Constitution Party Presidential Nominee Speaks

A day or two ago I received this from the Constitution Party. It’s a statement from Chuck Baldwin, actually an answer to a question once posed to him, and it’s a pretty good answer at that.

The Constitution Party is very much what this country needs in that it, the party, believes in a return to fully constitutional principles and that our failure to follow the rules (the Constitution) is what got us where we are–this last thought being my paraphrase.

Check this out:

If I Were President
by Chuck Baldwin

Due to my frequent criticisms of President George W. Bush, I am often asked what I would do if I were President of these United States. This column will serve as an attempt to answer that question. If I were President, I would begin the process of safely extracting our troops from Iraq. In the first place, our troops are no longer fighting a war, they are an occupation force, which occupies a sovereign country. And this is being done without a Declaration of War. The Iraqi people resent our occupation as much as we would resent another nation stronger than ours invading and occupying America. If such a thing happened to our beloved country, I’m sure many of us would also become “insurgents.”

In the second place, the invasion and occupation of Iraq was absolutely unnecessary. Instead of sacrificing more than 4,000 American lives and the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens (not to mention some 2-3 trillion dollars), President Bush should have supported Ron Paul’s bill, H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. This is the constitutional way to deal with rogue terrorist organizations. This is the way President Thomas Jefferson responded to the Barbary pirates.

According to Congressman Paul, “A letter of marque and reprisal is a constitutional tool specifically designed to give the President the authority to respond with appropriate force to those non-state actors who wage aggression against the United States while limiting his authority to only those responsible for the atrocities of that day. Such a limited authorization is consistent with the doctrine of just war and the practical aim of keeping Americans safe while minimizing the costs in blood and treasure of waging such an operation.”

Had President Bush responded in this manner, tens of thousands of lives would have been saved, trillions of dollars would not have needed to be spent, Osama bin Laden and most of his fellow terrorists would likely be dead, and we would not be bogged down in a nightmarish military quagmire in Iraq. And, if I were President, this is exactly how I would handle terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda.

Furthermore, it is absolutely ludicrous to say we are fighting a war on terror half way around the world when we refuse to secure our borders and ports. If I were President, I would immediately seal our borders. I would also see to it that employers in America who knowingly hire illegal aliens are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. In plain language: any employer who consciously hires illegal aliens would go to jail. They would not pass Go; they would not collect $200; they would go straight to jail.

By sealing the borders and by cutting off the money supply to illegal aliens, the problem of illegal immigration would dry up. As it is, we have no idea how many potential terrorists–not to mention violent gang members such as MS-13–have snuck (and are sneaking) through our borders.

And speaking of illegal immigration, as President, I would enforce our visa rules. This means anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law is immediately deported. There would be no “path to citizenship” given to any illegal alien. That means no amnesty. Not in any shape, manner, or form. I would not allow tax dollars to be used to pay for illegal aliens’ education, social services, or medical care. As President, I would end birthright citizenship for illegal aliens. There would be no “anchor babies” during my administration.

If I were President, I would use the bully pulpit of the White House to encourage Congress to pass Congressman Ron Paul’s Sanctity of Life Act. In short, this bill would do two things: First, it would declare that unborn babies are persons under the law. Second, under the authority of Article. III. Section. 2. of the U.S. Constitution, it would remove abortion from the jurisdiction of the Court. In essence, this bill would immediately overturn Roe v. Wade and end legalized abortion.

Republicans tout themselves as being “pro-life.” Yet, the GOP controlled both houses of Congress and the White House for six years and did absolutely nothing to overturn Roe or end abortion-on-demand. Under my administration, we could end legal abortion in a matter of days, not decades. And if Congress refused to pass Dr. Paul’s bill, I would use the constitutional power of the Presidency to deny funds to protect abortion clinics. Either way, legalized abortion ends when I take office.

On the subject of foreign policy, as President, I would end foreign aid. I would also end the current infatuation with nation-building, empire-building, and interventionism. America is not the world’s policeman. Neither are our military personnel the personal militia of the United Nations.

Remember that President Bush told the U.N. in 2003 that the reason we invaded Iraq was for the purpose of securing the “peace and credibility of the United Nations.” (I lie not; that is what he said.) President Bush also placed the U.S. back under UNESCO in spite of the fact that President Reagan had heroically taken the U.S. out from under that sinister organization.

I am sure that readers recall that the U.N. Charter was authored by a Soviet communist agent (Alger Hiss) and that the U.S. has been fighting wars for the U.N. ever since the organization was created back in 1945.

Speaking of the United Nations, as President, I would withhold funds from the support of the United Nations. In other words, I would get the U.S. out of the U.N. Beyond that, when I move into the White House, the U.N.’s rent is up! They move out of New York City post haste.

By the same token, there is absolutely no reason for us to be in NATO. We should not be antagonizing Russia by attempting to expand NATO. There is no reason why Russia could not become a friend and ally of the United States. Free and fair trade with Russia and a noninterventionist foreign policy in Europe would do much to endear American interests to Russia. To insist on expanding and empowering NATO only serves to further alienate Russia and drive her to make alliances with Communist China.

Speaking of China, it is time that we recognize the very serious threat that China poses to the peace and security of the United States. Our trade practices serve only to allow corporate America to continue to invest in what will surely become an albatross around the neck of our well-being. We must discontinue the practice of allowing China to export its cheap products to the U.S. with no protection for America’s jobs and manufacturing, not to mention the lack of protection for our safety. This must stop, and it will stop when I become President. “Free trade” will no longer mean a free ride for Red China.

Furthermore, as President, I would take the preservation of our nation’s sovereignty and independence extremely seriously. This means that the burgeoning North American Union is dead on arrival the day I am sworn in as President. Gone, too, is the NAFTA superhighway. And for that matter, I would lead the United States out of NAFTA and CAFTA altogether. And any prospect for the FTAA would be dead as well.

