Does any of this some familiar? Does this sound like what has been happening in America in the past years? Well, I will disappoint you; this is not America of the 20^th or 21^st century, but America of the 17^th century. Other then a few points, this was what was happening in a period when America was a just a gathering of colonies. This was when Great Britain and the Parliament passed a number of tax acts which would eventually cumulated with what is known as the Townsend Acts.

According to the British Constitution, British subjects could not be taxed without the consent of their representatives in Parliament. Since the colonies had no truly elected members of Parliament, many colonists viewed Parliament's attempt to tax them as a violation of the constitutional doctrine of taxation only by consent. Is this not what is going on in our present Congress, they pass tax laws without the consent of the people? There were some British politicians who countered this argument with the theory of "virtual representation", which maintained that the colonists were in fact represented in Parliament even though they elected no members. Doesn’t our congress currently do the same thing, telling us that they were elected and therefore they do not have to listen to the voters, they will do what THEY think is right. This was briefly debated after the passage of the Sugar Act in 1764. It later became a major point of contention following Parliament's passage of the Stamp Act 1765. Needless to say, the Stamp Act proved to be wildly unpopular in the colonies, compelling Parliament to repeal it the following year. At least, the Parliament may have listen, used some good judgment, and repealed it. However, implicit within the Stamp Act dispute, there was an issue more fundamental than the taxes and the representation, that issue was the question of Parliament’s authority in the colonies. Parliament provided the answer; after repealing the Stamp Act, they immediately passed the Declaratory Act, which stated that Parliament could pass laws for the colonies “in all cases whatsoever” (Knollenberg, Growth, 21–25). Is this not what the federal government does with the “promote the general Welfare” statement from the Preamble? With the passage of the Declaratory Act, the road was opened for the Townshend Acts.

British Empire was deep in debt following the Seven Years' War (1756–1763), the British Parliament decided to start levying new taxes on the British colonies in America. These new taxes, the Townshend Acts, were passed to assist in paying some of the costs of the expanded British Empire. Does this sound like congress passing taxes to pay for various social programs, for example, the outgoing War on Poverty?  Prior to the Townshend Acts, England had used the Trade and Navigation Acts, as a method of taxation to regulate the trade of the empire. Is this not what is happening with the tariffs on goods coming into the United States, particularly on automobile tires (besides paying back the unions)? The Sugar Act of 1764 was the first time Parliament sought to tax the colonies for the specific purpose of raising revenue. Did not congress do the same thing with the cigarette tax for the purpose of funding SCHIP, by taxing a “targeted” group? What about the attempt by congress to tax the bonuses of AIG? As with any taxes, the American colonists did initially object to them for economic reasons, they also recognized that there were constitutional issues involved. As I believe a number of people in America are currently questioning what congress and the president are doing.

Now, there are some reading this, that are probably wondering, what do these various taxes passed by Parliament in the 1760’s have to with what’s going on in America today. There are also maybe some who are wondering why congress and the president should pray to God, we, the People, believe in the United States Constitution. Well, what followed the passage of the Townsend Acts (Acts), is part of America’s history

As with our current congress, Townshend knew that his program would be would be controversial in the colonies, but he argued that, "The superiority of the mother country can at no time be better exerted than now." Is this not the same with our current congress, their superiority and their “we know best for the American people and are going to do what WE want to do.” Even though the Townshend Acts did not create an instant uproar like the Stamp Act had done two years earlier, but before long, opposition to the program had become widespread. Isn’t this what happened after the passage of the Porkulus Bill in 2009.

The first response was a series of twelve essays by John Dickerson which began in December, 1767. In these series of essays, Dickinson argued that there was no difference between "internal" and "external" taxes, and that any taxes imposed on the colonies by Parliament for the sake of raising revenue were unconstitutional. Dickinson warned colonists not to concede to the taxes just because the rates were low, since this would set a dangerous precedent. When the Porkulus bill was passed, did not American people also write letters, emails and blog about this bill? Again, is history repeating itself? Only now it isn’t just about taxes and large government programs, but as with the colonists of early America, it is about true representation.

