There has been a great deal of angst among the Lefty Lib community regarding the emergence over the past year or so of what has become known as the 'Tea Party' movement. The liberals who now control the Democratic Party should be concerned, because they and their political leaders led by President Barrack Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have awoken a sleeping giant.
That sleeping giant is the true Conservative movement that the majority of Americans feel a natural affinity towards. The people who make up real main-stream America. Hard-working, family-rearing, tax-paying, God-fearing, America-loving, law-abiding folks who want government out of their lives. Who recognize that low taxation, modest regulation, secure borders, and the teaching of and support for American exceptionalism are the true path to lasting recovery, not the socialist style policies of the Obama administration.
That sleeping giant has been embodied by the Tea Partiers. The term, based on the 'Boston Tea Party' protesters of Revolutionary War days, evolved from those people at the grass roots levels of the Conservative movement who held and/or attended town hall meetings that sprang up across the nation during 2009 in response to the various government takeovers, bail outs, and spending programs enacted and proposed by Obama and the liberal Democrats.
Since those numerous and emotional town hall events, the Tea Partiers have taken to the internet, the radio waves, and the blogosphere to continue to push a return to basic, traditional American values and away from the government entitlements, social programs, and massive spending undertaken by the Dems.
But a problem has cropped up among some within the Tea Party movement itself. They have become so disenchanted, rightly in many cases, with some recent and current Republican politicians that they have floated the possibility of becoming their own 'third party' in American politics. This new formal 'Tea Party' would be wholly conservative in every way.
There is one major flaw to such an idea. It is a loser.
The only people who would actually benefit from a third 'Tea Party' made up of conservatives would be the Democratic Party and all of it's ultra-liberal politicians, consituencies and benefactors. Such a party would basically amount to a splitting up of the Republican Party, leaving the Dems to dominate organized politics for the forseeable future, and dooming America to their socialist tendencies, the very programs and ideals that the Tea Partiers stand against.
The 'Tea Party', such as it is, should remain exactly what it is - a movement. It should never try to become a third political party, thus damning itself to the destruction of the very causes for which it was established. What it should do, however, is hold Republican politicians at every level - particularly at the state and national levels - to traditional American and Conservative standards and values.
Remaining organized, active, and vocal will ensure that no longer will the Republican Party nominate a Progressive candidate as it's standard bearer, as it has in recent years with both George W. Bush and John McCain. Instead the Republican Party will have as it's out-front leaders those who support less governmental spending and intervention in our lives, lower taxes, a strong military, secure borders, a judiciary that interprets rather than creates laws, and programs and policies aimed at keeping America strong and independent.
Those on the leading edges of the various groups that make up the most vocal sections of the Conservative movement in America must keep the heat on the politicians and the Republican Party as a whole, while at the same time tempering and better channeling the emotions of those who would sabotage the Party and imperil it's future from within. Only by sticking together and remaining strong will we be able to overcome the Liberals, the Progressives, and the Democrats, elect conservative Republican majorities, and begin to roll back the Obama policies, dismantle the Obama programs, and return America to common sense.
For the past year it has become the public mantra of Democratic Party politicians: "Elections have consequences." Whether they were talking about bailing out large corporations or taking over the banking, auto, and health care industries, that simple phrase has been their fallback position.
To some extent, that is true. When the nation elects a leader such as Barack Obama, the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate, it has definitely sent a message. A majority of the citizens of the United States spoke up in November of 2008 and sent the message that the direction the country was headed during the Bush years was not one that they wanted to continue following.
The American electorate sent a clear message for 'change' to Washington politicians at that point. The problem, however, and it is a big one for the Dems, is that the voters quite obviously wanted 'change' with a small 'c', not the "Change" that marked the Obama campaign's signature slogan.
What Obama was trumpeting was "fundamental change", a message that he banged home time and time again. The mass electorate heard those words and decided that he meant a simple change in direction, something they wanted indeed. What he actually meant was to change the very nature of what it meant to be America as a nation.
After winning election, Obama got his house in order, got his Democratic Party leadership organized, and then set out down the path towards that fundamental change from a democratic, capitalist society to a full-blown European-inspired socialist one. The American 'system' that had made us the envy of the world for generations had somehow "failed" in is words and needed to be almost completely trashed.
