Glenn,
Yes, we’re curious, but frankly, I stopped listening to or watching you a year ago when Sheriff Arpaio clearly demonstrated that the puppet in the White House is a fraud…and you, Glenn, and your two yes-men sidekicks, openly mocked him. How does that square with your motto “The truth has no agenda!” Glenn?

ANYONE and EVERYONE with a pulse knows that Barack Obama is an impostor, who cannot and will not demonstrate even his U.S. citizenship, much less his qualification as a “natural-born citizen” under the Constitution; and yet you mock those who do not cower to the elites in the media as you have chosen to do on this clear-cut and obvious matter of unprecedented consequence to our country. [I suppose you are protecting your pal, Bill O'Reilly, who went out of his way early on to dispense with this, with the mindless assertion that he had "done the investigation on this" by citing the two notices in the Hawaiian papers regarding the reported birth of "a son" to "Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama." The two announcements were 12 words each. My book contains 167,583 words of devastating proof of the fraud and massive cover-up by both "Progressive" and "Conservative" media and political elites.]

You can’t expect to lie and cover up, right along side every Obama enabler in the country, Glenn, and at the same time have people believe anything you say. Why should they? Why should WE?

The truth has no agenda, Glenn, so why do you?

Tom Ballantyne – Author of Oh Really, O’Reilly! an expose of the cover-up of the greatest fraud in American history by none other than the so-called Conservative Media!

How long will we mindlessly persist in the absurd habit of referring to the ABM (anything but mainstream) media as “mainstream”? Those who engage in this practice obviously have not thought through the enormous damage that this causes. If they are, indeed, the “mainstream,” then their views and agenda obviously represent those of “mainstream” Americans, and, therefore, are those of the majority.

Do any of us really believe that Katie Courick, or Brian Williams, or David Gregory (I could go on ad nauseum) speak for “mainstream” America? No. Of course not. They speak for the elites, the Ruling Class, but as long as we mindlessly and voluntarily give them that elevated status, they are more than happy to accept it. They, of course, as the self-appointed “opinion makers,” actually believe that what they say is “mainstream.”

Here’s a tip: Next time you’re in a Denny’s, look around, and see if you see Katie, or Brian, or David anywhere. I’ll save you the trouble. You won’t. So stop calling them mainstream. They are the OEM – Obsolete Establishment Media – and they have been that for years. As long as we keep referring to them as our bonafide spokesmen, however, we will continue to falsely accept that they are relevant. Does the Administration or its paid hacks (paid by you) speak for America? Of course they don’t, and the OEM is no different. If Chris Mathews could replace Jake Carney, he’d do it in a heartbeat, and so would 90% of the so-called unbiased journalists. (Yes, Mathews is supposed to be an opinion journalist, but he is considered to be every bit as “mainstream” as Matt Laurer, et al.)

This must start with each of us, so while I’m calling the author on this, ALL of us need to mend our ways. I’m proof that it can be done. And of equal importance, we must stop THINKING of them as somehow representative of majority thought. That’s like accepting that Michael Moore speaks for America. What he (and they) speak for is the “fundamental transformation” of America. Think not? Did you hear a single OEM reporter question that statement? Of course not. They cheered it…then and now, when what it really means is the destruction of America as we know (or once knew) it!

Tom Ballantyne – Author of Oh Really, O’Reilly!

What starts out as a seemingly innocent and necessary infringement (like, say, a “background” check – unless, of course, one is the Commander in Chief – astonishingly, no background check or security clearance required in order to be trusted with the nuclear launch codes…) leads to consequences never envisioned by most people, but which were the ultimate design of the politicians all along. This is the way Constitutions are rendered meaningless. The People (and even well-meaning elected officials…if there still are such things) simply start allowing “small” things which are not authorized, and eventually they don’t even bother to consider the issue, as the precedent (of performing unconstitutional and thereby illegal “official” government acts) has long been set.

MOST of what our government does today – literally, the vast majority of it – is completely outside of the very limited authority (specifically enumerated powers) granted to it by the sovereign People, under the Constitution – the Supreme Law of the Land. Our system has been so turned on its head by our oligarchic rulers that while overreaching without our permission, and in opposition to the chains of the Constitution which were intended to bind their hands from committing such abuses into nearly every aspect of our lives, these petty tyrants (Congress, Executive, and Courts) also refuse to do the few things which they are authorized and expected to do under the authority of the Constitution: protect our lives (those of the unborn, as well as the living via our ever-so-porous borders), our liberties (which they now abuse by regulating us to a degree which would have scarcely been imaginable to the founders), and our property (which they now take at will through the extra-legal theft, and cavalier redistribution of the fruits of our labor to those who choose not to work). But it is even worse than that….

When we here in Arizona sought to do what the federal government has flatly refused to do – protect our borders – the absurdly-named “justice” department filed suit to prevent us from exercising our God-given right of protecting ourselves and our property. When states have sought to preserve the sanctity of the vote from blanket abuse and fraud – something no doubt required under federal law, Eric Holder has once again gone to court to prevent virtually every obvious, commonsense measure duly enacted by the People’s authorized representatives. Never have we witnessed or experienced such an egregious and brazen abuse of power since the days of King George, and his own abuses paled in comparison to those of our current illegitimate and “unenlightened” monarch!  The result is that we no longer live under the Rule of Law. We are today, in actual fact, being governed by both an illegal executive and an oligarchic and unaccountable Congress and Judicial System.

