tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-963080865478364672024-03-13T13:18:50.114-07:00Growing Up StupidPaxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04760864496766279700noreply@blogger.comBlogger25125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-96308086547836467.post-7482622283932968652012-10-23T10:54:00.000-07:002012-10-23T10:54:06.392-07:00All "Boomers" Weren't Marxist Weirdos<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.45098); color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8); font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px;">Though I'm a "Child of the 60s", what you call a "Boomer", I never bought into all that Marxist idiocy. I supported our great God, our great soldiers, our great country, and our great, hard-won freedoms. In college, I was a member of the Young Republicans. There were *lots* of us. Guess it's lost to history now, but Leftist trouble-makers made up only a tiny fraction of our generation, just as "Flappers" & Rum-runners were not all that common during the Roaring Twenties... though she lived through them as an adult, my grandmother said she had never seen a "Flapper".</span><br />
<div style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.45098); box-sizing: border-box; color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8); font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px;">
<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /></div>
<div style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.45098); box-sizing: border-box; color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8); font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px;">
Unfortunately, it's always the loud-mouthed fringe who marks a generation, the rest, just patriotic Americans quietly living their lives, always seem to get lost in the shuffle. That must be because "normal" isn't interesting. That's verging on criminal, since plain, everyday "live and let live" is the miraculous mindset that consistently works to form a stable society. We are not the crazy fringe, we are, and always have been, the mainstream, and we have come late to the party, due to being normal, God-fearing Patriots concentrating on making a better life for ourselves, our kids and our communities.</div>
<div style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.45098); box-sizing: border-box; color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8); font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px;">
<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /></div>
<div style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.45098); box-sizing: border-box; color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8); font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px;">
It's time for the warped fringe to crawl back to the edges and out of sight, where it belongs... WE NORMAL, GOD-FEARING, "LIVE AND LET LIVE" PATRIOTS WANT OUR COUNTRY BACK!</div>
Paxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04760864496766279700noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-96308086547836467.post-46596254311889788672012-10-02T03:38:00.002-07:002012-10-02T03:45:04.362-07:00The Truth is still the Truth, even if no one believes it.<br />
<div class="postbody" style="background-color: white; clear: left; font-family: Arial, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 1.2em; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.7em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; text-overflow: ellipsis;">
<div class="xg_user_generated" style="line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="font-size: 1em; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.4em; min-height: 1em; padding: 0px;">
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninfa's" target="_blank"><span style="color: #660000;">Ninfa of Ninfa's Mexican Restaurant fame</span></a>, a mother of 5, who started with just a taco stand.</div>
<div style="font-size: 1em; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.4em; min-height: 1em; padding: 0px;">
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Beck" target="_blank"><span style="color: #660000;">Glenn Beck</span></a>, who beat alcoholism, was the son of a baker.</div>
<div style="font-size: 1em; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.4em; min-height: 1em; padding: 0px;">
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Wozniak" target="_blank"><span style="color: #660000;">Steve Wozniak</span></a>, assembled the first Apple Computer in his garage.</div>
<div style="font-size: 1em; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.4em; min-height: 1em; padding: 0px;">
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Jobs" target="_blank"><span style="color: #660000;">Steve Jobs</span></a>, adopted by a machinist and his accountant wife.</div>
<div style="font-size: 1em; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.4em; min-height: 1em; padding: 0px;">
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_J._Heinz" target="_blank"><span style="color: #660000;">Henry J. Heinz</span></a>, founder of the H. J. Heinz Company, the son of German immigrants, who, as a boy, sold vegetables door-to-door.</div>
<div style="font-size: 1em; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.4em; min-height: 1em; padding: 0px;">
That's a very short list of very rich people who didn't start out that way. There are thousands more such stories, millions, if you count those who started with nothing and now have become admirably comfortable through hard work and their undaunted belief in The American Dream and in their ability to achieve it.</div>
<div style="font-size: 1em; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.4em; min-height: 1em; padding: 0px;">
There is no "pie" of wealth, because wealth isn't finite, it can be created from nothing but hard work and a belief in your God-given abilities. It resides in the potential of each of us. WE are our own wealth, if we just choose to unleash it. But that can only happen if people are free to reach for their dreams. That's why America became so great, Americans were allowed what no other government allowed their people: true freedom to pursue their personal goals without caste-systems or other such stigma, because there are no castes or levels in America, we're all one people on one level, the American Level.</div>
<div style="font-size: 1em; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.4em; min-height: 1em; padding: 0px;">
Need is the greatest builder of wealth, not greed. Have a need and satisfy it, find a need and fill it, create something that never existed before and create a new need along with it. If you believe in the "pie", you've been sold a bill of goods. That belief says that people are limited, that they can't help themselves, that they can't better themselves. That is a LIE! We are limited only by the chains we choose to wrap around our own spirits.</div>
<div style="font-size: 1em; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.4em; min-height: 1em; padding: 0px;">
The American Spirit shouts, "There ARE NO chains! I am free! To follow my dreams, to better myself, to be more than when I began, and to bring others with me as I climb. To better the lot of a multitude of others because I have succeeded, so that some of them can climb, too... perhaps even further than I have!" For years Bill Gates topped the list of Richest Americans, but something many don't know is that quite a few of those on that Richest Americans list with him were his employees.</div>
<div style="font-size: 1em; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.4em; min-height: 1em; padding: 0px;">
Anyone who sings the song of the down-trodden in America has put the boot on their own neck. If they're able-bodied and sound of mind, they're down-trodden because they have chosen self-pity instead of self-betterment. At some point those who have chosen to just shut up and do what needed to be done, no matter how hard or demeaning or lowly, in order to better themselves and everything around them through their efforts, will throw up their hands and say, "Enough! If you want to eat, feed yourself, because I'm tired of having my hand bitten."</div>
<div style="font-size: 1em; line-height: inherit; min-height: 1em; padding: 0px;">
Those are the facts in the Real World of The United States of America as it used to be when we still taught our children to reach for the American Dream and, if you don't like those facts, tough. The Truth is still the Truth, even if no one believes it.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="left-panel" style="background-color: white; clear: left; float: left; font-family: Arial, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11.199999809265137px; line-height: 11.199999809265137px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="font-size: 1.2em; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.4em; padding: 0px;">
</div>
</div>
<ul class="pagination smallpagination" style="background-color: white; border: none; clear: both; font-family: Arial, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11.199999809265137px; line-height: 11.199999809265137px; margin: 1.5em 0px 0px; padding: 0.8em 0px 0px;">
<li class="left" style="float: left; font-size: 12px; font-weight: bold; line-height: inherit; list-style: square; margin-bottom: 2px !important; margin-left: 1.5em; margin-right: 3px !important; margin-top: 0px !important; padding: 0px;"></li>
</ul>
Paxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04760864496766279700noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-96308086547836467.post-66296862573301788242012-07-12T07:20:00.000-07:002012-07-12T07:20:13.576-07:00Are we there yet?Everything I read and
hear seems to leave the impression we're teetering on the brink. The
Patriots of Twitter are beside themselves, newsletters are full of it,
every corner of the world is melting down. It's natural to wonder, "Are
we there yet?"<br />
<br />It's as if people everywhere sense something foreboding ahead, a
wall, a cliff, a chasm... an ending. How much is The Age and how much
is just age? It seems to fight just to fight is to lose before you
start, but to do nothing when you should've done something...?<br />
<br />I wonder, do you think the Founding Fathers felt "smart" or up
to it, at least while they were going through it? They went back and
forth across the ocean, trying for years to come to a peaceful solution.
