What Will It Take To Return The USA To Its Intended Course?

We are on the banks of the Rubicon - that "point of no return" at which the Republic can be lost for the foreseeable future, if not lost forever! Should the current administration be permitted by We the People to continue on its present course, it will be a future of darkness, decline, and despair for our children and grandchildren. What can we as individuals do to redirect our government?

In a nutshell we must CHANGE THE SYSTEM FROM THAT WHICH IT HAS BECOME. And just how do we do that?

1. November 2nd, 2010 is election day. About half our national House of "Representatives" and 30-odd national Senators are up for re-election. DO NOT VOTE FOR ANY INCUMBENTS! They apparently have not understood our written requests, made using the English language, nor have they paid any attention to the poll results regarding Obamacare, or to the Tea Party activities, or the Town Hall Meetings. It is crucial that we communicate with them in a way they will understand - at the voting booth. Remove all the incumbents from office, and perhaps the remainder will finally understand our message.
2. TALK IS CHEAP! As we have known for decades - or perhaps centuries - the vast majority of politicians are professional liars. Lies, untruths, mistruths and technical omissions are their stock-in-trade. They will tell each audience addressed during their campaign, tailor-made lies designed to garner the majority of votes from that group of voters. For one group it may be "White is the new black!", and for another "Black is the new white!". Adapt the message to suit the desires of the audience. In order for our intended system of governance to be resurrected we must replace the incumbents with proven conservatives. And not just those who claim to be conservatives. We must replace them with politicians with documented, consistently conservative records. If there are none running in your district then it becomes a "best guess" situation, but do not re-elect incumbents! This is primarily those Democrats who sold their votes (Nebraska's Ben Nelson, Ohio's Kucinich - a really CHEAP date, etc.) and those Republicans who sold out the American people (Louisiana's Anh "Joseph" Cao, etc.). They have proven by their actions that they are not representing the will of the majority of voters. Also, see how many working-class candidates you can vote into office (see paragraph 5, below).

3. Procedural Changes in Congress. Bills may be written by anybody - as is obvious in so much of our legislation, which makes so little sense. But a bill must be introduced into the legislative process by a member of Congress. From the time of introduction the bill then follows a rather circuitous route within Congress to committees, hearings, debates, etc., in both the House and the Senate. That's all fair enough, I suppose... insuring that the bill is (ostensibly) properly reviewed prior to acceptance or rejection. But there is a problem in the procedure - one that is known but never acknowledged within that legislative body. If a bill passes the hearing stage it then goes for "markup", and this is where the problem lies... markup is where the AMENDMENTS are placed in the bill. The problem is that amendments that are totally unrelated to the issue(s) addressed (I call them "hitchhikers") by the bill are - more often than not - attached to the bill. When was the last time a bill establishing a military budget passed that only included things related to the military? Hitchhikers for education, welfare, bridges to nowhere, and aircraft that the military neither requested, nor wants, nor needs are attached to the bill! A bill should pass or fail on its own merits, or be rejected in the next step of the process and returned for reconsideration if it contains requests that are unrelated to the basic intent of that bill. Bills should also be of reasonable readability in both language and length. If it takes more than 50 pages to say what you want then there is something terribly wrong. If it takes more than 100 pages somebody is trying to pull a fast one. More than 200 pages, and the sponsor should be required to defend the bill in open session, and be subject to censure and a fine for wasting the time of our legislature. When it takes more than 50 pages to ask for something that is truly needed, then the bill is rife with smoke, mirrors and earmarks. Congress should follow the KISS rule - Keep It Simple, Stupid - and NO HITCHHIKERS!
4. Eliminate access to Congress by professional lobbyists and special interest groups. One team of no more than three entity-employed volunteer representatives PER INDUSTRY or UNION would be acceptable, with no budget allowance other than employer provided transportation and lodging reservations, and reimbursable food expenses not to exceed $50 per day. Such restrictions would certainly impede, if not eliminate, the buying of Congressional favors.

