Calderón's Address to Congress: Mockery of the People's House

While it is not without nearly equal mockeries by our own supposed representatives, specifically those mockeries committed by President Soetoro, Governor Rick Perry, Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and Senator Ted Kennedy, the recent presence of Mexican President Calderón in our House of Representatives clearly shows that our Congress should update their self-set rules to disallow foreigners and their officials from taking our legislative floors and wasting our elected representatives' time, at least without immediate, personal supervision by the President. Though, that didn't seem to bother Pelosi, who was all aglow just to be in the vicinity of such a 'progressive' leader.

Indeed, President Soetoro was, as he said, "... extraordinarily honored as we host you."

<sarcasm>
And oh, how our Congress cheered the man... nay, not man, for he is more than a man, he is a Mexican in America, the most celebrated form of human life! They cheered him most when he rebuked the foolish assertion of Arizona's sovereignty, for what is a state but a mere agent of the President, a servant of the collective will?



How they applauded his stalwart response to the Second Amendment to our Constitution, in demanding ("...with all due respect...") for the return of the Assault Weapons Ban!



Of course, an "assault weapon" is little more than a gun that can fire twice without reloading the magazine, so banning them would be like destroying the firearms business, which would not only harm the economy and jobs, but it would also eliminate our right to keep and bear arms, which does not exist in Mexico, which is why Mexico is run by people who keep and bear arms as well as drugs, who are also assisted by the corrupt Mexican government, which is run by Calderón, but let's not let that get in the way of Congress's love and admiration of our bondsman, because we are not defined by our national borders, we are defined by the the bonds of North America - Canada to our north and Mexico to our south, our mutual bondsmen:



</sarcasm>



I think every self-respecting American representative present at that speech by the President of Mexico should have shouted, "Shame!" at the disgusting display of disrespect to our national sovereignty and American integrity. The Mexican President wore a Mexican flag pin on his lapel, which would be, as far as I know, the only time a flag other than an American flag was displayed in our legislature; and I hope there is no precedent of a foreign symbol being seen in the People's House, be it the symbol of ally or enemy; nor should there be any foreign dignitary other than one Presidentially escorted into the building and constantly supervised until his departure.

What a disgrace to our sovereignty, a shame to those who applauded it, and another unheeded alarm to the American people.

(Mild language due to primal rage near the end:)



And, by the way, I took the time (approx. 10 minutes), to read through the entire Arizonan immigration law, SB 1070, and there is special provision to ensure there is no racial discrimination against anyone; and even if there is abuse of the law by cops, there is abuse of the Constitution every day, so why should we be so afraid? Because it hinders someone's agenda.

Rand Paul's Non-Racism

In a move that we should all have seen coming, the Left has created a major controversy from thin air to try to sink Rand Paul's image. In what I see as an attempt to get Conservatives to denounce the libertarian Paul, as opposed to the usual paradigmatic strategy of party-line division, they have falsified, misrepresented, and literally lied not only about what Rand Paul meant but also about what he actually said.


The headline on Wolf Blitzer's CNN interview with Paul stated, "Rand Paul Defends Views on Race," subtitled, "Would he have voted for 1964 Civil Rights Act?"

There is no 'dirt' on Paul; there are no closet-dwelling skeletons, no alcohol-induced scandals, and no birth certificate/college record debate. So, the logical thing to do, as a radical, Socialist Conquistador of American media and politics, is to make something up.

Sly In The Morning Blog: Rand Paul: Repeal Civil Rights Act

... "Paul might not be a racist but he's certainly making the most bigoted members of the tea bagger movement happy. Do you think any Wisconsin Republicans who claim to be tea party members will come out against Paul's purist positions?"

They are calling for Republicans and Tea Partiers to denounce him as a racist, when all he said was that (paraphrasing) he agrees with nine-tenths of the Civil Rights Act, and the part he disagrees with concerns opening the door to meddling in private businesses' affairs, which would possibly lead to shutting down the First Amendment. Like that hasn't happened.



Every arm of the media, left- and right-leaning, immediately jumped on this non-story of his non-racist views on the Civil Rights Act, saying he needed to explain himself, that he was in trouble, that he was drawing a lot of criticism. Well, he wasn't before you said he was.

And, in the end, it all goes back to the cult of racism in America, which they will never let die. Perpetuating the focus on multiple races negates the idea of the 'melting pot' of America. Why can't we become colorblind? Why can't America be defined by its borders, rather than the skin color of its citizens? Why must the Civil Rights Act be the rallying cry of Collectivism instead of Individualism?

