.
#1: One thing that boggles my mind is how Republican voters never seem to notice that their representatives in government talk a great game but never truly act upon the principles they espouse. Boy, when they need your vote, they’re all about “reducing the size of government, releasing the national headlock on American education and restoring liberty to the people by abolishing the tyranny of federal regulations over every aspect of the citizen’s life.” But once in power, these so-called “conservatives” forget all of that, and in fact, often increase the cost and scope of federal government beyond what even their Democrat predecessors had established, while occasionally tossing their lap dog voters a slight tax break bone to keep up appearances (see Reagan and “W"). One would think that the Republican voter would eventually catch on and realize that the movers and shakers within his own political party have been lying to him, but he never does. And when the next election rolls around, the Republican voter will once again buy into the slogans and faithfully put his X next to the name of the man or woman with the “R” adjoined. Why do you suppose the Republican voter never wakes up to the fact that he is being duped? I know the answer and it rhymes with “dimbulb.” Oh, wait! It is “dimbulb.”
#2: In his inaugural speech, Barack Obama made the statement: “America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office but because we the people have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebears and true to our founding documents.” Well, that’s enough bullsh#t to choke an ox. This country finds itself in so much trouble precisely BECAUSE, for at least a hundred years, we have IGNORED the ideals of our forebears and our founding documents! And I find it ironic that – with a pretense of concern about faithfully following the dictates of the U.S. Constitution - Omama(!) retook the oath of office because a word was misplaced when the oath was originally administered to him, but yet he still refuses to allow the American People to see a copy of his official birth certificate in order to satsify the Article II, Section I demands of that same Constitution. Omama(!) has correctly pegged the mass of Americans as blind maroons. This guy is “too much for Dick Tracy.”
#3: I can’t tell y’all how comforting it is to know that Barack Omama(!) has named former Arizona governor Janet Napolitano as this country’s new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. I can’t tell y’all that because it’s NOT COMFORTING at all. I mean, here’s a woman – I guess - who couldn’t even keep illegal immigrants from overrunning her state from South Of The Border, but now she’s expected to keep the entire nation safe from lawbreakers and terrorists? I won’t even begin to tell you how she played a role in wrecking Arizona’s economy. But I suppose she does deserve credit for SOMETHING: she did manage to keep city authorities from placing Christmas decorations on our streets in honor of that mythical principle of “Separation of Church and State.” Only in politics and the movie industry is it possible for a person to fail their way to the top.
#4: I can’t help noticing that, despite his continual promise of “Change”, Barack Omama(!) has named all the usual Democrat suspects to positions of power in his new administration. If your idea of “Change” is replacing a bunch of old Marxist Neocons with a bunch of old Marxist Democrats, then yes, I suppose Omama(!) has brought “Change.” Good on ya, Swami Obamee!
#5: I was speaking with The Great L.C. at work one night last week and we were brainstorming on how to pull this country out of its economic woes. Then I suddenly hit upon a novel idea and I said, “I’ve got it! Why don’t we try capitalism? I mean, nothing else seems to work. Government should just get out of the business of Business and let pure economic forces do their thing.” Look, People, I realize this sounds crazy an’ all, but if the Arizona Cardinals can make it to the Super Bowl then ANYTHING’S possible. "Free Market Capitalism: an idea whose time has come."
#6: Periodically, I’ll listen to a local Phoenix radio station’s political talk show hosted by former Arizona Congressman J.D. Hayworth. He’s just about the only neocon I can stand to listen to. Once in awhile he takes an opposing viewpoint, and he does have a good personality which makes his show somewhat palatable for me. During the presidential campaign, he would do a voice impersonation of Senator John McCain which was pretty good and pretty funny. I mentioned this to my Brother and he said Hayworth also does a good Bill Clinton and Charlie Rangel. Well, I’ve since caught both of those impersonations and my Bro’s right, they are good. But last week he was doing Barney Frank and it really cracked me up. Hayworth makes Barney sound like a gay Elmer Fudd. Frankly, funny!
#7: I had a dental appointment on January 22nd, and while I was in the waiting room waiting for the woman who came in before me to shut her mouth, I was watching the Fox News broadcast of some White House briefing that they were showing in the dental office on their big screen TV teat. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs was yakking and I noticed that he’d say “Uh” about very third of fourth word. There was also some female Fox News Talking Head analyzing the situation – I can’t recall her name now… Hedy Lamarr, Suzy Chapstick, Merle Haggard, something like that. Anyway, whatever her name was, every two sentences she would say “You know.” Blah, Blah, Blah, you know. Or, You know, blah, blah, blah. One would think that people making their living by yakking in public would perhaps take some public speaking courses, or at least privately work on polishing their delivery a little in order to present a professionally smooth and pleasant “oralsphere”… yUH know?
PREVIOUSLY UNRELEASED BONUS TRACK:
The company I work for is now proposing the banning of cigarette smoking anywhere on the property. It’s not enough that smokers have been banished to a small corner in the back 40 of the premises for years, they now want to deny them the right to smoke ANYWHERE. I have never been a smoker, so this won’t affect me in any way, but nevertheless, the proposal ticks me off. How typical of Corporate America. Corporations: where fresh, young minds go to climb, conform and die. And good ol’ America: where a perfectly legal activity like smoking is banned but a woman has a (supposedly) CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to murder her baby in the womb! America, your priorities are in the toilet and you followed them in. One of these days, God is going to flush that crapper and then you’ll get your great comeuppance. Er… GoDowneth.
ALTERNATE TAKE OF TRACK #3
[Presented Here For The First Time In Its Unedited Form]:
Thanks to Swami Obamee, we now have former Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano as America’s Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. This is the same Leftist Democrat who couldn’t even please a good deal of her fellow liberals in her own state. What is it about these Dumb-O-Crat presidents that makes them place manly women named Janet in power over federal “police” departments? With Bubba it was Janet Reno, and with Barack it’s Janet Napolitano.
It’s been a good 32 or 33 years since I’ve held a copy of Elton John’s album “Goodbye Yellow Brick Road” in my hands, but I recall that on the inside of the cover there was an illustration for the song “All The Girls Love Alice.” Photographs of Napolitano have always reminded me of the matronly woman in that album illustration who seeks the affection of Alice. But now that Napolitano has federal police powers (look out, terrorists!), I think this famous old rhyme is right on time:
Lizzie Janet took an axe
And gave Muhammad forty whacks.
And when she saw what she had done
She gave ol’ Ahmed forty-one.
~ Stephen T. McCarthy
.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Thursday, January 22, 2009
On DECEIT And DISSENT
.
Perhaps my favorite portion of Barack Obama’s inaugural speech was this:
“To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”
MR. PREZ ~
Hey, guess who I thought of first, Obama, baby! YOU! You cling to power as the country’s new president by deceit and the silencing of dissent. The deceit will be found on your birth certificate, if you ever allow We The People to actually see it. And you silence dissent by hiring lawyers to help you keep that birth certificate hidden away rather than showing it to The People – The People who have a Constitutional RIGHT to see it. Yes, you, Obama. YOU!
When will you extend YOUR hand, Obama, with your official birth certificate in it? Hmmm? Heal thyself, physician.
