We've moved!

Social Icons

twitterfacebooklinkedinrss feed

Thursday, August 27, 2009

Jason Bjorklund Calls 9/12 Project Meeting in Madison Saturday

Madison resident and "Fellow Patriot" Jason Lee Bjorklund buys a quarter of page 6 in tonight's Madison Daily Leader to send this message. I republish here in near entirety, because I think it's interesting... and because I'm warming for some serious critique tomorrow.

What is a 9.12er?

Does it bother you that our government is stealing trillions of dollars from future generations to try and spend their way out of a recession?!? Do you expect the same government that is bankrupting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid to finally get it right with Socialized Medicine?!? Do you want your doctor to check the budget and sort patients by age before scheduling your surgery?!? Does it alarm you that our government is seizing control of banks and automakers? Does it make sense to drain our pockets and jeopardize national security by refusing to drill for our own natural resources to make ourselves energy independent? Do you think Gehl Manufacturing will survive the excessive taxes if Cap and Trade passes?!? Are you comfortable with surrendering essential liberties for the false security provided by the Patriot Act? Does the word "czar" make your skin crawl?

I am just a regular guy. I absolutely hate politics. I cannot say that strongly enough. I HATE POLITICS! The politicians, through their actions, have forced me to watch them like a hawk. They have forced me to start reading bills that they, themselves, refuse to read. They have forced me to study and relearn American History, American Civics, Philosophy... and I am going to make them pay for it! I was happy carving out my little niche in life, blissfully unaware of the fundamental changes taking place in our government and society. That is, until I noticed those changes affecting every facet of my life and the lives of those around me.

The politicians, both Republicans and Democrats, are building an unsustainable system of government that is out of line with the U.S. Constitution, our founding principles, and common sense. I am learning that the tags of Republican and Democrat are meaningless. They are designed to divide us and set us against one another. Do you believe that your money is best spent by you, not the government? Do you believe that individuals have the right to bear arms? Do you believe that marriage is between a man and a woman? Do you believe that you have a right to own private property? Do you believe that an unborn baby is a living human being? Do you believe that our country's principles, values, beliefs, and traditions should be preserved? Do you believe that our rights are unalienable because they are bestowed by God? Then now is the time to stand up and speak out! We must stand together to preserve the form of government our founders set forth!

The last line of the Declaration of Independence states, "...with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutally pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor." To that end, I firmly pledge to you... my Life, my Fortune, and my sacred Honor. I have drawn a line in the sand. I will stand shoulder to should with you to defend it. To that end, I helped start, and currently lead, the Madison 9.12 Project. The madison 9.12 Project is a grassroots movement to bring together people of common principles and values to make a stand against anything that threatens our right to Life, Liberty, and our pursuit of Happiness.

[Grassroots organizer Bjorklund then proceeds to list nearly verbatim the 9 Principles and 12 Values that unite "us" defined by the 9/12 Project's national leader, corporate media entertainer Glenn Beck.—ed.]

If you agree with these principles and values, consider joining us! You can get more information at www.meetup.com/madison9-12project.

On Saturday, August 29th at 6:00pm the Madison 9.12 Project is hosting a Potluck Picnic at Westside (Pool) Park. We will be joined by members of the Sioux Falls, Mitchell, and Canton groups. If you agree with our group's principles and values, feel free to join us! Bring your family! The more the merrier!

Feeling surrounded? Stay tuned... and hey, Travis! Maybe we've got our first challenger for Thune! (Of course, now that Thune is pro-choice, do we want to dump him?)


  1. Why is it that people have attitudes of a "set it and forget it" government? It seems this individual wants a government that he doesn't have to think about or engage, that should leave him alone to do as he and his family pleases (but should also force gays, lesbians, and atheists to accommodate for his lifestyle).

    Is this some sort of weird amalgamation of libertarianism and fascism?

    Anywho, I am always for people getting more involved in politics, so good for him.

    I am also curious how intends to make the politicians/government pay for making him learn...

  2. Joe:

    It's the Dunning-Kruger effect:


    The Glenn Becks of the world are just getting people to be more vocal. They have a super limited bit of knowledge that they think qualifies them as experts on government. By listening to these talking heads their confidence is just constantly reinforced until they start feeling the need to preach the truth.

    The sad part is that if you try to educate them, the info doesn't match with what they've heard hundreds of times before so they dismiss it out of hand. It's self reinforcing too.

  3. Steve Sibson8/28/2009 4:16 PM


    I know Jason and I know that you don't.

    Joe, do you understand Natural Law? And now about you Tony. do you understand Natural Law?

  4. Steve,

    Sure, it's a theory that states some laws are set by nature and are therefore valid everywhere. It's a very old way of looking at the natural world and came primarily from our lack of understanding. Many groups have invoked it throughout the ages as a means of control over their populations.

    It fails because you can always find example where "natural" laws fail. It's basically like saying without proof that common sense dictates something therefore it is correct.

    I've seen it being invoked recently by far right Christians that are trying to "prove" the existence of god. Pretty funny when you think about it.

  5. Steve Sibson8/28/2009 10:00 PM


    That is completely wrong. The Declaration states "Nature's Law and God's Nature". THe groups you talk about incluse the Founding Fathers. Natural is God's will. This goes back to Cicero. You are in need of real education.

  6. Steve,

    That makes perfect sense. "God" has certainly given us a complete set of rules by which to follow. In fact, I bet "god" publishes a new set of rules every year for us to follow. Let me get them out....

    "Natural Law" is simply people's interpretations of nature. People then take those interpretations and try to apply them broadly to our system of laws and try to make new law using "Natural Law" as a justification. The problem here is that since nature doesn't explicitly tell us the law, people have to interpret it. See the problem here? PEOPLE HAVE TO INTERPRET.

