Red State

If you start on this diary entry, please finish it. I solicit feedback from converts and dissenters alike.

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.

Declaration Of Independence, July 4, 1776.

Well did Thomas Jefferson write that the powers which government possesses must come from only one of two sources: the consent of the governed; or from the sword. To understand the remainder of this diary entry, you must keep this in mind: our government’s powers are given to it from the citizens themselves.

In 1968, Former Secretary Of Agriculture, Ezra T. Benson, gave a speech wherein he outlined the proper role of government. In his talk, Secretary Benson said: “The important thing to keep in mind is that the people who have created their government can give to that government only such powers as they, themselves, have in the first place.” He concluded by stating: “This means, then, that the proper function of government is limited only to those spheres of activity within which the individual citizen has the right to act.” But what does this mean? I can best illustrate it by an example:

Suppose three individuals were hopelessly marooned on a large Pacific island. Soon afterwards, they began planting seeds and tilling the ground for their inevitable long stay. In sum, they become island farmers. Over the course of time, disputes arose, and the first farmer accused the second farmer of stealing his seeds and wrecking his thatch hut. The second farmer likewise accused the first of running through his fields and ruining his harvest. Soon these individuals realized that they could not stay awake at all hours of the night watching over their crops and homes, so they appointed the third farmer to act as a sort of watchdog. Each promised to pay the third farmer a portion of their harvest if he would–in lieu of farming–keep an eye on their respective plots and property. At this precise moment government is born.

The two farmers acknowledge each other’s respective right of self-defense, and the defense of their property, and through the third farmer they have delegated this right. Logically then it follows that they could not possibly delegate to the third farmer a power which they themselves could not rightfully do alone. It is this concept which underlies our Declaration of Independence–government gets its power solely from the consent of the governed and one cannot consent to give it a power that he does not possess himself.

Therefore, in addressing what powers our federal government may exercise, and understanding that its powers come from the governed, we must ask ourselves: “Absent government, could I demand this of my neighbor?” If I have no right to break down the door of my neighbor’s house in order to take his property to pay for my health care, then how am I able to delegate such authority to my government? The answer is simple: I cannot.

Not only our Declaration of Independence, but also our Constitution recognize this principle. With this in mind, consider the myriad of government programs now in effect and while looking at them ask: “Could I demand that my neighbor pay for such a thing in the absence of government?” If not, then government cannot demand it either.

Both political parties have lost this concept. One or both must return to it or a collapse is inevitable. I am confident that a few good people will come forward and espouse the wisdom of the Founding Fathers and thus serve to check the growth and power of a government without restraint.

“The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." -Abraham Lincoln (17 September 1859, speech in Cincinnati, OH)

“It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error." -United States Supreme Court in American Communications Association v. Douds

The abandonment of first principles, established by the nation’s founders, is apparent with the stark choices before us this election season. Few times in U.S. history has such a wide chasm separated the factions contending for primacy at this level of enmity.

True enough, we have had citizens at odds with each other over the mechanisms of government from the beginning. The Anti-Federalists opposed ratification of the Constitution in 1787 because they argued that centralized power would become despotic. Mark this well, although the ratification of the 10th Amendment in 1791 addressed this concern, the centralization of power since the turn of the 20th century has rapidly progressed.

"…working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little to-day and a little to-morrow, and advancing it's noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one. ... when all government ... in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated." -Thomas Jefferson (1821)

Thomas Sowell, in Conflict of Visions, explains the basic philosophies that have been contending for primacy in society for centuries. The constrained vision and unconstrained vision he describes fuels our differences about what government is supposed to do. Those with the constrained vision (conservatives, classic liberals) see society as fallible, acknowledge trade-offs as necessary, and recognize humans are in need of incentives to appeal to their natural individuality. Those of the unconstrained vision (modern liberals, socialists, progressives) see society as perfectible, and work to mold it to their concept of perfection to the negation of individuality.

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption for authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." -Daniel Webster

How did we get to this state of affairs? A lack of knowledge and application of first principles that are vital to the process I call Maintenance of the Republic. Just as a machine whose preventive maintenance has been deferred will eventually require a costly overhaul; the government of this republic now requires an overhaul to return it to the founder’s specifications. We conservatives generally have an idea what those specifications are; others either have no clue or are certainly determined to change them. If we educate and guide the clueless and refresh ourselves on these points, we can prevent our opponents from altering our republic beyond what the founders would recognize.