It should outrage every citizen of this nation that we are often told as voters that while even overwhelming majorities favor certain actions (such as the establishment of Term Limits, and the abolition of the once-illegal Income Tax) those measure will “never pass.”  [See Uncommon Sense...Apparently!, by T. M. Ballantyne, Jr.]  How can that be in a nation where the representatives of the People are commissioned to make the laws which the People desire?  Short answer:  It cannot; thus proving that those whom we hire and pay to represent us simply do not.  They are obviously beholden to someone other than ourselves!

Now that the sanctity of the vote has been rendered utterly meaningless by the absurd manufactured ruse of minority voter suppression (requiring voter ID – i.e., a driver’s license), our near-final recourse has been swept away. What is next? The elimination of our Second Amendment right to protect ourselves against a tyrannical government. Any wonder that this God-given, Constitutionally-protected right is now under direct assault? The Germans never imagined that Austrian-born Adolf Hitler would go as far as he did…but he did it one illegal (but no doubt “essential” and even “benevolent”) step at a time – until it was too late to stop him. That is the very chronicle of government throughout all of world history…not the exception.  The exception is a country in which the People are the ultimate authority. We were the exception, but today our authority has been swept aside under the guise of protecting us and guaranteeing our “equality.” Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth! As famously observed by George Orwell (in Animal Farm), “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others!” The People are barred from working (ref. Alaskan Pipeline), and millions are added to the Food Stamp (welfare) rolls, while the Obamas and their enormous entourage vacation all over the world (between golf outings by the “chief executive”) at unprecedented expense to those whose standard of living the Administration simultaneously disparages and assaults!

So what will we do about it? The first thing we can and must all do is to speak openly about the now blatant disregard for both our sovereign authority as a People and the inalienable rights guaranteed us by our Constitution. Next, we must recognize that the two parties in power have no real interest in restoring our freedoms, by honoring their oaths of office. Seen any Republicans doing that lately? John Boehner? John McCain? Jeff Flake? et al.? No you haven’t.

If you saw five-term veteran Senator John McCain last week, jovially proclaiming to a Cuban-born American that Barack Obama had done “nothing” that rose to the level of impeachment; or you happened to be present when I confronted now-Senator Jeff Flake at the Red Mountain Tea Party a year ago, and heard him say precisely the same thing, you realize that what these politicians say while campaigning has almost no bearing on what they do once they’ve secured another term. Did you notice that after re-electing the entire Republican Congress in November, to go out and counter the wholesale destruction of our rights by this Administration, they turned around and re-installed the phlegmatic and obsequious John Boehner as their (our!) “leader”?

As long as such self-serving men and women occupy the highest offices in the land, as well as those in our statehouses, we will continue to witness the destruction of our country and constitution, and the evisceration of our rights…and as long as they are allowed to remain in their highly-profitable sinecures indefinitely – without the enactment of long-overdue Term Limits – we will continue to have them. Only when the suffering of the People becomes acute enough will they finally rise up and cast aside the one party which claims to be the champion of true American principles and values…and I’m not talking about the now fully-Marxist party of the American Left.  (At least we now see them for who and what they really are.)

Sadly, however, most Conservatives have still not seen their own party of choice for what it really is…and with 100 years of continuous compromise (and worse) under its belt, it is not about to change! Notice that the “solution” of those firmly in control of the party (did you see your own preferred candidate nominated in this last presidential election?) is to dilute or “soften” our message, rather than to openly and unabashedly stand up for the  principles and values which the majority of the American People still hold dear – skewed polling data to the contrary not withstanding!  Meanwhile, acquiescence and compromise are the genetic footprint of the once “Grand,” and now only “Old” [Republican] Party!

Tom Ballantyne is the author of three books.  The last two, Uncommon Sense…Apparently! and Oh Really, O’Reilly! are both available at Amazon.  Uncommon Sense compares the Marxist Progressivist philosophies of the Obama/Soros Administration and its party “loyalists” to those of the Founders.   National Best-Selling Author Jerome Corsi has endorsed O’Reilly! as follows:

“In his excellent book, Tom takes on many in the Conservative Establishment Media for their failure to speak out on this important and clear-cut issue. While his criticism of those who should know better is biting, this is a witty, sometimes humorous, and fast-paced book, well researched and thoroughly documented. All who read my book on this subject will enjoy O’Reilly!” 
 
Dr. Jerome Corsi – Author of Where’s The Birth Certificate?

Mr. Ballantyne can be contacted with comments or for speaking engagements at ThomasMBallantyne@gmail.com.  He has spoken alongside Dr. Jack Cashill and internationally-recognized Global-Warming debunker Lord Christopher Monckton, at events in Arizona and California.

In other words, absent their “ruling” (which is exactly what their sophist supporters favor), we cannot know anything about the Constitution for sure! Am I the only one in the room who bristles at that esoteric pronouncement? I think not. These men and women are no more intelligent than the rest of us, no wiser, and certainly no more moral than the roughly 315,500,000,000 citizens of this country. And yet somehow many – perhaps the majority – seem to mindlessly, or unthinkingly, accept that the members of the court are “all of the above.”  On what basis do they make this judgment?  On the fact that they are appointed for life by presidents loyal to their respective political parties, and can be clearly seen to vote accordingly the vast majority of the time?

I, frankly, have very little regard or use for the Supreme Court. Nine people, appointed for life, dressed in priestly garb have no right to tell a nation of 315,439,389 (as of yesterday at this time) what is Constitutional and what is not. I am decidedly not a fan of John Marshall, and the precedent he firmly established for Judicial Review. I do not believe that the practice was ever intended by the founders, and I have read as much, but haven’t studied the matter extensively.

