An Open Letter to Glenn Beck, et al.

(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

Not only did  John Jay, Secretary of State at the time of the writing of the Constitution, and later First Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, as well as one of the three authors of The Federalists, originate the “natural-born citizen” requirement – by suggesting it in a letter to Convention President George Washington, on July 25, 1787, one day after the original draft was started by John Rutledge and his Committee of Detail – but he was joined by fellow Federalist authors, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, who, as members of the Committee of Style and Arrangement, wrote it into the final draft some six weeks later.  In other words, while it didn’t make it into the first draft, it was shepherded into the final document by the three central figures who championed the Constitution to the colonists for their subsequent ratification.

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!

20 January 2012

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?

        Tea Party Response to 1-4-12 WND Article

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/

Well, here we are wrapping up the third year in our “fundamentally transformed” America…and all I can do is shake my head in disbelief, as well as displeasure!  Most of us have lived the better part of our lives in what was the freest and most prosperous nation on Earth.  Yes, we were aware that there were gross inequities – namely slavery, and the aftermath of racial prejudice and hatred left in its wake – coming from both sides.  It was ugly, and it was wrong.  Are there still racists?  Of course there are.  Are they all of one skin color?  Of course they are not.  Racism is simply one of countless expressions of man’s darker or more primitive self, and all enlightened people abhor it.

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…!

After respectfully letting WND Founder and CEO, Joseph Farah, know how I felt about a WND article posted on Thursdday, October 13, 2011 (or Friday, October 14), by a [Mormon] “Bishop’s daughter,” in which she made very disparaging remarks about the church (and the temple), and asked did we really want a Mormon as President, I submitted the following article for publication.  One of the Column Editors made a few minor changes, so what follows is what I submitted, and varies slightly from what was published.   (I believe it was slightly better before it was edited, but it remains mostly entact!)

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!

I just watched someone who is supposed to be “conservative,” filling in for Judge Andrew Napolitano, on Freedom Watch.  I was shocked to hear him sound like a run-of-the-mill “reporter” on any of the neutered networks (can one be “neutered” voluntarily, I wondered?).  I couldn’t watch for more than a minute or two, and even that was painful…even excruciating.

He had on, as a guest, a Congresswoman, whose name I did not catch, but she was, in fact, sharp – much sharper than her now-socially-acceptable (to the elite) interviewer.

He myopically framed his question as:  “Since the ‘Cut, Cap, and Balance’ bill is ‘dead on arrival,’ what other options are you offering [the "president" - that is in quotes until he actually proves his legitimacy, the subject of my soon-to-be-released book] ?”

She steadfastly (and with 100% accuracy) repeated that “the ‘Cut, Cap, and Balance’ bill is ‘the real deal,’ and it is exactly what we must do to fix our national financial crisis” – to which he (ignorantly, or mindlessly) repeated his initial assertion, that it was “dead on arrival.” 

At that point I could no longer take it. 

“Let me be clear” (although, unlike our “leader,”  I’m not just stalling while I wait for the teleprompter to give me some hopefully intelligible answer),  this is not a complicated matter.  We elected the Republicans (who represented themselves to be “conservatives”) to reverse the mad rush (one that has been going on for a hundred years now, but which has dramatically accelerated over the past two and one half years) to Socialism…and please, let’s not waste our time objecting that taking inordinate sums of money from one group (against its will), and giving it to another (whom you believe to be more deserving) is anything else – it’s not. 

So, we elected these people to dramatically cut spending, and to stop the bleeding – not slow down the ‘rate of increase’ in the loss of blood.  (How absurd would that be?)  Meanwhile, we have a president and a scorned party (which somehow held on to power in the Senate) who have actually proposed to increase the budget, in the midst of the mayhem.  Can you even imagine that?  (But we’re supposed to “negotiate” with that?)

So, they are irrelevant.  Here’s the bottom line, and I’m sorry that it took me this long to get to it:  The House of Representatives does not have to compromise.  There is no need.  They hold all of the cards.  No matter what the president may say, no matter what he may threaten (and he has done plenty of that – all lies, as every intelligent observer is fully aware), no matter what he may do, the House of Representatives has the absolute power to prevent the Debt Ceiling from being raised.  They must “Just say no!”  Period. (And the Social Security checks will still go out…for now.)

So there is no reason to compromise.  None.  But wait, what about “political considerations”?  To Hell with them!  All that means is “What if we don’t get re-elected?”  Well, let me make this real simple.  WE don’t care!  And let me make it even simpler if need be:  Do you think that the vast majority who elected you in an historic midterm election (perhaps the greatest in our nation’s history if one includes the governorships and state legislatures that changed hands) have suddently changed their minds, or that things have dramatically improved, or that the principles have changed, or that we’re somehow afraid of a government shutdown? 

We are not.  Many of us would, in fact, welcome it, because then we would know, at last, that our tax dollars were not beingsquandered on an infinite number of constitutionally illegal programs that do nothing but create further dependency, crippling both our nation and the people whom the programs pretend to help.  They do nothing of the sort!

