Trust

Trust is a two edge sword. We trust you to act on our behalf for the good of the citizenship or we trust you to act on behalf of your personal agenda without regard to the country as a whole.

Faith has three elements......Knowledge of certain facts, belief that those facts are true and "trust" willing to risk something precious. (Your Vote)

The current attitude of today's citizen should concern the present administration. We are beginning to believe you will hurt us and need to be replaced. How? November 2010.

Vigorous honesty is when..... What you think..... What you say.... and what you do are in harmony, and; in harmony with your conscience (that still voice inside that says .........). At least you are honest with yourself. Are our politicians truthful? What is the true agenda? What is truly in the heart of our Leaders? We cannot know for certain, yet their actions do not match their words! There seems to be reason for worry!

Check the voting records - the truth!

""The "revolution" we are seeing is a metaphor. This is not 1776, in which the avenues of representation were blocked by a distant power.""

I disagree with this. DC is a distant power now and our representation is at best, questionable.

"How can we love our country," asked Ronald Reagan, "and not love our countrymen?"

Immigrants and welfare recipients, government parasites, self serving politicians, etc. are not our countrymen. Also, "country" is an idea, not a real thing. So it follows that if 1/2 is OK with mooching off the other 1/2 then we have two different ideas of what is right and thusly two separate countries. Let's 'fess up and divide up. Stop with the pollyanna drivel. this is isn't conspiracy theory happening now, it's folks finally calling a spade a spade. regular folks in the middle are just tired of the idiots on either end of the spectrum (you know 'em, they're the ones making all the speeches) and we're tired of our money being spent without real representation for no apparent good end.

This piece by Gerson is milksop and I have to say I'm disappointed.

I have to agree with Marcus on a few points, this was a bit disappointing. Mr. Gerson, most conservatives are not against *legal* immigration. It is the illegal immigrants that are the problem, and I for one would like to know where you come by the notion that a large group of people, most of whom do not pay taxes, yet recieve tax monies in the form of medicaid or other assistance, can be considered "...a source of values and vitality." Medicare and Social Security *must* be eliminated *in their current form*. They are beyond hope of reform. We need to go back to the drawing board. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but increasing the money supply without increasing the monetary base drives inflation up, does it not? Is runaway inflation not one of the leading causes of economic depression? It's fine to increase the money supply, as long as you increase whatever the value of the money is based on, in our case, GDP. If GDP goes down, but the money supply increases, then every dollar is worth less. Call this a short primer on economic reality.

Listening to Michael Gerson in this piece is a bit bewildering.

If Gerson is a voice of conservatism, his is a really, really ignorant voice of conservatism.

Setting up strawmen arguments against those he deems kooks is unworthy of a columnist here.

Glenn Beck has done a service, as have others, in clueing the conservative movement into the teachings of Saul Alinsky. The 'liberal' 'progressives' (who are neither of these) have studied his writings extensively and over a period of 4 decades honed his teachings into practical knowledge of 'community organizing.' For us to ignore what the liberals believe and how they organize and strategize to gain power and marginalize their political opposition is foolish.

The Clintons studied Saul Alinsky, Hillary did her dissertation on Alinsky. President Obama studied him, and came out of college so impressed that he gave up the fortune and wealth that so many of his classmates sought, to teach about it in the organization started by Alinsky, ACORN. Hillary Clinton was offered a job by Alinsky when she graduated but chose a different route. Chris Matthews called him a heroic icon (paraphrasing) for 'liberals' in his generation. To belittle his effect and attempt to demonize those who publicize his influence (Glenn Beck and others) is like those who sought to marginalize the anti-Communists and refusing to believe that Marx, Engels and Lenin were the 'iconic heroes' of Stalin and Mao, and that it was their ideas that had the tangible results of mass genocide and impoverishing tyranny.

Gerson's caricature of Rand is also belittling, choosing to portray her teachings as contempt for the weak, when what they were was a repudiation of 'liberal' use of false compassion and charity to use government force to enslave those who do produce, to the service of those who will not produce.

In point of fact, this false application of compassion and charity is what Saul Alinsky teaches will destroy the society he wishes to replace with socialism. Perhaps we should think of Alinsky as the anti-Rand.