As President, I would be the best friend that gun owners (and lawful gun dealers), homeschoolers, and veterans ever had in the White House. These are three of the most persecuted, harassed, or overlooked groups of people in the country. But not if I were President.

There is no reason why our veterans should wait for weeks and months to receive the medical care they need. It is disgraceful that we would ask our brave men and women of the U.S. armed forces to fight our country’s battles and then leave them to pretty much fend for themselves when it comes to receiving adequate health care. I would make taking care of our veterans an extremely high priority, if I were President.

If I were President, I would also do everything in my power to locate and retrieve any and all MIAs. I personally believe that there are hundreds of our servicemen who are yet being held against their will in various parts of the world. I would make finding them and bringing them home of utmost priority, if I were President.

On the home front, if I were President, I would end corporate welfare. I would also work to disband the Department of Energy (along with the Department of Education and many other federal departments). There is absolutely no reason for us to be dependent upon OPEC. There is enough gas and oil under the soil of Alaska (not to mention the Dakotas and the Gulf of Mexico) to meet the energy needs of the United States for the next 150-200 years. There is also no reason that gas should cost more than $1.50 a gallon (which is about what it was before Bush became President).

We must begin drilling for the domestic oil that we know exists; we must build more refineries and nuclear power plants. There is no reason why the United States cannot be mostly energy independent. It is time we started putting the people and interests of the United States ahead of the CEOs and interests of international corporations.

Lastly, if I were President, I would work feverishly to overturn the Sixteenth Amendment, which would repeal the Income Tax. And, no, I would not promote a national sales tax. That would be disastrous! Can you imagine what a 30% sales tax would do to the cost of EVERYTHING? Plus, give politicians a national sales tax to increase and just imagine what kind of percent that would grow into!

I would also work to repeal the “death tax,” inheritance taxes, and property taxes. The American people are already paying somewhere between 30% and 40% of their income to Uncle Sam. It must stop. We are bankrupting our country with this incessant and burdensome tax system. In addition, I would work to expunge the Federal Reserve and to restore the American economy to sound money.

Now, I hear people say, That’s easy for you to say; you are not a candidate for President. Ah, but now I am.

Last week, in its national nominating convention in Kansas City, Missouri, the Constitution Party nominated me as its 2008 Presidential candidate. Party delegates nominated me over Ambassador Alan Keyes by a margin of 74% to 24%. Therefore, I am now a candidate for President of these United States.

My Vice Presidential running mate is Darrell Castle, an attorney and Vietnam War Marine Corps veteran from Memphis, Tennessee.

I believe it is only fair, as I continue to write these columns, that one understands the full disclosure of my candidacy.

As readers know, I enthusiastically supported Ron Paul during the Republican Primary season. I plan to continue to trumpet his call for limited government, non-interventionism abroad, constitutional government, and freedom into the general election as a Third Party candidate.

I do not expect the national media to pay us much heed; they seldom do. I do not expect to receive large donations from corporate America. I do expect criticism and ridicule. That is nothing new. However, I also anticipate tens of thousands of freedom-loving people from all religious persuasions and walks of life to rally to our cause. Why? Because thousands of principled people will not be bullied into voting for the “evil of two lessers” being shoved down our throats by the two major parties. Because this campaign is not about Chuck Baldwin. It is not about a political party. It is about freedom. It is about constitutional government. It is about restoring America to the founding principles bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers. If you believe in those principles, join us!

In the meantime, these columns will continue to serve as a voice for America’s founding principles, as they have for the past eight-plus years. In addition, unlike the candidates from the two major parties, the taxpayers are not underwriting my campaign, and I will continue my day job. (Imagine that: a Presidential candidate who actually works for a living!) And all of this is just in time for my 56th birthday, which is tomorrow, May 3.

There you have it: this is what I would do if I were President of these wonderful United States of America.

“Change” and the economy are the buzzwords of the left this cycle. “Change,” an undefined and ambiguous concept, is what America voted for in 1992. And look what we got.

If you want change then vote Constitution Party. A return to long-forgotten principles is all the change this crumbling old lady of a nation can survive.

“Left Wing-Approved Use of Firearms”

ara

An Irretrievable Truth: Bush is Officially an Idiot

This is a truth I grasped several years ago and that grasp has been vindicated and strengthened as time passes. But today I read an article by Amanda Carpenter over at Townhall.com that cements the status of Georgie Boy’s mental flatulence. What a bloody moron!

This is further proof that politicians–dare I say “all” politicians–are victims of their own proclivities and are wanton, brain-dead whores.

Speaking of which I offer the following to keep things in perspective:

ara

The Righteous Albert Goebbels

Gore confesses.

I don’t think that Einstein’s pride and joy meant to, but the facts of Algore’s horribly transparent plots are now taking on bragging rights and since little prince Albert can’t or won’t either get or hold an honest job anywhere he continues to carve a fantasy existence out of the soapy minds of the easily led.

Gore’s primary reason, in my mind, is pure unadulterated greed in the form of control–which is a primary manifestation of greed.

Independent Business Daily published another excellent commentary–with actual facts to back it up–on May 8. I just know we’ll all be seeing this any time now in the equally invested “drive by media.” Yep. Any minute. Uh huh. Yep.

Al Gore And Climate Ka-Ching
By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, May 08, 2008 4:20 PM PT
___________________________________________________________________________________
Junk Science: Al Gore blames the Burma tragedy on global warming despite growing evidence to the contrary. Could the hype be related to his financial interests?
___________________________________________________________________________________

Gore’s reaction to the death and destruction caused by a cyclone ravaging Burma was to utter an emphatic “I told you so” Tuesday on National Public Radio. In an interview on NPR’s “Fresh Air” broadcast, the jolly green giant made the charge while talking about the paperback release of his ironically named book, “The Assault on Reason.”

Ignoring the fact that the rising death toll is due in part to an incompetent, isolationist and authoritarian government that allows most of its people to live in shanty towns of tin and bamboo, Gore claimed that “we’re seeing consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with continued global warming.”

In other words, people die in Rangoon because of an SUV in Richmond, Va.

