Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Sotomayer and the Tyranny of Race

In every important respect Obama's victory in the 2008 presidential election was a victory for racism. First there was the racist claim that his skin color made his election somehow significant for black Americans with whom he otherwise shares no common moral or historical heritage. Second, his stubborn advocacy of the parent's right to murder her child made it a victory in principle for the racist notion that "inferior" physical development leaves people with no rights that must be respected by their supposed betters. Third, the US Constitution has been openly set aside on account of fears that racist violence would result from investigating the facts regarding his citizenship at birth (lest they support the conclusion that he is constitutionally ineligible to serve as President of the United States.) Truth, right and the Constitution all sacrificed for the sake of racist fears and premises.

The reaction in some quarters to the Sotomayer selection smacks of the same racist mentality. "Janet Murguia, president and CEO of the National Council of La Raza, called Sotomayor's nomination 'a monumental day for Latinos. Finally we see ourselves represented on the highest court in the land.'" There was a time when we understood that those who served on the Supreme Court had first and foremost to prove that they represented the whole people of the United States, whose sovereign will constitutes the legitimacy of the Constitution it is their duty to uphold. The notion that someone would serve as the representative of this or that race or special interest tended to disqualify them from service.

Of course, a person proposed for a seat on the bench can't be held responsible for how others see her. But in a speech she reportedly gave in 2001 "Sotomayor has said that personal experiences "affect the facts that judges choose to see….I simply do not know exactly what the difference will be in my judging…but I accept that there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage."

If her assessment of herself was correct, her own words disqualify her from serving on the Supreme Court. Unless we mean to overturn the whole idea of Constitutional government, the decisions of the justices of the Supreme Court should be based on the Constitution and the laws. No justices can be allowed to "accept" judgments based on gender or ethnicity. If they do, what becomes of the promise of liberty and justice for all, of equal rights and the equal protection of the law?

Does the notion that it's somehow acceptable to disregard the Constitution on account of race in Obama's case now make it acceptable to confirm as a Supreme Court Justice someone willing to allow their ethnic identity to distort their judgment of facts, and the basis for their decisions? Tragically, this is exactly the racist legal culture we would expect to result from the racist political mentality the Obama faction exploited to achieve his electoral victory.

Unity is always on their lips, but their hearts are far from it. Instead of a national government that represents our common heart for justice and liberty, the Obama faction means to create a fractured reflection of all our differences, until we forget how to see, think and act as Americans, regardless of those differences. With this dissolution of the American identity they prepare the way for the dissolution of the United States itself, so that a strong sense of our national identity no longer poses an obstacle to their plans for a new, global regime that sets aside our "provincial" concerns with right and ordered liberty.

Of course, those concerns are precisely what raise our national consciousness above the level of mere group selfishness, so that our concern for the good of our nation becomes a concern for the rights and decent freedom of all humanity. The sacrifices we commemorate every Memorial Day are marked by headstones and memorials in far flung corners of the globe where Americans gave ultimate proof that this concern is no pious abstraction. But it seems that what they died to preserve for others, we are now quietly surrendering ourselves under the mesmerizing influence of racist fears and lies.

Such is the change Obama represents. But where is the hope in it, except for those who succeed, as he did, by invoking the power of the very evil their success has supposedly overcome? "Racism is dead," they seem to say, "Long live the tyranny of race."


Left Coast Rebel said...

I couldn't agree more Mr Keyes, the racist mentality of the Left and especially the press is quite shocking when you see it all at once. I went the grocery store this morning and walked by the newspaper stand, (I reside in San Diego), my jaw dropped when I saw the LA Times headline. "A Latina in the Middle". This is collectivis, plain and simple.
How pathetic this is, really. BTW, I am telling friends about your site, could you support mine too?

AW said...

Nice one!

What interests me is how Obama personally can live with himself either not having shown his real birth certificate in spite of what many American citizens have been calling for, or living with himself not constitutionally permitted to be president (within a party that supports it).

