Saturday, December 04, 2010

Thursday, November 25, 2010

Taking Back America

Sometimes I hate writing this blog. But I slog it out, year after year, knowing it will make an incremental difference in how we Americans perceive our liberties and the fight it will take to uphold and preserve freedom. If I just sit back and do nothing, then I have no one to blame but myself, as America slowly slides into destitution and ruin under socialist rule. I want to see America restored to her former glory, whatever the cost, so I do my part in saying no to the Leftist (progressive) policies of the last one hundred years.

What will it take? How do we do that? First, recognize that our constitution is being ignored; that our government needs a change of players who act in accordance with our US Constitution. We, the sovereigns of this country, must expect and demand all politicians to uphold and protect our constitution . That step has already been taken by some, but it can't stop there. Why?

Our schools have failed us and our children. They will continue to fail, and no obscene amount of money poured in will help. It is a failed system and it was doomed to fail right at the point when the states allowed the feds to take over. They have succeeded in only one respect: our children's education is in the tank. Schools have been usurped by globalists who have one educational goal: to produce a populace incapable of fighting back. We cannot allow that. It will be a costly and terrible fight, but it can't be avoided.

Convinced they are right, the Leftists aren't listening, and our schools have been taken over by "progressive" values. Our textbooks don't reflect our values. American Civil War history was redacted and distorted in order to validate a centrist government. And the lies keep on coming.

Do you even know what goes on in your kid's school? Oh, you know about the drugs, the gang violence, the lack of discipline. But have you taken a look at the "social studies" textbooks, the "history" books? The "language arts" courses? When is the last time you felt you had any meaningful influence in their school?

These are not rhetorical questions, they are real questions.

The attitude of the NEA and teacher's associations all reflect a globalist philosophy from the President (past presidents included) of the United States, down through the Department of Education, all working together with the teacher's unions to make our schools stink. The Eagle Forum headed by Phyllis Schlafly has been waging war on the NEA for years.

Officials and the medical profession are drugging our children in order to control them. Children are kept from praying or displaying any religious or patriotic values. They are suspended for flying the American flag.

Diversity. What that means is we give up our values, our ways of life, and worse we allow our children to be brain-washed and dumb'd down. They are taught that everyone is a winner, there are no losers. Of course the kids know better. Any kid who's spent 20 minutes on the playground knows there are winners and losers. The result? They are thoroughly confused, again this is deliberate policy.

Bullies are tolerated, officials are helpless against them, and having failed miserably on disciplining bad behavior and rotten attitudes, schools have created a spiritual vacuum; gangs are forming and taking over our schools. Violence and drugs prevail. School policies toward violence are now beginning to take a "zero tolerance" stance & expel or even have school children arrested for the most minor offenses.

Increasingly, harsh zero tolerance policies towards graffiti and other offenses in US schools are seeing grade school-aged children being treated with harsh adult-style police discipline inside the actual classroom. This problem was exemplified when, incredibly, this 12-year-old NYC girl with a spotless record was physically arrested in her classroom for doodling on her desktop this month:

Is this America we live in?

Our schools are a failed experiment in progressive education. Our children are not being educated. Isn't it obvious?

But you notice that when Americans fight back against this discrimination, the school officials tend to back down. We have to push back, and keep pushing back - just the way second amendment proponents push back against the gun-grabbers. We are winning on that front, but the education of our kids is something we don't want to tackle. We just want our kids to fit in. Our kids just want to fit in too, but they are kids. Where are the adults? Why do we let school officials bully us?

Consider this. Let's suppose somehow (not likely) you were allowed to sit in on your child's first day of school, and let's further suppose that the principle decided to gather all the kids into the school auditorium and give a short commencement speech. What do you think that principle would say, where would the emphasis be on starting a new school year?

Do you think it would sound something like this?

A Speech Every American High School Principal Should Give
by Dennis Prager

To the students and faculty of our high school:

I am your new principal, and honored to be so. There is no greater calling than to teach young people.

I would like to apprise you of some important changes coming to our school. I am making these changes because I am convinced that most of the ideas that have dominated public education in America have worked against you, against your teachers and against our country.

First, this school will no longer honor race or ethnicity. I could not care less if your racial makeup is black, brown, red, yellow or white. I could not care less if your origins are African, Latin American, Asian or European, or if your ancestors arrived here on the Mayflower or on slave ships.

The only identity I care about, the only one this school will recognize, is your individual identity -- your character, your scholarship, your humanity. And the only national identity this school will care about is American. This is an American public school, and American public schools were created to make better Americans.

If you wish to affirm an ethnic, racial or religious identity through school, you will have to go elsewhere. We will end all ethnicity-, race- and non-American nationality-based celebrations. They undermine the motto of America, one of its three central values -- e pluribus unum, "from many, one." And this school will be guided by America's values.

This includes all after-school clubs. I will not authorize clubs that divide students based on any identities. This includes race, language, religion, sexual orientation or whatever else may become in vogue in a society divided by political correctness.

Your clubs will be based on interests and passions, not blood, ethnic, racial or other physically defined ties. Those clubs just cultivate narcissism -- an unhealthy preoccupation with the self -- while the purpose of education is to get you to think beyond yourself. So we will have clubs that transport you to the wonders and glories of art, music, astronomy, languages you do not already speak, carpentry and more. If the only extracurricular activities you can imagine being interesting in are those based on ethnic, racial or sexual identity, that means that little outside of yourself really interests you.

Second, I am uninterested in whether English is your native language. My only interest in terms of language is that you leave this school speaking and writing English as fluently as possible. The English language has united America's citizens for over 200 years, and it will unite us at this school. It is one of the indispensable reasons this country of immigrants has always come to be one country. And if you leave this school without excellent English language skills, I would be remiss in my duty to ensure that you will be prepared to successfully compete in the American job market. We will learn other languages here -- it is deplorable that most Americans only speak English -- but if you want classes taught in your native language rather than in English, this is not your school.

Third, because I regard learning as a sacred endeavor, everything in this school will reflect learning's elevated status. This means, among other things, that you and your teachers will dress accordingly. Many people in our society dress more formally for Hollywood events than for church or school. These people have their priorities backward. Therefore, there will be a formal dress code at this school.

Fourth, no obscene language will be tolerated anywhere on this school's property -- whether in class, in the hallways or at athletic events. If you can't speak without using the f-word, you can't speak. By obscene language I mean the words banned by the Federal Communications Commission, plus epithets such as "Nigger," even when used by one black student to address another black, or "bitch," even when addressed by a girl to a girlfriend. It is my intent that by the time you leave this school, you will be among the few your age to instinctively distinguish between the elevated and the degraded, the holy and the obscene.

Fifth, we will end all self-esteem programs. In this school, self-esteem will be attained in only one way -- the way people attained it until decided otherwise a generation ago -- by earning it. One immediate consequence is that there will be one valedictorian, not eight.

Sixth, and last, I am reorienting the school toward academics and away from politics and propaganda. No more time will devoted to scaring you about smoking and caffeine, or terrifying you about sexual harassment or global warming. No more semesters will be devoted to condom wearing and teaching you to regard sexual relations as only or primarily a health issue. There will be no more attempts to convince you that you are a victim because you are not white, or not male, or not heterosexual or not Christian. We will have failed if any one of you graduates this school and does not consider him or herself inordinately lucky -- to be alive and to be an American.

Now, please stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of our country. As many of you do not know the words, your teachers will hand them out to you.

If every school principal gave this speech at the beginning of the next school year, America would be a better place. -end of speech-

Not likely is it? What are you going to do about it?

