Obama's Army Detweets

Yesterday, Chairman Soetoro issued the following instructions to his legions of fawning jackbooted apparatchiks.

"If you want to see a bipartisan compromise — a bill that can pass both houses of Congress and that I can sign — let your members of Congress know,” Obama said.“Make a phone call. Send an e-mail. Tweet. Keep the pressure on Washington, and we can get past this.”

A short time later, Obama’s official 2012 campaign Twitter account announced to its 9.4 million followers that it would begin publishing the Twitter account names of House Republicans. Over the course of the day, @BarackObama sent out around 100 tweets.

 

Fed up with his divisive politics, incompetence and spam over 30,000 of Obama's lickspittle automatons detweeted from the battle field.

2012 can't come any faster.

CONTINUE READING

Sila Sahin's Bigotry and Intolerance

Virginity..... questionable....

In posing nude for Germany's Playboy Magazine, provocateur Sila Sahin knew full well that her bigoted and intolerant act would needlessly inflame and provoke Muslims throughout the world.

With complete disregard for the religious sensitivities of her co-religionists Ms. Sahin had this to say,

"For too long I tried to do everything right. I want these photos to show young Turkish women it's okay for you to live however you choose. Many of my countrymen think it's great that I can be so free. With the shoot I hoped to say to them that we do not necessarily have to live under these rules given to us."

To paraphrase Time Magazine's Joe Klein, 

Sila Sahin has a right to pose nude. And Islam's religious leaders have a right–no, more than a right: a moral responsibly–to blast Sahin for the nitwit bigot she is, and to rally conservative muslims against this profoundly disgusting, and extremely dangerous, act.  This type of unIslamic behavior, endangers the lives of  the publishers of Playboy magazine and innocent civilians and it should rightfully be condemned.

But there should be no confusion about this: Sila Sahin's act was murderous as any suicide bomber's. If there is a hell, she's just guaranteed herself an afterlifetime membership.

.

CONTINUE READING

The Rise and Fall of Barack Obama

"It is said that Zaphod Beeblebrox's birth was marked by earthquakes, tidal waves, tornadoes, firestorms, the explosion of three neighbouring stars, and, shortly afterwards, by the issuing of over six and three quarter million writs for damages from all of the major landowners in his Galactic sector. However, the only person by whom this is said is Beeblebrox himself, and there are several possible theories to explain this."

– The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Fit the Ninth

One can imagine that there is considerable amount of narcissism required to pen an autobiography. So just imagine someone having the audacity to write two so-called autobiographies and then expect that a gullible readership will accept the contents of those books as a verifiable truth.

Often times I wonder if I'm the only one who feels a sense of profound disquietude whenever I read something that starts off with or contains the phrases "As described in his book Dreams from my Father" or "As he described in the Audacity of Hope". Think about it, if the only source for a particular fact regarding Obama is Obama himself then the truth becomes unverifiable. This is not something accidental, it is by design and once you realize that simple fact the more you will feel like you have been duped.

Parroting any one of Barack Obama's self-serving books or his website the media continues to claim that Obama is a devout Christian despite a plethora of evidence to the contrary. Why?

Barack Obama's religious views are not the only thing that Obama has lied about, he has lied about using any other names other than Barack Hussein Obama. In January of 2007 we reported here that Barack Hussein Obama was registered under the name "Barry Soetoro " in school in Indonesia. Needless to say, Obama would have found it difficult to register for school in Indonesia as "Barry Soetoro" with a birth certificate that stated his name was Barack Hussein Obama. Yes you read that correct. Go back and read it again if you need to and then go look at yourself in a mirror. Pardon the double entendre, but do you need a weatherman to tell you which way the wind blows?

It is understandable that an autobiography or two would be biased, that the author would tend to write overly positive things about themselves and often present both opinions and fiction as fact. The problem with Barack Obama's books is not so much that they are autobiographical though, it is that they contain elements of an autobiography with an exposition of Obama's political ideology. These are not simply books, they are tools, and tools with a purpose.

