No matter who you are voting for there are clear choices – what you ask the Government to do for you will empower it to do to others, allow it to grow in scope and intrusion.

You may not believe the Country is headed in that direction, but here is why it simply is:
1. Trust in a “Fair”, “Objective” Government enforcing “Equality” & “Justice”:
- “a new standard of openness”, “A culture of open government”, Czars
2. Economical “Equivalence”
“spread the wealth around”, “pay their fair share”
3. Classism, Class struggle:
“Millionaires and Billionaires”, “Middle-class”, “the Poor”
4. Socialization of Business, Banking, Healthcare, etc.

It is quite possible that Socialism in one form of another is the inevitable point of equilibrium for a people.

The DSA has a statement on Democratic Socialism that will ring a very familiar bell with current campaign slogans. Take a look, see how organizations like this and the NPC view the US’ political track.

I tend to think that Malcolm Hamilton and others were right, that you can move to Socialism without a revolution.

Visit the Democratic Socialists of America site and read their mission statement on the top of the page. Read the “National Political Committee of Democratic Socialists of America” on the DSA strategy for this election and beyond. Or they can simply objectively look at the US’ founding principles, the “land of the free” and compare what the Government – no longer a limited Government – has become.

The Constitution and Declaration of Independence were written on a precious few pages. Today with 60,000 pages of tax regs and 2300 pages of “Health Care” creating over 140 new organizations somewhere both the States (and the powers not granted the Federal Government) and the People get buried. Frankly you cannot expand the scope and reach of Government into every facet of life, expect it do things for you (and to others) and not call it for what it is.

The nice thing about Socialism is that you don’t need to believe – it can very easily exist around you, without your involvement. It’s a framework, a set of rules, a number of goals and requirements.
Like any other system there are some fundamental tenants that are universal. Some view it as just a label and therefore ignore the fact that it doesn’t matter whether they believe they are truly socialist or not but that they live in an increasingly socialistic environment.

Great Britain has social medicine a strong central government core and very strong controls on speech, press and other freedoms. The Labour Party is socialist and is affiliated with a number of European and international socialist groups. In the US “progressivism” has grown out of social liberalism into Social Democracy and is increasingly Government-centric in both economic and social goals and objectives.

There are few “pure” versions of any socioeconomic system but given Government expansion and a hostility towards “The Rich”, “Big Business” and free market forces would you say we are moving increasingly towards capitalism?

As Government grows in size, scope and power and The People cede more power to it their rights, liberties and freedoms are subverted and the will of the Government – generally “For the Greater Good”. Once a Government is able to ‘feed’ itself, stand on its own it exerts more control, people are less of a factor. People may say they are not Socialistic but their actions would contradict that, intentionally or not. One way is by who they vote for.

“The great society”, very socialistic. What Social Security has morphed into, the Affordable Care Act and resulting – perhaps unintended – Supreme Court ruling and creation of a ‘breathing’ tax is very Socialistic. The current administration favors Governmental solutions and control, that in of itself is Socialistic.

If you want to measure the direction of the country towards Socialism of some type review the goals and analysis of the Socialists – we are moving in the ‘correct’ direction but more work needs to be done to counter the ‘Right’ .

Personally I think it is a great shame as the founders fought against such Federalism but also realized that as a grand experiment it might fail. Perhaps we are in the unique position to be witnessing some part of that.

Since 2009 Iran has been moving closer to having a nuclear weapon, negotiations have been very open ended and we have sent very mixed messages to Israel – including one directly from the VP in which he stated that even if Iran had the fissile material they “have nothing to put it in”. Another leading from behind moment – completely forgetting that in the missile market there are a number of likely suitors and shipping containers are readily available on the open market.

During the VP debates the moderator came to the ultimate conclusion that the Republican strategy under Romney/Ryan was either a nuclear Iran or “War”.
Initial question – MS. RADDATZ: “Last week former Defense Secretary Bob Gates said a strike on Iran’s facilities would not work and, quote, could prove catastrophic, haunting us for generations.” and later in the same line of questioning, to Mr. Ryan (only): “Can you tell the American people what’s worse” – ” another war in the Middle East or” – “…let me ask you what’s worse: war in the Middle East, another war in the Middle East, or a nuclear-armed Iran?”

Should this not be the essential question posed to both the sitting Vice President and President of these United States?
What would their responses be?

