In the midst of all the furor regarding illegal aliens stealing across our borders to reap the benefits of an overly indulgent American people, this quote strikes a attitude that is both fundamentally correct and sensible, but also practically unutterable in today's culture of anti-Americanism emanating from the White House.
Interestingly, one ought to read it with Muslims in mind - especially in the light of the furor over the attempt to place a victory mosque at ground zero
Read:
"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
Theodore Roosevelt 1907
In applying the previous sentiment to most Muslims either immigrating to the US or born here, it becomes painfully apparent that many of the more literal Muslims do not assimilate. The ones wanting to build a ground zero mosque certainly don't want to. Their aim is to denigrate our liberties and the basis of our liberties - the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible, and substitute a foreign deity, allah, who is no friend to liberty or kindness.
If Muslims inhabited the early America, there never, never, never would have been a United States of America. Islam spawns thuggery and oppression, not Liberty, especially when it reaches critical mass, as it is doing in France and the Netherlands and other European countries. We will in our own lifetimes witness the takeover of those countries and the complete elimination of what we call Western Democracy.
That cannot be allowed to happen here. Radical Islam is more than a religious idea, it is an oil-financed Jihad bent on destroying and assimilating - like the Borg - the entire world. It has made remarkable progress and has already enlisted many in its cause, most notably, Barack Hussein Obama.
But the struggle is basically about worldviews, and the worldviews in contention are the Judeo-Christian worldview based on the reality of Biblical truth, and Islam, a sixth-century amalgam of militarism and thuggery wrapped in religious garb and enforced by fear and force. The two systems are mutually incompatible.
One of the founders, Samuel Adams, was of the opinion that Muslims could not faithfully discharge the duties of public office in America because they did not accept the core beliefs that established our nation. He was correct.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Sinister Politics and the Gulf Oil Spill
The actions of the Obama regime don't fit the pattern of an American administration bent on growing the economy or preventing loss of jobs or income for millions of Americans affected by the oil leak. In fact, as I think we can demonstrate, the regime's actions are at direct odds with sensible and obvious strategies to achieve those goals.
Of course, they are not saying it that way. If you would believe their rhetoric, you would think that Obama himself and his whole regime is personally committed to stopping the leak and remediating the effects of the spill. But what has he and his minions in the Federal government agencies actually done? You have to stop your ears - shut off the sound - and just watch their actions:
They have obstructed the use of non-US firms and effective technology from being employed in the cleanup and the staunching of the leak.
They have banned fishing or harvesting in a huge area of the Gulf, thus killing any chance of finding healthy fishery grounds.
They have refused to let the States affected by the oil take any actions to dam or buttress the shoreline from the oil coming ashore, absurdly citing environmental concerns.
They have taken charge of the Oil spill cleanup but then obstructed the cleanup by withholding critically-needed vessels and devices on flimsy pretexts.
They have refused to let the news media close enough to see what is going on in the Gulf by declaring the whole area off limits to over flights or surface vessel reconnoitering with reporters on board.
They have refused to allow the use of oil dispersant, then reluctantly agreed, but only after long delays, and "investigations" to assure the environment was not going to be "harmed".
They have contributed to a welfare-mentality by strong-arming BP to put up a "down payment" of $20Bil to be passed out as a bonanza to practically anyone claiming damage. The claims won't be limited to actual damage - but consequential damage, which is impossible to determine with any certainty. It is already turning into a free-for all, with even churches claiming damages due to "lost contributions."
The Obama department of Justice issued a six-month "moratorium" on new drilling, effectively shutting down all oil exploration in the Gulf. After being slapped back into their corner by a Federal District Judge for rule-making without merit, they scurried around to re-issue the moratorium in a revised form. Their actions are putting the economies of all the Gulf Coast States in jeopardy due to the over the top action by the regime.
They have appointed a commission, ostensibly to "study" the oil spill "accident" and make recommendations to prevent a future occurrence. The commission is packed with environmentalists (who haven't a clue as to how to prevent another blowout - except to stop all offshore oil exploration.), but contains no one from the oil industry, who just might have a word or two of guidance concerning how to prevent another disaster. But perhaps that is the plan without it being stated: hurt the Oil drilling industry. The commission will likely take its entire six months and then declare they need more time, thus providing an excuse to extend the moratorium even further - and thus extending the agony of the US Gulf oil industry. Such a moratorium for such a misguided reason is criminally absurd.
The entire affair is a case study in deliberate delay, covering up sinister motives.
One thing is certain: this regime is not acting like they really care about the main goals of the nation: to get the economy going again, to prevent more job losses, to reduce government obligations, to reduce regulatory barriers to business, and to come up with a practical and expeditious plan to stop the oil spill and heal its attendant environmental issues.
But do not imagine that Obama is without a plan. The idea that he is incompetent is a non-starter. He has had plenty of good advice and there is no lack of talent to deal with the real problems of the Gulf. It is just that he turns a deaf ear to practical solutions and instead implements rules that achieve the opposite effect.
There is only one explanation that fits all we know: he does not want the economy to recover. He wants it to fail, but to do so in a way that his regime can both blame the energy sector (or the sector du-jour that is next in the pillory) and to enact draconian measures to put it firmly under the hand of his ruling junta. All in the name of "preventing another disaster." Rahm Emanuel famously said: "Never waste a good crisis." Obama is certainly not wasting this one.