Heal thyself, messiah:
"Why do you see the splinter which is in your brother's eye, and do not feel the beam which is in your own eye? ... O hypocrites, first take out the beam from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to get out the splinter from your brother's eye."
Or is that particular passage not included in your copy of The Bible, O mighty messiah, O Mr. "Christian" man? [*Cough!-Cough!*]
AMERICA! ~
You deserve Barack Obama. Just like you deserved George W. Bush and Bill Clinton before him. You ignorantly elect these wild dogs to lead you and then you cry foul when the dogs turn and bite you in the ass. If you did your research first – and I mean “INTELLECTUALLY HONEST” research – you wouldn’t be casting your vote for your own executioners.
Well, you’re a dying country, that’s for sure. But if it wasn’t for the fact that at least a small minority of your People dislike the taste of Kool-Aid, you would have been laid to rest long before now.
THE END IS NEAR, America. Nearer than you know.
And since I gave up “HOPE”
I feel much better.
~ Stephen T. McCarthy
Related Links:
Born To Be Filed
What, Is He From The Womb Of The Mother Ship Sent By Planet Malcolm-X?
.
Perhaps my favorite portion of Barack Obama’s inaugural speech was this:
“To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”
MR. PREZ ~
Hey, guess who I thought of first, Obama, baby! YOU! You cling to power as the country’s new president by deceit and the silencing of dissent. The deceit will be found on your birth certificate, if you ever allow We The People to actually see it. And you silence dissent by hiring lawyers to help you keep that birth certificate hidden away rather than showing it to The People – The People who have a Constitutional RIGHT to see it. Yes, you, Obama. YOU!
When will you extend YOUR hand, Obama, with your official birth certificate in it? Hmmm? Heal thyself, physician.
Heal thyself, messiah:
"Why do you see the splinter which is in your brother's eye, and do not feel the beam which is in your own eye? ... O hypocrites, first take out the beam from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to get out the splinter from your brother's eye."
Or is that particular passage not included in your copy of The Bible, O mighty messiah, O Mr. "Christian" man? [*Cough!-Cough!*]
AMERICA! ~
You deserve Barack Obama. Just like you deserved George W. Bush and Bill Clinton before him. You ignorantly elect these wild dogs to lead you and then you cry foul when the dogs turn and bite you in the ass. If you did your research first – and I mean “INTELLECTUALLY HONEST” research – you wouldn’t be casting your vote for your own executioners.
Well, you’re a dying country, that’s for sure. But if it wasn’t for the fact that at least a small minority of your People dislike the taste of Kool-Aid, you would have been laid to rest long before now.
THE END IS NEAR, America. Nearer than you know.
And since I gave up “HOPE”
I feel much better.
~ Stephen T. McCarthy
Related Links:
Born To Be Filed
What, Is He From The Womb Of The Mother Ship Sent By Planet Malcolm-X?
.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE SON OF A BUSH HAS LEFT THE BUILDING
.
There’s just no good reason to Beat-Around-The-Bush, so I’m going to come right out and say it directly: the King George W(ish I had a brain) Bush presidency was simply the worst presidency in my 49 years. That’s even a bit hard for me to believe considering that I have lived through the Washington D.C. train wrecks known as “The Jimmy Carter Fiasco” and “The Bill ‘Bubba’ Clinton Years Of Treason”, but nevertheless, in my estimation, King George was really bad, and that weren’t good!
Based upon my own knowledge of history then, I rate Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and King George W(ish I had a brain) Bush as the worst U.S. Presidents ever! (But Wilson really takes the cake. America will simply never recover from what that traitor did to it.) After those three, it starts to get a bit murky like it is for a slowly drowning man attempting to dog paddle in the Muddy Mississippi, but certainly the aforementioned C ‘N’ C (Carter & Clinton) would be right there in the mix for biggest White House losers.
Well, good riddance to King George! May we never see the likes of him again. (Although I know we will, and IMMEDIATELY.)
Bush did outlaw partial birth abortion during his Eight Terrible Years (something that Bubba Clinton didn’t have the soul to do), and I feel a great deal of appreciation for THAT! And he did, finally, on his last full day in office, bow to intense pressure from Congressional representatives on both sides of the aisle and the American people in general, and commute the sentences of the unjustly imprisoned Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean. They will be released on March 20th. But Ramos and Compean ought never to have been sent to prison in the first place. Their prosecution by the Bush Administration was just par for the Pathetic Course.
On December 15, 2008, I wrote to King George for the second time in a couple of years, pleading with him to take proper action in the case of Ramos and Compean. Below is a copy of my December 15th e-mail:
Dear President Bush ~
As you know, unless something of monumental proportions occurs between now and when Barack Obama moves in, you will be leaving the White House with the lowest approval ratings ever recorded for a U.S. President.
I know a way that you could do the proper thing AND boost your approval ratings before stepping down: pardon the unjustly prosecuted Border Patrol Agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean. I don't believe there is any other single act you could do at this point that would go further in improving the public perception of your presidency!
The average American, such as myself, feels very strongly that what was done to agents Ramos and Compean was a great miscarriage of justice and a black eye for the Federal Judicial System under your watch, and that it needs to be overturned before you leave the White House. This correction made by you prior to closing out your presidency would unquestionably mean a great deal to many Americans and it would go far in improving your presidential legacy.
Please, President Bush, do what the majority of Americans know to be right and pardon the Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean as quickly as possible, for both their sakes and the good of their families, as well as for the memory of your presidency. This right decision made by you will make a large impression on how we remember you in years to come. Believing that you will do what is right, I thank you in advance.
Sincerely,
Stephen T. McCarthy
We The People were finally heard by the King. Sort of. The so-called “Christian” Son-Of-A-Bush couldn’t find it in his heart to pardon the Border Patrol Agents, but at least he did reduce their sentences. I guess it’s the best we could realistically hope for from someone like George W. Bush.
Everything else this president did was Nightmare City, like Disastersville, man. The good news is that we are now rid of that Chip Off The Ol’ “Read My Lips” Blockhead, and these eight years of misadventure have come to a close. The bad news is that we are now about to embark on a new misadventure: we’re off to see the Wizard, the Marxist Wizard B.O. Just follow the pinko brick road! Click the heels of your Revolutionary Red ruby slippers together and repeat after me: "There’s no place like Moscow… There’s no place like Moscow… There’s no place like Moscow…"
~ Stephen T. McCarthy
A link to mo’ info ‘bout Ramos And Compean:
Who Would Jesus Send Christmas Cards To?
.
There’s just no good reason to Beat-Around-The-Bush, so I’m going to come right out and say it directly: the King George W(ish I had a brain) Bush presidency was simply the worst presidency in my 49 years. That’s even a bit hard for me to believe considering that I have lived through the Washington D.C. train wrecks known as “The Jimmy Carter Fiasco” and “The Bill ‘Bubba’ Clinton Years Of Treason”, but nevertheless, in my estimation, King George was really bad, and that weren’t good!
Based upon my own knowledge of history then, I rate Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and King George W(ish I had a brain) Bush as the worst U.S. Presidents ever! (But Wilson really takes the cake. America will simply never recover from what that traitor did to it.) After those three, it starts to get a bit murky like it is for a slowly drowning man attempting to dog paddle in the Muddy Mississippi, but certainly the aforementioned C ‘N’ C (Carter & Clinton) would be right there in the mix for biggest White House losers.
