Saturday, November 29, 2014



Truth, even if told by the most sincere men, is painfully obvious but seldom believed.  Most, even the self assured intellectual, embrace a good lie.  Such a profound speak captivates the weak and the strong alike, leaving the evidence of its kiss upon the starched collars of the most faithful mortals.  We deceive ourselves to think that a constitutional federated Republic remains atop its very original bedrock.  On July 1, 1909, its very foundation was cracked when the Progressives in both wings of the Democrat and Republican Parties ratified the 16th Amendment which instituted the income tax.  From thence to hence, the Progressives began a 100 Years War, charging the very mountain that upheld the principles of Republican governance.  Finally, as Karl Marx had prophesied to President Lincoln in 1865, one would come to move the Nation completely off its foundation.  
 "...we’re not going to deport you."
The bold colors of truth and lie are often passed over for more comfortable, reassuring glances upon the faint pastels of noble intentions and political correctness.  Yet, the burden to prepare a Nation for come what may requires me to exert valor when others feel the liberty to mince words.  With seven words, President Barack Hussein Obama, laid down the mantel of Constitutional Executive and picked up the Crown of Emperor. 

Many urban media driven rationalists assert that the President's rebuttal of the Constitution by Executive Order is a luxury of separated powers neither understood fully by the bemoaning Right or appreciated fully by the insatiable Left.  The conclusion from the urban provocateur is that resistance born of legitimate empathy for the law originates from an enduring, genetic trait of "racism".   Many of these ringmasters of prejudice submit that rioting is a learned "American" behavior and because, it is not a "learned" African behavior then, we should not condemn the criminal behaviors of Ferguson, Missouri protestors as "uncivilized".  I digress.  Marxist Leon Trotsky would be proud of how Modern Progressives have used the term "racist" to bully rebels from publicly dissenting and revealing the weaknesses of their proposals.  They proclaim that Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush used Executive Orders to install Amnesty and that, merely because President Obama is black, it is racist to resist the New Emperor's Edict.  To the urban progressive, let us explore the rhetoric.  The Federalist's Gabriel Malor writes:

"So Reagan, seeing this family unity problem that Congress had not anticipated or addressed when it granted amnesty to millions of parents, issued an executive order to defer the removal of children of the people who had applied for immigration amnesty under Congress’ new law. He allowed those children to remain in the United States while their parents’ applications for amnesty were pending. A few years later, Bush 41 extended this bit of administrative grace to these same children plus certain spouses of the aliens who had actually been granted immigration amnesty under Congress’ new law."

Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives the legislative branch of government – Congress – authority to create laws covering immigration and naturalization.  Both Reagan's and Bush's Executive Orders were written to instruct the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service on how it should execute and enforce the Congressional law towards illegal alien families.  President Obama's Executive Order is an instruction to the Department of Justice, Homeland Security, Border Patrol Agents, etc. to not enforce Congressional law.  A difference not built on race but, on reverence for and not for the US Constitution. 

There are many in the Abusive Fourth Estate that do not mind a wayward Executive giving them orders to relax their efforts.  Less paperwork is written.  Fewer judicial encumbrances are experienced during the workday.  It does not hurt that the Government's Watchdogs have eaten their fill of special interviews and now wallowing in their beds of progressive agenda influence.  Whatever the Emperor deems lawful, we report as lawful.  The American needs to know that everything that an Executive does is not lawful or expedient, no matter what color his skin is.  According to Article VI, the US Constitution is the Law of the Land.  It reads: 

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

It is comparative to the Laws of Married Life in an American Household.  The unwritten law is written in this manner: "If Momma Ain't Happy, Ain't Nobody Happy!"  Sure, Daddy has executive authority in the household.  In the end, he is responsible for the effectual and efficient execution of household activities.  Daddy is responsible for the planning, organizing, implementation and reporting on the success and failures of all activities.  All such activities have been funded by both parents and the children judge 

whether the activities fall within the boundaries of appreciable values, principles and statutes.  However, if the Congress known as Momma ain't happy, no amount of executive power satisfies the disdain or distrust of that pretty woman that was once awed by your ability to carry her across a threshold.  Daddy's executive authority is within its limits when Momma's separation of power has been fully respected and no damage is done to the founding families' overall social, political and economic well-being or its essential agreements.  