Also, why, how and who has enabled such a glaring and obvious investigation not to have taken place.

America is falling apart because people aren't interested or concerned with the other side of the story anymore: no real communication is taking place, I suspect. The aim is to evolve, not win.

I've just written a post about possible US assistance against Iran.

pbunyon said...

When an individual or group lives in a world that revolves around them doing things that make sense is not a requirement. Outcome based politics at its best. As a young white boy growing up in the south I was the victim of some terrible racism yet I never returned the favor. The few times I did object to mistreatment I was called a racist. That has much to do with why I refuse to sacrifice my children to the government institutions. The public education system is finally reaping the harvest it miticulously worked for. They have Obama and now Sotomayor.

Frankly, aside from BHO's legitimacy, I honestly believe the election was stolen outright. How many of the ACORN types voting up to 72 times would it take? Am I wrong?


Joel Lehman said...

Good post. but I am trying to see the other side, to temper the passion a bit so I don't die of a heart attack. Well, reverse racism is an effort to do exactly that: reverse racism., ie. repair the past damage caused by white on black and hispanic racism. that's what affirmative action is all about. The use of underdog, heroic racism to combat the evil racism is ok.

and the connection of abortion to racism, well I just don't see it. I can see how abortion is a means for eugenics, but to racism no.

Joel Lehman said...

One more comment. If you like reading the posts from Alan Keyes on this blog. send in some cash. Hit the donate button over on the left margin. I did the other day. No, I do not personally know Dr. keyes and I am not on his payroll. Oh, and on an aside, I had a custom bumper sticker made-up the other day. It says
'Deport Soetoro'. The impression I get from the liberals I know, most of them are in my family, is that they get intimidated, not an angry defensiveness, but one more like a deer in the headlights kind of stare.

Andrew said...

I called Barbara Boxer's (a California non-representing representative) Office today about Sotomayer and got a very rude response as though I either had no right to give my opinion or as though I must be racist or something.

They seem determined to push this through no matter what this person says. I also advised Babara Boxer and Lynn Woolsey (another California non-representing representative) that I'm fed up with the people we send to washington not reading bills before they are willing to sign their names to them.

Sadly I believe our representatives don't believe there is anything we will really do to get rid of them and feel immune. I used to wonder how a congress with an 11% approval rating could see 95% of their incumbents voted back in office then I realized the sad mentality ont he part of Americans is that they must think it's everyone else's representative that is screwing up but not theirs. How self deluded. We need to get rid of all of them thus sending hte message to the new ones that if they don't do what we want they'll be next on the chopping block.

Angelopeter said...

Martin Luther king declared his dream that one day men would be judged by the content of their character not their color.Now the left wing constantly quotes this statement, yet in this pres. election those who claim such loyalty to Dr. King's statement acted in complete contrast. Citizens judged Barak Obama not due to his content of his character (barbaric communist) but rather by the color of his skin. Because he is black he is the right man for the job? and this is historic? So now the qualities of leadership are determined once again by color.

Angelopeter said...

just to add, Im sure most of the men and women who comment on Alan Keyes' blog know the terror that the Obamanation is capable of. He is a demi-god, the perfect model of the early stages of a tryant. Friends, I say with all truth and sincerety... Barak Obama is the final antichrist foretold by sacred scripture; and pope Benedict XVI is the final pope before the terrible day, according to the prophecies of St. Malachy. May God have mercy on us and all the whole world, the time for mercy is coming to its end, faster than most can imagine.

Christinewjc said...

Great article! The left will continue to use the issue of race in their cunning little playbook - even taking it to the extreme to maintain an advantage by creating and perpetuating the "tyranny of race."

Conservatives should not let them get away with it. Speak up!

Anonymous said...

First, kudos to you Dr. Keyes for all of passionate efforts recently in protest of Notre Dame's betrayal of its principles.

Second, as a person of hispanic heritage, I find the soon-to-be appointment of Justice Sotomayor a direct slap in the face to all hispanics who have reached a level of success in their lives through hard work, faith and character - not as a result of their gender, race or political agenda.

