Benjamin Franklin once wrote “Never confuse motion with action.” Over the last two years there has been a lot of motion. Many, like myself, have taken to the streets of their towns, or Washington DC itself, and raised their voices in protest, sometimes controversial protest. Concerned citizens read their congressmen and women the riot act at town hall meetings. Others, myself obviously included, write blogs or create websites to complain, educate or simply have an outlet for creative energy. Is it important to protest? Very much so. Our right to assemble, speak and petition for redress is enshrined in our founding document. Is education crucial? Of course. Our government school system has taught revisionist history and discouraged critical thinking and that must be revived among the American people. Is it alright to complain? Sure, if it leads to news getting out or fresh ideas being considered. Finally, the Internet is a great tool within which we can hear from people whose creativity we would have otherwise been unaware of.

     That is all well and good as far as it goes. There is the old saying, “The pen is mightier than the sword.” That is only true insofar as the pen motivates people to real action. So far, amidst the volumes of writing, the multitude of “right wing” talk shows and television programs and the legion of organizations that have sprung up, no real action of consequence has afforded more than a speed bump on the headlong rush to socialism we have embarked on over the last eighty years. Consider more recent history. In 1994 Rush Limbaugh declared himself the “Majority Maker.” With the Republicans in control did government get any smaller? Were any government programs eliminated? Did spending go down? Did government become less intrusive? Did the people’s liberty grow?   No, no, no, no and no. Why? Because the Federal Government has a momentum all its own and the election of one party or another is not going to change that. The Democrats want to expand government in their way, the Republicans another. Each usually gets what they want and neither tears down what the other has created. Every program, every special interest, creates a new layer of everlasting bureaucracy that just makes the momentum all the more irresistible.

     What have we really been doing in the face of this onslaught on our liberty? We have been trying to defend some small area not yet affected by the bombardment. We are like a fighter in the ring adhering the the rules laid down by the Marquess of Queensberry. We think that if we can just keep our opponent from hitting us in the right eye, we will have won the fight. But while we have been holding up our gloves and protecting that one eye, our opponent long ago shed his gloves for brass knuckles and has been breaking our ribs, knocking out our teeth, hitting us below the belt, kicking us in the shins with steel toed boots and anything else he can think of to bring us down. Now and then we reach out with a gloved hand and touch him, occasionally with enough force to get his attention and cause him to pause. Such a reprieve, however, only lasts a moment while he regroups, perhaps changes tactics, and renews the assault. We have allowed ourselves to be backed up into a corner, reduced to simply reacting to any attempt to hit us in the eye, conceding the fact that we will be continuously battered everywhere else and any area already damaged cannot be restored.

    There is no way to win such a fight, and our fight isn’t for money or prestige. This fight is for our and our children’s future. It is the fight for liberty over tyranny. It is the fight over whether we control our destiny or the government determines it for us. It is the fight over whether we will have the freedom to exercise our God-given rights or if we will be condemned to live within the constraints of a totalitarian government.   Look at your children or grand-children. Look at them right now. What kind of future do you want for them?   Do you want them to live in the socialist utopia of France or the people’s paradise of Cuba?   If a terrorist came into your home with a gun to beat your children and rape your wife, would you assault him with words or grab the wiffle bat? No, a real man defends his family any way he can with whatever he has until he prevails or the life finally drains from his body. Yet this government has broken into our homes, stolen our money, enforced its will at the point of a gun, herded our children into indoctrination centers, and forced our wives into slavery to help us pay for the growing multitude of chains with which we are bound. What do we do? We write a blog or a letter to the editor, we start an organization, we lodge a protest, maybe even a loud one. Yet every year the government gets bigger, more money is borrowed and spent, more constraints are placed on our liberty and every few years the same corrupt politicians are returned to office to do it all over again. The chains multiply and our families remain doomed. Isn’t it the height of folly to continue to do the same thing again and again and expect different results?

     Let me ask you a few questions;

     Has the Federal Government consistently and flagrantly violated its contract (the constitution) with the states and the people for the purposes of increasing its power at the expense of our liberty?

     Is the government seeking to impose a system of totalitarian rule in which no activity remains outside their control and subject to rules and regulations that carry severe penalties?

     Have the politicians in the Federal Government continuously misused our tax dollars to enrich themselves and their friends and to cement their hold on power?

     Have the parties used fraud and intimidation to steal elections to maintain their power?

     Has the Federal Government sought to use its various powers to silence opposition in direct contradiction to the Bill of Rights?

     Has the Federal Government stolen our money and property and intimidated us through the fraudulent application of the Income Tax?

     Has the government purposefully neglected border security in order to create more dependent voters and in so doing, endangered the very lives of its citizens through violence and disease?

    Has this government sold our sovereignty to foreign powers and become beholden to their interests at the expense of ours?

    Has the Federal Government sought to indoctrinate our children with the aim of producing generation after generation of promiscuous, ignorant government stooges?

     Has this government embarked on a path of owning or controlling any and all means of economic production?

     Has this government maimed and killed its own citizens in its various ‘wars’ on drugs, terrorism or religion?

     Has this government, through word and action, declared war on the moral, religious and free market capitalist principles that have provided the foundation upon which our liberty and prosperity is based?

    Has this present administration sought to paint those who oppose their totalitarian Marxist agenda as terrorists in order to take more aggressive action against them?

     Has the progressive/Marxist/totalitarian agenda ever been implemented anywhere in the world were it did not result in economic destruction and the imprisonment or death of those who love liberty?

     (For a more complete list of government offenses go to http://patricksamuels.com/page9.html for a contemporary Declaration of Independence.)

     Did you answer yes to most or all of the questions, excepting the last? If it were the government of another country that sought to silence opposition, steal the property of its citizens, rig elections through fraud, propaganda and intimidation, bring all economic activity under the umbrella of its power, used unwarranted deadly force against its own people and in general disregarded the lives and liberty of its citizens, we would rightly be outraged. If the oppression continued in scope and depth, we may even try to help the poor peasants resist such a regime. The regime is ours and no one is going to help us.

     The Federal Government is not going to change. It is not going to get smaller. It is not going to give back one ounce of the power it has appropriated over the years. If congress changes hands in 2010 do you really believe that even one program is going to be eliminated, that any liberty will be returned to the states and the people? If a different president is elected in 2012, is there any hope for more than a slight deceleration in our headlong rush into economic disaster and totalitarian repression? If you think so, is there any past evidence you can present that would support your assertion? The Federal Government is not going to return our freedom or respect our rights out of the goodness of its cold, dead heart. If we want our liberty returned, we need to get out there and take it. We need more than the motion of waving our gloved hands in front of a deadly opponent. It is time to take the gloves off.

    What do I have in mind? Perhaps you are motivated by this presentation yet worried about what I may propose once you’ve reached this point. Be assured, I am not advocating violent resistance, we are not there yet. As an individual citizen asserting your sovereignty and God given rights, you have little chance of making a significant impact, although you certainly occupy the moral high ground. As a group within a legal entity, however, power is multiplied exponentially. The legal entity I propose is a state within the union. If the sons and daughters of liberty across this once great nation were to concentrate their time and treasure on one state with the goal of bringing that state under the political control of those who love and understand liberty and the tenth amendment to the Constitution and they were backed by an educated public who also understood the value of freedom and had experienced its benefits, the issue of ultimate sovereignty could be forced. If that state were to refuse federal dollars and control over any area not explicitly stated in the Constitution and implemented a libertarian (with a small “l”) agenda within its borders, I believe it would start a movement among other states who would follow a similar pattern of reasserting their tenth amendment rights. Courage is infectious. Such a state would also provide a stable life raft when the seas of fiscal and regulatory insanity become dangerously chaotic in the near future. In response, the Federal Government will either attempt to use the “persuasion of power” or it will have no choice but to return to the states and the people the sovereignty that rightly belongs to them. 

     Easy? Of course not. Possible? Yes. But it takes more than talk and motion, it takes action and commitment. It also needs to happen sooner rather than later, before the remainder of our liberty and the resources by which we would resist are stolen by this government. Once that happens, once the United States becomes Europe at best, where will we go to escape the reach of the progressive totalitarians? If the US throws its weight behind all the ridiculous United Nations treaties and taxes, what nation will stand up under he pressure? There is no longer a “New World” in which to start over. Sure, we could go underground or live in the jungles or high in the mountains of some third world country but is that the life you want for your children? Are we really going to allow ourselves to be pushed to the margins of the world? Have we allowed the American spirit to degenerate so far as to convince ourselves to accept servitude or exile as acceptable alternatives in the face of tyranny? Is that who we have become? Is that who you are? If not, what are you really willing to do, how far are you willing to go? If a state were to adopt such an agenda, many of us would be more than willing to pack up and move there. It is easy to travel a road that has already been paved. In 1776 there was no road, there was no trail, there was hardly a deer path that led to liberty. We rightly admire the founders of our nation for their courage, their commitment, their ability to accomplish the unthinkable against overwhelming odds, to pledge their “lives, fortunes and sacred honor” to ensure liberty for themselves and their posterity.   These men did more than talk and write, they took concrete action against the tyranny of the great power that was England. They believed that the rewards of liberty for themselves and their children far outweighed the risks, as great as they may have been. “Give me liberty or give me death” was not just a slogan invented by Patrick Henry but the reality of the situation for the original patriots. For us, the trail has already been blazed by these men with their blood and toil and has been followed by millions around the world. But it has become horribly overgrown. It requires only a dedicated group of patriots to open the path once again for the many who would follow. 

     I ask you, how will history remember this generation? How will your family remember you? Will we be the ones who rose up against a growing tyranny and removed the chains of oppression from ourselves and our children? Will we be the ones who were no longer satisfied with grasping the scraps of liberty allowed by a totalitarian government but pushed back against oppression and advanced the cause of freedom? Will our children be living in a situation of servitude for which they resent us or will we be celebrated among our posterity for removing their shackles? What kind of man or woman are you? Will we join together to act, believing the price we pay is worth it to reestablish freedom for ourselves and our children or will we simply continue to protest until the only voices of opposition heard emanate from the prisons or the grave.

     “We must indeed all hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.” Benjamin Franklin

     If such an endeavor on behalf of freedom for this generation and those that succeed us appeals to you, please e-mail me at; psamuels76@yahoo.com with the tag line “liberty”.

     “The principles on which we are engaged, of which the charter of our independence is the record, were sanctioned by the laws of our being, and we but obeyed them in pursuing undeviatingly the course they called for. It issued finally in that inestimable state of freedom which alone can ensure to man the enjoyment of his equal rights.” Thomas Jefferson

     For those of you for whom such an appeal is foolish or laughable, for whom the principles of liberty sanctioned in our very being have been so dulled by servitude and distraction as to spurn all appeals to reignite them within you, I leave you with this quote from Samuel Adams;

     “If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”

www.patricksamuels.com

      The fight over some of the centerpiece issues of President Obama’s agenda has revolved, to a large part, around polls. The proponents of say, health care reform, cite polls that say a majority of Americans support their position. The opponents cite falling polls as an indication that their position has gained traction. Right now, polls show that support for the president and his agenda has fallen and his opponents rejoice. I would like to remind those opponents that roughly half of the American people are still supportive of our first Marxist president. That is not something to be happy about.

     The real problem lies in the fact that the fight has become one of popularity and ultimately a fight like that is not one the sons and daughters of liberty are likely to win. Here is why. Popularity resides primarily in the realm of emotion. It can therefore be influenced by propaganda and outright bribery. If the people in power have the media at their disposal to dispense their propaganda and the treasury with which to bribe, they will eventually prevail. We are already very close to that critical mass whereby the majority of Americans do not pay income tax. Will not those who do not have a stake in the system continue to vote for what they see as “free stuff”? Do the propagandists not twist the polls themselves to convince people that their neighbors are supporting more intrusive government? If the criteria for what is right or wrong in government is polls, popularity and even elections, which it has become, our representative republic based on law and individual rights has been replaced by mob rule. The founders had a great fear of this happening and we can see today why those fears were justified.

