An Open Letter to Glenn Beck on Pastor Broden

Glenn,

I traveled all the way from California to be with you on 8/28. With tears in my eyes as your tears have flowed, I have shared in your efforts, since mid-2008, to save our country and the pain you and your family have suffered at the hands of hateful progressives. But I must say to you now that I believe you have contracted a form of "Conservative PC." This may be a natural outgrowth of being branded as a hate-monger. However, considering that it was George Washington who won the Revolutionary War, and not Ghandi, I was shocked at your response to Pastor Stephen Broden when he rightly said that violence can never be taken off the table as a last resort. Was this not what the original "Black Robe Brigade" preached? Were they pacifists who stood by to watch their countrymen suffer at the hands of tyrants?

Broden acknowledged that we are nowhere near that point yet, but you have begun to act like Ghandi has replaced George Washington as the iconic element to save America. Ghandi is not a Founder; not a man that could have parted us from England in that time. The pacifists have their place as Dr. King and Ghandi have shown us. But relying ultimately on them to stop the march of progressive socialist communism or the Islamic juggernaut is a fools idea. How can you support our troops, law enforcement, and freedom without arms and the possibility of using them?

I honor you for all you have done for your country; all you have suffered and given of yourself. But God did not make us to be slaves, nor did he make us helpless. By taking all ultimate action off the table as a last resort in the face of tyrants is not only un-American, it is crazy. The meek never inherit anything, Glenn. They become slaves. Broden deserves an apology from you. 

With love and respect,

Steve Bayrd

California

Apologies

Having not posted here since April 2010, I must apologize for being remiss. I do much on Twitter (@SteveBayrd) and in supporting conservative candidates and, as you know, it can be hectic. My post today about Bill O'Reilly's book, Pinheads & Patriots, shows what I sent him by email and why he can be a bigger pinhead when he ignores things that others, like Glenn Beck, prove daily.

I'll try to do better in my posts. We are saving our country. I appreciate all who may find value in my words. Thank you!

An Open Letter to Bill O'Reilly on his P&P Book

Subject: Your book, Pinheads & Patriots

Mr. O’Reilly:

May I first say, before I offer my critique, that I know you love your country and that you are a patriot. I’ve read most of your books and found them very useful and entertaining. The books you write for children have changed young lives for the better. I sometimes robustly disagree with you, but I know you are a strong force for good in America. You have courage that few can muster in the media today; you are a real man. That is why the premises upon which you assess the facts presented to you are critically important. Chapters 9 and 10 in you book are swell. I generally agree with you. But there are some things I must mention about your take on the current situation.

It is good to be “fair” and also to think the best of people when it is deserved. I was a deputy sheriff for 18 years and developed good investigative skills and instincts without letting it overpower my basic belief of good in my fellow man. But there is a point where good, basic investigative instincts must be listened to. Such is the case with Mr. Obama. I spent years in industry and the intelligence community, having undergone extensive background investigations and receiving top-level security clearances. I’ve been in Iraq and Washington, D.C. with the best people… and the worst. Like you, I wasn’t a gold-plated angel in parts of my life, but I love my country and it showed on the polygraph and in those investigations. With Mr. Obama’s background, he could never have received such clearances. Just associating with Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers would disqualify him. America-haters only get clearances through massive bureaucratic bumbling.

Your colleague, Glenn Beck, has amassed huge amounts of facts and challenged the Whitehouse to correct any mistakes made. They never call. You both have investigative teams and either they to come to very different conclusions, or you are not listening to yours. Could you have been so single-minded as to have filled your team with yes-people? The crux of the difference is one of basic premise. Your staffs may bring you similar facts, but YOUR premises decide how the information fits. In your great desire for “fairness” you assume the best of those in power and come to other conclusions only reluctantly. This is a fine goal in general but can be catastrophic if what lurks behind the door can take your life, your property or your freedom. Here is where instinct must command your premises if you are to save yourself or your children’s future. Let’s call this a “Chuck Yeager” instinct. With all your time in foreign countries and reporting on world conflicts, I suspect there have been times when you felt the hair on the back of your neck stand up and that little voice say “I better move fast” or “I better get outta here.” It likely saved your life. Though our current situation is not so imminent, it is a rapid creep wrapped in a cloak of stealth.

