Of course Andrew Breitbart, an American patriot extraordinaire, is worthy of all the words, those of favor and those of disgust hurled at him as a political man with drawn digit in the sand, before and after his life ended so suddenly, unexpectedly, mysteriously, tragically, unspectacularly just after midnight last Thursday as he was walking near his home. He collapsed, and at 43, still a young man, he was gone.
We knew him through his untiring investigative journalism, his tough stances against the unhinged Left and against who and what he considered violent, seditious, determined enemies of the the state in many cases, but certainly enemies of the people, the people who still believe in constitutional loyalty, liberty, justice, courage, responsibility, and the American way. Protection from the government and the forces of the mob. But I'll step aside and let his friend, Robert Spencer share his version of Andrew Breitbart...
AMONG THE MANY THINGS that made Andrew Breitbart a great man was that he was not playing defense. So many, many times I have been speaking at anti-jihad events and heard other speakers saying, "We are not racists, we are not bigots, we are not Islamophobes..." We have allowed the jihadists and Islamic supremacists, and their Leftist allies, to put us on the defensive. We're always apologizing, tacitly accepting their narrative and responding to them in the parameters they set up. Even worse, many even among the anti-jihadists eagerly throw their colleagues under the busthose colleagues whom the Left and the Islamic supremacists have started to zero in on. They're the ones we should be standing up for the most resolutely, for they are drawing fire because they are effective.
Instead of bowing and scraping to the Islamic supremacists and feebly protesting that we're not really racists and hatemongers and all the other calumnies and canards they throw at us, we should be taking the fight to them, and standing up and saying, "You are fronting for the most oppressive ideology on the face of the earth. You are fronting for evil. You are carrying water and running interference for the denial of free speech, the denial of the freedom of conscience, the institutionalized oppression of women, the subjugation of non-Muslims, and worse. You're fronting for stonings, amputations, the murder of apostates, the treatment of women as possessions of men, the madness and senseless violence that we see in this furor over the Qur'an-burnings, and more. You shout us down on campuses and do everything you can to make sure we are not heard in the public square. And you call us fascists? You are the quintessence of fascism."
WHEN THE BANKS STOP LENDING and the dollar drops dead, the leonine principles of chaos will pounce upon us, claws poised, teeth bared. But as horrible as that bit of declarative sounds to the victims of chaos, there may still be a ray of sunshine for America and in turn, hope for humanity, and that hope is presented here in an adaptation of a wonderful comment by a reader at American Thinker in response to an article on The Coming Chaos.
John Griffing has stated the obvious and drawn a single conclusion among many possibilitiesavoid default of the American debt crisis at all costs. Financial chaos because it cuts to the root of our sense of well-being can be and in most situations is really frightening. People suffer and die when money values go hiking off in many different directions at the same time. But one of the most unnerving problems with modern America is that no one has suffered recently and we are not sure that we can tolerate feelings like hunger and uncontrolled weather in our living rooms. Whole families would have to take to the roads with backpacks as winter approached like migrating birds.
Yet, I am not pessimistic. While Mr. Griffing is correct about bad things happening to good people, I am just as certain that "this too will pass." Why?
Chicago Tribune, 1934. Sound familiar? Took a war to change things, then, too.
Because economic equilibrium will reassert itself. Chaos is too chaotic to last. Organization is an occasional, but natural state of affairs. We know this from the movies of the end of the world. Each time the world reaches a precipice, it draws back in horror. These movies will be our models. We may have to mimic the Amish or become members of a kibbutz, but with great buffalo meat in our bellies and mighty thunder in our throats we will survive as a people. Extra-privileged classes will have to disperse or reorganize to use less energylike universities and governments, Hollywood and the NFL.
But physicist Stephen Hawking from the strength of his wheelchair has assured us that knowledge is never destroyed, but merely displaced. In the end we will be fine and the world will be at peace again. Bingo! Now I can go back to sleep and have a sweet dream untainted by reality! Tomorrow I will plant my winter collards and broccoli. If global warming doesn't get me first.
Here's another thoughtful article from Citizen Warrior revisiting the question on how we are to treat Muslims living in our midst, now that we are familiar with what confronts both them and us in the everyday bustle of life, and life's enemy they, and now we, must call jihad:
"Living among us, we have many Muslims who are undoubtedly as innocent of terrorism, political subversion, and Islamic supremacism as we are. But we have a problem, don't we? These innocent fellow countrymen—and the terrorists, subversives, and supremacistsall call themselves "Muslims."
