Big Girl Pants

i pledge allegience...

...to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

how many times have we heard those words?  how many of you have any question as to what the straightforward words mean?  how many of you have trained your sons and daughters as to the meaning of the words and how to give proper respect to our flag and our country?

i thought about posting on flag day and time simply got away from me - so consider this my belated flag day post.

yesterday, mr. j and i went to the new kansas city power and light district to see the new sights and grab a bite to eat.  we live in the city, only about three miles from downtown and the new sprint center but this is the first opportunity we've had to just go down and stroll around.

we parked nigel, my mini cooper, and began our walk.  as we rounded our first corner at 13th and walnut we could hear loud, driving music.  then we started noticing the hundreds of harleys and the wide assortment of tattooed and pierced people (mostly youngish guys) wandering around.

we weren't really sure what was going on with the music, but it was obviously a free concert in the square - turns our miller lite was sponsoring a group called "say anything".  it's not the worst music i've heard and mostly it's pretty inoffensive in terms of lyrics.

but this post isn't about them, it's about a t-shirt i saw out of the corner of my eye as we were walking.  i was shocked by what i thought it said and i had to stop and turn around just to be certain (and hoping against hope that i was wrong) i had seen what i thought i had seen.  i still didn't have time to read the whole thing, so this morning i googled it.  and unfortunatey, i found it.

it is apparently lyrics from another band called "nofx" fron their 1999 album "the decline" called "i pledge a grievance to the flag of the united states of A and the blah blah blah..."  let me tell you, these guys are just a real class act. i wasn't able to find all of the lyrics for the song (apparently it's 18 minutes long) but from the t-shirt:

I pledge a grievance to the flag
Of the United States of America
And to the republicans whom I can't stand
One nation under smog indispicable [sic]
WITH LIBERTY
FOR JUST US NOT ALL

and from what i found, this isn't the worst of their lyrics.  these guys in the band are all from san francisco - big shock there - and nearly all of their songs excoriate america and religion.  if you're looking for something to turn your stomach, i highly recommend heading over to youtube and searching out all 33 of the videos posted there.  it's a real hate fest.

anyway, during my research, i came across this story [for children] at the portland independent media center's site.  it's from portland oregon, not maine, but that matters little.  it is written by stephen devoy who lists a link to his webiste on that page but the link is invalid.  at reading this "story" everything in me wanted to explode - i swear, if this guy had been anywhere near me i may have felt the need to beat him senslessly.  but it probably wouldn't have done any good, he is so far gone.

Every morning Elizabeth joined her classmates in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. She never thought about what it meant, she just followed through with the other students repeating the words which came out like one very long run-on sentence. It was a mechanical exercise.

Today was different. A new girl, Amy, had transferred to her school from a school in another city. When the time came for the Pledge of Allegiance, she remained sitting, drawing on her notebook. No one ever gave much thought to the process before, until that day, but it was as if someone had scraped their fingernails on the chalkboard. Everyone felt very uncomfortable and they knew it was because one student was not reciting the pledge but they did not know why this bothered them.

The students began scanning each other, looking out the corners of their eyes, with an expression of incredulity. Never, in all their years, had they seen someone sit down and draw during the pledge. Amy seemed completely unaware of the tension and happily drew upon her notebook.

As they finished, the teacher looked over towards the class and was shocked to see Amy sitting there, drawing, rather than joining in the ritual.

"Amy!" said the teacher. "Why didn't you stand up with the rest of us and say the pledge?"

Amy's head raised up from the notebook. She looked at the teacher and said, "I don't say the Pledge of Allegiance. I never have and I never will."

"Amy, you are required to say the Pledge of Allegiance in this school," the teacher stressed sternly with an intense glare.

"Actually," said Amy, very calm and content, "this school is within the United States and I am not required to say anything."

Amy had done nothing. It was her doing nothing that was in question. Nevertheless, the teacher became angry and took Amy's true and sincere statement as a challenge to her authority.

"Amy, you will stay after school," she ordered.

This incident made Elizabeth feel very torn. On the one hand, Amy seemed disruptive by not saying the pledge but on the other hand, she had done nothing - literally. How could one be punished for doing nothing?

Elizabeth decided to wait in the playground after school. She wanted to talk with Amy when Amy got out of detention. She sat on a swing and recited the Pledge of Allegiance, only this time she took the time to notice what the words were and what they meant. She found the words strange and it left her with some questions.

