No Longer Self-Evident?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.  They are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, 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 or to abolish it and to institute new Government......

--The Unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America

July 4, 1776

  

It wasn't that long ago that the truths mentioned by our founding fathers were self-evident.  They weren't up for debate.  We knew that we were endowed by our Creator with these rights.  The  government worked for us, not vice versa.  Somewhere along the way we lost sight of these truths.  We have allowed the government to grant us our rights.  The problem with the government granting rights?  The government can also rescind the same rights.  The government no longer derives its power from the consent of the governed (us).  The government   creates power for itself, if not through legislation, through regulation.  And we, the people, are allowing it and in many cases, even encouraging it.  

If our form of government is destructive to the people's unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property), and it is our right to alter or abolish that government, how we do we achieve that alteration or abolition?  That is where the first two amendments to our Constitution come into play.  

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Without the right to peaceably assemble, speak freely, and petition the  government; and the right of the people to bear arms,  it would be impossible to secure a free state or ensure the other rights granted by our Creator and guaranteed in the Constitution.  Without free speech or an armed populace, how can the people control the government as it grants itself more and more power?  We can't.  When we lose the rights guaranteed in the first two amendments, all other rights are granted at the whim of the government.  I don't think anyone, right, left, Republican, Democrat, or Libertarian are prepared for that eventuality.  Yet that's where we are heading at a breakneck speed now.  

When guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns.

--Edward Abbey

See What You See, Say What You See

One of the "gadgets" on my blog is right above the posts, random quotes from Ronald Reagan.  The quote that convinced me to add the gadget is "Don't be afraid to see what you see."  Fortunately for us, Reagan lived before political correctness completely overran our common sense.  When Reagan called the Soviet Union "the Evil Empire," Americans weren't afraid to see the truth in the description.  That is no longer the case.  Because of fear of insulting someone, or a particularly easily offended group, we progressed from being afraid to say what we see, to now, being afraid of even seeing what we see.  The most ridiculous example is "Muslim extremist."  It's was more than a year ago when Whoopi Goldberg walked off the set of The View because Bill O'Reilly described the 9-11 terrorists as Muslim extremists.  Our "Justice" Department, I'm assuming in the spirit of political correctness - they couldn't be that incompetent, could they?, described the shooting of U.S. soldiers on a U.S. Army base by an American Muslim soldier screaming "Allah Akhbar" as an incidence of workplace violence, rather than what it obviously was -  an act of terror by a Muslim extremist. We have a president who campaigns on a theme of redistribution of wealth, the very definition of Marxism, but we can't call him a Marxist.  He's only interested in fairness.  I won't give further examples of political correctness run amok, just the latest and its consequences.

This week, in Portland, Oregon, a 22 year old man walked into Clackamass Town Center, a mall packed with Christmas shoppers and started shooting.  He killed two people and seriously injured another, before reportedly killing himself.  The focus immediately was placed upon the gun he used, an "assault rifle."  Gun control advocates would have us believe that the blame for the crime should be placed on the gun.  If only Oregon had stricter gun control laws, this crime would never have happened.  The problem with this argument is that Oregon already has fairly restrictive gun laws.  To buy the gun, Jacob Roberts would have had to pass an federal background check.  He bypassed this requirement by breaking the law.  He stole the gun and ammunition.  The mall, like the theater in Aurora, Colorado, was declared a "Gun-Free" zone.  Persons who take a firearm onto property declared to be "Gun-Free" are breaking the law and subject to prosecution and penalties that vary by location.  Mr. Roberts broke that law too.  So how exactly will making more laws prevent actions by a person like Jacob Roberts from committing these crimes?  Obviously the law had no meaning to him.  We are afraid to blame Mr. Roberts for being evil?  A person who commits an act of random violence against people that he doesn't even know, has no reason for killing, is evil, PERIOD.  Why are we afraid to see that?  Why are we afraid to say that?  The second amendment did not kill two people.  Oregon's gun laws did not kill two people.  Mr. Roberts' friend who owned the gun did not kill two people.  The mall's Gun-Free policy did not kill two people.  Jacob Roberts killed two people. Are we afraid to say Roberts was evil because his friends and family described him as a "friendly," "adrenaline junkie," "video game player," who "just wanted to make you laugh."?  Were his friends and family afraid to see what they saw in him?  Were they afraid to see that he was troubled?  Afraid to really talk to him, to really get to know him?  Were there signs that he might be troubled, and friends and family were just afraid to see them?

The shooting of strangers by an EVIL deranged man in a mall was bad enough.  But yesterday evil struck again.  This time at an elementary school in Connecticut.  A man walked into an elementary school and shot six adults and twenty kindergarten students before reportedly killing himself.  Once again, the focus went immediately not to the killer, but to his weapons.  He was found inside the school with a 9mm Sig Sauer, and a Glock, both handguns.  A .223 Bushmaster rifle was found in the backseat of his mother's car in the school parking lot.   So once again, an evil and senseless murder is being blamed on an assault rifle, this time one in the backseat of a car parked outside the scene of the murders.  Connecticut has some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the country, the school, once again is a "Gun-Free Zone."  And the evil deranged murderer was too young to legally purchase either of the guns he used.  But many people, including the president are demanding that we "take action," i.e. pass laws, to insure that heinous actions like this do not happen again.  So once again, they are demanding that more laws be written to prevent people like the one who broke countless laws to commit this crime from doing it in the future.  Apparently just one more law would have stopped him in the view of the president and others.  As Einstein said, the "definition of insanity is repeating the same action, expecting different results."  So Rush Limbaugh makes perfect sense when he says that "liberalism is a disease," it's a disease that causes insanity.      Like the health care laws, EPA regulations, and tax hikes for the "wealthy," gun control is about control.  It's not a policy to solve any problem, it's a policy to control people or a group of people.  It's about eliminating choice.  As horrible as yesterday's crime is, as much as any of us want future crimes like this to be prevented by an easy fix, a new law will not prevent an evil person from committing evil acts.  The only way to prevent atrocities like this is for each of us to not be afraid to see what we see.  Adam Lanza is described as "troubled," exhibiting "autistic-like behaviors."  So were friends and family afraid to see his troubles until after he killed 20 kindergartners and 6 adults?  Were they afraid to say what they saw and try to get Adam Lanza some help?  The only way to stop this violence is to stop being politically correct.  We must see evil where there is evil.  We must say we see evil when we see evil.  We can't be afraid to say what we see, for fear of hurting someone's feelings, or damaging their self-esteem.   Inaction can lead to much worse.

