What happens when the population just simply refuses to pay any more? If a VAT is passed I will refuse to pay it even if it means purchasing goods on the black market. If tax rates are raised I will refuse to pay more than I am paying now. If I am 'fined' for not having health insurance or for having a 'Cadillac' policy I will not pay it.

Of course the IRS will fine me, seize my home and property and incarcerate me in jail. But at what cost will is the Government willing to do so? How many are they willing to penalize at the cost of insurrection? Is the 2nd Amendment next to 'protect' their latest grab of wealth and rights?

Barack Obama, an ideological Marxist? Are you crazy? There might not be a person more dedicated to preserving the capitalist system in this country than Obama. You need to take a few courses in political economy, and start over again.

This may be Alexander's strongest essay to date. One point stuck out:

Free enterprise "doesn't require much thought or ingenuity"?

Indeed. BHO didn't invent that, V.I. Lenin did after the Russian Revolution. Two years later, when their economy was lower than a snake's belly in a wagon wheel rut, he realized that running business might actually take some skill.

I don't think we want to repeat that experience.

WOW! Great and inspiring piece. Can I have permission to read it on the couthouse steps?...along with my new pledge?

They pledged allegiance, to Obama,

who seeks to divide the states of America,

and to socialism, for which he stands.

Once a nation under God,

now burdened,

With debt and tyranny for all.

yo

Mr Alexander, your understanding of Constitutional authority, your ability to articulate these principals relative to the current political climate, and the principals you communicate make far more sense than ANY of our current politicians. I say Mark Alexander for president.

I have to agree. . . definitely your strongest essay! Thank you so much for putting into words what so many of us know, but fail to express so eloquently. Thank you also, for helping to educate those who don't yet "hold these truths to be self-evident".

Excellent essay, Mark.

This declaration says in direct language what we have been trying to say at every election since the colonies first told the King Of England that the taxes being levied were unfair and too much. But this government, just like King George, listens only to themselves, not the people who are protesting. I will not be surprised if attempts are made to assinate some of the leaders, altho I do not condone such actions. I do think that since they continue to ignore the wishes of those who elected them, they should be removed as soon as possible, but by legal means.

Just what is "progressive" about a system that requires a man who drives a taxi cab 80 hours a week to support himself and his family to pay 4 or more times the taxes of a man who drives a similar cab 40 hours a week? Where in the constitution is the requirement that the citizens of the country be subject to the whimsical requirements of bureaucrats and regulators as to the use of their own private energies and assets. Which amendment to the constitution was it that removed the concept of private property and made all property public? We might as well change the motto to E Pluribus Unicorn!

Rarely (to which I truly mean - almost never) have I heard one expound the virtues of our nation and articulate its historic and spiritual relevance to the level in which you and your organization have, consistently, accurately and tirelessly. Your commitment to our Constitution and we the people is very evident. On days where my spirit falters due to governmental interference and tyrannical maltreatment, I am uplifted by the sentiments in your correspondence.

My question to you, posed in all sincerity – what are you doing between the years 2012 and 2016? There’s a position opening in the White House for which you may be particularly well suited.

Mark,

Another excellent article, but I would like to make one point. You stated that “we must choose to turn up for liberty or down toward tyranny and anarchy.” While I completely agree we must choose liberty, and that tyranny is an apt description of the direction in which this country is heading; I would contend that a destination of anarchy is not correct at all. Anarchy is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as: Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder.

I am convinced that this administration has absolutely no intention of releasing its stranglehold on our liberties, thereby allowing us to devolve into anarchy. I think they will use whatever means necessary to “keep the peace”, up to and including using our own military against us, should we seek redress for the tyranny portion of the equation. Keep up the great work!

I can hear the blacksmiths hard at work: the chains and collars are being readied. It is time for us to zealously and vigorously engage in the legal mechanisms available to us and put these blacksmiths out of business. It is time to stand up and pledge ourselves to doing what is right. It is time for us to make it perfectly clear to our elected leaders and the political parties that they have a choice to make: return to the rule of law or face the consequences. As Patrick Henry said, “Is Life so dear or Peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” I have no wish to take up arms, but I will not wear a collar.

Great essay as usual. While it is hard to demonstrate that high tax rates on the rich also hurt the poor through less demand for services and products, I think we can show the hidden taxation built into products. I’d love to see a YouTube video taking common products, say a loaf of bread, gallon of milk, a gallon of gas, a movie ticket, an OTC pain medication (like Tylenol) and perhaps even beer or cigarettes and explain how much, in dollars and cents, really represents taxes. Add up all the sales taxes, fees, FICA, Workman’s comp, property and income taxes (and on and on) on the seller, distributor, truckers, wholesalers, farmers, manufacturers etc., and then add in the costs of paying taxes (compliance costs). So if a loaf of bread costs $2 in the supermarket, how much of that $2 ends up with the government, local, state and Federal or is spent in calculating taxes? People have to be made to understand the damage that is being done to them.

Mark:

off the reocrd and for you only:

It seems that it is time to have a Mini-Continental Congress. Perhaps 1-2 leaders of Montana, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming would be a good start with you, Mark, as a speaker/moderator. You could pick the attendees and Montana would be a good site for this small meeting.

Gary and Joan Carlson....Now in Montana in the Bitterroot Valley...We publish the White Hat Express.

Thank you, and press on.

Once again Mark Alexander has written another outstanding essay on the "Power to Tax... And Revolt". While I love having him as editor of the Patriot Post, I cannot believe that there is not a higher calling intended for him by our Lord and Saviour. This Republic needs a new direction, and I quote Mark: "It is time for tenacious resistance and rebellion against the current throne of government. This is not a call for revolution but for restoration...a call to undertake whatever measures are dictated by prudence and necessity to restore constitutional Rule of Law". He is surely the person to lead such a undertaking, and while he has started the endeavor as editor of the Patriot Post, I am not sure he can carry it to completion from there. Mark and the Patriot Post's message needs greater exposure, a national audience, a national candidacy, so to speak. I cannot be the only person that has this running through his mind. Comments, anyone??? Anyway, another outstanding essay, Mark Alexander. God knows I love you, sir. The good Lord has surely laid his hand upon your shoulder and touched you. Keep up the good work. We cannot lose with people like you and your co-workers at the Post in the fight!!!

Alexander's Essays are always well-written and timely, but this one is the best yet. This income-tax due date is the perfect time to call for an uprising against unfair and unconstitutional taxation.

Now is the time to organize and get people fired up so that on Tuesday, November 2, 2010, less than 7 months from today, they will rise up and "Throw the bums out" by voting in people who will honor their oath to "...support and defend the Constitution..."

This is required reading for patriots. Keep up the good work!

My comment will be in the form of a question in regards to the following statement...

It is time for tenacious resistance and rebellion against the current throne of government. This is not a call for revolution but for restoration -- a call to undertake whatever measures are dictated by prudence and necessity to restore constitutional Rule of Law.

My question is...

By what means do a People peacefully resist an out-of-control government that has proven time and time again, that it is more than willing and able to use deadly force against those who would attempt to stand in their way? Do we undertake the plight of Ghandi and suffer immeasurable horrors until we are all dead? What exactly do we do? How do we react peaceably to a governing body that refuses to acknowledge the rule of law contained in the Constitution? remember, the power to vots is contained within that document. The power to enforce the rights acknowledged is contained within the Bill of Rights generally, and the 2nd Amendment specifically. If the 2nd doesn't serve to afford us the right and the moral standing to resist tyranny through force of arms, then how do we resist an enemy that will utilize the same principle of force of arms to subdue us. Correct? There is an old adage that goes like this...

"You see, in this world there's two kinds of people, my friend. Those with loaded guns, and those who dig.... You dig."

Well done Mark.

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis

Judge Sturdy - what fantasy world are you living in? Perhaps you should take your own advise about taking courses in "political economy".

This message is absolutely right on. And I agree with other posters - Mark Alexander for President in 2012!

