Sons of the Constitution

Overwhelming Constitutional Protections with Procrastination

2011-04-29T11:24:00.000-07:00

I have listened very carefully to the arguments being offered about illegal immigration and the size of the problem. What emerges is a picture where there are 12 million illegal households set up in our country, costing the taxpayers $113 Billion dollars per year in government services. Apparently there are approximately 300,000 "anchor babies" so called born in the United States every year. This figure alone dwarfs the total number of legal immigrants who enter our country.

Much like the corporations who were "too big to fail"and required government subsidy or takeover, this problem is "too big to solve" by the simple enforcement of law. Or so we're told. How did we get here?

In 1868, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified, for the purpose of protecting newly freed slaves from certain people who would have them deported on, what at the time, were valid Constitutional reasons. Our citizenry, to their credit, realized that this flaw could, and should, be rectified, thus protecting slaves freed by our government with the expressed intent of being citizens. We fought a war over this amounst ourselves and killed of a third of our male citizens resolving it.

The 14th Amendment reads thus:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."

Problem solved, right? Maybe not. As it turns out, just as the Framers never foresaw the freeing of thousands of slaves as presenting a legal problem, neither did those who crafted and got ratified the 14th Amendment foresee that it would be used as the means for convincing a kindhearted citizenry that the failure of it's government to police its borders made it then impossible, or at least unpalatable to do so, after the fact.

So what are we really facing? First off, we are facing a problem where exploding population is being fueled by a combination of the failure, at the front end, to enforce constitutional law. That failure is self feeding, because the folks who came here illegally are having legal children whom we are too kind to strip from their parents to deport the parents. This population explosion has occurred and we are finding ourselves in the midst of a critical unemployment crisis, and we wonder why? We are creating it, ladies and gentlemen, by allowing folks to walk in and grab our jobs.

So we are facing an insurmountable problem, right? I think not. We are facing a problem that was created by our own procrastination. And it is a problem that is only unsolvable if we continue to procrastinate.

The solution is NOT, as some would tell you, to abandon selectively the Constitutional protections we have enjoyed all these years. The solution is found within those Constitutional protections.

1. We need to stop procrastinating. Enforce immigration law, no matter what the cost. I'm betting if we invested the $113 billion we are giving to illegals, we'd put a dent in it.

2. Since the 14th Amendment as successfully protected the slaves from deportation, let's begin the process of amending that. The Constitution provides us with the mechanism to do so. Let's not ignore it, let's fix it. Let's pass an amendment that defines citizenship. Let me suggest language:

"Those people will be deemed citizens by virtue of having been born to at least one parent who is a United States citizen, at the time of his/her birth, or who was legally naturalized prior to the birth of the child who would then be a citizen. Present residents of the Untied States, who had filed Federal income taxes for the 5 years prior to the ratification of this act, would be considered citizens, and their offspring would be afforded such as well."

3. The period of time that it normally takes to ratify an Amendment would give ample time for hardworking residents to become 5 year taxpayers, and would create incentive to establish "green card status" which is being, for whatever reason, avoided by illegals. Goodness knows, we are not arresting and deporting, and we are paying benefits to them. Give em the green card...

4. Finally, learn the lesson of National Procrastination. Not only doesn't it work, it is being used to create crises that are then being used to undermine the simple protections our Constitution has afforded us.

I fear the erosion of those Constitutional protections far more than I do the costs of enforcing them.

A Natural Born Citizen

2011-04-28T18:01:00.000-07:00

Over the last week or so, the public battle has raged over President Obama's birth certificate. That battle has been fueled by the rhetoric of potential Presidential candidate Donald Trump. Now, don't get me wrong, I am NO fan of Donald Trump. I think he is making a mockery of our electoral process.

But the question of whether President Obama meets the Constitutional qualifications to be President is significant. I don't think it had to do with where he was born. I've accepted that he was born in Hawaii forever. Nor do I, or have I, questioned if he was a Untied States Citizen. But let's look at the qualifications as expressly stated in the Constitution:

"Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution states, "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible who shall not attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States."

The interesting Constitutional argument is over the definition of "natural born citizen". The battle rages more quietly over this, but this argument is much more profound. What the constructionists will tell you is that "natural born" means that you are a citizen both of whose parents were also citizens. One can be, and is, a "citizen" by virtue of being born to one parent who is a citizen. But to be "natural born", BOTH of your parents are required to be citizens at the time of your birth.

But the difference between "citizen" and "natural born citizen" is belied in the "grandfather clause" that follows it: "or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution". Why did they include THIS language if a "natural born citizen" was interchangeable with "citizen". Because it is proof that they intended to define it differently. Why? Because MANY of the colonists had fathers who were English citizens.

The Framers wanted to set the bar higher for President than they did for simple citizenship. They were striving for "purity" of lineage and more so, purity of loyalty. The loyalty between a man and his father is epic. It was just too much of a risk to bet the safety of our Republic to a man who might have split loyalties.

