Archive for the ‘The Revolution’ category

My Proposal to the Teaparty Movement: A "Salt March"

July 14, 2009

The original Salt March was the nonviolent movement of Gandhi and his followers across India to protest a salt tax. It drew attention to the Indian Independence movement from media across the globe.

Currently, the teaparty movement has been relatively small and overly ignored. It is primarily a conservative protest against the government economic expansion earlier this year. The July 4th teaparties were primarily uniting opposition against potential tyranny that has been proposed by Congress.

If significant political unrest occurs, it will become possible for this Teaparty movement to organize a nonviolent “Salt March”. Such a march would begin at multiple urban areas across the nation and then proceed as these groups march to the capital. Of course, as these groups get closer to the capital, they’d merge. Such a march would attract significant media attention that the Teaparty movement badly needs and will climax in a Washington with a crowd possibly larger than that of the Civil Rights March on Washington in the 1960s.

However, nothing has really happened to create significant unrest in a while. Cap and Trade hasn’t passed yet, and Universal Healthcare hasn’t passed either. Still, several events may cause such unrest:

  • The banning of handguns

While the Obama Administration has shown no sign of actually banning firearms, such an act, or even such a proposal will allow for the organization of a Salt March.

  • Cap and Trade

If Cap and Trade increases prices enough, then as with the original Boston Teaparty and the orginal Salt March, individuals would be more willing to protest. Seeing as how nuclear energy is currently the only major alternative to fossil fuels, Cap and Trade will certainly have a massive effect on energy prices and will possibly cause prices to increase to a level that people are willing to protest against.

  • Universal Healthcare

While this may just get passed and be ignoredby the apathetic majority, it may cause significant backlash. Many Americans are rather afraid of National Healthcare, and it could be that such a thing could unite the conservative-libertarian movement enough for a Salt March to be possible.

There are probably other events that could make a Salt March an event with an impressive attendence, but this is clear: people will not get off of their butts unless they realize that they are sitting on a thorn.

“Nationalized Education”: The Next Battlefield?

July 13, 2009

If the government’s push to nationalize health care is successful, Congress and the administration will soon turn to one of their other stated priorities: education.

by Michael Naragon

Although–or, perhaps, because–liberalism has dominated public education since the 1960s, test results and competency in general continue to decline, much to the stated chagrin of officials in the school system and local, state, and federal governments.  Barack Obama has made reforming the education system in America one of his highest priorities.

“[Education reform] will require a willingness to break free from the same debates that Washington has been engaged in for decades – Democrat versus Republican; vouchers versus the status quo; more money versus more accountability,” Obama has said.  “And most of all, it will take a president who is honest about the challenges we face – who doesn’t just tell everyone what they want to hear, but what they need to hear.”

For sake of argument, what if the administration approached education in the same way they have approached health care?

The president has used very dire rhetoric in describing the health care “crisis,” even going so far as to claim that health care expenses are the primary cause of the current economic catastrophe/recession/depression/slowdown.  To solve this problem, the government would, if the bill is passed, introduce “competition” to the marketplace.  Private health insurance companies would have much stricter regulation, and any private insurance benefits given by employers would be eligible to be taxed as income.  The government’s plan, therefore, would become increasingly attractive.

It is easy to picture the president making the same arguments about education.  Indeed, on the president’s web site, he has already made similar statements.

“At this defining moment in our history, preparing our children to compete in the global economy is one of the most urgent challenges we face,” reads Obama’s statement on education.  “We need to stop paying lip service to public education, and start holding communities, administrators, teachers, parents and students accountable. We will prepare the next generation for success in college and the workforce, ensuring that American children lead the world once again in creativity and achievement.”  Throw in the word “crisis” or “catastrophe” somewhere, and it begins to sound very much like the stimulus, cap-and-trade, and health care debates.

How might the administration go about meeting such challenges?  By “telling [Americans] what they need to hear,” Obama could propose a federal takeover of state school systems.  Many states, like California, are already running far into the red, and education costs more than nearly every other social program provided by the state.  In some Southern states, the cost of busing alone makes up more than half of all educational expense.  A federal offer to take up such expense, or to more completely assist with such expense, would be attractive to many of the states.  States that refused to comply could be threatened with sanctions or withholding of other federal benefits.

Such action would then put the nation’s public school systems more completely under federal control.  The government’s focus would then be to eliminate the competition.  Homeschooling would be effectively curtailed by requiring homeschooling parents to possess a teaching license, master’s degree in education, or both.  A few families would commit to jumping through the hoops, but, as any educator knows, state certification boards can be very friendly or very obstructive places.  Homeschooling parents would undoubtedly encounter the latter.