At about 3:30, the side door of the school opened and Amy came walking out. She turned towards the road and continued walking, not noticing Elizabeth on the swings. Elizabeth ran to catch up to Amy. A few yards before reaching her, she slowed down and then stopped.

"Hi," she said. "I'm Elizabeth. I'm in your class."

Amy turned and smiled. "Hi, Elizabeth. I'm Amy. Did you wait here for me to come out of detention?"

Elizabeth blushed, "Well, um, yeah, I was, well I was wondering about, you know, the pledge and why you didn't say it."

Amy looked down and then raised her head to Elizabeth and replied, "I'm happy to meet you and everything, but really I don't think it is anyone's business why I choose not to say the Pledge of Allegiance. It's my own business and I don't need to explain it to anyone."

"You don't have to explain it to me," said Elizabeth. "I was just hoping you would because I never met anyone before who wouldn't say it. I don't even really understand the Pledge of Allegiance. I was hoping that talking with you about it would help me learn something."

The two were silent. They began walking down the street. It was fall and the leaves were turning gold and red. A dog started following them from a distance. No one knew who he belonged to, he just showed up now and then and tagged along.

"Elizabeth," said Amy. "Do you know what flags are for?"

"I haven't really thought about it," she answered, "but I was really hoping you'd tell me about the pledge."

"I am telling you about the pledge. The pledge is a pledge to a flag and that's where we should start, with the flag." Amy became animated. She was beginning to enjoy the idea of talking about it. Her reluctance was not caused by shame, it was caused by her belief that she, as an individual, has the right to make her own personal decisions without anyone having the right to demand an explanation. In this case, she saw that it would benefit Elizabeth. Since there was a reason other than a demand for an explanation, she didn't mind sharing her thoughts.

"Flags are about war," she continued. "Flags are about blindly rallying to the call of murder. My father blindly rallied to the call of murder, behind that very flag, and now he's dead. I won't let them program me in to following like a lemming over the cliff."

She was silent for a time.

Elizabeth thought about what Amy had said. She had thought she was pledging allegiance to her country, but now that she thought about the words "I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag," she could see that Amy was right.

"What about 'to the Republic for which It Stands'," asked Elizabeth.

"Whose republic?" replied Amy? Do you vote?

"No, I'm too young, but one day I will," said Elizabeth.

"Let talk about that," Amy said with a heated voice. "First of all, they are forcing you to pledge allegiance to a republic and they don't let you vote. That smacks of slavery. Later you will vote, but for whom will you vote? Two political parties have a lock on the electoral process and both represent the same class - the rich. Are you rich, Elizabeth?"

"Well, now, I'm not rich, but I'm not poor," she replied.

"The difference between you and the rich is much bigger than the difference between you and the poor, Elizabeth. The rich don't have to worry about working. The rich have complete access to the legal system. The rich can get away with things that you cannot get away with. The rich do not go off and die in wars to protect their republic, they send the poor and they send you."

Elizabeth thought about Amy's words. She was right. Her parents were always worried about their jobs. They were stressed. They feared becoming poor but they had no expectation of ever become rich. Amy was onto something.

Amy continued, "Look at the President. Are his daughters fighting in the war? Have you heard of the son or daughter of any wealthy corporate man that has died in the war? Have you seen any soldiers living well and enjoying the things the rich enjoy? You haven't because they are not rich. The republic belongs to the rich and it is paid for with the blood of the poor. It is not your republic and pledging allegiance to it is like a slave pledging allegiance to her master or a rape victim pledging allegiance to her rapist.

"Have you ever wondered why they make you repeat that pledge, every day? When someone takes an oath of office, they do it once. They don't do it every day. Pledges are meant to be taken once. When someone has you recite something, over and over, every day of your life, they seek to program you. I bet you never thought about the words of the Pledge of Allegiance before, have you?"

"No, I haven't. I say it like it's one long word..."

"Exactly. It is a program, not a pledge. The daily recital of that pledge is indoctrination. The Nazis used indoctrination. The Soviets used indoctrination. Cults use indoctrination. Do you want to be a robot, Elizabeth?"

"No, I don't want to be a robot," she replied.

"Then think about what you let them do to you. When the call to die for the republic of the rich goes out, do you want to march blindly off like a good little robot to die in the rich man's war or do you want to have the spine to stand up and say, 'No Way!'"?

