....On States Rights........

I found this article about gay marriage.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=110234

I am a proponent of gay marriage for a number of reasons.

1. It's absolutely none of my business.
2. Love is indiscriminate.
3. Gays being married has no consequence on "traditional" marriage.
4. It's a legal contract in each state, and per the 10th ammendment of our beloved constitution, ALL citizens have equal protection under the law.

Those are my main points. My beef here is with states rights. DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by President Clinton in 1996. This is a bad law for two reasons, it is discrimitory and it tramples states rights. No section of the Constitution gives our federal government the power to rule or pass laws on social matters with no bearing on the overall public wellfare. DOMA should absolutely be repealed on these grounds.

The "Respect For Marriage Act", is the first "for the good of the people and respect for the law" piece of legislation to come through the house this year. It repeals the bad parts of DOMA and makes sure that ALL legal marriages are recognized by the federal government, "equal under the law".

As far as the rest of the gay marriage issue, if each state has made marriage a legal contract which you have to buy a licsense to get, then ALL citizens should have the right to marry any other citizen they choose, legally. On the other hand, no church should be forced to provide marriage services to couples of which they do not agree with their "lifestyle", that's a religion issue. The Mormons don't even recognize marriages from other churches. My wife and I purposely omitted all references to God from our vows, to the church, we may not be married, but by the state we are, does that make our marriage more valued than a gay couple married in a liberal church? I really think if it is that big an issue, we should consider making marriage a non-legal entity, whereas a church can marry whoever they want for religious reasons, but there are absolutely no legal benefits to marriage, ie; taxes, inheretance, insurance, wills, etc., etc. Just a thought.

Back to states rights, another example that will be coming very soon is a federal "texting/driving" law. I am anti-texting/driving, but the federal government has no authority to make such laws, the states do. Washington, where I live already has a law, as do many other states. Advocates of the laws should pressure other staes to do the same, but discourage the feds to do the same. I know it seems like just a little thing to protect the people, but the little things add up quick. Every time we grant the government even the slightest bit more power than the Constitution allows them, we lose a little more freedom.

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

A Movement of the People

A lot has gone on in the two weeks since my last post, school address, speech to the joint session, Joe Wilson outburst, ACORN corruption, Barney Frank wanting to lead HUD, and 9/11. But one of the most important things (not downplaying 9/11 by any means) is the march on DC on 9/12.
A true political movement by the people that spans the spectrum of causes and demographics. A movement that has been a long time coming. A movement that spans liberal and conservative, Republican and Democrat, independents and people who don't know what they are because they're just waking up for the first time. A movement that can bring us all together as Americans.

So what is the movement? It's about limited government and the powers it's given, of, by, and for the people. It's about controlled spending, reeling in the debt/deficit, and not pushing through programs that we cannot afford. It's about taking control and responsibilty for our own lives back.

I've been reading several reports and watching several video clips of the event in DC, simply awe inspiring. One of the biggest marches on Washington ever held. How many people? Just depends on who you trust to report. ABC reported 60,000 to 70,000, which by DC march standards, 50,000 is a successful march. If you read the London Daily Mail, 2,000,000 made the march. Most reports say several hundred thousand or roughly 1,000,000. It doesn't really matter. The fact is that hordes of patriots converged on the capitol to have their voice heard. On top of that, there were over 200 other events in 45 states that coincided with DC.

The people are tired of being ignored. Ironicly, the White House claims to have no knowledge that the march was going to happen even when a memo was leaked from house Democrats warning that there could be up to 2,000,000 in attendance. That is a slap in the face. This has been promoted fairly heavily by FOXNews, at least covering the bus carravan across the country, and we know that POTUS has some one monitoring FOX just to be able to refute it. They knew, they didn't care. They DON'T care.

We the people........
.....want a limited, accountable government.
.....are tired of government corruption.
.....want to put a stop to the spending.
.....want our politicians to be held up to the Constitution.
.....don't want our leaders to hold our hands.
.....are tired of the lies.

Keep speaking out. Do your homework, know your facts, and question EVERYTHING. Organize a group in your own community or join one. Attend as many events as you can. The movement starts with each one of us as individuals, standing up and speaking out for what is right, not an agenda. Read the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and any other founding documents you can find so you understand what limited government really is. We are all patriots. We all love this country. We may have some differences on policy, but we all enjoy the freedoms and liberties we are born with and don't want that taken away or hindered in any way. STAND UP! SPEAK OUT! DO NOT FEAR YOUR GOVERNMENT, MAKE THEM FEAR YOU! SPREAD THE WORDS OF FREEDOM AND LIBERTY EVERYWHERE YOU GO! WAKE AMERICA UP!

