A lawyer friend of mine recently posted a message directed to me pointing out that the two Parties need to put politics aside and find a way to solve the nation’s problems. Here is what he posted:

“It seems to me as technically one of the last boomers, that much of the politics of today is comprised of blaming political parties, right or left, for what really is population demographics. For instance, unions are disparaged because they cost companies in the bottom line. But the same unions are now supporting a larger and larger retired or disabled population. State governments likewise are disparaged for being too bloated and big, but with retired state workers looking at greater and greater unfunded retirements promised to the boomers, the fiscal responsibilities have increased. Likewise, the federal government and social security has a well documented issue with the boomers.

So as our country faces shortages in medical services, 'reform' is more of a way dealing with the fact that our population has aged and become relatively sicker, requiring more services. It doesn't matter if the shortages are solved by social policy or the market--they are still shortages and rationing must occur.

Part of the better way to solve this existing and coming issue is going to be a better dialog between the parties, more problem solving, less finger pointing and blow hard politics.”

And this is my response:

You point out the conundrum caused by mixing socialized welfare with our intended republic quite well (my friend). On the one hand, classic Americana included self-sufficiency supported by individual accountability/responsibility – but on the other hand, coming out of the Great Depression the people were deceitfully sold a bill of social goods, and the race was on to see which side would dominate.

Some of us continued down the road of intended liberty, seeking self-improvement through the use of old-fashioned values: family support, education, personal and business innovation, aided by classic morals and an idea that “all men are created equal.” This “side” can be well described by some pretty famous words, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”

On the “New Deal” social side was an entirely different mentality. The marriage of accountability and responsibility had to be separated and eventually divorced (ie., Reinhold Niebuhr) from each other so that government could justify stepping into what was formerly considered the republican bubble and take allodial hold of property/wealth. This side can be summed up by these (now famous) words, "... generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf."

Institutional promises were made, and paid, faster than the people-of-means were willing (or able) to give it up. National debt climbed, and those of means (and of desire for self-improvement) became increasingly disenfranchised from, not only government generally, but also from a growing sector of people who found themselves looking to government for subsistence.

The line in the sand became a chasm. The common worker “felt” lowly and uncared for and unions grew in numbers and strength- laws/policies under a string of New Deal presidents began favoring the struggling worker as government tried to bridge the growing gap. Party line politics became blurred as both (party) sides tried to cater to win the most votes. Democrats (being the racist pigs they were) tried to hold on to the common Joe as best “he” could by swamping the South with separatist ideals, and Republicans tried to make up for the lack of voters by catering to the most powerful and rich in hopes of buying votes (the South learned from its errors, but the North has yet to concede of it's own deceit). 

Thus, in short, we have your well laid out conundrum of disparaging population demographics. The complication is from two forms of government and two coinciding populaces, with the entire system suffering from these two extreme variances, but also complicated by the lag-time between the “need” and the “delivery” from each respective side. It has become so competitive, and happened so quickly, the “tools” of party politics (and politics in general) have not been able to keep pace (definitive boxes and labels, for instance), and that is why we now see new compound terms, such as “Progressive Republicans,” and old terms being reborn, like “liberal,” and news ones that confound, like “neo-cons.” Is there any meaningful thought at all behind being a socially liberal economic conservative!?

(And what is a “Born-again Christian,” by the way? Does that term stand in contrast to “Contemporary Christian?”) 

More and more labels are being thrown around and their meanings are becoming meaningless. “Socialism,” “Communism,” “Fascism,” “Constitutional Democracy,” and with the loss of their impact and understanding we are also loosing the impact/ability of basic communication; buzz words are being identified and presumptuous “in between the lines” concepts and are being assumed based on the “arrant” use of an otherwise innocuous word or phrase.

Previously understood positions and meanings have become obfuscated, and the average Joe is sick and tired of trying to keep up. Shall we add gerrymandering to the mix?

I hope for “better dialogue,” but such is futile at this point; the people clearly see an equivalency between the Parties- this is what bore us the tea partiers and the new term Progressive Republicans. “Progressive Republicans” is not a byproduct of a working system; it is akin to a spring jumping out of the back of a watch. We have come too far with a schizophrenic dual system, and the cure is too much for the populace to emotionally accept. Entitlement has brought us to runaway dependency; insatiable feelings are all that’s left.

In my view, all of this political fighting comes down to one issue-  property; do we or do we not have a right to private property. One side (not Party) says "yes" -- the other says "yes, but ..." and this issue has its own legs and it is running faster than the best of minds can follow. Any compromise means the “yes, but ..” side wins. In fact, both sides have been compromising, for decades, and today we are near the day of reckoning. Your request for these polar opposites to sit down and compromise seems congenial, but such a nicety is one of the tools the socialist hopes comes to bear.

Several years ago, I decided my vote is a personal one in which in order for me to fulfill my obligation as a concerned, informed voter, I had to register my vote simply for the best person for the job, no matter whether I thought they could win or not. I vote strictly ideology in accordance with my beliefs. That way I rest in peace knowing I did the right thing; not having to wonder what might have or could have been.