Thank God for brave men who are not afraid to speak the truth. This essay most assuredly speaks the truth. We are at a tipping point my friends and it is time for all good men to come to the aid of their County. The evil that pervades must be stopped. The rule of law must be restored. The Constitution must again be respected. Should we shirk our duty now we will indeed be headed for dark days ahead.

Judge Sturdy,

Prove your statment. Without proof it's babble.

Amen Brother! This issue has been building for decades and has now come to an irrefutable acknowledgement of the abuses of government. No more income redistribution and no more big government! Lets make every effort to consolidate our voice this coming November. If that does not work, very ugly times are on the horizon.

I have to agree. . . definitely your strongest essay! Thank you so much for putting into words what so many of us know, but fail to express so eloquently. Thank you also, for helping to educate those who don't yet "hold these truths to be self-evident".

Good column with principles clearly laid out. Just one other comment: the caption under the first part of the cartoon should read "PROPAGANDA" or "AGITPROP" not Perception. Only the MSM or certain parts of the political class see it that way. Even they really know the truth. They are doing their best to squelch it as usual.

Judge Sturdy,

In one sense, you are right to say that Obama is commited to preservation of the capitalist system. The problem is that under his plan, he and his socialist oligarchy are the only ones allowed to be capitalists. The rest of us are just the ants on his antfarm, here to toil for the few who control, and to feed the lazy ants who will be kept fat to perpetuate his power at the voting booth. Marx would, indeed, be proud.

If you really are a judge, please read the Declaration, Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Federalist papers, and report back that you understand and accept constitutional rule of law, or stop swearing to uphold it.

If you're not, read them anyway, you obviously don't get it.

~Norge

T. Bishop, your quote if from Clint Eastwood in "The Good, the Bad, and The Ugly", certainly an apt metaphor for the tyrannical form this government has morphed into. Bravo, Mark Alexander, outstanding discourse, and mirrors my sentiments.

For those who are in doubt about what to do, read Mark Levin's Conservative Manifesto, linked here:

http://www.marklevinshow.com/Article.asp?id=1474931&spid=32364

Essentially, it is to gird yourself with knowledge and wisdom about the true intent of the Founders, as the Patriot Post does nearly daily, inform yourself and your children about the nature of the Statists and their tyrannical intentions, and become more engaged than ever before in public matters.

This is the civil rights movement of this age, to liberate us all from the crushing "soft tyranny" of an evermore burdensome, unresponsive government that practices "crony capitalism", which Judge Sturdy must be referring to. Read non-revisionist history, the Founding Documents linked on this website, The Federalist papers, "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand - a refugee from Soviet Russia, Solzhenitsyn, Madison, Jefferson, Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, there are a number of recommended reading lists on the web. And on the advice of Sun Tzu, "Know your enemy"; read Alinsky, Marx, and Mein Kampf. Study the tactics of the sixties anti-war movement and today's leftists. Take on the attitude of the civil rights movement of the 1960's, of non-violent, peaceful protest. Don't give them cause to over-react by using profanity or vulgarity, respond with dignity, rationality, and facts. Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. set the example for standing for principle in the face of institutionalized oppression. And if enough patriotic citizens stand up at once, they will no longer be able to ignore us. Because, as Arlo Guthrie sang in "Alice's Restaurant", "They're going to KNOW it's a movement."

The Power to Tax… and Revolt

King Bromhidrosis can issue all of the EO’s he wants to, but is he not aware of actions even now being taken across the country? Even in this rural area, I can report two instances of anti-"Federal" action. An ongoing, successful business employing 39 people has closed. The owner, who started it 40 plus years ago, arranged to get his equity out and got four “conservative” employees jobs in other businesses. When the thirty-five avid BHO supporters came to work one day last month, the doors were locked. Since they were paid every two weeks, each were mailed earned time and two weeks terminal pay on the basis of equal rights. The property has been sold.

In another instance, a reconstructive plastic surgeon practiced his art while a shop replaced the motor in his top-of-the-scale sports vehicle. No money changed hands. There was some imaginative bookkeeping but untraceable and the Feds will never know.

In a nearby town, a young business owner told me that he was raised to meticulously pay all taxes developed on the 1040. His new rule follows along the lines of pay all taxes based on things that can’t be hidden from a constitutional-shredding gang of government goons.

Recent discussions on taxation have centered on taxing the rich, i.e., all those making more than $250,000 per year. AT the same time the present inflationary policies of the government spending money it does not have and increasing the debt will cause such runaway inflation that soon the lowest-income middle-class worker will make more than $250,000 and will pay tax rates that are now being put in place as taxing the rich. Any class of people that is willing to stand by and let another class be abused will soon be abused the same.

@John Galt, @ Cheryl,

John Galt, you at least seem able to address Judge Sturdy's comments in a nuanced way. Cheryl, your argument was essentially "Is not!" Very convincing...

Now, Mr. Galt, does Lloyd Blankfein count as part of Obama's "socialist oligarchy"? How about the small business owner who got a contract because of stimulus funds? Are they all in on the conspiracy too?

We're not "ants on his antfarm," though I'm not really sure what that means...have you ever owned an ant farm? The owner derives no value from the ants. But we worker ants are feeding the fat ants who...I don't know, are the owner's favorite ants? Is that about right? Maybe not the best analogy, Mr. Galt.

Just maddening, people. Obama has tried to save banks without nationalizing them, save car companies without nationalizing them, and save health care without going to a single-payer system. How can you possibly say he's devoted to destroying capitalism when some of his highest profile moves have supported private enterprise?

@Major Stu, excuse me, "Atlas Shrugged" counts as "non-revisionist history"??? It's a novel! A work of fiction, explicitly labeled as such! How can you possibly classify that as history?

Please take photos of tonight's sunset---I'm anxious to see the color of the sky on your planet.

Have any of our "best and brightest" dunces in DC ever read a history book? The past is replete with evidence of what happens when a government, culture, kingdom, whatever; taxes its citicens directly and or indirectly at a rate of 33%, it falls and or disappears from the historical record. Is this what we have to look forward to?

This is an excellant discussion of our history (which by the way our children are not taught in school as much of this is deleated from our text books)and a discussion of where we are today with the Obama Administration and getting one to think where we, as a Nation, are headed.

Jim H. I assume you have seen BHO's birth certificate so you know he was born in Hawaii. I tried to obtain a copy, but was told only people with a vital interest can see it. Being a U.S. citizen and wanting to know if BHO meets the requirements to be President does not qualify. What will happen when it finally comes out that BHO does not meet the requirements? All his appointments, nominations, bills signed, etc. are null and void.

You are correct he is not a socialist, he is a COMMUNIST. The socialists are the RINO's. Look at the actions of Bush 1 & 2, Delay, Rove, McCain, Dole, Gingrich (yes Gingrich). Gingrich is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

This was very well done, and the only negative comments were honest criticisms of Barak Husein Obama and they were all well substantiated. I hope an armed revolt is not what results, but we all must rebel against the tyrant running our country and the minions he has gathered around him.

To Jim H.

I love the Libs that keep having to use "President Obama is doing his best to clean up the mess" when in fact Obama has spent more in the last 15 months then Bush did in 8 years. You also seem to forget a guy named Carter, who Reagan had to clean up after. Funny how the Left seems to forget that. And yes, Reagan did spend, but he also created an environment in the economy (cut taxes) that had the government coffers over flowing, unlike today where we have a president that is doing nothing but taking (taxing us to death) and doing nothing to create jobs. You also seem to forget that the last 2 years Bush was in office, the Dems ruled Congress and did nothing to stop the spending.

Great article Mark...keep put the good work!

This article is absolutely spot-on. WE, THE PEOPLE, are the real rulers of this great and wonderful nation, NOT the leftists, or any other group in Washington. It is high-time, WE THE PEOPLE, take back the Constitutional rule, which our great nation was founded upon. We must fight them on the legislative floors, in the courts, and yes, if nescessary, in the streets. This is our beloved country, the very one so many of our people of all races, ethnicities, religions, and genders, have, in the last 200 years plus, given their lives for.THEY pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honors for us, their decendants, and WE, THE PEOPLE must do the same today. Our freedom depends on it!

