Wednesday, October 29, 2008
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”
I suppose that means the Republic has been on the down slope since the ratification of the 16th Amendment (which may not be legal). I guess Barry's going to make America great again by destroying the Republic and calling Ben Franklin an old fool.
“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, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816
So the author of the Declaration of Independence saw redistribution of wealth as a violation of every man's right to the fruits of his own labor. Oh well, what did he know about freedom and tyranny?
“A wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”
-Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801
So President Jefferson would see Barry Obama as unwise, unfrugal, and an advocate of "bad government". Remember though, Barry was President of the Harvard Law Review. He surely knows more about good government than Thomas Jefferson.
“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”
Not according to the Warren Court which wasn't that radical according to Barry.
“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.”
-John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787
Harsh words for Barry from another Founding Father. Does Barry seek anarchy and tyranny? All he wants to do is render the legal document that defines the government of our union null, void, and meaningless. Its not like he launched his political career in the house of an avowed anarchist or anything like that.
“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
-James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)
Does that put "spreading the wealth" out of the question? What did Madison know anyway. He's only the Father of our Constitution.
“…[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”
So whenever someone talks about America's duty to help out the less fortunate in America (those richer than only 90% of the rest of the world) it flies in the face of what James Madison believed the Federal government's purpose was when the Constitution was ratified? Surely they teach this at Harvar- . . . never mind.
“I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.”
So the best way to help a poor person is not to enable them in their poverty but to motivate them to pull themselves out of it? Well, if that were true, then how did poverty completely end after the Great Society programs?
“The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.”
So happiness is not supposed to be benevolently bestowed upon us by the State? Huh, who knew?
I hate to say it Barry, but I think your "change" is the type of thing Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, and the Constitution specifically intended to stop. But what do they know? They were only the most famous of the greatest collection of men assembled at one place and time in History. You were President of the Harvard Law Review!
Read more quotes at Conservative Colloquium and The Reference Frame.
Monday, October 27, 2008
"But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try 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. . . (The Constitution) Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted. . . one of the. . .tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendancy to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change."
Glad we cleared that up eight days before the election. Thank goodness there's still time for the media to apologize to everyone they labeled as "right wing lunatics" for conjecturing that Senator Obama may be a marxist. I'm sure all the big news organizations will lead with this revelation tonight.
Also, should (God forbid) Barry win the election, can we have him hooked up to a lie detector on inauguration day when he swears to "preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution of the United States?
Thursday, October 23, 2008
"When I first met Barack Obama, he was giving a standard, innocuous little talk in the livingroom of those two legends-in-their-own-minds, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. They were launching him--introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread. His "bright eyes and easy smile" struck me as contrived and calculated--maybe because I was supporting another candidate. Since then, I've never heard him say anything new or earthshaking, or support anything that would require the courage of his convictions. I only voted for him in this last race--because his opponent was a pinhead. And I've been mostly alone in my views. But maybe that's changing."This post has since been removed, I wonder why?
I hold the media solely responsible for the ascendancy of Barack Obama. I've always had a mild disdain and aloof contempt for the likes of CBS, NBC, the New York Times, etc., but it has never developed into vitriol. I viewed these DNC mouthpieces from the perspective of an enlightened one. How could they hurt me? I bear the knowledge of the truth, what this country was, what it is, what it should be. I was firm in my principles and therefore confident that none of the trite rubbish they publish could affect me. I never imagined they could raise up a marxist like Barack Obama purely by their own machinations, while at the same time hiding his true identity. My naivete is gone, and along with it my detached amusement. All I feel now is complete, utter, hatred. I hate their smug condescension to the average American. I hate their pretense of objectivity. I hate their bold faced complacency in the collectivization of America. I hate their brazen distortion and suppression of facts. I hate their misrepresentation of opinion as fact. I wholeheartedly despise their gilded facade of professionalism. I take an unhealthy joy in every drop in ratings or circulation they endure. I just, unrepentantly, hate them.