The real irony today is that the high court is very loathe to perform one of its chief functions – that of serving as a check on the Executive (as well as on the Congress). In short, the court should overrule the president any time he does anything which is not specifically and clearly authorized in what used to be, at least, the Supreme Law of the Land (as specified in the 10th Amendment). Beyond that, their function should primarily be to give their opinion on the constitutional fealty of proposed legislation (my thought only, at this point, as the founders may or may not have envisioned it this way), and to rule on whether cases brought before them (not laws), are consistent with the laws passed by Congress, the Common Law (upon which much of our legal system is based), and the Constitution and Declaration.

They should be basing their judgments on the clear principles contained in both the Constitution and the Declaration, and on the historical record, as well as the written and documented beliefs of those who wrote them. Meanwhile, if the Congress itself were in the least way confined to the authority granted them under the Constitution, they would meet for a month or two out of the year – or in several brief sessions throughout the year. Originally, as specified in the Constitution, they only met for 2-3 weeks each year, starting on the first Monday in December.

Regrettably, that was changed to January 3rd, by the Twentieth Amendment, in March of 1932 – one year before FDR took office. We then went from having one session of 2-3 weeks in length (starting between the 1st and the 7th day of December, and presumably ending 2-3 days before Christmas, say December 22nd) to allowing just one day after New Years, to get back to Washington, in order to start the next day, and have the entire year in which to meet and pass regulations on the American People…all in the name of “taking care of them.”

That, my friends, was nothing short of a disaster…as well as the beginning of the end. Yes, there was a Depression, and that is no doubt the emergency which wasn’t allowed to “go to waste,” but the fatal and patently false presumption was that the Federal Government was chiefly responsible for solving that. In fact, they had no authority to do so, but in essence threw away the Constitution…and we have been operating outside of the Rule of Law from that day to this. The government that we now have would be entirely unrecognizable (and outside the framework of the law which they gave us) if viewed by the founders today.

The only thing that will save us as a nation at this point is to return to, and fully restore, the Constitution and the Rule of Law.  When our “representatives” fully accept that they can pick and choose which parts of the Constitution (Article II – Section 1, the First Amendment, the Second,  the Fourth, the Fifth, the Sixth, the Ninth, or the Tenth?) they will enforce, and which parts they will simply ignore, we no longer have the Rule of Law…and at this point in our history, we indisputably do not!

(including – but not limited to – Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly, Laura Ingram, Michelle Malkin, Mark Levine, and less notably Barry Young and Michelle Larsen)

From A Tea Party Activist and Recovering (Beck) Addict….

Submitted to WND by T. M. Ballantyne, Jr.

3 March 2012

For clarification, I could have no doubt included in that list Fred Barnes and Charles Krauthammer (and probably the rest of the Beltway Boys), but to my knowledge they haven’t viciously attacked those who rightly recognize the eligibility of the Commander in Chief to hold office as “not incidental” to our liberty. (To their discredit, they have marginalized the issue itself, however.)

By way of further clarification, I could also have included in that list such names as Ed Schultz, Lawrence O’Donnell, Rachel Maddow, Bill “Million Dollar” Maher (one of the 99%?), Keith “To-Extreme-Even-For MSNBC” (How is that possible?) Olbermann, and Jon Stewart (along with his 4 or 5 script writers), as each of the above obviously occupies the same vacuous position as those on my “A” List. In truth, of course, I have only scratched the surface of the Good Morning America and Ladies of the View hosts – past and present – and virtually every other Hollywood and Manhattan/D.C. media star and starlet one might name, with a few notable exceptions. (The obvious difference, of course, is that we expect those on the “B” List to shill for all-things-Obama. We do not, however, expect that from those who stress such quaint concepts as “truth” and the “rule of law” – and, oh yeah, what was it called? “the Constitution”…but I digress.

Let me simply address the one-time de-facto (now “de-fecto”?) leader of the Tea Party movement, recovering addict Glenn Beck. I don’t mention that to embarrass Glenn, as he has thoroughly vetted (and “outed”) himself on that account. I just thought that it would be quaint to highlight our shared life experiences. You see, I was once addicted to…not alcohol, or drugs, but to, well, Glenn’s daily diatribes, in which he pointed out with relentless zeal (as well as accuracy) the pointed refusals of those in the Sorros-dominated media and underworld of “philanthropy” (go figure…) to acknowledge blatantly obvious truth.

And then along came a fraud so big that it could easily blow the lid off of, say, the Tea Pot (Dome) scandal…and Glenn was nowhere to be found. Well, not exactly…. He was actually everywhere to be found…mocking both the notion that the UFO in the White House (Unidentified Foreign Occupant?) should have to meet Constitutional muster, and anyone so bereft of reason that he (or she) could conclude otherwise.

But wait, along came…not John, but almost…Sheriff Joe. So much for the relentless pursuit of the truth, for our (my) one-time hero, the feckless…excuse me, fearless, Glenn Beck! (No, I clearly had it right the first time.)

I will end my own diatribe by simply saying that having been in a self-induced (fooled you!) twelve-step program since Glenn went AWOL on this issue (following pal O’Reilly’s lead) about a year ago (I chronicle all of this and volumes more in great detail in Oh Really, O’Reilly!), I accidentally came across his radio “program” last night at about 7:30 Phoenix time – some thirty hours after the Sheriff’s Press Conference. I listened for what may have been thirty seconds max, and immediately noted (with interest) that he and his sad sidekick (sorry!) were talking about the “otherwise good on issues…such as immigration” Sheriff Joe.

