Conservatives: The Best Defense Is A Good Offense

0 Shares

Conservative Americans like to think they are defending the founding principles of the United States, defending individual rights and the Constitution. They are doing no such thing.

Don’t get me wrong. Conservatives study, express, believe in and support American principles. But defending? No.

Conservatives are a lot like a militia. The notion of a militia goes back at least as far as the Roman Empire. It is that armed property owners will fight tooth and nail against anyone coming to unjustly take their property from them. For that reason, they are a reliable defense against invading armies, insurrections or other overt threats. But they are not willing to go on the offense when they are not directly under attack. They would much rather tend the farm or business and care for their families than go make trouble for someone else.

Current threats to America’s principles and Constitution are not overt. Enemies of the people work quietly, relying on media silence, to adjust the laws of the Nation until the American Constitution is no longer in effect. Conservatives exercise their right to free speech, protesting and waving around signs. They formed the Tea Party to get a couple of people elected to ineffectual defensive positions in the government. What is the effect? Insidious forces continue fundamentally transforming the American system until it no longer resembles the American way.

Constitutionally prohibited actions include importing tens of millions of foreigners to outvote Americans, making schools into gun-free zones to make children into easy targets, infringements against 2nd Amendment protected firearms, suppression of free Christian expression, a massive surveillance system and developing a police state.

If Conservatives were actually interested in defending America and the supreme law of the land, they would be doing to our corrupt politicians what those mobs in Egypt did to Mohammed Morsi — forcefully removing from power the corrupt politicians. This has been done before in the United States; and it has, for a time, restored the rule of law.

The most obvious example is the American Revolution. For years, the Founders protested abuses of their Rights by their own government. But people in power happily ignored the protests. Ultimately, the problem was resolved when the people took up arms and forcefully removed from power anyone abusing their rights and the rule of law. The result was the U.S. Constitution, with an admonition that the people have a Republic only if they can keep it.

More recently, the Battle of Athens, Tenn., demonstrated the necessary remedy to abusive public servants. Stuffing the ballot boxes, corrupt politicians had eliminated fair elections. The townspeople protested; they appealed to other levels of government; they received no help. So they took up their military firearms (those protected by the 2nd Amendment) and set out to kill their politicians and the police officers defending them. Wisely, the politicians surrendered. Fair elections and the rule of law were restored.

With massive election fraud occurring today, is it any wonder that anti-American politicians are scrambling to disarm the American people?

Conservatives (Americans who believe in American principles) can wave signs and protest all they like with no effect. Under totalitarian rule, they are simply ignored. The rapid transformation of the United States into a leftist state continues unabated. It’s all well and fine to talk about having the 2nd Amendment to protect one’s rights, but only through direct action can that be accomplished.

Otherwise, the American people will lose their Republic. If they wait to act until government agents in uniform knock on the door to take their arms, it will be too late.

Sometimes, the best defense is not defense.

Think about it; demand accountability.

–Victor Sayre

A US~Observer exclusive used by permission.

Victor Sayre

(pseudonym) is a software engineer and web developer with a background in Banking IT and Aerospace development. Personal curiosity led him to attend journalism and film-making courses - then hit the streets with a video crew to expose truths that mainstream news conceals from the general public. He has appeared on televised political talk shows, internet broadcasts and is a frequent blogger. His preferred on-air pseudonym is "The Man in Black" and his journalism work has appeared in many public venues, documentary films, political campaigns and has been used for Congressional issues advocacy.

Join the Discussion

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

  • dan

    video monitor all voting with facial recognition…citizens only…
    one man ,one vote : hold up ballot in front of camera for a record…
    this would work with troops overseas,too
    If we’re stuck with the NSA and absolutely no privacy , let’s get our monies worth.

    might work with the legislatures who have no expectation of privacy ,too

    • ChiefBoring

      You have heard of the secret ballot, I presume?

      • dan

        I’ve heard of the stolen ballot….

        privacy is a non-sequitur if one s being ignored

    • ChiefBoring

      So much for the secret ballot?…No thanks.

  • Doc Sarvis

    What massive election fraud ??? There are more instances of people dying from eating pop-rocks than real election fraud. The main problem with elections now is the disenfranchisement some groups are experiencing due to limits on voting rights.