And it looks as if, by arguing the wrong argument, we may have taken that risk.

Why Property is Private

2011-04-25T03:51:00.000-07:00

The Constitution guarantees the private ownership of property within the Fifth Amendment. Certainly government is allowed to own property for its own use, such as buildings, military bases, hospitals and means of individual transport, necessary to do the business of government and provide for the greater protection. It is pretty clear that the Framers never meant for government to own businesses. There was darned good reason. The private ownership of property, goods and services....of the means of production is an essential component of freedom. We are seeing an excellent example of the reason behind that this week in America.

Because it was "too big to fail", so called, General Motors was given billions of dollars in bailout money to save it from its own terrible business practice. At the same time, Toyota had taken over the mantle of #1 US car manufacturer. Not hard to understand. They had lower production costs, primarily because they had lower labor costs. In spite of paying an average of $36 per hour to its assemblers (Yep, folks, that's $75 large a year before overtime), Toyota's expenses were less. Offered a tad more money to be spent on quality and innovation, huh?

So, what occurs directly after the bailout money is paid? A public crisis occurs with "stuck throttles" on the flagship Toyota Corrola. Our public officials cry out, "Is Toyota killing people with their inferiors cars?" Evening news highlights it. Politicians demand investigation. Evening news highlights that too. The investigations begin. Meanwhile, Toyota says publicly that they are pretty sure it is caused by floor mats sliding forward and covering the accelerator. That could be defined as a design defect. It could also be attributed to dumbassed drivers who don't take care to inspect their vehicle before they drive it. Should cars also have "Coke can rolling from under the seat and getting under the brake" detectors? Hmmmm....I may have an idea there.

Then, in the midst of the Toyota throttle crisis, our government begins "Cash for Clunkers". This program gives enhanced trade ins for older gas guzzling vehicles, that have become decrepit enough not to be traded in. Who do you think made these cars? Toyota? Oh ya...they were one of the first companies to feature energy efficient cars. Weren't THEY the company who highlighted the Prius? Oh ya. And aren't they the company whose cars last forever? Doesn't GM make Blazers and Suburbans and Escalades and Impala's and Hummers? Are they the car company whose cars tended to rust out? Oh ya...

And when the "Clunkers" were traded for down payment cash, were people buying those unsafe, accererator sticking, murderous Toyotas? "I'm not buying those until they square THAT away!!!"

Well, this week, earning reports come out on major Dow components including GM. Guess what? They will report that they are the #1 car manufacturer again. Surprising? Not at all. The power of the government that owns them was brought to bear against its competitor. The competitor who built less "clunkers" that burned less fuel, and gave us the first "hybrid".

Oh, and that pesky stuck throttle? The investigation showed it was floor mats and operator error. THAT was reported once, quietly, on one evening news show per network.

The Framers of our beloved Constitution understood clearly that the power of government, with its powers of investigation and regulation, give it an unfair advantage in competition on the free market.

And with the loss of fairness on that free market, we each lose a chunk of our liberty.

Does the Constitution Guarantee....

2011-04-23T06:08:00.000-07:00

...that I am cared for in my dotage?

We need to look, from a Constitutional and sensible perspective at what I am entitled to as an American senior citizen. The debate over Social Security, its solvency and whether any cuts are required or fair is raging. I am one of the senior citizens who is effected by any change made. On June 4th, I turn 62 and become eligible. I'm not gonna take it, I can't survive on it at that level. I don't even want to stop working. I kinda like getting up every morning and being useful. But I've paid into the system for 40 years....

Here's what frightens me. I have factored Social Security into my plans for my dotage. I have fallen for the ruse. I now expect government to care for me, at the exclusion of my own person preparation, and the caring involvement of my children and family. What a sucker I've been. I feel foolish..I feel "owned".

You see, our Founding Fathers guaranteed me "the pursuit of happiness". They didn't, nor did they intend to, afford me the happiness itself. Their intention was for me to pursue it. "Catching" that happiness is on me.

Social Security is the illusion of giving me that happiness. The illusion I didn't have to pursue it, and that, my friends, was the great lie. In spite of the fact that I am on the doorstep of my dotage, I still have a brain. In fact, and unfortunately, it seems to understand the subtleties better. I now understand that I couldn't have that pittance taken out of my pay and have it support me. I now understand that government money managers are vastly inferior to the ones who work for me at my brokerage. I now understand that to have any life under Social Security, I have to work until I'm 72. But now that I'm in the anteroom of that event, it doesn't look so damned bad. I like working.

So here's my thought. To those who are younger than me I want to say two things: 1. I urge you to manage your own future. To embrace the words "the pursuit" and do so. Forge your own future without government. You'll end up happier. And 2. Don't make your decisions about Social Security based on me. Cut my benefits. Make me work longer. Build a system that requires that my children and grandchildren understand that it is through their own labors that their future is forged. It's about the "pursuit" and not about the happiness.