On their first day of office, each of our elected leaders and representatives swears allegiance to the Constitution, but for too long many have freely ignored that oath and instead worked to subvert the Constitutional limits on their actions.

While the policies of Obama and his willing minions have thrown our nation into economic chaos, they have at least hastened the day when it will no longer be possible for liberal politicians to pretend even to pay lip service to the Constitution, but will be forced to declare openly their derision for the principles that made America great.

When I served as an officer in the Navy, I too took an oath, but unlike many currently serving in government, I meant it when I swore to support and defend the Constitution. Although I am no longer in uniform, I feel that sacred charge even more keenly today.

The time is fast approaching when each American will have to make the clear choice between a further decline into Marxist feel-goodism and a restoration of limited government of, by, and for the people. When you meet with your fellow Patriots at the Tea Parties and other gatherings of like-minded conservatives, consider reciting this pledge:

"I pledge allegiance to THE CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, as originally written and ratified by our nation's founding fathers, and as legally amended by the citizens.

I solemnly swear that I will support and defend THE CONSTITUTION from all enemies, both foreign and especially domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, and that I will endeavor to hold accountable those who would subvert or distort its meaning.

To this end I devote my life, my fortune, and my sacred honor, that the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA will forever remain one nation under God, a free people."

2010:

* The exemption for the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) will decrease from $46,700 to $33,750 for single filers and from $70,950 to $45,000 for married couples filing jointly.

* Taxpayers will not be allowed to deduct their state and local general sales taxes from their federal income tax.

* Businesses will not be able to claim a tax credit for research, experimentation, and development activities.

* Taxpayers will not be able to claim a deduction for qualified tuition and related expenses.

* School teachers will no longer be able to write off books, supplies and other equipment that they purchase with their own money for the classroom.

* Five year depreciation of farm business machinery and equipment will expire.

* Business property on Indian reservations will no longer be depreciated at an accelerated rate.

* Donations of books to public schools (K-12) will no longer be eligible for an enhanced charitable deduction.

* Corporate contributions of computer equipment for educational purposes will no longer be eligible for an enhanced charitable deduction.

* The minimum required distribution rules for IRAs and defined contribution plans will no longer be waived.

* Tax-free distributions from individual retirement plans for charitable purposes will no longer be allowed.

* The tax credit for first-time DC homebuyers will expire.

* Tax incentives for investment in DC, including the DC Zone employment tax credit, will expire.

* “Renewal Community” tax incentives will expire.

* The net operating loss (NOL) carryback period for small businesses will decrease from 5 years to 2 years.

* The first-time homebuyer credit will expire at the end of April 2010.

2011

* The marginal income tax rates will increase as follows:

--35% bracket will increase to 39.6%

--33% bracket will increase to 36%

--28% bracket will increase to 31%

--25% bracket will increase to 28%

--10% and 15% brackets will condense to 15%

* Dividends will no longer be taxed at the capital gains rate for individuals, thereby increasing the double taxation of dividends by as much as 164%.

* The personal capital gains tax will increase to 20% and 10% (from 15% and 5%).

* The child tax credit will decrease from $1,000 to $500.

* The standard deduction for couples as a percentage of the standard deduction for singles will decrease from 200% to 167%--restoring the marriage penalty.

* The top end of the 15% marginal income tax bracket for couples as a percentage of the top end for singles will decrease from 200% to 167%--restoring the marriage penalty.

* The “death” tax using the “stepped up” basis will return with a 55% maximum rate (including surtax) and a $1 million exemption, after years of decreasing “death” tax rates, increasing exemptions, one year using the “carryover” basis to calculate the tax due, and one year of total elimination (2010).

* The Section 179 business expensing cap will decrease from $250,000 to $125,000 (plus inflation after 2008), and the starting point for the phase-out of this deduction will decrease from $800,000 to $500,000.

* The dependent care tax credit will decrease from $3,000 to $2,400.

* The American Opportunity Tax Credit will expire.

* No longer will individuals be able to receive a credit to purchase energy efficient home appliances.

* The tax credit to hire unemployed veterans and disconnected youth will expire.

* The Work Opportunity Tax Credit, which allows employers to credit up to 40% of the first-year wages of a new employee, will expire.

* The $400 “Making Work Pay” Tax Credit will expire.

2012

* The adoption tax credit will decrease from $13,170 to $5,000.

* The credit for electric drive motorcycles, three-wheeled vehicles, and low-speed vehicles will expire.

* The conversion credit for plug-in electric vehicles will expire.

2013

* The tax credit for cellulosic biofuel producers will expire.

* The election to claim the energy credit in lieu of the electricity production credit for wind facilities will expire.

* The special depreciation allowance for cellulosic biofuel plant property will expire.

* The tax credit for the production of Indian coal will expire.

well I am just giddy with anticipation of things to come....

There will come a time when the taxes will be 100%, Then you will be a total slave. We are now 50% to 75% slaves.

You guys are just plain nuts.

This is the most well written thing I have seen about our current trouble. It is brimming with truth and makes me more proud and angrier at the same time. Bravo!

Dan Weber,

First, in defence of Major Stu, if you will read his post carefully, you'll note that he merely suggested a reading list. If arranged vertically, it reads;

1. Non-revisionist history

2. Our founding documents

3. The Federalist Papers

4. "Atlas Shrugged"

5. Solzhenitsyn

6. Madison

7. Jefferson

8. Milton Friedman

9. Thomas Sowell

So you see, "Atlas Shrugged" (4) is not meant to be included as "non-revisionist history" (1). Neither, for that matter, is Thomas Sowell.

Now, in my own defence, I would point out that a socialist oligarchy is not a "conspiracy theory". It is a system of government, one with which we stand on the precipice of replacing our representative republic.

Perhaps the ant farm was not a great analogy. to further clarify, the hard-working, industrious ants represent the producers (taxpayers). The fat, lazy ants represent those who do not produce, and live on the central government teat, funded by the taxpayers. (Which we idiotically refer to as "entitlements"). The owners put the glass panes in place and control the whole thing, sitting on a big pile of other people's money, and redistributing it as they see fit.

In hindsight, it would have worked better with bees...

~Norge

Have you talked to the "We the People" group that has put together the "Articles of Freedom" that includes the "redress of Grievances' as per amendment 1 of the Constitution?

It is something that the citizens can do, that is a strong unified actions that can be taken to get government back into alignment with the Constitution.

Please check it out, get the word out, so that we can get out from under the tyranny of this administration.

Knowledgeable folks such as yourself and those that created the "Articles of Freedom" can truly help citizens to get united in a strong action to take America back for the people.

thank you,

Julia Allen

When I think of our current form of government in Washington, I can't help but also be reminded of Ronald Reagan's evil empire speech back in 1983.

He quoted C.S. Lewis saying that

"The greatest evil is not done now in those sordid 'dens of crime' that Dickens loved to paint. It is not even done in concentration camps and labor camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried and minuted) in clear, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voice."

Sound too familiar?

Excellent essay/editorial. Well done. But it must be at least half said; "First we shall (no, must) try "restoration", but then if that fails, we must resort to..........." A sad time in American history.

Judge Sturdy and Dan Weber,

Your protestations pertaining to evidence of Barack Obama's Marxist ideology, or the tendancy of this government down a path of Socialism is really quite laughable. A simple test laid upon the whole of the President and this Congress answers quite nicely. To which of the following two quotes on principle, do the President and this Congress most closely adhere to?

A) "To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." ~ Thomas Jefferson

B) "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!" ~ Karl Marx

Perhaps Mr. Obama has already answered this question:

"It’s because you have an obligation to yourself. Because our individual salvation depends on collective salvation." - Barack Obama

"I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets." - Barack Obama (Dreams of My Father)

“My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s going be good for everybody... and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody." - Barack Obama

Quite frankly Judge Sturdy and Mr. Weber, I haven't found much at all, in word or deed, on the part of this President, that would lead one to believe his philosophy or principles are aligned closer to those of Jefferson and Madison, rather than those of Marx and Engels. He clearly falls closer to the latter.

