American History (Part 5) Not Listening to the Voices of the People

What attempts did the disgruntled colonists take prior to resorting to violent revolution?

The “Shot Heard Round the World” occurred at the Lexington Green on April,17, 1775. This was the official beginning of the armed conflict we know as the beginning of the American Revolution. British Regulars, stationed in Boston we ordered to march up to Lexington, and then Concord, in order to seized munitions stored by the colonists. The British Redcoats had been occupying Boston following the Boston Tea Party, December 16, 1773, enforcing martial law, in order to put teeth into the Coercive Acts - laws which required the colony of Massachussetts to pay back damages caused by the dumping of tea into the Boston Harbor, make sure that Massachusetts didn’t practice self-government, allow officials accused of a crime against colonists to stand trial back in England, continue the quartering (housing) of British soldiers in civilian homes, and a closing of the British harbor - restricting trade of any kind. Additionally, the notorious Committees of Correspondence (members of communication groups informing the other colonies of actions the English government was taking) were banned. In other words, Boston was to be isolated, starved, and punished until they submitted. After a year and a half of occupation, King George and Parliament decided to show the colonists that their military might included the ability to to disarm the population at will. At Lexington Green, a standoff occurred, shots were fired, and the fuse was lit which officially marked the beginning of the War.

Events such as these typically have many “dominoes” which lead to what history records as the “beginning.” Did the colonists attempt other means of convincing England to make policy changes? Indeed, they did. Let’s go back to 1763, a full 12 years prior to the first shots.

As covered in an earlier blog, England waged a world war against France, their longtime nemesis. These two countries were rivals in their attempts to expand, control foreign soils, and as far as the “American continent,” assert dominance. France had settled in what is now Canada, but had laid claim to much of what is now the US, by way of French explorer, LaSalle. René-Robert Cavelier, Sieur de La Salle, in 1682 sailed down the Mississippi River which natives serving as his guides. Seeing the immensity of the mighty Mississippi, LaSalle made a clever claim for French king, King Louis XIV. He claimed the waters of the Mississippi, all tributaries which fed this river, and the lands they flowed through, as French territory. Unitil the Lewis and Clark Expedition of 1803, nobody really understood the extent of this claim; it was uncharted land. But realize today, since the Rocky Mountain Range serves as one watershed, and the Appalachians serve as another, all waters between these two continental watersheds ultimately feed the Mississippi. Thus, although LaSalle had no way of realizing it at the time, he effectively claimed all lands between the Rockies and the Appalachians. This became known as the Louisiana Territory.

France never enjoyed the large number of colonists willing to emigrate to the wilderness of the American continent. Frenchmen who did were primarily fur trappers. Still, they contended that the claim was legitimate, and the die was cast for future conflict between the Spanish who had laid claim to what is now Mexico, the turf north of there, the French, and the English who had gained a foothold on the Atlantic seaboard. From the early 1600s, English immigrants flooded into this new land, seeking economic opportunity, the promise of actually owning land (an opportunity these newcomers would never realize in England), and for many, an opportunity for religious freedom (membership to the Anglican Church was mandatory - despite many in the church feeling disenfranchised by the liberal directions that church was taking). The first to arrive had the best picks, primarily for agriculture. Latecomers found that the most arable lands were taken, and had to settle for the less agriculturally suitable land of the the Appalachians. And so, eventually, English settlers spilled over the Appalachians into the more fertile regions beyond, most notable, the Ohio River Valley. It was here that clashes between the English and the French ensued.

Consequently, while England’s war with the French involved worldwide arguments, control over shipping on the Atlantic, other colonial conquests on different continents, the focus of American History centers on the North American continent. (European history notes this war as the “Seven Years War” whereas in American History, we name it the “French and Indian War.”) Ultimately, at huge expense, the English won. The treaty that followed is known as the the Treaty of Paris. While this treaty contains several provisions, the bottom line was that the French was, for all intents and purposes, removed from the continent of North America.

This was a costly war which left England in serious debt. Debt is weakness, whereas as prosperity is strength. A rich nation can maintain a strong military presence with many soldiers, adequately equipped with the latest and greatest technological armament. A weak nation cannot, and is therefore vulnerable to future attacks. England was in this weak spot and knew it. Remaining so was not an option. Finding its way out of debt was necessary. But how? As covered earlier, the American colonies were England’s immediate source of fresh revenue.

In 1763, Parliament passed the Stamp Act - a law that placed a direct tax on all paper goods. These paper goods included every thing from all licenses (even marriage licenses), playing cards, newspapers, books, all legal documents, etc. This was the first time the English tried to tax the colonies directly. Colonists were well familiar with taxation. In their local assemblies they taxed themselves regularly for the needs of the colony. But, taxation to an Englishman, meant only taxation through a representative assembly they helped create. Since they weren’t allowed to have representation in Parliament, the colonists rightly reasoned that taxes passed there would not apply to them.

Upon realizing the terms of the Stamp Act, concerned colonists responded in anger. They spoke out, articles were written in local newspapers, and appeals by way of petitions were made. The appeals were ignored. Colonial protestors, in turn, responded by burning the taxable papers. These protests were reported to be disloyal to the Empire. The concerned colonists were getting nowhere, so they upped the ante and intimidated tax collectors with hanging their images in effigy. Again, England ignored the warning signs and threatened with heavy handed retribution against the upstarts. As extreme measures, tax collectors were tarred and feathered - an action that resulted in public humiliation as well as severe physical harm to the victim, and to law abiding colonists? Shock. But these actions, while notable, did not bring about the desired effect of repealing the Stamp Act. What did work? Colonists organized and staged a boycott of goods coming from England.

A point to understand: America was England’s largest buyer. The economic model observed was one of “mercantilism.” In this scheme, the colony finds resources that can be used in production by the mother country and ships those resources home. In turn, the mother country uses the resources to produce finished goods which it will market to other countries, as well as their colonies. The colony, which is not allowed to produce finished goods without permission from the mother country, serves as a captive market - hence, the colony is allowed to buy from the mother country exclusively, even if the goods could be purchased elsewhere for a lower price.

By boycotting, England lost its largest market. The American colonists, in essence, crippled the English commerce. So, it wasn’t due to members of Parliament reasoning that perhaps they were being unfair in not including the American colonies in the decision making process, as the principles Magna Carta and English Bill of Rights dictated. It was the almighty dollar (or pound) pressuring the economy to wake up. Merchants in England were screaming bloody hell to Parliament, “Get rid of this insane Act. We’ve lost our income and without income there are no taxes to be had.” The Act was repealed.

