Does anybody really know what time it is?

The Constitution, which sets forth the principle of rule of law, defines what is unconstitutional, and guarantees freedom of speech and other liberties of a Constitutional republic, and also describes the impeachment power. (How many know of the Jewish roots of this document?) Hypocrisy threatens Constitutional government. Could Israel use a constitution like this? More to the point: would a Convention of States save it, or destroy it? (Example: civil asset forfeiture violates the Constitution.) Quick fixes like Regulation Freedom Amendments weaken it. Furthermore: the Constitution provides for removing, and punishing, a judge who commits treason in his rulings. Furthermore, opponents who engage in lawfare against an elected President risk breaking the Constitution.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

As I think about the appalling lack of coverage given to Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s investigation regarding Obama’s fraudulent citizenship, the words of an old song go through my mind: “Does anybody really know what time it is?” The next verse also seems fitting: “Does anybody really care?” I also find myself asking another question over and over again: Where’s the outrage?

The conclusions of the Arpaio investigation should have launched angry crowds storming the White House demanding that Mr. Obama and his family be immediately escorted out of the people’s house. Instead we gloss over the information, shake our heads, and move on to the next headline. Forget whether or not you support Occupy Wall Street, you should be enraged over Occupy the White House!

Let’s be clear. I am not advocating violence. I am advocating appropriate civil outrage.

The lack of civil outrage is not new to 2012. We have an Attorney General who also should have been escorted out of his office last year. What does Congress do? They continue to summon him to testify. He continues to ignore their request for documents. He stalls, stalls, stalls. Their response: another request for information and another summons. Have they ever heard of the word impeachment? Never mind them. Have we ever heard of the phrase civil protest?

Obama Long-form Birth Certificate: not valid. Where is the outrage?

Obama's long-form birth certificate, as released by the White House. A photocopy of an image in a book, with green safety-paper texture added after-the-fact.

What about the media? Except for one or two very brief comments, it was business as usual. Do they not understand that Sheriff Joe just proved that the man occupying the White House is not qualified to hold that office? If that isn’t worthy of a “news alert” then what is?

Perhaps the untimely death of the happy warrior, Andrew Breitbart gave them pause – in one way or another. Breitbart recently reported that he also had breaking news regarding the man occupying the White House. Unfortunately, he didn’t live long enough to reveal this information – dying of natural causes, at least that’s what we’re told. Dead, ridiculed or ignored seems to be the fate of those seeking justice.

If we must submit to the current tyranny that has usurped our laws, surrendered our sovereignty to the United Nations, and seeks to deprive us of some new liberty at every turn, then perhaps we should call our system of government what it truly is – an oligarchy and not a constitutional republic. In which case, we should no longer call ourselves citizens, but indentured servants – at best.

According to Wikipedia, an oligarchy is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people. Can anyone say “Czars?” Oh – if only this power seize was contained within the White House and its czars! If you would like to know how our courts fare in this scenario, just read Nick Purpura’s Court Without Shame, Parts One and Two, and Terry Hurlbut’s article “Obama Eligibility: Flawed Ruling.” If that isn’t enough to have you jumping out of your seat, then perhaps you are self-anesthetized beyond all hope and you will scarcely notice the death of the American Dream.

Do you still think we live in a constitutional republic? Then perhaps you need to do a little research about UN Agenda 21, including the two embedded videos below on the subject (“Agenda 21 for Dummies” http://youtu.be/TzEEgtOFFlM, and John Anthony’s “False Choices” http://my.brainshark.com/False-Choices-The-Story-of-Agenda-21-713151488)

My friends, we have been betrayed as elitists from all levels of government have morphed our country into something that would be unrecognizable to our Founding Fathers. And what do we do about it? We click the remote to see who the new contestants on Dancing with the Stars will be. Thomas Paine once said,

The robber, and the murderer, would often escape unpunished, did not the injuries which our tempers sustain, provoke us into justice. O ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose, not only the tyranny, but the tyrant, stand forth!

Yes, there is a time for civil disobedience and there is also a time to call traitors “traitors” and not public servants. Am I being extreme? In the words of Barry Goldwater,

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.

