among us will continue to march on. I'm not sure that I fit well into either one of those categories, but I know that a lot of my brethren do. Hide and watch.

Read More

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

(Note: The entry has been updated below.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monument endorses religion, judges say

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

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

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

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

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

End of initial entry.

**********

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

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

Dear Board of Commissioners,

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Patrick Henry Lives

Read More

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.

Read More

My country, my State

In connection with the two preceding entries, the reason I'm feeling such pride in my country and my state should be fairly obvious with the knowledge that my state, Oklahoma, is one of only two states in this union who have passed in both houses of their legislatures their versions of the tenth amendment resolution. Oklahoma's bill passed the House and Senate by margins of 83-13 and 25-17 respectively.

Also recall that Oklahoma was on the forefront of introducing and passing into law state initiated immigration legislation. And in specific connection with this post, Oklahoma's constitution also affirms our Judeo-Christian, European heritage, which of course is deemed "uncivilized" by certain leftist organizations in America.

The map I've posted is unfortunately a bit out of date, showing only 26 individual states which have introduced their own tenth amendment resolutions. There are now, by my tally, 28 such states and counting. The two additional states not represented on this map being Nevada and Ohio.

Also keep in mind that when one house of a given state's legislature "kills" a bill such as this in committee or whatever, it doesn't necessarily mean that the bill is forever dead. Sometimes legislatures and legislative committees are simply rejecting a specific bit of language in a measure, essentially requiring that the objectionable language be re-written or altogether stricken, and the measure re-submitted. I think that is likely the case with the New Hampshire resolution, the language therein being very strong and threatening. But, of course, I have no way of being absolutely certain that is the case.

Nonetheless, essentially the same thing can be said without such purposefully threatening effrontery. I mean "cease and desist, otherwise we're going to war" and such as that doesn't seem very, ummm, diplomatic. And it is, after all, that the states have a diplomatic relationship with, and carry on diplomatic relations with foreign governments through, the central government.

So, you guys keep trying up there in New Hampshire. There may well come a time for strong language such as contained in your resolution, but I don't think that time is now. You can always add it later when the central government, in direct defiance of the various states and their wishes, continues to abuse its powers and encroach upon your rights under the ninth and tenth amendments. Let the record show that you did not provoke the central government, but that the central government and perhaps certain states in this union ignored your petitions and remonstrances:

The Unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

[...]

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

Change a few words around using that as your model, and you've got it.

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

Attention Arizona Voters

In a comment to my entry yesterday, a poster appearing under the name politics 101 leaves the following message intended to inform Arizona voters of the leftist attempt to deceive them with their ballot initiative Proposition 202.

(To the poster who left the message, rest assured that the people of the state of Oklahoma overwhelmingly support LAWA and its groundbreaking sanctions on unethical Arizona employers. And we despise with you any and all attempts from the left to deceive the voters of Arizona into supporting any ballot initiative meant to undermine the provisions of LAWA. It is vital that Arizona voters understand the true nature of this initiative and vote overwhelmingly in opposition to it, thus sending a clear message to leftists across America that an informed and determined citizenry cannot and will not be deceived by such tactics as employed in this initiative; that the left deceives itself in perceiving Americans so naive and so easily deceived as to cast their collective vote in favor of the destructive Prop 202.)

To Arizona voters:

VOTE NO ON PROP 202!!!

This November 4th Election
Arizona Prop 202 – Stop Illegal Hiring Fraud for Arizona voters.

HISTORY
Arizona has the most effective, non-discriminatory employer sanctions law in the nation. It has been upheld in four court challenges. The Legal Arizona Workers Act, which went into effect Jan. 1, 2008, requires all Arizona employers to use the E-Verify program. E-Verify is an essential tool to assure a legal workforce. It achieves an accuracy rate of 99.5 percent by matching names, birth dates, Social Security numbers and, in some instances, photos for job seekers.

As early as October of 2007, before the new law went into effect, Arizona saw positive results. Illegal workers were leaving voluntarily. Fraudulent documents and identity theft that were previously used were no longer enough to obtain employment.

