Sent by a contributor.  Sean Gabb is an excellent libertarian voice for the crown subjects of Great Britain.  Here is a take he has on Putin and Global Warming.  We had to change a word to "pop" from "pr1ck" because of the bizarre automated language checker on Townhall.  Add a context algorithm Townhall people!!
==================================================
Are the Russians Coming?
Brief Thoughts on the Climate Change Scandal
By Sean Gabb


Like many other people in our movement, I have been delighted by the publication of that computer archive from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. I have spent most of my life denouncing every excuse for state activism as a pack of lies. I have never yet had the joy of seeing the projectors of those lies revealed as little more than pantomime villains – twirling their moustaches while confessing their villainy in whispered asides. Compared with this, the “weapons of mass destruction” lies were misunderstanding in good faith.

But the question uppermost in my mind at present is what all this will mean for the climate change cult. Will this be a more complete moral and intellectual collapse than Communism ever suffered? To begin my answer, I will discuss the subsidiary questions of who and why.

In short, I believe the Russians are behind this. It may be that all those megabytes of data were stolen by a computer hacker. There may be any number of people who are up to such hacking in the technical sense. But this seems to have been an integrated operation. Having the technical skills to get access to a computer archive is not the same as knowing where to look in that archive and what to look for. Nor is it the same as knowing what to do with it.

But the Russians had means and opportunity to do the job. Perhaps their security services are no longer as efficient and as well-funded as in Soviet times. But they are still there. Their mission is no longer to win the Cold War. But making life easier for Mr Putin and his friends is a large mission in itself. They no longer have an active network in British universities. But there must be any number of senior managers there whose activities back in the 1980s would merit an outing in The Daily Mail, and who therefore are open to blackmail.

And the Russians had the best motive imaginable. Anthropogenic global warming is, as said, a pack of lies. But there is huge money behind it.  And it is conceivable that Western scientific ingenuity will find a “carbon free” energy source that both works and is economically viable.  Now, where would that leave Russia? Without its exports of oil and gas, the place is little more than a bankrupt post-Soviet slagheap. I believe the Russian state budget only balances on a minimum oil price of $40 a barrel. Knock the bottom out of the market in fossil fuels, and Russia can say goodbye to what progress it has made since 1991.

This is only a conspiracy theory. But it is interesting that the stolen data surfaced on a Russian server. Of course, Russia is beyond the reach of the British courts. But it is an interesting fact even so. I think this operation has gone so smoothly that only an efficient security service can be behind it. We can discount the Arabs and Iranians as not being up to the job. We can also discount the big oil companies – like the tobacco companies, they have been deterred from this sort of operation because of all those transparency laws. That leaves us with the Russians. They got the information. They packaged it. They have delivered it to maximum effect.

So what will be that effect? I cannot believe that it will be to pop the whole climate change bubble. There is too much corporate money and too much government activity now resting on the assumption that we must “do something” if sea levels are not to rise ten foot by next Tuesday.  The cult leaders will not hang their heads and behave like the villain at the end of a Scooby Doo cartoon. When power and money on this scale are involved, things like that surely do not happen.

But will they be able to live this down? I have no doubt they will try.  There will be an inquiry. Individual heads will roll. There will be the pretence of breast beating. But the lies will continue pouring out. The default response will be to turn up the volume of the lies to try and drown out the truth. After a few years, the embarrassment may have been forgotten, and discussion will have turned to how many units individuals should be given for their “carbon passports.”

And I shall be interested to see how well this can work. How powerful is the ideological state apparatus at imposing proven lies on the public mind? On the one hand, the propaganda streams out of every school and university and from every television screen in the civilised world. The message is nearly as uniform as in Soviet Russia. On the other hand, the weakness of the cult is that it has no message of hope and grants no indulgence to the masses. Christianity and Islam – regardless of their truth or falsehood – both offer an infinity of bliss for doing little more than good sense requires. Christians have to be a little more continent than nature seems to allow. Moslems have to keep off the bottle. There is no good news for believers in anthropogenic global warming. We are told to accept the rolling back of the industrial revolution simply to avoid catastrophe that hardly anyone dares tell us
will strike within the reasonable future.

We know that the most notable preachers of this message have no intention of cutting back on their own living standards. Look at the Prince of Wales and his private jets. Look at Al Gore and his inflated utility bills. Add to this that the cult is not formally based on an extra-rational revelation, but on alleged scientific evidence – and the knowledge that this evidence has been fakes must count for something.