You have enumerated a number of pinheaded “judgments” made by Mr. Obama or his personally chosen minions. Beck has put a video and audio face to these minions and exposed lifetimes of Socialist, Marxist and Chicago-machine background, plus union bosses, ACORN acolytes, Weather Underground terrorists, and leftist university professors that never ran ANY business. I’m sure your mother told you, as mine did, you are judged by the company you keep. The sweep of actual facts shows a man who disagrees with much of what America stands for. Add to this Obama’s own words from his books and you have enough to make that neck-hair tingle. Dinesh D’Souza’s article in Forbes Magazine, “How Obama Thinks,” and his new book shed light on why Obama’s premises are totally counter to American exceptionalism and the Constitution: to him we are gluttonous Imperialists. This is what his father “dreamed” and this is what he dreams.

You claim that Obama isn’t a Socialist because he hasn’t attacked private property. What do you call stealing the “property” of the GM bondholders and giving it to unions? Property is not only buildings. It is everything one “owns.”

The Obama DoJ has made a mockery of law and equality. You have mentioned the KSM trial but not much on the Voting Rights section. On top of the blatant New Black Panther free-pass on voter intimidation, our military can’t get ballots to vote. States are given waivers from military voting requirements and this plays into wins for Democrats, as do illegal alien amnesty rulings. Obama’s love affair with ACORN is compounded by the voter-fraud this organization is commonly linked to. When Obama’s Sacramento mayor buddy was targeted by an Americorps IG for misusing funds, the IG was fired without notice to Congress and was the subject of smears that he was “disoriented.” Later interviews prove this false and yet we hear nothing more of this. Do these things not make that “Chuck Yeager” instinct tell you there is a villain at the door?

You draw a parallel to the “hate” of Bush with the “hate of Obama. I don’t hate Mr. Obama. I don’t hate rattlesnakes either, but I know their nature and avoid them for obvious reasons. While some in any population will show their contempt as hate, your parity of tea partiers in the current time and Bush-haters is way off the mark. Sure, there are a few nut-cases, but overall, the discontent of a majority of the population has nothing to do with hate. It has to do with values, culture, fear and love of freedom.

You state that you think Obama works hard at his job. From where have you drawn this conclusion? This man spends more time vacationing, golfing, partying with celebrities and collecting honors that he hasn’t earned than any president in my lifetime. I had watched your pre-election interview with him. Reading your transcript was vastly eye-opening! In your usual way you didn’t let him slide. This placed him in the most difficult moment in his entire campaign. He tried his usual dissimulation and was thwarted, so he “ah”d and “um”d and weaved. His suave, teleprompter image was gone. This is no professor… this is a fake.

Back to trust and premises: Why would a seasoned bloodhound like you not question why Mr. Obama has spent huge sums to prevent release of his school records? (No, I’m not getting into birthplace here). Does this one issue not loom large in one’s trust quotient? Does not the back-room dealing and bribes (yes, BRIBES) to pass Obamacare and FinReg bother you? This is much more blatant than both parties usually engage in, as bad as that is. Lies are so obvious now about so many issues that America is a-flood with once-asleep patriots like me. We will not tolerate the corruption and lies from EITHER party anymore. Beck helps keep a lid on the most aggressive forms of our disgust. A few leak through but the facts show that most “racist” and “Nazi” events are staged by the Left to appear as tea partiers, or they are just the Left going uncontrolled, as with the events at the G-20.

I grandly applaud your support of the Snyder family (I sent money, too), your charities, and your love of country. But you need to let your instincts loose from their cage. I hate to compare two great men that are colleagues but you need to listen closer to Glenn Beck. You need to have your investigators work more closely with his. And then YOU must listen and not just seek some arbitrary “fairness” that is not deserved. I was angry at times while reading P&P, but because I know you are a patriot, I let my wisdom carry me through to this letter. I hope it can be received in the “no spin” and respectful manner intended.

