People get so hung up on their affiliations with political parties. And often (too often me thinks) without knowing what their party really supports or stands for and why. One's party affiliation has reached such levels of extreme importance that voters and candidates alike treat the "label" more or less like a sports franchise, i.e., Saints vs. Colts (actually had the Minnesota Vikings not choked in the NFC title game I could have used -- and preferably so -- Vikings v. Colts in this metaphor). It's just 'us against them' and win at any cost, which, psychologically speaking, leads to emotional and subjective rationalizations for the errant actions of the party and of politicians under that party name. Turning the verbosity down a bit; we give 'em a pass. It is therefore necessary that we return to rational, reasoned and objective participation in party politics.  Else we'll continue supporting BAD candidates and electing corrupt leaders, for no other reason than they be "Republicans" or "Democrats" not because they're principled men and women.  To combat this problem, it may help to understand the basic function of a political party. 

First and foremost a political party is a vehicle, a means to an end. Political parties were not intended to be big one-size-fits-all  tents of political compromise.  A party's platform is a kind of advertisement, letting the general public know with some modicum of precision what the party supports and where it stands on foundational principles, so as to attract like-minded voters. A party organizes the many factions of voters attracted to it and serves to direct their efforts toward getting state, local and national candidates elected and working together as a caucus within their respective government offices. A political party raises money for campaigns and endorses those candidates most closely aligned with the party platform (well at least in theory). The quality of any party is a reflection of the people that participate in the processes. Here, we must apply the computer programmer's mantra GIGO (Garbage In / Garbage Out) as coined decades ago by George Fuechsel, an IBM technician. 

If we allow others to do the work we should be doing ourselves, such as paying close attention to issues, understanding our country's founding documents, researching good candidates and making sure through our participation in the local primary and caucus process that we're offering up credible and honest candidates; then we are destined to allow Garbage In and can expect little more than Garbage Out should they be elected to office. 

It's time to work with the parties we have, time to remake them what they were intended to be, not the entangled aberrations that "progressives" have left us with. For conservatives that party is the Republican party. We don't need third party's, well not yet. We need strong leaders with integrity and with an abiding belief that our constitutional republic is one of limited government, low taxation and individual liberty. We need leaders who understand that government's authority, be it state or Federal, is merely a loan of sovereignty granted it by We The People.

At present for conservatives, independents and centrists, the most pragmatic choice of vehicle is the Republican party. But that affiliation is NOT chiseled in Granite. If the Republican vehicle fails us in 2010 as it has in the past, then we may, nay we shall, seek another before 2012.

 NOTE: please see @ The Spirit of Resistance; 

BEWARE the DAY OF THE LOTUS 

http://thespiritofresistance.blogtownhall.com/:  

For 30 years I've heard from Libertarians, that the problem in American politics is our two party system. Libertarians have a lengthy track record so far as failed attempts at becoming a viable 3rd party are concerned. But they've never managed more than the margin of error in votes cast for their presidential candidates. They haven't fared much better in congressional races. So what's the problem? Well for starters it's their belief they alone have a monopoly on truth, justice and liberty. Libertarians have been con'd into believing the Libertarian Party's ideal of America is better than the one created by the founders. That so many Libertarians presume to possess the intellect and wisdom by which their first order of business would be to rewrite our nation's constitution and cure it's "defects" just staggers the imagination. Much like our NOTUS -- Barack Obama -- Libertarian arrogance knows few if any limits.

I admit, at first glance there are some points of agreement between conservatives and the Libertarian Party's updated platform; however, that document is more a masterpiece of ambiguity than a reflection of intellect and wisdom. For instance, while the Libertarian platform holds that every human being has a right to life, that same platform is against proscribing the taking of such life by abortion. On recreational drug use, prostitution and pornography the platform makes clear it's none of the government's business what people choose to do with their own bodies. Yet they completely ignore the statistical data which makes clear the damage proliferation of drugs like pot and cocaine -- both considered "recreational" by Libertarians -- as well as prostitution and pornography have done to the social fabric of our nation. In the Netherlands they're trying to find ways of UN-doing the damage done by decades of such laissez faire social policy. On that score, Libertarians have more in common with Obama and the rest of the French leaning radical left than with mainstream conservative Americans.

And apparently Libertarians accept corruption from their own candidates even as they point fingers at everyone else. Rationalizations abound for Ron Paul's abhorrent behavior in congress. Which demonstrates just how delusional Libertarians can be. Ron Paul has long been the face of their party. And Ron Paul who ran as a Republican because he couldn't have gotten elected sanitation superintendent as a Libertarian, figured out how to scam the system by voting “NO” on appropriations bills he knows will be passed with or without his vote. The scam is this. Good ol' RP loads the bill with millions and millions of earmarked dollars for projects in his home district. He then vote's against the bill so he can say he's a fiscal conservative in press releases and campaign materials. Then – and here's the real diabolical part – RP concocts a cover story in case he gets caught with his hands in our pocket books. He says it's a political necessity to use earmarks because they are the only way to assure that money appropriated by congress gets spent responsibly; as Ron Paul determines to be best. But earmarks are not spending as is defined or intended by the title of the bill; earmarks are discretionary spending measures or exemptions attached to most bills which direct dollars or exemptoins to particular districts for the benefit (payback) of special interest groups.

I live in Minnesota and I don't want money taken from me or my family and friends for projects the Federal government has no business funding in the first place -- be they in Texas or anywhere else. Ron Paul is a slick insider same as the rest of 'em. Of course he defends his ear marks, but consider more than a few words once spoken to Davy Crockett by Horatio Bunce while Crockett, then a member of the United States Congress, was on the campaign trail. Bunce had this to say regarding an appropriation bill of $20,000 to benefit the widow of a once distinguished Naval Officer :

"It is not the amount that I complain of, it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be and the poorer he is, the more he pays in proportion to his means.

What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000.

If you had the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all and as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity...

The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation and a violation of the Constitution.

So you see, you have violated the constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger for the country. For when congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the constitution, there is no limit to it and no security for the people... I cannot vote for you." 

Are appropriations for pet projects back home in Texas any different Mr. Paul?