     “There is no maxim in my opinion which is more liable to be misapplied, and which therefore needs elucidation than the current one that the interest of the majority is the political standard of right and wrong. In fact it is only reestablishing under another name and more specious form, force as the measure of right.” James Madison

     Perhaps you have noticed that those in power often tout the virtues of our “democracy” when using the polls to support their point. A democracy is a system of government in which each individual has one vote and the law of the land is whatever the majority want. This is not the principle upon which our government is based not what the founders intended. In fact, they had a rather dim view of democracy,

     “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” Benjamin Franklin

     “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” James Madison

     Why has this been the case? Because once the people accept the idea that anything that is good for the majority is good for all they are removed from the anchor of eternal principles and become subject to manipulation and propaganda. Those in power are always ready to jump on an opportunity. As Rahm Emmanuel said, “never let a good crisis go to waste.” Franklin Roosevelt used the crisis of the recession to increase federal power exponentially. Even though it was unprecedented and unconstitutional, the majority of Americans believed that in their present circumstances, it was acceptable to disregard the constitution and the principle of limited government. Once that precedent had been set, government has exploited that attitude. What the Democratic party began doing under FDR and has continued to do to the present day is divide Americans into groups, promising (bribing) each group with some part of the federal pie and bringing in enough groups to develop a majority. That strategy has resulted in the worst of both worlds. We end up with the tyranny of the minority within the majority. Each special interest group gets what it wants regardless of its cost to the treasury and liberty of others. As we see today, such an approach is unsustainable. It bankrupts us economically and morally. Economically, the plethora of special interest programs has created an unsustainable Federal debt and its taxes crush the very spirit of industriousness that made any of it possible.   Morally, because it makes beggars and dependents out of too many Americans and creates resentment among the reminder. It is a recipe for disaster and one that may come upon us sooner rather than later.

     “He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself”  Thomas Paine

     Both the founders quoted stated that the end of democracies was violent. This is perhaps the most insidious feature of all. Once we have removed the foundation of immutable law and God-given rights and replaced it with the idea that the majority decides what rights the citizens should have, it is easy to remove the rights of some in the minority. A congressman recently made the statement that the government was granting the “right” to heath care. Government does not have the power to grant rights nor does it have the power to take them away. If, however, the majority believe that it does, and our government education system is designed to reinforce that fallacy, the abridgement of individual rights begins. It has already. Our rights to our property and the fruits of our labor have been gone for decades. Our right to self defense is constantly under attack. Our right to free speech, recent supreme court ruling excepted, is under assault. Our right to freedom of religious expression has been pared down over the years. Others could also be mentioned but the point has been made.

     “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?” Thomas Jefferson

     The end of all this is the fact that once the government has the power to ignore the rights of some, it has the power to ignore the rights of all. Adolf Hitler took the reigns of power legally in Germany through elections, elections marred by fraud and intimidation.   He quickly began ignoring the rights of the “undesirables” . It did not take long until he used a fabricated crisis to accelerate his consolidation of power and remove rights for all. Yet the majority of Germans went along with his plan, there was little opposition, none of it very organized. And it all happened very quickly, in the space of five years.

     “What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals” Thomas Jefferson

     Could it happen here? Oh yeah. We are ripe for such a “legal” takeover. President Obama is already setting up his “shadow government” of czars and has shown his contempt for the constitution, and even the will of the people. The congress of the representatives of the people has become more and more irrelevant as the power of the bureaucracy has asserted itself. The majority of Americans do not understand the value of their rights and are willing to trade them for a crust of bread. The trend of all governments is the consolidation of power and the more of that power that has been consolidated, the more dear a price that must be paid for the reestablishment of liberty.

    “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Benjamin Franklin

      The sons and daughters of liberty must learn to change the rules of the game. On the field of propaganda and bribery, the deck is staked against us and the rules are based on false assumptions. We must have the courage to change the rules and the arguement but we must be consistent. We cannot look at the present system and just convince our neighbors to “stop here”, and accept our current degree of servitude. If that is the case, the power remains in the hands of the government and it will flex its muscles once again in the near future. What we must do is convince our neighbors that the worth of their liberty far exceeds the largess they may receive from the government persecuting their fellows.   That the freedom to pursue their dream unhindered by the constricting rules and regulations of a government safety net is worth the risk and is what made this country great. That the value of the individual exercising the rights they have been endowed with by their Creator far surpasses the need of the collective to restrict those rights. That is a fight that can be won because deep in the nature of every human being is the understanding that their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness belong to them and no other person or government, and the restriction of those rights is wrong. In America that understanding is much closer to the surface than in many other places and it is waiting to be revealed once more. 

“Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. That is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because (it is) necessary for his own sustenance.” Thomas Jefferson    

www.patricksamuels.com

 

Amerika-Love It or Leave It

      The rapid pace of change in the United States and our unprecedented access to information and opinion about the changes taking place has prompted many people to ask, “What has happened to the America I knew?” As we enter the second decade of the twenty-first century, there are few left who remember the America that existed before the wholesale embrace of socialism initiated by Franklin Roosevelt. There are some who know who Norman Rockwell was and still dream of that America. More people are beginning to understand the principles upon which this great country was founded and comprehend the distance we have strayed. Most, however, with an attention span abbreviated by the media, a lack of understanding of history and the ability to think deeply reinforced by a woefully inadequate government education system and the complacency engendered by the inherited wealth of our nation, continue to walk around in a stupor, unaware of the destructive path upon which we have embarked. The chains have been added so slowly and with such slick advertising that few are aware of how heavy they have become.

“Lethargy is the forerunner of death to the public liberty”

Thomas Jefferson

     Things have changed, however. Our bondage no longer takes place in secret and the speed and arrogant compulsion by which our government is trying to secure the last of our chains has made many finally sit up and take notice. The response has been one of protests, protests that are becoming more organized and widespread.   The government leaders trying to lock these last chains in place are doing their best to ignore and discredit the dissidents and convince the remainder that the chains are really for their own good. Who will win? Over the short term, the protesters might. They may win some elections or change a wavering politician’s mind. The long term, however, is in the hands of the government and it is not about to relinquish one scrap of its power. At the end of the Reagan Revolution, government was bigger. Since the Contract With America, it has grown exponentially. What some have finally realized is that both parties want the power that comes with bigger and more intrusive government. One party may blatantly admit it, as Democrat Barny Frank did recently. However, the proof is in their actions, not their words, and the actions of Washington, no mater which party has been in charge, demonstrate their desire to reduce us to servitude.

“As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties or his possessions.”

James Madison

     What if we don’t want to live as slaves? What if we don’t want the government telling us what we can eat, how cold or hot our home is, what car we can drive, where to put our retirement money, how to meet our health needs, how to educate our children....the list could go on. Once upon a time when the “Hate America Crowd” was on the outside looking in, a red-blooded American could say, “America, love it or leave it!” Now that same “hate America crowd” has molded our government and the country into their own Marxist image and they say to us “Amerika, love it or leave it!” What are we to do? We are conflicted because we know and believe in ideals and values we know are, or have been, American ideals and we believe that our government was instituted to reflect those ideals. In our form of government we think that the representatives we send will protect and enhance our values and ensure the continuity of all that has made this country great. In our minds, the government, the land and the ideals are inseparable. It is a fallacy that has led us to accept our descent into servitude with little protest and will prohibit us from mentally considering avenues of self-preservation not sanctioned by the government.   We erroneously believe that we can work within our system to bring about major changes and roll back the socialism we have embraced. The system is not ours anymore, it has not been for some time. The system is run by those in power for the perpetuation of that power. Elections are controlled by the two parties and any candidate that wants to rise to the national, and to a large degree, the state, level, have to play the game. Sure, there are a few exceptions, there are a few “Mr. Smiths” in politics but most of them play the game and perpetuate their power. The way money is raised, the way voting districts are drawn, the way the parties use PACs and the ability of incumbents to use media at taxpayer expense all ensure the historical ninety-plus percent reelection rate of even the most dimwitted and outrageous politicians. 

“The trade of governing has always been monopolized by the most ignorant and the most rascally individuals of mankind.”

 

“Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness by positively uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is patron, the last a punisher.”

Thomas Paine

     Even if we could elect a few good men and women, most of government is out of their hands anyway. Once upon a time we had a government that had three coequal branches that were all subject to “We the People”. For a time those branches contested for supremacy. Early on it was the executive under President Jackson which could ignore the supreme court and Lincoln’s tyrannical activities during the civil war. In the twentieth century the courts reasserted themselves and for years citizens bemoaned “legislation from the bench”. Now, the power resides in the vast bureaucracy created by the congress and loosely directed from the executive branch. For example, because the congress is not moving quickly enough to pass cap and trade legislation, the Environmental Protection Agency has stated it will implement a similar program with no input form the people’s representatives necessary. If the courts do not believe so called “Net Neutrality” i.e. government control of the Internet, is constitutional, the Federal Communication Commission will declare it a public utility and regulate it anyway. The myriad of government agencies, all of which appear to have eternal life as Reagan said, pump out tens of thousands of pages of rules and regulations we are expected to know and obey on pain of fine or imprisonment. Again, no input from the people’s representatives necessary. We have gone from a government with three equal branches under the direction and authority of “we the people” to a government run from the top down with the executive bureaucracy on top and “we the people” at the bottom. Government no longer exists to serve us-we exist to provide our treasure and toil to the government. It is a situation that has followed a logical and historical progression that has never been reversed. Power, once attained, is never relinquished voluntarily by the government that finds itself with a virtually unlimited ability to impose and control. Historically, there are only three ways such tyranny has come to an end. First, such governments can be destroyed from he outside. Iraq is a recent example. Second, they will collapse under their own weight as the Soviet Union did and we are coming very close to. Or the people will rise up in revolution. This can be violent or non-violent. In India it was primarily non-violent. Our revolution was violent. Both were rebellions against Great Britain and the only difference were the choices Great Britain, not the revolutionaries, made. If the despotic government in power chooses to negotiate, the revolution can proceed along non-violent lines. If, however, the tyrannical power chooses to hold onto its power no matter what and not allow its people even to leave, the people have only two choices. They will submit to being slaves or they will rise up and fight for their freedom using whatever means they have at their disposal.

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force. Like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearfulsome master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action”

 George Washington 

      Before any revolution will take hold among the people,however, there needs to be a separation in the minds of the people between the idea of “America” and our current government. America is not our government, America is an idea, it is a set of values and ideals. Most people that live in the United States rarely, if ever, think about what “America” is and what makes it unique among all the nations of the earth. What does it mean to pursue the “American Dream” and how do we define Liberty and Freedom?   America was founded on the idea that a national government should interfere in the lives of its citizens at little as possible. “That government governs best that governs least.” Thomas Jefferson. The citizens of America should be free to believe, act, say and become anything they want to as long as those actions do not interfere with the God-given rights of others.   Rights; not wishes, desires or sensibilities. Those rights, given to us by God, include the right to life, liberty and the right to pursue that which makes us happy. We have the right to our property and the right to any activity that increases our property that does not infringe on the rights of others to pursue or exercise the same. America embraces the ideals of capitalism and the free market system in which any person can engage in any occupation they choose and they have the right to dispose of the fruits of their labor any way they wish. Americans believe in compassion, we are the most generous people on earth. American civil society is based on Judeo-Christian Biblical principles. The American ideal is one of blind justice in which no man is treated with favoritism. The American vision is one in which there are no distinctions among men based on class, race or religion and a man is free to become anything he desires based on his talent, passion and hard work alone. Americans are entrepreneurial, inventive and have a “can do” spirit and the mentality and wealth those values produced led to most of the inventions that make modern society what it is. Freedom, compassion, justice, liberty, capitalism, inventiveness, virtue and basic morality. These are the historical American ideals, these were the ideals that led to the American Revolution, it was these ideals and values the founders designed our government to protect and enhance. Only to the extent to which our government embraces these values can it be called and “American” government.

“Of liberty I would say, in the whole plentitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law,’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.”