Steven Bayrd

The Tensions of Our New Awareness

As conservative Americans we spent so many years raising our families, working hard to succeed and provide, and trusting in our political process, that we had to be slapped into awareness of the exponential growth of "Progressive" Socialism in our political class. The only thing we can thank Barack Obama for is his hubris in racing toward his Marxist/Socialist agenda.


Unfortunately, side-effects of our new awareness are tenseness and jumpiness about ALL legislation in Congress. We MUST be constantly vigilant and aware, but this new role for us as everyday Americans often makes our responses less than comprehensive and well researched. It makes us lash out at those in Congress who we often support but who must sometimes make a call on legislation that, at first look, we disagree with. We don't have time to research every bill. We often see potentially bad consequences because we DON'T TRUST the agenda of the Administration and its congressional lackeys; and rightly so!


A case in point is HR2499, the obvious attempt by the Obama regime to fast-track Puerto Rico to statehood; thus gaining two senators and six representatives, likely all Democrats. As initially proposed, this bill would do just what it intended. But the opposition to the bill as proposed was bipartisan, not just Republican. Amendments made the bill more like the three previous excursions into possible statehood, all which failed. See this Washington Times article http://tinyurl.com/2cruhpf for more detail. My initial disappointment with one of my favorite Congressmen was blunted by the reality that he and his staff helped craft the amendments and blocked the Obama fast-track agenda for Puerto Rico without shunning the desires of Puerto Rican citizens.


The lesson here is that we will sometimes be disappointed, but we must trust in our chosen conservative heroes while remaining vigilant and holding them to our principles. Unless their position is clearly at odds with out Constitution and conservative principles, seek their reasons for their votes on specific legislation before you lambaste them. They may have excellent reasons in long-term strategy to renew our Constitutional Republic.

The Defeat of Marxism (Again): 2010, The Beginning

America has had an awakening. As Glenn Beck has said, we would still be asleep and living our life in blissful ignorance of danger were it not for the election of Barack Obama as President. Over the last fifty years the seeds of radical socialism, planted in the early 20^th century and placed on steroids in the turmoil of the 1960’s, have borne fruit that Saul Alinsky could only have dreamed of.

My own generation bears the bulk of responsibility. The 60’s Hippie movement of drugs, “free” love and renunciation of personal responsibility went on to have children and teach them a perverted view of their country. This rewriting of history continues into their grandchildren. An example of the Marxist perversion is the airing of the History Channel’s “The People Speak.” This tome for “social justice” is created by one of Hollywood’s most radical Marxists. I encourage you to go here: http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/pcourrielche/2009/12/07/next-week-on-the-history-channel-hollywood-stars-introduce-your-kids-to-marxism/ and see for yourself. Also, Google "Cloward-Piven Strategy" and see the picture of Obama unfold.

Now, as the Awakening Giant stirs, our basically conservative country sees the birth of the Tea Party movement and many other advocacy groups promoting a return to our Constitution which has been ignored by all branches of government for a century. It is critically important that these voices, diverse as they may be, to unite and work together. The 2009 Continental Congress, the Patriot Caucus and others must find ways to coordinate to maximize our impact against the enemies of American constitutional freedom.

One must not ignore the bad signs! Some examples:

- Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano issuing a tax-funded anti-gun owner report to 850,000 law enforcement officials across the nation

- BATFE agents making un-announced visits to law-abiding homes to collect gun info without a warrant

- Healthcare Trojan-horse legislation that ignores stated intents of cost-control and universal coverage while completely controlling our health decisions

- Cap and Tax legislation that is obviously about “command and control” and is built on flawed science

- The President seeking control over the internet in an “emergency”

- And many more

As President Washington said: “There is nothing so likely to produce peace as to be well prepared to meet an enemy.” The enemy is Socialism, Marxism and, yes, Communism. If you want to see the face of the enemy, read “We The Living” by Soviet escapee Ayn Rand.