    Steve, you understanding of natural law is limited. Please refer to:


    for your future education.

  7. Steve Sibson8/29/2009 1:10 PM


    Wikipedia is written by the same Progressives who want to destroy the true Natural Law and replace it with man-made law. I have already read it, along with most everything else I can find on the subject. If you want a real education read the links I have under my Natural Law section at Sibby Online. Example:

    Amos traces the Declaration's concept of the "pursuit of happiness" as an "unalienable right" given by the Creator to Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765), where Blackstone had written that God had "so inseparably interwoven the laws of eternal justice with the happiness of each individual, that the latter cannot be attained but by observing the former" (p. 120). According to Blackstone, man's happiness meant his sense of blessedness in his earthly existence due to obeying the Creator's laws. The word itself comes from the Latin word beatus, immediately reminding us of the "beatitudes" of Christ's Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5), and it is also found in the Old and New Testaments.

    Amos shows that it is a mistake to trace the rights theory of the Declaration not to the Catholic canonists but to the Renaissance humanists, for "the humanists of the Renaissance did not believe in the creation account, natural law, or rights from nature or creation. They rejected the Catholic ideas, based on the Biblical account of creation and society (but) simply accepted the classical Roman view" (p. 121). While Calvinists and Spanish Dominicans continued to link natural rights to "the laws of nature and God," the humanists "insisted that all rights were state-created, not God-given.... (They) were true naturalists in the secular sense. . . . Law was whatever a particular society determined it to be, They did not believe in a transcendent moral order that binds human laws" (p. 122). Amos quotes Tuck as follows: "The Renaissance concept (of property) belonged to a theory in which the natural life of man was right-less and therefore property-less, while the Thomist believed that by nature man did possess certain limited rights" (p, 123). Amos then quotes Brian Tierney on our precious and for the most part ignored medieval Christian-rights heritage:

    The doctrine of individual rights was not a late medieval aberration from an earlier tradition of objective right or of natural moral law. Still less was it a seventeenth-century invention of Suarez or Hobbes or Locke. Rather, it was a characteristic product of the great age of creative jurisprudence that, in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, established the foundations of the Western legal tradition (p. 124).

    Amos rightly adds that "If Tierney is right. . . then much of what passes for the history of political theory and rights development being taught in colleges and universities in America needs to be tossed in the wastebasket." He also concludes that

    Although the West received the bulk of its political freedoms and scientific vision from the impact of Christianity and the church, the church rarely gets credit for its role in the development of Western political freedoms or science. . . .

    . . . modern society is trying to act on occidental secular concepts, as well as attribute Western achievements to them, That is why Western society is in the same early stages of dysfunction that preceded the fall of Greece and Rome, Having denied both the source and the rationale for the best in Western culture, we are quickly moving into the twilight era of Western freedom and the ultimate demise of free Christian society. . . .

  8. Steve:

    Gotcha, you believe in a sky god. I don't. We won't see eye to eye on this subject and it can't be debated because it's based on the supernatural. Either you have "faith" in natural law or not.

  9. Steve & Tony,
    I have heard of Natural Law, and have read into it previously, specifically in the works of C.S. Lewis.

    Whether or not Natural Law is fact has no bearing on this issue. We can't legislate ideas or thoughts. We can't force people to think a certain way (Theism or Atheism). In order for America to survive as it is, compromise has to exist where opposing people (like you and Tony) still have to live in the same world and agree to disgree. It is very evident that both of you have your own ideas of what truth/fact is, and I am sure both of you have millions of people who would back you up. So who is right? Whose "right" should be the basis our laws?

    Ultimately, America is about democracy, about majority rule with special emphasis on minority rights. It is not a system to discover/defend truth, it is a system built to survive.


  10. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

    I don't see an exclusionary clause for fundamentalist Christians. Those who would hold down homosexuals do a greater disservice to this country than our former oppressors. We should, by now, know better.

    But who am I kidding, pretending a Beck disciple will realize he supports the blatant oppression of a group of Americans?

    This Bjorklund scares me, because he hates politics, but magically acquired more knowledge than everyone else. He has apparently studied philosophy. I would love nothing more than to have a philosophical discussion with Bjorklund. I would guess he was Machiavellian while Bush was in office, and now would denounce Obama for his authoritarianism. And he probably would see nothing wrong with that.

    And as for earlier comments, perhaps it would help to think of natural law not as something handed down by some unknown entity, but as an evolutionary phenomenon that progressed over years and years.

    And Corey (I think?), look at the last few comments of this post: http://theamericannews.net/election/?p=1020#comment-3418

    Just interested to see what you think.

  11. Joe: America as survival mechanism, not quest for truth—brilliant! I owe you another rubdown. ;-)

  12. Steve Sibson8/30/2009 12:16 PM


    Sorry, but one of us is right and one is wrong. Either there is a God, or there is not. There is no in between.

    And once you use logic, reason, and an open mind, it becomes obvious that it takes more faith to belief there is "no" God. I think CS Lewis should have made that point for you.

  13. Steve, I doubt if you can even prove there is a Steve Sibson, much less a God in heaven. I'm just sayin'. Let's start small, and work our way up, whaddya say?

    I'll put a post up on the Forum this week.

  14. Steve:

    You can't prove something that is super natural. Scientists figured that out a long time ago. We assume nothing can be proven absolutely. We only have theories, which can be disproved. Which then leads to improved theories.

    If there is a god and it wished to make itself known it certainly could, unlimited power and all of that. For some reason, it chooses not to, or it doesn't exist.

    Why believe in something that intentionally hides itself? Isn't the simpler answer that the magical thing doesn't exist?


Comments are closed, as this portion of the Madville Times is in archive mode. You can join the discussion of current issues at MadvilleTimes.com.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.