Son III Goes to College... and Walks Out

On the fifteenth, I saw an advertisement in the Shopper for an event on the seventeenth at Emporia State University, "U.S. Constitution: Dead or Alive?"

Of course, I had to go. Especially since it was held on Constitution Day, I thought, at worst, they'd explain both sides of the two, main Constitutional interpretations; one is that it is a "living, breathing document" that changes at the whim of government; the other is "original intent", or "dead and stale", forever cursed to be interpreted with the meaning and intent given it two centuries ago... well, at least that's how the Living-Breathers explain the "original intent" interpretation.

I'm a Dead'n'Stale man, myself. I'll explain why in a moment.

It took forever to find where the event was being held, but my dad and I made it to the on-campus building and found that the crowd was mostly comprised of actual ESU students and elderly. I wondered why there wasn't a wider demographic, especially considering the sponsors of the event, the Emporia League of Women Voters, made it more than clear in their opening statements that their goal is to enhance diversity in civic life, especially in elections, by educating the public.

After a dry and microphoneless ten minutes of introduction (a note to public speakers everywhere: get set-up before event begins), the main speaker, a former Kansas Bar president and current Wichita Bar president, A. Jack Focht, stood and began an eloquent oration on politics. He even quoted from America, the Beautiful, which, itself, deserved an applause. Well, his speech remained eloquent and patriotic until he got to minute-marker 12, or thereabouts:

"But, these days, there are a lot of angry people, and there we have the teabagger vote..."

The word "teabagger" echoed in my head and Dad and I glanced at each other with knowing looks. The attorney went on to explain that Tea Parties are comprised of angry people who never read the Constitution, and that Kansans for Life, a Pro-Life organization, will undoubtedly, with malice aforethought, pass out voter guides advising people to vote out incumbent judges at churches and parking-lots. *Gasp!* And Kansans for Life should not do so, as that will cause judges to rule according to public opinion instead of the law, for fear of the vote.

After that, I was left wondering how someone so old and knowledgeable could say something like that. The man is the former president of the Kansas Bar Association, and is the current president of the Wichita Bar Association, so if a judge is afraid of someone's opinion, it should be his, as he is the representative of a judge's peers.

Mr. Frocht told of how he talked to Tea Party friend of his, who, in the course of a conversation, said he is angry and that we should restore the Constitution, but then ol' A. Jack explained that this friend probably never even read the Constitution and neither have most of the Tea Partiers.

Minutes dragged on as the speaker slammed original intent interpretations of the Constitution. For instance, the internet is something that Founders couldn't imagine, so how can we apply it to upcoming legislation that will regulate the internet? Frocht's answer is that we can't, so just ignore the Constitution, and get on with life! And if you don't like something in the Constitution, don't try to amend it like the law says to do; just have a judge rule on it the way he sees fit, because it's just too darn hard to amend!

And oh! how he hates the term activist judge, because that just means you disagree with the judge's decision. (That got an approving laugh from the crowd.) And abortion falls under privacy and individual liberty, he explained. Also, the Constitution's interpretations can and should evolve with society.

It was like a Constitution and Conservative roast, throwing in every insult and lie that came to mind. Needless to say, I'd had enough. We stood up to leave, and as we walked towards the door, footsteps echoing on the hardwood floors, one of the women speakers glared at me, eyebrows knitted, as if to say, " I know who you are, and you're a terrorist."

I didn't say a word as I left, but if I had, it would have been this:

Ladies and gentlemen, do you know why I'm leaving? Because my country's Constitution is being shredded before my American eyes, and I don't like it. More than that, I'm going to do something about it. I'm going to host my own event on the Constitution, where only freedom and rule of law are espoused. I'm going to tell my listeners what Thomas Jefferson said about that 'living, breathing document, that is ever changing', as you call 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.'

And people, that was what Jefferson said to a judge. No interpretation besides that which the framers explained to us, and that extends to every area of the law! Yet this cheeky fellow thinks he can stand here and destroy the Constitution and original intent, mocking and maligning patriotism? No! I'll not listen one more second!

John Adams said we are a nation of laws and not of men, but how can that be without a solid and resolved Constitution? Of what use is a Constitution if its supremacy is dictated by the inclinations of government or society?

