While most Blogs are nothing but a vent for the frustration of right thinking Amiricans, this is not my cause. I am building a link to help gather resources and take a proactive stance against the tide of socialism. My posts are meant to inform you and, when possible, help you better explain and defend our principles. We are all leaders, we are all FREEDOM FIGHTERS!

Our goal is to help coordinate as many local political groups as possible in order to create a strong and organized local movement. We would suggest that you either start a meetup group or join one that's already in place. For help go to http://www.meetup.com/ or 912 Project USA.com / For The Sake of Liberty! . With your effort and support we can become a strong force against the socialization of our great nation. If you have a suggestion or want information, please e-mail me at flounders70@aol.com .

Monday, January 30, 2012

Your Election Bible!

Yes, I'm back! I know you missed me but you can relax, take a breath, and carry on with your life. So, let's jump right in to it, shall we?

Tomorrow marks the final day of the Florida Republican primaries. After several days of early voting we are finally going to settle down for the results. This is important because Florida is the largest state to have a primary to date. We will likely be the "make or brake" state for the so called "second tier" candidates like Paul and Santorum.

Now, ask me who I am voting for.. go ahead, ask.. Well, I will tell you anyway! lets take a look at each presidential hopeful.

Romney: This polished turd is the leader of the "good ol' boys club". If he beats out the others he will be forced to run against Obama who used "Romney-care" as a model for "Obama-care". This is tant-amount to having a violent rapist prosecute Jack the Ripper for rape. To believe that it is okay on a smaller level but evil on a larger level is absurd, insane, and irreconcilable. Beyond health care, Romney has shown us through the years that he is willing to believe and espouse whatever he needs to to get elected. He ran against Teddy Kennedy as a "left of Teddy" liberal, then as an "anti-Reagan" Republican. He ran against McCain as "more McCain than McCain". Now He is running against other Republicans as "the moderate" who can beat Obama by stealing votes from Indy's and disgruntled lefties. After he bastardises the Republican brand, third party kooks would help the Dems take over the whole deal for the next eight years and all will be lost.

President Romney? I expect him to be Clinton-esque, in that, he will likely run the executive branch with a finger on the pulse of the voters in hope's of finishing his term with a solid (yet undeserved) legacy. He will surely turn the economy around but at what cost? Since he lacks a moral compass, there is no telling what sacrifices we will be forced to make to help keep his crap from stinking in the nose of the mindless masses.

Newt: This guy is damaged goods. Don't get me wrong, he is brilliant, and probably a sincerely great guy. But the taste he left in the mouths of his foes in the '90s was so wretched that I can still smell it on their collective breath. I remember him then, in fact, he inspired me more than anyone else to really know my history as it pertains to politics. My problem with Newty is that he is the antithesis of Romney. While Mitt is willing to go to any length to land the title of President, Newt is willing to go to even farther to obtain the power of the Presidency. He admired the tyrannical omnipotence of the late FDR and often speaks of him as the "greatest president since the founders". He reckons that the true measure of a president is not what he can convince congress to do, it is what he can do by himself (regardless of Constitutionality). Newt, like Obama, believes that the good of the people is far too complicated for the low life citizenry to comprehend and that he must act on our behalf. While a good portion of what he wants to do could have been ripped right out of the pages of my own book, it is his righteousness that I cannot subscribe to.

President Newt: In like a lion, out like a lamb! If Newt is elected then it is safe to assume that there will be a congressional Republican takeover as well. I mean, for him to win there would have to be a tidal wave of conservative wannabe's voting and indy's would have to stay home, not likely but not impossible. With his arrogance and attitude, even those who voted for him would tire of his banter. By the second year of his administration he would lose both houses of congress and be stuck in a political stalemate for the remainder of his tenure. Though he would likely be able to stop the disasters set in place by Obama (Obama-care, social uprisings like the Occupy movement, WWIII), the backlash would turn Obama's "new deal" into some kind of prophetic crusade for the left. Between the media mafia and the socio-political ground swell, Newt may very well become the first Republican to be Impeached.. and do so in record time. The pendulum will swing hard to the left but the vacuum will draw it quickly back to the right. We would only be looking at about four years of total Democratic control before people come to their senses again.