What I predict will happen is that the propaganda will continue for the next few years. But it will be gradually be replaced by a new set of justificatory lies. Global warming itself was the replacement for acid rain pollution, ozone holes, and even global cooling. In the absence of some new environmental claims, I suggest that we shall hear much more for now on about “peak oil” – the notion that fossil fuels exist in limited supplies and that they will run out within the next few generations.

This has the advantage of being arguably true. I know that people have been predicting the exhaustion of oil reserves for at least a century.  But the world economy is growing fast at the moment, and may grow still faster. There must be some physical limit to how much oil and gas and coal can be economically extracted. Otherwise, there is the problem that the cheapest supplies are in unstable parts of the world. Doubtless, the specific claims made will be lies. But they will not require the same barefaced dishonesty as ignoring the historical and geological facts about temperatures and carbon dioxide levels, and ignoring all considerations of solar activity and other natural phenomena.

The other advantage, however, is that the peak oil hypothesis can be used to justify every tax and regulation so far made in the name of fighting climate change. Wind turbine construction, energy efficiency laws, the war on private motoring, bleats about “food miles”, and the like – all work just as well on the assumption that fossil fuels must be conserved.

This is a depressing prediction, so far as it allows the same caravan of liars to roll forward if on different wheels. But I am not sure if the transition will be as smooth as may be hoped. Liars who have been so visibly caught out in one set of claims may not find it easy to switch to another and maintain their full credibility. Until a few weeks ago, I saw the anthropogenic global warming claims as a new legitimising ideology for despotism as powerful in modern circumstances as state socialism had once been. Perhaps it has now been revealed as a fairly short-lived rescue hypothesis. It may not have anything like the long term appeal of state socialism. Whatever replaces it may be weaker still.

If this is the case, I for one will give thanks to Mr Putin. In the old days, he was a KGB officer. Nothing he may now have done can bring back all the people he helped murder. But repentance is always to be welcomed – especially when attended by so many good works.
--
Sean Gabb
Director, The Libertarian Alliance (Carbon Positive since 1979)
sean@libertarian.co.uk  Tel: 07956 472 199
Skype Username: seangabb

Why are 20 percent of the population liberal?  Why does the President state with surety that "only the government" can solve economic problems?  Health care coverage disparities?  Save the environment?  It is because he belongs to a segment of the dependency mass.

Where comes this confidence in government.  Even supposed conservatives "admit the need" for "government action" on a plethora of issues.  They, conservative and liberal alike, disregard any mention of such action being outside the scope and authority of Federal Government.  Government programs have consistently failed since the depression.  The New Deal failed, the "War on Poverty" failed.  Medicare is a mess that's getting worse, as is Social (in)Security.  Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.  Let's look at the dependency mass that perpetuates this fantasy of government goodness.

The dependency mass includes the 20 percent identified above, the leftist collectivist politicians who claim to represent them and another, difficult to size group of "moderate" or "independent" types.  Within this mass there are several types.

The Professional Victims: This is a very diverse group who choose to divide rather than unite America.  They are incapable of seeing "Americans" but must subcategorize them in to victim groups.  Their aim is to gain power, influence and money for themselves while claiming to be "protecting" those they identify as "oppressed".  Oppression in the U.S. only exists in the fevered imaginations of these professional victims and their organizers.  One benefit of modern American culture is that everyone realizes that liberty is for everyone and that success is available to ANYONE willing to work hard for it.  Unless of course the Sheople herders of the dependency mass complete their collectivization of America.  Perhaps if these professional victims didn't perpetuate racism (and all other "isms") and a victim mentality in their sheople the U.S would get even better.  But that would eliminate their true purpose, to gain power, influence and money.

The trained dependents:  This is a group that through the cultural changes and the liberal's control of public schools and academia have come to believe that the government's role is to provide them with things.  Money, houses, health care, jobs.  They believe they are entitled to these things for no reason other than that they want them provided.

