Herman Cain Loves Big Government

Herman Cain loves big government (after it leaves the US border).

Herman Cain doesn't focus much on foreign policy, and with good reason: his beliefs thereon conflict with his image as a pro-small government candidate.

When asked about the war in Libya, Herman Cain did a proverbial Rick Santorum impression and said that going to war there was right but that Obama hadn't done it in the right way--that Obama hadn't made the objective clear. This is another way of saying: "I also support Obama's unconstitutional war, but I'm going to try to get you dunderheads to believe that my policy would be substantially different from Obama's." Would a Cain-led no fly zone be all that different from an Obama one? Could it? Probably not, but we shouldn't have gone in to Libya regardless of policy employed there. Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, and Michele Bachmann are the only candidates to have condemned the unconstitutional Libya war; Gingrich was for it before he was against it. Romney seems to be itching for war according to his latest book.

Herman Cain has openly sought to affiliate himself with the raging globalist Henry Kissenger. Kissenger is the poster child for big government intervention in the form of the military, and perhaps no figure better represents the forces of internationalism than him. Hermain Cain's 9-9-9 plan may seem anti-establishment, but when it comes to foreign policy, he might as well be the neo-con Rick Santorum.

A Syn of Times

We recently happened upon a music marketing company known as "The Syndicate." It's website is called www.thesyn.com. This may be seen as a provocative name--alluding to "sin", but this company actually refers to its employees as "Synners" in a job solicitation (so much for being inclusive to Christians). Yet no name could be more fitting for a modern music company, as modern music has been utterly co-opted by the forces of evil; and is rife with such "playful" satanism.

Even from a glance at the website, one notices a video with a menacing beat, featuring a person with a goat-head interspliced with brief, disturbing clips of fans doing weird, bad stuff.

But the bad behavior is really accidental to the evil wound into the music itself. Many have commented that Katy Perry's piece, ET, is so aggressively diabolical-sounding that they actually feel like their very soul is somehow damaged just from having listened to a portion of it--their breast feeling a horrible darkness within it, having come from the song. One man reported that his heart hurt for several minutes after hearing it. Lady Gaga is another perpetrator who goes to extremes in promoting a form of demented sensationalism in many of her pieces.

The strangest part about it all is that many of these pieces are composed by apparently normal human beings; it seems they should have been composed by a cult of satanists, or a coven of witches for how evil they sound. It is so difficult to believe that a mere human would want to propagate something so disturbing, even if it netted him or her lots of money.

For what does it profit a man if he gain the whole world and suffer the loss of his soul? It seems like the modern music industry is composed solely of those whom have sold their souls.

Rick Perry a Moneychanger and Hypocrite?

Rick Perry is the posterboy for a prayer event at Reliant Stadium in Houston on August 6th, that is slated to be "a solemn gathering of prayer and fasting for our country." We have begun to wonder whether the event is more about Rick Perry than about prayer.

Matthew 6:5-6 (NIV)

And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

The question is whether Rick Perry is using the event to impress evangelical voters to kick off his anticipated presidential run, or simply to express solidarity with several thousand people in a stadium whom he has never met...or maybe, for the benefit of the doubt, Perry is just doing the event for the sake of doing it.

But, consider the one time when Jesus Christ used violence

Matthew 21:12-13 Jesus entered the temple courts and drove out all those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. “It is written,” he said unto them, “‘My house will be called a house of prayer,’ but you are making it a den of robbers.”

In the case of the moneychangers, they were using the temple for the sake of enriching themselves with money. From this we may conclude that nobody should use a house of worship for his own selfish enrichment. This enrichment could also pertain to political clout; and it seems Rick Perry will gain political clout among evangelicals from this event. Moreover, the hypocrites we mentioned earlier prayed loudly so that they could gain favor with men and thus enrich themselves politically.

Indeed, at the moment we cannot know the true motivation for Perry's prayer event, but we can be certain that Perry needs to be careful that he is not doing the event for the wrong reasons so that he won't be a hypocrite or moneychanger.

