Has the NRA been co-opted by the Left?

In the past year we have witnessed the AARP selling out its membership (presumably for favors yet unknown) to very actively support Obamacare. We have also witnessed the same dynamic with the AMA selling out physicians, and big Pharma selling out its stockholders, both also enlisted as useful idiots promoting the cause of socializing medicine.

In recent weeks we have been discovering that the NRA has likewise been engaging in activities that are, shall we say, “counterintuitive” considering its stated mission and past conduct.

It is by no means fanciful to suppose that after the defeat of “HillaryCare” at the hands of “Harry and Louise” advertising by various trade and professional groups, that in an “after action” analysis and strategy meetings the collectivists concluded that in the next go-round they would need to co-opt such groups.

Knowing what we know now, it is also not particularly fanciful to consider that the Alinskyite “the ends justify the means” administration from Chicago, backed by George Soros’ and Peter Lewis’ billions, may have employed anything from blackmail (perhaps using Hillary’s stash of FBI files collected at the beginning of the Clinton administration, plus whatever they may have access to now that they hold the reins of power), to cash bribes, to the kind of political threats and strong-arming that we was employed against secured creditors so that Obama could confiscate their assets and hand them over to the UAW.Oh, and let us not forget the BP shakedown.

If this is the case with the NRA, we must also be vigilant as to what other groups on “our side” have been co-opted and are selling us out behind closed doors.

Even if this is not occurring, the fact that distrust is being sown amongst us itself would seem to be right out the Alinsky playbook that Barack Hussein Obama has made his life’s work.

ECONOMIC TOTALITARIANISM IS COMING

THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists banks,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a banker.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews auto industry,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t an automaker.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists healthcare,
and I didn’t speak up because I didn’t work in healthcare.

THEN THEY CAME for me my retirement assets,
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

There are an increasing number of warnings coming regarding a government confiscation of 401k plan assets, e.g., see here

http://laborunionreport.blogspot.com/2010/05/your-retirement-nationalization-update.html

and here

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=36823&s=rcmp

Of course may will dismiss that as “it could never happen here.” Oh really? Two years ago who would have believed that the government would control our major banks, two major automakers, student loans and the entire health care system.

Does anyone really still believe that the Obamafisti respect personal property rights?

Economic totalitarianism is coming from Dear Leader Obama and his minions in the Reidstag and Pelositburo.

And after that?

“The fascist bargain goes something like this. The state says to the industrialist, ‘You may stay in business and own your factories. In the spirit of cooperation and unity, we will even guarantee you profits and a lack of serious competition. In exchange, we expect you to agree with — and help implement — our political agenda.’” — Jonah Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism”

Michael Barone has written an intriguing piece describing “Gangster Government” under the Obama regime: http://article.nationalreview.com/432195/gangster-government-becomes-a-long-running-series/michael-barone

Consider that “Fascist Government” may be a better description of the ultimate end game that is being played here.

In just over a year we’ve had UAW-auto manufacturer bailouts, bank bailouts / TARP, and takeovers of healthcare and student loans. With the exception of student loans, there was not a formal nationalization of the targeted industries — but arguably the accomplishment of de facto nationalization.

There’s the old saying that “he who holds the gold is king.” Does not a government lender “hold the gold?” Particularly when that government is outspoken in its intention to enact regulatory and/or statutory as necessary to exert “influence” (if not control) … particularly if the company or industry is recalcitrant.

After all, do we not now have “pay Czars” and “manufacturing Czars?”

As Jonah Goldberg’s book well described, this was the fascist model, particularly in Mussolini’s Italy (today “fascism” is erroneously associated with Nazis and concentration camps, but these were not part of fascist political / economic theory or practice).

In this respect fascism – “crony capitalism” on steroids — is devilishly more clever than communism, even thought the result is the same – government control of the means of production (and in today’s economy means of providing services). The façade of capitalism remains, thus lulling into complacency those who would oppose open communism (or the attempted imposition of it).

Yet while private “owners” will continue to put their own capital at risk (except perhaps to the extent eligible for bailout), government — with a cocktail of regulations, executive compensation limits, and progressive taxation — will control those day-to-day and strategic management matters which it wishes to control, and the net profitability via progressive taxation and fees and fines.

