THE AMERICAN TRADITION

"DEMS FEAR VIOLENT BACKLASH," shouts today's Drudge Report headline. As though, somehow, that should be a surprise or even news-worthy.

I heard one of the more civilized conservative talk show commentators say yesterday that Americans don't get violent, they go to the ballot box.

I wonder if he forgot how this country was wrested away from a tyrannical government in the first place? True, back then there was no ballot box. But look what it's done to us lately. And what is the recourse? To shrug it off and condemn generations of our descendants to fiscal servitude - servitude to an overlord government, that rules instead of carrying out the duties the citizens assign it?

Isn't a tyrannical government one that governs without or against the consent of the people? And didn't this government recently ram multi-trillion dollar spending down our throats despite the sure knowledge that the overwhelming majority of us did NOT want them to do that? And aren't they promising to do the same again, on other issues?

"DEMS FEAR VIOLENT BACKLASH." I wonder if they think they're exempt from suffering the consequences of their actions.

Let the Ostrich Killer make it crystal clear: in no way do I condone violence (other, maybe, than a quick trip out behind the barn with an offending legislator and a belt) to solve the problem of a runaway congress and executive branch. But that doesn't mean I don't completely understand it.

It should be no surprise. Screw with the people enough, they will screw right back. That's in the American tradition.

THE WAR ON PERSONAL MOBILITY

Your government is doing all it can to restrict your ability to move anonymously around the country. Here's how:

1. Traffic Cams. They're everywhere. Ten years ago the average citizen was photographed / taped 18 times a day as they carried out their normal daily routines. Today most of these cameras are linked to servers, so they can be viewed by interested parties in near real time. So the capability to monitor your every movement exists. Doesn't that make you feel warm and fuzzy?

2. Transmitters and receivers embedded in your new cars, probably to be followed soon by mandated retrofits for older vehicles. You've seen that commercial where OnStar is used to slow a stolen vehicle so that police could capture it? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that police might not be the only ones interested in that capability, under certain circumstances.

3. Legislation whose hidden agenda is to drive the cost of oil so high that few will be able to fill their fuel tanks.

4. RFID tags on your car, which today you pay for if you want to use certain bridges or traffic lanes, but tomorrow (? or sooner?) may be factory-installed and hidden and used to track your movements. Maybe in that 'black box' that some in congress keep talking about adding to all new cars.

What would be the motive for this war on mobility? The government is getting increasingly nervous about the citizens of this country getting fed up and doing something decisive about them. The citizenry needs to be controlled, many of our elected officials might think. Limit their mobility. Threaten them with less than optimum health care if we say or do anything they don't like. Find ways to abridge the first and second amendment rights of all citizens. A citizenry that must depend on government-provided transport (buses, ferries, light rail, trains, air) and government-provided health care is a citizenry that can be controlled - especially if that same citizenry is given a check every month, that might go away if they misbehave.

The war on mobility is part of the greater effort to 'harness' (euphemism for subjugate and enslave) the citizenry. Oh, and just because I might be paranoid doesn't mean I'm not right about this. Pay attention to the news and see if you don't eventually come to the same conclusion.

THE GIMME SOCIETY

I'm sitting here listening to Walter Williams (one of the clearest thinkers I've ever had the pleasure to hear) on the radio. Here's what he had to say about so-called entitlements - you understand that an entitlement is money that government takes from someone who earned it and gives to someone who didn't, right? - and what they really are.

Here's his example: I'm walking down the street. There's an old woman there, shivering on a grate in the dead of winter in New York. She asks me for some money so she can pay for a room and a hot meal and a visit to a doctor. I don't have any money, but I do have my handy pistol. So I pull the pistol and accost a passerby and tell him to give me $200 so I can give it to the woman, who obviously needs it more than the passerby does.

Walter Williams asks: is this moral? Or is it theft? And how is this different from the government taking money from one person and giving it to another? - - oh. The gun, right? Wrong. Refuse to pay, and armed cops will come for you. Resist them and they'll cuff you and take you to jail. Resist that, and they'll shoot you. So how is it different?

One is against the law, and the other is legal.

Oh, you say. Of course. But that begs the question: what is moral about theft, be it legal or not?

Taking a person's property against their will and giving it to another is immoral. You can make any argument you like about it, but in the end it is really simple theft, no matter the misguided good intentions. Because, you see, the luxury of this sort of good intention comes at the expense of others. It's easy to say that someone else should pay to help the unfortunates or worthless (Yes, there ARE worthless people) in our society. But if a person wants to test the value of their good intentions, let them see if they're willing to surrender their own property to someone else. The answer will nearly always be something like "If we all do it together, it'll cost each of us just a little . . ." In short, they want to keep their own property and pull a gun on the rest of us. They, and the other brain-dead hand wringer bleeding hearts among us, are no better than ordinary muggers.

I quoted somewhere in past blogs a prediction by Alex deToqueville. Something along the lines of 'This noble experiment of democracy is doomed the day the electorate discovers they can vote themselves largess from the public coffers.'

Are we there?

Is our future one of Obamunism - collectivism, socialism, communism? Fascism? Compare, for your own homework, his vision for America and Hitler's Germany.

It's time we non-ostriches begin to lose sleep at night. It's time we let others know what we think about takings, like government oversight of health care, welfare, and other programs that transfer money from those who earn it to those who don't.

Because, in the end, government control of our money equates to government control of every aspect of our lives. If you don't like that idea, let your voice be heard. Start your own blog. Talk to your friends and family about the morality of theft, no matter the perpetrator. Talk to them about the personal traits that made this country strong - individuality, personal responsibility, the work ethic, the knowledge of American History (Pre-PC, of course), and the potential for success without being penalized for it.

Write regularly and clearly to your representatives in Congress. Send copies of those letters to your local newspaper's editorial pages. Show up at political meetings such as Town Halls (if you can get past the screeners). Speak your mind dispassionately but plainly. Bring others with you.

I'll look for you there.