So, what I see today is a country shocked by a horrible crime.  A crime that is so unimaginable that we absolutely must do something to make sure that nothing similar happens again.  But once again, a very large number of us want to take the easy way out.  Rather than taking personal responsibility, we want our "mommy," the government, to do it for us.  Blaming the weapons is an emotional reaction that is being reinforced by the president and the media and it is the lazy, easy way out.  Once again, the president and the media is counting on Americans being "low information voters" and useful idiots.  Yes, the idiots are being used once again.  Yesterday I saw almost everyone shocked and hurt by the actions of an evil lunatic.  I saw Americans imagining themselves in the place of those parents in Connecticut.  I saw media and the president's press secretary saying it's too early to bring politics into the discussion about the murders.  I then saw the same media, on CNN, MSNBC, and others immediately bring up the need for more regulations.  I saw celebrities like Alec Baldwin (his photo, along with Sean Penn's is in the dictionary beside the useful idiot definition) use Twitter to call for Americans to "stop defending your right to bear arms.  You're stupid."  Then finally I saw the president speak about the murders.  Most of us saw our own emotions and outrage reflected in the president's face as he spoke about the children and the fact that they would never experience life's events that all children experience.  We could see our own sorrow reflected as he paused, clenched his jaw to hold back the emotion he was feeling, the emotion we were all feeling.  For once, I could actually see the president had the same feeling and reaction that I did.  Then he wiped away a non-existent tear, and another, and another.  Then he made the statement I was hoping not to hear, but fully expecting, "And we're going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics."  I expect that his "meaningful action" does not involve personal responsibility, but instead more restrictions of the rights guaranteed in our Constitution.  Never let a crisis go to waste, as you fundamentally transform the United States, right Mr. President?

Just saying what I see again, I see a president expressing great emotion at the loss of 26 lives, 20 babies.  A president, who as Illinois state senator voted multiple times AGAINST, not his usual "present," but AGAINST  legislation that would require doctors to act to save the lives of babies born during failed abortions, babies born, living through abortion procedures.  The same president who campaigned this past fall that taking taxpayer money away from Planned Parenthood was part of the Republican Party's war against women.  Taxpayer money that funded 289,750 murders or abortions in 2008 alone, according to their own website.  So either he feels great sorrow at the loss of children taken by gun related violence, but not those taken by physical violence at the hands and instruments of a government funded murderer, or what I see.  I see a president that feels nothing about either.  He sees both as a crisis to be taken advantage of.  We have all seen many examples of evil in the past few days.

Just an update that has been published since I started writing this, Adam Lanza, the Connecticut murderer, tried to buy a rifle at a local sporting goods store two days before his killing spree.  He was blocked by the state's gun sale waiting period.  He stole the guns he used from his mother.  The door of the school was locked as required by the school's security policy.  Lanza broke a window beside the door to enter the school.  Laws and physical obstructions will not solve our problem, not a gun problem, a people problem.  Only we, individually, can fix a people problem.  Don't be afraid to see what you see.

And In This Corner.....

 As a boy growing up, I loved professional wrestling.  Back in the day before cable made professional wrestling a national phenomenon, it was a local production.  I discovered wrestling on one of the local stations out of Amarillo, Texas.  In those days, the local heroes were the Funk family.  They were led by the wrestling legend, Dory Funk who was semi-retired when I was a kid.  The NWA world champion was his son, Dory Funk Jr.  I rarely got to see his matches on our Saturday afternoon wrestling programs.  So my favorite and the favorite of all the boys in Gruver was Dory Jr.'s little brother, Terry Funk.  Wrestling was the ultimate story of good against evil, and the Funk family was definitely the good guys.  No one in their right mind would be caught cheering against any of the Funk family.

Dory Funk Sr. and Dory Funk Jr.

Terry Funk

After a few years of being a huge Terry Funk fan, my family moved to Graham.  One of my adjustments was the loss of my Saturday afternoon wrestling programs.  My Grandma Mae introduced me to Channel 11 out of Dallas and professional wrestling, LIVE from the Sportatorium!  I was really excited to see in the TV Guide that Terry Funk was going to be in the main event.  You cannot imagine how shocked and disappointed I was to learn that my hero, Terry Funk was the villain!  To make matters worse, the evil Von Erich's were the local heroes.  Talk about conflicted.  After living in Graham for awhile, I became a fan of Fritz Von Erich and his sons Kevin, David, and later Kerry.  Instead of practicing Dory Funk Sr.'s spinning toe hold, all the neighborhood boys became masters of Fritz Von Erich's dreaded Iron Claw.  