More on this to come, I'm sure.

Flags, Freedoms, and a Cup of Tea

A note: minor correction to my previous post, "Commentary coming longly." Sorry for the wait, peeps.

Our rights are inherent, that is, God-given, therefore the Bill of Rights gives us nothing but a guarantee that there are boundaries which the federal government will not cross. That guarantee stands to this day, whether those who now sit in the very offices which facilitated the creation of the greatest document of representative government in the world, the United States Constitution, will honor it or not.

As President Soetoro might say, with thumb and index finger firmly joined, "let me be clear": the Constitution is valid, the Bill of Rights is valid, the Second Amendment is valid, and they are valid as written.

We now approach the two hundred and thirty-fifth anniversary of the battles of Lexington and Concord; the nineteenth of this month will probably be remembered with greater significance than in previous years due to the unmistakable tension of all domestic political and economic issues coming to a head. This strife has been thrust upon the Freedom-loving people of America to an extent unparalleled in the known history of the western hemisphere.

Historically speaking, the menial enslavement of Africans overshadows the brutality capable by governments in the modern day, but the requirements and strangleholds of this government over the whole people, not secluded to one group, presents a far more dangerous form of slavery over a man's well-being and individuality, as it is undeclared, misunderstood, and invisible to many of its own victims. It causes no scarring beyond that of generational theft, and incurs no suffering beyond that of endless debt; like a virus, it is invisible yet deadly if left untreated. I have heard all too often, "America is still the greatest country in the world, and nothing can change that, so enjoy the freedoms you still have." Blind and irresponsible.

The American Revolution was said at the time to not be for light or transient causes. The conditions the U.S. government now places over its subjects are much more injurious to our lives, liberties, and pursuits of our own definitions of happiness than the British monarchy could have reasonably conceived at the time of its rule over this continent.

Our collective answer to this usurpation has been lackadaisical and disrespectful to those who fought and died in the Revolution, and it is disrespectful to God, whom I would suspect is disappointed that a country, which was an impressive embassy to the world for His Kingdom, is now in such a state of disrepair and sinfulness.

Indeed, what is our current course of action in reaction to the hardcore tyranny now upon us? Tea parties - the original namesake of which had means far different from the modern rallies across America. Modern tea parties require you to stand outside with people who are more or less agreed that the country is in ruin (or "about to be", in the case of many who know little of what the state of our country truly is), but the first tea party was protesting a particular tax on tea, an exorbitant and unreasonable tax, so the Boston Tea Party involved the active destruction of British shipments of tea in Boston Harbor.

Take a moment to think about the comparisons between the first tea party and the tea parties of today.

The reasons are the same, more or less, the goals are pretty close, but the method is the biggest difference. It was an impressive, economic blow to the monarchy and merchants of Britain to destroy their valuable property, and it was quite effective, as the despotic reaction from Britain further galvanized the people against Britain, and eventually, though quite belatedly, caused the repeal of the tax. Modern tea parties in the major cities, the ones with all the press, usually involve standing, sign holding, chanting catchy slogans and puns, making YouTube videos, and inviting career politicians to come speak and use all manner of patriotic key-phrases and key-terms to snatch as many votes as possible to ride on the unpopular coattails of the Democrats. There are no solutions or remedies in that, my friends.

Now, as you know, the legislature of my state of Kansas has just passed their version of the Firearms Freedom Act, which states any firearm made in Kansas is exempt from federal authority. This is good, but it is also somewhat humorous that no one makes firearms in Kansas. Reasonable gun laws are now within reach for Kansans, as the more locally minded Kansan legislature may now establish our own laws that will specify the regulatory authority of the government's place in the people's right to keep and bear arms

The Second Amendment is a big issue today, and there is currently a drive on the parts of many people right now to send Gadsden flags to President Soetoro and others to warn them that the people will not give up their guns willingly. This, in my opinion, is pointless. If we could have sent King George III a million Gadsden flags back in 1775, do you suppose he would have stopped his reign of terror? No, because tyrants only understand force. I think President Soetoro and his company are overjoyed that their grand scheme of subversion of all things American is being resisted by tea parties and mail-in campaigns. What a coup, indeed.