God Save the Republic

keep up the great work!!

Mark Alexander...a Modern American Founder.

Should we say, a Founding Son?

Thanks Mark for speaking my mind!

@Dan W.

You understand common grammar and sentence construction. It's a list. On a blog. I chose to omit the "and" between the items, or the numeric construction as exemplified on John Galt's post. Thanks, John Galt.

If you can seriously say you have recently re-read "Atlas Shrugged" and not seen the parallels in the Obama/Axelrod nationalization of GM, AIG, treatment of BAC and WAMU, while leaving Fannie and Freddie untouched, then you've got nothing to fear from us poor paranoids who have seen the results of statist economic control. A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovitch is fiction, a novel, so is 1984. I would still recommend them for reading because they are prophetic allegories. Last week, we tea-partiers were simply knuckle-dragging, Neanderthal hater bigot racist homophobes.

Now we're criticized for being literate?

I missed your post before sunset tonight. I was at a school board meeting. My sky is dark tonight. Which of Obama's 57 states do you live in?

One question to ponder: Obama recently stated in the Baltimore meeting with the GOP that "you guys are trying to make me sound like some kind of Bolshevik". Can you think of any of Obama's policies that the Bolsheviks would object to?

On December 16th, 1773, "radicals" from Boston, members of a secret organization of American Patriots called the Sons of Liberty, boarded three East India Company ships and threw into Boston Harbor 342 chests of tea.

This is how it would be today:

342 RIGHT WING RADICALS ARRESTED BY FBI AND ATF

(AP)

In the early hours of December 16th, 2010 a right wing conspiracy group called the Sons of Liberty were arrested after commiting the worst crime of all! They actually voiced an oppinion and dared to critique our dear Leader Obama! ATF Agents found legal guns in the homes of the Radicals after breaking down the doors fo their homes and carrying out federal search warrants. Since it was feared that these radicals had terroristic intentions, lawyers for the Radcials were prohibited and hindered to attend and advice their clients. The Feminine Rights Organization WOW was pleased that these chauvinistic swines were finally arrested. WOW took particular offense that the group was named "Sons of Liberty" without making any refrence to the Daughters. Reverent Al Sharpton was quoted in all News papers and TV shows saying:" Arresting these white Haters is not good enough, we want all White citizens to pay and we demand that every white family pays a " Black Slave Appology Fee" once a month. The President applauded this idea and promissed to push it through as he can be certain if anyone speaks against this measure he or she will be ripped apart by the media as racist. The President also lauted the Federal Agents arresting the Sons of Liberty. He promissed to put away with the last remnants of personal rights. Congress and Senate members led by Barbara Boxer proposed a new Federal Agency with unlimited powers, called the Minority Defence Agency that could arrest and incarcerate anyone not giving money to minorities, having a different oppionion as our beloved leader and saying anyhting "Against the kids"

Though restoration would be nice, the takers will continue to erode our liberties until only revolution will be possible. By then, we'll be fat, dumb, and happy Euromericans.

A balanced budget amendment that gives each person 1 vote for each dollar paid in federal taxes will bring instant equity to our political system. You will see immediate fairness in taxes and spending.

Taxes are only a symptom of the moral degradation of the American people. Too many people want tax dollars and too many people think the takers deserve it.

Only a moral people can be free.

Friedman said, "Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.

Dear Mark,

I have read your writing many times and find it excellent and mostly accurate. I think that in this one the idea that a prograsive tax is unfair or unamerican is incorrect. I think this view has been caused in our time because of the out-of-control spending and taxation you mentioned. Therefore the idea that people with high=r incomes should pay proportionatly more is being rejected. It seems fair to me that those who benefit more from our freedom should contribute more. The problem is the leftists view has distorted this fairness into the idea that all income should be redistributed.

In a government ruled by our founders principles there would be no need for this excess taxation because political power hungry people could not do it.

If we blame the progressive tax as the source of our government greed, we have missed the point.

JQ

THE COLLAPSE OF THE DOLLAR

Please send a copy to everybody you care about. It contains 11 staggering facts that every American needs to know.

#1: The official national debt now stands at $12.68 trillion — an amount equal to about 88.5% of all the goods and services our economy produces in an entire year.

#2: Contingent obligations for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans, and pensions now stand at an additional $108 trillion over and above the "official" national debt.

#3: State, county and local governments are nearly $3 trillion in debt. Many can't pay and will ultimately demand that Washington assume responsibility for that debt as well.

#4: Total federal, state and local government indebtedness now stands at a mind-blowing $123.6 trillion.

#5: Last year, Washington added $1.4 trillion to the debt. In this fiscal year, the Obama administration will add another $1.6 trillion!

#6: In addition to funding the current trillion-dollar-plus deficits, the U.S. Treasury must borrow MORE each year to replace bills, notes and bonds that are maturing.

#7: This record-shattering borrowing by the Treasury has resulted in a Mt. Everest of Treasury obligations being dumped onto the market, which naturally depresses bond prices and drives interest rates higher.

#8: In a desperate attempt to keep interest rates low, the Bernanke Federal Reserve has created $1.25 trillion out of thin air to buy mortgage-backed securities ... another $300 billion to buy U.S. Treasuries ... and yet another $170.6 billion to buy other government bonds — a total of nearly $1.7 trillion in all.

#9: From September 10, 2008 to March 10 of this year, Bernanke increased the nation's monetary base from $850 billion to $2.1 trillion — a 250% increase in just 18 months.

#10: Despite this massive money-printing, the yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury note has STILL risen by more than one-fifth — from 3.2% to 3.86% — since December.

FACT #11: Because of this massive money-printing, the U.S. dollar has lost nearly 10% of its value in the past 12 months alone.

CONCLUSION: This unprecedented debt crisis is the single greatest threat to your wealth and standard of living. The collapse of the Dollar is near. Thanks to George W. Bush, Bernanke and Obama, that do not have a clue how to fix this economic catastrophe.

Apparently only Land Owners were initially allowed to vote. I wonder what would happen if we went back to that. What if only Tax payers could vote?

It is not one man,ie;the President that can Pass these laws.It is the House and the Senate.Where were all you Tea Partiers,when the Regan&Bush tax policies of Spend but do not Tax;and the trickle down policys? What we need is term limits,and accountability from our elected officials.I am a Independant voter;and like many I am unhappy with all elected officials,Local,State,and Federal.We need a 23rd Amendment,to put a end to this lack of repesentation by both parties. Thank you

Major Stu,

I re-read Atlas Shrugged last year and you are absolutely correct. There are parallels, and they are alarming.

I can't decide if Henry Waxman reminds me more of Wesley Mouch or Cuffy Meigs. Thoughts?

Well, at least Mr. Waxman has succumbed to the pressure and had his little inquisition cancelled. The guy is still a thug though.

"We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading reality." ~ Ayn Rand

Well written, however, there is little fact and figured regarding the current situation. Yes, your historical information is correct. However, you lack any evidence proving your point, you simply blast opinion as situational fact.

As a young person, I would like to point out the most interesting fact regarding our whole economic and political situation.

It's YOU people who "screwed" things up for my generation, it's YOU people who were in power, not mine. So please, back the F off as my generation, the generation with most higher-education per capita than any other, is utilizing progressive policy to achieve something vastly superior and far more ethical than your greedy, singular generation has ever conceived.

Keep up the good writing, but please utilize ACTUAL fact from skewed reality that drives fear and hatred towards something that simply isn't properly understood by most people reading this article.

-Yours truly

Nathan

Um, you people do realize that taxes are at an almost all-time low, right? lol fools

@Dan Weber

"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force." --author Ayn Rand (1905-1982)

Fiction?