Paul: He is just plain weird! However, I can get on board with most (*!!!MOST!!!*) of what the funny little man says he believes. Where old Ron and I part is foreign policy. He seems to think that bullies only bully because they are being bullied. This notion is absurd! When one grows large, others want to take what they have, when one stays small others take what they have, didn't this guy ever go to grade school? Everyone wants to beat up the small guy and everyone wants to gang up on the big guy, it happens in school, at work, in jail, in court, and on the National Geographic channel. It is built in to every life form known to man... except for Ron Paul! To think that one nation could build a giant wall and defend itself from the rest of the universe, while being completely self supportive, is tactically absurd. Military bases exist because we keep bringing the fight to the enemies (in small battles) rather than allowing them to pool their resources and attack us from all sides at once. Next time you play hide and seek, try having everyone hide together and let me know how that works out for you.

President Paul: When Obama swore that he would close Guantanamo within his first hundred days, I told everyone that it wouldn't happen. Once a president gets into office he learns all of the truths that only he is privy to, that much reality changes everything. Doctor Paul will get there and be informed that the military will continue doing as it has done for hundreds of years and Paul will be handed a speech explaining why he has changed his mind about foreign policy. How he does on his fiscal policy will hinge solely on what happens with the congressional election. If he rides in on a conservative tidal wave, he might actually be able to convince the powers that be that his policies can work. Under those circumstances I could see him getting some dramatic legislation passed but it will then get tangled in the deadly web of our judicial system. The backlash would be as fierce as Newts but equally short. In the long view, Ron Paul will some day (long after his passing) be thought of as revolutionary who was well ahead of his time.

Santorum: Steeped in faith, tethered to conviction, and guided strictly to his moral compass, This guy says what he believes and believes what he says. Sadly, many people do not believe as he does. Still, I think that if the media mafia would pull the ball gag off of his face and let him out of the trunk of their shiny black '65 caddy, his ideology would resonate with Biblical intensity. The vast majority of Americans carry some part of this guy within their hearts. He, like the rest of us, tries to consider all of the variables when taking a position. When those variables change, or new ones appear, he re-enters the equation and works to improve his position. Santorum has a fundamental platform with which he builds all of his thoughts. He is a Constitutional Constructionist, and longs for the nation that we would have been not for the parasitic infection of the early progressive socialist movement. The only part of his campaign that casts a shadow is his apparent doctrine of crusade. He seems, to most, like the guy who would force people to be good to each other. As harmless as that sounds, the executive branch is meant to be more limited than that. The governments job is to prevent people from being bad to each other, not force them to be nice. If this seems like I'm splitting hairs, just ask and I will lay out the difference.

President Santorum: His highly religious persona will give the Muslim world cause to ramp up their efforts to take down the great Satan (you know, us). To them it will appear as if we have hired a preached to escalate the God vs Allah cage match and they will respond with something resembling a submission hold. Being a man of faith, integrity, and inner strength, Santorum will be forced to play his military hand and we could just set off world war three. By this time, however, he will have made great strides to repair the global economy by shipping low paying menial jobs to the collapsed Euro-nations and ramping up the free market here at home. Europe and middle Asia will be eager to join and fight with us in order to get a glimpse of our new military technology. We will win the war, renew the long lost American pride, and even future democrats will look like the Republicans of today.

Yes, I am sure you know who I support by now. Since I tend to take the long view at things I have decided that Santorum is the only fellow running that I would cast a vote for. If not him, then Obama! (possibly Paul).. I figure Romney and Newt are simply going to allow the infection to fester within and cause a slow painful death. We might as well push Obama back in to office so that the fever peaks, the wound tears open, the puss flows out, and the disease is exposed quickly and violently so that everyone realizes just what needs to be done.

Wednesday, February 2, 2011

New Direction

If you've noticed my lack of blog movement lately, it's because things have changed. I am changing with the times and moving into the future. I am now part of IPN, an internet radio network, and can often be heard on the Fritch Show. I am also working on getting my own show which will totally replace this blog. I ask that you go to WWW.FritchShow.com on weekdays from 10:00am eastern till noon and listen to this amazing new forum. While you're at it, check out all of the programming that IPN has to offer!