Barack Hussein Obama has made his intentions and plans for America clear. He has made it clear that he does not see America as an exceptional nation and that our nation's constitution is "fundamentally flawed". So if you drive a SUV, like to eat pizza and cheeseburgers and keep your house cool in the summer you can expect Obama to see you taken down a peg. Like frogs slowly boiling in a pot of water, Americans are losing their freedom.

Ronald Reagan once said, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected and handed on to them to do the same."

Looking back, how will the historians of the future explain the gullibility of a nation and how we could have elected a man we knew nothing about and how will we ever explain our ignorance to our children and grandchildren?

Related Posts:

Barack Obama vs. America

Jihad: From Jakarta to the White House

CONTINUE READING

Nothing New Under The Sun

"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."

~ Douglas Adams

Click on the image to enlarge

H/T P.U.M.A

CONTINUE READING

Damn You All To Hell !!

In more ways than one, this is the end.

CONTINUE READING

"A Time for Choosing"

Forty-four years ago today, Ronald Reagan gave a speech entitled "A Time For Choosing", a speech that is as pertinent and timely today as it was back then. Listen to the speech and then replace Johnson's "Great Society" with Barack Obama's mindless mantra of "Hope" and Change" and Senator Fullbright's remarks that "the Constitution is outmoded" with Obama's claim that the Constitution of our nation is "fundamentally flawed".

For those of us who love our nation and who value property above fraternity and liberty above equality, there is but one thing we ultimately expect from someone who aspires to lead our nation... and that is that he will solemnly affirm to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States".

Very soon all of us will face our own time of choosing and the the only question we need ask ourselves is how we can expect someone to preserve, protect and defend a document that they believe is "fundamentally flawed"?

"You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or right, but I would like to suggest that there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down--up to a man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order--or down to the ant heap totalitarianism, and regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course."

In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the "Great Society," or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a "greater government activity in the affairs of the people." But they have been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves--and all of the things that I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations.

For example, they have voices that say "the cold war will end through acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism." Another voice says that the profit motive has become outmoded, it must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state; or our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century. Senator Fullbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the president as our moral teacher and our leader, and he said he is hobbled in his task by the restrictions in power imposed on him by this antiquated document. He must be freed so that he can do for us what he knows is best. And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as "meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government." Well, I for one resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me--the free man and woman of this country--as "the masses." This is a term we haven't applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, "the full power of centralized government"--this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose.

CONTINUE READING

Obama-Jugend

There is a reason why Barack Obama's mantra of "change" is so appealing to the youth of America. It's because they are too young to remember.

Never to forgive... Never to forget...

NEVER AGAIN !

CONTINUE READING

Burn Baby Burn

No Bailout!

You don't PRIVATIZE profits and SOCIALIZE losses.

CONTINUE READING

Time Magazine Reporting For Duty

It is one thing to be called "The Blogger Behind the Obama Hit Job" and quite another to be referred to as a "less-than-authoritative source". Needless to say, it naturally begs the question - Who would be an authoritative source? For much of America's mainstream media, the answer is of course themselves. But alas the times they are a changing.

On to the rebuttal.

"The first mention of Martin's blog comes on Page 52 of Obama Nation, when it is cited as the source for Corsi's assertion that when Obama's Muslim stepfather registered him at a Catholic school in Indonesia, Obama's religion was recorded as "Islam." No one disputes that."

Actually, the Obama camp and America's mainstream media has been disputing this from the very first day it was reported on this blog.

"In fact, Martin is not the only one who reported the information; on Jan. 25, 2007, the same day that Martin posted it on his blog, the Associated Press reported the same information, from the Fransiskus Assisi Catholic school, and ran a photograph of the document."

Actually, the post Time magazine is referring to was posted here on the 24th of January 2007 and not the 25th. And not to split hairs or anything, but don't forget that over here in Southeast Asia we are a day ahead of you guys back in America. (International Date Line). That would make my posting actually 2 days prior to the Associated Press report.


"Although Lolo Soetero, Obama's stepfather, was nominally a Muslim, Obama (then known as Barry Soetoro), studied Catholic catechism at the school."

