Liartime

Lying in the morning,
Scamming in the evening
Cov'ups at suppertime
That's what our media gives us
They hate us all the time.

Busted: Washington Post Stealth Edits PRISM Story

It's gotten to be habitual.

Statist Tools: Plan B

Doncha just love the way our patriarchal Statists (through the man in the president's office and his cadres) use language?

Here's the Drudge headline that prompted today's warning.

Plan B: In latenight announcement, Obama allows morning-after abortion pill for under-17s...

All the while play-acting like they are the defenders of women, they are actively scheming (clandestinely even -- as suggested by the "late-night" announcement) to push sterilization pills (said to be temporary, unh, huh) into the mouths of minor girls.

Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, backed off her virulent eugenics program (Plan A) after she became involved with H.G. Wells. It was Wells who pointed out to her that her "worthwhile" goals would be resisted if forced on the target populations. He convinced her that what was needed was to disguise the idea as something desirable; a Plan B. "Choice."  The rest, paraphrasing the "as they say," is the end of history. The end of history, at least, of many of those young women suckered into volunteering the end of their lines.

The misanthropically nurtured Malthusians have switched from Plan A to Plan B and our side hardly ever gets the message out. More is our shame than our pity. It is not safe to follow leaders who never have a harsh word for Malthusian, Utilitarian, and Green nut-cases.

And doncha also love how the Statists are flogging our side by actually calling this pill "Plan B." God bless 'em, they are a boastful lot.

Why Is This The Soviet Style Media?

Because the spinning by the media (WaPo here) is such that the ghosts of the old Soviet Politburo  would be bursting with pride with the following.

A large majority of Americans say the federal government should focus on investigating possible terrorist threats even if personal privacy is compromised, and most support the blanket tracking of telephone records in an effort to uncover terrorist activity, according to a new Washington Post-Pew Research Center poll.

Fully 45 percent [under 50% is a large majority at WaPo, and doncha love their fully tack-on] of all Americans say the government should be able to go further than it is, saying that it should be able to monitor everyone’s online activity if doing so would prevent terrorist attacks. A slender majority, 52 percent, [if true, this is too small, so their "slender" is crowing, but it is STILL a majority unlike "fully 45 percent"] say no such broad-based monitoring should occur.

Hat tip JWF.

Patriots: here's another instance to prove that there is no news in Izvestia and no truth in Pravda. Pass it along.

Traitors: You will be remembered.

I Am Honored and Grateful

Og published today "In conversation with Pascal." Due to my frequent inability to get to the point quickly, I am very grateful he did .

My contribution was simply to observe that King Solomon set the liberal standard when he chose not to execute the covetous, lying, murderous, false mother for attempted murder-by-the-state, the moral equivalent of the mastermind behind a hired assassin.

Og explains quickly and clearly how the ripple effect from that decision works. And he also came up with a very cogent conclusion of his own.

And this has been the gold standard for liberalism since; consequence free nastiness for people who act out.
It certainly does explain the progression of a lot of things. [emphasis mine]

Yeah, the consequences have fallen not on the miscreants within every Western cultural center whose "kings" have gone overboard with tolerance since that time, but to those of us who now suffer for still honoring that culture, under God, in gratitude for the immense number of good things it has engendered far beyond that of other cultures.

My insight germinated out of a written debate he'd been having with RobertaX over the past week (and maybe years.), so it is doubly fitting he published it rather than I. I'm simply his cheering section today.

What Date Do You Want In the Pool?

Holy Congressional sanctity Batman.




Seeing as how Holder just about admitted to spying on Congress, what is your guess before he is gone? I hesitate to add:  before he has a chance to tell us who put him up to it?

-----
For when this video disappears, it's title was: "Eric Holder Refuses To Answer If DOJ Monitored Phones for Members of Congress."

Oh, and hat tip to Ace: Sen. Kirk Asks Holder if He Spied on Congress; Holder Says He Can't Answer That In An Open Forum.

The Sus Nuts Behind ObamaCare

The Sustainability nuts that I routinely warn against are finally being noticed. I pray it is not too late to break their monstrous stranglehold on what remains of America's once outstanding healthcare system.

I point you to this conversation at Breitbart Obamacare: We Will All Be Sarah Murnaghan Soon Enough.

It was Ace's link at his own site to his contribution that really pissed me off.  "I predicted it. It was an easy call."  Too bad he's not made his "understanding" a major factor that ties into all the other dangers to our freedoms. Probably too worried about his reputation.