Lenin observed that the capitalists will sell to the communists the rope with which the communists will eventually hang the capitalists. In a figurative sense Barack Obama and his minions may well have taken that to heart: preliminarily to the push for the de facto nationalization of healthcare they’d bought-off and lined-up the presumptive opposition of AARP, health insurers (at least initially), “Big Pharma” and the AMA. The Barone article posits that Wall Street is actually behind the current push for the de facto nationalization of finance, presumably those folks, in return for short-term gain, have been “approached” and “persuaded.”

Many have awoken and begun calling Barack Hussein Obama a socialist — perhaps “fascist” would be a better description of him and his agenda.

Obamacare, Constitutional challenges and the “Mother Of All Tax Increases”

Now that we’ve had the Democrat Congressional cram-down of Obamacare, and the constitutional challenges to same are heading for bat, a major point seems to have been lost by our side (and deliberately ignored by the Democrats). More on that in a moment.

Frequently cited as Constitutional justifications for the Obamacare are Congress’ authority under the “Commerce Clause” and it’s Constitutional taxing authority. Students of history know that FDR and his fellow “progressives” used threats of packing the U.S. Supreme Court to “persuade it” to embrace a tortured reading of the Commerce Clause, which in turn enabled the federal government to massively expand in size and scope, such that today’s application of the Commerce Clause would be incomprehensible to the Founding Fathers (as would the size, scope and intrusiveness of the federal government).

As to the taxing authority, it seems clear (based on comments by Democrat-Statist sympathizers) that Constitutional taxing authority will be at least one pillar of the government’s defense of Obamacare. That the IRS is invoked as an (if not the) enforcement agency or the “individual mandate” certainly lends credence to the supposition that Obamacare is premised (at least in part) on the federal government’s taxing authority.

But then it must follow that the payment of all “health-care premiums” by employers and individuals is now a form of a tax payment.

In turn then, is not the enactment Obamacare probably the largest tax increase ever enacted?

After all, the statists can’t have it both ways. If their Constitutional/legal authority to force people to procure health insurance is, in whole or in part, derivative of Constitutional taxing authority, then the revenues involved are taxes — that they are not sent directly to the IRS but instead to “approved” health plans is mere technicality and pretense.

The Democrat-statists worked diligently to mask the “official cost” of Obamacare, first by structuring the legislation to procure (a universally recognized as fallacious) CBO blessing of federal deficit neutrality, while ignoring the unified government deficit caused by Medicaid expansion and state tax revenue that would be required to fund same.

So it should not surprise us that they (and their sycophants in the dinosaur media) will try to finesse and spin the fact that Obamacare is probably by far the biggest tax increase ever imposed upon the American people, not just in peacetime but at any time in our history. But let’s face it, if the government compels you to spend money that you’ve earned as directed by the government, are you not just as deprived of the beneficial use of the earned income just as much as if it’s withheld from your paycheck and sent to the IRS?

If it walks like a tax increase, and quacks like a tax increase …

Early in the regime of Barack Hussein Obama those attentive to current events were witness to event’s that “transformed” two of the pillars of our economic system — the rule of law and sanctity of contract — to something more resembling a Banana Republic. That event was the bailout of the United Auto Workers, financed in part by the taxpayers (disturbing enough in and of itself), but also by a politically strong-armed bankruptcy “haircut” of the secured bondholders in favor of the unsecured UAW. (This writer does not know if a “haircut” of the stockholders also occurred – there may not have been sufficient assets — though if it did not occur it seems indisputable that the Obama administration would have done so without compunction should such assets have been available.)

More recently we’ve witnessed Congressman Henry Waxman initiate a star chamber proceeding against companies demonstrating the impudence of complying with SEC requirements and reporting the negative financial impact of Obamacare. In other words, giving companies the Hobson’s Choice of either complying with black-letter statutory law, or aiding and abetting the propaganda line of the current regime, one whose own numbers were deliberately engineered to mislead the public via rejiggering legislation to procure what most recognize as being fictional numbers, albeit fiction engineered to be blessed by the CBO.

