sixty years ago, avowed and confirmed socialist george orwell released his brilliantly bitter novel 1984. the novel was orwell's warning of what happens when state power is unabated and unchecked - and the premise novel is no less nightmarish now than when it was first released.
set in the fictional police state of oceana where the image of "big brother" - the personification of "the party" - and the "thought police" ruthlessly suppressed any hint of dissent. in the book control is realized through constant surveillance, relentess propaganda and quick, sure annihilation of anyone who rebels against its authority, even if only in private thoughts or conversation. winston smith, the unheroic and unlikely hero of the story engaged in dissent from the party - in both thought and written word and he was eventually arrested, interrogated, tortured and broken.
shortly after the book was published, mr. orwell wrote "I do not believe that the kind of society I describe necessarily will arrive, but I believe . . . that something resembling it could arrive," and further "I believe also that totalitarian ideas have taken root in the minds of intellectuals everywhere, and I have tried to draw these ideas out to their logical consequences." boy did he ever say a mouthful!
my good friend, z, from golly geeeez sent me a great little story - written by god knows who - that i think ties nicely into the above:
Once upon a time, I was invited to the White House for a private dinner with the President. I am a respected businessman, with a factory that produces memory chips for computers and portable electronics. There was some talk that my industry was being scrutinized by the administration, but I paid it no mind. I live in a free country. There's nothing that the government can do to me if I've broken no laws. My wealth was earned honestly, and an invitation to dinner with an American President is an honor.
I checked my coat, was greeted by the Chief of Staff, and joined the President in a yellow dining room. We sat across from each other at a table draped in white linen. The Great Seal was embossed on the china. Uniformed staff served our dinner.
The meal was served, and I was startled when my waiter suddenly reached out, plucked a dinner roll off my plate, and began nibbling it as he walked back to the kitchen.
"Sorry about that," said the President. "Andrew is very hungry."
"I don't appreciate..." I began, but as I looked into the calm brown eyes across from me, I felt immediately guilty and petty. It was just a dinner roll. "Of course," I concluded, and reached for my glass. Before I could, however, another waiter reached forward, took the glass away and swallowed the wine in a single gulp.
"And his brother Eric is very thirsty." said the President.
I didn't say anything. The President is testing my compassion, I thought. I will play along. I don't want to seem unkind.
My plate was whisked away before I had tasted a bite.
"Eric's children are also quite hungry."
With a lurch, I crashed to the floor. My chair had been pulled out from under me. I stood, brushing myself off angrily, and watched as it was carried from the room.
"And their grandmother can't stand for long."
I excused myself, smiling outwardly, but inside feeling like a fool. Obviously I had been invited to the White House to be sport for some game. I reached for my coat, to find that it had been taken. I turned back to the President.
"Their grandfather doesn't like the cold."
I wanted to shout- that was my coat! But again, I looked at the placid smiling face of my host and decided I was being a poor sport. I spread my hands helplessly and chuckled. Then I felt my hip pocket and realized my wallet was gone. I excused myself and walked to a phone on an elegant side table. I learned shortly that my credit cards had been maxed out, my bank accounts emptied, my retirement and equity portfolios had vanished, and my wife had been thrown out of our home. Apparently, the waiters and their families were moving in. The President hadn't moved or spoken as I learned all this, but finally I lowered the phone into its cradle and turned to face him.
"Andrew's whole family has made bad financial decisions. They haven't planned for retirement, and they need a house. They recently defaulted on a subprime mortgage. I told them they could have your home. They need it more than you do."
My hands were shaking. I felt faint. I stumbled back to the table and knelt on the floor. The President cheerfully cut his meat, ate his steak and drank his wine. I lowered my eyes and stared at the small grey circles on the tablecloth that were water drops.
"By the way," He added, "I have just signed an Executive Order nationalizing your factories. I'm firing you as head of your business. I'll be operating the firm now for the benefit of all mankind. There's a whole bunch of Erics and Andrews out there and they can't come to you for jobs groveling like beggars."
I looked up. The President dropped his spoon into the empty ramekin which had been his creme brulee. He drained the last drops of his wine. As the table was cleared, he lit a
cigarette and leaned back in his chair. He stared at me. I clung to the edge of the table as if were a ledge and I were a man hanging over an abyss. I thought of the years behind me, of the life I had lived. The life I had earned with a lifetime of work, risk and struggle. Why was I punished? How had I allowed it to be taken? What game had I played and lost? I looked across the table and noticed with some surprise that there was no game board between us.
What had I done wrong?
As if answering the unspoken thought, the President suddenly cocked his head, locked his empty eyes to mine, and bared a million teeth, chuckling wryly as he folded his hands.
"You should have stopped me at the dinner roll," he said.
what a perfect analogy for what is going on now. and if we don't do something to stop it - sooner rather than later - we will be way too far down the road to turn the ship and avoid the iceberg that threatens to sink us.
some of our politicians are waking up. check out representative michele bachman (r-minn) on the floor of the house taking congress, in general, to task. in part she says "Now weve moved into the realm of gangster government. We have gangster government when the Federal Government has set up a new cartel and private businesses now have to go begging with their hand out to their local hopefully well politically connectedCongressman or their Senator so they can buy a peace offering for that local business. Is that the kind of country we are going to have in the future?"
it is time to wake up people. the tea parties aren't enough. we must go further. at what point does civil unrest become the right thing? i think we're close to that point now - if not already there.
it's time to stop him/them. it's time to shut down the power grab. it's time to BRIDGE the gap that separates all freedom loving americans and restore our constitution. it's time to be responsible americans.
i leave you with another quote from orwell: "The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. ... We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end."
tongue in cheek? maybe, but tell me if this doesn't sound like the best possible party to come around the pike yet. from my good friend jungle mom over at the jungle hut comes this most excellent platform.
jm said that in creating the platform she relied on the skills she uses everyday as a mother with the goals of protecting the family, providing for the family needs, saving some money, and raising some independent kids! i think she's nailed it; these words are all hers, i'm just posting them for maximum exposure.
Protect the Family
As a parent I take my job of protecting my children very serious. Don't you? I mean, come on, if I even suspect that someone or something is going to be a danger to my children, I get out there and take care of the situation first! I don't wait to see if it will cause harm to the kids, I don't ask my neighbors permission, I do not take a poll, and I certainly don't fret about whether or not it is politically correct. Nope! I just do what has to be done.
In Venezuela I learned that in order to protect my family, I needed a BIG, TALL Wall! All around my property. I also needed weapons, bigger than the malandros! (Thugs) The walls were not to keep out my friends. Anyone invited was welcomed! The wall was to keep out undesirables and the uninvited . Basically, anyone who might do us harm.
America needs walls (legal and actual)! And make sure our guns are bigger than the bad guys!!! Simple!
Provide for the Family
We as parents do our very best to meet the needs of our children and even provide for their wants. We work hard, save and spend wisely to do this. It would be immoral for us to incur debts with the intention of leaving it for our children to deal with after our deaths. We may give to charity and the community, but only after first meeting the needs at home. We certainly can not give to others if we have needs at home.
Also, we raise our children so that they will eventually take care of their own needs. We do not provide for them indefinitely. When they are mature, they are able to work for their own dreams and goals. We may choose to help them at times, but they must be capable to live on their own. After all, I am going to die one day!
And, by the way, If I have a need in my home, I do not go and purchase it from my enemies just because it's cheap! Especially if I already can provide what I need. I mean, would you go buy gas from a local gang member if you had a few barrels stored in your garage!?!?! Open up our own oil fields NOW!!! Start building nuclear power plants NOW!!! Stop buying form the jihadist NOW!!! Stop buying from Chavez NOW!!!
America needs to meet the needs of its citizens first. Jobs at home, first. Provide for our military, first. Then give generously to those who need help.
At home, when the checkbook says '0', it means, '0'! I can not spend anymore. I need to tighten the belt, cut spending, do without some things, whatever it takes to get by, but,'0' is '0'. No matter how much I would like, the local grocer will not give me food without money. I can't go and make photocopies of money either. I can not write a check without funds. Imagine!
Congress needs to understand this. You can not spend what you do not have! You do not accumulate debt and leave it for the next generation. Cut costs, limit spending, do whatever it takes to balance the budget. Start by allowing the citizen to keep more of his own money. If the citizen can meet his own needs, he will be more generous towards others. He may even 'hire' a few of them to work for him with the extra money. And do not print money with out funds!
Oh and... get rid of welfare! Teach the citizen to meet his own needs. Do not reward bad behavior. In the case of the truly needy, people will feel much more generous than they do now if they are allowed to keep more of their own hard earned dollars. As it stands, we see many people living on the dole who could work. We work! So should they. Simple really, no more subsidized couch potatoes!
Create Independence
As soon as able, each child should be allowed to contribute to the care and keeping of the family. This creates a spirit of collaboration, the feeling of worth, and a good work ethic for the future.
In our communities we need to allow the citizen to use his skills in providing for the needs of
the community. Government needs to get out of the way of the innovative, entrepreneurial spirit. This will create jobs locally. These people will feel free to take risks, compete and create! Especially if they will get to keep their money!
Our children need to feel the stability of the home, the security of family in order to give the same to the community. Children reared in such an environment will be qualified and eager to compete globally. They will dare to be the best! They will keep our economy strong. They will invent and create new technology. However, if we provide everything except an education, then they will stay home and play on their Xbox! Just like our teens at home. No schoolwork, no Xbox! That's what mom says anyway...
Moms make sure kids are safe, secure, and comfortable. Then we do the best with what we have. So should America. Prepare our children by allowing for parental choice in education. Allow for less taxing so that the family has more funds to invest in their own future. And by the way, I think young adults can work their own way through college. I think it would be good for them to have to do that! They might appreciate it more then. I mean, we already provide free High School education and look at how much they appreciate that!
Protect the Marriage
Nature itself shows us that marriage can only function between a male and a female if we wish to propagate the human race. I have often wondered why people who believe in evolution and survival of the fittest don't see this as an endorsement for traditional marriage! Good grief! What are we doing? Trying to make ourselves extinct?!
Protecting LifeEach life is valuable and should be protected. Period. The only life that can be forfeited is in the case of a danger to society. The murderer forfeits his own life, we do not 'take' his life. No, it is the criminal who 'forfeits' his own life. This is also true in war. The state has the duty to protect the citizen. Should an enemy chose to forfeit his life by fighting in a war...well, it's his choice. HA! I guess I am pro-choice after all!!!
And , uh, speaking of war... whenever possible, I as a mom, usually allow my kids to handle their own disagreements. If I see a child in danger from another person, then ,yes, I will intervene. When adults choose to disagree, I do not get involved, unless it is a clear and present danger to me, my family, or our belongings. Governments call this 'interests'. We do not need to be the world's police man, but we have every right to protect our interests.
Religious Freedom for All
Even politicians. Yes, they should be allowed to have faith too. We are a Christian nation.