England, not wanting to lose face, overlooked the basic economic lesson. They proceeded in their “right” to tax the Americans, and proceeded to pass The Townshend Acts. Americans again, reacted, and this time, came quickly to the conclusion that the boycott was the most effective means of getting their frustration across. Again, it worked, and Parliament repealed the offensive laws. But as a gesture of ultimate authority, they passed two simultaneous Acts, one being the Tea Act and the other being the Declaratory Act. The first affirmed the right of the British to keep a tax on tea, primarily as a face-saving measure. The second, and more ominous, asserted England’s right to practice sovereignty over the American colonies in any matter. These two Acts ultimately led to the Boston Tea Party, wherein harbors in America refused to receive shipment of the tea carrying tax. When colonial governors ordered the tea unloaded anyway (Boston - Governor Hutchinson), Patriot leaders responded by destroying the cargo.

So, what were the escalatory steps? Local alarm - petitioning local officials - protests - petitioning Parliament and King George - destruction of public property - intimidation of government officials - violent protests - refusal to give up arms and munitions - war.

Where are we along this path today? Has the public become alarmed? Absolutely. While some news organizations who support the current government sweep it under the rug and cover nothing more than the death of Michael Jackson, the traffic and the weather, talk shows and Fox News cover the growing anger at the direction we’re taking. Have concerned citizens petitioned local officials as well as Congress and the President? Yes, through the internet, circulation petitions, contacting both representatives and the White House, attending town hall meetings, and staging Tea Parties. The response from the government? These attempts are belittled as “Astroturf Movements” (not real nor legitimate), and continually arguing that the protestors are “right wing extremists” who spread misinformation. Emails I’ve sent are answered with “Thank you for contacting (senator’s name). Unfortunately, due to the volume of emails, he may not be able to respond directly.” Town Hall meetings are canceled due to representatives not wanting to face their constituents. Phone “town hall meetings” are prescribed with questions allowable. The President encourages citizens to turn in the names and addresses of their neighbors involved in spreading misinformation. In sum, the voices of those concerned are being ignored, or worse, threatened to be silenced.

So far, things have not gotten ugly. The conservatives who are speaking out are law abiding citizens who have it in their nature to maintain a job, follow the law, exercise decorum and respect. These are not the types who have nothing to lose and seek to cause, nor exercise, disrespect for the rule of law, and resort to anarchy. But the same can be said of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Patrick Henry, John Hancock, and Joseph Warren. These were men of means who did not advocate a rush to arms. They had everything to lose: wealth, power, prestige, and position. But when push came to shove, they were willing to lose everything, and if necessary, be hung as traitors to England for daring to stand up to tyranny. Fortunately for them (and us) America emerged as an independent nation. Otherwise, those men would be footnotes in English history as dangerous traitors who attempted to incite the public to riot and rebellion.

Will our government listen to the voices of concern before more drastic steps are taken? I don’t know anyone in this current movement of protest against our current administration who hopes for measures involving violence. And within our history, it wasn’t the initial violence which led to the repealing of the offensive laws; it was boycotting and hurting the British economy. (Is a tax revolt in the cards?)

Let us hope and pray that our government comes to its senses, remembering that the purpose of government is to serve the people. However, Declaration of Independence serves as a very clear recipe for the People’s right to oppose their government. And that Document informs us that holding our government accountable is not only our right, it is our DUTY!

American History (Part 4) Colonists and Today's Constituents - Insignificant Provincials

An "unsung" reason contributing to the Revolution was social rejection. While this may sound melodramatic and petty, emotions often drive decisions. The British aristocracy living in England made it clear to their American "cousins" that they (the Americans) would never be considered as equals.

In the 1760s, despite the distance separating the American colonies from the continent of Europe, the colonists were proud to be considered British. Most English colonists,  recent immigrants or 4th generation descendents of 17th century immigrants, considered themselves to be British. They were fiercely proud of their heritage and their king. Let the reader understand - while at the time of the Revolution there were 13 colonies comprising Colonial America, these colonies operated much like independent nations; there was no real sense of a united America. What they had in common was the same "parent", that is, England.

Prior to revolution, the colonies hung desperately to the hope that differences would be resolved. No sane person hoped for revolution. Mother England may have been off base, but most everyone hoped for, and assumed, that differences would be addressed and corrected. During the mid -1770s, approximately 30% of the American colonists considered themselves to be Patriots - those willing to stand against England to protect their rights guaranteed under the Magna Carta and English Bill of Rights (see previous blog), regardless of steps necessary. The remaining 70% were made up of about 30% fiercely loyal to England and 40% who were neutral - just wanting to get on with their daily life of survival and work.

Among the 30% who identified with the Patriot movement were men of means who were learned, successful, and greatly offended. For years, they had sought to live as Englishmen - real Englishmen. They insisted on reading newspapers from England, sending their children abroad to receive a bonafide English education, copied the art forms of English paintings, drank tea from Wedgewood cups. But their counterparts in England let them know they were little more than "posers." Political cartoons in the English print mocked Americans are provincials. Comments were made about their attempts to mimic aristocracy, pointing out the flaws attire, horse carriages, decorating, etc. Letters from George Washington to his clothier in England reveal his frustration with being sent fashions that were out-of-date and being charged exorbitant prices, implying that he was too dim to get what was going on. 

When intelligent people are told repeatedly that they donít belong to the group they admire, eventually rejection leads to bitterness. Not only will they feel separated, they will grow to dislike, or perhaps detest, those they once aspired to be. As the Bible says, "A brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city..." (Proverbs 18;19)  And so, this group that once so fervently identified themselves as British, learned from the admired that they would never be considered equal, and eventually sought their own social identity.

This part of the Revolutionary picture is overlooked and underestimated. Once deeply offended, people become ready to take more drastic measures. If I tell a wayward child in my family that he is behaving inappropriate, but that he will always be part of the family, and we will work through problems with him, there is hope. However, if I tell that same child he will never be like the rest of us, his behavior is inexcusable, his lifestyle is the source of family ridicule, and all the while, we are expecting him to pay the bills to help us eliminate our family debt - we have a recipe for disaster. This is why this reality of American history is grossly underestimated as a cause for revolution . Rejection and social ridicule make people mad enough to say, "I don't want to be part of that which I once admired. I'm done."