Libertarians share much in common with Liberals and Democrats, they are rigid idealogues, and both purport to have the blueprint for a more perfect society; a vote for a Libertarian candidate is a wasted vote and with the stakes as high as they are now there are no votes to waste. Forget the Libertarian or any other 3rd party in 2010. If there is to be a third party, it will emerge from the grass roots and it will not be Libertarian. Until such occurs, vote for the best candidates your local Republican party can muster. Work to get the best people into the running by participating in the caucus and primary systems. Work at the local level to get credible candidates into the process. It won't happen in one election cycle, it will take many. In the interim vote for the most conservative candidates the republican party of your State puts forward. The immediate goal is to defeat the Obama machine and the Marxists now at the helm. Over time we can and will weed the pseudo-conservatives out from their positions of power.

As foretold by the revelation of John, no one will buy or sell save that he/she has the Mark of the Beast upon the hand or forehead. The so called "health-care" bill, the new euphemism for Marxist/Fascist State, mandates that you shall buy and you shall sell health-care coverage in that market place.  It gives one no choice.  To be sure, the idea of forcing the average Joe to accept the "Mark" 'tis of Satanic origins.  I've discussed the "mark of the beast" topic many times with Christian friends and have discovered that the Beast's Mark upon the forehead or hand is not physical it's allegorical, a type of metaphor, wherein the forehead represents heart or mind and hand represents actions, deeds or works.  Hence, evidence of the Beast's Mark is in what you say, think and do. If, for instance, you make a conscious choice to participate in and legitimize government health-care coverage, against the constitutional limitations on such intrusive government regulation of your life, then you've accepted the Mark in your heart and/or mind. Likewise, if you seek to legislate government health care coverage or attempt to coerce or entice others into doing so, then you've bourne the Mark upon your hand -- by your actions. 

Mandatory health care coverage is nothing more than a means to force government regulation upon your free will, under the guise of being a right.  Very serpent-like. A right is something for which we possess the free will to exercise or not.  I have the right to spend my money as I see fit. The fact that I might need a house to live in and have the means by which to make mortgage payments, doesn't give the government a right to force me into buying a house, does it?  The fact that I could end up homeless and in some manner burden the rest of the population doesn't give the government the right to force me into buying public subsidized housing, does it? 

Even in cases of the most reprehensible nature, our Supreme Court has upheld the notion as so eloquently articulated by John Locke that, "Every man has a property in his own person. This, nobody has a right to but himself." Locke goes on to state that “The reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their property."  The idea being that life, liberty and property preceded government and that governments are formed for the protection thereof.  Perhaps Ayn Rand in contemporary parlance best stated Locke's ideal when she wrote: "Just as man can't exist without his body, so no rights can exist without the right to translate one's rights into reality, to think, to work and keep the results, which means: the right of property."  

The government can not tell us when, where or how to spend our money under threat of punishment, fines or imprisonment. If it can, then the blood and treasure spent in creating our Constitution wasn't worth the ink nor the parchment it was written on in the first place. Health-care coverage is all part of the Obama administration's effort to destroy our private sector capitalist economy in order to replace it with a neoMarxist political economy. Here's my paraphrase of how Marx put it : In order to unbind the working class from the shackles of individual private property rights, the working class must by world-wide socialist revolution seize political power. It must then deprive the capitalist classes of their individual property and place all means of productivity into collective ownership (that means government).  Once the foundations of material property ownership are destroyed, (capitalism and natural rights), all citizens will be equal owners of production and equal participants in its benefits.  Yeah right.  How well has that worked -- NOT -- EVER.

Marxism is and Marxists are purely evil.  And, they're coming under cover of darkness with a branding iron, bearing a Mark which is to be seared onto your heart and into your deeds.  They say that you shall  purchase health care coverage, else you shall suffer penalties including fines, imprisonment and who knows, if you resist too vigorously, maybe even death. We can defeat the bill before it becomes law.  Call, write, email, vent to your elected representatives.  Call news outlets and their sponsors.  Hold advertisers responsible for any support, direct or indirect, they give to the health-care bill. The fight is on and we will -- NO -- we must prevail now and again in the 2010 elections.

On December 16th 2009, Barack Obama amended executive order 12425 abridging the Reagan Administration Order which -- while recognizing INTERPOL (international police agency) as a public international organization -- had limited INTERPOL's privileges and immunities within the United States. Until Dec 16th 2009, INTERPOL did not have full immunity from U.S. laws. They were subject to search and seizure of their premises and assets, subject to Freedom of Information Act requests and subject while operating in the United States to our criminal rules of procedure. All of that has changed.

Barack Obama has, with the stroke of his executive pen, elevated INTERPOL above U.S. law and above our own law enforcement agencies, in effect subjugating our sovereignty and immunity to the whim of foreign courts. Currently, the inferences being made are that "war criminals" as determined in the Hague, Netherlands, by the "World Court" and the International Criminal Court (ICC) are now subject to arrest and apprehension without U.S. protection and due process of law. The names of Cheney and Bush are being mentioned. However, any one of us, any U.S. Citizen found in violation of an international law or agreement could in theory be apprehended and hauled before the World Court, ICC or any other foreign court, without the due process protections of (U.S.) law.

Some might say, as if this isn't bad enough in and of itself, that only our political leaders and military would be subject to such arrest. I don't want our soldiers apprehended and brought before a foreign court, do you? Can you imagine the legislation we'll be subjected to as our elected representatives attempt to avoid violating international laws? What about those among us, individuals or small businesses, who might be found guilty of violating international Environmental laws; or the international rights of the child laws; or hate speech violations such as got radio talk host Michael Savage banned from Britain? The list goes on.

In addition to its role as the de facto enforcement agency of  the World Court and ICC, INTERPOL works WITH foreign governments to help them arrest individuals found in violation of their laws but that are residing beyond their borders. The Obama amendment and abridgment of the Reagan executive order allows INTERPOL and thus foreign powers to sidestep U.S. and State law. They can now reach into the heart of our nation and snatch up anyone deemed guilty of crime by foreign courts. The Obama amendment holds that all INTERPOL assets, files, investigative tools and so on are "inviolable". The term "assets" can include some of the following: agents, cars, weapons, offices, airplanes, helicopters, boats or ships... really it includes all gathered intelligence, as well as people and hardware of any kind deployed by the agency to accomplish its law enforcement objective(s).

I doubt that the Obama Administration can or will produce a rational and reasoned answer to the question "why was executive order 12425 amended in this way?"  It's time at the conservative grass roots level to do ALL that is necessary and sufficient to win the congress back completely and strip these looney Marxist democrats of their power.