The Stop Illegal Hiring Act (Prop 202) was drafted for a consortium of businesses, chambers of commerce, and trade associations seeking an endless supply of cheap illegal labor. Those organizations would profit from a modern-day form of slavery − exploiting illegal aliens. Those same groups were responsible for legal efforts that were rejected by District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
When legal challenges were thrown out, those groups devised Stop Illegal Hiring. This brilliant scheme is so deceptive. It counts on Arizona voters to only read the title and not pay attention to the contents. These authors of this proposition believe that the 70-75 percent of Arizona voters who want only legal workers employed will not look at the details.
Here is their deception.

THE PROPOSITION
The “Stop Illegal Hiring Act” guts the primary enforcement mechanisms of the current employer sanctions law and in actuality it is Employer Amnesty. It was designed to make sure you cannot prosecute employers if they use the I-9 process or the E-Verify program even if they are proven to have cheated the system:

• It abolishes required use of E-Verify. The initiative’s backers cleverly buried this key point on page seven. Even Governor Napolitano has stated that E-Verify is a very simple process and takes only minutes to accomplish. It would return E-Verify to a voluntary program and allow employers to resume the former “wink and nod” method of verifying employment eligibility through the I-9 process. Federal Judge John Walker blasted the current federal I-9 process, “The I-9 documents (that workers present to companies) are fraudulent.” Proposition 202 backers wish to perpetuate the same verification system that has been proven over 20 years to be rife with fraud and identity theft. If an employer complies with the I-9 requirement (which we know is not enforced by the feds) a court cannot find them guilty.

• It requires Arizona to wait until the Federal Government has taken action against an employer before the state takes action. We all know how ineffective and useless the Federal Government has been.

• It exempts thousands of Arizona employers by offering the use of the same standards that have not worked in the past. It removes corporations from the definition of “license.” It has introduced language to subject an employer to sanctions “if the employer has more than four employees and pays hourly wages or salary in cash and not by check or direct deposit to a financial institution” and fails to make withholding deductions, fails to report new hires to the Department of Economic Security or fails to provide coverage for workers compensation. The same provisions already exist for violations by employers with just one employee. It also provides that out of state employers (who are licensed in AZ) are not governed by the employer sanctions law.

• It eliminates the Silent Witness portion of the current law. All complaints regarding employer violations of the law must be written and signed. This would stop employees from reporting violations. Anonymous tips are an important tool in taking criminals, including serial killers, off the streets.

• It imposes an impossible standard of proof. High-level managers who are not officers or owners could hire illegal aliens with impunity, and would not face any enforcement.

CONCLUSION:
Arizona citizens are not as naïve as this proposition's sponsors assume!

The truth is Stop Illegal Hiring (Prop 202) allows employers the ability to continue to hire illegal aliens with impunity.

Don’t let the name fool you, this proposition will nullify Arizona’s current Fair and Legal Employment Act and make hiring of illegals easier with less chance of penalty.

Proposition 202 is simply Employer Amnesty.

Vote No on Proposition 202.


Don Goldwater
don@dongoldwater.com
http://www.dongoldwater.info

As I said in the other post, such examples of deceptive tactics employed by the left are in no way surprising to those who understand what the left is all about fundamentally. Indeed, the left could not have ever established its current dominance in America without employing various and sundry methods of deception, exploiting the goodness and the good will of average Americans. But it's all deception at bottom which constitutes the left. So we should not be shocked whenever the left acts like the left; whenever leftists employ fundamentally leftist tactics to move their points.

The parallels between the left and Islam are striking, as was mentioned in the other entry, perhaps the most striking example of which is the aforementioned Deceptive Quality inherent to both inordinate belief systems. But this deceptive quality inherent to both belief systems has a fundamental drawback and fatal flaw, it deceives its own adherents into believing that their deceptions will forever go on undiscovered.

Read More

Will Texas go the way of Okahoma and Arizona?

