Tag Archives: government

‘Dickileaks’

In a debate on one of the FOX News Channel shows, Left-of-Center radio show host Leslie Marshall responded to her debate partner’s call for honesty in politics by saying, “Please! We’re talking about politicians.” And there you have it in a nutshell. The American people have moved beyond the concept of apathy where the idea of honesty in politics is concerned, and have arrived at full-blown political sadomasochism. Having completely given up on demanding that those who serve them do so with fidelity to public service, the majority of Americans have simply accepted – as the new normal – that politicians of all stripes offer nothing but false promises, untruths and opportunistic spin for narcissistic gain, i.e. power and wealth. And while this is today’s status quo, it doesn’t have to be this way. Nevertheless, it seems as though we live in an all-encompassing state of political Stockholm Syndrome, unwilling to affect fundamental change, which we, as a people, have the power to do.

A quote often attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville, reads, “Toute nation a le gouvernement qu’elle mérite,” or “Every country has the government it deserves.” This philosophical observation certainly applies to the United States, even if in the most ironic way. Given the fact that our nation allows for the free election of a representative form of government based on a checked-and-balanced (via the Electoral College) democratic system of election, We the People – literally – have the power to shape the personality and morality of the government that we created to serve us. Yet, astoundingly, we have been led to believe that no one vote – no one voter – can affect the outcome of any given election. Again, I refer to Leslie Marshall, “Please! We’re talking about politicians.”

But surrender to this “new political normal” is an exercise in “political sadomasochism”; an embracing of several weaknesses, including acquiescence to a special interest ideological class, apathy toward being engaged enough to search out the facts, and cowardice to confront the more manipulative among us. This political sadomasochism produces – via our own hands – government, at every level, which we all love to hate, blame, demean and complain about; government that places politics and the well-being of politicians and political parties above good government and serving the people.

No better example exists than in the State of New York, where disgraced former US Congressman Anthony Weiner and disgraced former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer are literally leading in the polls for New York City Mayor and New York City Comptroller, respectively.

Everyone – unless they have been sequestered for the last several years, knows the stories that delivered these two men away from public service.

Anthony Weiner, an incredible narcissist and über-abrasive, über-Progressive political operative, has a problem with Tweeting pictures of his penis to young women who aren’t his wife. Recent revelations have proved that he continues to do this even though his wife, Huma Abedin (close buddy-buddy of Hillary Clinton’s), stands by her man, exclaiming that since his resignation from the US House – a resignation executed because he couldn’t keep his cyber-penis in his cyber-pants – he’s been a “model husband and Father.” One has to wonder if “Señora Danger” (Weiner used the moniker Carlos Danger to interact with his cyber-sexual conquests) has changed her mind or if she just likes her men a little bit arrogant and abusive.

Elliot Spitzer, on the other hand, had to resign because he had a penchant for employing high-paid hookers. To her credit, Mrs. Spitzer was recognizably mortified when she stood by her man, as he proclaimed to the world that fidelity to his marriage just wasn’t enough for his sexual appetite.

In both of these examples, we have men who worked their entire lives to attain political power; positioning, campaigning, working up the political ladder and achieving elected office. In both of their careers they achieved some good things. But there is a troubling and undeniable fact that precludes the both of them from every being elected to office again, or at least should preclude them from attaining seats of power every again. They lied to, they willingly deceived, and they manipulated and humiliated the people that trusted them the most, their wives; their life-partners; their soul mates. They both took advantage of the people that are supposed to be the most important people in their lives. And then they asked them to publicly humiliate themselves so they could get the butts out of the media fire.

Truth be told, if a person cannot even be faithful to their spouse; if a person cannot have fidelity to the most important relationship in his or her life, how is anyone supposed to believe that they will have fidelity to any relationship: personal, professional or political?

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me. Lie to me once as an elected representative in government and you should resign, take stock of your life and realize that your time in political life has come to an end by your own hand. But should you lie, cheat and steal and then apologize, huge crocodile tears in your eyes, promising never to do it again while your humiliated spouse stands in your disingenuous shadow, and convince me to vote for you again…well, then, as de Tocqueville espoused, you get the government you deserve.

It is stunning to me that the people of New York are allowing these two liars, these two cheats, to exist but a minute from again taking governmental office. This may sound a bit harsh, but after the outpouring of affection the rest of the nation afforded the people of New York City after September 11, 2001, I expected more than just a “thank you, now back to our regularly scheduled cesspool of politically partisan deviance.” I expected that when given a second chance, they would have done the right thing, corrected wrongs and strived to better themselves as an exercise in appreciation for support, compassion and friendship. I don’t know about you, but New Yorkers’ embrace of Anthony Weiner and Eliot Spitzer is tantamount to a slap in the face. But then that’s just me…

The overriding point to all of this is that it doesn’t have to be this way. We can have better government; government over politics. We all just need to have the courage and dedication to demand that our elected officials respect the people and the office – respect the opportunity – enough to actually serve the electorate, instead of lying to them while lining their pockets and setting up lucrative careers for a post-elected life. We need to support honest people when they want to run for government and reject the notion that the parties are just too big, too powerful to challenge. Because We the People, by virtue of the United States Constitution, literally created the American system of government, We the People have the power to set the standards by which we are served. The fact that we do not is a testimony to our cultivated political sadomasochism.

So, we can either pretend that we do not have the power to achieve government that serves, and glean the scandals of the Weiners and the Spitzers – the scandals of “Dickileaks,” or we can do the hard work and act like Americans and settle for nothing less than the very best. If we cannot, then maybe Eric Holder, while wrong about the subject matter, was correct when he called us a “nation of cowards.”

“We the People  of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America…” – The Preamble to the United States Constitution.

Saturday Night Cigar Lounge July 20th

sncl_logocdn

sncl_logocdnWhen:Saturday, June 29th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Saturday Night Cigar Lounge with Taylor on Blog Talk Radio

What: Saturday nights were meant for cigars and politics.

Hear Taylor and his co-host Liz Harrison talk about everything from the past week – from politics, to news, to books, and entertainment. Whatever comes to mind, and of course, sobriety is not likely.

Tonight: It’s time for another Saturday Night Cigar Lounge. This time Brandon Morse visits to talk Misfit Politics and #Merica. Plus an interview with Reason’s Shikha Dalmia on Detroit.

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on BlogTalkRadio

News v. Propaganda: The Danger of Losing a Check & Balance

propaganda

As illustrated by today’s mainstream media, there is a very fine line between news reporting and the act of propagandizing. The aware understand that news reporting consists of the sometimes painful process of conveying the “who, what, where, when, why and how” of a story, while at the very same time expunging the reporter’s opinion and bias from the report. This is true reporting; this is true journalism.

Today, especially in the mainstream media — and beginning most often in the schools of journalism, aspiring reporters and established journalists alike routinely inject opinion, bias and emotion into their reporting. Intentionally or not, this is the blatant manipulation of the news; the manipulation of the consumer, the American citizen, through propaganda, be it special interest, ideological or government driven.

ForeignPolicy. com reports:

“For decades, a so-called anti-propaganda law prevented the US government’s mammoth broadcasting arm from delivering programming to American audiences. But on July 2, that came silently to an end with the implementation of a new reform passed in January. The result: an unleashing of thousands of hours per week of government-funded radio and TV programs for domestic US consumption in a reform initially criticized as a green light for US domestic propaganda efforts. So what just happened?

“Until this month, a vast ocean of US programming produced by the Broadcasting Board of Governors such as Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks could only be viewed or listened to at broadcast quality in foreign countries. The programming varies in tone and quality, but its breadth is vast: It’s viewed in more than 100 countries in 61 languages. The topics covered include human rights abuses in Iran; self-immolation in Tibet; human trafficking across Asia; and on-the-ground reporting in Egypt and Iraq…

“A former US government source with knowledge of the BBG says the organization is no Pravda, but it does advance US interests in more subtle ways.”

