The Refounding Father

Announcing the Official Grand Opening of Rather Be Right T-Shirts

noreply@blogger.com (The Refounding Father) — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 22:50:00 +0000

My Fellow Americans,

First, let me apologize for the hiatus. I have been working on things and doing some research for the past month or so. It was good to get away and recharge the batteries. I am back with a renewed enthusiasm.

I want to bring you The Refounding Father's new on-line t-shirt shop: "Rather Be Right T-Shirts" powered by Zazzle.com. You can visit the store here: http://www.zazzle.com/Rather_Be_Right*.

The idea behind these shirts is simple. There are no crazy designs. Rather Be Right T-Shirts offer catchy slogans you can be proud to wear. The idea behind these shirts is to convey what you as a conservative, Tea Partier, 9/12-er, etc. are all about.

Wear it with pride. Feel free to send me your ideas. All T-Shirts are going for $19.99 or less!

Also, I will be posting more articles within the next few days.

Happy Friday,

The Refounding Father

Mansfield On the Issues - Part One: Taxes

noreply@blogger.com (The Refounding Father) — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 22:41:00 +0000

My Fellow Pennsylvanians,

Many people fail to understand that there is a breaking point to all of these taxes -- to all of this spending. Liberals, Progressives, and Democrats need to understand that, at some point, you run out of money. As Margaret Thatcher, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and leader of the Conservative party, once said: "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money [to spend]."

We have seen what happens when politicians in states like California and New York continue to raise taxes on the productive citizens. Those overtaxed individuals leave. They go to a state whose leaders appreciate the businesses and jobs these people create. They go to a state that will reward them for pumping money into their economy, not tax them to death on their legally-earned profits.

Going forward, with Robert Allen Mansfield (photo right) as governor, Pennsylvania would be a state to which people would flock. As part of his take on the issues, Mansfield would move away from PA's progressive tax system and "[phase] out of all corporate and personal income taxes…"

Compare that to one of Mansfield's opponents, Republican Tom Corbett (photo below: KDKA), who recently changed his tune about taxes when faced with the mounting pressure of the Tea Party movement. According to a March 8 article from KDKA in Pittsburgh, Corbett has now come out and said he will never raise state taxes.

"No tax increases during the course of the next term...," [Corbett] said. "That's what we're going to aim for -- no tax increases whatsoever."

Sounds great, right? Not quite.

What should bother you about this is the flip-flopping that is going on with Corbett. To me, being for a tax increase in January (whether it be a last resort or not) and then saying you will NEVER raise taxes on March 8 is a rather quick 180 there by Corbett -- one that is not rooted in his own core beliefs. It's simply a change on the issues to accommodate the Tea Party voters.

That just sounds like more of the same. I rather stand with a guy who holds true to his values and principles and doesn't waver in his views and beliefs. Pennsylvania needs a governor who will do right by the people of the state. I'm tired of more of the same.

Mansfield will eliminate corporate and personal income taxes. Corbett may or may not raise taxes depending on what is in his best interest -- not the state of Pennsylvania's. That's not change. That's what we need to get away from -- both as a state and as a country.

I read an article today about how uninsured people were celebrating the passing of Obamacare, basically calling it Christmas in March. One reader made a comment explaining how he couldn't understand how it was greedy for him to go to a job and want to keep the money he legitimately earned, yet it was not considered greedy for the people who want his money to simply take it. To me, it seems that with the Democrats, and many Republicans, there is a double standard.

What happens, like Thatcher said, is that you eventually run out of productive citizens' money. Raise taxes. People leave. Raise taxes because people left and you need to fund the next entitlement program. More people leave. Repeat this until your state is bankrupt of both money and hardworking citizens. For more information and a "how-to" guide to have the same effects in your state, please refer to California over the past decade or two.

I say, "NO!" I'm done with that and you should be, too. It is time for a change. The country has been ready for it -- and now it's PA's turn.

We need Mr. Independent. We need Pennsylvania's "anti-politician."

Said G. Terry Madonna, director of Franklin & Marshall's Center for Politics and Public Affairs, in a Feb. 24 article on LancasterOnline.com: "This is the kind of movement where Mr. No Name can actually win an election."

It's time we give Mr. No Name both a face and name -- Robert Allen Mansfield.

The state of Pennsylvania needs Robert Allen Mansfield. Let's elect him in Nov. 2010.

- The Refounding Father

Introducing “Mr. Independent”: Robert Allen Mansfield

noreply@blogger.com (The Refounding Father) — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 12:58:00 +0000

My Fellow Americans (and Pennsylvanians),

First, it was the elections of Republicans Bob McDonnell as Virginia governor and Chris Christie as New Jersey governor. Then, it was the election of Republican Scott Brown as the successor to Ted Kennedy for the Senate seat in Massachusetts. And, now, at least if it were up to me, it will be the election of Robert Allen Mansfield (photo: right) as governor of the state of Pennsylvania.

As I sit here and watch the health care coverage on Fox News, I can’t help but wish we had leaders who were more in tune with the American people. If the Founding Fathers saw America today, I firmly believe they would not recognize it. They did not foresee an America with out-of-control government spending. They did not foresee an America with Big Government. They did not foresee an America whose leaders infringed upon the people’s liberties.

Between the Tea Party movement and the 9/12ers, we know the people are tired of “more of the same.” That is why it is so important for the good people of Pennsylvania to realize the opportunity before them in November 2010.

What is that opportunity you ask? It is the opportunity to elect a man that understands what America is going through and can help right the ship in the great state of Pennsylvania.

That man is Robert Allen Mansfield.

As his campaign website explains, “Robert Allen Mansfield was born on January 28th, 1971 in Philadelphia to a heroin addict mother who put him up for adoption. He spent his first two years in foster care before being adopted by the Mansfield family.” If you read further, you begin to see how this foster child grew to love public speaking at a very young age – so much so that he was nicknamed “The Politician.”

From there you see the picture of this young man, with seemingly everything going against him at first, become an entrepreneur and join the Army National Guard. But, Robert didn’t just join the National Guard, he volunteered to go to Iraq. That’s right – he volunteered.

Robert Allen Mansfield is a true American. Like George Washington, he is qualified to lead others because he served this country at wartime.

Mr. Mansfield gets it. He understands the people of America and the people of Pennsylvania.

Just browse through his campaign website and you will see for yourself. Tell me Pennsylvania, would you not vote for a guy who would eliminate the state’s progressive tax system? What about a candidate who would “[phase out all] corporate and personal income taxes over the next 6 years…”?

As governor, Mansfield would “reduce every department and state agency budget by a minimum of 2% per year,” including legislative staff.

Mansfield is Pro-Life and a Second Amendment supporter. He is an advocate of School Choice and Charter Schools.

And if those reasons alone don’t sway you to vote for Mansfield, maybe this will. Mansfield believes that Free Market Solutions are the only way for this country and the state of Pennsylvania to get back on track. As his website states: “The individual has pulled this country out of the breech before. In order to allow this to happen, government has to step out of the way and let them thrive.” Let it be known that Robert Allen Mansfield is a man who knows what “We The People” are capable of.

However, and what clinched it for me with Mansfield, was his message to all young males in the state of PA: “Pull up your pants and wear a belt properly!” You can’t go wrong voting for a man like that. If you didn’t realize it before, you should know now that Robert is a true conservative.

I’m currently reading a book by 2008 Libertarian Vice Presidential nominee, Wayne Allyn Root, called The Conscience of a Libertarian: Empowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns, Gambling, & Tax Cuts and I wanted to share a quote with you from the book that I think captures the essence of what Mansfield stands for. On page 95, Root writes:

The only way to make a change from Big Brother and bigger government to more power for the people, is to elect anti-establishment, anti-status quo, anti-politicians from outside the Beltway. We need to elect politicians who understand that the best government is that which governs least. It is time to elect politicians who will downsize and dismantle government---the politicians who are not afraid of limiting their own power and influence. It is time for a political Hippocratic Oath: Above all else, do no harm.

Robert Allen Mansfield is anti-establishment. Robert Allen Mansfield is anti-status quo. Robert Allen Mansfield is an anti-politician. He is the type of candidate Root describes so perfectly – it’s almost as if Root was writing about Mansfield. He is the only candidate in the Pennsylvania gubernatorial race who can truly be considered from “outside the Beltway.”

And as I’m writing this now, I realize that Robert does have his own version of Root’s political Hippocratic Oath. As Robert puts it: “If I cannot help you, I will not hurt you.”

Is it just me, or is that the type of governor we need in Pennsylvania? Citizens of PA – do the right thing and support this great man.

Robert Allen Mansfield for Pennsylvania governor in 2010!

- The Refounding Father

The Refounding Father Endorses Robert Allen Mansfield for Pennsylvania Governor

noreply@blogger.com (The Refounding Father) — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 22:04:00 +0000

My Fellow Americans,

The Refounding Father has made his choice for the Governor of Pennsylvania -- Robert Allen Mansfield. Mr. Mansfield is running as an Independent. For more information on Mansfield's campaign, please visit his website.

As a resident of PA myself, I certainly would like to have a governor in office that has the principles and leadership capability of Robert Allen Mansfield.

I will have more information on Mr. Mansfield's campaign in the coming days (and hopefully an interview at some point).

- The Refounding Father

Freedom Fest at Independence Hall on Saturday, March 6

noreply@blogger.com (The Refounding Father) — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 23:01:00 +0000

My Fellow Americans,

Please join me and other Tea Party Patriots at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, PA this Saturday (March 6, 2010) from 12:00 pm to 3:00 pm.

From the description on the rally’s Facebook page:

It's time to get back to Constitutional values. Join us on Saturday, March 6th in Philadelphia for a Freedom Festival and Tea Party rally in Independence Hall National Park. It is here on this historic ground where the Founders wrote and signed the Constitution, the laws our nation was built on. But after generations of activist judges legislating from the bench and scores of politicians thumbing their nose at it, it's time to remind the nation to WAKE UP and demand we return to Constitutional values.

Come fully clad in patriotic garb with signs and all at this Tea Party event which is more than just a rally but also a discussion and a convention on amendments to the Constitution. Any amendments made or suggested at this event will be sent to both houses of Congress and every state legislature in the nation for review. Join us and be a part of history.

Speaking:

Keynote - Michael Johns, Tea Party Leader and former speechwriter for President George H.W. Bush
David McCleary, Author "The Flawless Leader Papers"
Robert Allen Mansfield and Sam Rohrer, Gubernatorial Candidates
Russ Diamond and Steve Johnson, Candidates for Lt. Governor
Peg Luksik, for U.S. Senate
Clayton Grabb, for PA's 3rd Congressional District
Congressman Jim Gerlach, PA's 6th Congressional District
James Jones, for PA's 8th Congressional District
William Russell, for PA's 12th Congressional District
Josh Quinter, for PA's 13th Congressional District
(Damion Dachowski?)
Frank Ryan, for PA's 17th Congressional District

INVITE YOUR FRIENDS TO JOIN US AT THIS TEA PARTY EVENT!
"LET FREEDOM NEVER PERISH IN YOUR HANDS"

High & Tight: Bunning Throws Dems a Curveball

noreply@blogger.com (The Refounding Father) — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 00:40:00 +0000

My Fellow Americans,

Let me start off today by saying I sympathize with the unemployed out there – scratch that – the unemployed who are actively looking for work. I get that it’s hard – and it just flat out sucks. I know that because people close to me suffered through tough times during periods of unemployment. It’s not a pretty picture.

But, let’s break down the decision of Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY) (photo: Google) to block “Democratic attempts to enact a short-term extension of unemployment benefits and COBRA subsidies for a million Americans” (ABC News). While the immediate backlash from the mainstream media is nothing new, Bunning should be commended for taking a stand. What Bunning wants is for the bill to be paid for before it is passed. What a novel idea wouldn’t you say? Given the trillions of dollars of debt in which the United States finds itself, $10 billion in unemployment benefits can certainly be considered a “drop in the bucket.” And rightfully so. But, we should at least start somewhere, right?