Actually, what's happening to our capitalist economy and to our representative democracy, the present neo-Marxist assault, has been underway since the early stages of the twentieth century.  Notwithstanding, the extreme radical politics we're witnessing today -- the attempt to destroy capitalism and individual liberty in favor of Marxist style collectivism -- has been the not so subtle policy objective of extremists within the Democrat party since the election of Bill and Hill in 1992.  I, for one, was absolutely sure Bill and Hillary Clinton would be the one's to crash our economy with socialist health-care, huge deficits, and taxes reset to pre-Reagan levels. In so doing they'd have created an economic crisis that would have us all begging for mercy - their mercy, and their Utopian agenda. I was wrong. The American people were having none of the Clinton agenda back then and the Democrats suffered defeats in mid term elections that stunned their party faithful. So much so in fact, it appeared to most observers that Democrats had been cast from majority status as far into the future as the mind's eye could imagine. Nonetheless, our ever prepared to look a gift-horse in the mouth republicans, especially those of the Bush, McCain, Graham, Specter variety, have blown the royal-flush-opportunity we'd been given -- in spades.

Not only did elected Republicans fail to uphold the "conservative" ideological basis of the Republican party platform; they all but assured that a vast cross section of middle-of-the-road Americans would conclude there to be no substantive difference between Democrats and Republicans whatsoever. And today we're paying the price for that disconnect from middle America so very dearly. As a result our posterity, should the Democrats and assorted Marxist/Leninist radicals calling the shots succeed where the Clinton's failed, will be reading an historical account of America's transformation into neo-communism (created from whole cloth of course) which extols the virtue of the American communist revolution. All, of course, while painting the darkest possible picture of the blasphemers (that would be us) who attempted to preserve capitalism and free enterprise as the means by which Americans could and should exercise their God given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Today I read an article posted online at American Thinker, by James Simpson regarding the Cloward-Piven strategy of coup d'etat which linked me to an article he had written 14 months prior.   @ http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/barack_obama_and_the_strategy.html

Simpson's prior article titled 'Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis' makes the Obama administration's radical hard-left-Marxist agenda all too clear. And as I said in a prior post, the damage Obama is able to do to our Republic remains to be seen. But damage, in fact mortally wounding, is precisely the policy under way by this administration.  Read, if ye can stomach it, as follows:

The Strategy was first elucidated in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation magazine by a pair of radical socialist Columbia University professors, Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. 

The following excerpt by David Horowitz enunciates Cloward-Plevin as THE strategem deployed to destroy our economy, obliterate free market capitalsim, and bring on economic collapse:

The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The "Cloward-Piven Strategy" seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

Cloward and Piven were inspired by radical organizer [and Hillary Clinton mentor] Saul Alinsky:

"Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules," Alinsky wrote in his 1989 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system's failure to "live up" to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist "rule book" with a socialist one. (Courtesy Discover the Networks.org)

The following sourced articles were also referenced

Newsmax rounds out the picture:

Their strategy to create political, financial, and social chaos that would result in revolution blended Alinsky concepts with their more aggressive efforts at bringing about a change in U.S. government. To achieve their revolutionary change, Cloward and Piven sought to use a cadre of aggressive organizers assisted by friendly news media to force a re-distribution of the nation's wealth.

In their Nation article, Cloward and Piven were specific about the kind of "crisis" they were trying to create:

By crisis, we mean a publicly visible disruption in some institutional sphere. Crisis can occur spontaneously (e.g., riots) or as the intended result of tactics of demonstration and protest which either generate institutional disruption or bring unrecognized disruption to public attention.

No matter where the strategy is implemented, it shares the following features:

1. The offensive organizes previously unorganized groups eligible for government benefits but not currently receiving all they can.

2. The offensive seeks to identify new beneficiaries and/or create new benefits.

3. The overarching aim is always to impose new stresses on target systems, with the ultimate goal of forcing their collapse.

In his most recent article on American Thinker  http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/clowardpiven_government.html James Simpson connects all the dots, here's just a small sampling regarding the radicals Obama can be tied to:

Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven were two lifelong members of Democratic Socialists of America who taught sociology at Columbia University (Piven later went on to City University of New York). In a May 1966 Nation magazine article titled "The Weight of the Poor," they outlined their strategy, proposing to use grassroots radical organizations to push ever more strident demands for public services at all levels of government.

The result, they predicted, would be "a profound financial and political crisis" that would unleash "powerful forces ... for major economic reform at the national level."

They implemented the strategy by creating a succession of radical organizations, most notable among them the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), with the help of veteran organizer Wade Rathke. Their crowning achievement was the "Motor Voter" act, signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1993 with Cloward and Piven standing behind him 

____________________________________________

Compare the foregoing to the following excerpts from my post of Sept. 24th, 2009 on brane smasher blog, which was originally published by the Socialist Labor Party in 1925. My post  "Our Marxist in Chief" Connects Julius and Ethel Rosenberg to this current state of affairs:

 http://branesmasher.blogtownhall.com/2009/09/24/our_marxist_in_chief,_an_historic_perspective.thtml

Please take note: The radical nexus to Columbia University and City College of New York is key to understanding the Khruschev admontion that America would be destroyed from within. Again, as reported in my post "Our Marxist in Chief" (linked above)  --  Julius Rosenberg infamous traitor executed for espionage with his wife Ethel in 1953, attended City College of New York same said as City University. There are NO coincidences in this attack on America. Here are the roots of the Rosenberg's treachery as first published in the Weekly People August 1, 1925 titled "The Workers Party [USSR] vs The Socialist Labor Party [USA]" by Joseph Brandon (republished in 1926 as Arm & Hammer pamphlet #8) read as follows:

Russia's Problem and Ours:  In Russia the problem was not to take the industries but to create them. In America the problem is the reverse. We do not have to create the industries, what we must do is to take them. The easiest task the Russians had, the seizing of power, is the hardest nut we have to crack, and the thing that is no task for us at all is what is puzzling the Russians night and day, all these years. When the working class seizes power in America it controls all that is necessary to run production on socialized lines. A dictatorship of the proletariat is unnecessary, the workers being in a majority. There will not even be a rule of the proletariat because the act of socializing the industries automatically abolishes all classes and therefore the proletariat as a class ceases to be.

Organization Must Preceed Revolution:  Obviously the workers cannot wait until the Social Revolution has stepped upon the scene and then organize. Tactics therefore dictate the organization of the working class today, under capitalism, into an organization whose primary purpose is to seize the industries and act as the framework of the new social order. Just as the chick develops in the shell before the world as a distinct creature, so the future society must be built up under capitalism. And just as the fully developed chick breaks the shell of its egg, so the shell of capitalism will never be broken until the organization of future society is developed to the point where it is able to function. Does it not follow logically that the working class must organize today, under capitalism, in order to achieve its emancipation? 