The record of my life will not be filled with finalities, but with daily decisions.

I came to this certainty when I discovered and meditated on this quote of John Adams:

"Duty is ours; results are God's." 

Years ago as I was piecing together the differences between statist progressives and conservatives (classic liberals), and I found that one of the significant difference between these groups is that statists operate with very few hardened rules/mores; that they decide on where they want to end up and they set about with little care for how they get to the end, even changing the rules as they go if it helped them achieve their desired end. On the other side, conservatism is defined by truths  --by rules--  set by renowned ethical character, and steadfastness to those rules even in the face of adversity is the very definition of conservatism. 

Early on I thought this was ridiculous- that all of life means compromise/evolution of process.

But in short, one of the thoughts I had about this is that most of our lives are lived in the pursuit of an end desire.  Otherwise, most of our time/life is spent on the road to wherever we are going. We go to school, meet our mate, get married, and raise children-- all along that road. We grow from a child into adulthood, seek our place in life, acquire our own character, and become examples for our children. We teach them values and try to instill in them that virtue is meeting problems head-on without compromise- to do the right thing no matter how their popularity may be affected at school and beyond. A wise old lady once told me, “A partial truth is still a lie.”

So, is strategic voting in line with my values? Nope.

I cannot stand for one thing and stealthfully act contrary to it yet consider myself conservative- all too often this mooshy way of acting is perceived by the left and we often hear "HYPOCRITE!" and too often it is true. I am far from perfect, but it is perfection that is my ultimate goal and I know I can’t get there with willful imperfection.

Even in a loss, there is a resounding message sent when a true conservative can muster 30-40% of the vote; perhaps next time a few more will be encouraged to vote accordingly, and waalaa, we find a win somewhere down the road. But meanwhile, I go to bed with a clear conscience knowing I am true to myself and to my God, not to mention, my family and country.

A Truth: If you are not governed by principles, you are certain to be governed by those also without principles. A compromised, strategic vote is a win for the left- if not today, then, tomorrow. Live as you wish life to be.

Weaving a path to the Truth, by compromise, will lead you to futility.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++end

>>You can find other postings by Bruce Allen Hedrick at:

http://www.madashecc.com        and      http://sovereignslave.blogspot.com

 

STOP, Look, and Listen, to ourselves

Eckhart Tolle’s success is because of our personal failure to ourselves. We, individually and collectively, are starving ourselves of spiritual needs. Societal pressures are getting to some of us and we are ignoring our own personal internal needs; denying there is any need to feed our soul. Pressure all around us is screaming, screaming from our left shoulder and from our right shoulder: from our left shoulder comes PC, man-made (institutionalized) behavioral demands; and from our right shoulder comes a more classic message of renown.
Right now, the left shoulder message is screaming and it’s hard to bring ourselves to a STOP, and just listen- listen to the quiet message of peace and understanding and Truth.
Just for a moment, stop, and ponder the wisdom of Solomon. Please, right now, dust off that old Bible and read the Book of Solomon < http://etext.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/KjvSolo.html > written 700-900 years before Jesus’ time – 900 years, nearly 3000 years ago.
Then, after your reading, think of this: is the wisdom of our founders, just 220 years ago, so old and antiquated that it must be irrelevant? We must STOP and rethink the wisdom of those who came before. Our lives have been far too soft for us to even begin to think we have a better answer.
Please, let’s relearn the respect of experience, for the road to Liberty begins with conservative (careful) contemplation.

Spirituality has always been a significant part of man's polity, and it obviously will always be. Why is that? I believe there are seeds of spirituality embedded deep within our being; perhaps even DNA/markers. So the question is whether or not we choose to water those seeds -- shall we decide to nourish those seeds with the filtered nutrition of renowned wisdom, or shall we leave them to grow wild, influenced by what’s blowing in the wind, off of our left shoulder?
Ego is a dangerous thing.

 

More posts at my blog: http://sovereignlave.blogspot.com 

 

Pat Buchannon. Pat is Pat- unpredictable and sometimes so so right, and yet other times he can be so wrong. The so called Palestinians living in the gaza Strip are livng on land that was ceded  to the then-new Israel. Israel won the war (period). Why do some of us refuse to admit the Jewish people returned and demanded to have the land that was wrongfully taken from them? The modern-day Palestinians are not even remotely related to the original people of the biblical Palestine. The vast majority of them are descendents of people who were physically kicked out of Greece- nomadic people who have roots in other places, while the Jews have their roots for thousands of years right where they are at, and deservedly so. None of the Palestinians can trace their roots back to the Gaza strip prior to 1948.
Secondly, the nomads were allowed by Israel to live along the Strip because they had no place to go- most are of the Muslim faith and since 1960’s they have been infiltrated by radicals who hate the Jews. These radicals have over powered and indoctrinated the nomads with lies and jihad tactics, finally winning the majority on their government. BUT/AND all peoples deserve the government that they have (yes, us too), and they should all be held accountable for the “official” actions of their elected representatives. The nomads greatly outnumber the radical terrorists and if they decided to gather their wits about them they could change their leadership. Meanwhile, the Israelis have every right to do as they see fit to protect their own.
Actually, the blockade is the most human thing they could possibly do. Imagine the eventual repercussions if Israel did not have any kind of a blockade. The radicals in the Gaza Strip would be armed up the ying-yang by rogue Islamic states (and North Korea), and the war would be on big time. Israel would then have to bomb the crap out of the Strip, killing many peoples. They are dammed if they do and dammed if they don’t.
They have been exercising patients and restraint for decades; far more restrained then we would have ever been. Imagine if rogue terrorists moved in and took over in Tijuana, then began bombarding San Diego with mortars and other armaments. How long would we tolerate it? Israel has tolerated these minions for decades. Radical Islam is using the nomads and the answer as to how to fix the problem is to annihilate the area. 
You have a better idea? Anyone make a case for the Jews leaving their rightful homeland? I firmly believe every body politic is deserving of whatever leadership they have, and they should reap the rewards or the consequences of what they export.

