While the national corporate media has covered the outcome of this case, their analysis has been (and will be) long on the sensationalism of the arguments between these two sides, and very short on what the opinion actually says. For those who are interested in the actual language and analysis of the Heller decision, as well as some educated guesses as to the likely directions this decision will take us in the future, this analysis will deal with the issues of importance that stand out to both practicing criminal defense attorney and political science professor.

The most important things about Heller, other than the mere fact that it squarely addresses the Second Amendment, are that it is far more comprehensive than the national media are explaining. This is no mere overturning of the District of Columbia's pervasive gun ban, it absolutely establishes that the Second Amendment does indeed protect an individuals right to own and use firearms, as separate and distinct from any government controlled military organization. Justice Scalia, writing for the 5-4 majority, carefully analyzes each and every word of the Amendment, and does so from both a linguistic, legal, and historical perspective. He defines "arms", "bear", "people", "right", "keep", "militia", "state", and fully deconstructs how they are put together. There is nothing left to define here, no words about which the meaning can be speculated, and no syntax structure left to be manipulated. Short of outright overturn of the decision (which every Supreme Court abhors to do), the individual nature of this right is now set in stone. Further, Justice Scalia (rightly) heaps scorn on some of the more obtuse and insultingly disingenuous arguments that have been made to eviscerate the meaning of the Second Amendment over the last few decades. We begin our examination of Heller with its disposal of those "chestnuts".

For at least a couple of decades, we've been forced to endure the catchphrase that the Second Amendment only would allow private ownership of muskets and muzzleloaders, since that was what the founders were calling firearms. This was what would be called a "compromise position" uttered by the self congratulatory, semi-educated, through a haze of clove cigarette smoke. Justice Scalia harshly brought them to reality with the following:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 19th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima faciae, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

The second venerable "chestnut" that has long been a lamppost for gun opponents to slouch against during any debate, has been to claim that the Second Amendment is only a "collective" right, indicating that it has to do with "militia service" or some existent group organized by the government, such as police forces, National Guard Units, or the proverbial "posse". While Justice Scalia spends considerable time on the exploration of the "militia" idea, before disposing of the gun opponents agenda for that phrase, he deals a swift death blow to the idea that the Second Amendment is some kind of "collective" right. He notes that the Second Amendment specifically says the "right of the people", and goes on to add that;

The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase "right of the people" two other times, in the First Amendment's Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment's Search-and Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology.[direct quote removed] All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not "collective" rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.

In footnote here he says that Justice Stevens contention that the right is conditioned on membership in a militia, and is "primarily collective in nature", Justice Scalia calls "deadwrong", citing McDonald v. Smith, 472 U.S. 479(1985) which defined the historical origins of another individual right set forth in the Bill of Rights. Writing for the majority Justice Scalia notes that, "Nowhere else in the Constitution does a 'right' attributed to 'the people' refer to anything other than an individual right." In fact, he says, "We start therefore with the presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

The opinion spends much of its length dealing with just how, precisely; the "militia" concept is entwined with the right to bear arms. In short, he says that the Second Amendment is divided into two distinct parts. The part that talks about "militia" is what he calls a "prefatory clause", a phrase used only to clarify or justify the important part of the statement, the "operative clause". The operative clause here is, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

He clearly states that the operative clause is based on the long standing conflicts in England, where the government sought to disarm groups that opposed it, to better establish tyranny, and is the codification of a pre-existing right. Hence, the word "infringed", making it clear that the people already have a right to keep and bear arms. Had the amendment been designed to give a heretofore unknown right to the people, it would have read something like, "…does hereby grant to the people a right to keep and bear arms". (The founders were followers of the philosophy of the 18th century liberals philosophers, like John Locke, and believed that humans had inalienable rights, not that humans were only to be "given" rights by a sovereign.)

He says that the prefatory clause does not serve as a limit on the operative clause, and that "…operative provisions should be given effect as operative provisions, and prologues as prologues….[if]the prologue itself should be one of the factors that go into the determination of whether the operative provision is ambiguous [that] would cause the prologue to be used to produce ambiguity rather than resolve it."

He notes that the Constitution itself empowers congress to make a Navy and to raise Armies, but that the militias are something different. He argues that the plain language and history indicate the militias were pre-existing to the government, and were composed of all able bodied men, armed with their personal weapons. He conveys that there were many reasons the founders felt that a militia would be "necessary to the security of a free state", among them repelling invasion. Though he does not mention it specifically, it is worth noting that Admiral Yamamoto advised the Japanese military ruling council against a land invasion of California, primarily because the large number of armed citizens would make it an ungovernable quagmire. This shows that the founders belief that the security of the nation would be bolstered by having an armed populace was borne out, at least through the 20th century. Scalia also draws attention to the writings of Hamilton describing that a nation of armed, able bodied men, are better able to resist tyranny, and also spends some time discussing the history of the struggles between Catholics and Protestants for control of the monarchy, as the origins of this knowledge of armed resistance to tyranny. Thus he illuminates that the prefatory phrase about the militia is merely explanatory as to the operative phrase of just why it is so important that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

The fundamental right established, the remaining three elements of this decision, upon which so many people waited so anxiously, were how the court was to deal with "crime", "regulation", and the types of "arms" protected.

Justice Scalia repeatedly referred to the right to use firearms to protect oneself in the home or on ones property. Over and over again, this entered into his analysis at all levels. This established two things never before addressed by the Court. First, that the 2nd Amendment is now related to an individual's right of self defense, not merely as a mechanism for defense of the nation against foreign aggression or domestic tyranny. Secondly it clearly establishes the right of a person to use a firearm in self defense. This second point, while it has escaped comment in the popular media, was hammered home, by repetition, throughout the opinion. By choosing this language, Judge Scalia laid a bulwark against any future efforts to undermine this right of self defense, such as is currently happening in England. There, many recent cases have found persons convicted for using deadly force to defend themselves from violent attack. It seems likely Judge Scalia took this opportunity to prevent such a perversion of justice from finding roots here in America. He goes so far as to call it the "core lawful purpose of self defense".

The court acknowledges the difficulties posed to communities by "handgun violence" but says that the Constitution leaves communities with a variety of tools for combating the problem, "But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table". To wit, governments and communities can't absolutely prohibit handguns, "held and used for self defense in the home".