Everyone has the right to believe as they wish unless, or until, their beliefs effect the liberty or well being of another.History teaches us that this nation was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs. That is part of what has made us the great nation we are today. The moment we turn our backs on those principles we become just another country. Like so many in the world, but without the USA there to save us from ourselves!
i have officially changed my party affiliation to the "mom knows best party". won't you join me?
yesterday, cub reporter priscilla scooped the msm and brought z and her readers information about a political rally (a tea party of sorts) that took place yesterday in fullerton, california. the estimate is that there were about 8,000 participants there to object to california proposition 1a which is on the ballot for 19 may 2009.
if it passes successfully it will extend the tax increase that our fearless leaders in sacramento passed as part of the 2009/2010 budget for another two years. yippee!!
one commenter (pat jenkins) wondered who should take on this issue nationally and pris thought perhaps laura ingraham or david horowitz; z thought perhaps we needed someone non-partisan. however, i have to agree with pris that no one is really non-partisan. the comments attached to the post are myriad and insightful and got me to thinking.
for this to be truly successful it has to be a bigger-than-big movement. but where to start?
a few weeks ago, rick santelli called for a new tea party, from the trading floor, in response to obama's "pay your neighbor's mortgage whether you want to or not" scheme. you can see his "rant" here:
after a real quick brouhaha (i mean if you skipped the news one night you missed it), the msm decides to just ignore it. even as others started calling for regional tea parties, the msm pretended that everyone in the country (well except for a very few of us radical conservatives) was loving the obama bailouts. and that false representation of sentiments continues to this day.
anyhow, across the country in february there were several of these tea parties held, but none garnered any media exposure to speak of. this one, yesterday, in fullerton didn't even make the evening news here in l.a. my guess is the same is true of [at least] most of the tea parties that have been held thusfar.
well now there's a new call out for an organized, national tea party. as posted by bobby eberle, yesterday, over at gopusa:
When the colonists threw boxes of tea into Boston Harbor, their message was clear: no taxation without representation. The frustration had built to the boiling point and action needed to be taken.
A similar movement is building across America. President Obama is moving his socialist agenda through Congress and into American life, and it needs to be stopped. Faster than any president in American history, Obama has just spent over a trillion dollars that America does not have, and now he wants to pay for it by raising taxes. Enough is enough!
Obama has only been in office less than two months and has already signed on for over a trillion dollars in spending. There is the "stimulus" bill, the mortgage bill, and on and on. Every time there is a problem in this country, the Obama administration calls for more spending. Do he and his fellow liberals have so little faith in the American people? Given more of our own money in our pockets, I'm sure the American people could figure out how to get the economy going. We don't need government telling us how our money will be spent, what charities are "worthy," and what projects are more important.
To call attention to all this spending (and the taxes that will follow), the nationwide Tax Day Tea Party is being organized by a collaboration of grassroots organizations, and GOPUSA is doing its job to help spread the word.
check out the link here and sign up for the fun. from their recent press release:
Building on the success of the Nationwide Chicago Tea Parties held [in February] in multiple cities around the nation, conservative grassroots organizations and free market activists will once again come together on April 15th to protest out-of-control government spending. Timed to coincide with the date by which Americans must pay their federal income taxes, the Tax Day Tea Party effort will be coordinated by Smart Girl Politics, Top Conservatives on Twitter and the DontGo Movement (www.dontgomovement.com), in addition to other center-right activist groups.
Plans are under way for rallies to take place in nine American cities, with more sites to be added in the coming weeks. The goal of these protests is to call attention to the unprecedented wasteful spending by Democrats in Congress and the Obama Administration.
When asked about the need for nationwide rallies based on the Boston Tea Party of 1773, Eric Odom, Chairman of the DontGo Movement, remarked, "Building on the free market ideas of our founding fathers, and embracing the passion they shared to bring them to light, the Nationwide Tea Party Movement is giving voice to tens of thousands of
Americans." Added Stacy Mott, President of Smart Girl Politics, "Average Americans do not support mortgaging away our children's futures, and the time to speak out against it is now."
Information on The Tax Day Tea Party can be found at http://taxdayteaparty.com.
what better day than tax day to hold a rally protesting taxation without equal representation? i certainly don't feel that i have any real representation for my tax dollars, do you?
please help to spread the word. please join us on tax day to make this something the msm can no longer ignore. please help us to make history again.
one more thing - great reminder from my good friend "z":
And make sure you watch Glenn Beck on Friday, March 13....5 pm EST. That should give us some hope. Remember, the pen might be mightier than the sword sometimes, but our swords need to get sharp; our 'swords' are those tea parties, writing our politicians, demanding that our leaders pay attention to both sides of every issue, writing to the media venues and demanding honesty. And our blogs are our pens. Don't give up! We have a heck of a fight on our hands..............sharpen your pens............and your swords.
William Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist, who by his own admission assures us that he did not participate in enough acts of terror to advance his cause properly, has achieve national attention. Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose vile condemnations of “white America” entertained Mr. Obama for twenty years. Rev. Louis Farrakhan (born: Louis Eugene Walcott) who, as the leader of the Nation of Islam is a racist, a black separatist, a homophobe, and an anti-Semite. Barack Obama joined with Louis Farrakhan and Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi supporting Raila Odinga in his bid to become president of Kenya. Odinga’s political defeat resulted in Muslim violence, burning churches, murdering 1,000 anti-Odinga voters, and renewed demands for the imposition of Shari’ah Law. Abongo (Roy) Obama, the brother of Barack, is a former Christian now radical Muslim convert, supporter of Cousin Raila Odinga. Roy Obama wants to institute Shari’ah law, wants Barack Obama to convert back to Islam and, as an American president, adopt anti-Israeli policies. Moussa Marzook is a member of Hamas and author of the Hamas Manifesto, first published in the Los Angeles Times and later reprinted and sold by Jeremiah Wright from the vestibule of Trinity United Church of Christ. Mr. Marzook was indicted by the United States government on issues relating to foreign terrorist activities inside the United States of America. Hamas endorsed Barack Obama for the American presidency in April 2008. Tony Rezko gave financial backing to Barack Obama early in his to-date short-lived political career. Even though Mr. Obama plays down the association with Mr. Rezko, it is difficult to ignore that the facts prove differently. (See also: Allison Davis, below) Nadhmi Auchi is linked to Barack Obama through Tony Rezko. He is an Iraqi born billionaire who the U. S. We The People, in order to preserve a more balanced reality, are committed to learning the truth and uncovering the obscurity of a presidential candidate; a man long cloaked in a mysterious veil, and one that we presume hides the truth and distorts the true man who is Barack Obama. Our opposition to Mr. Obama is not a factor of race, ethnic identity, nor even his place of domicile (i.e., Chicago); it is rather about his past associations, his character, his judgment, and his vision for the future of the United States of America. We believe that these are valid questions and concerns, that the American press has failed to address them in an honest and forthright manner, and that the American people have the right to know the answers to several questions. Despite rhetoric designed to mislead and misinform the American voter, such as that Barack Obama is a political centrist; that he sincerely wants to change politics inside the beltway; and/or there is hope for a new day under an Obama administration, the issue of his past associations, statements, and activities demand greater scrutiny. We have learned that Mr. Obama’s associations have deep roots within the modern socialist movement, black separatist theology, known ties to anti-Jewish/Pro-Muslim persons, and Chicago-styled machine-politics. We believe that when combined these radical elements present a clear and present danger to American social tradition and every citizen’s quest for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The “A” list of Mr. Obama’s associates
includes (but is not limited to):
government claims operated as a bagman for Saddam Hussein. He is a London-based financier, one of the world’s richest men. In 2003, he was convicted of fraud involving the “Elf Affair,” Europe’s largest scandal since the end of World War II. Allison Davis, former employer of Barack Obama, who later closed his law firm and became a partner of Tony Rezko. Davis assigned Mr. Obama to legal work on behalf of Mr. Rezko. Rev. James T. Meeks, whom Barack Obama regularly sought for counseling, who served as an Obama delegate at the Democratic Convention and is a long-time political ally, who aided Obama as an influential black supporter, received funding from Tony Rezko. Meeks is known for anti-Jewish and homophobic rhetoric. Rashid Khalidi, along with William Ayers and Barack Obama, is a former professor at Chicago University. He directs the Palestine Press Agency in Beirut, is an agent of the Arab American Action Network, and according to a top official of former-President George H. W. Bush and a former CIA intelligence officer, former Weather Underground leader William Ayers funneled money to Khalidi, who maintains ties with the Palestine Liberation Organization. Khalidi also received $70,000 from the Woods Fund, and held fund-raising events in his home on behalf of Barack Obama. Barack Obama is a former director of The Woods Fund, a non-profit organization that, in addition to its interests in “giving a voice to less advantaged people,” helped funnel money to Rashid Khalidi for the Arab American Action Network, which presumably includes Palestinian interests within the United States. The Woods Fund also helps to finance “community organizing, and public policy.” Created in 1995 to help raise funds to reform Chicago public schools, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge involved William Ayers as a leading founder, who in turn appointed Barack Obama to its board of directors. Mr. Obama served on the board for six years. According to investigative journalist Stanley Kurtz, writing for the Wall Street Journal, reforming Chicago public schools is a bid misleading: it was a program designed to radicalize students more than it was to educate them. According to Ayers, “Teachers should be community organizers, dedicated to provoking resistance to American racism and oppression.”
Astute Bloggers has illustrated additional past associations; it is a well-researched expose providing a clear view of what lays just beneath the surface of Obama’s deception. We understand why Mr. Obama would want to play down these associations; we do not understand why the American news media would assist him in doing so. Nevertheless, Astute Bloggers lifts the veil on two well-known groups: The New Party, and the Chicago Democrat Socialists of America. Let's take a closer look.
The New Party is an umbrella organization for grassroots political groups working to break the stranglehold that corporate money and corporate media have over our political process. Our current work and long-term strategy is to change states' election rules to allow fusion voting - a method of voting that allows minor parties to have their own ballot line with which they can either endorse their own candidates or endorse the candidates of other parties. Through fusion, minor parties don't have to always compete in the winner-take-all two party system and can avoid "spoiling" - throwing an election to the most conservative candidate by splitting the votes that might go to two more progressive candidates (ours and another party's).
Not surprisingly, “community organizing” is the bedrock of The New Party; socialist progressivism is their ideology. The Chicago chapter maintains a close relationship to the Associations of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). According to this
1996 publication, Barack Obama is clearly affiliated with The New Party
Illinois: Three NP-members won Democratic primaries last spring and face off against Republican opponents on Election Day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate), and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary). Note: Readers familiar with Chicago politics will recognize the names of former Chicago mayor Danny Davis on that list also.
