Archive for the ‘Liberty’ Category

2 Million Strong - Take That Barry The Muslim


Liberty Slipping Away: 10 Things You Could Do in 1975 That You Can’t Do Now

In 1975…1970slipping Away

1. You could buy an airline ticket and fly without ever showing an ID

2. You could buy cough syrup without showing an ID

3. You could buy and sell gold coins without showing an ID

4. You could buy a gun without showing an ID

5. You could pull as much cash out of your bank account without the bank filing a report with the government

6. You could get a job without having to prove you were an American

7. You could buy cigarettes without showing an ID

8. You could have a phone conversation without the government knowing who you called and who called you

9. You could open a stock brokerage account without having to explain where the money came from

10. You could open a Swiss bank account with ease. All Swiss banks were willing and happy to open accounts for Americans

There are thousands of other examples. The differences in the business sector are even more prevalent. In recent years, in industry after industry regulations and prohibitions have been poured on top of free markets. It doesn’t look like things will get any better in years to come. Eventually, the economy will suffocate and collapse, if this continues…

How to Make Mark Levin's Vision of Constitutional Reform a Reality

by Jeffery BarrettLiberty-Amendments-e1376337131931

Mark Levin, the well-known constitutionalist talk show commentator, has written still another very good book. This book, called the Liberty Amendments, is essentially an operator’s manual on how constitutionalists in America might restore constitutional government while bypassing the entrenched federal interests in Washington DC.
Levin’s strategy lies in taking advantage of Article 5 of the US Constitution that gives the power to the states to call a convention, propose amendments, send the amendments out to the state legislatures for passage and all the while, the states can completely ignore the powers in Washington DC. (See Thomas Lifson’s book review.) Levin provides a list of suggested amendments which, if passed, would force the federal government to reverse its century old expansion of federal power and gradually restore a more balanced form of constitutionalist government that the Founders originally intended.
But there is a serious risk in Levin’s strategy that lies in the phrase “Article 5 convention.” Never in American history have the states invoked their Article 5 powers –and for good reason. State legislators have always been afraid that such a national convention might slip from their control and become a “rogue convention.” Constitutionalists in particular conjure up the nightmare image of statist progressive convention delegates pushing through an agenda that would shed what is left of the protections of the original Constitution. If you bring up the subject of an Article 5 convention to most state officials, you can see their minds close faster than they can blink. If you don’t believe me try it yourself on your own state assemblyman and witness for yourself the reflexive pavlovian reaction.
In the real world of flesh and blood humans, I fear that Levin will not gather enough support even from his own constitutionalist allies who admire him greatly. Levin himself should understand this, for he also once opposed an Article 5 convention, and I suspect the only reason he has changed his mind is that he is desperate for a solution that is not dependent on the cooperation of the status quo contented Republicans residing in their plush neighborhoods in Washington DC.
But fortunately for Levin (and us all), there is a solution to the runaway convention problem, and his “natural allies” could find reason to hop on his Article 5 bandwagon. There is a group based in Washington DC of highly influential constitutionalists who call themselves the Madison Coalition and who have found a workable solution to afford states the right to propose single Constitutional amendments while avoiding the dangers of a runaway convention. The first article in the nation to report on the Madison Coalition was published on these pages. Very briefly, the Coalition’s strategy is to first have the states draft carefully crafted legislation that would eliminate the possibility of the delegates in an Article 5 convention from “going rogue.”
Levin’s hopes and dreams expressed in his latest book fit seamlessly with the Coalition’s objectives. With the publication of the book and the description of the book on his radio show, Levin has provoked constitutionalist activists across the country to consider turning their firepower away from the national Congress and onto the state legislatures.
The Coalition provides the structure to direct those energies. Since the publication of the original article in the American Thinker, the state of Indiana has enshrined the Coalition’s plan of action into state law. Other states are in the pipeline and are sure to follow. The Coalition is now in a phase where it is ready to ramp up its efforts with the help of grassroots activist support. The Coalition can identify the key legislators in the key committees in the most promising states across the country. Madison Laws like the legislation passed in Indiana have already been written and proposed in many state assemblies and require concentrated activist support to force them out of committee and through their respective legislatures.
In short, Mark Levin with his massive reach to the activist community could not have written a more timely book. Levin’s brilliant strategy of using Article 5 of the Constitution combined with the Coalition’s strategy to neutralize the fear of a runaway convention is, perhaps, America’s best hope of inching back toward the kind of constitutional government that once was the hallmark of that country’s greatness.
Jeffrey W. Barrett can be reached at