Sunday, November 21, 2010

Hunting Rifles Are Not "Assault Rifles"

from the National Shooting Sports Foundation

The American Rifle

On an August afternoon in 1863, Christopher Spencer made his way to the White House with a rifle in hand.

The gun he was carrying, and which he had invented, was significantly different from traditional rifles of the time that could only be fired once before having to be reloaded. The new Spencer Repeating rifle could be loaded with seven cartridges in a tubular magazine and featured a lever under the trigger. When the lever was pushed down and then brought back up, the spent casing of the round that was fired was ejected and a new round was automatically fed into the chamber.

Upon arriving at the White House, Spencer, President Lincoln and a naval aide walked over to a small park near the Treasury Building where the aide set up a makeshift pine board target so that Lincoln could test the new rifle himself. Repeatedly hitting the target, Lincoln was impressed with the accuracy, rapid-fire and multi-shot capabilities of the Spencer and immediately recommended the rifle to the Army. Soon tens of thousands of Spencer rifles were being delivered to Union troops.

While the Spencer Repeating Arms Company foundered after the war, lever-action rifles, notably those produced by the Winchester Repeating Arms Company, became tremendously popular rifles among pioneers, hunters and homesteaders for the very same reasons they were popular among the troops in the Civil War. More compact, lighter, and easier to handle, they offered the owner quick and multiple shots before reloading.

One of President Theodore Roosevelt's favorite hunting rifles was a Winchester lever-action Model 1895.

If the anti-gun movement had been active in the late 19th century, they well have labeled such rapid-fire, high capacity magazine rifles as the "assault weapons" of their day. And it would have been as inaccurate then as it is today to label a civilian sporting rifle an "assault weapon."

For well over a century, many of our most popular sporting rifles have directly evolved from a service rifle of a particular era. Battlefield requirements in a rifle such as accuracy, ruggedness, reliability and fast follow-up shots are features equally sought by hunters and target shooters.

The bolt-action centerfire rifle, for many decades America's classic deer hunting rifle, is a descendent of the First World War battle rifle, the 1903 Springfield. The bolt-action of the Springfield offered smooth and rapid cycling of the action and allowed for the use of a more powerful cartridge, the .30/06, accurate at ranges out to 1000 yards. More than a hundred years later, the .30/06 remains as America's most popular big game hunting cartridge.

The first semi-automatic (one shot per pull of the trigger) U.S. service rifle, the Springfield .30 M-1, popularly known as the Garand, saw service initially in the Second World War. Not long after the war, a wide range of semi-automatic hunting rifles as well as semi-automatic shotguns were developed by sporting arms manufacturers and have gained widespread popularity among both hunters and clay target shooters.

Today, the AR-15 looks like the M-16 service rifle that first saw combat in Vietnam. To be sure, the AR-15 does not look like a traditional sporting rifle. Neither, in their time, did the Spencer or the Springfield. What the AR-15 does look like is the latest iteration of a modern rifle that employs advanced technology and ergonomic design to produce an exceptionally reliable, rugged and accurate sporting rifle. Produced in different configurations and chambered in a variety of calibers, AR-type rifles not only can be used for, indeed are exceptionally well suited to, many types of hunting, precision target shooting as well as personal protection. In recent years, AR-type rifles have become among the most popular sporting rifles sold in the United States.

Unfortunately, some anti-gun organizations have worked hard to mislead the public by calling the civilian versions of service rifles, "assault weapons." This anti-gun strategy is a clever ploy, much in the same way that prohibitionists labeled alcoholic beverages, "demon rum." True "assault weapons" are in fact light machine guns capable of fully automatic fire. Machine guns of all types have been severely restricted from civilian ownership since 1934.

While AR-type rifles do look different, they function the same way as models of semi automatic rifles and shotguns (one shot per pull of the trigger) that have been in the sporting marketplace for many decades.

From the Kentucky rifle to the most modern sporting arm, accuracy has always been the hallmark of the American rifle. Accuracy should too be the hallmark of any firearms debate.

Sunday, November 07, 2010

What Happens When Wives Stop Obeying Husbands

'The Father's Role in Society'

A Conference Address by Dr. Daniel Amneus (author of 'The Garbage Generation') (1995)

This conference was called by Governor Wilson because of the widespread concern about crime, educational failure, drugs, social decay, etc. and the perception that these are connected with family breakdown, in particular with the erosion of the weakest link in the family, the father's role.

Anthropologist Margaret Mead has emphasized that, unlike the mother's role, which is biologically based, the father's role is a social creation. Male dogs and cats have no reproductive importance after their minuscule sexual performance is over. The emergence of a similar male rolelessness in the inner cities was becoming apparent some decades ago and is now becoming obvious in the larger society.

At present the law appears to be less concerned with how to strengthen families than with how to provide for ex-families or fatherless families created by illegitimacy. It is becoming better understood that these fatherless families breed most of the criminal and underachieving classes. Many politicians think the problem is one of punishing the male criminals generated by such fatherless families--building more prisons, hiring more police, passing "three-strike" laws, squeezing money out of ex-husbands ("deadbeat dads") for the purpose of subsidizing ex-wives or ex-girlfriends and "their" children.

Success in providing for these fatherless families means there will be more of them, that fathers will become still less needed and less motivated, and in consequence there will be further weakening of families and more of the resulting pathology this conference is concerned about. The weakening of male motivation means less male productivity, less male willingness to undertake family responsibilities, more fatherless families, more fatherless children, more crime, less economic growth. A society which cannot motivate its men to be family providers will deteriorate, as ours is doing. A society which threatens husbands with a fifty percent divorce rate combined with virtually automatic loss of children and home and property is forfeiting this motivation.

It is too little understood how male motivation is related not only to family and social stability but to the economic growth of society. Thanks to family stability and the male motivation it created, the twenty years following World War II were a period of astonishing, indeed unprecedented, growth. America's industrial plant, already the wonder of the world during the war, doubled during those twenty years, the Gross National Product grew 250 percent and per capita income increased 35 percent between 1945-1960 —as much as it had during the previous half century. Joseph Satin could say, "Never had so many people been so well off." William Baumol could say, "The future can be left to take care of itself." That was when families were stable — and headed by fathers. America's prosperity was based on growth, not on trying to pinch budgets here and there, to squeeze one program in order to finance another, to borrow from next year's revenues.

As family stability eroded, so did the growth. In 1989, 'Sixty Minutes' ran a program called "New York Is Falling Apart", showing streets sinking into the ground, bridges collapsing, Mayor Koch closing the Williamsburg Bridge on the grounds that it is "better to be inconvenienced and safe than to be convenienced and dead."

Judith Wallerstein says only half of the male students she followed in her study of divorced families completed college, forty percent of the young men were drifting — on a downward educational course, out of school, unemployed. When so many of them have seen their fathers expelled from the homes they bought for their families, when they themselves face the same fifty percent chance of divorce and the loss of their children and their role, they wonder why they should work as their fathers and grandfathers did in the years after the War.

If you ask a man why he works at his job, he will bring out his wallet and show you pictures of his family. This motivation has been weakened even for the lucky fifty percent who still have families. Males have lost confidence that society wants them to be heads of families rather than providers for ex-families. This is what men hear when President Clinton tells them, "We will find you. We will make you pay."

Most men still would like to be fathers, but our society is giving them little assurance that they can have families — that they will be able to spend their own paychecks to provide for their own families rather than to subsidize ex-wives and pay for other things judges and bureaucrats deem proper.