Texas is notoriously friendly to Mexican immigrants, but have Mexicans finally begun to wear out their welcome in Texas? Might we be seeing in Texas a classic case of "giving them an inch, and their taking a mile"? Here's a story that suggests that at least in some Texas cities, this is the case:

Opponents of a Dallas suburb's ordinance aimed at barring illegal immigrants from renting housing asked a federal judge Monday for a temporary restraining order to block its enforcement. A group of landlords and a former city council member suing Farmers Branch over the ordinance filed for the restraining order.The ordinance would require prospective renters to obtain a city license. The city would then forward information from the license application to the federal government for verification of the person's immigration status.

Anyone who couldn't prove legal U.S. residency would be denied tenants licenses, and the city would penalize landlords who rent to people without a valid license.

Opponents say the city is trying to regulate immigration even though that is the domain of the federal government.

Here again we have the same argument that we've heard over and over from the usual suspects, and for the umteenth time, it is not just the domain of the federal government to regulate immigration. States and local governments have an immediate interest in protecting their own communities. And once again, the city of Farmer's Branch is simply trying to deny illegal immigrants access to housing, legal immigrants would not be denied this access per the new ordinance.

Also, I'd point out that Farmer's Branch is attempting to partner with the federal government in determining the immigration status of prospective renters. Undoubtedly the federal system to which these applications would be forwarded is the E-Verify system which I've written about here before. But what is it that's causing all this confusion in Texas; what is it that pits Texan against Texan, landlords against their own city governments in a state that, as I said before, is notoriously friendly to Mexican immigrants? Part of the answer may be found in this WND story:

While illegal aliens flee strict immigration enforcement policies in several states and settle in Texas, the state's budget is suffering and violent crime, soaring.

News reports indicate a flood of illegal aliens is coming from states such as Arizona and Oklahoma – where immigration crackdowns have made life more difficult for them. In the meantime, Texas' violent crime rates have taken a turn for the worse.

Now, don't get me wrong, I derive no pleasure from learning that our neighbors to the south are beginning to feel the effects of a rapidly growing illegal population which consists largely of cultural incompatibles. Texas is a large state with a large population. But no population of any size has an unlimited capacity for taking on hordes of immigrants, legal or illegal. That my state's law, which I've advocated for since it was first initiated in the Oklahoma HoR, is partially responsible for the current unrest in the state of Texas gives me no pleasure. I simply have the satisfaction of knowing that I've been predicting this very thing, this very outcome all along. I've pleaded with and warned other states before, in very plain spoken language, 'you'd better get your ducks in a row on this immigration situation, because once Oklahoma's law goes into effect our illegals are going to invade your states, causing the same kinds of problems they were causing here.'

At least one state which borders Oklahoma did recognize what was happening very quickly following the enactment of H.B. 1804. Missouri responded by writing and passing its own law which closely resembles that of Oklahoma. But like Oklahoma, Missouri is a small state with a relatively small population by comparison to Texas.

But as I've written so many times before, the preferred direction for these illegals to travel is south. The problem with that for Texas, in the short run, is that Texas, already feeling the effects of an overpopulation of illegal immigrants there, is going to incur even more of these, and all the undesirable things they bring along with them. Whereas it used to be that Texas was simply being used by Hispanics, legal and illegal, to smuggle illegal Hispanics into neighboring states like Oklahoma, the tables now have been turned.

The good news is this, Texas will soon find itself at a crossroads. Indeed, it would greatly surprise me if the Texas legislature is not currently working behind the scenes on its own law in an attempt to alleviate this growing problem before it becomes completely unmanageable. But Texans are quickly learning that there is a limit to how many immigrants they can take on. And let's be frank, most of Oklahoma's illegal Mexican population made its way here from Texas. It's only natural, then, that those who are now seeing the handwriting on the wall would make their way back through that state.

To my friends and relatives living in Texas, my sympathies are with you. My fondest hope is that the Texas legislature will act on this crisis in short order; that Texas will soon join the growing list of states in this union who have already passed, or are in the process of passing their own immigration legislation.

Read More

On the immigration front, cont.

I wrote two days ago about the 9th Circuit Appeals Court ruling on Arizona's immigration law. The part of Arizona's law which had been challenged were the sections dealing with non-compliant employers, those sections intended to remove the incentive for employers to hire illegal (mostly) Mexican labor, and thereby remove the employment incentive for illegals to stay in Arizona. As with Oklahoma's law, as I said in the other post, these sections of the Arizona law are vital to the final achievement of the Bill's intent.