The more that radical communist in the Oval Office attempts to move our Country towards Socialism, the more I feel like John Connor of the Terminator movies.

pbunyon said...

Joal Lehman, if you would like to see how abortion and racism are bound together in the USA, find the movie "A Nation Adrift". Also read some of Margaret Sanger's writings.

Angelopeter, MLK was a communist. The leftist, socialist, or communist movements would never have supported someone likened to Dr. Keys in such a movement. He said a few things we can all quote but I can't trust a man that would cheat on his wife right in the public eye. Also BHO is only partially black. Well wasn't Adolf Hitler part Jew? Does that have any implications?


Justin said...

PHENOMINALLY well written article. Hits every point right smack dab on target. Dr Keyes, you are truelly a frightingly gifted writer, one whose convictions are the example to be followed. I am more and more convinced as time is going by that the state of the world is now shifting to true "good guys" vs. "bad guys" if you will. What I mean by this I think what has changed is it is much more clear what agents God has at work on the planet and what agents Lucifer has at work, I do not subscribe to the notion that we are "in the last days" or that Giggles is the Anti-Christ, however, I beleive we are in the stage preceding that, how long it will last I am not sure, but I think things are starting to ramp up and I for one am glad to be on the side of such men as Dr. Keyes. As I beeive he is one of the men working to advance the agenda of God, it gives me great comfort to know that while Evil, for know, may be asserting domenion, God's work is being done through men like him.

Justin said...

Also, abortion and racism are completely related. Margret Sanger,one of the original if not the original purveyors of abortion in the US, one whose views even by today's standards are shocking, firmly believed that abortion was the way to a genetically superior race. It is of note also that Hitler was a big fan of her work.

Anonymous said...

Exactly how does one's ethnic and cultural background improve their ability to judge beyond favoring people of one's ethnic and cultural background?
Is this not racist?

What about the impartiality, balance, and blindness of Justice?

Nice words and thoughts such as finally having a "Latino in the highest court of the land" distracts from the truth of the situation: any Judge claiming a certain exception to being a judge is not qualified. Such a Judge would make unjust decisions.

I believe that minorities feel they have not always gotten fair judgments from the courts in America's past.
Their reaction is further unfair and biased judgments?

seekyetruth said...

Very good article!! "Tyranny of Race" is a perfect description of what is going on. Racism in this country will never be "healed" as long as liberals use it to divide as they do. Affirmative action and reverse discrimination will never heal because race is always the highlighted feature. It's only when we truly can judge a man by his character alone that it will be healed, and liberals will NEVER let that happen as long as they can use it to their advantage! They will continue to create "victims" whenever they can.

BTW, PB, you said: "Frankly, aside from BHO's legitimacy, I honestly believe the election was stolen outright. How many of the ACORN types voting up to 72 times would it take? Am I wrong?"

I think you are exactly right! I agree totally with your math and have thought the same thing myself, but I don't hear too many say it.

Angelopeter said...

pbunyon- My earlier comment was written poorly. All I meant was, the same people (Obama supporters) who condemned the use of race for a deciding factor to determine their vote, have themselves voted using Obama's race as deciding factor. It's blatant hypocracy, with just the opposite dynamic.

Further, Barak Obama is indeed the final antichrist. Obama is not a young, naieve, leftwing Harvard lawgrad, whith an ignorantly sincere socialst ideology. He knows what he is doing. Obama and his global "friends," are purposely running a ridiculous debt in order to crash the american currency, to then force the instatement of a new global currency, which will give birth to a new world government.

In Daniel chapter8 it says concerning the antichrist...."he shall destroy many by peace." By peace? Satan tried through Nero, Napolean and Hitler to spread his "kingdom of hell" through force; he has now changed his technique, atleast for the primary tactic. Some men are just ignorantly evil, however some men are knowingly EVIL. I believe Mr. Obama hides his diabolical agenda world domination, behind the viel of globalization and humanist liberty.


pbunyon said...