You may have seen the repeated showings of a clip of Soetoro denouncing Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh for being so "troublesome", saying that they're confusing people about the issues. This was an absolutely classic example of a not so easily recognizable trick for lessening the effects of unrest and dissolution, and that is to falsely prop up the weakest element of resistance as the strongest, thus enticing the people into supporting a failing plan of action. In this instance, Glenn Beck, who recently compared Thomas Paine to himself (no, not the other way around), is paired with Rush Limbaugh, who is the darling of the Spineless Puppet Party Republican Party; with their forces combined, they may take this nation back from those nasty-wasty Democrats and give it back to the freedom-loving, trustworthy, and moral Republicans.

Boycott the Superbowl

Comments on Modern Interpretations of the Separation of Church and State

From WorldNetDaily:
"OK for 63 years, now Jesus in manger gets dumped
Privately sponsored scene victim of 'separation of church, state'"

"John Satawa's family has displayed a nativity scene on a street median in Warren, Mich., virtually every Christmas season since 1945, but following an intimidating letter sent by the Freedom from Religion Foundation, Satawa's county has put stop to the 63-year-old tradition.

The Wisconsin-based Freedom from Religion Foundation proclaims its purpose in the letter to the Road Commission of Macomb County was to 'protect the fundamental constitutional principle of separation of church and state.'"

I hate to break it to you, WND and friends, but Jesus didn't get dumped out of the manger, as Jesus wasn't on the median in Michigan. That was a fake. Not real.

And I hate to break it to you, Freedom from Religion Foundation, you don't have the Constitutional point you think you do. Close, but no cigar... or whatever it is you've been smoking.

Firstly, I don't see the big deal about Jesus being a baby, anyway. Oddly, "Baby Jesus" has much more importance and appeal than the "Son of God" in our culture. This is probably due to the baubles and toys associated with the statuettes of unclothed children in December, as opposed to that whole "eternal life" and morality deal with the actual Jesus Christ. Who wants that? *raises hand*

So, the idea of "nativity scenes" has me scratching my Xmas-bashing noggin, but it was a free country, so you can do whatever you want.

The other side of this is the FRF's point about a separation of church and state, the ideology of which, in its original sense, I strongly agree. Now, these people seem to think the First Amendment, which states, in part, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...," somehow becomes, "No person is allowed to freely exercise their religion in public."

While I don't see how putting a nativity scene in public is exercising one's religion, I also don't see how it harms anyone, unless the case is made that it is an obstruction, distraction, etc.

The First Amendment really applies nowhere here, in my opinion.

This is different from my opinion concerning, say, public prayer, which is absolutely protected, even if the act is being done by a civil servant. No matter what religion, including that of Secularism, there can be no Congressional law abridging or preferring it. Congress is to abstain from all matters regarding religion.

Under the 10th Amendment, the door is open for decisions by governments both state and local, or by the people. Being a member of the latter group, in the event of a Muslim exercising his right to pray publicly, I would use my right to free speech to discuss and argue my points concerning the fallibility of his religion, and promote my own. No federal court case needed.

The Czar-Mangled Banner

Ugly, but legal.

World Net Daily has posted on this story about these flags being sold on eBay, pondering the possible legal action for defacing the flag, but it is fruitless.

First off, the U.S. Flag Code is one of the few federal laws that really is a suggestion. There is no penalty for violations of the code, save for a few state or local ordinances, which usually include fines.

Here's the deal: if the people making these flags are manufacturing them themselves, instead of buying the flags and silk-screening Herr Obama's face on the canton, then there is no violation; if it don't have fifty stars, it ain't a U.S. flag, and is thus exempt from the restrictions of the code.

It's a whole other story if they are truly defacing U.S. flags, but like I said, the penalties would be subject to the local law enforcement's discretion.

The dimensions of the flag are also important. The flag pictured, I would hazard to guess, is about 3:5 and the U.S. flag is defined as being 10:19; that, too, is important.

What would it mean if one flew that flag upside-down, I wonder...

Swine Flu Shot: 99% Snake Oil

I make it a point to avoid posting as little profanity or impolite language as possible. I know that sort of thing doesn't bother many people, but it bothers me, and I feel responsible for anything I put on my blog.

That said, the following video contains a "looped" clip which contains the brief phrase, "Just get your d--- vaccine!" This is replayed continuously throughout the video. I post this video regardless of this, as the information it otherwise holds is invaluable for anyone considering a swine flu shot.



This video contains an interview with Kathleen Sebelius (that's "seb-EEL-ee-us", not "sebel-I-us"), who was Governor of Kansas for as long as I've lived here until she was appointed HHS Secretary by Obama.

Her reptilian face continues to disgust me.