Adults Created By Fatherless Families

A judge will try a divorce case in the morning and place the children in the mother's custody. He will try a criminal case in the afternoon and send a man to prison for robbing a liquor store. The chances are three out of four that the criminal he sends to prison grew up in a female headed household just like the one he himself created that morning when he tried the divorce case. He can't see any connection between the two cases. The reason he can't is the time lag. The children he placed in the mother's custody were perhaps toddlers who would not yet rob liquor stores or breed illegitimate children. But they will grow older. They will become teenagers, boys capable of committing crimes of violence, girls capable of breeding illegitimate children. And then the chickens will come home to roost.

In 1980, crime increased by a startling seventeen percent. L.A. Police Chief Daryl Gates was flabbergasted. Nothing in the economy, he said, could account for such an increase. What did account for it was the huge increase in divorce and illegitimacy in the mid-1960s — plus the anti-male bias of the divorce courts which changed the father headed families into female headed families. The judges who placed the children in these families hoped they could force the fathers they exiled to subsidize the families they destroyed — to pay to have their children brought up in female headed households where they were more likely to be abused, neglected, impoverished, delinquent and sexually confused. They would like to blame the fathers for their own inability to create an alternative to the family.

The welfare system is equally responsible for subsidizing (therefore creating) female headed households. Like the divorce court judges, welfare bureaucrats would like to make biological fathers pay. They fail to understand what Margaret Mead explained, that fatherhood is not a matter of biology but a social creation. If these (merely) biological fathers are to pay, they must become (or be allowed to remain) real fathers in Mead's sense, men with a role such as that taken away from ex-husbands by the divorce court. They need to be given better motivation than "We will find you. We will make you pay." This latter motivation will not create real fathers. Real fathers must be created, as Mead says, by society. Our society is doing the opposite — destroying millions of fathers through its divorce courts and its welfare system.

Much of the social breakdown now going on is the result of the attempt to find taxpayer-funded alternatives and ex-husband-funded alternatives to fatherhood, the creation of which must always be one of society's primary responsibilities. The anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski said that if the family ever ceases to be the pivotal institution of society, we shall be confronted with a social catastrophe compared to which the French Revolution and the Bolshevik Revolution are insignificant.

There is no substitute for it. We should stop trying to find one and recognize that the weakness of today's family is the consequence of society's failure to support the father's role, the role most in need of society's support. The biological weakness of the father's role is not a reason for throwing fathers out of the family but a reason for strengthening their role within it.

A Georgia judge named Robert Noland routinely places children in the mother's custody when he tries a divorce case, and justifies what he does by saying,

"I ain't never seen a calf following a bull. They always follow the cow. So I always give custody to the mamas."

The reason Judge Noland never saw a calf following a bull is that cattle don't live in two-parent households. If we want to live like cattle, Judge Noland has the right idea.

Wednesday, November 03, 2010

The Southern Manifesto

Let me say at the outset that I [somewhat] [not at all] [strongly agree] with the premise of this Southern Manifesto document, that the Supreme Court over-stepped their constitutional boundary when they handed down their decision in the Brown v. Board of Education case.

Secondly, I am tired of all the "I'm not a racist" baloney seen as necessary to ward off the self-appointed pc police. Fact is, I'm racist in some matters, in others not at all. I'm a racist when it comes to my friends and the company I keep. I'm a racist when I encounter a "young black male" in a poorly-lit parking lot or on the street. I'm a racist whenever I read or witness any form of "affirmative action", whether in universities or the work-place. I'm a racist when it comes to inter-racial marriages (so sue me). I'm a racist because whenever I encounter a full-face hijab, I want to rip it off. Hell, even Juan Williams has problems with that.

Further, I'm a racist because I believe our government is supposed to protect our borders against attack, and we have a law against people sneaking across our borders (that's why they're call illegal aliens, folks). Calling them "undocumented workers" comes from a whole different mindset, and is basically dishonest. And you know it.

I'm a racist because I am sure that Barak Hussein Obama did not, does not, will never have the stuff to lead our great nation. Oh yeah, he's a racist, too. And his wife.  Especially his wife.

And finally, I'm a racist because I'm a Conservative - you'd have to live in a box not to know that.

Oh, yeah, I know it's not cool to be a racist, but - there you are. Just a couple of generations ago, many people in the South took umbrage when the Supreme Court first stuck it's nose into our business down South here where I live. (See personal account here)  But that was just the beginning of government malfeasance. Still, if this latest 2010 election process showed us anything at all, it's that it is perhaps premature to stick the fork in us "white conservatives".

But I digress. Let's get to the business at hand, namely:

The Southern Manifesto (1956)

The Southern Manifesto was a document written in February-March 1956 by legislators in the United States Congress opposed to racial integration in public places.[1] The manifesto was signed by 101 politicians (99 Democrats and 2 Republicans) from Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. [1] The document was largely drawn up to counter the landmark Supreme Court 1954 ruling Brown v. Board of Education,

The original author was Strom Thurmond, who provided the fire, with the final version by Richard Russell, and "polished up by highly polished J. William Fulbright, a liberal hero." - Time Magazine

[[From Congressional Record, 84th Congress Second Session. Vol. 102, part 4 (March 12, 1956). Washington, D.C.: Governmental Printing Office, 1956. 4459-4460.] ]
(all italics mine)


Mr. [Walter F.] GEORGE. Mr. President, the increasing gravity of the situation following the decision of the Supreme Court in the so-called segregation cases, and the peculiar stress in sections of the country where this decision has created many difficulties, unknown and unappreciated, perhaps, by many people residing in other parts of the country, have led some Senators and some Members of the House of Representatives to prepare a statement of the position which they have felt and now feel to be imperative.

I now wish to present to the Senate a statement on behalf of 19 Senators, representing 11 States, and 77 House Members, representing a considerable number of States likewise. . .

"Declaration of Constitutional Principles

The unwarranted decision of the Supreme Court in the public school cases is now bearing the fruit always produced when men substitute naked power for established law.

The Founding Fathers gave us a Constitution of checks and balances because they realized the inescapable lesson of history that no man or group of men can be safely entrusted with unlimited power. They framed this Constitution with its provisions for change by amendment in order to secure the fundamentals of government against the dangers of temporary popular passion or the personal predilections of public officeholders.

We regard the decisions of the Supreme Court in the school cases as a clear abuse of judicial power. It climaxes a trend in the Federal Judiciary undertaking to legislate, in derogation of the authority of Congress, and to encroach upon the reserved rights of the States and the people.

The original Constitution does not mention education. Neither does the 14th Amendment nor any other amendment. The debates preceding the submission of the 14th Amendment clearly show that there was no intent that it should affect the system of education maintained by the States.

The very Congress which proposed the amendment subsequently provided for segregated schools in the District of Columbia.

When the amendment was adopted in 1868, there were 37 States of the Union. . . .

Every one of the 26 States that had any substantial racial differences among its people, either approved the operation of segregated schools already in existence or subsequently established such schools by action of the same law-making body which considered the 14th Amendment.

As admitted by the Supreme Court in the public school case (Brown v. Board of Education), the doctrine of separate but equal schools “apparently originated in Roberts v. City of Boston(1849), upholding school segregation against attack as being violative of a State constitutional guarantee of equality.” This constitutional doctrine began in the North, not in the South, and it was followed not only in Massachusetts, but in Connecticut, New York, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania and other northern states until they, exercising their rights as states through the constitutional processes of local self-government, changed their school systems.

In the case of Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 the Supreme Court expressly declared that under the 14th Amendment no person was denied any of his rights if the States provided separate but equal facilities. This decision has been followed in many other cases. It is notable that the Supreme Court, speaking through Chief Justice Taft, a former President of the United States, unanimously declared in 1927 in Lum v. Rice that the “separate but equal” principle is “within the discretion of the State in regulating its public schools and does not conflict with the 14th Amendment.”