Ignorance Extends to Politics:  The Workers Party wants a dictatorship of the proletariat. But it argues that the large mass of workers will never become Socialist and will have to be led by an intelligent [elitist] minority. So it is willing to unite with any movement of workers, no matter how wrong this may be, in order that they will have some masses to lead. This is called a united front. (blogger's note: the American  Socialist Labor Party rejected this tactic)

How to "Bore" and How to Build:  The SLP says, “Bore from within but bore to a purpose.” The purpose of working inside the trade unions is to destroy the bulwark of capitalism and establish bulwarks of Socialism, the industrial union.

The Revolutionary Organization:  The SLP correctly holds that the political party must be a party of no compromise (blogger's note - does this remind anyone of Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the radical Dems?). The SLP mission is to point the way to the goal and it refuses to leave the main road to follow the small bypaths that lead into the swamp of reformism. Its skirts are clean. The banner of Socialism is held high, uncorrupted, and not dragged down into the mire of petty bourgeois reform. Capitalism cannot be reformed. It must be overthrown.

The Real Power of Labor:  Here in America we have a right to come out openly and agitate for the overthrow of the government and the establishment of a workers’ republic.  If we did not have this opportunity then no alternative would be open for us but to advocate a violent overthrow of capitalism...

Which brings us to The Cloward-Piven Strategy of "Orchestrated Crisis".  Keeping in mind that Democrats at least as far back as FDR have used the strategy of creating crises for which they conveniently offer up the only possible solution that will get "mainstream" media attention, is #1 in their play-book.  Is it a coincidence that Obama attended Columbia University, the same radicalized university that churned out the likes of Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven? or, that Piven and Julius Rosenberg, though not contemporaries, were both alumni of City College of New York? Is it any wonder there are no available academic records regarding Obama's time at Columbia? And let us not forget Rahm Emmanuel, Obama chief of staff, who said in the context of this current economic disaster, that a crisis is an opportunity to do that which might otherwise be impossible. 

Our republic is threatened more seriously today than if Nikita Khruschev had succeeded in placing and making operational those nuclear warheads atop their Cuban based ballistic missiles in 1962.  Yet in the 60's, Mutually Assured Destruction was a formidible deterrent to Soviet threats. The only deterrent we have in this day and age against the neo-communist revolution now under way, is the American people. If  'we the people' succeed by election, public pressure and whatever other means necessary to put down this attack on our American republic, then the conspirators in Obama's attempted coup d'etat should be arrested, tried and convicted for the crime of high treason. If we fail, if our elections are tampered with, or if they simply never occur due to some new crisis, it will be Game-Over for the America we once knew and loved.

I'm thankful that we're still able to discuss these issues openly, I wonder how long that liberty will last.  It's up to each of us to determine how long, we know what the obamanation intends.

 

 

It ain't over 'til it's over, again.  Looks as if the election in New York’s 23rd congressional district isn’t quite decided, even though Owens has been sworn in and cast his first vote last Saturday. Doug Hoffman, favorite of conservatives nationwide may still have a shot at winning the race.  Seems a whole pile of them pesky old absentee ballots were discovered comin in after the election was declared for Owens. Vote audits uncovered  seven to eight thousand new uncounted votes. The routine hand recount has already narrowed the gap between Hoffman and Owens to about 3500 votes. There's an outside chance the newly found and yet to be counted vote tally could break for Hoffman, if that is, Scozzafava -- republican party turncoat -- didn't receive too many of them herself.  

Thank God there is a resource in Stewart Smalley, aka Al Franken, for Hoffman to tap on how to get 90% to 95% of those ballots to break his way, pulling out a victory from the shark-like jaws of defeat. Franken, miraculously of course, pulled a similar victory out from under Minnesota Republican Norm Coleman this past spring. I would think Hoffman's people are putting calls in to Big Al as we read and write. Could be a new message coming out of NY23.

Post Script: by the way please check out the Blowhole http://theblowhole.blogtownhall.com/

Thanks all! A.S.

 

 

The New York Times reports that Iran has informed the United Nation's nuclear watchdog (the International Atomic Energy Agency), on Thursday that it would not accept a plan which its negotiators agreed to last week to send it's stockpile of uranium out of the country. To paraphrase European and American officials briefed on Iran's response: the central feature of a draft agreement reached on Oct. 21 in Vienna which required Iran to send three-quarters of its admitted-to stockpiles of low-enriched uranium to Russia for processing, then returned to Iran for use in a nuclear reactor at a facility in Tehran used for making "medical" isotopes, was rejected.  One official stated that the Iranian response was “basically a refusal” to go along with that provision, “the key issue [being] that Iran does not agree to export its lightly enriched uranium."  He went on to say “That’s not a minor detail. That’s the whole point of the deal.”

Much has been written regarding civility, or the lack of it, in modern political discourse.  There are conservatives and liberals alike "taken aback by the stridency in modern discourse, and by the deterioration in traditional American civility" (quoting Michael Avari: American Civility), they hark back to a time before such strident and coarse public disquisition became prevalent.  I really have no quarrel with those who find for themselves some comfort in maintaining a degree -- subjective though it may be -- of civility during political discourse; it's a personal choice. However a previous time of greater civility never really existed to begin with outside of collegiate debate clubs or political think tanks.  Politics is and has always been something more than civil discourse; the outcome of political contests carry with them the implication of life altering effect, both upon individuals and the whole of society. For that reason great passions are exposed in political debate, politics is -- so to speak -- a full contact polemical sport, not at all resembling the more dilute verbiage of intellectual contestation.

There never was a time "before" incivility, where political discourse was always intellectual and civil in nature. Thomas Jefferson -- some what the hypocrite I'm afraid -- was said to be appalled by the harsh diatribes that characterized the political campaign and election process in his day.  Such incivilities were printed in various and sundry news publications much akin to today's blogosphere. The 1800 presidential election campaign was a bitterly contested mud-fest. The political discourse had rapidly deteriorated to slanders and personal attacks from both sides. The Federalists rumored that the Democratic-Republicans resorted to murdering opponents, burning churches, and that they intended to destroy the country. Two years prior, George Washington who was not affiliated politically complained "that you could as soon scrub the blackamoor white, as to change the principles of a profest Democrat; and that he will leave nothing unattempted to overturn the Government of this Country."