You do a great job of writing. I was just being a bit insecure I suppose. Anymore I can't stand to see anyone even jokingly refer to MLK as anything good. I know it was just to make a point. But still, I think the company a man keeps, especially BHO, shows much about his character. Add to that the devil uses the truth mixed in to pull folks in as is customary in politics today. Who was it that said, "If you want to see your future look at your friends. Look at Obama's friends"?
Sorry about my typos as I am sure there will be many more. LOL

Anonymous said...

New World Order Prince Obama can put 10 Hispanics in his cabinet, Hispanics will still hate him.

Folks, Prince Obama has just begun, but please know Lucifer has BiG BiG PLANS FOR HIS PET PRINCE OBAMA! And they are not good.

Pray for courage and fortitude you will not be decieved by this therion beast Prince Obama.

Terry Morris said...

"New World Order Prince Obama can put 10 Hispanics in his cabinet, Hispanics will still hate him."

Yeah, to the tune of about 67% that voted for him. If Hispanics hate Hussein Obama, they sure have an interesting way of showing it.

He ought to install ten Muslims in his cabinet. Then Muslims can (still) hate him to the tune of about 90% that voted for him. And etc...

Angelopeter said...

there are some muslims that believe that Obama is indeed their awaited saviour, "imam," that will force the world to submit to islam. Because one of the signs written of in the koran, is that this "imam," will captivate the youth through his words, and shall give to the poor (wealth redistribution). I apologize Mr. Keyes for so violently drifting off the origional topic, but I cant help myself. Ibet when all monetary currency becomes uselss (and it will) a system of credit will be used via a "mark" on the hand; "and the beast forced all small and great, rich and poor to recieve a mark on their hand or foreheads, so that no one could buy or sell, without the mark." (rev13) sounds crazy I know, but give it a year or so.

Anonymous said...

How much longer can God withold judgment on such a perverse nation? I must be honest, I am almost glad that this nation will fall from its current state. i mean look at all the iniquity in this country that people just continue to bask in. They don't care if it's immoral, as long as it makes one happy no one should get in the way. this is ridiculousness, and God is definitely not pleased with the people or elected officials in this country.

Justin said...

I would have to agree. With more and more evil and despicable things being passed as normal, I personally look forward to the day our great God, the creator of all, finnaly vindicates the Martyers of ages past and the very increasingly harrassed and persecuted men and women who still serve him and want his will to be done. I want as many people as possible to hear the good news about jesus Christ but it honestly seems to me that the chance of that happening in the Western World is slim to none.....Aethism, Globalism, Homosexuality and Perversity are in vogue and now considered by society to be normal.....while Christians and those who are Pro Life, Pro traditinal marraiage and pro traditional Judeo-Christian values are portrayed as extremists.....another thing I cannot help but wonder at is the fact that about the only people who do not buy into Obama and his minions lies are those that fall into the just mentioned catagory.

Rabbi said...

Shabbat Shalom, Dr. Keyes and "Posters ~ I have just made a telephone call to Dr Keyes inviting him to once again be a Special Guest on "Ramble & Rumble with Rabbi" Dr Keyes was a Special Guest Thursday May 14 if you would like to listen to the 30-minute archived interview. It is entitled: "Sanctity of Life - A Position to Hold... or ... A President to Honor?"

I trust Dr Keyes your "posters", fans and facebook followers are not just "hearers" of your clear clarion calls. I am concerned, however, that too many of us listen to the musical melody of words but never "dance" into meaningful transformational action.

I can illustrate it from the anti-TAX T.E.A. (Taxed Enough Already) rallies that exploded across the nation. I pre-interviewed more than 25, and had as Special Guest's T.E.A. organizers who were for the firt time "doing something." I applaud their enlistment. But a rally is not the reality of transformation. To be sure, it is an important spark to the necessary emotional fire to move from a memorial moment to a monumental movement.