This interpretation, restated time and again, became a part of the life of the people of many of the States and confirmed their habits, traditions, and way of life. It is founded on elemental humanity and commonsense, for parents should not be deprived by Government of the right to direct the lives and education of their own children.

Though there has been no constitutional amendment or act of Congress changing this established legal principle almost a century old, the Supreme Court of the United States, with no legal basis for such action, undertook to exercise their naked judicial power and substituted their personal political and social ideas for the established law of the land.

This unwarranted exercise of power by the Court, contrary to the Constitution, is creating chaos and confusion in the States principally affected. It is destroying the amicable relations between the white and Negro races that have been created through 90 years of patient effort by the good people of both races. It has planted hatred and suspicion where there has been heretofore friendship and understanding.

Without regard to the consent of the governed, outside mediators are threatening immediate and revolutionary changes in our public schools systems. If done, this is certain to destroy the system of public education in some of the States.

With the gravest concern for the explosive and dangerous condition created by this decision and inflamed by outside meddlers:

We reaffirm our reliance on the Constitution as the fundamental law of the land.

We decry the Supreme Court's encroachment on the rights reserved to the States and to the people, contrary to established law, and to the Constitution.

We commend the motives of those States which have declared the intention to resist forced integration by any lawful means.

We appeal to the States and people who are not directly affected by these decisions to consider the constitutional principles involved against the time when they too, on issues vital to them may be the victims of judicial encroachment.

Even though we constitute a minority in the present Congress, we have full faith that a majority of the American people believe in the dual system of government which has enabled us to achieve our greatness and will in time demand that the reserved rights of the States and of the people be made secure against judicial usurpation.

We pledge ourselves to use all lawful means to bring about a reversal of this decision which is contrary to the Constitution and to prevent the use of force in its implementation.

In this trying period, as we all seek to right this wrong, we appeal to our people not to be provoked by the agitators and troublemakers invading our States and to scrupulously refrain from disorder and lawless acts.

Signed by:
Members of the United States Senate
Walter F. George, Richard B. Russell, John Stennis, Sam J. Ervin, Jr., Strom Thurmond, Harry F. Byrd, A. Willis Robertson, John L. McClellan, Allen J. Ellender, Russell B. Long, Lister Hill, James O. Eastland, W. Kerr Scott, John Sparkman, Olin D. Johnston, Price Daniel, J.W. Fulbright, George A. Smathers, Spessard L. Holland.
Members of the United States House of Representatives

Alabama: Frank W. Boykin, George M. Grant, George W. Andrews, Kenneth A. Roberts, Albert Rains, Armistead I. Selden, Jr., Carl Elliott, Robert E. Jones, George Huddleston, Jr.

Arkansas: E.C. Gathings, Wilbur D. Mills, James W. Trimble, Oren Harris, Brooks Hays, W.F. Norrell.

Florida: Charles E. Bennett, Robert L.F. Sikes, A.S. Herlong, Jr., Paul G. Rogers, James A. Haley, D.R. Matthews.

Georgia: Prince H. Preston, John L. Pilcher, E.L. Forrester, John James Flynt, Jr., James C. Davis, Carl Vinson, Henderson Lanham, Iris F. Blitch, Phil M. Landrum, Paul Brown.

Louisiana: F. Edward Hebert, Hale Boggs, Edwin E. Willis, Overton Brooks, Otto E. Passman, James H. Morrison, T. Ashton Thompson, George S. Long.

Mississippi: Thomas G. Abernathy, Jamie L. Whitten, Frank E. Smith, John Bell Williams, Arthur Winstead, William M. Colmer.

North Carolina: Herbert C. Bonner, L.H. Fountain, Graham A. Barden, Carl T. Durham, F. Ertel Carlyle, Hugh Q. Alexander, Woodrow W. Jones, George A. Shuford.

South Carolina: L. Mendel Rivers, John J. Riley, W.J. Bryan Dorn, Robert T. Ashmore, James P. Richards, John L. McMillan.

Tennessee: James B. Frazier, Jr., Tom Murray, Jere Cooper, Clifford Davis.


The bottom line? The Federal Government has no business setting and enforcing social agenda. Period.

Sunday, October 31, 2010

University of Virginia Eliminates All Speech Codes

Attacks on free speech in our universities and colleges in America have been going on for decades. Left-leaning deans and faculties have with impunity put in place the most severe restrictions of what students can and cannot say by creating blatant speech codes (written and unwritten); have turned students and professors alike into self-censors. These policies have gone unchecked by our politicians for far too long. It isn't that no one knows this is happening - our leaders know, alright. But, just as they have not the will to secure our borders, they have not the will to rein in the Leftist administrations on campuses throughout America. This has promoted a mind-numbing atmosphere in American academia.

We are literally fighting for our lives here.

Among the several student organizations fighting for free speech are The Chronicle of Higher Education, Students For Academic Freedom, and David Horowitz, president of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture.

David Horowitz, once a liberal himself, has been a tireless warrior in this battle. Read for accounts of this and other of his battles. Encouraging as this victory at UV is, I remain skeptical. The tenured Leftist professors are endemic within the universities, and it will take diligence and determined fights to rid our universities of these Marxist ideas. (see America's Moral Collapse here).

Still it is an encouraging sign, and should it become a trend, cannot but help free America from the shackles of tyranny.

University of Virginia Eliminates All Speech Codes, Earning FIRE's 'Green Light' Rating
October 28, 2010

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va., October 28, 2010—This week, the University of Virginia (UVa) confirmed that it had eliminated the last of its policies that unconstitutionally restricted the free speech of students and faculty members. While more than two-thirds of the nation's colleges maintain policies that clearly and substantially restrict freedom of speech, UVa is now a proud exception, having fully reformed four speech codes. UVa has now earned a coveted "green light" rating from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE).

"President Teresa Sullivan and her staff should be commended for making these simple but important changes to guarantee the First Amendment rights of students and faculty members at the University of Virginia," FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said. "Within three months of taking office, President Sullivan has overseen the transformation of UVa from a school that earned FIRE's worst 'red light' rating for restricting protected speech to our highest 'green light' rating. We hope that more colleges will follow UVa's sterling example and reform their codes to protect free speech."

American Renassiance has more on this.

One school at a time...

Monday, October 25, 2010

Gun Free Zone

I run this 1/2 Hour News Hour skit about once every six months. Just in case there's anyone who hasn't been paying attention.

Thursday, October 21, 2010

The Right To Bear Arms Is Vital to Our Security

On October 16, 1991, George Jo Hennard drove his 1987 Ford Ranger pickup truck through the front window of a Luby's Cafeteria at 1705 East Central Texas Expressway in Killeen, yelled "This is what Bell County has done to me!", then opened fire on the restaurant's patrons and staff with a Glock 17 pistol and later a Ruger P89. He stalked, shot, and killed 23 people while wounding another 20 before committing suicide. About 80 people were in the restaurant at the time.

The first victim was local veterinarian Dr. Michael Griffith, who ran to the driver's side of the pickup truck to offer assistance after the truck came through the window. During the shooting, Hennard approached Suzanna Hupp and her parents. Hupp had a handgun in her vehicle outside. Her father charged at Hennard in an attempt to subdue him but was gunned down; a short time later, Hupp's mother was shot and killed. One patron, Tommy Vaughn, threw himself through a plate-glass window to allow others to escape. Hennard allowed a mother and her four-year-old child to leave. He reloaded several times and still had ammunition remaining when he committed suicide by shooting himself in the head after being cornered and wounded by police.