Nope false. Obama never studied "Catholic catechism" at school, he studied Islam.


"What was Martin's source for his repeated insistence that Obama's former school requires students to dress in traditional Muslim attire on Fridays? "I've lived [in Southeast Asia] for 20 years; I go to schools all the time," he says. However, he admits that he never visited Obama's former school on a Friday."

Martin's source is... Martin himself. Did you think I was going to use CNN as a source?

Having spent almost my entire adult life in Southeast Asia, I think I might have an idea of what goes on in the schools here and believe it or not, but after 20 years I don't need a weatherman to tell me which way the wind blows.

Obama and the Audacity of CNN


"In a 2007 post, Martin also claims that the Indonesian title of Obama's book The Audacity of Hope — Menerjang Harapan — means "Jihad." This, says Martin, is what Indonesians see when they encounter Obama's book. However, his translation is a distortion of the Indonesian phrase, which in English is literally "To Challenge Hope."'

"Menerjang Harapan" is not an Indonesian phrase nor is it a distortion. It is two Indonesian words that are never used together. Google it (the two words together) and the only references you will find will be Barack Obama's own self-serving book.

In the context the words are used it leaves the actual meaning open to ambiguous interpretation, kind of like poetry if you will. As I stated and as many of the comments have conceded, the translation is incorrect and done in such a way as to excite the Indonesians. How exactly it excites the Indonesians is the only area of contention.

It is the truth that always prevails.


Justice Holmes once wrote, "when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas - that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market."

Barack Obama can fight back all he wants and accuse his adversaries of bigotry and racism, he can coerce a compliant and malleable mainstream media to do the same, he can publish long-winded rebuttals and set up websites to "fight the smears" and when worse comes to worse he can always threaten his opponents. Why not... it is what they would do in Indonesia.

I've seen many people over the years here in Southeast Asia who have dared to speak out, many who were imprisoned, bankrupted or beaten for simply speaking out. I've seen many who have been denied both political and religious freedom and I've seen their oppressors employ the very same exact tactics that Barack Obama is employing. The accusations of bigotry and racism, the state-controlled media and untimately the threats.

Like Barack Obama, I've lived in Southeast Asia, albeit a long longer than Obama did. But unlike Barack Obama I've never been subscriber to cultural or moral equivalency nor have I felt compelled to deride my own country in a a pathetic effort to establish that equivalency. I know that deriding my own country overseas only emboldens those who deny freedom and liberty to others. As an advocate of American exceptionalism, I've always felt myself compelled to spread the message of what is good about America rather than what is bad and for me that normally starts with steaming bowl of chili con carne and a plate of tacos.

"Peace, Love and American hegemony, one plate of tacos at a time"

Have you seen the look on a Malaysian or Indonesian's face as they timidly for the first time in their lives poke around at a plate of crispy tacos, when they lift that crispy, crunchy tortilla shell and bite into that Tex-Mex goodness? I have seen it and it is a sight of beauty and love that completely transcends all political, ideological and religious differences.



Related Posts:


America's Ambassadors or America's Shame

CONTINUE READING

You're Not The First

"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."

~ Douglas Adams

CONTINUE READING

Barack Obama Vs. America

"His is just one of what will likely be many more lie-filled books rushed to print this election cycle, which are cobbled together from debunked internet sources to make money and advance a partisan agenda. We will respond to these smears forcefully with all means at our disposal."

For freedom loving Americans, the words above should be downright chilling, they are hateful and combined with the ominous threats issued from Obama's team are downright Orwellian. But what is more disturbing though than the words themselves is the collusion of the mainstream media and those who have traditionally assumed the role in America as the vanguards of free speech.

Emboldened and aided by a sycophantical mainstream media eager to tag-team and pummel Corsi relentlessly with vile ad hominem attacks and characterize both him and his book in the most defamatory and vituperative of terms. Where is the outrage? It was Barack Obama himself who touted his foreign policy credentials with the cute anecdotal stories of his childhood in Indonesia. To paraphrase Justice Stewart, where does he get off crying "Smear", when an opponent or an industrious blogger or reporter discovers and proves that Barack Obama or rather Barry Soetoro was all the while being dishonest with the American people. For Obama, the best test of truth is not to get itself accepted in the competition of the market but to kill the messenger. Not only is this un-American, but unacceptable.