Our best hope is to form a unified litmus test for all current and future politicians that meets basic, Constitutional ideals. Vet each one and if they won’t sign and pledge to follow the ideals, vote them out and elect only those who will pledge. Our hopes for 2010, 2012 and beyond for our children and our country demand this fight. If you do not awaken, all will be lost.

“If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”— Winston Churchill

A Republic, not a Democracy

Essential concepts--we are not a 'democracy' but a 'republic'

Reprinted from the Columbia Conservative Examiner, by Anthony G. Martin

An essential concept in understanding the American form of government is that we are not a 'democracy' but a 'republic.' Nothing could be any more vital to an accurate grasp of the nature of our government than this, and nothing could be more key to our survival as a nation.

To put it very simply, 'democracy' means 'majority rule.' On the surface this sounds great. But look deeper and it is frighteningly ominous. For example, if we were living in a democracy, a simple majority vote could result in your house being taken from you for no reason other than to give it to someone else. A simple majority could decide that you should be thrown out to live in the street, begging for food and shelter.

One of my favorite examples of a democracy in action is the scenario where a simple majority votes that females who have brown eyes and dark brown hair are to be banned from driving. 'That's ludicrous,' you say. Sure it is. But if we are living under a system governed by 'majority rule,' what is to prevent such a thing from happening, or indeed, what is to prevent the 'majority' from essentially doing anything they want to do, including taking away your rights, robbing you of your children, or any number of outrageous atrocities?

We need to drop the term 'democracy' from our vocabulary altogether when it comes to describing our government. Nowhere in our founding documents is the word 'democracy' used--not in the Declaration of Independence, not in the U.S. Constitution, and not in the state Constitutions of ANY of the 50 states. What you WILL find, however, is the term 'republic.' The reason is not far to find. The Founders were careful to set up a Republic, not a Democracy.

Thus, what, exactly, is a Republic? The terms denotes a form of government that is based upon the rule of law as delineated in a document called a 'constitution.' That constitution sets up the pillars of government and then proceeds to delineated clear limitations on that government in order to prevent it from encroaching on the rights of the people. This is why, then, that even if a majority of citizens vote to ban brown-eyed, brown-haired females from driving, such a thing would not stand. Why? Due to the fact that we are Republic governed by the rule of law set forth in a constitution, the majority does not have the right to limit the freedoms of others. The liberties of the minorities are protected from any encroachment by the majority.

In like manner, the majority cannot vote to take your house away and force you to live on the street as a beggar, neither can it rob you of your children. The rule of law prevents such atrocities from happening, no matter what they 'majority' of the people think. So where, then, did we get this notion that we are living in a 'democracy' where the 'majority rules'?

I have a theory about that. I maintain that such a notion got its impetus from the 'progressive movement' of the late 1800s and early 1900s, with individuals such as Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and others, who had a vested interested in undermining the clear rule of law as delineated in our Constitution. The 'progressives,' who have been called various terms throughout the decades, such as 'liberals,' 'leftists,' and the like, want no limitations on the power of a centralized government to make decisions that fly in the face of every known principle of liberty affirmed in the Constitution. In fact, this is precisely why they speak so often of 'democracy' and 'majority rule.' They believe that by convincing an unschooled populace that they live in a democracy, then they can simply influence them to vote themselves into slavery to the government and limit the rights of their fellow citizens. After all, a 'simple majority vote' is all it takes, right? WRONG! Mob rule is very dangerous.

A very simple way to understand this difference is that democracy = 'majority rule' = 'mob rule' which then necessitates government stepping in to seize more power in order to bring order into the chaos. On the other hand, a republic is the rule of law as delineated in a constitution that places limits on the powers of government, protects the rights of the people, and prevents the 'majority' from running roughshod over the rights and liberties of the minority. It is clear, then, that we live in a Republic and not a Democracy.