So I openly ask those "fired-up" by the eloquence of your words, Dr Keyes, what are you [posters, fans and facebook followers] doing?

LEADERS LEAD LOCALLY, is a strategic neighborhood to neighborhood transformational organization. Locally, you and your neighbors are warmly welcomed to host "Project Precinct Protection" and "American Revolution 1773-style Oratory Scholarship Competition" [for high school juniors and seniors]. Details of LEADERS LEAD LOCALLY can be obtained freely by emailing Rabbi Eukel: EUKEL @ EUKEL .us (remove the spaces, an anti-spam technique).

What are you doing to lead locally for the transformation in your house, the school house, the court house and yes, even the church house?


Love & Prayers,
Rabbi Eukel, the radio rabbi on "Ramble & Rumble with Rabbi" M-F 6-7:30AM CST
All broadcasts are archived and can be downloaded for a time that fits your life schedule. Be informed & inspired. Be intentional.

Most Rev. Gregori said...

Dr. Keyes, the cult of political correctness has done its job well. Americans have been indoctrinated to sit down and shut up when confronted with lies and reverse discrimination. So as we hold our piece, we lose more and more of our rights and freedoms.

Obama feels smug in the knowledge that the majority of Americans will not stand up to him for fear of being labeled hate-filled bigots or worse.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Keyes,

Orly Taitz is botching up your case badly. I would suggest you hire a *competent* attorney and sue Orly for malpractice. She doesn't have a clue about what she's doing.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Keyes, you speak of "a national government that respects our common heart," but where exactly is this "common heart"? I feel that you are ignoring the reality that America is a highly divided nation, and instead are referring to an abstract, utopian vision.

To "think and act as Americans, regardless of [our] differences," we cannot merely ignore what separates and pretend that it doesn't exist, pleading to an ignorant view of the world that should justify our vice, our luxury and privilege of ignorance.

We can't dismantle the master's house until we recognize we're actually living in it (and do something about it).

Anonymous said...

Lelangir, you wrote:

"Dr. Keyes, you speak of "a national government that respects our common heart," but where exactly is this "common heart"?"

I'm surprised you asked that question, for it's right in our history. The "common heart" of this country is known to every American who cherishes their freedom, constantly vigilant of tyranny in all forms, especially when it reaches the control of an oppressive government.

"I feel that you are ignoring the reality that America is a highly divided nation, and instead are referring to an abstract, utopian vision."

Tell the Founding Father of this country that his was an abstract, utopian vision? How so exactly? That vision did become a reality and is seared into the Constitution and founding documents. Those papers are a reflection of the experiences of early America and what they wished for us to avoid and at the same time protect, as a matter of their experience, in order to keep that realized vision, the United States of America, intact.

When George Washington wrote to his brother regarding the Constitutional Convention taking place at the time, he conveyed to him how much of a daunting task it was; for he was contemplating the safehaven for "unborn future millions". He was referring to us.

Washington separated people into two categories and two only - "foreigners" and "Sons of Liberty". Through his own experience, Washington was suspicious of the foreigner, having trusted them too much only to find that they didn't care about liberty and only had aspirations of glory, power and greed in mind, not to mention the ones who had his defeat on their agenda.

The foreign agenda was always present, right from the birth of this country who tried to destroy us, for one reason or another, jealousy of which Washington cited in his notes. They're sitting right in our branches of government right now and they even call themselves "Americans". Had this country paid attention to history, they could have spared themselves this headache.

George Washington spared himself the headache foreigners gave him by ordering the Revolutionists not to make any commanding leader in his armies unless they were residents of this country. The prerequisite was: They had to have an existing family domiciled here, including the wife, with allegiance to no one else. Washington gave a name to those he preferred - He called them "natural born Americans" and laid that edict down well before the Constitution was ever written. It was only those with that identifier who could be eligible for authoritative offices. Washington went on at length about being born and bred here, because it made a difference in loyalty - a lesson in truth he never forgot, the hard way.