Our country's forefathers and those who made the ultimate sacrifice for freedom would be rolling over in the graves at the prospect of Obama's "change" and progression evolving in policy.

For the advocates of this perverse militant egalitarianism, reasoned argument is replaced by a conditioned reflex as Obama's legions of lickspittle automatons mindlessly parrot as "evidence" whatever Obama himself has written in any one of his own self-serving books. You see this has never been about the free interchange of ideas or even the ascertainment of truth, this is all about entitlement and nothing not even freedom or liberty is going to get in the way.

"Unfit For Publication"? I'm sorry Barack Obama, but this is America and not some tinpot dictatorship and if Penthouse Magazine and Jet Magazine are fit for publication then so is Jerry Corsi's book. Having said that though, there is no doubt in my mind that you and your legion of jackbooted apparatchiks would have Corsi's book consigned to the flames if you had the power and that Mr. Obama is why you must be stopped at all costs.

So back to the threat that "We will respond to these smears forcefully with all means at our disposal."

Well Mr. Obama, I am one of Jerry Corsi's "debunked internet sources", now vindicated and I say, bring it on.

CONTINUE READING

Clinton's Real Legacy Abroad

"Whereas the truth is that the State in which the rulers are most reluctant to govern is always the best and most quietly governed, and the State in which they are most eager, the worst..." ~ The Republic - Plato

At the height of Bill Clinton's tribulations in the late 90's, I was sitting with a small group of Asian and Chinese businessmen in Singapore who were mendaciously gloating over how much they adored America's president and how he will be remembered as one of America's greatest leaders. For American businessmen like myself, who were living and working in Asia at the time, the incessant ribbing had become pretty much commonplace. For the most part, the average Asian on the street couldn't have cared less about Bill Clinton, his domestic problems didn't affect Asia and his relentless pursuit to make a virtue out of hedonism and self-indulgence would thankfully spare most of Asia and remain stateside.

For the Asians and the Chinese, who's sociopolitical beliefs are founded in Confucianism, there is the profound expectation of virtuous and morally exemplary leadership in their elected leaders. In the eyes of the Asians, America's President Bill Clinton was a man completely devoid of the essential attributes of a leader. Clinton's arrogance, immorality, lack of humility and unbridled narcissism would come to epitomise to all Asians the absolute worst characteristics of leadership.

There are a few reasons why this is of importance now, the first being that there seems to be a misconception today on the part of many Americans as to whether or not Clinton was "liked" overseas. Was he liked? Sure he was, he was liked in the same way that Americans like Paris Hilton. The Asian and Chinese leadership on the other hand liked Clinton, but only because they found him to be malleable due to his obvious character flaws. In desperation, Clinton would "reach out" and allow himself to be manipulated foolishly thinking that he was winning or in the alternative that his benevolence would be interpreted as friendship, all the while Clinton never seemed to grasp that simple truism that nation's themselves don't have friends. They have interests.

Interestingly enough, according to an interview last month in the Guardian, if Hillary Clinton wins the US presidency, Bill Clinton claims that he will be given the job of repairing America's damaged international reputation. In the Guardian interview Mr Clinton, 61, reveals that his wife has said she would ask him to "go out and immediately restore America's standing, go out and tell people America was open for business and cooperation again" after eight years marked by unilateralist policies that have "enraged the world".

From the tone of the interview and what we have seen so far from Hillary Clinton, it would seem that the Clintonian solution to challenges in foreign diplomacy would be to do whatever we can to "please the world". For the Clinton's it's quite obvious that America's "unilateralist policies" ie. leadership has "enraged the world". "Pleasing the world" according to the Clinton's wishes would entail placing our nation's interest and security in the hands of a multilateral organization such as the United Nations which of course is what our nation's enemies would like as well. A multilateral organization that can serve as a counterbalance to effectively stymy American resolve and hegemony. The mere suggestion of which in a post 9/11 world is not only naive, but dangerously foolish.