So, Earth to Republicans in the House:  Pass the ‘Cut, Cap, and Balance’ bill, and do nothing more!  If the pretender in the White House, along with the pretenders in the Fourth Branch, the so-called “reporters” or ”investigative journalists,” wish to call you names, well there is only one way to avoid that (if for some reason that really mattered to a mature adult), and it is what your predecessors have done for the past one hundred years:  capitulate – along with your counterparts in the Senate! 

Then you will be able to refer to your “colleagues” in the House or in the Senate as the “Gentleman from so and so,” or the “Gentlewoman from elsewhere,” and go on dining at the finest restaurants, and being invited to all of the elegant cocktail parties with the rest of the ruling class – even treating yourselves to $350 bottles of fine wine…. 

But know this: you will one day soon be unemployed like perhaps a fourth of the American people are at present (due solely to your policies and those of the  Federal Reserve whom you support), and we will see to it that you do not receive the Golden Parachute that you have voted for yourselves.  We, the People, have had enough…and WE, are no longer willing to compromise!

While I had long been aware of Newt Gingrich’s intellectual prowess and willingness to take on the vacuous “arguments” of the Left – as well as the proponents thereof – I had lost any interest in his candidacy due to his painfully long delay in entering the fray.  I was, of course, aware of his past “marital problems,” but was willing to “forgive and forget” if he would stand and fight to save the country.  I was also aware of the historic accomplishment of his Contract With America, and when he finally did announce last week, and was interviewed by Sean Hannity, I was once again impressed by his vision (to lead another Contract and enact an Executive Order to end all “Czarships” on his first day in office), along with his willingness to lead the Congress in a bold and aggressive plan to restore both our liberties and our prosperity.

And then I was reminded of the Pelosi “Climate Change” commercial…and then came his support yesterday for “mandatory health insurance for all Americans”…and then came his stance that Paul Ryan’s Medicare proposal was “extreme” (or “radical,” or whatever such word he used – most of us find it far from being bold)….

My only advice to Newt at this point would be to get out now, before he wastes whatever money and energy he might have on a pointless campaign – apparently for the minds and hearts of the vast unwashed…because he has lost any hope of receiving support from Constitutional Conservatives, i.e., the Tea Party, et al.

I had concluded that his delay had to be centered in his fear of what the old media would do to him because of his “family situation,” which left me very uncomfortable with the idea that he thought they (the elite media) still mattered that much.  (They do not, as very few of those who elected the current Republican majority – and will elect the next Conservative President – watch or read them.)  Now I can only conclude that Newt and his old-school advisers are completely stuck in the past,  believing like many in the HFLAWM (Heavy Four-Legged African Water-Mammal, or RINO) camp that the only way to victory is to pretend like you don’t believe in anything truly conservative (i.e., old fashioned).

So, “here’s to you [Mr.] Robinson, Jesus holds a place for those who pray…hey, hey, hey…hey, hey, hey!”…but don’t count on being the leader of the Conservative Ascendancy, because the first requirement (assuming that you were actually born here), is that one must be a real Conservative!

PS.  I am truly disappointed by this “turn of events,” because I really believed that Newt could be a great president and even world leader; and I am truly saddened by his apparent attempt to “triangulate” his (our) core principles and values.  – The Author

As all who read my previous post are aware, I wrote it a day or two before the President reportedly “released” his birth certificate.  It was entitled “What We Must Each Do…Relative to the Birth Certificate.”  While I have not gone back to reread it – nor did I before publishing it in the aftermath of the announcement by the White House – I stand by everything I said.  Now how is that, you ask?  Very simple.  What I said – and will always say – is simply what I honestly think…and that isn’t dependent on what Glenn Beck, or the elitist media, or anyone else might think or say.

The current book I am writing is entitled Oh Really, O’Reilly!  It is subtitled Taking On the “Right”.  The word Rightis in quotes because many, notably O’Reilly, along with many others, either aren’t consistently so (which O’Reilly would readily admit, and even boast), or the public stances they have taken on certain positions decidely are not those of the Right.

In the first or second chapter (it was to have been the first, but in taking on the “Sultan of Swat” I first had to deal with David Gregory, the subject of one of Mr. O’Reilly’s rants, and the chapter grew to be quite large)…anyway, early on I take on O’Reilly’s “position” on the birth certificate – one that is very PC, but completely indefensible, and void of logic.  (I even start with a brief review of the origins of the Western concept of logic.)

Without getting into any of the substantive issues relating to the birth certificate – and while I give a “brief” review of the history thereof in the book, the thrust of my argument there deals more with the intellectual dishonesty surrounding the issue – so without delving into any of that here, I will once again point out what is painfully obvious:

1. No one would go to such lengths to hide his or her past, if there wasn’t something substantial to hide.   “The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.”  Interestingly, that is a quote from the commander in chief himself.  (See “Obama warns of hidden corporate money in midterm campaigns,” by Scott Wilson, in the Washington Post, from August, 2010: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/08/obama-warns-of-hidden-corporat.html.)
2. No responsible investigative reporter or “journalist” would fail to ask how it is that the president took over two years to finally “release” the document.  While I have not checked, if anyonein the press corp did, it would have to have been someone from Fox, although many on Fox these days seem to covet the limelight of “legitimacy” (acceptability to the Ruling Class elites that dominate their chronically failingcompetitiors – ironically, and pathetically).