If they are not willing to consider direct or indirect military intervention (or support of intervention) their 3 pillars are shown to be false.

• While “unacceptable” Iran having nuclear weapons is “more acceptable” than the possibility of War in the middle east.
  It would also appear to be “more acceptable” than the existential threat to our National security.
• Negotiations are indeed open ended until the question is closed by Iran, once it has nuclear capabilities.
• Israel views Iranian nuclear weapons as an existential threat and an actionable event.
  Our passivity is the clearest indication of our lack of being in step with Israel.

If one of the options not on the table is direct or indirect military action with Iran it should clearly be stated by this Administration if for no other reason to be ‘transparent’ as well as to abstain from the direct brinksmanship and ‘meddling’ that this Administration has avoided in the past – consistency and clarity of Policy (one could call it “principle”) being ever so important.

If both sides are “the same” with regards to Iran?
Then the Economy and American freedom and liberty again become elevated at which time the clear and stark differences between these two candidates become even more illuminated.

The American people should know and understand these important facts prior to the November 6th election.
While the ‘moderators’ were interested in asking, but never achieving that level of clarity the People should know.
They should have this information in order to decide for themselves whether there is “no” discernible difference between the candidates and the or there is a clear and decisive one – and how that shapes their decision in November.

The current Administration wants to have it both ways – tough talk (marketing, publicity) with no action (passive/aggressive, leading from behind).
Their track record – let History come to them at it’s pace, of it’s own initiative.
What History has show of this Administration is that they are unwilling to act.
This is the greatest commentary and proof on what will ultimately come to pass with regards to Iran under Obama.

Nothing could highlight the differences more clearly between challenger and incumbent – a history of passivity and platitude versus one of leadership and problem solving.

Ignoring the fact that any publicly available semi-automatic rifle is functionally mechanically identical to any available traditional wooden stocked hunting/sporting rifle I would submit you can’t own anything that looks “mean” or “intimidating” based on certain “characteristics” that are established by the Government. This, of course, is regardless of the existence of a Constitutional Amendment, incorporated recently following a number of law suits challenging the suppression of that right, but we are talking about the greater good here.

I’m talking about banning “Assault vehicles”.

Under this legislation you can’t own a Hummer or a really big pickup truck because they have lifts and push bumpers, really big spotlights and big tires.
You can’t own a Jeep or a Range or Land Rover or Toyota pickup or SUV as they are used by military around the world and should not be re-purposed for civilian use.

While you’ll need to prove you need a vehicle with a little extra capacity you will have to exchange them for passive looking small European panel vans.
They are not intimidating, are not re-purposed military vehicles put to civilian use and do not exhibit any military “characteristics”.
Unfortunately even after this exchange not all towns, cities, states, Federal properties will permit their use but that is the price for protecting “The people”.

You will also have to ban ownership of any vehicle that carries more than 4 people/excessive cargo.
This is due to the potential that you could carry more people to a gang or mass terror event.
You could also pack it with explosives and park it outside of a structure which is clearly a grave public threat.

Prohibit “mean” looking and high capacity vehicles – that is the heart of the “Assault vehicle ban”.

You can have a Leaf-sized car after passing the requisite background checks and waiting period.
You can only purchase one if you have a car purchasing license.
And you can only fuel it if you have a fueling license.
You can’t have either unless you pass a comprehensive licensing process to allow you to drive.

Of course some cities and states won’t issue you one or any of the licenses but hey, that is their right – right?
And not all cities and states will even permit dealerships to sell “death on wheels” – in fact “Mayors against Cars” will really push for that.
Is any of that a barrier to entry, ownership or in violation of your 2nd Amendment vehicle ownership rights – pish, posh as it’s for the greater good.
Plus – there is public transportation!

While you are at it seeing how +40K people a year are killed by cars now that we’ve outlawed vans, monster trucks, uhauls and the like we really need to find a way to cut down on cars in general.
Because the “assault vehicle ban” doesn’t address the ‘whole’ problem and in addition to the deaths the injuries are just piling up we need to go even farther.
In order to address that we’ll make fuel super expensive, widely unavailable or just have the EPA make it impossible to sell.

Of course this only addresses law abiding citizens.
While it suppresses private persons, manufacturers, 3rd party commercial vendors, transportation, etc. it’s really important.
The impact on the economy will be addressed with the reduction in deaths and injuries which lowers healthcare costs.
Isn’t that worth the price of a freedom only 30% of the Country uses?