Many non-Muslims explain the situation to themselves that "there are extremists in every religion" and let it go at that. But those of us who have studied Islamic doctrine and Islamic history have discovered that "letting it go at that" would be a big mistake. And of course, those who simply look at the news can see that there must be something about Islam that produces more "extremists" than other religions."
We certainly do not wish to live in a perpetual state of fear nor do we desire to live in a world rooted in hatred and suspicion. But we can avoid neither by ignoring the harsh realities on the ground, and we cannot fool ourselves into thinking that everyone is our friend. So what do we do?
Here is one writer's compact rebuttal to this whole concept of trying to figure out who is a peaceful Muslim and to what limits his own responsibility to Muslims goes. Consider this:
I no longer consider it my responsibility to determine who is a muslim. If someone claims to be muslim then I assume they support the socio-political ideology of islam which is imperialistic, based on apartheid, decrees human chattel slavery as a legal and valid economic activity, and degrades all women as breeding and fornicating beasts in a man's personal bordello.
If a person who claims to be muslim does not support these tenets then it is his/her responsibility to leave islam and no longer be a muslim.
MUCH DISCUSSION LONG AND WEARY, STRONG AND SCHOLARLY, sane and savage, still cloaking the profound audacity in this cover-up of President Barack Obama’s birth certificate has traded this nation's proud heritage for a handful of sand. The same simple burdens of proof that candidates great and small before him have had to answer still clutter the sandy beachhead along which this man walks three years after stepping into the light for a run at this nation's world's most revered office.
Let's review, shall we? Why has this son of a Kenyan and his minions spent millions of dollars stonewalling the cases piling up in courts around the country? Why has every document produced, and provided as proof of his birth place ended up being an easily detected fraud that no one in authority yet questions it, when basically what invalidates his presidency is much simpler and already admittedhe is NOT a natural-born citizen as understood by those that wrote that phrase into the Constitution regardless of where he was born.
The verified requirement for President of the United States as outlined in the Constitution and ratified by the States is the following:
“No Person except a natural born Citizen… shall be eligible to the Office of the President… ”
The Constitution does not explain the meaning of "natural born". On June 18, 1787, Alexander Hamilton submitted to the Convention a sketch of a plan of government. Article IX, section 1 of Hamilton's plan provided:
No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.
Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born
Now there are those who choose to obfuscate what the Constitution and its authors has, since its adoption in 1788, defined what the term “natural born Citizen” means, preferring to assume it means born within the physical United States boundaries. Big mistake, and an intentional one.
It is absolutely amazing how a "typical Obama supporter" will swiftly shift his outward demeanor when confronted with this eligibility issue, from winsome cordiality to a vicious attack spirit. I've witnessed it, and have had it directed at me personally, face to face, from a senior State Department anti-terror specialist, a self-professed Scoop Jackson Democrat, and let me assure you, it ain't pretty. It's as if they have suspected all along but cannot admit the truth has not been properly vetted, and have no other choice but to deal with the issue with violent outbursts designed to immediately cease the conversation.
Throughout the Constitution, the writers used the term citizen numerous times but only here did they offer a specific classification of citizen, differentiated even from the naturalized citizen identified elsewhere. The founders would not have inserted into the all-important governing document a quite specific designation, or type of citizen, except to insist upon a specific designation and purpose for its usage.
Admittedly, one of the few shortcomings of our founding document, highlighted by this controversy, is the lack of referential definitions for certain terms. As some terms were thought to be of common knowledge by educated men, it was thought unnecessary to include them. One such definition that has garnered much controversy was the well-regulated Militia; likewise is the term “natural born citizen.”
This document, however, has provided us a methodology and a roadmap to solving certain mysteries. Congress is the bi-cameral body charged with the handling of legislation. Within the Constitution the founders placed guides that may assist us in determining where we may find certain information.
Article 1, Section 8 defines the enumerated powers of Congress and within that we find: “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations.”
Ah, yes. Those were the days. Not only where these great men of early America familiar with the “Law of Nations” but they consulted it frequently.
It should not be surprising that within Emerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations the term “natural-born Citizen” was defined as: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Notice the plural use for parentage.