And if that has draconian consequences for me, it will be a small gift to those children. I love them more than life anyway. I doubt I'll die in the gutter like the doomsayers rhetoric would tell you. And if I do, and my grandchildren have a future built on their pursuit of happiness, so be it.

I'm good with that.

Of Means, Ends, and the Protection of Capitalism

2011-04-16T09:30:00.000-07:00

I have been giving a lot of thought to the term progressive. It is partially because, as Constitutionalists, I think we look for the "home run" that returns our system back to the simple values the Framers had used to create the document. But to fully understand it, we have to look at the progressive ends (plural by intent) that are being used, and the progressive means that are being employed.

The Constitution affords us, as its central theme, the rights to free thought and the rights to property. It creates a framework to protect those basic concepts from both people and, more especially, government. It creates absolute sanctity of thought, and proscribes only certain limited ways that government may seize private property. Those avenues include eminent domain and fair yet limited taxation.

In this day and age, these principles are being eroded, and our Constitutional Capitalist system is in jeopardy. "We" have been convinced, by a progressive campaign of slanted information that is convincing "us" that we are better served if a government does stuff for us, than if we do things for ourselves. It certainly would be a nice idea if the police could catch criminals before they harm us. Yet we don't think about how much Constitutional liberty we have to give up to get that protection. If you can be detained before you commit a crime, it becomes a frightening world where sugared sodas are being banned. "You're under arrest! We know you're thinking of drinking a Coke Classic!" Frightening.....extreme...but far off target? I think not.

And how nice and comforting is it to know that, if we become unemployed, or disabled, or just down on our luck, our government has "benefits" for us, to "protect us" and make sure we don't suffer. Yet we don't acknowledge that progressively more and more people have availed themselves of those protections, and become dependent on it. The "Don't Feed the Bears" sign doesn't exist because they don't want bear poop. It exists because the bears become dependent on tourists, expect to be fed by tourists, and see tourists as their only source of food. Then the tourists go away for the season, and the Park Rangers have a group of hungry dependent bears on their hands. The government just doesn't go away...

Instead, government is, like those Park Rangers, required to grow their responsibility and feed the hungry bears. How do they do this? They take food, in the form of tax money, from the folks who are working. Not a big deal...It's the least they can do. Again, the problem here is that as more and more "bears" get dependent, more and more is taxed from the working tourists and given to the "non-working" (read that non foraging) bears. Let's look at the facts. In 2009, 48% of the "bears" paid no Federal income tax, compared to 52% who did. That 52% of the "bears" who paid Federal income tax were paying dangerously close to 50% of their earnings in combined taxes. Federal income, State income, property, sales, excise, use, cigarette, booze, dog license, fuel, and so on and so on taxes. Not to mention the increased cost of goods and services being passed on due to these taxes imposed on business.

Now let's go back to that Constitution. Is that taxation that is fair? Equal? Taxation, Constitutionally, is required to be equal amongst men, not according to their means. It was designed that way purposely. It was designed to foster hard work, self reliance and to limit government, because our Framers knew the evils of big government. They had just freed themselves from the chains of big government. And the notion that one man could legally get another man's "stuff" was abhorrent to them. Benjamin Franklin, one of those Framers, cogently put it this way, "When people learn they can vote themselves money, it will herald the end of the Republic."

Yet we have been led astray...

You see, our Constitution guarantees us the fruits of our labors, not the fruits of others' labors. A different system guarantees us the fruits of others' labors. That system is called Socialism. "From each according to his means and to all equally." Socialism is the system that redistributes wealth, and we are marching progressively in that direction every day. So what's wrong with that you might say. It's only fair. Why should some suffer while others prosper? Why can't we enforce a little charity? And I might be seduced into agreeing with my innate American kindness. The only problem is that the system doesn't work that way. Our Founding Fathers understood this, and designed a system that protected us from the inherent flaws of socialism.

You see, the inherent flaw in socialism arrived at by the redistribution of wealth is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money. We hear that platitude frequently on conservative blogs. That is the ultimate cause of the failure of socialism. And that is being bandied about as the "nail in the socialist coffin"....the magic bullet that will protect capitalism.

This is just a new sense of security "we" are being lulled into. You see, the next necessary step that we would be progressively required to take, when "we" ran out of other people's money, is for the government to "acquire" the means of making money. It will be required to "nationalize" industry, goods and services, and real estate, to produce the money to redistribute, because those pesky bears need it!

Now, ladies and gentlemen, do you really believe that the likes of international financiers, or the magnates of industry, or the political brokers of power are going to allow you to choose who operates that government monolith created by the nationalization of property? Or do you think that, as the ultimate end, a very few very wealthy people will effectively own everything?

And do you think that that ultimate end will look like the monarchy our Founding Fathers so fervently were trying to prevent with our Beloved Constitution?

I think the answer is clearly YES!!!!!

And Nine Years Later....