So what can we do to please everyone? The answer is nothing. Regardless of what we do, we are never going to please everyone. There is always going to be someone somewhere who will be enraged at the decisions our country makes. We can do as the Clinton's suggest and somehow willingly cede our position and power to a multilateral organization in the hopes that maybe we will be liked once again or we can stand firm and resolute in moral self-righteousness recognizing the fact that it is America not the United Nations that has always and continues to serve as a beacon of hope for all of those who continue to seek freedom and liberty around the world.

For as much as the Clinton's gave to China, it's a shame they never got anything in return. They might have learned something.

"He who exercises government by means of his virtue may be compared to the north polar star, which keeps its place and all the stars turn towards it." - Confucius

.

CONTINUE READING

The Balkanization of America

I just visited Houston, Texas recently and was surprised (or rather shocked) to see that even the menus in restaurants such as IHOP are both in English and Spanish. I was even told that there are several restaurants in Houston where if you don't speak Spanish then you simply won't get any service. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not the least bit xenophobic, it's just that the dramatic changes in my hometown caught me a bit off guard. You see it's been a few years since I was last in the United States and each time I return I find myself amazed at the sociopolitical changes.

On more than one occasion while I was there I didn't recognize what was being said around me and was actually a bit surprised at how many people were speaking Spanish in their dealings instead of English. I went to one store near the downtown area and found myself ignored by the Spanish speaking sales staff as they continued to help the Spanish speaking people around them. I stood there waiting and then eventually just gave up. But what was even more disturbing about the whole thing wasn't the Spanish speaking, it was that there seemed to be a sense of arrogance and what can perhaps best be described as an "ethnic chauvinism" among the Spanish speaking people that was never there before. It was as if they didn't care anymore or were not concerned to assimilate, to learn English or even to speak English, but even then, it was deeper than that, many seemed to harbor a sense of grievance that despite being nurtured by well-meaning federal policies of positive discrimination gave rise to an indescribable feeling of tension that seemed to be omnipresent everywhere I went.

For the first time in my life I felt like I was in a foreign country by returning home, but even that is not really accurate... You see if I would have went to Mexico instead of Texas, the Spanish speaking people there would have at least try to communicate with me and serve me. They would have smiled and made an honest effort to speak English and the banks and shops in Mexico would have gladly accepted my US passport as an ID. But in Texas this time things were disturbing different.

But overall, what I've found most disturbing is the Balkanization of the United States or as it is known by is politically correct euphemism "multiculturalism". You'll have to forgive me, but having lived overseas for as many years as I have, I never received the diversity is strength memo, and if I did, I would have promptly thrown it in the trash where it rightly belongs. There is no strength in diversity and I'm confounded at how Americans could have ever willingly bought into that nonsense. What did it take? Was it the the fear of being labeled an intolerant bigot or of being politically incorrect that somehow collectively coerced all of you into this accepting this mind-numbing mantra as gospel?

Take a cue from a country like Singapore who had to learn the hard way about the wondrous glories of diversity and multiculturalism. A country who was forced to adopt Draconian laws limiting freedom of speech just to ensure ethnic and religious harmony and who has spent countless millions over the years on government propaganda directed at their own citizens extolling nationalism and unity over diversity. Funny how there is no mention of how "diversity is strength" in this little ditty penned by Singapore's Ministry of Information, Communication & the Arts entitled "We are Singapore". Is this what we want for the United States?

How long will it be before these ethnic and racial enclaves that are being nurtured like unhatched chickens begin to poke their beaks through the shell? I fear it won't be long now. From having lived in a multicultural society, I can say from personal experience that rising ethnic chauvinism among immigrants both illegal or legal is not only a warning sign, but is is the ultimate destroyer of peace and harmony and when the winds shift it will get bloody. When that happens there will be two paths for Americans to take and both of them will be unpleasant. Either Americans will stand up and fight for liberty and freedom or they will have to accept certain restrictions to liberty and freedom in order to keep the peace.