However, it occured to me later that what I'd read in the article about Arizona's law concerning employers of illegal aliens actually made Arizona's law tougher, quite a bit tougher as a matter of fact, than Oklahoma's law when it comes to employer sanctions. According to the article, which is linked in the other post, Arizona employers who are caught violating the law can lose their business licenses. Whereas, as I've explained before, Oklahoma's law does not go that far. In fact, according to the provisions in Oklahoma's law, employers are only required to verify the employment status of their employees if they wish to enter into contract with government organizations. Otherwise, Oklahoma employers are left free to hire illegal aliens, though they remain subject to surprise factory and jobsite raids by local, state, or federal authorities.

So the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld Arizona's much tougher restrictions on employers while the Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has thus far refused to do so with Oklahoma's comparatively weak employer sanctions -- sections seven and nine of the bill respectively -- saying that Oklahoma's provisions probably violate federal law and are therefore probably unconstitutional. That's pretty interesting, don't ya think?

Well, as I said in the other post, the Ninth Circuit's ruling gives me some hope that Oklahoma's provisions will eventually be upheld in the Tenth Circuit. Additionally, the author of Oklahoma's bill, Rep. Randy Terrill, has stated before that Oklahoma would like to expand on the law, and as I recall (though I could be wrong) part of Terrill's plan involves toughening up our employer sanctions once we've gotten over the initial legal hurdles we're facing at the moment. Hopefully the recent ruling on Arizona's law will help us achieve that as well. I for one am completely and utterly unsympathetic towards employers who would commit treason against their countrymen in this fashion, and fully support the introduction of stricter penalties against such non-compliant businesses and business owners. (Some of you may think the term "treason" is a bit harsh. I don't.)

Read More

On the immigration front

Good news today out of Arizona. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday, Sept. 17th, upheld the provisions in Arizona's immigration law which requires employers to verify the employments status of all new hires, and penalizes employers for knowingly hiring illegal aliens:

PHOENIX (AP) — A federal appeals court on Wednesday upheld an Arizona law that penalizes businesses that knowingly hire illegal immigrants and requires them to verify the employment status of their workers.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision rejected a challenge by business and civil-rights groups that contend the law infringes on federal immigration powers.

The law, intended to lessen the economic incentive for immigrants to sneak into the country, imposes civil penalties on employers by suspending or revoking their business licenses when they are found to have knowingly hired illegal immigrants.

While it upheld the law, a three-judge panel of the court left the door open for other challenges, saying no one has been accused of violating the law since it took effect nine months ago.

This is very good news for people like myself who advocate for state and local immigration control.

Oklahoma has similar provisions in its law, H.B. 1804, which are currently under federal suspension pending further hearings in the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. These provisions (sections seven and nine) are vital to the efficacy of Oklahoma's law. Let us hope that the 9th Circuit's ruling will help to effect a similar outcome in Oklahoma's case so that we in Oklahoma can get on with the business at hand; the business that should have begun on July 1st of this year.

Read More

An interesting exchange

Under my post from two days ago, an exchange was had between myself and a couple of disagreeable Hispanic commenters. Also, jdogg, an Indian who we've all come to know and love, decided to leave his mark in the thread as he bid us all a fond adios. So long jdogg, we will miss thee.

Now, don't get the wrong impression. I'm not touting the exchange as containing any intellectually stimulating value at all, because it most definately doesn't. I apologize for that. But there are some valuable aspects to it nonetheless. For instance, here is what Fernando has to say during the exchange:

The country as we know it now is super young and you brought your ilk brought your disgusting diseases and poxes as well.

Indigenous people have been here long before your kind and at least these people didn't lie and deceive and cheat and kill.

This is just prior to Fernando's attacking me for being a "racist", mocking my religion, and calling white Okies "hillbillies", I mean uneducated "racist hillbillies":

"Third World" is just another replacement word for "brown". I call a racist a racist, no need to disguise it, and you are a racist. Pray to your god to figure that one out.