Not a word of refutation of anything factual. No, not one! Just a merciless mocking of the entire “misguided” effort to prove what I believe he referred to as a “Communist implant” theory. While I hasten to add that I never warmed to his obviously-stress-releasing (for him, at least) collision of “news and [out of control] entertainment,” last night’s hilarity was easily an all-time high – make that low. When I saw that there would be nary a word of substantive relevance, but only the usual Alinsky-inspired ad hominem, ad absurdum, I switched the dial…this time, for the last time!

While I hate to make this too personal (I wrote my first political book as a result of attending Glenn’s 8/28/2011 DC Rally), I must be honest about the blatant dishonesty of one of my own. Apparently Glenn never got the memo (or definition) on honesty. If he had read Steven Covey’s Seven Habits, he would have learned that one “can’t pick up one end of the stick, without picking up the other.” IOW, you can’t be guilty of absolutely abandoning the truth (not to mention scorning all who won’t join you in your abhorrent abdication) on the one hand, and expect to remain trustworthy on the other.

Doesn’t work that way, Glenn. You see, my friend, we don’t get to pick and choose when we will be honest. We either are, or we aren’t. You and your new pals on the Left aren’t…and that can only change if and when you repent and put down the stick. Let me end by congratulating both you and O’Reilly – along with everyone else on my “A” List – for without your complicity (i.e., total and absolute cooperation), the worst president (can’t bring myself to capitalize that…. Sorry!) in history (far worse than your beloved Woodrow Wilson) has been able to remain in office long enough to earn that title…and wreak havoc on both the economy and the Constitution – the very thing that could have, and should have, stopped him…but I digress!

P.S. For the record, Glenn, this is far from over, thanks to Joseph Farah, Jerome Corsi, Mike Zullo, Brian Reilly (the originator of the Posse idea), and, last of all, your new fave, Glenn, Sheriff

So think of it, here we had ALL THREE of the writers (under the alias of Publius) of The Federalists – THE universally-recognized means of persuading the citizens of the various states to RATIFY the Constitution.  One of them, Jay, recommended the requirment to our first Commander in Chief, and later first President, George Washington, and the other two wrote it into the Final Draft, where it was voted on, passed, and ratified…and remains to this day.

So two weeks ago, the good judge, Michael Malihi, in a Georgia State Court, cites some obscure ruling from an inferior court in Indiana, while failing to provide any explanation for dismissing the various points of law cited by the plaintiffs (other than that he did not find their witnesses credible – a laughable assertion given each of their substantial credentials), and making no mention of the original intent of the founders in establishing this high bar for anyone seeking to become “the Command in Chief of the American Army.”  And what was their (Jay’s) stated reason?

“…to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government.”

Yet with the stroke of a pen, Judge Malihi wipes out any elevated requirement for becoming the possessor of the nuclear launch codes, and the Leader of the Free World, by declaring anyone born in the country, regardless of the citizenship of his parents, a “natural-born citizen.” 

In doing so, he wilfully ignores (or, if ignorantly, it is flagrantly inexcusable) the firmly established definition of a “natural-born citizen,”  by Emerich de Vattel, author of Law of Nations, about which Convention sage, Benjamon Franklin, said the following:

“It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult [it].   Accordingly, that copy which I kept has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress [the Constitutional Convention].” 

And what, exactly, did Vattel have to say about “natural-born citizens” and the citizenship of their parents?

“…natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

But wait, it gets even better , or more clear:

“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.”

So, not only does Vattel define “natural-born citizen” beyond any conceivable dispute, but he explicitly gives his inarguable reasons – the very same reasons for which Jay made the recommendation in the first place.  While there are clearly those who wish to disregard both this obvious clarification, and the reasoning behind it – in other words, they are completely fine with allowing our country to be led (and ruled!) by one with possible foreign allegiances or loyalties – it is abundantly clear to anyone not blinded by loyalty to a particular party or candidate, that such a provision is both reasonable and essential to our safety as a nation…which, of course, is why such preeminent patriots as  John Jay, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and Benjamin Franklin, saw to it that the requirement was codified in the Supreme Law of the Land, where it remains to this day – while not only the entire Democratic Party seek first to ignore, then to discredit it, but virtually the entire Republican, even “Conservative” establishment as well. 

Were their cowardice and abdication of duty (as well as whatever powers of reason they may have once possessed) their only transgressions, they might not have divested themselves of every trace of dignity; but in a vain attempt to assuage their guilt they have sought to savage anyone not so obsequious or dispossessed of reason as themselves. 

In the process of so doing, they have suffered the inevitable consequence unhappily inherited by all who seek to compromise the truth in order, as they suppose, to save their “reputations.”  They end up devoid of not only the truth itself, but of the ability to reason… AND without reputation among those who could ever really matter – those unwilling, at any cost, to compromise their own integrity in like manner!

The fruits of such compromise, while offering the illusion, at least, of temporary relief, are bitter indeed in the long run, for “what will a man give in exchange for his own soul?” or for the ability to look himself or others in the eye?

In the end, nothing is worth such a terrible price!

Note:  This post was written on Friday, the day before the South Carolina primary.  By the time it is officially posted the primary will be over, and my predictions will stand to be judged on the merits. 

So what is the “state of the (Republican) union” at this point in time?  While it may be trite to say so, we are at a critical juncture in our history.  We have four remaining candidates for the Republican Party’s nomination for President:  an “establishment” candidate, Mitt Romney; a Libertarian candidate, Ron Paul; an “Evangelical” candidate, Rick Santorum; and a fiery Conservative, Newt Gingrich. 