Related Posts

One Last Drink of Hemlock

America: Eyes Wide Shut on Muslim Integration

Alien Nation

CONTINUE READING

America's Image Overseas

"Be more concerned with your character than your reputation, because your character is what you really are, while your reputation is merely what others think you are." ~ John Wooden - American Basketball Coach - 1910

In all my years spent overseas, I've never once apologized for being American, nor have I ever felt the need to apologize for America's actions around the world. Like many Americans I have instinctively known that America's benevolence however misguided or naive it might be at times has always stemmed from a noble intent. I've also accepted that simple truism that no matter what you do, you can never please everyone and to add insult to injury, regardless of what good we do or what our intent is, there are always going to be instigators both at home and abroad who simply find themselves compelled to pee in the pool.

Often times it is Americans themselves who either purposely or inadvertently, give rise to the animosity we experience around the world. Americans who are hopelessly consumed with what Pope Benedict has described as a "pathological self-hatred" and who fail to recognize the veracity in the adage that 'you can't expect someone else to love you until you learn to love yourself.'

Needless to say, I found myself taken aback with the recent publication of a report where a "think-tank" commissioned by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) concluded, based on a dozen or so opinion polls from around the world that "America's reputation, standing and influence are at all-time lows, and possibly sinking further".

Reading the report I couldn't help but think how completely off the mark the authors of this report are. It is shameful that a group of Americans can disgrace themselves by publishing a report like only days before the President of France, Nicolas Sarkozy gives a speech before Congress professing his nation's deep admiration of the United States and what America stands for. Have the authors of this report forgotten what America stands for in the world or are they just so bitterly blinded by their own partisanship and self-hatred that they can no longer see all the good that America does around the globe.

Predictably the report blames the American led War on Terror for America's low image around the world and then goes on to suggest that "America should be a smarter power by investing once again in the global good and providing things that people and governments in all quarters of the world want but cannot attain in the absence of American leadership".

I'm not quite sure I understand what the hell that means, but I do know one thing, and that is that "providing things" is not what America is about, nor is it the way to foster and spread goodwill around the globe. The authors of this report, and the rest of the Center for Strategic and International Studies might want to spend a little more time in the "think-tank" and emerge only after a little self-reflection until they can finally rediscover what America stands for.

In the words of Nicolas Sarkozy, "From the very beginning, the American dream meant proving to all mankind that freedom, justice, human rights and democracy were no utopia but were rather the most realistic policy there is and the most likely to improve the fate of each and every person."

Rather than "providing things", we should concern ourselves with inspiring others overseas and we do that through promoting good will about America and about what we stand for, not by promoting ill will. What good will are we promoting overseas with an endless stream of crap emanating from Hollywood like the recent "Lions for Lambs" or any one of Michael Moore's films? What good will are we promoting when we demonstrate to the world that we have no respect for our own democracy or our nation's duly elected leaders? While there was much I disagreed with in the report cited above, there was one thing that I agreed with, and that is that "every United States citizen serves as a diplomat". Having said that, it should go without saying that perhaps a little introspection should be called for before we start getting our panties in a ruffle about our reputation overseas. Personally I don't care if we are liked. I care more that we are respected.

Leadership is not simply doing what is popular or what will get you liked, it is doing what is right, and often times doing what is right is not the popular thing to do. To paraphrase Ralph Waldo Emerson, "What lies behind us and what lies before us are small matters compared to what lies within us."

CONTINUE READING

Alien Nation

It has been three years since I've last traveled back home to the United States. My trip has been a somber one, but also one of great comfort. Despite the circumstances of my trip, I've had the opportunity to meet friends and relatives, many of whom I have not seen for several years.

The comfort and joy of returning home would slowly dissolve upon discovering that I've returned to nation that has become almost unrecognizable. The hope, optimism and pride of a nation seems to have been replaced with a growing sense of despair and hopelessness. Wherever I go there seems to exist a profound and unavoidable sense of malaise. Once proud patriotic citizens have been demoralized by the relentless prolonged siege from the enemy within and from a government that continues to enable those who would seek our demise.