Another tactic, though not very successful, that the colonist employed were boycotts. The merchants in the colonies, some of them smugglers, organized economic boycotts to put pressure on their British

counterparts to work for repeal of the Townshend Acts. Boston merchants organized the first non-importation agreement, which called for merchants to suspend importation of certain British goods effective 1 January 1769. Eventually, merchants in other northern colonial ports joined the boycott. Some of these included New York City and Philadelphia. Further south, in Virginia, the non-importation effort was organized by George Washington and George Mason. When the Virginia House of Burgesses passed a resolution stating that Parliament had no right to tax Virginians without their consent, needless to say this did not sit well with the governor, Lord Botetourt, who dissolved the Virginia assembly. The members of the House of Burgesses proceeded to continue and went on to meet at Raleigh Tavern and adopted a boycott agreement known as the "Association”. Unfortunately, the non-importation movement was not as effective as promoters had hoped. However, British exports to the colonies did declined by 38 per cent in 1769. The reason was that there were many merchants who did not participate in the boycott. The boycott movement began to fail by 1770, and finally came to an end in 1771. Unfortunately, we, the People, have no real way to boycott our current government, but a boycott of a sort is taking place against the “tentacles” of the government. Currently, good Americans are avoiding the pro Obama media, Government Motors, Chrysler, and some of the other organization that are in “bed” with the administration. But, just like in 1768 – 1769, not all Americans are participating. Of course, for America today, boycotts hurt more Americans then it really hurts the target.

While the boycotts were taking place, a board was seated by the British in Boston. The purpose was to concentrate on strictly enforcing the Acts. The Acts were so unpopular in Boston, that the board requested military assistance. Isn’t this what happened this past summer at the town hall meetings. When conservatives attended to express their views, weren’t SEIU, other unions and of course, ACORN called out to intimidate. Did not violence take place by the “paramilitary” that supports the administration? Is this one of the reasons Obama would want a national security force as he said in 2008, “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” Does he want to use this security force to ensure Americans “obey” his and congress’ edicts? After all, it can’t happen here; again or can it? In Boston, as the military began to take more control, tensions began to increase. Finally in February, 1770, a teenage boy, Christopher Seider was killed by a British customs employee and the violence escalated resulting in five colonists being killed on March 5, 1770, The Boston Massacre. Ironically, on the same day the Acts were partially repealed. So far, America has been fortunate. But, I wonder how long it will be till someone who supports the administration, listens to the constant rhetoric about how everyone who doesn’t support the administration is racists, rightwing extremists and the other remarks from the media, congress, etc. decides to take violent action. Does not Glenn, Rush and other talk show hosts constantly receive death threats? Is there not death threats directed at the above mentioned posted on the Left Blog sites? Do not certain members of congress and the administration fuel this, maybe not as outright comments, but subtly?

There was one part of the Acts that had not been repealed, the tax on tea. To add more burden to the colonists, Britain passed the Tea Act in 1773. The colonists responded to this act by “throwing” a party, the Boston Tea Party on the night of December 16, 1773. Is this not what happened earlier this year, when the congress continued to laws spending more tax money and putting America deeper in debt? Did not the American people stage Tea Party demonstrations? The British responded in later in 1774, by passing the Coercive Acts. Among the acts was one that shut down Boston's commerce until the British East India Company had been repaid for the destroyed tea. Instead, demanding any repayment, has our government continued to attempt to pass bills that the American people do not want, like Healthcare and Crap and Tax? The colonists responded to the Coercive Acts with additional acts of protest, and by eventually convening the First Continental Congress. This fist congress petitioned the British monarch for repeal of the acts and coordinated colonial resistance to them. Is this not what Americans are doing now, “petitioning” our “monarch” and his minions by emails, snail mails, phone calls and of course the continuation of our own version of the Tea Party. The crisis in the colonies escalated, and eventually set the stage for the American Revolution which began near Boston in 1775. It makes me wonder, where are the patriotism that Boston was known for back when an oppressive government was imposing taxes without representation.

Shouldn’t congress and the administration realize that thanks to the Constitution and the faith that the American people have in that great document that we maybe following the same path of our foundering fathers? Do we not have ample reasons? Shall remember Tarp? The Porkulus bill? How about Healthcare? How many Americans have “fought” to stop passage? Yet, like Parliament under the Monarch, congress continues to push to pass it. Are we heading for a second Revolution? Will it be peaceful? The election of 2010 will tell. If the Revolution does come, it will most likely be quiet, one side will choose the Constitution, the other side will be as the British in the 1760’s exerting their "power".