As for being saved by the Fed, I don't see it. The increase of the money supply by the Fed, by 50-100% has only allowed the government to bail out banks and financial institutions and industry that should have been allowed to 'fail.' As Newt Gingrich pointed out, the idea that something is too big to fail really means it has become a failure and is too big to survive. Real wealth was lost in great amounts by the bailout, where allowing businesses to declare bankruptcy, reorganize operations, re-negotiate contracts (thereby negating huge bonuses to failed managers) and break up into profitable sub-units would have saved assets and resources and produced far greater wealth. Instead we have situations like GM, which received hundreds of billions in various bailouts and special considerations, had all that money 'disappear' and then declared bankruptcy anyway. Then the bankruptcy overseen by the government stiffed the investors who had first claim on the business assets and how to apportion them, and handed the control of an unchanged behemoth to the two entities most responsible for bankrupting it in the first place -- the unions (who really do teach an us vs them mentality) and the government.

The coming inflation from this increase in money supply and disappearance of wealth, will only worsen the current economic situation, where official unemployment is over 10%, but it's only that low because millions have been taken off the stats by re-defining them as out of the work force. True unemployment is closer to 17%. The stock market is still almost 30% down from the highs it had, the housing market is still moribund, and the only recovery seems to be in the marketplace for government power and propaganda.

Finally, claiming President Obama isn't out to overthrow the government and that the tea party is not a revolution is rhetoric and semantics. Obama's desire is to transform the United States government, which is just newspeak for overthrowing what was and replacing it with something different. And the Tea Party really is seeking to take those from power who would transform America. Removing those from power who are currently in power is a revolution.

Gerson has a very selective perspective of reality. He should not be lecturing conservatives on reality at all.

As a self-described primer, this one is sorely lacking.

"The Obama administration proposes to expand government; it is not preparing to overthrow the government."

Absurd. Expanding the government is creating a few new bureaus or stretching federal power a bit. The Obama administration currently OWNS two of the largest auto makers in America. They have taken for themselves the unprecedented power to dictate to private companies whom to hire & fire, how much they are permitted to pay, and which products they are required to manufacture. They are obsessed with confiscating 1/6 of our economy and seizing the power to decide who lives -- and who dies. They have declared the very air we breathe to be a toxic gas subject to regulation, which amounts to taking direct control over every single thing we do including hobbies, exercise, sleeping, eating, and the power to earn a living. They are setting themselves up with a much more powerful propaganda machine than they currently enjoy, and are trying to silence dissent from the Right -- such as this column and talk radio, not to mention the Internet.

The Obama administration is the most radical bunch of crackpots ever to wield power at the federal level in America. They believe the Constitution is a "living document" that has outlived its usefulness and should be radically changed or discarded in favor of a more Socialist Democracy. They view the Constitution not as a set of sacred laws establishing and protecting our rights by restricting what the government is permitted to do, but as a set roadblocks inhibiting their ambitions and retarding their goals. It's not a Founding Document; it's a problem to be overcome.

Nobody is talking about secession (not yet). Nobody is talking about armed rebellion (yet). Nobody is talking about taking to the streets (yet) like they are doing in Iran. Nobody is talking about a revolution in that sense. But all over America, MILLIONS of people are talking about forcing by popular will a return to the original intent of the Constitution. We are demanding that our elected leaders uphold the ideals that made America the single greatest accomplishment of Man. We've done a very impressive job of stopping much of the radical agenda being rammed through Washington D.C. That's very encouraging, but it's only the first step.

In November we will vote out those radical Leftists who want to dismantle America, and in 2012 we'll finish the job.

Then and only then will it be time to choose. The radicals can choose to accept defeat gracefully, and leave their offices as required by the Constitution. Or they can choose to emulate Hugo Chavez in Venezuela -- in which case it WILL be time to drag them into the streets and teach them exactly who rules the United States of America. We elect representatives, but the country belongs to US.

There are zero tyrants in America. It WILL remain so, one way or another. I have news for the radicals: the outcome is not even in doubt. You will lose, either way. America is not like Europe. We don't tolerate this kind of foolishness.