Private schools would then be the target.  The government could attack them in the same way they will attack private insurance: by forcing them to provide all services provided by public schools, and to do so without raising tuition to compensate.  Private schools could be forced to take in any student, regardless of behavioral background, ability, transcript, learning disability, or physical challenge.  Washington would not be so crass as to issue an edict closing the doors of every private school (except, of course, for the ones attended by children of government officials).  They would, in the name of “competition,” ensure that most private schools could not compete.

Government schools, with their taxpayer-supplied budgets, purchase new textbooks every year, in most cases.  Private schools, particularly religious-based schools, rarely do this in order to save money, opting instead to purchase new books every few years.  Those schools could now be forced to purchase new books at the same frequency as the public schools without raising tuition.

Many employees of private schools work there in order to obtain a discount for their children to attend that school.  The Internal Revenue Service could easily begin to look at the tuition discount as taxable income, in much the same way that insurance benefits will be counted as taxable income to help pay for the president’s health care plan.  The difference in taxable income would be enough to force many employees–and their students–from the private schools and into the government network, thereby strengthening the budgets of the public schools.

Obama’s commitment has been squarely behind the public schools and the teachers’ unions that populate them.  “We need to invest in our public schools and strengthen them, not drain their fiscal support,” he has said. “In the end, vouchers would reduce the options available to children in need. I fear these children would truly be left behind in a private market system.”  He has failed to explain what was served by his comrades in Congress allowing the voucher system in the District of Columbia to expire, effectively removing low-income students from the private school attended by the Obama children, even though the low-income students had the ability and desire–but not the income–to attend that school.

In the end, this is, of course, an exercise in speculation, but the parallels exist.  One of the greatest battlefields for the hearts and minds of America has taken place in the schools, and it has been overwhelmingly won by the liberal establishment thus far.  By nationalizing education and removing the last bastions of free thought and achievement from the system, the battle will have been effectively ended.

If Obama’s New Czar Has His Way, This Could Be My Last Post…

July 13, 2009

In a move destined to garner less attention than cap-and-trade or health care, Barack Obama’s choice for the position of Information Czar could have drastic implications for the conservative blogosphere.

by Michael Naragon

Cass Sunstein, a Harvard law professor and friend to the national Messiah, has been tapped to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.  The Wall Street Journal has reported that Sunstein was one of the major influences on a young Obama’s attitudes on government regulation and economics, a scary proposition considering the degree to which the Obama administration is attempting to pull us toward Soviet-style communism.

According to the Journal, many of those familiar with Sunstein’s work and philosophy have said that his fingerprints are obvious in many of the administration’s policies, including credit card reform and the push for climate change legislation, the now-infamous cap-and-trade debacle.

But it is Sunstein’s ideas about the First Amendment that make him dangerous to free thought and free exchange of ideas.  In Sunstein’s last published book, Nudge, he advises that the role of government should be to “nudge” people into being better human beings, an apparent contradiction to the accepted idea that morality cannot be legislated.

Now, Kyle Smith of the New York Post reported Sunday, the release of Sunstein’s next publication, On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done, is imminent.  The Harvard professor’s new book gives us the blueprint for his agenda as Information Overlord in the White House, and it shows why his appointment will potentially be more critical to free speech and the Constitution than the possible confirmation of Judge Sonya Sotomayor, whose Senate hearing is scheduled to begin Monday.

In his new book, according to the Post article, Sunstein warns against the dangers of social networking sites and the “false information” that can be spread quickly and efficiently through their use.  Some of the ways he has suggested to clean up the rabble–which includes bloggers and those who comment on blogs–have been to relax the standard by which libel can be proved and to create a system through which the federal government will strong-arm and fine those bloggers that post information deemed to be “false rumors” by the Obama administration.

So, let’s say, you have written a nice blog on Obama’s newest attempt at nationalizing health care.  The president has claimed that the government has no interest in taking over the health care industry, but in your blog you illustrate the logical progression of the program, from “competitive” government option to “monolithic” government mandate.

If Sunstein had his way, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs–or some other federal branch under the guidance of his department–would send you a letter asking you to remove your post because it contained “rumor.”  If you do, the administration is happy, the First Amendment is trampled, and you’ve learned your lesson to never again write anything harmful about Sunstein’s friend.  If you don’t, the federal government could then force you to fight them in court to the tune of thousands of dollars.

Most bloggers would have no financial possibility of fighting such legal action against the taxpayer-funded federal government.  Faced with such pressure, a blogger would, naturally, take down their post rather than destroy their own financial future.  And the First Amendment would still become a worthless paragraph in the annals of American history.  It would only take one or two examples to silence the entire blogosphere, turning it into a place where you can only learn about Aunt Kathy’s twins or Jimmy’s Great Dane, while Congress and the executive branch, insulated from legitimate criticism, can pass their anti-American, anti-taxpayer laws.

