My Major Random Thoughts

The Half-Known, Half-Committed, Half-Legal,  Half-Way President

In so many areas of Obama’s existence, half-truths mixed with prevarications is the accepted norm.  Almost everything about him is characterizable as half this and half that.   Half white, half black; half Kenyan, half American; half American, half Indonesian; half secular humanist/liberation theology socialist, half Christian; half Hawaiian, half Chicagoan; half foreign student, half American student; half accomplished student, half affirmative-action student; half transparent honest broker of the truth, half hypocritical liar; half defender of the Constitution, half violator; half defender of America, half criticizer of America; half representative of American power and dignity, half subservient deep-bower to foreign kings; half advocate for fiscal responsibility, half wasteful and extravagant spender and tax cutter, half attacker of deficit spending, and half biggest spender in history. And that’s just a sample. Is there any issue on which good King Hypocrite is not two-faced?  AN


Sophistry:  Unsound or misleading but clever and plausible arguments or reasoning.  The methods of the Sophists.  Employed by socialists employed to make Barack Obama appear to be a legitimate and constitutional President.

Sophomoric:  characteristics of sophomores, often regarded as self-assured, opinionated  etc., but immature, impulsive and lacking in critical thinking.  Exemplified by snide, infantile remarks made by momma’s boys blogging from their parent’s basements commenting on anti-Obama articles that expose the truth about him, -which they are paid enough or dumb enough to toss verbal farts at.

“But then again Obama did not select Michelle for her warmth or her heart. He almost surely chose her for future votes. She rooted him in the African-American experience. He could not get elected in Chicago without a woman quite like her.   At the peak of the Rev. Wright flare-up, Obama played his Michelle trump card.   ‘I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slave owners,” he boasted in his bellweather speech on race, “an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters.'”

Huummmm…what if he had married a Kenyan woman, or a white woman?  Would he have been viewed as presidential candidate material then?  What kind of citizen would he have been viewed as, natural? or something else?  What if his mother had been the Kenyan wife of his father?  What kind of citizen would he have been viewed as then?  Natural or naturalized?  But what difference would it have really made?  Well, he wouldn’t have been a citizen through his mother and able to pull off the greatest deception since the traitors in the FBI and CIA were discovered after rising to upper management levels.

Why do we not elect Presidents for life?  The Communist Party of China has tenure for life.  They can do long-range planning and make it happen without any interference from opposition parties.  Isn’t that a good thing?  Wouldn’t that be good for America also?  Why not?  Mexico and other governments (communist) had single party rule for nearly three quarters of a century.  Doesn’t that enable the altruistic self-sacrificing patriots in the ruling party to accomplish much good?  It would be reasonable to assume so…if you were living in a fantasy world.  Such worlds do exist and have existed all throughout human history.  The Third Reich was one, the Soviet Union was another, the Dear Republic of North Korea is another.

The attitude that the federal courts are above the law of the Constitution and are its supreme arbiters is founded on the principle that if you tell a big enough lie long and loud enough, it will be mistaken for the truth, after all, how could a liar have the gumption to lie so fervently or inexhaustively?  And so the lie is believed.  And so everyone falls for the “rules” promulgated by those who have the most prestige and power to gain from making the rules.  And everyone bows low at the unholy feet of flawed, biased, political men who Fate has placed on the federal bench.  Just like the Congress that passes laws that pertain to everyone except themselves, such as sexual harassment and insider trading.  AN
But in the real world it is an inescapable fact that what people seek in a leader is described by a word you’ll never hear mentioned in any media commentary, and that word is “virility”.  Women, who determine who becomes President, prefer a virile man over a non-virile man, and even if they like a woman candidate, if a man is equally appealing, they will vote for him instead because he is more virile.  Michelle Bachmann, who is appealing in almost every way, lacks the quality of virility.  There is no other discernible reason why her popularity was no higher than it was.  In the end it just boiled down to something lacking and that something was the perception of masculine strength.

