Make up your mind my friend said to me.

I tend to use the labels Fascism, Marxism, Socialism, Totalitarianism and Communism interchangeable, and I think I’ve confused him. I thought I’d take a few minutes to actually define them, and then explain myself.
We’ll go in alphabetical order, because I love words, and it would drive me batty to see them out of order

Communism (N):
1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2. (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
3. (initial capital letter) the principles and practices of the Communist party.

Fascism (N):
1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.
3. (initial capital letter) a fascist movement, esp. the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43.

Marxism (N):
the system of economic and political thought developed by Karl Marx, along with Friedrich Engels, esp. the doctrine that the state throughout history has been a device for the exploitation of the masses by a dominant class, that class struggle has been the main agency of historical change, and that the capitalist system, containing from the first the seeds of its own decay, will inevitably, after the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, be superseded by a socialist order and a classless society

Socialism (N):
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Totalitarianism (N):
1. the practices and principles of a totalitarian regime.
2. absolute control by the state or a governing branch of a highly centralized institution.
3. the character or quality of an autocratic or authoritarian individual, group, or government: the totalitarianism of the father.

So, as you can see, there isn’t really a whole lot of difference in each of the “ism’s”, aside from totalitarianism, which would be a dictatorship-think Iran, Venezuela, Cuba…
I’ve chosen to use them interchangeably, because I don’t see much difference between them, and I think our current administration is exhibiting aspects of all of them:

(C) Obama and his flunkies have gotten their hands in a variety of industries; bailed out, TARPed and variously regulated things the government has NO Constitutional authority to tinker with.
‘…single self perpetuating political party.’ Just look to the hypocrisy taking place in MA this week for evidence.

(F) ‘forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.’
They may not be forcing the suppression of opposition just yet, but it’s coming. The Fairness Doctrine, which is a violation of our freedom of speech, will be attempted through back door dealings; the Internet grab “in an emergency”; calling those who disagree with their policies radicals, people who need to be silenced; crying racism as a way to distract from the real issues; regimenting industry in the name of the climate hoax. It’s all there.
Don’t forget campaign finance reform that takes away your First Amendment rights of freedom of speech, this goes back farther than Obama, and is wrong regardless of whose watch it is.

(M) Class struggles and pitting classes against each other. Vilifying those who are successful; when small businesses are taxed ruthlessly; when “wealthy Americans” are taxed at a higher rate, thereby punishing the successful; redistributing income to make things “fair”. This is Marxism, and it’s rampant in the left-wing.

(S) ’system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.’
This one is a little trickier. “We the People” now own GM, and some banks, and pretty soon some newspapers (won’t that be nice, when we can more fully trust the news coming from THOSE sources?). However, we’ll never get a dime in dividends, or reimbursements, and I’d bet a milkshake, those various companies never get out of the deal they made with the devil. So, we can’t say it’s true Socialism I suppose, but I don’t think the people of the USSR got so much out of their collective ownership either, and it was still Socialism.

(T) As the government continues to take over industry after industry, we may just see a dictator arise. They already revere Obama as a sort of messiah, and this kind of messiah is one step away from a dictator. We don’t have “absolute” control by the state yet, but if we don’t make some noise, and make sure our representatives know we are unhappy, it WILL come to that, the groundwork is being laid now.

The Constitution is hanging by a thread; it is being trampled on by people of all persuasions, all races, all religions, both parties. These “ism’s” are all parts of Obama’s agenda, he’s exhibiting traits from each definition, so when I use them interchangeably, you’ll know why; each one cuts a little deeper into the fabric of the Constitution, cuts a little deeper into the “American Way.” It’s no accident that I rarely use the same one twice in any sentence. I encourage you to use these words often and vociferously in your conversations.
If we don’t, we’ll get all of them, in one neat, tidy, well-spoken man.
That’s why it’s “Obamunism”.