For example. Dad and Mom agree that taking the children to Washington, DC will be as educational and entertaining as any trip the family has ever taken.  The children agree.  Daddy discusses with Mom about making a short stop in Charlestown, West Virginia to enjoy some much needed rest and relaxation at the Casino.  Mother advises that they should plan a separate trip to Charlestown so that the children would not be unduly influenced and monies could be more easily accounted.  Embarking, they agree again to stay the course and plan later.  Dad drives during the night.  When the family awakens in the morning, they find themselves in Charlestown.  Dad decides to spend a third of the budgeted monies in the Keno room.  No winnings are acquired.  Sorry!  On the way to Washington, the children witness the discord between Dad and Mom.  Words are used.  Remembrances are rehearsed.  Mom and Dad lodge in the room with the twin beds.  Needless to say, no one has a good time.  When Mom ain't happy, well!  In this example, we see that the agreement between Mom and Dad was broken because Dad believed he had the absolute right and authority to satisfy himself.  His belief of "If I have a good time then, I can focus on others having a good time" abused the spirit and substance of the household law.  Needless to say, it was not his race that was problematic, it was the content of the character of his beliefs.   

The Exceptional Conservative Show® listeners have heard many a time my reference of the United Nation's Declaration of Human Rights as the next legislative, executive and judicial goal of the progressive movement.  It bemuses me when I hear conservative commentators speak of the arrogance of our Commander-In-Chief 's chase for the reigns of the United Nation's Secretary General post.  Indeed, standing behind the General Assembly's podium is the only time that many of us have seen him display any signs of comfort as world leader.  What other audience would have any satisfaction in the most powerful man in the world promoting an ideal of "leading from behind" than a group of spiteful rogues, self-aggrandizing despots and totalitarian terrorists?  There has never been an American chosen for the post of Secretary General, so why not a man whom has experience denigrating the United States as a world power than one whom has led the self-same power?  Here is the answer.  He does not have to do so.  President Obama, by installing the Declaration of Human Rights as America's Third Bill of Rights, becomes the de facto Secretary General and the United Nations of New York becomes our Nation's New Capitol and Supreme Authority.  Wow, One World Order with fries and a shake!

Empire is defined as a political construct in which one state dominates over another state, or a series of states.  So concerned that the federal government would grow so great in size and stature that it would seek centralized powers, James Madison in Federalist Paper 45 wrote, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”  The federal government's positive interpretation of its Constitutional powers has enabled the Executive to dominate both Congress and the Supreme Court.  Congress' lack of desire to protect their separation of power has re-enforced Administrations', for the past century, designs to weaken the Republic and install a Progressive Empire.  Speaker of the House and Ohio Republican John Boehner said, " 'The president has said before that "he's not king" and he's "not an emperor," but he’s sure acting like one.' "  According to the Founding Fathers' intent, the President should never think or act as if he were a King and the Party that restrains him is Congress.  Unfortunately, Congress has been derilict in its duties since an Alabama conservative thought it an amusement to recommend a Constitutional amendment for the income tax.  It does not help that the 17th Amendment prevents the direct representation of the states in the US Senate.  Progressives in both parties--Republican and Democrat--surrendered to the court of popular opinion rather than upholding the purposes of the Founders.  Today, it is easier for President Obama to Lord over the likes of Boehner and US Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican from Kentucky, than, it was for President George Washington to rule over Speaker of the House Frederick Muhlenberg and US Senate President Pro Tempore John Langdon.  President Obama seeks to raise an Empire.  President Washington sought to protect a Republic.

Many of you are screaming at me now as if I were a knave.  " 'We the People' govern de jure!  We are entitled by right of law from the founding of our Nation to rule as Sovereigns and none has greater power than the people!"  I point only to the recent actions of our President as proof that Progressives have sought to rule, are ruling and will continue to  rule de facto rather by de jure.  Progressives do not want to be held to the standards of the Founding Fathers or even their Creator.  They seek a ever increasing numeration of mercies rather than submit to the graces of a singular common denominator of principles observed by the established rulers.  What have we to refer as proof of this kindred dereliction among Progressives?  Let us see.

'Tonight President Obama issued an oral royal decree that will be followed by a written regal decree, as any good monarch would do,' Texas Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert jabbed in a statement. 

