Gary Hubbell

Barack Obama is the best thing that has happened to America in the last 100 years. Truly, he is the savior of America ’s future. He is the best thing ever.

Despite the fact that he has some of the lowest approval ratings among recent presidents, history will see Barack Obama as the source of America’s resurrection. Barack Obama has plunged the country into levels of debt that we could not have previously imagined; his efforts to nationalize health care have been met with fierce resistance nationwide; TARP bailouts and stimulus spending have shown little positive effect on the national economy; unemployment is unacceptably high and looks to remain that way for most of a decade; legacy entitlement programs have ballooned to unsustainable levels, and there is a seething anger in the populace.

That’s why Barack Obama is such a good thing for America .

Obama is the symbol of a creeping liberalism that has infected our society like a cancer for the last 100 years. Just as Hitler is the face of fascism, Obama will go down in history as the face of unchecked liberalism. The cancer metastasized to the point where it could no longer be ignored.

Average Americans who have quietly gone about their lives, earning a paycheck, contributing to their favorite charities, going to high school football games on Friday night, spending their weekends at the beach or on hunting trips — they’ve gotten off the fence. They’ve woken up. There is a level of political activism in this country that we haven’t seen since the American Revolution, and Barack Obama has been the catalyst that has sparked a restructuring of the American political and social consciousness.

Think of the crap we’ve slowly learned to tolerate over the past 50 years as liberalism sought to re-structure the America that was the symbol of freedom and liberty to all the people of the world. Immigration laws were ignored on the basis of compassion. Welfare policies encouraged irresponsibility, the fracturing of families, and a cycle of generations of dependency. Debt was regarded as a tonic to lubricate the economy. Our children left school having been taught that they are exceptional and special, while great numbers of them cannot perform basic functions of mathematics and literacy. Legislators decided that people could not be trusted to defend their own homes, and stripped citizens of their rights to own firearms. Productive members of society have been penalized with a heavy burden of taxes in order to support legions of do-nothings who loll around, reveling in their addictions, obesity, indolence, ignorance and “disabilities.” Criminals have been arrested and re-arrested, coddled and set free to pillage the citizenry yet again. Lawyers routinely extort fortunes from doctors, contractors and business people with dubious torts.

We slowly learned to tolerate these outrages, shaking our heads in disbelief, and we went on with our lives.

But Barack Obama has ripped the lid off a seething cauldron of dissatisfaction and unrest.

In the time of Barack Obama, Black Panther members stand outside polling places in black commando uniforms, slapping truncheons into their palms. ACORN — a taxpayer-supported organization — is given a role in taking the census, even after its members were caught on tape offering advice to set up child prostitution rings. A former Communist is given a paid government position in the White House as an advisor to the president. Auto companies are taken over by the government, and the auto workers’ union — whose contracts are completely insupportable in any economic sense — is rewarded with a stake in the company. Government bails out Wall Street investment bankers and insurance companies, who pay their executives outrageous bonuses as thanks for the public support. Terrorists are read their Miranda rights and given free lawyers. And, despite overwhelming public disapproval, Barack Obama has pushed forward with a health care plan that would re-structure one-sixth of the American economy.

I don’t know about you, but the other day I was at the courthouse doing some business, and I stepped into the court clerk’s office and changed my voter affiliation from “Independent” to “Republican.” I am under no illusion that the Republican party is perfect, but at least they’re starting to awaken to the fact that we cannot sustain massive levels of debt; we cannot afford to hand out billions of dollars in corporate subsidies; we have to somehow trim our massive entitlement programs; we can no longer be the world’s policeman and dole out billions in aid to countries whose citizens seek to harm us.

Literally millions of Americans have had enough. They’re organizing, they’re studying the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, they’re reading history and case law, they’re showing up at rallies and meetings, and a slew of conservative candidates are throwing their hats into the ring. Is there a revolution brewing? Yes, in the sense that there is a keen awareness that our priorities and sensibilities must be radically re-structured. Will it be a violent revolution? No. It will be done through the interpretation of the original document that has guided us for 220 years — the Constitution. Just as the pendulum swung to embrace political correctness and liberalism, there will be a backlash, a complete repudiation of a hundred years of nonsense. A hundred years from now, history will perceive the year 2010 as the time when America got back on the right track. And for that, we can thank Barack Hussein Obama.

