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!

California Water Issue a Constitutional One

Californians, and through the food they normally grow for the nation and the world, Americans, are suffering under a water restriction to protect a two-inch bait fish. As mentioned by a lawyer who is representing a farmer in California’s central valley, the root of the “water problem” is a Constitutional one. Politicians, including many California governors, have let the Federal government overstep the bounds of the U.S. Constitution for more than 100 years. The 10^th Amendment to the Constitution is clear that the Federal government’s authority is very narrow. All authority and law not assigned to the Federal government under that narrow assignment is “reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” Therefore, the Federal government has NO AUTHORITY to regulate water or fish or anything that has nothing to do with interstate commerce. The Feds will try to say that the water is used to grow food that is shipped out of state, but that is a stretch we must resist.

The courts that have helped abrogate the Constitution are, themselves, violating the Constitution. In the face of so much long-standing corruption of Constitutional principles by politicians and courts, it is hard to imagine where to start. But, I think, the answer is simple. The Chief Executive of a state should be (SHOULD BE) living up to his oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” He takes an oath to the state Constitution, too, but both must be “Constitutional.”

Many who are used to abusing the Constitution will say it’s impossible. Many will say this idea is too simplistic. Bah! A State Executive (Governor) should (SHOULD) be brave enough to have moral principles. Watching people starve and lose their life’s work for some fish or for some political football like the Endangered Species Act and doing nothing but talk is an act of cowardice. We are supposed to be a “Nation of Laws.” But the supreme law is the Constitution! Schwarzenegger, as the State Executive, by an executive order, should have the moral strength to order his state employees to TURN ON THE WATER, whether a Federal judge or the Obama administration agrees or not. He could order it to be done! It would be done.

The state and its governor would be threatened with Federal sanction, removal of other Federal funds, court action, etc. But that is what a LEADER does… the right thing! Look the Federal thugs in the eye and say, “Make me!” It takes guts! Let the Supreme Court fiddle with the details later. The Constitution is on your side. We must hammer it into Gov. Schwarzenegger’s head. Tell him to live up to the image he created in his professional life… the fighter for good! Begin a 10^th Amendment media blitz in writing and TV. Read the Constitution and 10^th Amendment. Help to get Schwarzenegger to do this and STOP THE TALK. Time to act! TURN ON THE WATER!

We Need an Elliot Ness

The revelations that have come to light about President Obama, during the campaign and after election, have left little doubt to many of us that deep problems exist for the future of America. While a few in Congress and some pundits focus on the White House’s vetting process for “Czars,” most Americans, blessed with that wonderful commodity, Common Sense, see a systemic problem of far greater proportion.

While the Administration and the Democrat Congress overwhelms the public with an onslaught of legislation from bailouts and “stimulus” to healthcare and Cap and Trade, the people, as borne out by polling, see an emerging pattern far more sinister than obvious Socialism. It is the methodology of Chicago “machine politics” married with a disturbingly Marxist ideology. In Chicago, politics, thuggery and crime have been married since before it was exposed by people like the FBI’s Elliot Ness in the 1920’s. While Prohibition may have triggered the exposition of Al Capone and the Mob, linked with the political machine, it was about crime rather than ideology. Now, it is the “machine” linked with a fundamental attack on our Constitution and its natural ally, Capitalism.

Today a convergence has occurred between the thugocracy of Chicago politics and radical Marxist ideology as epitomized be the Saul Alinsky school of thought; a “gift” to us of the 60’s radical movement whose now aging proponents have artfully maneuvered into Congress and the White House. Anyone who is not terrified to see radical Marxists, even self-avowed Communists steering us toward a path that has failed miserably time and again throughout history, is either a fool or a menace to America and all that made her great.

We need a modern day Elliot Ness to identify this threat and dismantle it. The silence from our “conservative” elected officials on the above course is disturbing. They nip at the effects of it, like calling for dismissal of Green Jobs Czar Van Jones, but they don’t get at the systemic cause. They have become so anesthetized by their own power and quest to keep their position that they have abdicated their patriotic principles. They all need to be corralled and forced to watch the movie, “Mr. Smith Goes To Washington.”