Read more:


By: John Hayward

Radio host Mark Levin’s new book, The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic, is one of the most focused, accessible, and aggressive political books you’ll ever find. Levin’s thesis is that the balance of power between the three branches of the federal government, the states, and the American people has been distorted beyond the ability of conventional politics to repair. After all, if the power of the legislature has been diminished relative to the executive, the executive has dispersed its disproportionate power into unelected bureaucracies, and the states are increasingly powerless vassals of Washington, then there is no way for the peoples’ representatives in Congress or state houses to draft laws that would correct the situation. The entire point of this century-long quest to centralize power was to remove it from the clumsy hands of foolish American citizens. We are spectators to a game show in Washington. We might be able to vote a few of the contestants off the show, but we have no control over the rules of the game.

Levin aims to change the rules of the game… or, more properly, reset them, to restore the brilliant system put in place by America’s Founders. With the situation explained and his goals set forth in a few introductory pages, he executes the rest of his book with the planning and precision of a SEAL team taking an objective. Each of his proposed “Liberty Amendments” is laid out in a brief chapter that explains its importance, sources it to the writings of the Founding Fathers, and anticipates the more reasonable objections that would likely be raised. Little time is wasted on the unreasonable objections, for Levin does not intend to address an audience of the stupid, greedy, or hysterical. He also knows his statist adversaries are not interested in rationally discussing the death of the Leviathan they nourished for generations.

A Constitutional reset is necessary because the progressive project is a cascade of lost freedoms, designed so that each step is irreversible, and every inch of ground taken by the State is claimed forever. The distribution of power to unelected bureaucrats is a key element of this process. One of the Liberty Amendments “sunsets” all federal departments and agencies, unless Congress reauthorizes them every three years by majority vote. Every big-ticket Executive Branch regulation would be subjected to review by a joint congressional committee. This amendment would pull the plug on the unstoppable federal bureaucracy, forcing every department to perpetually justify its existence, and terminating President Obama’s beloved practice of circumventing Congress to legislate by decree.

Another Liberty Amendment likewise reins in the judicial branch, setting term limits for Supreme Court justices, and giving Congress the power to override Supreme Court opinions with a three-fifths vote, without risk of presidential veto. Three-fifths of the state legislatures can also join forces to knock down a Court decision. That’s a recurring theme of the Liberty Amendments: the restoration of both congressional and state power. As Levin repeatedly reminds us, nothing worried the Founders more than the rise of a despotic national executive, such as the one we have now. The original states never would have signed on to a federal government that turned them into puppets. There were strong logical arguments against these outcomes, which power-hungry progressives understood quite well, back when they first set about overturning the Constitutional order. Modern progressives don’t think they need to understand those arguments any more, because the foundation of the total State has been laid, and the clock can never be “turned back,” as one of their favorite slogans has it. This should leave them at a severe intellectual disadvantage, if the Liberty Amendments become a topic of national debate.

Some of Levin’s proposed amendments are intended to clarify language that already exists in the Constitution, such as the much-abused Commerce Clause – lately interpreted as a warrant for unlimited federal control of all human activity, although the Founders most certainly did not intend it to be taken that way. Our language has changed over the centuries, always in a way that expands the Left’s desire for centralized control. The authors of the Constitution would find our current understanding of the word “commerce” to be utterly deranged – indeed, they might even ask what the point of their Revolution was, if “interstate commerce” was to become a writ for powers beyond the wildest dreams of daft old King George.