Regarding time and seasons, Ecclesiastes 3:1, 7-8 states:

To everything there is a season,

A time for every purpose under heaven…

A time to tear,

And a time to sew;

A time to keep silent,

And a time to speak;

A time to love,

And a time to hate;

A time of war,

And a time of peace.

So I repeat, does anybody really know what time it is? Does anybody really care?

ARVE Error: need id and provider

ARVE Error: need id and provider

Website | + posts

RoseAnn Salanitri is a published author and Acquisition Editor for the New Jersey Family Policy Council. She is a community activist who has founded the Sussex County Tea Party in her home state and launched a recall movement against Senator Robert Menendez. RoseAnn is also the founder of Veritas Christian Academy, as well as co-founder of Creation Science Alive, and a national creation science speaker.

41 Responses to Does anybody really know what time it is?

  1. There is no doubt that our elected political leaders in both political parties have failed the American people. Their “representation” of us, is, in name only. They make a mockery of the US Constitution they pledged and swore to protect.

    Being complicit to Obama’s deceptions makes our national political “leaders” also guilty of fraud and deceit. By not speaking out over Obama’s fraudulent presidency and him not meeting the Constitution’s “natural born citizen” requirement to hold the US Chief Executive position, makes them guilty of treason. In effect, they along with Obama, have undermined this Constitutional Republic.

  2. Camille says:

    Simply put, no one (outside of conservative media) takes these things seriously. They don’t see any substantial evidence (as in anything more than the occasional slip of the tongue and skewed interpretations of documents and reports), they don’t see a conspiracy.
    More than that, they see no rhyme or reason to any of these accusations.
    Let’s say Obama was actually born in Kenya. Why this whole charade? Why forge a birth certificate and why bribe dozens of officials just to get this guy into office?
    Is it a secret George Soros conspiracy? If it is, the man must be getting senile. It would have been easier to get Hilary Clinton into the White House, and the right wouldn’t have been able to brand her as some sort of radical Muslim socialist thus crippling her ability to accomplish anything.
    Nobody sees a conspiracy. Not the “lamestream media,” not the people. Those that do see a conspiracy are only discrediting themselves by talking about it.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      Camille, you just answered your own question. You look at The Man Now Holding Office As President, Barack H. Obama, and see a hero, even an Anointed One. I see a man who said that he would fundamentally transform America—and did.

      And I see something else you conveniently forgot to mention: he grew up, politically, in Chicago, IL. Chicago has always been the most corrupt city in the United States. Chicago was the home of Al Capone and Frank Nitti. Chicago means “machine.”

      So why wouldn’t they seek to alter records forty-odd years after the fact? Once they locked on to their Rock Star, their Mesmerizer, they wouldn’t let a little thing like his birthplace or parentage get in the way, would they?

      But do you want to know what really cuts?

      The fact that they appeal to someone like you.

      And the fact that you respond.

      And one thing more: Hillary Clinton is the “good cop” to Obama’s “bad cop.” Ever think of that?

      • Camille says:

        Woah, hey, don’t confuse me with an Obama supporter. My political beliefs are far too different compared to his. Compared to yours, my beliefs are even more different, naturally, but just because I disagree with you doesn’t mean I agree with any others that might disagree with you.
        I just don’t see any meaningful correlation. It still doesn’t make sense to put Obama up as president, regardless of how adored he was, if it were known his birth certificate is illegitimate. I don’t know how exactly one begins campaigning for senator or subsequently president, but it seems likely that he would have been vetted at some point, before this Chicago machine could have locked their hopes on him.
        Additionally, I just did some ad hoc research, and there’s nothing indicating that Ann Dunham, Obama’s mother, even was outside of the United States around the time she gave birth to Obama. The first time she left the country was for Indonesia, years after Barack Obama was born. There is no indication that could have been anywhere else.

        • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

          I will try to explain it to you. One. More. Time. Barack Hussein Obama is a rock star. He literally makes women swoon. (Well, his wife hasn’t exactly been swooning over him, but that’s a little off this particular beat.) Remember that he is the man who said that he would transform America, and did. A man with that remarkable ability (which I still don’t understand, perhaps because I am unalterably immune) would definitely have his appeal to a financier seeking to bring about a Götterdammerung just so he could profit monetarily from it. And that financier wouldn’t let a little matter such as an accident of birth get in his way!