Gary Hubbell is a hunter, rancher, and former hunting and fly-fishing guide. Gary works as a Colorado ranch real estate broker. He can be reached through his website, aspenranchrealestate.com .

Mr. Hubbell forgot to mention the lack of foreign policy this nation is now in possession of.  Barack Hussein Obama has bowed, hugged or embraced every dictator, potentate, or tyrant he comes in contact with. Yet to our allies, our friends he treats them like rubbish.  It is no wonder that the leaders of Europe hate us.  Heaven help us if we ever need their aid.

I can only HOPE that real CHANGE will come about this November when the voters of this nation throw the bums in Congress out!

How I Was Not Al Gored Into Submission

J. B. Poersch

Hot off the presses . . . a Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee fundraising letter signed by J. B. Poersch attacking the usual enemies list — Fox News, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Republicans and those “surging” Teapartiers.  Isn’t this a tacit admission that Fox News really is the best news outlet? And that the Tea Party movement is winning the day?

Text of the letter (fundraising links omitted):

President Obama wants to change the nation for the better. We’re eager to help. But if you think it’s going to be easy, just look around.

Republicans think Massachusetts was an endorsement of their stall tactics and personal attacks. A new poll names Fox News Channel as the most trusted news outlet. Sarah Palin has 1.2 million fans on Facebook and is the $100,000 headliner at the national tea party convention. If we don’t fight back, and stand up for America, then their version of America will get the upper hand.

We cannot let that happen. And with your help, we will not.

Help protect the Democratic majority with a gift to the DSCC. Our January FEC deadline is fast approaching, and your contribution today will help build strong campaigns, fight each and every GOP smear and get Democrats to the polls on Election Day.

Massachusetts was a wake-up call.  And the time for sitting around and moping about it is over. It’s time to get back into the game.

Republicans never met a corporate interest they didn’t coddle. Tea party candidates – and their dangerous right-wing ideas – are surging nationwide. Glenn Beck is spewing his apocalyptic conspiracies nightly. This is the time that all Democrats must get involved.

Inaction is acceptance. Acceptance is acquiescence. And I’m here to say that we are not ceding an inch to these guys. Not one inch.

President Obama is right. Change is hard. Change is especially hard when Republicans are united behind this singular goal: seeing us fail. That’s why we must stand together.

Let’s not get mad. Let’s get even.

Sincerely,

J.B. Poersch

ITEM: Saturday, January 16: John Kerry signs a fundraising letter for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee which includes this:

This is it – the final 72 hours are what make or break elections. J.B. Poersch at the DSCC believes this election is going to be decided by just a handful of votes. That’s why we must get every last Democrat out to vote for Martha Coakley, and we need your help. It’s not too late to make the winning difference in this race. . . . The far right wing – the out-of-state tea bagger crowd – has invaded Massachusetts.

Oh, that dastardly out-of-state tea bagger crowd! Invading undocumented aliens! Of course, they can’t vote in Massachusetts and they’re not the ones answering the phone when the pollsters call.  But never mind reality . . . .

ITEM: Coakley circulates a flier containing the transparently false claim, “1,736 women were raped in Massachusetts in 2008. Scott Brown wants hospitals to turn them all away . . . .” The truth is that Brown offered an amendment that allows health care workers to opt out of giving emergency contraception to rape victims if doing so conflicts with their beliefs.  Coakley campaign workers may face criminal prosecution.

ITEM: Still Saturday, January 16: Mitch Stewart, Director of Organizing for America, circulates a fundraising letter which includes this statement:

The polls are tightening as right-wing money floods the state, and one even shows the race to be a dead heat between progressive champion Martha Coakley and her extreme opponent. The truth is, special elections often have very low turnout and are notoriously unpredictable.

“Notoriously unpredictable”??? A month ago, they thought this would be a cakewalk. This amounts to a tacit admission that “progressive champion” Coakley blew the campaign. As for the claim that “right-wing money floods the state” — at least those “right-wingers” are spending their own money.

ITEM: Sunday, January 17: Coakley declares that she pays no attention to the polls. BWAHHAHAHAHAH! Translation: Her internal polling now confirms that Brown is ahead.

ITEM: Sunday, January 17: Brown Has 9.6% Lead In New Poll.