A twig falling from a tree could have broken the silence, but none fell. The two walked in silence for twenty minutes. As they passed an apartment building Amy said, "This is where I get off. I'll see you tomorrow."

Elizabeth continued walking. She reached her housing track and looked at the rows of identical houses. Something had changed within her. She felt a sense of self.

The next day in class all of the children stood up to say the pledge, except for Elizabeth and Amy. The teacher glared at the two and said, "Do we have to go through this again?"

"Yes," Elizabeth replied, "I pledge allegiance to no one."

it is amazing to me, but the responses to this post are gushing over how wonderful this story is, but in my opinion it should be nothing more than fodder for the fireplace.  seriously folks, this is the kind of crap that the liberals in the education system are teaching our children. 

however, i'll let you (my gentle readers) decide what you think on your own.

observations from africa on the agent of change...

yesterday, while playing blog golf i came across this post from patrick.  patrick posted a few sections of the letter from africa and it got me thinking.  and searching.

for those of you who are frequent visitors you know that i have pretty much sworn off the politics of this year's presidential elections.  however, i have been watching, with no small degree of amazement, the circus going on between obama and clinton.

prior to this excercise in research that i have been engaged in since patrick's post got stuck in my craw, i was decidedly AGAINST voting for john mccain as potus.  however, based on the information i have unearthed, i have decided that i absolutely must change my position if it is barack hussein muhammed obama who is handed the nomination by the dnc.

i apologize, in advance, for the length of this post; but not the content.  quite simply this is information that we must get out there and we need to make this post go viral.  the letter mentioned above, in its entirety, is here:

Thanks for sending out an alert about Obama.

We are living and working in Kenya for almost twelve years now and know his family (tribe) well. They are the ones who were behind the recent Presidential election chaos here.

Thousands of people have been displaced by election violence (over 350,000) and I don’t know the last count of the dead.

Obama under “friends of Obama” gave almost a million dollars to the opposition campaign who just happened to be his cousin, Raila Odinga, who is a socialist trained in East Germany. He has been trying to bring Kenya down for years and the last president threw him in prison for trying to subvert this country!

December 27th elections brought cries from ODM (Odinga Camp) of rigged election. Obama and Raila speak daily. As we watch Obama rise in the US we are sure that whatever happens, he will use the same tactic, crying rigged election if he doesn’t win and possibly cause a race war in America.

What we would like you to know is what the American press has been keeping a dirty little secret. Obama IS a Muslim and he IS a racist and this is a fulfillment of the 911 threat that was just the beginning. Jihad is the only true Muslim way. We have been working with them for 20 years this July! He is not an American as we know it.

Please encourage your friends and associates not to be taken in by those that are promoting him. It is world wide jihad. All our friends in Europe are very disturbed by the Muslim infiltration into their countries. By the way. His true name is Barak Hussein Muhammad Obama. Won’t that sound sweet to our enemies as they swear him in on the Koran!

God Bless you.

Pray for us here in Kenya. We are still fighting for our nation to withstand the same kind of assault that every nation, including America, is fighting. Takeover from the outside to fit the new world order. As believers, this means we will be the first targets.

Here in Kenya, not one mosque was burned down, but hundreds of churches were burned down, some with people in them, burned alive.

Jesus Christ is our peace but the new world order of Globalism has infiltrated the church and confused believers into thinking that they can compromise and survive. It won’t be so. I will send you a newsletter we sent out in February documenting in a more cohesive manner what I’ve tried to say in a few paragraphs.

Celeste and Loren Davis

celeste and loren davis are, indeed, missionaries serving in the kenya area. you can  read about their missions here. in an email, mr. loren indicated to me that this was a personal email sent to a friend of theirs in response to some information sent to them on obama; they had no idea the information had begun to be disseminated to the world wide web.

yesterday i sent the following email to celeste and loren in attempting to verify the accuracy of the information in the posts.

recently there is a letter circulating the internet titled “a letter from africa” that is pertaining to barrack Obama and it is attributed to the two of you.  is this a legitimate letter?

please advise, as if it is, I will be blogging on it in the near future…

thanks so much!  and god bless you both in your endeavors.

heidianne jackson
blogging at http://biggirlpants.typepad.com

the response from mr. and mrs. davis was swift and informative:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: combineharvesting@hotmail.com
To: combineharvesting@hotmail.com
Subject: FW: see attachments and Washington Post/Obama
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 22:22:36 +0000

This was a personal e-mail sent to a friend . It was in response to an email we had received regarding Obama. We did not know it would hit the worldwide web.  Since it has, here is some more important information on Obama you won't find on the net.