“There is no nation on earth powerful enough to accomplish our overthrow. Our destruction, should it ever come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence.” -Daniel Webster

Where, then is our owner’s manual? I submit that no one document fulfills that purpose. The Constitution forms the legal basis of our government. It is so central to U.S. citizens that the military, federal officials and employees pledge their loyalty to it. The Federalist Papers may be seen as the philosophical basis of our government and the Constitution itself. Certainly the Declaration of Independence is the ultimate philosophical basis of our nation. The statement that the moral basis of our government (and indeed our society) is The Holy Bible will cause dissent today, but the founders would find no fault with it.

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion...Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -John Adams

“I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist and be durable, in which the principles of Christianity have not a controlling influence." - James Madison

“Do not let anyone claim to be a true American if they ever attempt to remove religion from politics.” -George Washington

The founders based their morals in the belief of a Supreme Being, and likely had no inkling the day would come that masses of citizens have abandoned this concept. Can you doubt the strength of their faith in God when Deity is referenced four times in the Declaration of Independence and once even in the Constitution? Although being men of faith, they recognized the individual’s right to believe or not and worship as he sees fit. Thus the 1st Amendment prescriptions to neither establish nor prohibit free exercise of religion. For those among us who abstain from religion, or whose faith is based on other than The Holy Bible; I do not wish to impose it on you, but rather recommend it for its cultural and literary contribution to our nation. If for no other reason, so that when you see one of our members here at redstate refer in a reply to “Balaam’s Ass”, you will know he is not talking about a congressman’s posterior.

Are there other documents which guide us in maintaining the republic? I invite your response to this question. Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address and certainly his 2nd Inaugural Address bear scrutiny in this regard.

There are instances when we have succeeded in proper maintenance, such as when FDR was thwarted in packing the Supreme Court. I am sure you can list others of equal or greater import, and I invite you to do so.

As for failure to maintain, the instances that come readily to my mind this election season are those that occurred in the first half of the 20th Century, particularly in the Progressive Era. Three of the four amendments to the Constitution in this era are examples of egregious undermining of the concept of Federalism. I speak of the 16th Amendment, which gave us an income tax to enable further usurpations and depredations by the central government.

"To lay with one hand the power of government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it on favored individuals ... is none the less robbery because it is ... called taxation." - United States Supreme Court in Loan Association v. Topeka (1874)

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” - Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1742-1813 Edinburgh University)

I also refer you to the 17th Amendment, which further eroded the power of the states by removing the role of selection of U.S. Senators from the state legislatures. The 19th Amendment, which gave us Prohibition in an imposition of the good intentions of some upon all, contributed to the establishment of organized crime. There are many other unintended consequences which flowed from the excesses of Progressivism, chief of which is the Great Depression. The sin of Progressivism was not confined to one party; TR, Hoover, Wilson, and FDR all subscribed to its tenets. The Democrats like to blame Hoover as contributor to the Depression because of his Republicanism. His Progressivism was the real culprit, while FDR’s Progressivism deepened and prolonged the crisis.

Let me interject here that I have often heard moderates and proponents of the left fiercely deny they hold liberal or Socialist views. Those two labels have been used so often as epithets that they run from such characterization in order to hide their intentions. On the other hand, I have never heard one deny or shrink from the label of “progressive”. Perhaps because it seems so admirable, since the root word is “progress”. Who can be against progress, after all? Well fine, then! Let them embrace progress – the first definition of progress in my American Heritage Dictionary says: “movement toward a goal”. I will grant them their charming label as long as we get to scrutinize the goal they seek, and most importantly assign them the legacy of their forebears.

The Progressives of times past had an affinity to Fascism; if you doubt their connections I direct you to Three New Deals by Wolfgang Shivelbush and The Roosevelt Myth by John T. Flynn. Jonah Goldberg has further identified the Fascist strains in the modern Progressives with those of the past in Liberal Fascism. I don’t bring up Fascism in order to appeal to your prejudices or emotions, emotions are the province of the Progressives and those of the unconstrained vision. I appeal instead to your reason and discernment, to illustrate that the goals of our opponents are far removed from the goals of our founders and are incompatible with our goals as Conservatives. Emotion is a dangerous sentiment, and the unbridled emotion of the Progressives could well unleash excesses to rival the Jacobins of the French Revolution. I sense it in their rhetoric already.

I invite your comments, from all quarters. If you disagree or think me wrong, say so – and correct my error. If you agree, add to what little I have just contributed to our discourse and build up our brethren.

