Momma Bears

We conservative women have always been in the background.  We've been content to be in the background because we know that what we're doing is good and we don't need stroking from outside to tell us.  We've been  establishing careers, raising our families, making our communities thrive.  We've now realized that there is a huge segment of the U.S. population that don't get it.  They are not helping our communities thrive.  They are out for themselves -- these people are the moochers and the looters.  We've discovered that action must be taken, and quite frankly, we've never been afraid of action.  We must protect the country and it's liberties and freedoms for our children.  And I don't mean that in a Nancy Pelosi way.

Honestly, many of us would rather not be involved in politics now, we'd rather be pursuing other interests.  But, we've seen the situation and recognized our responsibilities.  Momma bears isn't a new term or idea -- but it is an accurate one.

The Underdog Wins the Day

 Here's my answer to a question on how we, the people, are going to keep the left from winning the day; specifically, how are we going to keep Obama from getting re-elected in 2012, how do we keep the lame duck congress from passing unconscionable legislation and how do we keep the GOP from screwing it up.

We must realize that 2010 is just the first battle. It's going to be a long war, there are going to be a lot of battles. We will win some, we will lose some. We have to stay on guard, shine light on everything, make everyone toe the line. It's not going to be easy - but worthwhile things rarely are.

My 17 yo daughter fought in a karate tournament today.  She chose to fight 'up' in the women's division - her first time in that division.  One of her fights was against an instructor with many years of experience.  Everyone thought my daughter didn't stand a chance. Many people told her she didn't have a chance. She fought anyway! The first point was scored against her.  Then the second.  The instructor tried to intimidate her with a sequence of late hits.  My daughter wasn't deterred.  She focused on what she knew, she looked for the openings and landed her techniques.  She won the fight.  She fought more matches and ended up winning Grand Champion.  The underdog was determined and dogged and brought home the money.

Freedom, Liberty, USA -- they're worth the effort.

What are the Founding Fathers doing today?

A friend on facebook asked this questions: Hi Patriots! Where would the Founding Fathers fit into today's political climate? Your thoughts?

Here's my answer:

To maximize freedom, government must be minimized. When faced with similar stifling of freedoms, our Founding Fathers studied the great scholars of freedom, they wrote and gave speeches defining and defending freedom. Our Founding Fathers... sacrificed home and family in various ways to retain their freedom. Remember, the Colonies essentially ruled themselves and it was only when King George tried to take their independence away and only after reasonable discourse failed, that they took up arms.

My daughters and I have wondered who the current George Washington, John Adams and Ben Franklin are. We've come to the conclusion that we don't need a new George or John or Ben -- we already have those great men as role models. We also have Abigail, who took care of business and didn't let John off the hook when he was away. Today we need new people -- look around, who are these people. We have Rush, and Glenn Beck and Glenn Reynolds. We have Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann and Newt Gingrich. We have Bill Whittle and General Petraeus. We have Lori Hendry. We have homeschooled students across the nation, studying the great scholars, getting ready to lead.

John Adams would be causing trouble, harassing the white house and the liberal democrats. Staying up late into the night, writing papers. Ben Franklin would have a blog and a huge facebook following, Thomas Paine would be a talk radio host. George Washington would be fighting the battle of freedom in the mid-east. Tom Jefferson would stay up later and write more than John Adams and work for the Cato Institute. Betsy Ross would be struggling at a couple jobs to pay the bills. Thomas Jefferson's teacher (whose name escapes me at the moment) would be the outcast professor on campus. Alexander Hamilton would be heading up Heritage.org.

They would not be wanting war, but they would be drawing a line in the sand - preparing.

Our time is not their time. We can look to them and learn from them, but we must be the ones of action. I think the next question should be "Where do YOU fit into today's political climate?"

Sound Familiar?

A quick look at what's going on in the back rooms of Washington, D.C.

From Atlas Shrugged

“You've got nothing to worry about, under that Railroad Unification Plan,” Orren Boyle had giggled to him drunkenly. Under the Railroad Unification Plan, a local railroad had gone bankrupt in North Dakota, abandoning the region to the fate of a blighted area, the local banker had committed suicide, first killing his wife and children – a freight train had been taken off the schedule in Tennessee, leaving a local factory without transportation at a day's notice, the factory owner's son had quit college and was now it jail, awaiting execution for a murder committed with a gang of raiders – a way station had been closed in Kansas, and the station agent, who had wanted to be a scientist, had given up his studies and become a dishwasher – that he, James Taggart, might sit in a private barrom and pay for the alcohol pouring down Orren Boyle's throat, for the waiter who sponged Boyles' garment when he spilled his drink over his chest, for the carpet burned by the cigarettes of an ex-pimp from Chile who did not want to take the trouble of reaching for an ashtray across a distance of three feet.