Problem was, the American public didn't go along for the ride. As the depth and scope of Obama's vision of change came into view and practice, as Dem national leaders like Nancy Pelosi in Congress and Harry Reid in the Senate began to push the legislative agenda, it became crystal-clear to Americans that socialism was the order of the day.
The Democrats were making a fundamental political mistake, one that the Republicans had made a couple of times in the last couple of decades. They assumed that their election to power now gave them a mandate for major changes to America, and they began to institute those major changes.
Quickly, the American public began to voice their concerns. In every major public opinion poll, the public shouted at the top of it's lungs for the Dem leadership to slow things down. Some changes were needed to the system, yes. But almost no one wanted socialist restrictions and control to replace democratic capitalism's freedom and liberty.
Socialism has failed everywhere that it has every been tried on earth. The reasons are quite simple. Taking away incentives from individuals to work harder, to dream bigger, to achieve more results in less production. Citizens come to rely on their government to provide for them. Eventually, the government can no longer do so, because it simply lacks the resources.
You cannot possibly tax individuals and businesses enough to sustain government control. And let's face it, that is the only place that government gets it's money. Government is, in fact, you and I. We pay into the system to keep it functional. We elect people to run things as our representatives. In a socialist system, those representatives just keep raising and raising our taxes to take on more and more control over our everyday lives.
Eventually a system such as the Obama administration is attempting to install will collapse on itself because it is economically unsustainable. But before it does, society will degenerate into a mess of ennui and disillusionment, or worse. If those who have control in a socialist system see that control slipping away, their response has often been to use force to remain in power. They change the laws and keep themselves in the life boats to protect their own interests as the ship sinks around them.
Many Americans did understand that this would be the direction that Obama and the leading Dems would take once in power. Those are the tens of millions who voted against them. They are now being joined by the millions 'in the middle', those Americans who wanted the small 'c' of 'change', not the capital 'C' of Obama's socialism.
Yes, Democrats, elections have consequences. However, what you are failing to remember is the lessons of politicians and Parties past. That there is always another election coming. This November, Americans will again go to the polls. All signs point to the Dems losing control of Congress, which will seriously cripple Obama's ability to continue his agenda.
Obama and Pelosi and Reid have led America down this path of 'Change' at full speed, recklessly disregarding the public's wishes time and time again. Reid and many of his Dem leadership co-horts will undoubtedly pay the price in the Fall of 2010. They will pay that price because, despite their election victories in 2006 and 2008, they are now ignoring the American electorate in 2010.
Now is a time of opportunity for the Republican Party to reassert itself, but it must be willing to return to basic American principles of democracy, capitalism, and traditional exceptionalism in order to take full advantage. The Republicans must reflect core American values, pledge a change in direction to fiscal sanity and responsibility, and to fully and effectively preserving and defending our nation and it's founding principles.
In the fall of 2010, the Democrats will be reminded that elections do indeed have consequences. When they lose their control over Congress, their control over the purse strings and the power and the direction, then they will cry and wail and moan. They will blame one another, point fingers, and become disgruntled. And they will have no one to blame but themselves, because elections do indeed have consequences, the next one as strongly as the last one.
Senate Republican sources say the Senate parliamentarian -- who essentially acts as the Senate referee -- has shot down the Democrats' latest strategy for passing a final bill, CBS News Capitol Hill Producer John Nolen reports.
Democrats were planning on bypassing Republican obstruction -- as well as reaching a compromise on the legislation within their own party -- with a multi-step process: The House would pass the health care bill already approved by the Senate. Then, both the House and Senate would pass a "fix it" bill that would amend the Senate bill. The "fix it" bill would pass the Senate via a process called reconciliation, which only requires 51 votes.
The strategy was complicated from the beginning, but according to Republicans, the Senate parliamentarian is now saying that President Obama would have to sign a health care bill into law before Congress can amend it with a reconciliation measure.
Senate Democrats had no immediate comment on the matter, Nolen reports.
The parliamentarian ruling could foil Democrats' plans to avoid signing into law the "sweetheart deals" that have tainted the Senate bill, such as Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.)'s provision that exempts the state of Nebraska from having to pay for any expansion of Medicaid. Democrats are divided over a number of other issues, such as the Senate bill's tax on high-end insurance plans, which they planned to revolve through the reconciliation bill...