As to the right of the government(s) to regulate ownership of firearms, the court clearly states that some regulations are permissible.. The court notes that like most rights, this right is not unlimited. Just as there are permissible limits on the freedom of speech, and the freedom to practice ones religions, so too there are reasonable limits that can be placed on ones right to keep and bear armaments. Scalia and the court note that the longstanding prohibitions which prevent convicted felons, or the mentally ill from owning firearms is permissible, as are restrictions preventing the carrying of firearms into sensitive locations. Specifically named are schools, and government buildings. Likewise the opinion specifically permits laws which impose conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Scalia says these are merely examples, and are not to be seen as the complete list, so we can presume that many more specific restrictions will not be undone by this opinion. It seems the BATF officers who conduct checks on gun stores and licensed dealers will not need to be updating their resume's, nor will the wand wielding inspectors at our courts, schools, and airports. However, the strong wording on the right to use a firearm to defend oneself in the home makes it likely any "school zone" bans which overlap anyone individuals private residence are likely defunct.

Lastly, the court did give some guidance in the area of the types of firearms protected by the 2nd Amendment, the area of great interest to both the enemies of gun ownership and firearms enthusiasts alike. Over the last couple of decades, this has been the central arena in the battle over guns in the US. Though this decision in no way creates a definitive list of what specific guns can be regulated or to degree, there is some pretty strong language limiting the governments reach in this regard.. On several occasion in the opinion, the court specifically upholds the ban on sawed off shotguns, as an example of the type of permissible regulation of weapons that are "unsafe" and not typical of the weapons used by the average soldier. The opinion cites the colonial regulations on the storage of gunpowder to minimize fire damage, and a singular colonial era regulation on keeping a loaded firearm for its danger to firefighters. This analysis would indicate that the government may prohibit ownership of particularly unusual or dangerous armaments. Do not expect regulations prohibiting flame throwers, rocket launchers, explosives or heavy weapons to be invalidated. However, this does not seem to extend to any weapons commonly used by the average soldier, or citizen. The popularity and utility of handguns, for use in personal self defense is given a great deal of discussion, and it seems that any "handgun" ban is going to be absolutely unconstitutional. Justice Scalia notes that many people prefer handguns for defense within the home because of their ease of handling in close quarters, and the fact that they free a second hand to do such necessary tasks as dialing the police, and though he doesn't mention it, hold a flashlight.

Of great interest in light of the recent battles fought over "assault style weapons", was a singular paragraph of great depth and analysis, that this author has yet to see addressed in the popular media. It is almost a summation of the entire analysis of the 2nd Amendment;

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service-M-16 rifles and the like- may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendments ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias of the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large….But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

This seems to say that like the analysis of the right of speech to be extended to our fax machines and cell phones, the right to militarily useful weapons should be protected. Light machine guns, and squad automatic weapons are probably not protected and may be "infringed", but the average infantryman's rifle, "M-16 rifles and the like", appear to be protected specifically by the Second Amendment. At least, for as long as the Supreme Court stands as it does today.

That said, the opinion does expose some weaknesses in the protection if affords. The exceptions made for regulation and licensing of firearms would be deeply disturbing if adopted on a wider scale than by the small political areas that will now be losing their comprehensive bans. The weakness in the decision, specifically, is that there is great deference shown to "licensing", which is treated as an acceptable accommodation to the right, for the District of Columbia. If licensing is a permissible way to regulate handguns, then by analogy, it would be permissible for the Federal government to potentially require licensing of all firearms. To allow this to occur would build a fatal weakness into our basic freedom, since registration makes later confiscation, by tyrant or invader, not only possible but likely. Historical examples of registration based confiscation are common, and not limited to the activities of the Nazi's, both in Germany and immediately upon conquest of a neighboring state which "enjoyed" a gun registration scheme.

Also, there is the phraseology that places it within governmental power to regulate the commercial sale and interstate commercial transport of arms. This may be the single greatest threat to our continued enjoyment of the benefits of the Second Amendment. There have been and continue to be ongoing attempts to prohibit or limit the person to person sale of firearms, without involving a "licensed" intermediary. These efforts to "close the gun show loophole" are largely unopposed by the firearms manufacture and retail industries, because they see the used gun market as competition to their revenue flow. However, this simple custom in the law is the razor thin edge between our current system and de facto national registration. This is not merely speculation, for this author personally seen basic, simple, felony criminal cases in Arizona, which directly demonstrated the existence of national gun registration as early as the year 2003.

In the several months before these cases went to trial, the prosecution was able to send the serial number of a pistol to the BATF, who contacted a licensed gun dealer in an outlying city in Arizona. That dealer FAXed the firearm purchase form, which had been filled out nearly 10 years prior, at the purchase of the pistol by an individual now accused of the crime. During trial, the local deputy county prosecutor was able to produce a copy of the actual form filled out by the defendant, with his handwriting, and signature, from a lawful purchase nearly a decade old. Bear in mind, this was not a federal crime, or even a high profile crime (the accused had no criminal record, and there were no injuries). If a low level, local, prosecutor, chasing down a simple local crime, can easily acquire the purchase forms from a lawful firearms purchase, nearly a decade old, from merely a manufacturers serial number, how is that not a national registration scheme already in place? The only current limitation on this registration scheme is that if a "gun confiscator" came to the addresses on each of those forms, the persons named could now answer, "I sold it to some guy 5 years ago". If the Heller decision permits laws to be passed which require all purchases to be either from licensed dealers, or that the transaction be done through a licensed dealer, the we automatically have national gun registration. The first and most important step for confiscation by either invader or tyrant.

While Justice Scalia concludes the majority opinion by writing "it is not the role of this court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct", it will unfortunately require ongoing activism and vigilance to make sure another government body does not make it moot.

By David Roth

David Roth is a Generation X, former political science professor, now practicing law in Phoenix.

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

Airbus drove Lockheed and McDonnell-Douglas out of the business of commercial aircraft and almost took down Boeing. And like indolent buffalo munching grass as they are shot one by one, we let it happen.

Lost U.S. jobs should not be our primary concern, said McCain, "I've always felt the best thing to do is to create the best weapons system we can at minimum cost to taxpayers."