Well, good riddance to King George! May we never see the likes of him again. (Although I know we will, and IMMEDIATELY.)
Bush did outlaw partial birth abortion during his Eight Terrible Years (something that Bubba Clinton didn’t have the soul to do), and I feel a great deal of appreciation for THAT! And he did, finally, on his last full day in office, bow to intense pressure from Congressional representatives on both sides of the aisle and the American people in general, and commute the sentences of the unjustly imprisoned Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean. They will be released on March 20th. But Ramos and Compean ought never to have been sent to prison in the first place. Their prosecution by the Bush Administration was just par for the Pathetic Course.
On December 15, 2008, I wrote to King George for the second time in a couple of years, pleading with him to take proper action in the case of Ramos and Compean. Below is a copy of my December 15th e-mail:
Dear President Bush ~
As you know, unless something of monumental proportions occurs between now and when Barack Obama moves in, you will be leaving the White House with the lowest approval ratings ever recorded for a U.S. President.
I know a way that you could do the proper thing AND boost your approval ratings before stepping down: pardon the unjustly prosecuted Border Patrol Agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean. I don't believe there is any other single act you could do at this point that would go further in improving the public perception of your presidency!
The average American, such as myself, feels very strongly that what was done to agents Ramos and Compean was a great miscarriage of justice and a black eye for the Federal Judicial System under your watch, and that it needs to be overturned before you leave the White House. This correction made by you prior to closing out your presidency would unquestionably mean a great deal to many Americans and it would go far in improving your presidential legacy.
Please, President Bush, do what the majority of Americans know to be right and pardon the Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean as quickly as possible, for both their sakes and the good of their families, as well as for the memory of your presidency. This right decision made by you will make a large impression on how we remember you in years to come. Believing that you will do what is right, I thank you in advance.
Sincerely,
Stephen T. McCarthy
We The People were finally heard by the King. Sort of. The so-called “Christian” Son-Of-A-Bush couldn’t find it in his heart to pardon the Border Patrol Agents, but at least he did reduce their sentences. I guess it’s the best we could realistically hope for from someone like George W. Bush.
Everything else this president did was Nightmare City, like Disastersville, man. The good news is that we are now rid of that Chip Off The Ol’ “Read My Lips” Blockhead, and these eight years of misadventure have come to a close. The bad news is that we are now about to embark on a new misadventure: we’re off to see the Wizard, the Marxist Wizard B.O. Just follow the pinko brick road! Click the heels of your Revolutionary Red ruby slippers together and repeat after me: "There’s no place like Moscow… There’s no place like Moscow… There’s no place like Moscow…"
~ Stephen T. McCarthy
A link to mo’ info ‘bout Ramos And Compean:
Who Would Jesus Send Christmas Cards To?
.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
The CFR: "CHRISTIANS" On FOREIGN RELATIONS?
.
Boy Howdy, ya learn something new every day. Well, ya do if you’re as ignint as I is. (Are?)
What’d I learn? Something about the COUNCIL On FOREIGN RELATIONS (CFR)? Nah. I’ve had a handle on that subject for a very long time. In fact, anyone who’s known me for even just ninety minutes has heard me bitchin’ ‘n’ moanin’ ‘bout the Council on Foreign Relations for what, to them, must feel like ninety years. I have plenty to say about the CFR, and I’ve said it, too! You can read THIS. Or THIS. Or even THIS.
No, it’s not WHAT but WHO. Certainly I’m aware that the CFR Benedict Arnoldian (traitorodoriferous) stench has wafted into every facet of American life because Council members have been found from the Presidency to the Congress, from the Judiciary to the Media, from Wall Street to Philanthropic Foundations, from Academia to the Center Of The Universe (Prescott, Arizona) and all points between and beyond.
Even so, this story I found on the web took me just a leetle mite by surprise. As you will learn, Barack Obama’s choice of pastor RICK WARREN to lead the prayer at the 44th president’s January 20th inauguration isn’t quite the eyebrow-raising “Whatchoo Talkin’ ‘Bout, Willis?” moment that it might at first blush appear to be. Obama isn’t really ‘Incongrutiating’, it only looks that way. I mean, I too initially asked myself: “Why would a Christian like Obama [*Wink!-Wink! Nudge!-Nudge!*] want a (supposedly) Christian’s Christian like Rick Warren to do the ‘God He’p Us’ at his upcoming coming-out party?” But in reading the following article, I got the answer, and It Came Upon A Midnight Clear… and disturbingly dark:
RICK WARREN, THE CFR, AND BARACK OBAMA
Written by Ann Shibler and Art Thompson
Friday, 19 December 2008
Is Obama’s choice of Rick Warren to give the invocation at the presidential inauguration purposefully driven? The news media, Evangelicals, the gay community, pro-lifers, and the general public are all agog either positively or negatively, over Obama’s choice of Rick Warren, pastor and founder of the mega Saddleback Church to give the inaugural invocation.
Members of the Saddleback Church are happy about the choice. For them it’s a publicity coup that will bring Warren and his church even greater mainstream visibility.
The gay community, however, is fuming. Rick Warren supposedly supported Prop 8 in California that banned gay marriages and in the past has stated that the traditional marriage really need not be disturbed.
The Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay rights organization, said, upon learning of the appointment: "We feel a deep level of disrespect when one of the architects and promoters of an anti-gay agenda is given the prominence and the pulpit of your historic nomination." The group sent a letter detailing its complaints to Obama, asking him to reconsider.
Obama, meanwhile, has defended his choice, saying, “dialogue is part of what my campaign is all about," while noting that in his opinion Warren is a "fierce advocate for equality" for gays and lesbians, and will remain so. The president-elect also said a "wide range of viewpoints" will be presented during the inaugural ceremonies. In fact, he enlisted a gay marching band for the parade -- The Gay and Lesbian Band Association. He says he and vice-president elect Biden are proud and honored to have them.
Warren’s pending appearance is also causing pro-life groups and others to wonder why a supposed pro-lifer would want to accept such an invitation from a decidedly pro-abortion minded president-elect. They were equally puzzled when Warren invited then-candidate Obama to speak at his church at a seminar entitled, “We Must Work Together.”
From Ingrid Schlueter’s “Slice of Laodicea,” a website that offers commentary on the modern Christian church, comes this marvelous insight into Rick Warren’s philosophy:
You may have read Warren’s quote this week that the “social gospel is Marxism in Christian clothing.” Really, Rick? There is absolutely nothing so effective in the bottomless bag of tricks of our emerging cultural architects than this ploy. Nobody better embodies the social gospel than Rick Warren. For years, he has been exposed for promoting exactly that—helping people externally minus the exclusive Gospel of Jesus Christ. Yet here we have the man who has done more to further the social gospel than any other, actually decrying the “social gospel.”
Schlueter offers more saying that Warren’s message is that one can now “claim to be pro-life while aiding and abetting someone fully committed to continuing the bloodshed of innocents.” Warren, she says, believes that contradictory opposites don’t have to drive each other apart:
This is an irreconcilable difference–being pro-life and pro-death. Rick Warren wants us to believe that out of the two opposing sides, out of the struggle, there can be eventual unity and progress. That there can emerge a synthesis.