ITEM: Sunday, January 17: Warming up the crowd for a Barack Obama cameo, Coakley appears to think that she is running for office against George W. Bush and that the only issue is the poor performance of the economy in 2008. She vows to “fight” for her “angry” constituents — verbiage which would get Glenn Beck condemned as a right-wing extremist.

ITEM: J. B. Poersch of the DSCC blasts out another fund-raiser with the subject line “Crunch Time.” According to J. B.:

We’ve got 48 hours.  It’s a dead heat . . . . This afternoon, President Obama made his own case for why Massachusetts needs Martha. Progress depends on it. Health care reform depends on it. But radical right activists have turned Massachusetts into ground zero for the tea party movement. The leader of the Rhode Island Tea Party said if Scott Brown wins, “This will be a clear indictment of the Obama presidency and the Democratic Congress overreaching.” We can’t let the tea partiers win.

Well, so much for running against George Bush. It’s them dastardly right-wing Rhode Islander tea-partiers!

ITEM: John Kerry again, for the DSCC, broadcasts a fundraiser titled “Jump Ball.” Kerry writes:

We also see how revved up the tea baggers are at the thought of hijacking health care reform and every chance we have at making progress in Washington. . . . Shady right-wing organizations and out-of-state conservatives have descended upon the state in droves. They don’t represent Massachusetts values, but their enthusiasm – and cold, hard cash – could be enough to tip this election.

“Shady right-wing organizations and out of state conservatives . . . .” What next? Drive-by pamphletings?

ITEM: Five consecutive polls show Brown running ahead of Coakley:

PJM/CrossTarget (Rep) (574 LV) – Brown +10
PPP (Dem) (1231 LV) –    Brown +5
InsideMedford/MRG    (565 LV) — Brown +10
PJM/CrossTarget (Rep) (946 LV) — Brown +15
ARG (600 LV) – Brown +3

“Jump ball,” my Aunt Frances.

I recently re-read historian Edward Ayers’ excellent volume of essays titled “What Caused The Civil War?” Along the way, I marked two passages which seemed much more pertinent now than they had been in 2006.  The first concerns the American political system in the years immediately before the outbreak of the Civil War:

“The political system itself helped bring on the Civil War.  The mechanism assembled over the first half of the nineteenth century turned around binary choices between two parties and only two parties.  Party regulars demanded that true loyalists were all or nothing. To be undecided and open to persuasion was to be less than a man.  As the two-party system strained and broke in the 1850s, American voters took this habit of mind with them; they felt driven to dichotomous choices of Republican or Democrat, Union or Confederacy. Voices of caution and moderation were drowned out beneath charges of cowardice and betrayal.  With each decision the next round of choices became even narrower: yes or no, now or never, with us or against us.”

Substitute “2000s” for “1850s,” and (say) “Secular Progressivism or Traditionalism” for “Union or Confederacy,” and ask yourself whether this description rings true in 2010.

It was not that long ago that Ronald Reagan was a clear voice of reason in American politics. He is attributed with the observation that “The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally — not a 20 percent traitor.” That was then.  How quickly, it seems, that the Reagan conservatives, Democrat and Republican alike, have forgotten Reagan.

I have been a student of history since I could read – certain school marks notwithstanding – and in my early years enjoyed visits to the household of Tony and Phyllis Stein, Tony being a fellow newspaper journalist of my father and the Steins having become family friends.  Tony Stein had a library chock-full of books on the American Civil War. I suspect he had tracked down one copy of everything published on the subject; there were that many books.  My brother Chris and I took the first opportunity to retreat to the Stein reading room and haul out a few volumes for study and perusal – and not once did we squabble over who got a book first.  We slipped into accounts of the Civil War so intently that Phyllis Stein had the seriously mistaken impression that we were quiet, well-mannered, and well-behaved young boys.

Much of the “history” of the American Civil War, it turned out, was impacted by fictions, from both North and South.  The underlying causes were of course related to slavery, but the threads of the national fabric unraveled in strange ways.  At some point it dawned on me that the Civil War simply happened – no one really expected it, the country was unprepared for it, and the headlong leap into violence resulted in a war of unanticipated carnage and destruction. At some point, up to no later than the eve of the first battle of Manassas, say, the Civil War could have been avoided. But it had happened anyway.