How does this compare with our circumstances today?

Forget about Republicans and Democrats - we all consider ourselves to be Americans. Increasingly, our country has become ruled by large population centers such as New York, Los Angeles, Miami, San Francisco, Seattle, etc. If you study an electoral map following a Presidential election, you'll see that the vast majority, geography-wise, voted for the conservative candidate. Conversely, small regions of the country, densely populated, voted for the liberal candidate. Increasingly, conservative Americans are being told they don't count. Based on proportional representation (population), the majority of Americans control elections, and that's Constitutional. But it is unhealthy when politicians in power tell those who did not vote for the winners, that they don't really count. Further, their concerns as expressed in protests are nothing more than "Astroturf." That voices of opposition on the radio and television are trouble makers spreading misinformation, and then proposing means of silencing those voices with the Fairness Doctrine, taking control of the internet with the power to shut it down for national security, asking citizens to email names and addresses of those complaining to the White House, as a real or implied threat of retribution.

What I find particularly frustrating about politicians today is their elitist attitude; once elected, they know better. They seem to forget that they purpose of their job is to represent their constituents and address their concerns. Instead, they take their election as a self-proclaimed mandate to put forth their own agenda, and the agenda of those who financed their campaign. The really disturbing aspect of this is that during the campaign, many of these elected officials cleverly couch their real beliefs with terminology that is vague, universal, and flat out, misleading. Consider President Obama. He promised to be the President of transparency, yet he won't clarify the matter of his birth certificate once and for all. He said he was only a neighbor of Bill Ayers, did not embrace his anti-American views, but if you look at the backgrounds of czars he has appointed such as Carol Browner, Van Jones, Cass Sunstein, and John Holdren, there is a commonality of among these people thinking that America needs to re-formed which I find very disturbing. Obama sat in the pews of Reverend Jeremiah Wright's church and claimed not to hear those messages in which Wright attacked our country viciously. How could Obama miss that? (I've been to many churches throughout my life and this I've observed, pastors, reverends, and priests tend to be consistent in their themes. The message may change from week to week, but their underlying philosophy of life sets the tone of the church and the direction it takes.) How is that Michelle Obama, when 44 years of age, could honestly say, "For the first time in my adult lifetime, Iím really proud of my country..." first in Milwaukee, WI, and a second time in Madison? You may choose to pick each of these apart, one by one, but when one examines the tapestry of these variables, the picture is pretty disturbing.

All of these people mentioned, including the Obamas, are wealthy, having succeeded in a country that allowed them to pursue their happiness and openly express their views. Now, as ruling elite, they look down upon the silent majority as insignificant provincials who need to be led to a new America, a fascist and socialist America which seems very Orwellian to me. 

Carol Browner: Last day in office, 2000, as head of the EPA, she oversaw the destruction of the agency's computer files in direct violation of the a federal court order to preserve them. This despite her claim that "One of the  things Iím the proudest of at the EPA is the work weíve done to expand the publicís right to know." A clever trial lawyer, Browner claimed ignorance of the court injunction. Is this consistent with transparency and serving the People?

Van Jones: An avowed communist, Van Jones has been noted for calling Republicans "assholes," addressing supportive audiences using the F-bomb repeatedly to belittle the ideas and beliefs of Americans who's ideas run counter to the green movement, contends that white polluters and white environmentalist steer poison to racial minorities, and aligned himself with the "truthers," that is, those who contend the terrorism attacks of 9/11 were inside jobs designed by the Bush administration.

Cass Sunstein:  Regulatory czar, in his own words - "Animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives, to prevent violations of current law... Any animals that are entitled to bring suit would be represented by (human) counsel, who would owe guardian like obligations and make decisions, subject to those obligations, on their clients' behalf."

"We ought to ban hunting, I suggest, if there isnít a purpose other than sport and fun. That should be against the law. It's time now."

Sunstein also argued in favor of "eliminating current practices such as greyhound racing, cosmetic testing, and meat eating, most controversially."

John Holdren, science czar: In 1977, Holdren co-authored the book Ecoscience. Here are some of the assertions: Forced abortions could be supported by the Constitution (page 837), single mothers could have their babies taken away by the government (page 786), mass sterilization of humans could be accomplished through drinking water (pages 787-787), governmental control over reproductively (pages 786-787), determining who may reproduce base on social deterioration (page 838), a planetary regime should control the international economy and dictate population expansion (pages 942-943), surrender national sovereignty to international police (page 917), pro-family and pro-birth attitudes are promoted through ethnic chauvinism (page 749).

Do you see any trends here? Did Obama transparently spell out this agenda clearly before he was elected? No, he promised transparency, but didn't provide it. He claimed that he would be a president who truly reached across the aisle, but is not living up to that promise one bit. Obama said he'd be the most accessible president ever, but instead, he's organizing an administration that plans on controlling the internet for "national security," encourages neighbors to turn in the names and addresses of those who spread "misinformation" about his policies, and budgeted $4.19 billion dollars to ACORN along with other "neighborhood stabilization activity" groups. Stabilization? ACORN is one of the two main thug groups intimidating voters at polling places, executive board members to provide bad loans to certain classes of borrowers, and threatening protestors at Tea Parties and town hall meetings. (The other group being SEIU).

Okay, enough. What does this have to do with my original thesis that a contributory factor to the American Revolution had to do with the British not treating the colonists as equal British citizens? The British government felt the colonists were provincials, or simply put, too stupid to determine what was in their own best interest. They allowed the colonists to "play government" in their own colonies as long as it benefited England financially. England passed several Acts, or laws, which left the colonists out of the decision making process, and they thought they could get away with it because the colonists were too slow, too ill-informed, and too rustic to stay up with the political tap dance Parliament was performing. The government of England forgot that they were supposed to represent its citizens - citizens who happened to live in the American colonies.

Today, Congress and the White House are promoting an agenda that has been put forth by the radical left. It is an agenda which is full of socialism, seeking ways to silence dissent, government takeover of private entities, destroying our ability to be self-reliant in energy, hamstringing business which rely on energy for production at a time where are slipping into an economic hole we can never get out of, promoting an agenda allowing animals their day in court, etc. Did our leaders transparently present these ideas when running for office? No, that would be too stark, too shocking. It was better to ride into office denying attachment to these ideals and allow late night comedy and mainstream news to mock those trying to bring attention the candidates' background and ties as Chicken Littles. (Thank you so much, David Letterman, SNL, NPR, CNN, MSNBC and all news agencies which are admittedly comprised of 80% liberals.)