Thomas Jefferson 

      Consider now the government we have in Washington, and even those at the state and local level. It is a government that takes our property and the more successful we are, the more it takes. It takes this property to feed itself and its army of bureaucrats first and distributes the reminder to other citizens for their support. The creation of this dependent class, a class that has grown to encompass nearly half of the citizenry, has destroyed the values of inventiveness, capitalism, and entrepreneurial spirit that difficult economic situations stimulate. It eliminates their liberty and freedom and discourages their morality and virtue. Our government believes that our rights are derived from its good graces, not from God, on whom it has made war for a century. Our government has, through law, regulation and outright confiscation, sought to destroy capitalism and the free market system, which it has proclaimed a “failure”. It has created protected classes of people within the citizenry that are given special “rights” and privileges. It has forced our compassion through confiscatory taxation. Justice has become more equal for the wealthy, powerful and politically correct than for the rest of us. Governments at all levels have passed laws regulating even the minute of our behavior. Can a government that acts this way be called an “American” government? Is it not time to revisit the injunction contained in the Declaration of Independence regarding our rights and duty concerning governments that fail to secure our rights? Is such talk and action “un-American”? 

“I consider the people who constitute a society or nation as the source of all authority in that nation; as free to transact their common concerns by any agents they think proper; to change these agents individually. or the organization of them in form or function whenever they please; that all acts done by these agents under the authority of the nation are the acts of the nation, are obligatory on them...and can in no wise be annulled or affected by any change in the form of government or the persons administering it.”

Thomas Jefferson  

     If we accept our “right” and “duty” to “alter or abolish” any government that “evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism” what are we to do? One option many have taken is to make their “government footprint” as small as possible. They earn little so they don’t pay to support the tyrannical system or they legally or illegally withhold their income and property. They do their best to exercise their God-given freedom and rights when they can get away with it. They are like Winston in Orwell’s 1984 sitting in a corner writing in his journal where the camera of Big Brother can’t see him. They do their best to fall between the cracks of our totalitarian state; to one degree or another, go underground. Is that any way to live? Perhaps for the short term, it is an option but is a life between the cracks and hoping not to get caught any life at all? It is still a life dictated by the state. By definition, the cracks are there because the state has allowed them or neglected them. That is not freedom.

“Fear is the foundation of most governments”

John Adams

     In the past, there have been revolutionaries who have succumbed to terrorism and indiscriminate violence. Such actions are not consistent with the American values previously enumerated, particularly our morality and virtue and a society and nation founded on such violence is no place to live. There are enough nations in the world that have followed this path. However, we have been conditioned to believe that the use of violence in defense of freedom is never justified. We have made heroes and gods out of Gandhi and Dr. King to the point where non-violent protest is the only acceptable form of protest. Certainly, violence should be a last resort. As our founders said in the Declaration of Independence, men are disposed to suffer and will suffer a long time. But a point will come when the abuse becomes unbearable. They hoped to avoid war and violence but ultimately government is force and it can choose to exercise that force when it believes it is in its best interest; and self preservation is always in a government’s best interest. Negotiations and patience will only go so far. We are under no obligation to negotiate away our God given rights nor must we sit back and wait while tyrants whittle away at them over time. The opposite is true. It is our duty not only as patriots but as human beings to resist any infringement on our rights whether the tyrants be elected or self appointed.

“When the principle that force is right becomes the principle of the nation itself, they would not permit an honest minister, were accident to bring one to power, to relax their system of lawless piracy.”

 

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protest themselves against tyranny in government.”

Thomas Jefferson

     We have the right and obligation of resistance to tyranny and it is time we started to exercise that right. Violence, of course, should be the last option on our list but it needs to remain an option.   There are other options available right now. There is massive tax protest, defunding the voracious monster that is our government. There is always the remote possibility of actually electing people that will have the courage and integrity to dismantle the beast. There is the refusal to obey unconstitutional and immoral laws dictated by the government like the invasive actions of the census or cooperating with unlawful investigations of our fellows who have been labeled “terrorists” by this administration. Such things require the majority of individuals and businesses to become involved. I sincerely hope that we have time to organize such activities. However, we need to consider what happens when the government takes action against dissident activity. What happens when the EPA shows up at your home with a court order to vacate your property because it has been declared a wetland? Do you leave? How far does your resistance go? What about when the local utility appears on your doorstep to install your government approved thermostat that will remotely regulate your energy use? What if child protective services decides that our religious beliefs or our desire to homeschool our children makes us unfit to raise our them and they want to put them in a more politically correct environment? What do we do when some bureaucrat decides our life is not worth spending health care resources on and we should just take the pain pill and die? At what point do we defend our family, our property and our lives against a totalitarian government? When do you stand proudly in your doorway as a free man against the agents of tyranny with your gun and say “No more!” The time is soon coming when we will be confronted with these situations and we had better be prepared beforehand to make our choice to fight for liberty or meekly allow the government to fasten the remaining chains of our servitude.

The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves in all cases to which they think themselves competent (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative,and deciding by a jury of themselves in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved), or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press.”

Thomas Jefferson     

     The time is nearly upon us when our hand will be forced one way or another. Power continues to coalesce in Washington and they are endeavoring to find new and creative ways to impose their will on us. They are also following a path to economic disaster that will bring about an opportunity for unimaginable oppression or the rebirth of freedom. Dark times are coming and the struggle between the forces of tyranny and liberty will come to a head. When everything we know know has been torn down what will be rebuilt? Will we allow the current power brokers to create their Marxist utopia and plunge us into total darkness or will we resist the last desperate efforts of a despotic government and witness the renaissance of the American ideal? Will the sons and daughters of liberty come together and assert their rights loudly and forcefully once again or will we meekly descend into socialist oblivion with only a few isolated voices of protest? It is a choice each individual must make. In ten years will we be living in a despotic nation called “Amerika” or will we be rising from the ashes like the phoenix, lady liberty at the fore to reestablish “America” as the light of freedom to the world it once was. 

“The spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may commence as persecutor, and better men be his victims. It can never be too often repeated that the time for fixing every essential right on a legal basis is while our rulers are honest and ourselves united. From the conclusion of their war for independence, a nation begins going downhill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of that war will remain on them long, will be made heavier and heavier, till their rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion.”

Thomas Jefferson

www.patricksamuels.com

     Today, many in America are breathing a collective sigh of relief over the Republican victory in Massachusetts.   To many, it was like pulling the emergency brakes on our collective national train before it headed off into the abyss of totalitarian socialism. Some may believe that this victory is a foretaste of what is coming in November when the Republicans will take back the country and pull us away from the edge of the cliff. At the very least, it will put the kabash on much of President Obama’s agenda, specifically the so-called Health Care Reform. I don’t think we should pop the cork on the champagne just yet.

     Has it occurred to anyone that the same game being played by the two parties for decades has been played with this election? We know that the people who have the power will do anything to keep it and see it grow. Beginning with TARP and fueled by the Stimulus Bill and fanned by opposition to Health Care Reform and Cap and Trade, opposition to the Marxist Obama/Pelosi/Reid agenda has angered and mobilized the “average” American like never before. They have taken to the streets and marched on Washington. Some are openly calling for a second American Revolution. This makes the people in power very nervous. The engine that is our government is fed by our toil and treasure and is headed toward socialism. The boiler is fed a steady diet of Marxism but President Obama has stoked those fires far beyond the capacity of the people to take it. The boiler was about to explode. The Marxists didn’t want to backtrack and admit they were wrong because their believe they are smarter than the rest of us. If they admitted they were wrong on Health Care, people may begin to wonder if they are wrong on other agenda items. In the middle of this overheated environment, Scott Brown comes out of nowhere to win a seat that had been held by Ted Kennedy for forty years in a state where Republicans are as rare as a tax cut in a Democratic budget. The relief valve has been engaged and the Democrats can save face. They have someone to blame-Republican obstructionists-and the opposition thinks they have been “saved” for the time being.

      Isn’t this a little too convenient? For months, this seat was a lock for the Democrats, Brown didn’t have a chance. Then, with two weeks to go, an easy double digit lead evaporated. Brown’s opponent stuck her foot in her mouth so often she nearly choked on her high heels. The Democrats were throwing her under the bus for days before the election.   Everyone is calling Brown’s victory a stunning reversal for Obama’s policies. Perhaps even the first battle won in the war to take back our country and restore traditional American values to government. Do we really think that a Republican from a New England state is going to reverse our slide into socialism? Do we think that returning the Republicans to the driver’s seat is going to change anything? Will they not, at best, hold the train in place until the Marxists can take another shot at out total subjugation?

     Consider the fact that the Reagan Revolution did not make government any smaller. The Republican Revolution in 1994 led to larger and more intrusive government under George Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” and skyrocketing spending. Can’t we see it is all a game? Every year the government in Washington takes more of our wealth and liberty no matter which party is controlling the train. The arrogance and speed of the Obama administration fueled the fires for liberty like never before. It woke people up from the stupor into which a “benevolent” government had put them. Now we are again in danger of being lulled to sleep by the slow, easy motion of the train, once again becoming oblivious to our collective totalitarian destination. We cannot allow this to happen. The longer we wait to effect the resolution between liberty and tyranny, the more difficult and costly the struggle will become. If we allow our patriotic passions to subside in the mistaken belief that we have averted disaster, the next wave of totalitarian effort may be too great to resist.

      “If once the people become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and the Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions.” Thomas Jefferson

       The wolves have set about devouring our liberty, and have for a long time. They are prepared to gulp down the last remaining scraps and have paused for only a moment. As for me and my family, we are not satisfied with the few morsels of freedom still conceded by this government. Are you? If not, will you retain your passion? Are you willing to do whatever it takes to drive the wolves away and once again restore America as the land of the free and the home of the brave?   

www.patricksamuels.com

 

     When I first heard about the mass shooting at Fort Hood yesterday, the first thought that came to mind was “I bet it was a Muslim.” And an hour later ,they released his name. It wasn’t John Smith, Paul Kaslowski or even Jose Rodriguez. It was Nidal Malik Hasan. Sure, we have some home grown terrorists, Bill Ayres comes to mind, and we have serial killers. In any society there have been evil individuals. Muslims are different. And you know what, I am sick and tired of hearing the disclaimer “but the vast majority of the Muslims are peace loving...” No. Maybe the vast majority have not committed any crimes...yet. But few Germans were actually involved in murdering Jews but most rejoiced in German ascendency and either turned a blind eye or quietly assented to the killing. There may be proportionally few Muslims who pick up a gun or fly a plane into a building or cut the heads off of journalists but the vast majority of the Muslims in the world smile quietly in approval.

     How can I make such a statement? Because I know my history. Islam is not a religion of peace, never has been, never will be. Unlike the other major religions of the world that seek to persuade people through words and example, Islam was born of the idea that persuasion on pain of death was not only acceptable but expected as they spread across the globe and conquered the world. Yes, I am aware of the crusades and the Inquisition. But Christianity was conceived of in the words and example of Jesus who was not violent so while there have been men who have used religion for political purposes and made it violent, given time it reverted back to its origins. Islam is different. Mohammed didn’t have Jesus’ patience. When people were not persuaded by whatever eloquence he may have possessed, he got a group of followers together and declared war. His followers swept across Africa and Asia, killing all those who would not convert. Their goal has been and always will be world domination under the Caliphate and Sharia law. Unlike Christianity, whose goal is also to persuade the world of the correctness of their understanding of God, Islam believes holy war is the way to go because that is how it began. It is not going to change because there is no peace loving distant past or textural interpretation of the Koran to support moderation. Moderation is only a result of minority status in a particular country. It is a situation that is to be remedied as soon as possible.

