How many times have you heard Mr. Obama say he wants to reform the tax code so that the “wealthiest” Americans and biggest corporations pay their “fair share” of taxes. After the debt-ceiling bill Congress passed last fall, the president said the following:

It also means reforming our tax code so the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations pay their fair share and it means getting rid of taxpayer subsidies to oil and gas companies and tax loopholes that help billionaires pay a lower tax rate than teachers and nurses.

How can it get more reasonable? Who among us doesn’t agree that everybody should pay their “fair share?” Who wants millionaires and billionaires to have tax loopholes available to them? The word “loophole” in itself sounds sinister and dishonest.

Sadly, many in America hear those words, thinking, “he’s on our side so his opposition must be on the side of the evil corporations and the wealthy.”

Mr. Obama is a great public speaker. He’s also a ruthless and unprincipled Chicago politician. He knows how to choose his words to make the majority of his supporters, who vote but pay little or no taxes and even less attention to the actual issues, walk into the voting booth with at best, a skewed perception of political reality.

He works his political skills to perfection. He’s a talented campaigner, telling the masses that their condition is no fault of their own, but due to the oppression placed upon them by “the most fortunate among us,” who refuse to pay their fair share.

Fairness is a good and noble concept. It’s what most of us were taught as children. It’s certainly what we want in our laws and regulations, especially in the way in which they are administered. The real question is, who’s definition of the word are we going to use?

One thing you will never hear the president say is what exactly is his definition of the word “fair?” The dictionary defines the word fair as ” free from bias, dishonesty or injustice.” Obama’s definition, however is very different. He’s saying  it’s not fair that one person earns more than another, owns more than another, or has more wealth than another. And he intends to make it “fair.”

Mr. Obama, and the Progressives, Liberals, or whatever they call themselves these days, define the word fair as everyone achieving an equal outcome. This is not a new idea. It’s no different than Plato’s Republic and the Perfect Society or Thomas Moore’s Utopia. It’s the same principle that Karl Marx espoused in the Communist Manifesto.

It can be summed up as, “you’re too stupid to make your own decisions, so we (the elite) will make them for you. We’ll make your life better by taking from the oppressors (evil corporations and the wealthy) and transfer some of their wealth to you (after taking a hefty chunk for ourselves and our friends).

It’s referred to as Socialism, Communism, Statism, Marxism, take your choice. Whatever your flavor of “ism” is, they all eventually end with tyranny. Sometimes it’s hard tyranny like the old Soviet Union, Communist China or North Korea. Other times it’s soft tyranny like European Socialism. Either way, the individual gives up a certain portion of his/her liberty, sometimes all of it, in return for “rights” provided to them by the government. It always ends badly for the masses who gave up their liberty, whether by force or election.

Obama is waging class warfare disguised as fairness. He’s actually trying to convince us that our rights come to us at the pleasure of the government. That we all work for the government and the government will decide what we are allowed to keep from our own hard work.

Our Founders saw it differently, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

The sheeple that believe their rights come from an all-knowing, kind and benevolent government will be the ones wandering around asking, “Why didn’t anyone warn us this could happen? It’s just not fair” when that same government takes those rights away (See Greece, circa 2012).

I sat through the president’s entire State of the Union speech Tuesday evening. I’ll probably get some kind of award for doing that because the TV ratings were the lowest for an Obama SOTU speech to date. It was on par with the ratings for George W’s last one in 2008 when his approval ratings were in the 35% range.

The American people are finally starting to tune Mr. Obama out. Winston Churchill once said, “The Americans will always do the right thing…after they have exhausted all the alternatives.”

The contents of the speech were exactly as expected, another victory lap for killing Osama Bin Laden, higher taxes, more spending, more debt and even bigger government. It was basically a rerun of his SOTU speech from 2011, which was a rerun of 2010. Even many of the same phrases were used.

The fact-checkers are having a field day pointing out all the exaggerations and outright lies, but I want to concentrate on the most egregious one, the so-called Buffet Rule.

