True Radicals- Do Any Exist Anymore?

I was talking to someone the other day who is of the more liberal persuasion. He said he is afraid many Americans are becoming "radicalized". I asked him, "How do you mean?" To which he said, "They are buying weapons and ammo by the bucket full as if they are ready to fight our own government."

This statement has haunted me since the day he said it. What bothers me is not that he has observed an increase in sales of firearms and ammunition. It isn't that he thinks Americans are becoming radical. What bothers me is the total lack of recognition of how "radical" our forefathers had to be to shake off the chains of tyranny.

As you know, Thomas Jefferson made some interesting and famous statements regarding liberty and tyranny. Here are a few:

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
"Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state."
"...a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they (the subjects of King George, Americans) should declare the causes which impel them to the separation (from England)."

Thomas Jefferson knew that in order to gain, keep, and maintain liberty, blood must be shed. This was once common knowledge agreed upon even by his political foes. However, this view is now viewed as fringe extremism. Pacifism toward tyranny is a perversion. Americans who are simply content to allow governmental tyranny in the form of government control of health care, UN usurpation of US sovereignty, global warming policies and the like are nothing but spoiled, fattened children who confuse the abundance of prosperity with the beautiful hardship of liberty.

It is a dangerous thing to not recognize that our elected officials can be domestic enemies. However, it is even more dangerous for the populace to recognize it and then do nothing. I am afraid for my country. If there is no revolution in the ballot box, and we fall completely under tyranny, I can forsee the "extreme" elements of our country taking up arms to restore this country. If they do, they will simply be watering the wilting tree of liberty.

Do I desire this? No, absolutely not. What I desire is for our elected leaders to govern, not rule; to govern in the best interests of the people, performing their roles as representatives of the people and the states, rather than perverting their roles and turning them into positions of power over the masses.

I pray for a ballot revolution in 2010 and 2012. God, may it be so.

Shades of the Past

There is a Youtube video making the rounds right now. It is called "I Pledge". At the end, the voices unanimously agree to be "servants to the president". It can be found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqcPA1ysSbw. What gives me chills is how this video stirs echoes of the past, and not the sweet, mystic chords of memory, either.

Note this Nazi propaganda poster:


By conservatarian at 2009-09-11

The writing translates to this:

My Fuhrer (Leader)!

(The Child Speaks)

I know you well and love you, like father and mother.
I shall always obey you, like father and mother.
And when I grow up I shall help you, like father and mother.
And you will be proud of me, like father and mother!

The video on Youtube shows how some in this country are giving a level of allegiance and outright love to a leader. That this is happening is scary and abhorrent. America, we must wake up to what is happening. Obama as the leader is scary enough. Imagine those who love Obama and are willing to serve him mobilizing en masse against those who do not support him. If you think that it won't or can't happen, just ask any of the survivors of Hitler's holocaust.

And Obama's supporters wonder conservative-minded parents don't want their children to watch Obama's message to the kinder, oops, children.

Incredible Tea Party "Commercial"

Created by a teenager in Trussville, Alabama. Amazing, spine-tingling, thought provokong, and tear jerking.

Incredible Tea Party \"Commercial\"

Original file on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkmxG5Ta3N0

Emails with Senator Lamar Alexander

I wrote to Mr. Alexander expressing my dismay with his vote for now Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. I told him he had lost my vote over his vote for her. He gave me a gracious and detailed response, but I feel he still misses the boats on what his constituency feels. Here is our email exchange:

---

August 14, 2009

Dear Jeffrey,

Thanks for getting in touch with me and letting me know what's on your mind regarding the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to serve as Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

On August 6, 2009, the Senate confirmed Judge Sotomayor by a vote of 68 to 31. Even though Judge Sotomayor's political and judicial philosophy may be different than mine, especially regarding Second Amendment rights, I voted to confirm her because she is well qualified by experience, temperament, character and intellect to serve on the Supreme Court.

In 2005, I said on the Senate floor that it was wrong for then-Senator Obama and half the senators on his side of the aisle to vote against John Roberts - a superbly qualified nominee - solely because they disagreed with what Senator Obama described as Roberts' "overarching political philosophy" and "his work in the White House and the Solicitor General's office" that "consistently sided" with "the strong in opposition to the weak."  Four years later, it would have been equally wrong for me to vote against Judge Sotomayor solely because she is not "on my side" on some issues.

Courts were never intended to be political bodies composed of judges "on your side" who would reliably tilt your way in controversial cases.  Courts are supposed to do just the opposite:  decide difficult cases with impartiality. The oath Judge Sotomayor has taken three times says it best: ". I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and . I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me . under the Constitution and laws of the United States."

During her confirmation hearings, Judge Sotomayor expressly rejected then-Senator Obama's view that in a certain percentage of judicial decisions "the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in a judge's heart . and [in] the depth and breadth of one's empathy."  In answer to a question from Senator Jon Kyl, she said, "I can only explain what I think judges should do, which is judges can't rely on what's in their heart.  They don't determine the law.  Congress makes the laws.  The job of a judge is to apply the law.  And so it's not the heart that compels conclusions in cases.  It's the law.  The judge applies the law to the facts before that judge."

Giving broad Senate approval to well-qualified nominees helps to increase the prestige of the Supreme Court and confirm its impartiality. For that reason, until the last few years senators on both sides of the aisle, after rigorous inquiries into the fitness of nominees, have given those well-qualified nominees an overwhelming vote of approval. For example, no justice on the Supreme Court that Chief Justice John Roberts joined in 2005 had received more than nine negative votes. Four were confirmed unanimously. All but three senators voted for Justice Ginsburg, a former General Counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. Every single senator voted for Justice Scalia. In truly extraordinary cases, senators, of course, reserve the prerogative - as I do - to vote "no" or even to vote to deny an up-or-down vote.