Warren’s actions speak louder than his rhetoric. Claiming to be pro-life, he promotes abortion. Claiming to be anti-Marxist, he practices a fundamental tenets of it, that of Lenin’s “unity of opposites.” Claiming to be against modern society’s social gospel, he instead is a practitioner of it.
Human beings cannot look into the soul of man but there are indications that Warren may not be what he seems and that Obama, once again, is getting his marching orders from the New World Order crowd.
The August 18, 2008 issue of Time magazine displayed a large picture of Rick Warren and called him “America’s most powerful religious leader…” The article inside was titled, “The Global Ambition of Rick Warren.” The subtitle read, “How a charismatic Californian became the closest thing to Billy Graham – and why religion in America will never be the same.”
After the movement against the war in Vietnam, the violence driven civil rights activists, plus the charade of the collapse of communism, Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and other radical terrorist organizations were given instructions to assimilate into the mainstream of America and work there to bring about socialism.
It is interesting to see how many of the former leaders in the SDS, Black Panthers and other communist controlled organizations became religious leaders.
Stokley Carmichael of “Burn, Baby, Burn” fame, as well as H. Rap Brown, leader of the Black Panthers, became leaders of radical Islam to carry forward their Marxism.
Michael Lerner, whom J. Edgar Hoover called the most dangerous terrorist in America, the leader of the SDS in Seattle, became a rabbi.
And, Rick Warren, who led a march on his local courthouse for the SDS, has soared to great heights. Does he still believe what he professed in the 1960s?
Careful reading of the Time article has many hints that his Christianity is not the Christianity of our fathers. But there is one clue that tells us all we need to know.
In America, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is the primary promoter of the the “New World Order” internationalism once praised by the first President Bush and is linked with several other similar organizations around the world to promote a one world government under a form of socialism. It is an elitist organization. One cannot be a member of the CFR and not realize that their policies lead to the abrogation of the Constitution, sovereignty, and independence of the United States. David Rockefeller, who has admitted in his biography that he is part of a cabal to bring about a one world government, was the chairman for 15 years.
Rick Warren is a member of the CFR.
Obama has surrounded himself, just as Bush did, with members of the CFR. In addition, Obama has shown a propensity to also surround himself with people who came out of the radical and terrorist movement of the 1960s and 1970s, and, in the process the CFR controlled media has made it appear as if it is all centrist politics.
When you know and understand the details, it’s a lot easier to know just who Obama -- and Warren -- are pandering to in all of this, and who’s goals they are furthering.
Say, did you notice how in my opening paragraphs I didn’t call Barack an “Obama-Rama-Lama-Ding-Dong” or a “Marxist Maroon”, or anything like that? It’s because I’ve decided to make a New Year’s Resolution to stop calling all these political pinheads “Political Pinheads.” I’m going to give up all the name-calling and from now on, treat everyone with the utmost respect and civility. No more telling the socialist dogs that they’re “a pack of Socialist Dogs.” No more calling Democrats “Dumb-O-Crats” and Republicans “Repugnantcans.” I won’t be reminding the Liberals anymore that they’re a bunch of weenies; or calling the brainwashed pseudo-conservatives “Neoconned Newtwits.”
Yep, that’s all behind me now, folks. The Feminists are no longer “Brain-dead Bean Curd.” (Well, I mean, I won’t be saying that they are.) I won’t be calling the American Civil Liberties Union “a bunch of Commie f—” … Uhm… “a bunch of Commie f—” … Dang it, I’ve already faggotten what I used to call them. But anyway, I’ll no longer be labeling the— Freaks! That’s what it was: “a bunch of Commie freaks!” Now I remember. … Anyhow… I’ll no longer be labeling the New York Times articles “Democratic Chips And Dipsh#tism”, nor referring to TV’s mainstream Talking Head political pundits as “Very Special Olympians.” Heck, I think I’m even going to withhold my criticism of Rush Limboob. Er… that’s “Limbaugh.” (Doh! Old habits die hard.)
But I’m not ready to try embracing MICHAEL MEDVED yet. I mean, there’s no point in overdoing it in a single year only to perish by heart attack trying to display love that I just ain’t truly acquired yet. (Or more embarrassingly, choking to death on my own vomit.) Perhaps I’ll see if I can add “MENDACIOUS MEDVED” to the mix in 2010 (if I don’t explode and die in 2009).
Yes, sirree, good people, I’m going to “do unto others as I would have others do unto me.” I guess many women will be testifying and I’ll be going to prison soon. “But no, but no, but no!” (…to quote my old friend Pooh) seriously, from this point on, it’s exclusively the kinder, gentler Stephen T. McCarthy.
Damn [*sniffle!*] I miss me already.
~ Stephen T. McCarthy
Psst. Of course, someone could get up a small petition, ya know, like a small petition? And if it said something like “Bring Back The Clown!” or “Can New Coke And Give Us Classic Coke” or “Stephen! Stephen! Come Back!” we here at the STMcC Company would obligingly listen, as we always acquiesce to the will of our readers (when they’re right… or if they’re wrong but we think there’s money in it).
.
Boy Howdy, ya learn something new every day. Well, ya do if you’re as ignint as I is. (Are?)
What’d I learn? Something about the COUNCIL On FOREIGN RELATIONS (CFR)? Nah. I’ve had a handle on that subject for a very long time. In fact, anyone who’s known me for even just ninety minutes has heard me bitchin’ ‘n’ moanin’ ‘bout the Council on Foreign Relations for what, to them, must feel like ninety years. I have plenty to say about the CFR, and I’ve said it, too! You can read THIS. Or THIS. Or even THIS.
No, it’s not WHAT but WHO. Certainly I’m aware that the CFR Benedict Arnoldian (traitorodoriferous) stench has wafted into every facet of American life because Council members have been found from the Presidency to the Congress, from the Judiciary to the Media, from Wall Street to Philanthropic Foundations, from Academia to the Center Of The Universe (Prescott, Arizona) and all points between and beyond.
Even so, this story I found on the web took me just a leetle mite by surprise. As you will learn, Barack Obama’s choice of pastor RICK WARREN to lead the prayer at the 44th president’s January 20th inauguration isn’t quite the eyebrow-raising “Whatchoo Talkin’ ‘Bout, Willis?” moment that it might at first blush appear to be. Obama isn’t really ‘Incongrutiating’, it only looks that way. I mean, I too initially asked myself: “Why would a Christian like Obama [*Wink!-Wink! Nudge!-Nudge!*] want a (supposedly) Christian’s Christian like Rick Warren to do the ‘God He’p Us’ at his upcoming coming-out party?” But in reading the following article, I got the answer, and It Came Upon A Midnight Clear… and disturbingly dark:
RICK WARREN, THE CFR, AND BARACK OBAMA
Written by Ann Shibler and Art Thompson
Friday, 19 December 2008
Is Obama’s choice of Rick Warren to give the invocation at the presidential inauguration purposefully driven? The news media, Evangelicals, the gay community, pro-lifers, and the general public are all agog either positively or negatively, over Obama’s choice of Rick Warren, pastor and founder of the mega Saddleback Church to give the inaugural invocation.