But if McCain thinks cost trumps all in building weapons of war, why not outsource the building of U.S. carriers, cruisers, destroyers, frigates and submarines to the foreign shipyards that construct America's merchant ships? Why not hire and train foreign sailors as crews?

Why not outsource the scores of thousands of U.S. government jobs handling Social Security checks and tax returns to Bangladesh and India? After all, the neocons want to hire foreign mercenaries to fight America's wars and reward them with U.S. citizenship, as the Romans did in the last days of the empire.

What does it mean to be an American anymore?

It took 20 years to wake up blockheaded Republicans to the social insanity of open borders. Only the collapse of his candidacy last summer jolted McCain into realizing that the 80 percent of Americans who reject amnesty and want a border fence are not all "bigots," as his Tonto, Lindsay Graham, said they were.

Is it going to take 20 more years for Republicans to awaken to the economic disaster they have created and the political ruin they are inviting with this fanatic faith in "free trade," while the rest of the world loots our country through mercantilism?

When Europe imposes a 15 percent value-added tax on U.S. imports and rebates the VAT on exports to the United States, that is not free trade. When China devalues its currency 45 percent, as it did in 1994, and bolts it down to suck jobs and factories out of the United States, that is not free trade. When Japan manipulates its currency, preaches economic nationalism to its people, and shelters its market for TVs, autos and steel, while dumping into and capturing ours, that is not free trade.

McCain admits to knowing almost nothing about economics and is now being advised by my old friend Jack Kemp. In a Wall Street Journal essay bemoaning my views, Kemp concedes, "I'm on the advisory board of Toyota North America and now drive a hybrid Lexus."

Nor is Jack the only pol who has found happiness in a foreign employ. Ex-secretaries of state and Cabinet officers, ex-senators and congressmen, and ex-White House aides are getting rich working for foreigners who are carting off American jobs, American technology, American markets, American factories -- and America's future.

Yet retribution may be at hand for our multinational GOP. In Ohio, NAFTA is a five-letter word with a four-letter meaning, as Ohio lost a huge slice of the 3.5 million manufacturing jobs that vanished under the McCain-Kemp-Bush policy of unilateral disarmament in the trade wars being waged against America. (emphasis added)

Look at the Bush-McCain record: $4 trillion in trade deficits, $2.5 trillion in manufactures alone. One in every six manufacturing jobs, 3 million, gone. With America borrowing $2 billion a day to pay for foreign goods, we have seen a collapse of the dollar, the price of gold quadruple to $1,000 an ounce, oil soar to $107 a barrel (now $140 and headed higher – emphasis added) and gas heading toward $4 a gallon (looking through the rear-view mirror, more likely $7 a gallon – emphasis added).

Where Bush created an average of 46,000 new private-sector jobs a month, Bill Clinton did five times as well, creating 220,000 a month.

Hillary won Ohio denouncing the NAFTA deal Bill Clinton cut. The lady gets it. McCain remains a loyal NAFTA man. Good luck in Ohio and Michigan.

As the Great Peer said, "The commonest error in politics is sticking to the carcass of dead policies."

by Patrick J. Buchanan
03/11/2008

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

I have been made aware of two pieces of legislation, thanks to the constant vigilance of the patriots at SOSUSA.US. I send my most sincere thanks to them, for bringing it to my attention, so that I might bring it to yours. This legislation has just confirmed the opinion I have long held that members of our congress have either lost their damn minds, are complete incompetents, or are intentionally complicit in the destruction of our national sovereignty. Either way, I am tired of being the hog tied, blindfolded, gagged passenger in a vehicle driven by suicidal maniacs.

Yet another piece is being added to the framework, set in place for the demise of our national sovereignty. I hope, by now, you have read my past article The Demise Of Our American Identity, which exposes and explains that a deeply embedded program is already in place to move our nation into a fully integrated Western Hemisphere.

This framework strives to harmonize our nation with international law through the United Nations, the Summit of the Americas, The Organization of American States (OAS) and the Inter-American System and has been moved progressively forward by way of NAFTA, the SPP and the soon to come NAU which will finally complete the permanent dissolution of our nation into a hemispheric conglomerate where all knees shall bend to the Gods of Globalism and a new social order shall reign supreme. God help us all.

The following are just a few excerpts from one more piece of the integration puzzle. As you are reading what is obviously the bankrupting of our nation, think of the lives that have been lost for the cause of our liberty. Think of the past generations who suffered and struggled to bring us to the comfort, security and national wealth we have all enjoyed and often taken for granted. Think of our soldiers fighting and dying, even now, in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Then, think of your children and grandchildren. Read the words that will enslave and impoverish them. Our children will not be free as we have been. They will never know the liberty we have known. They will never know the prosperity that was possible for us, if we worked hard and studied and applied ourselves to our successful endeavors. They will not be Americans, as we perceive America, unless this generation wakes up, pays attention and makes significant changes, quickly. Time is short.

If you are waiting for someone else to rush in and save the day, stop waiting. This is your country, your sovereignty, your freedom, you home, your family and your future. This is your problem. You must be a part of the solution or you have no one to blame but yourself.

The move to Progressive socialism marches on and we are woefully behind is stamping it down. To make changes, you must understand the plan. Remember; this is just ONE piece of the puzzle.

(Excerpts)
Social Investment and Economic Development for the Americas Act of 2007
Senate Bill 2120
OCTOBER 1, 2007

Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself, Mr. MARTINEZ, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. DODD, Mr. COLEMAN, Mr. SALAZAR, Mr. KERRY, Mrs. CLINTON, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. NELSON of Florida, and Mr. CARDIN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

A BILL
To authorize the establishment of a Social Investment and Economic Development Fund for the Americas to provide assistance to reduce poverty, expand the middle class, and foster increased economic opportunity in the countries of the Western Hemisphere, and for other purposes.

(3) The United States contributes, on average, $820,000,000 in bilateral development assistance to Latin America and the Caribbean each year and has continued to strengthen its commitment to promoting our shared values, heritage, and culture while confronting the common challenges we face.

(4) The United States has also contributed through the Millennium Challenge Account more than $269,000,000 in development assistance.