Just like the Depression of the 1930's, this economic disaster is the product of, and is being prolonged and deepened by, the Federal government's interference in the US economy. The present ruling junta regard the free enterprise system as the problem, and are seeking to subjugate it - if not outright stamp it out. Perhaps they view it like a milk-cow of benefits they can siphon off and use to reward their welfare constituencies. Socialist Progressives to a man, they cannot wait to get a tighter grip on the companies that have successfully met the needs of this country in the past - and those of the rest of the world - and subjugate them to their control.
So in a perverse kind of way, the Obama regime is acting in perfect sync with their philosophy - except that they have not been speaking publicly in full candor about what those goals actually are.
Were it not that the media - with a certain few foxy exceptions - is totally controlled and serving this regime, this strange behavior of saying one thing and doing another would have been in the headlines, and the topic at every dinner table. The silence of the media is thundering in our ears. Why no protest? Why is no one connecting the dots?
But we are a people who have experienced liberty. We won't submit to slavery - or oppression. A hard knot of us won't. Maybe the regime will end up with all the control and weapons, and we will be silenced; but they will not be able to hold the lid on forever. They will eventually fall like the old Soviet Empire. Even without Reagan, it would have collapsed under the weight of its own colossal human failure: it was a regime without a heart.
Obama's regime has no heart either. No government with a heart would issue an order snuffing out the livelihoods of millions of oil drilling workers just to stop a hypothetical oil spill from occurring again. Only an ideologue could do that - a radical one; one who believes that the goal of Socialism is worth the lives of innumerable people. Josef Stalin starved millions of Ukrainians when he took their crops and sold them to obtain foreign exchange. He called it "collectivization," but it was confiscation of the food and produce of a thrifty people - and a heartless murder. We are being led by a heartless murderer today also.
Despite all Obama's finger wagging and denials that Federally-funded abortion was in Obamacare, even obtaining the votes of the "moral" Blue Dog Democrats by signing a worthless executive order forbidding Federal funding for abortions - despite all that, the Federal government just authorized $160 million in funding
for abortions in the State of Pennsylvania. In order to achieve the goal of Obamacare, he heartlessly lied about this and so many other issues.
His political and ideological ends will justify any means. And therefore his present actions versus his words in regard to the Oil Spill events so perfectly fit this pattern. He will trash our economy, our liberties, our traditions, and our country, to achieve his Marxist goals.
But we the people have not forgotten Liberty; we have not forgotten our birthright; we have not forgotten that our rights to live free of government oppression is not something granted to us by a government but by the Living God who will hold anyone or any government accountable for trampling those rights.
This regime is doomed.
Of course, they are not saying it that way. If you would believe their rhetoric, you would think that Obama himself and his whole regime is personally committed to stopping the leak and remediating the effects of the spill. But what has he and his minions in the Federal government agencies actually done? You have to stop your ears - shut off the sound - and just watch their actions:
They have obstructed the use of non-US firms and effective technology from being employed in the cleanup and the staunching of the leak.
They have banned fishing or harvesting in a huge area of the Gulf, thus killing any chance of finding healthy fishery grounds.
They have refused to let the States affected by the oil take any actions to dam or buttress the shoreline from the oil coming ashore, absurdly citing environmental concerns.
They have taken charge of the Oil spill cleanup but then obstructed the cleanup by withholding critically-needed vessels and devices on flimsy pretexts.
They have refused to let the news media close enough to see what is going on in the Gulf by declaring the whole area off limits to over flights or surface vessel reconnoitering with reporters on board.
They have refused to allow the use of oil dispersant, then reluctantly agreed, but only after long delays, and "investigations" to assure the environment was not going to be "harmed".
They have contributed to a welfare-mentality by strong-arming BP to put up a "down payment" of $20Bil to be passed out as a bonanza to practically anyone claiming damage. The claims won't be limited to actual damage - but consequential damage, which is impossible to determine with any certainty. It is already turning into a free-for all, with even churches claiming damages due to "lost contributions."
The Obama department of Justice issued a six-month "moratorium" on new drilling, effectively shutting down all oil exploration in the Gulf. After being slapped back into their corner by a Federal District Judge for rule-making without merit, they scurried around to re-issue the moratorium in a revised form. Their actions are putting the economies of all the Gulf Coast States in jeopardy due to the over the top action by the regime.
They have appointed a commission, ostensibly to "study" the oil spill "accident" and make recommendations to prevent a future occurrence. The commission is packed with environmentalists (who haven't a clue as to how to prevent another blowout - except to stop all offshore oil exploration.), but contains no one from the oil industry, who just might have a word or two of guidance concerning how to prevent another disaster. But perhaps that is the plan without it being stated: hurt the Oil drilling industry. The commission will likely take its entire six months and then declare they need more time, thus providing an excuse to extend the moratorium even further - and thus extending the agony of the US Gulf oil industry. Such a moratorium for such a misguided reason is criminally absurd.
The entire affair is a case study in deliberate delay, covering up sinister motives.
One thing is certain: this regime is not acting like they really care about the main goals of the nation: to get the economy going again, to prevent more job losses, to reduce government obligations, to reduce regulatory barriers to business, and to come up with a practical and expeditious plan to stop the oil spill and heal its attendant environmental issues.
But do not imagine that Obama is without a plan. The idea that he is incompetent is a non-starter. He has had plenty of good advice and there is no lack of talent to deal with the real problems of the Gulf. It is just that he turns a deaf ear to practical solutions and instead implements rules that achieve the opposite effect.