Susanne Hupp's Gripping Account recalls that day:

Responding to the massacre, in 1995 the Texas Legislature passed a shall-issue gun law, which requires that all qualifying applicants be issued a Concealed Handgun License (the state's required permit to carry concealed weapons), removing the personal discretion of the issuing authority to deny such licenses. The law had been campaigned for by Suzanna Hupp, who was present at the Luby's massacre where both of her parents were shot and killed. Hupp later expressed regret for obeying the law by leaving her firearm in her car rather than keeping it on her person. Hupp testified across the country in support of concealed-handgun laws, and was elected to the Texas House of Representatives in 1996. The law was signed by then-Governor George W. Bush. Survivors and several of the numerous law enforcement officers who responded to the shooting continue to suffer from post traumatic stress disorder

The Killeen Luby's closed after the massacre and was reopened after clean-up and redesign of the front wall of the building was complete. The restaurant struggled throughout the following years and finally shut down operations on September 9, 2000. A Chinese-American buffet, Yank Sing, occupies the building.

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Want To Support Our Troops?


"I'm sick of people trying to cover up what's really going on over here. They won't let us do our job. I don't care if they try to kick me out for what I'm saying -- war is war and this is no war. I don't know what this is." - Spc. Charles Brooks, 26, a U.S. Army medic with 1st Battalion, 4th Infantry Regiment, in Zabul province.

Washington Examiner


Troops chafe at restrictive rules of engagement, talks with Taliban

By: Sara A. Carter

National Security Correspondent
October 19, 2010

KANDAHAR, AFGHANISTAN -- To the U.S. Army soldiers and Marines serving here, some things seem so obviously true that they are beyond debate. Among those perceived truths: Tthe restrictive rules of engagement that they have to fight under have made serving in combat far more dangerous for them, while allowing the Taliban to return to a position of strength.

"If they use rockets to hit the [forward operating base] we can't shoot back because they were within 500 meters of the village. If they shoot at us and drop their weapon in the process we can't shoot back," said Spc. Charles Brooks, 26, a U.S. Army medic with 1st Battalion, 4th Infantry Regiment, in Zabul province.

Word had come down the morning Brooks spoke to this reporter that watch towers surrounding the base were going to be dismantled because Afghan village elders, some sympathetic to the Taliban, complained they were invading their village privacy. "We have to take down our towers because it offends them and now the Taliban can set up mortars and we can't see them," Brooks added, with disgust.

In June, Gen. David Petraeus, who took command here after the self-inflicted demise of Gen. Stanley McChrystal, told Congress that he was weighing a major change with rules for engaging enemy fighters in Afghanistan. That has not yet happened, troops say. Soldiers and Marines continue to be held back by what they believe to be strict rules imposed by the government of President Hamid Karzai designed with one objective: limit Afghan civilian casualties.

"I don't think the military leaders, president or anybody really cares about what we're going through," said Spc. Matthew "Silver" Fuhrken, 25, from Watertown, N.Y. "I'm sick of people trying to cover up what's really going on over here. They won't let us do our job. I don't care if they try to kick me out for what I'm saying -- war is war and this is no war. I don't know what this is."

To the soldiers and Marines risking their lives in Afghanistan, restrictions on their ability to aggressively attack the Taliban have led to another enormous frustration stalking morale: the fear that the Karzai government, with the prodding of the administration of President Obama, will negotiate a peace with the Taliban that wastes all the sacrifices by the U.S. here. Those fears intensified when news reached the enlisted ranks that the Karzai government, with the backing of senior Obama officials, was entering a new round of negotiations with the Taliban.

"If we walk away, cut a deal with the Taliban, desert the people who needed us most, then this war was pointless," said Pvt. Jeffrey Ward, with 1st Battalion, 4th Infantry Regiment, who is stationed at Forward Operating Base Bullard in southern Afghanistan.

"Everyone dies for their own reasons but it's sad to think that our friends, the troops, have given their lives for something we're not going to see through."

Other soldiers agreed. They said they feared few officials in the Pentagon understand the reality on the ground.

From the front lines, the U.S. backing of the Karzai government, widely seen as riddled with corruption by the Afghans living in local villages, has given the Taliban a position of power in villages while undercutting U.S. moral authority.

Corrupt government officials have made "it impossible for us to trust anyone," said elder Sha Barar, from the village of Sha Joy. The people of that village and many others profess fear of the Taliban, and recount tales of brutality and wanton killings by the Taliban and their sympathizers. But they don't see the Karzai government as a positive force in their lives.

Karzai said that talks need to continue with the Taliban "at a fixed address and with a more open agenda to tell us how to bring peace to Afghanistan and Pakistan."

But U.S. troops and Marines interviewed during the past month in Afghanistan question what negotiations would really mean, to both them and the Afghan people. And they almost universally believe that negotiating would be a mistake before achieving decisive gains they believe are attainable once oppressive rules of engagement are relaxed.

"What does it mean if we give in to the Taliban? They are the enemy," Brooks said. "This place is going to be a safe haven for terrorists again. The government doesn't care about the sacrifices already made. As far as the mission goes, I want to see these kids go to school and have a future but not at the expense of my friends -- not anymore."

Sara A. Carter is The Washington Examiner's national security correspondent. She can be reached at



Friday, October 15, 2010


FINALLY...coming to a movie theater near you (opening in 500 movie theaters).

A movie by Ray Griggs

Monday, October 11, 2010

Essay: John Wall Divorce Agreement

I don't know who wrote this, or when, as it's been viral for awhile now. Whoever wrote the divorce agreement, I like the spirit of it. Incidentally, it contains the term, trickle up poverty, which just happens to be the name of Michael Savage's book - just released- Just buy the book at The Conservative Book Club, or

Trickle Up Poverty: Stopping Obama's Attack on Our Borders, Economy, and Security


Essay:John Wall divorce agreement
From Conservapedia

Divorce agreement:

“Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al:

We have stuck together since the late 1950's, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has run its course. Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way. Here is a model separation agreement:

Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy!

Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes. We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell (You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them). We'll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have your beloved homeless, homeboys, hippies and illegal aliens. We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood. You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security. We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N.. but we will no longer be paying the bill.

We'll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find. You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors. We'll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right. We'll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem. I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute Imagine, I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing, Kum Ba Ya or We Are the World. We'll practice trickle down economics and you can give trickle up poverty your best shot. Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag.

Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you answer which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.”


John J. Wall,
Law Student and an American

Sunday, October 10, 2010

Life Without Lawyers

When I am able, I try to find people, authors, speakers, etc. who address the same situations I find in need of attention. My focus is on America, and on the ways we are being (mis)used by the powers-that-be.

It is not often that I look to the NY Daily News for an unbiased picture of America. However, they printed an article which caught my eye, entitled Drowning in Law by Philip K Howard. I've posted the first page of the article. Click on the link above for the rest.

I also looked up Philip K Howard, and was led to a TED CONFERENCE, where Philip K. Howard was a keynote speaker. Here is the embedded talk. I think you'll like it.

Now to the NY Daily News article.

Drowning in Law: A flood of statutes, rules and regulations is killing the American spirit

By Philip K. Howard

Sunday, October 10th 2010

America is overwhelmed by the amount of law governing everyday decisions, and the constant threat of legal action by everyone from patients to employees.

Government is broken and the economy is gasping. The reason is the same: Americans no longer feel free to roll up their sleeves and make the choices needed to fix things. Governors come to office and find that 90% of the budget is pre-committed to entitlements and mandates enacted by politicians long dead. Teachers no longer have authority to maintain order in the classroom.