Two of the proposed Liberty Amendments are devastating blows against imperial federal power, making it easier for states to amend the Constitution, and giving them a brief window of opportunity to strike down both congressional legislation and Executive Branch legislation. Levin also makes a compelling argument against the Seventeenth Amendment, which provided for the direct election of United States senators. Senators were supposed to be instruments of the state legislatures, while the House of Representatives would be filled by popular vote. I have never read a better explanation for why this was important, and how it gave state governments a vitally needed hand in the crafting of federal legislation.

I’ve also seen no better case made for term limits on Congress, as Levin astutely points out that not only do Jurassic representatives-for-life distort the distribution of power in Congress, but they invest a great deal of our national energy (and funding!) in maintaining their 85-percent-plus re-election rate. Surely some of those “safe” districts would merely replace Retiring Party Drone A with New Party Drone B, but as it stands, far too many representatives discover they can most easily secure lifetime tenure by representing the Leviathan State instead of their constituents, tapping the federal treasury to purchase reliable voters.

The reason all of these goals must be accomplished through Constitutional amendment is that any other instrument of legislation or representation can be twisted to the purposes of the central State. Levin makes an irrefutable case that we long ago passed the point of no return for reforming our bloated, degenerate, dying federal government by winning a few elections. The people who rigged this system made certain to armor it against future dissent from unhappy voters – one man, one vote, one time, every step of the way, with each new progressive “achievement” promptly declared more immutable than the tattered old scrap of parchment kept under glass at the National Archives. Having studied the provisions for a Constitutional convention, Levin is convinced that the high bar for state ratification of any proposed amendments will keep it from becoming a carnival of kooks. The kooks are winning anyway. What could they get by amending the Constitution that our eternal bureaucracy and despotic executive branch aren’t giving them, one lost liberty at a time?

If you want to bring the ship of state into drydock, instead of slightly adjusting its course, The Liberty Amendments provides an excellent set of schematics. Levin’s strategy is the only way for the American people to have a say on all the things we’ve been told we don’t get to vote on any more. Reading this book will help you appreciate the terrible magnitude of what we have lost, and the intractable nature of an arrogant system that dictates to us instead of representing us, appropriating the language of “democracy” to dignify what really amounts to quelling dissent against whatever the ruling class wants to do next. And if you’re not already a Constitutional scholar of Mark Levin’s caliber, you might be surprised to learn just how accurately the supposedly out-of-touch and obsolete Founders predicted everything happening today. Why, reading Chapter Eight of The Liberty Amendments, you’d think John Adams was taking daily delivery of the New York Times through a time warp. I suspect he and his peers would have little argument with Levin’s recommendations.


John McCain---Get Your Grubby Little Progressive Hands Off My Cable Box!

cableboxAnybody who has Cable TV knows the frustration of having a few hundred channels but nothing to watch. Part of the reason is the bundling done by content providers. So for example, if you want Discovery Channel you are stuck with getting the Oprah network because they it is owned by Discovery communications and the company sells its programming as a group. For parents of Kids if you want Nickelodeon you have to take Logo (the Gay Channel), Other programming companies do the same which is the reason you have ESPN 1, 2,3, 4, Classic, etc. as part of your cable. The problem is while you may only want ESPN 1&2 your cable system pays for all of them and passes on the cost.

The Cable companies do the same thing. A family doesn’t get to pick its favorite 900 channels, but has to purchase tiers. So instead of purchasing just History Channel, National Geo, Discovery, etc. the monthly I receive includes things that are never watched on my family’s sets, a H.S. Sports channel, five different Christian Networks, a medical channel…etc.

John McCain wants to change all that.
The Arizona Senator introduced a new bill, the Television Consumer Freedom Act, that would present incentives to both cable operators and television networks to let consumers choose the channels in their subscription. Right now, all customers pay substantial “carriage fees” for the most popular channels—ESPN is pegged at about $5 per subscriber—whether they want them or not.

The biggest change would come in the way networks sell their channels to cable operators. Right now, media companies like Disney and Viacom sell their channels in bundles, forcing operators to pay for third-tier networks in order to get access to ESPN or Nickelodeon. Cablevision is currently suing Viacom for the practice.
McCain’s bill would force the networks to unbundle their products, theoretically allowing cable operators to be more thoughtful in their channel selection and pass the savings on to consumers. In the past, though, television networks have argued that bundling channels allows niche programming to exist when it would otherwise be economically unfeasible.