By now, everyone is familiar with the tactics of class warfare Obama has decided to unleash as his re-election strategy. If the millionaires and billionaires would only pay their fair share, we wouldn’t need to layoff teachers, police, firefighters and blah, blah, blah.

To further his point, he gets billionaire Warren Buffet to say how it’s so unfair that he pays less in taxes than his secretary. Well, if that were really true, it would be outrageous. However, the fact is that it’s not true. The president knows it’s not true, but he’s betting his re-election on the premise that most voters are too stupid to understand that he’s lying to them.

Mr. Buffet doesn’t take a salary like his secretary does. If he did, and he surely could if he wanted to, he would pay 35% of it in income taxes. Buffet didn’t become a billionaire by being stupid. He takes his income on his investments which are taxed at the long-term capital gains rate of 15%. Remember, when he originally earned the money he is now using to invest, he paid income taxes on it. What Obama doesn’t think you’re smart enough to figure out is Buffet has paid taxes on the money twice. The first time at about 35% and the second time at 15%.

Obama announced in his speech that he wants to double the long-term capital gains rate to 30% so the rich pay their “fair share”. Of course, he knows congress will not pass such a bill, because it would stifle investment, crash the stock market and send the already fragile economy into a depression. Even most Democrats wouldn’t support it. Obama knows this to be true and if he were still a senator (wishful thinking) even he wouldn’t vote for it.

He’s only proposing it for one reason. It’s a populist message that he thinks will get him re-elected. He wants to be seen as the man of the people, the working class. If people are stupid enough to think that some people are poor because other people are rich, they’ll vote for him. It’s classic class warfare, and Karl Marx would be proud.

By the way, did you notice Warren Buffet’s secretary, Debbie Bosanek was sitting with the first lady at the speech? She was used as Obama’s prop to drive home the point of  the “little person” paying a higher tax rate than her billionaire boss. I bet most viewers didn’t know that Debbie (we’re on a first name basis) makes a salary of between $200,000 and $500,000 for her duties as Buffet’s secretary according to Forbes.

The only reason I would ever feel sorry for Debbie Bosanek is because she was held captive through Obama’s entire speech. At least I was able to yell at my TV.

I have struggled along with most conservatives with the decision of who to support in the primaries and caucuses. I have watched all the televised debates and have read almost everything I could find on all the major candidates. I will support whoever the Republican nominee is, although I would have to hold my nose to vote for Ron Paul. Luckily, there is about a 0.00% chance of that happening, give or take 0.05%.

The two most important issues the eventual nominee must be right on are the repeal of Obamacare and putting an end to illegal immigration. Failure on either of these issues and we might as well change our name from America to West Europe.

If you’ve seen California lately, then you’ve seen our future if we don’t put an end to illegal immigration. The electorate of the entire country will resemble California. At that point, we are a one-party nation. Already, conservatives can’t win state-wide office in California due to the changes in the electorate caused by illegal immigration.

If Obamacare isn’t repealed in the next few years, it never will be. Already, employers are planning on dropping health insurance benefits for employees because it will be less expensive to pay the penalties than to pay the premiums. That’s no accident. Obamacare was designed to incentivize employers to drop coverage. By the time Obamacare fully kicks in, there won’t be a private health insurance industry to go back to. We’ll all be on Medicare and the single-payer system of socialized medicine will have arrived.

Every one of the Republican candidates will repeal Obamacare if they have a filibuster-proof senate. Otherwise they will neuter it to the point it won’t matter.

So, which candidate is the strongest on illegal immigration?

It’s easy to say you want to close the border, but it’s not as easy for a Republican candidate to insist on the use of E-Verify. The business lobby is very much against E-Verify because it works. In fact, a law requiring the use of E-Verify along with severe penalties for violation would be infinitely more effective at stopping illegal immigration than a border fence alone.

