Zelaya had been freely elected by the people as are the Honduran Congress and other government level officials. Just as Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez had done several months ago, Zelaya moved to repeal term limits on his office. His suggesting the repeal is not of issue. When he couldn’t gain political support for the motion, he chose to import counterfeit ballots to be used in the upcoming election. The Congress and military thus removed Zelaya from office, installed a temporary President and intend on holding elections earlier than scheduled. Fortunately for Zelaya, he was flown to Costa Rica instead of being arrested. However, if he returns to Honduras, arrest is eminent.

Within hours Obama offered the same position as Castro, Ortega and Chavez; Zelaya should be restored to power and such a coup is illegal. So much for not wanting to meddle in democratic uprisings. Maybe Obama has plans regarding his term-limit. 

In 1967, the many States ratified the 25^th Amendment to the US Constitution. In essence the amendment details presidential disability and succession including a procedure with which the president can be removed from power. Yes, just like Denzel Washington’s character in “Crimson Tide” took down Gene Hackman from the con.

Here’s how it goes: The vice-president and majority of principal officers of executive departments inform both houses of congress, in writing, that the president is unable to meet his duties. The vice-president assumes power. 

If the president informs both houses, in writing, that no inability exists, the opposing faction has four days to counter whereas congress will decide the issue. The congress is to convene within 48 hours but should they refuse to convene within 21 days or agree within 21 days by two-thirds vote of the president’s inability, the vice-president will assume power. In other words, for the president to save his job congress must convene and decide within 21 days; and within congress the president would need one-third support plus one.

This amendment is intended to backstop medical, mental, and personal issues with which the president may be faced. Could it be used for ideological differences? Would that be constitutional? Yes and yes.

I would never insinuate that Joe Biden would exercise the 25^th amendment to assume power…only Hillary has this kind of influence. Wasn’t the potential for a Biden resignation a campaign rumor? We would be so lucky if these dots get connected.

What about those people who advocate abortion including late-term, or partial-birth, but decide to start a family?

What about those people who stand for rights of the accused but support the death penalty?

What about those people who advocate gay marriage but choose to marry the opposite sex?

What about those feminist organizations which support equality for women in the workplace and political forum but do not stand up for women with opposing views?

What about those people who preach of their right to free speech but denigrate and personally attack those with opposing views?

These are social positions of the left. As you can see, the left stands for the convenient alternative and not for the ideal. They get to have it both ways because it’s easy to get knocked down when you stand for something.

I’m a resident of South Carolina and feel Sanford’s tryst is none of my business as I had also felt of President Clinton’s hay rolls. An extra-marital affair does not necessarily impact the official’s ability to do his job. And I do not need my governor to advocate monogamy; I need him to advocate fiscal responsibility which he has, much to the chagrin of the legislature. I want a governor, not a clergyman or a marriage counselor, and we have a great one here in South Carolina.

The spending, borrowing and bail-outs are enough for me to scream. Nobody would argue that we never have to pay back these loans. The piper will come calling. After adding mandatory spending to our federal and state budgets, the only alternative will be to increase taxes. And not just income taxes, but a Value Added Tax (VAT) is being discussed in the halls of Congress. A VAT is a small tax placed incrementally through the supply chain of goods. We will pay more for most everything we buy. Oddly we consider adding to mandatory spending at a time when three major entitlement programs are in the tank. Why not add another healthcare program? Who is going to pay for this? The Chinese? My greatest prayer is that China would stop enabling our addiction. Bailing out car companies, shifting ownership outside of a bankruptcy system emulated throughout the world? Disgusting.

Increased taxes will mean less disposable income for which to buy goods and services. Yet a climate bill in Congress seeks to excise a carbon emissions tax on companies producing electricity with fossil fuels. Fifty percent of electricity produced is done so with coal. Obama has personally noted this cost would be passed to the consumer; utility bills will “skyrocket;” more money out of our pockets and still less money to buy goods and services. And I have no choice from whom to buy energy!

As defined by www.dictionary.com, inflation is “a persistent, substantial rise in the general level of prices related to an increase in the volume of money and resulting in the loss of value of currency.” Since December, our Federal Reserve has doubled the amount of currency on hand from $900B to $1.8T. We are lending to ourselves via the Treasury Department. This money will seep into circulation causing a rise in the general level of prices due to the loss of value in the dollar; more money out of our pockets and still less money to buy goods and services.