2010-09-11T11:35:00.000-07:00

I'm sitting on the ninth anniversary of the saddest day in our Nation's history, alternating between tears and swells of pride. I'm conflicted....so conflicted. I remember vividly nine years ago this morning, sitting at work and having my phone ring...."Turn on the news...quick"...and a day of labor ending in the face of two plumes of black smoke. I remember the feelings I had. How they alternated between heart wrenching sadness, and brute anger.

In the days, weeks and months that followed, I remember being so deeply proud to be an American. My goodness did we join together. I watched a President lead, and a nation follow. I remember learning about this group I had only heard glimmers of before...Al Quaeda. And a monster...Osama bin Laden, who actually believed that murdering innocent civilians was a Godly act. And I remember then rejecting that notion, out of hand, because no God would sanction that barbarism. I watched the Muslim faith be used to justify hatred and murder, and I watched a President warn us not to be taken in by this rhetoric. "Islam is a peace loving religion." said President George W. Bush.

But I also remember realizing that those people who had marched against us in the streets of so many foreign cities so many times before were taking on a special meaning for me and my fellow countrymen. No longer could we look at them as disrespectful nuisances who were exercising a right we afforded the least of our national brethren...the right of free speech...given precedence in the First Amendment to our beloved Constitution. Now, and forever, I would see them as potential threats to the well being of our nation and to law abiding and innocent civilians whose only crime was to go to work...

But I do not remember ever thinking anything but that the politics of hatred were to blame. Nor do I ever remember thinking that any religion, whether I believed in it or not, was based on hatred. Did I want Osama bin Laden dead? You can bet the deed to the ranch on that and never worry about homelessness! And I still do. Not because I think Christianity requires, nor justifies it. I want him dead because humanity justifies it. An act that heinous can have only one human response.

Yet I have sat here, in the last week leading up to 9/11/2010...the ninth anniversary of that tragic day and cannot help but think that we have come close to losing some thing much more important than even 3000 lives. I have watched us being lead to the brink of losing our national moral and ethical rudder. I watched an alleged "man of the cloth" from a Christian church in Florida openly call for a national "Burn the Koran Day" on the anniversary of 9/11.

First off, let me say, that I recall no historical event that intervenes between Adolf Hitler burning books in Berlin.and this planned event. And that parallel sickens me....

You see, to me, books symbolize the purpose of our First Amendment. They are the concretization of thought that that Amendment was designed to protect. In my mind, burning books is the ultimate symbol of the theft of freedom of thought and expression. And that, my friends, is the epitome of all "un-American'.

Now, why did the Rev. Terry Jones want to do this? As events unfolded, he decided that it was his statement that would persuade Muslims not to build a Mosque a few blocks from "Ground Zero". Why do we even care? The darned thing has been there for a couple years in a lousy building. Let em spruce the place up. I suspect you won't find me there for evening prayers, but you certainly won't find me opposing anyone who feels the requirement to do so.

You see, in that First Amendment is also the guarantee that we, each, have a right to exercise our own religious beliefs. I will continue to be a Christian...you can pretty much bank on that. But I feel fully confident that I can be a practicing Christian without precluding someone else from exercising the Muslim faith, or any other faith for that matter.

But I'm saddened...that the United States I so love...and the one that joined in the days and weeks after 9/11 together as one nation...and who was joined by so many foreign countries in our national grief...has been so disrespected by an act like this.

Reverend Jones..I am here to tell you that you have a right to hate Islam under my beloved Constitution. And you have a right to burn a Koran, if you own it. But I have the right to tell you a few things.
And I'm gonna!! You are a despicable excuse for a "holy man". You would make the Jesus I know weep, just like you made me weep. You are no better than Osama bin Laden himself, because you operate under the same theories and the same ethics he did when he put 9/11 into operation. It is the ethos of human hatred.

And let me remind you of what Heinrich Heine wrote, so presciently, and whose book was burned in Berlin: “Where books are burned in the end people will burn.”

The President's Religion and Attacks on the First Amendment

2010-08-23T05:48:00.000-07:00

Over the last number of days, a "hot topic" in the national news, on both sides of the aisle, has been the President's religion, and the national perception of what it is. A recent poll has indicated that a full 1/5 of Americans think he is a Muslim. This is troubling, I suspect, because of the growing Islamophobia that we are experiencing and, to some degree, how he is handling both issues. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that I care little whether he is a Christian, Jew or Muslim....Buddhist, Hindu or whatever. In MY religion, the judgment of his spirituality is reserved for God at the time of his death. I personally would rather judge him based on his policies, plans, leadership and results. In short, I'd kiss the ground a Muslim president walked on if he were to create a mess of jobs, stimulate the economy, build private business and decrease government intrusion into private affairs. I certainly would not worship with him at his Mosque, and would entertain a spirited debate of my belief that Jesus is the Messiah with him, were I able to ever do that. But I'd kiss the political ground he walked on!!!