          This goes again to the fundamental transformation of America. Many twisted thinkers believe that the Most Powerful Man In The World ought to be a citizen of the Earth, not merely a citizen, natural-born or naturalized, of the United States. To such men, the natural-born citizenship requirement constitutes discrimination. Racial discrimination, even.

          Now then: if you are not an Obama supporter, then I don’t know what you are. I made what I thought was an entirely logical deduction, from the weird power, bordering upon the paranormal, that I have seen this man exert over people who once were able to think and act in a logical and reasonable manner. A power to which, as I told you, I am immune. Which puts me at a disadvantage, I suppose, since I cannot possibly fathom how his power operates. (The advantage is that it cannot affect me.) But that he has such a power, I would be derelict in my duty, did I ignore it.

          • Diablo says:

            Mr. Hurlbut…you can try all day long but you can’t lead a liberal to the truth. This is what happens when we allow a socialist, Muslim in the white house, all in the name of political correctness. “Oh look, he’s mulatto…it is racist to vote against him!!!”

            Once again, the wisdom of the founding fathers is evident only when later generations mess with the documents. If we had never mess with the constitution after it was ratified, we would not have this Kenyan in charge.

          • James F says:

            Wow you have a higher opinion of Obama than I do. I think he is a passably alright president and I probably would have a lot in common with him politically although I don’t think he has gone about implementing his agenda in a way I could call successful. But “rock star”, “women swooning”, really? I think there is a certain amount of psychological projection there in that you would like an Republican candidate that has Obama’s charisma and presence (that he certainly has), but given that the current field is about as appealing as wet tissue paper you attribute the fact Obama wins to some sort of personality cult. I just can’t see that myself.

          • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

            Listen, pal—Obama had at least one woman swooning at every campaign stop he made back in 2008. He even kidded about summoning medical help. So don’t tell me that I started some rumor that Obama has wild talents. He did.

    • Camile – Re: Your March 3, 2012 at 6:14 pm attempted cutesy comment?

      Are you trying to add a new twist? Have you and others now grown tired of your ridicule, only now to intitate some sick sarcasm?

      People like you, are blind. You blind yourselves. You love to worship your lieing darkness. You and your pathetic crowd are the real conspiracy theorists. You are CTDAS – “Conspiracy Theorists of of Denial, Arrogance and Silence” regarding this whole Obama presidency deception. Just admit it and be honest with yourself.

      • ORavenhurst says:

        Rev. Bickel,
        Your inflamed rhetoric is not scoring you any points or making your arguments more credible. There are legitimate criticisms to be made about Obama (or anybody), but the more extreme you make those criticisms, the more you fuel the arguments of Obama’s supporters. Your painfully earnest moral indignation as well as your outrageous comparisons (describing the president as a sex offendor, et cetera) make Obama’s opponents look like foaming-at-the-mouth extremists. The more you hammer at these points, the more you make Obama’s opponents look like unreasoning savages, which in turn actually makes Obama look better.

        Please try to put aside your own strong emotions and look at how other people are likely to read your comments.

    • Camille – Re: Your March 3, 2012 at 6:14 pm comment:

      The reason why your liberal / extremist side does not take Obama’s fraudulent and corrupted [bogus] “presidency” seriously, is that you and others have sold your patriotic souls to the devil of political correctness expediency.

      Your side impugns birthers and Americans who love our US Constitution; as if we are the “conspiracy theorists,” when in reality you and your deaf ear and blind eye crowd are the CTDAS – Conspiracy Theorists of Denial, Arrogance and Silence over Obama’s many deceptions and over his Constitutional ineligibility to be legitimate president.

      Your argument from generalization lacks cold hard logic. You really need some help outside yourself to start realizing some practicals. I hope that you will finally admit your need. Perhaps, then, you can eventually become a useful patriotic American citizen who truly desires to help this Constitutional Republic become free of molestation from those who are working hard to destroy it.

  3. RoseAnn says:

    Terry,
    You know you shouldn’t confuse people with the facts once their minds have been made up.
    RoseAnn

    • Ian Lister says:

      You don’t have any facts: you have paranoia and hysteria. You are now nothing but conspiracy theorists and nothing will deflect you from your paranoid delusions.