I saw this video on a response to a blog written by Kyle-Anne Shiver. Shiver brings up a great point regarding Obama and abortion:

Once the Freedom of Choice Act is passed and signed into law, no Catholic doctor will be allowed to refuse abortion services on account of conscience. No hospital, Catholic or otherwise, will be permitted to opt out of the genocide. And taxpayers will be required to pay for the abortions of all women who can't afford them. These are sad realities, but they are indeed included in this Act.

Couple this with Obama’s voting record regarding Infanticide; then add in his wanting to demilitarize the United States (while many want to destroy the United States), and then one can begin to understand how little Obama values life.

Evidently many Americans don’t realize they’re being sold down the river – and they’re not concerned with all of the illegal money Obama is plopping into his campaign funds?

It will take years for FEC to straighten out this “Obama Mess.” The Presidential Election isn’t a lottery or game show – it’s our one chance to select a “real leader” who will place country first.

John McCain will ruthlessly cut out fictitious government programs, control the earmark frenzy, gradually restore our broken economy and create thousands of jobs as we become fuel independent for the first time in our history.

Did you know:

1. 2005 the Senate Banking Committee under Republican control set forth a bill that would have prevented much of our economic crisis, because Fannie, Freddie and any other buyers of Subprime and Alt – A mortgages would have been monitored thus preventing their underhand and undercover practices.

Guess what, the bill never passed due to the Democrats – should that surprise anyone? It does and the scuttlebutt produced by (the liberal news media) of course snowed Americans again by blaming the Republicans.

Here’s some important facts etched in stone. Paste these addresses into your browser and find out the “real truth.”

Just the Facts: The Administration's Unheeded Warnings About the Systemic Risk Posed by the GSEs

Or www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/09/20080919-15.html

1. $ 800,000 to Acorn for some campaign assistance – now Obama (the two-stepping lawyer) attempts to reword the projects that Acorn accomplished for the Senator Obama’s campaign. Instead of major events programming, polling, advanced work – he is doing his lawyer shuffle and telling FEC that he made one more little mistake; he says a new amendment must be created and re-worded.
   

The new amendment Obama’s creating will state that Acorn was immersed in “get out the votes” projects – will any of us forget the Roman Cathedral created at the Democratic Convention or the recent problems officials are having at the Polls created by Acorn & friends.

1. Obama says his contributions to CSI of 63,000 and 75,000 from his campaign funds were for advanced work (whatever that means.) Advanced work is just another way of saying, “ it’s none of our business.”

FEC should not accept any revision from Obama concerning this gift he gave to Acorn – instead they need to pin his butt to the wall for a jillion other illegal errors in his campaign funds. He has accepted foreign monies, illegal contributions from Mr. Goodwill and DooDad or whatever and their blatant reluctance to return the illegal monies is totally disgusting.

1. America is of the opinion that Obama’s friends and business associates aren’t important – in other words the years he spent handing out money to special interest groups and radical groups aren’t significant or relevant. It’s obvious than that a man’s character and reputation doesn’t equate to the man!
   

2. What if much of the money funneled to these groups came out of your pocket – would that get your attention? Get online and do a little research! You’ll be shocked how Obama dragged your tax money in the back door and literally threw it out the front to his “buddies.”

3. Lobbyists are a dime a dozen and around 1968, there were 60 plus lobbyists at the White House and in 2008 we can round that figure off at approximately 34,000 – they control the government, dictate the wording on new laws before they’re passed and you’d better believe the lobbyists have total control over the three branches of government at this time.
   

Obama and Axelrod say they detest lobbyists or do they? I think they doth protest too much!

1. Obama’s community service projects and organization like the DPC, Annenberg Challenge, Gamaliel Foundation and many other supposedly religions organizations remain indebted to you and your tax dollars. But, Obama will do the magic hat trick and say these community organizations had money trees!
   

If Obama gets his way, all charitable organizations will be under government control and your children will become “little Obama Girl & Boy Scouts” doing their community service just to please “Big Daddy.”

Then the new Obama education for all children will kick in along with a disgusting bunch of extreme liberal and radical teachers who will execute the Obama philosophy in our schools, which I say is bordering on brainwashing!

Show me a man who’s only weapon is money and radical backing. Show me a man who hates the middle class more than the “elite.” Show me a man without a past, no real employment history, show me a low C student who was ushered to Harvard by the “gang” and show me a man who was a lousy Illinois and US Senator and I’ll point to Senator Baracka Hussein Obama, jr.

Americans, why can’t you regain your once strong voice and stand up for your children and country? Why are you placing your children in danger’s way? Why are you letting the liberal news media choose the next President of the United States?

“May God Bless America.”