I don't hate Barack Obama. I dislike him, and I despise his conscience misrepresentation of himself, but I don't hate the man. (FYI, I do and always have hated John McCain) I lay this all at the feet of the main stream media. Its one thing to be admittedly leftist. I don't begrudge anyone their opinion, but when you portray yourself as the objective arbiter of facts as you shoehorn a borderline trotskyite into the office of the Presidency while burying his true nature behind fluff pieces and pictures of him playing basketball, you aid and abet in the destruction of America as it was founded. That I cannot forgive. If Barack Obama is elected by an electorate with the understanding that he is a moderate, I shall become a swirling ball of seething hatred and vile repugnance. I pray it doesn't affect my objectivity, but I don't think I can supress this creeping revulsion that is wrapping itself around my soul. I fear that I won't be able to step away from the brink when socialism comes to America in an empty suit. Instead I'll willingly take the plunge into a deep, blood red, sea of frothing abhorrence. I'll be here blogging if you'd like to come along for the ride.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Unless that is, you're on the left and "socialist" is one of those nasty labels (like "liberal" last election) that reveals a leftist identity that you've been trying to hide from the public. So the world must be removed from public discussion. It must be twisted to mean something very foreign from its actual definition. How can we do that? Lewis Diuguid of the Kansas City Star knows how. Not satisfied with his last name merely being a palindrome, he has decided to make it synonymous with the slow death of intellectual freedom:
"The 'socialist' label that Sen. John McCain and his GOP presidential running mate Sarah Palin are trying to attach to Sen. Barack Obama actually has long and very ugly historical roots.
J. Edgar Hoover, director of the FBI from 1924 to 1972, used the term liberally to describe African Americans who spent their lives fighting for equality."
I know how you feel, I had a stroke the first time I read this as well. So now we on the bigoted, race baiting, right aren't allowed to call advocates of wealth redistribution "socialists" if they happen to be half black. Diuguid goes on:
"Those freedom fighters included the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., who led the Civil Rights Movement; W.E.B. Du Bois, who in 1909 helped found the NAACP which is still the nation's oldest and largest civil rights organization. . ."
Anyone familiar with my blog will know that I believe Barack Obama will be the the most socialist President we've had since the Great Society. In other words, he'll be on par with LBJ and FDR -- two white guys. Unfortunately, socialism doesn't discriminate. Its been advocated by every race on planet Earth and as an ideology, its responsible for the deaths of Europeans, Africans, Asians, South Americans, Arabs, and just about any other race you can think of.
Now, if you want a term that actually has come to be associated with black people, you have one in "civil rights". The NAACP is not the oldest civil rights organization in the United States. As a commenter points out, the National Rifle Association outdates it. The NAACP was founded in 1905. The NRA was founded in 1871.
As for the NAACP, it was cofounded by Mary White Ovington, a member of the Socialist Party. I criticize the NAACP not because it is a black organization, but because it promotes socialism like other leftist organizations such as the ACLU, and NOW. If a black person or organization is socialist, its not racist to call them such.
"McCain and Palin have simply reached back in history to use an old code word for black. It set whites apart from those deemed unAmerican and those who could not be trusted during the communism scare.
Shame on McCain and Palin."
Now its time to take a journey to cliche land. This tactic is Orwellian in its suppression of free discussion. In newspeak, the term "free" couldn't describe political freedom because the concept no longer existed. You could freely use the word because half its meaning had been torn away. The previous sentence would be impossible. Unfortunately the concept of socialism does still exist, but the word will lose its meaning if people like Diugiud have their way. The easiest way to stifle discussion is to literally take away words. "Liberal" no longer means liberal, "socialism" no longer means socialism, "marxism" no longer means marxism. If one is no longer allowed to use terms to describe someone's ideology, one is extremely handicapped when trying to defeat that person in the marketplace of ideas.
Shame on Lewis Diuguid. Barack Obama is a socialist.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Monday, October 20, 2008
"Barack Obama's tax plan would convert the IRS into a giant welfare agency, redistributing massive amounts of wealth at the direction of politicians in Washington," McCain said in a radio address.
Way to go, but where was this in June? Obama isn't anything fresh or new. He's running on over a centruy of failed policy that is responsible for untold misery and stagnation. He embodies a radical leftism many in America thought we'd defeated and left for dead in the seventies. This should have been a simple exercise for the McCain campaign, the Obama camp is seemingly run by William Jennings Bryan and the reanimated corpse of Friedrich Nietzsche. These ideas and ideologies were long ago discredited. However, McCain has waited until almost the last minute to point this out. If he loses, he can only blame himself.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Last night's debate was McCain's perfect opportunity to paint Obama with a socialist brush. It wouldn't have been hard. The debate was centered on economics, McCain had every chance. He properly mentioned Obama's association with Ayers and ACORN, but he didn't tie it all together. Why did Ayers support Obama at the start of his political career? Because Obama is a radical socialist, in line with the views of the SDS and the Weathermen. Why did Obama work for ACORN? Because they actively promote socialism in America. These were softballs lobed to McCain that he didn't swing at. McCain did bring up Joe the Plumber and Obama's "spread the wealth" comment, but once again he didn't tie it together. He never used the "s" word. He never explained why Obama's comment was damaging, what it said about his ideological beliefs. I could be wrong, but I never heard him use the word "redistribution" when talking about Obama, he should have. He should have quoted Marx, that's essentially what Obama was doing: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." This is what "spread the wealth around" means. There is a dangerously high probability that we're going to elect a radical socialist to the office of the Presidency and no one in the McCain campaign or the Republican Party is warning the American people. Why the hell do we vote for them?