Sometimes, there's just nothing else left but the choice you wanted
least to make.
<br /><br />If
<br />Rudyard Kipling
<br /><br />If you can keep your head when all about you
<br />Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
<br />If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
<br />But make allowance for their doubting too;
<br />If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
<br />Or, being lied about, don't deal in lies,
<br />Or, being hated, don't give way to hating,
<br />And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise;
<br /><br />If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
<br />If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
<br />If you can meet with triumph and disaster
<br />And treat those two imposters just the same;
<br />If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
<br />Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
<br />Or watch the things you gave your life to broken,
<br />And stoop and build 'em up with wornout tools;
<br /><br />If you can make one heap of all your winnings
<br />And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
<br />And lose, and start again at your beginnings
<br />And never breath a word about your loss;
<br />If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
<br />To serve your turn long after they are gone,
<br />And so hold on when there is nothing in you
<br />Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on";
<br /><br />If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
<br />Or walk with kings - nor lose the common touch;
<br />If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
<br />If all men count with you, but none too much;
<br />If you can fill the unforgiving minute
<br />With sixty seconds' worth of distance run -
<br />Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
<br />And - which is more - you'll be a Man my son!Paxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04760864496766279700noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-96308086547836467.post-12879845301107053292012-07-06T09:35:00.000-07:002012-07-06T09:35:27.511-07:00I Want My Mommy!The Viet Nam War's main time period was in the 60s, it was pretty
much over by the 70s. My husband's a Viet Nam vet, who came home in
1970, the year we married. The anti-war protests occurred primarily
during the last half of the 60s, and were an out-growth of the Anti-Establishment indoctrination absorbed by those who called themselves Hippies. The 60s era was the period during which college-going
teens were first introduced to unfettered Communist Anti-Establishment (anti-traditional, anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-family, anti-morals) indoctrination
in the colleges they attended. That was a time of turmoil here at home that outstripped that
of the war.<br />
<br />
The kids of the 60s were the first to come of age raised by
mothers who considered working outside the home to be more important
than staying home and raising their children. The result was a
generation of children disconnected from the sense of family that had
always infused previous generations. We got the "a woman only matters if
she works" mystique from the WWII era mindset, through "Rosie The
Riveter" and other such war-time propaganda. The female abandonment of woman's traditional role as Homemaker has often been laid at the feet of the Feminist Movement when, in fact, the Women's Liberation Movement was a direct out-growth of the WWII female mindset that had done its damage long before Gloria Steinem appeared on the scene.<br />
<br />
The
WWII era was the first full-on frontal assault on the traditional
family, the backbone of American society. It's been down-hill ever
since. With the vilification of the traditional female role of
stay-at-home-Mom, a death-blow was landed on the classic American way of
life. Prior to that devastating accomplishment, the Communists had minimal affect
in changing America's classic mores, because the loving influence of Mom was more powerful than the influences of the world outside the secure home environment she nurtured. When the pillar of Mom was removed, the societal
structure began self-destructing almost immediately.<br />
<br />
You can blame radical movements of every ilk,
drugs, TV, cell phones, internet and/or social net-working, placing the
blame on the generations since the fall of Mom but, if you do, you're
blaming the symptoms and ignoring the root cause. A society that vilifies the critical role of stay-at-home Moms is a society that's chosen to commit suicide.Paxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04760864496766279700noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-96308086547836467.post-2768085888413586672012-06-28T02:47:00.000-07:002012-06-28T02:47:14.110-07:00Just wondering...If you're your own worst enemy, does that exclude the existence of external enemies? Many seem to jump to that conclusion, though I've never understood how.<br />
<br />
Do thoughts kill? Yes. That's what all political philosophies are. Politics kill; with wars, without them, politics uses whatever is most expedient in the attempt to accomplish its ends. All wars are political, and all politics are war.Paxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04760864496766279700noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-96308086547836467.post-3437111467278004162012-06-25T23:24:00.000-07:002012-06-25T23:24:16.333-07:00We're all slaves now, thanks to LincolnFor years I've said that our Republic died under Lincoln, and it had nothing to do with slavery! A fundamental promise made by the Founders to preserve the sovereignty of the individual states was broken in 1865, and it's been downhill into ever-growing slavery for all Americans ever since. The back of the Federal Government's power must be broken! The states <b>must</b> reassert their sovereign rights... if we still have time.<br /><br />And, "No!" I am not pro-slavery. In fact, my ancestors include John Adams, John Q. Adams, Harriet B. Stowe and John Brown, I have a long family history of hating slavery.<br /><br />I even consider Lincoln to have been a decent Christian man, though misguided in his choice of how he sought to pursue one of his desires, which was to end slavery. That ending slavery was his only reason for the war, however, is doubtful (and his writings back up the fact he had other reasons). To Lincoln, preserving the Union was more important than preserving states' rights, and he was very wrong. He chose to break the Constitution rather than use the laws set up by that Constitution to settle such disputes between the Federal Government and various states.<br /><br />The Confederate Constitution lists the states' right to continue their practice of slavery as one of the primary reasons for the South's cession, it's a fact of history that can't easily be erased. No honest discussion can avoid the fact the Southern states were pro-slavery.<br /><br />But championing states' rights has nothing to do with slavery and everything to do with individual freedoms guaranteed to us by the Constitution. Freedoms stolen from <b>all</b> the people in 1865. The results of the Civil War was the enslavement of all the citizens of the United States under the onerous, ever-increasing mandates of an imperial Federal Government. We're <b>all</b> slaves now, thanks to Lincoln.Paxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04760864496766279700noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-96308086547836467.post-79246838463800104662012-06-22T09:17:00.002-07:002012-06-22T09:17:52.671-07:00Christians, STAND UP!!It’s time for American Christians to throw off their PC yoke and
stand up for their faith! <b>There has never been</b> a requirement of
“separation of church and state” mentioned in the Constitution, that’s
been made up whole cloth from a simple mention of it by Thomas Jefferson
in a letter to a Baptist church *as an assurance* the church’s
religious practices <b>would not be</b> infringed upon by the government.<br />
<br />
That one statement in that one letter has been subverted by those who
hate Christianity and, as an attack on it, have turned what Jefferson
meant completely upside-down! Then, to make it worse, they have
blatantly lied, incorrectly attributing it as being a Constitutional
mandate, though<b> it never was!</b><br />
<br />
The First Amendment to the Constitution actually reads:<br />
<br />
“<b>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
**OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF**</b>; or abridging the freedom
of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”<br />
<br />
By preventing a chaplain from using the name of Jesus when they pray,
the government is “prohibiting the free exercise” of their Christian
religion!<br />
<br />
<b>This must STOP! Christians, STAND UP! The government is ruling
in direct violation of the Constitution, and </b><b>IT MUST END… NOW!</b><br />
<br />
Think about it, Christians, the very first topic addressed in the
very first amendment to the Constitution was about freedom to practice
your religion without interference by the government. The founders of
America came here for the express purpose of being able to freely
practice their Christian faith in the manner they chose.<br />
<br />
The Founding
Fathers considered the practice of their Christian faith, unhindered by
any edicts of the government, to be the most important right granted to
us,<b> that’s why it’s the first subject in the First Amendment… it was
FIRST in importance!</b>Paxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04760864496766279700noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-96308086547836467.post-6749508788820662302012-05-09T11:18:00.002-07:002012-05-09T11:18:28.622-07:00Some Ways To Cut The Deficit<div class="dsq-comment-message" id="dsq-comment-message-524502058">
<div class="dsq-comment-text" id="dsq-comment-text-524502058">
<br />
In
case someone has been in a coma and doesn't know, we're out of money.