As Always, Annie

Back when I was more idealistic than I am now; I would often say there ought to be a law mandating marriage to someone of a different race than your own, so that over time we would eliminate that difference in our society. Human nature being what it is, though, we would just find something else to fuel our differences and prejudices. Perhaps you remember the old Star Trek episode where the two guys, black skin on one half of their bodies and white on the other, were in mortal conflict? Captain Kirk was puzzled over the source of their racial enmity, since their race was apparently the same. They quickly pointed out to Kirk, that no, they weren’t the same race. One was black on the left; the other was black on the right. Exactly our problem, eh?

Jay Nordlinger has an article on the subject of race in politics. He quotes an old saying I had never heard before, but I have certainly pondered the concept: “America is the only country in which a white woman can give birth to a black baby, but a black woman can’t give birth to a white baby”. It’s curious to me that the old “one drop rule”, the intention of which was to exclude someone, is now used to include. Far be it for me to take issue with whatever race or ethnicity a man chooses to claim for his own. All I ask is for consistency, and that it not be done for disingenuous or self-serving reasons. The same goes for choice of churches, by the way, but that’s another kettle of fish.

I am not too keen on the use of a hyphen to qualify what kind of American you are. It is another tool to divide us and can too easily be taken to the point of silliness. For example, why call me Irish-American when my last Irish ancestor arrived in this country around 1790? If Gary Player was a naturalized citizen (maybe he is), is he then an African-American?

As for Republicans being the most racist party; trust me on this, I have encountered a lot more old (and young) cracker Democrats who freely use the “n” word to describe Obama than Republicans. Far more. (By the way, I am authorized to use the term ‘cracker’ – having grown up in the Cracker State.) I am very amused by that, because it is jeopardizing their Yellow-Dog Democrat status.

I sometimes use the one-drop rule in my household. All in good fun, of course. I tell my wife and daughter they are not white women, because of my wife’s Cherokee heritage. Short of my idealistic law I opened with, I don’t know how long it will take for us to all be able to joke about race, but it can not come too quickly. Race is not very funny right about now.

This is the exact message the McCain campaign must drive home Socialism and big government. Vs. Private Property rights with small government. I would recommend Mr.McCain read a few Ayn Rand novels and expose the terrible methodology of Collectivism for what it is. I don't know if Mr. Obama's life at Harvard was due to a scholarship or an affirmative action program of some sort. As I listen to his speeches there is no substance and everything is more spending and what government is going to do for you. I believe he possible may not know how capitalism and a free society work. If you had everything given to you by big government I can see how he can make the next leap in his mind to believe everybody should get the same from big government. The only problem is in order to carry out these plans you have to take from the rest. In a socialist environment force is acceptable for the collective good. It is this thought process that the McCain campaign must flush out and expose. These are the dangers of the collectivist mindset that Mr. Obama and the Democrats continue to work towards by redistributing your wealth

What do Liberals want?

What did/does Bill Ayers want?

What does Rev. Wright want?

What does ACORN want?

What do Democrats want?

What do most of Obama's supporters want?

What does Obama himself want?

In a word Change. They have all....every single one of says they want to change America. They do not like the America of the past that was founded upon the conservative values.

What is really facing America today is something that has been growing for a long time. Much like a frog sitting in a pot of water with the temperature growing more and more.

With this election, it is very possible that those who hate conservatives and who see us as a dangerious element in American society, could effectively hold the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch of our government.

They want to re-make America in their own image and with their own humanistic ideals. A few examples of what we can expect to see

• Gay marraige will be nationally recognised and legalized
• Government assisted abortions of all types legalized
• "In God we trust" will be removed from our currency, most likely when the G7 decides that a one world currency is the only way to fix the economic problems that exist and despite protest, Obama, the congress and the judicary will write into law the acceptance of one world currency system.
• Tax expempt status for religious schools/organizations/churches will be regulated or revolked.
• Unionization will take place on a large scale forcing businesses to comply with labor demands
• Socialist programs on a massive scale will be implemented.
• Businesses trying to move over seas to escape unionization will face penalties and tarrifs on goods that will make it impossible.
• The right to bear arms will be reinterpreted that only the millita or armed forces are allowed to bear arms.
• Freedom of speech especially in regards to the press will be regulated and controlled. Any networks against the liberal point of view will face immense intimidation through FCC licensing. Networks like Foxnews and radio talk shows like Rush Limbaugh will be given an ultimatium to conform or face the consequences. They will not conform and thus they will be shut down.

Our immediate problem is this election and seeing to it that Obama doesn't get elected so that they cannot control all of the power. However I just want to point out that the problem facing America is not just this election. It is against a continually growing number that what to redefine America from our conservative roots to a liberal America.

