The Bill Kumpe Blog

Our inheritance has been turned over to aliens ...

noreply@blogger.com (Bill Kumpe) — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 04:14:00 +0000

Remember, O Lord, what has happened to us; look, and see our disgrace. Our inheritance has been turned over to aliens ...

Lamentations 5:1,2

Preview My New Private Blog

noreply@blogger.com (Bill Kumpe) — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 18:14:00 +0000

It will take a few days for me to get the permission list together for my new private blog. In the meanwhile, anyone can preview that blog at: http://bkumpe.blogspot.com .

For permanent permission to view this new blog please e-mail me at: bill@billkumpelawfirm.com . This link may or not work directly from this blog entry and you may have to cut and paste it into your own e-mail software.

Please include your real name and a valid e-mail address. I intend to allow confidential posting to the blog and nothing short of a court order could make me reveal the identities of those who choose to post confidentially. But, I do ask that at least I know who everybody is and how they can be contacted if necessary.

I look forward to visiting with you.

Bill Kumpe

BNN - How To Kill A Blog

noreply@blogger.com (Bill Kumpe) — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 13:56:00 +0000

There is a Gresham's law of sorts in all public and private relationships. Just as bad money drives good money from the market, bad bloggers can drive good bloggers from the marketplace of ideas. There are situations that people with responsibilities simply cannot tolerate.

As I have previously posted, I asked David Mastio, Chief Executive Officer of Blog Net News, to remove my blog from his online publication Blog Net News Oklahoma. I asked him to remove it because I do not find Blog Net News Oklahoma an appropriate venue for my work. Further, I do not care to be publicly or privately associated with some BNN contributors or their statements.

Mr. Mastio replied that he would hide behind the fair use doctrine and continue to use my name and blog entries without my permission.

Fair enough Mr. Mastio. Commencing with this post, I will no longer add new content to The Bill Kumpe Blog. I will continue blogging on a private blog. Access will be restricted to 100 selected readers of my choice. Those of you from BNN who are regular readers can contact me at bill@billkumpelawfirm.com for further information about access. Based upon my daily hit rate there will not be enough subscriptions to go around. Priorities will go first to my clients and allied attorneys, second to other scholars and researchers with whom I maintain a regular correspondent relationship and third to fellow bloggers of my choice.

I used to be a professional journalist. Other newspapers in the region regularly "picked up" my copy and reprinted it in their own papers. It was an honor to have those editors recognize my work in that manner. Those editors were friends and professional colleagues. I never had to worry that my copy would be published next to information that I (or now my clients) would find distasteful or embarrasing. That is not the case at BNN.

So, I am reluctantly "pulling the plug" on my public blog to prevent further unauthorized use of my work. While I do not agree with everything that British author Andrew Keen has to say about the new internet culture, I reluctantly have to agree that this situation is living proof of his assertion that "the cult of the amateur" is indeed "killing our culture," coarsening public discourse and eroding the intelligence of the next generation.

Getting the Religion Clause Cart Before the Horse

noreply@blogger.com (Bill Kumpe) — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 12:10:00 +0000

The Religion Clauses of the First Amendment are perhaps the most misunderstood and misconstrued phrases in the United States Constitution. In the past fifty years, starting with McCollum v. Board , the United States Supreme Court has stood the First Amendment on its head, converting what was a strong guarantee of the right of religious citizens to participate in all facets of public life into near police state restrictions. The following excerpt from a recent discourse in First Things titled At the Origins of the Naked Public Square provides an excellent analysis:

The argument of these last several Friday postings is that the no-establishment provision of the first freedom of the First Amendment is entirely in the service of the free exercise provision. I should note, at least in passing, that those devoted to the “original meaning” of the First Amendment argue that it was intended to be no more than a guarantee that the federal government would not interfere with the religious arrangements of the states, some of which had legally established churches. They are right about that.

The tangled and incoherent church-state jurisprudence of the last half century, they say, is the product of a misguided effort to produce elaborate legal doctrine from what was no more than a pragmatic guarantee. They are largely right about that, too. As Philip Hamburger, Clarence Thomas, and others have noted, that misguided effort was powerfully driven by anti-Catholic bigotry. All this is true enough, but our necessary concern is with the religion clause as it has been formed and deformed in the past half century.

The deepest deformation is the subordinating of free exercise to no-establishment. Once we forget that no-establishment is a means and instrument in support of free exercise, it is a short step to talking about the supposed conflict or tension between the two provisions. And from there it is a short step to the claim, as it has been claimed in numerous court decisions, that the two parts of the religion clause are “pitted against one another” and must somehow be “balanced.”

And from there it is but another short step to the idea that the no-establishment provision protects “secular liberty” while the free exercise provision protects “religious liberty.” When the religion clause is construed according to this curious inversion, it is no surprise that religious liberty comes out the loser. Any impingement of religion upon public life is taken to violate the secular liberty of the non-religious. Thus has no-establishment become the master of the free exercise that it was designed to serve.

The balance of the article can be read HERE.

I DO NOT WISH TO BE PUBLISHED ON BNN

noreply@blogger.com (Bill Kumpe) — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 11:13:00 +0000

I recently asked David Mastio, the Chief Executive Officer of Blog Net News to remove my blog from the Blog Net News Oklahoma aggregator. I did not ask for my blog to become a part of the BNN network and never gave permission for its use there. And, after seeing my blog listed on the same page as a homosexual marriage announcement and a blasphemous parody of the birth of Jesus Christ, I decided that BNN, despite many fine and respected bloggers who do participate there, is nevertheless an enterprise that I do not care to be publicly associated with. When I asked to be removed, Mr. Mastio replied in part with the following:

Now that the blogosphere is clearly a player, the bloggers that make it up have to get used to the fact that they are news. If sticking by our commitment to bring people the most comprehensive information on what’s happening in each state’s public affairs blogosphere — bringing transparency — means we are unpopular in some quarters, that’s a price we’re willing to pay.

So, in the name of "transparency" and the First Amendment Mr. Mastio has decided that I, through my blog, must march in the same daily cyber parade as people who insult me personally, attack my clients, denigrate my values and blaspheme my faith. In the name of so-called "freedom of speech" (and making a buck) Mr. Mastio is perfectly willing to tell me that I have two choices, either do not publish a blog at all or publish it in his forum which denies me my constitutional right to free association.

And that is the problem with people like Mr. Mastio. They do not understand or care that there are people like myself who find some BNN participants bad mannered and boorish to the point that we are embarrassed to be publicly associated with them. Notice that I am not suggesting that these people be censored or punished in any way for publishing their hate and drivel. I am simply saying that if BNN does not choose edit their publication more carefully, I don't choose to be publicly associated with it. But, Mr. Mastio is telling me I have no choice in the matter.

A gentleman would say, "If you don't want to participate in my publication I certainly won't force you to. I can't stop other bloggers from quoting you under the fair use doctrine but I won't continue the daily use of your name and work on my site if you really object to their presence there." But, Mr. Mastio did not say that, so you can draw your own conclusions.

The Right of Free Association

noreply@blogger.com (Bill Kumpe) — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 12:51:00 +0000

Many people these days have the mistaken idea that private individuals must associate with people and organizations they find insulting and whose values they find antithetical to their own. While this may be true to a certain extent in the public context, it is not true concerning private voluntary associations. This basic freedom was upheld and firmly restated by the United States Supreme Court in Dale v. Boy Scouts of America:

In Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 622 (1984), we observed that “implicit in the right to engage in activities protected by the First Amendment” is “a corresponding right to associate with others in pursuit of a wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural ends.” ... Government actions that may unconstitutionally burden this freedom may take many forms, one of which is “intrusion into the internal structure or affairs of an association” like a “regulation that forces the group to accept members it does not desire.” Id., at 623. Forcing a group to accept certain members may impair the ability of the group to express those views, and only those views, that it intends to express. Thus, “[f ]reedom of association … plainly presupposes a freedom not to associate.” Ibid.

Given that the Boy Scouts engages in expressive activity, we must determine whether the forced inclusion of Dale as an assistant scoutmaster would significantly affect the Boy Scouts' ability to advocate public or private viewpoints. This inquiry necessarily requires us first to explore, to a limited extent, the nature of the Boy Scouts' view of homosexuality.

The Boy Scouts asserts that it "teach[es] that homosexual conduct is not morally straight," Brief for Petitioners 39, and that it does "not want to promote homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior," Reply Brief for Petitioners 5. We accept the Boy Scouts' assertion. We need not inquire further to determine the nature of the Boy Scouts' expression with respect to homosexuality. ...