However, since the waning days of the 19th century and proceeding into the 20th century a dangerous force has been at work to undermine the concepts inherent in our Republic and replace them with the notion that we live in a 'democracy' where the 'majority rules.' This force is known as 'the Progressive Movement.' Progressives see government as a positive force for 'change' rather than an oppressive force that must be restrained. Immediately this places progressives at odds with the point of view of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution. And history is certainly not on the side of the progressives with their Pollyannish optimism that government is a positive force in the lives of citizens.

History is replete with examples of the fact that as the power and role of government expands, the liberties of the people are diminished and ultimately removed. There is not a single case in all of human history that shows a society keeping its freedoms once the power of government begins to grow. In fact, government is the single largest source of mass murder in the history of the world. No other entity or person has killed off more human beings than government. The 20th century alone is itself a case in point. When Lenin and Stalin came to power in Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution (the Russian Revolution) early in the 20th century, the Communist ruling elite systematically murdered over 25 million Russians over a period of years. When Chairman Mao Tse Tung came to power in China, ushering in an era dominated by the Communist Party--which, by the way, continues to this day--70 million Chinese were murdered.

And this doesn't even begin to touch the bloodbath left in the wake of monsters such as Pol Pot, Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, and of course, Adolf Hitler.

Yet the Progressives seem to be perpetually intoxicated by imbibing from the strong brew that continually flows down the rocks of the 'Big Rock Candy Mountains.' They insist, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, that big government is a good thing, and they want citizens to vote for it by convincing them that we are a 'democracy' and that the 'majority rules. And thus, the populace should not worry that a minority of citizens may lose their rights and liberties. The problem is that the majority loses their rights and liberties as well, even as they vote for larger government programs and candidates that promise the moon with 'hope and change.

Exactly what, then, are the basic precepts of 'the Progressive Movement'? Study Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Prohibition, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Lyndon Baines Johnson, and you will get a flavor. Here are some of the highlights:

*An expansion of the size, scope, and power of the federal government.

*An emphasis on 'environmentalism' as opposed to the private property rights of citizens.

*Intrusive, expensive, and time-consuming government regulation of private enterprise.

*A belief that the government knows what is best for citizens rather than allowing them to make their own personal choices--reference 'Prohibition' which banned the sale of alcohol during Woodrow Wilson's administration.

*Rather than teaching the poor how to rise out of their dire straits, the Progressives pushed comprehensive welfare programs to 'take care of the poor,' including the concept of nationalized healthcare under the control of government (the Progressives were the first to advance this concept as far back as the late 1800s and early 1900s).

*A view of public education that affirmed John Dewey's notion that the purpose of public schools is not to emphasize learning, grasping, and applying a body of knowledge but to remove competitive merit-based achievement, replacing it with an emphasis on the student's artistic, emotional, and creative capacities within a non-competitive environment.

*The notion that government should own and operate certain enterprises that could be run by private entities.

Thus, the concept that 'rights' are actually nothing more than 'opportunities' was gradually replaced by the concept of 'entitlement'--that is, citizens are entitled to certain things government can provide. The only problem is government can't provide a thing to some citizens unless it confiscates wealth from other citizens. It is highly interesting that the Income Tax, which was never a part of the founding documents and never mentioned in the Constitution, became a part of that Constitution just as the Progressive Movement began to take hold.

As you can see, much of what passes for 'democratic ideals' today is nothing more than the agenda first envisioned by the Progressive Movement back in the late 1800s. And it is antithetical to every principle of liberty as delineated in our Constitution. Many if not most of the citizens, interestingly enough, have bought into these dangerous concepts and are quite willing to negate the liberties of their fellow citizens as long as government keeps doling out the entitlements.

But how, exactly, did we allow ourselves to get to this point?

In our consideration of 'essential concepts' we must examine how the Framers of the U.S. Constitution guarded against mob rule democracy. And make no mistake about it, democracy is mob rule. A simple majority vote under a democracy can result in all sorts of havoc wreaked upon civil rights, liberties, and protections of freedom explicit in the Constitution. This is precisely why the Framers warned against democracy and did all they could to guard against it in formulating the American government. For example, there is Benjamin Franklin's famous response to a woman who asked him on the street, 'Mr. Franklin, exactly what kind of government have you given us?' His response was direct and to the point--'A Republic, if you can keep it.'