There’s a “trend toward more Category 5 storms,” Gore claimed, and this trend “appears to be linked to global warming and specifically to the impact of global warming on higher ocean temperatures in the top couple of hundred feet in the ocean, which drives convection energy and moisture into these storms and makes them more powerful.”

Except, as we recently noted, the trend in the world’s oceans — as shown by measurements taken by a fleet of 3,000 high-tech ocean buoys first deployed in 2003 — is toward cooling. As Dr. Josh Willis, of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, noted in a separate interview with National Public Radio, “there has been a very slight cooling” over the buoys’ five years of observation.

As Joseph D’Aleo, the Weather Channel’s first director of meteorology, told National Review Online’s Deroy Murdock that the slight warming trend “peaked in 1998, and the temperature trend the last decade has been flat, even as CO2 has increased 5.5%. Cooling began in 2002.” He added: “Ocean buoys have echoed that slight cooling since the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration deployed them in 2003.”

In fact, Ryan Maue of Florida State University’s Center for Ocean-Atmosphere Prediction Studies says 2007 “will rank as a historically inactive tropical cyclone year for the Northern Hemisphere as a whole.”

In the past 30 years, Maue adds, only 1977 had less hurricane activity from January through October. Last September had the lowest activity since 1977 while the Octobers of 2006 and 2007 had the lowest activity since 1976 and 1977, respectively.

So why the hype? Well, global warming is a growth industry designed to keep Earth and some bank accounts green.

Gore himself joined the venture capital group, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers just last September. On May 1, the firm announced a $500 million investment in maturing green technology firms called the Green Growth Fund.

The group announced another $700 million to be invested over the next three years in green-tech startup firms. But if the green technology business, uh, cools down, there will be no return on that investment. There would be no need for such investments if global warming wasn’t a threat. So Gore just launched, among other things, a $300 million on an ad campaign to convince us it is so.

Speaking at a conference in Monterey, Calif., on March 1, the former vice president admitted to having “a stake” in a number of green investments into which he recommended attendees put money rather than “subprime carbon assets” such as tar sands and shale oil. He also is co-founder and chairman of Generation Investment Management, which sells carbon offsets that allow rich polluters to continue polluting with a clear conscience.

We have a prediction all our own — that disastrous global warming will not occur.

Then the greenies will take credit for preventing it and ask us if we’re glad we spent trillions in fighting it.

Al Gore will be laughing all the way to the bank.

For now it’s time to repeat one of my all-time favorite quotes. It comes from an established communications manipulator who is very similar to Algore in his philosophies and practices. The gentleman who spoke what follows held a governmental position nearly identical to that of Algore. In fact I’ll venture the positions are absolutely indistinguishable.

Here’s the quote:

‘If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic, [moral] and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.’

The source? It comes from Joseph Goebbels, Minister of Propaganda under the realm of Adolf Hitler. The kicker is that the Hitler regime actually called it the “Ministry of Propaganda,” which rather profoundly puts Herr Goebbels head and shoulders above Algore in the Global Department of Honesty.

Kind of makes a person want to set a mountain of tires on fire in tribute, doesn’t it?

ara

The State of Montana vs SCROTUS

This is a hugely fascinating article.

What so many of the truly evil in this country wilfully do is openly betray rights that are protected (not granted) by our Constitution. They do this along with a potful of the illiterati who move in concert with whatever sounds most cozy.

Here is a fact: each and all of the human rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights pre-exist the founding of this nation and the writing of its most basic documents. Each and every right existed before any other authority sought to write them down or soil them with regulation or revision.

Nowhere in the Constitution nor any other document is it said that the right to free speech is hereby granted by “we, the blowhards in Congress.” Likewise, rights to a free press or free assembly or free religion–or the right to keep and bear arms–are pre-existent and irrevocably override anything any government body, agency, or individual may choose to try to do to countermand those rights.

Period.

So when the State of Montana recently did what it did, as evidenced in the article referenced above, I felt a real surge of gratefulness. There are thinkers still. It’s past time to stand up to those who would steal our ironclad freedoms, and it is definitely the time to prepare to take a stand.

Again, here’s that link. Be encouraged. It was for times such as these that the Second Amendment was written into our Constitution. The sole intent of the first ten amendments was to thoroughly ensure that the limited powers of the federal government stayed that way.

The Founders knew from personal experience that a standing army could easily threaten liberty. They saw what the British did with one. So they wrote into our Constitution that we would have no standing army. They didn’t do the same with a navy, interestingly, because personal experience once again demonstrated which of the two actually threatened freedom.

Yet we have a long national history of nearly continuous and increasingly hideous warfare, especially throughout the 20th Century and into the 21st. That might be its own discussion at some time, but the initial idea was that militias could be raised in times of peril. Militias comprised of conscripted citizens who were already armed and familiar with their weapons.

That in mind, the Second Amendment (along with simple additions by me that state what the Founders understood to be inherent in the original phrasing) reads as follows:

“A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the [pre-existent] right of the [already armed and capable] people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Impractical in today’s world? Yes. An impracticality, however, that is highly irrelevant in that the militia bit has absolutely nothing to do with the pre-existing human right of every American to keep and bear arms. Each of us, whether we choose to or not, owns the irrevocable and pre-existent right of all humans to keep and bear arms for self defense, for bringing in food, and for joining in local groups when it all hits the fan, and to join in protecting communities and neighborhoods.

The positions to which we have encouraged our legal systems to fall will have to iron themselves out, but the right to defend oneself is paramount to survival, freedom and (yes) peace.

Remember the Rodney King-inspired LA riots: The only stores that were not looted or burned were those that hosted armed business owners who stood ready and able to use lethal force in defense of their families’ livelihoods.

Don’t forget, either, where the cops were. They were strung so thin they couldn’t do diddly, and it was the individual pre-existence of the right to keep and bear arms that saved the day for those few with the initiative, the wisdom and the courage to believe in it.

Responses?

ara

GREAT NEWS!

