Tag Archives: collectivism

The Enemy is Collectivism

Politicians right and left have been fighting each other for decades over the spoils of the emerging fascist state in our midst. Polarization along Republican and Democrat party lines has not led to a stalemate, as traditional political theory might predict.

The abandonment of Constitutional limitations intended to check all forms of collectivism with the enshrinement of individual rights has led America not to a dangerous fork in the road, but to a convergence of nationalist and socialist policies culminating in a haphazard form of fascism.

It is not the argument of this article that those on the right and left necessarily intend to create a fascist state in America.  But both sides are playing a game of high stakes poker, whereby each side places taxpayer chips in either society or the church or the environment or the military, thereby currying favor with interest groups through the “democratic” process; this is the mechanism that leads to an ever-more powerful state.

Now, the hard left may bet blindly that the road to socialism is to guide capitalism through the death throes of fascism (viz. government control of property), leading to the destruction of private property.  The right may bet that its corporate sponsors can harness the state to hedge against risk and occasionally plunder the American public when deemed appropriate. But regardless of intentions, if each side continues unabated in violation of the Constitution, we will all likely find ourselves licking jackboots.

The ultra-right is essentially nationalist, while the hard left is almost thoroughly socialist. It is the sad state of affairs that America’s political spectrum now makes the most sense if viewed through the lens of pre-revolutionary France. American conservatives should be thought of as Constitutionalists who endorse liberty, and therefore should not be classified on either the right or the left of the collectivist spectrum. Conservatism as a term doesn’t make sense in this context, since the shared goal of American patriots is to promote freedom through limited government. This is hardly a “conservative” ideal opposed to social or economic progress.

Drawing on our political framework, today’s Republican party can be categorized and referred to as the political right; and the Democrat party, the political left. This is a generalization only, and is not indicative of the degree of radicalism in each party.  The Democrat party is more radical in its degree of socialism than the Republican party is in terms of its nationalism (as opposed to patriotism, which in America means reverence for the Constitution).

Both parties can be better understood if shot through the prism of turn-of-the-century progressive politics: The Republicans cut from the cloth of Teddy Roosevelt; and the Democrats, of Woodrow Wilson. Progressivism can be seen as America’s peculiar form of proto-fascism. For all intents and purposes, the term “right” refers mainly to the Republican party, and the “left” predominately (though not exclusively) to the Democrat party.

Today’s right is comprised of nationalists who predominately put up staged, phony fights on behalf of liberty and the Constitution; promote a police state in the name of “security”; seek to export “democracy” to third-world hell-holes where the population has no grasp of the basics of a free society; spend like half-deranged lunatics; and battle hardest to garner perquisites for their corporate sponsors.

Today’s left is filled with lotus-chewing socialist moonbats who endorse wealth redistribution and suicidal economics; build crony coalitions using divide-and-conquer politics; oppose all forms of reasonable self-defense against terrorists; vilify and attack whites and Christians; and essentially war against the social freedom they purport most to stand for.

Whether through ideological affinity or mutual lust for power, the lack of the right and left’s effective opposition against each other results in a perverse form of collaboration that is a recipe for disaster: Nationalists essentially cooperating with socialists.

Each side seems to have brokered a devil’s bargain: The right has winked to the left “give us war and national defense and we will give you social and domestic issues.” The Constitution is a punchline to both parties, and the joke’s on us.

The American people have been subjected to an incrementally escalating psychological warfare campaign carried out by cultural Marxists for decades. As America was being built up on the right, mostly on militaristic grounds, the progressives were ransacking the culture and the economy.

While the capitalist economy was being imperceptibly undermined through institutions like the Federal Reserve and the graduated income tax, the leftist media conditioned people’s perception of economic reality, namely, by vilifying free market capitalism.  Living at the future’s expense through debt and the illusory “wealth creation” scheme of the Federal Reserve afforded us the luxury of psychological denial.

Cultural Marxists undertook the campaign decades ago because the American economy defied the predictions of traditional Marxists. Instead of industrialization and the advanced capitalist economy leading to decreasing wages and a diminished standard of living for workers, American capitalism lifted more people out of poverty than in any country in the history of the world.

Socialists needed a way to defeat America as a shining example of the failure of Marxist theory to predict the improvement of the overwhelming majority of people’s lives under capitalism.