Unfortunately, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter haven't given THAT proof much thought. They've reduced the Constitution to mean merely being born here with no true test of patriotism and allegiance that Washington wrote volumes about. The proof is there. Some people are just too lazy to look.

There is nothing that separates true Americans who understand what the Revolution was fought for. Politicians today are trying desperately to claim race and party lines divide us, or we may just concentrate on something else - like our history where all the answers are found and we might rediscover the truth again in those pages and see clearly what these foreign-minded, anti-liberty, anti-American goons are trying to do to this country. If anyone is trying to preach an "abstract, utopian vision" here, look no further than those in office trying to shove "change" down our throats and calling our Constitution "flawed".

Anonymous said...

To Tanarg: Orly Taitz may mean well, but she doesn't understand our history enough to be able to handle that case. The answers are NOT found in Vattel. That was a reference found by Paul Madison in The Federalist Blog that was taken completely out of context and has nothing to do with the real truth of the clause in the Constitution. That clause was born out of the American Revolution and coined by the Founding Father himself.

These attorneys are looking in the wrong places. They're not going to find what they are searching for in a philosophy book or in what an attorney friend of mine likes to refer to as, "the anal halls of legal idiots". Hundreds of law reviews on the subject are out there lately, and yet, you won't find one that refers to simple history or a media, with their vast array of modern tools, capable of digging it up.

I find it laughable that Philip Berg says, "Show me the birth certificate and I'll go away", and I hate to tell him, but George Washington would tell him to go away.

I apologize for the length of this, but it needed to be said in plain English.

tanarg said...


Do you have a citation for your statements about Washington? I would like to see his words myself, and I understand there is a new edition of his complete papers available.

I wonder if the historian Joseph J. Ellis could help us locate the citation.

tanarg said...

I could not find an e-mail address to write to Dr. Keyes, so that's why I posted here. I think his reputation is being damaged by Orly and that he ought to think seriously about not working with her and telling her to stop what she's doing. She cannot even file a lawsuit correctly or give proper notice to the defendants in her cases. Her language skills are embarrassing and her legal knowledge is comparable to a junior high school student's. I hate to see his name associated with her. Does he read this blog?

Anonymous said...

Tanarg: Feel free to e-mail the group working on this at zapem at - It's a group of attorneys, law enforcement, professionals and University students who don't deal in theories. The proof exists, trust me. We found it. When MSNBC's Pete Williams told the public in his interview with Tom Goldstein (SCOTUS Law Blog) that it was an "ambiguous term", they were lying to the American people.

Terry Morris said...

Zapem wrote:

"Unfortunately, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter haven't given THAT proof much thought. They've reduced the Constitution to mean merely being born here with no true test of patriotism and allegiance that Washington wrote volumes about."

Well, I imagine the fourteenth amendment "birthright citizenship" clause has something to do with that. It has been inculcated on the minds of Americans for many decades that a person need only to be born on American soil to be a citizen, and a loyal one at that. The average American (not to mention the average American media type) could give two hoots about George Washington's political philosophy.

But I agree with you that America has been inundated with peoples and cultures incompatible with liberty and self-government.

And speaking of Washington,...

He once observed that many of America's youth were migrating to foreign countries in order to acquire the higher branches of erudition. The danger this presented of their "imbibing principles not congenial with Republicanism" caused him great concern because, in his words, they had not well learned the value of their own systems of government.

But there's no need to worry with that anymore. Our own institutions of "higher learning" have themselves imbibed principles not congenial with Republicanism. In other words, we have imported foreign ideas of God, man, and government to the United States, and these ideas permeate our society and its every institution. Yes, including the church.

Anonymous said...

I'm not going to praise anyone's legal acumen in bringing any case before the current judiciary of the United States, but accusations of malpractice aren't really needed here, nor are they likely to be heeded either.

If you want to bring your own case, then please do so. You can even organize a class-action if you like. Others have. Show that you have the ability to make headway in this rigged system, and you'll have desperate patriots beating down your door.