We must then determine whether Dale's presence as an assistant scoutmaster would significantly burden the Boy Scouts' desire to not "promote homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior." Reply Brief for Petitioners 5. As we give deference to an association's assertions regarding the nature of its expression, we must also give deference to an association's view of what would impair its expression. See, e.g., La Follette, supra, at 123-124 (considering whether a Wisconsin law burdened the National Party's associational rights and stating that "a State, or a court, may not constitutionally substitute its own judgment for that of the Party"). That is not to say that an expressive association can erect a shield against antidiscrimination laws simply by asserting that mere acceptance of a member from a particular group would impair its message. But here Dale, by his own admission, is one of a group of gay Scouts who have "become leaders in their community and are open and honest about their sexual orientation." App. 11. Dale was the copresident of a gay and lesbian organization at college and remains a gay rights activist. Dale's presence in the Boy Scouts would, at the very least, force the organization to send a message, both to the youth members and the world, that the Boy Scouts accepts homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior.

Hurley is illustrative on this point. There we considered whether the application of Massachusetts' public accommodations law to require the organizers of a private St. Patrick's Day parade to include among the marchers an Irish-American gay, lesbian, and bisexual group, GLIB, violated the parade organizers' First Amendment rights. We noted that the parade organizers did not wish to exclude the GLIB members because of their sexual orientations, but because they wanted to march behind a GLIB banner. We observed:

"[A] contingent marching behind the organization's banner would at least bear witness to the fact that some Irish are gay, lesbian, or bisexual, and the presence of the organized marchers would suggest their view that people of their sexual orientations have as much claim to unqualified social acceptance as heterosexuals ... . The parade's organizers may not believe these facts about Irish sexuality to be so, or they may object to unqualified social acceptance of gays and lesbians or have some other reason for wishing to keep GLIB's message out of the parade. But whatever the reason, it boils down to the choice of a speaker not to propound a particular point of view, and that choice is presumed to lie beyond the government's power to control." 515 U. S., at 574-575.

Here, we have found that the Boy Scouts believes that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values it seeks to instill in its youth members; it will not "promote homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior." Reply Brief for Petitioners 5. As the presence of GLIB in Boston's St. Patrick's Day parade would have interfered with the parade organizers' choice not to propound a particular point of view, the presence of Dale as an assistant scoutmaster would just as surely interfere with the Boy Scout's choice not to propound a point of view contrary to its beliefs.

So, the bottom line here is that people who find homosexual behavior inconsistent with their personal faith and values are not required to continue private, voluntary associations they find offensive and people who do, do so at the risk of diluting or even defeating their own message to the contrary.

REGULAR ARMY BCT DEPLOYED TO US FOR CROWD CONTROL!!!!!

noreply@blogger.com (Bill Kumpe) — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 15:21:00 +0000

From the Army Times:
-----------------------

The 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team has spent 35 of the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle, helping restore essential services and escorting supply convoys.

Now they’re training for the same mission — with a twist — at home.

Beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the 1st BCT will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks...

this new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities.

After 1st BCT finishes its dwell-time mission, expectations are that another, as yet unnamed, active-duty brigade will take over and that the mission will be a permanent one.

“Right now, the response force requirement will be an enduring mission. How the [Defense Department] chooses to source that and whether or not they continue to assign them to NorthCom, that could change in the future,” said Army Col. Louis Vogler, chief of NorthCom future operations. “Now, the plan is to assign a force every year.”

... they’ll learn new skills, use some of the ones they acquired in the war zone and more than likely will not be shot at while doing any of it.

They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack.

Training for homeland scenarios has already begun at Fort Stewart and includes specialty tasks such as knowing how to use the “jaws of life” to extract a person from a mangled vehicle; extra medical training for a CBRNE incident; and working with U.S. Forestry Service experts on how to go in with chainsaws and cut and clear trees to clear a road or area.

The 1st BCT’s soldiers also will learn how to use “the first ever nonlethal package that the Army has fielded,” 1st BCT commander Col. Roger Cloutier said, referring to crowd and traffic control equipment and nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals without killing them.

The package is for use only in war-zone operations, not for any domestic purpose.

“It’s a new modular package of nonlethal capabilities that they’re fielding. They’ve been using pieces of it in Iraq, but this is the first time that these modules were consolidated and this package fielded, and because of this mission we’re undertaking we were the first to get it.”

The package includes equipment to stand up a hasty road block; spike strips for slowing, stopping or controlling traffic; shields and batons; and, beanbag bullets.

“I was the first guy in the brigade to get Tasered,” said Cloutier, describing the experience as “your worst muscle cramp ever — times 10 throughout your whole body.

“I’m not a small guy, I weigh 230 pounds ... it put me on my knees in seconds.”

The brigade will not change its name, but the force will be known for the next year as a CBRNE Consequence Management Response Force, or CCMRF (pronounced “sea-smurf”).

“I can’t think of a more noble mission than this,” said Cloutier, who took command in July. “We’ve been all over the world during this time of conflict, but now our mission is to take care of citizens at home ... and depending on where an event occurred, you’re going home to take care of your home town, your loved ones.”

While soldiers’ combat training is applicable, he said, some nuances don’t apply.

“If we go in, we’re going in to help American citizens on American soil, to save lives, provide critical life support, help clear debris, restore normalcy and support whatever local agencies need us to do, so it’s kind of a different role,” said Cloutier, who, as the division operations officer on the last rotation, learned of the homeland mission a few months ago while they were still in Iraq.

Some brigade elements will be on call around the clock, during which time they’ll do their regular marksmanship, gunnery and other deployment training. That’s because the unit will continue to train and reset for the next deployment, even as it serves in its CCMRF mission.

.....

Correction:

A non-lethal crowd control package fielded to 1st Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, described in the original version of this story, is intended for use on deployments to the war zone, not in the U.S., as previously stated.

Coburn's Sobering Words

noreply@blogger.com (Bill Kumpe) — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 12:31:00 +0000

This morning, I listened to Dr. Tom Coburn explain his bail out vote on Tulsa talk radio station KFAQ. Coburn explained why he, perhaps the most fiscally conservative senator on the hill, voted for an admittedly unconstitutional and certainly too expensive bail out plan for the mortgage mess.

Tom Coburn has never been accused of having a lot of political finesse. He calls them like he sees them and he has called some wrong in the past. And, those wrong calls have hurt Oklahoma and Oklahoma's citizens. But, there has never been any doubt about his character and commitment to his principles. Tom Coburn believes that the United States economy is in such a serious state that it was necessary for him to abandon his principles to save the country from a Great Depression style failure.

Coburn is not a politician. He is a man of science and his scientific mind showed this morning in his KFAQ interview. He convinced me that his decision was based upon objective evidence and that he was willing to take the hit he is taking now to do what he thinks is in his constituents and the country's best interests. He quoted facts and figures that other politicians who voted against the bail out are not mentioning.

I was deeply concerned about the economy before I listened to Coburn this morning. I am now seriously frightened. If the information available to a U.S. Senator WHO IS NOT IN THE LOOP ON THE HILL is enough to make him cast a vote this out of character, then things are truly bad indeed.

Dems, Obama Complicit in Financial Crisis

noreply@blogger.com (Bill Kumpe) — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 11:07:00 +0000

A Rude Awakening ...

noreply@blogger.com (Bill Kumpe) — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:57:00 +0000

Like much of the nation, I woke up this morning to hear the President of the United States on the radio. When you have a problem so serious that the President is addressing the nation at 6:30 A.M. something is very wrong.

Bush's face was ashen. The strain of the weekend was apparent. His words were equally sobering. He made no promises that the bailout proposal worked out over the weekend would cure the nation's economic ills. As a matter of fact he said just the opposite. The President said in no uncertain terms that even if the bailout bill is passed the United States and by implication much of the world face perilous economic times ahead.

Bush confirmed the worst projections that had been circulating last week, that is that the credit market had completely exhausted its liquidity and that many businesses would not be able to meet this week's payroll. Dow future's were down 150 at the time that this blog entry was being written and Lord only knows what the market will do when it opens given the tone of Bush's speech.

These are the facts. Over the past four or five decades, America changed from a production based national economy to a consumer based global economy. When we were being sold the bill of goods called the global market we were told that only junk jobs held by unskilled workers would be exported. Think about that the next time you drive down the street in your Mexican assembled Japanese branded car or take a flight on a Brazilian or European manufactured mid-range airliner. The American auto and aerospace workers who could have made those products for you are now frying hamburgers or driving trucks shipping foreign products around the country. Those skills and jobs are lost forever. We traded good paying blue and grey collar highly skilled manufacturing jobs for minimum wage service sector jobs. The Chinese and the Asians who protected their own workers and manufacturing base are now laughing at us all the way to the bank ... and that bank has a sign out front that says, "Americans Not Welcome."