The need for the federal government to even have a “news generating” journalistic arm is questionable. News releases meant to inform the people on the actions, policies and concerns of the federal government are routinely issued; and issued for the free press — which holds First Amendment Rights so that it can dig into said statements to assure honesty and accountability — to relate to the American people. In reality (and this is predicated on a press that is not corrupted for ideological purposes), the government/media relationship is supposed to afford the public with a check and balance on governmental power.

When the federal government is able to create the news and then report on its own creation, there is no avenue for a check and balance. And when there is no avenue for a check and balance the atmosphere is ripe for the arrogance of power; when there is no avenue to hold the federal government accountable for the information they “issue” to the people, there is, inherently, a move to propagandize, even in the most innocent of ways.

Today, the Obama Administration has proven time and time again that its idea of “transparent government,” is anything but.

The Obama Administration’s idea of transparency in government requires those seeking accurate information to file multiple Freedom of Information Act requests, for Congress to issue subpoenas, and in some instances for Congress to even hold the Attorney General of the United States in contempt of Congress for his refusal to be forthright and penchant to mislead.

Today, the National Security Agency gathers information on American citizens who have done nothing to warrant their Fourth Amendment Rights to be transgressed, while the Director of National Intelligence tells congressional committees that they do no such thing and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation exists clueless as to who is supposed to be investigating the matter.

Today, the Internal Revenue Service targets Conservative non-profit groups for audit based on their political beliefs, even as everyone involved in that corrupt and criminal process scurries from responsibility like rats leaving a sinking ship, doing so while the team leader of the “gang of hate” pleads her Fifth Amendment Right to avoid self-incrimination.

And now, on the eve of the holiday on which the entire country celebrates the anniversary of the most courageous act in the history of man; a quest for liberty against the world’s pre-eminent power of the age; an oppressive and totalitarian regime that stifled the rights and freedoms of its own people, we witness perhaps the second most radically ideological federal administration in American history — led by a man who stated publicly that he believes the Constitution of the United States is flawed, quietly unleashing the power of one of the most powerful propaganda machines in the world on its own people under the guise of transparency.

Maybe it’s just me, but questions come to mind where this revelation is concerned. With the mainstream media being so incredibly “in bed” with this administration, why would they need to have this propaganda effort? And, given that the mainstream media has been “carrying the water” for this elected group of radical ideologues (which in and of itself conjures up the images of Chavez, Castro, Ahmadinejad and Putin), what can be so intricate, so important, so “it’s got to be just right” that they couldn’t trust their info-lackeys to deliver the message with fidelity?

My fellow Americans, I don’t know about you, but this simply doesn’t smell right. And with the current administrations record of clandestine activity — crafting legislation with the help of labor unions behind closed doors, myriad scandals that target the American people and political foes alike, and their overall distrust of the very people they were elected to serve — can we really be sure they can be trusted with such a potent “weapon”?

Perhaps we should ask the people of the former Soviet Union if this is a wise move. Perhaps, we should recall the warnings issued by the soon to be oppressed and slaughtered of pre-Hitler Germany.

Perhaps, just perhaps, it is time to wake-up and call this administration on what it really is…

Saturday Night Cigar Lounge July 6th

sncl_logocdn

sncl_logocdnWhen:Saturday, June 29th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Saturday Night Cigar Lounge with Taylor on Blog Talk Radio

What: Saturday nights were meant for cigars and politics.

Hear Taylor and his co-host Liz Harrison talk about everything from the past week – from politics, to news, to books, and entertainment. Whatever comes to mind, and of course, sobriety is not likely.

Tonight: Taylor is back in Texas and loving it. Tonight he’s joined by Ashley Sewell (@TXTrendyChick) to talk the sport that is Texas politics, the abortion bills, Wendy Davis and David Murphy from the Texas Rangers.

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on BlogTalkRadio

As We Approach 237

As we approach Independence Day 2013, this might be a good time to take stock on the American experience: where we are, where we came from, what we are supposed to be and what we have become, collectively, as a country. It wouldn’t be a stretch to say that the United States of America has become something other than what our Founders and Framers would have envisioned. In fact, it could be argued that the “old white guys in wigs” would not only be shocked for what we have become, but for our apathy in allowing our country to become what it is.

Thomas Jefferson is quoted as saying:

“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have.”

Today, the United States federal government is so large and so intrusive that it not only employs 4.4 million people, but holds a national debt of over $16.8 trillion dollars. This does not address a $124.6 trillion unfunded liabilities mandate. These numbers appear shocking because they are shocking. And when one takes into consideration that each year the US federal government operates “in the red,” even though they glean $2.902 trillion in revenue from various sources (individual income tax being the primary source at $1.359 trillion), one can only conclude that the federal government has taken on the role of the arrogant spendthrift, and one that disavows Benjamin Franklin’s sentiment, “When you run in debt; you give to another power over your liberty.”

But perhaps the whole of our modern American experience can be summed up in the end state of this quote by Thomas Jefferson:

“A departure from principle becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of society is reduced to mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering…And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression.”

Taxation
In the formative days of our Great American Experiment, the Founders and Framers set up a federal government limited in its authority and scope. In fact, in the early days of our Republic the federal government operated almost completely on revenues gleaned from tariffs and trade. It wasn’t until the 19th Century that the “income tax” would come to be and even then, until the passage of the 19th Amendment, the constitutionality of the income tax was held in question.

Today, thanks to an inequitable tax system – the Progressive tax system – we have a populace that is purposefully divided into factions: one that pays federal taxes, another that avoids paying federal taxes, and yet another that believes the taxes collected are due them. In a land where everyone is supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law (read: government), we have allowed those who we elect to office to literally create a class system, through which they manipulate the citizenry for political gain and the retention of power.

Religion
To say that the United States of America was founded on deep-rooted desire for the individual to be free to practice the religion of his or her choosing is to understate the importance of the issue. Truth be told, the issue of religious freedom delivered pilgrims to American shores centuries before. The Founders and Framers, being deeply reverent men – much to the opposite of claims by the secularists of today – understood all too well the importance of not only freedom of religion (the natural law right to worship in the dogma of choice) but the idea of recognizing something larger than self where government was concerned. As our founding documents – the Charters of Freedom – are predicated on the understanding and acknowledgment of Natural Law (the acknowledgement of a Higher Power), it is only the intellectually dishonest who argue religion did not (and does not) play a significant role in the government of our Republic.

To wit, The Declaration of Independence states:

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

“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…” (emphasis added)

Yet, today, military chaplains are forbidden from even displaying a Bible on their government issued desks for the ignorance of history served up at the hands of Progressive and secular activists.

Today, because of an activist Judicial Branch (and at the urging of Progressive and secular activists), the innocent notion of a separation of Church and State, which in its original intent was meant to reassure one denomination that another would not be placed above it in an establishment of a “national religion,” i.e. the Church of England, has been grotesquely distorted to require the ever-increasing banishment of all religious symbols from the public square. And at the same time, the federal government – in the form of ever-expanding entitlements – seeks to replace the Creator as the Alpha and the Omega for the American citizenry.

Law
At our country’s inception, the Judiciary – the Judicial Branch and all federal courts in its charge – was to administer federal law in the context of constitutionality. Was it constitutional or what is not? Or was the question reserved for the States and the judiciaries of those States, per the 10th Amendment?