Interestingly, among Conservatives, the front-runner until now, Mitt Romney, is the least liked of the four…and yet, as noted, he is in the lead.  The other three candidates are each more popular among conservatives than the front-runner, but the three are splitting their vote.  If this circumstance were to persist, and true Conservatives were not able to obtain even the party’s nomination, it would/will surely give rise to a third party…and it may almost be time.

If I may speak frankly here (and I can), I will observe that the current obsession with “electability” among those on the supposed Right is nauseating.  What makes it doubly so is that those spouting this tired mantra (Ann Coulter chief among them) do so as if this were a new thought.  Well, Earth to Ann:  This is neither new, nor especially brilliant!  Ms. Coulter goes on to stress (did, at least) that this is no time to “experiment” with the notion of electing our first “woman president” (Michelle Bachman), nor a true Conservative!

Let me translate on behalf of our apparently “recovering” Conservative:  Like the Democrats (now radical Leftists), we must be carefully covert about our true intentions.  What our one-time feminine arsonist (bomb-thrower) fails to acknowledge in her newfound zeal for “practicality” is that unlike the Far Left, those of us who espouse (demand) economic, as well as personal freedom, are, in fact, representative of the heart and soul of America.  While Diane Sawyer and Keith Olbermann may wish to paint it otherwise, the values at the core of the Tea Party are those shared by generations of our countrymen…and they have not gone out of style among the rank and file.

The Master Teacher observed that one cannot put “new wine in an old bottle.”  That was a fact.  As the new wine aged, it would expand, and cause the older (already-stretched) leather “bottle” to break, spilling its contents on the ground.  In the case at hand, the “new wine” is, actually, quite old in the literal sense – restoring the Constitution, and the principles upon which our nation was founded – but in the context of government at every level having long since abandoned the principles of low taxation and minimal regulation, the “old wine” is unquestionably “new”…and the “old bottle” of the GOP (and especially that of its entrenched leadership) can hardly hold it, as has been so amply demonstrated over the course of this past year!

I can only say with regard to those clamoring for “electable” candidates, that it is precisely this mentality that has brought us to this place – after 60-100 years of seeking to do just that:  not rock the boat, or put forth candidates whom we know would seek to do what is right…and why?   Because first and foremost (they say), we must “win”…and win at all costs.  And what have we “won” in the end?  We have won the right to put forth our own “politically palatable” and Constitutionally-illegitimate social programs, adding to the deficit, and ultimately trampling upon the Rule of Law.

So here is how I see it.  Granted, any one of the four remaining candidates would, without doubt, be vastly superior to what we have now.  Paul is principled, but not any more popular among the party as a whole (or the Independents) than Mitt Romney.  Statistically the two have probably polled somewhere around 50% combined, with Mitt polling closer to 30%, and Ron Paul closer to 20%.  (I’m talking in terms of averages here, not that of the South Carolina primary.)

Then we have Santorum and Gingrich taking up the other half.  The difference, however, is that while Conservatives have their preferences – including a good portion of those favoring Paul – most of them will not rally to Paul or Romney, while most would support Santorum or Gingrich.  Most.

That, in my mind means that the majority Conservative candidate will be one of those two…and given Newt’s continued impact in the debates (and what I believe will be a decisive victory in South Carolina, which will give him the momentum and therefore the edge going into Florida), I believe he will emerge with the most-favored-Conservative status. 

I believe Ron Paul will continue to slip in the polls, as Gingrich climbs, and both the Establishment Republicans and Romney’s money and organization will make it a two-man race. 

The battle in the end will be between the Tea Party and the Establishment (acknowledging that Newt clearly has his own establishment ties, but believing him to have demonstrated a willingness, at least, to take them on).  As it stands, it would seem that many traditional Conservatives (Coulter, Krauthammer, et al.) will throw in with the “electability” (don’t-risk-standing-and-fighting-for-what-we-really-believe) crowd.

The question that remains is how many of the Tea Party and Independents will drink that truly old “Kool-Aid” (“wine”) – and how many will stand and fight…rather than compromise yet again, just to say that “our side” won – when retreating from our core values is no victory at all!  I say that it is time to change the direction of our nation, and that will never be done by those whose first instinct is to compromise!

For all of his faults, and they have been amply catalogued, Newt is a Churchill-like figure (sorry, Joseph!), who, like his British counterpart, is both willing and able to fight valiantly…as well as to win! 

I, for one, am no longer willing to live under the pretense of freedom, while we continue – at perhaps a reduced pace – on the inexorable march to destruction!

If not us…who? 

If not now…when?

So what, exactly, is a “zealot” in the mind of the one-time bomb-throwing sweetheart of the Conservative Right?  Let’s see…perhaps it is someone who stands and fights on principle (something she once did), as opposed to those who “mirror” (her word) the philosophy of a once revered “Conservative” (who will remain unnamed, in an uncharacteristic show of restraint on my part) who proudly proclaimed:  “If I can’t count the votes [in favor of my position], I won’t waste my time on [the issue].”  Sounds reasonable…right, Ann?

And then there are the words of the Senate Tea Party Caucus organizer and leader, Jim DeMint, who said:  “I do not want to be part of a party that doesn’t stand for anything!” – or words to that effect.  So, Dear Ann (not Landers…but getting closer), are we (you) now back to just “doing what it takes to win,” regardless of who we become in the process?

I was in the audience of the Tea Party-like group, when the unnamed freshman Congressman made his quickly-learned, all-wise, and all-knowing statement about only voting for issues for which he could “count the votes,” and I asked him:  “What about standing on principle, and convincing your fellow representatives to do what they know to be right?”  Once upon a time, Ann, doing that was known as leadership…and that is still what real leaders do!