...Democrats are still moving forward with the plan to pass a "fix it" reconciliation bill, even in light of the parliamentarian's ruling. The Congressional Budget Office is expected to give Congress a cost estimate for their proposed reconciliation bill by this weekend at the latest, Politico reports, and the House Budget Committee will discuss the bill on Monday.
This could affect the speed of how this health care bill plays out:
Senate Majority Leader - Harry Reid's Wife and Daughter In Car Accident: (CBS) Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's wife Landra Reid, 69, and daughter Lana Reid-Barringer, 48, were involved in a car accident and have been hospitalized for treatment.
Landra Reid's back, neck and nose were broken in the accident, according to Reid's office. Lana Reid sustained neck injury and facial lacerations. Their vehicle, a van, was rear-ended by a semi-truck while they were driving on a highway near Washington DC.
"Both Mrs. Reid and Lana are conscious, can feel their extremities, and according to doctors their injuries are non-life threatening," Reid spokesman Jon Summers said in a statement. "Senator Reid has been to the hospital and appreciates the support he and his family are receiving from Nevadans and his colleagues in the Senate."
Strong Aftershocks Jolt Chile Inauguration: (CBS) A series of strong aftershocks from last month's devastating quake rocked Chile on Thursday as a new president was sworn into office and immediately urged coastal residents to move to higher ground in case of a tsunami.
The strongest aftershock, with a magnitude of 6.9, was nearly as strong as the quake that devastated Haiti's capital on Jan. 12. There were no immediate reports of damages or injuries.
...President Sebastian Pinera was inaugurated at a congressional building in coastal Valparaiso before the building was evacuated as a precaution. The seven aftershocks strongly swayed buildings, shook windows and sent frightened Chileans streaming into the street.
The magnitude-6.9 aftershock is the strongest since the day of the Feb. 27, magnitude-8.8 quake. It occurred along the same fault line, said geophysicist Don Blakeman at the U.S. Geological Survey in Golden, Colorado. The USGS initially estimated the aftershock's magnitude at 7.2.
Mystery Surrounding King Tut's Dad Solved: (CBS/AP) The DNA tests that revealed how the famed boy-king Tutankhamun most likely died solved another of ancient Egypt's enduring mysteries - the fate of controversial Pharaoh Akhenaten's mummy. The discovery could help fill out the picture of a fascinating era more than 3,300 years ago when Akhenaten embarked on history's first attempt at monotheism.
During his 17-year rule, Akhenaten sought to overturn more than a millennium of Egyptian religion and art to establish the worship of a single sun god. In the end, his bold experiment failed and he was eventually succeeded by his son, the young Tutankhamun, who rolled back his reforms and restored the old religion.
No one ever knew what became of the heretic pharaoh, whose tomb in the capital he built at Amarna was unfinished and whose name was stricken from the official list of kings.
Two years of DNA testing and CAT scans on 16 royal mummies conducted by Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities, however, gave the firmest evidence to date that an unidentified mummy - known as KV55, after the number of the tomb where it was found in 1907 in Egypt's Valley of the Kings - is Akhenaten's.
The testing, whose results were announced last month, established that KV55 was the father of King Tut and the son of the Pharaoh Amenhotep III, a lineage that matches Akhenaten's, according to inscriptions.
Warning: Ancient Sex on Display in Paris: (AP) The latest show at Paris' Quai Branly museum comes with a warning for visitors: "This exhibition of Moche ceramics shows sexual acts of an explicit nature."
But the extraordinary and graphic testimonial of the ancient Moche civilization of Peru isn't about physical pleasure or procreation, according to the curator.
He says the sexual acts evoke the rituals that accompanied the death of dignitaries, and the human sacrifices that went with them. They tell a story about the power of the elite that he says has parallels with modern life.
"Sex, death and sacrifice in the Moche religion," which opened this week and runs until May 23, brings to Europe for the first time 134 erotic Moche ceramics on loan from the Larco Museum in Lima, Peru.
The Moche lived on what is now the northern coast of Peru between the first and eighth centuries. The ancient Andean people belonged to one of the first societies to organize itself in way that would be recognized as a state, constructing cities with elaborate monuments and specialized centers for the production of textiles, metal and ceramics.