Thus I was struck by the second marked passage of Ayers’ evaluation of “What Caused The Civil War?”:

“Slavery was a profound economic, political, religious, and moral problem, the most profound the nation has ever faced.  But that problem did not lead to war in a rational, predictable way. The war came through misunderstanding, confusion, miscalculation.  Both sides underestimated the location of fundamental loyalty in the other.  Both received incorrect images of the other in the partisan press. Political belief distorted each side’s view of the economy and class relations.  Both sides believed the other was bluffing, both believed that the other’s internal differences and conflicts would lead it to buckle, and both believed they had latent but powerful allies . . . that would prevent war.”

I ask again – does this not begin to sound familiar?

No, I don’t believe that a second civil war is imminent; but then, in January 1860, virtually no one foresaw what was to come in the next several years.  To be sure, there is no real danger that one side or the other of our current political mess will intentionally start a war. But only some wars are started intentionally.  Nazi Germany knew full well that attacking Poland in 1939 would bring about war with France and England; Hitler wanted that war and was prepared to fight it.  Imperial Germany in 1914 did not intentionally go to war but instead it mobilized in preparation for war, bound by a treaty with Austria-Hungary, then matters lurched forward with preparations on both sides, and the Great War happened.  A war for which neither side was truly prepared and which neither side knew how to win. A war prompted by a gunshot in a far-away place, Sarajevo, well outside of the realms of Germany, France, and England, which took the brunt of the carnage.

Thus, studying history convinces me that some wars simply happen, with the proximate cause of hostilities being that someone began to prepare for war.  The proximate cause needn’t be close at hand, and in the Middle East, there is a rogue nation preparing for war.  Eventually, if Iran is not brought to heel – and under our present government, that appears unlikely to happen – there will be a serious war and it may spread to our homeland.

There are signs that Americans are choosing sides – perhaps subconsciously – in anticipation of a more violent future.  There are fewer who report themselves as being “independent” or “moderate” and more who report themselves as “conservative.” Rifles and ammunition have been selling briskly throughout the country for more than a year. The first year of the new Federal administration has been marked by incidents of violence in the homeland. Ayers’ description of America in 1860 becomes increasingly apt for America in 2010.

And often it seems that we can only watch the gathering storms.

Cross-posted from Backcountry Notes.

Sen. Bernie Sanders

Mr. Leahy has not responded to my missive. Nor, for that matter, has Representative Welch, my Congressman. Mr. Sanders, to his considerable credit, responded fairly quickly. Frankly, that impresses me.

On the other hand, we have a clear difference of perspective, and I think he’s “fudging” the Constitution, historical precedent, and simple clear-thinking logic. So far, he has only responded with liberal/White House talking points. I hope that following my response to his reply, I will receive something more substantive.

Here is my original missive, Senator Sanders’ reply, and my response to his reply. Should Mr. Sanders continue the discussion, I will update this post.

My contact via Congress.org:

Mr. Sanders,

I am STRONGLY opposed to extending citizen protections to enemy combatants from Guantanamo detention. Military trials are the only safe option to protect innocent citizens and intelligence secrets.

I URGE you to tell President Obama and Mr. Holder to REVERSE their decision, return these unlawful combatants to military incarceration, and give them the military trial they have earned and deserve.

Sincerely,

Terry Bascom

Mr. Sanders’ reply:

From: “Senator@sanders.senate.gov” Senator@sanders.senate.gov

Sent: Fri, December 11, 2009 3:28:43 PM
Subject: Email from Senator Sanders

Dear Terry:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the trial of September 11, 2001 terrorist suspects in New York City.  I value the opportunity to respond to you on this important issue.

Attorney General Eric Holder has announced that Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four others accused of orchestrating the September 11, terrorist attacks will be tried in New York City.  Holder is encouraging the attorneys in the Southern District of New York and Eastern District of Virginia to pursue the death penalty.  Clearly, President Obama takes the crimes of September 11th with the greatest of seriousness.

While I recognize the potential dangers of having terrorists on American soil, it is my strong view that we must not violate the very same civil liberties we seek to protect.  Instead, we must return to a system in which fair and independent courts can render due process of law on those accused of crimes against the United States. Although fighting the war on terrorism is serious business and something I hold as a top priority, I know we can fight and win the war on terrorism without destroying the Constitutional rights so fundamental to this country.

Again, thank you for contacting me about this important issue.  Feel free to contact me again in the future about this or any other subject of interest to you, or for up-to-date information on what my office is working on please visit http://www.sanders.senate.gov.  While there, I invite you to sign up for my e-newsletter, the Bernie Buzz, at http://sanders.senate.gov/buzz/.  Please be aware that due to security screening procedures, postal mail to my office experiences delays that will lengthen the time it takes me to get back to you.  The fastest way to contact my office is by calling 1-800-339-9834.