But now you, Ann, have apparently gone back to the tried-and-untrue model of being “non-controversial” to everyone, in an effort to “not offend” anyone…and come away truly representing no one!  Haven’t we been on that path for our entire lifetimes, Ann?  (In case you haven’t noticed, we have, and it has led us to a point in our history, where we have such low regard for the Constitution – and the Rule of Law under the Constitution – that a man like Barack Obama could even be discussed…and WE have had enough!)

Are you giddy, Ann, that John McCain has now “thrown in with” Mitt Romney?  Are you not, in fact, sickened by it?  This is the esteemed Senator who just sponsored the National Defense Authorization Act – which the Administration believes gives the president unilateral powers to “declare” (and detain, without trial or legal remedies) U.S. citizens as “enemy combatants.”  Fortunately for us, Ann, the Administration “has pledged not to use this power”[1] – which should allow us all to “sleep at night”… perhaps like the young Elian Gonzalez, after similar “assurances” from then-Attorney General Janet Reno!

So yes, Ann, the current front-runner, a man whom I believe to be both honest and sincere, but whom I have never once heard reference the concept of “restoring the Constitution,” (or anything remotely similar thereto) may, in fact, be “electable” as you so earnestly stress!

Would he be better than Barack Obama?  Could anyone be worse…other than, perhaps, Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi (in the absence of Anthony Weiner or Alan Grayson)?  We’re not looking for the “not the Obama” candidate here, Ann.  We’re looking for someone who will seek to TURN THE SHIP OF STATE AROUND…not just slow its intractable course before it runs aground!

But let’s get to the heart of your article…or attack, Ann:

“Some Republicans, we were led to believe, would only be satisfied with angry denunciations of Obama as a Kenyan colonialist and demands for Barack Obama’s birth certificate – without ever spending five minutes of calm contemplation to see that he had already produced it.”  (Emphasis added.)

The combination of arrogance and ignorance displayed by that statement is indeed jaw-dropping, Ann!  I realize that it has been several decades since you got your first driver’s license, but just picture going into your local DPS, and when they ask you for proof of citizenship (perhaps a Social Security Card – oops! – but for sure a certified birth certificate), you tell them that the latter is on your “Myspace”  page.  I’m sure they will just ask for the URL, and then, without further question, proceed to issue the license…once you have passed the required tests, etc.  (And “If you’ll buy that…” – you know the drill, Ann!)

So, this obviously is a bit higher of a bar than that which you, Ann, would require for admittance to the highest office in the known world…which, of course, includes access to the nuclear launch codes (a security clearance for which the president-elect – from wherever he might hail – could not even begin to qualify, given his clandestine past!).

The good news for you, Ann, is that by taking this position, and mocking obvious “zealots” like me (and the rest of the Tea Party – who are surely not “normal” or “mainstream” Americans, from your vantage point) who do, in fact, believe that no one is above the law – even the “Commander in Chief of the American Army” – you are assured of retaining your “intellectual credentials” with those in the Ruling  Class!  (BTW, Ann, if you had done your homework, you would recognize the source of that last quote.  It was John  Jay, in his letter to the  President of the Constitutional Convention, George Washington – the first person to occupy the position of Commander in Chief – in which letter Jay recommended  the “natural born citizen” requirement to hold our nation’s highest position of trust…but I digress!)

Yes, Ann, by joining with cultural elites like Lawrence O’Donnell and Rachel Maddow (both of whom remain virtually unwatched by any but the Far Left), you can at least breathe easy on this subject, and not worry about being classed as a “zealot” yourself!

What we will “be satisfied with,” Ann, is someone who will actually stand and fight for what MOST Americans still believe…and that isn’t some watered down version of “social justice,” but an actual return to FREEDOM…and all of the other values that made this country great!

Unlike you, Ann, I firmly believe that in order to win the hearts and minds of the American People, one needn’t shy away from boldly articulating those values, clearly and forcefully, but rather, do precisely that!  That, my friend, is what real leaders do.  Politicians, on the other hand, think only in terms of being “electable,” so they do what our new American Monarch does, and say whatever they (or their teleprompter) ”think” will appeal to the broadest audience…and that, for most of America, is not “change we can believe in!”

[1] http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57343287/wh-oks-military-detention-of-terrorism-suspects/

With that acknowledgement, I will repeat that this nation has produced more freedom and greater prosperity than any other nation in history.  Those nations which have pretended to be all for the “working man” and governmental control of the means of production, the market, and the economy, have with no known exception resulted in starvation, murder, and enslavement of entire segments of their populations – from Stallinist Russia, to Nazi Germany, to Fidel Castro’s “island paradise.”  Yes, those were wonderful experiments in destroying people’s God-given freedoms, and their sacred right of both choice and conscience (and everything that goes with them), for the ostensible purpose of “freeing” them from economic bondage…only to produce the worst kind of bondage – both economic and otherwise.  In a word, they have all failed…and failed miserably – without exception!

So where are we today?  We are in a mad rush to do everything we can to model our once-great nation after all of these colossal failures…all in the name of enlightenment and compassion.  We live in a country being ruled by a man and an administration which has no regard for our freedoms, for the Constitution, or for the Rule of Law.  The illegal occupant of the People’s House flaunts his illegality by mocking all as “carnival barkers” who dare assert the simple Constitutional requirement that he, our elected leader, be “natural-born.”  He has admitted that he is not, as his own website states that his father was a Kenyan (British) - not a U.S. – citizen.  (For any who doubt this, I refer them to my recently-released book, Oh Really, O’Reilly! – available through this website.)