    • Richard Walker

      Doc, having seen your leftist posts before, I am sure you are talking about the requirement for voter ID intended to make certain that those voting are actually citizens and not illegal aliens or dead people.
      You must be a democrat, since the only way they could win an election is through ballot stuffing and fraud. You should go get a life, along with our Nazi Attorney General Eric Holder, may he rot in peace.

      • S.J. Jolly

        A BIG problem the Republican Party has is that many members, especially of the Tea Party faction, refuse to believe that their political ideas are not selling with the general American public.
        They would rather believe in some great Democrat conspiracies to steal elections from them.

        • Richard Walker

          Well, SJ, I am neither a TEA party member nor a Republican. I am an independent and I vote Republican because they are in most cases the lesser of the two evils. Having been in many places in this world where the socialist, progressive, Marxist ideas of the left are practiced and having seen the direct result of such practices (poverty and misery for most and comfort and luxury for the ruling “elite”), I think my reaction to the direction progressive Democrats under the Obama administration are taking this country is justified and correct. You might enjoy living in a police state but I know I don’t.
          If you want to believe that Democrats don’t steal elections through fraud, ballot stuffing, non-citizens and dead people voting, and the like, please feel free to move to Chicago or Detroit where the Democrats have been in power for decades. One is bankrupt and the other is broke and will soon be bankrupt. Leave the Democrats in charge of it and soon the whole country will be bankrupt. As Margaret Thatcher said, sooner or later you run out of other peoples money.
          If you cannot see where these people are taking what was the greatest experiment in self rule and individual freedom that has ever existed then you are blind. Please move to a country more suited to your ideology (North Korea, Zimbabwe, and Cuba come to mind) where you will surely be happier. Just be careful about what you say because they don’t allow free speech.

          • S.J. Jolly

            Maybe you also visited the many countries of this world where “the socialist, progressive, Marxist ideas of the left” are bitterly opposed by the ruling class, and there is still poverty and misery for the masses, luxury for the ruling elite?

            If there is such great voter fraud in the USA as you believe, why can’t even Republican investigators find it? Sure, there is vote fraud, here and there, but nowhere on the scale Republican “We were robbed!” beliefs require.

            You don’t suppose that the economic problems behind the decline of Detroit and Chicago wouldn’t have still happened under even hard conservative Republican administrations? Problems such as the outsourcing of American industry production to China. Sure, cutting American worker wages and benefits to Chinese factory levels would have saved American jobs — until the starving American workers rose up in bread riots and rebellion.

          • ChiefBoring

            If you so truly believe there is no voter fraud, why not establish voter ID, at no cost to the individual, even sending ID units into poorer neighborhoods to make it easier? Then we would all know the votes were proper, so long as the voting machines were verified. There was at least one publicly reported case, from her own mouth, of a poll worker who voted at leaset six times, by her own count! A few of those can make a difference!

          • S.J. Jolly

            Agreed, a bipartisan effort to provide photo ID to every US citizen.
            Perhaps you believe that poll staffs are heavy with people who vote six times each ? And all the votes go to Democrats, with Republican poll watchers and workers being blind to it?

          • ChiefBoring

            Of course I don’t know the real extent of voter fraud. I gave an example verified by the voter herself. She has since been arrested, so I have heard. Again, voter ID is the best defense against voter fraud. Stuffing ballot boxes is another problem. Checking against voter lists and record would diminish the practice.

          • Speak2Truth

            The voter fraud is well documented. ACORN got in a lot of trouble for it. Voting machines are documented changing votes on the fly. People are busted voting multiple times…

            One problem is George Soros and the Secretary of State Project. The more Secretaries of State serve the Democrat Party, the harder it becomes to stop voter fraud.

            Poll watcher sees Romney ballots changed
            Witness to voting says he monitored as software redirected choices
            http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/poll-watcher-sees-romney-ballots-changed/

            THE BIG LIST of vote fraud reports
            108% of voting population endorses Obama
            http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/the-big-list-of-vote-fraud-reports/

            In 2008, John McCain Ignored Vote Fraud to Avoid Civil Unrest
            http://wizbangblog.com/2012/04/26/in-2008-john-mccain-ignored-vote-fraud-to-avoid-civil-unrest/

            NC Non-Citizens Voting, Dead Offered Ballots, UNC Officials Embrace Voter Fraud

            Eyewitness: busloads of illegal voters from Michigan, sent by Union to vote in Wisconsin recall against Scott Walker
            http://nation.foxnews.com/wisconsin-recall-election/2012/06/05/eyewitness-alleges-democrat-union-vote-fraud-wisconsin

            Illegal Immigrants Are Voting in American Elections
            http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=691

      • S.J. Jolly

        You’d need a photo ID to tell that a would-be voter is actually a dead person? Your eyes or nose wouldn’t suffice? :-?
        You meant to write, “voting under a dead person’s name”?
        Voting multiple times, under one name or many, is a manpower intensive — and highly illegal — form of election fraud. Much more efficient, and legal, to discourage the other side’s supporters from voting.