When I say that the Sus nuts and their scheming tie into everything it's because they fit so well as an answer to a whole lot of questions. I'm talking about seemingly odd political actions that leave people stumped -- "that makes no sense"-- and leaves them asking seeming unanswerable things like "how can someone so smart behave so stupidly?" and "Is there nobody in Washington with the balls and the sense to speak out?" To arrive at answers that make sense, I think all that is needed is to recognize that there has been a paradigm shift in the meaning of public servant that is not generally discussed, but for which the risk to human life is quite great if it is as widespread as the evidence suggests.

See: if the people in power are guided by a moral code that does not seek to protect citizens, then their actions will appear to be odd if you think they are still abiding by the old moral code. So to get on the same page as I am on, all you have to ask yourself: "Considering how much other moral foundations have been eroded, dare I ignore the likelihood that those in power believe exactly the opposite of those who hold human life to be sacred?"

I know it sounds really insane to say "they are out to kill us all." But that is mostly because so many of us who hear such words still cling to the basic theme of the Judeo-Christian ethic no matter how much we personally fall short daily. That basic theme -- "do nothing that is hateful" -- conforms pretty much to the Hippocratic Oath as well -- "first do no harm." Thus only madmen would seek to kill others for whatever reason. And so too, would it not also mean that only madmen would eliminate the Hippocratic Oath? But beginning in the 1990s, one medical school after the other did exactly that. That so few know of this is just one more piece bit of evidence to add to the indictment I consider worthy of wider consideration.

Morality is not the same for the Sus worshipers. Their moral code is centered upon limiting human growth so as to save humanity from itself. They are never openly chastised for it like other groups the soviet style media portrays as hateful, so many people know nothing about them and their plans. And as far as I'm concerned, they have been secretly nurtured by those who hate people long before the Progressive movement was formed. The misanthropes loved Malthus and his theory. So even after Malthus himself said he was wrong, they have been using his ideas to hide their lethal, immoral lust.

I have tried repeatedly to get more people to speak up and force the movement out into the open. This particular conversation at Breitbart looks like another opportunity to drive home my point. And again, I pray it is not too late.

Brother Og has mused on a clear-headed start for a plan that stands to aid you should it be too late.

On the Road to America's End

In Obama’s Henchmen, Selwyn Duke has analyzed the workings of Obama and his administration in a way I'd not seen before. I find it intriguing even if I'm not sure I accept some of his premises. (For instance, when the Sustainability angle is not considered in the mix of premises, what seems bizarre isn't really, and that is due to the misanthropic morality that the Sus crowd has embraced.)

But it is well composed, so I thought I should pass it along to my readers who are upset with the decline of America.

Why do I recommend reading it? I direct your eyes to the troubling if accurate closing paragraph of his analysis.

While it’s clear that he [Obama] doesn’t have traditional America’s best interests at heart, the reality is that his corrupted judgment ensures he couldn’t choose good appointees even if he wanted to. But the real problem is a people that, clearly, couldn’t choose a good president even if they wanted to.  This intellectual and moral decay is the real scandal in America — and it ensures political scandal till the end of the republic. [emphasis added]

Dear reader, even if that dire prediction is inevitable whatever the ultimate reason for it, is the reason he gives entirely outside of our control? Have we simply given up because we are frustrated by all the idiocy we see around us? I hate giving up, accepting that our nation's fate is sealed. So what might we do to help remedy this people problem?

For Better Grokking "Fundamentally Changing America"

I have not in a long while pointed to a Fran Porretto post. Although he regularly provides penetrating and even trenchant thoughts, there is more Ayn Rand novelist than Walter Williams essayist in his works, so it is often too hard to identify all of them and how they interact in the kind of short essay I prefer to compose.

Today, however, he is quite singly focused. I wholly recommend you read all of The Debunking: Public Safety. It makes clear that the forces who are fundamentally changing the meaning of freedom in America will do it at your extreme expense and none for themselves.

In particular, take note of the doughnut shop exception. The cynicism of the Left in their bold assaults on our reason is, from my point of view, a form of childish daring of us to respond in a manner to their liking. Consequently,  I firmly suggest that you serve them -- any response -- cold.

The Left Protects Wildlife to the Extreme; Babies, Nah

Commenting on the Soviet Style Media's avoidance of the Gosnel (baby mass-murdering abortionist) verdicts last week, Open Blogger (at Ace of Spades) "Krakatoa" made the following observation.