Our government's so broke we need a new word to define broke, because
"broke" doesn't adequately express HOW broke we are. But our brokeness
is a direct result of really stupid government policies that no one in
the government seems to want to change. So, it seems, our real problem
isn't stupid spending, it's the over-arching, permanently instituted,
actively pervasive quality of our government <b><i>being</i></b> just plain stupid that's our problem.<br />
<br />
Now
the pointy-hats who are responsible for all that institutionalized
stupidity are in the process of trying to find ways to not be stupid
with our money. Lord, help us... good luck with that.<br />
<br />
Here are a few suggestions:<br />
<br />
Instead of taking food out of the mouths of needy children and old people, why
don't we just bring our soldiers home? That would save a fortune, and do so immediately. We should pull out of <b><i>all</i></b> foreign wars... <b><i>now</i></b>. Why are we
trying to force other nations to adopt our idea of how they should
conduct their internal affairs? Let the UN handle those disputes.<br />
<br />
In fact, as to the UN, we should run, don't walk, from it, and stop all funding to it.
The world doesn't like us? Fine. Stop funding every belligerent, whiny
government that has as its goal the plundering of our wealth and the
active deconstruction of our American Capitalist system. Let them see
what a world without the USA as their police force and major customer is
like.<br />
<br />
Major customer... right. As to that, end Free
Trade and go back to the tariffs system, just as the
Founding Fathers set up in the Constitution. Tariffs were the original
method for funding the Federal Government, and the only method that was
to be used. A tariff system would also result in a more competitive edge
to sell goods we manufacture here in the USA, as it would work to level
the playing field. China's biggest nightmare is the USA giving up Free
Trade in favor of a tariff system.<br />
<br />
Next, funding "bad
actors", militant, hostile governments (like Egypt is in the process of
becoming) should stop right now. Close the wallet, hide the piggy bank,
don't write that rubber check! Why should we, with our huge deficits,
give money to <b><i>any</i></b> hostile
countries? Why are we building up our and Israel's enemies? That seems the height of
stupidity.<br />
<br />
Don't give Egypt that $1 billion+, since the
party that's come
to power is in the process of breaking the peace treaty with Israel and
planning on going to war with them. The stated goal of one of the
Egyptian Presidential candidates is to make Jerusalem the capital city
of the new Caliphate. Isn't that nice for Israel? Egypt has already cut
off the supply
of natural gas they were piping Israel. That money we pledged to Egypt,
along with
Israel giving Egypt the Sinai Peninsula, in the Camp David Accords, was
for the purpose of Egypt keeping the peace treaty with Israel. If Egypt
breaks that treaty, becoming a potential threat to Israel, why should
the USA fund their saber-rattling against our ally?<br />
<br />
On a side note: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Middle_east.jpg" style="color: #660000;" target="_blank">Have you seen the size of the Sinai Peninsula in relation to what's left of Israel?</a>
As a result of the Camp David Accords Peace Treaty with Egypt, When
they gave up the Sinai, Israel ceded over to Egypt an area almost twice
the land mass of what Israel kept for themselves, as well as Israel's
access to two major waterways! Would you give up two-thirds of the land
area of the United States to make peace with Canada or Mexico?<br />
<br />
Bad
actors don't have to be foreign, however. As example, take our dismal,
stupid-kid-producing Federal Department of Education. Since the Fed has
taken over public education, scores for US children have plummeted;
we've gone from near the top to the bottom of the heap. With consistent
bad grades like that, what parent thinks the DoE is actually working to
do anything other than insure our kids <b><i>don't</i></b> get a decent
education? Our schools no longer educate, they indoctrinate. Ignorant,
lascivious, homosexual, God-hating, Marxist/Communist, rabble-rousing,
unemployable, progeny that can't add 2+2 without a calculator, now <b><i>there's</i></b> a parent's dream-come-true.<br />
<br />
Than there's the EPA, who wouldn't love to see the last of <b><i>them</i></b>? What they do that <i><b>isn't</b></i>
harmful would be shorter to list. There are a wealth of such
money-sucking, destructive government agencies that should be done away
with. The question is, why won't Congress do anything about the black
hole of very wasted government spending that is such agencies, before
they attack Meals-On-Wheels and school lunch programs?<br />
<br />
Finally, <i><b>open up our nation's wealth of oil-rich areas and "Drill, baby, drill!"</b></i>
Not to mention, getting the Fed off the backs of the Natural Gas and
Coal industries. It would give us the benefit of bringing down prices at
the pump and lowering all other energy prices, as well as being a
windfall in revenues to government on both state and Federal levels.<br />
<br />
There's
a coal-fired electric energy plant right down the road from where my
parents live in Central Texas, my brother works there. There are clouds
coming out of its stacks all day long... white, fluffy clouds of pure,
clean steam composed of highly-filtered-water. That's it. Just pure
water, not "pollutants". Before the water is released as steam, it goes
through an arduous multiple-filtering process that captures all the
pollutants. Exactly how is purified-water steam a danger to our
environment?<br />
<br />
Bringing our boys home, cutting off
foreign aid to hostile
governments (and the UN), reinstituting a tariff, doing away with (or
down-sizing and reorganizing) harmful and/or wasteful government
agencies, and availing ourselves of our wealth of energy resources might
not solve the debt crisis,
but it would go a decent way toward paying down our horrifyingly
humongous, ever-growing Federal deficit.</div>
</div>Paxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04760864496766279700noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-96308086547836467.post-10089357573236169672012-05-09T10:56:00.000-07:002012-06-12T19:07:48.753-07:00My Evolution Through The Obama Birth Certificate Controversy<h2 class="post-title entry-title" itemprop="name" style="text-align: left;">
The Obama Birth Certificate Controversy - <br />My Journey From Ignorant To Informed</h2>
<div class="post-title entry-title" itemprop="name" style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="post-title entry-title" itemprop="name" style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="post-title entry-title" itemprop="name" style="text-align: left;">
Please bear with me through this entire journey. At first I thought Obama was legal then, as I dug deeper into the subject, I realized he isn't, no matter if he was born in Hawaii. The man in the White House is not a legal sitting President, moreover, he knows it, and here's why:</div>
<h3 class="post-title entry-title" itemprop="name" style="text-align: left;">
<br /></h3>
<h3 class="post-title entry-title" itemprop="name" style="text-align: left;">
<br /></h3>
<h3 class="post-title entry-title" itemprop="name" style="text-align: left;">
The Obama Birth Certificate Controversy - Part I
</h3>
<div class="post-header">
</div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Part I -- What constitutes a status of "natural-born citizen"?</div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access</div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
[<a href="http://www.gpoaccess.gov/" target="_blank"><span style="color: #990000;">www.gpoaccess.gov</span></a>]</div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
[Laws in effect as of January 3, 2007]</div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
[CITE: 8USC1401]</div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
[Page 396-398]</div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
TITLE 8--ALIENS AND NATIONALITY</div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
CHAPTER 12--IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY</div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
SUBCHAPTER III--NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION</div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Part I--Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization</div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Sec. 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth</div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:</div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
[...]</div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States
and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the
other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such
person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying
possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years,
at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen
years:[...]</div>
________________________________________________<br />
<br />
The above is from the Naturalization Act, codified in the United States Code, and in effect as of this writing.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3 class="post-title entry-title" itemprop="name" style="text-align: left;">
The Obama Birth Certificate Controversy -- Part II
</h3>
<div class="post-header">
</div>
Part II -- What constitutes a status of "natural-born citizen"?<br />
<br />
