Just Asking
Does it really make much difference whether Barack Hussein Obama (or anybody else) was actually born in the United States or not?
Is the conquest and permanent occupation of Iraq justified under international law and the U.S. Constitution?
Is the conquest and permanent occupation of Iraq an appropriate response to acts of Saudi Arabian terrorists operating from Afghanistan?
Does the conquest and permanent occupation of Iraq promote “the Common Defense” and “the General Welfare” of the United States?
Is Islam “a religion of peace”? What evidence may be cited for this?
Did the people murdered at Ruby Ridge and Waco deserve what they got for defying the federal government?
Does the Constitution forbid state laws against abortion and sodomy? Where does it say this?
Is the Constitution “what the Supreme Court says it is”? How did this come about?
Can you list, in order of importance, the benefits accomplished for the American people
in the 20th century by the Republican Party?
Most importantly, in case of another major terrorist attack, has adequate protection been arranged for our precious politicians?
Entries(RSS)
1)Tax cuts and Tax increases.
2)Declared peace with victory in Vietnam, and watched the Peoples Army of Vietnam move into Saigon as Americans cut and run from "the coaliton of the willing".
3) Attacked Iraq to destroy their non existent weapons of mass destruction and to bring democracy to Islam.
4) Considered attacking Iran since the attack on Iraq did not bring enough democracy. Accused Iran as the country who had the weapons of mass destruction --- not Iraq, come to find out they had really come clean like Libya, only we did not know that before we blew their country back into a desert.
5) Ordered Free elections for the PLO then refused to recognize the terrorists the little rascals elected, imposed an embargo on them and said,"We can never negotiate with terrorists."
6)Negotiated with the terrorists running Libya.
7)Took the budget surplus from the free spending Democrats and used it for conservative causes like Afghanistan, Iraq, No Child Left Behind, and bailing out big Banks who made alot of bad loans to little greedy American families who borrowed more money from the big banks than the borrowers could ever pay back working two jobs apiece.
8) Restored Dignity to the Oval Office by angering our friends and allies, emboldening our enemies -- all while leaving our borders wide open at home,..I think they also outed one of their own CIA agents and then tried to cover it up, were prosecuted and convicted, but eventually declared the jury verdict was simply too harsh for this type of government horse play.
9) Other than that, they refurbished an otherwise sufficent bomb shelter for all politicians (who helped accomplish all of the items mentioned above) in case of another foreign terrorist attack on American soil.
10) They admitted, after it was all said and done,that these were Obama and the democrat's problems now because, as far as they were concerned, the voters were always right. So these republicans said they were leaving Washington D.C. and going back home to spend more time with their families, hunting, fishing and writing their memoirs about where their rightful place in history should actually be.
Does it really make much difference whether Barack Hussein Obama (or anybody else) was actually born in the United States or not?
It once did but not anymore. The U.S. birth requirement is in the Constitution.
The answers to questions 2-5 is NO, but that's not important.
Ruby Ridge and Waco occurred because they defied the government, thus from the government and their sheeples they got what they deserved. Defiance will not be tolerated, ever.
At least one Supreme Court Justice had it right when he said the right to privacy isn't in the Constitution.
Can you list, in order of importance, the benefits accomplished for the American people in the 20Th century by the Republican Party?
I honestly tried very hard to think of one, and could not come up with one. However, I can's come up with any for the Democrats either, and they have done far more harm.
As for the last question the ending of Dr. Strangelove comes to mind.
Our government hasn't existed under any law in some time. They just make it up as they go along.
If we don't like it, who cares? Our job is to pay our taxes and do as we're told.
Just asking why, if the 8,200 tons or so of gold the Treasury and Fed are holding in trust for us is actually there (what a laugh), Fed officials get apoplectic at Ron Paul's proposal for a straightfoward audit of those holdings?
"Is the Constitution “what the Supreme Court says it is”?"
Indeed it is, just as the Executive Branch does what it wants to do 99% of the time. Our lawmakers meanwhile keep their eyes on the bacon so as to keep their jobs. We have a corporatist government top to bottom that has been building out their Imperial City on loot, first domestic, increasingly foreign and borrowed, in ways unimaginable in 1960 let alone 1791. It is what it is, and will be what it is until it isn't anymore, which may be closer than we think, given the pitiful record of performance of this bloated beast at home and abroad. And so it goes.
Dr. Wilson, as for Islam being a religion of peace I have my doubts. But I have no doubts whatsoever that Americanism most definitely is not a religion of peace.
Dr. Wilson,
Your word
"Is Islam “a religion of peace”? What evidence may be cited for this?"
If Muslims acquire, internalize and live out the words and historical actions of their founder, Mohammed, and the explicit directives found in the book which he provided them, then Islam cannot be a "religion of peace." There may well be those Muslims who have long lived in the dying West or those of the West who have converted to Islam who beguile themselves and thereby the naive among us as they live out the superficial rites of Islam that Islam is a religion of peace; but they wittingly or unwittingly hide the true face of Islam: submit or incure the wrath thereof! We are already under the dhimmitude: Petraeus, allegedly a general whose job it is to lead men to destroy the enemy, whimpers that what some silly little preacher man in Florida may or may not do could put his soldiers in harms way and reduce their ability to "win the hearts of the people." The imam in New York, today, with no little subtlety, playing our own folly of diversity, multi-culturalism and tolerance against us, suggests that not building the mosque in New York could lead to unrest. The pressure is on: submit or incur the wrath. There is no Charles Martel, no Roland, no King John of Poland, no Prince Eugene, for there is no context for men like them in this century.