Which of These Does Not Fit? II

In a previous post, I asked my readers to see if they could find the video that didn't belong. This was really a multiple answer question, and if you got it, congrats: you are a rational person!

All of the buildings in the videos, with one exception, were controlled demolitions; but one was peculiar, and another was of importance due to the peculiar one.

Introducing the "Saloman Brothers Building", more popularly known as "World Trade Center Building 7":



Looks pretty well conclusive that it was deliberately demolished, doesn't it? Not according to the government. You see, this video was taken in New York City, on September 11th, 2001. Yes, 9/11.

What's the significance? The 9/11 Commission Report (web-search it if you don't know what it is) says it collapsed due to fire. Even though it is a modern, steel-structured building, used by the CIA, it is only the third such building to ever collapse due to fire; the first two were the Twin Towers.

Okay then, if they said it collapsed due to fire, by golly, it collapsed due to fire!

What about the last video in the aforementioned post?

Introducing the "Mandarin Hotel" of China:



Look at the fires of Building 7, then look at this fire. Big diff.

Why didn't the hotel implode into its own footprint like Building 7?

Now, "debunkers of the conspiracy theorists" would tell us that there was severe damage to WTC 7 due to the collapse of the Twin Towers, and that also caused its perfect implosion. They cite this chart:



Okay, yeah, WTC7 was in the zone, huh?

What about WTC6 on the chart? See it? That puppy must have just been obliterated!



Hmm. The building had WTC1 literally fall on it, but it didn't even collapse.

Hmm. Does this make me crazy?

Illegals Won't Get Coverage, Eh?

"President Obama said this week that his health care plan won't cover illegal immigrants, but argued that's all the more reason to legalize them and ensure they eventually do get coverage.

'Even though I do not believe we can extend coverage to those who are here illegally, I also don't simply believe we can simply ignore the fact that our immigration system is broken,' Mr. Obama said Wednesday evening in a speech to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute. 'That's why I strongly support making sure folks who are here legally have access to affordable, quality health insurance under this plan, just like everybody else.'

Mr. Obama added, 'If anything, this debate underscores the necessity of passing comprehensive immigration reform and resolving the issue of 12 million undocumented people living and working in this country once and for all.'"

~Washington Times

So, when Obama was calling anyone who says illegals will be covered is a liar, and Joe Wilson shouted, "You lie!", the outrage over the latter statement was... astroturf? Apparently, because Obama is admittedly planning to legalize the illegals for the purpose of covering them under Obamacare.

Mr. President, you lie!

H1N1 Shot Poll

Found this at Politically Confused; at the top of the post, click the link to the "mainstream news site", and a little less than halfway down the page on the right is where you'll find the poll.

Vote, if you would, and tell me what you selected.

A very interesting topic, that H1N1 shot, so you might poke that link about doctors in Britain refusing the shot as well.

Sean Hannity's "Victory" List: NSA

In a list of items enumerating Sean Hannity's ideas for an ideal political party and its ideal candidate, under the heading, "To be the party of National security," was found the following clause, second in the list:

"...Fully support NSA, Patriot act, tough interrogations, keeping Gitmo open."

Hannity apparently "fully supports" the National Security Agency, whose reputation has been repeatedly besmirched by whistleblowers concerned with the agency's lack of self-control when it comes to respecting Americans' privacy.

Thomas Tamm is one of those whistleblowers. As a former lawyer in the Department of Justice's Office of Intelligence Policy and Review, he was inadevertantly placed in a position of supporting top secret, unconstitutional wiretapings and interceptions of private American's emails, or blowing the whistle on an admittedly "illegal project" within the federal government.

Tamm sided with the Constitution, and he literally sneaked around "like a spy" to get to a payphone in order to contact The New York Times with his information. Others came forward to confirm Tamm's story, and, more than a year afterwards, The New York Times finally ran the story. Tamm resigned in 2006, and his home has since been raided by the FBI, his family interrogated, and his personal property confiscated. The full account may be read at Newsweek.

So, Sean Hannity, who will not rule out a Presidential run in 2012, would like this to continue. Afterall, we are supposed to be afraid of those cavement in Afghanistan and Iraq, right?

Think he'd make a good President? More on this later.

Invisible Empire: A New Tool in the Information War

Found at Tennesee Sons of Liberty. Contains brief footage from Kennedy's assassination, so viewer discretion is advised.