Fritz
Kevin, David, & Kerry Von Erich

No one in the Channel 11 viewing area would dream of cheering for any wrestler, other than one of the Von Erich's.  In the mid 1980's, pro wrestling went to a nationwide audience with favorites like Hulk Hogan and villains like Andre the Giant (another hero from my Amarillo wrestling memories).  The WWE exploded on cable channels and overtook the locally produced programs.  Wrestling became even more cartoon-ish with purely evil villains and purely good  heroes who eventually would win the hearts of the fans, even while losing matches due to incompetent referees.  Somewhere along the way, maybe because fans no longer had a "local" hero, things changed.  Fans split into two camps.  Of course the majority of fans supported the hero, the good guy, but some cheered on the bad guys.  The good guy was seen as too clean, too wholesome.  Pro wrestling seemed to push promote the villains even more than the heroes.  A large number of fans took pride in their support of the villains.  Eventually, this attitude seemed to bleed over into other sports.  In Texas from the 1970's through the late 1980's, everyone was a fan of the Dallas Cowboys.  People who moved to Texas from other areas might follow their former hometown favorite, but eventually they almost always became Cowboy fans.  Sure there were a few oddballs that grew tired of the way the Cowboys were worshiped, and became vocal fans of Bum Phillips' Houston Oilers, but they were rare.  But as the "pro wrestling" mentality became more prevalent, some football fans started buying Redskins' gear or worse, Steelers' merchandise.  Fans weren't necessarily cheering for a team, but they seemed to be cheering against the local favorite.  

When we moved to Colorado, I saw the perfect example of this attitude.  Of course in Colorado, the Broncos are the NFL team to follow.  At the time we moved, the Broncos weren't too far removed from their Super Bowl championships with John Elway as quarterback.  In the store I managed, Broncos' gear was the top seller, but it was followed very closely by the Broncos most hated rival, the Oakland Raiders.  The majority of the Raiders' fans weren't so much Raiders' fans as they were Bronco haters.  As a football or just overall sports nerd, I would talk about the Raiders, current or past and most of the Raider "fans" had no clue about their chosen team, either current or past.  I think it's just an example of the contrary attitude that most people used to outgrow after their teen rebellion years.  I think an increasingly large number of people no longer outgrow the rebellious stage, but take pride in their unique-ness.  

This attitude has spilled over from the entertainment of professional wrestling to legitimate sports, to the rest of everyday life in America today.  It's a little jarring to read history and learn about men spending the evenings in the local tavern discussing and debating religion, politics, science and so many other subjects from a base of knowledge.  Most Americans were self-educated.  They listened, they read, they were interested in gaining knowledge.  The quote from Emerson that I mentioned before, "foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds," was a popularly held opinion.  A person's position on an issue should evolve as that person gains knowledge.  That no longer seems to be the case.  There is no longer a debate.  A person is a Global Warming believer or denier, a 9-11 truther or a Muslim hating Conservative, a Tea Partier or a Progressive, a baby killing pro-choicer or a woman hating right to lifer.  Having a debate about these issues is not a bad thing.  What is so destructive right now is how uninformed our positions are.  Rather than having an honest debate, we pick a side and defend it to the very end.  When the chosen side is not backed up by a base of knowledge, the debate soon turns to the name-calling we heard so much of during the most recent campaign season.  When opinions are not backed by knowledge, manipulation becomes much easier.  Honesty is not necessary if the public is not curious enough to do their own research.  

It is very discouraging to talk to people about the recent election and learn the basis of their choice.  It is almost never "for" someone or something, but "against" the other person or policy.  If our society is going to survive, we must have intelligent debate on issues.  We have to have intellectual honesty from ourselves and our candidates.  We have to force our politicians to be honest.  If they talk about the rich paying their "fair share," make them say what they believe is fair.  Is raising taxes on those making over $250,000 a year going to help solve our fiscal problems, or is it in the interest of redistribution of wealth (are they,  or are we honest enough to call it what it is - Marxism) to buy votes?  Is it all right for your candidate to listen in on cell phone conversations, or hold those suspected of supporting terrorists indefinitely without charging them with a crime, gather information from private e-mails, or to send our troops to war without the approval of Congress, but not ok for the candidate from the other side?  We need to read and learn enough to know what we believe and what we support.  Then we need to read and learn what candidates from all sides not only say they will do, but what they have done and are doing.  The sad thing is that we live in an age where all this information and more is easier to find than ever before in the history of mankind, we are just too lazy or uninterested to find it.  

I have seen interviews with a woman who said she thinks the president did an "acceptable job" in the Benghazi situation.  "Ben Ghazi is hard to predict, you can never tell what that man will do."  I have a friend who voted for Obama because Romney would cut programs that help single women.  But she works a job that pays her in cash, so she doesn't pay taxes on it.  I have relatives that vote Democrat because "I'm a fiscally conservative bleeding heart liberal."  How can anyone claim to be fiscally conservative and support the president and his $6 trillion and climbing debt?  I have another relative that when questioned about individual policies holds positions to the right of the most conservative Libertarian, yet votes Democrat every election because Republicans only care about the rich.  I know several people that didn't vote at all because there was "no difference between the candidates."  These are the pro wrestling voters, their votes have no basis in fact, only in emotion, or possibly in rebellion.  The political consultants call these people "low information voters."  Stalin had a more accurate, if less politically correct description.  He called them "useful idiots."  

 

Choice. Use It or Lose It.