CURRENT LINKS: Always on Watch; And Rightly So; Big Girl Pants; Cheese In My Shoe; Chuck Thinks Right; Confessions of a Closet Republican; Defending Crusader; Farmer’s Letters; Fore Left; GeeeeeZ; Has Everyone Gone Nuts?; Learn Something Today; Long Range; Palace for a Princess; Papa Frank; Mind of a Misfit; Paleocon Command Center; Political Yin and Yang; Pondering Penguin; Right Truth; Social Sense; The Amboy Times; The Bitten Word; The Crank Files; The Jungle Hut; The Logic Lifeline; The Merry Widow; TSOFAH
Wages are Stagnant as Prices Rise: While wages remain flat, the costs of basic necessities are increasing. The cost of in-state college tuition has grown 35 percent over the past five years. Health care costs have risen four times faster than wages over the past six years. And the personal savings rate is now the lowest it's been since the Great Depression. Tax Cuts for Wealthy Instead of Middle Class: The Bush tax cuts give those who earn over $1 million dollars a tax cut nearly 160 times greater than that received by middle-income Americans. At the same time, this administration has refused to tackle health care, education and housing in a manner that benefits the middle class. Provide a Tax Cut for Working Families: Obama and Biden will restore fairness to the tax code and provide 150 million workers the tax relief they need. Obama and Biden will create a new "Making Work Pay" tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. The "Making Work Pay" tax credit will eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans.
In laying his predicate, Obama wastes our time with what we already know. In 1954, a loaf of bread cost five-cents. In fifty-five years, prices have increased; but I also know that back then, my father earned $60 a month; when he retired in 1972, he earned over $3,000 a month. Next, Obama typically engages in Marxist class-warfare, a classic saw within the Democratic platform. The facts tell us something else. According to U. S. Treasury Department, taxpayers in the top half of income paid 96% of the total income tax revenues. In future years, the percentage of income tax paid by middle class citizens who fall into the bottom half of income earnings will be less than 4% of the total. That presumes, of course, that Barack Obama is defeated in this election. So it would seem that Mr. Obama is being dishonest. If the American people elect Barack Obama to the presidency, taxes will increase across the board. And the proof of this is that Barack Obama cannot increase government spending AND provide meaningful tax cuts to “95% of the American workers.”
Barack Obama claims that he has a plan to jumpstart the economy — and he plans to do this by giving “something back” to Americans. At the very outset, he wants to tax oil company profits to give American families a $1,000 rebate. Now if you lack critical thinking skills, this sounds great. History tells us that government does not exist to give us money; in fact, the opposite is true. Every “benefit” costs the American worker money. But now consider, if these funds come from the “greedy oil companies,” what is the likely consequence to the cost of gasoline and heating oil? By the end of the first year, Obama’s rebate checks might offer consumers with a “break even” scenario.
He also wants to give $50 billion to state and local governments so that each of us can have access to health, education, housing, heating fuels, as an offset to property taxes. Forget that federal grants do not offset state, county, or municipal taxes, but do think about this: his allocation of one-billion dollars to each state, if distributed on a per-capita basis, is a laughable benefit. In California , the per-capita share of one-billion dollars is $27.35, and in Pennsylvania , it comes to $80.43. Once again, Barack Obama is following the example of Bill Clinton in 1991 — promises made, promises broken.
Obama wants to provide “a tax cut” to middle class Americans. This is what he wrote:
Mr. Obama is not going to cut taxes. It is impossible to cut taxes for 150 million Americans — half of our entire population, when he in fact intends to increase spending by $3 Trillion. Our grandfather might have noted, “This dog won’t hunt.” Additionally, ten million Americans is roughly three percent of our population, so at this point we must ask, “Who benefits most from the Obama plan?” The answer is, “Not the average American.”
Barack Obama and Joe Bide believe that foreign trade should strengthen the American economy; it should create more jobs for Americans. Obama vows to “fight for fair trade,” which means that he will erect trade barriers that will make imported goods more expensive, and domestic made goods less appealing to foreign consumers. How does this help “jump-start” the economy? The answer is it doesn’t. Two issues come to mind. The first is, think about an increase in the retail cost of Chinese-made “junk” you find on the shelves at Wal-Mart. Second, what will happen to American jobs when foreign buyers no longer purchase domestic-made goods? Does Obama have a realistic goal for our economy? No, he does not.
Several years ago, a thoughtful schoolteacher noted the following: when her school district gave teachers a raise, there was a direct and immediate increase in the cost of food, utilities, clothing, fuel, and medical and dental costs. She noted that if her new salary was a modest increase of four percent, the cumulative weight of increased costs across the board resulted in an income loss. Now, Barack Obama wants to “reward” companies with tax breaks when they pay their workers a “decent wage.” We don’t know what “decent wage” means, but we do understand Barack Obama’s very first statement: “Wages are stagnant as prices rise.” We also understand that Obama does not have a solution to a problem he identified as a national problem.
To bolster manufacturing, Barack Obama will create an “Advanced Manufacturing Fund.” The first intelligent question is, “What is that?” The next question should be, “Where will the money come from?” The answer to the first question is it is another costly government bureaucracy. Another government program, another layer of inefficiency added to the federal government. The answer to the second question is simple: it will come from the pockets of the American worker. Is this what Americans want? Does anyone honestly trust Obama with a flagging American economy?
To simplify the process of investigating the Obama Economic Plan, we’ve compiled the following chart. It will take just a few minutes to review it, and the reader can investigate further at the Obama website. But the sheer weight of this information demonstrates that Barack Obama’s Economic “break for Americans” is a fraud.
Note 1: Job training programs are vital to ensuring that young people entering the work place for the first time are qualified to find and maintain good paying and rewarding jobs/careers. We concur that retraining is a necessary step for workers laid off in a dwindling industry, but we also think that an increase in vocational/technical training as an adjunct of public education makes sense for 70% of high school students. Most educators regard such programs as invalid, but the absence of such programs explains why our dropout rates are so high within the public education sector.
listening to rush today i heard mark davis (from dallas, filling in for rush) talking about a video where obama comes right and says he's going to disarm our military. i had actually seen this video before when a link to it was sent to me at the end of february - i guess i wasn't paying real good attention at that point in time.
watching the video again, and apparently being awake for it this time, really got me thinking about everything obama says in the video. the video is actually nearly eight months old, but it's still something we shouldn't let slide by. here is the video i am speaking of:
he starts by promising to "...end misguided defense policies" and "...fight[ing] special interests in washington". what misguided defense policies? what special interests in washington? hmm, not really clear on the specifics, but he does give us the list of things he's going to do:
now don't you feel better?
let's examine his statements, shall we?
obama keeps claiming to be the only major candidate who opposed the war from the beginning, but so what? unless i'm mistaken, he wasn't a u.s. senator on 22 october 2002 when the vote pertaining to the use of force was rendered in the senate. you can verify this information here if you doubt me. additionally, according to sourcewatch, while obama was running for the u.s. senate in 2004 (although he gave a public speech against the war a few days after the vote in 2002) he told the new york times that he "was not sure whether he would have voted against the resolution had he been in the [u.s.] senate." how convenient that he forgets that waffling now.
obama is going to cut the wasteful spending of defense. he's going to cut back on unproven missile defense spending, but advocate the spending of tax payers' dollars on unproven embryonic stem cell research. apparently he hasn't considered that if we abandon our defense systems - whether yet proven or not - we are not going to be able to defend ourselves. this includes obama's naivety (stupidness?) in deciding to slow our development of future combat systems and ties right into his goals about nuclear weapons.
has anyone pointed out to this chuckle head that just because we abandon defense mechanisms or slow our defense developments that the rest of the world is NOT going to follow suit? despots and dictators are not going to say "hey, the new guy at the u.s. is stepping back from being able to defend his country, so we probably ought to abandon our pursuit of weapons advanced enough to attack them."
can't you just picture ahmadinajad and kim jung il and others saying "oh, obama is reducing his nuclear arsenal and doesn't want us to have fissile materials, so we'll stop now." and can you picture putin from saying "yeah sure, barry, we'll dump some (most?) of our weapons and get rid of our hair trigger - we trust you to do the same, thanks for trusting us!"?
and his "independent" review board to ensure there is no unnecessary defense spending? just how the heck is he going to pull that one off? the only way to make it truly independent is to make certain that there are equal numbers of conservatives (not rinos) and liberals on it and to put it purely in an advisory position. but you and i both know that if the recommendation doesn't match his beliefs he won't act on it. and if his support of welfare, global health care and other items (including stem cell and abortion funding) he simply cannot be trusted with my tax dollars.
btw, i recall the common defense of the country being a constitutional item, but not medical research.
as for his final grouping, first and foremost, he has taken money from defense contractors in campaign donations - sure it's about 40% of the amount that mccain received, but nearly equal to what hillary received from the same group. big whoop. how about all the money he takes in pork for his constituents versus what mccain has taken?
in the 2008 FY obama grabbed $97.4m in pork spending for 53 projects. projects like $1.6m for the shedd aquarium in chicago. of course clinton was ranked much higher than obama's number 70 ranking, but mccain has zero projects and zero dollars in pork allocations for his constituents.
i'm also trying to figure out when, prior to running for the state senate in illinois, did obama have anything whatsoever to do with government. let alone the continuous fighting for open, ethical and accountable government he speaks of in his advertisement. we all know his infractions in judgment as to who are appropriate "friends" or "mentors". given the duplicitnous of the individuals he has surrounded himself with his entire life is there anyone out there who believes he's for open, ethical or accountable ANYTHING??
long story short, i don't want his promises - we can't afford them from a financial standpoint. from a defensive standpoint or from a moral standpoint. we can't afford anything about obama.
sorry for the long break - my clients are just NOT cooperative with allowing me time to blog as i would like! oh, goat, please let me know if the type is large enough for you now...
when last i wrote, we left off just prior to the last two paragraphs of section 3 article 1 of the u.s. constitution. the second to the last paragraph reads as such:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
but what does it mean???
in federalist paper #65, alexander hamilton speaks about the dangers of an elected body determining the veracity of the charges against the official. he says:
A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one
side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.
and then:
The delicacy and magnitude of a trust which so deeply concerns the political reputation and existence of every man engaged in the administration of public affairs, speak for themselves. The difficulty of placing it rightly, in a government resting entirely on the basis of periodical elections, will as readily be perceived, when it is considered that the most conspicuous characters in it will, from that circumstance, be too often the leaders or the tools of the most cunning or the most numerous faction, and on this account, can hardly be expected to possess the requisite neutrality towards those whose conduct may be the subject of scrutiny.
in other words, the members of the constitutional convention gave this task to the senate because the senate was not an elected body. the members' appointment by the legislature of each state meant that this body was less likely to be beholden to whims of political factions and more likely to adhere to the guidelines of the law, deeming it "sufficiently independent":
Where else than in the Senate could have been found a tribunal sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent? What other body would be likely to feel CONFIDENCE ENOUGH IN ITS OWN SITUATION, to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality between an INDIVIDUAL accused, and the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, HIS ACCUSERS?