      * Arpaio’s investigation added nothing to the conspiracy theory about the birth certificate. Quite simply, the man is a racist trying to hurt a black president he dislikes.

      * Agenda 21 is simply a set of land use guidelines. The way in which you and other wingnuts try to spin it into something else is risible.

      * Fast and Furious was an operation that went wrong. It happens.

      * The subtle suggestion that Breitbart’s death may not have been natural is more baseless paranoia.

      This is why nobody takes you seriously. You refuse to listen to facts, blow tiny details out of all proportion and end up as political chicken littles, running around screaming that the sky is falling. Seriously, grow up.

      • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

        You are entitled to your opinion.

        I am entitled to discretion, editorial and otherwise, as to how seriously I take that opinion.

        You clearly cannot read. Otherwise you would know that TMNHOAPOTUS has set up a Rural Council, the mission of which is to return rural lands to the wild, part and parcel of Agenda 21.

        Ask yourself what business is it of the United Nations to prescribe land-use guidelines for towns and villages, if that is “all” that Agenda 21 is.

        • DinsdaleP says:

          “Otherwise you would know that TMNHOAPOTUS has set up a Rural Council, the mission of which is to return rural lands to the wild, part and parcel of Agenda 21.”

          So programs like using NJ taxpayer funds to buy back open space as a hedge against overdevelopment are a nefarious plot to enslave us to the true goals of Agenda 21?

          Wow.

          As a resident of Middlesex county and former resident of Somerset, I thought it was just a sensible way of maintaining the character of the area, giving our wildlife and watersheds a reasonable amount of pristine space, and keeping a beautiful part of the countryside from turning into a dense, crowded metroscape like the counties of northeastern NJ.

          The renewal of Jersey City shows that there’s a lot more value in the big picture to redeveloping brownspaces instead of leaving them abandoned and turning other greenspaces into developments instead. A little more work up front, but that’s the difference between being a good steward of the planet and an exploiter of it.

          • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

            Well, I have a friend of mine who can testify directly to the bad effects of the Highlands Act. One house per eighty acres? All that means is that the authorities will have fewer houses to knock down when the time comes to turn the whole region into a United Nations Nature Preserve.

          • DinsdaleP says:

            The NJ highlands is a watershed that sources the drinking water supply for over half the state’s residents. Does that mean that the entire area should be off limits to development? Of course not. Is one house per eighty acres reasonable? It depends on what specific location you’re talking about.

            The goal of these regulations is grounded in common sense, not a global conspiracy by the U.N. to pen in humanity like cattle. Onerous regulation serves no one, but sensible regulation is just that – sensible – even if some individuals come out the worse for it.

            You source may have a legitimate claim of being unfairly hurt by the law given the location in question. No law is perfect, and people like me who accept the rule of law have an obligation to be vigilant that the law itself is fair and fairly applied. Without the details, it’s hard to say.

            What I will say is this – I live near Dayton, NJ, and one of the things I thought was charming when riding my bike through the area were all the old farm homes with hand-pump wells on the property. Only problem is, you can’t drink from those wells anymore, or use the water from them for growing produce. That’s because a single Eastman Kodak factory contaminated the water table there so badly that the damage was irreparable, and all the homes in the area had to switch from well water to municipal service supplied from outside the area. You wouldn’t even want to feed young children fruit from the trees there unless they were tested first.

            One factory is an isolated example, but that “isolated” example changed the life of an entire town, and since it was a farming community as late as the 1970’s, it also affected their way of life.

            You can accept a certain level of development in an area that supplies half the state population’s water, but common sense is enough to know that it’s better to be -gasp- conservative about it when one major accident could put the entire region’s water quality at risk. No nefarious plots by the U.N. required.

  4. RoseAnn –

    How true! Some people’s minds are like concrete – all mixed up and firmly set. Generally speaking, people convinced against their own wills, are, of the same opinion, still.

    I forgot to tell you my first comment – very good article! Our country has genuine hope and genuine change with honest people, such as yourself!

  5. Keith Simons says:

    It’s like this: nothing matters to the populace at whole until it hits their pocket books hard enough — just exactly like the big corporations.

