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