Obama's Speaks about his Constitutional Philosophy

On Jan. 18, 2001, then-state senator Barack Obama appeared on a public radio chat show to discuss "The Courts and Civil Rights."

"The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, as least as it's been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted in the same way that, generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.  Obama added, "one of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil rights movement, was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways, we still stuffer from that."

It isn't a shock to me that there are some out there that believe this way in regards to our Constitution, what is a shock to me is that someone that believes this way can plainly state it and then get elected President of the United States.  It isn't groundbreaking for a Conservative like me to say that the Constitution isn't a living document.  It IS a document that will and can adapt through the processes placed inside it to any future circumstances in that it allows for our legislative process and the Amendment process.  The idea of it simply being twisted in a way that would make Cirque du Soleil performers humbled is terrifying.  Those that interpret our Constitution the way our current President does are not confident it can be changed through legitimate constitutional mechanisms.  I invite the opposition to openly and plainly petition the American people for Amendments as Obama would like them.  I'm not scared of the will of the American people.  The American people as a whole are not ideological, but they are governed by common sense and a sense of self-interest (not selfishness, there is a big difference) that will not allow them to agree with a redistribution of wealth scheme or a scheme that would openly take away their freedoms.

President Obama, our Constitution IS a charter of negative freedoms because it was designed to govern a free people.  For instance, the negative rights that tell the Federal government what it can't do also allow the States or the people to decidedly DO those things (refer to the 9th and 10th amendments).  For instance, there is no provision in the U.S. Constitution for Universal Health Care, Government-run Health Care, Government-controlled Health Care, a Right to Health Care, a Patient's Bill of Rights, or anything of the kind unless you torture the 'general welfare,' 'interstate commerce,' or the 'necessary and proper' clauses to death.  However, the polity of any particular state could get together and vote in such a thing, much like Massachussetts did under Mitt Romney.  If you take this example to its Constitutional conclusion you can see that we would have 50 different laboratories around the country to try out any idea that a FREE people decide to try, and its possible that ALL 50 might decide to do such a thing but the federal government has NO RIGHT!   The biggest restriction upon the states is that they are Constutionally required to maintain a republican form of government.  Most people don't understand that an overturn of Roe v. Wade would simply allow each state to decide for itself whether or not to allow abortion to be legal, it would not illegalize abortion but would leave it up to the people of that particular state.  Also, legalization of marijuana and other drugs.  Imagine a constitutional America where the the upper NW like Oregon and Washington legalized pot and abortion but the SE U.S. is still no-drugs and no-abortion.  Imagine what that would be like, a country where we stand united against the world and for our allies but we have the freedom to live how we see fit by exercising our vote, our voice or ultimately, our feet (by moving to a state that reflects our views).  I believe THAT is a simplified example of the vision our Founder's saw, modernized.  Its also called 'Federalism.'

Once again I would love to see your comments here at the Guerrilla Conservative.

Thanks,

Tom

Daily Link

I've decided that in between substantive posts I will post links of interest to the conservative movement, i.e. "The Sleeping Giant."  My first is going to be The Freemarket Warrior.  The Freemarket Warrior is the website of the company that had the kiosk at the North Carolina mall.  The renewal on the lease for the kiosk's space was non-renewed because the mall's managament/owner said they had received one (1) complaint about their 'offensive' anti-Obama items.  I think it would be good if you have the ability in this Obama-conomy to patronize this 'offensive' company. http://www.freemarketwarrior.com/

Are You A Sheep, Wolf, or Sheepdog.

I found this posted on http://www.coalitiontosaveamerica.com/default.aspx and I thought I would share it.  I hope you enjoy.

"NEED MOTIVATION???? Take moment and read this piece. 
ON SHEEP, WOLVES, AND SHEEPDOGS 

By Lt.Col. (ret.) Dave Grossman, Army Ranger, psychology professor, author of "On Killing" and the upcoming "On Combat". 

"Honor never grows old, and honor rejoices the heart of age. It does so because honor is, finally, about defending those noble and worthy things that deserve defending, even if it comes at a high cost. In our time, that may mean social disapproval, public scorn, hardship, persecution, or as always, even death itself. The question remains: What is worth defending? What is worth dying for? What is worth living for?" - William J. Bennett - in a lecture to the United States Naval Academy November 24, 1997 

______________________________________________________________________________________ 



One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me: "Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident." This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another. 

Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million. 

Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep. 

I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me it is like the pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, and 
someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful. For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators. 

"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial. 

"Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf." 

If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed 

Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids' schools. 

But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they chose the path of denial. 

The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours. 

Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa." 

Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog. 

The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door. 

Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how many times you heard the word 'hero'? 

Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed right along with the young ones. 

Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, "Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes." The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, "Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference." When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into warriorhood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference. 

There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog--the warrior--but he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population. 



There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like 
big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself. 

Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs. 

Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, "Let's roll," which authorities believe was a signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers - athletes, business people and parents. -- from sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground. 

There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men. - Edmund Burke 

Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn't have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision. 

If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door. 

For example, many officers carry their weapons in church. They are well concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters tucked into the small of their backs. Anytime you go to some form of religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer in your congregation is carrying. You will never know if there is such an individual in your place of worship, until the wolf appears to massacre you and your loved ones. 

I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied, "I will never be caught without my gun in church." I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down fourteen people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy's body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?" 

Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for "heads to roll" if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids' school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them. 

Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog quietly asks himself, "Do you have and idea how hard it would be to live with yourself if your loved ones were attacked and killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?" 

It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror when the wolf shows up. 

Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn't train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you 
are psychologically shattered by your fear helplessness and horror at your moment of truth. 

Gavin de Becker puts it like this in 'Fear Less', his superb post-9/11 book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms with our current world situation: "...denial can be seductive, but it has an insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by saying it isn't so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all the more unsettling." 

Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some level. 

And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes. 

If you are warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today. No one can be "on" 24/7, for a lifetime. Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself..."Baa." 

This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. 



Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically, at your moment of truth. 



Posted by : Rand Cottrell - Tuesday, June 16, 2009"

I would appreciate your comments on this and all of my posts.

Thanks,

Tom

Swastikas? Really? I didn't see any.

I've got an interesting link for ya:

The video of our illustrious Speaker of the House fabricating lies about protestors and citizens at the recent townhall meeting sporting swastikas is interesting however, the paragraph at the bottom that details some of the similarities between the real Nazis and the modern Democats is VERY interesting.  I gotta do some reseach on that.

 http://sweetness-light.com/archive/was-pelosi-so-wrong-about-swastikas

Guerrilla Conservatism

I haven't posted in quite some time and I apologize.  

I'm listening to Glenn Beck at the moment and he is discussing Sun Tzu, war, deception, Saul Alinsky, etc.  He is theorizing about the tactics being used against us Conservatives.  Health Care Reform isn't about health, Cash for Clunkers isn't about helping people buy cars, Cap'n'Trade isn't about the environment, they're all about control.

If the gov't is paying for your health then that will justify their control of how you live and what you eat.  Cap'n'Trade is about controlling all aspects of American industry.  Honestly, how many businesses out there don't use energy of some sort?  Hmmmm...maybe that guy you saw on vacation in the Smoky Mountains that sells figurines he's carved while sitting on his front porch...I don't think he uses any energy except what he eats.  Cap'n'Trade would give the federal government control of everything!

I heard Stu on Glenn's show paraphrasing Sun Tzu something like this, "engage with a direct attack, win with an indirect attack."  Personally, I would call this the "hammer and anvil."  In warfare you must pin the enemy down first so he can't maneuver to defend against your secondary attack.  That's what they mean in cop shows, military movies and old westerns when they say "cover me" and then run somewhere.  The person 'covering' is pinning the enemy down and the person being 'covered'  is going to attempt to flank or maneuver around or behind to deliver the killing blow.

I describe all of this in order to re-emphasize why I call myself "Guerrilla Conservative."  We must begin using better strategies in combating liberalism and progressivism today.  For instance, my entry into the world of politics began with the abortion issue.  We have been battling that head-on now for 37 years -- is it working?  You could say that there has been some success but is it still legal to kill an unborn child?  Yes it is, so therefore we haven't succeeded.

The recent upsurge in activism among people that have been asleep politically since their birth is primarily because of pocketbook issues, Obama hit them in the wallet with the Stimulus Package and the second round of bailouts.  Through these pocketbook issues people have been led to understand how other issues have led to the mess we are in today.  The loss of sovereignty of the several states, the imperial attitude of the federal government, the misshapen interpretation of the 'general welfare' and 'interstate commerce' clauses are all issues to which  people are now beginning to awaken.  

Here's my point:  Let's keep the focus primarily on the common denominators:  money, taxes and freedom.  If ten years in the future we look back and see that we have succeeded in getting the power back to the original, or even near the original idea of federalism THEN we will have the power back in our local and state governments to discuss things like abortion, prayer in schools, alcohol, drug legalization, etc.  Whether  you are a libertarian minded conservative, fiscal conservative, or part of the religious right we can all agree on the primary issues that have resurrected the idea of freedom.