(5) Poverty and inequality remain historic and persistent problems in the region, which undermine progress on social and economic development. These problems contribute to the rise of populist ideas and add to inequality.

The President, acting through the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development and working with foreign governments and civil society, shall provide increased and sustained assistance to reduce poverty, expand the middle class, and foster increased economic opportunity in the countries of the Western Hemisphere by helping to—

(1) Improve the quality of life and invest in human capital, specifically by promoting education, improving health and disease prevention, and increasing the access to and quality of housing;

There is established within the United States Agency for International Development an advisory committee to be known as the Western Hemisphere Economic Investment and Development Advisory

They are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this chapter, including for purposes of reducing poverty, expanding the middle class, and fostering increased economic opportunity in the countries of the Western Hemisphere, in addition to amounts of United States Foreign Assistance Funds (Function 150) otherwise authorized and appropriated and the $820,000,000 in bilateral development assistance provided by the United States, on average, to Latin America and the Caribbean each year, the following amounts:

$50,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.
$75,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.
$100,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.
$125,000,000 for fiscal year 2011.
$150,000,000 for fiscal year 2012.
$150,000,000 for fiscal year 2013.
$150,000,000 for fiscal year 2014.
$150,000,000 for fiscal year 2015.
$150,000,000 for fiscal year 2016.
$150,000,000 for fiscal year 2017.

The Inter-American Development Bank Act

The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the United States Executive Director at the Bank to use the voice, vote, and influence of the United States to urge the Bank to establish an account to be known as the ‘Social Investment and Economic Development Fund for the Americas.

The Fund shall be used to provide assistance to reduce poverty, expand the size of the middle class, and foster increased economic opportunity in the countries of the Western Hemisphere by helping to:

(3) leverage personal remittances and reduce the cost of remittances sent to Latin America and the Caribbean, for the purpose of advancing economic and social development by

(A) increasing access to financial institutions for the poor, and working with local financial institutions to reduce fees and other costs associated with sending or receiving remittances;

(B) working with local financial institutions to develop programs whereby personal remittances can be used as the basis for credit for mortgages and loans for small business, microenterprises, housing, and other enterprises;

(C) providing matching funds for private entities in the United States that send donations for development projects in Latin America and the Caribbean; and

It is the sense of Congress that—

(1) the amounts authorized to be appropriated to carry out this Act and the amendments made by this Act should be used to help countries in Latin America and the Caribbean focus on improving indicators in the area of investing in people, as that term is used in section 607(b)(3) of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7706(b)(3)), and consistent with the transformational development program of the Department of State; [Read]

(1) the Multilateral Investment Fund, which was fully established in 1993 as part of President George H.W. Bush’s Enterprise for the Americas Initiative, has been successful in promoting inclusive economic growth in Latin America and the Caribbean;

(4) as stated in section 499L of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as added by section 3, amounts authorized to be appropriated pursuant to the amendments made by this Act for a fiscal year for initiatives to reduce poverty, expand the middle class, and foster increased economic opportunity in the countries of the Western Hemisphere are in addition to amounts that would be allocated or projected in the President’s budget request for Latin America and Caribbean for such fiscal year. [Read] [Read]

There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of the Treasury $51,000,000 for payment to the Inter-American Development Bank of arrears owed by the United States to the Multilateral Investment Fund. [Read]

You might wonder if the members of the House will save us from the insanity of the members of the Senate sponsoring this legislation. It will not be reassuring to learn that the House has its own version of this monstrosity.

HOUSE VERSION
H.R.3692 (introduced 9/27/2007)
Sponsor Rep Eliot Engel and thirty co-sponsors

Title: To authorize the establishment of a Social Investment and Economic Development Fund for the Americas to provide assistance to reduce poverty, expand the middle class, and foster increased economic opportunity in the countries of the Western Hemisphere, and for other purposes.

Citizens of the United States of America, we can no longer entrust the sovereignty of this nation to most of those who are now in positions of power in our government. Our best interests are not being served. I pray that Americans will finally understand the consequences of our apathy or lack of understanding and will begin to step forward into the political arena and replace those disgraces that now hold our national sovereignty by the throat.

Until we see the truth and understand it, until we vote these scoundrels out of office and replace them with constitutionally directed candidates, we are on a collision course with disaster. Our future leaders are out there somewhere, maybe even reading this now. If so, I am asking that they step forward, trust in the citizen of this nation to see their value, and begin to bring our nation back towards a sound, sane foreign policy.

We can defeat this insanity and we must. The very survival of our nation now depends on all of us. Do all that you can to support candidates who will defend our constitution? Send the rest of them back to the obscurity they so deserve. They should hang their heads in shame for the disservice they have done this nation and our citizens.

Unfortunately; I don’t believe shame is a part of their DNA.

It is time for the awakening of our citizens. Do your part.

Godspeed and God Bless the USA

By CJ Graham
June 28, 2008

http://www.newswithviews.com/Graham/cj2.htm

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

The image became increasingly suspect with Israel Insider's revelation that variations of the certificate image were posted on the Photobucket image aggregation website -- including one listing the location of Obama's birth as Antarctica, one with the certificate supposedly issued by the government of North Korea, and another including a purported photo of baby Barack -- one of which has a "photo taken" time-stamp just two minutes before the article and accompanying image was posted on the left-wing Daily Kos blog.

That strongly suggests that Daily Kos obtained the image from Photobucket, not the State of Hawaii, the Obama family, or the Obama campaign. Photobucket is not generally known as a credible supplier of official vital records for any of the fifty states, and the liberties that other Photoshoppers took with the certificates confirms this.

Some of these oddities surfaced in Israel Insider's previous article on the subject, but new comparative documentary evidence presented below, and official verification obtained by Israel Insider from a senior Hawaiian official, provides the strongest confirmation yet.

An authentic Hawaiian birth certificate for another Hawaiian individual has since surfaced which, using the same official form as the presumptive Obama certificate, includes an embossed official seal and an authoritative signature, coming through from the back. Obama's alleged certificate lacks those features, and the certificate number referencing the birth year has been blacked out, making it untraceable.