In America, women are at a natural disadvantage when it comes to the “beauty pageants” we call elections.  It’s in our genes.  It goes back to pre-historic eras when the strongest man was the leader.  Men were deferential to him, and women trusted him to keep them all safe.  That primeval instinct is still with us and will determine the course of any general election involving a female candidate.
That doesn’t mean that gender perceptions can’t be reversed and a woman can’t be perceived as more “virile” than a male opponent. Margaret Thatcher would be an example.  Also, it’s very possible that Sarah Palin could be viewed as being the more virile of the two 2008 Republican candidates because she had more “fire in the belly” than her running mate.  He had old age countering his virility.
As for Sarah Palin as a vice-president running mate, the best thing to shake up the whole race would be if she were to run for the Vice-Presidency as an Independent.  That’s right.  No party affiliation.  A straight forward run to be Vice-President.  I’d just love to see the looks on all the faces of the Washington and media elites when hearing such news for the first time.  Someone should make a movie…  I’d pay to see it.

A Threat Greater Than Ignoring The Constitution

The Constitution is to Obama like a solid iron door.  Socialist attitudes and efforts are like acid eating away at it so they can break it down and push their way into the cockpit, into the nuclear plant control room and take over everything.  Utopian Peace & Prosperity will be brought about only through revolution, violence, destruction, martial power, or through back-stabbing duplicity that works by ignoring the Constitution.  The Liberal Elites learned from the defeat of the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) that the Constitution was a roadblock that they could not remove and so they decided to just go around it my ignoring the need for constitutional amendments to affect radical transformation and every greater socialistic policy.  But the threat to America isn’t from income redistribution in the real world, it’s from redistribution from the piggy bank of the future which is viewed as an endless supply.  And neither party is especially bothered by that.  AN

You mischaracterize President Obama’s order to not deport long-term-resident non-citizen immigrants  in college or serving in the military .  It was not an order to do something, it was an order to not do something, -something that was probably not being done anyway.  But openly declaring what may have been an unofficial policy is great for shoring up his Hispanic base, especially after the stance against the Catholic church.

But there’s a huge fact that everyone is overlooking, including those in Congress, and it’s that not only does the President have the power to not obey the regulations passed by Congresses, he has the power to kill them outright by the constitutional authority of the veto.  He has the authority to totally thwart the will of Congress, and the justification meant to support it is his sworn oath to defend the Constitution by rejecting unconstitutional legislation, or to protect the rights of minorities, or to avoid a policy that is contrary to the best interest of the nation.  The President is not a rubber stamper for Congress.  He is in effect a co-equal structure of the government, -the first arbiter of the constitutionality of laws and regulations passed by Congress, as well as the enforcer-in-chief.
Not enforcing something should not be equated with enforcing regulations that the out-of-control executive branch makes up on its own on a daily basis.  The real threat isn’t from the government not doing something, -not performing some standard policy enforcement, -it’s from what it does as standard procedure, things it has no right to be doing.  Where is the outrage in Congress over the enforcement of 10s of thousands of unconstitutional executive branch rules that rob American citizens of their individual liberty?  AN

3 Responses to My Major Random Thoughts

  1. arnash says:

    “You may disagree, but the US Supreme Court and numerous lower courts have held that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law”

    The errors inherent in that statement are manifold. They include the assumption that English common law is the same as American common law; -that common law is based on nothing but capricious opinions of judges and not on fundamental principles; -that principles must be ignored in seeking and understanding of common law, -that common language is not relevant to common law understanding, and that there are no things that are unknown to the common law
    [ -“A Peculiar Relationship, -Unknown To The Common Law”]

    In English and American common law there was no such thing as an elected President, nor an elected King, so it’s meaning is completely independent of such an office, and pre-dates it. The meaning of “natural born” is derived entirely from common sense and natural law but over the centuries it was perverted by the monarchy to the point that even babies born to visiting tourists from across the English Channel were claimed to be natural born subjects of his Royal Majestiy. That being the case, one must reject such an asinine self-serving explanation of its meaning and return to its original meaning, -which was a baby born to members of the nation and not born to foreigners nor immigrant aliens.
    It doesn’t matter what any court observes, holds, states, or declares. All that matters is whether or not what came from the court is correct or not correct. The actual Law is one thing; -the rule of the “Law” and the interpretation of the Law is another. The rule, administration, and interpretation can be horribly wrong because people are appointed to judicial office who don’t care about the truth, nor fidelity to the original intent of the law, and they feel they have the right to make their own law based on nothing but perverse distortions that require mental gymnastics to view their rulings as even remotely logical or honest.