Legal mandates and entitlements have accumulated, like sediment in the harbor, until it is almost impossible for Americans to get anywhere without trudging through a treacherous legal swamp. Only big businesses, not small entrepreneurs, have the size (and legal staffs) to power through the legal sludge.

America will thrive only so long as Americans wake up in the morning believing they can succeed by their own efforts. Innovation, not cheap labor, is the economic engine of America. The net increase in jobs since 1980, according to research at the Kauffman Foundation, is attributed solely to newly-started businesses.

Unleashing these powerful human forces requires, however, an open field for individual opportunity - bounded by reliable legal structures that enforce contracts and other important social norms.

Instead, the land of opportunity is more like legal quicksand. Small business owners face legal challenges at every step. Municipalities requires multiple and often nonsensical forms to do business. Labor laws expose them to legal threats by any disgruntled employee. Mandates to provide costly employment benefits impose high hurdles to hiring new employees. Well-meaning but impossibly complex laws impose requirements to prevent consumer fraud, provide disability access, prevent hiring illegal immigrants, display warnings and notices and prevent scores of other potential evils. The tax code is incomprehensible.

All of this requires legal and other overhead - costing 50% more per employee for small businesses than big businesses.

The sheer volume of law suffocates innovative instincts, while distrust of lawsuits discourages ordinary human choices. Why take a chance on the eager young person applying for a job when, if it doesn't work out, you might get sued for discrimination? Why take the risk of expanding production in another state when that requires duplicating legal risks and overhead? Why bother to start a business at all?

Over the generations, the American spirit of individual opportunity has been manifested not only in new businesses, but in the civic and public life as well - in the culture of barn-raisings and boy scouts and cake sales. These deep roots of our common culture - which Tocqueville referred to as "self-interest, rightly understood" - have also atrophied before our eyes. Hardly any social interaction is free of legal the rest

Saturday, September 18, 2010

Obama Refuses To Pledge

Is this the kind of person we want to lead our nation?

Friday, September 10, 2010

Saturday, August 28, 2010


Uh - Oh

Mayoral Election in Toronto

Mayoral hopefuls — except Ford — back gun registry

By DON PEAT, Toronto Sun
August 27, 2010

Only one of the five major mayoral candidates supports the federal government taking aim at the gun registry.

With no debate on the issue, Toronto city councillors voted 30 to 4 on Friday to reaffirm their support for the gun registry and thank Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair for his leadership on the issue.

The vote comes as the federal Conservatives seem poised to try to scrap the registry.

After the council meeting, Mayor David Miller told reporters keeping the registry “is the right thing to do” and repeated his call for handgun ownership to be banned except by police officers.

“I think it is very important for this country to end the legal possession of handguns,” Miller said. “Particularly collectors, why should we allow people to collect something that’s designed and built to kill people, not to hunt, to kill people. It’s unbelievable.”

Among the two mayoral candidates on council, Deputy Mayor Joe Pantalone voted for the motion while Ford voted against it.

Ford told the Sun the registry takes aim at those using guns for hunting and other legal activities.

“It’s not the hunters that are causing the problems out there, it’s the gun-toting bandits,” he said before the vote on Friday. “The gun registry is hurting hunters ... these guys aren’t murderers and the gun registry is not going to stop criminals, drug dealers and bank robbers from carrying guns.”

When asked if he supports a handgun ban, Ford said he didn’t think there was a need for handguns.

Mayoral candidate George Smitherman said the registry shouldn’t be scrapped and vowed that if elected, he’d keep pushing for a handgun ban.

“I think it is important when a police officer is knocking on a door in the City of Toronto, they have the advantage of a database to know whether there is a prospect of guns behind those doors,” Smitherman said.

Candidate Rocco Rossi said with the recent rash of gun violence he’s worried the city is heading for an “autumn of the gun” at a time when children will be going back and forth to school.

Pantalone said he’s taking his advice on gun control from Chief Blair.

“I think we have an obligation, if we care about the safety of our neighbourhoods, to listen to the experts here (the chiefs of police),” Pantalone said.

Mayoral candidate Sarah Thomson said she agrees with council’s decision to reaffirm support for the registry.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ turns out that it's the officers's welfare that's driving the anti-gunners. Baloney.

It's worthwhile watching this play out in socialist, freedom-grabbing Canada. We don't fight for individual freedom here in America, it'll happen here too.

Friday, August 27, 2010


Muslims Continue Their Practice of Da'wah(originally posted Nov 29, 2006)

Sub-title: hiding your true intentions.

Getting what you want by lying, deceiving others. Practiced by one and all. Chemical mimicry in sexually deceptive orchids is one way. Visual mimicry is also used by the same orchids. So, at pollination time, the flower of a certain orchid, Ophrys abeille, looks and smells enticingly like a female bee (in estrous?). And sure enough, along comes a horny male bee, who gets himself ensnarled in the orchid's velvet petals. It's a little rough on him, but he finally crawls through and out the other side, having served the orchid's purpose of pollination nicely, and off he goes in search of, hopefully, a receptive (live) bee. But, one must assume that he falls for it at least once more, as that is when he passes the pollen packet to the next orchid.

Here he is, having a go at the orchid...

How the orchids figured this out is beyond me.

Another way to hide your true intentions in the insect world is is revealed by a closer look at the blister beetle, Meloe franciscanus. He's a weasily little sneak with a plan. Hey, kids gotta eat, too. OK. Male Solitary bees are lured to larval aggregations of said beetle (ok, it smelled like a female bee!) and upon contact (pseudocopulation) the beetle larvae attach to the male bees. Ha! You're it. The larvae then transfer to female bees during mating and subsequently are transported to the nests of their hosts, where one must assume, the beetle larvae have a meal of tasty bee larvae. Again, the bee world is duped. They are steady, but not too bright, I guess.

(Copied from some article)
"The aggressive chemical mimicry by the beetle larvae and their subsequent transport to their hosts' nests by the hosts themselves provide an efficient solution to the problem of locating a critical but scarce resource (meat) in a harsh environment." Aw.. There are many, many more examples of an organism's hiding its true intent by deception. Fish do it, birds, animals do it.

In the U.S. it is against the law to relieve another of their goods or services by deception. The law, appropriately named, is "Theft By Deception". Such a law keeps the honest man, honest. People who practice theft by deception are often fined, or incarcerated. Such is the basis of our common law.

But now we come to another application of the practice of hiding one's intentions to gain profit or power in man's world. Now, the muslims certainly didn't invent this practice. I'm sure it's as old as man himself, extending even back into the insect and animal world. But they've been at it for a long, long time - they even have names for the practice, have codified it in a little book they call the Qur'an. Hey, if the prophet did it, must be ok, right? And boy, he sure did it. His 10-year truce, back in the days of yore, was actually cut short - by 8 years. Just long enough for him to get his troops ready. Exactly like today. All's fair in love and war. And baby, this is war. We better not forget that.

The practice of Taqiyya, or lying, and otherwise deceiving the unsuspecting is done for the purpose of acquiring power over him. Likewise, da'wah is a gentler method of reassuring, calming any doubts, and otherwise insinuating themselves and their power aspirations into our, the lowly infidel, lives.

Now we move furthur into murkier waters...

See what kevin, at Amboy Times says:

Taqiyya and kitman: The role of Deception in Islamic terrorism Tradecraft. Persona. Deception. Disinformation. Cover: Western operational terms and techniques. But, Islamic terrorists have their own terms: taqiyya (pronounced tark-e-ya) : precautionary dissimulation or deception and keeping one’s convictions secret and a synonymous term, kitman: mental reservation and dissimulation or concealment of malevolent intentions...