The Supreme Court of the United States (some call it SCOTUS, I call it SCROTUS) will hear District of Columbia v Heller. The following Press Release from the Second Amendment Foundation encapsulates precedent and argument:

NEWS RELEASE

SAF EXCITED ABOUT SUPREME COURT REVIEW OF HELLER CASE

BELLEVUE, WA – For the first time in United States history, the Supreme Court will hear a case that should, once and for all, decide the meaning of the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights, and the Second Amendment Foundation could not be happier.

“We are confident that the high court will rule that the Second Amendment affirms and protects an individual civil right to keep and bear arms,” said SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb. “Previous Supreme Court rulings dating back more than a century have consistently referred to the Second Amendment as protective of an individual right, but the case of District of Columbia v. Heller focuses on that issue, and we expect the court to settle the issue once and for all.”

The court announced today that it will hear an appeal of the case, in which seven Washington, D.C. residents have sued to overturn the district’s 31-year-old gun ban. In March, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the ban is unconstitutional because it violates the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The court further ruled that the amendment does protect an individual right. The ruling set off a firestorm, in which gun control proponents, who had frequently claimed to support a right to keep and bear arms, dropped all pretenses and publicly acknowledged that they do not believe there is such a right protected by the Second Amendment.

“An affirmative ruling by the Supreme Court will probably not be the death knell for the extremist citizen disarmament movement,” Gottlieb said, “but it will properly cripple their campaign to destroy an important civil right, the one that protects all of our other rights. The insidious effort to strip American citizens of their firearms rights, while at the same time permanently harming public safety must end.

“The Washington, D.C. gun ban has been a monumental failure and the crime statistics prove that,” Gottlieb said. “For almost 70 years, gun banners have deliberately misinterpreted and misrepresented the high court’s language in the U.S. v Miller ruling in 1939. It is long past the time that this important issue be put to rest, and the Heller case will provide the court with that opportunity.”

-END-

Chances of a victory for reason and for the Constitution itself are good.

The US Constitution is very, very clear that all rights and freedoms in the Bill of Rights are pre-existing. They pre-exist the foundation of this very nation. The Constitution says that. Read it. Send questions if you like.

What we need to see next is the indictment on felony charges of all politicians, bureaucrats, and law enforcement who ignore or try to derail the expected ruling. What charges?

Well, for starters, complicity (aiding and abetting) in all crimes of murder, rape, assault, armed robbery, and general mayhem. Every one. Nationwide. If any crime “could” have been stopped by a legally (Constitutionally) armed law abiding American and any one, single citizen had his or her right to keep and bear (carry) infringed by any politician, bureaucrat, or law enforcement personnel in any way, then that official or bureaucrat will be charged with overt participation in and support of every single crime that occurs anywhere in the nation.

If one politician, bureaucrat, or whomever tries to get away with frustrating the rights of even one citizen anywhere then that politician, bureaucrat, or whomever is guilty of complicity in all crimes everywhere.

Angry? Well, yeah.

ara

Like Well–Greased Pigs …

Sweet reminiscences. Hopefully they nudge you on warm summer nights and take you back to County Fairs and hooligan races and such. Some people even contended in contests to see who could hold on to a greased pig the longest.

Tough job. And the pig usually won.

Greased pigs …

Unvarnished truth is the greased pig that’s loosed more and more often in today’s America while so very many politicos, media types, preachers, homosexuals, pro–aborts and others are making a living by hanging on to that truth, keeping it from running free, for as long as they possibly can.

If you are visiting this blog and reading this post I believe I can safely assume that you also have the creepy–crawlies about our renegade, anti–constitutional 110th Congress.

What follows is superb–quality video that will help your skin to crawl just a little bit more. And if you care about this nation, about your freedoms and those of your kids and grandkids, it’ll hopefully get you to do something more than seethe.

What you will view is a teaser for the upcoming documentary “Hillary Exposed”.

The Fair Use Doctrine covers the use of this video. Out of respect for the author and at the author’s request I hereby attribute this work to “sp00n1; a member of AboveTopSecret.com”.

Watch “The Shocking Video Hillary does NOT want you to See!!”

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread310132/pg1#pid3626408

Regards,

ara

Stealing My Own Stuff …

I posted a response to comments on the Global Warming International Business Venture we’ve heard so much about. That was several days ago–actually it was a day or two before the CEO was awarded the already discredited Alf Nobel prize.

Now that that’s all out in the open and company values are certain to soar in the privately held Algore Rhythms “The Buck Stops Here First” International, Inc., I thought posting it here might draw reasoned response as well.

What follows is my comment posted not much more than a few days or so ago at http://lordcrimson.wordpress.com. It starts a little way into the comment because … well, because. I didn’t want to include many names when they’re not part of this discussion.

I left “Joe” as “Joe” because it’s generic and we each know one anyway.

On level ground ["X"] can be quite reasonable and conversational about his beliefs, although it took some coaxing to get him there when I pointed out a few things about my beliefs on the global warming hoax. He did point me to some brief and interesting preliminary reading on the subject, purely from his point of view, and that is to his credit. But it still leaves issues begging for answers.

Joe, on the other hand, apparently is in pre-law and still enjoys embarrassing himself.

Opinion reached through observation: Misrepresentation is at the heart of environmentalism’s theology.

One might ask Joe (should his rote beliefs have an occasional brush with thought) just exactly who and what triggered the ending of each and every Ice Age across the ensuing eons, and what forces or events caused the ice to form in the first place–each time? What factories and vehicles and charcoal briquettes were belching the “greenhouse gasses” that caused so much chaos?

Until those answers are clearly and abundantly answered there is no room for discussion, in my view.

I will be most happy to kick start his reasoning by suggesting he eliminate mankind and industrialization from the mix.

Hadn’t happened yet, Joe.

What you’ll see them present is a lot of charts and tables supposedly documenting catastrophically rapid advances in temperatures over several recent decades, CO2 levels in ice core samples used in an attempt to extrapolate conditions from way back yonder into today’s stab at more-of-the-same cycles for tomorrow, and so on.