Today, our entire legal system – federal as well as the lessers – is held hostage to a system of precedent law; Stare decisis et non quieta movere, a Latin term meaning “to stand by decisions and not disturb the undisturbed.” This is understood to mean that courts should abide by decided precedent and not disturb settled matters, regardless of whether the decision was born of activism. If the judiciary produced judgments and opinions that had fidelity to the Constitution – as the Constitution mandates, then the notion of stare decisis would be a good thing. But those who serve in the Judiciary are equally subject to human intellectual infirmities as are those who serve in the Executive and Legislative Branches. Truth is, one decision based on ideologically; one activist decision, forever moves law away from the Constitution.

As Steven G. Calabresi, a professor of law at Northwestern University School of Law and a visiting professor at Brown University, opined in a paper titled, Text vs. Precedent in Constitutional Law, published the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy:

“The argument…is that the doctrinalists are wrong in arguing for a strong theory of stare decisis for three reasons. First, there is nothing in the text, history, or original meaning of the Constitution that supports the doctrinalists’ strong theory of stare decisis. Second, the actual practice of the US Supreme Court is to not follow precedent, especially in important cases. In other words, precedent itself counsels against following precedent. And, third, a strong theory of stare decisis is a bad idea for policy reasons…

“Both textualism and originalism supply arguments as to why following precedent is wrong. As for the text, it is striking that there is not a word in the Constitution that says in any way that precedent trumps the text.”

Yet, decisions on issues from voting rights to life-ending procedures, social issues to mandatory health insurance are continuously based on precedent law, or stare decisis. And with each decision that bows to stare decisis, we move further away from fidelity to the Constitution.

Self-Reliance
At the founding of our nation, our citizenry was comprised on those who wanted the freedom to build, to create, to glean the benefits of their labors based on the effort with which they sought success. Pride was not the product of artificially installed self-esteem, but a humble condition of dignity, arrived at through determination, education – sometimes, or most times autodidactic – and perseverance. The United States was a nation of strong individuals, determined to embrace the freedom – the liberty, that the New World afforded them; a nation of people with a commonality based on self-reliance and a brotherhood born of the love of liberty and justice for all, not just the oligarchic few.

Today, our country has devolved into a socialistic nanny-state, complete with an entitlement faction that will very soon not only outnumber Ayn Rand’s “producers” but a faction that celebrates its gluttony; its piggish appetite for entitlement, even as they scheme to avoid the responsibility of maintaining the Republic; even as they demand more from a government whose seemingly sole purpose is to concoct new ways to extract wealth from those who produce. Today, 47% of the nation’s people do not pay federal income taxes. Today, 23 million households are dependent on food stamps. Today, nearly 49 percent of the citizenry lives in a household where at least one member receives a direct benefit from the federal government.

That those duly elected to office exploit this societal malady for purposes of maintaining power is tantamount to a betrayal of the very principles held by those who gifted us the exquisite beauty of liberty. I wonder, if the Founders and Framers could confront the elitist oligarchs of today’s American ruling class, would they be strong enough to do so with temperance?

On this, the 237th anniversary of the American Declaration of Independence, we would be wise to self-examine our national condition. Do we really want to be a nanny-state? Do we really want to admire a legal system that moves further away for the very basis for our freedom with each decision? Do we really want to support a government that increasingly steals from the producers to give to the dependent class of their own creation, and for purely ideological and politically motivated purposes? Do we want to be a nation that stands arrogantly in its belief that We the People – or They the Government – are the highest power to which we must answer, therefore abandoning our God-given right to acknowledge Natural Law?

In 1964, future president Ronald Reagan gave a speech titled, A Time for Choosing, in which he said:

“We are faced with the most evil enemy mankind has known in his long climb from the swamp to the stars. There can be no security anywhere in the free world if there is no fiscal and economic stability within the United States. Those who ask us to trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state are architects of a policy of accommodation.

“They say the world has become too complex for simple answers. They are wrong. There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right….

“You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children’s children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.”

Today, my fellow Americans is Independence Day. Please, think about it.

The Crimes of An Ideological Agenda

“Let us disappoint the men who are raising themselves upon the ruin of this Country.”
— John Adams

The number of scandals involving the encroachment of the Obama Administration into – and onto – the constitutional rights of American citizens is beyond stunning. And it is without question criminal in many cases. But with an Attorney General seated who – as a practice – routinely tries to manipulate the limits of the law to affect an ideological agenda, and a federal “classification system” that keeps those elected to represent us in Congress from bringing issues of government instituted malfeasance to light, what recourse is left the American citizen?

These encroachments against the United States Constitution are the product of over one-hundred years of Progressive political advances in the area of government. Put succinctly, two of the founding principles of the Progressive Movement; two of the “givens” held in understanding by each and every Progressive, are that: a) Progressives are enlightened; intellectually superior to the masses; and, b) that through centralized government, Progressives can help the masses help themselves to a better life, regardless of whether they want it or not. Once these two facts are understood, you can begin to understand some of the declarations made by Mr. Obama and his spokespeople about the many scandals – or what We the People perceive to be scandals – surrounding the Obama Administration.

According to R.J. Pestritto, the Charles & Lucia Shipley Chair in the American Constitution at Hillsdale College and author of American Progressivism, ““America’s original Progressives were also its original, big-government liberals.”

Jonah Goldberg writes of Pestritto’s examination of the Progressive Movement in Liberal Fascism:

“They set the stage for the New Deal principles of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who cited the progressives – especially Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson – as the major influences on his ideas about government. The progressives, Pestritto says, wanted ‘a thorough transformation in America’s principles of government, from a government permanently dedicated to securing individual liberty to one whose ends and scope would change to take on any and all social and economic ills.’

“In the progressive worldview, the proper role of government was not to confine itself to regulating a limited range of human activities as the founders had stipulated, but rather to inject itself into whatever realms the times seemed to demand.

“…progressives called for a more activist government whose regulation of people’s lives was properly determined not by the outdated words of an anachronistic Constitution, but by whatever the American people seemed to need at any given time.

“This perspective dovetailed with the progressives’ notion of an ‘evolving’ or ‘living’ government, which, like all living beings, could rightfully be expected to grow and to adapt to changing circumstances. Similarly, progressives also coined the term ‘living Constitution,’ connoting the idea that the US Constitution is a malleable document with no permanent guiding principles — a document that must, of necessity, change with the times.”

On the subject of the Obama “scandals” the key words here are “…progressives called for a more activist government whose regulation of people’s lives” and “…whatever the American people seemed to need at any given time.”

In each of the perceived scandals, the Progressives of the Obama Administration justify their actions through those eyes. They see the situations as being too complex for the average American to understand, too emotionally disturbing for them to fathom; the need for constitutional transgression in their quest for the “fundamental transformation” of America too great. And so they deceive their political opposition – and the American public – about their actions, reasons, intentions and goals.

This understood, it is easy to see why, after myriad transgressions against the Constitution and the mission of the Justice Department itself, Mr. Obama declares that he still has “confidence” in Eric Holder. He needs Eric Holder in the senior-most law enforcement position so that he can unilaterally achieve his Progressive agenda through a totalitarian Executive Branch; so he can achieve the “fundamental transformation” of our country through, Executive Order and regulation, especially regulation – legislation through regulation.

It is for this reason – unilateral fundamental transformation – that Progressives have sought to grow our federal government to its current behemoth size; a bureaucratic labyrinth filled with “career” public servants (an oxymoron?) and interminable political appointees whose entire existence is to move the American political center incrementally to the Left; a task they have been achieving with regularity since the days of Wilson and Roosevelt.