The Definitions

My children are always telling me that definitions matter – you can't talk about something accurately if you don't know what you're talking about. They're debaters; what can I say.

There are many terms that are bantered about – often by people that don't know their meanings. These people morph the word to fit their own definition, and try to use that new definition to try to control the discussion. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Or at least it shouldn't. So, just for the record – here are the correct definitions for some commonly misused words. The following definitions are a conglomerate of three sources: Miriam Webster, Answers.com, Dictionary.com.

Marxism: An ideology and socioeconomic theory developed by Karl Marx and Friedrech Engles. The fundamental doctrine holds that all people are entitled to enjoy the fruits of their labor but are prevented from doing it, and actually are exploited, by a ruling/dominant class. Marxists believe that a capitalist economic system divides society into two classes: nonowning workers and nonworking owners. The failures of European revolutions in the 19th Century let to adaptions on Marxist theory, including Leninism and Maoism. The Marxist doctrine contends that the capitalist system contains the seeds of its own decay and will inevitably, after the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, become a classless, socialist society. 
Fascism: A political philosophy that exalts the nation and race above the individual, often in a belligerent manner. A fascist government has centralized authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, as well as the regimentation of all industry, commerce, etc. Mussolini established a fascist government in Italy, 1922 – 43.
Socialism: A theory or system of social and economic organization that advocates for collective or governmental ownership and control of the means of production and distribution. In Marxist-Leninist theory, socialism is the intermediate step between capitalism and communism.

Because Socialism is so desired by many people in our country and around the world and so feared and hated by others, it makes sense to delve into socialism a little further.

There are three main types of socialism:  Leninism, Democratic Socialism, and Communal Socialism.

Leninist socialism is Marxist socialism revised. It is totalitarian. All decisions are made by the leaders of the Communist party; there is no democracy.

Communal socialism emphasizes the importance of the community over the individual. It is usually found in small communities that share most of their belongings. The Shakers are a famous example of a voluntary and temporarily successful communal society in the mid 19th Century. They have all but died out today. The early church Christians are often lumped into this category. There are several problems with equating the early Christian church with socialism, but that's a future blog post.

Democratic socialism is practiced in many countries today. It's goal is for the government to control major industries and banking. Small business remain private. The idea is that labor unions control the government and therefore unions control the working conditions and wages of the worker. The conservative complaint against democratic socialists is that they use governmental power to redistribute wealth. The key elements include the creation of a welfare state. Democratic socialism calls for redistribution of wealth through taxation of private wealth coupled with welfare state spending. The nationalization of major industries is a device to allow unionized workers to control their own wages and working conditions.

Reasons for a Small Government

My oldest daughter found a book that she requested as a birthday gift. As any good parent would do, I bought her that book – but then, I stole it from her. The book is titled The 5000 Year Leap by Skousen and it's one of the best books on the founding of our republic and the Constitution of the United States of America. I have written in it and dog-eared many of it's pages in the months I've been reading and re-reading it. (P.S. I bought her a new copy.)

The book speaks to many of the things going on in our country today – things that I believe would horrify our founding fathers.

Many of our Founding Fathers believed in the need for a small, limited government. Having just fought their way from a tyrant - they knew for certain they didn't want to relive that. They knew that anyone can become corrupt and the best way to keep corruption at bay was checks and balances -- and lots of those. Jefferson, in particular, believed in a strong local government. The federal government should only have power over matters that related to the entire country.

In Thomas Jefferson's words:

The way to have good and safe government is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to [perform best]. Let the national government be entrusted with the defense of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, laws, police, and administration of what concerns the State generally' the counties with the local concerns of the counties, and each ward direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these republics, from the great national one down through all its subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man's farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best. What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body, no matter whether of the autocrats of Russia or France, or of the aristocrats of a Venetian senate. (Bergh, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 14:421.)

Even James Madison, the majority author of the Federalist Papers believed that it was necessary to give as much power to the states and people as possible.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former [federal powers] will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce . . .The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvements, and prosperity of the State. (Federalist Papers, No. 45, pp 292-93)

Very amusing on retrospect – or it might be amusing if it wasn't so sad; Thomas Jefferson believed the federal government would small and inexpensive because it was limited.

The true theory of our Constitution is surely the wisest and best, that the states are independent as to everything respecting foreign nations. Let the general government be reduced to foreign concerns only, and let our affairs be disentangled from those of all other nations, except as to commerce, which the merchants will manage the better, the more they are left free to manage fro themselves, and our general government may be reduced to a very simple organization, and a very inexpensive one; a few plain duties to be performed by a few servants. (Bergh, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 10:168)

And finally – what is happening today was feared at the beginning:

If the day should ever arrive (which God forbid!) when the people of the different parts of our country shall allow their local affairs to be administered by prefects sent from Washington, and when the self-government of the states shall have been so far lost as that of the departments of France, or even so closely limited as that of the countries of England – on that day the political career of the American people will have been robbed of its most interesting and valuable features, and the usefulness of this nation will be lamentably impaired. (John Fiske, The Critical Period of American History, 1783-1789, The Historical Writings of John Fiske, vol. 12.)