Any candidate that’s serious about stopping illegal immigration must support E-Verify. Rick Santorum, Rick Perry and Ron Paul all oppose E-Verify. It’s hard to figure out exactly what Newt Gingrich wants, but it’s not E-Verify. Michele Bachmann and Mitt Romney are the only candidates that fully support E-Verify.

Michele Bachmann is a true conservative. She’s certainly more conservative than Mitt Romney.  Both are right on the most important issues facing the country. So, it comes down to who is the most electable? Which one has the best chance of defeating Obama?

Although Bachmann has many great qualities, she has little private sector, and no public sector executive experience. Unless she surprises in the Iowa caucuses, she’ll soon run out of money. Only one sitting congressman has ever been elected president. Do we really want to gamble on trying to elect a congresswoman as the first female president?

Romney is accused of being a flip-flopper. I see him as more of a flipper. To me, a flip-flopper is someone who goes back and forth between liberal and conservative. Romney’s views have changed over the years, but he’s always gone from liberal to conservative. In other words, he has always changed views in one direction.

Romney has successful  private sector and public sector executive experience. Although he’s to the left of Bachmann, he is more conservative than people give him credit for. Also, the fact that he is perceived as more moderate gives him an advantage in the general election with independents and moderate Democrats.

After all is said, it’s gotta be Romney.

The cycle of Democracy and bondage has recurred over and over throughout history. It goes like this:

1. From bondage (Rule of men) to spiritual faith
2. From spiritual faith to great courage
3. From courage to liberty (Rule of law)
4. From liberty to abundance
5. From abundance to complacency
6. From complacency to apathy
7. From apathy to dependence
8. From dependence back into bondage (Rule of men)

This cycle continues for only one reason…ignorance of history. In his book entitled, The Life of Reason,” George Santayana concluded, “Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Take another look at the eight steps of the cycle above. Where do you think Europe is today? Where do you think the U.S. is today? I contend Europe is in the process of moving from step 7 to step 8. The U.S. is about halfway through step 7.

Our founders knew history, and they understood this cycle. They knew the natural course for governments was to grow bigger and more powerful. They also knew the more powerful the government, the weaker its people. They wrote a constitution that prevented the unbridled growth of the national government. As James Madison wrote in Federalist Paper #45, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined and will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce.”

This limited government model withstood attacks from the “central planners” for most of our history. The original intent and true meaning of the constitution was upheld by the courts when it was challenged.

Then, along came Franklin Delano Roosevelt. FDR redefined the role of the federal government by way of unconstitutional decrees. In effect, he substituted what Progressives call the “Living Constitution” for the authentic Constitution. As Mark Alexander wrote,” FDR used the Great Depression as cover to establish a solid foundation for Democratic Socialism in America. But Democratic Socialism, like Nationalist Socialism, is nothing more than Marxist Socialism repackaged. Likewise, it seeks a centrally planned economy directed by a dominant-party state that controls economic production by way of taxation, regulation and income redistribution. The success of Democrat Socialism depends upon supplanting Essential Liberty — the rights “endowed by our Creator” — primarily by refuting such endowment.

No matter what the current “flavor” of socialism is, it always leads to tyranny.

In his defense of Democratic Socialism, FDR said, “Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.”  If that quote sounds eerily familiar, you might remember this quote by Karl Marx. “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” FDR was actually channeling his inner Marxism.

At the time, Soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev said of Roosevelt’s New Deal, “We can’t expect the American people to jump from capitalism to communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have communism.”

The utopian goal of Socialism has always been to replace the uncertainty of free markets with the supposed certainty of centralized government planning. But, the bottom line is this; Socialized central planning of the economy has failed miserably in every nation it has been attempted. Usually this failure is accompanied by a great deal of economic hardship, starvation and death.

In 1916, William J. H. Boetcker published a pamphlet titled, The Ten Cannots:

1. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
2. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
3. You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
4. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
5. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man’s initiative and independence.
6. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
7. You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
8. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
9. You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
10. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they will not do for themselves.

How many in the list above is Barack Obama breaking during his current re-election campaign? (I’m just sayin…)

Boetcker also wrote the “Seven National Crimes.”

• I don’t think.
• I don’t know.
• I don’t care.
• I am too busy.
• I leave well enough alone.
• I have no time to read and find out.
• I am not interested.

How many from this list are most Americans guilty of? Are the politicians in Washington counting on our continued ignorance? You had better believe it!

The fact is, despite what liberals say, the government can’t give anything to anyone without first taking it from someone else. And, as Thomas Jefferson said, “a government that is big enough to give you anything, is big enough to take it away.”

In order to hold on to power, the liberals must take from Peter and give to Paul, hoping that more “Pauls” go to the voting booth than “Peters.” If that happens in 2012, we’ll have lost our opportunity to break the cycle and we’ll continue on our way to bondage. It may already be too late for Europe. I figure the U.S. is about five years behind Europe in the cycle. The U.S. has, as of this writing about five years until the end of Barack Obama’s second term, if re-elected.

I’m just sayin…

I did it again. On Thanksgiving I jokingly said to a very liberal member of my extended family, “I thought you’d be at Occupy Wall Street tonight.”  I thought it would elicit a laugh thinking even most liberals realize how stupid OWS is.

To my surprise she told me she really wanted to get down there but hadn’t yet had the chance. She was obviously dead serious.

Stunned, I started to question her about what their objective was and why they weren’t occupying the U.S Capitol or the White House? I could have questioned her like a prosecutor grilling a hostile witness. I was prepared and knew I would win this argument. She would be convicted of reckless liberalism and sentenced to 30 days of volunteer work for Newt Gringrich.

She cut me off. The conversation was over. She didn’t want to be questioned about her views. She would not only be the defendant, but also the judge and jury in this trial. The charges were dropped and the case dismissed.

I get that a lot with liberals. As soon as I ask them to defend their positions, or justify them with actual facts, all I hear is crickets.

I used to wonder why it’s always like that with liberals. I’m always eager to defend my conservative positions with the facts, and couldn’t understand why they didn’t want to do the same.

I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but I finally figured it out. It has to do with what I call the liberal state of mind. Being liberal never was about facts or even reality. It’s about feelings and the utopian idea of how the world should be. Conservatism, on the other hand is about how the world really is. It’s about facts. Conservatives are comfortable with facts. It’s not that we don’t have feelings, it’s just that we know problems have to be solved in the world as it is, not in the world as we’d like it to be.

Liberals are comfortable with feelings, but only care about facts when they support their view of the world. They have difficulty  defending their positions based on the facts. Their attitude is, if you don’t agree with them, you must be heartless, racist, greedy or homophobic (Pick one).

It reminds me of a quote by Stuart Chase. “For those who believe,  no proof is necessary. For those who don’t believe, no proof is possible.”

I should have learned my lesson by now. No matter how many facts I provide, there will never be enough proof to change the mind of a liberal. I can only hope to influence those who haven’t yet gone to the dark side.

It doesn’t mean I’ll stop trying. Like I said, I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed.

The country is more divided now that at any point in my lifetime, including the 60′s when anti-war protestors incited violence all over the country. I was just a kid then, but I remember vividly the images on television of wounded soldiers coming home from Vietnam, shootings at Kent State and especially the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago. That’s the one where anti-war protestors rioted with police outside the convention  and it was all captured on live television for the world to see. It also destroyed Hubert Humphrey’s chances to be president.

The country was divided back then, but it was mostly over the war. There’s something different happening now, and it’s called the Obama reelection campaign.

The best way to get re-elected is to run on the accomplishments of your first term.

• The major accomplishment of Obama’s first term was Obamacare, which 60% of Americans want repealed and will most likely be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court before the election.
• Well, how about financial reform? Remember Dodd-Frank? This was supposed to fix all the abuses that caused the 2008 financial meltdown. As Herman Cain so aptly put it, “there’s three problems with Dodd-Frank. First is the fact that it didn’t address the primary reason for the 2008 financial meltdown which was the government encouraging banks to give mortgages to people who couldn’t pay them back. The second and third reasons are Dodd and Frank.”
• How about his promise to keep unemployment below 8% if we only passed his $867 billion stimulus bill?
• How about his promise to cut the deficit in half during his first term?

I could go on and on, but I think you get the point.

Obama has a record now, and it’s not a record of unbridled successes. His only chance is to follow the script he learned years ago from Saul Alinsky, author of Rules for Radicals. Alinsky teaches community organizers how to gain power at any cost. The “rules” are cruel, divisive and controversial. They depend on a strategy of agitating, rubbing resentments, fanning hostilities and creating controversy. Obama and his team learned them well. They are already using them in an attempt to isolate and demonize their possible opponents. Following these rules are Obama’s only chance for re-election, but by definition, they’re meant to create an “Us versus Them” mentality.

He’ll have a $1 billion war chest which he’ll use to put these rules into action against his opponent. Please understand these rules so you recognize them being used in the campaign. Here is a brief summary:

RULE 1: “Power is not only what I have, but what the enemy thinks I have.”  Power is derived from two main sources — money and people.   “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood.

(These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply.  Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)

RULE 2: “I never go outside the expertise of ‘my people’.”  It results in confusion, fear and retreat.  Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.

(Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues.  This is why.  They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)

RULE 3: “Whenever possible, I go outside the expertise of the enemy.”  I look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.

(This happens all the time.  Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”  If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, I send 30,000 letters.  I can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.

(This is a serious rule.  The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)

RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”  There is no defense.  It’s irrational.  It’s infuriating.  It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

(Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh?  He wants to create anger and fear.)

RULE 6: “A good tactic is one ‘my people’ enjoy.”  They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more.  They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.

(Radical activists, in this sense, are no different than any other human being.  We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)

RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”  Don’t let it become old news.

(Even radical activists get bored.  So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)

RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.”  I keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance.  As the opposition masters one approach, I hit them from the flank with something new.

(Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)

RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”  Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.

(Perception is reality.  Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds.  The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions.  The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)

RULE 10: “If I push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.”  Violence from the other side can win the public to my side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.

(Unions used this tactic.  Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)

RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”  I never let the enemy score points because I’d be caught without a solution to the problem.

(Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.  Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power.  So, they have to have a compromise solution.)

RULE 12: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”  I cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy.  I go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

(This is cruel, but very effective.  Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

According to Alinsky, the main job of the organizer is to bait an opponent into reacting.  “The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.”

The Occupy Wall Street crowd claim they represent 99% of Americans. It’s time they were introduced to We Are The 53%. Their name represents the percentage of Americans who actually have a job and pay taxes for themselves and the other 47% who pay nothing.

You won’t see these folks pitching tents in Zucotti Park or throwing bottles at police in Oakland. You won’t hear them demanding the end to capitalism either. These folks actually believe in capitalism, and they have jobs!

Take a look at a few of the postings below. Then visit the website and read some more.

There’s an old saying, “Show me your friends, and I’ll show you your future.”

It seems Democrats are trying to make new friends with the “Occupy Wall Street” protestors in an attempt to duplicate the energy Republicans gained from the emergence of the Tea Party.

The Tea Party represents the conservative wing of the Republican party. It has had a great deal of influence in moving the party back to its conservative roots. It has clear objectives; limited government, low taxes and free markets. The Tea Party has co-opted the Republican party, not the other way around.

The Wall Street protestors represent the far left wing of the Democrats. They have no clear objectives. When asked, they either have a blank stare on their face or say something like “end corporate greed.” Some are students, some are hippies from the 60′s and some are actually paid to be there. Surprisingly, some have coherent ideas that I agree with, like ending bailouts and unholy alliances between big government and big business.

Recently, Democrats like Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Charles Rangel as well as the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) have expressed their support for the protesters. This is either a sign of extreme desperation or an admission of how far left their political views really are. It could be both are true.