The emotional idealists: Deciding based on feeling good.  The donor base of the donkey party.  They struggle with guilt at their own fortune, afforded them by freedom.  They think that it is only right and good that others be required to give, by coercion, to "those in need"as deemed by the idealist.  They believe that government is good and that people are inherently good.  Their morals are relative.  Things are moral if it feels emotionally good to them.  Freedom is just a smoke screen for "mean" or "selfish" people. All people are entitled to whatever wish or believe they need.  All should be required to provide it.  Earning things, respect, goods, status is just a concept used by "cruel" people.  The greatest feature of this type is their all consuming self-centeredness.  All things must work in a way that allows them to feel good about themselves.

Lazy People: Both the intellectually lazy who "believe things" just because considering another view involves intellectual effort.  They are perfectly willing to latch on to what "seems right" rather than think things through.  Academia strives to turn out such "thinkers" whether consciously or because the "instructors" are such themselves.  We mustn't forget the physically lazy who are more than willing to take hand outs and "programs" rather than better themselves by individual effort.  Doing so would take away from their video game and tv time.  Heaven forbid that work be required to get a check. 

Selfish People:  Many of the lazy, above, fit here too.  As do many in the other groupings.  Selfishness and greed are powerful emotional  motivators. I've heard people who receive government issued freebies ("programs", "benefits", checks) refer to them as "their" money.  Pontificate loudly on their "right" to them.  Fight vigorously against any idea or plan to "take away my" *insert free anything here*.  A humorous interview in Detroit was with some people who lined up for hours to get some "Obama money".  They didn't know or care where it came from ("Obama's stash"?!?).  Such gross ignorance and crass selfishness aren't unique, it is common.

Envious People:  Envy is another powerful emotion that causes liberal people to adopt and support collectivist government as needful and good.  To those who haven't achieved at the same level as others don't seek to raise themselves but to tear down those who have.  A term they love is "raise all boats" not caring that such attempts sink more boats than are raised.  To these types, achievers are "greedy", "mean" and "selfish".  They can't make a distinction between the ambition and self-interest of achievers and prefer to assign their own envious selfishness.  The envious are often lazy, make or made poor choices and ignorant of those things which achievers excel at.  Rather than achieve they prefer to dislike and attack those more successful than they have chosen to be.

Intellectual Elitists: A driving force of liberal and socialist collectivism.  There are people of all political stripes who suffer from this but it is pervasively liberal in academia and government and often used as political justification.  "We just know better than you" is the hallmark of such elitists.  They live in environments that reinforce and perpetuate their elitism.  When confronted with this concept the liberals defend their elitism by saying "I should disregard people who do know better" (than you)?  They continually claim to have "facts and knowledge" that non-liberals don't possess to justify their emotion based ideologies.  Intellectual arrogance is part and parcel to these types.

Collectivist Rulers:  Drawn from the intellectual elitists, the emotional idealists and just plain megalomaniac politicians (note: these types of politicians accrue to conservative as well as liberal groupings.  It only depends on what they see as the path to power).  Collectivist politicians often begin as any of the other groupings or some combination.  They tend however to be focused on an eye for the main chance.  The acquisition of power and the perks of power.  The reinforcement of their conviction that they know better and above all that the people of "flyover" country "clinging to their guns and bibles" truly need the caring knowledgeable control of such as themselves.

Such characteristics breed the condescending attitudes of collectivists, fuel their arrogance and pump up their hubris.

The only solution to problems is less Federal Government.  Uncle Sugar actually acting within its enumerated powers.  20 percent claim to be "liberal", unfortunately their political mass is swelled by folks such as those above.  We all suffer from such tendencies as we are not "inherently good", rather failed creatures with the ability to improve ourselves.  By our OWN EFFORTS not by the "programs" of elitists who wish to penalize success and empower only themselves.

Sally Morem has views worth reading.  Here is one her recent essays.  A fine contributor to our network and to maintaining American Freedom.  See the original post here on Scribd.

Take up America’s Torch
By Which We Remember December 7 and September 11
By Sally Morem
In Flanders’ fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place: And in the sky
The larks still bravely singing fly,
Scarce heard amidst the guns below.
We are the dead.
Short days ago we lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved and now we lie
In Flanders’ fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe,
To you from failing hands we throw
The Torch—be yours to hold it high;
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders’ fields.

Canadian Colonel John McCrae left us with this eloquent plea for the
defense of the free West, a very appropriate thing to ponder on the
anniversaries of Pearl Harbor and the attacks on New York and Washington,
DC. His poem, In Flanders’ Fields, depicted an image of cemeteries filled
dead Canadians, Englishmen, Frenchmen and Americans, buried under the
battlegrounds of World War I in Europe. The spirits of these dead ask us in
the poem to continue their brave efforts to defend freedom from the
depredations of tyranny. Perhaps they knew that the ‘war to end all wars’
wouldn’t.

