I cannot send any of my children to school without:
1) an official birth certificate
2) a full physical which includes medical history of any past and current conditions and medications prescribed by a physician.
Despite repeated and insistent requests to do so, neither have been furnished by Mr. Obama.
Or do the rules not apply to Mr. Obama?
JJC.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Sunday, November 30, 2008
America Lacks a Newspaper of Record
I was just on the Fox News website to forward them my recent affirmation of Pamela Geller's Fox News obituary when I noticed a headline on their site that the New York Times has called for the resignation of George W. Bush. The Times's indifference to the importance of Constitutional provisions about the transition of power is characteristic of an unimportant, fringe newsletter. In days gone past the opinion of the Times mattered to some. Today, I, like many others, do not read the Times because of its unreliablity and biased reporting. A corollary is that the newsletter's opinions are unimportant.
A large percentage of people who reside in America are not Americans. They are elite "Progressives" who, although having spent considerable sums on vacuous "education" at expensive colleges, are ignorant of basic American principles of individualism, freedom and virtue. Progressives are to the Americans what Mao Tse Tung's communists are to the French. Sadly, much as barbarians came to dominate the Roman army, Progressives have come to dominate American institutions. Americans need to think about how to reclaim their institutions from Progressive thugs.
The Times has done systematic harm to this country throughout its history. The harm it has done includes Walter Duranty's lying about Stalin's crimes in the 1930s, downplaying the holocaust, supporting Fidel Castro, supporting the overthrow of Diem (which led to American defeat in Vietnam), and consistently supporting inflationary Federal Reserve Bank policies which have led to extraction of wealth from wage earners and dollar savers (the lower middle class) in favor of a booming stock market, the wealthy, the Ochs Sulzbergers and their friends. The New York Times and its sycophants, such as William Greider, have used every lie in the book to enhance profits for money center banks and Wall Street.
The coming inflation, and there is one coming because of the banking system and the Federal Reserve Bank, will be in part the result of the New York Times's recent propaganda campaign about a "crisis" that led to a corrupt "bailout" and tripling of the money supply.
Similarly, the Times supports the inheritance tax, but does not support it for family trusts. The Ochs Sulzbergers, the owners and publishers of the Times, have dodged the inheritance tax for five generations, even as they urge it for younger, more nimble family-owned firms that might pose a threat to them and their family friends.
In short, the New York Times should be viewed as fringe or foreign newsletter. The fact that Republicans of any category continue to pay attention to it is a mistake.
A large percentage of people who reside in America are not Americans. They are elite "Progressives" who, although having spent considerable sums on vacuous "education" at expensive colleges, are ignorant of basic American principles of individualism, freedom and virtue. Progressives are to the Americans what Mao Tse Tung's communists are to the French. Sadly, much as barbarians came to dominate the Roman army, Progressives have come to dominate American institutions. Americans need to think about how to reclaim their institutions from Progressive thugs.
The Times has done systematic harm to this country throughout its history. The harm it has done includes Walter Duranty's lying about Stalin's crimes in the 1930s, downplaying the holocaust, supporting Fidel Castro, supporting the overthrow of Diem (which led to American defeat in Vietnam), and consistently supporting inflationary Federal Reserve Bank policies which have led to extraction of wealth from wage earners and dollar savers (the lower middle class) in favor of a booming stock market, the wealthy, the Ochs Sulzbergers and their friends. The New York Times and its sycophants, such as William Greider, have used every lie in the book to enhance profits for money center banks and Wall Street.
The coming inflation, and there is one coming because of the banking system and the Federal Reserve Bank, will be in part the result of the New York Times's recent propaganda campaign about a "crisis" that led to a corrupt "bailout" and tripling of the money supply.
Similarly, the Times supports the inheritance tax, but does not support it for family trusts. The Ochs Sulzbergers, the owners and publishers of the Times, have dodged the inheritance tax for five generations, even as they urge it for younger, more nimble family-owned firms that might pose a threat to them and their family friends.
In short, the New York Times should be viewed as fringe or foreign newsletter. The fact that Republicans of any category continue to pay attention to it is a mistake.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
The Natural Born Citizenship Clause Should Be Magnified
Dave Archbold has sent me a copy of an article by Sarah P. Herlihy that appeared in the Kent Law Review in which Ms. Herlihy argues that the natural born citizenship clause should be repealed.
I disagree for three reasons. First, the Founding Fathers correctly perceived that divided loyalties would threaten the impartiality of the chief executive. Second, although many debate the notion of American exceptionalism that goes back to John Winthrop's "City on a Hill" speech and Michel Guillaume Jean de Crèvecœur's (John Hector St. John's) Letters from an American Farmer, the framers were well aware that few in the world shared their liberal values. That continues to be the case. I do not think many born in Europe, Africa, South America or Asia understand liberalism, and consequently it would be an error to permit them to assume the role of chief executive.
Third, I would go further than Article II does. I think the Constitution needs to be revised, not to globalize America, but to separate the deviant, anti-American viewpoint in which many Americans have been inculcated. In other words, there needs to be a second liberal revolution that would involve either federalizing or completely separating the United States to free the liberal, American portion of the nation from the Progressive and anti-liberal. America is not one nation any more, and Herlihy's article illustrates why.
The American identity is unique because of ideology, not place of birth. Crèvecœur and Winthrop were both born overseas, yet they realized that the Colonies had a unique identity. This identity was in part related to the frontier and in part to the Lockean laisser faire philosophy of the Founders, which cannot be extricated from the Constitution or from the definition of the United States.