Members of the Saddleback Church are happy about the choice. For them it’s a publicity coup that will bring Warren and his church even greater mainstream visibility.
The gay community, however, is fuming. Rick Warren supposedly supported Prop 8 in California that banned gay marriages and in the past has stated that the traditional marriage really need not be disturbed.
The Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay rights organization, said, upon learning of the appointment: "We feel a deep level of disrespect when one of the architects and promoters of an anti-gay agenda is given the prominence and the pulpit of your historic nomination." The group sent a letter detailing its complaints to Obama, asking him to reconsider.
Obama, meanwhile, has defended his choice, saying, “dialogue is part of what my campaign is all about," while noting that in his opinion Warren is a "fierce advocate for equality" for gays and lesbians, and will remain so. The president-elect also said a "wide range of viewpoints" will be presented during the inaugural ceremonies. In fact, he enlisted a gay marching band for the parade -- The Gay and Lesbian Band Association. He says he and vice-president elect Biden are proud and honored to have them.
Warren’s pending appearance is also causing pro-life groups and others to wonder why a supposed pro-lifer would want to accept such an invitation from a decidedly pro-abortion minded president-elect. They were equally puzzled when Warren invited then-candidate Obama to speak at his church at a seminar entitled, “We Must Work Together.”
From Ingrid Schlueter’s “Slice of Laodicea,” a website that offers commentary on the modern Christian church, comes this marvelous insight into Rick Warren’s philosophy:
You may have read Warren’s quote this week that the “social gospel is Marxism in Christian clothing.” Really, Rick? There is absolutely nothing so effective in the bottomless bag of tricks of our emerging cultural architects than this ploy. Nobody better embodies the social gospel than Rick Warren. For years, he has been exposed for promoting exactly that—helping people externally minus the exclusive Gospel of Jesus Christ. Yet here we have the man who has done more to further the social gospel than any other, actually decrying the “social gospel.”
Schlueter offers more saying that Warren’s message is that one can now “claim to be pro-life while aiding and abetting someone fully committed to continuing the bloodshed of innocents.” Warren, she says, believes that contradictory opposites don’t have to drive each other apart:
This is an irreconcilable difference–being pro-life and pro-death. Rick Warren wants us to believe that out of the two opposing sides, out of the struggle, there can be eventual unity and progress. That there can emerge a synthesis.
Warren’s actions speak louder than his rhetoric. Claiming to be pro-life, he promotes abortion. Claiming to be anti-Marxist, he practices a fundamental tenets of it, that of Lenin’s “unity of opposites.” Claiming to be against modern society’s social gospel, he instead is a practitioner of it.
Human beings cannot look into the soul of man but there are indications that Warren may not be what he seems and that Obama, once again, is getting his marching orders from the New World Order crowd.
The August 18, 2008 issue of Time magazine displayed a large picture of Rick Warren and called him “America’s most powerful religious leader…” The article inside was titled, “The Global Ambition of Rick Warren.” The subtitle read, “How a charismatic Californian became the closest thing to Billy Graham – and why religion in America will never be the same.”
After the movement against the war in Vietnam, the violence driven civil rights activists, plus the charade of the collapse of communism, Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and other radical terrorist organizations were given instructions to assimilate into the mainstream of America and work there to bring about socialism.
It is interesting to see how many of the former leaders in the SDS, Black Panthers and other communist controlled organizations became religious leaders.
Stokley Carmichael of “Burn, Baby, Burn” fame, as well as H. Rap Brown, leader of the Black Panthers, became leaders of radical Islam to carry forward their Marxism.
Michael Lerner, whom J. Edgar Hoover called the most dangerous terrorist in America, the leader of the SDS in Seattle, became a rabbi.
And, Rick Warren, who led a march on his local courthouse for the SDS, has soared to great heights. Does he still believe what he professed in the 1960s?
Careful reading of the Time article has many hints that his Christianity is not the Christianity of our fathers. But there is one clue that tells us all we need to know.
In America, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is the primary promoter of the the “New World Order” internationalism once praised by the first President Bush and is linked with several other similar organizations around the world to promote a one world government under a form of socialism. It is an elitist organization. One cannot be a member of the CFR and not realize that their policies lead to the abrogation of the Constitution, sovereignty, and independence of the United States. David Rockefeller, who has admitted in his biography that he is part of a cabal to bring about a one world government, was the chairman for 15 years.
Rick Warren is a member of the CFR.
Obama has surrounded himself, just as Bush did, with members of the CFR. In addition, Obama has shown a propensity to also surround himself with people who came out of the radical and terrorist movement of the 1960s and 1970s, and, in the process the CFR controlled media has made it appear as if it is all centrist politics.
When you know and understand the details, it’s a lot easier to know just who Obama -- and Warren -- are pandering to in all of this, and who’s goals they are furthering.
Say, did you notice how in my opening paragraphs I didn’t call Barack an “Obama-Rama-Lama-Ding-Dong” or a “Marxist Maroon”, or anything like that? It’s because I’ve decided to make a New Year’s Resolution to stop calling all these political pinheads “Political Pinheads.” I’m going to give up all the name-calling and from now on, treat everyone with the utmost respect and civility. No more telling the socialist dogs that they’re “a pack of Socialist Dogs.” No more calling Democrats “Dumb-O-Crats” and Republicans “Repugnantcans.” I won’t be reminding the Liberals anymore that they’re a bunch of weenies; or calling the brainwashed pseudo-conservatives “Neoconned Newtwits.”
Yep, that’s all behind me now, folks. The Feminists are no longer “Brain-dead Bean Curd.” (Well, I mean, I won’t be saying that they are.) I won’t be calling the American Civil Liberties Union “a bunch of Commie f—” … Uhm… “a bunch of Commie f—” … Dang it, I’ve already faggotten what I used to call them. But anyway, I’ll no longer be labeling the— Freaks! That’s what it was: “a bunch of Commie freaks!” Now I remember. … Anyhow… I’ll no longer be labeling the New York Times articles “Democratic Chips And Dipsh#tism”, nor referring to TV’s mainstream Talking Head political pundits as “Very Special Olympians.” Heck, I think I’m even going to withhold my criticism of Rush Limboob. Er… that’s “Limbaugh.” (Doh! Old habits die hard.)
But I’m not ready to try embracing MICHAEL MEDVED yet. I mean, there’s no point in overdoing it in a single year only to perish by heart attack trying to display love that I just ain’t truly acquired yet. (Or more embarrassingly, choking to death on my own vomit.) Perhaps I’ll see if I can add “MENDACIOUS MEDVED” to the mix in 2010 (if I don’t explode and die in 2009).
Yes, sirree, good people, I’m going to “do unto others as I would have others do unto me.” I guess many women will be testifying and I’ll be going to prison soon. “But no, but no, but no!” (…to quote my old friend Pooh) seriously, from this point on, it’s exclusively the kinder, gentler Stephen T. McCarthy.
Damn [*sniffle!*] I miss me already.