If one of the byproducts of abortions was a dead environmentally insignificant fish or three in some river delta or perhaps a few well-lubricated pelicans [in] the Gulf of Mexico, there would have been a moratorium on them years ago.

This sadly reinforces my observation that most bloggers are shocked when the misanthropics of an issue become obvious. The entire Progressive movement grew out of Malthusianism and Utilitarianism, both of which looks with a murderous eye towards sub-races and their natalism. Thus the Gosnel atrocity (these were Black babies) should be doubly concerning towards Blacks. That white leftist/progressives dominate the media is no surprise.

They who call conservatives racist are proven here to be the most deadly racists in America.

Pass this observation and my commentary on. It pains me to see Blacks so misled, and it should any decent human being. But then again, the decent human being is the most endangered species on Earth based on the lack of them.

**Update**
Og brought to my attention that Baldilocks has indeed made attempts and endured trolls for trying to inform Blacks about anti-natalism -- the ultimate form of racism -- against them. I always find it hopeful when I see people who do not Politically Cower. They have the stuff from which real leaders are made.

Some of her discussion about Margaret Sanger inspired to me to compile a lengthy comment which included with some obcure links* (and of which contains some items upon which to base a larger essay here) she may or may not have been aware of before, but of which I always hope others will learn.

-----
*Groan: both links I left there are messed up because I couldn't get the < a href= > to work. So  I left actual url links between brackets. Baldilocks' site turns them hot -- but incorrectly included the closing bracket as part of the url, and they don't work properly. They need to be copied; pasted in the url line, and edited to delete the trailing nonsense. What's worse is that I previewed the post before publishing and tested to see that both links worked. After publication the closing brackets became an issue. Just damn. Just adding to my day that was not a good one.

Here's a Fine Example

About 8 months ago I published the short post The Most Dreadful Phrases about some hard learned wisdom.  Among the dreadful phrases is "I thought you were smart."   Today I saw this headline in my sweep of news (h/t Newsbusters by way of  JWF).

Luke Russert: ‘Smart’ House Republicans Aren’t The ‘God, Guns & Guts People’

Money quote:

...they got to keep it serious, they can't make this into a witch hunt because they lose the political high ground. The best committee to have out of the gate in order to have these types of questions, Joe [Scarborough], is the House Ways and Means committee. You remember from your time up here, that's where the party puts its stars. It's not the God, guns and guts people on the Ways and Means committee, it's the smart people, it's the people that understand the true mechanisms of government. 

Let me interpret this the way little Russert meant it. "The party that is allegedly [wink, wink] the home of those representatives who know that government needs to be kept on a short leash, that's the one where the smart people know which way the wind blows and what side butters their bread."

Like I said last August, "I thought you were smart" is the kind of line you hear from those who are disappointed you don't fall in line with the corruption that "everybody else" is a part of.

Levin -- "Eliminate the IRS"

Our Soviet Style Media has been dragged kicking and screaming into covering the Obama scandals. The most eagerly reported of these are the excesses of the IRS in persecuting Rightist not-for-profit organizations (like Heritage) but doing nothing against Leftist ones (such as Media Matters).

In the wake of this "new" awareness, Mark Levin tonight vehemently demanded the IRS be eliminated. [I will provide a link after the show is over.] LINK

@2:25 "Folks: It's time to kill the IRS."

Nonetheless folks, once again Mr. Levin is not extreme enough. It really shouldn't need that much explanation for regular readers, because you are already aware of the one-two dance that the Dems and the GOP do to increase Fed powers. The SKUNCs in congress will simply work with the Democrats organized Leftists in Congress to cut back on such demands. They will wind up squandering the public outrage by compromising away from "eliminated" into "reforms."

In order to actually achieve elimination of the IRS, someone like Levin needs to make more extreme suggestions. Only by making more Draconian demands do we have a real chance to actually achieve elimination of any corrupt and dangerous wing of government. You know I'm right.
 

Congressional Scholar Bleg

My question arises due to the news that the Senate passed an Internet sales tax bill today. 

Amidst all the moaning and gnashing of teeth about how this is unconstitutional (I agree), there is another constitutional matter that I am curious about. I must be missing something. How is it possible that this bill originates in the Senate? Doesn't our Constitution require all tax bills be initiated in the House of Representatives?