The text from Part I is from the Naturalization Act, codified in the United States Code, and in effect as of this writing.<br />
<br />
Now here is where the controversy starts to get very muddled, people seem to have glommed onto the text of the <a href="http://library.uwb.edu/guides/USimmigration/54%20stat%201137.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="color: #990000;">1940 Naturalization Act</span></a>, Chapter II--Nationality At Birth, which read differently:<br />
<br />
(g) A person born outside the United States and its outlying
possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States
who, prior to the birth of such person, has had ten years' residence in
the United States or one of its outlying possessions, at least five of
which were after attaining the age of sixteen years, the other being an
alien: Provided, That, in order to retain such citizenship, the child
must reside in the United States or its outlying possessions for a
period or periods totaling five years between the ages of thirteen and
twenty-one years: Provided further, That, if the child has not taken up
residence in the United States or its outlying possessions by the time
he reaches the age of sixteen years, or if he resides abroad for such a
time that it becomes impossible for him to complete the five years'
residence in the United States or its outlying possessions before
reaching the age of twenty-one years, his American citizenship shall
thereupon cease.<br />
________________________________________________<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3 class="post-title entry-title" itemprop="name" style="text-align: left;">
The Obama Birth Certificate Controversy - Part III
</h3>
<div class="post-header">
</div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-2458249176051071296">
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Part III -- What constitutes a status of "natural-born citizen"?<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
The section
of the 1940 Naturalization Act quoted in Part II is what is referenced
to prove the argument that Obama is not a natural-born citizen. However,
the <a href="http://library.uwb.edu/guides/USimmigration/54%20stat%201137.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="color: #990000;">1940 Naturalization Act</span></a> was revised by the <a href="http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=6420" target="_blank"><span style="color: #990000;">1952 Naturalization Act</span></a>, page 285, (g) to its present form as found in the current United States Code:<br />
<div style="tab-stops: 44.35pt;">
</div>
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States
and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the
other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such
person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying
possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years,
at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:<br />
________________________________________________<br />
<br />
So there it is. The intriguing argument that Obama is not a natural-born
citizen and his birth certificate will prove it has struck out. The
assertion that both of his parents must be United States citizens is
incorrect all the way around, according to any version of the
Naturalization Act (strike one). The argument that he was actually born
in Kenya doesn't matter, as it wouldn't necessarily prevent Obama from
being a valid natural-born citizen of the United States (strike two).
Finally, the more convoluted argument that his mother who, although a
United States citizen, was not old enough to qualify her son as
also being a citizen, is taken from an out-dated version of the
Naturalization Act (from 1940) that is no longer valid (strike three).<br />
<br />
According to the Naturalization Act as it has existed from 1952 until
current, even if he was born in Kenya, his mother fulfilled the
requirements to grant natural-born citizenship to her son. Only if she
renounced her American citizenship before Obama was born would he not be
a legal citizen of the United States.</div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
________________________________________________</div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br />
But, wait, I was wrong above, it's not over! There's more!<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
</div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<h3 class="post-title entry-title" itemprop="name" style="text-align: left;">
The Obama Birth Certificate Controversy - Part IV
</h3>
<div class="post-header">
</div>
Some new facts have come to my attention concerning the Obama Birth
Certificate controversy. These facts stem from the meaning of the phrase
"natural-born citizen" as understood by our Founding Fathers at the
time of the writing of our United States Constitution. They used as
their guide <a href="http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm" target="_blank"><span style="color: #990000;">Vattel's Law of Nations (1758)</span></a>.<br />
<br />
Quoting from that source on the subject of "Citizens and natives":<br />
<br />
<br />
VATTEL: THE LAW OF NATIONS<br />
<br />
BOOK I. <br />
OF NATIONS CONSIDERED IN THEMSELVES.<br />
<br />
CHAP. XIX. <br />
OF OUR NATIVE COUNTRY, AND SEVERAL THINGS THAT RELATE TO IT.<br />
<h4>
§ 212. Citizens and natives.</h4>
The citizens are the members of the
civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to
its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. <b><span style="color: black;">The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.</span></b>
As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the
children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition
of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is
supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own
preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each
citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of
becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of
the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit
consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of
discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the
society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the
country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a
citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the
place of his birth, and not his country.<br />
________________________________________________<br />
<br />
So, the question must be asked: Is the original intent of the Framers of
our Constitution still in effect? The Naturalization Act is not a
formal Constitutional Amendment, though it is the law of record
concerning the subject of citizenship.<br />
<br />
The Founders would not have considered Obama a "natural-born citizen",
therefore, today should we, or should we not? This seems like
a conundrum only the Supreme Court can finally decide... and they have
not, to date, ruled on it.<br />
<br />
[[NOTE: I was wrong on the above, the Supreme Court has ruled on that in the past, but that's another post.]]<br />
<br />
<br />
Oh, and as a further point, why is Obama's father's race listed as "African" on Obama's Birth Certificate? According to <a href="http://www.nber.org/vital-statistics/historical/nat61_1.CV.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="color: #990000;">Vital Statistics Of The United States 1961 Volume I--Natality</span></a>, Page 231:<br />
<br />
<b>Race and color</b><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"></span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"></span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><br />
Births in </span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">the United </span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">States </span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">in
1961 are classified for vital statistics into white, Negro, American
Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Aleut, Eskimo, Hawaiian and Part-Hawaiian
(combined), and "other nonwhite." The category </span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">"white" </span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">includes,
in addition to persons reported as "white," those reported as Mexican
or Puerto Rican. With one exception, a reported mixture of Negro with
any other race is included in the Negro group; other mixed parentage is
classified according to the race of the nonwhite parent and mixtures of
nonwhite races to the race of the father. The exception refers to a
mixture of Hawaiian and any other race, which is classified as
Part-Hawaiian. </span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">In </span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">most tables a less detailed classification of "white" and "nonwhite" </span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">is </span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">used.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<h3 class="post-title entry-title" itemprop="name" style="text-align: left;">
The Obama Birth Certificate Controversy - Part V</h3>
<h3 class="post-title entry-title" itemprop="name" style="text-align: left;">
The Founders' definition of "Natural-Born Citizen"
</h3>
<div class="post-header">
</div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
The phrase
"natural-born" was coined by Vattel, and Vattel's works were in print
and well-known years before the time of the writing of the Constitution.</div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
John Jay
