America Needs To Abandon HELPLESS Dependency On Middle East Oil, Just As Its Southern States Abandoned INHUMANE Slavery.

OK, I think I get it now:

American economy is GREATLY dependent on Middle East oil, much the same way the American South was heavily dependent on cheap, but INHUMANE slave labor.

That is why every American President has acted either as a slave (think of the Bushes kissing the asses of the Saudis) or a master (think of the Bushes in Iraq and Obama in Libya bullying bullies) to those Bedouins over there.

The South swore it could not survive without slave labor, but it did.

Now we just have to do the same with the rest of America, by convincing Americans that they can survive without Middle East oil, and to do what it takes to get themselves there -- alternative energies, anyone?

I know, I know you will state "it's easier said than done", but again think of the South and its "peculiar way of life", which caused the South to find out that "war is HELL", thanks to General Tecumseh Sherman -- no more LEGAL slave labor!

Peace be unto you all.

Osi Onyekwuluje: "Protect Right Of People To Elect U.S. Senators".

Letters to the Editor: Nov. 21

Protect right of people to elect U.S. senators

I disagree with those who seek the repeal of our Constitution's 17th Amendment's requirement that members of the U.S. Senate be elected by the people.

As a constitutionalist, I understand our Constitution is founded upon the self-evident truth that "we, the people" have certain God-given inalienable rights, paramount of which is our right to be governed only with "the consent of the governed."

So what is the best way to get our required consent, if not by us casting our votes directly for those seeking to govern us?

Before we let these folks mess with our sacred Constitution, let us be mindful of what they are asking us to do and why. They are asking us to give up our right to directly elect our senators for reasons which look suspiciously like political expediency, or worse.

Whatever the motive, such a repeal would will give the power to the people who least deserve to wield it for us — our legislators, who constantly fail us by their self-serving schemes and display for the world to see how incompetent many of them truly are.

And with their penchant for corrupt backroom dealing, the choice of U.S. senator, without the 17th Amendment, would most likely devolve into favors injuriously traded.

So count me as one who opposes repealing the 17th Amendment. Let "we, the people" rule.

Osi Onyekwuluje

Bowling Green


Read more: http://www.kentucky.com/2010/11/21/1534306/112110-letters.html?pageNum=3&&mi_pluck_action=page_nav#Comments_Container#ixzz15wMz3mFa

"17th Amendment Doesn’t Need To Be Repealed".

17th Amendment doesn’t need to be repealed

Friday, November 19, 2010 11:19 AM CST

I am writing to commend the editorial writer for authoring the piece which appeared in the Daily News, Wednesday, titled: “Repealing the 17th Amendment simply a bad idea.”

With all respect due those who have advocated such a course of action, it sounds to me like a few politicians are jumping on the “repeal” bandwagon for what I suspect is born of mere political expediency, rather than abiding principles.

The principles which should instead abide these folks, as well as us, are those principles embodied in our sacred Constitution, including the attacked Bill of Rights’ 17th Amendment.

Repealing the 17th Amendment does nothing but deprive “We, the people” our God given right to be masters (and mistresses) of our own destiny, and to have the power to select those who we will permit to serve us.

And most important, such a repeal will give the power to the people who least deserve to wield it for us - our legislators, who constantly fail us by their self-serving schemes, and display for the world to see, how incompetent many of them truly are.

And add to that scenario their penchant for corrupt backroom dealing, and we have a recipe for disaster in the making.

Thus, the choice of senator, without the 17th Amendment, will most likely be made when favors have been traded, without due regard being given to the public welfare.

So count me as one who opposes repealing the 17th Amendment.

I say: Let “We, the people” decide our own fates.

Osi Onyekwuluje

Bowling Green

Leave our daughters alone.

Here is a link to my letter to the Louisville Courier-Journal Editor regarding the proposed bill in the Kentucky Legislature MANDATING the HPV vaccination of our young daughters. It is reprinted below. Tell me what you think:


courier-journal.com > Opinion >

Saturday, February 10, 2007
E-mail this | Print page

The vaccine debate

'Leave daughters alone'

Much has been written about the need for girls to get the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccine.

HPV is linked to cervical cancer and is transmitted through sexual contact.

Texas, where an executive order made it the first and only state mandating HPV vaccination for girls entering fifth grade, is now attempting to legislatively reverse the order.

Legislators cite the governor's incestuous relationship with Merck, the drug maker, which is bankrolling efforts nationwide to mandate the vaccinations, as well as costs, safety concerns and the governor's lack of authority.