Since we don't build anything anymore, we are not creating wealth. We have sustained the economy of the past several decades by literally spending the accumulation of national wealth earned since the founding of the nation and when that was exhausted by borrowing the money to keep up appearances from foreign powers who do make things (like China) and who also save instead of borrow. Last week, the Chinese government instructed its banks to issue no more loans to American banks. So, our massive trade deficit with China is now a one way street and there is no way for us access the trillions of dollars we have invested in their manufacturing economy instead of our own.

Make no mistake. This is 1929 all over and it remains to be seen if we will be able to weather the coming storm with the same strength and courage of our forefathers.

Three Colorable Claims Concerning Barack Hussein Obama

noreply@blogger.com (Bill Kumpe) — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 15:26:00 +0000

The so-called "Obama Truth Squads" now operating in states like Missouri, South Carolina and Pennsylvania as well as the internet are composed in part of Democratic elected officials such as law enforcement officials and officers of the court. They are a frightening example of the lengths that Obama's supporters will go to to enforce their will upon the people of the United States. The sole purpose of these so-called "truth squads" is to intimidate their political opposition under color of law and quash debate concerning their chosen candidate for president.

The word "colorable" is a legal term of art which has been defined in some courts as, "a claim that, if taken as true, in the light most favorableto the petitioner would entitle the petitioner to relief." In plain English, a colorable claim is one that presents enough evidence on its face that further investigation and inquiry is warranted. Three such colorable claims are presented concerning the qualification and fitness of Barack Hussein Obama to serve as President of the United States:

1. The first is that Barack Hussein Obama is NOT a natural born citizen of the United States. Obama claims to have been born in Hawaii. There is very disturbing evidence however that he was born in Kenya and was later "registered" in the United States. If that is the case he is not a natural born citizen of the United States and is not qualified to serve as President under Article II of the U.S. Constitution. Obama could also claim Kenyan citizenship and allegations have been made that he may also be a Canadian citizen and that a Canadian birth certificate was issued. A DEMOCRATIC operative has filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania demanding that the court issue a declaratory judgment stating that Obama is not qualified to run or serve as President of the United States and enjoining Obama from further campaign activity. A copy of that sworn complaint can be read HERE.

2. The second is that Barack Hussein Obama is a Muslim. The United States Constitution provides that there shall be no religious test for any public office or trust of the United States. However, lying about his religion calls Obama's fitness for public office into question and that IS, in my opinion at least, a perfectly constitutional question. The first colorable piece of evidence that Obama is a Muslim is his name, Barack HUSSEIN Obama. Hussein is perhaps the most common middle name in the Shia faith. Hussein was a direct descendant of Mohammed and one of his favorite wives Fatima. He was martyred in the tenth century. Shia muslims celebrate the date of his martyrdom. The second colorable piece of evidence is the registration of one Barry Soeto in the Francis Assisi Catholic school in Jakarta, Indonesia. Barry Soeto is one of the several psuedonyms and aka's by which Barack Hussein Obama has been known around the world. (He was sued under five or six of these names in the Pennsylvania complaint.) This school registration form, obtained by a respected journalist in that part of the world and verified by ABC news clearly lists Obama's religion as "Muslim" like his fathers. A photograph of that enrollment form can be viewed HERE. Obama claims to have never practiced Islam but that claim is brought into question by first hand accounts recorded by World Net Daily (full story HERE) :

The Indonesian media have been flooded with accounts of Obama's childhood Islamic studies, some describing him as a religious Muslim .Speaking to the country's Kaltim Post, Tine Hahiyary, who was principal of Obama's school while he was enrolled there, said she recalls he studied the Quran in Arabic.

"At that time, I was not Barry's teacher but he is still in my memory" claimed Tine, who is 80 years old. The Kaltim Post says Obama's teacher, named Hendri, died.

"I remember that he studied 'mengaji (recitation of the Quran)," Tine said, according to an English translation by Loatze.

Mengaji, or the act of reading the Quran with its correct Arabic punctuation, is usually taught to more religious pupils and is not known as a secular study. Also, Loatze documented the Indonesian daily Banjarmasin Post caught up with Rony Amir, an Obama classmate and Muslim, who describe Obama as "previously quite religious in Islam." (Please note that this link to a legitimate foreign newspaper is now blocked for some reason.)
"We previously often asked him to the prayer room close to the house. If he was wearing a sarong (waist fabric worn for religious or casual occasions) he looked funny," Amir said.

The Los Angeles Times, which sent a reporter to Jakarta, quoted Zulfin Adi, who identified himself as among Obama's closest childhood friends, stating the presidential candidate prayed in a mosque, something Obama's campaign claimed he never did.

"We prayed but not really seriously, just following actions done by older people in the mosque. But as kids, we loved to meet our friends and went to the mosque together and played," said Adi.

Obama's official campaign site has a page titled "Obama has never been a Muslim, and is a committed Christian." The page states, "Obama never prayed in a mosque. He has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian who attends the United Church of Christ."

Obama claims to be "committed" Christian but did not bother to change his religiously charged Muslim middle name. Based upon that alone, he would be recognized as a Shia Muslim by most of the Islamic world. He claims to have never studied or practiced Islam despite numerous eyewitness accounts to the contrary and the fact that his father registered him as Muslim in a country which required compulsory religious training in all schools negates the claim that he never practiced the faith. (Catholic schools in Indonesia at that time would take children of all faiths and release them for religious training in their particular faith.) So, the question of whether or not Barack HUSSEIN Obama is Muslim is certainly colorable at minimum.

3. Given the above, if Barack Hussein Obama were not the Democratic Presidential candidate could he qualify for a security clearance to view top secret and above military and diplomatic documents. The short answer here is not only no but HELL NO. With: (a) mulitple pseudonyms and identities, (b) questions about his birth country and citizenship including the likelihood of mulitple birth certificates in foreign countries, and (c) the likelihood of ties to a religion with terrorist ties, he would never qualify for any sensitive government or military job if he were anyone other than the Anointed One of the American left.

The American people deserve truthful answers to these more than colorable questions not "Truth Squads" trying to intimidate them into silence under color of law.

------------------------------------------

The following biographical facts leading to reasonable inference that Obama is or was a Muslim are taken from a copyrighted story in the Jerusalem Post which can be read in its entirety HERE:

• Obama's Kenyan birth father: In Islam, religion passes from the father to the child. Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. (1936-1982) was a Muslim who named his boy Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.
• Obama's Indonesian family: His stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, was also a Muslim. In fact, as Obama's half-sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng explained to Jodi Kantor of The New York Times: "My whole family was Muslim, and most of the people I knew were Muslim." An Indonesian publication, The Banjarmasin Post, reports a former classmate, Rony Amir, recalling that "All the relatives of Barry's father were very devout Muslims."
• Obama's Catholic school in Jakarta: Nedra Pickler of the Associated Press reports that "documents showed he enrolled as a Muslim" while at a Catholic school during first through third grades. Kim Barker of The Chicago Tribune confirms that Obama was "listed as a Muslim on the registration form for the Catholic school."
• The public school: Paul Watson of The Los Angeles Times learned from Indonesians familiar with Obama when he lived in Jakarta that he "was registered by his family as a Muslim at both schools he attended." Haroon Siddiqui of The Toronto Star visited the Jakarta public school Obama attended and found that "Three of his teachers have said he was enrolled as a Muslim." Although Siddiqui cautions that "With the school records missing, eaten by bugs, one has to rely on people's shifting memories," he cites only one retired teacher, Tine Hahiyari, retracting her earlier certainty about Obama's being registered as a Muslim.
• Barack Obama's public school in Jakarta, Koran class: In his autobiography, Dreams of My Father, Obama relates how he got into trouble for making faces during Koran studies. Indeed, Obama still retains knowledge from that class: Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times reports that Obama "recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them [to Kristof] with a first-rate accent."
• Mosque attendance: Obama's half-sister recalled that the family attended the mosque "for big communal events." Watson learned from childhood friends that "Obama sometimes went to Friday prayers at the local mosque." Barker found that "Obama occasionally followed his stepfather to the mosque for Friday prayers." One Indonesia friend, Zulfin Adi, states that Obama "was Muslim. He went to the mosque. I remember him wearing a sarong" (a garment associated with Muslims).
• Piety: Obama himself says that while living in Indonesia, a Muslim country, he "didn't practice [Islam]." Indonesians differ in their memories of him. One, Rony Amir, describes Obama as "previously quite religious in Islam."