Please direct you favorite constitutional lawyer to this question. For Mark Levin's 3 hours he never addressed that part. Maybe he's aligned with the other SKUNCs and think this question deserves a response like Nancy Pelosi's "you must be joking."

I'm not joking.

And You Thought *I* Was Tough On Progressives

Pat Condell is not a web commentator that I favor consistently. However, the following video is particularly worth directing your eyes toward. He makes many of the same observations I have made over the decades about "Progressives" -- or, as I prefer to call them, Incrementalcases -- but he also provides you with many fine and currently hidden (by our soviet-style media) examples as to how the they are a curse on humanity, particularly towards heroic individuals.

In my opinion, Condell's Title: The Truth is Incorrect does not do it justice.



Hat tip Gates of Vienna, whose title Progressives Always Know Best also does not do it justice.

It is also a frustration bordering on criminal that so many well-meaning liberals will never see and be counseled by this video.

A prime quote (you'll remember what prompted it):
"Statistically one in four Swedish women will now be raped during their lifetime, and every one of them can thank a progressive journalist [for hiding the truth from the public because it is incorrect]."

And he has a special riff for a Danish pair (reporter and photographer) who tailed the van of a Dane who was moving after surviving a failed Jihadi assassination so they could tell the world of his new home.

Countering the Undermining of Your Moral Foundations

The point of this screed is this. When you hear a popular talkshow host make a statement you know to be contrary to the views of the Right and its principles, or undermines our case that distinguishes us from the Left, speak out.  Don't let your inability to get past the call-screener stop you. Just tell as many people who are on the Right until there are many more of us who understand our need to watch our backs. We cannot be betrayed by an enemy.

One of the key foundations of Judeo-Christian morality is being able to recognize evil. And as I have constantly written here (so many times that I have a link to one near the top of my sidebar), the killing, murdering, sacrificing of children is one of the most distinct of evils recognized by this Western ethos.

I am currently battling a terrible cold while having a great many other things to do. This is but one of the reasons for my dearth of publishing.

However, while preparing coffee I turned on the radio briefly. It was Dennis Prager, a "conservative" radio talker whose niche is allegedly to keep moral issues alive and well in this overwhelming time of secular domination. Indeed, he often has many good and revealing things to contribute.

But as I warn my readers, it is very unwise to be an unwary fan of any man for his apparent wisdom. And there is abundant evidence that it is very unwise to do so with men who make their living in a medium that is constantly being monitored by licensing agents of an increasingly one-world-view government. There are some things they cannot say, and there are some untruths that they will propagate.

I heard Mr. Prager repeat one of those untruths, all the more angering to me given the latest news proving the contrary. It so angered me that I stopped what I was doing to write this down.

I hope what I tell you will be repeated widely. I know from experience that although Mr. Prager claims to allow dissident voices to his on first, that his screener will very likely find some reason not to -- such as "he's moved on from that" being one of the favorite lines.

At about 5 minutes to the end of his first hour, Mr. Prager was speaking about how easy life would be if both sides could agree what is good for society. Before he went on to mention distinct differences, he stated the following mind blowing statement. [paraphrasing as best I can since I don't have it recorded]

"Of course the Left and the Right agree that the killing of children is bad."-- Dennis Prager

I would ask Mr. Prager to square this with what his knows to be historically true, but even more so, by what is very current in the news -- or lack of it. Namely: The story of Kermit Gosnell and his "Women's Medical Society" is the precise opposite of The Preferred Narrative of the MSM. Mr. Prager is one of the first to assert that the MSM is dominated by Leftists. Yet he somehow overlooked without a moments hesitation that the MSM's determination to bury this story (as recounted at this link and many others) proves his statement to be completely untrue.

Get out there my friends. Make it clear that you and the Left are distinctly different, most especially in this issue as demonstrated in this matter.

And when you do so, you will now be prepared to be knifed in the back by the likes of Mr. Prager. When it comes you can now charge him and those like him with being an apologist for the Left. Here is your proof.

RINO Connotes Thick-Skinned You Fools

The filibuster in favor of protecting the 2nd Amendment, and indeed all of the letters of the Bill of Rights, lost today with 68 votes

When will the rest of the dextrosphere get it? Looks like never.

The damned so-called RINOs glory in being called that name. Why? Because it reminds them that they need to be thick-skinned enough to ignore their conservative and libertarian base.