The Seven Last Words of the New Emperor serves as the provocation of men and women that recognize tyranny.  For the sake of this exposition, the offensive, bold truth is that we are not merely Post-Constitutional and certainly not Extra-Constitutional.  We have passed from Republic to Empire.  It was not simply by the actions of one President.  Its discontinuance will not assured by merely one party, for progressives in each applaud the merits and actions of King Obama.  It will take those that wish America to return to its original intent rather than evolve into an earthly Kingdom that will save the Nation.  Maybe Boehner and McConnell need to speak to a few more mothers who ain't happy.

Thursday, November 20, 2014


"We Are Not Going To Deport You."

With those seven words, the United States, Born In Revolution Of a Kingdom and Founded as a Federated Constitutional Republic, Devolved Into an Empire Ruled by An Imperial President. Many are now Turning Unto the Courts to Reign in America's New Emperor. They Are Neglecting the Power Endowed "We The People" in Article One for the Powerlessness Embalmed in Article Three.

"At the establishment of our Constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions nevertheless become law by precedent, sapping by little and little the foundations of the Constitution and working its change by construction before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life if secured against all liability to account." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:486

So How May I Know the Day and the Hour That America Has Passed from Kingdom to Republic to Empire? So How May I Know that America's Biggest Enemy May Rule Us in Fifteen Years?  Five Episodes Have Been Prepared to Show You From Whence We Came, Where We Are and What Is To Come.  

(1) COALITION: LTG (RET) WILLIAM "JERRY" BOYKIN & KAMAL SALEEM on T... [http://www.blogtalkradio.com/theexceptionalconservativeshow/2014/11...]

(2) FIFTEEN YEARS UNTIL THE ISLAMIC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA on TECS_2N... [http://www.blogtalkradio.com/theexceptionalconservativeshow/2014/11...]

(3) THE CHRISLAM SWORD on THE EXCEPTIONAL CONSERVATIVE SHOW [http://www.blogtalkradio.com/theexceptionalconservativeshow/2014/11...]

(4) CATO: OF HONOR, VIRTUE, LIBERTY AND ROME on THE EXCEPTIONAL CONSERV... [http://www.blogtalkradio.com/theexceptionalconservativeshow/2014/11...]

(5) ANYBODY WHO COMES INTO THIS COUNTRY ILLEGALLY IS A CRIMINAL on TECS [http://www.blogtalkradio.com/theexceptionalconservativeshow/2014/11...]

I Believe in Divine Providence. I Believe that Which We Need to Know Is Revealed to Us Over Time. Do Not Slumber. Take Heed.

Thursday, November 6, 2014


"America is at that awkward stage.
It's too late to work within the system
but too early to shoot the bastards. "

-C. Wolfe

I know what racism is.  I have been schooled over the years by men and women far more sensitive to the vibrancy of racist opinion and action.  President Barack Obama has been a teacher on the principles of codification sensitivity.  He even offers his grandmother as an example of the typical "white person".  Former President William "Bill" Jefferson Clinton has comforted me in acknowledging his support for his wife over current President Obama does not make him a "racist".  The Right--the only time this term of affection can be applied to him without offense--Reverend Al Sharpton is the icon of sensitivity to the concepts of discrimination and prejudicial thinking.  I have learned that applying higher moral standards to a benevolence is certainly a racist connotation.  Even locally, an apostle of ethnic solidarity, Council-member Marion "Shep" Barry, has been a pillar of scholarly consult on the mistreatment and division of men based upon natural selection of color.  Fully understanding the atrocities of pride and prejudice requires to draw upon the rich,  astute observations of liberal men and women that have excelled at the highest levels of society.  Liberals, amazing that all are leaders within the Party of Jefferson and Jackson, have an affinity for turning a blind eye to racism and segregation either in establishing modern public policy or retelling the misfortunes of past public policies.  Shrewdly, we must consider that human beings act and think according to the merits of the self-interests.  In the present debate over the power of an Imperial President that seeks to rewrite the Second Amendment, it would be a "sin and a shame"--reference to my typical black grandmother, Mary Dismukes--not to add a conservative viewpoint to the balance of debate.

I imagine your first mind whisper is, "Why is gun control a race thing?  Can't we talk public safety without bringing race into it?"  I wish such noble causes were as simple as "doing what's best for the kids".  However, since the Democrats voted "God" out of their Party, I must analyze and comment based on the values and the facts that Conservatives and Liberals can agree upon.  Actual History should be one of those paradigms upon which we can agree.  Prior to the United States Constitution, an inhumane institution known as slavery existed. Slavery in America began when the first African slaves were brought to Jamestown, Virginia, in 1619, to aid in the production of such lucrative crops as tobacco.  Apparently, a Dutchman ran out of food and could not find a McDonald's. He exchanged his slaves for food.