On the Net, Americans Deserve Debt

Every American doesn't deserve to be in debt, but all together Americans do.

America is in a lot of debt. The total yearly income of the wealthiest nation on earth just about equals the amount it owes other nations. Americans would have to go more than a year without anything while working in order to pay off all the debt.

Being in debt is not the end of the world, but an inability to cease increasing the debt by a lot each year is a very bad thing, and America suffers from this malady now. If not cured, the debt growth will destroy America as we know it.

The person to blame is not the "Progess"ive who wants taxes raised enough to pay for socialist government programs. Neither is it the conservative who wants low taxes with a much smaller government. It is the median voter. The median voter isn't even a person really, nor is he a finite group of people. But he has the most power to shape aggregate voters' choices. If all Americans were made into a facial average like this one, then he would look just like this median voter.

But, we're not exactly comparing facial averages. We're saying that the final facial average of American voters ends up looking like a person who wants low taxes with plenty of socialist government benefits that have not been paid for. This person deserves to be in a high level of debt.

But why do Americans add up to this person and not another?

Maybe more people like low taxes than like small government. More like socialistic programs than like high taxes. The politicians want to win and don't want to lose doing the dignified thing.

Election politics may be to blame for this. Nobody would run on a campaign promising to eliminate public sector jobs and thus lose the public worker vote. Therefore nobody runs on a small government platform.

Nobody would run on raising taxes and thus lose the upper middle class taxpayer vote. Therefore nobody runs on a campaign of tax increases equivalent to the level of socialism he promises.

This paradigm is pictured in the graph below.



We assume that all those who want smaller government also want low taxes. We also assume that those who want higher taxes also want high levels of socialism. But not all those who want low taxes also want small government, and not all who want more freebies want higher taxes. Therefore, if a candidate moves to the left or right of point 2 in the graph and begins to talk about either scaling back government or raising taxes, he'll lose votes.

But maybe it's that people who just barely favor higher taxes--but not enough to vote for them--get energized to go out and vote by promises of more freebies; and those who like the idea of small government just a little bit but not enough to vote for someone espousing it, would vote for someone who espouses policies of low taxes.

Regardless, this thought experiment proves, perhaps sophomorically, that well-functioning democracy can result in calamity.

Sorry, we don't have data to back up this conjecture, but it may well be true.

Homeland Security, etc, Ushering in Feudal America?

The best history is history that sheds light on the present. There may be a connection between the Feudal System's power structure and what is developing in America as Homeland Security grows and gains power over civilians. On the other side of the ledger, things that would weaken civilians seem to be on the horizon, such as gun confiscation and faltering democracy. Consider the following from page 3 of the book pictured left wherein the author explains what kept the Feudal system in place:

As long as the nobles held their monopoly of the military profession, rebellion against their authority was futile. The short bow was the best weapon possessed by the lower classes, but its shafts were of little effect against knightly armor. Even if a peasant could find the means to procure the equipment of a knight, he would lack the training required to use it effectively. Until the non-noble class obtained wealth, leisure, or a cheap, easily used, and effective weapon, the position of the feudal aristocracy was perfectly secure.

Now, keeping all this in mind, let us observe several trends in America today that move us closer to this dynamic.

Since its creation in 2002, Homeland Security's budget has inched upward every year. With opportunists such as Rick Santorum posturing to be the greatest protector of the people, the incentive for such congressmen is to make DHS grow.

Homeland security gives the government more power to search persons and belongings than it would otherwise have--as long as government perceives a threat of terrorism. For example, because people think a terrorist attack is more likely to occur on an airplane, the groping arm of DHS, the TSA, invades people's privacy more so than a regular police officer would be able to in a place such as a subway.