While CinC obama, continues to party, plays golf, flies around the country making speeches. Our fine military continues to fight and die. While obama and his minions spends hours trying to convience the world that Chicago deserves the olympics, he gives Gen. McChrystal 30 minutes. All the while, our fine military continue to die.
Now, we have Kerry, who serve in Vietnam, " Says It's Too Soon to Send More Troops to Afghanistan
In taped remarks to air Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union," Sen. John Kerry said it would be misguided to have a troop buildup to achieve a mission of "good governance" when the election is not yet finished.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/17/kerry-says-soon-send-tro...
Now, the great military leader, Rahm Emanuel says, "It would be reckless to make a decision on U.S. troop levels if in fact you haven't done a thorough analysis of whether in fact there's an Afghan partner ready to fill that space that U.S. troops would create and become a true partner in governing."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/18/decision-send-troops-rec...
I am not a general, I don't have access to all the documents that the regine does. I do have the common sense to know, that if our military is engaged in combat with an enemy of the U.S., who cares if their is a problem with the Afghan governmental elections. Let our military do their damn job. We have fought other wars where there was no "government", WW 2 comes to mind. That didn't seem to stop the U.S. from fighting and winning, but then again, we had a leader who cared about winning, not pushing a socialist agenda.
Obama, Kerry (who served in Vietnam), Emanuel, and the rest of the so called "public servants" continue to have your fun and games, enjoy your lives and party hearty. I have just one question for you. Do you recongize these names:
Styer, Brandon, Ochoa Jr., Alfonso, Cauley, George W., Taylor, Aaron J., Westbrook, Kenneth W., Hill, Kevin O., Hardt, Joshua M., Gallegos, Justin T., Mace, Stephen L., Martin, Vernon W., Griffin, Christopher T., Scusa, Michael P., Kirk, Joshua J., Thomson. Kevin C. Owens, Brandon A., Smith, Aaron M., Rabjohn, Thomas D., Sklaver, Benjamin A., Newton Jr., Alan H., Adams, Ryan C., Sanchez, Roberto D. Hercules Jr., Russell S., French IV, Alex, Shaw, Christopher D., Martin III, Jack M., Chrobot, Jordan L., Graham, Kevin J., Malone, John J., Reynolds, Titus R., Smith, Edward Bernard, White, Joseph V., Meredith, William L., Kowall, Corey J., Winkleman, Damon G., Davis, David A., Monroe, Jeremiah J., Gordon II, Robert D., Bohle, Bradley S., McCloskey, Shawn P., Mills, Joshua M., Void, Demetrius L., Wright II, David T., McConnell, Andrew H., Hornbarger, James R., Berky, Bryan D., Juden, Tyler A., Cox, Daniel L., Allen, Nekl B., Martinek, Matthew M., Fowlkes, Christopher S., Parten, Tyler E., Layton, James R., Johnson Jr., Edwin Wayne
Johnson, Michael E., Kenefick, Aaron M., Haney, Randy M., Murphrey, Michael C., Loney, Youvert, Meadows, Joshua S., Andrews, Darryn D., Baltazar Jr., Christopher S., Castiglione, Benjamin P., Rudzinski, Christopher M., Green, Anthony G., Staats, Chris N. plus 4 others who have yet to have their names released.
Yes, Obama, Kerry (who served in Vietnam), Emanuel, and the rest of the so called "public servants" while you do your Washington "two step" these fine members have died in Afghanistan since September 1st. Now look the families and the American people in the eyes and tell us why you are still "thinking" about what to do about the war and sending more troops.
God Bless them all and God Bless their famlies.
To the families this Old Marine has only two things to say, Thank you and Semper Fidelis

As the investigation of ACORN begins and the congressional leaders calling those who oppose his socialist programs racists. I wonder if they are setting the American people for chaos and the destruction of America. I feel that there is a larger plan at work. Is this plan being helped along by those in congress and others or are they unwitting pawns? I can’t really say. I do know that when you read this you’ll most likely believe that I have completely lost my mind. I assure you, I haven’t, it is just a “gut” feeling, and I do pray that I am wrong.