During the eight years I was governor of Tennessee, I appointed about 50 judges.  In doing so, I looked for the same qualities that Judge Sotomayor has demonstrated: intelligence, good character, restraint, respect for law and respect for those who came before the court.  I did not ask one applicant how he or she would rule on abortion or immigration or taxation.  I appointed the first female circuit judge in our state, the first African American court chancellor and the first African American Supreme Court Justice.  I appointed both Democrats and Republicans.  That process served our state well and helped to build respect for the independence and fairness of our judiciary. In the same way, it is my hope that my vote to confirm Judge Sotomayor will help to return the Senate to the practice only recently lost of inquiring diligently into qualifications of a nominee and then accepting that elections have consequences, one of which is to confer upon the president the constitutional right to nominate justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Even in cases where we may disagree on issues, I do weigh carefully the opinions of Tennesseans on both sides of an issue before casting a vote in the Senate. Your comments help me to know where the people of Tennessee stand, and they are very helpful to me in making decisions. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on Judge Sotomayor's nomination, and I hope that you will continue to get in touch with me and let me know what's on your mind regarding the important issues facing our nation.

Sincerely,

Lamar

My reply:

Mr. Alexander,

Thank you so much for your detailed reply. While this may be an area where good men must agree to disagree, I also must address to you the LACK of impartiality from Judge Sotomayor’s own mouth; namely her now infamous statements regarding the wiser decisions a “wiser Latina” would make, as well as her vow of empathy from the bench. This totally removes any doubt of her partiality. While it may have been a moot point, you still should have stood your ground and stood for judicial impartiality, not judicial activism, and denied her your vote for confirmation.

I do recognize that her appointment merely replaces one liberal voice with another on the bench, but more effort should have been made to keep this activist out of the Supreme Court. Other republicans refused to vote for her, why didn’t you? It makes no sense to me that we roll over for President Obama’s rabid Socialist agenda. I hope that this was a savvy move to leverage votes against other nominees of his. We must all face the fact that an extremely liberal president is only going to nominate like-minded people for the judgeship.

Many Tennesseans feel as I do, Mr. Alexander. Some are awakening for the first time to the fallen state of our republic, and the tide is turning back to true conservatism with a more libertarian bent. In other words, voters are seeing for the first time the true principles of our founders. Please find your mooring and anchor on those principles. I personally like you, Mr. Alexander, and I hope you go back to your true conservative roots and restore the trust that many of us had in you. I hope you restore enough trust to earn my vote again. Until then, I still must stand by my earlier statement and say that you no longer have my vote.

Sincerely yours,

Jeff Price

Columbia

The Fallacy of False Hope

"If I only had a brain..."



 

Above is a snapshot of a new-era scarecrow dancing off to a city filled with a glorious promise of efficiency, all thanks to the new GE-endorsed smart grid that is coming down the pike.

President Obama has said in the past he supports new energy technologies, and quite honestly, I support it too. I just feel it best comes from the private sector, not through forced government mandates. The market will decide, albeit slowly. It will still be a best-for-all solution, and not riddled with the confusion a government mandate often creates. With the Obama administration and democratically led government's promoting change in the energy infrastructure, the fallacy of false hope is being interwoven into the energy grid as it has been in banking and business over the last year (beginning with Bush's capitulation of both his conservative and capitalist principles in Stimulus I).

Above, the scarecrow is galloping off to a beautiful, sunlit city. However, will you permit me to rehash the ending of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz for you? What did Dorothy, Scarecrow, Tin Man, Cowardly Lion, and Toto find when they finally completed their mission and met the Wizard?  NOTHING. In the magical Emerald City, there was quite a bit of giddiness (perhaps the Munchkins were Obama supporters). The foursome approached the Wizard, only to realize the Wizard is little more than smoke and mirrors, powered by a huckster behind the curtain. The huckster (née Wizard) proceeds to grant fulfillment despite the revelation he was a liar. Need a heart? Perhaps a ticking watch will do. Need a brain? Perhaps you can get a diploma you did not have to work for. Need courage? No problem, just be granted a medal, and you'll have it (never mind the backward idea that one must usually be courageous, and then get a medal). When all the prizes are doled out, the huckster agrees to fly Dorothy home, but he fails, sailing off in his hot air balloon without her. Finally, the Good Witch arrives, and she tells Dorothy she could have went home the whole time, on her own, with three clicks of her heels, while repeating "There's no place like home."

I wrote all that to say this: Americans do not need gimmicky prizes to validate their intelligence, heart, or courage. If Americans will rise up and exercise their God-given ability, they will not need a magical wizard to solve their problems, à la Obama. We don't need a smart energy grid tracking our usage or making recommendations to us about when to use our electricity, as this commercial suggests. If Mr. Obama and the socialist democrats and the republican sympathizers will leave the economic markets alone, we will sort this out on our own, just as Dorothy did.

Stimulus package? I don't think so. Bailout? No thanks. But Obama's plans to save us will reveal themselves to be the machinations of a hucksterish wizard, full of hope and promise, with nothing good coming out if it. And even if something good came out of it, what will the cost be for America? I think it will be more than we are truly willing to pay. I would rather have little with freedom than plenty under tyranny. And it doesn't take many brains to figure that out.