Classic conservatism demands the qualities of love/charity, an idea progressives cannot comprehend. They look at conservatives through their own personal filters, filters that are not controlled by laws above their worldly fears. To them, a conservative has to be one who is merely stingy; that’s why they refuse to compute that the most giving in our society are those who are also religiously active- whose internal spiritual seeds have been watered and fertilized. Progressives fear conservatives because they harbor resentment for a conservative’s motivations which cannot be justified in terms of physical possessions. We know there is a power greater than ourselves who we will answer to; progressives envy our contentment even as the search for happiness.

The Essence of Conservatism < http://www.kirkcenter.org/kirk/essence-1957.html > -“Real community is governed by love and charity, not by compulsion. ... Conservative principles shelter the hopes of everyone in society. ...”

Our founders even went as far as to suggest Christianity itself is not a necessary practice for one to have beliefs compatible with the common law and Americanism. Franklin, Sam Adams, and others agreed on a set of 5 fundamental principles based on the “religion of America,” and it was in that same vein that Jefferson created the infamous Jefferson’s Bible. These five principles were the basis of an elementary education (taught by way of the Bible by John Adams when he was a school teacher) and are what makes a conservative the ultimate compassionier:

1. Acknowledge a Creator
2. Nature reveals distinctively right from wrong
3. Nature and Nature’s God holds mankind responsible for how we treat each other
4. Mankind is destined to live after death
5. Mankind will be judged in the next life
(These points can be found in Albert Smyth’s book*, “The Writings of Benjamin Franklin,” Volume 10, pg 84; 1907)

These are the fundamentals of conservatism and it is not likely for one who holds these truths to be Truths, to use unprovoked violence. Does that mean we are destined to blow with the wind and allow others to stomp on such principles? While we are long suffering, even Jesus had enough when he saw the moneylenders using the steps of the Synagogue to fulfill their greed. Notwithstanding, we shall first exhaust all other forms of deliverance, living our lives exemplifying the sanctity of all human life, especially the non believer.

*Smyth’s book can be found online at books.google.com. It is part of their program to save classic works.

Sergeant Bruce A. Hedrick, US ARMY, active duty and proud of it

 

Anyone follow George Soros? I have to wonder ‘what is he thinking?’
He funds socialism to the hilt here in America while simultaneously warning socialist Europe of impending economic collapse. Huh?
Now, how shall we corroborate his pro socialism stand here in America with his chicken little decries in Europe? What could his agenda possibly be?
What affect does his rhetoric have here on us? We naturally circles the wagons around our immediate family and hoard what wealth we can because our confidence in the markets goes down every time he speaks and/or funds Move On and his many other leftist hobby groups.

And what about in Europe? His preaching of impending doom over there has the very same affect. The people spend less, and markets decline – on both continents, governments have to cut back services, health care quality drops; consumers everywhere become more self-contained and excessive services dwindle.
So now what? Am I getting somewhere?  If you are up on “Open Society and Its Enemies,” by Popper and “his” fringe leftist elements that worry about the worlds growing population, you just might see where I’m going with this. And if you are aware of George Soros’ Open Society Institute < soros.org > and that Popper’s book is their bible, then you have just followed me to the edge of the cliff.
Looks to me like Soros is working his magic in reducing the effectiveness of governments, as well as disrupting what’s left of capitalism, in all their forms, all over the world, to make people more vulnerable. Why? Why would Soros want to knock consumer confidence down? Hmmm.
So what happens when this entire “plan” begins to take its affect on individuals? Okay, you’ve already thunked it- the average death age decreases. Waalaa! Population decrease.
Some of us on this side are going to think this is a good idea! But is it? Does an orchestrated population decrease, based on orchestrated early death, fit into the libertarian mold? The conservative mold? Libertarians want to just be left to their own demise, and conservatism has the “odd” view that human life is sacred. So what form of government, and its imposing life philosophy, stands to gain when folks begin dropping dead at an earlier age? Am I asking the right question?
Anyone seen Logan’s Run recently? Just asking.
This might be news to some of you. But to others, well, some of us apparently are still in a dream world, ignoring what is really staring us in the face. Some of you think I’m nuts to even suggest President Obama would have anything to do with this self-induced social insomniac suicide. Some of you will hate me for speaking what you know is the truth. Some of you will take it in a little and ponder it, but not do anything. Some of you will hate me for being what you perceive as a racist because I speak negatively (from your perspective) of America’s first Black (also your perspective) President. Some of you will say “so what, it’s probably a good idea anyway,” not fully seeing how it will come back to bite you. Some of you will refuse to see how this orchestrated process supports a devastating form of socialism and write me off as a political pundit. And some of us, to include me, will be forced to review the most basic of our core beliefs. 
Anyone for reading our Science Czar’s latest book and discussing his consideration of forced abortions? Everybody has breezed through Obama’s Global Health Initiative and how it addresses eugenics, right?
And just before I end this writing I have to add, again, my puzzlement over America’s Black population: Eugenics has been happening among our black citizens for decades; any mathematicians out there able to decipher what percentage of Americans would be black and/or partially black today if the millions of aborted black babies would have been carried to term? President Obama supports your continued minority, less-than-equal social status.
Yes, democracy is quite complicated in our modern world.
Wasn't it Hitler's Germany that supported ... Just asking.

