It's about time. How much sleaze can anyone take?  When something new begins that is run on sane respectful principles, let me know.

Hi all

I used to post on GrateWire but it has become a zoo supporting the low forms of racial and sexist bigotry.  The attacks on Sarah's female parts and functions were the last straw.

In the future I'd like to participate on a more substantial site so I'll search around.  Perhaps you know of one that is fairly active.

For example, I'd like to discuss the implications of Julia Haslett's interview concerning her Simone Weil documentary.  A spiritual conservative could respond but I cannot see how a secularist could.  That doesn't mean they cannot but only that I don't understand yet how they could.

http://vhcle.com/The%20Search%20for%20Simone%20Weil.html?utm_source=%22An+Encounter+with+Simone+Weil%22+Newsletter&utm_campaign=870baca71d-AEWSW_April_2011_Newsletter4_4_2011&utm_medium=email

 
               This article can be found in Issue 5 of Vhcle Magazine.    2011: The Search for Simone Weil
 
 
 ...................design fashion film music art photography global notes life  I asked Anna Brown, one of the characters in my film who is herself, a very committed activist, about how she made it to middle-age with her optimism and well-being intact. She replied - by being in community. It is her community that gives her strength and helps her stand firm in her political and moral convictions. Simone Weil was a firm believer in the individual and herself largely eschewed community. The question is, can you retain your individuality while existing in a functioning community, family, or relationship? Do communities/systems of people always have to grow more dogmatic, coercive, and exclusive over time? I myself struggle with this very question.
 
More than anything, it appears that the mainstream media is falling down on the job and refusing to ask the difficult questions their societal role required of them. Weil's insistence on speaking truth to power and constantly questioning the status quo was what we needed more of at that time, and still do. She also wrote that even if we can't prevent the forces of tyranny from prevailing, we can at least "understand the force by which we are crushed." And in a sense, my documenting of that time was an attempt to do just that. And, if nothing else, preserve a record of it for future generations.


I can understand from a Christian perspective how one can be in the world but not of it.  But the God of secularism is society itself. Plato called it the "Beast."  From this perspective one is both of the world and in the world.  Secularism cannot "understand the force by which we are crushed," simply because doing so requires an appreciation for the collective  loss of help from above for the human psych in the form of "grace."

I prefer discussing this level of politics.  I'll leave the eternal question of whose momma sucks to GrateWire and other such sites.  But where do those go to discuss the deeper questions of politics as an expression of an evolving or devolving society?  Any suggestions?

I don't know about you but it is scary to me how gullible people are that have fallen under the spell of a cult leader.

The Society of Teenage Drinkers and Bar Hoppers is taking notes on Obama's methods.  The bigotry of door people residing at the entrance of a bar having the audacity to ask for proof of age have not fallen under the Obama spell yet.  If they had they would agree with teenagers saying it is the responsibility of the door person to prove they are not underage.

Teens are working on the right approach and the introduction of progressive education to teach these reprehensible door people the error of their ways.  They must learn how politically incorrect it is to question the honesty of today's youth and ask for proof of age.

Hi Logia

I posted this on the Blaze. You may get a kick out of it.

The Morning Joe crew is not alone. I just watched O‘Reilly and two blonde bimbos attack Trump’s interest in the eligibility issue. At least Trump has the character and courage to defend the voter.

O’Reilly and the blonde bimbos are attacking me as well. They are attacking my concern as an educated voter to know if Obama is constitutionally qualified for the presidency. Up until now, the courts, press and progressive or wimpy politicans believe I am too stupid to be worthy to know the facts since I am incapable of an educated vote. I am glad that at least Trump is willing to support the voter and the importance of constitutional qualifications.

O‘Reilly and the blonde bimbos have given me the finger so I’ll give it back.to them.

“O’Reilly and the Blonde bimbos.” Reads like a Vegas act. Unfortunately it is sadly real.