______________________________________________________________________________
sidebar
_____________________________________________________________
recently there is an email recently circulating titled "how long does the usa have?" and it basically says that because we were founded as a democracy we are bound to commit suicide as a nation soon. i've seen other versions of it in the past, but here's the current incarnation of it:
Download how_long_does_the_usa_have.pdf
the whole premise of this argument is flawed in that we were not founded as a democracy as this whole series is pointing out. but it is interesting in what it shows in the stats for the 2000 u.s. presidential elections.
___________________________________________________________
end sidebar
____________________________________________________________
you see, our founding fathers recognized the tinder box that could be ignited if there were a perceived (let alone actual) bias in the execution of the trial of impeachment. for this reason alone, they wanted a large number of persons deciding the fate of the accused and they did not want this to fall to the supreme 
court with hamilton stating that "...the supreme court would have been an improper substitute for the senate, as a court of impeachments."
the last paragraph of section 3 is as follows:
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
huh?
it's like this: the founding fathers KNEW the person who had been impeached would find him (or her) self ostracized for all eternity and so did not want to officially punish the impeached more than to remove him (or her) from office. it is important to note that the impeached would still be punishable for the crime committed to be impeached and so if the judicial branch were to be involved it may prejudice the judges against the impeached.
mr. hamilton gives further explanation in federalist paper #66 and i certainly encourage all of you to read it for yourself. however, other than to quote the following from the last paragraph:
So far as might concern the misbehavior of the Executive in perverting the instructions or contravening the views of the Senate, we need not be apprehensive of the want of a disposition in that body to punish the abuse of their confidence or to vindicate their own authority. We may thus far count upon their pride, if not upon their virtue.
too bad the senators responsible with 
the impeachment of bill clinton didn't know these thoughts...
section 4. very succinct.
essentially the state legislatures will determine the times and places for elections and appointments of senators and representatives. the u.s. congress may at some point in time make a ruling as to the regulations of the elections, but not the appointing of senators.
further, congress must meet at least once per year on the first monday in december unless they appoint a different day by law.
that's all for today's lesson. lesson four will cover sections 5-7 and will be published before week's end (sunday).
please feel free to share your thoughts and questions.
as we learned in my previous post, in 1788 the u.s. constitution, sans the bill of rights, became the law of the land. nine of the 13 states had banded together to become the united states of america. in 
november of 1789 north carolina joined the union with rhode island making it complete in may of 1790.
there had been much blood, sweat and tears shed to get to this point. it was truly amazing that 13 states had VOLUNTARILY joined together to form this union. i say voluntarily because that was the intention of the founders and the federalists - you know those people who were promoting the constitution?
"Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution."
-- James Madison (Federalist No. 39, 1788)
so just what did our ancestors in those 13 states agree to with their ratification of the constitution? let's look, shall we?
to prove the point (made by goat and jess and others) that the constitution is a support document for the declaration of independence, let's start there. in the doi, jefferson penned (and it was unamimously adopted by the delegates):
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while
evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably 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 provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
and then in closing in the doi:
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
now look at the opening (preamble) to the constiution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
there are other things in the grievances list put forth in the doi that are borne out in the constitution as well. i may or may not touch on those specifics as i go through the document. but i hope that you can see that the preamble to the u.s. constitution addresses both the opening and closing of the doi.
article 1. this article (through it's subsequent sections) sets up and organizes the legislative branch of 
our federal government. in fact section 1 is pretty susinct:
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
nothing to question there, but what are these people going to do?!?!?
section 2 is a little more involved. it defines how the population of citizens shall be counted for purposes of manning the house of representatives as well as how "direct taxes" will be levied to the individual states. it says that the electors (those who elect) for the u.s. congress must meet the minimum requirements for voting in the state's "most numerous branch of the state legislature" - essentially leaving it up to each state what the voting requirements were even for federal elections.
as an aside, this is also where the federal population count is mandated. it is required to be done every 10 years, thus the reason it is called the "census".
it also defines the rules for a "person" becoming a representative. one must be 25 years old by the time they take office, have been a citizen for seven years and be an inhabitant (doesn't state recognized citizen) of "the state in which he shall be chosen." each state's executive will set special elections should vacancies arise outside of the normal election cycle.
additionally, the house of representatives is responsible for selecting its own speaker and other officers. additionally it is stated in the last line of this section that the house of representatives "...shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."
section 3 pertains to the senate. how many of you knew that u.s. senators were never intended to "run" for election? it's true:
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
it was meant to balance out the contest of the directly elected members of the house and to link the states' governments to the federal government. it is explained by alexander hamiltn or james madison (we're not sure which) in federalist #62:
II. It is equally unnecessary to dilate on the appointment of senators by the State legislatures. Among the various modes which might have been devised for constituting this branch of the government, that which has been proposed by the convention is probably the most congenial with the public opinion. It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.
this served to guard against democracy which is not a stable sort of government. our founders had some pretty strong views on why they chose a representative republic rather than a democracy. in federalist #10 (titled the same subject continued: the union as a safeguard against domestic faction and insurrection) madison wrote:
...democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. ...politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both
the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.
this is perhaps my most favorite federalist article, combined with #9, of course. it gives a wonderful contrast and comparison between a democracy and a republic. i highly recommend that everyone read it, if not all of the federalist papers.
but i digress...
section 3 of article 1 of the constitutions says that the senators will be appointed by the states' legislature and that each term will last six years. each senator must be 30 years old and have been a u.s. citizen for at least 9 years when he takes office and he must be an inhabitant of the state for which he is elected.
there are two more paragraphs in the third section than in the second section, but oh so much more to dissect. i think we'll leave off here for today and i'll complete this section next.
questions? comments? please leave them all.
Continue reading "part 2 of the much needed history lesson" »
approximately 220 years ago, our founders presented to the citizens of our infant nation perhaps the greatest man-written document ever created. that's right, it was in 1787 that our ancestors read, for the first time, the united states constitution.
this document has been a rallying thought for people around the world in want of liberty and self-government. it has also been a sore in the thumb of many who are indebted to us and who wish us ill. much the same as our flag, eh?
our educational system (or socialist indoctrination process, as my hubby calls it) is in such a poor state that our children - and several of the past generations' children - have no clue as to what the document actually says. cripes, they think we live in a democracy for pete's sake!
well, while i am no constitutional scholar, i can read and i have fairly good comprehension. and besides, i believe justice scalia when he says that it means what it says and it's just not that difficult. so this is my attempt to start a discussion pertaining to where we are and where the document give us permission to be...
in a comment to my previous post, my good friend goat makes a great point:
"The simplicity and depth of the words the Founders used in writing our Constitution should never be taken lightly or changed to fit the whims of an uninformed mob rule mentality or activist jurists. It however is not our defining document, The Declaration of Independence is and the Constitution just set down the rules and limits of governance."
goat is precisely right and it amazes me the number of people who try to discount the doi and say that it isn't what defines us. and while it isn't the "law of the land", it is the basis for the law of the land. 
further, if i'm not mistaken, when a legal decision is made, all supporting documentation for the law or contract is taken in to consideration.
in the case of the constitution, that would have to include the declaration of independence, the federalist papers, the anti-federalist papers and, perhaps, even the articles of confederation. so a i embark on this first lesson i will use all of these to support and contrast.
i'm starting with the proceedings of the constitutional convention and will (through additional parts) get through the writing of all of the amendments. i truly hope to get people thinking and talking.
on 25 may 1787 george washington was elected president of the constitutional convention in philadelphia. after the failures of the previous six years of governance under the articles of confederation, washington held out little hope that THIS convention would turn out anything of consequence. 36-year old james madison, hoped differently.
after receiving a letter from george washington, where washington had written "Wisdom and good examples are necessary at this time to rescue the political machine from the impending storm." james madison put forth the notion of a strong central government stating: "Let it be tried then, whether any middle ground can be taken which will at once support a due supremacy of the national authority," furthering that state power would be maintained only when "subordinately useful." madison sought to establish a government in this mold.
in 1786 james madison and john tyler, both of virginia, made a proposal that the continental congress be giving authority over the the regulation of commerce throughout the confederation. in september 1786 several states attended a convention in annapolis, md to discuss commercial problems. at the end of this convention, james madison and alexander hamilton (new york) wrote a report on the convention and calling for delegates from all of the states to participate in a convention set upon "revising" the articles of confederation. a decree from congress (although the decree was not favorably viewed by most citizens) made the proposal a reality.
74 delegates were named to the convention; 55 attended. there were delegates from every state except for rhode island; she refused to send any as the leaders of that state viewed the convention as a conspiracy to overthrow established government. i should point out that rhode island was led by men who were in support of paper currency, low taxes and a popularly elected government - funny how things change, isn't it??
anyhow, although several "leaders" of the young country were not present - patrick henry refused to attend saying that he "smelt a rat" - the convention started with the 55 men who were there, including giants such as george washington, benjamin franklin, george mason and james wilson. the proceedings were understated at times and quite vocal at other times, but in the end they were the beginning of this great experiment we call the united states of america.
put forth in this convention were three basic plans: the virginia plan; the new jersey plan; the hamilton plan. the descriptions i offer to you of each, here, come from the patriot post's historical documents resources:
The Virginia Plan
On Tuesday morning, May 29, Edmund Randolph, the tall, 34-year- old governor of Virginia, opened the debate with a long speech decrying the evils that had befallen the country under the Articles of Confederation and stressing the need for creating a strong national government. Randolph then outlined a broad plan that he and his Virginia compatriots had, through long sessions at the Indian Queen tavern, put together in the days preceding the convention. James Madison had such a plan on his mind for years. The proposed government had three branches--legislative, executive, and judicial--each branch structured to check the other. Highly centralized, the government would have veto power over laws enacted by state legislatures. The plan, Randolph confessed, "meant a strong consolidated union in which the idea of states should be nearly annihilated." This was, indeed, the rat so offensive to Patrick Henry.
The introduction of the so-called Virginia Plan at the beginning of the convention was a tactical coup. The Virginians had forced the debate into their own frame of reference and in their own terms.
For 10 days the members of the convention discussed the sweeping and, to many delegates, startling Virginia resolutions. The critical issue, described succinctly by Gouverneur Morris on May 30, was the distinction between a federation and a national government, the "former being a mere compact resting on the good faith of the parties; the latter having a compleat and compulsive operation." Morris favored the latter, a "supreme power" capable of exercising necessary authority not merely a shadow government, fragmented and hopelessly ineffective.
The New Jersey Plan
This nationalist position revolted many delegates who cringed at the vision of a central government swallowing state sovereignty. On June 13 delegates from smaller states rallied around proposals offered by New Jersey delegate William Paterson. Railing against efforts to throw the states into "hotchpot," Paterson proposed a "union of the States merely federal." The "New Jersey resolutions" called only for a revision of the articles to enable the Congress more easily to raise revenues and regulate commerce. It also provided that acts of Congress and ratified treaties be "the supreme law of the States."