Their culture is on display at the anthropological Quai Branly museum, whose recent exhibits include an exploration of the Teotihuacan people of ancient Mexico and a tribute to African literature and culture...
Workers strike to protest spending cuts in Greece - tens of thousands of walked off the job to protest painful government budget cuts.
And in my own state of Louisiana I'm glad to see the House go after this guy:
House votes to impeach federal judge from Louisiana: Washington (CNN) -- The House of Representatives voted unanimously Thursday to impeach Judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr. of U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, making him the nation's 15th federal judge ever impeached.
"Our investigation found that Judge Porteous participated in a pattern of corrupt conduct for years," said U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff, D-California, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Task Force on Judicial Impeachment.
"Litigants have the right to expect a judge hearing their case will be fair and impartial, and avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Regrettably, no one can have that expectation in Judge Porteous' courtroom."
After the impeachment vote, Schiff and Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Virginia, were named the lead impeachment managers for the Senate trial, which will decide whether to remove Porteous from the bench.
"Today's vote marks only the second time in over 20 years that this has occurred," Goodlatte said in a House news release. "However, when evidence emerges that an individual is abusing his judicial office for his own advantage, the integrity of the entire judicial system becomes compromised."
...Last year, the Task Force on Judicial Impeachment held evidentiary hearings that led to unanimous approval of the four articles of impeachment, citing evidence that Porteous "intentionally made material false statements and representations under penalty of perjury, engaged in a corrupt kickback scheme, solicited and accepted unlawful gifts, and intentionally misled the Senate during his confirmation proceedings," the House release said.
Porteous was appointed to the federal bench in 1994.
...An Impeachment Task Force held four hearings late last year that focused on allegations of misconduct by Porteous, including:
-- Involvement in a corrupt kickback scheme
-- Failure to recuse himself from a case he was involved in
-- Allegations that Porteous made false and misleading statements, including concealing debts and gambling losses
-- Allegations that Porteous asked for and accepted "numerous things of value, including meals, trips, home and car repairs, for his personal use and benefit" while taking official actions on behalf of his benefactors
-- Allegations that Porteous lied about his past to the U.S. Senate and to the FBI about his nomination to the federal bench "in order to conceal corrupt relationships," Schiff said in his floor statement as prepared for delivery.
*** THANKS for visiting, come back often, feel welcome to drop a comment or opinion, a big shout out to awesome current subscribers - and if you are new to this blog, please subscribe in a reader or by email updates!
It might be a bit too premature and over dramatic to use such terms, but it is not very difficult to make the case that what happened yesterday in Massachusetts is not some isolated election anomaly, but part of a burgeoning nationwide American political revolution.
Since Republican Henry Cabot Lodge was defeated by a young, upstart politician named John F. Kennedy in November of 1952 and left office in January of '53, at least one of Massachusetts' two U.S. Senators has been a Democrat. Two years after JFK was elected to the Presidency in 1960, his brother Ted Kennedy assumed the seat and owned it until his death last year.
The other Massachusetts Senatorial spot was won by Paul Tsongas for the Democrats in 1979. He was succeeded in 1985 by ultra-liberal John Kerry, and so the Democrats have had solid control of both U.S. Senatorial seats from Massachusetts for a generation. In what has to be a stunning, bitter, ironic defeat for the Dems, the seat virtually owned by the Kennedy's and controlled by liberal interests for over a half century was lost yesterday.
In the special election held yesterday to replace the deceased 'Lion of the Senate', 50-year old Scott Brown was chosen by the previously reliable voters of Massachusetts to become the first Republican U.S. Senator to represent the commonwealth in three decades.
It is that very idea of previously 'reliable' voters rising up and throwing out the candidates presented by their political party, particularly the Democratic Party at this time, that leads to the notion that there is something more brewing here than simple dissatisfaction in local politics.
A year ago today, Barack Obama was sworn-in as the 44th President of the United States. The first minority to hold the office, Obama was elected after a campaign that promised to "fundamentally change America" in his very own words.
It has become abundantly clear in the ensuing year that what Obama and his ultra-liberal congressional leaders, U.S. Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi from California and U.S. Senator Harry Reid from Nevada, consider 'Change' is very different from what the vast majority of those who elected him expected.