A newcomer to the Information War, Invisible Empire, created by the same people that made Endgame and The Obama Deception, looks to be a very informational and interesting chronicling of our times and how we got here. This preview contains much of a speech by John Fitzgerald Kennedy, who was, I believe, our last true President.

In this Information War, there are many selfless men who have placed their lives and fortunes in harm's way to help our side win, which is the side of goodness and humanity; I feel there is no such thing as a "small part" in this InfoWar. These are the "InfoWarriors".

I am a Christian, and am not so much required as I am compelled by my Faith to warn and help direct my fellow Christians and fellow man toward Saving Knowledge. I am as incapable of saving as I am incapable of leading to that end, as I can merely help. Wretchedly as I do this, I try.

I would see a person as a miserable creature, lower than dust, if they did not grab a man by the arm who did not see the bus speeding down the road, or did not warn that family next door, who had no means of communication, that a tornado had just touched down nearby.

So, too, would I hold equally as miserable a creature that slapped the helping hand off of his arm, or laughed at the man that warned of imminent danger, who, not caring to save his own family, would rather not entertain such an "impossibility".

I make no career of warning the masses; perhaps I should, but I do not. I see well-versed men taking up that role, putting aside their daily lives and lessening their time with their families; being so wrapped-up in saving our nation that they hardly have a life left for themselves. I help these men disseminate information when I can, this blog being a tool of that, and I ask you to do the same.

There was a time, during our country's beginnings, when men would drop their plows and pocketbooks and sign up to fight for a season while their country was at war. Some signed on with the Regulars as a permanent arm of military might; had every man joined the Regulars, though, there wouldn't have been men left at home to create a cultivated, well-kept, plenteous country worth the fight.

I am no InfoWarrior; perhaps, though, I am an InfoMilitiaman.

Why not investigate what you do not know to be fact? Why, instead of saying, "There is no 'New World Order'," do you not look into it for yourself? Why, instead of listening to men on TV tell you to believe or not believe something because you should trust them, do you not question that trust and investigate their claims?

"These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." ~Acts 17:11

Curfews: The Tyranny of Twilight

"Seeking to curb violence after a spate of deadly summer shootings, Paterson officials are considering an unusual ordinance that would prevent people of all ages from gathering outside in public late at night. The measure could be the nation’s first citywide, non-emergency curfew to include adults, several experts said.

'We’re trying to think outside the box,' said Mayor Jose Torres. 'This was triggered predominantly by fear among city residents over the shootings that have been occurring this summer.'” ~Huffington Post

Possibly the most skulking kind of tyranny, the power to regulate the hours when a man may step outside his home is eerie and indicative of a greatly perverted government. This power of curfew is accepted in many towns and cities for children, as the lack of parents in this country leads to a "problem-reaction-solution" of government intervention. I remind our governments - local and otherwise - that it is not their duty to parent our children, nor their power to parent us.

The problem in Paterson, New Jersey, seems to be the rash of gang-related shootings, but New Jersey has some of the most ridiculous gun laws in this Union of States; how can there be so many shootings in such a "safe" society?

And now, these residents are possibly facing the "tyranny of twilight", as anyone found assembling with others outside at night will be punished, should this proposal go through. This is in blatant violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution, which states Americans have the right to peaceably assemble. These are trying times, indeed.

"Those who suppress freedom always do so in the name of law and order."
~John V. Lindsay

O, We Privileged Few

According to this news report about public housing in Missouri, "...the House Financial Services Committee adopted an amendment to allow guns in public housing projects."

"Allow"? What do you mean by "allow"? How can a right be "allowed"?

A right cannot be "allowed", but a privilege can; that is exactly what Americans are indoctrinated to believe. Take for example the oft used phrase,"Driving is a privilege, not a right." What makes it a privilege? Why are we required to purchase licenses and permits for so many things? Concealed Carry Permits are supposed to be a hard-won victory by the American gun owner, despite some areas of the country revoking them, yet is it now necessary to buy one's rights from the government?

This fits right along side Sotomayor's confirmation hearing, in which, during the opening remarks by Senators, one Democrat mentioned "the right to bear arms" in a list of laws that are less than clear in their possible interpretations.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." ~Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Such ambiguity! There is, for some strange reason, so much debate over this sentence that the same offices that once instated this law, under new management, now reject it.

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry
ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect
the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning
may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the
probable one in which it was passed." ~Thomas Jefferson

I have carried myself back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, I have recollected the spirit manifested in the debates, and I have conformed to the probable meaning in which it was passed.