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Return the Beacon

Roughly 240 years ago a small group of self educated, self reliant men gathered in pubs to spread an idea. These guys new that their idea would never be accepted by a majority because the necessary action would require a level of bravery and sacrifice unlike any witnessed in recorded history. Another thing these fellows knew, beyond doubt, was that there would be enough rugged individuals who embodied the American spirit and would be willing to pay any price to earn their freedom. A freedom to be responsible for their own futures based on their own merits, this is real freedom. Modern Americans seem to have lost touch with the very same rugged individualism that earned them the freedoms that they have since forsaken in the name of comfort and security.This complacency has been chipping away at everything from education to social interaction and represents one of the biggest problems with modern society.

After winning the Revolutionary War, our founders gathered to create a new style of government. This government would be the first of its kind, in that; the citizens would be the focus of the entire system. They realized that the war would never have happened, and freedom would never have been gained, if the decision had been left to democracy and the majority. The American Revolution was, after all, only supported by about 30% of Americans. Knowing the inherent oppression created by Democracy, our founders turned to a near facsimile of the Roman Republic. In this system, Republicanism, the minority has power equal to the majority rather than being subject to the whim of the masses. In his first inaugural address, Thomas Jefferson said “though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect”. Jefferson also said “a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits”. The idea of Americanism, at least until Andrew Jackson introduced Democracy, was that the federal government would have very limited powers and only be responsible (on a social level) for preventing citizens from interfering in each other’s personal freedoms. Under this system our nation blossomed at inconceivable rates and the rest of the world rode on its coat tails.

The global rise of socialism (a byproduct of democracy), at the end of the nineteenth century, brought with it a new sense of entitlement. Many self proclaimed socialists were entering the political horse race with promises of financial security- a chicken in every pot. The cost of that financial security, according to the new progressives, would fall on an unpopular minority; the rich. This oppression of a minority set precedence for future generations who learned that they could forgo their personal obligations as long as the majority had democratic power. With each passing generation the lessons of self reliance slowly turned into lessons on social reliance and the individual grew ever weaker. Ridiculous is the premise that a society comprised of the weak and held together by strict governance is stronger than a society of strong individuals who find communal adhesion through shared religious and philosophical beliefs. America is now following the rest of the world into the downward spiral created by the vacuum that results when productivity is replaced by consumption.

The political battle between the ideologies has boiled to a bubbling head with American progressive leaders claiming that their opponents are “clinging to their guns and religion” while constructionists suggest that the weak and unsuccessful are clinging to social programs and mob rule. The purpose of this essay, however, is much less political than it might seem at this point. The solution to the societal woes, so rooted in political dependency, starts, not with a political movement, but at home. Public education plays a role but a role which is not as vast as most would expect. The term teacher, as it refers to our sanctioned education system, is a colossal misnomer: the better term might be tellers. These are the folks who have generally been taught what to teach, irrespective of their own rational influence. As teachers tell students what is known (or accepted as known) by others, it is up to the student to run the information through his/her own system of rationalization; that system is built at home. Parents have the primary responsibility of creating a foundation for the philosophy of their children and teaching them how to measure new information against their philosophy while measuring their philosophy against the new information. This process defines rationalization and keeps the power of learning in front of the power of teaching.

Past generations, the now relic rugged individuals, learned how to fend for themselves. From a very young age these Americans were exposed to the skills necessary to provide every basic necessity, and thus, were instilled with the confidence that they would always have total control over their own survival. Personal responsibility allowed the individual to assign his or her own worth rather than having the community assign it for them. Parents today could have a tremendous affect on the future of this nation, as well as the world, if they would take time to teach their children self reliance and personal responsibility. By teaching these kids the kind of life lessons that can only be learned through real experience, giving them the opportunity to fail “safely”, and passing on the concept of integrity, the tide of dependency can be turned.

There is no time better than the present to honor that small minority of brazen insurgents who risked everything to lay the foundation for a nation that they would never live long enough to enjoy. As a nation, we should let our children see us as we take care of our neighbors. We should, as families, join social groups and churches and get out of our houses. Expose our youth to nature, teach them to hunt and gather, teach them how to survive as individuals and to thrive in groups. Politicians are subject to the market forces, just as private industry is, so we must stop looking to them to “change” things for us and begin to change ourselves so that the politicians are forced to follow. With a little bit of gumption and some personal responsibility, we Americans can take back our freedom and return the beacon to that long lost hill that Ronald Regan once spoke so proudly of.
Custom Search