In the days of pre-Revolution, the English government framed the 30% of the colonial population (the Patriots), who warned of England's tyranny, as trouble makers and dangerous. Our government today is doing the same thing. In order to silence voices of concern and dissent, our government is calling detractors Right Wing Extremists, the Astroturf Movement, and loyal citizens are supposed to send the names and addresses of these people to the White House. If the movement becomes too strong, the dissenters' right to Assemble and Petition (1st Amendment) is being greeted with members of ACORN, SEIU, and others - bused in to agitate, cause civil disobedience, and make it look like the conservatives are there to start a fight.

This is NOT a Republican vs. Democrat argument. This is about preserving America and the Constitution, and the beliefs embedded in the Declaration of Independence. It's about believing that government exists to serve the People, not the other way round. It's about embracing the 1st Amendment as first and foremost established to encourage public debate, examination of opposing views, in order to allow the People to participate in our democratic republic. It's also about holding our elected officials accountable. If you promise to be transparent, but the people who you surround yourself with as advisors are communists, socialists, new world order types, racists who blame Whitey for everything, people who believe in giving up our national sovereignty and submitting to an international police, leaders who have a known track record of destroying government files on agency computers, and those who want to give the rest of the animal kingdom (and I assume that includes insects) their day in court, isn't it fair to wonder why this "utopia" wasn't presented before the election? Well, isn't it?

American History (Part 3) Why Did Colonist Think They Had a Right to Representation? Why Do We?

Few things irritate people more than telling them that the decision is in their hands only to find out that this is not really true. England led the colonists to believe they were self-governing. Today, Americans assume their elected officials are in office to represent the views of their community.

During the English colonization of North America, governing the colonies long distance proved impractical and inefficient. Three thousand miles of Atlantic Ocean and several weeks of time separated the colonial provinces with Mother England. 

The point of having the colonies in the first place was to make money for England. This was not an “adventure,” nor would there be a misconception that colonialism served as a government endeavor to give the less fortunate a new lease on life. Nope, a colonial expedition constituted an extremely expensive proposition. Somebody had to put up the money. And as covered in the previous blog, private investors put up cold hard cash in hopes of realizing a profit on their investment. So, the point of allowing the colonists to set up their own rules and governing body had nothing to do with a social experiment - it was an economic necessity. Remote England could not possibly anticipate the needs of the colonists. Trying to govern the daily affairs from overseas would bog the economic wheels down. Consequently, precedent would be that local decisions would be made locally for the sake of efficiency, and more importantly, economic success.

Between 1607 (Jamestown) and 1776 (Declaration of Independence), what developed in the 13 Original Colonies typically resembled this: the Colonial Assembly - the body of locally elected men who would make laws for the good of the colony, the Royal Governor - a trusted emissary of the King who would basically serve as the eyes and ears of the monarch, and the Counsel - typically a handful of men acting as the advisors to the Royal Governor as well as the judicial branch of the colony.

The Colonial Assembly was a natural outgrowth of what discussed above. The orderly working of the colony necessitated laws. Laws which might be functional and necessary for Mother England may have no practicality for the frontier life of a colony. And although the colonies were considered subjects of the British Empire, members of Parliament (often investors in the colonial efforts) realized that for economic success, colonial decisions would have to be made at a local level. Conversely, laws making sense for the needs of colony may prove absolutely nonsensical for people living back in England.

Problem: How does the King and Parliament keep these colonial assemblies from straying from England’s control? Yes, the goal was economic success. But what if the colonists become somewhat renegade in their endeavors - how would England know that colonial laws were consistent with the good of England? Enter, the Royal Governor. Trusted men of the king needed to be present in the colony to review the laws being passed by the Assembly, making sure that these laws ultimately benefitted England. If not, the Royal Governor would refuse to sign the proposed law - thereby having what we now consider the veto. Some Royal Governors were quite popular within their colony. Others were considered little more than spy and snitch who served a powerful impediment in the pursuit of self-governance.

With the appearance of a Royal Governor, to avoid being a "Royal Outsider", the new arrival would need the confidence of local men of wealth, influence, and local knowledge. Hence the need for a Counsel. A wise Royal Governor realized that without the assistance of an inner circle of men who would help him avoid the pitfalls of local “politics” (socially, economically, politically), that Governor could immediately alienate the colonists and he would be a target of hatred instantaneously. True, the Royal Governor represented royalty, had the grandest home in the community, and would throw lavish parties that the colonial gentry aspired to attend. The Governor was the closest thing to being around the King that these colonists would experience. So, yes, there was the natural desire to be in the Governor’s good graces. That notwithstanding, the gentry of the colonies had come by their wealth, social position, and political influence by hard work and sacrifice. They were not about to let some idiot come in and spoil things. Therefore, a prudent Royal Governor realized he must learn the local nuances of the community, and by appointing local advisors of the community, he would benefit from their savvy to know who he could push around, who he couldn’t, who he needed to befriend, and who he needed to undermine.

With bumps and bruises, this type of government worked for the colonies. The measure of success would be economic profit for the investors and more importantly, for England. Remember, the colonies only existed (in the eyes of the Empire) for the sake of earning money for England. If those who chose to risk the hardships of colonial life made money as well - great. If colonists happened to find a better life with more opportunity in America - swell. If some of the colonists enjoyed more religious freedom than what they had on the European continent - okay. For England, any side benefit enjoyed by a colonist was incidental. The bottom line was “Does the existence of the colony benefit England and the investors who plunked down the cash?” If so, everybody wins. If not, make necessary changes or pull the plug.

Human nature being what it is, the colonists believed that local decisions were their right. After all, they were the ones in the trenches taking the actual life and death risks of  colonial life (exposure, disease, the potential for hostilities with natives, starvation, etc). It’s one thing to make a bad financial investment and lose. But losing, to a colonist, usually meant dying. By the time colonists were practicing colonialism in the 1700s, the die was cast in terms of them believing that self-governance was a way of life. But did they have any basis for that belief other than habit and precedence? Actually they did.