And, in so doing, I hold to be a truth that the Second Amendment does not grant the right for individual, private citizens to keep and bear firearms without government interference on any level; rather, the Second Amendment guarantees it! No legislation can, by definition, grant any right, only declare it; rights lay dormant in every human being; nation, creed, or gender notwithstanding. One merely needs to exercise their rights for them to be made manifest.

Today, the intense corruption in our government has eroded beyond recognition our right to keep and bear arms, and we now subscribe to privileges, that may be regulated at a whim by a majority of non-representatives.

I now refer you to a spewing forth of opinion, left on a newspaper's website by an author unknown, the topic being a local ban on smoking in public. The full quote as written follows:

"It's a privelige.  Most of everything you have and do is not a right... Did anyone in Emporia actually finish school?"

This is the product of over one hundred years of compromising our standards and rights to appease tyrants and their misled progeny. The National Rifle Association, for instance, prides itself on compromise, and its members never question the fact that compromise includes "giving-in" from both sides of an argument.

I would suggest that our supposed privileges are few and far between, yet our rights are so many, that they border on being innumerable. We must stop compromising our freedom away, or we will face the consequences of tyrannies that are already upon us. Privileges are for subjects, but rights are for a free people.

Hate Crimes: More Political than Correctness

I certainly hope America will not be taking any political prisoners, as Attorney General Eric Holder wants.

Scenario 1: A man walks into a store and punches someone else. The man is caught, tried, and imprisoned for assault. And, in a sane world, he is put away for a long time.

Scenario 2: A man walks into a store and punches someone else. The man is caught, tried, found to be white supremacist, and is given a much stiffer sentence, because the man he punched had a different skin tone.

Is this the "blind justice" our nation has subscribed to for the past two centuries? The "blind justice" that ended the precedent of people being denied certain rights due to skin tone?

The given scenarios are sloppy and brief, as I didn't want to delve too deeply into the justice system, but this is what will happen in a system incorporating "hate crimes".

But, hate crimes are not just meant for so-called "race-related" incidents, but one's political beliefs in general.

"Hate crimes" will bring about the institution of politics into our justice system, something that must not happen. It is too easily turned against true conservatives, the people the government now calls "terrorists".

It is wrong to harm other people, and you must be duly punished if you do, but government's enhancement of punishment due to politics is also wrong; it mimics Nazism, really.

I am reminded of the famous political allegory Animal Farm:

"All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others." The last line was added by an illegitimate government of swine, vying for more power by tweaking existing laws.

If you kill someone, because you hate them, isn't that also a "hate crime"?

If you harm another person, whether for their money, or you don't like their politics, or their hair, or their clothes, or the way they drive, you should be punished with equal justice, under the law.

If a Muslim, even an extremist Muslim, walks into a recruiting center and shoots a soldier, he should be punished with the same severity as if he wasn't a Muslim. And the penalty for murder should always be terribly severe, no matter what the circumstances.

That is the American way, and that is the Godly way. To do otherwise is... un-American and un-Godly.

May Your Chains Set Lightly Upon You

I will, for the sake of decency and privacy, withhold the name of the blogger that posted this, but I would like to share the conversation I had with him concerning what he posted on his blog about the FBI monitoring U.S. mosques:

"I, for one, am glad that we are monitoring the mosques in the United States. We did the same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it worked.

I wouldn't care if people were in my church if there was something horrible in which parishioners or attendees were formulating or participating.

A few things:

1. We know that individuals in the United States that practice Islam are raising funds to provide money for international terrorism.

2. Some people in this country use the cover of freedom of religion as a blank check to do whatever they want, and I'm not just talking about supporting terrorism. It happens in every religion.

3. I'm tired of hearing whining from that cabal, CAIR. That group needs to grab the ACLU under one arm, pick a direction and start traveling until they've crossed the U.S. border. Canada is a good place for them."

I commented:

"I couldn't agree with you less.

I will not now, nor will I ever, defend the Islamic religion, but do you think the Federal Government will only spy on mosques?

We already know this administration's definition of "terrorist", and if we condone spying on Americans ANYWHERE, we are allowing the precedent to be set that they can spy on us EVERYWHERE.

I don't care if they spy on people in Iraq or Afghanistan, because those people don't have the freedom of privacy, nor do they seem to want it; but when we are giving the Federal Government carte blanche to spy on us, a power not granted them in the Constitution, I think we've finally lost our mind as a nation."

He responded:

"Firstly, Son3, they aren't actually spying on the mosques. They are listening to individuals.