~ Stephen T. McCarthy
Psst. Of course, someone could get up a small petition, ya know, like a small petition? And if it said something like “Bring Back The Clown!” or “Can New Coke And Give Us Classic Coke” or “Stephen! Stephen! Come Back!” we here at the STMcC Company would obligingly listen, as we always acquiesce to the will of our readers (when they’re right… or if they’re wrong but we think there’s money in it).
.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
BORN TO BE FILED
.
Of all the writers who regularly contribute articles to The New American magazine, my favorite by far is the Constitution law scholar Edwin Vieira, Jr. Vieira has a way of attacking his subject matter by cutting through all the nonsense to go straight to the heart of the issue, leaving the reader a bit embarrassed that he wasn’t able to discern on his own what now seems so blatantly obvious. Vieira is like a bulldog with a bone: he’s going to gnaw on that thing until all of the marrow is exposed for everyone to see.
But does he really know his stuff? View his credentials:
Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).
For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory limitations on the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the public sectors, may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their employment.
He has written numerous monographs and articles in scholarly journals, and lectured throughout the country. His most recent work on money and banking is the two-volume “Pieces of Eight”: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution (2002), the most comprehensive study in existence of American monetary law and history viewed from a constitutional perspective. www.piecesofeight.us
His latest work is "How To Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary"
I recently posted a Blog Bit here about Barack Obama’s refusal to present his birth certificate, proving his Constitutional bona fides to assume the office of president of the United States (WHAT, IS HE FROM THE WOMB OF THE MOTHER SHIP SENT BY PLANET MALCOLM-X?)
Well, in the January 5, 2009 issue of The New American magazine is the following article written by Kurt Williamsen, which addresses this same subject, and in the final paragraph, the Constitution lawyer Edwin Vieira weighs in with some encouraging words for the few remaining Americans who still feel that “The Supreme Law Of The Land” should be obeyed and not broken:
COURT WON’T HEAR OBAMA CITIZENSHIP CASE – BUT MAY SOON
On Monday, December 8, the Supreme Court unsurprisingly decided not to hear a case by retired lawyer Leo Donofrio claiming that Obama is not eligible to be president because Obama had dual nationality at birth, so he wasn't a natural born citizen as required under the Constitution to be president. The dismissal should have come as no surprise to anyone — not because, as major-media mouthpieces trumpet, that the case has no merit — because it was clearly evident that Donofrio would either be viewed by the court to not be a plaintiff in good standing or his claim would be found without merit because any child born in the United States, as Donofrio's case assumes to be true for Obama, is considered a natural born citizen — as millions of illegal immigrants who have had children in the United States can attest.
This case was doomed from the beginning because the Supreme Court was sure to agree with multiple findings by lower courts that an average citizen cannot contest a president's eligibility to be president; only those people who are legally "injured" by a presidential aspirant's candidacy — either monetarily, physically, or reputation-wise — may sue. The fact that such findings by the lower courts are absurd because the U.S. Constitution is a contract between the government and the people and contract law stipulates that any party to a contract has the right to enforce a contract was not going to be a reason for the Supreme Court to hear arguments in the Donofrio case.
Neither was the fact that the Constitution itself declares that the only issue to be determined by a federal court for a case to proceed is the case's constitutionality — not a plaintiff's standing — going to stop the Supreme Court from throwing out this case. (For an analysis of the constitutionally correct application of law in this case, see the article by constitutional law scholar Edwin Vieira, entitled "Obama Must Stand Up Now Or Step Down.")
Similar to Donofrio's case, a case by lifelong Democrat Philip Berg that is pending before the Supreme Court is likely to face a quick death for lack of standing, though Berg is arguing that Obama was not born in the United States and, even if he was born here, his mother evidently renounced Obama's citizenship when she moved to Indonesia. During the four years Obama was enrolled in school in Indonesia, enrollment required both citizenship and a renunciation of citizenship in other countries.
At the present time, only one case about Obama's citizenship has a better than a one-in-a-million chance of making headway (only slightly better, in my opinion, because judges regularly find "legal justification" for ignoring the law, even the Constitution). That is the case filed by Alan Keyes, a 2008 presidential candidate for the American Independent Party, and Markham Robinson, a California elector. These men definitely have legal standing to sue. And despite protests to the contrary by many, good reason to sue.
The best reason to sue is to uphold the Constitution as the law of the land; the second-best reason is because Obama is hiding something. One doesn't, as Obama has reputedly done, hire three law firms to keep one's birth records and college records sealed unless one has something to hide. (It is speculated that Obama's college records will show that he applied for aid to foreign students.) Like I've said in another article on this topic, I have had on several occasions been required by employers to furnish original birth certificates and college records before they would hire me. To most people, such a request is simply no big deal. There's something wrong here.
Many in the major media, and even some moderately conservative news organs such as NewsMax, have verbally skewered lawsuits to verify Obama's citizenship, claiming that they know Obama is a U.S. citizen because Obama has posted his birth certificate online, an announcement of Obama's birth was in a Hawaiian newspaper, and members of Hawaii's health department have stated that Obama has an original birth certificate on file there. To say the least, I want these guys as my investigators if I ever pull a criminal caper. In truth, Obama did not post a birth certificate online, but a certificate of live birth (a document that would not even meet the standards of the average geneology society as proof of citizenship); the birth announcement merely said that the Obama's had a son (no hospital or place of birth was listed); and in Hawaii, parents of children residing in Hawaii may submit alternate birth documentation to the Department of Health and still be deemed to have "an original birth certificate."
But besides the lawsuits, there are other ways that Obama's impending swearing-in as president could be upset. First, on December 15, state electors will convene to vote for president (Obama is really not the president-elect yet; he has a couple of steps to go), and if the electors are swamped with voter demands to verify Obama's eligibility as president, they may withhold their electoral ballots until Obama proves he is a citizen. And on January 6, Congress must meet to certify the counts of the states' electoral ballots. At that time, any senator or congressman may challenge the ballots for a good reason. If that happens, the Constitution compels Congress to get to the truth underlying the complaint. Again a letter-writing campaign to Congressmen could end in an investigation of Obama's citizenship.
But at least in the short run, Obama's supporters probably will prevail, even though Obama's actions stink with suspicion and the proof given of his citizenship is not proof at all. They will succeed because politicians tend to either be spineless followers or unapologetic dealmakers — at both the state and federal levels (although a writing campaign to constitutional bulldog Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) could yield a positive result), and it is unlikely that congressmen, even if there is a congressional objection, will exert due diligence toward finding out the truth of the matter as they are constitutionally bound to do.
But in the long run, the chances that a federal court will demand that Hawaii allow a forensic inspection of Obama's birth records are better than one might assume. Edwin Vieira explains: "Assume, however, that no inquiry, or only a perfunctory inquiry, or only an obviously tainted inquiry takes place at the stage of counting the Electors' votes. Is the issue then forever foreclosed? Not at all. For a extensive class of litigants who absolutely do have 'standing' to challenge Obama's eligibility will come into existence, and demand relief as a matter of undeniable constitutional right and practical necessity, as soon as Obama's Department of Justice attempts to enforce through criminal prosecutions some of the controversial legislation that the new Congress will enact and Obama will sign — such as statutes aimed at stripping common Americans of the firearms to which (in Obama's derisive terminology) they 'cling.'" So as soon as Obama signs a bill into law that has a negative effect on an American, that American will have standing to sue Obama to find out whether Obama actually has the power to sign the bill. Things could get interesting.