(who became the first Supreme Court Justice) wrote George Washington
concerning Jay's fears over the need for the unquestioned loyalty to our
nation, and our nation alone, of any future Presidents. For this
reason, Jay stated the need that future prospective Presidents be
"natural-born citizens": those who could claim *both* jus sanguinis
*and* jus soli, a requirement unique to only Presidents and
Vice-Presidents.</div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Jay wanted
not just jus sanguinis... (citizen by blood, both parents being
citizens, which was enough to grant natural-born status to common
citizens, no matter where they were born)... but jus soli (citizen by
soil, born on U.S. soil) as well, a double-proof citizenship that
insured a status of "natural-born citizen", not just "citizen".</div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
This was a
unique requirement specifically and only for any prospective President
or Vice-President. The Naturalization Act is nonapplicable to this
unique designation for the purposes of determining the eligibility of
those seeking the office of President or Vice-President.</div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
That's why it was necessary, in 2008 <a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=sr110-511" target="_blank"><span style="color: #990000;">S. Res. 511</span></a>, to clarify
the Presidential eligibility of McCain and others like him who were
born to military parents, both of whom were citizens, but stationed
during military service on foreign soil at the time of the prospective
President's birth. If not, McCain, and any others like him born of
citizen parents while serving on foreign soil, would not have met the
requirements of jus soli. Such an amendment would not have been needed
if the Naturalization Act definition of "natural-born citizen" applied
to potential United States Presidents.</div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Interestingly, <b>Obama was a sponsor of that bill</b>. In the bill it states:</div>
<blockquote>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Whereas
such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of
the `natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United
States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the
term `natural born Citizen';</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Therefore,
no matter jus soli, which is in hot debate, Obama fails on the first,
jus sanguinis, because of his father's alien status as a British
subject... and Obama knows it.</div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Both Franklin and Washington were familiar with Vattel. See:</div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerich_de_Vattel" target="_blank"><span style="color: #990000;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerich_de_Vattel</span></a></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
(I have archived a copy of the above page.)</div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br />
As a further proof that the Framers of the <a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: #990000;">Constitution</span></a> used Vattel's Law of Nations we need look no further than the Constitution itself, which states under <b>Section 8 -- Powers of Congress</b>:<br />
<blockquote>
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the <b>Law of Nations</b>;<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"></span></span></blockquote>
From the above, it's obvious our Founding Fathers intended to uphold The Law of Nations, as codified by Vattel.<br />
________________________________________________<br />
<br />
<br />
So, that's it then. Obama's not eligible to be President, according to the original intent of the Framers of The Constitution of The United States of America. Unfortunately, neither is Marco Rubio, and that's a shame.<br />
<br />
It all hinges around the word "natural". The very God-given "nature" of a thing isn't determined by man-made laws. Like gravity, it's granted through a natural process of just being what it is, no matter if the laws of man agree with it or not, because the laws of man have no power over it one way or the other. A "Natural-Born Citizen" is "natural" because his parents were both citizens living in their own country at the time of his birth, so he was "naturally" born there. It's that simple... and, apparently, these days, that complicated.<br />
<br />
<br />
SFWhite<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>Paxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04760864496766279700noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-96308086547836467.post-17366737521002357122011-05-12T09:54:00.000-07:002011-05-13T13:28:41.787-07:00The Founders' definition of "Natural-Born Citizen"<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">The phrase "natural-born" was coined by Vattel, and Vattel's works were in print and well-known years before the time of the writing of the Constitution.</div><div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">John Jay (who became the first Supreme Court Justice) wrote George Washington concerning Jay's fears over the need for the unquestioned loyalty to our nation, and our nation alone, of any future Presidents. For this reason, Jay stated the need that future prospective Presidents be "natural-born citizens": those who could claim *both* jus sanguinis *and* jus soli, a requirement unique to only Presidents and Vice-Presidents.</div><div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Jay wanted not just jus sanguinis... (citizen by blood, both parents being citizens, which was enough to grant natural-born status to common citizens, no matter where they were born)... but jus soli (citizen by soil, born on U.S. soil) as well, a double-proof citizenship that insured a status of "natural-born citizen", not just "citizen".</div><div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">This was a unique requirement specifically and only for any prospective President or Vice-President. The Naturalization Act is nonapplicable to this unique designation for the purposes of determining the eligibility of those seeking the office of President or Vice-President.</div><div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">That's why it was necessary, in 2008 <a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=sr110-511"><span style="color: #990000;">S. Res. 511</span></a>, to clarify the Presidential eligibility of McCain and others like him who were born to military parents, both of whom were citizens, but stationed during military service on foreign soil at the time of the prospective President's birth. If not, McCain, and any others like him born of citizen parents while serving on foreign soil, would not have met the requirements of jus soli. Such an ammendment would not have been needed if the Naturalization Act definition of "natural-born citizen" applied to potential United States Presidents.</div><div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Interestingly, <strong>Obama was a sponsor of that bill</strong>. In the bill it states:</div><blockquote><div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen';</div></blockquote><div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"></div><div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Therefore, no matter jus soli, which is in hot debate, Obama fails on the first, jus sanguinis, because of his father's alien status as a British subject... and Obama knows it.</div><div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Both Franklin and Washington were familiar with Vattel. See:</div><div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerich_de_Vattel"><span style="color: #990000;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerich_de_Vattel</span></a></div><div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">(I have archived a copy of the above page.)</div><div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
As a further proof that the Framers of the <a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html"><span style="color: #990000;">Constitution</span></a> used Vattel's Law of Nations we need look no further than the Constitution itself, which states under <strong>Section 8 -- Powers of Congress</strong>:<br />
<blockquote>To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the <strong>Law of Nations</strong>;</blockquote></div>Paxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04760864496766279700noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-96308086547836467.post-11102926804855445202011-05-11T08:47:00.000-07:002012-05-09T11:49:07.385-07:00The Oath Keepers - Defenders of Our Liberty<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
There's an organization We The People need to know about, they are <a href="http://oathkeepers.org/oath/" target="_blank"><span style="color: #990000;"><b>The </b><b>Oath Keepers</b></span></a>.</div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
_____________</div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Quoting from Wikipedia:</div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<b>Oath Keepers</b> is an American nonprofit organization that advocates that its members (current and former U.S. military and law enforcement) uphold the <a class="mw-redirect" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States" target="_blank" title="Constitution of the United States"><span style="color: #990000;">Constitution of the United States</span></a> should they be ordered to violate it.<br />
<br />