An inquisitive look into The McDonald case set in question/answer format, modified from multiple emails with my family lawyer.

General - The classic conservative view of gun rights (and rights in general) will be the Constitution merely created a federal government- and the Amendments, in context with the 9th and 10th Amendments, are aimed solely at state and federal courts (and not directly at the people) ensuring those natural, inalienable rights that pre-existed will be honored by state law.
The libertarian view is that all civil rights, as those noted in the Amendments, are aimed directly at all the peoples, from whatever source.
The modern progressive view will likely, begrudgingly, be viewed only that it affects federal territories; but then what to do with supposed (man-made) equality and fairness in widespread social engineering?
All ideals, represented on our current Court, will have some difficulty with the upcoming McDonald case, particularly when you add in pressures from social and political groups and big money. But simply put, let’s look at the wording of the 2nd Amendment:”THE right ….,” clearly makes reference to a right that already existed, period.
The complications from all ideals are aimed in favor of progressivism because the protective "bubble" of our republic is already gone, distorting conservatism and libertarianism, putting the progressives (liberals) in the middle of an already heated political battle, staged to do significant damage to the people's individual rights. For years the High Court and our Congress has been chipping away at the uniquely formed concepts of federalism, 'S'overeignty, and inalienable rights- the three-fold foundation of our republic.
Unfortunately, I’m afraid the “Miracle That Changed the World” is on its downward trend, as Franklin’s rising sun is now depicting a setting one.
Upon the completion of our normal business in a civil matter, my lawyer yelled to me across the parking lot, “Why don’t you send me some info on the McDonald case.”

My first email to Mr. Lawyer: Lots of opinions to be found about the McDonald vs Chicago gun rights case; and, as usual, most of them do not include my opinion. I say the entire system is turned upside down. In my opinion, Americans have held natural and INALIENABLE rights from the moment of our acknowledgment(July 2, 1776) and notice(July 4, 1776) of our separation from England.
In short, the people banded together and picked leadership. Then, by states, they formed various state constitutions empowering limited government. Eventually, these state reps came together and formed a federal (as opposed to national) government. This naturally means authority/sovereignty began in the people, and progressed downward through the people, to the states, then to the fed. And, also naturally, as power flows (the transference of a progressively lessening degree of sovereignty) through each level, it naturally must always bow to it's predecessor/creator. Sounds simple to me.
Thus, just as our Declaration refers to, the people are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. And, taken in context of the entire Constitution, we have to think of the document as a whole when we look at any part of it; the 9th and 10th amendment tell me the restrictions are on federal government and not on the people except only when specifically therein enumerated otherwise.
Further, rights are those little things that are unalienable and cannot be specifically identified and enumerated on paper, thus, again, the 9th and 10th Amendments. Naturally, we can then also conclude rights exist regardless of any man-made institution. It is the institution that creates/legislates only privileges.
Thus, in the McDonald case, the High Court should only be determining if gun rights (right to self defense) are actually rights or if they are grants in privilege allowed by Big Brother (as opposed to Uncle Sam). Of course this gets a little more complicated when we look at the natural flow of the proper chain of command: God, then Man, then state gov, then fed gov, etc.
But in my opinion, this natural downward flow of sovereignty has been turned upside down, a situation that makes our constitution wholly inadequate to neither govern the people, nor hold gov at bay, as it is now at the top of the power pyramid where “Nature and Nature’s God” use to be.
Here's a reasonable though biased look at what is to come: http://www.saf.org/

Here's the Supreme Court's docket sheet; pan down to beginning of March 2nd: http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/feb2010.shtml#mcdonald

Our whole system has been perverted for many decades. in my opinion. Decision after decision, relying in part on the stare decisis doctrine for authority and protection, has set the stage for McDonald to be far more reaching than it will seem to be initially. One piece at a time, through ignorance and complacency and apathy, our republic falls.