Americans did what had to be done. After the sudden blows our forces
suffered in Hawaii and those we suffered later in the World Trade Center
and the Pentagon, we regrouped, struggled, and finally triumphed.
But, there are those who believe that Flanders’ Field was and is too high a
price to pay for freedom. They feel that peace should be our only concern.
Pacifists fear the results of war far more than the devastating effects
surrender would have on us. They don’t realize that appeasement to the
Kaisers, the Hitlers, the Tojos, the Stalins, and the bin Ladens would never
bring peace, but would instead lead to waves of future wars, endless wars of
oppression conducted by power-hungry tyrants, egged on by the weakness
displayed by their pacifist enemies.

The dictionary defines the pacifist as one who is in opposition to war or
violence as a means of settling disputes and who specifically refuses to bear
arms on moral or religious grounds. By so doing, he hopes to bring about a
permanent peace.
Unfortunately, this could never happen through unilateral disarmament. If a
pacific society were somehow established, its internal order would soon
break down under the pressure of criminal acts and outside aggression.
Pacifism is therefore an unstable strategy for any society to undertake. It, by
definition, cannot cope with violent domestic or foreign acts. Survivors
would have to cease acting as pacifists in short order. Or there would be no
survivors left to sweep up the shrapnel and put out the fires.
But, how can we preserve freedom and yet avoid future Flanders’ fields?
Perhaps we can’t. The military option is simply too attractive to too many
people. A show of force really works. People see the guns, the tanks, the
battleships, the bombers, and the soldiers…then they do what they are told
to do. They surrender. They give their conquerors anything they demand.
In any effort to ease the danger of war, certain facts of life must be attended
to. The first thing we must realize is that this world is filled with billions of
people who organize themselves into millions of groups, instantiating at
least as many differing dreams and goals and ideals. Not all of these groups
co-exist peaceably nor do they all conduct their affairs in an honorable
manner. In such a situation, conflict becomes unavoidable.
Any proposal for the demilitarization of the world must come to grips with
the harsh reality of human nature reflected in the operation of human
leadership of groups: There will always be leaders who will lie, cheat,
scheme, and murder to get their own way within their group and against
other groups. They will not be dissuaded by sweet talk of human love and
brotherhood.

Secondly, we must remember that human beings are just as capable of
cooperating with one another as they are of fighting. We see this every day
in peace as our armies and police keep the bad guys at bay, permitting us to
trade and associate in friendship, without threats or coercion.
Ironically enough, war itself illustrates the power of human cooperation.
While soldiers fight enemy soldiers on the battlefield, they also obey their
superior officers, protect one another, move the wounded to safety, and
move supplies to the front in an orderly fashion. War is organized conflict,
with emphasis on the adjective organized. We see the human capacity for
both beastliness and heroism magnified on the battlefield. Perhaps this is
why some of our most powerful stories are war stories.

The talent for cooperation is inherently human. Parents love, nurture and
protect their children. Business associates work together for their mutual
profit. People risk their lives to save others from the perils of fire and storm.
Any truly robust human culture dedicated to the preservation of peace must
allow human cooperation to flower naturally; it must not be forced.
Cooperation is inherently a voluntary act. A dictatorship enforcing
cooperation would be (and is) as counterproductive as a pacifist society
attempting to enforce peace.

From these two points we can deduce the following with reasonable
certainty: There can be no peace without freedom. Ever. Freedom is the
stuff of peace. Why? Because freedom is the stuff of a truly human life.
Cooperation may flourish in many different types of societies and conflict
may be bent to more positive ends through the workings of ancient
traditions, but only in societies where individual rights and responsibilities
are recognized as inviolable can such societies achieve a high level of trust
between large numbers of people, most of whom will never meet one
another. Freedom, then, has the capacity to engender a level of trust at least
high enough to ease ever-present tensions in very populous societies.
Freedom allows individuals to combine and covenant among themselves
without resort to force or threats of force. No gun to the head nor midnight
knock on the door required. Freedom also permits people to leave that
which they’ve created at any time. The “escape clause” of freedom
encourages both the free flow of commerce and of information and ideas
throughout the world as individuals enter and leave at will.