Another opinion reached through observation: EcoTerror primarily works on ecophobes. Or, in the words of Vincent Gambini, “I’m a-scared.”

Is the earth warming? Oh, you betcha.

But here’s the bad news: So is Mars. Yup. It is. Jupiter? Uh-huh. And our solar system?

Well, I’ve only been to Mars and Jupiter, but my guess is “yes.”

Will this freeze-thaw cycle likely continue into whatever “eternity” there may be? Again, I’d have to say so. And I’m an authority. I was a mechanic once. I know how things work.

And until you get your head stuck in the engine room of a 1964 Volkswagen Beetle and in your struggles to get free your shoulder pushes the throttle back and that thing hits about 7500 RPM and is a nanosecond away from throwing a rod and you can hear parts getting ready to change places and your hearing is fading and you can feel the fanbelt nipping at your shirt when you finally manage to pull the R’s down … well … the equilibrium of the universal scheme doesn’t offer much on excitement compared to that, I’m here to tell you.

Still, it’s enormously humbling to confront the magnitude of our seemingly indelible influence on universal balance. Of course it is we who are melting ice caps on Mars and Jupiter, and don’t you try to deny it … but before the enviro’s intended guilt trip sets in, think about something else:

When it serves their purpose, environmentalists would have us believe that the entire and unbelievably intimate universe is plain vanilla. It’s not.

It has nuts and cherries and sprinkles and anchovies and brussels sprouts beyond our remotest imaginings. It has radiation belts, untold balls of sustained fusion (stars), fascinating comets, and all kinds of nebulae and other jaw-dropping things.

It even has black holes, the gravitational fields of which are so strong that not even light can escape. So the speed of light not only is inconstant, light can be slowed, turned, stopped, and even made to go backward. Amazing stuff.

OK, you can stop thinking now. Just imagine, instead.

Who’s to say our solar system doesn’t periodically pass through or just graze some spectacular cosmic force that we’ll never comprehend that alters temperatures or otherwise affects changes on our climate (a small feat, cosmically speaking)?

And what about that obnoxious nuisance of a light that keeps rising in the east every day? Doesn’t it also rise on us all for another 12 hours of cyclical, periodic global “warming?” Put this simple phenomenon on a scale that allows for systemic encounters with any of countless variations in this wildly diverse universe of ours. Is this something to be afraid of? Why is this so hard to understand?

Shouldn’t we just have squadrons of Air Force fighters lurk in the east to shoot it down and fix everything?

Yes, the sun. Our great cosmic heater, that medium-sized, violent, dangerous, and only moderately predictable ball of fusion. How ’bout that old booger, anyway?

And when are the enviros going to get serious and send a colony to Mercury for first-hand observations?They could get an Alf prize, too.

So, there it is again. I’ve suggested it a time or two before right here on A Rational Aversion. I’ve invited rational comment and had no rational answers: What caused all the other cycles–and “that’s what happened with Atlantis” isn’t going to wash.

Before Algore and the lefties push this one through their bank accounts they’d darned well better be able to define why this has happened so cosmically often before.

How ’bout it?

Regards,

ara

Boarding up the “Church”

One of my favored bloggers called it quits a couple of months ago.

His site, The Church of the Painful Truth, spurred responses in me that appeared several times in these pages you read now. He tagged himself as the Archbishop.

And then, once upon a time, I visited and the door was locked.

That saddened me for at least several reasons that easily come to mind.

1. His page was well-laid out and clean. Good graphics.

2. His content was edgy and agreeable. I enjoy stuff that invites a reader to think and act and not just bitch, and the Archbishop did that as a rule.

3. He rated at least one death threat, certainly from some delightfully open-minded peacenik. I never got one of those. I hope that’s not the reason he bolted the door and I believe him and his explanation at the site link above (a farewell at once poignant and a bit disgusted).

4. He’s a veteran. Veterans shouldn’t retreat, amigo. You won the land you stand on.

5. He likes guns. I commonly tag my e-mails with “He who lives by the sword dies by the sword. That’s why I like guns,” and I believe he would agree with that.

In short, we’re all gonna die, our country most certainly will not last forever, we are in the clutches of anti-constitutionalists, on the verge of anarchy, and we each have the obligation … the mandate … to fight for it in the streets if it comes to that. Whether we acknowlege the mandate or not it’s still there. It’s what the Founders did, in spirit if not in body.

I exhausted what feeble option I had to wish him well and to express my concern for his withdrawal and to inquire into his well-being. That option was to address his email, which was tied to his defunct site, so I knew it was a shot in the dark. There was no response.

So, AB, if by some unlikely happenstance you stumble upon this post, best wishes and a warm farewell. You were good at what you did and I regret seeing that it didn’t seem worth it to you. Had I known where your heart was taking you I would have encouraged you more frequently. Then again, I don’t know the specifics and you were (are) not obligated to share them with me.

If you do want to reach me you know how. I’d like to stay in touch–your family, schooling and such–even if it’s just on a personal versus blogging level.

Feel free to write.

Anytime.

Regards,

ara

This is not “British Humor”

An excellent link that speaks of sanity on this Earth. Amongst thousands of scientists world wide there is now at least one British High Court judge stepping into the real arena where such actions make a difference.

His name is Michael Burton. His decision was made on Wednesday, October 10, 2007. He will be attacked, and he will be attacked with sublime ferocity, because the open-minded and tolerant cannot and will not give room to Truth.

Pray for him and his family and step out in support of those who would stand and do battle for you and yours.

In case the link fails or expires, here’s the actual article. There are others.

All credit for this goes to WorldNetDaily, a premiere news source on the Web. This is used in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine.