I will conclude by doing something I am wont to do from time to time.  I will make a prediction…or two…or three!

1. No one, with the possible exception of FactCheck.com (a “wholly owned subsidiary” of the Left) will be allowed to examine the birth certificate – just as was done with the “Certification of Live Birth” posted on the White House FightTheSmears.com website when the issue first began to gain traction several years ago.
2. The media chorus will continue to attack anyone who suggests that merely “seeing” the document is not enough.  The party line will be precisely:  “No matter what evidence is produced, it will never be enough for the ‘tin-foil hat’ crowd.”
3. The relatively long list (O’Reilly, Beck, Coulter, Rove, Ingram, Medved, and seemingly every other “mainstream” “conservative”) of those on the Right who have joined the Left in mocking those who rightly expect even American Royalty to submit to the requirements of the law, will congratulate themselves on their “obvious” wisdom, and continue to disparage the vast majority of the Tea Party who just aren’t sophisticated enough to see that their king is fully clothed.

As a footnote, I must say that in spite of my book title, the most obscene mockery of the “vast unwashed” has come from none other than their one-time leader, Glenn Beck.  To him, and others, who frantically seek the cooling shades of acceptance from the ruling elites, I will simply say that what they seek they will never find.  Meanwhile, in their haste, they will have abandoned those who trusted them to always tell the truth…let the chips fall where they may. 

The good news, for those of us who care nothing for the acrid winds of approval, is that we will continue to rely on ourselves, and on our own good judgement and common sense.  We don’t need those in the so-called “mainstream” on either side of the aisle to lead us to the truth…as we are obviously more capable than they of discerning it for ourselves!

Note:  Since I wrote the following, the president has placed an image of his long-form birth certificate on the White House website.  I will withhold comment thereon until my next post.

I was listening to Laura Ingram briefly yesterday morning, and she had on some quest who spoke who had an air of certainty.  They were discussing Trump (“The Donald”), and the guest said, “He needs to drop the ‘birther’ thing.”  To which Ms. Ingram replied, “Yeah, I told him that.”  The guest turned out to be Mr. O’Reilly, the subject of my current book.

Then, last night I was watching O’Reilly – although it is getting harder to do – and he had on Britt Hume.  Once again I was amazed at the need that almost all of the “elite” (celebs) on “our side” feel to show their “intelligence” by agreeing with even the categorically baseless positions of the opposition.  I shouldn’t be surprised, but it is nevertheless jolting to me to see how quickly they dive for cover rather than be labeled a “kook” by those who make (not earn) a living by attacking reason.  May I be the first to hasten to the microphone and proclaim that I care not a whit for what the mindless may “think” of me.  (Yes, I am aware that that is an oxymoron – which should make further explanation of my point unnecessary…to those capable of rational thought, at least.)

Those who penned the most successful governing document in all of man’s history upon Earth felt it expedient to require that the person to occupy the highest office in the land be born here, i.e., be “a natural born Citizen.”  For those who may question the rather obvious wisdom of this criterion, I will  hasten to add that in the entire debate (dismissal, actually – as there has been no real debate) no one has questioned the substantive requirement.

So, arguably the wisest of statesmen to have ever lived felt this qualification to be so important that they included it in the document that was to guide our nation throughout its subsequent history.  Theydid this, not today’s alleged “conspirators” on the Right; and, for the record, this precise issue had first been raised with Mr. Obama’s Republican opponent, John McCain, in this very campaign.  (It had also been raised at least three other times before that – all with White candidates – notably Barry Goldwater in 1964, and George Romney, father of Mitt Romney, in 1968 – contrary to WhoppiGoldberg’s allegation that this was strictly motivated by race.)

So, here we are, three years after this issue was raised (by a Hillary Clinton supporter), and Mr. Obama has spent significant time, energy, and money (allegations range from 1.4 to 2 million dollars or more) fighting legal battles to prevent the disclosure of both his original birth certificate, and virtually all other records (boyhood school records, college application records, college academic records, law-school thesis, medical records, passports, et al.) of his past.

So, here we have the “king” standing naked for all to see, and the elites on both sides of the aisle (supposedly) unanimously proclaim that all who can’t see the clothing – or even dare suggest their glaring absence – are “kooks” and “conspirators.”

Whether it is worse to simply be incapable of seeing (blinded by prejudice of whatever kind), or to see while refusing to acknowledge what one sees, I will leave for others to judge; but to those incapable of sight in either camp, may I boldly and unapologetically proclaim that we see both your blindness (and hardness – or foolishness – of heart) as well as your king’s utter nakedness…and no rational being should pretend otherwise!

PS.  As for my title, what we must each do is simply ignore those who are, or choose to be blind; and openly and forcibly proclaim the all-too-obvious truth – remembering that truth always wins out in the end…for those who embrace it, if for no one else!