In retaliation, the Democratic-Republicans accused Federalists of destroying republican values, and of favoring Britain in order to promote aristocratic, anti-republican values.

Of course Presidential candidates in the early 19th century left the campaigning to surrogates. Jefferson hired a real doozy in a man named James Callendar. Callendar was hired specifically to do smear jobs on Jefferson's behalf.  Among other things, they accused President Adams of having a "hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman."  That was one of the lighter aspersions being cast. And of course the Adams campaign created it's own arsenal of insults, calling Jefferson "a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father."  Before the campaign had ended, Adams had been called fool, hypocrite,  criminal, and tyrant; while Jefferson was accused of being a weakling, an atheist, a libertine, and a coward. (mental_floss/CNN.Com).

My point is, that from the beginning our political discourse has been filled with the most uncivil cacaphony of verbs and adjectives imaginable.  Tasteless, bombastic denigrations of fellow human beings for political gain. But that's not what's happening on the conservative front today. Yes I've tossed about many descriptive names and adjectives: Marxist, socialist, atheist, communist, fascist and their associate "isms" all in the attempt to articulate what I've witnessed happening to our country, to our liberty, to the rule of law at the hands of far left radicals now in control of the congress, much of our court system and the executive branch of the Federal government.  But there's one thing that stands out to me, and that's that there's a factual premise upon which to conclude that Marxism, fascism, socialism etcetera are being embraced and implemented by the political left in this country.  By contrast, the real incivility of political campaigns long past was that they were cynically premised upon vicious lies, deceitful political calculations and innuendo. It's not uncivil or an incivility to articulate accurately what can be logically concluded from the words, associations and actions of our political adversaries. Unpleasant?  Yes I'm sure it is. Uncivil? No, not by the standards of our forefathers.

I can't help but notice that those on the political left most inclined to feign outrage at so called conservative incivility, are those least able to attack the substance of our arguments. They focus instead on the extraneous and trivial aspects of what we have to say, and do so in a most uncivil sort of way.  It's time to stop allowing the left to define what civility is. It's time to stop engaging them on the trivial and inconsequential aspects of our disagreements. When it comes to the red meat of an issue, I'd much rather stick a fork in it, slap on a little A-1, bite it and chew for a while than get into a protracted debate as to how the meat is being presented on the plate.

The  following appeared in the Politico Sept 25th:

Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) received a handwritten note Thursday  from Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold confirming  the penalty for failing to pay the up to $1,900 fee for not  buying health insurance. Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor  and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty, Barthold wrote on JCT letterhead. He signed it "Sincerely, Thomas A. Barthold."

This  is just the latest perversion of our constitutional government.  There's simply no provision in the constitution which gives the Federal Government authority within the several states to force  any Citizen of any State of the union to get insurance against their will. Or at least that's what we believe. Look, I'm sick of dancin' around these issues; the nexus to the Federal government's authority to abuse us in this manner is not the constitution, it is the Social Security Act and your Social Security Number (SSN). In fact your social security number is evidence that you are no longer a free Citizen of one  of the several United States of America, but that you are an artificial  entity, a creation of a "voluntary" contractual relationship entered  into between you as an individual and the corporate UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  Washington, DC.  

You are, by your personal TIN/SSN, a  citizen and resident of THE UNITED STATES in Washington DC. Thus  you have a form of dual citizenship, (thnx to the 14th amendment)  you are both a citizen and resident of THE UNITED STATES (corporate) and of your STATE.  This happened to you the day you filled out, or your parents filled out, an application for a social security number for taxpayer purposes. The right relationship you were born with, i.e. the sovereign Citizen to which the State and Federal government's are intended to be subordinate, has been totally reversed by the application for and acceptance of the Social Security benefits program. (SCAM).

BOTH  Democrats AND Republicans have sold "We the People" out. NOT in 1913 with ratification of the 16th amendment, but in 1935 with the Social Security Act; then again in 1942 -- and every day since -- with an innocuous little statute named the Victory Tax Act, which utilized an automatic tax withholding system through one's employer. The Victory tax was a direct tax on labor, patently unconstitutional IF the Federal government were to attempt to make it mandatory; so cleverly, they used the Social Security act in combination with the "voluntary" withholding provisions of the Victory Tax act.  

The scam was this: if the government could guilt American's into feeling it was their patriotic duty to help retire the War debt for WWII, (remember good 'ol Walt Disney and his propaganda  films for the Victory tax?) and get the fools ehr I mean people to volunteer to have direct taxes withheld from their salaries or pay checks as a patriotic duty. Then, by obtaining a TIN/SSN  and placing it upon a W-4  authorization, signing it under penalty of perjury, and filing it with the IRS through one's employer, each citizen in effect is agreeing to forfeit their natural constitutionally protected right to work and acquire property in exchange for a share in a ponzi scheme known as Social Security. Just a note on signing under penalty of perjury: once you sign UPOP you've given sworn testimony that the information provided is true and correct.  So if you're authorizing the government to order withholding of tax, you're also testifying that you owe that tax in the first place as it would be a perjury to sign a withholding authorization if you know you're not liable to pay the tax. Not that they'd ever prosecute you for knowingly giving them false information in order to allow them to tax you; but if you try to remove yourself from the system, they're gonna insist that you provided testimony under oath that you are liable for the tax assessed. It's a "catch 22" if ever there was one. 

So, back from my digression, at the point of "volunteering", the constitution was circumvented and the Social Security Act became your very own "new deal" with the government. Even after the 2 year limit on the Victory tax had passed and the tax was repealed -- in 1944, the withholding provisions were never repealed and remained in place so every citizen, employee and employer that enlisted in this scam, were permanently obligated to pay over whatever (place your best guess here) tax was plugged-in to replace the V-Tax.  The very fact that you had/have a social security number becomes prima facia evidence that you need to file a w-4 and have tax withheld. The problem is, the agreement has never specified which particular tax is being applied, and to this day no one knows which particular tax they're liable for. And guess what! the IRS can't tell you either.  They just call it an income tax, but which of the aproximately one hundred taxes imposed on income is it, and which of the more than 85 taxing statutes that impose them is the ONE?  

Just like enlisting in a military service, you're checking your constitutional protections at the door. All ya need to know is that the Social Security Number/TIN identifier you supposedly "volunteered" for has superseded the constitution which is supposed to protect you from these tyrants. You're being governed strictly by administrative law and public policy.