Sincerely,

BERNARD SANDERS
United States Senator

My response:

December 12, 2009

Senator Sanders,

Thank you for your response to my email. I appreciate that you have taken the time to do so.

We have a disagreement on the notion that a military trial for enemy combatants, and illegal combatants at that, somehow puts our civil liberties at risk.

Let me say, first, that I have complete confidence in our military’s ability to conduct a fair trial. Further, as has been pointed out in a number of public forums, keeping the trial in the military arena assures the protection of military secrets – a protection which not only enhances our national security but, because it does so, protects our civil liberties by sustaining the legal and political environment within which American-style liberties can function.

Additionally, it is important to draw a distinction between American citizens and non-American citizens. American civil liberties apply to American civils – that is, American civilians. Non-Americans do not qualify for our civil liberties because the United States does not, cannot, and should not think we can unilaterally extend our notions of government to citizens of other countries. I would think this would be of considerable concern to persons and legislators who object to U.S. “nation building” and hegemony in the world since extending American civil processes to non-US persons is an act of hegemony, and an effort to blanket other peoples and nations with our sense of what is “right” and “just.”

More importantly, extending American civil liberties to non-US persons actually threatens our civil rights by making our notion of Nationhood – not to mention our actual borders – more porous. It is particularly inappropriate when the non-citizen is a combatant whose stated and assumed goal is to destroy the very civil liberties we are protecting. That is what national borders – of the geophysical, political, and metaphysical kind – are really all about: identifying to whom national values, practices, and procedures apply, and to whom they do not. If there is no “not,” there is no nation. And if there is no nation, there are no national civil liberties and practices left to defend.

There is no risk to our civil liberties in treating foreigners intent on doing material harm to our country as military opponents. And, as we both know, since they are not fighting in uniform in a legally-declared war of one state against another, they do not even qualify for Geneva Convention safeguards. Indeed, if we summarily put them in front of a firing squad we would keep better faith with both our national tradition and the historic tradition of nations throughout time. We would also do more to protect our civic boundaries than we will do if we extend legally-inapplicable rights and privileges to those who neither warrant nor respect them.

For the record, I don’t care if the enemy respects our notion of rights and privileges, but I care mightily whether they warrant them. They do not.

It is already a kindness to treat illegal combatants as if they were legal combatants and therefore entitled to a military trial. In many nations and historical periods they would be treated as spies, and spies have no legal standing of any sort. But since treating these legal non-persons as legal combatants does not pose a risk to the United States, I have no objection to that kindness. I only object to treating these non-citizens as citizens, since that does put our nation’s values, laws, customs, practices, boundaries, and culture at risk.

Understanding the legal difference between those who do and do not qualify for various national and international laws and conventions is the surest way to protect and defend American civil liberties. Confusing classes of people and legal categories is a certain way to water down, and eventually eliminate, our distinctive civil liberties and practices.

Our domestic civil liberties are only at risk if we do not extend the full protection of the US Constitution to actual citizens and legal residents of the United States of America. This situation does not come even close to that danger. Therefore, I again encourage you to urge President Obama, Mr. Holder, and your fellow Senators to reverse the decision to try illegal enemy combatants, who are non-citizens, as if they were US citizens with rights under our Constitution.

Sincerely,

Terry Bascom

Mr. Sanders’ reply: stay tuned…

I increasingly side with Palin. The McCain Presidential run really did teach the lesson that the Republican base is not interested in voting for the modern notion of a centrist Republican – which is pretty far from our founders’ vision of the commonwealth. But despite the fact that the McCain campaign was languishing in the weeks leading up to the Republican convention, and was only invigorated by the selection of Palin as the Vice Presidential candidate, not even McCain seems to have learned the lesson or faced the fact that without Palin he would have been killed in the election. That’s why the Democrats are so eager to destroy her. They know what Republican leaders don’t seem to have figured out (or have figured out, but don’t want to acknowledge): Sarah Palin is the kind of person Republicans, and perhaps Americans generally, want to elect. I suspect that if Palin had been at the top of the ticket, the election would have been significantly closer than it was, or a narrow win for the Republicans.