Anyone who invests is aware of Form 10K, required by the SEC, which is the “true” annual report for companies, i.e, sans the glossy marketing of the non-SEC annual report. Within a 10K is a section dealing with “risk factors” that is intended to alert potential investors to factors which could materially and adversely affect their investment. Here’s a sample from a randomly selected 10K (this is only a partial excerpt):

There are a number of business risks and uncertainties that have affected and may continue to affect our business. These risks and uncertainties have negatively impacted our current results and could cause our future results to differ from past performance or expected results, including results described in statements elsewhere in this Report that constitute “forward-looking statements” under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The effect on us of certain of these risk factors is discussed below under Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.” Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us, or that we currently believe to be immaterial, also may adversely impact our business, financial condition and results of operations. These risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, the following, which we consider to be most relevant to our specific business activities …

“… Our international business faces risks associated with changes in political, monetary, economic and social environments, labor conditions and practices, the laws, regulations and policies of foreign governments, cultural differences and differences in enforcement of contract and intellectual property rights. U.S. laws affecting activities of U.S. companies doing business abroad, including tax laws and laws regulating various business practices, also impact our international business.

Now given the very real political risk factor of the current administration strong-arming creditors and investors to sacrifice some or all of their investment to a politically favored labor union, should it not now be the expectation that publicly traded companies (who have a union on the premises) to disclose and discuss this political-union risk?

And if they don’t do so, and the Obama administration pulls “another UAW” at their company, would not the creditors/investors perhaps entitled to sue management (perhaps on a class-action basis) for failure to disclose / discuss this new political-union risk?

Conversely, if they do so disclose, will they then be subjected to another Henry Waxman Star chamber for their impudence and telling the truth?

In any case, faced with this dilemma, is this not all yet another incentive that the Obama administration is giving companies to invest almost anywhere but in the United States of America?

Finally, assuming that Barack Hussein Obama and his economic and political advisers are not entirely ignorant regarding “Econ 101,” then do the sum of their economic actions betray a deliberate intent to remove America as the world’s leading economic power and most prosperous nation?

Dear Mr. Census: Aren’t we all African-Americans?

Moments ago, while looking at (though not yet completing) the 2010 U.S. Census form, I noticed that Question Six states: “What is this person’s race? Mark ‘x’ one or more boxes.”

I know that some in the scientific community consider that race is a social construct, not a scientific or biological distinction. In any case, the first option on Question 6 is “White” and the second option is “Black, African-Am., or Negro.”

As far as I know, even under a social construct (much less as a scientific category), neither “White” or “Black” are “races.” So apparently Question 6 is not really inquiring about race, but political constructs or self-identification.

It further occurs to me that since there is a scientific consensus that Homo sapiens originated in Africa, aren’t we all “African-Americans?”

So then if everyone marked this accurate response, we’d all be entitled to affirmative action and other government preferences. What’s not to like?

Finally, since the Census form provides the option of checking-off more than one box, and there is a box marked: “Some other race — Print race” it may also behoove me, in the interest of acting in good faith to fulfill my responsibilities as a citizen and provide the most accurate responses of which I am capable, to also check that off and then fill in “Native American.” After all, I was born here!

Down with Vichy Republican collaborators! Vive la Republican Résistance!

By: Ragin’ Patriot

So-called “moderate Republicans” tell us that the Republican Party must be pragmatic in a United States of changing demographics and “beyond the point of no return” advance of progressive’s social welfare programs … and so accede to creeping collectivism, our goal merely to buffer its excesses. These “voices of moderation” echo their Vichy predecessors in Nazi-occupied France, preaching acquiescence in the face of what they have resigned themselves to being the overwhelmingly inevitable.  Just as the freedom fighters of the French Resistance refused to heed that siren call of subservience, so to must today’s conservatives.

9/11 signified America’s belated recognition that Islamic terrorism is not a mere criminal or police matter, and begat the “War on Terror.”  Similarly, the election of Barack Obama is the catalyst for recognizing that “moderate Republicans” can no longer be considered a mere faction within a GOP “big tent”  — as will be seen, we can no longer afford the luxury of permitting “moderates” to exercise influence within the GOP, much less steer it.

