The Ornery Conservative

Americans Need to Raise Their Presidential Expectations

brantleyoakey@gmail.com (The Oakeys) — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 21:55:00 +0000

In my opinion, one glaring common denominator between Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama is that each is a dishonorable man, and we the people have suffered because we elected these men who broke our trust and have failed us. If there is one lesson to be learned from these men, it is that Americans need to raise their expectations for presidential candidates. Why don't we demand more of candidates to whom we will entrust the the greatest power and responsibility? Let me illustrate.

If you were to apply to the FBI, you would quickly find out that the FBI doesn't allow any old Bill, George, or Barry to join its ranks. The bureau will spend an extensive amount of time (up to a year) investigating your background. They will talk to former teachers, landlords, colleagues, etc.; they will do whatever it takes to understand who you are as a person. Is this person honest? Does this person have integrity? Has this person treated others fairly? Can this person be trusted? These are a few of the questions the bureau will answer before making a hiring decision. Next, they will look at your use of drugs. Essentially, if you have done anything more than experiment with marijuana in your youth, you are disqualified, and they will verify whatever information you give them through the use of polygraph test, so you can't lie or falsely minimize your use--"But I didn't inhale." In short, they only want people of the highest moral quality, and no exceptions are made.

Every state bar in America also employs fairly high standards in deciding whether or not to grant someone a license to practice law. If you are dishonest or evasive in any way about your past, you will be rejected or disbarred as soon as the bar finds out the truth. Or if you behaved in any way that reflects to the bar that you lack character fitness, you will be disciplined. Just ask President Clinton. After the legal proceedings concerning his White-House adventures, the Arkansas Bar suspended his license for 5 years for giving misleading answers during discovery.

So, let me be plain about what I'm getting at. Barack Obama called himself a "junkie pothead" who frequently used marijuana and used cocaine when he could afford it. If Obama were to apply to the FBI, he would be rejected by the FBI based solely on his drug use without even meriting a full background check. Yet, he managed to be elected president. George W. would be rejected from the FBI because of his DUI conviction. Bill Clinton was deemed not fit to be lawyer, but continued as our president. What is wrong with us that we let liars, junkies, and cheats assume the role of president in America? Shouldn't the Office of the President require higher standards than FBI field agents or attorneys, not lower?

I believe that we the people need to require of all presidential candidates that they have never used drugs period. Like the FBI agents, we should require these candidates to submit to a polygraph test to verify that they have been candid about their past. While we're at it, let's use the polygraph test immediately preceding the primary elections to make sure each candidate was truthful on the campaign trail as well. There is no reason whatsoever that we should have to put up with dishonest men when there is a large quantity of good, honorable men in this country whom we could actually respect and who would keep their promises.

Follow me on twitter.

So Begins the Rise of Competing Currency

brantleyoakey@gmail.com (The Oakeys) — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 22:01:00 +0000

It was inevitable. With a government that continues to devalue our currency, using a fiat system that drains us of our wealth, it was only a matter a time before Americans started coming up with new currencies. You can be certain that in the coming years, if our country continues to use a Federal Reserve System, you will see more an more Americans begin to barter and use precious metals to pay for goods and services. That is exactly what has begun to occur in Michigan. Watch the video below.

The Constitution prohibits the states' ability to coin money, so it is hard to imagine any successful attempt from any state to form its own currency, but there is no reason why Americans can't reject the Federal Reserve note and simply use US Mint gold and silver, or any other gold and silver for that matter.

As always, I encourage you to subscribe to The Ornery Conservative. It's easy and free. Also, you can follow me on Twitter for updates.

Mcdonald v. Chicago: Landmark in the Making

brantleyoakey@gmail.com (The Oakeys) — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 20:25:00 +0000

In June of this year, the Supreme Court of the US will pronounce its ruling in a case that will have a far-reaching effect on Americans today and on future generations. It will be nothing short of a landmark ruling. It’s the case that Gun rights advocates have long waited for. They have the right claimant, and they have the right judges. The question is whether or not there is viable clause in the Constitution to allow a ruling in favor of gun rights.

Background

The perfect party to a lawsuit goes a long way in helping a lawyer advocate his cause. Here, Mr. Mcdonald is suing the City of Chicago for depriving him of the opportunity to own a gun for self defense. Mcdonald’s background is the ideal life sketch for advocates of the Second Amendment. He is a war veteran and clearly knows how to safely handle a gun. He has no criminal history, disallowing Chicago any argument that Mr. Mcdonald is dangerous. Finally, he has been robbed in his home three times. Cast under the light of Mr. Mcdonald’s background, a gun ban seems particularly oppressive.

Interestingly, the state of Illinois actually has a clause in its constitution that guarantees the right to bear arms but allows for police regulation. The city of Chicago argued that a handgun ban is within the right granted by the state constitution for police regulation. Because the state offered no redress for the handgun ban, the only chance Mr. Mcdonald has to win his case is for the Supreme Court to incorporate the Second Amendment, making it a guaranteed right to all citizens in all states.

The reader may recall that the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, which was decided in 2008, ruled that the Second Amendment did not merely grant the right to form a militia but granted a right to personally bear arms. Heller, however, only granted this right within federal enclaves as the Second Amendment has not yet been incorporated.

Bill of Rights and Incorporation

As it stands, nearly all of the Bill of Rights has been incorporated through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, meaning that these rights are guaranteed to all citizens and cannot be encroached upon by any state or local government in addition to being inviolable by the Federal Government. The Fifth Amendment clause for grand jury indictment and the Seventh Amendment clause for a jury or civil trial are the only other clauses besides the Second Amendment that have not been incorporated. This process of guaranteeing substantive rights through the Fourteenth Amendment or “substantive due process,” has been heavily criticized in its use to prohibit sodomy laws and allow abortion, and few critics have been as poignant as Antonin Scalia, who is ironically the most outspoken proponent of gun rights as an ROTC graduate and avid hunter.

Issue Before the Court

The issue for the court is whether or not the Second Amendment is a fundamental right guaranteed to all citizens, inviolable by state regulation, and under what legal doctrine to make this ruling.

A Tale of Two Clauses

To incorporate the second amendment, the Supreme Court will either use the Due Process Clause or the Privileges and Immunities Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment. In the oral arguments that were made at the beginning of March, Attorney Gura, counsel for Mr. Mcdonald, argued that the court should view the right to bear arms as an unenumerated right that is protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause. Essentially, Gura argues that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right that predates the Constitution and must be guaranteed to all Americans even if there were no Second Amendment.

To adopt the Privileges and Immunities approach, the court would have to overrule the Slaughterhouse cases, which have been the precedent for the last 140 years and state that the Privileges and Immunities Clause affects only citizenship of the United States and not state citizenship. Furthermore, many people fear that allowing such an argument would be opening Pandora’s Box, as it were, by allowing yet another angle for lawsuits on other controversial issues. For instance, if the court adopts Gura’s argument, then it is foreseeable that others will file suits arguing that gay marriage, healthcare, and housing are fundamental rights protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause, which would make it impossible for the states to prohibit gay marriage as is done in over thirty state constitutions or could force each state to provide healthcare and housing to its citizenry. Mr. Gura’s response to this argument is that there is clear, historical evidence to support the claim that gun ownership is a right that has been enjoyed before the inception of the US and was clearly intended to be so by the founders; whereas, he argues there is no such historical evidence for gay marriage, healthcare, or housing.

So, to rule in favor of Mr. Mcdonald the five conservative, or nearly conservative, justices must either further expand substantive due process which most have maligned as a total misapplication of the Due Process Clause, or they must overturn the Slaughterhouse Cases, reopening a question of state sovereignty.

My Thoughts

On the one hand the Supreme Court has already grossly abused the Due Process Clause, and it has been done to further a liberal agenda. In light of this, I don’t have a problem with the court using the same tool to finally protect the darling of the conservatives. On the other hand, one abuse does not warrant another. In other words, two wrongs don’t make a right, and I would rather err on the side of protecting States’ rights.

If it were up to me, I would overturn all the Supreme Court rulings that have used the Due Process Clause to grant substantive rights, as the clause was clearly intended to be procedural. However, I would also overturn the Slaughterhouse Cases; and if Mr. Gura can show to the satisfaction of the court enough evidence that gun ownership is a ante-Constitutional, fundamental right such that it fits the Privileges and Immunities Clause, then it ought to be incorporated under that clause and held inviolate even from state and local governments, and the same goes for abortion and sodomy.

This is all wishful thinking, however, as it would require the court to vacate Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas, and several other influential cases. So, in light the current juridical terrain, I believe that Justice Scalia and others will simply swallow a large helping of humble pie and further employ substantive due process to rule in favor of Mr. Mcdonald. Such a ruling would be the path of least resistance for the court. I will also predict that in addition to ruling that all citizens of the United States, irrespective of state citizenship, have the right to own handguns the court will note that state regulations of “open carry” laws and “concealed carry” laws are constitutional and well within the states’ rights of police powers.