The steady erosion of the economic base began with the establishment of the Federal Reserve Bank, a central banking system comprised of a consortium of private banks, and the establishment of a graduated income tax. These were two planks straight out of the Communist Manifesto, instituted under the “progressive” Woodrow Wilson in 1913.

With the progressives’ establishment of national tax laws and private-public institutions such as the Federal Reserve (and later Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac), the state was able to violate private property, which cordons off and harnesses self-interest for the good of the economy as a whole.

They were then able to degrade the economy from within over decades through the Fed’s devaluation of the currency, which benefits Wall Street at the expense of those further along in the circulation of the money supply (money is most valuable when it is first introduced into the economy).

This scheme provided perverse incentives for the pursuit of wealth in the private sector, and led to increasing burdens on the American family through incremental dollar devaluation.

With these institutions established, the Marxists then set out to convince Americans that all the economic disruption and greed around them was the fault of monolithic “free market capitalism.” It would be well to note that even the Soviet Union and Maoist China had forms of currency, that didn’t make them “capitalists.”

After the 1929 stock market crash, the “progressives” seized the day to condemn capitalism, in the sense that it stood as a barrier to the power of the state to “do good” for the American people. Never mind that history damns the actions of government in both the Hoover and FDR administrations as fruitless and an obstruction to any economic resurgence along the lines of the 1920 natural recovery.

The Federal Reserve gave the game away when after the stock market crash in 1929 it contracted the money supply by raising interest rates, in direct contravention of its charter. This exacerbated the deteriorating economic conditions, made cash “king,” and allowed big banks to gobble up smaller insolvent banks like guppies in a small pond.

After the banks had consolidated control, the Fed rapidly expanded credit, which led to yet another crash in 1937. Perhaps one can do no better to sum up the economic policies of the ever Great(er) Depression than to quote FDR’s Secretary of the Treasury Hans Morgenthau:

“We are spending more money than we have ever spent before, and it does not work. After eight years we have just as much unemployment as when we started, and an enormous debt to boot.”

But one of the most powerful images that persists in the public mind is that of FDR “saving America” from the hardship wrought by capitalism, “the god that failed.” FDR is consistently ranks among scholars in the top five presidents of all time, along with men like Abraham Lincoln and George Washington. Ronald Reagan gets no more than a nodding acknowledgment.

After the Great Depression, the cultural Marxists had the exemplar they needed to proceed without abandon in deriding “capitalism” as the source of all our country’s woes. The hunger and poverty of the Depression years provided all the imagery the leftists needed to paint any and all opposition to state interventionism as heartless, cruel, and even moronic.

Side by side with the civil rights movement, which Republicans supported and many Democrats opposed, cultural Marxists backed the statists in their drive to build a welfare state and to undertake large national projects. The result, over time, was increasing government interference, the disruption of markets and the perverse incentives provided by regulations and tax loopholes, escalating spending, debt, inefficiency and waste. All of this, of course, was “capitalism’s” fault.

After Goldwater was demonized as a “Nazi” for advocating free markets (economists, try to figure that one out), the man who would become most hated and vilified by the leftist press would be Ronald Reagan.

Reagan was hated for the powerful manner he was able to positively articulate the greatness of America, including free market capitalism. By the time of the 1980s, however, many leftists were convinced that advocating private property and the rule of law was a plot to fortify corporations’ stranglehold on the economy.

The media abrogated its responsibility as watchdogs for the American people and become corporatist lapdogs who never saw a big government program they didn’t like. Notice not a single mainstream media organization opposed the bailouts, as long as it was their man who was doling out the public treasury.

The press, increasingly undermined by corporations who enjoyed the privileges reaped from fascistic government programs, have become transmission belts for corporate welfare and big government advocacy. What appears to Americans as “left” in this country is often fascism disguised as “progressivism” or “soft socialism.”

Now that the American people are catching on, through alternative media sources such as the Internet and “right-wing” radio (i.e. any radio host who promotes responsibility, liberty, and the rule of law) the media has to ridicule conservatives as “kooks,” “lunatics,” and “fringe” elements. This in a predominately center-right country that gets on an instinctive level that what the government is doing is harmful and self-defeating.