    Here’s two questions one needs to ask about the Supreme Court: “Is it possible for the the court to make a correct ruling by a 5-4 split? If so then why is it not also possible to make an incorrect ruling by a 5-4 split? What guarantees that they make the correct consitutional ruling every single time? Answer: Nothing. Consequence: An incorrect, unconstitutional ruling becomes law. This has happened over and over and over throughout our history, in particular, our recent history. We now have mental midgets and traitors to the spirit and meaning of the Constitution sitting and making judgements for us all. The dictatorship of nine American Kings answerable to no one, -not even each other.

    Jefferson warned, “The Constitution [will be] a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”

  2. arnash says:

    Homosexuality & Marriage

    The nature of marriage is similar to the nature of citizenship. There is natural citizenship, versus non-natural citizenship, and there is natural marriage versus non-natural marriage. Natural marriage is that which follows what has been the basis of the perpetuation of all complex life on earth. Natural partners are sexual opposites. Unnatural partners are the same gender, like the same side of a coin, or the same polarity of electro-magnetism. Something went wrong in how their nature was formed in the womb. They received a physical gender that was the opposite of their natural sense of gender attraction.

    Human beings are the most complex, and complicated entities in the universe because they have three elements to their nature in regard to gender. The three should all be in agreement, but since the processes that lead to the final formation of a new human being are so complex, something sometimes doesn’t go according to the natural pattern.

    Two things can go wrong. One can receive the gender identity of the opposite sex, or one can receive the innate attraction to the same sex as one’s self. The results are that one sees him/herself as rightfully a member of the opposite sex and (a.) is homosexually attracted to that sex , or (b) is attracted to one’s same sex because one feels heterosexual attraction to the sex of which they feel they aren’t a natural member.

    Or one feels fine with their gender and has no wish to be the opposite sex, but nevertheless has the innate gender attraction that is of the opposite sex, -the attraction toward the gender of which they are a member. Such attraction is natural in the sense that it is a result of the element of the natural pattern but is active in one with the wrong gender for it. It is innate, just like the affinity for ice cream.
    I had an African Grey parrot that loved ice cream, as well as dogs, so some things are simply innate in many, or most life forms, and gender attraction is certainly one of them. The rarity of an aberrant gender identity or gender attraction is part of the story of how unnatural they are. Which leads to the issue of homosexual marriage.

    The concept of homosexual marriage is an oxymoron. Homosexuality and marriage are opposites, just as are homosexuality and conception. It’s the opposite of the natural pattern. The definition of marriage has never been anything other than a description of the natural pattern of human pairing, human bonding for life, and human reproduction. There is no other natural pattern that fits its description.
    The homosexual pattern is unnatural not because it strikes the mind of the heterosexual population as perverse, but because it isn’t normal. The normal pattern is that which is the natural pattern. Anything abnormal violates the natural pattern. That does not of itself produce any negative value judgement nor innate moral vileness, but it comes with a conundrum of natural conflict.
    Those with the abnormal nature find themselves in a world inhabited by those with a normal nature, and that nature usually includes a sense of revulsion toward that which is totally abnormal. That natural sense of revulsion is indistinguishable from a sense of vileness because everything else in life that is revolting is considered vile.

    But an innate sense of revulsion is something that is only partly innate, -it’s also a result of the absence of cultural conditioning via exposure to it from an early age, -at least in most humans. But just as gender identity and gender attraction are inborn things, so also is the degree of revulsion that one feels toward the aberrant. Some boys are born with a very, very male nature, just as some girls are born with a very, very girlish nature.
    The degree of revulsion toward aberrant orientations is probably in direct proportion to how strongly one is born identifying with their own gender and its natural disposition. Those without any innate sense of revulsion are boys born with a very strong sense of being girlish by nature, and girls born with a very strong sense of being boyish by nature. The child of Sonny & Cher comes to mind. She underwent a sex change operation in order to feel at home in her own body. It seems like a very odd desire, but it obviously must have been a very visceral longing and not just some philosophical wish.