     How does this apply to this situation and the United State’s interaction with Muslims? As I stated in “Memoirs of a Former American”, we have, up to this point, refused to take the war with Islam seriously. Not a war with Islamic Fascists or Muslim Terrorists but with Islam as a whole. They are at war with us, there is no question. They have been attacking the “West” for centuries and petro dollars have made them powerful in the last fifty years. We are “the Great Satan” and need to be destroyed. They are serious and we are asleep. They not only use terrorism but our own courts and our foolish adherence to political correctness against us. We have a tradition in this country, a noble tradition, of not assuming guilt. In this case, it needs to be reversed. Every Muslim should be looked on with suspicion unless proven otherwise. The FBI should have plants and informants in every Mosque and any anti-American preaching should result in the expulsion of the guilty party. Immigration from Muslim countries should be halted immediately. There should be no Muslims in the military (would we have allowed Nazis during WWII or communists during the cold war?) and no Muslim clerics allowed in prisons where they have been recruiting and radicalizing the most violent members of our society for years. CAIR and other Muslim organizations should be investigated and prosecuted for their support of terrorism. 

     Harsh measures for sure but do you think Americans are welcome in Muslim countries? Do they not persecute their Christian populations with much harsher measures? How many massacres, how many honor killings, how many terrorist acts do we have to endure? Do they not laugh at our weakness? Are they not just waiting for their numbers to grow as they have in Europe so they can impose their will on us? If they want to practice the Muslim faith, stay in a country where is to the norm, there are plenty of them. If we refuse to take the threat of Islam seriously, fifty years from now we will be where Europe is now, with open conflict with Muslims as they push for Sharia law and display open contempt for their “:host country”.   What comes after that, we will have to watch and see but whatever it is, it won’t be pretty. They have declared war on us. Are we going to join the battle or roll over and give in?

www.patricksamuels.com

 

A Violation of Contract

    On September 28, 1787 fifty-five delegates from the states, after several months of deliberation, presented a wholly new form of government to the states and the people for their consideration.   The purpose of this government was outlined in the preamble:

“We, the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

 

     This was the culmination of the principles of the Declaration of Independence.

“..to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

 

    “We the people” of the several states had agreed to form a government for a specific purpose. Any such government formed with the “consent of the governed” is now an entity in and of itself and it has a contract with the people. The people contract with this entity, relinquishing some part of their liberty and money, for the purposes of accomplishing ends they cannot achieve individually. Regardless of what President Lincoln said about the government being “of the people, by the people and for the people”, the government, once formed, is an entity in and of itself, just like a corporation, an “individual” separate from the actual people that make it up. However, in a democracy or representative republic, the rights of the people under the contract become obscured because we feel we are part of the government that it is “of the people” because we elect the people that run it. If those people become despotic and trample on our liberty or steal our money, we are more inclined to accept it because in some sense, we voted for it. This is not how we should think of it, however.

    Instead of a representative republic, let’s say that we had set up an absolute ruler for life. We eliminated any elected officials and set up a king to make our decisions and applied all the constitutional limits, including the bill of rights, to this king. What we would have done was make a contract with an individual rather than a corporation of elected officials. We would have given him specific powers and expected him to perform according to the terms of the contract. If he violated that contract, stealing money for purposes not in the contract, restricting liberties guaranteed under the bill of rights, acting with favoritism and refusing to protect the people, we would consider that king in violation of the contract and we would be well within our rights to remove him and replace him with either another individual or a new system that we believe would be more effective in performing our stated desires.

    Of course, we do not have a king, at least not yet. We have a group of elected representatives who are supposed to run the government in ways that fulfill the purposes of the contract. If we elect someone who seeks power not provided for in the contract or who supports policies that will be detrimental to the stated purposes of the contract, we can remove them through election or impeachment. It is like getting ready to eat an apple and finding a bruise on one side. You can cut out the bad part and the apple is still good. However, if the whole apple is rotten, there is no saving it. Our government is rotten to the core, we have a systemic problem in which the specific terms of the contract as well as its stated purpose are violated as the rule rather than the exception. The vast majority of the people in the Federal Government, both elected and appointed, who have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America, routinely ignore both its letter and spirit. That being the case, “we the people” are justified in responding to those violations. It is our right and duty, considering our posterity, to “alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government.” 

      Although the essays that follow will detail these violations, allow me a summary. The purpose of the contract was to “establish a more perfect Union.” A union of what? Sovereign states who had sent representatives to the convention to better insure their cooperation as a national confederation. These states have become, for all intents and purposes, simply political extensions of the Federal Government, which is the complete opposite of the original intent. While within the first century of our history, the states theoretically had the right to withdrawal if they found their sovereignty threatened, the Federal Government under President Lincoln decided they no longer had that right. States, like individuals, that are forcibly restrained lose their ultimate right of self determination and have liberty only at the behest of the ruler. God given rights have become state given rights.

     “Establish Justice.” Is there any justice in a country where those with the best paid lawyers or connections can get away with anything? Where those who are entrusted with the power of government operate above the law? Where rules and regulations are used to destroy those who threaten the power structure while those within that power structure ignore them with impunity? Where individuals and groups are afforded privileged status not through merit but heredity? The equal application of the law is the hallmark of a just society and is our only protection from the tyranny of man.

    “Insure domestic Tranquility.” The purpose of government is to create an environment where the people can prosper in peace. This requires sound economic policy. As Thomas Jefferson said, government “should not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.” The adoption of heavy taxes and policies that disincentive productivity are one thing. Placing upon us debts we have no hope of repaying and destroying our currency is another. There will be no domestic tranquility when the dollar collapses, the economy really goes in the toilet and people have trouble providing for their basic needs. These policies are criminal and put us in grave danger.

     “Provide for the common defense.” We have the greatest military the world has ever seen but we hamper it with politically correct rules and regulations that make it impotent, and have done so since the Vietnam War. If we are not willing to do what is necessary to destroy the enemy, we will lose any conflict. To make this worse, we now have an administration whose policy it is to coddle terrorists, cozy up to brutal dictators and allow our monetary policy and energy resources to be held hostage by countries who do not have our best interests at heart. Add to that a decades long dereliction of duty in the enforcement of our borders and we have a government that has put us at risk economically and physically. This is the most fundamental function of government, our common protection, and to expose the people of this country to harm through neglect or active policy is the height of irresponsibility.

     “Promote the general Welfare.” This does not mean to create a welfare state! This is to guarantee our right to the “pursuit of happiness.” We should be able to pursue our desires and dreams on a level playing field unencumbered by onerous taxes and regulation. The more government gets involved, the less level the playing field and the more of our wealth they confiscate. Socialist democracies have found very creative ways to wring more and more money out of their people and ours is no different. Politicians who believe they need to protect us from ourselves have passed the most restrictive and absurd regulations. Government is responsible for maintaining a fair and just system and we are responsible for our actions within it. Our government believes it is responsible for us, protecting us from our own failure and stupidity while punishing our success. This is not freedom.

     “Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” Will our children be free when they suffer the consequences of our crushing debt? Will we be free when the President, through his communist underlings, silences dissent in the media? Will we be free to live as we want, eat what we want, live where we want, when the government decides what is good for us and what areas are environmentally acceptable? Patrick Henry said that “Liberty ought to be the direct end of your government.” Our liberty, and that of our children, is the last thing on this government’s mind.

    When the people agree to form a government they need to be vigilant to ensure that the terms of the contract are met. We have not been. We have had times when we traded freedom for security. There have been times we have allowed government power to protect the greed of special interests. We have submitted to pressure to do things “for the children” that have done nothing but ensure their slavery.   When we start to use government as a means to ends not within the parameters of the contract, there is no stopping it. The person that uses it one day may find it used against him in the next. As each new interest adds another layer of complexity and power, government grows and grows until it no longer becomes responsive to “we the people” but only to itself and the perpetuation of its power. Once that happens, the contract becomes null and void and it is time to start over.   

Patrick Samuels

www.patricksamuels.com

 

Declaration of Independence

     When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the nations of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which lead them to separation.

     We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, Property, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter, abolish or withdrawal from it and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing and limiting its powers in such a form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness, and secure their Liberty. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience has shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right and Duty to throw off such a government and to provide new Guards for their future security.   Such has been the patient suffering of the citizens of the United States of America in the State of ________ ; and such is now the necessity which constrains us to withdraw from from our voluntary association with the other states and the Federal Government of the United States of America. The History of the Federal Government for more than a century has been one of continual and flagrant violation of the compact under which we agreed to live in unity as united states and through usurpations and injuries, it has reduced the liberty of individuals and the sovereignty of the states with the direct object of establishing an absolute tyranny. To prove this, let these Facts be submitted to a candid world.

 

The national government, through word, law, and regulation, has made war on the free market system, private property and individual liberty, that have historically been the foundation of this nation and responsible for its strength and prosperity.

 

The congress has voluntarily relinquished its responsibility for drafting or even reviewing the legislation it passes, outsourcing the legislative process to special interest groups that have agendas often at odds with the well being of the citizens and the nation as a whole.

 

The congress has routinely written laws in ways that are unclear, or obscure their true intent, leaving their interpretation open to a variety of abuses, removing the protection of the law and exposing us to the tyranny of men.

 

The national government has refused to assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good, and has substituted laws and regulations that are injurious to the welfare and prosperity of the people.

 

The national government has burdened us with debts and obligations far beyond our ability to repay.

 

The members of congress and the administration have refused to be held accountable for illegal and criminal actions, setting themselves above the laws they have imposed upon the people.

 

The national government has multiplied departments and offices with the complicity or negligent consent of congress and has allowed these offices to multiply statutes and regulations that have the force of law with no input from the representatives of the people and no opportunity for redress. These new offices have done little more than send swarms of new officials to harass the people and eat their substance.

 

The national government has refused to secure the borders of the United States from those who desire to do injury to its citizens and institutions.

 

The national government is seeking to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws and traditions.   Through treaties and obligations to the United Nations, it has sought to undermine the sovereignty of the citizens of this state and nation, and in so doing place us under an authority wholly unaccountable to us.

 

The national government has sought to bring suit against those whose duty is to protect us from foreign invasion and attack, trying them for acts not criminal under previous administrations nor according to the dictates of common sense. 

 

The national government has used and misused the military forces of the United States, imposing rules and regulations upon them detrimental to their stated mission and purpose. Such actions unnecessarily jeopardize the lives of those who serve in the armed forces and emboldens the enemies that desire to do us harm.

 

The executive branch has embarked upon a course of foreign policy that serves only to anger our staunchest allies and strengthen our enemies.   It has also long pursued a course of action that has placed the acquisition of our most crucial resources dependent upon the whims of our enemies while unnecessarily restricting the development of those same resources domestically.

 

The national government has infringed on our right to adequately protect ourselves as we see fit as guaranteed under the Constitution.

 

The national government has forbidden the governors and legislators of the many states discretion in their affairs and has imposed burdensome regulations upon them while refusing to provide the means for their implementation.

 

The national government has by law codified discrimination, setting one class of citizens over another, when the other has been responsible for no wrong or injury to the priviledged class.

 

The national government, through word and statute, has shown contempt for the religious tradition largely responsible for the foundations of this nation and its system of law and justice, and embraced by the vast majority of its citizens, while tolerating and supporting religious traditions that lead to the degradation of society or seek to inflict physical harm upon the people and their institutions.

 

The national government, through regulation and statute, has made continual efforts to dilute the cohesive nature of our common language and culture.

 

The national government through legislation, treaty and judicial fiat, has continually eroded the privileges and responsibilities inherent within the family, seeking to substitute itself as the primary educator and caregiver of succeeding generations.

 

The national government has used the courts to impose upon its citizens policy they would never have agreed to through their elected representatives. Those same courts have nullified referenda legitimately passed by the people of the states in their effort to reestablish some degree of control over their various destinies.

 

The national government had abrogated its responsibility for monetary policy, entrusting it to unelected officers, and has cooperated with their institution, adopting policies that will lead to the destruction of the national currency.

 

The national government has imposed a system of taxation that in in inherently unjust, placing heavy burdens on some while exempting others. Coupled with this system is a structure of subsidy in which wealth is taken from one citizen and given to another. Such a system destroys the motivation for productive enterprise within the one who is forced to give and the recipient.

 

The national government has imposed a code of taxation of such complexity it perplexes even those whose are tasked with its enforcement, and provides an easy pretext for the government to find wrongdoing among its citizens.

 

The national government has abused its taxing authority, requiring payment not only for privildged endeavors but for the exercise of our fundamental rights, reducing us to mere servitude.