From Mr. Lawyer: “I am pretty sure that there is a web page where you can get recordings of the oral arguments made with respect to this case. Then of course it would be cool to get the case decision and read it. If I get some time (ha ha) will try to see if I can find the oral arguments. I don't have much of an opinion one way or another about the 2nd amendment, simply because I haven't thought about it much.”

My answer: "Really? The only way private property can exist is if the owner has the absolute right to protect it; without the inalienable right to private property, which must include the right to protect it, then there are no other basic rights -- we become a bona fide democracy with only those privileges which other men (in black robes) then can pick and choose to give democratic groupings. Thus, all freedoms become purely political, states rights completely disappear, and we become subjects to a singular authority.
I have OYZE < http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2006/ > saved to my favorites. We shall see how complicated a simple, natural, inalienable right is made to disappear.
Just one tidbit- The only true revolution is one in which a dictatorial regime falls AND is not replaced by another. In Human history, America is that one and only revolution. But when we allow our republic to falter our future is assured to rejoin the typical path of all other nations. When private property can no longer be immediately protected by its private owner, then it shall be then protected by its actual owner, the nation state. Our one true revolution becomes distant memory and our children become serfs.
Notwithstanding, no lawyer can argue this fact in such a simple fashion for he will be laughed out of court; equal protection laws already overtook states rights way back with the Equal Protection Clause. Even though such a drastic change cannot be identified in a manner in which one can put their finger on it, the concept of equal protection at the federal (national) level, along with national interstate commerce laws (in the hands of judicial and executive activism), focuses all sovereignty upon one entity - Big Brother.
You think those lawyers (preparing to argue the McDonald case) will argue this point any better? In fact, you think they will argue this point at all? Staying within the (perverted) natural order of authority, the state is wholly empowered now to define all rights (privileges). The only question left to argue is which "state" holds that ultimate power, the individual states, or the nation-state. Either way, there are no longer any untouchable, natural, inalienable rights, which brings us to "Man and the State" as defined by Jacques Maritain -- socialism reigns supreme and capitalism suffers its final blow, and democracy smothers our republic, to be replaced with what we already have – a soft tyranny. The tried and true concept of the Rule of Law under our Constitution and the common law becomes the Rule of Man as defined under Marxism.
Socialism has never lasted long before it turns to dictatorship, and the round-robin, wagon-wheel affect continues. For us to think we are so superior to all those who came before us is ego-maniacal, .. and dangerous; history forgotten is history repeated.
Tindall in "America," and Tocqueville in "Democracy in America," are two of hundreds of deliverers of this message. Reagan was our last President to state as much."

Watch the Supreme Court Docket for McDonald vs Chicago: http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/feb2010.shtml#mcdonald

Want to listen to the oral arguments? http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2006/
The end.

If you care about our inalienable rights, such as the right to pursue life, to pursue liberty, and to pursue property, call and write and email your state and fed reps and do it now! I want to hear the buzz from our living rooms, our pubs, restaurants, churches, etc. This is another critical time in American history, a time in which we can right the wrong done by Brokaw’s Greatest Generation.

 

WHY OBAMA CANNOT MAKE TIMELY DECISIONS

(Originally posted December 2008 at sovereignslave.blogspot.com and the stall to add more troops in Afghanstan bears supportive evidence of the following)
WHO IS PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA? Obama revealed in 2007 that his favorite philosopher is Reinhold Niebuhr, a specialist in separating accountability from responsibility, who sees all individual actions as an outgrowth of a flawed society. Niebuhr believes a criminal act is not intended to be as consequential as it often is; that evil can be traced to collective behavior rather than the individual; that the spirit of love supersedes justice; and that the (g)od revealed in nature cannot be a moral God. He actually is not a philosopher, but a theologian -- with some very contradictive concepts in great contrast to common theology (including Black Theology). If Obama was being truthful with this pick as his favorite philosopher, I have to conclude he is far from concluding a decisive thought process/philosophy, and/or he is in the midst of creating his own mix-and-match, succotash style of thinking.

And while we are thinking of Black Theology, if you do a little research on this subject you will find it to be far more politically/power-based rather than religious-based. Why do I reach that conclusion- because Black Theology cannot be construed to be religious-dominate due to its fundamental belief that if the black race is not granted "freedom and racial dominance" by God, then God has to move out of the way – this core belief puts physicality and humanism ultimately above spirituality and the power of God. I might humbly suggest- if a god’s desires keep a (any) race of people subordinate to another race, that god is no god at all, but a figment of a self-imposed underclass’ imagination.

When we put all of this together: Black theology and Niebuhrism, including Mr. Obama’s stated political concepts regarding our flawed Constitution, we have a very complicated, very confused, very dangerous leader of the (formerly?) free world. I could so appreciate someone who is filled with all of these conflicting precepts of philosophy and religion, who is still sitting on the side lines working through his or her own particular answers to life, as a senior in high school. I would love to sit down and discuss a variety of issues and philosophical concepts with someone as open and diverse as this person must be. But a leader of America?