ODM mentioned in the cartoon is the same party as Obama's cousin, Raila Odinga.  Raila had the 100% backing of the Muslims and should he win would make Islam the only recognized religion in Kenya.  This is an extension of the battle that is going on in Somalia, Sudan, Iraq and 9-11. 

It appears Obama is using the same strategy as his cousin Raila used in America.  We see the  same thing happening here.

See google: Raila Odinga Barak Obama cousins, Dick Morris Raila Odinga, Muslims Back Obama   

Loren and Celeste Davis

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please see the following important ATTACHMENTS:

The MOU, “Memorandum of Understanding” between Raila Odinga and the Muslim leaders to make Kenya an Islamic nation. 

Download railas_agreement_with_muslims_page_1.jpg

Download railas_agreement_with_muslims_page_2.jpg

Download railas_agreement_with_muslims_page_3.jpg

The cartoon in Kenya’s Nation newspaper regarding Obama being the ODM’s candidate for president in the U.S.

The list of donors to Raila’s campaign.  Note the one underlined “friends of BO”.  This $1 million  gift is from the friends of Barak Obama.

Download obamas_gift_to_raila.jpg

July 3, 2006 Houston Chronicle, an article was published by Jim Hoagland, a Pulitzer prize winning syndicated columnist who writes for the Washington Post.

The article is headlined:  “THIS WORLD CAN’T TOLERATE MORE RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE”

Hoagland quotes Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

“Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into UNIVERSAL, rather than RELIGIOUS-SPECIFIC VALUES.  “NOW THIS IS GOING TO BE DIFFICULT FOR SOME WHO BELIEVE IN THE INERRANCY OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES.  But in a PLURALISTIC DEMOCRACY, we have NO CHOICE.  Politics depends on our ability to persuade ea. Other of common aims based on a common reality…AT SOME FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL, RELIGION. DOES NOT ALLOW FOR COMPROMISE.  It’s the art of the impossible.  To base one’s life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime; to base our policy-making on such commitments would be a DANGEROUS THING.”

Hoagland says, “Obama’s words could easily be adopted as well as guidelines for all gov’s in the Middle East and elsewhere”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the information provided gave me the places to look to find even more pertinent information.  the article has a great deal of other "interesting" ideas but it seems it is no longer available at the houston chronicle unless i have an online subscription (i don't).  a link to it in its entirety is here.  the attachments referenced by mr. and mrs. davis are linked if you click on the title of each one above.

on 11 january 2008, this story ran in the u.k. telegraph.  some pertinent information from the article by mr. mike pflanz:

Kenya's defeated presidential challenger Raila Odinga has claimed to be a cousin of Barack Obama and said that they had discussed his country's post-election violence.

• Kibaki offers talks with Kenyan rival Odinga
• Obama senses victory as voting begins

Mr Odinga, 63, said that the US senator's father, from western Kenya's Luo tribe, was his maternal uncle.

"He has called me to talk about the destabilising constitutional crisis in this country, despite being in the middle of the very busy New Hampshire primary," Mr Odinga said yesterday.

Mr Obama's spokesman Robert Gibbs confirmed that the senator spoke to  the Kenyan opposition leader on Monday afternoon for about five minutes before going into a rally in New Hampshire, according to Associated Press.

and then:

Mr Obama has not commented on the Kenyan opposition leader's claim to be a relative.

and finally:

Mr Obama's uncle, Said Obama, said that his village, Kogela, in western Kenya, had been spared the violence and expressed his excitement as his US relative led polls in New Hampshire's Democrat primaries.