England, circa 1215, King John agreed to the Magna Carta (aka Great Charter). Bypassing a lengthy discussion, John needed money to finance wars, and when he sought out the financial help of barons (wealthy folks) they provided the money in return for certain written guarantees. The guarantee that we are now interested in, is that of promising these men that taxes would be developed by a group of prominent men they selected; this was the beginnings of representative taxation. The second prominent guarantee for Englishmen came following England’s Glorious Revolution. King James II was chased out of the country and William and Mary took the reigns. Based on England’s monarchs gradually ignoring and eroding the promises of the Magna Carta, new requirements were drafted and documented in the form of the English Bill of Rights, 1689. This document provided several guarantees, primarily preventing the monarch from interfering with a citizen’s right to determine taxes through elected representation (to Parliament), being able to petition one’s government without fear of retribution, having the right to bear arms, enjoying the freedom of speech and debate, the king or queen would not have the right to unilaterally establish new courts nor act as judge, and that laws, made by Parliament, would not be undermined by the sovereign (king or queen). The people of England took these promises as seriously as we do our right to Free Speech. If you were an Englishmen, the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights were your codified guarantee of certain freedoms the sovereign was to respect.

What about American colonists? American colonists considered themselves to be Englishmen (at least, those who came or had ancestral roots to England). As citizens of the British Empire, there was no doubt in their mind that the Magna Carta and English Bill of Rights applied to them. Why wouldn’t they? After all, today, if I travel to an American territory, I don’t give up my rights as an American based on lack of proximity to Washington, DC. I may be in the Virgin Islands, but I still retain my rights as an American citizen. When traveling abroad, I need to realize that when in another sovereign nation, they may not grant me rights provided by the US Constitution. But this later example was not the case with America during the 17th and 18th centuries. The English colonies known as “America” were part of the British Empire. An Englishmen choosing to move to America, or born in America, was still considered an English citizen. The rights he enjoyed in the country of England extended to all parts of the British Empire. Therefore, if he had the right to live under laws made in Parliament by officials he helped elect, the same would apply when living in America.

Consequently, the American colonists passionately embraced their right to make their own laws. Although they were not granted the right to have members in Parliament who they elected, they overlooked this oversight due to the fact that they had their own Assembly in their colony, and the laws and taxation which affected their daily life were developed by their local colonial government. 

As covered in my previous blog, when England found itself in financial calamity following their victory in the French and Indian War, they decided to directly tax the colonists. After all, they reasoned, the colonies existed for the financial benefit of the Mother Country. The might of the British Army helped protect the colonists, and now, in their time of need, the colonial productivity would be directly taxed to help stabilize the economy of England using an influx of revenue in the form of taxes. Problem: the colonist did not elect members of Parliament, therefore, by the terms of the Magna Carta and English Bill of Rights, it would be a serious infringement of their rights as an Englishmen to be required to pay taxes to the body which mandated the taxation. It was not the amount being asked for, it was this principle: paying taxes to a body of men they did not elect would be tantamount to giving up their rights as Englishmen. Acquiescing to this abridgment would serve as a dangerous precedent of England expecting American colonists to submit to England whenever asked to do so without regard to their guaranteed rights as equals.

Mother England dug in, and so did the Revolutionaries. The more England asserted its right to rule over America and receive loyalty irrespective of ignoring the rights of Englishmen living there, the more colonial men of principle resisted, insisting of equality and adherence to the law of the land (i.e. the Magna Carta and English Bill of Rights). Both sides refused to back down with the result being hostilities which led to the Revolution.

What does this have with America in 2009? After all, laws affecting Americans are enacted by men and women who have been elected to office. Right? Agreed. However, things are going askew. Why?

Members of Congress and Presidents do not become immune to the will of the People once elected. True, the fact that they have been elected provides them with permission to act within the understanding of a democratic republic, that once elected, they have the power to govern. However, once elected, elected officials are not to become removed from listening to the voice and will of the People. During the consideration of the Stimulus Plan, Cap and Trade, and now, the National Health Care bills, there has been a firestorm of concern by large segments of the American population.

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote, and our Founders concurred (based on their experience with England):

“...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Notice, the government exists to serve the will of the People. The amount of power, the form of the government, the principles of the government - all these are based upon what best serves the need of the People. The government only gets its power based on the consent, or permission, from the People. What will bring about our Safety and Happiness? That is our desire. 

How then can it be consistent, that once elected, members of Congress and/or the President act as if they are immune to the concerns of the People? Do any of the following sound like actions of being responsive to the the concerns of the People:

• Senators and Representatives canceling town hall meetings because they don’t want to face conflicting opinions and the anger of the People?
  
• Senators and Representatives changing the format of town hall meetings to phone call-ins that dictate prescribed and prearranged questions the conversation is limited to?
  
• A Speaker of the House referring to Tea Parties, town hall meetings flooded with angry Americans, and talk shows being dominated with the topic of the direction our country is taking as “Astroturf Movements”? (Meaning, the concern is phony and directed by trouble makers such as Glen Beck, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Lars Larsen, Michael Savage, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, and more.)
  
• A President who asks that neighbors submit, to the White House, the names and addresses of people, like myself, who express concern and dissent over the present direction our country is taking?
  
• A President who repeatedly tries to silence dissent by saying that their concerns are based on misinformation, and then refuses to address the concerns directly?
  
• A President who seeks methods and authority for shutting down the internet based on his whims and capriciousness, ostensibly for the sake of national security?
  
• Passing laws which exceed 1000 pages in length, often written by special interest groups or czars who were not elected by the People, often not read and debated by the legislators passing them, and then ridiculing the concern that the People want the elected legislator (not their staffers) to fully read and understand the proposed law, and fully address the concerns of their constituents before voting?
  

We are rapidly moving from the economic and political structure that determined America. Our government is making decisions which move away from capitalism and into fascism (government control over private industry while maintaining private ownership, at least in name, while suppressing opposition to the government) and/or socialism (government control over industry without regard, concern or respect of private enterprise, and again, while suppressing voices of dissent). The pace at which Congress and the President are passing social reform is more than alarming. Our government is passing these changes at a rate which doesn’t allow us to experience the real consequences of their actions until the damage is done. The numbers being projected are so astronomical, it’s virtually impossible to get your mind around what the changes mean to the individual, his children, and his grandchildren.

The Declaration of Independence goes on to say... “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

What does this mean? A government that has been successful for a long time shouldn’t be changed without serious need for change; after, it became successful for a reason. Further, human nature is such that we don’t really want to change; we’ll put up with bad government as long as we can stand it. We’re used to things the way they are. But when government shows a pattern of abusing their power and taking away the rights of the People (usurpation) with a goal of putting the People under absolute control, it becomes the right and duty to replace the abusive government in order to protect their future. 