Further, it is also clear this person has yet to come to any conclusive concepts and would be totally vulnerable to their immediate environment, completely unable to morally defend themselves –or justify any substantive conclusions. Thus, in simple terms, a fence sitter; a fence sitting, socialist-leaning, race-dominate flower-child looking at love as the answer to a very volatile, dangerous, teetering world.

If the world was made up of one race, and we all were utopian-minded, love drunk hippies, Mr. Obama would probably fit the role he is in. But we aren’t, and he doesn’t. I fear he will hesitate when the 800 lbs. gorilla knocks down our front door. I fear he will collect a sizable following of love-deprived immature radicals, dissatisfied with their life, looking for Utopia, ala. jiminy cricket syndrome, and he will neuter America. No doubt, the socialist/fascist leaders of the world will wine-and-dine him – lull him into a comfort zone – then pounce with their thirst for cancerous, destructive power.

(Update: I wrote the above and posted it on this blog (see below)last December. Now, in light of what you've now seen from Mr. Obama, has the above writing found justification?)

 

THE TEA PARTY "REVOLT" AND WHY (TORBENSON) DON'T GET IT

My answer to:

[The Tea Party “revolt” and why I don’t get it,” article by Eric Torbenson (APR 13,2009) at dallasnews.com] ::

This is it- the ultimate example of (from their standpoint) unbiased(?) reporting. IN MY OPINION, A COMPLETELY UNNEWSWORTHY article, empty - shallow – void of any depth or desire of writer to understand. Torbenson seems to have been in a first-stage thinking process when he decided to bang out some sort of attempt to meet his article quota. He claims to be neutral. HA! Well, I don't- I am a freedom loving American with an agenda-- Liberty.

He claims to “not get it” but then goes on to mumble about the Bush budget, the Bush bailout: this looks to be a normal “political writer’s” beginning stages of laying groundwork for a rough outline to BEGIN the research for a real article with substance; it ain’t hard to find the who, what, when and where of the upcoming April 15th event”S.” Typical for a left-biased reporter, Torbenson must add all the Bush poop he can scoop up, as a reminder to the general reader, as to who caused what and when. WE DON’T CARE, Mr. Torbenson, who caused what. We don’t care about the party in charge, whom/whatever that/it may be. We don’t care if it’s female, male, black, white, or a multi-sexed hybrid with pink blotches. What we do care about is results.

Torbenson also keeps his subject narrowed as most other “political writers” are doing, looking at the named Tea Parties through very narrow eyes, determining what is most obvious only to them; that these Parties are directly for the same purpose of the original Boston Tea Party. Truth is, Mr. Torbenson, there were several “Tea Parties” within days and weeks of the famous Boston Tea Party, all of which were held for various reasons (such as women’s rights), but all had one underlining meaning; liberty, Mr. Torbenson, Liberty.

Torbenson suggests, first, that we are living under the Bush budget; is that news to anyone? No. It just satisfies his leftist (reader) desire to kick a man while he’s down. He mentions the 700m bank bailout passed by Bush AND the current Congress, but fails to mention the trillions allocated since. Yes, Mr. Torbenson, we are upset about all of it: the lack of accountability in government, the lack of respect for our Constitution, and the total disregard for our posterity.

Secondly, who holds the meter deciding which economist is respectable? I suggest a small web research term, Mr. Torbenson: “economists against the bailout.” You will find heaps of economic professionals, including some you would otherwise worship who are professors at various universities. Their two-fold consensus, in general, tells me what my grand mother taught me a long time ago, the rule of holes: when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. And on the other hand, they seem to be preaching patience; the kind that tells us to not go grocery shopping when hungry-- something we lost many decades ago. (Oh, and the bartering thing you mention; I suppose such would be pretty scary for those of you who merely push a pen for a living.)

Your third issue just needs a little tiny adjustment. You mention tax money going to foreign entity’s coffers. Isn’t that what Mr. Obama is doing?, paying for abortions (including partial birth) in foreign lands, and actually sending millions overseas for international bailouts. How about China buying our paper debt, then also taking some of our recently printed legal tender? Further, why is it that tax money “keeps us solvent?” – Why is government so closely integrated with the private sector? It shouldn’t be, and this is another reason for this protest, as it all comes to a head, Mr. Torbenson. Liberty. PS- I love paying proper, constitutional taxes, for the GENERAL welfare, as any thinking American does. But it is also our American responsibility to pay the least possible taxes- a concept that sent the pilgrims to America in the first place (unlike Biden’s ancestors). [For your reading enjoyment I suggest Mrs. Robins’ book, “The Governor’s Story,” which will take you on a learning-journey following the “voyage” of Governor Bradford’s manuscript.]