Other than football or Davy Crockett, my favorite topic seems to be choice.  Choice is one of those topics that conservatives or Republicans have done a horrible job of presenting their case.  Choice is not only about the abortion issue.  But because Democrats claim to be the party of choice in the case of allowing a baby to live, they have claimed the mantle of the party of choice.  I would really like to see an instance of Democrats or Progressives actually favoring choice on any issue.  As of last January, they are taking away your choice of health care insurance.  Like it or not, you are going to be paying for Obamacare.  Does your local school district teach your child as well as you would like?  Would you prefer for the money you pay to support public schools to go toward your child's education at a private school or even better toward materials and programs to help you home school your child?  Thanks to your Progressive Democratic party, that's not an option.  In spite of the public support of a voucher system, all of your tax dollars allocated to education goes straight to teacher's unions through your local public school.  If you want to put your child in a private school, or home school your child, you'll be paying extra for that.

Do you want your tax dollars bailing out banks like J.P. Morgan Chase?  Your money being flooded into General Motors and Chrysler?  Do you believe that abortion is not a form of birth control, but is immoral?  Do you want your money going to Planned Parenthood, who in spite of the repeated lies by the president does NOT provide any type of cancer screening?  They are primarily an abortion provider.  Not just primarily, almost exclusively, an abortion provider.  Want your tax dollars going to them, so they can perform an act that you find immoral?  Do you want to invest in solar panel manufacturers with a very questionable chance of success, such as Solyndra?  Would you prefer to invest your hard earned money in proven oil, natural gas, or coal exploration and research?  Well, unfortunately you have absolutely no choice in any of those matters.  If you pay federal income tax, a portion of your money goes to teacher's unions, General Motors, Chrysler, and Planned Parenthood.

Whether you like it or not, your money went to green energy companies like Evergreen Solar, SpectraWatt, Solyndra, Beacon Power, Ener1, Abound Solar, A123 Systems, Willard & Kelsey Solar, Raser Technologies, and more.  This is just a portion of the list of companies that received YOUR money and later declared bankruptcy.  Here's a complete list of companies that received taxpayer money, including those now bankrupt.    These companies received a total of $80 billion of your money.  Companies that are no longer in business received $8 billion of that total.  Was that your idea?  Did you support that decision?

How about the federal regulations proposed solely by the appointed, not elected, EPA that severely limits the ability of oil companies to provide proven relatively inexpensive sources of energy for you everyday?  Want to eliminate the coal industry entirely?  Your president does.  He's doing it through the Environmental Protection Agency.  You vote for anyone in that agency?  Nope.  You couldn't.  It's staffed by presidential appointees.  Doesn't matter whether you approve or not.  There's absolutely nothing you can do about their actions.

If you think all these decisions that affect you everyday of your life are frustrating, just wait until Obamacare is fully implemented.  The federal government makes all these decisions on your behalf with really no justification.  Some, like many of the investments in green energy, were payback to donors to the president's campaign.  Some, like the bailout of General Motors and Chrysler were payback to unions for their support.  What do you think the federal government will do to your individual choice, your freedom, your bank account, using the cost of healthcare as justification?  Think Mayor Bloomberg in New York City has been heavy-handed by outlawing sugary drinks of more than 16 ounces?

Imagine that policy on a national level.  Think it will end there?  Or do you think that's just the start?  Is it more likely that, first sizes, then the availability altogether of candy, energy drinks, alcohol, fast food, snack food will be limited?  What about other things on the Progressive wish list that can be even remotely linked to healthcare costs?  Except for their own personal use (ever see how Al Gore gets to any of those climate change conferences?), Progressives absolutely hate big SUV's.  They emit too much CO2, right?  That's bad for your health.  If you must drive, your only choice will be to pay $40,000 for a Volt.  Do you own a gun?  It is a right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment, but how long will it take to make it a right regulated by healthcare policies?  The government could eliminate hunting accidents by eliminating firearms, right?  If you really don't think that's not only a possibility, but a likely outcome just find a single instance in the past century  where the federal government exercised a newly gained power responsibly.  No, history shows that with power and the government, not just ours, but any government, the phrase "give them an inch and they'll take a mile" is actually an understatement.

I believe this sense of helplessly watching the federal government taking more and more of our choices away is the basis of the secession craze that took hold after the reelection of President Obama.  One positive of the past two election cycles is the return to office of Republican governors, even in traditional Democratic strongholds like Wisconsin and Ohio.  Governors and states need to find a backbone and stand up to the federal government as it grabs all this power.  Out of all the programs I have mentioned, how many are a power given to the federal government in our Constitution?  I'll give you a minute to do a little research.  You back yet?  Still looking?  I'll give you a hint how many.  The answer rhymes with "hero."  Or "done."  That's right zero.  None.  Zip.  Nada.  The federal government, mainly over the past 100 years, has just taken these programs upon themselves.  The programs, if they are to be implemented at all, are the right or responsibility of the individual states to implement.  Article I Section 8 of the Constitution lists 18 powers that We the People granted to our federal government.  By design, this is a short list.  The 10th Amendment to the Constitution reserves any other power, not part of this list of 18, to either the people or the states.

The states are supposed to be, as Mitt Romney said in one of the debates, the "laboratories of ideas."  Massachusetts can try a state run healthcare.  If it's successful, other states will follow suit.  If it's not, citizens of Massachusetts will have a choice, either end the experiment or move to a state without the policy.  Same with green energy projects, environmental regulations, land use restrictions, public education.  These policies should be state mandated.  Allow the citizens of the United States to vote with their feet.  They will move to a state that is successful, has jobs available, has affordable housing, and good schools.  Voters in other states will elect state officials that will bring successful policies to their state.  Even in times like now where the federal government has taken control and mandated so many of these failed policies nationally, there examples of states succeeding with their own policies.  See the gas boom in South Dakota for an obvious example.  Unemployment is almost non-existent in the state, the housing industry is booming, the  state is bringing in record amounts of tax revenue, not by raising tax rates, but because the citizens are prospering.  So if it is spent wisely, their education will improve and they will be a model for other states to look toward.