The bill “is about giving the consumer more choices when watching television,” McCain said on the Senate floor. “It’s time for us to help shift the landscape to benefit television consumers.”

While the bill requires networks to unbundle their channels, it only encourages cable operators to offer consumers a similar luxury. Cable companies that refuse to offer channels individually would lose out on a special compulsory copyright license which allows them to air content from broadcast networks for a set fee without getting tangled up in individual channel negotiations, as they do with cable networks.
While I may agree with McCain’s objective I do not believe it is government’s place to interfere in the business of cable TV. There is plenty of competition in the programming industry between cable, satellite and now streaming video on the internet so there is no monopoly issue. That’s why ignoble experiments such as Discovery’s Green channel (climate change 24 hours/day) is gone.

Another issue is McCain’s bill forces the programmers to unbundle but not the cable systems, so he is picking winners and losers in the marketplace.

There will be unintended consequences to McCain’s bill that we can only imagine, higher fees for the networks the systems do want leading to higher costs for consumers as the systems will carry only the more popular/expensive networks, less experimentation in programming leading to practically the same thing on every channel are just two. Whenever the government try to regulate an industry costs go up and production goes down.

Don’t get me wrong, I would prefer a cable/satellite marketplace that is unbundled but it is not government’s place to decide what into my cable box (Granted that’s what happens with the network news, but I’m not talking about news bias). As more and more options become available on line, the marketplace will force the programmers and cable networks to change. Today there are other problems, the economy, unemployment, cheap energy, losing our place of leader of the free world and countless others for John McCain to worry about which networks are wired into people’s households.

I haven’t even gotten to the question if government gets into our cable boxes what information will it retrieve from them, or will they eventually require cable systems to carry some networks and not carry others? You say never? Six years ago would you ever believe our government would pass a bill requiring someone to purchase healthcare?

Personal entertainment, whether it is in the movie theaters, internet, or coming out of our cable boxes is personal business. The only people who should be involved are the programmers, cable systems and the families who are paying to bring it into their households. The government has ruined so many industries through regulation, they should not get their grubby little hands on my cable box.

Nothing But Down-side to Top-Two Primaries

There was a strong push in the last Arizona election cycle to disenfranchise political parties by turning the Arizona Primary election into a “round one general election” in which there would be a single ballot with all candidates listed on it without regard to party affiliation, but only the top two vote-getters from the Primary would be on the General Election ballot.  Some very good political thinkers were involved at least in conceptualizing this ballot proposition.  The proposition failed by a two to one margin

military voting

The main thing the proposition was designed to do was to give independents (voters not affiliated with any party) a greater say in the primary.  There are certain good things about today’s party system; it allows people with common political views to identify their positions on issues (platform) and to select candidates who will run for office in the general election.  The founding fathers were not fond of political parties; but parties in their times were specific special interest factions such as merchants, or lawyers, or veterans, or bankers, or planters.  The political parties spoken of by Washington and his contemporaries were what we would now call lobbyists or political action committees (PACs).

Today’s parties are made up of voters with diverse professions, economic stations, races, educational levels, and lifestyle, and serve primarily as a vetting process for candidate selection. party) more say in Primary elections.  To me that alone doesn’t make any sense because primary elections are elections in which political parties nominate their candidates.  Independents are independents because they don’t support party politics.  Arizona already does something that I think is very bad in that they allow independents to vote in one primary of any party they wish. To me nobody except party members should have a say in who the party nominates..  I’m glad it did because I think it was a very bad idea.

Even minor parties have played a significant role in shaping our politics.  By presenting their views to the public they have caused the two major parties to adjust to attract those voters.  Two examples are the Socialist Party who originated the idea of vast social programs and redistribution of wealth, and the Libertarian Party who has pushed for a more stringent compliance with the constitution and lest government involvement in the lives of citizens.  Both of these minor parties have never reached the number of supporters needed to enact their policies, but the Democrats have adapted many of the aims of the Socialist Party, and the Republicans have adjusted to the right in response to the ideas of the Libertarian Party.