When Barack Hussein Obama II, appeared on the national scene he was little known, three term Illinois state senator. His prime-time televised keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July 2004, propelled him into the limelight and made him a rising star nationally in the Democratic Party. Later, in November, 2004 he was elected to the U.S. Senate by the largest margin in the history of Illinois. But, there are questions that need to be really asked. Where did this virtual unknown come from? Just how did he obtain the highest office in the land? Who is behind him? What is “his” plan for America?

The first question, where did he come from, has been asked and answered by “talking heads" on both sides of the aisle since Obama started running for the presidency. There is reason to rehash that history and those discussions. How did he obtain the office of the President? Well, the quick answer is he was elected by the people of the United States. Granted, this is true, but, there was a well organized and finically strong “machine” behind his campaign. This “machine” did not come partially to light until his internet “fund raising” efforts started breaking all records for campaign contributions. It was at this time he “decided” to break his promise and opt out of the public campaign funds. Again, this is history. But, yet where did these funds really come from? The initial answer is the every day American citizens, but as is slowly coming to light, there is a number of organizations involved, prime “suspects” are the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) and Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

Talk show hosts, Rush Limbraugh and Glenn Beck have both been on the ACORN and SEIU connections to Obama for many months. Lately, other talk show hosts have decided to jumped on the band wagon, particularly, in light of the recent tapes. In the light of these tapes, congress is going to finally (?) cut funding and investigate ACORN; however the history of ACORN’s fraud goes back further then this past election (a subject for another post). Glenn Beck, on a number of his shows has shown the various connections between ACORN/SEIU and various other extreme left organizations. During his many discussions he has mentioned one very powerful and rich person, George Soros. I am not going to go into Soros’s life here, instead I am going to address some of the organizations he has funded, the connection to Obama’s election and what maybe the craziest idea/plot, which has ever crossed a person’s mind.

George Soros’s main “contribution” to American society, if one wants to call it that, is his Open Society Institute (OSI) of which he is the founder and chairman. OSI was established in 1993, as a private operating and grant making foundation to support his foundations in Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Those foundations were established, starting in 1984, to help countries make the transition from communism. OSI has expanded the activities of the Soros foundations network to encompass the United States and more than 60 countries in Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Each Soros foundation relies on the expertise of boards composed of eminent citizens who determine individual agendas based on local priorities. OSI serves as the flagship of the network of Soros foundations that donate tens of millions of dollars each year to a wide array of individuals and organizations that share the founder's agendas. OSI claims to be "a nonpartisan, nonpolitical entity" whose funding agendas are "wholly separate" from "George Soros's private political activities," OSI describes itself as "a private operating and grant making foundation [that] "aims to shape public policy to promote democratic governance, human rights, and economic, legal, and social reform; … implements a range of initiatives to support the rule of law, education, public health, and independent media; [and] works to build alliances across borders and continents on issues such as combating corruption and rights abuses. Among these so called non-partisan organizations are The Tides Foundation, The Tides Center, ACORN, Center for American Progress (CAP), MoveOn.org, ACLU and indirectly with SEIU.