For 3 days the convention debated Paterson's plan, finally voting for rejection. With the defeat of the New Jersey resolutions, the convention was moving toward creation of a new government, much to the dismay of many small-state delegates. The nationalists, led by Madison, appeared to have the proceedings in their grip. In addition, they were able to persuade the members that any new constitution should be ratified through conventions of the people and not by the Congress and the state legislatures- -another tactical coup. Madison and his allies believed that the constitution they had in mind would likely be scuttled in the legislatures, where many state political leaders stood to lose power. The nationalists wanted to bring the issue before "the people," where ratification was more likely.
Hamilton's Plan
On June 18 Alexander Hamilton presented his own ideal plan of government. Erudite and polished, the speech, nevertheless, failed to win a
following. It went too far. Calling the British government "the best in the world," Hamilton proposed a model strikingly similar an executive to serve during good behavior or life with veto power over all laws; a senate with members serving during good behavior; the legislature to have power to pass "all laws whatsoever." Hamilton later wrote to Washington that the people were now willing to accept "something not very remote from that which they have lately quitted." What the people had "lately quitted," of course, was monarchy. Some members of the convention fully expected the country to turn in this direction. Hugh Williamson of North Carolina, a wealthy physician, declared that it was "pretty certain . . . that we should at some time or other have a king." Newspaper accounts appeared in the summer of 1787 alleging that a plot was under way to invite the second son of George III, Frederick, Duke of York, the secular bishop of Osnaburgh in Prussia, to become "king of the United States."
Strongly militating against any serious attempt to establish monarchy was the enmity so prevalent in the revolutionary period toward royalty and the privileged classes. Some state constitutions had even prohibited titles of nobility. In the same year as the Philadelphia convention, Royall Tyler, a revolutionary war veteran, in his play The Contract, gave his own jaundiced view of the upper classes:
Exult each patriot heart! this night is shewn
A piece, which we may fairly call our own;
Where the proud titles of "My Lord!" "Your Grace!"
To humble Mr. and plain Sir give place.Most delegates were well aware that there were too many Royall Tylers in the country, with too many memories of British rule and too many ties to a recent bloody war, to accept a king. As the debate moved into the specifics of the new government, Alexander Hamilton and others of his persuasion would have to accept something less.
throughout the summer arguments were made and orators orated. it appeared at times that no one would prevail with even a modicum of happiness. washington was sad he was a part of it. franklin called for prayer after prayer that the "Father of lights . . . illuminate our understandings." and when, on 29 june 1787, the decision to establish state population as the basis for representation in the house of representatives all hell broke loose. perhaps the mood of the moment of the small states is best summed up by the words of luther martin (delegate from maryland) "The States have a right to an equality of representation. This is secured to us by our present articles of confederation; we are in possession of this privilege."
there was more compromise to come, but finally, on 06 august of that same year came the first draft of our beloved constitution. it was the article-by-article basis from which the final draft would come just a short five weeks later. but the controversy was not yet over.
after much haggling about slavery, regulation of commerce, regulation of navigation and the like, on 31 august 1787 george mason wrote to his son that he "would sooner chop off his right hand than put it to the Constitution as it now stands." further worrying about the lack of a personal "bill of rights" included in the constitution, mason called for a new convention to reconsider the whole notion of the formation of a new government. he was voted down.
several more revisions, debates and compromises later, the document written, primarily, by governor morris the constitution was turned back over to the convention for a final round. mason (joined by edmund randolph and elbridge gerry) called for amendments once again - soundly rebuffed, the vote on 15 september 1787 resulted in the return of an "aye" vote from every state in attendance. by 4pm on 17 september 1787, all members of the convention had dutifully set their hand to the document.
the matter was done - well sort of.
this when the fun really started. the process of ratification. i should note, that alexander hamilton thought there was a better than average chance that the document would NOT be ratified.
just 12 days after the convention ended, pennsylvania called for a ratifying convention for the state. in the previous weeks, the writings of the federalists and anti-federalists of that state were reprinted in newspapers far and wide. on the 29th, short by two of the count required to make a quorum for the ratify convention, a mob of citizens supporting the federalist viewpoint dragged two anti-federalist members from their homes and forced them to stay at the convention until the votes had been cast. hows that for a participating citizenry?!?
throughout the fall the battle waged - in every state - with the anti-federalists denouncing the proposed
government and the federalists defending. by and large the federalists were much more organized than the anti-federalists, even so, the af's made their presence - and their dissatisfaction - well known.
it is at this time, in response to a series of essays by "cato", alexander hamilton and john jay wrote their 85 essays now known as the "federalist papers." thomas jefferson later called this group of essays the "best commentary on the principles of government ever written."
by 09 january 1788 only five of the require nine states had ratified the constitution - delaware, pennsylvania, new jersey, georgia, and connecticut. the outcome in massachusetts, new york and virginia were pivotal and uncertain. only after the state federalists agreed to recommend a list of amendments to be a "bill of rights" did massachusetts ratify the proposed document. the recommendation was a huge victory for the anti-federalists and soon after six other states made similar recommendations
after ratification failed in new hampshire and then rhode island (10 to 1 against the ratification) all eyes turned to the ratification convention in maryland. on 28 april 1788, with a vote of 63 to 11 the maryland convention accepted the tenets of the constitution. in july of that same year new hampshire reconvened and ratified the constitution and the ratification in south carolina made it nine.
over the course of the next two months, new york and virginia ratified the document and a congressionally appointed committee was busy "putting the said constitution to work." it is important to note that in most states, the margin for ratification was extremely close. hamilton deduced that the majority of the PEOPLE in the country were probably opposed to the constitution and it was only the promise of a "bill of rights" that had ensured the federalists' victory
yes, that's right people, the constitution of the united states of america became the law of the land BEFORE the first ten amendments to the constitution had even been written. we'll cover those later, but the limits of the government weren't delineated and excepted by a majority of states until 15 december 1791!
tomorrow, we'll begin to review the actual document. any comments thus far?
"...and it's not a difficult subject"
and with those words justice antonin scalia opened his speech (lecture?) at the university of central missouri last night. already some 1200+ miles away (in the atlanta airport waiting for the flight that will take me to my friend in new jersey) and the wisdom he imparted is still with me...
justice scalia has long been on my 'most favorite people' list - i rank him right up there with james madison, thomas jefferson, teddy roosevelt, ronald reagan and william buckley (just to name a few). when president reagan appointed him to the federal appeals court is when scalia first popped on my radar.
i was still [mostly] in southern maryland at that point in my life and was well in tune to the happenings in d.c. long before anything [other than the presidential elections] on the national scene caught my attention. heck, it was 1982 and i hadn't even voted in a presidential election yet!
any how, back to last night. through a contact of dee's she was able to get highly unavailable tickets for herself, two personal friends of her and me. her first take on the whole evening is posted here and i'll try real hard to not rehash what she has written - or will write tomorrow - or the next day.
nearly 72 years on this earth (and nearly 50 years of marriage to the same woman) have shaped justice scalia into what he presented last night. i wonder, when he came from what most would think to be the most liberal of liberal areas (new york city) in this country, why he became known as one of the most conservative judges to make up the supremes.
there doesn't seem to be anything really 'telling' in his background that i can see. he has started life as the son of an immigrant who attended a jesuit high school in queens, went on to georgetown university, switzerland's university of fribourg, and ending his education with the magna cum laude graduation from harvard law school in the spring of 1960.
from there he went on to work as a practicing attorney in ohio and a law professor at another of the seven sisters (university of virginia) before entering public service during the nixon administration. after ford and until reagan he went back to teaching law - at the university of chicago, georgetown and stanford.
justice antonin scalia is a constitutional constructionist - or an originalist as he refers to himself. i have long maintained that one of that ilk (of which i count myself one) is neither conservative nor liberal as a matter of course and i was thrilled to hear justice scalia give voice to that same sentiment. another thing i have in common with the esteemed justice is that we are both social conservatives - i know, who would have believed that?!?!
but let's go back to the why of it, shall we?
currently EVERYONE discusses activist judges and EVERYONE believes that they are the bane of our society. only thing is, both sides have a differing viewpoint as to what and activist judge is.
those who believe in a "living constitution" think that originalists are the activist judges because they want to interpret the constitution in a fashion limited by what it says - or the dead constitution, as justice scalia called it. originalists believe that anyone who rules on constitutional issues with the idea that constitution means whatever they want it to mean today rather than on what it (and the supporting documentation for the constitution) SAYS is an activist judge.
seems to me that the latter, rather than the former, definition is more accurate. how can you be an activist if you are using the constitution as written. how can you be an activist if you're NOT trying to change anything in the constitution?!? how can you be an activist if you're not trying to legislate from the bench but rather only rule on those things that apply to the constitution (or is it to which the constitution applies?)?
during the course of his speech, scalia said that when he was coming up through the system, growing up and even before, the norm was that most everyone was a constructionist. he stated that it wasn't until the warren led supremes (1953-1969) when the tide started turning and the supremes started down the merry path of creating the living constitution. and based on what i know about u.s. history, i'd have to say that his viewpoint is an accurate one - big shocker there!!!
in talking with my friends on the left they often comment that the u.s. constitution MUST be a living document in order to make it flexible to the changes that happen as mankind evolves. i have long wrestled with an appropriate response to that argument and, thankfully, justice scalia handed one to those of us in attendance last night.
he put for the the notion that the u.s. constitution, as written, offers our citizens the MOST flexible of scenarios imaginable. further, he reminded all of us that it is the final word on what is to be the "law of the land". further, that no matter how stupid somethings are, they just aren't in the province of the constitution (he even joked that he wanted a stamp & ink pad that says "STUPID BUT CONSTITUTIONAL").
as for being flexible he offered the following arguments:
you think abortion should be legal? then get all of your fellow state citizens to agree with you and pass a law to ensure that it's legal. don't think it should be legal and it is? convince your fellow state citizens to agree with you and repeal the law in place. same thing goes for the death penalty - the supremes
have no business ruling on either of these items; i agree.
james staab wrote a great book, The Political Thought of Justice Antonin Scalia: A Hamiltonian on the Supreme Court that i recently read. it's a great read even if i'm not sure i agree with all of staab's conclusions - to me scalia is more like thomas jefferson in that he believes in social conservatism (or liberalism in jefferson's day) so long as it "doesn't contradict the words the words in the constitution."
often times, justice scalia has gone with the side that is thought of as the "liberal reading" of the constitution; he hasn't gone "liberal" he is simply acting in concert with the words of the constitution. he has angered social conservatives with some of his votes - he mentioned flag burning (he vote it was allowed under the first amendment), for the confrontation clause (under the 4th amendment) and some others, that i can't remember right now.
all in all, i sit in awe of this man who thinks so fast on his feet, but makes no decisions without considering the full weight of the constitution and the tradition and history that surround the original words. i think the most important thing he said last night (and i paraphrase here) was that it is important to remember that those who believe in the living constitution seek not only to ADD rights but in some cases to remove them as well...
my good friend, defiant infidel, pointed out that some may have missed the chart i so painstakingly put together. so i have posted each of the three pages in image form or you may download the actual pdf to make for easier reading. Download romney_vs_mccain.pdf.
don't get me wrong, i realize that it's not the most exhaustive of comparisons, but it does show those things that should be of most concern to we conservatives. please note that i did not say "neo-conservatives" as in my opinion that term is oxymoronic at best.
as g-man noted as his place, there are several of us blogging to stop this runaway train that mccain is riding - notice i said riding - he is NOT the one who's driving this train it's the msm! rush is speaking the loudest and, per usual, making a great amount of sense - and besides, he's finally joined up with what i've been saying for months and months - glad he's finally seen the light :)
anyway, it's important to understand that republican party unity is NOT the most important thing at this time. adhering to the conservative principles of our founders is the most important thing - and mcvain just is NOT the guy that can do it.
did you catch the segment with david frum on tucker carlson last friday? click here to watch the whole video from newsbusters. the pertinent part of the exchange (imho) is this:
TUCKER CARLSON: ...John McCain is way more liberal than I am on a lot of things, and very annoying about it, often, from my point of view. But as a man, name another candidate who you'd like your son to grow up to be. Name one -- ever.