There is no need here to repeat a “bill of particulars” to indict Barack Obama as a closeted collectivist — it is academic to debate whether he most closely adheres to the communist, socialist or fascist varieties of collectivism — intent on transforming the United States into a political and economic entity that would be unrecognizable to the Founding Fathers (indeed unrecognizable to anyone with even a cursory understanding of the text and spirit of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America).  The subterfuge underlying “Hope” and “Change” was clear to those who (unlike the “mainstream media”) gave more than a cursory glance to his background before the election, and with each passing day is becoming clear to more and more of our fellow Americans.  Obama is the culmination of a forty-plus year effort involving the Democratic Party; he became the chosen one to lead the final push completing the transformation of the United States to a European Democratic-Socialism model (the Constitution be damned).  Hence the “Obamessiah” phenomenon amongst “progressives,” for in their religion Marx is God, Woodrow Wilson and FDR patron saints, and Obama the Second Coming to bring heaven on earth after the Armageddon of U.S. dominance in the world.

The Democratic Party of today has metastasized into a party that would be unrecognizable by a Truman or JFK-era Democrat. The radicals of the 1960s have succeeded in taking over the party from the inside and, greased with the money of radical labor unions like SEIU, George Soros and others, have spawned radical groups such as ACORN and MoveOn.  Aided and abetted by the mislabeled “mainstream media,” this axis of collectivism is now rather openly completing the march that it surreptitiously began in the 1960’s – one commenced by working to erode the foundational principles and culture of the United States (invoking the tactics of Marxist theoretician Antonio Gramsci).

From upending the social fabric of America through corrosive mechanisms like eliminating the stigma of out of wedlock births, promoting homosexual marriage and “politically correctifying” our history to make us the bad guys, err, persons … to using government to create and perpetuate dependency, incrementally socialize medicine (Medicaid / SCHIP / Medicare and now Obamacare) … to using the tax code to punish success and make it ever more difficult for the middle class to sustain itself, much less enjoy the quintessential American dream of upward mobility.  They are aggressors who have commenced an undeclared but very real war upon our nation’s founding political structure, free-market capitalism and Western civilization’s Judeo-Christian social fabric.

Consider: would even the most liberal Democrat of the JFK era (much less the Truman or Roosevelt era), when told that within their lifetime their party’s position would be to condone widespread illegitimate birth, and an unwritten edict that one cannot question or criticize the mother for her irresponsibility (now considered acceptable) have agreed – or would they have laughed and said such a thing is unthinkable?

Would even the most liberal Democrat of the JFK era (much less the Truman or Roosevelt era), when told within their lifetime their party’s position would be to condone homosexual marriage have agreed – or would they have laughed and said such a thing is unthinkable?

Would even the most liberal Democrat of the JFK era (much less the Truman or Roosevelt era), when told that within their lifetime their party’s position would be to condone a refusal to secure our borders from an influx of millions of illegal migrants from Central America – coming here for the express purpose of birthing anchor babies and anchoring themselves onto the American welfare system have agreed – or would they have laughed and said such a thing is unthinkable?

Would even the most liberal Democrat of the JFK era (much less the Truman or Roosevelt era), when told that within their lifetime their party’s position would be to condone granting those illegal aliens amnesty and inviting them to legally bring their family members to America to latch onto our welfare system have agreed – or would they have laughed and said such a thing is unthinkable?

Would even the most liberal Democrat of the JFK era (much less the Truman or Roosevelt era), when told that within their lifetime their party’s position would be to condone not just abortion, but partial birth abortion have agreed – or would they have laughed and said such a thing is unthinkable?

You know the answer.

Regarding social issues, Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan spoke disapprovingly of “defining deviancy down” — his Democratic successors not only approve of this in the social realm, they actively embrace it as a weapon to be deployed socially, politically and economically.

Republican “moderates” — puppeting modern Democrat lines intended to frame the debate — assert that the GOP has shifted to the right, and too far.  Not at all!  The positions we support draw their genealogy from 1776, and the family resemblance is unmistakable.  However, as the foregoing examples show, it is the Democrat Party that has shifted radically left.

In recent decades the GOP has “succeeded” with flawed short-term tactics, such as tax rate cuts portrayed as tax cuts, but really aren’t  – since over time taxes are the reciprocal of federal budgets, the GOP presiding over an ever-expanding federal government has meant that it has actually presided over commensurate tax increases.

Meanwhile the Left has been succeeding at the strategic level — both by playing “Br’er Rabbit” to the GOP’s flawed tactics (“oh please don’t enact those ‘tax cuts for the rich’”) — while continuously eroding the foundations of American society and its Constitution — unarticulated to the public, and slowly so as not to be noticed, but very deliberately.  The modern Democratic Party was the stealth bomber of socialism, pounding away at what were generally accepted societal norms, and now its ACORN and SEIU infantry seeks to cement its final victory.