There is only one explanation that fits all we know: he does not want the economy to recover. He wants it to fail, but to do so in a way that his regime can both blame the energy sector (or the sector du-jour that is next in the pillory) and to enact draconian measures to put it firmly under the hand of his ruling junta. All in the name of "preventing another disaster." Rahm Emanuel famously said: "Never waste a good crisis." Obama is certainly not wasting this one.
Just like the Depression of the 1930's, this economic disaster is the product of, and is being prolonged and deepened by, the Federal government's interference in the US economy. The present ruling junta regard the free enterprise system as the problem, and are seeking to subjugate it - if not outright stamp it out. Perhaps they view it like a milk-cow of benefits they can siphon off and use to reward their welfare constituencies. Socialist Progressives to a man, they cannot wait to get a tighter grip on the companies that have successfully met the needs of this country in the past - and those of the rest of the world - and subjugate them to their control.
So in a perverse kind of way, the Obama regime is acting in perfect sync with their philosophy - except that they have not been speaking publicly in full candor about what those goals actually are.
Were it not that the media - with a certain few foxy exceptions - is totally controlled and serving this regime, this strange behavior of saying one thing and doing another would have been in the headlines, and the topic at every dinner table. The silence of the media is thundering in our ears. Why no protest? Why is no one connecting the dots?
But we are a people who have experienced liberty. We won't submit to slavery - or oppression. A hard knot of us won't. Maybe the regime will end up with all the control and weapons, and we will be silenced; but they will not be able to hold the lid on forever. They will eventually fall like the old Soviet Empire. Even without Reagan, it would have collapsed under the weight of its own colossal human failure: it was a regime without a heart.
Obama's regime has no heart either. No government with a heart would issue an order snuffing out the livelihoods of millions of oil drilling workers just to stop a hypothetical oil spill from occurring again. Only an ideologue could do that - a radical one; one who believes that the goal of Socialism is worth the lives of innumerable people. Josef Stalin starved millions of Ukrainians when he took their crops and sold them to obtain foreign exchange. He called it "collectivization," but it was confiscation of the food and produce of a thrifty people - and a heartless murder. We are being led by a heartless murderer today also.
Despite all Obama's finger wagging and denials that Federally-funded abortion was in Obamacare, even obtaining the votes of the "moral" Blue Dog Democrats by signing a worthless executive order forbidding Federal funding for abortions - despite all that, the Federal government just authorized $160 million in funding
for abortions in the State of Pennsylvania. In order to achieve the goal of Obamacare, he heartlessly lied about this and so many other issues.
His political and ideological ends will justify any means. And therefore his present actions versus his words in regard to the Oil Spill events so perfectly fit this pattern. He will trash our economy, our liberties, our traditions, and our country, to achieve his Marxist goals.
But we the people have not forgotten Liberty; we have not forgotten our birthright; we have not forgotten that our rights to live free of government oppression is not something granted to us by a government but by the Living God who will hold anyone or any government accountable for trampling those rights.
This regime is doomed.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
The Next Reichstag Fire?
Glen Beck, that ever-thinking voice of conservatism, just opined that the stage may be set for an "emergency" event, involving "civil disorder" that will give Obama the pretext of suspending the Constitution and taking over the country. His latest book, "The Overton Window" is themed around that idea.
Frankly, I think he is dead right.
I am already of the opinion that the Gulf Oil spill initiated by an explosion on the Deepwater Horizon, was probably sabotage. I base that opinion on the extremely convenient timing of the event, and how well it has played into Obama's hands. It could not have been contrived more perfectly to harm the Energy Industry. The political damage he has sustained during Federal obstructionism, inaction and dithering since the oil spill occurred is quickly wiped out if he manages to take over the country. It won't matter then at all. There will be no effective opposition.
Regarding who is helping him, I cannot imagine a more sinister gang of thugs that could have been gathered to help him do it than those he has already put in place as "czars" and heads of bureaus and departments. Eric Holder has already shown himself to be a defender of this administration, not at all interested in genuine law-breaking, but only in targetting those who oppose or embarass this regime.
Historians still debate whether the Nazis set the Reichstag fire, or it was the actions of the communists. It certainly occurred at a very convenient time for Hitler to grab power and suspend the old Weimar Republic. I think we are on the cusp of that time again.
Consider that Obama is likely to suffer servere damage in the Mid-term elections in November. His own party might even rebel against him although I don't see many signs of that yet. Yet he does not seem to be very concerned. Maybe I am reading too much into his demeanor, but he might just have a joker up his sleeve.
I know that Rahm Emanuel famously joked that "one should never waste a good crisis", which could have been a good quote from every dictator's playbook. Of course the Alinsky gang believe not only in using events as they occur, but also creating them to make things happen the way you want.
Read Glen Becks' interview about the Overton Window to see some more detail on this theory. I sincerely hope it will turn out to be just a theory. The USA as a dictatorship is an awful thing to ponder. Imagine Drone aircraft patrolling troubled (read WASP) neighborhoods for signs of unrest.
Frankly, I think he is dead right.
I am already of the opinion that the Gulf Oil spill initiated by an explosion on the Deepwater Horizon, was probably sabotage. I base that opinion on the extremely convenient timing of the event, and how well it has played into Obama's hands. It could not have been contrived more perfectly to harm the Energy Industry. The political damage he has sustained during Federal obstructionism, inaction and dithering since the oil spill occurred is quickly wiped out if he manages to take over the country. It won't matter then at all. There will be no effective opposition.
Regarding who is helping him, I cannot imagine a more sinister gang of thugs that could have been gathered to help him do it than those he has already put in place as "czars" and heads of bureaus and departments. Eric Holder has already shown himself to be a defender of this administration, not at all interested in genuine law-breaking, but only in targetting those who oppose or embarass this regime.