    • ToniStimmel

      So what do YOU call it when multiple counties report 125+% participation unanimously for Obozo? Most people call that ‘election fraud’ but apparently you don’t think that’s proper.

      Why was it not reported that there was such a massive number of ‘pop-rock eating’ related deaths during the 2012 election?

      • S.J. Jolly

        What do I call it? Republican “We were robbed!” myth.

        • ToniStimmel

          It may be mythical to you but it happened in several Ohio counties and at least one south Florida county. Obozo won every state without Voter ID and lost every state with Voter ID. Mythicize that!

          • S.J. Jolly

            States with voter ID are all Republican controlled, those without are Democrat controlled.

          • ToniStimmel

            I think you’ve made my point, the demoncrats fight tooth and nail against Voter ID in the states they control because with honest elections they can’t stay in control.

            Thank you!!!

          • merle

            And thank you , I am not even going to read any more of his stupid comments.

          • S.J. Jolly

            A tip: Things you don’t understand are not always stupid.

          • S.J. Jolly

            Never occurred to you that the same thing can be said about Republicans not being able to stay in control without disenfranchising Democratic voters, did it?

          • ToniStimmel

            I’m absolutely certain that if a disenfranchised legal voter in a republican area stepped forward he would be quickly represented by many lawyers. It happened in Florida when the rolls were purged of felons because the wrong list was used.

            I’m against all voter registration drives and ‘get out the vote’ drives, their purpose only sounds good when you say it real fast. What good is it to have very disinterested people registering to vote or voting.

          • merle

            Well, think about what you just said!! Real easy for the Dems to have voter fraud isn’t it?Toni has said it very well

          • S.J. Jolly

            Even easier (and much more legal) for Republicans to disenfranchise Democratic voters in the name of fighting voter fraud.

      • S.J. Jolly

        How do you get over 100% participation in an election? People voting who were not registered to vote? People legitimately registered to vote who voted more than once? Or, most likely, people legitimately registered to vote, who’s names didn’t appear on the rolls, so they voted provisionally?
        Over 100% participation, all for one candidate, says very amateur voter fraud, if it was voter fraud.

        • ToniStimmel

          You get over 100% participation when more votes are cast than there are registered voters, alive and dead.

          In 2000 one of those demoncrat controlled Florida counties, won by the Gore, whose vote count was challenged by the demoncrats, had an election official caught by the FHP with a registered vote counting machine and blank official ballots in the trunk of his car in violation of Florida laws. He was never charged. If you saw that recount you had to check that it wasn’t an SNL skit.

          The only reason the county winner chooses to recount his votes in a county whose entire election system is controlled by his own party is to get them to generate more countable votes. Gore didn’t challenge the vote count in any county that his own party didn’t have complete control of the entire county election system.

          • S.J. Jolly

            More votes cast than there are registered voters is a sign of ballot box stuffing, something that requiring voters to present a photo ID won’t affect. 100% participation, let alone 125%, and all for one candidate, smells of vote fraud, by amateurs.

    • Bill

      The election system is becoming a joke. Any illegal alien can register, vote and not be challenged because they are a privileged class.
      Proof of citizenship and voter ID’s should be required

      • S.J. Jolly

        Requiring voter ID’s without a strong parallel effort to see that all legitimate voters have such ID’s is simply voter suppression. Suppression that hits hardest the elderly, the poor, and students — groups heavily prone to vote Democrat.
        Why would illegal immigrants want to register to vote, something many native-born citizens don’t bother to do? Generally, those here illegally avoid calling official attention to their existence. Hard-right Republicans love to believe that someone is paying illegals to register and vote, but even Republican investigators have — repeatedly — failed to turn up such payments.

