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

(Note: The entry has been updated below.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monument endorses religion, judges say

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

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

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

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

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

End of initial entry.

**********

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

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

Dear Board of Commissioners,

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Patrick Henry Lives

Read More

What would be the result of secession?

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

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

Jeff Matthews writes:

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

Ha, ha.

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

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

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

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

Patrick Henry Lives wrote:

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

Jeff Matthews follows up:

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

TM replies,

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

and further:

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

Hannibal Barca weighs in:

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

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

TM follows up on Patrick Henry Lives's comments:

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

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

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

Yeah; I can see that happening again.

Jeff Matthews replies:

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

TM replies to Jeff:

Jeff,

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

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

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

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

Jeff replies:

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

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

TM replies:

Jeff,

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

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

I will add further comments as they're posted.

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

Update: Jeff Matthews responded to my last post above:

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

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

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

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

Read More

Hussein Obama -- A Muslim, in spirit and in truth?

As I've said, it doesn't matter to me, at this point, whether he is a Muslim -- in truth -- or not. He IS a Muslim in spirit, thus hostile to America and everything America has historically stood for. For me personally, his debasing himself, the presidency, and the United States before the Saudi King, was the final straw. Nothing can change it now. Come get me.

Read More

Decision made -- looking for suggestions

I'm going to take the U.S. flag, currently displayed at the top of my left sidebar, down. Any suggestions as to an appropriate banner to replace it with? (Note: The Oklahoma flag is out of question.)

Thanks.

Read More

Gay "marriage": a victory for decentralization?

I've been spending quite a bit of time lately over at the Tenth Amendment Center where they're doing a good job of keeping up with all of the tenth amendment resolutions, and other state enactments and citizen movements as they're happening.

Just a few days ago New Hampshire became the sixth state in the union to authorize gay "marriage." In praise of this radical move by the New Hampshire legislature, Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center writes that,

Whether you support this particular issue or not, I think people across the political spectrum can see this as a victory for decentralization. The 10th Amendment makes it quite clear that the most important social issues should be handled on a state level, or by the people themselves.

Really? I'm not going to dispute that the tenth amendment reserves to the states and to the people the great residual of political powers, obviously, it being a central theme of this blog the principle of Balanced Constitutional Government. But exactly how is this instance some prime example of a "victory for decentralization?" And if it is an example of such a victory, isn't the fact that 34 or 35 other states in this union which have explicitly denied homosexual "marriage" is the more important and more decisive victory ... for decentralization?

I suppose I understand the impulse to applaud movements which seem to favor the decentralization of political powers consistent with the constitution, particularly in an era in which centralization of political powers is not only commonplace, but one of the ruling principles of our degenerating society. On the other hand, something so obviously self-destructive to society as undermining its foundational institution hardly seems to me to be especially deserving of praise and adulation, particularly when the exact same principle one is supposedly applauding has been applied in six times the number of states, albeit with diametrically opposing results.

I won't say that Boldin has some kind of underlying homosexual advocacy agenda here, because we know that people are often on the wrong side of an issue for all the right reasons, and vice versa. But it seems rather odd to me, nonetheless, to praise this radical, self-destructive movement by the state of New Hampshire while neglecting to mention the movement amongst the states to protect the institution of marriage. But maybe it was just an error of omission.

Y'know, had the New Hampshire legislature voted the other way, not only would it be able to claim a victory for decentralization, but it would have also retained its dignity. As it is, the state is apparently ruled by sodomites.

Read More

Psalm 2

One of my favorite Psalms is not a widely read or widely quoted passage, but it's a favorite of mine nonetheless. But then again, I'm something of an eccentric when it comes to reading God's revelation to man. I prefer reading the first several chapters of Genesis to reading the book of Acts or the book of Revelation for instance. But that may simply be a result of those books being the (almost) exclusive emphasis of my childhood church.

Here is the second Psalm in its entirety (from the KJV):

WHY DO the heathen rage, and the People imagine a vain thing?

2 The Kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying,

3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.

4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.

5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.

6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.

7 I will declare the decree: The Lord hath said unto me. Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.

9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.

10 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed ye judges of the earth.

11 Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling.