Historians still debate whether the Nazis set the Reichstag fire, or it was the actions of the communists. It certainly occurred at a very convenient time for Hitler to grab power and suspend the old Weimar Republic. I think we are on the cusp of that time again.
Consider that Obama is likely to suffer servere damage in the Mid-term elections in November. His own party might even rebel against him although I don't see many signs of that yet. Yet he does not seem to be very concerned. Maybe I am reading too much into his demeanor, but he might just have a joker up his sleeve.
I know that Rahm Emanuel famously joked that "one should never waste a good crisis", which could have been a good quote from every dictator's playbook. Of course the Alinsky gang believe not only in using events as they occur, but also creating them to make things happen the way you want.
Read Glen Becks' interview about the Overton Window to see some more detail on this theory. I sincerely hope it will turn out to be just a theory. The USA as a dictatorship is an awful thing to ponder. Imagine Drone aircraft patrolling troubled (read WASP) neighborhoods for signs of unrest.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Getting McChrystal All Wrong
The media, both Liberal and Conservative, have taken the position that General McChrystal made a big mistake in letting Rolling Stone interview him and his staff, resulting in a series of criticisms of the Obama administration and its chief oversight personnel regarding the Afghan war that were particularly embarassing to the administration. The published comments, few of which are directly attributable to McChrystal himself, have caused an uproar in political circles. Almost the entire media establishment has charged McChrystal with bad judgment to even agree to the series of "in country" inteviews, or to make - or allow his staff to make - unguarded comments about the civilian oversight.
I believe the whole interview affair, intended by Rolling Stone as a sly hit job against McChrystal and the entire war effort (which they carried off to perfection) was in fact planned by McChrystal and his aids as a very powerful criticism of the Obama administration and its subversion of the US war effort.
If my premise is correct, instead of the General being rolled by the Stone, the Liberal Rolling Stone was used as a tool by the General to stir a debate about the deliberate losing of the war effort by the Obama administration. In its glee at an opportunity to hurt the military, Rolling Stone might have unwittingly dealt a very powerful blow against the entire Liberal establishment and Obama's credibility in particular.
I think the General should be congratulated.
He is not a fool, nor unwitting to the potential consequences of inviting anti-war rag Rolling Stone into his inner councils. The first - huge - mistake is to so misjudge this man. No, I believe he knew exactly what he was doing, and it was a form of policy insubordination, but done very subtly.
He probably understood that it would perfectly fit the negative concept news anchors have of the military to assume that he and his staff are just a bunch of credulous, unsophisticated klutzes when it comes to PR, kind of like General Patton during WW2. The Rolling Stone people certainly would think that way about the military. And news anchors, by and large, are not known as deep thinkers either, nor apparently capable of imagining this being done deliberately and craftily. Even FoxNews, normally a bit more perspicatious about events making news, missed this one.
Think about it: what would you, a real patriot, do if you were forced to fight a counter insurgent group who knew you would be out of there next year sometime? That makes all your efforts null and void. You become a convenient target, but nothing more. The insurgents have already won: all they have to do is sit back and wait you out. Therefore every American death is totally wasted because the outcome is predetermined by the traitor in the White House.
If I were a commander who took my responsibility seriously - as a sacred mission to accomplish the nation's goals while shepherding my men's lives, not treating them like pawns in some kind of political game but as comrades and buddies - I would be furious at Obama's sellout of the military and his subversion of the very idea of winning.
What would you do to prevent the betrayal of the troops whom you loved and who would do anything for you? Would you march yourself and the rest of your command over the side of a cliff for such an one as Obama? When we have a Manchurian Candidate in the White House, it is insane to think that we owe a usurper any obedience and loyalty. To many minds, acknowledging Obama as commander in chief of the military is equivalent to appointing Jack the Ripper as head doctor over an abused women's recovery ward.
Nothing will change unless Obama gets backed into a corner by circumstances - public opinion - energized by the perception that he and his home-team are betraying America's interests, and a solid view that the administration is proven to be held in deep contempt by practically the entire military establishment, and especially his hand-picked army-guy in Afghanistan.
What better way to do that than though the pen of one of the publications that loathes the US Military? And done in such a way that it appears to be a mistake in judgment by the top military people to disclose their real feelings? That might change the rules enough to save the war effort, or derail Obama and his strategy of surrender.
As long as McChrystal played by the rule book, the troops will continue to lose, the Nation will lose, and our strategic interests will lose. So he had to go outside the rule book.
Douglas MacArthur did it with Truman, and for arguably similar reasons. The only difference is that McChrystal might actually succeed in changing policy, whereas MacArthur did not.
Contrary to all the cluck-clucking about "bad judgment," I think that he acted with deep wisdom, even managing to extricate himself from political and military oversight so as to be able to become an advocate for America's true interests. He certainly could not do that as the commanding General in Afghanistan.
The sacking of a Theater commander is a big deal. It makes a lot of ripples and causes people to think about the reasons for the war, and the wisdom of the political leadership. McChrystal did not choose the path of direct insubordination that MacArthur did; he was more subtle about it, and thus, he might have served the best interests of his troops and his country far more effectively than any direct assault on Obama might have done.
I am betting that we have not heard the last of McChrystal on the war effort and the Obama administration.
I believe the whole interview affair, intended by Rolling Stone as a sly hit job against McChrystal and the entire war effort (which they carried off to perfection) was in fact planned by McChrystal and his aids as a very powerful criticism of the Obama administration and its subversion of the US war effort.