The Oath Keepers' motto is "Not On Our Watch!", and their stated objective is to encourage the non-violent disobeying of any order given by a member of the U.S. Government that oversteps Constitutional boundaries.<br />
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
_____________</div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Declaration from their site:</div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b>OATH KEEPERS: ORDERS WE WILL NOT OBEY</b> </div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
(Click<span style="color: #990000;"> </span><a href="http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2009/03/03/declaration-of-orders-we-will-not-obey/" target="_blank"><span style="color: #990000;">here</span></a> to read full length version)</div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.</div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people</div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.</div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.</div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.</div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.</div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.</div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control."</div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.</div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.</div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
_____________</div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
When Bill O'Reilly had the organization's spokesman on his program, O'Reilly tried to paint him and those in his organization as some sort of kooks. What I don't understand is why O'Reilly took that stance. </div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
If the Oath Keepers are "kooks" then, as far as I'm concerned we, the American people, need as many "kooks" just like them on our side as we can get.</div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
.</div>Paxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04760864496766279700noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-96308086547836467.post-33773650450466390382011-04-27T20:41:00.000-07:002011-04-27T23:12:14.440-07:00The Obama Birth Certificate Controversy - Part IVSome new facts have come to my attention concerning the Obama Birth Certificate controversy. These facts stem from the meaning of the phrase "natural-born citizen" as understood by our Founding Fathers at the time of the writing of our United States Constitution. They used as their guide <a href="http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm"><span style="color: #990000;">Vattel's Law of Nations (1758)</span></a>.<br />
<br />
Quoting from that source on the subject of "Citizens and natives":<br />
<br />
<br />
VATTEL: THE LAW OF NATIONS<br />
<br />
BOOK I. <br />
OF NATIONS CONSIDERED IN THEMSELVES.<br />
<br />
CHAP. XIX. <br />
OF OUR NATIVE COUNTRY, AND SEVERAL THINGS THAT RELATE TO IT.<br />
<h4>§ 212. Citizens and natives.</h4>The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. <strong><span style="color: black;">The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.</span></strong> As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.<br />
________________________________________________<br />
<br />
So, the question must be asked: Is the original intent of the Framers of our Constitution still in effect? The Naturalization Act is not a formal Constitutional Amendment, though it is the law of record concerning the subject of citizenship.<br />
<br />
The Founders would not have considered Obama a "natural-born citizen", therefore, today should we, or should we not? This seems like a conundrum only the Supreme Court can finally decide... and they have not, to date, ruled on it.<br />
<br />
<br />
Oh, and as a further point, why is Obama's father's race listed as "African" on Obama's Birth Certificate? According to <a href="http://www.nber.org/vital-statistics/historical/nat61_1.CV.pdf"><span style="color: #990000;">Vital Statistics Of The United States 1961 Volume I--Natality</span></a>, Page 231:<br />
<br />
<strong>Race and color</strong><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"></span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"></span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><br />
Births in </span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">the United </span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">States </span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">in 1961 are classified for vital statistics into white, Negro, American Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Aleut, Eskimo, Hawaiian and Part-Hawaiian (combined), and "other nonwhite." The category </span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">"white" </span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">includes, in addition to persons reported as "white," those reported as Mexican or Puerto Rican. With one exception, a reported mixture of Negro with any other race is included in the Negro group; other mixed parentage is classified according to the race of the nonwhite parent and mixtures of nonwhite races to the race of the father. The exception refers to a mixture of Hawaiian and any other race, which is classified as Part-Hawaiian. </span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">In </span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">most tables a less detailed classification of "white" and "nonwhite" </span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">is </span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">used.</span></span>Paxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04760864496766279700noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-96308086547836467.post-53781292498246389482011-04-03T14:46:00.000-07:002011-04-04T18:28:02.912-07:00The Obama Birth Certificate Controversy - Part III<div class="post-header"><div class="post-header-line-1"></div></div><div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-2458249176051071296"><div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Part III -- What constitutes a status of "natural-born citizen"?<br />
<br />
</div><div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"></div><div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">The section of the 1940 Naturalization Act quoted in Part II is what is referenced to prove the argument that Obama is not a natural-born citizen. However, the <a href="http://library.uwb.edu/guides/USimmigration/54%20stat%201137.pdf"><span style="color: #990000;">1940 Naturalization Act</span></a> was revised by the <a href="http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=6420"><span style="color: #990000;">1952 Naturalization Act</span></a>, page 285, (g) to its present form as found in the current United States Code:<br />
<div style="tab-stops: 44.35pt;"> <span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></div> (g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:<br />
________________________________________________<br />
<br />
So there it is. The intriguing argument that Obama is not a natural-born citizen and his birth certificate will prove it has struck out. The assertion that both of his parents must be United States citizens is incorrect all the way around, according to any version of the Naturalization Act (strike one). The argument that he was actually born in Kenya doesn't matter, as it wouldn't necessarily prevent Obama from being a valid natural-born citizen of the United States (strike two). Finally, the more convoluted argument that his mother who, although a United States citizen, was not old enough to qualify her son as also being a citizen, is taken from an out-dated version of the Naturalization Act (from 1940) that is no longer valid (strike three).<br />
<br />
According to the Naturalization Act as it has existed from 1952 until current, even if he was born in Kenya, his mother fulfilled the requirements to grant natural-born citizenship to her son. Only if she renounced her American citizenship before Obama was born would he not be a legal citizen of the United States.</div></div>Paxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04760864496766279700noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-96308086547836467.post-47656017180861638932011-04-03T14:43:00.000-07:002011-04-05T21:32:26.269-07:00The Obama Birth Certificate Controversy -- Part IIPart II -- What constitutes a status of "natural-born citizen"?<br />
<br />
The text from Part I is from the Naturalization Act, codified in the United States Code, and in effect as of this writing.<br />
<br />
Now here is where the controversy starts to get very muddled, people seem to have glommed onto the text of the <a href="http://library.uwb.edu/guides/USimmigration/54%20stat%201137.pdf"><span style="color: #990000;">1940 Naturalization Act</span></a>, Chapter II--Nationality At Birth, which read differently:<br />
<br />
(g) A person born outside the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, has had ten years' residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, at least five of which were after attaining the age of sixteen years, the other being an alien: Provided, That, in order to retain such citizenship, the child must reside in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling five years between the ages of thirteen and twenty-one years: Provided further, That, if the child has not taken up residence in the United States or its outlying possessions by the time he reaches the age of sixteen years, or if he resides abroad for such a time that it becomes impossible for him to complete the five years' residence in the United States or its outlying possessions before reaching the age of twenty-one years, his American citizenship shall thereupon cease.<br />