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
I must say, it made me a bit nostalgic for an age I've only read about, especially after watching pundits and world leaders proclaim the death of capitalism over the past few weeks. There was once a time, before citizens began voting themselves a share of the national treasury, that elected leaders and the public at large had rational beliefs about economics and complete faith in capitalism. Of course World War I and the ascendancy of Keynesian economics changed that in Britain, and I'm certain that we'll never get to that ideal during my lifetime. (See the Keynesian government bailout approved by both parties and signed by our "conservative" President.) Still, if people and governments were rational once, they can be rational again. After all, arguing against the free market is like arguing against the Laws of Physics.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Why are we 3 weeks from election day and no one is talking about this?
About 50 parishioners were locked into the Assemblies of God church before it was set ablaze. They were mostly women and children. Those who tried to flee were hacked to death by machete-wielding members of a mob numbering 2,000.
The 2008 New Year Day atrocity in the Kenyan village Eldoret, about 185 miles northwest of Nairobi, had all the markings of the Rwanda genocide of a decade earlier.
By mid-February 2008, more than 1,500 Kenyans were killed. Many were slain by machete-armed attackers. More than 500,000 were displaced by the religious strife. Villages lay in ruin. Many of the atrocities were perpetrated by Muslims against Christians
The violence was led by supporters of Raila Odinga, the opposition leader who lost the Dec. 27, 2007, presidential election by more than 230,000 votes. Odinga supporters began the genocide hours after the final election results were announced Dec. 30. Mr. Odinga was a member of Parliament representing an area in western Kenya, heavily populated by the Luo tribe, and the birthplace of Barack Obama's father.
Mr. Odinga had the backing of Kenya's Muslim community heading into the election. For months he denied any ties to Muslim leaders, but fell silent when Sheik Abdullahi Abdi, chairman of the National Muslim Leaders Forum, appeared on Kenya television displaying a memorandum of understanding signed on Aug. 29, 2007, by Mr. Odinga and the Muslim leader. Mr. Odinga then denied his denials.
The details of the MOU were shocking. In return for Muslim backing, Mr. Odinga promised to impose a number of measures favored by Muslims if he were elected president. Among these were recognition of "Islam as the only true religion," Islamic leaders would have an "oversight role to monitor activities of ALL other religions [emphasis in original]," installation of Shariah courts in every jurisdiction, a ban on Christian preaching, replacement of the police commissioner who "allowed himself to be used by heathens and Zionists," adoption of a women's dress code, and bans on alcohol and pork. . .
Initially, Mr. Odinga was not the favored opposition candidate to stand in the 2007 election against President Mwai Kibaki, who was seeking his second term. However, he received a tremendous boost when Sen. Barack Obama arrived in Kenya in August 2006 to campaign on his behalf. Mr. Obama denies that supporting Mr. Odinga was the intention of his trip, but his actions and local media reports tell otherwise.
Mr. Odinga and Mr. Obama were nearly inseparable throughout Mr. Obama's six-day stay. The two traveled together throughout Kenya and Mr. Obama spoke on behalf of Mr. Odinga at numerous rallies. In contrast, Mr. Obama had only criticism for Kibaki. He lashed out against the Kenyan government shortly after meeting with the president on Aug. 25. "The [Kenyan] people have to suffer over corruption perpetrated by government officials," Mr. Obama announced.
"Kenyans are now yearning for change," he declared. The intent of Mr. Obama's remarks and actions was transparent to Kenyans - he was firmly behind Mr. Odinga. . .
Mr. Odinga and Mr. Obama's father were both from the Luo community, the second-largest tribe in Kenya, but their ties run much deeper. Mr. Odinga told a stunned BBC Radio interviewer the reason why he and Mr. Obama were staying in near daily telephone contact was because they were cousins. In a Jan. 8, 2008, interview, Mr. Odinga said Mr. Obama had called him twice the day before while campaigning in the New Hampshire primary before adding, "Barack Obama's father is my maternal uncle."
"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too. . . My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody . . . I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
In case anybody didn't catch that, Barry is advocating redistribution of wealth. This is a fork in the road for America. Are we going to at least try and keep some semblance of a free market, or are we going to embark down the dark path of socialism and State power? Does anyone really envy Europe or Canada? There's a reason that America is the first power in the world, and its not socialism.