I thought Stuart Varney, Fox News contributor and host of “Varney & Co.” on the Fox Business Network, put it best on Sean Hannity’s March 2 radio show when he asked why no other senator stood up there with Bunning when he held his ground for the American taxpayer. Why wasn’t anybody else up there? Should we be more worried that other senators didn’t accompany Bunning as he took a stand against more out of control government spending – or that one million unemployed individuals didn’t get an extension on their benefits? To paraphrase Varney, when do we say no? We need to stop the spending, stop the borrowing – we need to get the money from somewhere and not just pass the debt on to our children.

Luckily, for us, Bunning said no. He did the difficult thing. He had that uncomfortable conversation. "I believe we should pay for it," Bunning said. "I'm trying to make a point to the people of the United States." And thank God somebody was willing to take a stand for the American.

As I said – it was a difficult thing for Bunning to do – especially in tough economic times. As Yahoo! News blog contributor, Brett Michael Dykes, explains it:

Since cutting health and unemployment benefits isn't the most popular thing to do in a job-starved recession, the Senate had reached near unanimity on extending these programs. But near-unanimous isn't enough when senators are looking to stretch out the lifespan of benefits about to lapse-they need to reach unanimous consent. And that requirement has delivered a great deal of power into Bunning's hands-- power that has allowed him to block the extension until the Senate find $10.3 billion in spending cuts elsewhere to fund the safety-net spending.

Unpopular? Sure. Fiscally prudent? Well, it helps. Bunning’s move comes at a time when American reliance on the government is at an all-time high. Consider what Patrice Hill of The Washington Times had to say in a March 1 article:

The so-called "Great Recession" has left Americans depending on the government dole like never before.

Without record levels of welfare, unemployment and other government benefits as well as tax cuts last year, the income of U.S. households would have plunged by an astonishing $723 billion — more than four times the record $167 billion drop reported last month by the Commerce Department.

Moreover, for the first time since the Great Depression, Americans took more aid from the government than they paid in taxes.

[…] "Governmental support was critical in keeping the economy, particularly consumer spending, from completely collapsing during the crisis," said Harm Bandholz, an economist at Unicredit Markets. He said he is concerned that so much of the economic rebound is a result of government spending rather than a revival of private income and jobs. That situation is unsustainable, he said, because the government has had to borrow massively to prop up the economy and cannot continue that binge for long.

[…] The massive shift into dependence on the government, while essential in promoting an economic revival last year, has postponed a reckoning for many consumers who went too far into debt to maintain their lifestyles during the boom years, Mr. Bandholz said.

While the government was lavishing aid, banks were cutting credit to consumers by a record $250 billion, nearly as much as the amount consumers gained from government transfer payments.

"This shift only postpones a solution to the problem" by substituting government debt for consumer debt, Mr. Bandholz said. "These elevated debt loads will at least result in sluggish growth rates for the time being — and if the problem is not tackled with determination, it might very well lead to another crisis."

Very interesting. So, maybe, just maybe there is a method to Bunning’s supposed ‘madness?’

"If we cant find $10 billion somewhere for a bill that everybody in this body supports, we will never pay for anything," Mr. Bunning said.

Say what you want, America, but the man has a point.

The Health Care Debate: A Case of “Systematic Misunderstanding”

noreply@blogger.com (The Refounding Father) — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 21:00:00 +0000

My Fellow Americans,

If the President’s health care summit (photo: CBS News) on Feb. 25 revealed anything, it showed America how far apart our leaders are in the debate. Honestly, after about a year of this back and forth about health care, I wasn’t really surprised by the result. I was searching for a way to describe what has been going on in this country – not only regarding health care – but also the stimulus package, cap and trade, et al.

I think I found it. It’s called systematic misunderstanding.

Let me share something with you from The Lexus and the Olive Tree, by Thomas L. Friedman. On page 340, Friedman writes:

Again, the contrast: [Yousef] Boutrous-Ghali is the most creative, high-tech driver of globalization in Egypt, but his elevator man says a prayer before taking you up to his office.

[This] captured for me the real tension at the heart of Egypt while its small, cell-phone-armed, globalizing elites were definitely pushing to get online and onto the global economic train, most others feared they would be left behind or lose their identity trying to catch it. Indeed I was struck, after a week of discussing both the costs and benefits of globalization, how most Egyptians, including many intellectuals, could only see the costs. The more I explained globalization, the more they expressed unease about it. It eventually struck me that I was encountering what anthropologists call “systematic misunderstanding.” Systematic misunderstanding arises when your framework and the other person’s framework are so fundamentally different that it cannot be corrected by providing more information.

Now, you may be saying to yourself: “No kidding. Of course Democrats and Republicans don’t agree. That’s why we have a two-party system.” That is certainly true and you would be right in thinking that. However, I think this is a fundamental concept that President Barack Obama is missing – either due to ignorance or arrogance.

If you were watching or reading the coverage of the health care summit closely, the concept of systematic understanding was evident throughout the day. Staff writer Dan Balz of The Washington Post put it best when he wrote this in his Feb. 27 article:

Democrats think more government is the answer; Republicans say the opposite, that market competition is the best antidote to the ailing system. Republicans are focused on cost, both rising premiums and government expenditures. They haven't made universal coverage anything close to a priority. Democrats are more determined to expand coverage to many millions more who lack insurance. But they say they have not ignored costs. Their proposals, they argue, would reduce premiums and the deficit. Republicans say the projected governmental savings will never be realized.

If that doesn’t exemplify systematic misunderstanding, I don’t know what does. Democrats say “government, government, government.” Republicans say “market competition.” That’s enough to conclude that the likelihood of there being an agreement on health care is miniscule at best.

However, it is my observation that this idea of systematic misunderstanding doesn’t just stop with Democrats and Republicans – it also expands to the current administration and the American people. It appears as if the Obama administration doesn’t care what the American people want. They basically go ahead and do their own thing – all in the name of helping Americans. They act as if they are in tune with the majority of Americans when, in fact, that notion couldn’t be further from the truth.

Take for instance this excerpt from a Feb. 26 Fox News article by C.L. Gray, M.D.:

Republicans advanced several limited steps to move health care toward fiscal solvency while emphasizing patient and physician autonomy. Yet the Democrats rejected the concept of a stepwise approach in favor of sweeping reform crammed down the throats of 75% of American citizens (25% agree with the plan).

Americans are innately suspicious of sweeping government reform. They desperately want the problems with our health care system fixed, but they want the government to leave what works well enough alone. Voters are growing weary of the pork, payoffs, bribes, and backroom deals that now consume our capital. The Democrats have cut a deal with every major player at the table in an effort to gain control over health care reform and the American people know it.

I don’t know about you, but, to me, that doesn’t sound like a government that gets it. It also doesn’t appear to me that the American people want the government involved in health care reform. But their cries of “stay out” fall on deaf ears. It’s systematic misunderstanding at its best.

Until Democrats and Republicans agree to keep government out of our health decisions and this administration gets more in tune with America – consider systematic misunderstanding a new buzz word.

Let me turn it over to you, America. What do you think? Should the government be involved in health care or should we let the market take care of it?

With the Democrats and the Obama administration not truthfully willing to listen to the other side, I don’t see coming to any kind of systematic UNDERSTANDING any time soon.

- The Refounding Father

What Is Popular Education?

noreply@blogger.com (The Refounding Father) — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 00:55:00 +0000

My Fellow Americans,

As a follow-up to the piece about the conference at Hampshire College, I would like to speak with you today about the ideology of one of the conference’s sponsors: Project South. As part of my research for the conference post, I looked into some of the various groups that I didn’t recognize. What I seemed to find was more of the same. Then I came across Project South: Institute for the Elimination of Poverty and Genocide. From there, I learned that Project South supported what is called “Popular Education.” And well, it only goes down hill from there.

Here we go…

Let’s define Popular Education, first, shall we? According to an article published by the University of Duisburg-Essen in Germany (and first prepared for the Popular Education Forum for Scotland), “Popular education is understood to be popular, as distinct from merely populist, in the sense that:

• it is rooted in the real interests and struggles of ordinary people
• it is overtly political and critical of the status quo
• it is committed to progressive social and political change.

Popular education is based on a clear analysis of the nature of inequality, exploitation and oppression and is informed by an equally clear political purpose. This has nothing to do with helping the 'disadvantaged' or the management of poverty; it has everything to do with the struggle for a more just and egalitarian social order.’

Furthermore, one of the general characteristics of Popular Education is that “attempts, wherever possible, to forge a direct link between education and social action.”

How does that not sound like the Progressive movement of today? Do we really want to be more like Europe – more like Scotland?

The article goes on to say:

Although the term has come to be associated with relatively recent developments in Latin America, it has strong resonances with both the radical tradition in British adult education and the distinctively Scottish interest in promoting democratic access to the exploration of ideas and to the debate about what counts as worthwhile knowledge.

Popular education seeks to connect the local and the global. In every context it proceeds from specific, localised forms of education and action, but it deliberately sets out to foster international solidarity by making these local struggles part of the wider international struggle for justice and peace.

What you need to be concerned about here is the fact that Popular Education “seeks to connect the local and the global.” That part of the description is very important. What ties progressives and Popular Education together is the idea of a “welfare world,” a place where – in a global or collective sense – we are all responsible for each other.

And those that support Popular Education believe that the only way to do this – is through a grassroots movement. In a paper presented by Jerome Scott, the founder of Project South, along with Walda Katz-Fishman and Ralph Gomes at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association at the Loews Hotel in Philadelphia, PA in August 2005, we learn exactly what people behind this idea of Popular Education are truly thinking (both Katz and Gomes are professors at Howard University and have ties to Project South). The paper, titled “A Bottom-up Southern Strategy for Power in the 21st Century – Freedom is through the South,” explains that:

To build today’s movement to fight for and to win justice, equality, peace and popular democracy we must understand how the ruling class has historically controlled the American people and what we must do to break that control. The short answer is that the ruling class has controlled us through a southern strategy rooted in superexploitation, white supremacy, male privilege, division, and brutal repression. Today’s bottom-up movement needs its own southern strategy to challenge white supremacy at its core, capitalist private property, and male domination, etc. We need to build unity across historic divides and to model the principles and processes of popular democracy in our movement as we struggle to transform society. To win nationally, we must win in the South.

We begin to further understand Scott’s background and Project South’s mission – and thereby Popular Education – in another paper jointly-authored by Scott and Katz-Fishman, titled “America Through the Eye of Hurricane Katrina – Capitalism at its “Best” – What Are We Prepared to Do?” This work was written in response to what they call the “human-made disaster of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita” which “devastated New Orleans and the Gulf Coast in 2005, contextualizes the destruction of human life, community, and environment in history, economy, power, and peoples' struggles.” (Human made disaster? I guess somebody still believes in the global warming hype).

Scott and Katz-Fishman claim that:

The horrific destruction reflects the intentional abandonment and criminalization of the poor, working class, communities of color-- African American, Indigenous, immigrant-- especially women, children, elders, and environmental crisis over centuries. It teaches us two critical lessons. One, that the economic and political system of global capitalism, including the [United States] government at all levels, is broken and cannot be fixed. Two, that only a powerful bottom-up movement led by those most adversely affected can reconstruct New Orleans and the Gulf Coast around a transformative vision rooted in twenty-first century economic, political, and social realities that addresses their needs and hopes.

And now we see a prime target of the whole Popular Education ideology: capitalism. What’s interesting is how this is connected to what is called Historical Materialism. According to Wikipedia, “Historical materialism looks for the causes of developments and changes in human society in the means by which humans collectively produce the necessities of life.”

Who initiated Historical Materialism? Karl Marx – the father of communism. Marx predicted Historical Materialism, or as he called it “the materialist conception of history,” would cause “the breakdown of capitalism (as a result of class struggle and the falling rate of profit), and the establishment in time of a communist society in which class-based human conflict would be overcome. The means of production would be held in the common ownership and used for the common good” (Wikipedia).