Of course Fernando's statements can't be racist. You can't be brown, or more broadly non-white, and racist at the same time, irrespective of what you say about a given non-brown race.

And here's jdogg in his farewell's eve message, and in his wonderfully articulate way, mocking concerns over the alarming growth of the illegal Mexican population in this country, and, again, calling me a racist and an alarmist:

Not that it matters, but what IF the Mexican population has grown? All populations grow, and by the way this must have happened in the last four years because that's when I left.

This continues to smack of nothing to racism and fear, that's all. It's repub racism at it's finest.

Oh man the messicans are taking over! Pretty soon we will all be eating burr ee toes!

How many times do these people need to call me a racist and an alarmist, an extremist right-winger and so on before they learn that I'm immune to it? They can call me what they like as many times as they like, it doesn't change anything. And as I pointed out to Fernando, I'm simply unwilling to sit back and allow my country and my state to be overrun by third-worlders. That's just a fact that I guess I'll just have to keep teaching to them.

Read More

A major objection!

I received the following email from a beloved Aunt earlier this evening. But as the title of this blog post states, I have a major objection to the contents of the email. The email was received as follows:

100% Oklahoman

1. You can properly pronounce Eufaula, Gotebo, Okemah, and Chickasha.

2. You think that people who complain about the wind in their states are sissies.

3. A tornado warning siren is your signal to go out in the yard and look for a funnel.

4. Your idea of a traffic jam is ten cars waiting to pass a tractor on the highway.

5. You've ever had to switch from "heat" to "A/C" in the same day.

6. You know that the true value of a parking space is not determined by the distance to the door, but by the availability of shade.

7. Stores don't have bags, they have sacks.

8. You see people wear bib overalls at funerals.

9. You think everyone from a bigger city has an accent.

10. You measure distance in minutes.

11. You refer to the capital of Oklahoma as "The City."

12. It doesn't bother you to use an airport named for a man who died in an airplane crash. (TM: Will Rogers for anyone who doesn't get it)

13. Little smokies are something you serve only for special occasions.

14. You go to the lake because you think it is like going to the ocean.

15. You listen to the weather forecast before picking out an outfit.

16. You know cow pies are not made of beef.

17. Someone you know has used a football schedule to plan their wedding date.

18. You have known someone who has had one belt buckle bigger than your fist.

19. A bad traffic jam involves two cars staring each other down at a four-way stop, each determined to be the most polite and let the other go first.

20. You know in which state Miam-uh is and in which state Miam-ee is.

21. You aren't surprised to find movie rental, ammunition, and bait all in the same store.

22. Your "place at the lake" has wheels under it.

23. A Mercedes Benz is not a status symbol. A Ford F350 4x4 is a GT.

24. You know everything goes better with Ranch.

25. You learned how to shoot a gun before you learned how to multiply.

26. You actually get these jokes and are "fixin" to send them to your friends.

Finally, you are 100% Oklahoman if you have ever heard this conversation:

"You wanna coke?" "Yeah." "What kind?" "Dr. Pepper."

Okay, I've kept you in suspense long enough. The major objection is this, as some of you may have already guessed, anyone who calls himself an "Oklahoman", definately ain't 100% Okie! An "Oklahoman" is a newspaper that some of us subscribe to, and some of us don't, published in "the City."

Read More

Bad Eagle.com on Indian Gaming

For anyone interested in the discussion Dr. Yeagley and I have been having here at Webster's, Dr. Yeagley has taken the issue up over at his website Bad Eagle.com in this entry where he writes:

If white people want to gamble away their money at Indian casinos, Indians have every right to accept.

Then in the next paragraph he states the following:

It is most unbecoming for a Christian to decry ill-gotten gain of Indian casinos on the basis of apparent business advantage. That's practically irrelevant. Let the Christian denounce the evil profits on the basis of the immorality of gambling.