    Here’s another train of thought for you, Terry:

    Even pretending that we all live in Magical Happy Land, and Obama IS a bona-fide natural-born citizen, because of the policies that he has committed to, he should still be impeached, and his czars and train wreck of governance be dismantled.

    Look, I’m, not a Bush fanboy, either. It was Bush that started the hard push to dismantling the Republic (via the PATRIOT ACT, the enactment of the Department of Homeland Security, etc etc etc) by using a false-flag attack on our own people to get us into the mindset of willingly giving up liberties for the illusion of security.

    I love you guys, and I love this site, but if you guys genuinely believe that a bunch of people from a country where like 60% of the people don’t even have electricity magically led a flawlessly coordinated attack against the powerful Nation to have ever of existed in human history (The United States of America) (AND caught us with our pants down FOUR SEPARATE TIMES), then you’re just as flawed as the liberals that you (rightfully) bash.

    A lot of this has been coming down the pipe since Lee Harvey Oswald “assassinated” JFK.

    And, as “Camille” above stands as an example, our would-be Masters have done a nearly flawless job of accomplishing their goal of destroying the United States.

    Here’s the deal: people get all sorts of flustered when you hit the nail on the head. I think for about 99% of what you bring up on this site, you have.

    Rest well in knowing you’re on to something, otherwise you wouldn’t have the vociferous protests and character attacks that you guys received by the Enlightened Ones.

    Remember: If the United States of America falls, THE ENTIRE HOUSE OF CARDS COMES DOWN.

    God bless you guys!

    Signed,

    Keith V SImons

  6. James K says:

    I always love when the people who think Ronald Reagan and George W Bush can walk on walk on water accuse their opponents of seeing Obama as an “Anointed One.”

    When they have people like Michele Bachmann who claim that God told them to run for office.

    It’s a joke.

  7. DinsdaleP says:

    “Now then: if you are not an Obama supporter, then I don’t know what you are. I made what I thought was an entirely logical deduction, from the weird power, bordering upon the paranormal, that I have seen this man exert over people who once were able to think and act in a logical and reasonable manner. A power to which, as I told you, I am immune. Which puts me at a disadvantage, I suppose, since I cannot possibly fathom how his power operates. (The advantage is that it cannot affect me.) But that he has such a power, I would be derelict in my duty, did I ignore it.

    You’ve made similar comments like this before, Terry, alluding to something without actually saying it, so let me ask the question:

    Are you basically implying that President Obama is part of a conspiracy that has supernatural elements? Even more bluntly, you come pretty close to implying that he’s the AntiChrist, and if that’s the case you’re gotten so blatant about that I thought I’d just ask directly.

    I see patterns, too, Terry, but in my case I see people so unable to accept simple explanations of fact that go against their worldview, that the only way reality and their worldview can coexist is if fantastic layers of conspiracy are added to connect the dots between them.

    It would make a great novel for the fans of “End Times” fiction, and RoseAnn even seems to have started on a similar theme using the Papacy as a core element. Why not the President of the U.S. then? His mother is a U.S. citizen, but who’s the father, really? Forget being a natural born citizen – the way you talk about a true Christian such as yourself being “immune to his spell” is a pretty thin way of implying that he’s a “supernatural” born citizen.

    It would certainly explain your passion for not accepting any reasonable explanation for his birth certificate or birth announcement in the 1960’s newspapers being what they are, in favor of a global scheme cordinated between Obama, the FBI, records archivists, George Soros, the United Nations, scientists in every country, etc. It also explains why you distrust government agencies like those maintaining Hawaii’s birth records, but implicitly trust a publicity-hungry sheriff of questionable ethics and his posse of disgruntled Arizona retirees to have the skills to prove photoshop fraud. If Obama actually produced a paper form, you’d never accept that this wasn’t a forgery either.

    Only thing is, Roseann’s writing fiction while you’re writing your statements in the context of “journalism”. Journalists get proof, Terry, and all you’re doing is offering an echo chamber for anti-Obama rhetoric instead of doing any original research and proof on your own. Now the rhetoric is openly incorporating elements of the supernatural as part of the narrative, and CNaV is starting to read like the “Weekly World News” tabloid that showed photos of Bill Clinton being advised by a captured alien.