I fear we are there, and if not there, then very close. May God forbid we get any closer and may He guide us back from the precipice.

The Gadsden Flag

A brief history of the Gadsden Flag and why it's such an important symbol today.


The Gadsden Flag

The Gadsden Flag portrays a rattlesnake coiled above the words "Don't Tread On Me!" This was not accidental, for the rattlesnake had been used as a symbol of the American spirit, apart from that of England, as early as 1754 during the French and Indian war.

In 1775, when the Gadsden Flag was presented by Statesman Christopher Gadsden to the navy, the symbol of the rattlesnake had been well defined by Benjamin Franklin earlier that year. In Franklin's words, the rattlesnake is ever vigilant, yet slow to strike, giving ample warning to the intruder, but when she does strike, it is direct and fatal.

Benjamin Franklin was apt in his judgment of the American People, and that character has remained unchanged. The Tea Party Members have given the government ample warning, exercising the right of Freedom of Speech and are prepared to use their vote. Though these weapons seem small and insufficient to defend our liberty, they are far more potent and fatal to tyranny than any other.

The Gadsden Flag now stands for the people's rights and liberties, and for the vigilance with which we must watch the government to insure that we retain those rights and liberties.

The Boston Tea Party Essays

Below are three essays on the Boston Tea Party written by children of different ages.




The Boston Tea Party

Essay 1

In 1765, the king put a tax on lead, glass, paper, paint and tea. It upset the Colonists so much they decided to get even by not buying anything made in England. It was the English merchants who got angry about that. It cost them a lot of money and they demanded that the taxes be repealed. They were in 1770, except for the tax on tea. It was a small tax, but King George wanted to prove that he and Parliament could tax Americans if they wished to.

To the Colonists, that tea tax was an example of taxation without representation. So, in 1773, some people in Boston decided to show King George and Parliament and Lord Townshend what they thought of the tax on tea. They dressed up as Indians and climbed on a ship in Boston harbor and threw 342 chests of good English tea into the water. Americans called it the Boston Tea Party, but the English didn't. They called in an outrage.

(source, The History of US)


----------
Essay 2

The American people were angry with the British long before the Tea Act of 1771 that led to the Boston Tea Party. The Stamp Act of 1765 that placed a tax on nearly every paper transaction, the Townshend Act of 1767 that imposed new taxes on imported glass, lead, paper, paint and tea and also suspended the New York legislature until it agreed to quarter British soldiers, the occupation of the Colonies by British troops, and the Boston Massacre of 1770 infuriated the people. When the Townshend Act was repealed in 1770, the the Crown proved that it still retained the power to tax the Colonies by leaving the tax on tea. In addition, the Tea Act of 1773 was passed to subsidize the East India Company in the midst of its financial crisis by granting a monopoly of tea. This one-cent tax (44-cent inflation adjusted) outraged the American patriots, who called our for "no taxation without representation." A boycott of imported tea was established, the Americans instead drinking often nasty, homegrown 'liberty tea.' Despite this, American tea consumption continued to grow, and the East India Company sold more and more tea to the Colonists.

On December 17, 1773, seven thousand people waited to greet three ships bearing 90,000 lbs of tea. Among them were the Sons of Liberty who, dressed as Indians, ran aboard the ships and threw the 342 chests of tea into the ocean. Over one million of today's dollars worth of tea was lost in the sea at the hands of the patriots.

The tax on tea was small itself, but after all the British had done to America, it was the straw that started the Revolution.

(sources: Patriots, The Men Who Started the American Revolution, historycentral.com, bostonteapartyfacts.com)

--------

Essay 3


A crowd of seven thousand gathered to watch as the Sons of Liberty, dressed as Mohawk Indians and lead by Samuel Adams, boarded three British ships and threw 342 chests of tea into the Boston Harbor.

There were several trials held for the destruction of the ships cargo, but no one was ever convicted.

The Boston Tea Party of 1773 was a protest against growing British control. The Tea Act was the last in a long string of parliamentary acts that curtailed the Colonial American freedoms. There was the Molasses Act of 1733, the Proclamation Act of 1763, the Sugar Act of 1764, the Stamp Act of 1765, and the Townshend Act of 1767.

The Colonists were not appalled by the tax on tea in terms of the financial cost, but rather by who the tea act taxed and how it was enforced.