That is the idea.  Obama was never certified.  We are required to take Obama's word for it. The New Republican congress has both the duty and obligation to certify Obama as eligible to run again in 2012 or declare him ineligible.

If they lack the courage and character to defend the Constitution and instead refuse to do so from cowardice and fear of cries of racism, it will force the creation of the "Birther Party" that will have as its platform the promise to reveal the facts of the matter.  People like me that would be disgusted with Republican cowardice, would vote for the Birther Party candidate for president. The division will most likey assure Obama's victory.

T.S. Eliot wrote in the preface to Simone Weil's "The Need for Roots:"   "This is one of those books which ought to be studied by the young before their leisure has been lost and their capacity for thought destroyed; books the effect of which, we can only hope, will become apparent in the attitude of mind of another generation."  

The Progressive agenda will do whatever it can to suppress this book and others like it.  This is why I'm posting this basic idea here.  Perhaps some college students writing papers on political philosophy would appreciate exploring it.

Simone asserts that rights can only be assured by the mutual acceptance of obligations.  This mutual acceptance can only be sustained through the help of grace that initiates from above.  Obviously then, the continuance of a free society requires the essential religious influence. Secularism only leads to the struggle for prestige acquired through power and force.

The progressive agenda seeks to substitute the concept of "entitlement" for what Simone describes as "obligations."

I invite all university students to keep the idea alive where you study.  Let others awaken to this normally hidden perspective for the sake of their understanding. Anyhow, consider Simone's words:

The notion of obligations comes before that of rights, which is subordinate and relative to the former. A right is not effectual by itself, but only in relation to the obligation to which it corresponds, the effective exercise of a right springing not from the individual who possesses it, but from other men who consider themselves as being under a certain obligation towards him. Recognition of an obligation makes it effectual. An obligation which goes unrecognized by anybody loses none of the full force of its existence. A right which goes unrecognized by anybody is not worth very much.

It makes nonsense to say that men have, on the one hand, rights, and on the other hand, obligations. Such words only express differences in point of view. The actual relationship between the two is as between object and subject. A man, considered in isolation, only has duties, amongst which are certain duties towards himself. Other men, seen from his point of view, only have rights. He, in his turn, has rights, when seen from the point of view of other men, who recognize that they have obligations towards him. A man left alone in the universe would have no rights whatever, but he would have obligations….”  Simone Weil, The Need for Roots*

As odd as it may seem,Obama was never certified as constituionally eligible nor was anyone required to do so.

http://www.libertynewsonline.com/article_301_29646.php

Maskell told WND he wrote it because so many members of Congress were getting questions from constituents about the issue, and they wanted to know how to respond. It would explain why so many mailed and e-mailed responses to constituents on the issue of eligibility sound just alike.


 

The CRS begins the memo by stating the problem:

"Many of the inquiries have questioned why then-Senator, and now President, Obama has not had to produce an original, so-called 'long' version of a 'birth certificate' from the State of Hawaii, how federal candidates are 'vetted' for qualifications generally, and have asked for an assessment of the various allegations and claims of non-eligibility status."
In other words, senators and members of the House could not explain why nobody ever saw Obama's long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate, and they needed a ready answer to give angry constituents who were writing, faxing and telephoning their offices for an answer.

The second full paragraph of the CRS memo must be read in its entirety to understand fully the circumstance that allowed a candidate for whom documentation was concealed from the public to be elected and sworn in as president.

It states:

"Concerning the production or release of an original birth certificate, it should be noted that there is no federal law, regulation, rule, guideline, or requirement that a candidate for federal office produce his or her original birth certificate, or a certified copy of the record of live birth, to any official of the United States government; nor is there a requirement for federal candidates to publicly release such personal record or documentation. Furthermore, there is no specific federal agency or office that 'vets' candidates for federal office as to qualifications or eligibility prior to return."

What the CRS admits is that Obama got a pass from Congress and the federal government as a whole on his birth qualifications under Article 2, Section 1. Nobody in Congress or the federal government sought to look for Obama's certified long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate, because no law or regulation required them to look.

