Calvin Coolidge rebuts Obama on the nation’s founding principles

Calvin Coolidge
Calvin Coolidge

During the 2012 presidential campaign, Obama embraced the slogan, “Forward.” But this is what the progressive movement has been saying for over a century. Calvin Coolidge addressed the progressive movement in his famous Fourth-of-July speech:

About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter.

  • If all men are created equal, that is final.
  • If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final.
  • If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final.

No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.

The full text of Coolidge’s speech can be found here.

Updated July 6, 2012 to remove references to my previous post.

Obama describes a typical, domestic terrorist

Barack Obama, official photo portrait, 111th Congress

When asked by AP reporter Ramona Darlington to describe the profile of an American domestic terrorist, President Obama replied:

Typically domestic terrorists in the U.S. are people who cling to obsolete beliefs from the time of the American Revolution.

He made this statement at a business forum in Tanzania in which a businessman wondered whether civil unrest in the United States might affect trade between our two countries. Obama had more to say about our domestic terrorists, all of which was fascinating. In relation to this discussion of domestic terrorism, Obama also asserted:

The conservative era of the U.S. has ended.

I recommend that you read the entire report.

Update — July 6, 2013

According to an article at the, this entire story is bogus. The AP claims that they do not employ a reporter by the name of Ramona Darlington. The account presented above is debunked here: Article claims Obama called Tea Partiers domestic terrorists while in Africa

Has Obama discovered his inner Rambo?

I was proud of the way that our military and intelligence agencies came together to provide Osama bin Laden with the send off that he deserved. And I so wanted to be proud of President Obama for the first time in my life (hat tip to Michelle). But to be honest I am continuing to have trouble imagining Obama leading the way in an extrajudicial, unilateral, execution of a foreign national residing within the sovereign borders of a putative ally. I mean… that just sounds so un-Obama. As a candidate, Obama voiced his wish to bring bin Laden to justice:

What would be important would be for us to do it in a way that allows the entire world to understand the murderous acts that he’s engaged in and not to make him into a martyr, and to assure that the United States government is abiding by basic conventions that would strengthen our hand in the broader battle against terrorism

Continue reading “Has Obama discovered his inner Rambo?”

Trump continues to put the squeeze on Obama by challenging him to release his academic records

Originally posted by me elsewhere on 4/27/2011

After Obama released his Certificate of Live Birth, Trump followed up by suggesting that Obama should also release his university transcripts, saying:

I’d like to know how does he get into Harvard, how does he get into Colombia if he isn’t a very good student. If he wants to release it that’s fine, if he doesn’t want to release it that’s fine too. But the word is he wasn’t a very good student.

Trump apparently isn’t shy about questioning Obama’s lack of preparedness for the office of president. During the 2008 campaign the media was unwilling to investigate anything about Obama, while having no qualms about publishing an uncorroberated rumor that McCain was in a romantic liaison with a lobbyist. Whatever the Obama campaign said about Obama was taken as the God-honest truth without being subjected to the least scrutiny. If Obama glossed over information about his background or was less than forthcoming, no one in the mainstream media investigated the matter. And to my dismay, the McCain campaign refused to look into Obama’s background as well. So by the time it was election day, no one knew anything about him.

Obama has been referred to as the “undocumented candidate” because so little was known about him while he was campaigning for president. Obama has also been referred to as the “Mansourian candidate” because Khalid al-Mansour intervened in Obama’s academic life by asking Harvard-connected Percy Sutton to write a letter of support for Obama, who was then a Harvard candidate. Percy Sutton was Malcolm X’s lawyer. At one time Malcolm X was the spokesman for the Nation of Islam.

In case you are unfamiliar with al-Mansour, he has been described as the principal advisor of billionaire and Saudi prince, Al-Waleed bin Talal. According to a post at Joshuapundit

And who is Khalid al-Mansour? He’s a well connected Texas-born lawyer who used to be known as Don Warden back in Berkeley, when he was involved with the Black Panther movement. He originally comes from Texas and is primarily a black separatist, Islamist and anti-Semite, who’s books include titles like “The Destruction of Western Civilization as Seen Through Islam” and “Will the West Rule Forever?”

By the way, the same Joshuapundit article states that Obama’s former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, was once a member of the Nation of Islam himself. Al-Mansour is currently a member of the Nation of Islam, and there have been rumors that he arranged the financing for Obama’s education.

For more insight into al-Mansour’s character, check out this YouTube video where al-Mansour applauds a black criminal who was guilty of murdering random white people. al-Mansour states that he regards this murderer with the same kind of respect that a white person might have for WWII commander, General Patton.

You may be aware that Obama started college at Occidental College, then transferred to Columbia. You may not be aware that in between attending these two colleges, he traveled to Pakistan with a friend who apparently had family there. You may also be unaware that no one seems to remember Obama’s time at Columbia. Fox News interviewed 400 of his classmates without being able to find someone who remembered him. Obama explains this oddity by saying that he was living “like a monk,” spending all his time at the library. However Obama does say that he was active in campus organizations concerned with civil rights and apartheid, except leaders of these organizations don’t remember him either. Obama himself has not been forthcoming in naming any friends or associates from this period, saying that he’s bad with names.

Yes, I am curious about Obama’s university days. I would like to see records of his academic achievement (grades, SAT and LSAT scores) and copies of any theses he wrote. I would also like to learn who financed his education (hopefully it was not financed by the Nation of Islam, which is one of the rumors circulating). Dozens of media personalities have remarked on Obama’s genius, but I haven’t seen any signs of it. However I’m willing to be convinced. He should release his academic records.