One person who won’t need to be compelled to see that movie is former Gov. Sarah Palin. She has proved that she lives her love of America every day and through every public action. No-one should have any doubt where she stands on all current issues. The “Hockey Mom” from Wasilla has proven through word and deed that she has the guts and dedication of Elliot Ness combined with the leadership skills to dismantle the Chicago Marxist machine and its pandering Leftist agenda in Congress and the so-called Labor Movement.

No-one else seems to be stepping up to lead the charge against the enemies of the Constitution. Looks like the only one who has seriously taken her Constitutional oath to heart is Palin.

545 vs 300,000,000 - A Must Read

545 vs 300,000,000

EVERY CITIZEN NEEDS TO READ THIS AND THINK ABOUT WHAT THIS JOURNALIST HAS SCRIPTED IN THIS MESSAGE. READ IT AND THEN REALLY THINK ABOUT OUR CURRENT POLITICAL DEBACLE.

Charley Reese has been a journalist for 49 years.

545 PEOPLE
By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason.. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-pickingthing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red ..

If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they want them in IRAQ

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.

Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.

What you do with this article now that you have read it.......... It is up to you.

This was sent to me via email. It was too important not to post.

Mexican or American in Space?

AP reported that Mexico's president has invited Jose Hernandez, a NASA astronaut of Mexican descent, to dinner when the astronaut returns to Earth. President Felipe Calderon is "very happy that your are putting Mexico's name in space." Hernandez has accepted the invitation.

As a participant in the US space program for more than fifteen years, I applaud all brave astronauts of any heritage who risk their lives to expand our knowledge and the US's future in space. However, I am concerned when we lose our connection to America, the cradle that makes most great endeavors possible. While I understand a person's desire to maintain a linkage to their heritage, I find it disconcerting that many Hispanics reap the benefits of being an American but pander to extra-nationalistic sentiments that would subvert the very nation that allowed their success. If the other countries COULD do it, they would. But their methods prevent it.

It is the WAY our country was created and grew that makes it the economic engine of the world. Most Europeans and third-world countries are envious of our success and desire our failure due to that envy. Their alternate forms of government, combined with rampant corruption, could never produce the success seen in the US. Yet, rather than emulate our methods, they chafe along the sidelines, throwing rocks. Unfortunately, the current Administration agrees with them.

When we pander to the critics and the envious, we are not being an American; we are being stupid and disloyal. Hernandez's first words should have been: "I am an American, sir. Though happy to be of Mexican descent, I honor my country. I'll be happy to meet with you."

American, or Mexican in a space suit? You decide.

Cowards Look to the Government for Protection

When someone breaks into your home, a threat to you and your family, what will you do? Will you cower in fear and run to the phone? Will you speak loudly to the thief/rapist/killer and ask them to leave? Will you just do what they say and HOPE that you live and only lose your property/dignity/life? This is what those who think only the government should have guns want you to do.

I have studied history for many years. I have studied human nature as well. It astounds me how many weak-minded sheep have propagated in these many years since my boyhood in the 50's. I blame in great part my own baby-boomer generation and their Hippie movement of free love, no responsibility and draft-dodging that bred sheep instead of strong and responsible adults. They grew into a generation rife with cowards. These cowards had little ones who were taught the same messages. Luckily, enough of my generation had the sense to know foolishness and idiocy when they saw it.

It is up to each of us to call these cowards what they are. It is one thing for an individual to decide that they choose not to resist attack and possibly sacrifice their life for a principle, religious or otherwise. It is entirely another thing if that person will let their family die by not fighting. If a man or woman WILL NOT USE ANY MEANS AVAILABLE TO PROTECT THEIR FAMILY, then they are just as guilty as the attacker. They die or are raped or have their lives ruined and their family destroyed because nature was subverted by a nanny government and their gullibility! They are either cowards or fools. It is probably not unusual that the sheep want the 100 million + Americans who legally own guns to be disarmed. They are, after all, cowards and fools.

Rep. Bachmann and Sarah Palin Speak for Me

My comment left at The Washington Times re: an article by Amanda Carpenter in regard to Sarah Palin's support of Rep. Bachmann in speaking out against Obama's Deathcare:

When one considers a bill written by presidential appointees, politicians and lawyers it will never actually say "Death Panel." One must look beyond the wording to the intent of those "crafting" the legislation. In this case, Rep. Bachmann has delved into the obvious "ideology" of the crafters. This is what wise and prudent investigators do, be they conservative legislator or police detective. In this case, it is clear that those whom the President has chosen to surround himself, and who craft such policy, are cold-blooded and callous at the least and horrific humans at worst. Throughout history there have been foreign leaders that dealt horrible blows to humanity, each of us can name them. Even these knaves probably had a few good policies but their evil grossly outweighed any good. A look at the President's advisors and their ideology not only gives insight into Mr. Obama himself, but lets us see the goals they really seek, though it be obscured by legislative double-speak. Bachmann, Palin and the the awakening giant, aka the American people, know evil when we see it.