Danged if that last paragraph containing Vieira’s assessment (which I highlighted in red) doesn’t give a fellow a wee bit of “HOPE” that he might see a real “CHANGE” at the White House.
~ Stephen T. McCarthy
.
Of all the writers who regularly contribute articles to The New American magazine, my favorite by far is the Constitution law scholar Edwin Vieira, Jr. Vieira has a way of attacking his subject matter by cutting through all the nonsense to go straight to the heart of the issue, leaving the reader a bit embarrassed that he wasn’t able to discern on his own what now seems so blatantly obvious. Vieira is like a bulldog with a bone: he’s going to gnaw on that thing until all of the marrow is exposed for everyone to see.
But does he really know his stuff? View his credentials:
Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).
For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory limitations on the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the public sectors, may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their employment.
He has written numerous monographs and articles in scholarly journals, and lectured throughout the country. His most recent work on money and banking is the two-volume “Pieces of Eight”: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution (2002), the most comprehensive study in existence of American monetary law and history viewed from a constitutional perspective. www.piecesofeight.us
His latest work is "How To Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary"
I recently posted a Blog Bit here about Barack Obama’s refusal to present his birth certificate, proving his Constitutional bona fides to assume the office of president of the United States (WHAT, IS HE FROM THE WOMB OF THE MOTHER SHIP SENT BY PLANET MALCOLM-X?)
Well, in the January 5, 2009 issue of The New American magazine is the following article written by Kurt Williamsen, which addresses this same subject, and in the final paragraph, the Constitution lawyer Edwin Vieira weighs in with some encouraging words for the few remaining Americans who still feel that “The Supreme Law Of The Land” should be obeyed and not broken:
COURT WON’T HEAR OBAMA CITIZENSHIP CASE – BUT MAY SOON
On Monday, December 8, the Supreme Court unsurprisingly decided not to hear a case by retired lawyer Leo Donofrio claiming that Obama is not eligible to be president because Obama had dual nationality at birth, so he wasn't a natural born citizen as required under the Constitution to be president. The dismissal should have come as no surprise to anyone — not because, as major-media mouthpieces trumpet, that the case has no merit — because it was clearly evident that Donofrio would either be viewed by the court to not be a plaintiff in good standing or his claim would be found without merit because any child born in the United States, as Donofrio's case assumes to be true for Obama, is considered a natural born citizen — as millions of illegal immigrants who have had children in the United States can attest.
This case was doomed from the beginning because the Supreme Court was sure to agree with multiple findings by lower courts that an average citizen cannot contest a president's eligibility to be president; only those people who are legally "injured" by a presidential aspirant's candidacy — either monetarily, physically, or reputation-wise — may sue. The fact that such findings by the lower courts are absurd because the U.S. Constitution is a contract between the government and the people and contract law stipulates that any party to a contract has the right to enforce a contract was not going to be a reason for the Supreme Court to hear arguments in the Donofrio case.
Neither was the fact that the Constitution itself declares that the only issue to be determined by a federal court for a case to proceed is the case's constitutionality — not a plaintiff's standing — going to stop the Supreme Court from throwing out this case. (For an analysis of the constitutionally correct application of law in this case, see the article by constitutional law scholar Edwin Vieira, entitled "Obama Must Stand Up Now Or Step Down.")
Similar to Donofrio's case, a case by lifelong Democrat Philip Berg that is pending before the Supreme Court is likely to face a quick death for lack of standing, though Berg is arguing that Obama was not born in the United States and, even if he was born here, his mother evidently renounced Obama's citizenship when she moved to Indonesia. During the four years Obama was enrolled in school in Indonesia, enrollment required both citizenship and a renunciation of citizenship in other countries.
At the present time, only one case about Obama's citizenship has a better than a one-in-a-million chance of making headway (only slightly better, in my opinion, because judges regularly find "legal justification" for ignoring the law, even the Constitution). That is the case filed by Alan Keyes, a 2008 presidential candidate for the American Independent Party, and Markham Robinson, a California elector. These men definitely have legal standing to sue. And despite protests to the contrary by many, good reason to sue.
The best reason to sue is to uphold the Constitution as the law of the land; the second-best reason is because Obama is hiding something. One doesn't, as Obama has reputedly done, hire three law firms to keep one's birth records and college records sealed unless one has something to hide. (It is speculated that Obama's college records will show that he applied for aid to foreign students.) Like I've said in another article on this topic, I have had on several occasions been required by employers to furnish original birth certificates and college records before they would hire me. To most people, such a request is simply no big deal. There's something wrong here.
Many in the major media, and even some moderately conservative news organs such as NewsMax, have verbally skewered lawsuits to verify Obama's citizenship, claiming that they know Obama is a U.S. citizen because Obama has posted his birth certificate online, an announcement of Obama's birth was in a Hawaiian newspaper, and members of Hawaii's health department have stated that Obama has an original birth certificate on file there. To say the least, I want these guys as my investigators if I ever pull a criminal caper. In truth, Obama did not post a birth certificate online, but a certificate of live birth (a document that would not even meet the standards of the average geneology society as proof of citizenship); the birth announcement merely said that the Obama's had a son (no hospital or place of birth was listed); and in Hawaii, parents of children residing in Hawaii may submit alternate birth documentation to the Department of Health and still be deemed to have "an original birth certificate."
But besides the lawsuits, there are other ways that Obama's impending swearing-in as president could be upset. First, on December 15, state electors will convene to vote for president (Obama is really not the president-elect yet; he has a couple of steps to go), and if the electors are swamped with voter demands to verify Obama's eligibility as president, they may withhold their electoral ballots until Obama proves he is a citizen. And on January 6, Congress must meet to certify the counts of the states' electoral ballots. At that time, any senator or congressman may challenge the ballots for a good reason. If that happens, the Constitution compels Congress to get to the truth underlying the complaint. Again a letter-writing campaign to Congressmen could end in an investigation of Obama's citizenship.
But at least in the short run, Obama's supporters probably will prevail, even though Obama's actions stink with suspicion and the proof given of his citizenship is not proof at all. They will succeed because politicians tend to either be spineless followers or unapologetic dealmakers — at both the state and federal levels (although a writing campaign to constitutional bulldog Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) could yield a positive result), and it is unlikely that congressmen, even if there is a congressional objection, will exert due diligence toward finding out the truth of the matter as they are constitutionally bound to do.
But in the long run, the chances that a federal court will demand that Hawaii allow a forensic inspection of Obama's birth records are better than one might assume. Edwin Vieira explains: "Assume, however, that no inquiry, or only a perfunctory inquiry, or only an obviously tainted inquiry takes place at the stage of counting the Electors' votes. Is the issue then forever foreclosed? Not at all. For a extensive class of litigants who absolutely do have 'standing' to challenge Obama's eligibility will come into existence, and demand relief as a matter of undeniable constitutional right and practical necessity, as soon as Obama's Department of Justice attempts to enforce through criminal prosecutions some of the controversial legislation that the new Congress will enact and Obama will sign — such as statutes aimed at stripping common Americans of the firearms to which (in Obama's derisive terminology) they 'cling.'" So as soon as Obama signs a bill into law that has a negative effect on an American, that American will have standing to sue Obama to find out whether Obama actually has the power to sign the bill. Things could get interesting.