The majority of voters are generally 'centrists' who do not adhere to any political idealogy on a stringent basis in their daily lives. They may be generally conservative in nature, such as myself and most Republicans, or generally liberal, as most Democrats, but they begin to get very turned off when the far-end of either party begins to attempt to assert control over their lives.
The voters should have understood what Obama meant by his 'Change' because he was really no secret. By every measure he was the most far-left of the liberal Democratic U.S. Senators. His personal, educational, social, and political associations were all at least bordering on socialist and communist. He is certainly the single most politically progressive individual to ever hold the highest office in the land.
But the fact is that the majority of voters just didn't get it. They were wooed by Obama's dynamic public speaking ability and by a liberal-dominated mass media into buying into the notion that he would simply be a compassionate, intellectual alternative to lead a younger generation of Americans forward in a changing world.
Instead, what Obama did was almost immediately undertake a radical policy to have the federal government take over large swaths of American private industry. He and his political allies who are currently in control of Congress and the Senate have taken what was already huge public debt and driven it to irresponsible levels. This will undoubtedly lead to massive tax increases in the coming months and years.
Many people now believe this is an intentional attempt to collapse the American financial system and lead to complete government control of most or all sectors of public life including the financial, labor, health, educational, and media systems.
None of these actions are in compliance with the stated intent or the spirit of the U.S. Constitution or the traditional American precepts of self-reliance and independence. As the year has worn on, Americans finally began to sit up, take notice, and then stand up to be heard.
At what became known as 'Tea Parties' and at town hall meetings across the country, Americans let their elected officials and representatives of the Obama administration know that they were not happy with the direction in which the country was heading. Rather than pay heed to the obvious discontent fomenting among the people, the arrogant politicians plowed on with their plans, often publicly stating that they didn't care what the people want.
Then came the fall, and election season. In New Jersey, uber-rich, ultra-liberal incumbent Democratic Governor Jon Corzine was defeated by Republican Chris Christie. In Virginia, Republican Bob McDonnell ousted liberal Tim Kaine from the Governor's seat held by the Dems for eight years. The issues and personalities were indeed local, but in both instances reflected national opinions and trends.
For months now, almost every single reliable poll taken across the country has shown great dissatisfaction among the electorate with the programs and the policies undertaken by Obama and being plowed through congress by his lock-step Democratic Party cohorts. The polls are showing that the gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey were akin to tremors preceding an earthquake. What happened yesterday in the Massachusetts Senatorial election is the strongest in what is now a continuing series of these tremors.
What seems crystal clear at this point is that traditional American values are under attack, and Americans have had enough of both parties. Going forward, at least in the short term, it appears that no incumbent who ignores their electorate is safe. Americans don't want party politics as usual, they want people who will speak the truth to them, and who will respond to them. Either that, or the people will resort to the old political axiom of 'throw the bums out'.
This coming fall Americans will go to the polls all across the nation in what will be pivotal times for the future of the country. Will the United States continue to slide closer and closer to full-blown socialism by keeping the current liberals running the Democratic Party in control? Or will the American political revolution begun at the 2009 tea parties and town halls, carried into Virginia, New Jersey, and now Massachusetts, lead to a reclaiming of traditional America?
The picture accompanying this story might look like a scene out of some late 1960's, Gump-esque, anti-Vietnam War rally with counter-culture hippies, radicals, and others disenchanted with the actions and policies of their government protesting those actions and policies.
However, the picture, one that many of you likely have never seen because the former mainstream media does not want you to know about these events and thus fails to cover them or underpublicizes them, is not from the 'Summer of Love' but rather it is from the end of this very past summer. September 12th, 2009 to be exact.
The Americans in this counter-culture demonstration, the new generation of 'radicals', gathered in the National Mall between the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument and all over Washington, D.C. to demand fundamental change.
You might have heard that before somewhere, the "Change" idea? The one word slogan was deftly used in last year's U.S. presidential campaign by Barrack Hussein Obama. It was meant to galvanize those sitting on the fence in the election to support a change from the policies of the George W. Bush administration which had governed for the previous eight years.
But while Obama and his people sold that idea as a change from Bush policies to what they described as some new, more enlightened and peaceful era, what they were actually selling was a bill of goods. Their real motive was a change in the very fabric, culture, and traditional values of America.