Patriots are rising up all over America, and you can call them teabaggers, racists, or whatever lying, conniving thing you can think of to discredit them, but you will be the only one discredited in the end! Why? Because Americans are angry! We're mad! What's more, we're as mad as Hell, and we're not going to take this anymore! We're tired of your garbage!

Book Burning and That Little Issue of Freedom

The President has commented on the matter that the stunt is, as he put it, "... completely contrary to our values as Americans," noting that this country was built on religious freedom and tolerance, and that the stunt would endanger our troops in Afghanistan.

As you saw in the video above, General Petraeus said the mission in Afghanistan would be made more difficult due to anger among the Afghans at images of the Koran burning, causing, possibly, a violent response.

And here I was thinking the mission in Afghanistan was to protect our freedoms. That's what we've been told, anyway. So, how is it that we have a military presence in Afghanistan for the purpose of defending freedom, and when that freedom is used it makes Afghans angry, so we then must put a stop to the use of that freedom? It doesn't make sense! Our troops are there for the specific purpose of defending that pastor's right to burn the Koran, and we tell him not to? Our President says it is contrary to our values to use our freedoms?

Some have said it is a pointless stunt. Why? Because you think it is pointless? Then protest it. You're free to do so, just as the Afghans are; and if the Afghans don't want the military of a free nation in their enslaved country, then we should either get out or start shooting them. And, frankly, Afghans have the right to be an enslaved, backward, hateful culture if they want to be, so I favor pulling out, and I would never support killing people for religious differences.

So, what is our mission in Afghanistan? Forcing them to accept freedom they don't want at the expense of our soldiers' lives, or protecting our own freedoms until the cavemen complain, and then acquiesce to their whining?

The Floridian pastor has been pressured to the point that he has canceled the burning, a victory for Muslims abroad, a defeat for the sovereignty of our freedom.

What would our dead troops say, having supposedly died for that pastor's rights, if they knew the Muslims that killed them got their way, not by defeating our military, but because the skulking, putrid, degenerate people in their own, American government were slime enough to let them have their way.

Shame on all political and media voices who spoke only in condemnation and contempt of the Floridian pastor.

This is Canada...

We're next.


This message of despotism was brought to you by the G20 Summit.

Will it someday go like that here?

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.

The Rise of La Raza de Aztlan in America II

As was noted here, there are already claims of abuse of La Razans Hispanics by police, which, in the instance noted, is indeed abusive. However, America is supposed to be colorblind - abuse is abuse, racially charged or not.

It is worthy of pointing out the many instances of Mexican rallies which promote the slaughter of Americans with landscaping tools...



and the raising of Mexican flags over U.S. flags, and generally promoting Mexican culture over ours:







("GET OUT OF AZTLAN"?)


Where are the SPLC and ACLU in defense of our lives? Why aren't these people, who are self-proclaimed, violent revolutionaries and promoting the wholesale slaughter of police, at least the subject of a MIAC report? Why can only pro-American protesters be labeled 'dangerous'?

Because that's not part of the agenda, now is it?

Interesting flag, Mexico has.


A golden eagle killing a rattlesnake. Nothing anti-American about that.

The Rise of La Raza de Aztlan in America

(A quick reminder to the researchers among us that you may double-click on any word or group of words on this for an automatic reference guide. Check it out.)

La Raza is a Mexican term that means "the Race"; "Aztlan" is a Mexican term that denotes the land Mexico claimed and lost to the U.S. during the Mexican-American War in the Mexican Cession, which was an area that ranged from northern California eastward to western Kansas, and southward to the northernmost parts of present-day Mexico, the cession of which basically formed the border we have today.

It is from this cession that come the modern claims that America 'stole' the Southwest from Mexico. Actually, Mexico only claimed this area, and had but a few forts, which were, in fact, outposts of an occupying force on Indian land. If there was any 'theft' afoot, it was the Mexican theft of Native American property. If you want to open the brass tacks box, Spain, France, and the Pope all claimed the area at one time or another, and I think Vatican City has as much of a case as Mexico does.

That said...

(I think I caught brief swearing, so be forewarned.)


(I cannot post the actual trailer, as it is rather disgusting.)


This is all about to boil over into something pretty horrible, I am convinced.