The problem is that Popular Education has been around for hundreds of years. It is ingrained in the fabric of our society. It is part of the mainstream. It’s in our culture and schools. It’s talked about on television. It has become the norm – because the progressive movement has become the norm.

We see that these ideologies have the common goal of destroying capitalism and blaming it for all of society’s problems. What we need to remember as Americans is that our country’s founders did not intend for things to be this way. I ask that you learn about the things I introduce to you in here and pass them along to your friends and family. Do your own research. Tell me what you think. Talk about it. We need to understand where the other side is coming from if we want to have any hope of bringing about real change in this great nation.

Stay vigilant,

The Refounding Father

Promoting Abortion: The 24th Annual Conference for Student & Community Activists at Hampshire College in Amherst, MA

noreply@blogger.com (The Refounding Father) — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 19:03:00 +0000

My Fellow Americans,

The liberal/progressive agenda continues to be thrown in our faces. We just can't get away from it – we see it promoted on the television, the radio, the Internet – and, yes, even in your U.S. mail.

A female friend of mine brought something to my attention on Feb. 20. My friend, a conservative woman who has never been pregnant, received a flyer from the Civil Liberties and Public Policy Program and the Population and Development Program at Hampshire College in Amherst, MA. The headline on the flyer read: "24th Annual Conference for Student and Community Activists from Abortion Rights to Social Justice - Building the Movement for Reproductive Freedom." The conference is to be held from April 9-11, 2010 on the campus of Hampshire (logo: Hampshire.edu). (For more information on the conference, click here).

What is "Reproductive Justice" you ask? Luckily for us, the flyer explains it. Reproductive Justice includes:

1. Economic Justice

2. Access to Healthcare

3. Abortion Rights and Access

4. Alternatives to Prison

5. Comprehensive Sexuality Education

6. The Right to Have Children

7. Environmental and Climate Justice

8. Immigrant Rights

9. Rights, Respect, and Access to Care for People Living with HIV/AIDS

10. Youth Rights

11. A World Free from War and Violence

12. Disability Rights

13. Racial Justice

14. LGBTQI Sexual and Health Rights

15. Gender Justice

16. Support for Mothers

What I am having trouble wrapping my head around is how some of these “rights” included in “Reproductive Justice” contradict each other. How can you promote the right for people to have children and support for mothers then turn around and support abortion rights and access to it? On top of that, how can you be for a world free from violence and promote the killing of babies in the womb? It doesn’t make sense to me at all.

What I also have trouble understanding is how a college can host such a polarizing event. Then again, in its mission statement on its very own website, Hampshire College does encourage its students to “…advance the cause of social justice…” So, when you read that, you begin to understand how Hampshire hosting this conference came about.

The flyer also details who is speaking at or sponsoring the conference. Who would possibly speak at or sponsor such an event? The sponsors list includes the Tides Foundation – the organization founded by Drummond Pike. The Tides Foundation has ties to ACORN – and Pike is good buddies with Wade Rathke, ACORN’s founder. Rathke is also a board member of the Tides Foundation. This organization is everywhere.

Who else will be there? Well, Alexandra L. Cawthorne from the Center for American Progress, the organization headed by John D. Podesta and heavily-funded by George Soros. In parts of 2006 and 2007, Ms. Cawthorne worked as a Democratic Legislative Assistant on the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee.

But, oh, it gets better. The American Civil Liberties Union is represented as well. Speakers Dahlia Ward and Diana Kasdan will be there representing the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project. According to her LinkedIn profile, not only is Ms. Ward currently the ACLU’s State Strategist and a contributor to the ACLU’s blog, she was a community organizer for the Sacramento Mutual Housing Association.

Ms. Kasdan is an attorney at the ACLU. All she wants to do is make sure women who are in jail have access to “abortion care.” She also blogs for the ACLU.

And don’t worry – if you can’t afford to go – you will still be accommodated. I mean, God forbid we don’t give pregnant girls the opportunity to learn about their abortion rights. There is a stipend for just about everything: the Comfort Inn (which blocked off rooms for the event), air travel, food, and, yes, even child care. You know, the children who weren’t aborted? We’ll take care of them for you. Oh, and if you’re a social worker, you can receive continuing education credits!

I bring all of this to your attention because I find it down right disgusting. Sure, it’s free speech – and you know I fully support the Constitution. But, this is indoctrination to the fullest extent.

Furthermore, this is just another element of the progressive agenda. Can you honestly sit there and say to yourself that this is not a minority thing – mostly an African American thing? Do you think that minorities are a target for the progressive movement? Think again. It’s called population control. And President Barack Obama’s science czar, John Holdren is all for it.

It is a fact that the majority of women who are having abortions are black. Statistics collected by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in 2004 show that:

“50% of U.S. women obtaining abortions are younger than 25. Women aged 20–24 obtain 33% of all abortions, and teenagers obtain 17%.
Black women are 4.8 times as likely as non-Hispanic white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are 2.7 times as likely.
37.1% of all abortions are performed on black women who make up only 14% of the total population of U.S. women of child-bearing age.”

As of 2006, black women were only 3 times as likely as white women to get an abortion. Shall we say that is progress? I think not (photo: TooManyAborted.com).

It’s funny. This whole conference is about rights. But, what the conference organizers, speakers, sponsors, and attendees fail to realize (or just flat out ignore) is that the unborn child has rights as well. Remember that pesky little Declaration of Independence? How about the part that explains how we “are endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”? Do we forget that? That child has certain rights as well – the most important (and the one that should be the easiest to acknowledge) being the right to LIFE.

I’ll spare you the science about when a baby has a heartbeat or how long into the pregnancy an abortion can be performed. You can read the links I provided on your own. But, what if Barack Obama’s mother or Martin Luther King’s mother had decided to have an abortion? For you liberals, progressives, and Feminazis – think about that for a second. Let it marinate in your corrupt minds for a while. How many potential leaders, presidents, scientists, lawyers, and doctors are we killing – without ever giving them a chance at life? (Photo: Google)

Instead of teaching these women what their “rights” are in terms of a procedure they will regret having for the rest of their lives, why don’t we teach people responsibility? What about teaching them self-reliance and self-control? While, yes, you do have the right to do whatever you want with your body. What you don’t have is the right to do so in a way that affects others. For instance, sure you can drink and get drunk. That’s your right. But, you are also responsible for the things that happen while you are drunk. And if you drive – and kill someone – that’s on you. So, with that in mind, sure, these women can have sex. But, if sexual activity results in pregnancy – their body isn’t just theirs anymore.

That unborn child has rights as well.

Tell President Obama and our “leaders” in Washington that we don’t want our tax dollars going to places like Planned Parenthood. We shouldn’t be funding abortions domestically or abroad.

If you are as outraged as my friend and I are – do something about it. Call Hampshire College about this conference. Boycott the Comfort Inn.

Contact Information

Hampshire College:

The Civil Liberties and Public Policy Program
Hampshire College
Amherst, MA 01002-3359

Phone: (413) 559-5416

Fax: (413) 559-5826

Email: clpp@hampshire.edu

The Comfort Inn:

Comfort Inn Hadley Amherst Hotel
237 Russell Street, SR 9
Hadley, MA 01035
Phone: (413) 584-9816
Fax: (413) 586-7512

I will be doing a follow-up post to this some time this week. So, be on the look out for it. I will be detailing a movement that is a part of this conference and a group which is pushing the agenda. I’m doing research for it and gathering my facts. Stay tuned.

God Bless America.

Happy Birthday, George!

noreply@blogger.com (The Refounding Father) — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 19:33:00 +0000

My Fellow Americans,

In honor of George Washington’s Birthday (a.k.a. President’s Day), I would like to share something with you today. According to Wikipedia, “[s]ince 1862 there has been a tradition in the United States Senate that George Washington's Farewell Address be read on his birthday.” On this President’s Day, I can think of no better way to honor our first President.

George Washington’s Farewell Address

To the People of the United States

FRIENDS AND FELLOW-CITIZENS:

1 The period for a new election of a citizen, to administer the executive government of the United States, being not far distant, and the time actually arrived, when your thoughts must be employed designating the person, who is to be clothed with that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice, that I should now apprize you of the resolution I have formed, to decline being considered among the number of those out of whom a choice is to be made.

2 I beg you at the same time to do me the justice to be assured that this resolution has not been taken without a strict regard to all the considerations appertaining to the relation which binds a dutiful citizen to his country; and that in withdrawing the tender of service, which silence in my situation might imply, I am influenced by no diminution of zeal for your future interest, no deficiency of grateful respect for your past kindness, but am supported by a full conviction that the step is compatible with both.

3 The acceptance of, and continuance hitherto in, the office to which your suffrages have twice called me, have been a uniform sacrifice of inclination to the opinion of duty, and to a deference for what appeared to be your desire. I constantly hoped, that it would have been much earlier in my power, consistently with motives, which I was not at liberty to disregard, to return to that retirement, from which I had been reluctantly drawn. The strength of my inclination to do this, previous to the last election, had even led to the preparation of an address to declare it to you; but mature reflection on the then perplexed and critical posture of our affairs with foreign nations, and the unanimous advice of persons entitled to my confidence impelled me to abandon the idea.

4 I rejoice, that the state of your concerns, external as well as internal, no longer renders the pursuit of inclination incompatible with the sentiment of duty, or propriety; and am persuaded, whatever partiality may be retained for my services, that, in the present circumstances of our country, you will not disapprove my determination to retire.

5 The impressions, with which I first undertook the arduous trust, were explained on the proper occasion. In the discharge of this trust, I will only say, that I have, with good intentions, contributed towards the organization and administration of the government the best exertions of which a very fallible judgment was capable. Not unconscious, in the outset, of the inferiority of my qualifications, experience in my own eyes, perhaps still more in the eyes of others, has strengthened the motives to diffidence of myself; and every day the increasing weight of years admonishes me more and more, that the shade of retirement is as necessary to me as it will be welcome. Satisfied, that, if any circumstances have given peculiar value to my services, they were temporary, I have the consolation to believe, that, while choice and prudence invite me to quit the political scene, patriotism does not forbid it.

6 In looking forward to the moment, which is intended to terminate the career of my public life, my feelings do not permit me to suspend the deep acknowledgment of that debt of gratitude, which I owe to my beloved country for the many honors it has conferred upon me; still more for the steadfast confidence with which it has supported me; and for the opportunities I have thence enjoyed of manifesting my inviolable attachment, by services faithful and persevering, though in usefulness unequal to my zeal. If benefits have resulted to our country from these services, let it always be remembered to your praise, and as an instructive example in our annals, that under circumstances in which the passions, agitated in every direction, were liable to mislead, amidst appearances sometimes dubious, vicissitudes of fortune often discouraging, in situations in which not unfrequently want of success has countenanced the spirit of criticism, the constancy of your support was the essential prop of the efforts, and a guarantee of the plans by which they were effected. Profoundly penetrated with this idea, I shall carry it with me to my grave, as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that Heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence; that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained; that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue; than, in fine, the happiness of the people of these States, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete, by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing, as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption of every nation, which is yet a stranger to it.

7 Here, perhaps I ought to stop. But a solicitude for your welfare which cannot end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger, natural to that solicitude, urge me, on an occasion like the present, to offer to your solemn contemplation, and to recommend to your frequent review, some sentiments which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation, and which appear to me all-important to the permanency of your felicity as a people. These will be offered to you with the more freedom, as you can only see in them the disinterested warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his counsel. Nor can I forget, as an encouragement to it, your indulgent reception of my sentiments on a former and not dissimilar occasion.

8 Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the attachment.

9 The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee, that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion, that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.

10 For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of american, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the Independence and Liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.

11 But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those, which apply more immediately to your interest. Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the Union of the whole.