As always, I encourage you to subscribe to The Ornery Conservative. It's easy and free. Also, you can follow me on Twitter for updates.

Obama's "Green Jobs" Go to Prisoners

brantleyoakey@gmail.com (The Oakeys) — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 20:20:00 +0000

Watch this video which is an interesting radio clip about how federal statute mandates that the federal government buy products produced by prisoners and how prisoners are now performing "green jobs."

What are your thoughts on this? Is this what you had in mind when Obama talked about America being the leader of the "green economy?"

I personally am ok with putting inmates to work, but I'd like all the profits to go towards paying for expenses of housing the prisoners. It's hardly fair to use tax payer dollars to pay to keep the prisoners and then also take jobs from taxpayers and let others profit from the low wages of the prisoners.

Reader Question: What chemicals are in vaccines?

brantleyoakey@gmail.com (The Oakeys) — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:11:00 +0000

In response to the post Should You Get the H1N1 Vaccine? and Swine Flu Deja Vu I received a number of questions asking if I knew what chemicals and agents are in vaccinations. Here is a list of common chemicals that are found in vaccines:

Phenol (carbolic acid): A deadly poison; a common disinfectant and dye.

Formaldehyde: A known cancer-causing agent commonly used to embalm corpses.

Thimerosal (a mercury derivative): A toxic heavy metal that is not easily eliminated from the body; used as a preservative in vaccines. Can result in brain injury and autoimmune disease. In one study, Thimerosal was shown to be 4 to 6 times more toxic for human cells than for the staphylococci germs.

Alum: A preservative.

Aluminum phosphate: Toxic.

Aluminum & oil adjuvants: Cancer-producing in laboratory mice; also associated with Alzheimer’s disease and seizures. Research findings strongly suggest that aluminum is neurotoxic. The main side effects of oil adjuvants have been hypersensitivity reactions, cysts and adjuvant arthritis.

Acetone: A solvent used in fingernail polish remover.

Glycerin: A tri-atomic alcohol extracted from natural fats which are putrefied and decomposed. Some toxic effects of glycerin are kidney, liver, lung damage, diuresis, pronounced local tissue damage, gastrointestinal damage and death.

Ethylene glycol: Antifreeze.

Neomycin & Streptomycin: Antibiotics; have caused allergic reactions.

Note: When cancer causing elements are found in foods, they are either banned or an obvious warning label appears on the packages. After few accidents, consumer goods are recalled, redesigned, or required to display warning labels (with good reason). There seems to be a double standard for vaccines, however. They hold "privileged status" when it comes to consumer confidence.

In addition to these key ingredients, there is an expansive list of fillers that are used depending on the vaccine and the producing company:

aluminum hydroxide
aluminum phosphate
ammonium sulfate
amphotericin B
animal tissues: pig blood, horse blood, rabbit brain,
dog kidney, monkey kidney,
chick embryo, chicken egg, duck egg
calf (bovine) serum
betapropiolactone
fetal bovine serum
formaldehyde
formalin
gelatin
glycerol
human diploid cells (originating from human aborted fetal tissue)
hydrolized gelatin
monosodium glutamate (MSG)
neomycin
neomycin sulfate
phenol red indicator
phenoxyethanol (antifreeze)
potassium diphosphate
potassium monophosphate
polymyxin B
polysorbate 20
polysorbate 80
porcine (pig) pancreatic hydrolysate of casein
residual MRC5 proteins
sorbitol
sucrose
thimerosal (mercury)
tri(n)butylphosphate
VERO cells, a continuous line of monkey kidney cells
washed sheep red blood cells

Resource: www.know-vaccines.org

Swine Flue Deja Vu

brantleyoakey@gmail.com (The Oakeys) — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 21:18:00 +0000

I recently wrote a post titled "Should You Get the H1N1 Vaccine?" Since that post, I discovered some very important information about the Swine Flue pandemic, though some of you may have already heard about this discovery.

If you're middle-aged American this whole "Swine Flue pandemic" thing might sound familiar. Why would it sound familiar? Oh yeah. Because it has been done once before in this country in 1976. The following two news clips are from CBS' 60 minutes and reveal some of the shortcomings of the H1N1 vaccine and some of the unscrupulous tactics of the government and pharmaceutical companies to create mass hysteria and sell mass quantities of vaccines. Of particular interest is the gross negligence on the part of the government in failing to release information concerning serious side effects and the commercials the government aired to persuade millions to get vaccinated. Interestingly, during the 1976 pandemic (or nondemic) the government focused on the elderly. Today, its children and pregnant women who are urged to get vaccinated. I'll let you draw the inferences from that observation.

As always, I encourage you to subscribe to The Ornery Conservative. It's easy and free. Also, you can follow me on Twitter for updates.

Should You Get the H1N1 Vaccine?

brantleyoakey@gmail.com (The Oakeys) — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 03:05:00 +0000

Here is a video of Gary Null at a NY hearing which took place after the state of New York tried to impose the H1N1 vaccine on all its citizens.

Read this article about how British Columbia will stop using the H1N1 vaccine in light of a study they did which suggests that persons who have received the vaccine are twice as likely to get the diesease.

Besides increasing your chances of contracting the disease, the vaccines have Thimerosol, which is a known neurotoxin that will destroy the synaptic connections in your brain. Because of Thimerosol and other dangerous chemicals, many persons have suffered irreparable neurological damage like the girl featured in the video below; it is especially dangerous for children.

The bottom line is that you have the right to self determination, i.e., the right to decide what goes in your body. If you choose to be vaccinated, make sure its an informed decision and not because someone tells you that you should.

Pelosi’s Healthcare Bill: a Terminal Disease

brantleyoakey@gmail.com (The Oakeys) — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 02:55:00 +0000

We have been fed serving after serving of compelling rhetoric by President Obama and the Spendocrats throughout this healthcare debate telling us that we must act now to help all those poor Americans who are not getting healthcare. The major problem we face in this bill and in many other political issues is that our crafty politicians know that when they shroud their agenda into an argument that plays on Americans’ generosity and desire for equality they can sell us a ticking time-bomb and we’ll buy it with a smile on our face and give our life savings for it. This bill would be a terminal disease for America for so many reasons; I’ve briefly underlined just a few of the major issues involved with passing this bill.

Irreversibility

One of the biggest problems I have with socialistic programs like Medicare and this healthcare bill is that they are essentially irreversible. Don’t think for a moment that when this legislation blows up and costs go through the roof that the Democrats will say “oops. We messed up. I guess we’re going to scrap this legislation.” Nor, will the Republicans be able to do reverse the bill because there will be millions of people receiving free healthcare who would be outraged. So, just like Medicare trudges on in spite of the fact that it is a failed program, so too will this legislation continue to grow and overburden Americans until it finally breaks us.

Unaffordability

The fact that this bill is called the “Affordable Health Care for America Act” is a farce. There is nothing affordable about this bill. The CBO estimates that this bill will cost over $1 trillion dollars in the first decade. I think it is rather self-evident that Congress has a long history of underestimating costs of its proposed bills, and it is doing so with this bill. There is no way we can afford this. Please understand, first and foremost, that the estimation is skewed because the government will collect revenue for 10 years to give 7 years of service. So, what happens for the next ten years? Also, keep in mind that Pelosi and the Spendocrats cut out the $250 billion that will be given to doctors. They are going to pass a separate bill for doctors’ compensation to avoid adding the number to the total cost of this bill—only in Washington is such a tactic rational or ethical.

Pelosi plans on paying for this trillion-dollar disaster by taxing the wealthiest people in America; specifically, she wants to raise taxes to an astounding 45% on all persons who earn over $500,000. Mark my words; this will not happen. These people are not going to sit idly by while their wealth is plundered, nor is there any way that this tax will be able to sustain the massive cancer of costs that this bill would create. The cost of running Medicare has doubled every four years since 1966. The reality is that this program will probably cost around $3 trillion by the end of the first decade and will grow unrestrained until it brings us to our death bed.

What about the Medicare cuts? President Obama said this bill would be paid for by Medicare cuts; what about that? Good question. Supposedly, the federal government, which hasn’t cut costs since Regan was there, is going to raise $400 billion by cutting out waste in Medicare. Well, I say if it’s that easy to cut the Medicare costs, why hasn't Washington done it? Do that first and then come talk to me about healthcare reform. Even if Washington can cut $400 billion—I’m not buying it—but even if they can, that’s not going to cover the tab when this thing doubles or triples or worse in the coming years. Remember, Medicare currently has $34 trillion in unpaid liabilities. That’s just for the elderly. What’s going to happen when you allow the government to take over healthcare for everyone.

2048 Pages

Perhaps the single scariest facet of this bill is that it is an incomprehensible mess. You do not need 2048 pages to state what they have said this bill states. No ordinary American and most of Congress does not really know what is in this bill. We don't know what little surprises this behemoth is hiding? If Washington wanted to play straight with Americans, they would write a lucid and legible bill, and I’m not buying this notion that legislative language has to be this way; this bill is deliberately protracted and obscure. To vote for this bill is to hand Obama, Pelosi and the Spendocrats a blank check and say “I don’t know what you’re doing, but I trust you.”