Advisors, Czars, Cabinet Members, Overwhelming the System, and Inflicting Confusion, part 1

Again, what is with all of the czars? Why is the president aligning himself with anti capitalists, communists, socialists, revolutionaries, and radicals? The connections to progressive, community organizing and radical groups is mind-boggling. Once one starts to delve into the wealth of information available, the trails and interconnections start growing exponentially.

Today I was just looking at a list I found from late July of the new "appointees", 28 at the time, at least 37 as of late August. So I picked at random, Todd Stern, the new Special Envoy for Climate Change. FIRST thing I find and confirm is he is a senior fellow at the George Soros funded Center for American Progress. Wasn't Mark Lloyd a senior fellow at CAP? Yes, yes he was. Isn't Mark Lloyd the new diversity czar? Yes he is. Stern was also involved with the Clinton administration in environmental policy. When you start researching that, it leads to Agenda 21. Agenda 21 is linked with global governance, the UN, the WHO, the FAO. President Clinton formed the department after the first President Bush signed away part of our sovereignty on Prince Charles' yacht in 1992. Which leads to the Trilateral Commission and the Bildergerg Group and lots of global governance theories.

I really wish I had 4 or 5 wall-sized cork boards, thousands of push-pins and 1000's of yards of yarn so I could create a web of connections. They are endless. It's really difficult to focus on one point because of all the intricacies. That is Saul Alinsky's advice, overwhelm the system. My main focus is internal U.S. government corruption and exposing what I can, but it goes so much deeper. It is infested throughout both major political parties. It's like pro wrestling, they fight in the ring, but after the show they go have dinner and drinks and discuss how tomorrows show will unfold. It's disgusting. We are all being fooled and indoctrinated into believing it's OK. Some of us will continue to believe in the honesty of government and those will be the ones to fear in the new civil force. Some of us are waking up and seeing through the veil. Some of us have found or are finding our voice and are not going to sit back idly.

I want to be wrong. I want to believe that life in the United States is all lollipops, puppies, and rainbows. I don't like to focus on the negative, but someone has to or the ones who don't are going to get hit by a steam roller. I don't believe I am wrong. I believe we are already in a radical transformation and will wake up someday soon and freedom and liberty as we know it will be gone. If and when that day comes, what side will you be on? Will you stand up and fight for freedom, like generations of Americans before us? Or will you sit back and let the status quo become one of virtual slavery to the state?

Moving In the Direction of.......?

Let's start with, yes, I listen to Glenn Beck on the radio when I am able to. I look at his website periodically. I agree with much of what he has to offer, by no means all. I have been accused of being "brainwashed" or "you just get that from Glenn Beck", possibly true. But, what really turned me on to his show was that he was saying what I was already feeling in my gut, but didn't know where or how to express it. I have lived on the premise that there is MASSIVE corruption in the government, on all levels, as far back as I was ever involved in or paid attention to politics at all.

The next thing I get is, "why are you so vocal now, you weren't before?" (Apparently this makes look like I am only saying things against Obama)That may be where I was wrong. I should have been more vocal before. I should have paid more attention, I had the gut feeling, I chose not to act on it. I wish I had. I wish we ALL had. I talked about politics. I was against the wars. I was against the Patriot Act. I was against the massive spending. And, I took the stimulus check. I wish I hadn't. I had a feeling that there was something not right about it, but it was a $1600 check, I needed the cash, I put it in the bank and spent it. It won't happen again. I have found my voice now. I know it was always there, just waiting to be unleashed on the masses.

On that note, this country has been transferred from a steam engine onto the bullet train down the track to something that none of us will recognize. Glenn Beck has laid out a HUGE map to this country's demise as a democracy, and most people won't pay attention because he's been labeled as some right-wing kook. But I've been looking, trying to find the truth on my own, trying to refute what he's found. I am finding a lot of REALLY close connections, I have not been able to refute any of it. Nor has the White House. Nor has the media. I listen to liberal/progressive radio as much or more than conservative radio, because I really want to have the fair objective, they can't dispute the facts he's put out there. Most of the personalities won't even try to dispute the facts and when they do try and can't, they hang up on people and call Beck any number of crazy names.