It is for this particular reason – it is for this particular governmental mechanism: the bureaucracy – that Mr. Obama will not be directly linked to any of these so-called scandals (scandals in the eyes of all those who revere the Constitution and the rule of law, yes, but not as much to Progressives). The entire Progressive Movement has culminated in this moment in time. They truly believe it is their time. Progressives believe that because they have achieved a twice elected hyper-Progressive president – disregarding the retention of the US House of Representatives by Republicans and ignoring the many governorships that went “Red” last election – that they have a mandate, not for Mr. Obama’s “programs,” but for the complete transformation of our governmental system from that of a Constitutional Republic to a Socialist Democracy based on the now failed models of Europe.

In each scandal there is a bureaucratic figurehead that insulates Mr. Obama from direct responsibility. In the IRS scandal we have Lois Lerner and Douglas Schulman. In the Fast & Furious and AP/FOX scandal there is Eric Holder. In Benghazi there were Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton…and dead men tell no tales. In each instance, Mr. Obama has a dedicated and loyal “useful idiot” who will fall on his/her sword for the “good of the movement.” It is assumed they will, just as it was assumed they would execute their actions of transgressions against the Constitution and liberty itself, with fidelity to “the cause” and without a direct order ever being given.

As We the People watch the “scandals” of the Obama reign unfold, we need to understand that even though Progressives believe this is “their time,” it would have been “their time” regardless of who was in the White House. Was it easier to execute with the first “Black” president in the White House, someone whose constitutionally destructive actions Progressives could defend with a claim of “racism” toward his detractors? Sure, it made it easier, but it would have happened anyway, and it would have happened because of two reasons: a) the public has become apathetic towards their duty to be accurately informed and engaged, and b) the bureaucracy was in place.

Unless We the People insist on the decentralization of government, a viciously executed reduction in the size of the federal government and a radical transformation of the federal tax code to a limited flat tax, FAIR tax or consumption tax, nothing will change with the 2016 elections, regardless of which party captures the White House and holds sway in Congress. Our country – our Constitutional Republic – will continue to be “nudged” to the Left; continue to be fundamentally transformed away from liberty and self-reliance and toward servitude and dependence.

Barack Obama was correct about one thing all those years back in 2008, our nation – the United States of America – is in need of fundamental transformation. That transformation, though, needs to be from a culture of bureaucratic elitism in a centralized government where no one is able to be held accountable, to a nation dedicated to justice for all and the rule of law under the constraints of the United States Constitution.

Or, as John Adams so eloquently wrote in Novanglus Essay, No. 7:

“[Aristotle, Livy, and Harrington] define a republic to be a government of laws, and not of men.”

We, my fellow Americans, are a Republic and not a Democracy, for precisely that reason.

What Obama’s “Bulworth” Comment Shows About Us

bulworthtaylor

bulworthtaylor
Almost forgotten within the whirlwind of last week’s columns and news stories covering the Obama Administration’s scandals was a piece from The New York Times discussing the “onset of woes” he’s had to deal with. Various aides told The Times on, and off, the record how the President is doing all he can to make sure his second term agenda gets accomplished. They also mentioned how Obama is frustrated and “exasperated “with Washington, something which isn’t new to anyone who’s watched one of his news conferences.

The most telling comment in the piece is how Obama has talked about “going Bulworth” and just saying what he actually thinks. This is a reference to the Warren Beatty/Halle Berry film about a California senator who decides to tell everyone what he believes, no matter the consequences. The New York Post has taken it to mean Obama wants to come out and admit he’s a socialist, which the Bulworth character is. This could be true, but it also reveals a problem with our political system.

Politicians have a problem with being 100-percent honest. Big surprise, but a David Axelrod quote following the Bulworth revelation is even more telling. Axelrod told The Times, “But the reality is that while you want to be truthful, you want to be straightforward, you also want to be practical about whatever you’re saying.”

 

It’s not that politicians can’t tell the truth, it’s that they don’t think the public wants to know the truth.

 

The sad part is…they’re probably right.

 

More people would rather be told that things are “going to be okay,” instead of hearing the horrific reality of the situation.

 

The 2012 election is a perfect example of this. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan were vilified for discussing the nation’s $16-trillion in debt. Columnists like Paul Krugman claimed the nation’s debt isn’t an issue, while Obama told David Letterman “we don’t have to worry about it short term.” Letterman asked only one follow up but that shouldn’t be surprising. He’s not Jake Tapper.

 

When Romney spoke his mind in the “infamous” 47-percent quote, he was said to “not represent all Americans” and to have “written off half the nation.” Obama, again, told Letterman about how he wanted to represent the “entire country,” but didn’t talk the substance of Romney’s quote, why he may have said it or the context.

Guaranteed: more people saw Obama make those comments than any of Romney’s speeches on the debt.

 

However, it’s not just Romney who was vilified. Ron Paul was called a “dangerous man” for some of his positions. A look at the jokes the late night talk show hosts said about Paul, shows they saw him more as a “crazy uncle” and not a real candidate. Now, Paul is a horrible messenger from time to time (see his Chris Kyle tweet and his September 11th comment) but he’s at least willing to speak his mind and tell the truth. Something refreshing in politics.

 

As much as people claim to want the truth, the reality is much different. The truth hurts and people prefer “flowers and sunshine” to reality. There’s a difference between pointing out problems and solutions, and just telling people it will be okay. This is why politicians use double-speak and seem distance. A majority of people don’t want reality.

 

There is a way for conservatives and libertarians to break through this. Outreach. Real outreach, not the failed attempt of Project ORCA by Romney’s team during 2012. Get out in the community and be with people. See what they experience. Explain to them how freedom and liberty is important and show them how it can make their lives better. Support what Deneen Borelli and Wayne Dupree are doing in the Black community and what “True the Vote” is trying to do with the Hispanic community. Talk to friends. Engage them.

 

 

And keep politicians accountable. It’s not always pragmatic to change one’s mind. Sometimes it’s simply political. Get them to explain why they do what they do. Get them to tell the truth.

 

 

It’s the only way to prove Axelrod and his ilk wrong.

 

And to make sure Bulworth isn’t “just” a movie but reality.


 

Virginia Tea Party Patriots Federation Rejects IRS Apology for their Abusive and Discriminatory Practices. Cites IRS for Unconstitutional Actions and Behavior

VTPPlogo_yellowmap3

VTPPlogo_yellowmap3

(Richmond, VA) – “The IRS Exempt Organizations unit has violated the sacred constitutional rights of some 75 Tea Party and Patriot groups that had applied for tax-exempt status between 2009 and 2012,” said Mark Daugherty, Chairman, Virginia Tea Party Patriots Federation. “The Tea Party rejects the apology by Lois Lerner, Director, Exempt Organizations, for her department’s confirmed discrimination and illegal treatment against groups that have the words ‘Tea Party’ or ‘Patriots’ in their name,” declared Mr. Daugherty.

The Constitutional violations include.

    1. First Amendment: The rights of free speech. Viewpoint discrimination.
    2. Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.
    3. Fourteenth Amendment: Equal protection of the law.

Mark Daugherty said, “This egregious behavior requires a full top-to-bottom investigation by the Inspector General of the operations and practices of the IRS Exempt Organizations unit. “Furthermore, The IRS agents, supervisors, and senior executives should be held accountable for their illegal actions.”

The Virginia Tea Party Patriots Federation notes the abusive and overtly political behavior by the IRS during the Clinton administration when critics of President Clinton were subjected to tax audits.* “This cycle of IRS abuse and illegal behavior must be stopped,” said Mark Daugherty.

The Virginia Tea Party Patriots Federation thanks the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) for advocating on behalf of 27 tea party groups seeking tax-exempt status, including tea party groups in Virginia.

“Several Tea Party groups in northern Virginia were discouraged from seeking tax-exempt status due to the chilling effects of the enhanced investigations by the IRS,” said Mark Daugherty. “In addition, the Shenandoah Valley Tea Party Patriots spent 26 months working through the tortuous tax-exempt process, and spent 235 hours to compile a 10-pound report measuring seven inches thick, to comply with a second-round of IRS information requests.”