More importantly, Homeland Security is locationally far-removed from the civilian population, almost as much as a feudal aristocracy would be. Whereas a police chief may reside in or nearby the neighborhood he patrols, DHS workers answer to distant federal apparatchiks, and would presumably have fewer ties to the locality which they deal with. The disconnection sets the psychological stage for inhuman treatment, almost like a class system in feudal Europe would.

Don't be fooled by the DHS website which has nice pics of workers smiling on it. Sometimes services are outsourced to save money (on something that is wasteful to begin with*), as was the case when a mercenary intelligence group populated by foreigners was caught spying on people at a second amendment rally and at an anti-gasdrilling demonstration, both in Pennsylvania. Moreover, TSA workers' attitude toward passengers--that they are “guilty until proven innocent [by strip search]”--could not be more hostile or dehumanizing.

And DHS has implemented surveillance cameras in Walmart to spy on Walmart shoppers for some reason. Maybe DHS is looking to get stills for "The People of Walmart" website.

No one would doubt that such invasiveness, spying, etc empowers the government relative to the people—and that’s what we’re getting at here. Indeed, we remain a far cry from a feudal system-scale imbalance, but empowering DHS inches us toward it.

It has been said that federal bureaus are run like independent little kingdoms and operate with the sole goal of increasing their budgets by demanding more tribute from taxpayers in return for "keeping them safe". But it is doubtful that Homeland Security does or can make us safer, and even if they do, they only do so to a very small, insignificant degree, and the invasion of privacy and loss of power to citizens may not be worth it.

We've just illustrated how DHS strengthens government, but now lets turn to things that might weaken the governed.

Gun confiscation would not add resources to the government but would subtract resources from non-governmental civilians. When effective weapons such as guns are confiscated, the government's power rises relative to that of the civilian population, given that only civilians seem to be the target of proposed gun confiscation legislation. The police and military will obviously always have firearms--as will criminals. In the feudal system, only the noble lords had weapons, as did invaders--with the peasants being helplessly caught in the middle. Gun grabbing moves us closer to this dynamic, with the modern-day invaders being terrorists and criminals the peasants being law-abiding American civilians, and the lords being DHS. The difference is that, in feudal times, there often was a legitimate threat of serious invasion, so the noble knights often served a purpose. The chances of suffering a terrorist attack in America were very slim before 9/11 and have been very slim after that day.

Infringing upon the second amendment may not be much of a concern for some. As long as we have a benevolent government, some may argue, gun grabbing from civilians should pose no serious problem. But what if the government stops being benevolent, what would bring this about, and is it happening now?

Further failure of democracy is needed to initiate a really tyrannical dictatorship that would reign in an environment where guns had been confiscated, where helpless citizens were that much more vulnerable. But beside the Democrat-Republican quid pro quo exchange that happens when D's and R's exchange welfare and warfare, is democracy failing in other ways?

Yes:

1. Inherently, as democracy favors the general consensus and scorns unorganized minorities such as Amishmen who sell raw milk or mothers who refuse to medicate their children with state-mandated drugs. Within the political parties, people with new or differing ideas are often shunned or excluded.

2. Exogenously, as democracy erodes due to a misinformative corporate media and a panem et circensus mentality among the public. For example, FOX News is obsessed with warmongering and airing insignificant tidbits of Republican propaganda.** Entertainment outlets such as "Dancing with the Stars" and NFL football are consuming people's time and consciousness that they might otherwise have leftover to discuss politics.

The pieces in place so far are: not enough leisure time to devote to politics resulting in faltering democracy setting the stage for gun confiscation to weaken citizenry and to become perilous amid a tyrannical government being empowered by the DHS. But remember, in our conjecture, we have yet to address the fact that Americans presently have a lot of wealth and leisure.

The loss of wealth for most voters is happening as follows: In the present, big corporations benefit from deficit spending as they receive government contracts. In the long-run, big banks benefit from deficit spending as they reap the interest on loans the government borrowed in order to run deficits. Eventually, if taxes are raised, the super rich will offshore their funds, and big companies will continue to find ways to avoid paying them, leaving the tax system less progressive--even regressive, and heaped on the moderately rich who will have to forgo creating jobs for the middle class and poor.