5. Take the government back from Big Money. It should be obvious - to anybody that is not comatose (or already deceased) - that our elected officials are incapable of representing the working-class in a responsible manner. Would you spend millions of dollars to get a job that pays $174,000 per year? Not if you had any sense. Perhaps campaign spending limits of $350,000 for State legislators would level the playing field, and make it possible for a working-class candidate to actually get elected. If one couldn't raise that kind of money for their campaign then they probably shouldn't be running for office. After all, it's just $2,000 more than the job pays in 2 years, and would only be an average of a $5 contribution from 70,000 people.

Once upon a time, our Congress was composed of volunteers. These volunteers were men who so believed in our Republic that they worked to establish it without pay. (In 1813 they granted themselves a pay of $8 per day... paid only for the days which they actually attended to the business of the government.) Originally they were men of some learning, but mostly men of native intelligence, common sense, honor and the courage of their convictions. Open and vigorous disagreement and debate was commonplace. There was no strict party affiliation at the outset, rather, separation among Americans was primarily along philosophical lines, rather than party loyalties. Most were what we would call "Independents" today. (The earliest American political parties were the Federalists and the Republicans. George Washington declined labels, but was philosophically aligned with the Federalists, as was John Adams, Washington's VP and his successor as the 2nd President of the United States of America. The Republicans became the Democratic Party in 1828, with the Federalists becoming the Whigs in 1840 [having consumed the supporters of the Anti-Masonic Party in 1838] and finally morphing into the Republican Party in 1856. Yes, it did become a bit confusing back then.)
Our government has become an all-consuming Behemoth, that repeatedly ignores the expressed will of We the People. Government is nothing more - or anything less - than a necessary evil, of which WE are - Constitutionally - the masters... yet the government ignores our commands and turns upon us. The Obama regime goes so far as to label those citizens who would have the government follow the Constitution - upon which our nation was founded - as "terrorists" and "anarchists". Perhaps no government is better than unresponsive government, and perhaps those labeled as "terrorists" by the liberal left "progressives" are recognized as "patriots" by the conservative right.
OUR NATION WAS NOT FOUNDED ON A PHILOSOPHY OF "REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH" OR "SOCIALIZED" ANYTHING. IT WAS FOUNDED UNDER THE CONCEPT OF GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS - INCLUDING THE RIGHT OF ALL CITIZENS TO REAP THE BENEFITS OF THEIR OWN LABORS -

INDIVIDUALLY!

In the words of Thomas Jefferson: "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
Manure is what Washington has been feeding us for decades. Let us tell them we're full - and we will have no more of it!

TEA PARTY FRACTURED - What Does It Mean?

The Tea Party... is it a political party... or more like a "toga party"? As of today the Tea Party is not an official political party, nor is it seen as such by most Americans. Actually, outside of the Tea Party movement itself, most Americans don't have a real "handle" on what the Tea Party believes, does, or is.

There was a Tea Party conducted here in Grants Pass Oregon, a small town of approximately 30,000, on April 15th of 2009. "TEA", in this case, is an acronym representing the phrase "Taxed Enough Already". You should be able to deduce from that acronym - and the date upon which the nation-wide Tea Party was held - that the primary thrust of the movement is stabilized, preferably reduced taxation, and fiscal restraint demonstrated by our government. In fact, inasmuch as the beast of government survives only off the earnings of We the People, doing the first would necessitate the second.

You can now see that the Tea Party movement is (1) against increased taxes, (2) fiscally conservative, and (3) supports the concept of smaller, less powerful federal government - government within the confines of our Constitution.

The liberal radical left wants the world to believe that the Tea Party movement is not a true grass-roots movement, but rather that those extremely intelligent, "rich Republicans" are behind the whole idea. They few are the puppet masters, manipulating the rest of us poor, ignorant Bible-loving, gun-toting, freedom-addicted, Constitution-following dummies into supporting their desire for power. That's how they say they see us, because that's how they wish we really were. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Tea Party is made up of Republicans, Independents, and even some disenchanted Democrats. I'm fairly certain that some of the Republicans are "rich" - as are some of the Independents and some of the Democrats. However, I didn't see any truly exotic or outrageously expensive vehicles at our Tea Party. A few Cadillacs, a couple of Lincolns and a Mercedes or two. Not a Rolls, Bentley, Ferrari or Bugatti anywhere in sight. There were no YSL suits or A. Testoni shoes on the men. No Louis Vitton handbags or Prada shoes worn by the ladies. I saw one sport coat, and two ties in the crowd of 750. This was a working-class, jeans and t-shirt crowd. This was the backbone of America making itself heard!

The turnout here in Grants Pass for the Tax Day Tea Party was 750 people. That works out to 2.5% of the population. Since total figures for the national Tea Party are quite elusive, lets just use that 2.5% against the national population of 306,000,000. That calculates as 7,650,000 participants nationwide. This does not include those who may have been working, hospitalized or otherwise indisposed and were therefore unable to attend - we can consider them as "Tea Party Sympathizers". I won't even attempt to assign a numeric value to them, because I have no idea how many "sympathizers" there may have been. There could only be ten... or as many as ten million.

How is the Tea Party "fractured"? It is fractured by its very structure - or lack thereof. There is no clearly recognized, single focal point for a "National Tea Party Headquarters". The "leadership" is fragmented within geographical regions and even within states -
(1) Judson Phillips is the founder of the Tea Party Nation
(2) Tom Knapp claims to be founder of the 21st century version of the Boston Tea Party
(3) Eric Odom is the founder of the American Liberty Alliance (ALA), the group that launched and organized the tea party movement across the country
(4) Constitutionalist grass roots activist Chad Peace - as part of the original team of people who organized Boston Tea Party re-enactment protests in 50 different cities in late 2007 - claims to be the co-founder of the movement.
And recently, some moron lawyer/radio host in Florida filed a lawsuit to be granted copyrights to the name of Tea Party. There are even more claimants to founding the Tea Party movement!

Such fragmentation makes centralizing power difficult at best, and impossible at worst. The saving factor is that the goals of all the individual groups are the same - lower taxes, fiscal conservatism, and smaller government within the framework of the Constitution. There is, however, one consistent focal point within the movement - Sarah Palin. Sarah is not an official in any of the multiple branches of the movement, but she is the only physical common thread between them all.

The Tea Party Convention was attended by only 600 people. Perhaps there are only 600 "rich Republicans" in the movement, since - at $549 per ticket - it was out of the question for most of us who are associated with the movement. Had it been free - or even $100 per ticket - I'm sure there would have been thousands of attendees. The Tea Party movement has the potential to become the 3rd nationally recognized, viable political party - but only the potential at this point. What seems most likely is that the Tea Party will put its weight behind those candidates who have either proven track records as conservative traditional constitutionalists, or, those political newcomers who show the most promise of demonstrating those traits.

The only thing that is OBVIOUS about the Tea Party movement, is that America is still in the mood for "change", and that we are very unhappy with the ones that have been proposed during the past year by our government. Does government respond to those
indicators in a positive fashion? No... instead of adjusting their behavior, they "go to the mattresses" and begin their siege on Americans - insisting that the 535 people in Washington D.C. know better than the other 306,000,000 what is best for the country.

Long-term Effects Of High Unemployment, Recession and Devalued Currency

Does the average person not think it odd that when the country goes into a recession, unemployment spirals upward like a two-bit skyrocket, and the value of the U.S. dollar plummets to lifetime lows - that the cost of everything, including things produced in the USA, goes UP? That's how it strikes me, anyway... but I'm not an economist.

I am an observer of human behavior, though, and here's what I think we can expect to see as our current government-sponsored economic disaster continues:
1. As experienced older workers who - for the most part - draw higher wages, lose their jobs due to personnel cutbacks and impending retirements (retirements which corrupt employers love to avoid paying), they will find themselves taking entry-level positions just to earn a living so they can support themselves and their families. That's the way the older generation is wired - most of them still have what is called a "work ethic". (They have worked all their lives, and will continue to do so, if/when work of any kind is available. These people have character flaw called "personal pride". This pride will dissuade many of them from applying for unemployment compensation, even though they have paid into it all their working life, and that same pride will not allow them to stand on a street corner holding a sign asking people who are working to give away that which they have earned... at least, not until they are totally discouraged, and their family is going without.) This creates another problem...
2. Older, experienced workers are now competing with youngsters just entering the workforce. An employer (in any business other than one which is "youth-oriented") can now pick up proven workers for the same cost as a totally inexperienced worker. Because the cost in wages is the same, the experienced worker will probably get the lion's share of whatever work is available. The experienced worker is also less apt to have lost time (illness, work-related injury, pregnancy leave, etc.), so the employer will snatch him up and call it a bargain at that price.
3. There will still be high unemployment among the older segment of our population, but the youthful worker will see an excessively high unemployment rate - probably double that of the experienced worker. The younger generation will be quickly frustrated because they are used to getting what they want and getting it now. They will foment civil unrest - protests, vandalism, rioting, burning, looting, etc. - to the country. Metropolitan areas will feel the effects first, followed some time later by the suburbs. Rural America may feel it somewhat, but with nowhere near the passion - or the impact - of the disturbances in the cities. Existing street gangs will mobilize to take full advantage of the chaos, and new street gangs will be formed. "Turf" will gain even more importance than it has among gang members today, because it will literally become a matter of survival for them. Many gangs are fairly well organized, and in some instances they outnumber the police... and they are better armed.
4. Citizens who have otherwise been law abiding their entire life, will commit acts of theft, burglary, strong-arm robbery, and armed robbery when those things necessary for the survival of their family become generally unavailable.
(At this point we may reach the worst case scenario, which goes like this)5. Martial law is declared, and curfews established - by the same people responsible for the financial crisis. U.S. military forces are called out to quell the disturbances, and are told to use all necessary force -an intentionally vague, and politically satisfying term, which gives those issuing and those executing the "orders" a reasonable level of deniability. For the issuers it would be "That's not what we meant.", and for those carrying out the orders the retort becomes "But that's what you said!", when both parties are pointing at the other while trying to explain away the high body count.
6. The government is now seen by the populace as out of control and running amok, and the citizens take up arms to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. Half the military defects and joins the revolution.
7. Enemies of the United States now see their opportunity to pick a side, support them, and then eliminate them once the conflagration is ended... or, perhaps they will not pick a side. Rather, taking full advantage of the chaos, they will wait until our numbers have been decimated, and then just invade and kill or enslave the remaining population.

As I see it, the bottom line is this -
1. People are naturally inclined do whatever they feel they must to protect themselves and their loved ones.
2. People will engage in uncharacteristic, immoral and/or illegal behaviors, when threatened with extermination. What do they have to lose at that point?
3. Loyalties will be restricted to family, close friends, and a fairly small group of like-minded individuals. All others will be looked upon with suspicion and considered a potential threat - until they prove themselves to be otherwise.
4. A government that does not represent the expressed, free will of the people is a government well worth replacing! Such a government would be a "domestic enemy" of the people, and under the United States Constitution should be replaced.

And those are my thoughts about the social probabilities of an extended financial crisis. Just thoughts... not a plan, not a call to arms... more of a "HEY! Look at these unsatisfactory possibilities that could come to pass." Could our country become nothing more than a series of armed camps with private checkpoints every 10 blocks or so? I believe it could... but I pray that it won't.

Obama At ASU Graduation

As you may already know, I am not a fan of Barack Obama. My personal belief is that he is not a proper leader for our republic - Obama's desired destination is socialism. He is a fine orator, and he has the ability to mesmerize his audience... as long as his teleprompter is functioning. But, an empty drum makes the most noise. He is our first black President, which is a singular achievement thus far in our nation's history. How he got to be so is another question entirely. There are unanswered questions about his true place of birth. There are questions about how many dead people voted for him in Illinois - and other states - through the fine efforts of ACORN. There are questions about his lack of demonstrated respect for Queen Elizabth II, of the United Kingdom, versus his overt display of great respect for leaders of Islamic and Arab nations.

Oddly enough, the thrust of this posting will be to defend Barack Hussein Obama. People had told me (and I found corroboration in several blogs) that Obama had said, "America sucks, capitalism sucks, and our military sucks." I listened to his entire speech online, and I did not hear anything even vaguely resembling those statements. It would take a high degree of listener inference to come away with those impressions. He even gave slightly glowing credit to those who serve in our military.