I’m Getting Positively Rebellious

The issue is that the political scene has moved significantly to the left over the last 30 years, and many traditional (not conservative, but traditional) Americans don’t think either party reflects original American values and standards. Add to that the rampant corruption – which we expect from Democrats, who make a virtue of denying traditional moral standards, but don’t want to tolerate in Republicans – and the fact that recent Republican administrations have tended in the same direction the Democrats have now embraced without restraint, and the reasons to support run-of-the-mill Republicans dwindle.

Bill Clinton’s lesson was that personal immorality doesn’t matter if your public morality is politically correct. Democrats swallowed that line wholesale; Republicans are learning the benefits of divorcing personal standards from public standards. But this is nothing more than the “do as I say, not as I do” attitude that’s currently running Washington DC, and that creates two worlds – one that allows people with political power and position to ignore common morality and even the law while the rest of us are forced to buckle under ever-tighter controls. Ordinary people increasingly don’t like that. We are getting positively rebellious.

Gingrich supports the New York Republican candidate on the basis that she is local to the district and won the local party votes. The Conservative candidate is from outside the district; an interloper who launched a third-party bid when he failed to place in the Republican Party votes. Palin, by contrast, is focused on the Conservative Party candidate because he is overtly conservative on both social and economic issues, while the Republican candidate is relatively liberal on social issues and moderately conservative on economic issues. Gingrich is pursuing pragmatic political considerations; Palin is pursuing ideological political considerations.

It’s My Freedom, Even When I Use it Stupidly

I think the real divide emerging in America is not between Republican and Democrat, but between those who champion the Constitution as written, and those who are willing to compromise the Constitution to win elections and find common ground with politicians who are actively destroying the intentions and original meaning of the Constitution in order to engineer society in their own image. In other words, the battle is between those of us who have come to see that when we begin to water down the standards of the Constitution we create the conditions that let others wash it away, and those who think the Constitution is out of phase with the temperament of the country and the world.

The Constitution has always been out of phase with the temperament of the world. It is a radical document that enshrines a very revolutionary notion of what it means to be human – a view no government has ever liked because its prime directive is to limit the power of government and governors. Time has not made the US Constitution more loved by tyrants and would-be tyrants, but less. It is not cherished by those who think they have some special knowledge, wisdom, or mandate to tell their neighbors how to live. The Constitution has never and will never be loved by those who think individuals are stupid and need shepherds.

But freedom, a friend once said, is the ability to make stupid decisions.

Think about that. If the government says you cannot drink sugar-sweetened colas, eat too many potato chips, spend too much time on your couch; if the government says you have to buy health insurance, you must control your weight, you have a civic duty to pick up roadside trash – you are not free.

Does that mean it’s “good” to eat poorly or ignore the environment? No, I don’t think so. It does mean, however, that it’s “good” to be able to make dumb choices. I’m fine with educational campaigns geared toward convincing people to be kinder to their bodies and the earth; I am not fine with even gentle coercion to exercise more or volunteer time to police the environment. And these days, even Republicans are buying the argument that people must be at least “incentivized” to make decisions more responsible to the community.

That’s the problem. I want to elect politicians who reject efforts to whittle down the safeguards the Constitution affords to individuals to make stupid personal choices. Because only when we are free to make dumb choices are we free to make smart choices. When the freedom to make bad decisions is circumscribed, so is the freedom to make good decisions.

Which is exactly the dilemma facing doctors and patients under the proposed national health care bill. Doctors will be denied the freedom to make decisions about what tests and treatments are good for patients. The rationale is to prevent doctors from making decisions that are “bad” because they are not always necessary. Doctors will be forbidden to recommend a patient spend more money on more tests that might be able to reveal a cause of ill-health because retroactive analysis shows that in similar situations those tests were either not necessary or not instructive. That means that individuals will no longer be free to make decisions about what tests and treatments they want to try because someone else has decided that in too many cases people who take those tests or engage in those treatments don’t get the desired outcome, or don’t get a benefit some third party has determined is worth the cost.

Excuse me: that’s nobody’s business but mine. In the end, I am free to follow or ignore even my doctor’s advice and to spend whatever I want to spend on my health care – or I am not free. If the government requires me to get vaccinated, or forbids me to try some treatment, or denies me the right to spend more than my neighbor on my health care, I am no longer in control of my life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.