Janice Okubo, Director of Communications of the State of Hawaii Department of Health, told Israel Insider: "At this time there are no circumstances in which the State of Hawaii Department of Health would issue a birth certification or certification of live birth only electronically." And, she added, "In the State of Hawaii all certified copies of certificates of live birth have the embossed seal and registrar signature on the back of the document."

Compare the top image presented by his campaign as evidence of Obama's 1961 birth and the other certifying the birth of one Patricia Decosta.

So if he were registered as being born in Hawaii, Barack Obama -- because only he or another member of his immediate family could by law request a "Certification of Live Birth" -- must have a certified paper copy, with embossed stamp and seal, or he could request one. But what his campaign has put forward as genuine, according to the senior spokesman in the relevant department of the State of Hawaii, is not in fact a certified copy. It is not valid.

Whereas the uncertified Obama document provides the date "filed by registrar", the certified DeCosta document provides the date "accepted by the registrar." The difference between filing an application for a Certification of Live Birth and having it accepted may be key here.

The Obama campaign, however, continues to flaunt the unstamped, unsealed, uncertified document -- notably in very low resolution -- on its "Fight the Smears" website, with campaign officials vowing that it's authentic, sending the image around as "proof" to reporters, and inviting supporters to refer to it as they battle against supposed distortions and calumnies against their candidate. However, the campaign refuses to produce an authentic original birth certificate from the year of Obama's birth, or even a paper version with seal and signature of the "Certification of Live Birth." Nor has it even published an electronic copy with the requisite embossed seal and signature.

The failure of the Obama campaign to do so, and its willingness instead to put up an invalid, uncertified image -- what now appears to be a crude forgery -- raises the dramatic question of why the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate might have to hide.

Until now, it has been thought that there might be some embarrassing information on the real certificate: was the candidate's name something other than Barack Hussein Obama II, as it is claimed? Was no father listed because of the uncertainty over Obama's paternity? Was his father's race listed as Arab, or Muslim, rather than African? These revelations might be embarrassing, and further undermine his credibility, but he could disavow and downplay their significance. Would revealing such embarrassment outweigh the far greater risks involved in perpetuating a palpable forgery, or passing off an uncertified official document as being certified?

There is one possibility, however, which alone might justify the risk that Obama and his campaign seems to be taking in putting forward the uncertified document image: Obama was not in fact born in Hawaii and may not be an American citizen at all, or at least not a "natural born citizen" as the Constitution defines the requirement for the nation's chief executive. Real original birth certificates, circa 1961, have all kinds of verifiable information that would confirm Obama's origins, or throw them into doubt should they be lacking.

Research has since uncovered the law, in force at the time of Obama's birth, that were he to have been born in another country, his young American mother's youth extended time abroad would not suffice to make him a "natural born citizen." Even if he were naturalized later -- and there is no evidence that he was -- he would not be eligible to run for the office of president and -- if forgery or misrepresentation were involved -- he and his staffers might find themselves facing stiff federal and state charges.

But if, at this late date, Obama has no proof of being a US citizen by law, natural born or otherwise, then he or his advisers may be tempted to try to "tough out" the allegations about his "birth certificate" or the lack thereof. He and his campaign have gotten through other embarrassments: maybe this one will go away, too.

Because the consequences were he to admit, or should it come out, that he was not born in Hawaii would be so grave as to make it tempting to take the gamble and hope that no one dares call his most audacious bluff by demanding proof. Talk about the audacity of hope.

But now the State of Hawaii has dashed those hopes by clarifying that a certified birth certificate must have an embossed seal and signature, features his claimed birth certificate image lack.

The longer Obama waits, the graver grow the consequences of waiting.

There is one simple way for the candidate to clear up the issue once and for all: produce for public inspection and objective analysis the paper copy of his original Hawaiian birth certificate -- if one exists. If he's lost the original, he can request a certified copy. Ordinary citizens are required to produce one to get a passport or a driver's license. Surely it's not too much to ask from a man who aspires to hold the highest office in the land.

The issue is not whether Obama is black or white, Christian or Muslim. It is whether he was born in the USA and thus a citizen eligible according to the Constitution to run for President.

If proof of citizenship does not exist, then surely it would be wiser to admit it now.

Because if Barack Hussein Obama II does not produce definitive proof of his "natural born" American citizenship with original, verifiable documents, he will be setting the stage for a very public battle over his personal credibility, the basic legitimacy of his candidacy, and its possible criminality.

UPDATE 6/26:
Janice Okubo, in response to an Israeli Insider question on Tuesday, would not confirm nor deny whether she had told a St. Petersburg Times reporter whether she had said the birth certificate was "real", citing the statutory stipulation that "Hawaii state law (HRS §338-18) prevents disclosure of information contained in vital statistics records except to those people who have a direct and tangible interest in the record as defined by statute." This would, however, seem to negate the propriety of any disclosure by her of confidential information.

Jim Geraghty of The National Review Online, following up on this Israel Insider report, said he had contacted Okubo:

"I spoke to Ms. Okubo late Wednesday afternoon, and she said she had seen the version of Obama's certificate of live birth posted on the sites. While her office cannot verify the information on a form without the permission of the certificate holder (Obama), she said "the form is exactly the same" and it has 'all the components of a birth certificate' record issued by the state. In other words, she sees no reason to think the version posted on Obama's web site and Daily Kos is not genuine."

"The 'embossed seal' in question is, she said, probably on the back of the document provided to Daily Kos, but not visible (as in another certificate posted on Israel Insider for contrast). She thinks the difference in visibility can be attributed to the pressure used when applying the seal."

Geraghty's interpretation of Okubo's comments is inexact and tendentious. First, her observation that "the form is the same" is not contested, here or elsewhere. No one is doubting that the form that appears on the various websites (including this one) is a replica of that used for valid certificates. Therefore Geraght's interpretation that follows "In other words" is clearly his own conclusion, not hers.

Indeed, Okubo confirms to Geraghty that the image is lacking the "embossed seal" (and the official signature) that are required for the certificate to be valid. While "she thinks" that the difference in visibility might be attributed to varying "pressure," she admits that she does not know and has not seen the original.