        • merle

          S.J. I have personally witnessed a hispanic woman registering an illegal ! I was close enough I could hear the whole conversation ( I guess she thought I was deaf Or she was so arrogant that she thought I wouldn’t do anything about it.)I complained to the business that was allowing her to stand out front and register Latinos,and pointed out the man that she had registered. Not sure what actually happened to him after they questioned him but she was not allowed to register any more voters. This country is now based on lies and fraud and it makes me want to cry.

          • S.J. Jolly

            What she was doing, if the man was indeed here illegally, was illegal, yes. She probably was getting paid per registration, and was trying to pad her total. Doesn’t change what I posted about the bigger problem is suppression of legitimate voters.

        • merle

          Also, there is an investigation on going about Ohio and Colorado. I have not heard the outcome yet but it is still active.

      • merle

        Yes!!

  • Vigilant

    “Otherwise, the American people will lose their Republic.”

    It’s been dead since the 16th and 17th amendments.

  • ToniStimmel

    The best defense is NOT a ‘good’ offense but rather a ‘relentless’ offense. In our Civil War it was Grant’s relentless offense that won over Lee’s good and considerably better offense.

    • S.J. Jolly

      You’re not quite correct. The best strategy is one that matches your strengths and weaknesses against those of your opponent. Grant won because he realized that the Union had enough superiority in men and material to win a war of attrition.

      • ToniStimmel

        Relentless offense only becomes a war of attrition when you’re outgeneraled. In Grants western campaigns, which brought him to Lincoln’s attention as his only winner, he fought that same even relentless offense whether or not he won the previous battle even when he wasn’t outgeneraled. Lincoln was the one who knew that he could win the war of attrition and maybe survive as reelected.

        • S.J. Jolly

          Relentless offensive against a defender with competent generals and technology favoring defense will destroy your army before that of the enemy. I.e., the French in mid WW-I had to switch to a defensive strategy because their losses were unsustainable.
          Nice arguing against someone in this forum who’s sane!

          • ToniStimmel

            I believe I said ‘outgeneraled’ not ‘ungeneraled’, the last Frenchman to lead a French army to victory was a 16 year old girl who lived 6 centuries ago. Napoleon was a Corsican, a colonist. While in the last century the French soldier was considered the best trained in Europe and the Americas, the French Officers Corps was considered the least capable.

            Yes, it is sort of fun.

  • trugrits

    drones and blimps in the sky and disarming the public is all being put in place so the people can’t do squat against the government anymore. The people have let it go to far already and even now are doing nothing about the unconstitutional actions . Read up on the Rothchilds and see what is behind everything. Understand why Lincoln, JFK and Garfield were assassinated. See what all three had in common.

  • Marshall Watson

    To advocate armed insurrection is at the least frightening, but to continue to let those who have the power to stop the insanity in Washington to continue to do nothing, is worse insanity. The definition for insanity: to continually keep doing what you have always done expecting different results. It is time to stop the insanity in Washington, but I propose a different approach. First lets humble ourselves before God and pray, seeking forgiveness of our sinful behavior for letting things get this bad. 2nd, turn from our wicked ways and take a new direction, following the example Jesus left us. God promised that if we would do this with all our heart, He would heal our land and return us to prosperity. I know you are already convinced I am some sort of ultra fanatic religious freak, right. I’m not, I am a evangelical Christian who believes every word in the Bible is true, a freedom loving patriotic American who would gladly lay down his life in defense of our liberties. Armed insurrection is a serious thing to consider, and should only be considered after all other venues have failed. Lets try earnest prayer before we start killing each other and give God a chance to fulfill His promises.

    • S.J. Jolly

      The powers behind the construction of a national security state would LOVE to have some group — of the left or right — try an armed insurrection. The US military would smash the insurrection, the organs of Homeland Security would hunt down the survivors, then a War on Domestic Terrorism would provide the political cover for completing the lockdown of American freedoms in the name of public safety.

      • Marshall Watson

        I agree Mr Jolly, that is why I worded my comment the way I did, armed insurrection is the last of all possible solutions to our current condition. I still believe our greatest weapons are 1st earnest prayer, 2nd aggressive political activism holding our elected officials accountable for their actions. We have allowed main stream media to influence our thinking way to long. We need to look at the problem as it is and start thinking for ourselves as intelligent individuals about the solutions.

      • merle

        S.J. What would you suggest we do? Surely you can’t like what is happening to our country? Give us your ideas .