OBAMA'S HAVING been born and raised a Muslim and having left the faith to become a Christian make him neither more nor less qualified to become president of the United States. But if he was born and raised a Muslim and is now hiding that fact, this points to a major deceit, a fundamental misrepresentation about himself that has profound implications about his character and his suitability as president.

The writer is director of the Middle East Forum and is the Taube/Diller distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University.

Obama Orders Police State Tactics in Missouri

noreply@blogger.com (Bill Kumpe) — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 20:32:00 +0000

The Drudge Report is carrying a statement by Missouri Governor Matt Blunt which accuses Barrack Obama of trying to employ Democratic law enforcement officials to silence critics:

“St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.

“What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.“This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson’s thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights.

The only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election."

We know a lot about that kind of stuff already here in Oklahoma where a recall petition or an initiative petition unfriendly to entrenched Democratic interests never seems to pass some legal test and people who question the process or complain about it too loudly wind up behind bars.

A few years ago, a Christian writer posed the question, "How do you know when you are living in a police state? He proposed that America was a police state then even before the draconian encroachments on our First and Fourth Amendment freedoms we now endure. But, if there was any doubt, this should prove it to all.

Bailout or Not, It's Gonna Be A Blue Christmas

noreply@blogger.com (Bill Kumpe) — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 12:08:00 +0000

An ashen faced George Bush warned the nation last night that if his so called economic bail out plan is not passed the nation is facing a painful recession. The words "painful recession" may the euphemism of the decade if not the century. In a copyrighted story on Reuters, former GE President Jack Welch observed, "I now believe we are in for one hell of a deep downturn." Welch told the World Business Forum in New York on Wednesday that the first quarter of 2009 will likely be "brutal."

Many thoughtful commentators are now comparing the events of the past few days to those of October, 1929 which kicked off the Great Depression. These same commentators see the so-called "Bush Bailout" not as a cure for the problem but rather as a parachute to ease the shock of the virtually inevitable crash of the American economy.

There is plenty of blame to go around. The mortgage industry bears its share for making obscene profits on nearly worthless paper. The housing industry bears its share for continuing to build homes that everyone realized weren't likely to be sold at anywhere near their asking price or even their projected cost. Government bears huge responsibility for social experimentation in the mortgage industry which forced lenders to write mortgages to people who simply could not and never would be able to afford the homes they bought and for an overall monetary policy that artificially inflated everything in the financial sector. And most of all, the American people bear responsibility for a multi decade credit and spending binge that has transferred nearly all of the nation's hard assets to foreign investors in return for cheap consumer goods and ever more expensive energy. Separately or combined, it was and is an unsustainable economic model.

If last week was a 1929 style crash, and I believe it was, then it will take about ninety days for the effects to be felt. Credit will tighten and as it does the marginal households who have been living on credit will begin defaulting on everything from credit card payments to car payments to mortgages to utility bills. That in turn will deny income to wiser citizens who had been living within their means but have little if any cushion for an emergency of this type. As credit dries up, businesses will slow down or fail altogether, layoffs will begin and, unthinkable as it is, the whole great machine we call the American economy will grind to a halt just as it did in the grim early months of 1930.

But, there are great differences between the America of 1930 and the America of 2008. 1930 America was still based upon a primarily rural, agricultural economy. While there was great suffering by many, many families could still grow their own food, butcher their own meat and maintain a sustenance level existence. There was enough, for lack of a better term, structure to maintain a semblance of normality and governance. Modern Americans lack both the skills and the moral fiber of our Dust Bowl ancestors and our society lacks the local, small scale structure to take care of its own. I shudder to think about the social chaos that could result from a 1930's style Depression given our modern, hedonistic, consumption obsessed population. Perhaps the closest historical comparison would be the Weimar Republic and we all know how well that ended.

Over the years, I have advised a lot of people in personal financial crises. Given the recent changes to bankruptcy law and the virtual inability to charge off most credit card debt, I usually tell the ones who come to me early that they have from sixty to ninety days to get their houses in order, preserve a few hard assets if they are lucky and make plans to feed, clothe and house their families through a long hard spell. Given what I am hearing and reading about the economy this week, that might be good advice for a lot of us today. In short, don't buy that big screen for Christmas just yet, you may need the money for the light bill.

The Afflicted Heart of the Legal Profession

noreply@blogger.com (Bill Kumpe) — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 11:11:00 +0000

I participate in an international online discussion group of Christian lawyers. The talk on this list is often terse and to the point. A lot of it has to do with sharing resources, strategies and making referrals. But sometimes the discussion is profound. Last night, the topic was the morality of California lawyers resigning from their various state legal organizations that oppose California Proposition 8. Proposition 8 is a ballot initiative which, if successful, would result in a state constitutional amendment banning so called gay marriage. I read the following post from a D.C. area attorney comparing the current moral crisis for Christian attorneys to the decision many Christian attorneys made over a decade ago to leave the ABA over their support for abortion rights, etc. With that attorney's permission, I am repeating his post here for public consumption:

I too resigned from the ABA over the abortion issue in 1998. Like others on this string, I got a form-letter reply to my note of explanation regarding why I, in good conscience could no longer remain part of that organization. In the years after my resignation, I received form-letter invitations to rejoin the ABA. I ignored them.

I have thought a lot about why abortion proponents are so resistant to any kind of morally based logic as to why abortion is an affront to the concept of justice, that is defending the innocent from predators and a grave moral evil. I have concluded that the heart is the portal to the human mind. It is from the heart of man that great wickedness in the world emerges.

In Romans 1, Paul warns us that, when a person turns his face from God, his thinking becomes "futile" (NIV) and his "foolish heart" is "darkened." Romans 1:21. So, when a person rejects God, he becomes, in essence, an "afflicted person." He loses the capacity to evaluate data and draw moral inferences from it, even in his own self-interest. This affliction walls off the mind from any idea that the heart has rejected a priori. Because the portal to the mind is closed to facts and reason, no argument, no matter how compelling, can be honestly evaluated. It is this "heart affliction" that has turned the light of reason off in the minds of so many of the most gifted intellects in our remarkable, yet deeply troubled, civilization. The collective "afflicted heart" of our profession has brought us to the place where the Rule of Law lies on its deathbed, barely capable of drawing a breath.

C.S. Lewis observed that the human heart is like a citadel, a mighty fortress that nurtures the great lie of the hegemony of Self implanted in the soul at the Fall of Man. Lewis proclaimed that the only thing that serves to breach the great wall of moral rejection endemic to the human soul is enduring pain which takes it down to the bare metal of despair. "Pain," Lewis observed, "plants the flag of truth in the fortress of the rebel soul." It is through this pain that heart of man is opened, giving him "ears to hear" and " eyes to see." Prayer and winsome civility during these times of pain are just about the only things that stand a chance of cracking open the hardened heart.

Well said, Counselor.

Un-Representative Government At Its Worst

noreply@blogger.com (Bill Kumpe) — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 11:09:00 +0000

To no one's surprise in particular, two Tulsa City Councilors who failed to even notify their neighborhoods that a huge homeless shelter was going to built there, much less help them fight it, have been temporarily reprieved. City officials declared that the recall petition directed against them by angry citizens did not state a sufficient cause of action to allow the initiative to continue to a vote because the councilors had no legal duty to communicate with their constituents or represent their interests!

The sheer arrogance of this statement is simply mind boggling. Councilor David Patrick does a great job of communicating with some of the citizens of Tulsa. He was recently cleared (again to no one in particular's surprise) in an ethics investigation which alleged that Mayor Kathy Taylor inappropriately sent a private jet to Colorado to fetch him for a key vote. If that weren't bad enough, it now appears that a Tulsa powerbroker with an interest in that vote just happened to be on the airplane at the same time. Given subsequent events, Patrick certainly had no problems with that message.

So, the pattern is becoming clear. If you and your friends can't kick in ten or twenty grand each to hire a team of lawyers to take on city hall, you can pretty well forget about your rights in municipal government. And, if you can't afford a Lear Jet to host the meeting and an "expert" to put on the Lear Jet to state your case for you, you might as well forget about even hearing from your city councilor on key issues, much less influencing him.

Councilors Gomez and Patrick apparently don't have a hearing problem. They can meet with and even skillfully represent the interests of the people they are willing to listen to. The problem is, the people they are willing to listen to are not their constituents. The most commonly used definition of American representative government comes from Lincoln's Gettsyburg Address, "government of the people, by the people and for the people." But, given the Gomez and Patrick decision, it is obvious that the City of Tulsa has adopted a new definition, "government of the rich and powerful, by the rich and powerful and for the rich and powerful."