    If you were just being sarcastic in the quote above, that’s fine – I got a laugh reading it. Unfortunately, I don’t think you were being sarcastic.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      Hey—Obama himself encouraged the idea that he had wild talents. At just about every campaign appearance he made in 2008, some woman would swoon (or did she feign swooning?), and Obama would summon medical help.

      And: I don’t know what you or anybody else sees in the most incompetent man ever to hold the office of President. I see an overgrown hallboy. But you liberals see The Messiah.

      I’ve thought about that. Really seriously. The only thing is, he’s been doing a lot of things that make him look weak. And for that reason, and that reason alone, he doesn’t fit the bill for the “beast” (Greek Therion, a murderous, ravening monster, the sort that would as soon kill you as take a drink of water from the local creek) of Revelation chapter 13 and following.

      • DinsdaleP says:

        Regarding Diablo’s comment…

        “If we had never mess with the constitution after it was ratified, we would not have this Kenyan in charge.”

        No, we’d just have many of them still in slavery, counted as 3/5 of a person. And no bill of rights, for that matter.

        If the Constitution wasn’t meant to be amended, it wouldn’t have been designed that way.

      • DinsdaleP says:

        “I don’t know what you or anybody else sees in the most incompetent man ever to hold the office of President.

        Really?

        George W. Bush was better?

        Mr. “Mission Accomplished”, take a surplus to a Trillion-dollar deficit, can’t veto a spending bill, Patriot Act, warrantless wiretap, TSA, WMD’s in Iraq (?), extraordinary rendition, TARP, and more…

        Amazing.

      • Ian Lister says:

        While I’m sure summoning medical help for a woman in distress might look like a supernatural power to a hard-hearted GOP wingnut, it’s a perfectly standard reaction for the rest of us.

        He’s never claimed supernatural powers and nobody except you and your ilk has ever claimed otherwise. If you can’t take this seriously, stop posting at all.

      • JamesF says:

        Why stop there Terry, you could wrap the whole birther thing into it? Obama’s mother could have given birth to Satan’s spawn, hence the need to fake the birth certificate. I bet being the child of Satan doesn’t make one a natural born citizen. Maybe poor Obama Snr got roped into it as the only black man Ann knew.

        Speaking of the Beast, last time I looked Obama was commander in chief of troops stationed in Babylon.

        Take it from there Terry it will out sell the Left Behind books guaranteed, sounds a better paying gig than internet blogging. I am sure WND’s imprint would love it.

  8. Mike says:

    Great article…..I think many of us recognize “what time it is”. It’s time to Lock and Load! Our ancestors would have opened fire by now……and without apology! Is this a pleasant scenario, or something to boast about? Hell no! The ramifications of such an insurrection would be horrific….yet the continuing slide away from our Constitutional Government and into Tyranny is a more horrific scenario. Such a move would have to be large scale involving a number of States declaring their intent to secede from the Union. Armed resistence to these Marxist clowns on the left would have to involve an organized and structured fighting force with real teeth…..not just pockets of resistence fighters roaming around with their personal firearms. The 10th Amendment is going to have to be put to the test to stop an apostate Federal Government……And when that test comes, I’m in!! I will fight and die if need be to resist this “hope and change” Bull$hit!

  9. RoseAnn says:

    The comments on this article has been very interesting.

    First, I would like to remind everyone that this website was created to give Conservatives a voice in what is happening in our culture. It is why we called this site “Conservative News and Views.” Venues for liberal rhetoric are well-established. Terry and I have spent our own resources and a subtantial amount of time for providing this service for what we beleive to be a vastly under-represented point of view in all the media world. If you believe we feel obligated to host a website for liberals, you would be wrong. There are plenty of those and we are do not feel compelled to be “fair and balanced.” We are compelled to tell the truth and the Conservative view of the news, as well as offering our commentaries on the same – hence the name of the site. That being said, we also have decidedd to “allow” contrary but thoughtful points of view.

    Second, to all those who have used this venue to attack Terry personally, I would like to remind you that he has been more than gracious in allowing those comments to post to this site. He is our Administrator, and as such has complete control of whether comments are posted or trashed. I would also like to remind you that you are not “entitled” to post here. You are allowed to post here. Therefore, a little civil conversation would be in order. Frankly, I would not allow you the lattitude that Terry allows and I think many of the recent comments have crossed the line.