Our heritage is based upon a government which is responsive to the will of the People. The government exists for the protection of our rights, happiness, and security. It’s about us, it’s not about them. The government serves the People. 

 A regular lament among Americans is that we don't have time. Don't have time to find out what's really going on, don't have time to research it, don't have time check the facts, etc. However, we each have 24 hours. Your bank account may have more or less money than mine, but our time account is the same. Following the Constitutional Convention in 1787, a colonial woman asked Benjamin Franklin what type of government he was giving the people. His response? A Republic, madam, if you can keep it. What did Franklin mean? In order for a republic to work, the public needs to be educated and part of the process. Otherwise, human nature will run its course and absolute power will corrupt absolutely. 

When the government tells the People to shut up, something is dramatically wrong!

American History (Part 2) What Led to Revolution?

Part I provided an overview of why I feel a new to review some of our American History during the Revolutionary period and listed 10 points I would discuss in upcoming  entries. All of these will focus on what led to the American Revolution, as well as attempting to make connections with what is going on in our country today. As mentioned previously, if we don’t learn from our history, we are doomed to repeat it.

What led to the Revolution? Point #1: England allowing colonists to take the risk of failure (often fatal, literally) and then taking credit for their success.

Concerning colonialism, England entered the European expansion into America as a relative latecomer. The early runners were Spain, Portugal, the Dutch, and France. But hesitation was proving to be costly as Queen Elisabeth astutely realized, and living in the shadow of Spain’s increasing wealth and military domination of the Atlantic was no longer an option if England planned on being a world player. Money equals strength. Spain was becoming increasingly wealthy, and unless England took action, they could plan on becoming a byword of European importance.

Consequently, plans were made to colonize the American continent. These ventures were costly, both in terms of financial necessity and human life. How would these be funded and who would be willing to take the risk? Enter capitalism. 

Unsuccessful attempts illustrated the risks: Though given a patent to colonize a territory known as “Virginia,” rugged colonists could not withstand harsh conditions, and in 1583, their leader, Sir Humphrey Gilbert drowned off the coast of Newfoundland. The effort was abandoned. Gilbert’s half brother, Sir Walter Raleigh took up the effort, made two unsuccessful efforts with the second resulting in the infamous disappearance of the entire party (the Lost Colony of Roanoke - circa 1589). Personal fortunes vanished as well as human lives.

Private investment groups, in the first successful attempt, Jamestown, provided the solution for the financial equation. The Virginia Company served as a type of stock investment option for investors willing to participate in the opportunity of realizing great returns while not putting all their fortune at risk. While economic gain was hoped for, shrewd investors realized that putting everything on the line was proving foolish. Using this model, England was able to gain a foothold on the American continent, not risk its own national debt, and look forward to income based on a captive economy known as mercantilism (discussed in an upcoming entry). Okay, so much for the cash flow.

Who would go? The investors were quite comfortable living in England. Unless they had an adventurous streak, why face the fate of Gilbert and those who disappeared at Roanoke? The first successful colony, Jamestown in 1607, witnessed a mixed bag of participants: some gentlemen (gentry who didn’t have as much opportunity among the nobility of England) yet wanted to participate in an adventure, their manservants, some military types, and a few boys. No women.

All-in-all, 150 males - of whom 45 who died on the treacherous crossing of the Atlantic, while 101 adult men and 4 boys landed safely. In a few months time, 51 of these died, mostly due to starvation, exposure, and choosing to settle in the swampy, non-potable waters of the lowland area of the coast of Virginia. Captain John Smith took control of their dire conditions executing the order to the lazy, unskilled gentlemen, “He who doesn’t work, doesn’t eat.” (No welfare, no food stamps.) In the coming years, replacements eventually arrived, including women and men with practical skills, and little by little, Jamestown became a success. But this success was hard to come by; up until 1610, only 60 of the 500 colonists survived what was known as the Starving Period. The point is, America, as we know it today, began due to the efforts of people who took risks and experienced hardship to the tune of a 12% chance of surviving.

Still, it worked. And eventually, both the American colonies and England prospered. Following this success, more colonial attempts ensued - all experiencing hardship and sacrifice. Many failed, some succeeded. But within 150 years, by 1765, England had risen to being the most dominant force in Europe and was considered to be the most powerful nation on the face of the earth. How did they get there? Primarily based upon private investors taking financial risks and colonists who seized opportunity for a better life albeit abandoning the relative security of their native country. And by the way, before romanticizing the colonists’ successes, it is important to realize that most died in the effort due to exposure, starvation, conflicts with natives, dysentery, malaria, typhoid fever, etc. It wasn’t pretty. On the other hand, they must have considered it worth the effort and risk; it was their decision to attempt to realize a better life for their children than what they had in Europe.

What does this have to do with today? America was built on this type of work ethic and risk. Over our relatively short existence, we have become the richest nation on the face of the earth. While critics claim that common people in other countries have better health care and the poor enjoy a better standard of living, let’s be real. Where does foreign royalty go when they want state of the art medical treatment? England? Canada? Saudi Arabia? Iran? Venezuela? I don’t think so. 

How did our technology become so advanced in such a short period of time? Was it a government project to invent the cotton gin, the telegraph, telephone, photography, continental railroad, Panama Canal, airplane, space travel, and personal computers? (Even when the government provided a goal, e.g. put a man on the moon, it was not government jobs that did the work.) The US became advanced and rich because individuals were given the opportunity to seize an opportunity, pursue it, and realize the success or failure of their pursuit. When failure resulted, oh well, they had their chance, but darn, it didn’t work. When success resulted, the individual typically benefitted financially from their efforts, enabling them to continue financing more and more advances, and growing into companies and corporations. Result for America? We became an exporting giant of products that the world demanded. Money poured into America as products rolled off the assembly line. Through trade, our country (and its government) became a dynasty. All built on the risk-taking of individuals, one person at a time.

