When the Left says that they are giving power to the people -- they lie. When governments say that they want to return power to the people -- they lie. When politicians say they are for the people -- they lie.
There is only one source of power to the people, and that is "we the people" ourselves. "We the people" are our own strength, hope, power, and deliverer -- with God's grace and guidance.
It is time to take our power back.
One of the Left's historic ploys is to drag out the hoary old slogan "Power to the people!" The sentiment is all fine and good. The problem is that the Left has absolutely no interest in giving power to the people -- they want to give power to a tyrannical government, with themselves in control.
Look at any left-wing government, and you'll find a massive government bureaucracy run by a dictator and/or oligarchy. How much power do the people actually have under such "people's republics?" Little to none.
Let's check out a few of these "people's utopias."
Because of Lenin's relatively early death, his body count only reached about 2 million. Stalin reached the more significant figure of around 30 million deaths. Hitler's "Socialist Workers Party," resulted in an equally impressive number -- when you add those killed fighting fascism, to those exterminated in his death camps.
China's communist dictator Mao, raised the bar for all left-wing dictators, when he implemented government policies that resulted in the deaths of upwards of 80 million people. Pol Pot's Cambodian "Killing Fields" saw the murder of a notable 1 and a half million people.
Wikipedia's observation about Cambodia's Khmer Rouge, that they are "remembered primarily for [their] policy of social engineering and the genocide this caused," can be applied to all Far Left efforts to give "power to the people."
"Social engineering" -- a term near and dear to every Progressive's heart. "Power to the people," yeah right.
And it's not just the Progressives and the left-wing, of course. There are a multitude of New World Order types in the right-wing as well.
I agree that many conspiracy theories are bogus, and some are just downright silly.
The New World Order means One World Government
But look into a valid history of the Club of Rome, Agenda 21, the Trilateral Commission, the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations,) the Rockefellers, the Nazi/Islam connection, the Bilderberg Group, Soros and the Open Society Institute, the Fabians, the Tide Foundation, the...
Well, just look into those for starters, and if you don't see the collusion, the international connections, the conspiracy, then you are simply choosing to remain willfully ignorant of the truth.
The New World Order means One World Government, which means the U.S.A. has to go down, in order to level the playing field, and ensure social justice for all.
We're talking about a global nightmare. There won't be "social justice" for all -- there will be equal misery for all, under a repressive totalitarian regime, run by a political, corporate, banking elite. Screw the people.
And believe me, they will. How did you enjoy 2009, when you realized that your government representatives did not represent you, and there wasn't a damn thing you could do about it? Never forget it, because that was only a tiny taste of what's in store for "we the people," if we lose this fight.
So who to trust? Good question.
As far as the major news sources go, Fox News is the obvious choice, but even they have some areas where their honesty is suspect. I'm referring specifically to their treatment of Islam, and the "birthers."
The other night I watched Bill O'Reilly ask Sarah Palin about the "birthers." He had this pained "say it ain't so" expression on his face, as he asked her if she backed the "birthers" (Palin basically said that she thought that the "birthers" had the right to ask questions).
Glenn Beck has come down especially hard on the "birthers" -- comparing them to some lunatic fringe group, akin to "flat earthers" -- as if asking for proof of Obama's eligibility to be POTUS, is like claiming he's from mars.
The other day (shortly before switching off my TV) I watched Beck lump "birthers" together with "right-wing nazis." He should be aware by now that the nazis were a left-wing phenomena.
(Hey Glenn, you know that book you're touting, "A Patriot's History of the United States?" Try reading pages 577 and 578, it'll clear up the "are nazis left-wing or right-wing?" issue for you). Here's a hint -- fascism is a socialist doctrine (i.e. big government -- that's the polar opposite of the extreme right-wing doctrine, which is no government, or anarchy.).
Methinks Beck and O'Reilly doth protest to much. After all, what's wrong with wanting some solid evidence that our President is an American? There's a larger, much more important, concern here though. Who is this guy? Who is Barack Hussein Obama? Why is all of his past history under lock and key?
Why was Obama's Selective Service document retro-written during the presidential campaign of 2008? Where are his college records -- from Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard? What sort of passport did he use when he traveled to Pakistan? When did he legally change his name from Barry Soetoro (check out
barrysoetoro.com)? Did he ever legally change it?
Those are not crazy questions, they're legitimate concerns, and you had better believe that the liberal lame stream media would have vociferously demanded answers long ago, if the person in question had been a conservative. (
Video)
It's unconscionable that the President of the United States is being allowed to hide his past from "we the people." That Fox News is dismissing
legitimate concerns regarding Obama's eligibility, is disturbing. I repeat, who is this guy? That's not some "lunatic fringe" question -- that a sane and valid demand to know who's at America's helm.
"We the people" need to ask ourselves, "Why are Beck and O'Reilly isolating, minimizing, and ridiculing the "birthers" ala Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals?" More to the point, why are they focusing on the birth certificate issue, and ignoring the larger question of who Obama really is? We have every right to ask these questions, in fact it's our duty as an informed electorate, to ask these questions.