The Framers made it abundantly clear that we are a Republic and not a democracy. Democracies can easily be manipulated by demagogues who rally the masses to use the concept of 'a simple majority vote' to undo every single protection against the encroachments upon the liberties guarded by the Constitution. Thus, the Framers instituted a myriad of safeguards that made it necessary for politicians and others to jump through several hoops before any big changes could be made to the stipulations they insisted be part of the founding documents regarding liberty.

One of these safeguards is the Electoral College. Interestingly, progressives in the nation today attack the Electoral College as being 'out of date,' 'oppressive,' 'unnecessary,' and 'a relic of colonial-era elitism.' Nothing could be further from the truth. The Electoral College was implemented by the Framers to guard against simple majority mob rule. By using the system of the Electoral College, the Framers insured that citizens who live in less populated areas of the country would not be disenfranchised by the masses who live in densely populated regions.

In a simple majority direct election of a President, the votes of citizens who live in Wyoming or Montana, for example, are totally decimated, overwhelmed, and negated by the votes of citizens who live in New York City, Boston, Miami, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. In fact, when one takes a look at a map of voter demographics, one can see clearly that in the controversial election of 2000 it was the citizens who live around the rim of the country--the coastal regions and Great Lakes (and a few other areas)--who voted for Al Gore. The rest of the country went for George W. Bush, and, using the Electoral College system, this meant that Bush won due to the fact that he came out on top in most of the areas of the country. Al Gore, on the other hand, won the majority of the popular vote (the simple majority) by garnering the support of the densely populated centers around the nation's rim alone. Had he been elected, that would have meant that the votes of citizens who live in large metropolitan areas would have counted more than those who live in the rest of the country. This gives an unfair advantage to citizens living in coastal regions and around the Great Lakes.

Thus, the Electoral College system gives citizens who live in less populated regions a bit of a boost, making our Presidential elections fairer and more even. And what, exactly, is the concept undergirding this mandate? It is the desire of the Framers to protect the minority from the mob rule inherent in a democratic 'simple majority' vote. To be sure, most of the time the majority decides the election. But in very close races an edge is given to those citizens who live in less populated regions in order to prevent their votes from being totally negated and overwhelmed by large, mega-cities.

Another safeguard the Framers included in the original Constitution was the stipulation that U.S. Senators be chosen by their state legislatures rather than by a vote of the citizens. The Framers believed that one of the two Houses of Congress be removed from a direct, popular vote of the people. That house was to be the Senate while the U.S. House of Representatives would be the body that was chosen by a direct election of the people. To the Framers this accomplished 2 important objectives--to achieve a balance between direct, popular elections and a need for the stability inherent in one body of Congress being removed from the whims of the electorate. By having the Senate chosen by the state legislatures, which were elected by the people in those states, the Framers believed that it would be more difficult for activist politicians to tamper with essential precepts of liberty that did not need to be changed.

Unfortunately, as the years progressed the people demanded direct election of Senators in addition to the House of Representatives. That change was implemented to the detriment of liberty. We are now in a most unfortunate scenario where both houses of Congress are under the control of activists whose only gauge of 'effectiveness' is how much legislation they passed and how much 'change' they accomplished. This is clearly not the mark of a good representative in Washington. The appropriate gauge of how effective is a Senator or Congressman is how thoroughly did they protect the citizens from attempted encroachments upon their liberties. This could well mean that they pass NO new legislation! It could also mean much less time spent in Washington, which would save the taxpayers billions. I would do cartwheels in my front yard if we could get through a session of Congress where not a single measure of new legislation was passed.

Yet, due to the creeping crawl of 'the Progressive Movement,' resulting in bigger and bigger government, much of the populace today neither values nor clings to the safeguards to liberty that our Founders gave us.