How does this compare to today? Does our government provide incentives for small businesses to grow and become prosperous? Or does the government look for increasing ways to tax businesses, seeing them as cash cows in a struggling economy? Does our government get out of the way and allow capitalism to take its course - allowing both failure and success based on market demands, or does it increasingly step in and control the course of business - even to the point of bailing out the losers and becoming the majority owner using taxpayers to fund the failure? (GM)

During the 1760s, England found themselves in financial distress, and as a result, in a position of military vulnerability. They had become rich on the backs of American colonists. The solution seemed easy enough: England needed money, America had money. It was time for direct taxation. Despite heated arguments in Parliament between those who realized it was trade with America that benefitted all parties and those who felt the Americans owed England its allegiance and its money, the majority rulers of the day, and King George, determined that they knew best and direct taxation was the solution. American colonists were outraged. They believed in taxation, but only at a local level, determined by members of the colonial assemblies. After all, both the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights guaranteed the policy that Englishmen would be guaranteed the right to be taxed only by those men they elected, and colonists had no representation in Parliament. And yes, this became a rallying point of “no taxation without representation.” Over the next 15 years, colonial protest grew. Because of the taxation level proposed? No, because the colonists realized that to give up their rights as Englishmen on this issue was the first step in relinquishing any right the government determined was called into question for the good of the Empire.

Here’s the key difference between the colonial outrage and our outrage of taxation today: We have representation. (Don’t we?) While the colonists were outraged over the principle and not the exact taxation amount, they were being asked to pay a minimal tax, first on sugar, next paper goods, next on paper, lead, paint, and tea, and finally, as an act of ultimate authority, just on tea. Today, taxes have grown and grown and grown so more. By the time one considers income tax, property tax, inheritance tax, gasoline tax, sales tax, any form of licensing (a tax), ad nauseam, middle Americans pay well over 50% of their income to taxation. Still, we have no room for complaint because we elected our representatives. Right? My assertion is that we’ve become dull to the pain and feel we have no recourse. After all, if you contact your representatives, do they listen, or merely give excuses as to why we must continue passing legislation that carries a price tag which not only can’t be funded by today’s taxpayers but must necessarily be passed on to future generations yet unborn? We give up. Yet, when you stop and think about working from January through June, July, maybe August or September before what you earn actually becomes what you get to keep, it stings.

Our country had a winning formula. Our government, which exists, according to the Declaration of Independence, to protect the rights of the people, has crippled the formula. Because of bad decisions by Republican and Democratic politicians alike, we have become bankrupt. One well-meaning social program after another has been legislated. Unfunded mandates. The government may print the money, but wealth is created through capitalism. Our current move into fascism and socialism assumes that despite having been created as a rich and powerful nation by the risk and work of individuals, the ruling elite know better, and we will now transform into a country wherein the government determines social needs and will control business and industry to pay for our bills. The tail is wagging the dog.

Personally, I don’t care what political party you affiliate with. What we’re discussing here is logic. Look at America’s history to determine how we became the richest and most powerful country. Then, study history some more and find a socialist or fascist country than can match what we’ve become. Finally, ask yourself whether you’re satisfied that today’s political leaders, both in the White House and in Congress, are taking us in the right direction. As for me, the answer is clearly “No.”

Suggested actions: Plan on ousting any members of Congress in 2010 who continue passing legislation that increases our debt load, taxation, and plans of spending our way out of debt (does that method work with your own finances?). Second, contact them regularly with the method that you’re sick of their failure to listen to the American majority expressing “Stop!” (they won’t listen, but do it anyway). Contact National Public Radio, all major network news stations and demand that they start covering the facts and stop soft soaping the distressing reality of our situation and the government’s failure to listen and respond. Finally, if you don’t presently get Fox News, pony up and start watching - particularly Glen Beck and Bill O’Reilly. If you don’t presently watch them, I’m sure you’ve already become biased by critics claim they are right wing extremists who are dangerous (a la President Obama). I challenge you to watch for yourself and listen carefully. Make up your own mind if what they are saying makes sense. 

America - wake up. We’re losing our country fast.

American History Revisited - What Can We Learn, Part I

Having been a teacher of American History for many years, I feel a need to use my blog to revisit the past with you. Please accept this in the light of a refresher - not as an insult to your intelligence. But let’s face it - when you were a teenager learning about the motives of the Founders and Framers, were you really paying close attention? While teaching this subject to 8th graders, I was forever concerned that my efforts were falling on deaf ears; it seemed that the timing of the instruction was misplaced. At least in my high school days, there was an actual class on the Constitution and the legislative process. Today, most public school students get a dose of American History in 5th and 8th grade, and then what the high schools address is really disjointed as well as revisionist. While the early presentation (5th and 8th) are critical, the ability of 10 and 13 year olds to use analysis, logic, have the interest and attention span required, is not fully developed. For most people, it’s not until adulthood that history seems relevant. Therefore, I am going to spend some blog time covering what I covered in my classes.

What led to the Revolution?

There is a tendency to oversimplify the cause of revolution to taxation without representation. Indeed, there was that, and that is the battle cry we remember from our childhood school days that becomes the marquee for the Revolutionary War officially beginning in 1775. If asked to draw a picture of an event leading to the War for Independence, most of us would probably attempt some depiction of the Boston Tea Party, and that event, indeed, is iconic.

However, this act of rebellion was a high water mark of frustration following 10 years of anger on the part of colonists. It’s important to view history as a sequence of cause and effect relationships as opposed to a “one frame event” which we often create in our minds to simplify and compartmentalize information. By failing to understand the cause and effect information, we fail to learn from history. After all, the real purpose of studying history should go beyond having a factual knowledge of our heritage; the real purpose should be to learn what works and what doesn’t, what to do and what to avoid.

Ten Key Concepts Leading to the Revolution

• England allowing colonists to take the risk of failure (often fatal, literally) and then taking credit for their success.
  
• England leading the colonists to believe that they were self-governing.
  
• Seeing the colonists as sources of salvaging England from its financial crisis.
  
• Treating the colonists as disrespected provincials and not equals.
  
• Attempting to collect revenue from the colonists without including them in the decision.
  
• Ignoring the peaceful petitions of the colonists who sought a “redress of grievances.”
  
• Labeling those who led the opposition to England’s political actions as disloyal, conspirators, dangerous, and traitors.
  
• England seeking to silence the voices of discontent and exchanges of alarm concerning England’s political actions.
  
• England passing increasingly restrictive laws attempting to control the behavior of the colonists.
  
•  Using force, military force, to bring about submission to England’s governance.
  

Do you sense any similarity between the above points and what is happening today in our country? In my forthcoming blogs, I’ll address each of these points in more detail, attempting to connect the past with the present. Humans are humans. The same responses which colonists felt almost 240 years ago are emotions we experience today. What led to rebellion? Stay tuned, and thanks for reading.