I hear many who scream in fustration, how can they not see the problems with ACORN, or with Bill Ayers, or with Rev Wright, or with the socialistic agenda of the liberal democrates? I just shake my head at their failure to open their eyes and truly see, that the reason they don't see anything wrong with Obama past ties, or with the things ACORM is doing, is because they see nothing wrong with them.

What people fail to realize is that Bill Ayers is a collge professor and many liberal people admire him. To a conservative, who's loyalty is to America and its founding principles, it just doesn't make any sense. But to those who want to see the old America destroy, just like Ayers did, they see and admire a person like Ayers for standing against the (evil) America. Some may not agree with the tatics he used, but they most definately embrace his philosophies and views of America.

As the list I mentioned above begins to be implemented, conservatives will become more and more hated and feared as they rise up in protest against these things. This will only add to the notion that liberals now currently hold of conservatives, which is conservatism is a form of radicalism that must be stopped. Conservatives will be given a choice to conform to the new system and ideology, or they will be systematically cut out of the system. You will not be able to get healthcare, you will not be able to work at a job, you will not be able have access to education, or even to buy food. And those caring and bleeding heart liberals will only point and say it serves you conservatives right.

I know some of you are saying, gez Rich this is a little bit over the top isn't it? This is America dude, none of that is going to happen.

Your fogetting my friends that it isn't America any more, and to think that none of this will happen is because you are using reason based upon America's founding princples of freedom and democracy. The whole point of this peice is to get you to open your eyes and see that those who are going to be the implementers of this, want to change America and destroy everything and everyone who wish to keep the old America alive. Just ask youself what is the liberal view of the constitution? With control over all three branches of government, they have the power and the means to legislate, execute, and write into law those things which support and agree with the liberal mindset.

This election is giving us one last shot to elect a president that will appoint conservative judges. Should we fail, those Americans that identify as conservatives will become a people living in a land that no longer wishes them to be a part of its society. Only those who will deny and conform will be accepted.

I know one: my brother-in-law. He has a small plumbing business--just like the one that Joe the Plumber aspires to have—in Massachusetts and does very well financially, and it is how he supports his wife and five children. What Biden and Barry don’t understand about j-o-b-s (the three letter word) is that my brother in law is a plumber, but also has plumbers working for him. Biden and Barry must think that all plumbers are simply employees’ working for who knows who? “The man”, “The machine”, and not guys like my brother-in-law, and Joe the plumber.

Liberal elitists just don’t get it, and ought to stay hidden in the ivory towers; brought to Barry per affirmative action.

Halloween is coming around again and nobody seems to be suggesting that it offends anyone as many suggest every year that Christmas does. No, Halloween is a pagan, nondiscriminating celebration of ghoulishness and death, and so, being an increasingly liberal nation that embraces nondiscriminating ghoulishness and death over righteousness and piety, Halloween has become a member in good standing in our national pantheon of holidays.

Once upon a time, school children made scary stuff starting around mid-October. No longer. Like all holidays legitimate or otherwise, Halloween came earlier this year. We hardly get past Labor Day anymore when the fake pumpkins, the cheap costumes and those big bags of candy start to appear on store shelves. September is barely out by the time we start to see lawns festooned with gravestones, cobwebs, witches, mummies, skeletons, demons, owls, spiders and all the rest. Halloween stores have become big business. And the really scary part is that increasingly they are catering to adults, not just kids.

At a time when genuine Christian church attendance is falling - replaced by faux churches populated by leftist political activists - and faith in the morality and virtue of our Founding Fathers is on the decline, Halloween is creeping in on little cat feet. Under the radar, Halloween has been incrementally promoted by the media, by the entertainment industry, by atheists, on college campuses, by the urban left, by the pagans and the wiccans and the nature worshippers. Aw heck, it’s just fun in our stressed-out lives, they tell us.

Hardly…

The rise of Halloween is a reflection of our decline into a childish, dressed-up hobgoblin fest of masks and costumes. Public schools have become bastions of fright, while city parades are conducted “for the children” on the public dime with no apparent call for separation of church and state – the pagan and atheist church of Halloween, that is.

Halloween today is an extension of another potemkin village - Hollywood - which is a place that has psychological problems that are almost beyond comprehension. And for very good reason. Because when you put on a mask, whether in a Hollywood film or on Halloween night, you are avoiding the most important question in life: Who am I?

Halloween? Hollywood? Those words are eerily similar, aren’t they.