The Gomez and Patrick decision may have been legally correct. I don't know and the folks who wrote the petition language won't know either since they probably can't afford an appeal to find out, a fact that was lost on no one, especially City officials. But, the fact that an act can be declared legal says nothing about its justice. The residents of White City and the surrounding neighborhoods may not be able to pass the hat at Southern Hills and subscribe enough money to hire a silk stocking law firm. And, they may not be able put a councilor on a Lear Jet or invite him to The Summit Club for lunch to have a little chat about their concerns. But, the neighborhood residents can vote and unless the folks these councilors are actually representing can figure out a way to literally buy the next election for them over the objection of several thousand furious neighborhood residents, their careers in Tulsa City government are over.

Poisoning the Well ...

noreply@blogger.com (Bill Kumpe) — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:08:00 +0000

Long ago and far away, I was a reporter for a small daily newspaper. I worked the police, crime and courts beat as well as covering local politics and other "hard news." I wrote so much of page one and page two every day that the editor made me quit using my byline because it was embarrassing him. My stuff was regularly "picked up" (reprinted with credit but no pay) by the other papers in the region. And, I would even make the AP every once in a while. From my vantage point as a professional observer, I developed a unique ability to sense the attitude of the community. I like to think that I have not lost that sense.

The current situation with the proposed homeless shelter in the White City neighborhood of Tulsa reminds me greatly of something that happened in that far away little city long ago. One of the wealthier local families decided to make a profit on a piece of their ranch land by selling it to out of state interests for use as a massive toxic waste dump. The land seemed ideally suited for the purpose since it was in a small and more easily handled county that bordered on a larger metropolitan area with a significant need for toxic waste disposal. Local government welcomed the proposal as did the local financial community ... at least at first. But, there were other other considerations as well. The proposed site also bordered on some of the finest farms and ranches in the region. It even bordered on some far out suburban neighborhoods of the larger metropolitan area. And, it could have affected the water table for some of the finest agricultural land in the state.

Despite a massive PR campaign by the landowner, the proposed new owners, local government and the local financial community, opposition to the project just would not go away. There was all of the usual hoopla. Television reporters were everywhere for a while, there were mass rallies and a lot of threats were apparently made by both sides. But then, some of the neighboring ranchers got serious. I talked to some of these folks at the time and I have never seen a madder bunch of cowboys and cowgirls in my life. I don't know if this actually happened, but I heard it from enough separate sources to believe it even if I couldn't print it at the time. I was told that some of the larger bordering ranch owners walked in to the office of the president of a local bank that was supporting the project, threw their house keys on his desk and told him, "If this goes through you can have the whole place, mortgage, stock, equipment, loans and all. We're driving away and not looking back. You can have it." If this had happened, it would have been a disaster for the bank.

Whatever actually happened, the opposition to the project worked and the toxic waste dump was not placed in that county. But, another kind of toxic waste was left. The attempt by previously trusted community leaders to ruin the property values and livelihood of hundreds or even thousands of their neighbors literally poisoned the community well both politically and commercially. Lifelong friendships and commercial associations changed. The preference for dealing with some local institutions disappeared. And, in my estimation, a promising local political career or two ended.

In my opinion, the well has already been poisoned here in Tulsa. The people who attempted to ramrod the proposed White City homeless shelter down the throats of that neighborhood will never regain the complete trust or respect of the White City neighborhood residents. But, if my blog visitor tracking software is accurate, other people in other neighborhoods and even other cities and states are looking on as well. The mistrust and lack of respect may be spreading. The best thing the people supporting this project can do at this point is to kill it and start over somewhere else while they only have one neighborhood in revolt. If they don't, the revolt could spread to the whole city and beyond.

The View From White City

noreply@blogger.com (Bill Kumpe) — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 11:09:00 +0000

I am a lawyer. I am in the business of helping people get through conflict. One of the greatest hindrances I have found in this task is people's inability to see a situation from the other side's viewpoint. I live in one of the neighborhoods adjoining White City. I don't think the folks trying to force a homeless shelter down the throats of the White City neighborhoods have really considered the view from the other side.

To put our position in context, you have to know something about the neighborhood. White City and the neighborhoods surrounding it are some of the few left in Tulsa where working people can actually own a home that they can afford. For decades now, realtors and the banking industry have encouraged average people to buy more home than they need and certainly more than they can afford. Americans have so overspent on their housing that the whole economy is threatened. The older, usually well built and well maintained homes in White City are one of the few places in Tulsa where blue collar, gray collar, white collar and professionals can live in an economically diverse neighborhood and all still stay within the economic goal of paying no more than a third of their total household income for housing including maintenance, utilities, necessary upgrades, etc. It is an old fashioned mixed class, mixed income neighborhood that should be the model for future developments instead of the dumping ground for city problems.

It is a neighborhood with challenges. Prostitution on Eleventh Street has always been a problem on and off. Rent speculators, pimping government subsidized Section 8 benefits, have created mini-slums on some blocks. The streets are in desperate need of attention and TPD is paying less and less attention to neighborhood crime, especially neighbor on neighbor problems that often occur when you mix people working for the roof over their heads with folks who have that roof provided for them by the government.

At its most basic, the proposed Admiral and Yale homeless shelter appears to be a giant rip off to the average White City resident. Joe Sixpack, Susan Secretary and Ernie Engineer see nothing more than an attempt to handle a downtown problem by exporting it to their neighborhood. Combine that with the fact that the proposed downtown "baseball" trust is aggressively trying to control the property values and development around THEIR investment and the whole deal appears profoundly hypocritical. The downtown elites are using all of their political and legal power to prevent the very type of development risk that THEY THEMSELVES are forcing down the throats of the White City residents. Taken at its most basic they are saying that their for-profit investment in a ball park deserves the city's protection while the White City residents investment in their homes does not.

The pairing of the Driller's Stadium issue with the homeless shelter fiasco creates a whole new line of inquiry. Joe Sixpack can't see why the folks downtown are so hell bent upon moving the Drillers in the first place. They have a relatively new, well maintained ball park already with plenty of parking and easy accessibility from all over town. Why cram it into a hole downtown where even more expensive solutions like light rail are necessary to cure the parking and accessibility problems?

When Joe, Susan and Ernie all sit down together in someone's living room and try to figure out a way to save their neighborhood, it is almost impossible to present any motivation for their city government's actions other than profit. A lot of already wealthy individuals are going to make a whole lot more money on this deal over the next several years and a lot of people in White City are going to lose their homes or at least be stuck with a home that is unsellable. Obviously, some of that money being made downtown is going to come out of Joe, Susan and Ernie's investment in their home.

So called "mainstreaming" sounds wonderfully compassionate so long as you don't have to be personally involved. In this case, a Tulsa neighborhood is going to pay dearly for someone else's "compassion" and so are the people they are trying to help. Placing a homeless shelter at the intersection of a busy street and an interstate highway doesn't seem like a very good idea unless you want to reduce the number of homeless through traffic fatalities. Taking the homeless from a place where they were within walking distance of all their needed services and placing them in another where they are miles away on an infrequently served bus route doesn't make much sense at all. As a matter of fact, to Joe and Susan and Ernie it seems like a formula for having a lot of people walking through their neighborhoods and hanging around the neighborhood bus stops and parks.

My neighborhood has experience with a so-called "mainstreaming" experiment. After several years, the "mainstreamed" neighbor is still there. But, the previously occupied homes on both sides of his are boarded up as is the previously occupied home one house down on one side. The home next to the boarded up home on the other side sold at one point on a contract for deed but the buyer cancelled after a few weeks because of the problems with the "mainstreamed" neighbor. It became a Section 8 rental unit. One of the houses across the street went vacant after the young couple who lived there couldn't take it anymore. They tried for months to sell their home with no luck. It is now a rental unit. That's five homes whose values have been severely degraded due to one property. The character of the whole neighborhood changed. And, it's not as though the homeowners were passive. Far from it. Over the years, there were at least fifty calls to the police. Many of them went unanswered. There were petitions to the police department and DA which resulted in no determinative action. The fire department answered dozens of calls about trash fires and made arrests for illegal burning more than once.

Nobody trying force this deal down Joe, Susan and Ernie's throats will ever have to look out their front door and see a homeless person urinating or defecating on their front yard. Nobody on the ball park trust will be afraid to let their children play outdoors or be forced to tell their children they can't play in their neighborhood park because it is full of strange people drinking from brown paper bags. Nobody on the Mental Health Association board of directors will have to lie awake all night while a "neighbor" off his meds beats on a trash can, cursing and yelling for his neighbors to wake up. Nobody who is making a profit on this series of deals will have to sit for an hour or more behind a locked door waiting for TPD to respond to a "low priority" neighborhood dispute ... if they respond at all. And, nobody in the alphabet soup organizations pushing this plan will have to talk a normally peaceful neighbor out of harming the person who has made his family live in constant fear and made his own life a living hell.