But as is usually the case, the federal government rarely celebrates success by an individual or a state.  Rather they seek to punish it.  Watch for the EPA's report on fracking, a main component of the success of the gas industry in South Dakota.  If past behavior is a predictor of future actions, the EPA will crack down on the practice.  States have been negligent in standing up to the federal government's power grabs.  I think that whether consciously or just intuitively, we the people, know these powers have been granted to us by our Creator, by Nature, or Nature's god as stated in the Declaration of Independence.  We failed to push our states to stand up to the federal government as it took more and more of our choices away.  The deep divisions in our society that seem to become so prominent in the past 10 years are a result of our choices being eliminated.  The current secession phenomenon is the latest consequence.  I hope our states push their Constitution-granted rights and that the Supreme Court is still responsible enough to uphold the Constitution. If not the next step is up to the we the people and our choices are becoming more limited by the day.

Secession?

Since the re-election of President Obama, secession has been in the news frequently.  It started with a petition from an individual in Louisiana to be allowed to peacefully secede.  At last count similar petitions by all 50 states had been submitted to the White House's official website.  The number of electronic signatures to these petitions range from just over 4,000 to over 100,000 at the time of this writing.  I do question the wisdom of creating a personal account, including all your personal information to the website of this administration, in order to criticize them.  After all, they have shown a great deal of grace and tolerance of opposing viewpoints (sarcasm intended).  The media, with voices muffled because they are soooo far up the backside of, umm I mean because they are so deep in the pocket of the president, have been very vocal in their criticism of these petitions.  Most have focused on the legality of secession.  In fact, Supreme Court Justice Scalia has been quoted saying that secession is only legal with the permission of the United States government.  The scary part of that argument is that Scalia is one of the conservative justices.  If those quotes are actually reflective of his opinion, we are further lost than I had feared.  The basis of our Constitution and the foundation of our country is found in the Declaration of Independence.  "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.  They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights...."  The government does not grant these rights.  We were endowed by our Creator with these rights.  The next, less quoted portion of the Declaration deals with the people "empowering" a government and the right given the people by "Nature, or Nature's god" to dissolve a government when it no longer serves the people.  Now, I'm no Supreme Court Justice, but that seems pretty clear.  Nature, Nature's god, or our Creator granted rights to the people.  The people grant the government power to govern.  That's the chain of command, so to speak.  The government is not at the top of the chain, but at the bottom.  We and our government need to remember, or in some cases, learn this basic fact.  While I don't think we have reached the point where states need to seriously consider the topic of secession, I definitely understand the feeling of a lack of representation of my views and beliefs in our federal government.  That being said, I have absolutely no doubt of the right of the people to secede from a union or government that no longer serves the interests of the people.  I have absolutely no doubt that right is granted by our Creator, not by our government, therefore the government cannot restrict that right.  

Below is the Declaration of Independence in its entirety.  I believe that all Americans need to familiarize themselves with the document and its meaning.  Before talk of secession becomes serious.  In my next posting, I will discuss the easiest remedy to these very serious issues.  Not surprisingly, the remedy is in our founding documents.  We have just strayed from those documents in the past 100 plus years.  

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 powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty 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 or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, 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, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

We Lost, but When?

I wrote over a year ago about how history is being changed.  Even as a kid, I realized it was happening with the history of Davy Crockett.  What many of us don't realize is how important our history is.  What we learn of our history basically provides the lens through which we see ourselves.  While so many of us were slow to realize the importance of history, others have known for years.  They planned to change history to fit their world view.  They haven't been very secretive in their plans, it's just that we don't pay attention, or don't take them seriously.  The Obama campaign in 2008 told us that they planned to change history.  Listen toMichelle Obama on the campaign trail, she doesn't speak of making history, she speaks of changing history.  That's not a mistake, that is exactly what they have planned.


So maybe the revision of the Davy Crockett story was a test run?  Just to see if we would buy it?  Well, our education system sure did.  Now, they are going big.  They are going after our founding fathers.  I have felt that Texas is one of our last hopes of regaining our country and our past.  But did you know that right now, today, the Boston Tea Party is being taught in Texas as an example of terrorism.  Now, reading the curriculum, it is possible that this lesson is being taught to teach students to reason, to read the information and see it from multiple angles.  From the British perspective at the time, the Boston Tea Party was terrorism.  Only through reading the causes of the revolution will a student learn that the American Revolution was justified.  But is it being taught that way?  Frankly I doubt it.  If it were, why are parents being denied access to the lessons?  The "Parent's Portal" to the online lesson plans offers information that differs greatly from the lesson plans being presented in class. If this is happening in Texas, what is happening in California?  In New York?  In Oregon?