To the extent that there are “moderates” left within the Democratic Party, they are at the margins and exercise zero influence. If we who love America and what it stands for are to successfully defend against, and ultimately defeat this aggression by the radical left, we can afford no less within the GOP. The Republican Party must be a cohesive, determined and unapologetic force for what is right … for the RIGHT.  We did not start this aggression; we did not ask for it.  But we must confront it.  Not accept it.  Not appease it. Not collaborate with it. But DEFEAT it — totally and unconditionally.

The moderates’ “pragmatism” is American retreat. While occasional “tactical retreat” may be necessary, theirs is preemptive, unilateral and permanent retreat.  We are deploying politicians who view everything as a political matter (i.e., “how do we market the GOP to get enough votes to stay in office?”) against committed ideologues that are out to fundamentally change the United States, performing a revolution against the Constitution of the United States in all senses except a public declaration.

When faced with aggressors, one must oppose, not ignore – for to not oppose aggression is to de facto support it.  The “moderates” would have us ignore the aggressions of agendas not hypothesized, but zealously pursued by the Left with the intent to impose them: abortion, homosexual marriage; the hollowing out of Second Amendment rights; amnesty for illegal aliens and “family reunification” opening the floodgates to tens of millions of new welfare recipients being examples of critical issues in which the “moderates” preach preemptive surrender. For the most part these are either/or issues — one must be for or against, there is no middle ground – for the Left won’t “moderate” (does anyone believe that the Left will be satisfied with “civil unions,” or “paths to citizenship” without “family reunification”)?  There is no middle ground on abortion – the baby is killed or it isn’t.

Yet the “moderates” and “big tenters” would have us unilaterally and preemptively surrender the field without a fight.  For example, a majority of Americans want secured borders and traditional marriage.  So the Left’s agenda is in opposition to most voters. Yet the “moderates” want us to avoid those issues, lest we offend certain demographics, even as the Left continues its march to impose those minority positions – in which it will succeed if unopposed. At the same time, regarding issues in which polling indicates we might currently be “in the minority,” the “moderate Republicans” will cite this as why we must “soften” and “broaden” our approach.  So when the majority agrees with us we should shut up, and when it doesn’t we should climb aboard the Leftist train.  Huh?  What’s wrong with this picture?

So rather than being confident in the superiority of our positions, and having the confidence that the American people will embrace our positions once we expound them, the “moderates” would have us seek a non-existent middle ground, thus adopting by default the Left’s positions and paving the way for the full implementation of their entire agenda. If as to those positions we don’t actively oppose while they actively pursue – they will win and impose, and in full. So it is a fair question to ask of the moderates and big-tenters: “whose side are you really on?”

The French Resistance, facing the overwhelming military might of the Wehrmacht, but confident in the righteousness of its cause, did not take the “pragmatic” approach of appeasement, much less collaboration, but instead continued the fight. This set them apart from their fellow French who collaborated with the Nazis – the Vichy. One imagines that the “pragmatic” arguments made by the Vichy echoed in today’s “big tent” “Republicans” – “well, everything’s going the Nazi’s way, so we need to be reasonable, and we Vichy are the lesser of two evils.”

Even if ultimate victory is uncertain, even unlikely, is it not better to go down fighting in the cause of righteousness than to submit to subservience to government?  Collectivism is soft tyranny – are we not to fight it rather than listen to the “pragmatic” moderates who want to bow and make peace with subservience? Can we, facing an “army” of politicians, academics, airhead media talking heads and “community organizers” do no less than the French Resistance?  Is not the courage they displayed a characteristic shared by true Americans? Are we to shrink from confrontation with the likes of William Ayers, ACORN, media and entertainment airheads, ivory tower academics, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Hussein Obama?  If the French Resistance would take on the Wehrmacht and the Gestapo, are we to shrink from taking on the Democratic Party and the Ostapo?

Our cause is righteous, and like the French Resistance, we have allies too: Western civilization; the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States; the sometimes hibernating but (as the post-911 reaction showed) still vibrant spirit of patriotism among a large swath of our citizens (particularly those who attended pubic schools before the advent of the 1960’s teacher unionization and accompanying leftist indoctrination) and plain old “common sense” that has not yet been snuffed out. Oh, and let us not forget the economic and spiritual misery that history has repeatedly shown inevitably follows the implementation of collectivist policies – creating fertile ground and future receptivity to our message of real hope, not the focused-grouped “HOPE” intended to Trojan horse the Democrat’s collectivist agenda.