I agree that our healthcare system needs to be reformed, but this bill embodies the worst possible solution to the problem, which is why I only slightly disagree with the Wall Street Journal when it says this bill is the “worst bill ever.” It’s not the worst bill ever; that award goes to the Cap-and-Trade bill, but this healthcare bill is a close second.

Subscribe to The Ornery Consevative.

Update to NJ Indoctrination

brantleyoakey@gmail.com (The Oakeys) — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 22:22:00 +0000

Last week I posted a piece about the offensive indoctrination song that was sung by children at the Bernice Young Elementary school under the leadership of Denise King, principal of the school. If you missed the post, here is a link.

Today, October 12, 2009, 70 protesters met outside of the elementary school while the school was in session and demonstrated against the school for its indoctrination of youth. Click here to read the AP News article.

Offensive Indoctrination Video

brantleyoakey@gmail.com (The Oakeys) — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 02:17:00 +0000

This video popped up and was all over FOX news for a couple of days at the end of September. I wanted to post the video for those that have not seen it; and once you've seen it, I have a couple brief thoughts about the video.

Indoctrination

It is completely unfair to teach children to praise Obama or the Democrats. Doesn't this seem Orwellian? What's different between teaching children that Obama is such a great president and savior and the indoctrination in 1984 that Big Brother is so good and will always take care of us?

Irreverence

I think I'm at least equally offended if not more offended by the fact that the tune of the second song is the "Battle Hymn of the Republic." How dare that teacher sing about Obama's "great accomplishments" (I'd like to know what those are) to the tune of a song that is sacred to America. What's more is that the Battle Hymn of Republic is deeply spiritual, referencing Christ on many occasions. In fact, most churches keep it in their cannon of hymns that are sung by choirs all over this country as a way to worship Christ; and yet, the principal of Bernice Young Elementary somehow thought it appropriate to use this hymn to praise Obama, a man who is Christian only by name and only for political gain. I find this song to be deeply sacrilegious.

Denise King

In case you are outraged by this video or by the offensive use of our sacred song and want to know the person responsible, it is Ms. Denise King, principal of Bernice Young Elementary. Ms. King stated that she has no remorse for this Obama song and would allow it happen again. If you think this is outrageous and want to let Ms. King know your thoughts, here is her email: dking@burltwpsch.org

Must See ACORN Video

brantleyoakey@gmail.com (The Oakeys) — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 02:23:00 +0000

ACORN, The Association of Community Organization for Reform Now, is once again receiving some negative attention for their illegal methods. ACORN, an organization dear to President OBama, has been caught committing voter fraud, cheating on taxes, breaking into foreclosed homes, and now watch as two members of ACORN rack up 8 more illegal actions in this video. This is an undercover video with this basic test: James O' Keefe and Hanna Giles pretend to be a pimp and his prostitute who are seeking Acorn's help in setting up their illegal business, buying a house, and trafficking minors from El Salvador to also be pimped out. The idea behind this test, according to James O'Keefe, was that this test would "bare ACORN's true soul."

Remember, this organization is run by your tax dollars.

On Health Care

brantleyoakey@gmail.com (The Oakeys) — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 06:06:00 +0000

After reading much of the healthcare bill and listening to the arguments made on both sides, I have decided that this bill is horrible. I began with an open mind, but it did not take long to realize that this bill is bad policy. Here are my reasons:

Government Control:

I can never support any bill that grows the central government and provides more ways for the Federal government to control our lives. This bill would increase taxes on everyone, but especially small business owners at a rate of 8% of gross revenue. It would allow the government to dictate to insurance companies what their profits can be. It would allow the government to dictate to our doctors what medicines and treatments to use. It provides for an implantable RFID device (That’s right. Another governmental attempt to implant us all. More on this later.). The bottom line is that this bill is a giant step forward down the path of quashing your freedom.

We Can’t Afford It

All across the country, people are forced to postpone purchases because they simply cannot afford it. This idea of getting only what you can pay for hasn’t occurred to Washington, and we cannot afford this healthcare bill. They say it will cost $1 trillion initially, but who really knows. Inevitably, it will cause us to go further into debt, print more dollars, and raise taxes—as if we’re not taxed enough.

Governmental Administrative Failure

According to Representative Louis Gohmert, the expense for Medicaid and Medicare is roughly $9,200 per year per household. Gohmert concluded “we’re not getting our money’s worth.” If the government runs Medicaid and Medicare this inefficiently, how do you think they will do with a comprehensive healthcare program? That’s scary, isn’t it? So, my next question is what government programs would you argue are run efficiently? Seriously, think about it for a minute. What program or even what agency that is under the direct control of the Federal government embodies sound administrative execution? Get back to me on that one.

Dissent on Moral Grounds

Finally, I disapprove of this bill on moral grounds. As Representative Paul Broun said, “this bill will kill people.” I cannot support a bill that allows bureaucrats to say they won’t approve a certain treatment because it costs too much. I cannot support a bill that casts seniors aside. The bill is ethically wrong, and I’m shocked that the Democrats can find even 10% approval from amongst the general public on this issue.

Finally, I wanted to elaborate a bit on the implantable chip because no one else is mentioning it. You’ll find it all the way down in Section 2521 of Subtitle C. National Medical Device Registry under Title V. Other Provisions. Essentially, the bill states that a class II implantable chip will be used on each person who seeks coverage under this policy. The chip is an implantable radiofrequency transponder device, which has already been approved by the FDA. The basic idea is that the chip would hold all your medical records and insurance claims, which could be scanned by any medical personnel to access medical information more quickly and readily, but it could also hold any other information that they deem necessary, not to mention the ability to track your location wherever you are.

This is, as far as I can tell, the same end result they were pushing for with the Real ID Act that America rejected as a gross intrusion of privacy. Now, they are sneaking it in the back door on page 1001 of the healthcare bill.

I’m not against my medical provider keeping my medical records. I get the point. And if my medical provider ever does end up to be the government, I would want the government to know about all my medical conditions, but they can keep this information on a good, old-fashioned hard rive that rests outside of my body. They do not need to implant me. They do not need a radio transponder device inside of me to provide good health care. This is 1984 meets the Book of Revelations, and I’ll have no part of it. You can keep your healthcare Mr. Obama. I’ll keep my freedom.

Did you like this article? Subscribe for free to The Ornery Conservative.

They're Rolling Over in Their Graves

brantleyoakey@gmail.com (The Oakeys) — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:01:00 +0000

I had to post this video; it is so clever. Enjoy.

Federal Judge Refuses Injunction on Proposition 8

brantleyoakey@gmail.com (The Oakeys) — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 18:22:00 +0000

The Proposition 8 battle wages on, and I am sure that it will inevitably make its way to the Supreme Court. On Thursday, Federal Judge Vaughn Walker ruled against a request for injunction that was filed by those opposed to Proposition 8. Here is an excerpt of the email I received from Anthony Pugno, general counsel of protectmarriage.com concerning the ruling:

Dear Friend,

I write with great news from San Francisco! Our Proposition 8 Legal Defense Fund has won a key victory in the early rounds of the latest legal assault against traditional marriage.

As you know, on the heels of our victory at the California Supreme Court to uphold Prop 8, a new legal challenge was filed in May, this time in Federal Court, to invalidate the will of the people. Their claim is that Prop 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Notably, they asked the Federal Courts to suspend Prop 8 while this lawsuit works its way through the courts, which would have reopened the floodgates of same-sex marriage licenses in California.

Today, in yet another victory for traditional marriage, Judge Vaughn Walker refused to grant the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction designed to put Prop 8 on hold. The Court’s action supports the will of the people who voted to restore the definition of traditional marriage last November as between a man and a woman, and for that we are grateful.

Marriage between a man and a woman predates government, is recognized as the foundation of the family and has been the will of the people in California and 43 other states every time the people have been allowed to vote on the issue. Today’s ruling maintains the time-honored meaning of marriage. Any argument that the longstanding meaning of marriage that has served humanity for many millenniums somehow violates basic Constitutional rights is preposterous, and we are confident that this early victory in the latest challenge foretells an ultimate victory for marriage in the courts, even if we must go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Equal Protection Clause

The Equal Protection Clause, which is the foundation of this legal challenge, is part of the 14^th Amendment and says “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The clause is only that part that has been made bold, but I included the rest of the first section of the 14^th amendment for context. Passed in 1868, the fourteenth amendment was especially meant to protect former slaves, though it has been used in many cases that claim discrimination toward racial minorities, women, handicapped persons, homosexuals, and voters (Bush vs. Gore), though most of the time it has been used in vain as a legal challenge.