Ron Wilcox, lead organizer of the Northern Va Tea Party, said, “We were discouraged from applying for tax exempt status because we knew the IRS was targeting the tea party groups for ‘special examination’ and ‘enforcement’.”

“The tea party groups targeted should also be reimbursed for the extra time and expense forced upon them in attempting to comply with these illegal, threatening mandates handed down against them by the IRS,” states Mr. Daugherty.

The Virginia Tea Party Patriots Federation is a coalition of 46 independent Tea Party and patriot groups that stand for fiscal responsibility, constitutionally-limited government, and free market principles.

*http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/07/30/column.novakgadsden flag

VTPPlogo_yellowmap3

“progressive” Origins

woodrowwilson

teddy-roosevelt-laugh-350x233The “progressive” movement in America first appeared during the late 19th century in response to so called “robber barons” such as Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, and J.P. Morgan. The “progressives” saw what to them was unbridled capitalism being practiced by these men and deemed it to be injurious to the well-being of the masses. Early “progressives” included Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Teddy Roosevelt and Howard Taft were Republicans. Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt were Democrats.Taft

The American “progressive” movement leaned heavily upon and was greatly influenced by the Fabian Socialist Society in England. The Fabian Socialists contribution to the “progressive” movement was the idea that their goals could be achieved most successfully if their society worked to re-mold the world nearer to their heart’s desire gradually, using tactics of harassment and attrition, and striking full force only when their moment was at hand. This strategy was employed by their namesake, the Roman general Fabius Maximus, who used it in combat against the superior military forces of Hannibal and the Carthaginians.

woodrowwilsonThis strategy, also known as gradual inevitability, has been one of the cornerstones of the “progressive” movement in America. Instead of attempting to over-reach for their long term goal to subjugate the American public in one fell swoop, thereby ensuring that the electorate of a country founded upon the pillars of freedom and liberty would roundly and soundly reject their ideas, they decided to take on a seemingly insurmountable task in small steps that were both more easily hidden and more easily digested by the Republic.

The federal income tax began in 1913, courtesy of “progressives” William Howard Taft and Woodrow Wilson. Thanks to the unyielding activism of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who browbeat the United States Supreme Court into accepting his legislation against their better judgment, Social Security was launched in 1935. Medicare and Medicaid came into being in the year 1965 courtesy of Lyndon Baines Johnson and his Great Society agenda. Thanks to the concerted efforts of numerous “progressives” in both houses of Congress, who reached secretive backroom deal in the dead of night, twisted arms and employed the parliamentary procedure known as reconciliation in the Senate, they, along with the Barack Hussein Obama White House were able to pass “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” commonly known as Obamacare, which was signed into law in 2010.

This is an accurate description of a gradual “progression” toward the inevitable goal of an expanded government taking increasing control over the lives of individuals.

The next powerful influence on the “progressive” movement in America was the Frankfurt School.franklin-delano-roosevelt

The Frankfurt School was an openly Communist group formed in 1923 during the pre-Nazi Germany Weimar Republic. After Adolph Hitler came to power in 1933 the Frankfurt School knew that if they stayed in Germany Hitler would kill them for being Communists. They then fled Germany to escape that fate and were welcomed into the United States by “progressive” President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

From the Frankfurt school, “progressives” in America assimilated the concepts of cultural Marxism, critical theory and political correctness. Cultural Marxism, critical theory and political correctness were the driving force behind the 1960s cultural-revolution in the United States.

Cultural Marxism is an offshoot of Marxism that maintains that human behavior results from culture, instead of heredity or race. Cultural Marxists promoted the idea of racially organizing non-whites in concert while asserting that for white people, race does not exist. Cultural Marxists promoted the impairment of white people, race-based affirmative action, globalization, coded speech, censorship, diversity, anti-Western education, dysfunctional sexual norms, the mass immigration of Third World populations into Western countries, multiculturalism over a nation rooted in common ancestry, and elevating non-Western religions above Western religions. Cultural Marxism advocates the idea that whites, instead of giving birth to white babies, should marry interracially or adopt non-white children.

Critical Theory is destructive criticism of the main elements of Western culture: Christianity, morality, capitalism, conservatism, authority, family, patriarchy, hierarchy, tradition, sexual restraint, loyalty, patriotism, nationalism, heredity, ethnocentrism and convention.

Political correctness was and remains another key element. The basis of political correctness is: when addressing the general public, present your beliefs attractively. It’s a matter of being “sensitive” to other people. Use words such as “tolerance” and “diversity,” asking: “Why can’t we all just get along?”

Political correctness in the USA was championed by Herbert Marcuse. Marcuse became one of the main gurus of the 1960s adolescent sexual revolution. He was the one who coined the expression “make love, not war.”

By using the Fabian Socialist strategy of gradual inevitability in combination with the tactics of cultural Marxism, critical theory and political correctness, “progressives” in America discovered a prescription with which to lethally poison America’s political system, academic atmosphere, mass media information delivery infra-structure and popular culture while attacking America’s exceptional values and long standing traditions.

Revolution is coming.

Can we cut the Sensationalizing…PLEASE?

The fundamental premise of most federally elected officials is that tightening their grip around the throats of the people will improve society.

I would encourage each of them to spend some time with a dog.  The harder one pulls on the leash of a dog the more it strains to be free.  Ultimately the dog pulls itself loose from the collar and runs wild, or it shies away in fear at every encounter.

Dogs are not much different from people, really.  Every living creature desires life and liberty.  It is the nature of living beings.

Yet, for thousands of years men of authority have failed to learn that one simple lesson that the powers of their office are inseparably connected to persuasion, not to compulsion.  “One more regulation” seems to be the eternal mantra of those that would be masters.  “If at first control does not work, tighten the leash” appears to be the follow-up.

God declared, “Thou shalt not kill”!  In the intervening years since that monumental and spectacular pronouncement mankind’s appointed masters have written ten thousand laws to enforce the Ten Commandments.

In recent years the consummately conspicuous contraptions of control have been “hate crimes”.  These are a set of laws adding subtly distinctive punishment to thoughts.  This breed of punish focuses on controlling the thoughts as well as the behavior.

Terrorism is one of those popular “hate crimes”.   It gets particular mileage for those that would be gods over the otherwise godless.  The right brand of labeling makes, in the eyes of the beholder, a crime more vicious.  It’s vileness rest on the motivations of the perpetrator.

We tend to used extraordinary descriptive words to explain the conduct of those whom are motivated by their beliefs. In the case of Tsarnaev’s, they are guilt of murder.  A trial will be legitimately held to determine the certainty of that.  Likewise it will determine the fate of the younger of the two.  Society, via mostly through our elected officials seeking to be extraordinarily offended, label their actions as terror.  Yet, Gosnell is guilt of murder. He is guilty of far more murders.  Some stories suggest him crimes against humanity have been as extensive as the “terrorists” of September 11, 2001.  The terms “terrorist” or “legal abortionist” do not alter the facts about their conduct. They are murders.

They committed violence against a natural right and ought to be punished, not rehabilitated. Their motivations (create terror, or, enhance the lifestyle of a woman) may be relevant for discussion and planning for the future, but those motivation do not alter the fact that they are murderers and ought to be punished, in the course of proper and lawful jurisprudence.

The nature of the victim, the vastness of their wicked thoughts ought not determine the depth or breadth of their punishment.  Politicians are a breed of self-conceited dictators.  Just as they seek special favor for their paying supporters, they warp their thinking into special brands of crime for enemies that likewise offend those same supporters.  It matters not what principle may be at heart.  It matters only if their pride can be satisfied among those that would buoy them up.