Pondering a Purpose

When we are young we seldom consider a grand purpose for our lives. There are many activities that one undertakes to achieve goals we think are useful for our happiness. But many of these, while important, are transient and after the achievement and the lessons learned, are left behind as a foundation for larger wisdom.

A purpose is a motivation; a reason to accomplish a goal or move in a certain direction. A motivation or purpose can be for the betterment of our spirits and to leave a positive mark or legacy for those that come behind us or it can be for our own power over others and the dominance of our intent over the free intent of others. When I analyze the purpose underlying many of those currently in overt positions of national leadership and trust, be it politics, acedemia or the media, I find my instincts to be trustworthy. The motivation behind those who so easily look down upon us from their lofty Beltway, New York and Hollywood vistas are motivated by base ego and lust for power, veiled by extremely competent spinning and often affable facades. Purely, for now, the Chicago, Ivy League, elitist mindset.

When the Obamas, Nancy Pelosis, Barney Franks, Moureen Dowds and Valerie Jarretts are placed under the microscope of common sense and evolved instinct, the hair raises on the back of the neck of anyone who believes in our Founding Documents. These towering intellects do not respect the great good heart, wisdom and spirit of the American people. They assassinate the effectiveness and honor of those who expose them and gain power through lies, misdirection and secrecy. It is not only on the Left (aka Progressives) that honor has been compromised but in what should be the center or the Right as well. We have, ourselves, lost our way or become jaded to the facts of the baser parts of human nature. But I have awakened as millions of others have. This is why I can trust a smart, principled and gutsy woman from Wasilla, Alaska to lead a nation rather than leave it in the hands of skulking liars and cowards. I would follow and fight for ten thousand principled true Americans rather than sell my honor cheaply to elitist snobs and traitors.

So my purpose has evolved for my (at 62) somewhat more limited future. With the bulletproof days of youth long past and most of my great battles of achievement won, I now concentrate on the world my daughter will inherit. We kid with each other that she and I grew up together. I raised her, mostly alone since she was 3 1/2, to love life, have a good heart, to know her own mind and to be free. I was only 19 when she was born. But she has many years left and so do millions of other young Americans that have little or no idea what true freedom and liberty really feel like. I remember it like a I do my first kiss or my first real responsibilities.

So my purpose now and for the foreseeable future, perhaps my final purpose, is to secure in stone the American "idea" that the Founders believed in enough to risk all they had; an idea that has been corrupted and sold and manipulated to a point beyond recognition. It is a noble purpose. One that, while terrible in its cost in loss of sleep, intense thought, blogging, and research, is beautiful in its attainment for those we love, born and yet to be born.

A life of grand accomplishment for me in engineering, science, law enforcement, corporate communications, military intelligence and more, topped off with a grand purpose: the gift of freedom and liberty for my daughter. What could be more fulfilling?

Battles Fought, Battles to Come, History in the Making

Sundays are a slow day for me, having injected myself with critically-needed medication on Saturday evening that makes me a little ill on Sunday. However, I delighted in watching Sarah Palin as she gave her farewell address and opened the door to the rest of her life. She spoke truths that are unheard from the Washington elites and the corrupt media.

Now, as we who support her ideas and honor her patriotism look to the future, we are emboldened but also cautious because we know the fight has only begun. The attacks on Gov. Palin had and will have a life of their own. Truth in journalism will not show its face until these shallow, elitist and morally bankrupt editors, “news” anchors, reporters and bloggers are shown the door by poor ratings. It is a sad testimonial that many voters have more interest in who is the current “American Idol” or are titillated by the Octomom than whether their country is secure or their freedoms are being removed through clandestine policy as preached by one of Obama’s historic heroes, Saul Alinsky.