But  you say you never volunteered?  Well that's something we all need to raise hell about and prove. I'm sick of the frauds in DC, The Independents, Republicans and Democrats alike, they've all continued  with this fraud for the past seventy years. The power they've amassed by having the ability to turn on the spigot and drain us of our hard earned assets is staggering and they aren't gonna give that  up without a fight.  Clear the field, get them all the hell out; start voting trustworthy people in, people that have read the constitution,  the Declaration of Independence, The Magna Carta, John Locke, The  Federalist and Anti Federalist papers, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and of course The Holy Bible.  Enough is enough!!! 

Well it's time to get the TEA parties goin again. The CAP and TRADE scam is getting a lot of attention these days up on the Hill. Desperate for Obama to have at least one feather to put in his cap, they're set to trade our energy independence away real permanent like with H.R. 2454 - The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. Two years ago 17,000 real scientists signed on to a petition stating that there is no credible evidence of man made climate change.  Today that number has swelled to around 30,000 real scientists world wide.  

Though the Obama administration attempted to sit on this information, the Dept of the Treasury  and the CBO -- that's the Congressional Budget Office -- determined that Cap and Trade,  H.R. 2454 - The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009,  will cost the average household $1,761.00 annually in taxes passed on to consumers as price increases from utilities and at the gasoline pump. Considering the Obama administration was attempting to demonstrate there would be only a small cost per household, around $175.00 per year, the $1761.00 estimate is quite optimistic. Independent studies have placed the likely cost increase to the consumer at about double the administration's internal (the one they were hiding) estimate.

And that's just for starters. The way the proposed legislation is structured, there's a complete disincentive to produce more refined oil products;  there's no support for clean coal or oil shale processing; no offshore drilling for our own supplies; no ANWR; no new oil infrastructure and no new nuclear plants. That means we'll continue on at the mercy of foreign oil suppliers and that our oil refineries will be unable to increase production to meet future demand.  That spells higher prices for energy all the way around, above and beyond the damage that will be done to our economy by Cap and Trade energy taxes. The bill is chock full of untried and unproven technologies, many of which are a decade from practical use.  Even at that, technologies such as wind, solar, bio fuels and the like will only be able to meet 3 to 5 percent of our total energy consumption needs.  So it's just another tax and destroy scam. Tax us, forcibly taking our property, to destroy our independence and sovereignty.

Unless we raise the roof in protest over on Capitol Hill, the weak-kneed  cowards that represent us will vote cap and trade in figuring we're not paying attention or that we're just not interested in fighting it.  God bless the servants that will do the right thing regardless whether we're watching or not.  Unfortunately there aren't enough of them to defeat Cap and Trade without our help.

It  remains to be seen just how much damage to our nation Barrack Obama will get away with over the next 38 months. The damage he's done thus  far is considerable, but as of September 23, 2009, it truly defy's description.   His appearance before the UN Security Council left most conservatives  and a good many centrists, speechless. And at no time in my 56 years has any president or high ranking administration member ever  acted in such an anti American and disgracefull manner as has President Barrack Obama.  Yet, the coming of a Barrack Obama and of worker/labor social justice organizations like STORM, ACORN and The Apollo Project  were predicted some 45 years earlier by the profit and soviet premier, Nikita Khruschev. Khruschev stated then that  "Revolutionaries are the locomotives  of history"; and he prophesied that  "[we] will not bury you with  a shovel, your own working class will bury you." He boasted many times that the USSR wouldn't need to fire a shot, that we were being conquered from within.  In communist Russia the working class was represented as the communist labor party.  There were many American labor-union  ties to the communist labor party throughout the 20th century. Radicals  to say the least.

The very month and year I was  born, June 1953, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed for treason.  Accused of passing microfilm secrets -- which included the Manhatten  project -- to the Soviets.   But why, they were both born Americans. What led them to commit such a crime against their country? Thirty four years prior to their execution by electric chair, in 1919, the Communist Party of the USA (CPUSA) was founded.  According to the CPUSA's bio, for approximately the first  half of the century primarily in the 1920's, 30's and 40's, the CPUSA was "the largest and most influential communist party in the U.S"., playing a "prominent role"  in  the U.S. labor movement, as well as "founding  most of the country's major industrial unions". They were also known for pursuing racial discrimination cases in workplaces  and city communities. Also in 1919, the Socialist Labor Party another communist affiliate was formed; then came the Communist Labor Party of America. All three shared similar objectives but with varying degrees of aggressiveness; The Rosenbergs had connections to all three.  By 1931 a young and  impressionable -- 12 year old -- Julius Rosenberg had become a  member  of the Young Communist League, a sort of youth program of the CPUSA designed  to indoctrinate would be communists. Though all three organizations are well documented, the following excerpts from the Socialist Labor Party are all too familiar when compared with radical community organizers of today:

The Workers Party [In USSR] vs. The Socialist Labor Party [in America]  by Joseph Brandon 

Published Aug 1, 1925 in the  Weekly People. (reprinted 1925 as the Arm & Hammer pamphlet No. 8) 

full text at http://www.marxists.org/history/usa/parties/slp/1925/0801-brandon-wpavsslp.pdf

Russia’s Problem and Ours.

In Russia the problem was not to take the industries but to create them. In America the problem is the reverse. We do not have to create the industries, what we must do is to take them. The easiest task the Russians had, the seizing of power, is the hardest nut we have to crack, and the thing that is no task for us at all is what is puzzling the Russians night and day, all these years. When the working class seizes power in America it controls all that is necessary to run production on socialized lines. A dictatorship of the proletariat is unnecessary, the workers being in a majority. There will not even be a rule of the proletariat because the act of socializing the industries automatically abolishes all classes and therefore the proletariat as a class ceases to be.

Organization Must Preceed Revolution.

Obviously the workers cannot wait until the Social Revolution has stepped upon the scene and then organize. Tactics therefore dictate the organization of the working class today, under capitalism, into an organization whose primary purpose is to seize the industries and act as the framework of the new social order. Just as the chick develops in the shell before the world as a distinct creature, so the future society must be built up under capitalism. And just as the fully developed chick breaks the shell of its egg, so the shell of capitalism will never be broken until the organization of future society is developed to the point where it is able to function. Does it not follow logically that the working class must organize today, under capitalism, in order to achieve its emancipation?

Ignorance Extends to Politics

The Workers Party wants a dictatorship of the proletariat. But it argues that the large mass of workers will never become Socialist and will have to be led by an intelligent [elitist] minority. So it is willing to unite with any movement of workers, no matter how wrong this may be, in order that they will have some masses to lead. This is called a united front. (blogger's note: the American  Socialist Labor Party rejected this tactic)

How to “Bore” and How to Build.