Though the left’s cultural Marxist tactics are outdated and people are catching on to the fascist game going on, there is a danger that the push back may be too little, too late. Nationalists (or neo-conservatives) and socialists (or progressives) seem to be playing a game of musical chairs, accumulating governmental power for a present or future dictator within the bounds of each politician’s respective party, building a welfare-police state that never seems to get rolled back. The results? Well, let’s just say that those aware of history have seen this all before.

The media will continue to call conservatives crazy and racists and insist that we are ignorant, delusional, and dangerous for opposing big government led by any statist; be his name Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, or Barack Obama. But we are for liberty, we are for the Constitution, and we are not fooling around.

The past four presidents have not for stood for liberty or the Constitution.  President Bush Sr. decreed a ban on offshore oil drilling that would make any radical environmentalist proud.  President Clinton promoted the police state through support for the electronic spy project Echelon.  Bush Jr. did not just pass the Patriot Act, he created a massive new entitlement program with the prescription drug package Medicare Part D.  President Obama is not only recklessly spending America into oblivion, he has continued the Patriot Act, turned the Department of Homeland Security against the civilian population, continued the program of extraordinary rendition, and endorsed the assassination of terrorists, even if American citizens.  And he has done it all under the banner of creating “hope and change.”

Mitt Romney leads much to be desired as far as a pro-liberty champion is concerned. But we have to view promoting freedom in this nation as a long-term project, and any realistic advance in that direction has to be seized up. One has to hold free speech rights highest as a priority, since this is ultimately a cultural battle for the hearts and minds of America. If we are right, we can eventually win this struggle.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are our main legal guidelines to controlling both the political right and left.  What we have come to learn in our time is that neither document is self-enforcing. Transforming a nation founded on freedom and liberty to a predatory police state would indeed be a “change.” The only hope it has inspired for the majority of us, however, is that the American people are finally waking up and are poised to put government back in its box, for our own good and that of our posterity.

The Equality and Fairness Doctrine. Is it Racist?

The left in America has pushed this Equality and Fairness doctrine for decades believing that it is needed in America because America is inherently a racist nation.  One belief by Liberals is that employers or the bourgeoisie are naturally racist against those of “color.”  When someone goes in for a job interview, and there are multiple applicants to that same position, an employer makes a decision on who is best qualified for that position based on the applicants abilities.  If all of the applicants have the same abilities, then the employer uses the interview as the deciding factor.  Liberals in America tend to insinuate that employers higher less individuals based on the color of their skin, than on their ability. This might happen in a extremely small percentage of cases in this great nation.  However, that said, for Liberals to force employers to employ individuals based on the color of their skin regardless of their skill, is a terrible idea for both the employee and employer.  Why? You are creating an entitlement mentality in the person who is being employed. In turn, they will believe that they deserve certain privileges in life based on the color of their skin.  That alone is contradictory to what Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wanted in American society.  Dr King, wanted people to be judged by the content of their character and NOT the color of their skin.  This is not lost to the American Left.  The left does not care about fairness or equality in the terms that most Americans understand it, period.  It is about power and control only.  If the left cared about individuals succeeding in America. They would  would support the Constitution and the rule of law, where everyone has an “equal” chance based on hard work, and merit, not the color of their skin.

     Going back to what I was saying about being bad for the employer that is forced to higher someone who may not be qualified for a job, yet has to take that individual on as an employee because of some arbitrary quota. Let us say, for instance, that this person does not have the proper skill set to perform the task at hand.  If person A(has blue skin color) works for an employer that produces widgets and has green skin, notices that person A is not performing the task that is required. The “bourgeoisie” then has to take time away from his work schedule to try and speak with person A about their bad job performance.  Now, person B(green skin) may face a lawsuit, because person A was given this job based on the color of his/her skin color.  So now the employee will feel entitled to this job, when individuals are given special considerations over another person or group of individuals who can actually perform the task at hand, it creates an entitlement mentality.  So now, the “bourgeoisie” or the employer is unable to fire person A because of their terrible job performance.  Person B is forced to either continue to employee Person A who cannot perform the tasks that are needed, or find another position that Person A can handle, thus creating another problem that could bring about a lawsuit.  If Person B tells Person A that his skill set is not up to par with the standards of the business or the other employees, Person A will consider it to be a “colorist,” statement,  not a racist one, because we are all the same race, proven by procreation.  So now, enter groups like ACLU, NAACP, any group willing to rocket themselves to the center of a problem that was based on the very laws that were forced on the country in the first place, under the guise of “fairness” and “equality.”  How is it fair to employ someone based on the color of their skin and not merit?  What happens if they quit and try to get another job, and cannot, because they have no actual set of skills to perform at higher job levels?  This creates a perpetual problem that no one in this country is really addressing. When conservatives do try and address the underlying issue, Liberals throw the race card around, because they cannot defend their own policies that actually add to any racism in America.  When you constantly tell a certain group of individuals that they are entitled to something, base on how they look, they finally believe it.  Then the problem of racism continues and does not get better.  Which brings me to a few individuals who help perpetuate the problem of “fairness” and “equality.”