Now Barry, we all know that you do want to punish the rich for their success. That's the big draw of progessivism. You're courting the angry, jealous, and spiteful demographic who are envious of their neighbors, bitter at personal failures, and are indignant the success of others. Taxing the rich doesn't improve the lives of the lower and middle classes, at least not economically. Psychologically, some take pleasure in seeing the rich attacked and their assets seized. This is who Obama is targeting. Socialism never builds "everyone who is behind" up. It drags the successful down.
Unfortunatly, Obama isn't just playing at the baser emotions of some embittered Americans (not the "guns and God" kind), he's a true beleiver. He has been a radical leftist perhaps all his adult life. He wants wealth redistribution on a scale he dare not admit to America. He wants to rebuild America on a new foundation that the founders would find obsene. Let's make no bones about it, redistribution of wealth is State sponsered theft, period. The government has no right to take the property of one American by force and give it to another American who in no way earned it. I can think of no better definition of tyranny. This is why I'm going to drink myself into a stuper and vote for Senator McCain. I can't stand the man, but at least he's not a marxist.
Update: Kudos to the McCain campaign for calling a spade a spade:
"If Barack Obama's goal as President is to 'spread the wealth around,' perhaps his unconditional meetings with Hugo Chavez, Raul Castro, and Kim Jong-Il aren't so crazy -- if nothing else they can advise an Obama administration on economic policy," McCain spokesman Michael Goldfarb said in a written statement to FOXNews.com. "In contrast, John McCain's goal as president will be to let the American people prosper unburdened by government and ever higher taxes."
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
"A slowdown in the world economy may give the planet a breather from the excessively high carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions responsible for climate change, a Nobel Prize winning scientist said on Tuesday.
Slower economic growth worldwide could help slow growth of carbon dioxide emissions and trigger more careful use of energy resources, though the global economic turmoil may also divert focus from efforts to counter climate change, said Crutzen, winner of the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work on the depletion of the ozone layer.
'It's a cruel thing to say ... but if we are looking at a slowdown in the economy, there will be less fossil fuels burning, so for the climate it could be an advantage,' Crutzen told Reuters in an interview."
Wait, so slowing economic growth is linked to a decrease in CO2 levels? These issues are related? Do environmentalists know this? Do they know that the easiest way to lower CO2 in the atmosphere is to slow, stop, or even reverse economic growth? Thank goodness they don't have questionable motives. Imagine if someone's goal was to slow economic growth because they were say. . . a marxist who hated capitalism. They could use global warming as a decoy issue in order to destroy a pro growth, capitalist economy. Thank goodness there are none of those nefarious characters around.
Is conservatism pretty much dead now in American politics? There was time after time last night when McCain just accepted the liberal premise of the questions and suggested big government solutions. I believe if we had a genuine conservative running who could articulate our positions and challenge the assumptions of the questioners and public at large, we'd be winning this election. Instead we have McCain letting Barry get away with calling health care a "right". If we're going to let liberals make up new rights that defy the actual concept of the "natural right" that America is based upon, what's the point of conservatives continuing to call the Republican Party home? What if McCain wins? How much better than Obama will that actually be? Sure it will put off America's participation in the slow decline of the West for another decade, but after that? Its inevitable without a strong conservative party. We'd be there right now if not for the Reagan 80's. If McCain can't challenge Obama on an issue as fundamental as the nature of rights, can we trust him to challenge Pelosi and Reid? Can we trust the Republicans in Congress? They just helped pass a decidedly nonconservative government bailout.
We need a seachange, no matter who wins this election. I feel that we've ceded back much of the ground we gained after Reagan's victory, and its our own fault. The conservative cause needs new, articulate, true believing, advocates. Neocons are valuable allies, but we've let them seize the Party, and the concept of economic libertarianism has suffered as a result. We can have thousands of bloggers and radio hosts advocating real conservatism, but until we get politicians actively promoting it to the public at large, we will continue to lose ground, even when we win.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
"We want a new world to come out of this. . . We want to set up the basis for a capitalism of entrepreneurs, not speculators.''
By "capitalism" he means "heavy regulation of the private sector by an intrusive central government with little knowledge of economics or understanding of the 'invisible hand'", guided by "questionable --socialistic-- political motives"
McCain might (please God) balk at this new order the Europeans desire. Obama will embrace it, as well as the rest of their statist ideologies.
"Corsi had promised a news conference today that would 'expose details of deep secret ties between U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and a section of Kenya government leaders, their connection to certain sectoral groups in Kenya and subsequent plot to be executed in Kenya should Senator Obama win the American presidency.'"