Take a look at what is happening, and has been happening for over a decade with our knowledge of Thomas Jefferson.  Jefferson did own slaves.  That is known.  It has been taught since the textbooks published in the 1880's.  What was taught before, but is no longer being taught is that he spent most of his life trying to abolish slavery.  The Virginia Constitution made it illegal for a slave owner to free his slaves.  After George Washington freed his slaves upon his death, Virginia even closed that loophole.  It was illegal for a citizen of Virginia to free his slaves.  Jefferson worked tirelessly to change that.  Unfortunately that was one of the few instances that Jefferson failed.  For a true view of Thomas Jefferson, through his own words and the words of people who actually knew him, who actually lived in Jefferson's time, read The Jefferson Lies, by David Barton.   Barton uses Jefferson's own words, the original documents to clear up the lies being told about him.  The interesting thing has been the response to the book.  David Barton has been attacked from every directions by scholars pointing out the "inaccuracies" in his book.  Their evidence of his inaccuracies comes from scholars writing more than 100 years after Jefferson's death.  These scholars use each other as references, completely ignoring the primary sources - Jefferson himself and his contemporaries.  One interesting chapter in Barton's book deals with Jefferson's supposed love child with his slave, Sally Hemings.  Remember in the late 1990's when a DNA test was done using genetic material from one of Hemings' known descendants that "proved" Jefferson's affair with his slave.  Interestingly enough this report came out just as the current president, William Jefferson Clinton was being impeached for lying about his affair with Monica Lewinsky, making the point that infidelity in the White House was nothing new.  Coincidentally, a retraction was released a few weeks after the initial report that the DNA tests actually concluded that with a 97% certainty, Hemings' child was NOT Thomas Jefferson's.  The retraction did not receive the front page of Newsweek treatment that the original, erroneous report did.

Thanksgiving is a couple of days away.  While the Thanksgiving story that children from my generation were taught is a little simple and doesn't give the complete story of the Pilgrims and the first Thanksgiving, students are more likely today to learn the perspective of MSNBC commentator, Melissa Harris Perry who says that "European settlers brought violence, disease, and land theft to the indigenous peoples who were already in this land before it was discovered."
 
So why is it important to the president's backers to smear the reputation of our country's founders?  Their view of the United States is that it was founded by rich white men who were only interested in making themselves more wealthy.  The system is set up to benefit the rich white men.  It is stacked against black Americans, immigrants(whether legal or illegal), women, Native Americans, against anyone not white and rich.  The president himself says that rugged individualism, self reliance, and small government is "part of our DNA" obviously in reference to our founding principles.  But then he goes on, "but it doesn't work, it has never worked" to the applause of his audience.


That is why it is so important, in the president's view,  to change history.  It has worked.  When applied as our founders intended and as they stated in our Constitution, it always works.

We did lose the election earlier this month.  But that defeat actually started when we lost the battle of truth about our history.  To get back, we have to make truth matter again, and make history matter again.

We Lost

Well, the most important election of our lifetime is over.  How many times did you hear both sides use that phrase?  "The most important election of our lifetime."  Now the reality hits.  We lost.  Lots of experts, so-called experts, wannabe experts, everyday people, and conspiracy theorists are weighing in with their opinion of why we lost.  We lost because religious voters stayed home.  We lost because Latino voters didn't like the phrase "self-deportation."  We lost because women want free birth control.  We lost because unemployed welfare moms don't want to give up their Obama-phone.  We lost because of election fraud.  These are just a few of the reasons I have heard from experts of varying degrees of credibility.  I think there is a bigger reason that we lost.  I am afraid that, at least to a very large portion of our population, the truth doesn't matter.

Wednesday morning, the day after the election, a friend posted comments on Facebook about how hateful and mean so many of the comments were.  She then mentioned a Tweet from Tim Tebow on Monday.  Something to the effect of, "don't worry about the early election results tomorrow.  The Democrats will have an early lead.  Then the Republicans will get off work and vote."  She gloated about Tebow being so wrong, and in fact the opposite actually happened.  I'm not a huge Tebow fan, but I do respect him a lot, and that just didn't sound like something he would say.  So I typed "Tim Tebow election tweet" into a Google search. The very first response was about the fake Tim Tebow tweet being re-tweeted more than 17,000 times already.  It took me all of 5 seconds to find the truth and another minute to read the article to make sure it was a credible source.  I didn't want to post on my friend's Facebook timeline, thinking it might be embarrassing to her, so I sent a private message just listing the link that I found.  She responded in minutes, saying she thought it was probably a hoax, but she just likes to argue.  She didn't care about the truth, only about "winning."  She said she votes based on a couple of issues that are important to her and actually did not do ANY research into Romney's stand on these issues!  I changed the subject at that point because she admitted to having absolutely zero interest in the truth, only in arguing.

There were so many WTH!? moments on election evening.  Pennsylvania going to President Obama was one of the big ones.  When he says he plans to bankrupt the state's largest industry, coal, did they not believe him?  Or did they just not care to learn his position?  It's not like it's a secret, if you have enough interest in the truth to look.





But at least he respects the people of Pennsylvania and their beliefs, right?  Well, not exactly.  He says they "bitterly cling to their guns and their religion," specifically speaking about residents of Pennsylvania.


Virginia not only depends on the coal industry, but the military as well.  In the last presidential debate, the president says that the mandatory cuts to the military that would happen on the first of the year came from Congress' suggestion, not from him.  And that if he has his way they will never happen anyway.  Bob Woodward says that Obama was "mistaken."  In interviews for his book, The Price of Politics, the White House Office of Management Director and the Legislative Affairs Director both told Woodward that the idea for sequestration came from the White House and was presented to Senate Majority Leader Reid before being suggested to Congress.  So Woodward gives the president the benefit of the doubt, he was just  mistaken about where the idea originated.  The very next day, the president touts his idea of sequestration to produce a cut in the deficit in an off the record interview with the Des Moines Register.  No talk of a deal to prevent the mandatory cuts to military or Medicare payments to doctors, as he claimed the prior evening.  He lied period.  In spite of his promise to cut their number one industry, coal; and boasting about cuts coming to their number two economic engine, the military, Virginia voted for Obama.  Not only that, the Des Moines Register called the president on his lies and demanded that the off the record interview be made public.  Based on his interview and on the fact that he lied either during the debate or in their interview, the Register endorsed the Republican candidate for the first time in 40 years.  Iowa voted for Obama.