The Second Civil War Is Already Here

The promise of the Conservative Party candidates is that they will honor the sentiments behind the establishment of the Constitution. It’s yet to be proven that they will, but it’s too obvious that too many Republican leaders are too willing to let the Democrats set the agenda. And that’s not good for either the Constitution or the autonomy of the individual.

So far, Republican leaders seem more interested in maintaining some semblance of common ground than in recognizing the plain fact that the current federal government leadership has not merely abandoned the Constitution’s limits on government, but is overtly and aggressively dismantling it. This is a denial of reality. The reality is that the current President and Congressional leadership, along with most of the Senate and House Democrat representatives, are going along with the destruction of the uniqueness of the United States. For Republicans to keep acting like there’s some ground for mutual respect is a lot like Chamberlain thinking he could form a mutually-beneficial compact with Hitler.

The fact is that we are already engaged in a civil war. It is not being fought with guns and knives, but the U.S. is under attack. And the enemy is within. Our neighbors, our family, our friends are lined up on one side or the other, and only the Democrat/Liberal “progressives” are on the attack. The Republican/Conservative “traditionalists” are still hoping for a reasoned discussion leading to a restoration of American tradition. We want to avoid open hostilities while they savagely attack and attempt to destroy us and our non-compliant leaders – like Palin.

As we who value the Constitution see it slipping away under Democrat government and a combination of compliance and inadequate opposition from Republican leadership, the promise of a third party becomes more appealing. I have only recently been willing to entertain the move to a third, Constitutionalist, party. A third party is, I think, the alternative to an impending choice between physical slavery and physical combat. Rather than take up arms, let’s take up the legislative and ideological battle: let’s support candidates who are not hesitant to speak up about the divide between liberalism and republicanism (as the founders meant the term).

Let’s support true Conservatives who will champion the priority of the individual, who will reduce the size and scope of federal government, who will enjoin Americans to once again become stand-up persons of high moral character, people who are equipped and prepared to look out for their own happiness, rather than expect some outside agency to satisfy their wants and needs.

Call Me a Traditional American Revolutionary

In the case of New York State’s 23rd Congressional District, I don’t know whether the Conservative Party candidate is that kind of person. But I do know Sarah Palin, and while I do not agree with her in all things (what two people do?), I fundamentally trust her. And I trust the fact that the Democrats and progressives, as well as the liberal wing of the Republican Party, want to marginalize or destroy her. I am not willing to give her my unqualified allegiance, but I am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. And I appreciate that she is willing to break with the Republican Party on principle.

When she left Alaska’s governorship, Palin said she would support candidates she believes in regardless of party because the future of the country is a higher value than the future of the Party. Here she is acting on it. I say kudos. And I say it is time we each put the country ahead of Party, put pragmatic politics aside – that way has led us into too close an alignment with the destructive forces in our country. It is time to stand on principle.

Principle might lose in the short term, but political pragmatism is already losing. In the current climate, being a political pragmatist is to cooperate with your enemies in your own destruction. It is suicidal. I’m ready to die to the present in order to be reborn as a real American idealist – a revolutionary idealist re-embracing the revolutionary idealism that birthed our country.

Call me a traditionalist, because I strive to be a true traditionalist; an original American traditionalist. But even if you use the term as a sneer, I will wear it with pride. There is no higher patriotism, in my opinion, than taking up the tradition of America’s founding revolutionaries. From now on, I want to champion American revolutionary values: the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of individual happiness. I want to champion the rejection of monarchy, centralized government, and collectivist thinking. And I don’t want to vote for the more “collectivist-lite” candidate, but the most traditionalist-revolutionary. And if the Republican Party is not going to champion republicanism as our founders meant the term, I am not going to support the Republican Party. I’d rather go down fighting for what’s right than continue living on my knees, begging Obama, the Democrats, liberal progressives, and waffling Republicans to leave me some of my God-given and Constitution-guaranteed freedom.

Sarah has stepped forward. She might not always be right in particular choices, but at least she is standing in the breach and pointing forward by pointing us back to our proud tradition and values. We need to get off our knees and stand with her, where we will take some shots but have the opportunity to give as good as we get.

It’s time and past time to raise Patrick Henry’s banner: Give me liberty, or give me death!