They are the worst kind of Statists -- ones that will lie to you about their intentions. At least you can't say that Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid or Bummer have been lying to YOU. You won't vote for them because their intentions are known. But the member of the GOP Senate that you voted for because he claimed to be a defender of the constitution, he outright lied to you.

Short of calling them traitors outright, Guy S's acronym SKUNC (Statist Knowingly Undermining our Nation's Constitution) is much more satisfying.

And were those RINOs to begin hearing the term SKUNC, at least they'd be reminded that we think they stink. They may not give a damn at this point, but it will be very hard for any of them to glory in being so labeled.

Think about it. At least cease using the label RINO.

Choking on "The Most Transparent Administration in History"

Offer this evidence to the morons naifs who swallow that line and never choke. And you could rightfully file this away under the heading "Open Contempt."

Gov't taxes & fees now included

Did you know?

In compliance with new Department of Transportation rules, the fares you see now include all government taxes and fees. 

When,  how and why did I got that message?

Just now when I noticed my air fare didn't disclose the portion of the trip that was for landing and TSA fees. Thinking that perhaps the airline had the information on a different page, I clicked on the following link:  Gov't taxes & fees now included

To add to the grim irony, the address of the link is titled -- ta dum -- pop_fullFareDisclosure.html

Full fare disclosure?

FULL fare DISCLOSURE.

There is NO breakdown of the regulatory fees imposed by the Statist government whatsoever.

Here, let me put it in the proper voice. Ahem.

"Eat your taxes and don't worry about how big they are or what we even claim to be using them for.

Why should we even bother figuring it out anyway. Where's your need to know what we are doing? The need to know is above your pay-grade citizen peon."

Let Me Fix That for Yer "Breitbart".com -- Updated

The following is how Breitbart.com would have corrected this headline were Andrew still alive.

Left Soviet Style Media Selectively Edit Steve King on Sasha, Malia Bahamas Vacation

 

Several in the left-wing media jumped on King’s comments immediately, taking them out of context to attempt to disparage him. by Matthew Boyle 

At the risk of sounding like another blogger many of you know: were I to give a damn anymore I could rewrite headlines like this all day long -- and they might even occasionally be amusing -- but what difference would it make?

Sure as shooting, the "Right" publishers are all wimping out just like the talkshow hosts. They make a show like they're on the case. Hence headlines like this one shoot short of the mark.

Rewriting their tepid headlines is one way of ridiculing them for their cowardice. But ever since Don Rickles became famous making Johnny Carson laugh at being called a hockey puck (learn to accept being abused as the cost of gaining power, but always remember who gets the last laugh), people in positions of influence and power have been trained to build up their callousness. So our insults will roll off them like water off a duck's back.

If insults won't affect them any longer, maybe something stronger will penetrate those calloused brains. Surfactants work on ducks, ______ work on political elites. I simply don't know what that something is just yet.

Anyway, my noticing the understatement in the word "Left" in that headline got me to break my month long silence. Our media more and more is copycatting all out Soviet era Pravda. And they have been quite successful too, especially in their stoking divisiveness between neighbors, abetting the conquering by our ever more low-life tyrants on the rise. The right media is doing nobody any service by understating the gravity of such dangerous propaganda.

***Updated***
If anyone agrees with my assessment, that the sites which bear Andrew's name ought to be more hard-hitting, then you might want to add a thumbs up to the comment I left there. Thanks.

pascal fervor • 8 days ago

• −

Dear Editors:
Here, let me fix the headline of this story for you:
"Soviet Style Media Selectively Edit Steve King on Sasha, Malia Bahamas Vacation"
This way there is no understating the gravity of the dangers from such a despicable propaganda machine. Long live the spirit of Andrew.

1

•

Reply

Diagnosis By a Quack

Seeing as how he feels he can be unrestrained, and has broken his collegial phoniness airs of the US Senate, I declare John Quackain a quack rather than some more accurate designation reserved for a later date. As Guy S had reevaluated the partisans he previously so designated, SKUNC appears to be a far too understated label.

From the top of Drudge this morning.

MCCAIN CALLS YOUNG BUCKS 'WACKOS'...

Hatchet Man At PJ Media

Re: PJ Media has taken a novel approach to doing business.  Tells all its best customers that what they have to say carries no weight with, has no value whatsoever to, them.

"Send ideas, comments, suggestions, links or tips to tips@pjmedia.com"

To whom is endangering PJMedia.

We Are Fighting Elitism -- and then you take a cavalier attitude towards comments.
All comments of the past are now down the memory hole. You must be proud!