During their first year with full control of the American political process since 1994 the Democratic Party has shown that it's transformation from a centrist, populist party fighting for the middle class to one that is completely dominated by it's fringe left and bent on massive social change is now complete.
Just since coming to power in January, Obama and his lock-step congress led by California congresswoman Nancy Pelosi and Nevada senator Harry Reid have driven America further into debt than the combination of every political generation before them. And while risking financial catastrophe they have begun to risk our very safety and security with their weak foreign policy approach.
All the while, they and their supporters in the puppet media have begun to tear away at the very fabric of American spiritual and institutional culture, lurching it ever closer to collapse and their ultimate goal of a communist/socialist, totalitarian, government-run life for all.
Tens of millions of American did not vote for Obama or for much of any change in the last election, albeit as the lesser of two evils. Millions sat it out because they were not happy with the choices, even when they believed Obama was bad for America. And now millions more who did vote for that 'Change' have begun to realize that they were hoodwinked by these elitists masquerading as commoners.
In response to these mounting attacks on the American traditional way of life and value system, Americans from all walks of life, all races and social standings, began to mobilize at the grass-roots level, forming the beginnings of what has now grown into "The 912 Project" movement.
The movement began to organize with responses at a series of town hall meetings held by the Obama government meant to sell their socialist health-care program. Regular everyday people showed up and began to speak out against these policies. Then the 'Tea Party' movement was born, taking its name from the famous 'Boston Tea Party' protest action during the run-up to the Revolutionary War. This all culminated with the massive rally on September 12th, 2009 in Washington, D.C. Popular radio and television commentator Glenn Beck, among others, devotes a great deal of time and effort to spreading the message.
The term '912' or '9/12 mindset' comes from the idea that in the immediate aftermath of the attacks against our nation by islamofascist terrorists on September 11th, 2001 (9/11) the entirety of the population was together. We all were wounded, outraged, mourned, grieved. We all demanded and sought retribution and we all clearly saw the enemy and the dangers which they posed beginning on 9/12, the day after the attacks.
Since the first months after the attacks, however, the continued passing of time has seen many Americans drift away into a state of passiveness and apparent forgetfulness. They seem to lack the knowledge that the enemies who attacked us then continue to look for further opportunities to attack us now, and on a grander scale.
There also are some Americans who have intentionally moved past that post-attack period and are happy that many others have forgotten. These are actual Americans who believe that we simply got what we had coming to us on that fateful day in September 2001. They want a version of what the terrorists want, a complete change in American ideals and culture.
Only these Americans want the opposite direction of change. Whereas the islamofascists want America to become an islamic theocracy with the Koran as the basis of its laws and the ruling clerics as the interpreters of social and cultural doctrine, these liberals want an open, anything goes society. They want to force their version of equality and collective group-think, based on what the government believes is best for everyone. Both ways directly attack the very ideals that America was founded upon.
The organizers of 'The 912 Project' tapped into that feeling from the day after the 9/11 attacks, that remembrance that we are all one nation, that our freedom is unique and vital, and that the ideals which the Founding Fathers of our nation established are worth both fighting and dying for.
The project bases it's organization on 9 principles and 12 values upon which it hopes to begin the process of refounding traditional America. The 12 values are: honesty, reverence, hope, thrift, humility, charity, sincerity, moderation, hard work, courage, personal responsibility, and gratitude. Pretty radical stuff, huh?
The 9 principles are even more radical, depending on whether you share the Obama-led view that government is the boss, knows best, has all the answers, is unaccountable, and that you should just shut up if you disagree. These 9 principles are:
1) America is good 2) I believe in God and He is the center of my life 3) I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday 4) The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government. 5) If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it. 6) I have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results. 7) I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable. 8) It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion 9) The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.
While admitting that I agree with the vast majority of these principles and values, I have not always lived up to some of them. That is going to change. I am looking forward to dedicating myself completely to these basic foundational ideals in my life, and a fight to return them to their rightful place at the center of American culture, society, and law.
If you share the belief that America is the land of the free and the home of the brave, that God has blessed America, and that we are supposed to be a nation of the people, for the people, and by the people then you need to look into 'The 912 Project' more deeply and consider dedication yourself in some way.
NOTE: As always, the title of this entry is a link to further information on the subject, in this instance taking you directly to 'The 912 Project' website.