On Halloween, increasing numbers of normal people are joining oddballs, freaks, self-haters, nihilists, satanists and myriad other practitioners of witchcraft, juvenile play-acting and other dark arts. Anyone who has seen or heard about the dreadful spectacle of New York City’s Halloween parade through the heart of Greenwich Village can witness cultural decline firsthand.

And to think of Halloween as anything but darkness is foolish. The Halloween celebrated in America today originated as a pagan Celtic festival of harvest. October 31 was seen as the day that the dead could threaten the living. Bonfires were built and masks and costumes were worn to mimic the evil spirits or to placate them. Irish immigrants brought Halloween to America, much to the consternation of the Puritans already here.

Halloween now is the second most popular holiday in America for decorating after Christmas. Salem, Massachusetts, famous for its witch trials, is called the Halloween Capital of America while Anoka, Minnesota bills itself Halloween Capital of the World.

Halloween offers a time for people to get outside their daily lives. For the kids, that is supposed to be fine, but in the developing picture, it is troubling because it is including increasing numbers of adults. It is not an escape into high culture or into God-ly contemplation of our place in the world, however, but simply a really low-rent diversion. Halloween is being pushed by the secular left which wishes to use it as a way to further separate us Americans from our Christian roots, ostensibly in the name of fun.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Today, a new phenomenon has developed. Young girls are taking the opportunity of Halloween to dress provocatively, all to the delight of the sexualized culture that thinks of Halloween as yet another opportunity to avail itself of another masked pleasure. Which is what the entire 'pleasure culture' of the left is based on – escape from our true selves into a childlike world without difficult decisions to make or serious responsibilities to undertake. This all is rooted in the big-brother socialism that promotes holidays like Halloween as we cede our power as individuals to government.

The buildup to Halloween today is a months-long process of anticipation for the Big Evening (or evenings) when adults now are allowed to become the children that socialism wishes for them to be. Those costumes and pumpkins may look like the harmless vestiges of an ancient past, but today they are the hallmarks of a rudderless society that is drifting farther from its progressive and freedom-loving roots to one that hides behind disguises in order to escape the hard work of finding out who we really are.

Please visit my website at www.nikitas3.com for more common sense.

McCain’s response was probably the most memorable of the night: “I’m not President Bush; if you wanted to run against him you should have ran four years ago”. But what McCain left out was paramount: if you wanted to run against Bush you should have ran four years ago, and by the way since 911 we have not been attacked while Bush has been in office”.

Spending, the economy, school vouchers, Joe the Plumber, Fannie, Freddie and all the rest: insignificant if we’re dead.

Bush kept us safe. How is it that this is being forgotten?

It is shocking how so many people are enamored by form over substance. Where's the beef? Such a Hollywood mentality is so shallow. Pretty boys and smooth talkers don't impress me. However the battle scars of dedicated sacrificial service and the wrinkles of mature wisdom do! I enjoy Hollywood entertainment. But we need much more than entertainment! We are in a national/global crisis. The artificial world of the imagination station just won't cut it. We need strong decisive leadership based on sound character and a proven track record of competence. We need a real leader. God help us!

I am no longer referring to Obama as Senator Obama. John McCain hit the nail on the head when he called him Senator Government. I want a T-shirt that says Senator Government on it and a slash through it. Then a caption like "Let's not spread the wealth around".

An excerpt from the third 2008 presidential debate:

“The centerpiece of Senator McCain’s education policy is to increase the voucher program in D.C. by 2,000 slots…that leaves all of you who live in the other 50 states without an education reform policy from Senator McCain’s… eh eh eh…if we’re going to be serious about this issue we got [sic] to have a president who is going to attack it head on; that is what I intend to do as president”.

“The other 50 states?” Obviously Obama has not learned from his infamous, but not reported, 57 states gaffe. Perhaps, because the gaffe was not reported. There is no such thing as, “the other 50 states”.

Senator Obama, there are 50 states; not 57; not 51; there are 50 states.

My congressman will be hearing about this today. Will yours?

With ACORN voter fraud investigations in the offing, coast-to-coast, I find it rather apalling that it's "Institute" is an authorized CFC charity. This only helps ACORN raise money at one end of its (purposely) confusing enterprise, to promote it's registration and sub-prime mortgage relief (bailout) efforts at the other end.

Donate to ACORN Institute

ACORN Institute is among the eligible organizations in the Combined Federal Campaign (CFC), so federal employees can make donations to ACORN Insitute at their workplaces.