Da'wah, the preferred method of CAIR when infiltrating, and deceiving school officials requires "befriending the infidels", and reassuring them that their intentions are pure as the driven snow. Playing the multi-culti card, offering to share a meal with your family is a favored technique, because they know that "the way to an infidel's heart is through his stomach" - guess they read that somewhere. Mealtimes at my house were a bitch. But, if those "soft" techniques prove inadequate, they can and will play hardball. Of course, the ACLU has got their back.

Which brings me to the last type of deception, practiced before the whole world, the UN. America had best dissolve any relationship with that high organization of misfits, perverts, and assorted maladroits. Oh, Kofi, let me say GOOD-BYE, A-hole. And good riddance.

And while I'm saying good-bye, and this is not a deception...

See ya, Zarqawi.

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Obama's Build-A-Mosque-A-Month Plan


Jewish World Review August 16, 2010/ 6 Elul, 5770

You've Lost America, Mr. President

By Arnold Ahlert

"Barack Obama's presidency is effectively over. Strong words? Ask yourself this: what other president of the United States would have spent almost three minutes speaking at the Dept. of Interior before getting around to mentioning the fact that twelve soldiers had been killed, and thirty one wounded in a massacre at Fort Hood in Texas?" (quoting himself)

Alas, most Americans let this travesty slide down the memory hole. Thankfully, like he has with so many other unpopular positions, Barack Hussein Obama has "doubled down:" his support of the Ground Zero mosque is game, set, match.

As I wrote in my previous column, the true intentions of the mosque builders were revealed when they turned down NY Governor David Patterson's offer of state land in return for re-locating the mosque away from Ground Zero. They refused. That this "factoid" was seemingly irrelevant to the president speaks volumes.

It is worth remembering this is the same president who belittled ordinary Americans for "clinging" to religion. I guess Muslims "clinging" to a location that infuriates the overwhelming majority of Americans is perfectly fine, even after it's been revealed for the rankly provocative plan it truly is.

Ordinary Americans? They recognize a self-aggrandizing, holier-than-thou phony when they see one. They aren't fooled by a president who says that, "Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground"--only seconds before he reveals the total hollowness of that statement by saying he's fine with a mosque on top of it.

Some one must have told Mr. Obama it wasn't flying. On Saturday, he issued a "clarifying" statement: he wasn't commenting on the "wisdom" of putting a mosque in a particular location, but on the "right people have that dates back to our founding."

Baloney. Reasonable Americans aren't demanding anything remotely resembling a ban on Islam or the ability of its adherents to worship as they please. They're saying show some respect for American sensibilities, and don't build a mosque adjacent to the place where a national tragedy took place--one perpetrated in the name of Islam.

I have tremendous respect for the office of the presidency. That respect has gotten me and doubtless a lot of other Americans through some pretty tough times. And as much as I've disliked some of the people who've occupied that office, I've always taken comfort in the fact that, when push comes to shove, every one of those men, irrespective of political ideology, had America's best interests at heart.

No longer. For the first time in my lifetime, we have an alien in the White House.

And that doesn't mean what some of you might think. For the purposes of this column, the "birther debate" is irrelevant. What I'm talking about is a man completely divorced from the American ethos. A man who is utterly clueless about what most Americans want, think or feel. The first president of the United States on the public record with the idea that American exceptionalism is nothing more than one item on a laundry list of national exceptionalisms--none better or worse than any other.

A man who will take America's side--only after he's concluded that it doesn't conflict with his larger worldview.

Sadly, we've reached a point where most Americans don't expect anything different. And why should they? This is a man up to his neck in meaningful associations with card-carrying members of the Hate America crowd--from boyhood mentor, communist Frank Marshall, and racist preacher, Jeremiah Wright, to Weather Underground terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn, and other rabid leftists. This is a man who has stacked his administration with a roster of radicals dedicated to the idea that America is a nation of unrepentant bigots, racists and other low-lifes who must be whipped into "progressive" shape. This is a man who learned--and taught--the "Alinsky Method," a blueprint for the radical re-organization of America by stealth.

Why has the president doggedly kept entire parts of his life, from his early college years straight through law school, away from public view? Bet the farm it's because any paper trail from those years would reveal this president to be the Marxist/socialist radical that occasionally breaches the "teleprompted" facade he has so carefully erected.

Last Friday, the mask slipped once again. It would have been the easiest thing in the world to point a comment directly towards the Cordoba House builders explaining that, while freedom of religion is a sacred American value, their refusal to accept an alternative site on state land offered by the governor is very troubling. He could have called their bluff and said he stands with the overwhelming majority of Americans who find such a refusal appalling. He could have said that "cultural sensitivity" is a two-way street, and that it is about time self-professed "moderate Muslims" demonstrated their moderation.

But he didn't. And he didn't because, for this "citizen of the world," the idea of "putting America first" requires considerable effort. Quite frankly, this is astounding. There is no other position in government where the idea of being "reflexively American" is more important. There is no other man in the country with the unfettered power to put American men and women in harm's way. That fact alone requires unstinting loyalty to our nation, and an unbridled sense of patriotism.

Is that what Americans see when they look at Barack Obama? Or do they see a narcissistic, serial apologizer, a split-the-difference-with-our-enemies appeaser who golfs and parties--while America burns?

This president, along with his lap-dog media supporters, will continue to tell Americans that their anger and disgust has little or nothing to do with the shortcomings of Barack Obama. Everything wrong with the country is "someone else's fault," be it "racist" tea partiers, "fat cat" bankers, "greedy" doctors, "irresponsible" corporations, Republicans, or their favorite whipping boy, George W. Bush.

Sorry, Mr. Obama, no sale. You've done a grand job of alienating the majority of Americans all by yourself. And you know it too, or you wouldn't have "clarified" your position on the Ground Zero mosque twenty four hours after the "real you" revealed itself.

Perhaps someday we'll have someone in the Oval Office with a more jaundiced view of America than yours. I hope I never live to see it. And I fervently hope Americans remember exactly who you are when 2012 rolls around. We can probably muddle through two more years with a charlatan in the White House.

Heaven help America if it's six

Arnold Ahlert is a savvy curmudgeon who has no qualms about kicking your ass. He devours political policy miscreants for breakfast...from the President of the United States on down the hierarchy of government goons. And that's just for breakfast. Mr. Ahlert won't be fooled by insideous Leftist progressivism, nor will he be silenced.

Thursday, August 12, 2010

The Blind-Siding of America Continues, Town-By-Town

I first posted this in April, 2007. However, because the UN agenda heralded by Maurice Strong (pronounced "Morris") is mostly a hidden (in plain sight) tactic for a Global Government takeover, it seems prudent to simply re-post some of the information I dug up. Maurice Strong and his minions continue to pull the strings and levers at the highest levels of the Leftist, Marxist plan to dominate the world. Sound implausible? Maurice Strong is sitting comfortably out of sight on his "ranch" in New Mexico - try Googling his name.

More of the machinations of the UN. I'll post that tomorrow.

Oh, and this whole business about Health Care Reform (Obamacare), and not protecting our borders as required by our US Constitution? It's just giving us something to rail against, while the unseen takeover insidiously spreads it's tentacles. Why weaken us by deliberately allowing illegals to swarm over our borders? Polarizing America is a crucial step, leading to a demand by the American People for a government and a leader that will give us security. But the promised security has a dreadful, awful price. If you have been paying attention, you will have noticed that our form of government itself is being transformed. OK, what about that?