And by so doing, freedom discourages wars between free peoples. Free
peoples don’t fight one another. They don’t even threaten to fight one
another. Considering the history of armed conflict over the millennia, this is
a highly unusual and desirable situation to be in. If we would truly have
peace among the nations, freedom must be the means of its realization. It’s
the only thing that has ever been found by historians to have such a strong
dampening effect on war.

Albert Einstein was wrong when he said, “The first problem is to do away
with mutual fear and distrust.” These emotions cannot be waved away with
the magic wand of pacifism. The first problem is to do away with systems
and cultures of coercion. And this can only be done by guiding
inexperienced peoples through the process of creating societies of
freedom…all over the world. Maintaining the tender plants of newly
established free societies is a tricky task, but many peoples have already
succeeded in doing so in Eastern Europe and Latin America.
Free America has been a powerful force for peace in the last few decades.
But, it didn’t achieve the stability of the West through the use of lethal force.
It never threatened its allies with the use of tanks and troops if they didn’t
obey American orders. It led its allies by offering its own great strength as a
shield against a common enemy.

It has been said by history commentators that if the two great nuclear powers
who had emerged out of World War II into the Cold War had been
totalitarian, say, Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Union, all of humanity
would’ve been wiped out in a nuclear world war long ago. We only have to
remember what happened when Hitler betrayed the Hitler-Stalin Pact to get
an idea of the truth of this assertion. Thankfully, one of the two
superpowers had been in reality a true democratic republic. America had
been strong enough to enable the West to remain free long enough to outlast
an aggressive, and then a crumbling Soviet Empire.
Let’s consider an alternate historical possibility. If the two superpowers
emerging from the flames of World War II had both been free societies, they
never would have posed a nuclear threat to each other or the world. Wars do
not come about simply by the presence of dangerous weaponry; wars grow
out of the enmity of enemies.

We now have enough experience with a number of paired democratic states
sharing borders to know that they never put their forces on alert against one
another, let alone fire on one another in anger. Americans don’t fear British
or French nukes…with good reason. Our two imaginary democratic
superpowers would’ve acted towards each other much like post-war
Germany, Japan and America had—with peaceable trade and cultural
exchanges instead of ICBMs aimed at one another’s cities.
With all this in mind, America’s duty is clear. We must continue to foster
the development of free societies around the world. We must continue to
protect and defend ourselves and the free world from would-be oppressors.
Sneak attacks on America must never be permitted to happen again. When
we choose to be free, we give America’s Answer, written by R. W. Lillard,
to those who had given their lives for us nearly a century ago:

Rest in peace, ye Flanders dead,
The fight that ye so bravely led
We’ve taken up. And we will keep
True faith with you who lie asleep,
With each a cross to mark his bed,
Where once his own life-blood ran red.
So let your rest be sweet and deep
In Flanders’ field.
Fear not that ye have died for naught,
The Torch ye threw to us we caught,
Ten million hands will hold it high,
And Freedom’s light shall never die!
We’ve learned the lesson that ye taught
In Flanders’ field.

While the resources listed may not be universally agreed upon they share one common good.  They are activist organizing groups advocating for American Freedom.

Following the “80 percent rule” we wrote about earlier, we recommend these for your consideration

• The 9-12 Project
• American Solutions Platform
• The Southern California Tax Revolt Coalition
• The Patrick Henry Center
• Foundation for Individual Rights in Education
• Set a Grassfire
• Protest Warriors

The only reason you won’t do something about your liberty is that you are “too busy” or too lazy to be free.  Truth is HATE to those who hate the TRUTH.

These things are not available for public scrutiny. Can you tell us why?  When do you intend to make them available.  If not, why not?

1. Occidental College records -- Not released
2. Columbia College records -- Not released
3. Columbia Thesis paper -- "Not available"
4. Harvard College records -- Not released
5. Selective Service Registration -- Not released
6. Medical records -- Not released
7. Illinois S tate Senate schedule -- Not available
8. Your Illinois State Senate records -- Not available
9. Law practice client list -- Not released
10. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate -- Not released
11. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth -- Not released
12. Record of your baptism -- Not available
13. There seem to be no articles you published as editor of the Harvard Law Review, or as a Professor at the University of Chicago.

Why are so many so enthused about a man who has done nothing but be *anointed* by the secular collectivist elites?