12 Kiss the Son lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

I generally quote from the first four verses of the second Psalm, or paraphrase those verses when I see specific examples of the heathen raging and imagining vain things, demanding that the cords of the righteous be broken and cast away from among them, as if to say that the end result of the severing of those cords, once complete, is a world that any decent human being would care to live in. And all in the name of "liberty" you see, which is simply a word that means, to these people, license to practice any lasciviousness conceivable to the mind of man.

Among examples of this is the radical homosexual lobby. It seems pretty obvious to me that the homosexual lifestyle is - besides being a complete violation of nature involving unmentionably perverse and inordinate behaviorisms exercised by ungovernables - an agressive and radical lifestyle at its very roots. Let's face it, some folks are peculiarly in need of external government. They certainly exhibit little to no innate ability to govern themselves and their inordinate passions. Any society that permits such ungovernables to rule it has sealed its own fate.

But this insignificant group would simply fade into the background where it belongs had it not the backing of the radical leftist "change" agents which dominate in our society. "Breaking their bands asunder", and "casting away their cords from among us", encompasses, when you boil it all down, the whole of the radical leftist agenda. In other words, to create a world so very permeated with evil that it would literally be "hell on earth."

I once heard a certain minister of the Gospel state that there are merely two kinds of people in the world -- those who say to God "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says "thy will be done." His point was well taken. And I think we know which of the two groups dominates in American society these days. Forgive us Father, for we know not what we do.

Read More

History of the United States, by Noah Webster

I wrote once, in passing, about Google books. And I included a link in the post to Noah Webster's (America's Schoolmaster) "History of the United States." I thought that I had included a favorite passage of mine from the book in the entry, but a search of the blog archives proves that that is not the case, so I shall include it here. In the introduction to the book, Noah Webster wrote:

The brief exposition of the Constitution of the United States will unfold to young persons the principles of republican government; and it is the sincere desire of the writer that our citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the BIBLE, particularly the New Testament or the Christian religion.

So much for the doctrine of "the separation of church and state," eh? By the way, how is it that one is to "separate" his religion (or the lack thereof) from his politics. I hold that it is impracticable; that those who vie for such a thing are irrational.

Someone named "Zapem" invokes the authority of General Washington in a comment posted under Dr. Keyes's latest entry over at Loyal to Liberty. My reply to Zapem involves the importation of foreign ideas of God, man, and government to these shores. It once was, you see, a great concern of Washington's, the witness of American youth migrating to foreign countries in order to acquire the higher branches of erudition. Why? Because, in his words, the great possibility existed that these students, ill-eqipped as they were to well understand the value of their own system of government, would thus imbibe principles not congenial with republicanism and bring them back with them on return to America. But we needn't worry with that anymore, as I intimate in my reply to Zapem.

Read More

Is Mitt Romney disqualified from the presidency?

Yes! In the same way that Hussein Obama (a Muslim, a closet-Muslim, a non-Muslim with sympathies for, and intimate ties with, Islamism; it matters not generally, but in this instance it matters particularly.) is disqualified.

We had this discussion way back when. M. Mason and I tended to agree on the substance of Romney's faith, and the implications thereof. And now Mr. Mason invokes the Christian Research Institute. Yet another of our common interests. Hmm.

Read More

The soft bigotry of low expectations

President Bush's phrase came to mind this morning while I was making my rounds at my regular stopping places ... blog-wise. Several bloggers in my blogroll have mentioned Hussein Obama's recent statements claiming that America is a Muslim country. The phrase in the post title I think applies to all of those Obamaites out there who have been saying, essentially, that Hussein's intimate connections with Islam will not affect the way he governs. Thus, if these people are being honest with us, then they are (soft) bigots of the first order.

Now, I personally do not give a hoot whether Hussein is a Muslim in truth or not. He's as dangerous to this nation as a non-Muslim (or closet-Muslim, as it were) as he is, or ever could be, as a Muslim. And I've said this since way back when (way before his candidacy was made official). But like I said a while back, when he debased himself, the Presidency, and the United States of America before the King of Saudi Arabia, any question that lingered in my mind concerning his politico-religious allegiances at once vanished. Notwithstanding anything he has ever said, or will ever say in the future, concerning his personal faith.