We must be unapologetic conservatives proudly enunciating our continued fidelity to our Judeo-Christian heritage and the timeless gift bequeathed to us by the Founding Fathers, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America – both to their letter and spirit.  One of the primary battlegrounds is that of the conventional wisdom, the accepted societal mores — and a large part of the weaponry involves language.  In true military fashion they have deployed camouflaged language. We must not adopt their camouflage and play by their rules; we must not let them succeed in their masquerades:

We must confront them regarding infanticide/abortion, masquerading as “choice.”

We must confront them regarding the mass migration of foreign nationals, entering and occupying this country illegally in order to “anchor” themselves to the American welfare system, masquerading as “undocumented.”

We must confront them regarding homosexual marriage, with its erosion of the foundational unit of human civilization, and thus its attack upon it, masquerading as “civil rights.”

We must confront them regarding the infringement of Second Amendment rights, masquerading as “common sense gun control.”

There are some who believe that time, and demographics, and a losing (if not lost) cultural war mean that we must “moderate” the GOP in order to “appeal” to the middle.  Hence comments such as “conservatives can’t win in New England, so we have to embrace ‘moderates.’” This is the voice of career politicians, reflexively loathe to take firm stands on anything, as their rubber-spined sense of survival means that they gravitate not toward leadership but its opposite – pandering to every possible voter by gyrating to offend none. This is the way of Vichy Republicans.

Vichy Republicans advocate that the GOP should be “sanitized” to appeal to moderate sensibilities – or that a GOP marketed solely upon “fiscal responsibility” will appease conservatives (who, like Blacks to the Democrat Party, are deemed a necessary nuisance to be paid lip service to keep their votes, but otherwise marginalized) – and that in the end we conservatives will rally around the Republican Party for we will have no other alternative.

NO!

We should not dilute our core values, much less abandon them, by supporting “moderates” because we have “no other alternative” or that they are “the lesser of two evils.”  Rather, the “moderates” who, e.g., are fiscal conservatives but are not social conservatives should have to hold their collective noses and still rally around the GOP because the Democrats present them with no alternative.

Nor should we heed the self-serving entreaties of “moderates” and “big-tenters” telling us we must support them out of party loyalty.  One suspects that the French Resistance took any number of Vichy around the back of buildings and gave them the same treatment they gave Nazi soldiers, notwithstanding the fact that the Vichy were fellow Frenchmen.  We should perform the political equivalent to collaborators with the radical Democrat agenda, and put the exercise of principles above the adoption of labels.  When moderates are running as “Republicans” we should sit on our hands – don’t contribute money, don’t volunteer for their campaigns, and don’t vote for them (not refrain from voting overall, just “sit out” any race in which a “moderate Republican” is the candidate). We should only support true Republicans – conservatives – in primaries and in general elections.  To do otherwise is to become collaborators ourselves, differentiated only by degree.

It is not disloyal to the GOP to refrain from supporting those who are disloyal to conservative principles, for conservative principles are Republican principles.  The moderates are the ones who are disloyal Republicans – disloyalty to the disloyal constitutes loyalty to the GOP.  Given the modern, radical Democratic Party, disloyalty to those who would appease or collaborate with them is loyalty to the United States of America.

For centuries our fellow citizens have put on the uniform, sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, and come home wounded, maimed, or as a corpse.  Compared to that bravery and sacrifice, as we confront a danger internal, shall we shrink from confronting the aggressors on the political battlefield?  Shall we hold our tongues?  If we do, then not only do we grievously dishonor those who went before us, but don’t we also deserve to lose our country – this incalculable gift that was bequeathed us?

We must seek quick victory if possible to restore America.  But if quick victory is not possible, then at least halting their march to collectivism, and then incrementally eroding what they’ve erected, just as they have been doing to our country for oh these several decades now.

Down with the Vichy Republican collaborators!

Vive la Republican Résistance!

]]> http://www.redstate.com/raginpatriot/2010/03/28/down-with-vichy-republican-collaborators-vive-la-republican-resistance/