Friday, October 12, 2007
________________________________________
________________________________________
HEAT OF THE MOMENT

Think tank: Withdraw Gore film’s Oscar

Citing court ruling, compares situation to sports stars found to be ‘cheats’
________________________________________
Posted: October 12, 2007
11:21 a.m. Eastern
________________________________________
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

On the eve of Al Gore’s award of the Nobel Peace Prize, a think tank wrote the president of the Academy Awards asking that the Oscar given to his film “An Inconvenient Truth” be taken back in response to a British High Court ruling that found 11 serious inaccuracies in the documentary.

Muriel Newman, director of the New Zealand Centre for Political Research, told Academy President Sid Ganis and Executive Director Bruce Davis “the situation is not unlike that confronting sports bodies when their sports stars are found to be drug cheats.”

“In such cases, the sportsmen and women are stripped of their medals and titles, with the next place-getter elevated,” she said, according the Australian Associated Press. “While this is an extremely unpleasant duty, it is necessary if the integrity of competitive sport is to be protected.

British High Court judge Michael Burton ruled Wednesday Gore’s documentary should be shown in British schools only with guidance notes to prevent political indoctrination. The decision followed a lawsuit by a father, Stewart Dimmock, who claimed the film contained “serious scientific inaccuracies, political propaganda and sentimental mush.”

The Nobel panel announced today Gore won the peace prize along with the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for their efforts to spread awareness of “man-made climate change” and to lay the foundations for fighting it.

But Newman, the AAP reported, pointed to the British ruling, which requires teachers to tell students of 11 inaccuracies in Gore’s film.

“The truth, as inconvenient as it is to Al Gore, is that his so-called documentary contained critical distortions that are quite contrary to the principles of good documentary journalism,” Newman said. “Good documentaries should be factually correct. Clearly this documentary is not.”

“An Inconvenient Truth” won Oscars in 2006 for best documentary and best original song.

Dimmock took the British government to court after then-Environment Secretary David Miliband launched a plan to send “An Inconvenient Truth” to all British schools, announcing the scientific debate over man-made global warming “is over.”

The judge, however, sided with Dimmock, who alleged the documentary breached the Education Act of 1996 by portraying “partisan political views.”

The court ruled the Guidance Notes to Teachers must make clear that:

• The film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument.

• If teachers present the film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination.

• Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.

The inaccuracies, according to the court, are:

1. The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.

2. The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The court found that the film was misleading: Over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

3. The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.

4. The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.

5. The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr. Gore had misread the study: In fact four polar bears drowned, and this was because of a particularly violent storm.

6. The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream, throwing Europe into an ice age: The Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.

7. The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.

8. The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt, causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.

9. The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting; the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.

10. The film suggests that sea levels could rise by seven meters, causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact, the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40 centimeters over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.

11. The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

At a news conference today, Gore said he would accept the Nobel Prize on behalf of all global warming activists and donate 100 percent of the cash award to the non-profit Alliance for Climate Protection, “focusing on changing the way people think about the urgency of the climate crisis.”

“This is a chance to elevate global consciousness about the challenges that we face now,” he said.

Gore pointed to a report two weeks ago that claimed melting of the polar ice cap is accelerating.

“It truly is a planetary emergency, and we have to respond urgently,” he said.

Think about the systematic lies that are being forced down your childrens’ throats. Address those that may have taken root in your own mind.

If you want to do some real research start investigating Al Gore’s connection to the United Nations Biodiversity Treaty circa 1993. Intense stuff. Take a sandwich.

Regards,

ara

Oh, puh-leaze

Even before the Nobel snobs rewarded that chubby old bus-bomber and amorous Rump Ranger Yasser Arafat for his part in pulling the wool over Bill Clinton’s eyes, well, my opinion of the Nobel group was justifiably pretty dim.

But what’s this?

THANK you, Nobellians, for going to all the absurd trouble to personally let me know that I’ve been so very damned right!

ara

An American Revolution

The following is a post I made recently in a forum thread.

I’d like to float it here.

No, not like a turd. Like an idea designed to polarize.

The response was to a gentleman who said he could hold his nose and vote for Rudy because The Bitch is Back Clinton is certainly the left’s nominee.

“You said ‘…especially since the alternative WILL be Hillary…no doubt in my mind.’

This might be considered bomb-throwing, but let me ask a question that might…will…start a firestorm.

As a preface, however, the US has been going through a Death of a Thousand Cuts on a serious scale for the past fifteen years or so. We seem to enjoy the pain of being bled.

Lowering oneself to vote yet again for someone who sucks the least just to avoid a Dhimmicrat win only prolongs that. Exactly what is it that seems to make that engineered decline appear so attractive?

Do people really fail to understand that we are in a war for our very survival? That playing games with reality only serves the purposes of those who favor the garrot over the ballot? Dhimmis don’t want freedom. They want control.

That said, here’s the bomb: what would be so wrong with Hillary winning in a Dhimmicrat landslide, which I believe is inevitable in light of our general complacency and ignorance? Let’s get some points on the table with that one.

I, for one, think that all hell will break loose.

Remember that the American Revolution was won by a minority of American Patriots. The bulk of the population, merchants in particular, was indifferent and, at most, marginally involved. There’s a chance it could happen again, although the appeasers and compromisers who are unwilling to fight for your freedoms, as you do theirs, would argue differently.

One thing I do NOT believe is that the majority of our military would join the side of tyranny. Each of them took the same oath to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States that our deceitful and lying Congresses took. I believe the military, being honorable, will honor that oath, and that the Clinton with the pants will be the one to push them to that.

What would we inherit after such a rebellion? Ugliness either way. If the Americans won there would be a difficult transition and a period of rebuilding, hopefully on the restored Constitution. If the Dhimmis and liberal factions won, we would be dunked into the cesspool we’re currently headed for anyway.

That’s where we’re going with each more and more blatant erosion of our Constitutional guarantees in this supposed representative Republic.

That’s if we lose.

So, what if we won?

This isn’t a game.”

And the people said?

ara

The Words of an American Saint

THE ROOT OF THE EVIL

by Jeff Cooper

My dictionary describes an obsession as “a haunting by a fixed idea.” A haunting is a nagging, continuous fear of the unreal. A fixed idea is one that cannot be altered, by truth or reason or anything else. Phobia is listed a “fear, horror, or aversion - of a morbid character.” Morbid is “unwholesome, sickly.”