As for their definition of terrorism, we know that definition is unpopular. They cannot put a new face on that which is already out there. If you aren't doing anything wrong, what do you care?

They are not tapping wires and they aren't in the edifice with a recorder, so lets get that idea out of our heads. There are people in this country that want to do this country bad things. Muller (FBI Director) is not one of these people."

I thought this a good subject to post about, since this is a very important, hot button issue today, on which everyone holds an opinion.

The FBI is engaging in undercover spying. Call it "listening to individuals" if you want, but unless you're listening (with the intent of information gathering) from a pew, or whatever Muslims have, with an FBI blazer on, you're spying.

I really don't know what "tapping wires" or being "in the edifice with a recorder" has to do with anything, or why we should "get that out of our heads", but isn't there something wrong in this country when we defend the Fed's unlawful activities, including spying on us without our knowledge? That's not the America I read about in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence; maybe they have something like that in China or Russia, but not in my country.

This blogger referred to the MIAC Report's definition of terrorist as "unpopular". You think? If you are openly against the murder of babies and are thus a terrorist, I would hope that it's a little more than "unpopular"! I would also hope talking about the Constitution being considered "terrorist activity" is an "unpopular" position as well!

"If you aren't doing anything wrong, what do you care?"

This was the most frightening of all that he said; the classic phrase used by a sheep living in a society run by wolves.

Define "wrong".

Is "wrong" talking about the Constitution? Is it being against murder? Is it displaying the Gadsden Flag? Is it supporting a certain Presidential candidate?

Those things are the definition of "wrong" in this government's dictionary; and that being the case, I do care! I do all of those things, so I have something to worry about.

"Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death." ~Adolf Hitler

In February of 1933, Adolf Hitler caused his own Reichstag building to be burned down, blamed it on the Communists, and then arrested all Communists in Germany, even though Hitler's supposed patsy said he acted alone.

Hitler's administration claimed the Communists were planning a putsch, and used this excuse to suspend nearly all civil liberties in Germany; the fire directly caused the unchallenged rise of the Nazi party.

Being afraid of the cavemen terrorists is causing the American people to legitimize the Fed's unlawful attempt at subversion of the U.S. Constitution; and when American Conservatives, such as this blogger claims to be, promote the government's unlawful infringements on American's rights, they are no longer true Conservatives.


"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home."

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."

"Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad."

~James Madison

We are supposed to fear cavemen in Iraq and Afghanistan, and because we fear them, we will give anything to keep safe from them, even our most basic right to privacy.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." ~Samuel Adams

Provocateurs Pollute Protests, Posing as Peacful 'til They Pelt Police; Plus, Punks in Plymouth Plan to Pummel People with Plastic Playthings

(Preface: nothing here is April Fools stuff; I hold myself to a higher standard than that.)

The G20, an internationalist attempt at creating all the conditions and setting all the precedents of Global Governance, has its share of protests in Britain.

As you probably know, the protests are in full swing; and I say, "Right on!"

Because here's the thing, while I'm not an anarchist, which some of the protesters may be, I stand for the well-known saying, "Government governs best which governs least."

So, of course, I am absolutely committed to the permanent adjournment of any form of world government or even a semi-permanent international assembly.

I am therefore with the protesters on this one, as humans are endowed by their creator with the inalienable right of assembly and the right for a redress of grievances.

Now, to the meat of the issue.

It is no secret or "conspiracy theory" that the government, be it Great Britain, the U.S., or Canada, is against any protests and will do anything to stop them.

It has been thoroughly documented that there are, planted amongst the crowd, "agents provocateurs".

These are police or other governmental entities that have disguised themselves as protesters for the purpose of provoking violence from the crowd, though in some documented cases they simply gathering intelligence on who it is that is organizing and comprising the protests; they also have the purpose of demonizing the actual, peaceful protesters, who are then assumed to be violent by the media, who then demonize their message.

Provocateurs are being increasingly found out, such as was the case with the SPP protests in Canada, and the DNC protests in Colorado.

In the SPP's case, the protesters realized that the masked men throwing rocks at police, attempting to instigate a riot, were indeed policemen themselves, and thus tried to pull off their masks and expose them as such.

The provocateurs then sidled up to the police line and whispered a few words to one of the police in riot gear, who then "arrested" them and took them out of view.

The people exposing this outrage were called liars and conspiracy theorists for saying this, until the videos came out proving it.

In the similar case of the DNC, the Denver Police Department later admitted that they were indeed policemen, and it was all a planned operation.