While the forecasts of total doom for America may be a little over the top there is no doubt that we are on a path divergent from our traditions and founders' intent.

Don't rationalize or excuse lack of action to preserve your American Freedom.
Participate in the Tea Party Movement
Join Ron Paul's "Revolution"
Take part in defense of traditional faith in America
Contribute to policy solutions that support our Liberty

A great example is the fine work being done by the Southern California Tax Revolt Coalition
You CAN make a difference if you join your fellow freedom loving Americans and ACT.

This is a very important notice and statement by our partner and network member Mutnodjmet.
Reprinted from the American Freedom Network home.
======================================
Dear Readers: I wanted to share with you a story of a rebellion within a rebellion. I hope that these words will reach the hallowed halls of national groups attempting to coordinate local Tea Party events. I want them to exercise extreme caution in whom they put forth as the face of the Tea Party movement. The national Tea Party network heads need to know – NOW – how angry grassrooters are that Newt Gingrich is being heralded as an important voice of the Tea Party movement. Frankly, all of my Tea Party compatriots see this potentially damaging to our credibility as a true non-partisan effort. We want no blessing from him, or any other old-style politician. We do not want Newt as the face associated with the Tea Party movement.

By way of background, I was a hereditary Democrat who voted for President Clinton in 1992. After Clinton’s team jacked up my taxes, I joined the Republican Party. I donated to the party in 1994, because I was a very impressed with Newt’s “Contract with America”. His ten-point plan promised to reshape the federal government by decentralizing authority, deregulating industry, reducing taxes, reforming social programs, and increasing power for states. Ideas I liked then, and ideas I am striving to promote now.

And that is part of the problem! The Republicans wrested control of the US Congress from the hands of the Democrats, who had held the till for 40 years. The GOP had it for a full 12 years. What did they do with it? Is the federal government any smaller? Are the states any more independent? Potentially devastating Democratic acts (e.g., Carter’s Community Reinvestment Act 0f 1977, which led to the excesses of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) were not repealed. There were no significant reforms to Social Security, which is a heinous Ponzi scheme. There is no significant development of our refineries, oil fields, nuclear power, and all other technologically reasonable energy sources. Then, of course, there were the Republican scandals (e.g., Rep. Cunningham bribery case, the Sen. Criag bathroom bru-ha-ha).

With all this history in mind, you will excuse me for NOT being excited when ex-Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich releases this video, in which he promotes his “partnering with the Tax Day Tea Party movement” AFTER thousands of non-politically-connected American citizens demonstrated!

\"Newt on YouTube\"

I do not think Newt’s invitation will inspire one extra person to come to our events. The opposite, I fear. Newt Gingrich is a Republican with a lot of baggage, and bears some blame for our current crisis. I cannot think Independents, Democrats (even the deepest purple of the blue dogs), Libertarian, or Constitution Party members will consider the Tea Party movement authentically non-partisan if he is strongly associated with it.

Our friend Nik sums up our feelings about this video succinctly: His video insults me personally. His "partnering" with the "tax day tea party movement" to "develop a real protest" implies several things I find objectionable. The Tea Party movement isn't solely run or organized by the people at Tax Day Tea Party. Further he implies that the efforts until now by real regular Americans (as exampled by the folks at American Freedom Network) haven't been "real protests". He is seeking to gain, politically, from the grassroots effort of the Tea Party Movement. He is seeking to skim the cream from the citizens' initiative and, at this late date, have it associated with him for his own personal gain of power and influence.

Keep in mind, both Nik and I find Newt worthy of respect. The former Speaker of the House is a highly intelligent man and a very effective organizer. He managed to get much needed, and effective, Welfare Reform pushed through and signed by President Clinton during his congressional tenure. His American Solutions organization promotes some very sound policy ideas, such as Drill Here-Drill Now-Pay Less. He is a good communicator with a grasp on modern technology and a keen observer of the American political landscape and its trends. However, his flaws are such that they diminish the authenticity which makes our Team’s grassroots efforts so special.

The flaws go to character, which our friend ssgconway details: That his ambition and vanity are, together, his pole star, I think is plain. He cannot be trusted. Character does count. I accept a normal amount of frailty, error, vanity and even corruption (within limits - 'honest graft,' if you will, as in Cassius), but I would have a hard time, after hammering Bill Clinton, not doing likewise to someone who was impeaching a President for things that he was also doing at the very same time. Add to that his telling his first wife that he was divorcing her while she was in a cancer ward, and you have an ugly character.