One problem with a top two primary is that it does not give the voter more choices but limits them to only two in the general election.  A second problem is that in a district in which one party dominates, no other party has a chance to make it on the ballot, both general candidates could be from the same party.  It would virtually illuminate all minor party candidates from ever getting on a general ballot.

Many independents say there is no difference between the two parties; however, even the most cursory review of their stand on issues reveals that as false. The main causes of independent discontent with the two major parties can be categorized as: 1) They are all professional politicians who are mostly concerned with feathering their own nest and being reelected, and 2) They can’t work together to get anything done.

I think Item one is partly true; I do believe that many people in congress have a genuine desire to do what’s right, but their view may differ from that of many of their voters.  They have elevated themselves to a special class that is paid much more than the average voter, has amazing perks and benefits, and gives them special exceptions to things the rest of us live with every day.  When congress was first given an annual salary in 1855 it was $3000; comparing the consumer price index of 1855 to 2012, that equates to under $12,000 per year in today’s dollar.  Then, being in Congress was a part time job, they spent a couple of months a year mostly approving a budget.

This brings us to item two.  As the founders intended, the federal government dealt with relatively few departments and programs, they didn’t enact many new laws every year, they took care of business and got back their farm, store, law officer, parsonage, etc.  For the last 80 years congress has gotten along too well, they have passed way to many laws, creating way too much government, and spending way too much public revenue.  Any congress that refuses to raise expenditures or increase taxes is a good congress.  Democrats want to keep using the public revenue to buy votes, and Republics want to reverse that process.  In a nutshell that is the difference between the two parties.  I will vote for the senator or representative who refuses to go along with government programs, trillion dollar deficits, and forever increasing taxes.  A “do-nothing” congress is better than a “do-something” congress unless the something being done is cutting spending, cutting government, and cutting taxes.

So since the main accusation is that Democrats and Republicans are the same, you better look again.  And if you want to save the country you better hope the “do-nothings” outnumber the “do-everythings”.

Part 2 Protecting Against Mass Murder: A Workable Armed Security Plan

SchoolsThere are things that make schools particularly attractive targets for evil men or crazies who want to inflict harm on others or who want to hurt society: Schools contain large numbers of helpless children and a few adults who can pose no threat to an attacker; Being gun-free zones, schools guarantee that the will be no armed person in a school, with the possible exception of a school resource officer; and, once the slaughter starts, the attacker knows that it will take several minutes for the police to be called and to respond. The attacker also knows that if there is a single policeman assigned to the school, he could get rid of that threat to him by simply removing the officer or distracting him in some way; and even if the officer is not disabled the attacker would simply have to begin his attack in one of the more remote classrooms. For these reasons our children are like lambs in a slaughterhouse
The only real protection against a terrorist (and no matter their motive, the people who stage these attacks are terrorists) is to have numerous people in all parts of the school who can be first responders to an attack. The outcome at Sandy Hook Elementary School would have been very different had the first teacher who confronted the attacker, and the Principle who confronted him had done so with a gun.
Schools should be Attack Free Zones; meaning that if an unauthorized person enters a school they are considered a deadly threat and if they do not immediately surrender, they will be shot. This means that schools would have to have the ability to control all access to the school and to identify and control visitors or those on authorized business.
The two most rational objections to arming school personnel are 1) that they would create a confusing battlefield for police who respond- it would become difficult for the officers to identify the perpetrators as opposed to the armed school personnel; and, 2) School personnel are not trained in the needed skills and procedures. I think there is some valid concern on both points. However, if the arming of school personnel is done properly both these points become moot.
First the personnel would have to pass the normal gun ownership background checks, second, they would have to pass the concealed carry class, and third they would be required to be trained and sanctioned by the local police department, and would operate under direction of the police department as a reserve unit of the police. This takes away the concern about qualification.
There are probably several employees at most schools who are already competent marksmen and trained in gun safety. There are likely military veterans or reservists, concealed carry permit holders, reserve officers, or shooting hobbyist on the school staff. These people would be the obvious first class of trainees. The goal would be to have most employees, including administrators, teachers, classified staff, custodians, and bus drivers qualified and armed. Since the reasons schools are such enticing targets for evil or crazy people is because they know they will easily be able to do great harm, having this type of reserve protection would take away that primary attraction as a target.
The second valid concern is identification of school police reservists. First, since they are under the direction of the police, trained by them, and mingle face to face with officers they would be known by sight to the police. Second they would be provided with a recognizable police vest which they would don in the event of an attack anywhere on the school. The teachers in classrooms would lock down their classroom, direct the children to take cover, and then take a defensive position to stop the attacker from entering.
Teachers involved in other activities with students would move them to designated safe areas and take up a defensive position to protect the children. Administrators and other non-teaching personnel would don their vests and move quickly to the trouble area, firing on an attacker at the moment they are encountered.
The reserve officer school personnel would be organized into rank leadership based on competency and training and the senior officer (who might be a teacher or a janitor rather than an administrator) would assume command of the crises until a ranking police officer is on the scene.
Chances are, that in most cases based on this scenario by the time police arrived all school reservists would be “in uniform”’ the threat would be neutralized, and all arms would be holstered, avoiding the chaos envisioned by detractors.
Chances are good that this would prevent injury or loss of student life; or at the worst would limit the number of such casualties.
I will cover reestablishing a healthy American gun culture in Part 3.