Very few will be able to hide from the impacts noted but what may be the results? The poor will become more poor with narrow lines of escape either through having to work harder to get ahead or receive greater subsidy from the government to get ahead. The wealthy will lose that which they toiled to gain their reward will be confiscated to pay for reckless government spending and debt. Who will invest in business, the government?  The unemployed may likely stay unemployed for the foreseeable future since less capital will be available for investing in business not to mention the decrease in items purchased from retail shelves. Eventually unemployment insurance payments will expire; or will they?

The government could expand to absorb these losses by headquartering the nation’s largest job program in Detroit, but what about those Americans outside the “in crowd?” If they lose their jobs as a result of the events noted above then they may lose their ability to meet mortgage obligations. Will the government buy-up those delinquent mortgages and those homes? 

Again, I’m all about hope for a better tomorrow but don’t nationalize a car company and demand they manufacture little green rechargables. Why not provide incentive to rental car companies to purchase the little green rechargables and introduce the public to them? Why not provide homeowners incentive to install solar panels and windmills? Are we still not drilling in ANWAR? Don’t tell me that Iran has the right to nuclear power while the US hasn’t built a nuclear plant in over 30 years. (How many jobs did I just create?) And don’t tell me the US does not have the one of the best healthcare systems in the world far surpassing the quality of care offered by any nationalized system; I’m just not buying it.

Man evolved into groups, tribes, cultures, civilizations and societies. Hundreds of these factions blanket Earth being governed in some form or fashion. There are monarchs, dictators, and elections. There are revolutions, coups, power grabs, murders, money and power. Some of the oldest governed societies date back 4,000 or more years. In that time, a relative blink of the eye, how long do governments stand? Should we ask the Russians, French, Germans or one of the myriad of African and Middle Eastern nations?

How about Native Americans, the Mayan or Aztecs? Let’s ask John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. They wrote 85 essays in an attempt to convince the people to ratify a Constitution of expressly limited federal power. The people were scared. They had escaped tyranny from the Crown and were learned of struggles long past. They felt secure in there liberty and wanted nothing to have of it being compromised. After due deliberation, the Constitution was ratified in 1788.

Within 72 years the US had a civil war. Ending in 1865, it served in reuniting from differences on states rights, namely tariffs and slavery. The US then emerged from the industrial age with the progressivism of Theodore Roosevelt soon followed with FDRs New Deals of 1933 and 1935; 70 years after the end of the US Civil War. Still again there has been Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. There have been liberal constitutional interpretations regarding interstate commerce of a farmer’s small wheat crop. Our federal government has become a collage of departments, agencies, committees, commissions, services, lobbyists and czars. There have been corruption, greed, cronyism and waste. And in 73 years since the New Deal, the US elected Barack Hussein Obama as president. What will our society be like in another 70 years?

Our piece in the history of civilized governance has been but a blink in time; but in that time we have not only accepted the federal government’s expanding power but one must now pry it from our cold, dead fingers as we cling to it as if a child’s teddy-bear.

We have recently had two presidents faced with significant decisions, namely the use of the water-board by the Bush administration and the bankruptcy/merger proceedings of car companies by the Obama administration.

On the one hand, Bush was faced with a decision to use the water-board on enemy combatants in search of intelligence. Laws are vague and multi-jurisdictional whereas the failure to consider all interpretations results in international condemnation. Bush sought legal counsel from the Justice Department. After review of applicable laws and treaties, the technique was deemed legal, thus implemented. Details of the success of this technique remain classified. Obama has referred to the Bush administration as “lawless.”

On the other hand, Obama was not faced with a decision regarding the bankruptcy/merger proceedings of GM and Chrysler. Laws are concise and uni-jurisdictional, have been employed since the beginning of our nation, have a track record of success and have been emulated around the world. Failure to comply with these laws would result in an overt snub at the Constitution and the values of a great nation which have also been emulated around the world. Where, Mr. President, are the legal opinions which you sought from the Justice Department?