     When we become a nation of men and not laws, we enter into situations as I just finished explaining.  President Obama, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, all call for “fairness” and “equality” on the basis of white versus color , rich versus poor, Liberal versus Conservative, and yet none of these arguments are based on merit.  If you have worked hard and earned a good living for yourself, based on merit and the free market system, then it was because of all those other people that you accomplished what you now have.  So now, you must pay more in return for your hard work, to benefit the collective.  If they really wanted equality, why cannot I have fifteen minutes of air time on Al Sharpton’s XM radio show?  Why cannot I not sit in the Oval Office?  The reason being, is, I am not qualified for those positions, not because of my skin color, but because I do not have the proper skills to fill those positions.  I have not worked hard and earned those positions based on the merit of my hard work.  When did those ideas get flushed down the drain?  Why has this culture of dependency and Liberalism taken over such a great nation.  Look at the differences between America now and fifty years ago.  The difference is more people worked hard for what they have.  Now a large portion of America works harder to get what they did not earn.  Why? Liberalism is a parasite on American Tradition, it is a culture of “emotion,” and “collectivism.”  No where in the Left Wing Parties ideals is it based on the merit of the individual.  They draw their ideas from the ten pillars of communism.  If they had any original thoughts, America would not be able to compare so much of their rhetoric to the fallen Soviet Union.

     The past few months in this country have been ridiculous to watch.  So many leaders of the Black Community, on the left of course, are saying that asking an “individual” for their identification card to vote is racist.  Why would they say this?

     One: It is about power and control over the minds of democratic voters, period.

     Two: When Conservatives try to bring this topic up and ask for evidence to prove that this would actually suppress the vote of the black community.  They(leftists or Communists) just continue to throw out the race card and race bait.  They cannot and do not ever offer evidence on how it would actually suppress the vote of minorities.

     Three: The left cannot win elections on merit or hard work, or even rational thought.  They have to use deceit and fraudulent tactics to win elections in today’s society. Even find a way to bring back the dead to vote for them.

     Four: If there was a way for us to validate those who vote, liberals would not be able to use organizations like ACORN to bus voters around the country to different polling stations to vote multiple times to win elections for them.  At the end of the day, America has to make a choice.  If you apply common sense to anything the communists on the left say, it falls flat at your feet.  However, if you want to live off of other peoples dime and hard work, then the left is for you.  If you believe America is racist, oppressive, arrogant, greedy, the Progressive/Liberal/Marxist Party is for you.

On the other hand, IF you believe America was based on the merit of the individual, the content of someone’s character, and NOT the color of their skin. If you embrace economic freedom, liberty, private property rights, voting laws that make sense, true equal opportunity.  Then welcome to the world of Conservatism.

 