FRUM: You're right, he's an impressive guy; he's an impressive guy.
CARLSON: So what is this about? Other conservatives do not seem to feel the way I feel.
FRUM: People tend not to love those who don't love them back.
CARLSON: That's very . . . deep and true.
FRUM: John McCain has made it very clear over the last half-dozen years: he does not love the Republican party. He'll put up with it. He'll tolerate it. If they will follow him he will consent to lead them. But he does not love this party, and the party knows it. Plus there are the substantive issues, of which immigration is far and away the most important; it is a hugely important issue.
And a bit later . . .
FRUM: McCain doesn't just try to explain to the party why he disagrees. His method is to explain to the party why not only does he disagree, but they are racist and wrong and stupid for thinking the way they do, and people never like that.
And yet a bit later . . .
FRUM: He's not interested in the project of saving conservatism in the Republican party. He is really trying to build a personal movement with the Republican party as its vehicle.
mark finkelstein is dead-on in identifying how arrogant and nasty mccain behaves towards the conservative base. then i received my "rush in a hurry" email and read this (well i heard it too, but easier to cut & paste and i'm basically pretty lazy) from rush:
"When a "maverick" is on our side denouncing our side, running against Republicans, the Drive-By Media loves him. Do we let the NY Times and Washington Post pick our candidate? The maverick is not a maverick. The maverick is with the majority, and he's swimming very easily with the tide. "
i also heard a soundbite from some woman on rush's show (can't remember who it was and i can't find it on his site yet) who said something to the effect that she was amazed that mccain thought he could win this thing. that he had so far captured some moderate dems and independents, but unless he captured the conservative base he didn't stand a chance. she's absolutely correct - and he's not really trying to capture we conservatives - he just seems to think we're going to line up behind him because of party unity. fat chance.
look, i'm not denigrating john mccain. i just don't understand all the people jumping on the mccain bandwagon. he's not a conservative, folks - not by any stretch of the imagination.
the good (and i use that in the least unflattering manner) senator lied about mitt romney having a timetable for withdrawal. it was proven to be a lie and even acknowledged to be inaccurate by most of the msm and yet STILL mccain persists in saying it. he has also been lying about why he opposed the bush tax cuts. he clearly thinks we are stupid and that we should just shut up and kiss him.
romney won the caucuses in maine due to a huge turn out of conservatives that no one predicted. he garnered 53% of the vote there while mcvain got only 21%. and while i realize that this straw poll will not have any real bearing until the spring, it does show that people are not simply willing to accept mccain as the inevitable nominee. we're not going to take this one lying down.
so if you're in a super tuesday state, get out there and vote against mccain. make certain to make your voice heard. me, i'll be wearing my favorite shirt and talking to everyone i see and reminding them that a vote for mccain is just a vote against the constitution; same as voting for a democrat would be - no difference.
did you catch this ad on fox news channel last thursday? neither did i - mainly because i'm not watching any news outlets because they all sicken me - but this is a great, accurate ad. of course, mccain - in the best clinton mode he can muster - will cry foul because [apparently] even if it's the truth it's bashing if you're talking about john mccain.
one last thing - also in my "rush in a hurry" email was a couple of great quotes. this one from ronald reagan from 1975 seems especially apropos:
"I'm impatient with those Republicans who -- after the last election -- rushed into print saying we must broaden the base of our party, when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents."
hey, i'm still hoping for a brokered convention, but for now, i'm with mitt!
the people in this country don't want to believe that we are on a precipice between dhimmitude and our freedoms. there has been an islamic jihad declared against the west in general, and especially here in america. you can find the call to this jihad in site after site after site.
so many in our society say "it's only the radical muslims who buy into this crap". really? so where are all the moderate muslims speaking out against the jihad? where are all the moderates denouncing the world-wide dhimmification of non-muslims? where are all the moderates standing up for the christians in the community? where are all the moderates denouncing the fanatics among them who are honor killing their women, who are mutilating the genitals of their daughters?
islam was born in arabia, in the two cities of mecca and medina, where the prophet Muhammad, its founder, lived between 570 and 632. it is here that muhammad received his "revelation". after he died, his predication was given its final form in the book called the koran (or qur'an). in the three centuries that followed his death, muslim theologians and jurists elaborated the corpus of islamic jurisprudence on two main pillars, the koran and the hadiths. the hadiths being the acts and sayings (sunna) attributed to muhammad. the jurists used myriad interpretative principles to establish shari'a, the islamic law, to make it conform to allah's will expressed to muhammad in the koran and the hadiths.
according to dhimmitude.org, dhimmitude can only be understood from pov of jihad because jihad is the origination of dhimmitude. apparently, the way it works is like this: if you submit without fighting the islamic jihadists, you are given "a pledge of security" and essentially you are protected from the jihad laws against the infidels:
"...the jihad laws against infidels which command killing, slavery, ransom or deportation for the enemies. Peace and security for non-Muslims are recognised only after their submission. Protection status is provided through the Islamization of conquered lands."
yeah, yeah, we all know this. so what already. be patient! this stuff is important if we are to 
understand what we're up against.
all over the world, the islmaic jihadists are using our own freedoms against us to further their goal of subjugating we infidels. striking at the heart of ourselves, in the country that spawned us, the government is going after a blogger who's only crime is to have spoken the truth against what the islamists are doing to his community, his country. lionheart is currently in the u.s. and in order to avoid arrest in britain, he will be staying here awhile.
also in the u.k. authors and publishers are being sued for slander! this includes authors and publishers in the states if someone happens to be able to buy a copy of the publication and have it shipped to them in a foreign nation. and our courts are upholding the preposterous notion that the u.k. has jurisdiction over this matter. this is madness!
cair, that [supposedly] moderate islamic rights organization is an unindicted co-conspirator in the hamas funding trial. and still the current administration (and its accomplices in congress) treat cair as if they have some legitimate function in realizing peace between muslims and infidels.
now we have come to a point in this election cycle where we, the [supposed] conservatives, basically have a choice between a clinton-lite candidate and a wanna be reagan candidate. of course, we could also decide to vote for an actual clinton, or a former muslim. while i'm not wholly fond of any of my remaining choices, mitt seems to stink least of the options and i'm [sort of] supporting him. i will be voting for him on tuesday in lieu of forfeiting my right to bitch about the choice i have come november.
we are in a fight for our country, our liberties, our very way of life. the liberals around us call for greater and greater capitulation to the forces around us: amnesty for illegal aliens, appeasing the terrorists (and potential terrorists), u.n. control of the earth's seas, "free" healthcare for everyone, closing gitmo so as not to offend any more muslims and/or sensitive socialists, surrendering of our ability to defend ourselves, destroying our economy to appease the global warming wanks, the expansion of abortion on demand, the appointment of activist judges, and the list goes on (and on and on and on...)
of those items above, how do those things fall in line with the actions, words and history of our two remaining candidates? this pdf (Download romney_vs_mccain.pdf) gives you a pretty good idea - please feel free to distribute it to all whom you know. it appears there isn't much difference between the two of them, there is enough difference to make mccain squarely out of touch with who we are and where 
we should be heading.
but, although the differences are not huge, i find myself compelled to vote for romney come super tuesday. a few of the reasons: He did not actively campaign against republicans and republican positions - i also like that he has not given voice to a lot of kowtowing to islamists. not much i know, but this has come down to an election cycle of degrees.
maybe mitt will appoint constitutional constructionists. maybe john boy will support the people's right to bear arms. who knows. right now, i trust mitt more if for no other reason then he has a shorter history of screwing his constituents.
i believe he will keep gitmo open and allow "enhanced interrogation techniques" that will keep us and our servicemen and women in harm's way safer. i also think, because of this commitment, he will be less likely to bend over and give away our freedoms to the islamo-fascists then mr. mccain.
however, as i told goat tonight - it is my most sincere hope that the "republicans" lose this time around. maybe next time we'll be able to elect a grown up...
UPDATE: people across the conservative spectrum are coming out of the woodworks to denounce mccain. check out these links:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/02/01/mccains_straight_lies
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DavidLimbaugh/2008/02/01/mccain,_the_anti-conservative
http://www.newsmax.com/reagan/?s=al&promo_code=443D-1
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Dobson_vote_McCain/2008/02/01/69333.html
http://www.newsmax.com/ruddy/john_mccain/2008/01/31/69000.html
http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/a4a633c6-f24c-416b-bc24-b5ed8ec8ff57
we should note that mccain finished up the 4th quarter 2007 with $4.5m in campaign debt and a total number of donors somewhere around 110,000. this is a train that can be stopped as it's not moving too quickly - regardless of what the lsm is trying to tell us.
mccain is NOT potus yet and there is nothing saying he has to be so. so climb on board and start pulling the emergency brakes to derail this thing. as defiant infidel has rightly noted, we did it with harriet miers, we did it with shamnesty and we can do it again. we must.
one more thing i have trackedback this article to angel's weekend post that ties right into this one. i heartily recommend you pop over and give her a read!
it's official. hubby and i will be heading north on the 2nd to work the final hours for fred's campaign. we believe strongly that of the cast of options out there, fred is the ONLY one fit to be potus.
fred is a consistent conservative - the only one in the field for the 2008 election and the only one any of us should be talking about. unfortunately the msm know it.
the msm has been working diligently to give a pass on fred since he entered the race - actually even before that. ever since gary hart was running mcgovern's campaign back in 1972, iowa is sort of the bellwether for who goes the distance in the presidential race. and despite the best efforts of some other states, this year is no different.
in an effort to lessen the impact of the iowa caucuses on the presidential race some states have moved their primaries closer to what used to be iowa's caucus day - only it's backfired. all that has happened is that iowa moved its caucus day to 3 january 2007 making it nearly impossible for a candidate who does poorly there to recover before the next primary/caucus.
as you may, or may not, know no candidate who has finished worse than third in the iowa caucuses has gone on to garner the party's nomination. that is a true statement regardless of the affiliation of the candidate - republican or democrat. and that makes it all the more important that we give fred the extra push that he so desperately needs RIGHT NOW!
some have said that fred is already an also ran, but with an estimated 40% of iowa voters not making their decision for whom they would vote until the last week before the caucus in 1996, i say GAME ON. today a new strategic vision poll gives fuel to that sentiment:
Below are the results of a three-day poll in the state of Iowa. Results are based on telephone interviews with 600 likely Republican caucus goers and 600 likely Democratic caucus goers, aged 18+, and conducted December 26-27, 2007. The margin of sampling error is ±4.5 percentage points for each party.