But, what frightens me most is that this debate actually has the endgame effect of creating the platform upon which TWO of the basic freedoms afforded us under the First Amendment of the Constitution are at risk. I have written extensively here, and on social media, that I fear that the national hatred for Islam that we are seeing is being, at the least exploited, if not actually created by those who would, as a matter of policy, like to ban religion in general. Every totalitarian state ever created on the face of the planet has banned religion as one of it's first and linchpin moves. For totalitarianism to work, it cannot have religion to compete with. Peoples belief in a Supreme Being is just too strong and pervasive.

But today, I want to have us look at the second First Amendment freedom that is under attack simultaneously, Freedom of the Press. With rising poll numbers indicating that President Obama is a Muslim, comes attacks from the "left side" on those it is holding accountable for it, terming it "racist". And they really have a half decent leg to stand on, given the fact that, prior to ever running for the Presidency, he attended Reverend Jeremiah Wright's Christian church for 20 years. I find his brand of Christianity troublesome...but it is not mine to judge. But this is leading now to a much bigger concern in my eyes.

Now we are seeing attacks on conservative journalists and "the blogosphere", with suggestions that these thing now be controlled. I think that the natural inclination of Americans to demand fair play is being summoned to use to limit more of the liberties we have been afforded under our beloved Constitution. I think it behooves all who love their freedoms to support the free exercise of religion, and to understand, at the same time, that it is an individual choice that gives us back our own choices. "Take from one, take from all." Why don't we stop talking about religion, anyone's including the President's and, instead resume talking about policies, plans, leadership and results.

THEN, let's demand of ourselves a discipline of readership, based on personal responsibility, that looks openly at both sides of an argument, and makes our decisions in an informed way. Let's confront, at every quarter, those who would decry debate using rancor to diminish its civility. You see, our beloved First Amendment was crafted by the "Framers" as the platform for debate...held in a climate of openness to new ideas. It is the concept that refreshes us nationally.

And I'm making a plea. Please do not play into the hands of those who would strip us of our liberties by subtly convincing us to abandon them ourselves. Our children deserve better.

Parable of Monkeys, Myths, and Melodrama

2010-08-16T12:51:00.000-07:00

Let's take a moment to look at an old parable about a group of monkeys, and how their behavior is shaped:

Monkeys --

Start with a cage containing five monkeys. Inside the cage, hang a banana on a string and place a set of stairs under it. Before long, a monkey will go to the stairs and start to climb towards the banana.

As soon as he touches the stairs, spray all the other monkeys with cold water. After a while another monkey makes the attempt with same result, all the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water. Pretty soon when another monkey tries to climb the stairs, the other monkeys will try to prevent it.

Now, put the cold water away. Remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one. The new monkey sees the banana and wants to climb the stairs.

To his shock, all of the other monkeys attack him. After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs he will be assaulted.

Next, remove another of the original five monkeys and replace it with a new one.

The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked. The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment with enthusiasm.

Likewise, replace a third original monkey with a new one, then a fourth, then the fifth. Every time the newest monkey takes to the stairs he is attacked.

Most of the monkeys that are beating him up have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs or why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey. After replacing all of the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys have ever been sprayed with cold water. Nevertheless, no monkey ever again approaches the stairs to try for the banana.

Why not?

Because as far as they know, that is the way it has always been done around here.

And that, my fellow monkeys, is how politically based lies operates....

We need to question the common wisdom told to us, especially when that wisdom is accompanied by strong emotion. That strong emotion is being used to simulate cold water and has a deleterious hidden agenda, usually, in this climate, one that is eroding the relevance of the United States Constitution, and making the values that made us strong appear to make us weak. It is the way that melodramatic mistruths are being spread by extremists from both the right side, and the left side. AND...the purpose of all that water? It ain't to make the monkeys cleaner!

Beware! A little cold water sprinkled on others does NOT a Constitutional flood make.

Cloward-Piven, Unrest and the Second Amendment

2010-08-16T05:43:00.000-07:00

I have been writing for a bit about the use of hate in the assault on our Constitutional values, and, as such, our beloved Constitution itself. We are being baited into unprofitable and unkind discussions about race. We are being pushed, from both sides, in a hate-filled discussion of the inconsequential. Think about it? Who really cares what color a person is? White folks have been going to beaches for eons trying to look like black folks!! It is an inconsequential argument being used to stir strong emotion, emotion that can be channeled into less that productive behavior.

We are being spent into oblivion. Sensible Americans are looking at Congressional spending and seeing the abyss. We are being made poor, and the future of our children is being mortgaged in the name of idleness, Working folks have banded together into small local "teaparties". Getting together to advocate for their rights to be heard. Again the First Amendment at its best. Small groupings dedicated to electing candidates who are more rational in their policies, who listen and follow through on their promises. Then, along comes "The Tea Party Express", replete with tee shirts and bumper stickers, a bus and loud speakers. The rhetoric heats up and the divisions widen. Now, rather than small community groups of caring Americans, we are seeing "self proclaimed leaders", who have really hijacked the decency of individual citizens, spewing more hateful rhetoric, fanning the flames of anger in otherwise decent God-fearing folks.