Gain consideration among the political elite. Once power is attained, the political elite become those influential leaders throughout the world. My charismatic leader must befriend those rallying against our nation’s principles. He must appease them to be accepted by them. Methods to achieve this end might include personal visits with those leaders, speeches apologizing for past actions, and promises to reconcile points of disagreement even if sacrificing staunch allies and compromising homeland security. A weakened global posture will invite dependence from the people as risks, real and perceived, can be exploited.

Mobilize the disenfranchised. The disenfranchised are largely responsible for our ascension to power as they turned out in droves on election day to support my agent. Our movement must follow through with the redistributive tenets promised during the campaign. A first step would be to seize control of an enormous amount of private wealth by nationalizing the banking industry. Further, my agent must move toward collecting more revenue from the wealthy to fund redistributive programs such as unemployment payments, healthcare, tax rebates, and social welfare programs. Orchestrating the immediate distribution of government funds will demonstrate a commitment as provider, broaden government influence and ensure future voter loyalty.

Empower the working class. The proletariat is a second group largely responsible for our winning the election due to their contributions and votes. This group quite probably donated the most of any demographic and deserves reward. In order to ensure their support in the future, we should promise job and benefit security. The best way to achieve this end is to commandeer their industry. By circumventing established laws, my agent can provide ownership of industry to the proletariat transferring an enormous amount of wealth and opportunity straight from bourgeoisie pockets. Candidates for industry overthrow are manufacturing, energy, healthcare and media.

Influence the media. If my plans were executed as devised, media outlets will morph from a watchdog of government policies to a lapdog for our agenda. My agent might choose to appoint heads of the industry as advisors and journalists to policy implementation roles. He will provide sympathetic publications greater access and will gladly accept interviews from foreign outlets, in particular, outlets from nations or groups influenced by our enemies. I would suggest this strategy be implemented immediately to ensure the media continues to support our agenda. 

Prepare future leaders. It is imperative that our movement continue to completion which will require indoctrinating future leaders and providing them consideration among the political elite. The future success of our movement may be led by lobbyists, journalists (as noted above), justices, industry leaders and political competitors. Appointing political competitors to high level positions will allow for greater control of their actions. Appointing industry leaders solidifies their compliance. Appointing empathetic justices to the highest courts will ensure continued support from the disenfranchised. Appointing lobbyists to serve close to my agent will facilitate supporters of their interests to become supporters of my agenda.  Furthermore, all school aged children should be educated by the state; abolish voucher programs.

Suppress the message of adversaries. While supporters are rewarded even if through legislation, we must continue to marginalize the adversaries of our agenda. Fortunately, our rapport with mainstream media outlets will prove beneficial in this regard. We may also choose to broaden ownership and operating opportunities for our supporters. Suppression through legislation should be implemented as a last resort. Surrogates role will be to identify radical ideologues as the leaders and spokespeople for the opponent party. They should also associate opposition as “do nothings” unwilling to work together for solutions. Additionally, restrictions must be placed on ownership rights of guns and ammunition lest a violent movement of restoration arise. Any who rally against our cause must be denigrated harshly and immediately.

Manipulate the election. Although imperative to never be linked to voter fraud or intimidation, once elected and having made appointments the course of any pending judicial actions can be circumvented. Cases can be dismissed or not rigorously prosecuted. Protecting these stealth activities will be useful in the future. If my agent’s ascension vacated an elected seat, then my agent must be careful to not associate with his replacement’s appointment. This, as any contested election results, must be sensitively addressed.

Charismatic leader. My agent for change must be kept on message at all times. He must speak from a prepared script of eloquently disguised contradictions. His words must be interpreted as benign while actions slow to be considered tyrannical. The charisma of my agent must be unwavering. He must be affective as long as possible at blaming negative perceptions regarding the state of the union on previous administration decisions. He is my lead in disguising our ruse.

She has said that she, as a Latina woman, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male. Of course, had a white male said the same of a Latina woman, he would have never even been considered as a nominee having been labeled a racist. Is Sotomayor a racist? I cannot say for sure since I do not know this compelling Latina woman but the statement certainly implies she will instill empathy in her interpretation of the Constitution. This scares me; this will be her part in the liberal’s social engineering agenda. (As an aside, I encourage you to investigate how the Democrats responded to Bush appointment Miguel Estrada’s compelling life story.)