Now, a question arises, just why Soros would back a charismatic, unknown first term senator, who just happens to be black over a long time friend and ally, Hillary Clinton. The alliance with the Hillary goes back to July 7, 2003, the American Majority Institute was launched using funds from Soros and the OSI. Later, on September 1, 2003, the name was changed to Center for American Progress (CAP). CAP describes itself as a "a nonpartisan research and educational institute" aimed at "developing a long-term vision of a progressive America" and "providing a forum to generate new progressive ideas and policy proposals." It is in reality a left wing “think tank”. However, as an inside source confided to Christian Bourge of United Press International. "It's the official Hillary Clinton think tank," Robert Dreyfuss noted in The Nation, "In looking at Podesta's center, there's no escaping the imprint of the Clintons. It's not completely wrong to see it as a shadow government, a kind of Clinton White-House-in-exile -- or a White House staff in readiness for President Hillary Clinton” Later in May 3, 2004, CAP helped to launch David Brock's Media Matters for America - which claims to serve as a "watchdog" organization monitoring "rightwing" media for ethics and accuracy. According to The New York Times, Brock conferred with Hillary Clinton, Senator Tom Daschle, and former Vice President Al Gore about Media Matters before embarking on the project. "Mr. Brock's project was developed with help from the newly formed Center for American Progress," notes the Times, and John Podesta "introduced [Brock] to potential donors." Now, just why Soros would change from backing Hillary and throw it behind Obama? Was this a preplanned move, where Hillary and Soros realized that maybe the polarizing effect that Hillary had on some Americans would not ensure a victory? They needed someone else, maybe a person of color who would bring in a lot of the independents, just because of his race. This would also put another “weapon” in the arsenal for the battle to win the election. Now, just how could Soros finance the campaign of Obama? After all, when the McCain-Feingold Act of March 27, 2002, was enacted, this was to ostensibly reduce the influence of wealthy contributors to political candidates. However, the Democrats included in the legislation a tiny provision for so-called "527" organizations that would basically allow ultra-wealthy radicals such as George Soros to contribute unlimited sums of money to the parties and candidates of their choice. These contributions led to a coalition of a nationwide network of non-profit activist groups, whose agendas are ideologically to the left, which were and are still engaged in campaigning for the Democrats. Out of this coalition came the so called “Shadow Party” (SP).

The term "Shadow Party" or the "Shadow Democratic Party" derives from the fact that the network carries out campaign activities which the Democratic Party would normally perform itself. This so-called "Shadow Party," is a nationwide network of unions, non-profit activist groups (ACORN), and think tanks (CAP) whose agendas are ideologically to the left, which are engaged in campaigning for the Democrats. Its activities include fundraising, get-out-the-vote drives, political advertising, opposition research, and media manipulation. This coalition was conceived and organized principally by George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Harold McEwan Ickes -- all identified with the Democratic Party left. The “Shadow Party” has built a mighty coalition, marrying the youthful energy of the MTV generation with the ideological fervor of New Left activists who cut their political teeth in the battles of the 1960s with the ruthless tactics and financial power of New Labor, whose flagship unions - the SEIU and the AFSCME - have managed to thrive while other unions shrink, through the ingenious expedient of organizing workers in the fastest-growing sector of the U.S. economy: the government workforce. Many of the political strategists and operatives spearheading this government union movement are veterans of the New Left themselves.

As the Shadow Party gained the leverage with which to impose its radical agendas on the more moderate Democrat rank and file, some may ask, Why would the Democratic Party become ever-more dependent on the “Shadow Party” for its funding and foot-soldiers. The reason is the aforementioned campaign reform act, which banned “soft money” from political campaigns. This left the Democrats where they could no longer perform these fundraising activities effectively and could not legally raise enough money to undertake a national presidential campaign. So the “Shadow Party” undertook this task and now most Democrat campaigning is now done by the “Shadow Party”, which raises its own money independently. After the 2004 election when George Bush defeated John Kerry (who served in Vietnam). One of the leaders of these so called  "Shadow Party" organizations, MoveOn.org, jointly said of the Democratic Party following the election "Now it's our Party: we bought it, we own it.”

Again, the question remains of why the endorsement and the money were directed towards Obama? After all, with amount of money Soros and his organizations have dumped into the Democratic party, they could basically “call the shots”. Why Obama? There could be many reasons, from Obama’s charisma, to the basic beliefs in the socialist principles they both share. Or could it be that by running a black man for president, there is one advantage, which Hillary does not have, the race card.

Just about everyone knows of Obama’s charisma. How he can deliver a speech with the aid of a teleprompter. Some, including this writer has compared his speech delivery to that of Hitler, both could “cast a spell” over their audience. But, charisma alone can not propel a person to the presidency. So it has to be something else. Is it his beliefs, they closely mirror Soros’s and the OSI. Some of which are:

With a black man running as president, there was the opportunity to persuade a great number of white Americans to vote for Obama because of the so called “white guilt”. There was also the guarantee of the black vote, after all it has been shown that a lot of blacks voted for Obama based strictly on race, General Powell comes to mind. Then there is the all present “race card”. It was a silent weapon during both the primary against Hillary, however I feel she expected it and later during the campaign. McCain, though I feel ran a very weak campaign, stayed away from various subjects for fear of being called a racist. The subject of Rev. Wright, and of course Obama’s association with ACORN, a primarily black organization. While during the campaign Obama denied any current ties with ACORN. However as reported by Larry Johnson, who broke a story on October 14, 2007, about the Obama Campaign’s mysterious payment of more than $800,000 to Citizen Services Inc. The payments ostensibly were for “STAGING, SOUND, and LIGHTING.” A reporter for the Pittsburgh Tribune, David Brown, agreed to look into the matter and was told by the Obama campaign: U.S. Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign paid more than $800,000 to an offshoot of the liberal Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now for services the Democrat’s campaign says it mistakenly misrepresented in federal reports. An Obama spokesman said Federal Election Commission reports would be amended to show Citizens Services Inc. — a subsidiary of ACORN — worked in “get-out-the-vote” projects, instead of activities such as polling, advance work and staging major events as stated in FEC finance reports filed during the primary. But that is a lie. Citizen Services passed the money to ACORN. Mr. Johnson knew this because the head of Citizen Services told him so. Mr. Johnson reported in a previous report: “Thanks to the internet I finally tracked him down in Minnesota and gave him a call. Mr. Alabi answered the phone and I introduced myself using my real name. But I did tell a white lie–I said I got his name and number from Bob Shrum at the Democratic National Committee. He hesitated. When I repeated that I got his name and number from the DNC he brightened up and became quite chatty. Using the Obama FEC filing as my guide I told Mr. Alabi that I needed to hire Citizen Services to help my campaign with “Staging, Sound, and Lighting.” Without a moments hesitation Mr. Alabi told me, “we don’t do that.” He went on to identify ACORN as the organization that handles those matters and he told me to contact Marc Seiden (he gave me a cell phone number for Mr. Seiden, which is a District of Columbia cell phone).” (As I mentioned earlier, the subject of ACORN is for another post.) With this information being available, McCain did not use it, why, best guess, for fear of being called a racist. The threat of the race card loomed silently over the campaign, to only be brought to light ever so slightly.

I can only imagine the joy that was felt by The Shadow Party and various organizations when Obama was elected to the presidency. They knew that the social change for America could now begin. However, they underestimated the American people’s love of freedom. After the “Stimulus” Bill was passed, and the deficit started growing, the TEA movement began, like any great movement, slowly at first, then with the April 15^th rallies, the press took notice. The left began slowly at first, playing the race card. Some was saying that members of the TEA party movement were “Redneck racists”, protesting because there was a black man in the White House. The race card was continually played, with no respect that people just plain disagreed with the policies of the Democrats, it was because of Obama. When the HealthCare bill was proposed and the following TEA Parties and Town Hall meetings, the race card was played more and more by just about everyone on the left. Then, during Obama’s speech, when Rep. Wilson yelled out, “You lie”, the full force of the race card was put into play, just like the ace in the hole in a high stakes poker game. The cries of racism started coming from all sources on the left: from a former President to a respected actor. Charges of racism came from the Speaker of the House to news anchors. Add to this, the investigation of ACORN and the possible de-funding of the organization by the congress, the climate is rite for something to happen.

The Speaker of House recently held a press conference where she cried “crocodile tears” while talking about the violence in San Francisco during the 70’s. I recently heard, Michael Savage ask, “Does she know something.” Is there a plan in the works for violence? If there is, who will be blamed? Will it be those who are talking out against the various social programs, not because America doesn’t want them, but because they are racist? As the furor is being stirred up using the race card, is it possible that there is something lurking in the background. Just why would the left continue to provoke violence, is it because there are powerful forces in the background have plans to totally destroy America. What better way to destroy a country as great as America then to have us fighting among ourselves. White against Black, Conservatives against Liberals, sounds like a new Civil War. What if this, like all things, pass and the socialist agenda is slowed down or defeated? The seed has been sown, that the reason for the failure is that the majority of Americans are racists. IF the planned agenda can not be passed, will this make Obama expendable? What better way to throw a country into turmoil, then to disable or remove the leader. I realize that this sounds completely crazy, but then, what better way is there? It will automatically be assumed that it was someone on the conservative side, after the conservatives have been branded as racist, just because we do not agree with the President. Why couldn’t they “plant” various TEA party items? Who would believe it wasn’t someone from the TEA Party movement? Look at the controversy that still exists about the Kennedy or Martin Luther King’s assignation. Congress and others have all ready laid the ground work with their racist rhetoric. Even though the Constitution has the procedure for the orderly transfer of power, there will still be chaos, and possibility a civil/race war. Just how long would it take for group that had the resources to remove the President and place the blame on someone or some group to come in and, “bring” peace and re establish America in their image, not as the great country that most of us love, but as a socialist country ruled by an elite.