Ohio was crucial for a Romney win.  Obama hit Romney hard about his stand on the bailout of GM and Chrysler.  He said that Romney wanted the two automakers to go out of business.  He said that Romney was in favor of letting the automakers go bankrupt and lose all their jobs in Michigan and Ohio.  These claims led to a pretty heated exchange in the debates.  Finally ending with the president saying "let the people read it for themselves."  And Romney saying "yes, please do."  The editorial is out there and easy to find.  In it Romney does advocate a managed bankruptcy to allow the companies to restructure and provide government guarantees for loans by private lenders.  Did it matter to voters or even to the president that the truth was on Romney's side?  Apparently not.  The day after the debate, fact checkers - even those normally firmly backing the president, said the president was wrong in his debate claims.  But the president was in Dayton, OH repeating his false claims.  And in spite of the Detroit Free Press' endorsement of Romney, both Michigan and Ohio voted for Obama.

The biggest and probably most important lie of all involves the death of Ambassador Stevens, former Navy Seals and CIA contractors, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, and State Dept. Information Officer Sean Smith in Benghazi.  This incident, our president's response to it and its aftermath defines who we are as a country.  Do we still have the policy of "no man left behind?"  Initial evidence says not any more.  Hopefully Congress, the press, and the American public are still interested enough to push for the truth about this attack and our White House's response to it.

As Fox Mulder used to say on The X-Files, "the truth is out there."  It's truly not hard to find either.  It matters.  The question is, do we care anymore?  If not, we really have lost.  And we are lost as well.

By the way, did you know Iran fired on a U.S. drone over international waters on the Friday before the election?  Thought not.  It's true.  It's out there, if you are interested in looking.

Pro Choice

Ever notice that the only choice the progressives/liberals/Democrats are actually in favor of, is the woman's choice whether or not to let her baby live long enough to be born?  It is their body after all.  I plan to write in the next few days about the choices being taken away from us.  Yes, I know it has been nine months since my last post.  I've been busy, ok?  Actually, I think I fell victim to the Bill Belichick strategy being employed by our government.  When every day brings a new assault on our Constitution and our rights as individuals, just as the St. Louis Rams learned in the Super Bowl, eventually the officials (conservative Americans in this case) get overwhelmed.  Like I wrote about before, I need to square my shoulders and get back in the game.   So I am going to focus for a few posts on the choices we are losing.


First of all, unless you have been living in a cave, you know that this is an election year.  From the first few days of Obama's Constitutional assault, excuse me, administration, Republicans have sworn that they would nominate a true conservative.  They would not allow the media to force another Obama-lite candidate like John McCain on the party.  We would be given a true choice.  The 2008 primaries exposed Mitt Romney as only a couple of degrees more conservative than Barack Hussein Obama.  The Tea Party Revolution of 2010 gave us hope that the Republican Party would offer choice, a real alternative to the president.  Beginning almost immediately after the 2010 Republican landslide fueled by the Tea Party, the media began pushing Romney as the only electable Republican.  All other candidates were radical, too far right.  They would never win the independent vote.  


So even with polls showing that the majority of Americans describe themselves as conservative, only Romney was viewed by the media as mainstream enough to challenge the president in 2012.  Early straw polls in Iowa showed a true conservative, Michelle Bachmann having the most support in the Republican primary.  The media pulls out its favorite attack on conservatives - she's stupid.  In one speech, she mentioned Davenport, Iowa as the hometown of the American icon and symbol of self-reliance, John Wayne.  What an idiot!  John Wayne was not born in Davenport.  His family moved from Davenport shortly before his birth.  How embarrassing!   You would've thought this moron didn't even know how many states are in the United States.  Or how to pronounce corpsman.  She may even speak about asthmatics needing a breathalyzer!  How could such an intellectual lightweight match up against President Obama, who is quite possibly the most intelligent community organizer to ever walk the earth?  Only Romney is intelligent enough to have a chance!  After all, he is from Massachusetts and isn't his hair perfect?  


Republicans allowed themselves to be scared away from a truly principled conservative who actually has a voting record that supports her claims to small government Constitutional beliefs.  Next to take the lead in the pre-Iowa polls was Texas governor, Rick Perry.  Perry has a very strong record as governor of Texas.  He has even published a book detailing government reforms he would favor to return Washington D.C. to it's Constitutionally mandated size, giving more power to the states, and thus returning choice to citizens.  But the media was quick to point out that Perry signed into law a Texas bill allowing children whose parents are in the United States illegally to go to college in Texas, paying in-state tuition.  This was a huge problem for Tea Party conservatives.  In spite of Perry's defense that the bill received only two dissenting votes in the Texas House and Senate, and would be easily overridden if he had vetoed it.  He chose to accept the loss and move on, and even explained his signature that way at the time he signed the bill into law.  But the media explained to the ignorant Tea Party conservatives that Perry would soon have the country overrun and speaking Spanish only on college campuses.  Better to choose Mitt Romney, the true conservative who supports the Dream Act which is basically a national version of the Texas law.  Oh, and it would provide a fast track to full citizenship for immigrants who had chosen to ignore the law up to this point.  Well, at least if they hadn't committed any felonies while they were in the country.  Well, not all felonies, just not any violence-related felonies.  Yeah, that Romney would be a much better choice than Rick Perry.  And the whole stupid thing again.  Perry has a Texas accent, Romney's Massachusetts accent is so much more intelligent.  I mean just compare the economy of Romney's Massachusetts to Perry's Texas.  No.  Better not do that!  Just trust the media.  Perry's stupid and will open the borders to basically invite everyone to cross the Rio Grande anytime they choose.  So shortly after the Iowa caucus, Bachmann's out, followed a short time later by Perry.  