By 1619 Jamestown had exported 10 tons of tobacco to Europe and was a boomtown. The export business was going so well the colonists were able to afford two imports which would greatly contribute to their productivity and quality of life: 20 Blacks from Africa and 90 women from England. The Africans were paid for in food; each woman cost 120 pounds of tobacco.
Wow, logistics!  The Africans were worth a trip to Burger King and each woman was worth 30 packs of cigarettes.  "Smoke 'em if you got 'em."  For the sake of convenience, an ungodly institution is introduced to the Colonies.  Desperation breeds the innovation of exploitative economics.  The ordained luxury of an elite few becomes the eventual disjointing of a Nation over time.  However, let's not advance to far in this narrative.

How did our Founding Fathers know that slavery would eventually destroy itself. The inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  From the womb to the tomb, every man, woman and child longs to live without hostile intervention. Every man, woman and child longs to achieve success in their vocations and seek to be profitable to their families and their communities.  They also understood that God ordered mankind to Master all that He created and not each other.  People would never individually seek the confines of personal property or succumb to ownership of our person without revolt.  Past Virginia Assemblies, in order to secure a less volatile workplace environment, outlawed the ownership of guns by less desirable groups.

“Prohibiting Negroes, slave and free, from carrying weapons including clubs.” Race-based total gun and self-defense ban. (Los Angeles Times, To Fight Crime, Some Blacks Attack Gun Control, January 19, 1992)

“That all such free Mulattos, Negroes and Indians … shall appear without arms.” Race-based total gun ban.  [7 The Statues at Large; Being a Collection of all the Laws of Virginia, from the First Session of the Legislature, in the Year 1619, p. 95 (W. W. Henning ed. 1823).] (GMU CR LJ, p. 67)

The laws are a mere sample of slave codes, black codes and economic based gun bans used to disarm Black Americans and other less desirable groups from 1640 to present.  However, such legislated restrictions did not stop abolitionists ("white folks and others" for those following along at home), or the slaves themselves, from seeking a violent overthrow of slavery. I introduce the Westmoreland Plot of 1687.  Nicholas Spencer, unveiled an alleged conspiracy among "blacks" to "kill white people and destroy property".  This was different from the Gloucester County Conspiracy (1663) or Bacon's Rebellion (1676–1677).  It was the first time in British North America that no white person supported or participated in such an activity.

"Come listen all you galls and boys,
I'm going to sing a little song,
My name is Jim Crow.
Weel about and turn about and do jis so,
Eb'ry time I weel about I jump Jim Crow."

In 1828, Thomas Dartmouth "Daddy" Rice, a struggling "actor", created the character “Jim Crow”.  The character represented highly exaggerated behaviors and stereotypical expressions attributed blacks.   Jim Crow is often used to describe the segregation laws, rules, and customs which arose after Reconstruction ended in 1877 and continued until the mid-1960s.  Rice portrayed blacks as entertaining fools.  White audiences couldn’t get enough of the exaggerated performances.  Dr. David Pilgrim, Ferris State University Professor of Sociology, asserts: “Rice and his imitators, by their stereotypical depictions of blacks, helped to popularize the belief that blacks were lazy, stupid, inherently less human, and unworthy of integration.  During the years that blacks were being victimized by lynch mobs, they were also victimized by the racist caricatures propagated through novels, sheet music, theatrical plays, and minstrel shows.  Ironically, years later when blacks replaced white minstrels, the blacks also "blackened" their faces, thereby pretending to be whites pretending to be blacks.  They, too, performed the Coon Shows which dehumanized blacks and helped establish the desirability of racial segregation.”  While the exaggerated portraits dehumanized blacks, I believe slavery's insistence that some humans were not entitled to be governed by natural laws established the degrading period of Jim Crow in America.  Jim Crow was the name of the racial caste system which operated primarily, but not exclusively in southern and border states, between 1877 and the mid-1960s.  Jim Crow was more than a series of rigid anti-black laws.  It was a way of life. Under Jim Crow, African Americans were relegated to the status of second class citizens.