Then, there are those pesky ethics charges related to Gingrich. These charges include one in which he was fined $300,000 claiming tax-exempt status for a college course run for political purposes. This was the first time in the House's 208-year history it has disciplined a speaker for ethical wrongdoing. Then, there was a very loud public outcry related to a $4.5 million book deal from Harper Collins. These distractions led to a near revolt among the congressional Republicans in 1998, an historic loss it that year’s House elections, and thwarted completion of the "Contract with America". This is NOT the face we need.

I am a hardworking member of the grassroots organizational staff of a local Tea Party event planning group. I have worked avidly with the other members of American Freedom Network to promote American values and sensibilities. My friends on this network are also heavily engaged in their local Tea Party efforts. We want warn the people who tout themselves as the “leaders” or “go-to-girls” of the Tea Parties that we want no part of politics as usual.

I am still a Republican. I do think that the party is best positioned to stem the Obama’ administration’s blatant power grabs and destructive economic games. However, should Newt be the direction that the GOP is headed, then a Third Party Option will be more appealing to me and any Tea Party goers. I know that my dear spouse, Horemheb, has already rescinded his long-held GOP membership and is now a registered Independent. I am finding it hard to convince him to donate to either the state or national political organizations. It behooves Republican Party to recognize that the protests against unwise tax-and-spend politics-as-usual apply to both parties: representatives should not jump to the conclusion that the thousands at the Tea Party protests automatically translate into GOP votes during the next election cycle.

Perhaps the most insidious aspect to his “partnering” is that I think he is trying to jumpstart his presidential campaign on the backs of the Tea Party protesters. Newt's interjection into the Tea Party movement is even more aggravating, because he actually supported TARP I (Troubled Assets Relief Fund, the initial bank bailout program that was suppose to quickly heal the economy when it sailed through congress last fall)!

Newt is worthy of respect, not automatic allegiance. This is SO NOT the face we need right now. I am sure our energetic band of Tax Revolters can locate a fresh new voice with economic acumen, street savvy, a strong backbone and sound character.

If the Tea Party Movement needs a “Face”, then I vote for this one: Lloyd Marcus!

\"Lloyd Marcus on YouTube\"

****************

Speaking of Lloyd Marcus, he will be at Santa Barbara's Tea Party next weekend. The event is slated to start at 3:00 pm in downtown Santa Barbara next Saturday, April 4, 2009. The current plan is to meet at Santa Barbara County Courthouse at 2:30 PM, then march four blocks to the rally point. For more information, please check the Santa Barbara County Tea Party website.

Fur more information on other California Tea Parties, especially those that will be among the over 300 across the country on April 15th-Tax Day, check the Southern California Tax Revolt Coalition website.

As a side note, Gingrich isn't the only one getting on the Tea Part Boat!

Barney Frank called Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia a "homophobe" recently in an interview with a "Gay" news internet site.

This is a wonderful example of the patent dishonesty frequently used by "progressive" (collectivist) politicians.  Particularly when they are promoting the agenda of tiny fringe minority special interest groups such as homosexuals (liberal ones I must clarify).

The idea is to use false attributions to frame the debate on an issue into an argument that has nothing to do with the facts at hand.  For instance, in the example above, Frank (D-MA) calls Justice Scalia a "homophobe".  This imputes, ridiculously, that the Justice bases his decisions of some sort of undefined "fear" of homosexuals or homosexuality.  In fact, Justice Scalia bases his decisions on the U.S. Constitution.  Read his dissent in the Lawrence case and point out any indication of "fear" of homosexuals.

We think that homosexuals would have much greater success in their activism for acceptance and endorsement of their abnormal and unnatural choices if they stuck to the facts of their issues.  As long as they insist on imagining, or worse, projecting their own emotional states on to those who are their political opponents they won't gain the ground they seek.  American Freedom should include all and significant cultural and social changes SHOULD be debated, but based on fact, not on the dishonest attribution of emotional states by assumption or deception.

We recommend you send this to your alleged representatives in Washington D.C.  Immediately!  Share this across your Tea Party Sites and talk about it at your Tea Parties.  Get your States to pass a similar resolution.