Those concerns are very legitimate. Add to that my concern whether our government needs to act as "Superparent"to our children. I suggest our government leave our daughters alone.

HPV, like HIV, which causes AIDS, is a bad virus. But no good can come from an edict denying parents their natural right to decide what is in their children's best interests -- especially for such a lifestyle-choice virus, which is not a true public threat.

An obviously true public threat, tuberculosis, which is airborne and doesn't need direct contact to spread, demands mandatory vaccination. HPV, which isn't airborne, doesn't.

We invite our government to resist the pressure of Merck's lobbying power, as well as the urge to play our Big Brother.

OSI ONYEKWULUJE

Bowling Green, Ky. 42102

Click here to see where the C_J stands on this issue.

***** Since Kelo, 'No property is safe.' *****

In view of the STILL ongoing battle in many jurisdictions, including Kentucky, to prevent government abuse of its Eminent Domain power, I thought I post my column , which previously appeared in the Courier-Journal soon after the KELO case was WRONGLY decided by the U. S Supreme Court, on my new blog site, so as to alert those who may NOT understand what is going on with this issue.
Here is my column in its entirety. Enjoy:

"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence."

Our Founding Father, John Adams, spoke these words to an infant nation reeling from the scars of the tyranny of King George.

In Kelo v. New London, the Supreme Court makes it clear our property is no longer sacred. The decision, which allowed local governments to constitutionally seize our private property for economic development, is an occasion to reflect on Adams' words.

Kelo can now join dubious others, like Dred Scott. Scott can be remembered as a decision that helped instigate the Civil War. Then, the Court wrongly invalidated the Missouri Compromise in order to deny Scott, a slave, his unalienable right to liberty.

Kelo has now wrongly invalidated the "People's Compromise" (by which we ceded our unalienable property right to our government for compensated public uses, such as for road or highway construction) in order to deny us that liberty.

While our Constitution requires a public "use" to seize private property, Kelo required only a public "purpose."
Understandably, this judicial legislating prompted Justice Sandra Day O'Connor to proclaim that no private property is safe.
Until a conservative majority of the Court rights this wrong, we must continually have liberty proclaimed throughout our land, and elect judges and legislators who will protect our property rights -- not covet them.

OSI ONYEKWULUJE
Attorney at Law
Bowling Green, Ky. 42102

Forcing faith is what Dictators do!

Here is the link to my article that was published in the Courier-Journal. It is published below in its entirety.

"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein." -- Justice Robert Jackson in Virginia Board of Education v Barnette (1943).


As a citizen and Patriot who immigrated to America alone as a teen over 26 years ago, I, too, love my country and would not burn its flag. However, those like Heather French Henry who insist on a constitutional amendment to punish the misguided few flag burners are elevating form (the symbolic flag) over substance (the Constitution) and attempting to use a constitutional "missile" to crush offensive flag-burning "gnats."

We must, therefore, heed the Court's admonition about forcing faith. Only dictatorships and oppressive regimes, such as Saddam Hussein's former Iraqi regime and North Korea, delight in doing so. And we ought not to join their ignominious company!

So while I admire Mrs. Henry's "activism" on the flag burning issue, as reported in the Courier-Journal article of June 30, entitled Henry recounts record, reasons for her activism, I must disagree with some of her comments:

(1) Contrary to her assertions contained in her letter to Editor, the U. S. Supreme Court did not "re-interpret the Constitution's definition of speech … to fit their political agenda." There was never a previous interpretation by the Court regarding flag burning as it relates to the first amendment to “re-interpret”, and the Court's members, who do not have to run for office, have no political agenda.
(2) The 14th Amendment corrected the Court in the Dred Scott case to give to black people protection mentioned by the drafters of the Constitution. There is no corollary mention of the flag by those same drafters.
(3) Mrs. Henry’s quotation of Abraham Lincoln recognized the revocability of Supreme Court opinions. This merely suggests that pro-amendment folks need to convince the Court to change its mind on this issue, rather than to seek constitutional amendment.
(4) It is illegal to burn the dollar (which incidentally is a more widely recognized American symbol around the world than our flag!) because it is government property. A flag belongs to its owner who purchased the same.
(5) Reciting the pledge of allegiance is not a binding contract; consideration may be lacking if not inadequate. Rather, the act is based on faith.

Thus, there is no reason to question the priorities of our leaders, such as Sen. Mitch McConnell, as Henry does, when they vote to protect our Constitution from those who would use it for political expediency in an election year.