12 The North, in an unrestrained intercourse with the South, protected by the equal laws of a common government, finds, in the productions of the latter, great additional resources of maritime and commercial enterprise and precious materials of manufacturing industry. The South, in the same intercourse, benefiting by the agency of the North, sees its agriculture grow and its commerce expand. Turning partly into its own channels the seamen of the North, it finds its particular navigation invigorated; and, while it contributes, in different ways, to nourish and increase the general mass of the national navigation, it looks forward to the protection of a maritime strength, to which itself is unequally adapted. The East, in a like intercourse with the West, already finds, and in the progressive improvement of interior communications by land and water, will more and more find, a valuable vent for the commodities which it brings from abroad, or manufactures at home. The West derives from the East supplies requisite to its growth and comfort, and, what is perhaps of still greater consequence, it must of necessity owe the secure enjoyment of indispensable outlets for its own productions to the weight, influence, and the future maritime strength of the Atlantic side of the Union, directed by an indissoluble community of interest as one nation. Any other tenure by which the West can hold this essential advantage, whether derived from its own separate strength, or from an apostate and unnatural connexion with any foreign power, must be intrinsically precarious.

13 While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in Union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations; and, what is of inestimable value, they must derive from Union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves, which so frequently afflict neighbouring countries not tied together by the same governments, which their own rivalships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and embitter. Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments, which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to Republican Liberty. In this sense it is, that your Union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.

14 These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting and virtuous mind, and exhibit the continuance of the union as a primary object of Patriotic desire. Is there a doubt, whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation in such a case were criminal. We are authorized to hope, that a proper organization of the whole, with the auxiliary agency of governments for the respective subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to the experiment. It is well worth a fair and full experiment. With such powerful and obvious motives to Union, affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those, who in any quarter may endeavour to weaken its bands.

15 In contemplating the causes, which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern, that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by Geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavour to excite a belief, that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence, within particular districts, is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heart-burnings, which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those, who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. The inhabitants of our western country have lately had a useful lesson on this head; they have seen, in the negotiation by the Executive, and in the unanimous ratification by the Senate, of the treaty with Spain, and in the universal satisfaction at that event, throughout the United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the suspicions propagated among them of a policy in the General Government and in the Atlantic States unfriendly to their interests in regard to the mississippi; they have been witnesses to the formation of two treaties, that with Great Britain, and that with Spain, which secure to them every thing they could desire, in respect to our foreign relations, towards confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the union by which they were procured? Will they not henceforth be deaf to those advisers, if such there are, who would sever them from their brethren, and connect them with aliens?

16 To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a Government for the whole is indispensable. No alliances, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions, which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a Constitution of Government better calculated than your former for an intimate Union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This Government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true Liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish Government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established Government.

17 All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.

18 However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

19 Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the constitution, alterations, which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments, as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard, by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that, for the efficient management of our common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.

20 I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.

21 This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

22 The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

23 Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

24 It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

25 There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

26 It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution, in those intrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the Guardian of the Public Weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way, which the constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for, though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.

27 Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

28 It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric ?

29 Promote, then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

30 As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is, to use it as sparingly as possible; avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts, which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burthen, which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should cooperate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind, that towards the payment of debts there must be Revenue; that to have Revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised, which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment, inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.

31 Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and Morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great Nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt, that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages, which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ? Can it be, that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a Nation with its Virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices ?

32 In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential, than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The Nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the Government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The Government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of Nations has been the victim.

33 So likewise, a passionate attachment of one Nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite Nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite Nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the Nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained; and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, (who devote themselves to the favorite nation,) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

34 As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent Patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practise the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the Public Councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak, towards a great and powerful nation, dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

35 Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens,) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove, that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defence against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation, and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

36 The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connexion as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.

37 Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

38 Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off, when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality, we may at any time resolve upon, to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

39 Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?

40 It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

41 Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments, on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

42 Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing, with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view, that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.

43 In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish; that they will control the usual current of the passions, or prevent our nation from running the course, which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. But, if I may even flatter myself, that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism; this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare, by which they have been dictated.

44 How far in the discharge of my official duties, I have been guided by the principles which have been delineated, the public records and other evidences of my conduct must witness to you and to the world. To myself, the assurance of my own conscience is, that I have at least believed myself to be guided by them.

45 In relation to the still subsisting war in Europe, my Proclamation of the 22d of April 1793, is the index to my Plan. Sanctioned by your approving voice, and by that of your Representatives in both Houses of Congress, the spirit of that measure has continually governed me, uninfluenced by any attempts to deter or divert me from it.

46 After deliberate examination, with the aid of the best lights I could obtain, I was well satisfied that our country, under all the circumstances of the case, had a right to take, and was bound in duty and interest to take, a neutral position. Having taken it, I determined, as far as should depend upon me, to maintain it, with moderation, perseverance, and firmness.

47 The considerations, which respect the right to hold this conduct, it is not necessary on this occasion to detail. I will only observe, that, according to my understanding of the matter, that right, so far from being denied by any of the Belligerent Powers, has been virtually admitted by all.

48 The duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred, without any thing more, from the obligation which justice and humanity impose on every nation, in cases in which it is free to act, to maintain inviolate the relations of peace and amity towards other nations.

49 The inducements of interest for observing that conduct will best be referred to your own reflections and experience. With me, a predominant motive has been to endeavour to gain time to our country to settle and mature its yet recent institutions, and to progress without interruption to that degree of strength and consistency, which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, the command of its own fortunes.

50 Though, in reviewing the incidents of my administration, I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope, that my Country will never cease to view them with indulgence; and that, after forty-five years of my life dedicated to its service with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest.

51 Relying on its kindness in this as in other things, and actuated by that fervent love towards it, which is so natural to a man, who views it in the native soil of himself and his progenitors for several generations; I anticipate with pleasing expectation that retreat, in which I promise myself to realize, without alloy, the sweet enjoyment of partaking, in the midst of my fellow-citizens, the benign influence of good laws under a free government, the ever favorite object of my heart, and the happy reward, as I trust, of our mutual cares, labors, and dangers.

George Washington
United States - September 17, 1796

Source: Archiving Early America

Happy Valentine’s Day!

noreply@blogger.com (The Refounding Father) — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 22:29:00 +0000

To My Significant Other:

First of all, you know who you are.

Second of all, I want to let you know that I love you with all my heart and look forward to a wonderful dinner with you tonight.

I thank God every day for having you in my life.

Love you.

PS: Can we watch something other than the Olympics later?

America, Have We Lost Our Identity or Are We Ashamed By It?

noreply@blogger.com (The Refounding Father) — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 14:18:00 +0000

My Fellow Americans,

I have been reading Thomas L. Friedman's National Bestseller The Lexus and the Olive Tree: Understanding Globalization for a little while now. I chose this book because I wanted to get a feel for how the markets worked on a global scale. I've really grown to love learning about how everything is connected. And while Friedman's book is dated -- it was published in 2000 -- you can still learn a lot from it (as long as you get past where he talks about the "green" movement).

One aspect of the book that stood out to me over the past week was in Chapter 13, titled "Demolition Man," where Friedman talks about culture. On page 302, he writes: "Culture, at its best, can be one of the most powerful forms of voluntary restraint in human behavior. It gives life structure and meaning. It sanctions a whole set of habits, behavorial restraints, expectations, and traditions that pattern life and hold societies together at their core."

He goes on to talk further about what happens when a country or community loses its culture. On page 303, Friedman writes: "What I fear is that Malaysia and Thailand, India and Israel, Qatar and Indonesia will eventually reach a point in their development where they too will want to revive [...] the sights, the smells, the colors, the street stalls, the architecture, and the landscapes of old. Those were the nests in which their own distinctive cultures [...] were planted and nurtured. But they could discover that they have been erased forever, not by some new, evolved form of their culture, which has happened throughout history, but rather by a sterile global culture smashed onto their society."

I share these two quotes with you because I fear America is losing its identity -- its culture. I think we forget what makes America -- America. The progressive movement that has taken over this country since the early 20th century has left us with a slanted view of America's history.

Thanks to the progressives, today, capitalism is seen as evil, your kids are being indoctrinated, and the history books are written with a -- let's just say -- false perspective.

Take for instance -- the Depression of 1920 and the subsequent "Roaring 20's." The history books would have you believe that the market crash of 1929 sparked the greatest financial meltdown America has seen. The history books would also have you believe that President Franklin D. Roosevelt's "New Deal" programs helped the U.S. climb out of the Great Depression. Both, however, are false.

Thomas E. Woods, Jr., a resident scholar at the Ludwig von Mises Institute and author of the New York Times bestseller Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse, explained what really happened in the 1920's in his article "The Forgotten Depression of the 1920's." Woods writes: "According to the endlessly repeated conventional wisdom, the Great Depression of the 1930s was the result of capitalism run riot, and only the wise interventions of progressive politicians restored prosperity."

He adds:

Many of those who concede that the New Deal programs alone did not succeed in lifting the country out of depression nevertheless go on to suggest that the massive government spending during World War II is what did it. (Even some nominal free marketeers make the latter claim, which hands the entire theoretical argument to supporters of fiscal stimulus.)

The connection between this version of history and the events of today is obvious enough: once again, it is claimed, wildcat capitalism has created a terrific mess, and once again, only a combination of fiscal and monetary stimulus can save us.

In order to make sure that this version of events sticks, little, if any, public mention is ever made of the depression of 1920–1921. And no wonder — that historical experience deflates the ambitions of those who promise us political solutions to the real imbalances at the heart of economic busts.

The conventional wisdom holds that in the absence of government countercyclical policy, whether fiscal or monetary (or both), we cannot expect economic recovery — at least, not without an intolerably long delay. Yet the very opposite policies were followed during the depression of 1920–1921, and recovery was in fact not long in coming.

The economic situation in 1920 was grim. By that year unemployment had jumped from 4 percent to nearly 12 percent, and [Gross National Product] declined 17 percent. No wonder, then, that Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover — falsely characterized as a supporter of laissez-faire economics — urged President Harding to consider an array of interventions to turn the economy around. Hoover was ignored.

Instead of "fiscal stimulus," Harding cut the government's budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922. The rest of Harding's approach was equally laissez-faire. Tax rates were slashed for all income groups. The national debt was reduced by one-third.

I imagine you didn't learn that in the history books. I didn't even know there was a depression in 1920 until I heard Glenn Beck talk about it this past week. (Thank God for that man -- am I right)?

Then again, we're not supposed to know about the Depression of 1920. We are not supposed to know that free market principles work nor have examples of such. To me, that's cultural theft -- no scratch that -- IDENTITY THEFT! The progressives are robbing us of our identity to fit their agenda. The kids are being robbed during history class of the truth. I'm not sure there is much else that could possibly be worse than that -- not knowing who you truly are or where you came from.

And on top of that -- those of us who have really researched and learned the truth -- are made to feel ashamed about it. Our President apologizes to other nations on our behalf -- as if being an American is something to be embarrassed about.

We are taught that the Founding Fathers were rich, white, elitist slave owners whose antiquated beliefs are outdated.

We are told the divinely-inspired document -- the Constitution -- that helped define this nation is a set of "negative liberties."

We are told that the Civil War was fought over the enslavement of African Americans. Yes, that's what we are told to believe. However, the Civil War was NOT fought over slavery. It was fought over states rights -- over the right for states to choose what's best for them and not have the federal government interfere. I know, I always rooted for the north and was thrilled they won. But, when you put it in the context of states rights -- given the current debate over nationalized health care -- I would have pulled for the Confederacy. No, I'm not for slavery -- nice try liberal swine -- but I am for states rights.

America, we are losing our identity. We are losing our identity as a people of resilience -- as a people who can live through hell and come back even stronger ready to fight all over again. We have forgotten how to fail and to use that failure to succeed.

Do I need to remind you once again of September 11, 2001 and then of September 12, 2001? Of how we were viciously kicked in the teeth and still managed to get up -- to stay strong.

