CAN YOU HEAR US NOW, WASHINGTON?

Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts over Martha Coakley sent a loud, clear message to Washington D.C. this week - one that could have been heard by the entire student body at Gallaudet University. In case some of our elected officials weren't listening I will spell it out for them -

"WE'RE MAD AS HELL, AND WE'RE NOT GONNA TAKE IT ANY MORE!"

The seat occupied by Ted Kennedy (D-MA) for almost a half-century was won by a republican. In the past 6 months, the Democrats have lost every noteworthy special election in the country, yet Obama has failed to take heed and make a course correction... or has he? His goal hasn't changed one bit. His destination is exactly the same - socialism forced down the throats of Americans! What has changed is the amount of pressure he puts upon the accelerator.

Have you ever wondered why Obama is in such a hurry to get things done? Have you asked yourself why legislation consisting of thousands of pages - that nobody will take credit for drafting - is passed without having been read by the House or Senate? Have you not puzzled over why Obama is spending us into fiscal oblivion? Stevie Wonder could see the answer to those questions, and, like so many of our fellow citizens, he may be loathe to admit it - even to himself. EVEN OBAMA RECOGNIZES THAT HE IS ONLY A ONE-TERM PRESIDENT (if his luck holds out)!

Obama has proven himself to be a totally unqualified captain of our "Ship of State", but he is well-qualified for his real job... which is to scuttle her. (For those of you who may not be familiar with the nautical term "scuttle", it means" - 1 : to cut a hole through the bottom, deck, or side of (a ship); specifically : to sink or attempt to sink by making holes through the bottom 2 : destroy, wreck; also : scrap) He is blithely joined in this act of national piracy by his crew of underlings - who control both the House and the Senate. The cargo in the hold of our Ship of State is PORK.

Anonymous legislation gets passed simply because of the Democrats super majority, which translates as "We have all the votes we need to pass those bills without a single 'conservative' vote" being cast in favor of it. A super majority is essentially nothing more than a politically partisan dictatorship.

Creating crises is what Obama is about. It's perfectly in line with the Cloward-Piven Strategy (see my 7/13/09). Create crises and diversions, overload the system, collapse the government, then remake the nation in the desired socialist image.

Rather than go against Obama, Democrats in Congress are retiring, resigning, "walking the plank" (committing political suicide by supporting Obama and going against the expressed wishes of their constituents) and/or "jumping ship" (changing party affiliation).

November isn't that far away - remember what we have seen from the Democrats control of our government thus far and vote accordingly.

GUN CONTROL!! GUN CONTROL!! STOP THOSE VIOLENT GUNS TODAY!

The most recent act of domestic terrorism has left the nation stunned. The calculated slaughter of 13 American soldiers by one of their own was, by all reports, not an unforeseeable incident. Army Major Nidal Hasan, had been repeatedly overheard making negative remarks about the USA and our commitment in the middle east, and espousing his Muslim faith at inappropriate times - like the time he was supposed to present a paper at a medical conference.

Major Hasan is a Muslim. As soon as his identity was revealed, his religion became the subject of a ferocious public debate: bloggers claimed the massacre cast doubt on the loyalty of all American Muslims, while commentators on the other side argued that even to consider the role of Hasan's faith was Islamophobic. To NOT consider his religious beliefs would be sheer stupidity! Islam is not a religion of peace, love and brotherhood. Looking back through the world's history, no religion has unwaveringly remained in that category. We have the Christians behind the Spanish Inquisition, the Jewish Zealots at Masada after being defeated at the rebellion against Rome, and the several conflicts between the Christians and Muslims known as The Crusades. All religions are man-made... and therefore they are just as flawed as the men who created those varying systems of belief. God did not create "religion". He was too busy creating the universe and all the things therein... so he left it up to mankind to devise the means by which they could learn to hate one another - even in the name of brotherly love.

Before I digress into a religious quagmire, let me return to my original train of thought, and the dual role Nidal Hasan's religion played. Given a choice between following military orders, and being put in a position where he may have been called upon to kill fellow Muslims, Nidal chose to take up arms against "the infidels" as the Q'uran requires. His religion required him to "convert the infidels or put them to the sword". At the same time his Islamic faith protected him from appropriate actions by the military when his performance, judgment and attitudes were viewed as being well outside the normal realm of acceptability - because his superiors didn't want to be seen as intolerant racists and/or Islamophobes.

Now the left-wing once again raises the hue and cry against gun ownership by individual citizens, as if the guns were alone in the murders of those 13 soldiers and the wounding of 30 others. Was there no operator aiming them and pulling the triggers repeatedly? Did these evil guns walk into that building under their own power and begin firing randomly into the room? How do we justify transferring the necessary human emotions of anger, fear, and hatred to these inanimate tools? And, short of prohibiting the private ownership of firearms, how do we insure that the crazies of the world do not have ready access to those firearms? For the moment, our ability to "keep and bear arms" is guaranteed by the Second Amendment, and that guarantee is the one that protects all the other rights and freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution.

The elimination of that pesky old Second Amendment is something the left has been after for decades. Elimination, or at the very least the emasculation of the Second Amendment would certainly make it easy for a tyrannical socialist "progressive"/Marxist government to assume and retain control of the people, wouldn't it?

The recent spate of mindless, multiple shootings simply provides the Liberal Left ("liberal" about everything other than that which the Right values) with more "ammunition" for their agenda - an agenda with which most Americans are at odds. Our choices are to be apathetic and expect the situation to self-correct, or to become pro-active and demand that our elected "representatives" maintain the course that has kept our nation and its citizens free and prosperous for 233 years.

The Liberal Left is well-organized and overflowing with activists, while the Conservative Right is... conservative! Not only are most of us conservative in our values, but we are equally conservative in our behavior. We are The Silent Majority! What has our silence gained us? To remain silent is to remain unheard, and to be unheard is to be passed by unnoticed. The time for silence has long passed, but that passage has gone mainly unnoticed. If we do not make our voices heard now, we may well be silenced forever!

PROTECT OUR NATION BY DEMANDING THAT THE GOVERNMENT FOLLOW THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AS IT IS WRITTEN - NOT AS SOME INCOMPETENT "CZAR" OR ACTIVIST JUDGE INTERPRETS IT!

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?