Hmm, combine this with the millions of dollars Obama is allegedly receiving from abroad, and you begin to wonder who is backing his meteoric rise to power. Personally it frightens me a bit that a man who would be the most liberal President since LBJ appears to have such foreign support. D0 we really know anything about this guy? He's a relative unknown with socialist, if not marxist leanings, who has unknown, possibly foreign, backers behind the scenes. Do the American People know this? Is anyone trying to tell them? Do we know the kind of "change" Obama represents? Good Lord! The Democrats nominate a collectivist with more backing abroad than in the States, and all the Republicans throw against him is John McCain?
If Obama is elected, the resulting 4-8 years of socialism wrought on America will be a black mark not only upon the Democrats, but upon the spineless Republicans who were too unprincipled and cowardly to oppose McCain and then speak out against Obama. Why should we vote for you? Even in the minority role, you won't speak out. The reason I'm even considering voting for your nominee is because the other side is rolling out a Maoist. Big changes (1976-80-esque) need to take place in the Republican Party. Even if we somehow redefeat socialism in America, this will be far too close. Remember when wackjob leftists lost in 40+ State landslides? Do today's idiot GOP leaders know how hard the Buckleys, and Hayeks, and Goldwaters, and Reagans struggled on the fringes of American politics to pull this country back from the collectivist abyss? Now we just give all those gains back? We let them create a financial crisis, we let them blame us for it, we let them declare it a new "Great Depression", and we not only let them decide we need "New Deal" type government intervention, we collude with them to do it?!
Its not until now that I understand what it was like for men like Hayek and Buckley, what its like to be a lone voice in the wilderness, "standing athwart history yelling 'Stop!'"
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
"People will have to be rationed to four modest portions of meat and one litre of milk a week if the world is to avoid run-away climate change. . . total food consumption should be reduced, especially 'low nutritional value' treats such as alcohol, sweets and chocolates.
It urges people to return to habits their mothers or grandmothers would have been familiar with: buying locally in-season products, cooking in bulk and in pots with lids or pressure cookers, avoiding waste and walking to the shops. . ."
Now, why is this fascist? If you're familiar with this blog, you know that I routinely accuse the environmental movement of marxist intent, and this certainly fits the bill: Returning to the habits of of our grandparents, throwing off the "wasteful" conveniences capitalism has wrought, actually reducing our standard of living for the benefit of the whole. These are all marxist tenants, but fascist?
Fascism and marxism are interconnected, sister ideologies. They both seek State control of the economy, as well as all other aspects of its citizens lives. They are both leftist. I cannot emphasize this enough. Now this study is particularly fascist because of the moral equivalent to war this study seems to be giving the "fight" against "run-away climate change". This is a favorite fascist tactic used by Mussolini and Hitler. Create a crisis to control the people. We must ration ourselves. We must sacrifice. We must trust the State. Some freedoms are now counterproductive to the greater good:
"Tara Garnett, the report's author, warned that campaigns encouraging people to change their habits voluntarily were doomed to fail"
So the State must intervene. The citizens should no longer be allowed to "voluntarily" choose what they wish to eat, where they wish to travel, what they drive, etc.
"(the report says) 'Study upon study has shown that awareness-raising campaigns alone are unlikely to work, particularly when it comes to more difficult changes.'"
We can no longer trust the people to know what is good for themselves. Big Brother --or in this case, Loving Mother-- must intervene.
Now, all western democracies have a certain degree of "soft" or "nice" fascism. But I believe Britain is much further along. The British are already the most watched society in the world. Add in the naziesque attack on cigarettes and personal responsibility, and you have a disturbing trend in British society. The State is taking more and more control over the citizen's life. I wonder whether or not Britain will make the turn from "soft" to "hard" or what you may call a more "classical" fascism. There is a rapidly growing, unassimalated, islamic population in Great Britain who are at odds with British culture, tradition, and government. Something's going to give. If this continues, I believe there's a chance of a civil war. If the muslims prevail, you could have a militant islamic state. What if the Anglo-Saxons prevail though? The framework is already there for a traditional fascist state. Throw in open, violent conflict with a completely different cultural and racial segment of society, and I fear you may end up with fascism everyone can recognize.
This is all speculation, and Britannia may well pull herself back before she goes over the edge --there's already a backlash against the environmentalist burden imposed the British-- but the founders in America who committed treason rather then be denied the inherent rights of the "Englishman" would be appalled over what it means to be one today. There must be consequences. I just wonder what they'll be.