So lets hit them with a direct attack on pocketbook issues and then we will flank our local governments with our secondary (probably more important) freedom issues that tend to segment us into smaller less effective groups.  However, these smaller groups will still prove very effective in guiding local governments.

That's Guerrilla Conservatism.

I see that I still have not had any readers but that's OK, I haven't spent much time 'recruiting.' For not this is the place that I can record any significant thoughts before they disintegrate.

Over the weekend I watched Rush Limbaugh's address at CPAC 2009. I attended my first CPAC in February, 2001, a pre-9/11 America that seems to be gone forever. I attended my second CPAC in February, 2006 while attending Law Schoool at Capital in Columbus, Ohio. I very much wanted to be in attendance at CPAC 2009 but due to my current lack of employment couldn't afford to attend.

I thought that Rush's address was right on the mark, he didn't need to sound like a wannabe politician and he didn't mince his words, it was simply like watching him do one of his monologues. In his speech he mentions that we need to fight the left with philosophy not simply try to find a compromise point somewhere in the current proposals, and not to debate and argue about policy and process. Since we don't have enough voting power in either house of Congress we can't push our way into any of their proposed legislation but however we can start the education of the American people about what conservative philosophy is.

I agree with him but would add something that he mentioned but didn't seem to follow up on. He mentioned that Newt Gingrich had a health-care proposal ready for debate on the floor of Congress. We need to attack on policy through an aggressive media blitz with a grassroots swell of support for a specific proposal on each major issue.

We do in fact need to quit being the party of "no" and attempt to distance ourselves from appearing to be 'obstructionists.' We must a two-prong attack: first, debate and educate what conservative philosophies are and two, propose practical applications of those principles simultaneously.

Simply stopping liberalism hasn't been and never will be enough. We must go on the attack and attempt to enact conservative principles. Talk, then act. Recon then direct action. Spear then sword. However you want to analogize it we have got to change our tactics.

I'm currently reading Newt Gingrich's Real Change, go to www.AmericanSolutions.com to learn more.

Some links I just discovered:

http://www.defendourfreedoms.us
http://howobamagotelected.com Preview the video "Media Malpractice"
http://citizenwells.wordpress.com
http://www.obamaimpeachment.org In reference primarily to Obama's failure to prove his constitutional qualifications to be President

Left and Right Parameters

I've been thinking lately that I wish America would return back to the good ol' conservative days of JFK. Sounds funny doesn't it? If you examine JFK's policies he would be to the right of the rightest of major presidential candidates as of late. This thought led me to the realization that even liberals can be constitutional, that there exists left and right parameters of the U.S. Constitution, not just one correct interpretation. Don't confuse what I'm saying with the theory of a "living" U.S. Constitution. However, within correct constitutional thought there can be a genuine productive discussion amongst those, left and right thinking, that love and believe in the primacy of the U.S. Constitution amongst the governing documents of the world.

I would like, if and when readers show at this humble blog, to begin a discussion amongst liberals and conservatives to define the left and right parameters on an issue basis. For example, the commerce clause; I think any honest constitutional historian would admit that the commerce clause has been stretched beyond all legitimacy in order to justify certain governmental actions. Forget Republican and Democrat, I don't want this to be a political discussion but instead to be a issue-based, constitutional history based and most of all, logically based discussion of the legitimate actions of a U.S. Constitution founded governement.

As most of you would guess when you read this and notice the date on which it was posted, I believe that almost all of the provisions of TARP I, (W's bank bailout), Obama's Stimulus Package, the Auto Industry Bailout, Mortgage Foreclosure assistance, and any such proposals in the future are ALL unconstitutional. I know, I know, I know that if taken to the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) these bills would probably be upheld almost certainly based upon the commerce clause and the contortions it has been put through, purely based upon stare decisis.

There are legitimate ways to stretch the Constitution to fit the particulars of modern day events, however, this is not it.

Let's talk,
Tom

What's in a name?

According to www.dictionary.com the noun "guerrilla" is defined as:

"a member of a band of irregular soldiers that uses guerrilla warfare, harassing the enemy by surprise raids, sabotaging communication and supply lines, etc."

I feel this is a fitting name for the goals and strategies I believe are necessary for the USA at this time.

For those of you that don't know the picture posted here is of a statue of a Massachussetts Minuteman. On April 19, 1775 British troops were marching to Concord, Mass. to take control of the colony's store of guns, ammunition and powder because the British government felt that the people might revolt against their latest edicts. In order to show their displeasure, the men (minutemen) of Lexington, Mass. decided on the evening of April 18, 1775 that if the British troops marched by they would assemble on Lexington green. They did not have military issue weapons or supplies, they did not have any uniform whatsoever and they did not have any intentions or illusions that they would intimidate the British troops, they simply wanted to communicate their displeasure.