As for loss of leisure, mortgages pushed by the federal government's HUD and backed by Fannie, Freddie, and ultimately the Federal Reserve, effectively enslave many Americans to years of serfdom to their homes. Moreover, for people of average education, it takes both parents working for the family to live comfortably. Even when there is leisure, it is often of the mindless sort; ie watching Dancing with the Stars or sports. People spend many hours in transit from their suburban residences to their urban places of employment. The calm leisure necessary to become wise about politics may not be there, and eventually political involvement for many has become a passtime, too abstracted from people's actual lives.

Even if political involvement isn't abstracted, then (in most political cases) it might as well be, because people try to live off the government stealing from everyone else--and people of all income levels do this: the mega-rich by securing federal contracts, the regular rich with local government favors, the middle class with "free" healthcare, and the poor with everything.

Therefore, functional leisure in the sense that it would be used to combat tyranny is not widespread and the nature of voting decisions has declines as everyone is too busy getting favors to vote altruistically to do things like balance the budget.

Conclusion
Critics of this analogy might say that the encroachments of DHS coupled with the losses of civilian power do not necessarily entail that we will continue to move toward a feudal system dynamic or that we will ever end up with a feudal system. In that, they are right. But on the obverse, there seems to be nothing yet to suggest that the slide into a feudal system will stop, as long as the trends here mentioned continue. As long as the next generation's voters shrug off their loss of freedom as TSA expands into subways or as civilians' weaponry is taken away, in other words, if their attitude toward incursions is the same as that held by people of the present, then we can say that the conditions for a further slide toward Feudal America remain, given that DHS has the economic incentive to grow and college-educated people continue to call for gun bans.

One concession to make is that under the feudal system there was little trade and nearly no use of money. Americans have many ways to trade, even if the dollar collapses. The dollar probably won't collapse soon since people are so used to using it as money and since it is highly demanded around the world. We have a complex market economy that was alien to the feudal manor. So obviously we'll probably never reach an environment very much like the feudal system. But moving closer to feudalism is in and of itself a bad thing composed of individual losses of liberty. The problem is that our system is beginning to take on, however slightly, the negative traits of the feudal system.
________________________
*Because the chances of death via a terrorist attack are so small, there is probably no justification for any marginal spending increases for DHS.
**FOX News represents the warmongering, pro-DHS, hero-worship side of the GOP, but does not really stand up for fiscal or social conservatives.

Supporting Ron Paul is Kosher

Despite what some would call Ron Paul's Israel Problem, one website, Americans for Israel, maintains that Ron Paul is the most pro-Israel presidential candidate although he supports cutting aid to Israel because he also supports cutting aid to Israel's surrounding Islamic rivals who altogether receive three times what Israel does.

The website itself seems a bit sparse though--and was probably created in 2008 for the specific purpose of drawing pro-Israel people to Ron Paul. Therefore this is not some well-known pro-Israel group that naturally decided to endorse Ron Paul. Nonetheless, there appears to be some support among presumably, predominantly pro-Israel Jews for Paul, with one Facebook group having 154 members on the day this was published.

The website also claims that withdrawing aid from Israel would allow it more reign in protecting itself from aggressors--without having to ask permission from the US.

The real question is whether tentative support from a US president is the only thing standing in the way of Islamic countries ganging up on and attacking Israel. Would Ron Paul have to pledge an alliance with Israel in order to deter a large-scale attack? Possibly not, since Israel has nukes galore.

Whether the viewpoints expressed by Americans for Israel make sense in light of these questions is for the analysts to decide, but said viewpoints nevertheless are thought provoking.

UPDATE 6-4-11
Walter Block has posted a neat summary of the benefits Ron Paul's policy of no foreign aid would bring to the state of Israel. The question is whether they make up for the loss in benefits from foreign aid.

