Saturday, February 28, 2009

Points to Ponder:
(On True and False "Rights")

A right, such as a right to free speech, imposes no obligation on another, except that of non-interference. The so-called right to health care, food or housing, whether a person can afford it or not, is something entirely different; it does impose an obligation on another. If one person has a right to something he didn't produce, simultaneously and of necessity it means that some other person does not have right to something he did produce. That's because, since there's no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy, in order for government to give one American a dollar, it must, through intimidation, threats and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other American. [Dr. Walter E. Williams]

Labels: , , ,

On President Barack Obama's Political Mentor:
(A Rerum Novarum Compilation Thread)

Saul Alinsky is one of the largest intellectual influences on our president as well as the whole "community organizing" model that President Obama was trained in. He also also ran as president using this approach and therefore will presumably will try to use as president. To give an idea of what this means for Americans, I have put together a series of threads for readers of this humble weblog to review. The thread spans from March 25, 2007 to October 22, 2008. I do not necessarily agree with the views of the threads below but have included a cross-section to give a balanced approach to the subject of Saul Alinsky and what he was really about. Without further ado...

For Clinton and Obama, a Common Ideological Touchstone (circa March 25, 2007)

Obama in Chicago: portrait of a pragmatist (circa April 3, 2007)

[Deval] Patrick, [Barack] Obama campaigns share language of 'hope' (circa April 16, 2007)

Reading Hillary Clinton's hidden thesis (circa May 19, 2007)

While then-college student Hillary Rodham wrote her thesis, she met Saul Alinsky and interviewed him. She however could not have known in 1969 that Saul Alinsky would write a manifesto of sorts in 1971 called Rules For Radicals that he would dedicate "[t]o Lucifer, the first radical." Young Barack Obama on the other hand having been privy to such a book does not have the same excuse. Moving on...

Democrats and the Legacy of Activist Saul Alinsky (circa May 21, 2007)

"Ruthless" For Obama (circa September 4, 2007)

Obama's Alinsky Jujitsu (circa January 8, 2008)

Alinsky, Clinton, Obama (circa January 10, 2008)

In the above bit, a reader of the site's writer supporting Obama talked about how Clinton and Obama differed as it pertains to Alinsky.

Hillary Hardball vs. Barack Softball: Is there a Genuine Difference? (circa March 7, 2008)

Alinsky, Governance, Democracy, Obama (circa April 6, 2008)

The above one lists Alinsky's "Thirteen Rules" making it a must read in my view for that reason alone. Sod that, I will post the thirteen rules from Rules For Radicals to this humble weblog in the coming week. Moving on...

Saul Alinsky -Yet Another Obama Mentor From His Marxist Past (circa May 17, 2008)

WANTED: An Honest Journalist That Will Investigate B. Hussein Obama (circa July 2, 2008)

Michelle Obama Used Lines From Saul Alinsky's Book "Rules For Radicals" In Last Night's Speech (circa August 26, 2008)

Saul Alinsky's Son: "Obama Learned His Lesson Well" (circa September 2, 2008)

Obama, His Mentor Saul Akinsky, and the Relationship Between "Community Organizer" and Marxism (circa September 10, 2008)

Guess who recommended Obama to enter Harvard (circa September 24, 2008)

GARRETT: What Obama picked up from Saul Alinsky's playbook (circa October 22, 2008)

Readers who review the above threads and take into account your host's view of marxism{1} will well realize why I viewed posting a thread like this to be necessary so that those who want to combat what this president is going to try can familiarize themselves with one of his chief tactical influences.