Criminals may still have trucks, high capacity vans and the like but if others don’t have them they will stand out like a sore thumb.
That will make it so much easier on law enforcement, allows citizen reporting, etc. It’s a win win!

Oh, the fact that most criminals are not, in fact, driving monster trucks or panel vans but VW bugs and Yugos?
The fact that even criminals with monster trucks or panel vans use those infractions to plead down to jaywalking with zero deterrent effect?
We’ll address that with better education and schools, green energy and employment retraining programs.

While I am being sarcastic as a law abiding citizen it’s your right, secured by the 2nd Amendment, to keep and bear arms.
Driving, on the other hand, is not a right, it’s a privilege.

Should criminals have illegal arms, a bazooka, RPGs, etc. no.
Are firearms, saturday night special handguns carried by most, now ‘cost of doing business’ for criminals, yes

Do they still have the right to free speech, free exercise of religion and due process?
Yes – and there are reasonable controls to ensure that.

Prosecute criminals for the “gun” crime, take away the ‘cost of doing business’ approach they have to them.
If guns are a big enough problem to suppress the Rights of 100% of the Citizenry it’s worth the extra jail time for the criminals.

While people may not like it threatening one right for another is chilling and corrosive to all.
Just substitute “free speech” any time people want to suppress your right.
Think about how oppressive (impossible) it could be to exercise that right under the controls others want to force on you (forced to be incorporated under Heller/McDonald).
Protect your rights and the rights of others.
Always.

Does anyone else find this to be totally contradictory?

Mr. Obama taking from the “Rich” – confiscating their property – to “give” to others is the ultimate form of trickle down economics.
It is what Mr. Romney has properly called “Trickle-down Government” in the most clear illustration of the Obama approach.

The engine for the “Rich” in this country to attain great wealth have been freedom and opportunity.
To attack that while looking to it to fund your efforts is hypocritical at best.

Government does not make jobs. It merely makes ‘work’ funded in the most basic parasitic way.
The goal is to have a symbiotic relationship – a balance between ‘just enough’ and too much.
Currently around the world Government is killing the host.

Our Country has always been founded on the freedom to pursue our dreams, secure the results of our labor.
In 2012 the people of These United States have a decision to make:
Failed socialistic “top down” Government manipulation of labor and industry or a proven track record of open market business success.

I think the choice is clear – don’t be afraid to make it.

As “Progressivism” is really a means to and end focusing on the end is critically important.
So what is the end goal or vision of Progressivism?

• It’s an idyllic communal construct where there are no rich (except the ‘acceptable’ rich’), there are no poor, where no goes hungry or wants for anything.
• It’s where everyone makes a ‘living wage’, where work – ‘good jobs’ – is abundant but no one needs work who doesn’t want to.
• It’s where anyone can sustain themselves at Community expense if they are “improving” themselves via education or self study .
• It’s where iPods, iPhones and other technological conveniences are not done so to the detriment of the environment.
• It’s where the “Government” is the benevolent rubber bumper of life preventing us from getting hurt on all of those sharp corners.
• It’s where everyone is a ”Global Citizen” able to do anything they like as long as it doesn’t invade the personal space of others.

It’s a Progressive La la land - soft corners, happy endings and simple life lessons.
In reality it’s more sinister, limiting and, well, oppressive.

I’ll refer to it by it’s real name – “Cooperative Redistributionist Utopianism”  or CRU for short.

In reality it’s where:

• The ‘acceptable rich’ comprise  75% of the Forbes Top 20, favorable companies (like Apple, GE), Hollywood elite, Lawyers, etc.
  The level of ‘poor’ is growing yearly, EBT cards stave off hunger and schools provide sustenance to all.
• Government subsidy replaces wages due to unavailable, unacceptable or undesirable work.
  Thousands give up looking for work in historical numbers while politicians trumpet saving the economy.
• “Education” is a primary focus even when the topic of study has no redeeming social or economic value.
  People can ‘drop out’, not work, still have access to modern conveniences and never be forced to work.
• A totally monopolistic vertically integrated boutique company can charge outrageous prices and increase it’s worth - while still maintaining it’s Robin Hood appeal.
  All technology is plastic and heavy metal free, made by unicorns and fuzzy bunnies – not by drilling, pumping, mining and consuming. Right.
• Government is never too big to help everyone who ‘needs’ it.
  Which is everyone.
• We don’t rule the world from America but want to tell everyone how to live their lives while ignoring the foundation of ours.
  Anyone can do anything they like as long as they are truly tolerant and not ‘offending’ someone.