Dr. Yeagley seems to want to have it both ways. While he agrees with me that gambling is morally wrong; that the money Indians make from their casinos is "ill-gotten," somehow he justifies Indian gaming on the basis that Whites are stupid enough to gamble away their money at Indian casinos. It's on the order of saying something like "I think stealing is immoral, but if the teller at the bank is stupid enough to be distracted by my antics and gives me $500. for a $400. check, that's her mistake, she should have been more attentive to her business."

Now, I realize that that's not a completely accurate analogy, but they never are. The point, however, is this, gambling casinos use all kinds of enticements to get people to literally throw their money away. What it boils down to is taking advantage of peoples' weaknesses in order to rob them of their substance. But as an advocate of the Indian people who believes that gambling is morally wrong and therefore gaming is an illegitimate business, you'd think that Dr. Yeagley would be concerned about preserving and improving upon the morality of his own people, which is to say that you'd think he'd denounce Indian involvement in the corrupt business of gaming. But all Dr. Yeagley can do is justify the immorality of Indian involvement in the gaming industry by saying that Whites have it coming because they're stupid enough to gamble, and Indians are well justified in preying on White stupidity. You know, payback.

As I've said so many times before, people can quite literally justify anything irrespective of how immoral or self-destructive it is.

Update:

The discussion continues over at Dr. Yeagley's place, but I seem to be having some difficulty getting past Dr. Yeagley's firewall again.

I'm really just seeking the answer to a couple of questions. (1) Does Dr. Yeagley support Indian involvement in the corrupt gaming industry or not? He's never answered that question directly. And (2) on what basis does he say that white Christians have no right to condemn Indian casinos politically? I assert that I have every right to oppose casinos both morally and politically, whether they're run by Indians or not.

Also, there's another issue that I think I mentioned in my comments that haven't gotten through. Dr. Yeagley seems to be giving the Indian Nations a free pass on gambling in his reply to me when he says that Indians don't see gambling as a sin. Ok, I think I can make a pretty strong case that the vast majority of whites involved in gaming, whether they be financiers or simple everyday gamblers or whatever, don't see anything morally wrong with gambling either. Does this mean that I'm to give them a free pass as well? Does this mean that I can only oppose white gambling morally, but not politically?...

Additionally, there's some confusion over the issue of Indian sovereignty. Yeagley seems to believe that Indian sovereignty and dual citizenship for Indians are like a matching set; you don't get the one without the other. I strongly disagree with this view. Indeed, I'm more apt to believe that the Indian Nations cannot truly ever be "sovereign" political entities so long as their people have dual citizenship both in the U.S. and their respective Indian Nations. Where am I going wrong?

Read More

Oklahoma Indians, here's your man

Attention uninformed conservative Okies: The advertisement you see to the left is merely a temporary thing. You needn't worry with it any more.

Here's Dr. David Yeagley endorsing Republican Jason Nelson for District 87 House. Now, I don't live in Dr. Yeagley's district so I have no say in who's elected to that seat. And I haven't read anything on our candidate outside Dr. Yeagley's endorsement. What concerns me are the grounds on which Yeagley endorses our Indian-friendly candidate, Mr. Nelson:

If you're an Indian, and you live in District 87 (central Oklahoma City), you must vote for Jason Nelson for your state representative. I ran into Jason yesterday evening, while walking through my neighborhood. He was campaigning, house to house. I spoke a good while with him. I'm convinced, he's the best man for Indians.

No, he doesn't say a word about Indians in any of his campaign material or on his web site. But, I'm telling you, I spoke with him personally, at length. I know what he believes, feels, and thinks about Oklahoma Indians. He's our man! (Also told me his wife was part Chickasaw!)

Now, Dr. Yeagley, how many otherwise white-looking folks in Oklahoma have a bit of Chickasaw or Choctaw or Cherokee running through their veins? This fact Mr. Nelson reveals about his wife surprises you and delights you? I don't get it.

Well, I could go on and on and on about why Dr. Yeagley's encounter with Mr. Nelson on the streets of his neighborhood in OKC cannot possibly have been enough to convince him of all that ... unless he's an utter fool. One single (lengthy) encounter with a candidate selling his candidacy (to an Indian) in his neighborhood and Dr. Yeagley's ready to grab up his megaphone and announce to the world "I know all there is to know about him Indian-wise, he's our man!"? C'mon!