 

The national government has stated its intention to develop a domestic security force with powers equal to the military and accountable only to itself. The purpose and targets of this force have not been made clear.

 

The national government has intimidated and coerced private businesses and financial institutions into accepting regulation and domination by the national government.

 

The national parties, in order to maintain their power, have used the law, intimidation and outright fraud to ensure their continual appointment, making a mockery of the electoral process.

 

The executive branch, without the required consent of the legislature, has taken upon itself the power to make war and peace, suspend at times the right of habeas corpus, utilize the treasury and impose regulations and orders with the force and penalty of law.

 

The national government has detained and murdered its citizens without due process or just compensation for the exercise of their rights under the compact of the Constitution or as a consequence of their ancestry.

 

The national government has appropriated for itself the power to confiscate the property of its citizens for any use whatsoever, without just compensation.

 

The national government has made repeated attempts to intimidate those who oppose its growing power through the exercise of their rights under the Constitution. It has labeled them traitors and has sought to use the power of the government and its agencies to silence them.

 

     In every stage of these oppressions we have sought to petition our government in the most humble and orderly terms. Our petitions have been answered only by ridicule and repeated injury. A government whose character is thus marked by every act a tyranny, is unfit to govern a free people.

      Therefore, in the interests of preserving the ideals and principles that made America the most free and prosperous nation in the world before they are completely obliterated by the totalitarian policies adopted by the National Government of the United States of America, And in order to insulate ourselves and our posterity from the disastrous results of the economic and moral policies long adopted by said government, we, the representatives of the people of the Sovereign State of___________ and by their authority, do hereby relinquish all ties to the United States of America, Absolve ourselves of all allegiance to the same and dissolve all political connections, responsibilities and privileges of that union, and take our place among the free and sovereign nations of the world with all the rights and responsibilities of an independent state.   We do so appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions and relying on the Protection and Wisdom of Divine Providence. We the Undersigned, do hereby pledge to one another our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor in support of this Declaration.

 

Patrick Samuels

author of “Memoirs of a Former American”

www.patricksamuels.com  

Does any state have the guts for this?

Even if the reader does not agree with the idea of secession, it is my hope that this compilation of abuses by out government will motivate the citizens of this great country to stand up and resist this rapidly evolving tyranny.

 

Is it All President Obama’s Fault?

A Look at the Constitutional System Through the Debate over Ratification

      The unrest we are seeing across this county is now on a scale not seen since the war protests of the sixties. Yet this is very different.  Today's protesters cross the socioeconomic spectrum, they are from both political parties and no political party. What unites them is not age or drugs or religion. What has brought all these Americans together is a mixture of anger and fear. The fear is for the future, their own and their children’s. They fear the results of too much spending and borrowing. They fear an administration that puts those who disagree with them on watch lists and uses mob-like tactics of intimidation to get its way.   They are angry with a congress that rushes legislation through without reading it. They are angry with a government that ignores their concerns, labels them with sexual innuendoes and is indignant when anyone dares question their wisdom or methods. They are angry with a government that demonizes business for jets and junkets yet enjoys all those perks and more on our dime.   This list could go on and on.

     Most of these people are not mindless political operatives like the rent-a-mobs bused in by leftist groups. These people know the issues, they understand basic American government, they know the Constitution and have a reasonably clear understanding that the government we have in Washington is not what was intended in 1776. Most understand that this government has been overstepping it’s bounds for a long time and this energetic administration’s desire to expand it so much farther and at such a pace has finally coalesced opposition to the statist agenda. How far the opposition is willing to go will determine its success. If it is merely preoccupied with stopping the current agenda of health care, cap and trade and out of control spending, its effectiveness will be short lived. The statist will merely pause, regroup and implement their agenda piecemeal or in another form. Government has been growing nonstop for over a hundred years with only the slightest pause here and there. If the goal is to roll back the Great Society programs and the New Deal, repeal the sixteenth and seventeenth amendments and dissolve the Federal Reserve, then there is some hope for restoring lost liberty and reversing our slide into tyranny.

     While President Obama’s ambitious agenda has provided the catalyst for liberty loving people to finally speak up, there is a larger question that must be asked. Is President Obama and the statist agenda really outside the mainstream or is it a logical result of our system of government? There are several possible answers to the first part of the question. Those who love the tenth Amendment would say “yes”, this government has taken powers for itself that are far above and beyond the specifically enumerated powers enshrined in our foundational document. Those who understand history could easily reply “no” and point to the fact that the history of the world has been, with few exceptions, a history of tyranny. Every government seeks to expand its power as much as possible and our government has demonstrated that it is no different. It has pushed and pushed and until now, we the people, have yielded.

      For those who love and respect the Constitution, the answer to the second part of the question is an emphatic “No!” Many believe the Constitution to be an inspired document developed by brilliant men who put together a form of government with checks and balances that would be strong enough to do the necessary things government needs to do while safeguarding the liberty of the people.   While I agree that the Constitution outlines a form of government superior to most, it is not perfect and its flaws were evident to many during the ratification process. Perhaps as the American people are asking questions about their government that haven’t been asked in a long time; questions like “what are the limits of government power”, “what is the proper role of government in our lives”, perhaps we need to explore the more fundamental question of “is the form of government we have the most effective in securing the liberty of the people and safeguarding the ideals of the American Revolution?” For years people have explored the possibility of a new constitutional convention to repair our broken system. Such a move is met with fear by many but as we contemplate how best to restore our lost liberty, a look at the arguments and warnings from the losing side of the ratification battle in 1788 may be instructive.

     One thing to keep in mind when we talk about the Constitution is that it was formulated in what can only be described as a “bait and switch” plan. Most delegates went to Philadelphia to amend the Articles of Confederation which, admittedly, had demonstrated serious inadequacies. Instead, a whole new form of government was proposed. What happened in 1787 we would call a coup today. The delegates ignored the confederation’s rule of unanimity, circumvented the current congress and submitted its approval to special state conventions. The plan was put before the people as an all or nothing proposition, there was no bill of rights or any other amendments. Opponents like Patrick Henry said only a fool would buy a defective machine in the hopes of repairing it afterward. In Pennsylvania they tried to get the legislature to move quickly on ratification and when some members stayed away to prevent a quorum from approving, a mob went out and dragged them into the chamber for the vote. There were efforts in New York and Boston to suppress pamphlets critical of the constitution. Opponents said the quick ratification by several states was done despite substantial opposition. Some delegates readily admitted voting for the constitution against the wishes of their constituents. Does any of this sound familiar?

     The greatest debate over ratification of the constitution was held in Virginia where passage was far from assured. Passage in Virginia was crucial because without it the nation would be geographically split and deprived of the weight of one of the most powerful and prosperous states. It was also pointed out by the proponents of ratification that George Washington would be ineligible for the presidency if Virginia failed to ratify.   So the battle was joined by two of the leading men not only of Virginia but of the nation; James Madison and Patrick Henry who stated, “I look upon that paper as the most fatal plan that could possibly be conceived to enslave a free people”. Many of the quotes and concepts that follow will be from those men and others in the Virginia debate but there were opponents in other states whose voices will be included as well.

     First and foremost among the arguments against ratification was that the Constitution contained no “bill of rights”, something Virginia had adopted over a decade previous and which Patrick Henry had a large hand in creating. Richard Henry Lee argued that if the constitution were to be adopted without any amendments, particularly without a bill of rights, the new government would be what he termed, an “elective despotism”.   James Madison argued vehemently against the inclusion of a bill of rights. In reality the federalists did so because specific attention given to individual liberties would impair the efficiency of the powerful central government they wanted. A scant decade after ratification, John Adams’ Sedition Act ignored even the explicit first amendment, demonstrating the underlying motives of the Federalists.   George Nicolas also stated in support of ratification that as long as the people remained virtuous and uncorrupted there would be no abuses by congress because the people would not tolerate them. Patrick Henry immediately jumped on this assertion, stating that when virtue and revolutionary sentiment faded, there would be nothing to prevent a slide into tyranny.   Even the Declaration of Independence supports Henry’s point when it states “that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while the evils are sufferable, that to right themselves....” Most people, then and today, want to go about their lives and not think about their government. They don’t want to make the time to get involved. After all, we elect people to “represent” us and they are supposed to do so with our best interests at heart. So people are “disposed” to put up with little things, allowing them to accumulate until at some point they do become insufferable. Today we see that reaction in the tea parties, the protests and the town halls.

     Henry argued that the defects needed to be remedied first and that the supporter’s contention that civil liberties were protected by “implication” as a most foolish notion. He saw nothing but extreme danger in the use of “constructive power”. He said, “If they can use implication for us, they can also use implication against us. We are giving power, they are getting power; Judge, then, on which side the implication will be used!”   The opponents of ratification believed the implied powers and vague language of the constitution made it too reliant on those who would be wielding the power. If that was the case, the people were getting a government of men, not of laws. Such a government cannot be trusted for any grant of power carries with it the seeds of oppression and unless the plant is closely watched and frequently pruned, tyranny will be the result. If the administrators are just and honest, fine. But a defective construction opens up a Pandora's Box of evil if the administrators are less than virtuous. The people were being asked to grant great power to the government and take the chance that they would not be abused. Liberty cannot rest on the contingency of the people in charge being good or bad.

      We all know that power is a corruptive influence. Any form of government could be implemented to protect the liberty of the people if the people running it decide to respect those liberties. Human nature is what it is, however. Politicians and others who seek power do so not with the idea of limiting themselves, but of expanding that power to the highest degree they can. The challenge then, is to develop a form of government that will prevent those in power from having the ability to expand it or exercise it in a way that aversely impacts the freedom of the people. For many of the revolutionary generation this was to be accomplished by keeping politics as local and representative as possible while protecting the people with a bill of rights that limited that representative government’s power.   Patrick Henry believed that only a government small in scale, close to home and broadly representative could operate without infringing on people’s liberties. Not that it would be benign but it would be much more accountable.

     The power of taxation was also a hot topic.     James Madison, stated that the power of taxation would be little used by the government. “It can be of little advantage to those in power to raise money in a manner oppressive to the people.” Keep in mind that this issue was debated long before the sixteenth amendment and only concerned Article 1 section 2. Several arguments were proposed by the opposition, I will detail two of them. The first was a concern that through the use of the power of direct taxation the central government would annihilate the states because the people would not bear double taxation. We see this “annihilation” of the power of the states in the use of federal money taken from the people and redistributed to the states with all the rules and regulations the federal government requires for its distribution.   George Mason added that the congress was insufficiently representative to be trusted with direct taxing power. He said that it would sit at “aristocratic” remove from the people and have no “fellow-feeling” for them..   How true this has become. He also thought they would be easily corrupted and would tax the poor in the interests of the rich. While the reverse has become true, that makes it no less unjust.

     This creation of a new “aristocracy” was a constant theme of the opponents of ratification.   Self made men like Henry did not want to see the government end up in the hands of the landed gentry. He thought little of the supposed checks and balances believing the president could become a despot and the senate dominated by a handful of members would degenerate into a “sinkhole of corruption” and become the president’s accomplices in diplomatic treachery.   He was not the only one who felt this way.   “Centinel” wrote that the constitution had “its true features concealed” in a “daring attempt to create a despotic aristocracy”. Melancton Smith of New York warned that the constitution would create an aristocratic tyranny that would result in despotism. In our day of career politicians where the only way to get rid of many of them is to wait for them to get old and die, these were certainly not unfounded fears. The aristocracy may not be the same as it was in Henry’s time but today’s closed political class is no less privileged, arrogant or secure.