The tax on tea was a tax on everyone, not just the land owning voters. The Tea Act was especially bad for the American tea merchants, because it gave the East India Trading Company a monopoly on the sale of tea in the Americas. And there were only five men in the colonies that had East India Trading Company shipping contracts; Benjamin Franklin was one of those men. The rest of the merchants [those not holding a shipping contract] either went out of business or became tea smugglers like John Handcock.

The Boston Tea Party was in no way an isolated incident; there were similar tea parties in New York, Philadelphia, Annapolis, and Charleston. Delaware had one only 9 days after the Boston Tea Party.

The reason everyone remembers the Boston Tea Party is because Samuel Adams was a master of propaganda and made sure the Boston Tea Party would go down in history.

Parliament passed the Intolerable Acts one year later, in 1774, to break the Colonies. But Parliament's plan backfired because the Intolerable Acts only served to unite the Colonies and strengthen their resolve to be a free and independent country.

(sources: The Patriots Guide to American History and Patriots, The Men Who Started the American Revolution)

---------------------------

Turns out it wasn't a high tax that the Colonists were protesting, but the fact that Britain had the audacity to tax them without their consent. The merchants (small business owners) were hurt by the monopoly that was added to the Tea Act. The Tea Act was followed by the Intolerable Acts. Hmmm, sound familiar to anyone?

Which Side Am I On?

The other day a friend asked me which side I was on. He wanted to put me in one of his boxes. I'm on my own side; I develop my own opinions. I might agree with you on one or more issues, but you may be surprised on what we don't agree on (or maybe not). I don't really fit in a box. To quote a famous guy "I yam what I yam."

I don't believe in a cult of personality. I can't think of any person that is worthy of worship or swearing allegiance to.

I do believe in the Constitution of the United States of America. While not perfect, those guys in Philly did a good job of balancing everything out. They thought about it, talked about it, and mostly came to agreement. The compromises that had to be made at the time have mostly been sorted out and corrected through the amendments. I've come to really appreciate the anti-federalists that insisted on the Bill of Rights.

There are many greedy and power hungry people in Washington, D.C., (and other places), those people are NOT on my side.

I believe everyone has the potential to abuse power.

I believe everyone makes mistakes.

Transparency is key.

I believe the best way to keep greedy people from having power is through a balance of power. This balance occurring in the three well known branches of government, Executive, Judicial, and Legislative, as well as a balance between the states and the federal government. (Remember those Anti-Federalists!)

I recognize Stupid and Evil. I'll usually give Stupid a pass, although sometimes Stupid can be educated. Evil must be fought. Not enough of us are fighting - it's time for me to step up and join the fight.

Political Correctness is Stupid and Evil.

I believe in the lesser of two evils, but I prefer to choose between the better of two goods.

I hold no bias toward race, color, creed, sex or sexual orientation. (Did I forget anything?) Not only do I not care, I usually am not paying enough attention to notice. Don't ask me what you were wearing last week -- but you can bet I'll remember what you said.

Merit Counts! Special privileges for no one. You build self esteem not by telling someone how good they are, but by ensuring they are indeed good.

I affiliate myself with the Tea Party: fiscal responsibility, small government, the Constitution. However, I won't defend anyone when they don't deserve it. If anyone does something wrong, you won't get a free pass from me. I won't defend Stupid or Evil, even if you think you're on my side.

I make decisions based on facts and logic to the best of my ability, not on wishful thinking, following along blindly, or idealism.

I believe individuals and groups of individuals are more effective in almost every situation than government. Our Military is one huge exception.

I support our Military and credit them with providing a safe and secure environment for me to raise my children. There isn't civilization without security. (Although you can have security without civilization.)

I believe private enterprise has increased our standard of living more than any non-profit organization has. Oil and computers are two good examples.

I believe that every action has unintended consequences. The pros and cons must be considered; some good actions should not be enacted because of their cons.

I believe there are absolute truths and there are lines in the sand that should not be crossed.

I believe hard work is rewarding and satisfying in and of itself and that it should be respected.

My heroes are Farmers and Firemen and Engineers. Theoretical Physicists and Plumbers are pretty cool, too. My absolute favorites are Musicians.

Your turn. What do you believe?

Men are Endowed by Their Creator with Certain Unalienable Rights

The basic rights of man come from God, not any governmental authority.

Unalienable Rights are also called Natural Rights by the Founders.
William Blackstone wrote: "Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and are therefore called natural rights, such as are life, and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man that they are; neither do they receive and additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislature has the power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to forfeiture."
That is to say -- we as individuals can do things that will cause us to lose our unalienable rights but no one else can take them away from us.

From the Declaration of Independence: " . . . among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Blackstone defines them this way: ". . . these [great natural rights] may be reduced to three principle or primary articles: the right of personal security; the right of personal liberty, and the right of private property . . .]

Vested Rights are those that are created by the community, state or nation and are hopefully created for our protection, safety or well being. Vested Rights can be taken away by those that created them.