        • S.J. Jolly

          For a start, greatly reduce the corrupting influence of big money donors in elections:
          1. Overturn Citizens United. Via a Constitutional amendment, if necessary.
          2. Go to 100% public financing of elections.
          Assuming that what’s happening can be changed. I suspect that we’re in an equivalent of the Roman Republic sliding into the Roman Empire’s rule by an Emperor, with a few ultra-rich families pulling strings behind the scene.

          • ChiefBoring

            Two very bad ideas. Public financing is using taxpayers’ money. No way. An amendment to change the SCUS decision on Citizens United isn’t going to happen, because the people generally support it. We should simply require total disclosure of to whom money is given by whom. No need to change the Constitution, but we might need to vote some folks out of office. Of course, we need to do that anyway!

      • ToniStimmel

        That would be correct except that the US Military personnel are individually sworn to uphold and defend the constitution, to the death. You can squeal all you want about a living constitution but the one that’s printed is the only one that he swears for because for such an oath to be valid the terms must be known and understandable. That might be a reason for Obozo’s refusing to let his honor guard have ammo.

        Obozo has already poisoned the upper branches of the military with officers most likely sworn to him, as Hitler did, but he can’t count on the lower ranks to be loyal to himself and his turned officers as Hitler could. He also can’t count on his Homeland Security forces to hold up under the casualties they will take even if he can neutralize the military. The civilian population has combat veterans from five wars while Homeland Security’s forces are more that likely like the Redcoats, that ‘well regulated militia’ with whom our founding fathers were familiar, but not as well disciplined.

        • S.J. Jolly

          As I recall it, enlisted personnel are sworn to obey the orders of those appointed over them. I.e., their officers. Officers are sworn to obey the Constitution.

          I have NEVER heard of any officers being sworn to the President personally. Sounds like another one of the buckets of slime the hard right keeps throwing at Obama.
          Obama’s honor guard not being allowed to have ammunition? Probably nothing new, unless they are going to fire a salute, whereas they would be issued blank rounds. The Secret Service has the loaded weapons.

          I think you greatly underestimate the combat effectiveness of Homeland Security field personnel against civilian insurrectionists, even if the civilians are combat veterans. The field personnel are organized and most likely have had recent training. The civilian veterans, unless they are active in a militia, wouldn’t.
          Contrary to the evident beliefs of many in the hard-right (as evident in this forum), BH Obama is NOT the Anti-Christ, let alone Satan Incarnate.

          • ChiefBoring

            Enlisted personnel ARE sworn, upon enlistment or induction, to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic. We are sworn to obey our superiors’ LAWFUL orders. LAWFUL is a huge modifier.

          • ToniStimmel

            It’s been 60 years since I took that oath so I don’t really remember the wording but I’m pretty sure that the constitution was mentioned. AS for swearing to obey….the post-WW2 war crimes trials didn’t recognize ‘following orders’ as a defense so such an oath would be limited to lawful orders. An example, you could not be ordered to surrender, “Cease fire”, OK, “Surrender”, unlawful.

            And you never will hear about that oath to Obozo even if it is enunciated because it would be a confession to a crime. I don’t have to underestimate the combat readiness of homeland security. You might look up the Battle of Athens TN during the ’40s after WW2.

            Yamamoto had a good assessment of Americans and the number of guns he would face in an invasion attempt. Homeland security might win some minor engagements but while their forces will be depleting their opponents will be growing.

      • ToniStimmel

        That would be correct except that the US Military personnel are individually sworn to uphold and defend the constitution, to the death. You can squeal all you want about a living constitution but the one that’s printed is the only one that he swears for because for such an oath to be valid the terms must be known and understandable. That might be a reason for Obozo’s refusing to let his honor guard have ammo.

        Obozo has already poisoned the upper branches of the military with officers most likely sworn to him, as Hitler did, but he can’t count on the lower ranks to be loyal to himself and his turned officers as Hitler could. He also can’t count on his Homeland Security forces to hold up under the casualties they will take even if he can neutralize the military. The civilian population has combat veterans from five wars while Homeland Security’s forces are more that likely like the Redcoats, that ‘well regulated militia’ with whom our founding fathers were familiar, but not as well disciplined.

      • Speak2Truth

        It appears to me that the Consolidation of Power is advancing despite political activism by the TEA Party and other relatively ineffectual groups.