It’s where ignorance is truly bliss and charismatic leadership without measurable results – even in the face of abject failure – will not cause the ”People” to change their course.

It’s a shame that a Country whose foundation was built on opportunity and limited Government now defends endless institutional subsidy and limitless Government intrusion and expansion.

Da Comrade, while Progressives – Cooperative Redistributionist Utopians – become King makers and we all become the enlightened masses, er middle class, whose freedoms, rights and liberties are slowly being eroded?
You guessed it – everyone.

And it all happened while you were sleeping.

• $61B: Bill Gates
• $44B: Warren Buffet
• $36B: Larry Ellison
• $22B: Michael Bloomburg
• $100M: Al Gore
• $200-350M per year: What Oprah earns
• 37:  Democratic Senators, Millionaires (67% of the Senate, Millionaires)
• 73: Democratic Congressmen, Millionaires (47% of all Congress, Millionaires)
  11: Over $200M PowerBall winners last 4 years.

Take a look at this article which has an interesting point – there are a lot of rich Democrats.

Did Mitt Romney take money out of my pocket to make his money?
No.
And if he did I never even noticed…

The President and nearly half of Congress and over half of the Senate are part of the “%1″.
They have great jobs, great health care, great retirement benefits, have tons of other perks and get it all at taxpayer expense.

Maybe it’s time to focus on what really matters – experience, goals, deliverables – you know, the same thing we expect from service providers every time we engage them.

Stop worrying about what Romney has made and focus on what he can do based on that kind of success.
In the US we build on success, we don’t try to tear it down.

1. Power, not wealth (a side effect of power), ruled Man
2. Class, not equality nor opportunity, decided your fate
3. Laws were determined not by the many, but by the few
4. People served the State – one not an advocate for them
5. Wages were confiscated without representation, property belonged to the State
6. Nature was subverted to Rule

Did our forefathers come here for Wealth? No. But listen to the speeches of the current President and you would think it’s all about Wealth.

No, with all due respect Sir – it’s about the freedom.

Conservatives, like many other conservationists, are not day to day activists. If they see a need to protect something they step into action. Do you think the many parents whose kids rode dirt bikes ever though they would one day have to assemble themselves to protect the ability of their kids to participate in sport due to an overreach and/or oversight of the Government and a Lead law? No – but when need arose they stepped up and did when they felt was right and then faded to again observe.

I hear many times how Conservatives want to keep these United States stuck at a particular point of time. While convenient for their argument it’s simply not the case, a straw many argument if ever there was. As a case in point please refer those people to the Amendments to the Constitution – particularly the 1st, 13th-15th, 19th and 24th. Inevitably you may have also to refer them to 410 US 113 and 505 US 883, 550 US 124.

Why do I mention those in particular? The establishment clause was meant to ensure religions freedom by preventing the Government from establishing a state religion – this counters the Left fear of the “Right Wing Christian Conservatives”. The rest of the Amendments abolished slavery, established equality for all men and later for all Women, removed financial barriers to voting – we are equal, class is not established nor required. The last straw of most arguments was already settled by the supreme court but subsequently has been modified to keep up with advances in science (viability) – and why not all may agree it’s a compromise up for constant scrutiny.

What we, as conservatives, are looking to preserve is the essential structure of our Country that ensures our freedoms.

1. Power belongs to the people. Wealth is a side effect of opportunity and effort.
2. The People decide their fate as individuals as well as collectively – locally and nationally.
3. Laws should be reasonable and representative. The People should be engaged and vigilant to limit their scope.
4. Our Government exists at our pleasure and should be limited to it’s essential functions.
5. Property belongs to the individual, it is our Right. The Government must limit it’s confiscation and consumption of the fruits of our efforts.
6. Freedom and opportunity shall be universal.

So with all of the discussion and proclamation (and creation) of class warfare and all of the “millionaires and billionaires”  rhetoric aplenty from the Left keep in mind that the Conservative ideal is one of  a free people with limited government, personal liberties and limitless opportunity.

Anyone who disagrees – remind them, it’s the Freedom, stupid.

In the course of 4 years each and every one of those reasons has been invalidated beyond a shadow of a doubt.