We have it in us still. The Tea Party movement has helped awaken the American spirit once again.

It's funny how I've seen glimpses of our past in the present day. And this is what gives me hope and should give you hope as well. I was watching Varney & Co. on the Fox Business Network the other day and the host, Stuart Varney, along with some other commentators, were talking about Google. Apparently, Google, with no help of our amazing government, has decided to provide high speed broadband to small U.S. cities. It's a simple concept, but it speaks volumes in terms of our lost innovative drive. Forget the government, we can do it ourselves.

That's what capitalism does -- it provides solutions. That's the kind of attitude upon which America was founded.

And if the Tea Party movement has taught us anything -- it's that Americans are finally waking up and realizing who we are and where we came from.

We are Americans. May we never lose sight of who we are or be ashamed of what we've done.

(Photos: Google)

TEXAS: The Model State

noreply@blogger.com (The Refounding Father) — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 17:15:00 +0000

My Fellow Americans,

For the last year and a half, given the state of the economy in the United States, I have looked around the country to find a place to live that would allow for the best quality of life. I searched various states, scoured the Internet for small towns, and looked for any city that had any promise of job growth. What I found was that no place seemed to compare to one state in particular: Texas. The Lone Star state has lived up to its name: it really is the lone shining star in a sky full of duds.

So, what makes Texas (photo: Google) the best place to live in the United States? Well, besides it being the home of my favorite politician, Ron Paul and my favorite football team, the Dallas Cowboys, Texas has NO state income tax. And if that isn't enough of a reason to move there, consider the following, courtesy of NBC Dallas-Fort Worth:

- "[Texas'] economy is stronger. The Lone Star State has more Fortune 500 companies than any other state in the Union. Texas has 64 compared to California's 51 -- including three major airlines, AT&T, Dell, Texas Instruments, ExxonMobil ... just to name a few. According to the article in Trends magazine, Texas also created 70 percent of all new jobs in 2008 and enjoys a robust surplus. California is adding roughly $25 million per day to its $26 billion in debt. Ouch."

- "It's safer in Texas. Whether the calamity be weather- or crime-related, Texas fares better than California. Your wildfires cannot be topped and no amount of Earth-rattling will dump us into the ocean. As far as crime goes, we both have the death penalty ... Texas just isn't afraid to use it." (Could you imagine if the terrorists attacked Dallas or Houston instead of New York? Let's just say we wouldn't be worried about where the trial would be).

- "Our elected leaders, while often not perfect, are not former actors, wannabe actors, widows of actors, formerly engaged to actors or want to work part-time as actors while they "serve" the people as politicians. By and large, Texas politicians are people who care about making Texas better through making things better for Texans. Seems to be working."

- "The cost of living is remarkably lower. The price of land and residences are exponentially lower. The difference in what you can buy here for $250,000 vs. California is shameful. We have no state income tax and no taxes on capital gains. No further words about this are necessary."

I want to talk to you more about the Texas economy. A Sept. 21, 2009 story in the Houston Business Journal had this to say: "After a small contraction in 2009, the state’s gross domestic product is expected to increase by 1.7 percent in 2010, aided in part by a surge in home sales, according to economists with BBVA Compass. The GDP of the entire country, by contrast, is predicted to increase by only 0.2 percent [in 2010]."

Furthermore, "Though 48 states predicted budget shortfalls at the beginning of [2009], with Texas projecting a 9.5 percent deficit, it is the only state among the seven Sun Belt states covered by BBVA Compass to forecast a balanced budget in 2010."

The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, in its Feb. 2010 Regional Economic Update, cites "[c]ontinuing improvement in the regional economy supports the prospects of a mild recovery. Notably, Texas real GDP increased at a 3.3 percent annualized pace in the third quarter [of 2009]. In addition, total nonfarm employment increased in both October and November and fell slightly in December. Overall, from September to December, jobs were essentially unchanged...The Texas unemployment rate rose slightly in December to 8.3 from 8 percent, but remains below the national rate of [9.7] percent."

Perhaps even better than its economic prospects, Texas' conservative value system is a major draw for many as well. Unlike many of our leaders in Washington, those that call the shots in this great state actually share the same values and principles with their constituents. Politicians in Texas seem to hear their voters more.

Take, Ron Paul. Consider Paul's message to the Conservative Political Action Conference on Feb. 7, 2008: "If you follow the Constitution, you will defend freedom. Freedom brings people together. It allows people to run their lives as they choose, it allows them to practice religion as they choose, it is not confrontational & not antagonistic. The welfare state, the warfare state, & the socialist state, is exactly the opposite. It divides us, because they take away our wealth, they control it in Washington. What is happening today? Millions of dollars of campaign funds & PAC money, and lobbying efforts to control the money that gravitates to Washington, DC. The pie is shrinking, and the people are getting angry, and we have forgotten what a free country is all about. We’ve lost our confidence, because we have to have safety nets here and safety nets here and do all of these things. It’s coming to an end and there’s a wonderful, beautiful answer. It comes in our traditions and it comes in the principles of liberty. If you promote liberty, liberty promotes peace. And peace promotes prosperity."

Oh, and did I mention the housing? You truly can live like a king (or queen) in Texas -- especially in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. Picture this: 2,250 to 3,250 square feet, 3+ bedrooms, 2+ bathrooms, community pool, community golf, and community tennis courts -- all for less than $210,000. Yes, it's true. And if you have a larger budget, say in the $500,000 to $700,000 range, you can live like a millionaire for three-quarters or even half the price in the Northeast.

Texas truly is the place to be, in The Refounding Father's opinion. Conservative values, great housing, cheap land, a growing economy, and, not to mention, the chance the state will always secede!

That's why yours truly has considered relocating...

Barack Hussein Obama...the Narcissist?

noreply@blogger.com (The Refounding Father) — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 00:49:00 +0000

My Fellow Americans,

It has long been a possibility in my view. Since I first saw him speak during the campaign in 2008, I have firmly believed that Barack Hussein Obama (photo: Google) is a narcissist. It is through his demeanour and constant demeaning of the American people that I have come to realize this most fundamental character flaw in our nation's President.

To me, it is evident every time he speaks -- every time he seemingly "talks down" to us as if we're not equipped to understand him. He is so eloquent and amazing after all -- how dare anyone question his authority or judgement?

Before we go any further, let's define narcissism:

According to WebMD, "Narcissism is a term used to describe a focus on the self and self-admiration that is taken to an extreme...Narcissistic personality disorder is one of a group of conditions called dramatic personality disorders. People with these disorders have intense, unstable emotions and a distorted self-image. Narcissistic personality disorder is further characterized by an abnormal love of self, an exaggerated sense of superiority and importance, and a preoccupation with success and power. However, these attitudes and behaviors do not reflect true self-confidence. Instead, the attitudes conceal a deep sense of insecurity and a fragile self-esteem."

The symptoms include (but are not limited to): (1) being "self-centered and boastful," (2) seeking "constant attention and admiration," (3) considering "themselves better than others," (4) setting "unrealistic goals," and (5) taking "advantage of others to achieve their goals."

Furthermore, "common traits of narcissistic personality disorder include the following:" (1) "...Belief that he or she is "special" and unique, and can only be understood by other special people, (2) Expectation that others will automatically go along with what he or she wants, (3) Inability to recognize or identify with the feelings, needs, and viewpoints of others, (4)...Hypersensitivity to insults (real or imagined), criticism, or defeat, possibly reacting with rage, shame, and humiliation, [and] (5) Arrogant behavior and/or attitude."

Please review those descriptions and symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder again, paying particular attention to the ones I highlighted in bold.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but do they not describe our current President? Are these symptoms not conveyed during his speeches? The fact that he has given (or made), according to CBS News, 411 speeches, comments or remarks (52 just on health care), 42 news conferences, and 158 interviews -- all in his first year -- is evidence enough that Obama may be (at the very least) borderline narcisstic. Sounds to me like somebody enjoys hearing themselves talk.

Now, many have been duped, in my opinion, by Obama's charm and ability as an orator. And, as I said before, those who checked Obama's name off in Nov. 2008 are beginning to suffer from "voter's remorse."

One of those people is Sam Vaknin, Ph.D., author of Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited. Vaknin states: "I must confess I was impressed by Sen. Barack Obama from the first time I saw him. At first I was excited to see a black candidate. He looked youthful, spoke well, appeared to be confident - a wholesome presidential package. I was put off soon, not just because of his shallowness but also because there was an air of haughtiness in his demeanor that was unsettling. His posture and his body language were louder than his empty words. Obama's speeches are unlike any political speech we have heard in American history. Never a politician in this land had such quasi "religious" impact on so many people. The fact that Obama is a total incognito with zero accomplishment, makes this inexplicable infatuation alarming. Obama is not an ordinary man. He is not a genius. In fact he is quite ignorant on most important subjects."

In an article from The American Chronicle, Vaknin provides a detailed outline of Obama and the behavioral traits of narcissists. Vaknin starts by giving us information about Obama's upbringing and childhood, saying: "Obama's early life was decidedly chaotic and replete with traumatic and mentally bruising dislocations. Mixed-race marriages were even less common then. His parents went through a divorce when he was an infant (two years old). Obama saw his father only once again, before he died in a car accident. Then, his mother re-married and Obama had to relocate to Indonesia: a foreign land with a radically foreign culture, to be raised by a step-father. At the age of ten, he was whisked off to live with his maternal (white) grandparents. He saw his mother only intermittently in the following few years and then she vanished from his life in 1979. She died of cancer in 1995."

How would this relate to narcissism? As Vaknin explains, "Pathological narcissism is a reaction to prolonged abuse and trauma in early childhood or early adolescence. The source of the abuse or trauma is immaterial: the perpetrators could be dysfunctional or absent parents, teachers, other adults, or peers."

From there, Vaknin actually goes into narcisstic tendencies of leaders. And what he shares is quite eye-opening. Vaknin explains that "...narcissistic leadership is about theatre, not about life. To enjoy the spectacle (and be subsumed by it), the leader demands the suspension of judgment, depersonalization, and de-realization. Catharsis is tantamount, in this narcissistic dramaturgy, to self-annulment."

On top of that, "[n]arcissistic leadership often poses as a rebellion against the "old ways" - against the hegemonic culture, the upper classes, the established religions, the superpowers, the corrupt order. Narcissistic movements are puerile, a reaction to narcissistic injuries inflicted upon a narcissistic (and rather psychopathic) toddler nation-state, or group, or upon the leader."

Need further proof? Let's review his State of the Union address from Jan. 27. As Mike Flynn, Editor-in-Chief of BigGovernment.com, put it: "[In the address], Obama announced not a single change in his agenda or his priorities. Okay, well maybe one; his call for a three-year spending freeze. But, it is clear he isn’t really serious about this, since he also announced a huge swath of new spending initiatives. He still wants to enact sweeping changes to health care, even though it is political kryptonite."

It was obvious from his speech that Obama didn't think for a second he needed to change course. To him, the American people simply don't understand what's good for them. So, like a true narcissist, he needed to break it down into words the little people can understand. Flynn continues: "He wants another bloated, pork-filled “jobs bill”, even though his “stimulus program” was a joke, and a failure." Again, he isn't responsible for his plan not working -- everybody else (including former President George W. Bush) is at fault.

To further capture the true idea of a narcissist, let me share a short anecdote with you. A friend of mine, let's call him Tom, is a person who knows all too well what a real life narcissist can do. His mother, let's call her Claire, is the quintessential narcissist: always the center of attention, constantly playing mind games and manipulating people, and creating drama when their is none.

Tom, like most children of narcissists, grew up figuring his mother was like any other mother. This was just life as usual. It wasn't until he was older and out of the house that he started to become aware of his mother's narcissistic tendencies.