Similar Arguments

In Romer vs. Evans, Justice Scallia argued that “the Constitution does not prohibit what virtually all States had done from the founding of the Republic until very recent years—making homosexual conduct a crime." The same argument could be used concerning marriage. The constitution does not speak on homosexual marriage, but the republic has had laws against it since the inception of the country, so how could it be said to be unconstitutional? Rehnquist joined the dissent, arguing that the Constitution makes no mention of this subject, so it should be left to “normal democratic means.”

The Case in a Nutshell

In this case, the plaintiff (gay community) will argue that marriage is a fundamental right, and that Proposition 8 is depriving them of that right, appealing to the Equal Protection Clause. The defense (protectmarrigage.com) will probably make a couple arguments. First, marriage predates government and the constitution and has always been the appellate for the union of a man and a woman. They will also argue something to the effect that it was not a governmental body that gave the idea for the law, but was the will of the people of California, and that it was done fairly and correctly.

Implications

If they affirm Proposition 8, the Supreme Court will be saying that the will of the people is the ultimate authority in the states, and that certain groups may be forced to make sacrifices to uphold that will. In reality, however, the justices could easily argue that no rights are being infringed; gays still can unite themselves in a civil union, adopt children, receive tax breaks, etc.

On the other hand, if the Supreme Court overturns Proposition 8, then they will be saying in effect, that the will of the people is not the ultimate authority in the individual states. They will be saying that laws cannot be passed on the basis of perceived morality, and they will open the doors to new legal challenges regarding bigamy, incest, bestiality, etc; for, how can they say that homosexuals are being discriminated and still prosecute others for these other sexual preferences. If it is overturned, it would assuredly lead to legislation that would make same-sex marriage legal in every state.

For me, I see this whole movement as a degradation of our society. How broad a scope do we allow this Equal Protection Clause to have? At what point will morality be so far removed from our society that there will be no boundaries in our behavior? When will incest become accepted? When will prisoners claim protection under the Equal Protection Clause? When will Sex Offenders claim that being forced to register is a violation of this clause? In other words, would an overturn of this ruling help protect a discriminated class of our society or would it show that we are simply becoming ever more amoral and wicked? Will it start a slippery slope of litigation that plunges us further and further from the god-fearing, religiously stout, country we were in our infancy? My prayer is that the Supreme Court will, when the time comes, uphold the sacred institution of marriage as the bonding of a man and a woman.

H.R. Bill 2454: Selling Out the American Economy

brantleyoakey@gmail.com (The Oakeys) — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:06:00 +0000

I’m amazed to a degree that I have not often felt because of the passing of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. I’m amazed that Americans and even congressmen can be so easily sold. Perhaps it’s my five years experience as a sales manager that makes it so easy for me to sniff out a sales pitch, and all hoopla and rhetoric from Obama, Gore, Pelosi and others is nothing if not a shameless sales pitch. We’ve been told over and over (as if we were 3^rd graders) that this bill will give us more jobs. Isn’t that wonderful? Don’t you boys and girls want more jobs? Just like the stimulus package was supposed to be about more jobs; that worked out great, didn't it?

If you haven’t learned it yet, there is one lesson that every American needs to internalize when deciphering whether or not a bill will be beneficial. Just forget what the politicians say, the professional pitchmen, and just look at what will happen. Here’s what you, the American people are getting:

· Satisfaction that are reducing green house gases, specifically carbon, though carbon is a naturally occurring gas that has never been shown to be harmful.

· Satisfaction of knowing that America is leading the way to creating a greener earth.

Now these two outcomes are certainly not bad in any way. We can all agree it’s good to try to be as green as we can, but let’s look at the price you will have to pay. If this bill passes, these effects are certain:

· Higher costs for electricity. In fact, you may be paying as much as double what are you currently paying.

· Immediate additional expenses for all business to pay for carbon credits under the cap and trade program, which will add roughly 2-3 trillion dollars of extra expenses by 2012 for the businesses that provide the products and services we use. These businesses will either pass the expense on to you increasing your expenses or close down because foreign companies will be able to produce or provide these services at a cheaper price.

· A massive loss of jobs; estimated to be as much as 1.3 million jobs each year.

· A massive spider-web-like bureaucracy that will invent many new regulatory agencies and expand many current agencies. In fact, the ever growing American bureaucracy is the only venue that will see new jobs.

We all want the satisfaction of cleaner air and cleaner energy, but this bill is the most wrong way to go about it. As long as we’re using the metaphor of the sales process, let me tell you how this transaction happened in the House. This bill is a 1200 page monster that was given to the members of the House less than 24 hours before the vote. Then, at 3:09 AM, the morning before the vote, another 300 page amendment was dumped into the mix. Ask yourself would you sign a contract that obligates you and your family to pay 30-40 percent higher energy costs, pay higher rates for goods and services, ship American money overseas to plant more trees in India, for instance, and cause some of your neighbors to lose their jobs all without reading the contract? If you are saying “Absolutely Not,” well, guess what? You absolutely just did through your elected Representative. John Boehner, Representative from Ohio, said in his speech on the floor of the House, “This is the biggest job-killing bill that has ever been on the floor of the House of Representatives in the history of this country.”

The only way to get greener energy is to force the Democrats to untie our hands and let us drill more oil, produce more nuclear energy, and use our tax dollars to build solar and wind energy sources instead of using it to grow government. It must be a gradual process, not overnight mandates that will snuff out every energy-intensive industry in our economy. I urge you to call your senator, not write, call your senator and make sure he understands that you want this bill blocked. It will be up to the Senate to save us from this impending disaster.

The following two clips are from Tom Mcclintock, Republican representative from California, and John Boehner, Republican from Ohio. Watch them both.

If you want to know who will benefit from this bill, read my blog post "Al Gore: Moral Leader or Mega Salesman," and as always you can subscribe for free to The Ornery Conservative to get automatic updates.

UNCRC: Attack on Your Rights as a Parent

brantleyoakey@gmail.com (The Oakeys) — Wed, 20 May 2009 16:23:00 +0000

By Lori Sevedge; Guest Author

There is a threat looming in this country that could greatly impact the family, stifle our freedoms and compromise American sovereignty, and most people are not even aware it exists. The threat is the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) that Bill Clinton signed back in 1995 but was never sent to the Senate to be ratified. Now that Barack Obama is in office and the Democrats have control of both houses, its chances for ratification are greater than ever.

The UNCRC is an international treaty which grants civil, political, economical, social, and cultural rights to children. It also sets up a committee which will consist of ten “experts” whose job is to monitor the progress of countries that have signed on to the treaty to assure that they are “achieving the realization of the obligations undertaken in the the present Convention.” So far every country has signed the treaty except for two, Somalia and the United States.

There is a reason that America has been withholding its ratification. Article VI of the United States Constitution states that any treaty we sign “shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby.” Therefore our signature would not only obligate us to abide by every aspect of the treaty, but it would become equal to our constitution and would trump any state law that is found to be in violation of the treaty.

It would not be a major concern if the only rights this treaty granted were those that are already considered crimes against children. However, the UNCRC goes much further than that. Some of the rights granted in this treaty are “freedom of expression,” “freedom of thought,” “conscience or religion,” the “freedom of association,” a right to “privacy”, and even a right to “engage in play.” These may sound great, as some of these are rights spelled out in our own constitution, however since these are children and not adults, parents could be found in violation for teaching children there is only one way to heaven, not allowing them enough play time, or going through their personal items to make sure they are not using drugs.

The ability of the parent to direct the upbringing of their child in accordance with their own religious and moral beliefs will be gone. This threat is very real as there have already been cases here in the United States in which judges have cited the UNCRC in their decision even though it has not yet been ratified. Michael Farris, a constitutional lawyer and professor, has personally overseen cases in the United States in which parental rights were taken away by judges. In one case, a family was ordered to stop taking their child to church more than once a week. The judge felt that going to church 3 times a week, as many Christians do, was “too much church.” Another case involved a child who was caught using drugs: Her parents punished her by not allowing her to attend the prom. Even though the judge agreed that the punishment was not unreasonable, he still ruled that the parents had to let their daughter go. In both situations, the parents had to obey the judges orders or risk losing custody of their own child!

There are many other rights also granted in this treaty. Children are guaranteed the right to a certain “standard of living,” the right to benefit from “social security, including social insurance” and to the “highest attainable standard of health.” It also says that higher education must be “accessible to all.” We would not only be expected to foot the bill for these social programs in our own country, but we would be obligated to help other countries who could not afford to do so. It will be up to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, not American voters, to decide what constitutes a proper standard of living and proper healthcare.

The Committee on the UNCRC has already deemed that corporal punishment is child abuse; and if the treaty is ratified, spanking would become illegal in all 50 states. The committee has also made statements that reveal they believe reproductive health (which includes access to abortions) must be available to all girls without parental consent. They have even found countries out of compliance with the treaty for allowing parents to opt their child out of sex education programs in school.

America was founded on the belief that men and women were to be free. We fought against taxation without representation and rebelled against being ruled by a King overseas. Laws in this country should be made by the officials of our own government who are citizens of our country and have been elected by the people they rule. We should never sign any document that gives up our sovereignty to an international body. That is exactly what we will be doing if we sign this treaty.