Protecting Against Mass Murder -Part 1

The RNC declaration of war, and the coming revolution


Author's note: Yesterday I was returning a lawn mower to my good friend and mentioned what I had seen in Tampa. He said, "I think they chose the right man, and I don't want to talk politics. Romney is the right man for the job, and that's it." This morning, before the sun came up, this letter poured from me. I've decided to exchange his name for "Dear America," and uncharacteristically publish this in its entirety. What went on at the GOP convention is nothing short of a declaration of war. It is the powerful who would do anything to say in power, even destroy America. In just a few moments, they destroyed the Republican Party, and insured that Obama would get a second term. They are Neocons, the right's Progressives, and they together control both sides of the isle. The following is my own declaration, in my quest for liberty, and I know now after going to Paul Fest, that I am not alone.

Video: The second American Revolution
Dear America,

Apparently, my explanatory talents are not one of oration, but of writing. I am a prolific writer with 340 published as the Lafayette Examiner for the last 3.7 years. I consider you a close friend, and yet we find ourselves at odds and divided by the political process we now find ourselves in. What we face in America's future is indeed a daunting challenge, and it seems at this time that only a few Americans understand the need to wake up. This "liberty" movement, is however, growing, and those who finally see the road ahead, is shouting it from the roof-tops. Liberty!

Most don't seem to grasp the gravity of what happen at the GOP in Tampa. The RNC changed the rules at the very last minute, and seated their own representatives, displacing duly elected delegates from each state. They made it impossible for Dr. Paul to be nominated from the floor. It means that we the people no longer have the power to promote change. Never again can a grass-root movement have a voice in the process, and the candidate will be chosen for us without consent. It means we are now complete slaves to the system, without a voice. It is the same reason Obama is now our president.

You told me that the greatest Republican President was Ronald Reagan. If these rules had been implemented just prior to that election Ronald Reagan would not have been nominated, nor would have John F. Kennedy, the greatest Democrat who ever lived. The reason most don't understand Dr. Paul's message is because they get all information from the liberal newspaper, and the black box who are owned and controlled by the same conglomerate media. Only 3 percent of Americans read books, and most of it is fiction… We do not have a free press in America.

America has been betrayed, and yet the majority of people have no inkling of this. We will now have more preemptive war without congressional approval. We will now have socialized medicine along with a welfare state, and it will be called Obamacare or Romnycare. America is now socialistic. The Federal Reserve will continue printing money out of thin air; big government will continue telling the states what to do and many other legislations like TARP will enslave us, and the NDAA and Patriot Act will insure a police state based on the War Act will be permanent, and in the process, due process will no longer exist. Our constitution is now ignored, and the progressives are trying to legislate, along with the UN, to take away our guns, just like they have done to our allies in EUROPE, and Australia, and because of this there will be not only a violent resistance in America, but in that process a World War 3, as the military industrialist complex, owned by an international banking cartel, will bomb IRAN. Men like me will be dead in the streets or interned in FEMA camps. And so, as you are my friend, we find ourselves on the opposite side in this conflict. It is a conflict I would and most likely will die to defend, and it is evident that you do not understand the dire gravity of this situation.