1. If the 2008 Republican presidential caucus were held today between Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, John McCain, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and Fred Thompson, for whom would you vote? (Republicans Only; Names Rotated)
Mike Huckabee 29%
Mitt Romney 27%
Fred Thompson 15%
John McCain 14%
Rudy Giuliani 4%
Ron Paul 4%
Duncan Hunter 1%
Undecided 6%2. Do you see President George W. Bush as a conservative Republican in the mode of Ronald Reagan? (Republicans Only)
Yes 7%
No 72%
Undecided 21%3. How important is it for the Republican presidential candidate to be a conservative Republican in the mode of Ronald Reagan, very important, somewhat important, not very important, not important, or undecided? (Republicans Only)
Very Important 56%
Somewhat Important 12%
Not Very Important 7%
Not Important 10%
Undecided 15%4. Do you favor a withdrawal of all United States military from Iraq within the next six months? (Republicans Only)
Yes 48%
No 40%
Undecided 12%
so far the lame stream media (to borrow a phrase from courtney) has done a pretty thorough job of ignoring and/or dissing mr. thompson and his campaign. and in some cases, where they've lacked in that effort, they've made up for it in flat-out denigrating him.
some are even saying that fox news, that fair and balanced bastion of the news, is blackballing fred because of his announcement being on jay leno rather than at the new hampshire "debate". 
smoothstone indicates that it may be bigger than that - he reminds us that a little more than two years ago prince alwaleed of saudi arabia purchased a 5.46% share of fox news.
right now the media is going all out to promote huckabee because - in my opinion - they want him to win in iowa and win the nomination. they KNOW that he will not win the election no matter who they put up and so he is the safest bet.
regardless, once fred finishes in the top three in iowa, the media will have to stop panning and poo-pooing him and give him his due. but don't look to them to be truthful or forthcoming until they are forced to.
getting back to our caucus trip north, i'm not sure what we'll be doing for the cause, but what ever we can do we will. i know the campaign still needs more bodies - heck, maybe even people to work the phones from wherever to call into iowa to spread the word.
i realize that my little blog doesn't reach very many people, but i believe that every person reached is a person who can cast a vote for fred. this is why we are doing what we are.
if any out there can help, please contact kristen fuzer (kfuzer@fred08.com) or chris burger (cburger@fred08.com) and see what they have for you to do. if you can't give any money for his campaign can you spare an hour or two to help out?
UPDATE 12/28/2007: final fred thompson blogburst and video from john hawkins here - well worth the looksee.
sending back love to my favorite angel at her friday article here.
tuesday, fred at right wing nut house proposed that those of us who support fred make a concerted effort to help raise funds for fred's campaign in iowa. you can read the whole post, above, but in part he said:
don’t think any of us believe that our endorsement of Thompson alone means that much in the long run. But working together, uniting for one day and speaking with one voice, I think we could make a significant impact on Fred’s chances in Iowa. After all, when the candidate you support rolls the dice as Fred has, the least we can do is back his play to the best of our ability.
then, today, i received this email from fred's campaign - seems like fred was prescient...
The first leg of our Iowa bus tour last week was phenomenal. We visited with voters in 21 cities and towns and did 21 events all across the state. Everywhere we went we were greeted by enthusiastic crowds of Iowans who are looking for a consistent conservative leader who will tell it like it is.
It's working: Just last Friday a new Strategic Vision poll showed me moving into a strong third at 16%.
We are poised for the great showing we want!
Just last week I picked u p the endorsement of Congressman Steve King. He has been a champion in the fight to end illegal immigration, and I am pleased that he has joined our team. He's been with me on the bus and the great reception we've received on the tour has really put a jolt into this race.
This is where you come in.
I have a terrific new TV spot. You can see it now at Fred08.com. Take a look, and forward this message on to 10 of your friends.
I need your help to put it on the air. We need to put $248,846 in the bank before 6 PM EST on Friday, December 28th to do it.
Can you help me by making a contribution today? I know I've asked a lot, and you've done a lot, but this is critical to our success. Help me make history.
The Clear Conservative Choice: Hands Down bus tour will run from today to caucus day. We have a terrific ground game in place.
All we need is air cover--which the spot on our website will provide.
This ad will help me let the people of Iowa know that my plans for this country are the best that have been presented. It will help me make the case that not only am I the only reliable, consistent conservative in this race, but that I have the experience and the vision to lead our Party and our nation through difficult times.
I've always shot straight with you, now's no different. I need your help. Can I count on you?
if any of you out there like fred but are waiting to see what happens in the primaries, you're waiting too long. support him now so that he has a strong showing in iowa and he will be the nominee for the gop.
so this is my effort for the cause. i gave today and i will give again tomorrow. who among you will join me?
in my [way] old webster's dictionary at home - published well before 1950 - i looked up the word 'racism' and found this:
rac·ism (rā'sĭz'əm) n. the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races.
that's it - one line and it's pretty straightforward. as near as i can tell, it doesn't differentiate between "white racism" or "christian racism" or "homophobic racism". notably, neither does it say anything about "black racism" or "muslim racism" or "jewish racism" or "asian racism" and so on and so forth. presumably they are all the same and one is not worse than another.
but here in america, it seems that whites - read that as heterosexual, conservative, fanatics - are held accountable for all manner of things that have "stricken" those who are not the same as we. we're white america, we're awful and we deserve to be castigated.
after all, slavery was our invention, right? well no. but ok, we were the slave traders of note - we captured the slaves and sent them back here, right? well, no again. ok ok, but whites were the only 
ones who owned slaves in america, right? well, not quite. ok, but america was the only country that ever allowed enslavement, that one's true, right? um, no. but slavery was allowed for a longer period of time in america than any where else, wasn't it? nope. well, conservatives are against welfare which is the only way to help the poor ignorant blacks out of poverty (which in and of itself is another form of slavery), everybody knows that. wrong again bozo.
let's pick apart these arguments, shall we?
slavery has existed for as long as man has had civilizations. people of all races have been subjugated to the realm of slaves. and in some parts of the world, it still exists today. according to wikipedia (yes i know not the greatest source, but it jives with my hard paper encyclopedias and it's easier than retyping everything):
The evidence for slavery predates written records. It can be found in almost all cultures and continents. Slavery can be traced to the earliest records, such as the Code of Hammurabi in Mesopotamia (~1800 BCE.), which refers to slavery as an already established institution. The forced labor of women in some ancient and modern cultures may also be identified as slavery. Slavery, in this case, includes sexual services.
Historically, most slaves were captured in wars or kidnapped in isolated raids, but some persons were sold into slavery by their parents as a means of surviving extreme conditions. Most slaves were born into that status, to parents who were enslaved. Ancient Warfare often resulted in slavery for prisoners and their families, who were either killed, ransomed or sold as slaves. Captives were often considered the property of those who captured them and were looked upon as a prize of war. Slavery may originally have been more humane than simply executing those who would return to fight if they were freed, but the effect led to widespread enslavement of particular groups of people. Those captured sometimes differed in ethnicity, nationality, religion, or race from their enslavers, but often were the same as the captors. The dominant group in an area might take captives and turn them into slaves with little fear of suffering the like fate. The possibility always existed of reversals of fortune, as when Seneca warned, at the height of the Roman Empire, when powerful nations fought among themselves, anyone might find himself enslaved.
Brief sporadic raids or kidnapping could mean enslavement of persons otherwise not at war. St. Patrick recounted in his Confession having been kidnapped by pirates. In the Genesis, Joseph was sold into slavery by brothers who were jealous of him.
that effectively rules out the argument that slavery is a white on black phenomenon in general and specifically that it was a heinous act perpetrated by american whites against african blacks. that's not to say that white americans didn't own black slaves, however, it does show that we didn't start the process. nor were we the last ones to practice it, that would be the muslims who are still practicing the art of slavery today.
while it is true that white european males were the primary transporters of slaves (and other goods) from africa, it is NOT true that white european males were responsible for the capture of the peoples being enslaved. according to bill warner, director of the center for the study of political islam (cspi) and spokesman for politicalislam.com, white european (and 'american') males were purchasing their slaves for resale from muslim slave traders. from part two of a two part interview with jamie glazov of front page magazine, bill warner has this to say:
"History records around 11,000,000 Africans being sent to the Americas and about 13,000,000 being sent to Islamic countries for a total of 24,000,000 African slaves. To get one slave, many others have to be killed for the tribe to surrender to enslavement. The old, sick and children are left behind to starve. These collateral deaths are conservatively estimated to about 5 to 1. So that implies that over 1400 years, 120,000,000 million Africans have been killed to furnish Islam with its profits.
The accepted history of race in the U.S. is that white men captured Africans, brought them to the U.S. and sold them as slaves. This is wrong. When the white slavers showed up on the west coast of Africa, they didn’t capture Africans. They looked them over in the pens, gave the Muslim slave traders their money, took their bills of sale, and loaded their purchases into their boats.
The Muslims had been plying the trade of war, capture, enslavement, and sale for a thousand years. Mohammed was a slave trader. Long after the white slave traders quit,
the Muslims continued their African slave trade. It still exists today.