I pray that this NEVER happens. However, with the race card being constantly played it could. With thee constant drumbeat about racism from congress and others are they intentionally trying to provoke violence? Just because someone doesn’t agree with the President or congress actions, we are not racist and do not want something to happen to the President. IF violence does erupt and something happens to the President, Congress, the press and others do not need to yell for or hold investigations and hearings. All they will just need to do is to look in the nearest mirror. Or is the plan?

Dear Mr. President, Members of Congress and the American People:

Today is the 8th anniversary of the greatest lost of life on American soil since the Civil War. Today is a Day Of Remembrance, not a day of service. There will be tributes to those who have died on that sunny Tuesday morning, as there should be. These citizens died, not because they wore the uniform of our great country, but because they were citizens of the greatest country in the world. Something Mr. President, you, a number of the members of congress and some of the so called “Americans” have forgotten.

Mr. President, you have toured the world, claiming that America is arrogant, self centered, and as your wife has fondly said, “America is just downright mean.” There have been a number of great things this country has done for the world, yet in your mind and by your actions, you have not emphasized these great things. Well, Mr. President, I am not a professional writer. I am just an old Marine Vet, that defended this country because I believed (and still do) in the greatest of this country. I swore to defend the Constitution, something you seem to want to shed and disregard. Well, Mr. President, I would like to remind you of the greatness of America. In order to do this, I am going to use the words of Gordon Sinclair, a Canadian, who in 1973, expressed the greatest of America.

“The United States dollar took another pounding on German, French, and British exchanges
this morning, hitting the lowest point ever known in West Germany. It has declined there by
41% since 1971, and this Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as the
most generous, and possibly the least appreciated, people in all the earth.

As long as sixty years ago, when I first started to read newspapers, I read of floods on the
Yellow River and the Yangtze. Well who rushed in with men and money to help? The
Americans did, that's who.

They have helped control floods on the Nile, the Amazon, the Ganges, and the Niger. Today,
the rich bottom land of the Mississippi is under water and no foreign land has sent a dollar to
help. Germany, Japan, and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy, were lifted out of the debris
of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts.
None of those countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United
States.

When the franc was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up,
and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. And I was there I
saw that. When distant cities are hit by earthquake, it is the United States that hurries into
help, Managua, Nicaragua, is one of the most recent examples.

So far this spring, fifty nine American communities have been flattened by tornadoes. Nobody has helped.

The Marshall Plan, the Truman Policy, all pumped billions upon billions of dollars into
discouraged countries. And now, newspapers in those countries are writing about the
decadent, warmongering Americans.

Now, I'd like to see just one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United
States dollar build its own airplanes.

Come on now, you, let's hear it! Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal
the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tristar, or the Douglas 10? If so, why don't they fly
them? Why do all international lines except Russia fly American planes? Why does no other
land on earth even consider putting a man or a woman on the moon?
You talk about Japanese technocracy and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy
and you get automobiles. You talk about American technocracy and you find men on the
moon, not once, but several times, and, safely home again. You talk about scandals and the
Americans put theirs right in the store window for everyone to look at. Even the draft dodgers
are not pursued and hounded. They're right here on our streets in Toronto. Most of them,
unless they're breaking Canadian laws, are getting American dollars from Ma and Pa at home
to spend up here.

When the Americans get out of this bind as they will who could blame them if they said
"the hell with the rest of the world." Let somebody else buy the bonds. Let somebody else
build or repair foreign dams, or design foreign buildings that won't shake apart in
earthquakes." When the railways of France, and Germany, and India were breaking down
through age, it was the Americans who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the
New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both of 'em are still broke.

I can name to you 5,000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in
trouble. Can you name to me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in
trouble? I don't think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake.

Our neighbors have faced it alone, and I am one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing
them kicked around. They'll come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do,
they're entitled to thumb their noses at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles. I hope Canada is not one of these. But there are many smug, self righteous Canadians.