One thing is for certain: unless Ron Paul can appeal to evangelical Christians who comprise the majority of the Christian Right, then he will be very limited in the primaries.

Thoughts on May 21 Rapture Date

Radio host Harold Camping predicts that judgement day, the rapture, will occur May 21, 2011 at 6:00pm. It will strike when that hour reaches your time zone. Harold Camping claims his analysis of Revelation is evidence for this doomsday date.

The question to ask is why people want to believe that the rapture will happen May 21. Maybe they don't like the way the culture is going, or how the churches are becoming; indeed Camping himself asserts that the churches have been taken over by Satan: his assertions sometimes seem not too far off. But to say that all churches have been taken over bespeaks quite a lot of knowledge held by speaker...

Anyway, we don't claim to know when the rapture is--May 21 or otherwise, so we decided to publish a litany of opinions on the issue.

Setting a date for the rapture means that people will continue to sin until a couple days or hours before the predicted time or date when they will get right with God. Setting a date incentivizes sin, and therefore it is better to believe that the rapture will happen any time. Any proclamation that incentivizes sin is a false one.

Wouldn't it be funny if the rapture happened May 20th?

I hope the rapture happens May 21. My life's miserable.

Is the rapture even biblical?

This man is using an ancient document that isn't exactly meant to be taken literally when it comes to dates and figures to predict when the world will end.

Starlight proves that the universe is older than 13,023 years old but Camping claims this is universe's age. Thus, his assumptions concerning the validity of time span in the Bible are based on falsehood.

This is another example of religion misleading people.

I want the rapture to hold off until I have a chance to get married.

Regardless, we think you should be ready May 21, as you would any other date...but maybe a little more so on May 21.

NATO Bombs Children

Rather than send aid to Japan, the US government via NATO bombs mentally challenged children in Libya.

NATO pilots [performed] an airstrike that took out the Libyan Down's Syndrome Society, a school for children afflicted with the birth disorder.

Continue reading on Examiner.com: NATO airstrike in Libya hits school for disabled children - National Libertarian

The Immorality if Sin Taxes

A Joke: In South Carolina, taxes on cigarettes go to fix the roads. Let's light up and fix these bumpy roads!

Sin Taxes Create Sinful Government Incentives
Presently, corrective taxes are all the rage in policy circles and academic institutions. Although a corrective or "sin" tax may encourage someone to do less of a bad thing, the process creates the wrong incentives for government because the government profits comparatively more from the sin than other taxed activities, or, it profits more from bad behavior than from good behavior. For instance, the government would benefit more from heavily taxed whiskey than from ordinarily taxed orange juice.

The tax penalty a smoker incurs that induces him to buy fewer cigarettes could be considered a moral good if we ignore any principle of liberty* and if the story ended there. But the story does not end there. The government takes revenue derived from a bad activity and then uses it for, let's assume, a good activity like reservoir maintenance or road repair. Doing good things with money gotten from bad activity becomes bad when the incentive to do more good things requires that there be more bad behavior to tax. A sin tax is not a total gain because even though the disincentive to smoke may be a plus, the incentive to do good things with revenue reliant on bad behavior is a negative. Even further, sin taxes are slightly immoral insofar as their objective is to create a greater good, because they inherently fail a little and are therefore a little deceitful. A sin tax is therefore slightly sinful itself.

Consider a sin tax on carbon emissions. The more carbon emissions, the more revenue, the more of an incentive government has for more emissions, and hence the more useless leveraging without actual moral improvement.

Perhaps by utilitarian means, one could argue that the bad government incentives pale in comparison with the good incentives that encourage people to sin less. But, this analysis fails the higher scrutiny used in most Catholic understandings of morality. In order for an act to be considered moral, it must be good in its intentions, action, and results. So even if we assume sin taxes are good in their intent and results by utilitarian reasoning, we have shown earlier that they inherently fail to be good in their action because their action is sustained in part by bad behavior, and this bad behavior cannot be said to be good.