Just how bad have things become? An experience of mine from last week provides an illustration of just how demented things have become.

Last week I went into small Texas bank here in my family's hometown to open a bank account. I took with me my US passport, my birth certificate and my social security card. Glancing over my photo passport, the bank manager of First Bank & Trust East Texas politely told me that they could not accept my US passport as a primary form of identification, and therfore I would be unable to open a bank account. My birth certificate and social security card were equally deemed by the bank to be useless forms of personal identification.

My initial shock and disbelief though would be replaced with outrage when I found out what the bank would accept as a primary form of identification. Among the list of approved primary forms of identification accepted by the bank was the Mexican matricula consular card.

First Bank & Trust East Texas wouldn't accept a US passport issued by the United States Government as a primary form of identification, but they will readily accept a Mexican matricula consular card issued by the Government of Mexico as a primary form of identification!

My telephone call later to the bank's head office in Diboll, Texas expressing my outrage that a form of identification issued by the Government of Mexico would be accepted, and that a passport issued by the United States Government was rejected, was pretty much met with contempt and unconcern. When I explained that my United States passport has been accepted as a form of identification in various other countries around the globe, the response was "I'm sorry sir, but that's our bank's policy, we no longer accept United States passports as a form of identification"

Where is the outrage, and at what point do Americans and Texans take their country back?

In my opinion, a Texas bank that would spit on the United States and on American citizens and then embrace foreign nationals like this deserves to be shut down and have it's banking license revoked out of nothing more than principle. The directors of this bank and anyone who would dare stand in the way or impede justice being delivered deserves to be tarred and feathered.

If you feel this is an outrage and that it is time to fight back, feel free to contact Texas Bank Commissioner Randall S. James.

CONTINUE READING

Moral Sovereignty and America's Foreign Policy

Last night I sat down with local friends of mine here the subject of the Terri Schiavo case came up. I found myself in a very difficult situation in my attempts to explain what is happening in my country, how our country's judiciary has come to this conclusion and why Terri Schiavo must die by starvation and dehydration.

A simple and yet painfully legitimate question was asked of me. "Why does your country not just give Terri Schiavo a lethal injection or simply put a bullet in her brain?"

How does one answer such a question?

For years the United States has at times worked hard to become a credible and consistent champion of human rights around the globe. No more. As the entire world watches this entire drama unfold right before their eyes many are absolutely horrified and chilled beyond belief at what they see. A great nation using a corrupted court system to legitimize their atrocities, the most heinous of human rights abuses.

When a great nation such as ours starts to dehumanize individuals in the way that Terri Schiavo has and is being dehumanized in an organized effort to justify and rationalize the killing off of those members of our society who are sick, disabled, no longer productive, "have worthless lives or lives not worth living" or "wish to die" then we have lost the moral high ground.

When great men stand by and mumble to themselves "...Well the courts have decided" and do nothing as an omnipotent judiciary and corrupted court system misuses the law to legitimize atrocities committed against our fellow man, then we have truly fallen as a people.

Human rights are those we possess by virtue of being human. They are God given rights, natural rights, i.e., rights we possess by nature, not by law. They are not rights granted to us by any government, and so they cannot be taken away by any government, regardless of what laws it may pass and what degree of violence it may employ to enforce its laws.

"The World's Superpower and Champion of Human Rights around the globe is starving and dehydrating a disabled woman to death and underage children who bring her water are being handcuffed and arrested."

Does that sum it up? Did I miss anything?

What right do we have now to excoriate others? What right do we have to speak out against human rights abuses around the globe?

So what if nations enslave their citizens or put their underage children to work in dangerous factories? At least they don't starve their disabled citizens to death.

If China decides to put a bullet in the brain of all their retarded school children tomorrow, what can we say or do?

Next time we want to whine because Libya or Egypt is on the United Nations human rights council we better learn to bite our lip.

A dark shadow or moral sovereignty has not only fallen on America but now on the entire world. God help us all.

CONTINUE READING