And finally, the American Red Cross was told at its 48th Annual meeting in New Orleans this
morning that it was broke. This year's disasters with the year less than half over has taken it all. And nobody, but nobody, has helped.”

Yes Mr. President, whether you like or not, agree with it or not, America is a great and generous country and through you may try to destroy it with your socialist agenda, we Americans will not forget. Through you may try to make 9-11, “a day of service” , We, THE PEOPLE, will always remember that America was attacked and 3000 people were murdered, not died, but were MURDERED for nothing more then being hard working Americans.

God Bless Those who lost their lives and their famlies on September 11, 2001

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:

Like every other American citizen, I have been following the feeding frenzy over the payment of your bonuses. It seems that’s all we have heard for the past week. Frankly, I am fed up with propaganda being spread by the media, congress and Dear Leader Obama. It is not my place or theirs to judge whether you earned or are entitled to the money that’s between God, your employer and yourself.

Having listened to the COA crap coming out of the current Reichstag, I can only say one thing, someone, please stand up and fight. The Reichstag has shredded the Constitution and turned this into a witch hunt, no different then the McCarthy hearings of the 1950’s or the anti-Jewish regulations that were drawn up by a Nazi bureaucracy in the early years of the Third Reich. The only purpose in what they have done is to demonize business and COA their rush to push an agenda through congress. An agenda designed for one purpose, to destroy the American way of life.

I would like to see someone stand up to these sanctimonious, greedy sacred cows that we call congress. Most of which couldn’t operate, let alone manage a lemonade stand and that includes Hussin Obama. They are good for spreading lies, name calling and spreading the class warfare. Just like in the Third Reich did with the Jews. Remember, “Those who do not remember history tend to repeat it.”

Describing the Nuremberg Laws “In the Reich's early years, anti-Jewish regulations were drawn up by a Nazi bureaucracy that included both radical and moderate anti-Semites. None of the bureaucrats had any moral qualms about being anti-Semitic. However, the moderates were concerned with foreign reaction and the possible disruptive impact of anti-Jewish prohibitions on Germany's still-fragile economy.”Copyright © 2001 The History Place™ http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/triumph/tr-nurem-laws.htm

Let us bring it up to date; what congress and the administration have done is…. “In the early days, anti-business regulations were drawn up by a congress that included both radical and moderate business people. None of the members of congress had any moral qualms about being anti-business. However, the moderates were concerned with the citizens’ reaction and the possible disruptive impact of anti-business regulations on America’s fragile economy.”

“Although Jews made-up less than one percent of Germany's overall population of 55 million, Hitler considered them by nature to be the "mortal enemy" of the German people. But within Hitler's bureaucracy, radical and moderate anti-Semites strongly disagreed as to what legal (or illegal) actions should actually be taken against the Jews. This bureaucratic in-fighting resulted in complete stagnation concerning the development of a coordinated Reich policy of anti-Semitism.

Local Brownshirts, upset by the bureaucratic bungling, often took out their frustrations on local Jews in their neighborhoods, and by mid-1935 there had been dramatic rise in the number of street incidents.” Copyright © 2001 The History Place™ http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/triumph/tr-nurem-laws.htm

Is this not what is going on in the congress and America……Although high paid business executives make-up less than five percent of America’s overall population. Congress and the administration considered them by nature to be the "mortal enemy" of the American people. But within Obama and congress’ bureaucracy, radical and moderate anti-business strongly disagreed as to what legal (or illegal) actions should actually be taken against “big business". This bureaucratic in-fighting hopefully may result in complete stagnation concerning the development of a coordinated government anti-business policy.

Although this is written for the employees of AIG, I feel the citizens of America should wake up and what is happening to our country. This could happen to any group; churches, talk show hosts, or actually any citizen that might earn more than the Reichstag thinks they should. Someone has to stand up to congress and the administration and bring them under control. After all they work for us. I didn’t vote to give them raises or special bonuses, yet they get them and have the nerve to misuse the power that we give them to target a select group, just because they rushed to pass a bill without reading it. To congress, I and the rest of America are your employers and to quote the Donald, “You’re Fired.” Please don’t ask for a reference.