But it does get worse, believe it or not...

As I said, he's not campaigning on this. He also knows the prejudice and fears of many uninformed conservatives toward the subject of Indian casinos. But he knows this casino binge is a temporary thing. Wise Indian leaders, like Chickasaw Governor Bill Anoatubby for instance, know that the tribes must diversify. They cannot afford to put all their eggs in one basket. They must invest in other businesses besides the entertainment business.

The "prejudice and fears of many uninformed conservatives" toward the subject of Indian Casinos? Well now, that's about all this prejudiced, fearful, uninformed conservative needs to know right there.

But because this "casino binge" is a "temporary thing," Nelson understands that Indians have to diversify. In other words, this casino thing is not a temporary thing at all, it is, quite to the contrary, and if "wise" Indian leaders have anything to do with it, a long term business venture which the Indian nations have no plans to abandon, only to build upon. Mr. Nelson has secretly confided to Dr. Yeagley (but doesn't say anything about his plans on his campaign website) that he believes Oklahoma has to work with the Indian nations on diversifying in get-rich-quick money making schemes -- you know, cut backdoor deals with them (reduced taxes and whatnot). Look out Oklahoma, if this Republican is elected Pyramid schemes may, for the first time in Oklahoma's history, become legal (Indian) means for making money. And of course it's essential to our State's economic growth that Oklahoma's government work with the Indian nations to make these business schemes legal, at least for Indians.

One last word about "Indian money." I've written about this before, but when I was in Alaska in the early 1990s, there was a push for "homosexual rights" in the state, and more locally in Anchorage. One of the things that homosexuals (and their advocates) engaged in at the time was to attempt to show what a great economic contribution homosexuals were making to the local economy. One way in which they did this was to deface any money that came into their possession by whatever means with a stamp that read "gay money." Indeed, for a time it seemed that virtually all paper currency circulating in the Anchorage area was "gay money," if you were to take what was stamped on it at "face value." That in itself should be enough to illustrate the stupidity of using the term "Indian money." But perhaps Dr. Yeagley would like to start a similar campaign with his Indian brethren and their casino money?

Sorry dad. The more Indians speak, the more I dislike them, notwithstanding all that Chickasaw, Choctaw and Cherokee blood that runs through these veins. I know, I know, my Indian ancestors bought and paid for all this ... stuff. Right.

Read More

Oklahoma businessman saddled with $51,000. fine; illegal employees deported

That is $1,000.00 for each illegal Mexican immigrant his company knowingly had under its employ. Do try (hard as it may be for some) to look over the fact that this man is 77 years old, and consider the relevant facts of the case:

U.S. District Judge Ronald A. White sentenced Cook's company to three years of probation and imposed a $51,000 fine for furnishing phony Social Security information for his employees.

In a separate courtroom, minutes later, Cook, 77, and his shop foreman were sentenced to pay $6,000 each in fines for misdemeanor convictions of employing illegal aliens and conspiracy to employ illegal aliens.

[...]

Both men admitted that they conspired to get around immigration laws.

I'm pretty sure that when these individuals were conspiring to get around immigration laws by furnishing their illegal employees with phony documentation and whatnot, they also knew the risks involved. You know how the adage goes.

Read More

What is the connection between Arizona, Oklahoma, Tennessee, sardines, a pickup truck, me and a Muskogee teen?

A couple of weeks ago while at a mall in Muskogee, Ok., I was approached in the parking lot by a young black teenager who was selling newspaper subscriptions to the Muskogee Phoenix. Without going into a lot of detail, I was impressed with young man's ambition, and his willingness to approach me and to answer my questions; questions such as "since I'm not a resident of Muskogee, what is the benefit to me of subscribing to the Muskogee Phoenix newspaper?" In the end the young man talked me right out of my money and into a subscription to said paper, where yesterday I discovered in Tuesday's edition this story about the arrest of 19 transient illegals who happened to pull into the wrong driveway at the wrong time, and obviously in the wrong state.

You know the moral of the story.

Read More