And still on your third point; do you really think 95% of working Americans are not going to pay more taxes? How stupid do you thing we are? – How stupid are you!? Corporate costs will be sent down the chain at the expense of the consumer. Energy costs will soon shoot sky high, Mr. Torbenson (60% of America’s electricity is generated by coal burning, an industry soon to be decimated). Relative to direct taxes, you might be right. But you have to understand most taxes are paid multiple times as they are passed up and down the money chain, making up the majority of what is actually paid – from the consumer’s pocket. And who do you think will get hit the hardest by the Obama plan? The rich will still be rich, paying, in percentage, the smallest amount towards energy, transportation, etc., and the poor could care less- they will see their welfare checks go up and up, while the middle class will get hit the hardest with cost-of-living adjustments sending many of us to the poor house. The overall effect will shrink the middle class, further dividing America into class warfare. The rich will continue to find deferments, the poor will still be buying their I-pods, and blackberries, funded by tax money through local, state, and federal programs, but the middle-folks are going to take it in the shorts, Mr. Torbenson.

Representation, you mention, Mr. Torbenson – You don’t think we have taxation without representation? Do you know a single senator or congressmen who read the omnibus stimulus bill before they voted on it? Even the one who is credited with its creation said under oath he did not read it. Is that representation? Your ignorance, your blindness, and your leftist bias, hangs out all over when you simplify anyone’s objection to paying taxes by suggesting a one-dimensional “on its face” approach to paying necessary taxes.

As you ask, let me help you, Mr. Torbenson. If you will lift your blinders for just a moment, and take a quick look around the internet, you will see what this is all about. At blackrepublican.blogspot you will find lots of info about this peaceful revolt. At taxdayteaparty you will find a really nice summary of what it is about at the very bottom of the home page, right side. And don’t forget about the “Horn Blow for Liberty,” Mr. Torbenson; another part of this peaceful revolt. Further, you can check out the rest of my blog to see what it’s all about- been festering for years, Mr. Torbenson; http://sovereignslave.com/ .

We the people understand that it is the nature of governments to plunder, and we also understand enough is enough. We understand our government –our democratic alter ego—was created under a Constitution, and must be held to those standards. If not so held, we are destined to tyranny. I believe in our republic, Mr. Torbenson, don’t you?

An unbiased historical perspective of the multi-tiered tea party movement way back when will give you a perspective of today’s peaceful revolt.

 

I pray, God save Liberty in the hearts and souls of Americans.

A vital election is coming up and We the People have an important decision to make. Generally, classic libertarian politics plays a deeply important role in how I vote. But in my eyes politics plays a very distant second in this upcoming election.  We have a mess to clean up, and a People to be accountable to; the Iraqi people. 

A pivotal moment that led me to put my life on hold and join the effort in Iraq had nothing to do with my political desires; it had to do with Right and Wrong. No matter what I thought at the time about the then-stated justifications for war, in 2004 the people of Iraq began showing an overwhelming desire to be Free of Saddam. I watched, as a fat and happy truck driver –feeling safe and content in my part of the world-- while Iraqi’s flocked to the polls by January 2005, and I felt embarrassed as they came out of hiding in droves, braving the war-torn streets of towns and cities in defiance of the rampant violence, to vote in numbers that far exceeded our own in recent elections. 

I watched a news report of that historical vote from the comfort of my living room as a young Iraqi lad carried his grandmother to the polls. When I saw their image on TV I leaned forward in my newly-bought over-stuffed LazyBoy chair to hear the grandmother weakly utter that she was so thrilled to have this opportunity to cast a vote against Saddam Hussein before she died. Through an interpreter she expressed how happy she was to live long enough to see this day! As I leaned back in my chair, a tear ran down my cheek. 

About a month or two later I heard a report about a small (American) Army unit up in northern Iraq that chose to not fulfill their fueling mission stating they took a vote and decided their mission was too dangerous. What?!, I thought -- has party wrangling and leftist ideas become so strong here at home that even our soldiers are feeling the pangs of democratic ignorance, putting their own personal safety above the call of duty?  Weeks later, at 49 years old, I was 30 pounds lighter and in a National Guard uniform.

I put my life on hold, greatly upsetting the harmony of my cozy family life, accepted a sizeable drop in pay, and decided it was time for all able-bodied straight thinking Americans to put up or shut up. Due to my previous Marine Corps experience from the 1980’s, and my years of driving a big rig, the Guard immediately sent me to Instructor school. Afterwards I joined a transportation Unit, endured a few months of training in the New Mexico desert, and deployed to Iraq for a year. After returning stateside I stayed on active duty an additional year to assist in instructing deploying troops. In all, I spent over 2 ½ years on active duty in support of this --as it seems to me-- liberation effort. 

Because of all the negative, political rhetoric coming from our Congress, echoed by our Academia and other loudly-covered leftist talking heads, the everyday people of Iraq laid low until late 2004, fearing the eventual wrath of Saddam’s supporters if and when we gave up and pulled out. But since that time, more and more of the Iraqi people have stepped forward and we owe them the promise of our Word.

I knew back in 2003 our timing for the invasion was all wrong; I remember not being convinced that we had justification for such a task. But the facts now are that we caused an upheaval in the lives or the Iraqi people. We eventually gave them cause for Hope and a semblance of freedom. They came around, putting their lives at stake on the Word of America. The least we can do is, fulfill our promise to them. I live by the words of John Quincy Adams, “Duty is ours; result’s are God’s.” We cannot turn the clock back by ignoring the current reality.