What if only a small fraction of his information was true, for instance, Van Jones is a self-avowed communist who has started a multitude of radical, revolutionary and sometimes violent communist and racist groups, and has been imprisoned for violence as a result of the Rodney King riots which his group was largely responsible for.(whew) If only this fact were true, does it not give you pause that a COMMUNIST is advising the president. Didn't the FBI catch that in their vetting process, oh, wait, I forgot, the White House took some of those processes out of the hands of the FBI so they could do that themselves. Does the connection of Brazilian state run oil, who we are loaning $2,000,000,000 to drill in a massive oil reserve even though we can't drill in ours to protect the environment, and George Soros flip a switch? He owns a majority 22% stock in the firm and happens to be buddies with the president and many others in D.C. Let's, for shits and giggles, say that only 15% of the information and direct connections to President Obama, ACORN, SEIU, CAP, the 37+ new czars and how they are positioned to cut off the power of congress, etc., etc., only 15% of the info, does that not frighten you? The power and corruption and deceit are endless. And power only creates the desire for more power.

Why do we need to "fundamentally change America"? Why do we need to fund, as much as the military, a civilian force? Who is the enemy? Why are we OK with communists, revolutionaries, anti-capitalists and radicals advising our president? Do you think Obama has no idea about their background? Why is there ALWAYS a crisis? Why don't doesn't congress read the bills? Isn't it their job to represent their constituents, not push the president's or party's agenda? Do you feel represented? Just ask the questions.

Liberal vs. Conservative, Republican vs. Democrat, what's the real deal? Progressivism

So this is my first my first real blog. If you read my little profile snippet then you might have a good sense of who I am, you probably know me personally already. As you may or may not know, I have been posting little things on Facebook for a long time now. After a few different conversations with people I respect, I decided to try this medium as a way to further my "cause" and be able to broaden my perspective, you can only write so much on a Facebook status and the point doesn't always come across the way it was meant to. I will still post things there, but I will be able to reference to here, it's still a great place to stir up some debate and unload a quick thought.

I thought I would start with the basics of the premise of where I think we are headed. That would be something that is at least similar to socialism. As a very basic foundation, which is where one should always start, some definitions.

Webster Comprehensive Dictionary:

liberalism n. 1. An attitude toward social, economic, political, and ecclesiastical policies, favoring gradual reform and ordered change rather than reaction or revolution and opposed equally to arbitrary censorship and undue license in dealing with ideas. 2. A doctrine often equated with laissez-faire economics, holding to free trade and to minimum interference by the state with economic activities: contrasted to socialism, syndicalism, and communism. 3. In political theory, adherence to policies of gradual reform through parliamentary procedure, the upholding of civil liberties as central in a free society, and a belief in the doctrine of progress: opposed to conservatism. 4. (pertains to both the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches) 5. Loosely, general opposition to conservatism and reaction in any field.

conservatism n. Conservative principles and practices, as in criticism. theology, politics, ect.; disposition or tendency to be conservative.

conservative adj. 1. Adhering to and tending to preserve the existing order of things; opposed to change or progress 2. Conserving; preservative. 3. Moderate; cautious; within a safe margin: a conservative estimate or statement -n. A conservative person.

progressive n. One who believes in progress or progressive methods; especially, one who favors or promotes reform or changes, as in politics or religion; a radical: opposed to conservative or reactionary.

socialism n. Public collective ownership or control of the basic means of production, distribution, and exchange, with the avowed aim of operating for use rather than for profit, and of assuring to each member of society an equitable share of goods, services, and welfare benefits: as a system of social and economic organization planned, attempted, or achieved through various methods- in Utopian or Christian Socialism, through cooperative communal groups holding all things in common (approximating the philosophic anarchism of Thoreau, Tolstoy, and Kropotkin, and the communalism and commensalism of the early and undivided church); in Guild Socialism, through the organization of producer groups and the professions in syndicalist guilds to be represented in a federal legislative body; in Fabian or British Labour Party Socialism, through parliamentary democracy using gradualist evolutionary processes; in Marxist-Leninist State Socialism, through revolution, expropriation, and dictatorship of the so-called proletariat, in short, Communism. Compare MIXED ECONOMY. - creeping socialism Anything considered as a gradual or piecemeal encroachment upon the system of private property and free enterprise through state action: used as an epithet.

democrat n. 1. One who favors a democracy. 2. One who believes in political and social equality.

republican adj. Pertaining to, of the nature of, or suitable for a republic; also, of or pertaining to any party supporting republican government. -n. One who advocates or upholds a republican form of government or belongs to a party upholding republican government; one who believes in equality and liberty.

