VIOLENCE AND SEDITION - What Will The Left Think Of Next?

Interestingly, the left-wing, Marxist, socialist-progressive Democrats in government have labeled those of us who attend TEA Parties as "inciting violence" and "seditionists". Obama finds us "amusing"... your President finds concerned Americans who disagree with the direction in which he is sailing our "ship of state" to be "amusing"!

I have attended two Tea Parties locally, and have yet to witness any acts of violence, and have not yet heard a call to commit acts of violence. In fact, the only acts of violence I have even heard of are those committed against the TEA Party attendees by supporters and sympathizers of the left-wing, Marxist, socialist-progressive Democrats. A cowardly demonstration of attempting to provoke peaceful TEA Party attendees into acts of physical violence against the socialist turncoats.

Sedition is defined thus - "Conduct which is directed against a government and which tends toward insurrection but does not amount to treason." I don't know that there have been any acts of sedition associated with the TEA Party movement. If so, they were not sponsored or condoned by the TEA Party movement. But, the First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees us freedom of speech, in spite of the fact that the left-wing, Marxist, socialist-progressive Democrats wish to deny that Constitutionally protected right to those who voice disagreement with them.
Perhaps they have an understandable guilt created by diverting our government from its intended course, and an attendant fear that they will someday be held accountable for their treasonous acts by We the People.

The last statistic I heard regarding the Constitution dealt with the Tenth Amendment (States Rights), which states in plain English - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.". The statistic I refer to reported that 33 states had reaffirmed their sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment. Now that may just be "window dressing" - like a couple reaffirming their marriage vows -, or it may be a precursor to secession. Could secession be considered an act of sedition? I suppose it could be if it were left up to some radical left-winger to define. But the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of the English Language defines secession to be - " 1 : withdrawal into privacy or solitude 2 : formal withdrawal from an organization." In other words, it's a simple statement saying, "I refuse to play your game any more because you want to change the rules the game was established with." If you can understand that then you have a grasp of the meaning of secession. It means a state - or states - chooses to remove itself from the Union of States.

Washington has turned a deaf ear to the conservative voices in this country... and THAT is the worst possible action the government could take. George III failed to hear the voices of the American colonists until December 16, 1773 - the night of the original Boston Tea Party. The rebellion against tyranny is not only expected of free men, it is required of them when rebellion becomes necessary to maintain that freedom. As Thomas Jefferson said, "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."
Jefferson was also - by today's definition - a "seditionist", condemned to be so by his own words. Read carefully and thoughtfully... "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." He suggested that the people take arms against any tyrannical ruler. Along that same line, his view of the Second Amendment (Keep and Bear Arms) was quite elegant - "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." And - "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Attempts to erode and subvert the intent of the United States Constitution. Seditious speech? It would only considered as such by those who fear a free people.

Surprisingly, Jefferson also had views on government bailouts, stimulus packages, welfare and national health care, even though he had no exposure to such things -
"The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits."
"To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association—the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it. "
"Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now."
"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

The seeds of violence and sedition have been sown by those who thought it wise to blame the conservative right for such actions on nationwide television and radio. There were no such acts supported, coordinated, or condoned by the conservative right prior to April 18, 2010. There may be random acts of individuals here and there, but violence and sediton is not the goal of the conservatives. On the other hand, I once saw a bumper sticker that read "WHEN REASON FAILS, FORCE PREVAILS", which seems to be the motto of all international negotiators.

I wonder how "amusing" Obama will find the TEA Party movement in November...

"THESE ARE THE TIMES THAT TRY MENS SOULS."

Those words were penned by Thomas Paine - American - on December 23rd, 1776, in a pamphlet called "The Crisis". Words which are as applicable today as they were 233 years ago. Paine was a true believer in freedom. Freedom from, freedom to, and freedom for all Americans. Freedom from tyranny and government oppression. Freedom to assemble, associate, speak, write and worship. Freedom for all motivated Americans to develop their full potential, or to earn a fair and reasonable wage for their labors. To worship - or not - in the manner of their own choosing, and to be the architects of their own destiny. Thomas Paine, although something less than a social and financial success, was the personification of "the American spirit".

At that time Paine was expressing his opposition to Britain's King George III's tyrannical rule over the American colonies. The wording is a bit archaic, and therefore awkward for today's reader, but tyranny is still tyranny, and revolution is still revolution. "These ARE the time that try mens souls."

In today's United States of America there is a significant political, philosophical, and moral rift between the left-wing "liberal progressives", and the right-wing "conservative traditionalists". There is a second Revolutionary War being fought as I write this blog. Thus far the skirmishes have been restricted to the mass media, the halls of Congress, and the "town hall meetings"... and the fusillades are only verbal. Retaliatory barrages from the White House consist of verbal smokescreens designed to blind and confuse the opposition forces, while simultaneously obscuring the intent of those who wish to rule rather than govern and discrediting those who are most outspoken against the rapid, insidious development of the infrastructure needed to support that rule. Citizens are governed by choice - slaves are ruled by whatever means necessary! Paine also said, "Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but "to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER" and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth." (Two hundred thirty three years is a bit long, but I think that - were Thomas Paine alive today - he would be having a deja vu experience.)