        Just think – when the States try to defend their own borders against hostile invasion, Federal power is used to thwart them. The Constitution requires the Federal Government to call up the Militia to defend against invasion but it’s doing the opposite. Tens of millions of foreigners are marching in, with conquest in mind. How is that political activism working out?

        The Federal Government is racking up enormous debt borrowing money from the Fed and China, redistributing it (illegally, per the Constitution) to Party favorites, then leaving the burden of that debt on the American people, with interest. They illegally nationalized GM and handed its ownership to the UAW. How is that political activism working out?

        The USA is finished. Dead. Political activism cannot save it any more than it restored legitimate voting in Athens, Tennessee. I’m pointing the finger at the Democrat Party. They are, without a doubt, enemies of the American System and its defenders. More and more, the Republican leadership is also being corrupted by progressivism.

        Yes, the Left are preparing for conflict. Barack Obama’s political mentor, Bill Ayers, came from a communist terrorist group that estimated they would have to murder about 25 million Americans who would resist Fundamental Transformation. Conflict is inevitable unless all of America is willing to submit to a Socialist Dictatorship and willing to watch the Socialists destroy the USA as a superpower, without resistance.

        For those who would uphold their Oath to defend the Constitution, waiting gives the enemy an ever-stronger position.

        This is all logical analysis. Is any of it incorrect?

        • S.J. Jolly

          “Tens of millions of foreigners are marching in, with conquest in mind.” All heavily cloaked, such that only the specially trained, such as yourself, can see them?

          There is an active effort underway to greatly and fundamentally alter the structure of government in the USA, but it is far from socialist in nature. The effort is by the Koch brothers and their mega corporation associates. When their candidate in the 2012 election, Romney, failed, they simply reinforced their effort to take over the USA state by state.

          “Yes, the Left are preparing for conflict.” Only if the members of the NRA, and various militia and survivalist groups, are secret Leftists.

          “…. Bill Ayers, came from a communist terrorist group …” Some group the FBI and various state police groups failed to discover?

          “… the Republican leadership is also being corrupted by progressivism.” Only if you consider the Tea Party Republicans to be secret Progressives. Or, are the secret Progressives the traditional Republicans, who consider the Tea Party people to be Looney-tunes crazy?

          Your analysis is logical, yes. According to the beliefs you start with, which are right at home in the Personal Liberty Digest.

  • ONTIME

    Those who fail to defend the Constitution are reason to believe they be the spawn of RINO’s….

  • ctroop

    An irrefutable FACT … obvious to anyone who is actually conscious … the ONLY people who are against voter ID laws (and any other measures that would prevent voter fraud) are those who benefit from voter fraud and those who practice voter fraud. Republicans want to stop voter fraud and Democrats want voter fraud to continue. The reasons are obvious to anyone whose head is not up Obama’s rectal cavity. Requiring voter ID does absolutely NOTHING to prevent (or even hinder) ANY legally eligible voters to vote … regardless of age, race, political affiliation or sexual preference. Any arguments to the contrary are nothing but the usual, liberal, lip-syncing flatulence.

    • S.J. Jolly

      You’re assuming the voter fraud exists in any significant amount, something that even Republican investigators have repeatedly failed to find.

  • merle

    Ctroop is right. We have to have voter I.D. Why would anyone legally voting care?If you read all the illegal voting that went on this last election ,yes, it was done on both sides but mostly on the Dems. We would have a different road that we are going down now. Other countries are laughing at us, or some feeling sorry for our stupidity some hating our guts when we have spent billions helping them. Wise up America before it is too late. How many are quietly thinking “what have I done”!This man is evil , it is coming out of his pores.That big smile is as phoney as it can get . He hates us , looks down on us, his wife snears her nose at us.

  • Glen Welch

    Mr. Sayre is only partially correct. There may come a time when armed rebellion is the only course left. I believe this is why liberals want gun control, starting with limited gun and ammunition availability and including gun registration which is the typical way freedom-lovers lose their liberty. It was the British goal at Lexington and Concord and worked in the Soviet Union. However, we don’t believe we are at that point yet. In the meantime, a truly conservative party has emerged to do the fighting for us. I recommend you join the Conservative Party of the USA TODAY (conservativepartyusa.org) if you truly value liberty. Even libertarians should recognize that a true conservative value is limited government which is what libertarian is supposed to be about. If you do nothing but continue to bellyache about what is going on, then you have already lost your liberty and your right to complain in the bargain. You only THINK you are still free.