Gee, and we thought you were different. Silly we.

Buh bye.

Pascal

Some of Wretchard's best work was in the comments to his own Belmont Club posts. Unless those comments are recovered, I cannot imagine how this can end well for PJ Media. Maybe that's the point. Hatchet men are usually employed to rid a company of dead wood, not to eliminate the company itself.

Ronald Reagan's Political Model

Today Is the 102^nd anniversary of Ronald Reagan's birth.

Many revere the man not so much for his years in office but for voicing his vision of American ideals clearly and with enthusiasm. Among the best examples of that vision was elucidated in his 1964 stump speech "A Time for Choosing." Excerpt:

You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down: up to man's ages-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motive, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.

It was delivered on behalf of Barry Goldwater's run for president. But far more effectively, it established Mr. Reagan as a first-rate conservative voice in America.

Wait. Don't leave yet just because you think you have heard the 1964 speech before.

Some time in Mr Reagan's first term as president, circa 1982, while traveling in my car, I heard what I consider to be a very important expansion on that speech. I have repeatedly tried to find that later version, but I have not yet succeeded.

So I had a dilemma. Continue to search and wait to pass along what Mr. Reagan attempted to portray or pass along his words as best as I could recall. I made the decision a few years ago that until  someone answers my request to unearth the last version of that speech and provide the man's actual words, I would on various occasions publish it. It is what I remember about Mr. Reagan's more detailed explanation of the political mechanism that Americans find themselves saddled with and he meant for you to know it.

He clearly was attempting to provide us with a new model that could be used to override the Marxist model that he rejected. In my opinion he was correct in rejecting it. When we stick to the mono-directional model made famous by Marx and promulgated by our media, we are playing on the field of their choosing. Mr. Reagan offered us an alternative, and we ought to have learned to listen to him by now.

Please forgive me my inabilities to be precise. It is more important that those who love freedom know the essence of his vision as I recall them.

Thank you.

As best as I can recall, Mr. Reagan referred to a political platform. He likened what he considered to be the Marxist political spectrum of left and right to a see-saw of a platform.

The Left would gain control, and they'd pile up programs on their side of the platform. The foundation beneath the platform would begin to sink from the weight of their efforts. This resulted in the platform being tilted noticeably. It made the voters feel uncomfortable. So the voters would turn to the Right to straighten things out. 

Well the right might try to prop up the left side a bit, and refill the foundation, but in doing so, they'd dig a hole under their side of the platform next. Those who gain power always have interests who want something back -- usually in the form of legislation that favors them or taxes their competitors -- for their support. Thus the weight of these efforts and favors repaid cause the platform to tip to the right this time. That sinking feeling leaves the voters uncomfortable again.

So the voters would then put the Left back into power. And the Left would begin to fill in the hole under the right, but pile up more programs on their side and drive their side of the platform even deeper into the foundation of America's liberties.

And so it would go on, back and forth, Left and Right, Left then Right. Pretty soon the citizens of this great nation would find themselves in a pit of despair; a pit dug by the machinations of those who built up the oppressive weight of government. Government has been built up incrementally, one law after another, ruling upon ruling, practice becoming entrenched policy. And it was all done under the guise of representing a left or a right side, but both headed in one direction -- into the pit of tyranny. All those vested interests would insist it stay that way. Worse, as they'd get more demanding they'd cloak it with fairness. They were owed all that they'd "earned" for their efforts to gain "their people" power in the past.

At some point the vast majority of Americans will insist on climbing out of the hole dug for them by this political machine -- that single minded and ruthless incremental see-saw of power-seeking achieved by eating away at the foundation of our liberties. Taxes and regulations and busybodyness that is in no way justified in a nation dedicated to individual freedom.

Americans were passed a birthright containing the fresh air of freedom. It is what  our Founders had envisioned, and it is what our fathers fought to keep. And it's pretty much still been available to most Americans for around 200 years. If we do not stop the digging soon, somewhere along the way, Americans will demand to be let out of this pit. May God bless them then as He has in the past.

It is my opinion that the Tea Party movement is the realization of Mr. Reagan's vision. We will no longer limit ourselves to the thinking that we must choose to accept a Left or a Right.  We are trying to climb out of the Marxist/Statist pit dug by influential forces who've been incrementally overriding the restraints on their power. We are seeking freedom from the tyranny of those tired old partisans who claim to be working for our common good but are enthusiastically enslaving us and our posterity.