Still blaming Bush.  Now this is the exact reason why I am losing hope in the American dream. Our current speaker of the house, “Let them eat cake Queen Nancy Pelosi,”  still blames this whole mess on Bush Tax cuts to the top 2%.  WOW.  Tax cuts?  Congress: Hellooooo.  Who controls the purse stings in government???

Nothing to do with our out-of-control spending in DC?  Nothing to do with the pork-in-every-bill? Nothing to do with the “too big to fail” government bail-outs and acquisitions? NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TRILLION DOLLAR HEALTH CARE BILL READY TO COME UP FOR A VOTE?

Hey, a trillion here and a trillion there, soon we’ll be talking about some real money….

Well don’t worry small business folks, Pelosi is on the case!  Soon we will be “eliminating that tax decrease that was there” to fix all of our budgetary woes so they can DRAIN THE REMAINDER OF WEALTH from the last men standing.  Banana Republic, here we come!

The source of this interview comes from the Chicago Tribune’s: “The Swamp”

Here are a few excerpts: (my comments are in red)

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is having lunch with President Barack Obama at the White House today. Passing a health-care bill isn’t the only thing on their plate. So is the economy.

And tax increases — or, as the speaker calls the repeal of the Bush-era tax cuts — expiring tax decreases. “We can’t afford those” cuts, Pelosi says. “We never could.”

Nancy on the economy:

With unemployment at nearly 10 percent, Pelosi was asked in an interview with CNBC’s Maria Bartiromo, ‘what is it gonna take to get Americans working again?  “It’s going to take a major investment in health care, in energy, in education”

Energy? Health Care?  What investment?  Anytime a viable option for energy comes up they say no.  “No” to Drilling, “no” to coal and “no” to nuclear.  Health Care? Forcing people on to government health care is going to create sustainable jobs in the private sector???  How?

We’re considering … a $3,000 tax credit for– for hiring.
Now there you go, throw a couple of peanuts at small business.  That’ll do the trick,  just like the increase in the minimum wage.  We pulled many non-primary income earners out of poverty with that.  NOT.

“Extending the first-time homeowner credit, but maybe expanding that to not just first-time home owners”

She’s got  a point. We do need to fill up all those vacant million dollar homes AND once amnesty is passed, who better to fill the role of first-time home buyers than a former non-US citizen?

On the Stimulus:

“The recovery package that we passed later in January, under President Obama, has had positive results,” the speaker said. ” It has created or saved one million jobs.”

Again, with the saved or created new jobs … the last study points out that 49 out of 50 states posted JOB LOSSES and that we are about 6 million jobs shy of all administration projections.  That means that NANCY IS LYING about what is going on here.  Of course with the help of the mainstream media, Congress can easily paint this alternate reality of the US economy.

On letting the Bush tax cuts expire:

“That wasn’t a tax increase,” Pelosi said. “It is … eliminating a tax decrease that was there … It was controversial to begin with. It is … a boon to those who have had it, for now. But I think that you will see that happen.

“That affects, what? The upper two percent of our population. What we’re trying to do is lower… taxes for the middle class, relieve burdens … on business. So that we can be competitive in job creation. And I think you’ll see some interesting things emerge — from the conversations we’re having now. ”

She wont say TAX INCREASE.  It was just a decrease that never should have happened. So you ask where will this money go once DC has taken back what is rightfully theirs … Entitlements, Health Care, Economic and social justice (reparations).  These monsters have no concerns when it comes to STEALING money from the American people.

Without posting the entire interview, I suggest this is necessary reading.  Nothing in this interview suggests that Congress intends on creating an environment conducive to growing business in this country only more of the same “we’re from the government, and we’re here to help.”

READ MORE HERE

Today on GOPUSA a post by By Doug Patton.

Below is the Annuit Coeptis Simplified Version
(This will get you thinking!!!)

1 Page
Declaration of Independence, including all 56 signatures, one single hand-written sheet of paper.

6 Pages
The full and complete original Constitution of the United States of America.

23 Pages
Karl Marx laid out The Communist Manifesto.

718 Pages
The English translation of Dostoevski’s Crime and Punishment

1,069 Pages
Ayn Rand’s magnum opus, Atlas Shrugged.

1,225 Pages
Tolstoy’s War and Peace

1,426 pages
A large print New King James copy of the Bible.

What do these momentous documents have in common with each other? 

They all contain fewer pages than the bloated Senate health care bill, S. 1796, which totals a ridiculous

1,502 pages.

Read this post at GOPUSA!