Giving a special name to an age-old crime does not categorize it into a form of vileness.  It only segregates the crime into a platform for self-indulgence by those who would exercise control over others.

Deconstructing Obama’s Alinsky Message On Gun Control

guns

 

President Obama made a very interesting decision on Wednesday by not only appealing to people’s emotions, but also openly demonizing and mocking the NRA and the U.S. Senate for not passing the Manchin-Toomey plan. It is several tactics defined by Saul Alinsky in “Rules For Radicals.”

guns
The first is openly ridiculing the NRA, gun owners and the Republicans (and Democrats) who voted against the measure. By saying, “… instead of supporting this compromise, the gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill…but that didn’t matter. And unfortunately, this pattern of spreading untruths about this legislation served a purpose, because those lies upset an intense minority of gun owners, and that in turn intimidated a lot of senators (emphasis mine).

Obama is trying to put the NRA, the GOP and gun owners into a box. It’s an attempt to make them ‘the bad guy,’ and out of the mainstream. He does this again with the, “90 percent of Americans want background checks.”

 

This doesn’t tell the entire truth. There are several Quinnipiac polls showing 90 percent surveyed want background checks, but the question is too simple. The survey doesn’t say who should be doing the checks, whether it was national, state or local. It simply asks whether background checks should be done. This is an important distinction supporters of gun control bills aren’t discussing.

 

However, gun rights advocates haven’t explained this. They are instead going on the defensive, which is what Obama hoped. The NRA is only using the “background checks will do nothing to stop crime,”strategy and raising fears about a national gun registry. These are valid concerns, but won’t work long-term because people will get tired of hearing it. As Alinsky says, “A tactic that drags on too long, becomes a drag.”

 

It’s also helping Obama marginalize them even further. The President can now use another Alinsky rule of, “pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Obama can now bring out legitimately hurting families, like those in Newtown and Aurora, to have them push gun control. This tactic puts a face on those who have suffered in horrific tragedies. It makes it easier for the President to point at the NRA and say, “these people are keeping children from being safe.”

 

However, there are ways to use the personalization for gun rights. The best way to do this is bring out the Lone Star College student, who said on live TV, he wished he could have been armed when someone stabbed 14 people. Or have 15-year-old Sarah Merkle talk about gun rights. Or Mark Mattioli who lost his young son at Sandy Hook discuss why new gun laws won’t work. These can be effective push backs against Obama.

 

Obama isn’t going to back off on the push for gun control. While his original attack may have gotten an alternative he was looking for in the Toomey-Manchin plan, that thankfully failed. He, along with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, are going to come up with new plans.

 

The NRA and gun rights supporters need to come up with their own plan, using new tactics, to beat it off. Encouraging people to the ballot box is one thing. TV and radio spots work as well. However, it’s important for gun rights supporters to remember to use Twitter, Facebook and other social media sites to get the word out.

 

 

It’s not over, and while Obama is president, the fight for gun rights may never end.

 

Sen. Tom Coburn: Charlatan or Traitor?

Tom Coburn

My wife and I recently sent separate e-mails to Sen. Tom Coburn asking him to join Rand Paul’s filibuster of Harry Reid’s latest gun control scheme.  We sent messages on the same day, she from her office and me from our home.  Neither of us knew about the other until that evening when we sat down for dinner and discussed the day’s events.  The responses we received were a day apart, hers on April 9th and mine on April 10th.

I don’t know why we were surprised when we compared the responses but we were.  We both received the form letter some aide undoubtedly wrote to make it sound like Sen. Coburn actually believes in the 2nd Amendment and the rights of We the People.  I have included the response I received and have my wife’s available if anyone desires to contest that they are the same.  I also know of two other people who received the same letter.

Letter from Sen. Tom Coburn in response to a request that he join the filibuster started by Sen. Rand Paul:

Dear Mr. Russell,

Thank you for taking the time to write me to express your opinion and concerns about the various gun control proposals. I am encouraged so many Oklahomans are making their voices heard. I have received an overwhelming number of letters, and in order to respond in a timely manner, I am writing a response that encompasses my entire position. If you have additional questions or concerns, please write me again.

  I want to be clear: I remain committed to defending and protecting our Constitution; namely the Second Amendment.  I have long protected the rights of law-abiding citizens to own guns. I am opposed to a ban on assault rifles and I oppose limiting magazines. I will not vote for any bill that limits the gun rights of law abiding citizens.  While I support a debate in the Senate on gun related issues—including reaffirming these rights and forcing gun-control advocates to have their votes on record and be held accountable for their votes—I will not only support, but lead a filibuster to prevent the passage of any bill that limits the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.  

The news reports are correct that I have been involved in discussions to write legislation improving the existing background checks to enable private citizens to check a database and ensure the person they seek to sell their gun to is legally allowed to own a firearm.  I believe it is good public policy to make sure that those who are mentally-ill or a felon (both are already prohibited from owning a gun), do not have access to a weapon.  However, I oppose record keeping and will not agree to legislation that expands record keeping to private sales.

The concern I am hearing over and over is not just about people maintaining their right to own firearms—it is a concern about how to preserve liberty.  When our Constitution was adopted, we had just won a war fought largely by Minute Men and localized, or unofficial, militias (Sons of Liberty, etc).  The first shots fired at Concord were, in part, to preserve a local supply of firearms that the British sought to confiscate.  Our founders believed very strongly that the individual right to bear arms would preserve the independence and freedom won in 1781, just as they had enabled our founders to win the revolutionary war.  They feared tyranny and centralized power—which is why our Constitution was established.  In addition to the checks created by balancing power between a legislature and executive—and checked by a judiciary—the Bill of Rights sought to limit the federal government and clearly stated that those powers not enumerated in the Constitution and delegated to the federal government would remain with the states and the people (the 9th and 10th Amendments). 

Yet, our federal government regularly legislates on matters that belong to the states and the people.  Our freedoms are being gradually encroached and choked by ever-increasing regulations, laws, agencies, and overspending.  This concerns me greatly and I fight daily to rein in the size, scope and spending of our federal government.  I believe the greatest threat to our Republic is apathy as our overindulgent federal government, through indebtedness, spends the money of future generations.  James Madison, the architect of our Constitution, said something similar in 1788 in a speech in Virginia when he said, “Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”

I am aware of this and I work to push back on all attacks to our Constitution, including those to our Second Amendment. Congress must be careful not to legislate in a way that makes criminals out of law-abiding, gun-owning citizens.

Thank you for being involved and allowing me these last eight years to fight to protect our Constitution.  I daily think about the sacrifices of past generations and I am grateful.  In these last four years, as I finish out my second term, I remain committed to protecting your Second Amendment rights and working to limit our federal government and reduce federal spending. 

Sincerely,

Tom A. Coburn, M.D.

United States Senator

TC: lcp

That isn’t a response, it’s a press release.  And just what is there to debate about the 2nd Amendment?  I thought it was quite obvious what the founders intended.  They intended for citizens to have the means to defend themselves, first and foremost, against a tyrannical government.  This mental health scam is just a way of abolishing the right to own firearms, thereby renderingEagle 2nd Amendment We the People defenseless against a dictatorship.  Keep guns out of the hands of criminals???  How did prohibition work out, Senator??  How is Chicago working out???  Try enforcing the laws on the books now before passing more.  See how that works out.  But your answer is to surrender here and fight  ”next time”.  What “next time”???? Which “next time”?  When????????

I have always supported Sen. Coburn because I thought he was a true American patriot who cared deeply about his country and the God-given rights listed in the Constitution.  Coburn just voted to allow a simple majority of Democrats to gut the 2nd Amendment, and nullify the 4th and 5th Amendments; and is telling constituents he supports our right to possess firearms.