After the document was written, nobody in Congress could claim that Congress or anyone else in the federal government had reviewed Obama's birth certificate or determined Obama was eligible to be president. It simply did not happen.



The question becomes if the Republican congress will have the character and courage to certify Obama or declare him ineligible to run for re-election in 2012?

If they don't, it will invite the formation of the "Birther Party" and ruin the reputation of the Republican Party.
 

Black Lion, you have to do some serious soul searching. Do you believe you are worthy of the vote?  If you do, by definition you need the basic facts necessary to cast an educated vote.  The most basic fact is proof of constitutional eligibility.

However if you believe as the progressive agenda believes that you are too stupid to be worthy of the vote,  then you will agree with the progressive agenda that you must blindly believe what they say.  You must be told what to believe and what to do.

That is our difference.  I believe I am worthy of the vote and willing to do my civic duty which means casting an educated vote.  Doing so requires that I see proof of a candidates constitutional eligibility when it is in doubt.

You do not believe yourself worthy so are willing to blindly believe what you ar told. 

When in doubt, just listen to this video.  You will quickly adopt this glazed over look on your face and blindly believe with even more dedication.  It's just not my style.

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/971845/

To each his own

My letter to Rush Limbaugh and the RNC:


I watched Eric Cantor on Meet the Press and cannot understand why Republicans have to be such wimps on the issue of Obama’s eligibility.

The Republican establishment cannot get it through its collective thick skull that if Republicans still believe that the voters are part of “We the People” and have not joined the Democrats in believing them part of the “Great Unwashed” th voters have the right to essential information to do their civic duty and cast an educated vote. The most essential information is if Obama satisfies the constitutional requirements to be president.

The courts assume that the people are too stupid to warrant legal “Standing” so cannot be affected by not knowing if a candidate is constitutionally qualified. They have said it is up to the congress to vet Obama.

We have a Republican congress with not only the ability but the obligation to vet the president for the sake of America and its citizens but I and others are beginning to question if they have the courage and character to do so.

They don‘t understand that if they don’t and instead act like wimps disrespecting the needs of the voter for facts, it will force the creation of the “Birther Party.” It will run on the platform that since both parties refuse to honor the Constitution as they have sworn to do, they have proven themselves unfit for office. The Birther Party if elected promises to respect both the Constitution and the voter by first acquiring and revealing if President Obama is constitutionally eligible or if a hoax has been perpetrated on the American people. If indeed America is suffering a hoax, the Birther Party promises to prosecute all involved to the fullest extent of the law.

I can just see a televised debate where the Birther candidate proudly holds up his birth certificate, Obama cries racism and the Republican says humuda humuda.

Of course the Birther Party will assure Obama’s re-election by splitting the conservative vote proving once again that Republican cowardice only serves to injure the constitution. They will continue to lose until enough new faces finally act from the quality of character and courage America is in dire need of.

I recently discovered The Constitution Society while researching Thoreau who had writen:

"They who know of no purer sources of truth, who have traced up its stream no higher, stand, and wisely stand, by the Bible and the Constitution, and drink at it there with reverence and humility; but they who behold where it comes trickling into this lake or that pool, gird up their loins once more, and continue their pilgrimage toward its fountainhead."


Anyhow, I found the constitution society site and it is well worth knowing about for people who want to understand more than talking points for fighting in the lake.

http://www.constitution.org/

This site aims to eventually provide almost everything one needs to accurately decide what is and is not constitutional in most situations, and what applicable constitutions require one to do. It is for constitutional decision support.

The Constitution Society is a private non-profit organization dedicated to research and public education on the principles of constitutional republican government. It publishes documentation, engages in litigation, and organizes local citizens groups to work for reform.