No one can be called an American who does not subscribe to the individualism of John Locke. Hence, I do not consider most academics, Progressives, nor most people born abroad to be legitimate Americans. They are to America as I would be to communist Cuba were I to be living there. Because of the sharp separation of ideological identity, America, which is an ideologically rooted nation, cannot continue to survive as a single entity.
I do not believe that Lockean liberalism is imparted to the majority of people in the world, and I do not believe that most Europeans, Asians or South Americans intuitively grasp those principles. Hence, they are not Americans. Nor do I believe that most members of the American "elite", educated in northeastern universities, are Americans. They are Progressive internationalists who do not share in the American vision and are ignorant of liberalism and the Founders' philosophy of freedom. Brainwashed in American progressive education-based schools, they have more likely read Communist Manifesto than Second Treatise on Government.
There needs to be a new federalism that wrenches power from the European-inspired Progressives and separates Americans from Progressives, permitting states to opt out of the declining Progressive anti-America.
In other words, I would prefer to separate this country into two or more confederations, leaving the Progressives to their own declining world and enabling Americans, those who believe in Lockean individualism, to establish a new Lockean society that will be dynamic, free and will dispense with the idiocies of northeastern universities.
I disagree for three reasons. First, the Founding Fathers correctly perceived that divided loyalties would threaten the impartiality of the chief executive. Second, although many debate the notion of American exceptionalism that goes back to John Winthrop's "City on a Hill" speech and Michel Guillaume Jean de Crèvecœur's (John Hector St. John's) Letters from an American Farmer, the framers were well aware that few in the world shared their liberal values. That continues to be the case. I do not think many born in Europe, Africa, South America or Asia understand liberalism, and consequently it would be an error to permit them to assume the role of chief executive.
Third, I would go further than Article II does. I think the Constitution needs to be revised, not to globalize America, but to separate the deviant, anti-American viewpoint in which many Americans have been inculcated. In other words, there needs to be a second liberal revolution that would involve either federalizing or completely separating the United States to free the liberal, American portion of the nation from the Progressive and anti-liberal. America is not one nation any more, and Herlihy's article illustrates why.
The American identity is unique because of ideology, not place of birth. Crèvecœur and Winthrop were both born overseas, yet they realized that the Colonies had a unique identity. This identity was in part related to the frontier and in part to the Lockean laisser faire philosophy of the Founders, which cannot be extricated from the Constitution or from the definition of the United States.
No one can be called an American who does not subscribe to the individualism of John Locke. Hence, I do not consider most academics, Progressives, nor most people born abroad to be legitimate Americans. They are to America as I would be to communist Cuba were I to be living there. Because of the sharp separation of ideological identity, America, which is an ideologically rooted nation, cannot continue to survive as a single entity.
I do not believe that Lockean liberalism is imparted to the majority of people in the world, and I do not believe that most Europeans, Asians or South Americans intuitively grasp those principles. Hence, they are not Americans. Nor do I believe that most members of the American "elite", educated in northeastern universities, are Americans. They are Progressive internationalists who do not share in the American vision and are ignorant of liberalism and the Founders' philosophy of freedom. Brainwashed in American progressive education-based schools, they have more likely read Communist Manifesto than Second Treatise on Government.
There needs to be a new federalism that wrenches power from the European-inspired Progressives and separates Americans from Progressives, permitting states to opt out of the declining Progressive anti-America.
In other words, I would prefer to separate this country into two or more confederations, leaving the Progressives to their own declining world and enabling Americans, those who believe in Lockean individualism, to establish a new Lockean society that will be dynamic, free and will dispense with the idiocies of northeastern universities.
We The People Publishes Full Page Chicago Tribune Ad Re BOCOLB
Bob Robbins has forwarded the following link to Count Us Out:
>Our full-page Open Letter to Mr. Obama will be published in the Chicago Tribune on both Monday, December 1, 2008 and Wednesday, December 3, 2008. It will appear in the main news section. Click here to view a copy of the final ad.
>...The Open Letter to Mr. Obama is a formal Petition for a Redress (Remedy) for the alleged violation of the “natural born citizen” clause of the Constitution of the United States of America.
>Mr. Obama is respectfully requested to direct the Hawaiian officials to provide access to his original birth certificate on December 5-7 by our team of forensic scientists
>...We are now in the process of selecting the forensic scientists who would travel to Hawaii to examine Mr. Obama’s original birth certificate...
In addition, Bob also forwarded Steady John's post on SteadyHabits.com
Steady John writes about the Obama dual citizenship issue. He writes:
"I will be writing here only about the issue of Barack Obama’s dual citizenship, acknowledged as fact on his website, because of his Kenyan Father’s status as a British subject."
Read the whole thing here.
>Our full-page Open Letter to Mr. Obama will be published in the Chicago Tribune on both Monday, December 1, 2008 and Wednesday, December 3, 2008. It will appear in the main news section. Click here to view a copy of the final ad.
>...The Open Letter to Mr. Obama is a formal Petition for a Redress (Remedy) for the alleged violation of the “natural born citizen” clause of the Constitution of the United States of America.
>Mr. Obama is respectfully requested to direct the Hawaiian officials to provide access to his original birth certificate on December 5-7 by our team of forensic scientists
>...We are now in the process of selecting the forensic scientists who would travel to Hawaii to examine Mr. Obama’s original birth certificate...
In addition, Bob also forwarded Steady John's post on SteadyHabits.com
Steady John writes about the Obama dual citizenship issue. He writes:
"I will be writing here only about the issue of Barack Obama’s dual citizenship, acknowledged as fact on his website, because of his Kenyan Father’s status as a British subject."
Read the whole thing here.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