I have also mentioned several times before the now prophetic words of our founding fathers who wrote in the fullest explication of the U.S. Constitution in existence -- the Federalist Papers -- that among the reasons chosen for the Constitutional mode of selecting our president, chief among them was to prevent foreign powers from "raising a creature of their own to the chief executive magistracy of the union." This, of course, makes perfect political sense to anyone who retains the slightest sense of patriotism and loyalty to his own country. But if the late election is any indication, modern Americans are loyal, not to their fellow countrymen, not to the constitution, and, no, not even to an ideal. They are indeed loyal, first and foremost, to the basest of human instincts; they're all about no. 1.

The fate of such societies is already written.

Read More

Attn.: Editrix

Our female German correspondent, The Editrix, has some intriguing insights about the female sex, and what causes women (as women) to do some of the things they do.

At VFR is posted an article concerning the actions of a Dutch female reporter putting herself in harm's way. Read the article -- titled: Wilders tells the Dutch elite what they are -- to understand what exactly I'm talking about.

Now, I'm not trying to make any sweeping generalizations, truly, but I've witnessed this kind of thing before in certain women who are (relatively) close to me. They engage themselves in certain self-flagellating, ceremonious, ritualistic behaviors, and in their particular cases I've generally identified it as a self-centered grasp for the sympathy due to victims as well as the applause and adulation due to someone so obviously self-less, warm, loving, non-judgmental, and so forth and so on. In other words, my sense in this particular case is that this woman seeks self-promotion and self-gratification, and she was willing to put everything (including her life) at risk to get it. What I find so irritating sometimes, is that people go along with it, legitimizing this kind of behavior, thus effectively creating a monster, er, a whole host of 'em.

But I want to hear (or read) Nora's point of view, as well as any other woman's perspective who would like to add her own thoughts or insights.

Read More

Why do I always put the term federal, as generally applied to the central government, in scare quotes?

Well, partly because the U.S. Government, as it now stands, is probably about as far away from being a "federal" government as any government can possibly be. And partly because when we ... spontaneously? ... refer to the central government as THE Federal Government, we simply obfuscate the meaning of the term federal and its derivatives, rendering the term, particularly as it applies to these United States, effectively meaningless (I'll grant that some people understand what the term means, yet still use the descriptive "federal government" in reference to the central authority as a matter of convenience and habit.).

If it is even possible, at this point in the game, to save the country, we must restore the federal principle to its rightful place in our system of government. To do that, we must know first what the term means. But, irregardless of whether we can save the country or not, it will serve us all well to be considerate about the way we use such terms.

I will quote again William James who said:

"There is nothing so absurd than when you repeat something often enough, people begin to believe it." (the statement doesn't originate with James, but he is most often accredited with it, nonetheless.)

Referring to the central government as The Federal Government, as we're so apt to do these days, has (had) this effect I think. Likewise, it has been stated so frequently and so often over the course of decades in this country -- the doctrine of the "separation of church and state" -- that people actually think that the actual words are contained in the U.S. Constitution. And, of course, you all know by now that one of my pet peeves is the common reference to the Constitution as being (in and of itself) the Supreme Law. But the term federal has a specific meaning, particularly as it applies to the United States.

There is an article by Clarence B. Carson newly posted at the Tenth Amendment Center this morning, originally published in 1983 (several years before I became politically aware), entitled The Meaning of Federalism. I posted a short comment to the article this morning in which I invoke Noah Webster and his 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language, as well as his descriptive of the United States as a Federal Representative Republic. Also, the author mentions the original mode of selecting U.S. Senators as an integral part of preserving (or, re-establishing in our current situation) the federal principle in American government. Do read the article. And keep in mind that it was originally published back in 1983. Further erosion of the federal principle has since occured.

Read More

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.

Read More

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?

Read More

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.

Read More

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.

Read More

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.

Read More

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. :-)

Read More

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."

Read More

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.

Read More

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)?

Read More

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?

Read More

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!

Read More

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.

Read More

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.

Read More

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.

Read More

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.

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

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.

Read More

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!

Read More

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.

Read More