     Patrick Henry also attacked the “consolidated government” because he regarded it as a misguided attempt to conceal a lust for power and greatness that would lead to large armies and navies and an expensive government of “place men, colonels, courtiers and tax gatherers” who would design legislation to serve the interests of the “ambitious few”. He believed that such a government would inevitably become tyrannical. He said “I dread the operation of it on the middling and lower classes of people.” Another very wise statement. President Obama has placed the crosshairs on anyone who makes a decent living, middle to upper middle class, we may call them. They are the “evil rich” who need to get some “skin in the game” and “spread the wealth”. However, if you are a billionaire instead of a millionaire, now you are a contributor to the party and the tax code helps you out.   The same goes for “Big Business”, which receives billions of dollars in bailout money while “small business” gets squeezed through onerous regulations and taxes. The lower class is made a lot of promises but after forty years of the “War on Poverty”, government intervention on behalf of the “lower class” has done nothing but make sure they stay “lower class”. Henry was right. If one can afford the lobbyist, one is taken care of. For the rest of us, this government operates in ways that are more and more tyrannical.

     Finally, Henry also argued that the convention had no right to use the phrase “We the People”. The states, not “the people”, had sent the delegates and by using this phrase and all its implications, this government would hold a coercive power over the people that the confederation specifically prohibited. To those of Henry’s mind, as well as those who had developed the original congress and confederation, the national government was meant to be a body in which the states would cooperate.   “The said states hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other....” Article III It was the states that had the taxing authority to support the national government (which didn’t work very well at the time), it was the state legislatures that sent delegates to the congress with strict term limits and it was the states in supermajority that would decide the most important issues of the time. The national government in the early revolutionary period was never meant to directly represent the people nor have any impact directly on them through tax or regulation. In the Constitution, Henry and others saw the abandonment of that principle, the circumvention of state sovereignty and an eventual tyranny directly over the people.

     Ignoring Henry’s statement that “If you give too little power today, you may give more tomorrow. But the reverse does not hold. If you give too much power today, tomorrow will never come,” Virginia ratified the constitution, although it had already become law with New Hampshire’s ratification four days prior.   That was not the end, however. There was still the question of amendments which the Virginia resolution allowed to be recommended. Besides the “Bill of Rights” there were several amendments offered that Madison dismissed. Included among them were limits on presidential terms, the requirement of a two thirds vote for commercial laws and treaties, a prohibition of direct taxes unless states failed in requisitions, and a different method for impeaching senators. George Clinton of New York, even after ratification, called for a second convention to repair those parts of the constitution that “appear so objectionable to a majority of us.” The last thing Madison and the federalists wanted was another convention where radical changes might be made. He believed public opinion was too “unsettled” to risk it. The Federalists prevailed. There was not another convention, the Bill of Rights was adopted and we have been operating under the Constitution as the supreme law of the land ever since.

     We now come back to our original question. If the 1787 convention would have amended the Articles of Confederation instead of replacing it with the Constitution, would we be where we are today? There is no question that the opponents of the Constitution’s ratification look prophetic. Yet the Articles had severe flaws and it may be doubted whether the confederation would have remained unified, particularly in the first fifty to one hundred years of our history.   Ultimately, it comes down to this. Every system of government has its flaws, including ours. It is the character of the people in power that make it tyrannical or not. The opponents of ratification understood that the more distant and powerful the government, the more tyrannical its tendencies. Power relinquished by the people is never returned for government has an insatiable appetite and will always seek more. If our representatives would have retained the “revolutionary ideal” and valued the concepts of limited government, Washington DC would still be a sleepy town on the Potomac and the real centers of power would be found in the state capitols. Power over the people would be more subject to their review simply due to proximity.   That was the desire and intent of the majority of the revolutionary generation.

     So is it all President Obama’s fault? Certainly he and past presidents, and the current and previous congresses, are responsible for their actions. That this current crop is more totalitarian than most is obvious. However, as long as there are elections, we get the government we want. If we elect people of low character who are going to interpret the Constitution in ways that enable tyrannical actions, or we let them get away with ignoring it and the bill of rights entirely, the fault, ultimately, lies with “We the People”. A flawed system populated by politicians of flawed character will always have a tendency towards tyranny and corruption. The need is to elect people who have the character and fortitude not only to resist those tendencies but to rework the system in ways that limit its power and restore liberty and freedom to the people. The fate of the country, as always, rests in the hands of the American People.

“Liberty ought to be the direct end of your government” Patrick Henry

Quotes from:

A Son Of Thunder Henry Mayer

The Forging of the Union 1781-1789  Richard Morris

Patrick Samuels

www.patricksamuels.com

     I am a regular talk radio listener and of late, there has been much discussion concerning who is going to rise up and assume a leadership position or positions and give real teeth to the tea party movement. Jerry Doyle has been asking this question and Glen Beck is looking for his 56 “founders” who will root out the corruption in Washington and begin anew according to the principles of the founders of our great nation. As I have listened to the debate it has occurred to me that most people are looking for the solution in the cause of the problem. Don’t most of us believe that Washington caused just about all the problems we are currently dealing with? The housing mess, bank bailouts, the falling dollar, the so called health care crisis, rising unemployment; have not the policies adopted by politicians in Washington caused these problems? We know the answer is yes and we understand the absurdity of expecting Washington to do anything more than mess it up further. We understand that the only real solution is devolving power from the Federal Government and returning to individuals, states and the private sector responsibility for all the things not specifically enumerated in the Constitution for the Federal Government. 

     So who is going to rise up and fight for those principles in a way that motivates others to do so? Among those in Washington I have heard only one voice in recent years come close and that is Ron Paul’s. The problem is, I don’t think he is the one we are looking for. He is principled and smart but he lacks the charisma and the ability to get a lot of other people to follow his lead. Out of all the people who ran for president, do I wish he was the one in the Oval Office? Sure. But leaders need more than principles and good ideas today. The shy, quiet but brilliant James Madison could never be elected today. It is unfortunate but true.

     So where do we look? As unhappy as many tea party supporters are with the Republican Party, many are looking there. I suppose the hope is that they have learned their lesson and will become more conservative. This from the party that nominated John McCain for president even after their losses in 2006. Does anyone seriously think that the Republican party will become the constitutional party? Is any Republican going to propose that we phase out all the social programs the statists have saddled us with over the last hundred years? Are they going to get rid of the Fed, Medicare, the EPA, the Department of Education and all the other garbage that results in statist control over so many things this government was never meant to have its hands in? After the Reagan and Gingrich “revolutions” we still have a bigger and more intrusive government. Republicans may say some of the right things and may nibble around the edges of the federal pie, tweaking this and calling for reductions in that, but none of them have the courage to do anything substantial. Their problem is the same as the Democrat problem. As long as the Democrats are led by the likes of Pelosi and Reed they, as a party, will advance the statist agenda. As long as the Republicans are led by men and women who only believe in slightly smaller government are are afraid of the Democrats and the press, we will end up with a statist agenda.

     Back to the original point. Can we really look for leaders to emerge from the very people that put us in this mess in the first place? Almost all the people in Washington and most of those at the state level are “career politicians”, people who have never held a real job except perhaps as a bloodsucking lawyer, people who no longer have any idea about the realities of life and economics, people who live in a bubble created by their own ego. Yet those are the people we keep sending into government. Why? Because we have been conditioned to believe that only by operating within the two party system will people get elected and those two parties have rigged the system in their favor to substantiate that perception. This has ensured the reelection of a majority of the same people and have made seats like Pelosi’s secure for life. As we saw with Ted Kennedy, the only way we get rid of some of these people is to wait for them to get old and die. Did not the founders set the example that stepping down after a time of service was the pattern to be followed? Perhaps it was inconceivable to them that people would make a career out of public service which is why they did not include term limits in the constitution.

     It is my belief that only by destroying the monopoly of the two party system is there any hope for making real and lasting change in the direction of this country. The new leaders will not be Democrats or Republicans but independents from the tea party movement itself. People who will rise up and be recognized by the people themselves as leaders. Perhaps it will be organized into a new political party and that is alright, that kind of organization is needed at some point. Will this ensure Democrat control by taking conservatives from the Republican party? It may over the short term. But the reality is that we have been a people without a party for a long time and it is time we represented ourselves. We can yell and protest all we want but neither party has any interest in doing anything other than placating us for a short time and going about the consolidation of their power over the long term.   It is time ‘we the people’ took the power from our ‘masters’.   It is time we rose up against the aristocracy that exists among our political class and restored common sense to government. It is time to derail the statist agenda and restore liberty to the people.      

 

     “The People” are speaking up like never before. Town halls, protests, Tea Parties; the American people are voicing their displeasure with the way things are going in Washington. We do not want government run health care, cap and trade, exorbitant spending and a host of other things this current crop of statist politicians are attempting to impose on us. We assume that because we have voiced our opposition so loudly and we live in a representative republic, our representatives must listen to us. After all, they work for us, right?

     Not really. We know that the vast majority of politicians are bought and paid for by special interests and right now the special interests that are running the show and writing the bills are socialists and Marxists. We cannot assume we will be heard. If this summer has shown us anything, it is an us (the people) vs. them (politicians) struggle. They argue, they insult, they ignore. We scream louder and in greater numbers. Just remember, we are the ones outside the palace gate and the royalty within can ignore us if they so choose and do whatever they want. They have become King George. Have we the courage to become patriots?

     The question we must ask ourselves is, are we prepared to deal with the consequences of losing? This is a crucial question because as president Obama works hard to keep his campaign promise to “transform America” into a totalitarian state, the result of that transformation for you and I will be profound. Consider some of the following consequences and ask yourself if you and your family and we as a community are ready to deal with them.

     The Tea Parties were originally protests against government spending. President Obama has already run up a trillion and a half more in debt and promises more in the future. His projected ten year deficit just went up by two trillion dollars in a few months. As the economy continues to tank due to his policies, tax revenues will slow, he will spend more, especially if health care passes, and we will be in even worse shape. Then there are the unfunded liabilities (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) which amount to around one hundred trillion dollars. That is a quarter of a million dollars for each one of us. There is no way we can pay this off or grow our way out of it. The only way this problem can be solved other than hard political choices (phasing out the social safety net, paying off the public debt) which we all know are not going to happen, is to inflate the currency. Hyperinflation, if it is not caused by the monetization of our debt (printing money as we have been) will be deliberately caused by the administration to reduce the debt. Are you prepared for the dollar menu to become the ten dollar menu, the hundred dollar menu, the thousand dollar menu?

     Consider also that this administration has the arrogant idea that it can control the economy, so it will assume it can control the rate of inflation. This is not true, of course, so what will happen when prices go spiraling out of control? Wage and price controls will be imposed. FDR did it, Nixon did it, Obama will do it. He has already tried to fix wages for executives, you don’t think he will try to fix everyone’s? This will result in essential shortages, it always does. Are you prepared for this? Most sinister is that this economic crisis may result in the shadow government Obama has been developing with all his czars and special advisors essentially taking over, particularly if there is a lot of “civil unrest”, staged or real. “Never let a good crisis go to waste”.

     Let us move on. Cap and trade has already passed the house and President Obama is itching to sign it. Are you prepared for European like gas prices? Are you prepared for your electricity rates to “skyrocket” as Obama promised? Are you prepared for the day the government worker knocks on your door to install your government approved and wired programmable thermostat and hooks you up to the smart grid so the government can regulate your electricity use?

     Health care, the topic of the day. We all know that government health care will result in rationing and poor care. It has everywhere else it has been tried. But in this bill your medical and financial records will be at the fingertips of government.   Do you have a way to keep their mitts off your money? Do you have another way to access medical care? Are we working to develop one, an “underground medical establishment”, so to speak? What are you prepared to do when some government bureaucrat tells you to go “take a pain pill” instead of offering life saving treatment? What are we prepared to do if government becomes “partners with God” as Obama has stated, and makes life and death decisions based on costs and politics?

     How about our First Amendment rights. If health care fails the administration is going to lay blame one place, alternative media. We know that the “Diversity Czar” thinks Hugo Chavez and his glorious revolution is a great example. With localism and diversity panels, he and Obama are laying the groundwork for eliminating talk radio. The Internet has been in the crosshairs as well, certainly China and Iran demonstrate the possibilities there. Do we have a network capable of disseminating information or coordinating our efforts if these now “traditional” means of communication are no longer available? How far are we willing to go to secure this right?