Related sites

The White House is tongue-tied about Easter

Originally posted by me elsewhere on 4/25/2011

Although the White House released statements last year commemorating the observance of the Muslim holidays of Ramadan, Eid-ul-Fitr, Hajj, and Eid-ul-Adha, this year when it came to the most sacred of Christian holidays, the White House was suddenly tongue-tied. Last year the president did mark the occasion of Easter by describing the Easter message as being, not about redemption and the triumph of God’s love over sin, but as a holiday that recognizes humanity’s aspirations to live a healthy, dignified life dedicated to service. By somehow characterizing Easter in this way, the president believed he was able to transcend the narrow confines of Christianity in his Easter message, or as the president put it:

While we worship in different ways, we also remember the shared spirit of humanity that inhabits us all, Jews and Christians, Muslims and Hindus, believers and non-believers alike… So on this Easter weekend let us hold fast to those aspirations that we hold in common, as brothers and sisters, as members of the same family, the family of man.

Continue reading “The White House is tongue-tied about Easter”


Originally posted by me elsewhere on 4/25/2011


Key points

  • Obama has not filled 12 of 69 inspector general positions to thwart oversight.
  • His administration is launching a criminal investigation into energy companies without any evidence of wrong-doing while Obama himself is on record announcing that the energy policies that he will adopt will cause energy prices to skyrocket.
  • By executive fiat anyone seeking a contract with the federal government has to reveal which candidates they are supporting through donations — a move whose only purpose is intimidation (more on that here).
  • Now that 3 of the 5 seats of the National Labor Relations Board have been filled by Obama (2 are union guys appointed during a congressional recess), the federal government is telling private enterprise where they can locate or whether they can move (as in the Boeing case).

Obama’s paradoxical stance on becoming militarily involved in Libya

Originally posted by me elsewhere on 3/29/2011

The Military Mission

The key paradox of Obama’s address is encapsulated in this excerpt:

Because while our military mission is narrowly focused on saving lives, we continue to pursue the broader goal of a Libya that belongs not to a dictator, but to its people.

Why is this a paradox? Our military mission does not encompass the overthrow of Muammar Qadaffi. Yet the people who are rebelling against Qadaffi’s rule will not be safe as long as Qadaffi is in power.

Although Obama stresses that the U.S. will pursue the “broader goal” of remvoing Qaddaffi from power, he makes it clear that he intends on working toward regime change in a non-violent manner. He is quite explicit about this, saying:

… there is no question that Libya – and the world – will be better off with Gaddafi out of power. I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through non-military means. But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.

Qadaffi’s regime is not the first tyrranical regime that we have tried to undermine through non-violent means. But despite years of sanctions and strongly worded statements of disapproval directed at various regimes, I can’t say that this approach has been particularly fruitful. Furthermore if our fervent wish is for Qadaffi to leave office without us taking up arms against him, why on earth are we simultaneously stating that International community is going to arrest him and his sons and charge them with crimes against humanity? How is that encouraging him to leave office of his own accord? I’m just not seeing the “smart diplomacy.”

Which branch of the federal government is responsible for authorizing military force against another nation?

In 2007 Senator Obama is on record as saying:

The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

Senator Obama was referring to the fact that the U.S. Constitution invests the legislative branch, not the executive branch, with the power of deciding whether to take up arms against another nation. In his Libyan address, Obama makes the case that:

To brush aside… our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are… And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has made it clear that he does not believe the Libyan situation constitutes a threat to the U.S. or our vital interests. When this is the case, it should be left to Congress to decide what our responsibilities to our fellow human beings are. The president also stated:

…after consulting the bipartisan leadership of Congress, I authorized military action to stop the killing and enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1973.

Again, the U.S. Constitution invests the entire Congress with the power of authorizing military action. Chatting with a subset of Congress and then taking unilateral action is operating in direct contradiction to the Constitution as Senator Obama himself pointed out.

Replacing Congressional Authorization with International Authorization

Obama also made the case that U.S. military intervention was required to preserve the prestige and efficacy of the United Nations. As he stated:

The writ of the UN Security Council would have been shown to be little more than empty words, crippling its future credibility to uphold global peace and security.

Again, shouldn’t it be Congress who decides what course of action we will take, if any, to preserve the prestige and efficacy of the U.N.? Furthermore, it is Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter that states that the U.N. Security Council:

… may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Note that this passage of the U.N. Charter is explicitly about maintaining international peace between member nations while respecting an individual nation’s sovereignty. But it seems that the meaning of this passage has changed over time. At any rate, I am alarmed that Obama feels it is important to get buy-in from the international community for our attacks on Libya, but it’s not necessary to get buy-in from the Congress or the American people.

If you missed Obama’s address, a full transcript of Obama’s Libya address is located here. A video of his address can be found at YouTube.

Related Posts

What could be on Obama’s birth certificate that he doesn’t like?!?!?

Originally posted by me elsewhere on 3/28/2011

Recently Donald Trump was on The View. When Joy Behar asked Trump if he was a “birther”, Trump responded:

Why doesn’t he show his birth certificate? There’s something on that birth certificate that he doesn’t like.

Wow! When I heard this I was wondering what on earth it could be. But then I discovered that Qadaffi had recently published this open letter to Obama. Among other things, it says:

To our son, his excellency, Mr Barack Hussein Obama. I have said to you before, that even if Libya and the United States of America enter into a war, god forbid, you will always remain a son.