Didn't hear that in the news, did you?

I would include the raw footage of the SPP protest which is available on YouTube, but it contains brief language; this news report will suffice:



This is what to expect from the G20 protests, undoubtedly.

The police have already "uncovered a terrorist plot" against the G20 in Plymouth.

This plot was set to be so devastating that they had to bring in bomb disposal experts to disarm the plotters.

The five people, three men, aged 25, 19, and 16, plus two women, both 20, were apparently planning to raid the G20 with their expert knowledge of firearms and explosives. They are being held on terrorism charges.

Actually, that was yesterday's news, as it has since been discovered that their "arsenal" consisted of plastic cap-guns, and their "explosives" were actually fireworks; not to mention the "extremist material" which was also confiscated turned out to be writings "relating to political ideology".

This is sad, people.

So, please, whenever you see violent political protests, don't be so quick to judge the protesters there, because they may just be hijacked by policemen provocateurs.

(NOTICE: The moderator would once again wish to assure the reader that nothing in this post has anything to do with the antics of April 1st. The moderator does not advocate violent protests, as that's poor delivery of one's message. Neither does the moderator advocate storming meetings with cap-guns, as that really doesn't do anything, and fireworks are just pretty; except those stupid, boring snakes that don't make any noise or do anything but inflate into giant lengths of ash. That's probably what the Plymouth Plotters had for explosives, anyway: boring snakes. Sometimes cap-guns can be dangerous, as the little red strips of paper can catch on fire, causing copious amounts of smoke that can get in your eyes and nostrils and can be irritating. Actually, I just wanted to use the word "copious". There is also a strong smell of sulfur in the air that is sometimes appealing, as it smells like victory, especially when fighting imaginary Indians; though, it does nothing to bankers. "Mercy! They have cap-guns and fireworks! God Save the Queen!"

What's Congress been up to Lately?

This occurred on March 13th of 2008; strange how we never heard anything about it.

Congressmen were also at a later date individually threatened by unnamed entities with the possibility of imminent economic catastrophe and martial law if they did not pass the first $700,000,000,000.00 bailout bill.

"All the public business in Congress now connects itself with intrigues, and there is great danger that the whole government will degenerate into a struggle of cabals."

~John Quincy Adams

Executing the Laws II

"As we reported yesterday, the Marine Corps Air and Ground Combat Center has dispatched uniformed and presumably armed (we have no confirmation of the latter) soldiers to assist the California Highway Patrol (CHP) in the operation of unconstitutional sobriety checkpoints in San Bernardino County, California, the largest county in California and the country (San Bernardino County is directly east of Los Angeles)." ~Infowars.com (Emphasis mine.)

This is in gross violation of the laws of this nation. This injustice only stands as proof of the blatant disregard for all law by those we would call "Authorities".

Firstly, on the issue of sobriety checkpoints in general, the random and warrantless searches of lawful American motorists' persons and private property without probable cause is undoubtedly illegal.

The 4th Amendment in the Bill of Rights, which was ratified 217 years ago today (the 15th), states in full:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Those who engage in these activities argue that it is state-law that they can perform such warrantless searches.

May I direct their attention to Article VI, Section II of the U.S. Constitution:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Emphasis added.

Secondly, concerning the issue of members of the U.S. Military engaging in the enforcement of civil law, this violates the oft mentioned Posse Commitatus Act:

"Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

They might try to defend themselves by saying that the Marines are not a part of the Army or Air Force, but are a detachment of the Navy, which is not covered by Posse Commitatus. That would be silly and not in keeping with the nature of the law.

How far will it go?

Pumpkin and Pecan

Those are the names of the two turkeys that George W. Bush, incumbent President of the United States and leader of the free world, pardoned.

Yes, he pardoned two turkeys while two men who engaged in the felonious act of protecting our border sit in a prison cell.

If you will remember, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, the two border agents that were imprisoned for shooting a drug runner, are still wasting away in jail.

Yeah, remember them?

In my opinion, there are a few high-ranking people that should be serving time in their stead.

Johnny Sutton, the filthy attorney that sent them to prison, also gave the drug runner freedom in exchange for his testimony. This should be considered a criminal act, and Sutton should at least be disbarred, if not imprisoned.

George Bush and Johnny Sutton have been friends since the 1980's, and Sutton has even received appointed positions and nominations by Bush.

Yes, wonderful Christian Conservatives all.

Happy Thanksgiving, Ramos and Compean, we won't forget you.