     While we are at it, what about the second amendment? All the statists are gun control advocates and there is no question that there will be continued attempts to take guns from law abiding citizens. How serious are we about our bumper stickers that say “you can have my gun when you pry it out of my cold, dead hands”? Are we willing to knock out the windows in our house and shoot down the brownshirts that come for our means of defense? Are we prepared to come to the defense of our neighbors when the Gestapo comes for them and their guns? Do we have a plan in our community to protect ourselves from a totalitarian government?

     Finally, let’s bring it home. What about the children, your children. I homeschool mine. What do we do when that becomes illegal as it was in California for a time. What do I do when they are ready to throw me in jail for refusing to send my children to a government indoctrination center (public school) or even take them away for “neglect”? What about something a bit more immediate. What if the government requires you to have your children vaccinated against the swine flu? The last time the government did this in the seventies, many more people died and were irreparably harmed by the vaccine than were sickened by the flu. Are you willing to trust your government when they say it is “safe and effective”? Are you prepared for the consequences of resistance?

     This has been written to make you think about the future. Some of this may happen regardless of the outcome of specific legislation. I believe in the axiom, “Work for the best and prepare for the worst.” On a personal level, we can make ourselves as self reliant as possible. Store up some non-perishables to weather the crisis, particularly the difficult months when hyperinflation causes massive instability. Unplug from the system as much as possible. All electronic media and records are suspect and subject to government access. Keep it in mind. Buy a gun if you don’t have one, stock up on ammunition. I know all this sounds “tin foil hat” to some but these are just basic emergency preparation every person should take.

    As a community, here are some things to think about. First, reestablishing community is essential. We have lost that in our technological age. We have become isolated from one another. We need to connect again, get in the habit of helping each other. We ought to consider developing a system of barter among ourselves so we are prepared for wage and price controls or, dare I say, tax avoidance. If that hasn’t been nutty enough, what about developing a basic community defense plan or even...a militia.

     It may be that we will win the fight and much of this will not happen. It is my hope that this is so. Be assured, however, the statists will not give up and they will try again.   Few could have imagined the horrors of the Third Reich after Adolf Hitler was democratically elected in 1933.   Men are men and those who thirst for power have been the same throughout history.   It can’t happen here? It already has. Consider how we have treated the Native Americans, the thousands of political prisoners under Woodrow Wilson, internment camps under FDR, the killing of David Koresh’s followers, and more recently, the illegal confiscation of guns in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina and the forcible removal of the children of the Mormon sect in Arizona.. Things can change very quickly. A terrorist attack, foreign or domestic, our bonds becoming unmarketable, a natural disaster, Iran cutting off oil, anything could prod this administration to rapid and severe action. It could be next week, next month or the next decade. Will we be ready? Will you?

www.patricksamuels.com

 

     For five months now the people have been raising their voices in an ever louder chorus of dissatisfaction with the direction this government has taken. It started with “Tea Parties” and other rallies. Now the focus is on congressional town hall meetings. Based on the comments and questions at these meetings, one would be led to believe that ninety percent of the people are opposed to the proposed health care legislation in particular, and the direction of this government in general. The politicians have dismissed this opposition in several ways. They claim the protests have been organized by the Republicans or the drug or insurance companies, that they are racists just opposing a black president, or that they are just kooks. Most of the media is supporting one or all of these views.

     Who are the protesters? As one of them, I can definitively assert that I have never been approached by a drug or insurance company or the GOP to show up at a tea party or town hall meeting and I don’t know anyone who has. That is just wishful thinking on the part of Democrats. So who are we? The perception of those who come to the meetings is that these are just everyday citizens who have arisen in response to too much government spending and control. It is the belief among conservatives that the majority of Americans are conservative and this all out assault on their values and pocketbooks has motivated them like never before. The statists believe, on the other hand, that they are a small, organized minority bought and paid for by the GOP or the big insurance or pharmaceutical companies. They listen to talk radio and watch Fox news and they do not represent the majority of Americans. 

     How close either perception is to reality and which one the majority of our Washington politicians believe to be true will determine whether or not President Obama’s legislative steam roller is stopped or not. The stakes have not been higher since the Missouri compromise and the Dred Scott decision.   Consider the amount of power this government will have over us if the two major pieces of legislation of the Obama administration become law. The Cap and Trade bill will give the Federal Government control over every economic decision we make.   It will determine what products are available to us, what businesses are acceptable and which are not, how we go about some of the most basic tasks of our everyday lives. Health care legislation will exert government control over our lifestyles, what treatment we get when we do need medical care and whether our lives are productive enough for the state to justify the expense of keeping us healthy or alive. When the very food we eat, the cars we drive, the temperatures of our homes, the light bulbs we use and the surgeries or medicines we are allowed are all determined by government, we can be called nothing other than a totalitarian state. The government will have total control over every aspect of our lives.

     Perhaps totalitarian seems harsh but the tyranny of the state is the tyranny of the state. We may consider this a “soft tyranny” because it will be implemented by and army of lawyers, social workers and bureaucrats but do not be fooled. Our liberty will be gone and the consequences of non compliance will be harsh. And keep in mind technology has given this government investigative and enforcement powers far beyond what Stalin could have dreamed of. When all our financial and medical records, our communications and transactions are not only part of the government database but regulated by government entities, the ability of the government to find, harass and punish dissenters is unparalleled in history. At a basic level, those who are protesting understand this.

     Can we separate the perception of both sides from the reality of who the protesters are? I am not a pollster but based on my experience in the tea party protests and the town halls, I believe the reality is this. While we can hope that this movement has awakened the “silent majority”, I do not believe this is true. Perhaps this is, as many claim, a “center-right country but I believe the vast majority of Americans are ill informed or apathetic when it comes to government and politics. In most cases the people who find their reality in television do not understand the reality of government. Then there is the systemic problem that the majority of people in this country receive benefits from a government for which they have not paid.   These realities support the statists, their reelection and their ability to twist the truth and get what they want. 

      I believe that the people showing up to protest are well informed citizens who are not organized by the GOP or some big business group. We are informed because we make ourselves so and have for a long time. We read, we listen to talk radio, we watch the news and perhaps have a preference for Fox news.   A majority may be registered republicans but we come from all political parties and no political party. We have finally been motivated to stand up and be seen in ways we have not been accustomed to.   I also believe that we are the same classically liberal, informed minority that has existed for a long time. There are not more of us, we are just more visible. Up until this point in our nation’s history, we have been slowly retreating, occasionally winning a battle but surely losing the war against bigger government.   No matter how influential people on both sides believe the “alternative” media is, the results speak for themselves. Government grows, freedom is lost and we become more burdened by debt and taxes.

     This is not meant to be discouraging. It has always been a dedicated minority that has made a difference in history. What we have now is a battle between a focused minority in power and a minority on the outside that is finally finding its voice.   The big problem for us is that we cannot wait for the next election to derail this power grab. We must continue to loudly voice our opposition but ultimately the results of this contest will be determined by those who hold all the power.   How forward thinking are the statists and how much influence will they yield over the rest of their colleagues in congress. Will they be able to convince enough of them to “take one for the team” if necessary? The statists have been working toward this goal for a long time and now that they can grasp the brass ring, they are pushing hard for it. They know the incontrovertible fact that once power is given to government, it is never relinquished. If these proposals become law, they will never be repealed. They may be “reformed” in the future just like welfare was “reformed” but we still have welfare and a million other ineffective, obsolete and expensive government programs. They also know that they may take a hit in the next election for their action. They may lose some seats in congress to the Republicans, they may even lose control. But in the long run, it will not matter. Even if the Republicans find some guts, President Obama will veto any attempt to roll back the policies and they will get back into power eventually. 

     Based on the town hall meetings, most of the supporters of the statist agenda think this way. They are not trying to enter into a dialogue with their constituents, they are attempting to repeat propaganda. We are too informed for that, however. So they ignore us, they cancel meetings or try to handpick the crowd.   We must, however, continue to be active. It we win, we cannot let up. We must continue to fight and when the next election rolls around, we must put those who love liberty and will fight for it in power at all levels. If we lose, we must prepare for the consequences and work toward eventual repeal. The only way the minority is effective is if it continues to make itself heard and plans for the long run. We cannot continue to show up now and then to put out fires because the glorious building that was our constitutional government has been badly burned and is in danger of final collapse. We must get the arsonists out of the building and secure it so be can begin to rebuild the edifice of liberty created by the founders.   It may seem like trying to swim upstream against the current of historical precedent, but for we and our children and for the love of liberty, we must try.

www.patricksamuels.com

 

What is your liberty worth?

   Perhaps the better question is, “How far are you willing to go to preserve it?” This question was brought to mind as a consequence of the most recent protest I organized outside our local congressman’s office. Most protests, especially in our little backwater and with only twenty five people, don’t make much of an impact. In its organization, however, I sent out an e-mail stating that I was going to hang the congressman in effigy, which I did-life size. We had a good protest, the congressman’s press secretary fielded questions and criticisms for over a half hour and I believe we made our point.

     Two days later I get a call that informed me that my picture with the hanging congressman was being commented on in the Politico.com. The article and about half the comments were less than complimentary. The main point was that if my action was the face of the GOP’s criticism of Democrat Health Care, the GOP was in big trouble. Of course, I do not represent the GOP nor am I a republican. I am just a citizen trying to get his point across. Quite a few thought it inappropriate and in bad taste to hang our congressman in effigy. Personally, I think these power hungry people in our federal Government are traitors to the constitution and the founding principles of the Republic.   None of them are upholding their oath of office.   They are unprofessional-what lawyer signs a contract without reading it!? They are foolish for thinking they can spend, borrow and print so much money without consequence. They are enemies of liberty for thinking that government should have the power to determine the temperature of our homes or the medicines we receive. Most of us know this is wrong and it will not end well for this country if it continues. Barak Obama said he was going to “Transform America”. He is trying to transform it into a Marxist state with power concentrated at the top and no aspect of our lives too small or insignificant to be beyond its control. No thank you.

     This has not happened overnight, its taken one hundred years. One step here, one leap there, sometimes pausing, but never retreating. We have an opportunity now, as president Obama tries the biggest leap since the New Deal, to catch the statist monster in the air and throw it back on its heels. The question is, are we willing to do whatever it takes? Are we finally going to draw a line in the sand? If we don’t now, then when? Ten or twenty years from now when you need that new operation or expensive medicine and the health care bureaucrat turns to you and says, “You’ve had a good run, here’s your pain pill.” It will be too late. When ATF shows up outside your home and demands your guns, are you going to give them up or make them pry them out of your cold dead hands? Where’s all that non-violent claptrap then, or when child protective services forces you to send your kid to a government school or deems your “hateful” form of religion nonproductive to the raising of properly adjusted children? What percentage of your income is too much? 60%, 70%, 90%? When do you refuse to allow your money to be confiscated and given to the non-productive and lazy? What will you do when they come to throw you in jail for being so “stingy”, refusing to put your “skin in the game?” When all this borrowing and spending leads to hyperinflation and wage and price controls and the scarcity that goes with it, who are you going to blame? Are you going to be able to look in the mirror and say “I did everything I could” or will you finally understand that by letting the statist set the rules with political correctness and by refusing to consider all options for resistance, the battle and the war were already lost. 