Next up for the Tea Party, successful businessman, Herman Cain.  Once he was able to pull the microphone away from Romney and Perry, he actually came away from the debates with a lot of support, especially for his 9-9-9 plan for tax reform.  Cain presented a huge problem for the liberal media.  Their fallback attack on conservatives, their lack of intelligence, might be seen as racist.  Cain is black, just like Obama!  How can the media claim the only reason Republicans oppose the president's socialist agenda is because they're hood-wearing, cross-burning racists, if they nominate a black man for president?  All right, Cain has no government experience.  He actually ran successful businesses and can not only discuss economic theory, but point to his own experience and success.  WITH NO GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE!!  That's not even possible in Obama's world.  That would overwhelm President Obama's tenure in the Illinois senate and in the U.S. Senate where he was noted for zero legislation and numerous "present" votes.  So the media was unable to take the intelligence, race, and experience roads to attacking Cain.  What to do?  What to do?  Conservatives stand on family values.  Let's find something in Cain's past personal life.  Soon there is a parade of women claiming either affairs or harassment.   Cain denied the charges, offered to take a lie detector test, challenged his accusers to take the same lie detector tests (they all declined).  Eventually Cain decided the strain on his family was too much and "suspended" his candidacy.  Coincidentally, all his accusers and even more mysteriously, their high dollar legal representation quickly and completely disappeared.   As an added bonus for the liberal media, they were able to once again accuse the Republicans and especially the Tea Party of racism.  How could they drop their support for Cain following a few unsubstantiated accusations?  By white women!  That's why.  Brings back all the old stereotypes of the black man that just can't control his animal urges around white women!  They were able to disguise their racism for a little while, but eventually it rose to the surface.  Better put your support behind Mitt Romney.  He's white.  If it came down to a choice between two black men, most Republicans and Tea Party members would just stay home, guaranteeing four more years of Obama.  Or at least that's what the media would have us believe.


Next in line for the conservatives?  Well, they are desperate.  True conservative candidates, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Herman Cain are gone.  Good lord, we don't want Romney!  Who is left?  Newt Gingrich!!!  Newt's smart.  He debates very well.  Even the liberal media will admit that Newt would more than hold his own against President Obama in any debate.  And without a teleprompter.  Another plus for Gingrich?  He knows the media's game and will call them out on it.   In an intellectual fight, Newt is definitely the candidate to take on the media and the president.  In debates, he turned the attack to the president and also to the media.  To the conservatives accustomed to the "above the mudslinging" style of George Bush and George W. Bush and the "reach across the aisle" style of John McCain, this aggressive style was very attractive.  Newt's only problem?  Anyone who took a close look at his record or his words would quickly realize that he is definitely not "small government."  His  favorite presidents or role models for a Gingrich presidency?  Not George Washington.   Not Abraham Lincoln.  Not Dwight Eisenhower.  Not Ronald Reagan.  Not even either of the Bushes.  Newt's choice?  How about Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, or Franklin D. Roosevelt!  You can't spell big government progressive without Wilson, Teddy, or FDR.  Then there's his Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae connections.  And his support of cap and trade legislation.  He only appeared in the commercial sitting on a couch and agreeing with that Tea Party favorite, Nancy Pelosi.  And finally Newt's worst enemy is Newt.    He debates well and takes the fight to the media well because he is quick thinking.  Unfortunately this means that he has a creative memory, such as claiming in one interview that he supported Goldwater, showing his true conservative roots.  Small problem, he actually supported the progressive Republican Nelson Rockefeller.  But that was long enough in the past no one could really claim otherwise, right?  Well, it would be tough to prove, except for the fact that Gingrich was actually precinct captain for Rockefeller!  Conservatives who want a choice did their own homework and learned the facts about Gingrich and, so far at least, seem to have chosen to eliminate Gingrich.  If you have any doubts about Newt's real principles, click on the links in this paragraph for videos of Gingrich stating his beliefs.  


That leaves Republicans and real conservatives a choice.  The electable, almost liberal Mitt Romney (probably more big government liberal in his policies than Democratic icon, John F. Kennedy) and Ron Paul.  Paul could be dangerous for for the liberals if the election and the presidency were all about economics and domestic policy.  Ron Paul is the candidate of choice when it comes to shrinking the government and actually enforcing the United States Constitution.  Unfortunately, he is a naive extremely dangerous candidate when it comes to foreign policy.  Although he has brought Federal Reserve policies into the public debate and actually seems to have stoked a libertarian revival among young people, he is unelectable.  Good thing for the future of the country there is one more candidate.  Rick Santorum.  The former senator from Pennsylvania has a couple of questionable actions on record - namely his support  of earmarks for his state when he served in the senate.  Overall he is head and shoulders over Romney when you compare their records.  Problem is the media is trying to convince the Republican voters that only Romney is electable.  He has too much support.  The race is over, right?  Except that Republican voters took responsibility and informed themselves without listening to the media.  Iowa voters surprised everyone and chose Santorum.  New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida did what was expected and chose Romney.  So the race is over, with only four of the fifty states (or is it 57? or 59, Mr. President?) actually voting.  Or at least that's what the media is trying to convince us.  Then last weekend, Santorum swept Missouri, Minnesota, and surprisingly, Colorado.  The media quickly starts the spin that very few delegates were actually committed in those three races and Missouri's is not even a binding caucus.  So yesterday when Romney won Maine, well, now it's all over again.  Romney just proved that he is the only one who can beat Obama.  


Don't listen to the media again.  Don't let them take away our choice.  Again.