Paine continues, delineating the difference between Tories (conservatives, sometimes called "loyalists") and Whigs (liberals, social reformists, believed in loose interpretation of the Constitution) -"Why is it that the enemy have left the New England provinces, and made these middle ones the seat of war? The answer is easy: New England is not infested with Tories, and we are. I have been tender in raising the cry against these men, and used numberless arguments to show them their danger, but it will not do to sacrifice a world either to their folly or their baseness. The period is now arrived, in which either they or we must change our sentiments, or one or both must fall. And what is a Tory? Good God! What is he? I should not be afraid to go with a hundred Whigs against a thousand Tories, were they to attempt to get into arms. Every Tory is a coward; for servile, slavish, self-interested fear is the foundation of Toryism; and a man under such influence, though he may be cruel, never can be brave."

Today's "Tories" are, politically speaking, primarily Republicans, Independents and assorted impotent-third-party followers. Mostly conservatives, they believe that the Constitution is an enduring document requiring little, if any, "interpretation". They also believe that the best government is the least government.

The "Whigs" of today are the Democrats - and their liberal following of government-dependent entitlement whores, who would sell our freedoms for a big screen TV and a couple of more government give-away programs. They believe the Constitution is a "living document" - one that should be changed as often as they change their minds... or their underwear, whichever comes first. The "blame America first" crowd, whose words and actions echo those of the Pogo Possum cartoon of 1970, wherein he proclaims "We have met the enemy and he is us."
The difference today is that the Tories are the ones who would "protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic", while the Whigs would tremble, quake and hide, while crying out for their nanny-government to protect and save them.

Our constitution - for all the wonderful rights it does promise us - it does not promise that we will be given anything other than that which we earn! It does not promise that we have a right to take that which another has earned, nor do we have a right to not be embarrassed, inconvenienced or otherwise upset by something we may experience during our appointed time on this Earth. We have the opportunity to fail in our endeavors, as well as the opportunity to succeed! How we exercise those rights and opportunities is entirely up to us.

Thomas Paine was not just a "man of his time"... he was a man for all times, and his words ring as true today as they did on December 23, 1776! Where will you be when the voices of opposition are silenced... right before the other noises begin?

Sarah Palin "Stand Up For Our Nation" - The Third Political Party

It has been my contention for years that what we need in this country is a viable third political party. Yes, we do have several alternative political parties, but none that is really viable. There is the Green Party of the United States, the Constitution Party, and the Libertarian Party. Then there are the lesser-known "fringe parties", such as the American Party, the American Independent Party (I'm still trying to figure that one out, since the word independent means non-aligned), the America's Independent Party (not related to the preceding AIP), the American Nazi Party (there's one we can all be proud of, right?), the American Reform Party, the Communist Party USA (another anathema to the Democratic Republic, as is the Nazi Party), and the Freedom/Socialist Party... plus about two dozen other - virtually unknown outside their miniscule membership - political parties.

This creates a lot of simply wasted votes in any election. When we get to the fringe parties, there is not one of them that is the least bit viable, yet there is a substantial number of people who will consistently vote for a non-starter. (These are undoubtedly the same folks who would bet on a 3-legged horse to win the Preakness.) Let's look at the three main alternatives, which - combined - have never drawn 5% of the vote:

1. The Green Party: The informal US-affiliate of the leftist, environmentalist European Greens movement. Their "champions" tend to draw votes away from Democratic candidates, and their platform noticeably less than all-encompassing.

2. The Constitution Party: If nothing else, I love the name! On the other hand, I believe that every party should be focused on supporting the tenets of our Constitution, since that is the document which allowed this country to achieve world-class greatness in less than 200 years. The party is strongly pro-life, anti-gun control,anti-tax, anti-immigration, trade protectionist, "anti-New World Order," anti-United Nations, anti-gay rights, anti-welfare, and pro-school prayer. Personally, I find little in that with which I disagree, so long as school prayer was voluntary, allowing those who did not wish to participate to leave the classroom for the 60 seconds it might take, and it was anti-gay special rights.

3. The Libertarian Party: The Libertarians are neither left nor right. They believe in total individual liberty (pro-drug legalization, pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-home schooling, anti-gun control, etc.) and total economic freedom (anti-welfare, anti-government regulation of businesses, anti-minimum wage, anti-income tax, pro-free trade, etc.). I see little to argue with here either. However, I believe that some government regulation of interstate commerce is necessary, as it also is in the pharmaceutical industry. Public safety first!

Let's get back to the "viable 3rd party" idea, though. What has been lacking in all of these alternative parties - thusfar - is not just a nationally recognized name... but a national name with positive recognition. We don't need social radicals, whether they be tree huggers, dope lovers, or preachers. We also don't need to be represented by those who would sell out the people of this country to the interests of big business or foreign governments. What we do need is radical Americans in our government! We need those who believe that our Constitution is the basis for all that is good and right with the USA, and that our laws, as they are currently written, provide for "equal treatment under the law". We need to be represented ONLY by those people whose concerns are first and foremost for our country and its citizens.

Sarah Palin is obviously one of those people. Why else would the left spend so much time, energy and money demonizing her? Why is Sarah David Letterman's favorite punching bag? Why do Adriana Huffington - and her cadré of communist co-conspirators - show such disdain for Sarah Palin?

BECAUSE SHE SCARES THE HELL OUT OF THEM!

She is seen as the single most likely American to burst their temporary, socialist bubble in 2012. Team her with a successful businessman - and experienced state's Chief Executive - like Mitt Romney, and the Democrats will suffer immediate bladder control problems. Sarah Palin WILL "Stand Up For Our Nation". God bless Sarah, and God bless America!