Conservatives, libertarians, and other Patriots in the right-of-center of American politics are ever-so aware of the trouble our Republic is in. The question is, how did we get here and what will change it? What brought us to this critical and dangerous juncture in our history as a nation? The Framers included various safeguards from a bull-headed mob that is intent on forcing the issue of 'simple majority rule' that is inherent in a democracy. It was as if the Founders were telling the majority-rule mob that wishes to override the liberties of the people with a simple majority vote, 'NO YOU CAN'T.' But of course, just like Barack Obama, the 'progressives' respond with 'YES WE CAN!'

'Yes,' they say, 'We can do whatever we want. We can vote to negate your rights if we think they are a stumbling block to our ultimate goals and objectives.' And this is precisely how we got to this point. Progressive politicians and operatives use demagoguery to persuade the unschooled electorate that it is for their own good that they give up some of their rights 'for the broader good.' And make no mistake about it, our liberties have taken a hit. Note the number of laws and regulations the government has placed on firearms, for example. Since when did an 'unalienable right' that 'shall not be infringed' be subjected to such draconian infringements?

In addition, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that our speech, and even our thoughts, are monitored, regulated, and restricted by government. So called 'hate crime' laws are a perfect case in point. In a free society we do not punish motivation. We punish the act. But now certain groups are given special protections not only from heinous acts but from the thoughts that led to the acts. This nothing less than sheer mind-control.

The 'politically-correct' movement arising out of Progressivism has made it all but a crime to merely speak certain words. And if they had their way, they would make them crimes. Notice how the European Union and Canada, for example, treats liberty-promoting politicians such as Geert Wilders and columnists such as Mark Steyn for merely pointing out that radical Islam is dangerous to the liberties of free societies. Both have been treated as criminals for saying such things.

However, the key point to remember is how we got here. It was a gradual, incremental scheme implemented by the Progressive Movement that believes in ultimate government authority over human beings. First, they implemented the Income Tax. Then, they nationalized services that could be provided by the private sector. Next came environmentalism that places the needs of endangered microscopic fish over that of private property owners (and yes, this concept had its beginnings all the way back in the last part of the 19th century). Then there was Prohibition that forbade the sale of alcohol. By the way, did you know it was the Progressives that clung to the continuation of Prohibition throughout the 1920s, even as the citizens demonstrated with their actions that they had no intention of obeying it?

After that, of course, there was the New Deal that prolonged the economic depression with excessive government regulation, tax hikes, and bailouts. Only World War II was able to get us out of the Great Depression.

Then we had Lyndon Johnson's 'Great Society' which implemented the most sweeping government programs we've ever had, leading to a permanent underclass we call 'the welfare state.'

Government has done nothing in the midst of this but grow bigger and more intrusive...and oppressive.

And we must not forget that ultimate, monolithic symbol of global progressivism and paternalistic oppression, the UNITED NATIONS. Only the administration of Ronald Reagan gave us a brief respite from the relentless march of the Progressive Movement to seize control of society from top to bottom. And today, we see the ultimate consequences of a 100-year progression toward government oppression.

Communists, Maoists, domestic terrorists, and admirers of Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, and Hugo Chavez occupy the top positions in the Obama White House. Attempts are made to squelch any speech that the White House deems as unacceptable. The FCC has declared war on conservative talk radio. A 'pay czar' has admitted he wants to see the demise of American capitalism. A panel of social engineers and wacko doctors want to implement healthcare rationing, the rules of which are to be determined by government. And a President has declared war on a news network (Fox) for no other reason than it dares to ask him the tough questions that need to be asked.

After 100 years of the relentless assault by the forces of anti-freedom, we stand at this hour on the brink of complete collapse as a free society. What can we do about it?