Please mail tax-deductible checks or money orders to:

ACORN Institute 1024 Elysian Fields Avenue New Orleans, LA 70117

Charity Locator

ID Name Phone

11767 ACORN Institute Inc. web(link) 504-304-3732

Description

ACORN Institute empowers low- to moderate-income communities by providing Katrina relief, grassroots leadership training, free income tax preparation, civil rights programs, and community development. 5.7%. M, R, S. EIN#721488419

Making Informed Giving Decisions

The EIN, AFR, and the Service Categories are included to help donors identify organizations that meet their interests and performance standards.

The EIN is issued by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). It can be used for obtaining additional information about an organization from the IRS (877-829-5500). Please Note: Some organizations may be covered under an umbrella organization’s tax exemption status and EIN or may not be required to have an EIN.

Donors may contact the charity directly and/or industry oversight organizations in order to better to understand the financial status, service delivery record, and governance policies of the charity before donating. A listing of oversight organizations is available at http://www.opm.gov/cfc/Donors/Giving.asp

Per the CFC 2008 guide, ACORN Institute's taxonomy of services provided are coded as M, R and S. The 5.7% is the percentage of charity dollars spend on administering the charity. M = Public Safety Disaster Preparedness & Relief R = Civil Rights, Social Action, Advocacy [voter registration?!?] S = Community Improvement, Capacity Building

School Field Trip to Teacher's Lesbian Wedding Sparks Controversy Source

"First-graders in San Francisco took a field trip to City Hall to celebrate the marriage of their lesbian teacher on Friday, but opponents of same-sex marriage in the state say the field trip was an attempt to “indoctrinate” the students, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

The field trip was suggested by a parent at the Creative Arts Charter School, and the school said the trip, where students tossed rose petals on their teacher and her wife as they left City Hall, was academically relevant.

"It really is what we call a teachable moment," said Liz Jaroslow, the school’s interim director, according to the newspaper. She said same-sex marriage had historic significance. "I think I'm well within the parameters."

California will vote on Nov. 4 on Proposition 8 which seeks to ban same-sex marriage in the state, and supporters of the measure say the field trip shows that allowing same-sex marriage will mean it’s taught to school children, the newspaper said.

"It's just utterly unreasonable that a public school field trip would be to a same-sex wedding," said Chip White, press secretary for the Yes on 8 campaign, told the Chronicle. "This is overt indoctrination of children who are too young to have an understanding of its purpose."

There are just no words to describe my anger at this. Just no words.

My most recent government class (Senior level under-grad class) this past Thursday we were discussing the evolution of presidential powers this past century.

I won't go in to too much detail, but once we got on the topic of Bush, as you can imagine ears perked, faces went rigid, and the smile on my teacher's face stretched an extra three inches as she beemed with glee at the reaction she invoked.

First she went on to accuse Bush of molding laws to fit his needs, and completely ignoring the constitution as he sees fit. She went on to discuss how he signs bills into law, then retroactively vetos them. She spoke of how he completely ignores congress, and the supreme court, and discussed how he follows the "imperial-theory of the presidency" which basically says he's acting like a dictator.

Next she talked about the patriot act, and how the government spies on us. Then she went on to make assertions that President Bush has used the FBI, CIA, and NSA to infiltrate peacefully demonstrating groups, then used the infiltrators to incite criminal acts during the demonstrations in order to get the demonstrators arrested (particularly in anti-war groups).

She said things such as "The FBI will go into a group, and during a demonstration will coerce people into throwing rocks as police so that they can get them arrested and break up the demonstration"

I sat back quietly for the most part interjecting as I thought I could reasonably get away with. After class I approached her as asked for citations of all these assertions she made. She promised to email them to me, and while she was at it, she posted them on a digital webpage she maintains for our class. Here are the links:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/?page=4

http://www.aclunc.org/news/press_releases/aclu_and_fresno_residents_seek_fbi_records_regarding_infiltration_of_local_community_group.shtml

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-te.md.spy18jul18,0,3787307.story

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html

I don't even know where to begin. First off, all these references are very liberally biased. The last link is from someone who makes a living bashing republicans and in the closing statements you see

"John W. Dean, a FindLaw columnist, is a former counsel to the president. He wishes to thank Professor Phillip J. Cooper, Portland State University, for his research into the use of signing statements by Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush."

However if you go and click on his name at the top of the article you get http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/ which has some information such as

"In 2001 he published The Rehnquist Choice: The Untold Story of the Nixon Appointment that Redefined the Supreme Court; in early 2004, Warren G. Harding, followed by Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush. In 2006, John published Conservatives Without Conscience.

His newest book is Broken Government: How Republican Rule Destroyed the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches."