Oh and @J Gover, Waxman is definetly Cuffy Meigs.

Having just finished Edwin Rutherford's excellant historical novel "New York" that traces the founding of the city and our flegling country, I am amazed at the history story being retold now as "Patriots and Tea Party-ists" stand up to be heard above big government and socialistic ideals. The author says in his description of the book "My own personal experiences also helped. I descend from both Philadelphia Quakers and Carolina colonists whose families were separated by the Revolutionary War. That helped give me insight into the agony of Patriots who, until the British government denied their claims, had always, like Ben Franklin himself, thought of themselves as free-born Englishmen." Insert Demos, Obama and idealogues in the media where applicable here. Because of the delicious background he gives through families, I understand more wholly the problems we face now, and perhaps the solutions. Not revoluntionary war, but perhaps as Mark so aptly puts it "restoration" of basic principles of freedom. His novels are always comfortingly long, stuffed with detail and held together by families descending through the centuries. His basic technique is to whip together the lives of representative fictional clans with a backdrop of facts into a smooth narrative. Read it and better understand today's America.

Amen!!

Keep telling it like it is!

Having just finished Edwin Rutherford's excellant historical novel "New York" that traces the founding of the city and our flegling country, I am amazed at the history story being retold now as "Patriots and Tea Party-ists" stand up to be heard above big government and socialistic ideals. The author says in his description of the book "My own personal experiences also helped. I descend from both Philadelphia Quakers and Carolina colonists whose families were separated by the Revolutionary War. That helped give me insight into the agony of Patriots who, until the British government denied their claims, had always, like Ben Franklin himself, thought of themselves as free-born Englishmen." Insert Demos, Obama and idealogues in the media where applicable here. Because of the delicious background he gives through families, I understand more wholly the problems we face now, and perhaps the solutions. Not revoluntionary war, but perhaps as Mark so aptly puts it "restoration" of basic principles of freedom. His novels are always comfortingly long, stuffed with detail and held together by families descending through the centuries. His basic technique is to whip together the lives of representative fictional clans with a backdrop of facts into a smooth narrative. Read it and better understand today's America.

Nathan,

As to backing "the F off" I would suggest you take a careful look inward, as well as a thorough historical analysis of precisely who within those previous generations are responsible for the state of the nation being "screwed" up for your generation.

It is precisely the Progressive Movement, which I prefer to define as the Regressive Movement, that has "screwed things up." In truth they are Statists, central planners, who believe a centralized government can take care of everything for everyone - cradle to grave. If you and your generation believe that course to be the best solution, then the War for Independence was fought for naught and we should just declare the American Experiment an abject failure.

Be warned though. Individual rights and liberty are secondary and subservient to the state in a country defined by the Progressive mindset. The rhetorical goal is given as; The individual must surrender certain rights and property for the good of society (or the collective). You may wake one day soon and wonder where your freedom went, and suddenly realize you unwittingly surrendered it to a ravenous central government which must eat more and more of your rights, property and liberty in order to survive.

It's been happening. You and others just haven't been paying attention. The Statists have been chipping away at the Constitution for a century now. Each time they've progressed in that endeavor there have been economic consequences and incremental losses of individual liberty. There has been opposition at every step by significant numbers of those prior generations you hold such contempt for. However, by small degrees they have managed to eat away at our foundational principles and gain power with each success. Were you firm in your First Principles of the American Republic, your ire would be more appropriately directed at the Progressive Statists who have gone before rather than broadly condemning entire generations.

We're at a tipping point. The Statists can see the downhill side of the hill they've been laboring up. The Tea Partiers and Constitutional Conservatives and are working hard to restore the Constitutionl Republic our founding fathers bestowed to us... for yours AND subsequent generations. Despite a historical tendency of conservatives to silently endure and work to preserve, we now see the urgency and have become vocal.

Take care in the notion that you speak for your generation or those who are yet to follow. You do not. My own daughters have been taught the values and principles of Americanism, and despite the best efforts of left thinking teachers and a certain number of their peers, they are secure in their faith in God, love of country, and still cherish those founding principles they've been brought up with. I've met many of their generation of a similar mind and upbringing, and that gives me hope and encouragement.

Here's the simple solution Nathan. There are numerous Social Democracies, Socialist States, and any form of Marxist/Maoist oligarchy you'd care to name, scattered across the globe for a "Progressive" or a Leftist to choose from. Choose and go. Leave us and our children to our Republic. It is unique in it's form, nature and principle, and the only of it's kind on earth.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." ~ Samuel Adams

I always thought 'largess' had an 'e' on the end.

All the talk is that Social Security will soon not be able to pay promised benefits. There is no talk as to why. When originally enacted all the money collected was to go to a trust fund to pay the benefits. WW II required all funds so the money in the trust fund was borrowed and replaced with low interest government bonds. Congress has since used the money collected as part of the General Fund an replaced it with more bonds. Now the day has come when the injudicious Congress must redeem those bonds so Congress would like to consider Social Security as an entitlement instead of a right bought and paid for by employees and employers alike. Who to blame?

It seems like you're getting ready to get the rifles and hit the streets... However, if we are to do that - we need to know who WE are. Is there any way to find out who our neighbors are that get the PatriotPost?

Yes, Dave.

Walk around and talk to them.

"...free enterprise is nothing more than "Social Darwinism, every man or woman for him or herself ... [a] ..."

Golly, gee! I would think the Godless evolutionists would be delighted to have a Darwinian concept in action. Just more liberal hypocrisy in line with their approval of animal "rights" and abortion; can't kill a deer but oh, yes, you can murder a baby!

P.S. Has anyone given any thought to the practicalites of staging a revolution? Such as, when the Cyber Czar shuts down conservative networks in an attempt to restrict our communications, or individuals having di-di packs for each member of the family if we have to pull up stakes and flee government retribution? I know many advertisers tout generators and water purifiers but where will we all "meet up" when the poopy hits the propeller? :) Just a thought...

Mark,

Like many other readers, I'm left wondering why men such as yourself aren't running for office.

Your essays remind me of yet another thing absent from the pages of politicians' speeches. Just after references to God, the timeless wisdom of our Founders and the words they left us. And I blame here mostly Republicans. One expects the Democrats to follow their agenda of Godless secularism, but the Republicans should know better.

An honest reading of the founding patriots reveals what a vast sea of ignorance our citizens have become, particulary regarding the character and principles of our nation, and the men who founded her.

The efforts of the Patriot Post are as noble as any movement in our country today.

Let us not forget what was sacrificed, and may liberty be preserved, whether by pen or sword.

I do not have a comment but rather a question. Since we know that Obama is a Marxist/Communist, isn't that reason enough for him to be impeached? Or is there nothing in our laws to prevent/stop a Communist from occupying the Oval Office? We have proof by his Marxist actions and words of the last fourteen (14) months of thuggery governance, blatant bribery, threatening, offers of jobs for votes, and those infamous midnight Executive Orders. All this in addition to the nonvetted, unconfirmed, uninvestigated Communists, Marxists, Socialists, he has appointed as his "Czars". His very use of the word Czar is enough to know where his loyalty lies.

There's the foul odor of Tax Increases in the air. The VAT is their next push.

http://congress.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/04/16/vat-the-next-big-tax-increase/

If a VAT passes, on top of all the other socialist programs rammed down American's throats, we will have no other options but citizen militia revolutions.

That will mean that even a majority of so-called Republicans voted for it, and will mean the federal representatives lost their bearings and no longer honor the US Constitution. Is this how it will begin finally?

The most destructive result of government-mandated “charity” is that it has banished both humility and moral agency. No longer must a man humble himself and beg his brother to share the fruits of his labors. No longer must his brother humble himself and exercise his moral agency to relieve that man's suffering. By making the government our agents, we have given up on both humility and moral agency and damned both men.

Awesome article. Best one put out in a long time. I'm forwarding it to everyone I know.

All too true. We MUST pray and vote for freedom.