Finally, we are seeing a debate over the "building" of a mosque a couple blocks from Ground Zero. Forget the fact that it existed already, and they only want to rebuild it. Forget the fact that it NOT at Ground Zero but blocks away. Forget that is is NOT being BUILT but RE-BUILT. Forget the pesky facts...Onward to hate and angst...

Why is that? It's Cloward/Piven theory at work. We are being forced into a crisis by people on both sides of the debate. Anger is rising. Rhetoric grows more bellicose. The words of our previous revolution are being invoked...and we are being pushed toward a crisis of safety...What do I think? I think that this "crisis of safety" will be used to justify stripping peaceable Americans of their firearms. And I believe THAT will spark a clash that government can ONLY put down by turning its OWN guns on its OWN CITIZENS. It will be a sad moment in our nation's history, and blood will run in the storm drains....

And for what? For the totalitarian designs of a few financiers who would use the theories of "social justice" to strip everyone of their opportunities? I think not.

I want to begin to caution folks...as we approach the 9/12 Project Rally in Washington DC on August 28th. Our "war" is already won at the polls in November...it's almost a done deal at this point if we don't fall asleep. Please don't be duped into the creation of the crisis the enemies of freedom, with their hate filled rhetoric, so need to solidify power over basic freedom. PLEASE.

Comfort, Safety and the Constitution

2010-08-16T02:58:00.000-07:00

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both" Benjamin Franklin

As the debate over "the Mosque at Ground Zero" heats up, how more relevant could old Ben Franklin be? The same argument is being framed in numerous ways, with numerous motivation and from all sides. It's pretty clear. NO ONE wants a Mosque built even close to the site where the Twin Towers fell. So many motivations are ascribed, most villainous. Why else would the barbarous Muslims build a temple at the location where so many Americans died for no less a crime than going to work on 9/11/2001? It is a sign of defiance right? A sign of conquest right? I sign that the ONLY goal worth pursuing for a Muslim is world domination? Who knows...any or all of those could be coming into play. I doubt it. But who knows....

Here is what I DO know. The First Amendment of our beloved Constitution affords ALL citizens the right to worship as they see fit, where they see fit, and how they see fit, as long as the practices of their religion are not otherwise unlawful. THEN, it is ONLY those practices that are outlawed, NOT the religion. As an example, were a religion to espouse polygamy, the practice of that religion would be acceptable, but the practice of marrying more than one woman would be unacceptable and punishable under existing law in ALL 50 States.

The FEAR here is that the Cordoba Initiative will harbor terrorists, and be used as the epicenter of more terror attacks on US soil, the goal of which is the domination of US culture by Muslim belief. Could this be the case? Maybe. Is the POTENTIAL for criminal activity (except for flight from existing incarceration) cause to suspend one's rights under the Constitution? I think not. The Fifth Amendment protects us from incarceration except by indictment of a Grand Jury, and for a crime already committed.

So what's going on here? Scroll back and you will see that I have made a case, consistently, that a move is afoot to strip you of your liberties, not by armed insurrection, but by convincing you that your "temporary security" is at risk, and that the provisions contained in the Constitution are impeding protecting you. Forces are at hand that are plotting to strip you of even your most basic liberties, the liberties to think and believe what you want, to express those beliefs openly in verbal form (Freedom of Speech), written form (Freedom of the Press), and in the "contemplative" form, prayer (Freedom of Religion).

And what equally concerns me is that false information is being offered from BOTH sides of the American political perspective, or certainly inflammatory rhetoric and activity. One the one hand, we have those of us who consider ourselves Conservatives. "We" want strong military action. 9/11 was perpetrated by Muslims who stated they were fighting a "Holy War"..."a Jihad" against the "Infidels"...the Christians. I was debating him, on Twitter, about Islam being "anti-Christian". He cited Surah 9:5 as evidence that the Koran ordered the killing of Christians. Here's the problem. In NO translation does the word "Christian" occur. In differing translations there is an order to kill "infidels" or "pagans" (depending on the translation.) Here's the OTHER pesky little fact. In Surah 9:4, just one paragraph before, "infidel" or "pagan" are defined....as people who worship multiple gods. What's more, in Surah 9:6, Muslims are told that, even if an infidel asks to be spared, he must be afforded so, and that the Muslim sparing him must attempt to make him accept that one God. If he DOESN'T accept the teaching, he then must receive double protection, both from the Muslims, AND from his own people. It is actually under this religious law that the Pushtan tribesmen spared and protected Marcus Luttrell, the Navy SEAL who survived a horrible ambush that killed all his teammates.( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/10/AR2007061001492.html )

Then, I pick up Time Magazine and see the face of a Muslim woman whose nose was brutally cut off, allegedly based on some barbarian's belief, ascribed to Islamic belief. Right in the middle of the "the Mosque at Ground Zero" debate. Huh...Did the editorial board have choices? Were there OTHER stories about Muslims? Maybe they could have chosen to write a major story about a "summer camp" run by a Muslim cleric, and designed to lead young Muslims AWAY from terrorism? ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10900478 ) Could they not tell the story of the camp (Seeds of Peace) in Otisfield, Maine that is bringing Christians, Jews and Muslim children together to learn each others culture and return to their own as "Seeds" to spread the word of tolerance? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeds_of_Peace ) The timing of this article does NOTHING but inflame already existing anger and misperception.