If my premise is correct, instead of the General being rolled by the Stone, the Liberal Rolling Stone was used as a tool by the General to stir a debate about the deliberate losing of the war effort by the Obama administration. In its glee at an opportunity to hurt the military, Rolling Stone might have unwittingly dealt a very powerful blow against the entire Liberal establishment and Obama's credibility in particular.
I think the General should be congratulated.
He is not a fool, nor unwitting to the potential consequences of inviting anti-war rag Rolling Stone into his inner councils. The first - huge - mistake is to so misjudge this man. No, I believe he knew exactly what he was doing, and it was a form of policy insubordination, but done very subtly.
He probably understood that it would perfectly fit the negative concept news anchors have of the military to assume that he and his staff are just a bunch of credulous, unsophisticated klutzes when it comes to PR, kind of like General Patton during WW2. The Rolling Stone people certainly would think that way about the military. And news anchors, by and large, are not known as deep thinkers either, nor apparently capable of imagining this being done deliberately and craftily. Even FoxNews, normally a bit more perspicatious about events making news, missed this one.
Think about it: what would you, a real patriot, do if you were forced to fight a counter insurgent group who knew you would be out of there next year sometime? That makes all your efforts null and void. You become a convenient target, but nothing more. The insurgents have already won: all they have to do is sit back and wait you out. Therefore every American death is totally wasted because the outcome is predetermined by the traitor in the White House.
If I were a commander who took my responsibility seriously - as a sacred mission to accomplish the nation's goals while shepherding my men's lives, not treating them like pawns in some kind of political game but as comrades and buddies - I would be furious at Obama's sellout of the military and his subversion of the very idea of winning.
What would you do to prevent the betrayal of the troops whom you loved and who would do anything for you? Would you march yourself and the rest of your command over the side of a cliff for such an one as Obama? When we have a Manchurian Candidate in the White House, it is insane to think that we owe a usurper any obedience and loyalty. To many minds, acknowledging Obama as commander in chief of the military is equivalent to appointing Jack the Ripper as head doctor over an abused women's recovery ward.
Nothing will change unless Obama gets backed into a corner by circumstances - public opinion - energized by the perception that he and his home-team are betraying America's interests, and a solid view that the administration is proven to be held in deep contempt by practically the entire military establishment, and especially his hand-picked army-guy in Afghanistan.
What better way to do that than though the pen of one of the publications that loathes the US Military? And done in such a way that it appears to be a mistake in judgment by the top military people to disclose their real feelings? That might change the rules enough to save the war effort, or derail Obama and his strategy of surrender.
As long as McChrystal played by the rule book, the troops will continue to lose, the Nation will lose, and our strategic interests will lose. So he had to go outside the rule book.
Douglas MacArthur did it with Truman, and for arguably similar reasons. The only difference is that McChrystal might actually succeed in changing policy, whereas MacArthur did not.
Contrary to all the cluck-clucking about "bad judgment," I think that he acted with deep wisdom, even managing to extricate himself from political and military oversight so as to be able to become an advocate for America's true interests. He certainly could not do that as the commanding General in Afghanistan.
The sacking of a Theater commander is a big deal. It makes a lot of ripples and causes people to think about the reasons for the war, and the wisdom of the political leadership. McChrystal did not choose the path of direct insubordination that MacArthur did; he was more subtle about it, and thus, he might have served the best interests of his troops and his country far more effectively than any direct assault on Obama might have done.
I am betting that we have not heard the last of McChrystal on the war effort and the Obama administration.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
"Anchor Babies" and Automatic Citizenship - Is it really Constitutional?
I have recently been drawn into a very interesting and informative discussion on the question of whether the "anchor baby" phenomenon is in fact a loophole in the U.S. Constitution, or a mistake created by a flawed or possibly artificially contrived understanding of the text of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
To be sure, the plain language of the Amendment seems to be pretty clear: that is, until one begins to read it carefully and to question one of the less-than-obvious phrases which is typically passed over in discussions of the applicability of the amendment to foreigners' children born here.
Here is a partial text of the Amendment:
"Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "
The first phrase would seem to be a slam dunk for the "anchor crowd" - "All person born" would seem to take in even illegals. But the catch is in the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," The "subject to" phrase is an integral part of the sentence and cannot be parsed out as applying to another context. Therefore the phrase "all persons born" must be understood in the context of the modifying phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." A foreigner (and his or her children born) is not "subject to the jurisdiction of "the United States" in the sense of the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore is excluded from the application of this Amendment.
I would argue that the language of the Amendment is easy to misunderstand at this point because it is not obvious what the jurisdiction phrase refers to. After all, aren't all persons who are physically in the territory of the United States, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" whether they are citizens or not? In one sense that is true. If they commit a crime, they will be tried because they violated the laws of the U.S. and will be tried under the jurisdiction of the government. However, taking the phrase in that way robs it of any meaningful application: it is then entirely unnecessary to the understanding of the sentence. However, its true meaning if found in understanding the context of the ratifying debate in the Senate, and specifically with reference to the words of the author of this phrase in the Amendment.
To quote a commentator in the posts following the article cited above from The East Valley Tribune: "who would know the meaning better than the person that wrote the amendment? Senator Jacob M. Howard.