Claire was a lawyer. All throughout his college career, Tom heard how he would go to law school at the same place Claire went. Despite the fact that Claire's career was mediocre at best, Tom never heard the end of how being a lawyer was the greatest thing out there. For some people, that's true -- but not for Tom (or Claire for that matter). Like the typical narcissist -- Claire bragged about how great of a lawyer she was -- and put Tom down for pursuing other opportunities -- constantly.

Then, came Tom's girlfriend, Katie. Claire wasn't too fond of Katie. Why? Well, beside the fact that Katie was a young, beautiful girl who Tom adored, Claire felt threated by her. After all, the true narcissist craves attention -- the world revolves around them.

Tom left home and didn't come visit much. He started a life with Katie -- not that it was particularly difficult to avoid his mother -- she consistently put his career objectives (and taste in women) down. Katie was the devil trying to destroy the family -- according to Claire. Family ties became severed as Claire continued to berate Katie and Tom. To this day, things are not reconciled. Tom has never forgiven Claire -- not that it would matter though. To the narcissist, they never do anything wrong -- everybody else is to blame.

And that's just one family. Imagine what a guy like Obama can do -- to an entire country. I share this with you today because I believe it's important. We need to understand who is leading our country, America. We need to understand who the people are around us. We need to know where we stand and where our family, friends, and neighbors stand.

I pray that we learn about our leaders -- and each other -- before it is too late.

Are Progressive Democrats Using Welfare to Keep Black Americans in Poverty?

noreply@blogger.com (The Refounding Father) — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 00:51:00 +0000

My Fellow Americans,

I want to speak with you today about what I believe has lead to the demise of many black Americans and the black culture in general. I’m sick of the way black Americans are treated and how they’re viewed as the stereotypical welfare recipient.

The Refounding Father will defend and support those that don’t have the ability to do so themselves. The government is using black Americans as a fundamental means of furthering the progressive agenda of the Democratic (and yes, even Republican) party.

I firmly support and believe in the right of all Americans to pursue their happiness – it is an inalienable right. However, I don’t believe it’s the government’s job to fund that happiness. I also don’t believe that comments like that of Andre Bauer, lieutenant governor of South Carolina, have any place in the discussion either.

In case you missed it, here is what Bauer had to say regarding government assistance to the poor: "My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed! You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that."

While I do not support what Bauer said, I will attempt to decipher what he meant. Basically, Bauer was saying that welfare only leads to more welfare. If you keep feeding a stray, you make them dependent on you. Then, if they reproduce, their offspring are dependent on you too. What you end up with is a continuous cycle of dependency and an inability for people to fend for themselves.

It is greatly troubling to me that many people continue to believe that it is the government's job (and, therefore, the taxpayers' job) to take care of us financially. We have grown up in a culture where that is what is expected and that is what we know. I am here to tell you today that it's time to put an end to it.

No more welfare. No more bailouts -- for anybody. It's time for people to once again be responsible for themselves. It doesn't matter whether you are poor or whether you worked all your life and lost all your money in your retirement account. It is not the government's job (or the taxpayers' job) to provide your happiness -- only to get out of your way and make sure nobody hinders your pursuit.

Welfare is the greatest money pit in the world. Speaking of "money pits," have you ever seen the movie with the namesake? Well, in the movie, a young married couple poors their life savings into a beat up old house. And seemingly everywhere they turn something goes wrong -- the stairs collapse, the roof is leaking, the heater is broken, etc.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but how does that not describe MOST government-run programs (i.e. Social Security, Medicare, the welfare system)? The government throws the money of hardworking taxpaying Americans into a bottomless pit in the name of "helping those who are less fortunate." Meanwhile, the "bones" of these programs are wobbling, their foundations faulty, and the structure of each program itself is a pigeon dropping away from collapsing.

In the guise of political correctness, people tend to stay away from topics like welfare and poverty – unless they are talking about instituting ANOTHER government program. I’m saying that it is these very programs that are implemented that are designed to keep people poor – a classic progressive and Democratic strategy. Democrats want to keep people poor in order to promise them these great programs to help them escape poverty. This ensures these people will continue to vote for them.

Unfortunately, for the black Americans, they are the target of the "charity" of progressive Democrats. I know -- you don’t believe me. That’s why I prepared for this argument.

To help explain this belief, let me throw some statistics and research your way:

1. A 2008 estimate of the United States population from Census.gov puts us at over 304 million people. Of those 304 million, white persons who are not hispanic accounted for 65.6% (199 million), 12.8% (39 million) are black, and 15.4% (47 million) are of hispanic or latino origin.

2. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "One in three food stamp households is headed by an African American. More than a third of food stamp benefits — over $10 billion per year — are issued to African-Americans." Furthermore, "Nearly 9 million African Americans receive food stamps each month. This represents a quarter of the African American population."

3. In its 2008 Annual Report to the U.S. Congress, the Health and Human Services Department (HHS) cited Indicators of Welfare Dependence. In its review, HHS found that "Among racial and ethnic groups, Non-Hispanic Blacks were more likely to be welfare dependent (10.2 percent) than were Non-Hispanic Whites (2.2 percent) or Hispanics of any race (5.7 percent)." Furthermore, "Among age categories, children from birth to 5 years of age were more likely to live in families that were welfare dependent than were children of other age categories." And finally, "Among family types, persons living in female-headed families were more likely to be welfare dependent than those in other family categories."

4. This leads me to an article published in the American Sociological Review by Steven Ruggles, Professor of History and Population Studies at the University of Minnesota and the Director of the Minnesota Population Center. The article, titled "The Origins of the African-American Family Structure," explains that "From 1880 to 1960, black children were two to three times more likely to reside without one or both parents than were white children." (Note: If you're having trouble reading the Ruggles article, try saving it to your desktop first).

5. From there, Ruggles builds the case toward how the living arrangements of children should be the focal point when considering the differences between blacks and whites in family structure. In his research, Ruggles found that in 1880, 70% of black children lived in households with both parents compared to 87% for white children. In 1980, however, we saw that same number decrease to only 47% for blacks. The same number stayed roughly the same at 84% for whites.

6. When taking into account households with a single parent, 13% of black children lived in households with their mother only in 1880. That number in 1980 for blacks -- 37%, while only 11.7% for white children. These statistics offered by Ruggles cite that single parent households are a fundamental factor when considering differences in the households of children. The numbers speak for themselves and provide a historical perspective.

7. Per the May 23, 2001 Heritage Foundation article titled "Understanding Differences in Black and White Child Poverty Rates," by Robert Rector, Kirk A. Johnson, and Patrick F. Fagan, "In 1999, according to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, 33.1 percent of black children lived in poverty compared with 13.5 percent of white children."

8. Reasons for this vast difference are similar to what Ruggles explains above, including the fact that "Black American children are more likely to live in poverty than are white children, primarily because black children are far more likely to live in single-parent families and to be on welfare." Also, "Black and white Americans differ dramatically in marriage patterns and welfare dependence. In 1999, 68.8 percent of black American children were born out of wedlock. By contrast, the out-of-wedlock birth rate for white Americans was 26.7 percent. Similarly, black children were five times more likely to be dependent on welfare from the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program than white children. Since single parenthood and welfare dependence are the primary factors producing child poverty in the United States, any meaningful strategy to reduce the disparities in black and white child poverty must focus on increasing marriage and reducing welfare dependence among blacks."

9. According to a June 5, 1996 article by Robert E. Rector and Patrick F. Fagan of the Heritage Foundation, titled "How Welfare Harms Kids," welfare actually "has ended up damaging and abusing the very children it was intended to save. The welfare system has failed because the ideas upon which it was founded are flawed. The current system is based on the assumption that higher welfare benefits and expanded welfare eligibility are good for children. According to this theory, welfare reduces poverty, and so will increase children's lifetime well-being and attainment. This is untrue. Higher welfare payments do not help children; they increase dependence and illegitimacy, which have a devastating effect on children's development."

10. The article goes on to explain that: "It is welfare dependence, not poverty, that has the most negative effect on children. Recent research by Congressional Budget Office Director June O'Neill shows that increasing the length of time a child spends on welfare may reduce the child's IQ by as much as 20 percent. Welfare dependency as a child has a negative effect on the earnings and employment capacity of young men. The more welfare income received by a boy's family during his childhood, the lower the boy's earnings will be as an adult, even when compared to boys in families with identical non-welfare income."

11. Also according to the article: "Welfare also plays a powerful role in promoting illegitimacy. Research by CBO Director O'Neill also shows, for example, that a 50 percent increase in monthly [Aid to Families with Dependent Children] AFDC and food stamp benefit levels will cause a 43 percent increase in the number of illegitimate births within a state. Illegitimacy, in turn, has an enormous negative effect on children's development and on their behavior as adults. Being born outside of marriage and raised in single parent homes: (1) Triples the level of behavioral and emotional problems among children; (2) Nearly triples the level of teen sexual activity; (3) Doubles the probability a young woman will have children out of wedlock; and, (4) Doubles the probability a boy will become a threat to society, engage in criminal activity, and wind up in jail."

Did you get all that?

To summarize the points above, the reason the welfare rolls primarily include blacks comes down to one basic element -- the government's distruction of the black culture. The combination of the black culture (mainly the single mother household and welfare dependence) coupled with the government's need to keep black people in poverty provides the perfect formula for continual dependence. We do not need more welfare. That is what Bauer was trying to say in a not-so-subtle way.

We need to remember who we are, America. We need to remember that we employ the government -- they work for us. We need to remember that it is not up to our neighbor or the government to provide for us. That burden rests solely on the person who looks back at you in the mirror.

We also need to remember that, overall, America is a generous nation. According to Giving USA, "U.S. charitable giving [was] estimated to be $307.65 billion in 2008. Giving in [the] worst economic climate since [the] Great Depression [exceeded] $300 billion for [the] second year in a row." And let's not forget the millions given by individual citizens and corporations in light of the earthquake in Haiti.

America doesn't need its government to take care of the people -- the people can do the job quite well when given the opportunity.

The government just needs to get out of their way.

(Photo: Google)

Our Rights As Americans (Part III): The Right to Peaceably Assemble

noreply@blogger.com (The Refounding Father) — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 20:13:00 +0000

My Fellow Americans,

Given the state of the current political climate, and the fact that President Obama needed to remind us once again how he wants to ram health care and cap and trade down our throats, I feel one of our most important rights as citizens of the United States is the right to peaceably assemble.

I want to explain to you today why this right is necessary as part of The Refounding Father's series on "Our Rights As Americans."

The year 2009 alone was a great example of why this First Amendments right is critical to the fabric of this country. Tea Party activists (photo: Google) gathered together all over this country -- even on Capitol Hill -- to protest a government takeover of our health care system, the stimulus package, and other unfavorable policies put in place by the Obama administration. No matter what the mainstream media will have you believe, overall, these marches and protests were carried out peacefully and with little to no violence.

According to David L. Hudson, Jr., research attorney at the First Amendment Center, the "freedom of assembly has protected individuals espousing myriad viewpoints" throughout our history. Hudson continues by saying, "Striking workers, civil rights advocates, anti-war demonstrators and Ku Klux Klan marchers have all taken to the streets and sidewalks in protest or in support of their causes. Sometimes these efforts have galvanized public support or changed public perceptions. Imagine a civil rights movement without the March on Washington or the women's suffrage movement without ranks of long-skirted, placard-carrying suffragists filling city streets."

As you can see by Mr. Hudson's explanation, the beauty of the right to peaceably assemble is that everybody's "assembly" is protected. While most people who would object to having a KKK rally going on as they walk by, Hudson says that, "First Amendment freedoms ring hollow if government officials can repress expression that they fear will create a disturbance or offend. Unless there is real danger of imminent harm, assembly rights must be respected." So, despite the distasteful nature of such gatherings by hate groups, those types of rallies are included in this right -- as they should be.

Now, for those of you who may not understand this right or disagree with it, let's see what the alternative would look like. And, yes, I will be going a bit extreme on this. Then again, if we were to go down the path of socialism or communism, this example may not be far off.

What do I mean? Well, do you remember Tiananmen Square? No?