Mr. Peters, consider also Judaism, whose holy book, The Talmud, preaches conquest through deceit, and then consider that less than 2% of this country's population so thoroughly dominate its economy, government, arts, entertainment, and education system, that for all practical purposes we live under the equivalent of Judaic dhimmitude. If bankrupting us and sending our young soldiers to die and suffer horrific mutilations so that Israelis need not doesn't prove this, then I don't know what would.
The Constitution as "what the Supreme Court says it is" partly is the fault of a perverted republicanism. Many people (not all of them liberals) have equated the civic republican idea with elitism--the superior knowledge of the few. You can see this at work in Phillip Petit's "non-dominationist" ideal of republicanism, where he defends judicial supremacy.
Many people (not all of them liberals) have equated the civic republican idea with elitism–the superior knowledge of the few."
KDZ,
I don't think this old Gnostic heresy is of any threat today. (although it does have some similarity to the current neo-con doctrine, such as their knowing of weapons of mass destruction hiding in Iraq, -- I believe one of them said "a little north, east, west and south of Baghdad", or those traveling chemical labs they were tracking by satelite and mental telepathy, etc., Or consider poor Jonah Goldberg's recent book on Fascism which reveals something nobody but him would know ---just how silly he really is!@!! " Actually those very few left who know anything at all, aren't talking much , they are certainly not in charge of anything. No, those types today are either dead, dieing,or in full retreat towards "crossing the river and resting in the shade of the trees." For instance, consider Pat Buchanan, Tom Fleming, The Clyde Wilsons, their average age, and number etc.
KDZ, I saw Pettit's book when searching for contemporary books on republicanism. Would you mind posting something more about it? (Strengths/weaknesses of the book?)
I respectfully submit, if you want to understand republicanism forget about European theorising and study the history of the original Americans. With the best part of their British heritage, the character formed by settling a wilderness by their own efforts, and the fortuitous (or Providential) lessons of the colonial experience and the War of Independence, those Americans built beautiful, genuine self-governing commonwealths. They for a time continued to build new self-governing commonwealths as they moved westward. Then Abe Lincoln's New England saints, power-worshiping Germans, and state capitalists made war to destroy those commonwealths and substitute a "nation." That "nation" was supposedly governed by "the people" but is actually governed by party politicians and the ultra rich.
Is Islam “a religion of peace”?
Help you God! If you have ever a chance to wonder around Bosna and Hercegovina, Kosovo, Sandzak, part of Macedonia and Montenegro, etc., THAT IS A BALCAN, in areas where predominantly Moslem population lives, that is converted Serbs and Croats and others, than you would come to the conclusion that has not been and NEVER WILL BE A 'RELIGION OF PEACE', but a religion of supression, bullism, agression and gruesome force inflicted upon anyone who opposed them...
Mr. Chan,
I basically agree with Dr. Wilson (#12). Pettit's book is theoretically very ambitious, but there's not much history there. The main historical interest of his book is the lengthy discussion of William Paley. I have thought about writing about Pettit's republicanism, but so far I have been deterred by the abstractness of it. If you're interested in republicanism, why not read William Paley on politics and see what transpires.
To avoid possible misunderstanding, I have to add that unlike limited aristocracy, in which there can be accountability to the people via regular elections, judicial supremacy (implying life tenure for judges--otherwise it wouldn't be supremacy) is wholly unaccountable to the people. Conservatives who yearn for an American aristocracy--by which I hope they do not mean pure aristocracy--can consistently and vehemently oppose judicial supremacy.
Thank you Dr. Wilson and KDZ. I wasn't considering Petit's book as a resource for understanding republicanism; I was curious more about its weaknesses than its strengths (if indeed it has any).
The answer to question 7, part 2, is that the powers of the new imperium are most clearly in the penumbras and emanations of a living document. Any ambitious Ivy League lawyer can see that. What's the matter with you hicks? Are you trapped by some dead white Euro enlightened tradition? Or worse, Christians?
@8 Dan
What you wrote could be construed as h8 speech! If any other readers are offended, well, quite frankly I'm glad you're offended.
Clyde wilson asks:
Does it really make much difference whether Barack Hussein Obama (or anybody else) was actually born in the United States or not?
All one need do to answer this question is to try to imagine the existence of a Senator McCarthy, and anything called the House Unamerican Activities Committee even getting anybody to staff it today, let alone bring its case before the "American" public. So far from anyone remembering or valuing what an American was, and attempting to defend and preserve that, U. S. residents - one can no longer call them citizens - are dropping their forefathers' identity with no more thought than they give to vacating the houses they've occupied on credit when they no longer serve as good investment vehicles. It's all about keeping the liberal illusion of moral superiority going a little longer, and of course, the money and the hedonistic life it supports.
More to Prof. Wilson's point, a president may as well come from Africa as anywhere else, since Africans won't be much less aware of what makes an American than someone born here, and may actually try harder to learn how to be American once getting here.
Well, if you got rid of the native-born requirement, your next prez would be Arnold Schwarzenegger.