This is double-talk if I ever saw double-talk!! And who decides who is mentally ill or not, Diane Feinstein???  Was I wrong all these years or has Coburn just decided that my liberty isn’t worth his effort since he is retiring from Congress at the end of this term?  Frankly, I don’t know what to think about him!!  Gun control, Amnesty, where does Coburn really stand up for America??

It is very apparent that Sen. Coburn, along with the bulk of the Republican Party and every member of the Democrat Party, has betrayed We the People.  They have also betrayed the oath of office they swore, to “protect and defend the Constitution of the ConstitutionUnited States of America”.  That oath apparently is no longer valid in their minds.  They twist its meaning to justify their treachery as they have assumed the mantle of dictators with the power of life and death over the citizens they consider to be no more than subjects.  You know, kind of like King George!!!

Members of both political parties have gone beyond violating their oaths of office and have reached the point of treason.  It is painfully obvious they have no intention of governing, taking the position that their esteemed positions give them the “right”  to rule over We the People as if we are cattle to be herded at their whim.  When I see the outright arrogance and corruption that pervades government, both political parties and at all levels, it is impossible to come to the conclusion that liberty as established by our founding fathers is the driving force of politicians.  Power, prestige in the media, and personal wealth is all they seek.  The Constitution and the rights of citizens get in the way of their goal of total control of the nation.

Members of both political parties run to the microphones and cameras of their media lapdogs to proclaim their dedication to freedom while doing everything they can to destroy that freedom.  And the lapdog media, desiring favor from those same ruling politicians, report what they are told to report, and spin as they are told to spin.

This isn’t a Democrat vs. Republican power play; it is a political ruling class vs. We the People power play and We the People are losing.  DHS is arming itself to the teeth with billions of rounds of hollow point ammunition, the kind that cannot be used in war; thousands of full automatic rifles, the true “assault rifle”; thousands of armored vehicles called MRAP’s, the mine-proof type used in war by our military; and DHS agents run practice operations with local law enforcement, using machine gun firing helicoptersUrban Rescue Vehicle 2 over our cities.  What is all this armament of a “domestic security force” to be used for???  Care to take a guess????  Maybe they are going to start rounding up all the illegal aliens!!!!!!

Sen. Diane Feinstein tells us that ALL veterans are mentally ill, dangerously unstable, and should be banned from owning firearms.  In New York and California local law enforcement is already confiscating guns from those they see as a threat to their dictatorship.  How about that one Sen. Coburn???  Some states are racing to see who can pass the stiffest gun control legislation.  Never mind the 2nd , 4th, and 5th Amendments!!!!  They have DHS to back them up.

The Veteran’s Administration is now used as a conduit for imprisoning men and women who served their country honorably and now only desire to have the medical treatment promised to them for their service.  They have put their lives in danger for the freedom of others, protecting the very scumbag politicians that now seek to have them committed to asylums without due process; and to confiscate their guns without any reason other than politicians see them as a threat to their tyranny.

Is this the vision of America seen by our founding fathers; that veterans are now a threat to the very liberty the founders fought and George Washington Quotedied for?   Are veterans a threat to society because they shared that vision and were willing to risk their lives to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America”?  Is this how the experiment in freedom is to end?

And what of those who berate me and call me a “paranoid fear monger” because I see what is happening and call attention to tyranny?  “It can’t happen here”???? It is happening here, right now, and politicians in both political parties no longer hide behind fancy words and deception.  They come right out and state their intentions to disarm the entire populace, except for the criminals, of course.  New York governor Andrew Cuomo recently pronounced that “you don’t need 10 rounds to kill a deah”!!  Hey there Andy, the 2nd Amendment isn’t about killing a “deah”, it is about keeping people like you in your place.  It is about protecting We the People from tyranny, from Nazi or Soviet style dictatorships that enslave and murder their people.  Politicians are supposed to be “public servants”, not rulers, but look where we are today.

I hope I live long enough to see these politicians and their bureaucrat minions, charged, arrested, tried, convicted, and imprisoned for treason.  If We the People lose the war we are in right now it will be generations, if ever, before liberty will be restored.  Not one step backwards, Senator!!!

I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty god to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

Bob Russell

Claremore, Oklahoma

April 15, 2013

How “Marriage Equality” Could Destroy Everyone’s Liberty

chained

Whenever the phrase “equality” is used to make anything legal, look out, it’s not about fairness or liberty; it’s about having whatever one personally wants no matter the consequences to society and life in general.

The phrase “equality” is a very compelling argument. After all, here in the United States where liberty reigns and the Constitution upholds our natural rights to God-given liberty, we don’t want to take away anyone’s liberty.

Everything beyond our natural rights is a privilege individuals must work for—unless it is marriage. In that case, we are talking about something that has never been equal, because religions and societies are not equal.

Marriage is not listed in the Constitution, and for good reason: Marriage is a religious liberty instituted by God before governments ever existed. Government did not create marriage, government should never be allowed to dictate marriage or people will indeed lose private life. That’s why marriage is state-by-state.

But don’t think for one moment government would not like to get its expansive paws on marriage and dictate the rules of marriage and divorce.

Think about it: Do citizens apply for marriage licenses in Washington, D.C. or local town and city halls? If Americans sought D.C.’s permission to obtain marriage licenses, leaders would have the power to control how and when individuals marry, and heaven forbid, control marital life.

So, whenever Americans hear talk of “marriage equality,” look out, it’s an open door for government to finally become completely involved in private life, and when that happens, don’t think marriage affirmative action won’t be next on the list.

And therein lay the problem and questions no one’s asking both sides of the marriage argument.

What would the government do if marriage is taken from individual state’s and those rights are handed over to federal power?

There goes another Fourth Amendment liberty right down the tubes!

We must ask serious questions rather than assuming “that will never happen in America,” because too much of what we thought would “never happen here” already has and we are on the verge of all-out socialism.

Do readers really want marriage socialized and determined by the Federal Government? Could the Federal Government actually take control of marriage if given power to define marriage? If so, what are the possible repercussions?

If the Federal Government is given power over marriage, it would no longer be a state-by-state issue; a state’s right.

If the Federal Government has the power to define marriage, Washington could hold all Christian churches in contempt of the law if they refuse to perform same sex marriages.

Suppose the Federal Government were to twist Biblical scriptures “Judge  not lest you be judged,” and “whoever casts the first stone,”  falsely claiming scriptures demand no church can say no to same sex marriage or churches are violating scripture. Just imagine the Federal Government holding churches in contempt of the scriptures.

Never put anything past those who want to control the lives of citizens and use the Bible as a weapon against Christianity.

There goes more religious freedom.

Americans aren’t taking into account religious freedom; not having government impose its will upon our lives, which includes marriage. If we completely lose religious freedom, and we’ve lost much to the Left, Americans will in fact lose all liberty, because religious freedom is the foundation of this country.

Open the doors and let government into marriage and we wind up saying “I do” to the government.

As if we aren’t already.

Again, marriage has never been government instituted, but many determined to have rights to marry in all 50 states by-way-of  federal government mandate are not considering facts: They too will lose all rights to private life if the Federal Government is allowed to define and mandate marriage.

If given power to define marriage and give it “equality,” government could have power to define and determine who gets married and when.

How does Marriage Affirmative Action sound to readers?

Suppose the Federal Government said Christians can’t be married this year because the Federal Government does not have an equal quota on all marriages Christian, Jewish, gay, Hindu, Atheist, Muslim, black, white, Asian, etc.?

What if  race-card panderers, who claim America is too white, place a quota on white marriages to lesson American’s birthing more whiteness?

Never assume power-hungry, vote-grabbing politicians, those with race-card platforms, and those who hate Christians and traditionalists, would never do any of the above to Americans.