     The government holds all the cards, or so it thinks. They become more and more bold the more they get away with. Every time an election rolls around and ninety-five percent of them are returned to office irregardless of their out of control behavior, they behave more like kings, and thugs.   When the opposition whines about things they may pause or simply try a new way of accomplishing their goal. I want you to understand something very important.   The goal of the majority of people in government, particularly this current crop, is totalitarian control. Do you get that? They want to control everything. Sure, you may think you have choices but they are only choices approved of by them. The car you drive, it has to meet hundreds of government specs, few of which have to do with safety. This is only going to get worse. They have nationalized banks, they control behavior through taxes and regulation, they want to control the food you eat, the people you associate with (racist!), how much money you earn, the list could go on and on. This is the very definition of totalitarianism and the antithesis of liberty.    It has all happened because we let it. And because it has happened over such a long period of time, we are often unaware of how much we have lost. When do we say “enough?” And if we say it now, how far are we willing to go to show we mean it? If a little thing like hanging the congressman in effigy bothers you, then our cause is lost. The occasional quiet protest, the calls and e-mails, even the occasional turnover of congress will only be a pause in the march to total state control. I, for one, do not want my children to grow up in that nation, do you?

www.patricksamuels.com

 

     A week ago there was a lot of buzz about the sudden announcement that Sarah Palin would be leaving office as the governor of Alaska. There were no specific reasons given so speculation abounded and I am not about to add to that or any musings about her political future. The one thing that is beyond dispute as a contributing factor to her departure is the fact that ever since that army of lawyers and investigators descended on Juneau with her selection as McCain’s VP, she has had to defend herself against one groundless accusation after another. She has racked up legal bills approaching a half a million dollars and spent much more time dealing with investigations that go nowhere than doing the work of the people of Alaska. I find it not a little telling that while there is video tape of William Jefferson of Louisiana accepting a suitcase of cash and using taxpayer funds while diverting rescue operations during hurricane Katrina to retrieve ninety thousand dollars from his freezer, he is not only not in jail but still in office supported by his fellow democrats.   Sarah Palin, however, is under no federal investigation and not one of the ethics probes has ever come up with anything, yet she has been hounded from office.

     This is a tactic the statist Democrats have learned well. And this time I will include the party in this because it is the Democrat party that engages in this behavior against their enemies. Behavior that is tolerated or even celebrated among their own is jumped on by them if engaged in by the opposition. One word at a birthday party, one hint of impropriety and the media and the lawyers descend like a ton of bricks until rumor becomes fact or an insignificant word becomes treason and their opponents are rendered ineffective at best. More often they are hung out to dry by their own and leave office or, like Scooter Libby, end up in jail. Add to this the threats of activists like ACORN and it is no wonder that Republicans have lost their backbone. Politicians in general want to remain in office and be liked by the people, their colleagues and the media. If the opposition makes any misstep, if they push too hard on an issue, if they really rock the boat and become a credible threat to the statist agenda these kind of attacks are what await them. It is no wonder that few of them are going to have the courage to speak and act in real opposition.

     When is is all boiled down, the fact is that the statist always uses the power of the state to intimidate, threaten and coerce people and the opposition into submission. From John Adams and the Sedition Act to Woodrow Wilson jailing dissidents and opponents to Barak Obama threatening lawsuits against former Bush personnel, strong-arming banks to take TARP money or using ACORN to intimidate executives, it is all the same tune played over and over. The fact is that the difference between what the statists do in the US and what Hitler and Stalin did is only one of degree. The founders understood the danger of political power and the men (and women) who want to wield it. Most of them want power and the only reason to have it is to use it. That is why they took as much power from the government as possible and left it among the states and the people. But we have given more power to government than any other in history. And now we are talking about letting them have the literal power of life and death over us by running our health care?! Have the “pull yourself up by your own bootstraps” “rugged individual” Americans gone nuts?!

     The British tried to impose the same kind of tyranny on the colonists and amid the protests and the legislative maneuverings, the fact is that the conflict between liberty and tyranny devolved into a deadly conflict. That is because tyrannical governments will always try to impose their will at the point of a gun if all else fails. Some are quicker to do so than others but government, by its nature, is force. If we give it limited authority and resources, its ability to use that force against us is limited. That is not the case here and now. We can protest taxes and even take our case to the court but unless you are one of the privileged elite, you will go to jail. When they come for your children and force them into government schools, they will use force at some point. When they come for your guns they will be more than happy to pry them from your cold, dead hands.

     Is deadly conflict between tyranny and liberty inevitable? Almost always. There are very few instances in history where the people rose up against tyranny and the conflict remained bloodless. I am in no way encouraging that escalation, let me make that clear. But we also have to be realistic. Government will continue to become more oppressive, take more of our money and liberty, because that is the nature of government. If we choose to stand up to that tyranny, we must be ready for the evolution of the conflict. Right now, those who love liberty are on the ropes, losing badly. Government is taking great strides in expanding its power. The old methods no longer seem to be effective. We call our representatives, we write letters, we blog, we have even gotten out in the streets and protested. We are still ignored. It is time we took the conflict to the next level.

     To that end I launched Project Liberty on Independence Day. It is based on the ACORN model of intimidation. I believe it is time the intimidation began to flow the other way. If ACORN can get a bus load of people to show up at the homes of AIG executives, we should be able to get a caravan of patriots to show up at the homes of our elected officials and let them know what we think and expect of them. It is not a long term solution, it is only to stop the current bleeding. Long term we need elected representatives that are going to dismantle the monster we have created. But we need to stop a march into fascism that has turned into a run. It is time we started intimidating the statists. It is time our elected representative know that if they are going to reach into our wallets and our homes with their foolish and destructive legislation, we are going to do the same.

     In the twenty years prior to the Revolution, Samuel Adams and others formed the Sons of Liberty. It was they who first pushed for independence, it was they who intimidated British officials and protested the loudest, it was they who were responsible for the first tea party. It is time that a new breed of patriot arose, one who is willing to do more, to take a greater risk, to act a little more radically in defense of liberty, not only for themselves but for our children and grandchildren. This is a turning point, it is not yet too late to turn our country back to liberty and freedom. However, if we allow our government to continue to expand unfettered, the likelihood of the conflict becoming very nasty goes up considerably. May our decisive actions today prevent such an escalation.

For more information on Project Liberty go to www.patricksamuels.com and click on the “Sons of Liberty” button.  

Patrick Samuels

 

     Allow me to begin by saying that I am no fan of Al Franken and I’m not specifically picking on Rush Limbaugh.   If and when Al Franken takes his seat in the senate, it will be a bad day for America. And I am using Rush Limbaugh as an example for all the radio and television talk show hosts, all the writers and bloggers out there including myself, who have ever despaired of the direction of the country, deplored the behavior of our elected politicians and thought that we had more common sense in our little finger that they had in their whole body.

     The media has an important function in our society, which is why it is referred to in the first amendment. The ability to educate, inform and persuade is a powerful tool in the political process. But for all the words spoken by Rush and the other talk show hosts, for all the words written in newspapers, magazines and on the Internet, the stimulus package passed for want of one vote in the senate. Government health care, a nearly four trillion dollar budget, cap and trade may all be forced on us for the lack of one or two votes.

    For all the talking, all the educating, all the informing done by talk radio and other conservative/alternative media, the country is falling rapidly into the black hole of statism. Why? First, while Rush’s fifteen to twenty million listeners sounds like a lot, there are over three hundred million people in this country, over one hundred million voters. And not all those listeners agree with Rush’s viewpoint, some are just entertained, and this goes for all of talk radio. The point here is that the vast majority of people in the country don’t tune in to talk radio, they don’t follow the news closely, they are not politically educated or aware. As products of a government education and fans of reality TV, they easily fall for a demagogue like Barak Obama.

     Second, it is an “us vs them” approach to politics and this is encouraged by the behavior of both sides. On one side is the “us”, the average citizen who actually seeks to inform himself and those who seek to do the informing. Then there is the “them”, the “political class”, the people who actually make the rules that govern our lives, rules that are increasingly intrusive and destructive. Too often we have the mindset that we are merely subjects of the king who stand outside the palace gates shouting our pleas and hoping we are heard. On the other side of the gate is the political class who turn a deaf ear to our pleas because they are confident in their power and position. When the vast majority of the incumbents are elected regardless of what they do, they see no problem ignoring the interests of anyone but themselves. The whole system turns on its head. Instead of serving us, the politicians serve themselves. Instead of seeing ourselves as part of the process, we are reduced to servants of the political class. We fear them, they don’t fear us. According to Thomas Jefferson, that is the definition of tyranny.

     This was a primary cause of the revolution. Parliament and the king, three thousand miles away, were making the rules without any input from the colonists. They were free to ignore them because there was nothing, short of armed insurrection, the colonists could do about it. The colonists could not vote for any representation yet they were told they were British subjects and had to follow the dictates of such an elected body. Today, we have the same problem. Washington may as well be on the moon for the amount of impact we, as average citizens, have on it.

     Finally, and this is probably the most important point, talk radio, and the media in general, is reactionary by its very nature. Commentators, by definition, are reacting to something that has already happened. News, by definition, is a description of an event in the past. Conservatism by its very name, is reactionary. It seeks to conserve the status quo, conserve the liberty that remains. If we look back on the last hundred years, or even the decades since President Reagan, any objective observer can see that as a movement, it has done a lousy job “conserving” liberty. Government has grown and liberty has retreated under both major parties. For all the growth of talk radio and the “alternative” media, its real impact has been negligible because it is reactionary and has no cohesive agenda.

    That is why the progressives, the statists, have been so successful. First, they have a cohesive agenda and a long term vision. If all else fails they can fall back on Marx as an ideological rallying point. Everything they do is geared toward expanding the power of the state until everything is under its, and their, control. Second, they are patient and persistent. If something does not work, they try something else with the same goal in mind. They will use legislation, the courts, the mob, executive order, bureaucratic fiat, whatever it takes to get their way. Third, they manipulate language to confuse their enemies. Look at he words liberal and conservative.   Liberal once meant what libertarian does now. Personally, that is why I don’t use it. I prefer statist, one who believes in the state. Conservative now means bigot, out of touch, sexist, redneck, hyper-Christian homophobe. President Obama is moving this along at a rapid clip. Success no longer means money but the poverty of government service. Wealth is evil, freedom is slavery, ignorance is bliss. Finally, and this is by no means a comprehensive list, the statist knows how to set the agenda. We have been dancing to the statist tune for one hundred years. Some may have tried a few new steps but the music hasn’t changed.

     If those of us who love liberty want to save our country from the statist vision that is quickly becoming a permanent reality, we must stop being reactionary. We cannot be like the little boy with his finger in the dike because there is an army on the other side always drilling new holes. The dike needs to be rebuilt with an impenetrable steel and concrete structure we once knew at the constitution. The only way to restore the constitution is to take power away from Washington, not to simply stop them from acquiring more. Consider the original Revolution. Samuel Adams and his friends in the Sons of Liberty didn’t just write letters to parliament and the king asking them to please not take away their God given rights. They had an agenda, independence, that they worked towards for twenty years through networking, protests, pamphlets, “slanted” news, property destruction and intimidation of government officials; whatever they could do to move toward the goal of liberty.

     It is time we stopped reacting and started acting. It is time those who loved liberty started setting the agenda and removing the ability of our elected officials and unelected bureaucrats to make our lives miserable. If ACORN can rent a mob to intimidate corporate officials, it is time we showed up outside the homes of our elected officials with signs and pitchforks to get their attention. It is time we stopped being intimidated and started doing the intimidating. We need to develop long range plans to eliminate all non constitutional functions from government. For example, we can start with the Department of Education. The statist knows that as long as he can keep creating good little government robots through government education, his plans will succeed. If we return education to the state, and ultimately, the local level, we will once again have control. We need to defund the government. I believe, like Thomas Jefferson, that income taxes are immoral and therefore we should work toward repeal of the sixteenth amendment. Without the ability to take our wealth, it will be hard to redistribute it. The seventeenth amendment should go as well to to give the states themselves a voice in government as originally intended.

     Ultimately, however, we need legislators who believe in the liberty of the people more than their own power who will introduce and pass such legislation. Al Franken threw his hat in the ring for the statist agenda.   It is time those who talk a good game “put some skin in the game” as Joe Biden said. It is time to put up or shut up. Sam Adams and the Sons of Liberty were not just rabble rousers. Many of them were elected assemblymen who shaped the course of our nation’s history. If men like Rush Limbaugh really care about the country, prove it. Do what needs to be done to change it. Take the pay cut and endure the media “anal exam” and put yourself in a position to really accomplish something. The statists have plenty of leaders, the lovers of liberty have none. We need a plan and courageous men and women to push it forward. Not career politicians but people who are willing to step forward as they did in the past to do a job that needs to be done.   If it doesn’t start happening now, if the agenda is not removed from the hands of the statist, the country our children inherit will be a nation no Son of Liberty would recognize.     

www.patricksamuels.com