"An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy; because there is a limit beyond which no institution and no property can bear taxation." --John Marshall

For the researchers out there, was this quote written by Chief Justice Marshall, or by Daniel Webster as attorney for plaintiff?

Sandy,

I think we'll meet on the lawn of OUR White House.

Mark Alexander for President! I can scratch up a few hundred votes for you myself.

@J Gover

Clearly, you are completely missing my point and your vision of what America truly is, is VERY skewed. This discussion is very much moot as I'm quickly being written-off as a "progressive-liberal" as opposed to what I truly am, a realist. It's this jaded mind-set, which you assists you in propping you up on your moral "high-ground", that is the only thing binding this country down.

Start keeping up with the times,

Nathan

Historical parallels...the fall of Rome and the American Empires.

"As the private wealth of the Empire was gradually confiscated or taxed away, driven away or hidden, economic growth slowed to a virtual standstill. Moreover, once the wealthy were no longer able to pay the state's bills, the burden inexorably fell onto the lower classes, so that average people suffered as well from the deteriorating economic conditions. In Rostovtzeff's words, "The heavier the pressure of the state on the upper classes, the more intolerable became the condition of the lower"

Obama and the liberal socialists have learned nothing from history...here we go again.

Nathan,

I don't believe I missed the point at all. You appeared to be quite clear in your statement. You said:

"It's YOU people who "screwed" things up for my generation, it's YOU people who were in power, not mine. So please, back the F off as my generation, the generation with most higher-education per capita than any other, is utilizing progressive policy to achieve something vastly superior and far more ethical than your greedy, singular generation has ever conceived."

Where exactly have I missed the point? You quite clearly and wholly condemned the present and/or prior generations for bringing the nation to the current state it is in. You touted your generations superiority in education and ethics, and highlighted Progressivism as a policy for changing things for the better. I may be mistaken, but that sounds a lot like our current President speaking, who is unquestionably a "progressive-liberal." No one is writing you off however. We're just debating issues, policy and principles.

I always find it interesting when I speak with a young person who adheres to the notions of progressivism, that they always seem to think it is something new. A fine new idea that will solve the problems of the world. If we can just get everyone under one big tent, take care of them and force them to get along, all will be well. It's oldest game there is. At it's root, it is older even than the European Monarchies we severed ourselves from 230+ years ago. Progressivism is just a rebranded form of Socialism and a path back, eventually, to slavery and tyranny. It's just that the word "Progress" sounds so right and nice, doesn't it? But you have to ask yourself, and closely analyze - What is it exactly your progressing towards?

The young of every generation often want to be a part of, and lead a fine new revolution, to solve the worlds ills. What's funny (in a sad sort of way), is that more often than not, they miss the boat, as is the case here I suspect. The American Revolution was, and still is... THE REVOLUTION.

If you've never read them, for a historical basis you have to familiarize yourself with The Federalist Papers. The letters of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Rush, Franklin, et al, are also a must. But here's some recommened reading that might bring additional perspective:

"The 5000 Year Leap: A Miracle That Changed the World" - W. Cleon Skousen

"The Road to Serfdom" - Friedrich von Hayek

"American Progressivism" - Ronald J. Prestritto and William J. Atto

"Liberty and Tyranny" - Mark Levin

"The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression" - Amity Shlaes

"The New American Tea Party" - John O'Hara

Yes! Now what??

@Major Stu, yes, I can think of several Obama policies that Bolsheviks would object to. A short list:

-stimulus funds going to non-state-controlled enterprises

-an emphasis on engagement with ideological opponents in foreign policy

-a desire to gain the political support of a rival political party

-not executing the members of said rival political party

-mentioning "God Bless America" at the end of speeches

-tolerating governors like Rick Perry who talk openly of secession

...I could go on. I think it's awfully tough for a fair-minded person to draw significant parallels between the 44th democratically elected president of the wealthiest country in the world and the winner of a civil war precipitated by the collapse of a monarchy. So yeah, I can think of plenty of things the Bolsheviks would have a problem with (do you think that Lenin would have been ok with Red Army rifles coming from a privately owned company? how about the expansion of power-of-attorney rights to GLBT partners?). My question back to you is how do you see so many parallels where I see so few?

@Rvans, I don't think I see your point. Forgive me, but I need to pillory Rand's writing here to make my case.

To the best of my knowledge, that quote comes from a non-fiction essay in "The Virture of Selfishness," so no, I wouldn't count that as fiction, largely because Rand didn't write it as fiction. That sort of throws the sincerity of your remarks into question, but hey, we're already walking down this road, so why stop here?

A big part of what bugs me about Rand is her disregard of huge stretches of history. The stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases? I'd argue that that "stage" comprises most places throughout most of human history. I'm not commenting on whether that's right or wrong, just that, as a matter of historical fact, that's how things were once done. I'm happy to provide examples if you need them, but if you need them, then we're really not reading from the same sheet of music. Rand's formulation that we're "fast approaching" an era of all-powerful Leviathans seems willfully ignorant of the broad sweep of human history.

The stage of "rule by brute force" seems, to me, to have passed in much of the world; rulers from this stage would include Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Japanese shoguns, I could go on... Does Rand really believe that we're "approaching" this stage? I think that the centuries-long rise of liberalism shows quite the opposite---that more people live under the rule of law than ever before.

More than her slippery grasp of world history, I take issue with Rand's penchant for argument by aphorism. Throughout the essay from which you've quoted, Rand makes exactly two references to non-American history, and they're both in one sentence: "Life on a desert island is safer than and incomparably preferable to existence in Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany." I happen to agree with that point, but again, she's arguing by aphorism. I don't find that kind of argumentation convincing, and I'm wondering why you do. In my experience, people who are swayed by aphorisms tend to already agree with the speaker's preconceptions.

@J Gover, My "protestations...is really quite laughable"? Interesting. "A simple test...answers quite nicely"? Also interesting.

Are you familiar with straw men? You should be, because you've just set one up. "Which one of these sounds more like Congress, a quote from a Founding Father or a quote from Karl Marx?" Do you really see the debate as that black-and-white? Do you really see Marx and Jefferson as the only two options for my response? Do you really think this was a fair question, or an effective argument?

Do you really think you've quoted Obama in context? That quote comes from a college commencement address in which Obama was urging students to consider public service. Here's the full quote:

"Each of you will have the chance to make your own discovery in the years to come. And I say “chance” because you won’t have to take it. There’s no community service requirement in the real world; no one forcing you to care. You can take your diploma, walk off this stage, and chase only after the big house and the nice suits and all the other things that our money culture says you should by. You can choose to narrow your concerns and live your life in a way that tries to keep your story separate from America’s.

But I hope you don’t. Not because you have an obligation to those who are less fortunate, though you do have that obligation. Not because you have a debt to all those who helped you get here, though you do have that debt.

It’s because you have an obligation to yourself. Because our individual salvation depends on collective salvation. Because thinking only about yourself, fulfilling your immediate wants and needs, betrays a poverty of ambition. Because it’s only when you hitch your wagon to something larger than yourself that you realize your true potential and discover the role you’ll play in writing the next great chapter in America’s story."

Not quite as inflammatory when it's in context, is it?

The "Dreams from My Father" quote is similarly out of context; Obama goes on to say how he fell out with the people he mentioned. Why did you choose not to include that detail?

Regarding the final quote, I know you're worried about Comrade Obama collectivizing agriculture and stealing your guns. When this happens, I'll be the first one to join you on the barricade. Until then, cool out and try to empathize with a man doing a job most of us would never take. For fun, try to view a guy who made $5.5 million last year as a capitalist, even if your friends tell you otherwise. I swear, it makes an awful lot more sense if you stop trying to make Obama fit into a ready-made box.

Jim H, sorry to see you're still blaming Bush for all this Kenyan born imposter claims is his fault. Wake up, call me in 3 years when our deficit is 4 times Bush's best effort and rising, and you're paying the bill. Get over it, Obozo's a major mistake.

Re: Dan Weber

A mole? I think so.