What Sarah Palin brings to the table is realism, truth and a spine of titanium. We have not seen such spine since Ronald Reagan. I remember one moment in a Reagan press conference where a reporter was disrespectful to the president. Reagan told him to shut up! This was not arrogance, for Reagan was a most affable fellow. It was “spine!” Arrogance is Barbara Boxer. Arrogance is the president who continues to bring race into American homes. When Gov. Palin instructs the media on truth, it is not arrogance. It is spine. In a world of handcuffing political correctness, Palin is a real and kind-hearted but strong person. And one doesn’t have to stop at Reagan. Palin is giving the media a Harry Truman moment as well. That “common man” was a small businessman from the Midwest. Just a regular guy, like Palin; like her family; like most of us.

My hope is that this freedom-loving, honest patriot, who loves her country, will lead the way to a rebirth of the founding principles and the people’s awareness of their responsibility for their own future and that of their children. 2010 is approaching and this is the great moment of equality where the House and Senate can be rebuilt by new and more honest representatives of the people. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if our representatives had to live under the same laws, use the same healthcare and pay their fair share of taxes as do the rest of us? Palin’s iconic status and her obvious passion for the regular folks is the fulcrum and lever by which we can move the huge boulder of government oppression off the chest of the American family.

AARP and the Scam of the Old

I just went to the AARP website and found this press release, which shows that they wanted Obamacare to pass the House and Senate without waiting to be vetted and bi-partisan. I also noted that the ObamaCare topic had been removed from their forum page:

For Immediate Release July 23, 2009 Contact: AARP Media Relations, 202-434-2560, media@aarp.org AARP Reacts to Senate Decision to Put Off Health Care Reform Vote Washington – AARP today reacted to the Senate’s decision to put off voting on health care reform legislation until after the August recess. A statement from AARP Executive Vice President Nancy LeaMond follows: “AARP is disappointed in the failure to reach agreement on passing comprehensive health care reform until after the August recess. The millions of people impacted by high drug costs and those that can’t get adequate health insurance because of age or a pre-existing condition need help now. An August of waiting will not lower costs, increase access or improve quality. Few understand the enormous challenge of this task better than AARP. We have been working to reform health care for more than 50 years and we know this is difficult. But Congress needs to get this done. American families simply cannot afford Washington’s stalemate any longer.”

end quote AARP gets $83 million in fed funding (10% of its budget) and is likely partnering with the administration to get more. I would not trust what the AARP rep tells you. AARP has proved that they have a very liberal agenda.

Waxman-Markey (Cap & Trade) – The California (Bankrupt) Way

The year was 1969, Henry Waxman entered the California legislature and joined other liberal politicians in the long road to Socialism… California-style. After three terms in the California Assembly, fighting Gov. Ronald Reagan at every turn, Waxman went on to represent the area at the heart of the Hollywood elite as U. S. Congressman for the 30^th District, encompassing Beveryl Hills, Brentwood, West Hollywood, Malibu and Century City, all at the core of LA/Hollywood liberal thought. Waxman is the quintessential California spend and tax socialist, and though he may be in Congress now, his heart and theology are in complete concert with those who have bankrupt his state. Waxman’s district is Los Angeles County. LA County supervisor Mike Antonovich just released the welfare cost to the county for the children of illegal aliens for May 2009. Hold your breath… $48 million dollars! Projected 12-month cost - $500 million plus… in a bankrupt state! This is Waxman territory.

California is bankrupt. One may say this is the recent result of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s desire to work with the liberal legislature rather than “terminate” its spend and tax bills with the touch of his veto pen. The siren-call of social compassion offered by the liberal-led legislature was just too loud for Arnold to overcome. The result is a 26+ billion deficit and a citizen-led revolt to deny any tax increase. Faced with the success of the recent election initiative to stop tax increases, the state-worker unions and socialist legislators have proceeded with every nefarious end-run around the will of the people to increase taxes. This is Waxman territory.

The real reason for budgetary failure is California’s oppressive environmental climate, free-handed welfare giveaways and out-of-control government worker unions. Time will likely show that the Obama/Reid/Pelosi triad will come to California’s “aid” with a bailout. This, of course, will be the end of California sovereignty as a state. And then it will all be “Waxman territory.” Why has nobody put this connection together in analyzing Waxman-Markey? California is Waxman’s Achilles-Heel. History will repeat itself for all Americans if Waxman’s California connection (and Nancy Pelosi’s) is not exploited.