In sum, government cannot create morality via taxation without absorbing some immorality itself, and the overall morality it may create fails to be moral under a Catholic pretext, to the extent that some might even say sin taxes are immoral.
_________________________________________________

*We would also assume that the government knows best.

Libyan Rebels Murder Black Africans

And the US GOVERNMENT is helping the rebels. The US war effort in Libya is unconstitutional because congress has the power to declar a non-defensive war, but congress has not been consulted. Unfortunately, most congressmen are not complaining about the unconstitutional actions of Hillary Clinton, NATO, and the UN. Meanwhile, the Clinton-backed rebels are murdering black Africans. All the while Obama seems like a passive observer. http://senseofevents.blogspot.com/2011/03/libyan-rebel-atrocities.html

Homosexual Movement's Vocabulary Imperialism

Many formerly straight words have been co-opted for use by the gay movement.

Words
partner, partnership, ally (at King's College), silence, gay, pride, queer, straight, orientation, closet, union.

Concepts
rainbow, equality (or equal), rights, marriage.

The rainbow has even been "enlisp-ed" into an army of words and symbols being used in the effort to normalize homosexuality. By abstracting homosexuality from its essence--a sexual attraction--and by getting people to associate it psychologically with positive things--like a rainbow--that are totally unrelated to said attraction, activists attempt to effect a positive psychological association where there was none.

According to anthropologists, there has never been a culture that has sought to verbally equivocate a man-man physical relationship with a man-woman one, until the modern "liberal" Western culture. In the past, man-man relationships were never considered for normalization or family building, and thus there is no word equivalent to "marriage" to describe them. Rather than come up with a new, appropriately different word to describe the man-man sexual relationship, activists have sought the one already in use known as marriage.

Therefore, no word developed naturally to describe homosexual relationships, and the ascription of "marriage" to them is an artificial borrowing from straight culture.

Perhaps the hope is that by calling a monogamous man-man sexual relationship 'marriage', the stubborn resistors who reject the normality of man-man sexual relationships will soon lose their nerve and acquiesce to the language. Just as in Animal Farm, the hope is that future generations will conform their beliefs to the language.

But language cannot obscure reality. The meaning of words must return to their equilibrium of accurate description.

So even if there is total victory for the homosexual movement, and every human being alive accepts the idea of man-man sexual partnership being called marriage, marriage will then be used to describe two radically different types of unions. Hence man-man relationships will always be distinguished from man-woman ones on some level.

Even today, "gay" marriage is distinguished from regular marriage.

Imperialism for naught.

Malaysia in Gag-a Malaise

Sean Yoong AP- "Broadcasters in this Muslim-majority nation have refused to play lines in the hit song that encourage public acceptance of gays, claiming Thursday they are being cautious because the government forbids offensive content. The precaution was due to government restrictions against songs that might violate "good taste or decency or (are) offensive to public feeling."

Malaysia has also put rules in place for performers, and has even banned Avril Lavigne from performing.

We say that regardless of lyrics, the music ought to be banned for its bad sound.

Socialism Begets a One World Government

Many "progress"ives say they want socialism only up to a certain point. (They usually don't bother to say where, however.) But common wisdom says that as long as the world is imperfect, which it will always be, then there will always be progressives agitating the government to solve problems or perceived problems.

Another question is whether the socialistic impulse leads invariably to a one world government.

I believe it does, because a one world government allows for more efficient redistribution of wealth, which is what socialism is all about. (Disregarding the fact that socialistic types seem most open to foreign aid.)

Consider this thought experiment:

In the county of Luzerne, in Pennsylvania, there are many elderly persons living on a fixed income, in addition to many living on disability and welfare. Average income is not high.

On the other hand, in Lancaster County PA, there's a lot of money. So socialists would jump at the chance to take money in taxes from Lancaster residents to give to poorer inhabitants of Luzerne County. This is socialism on the state level.