Remember the giant plastic shredder Saddam used to viciously intimidate his detractors. Remember the airbus Saddam’s regime bought to assist in training terrorists. Remember the gassing of Kurdish women and children, lying bloated and purple –and dead-- in the streets of northern Iraq. Remember the mass graves of Saddam’s dissidents, made up of men and women who stood up against Saddam in year’s past, accompanied by their children, in dozer-dug massive graves? There are many humanitarian reasons that justify our invasion not related to oil or other economic/political spins.  I remember, and so do the People of Iraq.

Next up to help in the liberation effort, is you. Some say, 'If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything.' I say, if you stand for something and don't know why, you never stood at all. Rise above the political fray and see this effort for what it is through the eyes of millions of Iraqis. They are living in the present while we fight at home over the past. Stand up with purpose and be counted. Vote for the only candidate left who believes we have a moral obligation to the people of Iraq; this is a defining moment in our history, and the liberation effort far outweighs our personal political comfort zone. I hope you are able to look into the future and see how we today will be viewed; defeat by quitting is not an option. Quitting will be the greatest “gift” we could possibly give Al Qaeda, and the radicals coming from Iran and Saudi Arabia, by pulling out before Iraq is independently able to muster its own civil forces. Until that time comes, we have a humanitarian mission to complete, imparting the seeds of Liberty upon the hopeful people of Iraq who put their faith, their very lives, on the line because of us.

I am prepared to squint, hold my nose, and place my vote for Senator John McCain. Lord help us all, as we have a duty to do the Right thing.

 

THE LEGACY OF BILL CLINTON

Thank you President William Jefferson Clinton. Your true legacy continues to grow with troubling increases in teen sexual behavior, as well as their related definitions, since 1995:

The CDC recently released a report <1> stating teenage girls, 14 to 19 years of age, now suffer from STD’s at a rate of one in four. The worst hit is black girls at nearly 50 percent, with white and Mexican-American girls at one in five.

There's also a continued growth in the numbers of teenagers who believe oral sex is not only safer than traditional sex but that oral sex isn't even sex at all, thanks to our so-named “First Black President.”

My research continues to point to abstinence as the only effective way to battle STD’s, but the Leftist approach to cultural advancement (to read: moral relativism; promotion of democratic precepts over our republican form of government; destruction of our Sovereignty concept of inalienable rights and its flow of limited authority; etc.) continues to deny this reality. Modern liberalism, driven in part by the feminist movement, homosexual rights, and secularism, suggests abstinence is not possible.

I agree.

When one views the world through secularist eyes, calls conservatism (and biblical morality) a disease <3>, and believes children should have “privileges” equal to adults <4>, it is then clear abstinence is not a workable solution. Parent’s hands are tied while society sees a shaken finger in the face of a child as a form of abuse <5> and secedes parental authority to the government-controlled educational system which supports the liberal concept of progressive moral relativism. Further, when one extrapolates moral relativism to its pinnacle aim, the effect is to justify all freedoms as indivisible, just as hoped for by convicted molester and homosexual rights activist, David Thorstad,* who said,

“Freedom is indivisible. The liberation of children, women, boy-lovers, and homosexuals can occur only as complementary facets of the same dream”<6>.

If you believe “freedom is indivisible” and that adolescent abstinence from sex is unrealistic, then you do have a wonderful chance at continuing the work of the First Black President; vote democrat.

Excuse me, but I have to go shower now. What little research I did for this writing has left me feeling, dirty.

Notes:
<1> -http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,336749,00.html-
<2> -http://kaisernetwork.org/Daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=1770-
<3> -http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/12761-
<4> -http://constitutioncenter.org/education/ForEducators/LessonPlans
<4> /ProposedAmendments/5477.shtml-
<5> -http://nospank.net/out.htm-
<6> -http://nambla.org-

Additional disgusting information:

-http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1043-4070(199210)3%3A2%3C345%3ATTWHHF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-5----
-http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:_AG9iTBjtTkJ:home.att.net/~clairnorman/BL-Reviews.pdf+David+Thorstad+graduate+of+*****&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us----
-http://www.zoominfo.com/Search/PersonDetail.aspx?PersonID=30466166----

*David Thorstad:
Homosexual leaders have consistently tried to separate themselves from NAMBLA and to downplay their historical association with child abuse. David Thorstad, an early founder/co-founder of various homosexual groups across the United States, made this very clear when he complained that the homosexual movement, ‘‘... seeks to sanitize the image of homosexuality to facilitate its entrance into the social mainstream. ... The issue of man-boy love has intersected the gay movement since the late nineteenth century.’’ (see: Thorstad, David, ‘‘Man-Boy Love and the American Gay Movement.’’ Journal of Homosexuality, 1990, 20: 251-252.) The loss of moral lines in the sand coupled with our potential for NOT being hard wired for sex, as suggested by Dennis Prager, leaves us with a bleak, loathsome, disease filled future.