I have nothing against Mexicans, but I have a problem with Mexicans who have something against me. If you want to be an American and legal, I want you here, but if you want to be a Mexican, you already have a defined territory. I'm not an invader, I was born here. Eighty percent of Mexicans are of European ancestry, but only sixty-two percent of Americans are of European ancestry. Who is the 'nation of immigrants'?

Please, we just don't need a race war. We are all of the human race, and we need to respect our individual and national sovereignty.

More to come.

Are you a Natural Terrorist?

Yes, the government loves blonds.

You see, having a specific people group as terrorists in order to institute otherwise immoral and unethical security measures doesn't really work. You have to make the public think the suspects could be anyone. The issue of profiling need no longer be debated, as everyone is a terrorist.

Now, if you will recall, as I do, our government has been begging blond-haired, blue-eyed people to blow up U.S. infrastructure, and they finally have their first recruits. Why, they even have little names for them, "Jihad Jane" and "Jihad Jamie". Waiting on Khalid Ken, now.

From 2008:


How amazing! Two years later, they have just what they need to justify the reports! And I'm sure we can put full faith and trust in former black ops, al-CIAda spook Mike Baker; if you can't trust a CIA operative who joins Glenn Beck in saying 9/11 truthers are possibly in league with al-Qaeda, who can you trust?



I mean really.

Steve Martin Illustrates Waking America Up to the New World Order

"Hey! Caw! You! Look! Up here! Look up here! Hey! Caw! You! Look! Up here! Coo-cow!

No More EO's, Aiight?

"I taught the Constitution for ten years, I believe in the Constitution, and I will obey the Constitution of the United States.

We're not going to use [Executive Orders] as a way of doing an 'end run' around Congress. Aiight?"

Charles Payne is a Racist

Skip to 4:45 for the relevant clip


"Conservative" Charles Payne admittedly voted for Obama, because he said he had "... a sense of obligation to Rosa Parks, Medgar Evers, Martin Luther King, people - my family who came up through Alabama."

But, now he's "really disappointed".

Also, note how quickly he says, "I was torn! I voted for him, then I voted all Republican." Oh, Republican, that makes it all better.

Hating to borrow a phrase from Janeane Garofalo, but, "That's racism, straight up."

I want an apology from Charles Payne, and from everyone else who voted for Obama, but especially from those who voted for him just because his father was from Africa.

Shame on you, hypocrites.

Oh, Where is the Courage?

"I ask them, where is the, where is the, where is the courage? Where has the senners (sic) got courage on that side of the aisle, to stand up and work together, on bipartisan basis, to get healthcare reform passed? Where?" ~Senator Max Baucus


I don't know, Senator, but I know you keep your courage close to your heart... in a flask.

Happy New Year, America and friends. Tell me, what more are we going to put up with this year?

Anathemania

"Balloon Boy" Hoax

Can we say "poorly composed publicity stunt"?

If you hadn't heard, the kid was supposedly in a giant, runaway balloon in Colorado, getting much media attention as the rescue teams were out in force; he turned out to be in the attic of the garage, "hiding". Lots of photo shoots and interviews for the attention-driven family, eh?

Oh, Falcon, what a thrashing thou shalt receive for revealing thy father's deceit on live television!



Ooh, Falcon's not the only one squirming!

At the end, Wolf basically says, "You got our attention, you got what you want, thanks for pranking us."

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?

A Song for Trying Times

Heckler at Obama Rally

Color me a crazy conspiracy theorist (if you haven't already), but I'm thinking this was staged. It just doesn't seem right, if you know what I mean. He was supposedly protesting abortion funding.

Maybe he was legit, but I don't know. He seemed to not be all there.

Regardless, the man needs to crack open a Bible:

"Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?"
~1 Corinthians 11:14

MSNBC: "10th Amendment is a Bunch of Baloney!"

"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people' (10th Amendment). To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible to any definition."
~Thomas Jefferson

Which of These Does Not Fit?

This is kind of like an IQ test, except you aren't considered imbecilic if you get it wrong. Just comment your answer; which of the ten does not fit and why? No wrong answers (gotta love that), so make a guess:

#1


#2


#3


#4


#5


#6


#7


#8


#9


#10

Loose Change - Final Cut

The updated version of the video previously posted.

(Brief language somewhere around halfway through.)