Contrasting the purported Obama image with the DeCosta sample, it is hard to imagine the embossed seal and signature being of such light pressure that they would become completely invisible. An inked date of June 6, 2007, in reverse, does come through. But in any event, Okubo's confirmation that the premsumptive birth certificate is lacking the required stamps makes it all the more imperative for Obama to release the original paper certification, the only valid kind, and not an easy-to-photoshop electronic facsimile thereof. It should not be hard to produce, since Hawaii provides for family members to request them.

Even though Geraghy notes that Obama "initially refused to provide his birth certificate," he has suggested that it is "rather unlikely" that Obama was born in Kenya, since it would require that the candidate and his family do a lot of lying. In fact, there were reports of Kenyati relatives claiming he was born there, and there is the mysterious disappearance of his grandmother, who may indeed know something about this subject.

After all, being born in Hawaii is part of the "family legend" and it would be unreasonable to expect this to vary from interview to interview, especially when a non-Hawaiian birth would invalidate Obama's run for the presidency.

It is indeed hard to believe that Obama could have gone through his life without having to prove that he was an American citizen. But the credulity with which the mainstream media has automatically accepted as valid the image that appears on the radical left Daily Kos blog and on the Obama campaign's polemical "Fight the Smears" website makes it clear that many have been unwilling, now and in the past, to demand proof of an authentic document. They prefer to accept on faith that the candidate or his campaign would not lie about such a thing, assuming he has nothing to hide and no motive to lie.

But until the certified paper birth document is produced -- either by media pressure or a legal challenge in any state -- the fact remains that Obama has not proven that he is a "natural born citizen" eligible to be President according to the Constitution.

By Reuven Koret June 24, 2008
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12939.htm

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

In Bayou country I lived on boats and in doublewide trailers, and like the rest of the Vietnamese refugees, I shopped at Wal-Mart and ate a lot of rice. When they arrived in Louisiana the refugees had no money (the money that they had was used to bribe their way out of Vietnam and into refugee camps in Thailand), few friends, and a mostly unfriendly and suspicious local population.

They did however have stro ng families, a strong work ethic, and the "Audacity of Hope." Within a generation, with little or no knowledge of English, the Vietnamese had achieved dominance in the fishing industry there and their children were already achieving the top SAT scores in the state

While I had been fishing my new black friend had been working as a prison psychologist in Missouri, and he was pursuing a higher degree in psychology. He was interested in my story, and after about an hour getting to know each other I asked him point blank why these Vietnamese refugees, with no money, friends, or knowledge of the language could be, within a generation, so successful. I also asked him why it was so difficult to convince young black men to abandon the streets and take advantage of the same kinds of opportunities that the Vietnamese had recently embraced.

His answer, only a few words, not only floored me but became sort of a ra zor that has allowed me ever since to slice through all of the rhetoric regarding race relations that Democrats shovel our way during election season:

"We're owed and they aren't."

In short, he concluded, "they're hungry and we think we're owed. It's crushing us, and as long as we think we're owed we're going nowhere."

A good test case for this theory is Katrina. Obama, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and assorted white apologists continue to express anger and outrage over the federal response to the Katrina disaster. But where were the Vietnamese "leaders" expressing their "anger?" The Vietnamese comprise a substantial part of the New Orleans population, and yet are absent was any report claiming that the Vietnamese were "owed" anything. This is not to say that the federal response was an adequate one, but we need to take this as a sign that maybe the problem has very little to do with racism and a lot to with a mindset.

The mindset that one is "owed" something in life has not only affected black mobility in business but black mobility in education as well. Remember Ward Churchill? About fifteen years ago he was my boss. After leaving the fishing boats, I attended graduate school at the University of Colorado at Boulder. I managed to get a job on campus teaching expository writing to minority students who had been accepted provisionally into the university on an affirmative action program. And although I never met him, Ward Churchill, in addition to teaching in the ethnic studies department, helped to develop and organize the minority writing program.

The job paid most of my bills, but what I witnessed there was absolutely horrifying. The students were encouraged to write essays attacking the white establishment from every conceivable angle and in addition to defend affirmative action and other government programs. Of the hundreds of papers that I read, there was not one original contribution to the problem of black mobility that strayed from the party line.

The irony of it all however is that the "white establishment" managed to get them into the college and pay their entire tuition. Instead of being encouraged to study international affairs, classical or modern languages, philosophy or art, most of these students became ethnic studies or sociology majors because it allowed them to remain in disciplines whose orientation justified their existence at the university. In short, it became a vicious cycle.

There was a student there I'll never forget. He was plucked out of the projects in Denver and given a free ride to the university. One day in my office he told me that his mother had said the following to him: "M.J., they owe you this. White people at that university owe you this." M.J.'s experience at the university was a glorious fulfillment of his mother's angst.

There were black student organizations and other clubs that "facilitated" the minority student's experience on the majority white and "racist" campus, in addition to a plethora of faculty members, both white and black, who encouraged the same animus toward the white establishment. While adding to their own bona fides as part of the trendy Left, these "facilitators" supplied M.J. with everything he needed to quench his and his mother's anger, but nothing in the way of advice about how to succeed in college. No one, in short, had told M.J. that he needed to study. But since he was "owed" everything, why put out any effort on his own?

In a fit of despair after failing most of his classes, M.J. wandered into my office one Friday afternoon in the middle of the semester and asked if I could help him out. I asked M.J. abou t his plans that evening, and he told me that he usually attended parties on Friday and Saturday nights. I told him that if he agreed to meet me in front of the university library at 6:00pm I would buy him dinner. At 6pm M.J. showed up, and for the next twenty minutes we wandered silently through the stacks, lounges, and study areas of the library. When we arrived back at the entrance I asked M.J. if he noticed anything interesting. As we headed up the hill to a popular burger joint, M.J. turned to me and said:

"They were all Asian. Everyone in there was Asian, and it was Friday night."

Nothing I could do, say, or show him, however, could match the fire power of his support system favoring anger. I was sad to hear of M.J. dropping out of school the following semester.

During my time teaching in the writing program, I watched Asians get transformed via leftist doublespeak from "minorities" to "model minorities" to "they're not minorities" in precise rhythm to their fortunes in business and education. Asians were "minorities" when they were struggling in this country, but they became "model minorities" when they achieved success. Keep in mind "model minority" did not mean what most of us think it means, i.e., something to emulate. "Model minority" meant that Asians had certain cultural advantages, such as a strong family tradition and a culture of scholarship that the black community lacked.