Searching For Logic

Time is precious and time becomes more so when one's liberty is threatened. I have mentioned to folks that the perception of freedom was much stronger when I was a youth. Of course there were things that needed to be corrected, like overcoming racism and ensuring that the playing field for all was equal. My generation of the 60's, sadly, proceeded to destroy personal responsibility as they proffered free love, drugs, live for today and a contempt for our military. Our parents were "the Greatest Generation." My father was a machinist, my mother a seamstress. This was a time when our parents (most of them) held us to a higher standard of personal responsibility. But many parents also must have failed in this critical control because it bred the Bill Ayers, Abbie Hoffmans, John Kerrys and various haters that have since bred themselves and failed their children miserably, too. While trying to do good in many things, my generation failed their country and their children, with a few exceptions, continue to fail it.

I'm happy to have been blessed with good parents that loved me, made sure I knew it, and yet gave me hell if I erred. I'll never forget the day I said the "N" word in my mother's presence, having heard it for the first time in school that day. She clubbed me good and told me how reprehensible a thing it is. She did this and other things out of love, and all the while taught me the conservative principles I live by today. My parents believed in their country and the Constitution, but rather that recite it to me, they lived it; they showed by example. This ethic is alive today, but it does not exist in any great measure in Washington, D.C. or in many state executive or legislative bodies. It exists in the non-elite; in everyday people who still must live by laws and logic.

Every public official must take the oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America." I took it as a deputy sheriff and when I held positions of trust. Most politicians have failed this and most have KNOWINGLY subverted and broken their oath. To me, this is treason. That is logic to someone who takes an oath as a point of honor. Honor is what this country needs more than any other cure. If there is any justice, 2010 and 2012 will be the rebirth of liberty, freedom and an America that loves itself for the shining thing it was and can be again.

Actions to Take Our Country Back

Friends have raised the idea of national petitions to demand that the things presented in the "We The People Stimulus Package" video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeYscnFpEyA) be created and signed around the country by all of us who believe our national government is taking us on a trip to Hell. This is essential to start us on the road again toward "that shining city on the hill" that Pres. Reagan envisioned. 

It will take leadership to get this done. Some strong individuals in every community will need to coordinate online and get this done... to shove it down any politician's throat who is part of the problem!  I will do my part in my community if you will do it in yours. I cannot lay down while my country is destroyed. Can you? Join me. In the immortal words from Flight 93 on 9-11, "Lets Roll."

All the pundits who say they are "puzzled" by the Palin announcement must be deaf or fools. She told us all what she would be doing: supporting smart conservative candidates who love their country and don't deride it. Was there a secret message embedded in her announcement that I missed... like the walrus in the Beatles album? No. 

Here is the most forthright, honest, gutsy and human leader we have seen since Reagan. Let the MSM and the Fox "experts" ridicule and puzzle away. I heard Sarah Palin loud and clear, and if I live long enough, I'll see a new day dawn for the United States... one like I knew and treasured as a young man.

The spinners will spin and the Socialists/Marxists will continue to bark without any history or facts to back up their policies. When they have no facts they lie and slander. Check Obama's playbook written by a Marxist "community organizer." Gov. Palin has reason to release the leash on her attorney against vicious liars. The key word in the law is "malicious." If the intent of bloggers or anyone is malicious, then it satisfies the legal test. Opinion is protected by the 1st Amendment, malicious attack is not. I defer to what my parents and their parents knew: actions have consequences! If you attack maliciously, be prepared for a counter-attack (if the respondent has a spine... and unlike the Beltway crowd, Palin has a spine of Titanium!).

Wow... an old geezer getting first into "Tweeting" and now into blogging. Amazing what love of country can inspire. I have also been inspired by the many bloggers and sites that have articulated the "New Patriotism" so well and shun the nanny-state mentality of the big-government left. I have watched with dismay as both parties pander to the needy population. I am reminded of what Alexis de Toqueville wrote in his 1800's analysis of American democracy: (paraphrasing) the American democracy will survive until Congress sees that they can bribe the people with the people's own money.

It will take the brave and bold (like Sarah Palin) to overcome the Beltway elitists. It will take people like me to "watch their backs" and also be as brave and bold... to dedicate our "lives, our fortunes and hour sacred honor" to save our country and our children's future.