Taken at its most basic, Joe reasons, "They are taking the Ball Park downtown and giving us their homeless. There's nothing in this deal for me for me but trouble. As a matter of fact, they are crapping all over me and my neighborhood. So, there's nothing left to do but fight." And, try as I might, I can't see a single argument to refute Joe's logic.

All The Wrong Reasons

noreply@blogger.com (Bill Kumpe) — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 12:01:00 +0000

I find it hard to get up much enthusiasm for presidential elections anymore. What should be a serious discourse leading up to the selection of two of America's best and brightest to lead us has turned into a media frenzy with opposing "brands" being hawked to an ever more addle brained electorate like soda pop or feminine hygiene products.

Anyone who thinks that Barrack Obama and Joe Biden are the best and brightest of the Democratic party is simply deluded. Obama has almost no assets which recommend him to become the leader of the free world. Were it not for his race and almost hypnotic personal charisma, Obama would and should be the under qualified junior senator from Illinois, struggling to learn his job. As a matter of fact, Obama is so unqualified and in a word scary that the GOP base is now willing to enthusiastically support a candidate that has thumbed his nose at them for his entire career.

Which brings us to the GOP. Only the deeply frightening possibility of a Barrack Obama presidency could make John McCain a viable GOP candidate. And even then, he had to spring Sarah Palin on the party to get his foundering campaign off dead center. Sarah Palin is actually polling more favorably than either McCain or Obama. That says something profound about the process that gave us both presidential candidates.

The Palin phenomenon is a perfect illustration of the problem. Almost everything I learn about her is impressive. She is smart, decent and tough. But, she has a short resume in public life and unproven leadership skills on the scale that may be required of her. If she is elected, she will be a heartbeat away from the presidency because she is a woman, can make a great speech, is cute as the dickens and has managed to fire up a base that McCain has studiously insulted for his entire career. None of these are good enough reasons for her to be that close to being president of the United States and certainly not good enough reasons to elect McCain.

What should be a sober public exercise in due diligence for all concerned has become a combination of American Idol for the Democrats and a pep rally, complete with a drop dead gorgeous cheerleader, for the GOP. You have to ask yourself, is this really the best we can do? The margins in this election may be razor thin. One very astute commentator observed this week that shamefully, if Obama is elected it will be because of his race and if McCain is elected it will probably be because of the sex and religion of his VP choice. Standing alone, these are not good enough reasons to elect a president.

Though I hate to admit it, John McCain is the only marginally qualified presidential candidate in the race though, based upon his previous positions on many key issues, he should be running as a Democrat. Obama is years away from being qualified to be president and needs to be seriously vetted concerning his family history and past associations. Joe Biden is marginally qualified to run for VP but he should be running as a socialist. And Sarah Palin, impressive as she is, is still an unproven quantity. So, what we actually have is a defacto Democrat, McCain, who first triangulated against his own base and then bought their votes late in the game with his VP choice running against a completely inexperienced near Marxist with a family history and series of political associations that would probably prevent him from getting a security clearance if he were an enlisted man in the military instead of a candidate for commander in chief.

There are dozens of better qualified people on both sides of the aisle. What is the matter with the system that is keeping them from rising to the top? Which of course begs the question, what is the matter with us, the electorate, that we tolerate this American Idol, pep rally, Coke commercial system of selecting a president?

Palin's Predicament

noreply@blogger.com (Bill Kumpe) — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 10:18:00 +0000

The long knives have already been drawn against Sarah Palin in the GOP establishment and she hasn't even been elected yet. Palin is not and never will be a member of that class and they will never forget it or let her. The old school country club wing of the GOP is already circling her like a pack of wolves ready to devour her as soon as she has served her purpose as Christian bait in the November elections. Peggy Noonan's snarky remarks caught on tape by MSNBC are simply an echo of the pervasive attitude among the GOP elite that will eventually spell the demise of the party and perhaps the country. The NeoCons are already sniping and the chattering class is reporting that Palin has been placed in charge of NeoCon handlers .... likely to keep her under observation and control.

The McCain/Palin ticked can be compared to the marriage of a strong, pretty evangelical girl to an old womanizer. She wants love, respect and a fair partnership and he wants something else entirely. Chuck Baldwin explores this unlikely political marriage in a recent column (link HERE ):

Herein lies the problem for Sarah Palin. How can a principled conservative support the policies and actions of an unprincipled globalist such as John McCain? As Vice President, Palin will be required to promote and defend McCain's big-government, liberal, and globalist plans. For example, what will she do when John McCain proposes amnesty for millions of illegal aliens, which he is certain to do? What will she do when McCain proposes to close gun shows, or at least the private sale of firearms at gun shows? What will she do when he proposes to increase federal spending for abortion providers (which he has done numerous times as senator)? What will she do when he promotes federal spending for embryonic stem cell research? What will she do when John McCain proliferates Bush's police state machinations by expanding the Patriot Act and similar legislation? What will Palin do when McCain decides to nuke Iran (and who knows what else), not only without a Declaration of War by Congress, but also without provocation or justification? What will she do as John McCain expands the Security and Prosperity Partnership with Canada and Mexico? What will she do as McCain opens the door of the NAFTA superhighway and the North American Union? What will she do as John McCain allows the United Nations to dictate and manipulate America's foreign policy? Again, can two walk together except they be agreed?

Let's face it: John McCain is using Sarah Palin as inducement to trick conservatives into accepting his liberal, big-government, globalist candidacy. And, sadly, it is working.

As I have said before, today's national Christian leaders are among the most gullible people on the planet. They are so desperate to be invited to sit at the king's table that they will compromise practically any principle. But accepting John McCain was a not only a bitter pill, it was a BIG pill, one they could not get down without a major dose of syrup. And that is exactly what Governor Palin brings to the table: sweet syrup to help conservatives swallow John McCain.

Unfortunately, the things that make Palin so attractive (her conservative principles) are the things that she will be forced to surrender in order to be John McCain's running mate. The best thing that can happen to Sarah Palin is for John McCain to lose the November election. This would allow her to go into the 2012 elections as perhaps the Republican Presidential frontrunner. If McCain wins in November, and Palin is forced to serve at the pleasure of this globalist insider for four years, she will be forever ruined as a genuine constitutional conservative. Remember, "No man can serve two masters." One cannot be faithful to the Constitution and a constitutional apostate such as John McCain at the same time. That is an absolute impossibility.

What our conservative friends need to wake up to is the depth of duplicity and wickedness that permeates Washington politics (in both major parties) today. There is nothing that these globalist insiders at the Council on Foreign Relations (of which John McCain is a longtime member) will not do to fulfill their power-mad plans. There is nothing too evil, too sinister, or too iniquitous, including using, abusing, chewing up and then spitting out good people such as Sarah Palin. Even more unfortunate and sad is the fact that the James Dobsons of this world are too blind to see it.

I don't agree with everything Baldwin says and I don't agree with a few of the policy positions of the Constitution party. But, it is always a mistake not to listen to valid criticism and Baldwin makes several valid points.

Palin - The Premature Pick

noreply@blogger.com (Bill Kumpe) — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 14:40:00 +0000

Timing is everything in politics. The more I hear about Sarah Palin the more I like her. She is obviously a smart, powerful, remarkably decent woman who has what it takes to be a real player in American politics. But, that does not mean that she was the best choice for McCain's VP this election cycle.

The biggest mistake conservatives, especially evangelical conservatives, make is failure to listen to the opposition. Facts are facts regardless of who presents them. When your opposition makes a valid point, you had better make note of it because you are likely to hear it again under less pleasant circumstances. Over the weekend, I repeatedly heard talking heads making valid points about the Palin choice. She does lack national and international experience and McCain forfeited a great deal of the experience argument against O'Bama by selecting her.

Further, there can be no doubt that a great deal of plain old pandering was involved in her selection. Pandering to women, pandering to evangelicals, pandering to the general conservative base that greatly mistrusts McCain. And, it is working. Her choice has energized the GOP base and made such a splash that it literally sucked the air out of the room for O'Bama. But, that does not change the fact that there were dozens of better qualified men and several better qualified women to choose from. The fact that Palin is so bright, so decent and has such a brilliant future in American politics if she is not prematurely savaged by the process only makes it all the more difficult to swallow. Palin is the perfect lightning rod media candidate that draws attention away from McCain's shortcoming in key constituencies.

I would sincerely hope that Palin is not being offered up as a political sacrificial virgin to save the presidential aspirations of an aging, wealthy, marginally GOP at best, contrarian that was headed for disaster with his base until he made his VP choice. The left wing blogs are already savaging Palin and her family and in so doing diverting attention from McCain while gaining mostly favorable headlines for the combined ticket.