    How should society accommodate its abnormal members? Should their desire for equal treatment be protected by new law? The answer deals with two separate but vitally important issues. One is the means by which law is changed, and the other is the nature of the change that would be needed.
    The nature of the change would be immense because it would involve over-throwing five thousand years of human tradition and law and it would do so by means of something that is never a legitimate alteration in the status quo, and that something is an arbitrary redefining of that which is already defined, universally understood and accepted as the natural way things are and should be.
    No one has the authority to over-throw the unchangeable meaning of anything without an acceptable justification. One example of fidelity to the true meaning of a word showed that such a justification for redefining the meaning of a word was shunned not long ago. I refer to the status of Pluto. We can’t call it “Planet Pluto” anymore because it was discovered that it does not actually fit the description of a planet. We must be true to the meaning of words or else chaos will grow and multiply in an untold number of areas. That would not be a good thing because it impacts the thought process in a negative way, -making the discernment of the truth that much more difficult.

    To make “homosexual marriage” legal would be a legislative redefinition of a word with an established meaning and carry with it broad social and financial implications that have not even been considered nor discussed by the public. To make such a fundamental change necessitates having the public aware and in agreement with such a magnitude of change. And that brings up the other important issue, -how such a change might come about.

    There are only four possible ways. One is via a state referendum, or a change to the constitution of a state, or a federal constitutional amendment, or a simply majority vote of the legislatures of the individual states. The first and the last are unconstitutional because they would illegitimately create fundamental change without the full consent of the People of a state or the nation.
    The full constitutional consent requires a two thirds majority, -not a mere 51% majority. Without following the course laid out in the Constitution, chaos will result, as it has many times before, the latest example of which is the unconstitutionally passed health care “reform” act. To rob the American people of a fundamental right without the constitutional agreement of the People exhibits all the hallmarks of an oligarchy, -the dictatorship of the elite.

    Forcing a redefinition of the meaning of a fundamental word and the law built upon it onto the citizens of any state or the entire nation without getting their consent would be a clear and egregious violation of the U.S. Constitution because it would shun the only process laid out for bringing about such change. It would be the equivalent of banning, by a simple majority vote, all meat consumption, and mandating the slaughter of all cattle because they produce too much methane gas which contributes to global warming. Clearly, that would also be a fundamental change which would require, like Prohibition, the consent of the American People.
    The other problem with redefining an established legal meaning of an important word is the ancillary possibilities that such a “right” would foster. If the “right” of homosexuals to unite in “the holy bond of matrimony” is legalized even though it is not, and has never been a right, and neither has it ever been tolerated, nor ever viewed as natural, then similar groups would have a justification for their “rights” to be recognized as well. That would include the possibility of family members to marry, -for adults to marry children, and multiple partners to enjoy polygamy.

    The slippery slope is not a fiction but a reality because there is no natural difference between the unnaturalness of homosexuality and polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage. But just because there is none does not make homosexual marriage equivalent to incestuous marriage, though it’s impossible to find a qualitative difference between it and polygamy since both involve unrelated consenting adults.

    But even if everyone agrees that sanctioned monogamous, sworn & blessed unions between homosexuals is to be commended and legalized, they also must agree that it must be done constitutionally or they are supporting treason against the Constitution. Such an amendment is not a real possibility because of the unchanging statement in the Law of Moses which curses homosexuality with a death sentence. (The condemnation of homosexuality as a lifestyle choice was echo by Christian leaders though it was not judged in a legal way, -only in a moral way.) The religious prohibition will always be heeded by at least a third of the population and so an amendment would never pass. An amendment for “Equal Rights for Women” failed twice and it was far less controversial.

    So any legitimate legalization of homosexual unions must come in the form of granting of specific rights which are naturally resultant from marriage, because they can’t be constitutionally obtained by placing homosexual unions into the same sacred camp as heterosexual marriage. The plight of homosexual couples is a conundrum for which there is no solution since they long for that which society will never agree to on a scale large enough to honor the mechanism of change that’s required by the constitutions of every state in the union.
    a.r. nash may 2012

  3. arnash says:

    by unknown author:
    I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes & the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck, in my case, I am required to pass a random urine test (with which I have no problem).

    What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don’t have to pass a urine test. So, here is my question: Shouldn’t one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check Because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their BUTT —-doing drugs while I work.

    Can you imagine how much money each state would save If people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check? I guess we could call the program “URINE OR YOU’RE OUT”! Pass this along if you agree or simply delete if you don’t. Hope you all will pass it along, though. Something has to change in this country – AND SOON!
    P.S. Just a thought, all politicians should have to pass a urine test too!….They should also have to pass an intelligence test, and a common sense test ll!!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: