Steve Wynn Lacks Confidence in Obama Administration

Yeah, okay....
Question: Who is Steve Wynn?
Answer: A self-made real estate developer, Las Vegas casino magnate, and multi-billionaire.

Question: What does he know about decisions that will have a significant financial impact on our economy?
Answer: Consult Webster's Dictionary for the meaning of "multi-" and "billionaire". (One doesn't get to be one of those without some understanding of economics. It is not simply "dumb luck".)

Question: Does he have a sufficient understanding of the political process to pass judgment on it's shortcomings?
Answer: Do you? Glad-handing, backslapping, unfulfilled promises and outright lying are the underpinnings of politicians since the beginning of time. Tell each group you address that which they wish to hear, throw in some charisma and you will become their leader. This is also the domain of those who have chosen to become rich, as opposed to being open and completely honest. Constituency is just a high-sounding word for "sheeple"... people who follow as would sheep.

Question: Where does Steve Wynn get off criticizing the actions of the President of the United States of America?
Answer: The same place I get off criticizing your president (lower case intentional) - the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Someone recently said, and I paraphrase, "The problem is not with Barack Obama, it is with the people that would elect him to the office of President." (or words to that effect)

Here's Steve Wynn's take on what's happening to our country -

We can, and we must, stop this downward spiral into third-world status. The "silent majority" must make both their presence, and their feelings, known this November!

Silence is not golden! Silence is acquiescence. Silence is mute acceptance. Silence is indifference. Silence is to become - and remain - unrecognized. Silence is the manna of sycophants and political toadies. Silence is the sustenance of fools.

We CAN save the Republic! We CAN stop this runaway train of tax, borrow and spend. But only if we find our collective voice... silence will change nothing. I have spoken with many people who have said, "I will never vote again!" And, to them I say this: If you do not vote, someone else will determine the course upon which the Ship of State sails, and you have forfeited your right to complain. Be heartened by the display of dedication shown by the many thousands of people, who, rising from their Illinois graves, voted for Barack Obama! Does it take more effort from those who are still among the living to go to the polls? Is their dedication more powerful than ours? Of course it isn't!

I'm Gil, and you're not... count your blessings (I still have one more than you).

TEA Partiers Branded As Anti-Government By Left-Wing, Socialist-Progressive Media

The English language is not that difficult for those of us who are natural-born citizens of the USA. The prefix "anti-" is defined in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of The English Language as: "one that is opposed". In this particular case it would mean one (group) that is "opposed to government"... and nothing could be further from the truth! That is, of course, because the lefties know nothing about the truth of being an American.

Once again - for those of you who may have missed it originally - the "TEA" in TEA Party stands for Taxed Enough Already. It is not an acronym for Terror, Enmity and Anarchy. The TEA Party participants, overall, are not "anti-government". What they are against is bloated, gargantuan and ever-expanding, intrusive, tax-and-spend-like-there's-no-tomorrow socialist-"progressive" government!
The TEA Party participants, by and large, are Constitutional Traditionalist Conservatives. They believe in a government that serves the people according to the Constitution as it was written and intended. This belief particularly applies to the first ten amendments to the Constitution, which are also known as the "Bill of Rights".
The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the citizens from the inherent greed and lust for power of those elected to represent them in the Federal Government. Most state constitutions are closely modeled after - if not carbon copies of - the Constitution of the United States of America. In 1861, seven states, led by South Carolina, seceded (departed) from the United States because the southern states felt the federal government was becoming too strong and dictatorial in telling them how they should live. They then formed the "Confederate States of America". Union soldiers occupying Fort Sumpter at Charleston, SC refused to leave the fort when ordered to do so by the Confederacy, which resulted in the opening shots of the "Civil War". To date, that is the only rift resulting in the separation of the union of states.

The Socialist-Progressives in this country have, in effect, declared war upon the relatively silent, conservative-traditionalist majority. That war is being coordinated by our Congress and higher government officials, financed by billionaire socialist George Soros and other like-minded left wingers, and reported by the liberal media. Thus far it is a war of words... or more specifically, a war of misinformation, commonly known as lies.
The current president of the United States, finds the TEA party movement to be "humorous", rather than an expression of dissatisfaction with the way our government is being run. Those in his left-wing socialist administration have labeled those in the TEA Party as "wing-nuts" and "terrorists". The TEA Party movement has been described in the media as a "violent anti-government" movement, yet there have been no acts of violence from the TEA Party. There have, however, been acts of violence and intimidation conducted against them by the Obama-endorsed SEIU and other radical elements of the left-wing socialist progressive movement.
The intent of those who have aligned themselves against the TEA Party movement, is to undermine (if not eliminate) that irritating Constitution of the United States of America. That seems to be the document that prohibits them from converting our country from a Democratic Republic into a Marxist-socialist-progressive state. A pseudo-Utopian state where the rewards of the labors of all are shared with those who labor not. They will have reduced the status of a world-class technological, financial, economic, military and social super power to that of some third world banana-Republic. Once we are reduced to that condition we (the working class) will be punished for having the audacity to apply ourselves and become successful in our chosen field of endeavor. The fruits of our labors will be collected by way of taxation - direct and hidden - and redistributed to those who did not apply themselves. The politicians will not suffer, nor will the leaders of big business or the union officials. They will be rewarded for their unwavering support in the destruction of our once-great nation.

Margaret Thatcher said, "The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of other people's money." She was correct. Who will willingly continue to labor for the support of those who do not? When the majority of the populations quits working will the socialist-progressives create forced-labor camps, as suggested by U.S. Army Regulation 210-35 "Civilian Inmate Labor Program? The regulation specifies "the Army's primary purpose for allowing establishment of prison camps on Army installations is to use the resident nonviolent civilian inmate labor pool to work on the leased portions of the installation." (Camps of this type were quite popular with the German Nazi party during World War II. There were the Soviet gulags and Siberian labor camps for political dissenters into the mid-to-late-20th century, and camps of this type are still popular today in China and North Korea.)

But let's not worry about any of those things. Keep your eyes open for those violent, terrorist-anarchists of the TEA Party movement! They may complain that their Constitution has been usurped by the Luciferian left.

At last count, thirty-three states had re-asserted their sovereignty under the 10th Amendment, but none of the Constitutional amendments will mean anything once the Constitution has been undermined, usurped, or otherwise destroyed and re-written in the leftist, socialist-progressive, Marxist manner our current government desires. Perhaps by then thirty-three states will have seceded from the "union"...

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.

RECOVERING AMERICA - What Will It Take Get Our Republic Back?

It will be no surprise to anyone who has been paying the least attention since January 20th, 2009, when I say that our country has been diverted from the path of the Democratic Republic upon which it was founded. The left-wing loons would even have to admit that their Messiah has hijacked our country, and is leading it down the "yellow brick road" to Socialism.

Perhaps I have an over-simplified opinion of what it would take to return our nation to the destination which our founding fathers originally intended, but...

It is much easier to stop a runaway train, than it is to reconstruct it after the wreck, and that is exactly what we have going on here - a train wreck in progress. I'm beginning to wonder if Barack Obama is the reincarnation of Erich Weisz (better known as Harry Houdini). David Copperfield must be quite envious of the skills which Obama has demonstrated in misdirection, sleight of hand, and the use of smoke, mirrors and trap doors! "The Great and Powerful Oz" is quite the showman, and that is exactly what he is - a showman - nothing more, nothing less. Obama is all show and no personal substance. He has no accomplishments in his life that are not products of his ability to BS other people into doing his will. He has never - not one day in his entire life - labored for wages... yet he claims to be the champion the working man and our corrupt labor unions. And (this is the truly amazing part) they believe him! But, I digress.

How do we stop this runaway train called the USA Express before it is destroyed? There are only two options -ballots or bullets. Ballots are certainly the preferred method of correcting our course before we are completely derailed, the question is do they truly work for us?

There was that strange bit of business with "chads" in Florida during the 2000 election, compounded by the Electoral College deciding what "We the People" really wanted, even though the popular vote didn't support that EC decision. The Electoral College serves no useful purpose, and should be done away with. The only purpose it does serve is to insure that, if the will of the people goes against that of "The Great and Powerful Oz" (the behind-the-scenes power brokers), the will of Oz prevails through the auspices of the Electoral College. Am I the only person who sees a problem with that arrangement? The term "electoral college" does not appear in the Constitution. Article II of the Constitution and the 12th Amendment refer to "electors," but not to the "electoral college." The EC had no official, documented recognition prior to 1845 when the EC was included in federal law and, until that time, it apparently functioned primarily upon a knowing wink and a friendly nudge.

For the sake of argument, let us assume that the ballot box does actually work for us. How do we correct our course? We vote the incumbents out of office!
We work especially hard to remove those who voted in support of legislation that brought us to this point, and replace them with true conservative traditionalists. The hard part will be discerning between the genuine conservative traditionalist candidates, and the IndePubliCrats. We have only two means of discernment available to us - record and instinct. A record will exist only for those who have a history of "public service" and that allows us to use both means. A political newcomer will have no record available for our review, and we will be forced to rely on "gut instinct" - that nagging feeling one gets when they sense that something is not quite right about what they are seeing or hearing. (We also have to keep in mind that candidates for elected office tend to tell each audience that which they believe that particular audience wants to hear, but in vague, non-specific and wishy-washy general terms which they can weasel out of later.)

At best our election process is flawed and imperfect, but at its worst it is still better than most processes of establishing a government. It is the best of that which is available. A "One World Government" would only rate about a half-point above a global dictatorship.
Bullets become a possibility when the will of the people is repeatedly thwarted by "the powers" - either those elected or those behind-the-scenes. It has been almost 150 years since the "Civil War" (aka: War Between the States), and the thought of Americans once again taking up arms against one another is abhorrent to most of us. However, 224 years ago, when our ancestors were ruled by that British tyrant, George III, they took up arms against the "government" to free themselves and created the Democratic Republic now known as the United States of America. Those who would rule us, rather than govern a free people, should remember that lesson from history, before they are doomed to repeat it. I don't believe that we have become so used to our freedom - because we have known nothing less - that we take it for granted. Are we so complacent in the assumption that no person living within our borders would wish to eliminate those freedoms, that we are no longer vigilant against internal threats? If we were to look closely at the "third world" countries, we would quickly realize that there are tyrants in the world today. Those who would rule their subjects rather than govern their citizens.
Awaken America! Awaken and understand that not all our enemies are foreign, nor are all those within our borders our friends. Our immigration policies - or lack thereof - have made it quite easy for those who wish us harm to locate themselves in our heartland. Case in point: Major Nidal Malik Hasan, United States Army Medical Corps, on November 5, 2009 murdered 13 people and wounded 29 others - ON AN ARMY BASE! Then there's Umar Farouk Abdulmuttalab, who tried unsuccessfully to blow up an Amsterdam-to-Detroit-bound commercial airliner carrying 300 people on Christmas day. Then we have the several hundred illegal aliens from Mexico, who now occupy our prisons for attempted murder, murder, multiple murders, serial murders, and other assorted "capital offenses". But... at least so far, none of the imprisoned, illegal Mexican nationals has been charged with acts of terrorism. I guess that's a point in their favor...
The politically correct "head in the sand" posture does not make threats disappear, it just makes them unseen. That hungry lion will still eat the ostrich, the ostrich just won't be able to see it coming. Have we become a nation of ostriches? We are faced with not just one... but several hungry lions! Ignoring them won't make them go away, it will just reduce the ostrich population. The leftists are a cancer upon America - and, if that cancer is not excised, it will continue to grow until it consumes us. Most of Europe, and all of the third world nations, would like nothing better than to see the USA fail. They would gladly sacrifice the foreign aid we provide them to see us reduced to their condition.

EXACTLY WHAT IS A POLITICAL "CONSERVATIVE"?

Conservatism is a political and social term from the Latin verb conservare meaning to save or preserve. As the name suggests it usually indicates support for tradition and traditional values. According to my dictionary a political conservative is one who is:
1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate; avoiding unnecessary risk taking.
3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit; conservative in speech or actions.
Now that I have defined the term for us, and we're all on the same page intellectually speaking, let's look at what makes a political conservative "tick". Everything from here on down is my personal world view, which may or may not be in agreement with the world view of anybody else... and it doesn't have to in order to be valid. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A conservative is one who believes that our culture, traditions and Constitutional guarantees are invaluable (that word means priceless - it does not mean without value, Bubba). The conservative believes that change may become necessary in many things, but holds culture, tradition, and the Constitution to be sacrosanct (consult Webster's). He believes that it is a personal responsibility for all true Americans to preserve those things so that future generations may enjoy them. Yes, you read that correctly. The conservative considers anyone who does not hold those same values in the highest esteem to be something less than a true American. The good news is that conservatives do not see those people as subhuman... just as terribly misguided and irrevocably ignorant.

Conservatives attempt to choose their words with reasonable care, so as not to unwittingly offend another person. They also see offending the sensitivities of others as acceptable when the ignorance of those "others" cannot be overcome by pure reason.

Conservatives believe in the sanctity of human life, perhaps to a fault. This belief includes all human life, from the moment of conception to the moment of unavoidable death . At the same time, they believe in the penalty of death for those who have committed crimes deserving of that penalty against others. A conservative's sympathies are with the victims of crime, not those who commit the crimes. They also believe that there are those among us whose characters are not salvageable, and therefore unfit to live among civilized persons. And why should one who has taken a life, other than in self-defense or in defense of the life of another, be allowed to live out their life to its natural conclusion at the expense of the honest citizen? A swift application of Mosaic Law (that's the "eye-for-an-eye" thing) would make the world a safer, better place. A lawful death sentence in the USA takes an average of 17 years to reach its conclusion.

Conservatives understand that children, who are the most innocent and defenseless among us, should be protected to the "nth degree" of the law, yet our liberal courts are (for the most-part) issuing judicial slaps upon the wrist to those who molest and murder children. We are not happy about that.

Conservatives believe that personal satisfaction comes from a job well done, and that a person should be able to reap the rewards of their own labors, skills and talents without having to support those who choose not to labor for the rewards our society can provide. Those who are physically and mentally capable of earning their own way should be required to do so. There is no birthright to success. Just a birthright to be afforded an opportunity to become successful through personal effort. You have no right to ask anybody to give you some of what they have earned because you are too lazy to work. The world owes you absolutely nothing. The fact that you are simply present on this planet is not a particular blessing to the rest of the occupants until you apply yourself, and become a productive member of the society in which you live.

Conservatives support energy conservation - and, by and large, we think that Political Correctness is a ridiculous waste of energy. How did Americans ever let it become incorrect to speak one's mind using the normal everyday words of the English language - including idiom, cant, colloquialisms and jargon? Why should we have to search our entire vocabulary inventory to avoid the possibility of offending somebody? Nowhere is it written that we have the right to go through life without ever being offended. If you should find yourself offended tell the other party "I find that offensive." (Then either stand your ground and prepare to argue against whatever it was that offended you, or turn on your heel and leave the area. After which you should just suck it up and get on with your life.) Other than that, we also support the conservative management of our natural energy resources! The natural transition from this point would be to explore...

"Hate crimes". Hatred is not a "crime" in the real world. Hatred is an emotion... an attitude... a state of mind... the end result of a thought process. It is the physical expression of that emotion, in some otherwise illegal manner, that may constitute a crime. Hatred is at the extreme negative end of the love-hate emotional continuum, and is a particularly unsatisfactory - but natural - emotion. Hatred is a learned emotion, and hatred of a person or thing may be learned from a very negative personal experience, or it may be unintentionally - or intentionally - taught. (Neo-Nazi's teach their children to hate "niggers and Jews" from an age that predates reason and the ability to fully understand. The children, seeking the approval and love of their parents, learn and recite these mantras of hate by rote.) The terrorist attack of 9-11 generated a significantly strong and wide-spread dislike for anything Muslim among the people of the United States. In some it instilled fear, in others anger, and in many it instilled hatred of the Muslim culture, all things Islamic, and anyone who even appeared to be of middle eastern descent. But, in almost all Americans, 9-11 instilled some degree of distrust! Human beings tend to be distrustful of anything out of the ordinary... especially if they can easily identify those "things" from their size, shape, manner of dress, speech, or color. Look upon that distrust as a survival mechanism.

Conservatives had a self-imposed "vow of silence". Until recently conservatives were the fabled "silent majority". You did not see conservatives rioting in the 1950s and 1960s. You did not see conservatives "dropping out" and running off to join the drug infested liberal "hippie" communes of the 1960s and '70s. However, in 2009, the "silent majority" realized they were not being heard over the tumultuous clamor of the socialist/Marxist liberals. The cacophonous whining of the "entitlement whores" (those who think the government owes them something for simply existing) and their "pimps" (the bleeding heart, liberal politicians who wish to increase their voter base by giving the first group anything they ask for) echo through the halls of the Congress, reverberating almost as loudly as the big money of corporate America and labor unions. We know that "money talks while....". Seeing the direction in which the NObama Administration was taking the country with bailouts, stimulus packages, increased entitlement programs, amnesty for illegal aliens, B.O.'s Global Apology Tour, and mortgaging the country to China (of all people), conservatives organized, mobilized, and gave birth to the 21st century version of the Boston Tea Party. For those of you who have never attended a Tea Party, it is a non-violent demonstration of the people's frustration with gargantuan government continuing to grow, and consuming everything in sight in order to keep the beast moving. There have been no calls for a revolution, or even a coup d'etat... yet. We are not happy with the government, and we see nothing on the horizon that might mollify us. We are, in typical conservative fashion, expressing our displeasure peacefully.

Conservatives generally accept and support everybody's religious beliefs, but without internalizing those beliefs or adopting them as their own... as long as there is no harm to man or beast in their "worship services". Conservatives may disagree with the practice of "Religion X", but they will not try to stop anybody else from the practice of that religion. Conservatives may believe that anyone without a religion is foolish, but they won't try to force their beliefs on others. If you have chosen to be an atheist, and someone approaches you to proselytize for "The First Church of XYZ", a simple "No thank you." should suffice. A loudly yelled "Get outta my face, Buttlips!" should work equally well, but that approach is a bloody nose looking for a place to happen... and may even initiate some hard feelings. You do not have a right to never see or hear something religious, but if you find it offensive you do have the right not to look or listen. Conservatives also don't believe that you have a right to try to ruin the holidays of those who do have religious convictions.

Conservatives are the folks who will literally stand up for the Constitution, when the left-wingers try to repeal it. Being conservative doesn't mean you have an insatiable desire to consume the seemingly interminable supply of male bovine excrement that political Washington D.C. keeps feeding the nation. We are not mushrooms... if we are kept in the dark and fed BS long enough we will turn bad!

Conservatives believe that our Constitution is the oldest "living" document in the world. But it is fully mature, and needs no further "growth". It is complete and perfect the way it reads today, just as it was 233 years ago. The bad news is that there hasn't been a true conservative in the White House since Ronald Reagan!

That may not be, as my heading claims, "exactly" what a conservative is, but it's close enough to get you thinking about conservatism!

US seeks to seize 4 mosques, tower linked to Iran

That is how the AP headline reads. The story opens with - "NEW YORK – In what could be one of the biggest counterterrorism seizures in U.S. history, federal prosecutors sought to take over four U.S. mosques and a New York City skyscraper owned by a Muslim organization suspected of being controlled by the Iranian government."

There are some Constitutional concerns about that government action - specifically 1st Amendment "freedom of religion" issues. There may also be some 4th Amendment questions to be answered. If the government is successful in its suit to seize these "terrorist" assets, including the mosques, would they be in violation of the 1st Amendment protection of "freedom of religion"?

Not being a lawyer of any kind, much less a Constitutional law expert, my layman's opinion is no, they would not. They will not have banned the religion, they will only have removed the availability certain specific, questionable, places of worship. The practice of the Muslim religion can still go on... just not in those particular mosques.

Things Are Being Put into Place - VERY DISTURBING THINGS!

Some of the things that are now coming together are probably "just coincidence", but when viewed as a total package they present a very disturbing picture for Americans. The most recent of these is the adoption of a shoulder patch for American soldiers of the United States Northern Command's U.S. 5th Army.

You may be wondering how a soldier's shoulder insignia can be "disturbing". This may, in fact, be one of those coincidences I mentioned above, but...
1. The patch background shows continental North America. For those of you who may have forgotten your grade school geography, continental North America consists of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. Superimposed in the foreground of the patch is the U.S. eagle. The colors of the patch (and this may be where coincidence comes into play, since there are only so many colors in the spectrum) are orange and blue - the colors of the United Nations. The U.S. eagle covers the entire continent of North America. The subtle implication that one might glean from this is that the U.S. 5th Army - if not all of NorthCom - is expected to fall under the auspices of the United Nations. This, of course, would be in violation of the Constitution, the military Oath of Enlistment, and all that is right! Let's wait and see, shall we?
2. The charter of NorthCom is to provide "domestic protection". That sounds fairly innocuous if you don't question the phrase. Protecting our people is a good thing, right? But, protecting the government from its people is not a good thing. A government in fear of its people must have some justification for that fear, such as defying the desires of those people. Look at the laundry list of policies our government is trying to force upon "We the People" when we have indicated that we do not wish to have those policies made into laws:
a. Legalizing all illegal immigrants currently in our country. On top of that, allowing "chain migration" of their extended family after they are legalized! UNSUSTAINABLE
b. Government controlled health care, that "We the People" do not want, with fines and prison sentences given to those who choose to opt out. UNSUSTAINABLE
c. "Special Protections" under the law for certain activist groups, which now includes homosexuals and pedophiles. UNCONSTITUTIONAL
d. Indecisiveness from the "Commander in Chief" in the pursuit of the terrorists in Afghanistan. Apparently Obama thinks he can vote "present" from the White House just as cavalierly as he did in the Senate without being questioned. Field commanders told him what they needed to succeed, and approximately two months later, he gave them half of that personnel requirement. UNSUSTAINABLE AND UNCONSCIONABLE - at the unnecessary cost of many more American lives!
e. "Same sex marriage" - that should happen when the partners of a same sex relationship can procreate within that relationship. UNBELIEVABLE

The list goes on and on - government pork, government bailouts, government takeovers, government perks, government intrusion, etc. I perceive much of this to be government misdirection. Distractions designed to keep the concerns of Americans focused on the minutia - while the hidden agenda remains unnoticed.

3. The integration of the U.S. with Canada and Mexico, long deemed by many as little more than a fanciful "conspiracy theory," actually was an idea promoted by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and sold to President Bush (41) as a means of increasing commerce and business interest throughout North America. In 1987 the US and Canada signed the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement (FTA), ostensibly to stimulate commerce between the two sovereign nations. Feeling left out, Mexico pressed for a similar arrangement, and in 1994 the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which superseded the Canada-US treaty, was signed by representatives of the three parties concerned.Lurking in the wings is yet another "Free Trade Agreement". The United States is negotiating a bilateral and multilateral free trade agreement called the "Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA) which will include all nations of the western hemisphere - all of North America, all of Central America, and all of South America. When completed, this will make unification of the western hemisphere almost identical to that of the European Union (EU). How far behind can a single currency be - especially considering the current global financial conditions? Chip-chip-chip... but let's wait and see, okay? Personal freedom and national sovereignty aren't that important anyway, are they? The U.N. will take good care of us...

5. A Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Task Force on the Future of North America issued an executive summary entitled "creating a North American Community" on March 14, 2005 just days prior to the March 23, 2005, trilateral summit at Waco, Texas, in which President George W. Bush, then-Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin and then-Mexican President Vicente Fox declared the SPP on their own authority, without any approval from the U.S. Congress! (Be aware that the CFR is a non-governmental organization [NGO] which is composed of INTERNATIONAL big money, INTERNATIONAL big corporations, INTERNATIONAL big media, and INTERNATIONAL politicians - and that the CFR wields great power in INTERNATIONAL politics)

4. The upcoming "U.N. Climate Control Conference" in Copenhagen Denmark from December 7th - Dec 18th 2009. It's really nothing more than a slightly revamped Kyoto Protocol on Climate Control - with the inclusion of a 2% Global Climate Debt upon industrialized nations as punishment for being successful (this type of insanity is a preview of what life would be like under the thumb of the United Nations). It is also suspected that this conference will provide Obama with the opportunity to surrender our personal freedoms, our national sovereignty and our Constitutional rights to what is essentially a One World government. (Personally, I am not in great fear that such an action will be taken... but, I also stand ready to join the nationwide reaction if such a reprehensible action is taken. My freedom is guaranteed by God almighty, the blood of our founders, and the Constitution of the United States of America. As I served so that others may be free, so shall I serve in protecting the freedoms of myself, my family, and my countrymen!)

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
Thomas Jefferson

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

Sir Winston Churchill

OBAMA'S WAKE-UP CALL!

Following tonight's election results for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and Attorney General in Virginia and New Jersey, and Mayor of NY City should be a wake-up call for Obama. Virginia looks like a done deal (Republican sweep) at 9pm EDT, and Republicans have a 50% vote lead in NJ... but, only 5% of the vote is in, so that could change if enough Obamian morons turn out to vote. Let's hope the Jerseyites have come to their senses in the past 10 months!

The final outcome in New Jersey notwithstanding, it is a wake up call nonetheless, and what it says is - WE DON'T LIKE THE DIRECTION IN WHICH YOU (and your band of left-wing thugs) ARE TRYING TO TAKE OUR COUNTRY! He and his "czars" might want to take a look at that little document that we call The Constitution, and read it word for word, then try to commit it to memory and follow it - at least the high points of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 10th Amendments.

DO NOT try to screw with our rights to freedom of speech, expression, worship and assembly. We are a patient people, but we are not sheep... we're more like sleeping wolves.

DO NOT even think about circumventing our right to keep and bear arms, lest you discover why that right was placed in the second position - it protects all the others!

DO NOT attempt to circumvent our right to be secure in our persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures through the provisions of the "Patriot Act", or you may discover just how many true patriots exist in this nation. Many millions of us have taken an oath to "support and defend the Constitution"... that oath has no "best if used by" or expiration date.

DO NOT expect to easily trample upon "states rights" without facing retribution. At last count thirty three states had reaffirmed their sovereignty because of the perception that this administration would take any opportunity to exert undue, immoral, and illegal control over the rights of the states or the citizens thereof.

There was another wake-up call prior to this initial round of elections. It appears to have awakened the silent majority, which are, generally speaking, those whom this administration disdains. They are the backbone of this once-great nation - working-class, conservative, traditionalist, tax paying Christian Americans, and others less definable for whom the smoke has cleared, and the mirrors are now broken. This is the backlash! The American citizens whose participation in nation-wide Tea Parties and town hall meetings the Obamians chose to marginalize. The administration and left-wing media had the audacity to feign ignorance of the importance of those gatherings, labeling the participants "puppets of the wealthy Republicans", "rabble rousers", and "domestic terrorists". How's that puppet show working entertaining you now, O? Any widely disseminated opposition (i.e. FOX News) to the policies of the current administration is labeled "radicalism". If anybody would know radicalism it would be Obama -he surrounds himself with revolutionist radicals!

The only time a government has need to fear it's citizens, is when that government knows it is not doing right by the people it was elected to serve. We are not Europe, we do not share European values, and we do not embrace European-style government. We are the citizens of the United States of America. Our citizenship was bought by the blood of our forefathers - the colonial subjects of King Charles III of England - who founded this Democratic Republic. The true power of the USA is in the hands of its citizens, should they choose to exert those powers once again. The government serves at the pleasure the people... and the people are less pleased than they could be.

There are also concerns over the upcoming Copenhagen Climate Treaty, and the deleterious effects it will have on the US if Obama signs that document. Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution, which addresses the powers and duties of the President states in-part: "He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;". One of the concerns was that Obama would sign away our sovereignty in Copenhagen, putting us under the World Court, and effectively abrogating our Constitution and our freedoms. According to the Constitution that the left loves to ignore, he can't do that by himself. The scary part of that is the phrase "provided two thirds of the Senators PRESENT concur". Remember the recent lockouts of Republicans from certain meetings of the Congress and Senate by the Democrats? "Present" doesn't require a majority to be present. If half are "present", and 34 "concur" that is two thirds of "those present."

Okay, it is now 2am EDT and the elections are over. A clean sweep in the east coast states which were holding elections today should tell Obama that we are not happy with his performance. But he is so full of himself that he can't even consider that the peasants are unhappy. After all, we can't be unhappy - for he is our leader, and for that alone we should be joyous... right?

OBAMA ADMINISTRATION FOMENTING REVOLUTION?

Intentionally or unintentionally it appears that the current administration is doing everything it can to incite the American people toward revolution. Is it possible that Obama is unaware that his policies, appointments and decisions thus far have made mainstream America very nervous... or is it that he just doesn't care? Since his apotheosis, Obama must be absolutely certain that he is smarter than his worshipers - which really does "track" if you think about it. After all, how smart could those who have deified Obama be?

His concern now is focused upon those of us who would neither wear the rose-colored glasses, nor adopt the necessary Pollyanna-ish attitude of "everything will be wonderful when Barack and his band of socialist/Marxist/communist/totalitarian appointees take over our government". It's probably not a great, devouring, sleep-loss type of concern, for surely he sees us as intellectually inferior, pitiful beings who just missed the opportunity to support him. I'm sure he can't ignore the fact he didn't get our votes simply because we could see through the smokescreen and ignore the mirrors... and now he must silence us.

Do we all understand that the purpose and function of government? It's "raison d'etre" is control? This is true of all governments, regardless of the type of governance...

Dictatorship - generally considered a Draconian-type of rule, a dictator usually assumes office through acts of violence, and retains that office through the same methods. The dictator lacks those bothersome restrictions provided by a constitution, and there are no laws providing for recognition of opposing points of view. A tyrant, a despot, one whose "my way or the highway" leadership style is enforced by armed thugs and an unarmed general population. Total control.

Monarchy - this one begins with the words "once upon a time", because once upon a time the "rule" of ruling was that most governments were monarchies of some sort... and the monarch initially gained control by force of arms, and was then self-designated as Emperor, King, Queen, Shah, etc.. Hereditary rule is often the defining characteristic of a monarchy. Once totalitarian in nature, many monarchies have become "constitutional monarchies", providing their subjects with the comforts of constitutional protections.

Communism - a communist state exhibits a form of government characterized by single party rule, and are generally based on either Marxist or Leninist philosophies. Additional parties may be allowed, but the communist party is always given dominance in government. In many respects the communistic form of government is not that distant from a dictatorship, and often enforces its internal will by force of arms. Total control through force of arms when deemed necessary.

Democracy - there are two types of democracy: pure and representative.
In a pure or direct democracy power rests in the assembly of all citizens who wish to participate. This assembly might pass executive actions, make laws, elect and dismiss officials, and conduct trials. A representative democracy, such as the United States should have, is founded on the principle of elected individuals representing the people (as opposed to a direct democracy).

Republic - there are Constitutional Republics and Parliamentary Republics. I will only outline the Constitutional Republic here, inasmuch as it is the type which we in the USA experience (the other type isn't necessarily bad... it's just not relevant.). In a constitutional republic the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people, and (at least theoretically) must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the governments power over the people.

There are several other forms of government, but they are generally ineffectual, and not in direct practice these days, and therefore are not really worth including... so I won't!

The government of the USA is - purportedly - a representative constitutional democratic republic. Unfortunately, one of the shortcomings of a representative democracy is that although an official is elected to represent his/her constituents, it is not required that they represent the expressed will of those constituents.

About now you're probably thinking, "Okay, so get to the point of the post title. Exactly how is this administration "fomenting revolution?" (Understand that I will probably just scratch the surface of those actions that have been taken in contravention of the constitution, since I only have access to those acts that have been made public.) I enumerate:

1. Government bailing out American financial institutions and two-thirds of the American automobile manufacturing industry. There is no Constitutional precedent for such actions. These businesses developed financial troubles because of exorbitantly high executive salaries, bonuses, lavish expense accounts, and greedy union labor. And those same mistakes continue to be made today! The government lawyers failed to draft the bailout bills in such a manner that would eliminate those improper behaviors. Was that just an oversight, or was it intentional? In a practical sense it makes no difference, because the bottom line is the bottom line. Taxpayer money was used to support private corporations, and used without appropriate restrictions on the manner of in which it could be disbursed. The first thing AIG did with our money was pay those outrageous bonuses to its executives. (Granted, had those businesses gone under, there would have been tens of thousands of jobs lost, increasing the strain on an already stretched-thin unemployment compensation program.) However, the government now has "control" of the automotive industry, and most of Wall Street, both of which are areas in which government has no business. The government is unsuccessful in conducting its own restricted business, why should we believe they can run successful enterprises within a competitive free market system? Why should they even believe that?

2. Government involvement in individual health care issues. Nowhere in the Constitution is that a power specifically granted to the federal government. Therefore it is a "States Rights" issue. The government is not allowed to compete with private industry at any level, which is why all government contracts must be bid upon by private vendors.

3. Appointment of unelected, and generally unvetted, "czars" to positions of power equal to, and in some cases superior to, the powers of established Cabinet posts and Departmental Directors. Further, in many cases these "czar" positions amount to nothing more political payback for support during the election campaign, with a slant toward also "paying back" those who did not support his bid for election. Most Obama czars are very radical, foaming-at-the-mouth, left-wing thugs, whose primary interest is one of destroying the very foundations of our once-great nation. These appointees are working hard for Obama's agenda, devising ways to circumvent the First Amendment (Freedom of religion, speech and expression), Second (Right to keep and bear arms), Fourth (Search and seizure), Tenth (Powers of the states and people) and Thirteenth Amendments (Abolition of slavery) to the Constitution. The measure of a man's true character can be taken from the people with whom he surrounds himself.

4. Attempting to silence those who would disagree with new Presidential plans and policies, by re-instituting the 1949 "Fairness Doctrine", which was essentially deemed worthless by the FCC in August of 1987, who repealed it by a 4-0 vote, and labeled it "unconstitutional", saying:

"The intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters ... [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists."

This ruling was upheld by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 1989.

5. Coming soon to Obamaland - the Internet Czar! A position designed to restrict the free flow of information between citizens of the United States over the internet. Purportedly, this poition is designed to “enhance remedies for violations of intellectual property laws and for other purposes”. It’s the “other purposes” that should have people concerned.

6. There is a rumor circulating - one that is well within the realm of believability - that Obama plans to sign away the sovereignty of this great nation in Copenhagen at the impending United Nations Climate Treaty (December 7-18, 2009). If such an act is not treason, then the ensuing revolt across the country will not be considered a revolution. The only freedoms that any official can sign away are his own! If Obama opts for personal slavery under the U.N. and a "World Government", replacing U.S. law and the Constitution with the laws of the International Court then let him sign away his freedoms. (It is also being said that once the document is signed it cannot be revoked.) No man can make such a decision for another person, nor can a President make such a decision for a nation of men... without cost. The cost of MY freedom will be dear to all concerned!

These changes are, for the most part, being made without challenge from the American citizens. Have we - the "silent majority" - been silent so long as to have lost our voice entirely? Or, have we been so ignorantly complacent that we no longer care? The government is NOT YOUR DADDY! You cannot depend on the government to meet all, most, or even any of your needs in the long term. If you don't believe me, ask any Native American what trusting your government does for you.

For those of you who may be the least bit concerned about such a thing as signing us over to a foreign entity - as if we were personal property - actually happening I would suggest you contact all your elected state officials demanding that they refuse to accept such a proposal. Thirty-three states have already re-declared their "States Rights". Could secession from the union be far behind?