Getting beyond the obviously biased sources you come to the points she actually made. I have yet to find information in any of these articles about a "retroactive-veto", I also find almost zero information on any court-decision declaring what bush is doing is unconstitutional. Furthermore on the protesting thing, there is nothing about them being incited by "infiltrators" to commit criminal acts in order to break up their demonstrations.

Any ideas are appreciated. I'm honestly getting sick of this liberal BS. My first plan is to show her how utterly wrong she is (with some more assistance by you guys), Secondly I think I want to write a formal report to her department head, and CC the Campus president reprimanding her for compromising the intellectual integrity of her classroom.

What do you all think? Any assistance if highly appreciated.

Disclaimer, this is my first blog so I'm still learning how to properly quote things and what not.

“Bush and Cheney will be leaving office…that’s the good news…the bad news is that they’ll be leaving office dropping the national tragedies of Katrina, Iraq, and our financial crisis in our laps”.

• Katrina was not a failure of the Central Government; it was a failure of the local and state Government i.e. Mayor Ray Nagin (Democrat), and Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco (Democrat).

• We are winning the war in Iraq (sorry to break the bad news to you Bruce) there were more deaths in Chicago this summer than there were in Iraq: A failure of Barry’s community organizing?
  

• Our financial crisis was caused by Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, which was, again caused by the Libs.

Dropping the tragedies in our laps?

• The Left is already fabricating excuses for Obama’s failed administration; should he be elected. Stick to what works: blame Bush. It’s Bush’s fault for everything; even when Barry screws things up.

“Our sacred house of dreams has been abused, it has been looted, and it has been left in a terrible state of disrepair; it needs care; it needs saving, and it needs defending from those who sell it down the river for a quick buck”.

• You mean like Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and Barrack Obama?

“…and it needs strong arms…it needs a citizenry with strong arms, strong hearts, and strong minds; it needs someone with Senator Obama’s understanding, his temperedness, his deliberativeness, his maturity, compassion, toughness, and faith to help us build our house once again. But most importantly it needs YOU… ha… and me ha… it needs us”.

• Who needs you Bruce? You want to talk about failures? Let’s talk about your last “Vote for Change Tour”. Wasn’t that a total failure? Your last “Vote for Change” theme song was “No Surrender”, but I guess you “surrendered” that song; didn't you Bruce?
  

Let's cut the B.S. on the bailout. The proposed government bailout is based on two government promises of maybe:

1) The taxpayer might recover some of the 700 billion someday;

2) Once banks bad debt is purchased with taxpayer money, the banks might loan some of it back to the people who paid the banks' debt in the first place.

Read the complete article, Bailout Explained, at Liberty Stop.

It's not so much that I think the RedState Directors have a better knowledge than the rest of us on this issue but that they seem to be the only ones who can access the RedState servers consistently and reliably enough to make detailed and cogent arguments in support of their disparate opinions.

Besides, in fairness to all of them, they have all made very cogent and compelling arguments regarding the current credit crisis and whether or not the Federal government should bailout the market. And I say this even as I strongly disagree with some of the arguments (even some of the arguments of those whose position I ultimately agree with).

Please, how about a REDSTATE ROUNDTABLE on this and soon?

As for the failure of the bailout plan itself, allow me to quote from some of my earlier posts. I am personally ambivalent to say the least. I think the idea of the government essentially purchasing over $700,000,000,000 in private securities and bad debt to be repugnant and a long term debacle. Indeed, let me call it what I really think it is: a significant step towards socialism.

I have consistently argued that the real solution to this problem is to loosen the capital markets by eliminating capital gains taxes; although the injecting $630,000,000,000 in the market is a good step, it also potentially weakens the already (IMHO) too weak dollar. But, unfortunately, my solution was not on the table.

The one very good thing passing the bailout bill would have "reassured" capital markets. Sometimes government "action" has a positive effect, even though the government action itself is not "positive": the sort of political equivalent of the Hawthorne effect.

So while in the long-term, economically, I think it is a good thing that the bailout plan failed, short-term I think the economy losses.

But politically I must ask this fundamental question: were free-market-based solutions even considered?

This country is becoming socialist but it is not because the Democrats have nominated a Marxist as their Presidential nominee. It is because it seems that neither the present Republican occupant of the White House cannot defend capitalism.

And unfortunately, the Republican Presidential nominee decided to follow the current occupant of the White House down the abyss.

If he acts now, John McCain still has plenty of time to get his economic team together and present his own free market-based solution to the current credit crunch that does not go a great way to socialize our financial markets. The question is, does McCain have the guts, intelligence, imagination and vision to do it?