An example of her empathy is her dismissal of a case brought by several white firefighters who had been declined promotion even though they had performed quite well on test and training material. Their complaint was that they had been discriminated against simply because minority firefighters had not performed as well, thus no promotions were awarded. 

She has also said that policy is made by the courts. I saw the video of her making the statement and, then, cavalierly mock the pretense that this is the case. Isn’t policy to be made by the Legislative Branch? This scares me too; this is judicial activism. This is a justice interpreting the Constitution in a way which meets the justice’s goals, not those of our Founders. Her judicial activist statement alone would solidify my vote of “nay” to her confirmation.

But, if these instances are not enough to deny Sotomayor a lifetime appointment to the high court, then what is?

During the election cycle of last fall, many of us went on and on about candidate Obama’s political christening taking place in the home of William Ayers. We were outspoken about Obama’s longtime membership in the church led by Rev. Jeremiah Wright. We attempted to remind America that Obama made no secret of his Marxist redistributive plans. 

And now, my dear friends, we learn that Sonia Sotomayor’s compelling life story includes a Princeton yearbook in which she cited her favorite quote, “I am not a champion of lost causes, but of causes not yet won.” On the surface, this quote from Norman Thomas is pretty benign until put in context.

Norman Thomas ran for the office of president on six different occasions for the Socialist Party of America. As I have quoted before, Thomas also said “The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.” How much of Thomas has Sotomayor read? How influential has Thomas’ teachings been on Sotomayor? What is the “cause not yet won?” How many times does the American people need to hear “the Socialists are coming” before they begin to believe, or care?

I have long had an interest in governance and history which was originally sparked by two high school teachers, Everett Neese and Larry Sayers. Initially inspired to teach social sciences in secondary education, my goals evolved while in college where I met Dr. Sam McKinstry. Doc Sam, as he liked to be called, motivated students to search themselves for answers after a thorough review of applicable case studies, reading assignments, etc. I soon gravitated toward a major in Political Science and minor in History. Although a graduate program was not in my immediate future and my desire to teach waned, our most recent election cycle reinvigorated my interest in the discipline.

My studies included classes in the Supreme Court, political culture, and surveys in world history and, yes, I took a class simply titled “Marxism.” The teaching assignment alternated between the philosophy and political science departments. I had a philosophy professor and happened to have scored a “C.” Be it as it may, I did not need Joe the Plumber to question candidate Obama in a rope line to sense the righteous wind of the Proletariat blowing at our backs.

As I have grown, matured and had some successes along life’s path, I admit to being more aligned on position with the Bourgeoisie but, frankly, do not believe in contrived class struggles. I believe in fairness, justice, honor and integrity; traits I see across all walks of life. My fellow citizens deserve my respect no matter their income, education, trade, religion, sexual preference, and so on.

Of late I have reacquainted myself with our nation’s founding documents and experienced an epiphany of epic proportions. Regardless of leadership in either the presidency or congress, our federal government has overstepped their provided authority by leaps and bounds. They have exercised flagrant disregard for fiscal responsibility and are too oft rightfully accused of corruption. The Congress, in particular, work diligently to create a crisis to fix when we all may be better served if they revisited the Tenth Amendment, which states “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.” This was ratified as an assurance of a small, unobtrusive federal government.

The 111^th Congress passed a 1,000 page bill which, in part, authorized bonuses to corporate executives of federally bailed out companies if the bonus was negotiated prior to a certain date. Our President signed the stimulus bill into law. When public outcry become to hot to handle, Congress passed an ex post facto bill of attainder to tax these bonuses at 90%. I may not agree with executives of bailed out companies getting bonuses but I agree a great deal less with Congress violating two specific limitations on its power. Without a doubt, I certainly disagree with the US government owning controlling interest in any US company and am not convinced of their authority to spend our tax dollars in such a manner.

Our country has evolved to one with the federal government owning 80% of the largest insurer of wealth in the world, namely AIG. The Chrysler bankruptcy and Fiat merger was choreographed by the White House yielding the UAW (short for Proletariat) 55% ownership while shirking the investors in secured debt (the Bourgeoisie). The President fired the CEO of General Motors, pulled advertising dollars from Chrysler’s budget and has set extreme fuel efficiency goals for future automobiles while insisting that his administration has no intention of running car companies. Anyway we slice it, this IS socialism and while Obama’s supporters run from that term like it’s the plague, with apparent shame of their chosen ideology; I feel it’s important to be honest. I’m not sure why they are so ashamed since our government has been practicing the redistributive tenets of Marxism for decades via Social Security; nothing more than a ponzi scheme designed to take my earnings from expended labor to provide a federal pension payment to another. 