However, there was an undertone of socialist indoctrination throughout his speech. I quote:
"Graduates, it is now abundantly clear that we need to start doing things a little differently," he said, bedecked in graduate robes. "As a nation, we'll need a fundamental change of perspective and attitude. It is clear that we need to build a new foundation – a stronger foundation – for our economy and our prosperity, rethinking how we grow our economy, how we use our energy, how we educate our children, and care for our sick, and treat our environment." I can find nothing in that paragraph that is arguable. We do need to change all of those things. The real question is, in what direction?

Socialism does not work! This has been proven repeatedly throughout history. Our nation was not founded under socialism, nor did socialism transform the USA from a rebellious colony into a world leader in less than 200 years. Sooner or later you do "run out of other people's money". Socialism is anathema to everything this country was built upon and stood for... prior to January 20, 2009 (Inauguration Day).

There are enough things obviously wrong with Barack Hussein Obama as President, that we do not need to concoct others through inference and innuendo. He is leading the USA to the destruction of our Constitutional Republic, instead of strengthening it.

I suppose I could be completely wrong about this... anybody got the weather report for Hell?

Political Conservatism vs Republicanism

In case you haven't figured it out by now, I am what I refer to as a Conservative Traditionalist. I am not a card-carrying member of either major political party, because I do not believe in blindly supporting party agendas. I am in charge of my life, and when I enter the voting booth I will make the decision as to what I believe is best for my country.

One of the biggest problems of the "two party system" is that the majority of those registered as R or D, view the Presidential electoral process as a "them or us" situation. Presidential elections are always an us condition, because the outcome impacts the entire country for the next four years. On the other hand, we do not need the overwhelming quagmire of political parties that some of the European countries have - the UK for example:

• 158 parties have their name registered for use only in England
• 9 parties have their name registered for use in England and Wales.
• 129 parties have their name registered for use in England, Scotland and Wales.
• 19 parties have their name registered for use only in Scotland.
• 9 parties have their name registered for use only in Wales.
• In Northern Ireland, 48 parties are on the register, including the Conservative Party which fights elections in the province.
• 4 parties are registered as "Minor Parties"

With as many as 158 registered parties, there should be a party for each and every issue under consideration! We certainly don't need that ... but, we do need a viable third party, a party whose primary interest is the good of the nation, rather than just the good of the party. A pork-free party!

Along with that, we would need representation for the nation as a whole, not just their home state. Why? Because that which is good for the nation is also good for the individual states! It cannot help but be beneficial in some respect. No more "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" backroom deals for earmarked state spending. But, I digress ... getting back to my topic:

A Conservative Traditionalist believes that our country, in spite of what few shortcomings it may have, is still the best country in the world. They also believe that the culture, traditions, and laws that made it the best country in the world are worth protecting from those who would scrap it all and reinvent the USA in the image of recently liberal Europe. And, I say recently, because Europe's conversion to liberalism has taken shape over the last 60 years.

We are not Europe ... nor are we Asia, Africa, or any of the remaining continents. We are the United States of America - the centerpiece of North America, a relatively new continent in the cultural sense. Yet in a scant 233 years - and because of the formula of that culture - we have overtaken and surpassed cultures a thousand years or more our senior. Economically, physically, spiritually, militarily and technologically we have advanced from relative obscurity, to a position of global leadership. The principles of our founding fathers have worked well for us for over two centuries, so where is the obvious indicator of a need for change? "Change", as someone once said, "is inevitable", but the result of change simply for the sake of change is frequently counterproductive, and sometimes destructive.

Who desires change in the American culture? Those who refuse to assimilate into that culture, and those who believe that the responsibility for providing the unearned rewards of individual success rests with the government. They believe that the government's role is to reward indolence and slothfulness with benefits equal or superior to those enjoyed by the productive, tax-paying members of our society. I strongly disagree with those people, whatever their party affiliation. We have too many grasshoppers and too few ants ... and if the ants should someday realize that the free ride is much easier than laboring for ones support, then we shall surely all perish of starvation.

I could be wrong about this ... and the Pope could be Jewish!