To suggest that intact families and a philosophy of self-reliance could be the ticket to success would have undermined the entire angst establishment. Because of this it was improper to use Asian success as a model. The contortions the left exercised in order to defend this ridiculous thesis helped to pave the way for the elimination of Asians altogether from the status of "minority."

This whole process took only a few years.

Eric Hoffer said:

"...you do not win the weak by sharing your wealth with them; it will but i nfect them with greed and resentment. You can win the weak only by sharing your pride, hope or hatred with them."

We now know that Barack Obama really has no interest in the "audacity of hope." With his race speech, Obama became a peddler of angst, resentment and despair. Too bad he doesn't direct that angst at the liberal establishment that has sold black people a bill of goods since the 1960s. What Obama seems angry about is America itself and what it stands for; the same America that has provided fabulous opportunities for what my black friend called "hungry" minorities. Strong families, self-reliance, and a spirit of entrepreneurship should be held up as ideals for all races to emulate.

In the end, we should be very suspicious about Obama's anger and the recent frothings of his close friend Reverend Wright.

Says Eric Hoffer:

The fact seems to be that we are least open to precise knowledge concerning the things we are most vehement about. Vehemence is the expression of a blind effort to support and uphold something that can never stand on its own. (emphasis added)

By Ed Kaitz
March 20, 2008
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/obamas_anger.html

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

Since polar bears have been around for hundreds of thousands of years, the notion that polar bears might suddenly go missing in 50 years seems questionable – no, laughable – no, ludicrous. And look how many people bought into that too!

I can hear you asking, “Do you mean to say there is NO science to support the contention of future polar bear extinction?”

Gather around; you don’t want to miss this. Listen to my words. The irrefutable fact is: the habitat of polar bears is in the open waters of Alaska where geologists believe there are major reserves of undiscovered oil and natural gas. Pause. Are you beginning to see the faint outline of the big picture?

You may also recall that ANWR, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, just happens to be in a desolate location in the northeastern corner of Alaska, far above the Arctic Circle, in an area which is believed to contain vast reserves of oil. ANWR began as the Arctic National Wildlife Range in 1960 as the culmination of efforts by Sierra Club environmental activists. In 1980 the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act renamed "Range" to "Refuge," increased the total area of the Refuge, designated a large portion as Wilderness, expanded the purposes, authorized Congress to consider a portion of the coastal plain for oil and gas development, and designated three Wild Rivers. The refuge is huge, something close to 20 million acres.

Within ANWR is the "10-02 Area," which encompasses 1.5 million acres of the refuge's coastal plain. Within the 10-02 Area, 2000 acres or less is needed for oil extraction, an area comparative in size to a USPS postage stamp placed on a football field. If oil is discovered as expected, and still there are no guarantees, less than two thousand acres would be affected, out of 20 million acres, less than one tenth of one percent of ANWR, and probably closer to one-one-hundreth of one percent when all is said and done.

In 1980, the U.S. Congress mandated studies of the petroleum potential and biological resources of the ANWR area, which continue today at taxpayer expense, and the development debate about the 10-02 Area continues. During that time, the active oil field at the North Slope has declined from its peak of 2 million barrels in 1980 to less than 750,000 barrels a day today. In 2007, the US imported an average of 60% of its oil and during certain months up to 64%. That equates to over $330 billion in oil imports. That’s $37.75 million per hour gone out of our economy! Factor in the cost to defend our imported oil, and the costs in jobs and industry sent abroad, the total would be nearly a trillion dollars annually.

So what is the problem? Why hasn't Congress done something to develop ANWR, particularly since no nation on earth has more proven energy reserves? Don't believe me? Look for yourself.

Environmentalists claim the 2000 acres to be developed in the 10-02 Area are an important habitat to the Porcupine and Central Arctic Caribou Herds (which migrates through Prudhoe Bay and has grown from 3,000 animals to its current level of 32,000 animals), as well as many other species. I’m not making this up folks. This is why you don’t have oil from ANWR, or for that matter, nuclear energy in other parts of the country, or petroleum refineries, or coal for energy.

But the footprint of development is not the real issue.

Insidiously, as if in lockstep, we recently learned from a press release that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Fisheries Service had accepted a petition from “a California environmental group seeking protection under the Endangered Species Act for an ice seal called the ‘ribbon seal’ that inhabits Alaska’s Bering Sea.”

Anybody with a “low government intelligence warning light,” which typically should be on all the time, would have seen the warning light begin to flash (and alarms begin to sound). Many other lights on my caution panel began flashing, the most worrisome was labeled, “a subversive national enemy has been detected.”

As a one-time resident of Alaska and former Arctic survival instructor, intimately familiar with this area, let me assure you that in short order, maybe only a matter of months, several other varieties of seals, the bearded, spotted, and ringed seals for example, would be proposed for addition to the protection list by so-called environmentalists.

There would be humor in this ignorance if it were not for the huge national threat we face from our nation’s ideologically-driven enemies and state-sponsored religious extremists.

What the seals primarily need protection from is the 50,000 polar bears and other large maritime creatures. Seals are considered a three-course meal by any number of arctic and sub-arctic predators. It’s called “nature.” Human predation is extremely minor by comparison, but environmental extremists trumpet that “they” want all human activity to stop.

Why anyone listens to environmentalists, I have no idea. They want you to die. They would introduce the Andromeda Strain if they could, using "environmentalism" as an excuse for the atrocity. As you would expect, the animals are but a pawn – without real meaning except to those being duped. The animals are being used as a Trojan horse by non-uniformed combatants of foreign nations and anti-American ideologues to get inside the legislative gates of our nation’s defenses – nothing more.

The Endangered Species Act, which once-upon-a-time was used to support recovery of a species such as the bald eagle, has been hijacked for its advantageous use as a strategic weapon. It has been hugely successful.