Meanwhile, we have a “Republican-controlled” House, which is paralyzed with the fear of being criticized by an establishment media that has lost its readership and viewership to the point of all but irrelevancy, while these same “leaders” ignorantly ignore (alliteration intended) the vast mainstream of the country who elected them.  And so, in their cowardly self-imposed paralysis, they refuse to do the simple work of demanding that the unidentified foreign occupant (UFO) of the Oval Office prove his legitimacy; nor will they demand that he cease to rule by Executive Order – including the sending of U.S. troops or the employing of other military means to enter into “kinetic exercises” (military operations once referred to simply as “war”), without the consent of Congress. 

And why?  One presumes because the president-elect is at least partially of African descent.  And so, with clearly the most lawless Department of “Justice” and Attorney General in our nation’s history, we are told that his only opposition stems from objections to the color of his skin…and the “Repubican-controlled” U.S. House quivers in its boots.  (At least when the Democrats controlled Congress we knew what to expect!)

Meanwhile, the People of this country, are not fooled by this rabid exercise in the demonization of one’s political opponents, called for by the man from whom our E-Verify president received his radical training, Saul Alinsky.  We see it for what it is, a cheap political trick for covering up a complete absence of truth in one’s governing philosophy.  In a word, Statism, of whatever kind, never has, nor ever will work, for it is founded upon principles that are counter to every correct rule of governance ever given by God to man. 

“We will either be ruled by God [and enjoy the freedoms that He has so graciously given us], or we will be ruled by tyrants  (Ben Franklin).” If we are not ruled by God, however, we will never be free!  And in the “bargain” we will be impoverished as well, but most will not live to “enjoy” what Alinsky (and Marx) referred to as the “workers paradise.”

And this, my friends, is the “fundamental transformation” so highly esteemed by our current ruler.  How does it feel America?  It’s too bad that the majority still aren’t bright enough to “just say yes.”  Such mental prowess is apparently reserved to those who call themselves “progressive.” 

Would that we could all be so enlightened…!

Written and submitted on 14 October 2011.  Published 16 October.

Tom Ballantyne, an active member of the LDS Church, is the Author of two books on politics published in 2011:  Uncommon Sense…Apparently! “A Call To Arms,” (available on Amazon), and Oh Really, O’Reilly! “The Spin Starts Here…Apparently!” The final edited version of the latter will just released on Amazon tomorrow, Tuesday, October 18, 2011.  (An unedited version is still available in “Used,” although he highly recommends the now-edited version.)  Tom’s website/blog is: www.UncommonSenseNow.com

Being a regular reader of WND on-line, I was quite surprised that the Conservative site would give someone’s unsubstantiated (and somewhat unsavory) opinion about such a highly-respected institution as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Sure, the Church is much maligned by homosexual activists for its undeviating (interesting term in this context) stance on traditional marriage (as opposed to same-sex marriage), and was attacked by feminists for its opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment some years back, but the members of the Church are predominantly Conservative – and I’m being “conservative” when I say “predominantly.”  So, again, I was disappointed that WND would join the chorus of the disaffected in disparaging an Institution which strongly proclaims values shared by virtually all Conservatives, and the members of which are largely “right of center.”  (Some of us – many of us – are far “right of center”!)

Getting to the more salient point, however, I wish to address what I, and, I assume, most Americans today would consider, the narrow view that one shouldn’t vote for a particular candidate because he or she is “Mormon.”  Are we really having this conversation in the Twenty-First Century?  And what was it that Martin Luther King said about judging a man (or woman) “by the content of his character”?  Dr. King also truthfully observed that “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere!” – which is one of the reasons I chose to respond to at least some of the points or allegations made in the aforementioned WND article. 

I’ve said all that I will about the allegations, and I am not speaking for the Church officially.  (I have served as a counselor to three Bishops, and currently serve with my wife, Jan, in the Mesa Arizona Temple, so I am fully aware of what goes on inside of the Temples, and have been since age nineteen – some forty-two years ago.  Jan and I are the parents of eight children, twenty-five grand children, and we currently teach the three-year-old “Sunbeams” in our “ward” or congregation, so we are “ordinary” members of the Church.  I do not believe that anyone is “ordinary”…but that is a discussion for another day.  See The Secret of Life, published by the author in January of 2009.)

So, in this post-Glenn Beck (on Fox, at least) era, are there still Conservatives who question the loyalty of Latter-day Saints to Conservative values?  Apparently (and sadly), yes, there are!  I hasten to add, however, that it is both their right to do so, and their right to say so, as well as to publish their views – as am I (and others) who disagree with them.

To be brief, I will simply state for the record that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes (and this is part of our published doctrine) that the Constitution is “a heavenly banner” and “true” (Joseph Smith), and that God “raised up” the “wise men” who wrote it “unto that very purpose” (D & C 101:80).  And here is a definitive statement from the Lord himself on the subject:

“And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.  And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.  Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land; and as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil” (D & C 98:4-7).

In the “religious” context, some will disavow the claim that this was a revelation from God. That is their privilege.  We believe otherwise.  That is our privilege.  Are we heretics because we believe that God still speaks to man?  Let each man (and woman) judge that for himself.  Those on the Left disparaged George Bush for praying about matters of state.  Are we on the Right so narrow in our views?  I pray that we are not!

Joseph Smith also said:  “I am the greatest advocate of the Constitution of the United States that there is on the earth.  In my feelings I am always ready to die for the protection of the weak and oppressed in their just rights” (History of the Church 6:56-57).  He, of course, subsequently did die, at the hands of an enraged mob, while in jail in Carthage, Illinois, under the “guaranteed protection of the governor of the state,” on June 27, 1844, because, among other things, he would not disavow that he had seen God…and yet he was a champion of the very Constitution that should have protected both him and his rights of conscience and belief….but I digress!