________________________________________________<br />
<br />
The final blow to the Birth Certificate controversy is covered in Part III.Paxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04760864496766279700noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-96308086547836467.post-24582491760510712962011-04-03T14:37:00.000-07:002011-04-03T14:43:58.159-07:00The Obama Birth Certificate Controversy - Part I<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Part I -- What constitutes a status of "natural-born citizen"?</div><div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access</div><div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">[<a href="http://www.gpoaccess.gov/"><span style="color: #990000;">www.gpoaccess.gov</span></a>]</div><div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">[Laws in effect as of January 3, 2007]</div><div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">[CITE: 8USC1401]</div><div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">[Page 396-398]</div><div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">TITLE 8--ALIENS AND NATIONALITY</div><div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">CHAPTER 12--IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY</div><div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">SUBCHAPTER III--NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION</div><div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Part I--Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization</div><div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Sec. 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth</div><div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:</div><div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">[...]</div><div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"> (g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:[...]</div>________________________________________________<br />
<br />
The above is from the Naturalization Act, codified in the United States Code, and in effect as of this writing.<br />
<br />
This is too long for my blog-site to handle all at once, so read the other two parts. Parts II and III will show additional research that clears up any doubt...Paxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04760864496766279700noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-96308086547836467.post-15768903389414718692011-04-03T13:10:00.001-07:002012-05-09T11:46:22.166-07:00"We will bury you!"<div class="dsq-comment-text" id="dsq-comment-text-177180149">
I remember a lot of presidents, the first one I truly paid attention to was Eisenhower, he convinced me I was a Republican at the ripe old age of 11. I've seen a lot of lousy governing, but I've seen how well it can be done, too. Reagan proved that firm but reasonable is what works.<br />
<br />
We are a nation of different ideologies, and all should have their place. What's wrong today is that somewhere along the line a tiny minority of radicals usurped our universities and entertainment industry, and then our government, and convinced the people that the government should do it for them, rather than that they should do it for themselves.<br />
<br />
Do you remember Kruschev pounding his shoe on a podium and yelling "We will bury you!"? Even as a kid, that sight made a lasting impression. It was evident I was looking at a mortal enemy.<br />
<br />
The USSR's plan was to destroy us from within. From former KGB officers who worked in covert operations who defected, we've learned that one of their tactics was to infiltrate the faculties of institutions of higher learning, and subvert personalities from the entertainment and news media. They called such people in influential positions "useful idiots". They wined-and-dined those useful idiots, preening their egos, telling them how "special" and "enlightened" they were.<br />
<br />
Of course, after they'd served their purpose, those same useful idiots were the first to be imprisoned or killed, after the Communists had taken over their country and things started going very bad for the people... as they always did. In fact, it was imperative they remove them, because of the very fact those useful idiots *were* influential, and could as easily stir the people to rebellion when they discovered Communism was very much *not* the utopia they had been convinced it was.<br />
<br />
The first thing they would attack was God, since religion, especially Christianity, is the antithesis of Communism, then they would break down the family, then they would destroy the moral backbone of the society.<br />
<br />
Look around. Does any of that seem chillingly familiar?<br />
__________________________________________<br />
<br />
Watch the following YouTube video of an in-depth interview with a former Soviet agent, <span dir="ltr" id="eow-title" title="Yuri Bezmenov: Sleepers Emerge and Messiah Appears">Yuri Bezmenov,</span> who defected to the U.S... this could keep you up at night worrying:<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/6luso7e" target="_blank"><b>Soviet Subversion of the Free World Press</b></a><br />
(Run-time: 1:21:29)</div>
<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br />
<br />
<br />
.</div>
</div>Paxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04760864496766279700noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-96308086547836467.post-32755278606322570652011-03-29T09:55:00.000-07:002011-04-05T17:21:24.330-07:00PC Is Killing America and The World<div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Let's hope Trump has the clout to at last kill, or at least critically wound, the PC monster that's destroying America and the world. Every time those who own the talking heads of the media don't want something to become an issue that topic suddenly becomes taboo for "intelligent" people to even casually discuss. I feel like I'm living in George Orwell's "1984", and it creeps me out. The minute any such touchy issue is broached, the propaganda machine grinds into gear, chewing up any person "stupid" enough to even mention it.</div><div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Though I'm a devoted Fox News follower, that's the major complaint I have against them, they're just as bad at pushing the PC line as any of the other main-stream media outlets on some critical issues. They may not want to legitimize the topic, but they have no true reason to paint anyone who has a question concerning that topic as some sort of loon. The very fact they're so quick to do that makes them as highly suspect as any other news source as far as actually giving us the truth on certain issues.</div><div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Only people who are truly unafraid of the truth, whatever it might be and wherever it might lead, can look at a topic in what really is an intelligent manner. The problem with so many areas encompassed by the PC machine today is that the facts hidden in those forbidden areas could very well destroy us all.</div><div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">If you have questions concerning Obama's birth certificate, you're suddenly stuck with the label "Birther". If you have questions concerning the events of 9/11 what are you? A "9/11 Truther" of course. If you think abortion is wrong, everybody knows you're a "Lifer". If you're a member of the Tea Party, you're a "Tea Bagger" in an "Astro-Turf" movement. If you want to restore our government to its Constitutional foundations, you're a "Right-Wing Nut". If you stand up for Christian values, you're a "Religious Bigot".</div><div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoPlainText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Every time I hear a new label, my ears prick up and I start to pay attention. I've learned a new dismissive name probably means there's something that's at the very least important... (and perhaps even critical)... to either the welfare of our government or the welfare of our society as a whole hidden under that cutesy-sounding PC pejorative.</div>Paxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04760864496766279700noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-96308086547836467.post-35121127473871214012011-01-23T02:21:00.000-08:002011-01-23T02:31:00.674-08:00Supreme Court Justices<p><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Georgia', 'serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'">It's been done so seldom most people don't even know it can be done. What? Debenching (impeaching) a Supreme Court Justice. Yes, just as with impeaching a President, the Legislature has the power to debench an unsatisfactory Justice, and it's been done.</span></p><p><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Georgia', 'serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Georgia', 'serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'">It seems that the Court usurping the duties sovereign to the Legislature should be good and sufficient grounds for debenching the entire lot of Justices who continue to vote their personal ideologies rather than stick to the strict letter of Constitutional law.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></span></p>Paxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04760864496766279700noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-96308086547836467.post-48087457384679304442011-01-20T00:44:00.000-08:002011-04-03T17:15:38.306-07:00Why is there anything?We argue about the trivialities of existence while overlooking the absolute absurdity of the fact there even is existence. Each of us must admit we believe in the impossible, because there's no way... drudged up from the depths of our limited cognitive abilities... anything could just have always been. So we live inside the impossible and wonder about the improbable... when we actually take the time to wonder about anything at all outside the humdrum.<br />