The SLP says, “Bore from within but bore to a purpose.” The purpose of working inside the trade unions is to destroy the bulwark of capitalism and establish bulwarks of Socialism, the industrial union.

The Revolutionary Organization.

The SLP correctly holds that the political party must be a party of no compromise (blogger's note - does this remind anyone of Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the radical Dems?). The SLP mission is to point the way to the goal and it refuses to leave the main road to follow the small bypaths that lead into the swamp of reformism. Its skirts are clean. The banner of Socialism is held high, uncorrupted, and not dragged down into the mire of petty bourgeois reform. Capitalism cannot be reformed. It must be overthrown.

The Real Power of Labor.

Here in America we have a right to come out openly and agitate for the overthrow of the government and the establishment of a workers’ republic.  If we did not have this opportunity then no alternative would be open for us but to advocate a violent overthrow of capitalism...

It was of course the great depression; injustice, poverty, hunger, jobless and homelessness  were rampant. By 1932 Julius Rosenberg had become a radicalized activist and threw his support into a racially charged case know as the Scottsboro Boys, in defense of nine homeless black teenagers accused, tried and convicted of raping two homeless white women in a freight train boxcar. Thereafter, Rosenberg became a full member of the Communist Party of America -- the CPA.

In 1931 at age 16 already two years graduated from high school, Ethel Greenglass took a job with the National New York Shipping Company. Not long after she became a political activist and union organizer.  Greenglass had grown up dirt poor, her family was destitute - the working poor underclass.  She heard often from her Russian father the plight of the worker and the evils of a capitalist society.  Inevitably  she was drawn to the far left cause of worker's rights. In 1935  she organized a strike against her employer and was fired for her lack of loyalty. The communist party of the United States was heavily involved in union organizing and Ethel Greenglass had endeared herself to them with her efforts (against her employer and as an activist) to that point. In 1934  at only 16 years old, Julius Rosenberg also by then a high school  graduate entered City College of New York. Continuing his prior activism against racial discrimination, Julius took an interest in far left radical politics both on and off campus. Though they had  known each other previously through association with the Communist Party,  in 1935 on New Year's Eve, the now twenty year old Ethel Greenglass, and 17 year old Julius Rosenberg met again at a union organized party where Ethel had been asked to entertain. This time 'round the two radicalized revolutionaries hit it off and four years later, 1939, Julius and Ethel were married. 

WWII: after the December 7th, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor and the ensuing US participation in World War II, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg fearing retribution during a time of world war, went underground with their communist affiliation.

 

Nonetheless,  the Rosenbergs remained radical activists. In 1943 Julius who had become a member of the  United States Signal Corp., was approached by a Soviet KGB officer/recruiter -- Alexander Feklisov -- and asked to spy  for the Soviet Union. Meanwhile Ethel Rosenberg's younger brother, David  Greenglass, had been assigned to work on the Manhattan Project at Los Alamos  NM.  Having accepted the assignment to spy, Julius Rosenberg set  about convincing brother in-law David Greenglass to help pass classified  information to the Soviets. Though history has since attempted  to repaint the Rosenbergs as penny ante even sympathetic players  in the affair, the fact remains that within a year of receiving  intelligence provided by the Rosenbergs, the Soviets had an A-Bomb of their own.   

To the Rosenbergs, America was a decadent capitalistic society that used people for the profit of rich industrialists. They viewed  communism under Stalin as preferable, buying in to the worker/laborer propaganda of the time.  They  believed the perfect Marxist world could be created here without a dictator. Too bad neither of them were afforded the privilege to live their lives in the USSR, maybe they'd have realized how fortunate they were back in the US of A.

The parallels between radicalized youth from the 1920's and 30's and the process by which they, particularly the Rosenbergs, became radicalized as compared to American youth of the 60's and 70's, are  compelling and too prevalent. Poor even destitute kids are enticed to get involved with radical activist organizations very similar to those the Rosenbergs associated with. Organizations, I might add, which have thoroughly infiltrated  our political system. The difference is, the radicals of this era no longer feel the need to act "underground". They're in full view, openly taunting us with a brazen agenda to subvert the political  process and constitutional system of self governance we've known  for over 200 years

Today's radical community organizers are working to fundamentally change America into a neofascist socialist state, one among many intended to form a new world order, just as -- if you've truly been listening -- our President has been articulating to the rest of the world. Is it possible that we have in Barrack and Michelle Obama, the same devout anti-American radicals that were once embodied as Ethel and Julius Rosenberg? The Obama Administration is selling out capitalism, the locomotive that drives America, just as readily as the Rosenbergs did some 65 years ago. History has been repeating itself in just about every conceivable way since the 1920's.  The only thing the radical left has learned is how to better infiltrate industry, education and politics.  Come to think of it, what else is there?

We all say "God Bless America" from time to time (unless your name happens to be Rev. Wright or Pfleger) but how much longer will the America for which we've so often asked God's blessing, exist?

A good  plaintiff's attorney can  tell you that contracts  were made to be broken.  The constitution for the united States of America is a contract, which has been broken many times. Understanding that contract and its makers  is necessary to appreciate American Citizenship.

FYI:  Keep these four definitions of  the words united, states and America in  mind. They are:  1) the several states -- refers to the original 13 states as  well as the fifty states today; 2) the united states of America -- a generic term referring to any grouping of American states;  3) the United States of  America -- the proper name of our country  i.e.the fifty states of the union, and; . 4) THE UNITED  STATES  OF AMERICA -- the corporate nam e of our government not of our country. note: the use of all upper case letters is common  to the  spelling of artificial persons or entities such as corporations.

Contracts create relationships and artificial entities. Our constitution is a contract by which we, the people -- Citizens of the several states -- created a national government, an artificial entity named  THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (not to be confused with  the United States  of America). THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is a foreign jurisdiction relative to our several states,  existing  physically and geographically upon a 10 mile by 10 mile parcel of land named Washington D.C., ceded by the several united  states of America to the UNITED STATES  to serve as its seat of governance.  It is within that jurisdiction  that the UNITED STATES conducts our business and wields a delegated portion of our collective sovereignty in order to -- among other specified duties -- defend  our borders, manage international agreements as well  as make laws related to the interactions between the several states of  our union pursuant  to the terms and restraints of the Constitution.

This foreign jurisdiction is in effect a place quarantined from the private Citizens of the several states under the terms and provisions  of the Constitution. In most instances Citizens of the several  states of the union entered the corporate UNITED  STATES OF AMERICA thus becoming subject to the jurisdiction thereof, only by extraordinary means.