Based upon the idea of a singularity of allegiance, the contrary position when a citizen whose father was born outside the US and the son inside the US arises due to a position of dual allegiance between his own birth country and the country of his father. Vattel stated it this way: “I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
The implication that should circumstances place the nation at odds with the nation of a president’s father, the president may not be able to bring himself to wage war, if necessary, against that nation which he may empathize on his father's account.
Which brings us to the controversy we seek to resolvehow do we interpret the constitutional meaning of “natural-born citizen?” Given that the Constitution is the basis of our law, and IS LAW, in and of itself, we should look at the Constitution through statutory construction.
First; a review of the “plain meaning” of the text has probably been the greatest cause of concern in determining the meaning, since the term is not used in general language today outside of this context, and obviously being overlooked by those in political power, it appears to be of little use.
This case clearly justifies the implication for singularity of allegiance and the striking language that relates directly back to the definition found in Vattel’s “Law of Nations” requiring even the parents of a an American President both be citizens.
Second; should the “plain meaning” of a term not prevail then one must determine the original intentions of the person or people that wrote it. This is not always an easy task; as time progresses the nuances of language and even meanings of words change. A prime example is the word “welfare,” when used today most everyone thinks of grants from the government in the form of money, food stamps, housing assistance, etc. But back in the late 1700’s and early 1800’s welfare meant simply “Happiness; Success; Prosperity.” (Now read the section in the Constitution that directs government to “promote the general welfare.” Takes on a whole new meaning doesn’t it?)
But having documentation from those who framed the Constitution telling us rather emphatically that they consulted a resource “frequently” and one of the few, if only, use was that of Vattel giving the meaning as that of a singularity of citizenship of the parents, and especially the father, we must (unless we are habitual Leftists) give weight to this meaning.
Third; should the prior two methods not be productive then one must look outside of that to the historical, and contemporary writings of the time to see if anything supports a particular point of view. And though there are very few writings dealing with the term “natural-born citizen” we do have a number of writings dealing with the concept of “dual allegiance” that aligns with Vattel’s definition of “natural-born.”
In 1794 President Washington in a letter to John Adams stated: “the policy…of its [immigration] taking place in a body (I mean settling them in a body) may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the Language, habits and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them. Whereas by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures and laws: in a word soon become one people.”
Here we see a distinct ideal of ensuring a nation that was not plagued with divided or dual allegiances that people coming to America should “in a word soon become one people.” This is the exact sentiment that Vattel was driving with the “natural-born citizen,” a single allegiance to the United States. And we know today, with transcontinental transportation and massive illegal immigration that this presumption of assimilation is no longer true.
Finally we must turn to any legal precedence that may aid us in our determination. In the case of Minor v. Happersett (1874) we find the following:
“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens."
This case clearly justifies the implication for singularity of allegiance and the striking language that relates directly back to the definition found in Vattel’s “Law of Nations” requiring even the parents of a an American President both be citizens.
If we contrast this with the total lack of evidence to the contrary then this evidence becomes overwhelming that Vattel’s definition must clearly be the defining voice.
So where is the deception you ask? The deception lies in that thousands of politicians and countless government and academic lawyers insist there is no way to determine the meaning of a phrase used by our founders in the Constitution of the United States, the basis of the Law of our Nation, and operative for over two hundred years.
Yet, scores of ordinary citizens, and dare we saynatural born citizensall around the nation have been screaming this simple truth and no one listens. In truth I totally believe they know exactly what is going on, but it does not serve their pernicious agenda and using Alinsky Rules, the end justifies their means.
Politicians astride the government purse do not fear what pockets of citizenry know because they have come to understand that unless an organized rebellion results they can simply dismiss each outcry as a the paucity of conspiracy theorists as in "Who are you going to believe, some kook or your own government?"
Or they simply vilify good people who believe in and wish to return to the United States Constitution, or voice displeasure with abortion, or advocate for gun rights, or belong to a Constitutional militia, or post Ron Paul bumper stickers, or become “natural-born citizen” adherents by depicting all these good American citizens as potential terrorists… oh waitthey’ve already done that!
So don't fret when you attract the typical ad hominem response from the left. Remember they don't examine the facts; they attack the messenger instead. That is how and why the left invented the name "birther" in the first place.