<br />
Richard Dawkins, burned-out bulb that he is, is proof of that. He's got such a thing against God (and for himself) he hasn't taken the time to ask a non-God question that could answer his truly lame one, "Who created God?" Why not ask, "How did anything begin?"<br />
<br />
When man is "smart" enough to finally answer that question, then the God-thing that so flummoxes Dawkins will clear right up.<br />
<br />
The proof that everything has always existed is that anything exists now. Personally, I believe an ever-existing God is the reason for it all. The only reason anything is possible is because God chose that it be so. The only logical possibility within the otherwise total impossibility of this existence is God.<br />
<br />
So, let's go a bit further with that. If we admit we live inside an impossibility, implausibility becomes more plausible. If the only reason anything can exist is because of God, then why is it so hard to think that perhaps He cares about His creation? Wouldn't you, if you were Him? How big a step from the absurdity of actually existing in the first place is it to the possibility of God writing His creation a letter? You know, an instruction manual with the rules to safely navigate His creation. That would seem logical, since He chose to lock existence in this universe into time.<br />
<br />
However, He doesn't seem too concerned about the care and maintenance of orchards, animal husbandry, etc., rather, He's interested in what's on the inside of us, how to care for something a lot of us don't seem to worry about much at all. But, according to the manual, that's the only part of us that will last, and, according to His manual, it takes constant upkeep or it goes all to Hell. Not pleasant. Hard work, too.<br />
<br />
Well, the not going to Hell part isn't hard, since it's a gift, it's the keeping the dirt out of the temple that will wear you out.Paxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04760864496766279700noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-96308086547836467.post-78022147951982279142011-01-08T23:00:00.000-08:002011-01-23T02:32:04.381-08:00Me and TheeIs it just human that if you choose to hate, you have a good reason and so it's justified, but if someone else chooses to hate, they're a nut-job who's probably a danger to themselves or others?Paxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04760864496766279700noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-96308086547836467.post-73080345907932205202008-05-21T16:37:00.001-07:002015-12-21T09:03:33.867-08:00The Key To HappinessI had a strange dream, in it I was searching for the Key To Happiness. I was told that in order to find it I must be guided by an animal who was usually evil, except when the weather was cold. If I could befriend one of these animals during a period of cold weather, it would guide me to the key.<br />
<br />
It took a while, but finally I found one of the animals. It looked like a large black dog, but it hid among the branches of trees and other places high up. It was a scary thing, so I hesitated to get too close to it, and just followed, watching it. While it was on the eve of a barn, just above my head, I mustered the courage to speak to it. It stopped and waited, listening, as it watched me with intent eyes.<br />
<br />
To my surprise, I befriended it by simply telling it I needed it to be my friend. With a fluid motion, it jumped down beside me and looked patiently up at me. Deciding I was prepared enough for a pretty long journey, I asked it to guide me to The Key To Happiness. It repled, "The key is not at a place, it is something you make. Only you can make the key to your happiness."<br />
<br />
Then the scene changed, we were inside a large room similar in style to a Middle-Eastern hall, with rows of seating filled with all sorts of people. I was standing beside the black dog as it spoke to the audience. It was telling a Hindu man dressed in fine brocade clothing and a gold turban, "God is with all those who seek Him." With that, the man smiled peacefully.<br />
<br />
It then spoke to the audience in general, saying, "Happiness is a road we must each choose to walk again each day, but it is a road we can only reach by using the key we have chosen to make for ourselves and then choosing to use that key. We can share our happiness with others, but we cannot give happiness to others. Personal happiness cannot be taken or given, it can only be chosen and made."<br />
<br />
___________________________________________<br />
<br />
Not taken or given? But it's common to try to give happiness to someone else, to "make someone happy," that doesn't work? It can only be chosen and made? Shouldn't that be the other way around, "made and chosen"? I see! In order to make it, I must first *choose* to make it.<br />
<br />
Going back to the first, why cold weather? Could it be an allusion to needing a "cool head of reason" not muddled with the "hot" tumultuous emotions of anger, discord or displeasure? Also, why was the animal usually evil, except in cold weather? "Hot" emotions are evil, as a general rule, could that be it? The fact the animal was usually evil might mean it's more common to be in turmoil (evil) than at peace. That's sad to realize.<br />
<br />
I'm not sure I understand it all, but some dreams are worth remembering anyway.Paxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04760864496766279700noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-96308086547836467.post-56437041041173253042008-04-13T22:21:00.000-07:002008-04-13T22:37:39.265-07:00"Political Correctness", the new brand of McCarthyismFor those of you who don't know what I mean, read a bit on Wikipedia about the infamous senator who inspired the term:<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy</a><br /><br />A quote from the article:<br />"Today the term is used more generally to describe demagogic, reckless, and unsubstantiated accusations, as well as public attacks on the character or patriotism of political opponents."<br /><br />If that doesn't describe today's "Political Correctness", nothing does. Way to go, all you pc-pushers, McCarthy would be proud of you. Just remember, every freedom you take away from someone else you also take away from yourself. "You can't say that, because someone might be offended by it!" can degenerate into, "You can't say anything, because we said so!" faster than you might think is possible.Paxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04760864496766279700noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-96308086547836467.post-56368239518344124472008-04-10T08:55:00.000-07:002008-04-10T09:10:46.753-07:00Here's Some Stupid... The Oil "Crisis"If ever there was anything that demonstrated the ingrained stupidity of the vast majority of the human race, it has to be the "Oil Crisis". Why? Because, since at least the 1950s we have had clean, all-but-free alternatives to oil, at least to fuel our vehicles.<br /><br />When I was in my early 20s back in the 70s, I was rummaging through some old magazines my parents had stored and came across an issue of Popular Mechanics from the 1950s; on its cover it displayed what was, for that era, a futuristic-looking race car. What caught my attention was the headline for the article about the car, lauding the fact it had won some famous race using a revolutionary new engine powered by a water-turbine engine. This was not yesterday, this was almost 60 years ago!<br /><br />The list of alternative fuels to power or vehicles is growing, yet we persist in our deathwish by burying our heads, and our hard-earned dollars, in the sand as we throw insane amounts of money at the Middle East to purchase their over-priced, over-prized oil.<br /><br />The most stupid thing about it all is that there are many really cheap alternative fuels that don't even require a new engine-type to use them. With gas prices soaring to record amounts, it could only be our entrenched up-bringing that causes us to persist in our rabid devotion to something the entire world would be better off without.Paxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04760864496766279700noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-96308086547836467.post-83957424307440554452008-04-03T10:27:00.000-07:002008-04-03T10:42:55.091-07:00Learning and TeachingIf we are interacting with something, we are automatically learning; if we are interacting with someone, we are automatically both learning and teaching. This realization, when honestly considered, can be scary for all of us who are not perfect.Paxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04760864496766279700noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-96308086547836467.post-54695831556047015722008-04-03T10:25:00.000-07:002008-04-03T10:44:49.045-07:00ExpedienceContrary to popular hype, we don't live lives of "quiet desperation", we live lives of quiet expedience... desperation takes a lot of concentrated, long-term effort, and most people would rather not.Paxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04760864496766279700noreply@blogger.com0