The progressive movement has been around since close to the beginning of the 20th century. Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, was a progressive. Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, was a progressive. Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, was a progressive. There was a Progressive Party, in fact, it was incarnated three times. The first time was by Teddy Roosevelt and his running mate, Hiram Johnson, in 1912. They were defeated in 1916 by Woodrow Wilson. After Roosevelt's death, Hiram Johnson was leader of the Progressives, although, there was no official party in existence, and server several terms in congress.

The second try was led by Robert la Fayette in the 1920's because the Democrat Party was not far enough left to implement social change. This was a more socialistic platform than the first inception, calling for government control over private industry. The Socialist Party and the Farmer-Labor Party along with the unions, joined forces with The Progressive Party, but the Worker's Party (Communist Party) was turned away, because it would have been political suicide. It didn't matter, they got less than 1% of the vote. The party faded away again, but was successful on the state level in the 1930's in Wisconsin, where La Fayette's sons won state level political bids.

The last attempt for the Progressive Party stemmed out of the FDR administration. FDR was a progressive Democrat and, like every other president, surrounded himself with like-minded people. He appointed Henry Wallace as Secretary of Agriculture, where he immediately started implementing radical policies and writing legislation. FDR named him as his running mate in his 1940 campaign. The 1944 FDR campaign was different, southern conservative Democrats didn't like his views on equal rights for blacks and women and he was ostracized from the party. He was appointed a cabinet position, but was eventually ousted by Truman, and became the leader of the Progressive Party.

How does this pertain today? The Progressive Party is all but defunct. But, the progressive movement still lives and is in good health. Hillary Clinton has described herself as a progressive, she is supposed to be one of the most intelligent women in the country, do you think she doesn't know what that means. Barack Obama described himself as a progressive. Nancy Pelosi, a progressive. There are a host of progressive Democrats. There are a host of Republican progressives, also. George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, John McCain, Olympia Snowe, they're all progressives. Progressive ideology has been permeating politics for decades. The problem is that progressive ideals are based on a lack of personal/individual freedoms and liberties, that people can't or shouldn't function without government intervention, that we need to be monitored like children because we can't function on our own. They are based on the idea that every thing is stacked against the average citizen, on purpose, and there needs to be "social justice" to level out the inequities. One of the problems with "social justice" is that it doesn't level the field in the middle, it only brings all classes to the lowest level, which gives government ABSOLUTE power.

We are headed into a storm of socialist concepts and ideas, all of them designed with one goal, ABSOLUTE power. Card Check, gives way too much power to the union bosses. Cap and Trade, is based on a false concept and estimates for per family taxation ranges from $1500 to $3000 per year. "Health Care" reform doesn't reform health care, but adds a whole new tax base, not for the needed funds, because it's nowhere close, but to break small business. If the three bills go through, it will be the trifecta of death for small business. Over 40% of employment comes from businesses with less than 25 employees. What happens when they're gone? Government nanny state. Government ownership. Government employment. Government food supply. Government energy supply.

AIG, Fanny and Freddy, GM, Chrysler, and really, who knows how many other banks and insurance companies are already government controlled. I hear people say they aren't actually controlling them, but who fired the CEO of GM earlier this year? The point is, it's already happening, whether one chooses to see it or believe or not, it's happening. Democrats and Republicans are both in the pockets of big business across the board. It doesn't make it right. It makes them equally guilty for selling out the American people and compromising our sovereignty.

That's the foundation. It is so much deeper and complex than this. I implore and encourage everyone to do their own research. I am just a schlub and I get things wrong and have been known to get stuff from questionable resources, although I am trying to wrangle that problem in. There are valuable resources out there. There are voices out there that I think have it right, and some that are just towing an agenda line. What we have is too important to throw away to elitists who think they know better, but they haven't lived your life, or your friends and families lives, or my life. I know what's better for me, how about you?