Liberal idealists to the left of me and self-righteous wing-nuts to the right of me!!!

The extreme left needs to get their positions straight.  Don't you left-leaning Democrats realize your party doesn't exist anymore – at least not the party you knew 10 years ago.  It would be more appropriately labeled the Socialist Democratic Party.  As much as you cry about individual rights – your party wants to control all your rights through socialistic government bureaucracies.  If the government is going to take care of you – you have to let it (in other words give up your freedom).  Feminism – the right of a woman to choose what she wants to do – is being totally subverted into an abortion issue!  Unions aren't worth a tinker's damn anymore unless you are one of the leaders that are “taking care” of all your dues.  They use your money to take those choices away by trying to get government to do it for them.  Then they just keep taking your money while the government taxes you to give you what the Unions try to say they are doing for you.

You self-righteous, so-called Christian conservatives make me sick.  Where do you get the authority to judge anyone???  Keep your judgments to yourself and apply them to yourself.  Some good person gets into a situation where they succumb to an act that is contrary to a commandment and you are sooooo quick to condemn.  No room in your world for repentance, eh?  Where in any reasonable testimony of Jesus Christ is the abolition of repentance or the reservation to any of us to judge a person's conscience or heart?

In this imperfect world, we are constantly confronted with imperfect choices.  We have to make the best of what is placed before us – especially if we did little or nothing to try to influence the options for choice.

It seems to me that this may be the most upside-down series of choices ever presented in an election.  We are faced with 3 men who have played the political game for gain and to remain in power and a women who just couldn't stand it anymore and had to jump in with both feet and everything else to try to make some sense of things.  Along the way, she has picked up more experience dealing with corruption in her government and within her own party – more experience dealing with foreign governments (remember Canada and Russia border Alaska) – more executive experience (2 years as a governor – makes no difference that it is Alaska – it is still a sovereign state in the Union) – more experience as a Commander-in-Chief (Alaskan NG – I am a former Guardsman myself – I know what it takes) – plenty of experience in life - than any of the men!  With what is before us – SHE should be running for POTUS!

BUT – that is not what we are faced with.  For my part – in a free society – there is no place for a modern day Robin Hood who would take the role of king and tax who and what he deems to be the rich – and enslave the poor by making them take what he gives them and nothing more.  On the other hand, I am looking at a man in the establishment that will change his stand because it appears to be politically expedient.  The difference between the two is the “seconds”.  One of them is definitely “more of the same”  - inside the beltway – inside the establishment and one of the last that will provide any possibility of real change.  The other is a headstrong crusader who will try to make some real changes who maybe hasn't been lulled into complacence, isn't satisfied with the status-quo and actually KNOWS how to make things change!

No contest – McCain-Palin '08

"Everything I want should be everything I get and the government is the one that should give it to me".

Trying to put a definition on anything that appears to have an innate wrongness or rightness to it is extremely difficult.  Please bear with me.

As I have reviewed activities in this country for the past several decades, a rather disturbing trend seems to be evolving.  The trend is evidenced by a continually pervasive attitude of selfishness.  As this country has grown more and more prosperous, its citizenry appears to be growing more and more selfish in the purest sense of the word.  The prevailing attitude seems to be one of "Everything I want should be everything I get and the government is the one that should give it to me".  I realize that there are a lot of people out there that may not feel they subscribe to that attitude, however, they do not seem to be a majority or, at the very least, they do not make any attempt to argue the point.

This pervasive attitude is promoting abdication of our individual responsibilities to "the government".  All too often everyone appears to think that "the government" should be the ultimate solver of all our "problems" and "needs".  Consequently, we have been giving "the government" more and more power to do those things.

While I can agree that some social and economic safeguards for individuals should would be provided by "government" I would call into question the ultimate mission of those safeguards.  Welfare programs that encourage perpetual pursuit of becoming "eligible" for the program do not meet the real needs of the people allowed to participate in those programs nor do the programs truly benefit American society in general.  

All of the programs provided by government come with inherent and additive costs.  Although he was a famous writer, Robert Heinlein wrote in terms of a couple recurring themes - individual liberty and self-reliance.  He coined a phrase and accompanying acronym that is absolutely axiomatic: "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch" - AKA: TANSTAAFL.  Accordingly the initial and required future estimated costs of social programs in terms of benefits to individuals is staggering in and of itself.  Even more staggering are the bureaucratic costs of maintaining every such program.  These are debts incurred by the "government" BUT the "government" does not pay for them - we - the "people" pay for it!!  What is worse - it is not just us - it is a debt that is passed to ALL generations to come!

So many questions are never even considered when congress enacts these bills and programs.  Does it benefit ALL the people?  Is it a need or a want? Even if it is a need is it really government's responsibility to provide it?  If it is government's responsibility - is it the Federal government's responsibility or is it state or even local government responsibility.  No matter whose responsibility it is, there must always be recognition of the TANSTAAFL Principle.

Along with inherent and bureaucratic costs there are societal and individual costs to these programs.  Socially the programs have a tendency to create and perpetuate sub-societies or groups.  It is a fact that families dependent on welfare produce descendents with the same tendency.  They become a caste or "problem" that must be dealt with.  They are dehumanized by the very programs designed to "help" them.  In effect they are enslaved.  The programs do not offer any incentive or option to improve the condition of the participant to get off the program and become a productive, self-reliant, respected and responsible member of society.  

I am only beginning to touch on things here - hence the necessity of successive "Parts" some of which are already begun and others that are incubating.  Stay tuned if you are interested.

In response to Tom Tancredo's - “Real Change...” article.

While it is all well and good to be a champion for issues that need to be championed and speak plainly about them, the question I have is – does it speak to the real changes required to make the resolution of those issues possible?

I will try to explain.  It seems to me that there are some more basic changes that need to occur.
1 – Term limits for congressmen and senators.  We need to eliminate career politicians.  Too much time and effort are spent trying to “bank” votes for the next election.  The chambers are often deserted, work does not get done, the country is weakened.
2 – Return assignment of senators by state legislatures.  This was the original design of the government and serves to protect states rights.
3 – Require the federal government to only address and support national issues.  The government needs to get out of supporting pork-barrel projects that only benefit small areas or groups of people.  
4 – Require a balanced budget.  Spending limits are established by Federal income not by need.  The government should be neither a borrower nor a lender.  If it needs to cutback then cutback until it can afford to do something.
5 – Create a “welfare” system that assists individuals to acquire marketable skills and move into the workplace.  The system should provide benefits based on needs – not minimum poverty levels.  
6 – FairTax would need to be implemented completely.  Including abolishment of the 16th amendment,  dismantling the IRS and repealing income tax.

If 1,2 and 3 are accomplished 4,5 and 6 may be accomplished.  Without 1,2 and 3 we will continue in the same divisive, cruel and incredibly stupid condition we are in.  We will continue the dangerous slippery slide into bureaucratic socialism we are currently on.

The problem is that people naively think that those they elect will somehow ignore the continued enticements of power and wealth commensurate  with a political career in favor of doing what is best for the country.  Does anyone really think there are even a handful of elected officials that can operate outside of those enticements?

What I need to know is how can a truly grassroots movement be organized and sustained that will allow “We, the People” to take back control of our government?  How does one avoid being labeled an “enemy” of the country by the FBI-CIA-NSA when engaged in these activities?  Am I too much of an idealist to even believe these changes can be brought about?

Is there anyone out there with enough clout that would be interested in getting involved?  Failing that, are there enough Americans left out there that would be willing to get involved?