What Now?

April 20, 2009

Well, we all had a good time at our local Tea Parties, right? I saw some nifty signs, great costumes, and good t-shirts. We all listened to some speakers tell us what we already knew, got some new bumper stickers, and are feeling pretty darned good about ourselves because we “did something.”

The question we have to ask ourselves now is: “Now what?”

In case you haven’t noticed, nothing has changed since 4/14/09. The same unConstitutional laws are still on the books and being enforced. The same unConstitutional taxes are being extracted from us by force. We are still spending billions of dollars (and thousands of lives) on an unConstitutional war. Local SWAT teams are still armed and dressed like a crack SS unit, and they still breaking down doors (sometimes, even the right door) to enforce unConstitutional laws.

For some reason, it doesn’t seem like our one-day party changed much.

Maybe it’s because all of the party organizers got all the right permits beforehand (got the King’s permission). Maybe those groups who got fined for “polluting” when they dumped tea in the rivers and lakes have all paid their fines. Maybe it’s because all of the party-goers were so thoughtful and kind that no traffic was obstructed and no hallways were clogged by protesters at statehouses around the country. In short, maybe we were too polite. Maybe, by getting our permits and paying our fines, we are showing the tyrants that we are willing to submit to whatever restrictions they place on us – even those limiting our free speech! What would be our situation if the protesters at the REAL tea party had asked King George for his permission first?

What do we expect to have changed from our one-day event? Now that it is over, the media hype has died down, the statist pundits have had their fun trying to marginalize anyone who dares to object to any government program. Those in government can relax, knowing that they will never again hear from 99% of the people who participated, and that if they offer a few sound bites before the next election, most of those people will still vote for them and they will be re-elected.

Those in government know that most of us will go back to watching Americans Idle, and most won’t lift a finger to put any pressure on government officials. Legislators know that they can pretty much do anything they want, and the vast majority of the American public won’t even KNOW, unless the government-sanctioned media shines a light on it, which is unlikely. They know from experience that there are few citizens who will take the time to read the bills introduced; fewer still will make the effort to watch the legislature, either in person, or on CSPAN (or the local equivalent). The few mass mailings of form letters they get from special interest groups can be easily ignored – unless of course, they happen to agree with the position of the legislator, in which case they will be heralded as “proof” that ‘something needs to be done.’ Individual handwritten letters will only be scanned for keywords, and a form letter reply will be mailed back to the citizen, and half the time the keyword scanner will get it completely wrong. Your letter will simply be marked into either the “for” or “against” column for a particular bill.

What if a certain number of people showed up at their state house nearly every day, without warning? What if they refused to leave until their “representative” listened to their grievance, AND reasons? On “Tea Party Day,” everyone knew exactly when citizens would be there, and so it was possible to simply be “out of the office” during those hours? What if every day, as they drove to their office (which is really OUR office), they wondered how many people would be in the waiting room, in the halls, on the sidewalks, and waiting on the phone? Do you think it would be harder for them to put us out of their mind on a daily basis?

As long as they continue to ignore us, they will just do as they please – which is to increase their power and keep their job. When they find out that people are watching what they do, and that people CARE, maybe they will think twice before succumbing to lobbyists and special interest groups.

Are we a “special interest group?” You bet! Our interests are the Constitution, rule of law, and the resulting liberty.

Don’t let them forget it.


Blago Gets Rewarded?

March 30, 2009

I heard that disgraced Illinois Governor Blago got “six figures” for a book deal. In other words, if you are perceived as enough of a crooked scumbag, you get paid at least $100,000 to tell everyone what a fine individual you are.

This is a disgrace. Talk about selling out the citizens!

Of course, politicians at all levels in Illinois are known for honesty, integrity, and fairplay. (example1)

After all, Blago replaced a governor who inconveniently happened to have been serving a prison term for corruption.

Now it turns out that the person Blago appointed to fill Obama’s vacated seat just happens to have been somehow involved in fundraising for Blago, even though he repeatedly testified to the contrary.

I’m not sure what it is about Illinois politicians; Democrats specifically; but they seem to have all missed the class on “ethics” and “honesty.”


Obama ALREADY Helping the Economy!

December 7, 2008

President-Elect Obama is already helping the economy, and he hasn’t even taken office yet!!

Bravo for him.  I hope this particular trend continues.

http://www.indystar.com/article/20081207/LOCAL18/812070407


On Deciding Whether to Vote

November 3, 2008

Everyone says that it’s a citizen’s duty to vote. I’ve even heard it said that “If you don’t vote, you have no right to complain.”

I used to vote at every election. Then, I noticed a trend: There were no candidates that I really liked. Every one of them had at least one major flaw in philosophy, from my viewpoint. At one point, it looked like there might be one I could vote for: Ross Perot. But then, in a press conference, he stated that he would consider cordoning off entire city blocks and searching every residence for drugs. Ok, so again, each one had at least one MAJOR flaw. There went my support for Perot – I could not, in good conscience, vote for him. He self-destructed shortly after that, so it didn’t matter, but it really made me think.

I talked this over with some friends, who stated that you just had to vote for the lesser of two evils.

That hit me like a truck. If you vote for the lesser of two evils, you are still voting for evil. How can a person, in clear conscience, vote for someone with whom they have major idealogical differences? Isn’t this a form of prostituting oneself to appease some illusory sense of “civic duty?” Doesn’t the fact that you voted for someone who was a “lesser evil” mean that you condone that evil, at least passively? If you vote for someone who has said that they will outlaw firearms and try to collect them all, wouldn’t you be at least partially responsible for the unConstitutional results? You did, after all, voice your acceptance of his ideology when you voted for him. Will you stand idly by and watch as the head of the new regime commits injustices and tramples the Constitution simply because you voted for him, thus giving your implicit consent?

If you decided to go ahead and vote for the “lesser evil,” how do you decide which evil is greater, and which is lesser?

As a line in a popular movie once said: “The only way to win is to not play the game.” Your vote doesn’t count anyway. At least this way, you can live with yourself knowing that you didn’t give your consent to the harm that the government is going to do to its citizens.