I have nothing but respect for Sarah Palin and her family and I hope that her political future survives whatever happens next. John McCain has observed in the past that the only two functions of the Vice President are to, "inquire about the President's health every morning and attend state funerals." That is typical McCain and Sarah Palin, McCain's politically premature pick deserves better .... and so do the people who will vote for McCain because of her.

Palin VP Choice - Dobson Endorses McCain

noreply@blogger.com (Bill Kumpe) — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 11:18:00 +0000

I woke up this morning to learn that Dr. James Dobson has endorsed John McCain for President.

John McCain has not changed. This is the same candidate that sponsored McCain/Feingold which would have pretty well destroyed whatever political power organizations like Dobson's have left as well as trashing the First Amendment in the process. This is the same candidate that has thumbed his nose at his own party to side with Democrats again and again. This is the same McCain who has studiously stiff armed Dobson throughout the entire campaign. As a matter of fact, this is the same candidate that was expected to name a pro-abortion VP candidate if not Democrat Joe Lieberman. And, this is the same candidate that repeatedly ignored the has whole evangelical wing of the GOP until now.

And, I suppose that Dr. Dobson has not changed either. I briefly read his statement this morning with its carefully nuanced explanation of his change of heart. He did leave himself wiggle room in earlier statements and he has now wiggled. But, it is the price of that wiggle that concerns me.

Sarah Palin appears to be a very decent person. Her courage in bringing to term and raising a Down's syndrome baby is inspiring. But, her political record as governor of a small, sparsely populated state does not inspire great confidence in her as a world leader. The decision to place her on the ticket was purely political and had nothing to do with her qualifications past the election. She is pro-life, evangelical and very attractive. And above all else, she is a woman. Consequently, the forces that see the GOP as a brand to be marketed instead of a moral and political cause to be upheld, hope to use her sex to attract disenchanted Hillary constituents. But there is a problem there. She is almost a cliche' ... an extremely attractive young woman that will look awfully good on aging John McCain's arm at official functions. (Student's of John McCain's personal life might see a trend here.)

If the election were a beauty contest she would win hands down. But, despite the fact she is probably a remarkably decent person, an evangelical, a hunter, a former model and beauty queen and just cute as the dickens, she lacks the gravitas a lot of us would like to see in a person who will be one heart beat away from being commander in chief. Evangelical's great relief at who McCain DID NOT pick cannot make up for the enormous gaps in Palin's resume' and by selecting her, McCain gave up the great benefit of offering a proven, seasoned ticket that would provide sharp contrast to O'Bama's lack of experience.

Should McCain be elected, I suspect that Vice President Palin will be assigned mostly ceremonial duties as Dan Quail was and will be carefully managed by controllers. What effect she will have on the direction of a McCain administration is certainly an open question but, using Quail as the template, I suspect it will be minimal. So, it is entirely possible that the last major evangelical endorsement was swapped for an entirely ceremonial and minimally influential seat at the table in a possible McCain administration.

McCain's people called Dr. Dobson and the evangelical's bluff. They knew that if they campaigned far enough to the left to allow whomever was running for the Democrats to run to their far left wing base that the Evangelicals would blink and vote for any GOP candidate out of fear, even a GOP candidate that has insulted them, stiff armed them and refused to make even the empty, nearly meaningless campaign promises that most candidates make to evangelicals in an election year. In this way, McCain can keep strong support from the Country Club wing of the GOP which has always despised and mistrusted evangelicals anyway, campaign hard toward the so called undecided center swing votes, and in the process keep the majority of a evangelical voting bloc for almost no expenditure of political capital. It is a masterful triangulation against his own base that even Bill Clinton would admire.

In 1996 Dr. Dobson wrote: "Only the most partisan supporters of the present regime could insist that we still live in a functioning democracy. (snip) I doubt most Americans are aware of the current impotence of their vote." I think the same can be said about evangelical's influence in the GOP political process right now. Until evangelicals learn to street fight and not sell out cheap, they will continue to be an ever more impotent and now even ignored faction of the party.

---------------------

Postcript: According to Andrew Sullivan writing in the Daily Dish at the Atlantic.com ( link HERE), it would appear that we evangelicals sold out cheaper than we realized:

She opposes same-sex marriage, but she has stated that she has gay friends and is receptive to gay and lesbian concerns about discrimination.^[9] While the previous administration did not implement same-sex benefits, Palin complied with a state Supreme Court order and signed them into law.^[28] She disagreed with the Supreme Court ruling^[29] and supported a democratic advisory vote from the public on whether there should be a constitutional amendment on the matter.^[30] Alaska was one of the first U.S. states to pass a constitutional ban on gay marriage, in 1998, along with Hawaii.^[31] Palin has stated that she supported the 1998 constitutional amendment.^[9]

Palin's first veto was used to block legislation that would have barred the state from granting benefits to the partners of gay state employees. In effect, her veto granted State of Alaska benefits to same-sex couples. The veto occurred after Palin consulted with Alaska's attorney general on the constitutionality of the legislation.^[29]

Billionaire Gay Dem Declares "Battle for The Soul of the GOP"

noreply@blogger.com (Bill Kumpe) — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 19:01:00 +0000

Catholic News Agency ^ | 8/26/08

Posted on Tuesday, August 26, 2008 9:19:07 AM by marshmallow

Denver, Aug 25, 2008 / 11:51 pm (CNA).- Tim Gill, a billionaire from Colorado who has funded homosexual activism throughout the United States, spoke at the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered (LGBT) Delegates Caucus at the Democratic National Convention on Monday, outlining how he has worked to advance homosexual causes in U.S. politics. Gill endorsed undermining rising politicians critical of homosexual advocacy by targeting donations to benefit their opponents on the state level.

Gill, who was introduced at the caucus as one of the nation’s largest funders of LGBT “civil rights initiatives,” reportedly has spent $150 million on LGBT issues. He is the former CEO of the software publishing company Quark, Inc. and is also the founder of the Gill Action Fund, a major backer of homosexual political candidates and causes.

“Every single advance for gay rights has come at the state level,” Gill said, saying the most important thing the Democratic LGBT delegates could do is “go back and support those pro-gay state legislators, and eliminate the anti-gay state legislators.”

He encouraged the delegates to donate to state candidates out of state, especially in rural areas.

The billionaire homosexual activist also counseled the audience not to donate to unwinnable races, but rather to focus their donations where they will most likely change the outcome of elections.

“Just a little bit of money goes a long way,” he said.

If all the LGBT delegates donated fifty dollars to specially targeted races, which he numbered at no more than ten or twenty per election year, Gill said “we can get rid of them.”

By successfully changing Republican legislatures to Democratic ones, Gill claimed, “the net result is always good for gays.”

Though he was a Democrat speaking at the Democratic National Convention, Gill claimed he and the LGBT delegates were in a “battle for the soul of the Republican Party,” a party which he claimed was controlled by “a bunch of bigots.”

“The only way bigots are going to learn is if we take their power away from them,” he asserted.

He counseled the delegates to find the next Rick Santorum, the former U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania, and “end his career.”

Pennsylvania U.S. Senator Rick Santorum, a Republican, who opposed homosexual causes, lost to the Democratic Sen. Robert Casey, Jr. in 2006. Gill took credit for helping bring about Santorum’s loss.

Organizers at the LGBT Caucus claimed as members at least 274 of the more than 4,000 DNC delegates attending the convention.

------------------------

See also: There Is A Gay Agenda Winning Elections ......

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/11/29/gay_millionaires/

--------------------------
An interesting example of this can be found at The McCarville Report HERE:

Roth Raises $100,141, Murphy $64,050

By Michael McNutt/Capitol Bureau, The Oklahoman ~ Jim Roth (pictured) continues to lead in raising money for his bid to win a full six-year term on the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, campaign reports show. Contributors include Tim Gill, a top gay and lesbian equal rights movement fundraiser, who gave the maximum donation of $5,000. Gill, an entrepreneur and software developer from Denver, was among those identified by state Rep. Sally Kern, R-Oklahoma City, as helping contribute $30 million in 2006 to local and state races to helpdefeat conservative candidates. Roth, the first openly gay person to hold a statewide office, is a Democrat appointed to the commission last year by Gov. Brad Henry. Roth, a former Oklahoma County commissioner, raised $100,141 during the first quarter of this year, according to his campaign committee's report filed with the state Ethics Commission. He had $112,482 at the start of the reporting period. He spent $44,298 during the reporting period from Jan. 1 through March 31, his reports show. He has $174,475 on hand. In addition to Gill, major contributors listed on Roth's report include Edmond attorney Reggie Whitten, Denver entrepreneur Jared Polis, and Fort Lauderdale, Fla., retiree James Stepp, $5,000 each; El Reno attorney Mark Henricksen, $3,000; and Ronald Ansin, a business executive from Harvard, Mass., $2,500.