I won't be among allegiance to America is long expired by now. I'll wish any well who strive to preserve liberty, but my being wistful may not be much help, realistically speaking.

Anonymous said...

To Terry Morris:

I agree with you on all but the interpretation some have regarding the Fourteenth Amendment. According to the congressional record of debates during that time, Senator Trumball defined the clause therein, which stipulated that the a citizen must be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", which was clarified during the speeches to mean, "having no other allegiance to anyone else. That is what it means."

There were dissenting opinions in all the famous cases these attorneys and legal eagles have exhausted, ad nauseum. It's not my intention to repeat that here; mostly because it has nothing to do with eligibility to the three branches of government, which the Justices readily admitted was not under the scope of their decisions. Having made that disclaimer themselves, I never could see why people repeatedly course to areas of which these Justices denied ever making opinions about. The truth is, no Justice has rendered a legal decision with reference to Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the Constitution and specifically noted that they were not making any such claims. That alone admits to a very different quality of persons - those who, under a separate examination of the framer's intent, would obviously be subject to a more stringent test given the evidence in our history.

That test is exemplified in the words of our Founding Father, George Washington. If the Supreme Court's job is to interpret the intent of the framers - and it is - they must return to history and give due weight and respect to the man who coined the term (if people wish so much to argue it), and also give consideration to a country that hailed and adored him as the "guardian genius". We think he's a very fitting testimony that hasn't been considered by these "experts". And to those who find our Founding Father meaningless, I charge them with the same label Washington did - foreign-sympathizers not worthy of the label "countrymen".

I ask you: Whose words are more worthy of esteem? That of a Justice whose duty it is to uphold the law or the men who built that law into existence by their patriotic example and leadership? Or shall we continue to put stock in the blathering of fools, who come here, born or not, educated in foreign-doctrines which they embrace, seek the glory of our high offices, only to point fault and blame with everything this country stands for, shaming Americans for their patriotism, ripping their wealth from them, and advising them that they need to change their attitudes and welcome the "New World Order" of despotism? If we succumb to the later, we'll do so at our own peril.

Perhaps it's time to see what this generation is made of. Are they going to follow the footsteps of the man who called himself "Your most humble and obedient servant" or the arrogance of the man who exclaimed, "I won!"?

Terry Morris said...

"I agree with you on all but the interpretation some have regarding the Fourteenth Amendment."

Well, I hope I didn't leave the impression that I accept such an absurd interpretation. I tried to avoid that by putting it in scare quotes. But even if I did accept that this was the intent of the framers of the fourteenth, I could not accept that this generation is in any way bound to observe an enactment of a dead generation, as if to say that the latter has some sort of paternal authority over the former. My point was simply that most do accept it because it's what they've been told all of their lives. There's even a school of thought out there that says that natural born citizenship is the exact same thing as fourteenth amendment "birthright" citizenship.

Of course these people who propagate this view all of a sudden had an epiphany when questions surrounding Hussein's eligibility began to surface. Go figure.

Anonymous said...

To Terry Morris:

No, I didn't construe that from your post.

I think most have taken the bait of convoluted legal arguments deliberately meant to confuse, and entertained such rubbish for far too long. The fact just is that even the Justices who decided cases with reference to the Fourteenth Amendment did so while noting they made no claims as to eligibility for the presidency.

But I disagree that what George Washington had to say about the term he coined, "Natural born American" and later translated into the Constitution as "Natural born citizen", is irrelevant to the Constitution. It's the very evidence behind the constitutional clause itself.

As for your other point, we cannot go backward and claim that the men who debated the Fourteenth Amendment, which was to serve equality for slaves, had anything to do with what was contemplated during the period of the Revolutionary War. It's apples and oranges. The difficulties they had determining loyalty to the cause during the Revolution didn't even contemplate the Civil War period.