UPDATE: Here's the kicker. People on the left claim to embrace science. They claim to be better educated than their knuckle-dragging conservative opposites. So why not embrace the concept of scientific inquiry? Question everything, even your assumption that there is no way an announcement could be placed in a Hawaiian newspaper unless the event happened in Hawaii. Has anyone ever forged a birth certificate? Are all the birth certificates produced by the state of Hawaii 100% genuine? Has there ever been a state worker in Vital Records who has been willing to do a favor?
We have probable cause here. Obama's bio from 1991 claimed he was born in Kenya (and that bio was only "corrected" in 2007). The birth certificate coaxed out by Donald Trump last fall to be posted at the White House web site has numerous indications that it isn't genuine. This rather unmysterious fact (any first year Photoshop user knows which way the coverup blows) has been much circulated, so there's no reason the Left (and other obtuse career-savvy folks like Bill O'Reilly) should not know of these details. Why will they not put on their "objective" glasses and expose themselves to a little scientific inquiry, and see where that takes them?
MORE FROM TODAY'S Project archives...
An interesting comment to an AT article on the history of race inertia from the earliest beginnings of the United States of America caught my attention and will always seek to find adequate articulation, not because of my own consuming interest, but because of how urgent a question it seems to be for so many in the quest for survival who put all their marbles on the race card...
Race is a classification system used to categorize humans into large and distinct populations or groups by heritable phenotypic characteristics, geographic ancestry, physical appearance, and ethnicity, and in some senses is a natural reaction to the other in a world of danger and obfuscation. In the early twentieth century the term was often used, in its taxonomic sense, to denote genetically diverse human populations whose members possessed similar phenotypes, but is it truly the final salvo in sorting out one's identity from that of another when developing hostilities between ethnic groups divided on the basis of racial group or skin color seem unavoidable. All too often the color of one's skin does trump so many other measures of a human being's faith, power, and glory.
WHITE WAS THE 19th century's way of saying "Euro-American in terms of culture, values, and behavior." Henry Ford wrote of "the White Man's Code" as late as 1922 even though he hired Blacks and paid them the same wages he paid Caucasians in the same jobs. No law at the time said he had to do that. At the time, however (e.g. when Kipling wrote "The White Man's Burden,") Japan was the only advanced nonwhite-majority nation on earth. Civilized therefore equaled "white" although it was recognized that not all ethnic Caucasians were advanced or even civilized. A Venn diagram would show "civilized" as a subset of "white" (Japan being the sole exception) and not the other way around.
This does not mean that people of nonwhite origins cannot and do not adopt Euro-American values. Japan made a collective decision to do that in the mid-19th century. African-Americans, Asian Americans, and so on have Euro-American values and are therefore what Kipling and his contemporaries would have called "white." Kipling's "Gunga Din" in fact recognizes that a nonwhite person can have these values and adhere to them better than an Englishman; the light-skinned Briton admits at the end, "You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din." The poem in fact judges the characters not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character, which was entirely consistent with Kipling's membership in a racially-diverse Mason's lodge in India (see "The Mother Lodge").
What stinks about the Third World is not the color of its skin (which includes all three races) but rather the content of its character. I refer very specifically to Sharia and other militant "Islamic" beliefs, and Europe ought to prevent their immigration and expel the ones already there.
Furthermore, other non-Caucasian countries are now highly civilized as shown by Freedom House's ratings for places like Taiwan and South Korea, while Caucasian-majority Russia along with the racially Caucasian Palestinians and Iranians (Aryans, in fact) are rated "Not Free." What stinks about the Third World is not the color of its skin (which includes all three races) but rather the content of its character.
The economically and socially advanced nature of Euro-American nations over the rest of the world, even regions with substantial oil wealth, is proof that our way of life is superior and theirs is inferior. A society that, for example, prevents girls from going to school (as is the case in parts of Afghanistan) denies itself half of its human potential up front and will therefore be inferior.
The proper conclusion is therefore that anybody who shares our (Euro-American) values, attitudes, and behavioral codes is "one of us" regardless of his or her appearance or ethnicity, and anybody who subscribes to an inferior Third World culturethe kind that keeps the people ignorant, squalid, and pooris "one of them" regardless of his or her appearance or ethnicity, and is therefore an undesirable. I refer very specifically to Sharia and other militant "Islamic" beliefs, and Europe ought to prevent their immigration and expel the ones already there.