A subject of perhaps greater concern, is that the Fox News network is in bed with the Muslims. As
Dr. Laurie Roth,
Jerry McConnell, and a others have noted, Saudi Arabian Prince Ahwaleed bin Talal is the second largest owner of stock in Rupert Murdoch’s, News Corp -- the parent company of Fox News.
If you don't think that is alarming, then I suggest you read Doug Hagmann's article "
From the palaces to the tombs: a Pandora’s box of peril."
Better yet, read "
Muslim Mafia," which is an excellent expose of CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations). At least read Rep. Sue Myrick's (R-NC) short foreword to the book, which is posted online.
The other week O'Reilly spoke with CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper, and afterwards called him a "stand up guy." Not hardly.
I'll show you a stand up guy -- Geert Wilders. Wilders, a Dutch politician, is currently on trial in his native country, for speaking the truth about Islam. You are not allowed to speak the truth in Eurabia these days.
I'll take my "stand up guy," over O'Reilly's, any day of the week. You should read the article "
The Railroading of Geert Wilders" by Robert Spencer -- it's important.
For a taste of what's coming to America, you might check out how
Muslims shouted down free speech, during a recent event at the University of California-Irvine. Shades of things to come -- it's only going to get worse folks, trust me.
Does all this mean that I won't watch Beck or O'Reilly anymore? No, it doesn't mean that at all. They often provide helpful, and insightful, commentary. But it does mean that I take what they report with a grain of salt, and I don't assume that all they say is graven in stone.
As individuals, we need to think for ourselves, and think on our feet. As new facts become known to us, we need to be able to shift gears, shift allegiances, and shift our minds.
We must be rock-solid in our faith, determination, and vision, but supple and quick in our ability to learn, and respond to changing conditions and data.
"We the people" have been on one heck of a steep learning curve this past year. For example: let's see a show of hands from people who didn't know who Saul Alinsky was, this time last year.
That's what I thought -- you can all put your hands down now, thanks.
Another show of hands -- how many of you voted for McCain, but are now backing
J.D. Hayworth in the Arizona gubernatorial race? How many of you voted for Obama, but are now backing
Debra Medina in Texas?
That's what I thought.
"We the people" don't need "leaders," we need representatives
"We the people" are quick learners, when we put our minds to it.
Sarah Palin is backing the wrong horse in both races. I believe we should give her some slack though, because she, like us, has been on a steep learning curve. That's two strikes though. Three strikes and she's out, as far as I'm concerned.
"We the people" don't need "leaders," we need representatives. And if our representatives show signs that they are not representing us, then we must be prepared to drop them like a hot potato.
Back to the question, Who to trust? Now that the lame stream media, and most politicians, have lost all "street cred," where do you turn for the truth?
There are a number of good options and venues, and the number keeps increasing daily.
Fox News, although it is certainly not without faults, is still the best major news outlet, by far -- just be sure to take your grain of salt first. The Wall Street Journal (another Murdoch enterprise) is similarly, often a reliable source of news.
Radio has become a vital link for trustworthy news. Some of the more popular hosts include Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, and Alex Jones, to name a few.
There are an increasing number of conservative, local newspapers, (here's a shout-out to the Central Idaho Post!), and larger metropolitan papers. There are also a number of good magazines -- Time, Newsweek, and People, not included.
Then there's the internet. There's a plethora of good, informative websites out there. (Unfortunately, there's also a plethora of bogus, misguided, and misguiding, websites out there. Caveat emptor -- buyer beware).
A few of the more cutting edge conservative websites are,
Andrew Breitbart's websites,
PJTV,
Prison Planet,
The Savage Nation, and my particular favorite --
Canada Free Press.
To keep apprised of the global jihad against we infidels, there are a number of good sites (including
Global Jihad). Judging from the emails I receive, the websites with the most noteworthy stories on the Islamic jihad are,
Jihad Watch,
Creeping Sharia, and
Act! For America Now
Now that "we the people" are engaged, and involved in the political process, we are making ever-smarter choices, as we "learn on the job." Our "job" being that of becoming an informed, active, and powerful, electorate.
Tea Party members call no one leader, for their only leader is the American Constitution
As John Houston might have said in his movie classic "Treasure of the Sierra Madre" -- "Leaders? We don't need no stinking leaders."
Judi McLeod, editor of Canada Free Press
recently wrote, "Much heart can be taken in this truth: Tea Party members call no one leader, for their only leader is the American Constitution."
Founding Father, John Adams, "guesstimated" that only around one-third of the population actively supported the Revolutionary War (another third actively opposed it, and the last third sat on their butts).
"We the people" currently have much more than a third of the people with us. We can take back our power -- we must. It will be both a revolution, and a restoration.
When you get down to it, "we the people" ourselves, are the ones we can trust. America's true patriots have always been the backbone of this country, and we know what must be done. The only questions are how and when.
Power to the people? You bet.
Laus Deo.
P.S. Anyone with their hand still raised, can consider themselves an honorary Progressive.