Recently fifty-two percent of Americans voted for candidate Obama’s policies and currently his job approval rating is sixty-one percent. It now appears time for me to reacquaint myself with The Communist Manifesto over a glass of Kool-Aid (with vodka). 

We would all agree that at the core of our rivalries is altruistic nationalism (a sense of loyalty and devotion) which bodes well for the soul whether in appreciate of military and public service personnel or simply cheering during the four-man bobsled. We pledge allegiance to our flag, sing along with The Star Spangled Banner, tour our nation’s capital, pay our taxes and vote.

As proud of both as I may be, neither is my “community.” My “community” is in my neighborhood; my town or city; my county. That’s where I find liberty; at the heart of the matter. Some continue to search for “liberty” under “equality” but they won’t find it there (please stop looking).

Bush era tax cuts initially resulted in decreased tax revenues. By 2007, tax revenues were $144 billion greater than when he had taken office. This gain is attributed to the sharp increase from corporate tax revenue within two years of the early administration tax cut.

A disproportionate change in tax rates by household income existed after Bush’s early administration tax cuts. The lowest 80% of households received as much as a 28 to 53% reduction in tax rates, compared to 1983, while the top 10% of households received over a 10% increase in tax rates. In 2005, the top 10% of earners paid 70% of federal income taxes.

Spending increased under every administration in recent memory. Bush and Reagan increased spending by 25%; Clinton by 9%; Bush-41 by 18%.   Revenues increased the most under Clinton at 35% through increases in individual income taxes.

Federal deficits have been common between 1.0 to 4.3% of GDP. Bush and Carter ran deficits at 2.4%. Reagan and Bush-41 did so at 4.3%. Clinton gets top marks for running balanced over his terms! However, spending has increased regardless of party in either The White House or The Congress.

Pork projects or earmarks gained in popularity during Bush’s terms ultimately growing in quantity by 3 times. Bush exercised the power of veto only 9 times compared to Clinton at 37, Bush-41 at 44, Reagan at 78 and Carter at 31.

The unemployment rate steadily dropped during Clinton’s terms from 8% to 4%. Bush saw a post-9/11 spike to 6.4% but correction to 4% by 2007.

Bush attempted to reform Social Security early in his administration but was unable to gain support in The Congress. As a percentage of GDP, in 2015 the three major entitlements will be half of our tax revenue. If current trends continue, in 2080 our country’s costs will be twice its revenue. Of federal spending in 2008, over 50% was mandatory up from 42% in 1985 and 27% in 1965.

US trade deficit has been on a steady increase since 1992 but began a turn around in late 2005.

Bush, through Committee, and McCain, through co-sponsorship of legislation, separately attempted to reform Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in 2002 and 2005, respectively. The mortgage giant is overseen by a board directly reporting to Congressional committee.

After review, I sit in confusion as to what “failed economic policies of the last eight years” are being referenced. Surely there can be no argument with increases in tax revenue by shifting the burden to the wealthy since candidate Obama made clear of his intention to “spread the wealth.” Surely there can be no argument regarding increases to federal spending including earmarks since Obama’s budget is laden with pork, as was the Spendulus bill, and results in quadrupling the annual deficit. The Omnibus bill included 8,570 earmarks while there were 8,341 earmarks in all of 2002!  Surely there can be no argument on decreasing the unemployment rate since Obama has been clear in his plans to create or save 3.5 million jobs.  Surely he wouldn't want to negate gains made in improving the trade deficit.

This phrase must, then, be in reference to not getting reform of Social Security and Freddie/Fannie, yet neither are on Obama’s agenda. Could I get a clarification please? I wonder how many “uhs” Robert Gibbs would jibber to get out a response? Maybe he would look into it for me.