During Reconstruction Howard participated in debate over the intent of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, arguing for including the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
Howard said "[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person." 1868
Clearly, in the historical context of the day, following the Civil War, the Amendment was crafted to correct the basic text of the US Constitution which gave blacks only partial representation and a questionable status as citizens. This Amendment sought to settle the issue of the citizenship of blacks once and for all. And it did so effectively.
But it created another issue due to the poor phrasing, or rather the later practice of ignoring the exact text of the Amendment and its originally stated intent. The author of that portion of the amendment makes that intent very clear. He says the meaning of the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means that only parents who are already citizens can give birth to children who automatically become citizens. He plainly meant to exclude all others.
Under the existing text and legislative intent of the 14th Amendment, foreigners were never intended to be able to travel here in order to have their babies automatically become citizens.
The present situation in which there is some judicial precedent establishing the opposite meaning and application to illegals is unfortunate, but like many things that have grown up in the interpretation of the Constitution which can be demonstrated to have turned the meaning and intent on its head, this is another instance that needs correction.
It is worth asking when did the present interpretation that illegal foreigners' babies automatically acquire citizenship begin? Was it from the very ratification of the Amendment? That clearly is not the case. I will hazard a guess that it was an outgrowth of the late twentieth century activist Judiciary. I have not researched it, and possibly I am wrong, but my instinct tells me that it wasn't always this way. Perhaps that is a question to be answered in a subsequent article.
Again, I reiterate: foreigners should not be allowed to camp out here to have their children so as to mooch off our country. If they want to become citizens, let them go through the front door, otherwise, go home, or register on a visitor visa and follow the rules. Breaking our laws is a criminal act, and no foreigner has a presumptive "right" to American citizenship - especially if they sneak into our country with larcenous intent to defraud our American political system.
I am now convinced that the 14th amendment was never intended to create the predicate for "anchor babies". The AZ political figure (Az Senator Russell Pierce) championing that cause is right on to challenge conventional "lawyer's opinion" on that matter. I appreciate him having the courage to bring up such a sensitive matter in a state over-populated with illegals. Read up on him. He is the kind of brave citizen-legislator we need in public office.
To be sure, the plain language of the Amendment seems to be pretty clear: that is, until one begins to read it carefully and to question one of the less-than-obvious phrases which is typically passed over in discussions of the applicability of the amendment to foreigners' children born here.
Here is a partial text of the Amendment:
"Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "
The first phrase would seem to be a slam dunk for the "anchor crowd" - "All person born" would seem to take in even illegals. But the catch is in the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," The "subject to" phrase is an integral part of the sentence and cannot be parsed out as applying to another context. Therefore the phrase "all persons born" must be understood in the context of the modifying phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." A foreigner (and his or her children born) is not "subject to the jurisdiction of "the United States" in the sense of the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore is excluded from the application of this Amendment.
I would argue that the language of the Amendment is easy to misunderstand at this point because it is not obvious what the jurisdiction phrase refers to. After all, aren't all persons who are physically in the territory of the United States, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" whether they are citizens or not? In one sense that is true. If they commit a crime, they will be tried because they violated the laws of the U.S. and will be tried under the jurisdiction of the government. However, taking the phrase in that way robs it of any meaningful application: it is then entirely unnecessary to the understanding of the sentence. However, its true meaning if found in understanding the context of the ratifying debate in the Senate, and specifically with reference to the words of the author of this phrase in the Amendment.
To quote a commentator in the posts following the article cited above from The East Valley Tribune: "who would know the meaning better than the person that wrote the amendment? Senator Jacob M. Howard.
During Reconstruction Howard participated in debate over the intent of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, arguing for including the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
Howard said "[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person." 1868
Clearly, in the historical context of the day, following the Civil War, the Amendment was crafted to correct the basic text of the US Constitution which gave blacks only partial representation and a questionable status as citizens. This Amendment sought to settle the issue of the citizenship of blacks once and for all. And it did so effectively.
But it created another issue due to the poor phrasing, or rather the later practice of ignoring the exact text of the Amendment and its originally stated intent. The author of that portion of the amendment makes that intent very clear. He says the meaning of the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means that only parents who are already citizens can give birth to children who automatically become citizens. He plainly meant to exclude all others.
Under the existing text and legislative intent of the 14th Amendment, foreigners were never intended to be able to travel here in order to have their babies automatically become citizens.
The present situation in which there is some judicial precedent establishing the opposite meaning and application to illegals is unfortunate, but like many things that have grown up in the interpretation of the Constitution which can be demonstrated to have turned the meaning and intent on its head, this is another instance that needs correction.
It is worth asking when did the present interpretation that illegal foreigners' babies automatically acquire citizenship begin? Was it from the very ratification of the Amendment? That clearly is not the case. I will hazard a guess that it was an outgrowth of the late twentieth century activist Judiciary. I have not researched it, and possibly I am wrong, but my instinct tells me that it wasn't always this way. Perhaps that is a question to be answered in a subsequent article.
Again, I reiterate: foreigners should not be allowed to camp out here to have their children so as to mooch off our country. If they want to become citizens, let them go through the front door, otherwise, go home, or register on a visitor visa and follow the rules. Breaking our laws is a criminal act, and no foreigner has a presumptive "right" to American citizenship - especially if they sneak into our country with larcenous intent to defraud our American political system.
I am now convinced that the 14th amendment was never intended to create the predicate for "anchor babies". The AZ political figure (Az Senator Russell Pierce) championing that cause is right on to challenge conventional "lawyer's opinion" on that matter. I appreciate him having the courage to bring up such a sensitive matter in a state over-populated with illegals. Read up on him. He is the kind of brave citizen-legislator we need in public office.