Those of us who shoot cannot help being perplexed when we encounter people who are apparently haunted by a fixed and morbid aversion to our guns. When first we meet such persons we generally respond with explanations, as is only dealing with rational minds.

This is not to say that everyone who is opposed to shooting is mentally aberrant, but it is to say that those who latch on to an unreasonable notion and there- after refuse to listen to any further discussion of it have problems that are more amenable to psychiatry than to argument.

I coined the term hoplohobia over twenty years ago, not out of pretension but in the sincere belief that we should recognize a very peculiar sociological attitude for what is - a more or less hysterical neurosis rather than a legitimate political position. It follows convention
in the use of Greek roots in describing specific mental afflictions.

Hoplon is the Greek word for “instrument,” but refers synonymously to “weapon” since the earliest and principal instruments were weapons. Phobos is Greek for “terror” and medically denotes unreasoning panic rather than normal fear. Thus hoplophobia is a mental disturbance characterized by irrational aversion to weapons, as opposed to justified apprehension about those who may wield them.

The word has not become common, though twenty years is perhaps too short a time in which to test it, but I am nevertheless convinced that it has merit. We read of “gun grabbers” and “anti-gun nuts” but these slang terms do not face up to the reasons why such people behave the way they do They do not adequately suggest that reason, logic, and truth can have no effect upon one who is irrational on the point under discussion.

You cannot say calmly “Come, let us reason together” to a hoplophobe, because that is what he is - a hoplophobe. He is not just one who holds an opposing view, he is an obsessive neurotic. You can speak, write, and illustrate the merits of the case until you drop dead, and no matter how good you are his mind will not be changed. A victim of hydrophobia will die, horribly, rather than accept the water his body desperately needs. A victim of hoplophobia will die, probably, before he will accept the fallacy of his emotional fixation for what it is.

Have you noted that whenever an assassination is committed with a rifle, our journalistic hoplophobes clamor for further prohibitions on pistols? A pistol is a defensive weapon; a rifle is an offensive weapon. Yet the hoplophobes always attack pistols first because they feel that
pistols are somehow nastier than rifles. (Though rifles are pretty nasty, too. They will get to those later.)

This is the age of the “gut-reaction” -that crutch of intellectual cripples-and for an interesting number of commentators it is not even embarrassing to admit that actually thinking
about anything important is just too much trouble. Some of our most ubiquitous and highly paid social-problem columnists are egregious examples of this.

Not long ago a staff member of the Chicago Tribune held forth at some length about how the color gatefolds in outdoor magazines exemplified the same sniggering depravity that we find in the pornographic press, substituting guns for girls. What a sewer of a mind this man displays!

It is undeniable that both a man-made work of art and a beautiful woman are manifestations of God’s blessing, but to imply that our admiration for them is obscene is to give ones self away. For some it indeed may be, but the rest of us need no advice from such. (I had thought that the fad to fantasize everything into a Freudian sex-symbol had gone out of vogue prior to World War II, but obviously there are a good many who never got the word.)

The essence of the affliction is the belief that instruments cause acts.

It may be that certain degenerate human beings are so far gone that they will use something just because it is there-a match, for instance. (I saw a bumper sticker in the Rockies that admonished us to
“Prevent Forest Fires. Register Matches!”)

One who will burn people because he has a match is the same as one who will shoot people because he has a gun, but the hoplophobe zeros in on guns because he is -let’s face it- irrational. He will answer this by saying that we need matches (and cars, and motorcycles, and power saws, et cetera) but we do not need guns.

He will not accept the idea that you may indeed need your guns, because he hates guns. He is afflicted by the grotesque notion that tools have a will of their own. He may admit that safe driving is a matter of individual responsibility, but he rejects the parallel in the matter of weapons. This may not be insanity, but it is clearly related to it.

One cannot rationally hate or fear an inanimate object. Neither can he rationally hate or fear an object because of its designed purpose. Whether one approves of capital punishment or not, one cannot rationally fear a hemp rope. One who did, possibly because he once narrowly escaped hanging, would generally be referred to a shrink. When the most prominent hoplophobe in the United States Senate says that he abhors firearms because their purpose is to put bullets through things, he reinforces the impressions that many have formed about his capacity to reason.

My point—and I hope it is clear—is that hoplophobia is a mental disturbance rather than a point of view. Differences of opinion—on economic policy, or forced integration, or the morality of abortion, or the neutron bomb—these we may hope to resolve by discussion.

But we cannot so resolve a phobia. The mentally ill we cannot reach. But we can identify a form of mental illness for what it is, and so separate its victims from the policy considerations of reasonable people.

The root of the evil is the unprincipled attempt to gain votes by appealing to the emotions of the emotionally disturbed.

Few reasonable politicians dare to take on the Second Amendment, even in the Eastern Megalopolis. (One prominent left-liberal told a New Yorker interviewer that he “would rather be a deer, in season, that to take on ‘the gun lobby’!”) But if, as is the case with the aforementioned senator, the politician is already a hopeless hoplophobe, his advisers must turn him loose to appeal to his constituency of crazies, since their jobs depend on it. “Go to it, Senator! The nuts are all with you.”

This is something we who prize our traditional liberties must face. Convincing the uninterested is the very essence of politics, in a two-party system. It is up to us to do that by demonstrating that hoplophobia is a disease, and to call upon all reasonable people to reject it as a basis for the formulation of policy.

By Jeff Cooper in his book To Ride, Shoot Straight, and Speak The Truth Gunsite Press 1990.

May you rest in peace, Colonel Cooper, and know that we are here in your stead.

ara

“First Responder??” The “First Responder” is YOU!!

The Left has fought long and hard to disarm law-abiding American citizens, and the fundamentaiism of that same left is soundly embraced by the 110th Congress that now attacks nearly all the explicit, untouchable rights contained in our most foundational document.