They didn’t want a President to act like a King, they didn’t want a Cowboy, wanted someone who could communicate, they didn’t want partisanship, they didn’t want a “Christian Conservative” (zealot, ideologue, etc.), they didn’t want the patriot act, didn’t want to be at war, didn’t want to start new wars, expected to be doing better, wanted spending to stop. The list goes on and on.

What they ended up doing is hiring a progressive academic with little practical work and no management experience. The person they hired is incapable of working with anyone in his own party let alone anyone who disagrees with him and who makes decisions on his own because he can’t participate in or control the process.

They hired an ideologue working largely on his own with absolutely zero bipartisan support who supported his party and their continuing spending as an enabler of their actions. This person went so far above and beyond the last President in spending that he eclipsed all Presidents before him – combined – in his first term all while not passing a single budget. Not one.

Leveraging Bush-era intelligence gathering, programs and practices he’s continued what he said he would stop – but takes credit for their successes. He entered us into another conflict while trying to manage others around a campaign schedule, sits waiting for pressures to build holding military funding hostage while “other people” figure out how to compromise.

The person they hired has played a staggering amount of golf, he and his family have taken lavish vacations, keeps bankers hours and has eclipsed prior Presidents by fundraising over 160 times – 8 weeks of time – in a never ending string of events taking time away from focusing on the problems at hand. All while throwing tons of fossil fuel into the effort in the least green manner possible.

They hired a person who is clearly not a leader, does not drive change, sub-contracts and delegates way too much, clearly has a communication issue, cannot ‘run a business’, hires his friends and acquaintances and blames others for not enacting his desires while not working to make his wishes a reality. Clearly enjoying the limelight, appearing on TV shows countless times, but not the work light.

They hired a person who does not take hold of a problem and try to fix it – they hired someone who blames others while asking people to keep him in office and uses his own ineffectiveness as justification for his lack of success. They hired someone who, clearly, is not a leader.

I listened to all of the reasons people voted for Obama, I really did.

You had your reasons for voting the first time. Be consistent. For the same reason you voted for Obama the last time you cannot vote for him this time.

If you vote for him again it’s for no other reason that you will put Party and Ideology first, Country second.

Maybe you could sleep at night, look your kids in the eye, while not being true to your convictions. I, on the other hand, can’t think of a more shameful act of selfishness, cowardice and horrible inconsistency.

In order to deflect, temper, rationalise, justify or appear to be more reasonable many times people will say, “I’m Socially Liberal but Fiscally Conservative”. It’s at this point where you should be hearing the classic response of Scooby Doo to any confusing line of thought.

Social Liberalism leads to a reduction of freedoms, infringement on liberty, an increase in dependency, an erosion of personal responsibility, the evolution of dependency, and the destruction of the concept of “fairness”. It is exactly the opposite of a “Darwinistic” approach and again another Liberal contradiction. It’s Nanny-stateism.

Fiscal (Small government) Conservatives are not Social Liberals.

Conservatism is not status quo ante but a belief that a free person in a free society is the best engine for freedom for all people, for economic growth, enabling the protection of rights by not infringing on them and allowing people to learn their life lessons by trial and error. Unfortunately due to it’s lack of structure it’s easily open to atrophy and dissolution.

Social Liberals view society as a field in which fairness does not exist but must be imposed. Where people are suppressed and not free to pick themselves up but need to be picked up and supported by others. It’s a society where others have “too much” and must be compelled to provide for others. It’s a Utopian vision of Society, leveling, a construct. Social Liberalism leverages “Social Justice”, redistribution of wealth (property) and Public Services as the means to an end.

Take Healthcare. In order to address a problem of 10% of the population the Social Liberal will impose a National “solution” on nearly 100%. In the 70 years it took to get to that point it could not be addressed in any other way? No, because the end goal is not the elimination of the problem but the implementation of something on a much more grand scale, the tip of the iceburg, “for the greater good”.

Because of the “cost” to others undesirable behavior – obesity, excessive eating, types of foods, being uninsured – including inaction are now seen as being impactful on “the whole” and need to be curtailed. There cannot be a free marketplace because people don’t know better and need to be told the right way to do things, have a penalty imposed on them in order to comply. Failure to comply means the suppression of another’s “right” to healthcare.