    Are you entitled to your point of view? Absolutely you are. However, that is not the mission of this website. It is what America was built upon – liberty of conscience. Somehow we have forgotten that. We are exercising our liberty of conscience here, you are also free to exercise yours here but only if you remain civil – and by “civil” I mean more than just vulgar language. You must also remain respectful.

    Third, we are beyond the point of being intimidated by liberals falsely calling us racists, radicals, or extremists. Remember I quoted Barry Goldwater in this article “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.” We are not fooled by your vitriolic attempts to intimidate us into silence. If this publication has anything to do with it, the silent majority will no longer be silent. Those who think they can discredit us with sharp rhetoric are sadly mistaken.

    Further, while we appreciate throughtful comments, I strongly suggest that if you wish to comment about an article that you stick to the content of the article. I have seen the converation digress to questions about the Anti-christ – are you kidding me? Serious accusations have been made about the man now occupying the White House. Sheriff Joe has substantiated those claims, and what do you do? Attack the messenger? Sherrif Joe is not a perfect man – neither is anyone posting here. Sherrif Joe also is not on trial. Following this logic, every prosectuor or district attorney in every courtroom would be subject to such intense scrutiny. If that should happen, when we will have have the time or energy to address the crime? Also, regarding perfection, let me remind you of a question Jesus asked those who gathered to stone an adulteress: “He who is without sin among you, let him throw the first.”

    Further, if the birth certificate is a forgery submitted by someone holding such a high office, doesn’t that concern you? Not only would Mr. Obama be unqualified, he would be guilty of criminal actions – such as forgery and fraud, as well as obstruction of justice, just to name a few. It should concern you regardless of whether you are a Democrat, Republican, Indepedent, or another third party. This is an American issue not a party issue. My goodness, if you apply for a driver’s license, you have to produce a birth certificate.

    Regarding the issue of this being a moot subject based on the assumption that the Democratic Party would have vetted this man properly. May I remind you that this man was never vetted properly. Also, let me ask this? If the Democratic Party had vetted him, why haven’t they said so? Let me make this clear – I very much doubt that the Dems in charge ever gave this a second thought. Obama claimed he was born in Hawaii, it is unlikely that they ever thought anyone would be brash enough to run for this office if he or she didn’t meet this requirement. Besides, which, the man was already a US Senator. However, the office of US Senator does not require that senators be natural born citizens. I seriously doubt that anyone, except perhaps a few inner-sanctum supporters, gave this any thought.

    I would also like to encourage you to continue to post but please stick to the matter at hand and not go on any wild bunny trails, and please be respectful. Again, Terry has been kind enough to post the verbal assaults you have launched against him. I would not have been so kind. Furthermore, I would like everyone to know that I have continually encouraged Terry not to publish such inflamatory rhetoric – which is significantly different from thoughtful dissent.

    Insightful and open discussion – on both sides of any issue – can be productive. Discussion that is meant to destroy those who hold opposing opinions is not admirable. If your sole purpose in visiting this site is to discredit Conservative points of view, please go to the myriad of liberal venues of media extant in our culture and leave us alone.

    • 1LisHell says:

      “Sherrif Joe also is not on trial”

      Not yet. As the DoJ investigation into Arpaio’s abuses of power and outright corruption moves forward, it becomes more and more likely he’ll wind up on the defendant’s side of the courtroom. And that investigation was started under Bush.

      And Obama isn’t on trial, either. All there is right now is an “investigation” sponsored by WND, complete with a book deal for the Posse leader.

    • M. Aire says:

      The problem I have with Terry and his site isn’t the promotion of a Conservative viewpoint, I consider myself more conservative than liberal. If anything my sense of disgust is amplified by that fact; I believe you people give conservatism a bad name, and generally abuse the gifts it can offer society.

      I’ve been reading this site regularly for the past few months and I’ve seen no comments I would consider insulting or offensive to Terry as a person. But as his responses to the often lengthy alternate viewpoints presented can be trite, dismissive, and unsatisfying (“I don’t have time for this” is a common one, or “Come back when you have an open mind,” heard that one more than once) it’s not surprising that people get angry with him.