Let me tell you what happened -- with help from Wikipedia of course: "The Tiananmen Square (photo: Wikipedia) protests of 1989...were a series of demonstrations in and near Tiananmen Square in Beijing in the [People's Republic of China] PRC beginning on [April 14, 1989]. Led mainly by students and intellectuals, the protests occurred in a year that saw the collapse of a number of communist governments around the world."

The protests were in response to the death of "pro-democracy and anti-corruption official, Hu Yaobang, whom protesters wanted to mourn. By the eve of Hu's funeral, 100,000 people had gathered at Tiananmen square...The demonstrations centered on Tiananmen Square, in Beijing, but large-scale protests also occurred in cities throughout China, including Shanghai, which remained peaceful throughout the protests."

According to Wikipedia, "The movement lasted seven weeks, from Hu's death on [April 15] until tanks cleared Tiananmen Square on [June 4]. In Beijing, the resulting military response to the protesters by the PRC government left many civilians and military personnel charged with clearing the square of the dead or severely injured[citation needed]. The number of deaths is not known, however, estimates include the initial Red Cross figure of roughly 3,000."

What was worse was that "[f]ollowing the conflict, the government conducted widespread arrests of protesters and their supporters, cracked down on other protests around China, banned the foreign press from the country and strictly controlled coverage of the events in the PRC press. Members of the Party who had publicly sympathized with the protesters were purged, with several high-ranking members placed under house arrest..."

The international community blasted the government of the PRC for using military force on the protesters -- and rightfully so. And to do such a thing -- to your OWN people no less -- is utterly despicable. This is exactly why I am glad the Founding Fathers had the foresight to include a right like this in our Constitution. I firmly believe it is something we should be thankful for -- not just because it's something so embedded in us that we don't have to think about it -- but also because we don't have to live in the 1989 version of the PRC.

Have you attended a Tea Party Rally yet? If not, you really should go. Most Conservatives or Republicans have never protested -- that's usually something left to the Democrats for reasons I won't get into. But, I attended rallies in Philadelphia on July 4, 2009 and in Washington, D.C. on September 12, 2009. Honestly, I don't think I've ever felt so empowered. The energy given off at these things -- especially the one in D.C. on 9/12 -- is just amazing. You really feel like you're a part of something. It makes you feel like -- although you may not feel like you matter individually -- together we were heard that day. All you have to do is look what happened in Massachusetts on Jan. 19 to understand the full impact of the Tea Party movement.

Now, that is the right to assemble in action. May we never stop valuing this right or forget its importance in the history of our great country.

God Bless the United States of America.

Are These Our Rights as Americans? You Decide — Part II

noreply@blogger.com (The Refounding Father) — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:20:00 +0000

My Fellow Americans,

I have included another article first posted on Blogcrtics.org:

Last week, I mentioned that, over the next several weeks, I will be posting about a right we have as citizens of the United States of America, per the Bill of Rights.

As I said before, I want to do a little experiment with you. I feel America has lost its way. I feel we have strayed from the value system that helped define this country at its inception. We have neglected the teachings of the Founding Fathers so much, in my opinion, that this country would be virtually unrecognizable to them.

What is sad is many of us have forgotten why America is so great. Our perception of reality has become so twisted that we do not even know what our basic rights are. The same rights that are “endowed by our Creator,” not granted to us by a government bureaucrat. We need to remember who we are, America.

With that, I want to continue with the First Amendment. Last time, we looked at the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause as it pertains to religion. Today, I want to focus on the freedom of speech and freedom of the press:

Right #2: Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.

Similar to how the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause are related to religion, freedom of speech and freedom of the press are linked together as well.

Of all the rights and liberties we are privileged to have as Americans, this one happens to be my favorite. It is also the one, I believe, to consistently be in danger of being repressed.

I believe freedom of speech is an important element of any society. Human beings have the need and the right to express themselves, whether verbally, in writing, in print, or over the Internet. The government in any country, not just the United States, should not be allowed to infringe upon this right.

Throughout history, we have seen leaders and dictators in other countries revoke their citizens’ rights to freedom of speech. In doing so, they only allowed those who agreed with the government to speak their mind and be heard. And if one were not in favor of the current administration and conveyed that publicly, chances are he or she would pay for it with his/her life.

Is it me, or do you get the feeling that the Obama administration wants to do away with your right to free speech? Well, maybe I won’t go that far just yet.

But, I will go that far with the freedom of the press.

Have you ever heard of the Fairness Doctrine? What about President Barack Obama’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) diversity czar, Mark Lloyd?

First, let’s start with the Fairness Doctrine. Introduced in 1949 by the FCC, the Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements to it. One, it required broadcasters to devote some air time to important matters that were of interest to the public. Secondly, it wanted to ensure that different points of view where acknowledged and heard about on a certain matter.

The Fairness Doctrine was revoked in 1985. Why? Because it was agreed that it violated the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech.

Enter FCC diversity czar Mark Lloyd. His love for Venezuelan Communist dictator Hugo Chavez and desire for white people in postions of power to step down for minorities aside, Lloyd wants to reinstate the fairness doctrine and then take it even further.

The target: conservative radio and television (a.k.a. FOX News). Also, the government wants to be able to control the Internet and monitor who is speaking out against the administration. If that sounds unconstitutional to you, that’s because it is.

This is why I believe freedom of speech and freedom of the press are so important. The government should not be allowed to control what you say or what you write. To do so is a violation of your rights, not just as a citizen of the United States, but as a human being.

Furthermore, it is essential that the government stay out of the press no matter what the means of communication may be. When the government gets involved, and this, right along with freedom of speech are revoked, you have Communist China. And when the government basically becomes the press, you have MSNBC. (Then again, having Jeffrey R. Immelt, chairman of General Electric (GE) and a member of Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, doesn’t help either. By the way, GE owns MSNBC).

With everything I have stated above, how important do you feel these rights are? Is it essential to have the ability to speak freely? What about freedom of the press? Is that essential? Why or why not?

I thank you for your comments. And as I said last week, these are your rights at the end of the day, America. It is up to us to make sure we remember that and do not let them be taken away.

And Now, It's Time For A Song...

noreply@blogger.com (The Refounding Father) — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 18:11:00 +0000

My Fellow Americans,

The victory for Scott Brown last night in Massachusetts calls for a celebration. I would like to share a song with you. To the tune of "American Pie" by Don McLean, here's Paul Shanklin's "The Day Obama Care Dies:"

A long, long time ago
I can still remember
Oh, the protests used to make me smile
Cause I knew we could ram it thru
Before they even had a clue
Then maybe they'll shut-up for a while
But the protests grew and made me shiver
Pelosi and Reid could not deliver
Now our push for health care has to wait
Til September [Spoken: or October or next year]
I can't remember if I cried
When I heard the why's and organized
But something told me deep inside
That day National Health Care died.

So I'd lied, lied at every townhall in sight
Drove my Chevy cross the country tryin' to put up a fight
The good ol' boys were standing right there outside
Sayin' this will be the day that it dies
This will be the day Obama Care dies

We were gonna run it all on our own
But Congressmen and Senators were gettin' stoned back home
That's not how it was supposed to be
We used to be treated like a king and queen
And the sweater she borrowed from LL Bean
And my horse could part the stormy, stormy seas
But now everytime I hit the stage
Bitter crowds appear in fits of rage
Somewhere down in hell
There my members dwell
I was blown away by Bob and Bart
And the redneck neighbors with their pickup truck
But I knew I was out of luck
The day that health care died

Even though I lied, lied at every townhall in sight
Drove my Chevy 'cross the country tryin' to put up a fight
The good ol' boys were standing right there outside
Sayin' this will be the day that it dies
This will be the day Obama Care dies
Even though I lied, lied at every townhall in sight
Drove my chevy 'cross the country tryin' to put up a fight
The good ol' boys were standing right there outside
Sayin' this will be the day that it dies
This will be the day Obama Care dies

[Spoken: Uh... Would you be interested in a health care co-op?]

'The People' Have Spoken: Brown's Victory Makes Tea Party Movement Legit

noreply@blogger.com (The Refounding Father) — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:52:00 +0000

My Fellow Americans,

What a difference a year makes.

A year ago, today, President Barack Obama was sworn in as the 44th President of the United States of America. Carrying him through his campaign was the buoyant motto: "hope and change." It's funny what that motto stands for in 2010 instead of 2009 -- or even 2008.

A year ago, today, the last thing on Obama's mind was losing the gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey -- two states that strongly supported Obama in the Presidential race -- let alone Scott Brown (nobody even knew about Mr. Brown). He was too busy having thoughts of health care reform, cap and tax, and sugar plums dancing in his head.

In his opinion, and in the opinion of many liberals both in the government and the media, Obama was untouchable. Nobody could possibly think ill of him or not support his goals for the country.

What a difference a year makes.

During his campaign, Obama promised not to raise taxes on those making $250,000 (well, health care will take care of that) and to allow for more transparency within his administration (health care took care of that one, too). Another lying politican is not change, Mr. President -- it's more of the same. And I don't know what you meant by "hope," but redistribution of wealth and bigger government are not things this country is (or ever was) hoping for.

There's a commerical often shown on the Fox News Channel for The Weekly Standard, a conservative magazine. In speaking of Obama, the commerical says: "He promises change. But, what kind of change? Are taxes going up? Is the economy heading down? As change blows through Washington..." It's the last part about "change [blowing] through Washington" that interests me. While it may not be true for Obama, it is certainly evident courtesy of the Tea Party movement.

The Tea Party movement has brought about the change -- real change. You don't believe me? Ask R. Creigh Deeds, Jon Corzine, and Martha Coakley. They will tell you.

Just a few weeks ago, nobody really cared about Scott Brown. To the Democrats and the Coakley campaign, the election in Massachusetts was a mere formality. Of course, Martha Coakley would win -- especially since it was the "Liberal Lion's" former seat.

But, it wasn't the late Ted Kennedy's seat -- according to Brown. It was the "People's Seat." And as people got to know Brown, they saw a guy who got it. Brown understands this country -- at least that's how he ran his campaign.

He understands what the people of America want -- real change. As we have found out -- and the Obama administration can't seem to grasp this -- you don't bring about change by just saying it over and over, then doing the same thing as your fellow politicans.

Obama, Coakley, and the Democrats miscalculated. They misjudged the voter sentiment in this country. I believe it will cost them. I believe what you are seeing today is something that will be talked about in the history books.

It's funny, the first American Revolution started in Massachusetts -- and if the Tea Partiers have anything to say about it -- it looks like a second one will have started in the Bay State as well.

A large part of the reason for a revolution back then was that the people were governed without representation. I don't see how that's any different from today. While politicans in D.C. say they have the best interest of the American people at heart, what they say couldn't be further from the truth. In my opinion, we have been governed without real representation for years.

And as Brown said in his victory speech last night, "You deserve better!"

With his election last night -- and the elections of Republican governors in VA and NJ -- the Tea Party movement is legitimized. A second American Revolution is upon us. We The People are making it happen and will continue to do so. Finally, real 'hope and change' can be sought -- by our actions -- not just a good political orator's words.

What a difference a year makes.

Bring on November.

- The Refounding Father

PS: This one's for you, Mary Jo!

(photos: Google)

Scott Brown Wins!

noreply@blogger.com (The Refounding Father) — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 02:32:00 +0000

My Fellow Americans,

The threat posed to the country by Obamacare is on hold -- for now. The Associated Press has projected that Scott Brown (photo: Yahoo!) won the special election for the Massachusetts Senate seat.

I will have more on this tomorrow.

For now, Congratulations Scott -- and Congratulations to you too, America. This is a very important win for Conservatives. Look for an even bigger win in Nov. 2010.

Watch for the nuclear option in the health care legislation -- look out.

Brown and Coakley to speak in a little bit.

More tomorrow...

PS: I love watching Wolf Blitzer on CNN say that Scott Brown won!