Here are some thoughts, some possibilities. They are not to be viewed as a plan for implementation being endorsed by this writer but only as concepts to be considered by concerned citizens:

First, we need not just a million protesters in Washington for a 912-Project, Tea Party, and Oath Keepers march. We need 100 million citizens to become activists to take this country back from charlatans who masquerade as 'democratic representatives of the people.' Actually they represent nothing but their own ideology and subversive agenda to dismantle the Constitutional Republic our forefathers gave us. They need to be booted out of Washington. In fact, we need a complete house-cleaning from top to bottom--in the White House, the Senate, the House, and the Courts. Unless those who swore an oath to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States actually begin to adhere to that oath, then they need to be shown the door, ousted from office.

Second, citizens need to get serious about considering civil disobedience by refusing to pay taxes to fund this entirely illegitimate government.

Third, citizens could well consider a massive, non-violent invasion of Congress. The objective? To shut it down. Unless these boneheaded numbskulls stop with their continual attacks on free speech, capitalism, and measures that will ruin our good healthcare and rob us of our money through oppressive taxation, then perhaps the citizens should simply move into the chambers of Congress, en mass, taking the floor with one purpose in mind--shutting the thing down until a new election can be held.

Fourth, if the previous measures are too strong for you to stomach, then do all you can to protest. Ring the phones of Congress and the White House off the hooks. Bombard them with emails of protest. Faxes too. Take to the streets with placards that show your utter contempt for the enemies of liberty we somehow allowed to take control of the halls of government. And then, VOTE OUT THE BUMS! 2010 could be a watershed year in the history of our Republic. In fact, it could be the election that SAVES the Republic. Don't let Party allegiance or some sort of sentimental attachment to your own Senator or Representative dissuade you. Vote them out! And be sure to support only those candidates who have a sincere conviction about the restoration of Constitutional law in the land.

Perhaps this is the year that we oust both the Democrats and the GOP. Independent conservatives should be given a chance to clean up the mess left by Progressives in both Parties.

The Future of Freedom

This is a time of great turmoil for our Republic. Forces of the political Left, under the guise of "Progressive" action, are marshaling forces in Federal and State governments, in local governments and schools, and in our children's minds, to destroy everything that has made the United States of America great.

We have never seen this much subversion and coercion applied in so many areas of American life as we see exerted by this President; this Congress; these Marxist organizations; these unions. The assault on Capitalism and our nation is exemplified in the video, "The Story of Stuff," now being shown to school children across the country and outside it. This video, produced by the Soros-funded Tides Foundation, a Marxist entity, is a shocking example of back-door subversion that has slipped by us as we worked to support our families and enrich our futures. We have been distracted too long. We must act!

We have, too long, allowed schools, universities, unions and subversive organizations to thrive while we have been distracted. I, for one, will not allow it. Many, many millions of Americans are with me. We have no support from the Left-pandering media. They are a complete failure. They are now the "fringe media" rather than the "mainstream media."

Yet, we are not alone, for we have commentators and bloggers and Fox News and talk radio. We have the moral high-ground. We have a spiritual underpinning that is rooted in the freedom of the human spirit. Every time a politician attempts to take away our hard-earned money, our health-care choices, our liberty, our right to speak our minds, our children's minds, or our self-determination, they are acting unconstitutionally. One must find the moral strength to stand and not be moved, even in the face of force by a tyrannical government. This is the legacy we were handed by our Founders and the generations past. It is what they fought for and died for.

I am not for violence. I have spent my life defending my country and the rule of law. But let this be my epitaph: Should forces of subversion, whether inside the government or outside it, attempt to corrupt my Constitution further, I will resist with all my might. I will resist with all my skill and effort to use communication and persuasion within my power. I am an old man now. My primary career days are behind me. But now I am on a mission to save my beloved country from an evil that cannot stand. If that makes me dangerous in the eyes of my enemies, then they at least have some grasp of reality! But dangerous to who? To my country? No! To my neighbors? No! Our Founders, in their writings and documents, noted that all Americans are part of the Militia; not some radical right-wing entity, but "we the people."

We the people cast off the nanny state and its political corruption. We know what our country and our government are: The Constitution and the people. You are on notice, Marxists, Communists, Socialists, crooks, liars, corrupt politicians. GET OUT... or you will be thrown out!