To your argument on dead men: If we aren't bound to respect the enactments of a dead generation, such as with the meaning behind the enactments of our Founding Father laid in the Constitution, then for argument sake, why are we bound to respect any enactments, including the Fourteenth Amendment? Those men are long dead, too. We keep the law sacred, therefore we are respecting the blood they shed for our sake on both accounts, are we not?

I understand that education is lacking but that's not the fault of the people. There was a time when The Federalist was required reading in every school. No more. So how can we blame this generation for failing to understand what patriotism truly means when they are hardly taught anything about it when they are young? And then they wonder why they're confused and don't know how to give an educated answer to the socialist knocking on their door. They FEEL something is amiss but they aren't educated enough to identify it.

That's what we're going to attempt. To lay out the case for the Constitution, disregard all the noise, and hopefully the PEOPLE will read it and decide which version they believe. Woe to the person who tries to take on an educated public then.

I think people are doing that. It's evidenced in the revitalized Tea Party movement; a series of historical protests that began in Boston, led straight to the Revolutionary War and culminated with the Declaration of Independence; the first document of our independence from Great Britain.

I think it's extremely noticeable that Obama invited that movement to discuss the issues (right after making fun of them with a backdrop of laughing hyenas) and then despite an official acceptance letter to his office, refused to acknowledge them. All he really wanted to do was make an orchestrated, disrespectful, laughing stock out of Americans, while intimidating others and basically saying, "This is what I'll do to you if you decide to protest with them." And if that's not his intent, then be honest and make good the offer, or was it, "Just words?"

Is history repeating itself? I'd say so. People are realizing again that we're losing our freedom and they want their country back before it's too late. But Obama refuses to even answer their questions because he's afraid of what would come out, so he gets on TV and makes fun of them instead. How mature!

Is Obama the "obedient and most humble servant" George Washington was adored for being? Only a fool would believe that. Just look at his actions. Barack Obama is NO George Washington.

"It's a republic, if you can keep it."

Anonymous said...

"Of course these people who propagate this view all of a sudden had an epiphany when questions surrounding Hussein's eligibility began to surface. Go figure."

Good point, Terry. Wasn't it ironic that White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs put on a show of the same caliber that Obama did when Gibbs was confronted with questions as to Obama's bona fide eligibility? Same modus operandi at work here: Poke fun at the messenger and make sure you have a bevy of laughing hyenas in the background in the hopes of intimidating others from asking it again.

Then run out the door before Lester or anyone else could inquiry further.

Terry Morris said...

Zapem wrote:

To your argument on dead men: If we aren't bound to respect the enactments of a dead generation, such as with the meaning behind the enactments of our Founding Father laid in the Constitution, then for argument sake, why are we bound to respect any enactments, including the Fourteenth Amendment? Those men are long dead, too. We keep the law sacred, therefore we are respecting the blood they shed for our sake on both accounts, are we not?

That was an error of omission on my part.

I agree with Washington who said in his Farewell Address that the constitution which exists at any time, until changed by an explicit act of the whole people (i.e., through the amendment process), is sacredly obligatory on all.

What I was saying regarding the fourteenth amendment "birthright citizenship" idea, is that even if I believed the intent of the framers was this illegitimate concept, I could never accept that our generation is in any way obligated to observe such a self-destructive policy laid down by our forbears. We would have every right and every responsibility, founded in self-preservation, to repeal it once the destructive nature of the policy became evident to us.

There are people who argue that any policy enacted by a dead generation is sacredly obligatory on succeeding generations irregardless. They don't really believe this as a universal principle, of course, but they argue it nonetheless when it comes to enactments they particularly agree with. I'm not one of those people. That to me is the height of stupidity.

Joel Lehman said...

Here are some relavent questions Newt Gingrich has devised for the Washington press corps to ask press secretary Gibbs:

Post a Comment

Be advised that this comment section is moderated in order to assure respect for civil proprieties. Posts that use obscenities, scurrilous epithets or that are gratuitously disrespectful of others will be removed ASAP. If you think a comment offensive in this way, report it in an email to