In addition to securing our lives, liberty and property (pursuit of happiness)  from assault by foreign powers such as England, Spain, Mexico or today from the likes of China, Russia or the "Axis of Evil" -- the constitution was also intended to ensure that our lives, liberty and pursuit of happiness would not be abridged arbitrarily by the enactments of our own governments State and Federal. It provides for our right to redress of grievances, for the preservation of our sovereignty, and it represents the expressed will of  "we the people". The Constitution for the United States is the uniform fabric by which the several states and the people thereof are bound and can expect equality of treatment under the laws of the land.

John   Jay, first  Chief Justice  of the Supreme Court of the United States, summed up the right relationship of we the people to our government in this opinion  from an early case: Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. (U.S.) 471, 1 L.Ed. 440(1793); wherein the Chief Justice  stated in pertinent part:

". . .at the [American] Revolution, the sovereignty [exercised   by the King England over the colonies] devolved upon the people; and  they are truly the sovereigns of this country [the United States of America], but they are sovereigns without subjects. . . with none to govern but themselves;  the citizens of America are equal as citizens, and as joint tenants  in the sovereignty".

 

We  became kings of our own castles, sovereigns over our lives, liberty and property, diminished only to the extent that we formed governments to handle certain limited but necessary duties for our common good.

Federal and State governments are corporate entities created by we the  People, subject to our will via the ballot box and as limited by the precisely stated duties and authority granted by their  respective constitutions.   We are the shareholders so to speak, and those individuals operating at our behest within the framework of the Federal and State Governments are our servants.  State  and Federal Governments of  themselves  own nothing. Whatever   property, land or power they acquire represents an asset belonging   to the shareholders - We the people of the United States of America  and of the several  states.

Somewhere along the line that right relationship  between we the people and the republican form of government we created, has taken  a sharp  left into a South American banana grove.

How did we go from that to this: Trillions of dollars in government created debt to fund socialist medicine a.k.a. "national health-care" and assorted government bailouts; redistribution of our property via the welfare safety net to virtually any liberal/leftist that asks; instituting a mafia-like organization known as the Internal Revenue Service intended to strong arm of  threaten the lives and liberty of American Citizens should they protest too vigorously the legalized theft of their hard earned  property;  how about nationalizing industries like banks, automobile companies   and now perhaps news papers; or refusing to protect our borders  from foreign invasion, in fact castrating our national security mechanism by releasing half truths about CIA interrogation  tactics;  becoming a place where the Federal Government, our servant, suggests that we may be required to serve it through some form or other of mandatory national service; and becoming a place where all governments local,  state and federal use the so called provision of eminent domain to  steal our land and give it to the highest bidder in the name of generating tax revenues for the general welfare of the collective . . .

What about wasteful and hypocritical politicians that abuse our property such as Presidents that might use Air Force One to do fly overs  at 1500 ft  above sea level in the proximity of the Statue of  Liberty and Manhattan Island -- for freaking photo ops and joy  rides,  at  a cost of $350,000.00  a pop? Just remember one thing: that's your airplane, these government bloodsuckers are your employees  capriciously wasting your money and stealing your property. AND As if that weren't enough we have an  administration  apologizing  for our arrogance  and insensitivity throughout the world, because we've had the  temerity to defend our own interests and people against foreign attacks and invasions.

Our federal servants are individuals engaged in the "trade or  business" -- 26 USC §  7701(a)(26) -- of performing the functions of public office,  and use that sacred  trust to spend trillions of your money,  your children's money, your grand children's  money,  your great grand children's money your great great great great. .  . All  in the name of a change  you can believe  in. Translation: change  from  a capitalist, free  enterprise  market economy to a socialist authoritarian  state  that uses the emense size and power of government to control what you  can say, where you can live, what you must  like, what you can't  dislike, what kind of car you can drive,  what you are allowed to own, how you will be allowed to use  or dispose of what you  own . . .  Worst of all, these rulers show respect to our enemies and utter contempt for "We the People" .

We're now governed by public policy, derived from media-manufactured public opinion, regardless of constitutional restraint. Our ability to seek redress is all but destroyed by the sheer expense of bringing suit and by political activism within a judiciary that routinely overturns the will of the people. Our corrupted rulers are simply the result of historically predicted moral decay. It's  akin to the laws of thermal  dynamics. Politicians have used  our self inflicted apathy and ignorance to defeat  us. Political  opinion polls indicate to them that on the whole we're sufficiently dummyfied. So they feel confident  they can  get away with implementation  of their socialist, anti-American authoritarian agenda. This is our fault, their corruption was always predicted, but we gave our tacit consent to this agenda by voting for candidates that declared openly what we should expect -- a change we can believe in. Remember Obama vs. Joe the plumber? We've long let the powers that be choose our candidates; we've stuck our heads in the sand whenever the winds corruption came blowing through our political system -- leaving it for someone else to deal with. 

Today congress, the President and our courts operate outside the authority and circumscribed limits of the Constitution, thus threatening our lives, liberty, property and American way of life more than any foreign army. Government is by nature a consumer of the people's wealth, it produces nothing and can not add a penny to our Gross National Product. It's a beast   devouring our productivity and property.  The so called and  much demonized wealthy people in this country got there  -- Thank  GOD -- by working hard all their lives, innovating, inventing, starting businesses large and small that have employed hundreds, thousands even millions of people. In a dumbed down stupor of envy and resentment we fail to grasp that businesses, be they big or small, and the profits they seek, add greatly to all our wealth. Their pursuit of life, liberty and property (wealth) creates jobs  and opportunity for hundreds of millions of people. It's the beautiful  byproduct of investment, risk and profit.

Soon -- absent a free market economy, under crushing national debt, high inflation and increasing taxation -- we'll be left with a form of government that is truly a fascist/socialist highbrid which, to maintain power and control, will enslave every citizen  economically if not physically.  We will exist only to serve the State within a third world style   economy. Subjects not  sovereigns.  Our Great Country will be reduced to making Yugos not Cadillacs, to importing the staples of life  needed to survive instead of producing, manufacturing and exporting  them, subject to a world government and world court system; we will  follow and never again lead. Our individual freedom, liberty and prosperity will  be a memory of the very old, a memory unknown to our grandchildren, who themselves will be just another asset of the STATE, mere human resources.

May GOD help us

2 help ourselves out of this MESS b4 it's too late