Danged if that last paragraph containing Vieira’s assessment (which I highlighted in red) doesn’t give a fellow a wee bit of “HOPE” that he might see a real “CHANGE” at the White House.
~ Stephen T. McCarthy
.
Friday, January 2, 2009
WHAT'S IN A NAME?
.
Every single year, I read THE HOLY BIBLE from Genesis chapter 1 through Revelation chapter 22. (For my socially Liberal and politically Socialistic fans, as well as all the Neocon Nitwits: That's a pretty fair chunk of "The Good Book.") You can do it too! You can go through the entire "Word Of God" in one year by reading only 3 chapters a day, but 5 chapters on the Sabbath. (For my socially Liberal and politically Socialistic fans, as well as all the Neocon Nitwits: The "Sabbath" is sundown Friday to sundown Saturday.) That's an investment of a mere 15 minutes of reading time per day in order to complete The Holy Book in just under a year.
Yesterday, January 1st, I read the first three chapters of Genesis (I'm right on schedule for 2009!), and I'd like to share just a bit of that with you now:
GENESIS; Chapter 2
15) Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it.
16) And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat;
17) "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."
18) And the Lord God said, "It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him."
19) Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name.
20) So Adam gave names to all the cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him.
21) And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place.
22) Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.
AND THAT'S WHEN THE TROUBLE STARTED!
Woman may not have cost Man an arm and a leg, but she did cost him a rib and an eternally easy life spent on a comfy sofa in front of a TV in his eDEN.
Good going, G-o-d!
Is it any wonder then that Man (Adam) gave the name
"d-o-g" to his "BEST FRIEND"?
OK, on a more serious note (before the lightning strikes) . . . . .
Let's examine one more passage here from the book of Genesis:
GENESIS; Chapter 3:
1) Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made.
Give some genuine thought to that sentence and see if you don't perhaps find some rather surprisingly significant meaning slightly concealed within those simple words. Is there some odd way of interpreting that verse which would add an unexpected wrinkle to it? And if so, do you think there might be some credence we can give to that new interpretation? Are there any other verses in The Bible that might validate it, or can you entertain any logical thoughtstreams that might lead to a previously unseen Ocean of Truth? I'm not sayin'; I'm just askin'.
No, I'm not going to spell this out for you; it's bad enough that I had to spell out that "G-o-d"/"d-o-g" thang above for the benefit of my socially Liberal and politically Socialistic fans, as well as all the Neocon Nitwits.
~ Stephen T. McCarthy
.
Every single year, I read THE HOLY BIBLE from Genesis chapter 1 through Revelation chapter 22. (For my socially Liberal and politically Socialistic fans, as well as all the Neocon Nitwits: That's a pretty fair chunk of "The Good Book.") You can do it too! You can go through the entire "Word Of God" in one year by reading only 3 chapters a day, but 5 chapters on the Sabbath. (For my socially Liberal and politically Socialistic fans, as well as all the Neocon Nitwits: The "Sabbath" is sundown Friday to sundown Saturday.) That's an investment of a mere 15 minutes of reading time per day in order to complete The Holy Book in just under a year.
Yesterday, January 1st, I read the first three chapters of Genesis (I'm right on schedule for 2009!), and I'd like to share just a bit of that with you now:
GENESIS; Chapter 2
15) Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it.
16) And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat;
17) "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."
18) And the Lord God said, "It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him."
19) Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name.
20) So Adam gave names to all the cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him.
21) And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place.
22) Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.
AND THAT'S WHEN THE TROUBLE STARTED!
Woman may not have cost Man an arm and a leg, but she did cost him a rib and an eternally easy life spent on a comfy sofa in front of a TV in his eDEN.
Good going, G-o-d!
Is it any wonder then that Man (Adam) gave the name
"d-o-g" to his "BEST FRIEND"?
OK, on a more serious note (before the lightning strikes) . . . . .
Let's examine one more passage here from the book of Genesis:
GENESIS; Chapter 3:
1) Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made.
Give some genuine thought to that sentence and see if you don't perhaps find some rather surprisingly significant meaning slightly concealed within those simple words. Is there some odd way of interpreting that verse which would add an unexpected wrinkle to it? And if so, do you think there might be some credence we can give to that new interpretation? Are there any other verses in The Bible that might validate it, or can you entertain any logical thoughtstreams that might lead to a previously unseen Ocean of Truth? I'm not sayin'; I'm just askin'.
No, I'm not going to spell this out for you; it's bad enough that I had to spell out that "G-o-d"/"d-o-g" thang above for the benefit of my socially Liberal and politically Socialistic fans, as well as all the Neocon Nitwits.
~ Stephen T. McCarthy
.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
"MARGARITA DAY" - 2009
.
Should old acquaintance be forgot,
And never brought to mind?
Should old acquaintance be forgot,
And days of auld lang syne?
For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne,
We’ll take a cup of kindness yet,
For auld lang syne.
And surely you’ll buy your pint cup
And surely I’ll buy mine
And we’ll take a cup o’kindness yet
For auld lang syne.
Double-Dogged if I was going to let a January 1st pass by without wishing y’all a . . .
HAPPY MARGARITA DAY!
MARGARITA DAY: “A tradition since 1986, except for 1994.”
"IT’S MARGARITA DAY"
(Sung to the tune of “It’s Howdy Doody Time.”
Lyrics proudly penned by Stephen T. McCarthy.)
It’s Margarita Day!
It’s Margarita Day!
Hoo-ray! - Hoo-ray! - Hoo-ray!
For Margarita Day.
It’s Margarita Day!
It’s Margarita Day!
Hoo-ray! - Hoo-ray! - Hoo-ray!
For Margarita Day.
To steal a line from ol’ Ernie ‘Mr. Cub’ Banks:
"It's a beautiful day for a margarita... Let's drink two!"
~ Stephen T. McCarthy
.
Should old acquaintance be forgot,
And never brought to mind?
Should old acquaintance be forgot,
And days of auld lang syne?
For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne,
We’ll take a cup of kindness yet,
For auld lang syne.
And surely you’ll buy your pint cup
And surely I’ll buy mine
And we’ll take a cup o’kindness yet
For auld lang syne.
Double-Dogged if I was going to let a January 1st pass by without wishing y’all a . . .
HAPPY MARGARITA DAY!
MARGARITA DAY: “A tradition since 1986, except for 1994.”
"IT’S MARGARITA DAY"
(Sung to the tune of “It’s Howdy Doody Time.”
Lyrics proudly penned by Stephen T. McCarthy.)
It’s Margarita Day!
It’s Margarita Day!
Hoo-ray! - Hoo-ray! - Hoo-ray!
For Margarita Day.
It’s Margarita Day!
It’s Margarita Day!
Hoo-ray! - Hoo-ray! - Hoo-ray!
For Margarita Day.
To steal a line from ol’ Ernie ‘Mr. Cub’ Banks:
"It's a beautiful day for a margarita... Let's drink two!"
~ Stephen T. McCarthy
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