While our youth fight for our mortal existence in the Muslim Wars in foreign lands, at home we’ve been fighting for decades in a different but equally deadly culture war with legal and political insurgents already entrenched inside the United States. Their most visible goal has been to replace God with government, i.e., to indoctrinate society to view an omnipotent government as if it were god, demanding that we turn to government, instead of faith, for the solution to all of mankind’s self-induced problems. Those who have accepted conversion to secularism, either because they fear molestation in a church and no longer attend, or they don’t understand the gravity of surrendering their liberty, have quietly transitioned from being owners of private property to becoming government property.

Given that environmentalists are willfully denying energy, food, and as many as 750,000 jobs across the nation that would arise from ANWR development, you would think it would be sufficient evidence to convince anyone that is both awake and conscious that these people with environmentalism as a 'cause' genuinely hate the United States and want to facilitate our nation’s destruction.

An analysis of House Democratic and Republican voting records on recent domestic energy expansion bills, making its way around the Internet, reveals that Democrats voted approximately 85% AGAINST and Republicans supported these bills by more than 90% IN FAVOR on average. Here's the breakdown of several important issues -

ANWR Exploration
Republicans: 91% Supported Democrats: 86% Opposed

Coal-to-Liquid
Republicans: 97% Supported Democrats: 78% Opposed

Oil Shale Exploration
Republicans: 90% Supported Democrats: 86% Opposed

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Exploration
Republicans: 81% Supported Democrats: 83% Opposed

Refinery Increased Capacity
Republicans: 97% Supported Democrats: 96% Opposed

Think about three quarters of a million jobs for people, many with families, who are currently unemployed and financially struggling. How could these jobs not have been a factor in the severity of the housing debacle and accompanying meltdown of the economy?

What is the only possible outcome of keeping Americans from having access to the oil that powers their once thriving economy, the engine of the planet, and jobs? Prosperty? We’re talking about an economy that now tries desperately to survive with a plastic bag held over its head by our nation’s enemies, foreign and domestic, many of whom are disguised as environmentalists, and many of the remainder are affiliated with communist organizations or beholding to Middle Eastern governments. That would definitely include Barack Hussein Obama.

The jury is not in on John McCain, who has only recently back-peddled on his opposition to off-shore drilling in coastal areas. Importantly, he has consistently refused to support ANWR development - and is adamant in his refusal even today. In my voter's handbook, that makes John McCain the handmaiden of our nation's enemies. The question is simple: Will John Mccain continue to choose his environmental and subversive benefactors over his own nation and fellow citizens? Will John McCain find his patriotism, or remain as he appears today, a legitimate 'Enemy of the State'. The jury should be in soon. Given that past performance accurately predicts future actions, I remain hopeful but not optomistic.

Environmentalists appear to be trying to unceremoniously finish us off by plugging the few holes that remain in the plastic bag.

It’s worth noting that the same thing happened to the ACLU which began as a civil rights watchdog. Now its only use is as a weapon of culture litigation (another plastic bag over the top of the first one) to hinder and obstruct the national interests of the United States. The same applies to the plastic bag that passes as the main-stream-media, people more ideologically aligned with communists, and Muslim terrorists incarcerated in GITMO, than Americans. You can think of other examples, arguably the Democratic Party and a majority of the Republican Party. Let’s not forget the Supreme Court and Federal Judges! It’s hard for liberty to breathe through that many layers of plastic bags, but that’s the idea – the ultimate goal is “lights out” in America.

The two principal political parties today seem to this observer to more closely resemble organized crime families than anything else, having simply taken ethical degeneracy to a national level in the process of seeking self-interest, control and access to taxpayer funds to augment their personal wealth and rock-star lifestyle.

Reducing our much vaunted dependence on oil from the Middle East seems like a good thing to most people, but not to the enemies of the United States, especially the communists and socialists among us, and particularly not to those nations who consistently vote against anything that might benefit the United States in the United Nations. That’s the rub. Their unified goal is to strangle the United States economy, i.e., to bring the USA to its knees – to suffocate its citizens.

If you remember nothing else, it is energy and liberty that powers the United States economy. Faith powers culture. Their combination is the oxygen of the United States of America. Our enemies know they can and will suffocate the United States by denying Americans energy, liberty and faith.

As we go about our daily lives, we should be careful that we are never complicit in restricting any of these essential elements unless you are enthusiastic to name your next child Mohammed. Apparently, regardless of protestations to the contrary, many liberals, both in the United States and Europe, seek that outcome, some of my acquaintances among them.

As far as I am concerned, and I can’t express this more strongly, any United States citizen, including elected politicians, unelected judges, domestic environmental terrorists, and particularly candidates for President, who seek to choke off any potential energy source to United States citizens, are in reality but one despicable thing - determined enemies of the United States of America. This specifically applies to any politician in Congress who advocates or votes for any anti-American forms of environmentalism that limits our nation’s access to any form of energy. Clearly, with actions that speak for themselves, we have many determined enemies of the United States that have infiltrated our political system.

Endangered species listings are not a coincidence. There are no coincidences in politics. One can only conclude that congressional restrictions on developing coal-, nuclear- and petroleum-energy resources, are a reckless, deliberate subversive attack on our economy and the national security of our nation.

Remember that simple fact as you encounter politicians in your daily lives, whose actions identify themselves as environmentalists (an enemy of the United States) in the months and years ahead – particularly at the polls in 2008. Treat them with the respect any enemy of the United States deserves.

Why did this happen. We let it happen. How did this happen? It was a combination of orchestrated foreign and corporate financial influence that pervades Congress and influences every vote, greed, domestic terrorism, religious terrorism, indoctrination instead of education, cultural subversion by organizations such as the ACLU, and the decomposition of our nation’s Christian culture, abandonment of the Constitution, repudiation of the Rule of Law, judicial activism and dissolution of our political system into a criminal enterprise … in other words, the pursuit of self-interest over national interest.

What can we do about it? Nothing, short of civil disobedience which should be a last resort, just as it was 230+ years ago! We can try to elect conservatives (regardless of their affiliation as Democrats or Republicans), who in sufficient numbers will someday be able to begin to roll back the tide. And what if we can’t? Think begin thinking about naming your child Mohammed or Hussein.

And the unique beauty of the United States of America is: It’s up to you.

Red State Patriot

P.S. With crude oil above $142 a barrel, gasoline well past the $4 mark, and record heating oil, natural gas, and electricity prices, we learn today that the Bush administration has halted solar energy development.

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It