If you speak to a Social Liberal about Healthcare they view it as a great leap forward never mind the great cost – clearly visible in countless other Countries, even our own Governmental budget – or erosion of personal liberties. It “imposes” fairness – how can that be bad? The fact that the Supreme Court found it Constitutional great – the fact that the Government can now tax you for inaction, totally acceptable. Social engineering on a grand scale.

The Second Amendment is a great example of the expendability of an established right by a Social Liberal. It’s an inherent freedom. It’s been upheld twice as a personal liberty extended to all US Citizens by the Supreme Court. When practiced by law abiding citizens it reduces crime and is nearly transparent. It’s a check and balance against a corrupt Government, another economic engine.

The Social Liberal believes that Guns are bad and you should not have them. They will work every day to take them away from you and everyone else no matter the cost or the chilling effect on that right.

It’s amazing how the same people who take the moral high ground on firearms and their impact on human life conveniently shift their moral perspective in other areas – classic Liberal moral flexibility. The definition of “IS”.

Substitute the First Amendment anywhere you would see the Second Amendment. There would be an open revolt even by the Social Liberal as it would prevent their message from being disseminated (as well as the ability to suppress others).

Government should not be involved in social engineering however a Social Liberal will tell you again and again – the Government, in many cases, is the only thing that can “do or control/make fair xyz for all people”. It’s a constant justification for Federalism, another anti-conservative practice.

Fiscal Conservatives believe in smaller Government and a basic set of reasonable operational guidelines. The result is a less costly Government less involved in the “day to day operations” of peoples lives. Social programs are very clearly massive Administrative undertakings with a ton of overhead, duplication and cost and are typically anathema to Fiscal conservative.

Social Programs – Social Security, SNAP, MediCare, HealthCare, etc. – are massively costly. That is absolutely undeniable. Gun registries, bans, etc. are also massively costly. They also absolutely ensure that you pay for other peoples choices while being able to order them around. It’s the worst of both worlds wrapped up in the Nanny blanket of compassion and Utopia.

Fiscal Conservatism and Social Liberalism are contradictory. You can’t want to expand Government and make it cheaper, you can’t force people to do things and call it Freedom or Equality and you can’t create Rights while suppressing established ones.

While admirable I’ll call that a recipe for losing, leading from behind.

It’s my opinion that “The People” tend to migrate to Socialism in a general slide towards a “Government will do” type of malaise. The more the Government “gives” the more complacent “The People” get. The more the Government “gives” the larger the audience grows and so does the supportive (and now dependent) voting base. It’s really hard to argue with “free”.

Talk to your kids fresh from school. Speak with parents in your neighborhood. Talk with Teachers, local leaders – you may be very surprised. “Bush spent [without paying for it] – especially on wars”, “The Rich should pay more in taxes”. “Conservatives want to take your rights away”. “Guns are bad”. “Everyone needs healthcare”. “I’m a fiscal conservative but a socially liberal”, “It’s not fair…”.  “The fat and unhealthy are a drain on our economy”. “You can’t have national/voter ID programs as they disenfranchise people!”. “Government is the only one who can address these injustices, create fairness”. These are the prevailing opinions in communities across the US.

Each one of these has an honest response. By the time Bush had left office Democratic-led spending on “War” had far outpaced that of ‘Conservatives’. The “Rich” already do pay more in taxes – especially when they spend – but what of personal property rights? What rights have Conservatives taken away – my inability to consume sugar is surely not originating with Conservatives. Criminals possess illegal arms, not prosecuting them and harassing legal, responsible owners isn’t going to change that.

Everyone has access to healthcare – what about the “spending without paying” problem? You cannot be socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Life is not fair – but you also can’t ‘mandate’ fairness (referees are not supposed to ‘change’ the game). If the fat and unhealthy are a drain what about TBI – nearly $77B per year, OMG time to cancel baseball & football. Without a “national ID” of some kind how do we have Universal Health Care? The Government is supposed to have limited powers, people rights and freedoms – to ‘mandate’ fairness is to suppress freedom.

Sorry folks but it’s time to get out into the world and start being activists. I’m no alarmist but Rome is burning. Read the Declaration of Independence and compare it to what is happening today. The sentiments there echo what is happening today. No Socialistic Government exists today where people are free and prosperous – they all teeter on the edge of bankruptcy, have no moral fiber to keep them together as their populations move away from Nationalism and cohesiveness.

Conservatives are consistent, generally, while Liberals are not. Be an Activist, point those inconsistencies out – win the day.