The New Enemy Part I: Collectivism

What the men who wrote our constitution had in mind was a government based on Individual Rights, one that was a government not based in power, but in responsibility to its constituents. This collection of extremely intelligent and well read men put together the finest governing document that had ever been written and it remains a blueprint for other countries to base their constitutions on. I believe that Divine Providence intervened and brought the most intelligent men on the American Continent together to produce this exquisite document.
At the time of the Founding of the United States of America, Engels and Marx had not written any critiques of their philosophy of collectivism. This is not to say that there were not societies that practiced collectivism before the Communist Manifesto was published. One look at some of the city states of Greece answers that question. One of the attributes of Great Britain that our Founders fought against was a hereditary succession wherein the inheritor was not guaranteed to be as smart or as wise as his predecessor. This type of government, monarchy, invested all the power of the state into the king or queen, with or without a parliament that suggested laws to be passed. The American Revolution was also based on the iniquity of taxation without representation. Now, we find ourselves fighting a different kind of evil, the malevolence of statism, collectivism or Marxism.
Where did the organized philosophy of Collectivism start? Many will say it started with Engels and Marx treatise. However, the foundation of this socio-economic philosophy came from many men before them, but the most influential writings for Marx and Engels were those of Ludwig Feuerbach. He served to be a bridge from Hegel to Marx and Engels. Feuerbach thought of himself, along with others, to be the herald of a new culture. His later writings were concerned with developing a materialistic humanism and an ethics of human solidarity.
Marx and Engels were materialists who were trying to bring about social change by way of a political and economic ideology. All of Marx’s early writings are based in Feuerbach’s theory of human nature. Later writings of Marx indicate a break with Feuerbach, but his initial influence is what Marx used to continue down his philosophical road. It is the collectivism of Marx and Engels that the left wing of the Democratic Party, and several “liberals” in the GOP, has foisted upon the people of this country.
Collectivism has come to mean many different things. We are all part of the collective of human beings that live on Earth, the 3rd planet from the sun in the Solar System named Sol, in the galaxy of the Milky Way, in the Universe. Focusing on earth, we have many collectives all over her surface. There are Europeans, North Americans, South Americans, Chinese, and so on. Further down into our small cosmos there are Germans, Chinese, Americans, Brazilians, Peruvians, Canadians and on down to each of our communities. And communities can be broken down into neighborhoods, which can be categorized by race, ethnicity, economic fortunes, the young, the old. In other words, each person on earth belongs to not one collective, but numerous ones.
Some collectives are not immoral, but a result of a person’s birth circumstances. The collectives that people choose to join are not all malevolent. Some are, such as the NEA teacher’s union. Some people are forced into collectives or put into the pigeonholes of identity by virtue of human attributes, such as skin color. Marxism requires humans to be seen as part of a group of people so as to more easily manipulate them into doing what the power mongers desire.
The aim of the engineers of the collective in the United States at this time is to make every single citizen dependent on the government for everything, much like the set up that was tried in the old Soviet Union. Forget that that model didn’t work. The Utopians will tell you that the Soviets didn’t run it correctly, and they will this time, and they will achieve nirvana.
In order to control people, there are certain requirements that the “masses” must adhere to; the inability to question what they are told, the “herd” mentality which must be instilled into the people at a very young age, the fundamental changing of the language, engaging in rhetoric rather than logical arguments to certain philosophical ideas and altruism must be part of the process as well.
“Individualism is at once an ethical-psychological concept and an ethical-political one. As an ethical-psychological concept, individualism holds that a human being should think and judge independently, respecting nothing more than the sovereignty of his or her mind; thus, it is intimately connected with the concept of autonomy. As an ethical-political concept, individualism upholds the supremacy of individual rights…” — Nathaniel Branden
“The foundation of individualism lies in one’s moral right to pursue one’s own happiness. This pursuit requires a large amount of independence, initiative, and self-responsibility.
“But true individualism entails cooperating with others through trade, which facilitates the pursuit of each party’s happiness, and which is carried out not just on the level of goods but on the level of knowledge and friendship. Trade is essential for life; it provides one with many of the goods and values one needs. Creating an environment where trade flourishes is of great importance and great interest for the individualist.
“Politically, true individualism means recognizing that one has a right to his own life and happiness. But it also means uniting with other citizens to preserve and defend the institutions that protect that right.” — Shawn E. Klein
“Collectivism is defined as the theory and practice that makes some sort of group rather than the individual the fundamental unit of political, social, and economic concern. In theory, collectivists insist that the claims of groups, associations, or the state must normally supersede the claims of individuals.” — Stephen Grabill and Gregory M. A. Gronbacher
“Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group — whether to a race, class or state does not matter. Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called ‘the common good’.” — Ayn Rand