I've been moling at the Huffington post too.

If you can't even see one point forwarded here, you are obviously from the leftist liberal fold, or just a plain dolt living in your own little myopic world. Which one is it Dan?

Please enlighten us.

@Bob W

A mole? For whom? Sorry to say there is no sinister conspiracy behind me, and no one has taken time out of their day to dispatch me to Patriot Post message boards. If you consider reading and commenting on the viewpoints of people who disagree with you "moling," then guilty as charged, I guess.

I consider myself a liberal and not a "plain dolt," though (har har har) I assume you seem them as the same thing.

I can see some of the points "forwarded" here; Alexander lays out his reasoning quite clearly. I just happen to disagree with some of his premises, some of his reasoning, and some of his argumentation. For instance, Alexander writes:

"Thus, some 221 years after the ratification of our Constitution, Americans are once again at a crossroads with oppressive centralized government -- a point at which we must choose to turn up toward liberty or down toward tyranny and anarchy"

Tyrannical, too-powerful, too-centralized government AND anarchy lay down the same road? I find that hard to grasp; anarchy describes a state of no government, whereas tyranny suggests an all-powerful government...how are two diametric opposites so closely related in Alexander's mind? I could go on, but I hope this example was somewhat illustrative of where I'm coming from.

Were you at all interested in discussing any of the points I've raised, or did you just want to get to know me a little better?

Re: Back to you Dan

Just wanted to get to know you a little better Dan! :)

Fair enough. Thanks for your contributions!

I believe the point most people who follow the Patriot and conservative ideology are trying to make Dan, is a simple one. That is, the federal government is overstepping their constitutional confines and has no authority to do many of the things they are doing.

I assume you have ready the United States Constitution and its documents? I assume you’re a study of history and oppressive governments, and I assume, by virtue of your following, that you disregard history? Nevertheless, try arguing your points from that perspective Dan and you might gain a few more ears. Otherwise, everything you counter is disputable.

Look at it from that perspective Dan, and you might see more eye to eye.

@Bob W

I think I've gotten a little tripped up in your language...by virtue of my following? I don't understand what you mean by that.

I really do understand that Tea Partiers believe the Constitution is under assault. What I don't understand is why these people have chosen this moment to get agitated about it. A few examples of what I'm getting at...

It was Andrew Jackson who (probably) said "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it," yet I rarely here this episode mentioned when people talk about where this country "went astray." Rather, the "going astray" seems to have happened only since the rise of progressivism, starting with either Teddy or Franklin Roosevelt, depending on which Tea Partier you're listening to.

Dwight Eisenhower created the National Security Agency, and I'm hard-pressed to find the sort of explicit Constitutional authorization for that body that Tea Partiers seemed to demand during the health care debate. For that matter, the maintenance of a peacetime army can be directly contradicted by the letter of the Constitution, yet I don't hear any Tea Partiers calling for a large-scale demobilization of our armed forces; rather, at a recent Patriot rally in Nevada, the crowd cheered heartily in support of the federal military. Thomas Jefferson placed standing armies only behind banks as a danger to a free society, but I have yet to hear a Tea Partier say that we should disband the army, marines and air force (the Constitution makes provision for a standing navy).

More recently, Ronald Reagan bailed out S&Ls and the Chrysler Corporation. Yet the Tea Party tends to view him as a hero. Does no one else see a contradiction here?

My point is that the United States has never, ever done things "the way the Founders intended." That's largely because the Founders had some pretty contradictory views, so the idea that there was any single thing that "the Founders"---a monolithic group in this formulation---intended is spurious. Jefferson wanted a violent revolution every 20 years; Hamilton wanted a hereditary king. I have a tough time coming up with two more diametrically opposed viewpoints.

Why do conservatives/Patriots/Tea Partiers continue to pretend that these men had anything approaching a unified vision? Why do we continue to pretend that these men, wise as they were, were able to foresee the rise of the nation-state, the increased lethality of arms, the democratization of information, or anything else that happened between 1776 and now?

Ultimately, I try to view these questions practically. I view the Constitution as a guide designed to help Americans govern themselves, not a static document designed to keep the American legislative process at pre-1800s speed. From 1783 onwards, we've always picked and chosen which aspects of the Constitution we think apply to our moment in history and which don't. Why are Tea Partiers/Patriots suddenly so keen on standing athwart history and yelling stop?

I'd be happy to look at it from your point of view, which I think boils down to this: just about every President has treated the Constitution as a plastic document. Can you see things from my point of view?

@ Dan Weber

Regarding your response to my earlier post - I'm sorry but that was not a straw man argument by definition. It was a simple question of where, "on principle, do the President and this Congress most closely adhere to?" And I presented Thomas Jefferson and Karl Marx at basically opposite ends of the political and socio-economic spectrum for reference. In all seriousness and honesty, can you really say the current state and path of our federal government falls closer to the ideology of Jefferson than it does Marx?

Perhaps we should clarify the arugment more. Snapshots in time are useful to a certain degree and we can place the country all along the political spectrum at various times in history. I'm certain it has varied from right to left, and left to right, depending on moment and circumstance. What we'd determine is that nothing is static - we're always in motion. So then it becomes important to analyze pathways within and upon that political / socio-economic spectrum. Which way are we going, how fast, and how far will we go?

Yes, Reagan is often championed as a conservative. Was he a perfect conservative? No, of course not. But, where was he on balance within the political spectrum, especially in comparison to his contemporaries (or, the alternatives)? Was FDR the perfect progressive/liberal? No, of course not. But he did set in motion certain policies that in turn evolved and became pathways to socialism. LBJ also was not what one would necessarily consider the perfect progressive/liberal, but he and the Congress in power at that time passed expansive legislation that expanded and lengthened those pathways towards socialism.

But since you're concerned with "straw man" arguments, let's go back to some key points of your first post. You said;

"Obama has tried to save banks without nationalizing them, save car companies without nationalizing them, and save health care without going to a single-payer system. How can you possibly say he's devoted to destroying capitalism when some of his highest profile moves have supported private enterprise?"

First banks. And I'm talking about real main street banks, not Wall Street investment banks, are, for all practical purposes, very nearly nationalized already - even before Obama arrived on the scene. Take a simple, conventional, home mortgage loan application for example. Fifty years ago you, as a consumer, could have walked into your hometown bank with a real estate purchase contract, filled out a one page application and within a couple of weeks (for title work) closed your loan by signing a single promissory note, a mortgage document, and been in your house. Now the paperwork required for the application, the preliminary and final loan disclosures, HUD settlement statements, required notices on 3 day right of recission (if it's a refi.), right to copy of the appraisal, insurance and escrow requirements, and on, and on, and THEN the loan and mortgage docs... and you'll be lucky if you can get through the process within a month (hence the 45 day rate lock). And ALL of it generated and required by the regulatory agencies of the Federal Government.

Traditional bank are regulated beyond the laypersons common understanding, and examined by regulators with regularity. Yet, now we have more legislation coming down the pike that is rhetorically given by the President as; "needed to fix what went wrong" with regard to the financial meltdown. Strange that the main focus of this legislation appears to be to create yet ANOTHER regulatory agency that will have even more authority over the traditional banks (you know, the ones that DIDN'T cause the problem), while little attention, if any, is given to the GSE's (govt. sponsored entities) Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the non-bank lenders who WERE in fact primary causes of the problem through unsound lending practices, along with the investment firms who re-packaged their sub-prime products into the toxic Mortgage Backed Securities. Nor does any attention appear to be given to CRA in the bill, a regulation that played a large role in the irresponsible lending fiasco. But no, you're correct, nominally speaking... the banks have not been nationalized. But, the next time you apply for a home loan, or a car loan, or a business loan, and are both astounded and frustrated by the bureaucracy of it all... please don't blame the banker.