And to put a fine point on it, many African slaves were castrated by removing both testicles and penis. Castrated slaves brought more on the slave block. Castrated blacks were the traditional keepers of Mohammed's mosque in Medina."
isn't it ironic, then, that black people who convert to islam do so with the belief that islam is the religion for blacks while christianity is the religion of the whites? muhammed considered himself white and he was a huge proponent of slavery. did you know that the arabic word for black slave and black person are the same "abd"; the word for white and asian slaves is "mamluk" - just something i found interesting. but that's a whole other blog post in and of itself. muslims take slaves now and they did then.
black people point the finger at white people, to this day, attributing to all whites all manner of evil for having owned slaves. i don't know about all of you reading this, but unless you're a muslim i can't believe that anyone reading this post is a proponent of slavery - black, child or other. personally, i believe that it is wrong and it saddens me that anyone in the human race would ever engage in the perpetration of it - including black people.
in the sudan and nigeria and mauritania - all of which have predominantly black populations - are still practicing slavery today. i won't include egypt and saudi arabia and the other muslim countries where it's still going on because the arabs consider themselves white so it's not necessarily a valid argument. but let's contain ourselves to the question of the united states, shall we?
a google search of "black slave holders" returns approximately 148,000 results - click on darn ear any one of them and you're welcomed into a world that you were never taught existed - at least not in the public school systems in america. i chose a few that i found interesting to share here.
back in 2001 the fine folks at free republic reposted a 1997 barnes review article by robert m. grooves. mr. grooms is a freelance writer of the highest caliber. in the article he sites several references to support his writings. an excerpt from the article is here:
The leftists who predominate in the mass media and the world of academe have refashioned the by gone world of slavery and black life in the Old South. Their agenda does not allow for a balanced view of a world they never knew.
In a society molded by highly skewed and agenda-selective presentations of history, the tightest censorship involves the fact that large numbers of free Negroes owned black slaves; in fact, in numbers disproportionate to their representation in society at large. In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. According to the U.S. census report for that last year before the Civil War, there were nearly 27 million whites in the country. Some eight million of them lived in the slaveholding states.
The census also determined that there were fewer than 385,000 individuals who owned slaves (1). Even if all slaveholders had been white, that would amount to only 1.4 percent of whites in the country (or 4.8 percent of southern whites owning one or more slaves).
In the rare instances when the ownership of slaves by free Negroes is acknowledged in the history books, justification centers on the claim that black slave masters were simply individuals who purchased the freedom of a spouse or child from a white slaveholder and had been unable to legally manumit them. Although this did indeed happen at times, it is a misrepresentation of the majority of instances, one which is debunked by records of the period on blacks who owned slaves. These include individuals such as Justus Angel and
Mistress L. Horry, of Colleton District, South Carolina, who each owned 84 slaves in 1830. In fact, in 1830 a fourth of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves; eight owning 30 or more (2).
According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. The country's leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city.
To return to the census figures quoted above, this 28 percent is certainly impressive when compared to less than 1.4 percent of all American whites and less than 4.8 percent of southern whites. The statistics show that, when free, blacks disproportionately became slave masters.
The majority of slaveholders, white and black, owned only one to five slaves. More often than not, and contrary to a century and a half of bullwhips-on-tortured-backs propaganda, black and white masters worked and ate alongside their charges; be it in house, field or workshop. The few individuals who owned 50 or more slaves were confined to the top one percent, and have been defined as slave magnates.
in point of fact, slavery in america was founded by a black man named "anthony johnson". anthony johnson was one of the first 20 blacks to arrive on the continent - as an indentured servant not a slave. check out this excerpt the 'virginia, guide to the old dominion, wpa writers' program' published by the oxford university press in 1940:
"In 1650 there were only 300 negroes in Virginia, about one percent of the population. They weren't slaves any more than the approximately 4,000 white indentured servants working out their loans for passage money to Virginia, and who were granted 50 acres each when freed from their indentures, so they could raise their own tobacco.
Slavery was established in 1654 when Anthony Johnson, Northampton County, convinced the court that he was entitled to the lifetime services of John Casor, a negro. This was the first judicial approval of life servitude, except as punishment for a crime.
But who was Anthony Johnson, winner of this epoch-making decision? Anthony Johnson was a negro himself, one of the original 20 brought to Jamestown (1619) and 'sold' to the colonists. By 1623 he had earned his freedom and by 1651, was prosperous enough to import five 'servants' of his own, for which he received a grant of 250 acres as 'headrights.'
Anthony Johnson ought to be in a 'Book of Firsts.' As the most ambitious of the first 20, he could have been the first negro to set foot on Virginia soil. He was Virginia's first free negro and first to establish a negro community, first negro landowner, first negro slave owner and as the first, white or black, to secure slave status for a servant, he was actually the founder of slavery in Virginia. A remarkable man." (emphasis is mine)
and it is true that conservatives are against welfare but at least it's because they want to end all forms 
of slavery. the dems know that welfare and other such entitlement programs don't do anything for the plight of the poor - black or otherwise. even hillary knows it - but don't take my word for it read what she wrote in her college senior thesis. the whole story behind the thesis and its being hidden from view is an interesting read in and of itself, but in this excerpt is hillary's acknowledgment that she KNOWS what she's doing with her social programs support:
In her paper, she accepted Alinsky's view that the problem of the poor isn't so much a lack of money as a lack of power, as well as his view of federal anti-poverty programs as ineffective. (To Alinsky, the War on Poverty was a “prize piece of political pornography,” even though some of its funds flowed through his organizations.) “A cycle of dependency has been created,” she wrote, “which ensnares its victims into resignation and apathy.”
i know this has been a particularly long post, but i couldn't figure out where to cut it. perhaps i need to hire an editor or something. this is information that everyone in this country should know. i'm positive that the reverends jesse and al know it. i'm certain that most of the leaders of the naacp and the aclu know it too. lord knows the muslims know it - well the bulk of it any way.
in parting, just a couple more questions that i am unable to divine the answer to: why is that we aren't teaching our children actual history but rather some fairytale that does nothing if not inflame the hatred of america even here at home. when did white americans of european descent become the be all, end all of racism and hatred?
does anyone out there know?
my good friend, defiant infidel, put this up the other day and i haven't been able to stop thinking about it ever since.
john stossel is great; he's a true anomaly at abc. i don't always agree with him, but more often than not the point of view presented is mainstream american and not loonietoons leftist. and he always gives some insite into the other side and that's really where i'm going with this post.
the bill of rights, comprised of the first ten amendments to the u.s. constitution, grants rights to individuals and excplicitly limits the powers of the federal government. the second amendment reads:
"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
it's pretty clear cut and we've all heard it before. those who advocate for "gun control" - better called "second amendment nullification" - posit that our founding fathers didn't really mean what they wrote. or maybe that because guns are "bigger and better" now, we need to limit ownership and perhaps manufacturing or something else they'll come up with later.
there are myriad shades of gray in the arguments for 2nd amendment nullification, and every one of them that i've heard is way convoluted. seems like the argument is always something like "well yes, it does say 'shall not be infringed' but i'm not proposing that we put fringe on the guns before they're sold - only after. it is of course what we need to do to reduce crime and make us all safer." um, i don't think so.
trust me, i am all for a reduction of crime and making us all safer. however, making me register my firearms, or telling me what kind of gun or how many guns i can purchase is altogether the wrong way of accomplishing the stated goal.
registering a firearm only makes easier to target gun owners - whether the goal is harrassment or confiscation, the result is the same: my right has been infringed. one of my favorite wisemen, walter williams, said
“For individual freedom to be viable, it must be a part of the shared values of a society and there must be an institutional framework to preserve it against encroachments by majoritarian or government will.”
and that's the crux of
things, as i see it. the lame stream media keeps putting forth the myth that gun control makes us safer. that criminals wouldn't see a 'need' for guns if the citizens weren't allowed to own them. that criminals are simply getting guns IN CASE whomever they're after has one. and so the lemmings who read and believe (make that nearly everyon in at least this country) the lame stream media, think that we need greater and greater assults on the 2nd amendment to protect us. yeah, sure.
it's a trite statement and basically just an updated version of what thomas jefferson said, but seriously folks - if guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns. i myself have even posited on the slope we are barreling down with all these assults on the 2nd amendment:
"you know it occurs to me that if we are to believe in the church of evolution and survival of the species is dependent upon survival of the fittest - think of who the fittest are in our society. by government diktat, the fittest are the thugs and criminals."
about three years ago, the national academy of sciences released a 328-page report that is referenced in the video above. unfortunately, when the results of their study didn't pan out as the majority of the panel had hoped, they simply said the subject needs further study. what the study ACTUALLY revealed is that 2nd amendment nullification laws, which are [by default] levied against law abiding citizens, are not capable of reducing crime. world net daily wrote a great article on it and 
there are several links in there to follow through, as well. to me, the most pertinent paragraph in the article is this:
The study noted the number of criminals who obtained guns from retail outlets was dwarfed by the number of those who picked up their arms through means other than legal purchases. The report was the result of interviews with more than 18,000 state and federal inmates conducted nationwide. It found that nearly 80 percent of those interviewed got their guns from friends or family members, or on the street through illegal purchases.
kind of telling isn't it?
read the study for yourself - if you can stand the dry, boring nature of the thing. otherwise, do some studying here. i haven't quite figured out who's who on this site, but it's a great one for information on what the policies and laws have actually done for [to?] this country.
i am of the opinion that the good people of kennesaw, georgia have it figured out. i agree that all households should have at least one gun. and not one that's locked up - how are you supposed to defend yourself if you have to unlock the darn gun, first?!? "uh, please wait right there mr. robber while i go get my gun out of its lockbox." sure, that'll work. "but, heidianne, what about the safety of our children and ourselves?" easy peasy, jimbob - teach your child to have respect for and knowledge of the firearms in your house. that's what my parents did. that's what i did. a child should KNOW what a gun can do (like knowing the stove is hot and the knife is sharp); they should know it's a tool and a weapon and they should know how to use as soon as they are able to grasp the safety issues. 'nuff 
said.
and finally, just because i like the story, there is this from mark steyn:
"I live in northern New England, which has a very low crime rate, in part because it has a high rate of gun ownership. We do have the occasional murder, however. A few years back, a couple of alienated loser teens from a small Vermont town decided they were going to kill somebody, steal his ATM cards, and go to Australia. So they went to a remote house in the woods a couple of towns away, knocked on the door, and said their car had broken down. The guy thought their story smelled funny so he picked up his Glock and told ‘em to get lost. So they concocted a better story, and pretended to be students doing an environmental survey. Unfortunately, the next old coot in the woods was sick of environmentalists and chased ‘em away. Eventually they figured they could spend months knocking on doors in rural Vermont and New Hampshire and seeing nothing for their pains but cranky guys in plaid leveling both barrels through the screen door. So even these idiots worked it out: Where’s the nearest place around here where you’re most likely to encounter gullible defenseless types who have foresworn all means of resistance? Answer: Dartmouth College. So they drove over the Connecticut River, rang the doorbell, and brutally murdered a couple of well-meaning liberal professors. Two depraved misfits of crushing stupidity (to judge from their diaries) had nevertheless identified precisely the easiest murder victims in the twin-state area. To promote vulnerability as a moral virtue is not merely foolish... it signals to everyone that you’re not in the real world."
anyone have anything to add?
SEMPER VIGILANS