      “Further, if the birth certificate is a forgery submitted by someone holding such a high office, doesn’t that concern you?”

      The only reason there isn’t the level of concern you’d like is because most people think you’re wrong. Is that so hard to appreciate?

      What I have observed over my months of reading this site is that the majority of your commenters (sic) disagree with what you are saying, and provide lengthy rebuttals that are by and large ignored. Why does your intended audience avoid chiming in?

    • DinsdaleP says:

      Roseann,

      I appreciate that Terry has allowed commentary reflecting a contrarian view to the CNaV perspective. As someone who used to post on Conservapedia, it’s refreshing to be able to follow a thread of commentary that doesn’t get arbitrarily cut off by a block or redaction. Allowing different opinions to be expressed on the resource you provide is an act of civility on your part, and nothing short of civility should be offered in return.

      I’d only ask that when individual commenters cross the line of civility here, they are regarded as individuals, rather than applying broad “liberal/attacker/hater/etc.” labels to everyone who disagrees with you. It would be as disingenuos to apply that stereotype to your critics as it would be for me to say Rush Limbaugh is representative of you.

      You have a fair point about staying on topic. Some of these threads have gone into totally different directions from the original topic, and that’s where the CNaV editorial staff has every right to reject comments that stray further. If the tangents are introduced by the Editors, though, it would be unfair to criticize the commenters for following the thread to where the editor has steered it. I’ll also suggest that some truly illuminating exchanges can come from these unexpected tangents. Threads that catch on fire over an unrelated point may seem annoying, but if the upside is that you’re attracting and engaging your readership, that’s not a bad tradeoff.

      (Oh, and I take full credit/blame for the tangent about the Anti-Christ theory. In fairness, I was asking based on multiple statements Terry has made up to that point, and when you ask, “are you kidding me?”, consider Terry’s reply on March 4 at 9:53pm.

      “I’ve thought about that. Really seriously. The only thing is, he’s been doing a lot of things that make him look weak. And for that reason, and that reason alone, he doesn’t fit the bill for the “beast”…”.

      He wasn’t kidding.)

      As for the mission of this site not being about the accomodation of non-conservative views, I’d agree as well. No one who disagrees with you is owed a forum on your dime to express that disagreement, and it’s a credit that you engage critics at all. What gets lost in the back-and-forth, though, is that there’s a difference between a critic out to challenge you and one who’s out to silence you.

      You can promote Young-Earth Creationism and Dr. Walt Brown’s Hydroplate theory all you want. You can promote birther theories and issues all you want. You can decry that Purpura v Sebelius didn’t prevail. You can warn of the dangers posed by Agenda 21. No one’s trying to tell you that you can’t, but there are many who disagree with you on these topics and more, and are looking to do it with reasoned, civil discussion, not vitriol.

      Frankly, you should welcome that for a simple reason – when you’re out to show the world that your views on a topic are correct, then engaging criticism and effectively refuting it only strengthens you – it can’t hurt you. At worst, if you find that you were wrong about something then even that’s a gain, because you’ve learned and grown in the process. And I’m not talking about trying to change your outlook in matters of faith or principle – just matters of fact or public policy, especially in areas that affect us all. I’ve been wrong many times in my life, and I’m not done yet :-) The only mistake I couldn’t grow from would be the arrogance of denying that I could be wrong.

      As someone who’s run for public office, you could potentially be representing a population where a sizeable percent do not agree with you even though the majority did. If 49% of your district did not share your values, you’d likely be trying to educate and inform in ways to win them over, and if it doesn’t work, declaring them to be “too close-minded to get it” wouldn’t help your cause either. People aren’t disagreeing with you just for the sake of disagreeing with you, or out of a personal animosity. These are debates of ideas and ideals – embrace the challenge and win people over, realize where your argument can be improved, or realize your position should be different. It’s all upside in the end.

  10. […] Does anybody really know what time it is? […]

  11. […] Does anybody really know what time it is? […]

  12. […] Does anybody really know what time it is? […]

  13. […] Does anybody really know what time it is? […]

  14. […] Does anybody really know what time it is? […]

  15. […] Does anybody really know what time it is? […]

  16. […] Does anybody really know what time it is? […]

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.