I will not submit to anything that tramples on my constitution and bill of rights. When we became soldiers we made an oath to uphold it. I still remember that Oath, do you? I lived by that oath my entire life, and would die to defend it. Would you? You fought in WW2 to protect America, just as I did in Vietnam, and yet, it was during your generation that Marxism began strangling us from the inside, and even now Americans just doesn't get it. They didn't, because they are too comfortable watching football and propaganda from the black box, too distracted, lulled into complacency, and that was intentional. It is indeed a science. We now live in a totalitarian state, and we the people have no voice left. Your generation did not stand up when it was taken from us, and it is lost.

I have awakened, and some educated youth have too, and yet we are slapped in the face because of it. Belittled in our efforts to take our country back, and our attempts to reinstate the Constitution and Bill of Rights are thwarted by the same people who swore to uphold them. So brain-washed by the mass media, they do not even take the effort to understand it, and I find that a lot to swallow. I am so disappointed, so betrayed by a system that binds my hands, my mind, and my children's minds, and I am surrounded by ignorant and lazy men and women who polish their collars with pride.

I will not be enslaved, and just as I was prepared to give my life for my country blindly at 19, so will I now risk everything at 63, educated and awake, for the righteous cause of liberty. The Ron Paul supporters comprise just 10 percent of the population, the same percentage that actually fought in the American Revolution. They are so animated because they see the truth of this matter, and the gravity of the situation.

While our oaths were forgotten, our children are now slaves with a 16 trillion dollar debt, with a lost Republic no longer controlled by the people, and the Republic's rule of law that was implemented by our founders to protect us, is obliterated. We will sir, as a nation, get exactly what we deserve… Abortions on demand paid for with our tax dollars, (where 52 percent of Christians voted for Obama), socialized medicine in a welfare state, the Patriot Act forever that thwarts or liberty and privacy, never ending war to expand imperialism for corporate profit, and the NDAA that strangles our civil rights. All of this, was brought into existence by Romney and other Neocons who voted the same as Obama Progressives, and yes, abortion too. Who is backing Obama and Romney are the same… Why do you think the NDAA was passed on New year's night in 2010? When no one was there to vote against it. It is traitorous.

If anyone would actually read the NDAA, or the Patriot Act, it would become evident, but the football season is coming, and dancing with the stars, and most likely they never will. Isn't that the truth? Here we have a group of enlightened men and women who want to revive our constitution, our bill of rights, and they are maligned! Why? Because they oppose and threaten the corruption that control us, and that sir, threatens trillion siphoned from our blood, sweat and tears, by taxation, and what cannot be stolen from us, is printed out of thin air, two trillion in the last year alone. We cannot even pay for the interest they are charging us, without printing more. Slavery, that is America.

Not realized, that ten percent… is America's true hope. So far this revolution is of an intellectual nature, with the attempt to reinstate our Republic. If this is not allowed by the powers that be, every other means will be used. If another civil war is to be fought, so be it. I will not have my children enslaved, and if our prior generation would have thought as such, we would not be in this fine mess.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
Thomas Jefferson

All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
Thomas Jefferson

I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
Thomas Jefferson

When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe.
Thomas Jefferson

A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
Thomas Jefferson

Do you want to know who you are? Don't ask. Act! Action will delineate and define you.
Thomas Jefferson

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.
Thomas Jefferson

Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson

Nothing can stop the man with the right mental attitude from achieving his goal; nothing on earth can help the man with the wrong mental attitude.
Thomas Jefferson

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.
Thomas Jefferson

I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.
Thomas Jefferson

Your friend,

Ken LaRive

SEO Powered By SEOPressor