First, although I may not agree with the general governing practices of Cuba and Venezuela, I must admit that I support Obama’s efforts to mend those relationships. Quite simply we should have never let those relationships erode to this degree. The nations of the western hemisphere must stand united. The geographical proximity of these nations provides the US with resources and markets while providing our enemies a strategic outpost.  The US has too oft attempted to influence the greater world, neglecting its own backyard. My bottom line is this; Chavez and Castro have long suppressed their people reminding me of a certain lot of colonists once suppressed by the King George III. Should the people of Cuba and Venezuela want liberty then they must rise up. And, unless genocide is being practiced, the US should keep to its own affairs of governance.

Second, I agree with Obama’s altered position on federally funded embryonic stem cell research. His initial position included the harvesting of embryos for research but this has been changed. Kudos Mr. President.

Third, Obama has said that he does not support a version of The Fairness Doctrine being re-established within the radio industry. That’s good; nobody likes censorship.

Four, I agree with the President in that marriage is between a man and woman. Gay marriage is, however, a right reserved to the states. Vermont is the only state to legislatively recognize gay marriage.

Five, I also agree that combat missions in Iraq should end and Afghanistan must become the primary front in fighting Islamic terrorism. Granted, I would have never set a date certain for the end of Iraq combat missions but admit the time has come for the Iraqi people to protect themselves after the US has completed the heavy lifting of removing a despot from power (Hussein practiced genocide on Kurds). A surge in Afghanistan is long overdue as the situation deteriorates daily in that country and, now, Pakistan.

Six, thank goodness we’ve decided to use TARP funds as legislated.

There you have it! Six points of praise for President Obama’s first 100 days in office published to the world-wide-web for all to read. With all sincerity, I hope to have the opportunity to write of many more positions on which I agree; we’ll see.

Why not this one? Well, my friends, they know we’re onto them. The gig is up! We put them on the defensive. Their options were limited. They could have covered the rallies as objective journalists; throwing ideology to the curb to proactively participate as the watchdog of government. They could have said “to hell with our CEO sitting on Obama’s economic advisory board, we’re covering the news.” They could have not made jokes about the participants much less called them all racists as did Ms. Garofilo, while Olberman sat drooling wishing that just one time he could give her….(sorry). Or they could have covered the rallies as they did; as cowards on the run, scampering to save the attention of what viewer ship they have left and protecting their previously drawn political preferences.

Americans are beginning to awaken from a lifetime of letting government govern and believing our representatives were leading us down the right path. We are now seeing how obtrusive our federal government is in our everyday lives and that is not to design. We are now seeing increased corruption and tax evasion from elected and appointed officials. We have witnessed a Treasury Secretary suggest he have the power to confiscate any US business. We are being made to offer Constitutional privileges to enemy combatants captured while engaging US troops abroad. Our federal government insists on significantly increasing spending by quadrupling out national debt, on a lot on programs we can postpone or cancel. Congress is passing huge appropriations bills without reading them. AIG executives are getting paid off for campaign contributions only to have Congress violate the Constitution to tax the pay-off at 90% after the public got wise to the ruse (yes, AIG contributed more to the campaigns of Dodd (D-CT) and Obama (D-IL) than any other campaigns).

So what now? Man the left flank. They’re going to come back at us with some quick jabs designed to take the resolve from our restoration movement. They’re greatest wish is that the economy turn around, as is the wish of us all, but they will use it as an “I told you so” moment. No matter; the end does not justify the means. Much less the future of hyper-inflation and failed Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. They’ll give a little on conservative issues like stem-cell research or national security. We’ve already seen the administration back away from prosecuting Bush legal advisors (see, President Obama is forward looking). But we cannot let down our guard for they will come at us with a roundhouse like government provided healthcare and that will be a tough battle for us to wage. They’ll hope to put us down with a derivation of the Fairness Doctrine and bailing out newspapers.

Remember…they are the revolutionists, we are the defenders and they now know we recognize the distinction. Stand guard.

Many have said, including me, and I will not belabor the point, that we must stand together on the founding principles of our nation. We must adhere to the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and speeches, dairies and letters of our Founders; that’s the purpose in the founding of any nation, to unite under a set of ideals. A right-winger is one who believes this, expects this, and voices his opinion when these principles are compromised. Along the political spectrum, this is as “right” as one can be. From the instant of ratification, our nation had but one option; to either adhere to these principles or to become more progressive, liberal and onerous. We can only comply with the Constitution. Over-compliance cannot exist as a possibility.