As for the automakers. The government (or rather the taxpayers) own 61% of General Motors. I'm sorry, but when the nation owns 61% of something... I think that qualifies as the thing having been nationalized. Granted, not so much with Chrysler. Only 8% percent taxpayer ownership there. But then the UAW got handed an unprecedented deal by the adminstration, when they were jumped ahead of secured lenders and blessed with a 55% ownership position in the company. Hmmm... wonder how they rated that sort of consideration, given that a government authority granting unsecured creditors a position ahead of secured creditors seems to go against every concept of capitalism, common business practices, or fair and equitable treatment under the law.

Lastly, the single-payer health care system. I really have to chuckle at that one Dan. Are you seriously suggesting to us that President Obama would not have imposed a single-payer healthcare system on the country if he could have??? C'mon!!! He himself is on record stating that his preference and goal is a single-payer government run system. He just couldn't get it done in one blow with the public opposition and failure to get enough of the House and Senate on board with the idea.

Not sure what ground you're standing on Dan, when you assert President Obama's "highest profile moves have supported private enterprise." Seems pretty shaky to me.

@JGover

In all honesty, I don't think our current system of government looks much like the ideals described by either Jefferson or Marx. That's why I said I thought it was a false dichotomy. We're certainly not the agrarian nation Jefferson envisioned before he was president, and we're certainly not the proletariat-controlled industrial state Marx wrote about. I don't see either man's vision as 100% fulfilled in modern day America, and I don't think it's particularly valuable to try to make the complexity of today's America fit either man's viewpoint.

Re: banks. Excuse me, are you equating a more cumbersome loan application process with nationalization? I don't have a clue how you jumped from A to B on that one. If you want to rail against how we've gotten away from the way we issued loans in the good old days, fine; if you want to say that's a bad thing because that change was driven by regulations, also fine. But nationalization is a matter of debt and equity, not of regulating one part of a bank's business. I don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Did it escape your attention that Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan are both now bank holding companies that take deposits and access the Fed's discount window? In addition to the "main street" banks that you insist are getting screwed by regulation, GS and JPM also fall under that regulation. We are not just talking about mom 'n pop banks, and I wonder why you insist that we are.

Little attention has been given to GSEs & non-bank lenders? Are we reading the same piece of proposed legislation, or looking at the same changes to Fannie, Freddie, and Sallie?

Next time I apply for a loan, I'm not supposed to be mad at the banker if I think the whole process takes too long...ok??? I've never applied for a loan and been enraged by the process, and I've never held bankers responsible for any rage I did or didn't feel. So...uh...alright then!

Your concept of the sacrosanctity of "secured creditors" is surprisingly limited. In the course of the debate about how to help the auto industry, I was struck by how quickly people came to agree that the unions were the problem, that their onerous compensation plans were hamstringing GM & Chrysler. What was left out of the conversation, however, was that the UAW was the only actor who behaved with the long-term best interests of its constituency in mind. Management made years of bad decisions, but the UAW only clung to one demand: comprehensive health coverage. Over the decades, the UAW bent on vacation time, salary, educational benefits---everything except health benefits for members and retirees. And management agreed to that bargain because the short-term balance sheet gains made from cutting salaries seemed more appealing to managers than keeping their firms safe from crushing medical expenses. So, if we're going to talk about what's fair, why did the UAW---so pliable at the negotiating table for so many years---have to offer anything? Why wouldn't it have been fair for them to say, "Look, we told you what we wanted, and you said we couldn't have it, so we gave up everything except the one thing we absolutely need, and you agreed to that. You made your bed, now sleep in it"?

I hope you enjoy chuckling as much as you enjoy dabbling in counterfactuals. Yes, Obama has said that he'd prefer a single-payer system (and I happen to agree with him). But we don't have a single-payer system, even after a 14-month-long debate. That's a fact, and I don't know why you're choosing to deal with a hypothetical situation rather than a real one. What, exactly, is your point?

The ground I'm standing on? Well, let's go through how you addressed my points:

1. "Obama tried to save banks without nationalizing them." You say that the increased paperwork related to loan applications is a sign that we have nationalized our banks. I think that's absurd. You also refuse to deal with investment banks, choosing instead to talk about "main street" banks. I don't know why, but that's what you decided to do. As things stand now, the vast majority of American banks remain in private hands. If you can demonstrate to me that that's not true, we can end this debate right here and now. If you can't, I'd ask that you stop playing with semantics and get down to brass tacks.

2. "...save car companies without nationalizing them." You see 61% control of GM as nationalization; fine, I don't need to debate that point because you admit in your next sentence that Chrysler wasn't nationalized. QED.

3. "...save health care without going to a single-payer system." Your argument here boils down to "But he would have if he could have!" My counter-argument: "I think it's wonderful that you're able to read the president's mind, but the fact is he didn't create a single-payer system. If single-payer was really that important to him, he could have vetoed the bill." I'm trying to deal with the world of "is," not the world of "could be," and I'd love it if you could join me.

Are my arguments so sound that you have to resort to hypotheticals to debunk them? If they're not, then why did you seek the gauzy refuge of counterfactuals rather than deal with the world as it is?

@Dan Weber

Thanks for your responses Dan. You've essentially answered my question, albeit in a roundabout and convuluted manner.

@J Gover

Happy to help. You asked three questions and I believe I addressed them directly. On the other hand, you've explicitly not answered any of my questions. And considering that your post ran 44 words longer than mine, I'm not sure why I get the "roundabout" descriptor---unless you're also willing to call your own writing roundabout? Glad to see you're interested in an exchange of ideas...

Your essay most eloquently explicates the need for

a new political party. I would submit it should be

named,"Party of the Constitutionalists".This may

sound lengthy, however I think it is time that we

come to expect comprehension from the "New

Dysfunctional" lower third of our citizenry, of words or statements of more than two syllables.

This represents a Herculean task, but nothing ven-

tured, nothing gained.I'm not sure simply renaming

the Republican party would be way to go because a

great deal of Democrats would feel disenfranchised,

and there are plenty of them who feel the same way.

After all,Thomas Jefferson was one!

April 27,2010.

We should have a vote of no confidence, and do a recall on Obama in much the same manner as California did it's governor!

@Haarvik, can you show me where in the Constitution it says we get to do that? I'm just concerned, since most of the folks on this site are really, really serious about limiting constitutional interpretations to the literal and the explicit, so if you could point me to the section that allows for a popular recall of a President, I'd love to read it.

Mark, this essay was your best yet. The ills you describe on our hopelessly convoluted tax system could be made right by adoption of the Fair Tax! In that plan the rich would continue to pay higher taxes and the poor would pay little or no taxes as they do today. Rather than list all the advantages of the Fair Tax, I urge all of your posters.....many of whom post brilliant analyses...to read the books and understand why this is the most compelling idea to which I have ever been exposed. Our current govenment seems intent upon implementing a VAT, which would just about finish off the job of ruining our nation.

Mark,you are the very best conservative writer in the USA. We need you to write an educational essay

for wide spread dissimulation on the defination of socialism. The object is to teach kids and ordindary citizens the wrongs embodied in that philosophy. Because it is not taught in school

(except in a favorble light) I have heard young people ask, "what's wrong with socialism?"

Because they really didn't know. Please........js

I am happy to see the results from the election this year, and for our nation of true American citizens to finally be awakened by our present condition and the social society our government has become. My worry though is we may get comfortable and lazy quickly as the steam runs low on our energy to overcome. So what can we do as members of an elite group of American's to elevate the message and number of supporters for the great cause we have begun. Assume everyday the responsibility to communicate to everyone WE come in contact with, the message of right and truth with great moral respect to our Country's Constitution is how. I believe if we continue to spread the word, fight the fight, and not let but no rock unturned in the cesspool our government has become, we shall once again re-establish our constitutional rights as to self manage and control our resources as responsible citizens as our Constitution once intended.

Please keep up the good work Mark and family for we have a long road ahead, but truly feel that we are making the difference that needs to be recognized in order to achieve our goal.

Thank you to all my brothers and sisters for your effort and time given, WE true American Patriots so greatly appreciate and honor your sacrifice.

Patriot; Andrew Eifert