There is a movement to protect the rights of parents against this impending threat. On March 31st Rep. Pete Hoekstra introduced into Congress the Parental Rights Amendment. This proposed amendment to the constitution will define parental rights as fundamental and states that no treaty, or any other source of international law, will be able to supersede that right. It is kept very basic and written in a manner that will protect parents but still allow states to interfere in cases of child abuse or neglect. It is there to protect the sovereignty of our nation as well as to uphold the rights of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children. To learn more about this impending threat and the proposed amendment visit parentalrights.org or parentsrights.us. You may also track the progress of the amendment and the fight against the UNCRC by following my blog; Support Parental Rights.

Montana Asserts States' Rights with New Gun Bill

brantleyoakey@gmail.com (The Oakeys) — Sat, 09 May 2009 06:41:00 +0000

By my estimation, there are but few states remaining where the government still functions the way the Founding Fathers intended and the way it functioned in the infancy of our nation: limited in size and scope and focused on preserving the liberty of its citizens. So, while many of the states in our union are enchanted by the pied-piping of Comrade Obama, leading them to the magical land of socialism, frought with goodies like free healthcare, jobs for everyone, and debt no one has to pay, Montana has asserted its authority by passing a revolutionary gun law--and I mean revolutionary in at least two different ways.

The Main Points

The House Bill No. 246, also called the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, will take affect on October 1, 2009 and makes the following points:

· Guns and Ammo manufactured in Montana do not require any registration forms.

· Gun Accessories, including silencers, made in Montana are legal and do not require any registration.

· There would be no firearm registration, serial numbers, criminal records check, waiting periods or paperwork required.

Other States to Follow

In a recent article on KSL, Rep. Carl Wimmer of Utah said he plans on introducing a similar bill in the great state of Utah. A recent article published by a news station in Nashville reports that Tennessee has a similar bill coming up for vote soon. It seems that Montana may have supplied the audacity that other states have been hoping for. This revolutionary gun law brings about change in our country, not change toward socialism or statism, but a change for good, bringing us back to where we belong: with our liberty in tact. The question is what will happen next?

What Will Happen

I’m not much at prophesying, but my best guess is that this will go to the Supreme Court where the Men in Black will decide the constitutionality of this law. I recommend you read the text of the bill. From my point of view, it seems that Montana is well within their constitutional rights; the bill cites the 10^th, 9^th, and 2^nd amendments as the foundation to make such a law. If the Supreme Court rules that this bill is unconstitutional—and it seems they would have to offer a novel interpretation of the Constitution to do so—you very well may see Montana vote on a bill to secede from the union. At least, that is what they have said they will do in previous legislation. Either way, this is a bold move and should be exciting to watch. I laud Montana for its zeal to protect the liberty of its citizens from an ever-growing central government that frankly is not what our ancestors signed on for.

If you like our articles, please subscribe for free to The Ornery Conservative.

“Remaking America”: Obama’s First 100 Days

brantleyoakey@gmail.com (The Oakeys) — Sat, 02 May 2009 06:32:00 +0000

In his speech in Arnold, Missouri, commemorating his first 100 days in office, President Obama said “we've begun the work of remaking America.” While his followers no doubt swelled with pride, I and millions of other Americans cringed at the truth of his statement. For someone who has been more despised than any other American figure for morphing America into a socialist state, Wednesday night’s statement was a bad choice on the part of his teleprompter and was a case of what I like to call rhetoric gone wrong. So, let’s just see how Comrade Obama has “remade” America.

American Investment and Recovery Act

Signed by Barack Obama on February 17, 2009, the American Investment and Recovery Act was a landmark legislation, wherein Congress (not really congress, but Democrats) approved a bill that would spend at least $787 billion dollars on various expenditures. It was laden with some 8,000 earmarks and was viewed by many as the most obscene wasteful spending this country has ever witnessed. President Obama showed in endorsing this legislation that he was willing to allow wasteful spending, that he was willing to allow earmarks, and that his strategy for economic difficulty will be to borrow and spend.

Besides the excessive spending, this bill proved that neither President Obama nor any Democrats are worried about reading the legislation they passed. At the behest of President Obama, the final version of the bill was delivered to Congress at 11 p.m. the night of February 12, and it was passed on February 13, giving Congress less than 24 hours to read a bill that was over 1,000 pages long. This ridiculous lack of legislative responsibility is but a single facet of new America that Obama is building.

$3.6 Trillion Budget

Besides an outrageous stimulus bill, Obama showed his love of excessive spending on February 26 by drafting the largest budget the country has ever seen. Coming in it at $3.6 trillion dollars, Obama’s budget will create a deficit of some $1.2 trillion each year for his one term as President, adding at least $5 trillion added to the national debt by the time he is voted out in 2012. House Minority Leader John Boehner said, “It puts all of this debt on the backs of our children and grandchildren. This is not the American way.” No, Mr. Boehner, America has been remade, or didn’t you hear?

GM Takeover

Also, in Obama’s new America, the federal government has turned businessman. On March 30, Obama oversaw the restructuring of leadership in GM, and the federal government is now a co-owner of the American automaker, following the example of China and some European countries. “What we’re starting to see again is the government beginning to act as if it is a business,” U.S. Representative Thaddeus McCotter said. He continued, “They are continuing to expand into the role of what the companies have traditionally done.” I guess Mr. McCotter didn’t hear that America has been remade either.

Omnibus Public Lands Management Act

Finally, despite all his rhetoric on finding new sources of Energy, on March 30, Obama put the kibosh on oil exploration in Utah by signing the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act, which made some 256,000 acres federally-protected wilderness. It has been said that Colorado and Utah have as much oil as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, Nigeria, Kuwait, Libya, Angola, Algeria, Indonesia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates combined. The new America Obama is making is not a self-sufficient one; he wants Americans always be at the end of the oil leash. At his speech on Earth Day, the President said, “we're not going to transform our economy overnight. We still need more oil, we still need more gas,” but he has thrown up roadblocks to domestic oil production. The undeniable fact is that there is an immense amount of oil waiting to be produced in America, but it won’t be produced under Obama’s watch.

Putting it All Together

So, let me paint you a picture of the “Remaking of America” that President Obama is engaged in, and you decide whether or not this is the America you believe in. In Obama’s America, the federal government grows perpetually, ever expanding its influence on your life. In Obama’s America, America spends way more than it earns and drives itself into a hole that will eventually bury itself. In Obama’s America, no one is accountable except you, the taxpayer. There is always a bailout, always someone else to blame, and always the American people get the bill. Companies and agencies are not allowed to fail, regardless of how irresponsible they have acted; only we are allowed to fail. In Obama’s America, we will forever be choked by oil and gas prices. In Obama’s America, there is no clear line between government and business; it seems there is no line that government won’t cross. And to top it off, Obama’s America is not a Christian country. What Obama’s first 100 days shows is that Obama's America isn’t the America we know at all.

If you liked this article, please subscribe for free to The Ornery Conservative.

Petition Your State’s Government to Reaffirm 10th Amendment

brantleyoakey@gmail.com (The Oakeys) — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 09:06:00 +0000

By Rob Viglione; Guest Author

CALL TO ACTION:

On April 9th Texas Gov. Rick Perry joined state Rep. Brandon Creighton and sponsors of House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 50 in support of states rights under the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The Tenth Amendment states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In his speech Gov. Perry states “I believe the federal government has become oppressive. I believe it has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion in the lives of its citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state.”

The Freedom Factory is launching a campaign to get every state government to adopt comparable legislation, reaffirming their legitimate rights within the context of a free American Republic.

We need to spread the word, to mobilize residents from every state in the Union to remind our public servants that we will not tolerate erosion of our rights and the Constitution that guarantees them.

Here’s a sample letter you are urged to send every public servant in your jurisdiction. Send this to your state’s governor and state legislatures, and leave a comment below to sign our petition:

The federal government has grown too big and too powerful, infringing upon the legal sovereign rights of our state affirmed by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. There is a resurgent federalist movement best highlighted by the Texas Legislature that I want implemented in [list your state]. The Texas legislature will soon be voting on House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 50 that reaffirms state sovereignty. We need similar legislation in our state.

No one in Washington D.C. knows how to run our state better than our own residents. I am tired of our government bowing to federal authority. I demand that we reassert our right to self governance. I urge you to do all you can to support this movement and regain control of our state from Washington D.C.

The residents of this state need you to protect them from a growing central government. I hope that you have the courage to stand up for those to whom you are responsible.

Here’s a great resource for finding the names and contact information for your elected representatives. Take a few minutes to cut and paste the sample letter into an e-mail and let these lawmakers know we mean business. Enough is enough!

Please join our cause and subscribe via e-mail if you want to continue following these updates and fight to preserve our Constitutionally protected freedoms.

You can read more about Gov. Perry’s speech here.