Here’s another question: If the Federal Government has control over marriage, couldn’t it have the say over who can and cannot divorce?

Just imagine the Federal Government telling abused women they cannot divorce dangerous husbands who beat them.  Or denying Muslim women rights to divorce Muslim husbands threatening to behead wives, because Islam says women are second class citizens. Islam would no doubt demand Sharia Law marriage equality in America since it does in Europe. Abused women, Muslim and non-Muslim, already face difficulty when trying to free themselves from abusive situations; if government gets involved, government could say America has too much divorce, and then watch the real war on women begin.

Imagine the Federal Government not letting women divorce pedophile husbands on the grounds some claim pedophilia is a life-style choice, or, because some psychiatrists consider pedophilia a mental disorder that needs understanding and not condemnation.

Why would that be far-fetched when courts free pedophiles all the time on grounds of mental health disabilities rather than declaring them violent criminals and imprisoning them for life.

And let’s not forget divorce attorneys! They must rubbing their hands with glee over the fact they might become twice as wealthy if gay marriage is legalized in all 50 states.

Never assume this could not happen in a country where the Federal Government long-ago overreached it’s 17 Enumerated Powers into the states.

And let’s not forget polygamists; they consider their marriages religious liberty.

If Americans seriously think polygamists are not hoping the Supreme Court sides with gay marriage and the Federal Government makes marriage legal for everyone, America is wearing rose colored-glasses. Polygamists want equal rights to marriage,  they’ve already jumped on the bandwagon for “marriage equality” and are demanding federal rights to marry multiple wives, including young girls forced into polygamist marriages in Colorado City, Utah.

Hey, give one group rights to marry, you must then provide full liberty and equality to all, right?

No one realizes how much power “marriage equality” holds for government to overreach state’s further and completely intrude on and order everyone’s fourth Amendment rights if marriage is government controlled.

Don’t ever think the Federal Government would never do that.

Armed Federal Agents To Impose Obamacare on States

Bible, flag, guns, Our rights

 Il Duce ObamaI just read a story that made my skin crawl.  Barack Obama has declared that the federal government will send federal agents into states to take over their insurance industry if they don’t surrender to Obamacare and set up the exchanges demanded by the regime.  Obamacare was passed in 2009 using bribery and arm twisting, topped off by a complete perversion of the legislative process.  It was opposed by a huge majority of We the People and reconciliation was used in a total disregard for the normal legislative process. This action led to the TEA Party uprising in 2010 that saw Republicans sweeping elections across the nation.

Now Obama brazenly stands up there and says that We the People have absolutely no voice in how we attend to our own health care.  This is bold, in your face, tyranny.  This is treason!!! Obama and his cadre of Marxists have once again thrown the Constitution out the window and said “I demand this…..!!!!!” or “I will by-pass Congress and do as I wish”.  Now he has decided to by-pass the state governments and the very voice of the people.  Is this not the definition of a dictatorship?

We either live by the Constitution or we live by the dictates of Der Fuhrer and his band of cutthitler4hroats.  The sad fact is that the ”leadership” of both political parties, the “ruling elite”, have joined forces with Obama to subjugate the population.  We now find “universal firearm registration” becoming much more acceptable to the Republican Party establishment, no surprise there.  All the noise about the assault weapons ban was a smoke screen for universal registration.  As soon as they know where all the weapons are they don’t need to ban them, they can just come out and confiscate them.  This is tyranny!!

Barack Obama has declared that he will dictate how we obtain and pay for our own health care, and he will send his armed agents to enforce it.  Any guess as to where a lot of the DHS purchases will be going???  The 10th Amendment doesn’t mean any more to these people than does the Dept Homeland Security Logo2nd Amendment.  He will send his Gestapo agents into each state and just take over the industry, he will “nationalize” the insurance industry.

Anyone who opposes this dictator will be dealt with by “federales”.  In 2010, Oklahoma voters rejected Obamacare in a 70%-30% vote.  Obama says what we want doesn’t matter and that he will impose his will on us by using armed federal agents to insure compliance.

This is not a battle between Democrat and Republican; it is a battle between Good and Evil, between We the republican logoPeople and a tyrannical government.  They are already giving massive amounts of military hardware to city and state law enforcement agencies.  Some sheriffs and policeDemomcrat Logo chiefs have said they will stand with Obama but many have said they will stand with We People.

The few people in Congress who speak up for the Constitution are pilloried by people on both sides of the political “aisle”.  Personally, I don’t see an aisle between the parties.  The federal government, in the name of Der Fuhrer Barack Obama, has announced its decision to subjugate its citizens.  They no longer make any pretense of “looking out for our best interests” and have gone right to threatening to sending armed agents to impose their will on what is supposed to be a free people.

Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Benito Mussolini did this very thing when they seized control of their nations.  Anyone who refusedStalin Bans Guns to comply with the dictator was either bribed or intimidated into submission, or replaced (read that: shot).  As of now we have come to the point of “weBenito Mussolini refuse and they replace”.  How long before they step in somewhere else?  The federal government has been far too involved in our everyday lives for years.  Now that a majority has bucked up and said “whoa Hoss!!”, Obama and his cutthroats are going to just send in their Gestapo agents to enforce the dictate.

The question is, what are the states going to do????  Are the governors and other elected officers of these states going to accede to the demands of the dictatorship or are they going to stand up for the Constitution?  Are they going to honor their oath of office and their pledge to We the People???

Oklahoma Insurance Commissioner John Doak has said he does not have the authority to enforce federal laws and will not do so.  What will Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin and the Republican controlled legislature do??? Will they step up and use state Mary Fallinlaw enforcement to prevent this act of treason or will they roll over and give in???  If they will surrender our 9th and 10th Amendment rights today what happens when the “federales” get finished with the 2nd Amendment?

If Congress, both political parties, and the governors of the threatened states, allow Obama to get away with such a blatant act of tyranny where will it stop??  It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know what happens when a small group of people can use force to impose their will on the majority of the population.

And what about those states not directly affected by this?  Do you think this doesn’t affect you?  I remember a quote from Pastor Martin Niemoller  in which he mentioned all the times people were trampled on by the Nazi government and he said nothing because it wasn’t him. Then they got to him and he was alone.  We all must stand together now or there won’t be any standing together later because many of us will be gone.

Now is the time for the governors to get together and create a plan of action against this blatant tyranny.  Many sheriffs have said they will stick with We the People, and We the People will stick by their sides.  The time for party politics is gone.  This is about the liberty of the citizens of the United States of America.  The noose is tightening around our necks and the ruling political class is tightening it as fast as they can because they see the citizens waking up. They see citizens beginning to make serious preparations for an all-out assault on our freedom by a dictatorial oligarchy in Washington, D. C. (De Cesspool) and they are moving as fast as they can to head off any ability of said citizens to oppose them.Bible, flag, guns, Our rights

The people are mobilizing to fight off the activities of a government overstepping its Constitutional bounds while most of our elected officials, in both political parties, band together to remove our only means of protection, the 2nd Amendment.

This action bConstitutiony the regime will abolish the 9th and 10th Amendments; universal firearm registration will abolish the 2nd Amendment.  The 4th Amendment against illegal search and seizure had been trampled to death numerous times in the last few years.  Our Republic is on the verge of oblivion and dictatorship is on the horizon.  Obama, Boehner, McConnell, Reid, Pelosi, McCain, Graham, Cantor, Schumer, and the rest are not going to just give up when they are a whisker away from the absolute control they have been seeking.  Their behind-the-scenes handlers won’t allow it either.  The window for a peaceful resolution is rapidly closing.

I submit this in the name of the Most Holy trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

Bob Russsell

Claremore, Oklahoma

March 26, 2013

« Older Entries Recent Entries »