"Ah, that's wonderful, but I don't want to jump just yet," Said Obama told AP.

listen to odinga making the claims with his own mouth.  too bad he didn't decide to follow in the footsteps of another of his relations - check it out here - it seems that the esteemed dick cheney and obama are distant relatives.

from another story in the u.k. telegraph is this tidbit:

It is said there is a bitter joke among Kenya's Luo community that the United States of America will elect a member of their tribe as president before the East African country does.

not very funny to me.  how about you?

writing for the conservative voice, michael gaynor had just a slew of interesting tidbits, a few of which are below:

• "--Raila Odinga is of the Luo tribe to which Obama's late African-Arab Muslim father belonged. Obama's older brother still lives there; Abongo 'Roy' Obama is a Luo activist and militant Muslim who argues that the black man must liberate himself from the poisoning influences of European culture. He urges his younger brother, Barack, to embrace his African heritage. Barack Obama has a Kenyan grandmother [gaynor's note: according to Kenyan usage, not a biological grandmother] and several African brothers and sisters as well.
• "--Odinga claimed the election was rigged when he lost, then there were riots and a sort of civil war, but it was the Christians who were getting killed by the Muslims. Christians were burned alive in churches and they were macheted in the streets. It is reported that 1,000 people were killed when all was said and done. Right now, Odinga is claiming the presidency and fighting to be sole president, and in a diplomatic effort, the powers that be allowed him to be co-president until the election is figured out.
• "--Odinga also had an interesting political strategist help with his campaign, an American, who used to be a campaign employee of Bill Clinton's. It is the first time that an American political strategist has worked on any Kenyan campaign. Recommended by Barack Obama?

• "--Raila Odinga's official presidential website is similar to Barack Obama's, and Odinga's main campaign message and slogan is: CHANGE. Vote for Change. Agent of Change. Look at his website: http://www.raila07.com/

there's so much more there and i encourage all of y'all to go read the whole thing.  but how about odinga and obama both being "agents of change?"  stop the aclu has a great post on this very thing, too.

a quick google search on 'muslims back obama' 827,000 items were returned in less than .19 seconds.  hmmm, looks like there is some readily available information out there. 

items like this article from the council on american-islamic relationship's (cair) website.  in highlighting a convert to islam's (julia shearson) thoughts, the article says:

CAIR is not endorsing specific candidates, but she sees the move towards Mr Obama, by the young in particular, as part of a wider awakening.

i also liked this article and all its links.  this article from the canada free press also got my attention and is well worth the read; one of the most salient nuggets is:

As a fledgling Christian, Obama didn't join just any church. He joined the United Church of Christ.

The United Church of Christ is very anti-Israel and supports divestment. It also sponsors speeches at its many functions by the Arab "Christian" pro-terror religious organization, Sabeel. Sabeel holds some of its biggest meetings in Chicago.

further

Is the "New Face" theory espoused in USA Today, New Face as in the "Portrait of Dorian Grey"?

What if Obama's into Pious Fraud Islam–Hudaibiyah treaty "kiss the hand of your enemy until you can cut it off"?.  Not Obama? Remember the pictures of the little kids bobbing their heads up and down at the madrassas? They are all of the age Obama would have been in back in Indonesia.

judi mcleod finishes her article with:

Meanwhile hype notwithstanding, "the new face of change and reform for the democratic party" is no Abe Lincoln, but could be the most upwardly mobile Muslim of the millennium.

debbie schlussel certainly furthers the argument that obama is a muslim or at the very least is viewed as a muslim by the muslims.  the good people over at frontpagemag.com agree with her.  here.  here.  and here.  but i think this is my favorite evidence that the muslims are supporting obama's run for potus.  this picture really does say it all.

folks, the evidence is overwhelming.  this is NOT a smear campaign.  this is fact.  and if you're not motivated to vote against obama by voting for mccain, then you are being just plain stubborn.  please do not take this as an all out endorsement for john mccain; in fact if obama doesn't get the democrat nomination i still probably won't vote for mccain.  but if he does, i'm voting for mccain.  i hope all of you will join me.

in the course of my research i have been introduced to whole new gang of bloggers and i am infinitely better for the finds.  i encourage all of you to check out the following links: the baltimore reporter, conservative thoughts, death by 1000 papercuts, and jaspar jottings.

i have diligently researched every statement and link within this post.  it is my intention to not only inform, but also to inflame and motivate others out there who may be where i was.

btw, angel is blogging on how the fight to stop islam invading our country is racist.  check out her post and let her know you were there.

part 3 of a much needed history lesson

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.

part 2 of the much needed history lesson

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.

a much needed history lesson - part 1

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?

i now return you to your regularly scheduled denial - updated

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!

words mean something - or at least they used to.

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 h