So now that the reader knows the official stance of the Church on the Constitution, I will enlighten him or her on my own views of several current, prominent Latter-day Saints.  The first two I single out because they were mentioned in the WND article to which I am responding, and, of course, because they are currently seeking the Republican nomination for President of the United States.  In a word, I wouldn’t dream of voting for or supporting either.  Obviously each has achieved a measure of success, and deserves whatever credit for which that may qualify him.

As a citizen, and as a Latter-day Saint, I have but one standard (other than that of personal comportment and integrity) by which to judge the suitability of any elected official or candidate, and that is the same standard which we should all apply to every law or proposed piece of legislation:  Is it consistent with the principles countenanced by the Constitution of the United States, and its authors?

This is not complicated, my friends.  So, in the case of the two named candidates, I and everyone, I believe, should ask only:  Will they, individually, seek to restore the Constitution?  Yes, I ‘upped the ante’ by including the word “restore.”  Once again, this isn’t complicated.  In my as-always “humble” opinion, the Constitution has been ignored for the past one-hundred years, and shredded in our lifetimes, especially, of course, of late!  So if the Constitution or the Rule of Law mean anything, they must be restored!  We are well beyond merely tweaking minor infringements. 

Since Mitt Romney believes that the federal government should be in the business of providing personal retirement policies (aka Social Security), he clearly believes that “promot[ing] the general welfare” is an open-ended proposition.  Any who have read Madison or Jefferson (among others) know that it is not.

As for Jon Huntsman, anyone who believes that the federal government should be providing personal health-care or monitoring our “carbon footprint,” is no believer in the doctrine of enumerated powers.  All who read this blog (WND) should not require a further explanation of that.  (For those who do not, however, I refer them to the Tenth Amendment – the one in conjunction with the First, Second, Fifth, and Ninth, which I consider to be the most important.  We need them all, of course.)

I will dispense with my opinion giving by taking on the one-time unofficial leader of the 912, and even Tea Party (to a lesser degree) movements, Glenn Beck.  For those who wish a detailed (418 page) dissertation of the specific issues on which I and “Brother Beck” disagree, I refer them to the previously-referenced Oh Really, O’Reilly! in which I call to task the vast array of “Conservatives” who have acquiesced to supporting the usurpation of the presidency of the United States by not only defending this “Dog ate my homework” on a national and even international plain, but by disparaging (savaging, in the case of Mr. Beck) all those – such as Joseph Farah, Bob Unruh, Jerome Corsi, Michael Savage, and (at one time, at least) Lou Dobbs – who have had the courage, intellectual honesty, and integrity, to challenge this obvious charade.  (No greater cover-up ever existed!)

As noted, my one-time “friend” (he doesn’t know me yet) Glenn Beck, has not only been on board with the “birther bashers,” but has even lead the shrill chorus in the intensity of his attacks.  Sadly, for Brother Glenn, he has missed a simple point made by another notable Latter-day Saint, Stephen R. Covey (author of The Seven Habits…):  “When one picks up one end of the stick, he also picks up the other.” 

We can choose our actions, but we can’t choose whether or not we will receive the inevitable consequences that derive therefrom.  Glenn has chosen to pretend that the matter of Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution is ‘no big deal.’  Sorry, Glenn, but you can’t have it both ways.  You can’t harp on “standing for truth” all day long, and then decide that you will ‘sit this one out’…just to be considered (momentarily, at least) “cool” by those who daily disparage you.  You pick up one end of the stick (not telling the “whole truth”), and you pick up the other (your integrity has been compromised).

I will end by simply observing that I was at first surprised by the ferocity of Glenn’s attacks on what he obviously doesn’t comprehend to be 90-95% of his audience, who do care about this “distraction” (read embarrassment).  But then I realized why he was doing it.  It is the same reason for which teenage (and older) boys feel the need to fight when someone calls their “coolness” into question.  Would one do that if a younger sibling or child offered such a taunt?  Of course not.  He would simply laugh and ignore him.  It is the fear that one really might be inferior that causes him to respond.  (In psychological terms, anger is a “secondary” emotion.)

This isn’t precisely the same, but in parallel fashion, it is Glenn’s knowledge (or fear) that he has rationalized, and not “stood for truth,” that creates in him the need to lash out, and ridicule those who have not sold their souls over this issue.  As detailed in my book (O’Reilly), Glenn’s pal O’Reilly obviously agreed to “lead the charge” in dismissing this undeniable farce – that of presenting “digital images” of documents, while indefatigably fighting, all the way to yesterday, October 12, 2011, in Judge Rhonda Nishimura’s[1] Federal District Court in Honolulu, the release of the previously court-ordered (subpoenaed) vault copy.  So Glenn, in order to not jeopardize his relationship with O’Reilly (or Rupert Murdoch – see cover of O’Reilly), did what Sir Thomas Moore (A Man for All Seasons) refused to do. 

“When a man takes an oath [or proclaims truth as his highest standard], he’s holding his own self in his own hands like water, and if he opens his fingers then, he needn’t hope to find himself again.”

The bottom line on all of this, is that being a “Mormon” does not bind me to anyone, of any faith, with whom I disagree on principle; and my highest standard, in the realm of government, is the Constitution of the United States – all of it, Glenn, Mitt, and Jon – and the Rule of Law…and the very basis of the rule of law is that we cannot pick and choose which portions of the Supreme Law (the Constitution) we will or will not apply and obey…and no one is above the law!