About the author: Rob Viglione is a writer, hedge fund manager, real estate broker, and Humanist. He is General Partner and managing director of Viglione & Partners Assurance Group, L.P., a derivatives trading firm, and is President of SoCal Real Estate Advisors, Inc. Rob founded The Freedom Factory and www.learnobamanomics.com, on which you can find his recent book "Obamanomics: A Guide to Investing Over the Next Administration". He wholeheartedly believes that people must take responsibility for their own lives, better their own conditions and the world around them. In this spirit, he co-founded the Viglow Scholarship Foundation in 2004.

Al Gore: Moral Leader or Mega Salesman

brantleyoakey@gmail.com (The Oakeys) — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 15:48:00 +0000

While there is a lot of doubt concerning the things that Al Gore preaches, there is no doubt that he has had great influence on countless thousands of people across the globe. People line up in droves to hear him speak about climate change and changing lifestyles. A new “Environmentalist” religion has begun and no longer do people ask “have you been baptized,” but rather “have you gone green?” In this new religion, Al Gore is not the deity, but he is the foremost preacher. There is one question that thousands are trying to answer: is Al Gore a disinterested moral leader in this revolution or is he a mega salesman preaching for “filthy lucre?” Is he really interested in making the world greener, or does he just want the world's green?

An Inconvenient Timeline

To answer this question we need to pinpoint some events on a timeline. We all remember back in 2006 when An Inconvenient Truth was released and earned $49 million at the box office. That same year Al’s book by the same title became a national bestseller. The following year, he went on stage in Hollywood, to a reception fit for a king, to accept the Academy Award on behalf of the IPCC, but 2006 was not the beginning for Al in this new “green” industry. His first public action was to start Generation Investment Management, an investment firm that in its own words seeks to “find, fund and accelerate green business.” Gore began this firm 2 years before the influential and controversial “fourth assessment” by the IPCC and 2 years before he began preaching global warming. So why do I enumerate these events on a timeline? The timeline shows that Al Gore thought first to profit from pollution, not to solve it. If you had just begun a firm that would seek billions of dollars in investment capital and would seek to charge businesses and governments untold amounts of money to “go green” what would be your next step? It would no doubt be to market it like crazy. For Al, it is twice as sweet as it is for most business owners, because he has made millions marketing it, and he will make obscenely more because of his marketing.

Though many remain unaware of Gore’s personal interest in seeing the world go green, he has drawn sharp criticism from astute observers like Myron Ebell, Competitive Enterprise Institute Director of Energy & Global Warming Policy: “What we discover in looking at the policies that Mr. Gore advocated in his Senate testimony is that they will make him and his friends extremely wealthy at the expense of consumers, who will be stuck with skyrocketing energy prices.” Iain Murray said, “Global warming is a potential risk, but Gore’s program represents a potentially disastrous misallocation of resources – straight from our wallets to his bank account.”

An Inconvenient Track Record

Inconveniently for Mr. Gore, his personal life damages his credibility to the point of being irreparable for most. World Net Daily has reported that Al’s mansion in the Bella Meade area near Nashville consumed on average 16,200 KWh per month in 2005 and increased to 18,400 KWh per month in 2006. The Gores use more electricity in one month than the average American family uses in a year. Gore has defended his personal consumption by saying that his life is “carbon neutral” because he buys “carbon offsets.” Carbon offsets are “verifiable reductions in C02 elsewhere.” There are two points here: First, because he never specified from which company he buys the offsets, we can only assume he is buying them from his own company as was also reported by WND. If such is the case, it is hardly noble of Mr. Gore to pay himself, taking money from his left pocket and placing it in his right pocket, essentially. Secondly, buying carbon offsets does not signify to me that this man is sincere about changing the world; he is a like a preacher who condemns sin, sins an awful lot, and says ‘it’s OK for me to sin. I bought indulgences.’ Wouldn’t a man who is truly concerned about the environment set an example of energy conservation?

The Real Inconvenient Truth

The real inconvenient truth is that Global Warming is being sold for one main purpose: endless ability to tax. If the world does not realize this, they will wake up one day paying taxes on every mile they drive and every light bulb they use. These taxes will be absorbed to expand worldwide bureaucratic entities like the UN. They will allow the UN to expand and enlarge to a size you never thought fathomable, and you and I will be taxed to a greater extent than mankind ever has been. Understanding what’s at hand, Al Gore, instead of fighting against oppression, has sided with the globalists. As the primary pitchman, akin to Billy Mays or Vince Offer, and owner of GIM, Gore stands to profit obscenely. None of this will affect his lifestyle, because he can afford to buy indulgences—i.e. offsets—but your life and your children’s lives will be forever altered.

If you like our articles, please subscribe for free to The Ornery Conservative.

Meet the New Boss...Same as the Old

brantleyoakey@gmail.com (The Oakeys) — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 02:10:00 +0000

GUEST POST
Anonymous

The song “won't get fooled again,” written by Pete Townshend of The Who, is a song about a revolution. In the song there is an uprising and the rebels replace the old regime with a new one; But in the end the new regime becomes just like the old one. The song ends with the lyrics “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”

Whether Pete Townshend meant for his lyrics to depict the American political system or not is superfluous, but it is interesting that his words fit so perfectly. With the last election so recent, I'm sure everyone still remembers the media and pundits talking about the “Obama Revolution” with the throngs of mesmerized, crying—sometimes fainting—Americans. Google the term, and you will find references to the “Obama Revolution” on every major news site describing how much it’s changing America. I'm here to say it’s all a lie. Oh certainly Obama does things slightly differently than Bush did, or McCain would have; but in most matters, the differences are superficial and can be ascribed to a difference in personality. At the core, concerning the issues we face, they are nearly identical. I believe the whole political system has been corrupted into nothing more than an elaborate charade. The media and politicians like to tell Americans to get out and vote, or get active and write their congress person. They tell us we can make a real difference in this country, but can we really? Let me explain myself.

Guantanamo

Even though Obama has only been in office a short while, the resemblance between his policies and Bush's are striking. When you cut past the rhetoric and compare what is actually being done by the Obama administration to Bush’s. For example, did you know that despite all his rhetoric about how much he abhorred Bush’s unconstitutional rendition program (read kidnapping), Obama has now fully embraced the Bush policy on said program. The New York Times's article says, "that military detainees in Afghanistan have no legal right to challenge their imprisonment there, embracing a key argument of former President Bush’s legal team." Some people might counter by saying that Obama is shutting down Guantanamo and hold that up as proof that he is different and better than Bush. But the truth is Guantanamo is being shut down because the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Boumediene v. Bush, ruled that the denial of habeas corpus rights to Guantanamo detainees was unconstitutional and that all Guantanamo detainees have the right to a full hearing in which they can contest the accusations against them.

A reasonable person would understand that to apply to all detainees. However, instead of fully complying with the ruling, the Obama administration simply started putting detainees in Bagram, Afghanistan instead, where they follow the exact same process kidnapping people from around the world and detaining them with no rights whatsoever. Sounds a lot like the kind of games Bush played with our legal system doesn't it? Either way, in a ruling that should have never been needed, a federal judge rejected the Obama position and ruled that the ruling of the Boudemiene case applies every bit as much to Bagram as it does to Guantanamo. Now we'll have to wait and see what Obama's next move is. For now, let’s look at another example.

Bailouts

The bailouts make a great example in at least two ways. First, Bush chose to provide bailouts, despite their utter failure when other countries had previously tried them; and then when Obama came in, he did the same thing, only bigger. That helps further illustrate the point that the new boss is the same as the old boss. However, there’s another point to be made here. I mentioned already that I believe our political system to be nothing but a charade. Part of the reason for that belief is because we really have no choice in whom we vote. You can vote Republican or Democrat; any third parties are ruthlessly ostracized and squashed by the media and the two main parties. Just look at what was done to the Ron Paul campaign if you want proof. That's part one.

The second part is that the politicians tell us what we want to hear, but do whatever they want once they're elected, and there are never any consequences. I don't think I need to explain that one. It's pretty much common knowledge. The third reason is similar but not quite the same. The politicians always claim legitimacy by way of representation. They claim they represent the will of the people and that they listen to their constituents and vote accordingly on issues. This is also a lie and the bailouts provide proof of that. When the Bush government pushed through the first bail out, polls show that only 30% of Americans supported that. In addition, news reports state that congressmen were bombarded with letters and emails about the issue and that 85-95% of those told their congressman not to vote for it. This is by no means a rare occurrence; only the size and coverage of it were abnormal. Politicians routinely ignore their constituency. I believe that is why more and more Americans become disillusioned and don't bother to vote or write to their representatives--deep down they know it’s a wasted effort.

Where We’re Headed

Because Americans have little to no real representation, one of two things is going to happen: Either we can reject the two parties that have a stranglehold on this country and get some real representation in the government to turn things around, or we can sit passively and wait until there is no other choice but violent revolution. History tells us one or the other is inevitable; and of the two, the second is far more likely to happen and far less likely to result in any improvement. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

If you like our articles, please subscribe for free to The Ornery Conservative.