Town Hall a la Astroturf

First, I need to compliment House Representative, Peter DeFazio (D), for scheduling town hall meetings during the recess. He sent out newsletters and posted this information well in advance. In the face of the firestorm over what’s going on in Washington, D.C., it takes a standup guy (or gal) to face the music, especially when you know there’s going to be a lot of discord. My two senators, on the other hand, are pretty hard to access. One has a town hall out on the coast, in a remote town, and the aides handling phone inquiries have to repeat the mantra to keep watching the website as some future meetings are in the works. Let’s see, today is August 13, and Congress reconvenes in September. Hmmm. 

The town hall I attended was in Cottage Grove, Oregon. It was to be an “inside” event, but when the organizers realized less than half of the crowd would be able to be allowed in, they wisely “punted” and brought the sound equipment to the parking lot where all could listen to Congressman DeFazio.

Here are a few observations:

There were no buses bringing in organized protestors. 

Constituents lined up in an orderly fashion - almost like rule followers.

Nobody had a Swastika.

Most attendees were 40 years of age or older.

There were very few protest signs displayed. Interestingly, the ones which were massed produced and dispersed were in support of the Health Care Bill and the present actions of Congress and the President. Although these were mass produced, they were mixed strategically through the audience as opposed to clumped together.

The only profanity I heard was a 70s something liberal telling a 70s something conservative to “F*** off.” Later he told the same guy to “Shut up.” And later, “There’s more of us than of you.” At one point, these 2 septuagenarians started to square off, promising to offer some interesting techniques, but a couple of like aged women intervened and spoiled the show.

The structure of a town hall is frustrating as people in the front row get to ask questions while those of us 3 or more rows back only enjoy having the blood drain down our arms. (Which brings up another point: The constituents remembered their training from school and raised their hands to be recognized.)

People asking questions get no opportunity to rebut the answer given by the legislator. Consequently, the legislator’s answer has the psychological appearance of being “the truth.”

A tactic being used heavily by the ruling body in Congress and the White House is to repeatedly say “There is a lot of misinformation out there.” Therefore, any concerns raised, especially ones that create doubt among the audience, are relegated to concerns based on misinformation.

 Another commonly used tactic is to shift the blame from the decision makers on Capitol Hill to the private insurance companies. It’s interesting that private companies that provide jobs, freedom of choice, competition to provide better products, competition to keep rates down, companies that must file justification with state insurance commissioners, companies which need to diversify into a variety of corporate activities to sustain catastrophic losses, and companies which regularly figure out how to survive on very slim profit margins given expense and loss ratios - these companies are demonized as not having to play by the rules. First, if that’s true, why is the Obama administration (enforcement branch) allowing it to happen? Second, because it isn’t true, why would Congress put forth a bill that members contend encourages choice among the private insurers? And finally, does Congress actually believe that government insurance will be able to provide the quality of private insurance? (Think of the post office, the department of motor vehicles, - just about any government job where employees never have to worry about getting fired for inefficiency and have no incentive whatsoever to be more efficient, courteous, and professional.)

At the end of the day, I respect Congressman DeFazio for lining up many town hall meetings where constituents could voice their concerns. On the other hand, I’ve lost all respect for my senators who are hiding. Unfortunately, the town hall with DeFazio carried the air of a meeting allowing unhappy constituents a chance to vent, with the congressman putting in his appearance so he could say he listened.There was no real sense of potentially acting upon what the People were advocating. Rather, the congressman can now boast that he’s accessible, he listens, and now...it will be business as usual.

Snitching on Dissidents

Martin Luther King, Jr.  - Man, how we admired him. Standing up for what he believed. Encouraging people to take a stand. Encouraging people to voice their opinion without violence. How those words still ring, “"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” 

How about Rosa Parks? Wow! What a woman...what a soldier! She was not going to sit in the back of the bus. No! And we celebrate her, as we should, for standing up against the establishment - irrespective of how popular or unpopular she may seem in the mainstream press.

You know, a really controversial abolitionist was Nat Turner. Nat was a black preacher who led a slave revolt in the South. Result? Fifty-five dead white people. Still, old Mr. Turner is held up by many as a change agent who fought against oppression and we need to consider the situation before dismissing Turner as a murderer.

What about John Brown, the white abolitionist who led a rebellion, took over the Harper’s Ferry Federal Arsenal in hopes of arming slaves and leading a slave revolt? Seven died, ten injured - John Brown and his followers were hung. However, his memory is eulogized in a martyr’s song, “John Brown’s Body.”

These people are heroes. For what? For standing up against the oppression of the ruling forces and demanding change. They are the fabric of America. We celebrate them.

What about the opposition to Obama and socialism? You’d think that America’s first black president and his supporters would embrace the importance of Americans standing up for what they believe. Hmmm?

President Obama has set up “flag@whitehouse.gov” so citizens can tell on anyone who may be spreading misinformation about Obamacare. Gee, I wonder why the White House is taking the care to have citizens snitch on one another? This is pretty creepy. Americans are supposed to be able to discuss politics openly, challenge their government - the 1st Amendment guarantees Americans the Right to seek a redress of grievances. Instead, our President has leveled an unspoken threat: Speak out, and be cataloged. This is what Stalin did. Thirty million Russians were killed as enemies of the State.

Oregon’s two US Senators our being very slow in scheduling Town Hall meetings. I’m sure they are very busy during this recess. And Lord knows, they might have to face hostile audiences (i.e. constituents). As more and more information comes to light as to what is in the Health Care Bill, Americans are very concerned about losing their choices. The mainstream media tries to blame “mobs” for ruining the decorum of the town halls.

Were the Patriots a mob? According to King George and a tyrannical Parliament they were. They needed to be quelled, and now. John Brown, Nat Turner, Rosa Parks, and even Martin Luther King, Jr. - in the eyes of their contemporary presses - all mob leaders. 

Americans are angry. And with good reason. They are being held holding a financial bag that requires them, their children, and their grandchildren to pay a debt passed by legislators who did not even take the time to read the entirety of the bills they passed. Now, Americans are being threatened with losing their health care choice to a single payor plan which will inevitably lead to infanticide of babies born with defects and euthanasia for seniors who are no longer productive members of society. 

America is at a crossroads. Will we continue being a country which embraces open dialog, debate, and even protest - in order to fully examine controversial issues? Or will we sink into tyranny, where voices raising opposing viewpoints are silenced as dangerous extremists?