Finally, our President offers words in support of the Mosque. I am NO FAN of Barack Obama. I believe he is one of the selfsame Communists who are assaulting our Constitutional capitalist was of life. But his words were correct. Yet, they fell in an abyss of hatred that has gone unconfronted and mistakenly fanned by an administration that has mishandled conflict from its first day in office. I understand he walks a political tightrope on this issue, because of his name....

In our history, we have made this mistake in other ways, at other times. After the bombing of Pearl Harbor, we rounded up all citizens of Japanese descent and put them in "interment camps". We imprisoned them...for no other crime than having parents who were Japanese. It took over 40 years, and a man named Ronald Reagan to apologize to our proud Japanese citizens...Ron Reagan understood that Americans don't do that..

Folks, I'm not asking you not to hate 9/11. I'd be the first to remind you and the first to spend my heard earned tax money to fight the at any location with any manner at any cost. But I'd like NOT to fight a religion. I'd like to fight political entities who hijack religion for murderous purposes. In doing so, we truly make ourselves free....in NOT doing so, we mortgage both our liberties and our safety, just as Ben Franklin warned us. We are being led down the road of giving up our First Amendment rights willingly, because we want protection from terror. We will end up with neither,

Conservative Housecleaning; Wash out the Hate

2010-08-14T15:55:00.000-07:00

It is time that we, as conservative Americans, walk the walk while we talk the talk. I have written previous posts about HateBaiting that has been leveled at us by our left side countrymen. But the problem with this perspective is that, if my theory of it being an Alinsky tactic is correct, it's working because we, by our own behavior, are enabling it to work.
It is now time for us, as American conservatives, to follow the tenets of both the Constitution we so frequently invoke, and the principles of our founding Christian religion, that we demand be respected equally. Let's take, as an example, the issue of race. Race has been used, very successfully, by the left, to vilify conservatives. It is pretty much accepted, erroneously, that values of limited taxation and lesser government intervention are racist. I mean, limiting taxation lessens the size of government, right? And the limitation on the size of governmental monies available will always limit the benefits given to our minority brethren, right?
This line of argument is so egregiously flawed as to be ridiculous, yet we have been unable to combat it effectively. Why is that? Because we are baited into arguments that appear or sound hateful. Rather than putting forth, in conservative blogs or on shows that are willing to offer conservative arguments along side liberal ones, compelling arguments as to why conservative values benefit minorities, as well as their majority brethren, we find our spokespeople, so called, attacking minority spokespeople. Just recently, Andrews Brietbart, in his blog, took an exerpt from a speech given to an NAACP convention, by Shirley Sherrod, and posted it. What he did was to successfully bait an inept White House/Obama Administration into making a knee jerk decision, based on fear and race. Here's the most unfortuante part. Both the White House AND Andy Brietbart were wrong, ethically and professionally. Whether or not Shirley Sherrod or any of her relatives have ever uttered a racist statement, what was presented was factually inaccurate, and further opened the national scism that we call race.
What position are we, as conservatives, in to criticize, when our spokespeople so aggregioiusly misrepresent the facts of their argument. Thanks, Andy...I'm a "friendly fire casualty."
Instead, why can't we rise above the namecalling and finger pointing? Why do we need, so voraciously, a villian to hate on the other side? Why can't we simply trust the wisdom of our own argument. Welfare benefits, while feeding marginally minority populations, do nothing to lift them from poverty and repression. In fact, our poverty programs have sustained minority poverty for almost four decades. I want anyone to explain to me how a welfare check EVER created a job for the recipient. Forgive me, but even the question I asked was "dumbassed" at its core. How can this argument fall on deaf ears?
Conservative Americans, we will lose every argument begun in limiting our compassion for our fellow citizens. We will begin winning those where we show the true compassion born in Judeo-Christian values, and codified in our Constitution.
And I'm here to tell you, once again, that you are being successfully baited to your own failure. Hate does not build a future, it destroys a present.