This organization was founded in response to the growing concern that noncompliance with the Constitution for the United States of America and most state constitutions is creating a crisis of legitimacy that threatens freedom and civil rights. Although the focus here is on government in the United States, coverage also includes the rest of the world, and private as well as public organizations. We maintain that the principles of constitutional republicanism are universal, and applicable to all nations, although not well understood or upheld by most. We also examine the related principles of federalism and nomocracy, the rule of law, of nomology, the science of law, and show how those principles are applicable to solving the fundamental problem of avoiding excessive or unbalanced concentrations of power.

We have a
Liberty Library of Constitutional Classics
collection that should be of interest to anyone seeking guidance on constitutional interpretation.

Much food for thought.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348916/Hawaii-governor-says-Obamas-birth-record-exists-produce-it.html


It isn't a matter of ill will or a personal battle.  It is a simple question of proving natural born citizenship for the purpose of eligibility.  Abercrombie is in a personal battle with me.  Why?  As someone sworn to support the Constitution, he should be supporting it rather than having a personal battle with me.

If the dog ate the birth certificate and  Obama cannot prove eligibility he must be removed.  This is no need for a personal battle with me but just respect justice as it pertains to the Constitution.  If Lingle and everone else lied and it doesn't exist, Obama cannot prove himself a natural born citizen.  He must be removed.  What is so hard to understand about this?

Of course if he believes the Constitution is subservient to the New Messiah, then of course I can see why he wants to do battle with me.  I still believe that the Constitution reflects the principles America was founded upon rather than being abolished to further the New Messiah.

All this means is that at one time the BC was there and has vanished.

Perhaps the dog ate it.  It could be either Greta or O'Reilly after being invited to see it so as to condescend to their viewers,  stuffed it in their briefcase. 

I don't know if either Greta or O'Reilly could be shrewd enough to pull this off.  Republican poodles on the other have been known to swallow anything.

The bottom line isthat  Obama must step down without proof of eligibility if congress has the guts to call him on it.

Todd Palin is a Man and part eskimo.  Sarah is often very busy with politics and away a lot.  Casual sex does not have all the idiotic connotations with many eskimos as it does with wimps in business suits caught up with all sorts of fantasies.

In short, the eskimos can appreciate casual sex from a healthier perspective.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2066/do-eskimo-men-lend-their-wives-to-strangers

There is a difference between a Man just being a Man and a man who makes sex into a negative egoistic expression for example by taking advantage of interns for a BJ.

Mrs. Jones had one too many and now we all suffer.  After being asked to write something down, everyone goes bonkers.

http://nation.foxnews.com/justice/2011/01/20/hawaii-governor-claims-record-obamas-birth-exists-archives-cant-produce-vital-doc#

Pressure was mounting on Hawaii Governor Neil Abercrombie today amid increasing confusion over whether President Obama was born there.
Abercrombie said on Tuesday that an investigation had unearthed papers proving Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961.
He told Honolulu's Star-Advertiser: 'It actually exists in the archives, written down,' he said.
But it became apparent that what had been discovered was an unspecified listing or notation of Obama's birth that someone had made in the state archives and not a birth certificate.

Of course he doesn't say that Mrs. Jones provided the name of the hospital and delivering doctor.  No, he just says something was written down. Much ado over nothing.

You can't write this stuff.  The only one making any sense was Mrs. Jones knocking down an extra scotch which caused this whole mess.  I feel like doing the same.

Out of curiousity I looked for that article on the Blaze.  As usual the eligibility issue is scorned by Beck.  There is something wrong here.  The fact that the gov. of Hawaii cannot find the BC should warrant some questions out of any conservative.

Maybe Beck believes we are being set up and Obama will releasse his BC and laugh at everyone.  Doesn't he realize that if true, his joke is coasting the taxpayer two million in legal fees to protect the joke.  Then there is LTC Lakin,  an honorable member of the military sworn to uphold the constitution and doing just that, in jail because of his joke.

If Obama ever did that, it would be a crime.

Something is wrong and I just hope that Beck is not being intimidated in a way even you and I would find surprising.  All I know is that it doesn't make sense and I tend to suspect the worst.