Friday, June 18, 2010
'Shakedown' remark causes uproar - Jake Sherman - POLITICO.com
'Shakedown' remark causes uproar - Jake Sherman - POLITICO.com
Another uproar in Congress over a truthful, but politically-incorrect remark made in absolute candor, and even indignation by a senior Republican Representative. The uproar has been remarkable.
What is really remarkable about this "uproar" is the failure of will or imagination of even seasoned Congressional Republicans to take this pass in for a touchdown, instead of fumbling the ball and helping the Democrats run it back toward their own goal. The hapless Republicans jumped on the Democrat bankwagon in denouncing Joe Barton's (R-Tex) remarks opening the BP congressional hearing on 6/16/2010. He charged the White House with a "shakedown" of BP for 20 $Billion to create a political "slush fund."
Right on, Joe. I could not have said it better myself.
But the hapless Republican leadership, never able to execute deftly, continue to drop it give the ball back into the hands of the quick-thinking Demagogues who portray themselves as the saviors of the common people in the Gulf oil spill. They are emphatically not the saviors of anyone but their own partisan power-seeking interests.
Consider: if the government really wanted to do something constructive about the oil spill, they would immediately remove the government environmental restrictions on the cleanup. They would immediately exempt foreign vessels and companies from participating in the oil cleanup. They would immediately get out of the way of the States' efforts to conduct their own cleanups as they see fit in their own waters and shores which they know far better than any government bureaucrat stuck in his desk chair in Washington, DC. And as the final act of the Obamites - repeal any moratorium on the exploration and drilling in the Gulf.
That one act alone will destroy the oil industry in the Gulf, perhaps permanently, and wreck the economies of the Gulf States, especially the oil producing ones. I am surprised that no one has thought of this consequence yet, but a six month moratorium might as well be a six year moratorium. The oil exploration rigs that are operating there now will not sit idle for six months: they will migrate to where oil exploration is still going on - off the west coast of South America, for instance, in the new Soros-influenced oil fields bankrolled by US taxpayers. Production will ramp up there, benefitting the Chinese (and Soros) rather than the US taxpayers. To discover how this all makes more sense than mere speculation, just connect the dots.
But these hearings are just another tired, sad, debacle - covering up and distracting from the main issue, which is the government's gross ineptitude (or could we call it criminal mischief and high crimes and misdemeanors?) demonstrated during this event. The Federal government ought to be the big story rather than BP.
I am persuaded that the oil spill is probably an orchestrated event, the explosion being the result of sabotage of the oil rig - possibly done under deep cover by some agents of the Soros-Obama axis. The timing is just too exquisitely convenient for Obama, and the spinning of the event just too handy in playing into the hands of this regime, intent on controlling every aspect of the US economy and turning our country into some version of Cuba or Venezuela. I have written on this in my blog previously.
I am glad Joe said what he said. I am saddened by the inept way the Republicans handled this matter. It is so typical of them. I call them the "Charley Brown Republicans" after the way the comic strip character Charley Brown is incessantly snookered by his friend Lucy when she pulls the football out of the way as he runs to kick it. He always ends up on his back, as she shakes her head in disbelief at his naiveté in never being on guard against her tactics. She gets him every time. So do the Democrats get the Republicans every time. It makes me wonder whether there really ought to be a third party of quick-thinking and conservative Americans (I don't classify the Democratic Party any more as "American") to truly represent the best interests of our citizens.
Joe Barton just said what everybody was thinking. Good for Him. Bad that no one had the courage to "amen" what he said and rejoin the debate, taking it to the Democrats and corrupt Obama Regime.
Another uproar in Congress over a truthful, but politically-incorrect remark made in absolute candor, and even indignation by a senior Republican Representative. The uproar has been remarkable.
What is really remarkable about this "uproar" is the failure of will or imagination of even seasoned Congressional Republicans to take this pass in for a touchdown, instead of fumbling the ball and helping the Democrats run it back toward their own goal. The hapless Republicans jumped on the Democrat bankwagon in denouncing Joe Barton's (R-Tex) remarks opening the BP congressional hearing on 6/16/2010. He charged the White House with a "shakedown" of BP for 20 $Billion to create a political "slush fund."
Right on, Joe. I could not have said it better myself.
But the hapless Republican leadership, never able to execute deftly, continue to drop it give the ball back into the hands of the quick-thinking Demagogues who portray themselves as the saviors of the common people in the Gulf oil spill. They are emphatically not the saviors of anyone but their own partisan power-seeking interests.
Consider: if the government really wanted to do something constructive about the oil spill, they would immediately remove the government environmental restrictions on the cleanup. They would immediately exempt foreign vessels and companies from participating in the oil cleanup. They would immediately get out of the way of the States' efforts to conduct their own cleanups as they see fit in their own waters and shores which they know far better than any government bureaucrat stuck in his desk chair in Washington, DC. And as the final act of the Obamites - repeal any moratorium on the exploration and drilling in the Gulf.
That one act alone will destroy the oil industry in the Gulf, perhaps permanently, and wreck the economies of the Gulf States, especially the oil producing ones. I am surprised that no one has thought of this consequence yet, but a six month moratorium might as well be a six year moratorium. The oil exploration rigs that are operating there now will not sit idle for six months: they will migrate to where oil exploration is still going on - off the west coast of South America, for instance, in the new Soros-influenced oil fields bankrolled by US taxpayers. Production will ramp up there, benefitting the Chinese (and Soros) rather than the US taxpayers. To discover how this all makes more sense than mere speculation, just connect the dots.