Hate Baiting and "The Big Bang Cloward-Piven Theory"

2010-08-14T15:54:00.000-07:00

As the third in a series of posts I expect to make regarding "hatebaiting" by the Progressive/Socialist/Communist Movement, I want to talk a bit about the theory behind the use of hate, and how it will be used to take from us our Constitutional liberties.
As many will recall, in the late '60's, a Columbia School of Social Work professor named Cloward, partnering with his research assistant, named Piven put forth a theory whereby community organizing could be used to enroll huge numberes of poor people under welfare provisions, causing an economic crisis that would require a national minimum income rather than minimum wage. In short, cocialism could be created by replacing "wage" (money tied directly to production. Read that, capitalism) with "income" (an individual entitlement to income. Read that socialism). It was a theory that, at its core, used created crisis as the motivating factor for change.
Now, it is my belief that hate is being recreated as the final motivator that brings us to the final crisis, a crisis of violent activity, born from artifically created hate, and used to replace individual liberties guaranteed by our beloved Constitutioin, with safety from that violence, afforded by government, and acheived at the expense of those self same liberties.
In short, I think that the rheroric of hate is being artifically created by rcial and economic division will bring us to the brink of violence, that will be finally precipitated by a single incident caused by an unknown provocateur. Riots reminiscent of 1968, met with counter-riots and violent activity. Cries and public outcry for peace, and an ultimate public demand for safety from rioters...a demand for signficant government intervention, and ultimately the institution of martial law.
Look to the inactivity around the economy....look to the inactivity on the oilspill. All they have to do is sneak into an event and foment violence to precipitate the problem, then damn the solution to that violence with faint resolution. It;s being done now...it will be done then.
This, my friends, is The Big Bang Cloward-Piven Theory. And hate is its engine.

Immigration, Socialism and Racial Hatred.

2010-08-14T15:51:00.001-07:00

In my series of posts that you will see, I'm going to inspect how hatred is being used, operationally, in the march to socialism/communism. I wrote a few days ago about how hatred was the only means that those who would rather see social equality exist than success and failure, how it is only that pesky Constitution that stands between that relatively small cabal of power brokers who would enslave virtually everyone in mediocrity, to ensure their own supremacy.
I am of the firm belief that, right now as we speak, a plan is being hatched to goad mainstream conservative folks into rhetoric and action that is based on racial hatred. This is being accomplished by a sophisticated Progressive movement schooled in Alinsky theory and steeped in the recent successes of that age-old favorite, the Cloward-Piven Theory. But make no mistake about it, the hatebaiting that is ging on is being fueled by a small but virulent segment of the Conservative side, that hated first. In this, both sides are wrong. Wrong from a Judeo-Christian perspective, and an American Constitutional perspective. I don't know where the chicken lies nor where the egg lies, but as the son of a chicken farmer, I can tell you this: The henhouse stinks.
And I want to preface what I say by sharing that, in my heart, the heart that grew up in the 50's and 60's, in the heart that was saved so many miles away by a black SFC, who sacrificed his to save so many...in a heart that watched Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King struggle for things I was given without asking...in a heart that watched a talented black soldier from a small school in the Bronx become Chairman of the Joint Chiefs...and in the heart who watched a President play on his land in Texas with his neices and nephews who had brown skin...in that heart I was glad to see a man with at least part African heritage become President. It was the wrong man...not for his color or features, but for his beliefs. But he proved to me we were better than those who came before us.
Now, in two short years since we proved to the world that race didn't matter, we are careening wildly back into a world where race truly matters. My God, my God, my GOD...it's so wrong. At the very alter that our national reverence for difference was being strengthened...now it is being destroyed. Why would we begin to hate all immigrants because SOME entered illegally? Weren't we all immigrants once? Why are we beginning to hate people of color in general when it is a precious few who have re-taken the mantle of Black Panther hatred up? Weren't we all minorities once? Why are we moving so surely to the hatred of all Muslims, when it is some very visible and murderous ones who would hurt us? Weren't we all religious miscreants when we arrived on these sho res?
Why are we so readily, yet so subtley, agreeing to put aside the spirit of our Constitution, a spirit of inclusion and respect, and so readily allow its replacement with motivation based in hatred?
C ertainly not because we are thoughtless, nor stupid. Certainly not because we are racist, at our national core, nor consumed with hate. Certainly not because we have become the willing subjects of a Hitler, or a Stalin, or a Mao Tse Tung.
We are doing so because we are being baited into anger by a small group of powerful people who have not a smidgeon of the conscience you have, and proved it by caring enough to read my rantings.
You see, the immigration issue is a ruse. It's a bold attempt to anger mainstream America, that their hard earned money is being spent to feed and clothes intruders. It is designed to fuel long dormant racial stereotypes and bring forth old hard feelings, to be used in ways that profit neither blacks nor whites, latinos nor anglos....That hatred will be the fuel used for the loss of your voice in your future, the loss of your votes and the loss of your speech. The loss of your guns and the loss of your ability to rise up against tyranny. In its' place will be a sytem that ensures that no one will be successful enough to control those who put it in place. We will all truly be equal...black and white, latino and anglo, Muslim and Christian, Buddhist and Jew...equally powerless to stop a machine created, fueled and prospered by hate.
In our discussions...our political musings...in our policies and our day to day actions, let's celebrate legal i mmigration. Let's simpley demand that reasonable border security be maintained, and elect people who have a history of supporting that. Let's look beyond rhetoric. But let us never resort to hate as the fuel..the motivation for our actions. When hate becomes the currency or our national debate, we are no better than tyrants ourselves.