Hey there friend, you say you were living your life, raising your kids, and you woke up one day to discover that arrogant politicians were taking liberties with your liberty? That they were trying to fix the economy with the very same things that they used to break it? That they're risking your job and your family's security? You say that they're spending your kids’ future to pay for their own bad policy decisions? That you're tired of idiot politicians who say "we have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what is in it"?
And then -- and then, when you and your neighbors finally organize, and take to the streets in peaceful demonstrations simply to demand better government, they call you RACIST?!? Is that what's bothering you, cousin?
Well STOP IT! Educate yourself! Read the Constitution (it's only 19 pages)! Find out which politicians disregard their oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution! Find out which candidates are constitutionally literate and fiscally responsible, and work to get them elected! Remember in November to elect constitutionally literate, fiscally responsible leaders!
If We the People don't regain control of this ship, and change course -- and fast -- we WILL hit that iceberg looming ahead of us. And we'll have precisely the government we deserve.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Muslim or Christian?
Rush Limbaugh dedicated his whole show on Friday to whether Obama is a Christian or a Muslim, but it was the mainstream media who decided to start polling on that issue.
There are people who think that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are all basically the same. Nothing could be further from the truth, as most religious people know. Get some Methodists to discuss Mormons, or vice-versa and see what happens. They're both nominally Christian.
Islam, unlike most other major religions, has a very strong theocratic doctrine. It is therefore a relevant first amendment question to know whether Barack Hussein Obama is Muslim. His father was a Muslim, which makes Obama legally a Muslim according to Islamic doctrine. This is actually something that should have been discussed seriously and openly during the campaign. It's a bit late to be talking about it now.
If Muslims continue pushing for Sharia Law (or Sharia compliance, as Muslim apologists are now calling it -- to make it sound more compatible with the free exercise clause), it will dramatically and dangerously distort the original intent of the first amendment.
There are people who think that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are all basically the same. Nothing could be further from the truth, as most religious people know. Get some Methodists to discuss Mormons, or vice-versa and see what happens. They're both nominally Christian.
Islam, unlike most other major religions, has a very strong theocratic doctrine. It is therefore a relevant first amendment question to know whether Barack Hussein Obama is Muslim. His father was a Muslim, which makes Obama legally a Muslim according to Islamic doctrine. This is actually something that should have been discussed seriously and openly during the campaign. It's a bit late to be talking about it now.
If Muslims continue pushing for Sharia Law (or Sharia compliance, as Muslim apologists are now calling it -- to make it sound more compatible with the free exercise clause), it will dramatically and dangerously distort the original intent of the first amendment.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
A Poke in the Eye with a Sharp Stick II
I saw this in a blog the other day:
Where I differ with the president is that decency and respect should make Muslims instinctively realize that this would be a bad move. But if it is in their culture to erect a monument wherever they have achieved a conquest; to establish a beachhead at the site of their victory, then it is with cultural awareness that we should realize that it is not unconstitutional to prevent that. If we need to declare ground zero as "hallowed ground" then so be it.
This would not be a religious issue except for the fact that Muslims do not distinguish between politics, religion and conquest. The fundamental separation of church and state that we Americans understand, is antithetical to the people who attacked us, and to the people who want to build the mosque. It is a culture clash of biblical proportions, and the 'progressives' who are always mewling about 'diversity' and 'cultural sensitivity' ought to try some real cultural awareness for a change. Republicans should not back away from this issue. It is fundamental, and it will help, not hurt their election prospects.
I believe in "moderate muslims" the way I believe in giant squid: I've never actually seen one, but every once in a while a dead one shows up somewhere.I completely agree with Barack Obama (?!?) when he says that the Muslims have every constitutional right to put a mosque near ground zero. The free exercise clause guarantees that.
Where I differ with the president is that decency and respect should make Muslims instinctively realize that this would be a bad move. But if it is in their culture to erect a monument wherever they have achieved a conquest; to establish a beachhead at the site of their victory, then it is with cultural awareness that we should realize that it is not unconstitutional to prevent that. If we need to declare ground zero as "hallowed ground" then so be it.
This would not be a religious issue except for the fact that Muslims do not distinguish between politics, religion and conquest. The fundamental separation of church and state that we Americans understand, is antithetical to the people who attacked us, and to the people who want to build the mosque. It is a culture clash of biblical proportions, and the 'progressives' who are always mewling about 'diversity' and 'cultural sensitivity' ought to try some real cultural awareness for a change. Republicans should not back away from this issue. It is fundamental, and it will help, not hurt their election prospects.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Least Qualified, or Least Principled?
Adapted from a speech that I gave at the Bellingham Tea Party ice cream social, on Friday, August 6, 2010.
How many readers know what the word kakistocracy means? Here it is again: kakistocracy n., pl. -cies. Government by the least qualified or least principled citizens. [Greek kakistos, worst, superlative of kakos, bad; -cracy, government, regime]
The unqualified don't know the terms and conditions set forth in the Constitution. They don’t know what they're doing, and they don't know what they're not supposed to be doing. They're simply wielding power over us, without direction or constraint. They might mean well, but they're unauthorized.
George Bush said "I've abandoned free market principles to save the free market system." He attempted to justify government usurpation of our Constitutional rights. He showed that he didn't know what he's not supposed to do -- very disappointing.
C.S. Lewis said "Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive."
But as bad as it is to have unqualified leaders -- who know not what they do -- unprincipled leaders are worse. Much worse.
Unprincipled leaders know the terms and conditions in the Constitution; they simply disagree with them. They see the Constitution as an impediment to their agenda, so they employ Machiavellian tactics to subvert the official specification for the United States of America. They work tirelessly to misrepresent the founding principles in schools, universities and the media.