We appreciate the dedication and value the work you are accomplishing with your House Committee on Homeland Security hearings regarding the recruitment and radicalization of Muslim immigrants, most lately your focus on al Shabaab.
But we also want to know when will the loving law-abiding patriotic citizen be urged to boldly speak out on de rigeur issues such as calling for nominalizing the steady flood of Islamic immigration pouring into our communities and our institutions without being made to feel that we are saber-rattling racists and hatemongers of the worst order?
When will we be urged to come clean, shaking off this mantle of dhimmitude, and finally being allowed to admit that we are at war with Islam, simply because they say they are at war with us, contrary to what Presidents Bush, Obama and other duplicitous leaders in the West and the Middle East have insisted?
Freedom and liberty are no excuse for bad behavior, but neither is the stifling of free speech or pride in the traditions of one's own nation. Our jobs have been shipped overseas, and now our culture is being stolen by usurpers who statistically care nothing about America but a third world life in a once prosperous state they wish to remake in their own image. As constitutional conservatives, who cherish what our forefathers fought and died bringing forth, this era of leadership has become a national disgrace. So, we just have one question.
Is there any hope that Homeland Security will wise up and stop the madness?
THE SECOND AMENDMENT SECURES FOR the individual a right to keep and bear arms to preserve the security of a free state. A plain and solid reading of the language our forefathers fought and died many of them to leave us as our greatest American inheritance is not solely a restriction on the federal government. It is a restriction on ALL governing bodies. As one will note upon reading it, there are no local, state, federal or UN qualifiers. This amendment fears and contradicts ALL levels of government.
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Arguments about the Second Amendment are always exercises in etymology, and turn on lynchpin definitions of a single word or another. We should point out that the Federalist concepts would only allow the phrase "well regulated" to mean, and thus it still means simplyprepared and quickly ready for action,not to be confused with some knee jerk variation of half-blind power-seizing heavily controlled by a government deconstuctionist's impulsive reworking of the term. What would be the point in that?
A "free" state standing is the form of government established by the Constitution as it was originally written and intended. If not, pray tell, what on earth were they trying to establish? Many have noted that the Second Amendment makes itself plain as to where the right to keep and bear arms resides: It is a right of "the people."
We must agree. For we notice that the writers acknowledged three different entities when describing to each the powers that are called into existence with the ratification of the founding document of this nation.
The entity designated the states is not the primary issue in the Second Amendment. Enumerated elsewhere are the powers of the states. The same holds true for any specified powers the governing bodies of the United States of America are called to exercise. So let's be clear. This specific power of the right to bear arms is given specifically to The People all within the sensibilities informing the federalist republic the founders struggled to invent.
Man is bestowed by God the Creator of Natural Rights the primary right to defend himself, his family, and his community against aggression to the quiet enjoyment of these rights, even against an unjust government, foreign or domestic, as it infringes his own natural liberty. And when utilized as an effective tool in the sporting conservation of natural wildlife while providing food for the tables of tens of thousands of numbers of families, it defies common sense to consider abridging this very sacred right, a right when infringed is the very definition of social oppression.
The people of this country are guaranteed quiet enjoyment of their liberties with the responsibilities they command. We are taught, or at least, we once were taught never to sacrifice liberty for some temporary security, for he who does deserves neither liberty nor security.
The Second Amendment reinforces the principle the Declaration of Independence embraces wherein it was recognized that We the People have the God-given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and the right to resist by a show of arms when specifically an oppressive government has breeched the peaceful call of liberty incumbent to a Free State.
All manners of public airing and effective redress of grievances become ineffective or unavailable in the case of an immediate threat against our life, liberty, and property, regardless of what Karl Marx or Mao Tze-Tong believed. This is the argument in a nutshell. One does not have a viable "right" unless he also has the ability to protect and defend it. We must agree, emphatically, as Americans, as rationalists, as seekers of libertythe anti-constitutionists of whatever political persuasion have no standing until a greater power arrives.
Doesn't the recent Norwegian tragedy with all its ready-made hyperbole and suspicious evidence of the killer's ideological pedigree prove our point, all the more plainly, one more time. Norway's population has no access to guns, not even the police. And yet...