As you can see from the quotes, collectivism and individualism are very different. Collectives are groups of individuals working for the good of the group and are usually at the expense of the individual. The collective is seen as an identity having the power to think, have ideas, have a purpose and is able to act to bring about this purpose. This is what we as freedom loving citizens must fight on a daily basis in our personal lives and in our political system. The statists have taken over our congress and the White House. Never before in the history of the United States has our culture been under such fierce attack.
We are told in order to be “good people” we must sacrifice our hard earned money to satisfy the altruistic ideals of the left wing. We are told that all cultures are equal when they are not. The Democratic Party has turned into the Socialist Democratic Party. They have turned Blacks against whites, creating a voter base of approximately 99% of the Blacks that vote. They have turned Hispanics against Blacks and Whites, creating another voter base that primarily votes for their candidates. They have turned the poor against the rich, making them think that they are entitled to the fruits of the rich person’s labor. Corporations have been demonized as taking your hard earned money and giving their CEOs outrageous salaries and bonuses which they could not possibly work for. And they have turned a great number of people against the Republican Party by using demagoguery.
Our fight must be on all levels of the political system of our country. We must take over the city halls, the town counsels, the states’ congresses and Governorships. We must throw out those that have become comfortable in the jobs that they feel entitled to. We no longer have any statesmen; however, there may be a few in the House of Representatives and the Senate at this point that may become Statesmen. The Democratic Party has had more time than the Republicans in control of the Federal Government and they have filled the judgeships of the Federal courts with far left wing ideologues and activists. This is most important to change as the courts are now making law instead of reviewing bills from the Congress as to their Constitutionality.
We start by changing the language back to what it means. A is A. Gay is not homosexual. How do you explain to your children at Christmas time that the song that has the line, “Now we don our gay apparel” doesn’t mean we dress up like the deviants in the streets of San Francisco? We don’t allow ourselves to be called “racist” when in fact the left is the racist party and hell-bent to keep blacks on the welfare plantation, and to put as many illegals and Hispanics on welfare as they can get to become dependent.
We continue by calling the left what they are, not liberals, but statist, socialists, collectivists, Marxists. We do not back down from our principles. We continue to go to Tea Parties and to invite our neighbors, who may be old line Democrats like Zell Miller, or Ed Koch, to go to those Tea Parties with us.
We must not hire anyone who is against our ideals. They will only use your hard earned money that you pay them for their hard work to further the ideology of the hard line left. Do not do business with those that are ideologically on the side of the killers of our culture. Do not buy GE light bulbs or any other product they sell. We must not listen to the mainstream media, they lie.
Do not borrow money from any bank or other financial institution that accommodates Sharia Law. The Muslims and left have joined hands to take over the United States of America, and when that is accomplished, the Muslims who are committed to following the hate of the Koran will start by beheading those that supported their infiltration into this country. Look at what is happening in Europe to see what the future of the United States will be if we do not stop the cultural takeover of our country.
We must legally and constitutionally rescind every law that any Congress and any occupant of the White House have foisted on the citizens of this great and unique country. Get rid of the Alphabet Soup Agencies that make law by memo. Start with the EPA as it is the main offender to our inherent right to property, and is the most dangerous entity to our businesses as well as our homes. The abomination of Obama Care must be thrown out with all the trash and burned in the incinerator! We may have to do this incrementally, as it was foisted upon us, but don’t allow anyone to tell you we can’t get rid of the laws or agencies because they are firmly ensconced in the government. If you have a diseased organ, you cut it out.
Do not join unions or allow them into your business. Try to break unions out of all Public Service areas. Read conservative political commentary, books, magazine and websites. One of the most important books to know what is happening in our country is The Road to Serfdom, by F. A. Hayek.
And last, and most important, do not entrust your children to the Indoctrination System of the Public School Educational System. Home school them, send them to private schools and make the sacrifice to accomplish this goal. Teach your children conservative values. Do not allow them to read Heather Has Two Mommies or any other book that promotes the deterioration of the American Culture. When they are ready to go to College, try to send them to Hillsdale.
We have our work cut out for us. I know this outline is a lot to do and it may seem overpowering. But it is not. Unite with your conservative friends to develop strategies useful to your goals. Attend city counsel meetings as a group. Be vocal in your newspapers. Start a neighborhood walk wherein you print out 10 or more copies of the articles that you find on the net telling the truth about the antics of the Congress Critters; put them in the hands of your neighbors and tell them how it will affect them on a personal level. (Don’t put the paper in the mail box. That is illegal.)
If we cannot overcome the insidiousness of the left at this point in time, I am certain that we will not pass to our children and grand children the America we know and love.
Keep the Gadsden Flag in mind, and use it as your mantra: DON’T TREAD ON ME!