What Every American Should Know About the Federal Reserve

brantleyoakey@gmail.com (The Oakeys) — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 16:09:00 +0000

You’ve heard a lot about the Federal Reserve these days, mainly in the context of bailing out this bank or buying that company. How much do you really know about the Federal Reserve? If you’re like most people in our country, you probably don’t know much; or at least, you don’t know the most important aspects of the Federal Reserve. If this begins the process of waking you up to your awful situation, then this could be the most important article you ever read.

Non Governmental

First, the Federal Reserve is not a governmental body. That’s right. It is not a governmental body whatsoever. It is actually a private bank owned by private—very private—bankers. No one knows the complete list of owners of the Federal Reserve, but the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, Morgans, and Warburgs are its most prominent owners. Don’t worry if you thought it was governmental; It’s the name that throws everyone off, but as the saying goes, “it’s no more federal than Federal Express.” Not only is it non-governmental, but it operates with no Congressional oversight. That’s right. They answer to no one. Sure, the chairman, Ben Bernanke, goes to Congressional hearings and tells Congress what the economy is doing and what plans the FED has, but he does not answer to congress. He dictates the policy. Furthermore, Congress does not audit the Federal Reserve. Here’s an analogy for you: It’s like playing a game of Monopoly where you get to be the banker and no one will check to see whether you’re being honest with the money. That is the position of the Federal Reserve.

Unconstitutional

Because the Federal Reserve is non-governmental, it is unconstitutional. Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution says that Congress will have power “to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof.” It’s very plain; the FED is unconstitutional because it is a private company doing the job of Congress. Yes, I'm aware that the Supreme Court upheld the Second Bank of US as constitutional. In essence, John Marshall said that Congress could charter the bank to perform the duties of the Federal government. I'm not saying that the idea of a central bank is unconstitutional; I'm all for a central bank that is owned and run by Congress. The current central bank, the Federal Reserve, is not an agent of Congress, but is the higher power. It is true that the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 claims that the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by Congress. However, the fact of the matter is that this Congressional “oversight” of the Federal Reserve has never amounted to anything more than post facto spectatorship.

Who Designed It

One of the best resources on the Federal Reserve is The Creature of Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin. In his book, Griffin tells of a secret meeting held at Jekyll Island in Georgia. It was here that secretive men set to paper the ideas for the Federal Reserve and began animating this monster. According to Griffin, the men responsible for the creation of FED were Nelson Aldrich, senator, Chairman of the National Monetary Commission, and father-in-law to John D. Rockefeller; Henry P. Davison, Sr. Partner of JP Morgan Company; A. Piatt Andrew, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury; Frank A. Vanderlip, President of National City Bank of New York, representative of William Rockefeller; Benjamin Strong, head of J.P. Morgan’s Bankers Trust Company; and Paul Warburg, partner of Kuhn, Loeb, & Company, representing the Rothschilds of Europe. Note that there were representatives from the three strongest banking families: Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and Morgans.

What Was Made

Essentially what came out of that meeting on Jekyll Island in 1910 was an agreement amongst the most powerful bankers to create a cartel wherein they would ensure not only their success in America but could profit to the maximum extent of their imaginations. They were very careful to make sure that no one knew they were meeting. They avoided being seen together at dinner, didn’t sit together on the train, and used false names or only first names to protect their dark secret. Frank Vanderlip later admitted, “If it were to be exposed publicly that our particular group had got together and written a banking bill, that bill would have no chance whatever of passage by Congress” (Quoted in Edwards, 11). Their secret was kept; the bill passed in the House and the Senate and Woodrow Wilson signed it into law. Later, President Wilson realized his mistake and lamented,

“I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world - no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men” (America: Freedom to Fascism).

Definitely FOR Profit

The Federal Reserve website claims to be a “non-profit” organization. This couldn’t be further from the truth. The fact is they profit in many ways: taxes, federal spending, and bailouts to name a few. Many people are surprised when I tell them that every dime of Federal Income Taxes goes directly to the Federal Reserve; it does not go through the treasury. It is not used for any government service; It is used as an interest payment for the money that the Federal Reserve has loaned the government, but it’s not really their money. They just print it. So, every new dollar the Federal Reserve prints we, the people, pay back in taxes--or at least assume the debt of-- and we pay for it again with inflation. This is one of the most cunning and evil scams that has ever been perpetrated anywhere and at anytime in the history of the world.

They also love to do bailouts. Why? Every time they bailout a company or a country, they either 1) have issued a massive loan that is guaranteed by the taxpayer and by which they will profit immensely or 2) they take control of a company and/or a country at the expense of the taxpayer.

Furthermore, the FED has a history of tightening credit in our country to cause a bust in the economy (e.g. 1921, '29, '53, '57, '69, '75, '81, '87, '08) . Whenever this happens, you can be sure these bankers are using the crisis to their advantage by buying more companies and spreading to more industries. Does this sound familiar? Think of Bear Stearns, AIG, Merrill Lynch, Citigroup, etc. Now, they have moved to GM, Chrysler, and the auto market. They are using money printed out of thin air. Then they will assign the debt to us, but do you think you will see a penny of dividend payments from these companies? The ways by which the Federal Reserve can profit are almost innumerable; but one thing is certain, they DEFINITELY do profit.

Why Haven’t I Heard of This?

If this is new to you, it’s because these same bankers own all the corporate media in the US and maintaint the strongest influence over education in America, but trust me it is not new, and it is true. Shortly after the creation of the FED, men began to fight it. Here are some examples:

"We have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks. Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are U.S. government institutions. They are not government institutions. They are private credit monopolies; domestic swindlers, rich and predatory money lenders which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers. The Federal Reserve Banks are the agents of the foreign central banks. The truth is the Federal Reserve Board has usurped the Government of the United States by the arrogant credit monopoly which operates the Federal Reserve Board." (Congressman Louis T. McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking & Currency Committee, speech on the floor of the House of Representatives, June 10, 1932)

Next to fight the fight against the FED was Wright Patman:

"In the united States we have, in effect, two governments....We have the duly constituted Government....Then we have an independent, uncontrolled and uncoordinated government in the Federal Reserve System, operating the money powers which are reserved to Congress by the Constitution." (Congressman Wright Patman, Chairman of the House Banking & Currency Committee, speech on the House floor, 1967)

Here is what Barry Goldwater has said,

"Most Americans have no real understanding of the operation of the international money lenders....The accounts of the Federal Reserve System have never been audited. It operates outside the control of Congress and....manipulates the credit of the United States."

And most recently Congressman Ron Paul on September 10, 2002 introduced a bill in the House to Abolish the Federal Reserve. The official platform for the Republican Party in Idaho is to abolish the Federal Reserve. So, while it is not covered in the media, it is talked about often by vigilant Americans.

Actually, the Federal Reserve is the fourth central bank America has had. The first two failed. The third central bank Andrew Jackson almost single-handedly shut down: "You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by grace of the Eternal God, will rout you out." He went on to say, "The bold effort the present bank had made to control the government are but premonitions of the fate that awaits the American people should they be deluded into the perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it." The struggle is not new in America. It's not that a central bank is bad; it's that a bank owned by private bankers is beyond bad. This is round four. Will we have the fortitude to fight this "den of vipers" as Jackson did?

What to Do

Above all, we need to spread awareness. You can start by emailing this article to your friends and family. Please add social bookmarks such as digg, stumble, etc., if you’re into that sort of thing, to spread this news. This has to become common knowledge to the most common man before there will be enough outrage and power to stop this enslaving scheme. I leave you with a quote from Thomas Jefferson:

"If the America people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currencies, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their prosperity until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered" (America: Freedom to Fascism).

If you like our articles, please subscribe for free to The Ornery Conservative.

What's Wrong With Socialism?

noreply@blogger.com (Locke) — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 01:46:00 +0000

GUEST POST
Anonymous

What's wrong with socialism? That is the question I was posed by a co-worker the other day. He is a staunch supporter of the Democrat party; and knowing that I am conservative and libertarian in my views, we generally have a tacit agreement not to talk about political subjects, so we can avoid the inevitable pointless argument that ensues. I say pointless because we are both entrenched in our beliefs and both know that we cannot change the other person's mind. However, as talk and the likelihood of a national health care system increases, he couldn't resist telling me about how wonderful it was and what a great thing the Democrats are doing.

I listened for a few minutes while he talked about it and then said, “Yes, that sounds great, but its still evil like all socialism.” He rolled his eyes, and hesitated. Like an open book, I could tell he was trying to decide if asking the question was worth having to hear the answer. Finally he gave in and blurted out the question, “Whats wrong with socialism?”

That is the question many good people have; for on the surface, socialism sounds like a fine thing. It provides education to the masses, welfare for the poor, social security for the elderly, many other programs, and perhaps soon, national health care. How can something doing all these good things for people be evil?