After being alerted in the early morning hours of April 19, 1775 by a rider (started by Paul Revere) they stood by to assemble. When the British were near the minutemen assembled on the green (a public, open, grassy public gathering area in the center of the village) in full military orderly fashion, in their homespun clothes and bearing the same weapons they used to hunt and feed their families. This was simply a "show of force." In hindsight, it was a show of "lack of force."

The British troops could have simply marched past the assembled farmers and merchants but instead the British officers ordered their troops to assemble on the green facing the minutemen of Lexington, Mass. The colonists were then ordered to lay down their weapons and return to their homes. At this point someone somewhere fired the first shot (later known as the "shot heard 'round the world." History has never totally decided which side, if either, fired the first shot. Nevertheless, one British troop was wounded and several minutemen were wounded and dead, and the Revolutionary War had begun.

Over the next several hours the British continued their march to Concord and many other important things happened but for my purposes today I only want to point out the colonists initial reaction to the incident on Lexington Green. Minutemen from all over the area began to descend upon the route of the British troops, they hid behind trees and fences and barns and houses. They shot at the British, guerrilla-style as they made their way to Concord and continued as the British withdrew all the way back to Boston, which took several hours, resulting in significant British losses.

Why am I telling this story? Because many Americans, those that call themselves conservatives and many that do not, have been treated just like those families that were represented by the men that stood on Lexington Green that fateful morning. The colonists of Massachusetts had for several years previous attempted to get the attention of the British Crown to have their grievances heard, to get justice for an ever-mounting list of injustices suffered by them at the hands of The Crown, Parliament and the British military. They attempted to cause change by using all the accepted methods of the time, in full public view. They addressed the Crown and Parliament through their duly appointed colonial governments, they used newspapers and meeting halls, all to no avail. Moreover, the abuses mounted and got worse, the assault upon their freedoms only grew stronger and harsher. The next-to-last straw was the British march to seize the arsenal at Concord; the last straw was face-to-face bullying on green Lexington.

What was their response? Guerrilla tactics. Playing by all the rules of polite society had proven futile. I feel that is where we are today in America. Me and those that are politically aligned with me spent many years helping take the Congress back for Republicans, which happened in 1994, only to see them slowly descend to behaving like those they had displaced. The McCain-Feingold Act (campaign finance reform), the Gang of 14, (thwarting the Senate's rollback of the fake-filibuster rule), the excessive spending of the Republican Congress under the adminstration of George W. Bush are only a couple of the large straws added to the camel's back that have led us to this point.

So what is my answer? We conservatives and the likeminded must change our tactics just like the minutemen that followed the British all the way back to Boston. If we've got to "fire from behind the trees" instead of standing face-to-face in Napoleonic fashion against those that are against us, then so be it. (This is only a metaphor, not a call to literal arms.) We must begin using guerrilla tactics, and I think that the Minuteman is an excellent symbol of what I believe is necessary.

Therefore, Guerrilla Conservative, in the steps of the Minuteman.

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

One more thought on this topic: the minutemen of 1775 were NOT terrorists. Terrorism as defined by www.dictionary.com is:

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

The primary difference between partisan fighters or minutemen and terrorists is that terrorists primary strategy is fear and terror and they believe that as a result of that fear and terror they will achieve a goal. Terrorists attack innocents and non-strategic targets and locales in order to instill fear. Partisans use guerrilla military tactics to attack strategic military and government targets. Fear is not the goal of the guerrilla partisan except in the heart of enemy forces, not innocents and noncombatants.

Welcome!

This post is very much like a new business owner's first dollar that we've all seen framed and proudly displayed in mom-and-pop stores.

The creation of this blog is an attempt to conquer my procrastination. I'm not sure if this is the correct location for such a blog or what the entirety of the limitations are of this host, however, I do know that at least, this is a start.

As the title suggests I'm hopeful that this will be a clearinghouse of conservative thought, opinion, information and a call to conservative activism.

The concept of conservatives being activists is fairly foreign, unfortunately. Since the 1960s (and arguably before) radicals and liberals in our society have been using extra-systemic techniques and the courts in order to attain their goals, i.e. demonstrations, sit-ins, intimidation of anyone on the right or Republican, lawsuits in the federal courts in order to go over-the-heads of the voters, etc.

Recent events have led me to the conclusion that in order to turn our nation back to OUR constitution we conservatives will have to begin to play by a different set of rules. It is now my belief that conservatives must take steps to change our strategy and tactics in order to stem the tide of unconstitutional liberalism in our nation.

Please bookmark this blog and revisit often.

Thank you,
Tom