Text of the New Hampshire (Live Free or Die) 10th Amendment resolution.

“That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General (federal) Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.”

Stand up for American Freedom

http://amfreenet.com/tea-parties-schedulesDid you see the President on Leno?  Did you see him on 60 Minutes?  Have you seen his responses to those who dare question his direction, plans and goals.
It seems our President has failed to mature beyond his teens.  He needs not to fulfill his mentor Alinsky's principles.
He is plotting a course that is dangerous or worse, he isn't plotting anything beyond his emotion based vision of collectivism.
Wake up Americans and protect your American Freedom.
We can live with and through arrogance.  So many politicians are just that.  We can tolerate petulance and flippancy although that destroys confidence in the man entrusted to execute our laws.
The apparent incompetence is what is worrisome.  There are ways you can .  Do it!!!!

Jim Demint is speaking out for "Americans to Stand Up".  Many are, this Friday.  You can learn more here and here.  You can join the cause if you belong to Facebook here and here.  Get the information and participate on Friday, February 27th, 2009.  After Friday, keep the cause alive to protect the financial freedom of your kids and theirs.  Keep American Freedom a reality.

We are a little sick and tired of being told by the nattering nabobs of left and right that "everyone agrees" that "some sort of stimulus by government is necessary".

Patent hogwash.
1.  The constitutionality of much (if not most or all) of the porkulus package is in serious question
2. Because some opinionator on TV or radio thinks "some sort of stimulus" is necessary doesn't make it so.  They operate in their own insulated circle and so believe that their friends and colleagues constitute "everyone".
3. Name an example when government programs ever fixed ANYTHING, EVER!

Brent Bozell gives great examples of these lemmings (his examples are on the left because he isn't).

My favorite is a network boob hectoring Eric Cantor with; "Can the Republican Party accept that there are situations when large-scale government intervention is necessary?".

Maybe some (or many or most) Republicrats can accept that falsehood but no freedom loving American who thinks should do so.  There are no situations, aside from war, where government has ever been successful when "intervening" in the free market.

Finally the media ditzoids should realize when they whine about "nationalizing" things this simple truthful equation.  "Nationalization" equals theft.  When you take the property of individuals without their permission it is called stealing.

To be a collectivist you must either be:
1. Poor and unwilling to take the steps necessary to improve your lot
2. So well off or insulated (by your politicrat status) that confiscating some of your property doesn't harm you.  See any billionaire entertainer or business person who espouses collectivist views.

Most people want to be left alone to enjoy the fruits of their labors or to labor to gain more fruits.  Not to stand in line for handouts of hot off the presses government scrip that our descendents will be harmed by for generations.

I get frustrated that the jabbering class such as Shill Hammity only seem to be able to parrot republicrat talking points.  On close examination what does what the Elephants *claim* mean?  They didn't demonstrate it in the years of Republicrat control of Congress.  That is because they are spouting undefined and unquantifiable platitudes of "limited government" and "fiscal conservative".  Those can mean whatever a politicrat wishes it to mean.
Here is what is needed by a political grouping to secure long term responsible governance at the Federal level.
Fight for Constitutional Government.  Not limited government or any other vagary.
If our representatives in all branches of Federal Government conformed to actual Constitutional government the Federal Behemoth would shrink, the economy would grow, the liberties of the citizenry would once again blossom and the culture would stabilize as like minded individuals congregated in communities of common values.
Yes, the non-productive, lazy and criminal would no longer suckle at the Federal teat.  Care for the unfortunate is not a Federal power.  Read the Constitution.
Simple solutions are called "too simplistic" because they threaten the governing oligarchy and the blatherers on both sides of the media who support them and perpetuate their rule.
Fight for American Freedom

One wonders how we went from a historical documented success in restoring our economy by recognizing that government isn't the solution, it is the problem, to "only government has the resources to jolt the economy", in only 29 years.

Don't mention this to our current President though. Obama's display of his petulant attitude is humorous and concerning.

He displays this whenever anyone dares to question his statist, collectivist agenda.  His first news conference was only one illustration.  His glib response of "I won" to his puckishness in response to anyone even questioning him, let alone disagreeing shows the arrogant and elitist partisanship of totalitarian mind sets.

Beware America!  Your American Freedom is at stake.

Your dollars can make a difference.

Saxby Chambliss needs help from freedom loving Americans

Norm Coleman needs the same.