Luckily for me, I have just recently re-read a copy of The Law, by Bastiat. He has the answer to that question and explains it far more eloquently than I could. I drew on Google to quickly find and share that quote:

“Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Thus the
beneficiaries are spared the shame and danger that their acts would
otherwise involve... But how is this legal plunder to be identified?
Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to
them and gives it to the other persons to whom it doesn't belong.
See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing
what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then
abolish that law without delay ... No legal plunder; this is the
principle of justice, peace, order, stability, harmony and logic.”

"Do you see Bastiat's simple and beautiful logic regarding socialism?" I asked my co-worker. Everyone knows I don't have the right to go take my neighbor's new car just because I desire to have it. We call that theft. If the law didn't prevent that, we'd be living in anarchy. Bastiat's logic is simple. If I don't have the right to go take my neighbor's car, how do I have the right to give my government authority to take my neighbor's car for me? Does it somehow become more moral when I have the government steal for me rather than doing it myself? Of course not. And yet, that is the very root of all socialist schemes. Bluntly speaking, it is evil.

It gets worse. Anytime government makes a new law or changes a current law, there will be unintended consequences. Because socialism is amoral at its root, most of the unintended consequences from socialism are amoral as well. Thus the good intentions the socialists started with end up continually falling short. Today it is difficult to find anything the government touches that hasn't been corrupted to some extent by socialism and thus falls short of the desired effect.

Lets go back to Bastiat for an example of one of these unintended consequences and why they are so dangerous. He wrote that those who hold government-endowed teaching positions would rarely criticize legal plunder lest their government endowments be ended. The lack of understanding about socialism by the average American proves that Bastiat was correct. It's just a small change to our education. One that probably wasn't even considered by those in power at the time. And yet, by encouraging Americans to be ignorant about the dangers of socialism, we find the principles of liberty and prosperity that this country was founded on under constant assault. Our founding fathers would be appalled if they saw what we have done with their legacy. This little, unintended consequence, is as good a place as any to start assigning blame.

When it's all said and done, all we end up with is a system that steals from some and gives to others through government force and does it so poorly that it rarely provides any real benefit to those who are supposedly on the receiving end of the government extortion. A closer examination, however, will reveal the real beneficiary. Look at the one constant result of every socialist scheme, and you'll see a grab for more governmental power. That's something Republicans and Democrats can both get behind.

After explaining all that to my co-worker he was at a bit of a loss for words. He still stubbornly holds on to his democrat ideals, but he did at least admit that I had a point, and he didn't know how to answer me. He said he would get back to me on it. We'll see. He is stubborn and holds tightly to his ignorance. He's not the only one. It makes me afraid for my country.

Peeling Back the Curtain: A Look at Alex Jones’ Obama Deception

brantleyoakey@gmail.com (The Oakeys) — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 22:41:00 +0000

I have followed Alex Jones for roughly the last two years; and on the whole, I am very impressed with his productions. At first, I was very skeptical and believed him to be a whacky conspiracy theorist, but I watched and decided to check into his claims. I have found that you can fact check everything he talks about and find that it is all verifiable. I am impressed with his bold nature and his determination to argue, protest, teach, and defend liberty. Others have criticized him as being crass or unsophisticated—e.g. as he uses a bull horn to make his point—but that is no reason not to benefit from his research and profound knowledge of recent legislation in this country. I think of him as modern Samuel Adams (who was also viewed as crass and unsophisticated), and I’m sure that the elite bankers that own the Federal Reserve and dictate monetary policy throughout the world view Alex Jones much like King George III of England viewed Samuel Adams: an unsavory trouble maker and dangerous upstart.

What Has Happened Already

I recommend the film wholeheartedly. You can watch in on Youtube or buy it at Alex Jones' site like I did. From Obama Deception, I think the most significant thing that you’ll learn is that our presidential elections are a charade. It doesn’t matter whether you vote Democrat or Republican because they are both owned by elitist bankers and their candidates are puppets who have their policies dictated to them.

Any thinking American who is willing to do research can look up the Bilderburg group or the Council on Foreign Relations and find out that these entities are comprised of a world elite who dominate the monetary markets and policy worldwide. If this is all new to you, you may want to watch Endgame, one of Alex Jones’ previous movies. You can look up and study the Federal Reserve and find out that it is not a government entity; but rather, an unconstitutional, privately-owned bank that not only dictates fiscal policy but has no accountability to anyone.

What is Happening

Obama Deception does an amazing job of enumerating all the false promises of Barack Obama. For instance, he campaigned on the promise of pulling troops out of Iraq as soon as he was elected. After his election, he said it would not be immediate, but would take 16 months. Then, just a couple weeks later, he began saying it would be 23 months. In all reality, our troops will not be leaving Iraq any time soon, if ever. Obama, despite his campaign promises, will tread a similar path as President Bush, because he is not the one calling the shots. If you understand this, it will make sense to you when you read the headline that Obama is sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. When you pull back the curtain, you realize that he is just a de facto puppet. Next, he promised transparency and at least 5 days to read any legislation. However, after he was elected, he told Congress to pass the stimulus package immediately, giving them only one day, because “the time to act is now” and “we must do something.” He promised no earmarks; we got thousands of earmarks. He promised no lobbyists; we got lobbyists in his administration. He promised to repeal the Patriot Act; instead, he called for its continuance. He promised to cut wasteful spending; we get the most outrageous, irresponsible, wasteful spending the country has ever seen. He is also continuing plans made by Bush to move toward the North American Union. The list could go on and on; and as it does, you begin to realize that from Bush to Obama only the personality has changed.

Jones teaches us that we cannot get caught up arguing over and criticizing Obama; he’s just the face, not the real power. Americans need to get to the men at top if we want real change in Washington; we need to peel back the curtain, as it were, and see the real wizard. Obama’s popularity, just like Bush’s, Clinton’s and the other presidents’, will fade quickly. They know that going into it. Their job in this secret combination, this New World Order, is to keep the attention on themselves and take the blame for all the bad policies that they propagate during their administration. Then, we get a new face, a new start, and we are all pacified for a moment, not realizing that the power has not changed hands because we haven’t peeled back the curtain.

Jones also points out that every cabinet position, every post in Obama’s administration is filled by members of CFR, Trilateral Commission, and the New World Order, and you begin to realize that America is not a Democracy but an outright Oligarchy--these global financiers being the ruling class.

What Will Happen

I think it noteworthy that Alex Jones taught us in Endgame that this New World Order group would use climate change to pass new taxes that would fund a new worldwide government and to redistribute wealth. Interestingly, two years later we see the beginning of the fruition of that prediction. The UN released an information note which speaks of trillions in industry being shifted from developed countries to undeveloped countries, thousands of jobs being lost in some countries and gained in others, and a complete restructuring of the worldwide economy. Now, Jones teaches us about the plans to tax your car per mile, tax you for the meat you eat, and anything else that allegedly leaves a carbon footprint.

Alex Jones urges his viewers to not take his word for it; he urges us to verify what is presented in the film. I personally believe that any thinking American would, after research, have to agree that Alex Jones has presented a clear, factual picture of the state of this country. Check it out for yourself.

So it Begins: Holder & Clinton Start the Anti-gun Rhetoric

brantleyoakey@gmail.com (The Oakeys) — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:11:00 +0000

We all knew it was coming; gun sales are up roughly 40% since Obama took office. It’s no secret to any gun owner that Obama and his administration would make an attempt to restrict your second amendment rights. What we didn’t know was when it would happen or what tragedy they would use to push their agenda forward. We do now. Eric Holder and Hilary Clinton have both said that America is to blame for the current violence in Mexico because the Mexican drug cartels get their guns from America. Clinton said, "Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police officers, soldiers and civilians. I fell very strongly we have a co-responsibility.” She went on to say that America made a mistake in lifting the AWB (Assault Weapons Ban) and would push to re-institute a similar ban.

Eric Holder announced the same thing: “The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration.” He continued, “putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico.”

Faulty Assumptions

Eric Holder and Hilary Clinton both went to law school, so I know they know a thing or two about false assumptions, but they obviously think that you and I aren’t smart enough to recognize some of the inherent fallacies of their argument, so let’s delineate a few of those. To buy into what they are telling us, we would have to accept the following:

1. That Mexican drug cartels that engage in a $40 billion industry choose to buy citizen-grade weapons from the US and not on the transnational black market.

2. That Mexcian drug cartels can’t buy their guns illegally in their own country.

3. That despite the fact the Mexican drug cartels are using fully automatic weapons, grenades, and other weaponry that is not sold legally in the US, we could somehow help out by banning semi-automatic guns.

4. That drug cartels would gladly accept and obey law if only the noble Clinton and Holder would pass such a law.

American Freedoms aren't to Blame

There is no way that such a ban would affect the drug cartels in the slightest bit. What is clear then is that Clinton and Holder will manipulate any event they can to take your rights away from you, so you must be vigilant. The fact is that laws such as this only hurt the law-abiding citizen; criminals will get the guns anyway. Wayne LaPierre, the CEO of the NRA said it this way: “Never surrender freedom for laws that can't affect criminals; they disobey laws for a living.”