The term “radical,” defined as a noun by www.dictionary.com, means “a person who advocates fundamental political, economic, and social reforms by direct and often uncompromising methods.” I offer the following; every US citizen, and certainly those elected to represent us, should be a radical right-winger as we should ever strive to reform our governance to compliance with our founding by whatever means necessary. Was Abraham Lincoln a radical right-winger for fighting to preserve the Union? Was Rosa Parks a radical right-winger for not compromising her seating preference? Were all states radical right-wingers for ratifying the Second Amendment, of which the primary purpose is to provide People the means to raise arms against a tyrannical government?

“I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” I cannot provide a better example of a radical right-wing statement.

Sec. Napolitano, if you are not a radical right-winger then you may stand under any flag but I respectfully request that you not stand under mine for in so doing you misrepresent your allegiance to her. The same goes for you, Mr. President.

Initially, my thoughts began with the realization that few Republicans and fewer Democrats have touted the advantages of increasing defense spending in a time of economic downturn. Also worthy of consideration is the fact that, for six or more years, the US has been brutally exhausting its military equipment in the theaters of Iraq and Afghanistan. A colleague and veteran of Iraqi deployment recently reminded me that we will not bring most of our equipment back stateside; it’s just too costly and too used.

So, why would Sec. Gates propose decreasing defense spending? It appears obvious that we may need to replenish inventory of MRAPs, HMMWVs, C-17s, and all the ancillaries. I would imagine we have learned of weaknesses in some system designs which could be corrected prior to a next military engagement; communication, detection, surveillance. Hasn’t the Obama administration been adamant of their objective to create or save 3.5 million jobs? The defense industry is low-hanging fruit in that capacity as well as securing our sovereignty for the next generation.

I will hardly disagree that the F-22 is an over-budget product but slashing production, putting tens of thousands out of work, hardly seems like the right thing to do until the F-35 is ready for full-rate production. But, unfortunately, the F-35 is globally outsourced so even at full-rate the US content will be significantly less than that of the F-22. And the F-22 is one mean bird!

Why would Sec. Gates propose cutting funds for missile defense just a couple of days after North Korea tested a multi-stage, long-range missile? That makes even less sense.

It was World War II that brought us out of The Great Depression and it was partially increased defense spending that brought us out of the early 80s recession yet this administration refuses to recognize that the defense industry is more than building things that go “boom.” It’s a means for the American worker to earn a fair wage in order to provide for himself and his family, to buy products and services from local retailers, and to be a viable part of the federal tax base. The “boom” helps ensure national security. All of these seem important to me.

I work in the defense industry but this is not an industry driven opinion nor is it fodder for partisan debate; it’s just the right thing to do.

Last week Sec. Geitner presented before Congress that the Treasury should have power to seize any US company which may be deemed to significantly impact the economy. The exchange went like this:

      Rep. Donald Manzullo (R-Ill.) - "Do you realize how radical your proposal is?"

      Geither - "It's not radical. . ." Manzullo interrupts.

      Manzullo - "You're talking about seizing private businesses and you don't consider that radical?" his voice rising.

Your humbled blogger hardly need opine. I’ll leave it to www.dictionary.com which offers three definitions of socialism, the first is particularly applicable, “a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole;” as is the third; “(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.” 

Is it safe to say that our government imperfectly implements almost everything it touches? That is partly the reason in its design to be small and unobtrusive to the People. Our Founders knew people are best served locally, first by the State, then by community. The Constitution rests the broadest of powers with the States and the People, not to the federal government. 

And is it safe to say our current President and congressional leaders are advocating collective principles? I find it obvious in the proposed entitlements, removal of school vouchers, political correctness, etc. Equality is only fair in tyranny when individualism has been replaced with community.

Our Founders clearly recognized we all are provided certain rights for simply being human, “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.” I interpret that to mean equality ends with being human and we are all free to conduct our lives as we see fit, provided that conduct adheres to a moral code or law.

It’s important that you decide for yourself whether our country is operating within Constitutional authority; go read it and the Declaration of Independence too. The “father of the Constitution” James Madison wrote a series of essays called The Federalist Papers. Within these documents, you will find identity as a governor not one the governed. You’ll understand liberty. You’ll understand Prudence. Then, maybe you will stand too. Godspeed.