Despite the historic and still extant fact that Article V of the main body of the United States Constitution provides the only process for changing the Constitution itself, past and present Congresses, Presidents, and especially renegade courts have nonetheless taken it upon themselves to circumvent the Constitutional process and superciliously impose illegal mandates on a formerly free citizenry.

The article below, if you care in the least for your rights, deserves your strongly focused attention.

Read it. Research it further, if you must. But act on it!

In this world of government-sanctioned violence by one citizen upon the other the move now, and flagrantly, is to remove your ability to be your own first line of defense. The “first responder” to a crime of violence against you or your family is not the local sheriff nor is it the local police, firefighters, or EMTs.

The First Responder to a crime of violence against you or your family is YOU!!

And your ability to mount an effective response to a crime of violence against you or your family is solely dependent upon your abilility to mount an effective response!

I would think that in all of this the overall response to the arrogance of the dearly elected in this nation would be one of universal rage.

I can’t expect anyone to really care enough to be passingly familiar with the Constitution–a very easy read, by the way–but to have these same dearly elected wilfully mandate that you, personally, sacrifice every shred of self determination in the hope that local responders will do better than they did at Columbine or Virginia Tech is downright obscene.

It’s made the rounds elsewhere, but this is the first time I’ve seen the impending Occupational Safety and Health Administration issue presented in which an action plan was given. Here’s the article from the National Shooting Sports Foundation:

Printable Version

Proposed OSHA Regulation Threatens
Firearm and Ammunition Industry

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the government agency charged with assuring the safety and health of America’s workers, is proposing a regulatory rule affecting the manufacturing, transportation and storage of small arms ammunition, primers and smokeless propellants.

As written, the proposed rule would force the closure of nearly all ammunition manufacturers and force the cost of small arms ammunition to skyrocket beyond what the market could bear—essentially collapsing our industry. This is not an exaggeration. The cost to comply with the proposed rule for the ammunition industry, including manufacturer, wholesale distributors and retailers, will be massive and easily exceed $100 million. For example, ammunition and smokeless propellant manufacturers would have to shut down and evacuate a factory when a thunderstorm approached and customers would not be allowed within 50 feet of any ammunition (displayed or otherwise stored) without first being searched for matches or lighters.

NSSF and SAAMI have already had a preliminary meeting with OSHA officials to begin the process of explaining to them the major problems this proposed rule presents for all levels of the firearms and ammunition industry. Furthermore, NSSF and SAAMI are each seeking a 60 day extension of the public comment period (currently scheduled to expire July 12).

NSSF is urging all retailers to contact OSHA directly and request a 60-day extension of the public comment period. Retailers should inform OSHA that the proposed rule constitutes a “significant regulatory action” as defined in Executive Order 12866 (1993) Section 3(f)(1) in that it will clearly “adversely affect in a material way” the retail sector of the firearms and ammunition industry, productivity, competition and jobs and that the annual compliance cost for all retailers of ammunition will far exceed $100 million dollars.

Click here for a template letter. If you choose to draft your own letter, the reference line must read as follows:
RE: Docket No. OSHA–2007–0032
Request to Extend Public Comment Period and Request for Hearing on
“Significant Regulatory Action” as Defined in Executive Order 12866

Please fax the letter to: 202-693-1648 (include the docket number and Department of Labor/OSHA on the cover sheet and in the reference section of your letter).

Please e-mail the letter by visiting: http://www.regulations.gov and following the submission instructions.

In closing I give you the option of following a link for further illustration of the validity of America remaining armed and trained in the use of firearms as weapons of defense. This is worth the read: please do so.

Step 1: Educate yourself.

Regards,

ara

On God and Ezekiel and lightweight things like that…

Tom Kovach is an interesting guy. Here’s a quick snippet of his autobiography lifted from his blog:

Tom Kovach lives near Nashville, is a former USAF Blue Beret, and [writes] for several online publications. He recently published his first book. He is also an inventor, a horse wrangler, a certified paralegal, and a former talk-radio host.

There is a thread of commonality between Kovach and what you are about to read, so just go with the flow for a minute.

Jerome Corsi wrote Unfit for Duty, a heavily documented book with in depth testimony from every officer in John Kerry’s senior chain of command in Vietnam (John Kerry was there, you know).

Every officer in that chain of command, by the way, thought Kerry was full of Charlie Romeo Alpha Papa. But John Kerry was in Vietnam, in case you’d forgotten.

The book was a huge part of sinking Kerry in the eyes of honest Americans. If you want, read this link to see what Corsi writes on GWB’s coming trip to Canada for the 3rd Summit on the Security and Prosperity Partnership, otherwise known as the North American Union.

Corsi is a possible candidate for President on the Constitution Party ticket, though that isn’t certain, nor is it the point.

So here’s the thread–Kovach wrote a piece as a responseto Corsi’s tome on SPP III. It’s satire but, boy, would it be cool to see something like this happen this August…even briefly.

I know, I know. Never gonna happen. But the visual is a keeper.

The meat of this, now that Kovach is introduced, is another commentary on God and Ezekiel and where the world is going–lightweight stuff, you know?

This is a link you should give time to. Meditate on this. Remember Who is in control.

And don’t worry about voting for the right thing. In 2008, vote Constitution Party wherever it appears on a ballot. Know your candidates and write them in as possible.

It’s the Goodly thing to do.

ara

There Are Thinkers Out There

I think that one of the most frustrating things about the war we’re in (the war for our survival, not the one in Iraq) is that so very many “Americans” believe what they read in Newsweek and its ilk as well as what they hear from the likes of Katie Couric, et al.

The flatliners actually believe it.

So it was encouraging to read this article during this morning’s internet exercises.

It is legislators such as this man from Michigan that we need to seek out, encourage, and support. Make the survival of your Constitutional right to defend yourself a litmus test in your determination of who to vote for.

And please make a copy of this article to give to a friend or link it in an email. We can still win the war against those who would see our families dead.

ara