The Constitution guarantees equal justice for all, and protects your life, liberty and prosperity. Any regime that distorts or disregards the Constitution is untrustworthy and dangerous.
Who's unprincipled? The usurper-in-chief and his minions and henchmen, Eric Holder, Rahm Emanuel, and a long list of unelected czars. About half of the Supreme Court who proclaimed -- in their confirmation hearings -- that they do not believe that the Constitution means what it says, or says what it means. They believe the Constitution is a "living document", to be interpreted as needed to achieve "social justice" instead of "equal justice".
But Bush is gone. Obama is here, and he's far more dangerous, in my opinion. We need to be aware of the danger, while simultaneously understanding Constitutional principles. The Obama presidency might be an interesting turning point, if we take away the right lessons. If McCain had won, I think we would have continued sleepwalking through history, instead of waking up. McCain and the others would have continued to usurp our liberties and mindlessly erode our constitution. Barack Obama's regime, on the other hand, is conducting a full frontal assault, with the pedal to the metal. And people are freaking out. Still, he'll do a lot of damage even after he's done. He's already appointed two justices who are the most radical and anti-Constitutional in our history. They'll be there for at least two generations, and they'll do untold damage. Bush's appointments won't do that.
If we hope to preserve our republic, we must elect principled statesmen who understand the founding documents. Who know the Constitution, chapter and verse, and who can explain where in the Federalist Papers, the supporting arguments can be found. This country has no room for kakistocrats of either kind.
How many readers know what the word kakistocracy means? Here it is again: kakistocracy n., pl. -cies. Government by the least qualified or least principled citizens. [Greek kakistos, worst, superlative of kakos, bad; -cracy, government, regime]
The unqualified don't know the terms and conditions set forth in the Constitution. They don’t know what they're doing, and they don't know what they're not supposed to be doing. They're simply wielding power over us, without direction or constraint. They might mean well, but they're unauthorized.
George Bush said "I've abandoned free market principles to save the free market system." He attempted to justify government usurpation of our Constitutional rights. He showed that he didn't know what he's not supposed to do -- very disappointing.
C.S. Lewis said "Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive."
But as bad as it is to have unqualified leaders -- who know not what they do -- unprincipled leaders are worse. Much worse.
Unprincipled leaders know the terms and conditions in the Constitution; they simply disagree with them. They see the Constitution as an impediment to their agenda, so they employ Machiavellian tactics to subvert the official specification for the United States of America. They work tirelessly to misrepresent the founding principles in schools, universities and the media.
The Constitution guarantees equal justice for all, and protects your life, liberty and prosperity. Any regime that distorts or disregards the Constitution is untrustworthy and dangerous.
Who's unprincipled? The usurper-in-chief and his minions and henchmen, Eric Holder, Rahm Emanuel, and a long list of unelected czars. About half of the Supreme Court who proclaimed -- in their confirmation hearings -- that they do not believe that the Constitution means what it says, or says what it means. They believe the Constitution is a "living document", to be interpreted as needed to achieve "social justice" instead of "equal justice".
But Bush is gone. Obama is here, and he's far more dangerous, in my opinion. We need to be aware of the danger, while simultaneously understanding Constitutional principles. The Obama presidency might be an interesting turning point, if we take away the right lessons. If McCain had won, I think we would have continued sleepwalking through history, instead of waking up. McCain and the others would have continued to usurp our liberties and mindlessly erode our constitution. Barack Obama's regime, on the other hand, is conducting a full frontal assault, with the pedal to the metal. And people are freaking out. Still, he'll do a lot of damage even after he's done. He's already appointed two justices who are the most radical and anti-Constitutional in our history. They'll be there for at least two generations, and they'll do untold damage. Bush's appointments won't do that.
If we hope to preserve our republic, we must elect principled statesmen who understand the founding documents. Who know the Constitution, chapter and verse, and who can explain where in the Federalist Papers, the supporting arguments can be found. This country has no room for kakistocrats of either kind.
Saturday, August 7, 2010
A Poke in the Eye with a Sharp Stick
The proposed Muslim center at ground zero, called the Cordoba house, is a thumb in the eye to all who died there on 9/11. It is the Muslim culture to erect a mosque on sites that they have conquered. Even the name "Cordoba" is a historical reference to the Muslim conquest of Spain. The city of Cordoba was an Islamic caliphate in the middle ages. This is a very symbolic gesture to Muslims, and it should be a chilling one to us, too. Our ignorance of their culture, and our slavish PC devotion to "diversity" will be our downfall.
The Muslims are using our liberty against us. It is illegal and unconstitutional to prevent the construction of this building. That's because our laws, and the Constitution are based on Judeo-Christian values. When cultures who do not respect those values infiltrate our borders, we have a catch-22. Islam is fundamentally incompatible with the first amendment. I always thought it was a catch-22 for the Muslims, but it appears that they have twisted things around so that it's a catch-22 for us.
I'm not sure what recourse we have, but it might involve civil disobedience. Our laws won't help us here. My position is that Muslims can erect a Cordoba house at ground zero just as soon as Christians can erect a cathedral in Mecca, and not a moment before.
The Muslims are using our liberty against us. It is illegal and unconstitutional to prevent the construction of this building. That's because our laws, and the Constitution are based on Judeo-Christian values. When cultures who do not respect those values infiltrate our borders, we have a catch-22. Islam is fundamentally incompatible with the first amendment. I always thought it was a catch-22 for the Muslims, but it appears that they have twisted things around so that it's a catch-22 for us.
I'm not sure what recourse we have, but it might involve civil disobedience. Our laws won't help us here. My position is that Muslims can erect a Cordoba house at ground zero just as soon as Christians can erect a cathedral in Mecca, and not a moment before.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)