But what if we're considering a state like West Virginia where there isn't much money in any county? Then, socialists will lunge at the chance to take money from people living in PA via the federal income tax and to give it to inhabitants of WV.

Do you see where this is going?

Many libertarians like to quote the aphorism, especially in light of the Egypt turmoil, that "foreign aid takes money from poor people in rich countries, and gives it to rich people in poor countries." Those "rich people in poor countries" are strongmen like Mubarak. Even if aid is given directly to the poor living in (for example) Egypt, their rulers may decide to tax them that much more and thus would offset the benefit of the aid.

What would make this conundrum easier would be if there were no Mubaraks to take the money from the poor. In other words, if there were a one world government, wealth redistribution on a global level would seem more politically plausible.

To use an economics term, the "returns to scale" of socialism is world government.

Be advised that a one world government is not on the horizon. The Chinese are ultra-nationalist, and many other countries are as well. Moreover, many countries are closer to breaking up than to unifying with others.

But if a one world government ever becomes politically possible, and if that generation's progressives see an opportunity to redistribute wealth to the less fortunate, then you can bet they'll be on the forefront for bringing about a one world government.

So if socialists have an ideal political climate to work in, then socialism will beget a one world government.

Blue Hawaii & Birth Certificate Blues

An article on the American Thinker blog alleges that a friend of Hawaii's Governor said he couldn't find a birth certificate on record for a one Barack Obama. It's a secondary source, yet has convinced many. Now, even Chris Matthews is harping on Obama to show the document in an official way.

Many believe Obama has shown his birth certificate, but what he has shown is a certificate of live birth (COLB), and while such document suffices for Hawaiian citizenship, it does not necessarily prove one was born on US soil (or in Hawaii), since COLBs were given out rather liberally during the early years of Hawaii as a state, even to children not born in Hawaii. Moreover, the COLB may have been fabricated. Regardless, it appears to be a rather elusive document, as nobody has seen it in person.

Moreover, legal experts allege that the US laws that were active when Obama was born would have made Obama's mother too young to pass on citizenship to him if she did not have him in the US. Many calls for Obama to reveal his original long form birth certificate, and court cases to this effect, have all been ignored or stuck down. The supreme court has rejected hearing at least one birth certificate case.

There has been a long list of allegations, including one election clerk saying that everybody knew Obama had no birth cert., to Orly Taitz saying that Obama has used multiple Social Security numbers.

One Hawaiian official has stated that Obama's documents all check out, but they have offered no specifics or proof for these statements.

Yet, the state of Arizona may mandate that in order to get on its ballot for president, one must prove natural born status. Now, even Chris Matthews and a columnist for the liberal magazine Mother Jones both say they want Obama to show the original document, at 6:45 through the video below.


UPDATE 5-20-11 Now that Obama has shown an original long-form birth certificate, most questions surrounding his birth have faded. Some believe it might be a fake. But even if it is, at least Obama has put forth the effort to lie... Regardless, the birth certificate controversy seems like a rabbit hole to avoid falling into.

"Snow Shovel Ready"

A poem dedicated to Santa Keynes' idea that refilling a ditch can be an economic good.

There's economic stimuli
Falling from the sky!
It's white and fluffy
and better than dirty stuff
It's totally shovel ready
but not quite so heavy!

Green Goop Falls from Sky

Near Buffalo New York, a greenish gooey substance was found on several homes.

Communist Infiltration via ACLU

Strange de-classified documents claim several early ACLU leaders of the 1920s and 30s were Communists in cahoots with the Reds.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/04/the-aclu%E2%80%99s-untold-stalinist-heritage/

The EU is a Grinch

[The EU's] daily planners, of which three million have been produced (courtesy of the taxpayer), include the holidays of Jews, Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus, but there is not one mention of Christian holidays...

The page for December 25th is completely empty...

http://www.sovereignindependent.com/?p=11639