The power of the President is being incrementally increased, the role of Congress is being diminished, and the Supreme Court has been allowed to stray from it's original mandate, which was NOT to be the final arbiter of the rule of law. That was supposed to have been the role of the two Houses of Congress, but they have deferred to the Supremes. Remember, our government was originally formed to be of the people, by the people and for the people...the Gettysburg Address says it all:

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

The Globalists are devilishly clever, always testing the waters, pushing this or that agenda, patiently pushing for more control. But their final goal is to secure our consent to be governed to the extent that we demand a strong leader who can provide security. That security will bear an awful price.

from Freedom 21

Understanding the enemy

"The idea in conflict with American freedom is a concept of governance in which there is no war, no suffering, no struggle for survival. It envisions a world of "equity" in which all people share equally in the earth's bounty - and in the toil required to produce it. It is a compelling idea for many people, especially for those who must constantly struggle for survival, who see it as "unfair" that some people prosper while others suffer in poverty. It is a concept that is particularly appealing to people who have been the innocent victims of war.

To achieve this utopian system of governance, there must be a central regulating authority to decide the quantity of natural resources that may be used without endangering biodiversity. A central authority must decide how much greenhouse gas may be emitted without endangering the global climate. A central authority must have the power to prevent war by disarming all nations, and all people. A central authority must decide how many people the earth can support, and have the power to keep population within safe limits. A central authority must have the financial resources to enforce the "right" of all people to "a full stomach," health care, and decent housing. A central authority must have the power to take "from each according to his ability," and redistribute to "each according to his need."

To get ahead, and ultimately to prevail, it is essential that we understand who and what the enemy actually is. The enemy is not the "liberals," or the UN, or the federal government, or the "green" NGOs. They are simply the instruments through which the real enemy facilitates its system of governance.

The real enemy is much more elusive; the real enemy is an idea. Throughout the 20th century, this idea, or concept of a system of governance, has struggled to gain ascendancy in the world. Throughout this century, this system of governance has appeared, with varying degrees of success, in different places, at different times, and described by a variety of names.

American freedom is at risk because this concept of governance is now emerging around the world, called by a new set of names, but constructed on the same principles that America has so emphatically rejected in the past. The proponents of this system of governance are committed, dedicated, smart, and rich. They are succeeding in America, and around the world, where their predecessors failed.

American freedom is at greater risk than at any time in its short history. To get ahead, and to ultimately prevail, we must understand who and what the enemy is, and how the enemy operates. Then we must develop a new strategy so strong that even the "gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Here's the 2007 post:

Heavy stuff tonight: First off, this 21 min video on the North American Union.[note: that video isn't available at this time] Go to YouTube for numerous videos on the SPP/NAU. Make time to watch it. You need to know this. The presenter goes chronologically through the steps laying the groundwork for the SPP/NAU, using maps, interviews, etc. It's the most cogent explanation that I've seen for what is taking place in the back halls of Congress. So, make sure you watch it.

And here is another piece of the puzzle...but after you read this article (below) on the Euro, be sure you take a look at the A Modest Proposal To The Trilateral Commission - by Robert Pastor.

Pastor's "Modest Proposal" is short, deadly.

And here's why it's bad for TEXAS, not to mention the rest of America. ARRGgghh. Why is it so bad for America? Our Judicial system is about to be trumped by a Global Judicial system. see here and here.

North American Union
Debut of the 'amero'
Pope John Paul II, Euro

By Judi McLeod
Canada Free Press
Thursday, December 14, 2006

The People's Republic of China, long lauded by America's enemies as the world's next economic power, will be the country that will force the creation of the `North American Union' (NAU).

Kofi Annan's former pointman, Canadian Maurice Strong, has been boasting from Chinese soil that China soon would be replacing America as economic king, using the jingo that's the official language at Turtle Bay.

The billions of dollars China has invested in the flagging American economy will be worthless. They will have to negotiate the exchange rate to the new amero. This will then force the creation of the North American Union.

The cloak of the NAU, fashioned in secrecy, will be thrown over an unsuspecting public, erasing the borders of three countries. Mexico, which already has legions of its citizens living and working inside America, is, in effect already inside the NAU. Their governments will inform the American and Canadian people that there is no option but the bread line.

Unfortunately, the plan, which has been in place for some time, now, has been all but ignored by the mainstream media.

One of the signs that the NAU is on its way is the collapse of the American greenback dollar paving the way for the debut of the 'amero'.

“Two analysts who have reconstructed money supply data after the Fed stopped publishing it argue a coming dollar collapse will set the stage for creating the amero as a North American currency to replace the dollar,” (WorldNetDaily, Dec. 13, 2006).

The euro followed the same blueprint of stealth and surprise. It was already issued as replacement currency before the masses could coalesce to fight it.

Who ever would have dreamed that the euro of a secular bureaucracy one day would be accepted for use at the Vatican? Pope John Paul II, who repeatedly condemned the “moral drift” of secular Brussels, sanctioned an official Euro for the Vatican.

In appearance, the Vatican coin looks very much like other Euro coins. But on the flip side of the coin, the image of Pope John Paul II faces left.

“By permitting his image on this new coin, John Paul II has given another symbolic and powerful stimulus to the European Union, which with the issuance of the Euro, is taking an important step towards the Universal Republic,” said Atila Sinke Guimarnes in Daily Catholic.

Was it all that long ago when people said the formation of the European Union was impossible? Today, the EU European holds 27 nations under its authority with other countries lined up for membership.

In the US, experts are now predicting that the collapse of the dollar is imminent.

“People in the U.S. are going to be hit hard,” says Bob Chapman publisher of The International Forecaster newsletter. “In the severe recession we are entering now, Bush will argue that we have to form a North American Union to compete with the Euro.”

“Creating the amero,” Chapman explained, “will be presented to the American public as the administration's solution for dollar recovery. In the process of creating the amero, the Bush administration just abandons the dollar.”

While the amero is being groomed to enter stage left, another phenomenon has been gathering steam outside of media headlines.

The North American Union, which got its start in secrecy, has been pulled out of the closet by a grass-roots effort, that will force it onto the agenda when Nancy Pelosi and Company open the 100th congress next month.

Pressed on by Conservative Caucus Chairman Howard Phillips; WND columnist and author Jerome Corsi; activist and American icon Phyllis Schlafly, leaders of the 50-member strong coalition are poised to halt any effort by the U.S. to enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada.

Members of Schlafly's Eagle Forum have been in training for the past two months to lobby on Capitol Hill when Congress convenes.

The resolution—sponsored by Republican Reps. Virgil Goode Jr. of Virginia, Tom Tancredo of Colorado, Walter Jones of North Carolina, and Ron Paul of Texas—expresses “the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union (NAU) with Mexico or Canada.”

It's no idle boast when Phillips says, “this could be the most important project on which we've ever worked.”

Armed with the Internet release of about 1,000 documents, obtained in a Freedom of Information Act request to the Security ad Prosperity Partnership of North America, the coalition has the potential to embarrass the governments of all three countries.

According to Corsi, “the documents show the White House is engaging in collaborative relations with Mexico and Canada—outside the U.S. Constitution.

Very little about the NAU has been covered by the Canadian media.

The documents can be viewed here, on a special website set up by the Minuteman Project.

The stage has been carefully set and only intervention will stop North America from taking the same stealth route that Europe took in creating the European Union and its legal tender the Euro.

North American Union Isn't Going Away

by Jerome R. Corsi

So, does this mean the Pope is the new Caesar? Actually, that wouldn't be anything new. Popes in the Vatican have always been ruthless. I refer any doubters to:

The Decline and Fall of the Roman Catholic Church by Malachi Martin