But these hearings are just another tired, sad, debacle - covering up and distracting from the main issue, which is the government's gross ineptitude (or could we call it criminal mischief and high crimes and misdemeanors?) demonstrated during this event. The Federal government ought to be the big story rather than BP.
I am persuaded that the oil spill is probably an orchestrated event, the explosion being the result of sabotage of the oil rig - possibly done under deep cover by some agents of the Soros-Obama axis. The timing is just too exquisitely convenient for Obama, and the spinning of the event just too handy in playing into the hands of this regime, intent on controlling every aspect of the US economy and turning our country into some version of Cuba or Venezuela. I have written on this in my blog previously.
I am glad Joe said what he said. I am saddened by the inept way the Republicans handled this matter. It is so typical of them. I call them the "Charley Brown Republicans" after the way the comic strip character Charley Brown is incessantly snookered by his friend Lucy when she pulls the football out of the way as he runs to kick it. He always ends up on his back, as she shakes her head in disbelief at his naiveté in never being on guard against her tactics. She gets him every time. So do the Democrats get the Republicans every time. It makes me wonder whether there really ought to be a third party of quick-thinking and conservative Americans (I don't classify the Democratic Party any more as "American") to truly represent the best interests of our citizens.
Joe Barton just said what everybody was thinking. Good for Him. Bad that no one had the courage to "amen" what he said and rejoin the debate, taking it to the Democrats and corrupt Obama Regime.
A VAT-full of Taxes
Early in June 2010 a proposed one-cent sales tax increase for the Fire Fighters in Palm Beach County, Fl was successfully beaten back by a host of groups who saw it as bad public policy. At a time when property values have fallen more than forty percent in some cases from 2007, any talk of new taxes is not popular.
How would things have turned out if that same tax increase was done by a bureaucrat in Washington, and spread over the whole state or nation, and no one was none the wiser? Maybe we would eventually sense that things were continuing to get more and more expensive, but we couldn’t put our finger on what was going wrong. Prices on items from bubble gum to bus tickets; from gasoline to hotel rooms would continue to increase but no one would be able to identify which taxes were responsible. The politically-favored fire fighters union would be congratulating themselves, however, on another victory, while the rest of us would carry a heavier tax burden and not be able to do anything about it.
What is the VAT? It is a tax placed on a product at every level of its creation. Every sales transaction is taxed, unlike our existing sales tax system which only taxes the final sale to the consumer . With VAT, the percent of tax at each level is small, but the accumulated tax adds up to as much as twenty-five per cent overall. Compare that to our 6.5 percent sales tax in Palm Beach County, Florida.
The VAT is a kind of sales tax on steroids.
With the VAT, there never would have been a hearing with the county commissioners. It just would have become another line item in a county budget that received funds from the state and Federal government, apportioned according to some esoteric formula that was decided “on high,” far from the teeming masses of the unwashed (that’s you and me.)
The Federal Government is going to propose a VAT as a way (they say) to “balance the budget”. It will totally transform our national system of tax collection and be a god-send to the tax and spend politicians who never saw a tax increase they didn’t like – except those that embarrassed them. But in European countries, which have had the VAT for decades, there is no serious thought of balancing the budget. They always find spending that is more “necessary” than leaving money in the pockets of the producers. So they get nation-level defaults like in Greece, and Portugal, and Spain, and next, the US.
If you think this Recession has been fun, wait until they impose a VAT on the US. But we still have a chance to dodge the bullet – ask where each political candidate stands on a VAT, and if they favor cutting spending at all levels of government. If they think the answer is more taxes and spending – scratch them off your list. The money you save will be your own.
How would things have turned out if that same tax increase was done by a bureaucrat in Washington, and spread over the whole state or nation, and no one was none the wiser? Maybe we would eventually sense that things were continuing to get more and more expensive, but we couldn’t put our finger on what was going wrong. Prices on items from bubble gum to bus tickets; from gasoline to hotel rooms would continue to increase but no one would be able to identify which taxes were responsible. The politically-favored fire fighters union would be congratulating themselves, however, on another victory, while the rest of us would carry a heavier tax burden and not be able to do anything about it.
What is the VAT? It is a tax placed on a product at every level of its creation. Every sales transaction is taxed, unlike our existing sales tax system which only taxes the final sale to the consumer . With VAT, the percent of tax at each level is small, but the accumulated tax adds up to as much as twenty-five per cent overall. Compare that to our 6.5 percent sales tax in Palm Beach County, Florida.
The VAT is a kind of sales tax on steroids.
With the VAT, there never would have been a hearing with the county commissioners. It just would have become another line item in a county budget that received funds from the state and Federal government, apportioned according to some esoteric formula that was decided “on high,” far from the teeming masses of the unwashed (that’s you and me.)
The Federal Government is going to propose a VAT as a way (they say) to “balance the budget”. It will totally transform our national system of tax collection and be a god-send to the tax and spend politicians who never saw a tax increase they didn’t like – except those that embarrassed them. But in European countries, which have had the VAT for decades, there is no serious thought of balancing the budget. They always find spending that is more “necessary” than leaving money in the pockets of the producers. So they get nation-level defaults like in Greece, and Portugal, and Spain, and next, the US.
If you think this Recession has been fun, wait until they impose a VAT on the US. But we still have a chance to dodge the bullet – ask where each political candidate stands on a VAT, and if they favor cutting spending at all levels of government. If they think the answer is more taxes and spending – scratch them off your list. The money you save will be your own.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)