The Results of the Special Election in Mass. Are Coming In...

noreply@blogger.com (The Refounding Father) — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 01:30:00 +0000

My Fellow Americans,

Follow live updates from The Refounding Father on Facebook and Twitter.

Here's to a victory for Scott Brown!

- The Refounding Father

Hey Massachusetts, Do The Right Thing!

noreply@blogger.com (The Refounding Father) — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 14:46:00 +0000

My Fellow Americans,

Less than twelve hours from now, we will know the outcome of the Massachusetts Senate seat vote. We will know if Obama's legislation will become an inevitability -- or be added to the already long list of failed campaign promises. We will know if groups like ACORN stole the election from Scott Brown (photo: Google) -- another strong possibility -- since the Democrats tend not to play fair.

Less than twelve hours from now -- we will know the direction in which this country is headed.

For the next few hours, we wait. For the next few hours, we sit glued to our televisions and constantly refresh our news websites. For the next few hours, we think to ourselves: "Will our fellow Americans in Massachusetts," as Robert Frost once wrote in the poem "The Road Not Taken, "take the road less traveled by?"

Provided those that believe in Tea Party principles show up and ACORN runs out of graveyard votes, we should see the late Ted Kennedy's seat -- or should I say the People's seat -- go to a Republican for the first time since 1972.

On yet another election day, I want to share yet another quote with you. This one comes from the American economist, social commentator, and author Thomas Sowell (source: Wikipedia):

"If you have been voting for politicians who promise to give you goodies at someone else's expense, then you have no right to complain when they take your money and give it to someone else, including themselves."

This is one the voters in Massachusetts need to hear -- because it will matter in the weeks to come.

Brown has said he will be the 41st vote opposing Obama's health care plan. Brown will save taxpayers money by voting against the massive health care overhaul. That is why he has been so heavily favored over the last few weeks.

Martha Coakley, on the other hand, will vote right in line with her fellow Democrats -- and health care will basically be a done deal.

We know all this. I don't need to tell you what is on the line here.

The message I wanted to convey with Sowell's quote was this: we get what we vote for. We have learned a tough lesson with President Barack Obama -- especially those who voted for him in Nov. 2008. He was not what they thought they were getting when they voted for him. I guess you could call it a case of "Voter's Remorse."

Massachusetts, don't make the same mistake. You have an opportunity here to help make right a terrible wrong -- and vote for Scott Brown. The health care legislation will "fundamentally transform the United States of America" -- just as the President wants to do.

If you do go with Coakley, though, don't complain if she helps go after your wallet. Don't complain when -- not if -- she "take[s] your money and give[s] it to someone else." Don't complain when she helps move this country toward socialism.

Massachusetts, don't vote for somebody who doesn't even know who Curt Schilling is -- vote Scott Brown!

Conservative Victory 2010!

The Refounding Father Pays Tribute To Martin Luther King, Jr.

noreply@blogger.com (The Refounding Father) — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 20:36:00 +0000

My Fellow Americans,

When it comes to the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. (photo: Google), it's hard to put into words what he meant to -- not just African-Americans -- but to the entire country...the entire world even. People as great as MLK don't come along very often -- maybe once in a generation. On this MLK day, The Refounding Father pays tribute to a man who continues to mean so much to so many.

I want to share a quote with you today from King that I believe helps sum up the political climate in the USA these days:

“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”

From the pending health care legislation to the special vote for the Massachusetts Senate seat, we are witnessing history unfold in this country. We see the news at night on television and it feels as if our rights are hanging in the balance. The Obama administration continues to push the envelope -- attempting to infringe upon our rights as Americans.

Since April 2009, we have seen how the Tea Party Movement has swept through this country. We see people who generally wouldn't protest -- now they're out protesting a tax hike. We see others speaking out against our "leaders" -- for the first time in their lives.

We see people standing up -- and not being silent -- about things that matter. In many ways, what Rev. King stood up for is the same as what the Tea Party participants are standing up for -- our rights. As Americans, our rights are fundamental. They are necessary in achieving the "American dream."

As Rev. King knew well, our rights go hand in hand with our dignity as human beings. Without our rights, what are we? We become like animals. We become nothing. Without rights, there is no respect.

This is why we have a day set aside to honor a great man like Martin Luther King, Jr. This is why we remember July 4th every year.

And make no mistake -- it will be precisely the same reason why people will remember the Tea Party movement for years to come.

Thank you, Rev. King, for teaching us to speak without fear.

Are These Our Rights As Americans? You Decide (Part I)

noreply@blogger.com (The Refounding Father) — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 17:11:00 +0000

My Fellow Americans,

I want to share with you another article that I first published on BlogCritics.org:

I want to do a little experiment with you. I feel America has lost its way. I feel we have strayed from the value system that helped define this country at its inception. We have neglected the teachings of the Founding Fathers so much, in my opinion, that this country would be virtually unrecognizable to them.

To that end, would you recognize the country as it is today back in November or December of 2008? Because I know I sure would not. This is not the America I know and love. And if the Tea Party movement that has swept through the country since April 2009 is any indication, many of you out there would agree with me.

President Barack Obama and his administration can keep their “change.” America does not need change. We need to return to our roots. We need to return to the principles that made this country a beacon of light for so many people. Our ancestors came here for a reason — to escape persecution and be free.

What is sad is many of us have forgotten why America is so great. Our perception of reality has become so twisted that we do not even know what our basic rights are. The same rights that are “endowed by our Creator,” not granted to us by a government bureaucrat.

We need to remember who we are, America. That is why over the next several weeks I want to talk to you about your rights. I want to remind you of the rights recognized by The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments of the Constitution. Each week, I will post about one right and state my case for that right. Then, I will get out of your way. I want you to tell us why or why not you believe that right is essential.

I believe this exercise will be enlightening. It will allow for an exchange of rational ideas and rational debate. It should also tell us how far off course we are from the early days of this country and what the Founders intended – and how we can get back there once again. My hope is we can get to a general consensus one way or the other.

Right #1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

I combined the “Establishment Clause” and the “Free Exercise Clause” because they are so closely related.

I have to agree with this one. I believe it is essential for the government not to endorse or promote one religion over another. I also agree that people should have the right to practice any religion of their choice. In my opinion, both are vital aspects of a free nation.

However, I have often struggled with the Establishment Clause. It is not that I am retracting my earlier statement, it is just I am a bit biased because I am Christian. I don’t like the fact that the Ten Commandments have been removed from court houses or that prayers are prohibited in public schools.

What I have come to realize is that the Ten Commandments are not necessarily just a set of rules from one religion’s God, but a fundamental value system for life. When you read the Commandments, are there not at least seven of them you should live by? Leave out the ones about God and the Sabbath. What about “thou shall not kill” or “thou shall not steal?” Can’t we agree that maybe the criminals in the court house about to be sentenced for first-degree murder or grand theft auto could have used those rules?

As for prayer, I think anybody that wants to join in a morning prayer should be able to do so. Don’t take it out because of political correctness. Just allow each student to pray to their religion’s God. There should be time set aside for it.

At the end of the day, people should be allowed to have their own spiritual [experiences] — without any government interference. The government should not be involved in something that personal. The only reason to do so would be to control you.

Now, I want to know what you think. I have stated my case. I am in favor of this right and believe it is essential.

Do you think this right is important? Would you consider it an essential right? Why or why not?

These are your rights at the end of the day, America. It is up to us to make sure we remember that and do not let them be taken away.

White House Urging Americans To Donate To Haiti Relief Effort -- Via E-mail: Do You Trust It?

noreply@blogger.com (The Refounding Father) — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 16:45:00 +0000

My Fellow Americans,

I want to share with you something today that a reader brought to my attention. Apparently, the Obama White House feels it's necessary to send American citizens emails to encourage them to donate to the Haiti Relief effort.

That's fine. I fully support helping those in need. It's having and using email addresses of citizens I do not like.

To me, there's something wrong with the White House sending emails out like the one I received from a reader. While the gentleman who sent this to me pointed out he felt it was rather "self-serving" of the President, I also believe it builds on what we saw with the "Cash for Clunkers" program last summer (more on that later).

Let me show you the text of the email the reader received:

From: President Barack Obama [mailto:info@barackobama.com]

Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 3:04 PM

Subject: Help for Haiti

[Reader's Name Omitted] --

On Tuesday, a catastrophic earthquake struck near Port-au-Prince, Haiti. The full extent of the damage is still being assessed, but the death toll -- already in the thousands -- is climbing fast.

This is the worst earthquake to hit the area in more than 200 years. Entire communities have been ripped apart and as many as 3 million people have been directly affected, including tens of thousands of American citizens who are in Haiti.

Our neighbors in Haiti are racing to confront the enormous devastation -- and the OFA community can help.

Click here for more information about essential relief efforts and ways you can help today.

Footage is pouring in of homes collapsing, Haitians carrying injured family members, and hospitals being overrun in what was already the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere.

I have directed my administration to respond with a swift, coordinated, and aggressive effort to save lives. Personnel from the United States and our partners in the international community are on the ground in damaged areas right now, working side by side with the Haitian people. They're providing much-needed food, water, and sanitation supplies, saving lives and helping local communities start to rebuild.

Despite the fact that we are experiencing tough times here at home, I encourage those who can to reach out and help. It's in times like these that we must show the kind of compassion and humanity that has defined the best of our national character for generations.

Click here to find out what you can do:

http://my.barackobama.com/Haiti

As this story continues to unfold, I hope you will continue to keep the people of Haiti in your thoughts and prayers, as well as the many Haitian-Americans who have done so much to enrich our country and who are worried about friends and loved ones in this time of need.

Thank you,

President Barack Obama

--END TRANSCRIPT--

The links in the email take you directly to the WhiteHouse.gov website. Also, let me point out what appeared at the very bottom of the e-mail in a text box: "Paid for by Organizing for America, a project of the Democratic National Committee -- 430 South Capitol Street SE, Washington, D.C. 20003. This communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee."

That's very interesting. This is the group Obama's campaign arm became after he was elected. Obama for America became Organizing for America (get it, he was a community organizer). I just think it's great that now we're community organizing -- on a global scale, don't you?

Getting back to what I was saying about "Cash for Clunkers" and how it relates to this email campaign by the website, I want to point out something that came out over the summer. If you recall, Glenn Beck revealed on his show what a warning box on the "Cash for Clunkers" program's website read: "This application provides to the DoT CARS system. When logged on to the CARS system, your computer is considered a federal computer system and it is property of the United States government. Any and all uses of this system and all files on this system may be intercepted, monitored, recorded, copied, audited, inspected, and disclosed to authorized CARS, DoT and law enforcement personnel, as well as authorized officials of other agencies, both domestic and foreign" (source: BusinessandMedia.org). I don't know about you, but to me, that's pretty scary stuff.

As you can imagine, I would think someone who got that email from the White House asking for donations would be a tad bit skeptical. What's to stop the government from tracking you...from tracking what you donate? What's to stop the government from using some of the money to pay for health care? What's to stop them from tapping into your personal information?

On top of that, you have Rush Limbaugh getting slammed for his comments about the Haiti relief effort. Like always, his comments were completely taken out of context by the Democrats and liberal media. If you read the comments posted on this site, one rational person came to the conclusion that Limbaugh meant he didn't trust donating to the WhiteHouse.gov site. He wasn't saying we shouldn't donate.

And another thing, the money that is being donated by the U.S. government -- is a majority of it not TAXPAYER money? I would think so. Where else would they be getting the money? So, technically, yeah, Americans have already donated in a sense -- even before the earthquake occurred. Get off Rush's back!

I bring this up because I think people need to be told the truth. Sometimes watching and listening to certain news outlets -- we often don't get the whole picture. I do believe the American people are generous. I believe there are those in our government that care. I believe that even the President himself cares.

But, as White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel once said, "Never let a serious crisis go to waste."

And don't think for a second that the Obama administration, even in the most minute way, would not use the crisis in Haiti to their advantage.