From the French Black Codes to the District of Columbia's Martial Law induced Gun Control, there has been a concerted effort amongst tyrants, progressive or those seeking merely to radically transform America, to separate citizens from the guns.  The Constitutional Rights Foundation reports that during World War II, “The link between white supremacy and Hitler’s ‘master race’ could not be ignored.  Jim Crow shocked United Nations delegates who reported home about the practice: Racial discrimination furnishes grist for the Communist propaganda mills.  It raises doubt even among friendly nations as to the intensity of our devotion to the democratic faith.”  Why?  There is no justice for government to rule the lives of men if men can protect themselves.  What is more greatly distressing is, after fighting Jim Crow for over 100 years, that Blacks, once banned from observing the Second Amendment, have no problem preventing citizens from owning and possessing self-defense tools.  Even arguing that it is the tool itself, not the criminal that upsets the balance of peace in homes and businesses, that threatens the peace of the inner-city.  Do they not remember the efforts of Florida and North Carolina to separate the gun from the blackness of men.  Florida Supreme Court Justice Rivers H. Buford, in 1941, ruled on the state’s gun-control laws (Watson v. Stone, 4 So. 2nd 703), stating, “The original Act of 1893 was passed when there was a great influx of Negro laborers into the state... The Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the Negro laborers... The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population, and in practice has never been so applied.”  Why do men and women whom pride themselves as modern civil rights leaders sound the same arguments in their defense in weakening the protections of men?  “Who cares about the confidentiality of a gun owner?  We don’t want it … ,” DC Councilwoman Yvette Alexander said during a hearing to control permit access to conceal carry guns in the District of Columbia.  It's amazing how much more comfortable we are promoting "recreational marijuana", the gateway drug to hardcore narcotics for so many addicts.  The government recognizes there is an industry in drug treatment and the City has a considerate and willing supporter of such operations: taxpayers.  A government that cares enough to protect men that do evil unto themselves is this same government that denies men the right to protect themselves from those that would do harm to themselves and their possessions.
Slavery and human trafficking yield a binding conundrum of trade, economics, immigration, politics and Faith.  A Nation that morally challenges the ability of the State to determine life and liberty for the many and the few and the right of man to own, possess and protect his individual property is destined to see its end in tyranny and corruption.  It is the Constitution penned by our Founding Fathers that, as fully as modernity can contemplate, observed and acknowledged the freedom and liberty of men given by God.  Clayton Cramer, in his landmark essay The Racist Roots of Gun Control, writes, “…gun control historically has been a tool of racism and associated with racist attitudes about black violence.  Similarly, many gun control laws impinge on that most fundamental of rights: self-defense.  Racism is so intimately tied to the history of gun control in America that we should regard gun control aimed at law-abiding people as a ‘suspect idea’ and require that the courts use the same demanding standards when reviewing the constitutionality of a gun control law that they use with respect to a law that discriminates based on race.”  Dr. Stephen Halbrook, Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming the Jews and “Enemies of the State” author, reminds us that it is not the Courts but the Voting booth that will cease the Left's fervent interests of replacing the Bill of Rights with a Declaration of Human Rights.  Yet, it is Jim Crow that many Metropolitan Areas "Civil Rights" leaders have been persuaded to enforce.  Having marched with Martin Luther King, Jr., the once oppressed have become the oppressors in gun control legislation, executive offices that hound military veterans and law abiding citizens and human rights activist courts. 

President Obama is facing one of the greatest repudiations of a progressive agenda since President Jimmy Carter's loss to President Ronald Reagan on Tuesday, November 4, 1980.  During an After-Shellacking Press Conference on November 5, 2014, President Obama said, "To those of you who voted, I hear you.  To those who didn't vote, "I hear you too."  It is a sign that the Ideologue-in-Chief is deaf to those that spoke with power in the voting booth and cognizant of those that silently threaten the sanctity of the Constitution with radical rhetoric from Ivory Towers.  Here's a message that we should all be able to agree upon:  

It is the Right of Free Men to
Defend Their Life, Liberty and Property
from Threats both Foreign and Domestic.
The one thing that we can agree upon is that the Second Amendment is a barrier between power and powerlessness, victor-hood and victim-hood and liberty for all and liberty for an elite few.  However, to whom shackles will be adorned when considering our founding documents, the best solution is vigilance in the voting booth and producing men and women of virtue to carry the flag of our natural rights against the formidable resistance of those that seek to deny us the true rights of God and men.