Take a look at the list I’ve compiled so far of the people and organizations that have publicly supported the “Occupy Wall Street” protest the Democrats are embracing.  Do the Democrats really want to be associated with these groups?

• American Nazi Party
• Socialist Party USA
• Communist Party USA
• International Journal of Socialist Renewal
• Ayatollah Khamenei (Supreme Leader of Iran)
• Hugo Chavez (President of Venezuela)
• Foreign Ministry of the People’s Republic of China

Of course, the usual anti-American Hollywood crowd of Michael Moore, Susan Sarandon (After she called the pope a Nazi) and Kanye West have shown up in support (It seems capitalism is OK for them, but not for the rest of us).

Like they say, “Show me your friends, and I’ll show your your future.”

The term ‘Useful Idiots’ was originally invented in Soviet Russia to describe people who, while Lenin and Stalin were committing atrocities against their own people, blindly supported them and their cause out of ignorance.

Today, the term is usually used to describe unthinking proponents of communism and socialism in America and the west. You can usually find them participating in riots to promote tolerance or sitting at Starbucks with their friends discussing how capitalism has been the downfall of America over their $4.00 Grande Caramel Macchiato.

Useful Idiots are mostly brainwashed Marxists, 60′s hippies (now Ivy League college professors), rich Hollywood celebrities, Michael Moore and recent graduates with  B.A.degrees in Stupid which they completed in fives years and was paid for by mommy and daddy.

Today, they are participating in the ‘Occupy Wall Street’ protest. Most of them don’t seem to know why they’re there, but they know capitalism is evil, so why not? Some of them are actually comparing themselves to the protestors in Tahrir Square. I think most of these self-indulgent revolutionary wanna-bees would pee in their pants if they were suddenly dropped in the middle of a real revolution.

The really laughable part is most of them are probably Barack Obama supporters despite the fact that Wall Street contributed more to Obama in 2008 and since than to any other president in history. They also don’t know this whole “protest” is being promoted by the likes of George Soros and the professional left who are just using the ignorant masses for their own purposes.

What these useful idiots don’t understand is the difference between true capitalism, where an entrepreneur risks his own capital risking failure and crony-capitalism where politicians are bought off by big business in return for guaranteed success.

It’s too bad these products of our colleges and universities never learned history. It would have been a lot easier than making the same mistakes of past generations. Unfortunately, there will always be a use for useful idiots.

Our founders knew the dangers of big government long before Lord Acton uttered the phrase “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

They understood human nature as well as history. They knew that no matter how well-intentioned a benevolent government may start out, its natural course was to grow larger and more powerful over time.

The founders established our nation based on individual liberty and understood that every power delegated to the government represented a limit on the individual liberty of its citizens.

Governments have only one way to restrict the liberties of its citizens, by force. Sometimes, that’s a good thing. For example, as a society based on Judeo-Christian ethics, we believe it’s immoral to steal someone else’s property. We have written laws making such action illegal and have delegated the power to enforce those laws to the government, by force if necessary.

We are a nation built on the belief that our rights do not come from government, but from God. This is what our founders meant in the Declaration of Independence when they refer to “the laws of nature and Nature’s God.” That’s what they were referring to when they wrote “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

So, what did We The People consent to? Did we consent to give the government unlimited power? Did we consent to give Congress the power to pass any law they felt was appropriate, fair, just or in our best interest? Many in Washington believe they have those powers and much more.

The answer, of course is no. We gave the federal government, through our elected representatives only those powers enumerated in the constitution. Furthermore, just to make sure there would be no misunderstanding, we added the first ten amendments called the Bill of Rights. The tenth amendment states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Did we give the government the power to force us to buy health insurance? Did we give the government the power to take our hard-earned tax dollars in order to “invest” it in a shaky solar panel manufacturer? These are clearly abuses of power by the federal government. The current administration is by no means the first to abuse their power, just the most recent.

Fortunately, We The People, are starting to wake up and just as in the 1976 movie, Network, we’re yelling at the top of our lungs, “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore.”