Post writer Smith suggests a war be waged on Sunstein by the news organizations and blogosphere before Obama’s comrade can launch his own assault.  If such a war to preserve the First Amendment is unsuccessful, how long will it be before we are hiding in our basements, huddled around short-wave radios, listening to broadcasts of Radio Free America while party officials like Sunstein and Janet Napolitano concern themselves with rooting out the dissidents?

“Atlas Shrugged”

April 15, 2009

I attended a local teaparty, one of apparently thousands across the United States. The newspaper estimated that 500 people would attend our protest; 5,000 people attended.

The atmosphere was wonderful. People were all around me, all frustrated at the continuous growth of government and the direct and indirect taxation of our people. They were frustrated at the growth of the public debt.

Kevin Brady, our congressman, spoke at our teaparty. He spoke of lowering taxes and of limited government. Ironically, he had voted for TARP. Many of us were yelling at him, “Why’d you vote for TARP?”, or “Why’d you vote for the bailouts?” Justice was served, and our voice was heard.

As this ripples throughout the country, we shall see what effect this will have in the long run. Many networks have given this protest little or no radio time, even though it is the largest single-day protest in the history of the United States.

This was a necessary step in the direction of revolution.

"Atlas Shrugged"

April 15, 2009

I attended a local teaparty, one of apparently thousands across the United States. The newspaper estimated that 500 people would attend our protest; 5,000 people attended.

The atmosphere was wonderful. People all around me, all frustrated at the continuous growth of government and the direct and indirect taxation of our people. They were frustrated at the growth of the public debt. They were frustrated with government waste.

Kevin Brady, our congressman, spoke at our teaparty. He told us  of the greatness of lowering taxes and of limited government. Ironically, he had voted for TARP last year. Many of us were yelling at him, “Why’d you vote for TARP?”, or “Why’d you vote for the bailouts?” Justice was served, and our voice was heard.

As this ripples throughout the country, we shall see what effect this will have in the long run. Many networks have given this protest little or no time, even though it is the largest single-day protest in the history of the United States. CNN and MSNBC in particular have shown bias with their apathy towards these protests. FNC, on the other hand, had featured this nationwide protest.

TOverall, the teaparties were a necessary step in the direction of revolution, or atleast the change we need.

Ending Spending Rather Than Endorsing Failure

March 20, 2009

Even though we aren’t in any position to do this, I propose that the government end all subsidies and corporate welfare.

Essentially, these government expenditures are bailing out failing companies on a daily basis. Companies that can not survive on their own are not producing wealth. Instead, they are sucking it from the successful corporations.

By bailing out companies everyday, with subsidies and corporate welfare, progress is slowed and wealth is given away. It is not government’s responsibility to redistribute wealth among companies.

By letting these companies fail, we are opening the market up for companies that can really produce wealth. Instead, like carcasses, companies take up market space and do not produce.

By subsidizing failure, we get more failure.

A Call to Revolution

February 11, 2009

The last revolution happened over two hundred years ago. A government was set up with a weak central government that recieved all of its income from tariffs. There was no income tax. There were no regulations.

Throughout the years since then, our nation has expanded the purpose of government, indebted us privately and publicly, and instituted regulations on the liberty of our citizens.

Year after year, we have put up with this, but no longer. Thomas Jefferson once said, “Every generation needs a new revolution.” It is time to live up to this. A Conservative-Libertarian Revolution is eminant if we are to regain the liberties gradually transferred to false cases of safety, the environment, and “rights”, which are uneccessary and interfering with our unalienable rights.

A strong capitalist nation is built on liberty: the ability to start a business, run a business, work, produce, and earn money as you wish. Our society must value private property and self-responsibility.

Many will oppose this movement, see it as radical and stubbornly dismiss it without consideration; however it is necessary to end tyrrany. This revolution will be armed if necessary. This revolution will abolish our current government and replace it with a new and righteous one.

The time is now. We cannot wait two or four years. Both parties are primarily liberal or progressive. It is these very forces that have brought us to this point. They are in power. To allow government to take its course would not be responsible.

It is for our sake and posterity’s sake that we take action.

Locally, we must vote in both primary and general elections. We must research candidates and pull our friends and family to vote for liberty and against tyrrany. Further, we must mail our congressmen and senators to represent us in the way that they vote.

If we cannot fix our country by election, then we will fix it by force. The will of the majority is not always what’s best for the whole.

We will stand together and grow in power. I will keep you updated.