{1} Here are just a few of the threads from this weblog's archives on marxism in order from oldest to most recent so our view of the matter is discernible without the slightest shade of ambiguity:

Points to Ponder on the Many Masks of Modern Marxism (circa July 3, 2005)

On Marxists and Their Methodology (circa July 22, 2006)

Miscellaneous Musings (circa June 29, 2007)

On Reminding Readers of the Significance of "May Day" (circa May 1, 2008)

Miscellaneous Threads Worth Noting (circa June 18, 2008)

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Clarifying Ourselves on a Previous Point:

The purpose of posting today is to touch on a point in the following thread outlining the actions being taken by a soldier of the United States Military:

Soldier doubts eligibility, defies president's orders

The crux of the above article can be summarized in the subheading of the article itself, namely this:

'As an officer, my sworn oath to support and defend our Constitution requires this'

It seems appropriate to your humble host to clarify something he said back in December when writing on the election aftermath. Among the many points covered in that rather expansive expository musing{1} was the part about questioning the verdict of the election. My words on that subject were as follows:

There is voter fraud in all elections including both this last one and the one preceding it -though you would not know that to hear the silence from the msm on the last two elections because they got "their guys" in as opposed to the three elections previous to 2006.

Chronicling specific examples of voter fraud is fine, outlining various connections of unsavoury persons and circumstances with the Obama campaign is also fine. Going over how absolutely disgracefully the msm conducted themselves is also fine as well as problems with fundraising that the Obama campaign had with various donations of a controversial nature. But using any of this as a pre-text for rejecting the verdict of the voters is unacceptable.

Part of being not only a good soldier but also a mature human being is knowing not only which battles have been lost but also which battles are worth fighting. I will not go into the physiological realities behind the inverse natures of intensity and duration at this time but battles will need to be fought with the coming administration but ones based on principles. And acting like the spoiled child who throws a temper tantrum after losing a game -as many of the most rabid supporters of the incoming president did for the past eight years- will not help in any fashion.{10}

The tenth footnote from that posting read as follows:

Your host is aware of the court challenges to the legitimacy of President Obama to even run constitutionally due to questions of the circumstances and place of birth, etc. But even if such challenges are in various courts at the present time, prior to any ruling on these matters, the reality of Obama as president needs to be recognized even by those who are filing such cases. We cannot say we have put much thought into this particular approach though we will say this: if those filing the lawsuits do not win, they should show themselves to be of a higher species of humanity than those who spent eight years inaccurately regurgitating what happened in 2000 as their excuse to act like spoiled children who refused to grow up.

As the footnote noted, I did not put much thought into the approach being noted above but from a practical standpoint I did not see much value in this approach. However, I also did not take into consideration the phenomenon noted above concerning a soldier's pledged oath to the Constitution and what that involved. So having that factor brought into the equation, it changes a tad bit what I said previously so allow me to clarify my view on the matter further at this time.

Essentially, while I reaffirm my previous statement on the matter, I want to remove the appearance of an absolute statement on the matter and declare it to be a statement involving a general norm. I do not see for example how those who are bound by Constitutional oaths should be forced to go against their conscience if the latter really is a factor in the matter. However, those who would do so should have a degree of moral certainty that enables them to fulfill that function. And that means that for those sworn to follow the president should have a degree of moral certainty that the person they are following is actually the president. Ordinarily an election would suffice to supply this but in the case of both parties in the last election, they were born in extraordinary circumstances. However, Senator John McCain still fit the criteria under the Constitution to be president and the US Senate even went so far as to declare his meeting of this criteria in an official resolution. The same was not done for President Obama when he was running for the office.{2}

The bottom line is this really: if then-senator and now President Obama was actually born in Hawaii as he and his supporters claim, than what is wrong with releasing the original birth certificate for review. If there is one, this is the fastest way to end the controversy and do so decisively. The stubborn refusal of President Obama and others to do this is at the very least profoundly suspicious. And for that reason and in light of what this soldier has sworn under the Constitution to uphold, I cannot blame him for wanting proof of the legitimacy of the office holder to whom he is expected to obey in life and death situations.


{1} On How To Approach the Presidential Election Results of 2008 and Analyzing the Political Trends for 2008 and Beyond (circa December 9, 2008)

{2} Eligibility Issue: McCain Checked Out But Not Obama

Labels: , , , , , ,