California Federal Court Rejects Challenge to Federal Defense of Marriage Act

noreply@blogger.com (Bill Kumpe) — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 15:52:00 +0000

ORANGE COUNTY, Calif., Aug. 27 /Standard Newswire/ -- During a court hearing yesterday, federal district court Judge David O. Carter announced that he is dismissing a last-ditch effort by "same-sex marriage" proponents to overturn the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The case is Smelt v. Orange County, and it is one of the last remaining challenges to DOMA. Liberty Counsel intervened in this case on behalf of Campaign for California Families in 2004, in order to protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman and to defend DOMA.

The federal DOMA allows states to reject same-sex marriages from other states. The case began in 2004, when the same-sex marriage advocates claimed a right to same-sex marriage under the state and federal constitutions and also claimed that the DOMA was unconstitutional. The challenge to DOMA in this case was bizarre, because the statute only applies when one state refuses to accept the validity of an out-of-state, same-sex union. In Smelt, the same-sex pair who challenged DOMA had no legal, same-sex union from any state. In 2005, federal district court Judge Gary Taylor ruled that there was no fundamental right to same-sex marriage, and, since the plaintiffs had no legal same-sex union from any state, they could not challenge DOMA. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this ruling in 2006, dismissing the challenge. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case.

The case remained in suspension, pending resolution by the California Supreme Court regarding whether the state’s Proposition 22, which protected legitimate marriage, was constitutional. Following the ruling by the California Supreme Court on May 15, 2008, the plaintiffs in Smelt continued to press their case against the federal DOMA. However, Judge Carter has now dismissed both state law and DOMA claims.

Mathew Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, stated, "We are pleased that the federal Defense of Marriage Act still survives, but we cannot continue to hold our breath each time a judge considers the federal law. We are talking about marriage – the very foundation of society. We must have a permanent solution to protect traditional marriage. We must pass more state constitutional protections, and we must emblazon traditional marriage into the United States Constitution to stop activist judges from redefining marriage with a stroke of a pen."

British Marriage Registrar Wins Right Not to Handle Gay Marriages

noreply@blogger.com (Bill Kumpe) — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 12:48:00 +0000

Lillian Ladele was threatened with the sack because of her beliefs on homosexuality.

Thursday, 10 July 2008

A Christian registrar from Islington who was bullied and threatened with the sack because of her religious beliefs on same sex unions has succeeded in her claims of unlawful discrimination by the council.

In its unanimous judgment, the employment tribunal found that Miss Lillian Ladele was directly discriminated against by Islington Council after she asked to be allowed not to perform civil partnership registrations.

Miss Ladele was supported by her Legal team, James Dingemans QC and Mark Jones of Ormerods solicitors. The case was financed by The Christian Institute’s Legal Defence Fund.

The highly significant ruling confirmed that the various acts of direct discrimination committed against Miss Ladele by Islington Council on the grounds of her religious belief included: failing to consider her for promotion; deciding to discipline her and threatening her with dismissal; concluding she had committed gross misconduct; failing to redress allegations that she was “homophobic” and labelling and treating her as homophobic; disregarding her concerns about her treatment; and failing to apply its anti-discrimination policies to gay colleagues who were mistreating her.

The tribunal also accepted that Islington Council had been able to deliver a “first-class” service to homosexual couples seeking civil partnerships, without Miss Ladele’s involvement. Therefore, the Council’s decision to require Miss Ladele to perform civil partnership registrations, contrary to her conscience, was an unlawful act of indirect religious discrimination.

The Council’s actions also amounted to unlawful harassment. The judgment found that the Council “disregarded and displayed no respect for Ms Ladele’s genuinely held religious belief,” and it created an “intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for her on grounds of her religion on belief.” (para.104 of the judgment).

In coming to their conclusion, the tribunal said, “It is an important case which may have a wider impact than the dispute between the parties.” (para.53 of the judgment).

Reacting to the decision, Miss Ladele said: “I am delighted at this decision. It is a victory for religious liberty, not just for myself but for others in a similar position to mine. Gay rights should not be used as an excuse to bully and harass people over their religious beliefs.”

The case was financed by The Christian Institute. Its Head of Communications, Mike Judge, said: “This important ruling confirms that gay rights should not be treated as trumping religious rights. The law clearly recognises this.

“If we really believe in equality before the law, that means respecting people who have sincerely held religious beliefs on sexual ethics. The witch hunt against those who disagree with homosexual practice has to stop.”

Mark Jones, solicitor for Miss Ladele, said: “Hopefully this decision will encourage other employers to balance competing rights where they conflict. In standing up for her faith, Lillian Ladele found herself vilified by various people, including some holding themselves out as protectors of the rights and freedoms of others. She faced this with a quiet dignity.

“I hope that those who were quick to criticise Lillian - including those holding political and clerical office - will now swiftly express their support for her (and others like her) now she has been revealed as the victim, and not the perpetrator, of the discrimination they purport to oppose.”

----------------------------------------------------------------
From the UK Christian Institute. Link to article HERE.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

A Classic Example of "Gay Tolerance"

noreply@blogger.com (Bill Kumpe) — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 19:40:00 +0000

The following is a letter to the editor written by Crystal Dixon, a black, former employee of an Ohio University. I say "former" because she was fired for writing this article shortly after it was printed in the Toledo Free Press. Is this "tolerance?"

----------------------------------------------------------------

Link to Article Toledo Free Press Article HERE:

GUEST OPINION

Gay rights and wrongs: another perspective
By Crystal Dixon

I read with great interest Michael Miller's April 6 column, "Gay Rights and Wrongs."

I respectfully submit a different perspective for Miller and Toledo Free Press readers to consider.

First, human beings, regardless of their choices in life, are of ultimate value to God and should be viewed the same by others. At the same time, one's personal choices lead to outcomes either positive or negative.

As a Black woman who happens to be an alumnus of the University of Toledo's Graduate School, an employee and business owner, I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are "civil rights victims." Here's why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a Black woman. I am genetically and biologically a Black woman and very pleased to be so as my Creator intended. Daily, thousands of homosexuals make a life decision to leave the gay lifestyle evidenced by the growing population of PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex Gays) and Exodus International just to name a few. Frequently, the individuals report that the impetus to their change of heart and lifestyle was a transformative experience with God; a realization that their choice of same-sex practices wreaked havoc in their psychological and physical lives. Charlene E. Cothran, publisher of Venus Magazine, was an aggressive, strategic supporter of gay rights and a practicing lesbian for 29 years, before she renounced her sexuality and gave Jesus Christ stewardship of her life. The gay community vilified her angrily and withdrew financial support from her magazine, upon her announcement that she was leaving the lesbian lifestyle. Rev. Carla Thomas Royster, a highly respected New Jersey educator and founder and pastor of Blessed Redeemer Church in Burlington, NJ, married to husband Mark with two sons, bravely exposed her previous life as a lesbian in a tell-all book. When asked why she wrote the book, she responded "to set people free... I finally obeyed God."

Economic data is irrefutable: The normative statistics for a homosexual in the USA include a Bachelor's degree: For gay men, the median household income is $83,000/yr. (Gay singles $62,000; gay couples living together $130,000), almost 80% above the median U.S. household income of $46,326, per census data. For lesbians, the median household income is $80,000/yr. (Lesbian singles $52,000; Lesbian couples living together $96,000); 36% of lesbians reported household incomes in excess of $100,000/yr. Compare that to the median income of the non-college educated Black male of $30,539. The data speaks for itself.

The reference to the alleged benefits disparity at the University of Toledo was rather misleading. When the University of Toledo and former Medical University of Ohio merged, both entities had multiple contracts for different benefit plans at substantially different employee cost sharing levels. To suggest that homosexual employees on one campus are being denied benefits avoids the fact that ALL employees across the two campuses regardless of their sexual orientation, have different benefit plans. The university is working diligently to address this issue in a reasonable and cost-efficient manner, for all employees, not just one segment.

My final and most important point. There is a divine order. God created human kind male and female (Genesis 1:27). God created humans with an inalienable right to choose. There are consequences for each of our choices, including those who violate God's divine order. It is base human nature to revolt and become indignant when the world or even God Himself, disagrees with our choice that violates His divine order. Jesus Christ loves the sinner but hates the sin (John 8:1-11.) Daily, Jesus Christ is radically transforming the lives of both straight and gay folks and bringing them into a life of wholeness: spiritually, psychologically, physically and even economically. That is the ultimate right.