On this, the 8th anniversary of 9/11, I’ve been pondering what to say. I found this article literally in the 11th hour, and I’d like you to read it. It is almost exactly what I’m feeling right now.
As we go forward, let’s not be Democrats and Republicans, let’s be Americans, and let’s join our voices to stamp out the radicals on both sides of the aisle; let’s begin now to stand for the Constitution, not a party; for freedom, not tyrrany.
Our children are depending on us.

Calling All Heroes

The arguments for why we should or should not have “free” health care are being thrown back and forth in a rather cavalier way. I put “free” in quotes because nothing is ever free. There is always some economy involved in getting what you want, even if it’s not a cash economy. In the case of “free” health care, there just so happens to be a huge cash economy associated with it, but there are also the economies of time and quality. In other words you will have to sacrifice a lot of cash, time, and quality to get “free” health care. As a general rule, people will never understand that. These are the same type of people that get duped by the “free orange Macbook” offers that pop up all over the Internet.

This post is not about “free” health care though, at least not directly. I want to try to put into words what I understand about the Bill of Rights and how it applies to the issues we face today. A lot of people mistake the Bill of Rights for an enumeration of our rights as citizens of this country. These people are fools. I apologize if I just called you a fool, and maybe that’s a strong word, but this aspect of our Constitution has traditionally been taught completely inaccurately in public schools, leaving most people none the wiser. One of the cavalier arguments against “free” health care is that there is no right to health care in the Bill of Rights. Therefore, no one has that right, right? Wrong. This is a horribly inaccurate argument, and I facepalm whenever I hear people and pundits use this to defend their stance against health care reform of any kind.

The Bill of Rights is actually an enumeration of the limitations of government power over our unlimited natural rights. Without getting into too much historical detail, this was a bit of a sore spot between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists during the founding of our country. Alexander Hamilton argued against any Bill of Rights because the Constitution alone gave the people all rights under the sun, and he feared listing any specific rights could be misconstrued as a limitation on other rights. Worse yet, large government might use a Bill of Rights to find more exceptions to the Constitution with which they could restrict the rights of the people even further. (Does this sound familiar?) Meanwhile, Anti-Federalists such as Thomas Jefferson feared that listing no rights would be an open invitation for large government to quickly take away all rights and perhaps turn itself into a monarchy all over again. I’ll just point out that both of these factions feared large government rule. Our Bill of Rights as we know it today is essentially a compromise between the two groups trying to prevent just that. How? Take a look at the Ninth Amendment:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Are you familiar with that Amendment? I know it’s not the First or Second, but seriously, there were only ten total in the Bill of Rights; you should know them all.  The Ninth Amendment illustrates the founding fathers’ belief in personal rights before government and their anticipation that people would easily misconstrue the Bill of Rights as a limitation on personal rights (in the hopes that you would not do this.) This idea is further illustrated in the wording of other Amendments. The First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law…” The Fourth says, “the right of the people to be secure…shall not be violated.” The list goes on. These are strongly worded to restrict the power of government over the people. Ultimately, we ended up with a Bill of Rights, but it was the first Bill of Rights in history to be the exact opposite of what all prior bills of rights of various nations had been, which were essentially lists of rights handed down by the ruling class to its subjects.

What does this mean for us today? First of all, it means you now know the true meaning of the Bill of Rights and can use it correctly in your political arguments. (Please, spread the word. It’s so embarrassing that we the people don’t know the true origins of our country and the meanings of its founding documents.) More importantly, it means we have all of those rights you have ever said were not rights because they were not in the Bill of Rights. That being said, what we must not forget are the responsibilities that come with every right. You cannot have a right without a responsibility. Here, I propose my Bill of Rights And Responsibilities for modern reference. This is a living document that can be amended as new issues arise. It should be easy enough to do for those of us who understand what personal responsibility means.

• The Right to Own a Home: You cannot be denied the purchase of a home based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, age or any other discriminatory measure that violates your civil rights. Additionally, your home cannot be seized at the whim of any person or governing body.
  The Responsibility of Owning a Home: You have to pay for your home in order to own it. No other person, group, or government can be held responsible for the home you own. Educate yourself on what it means to have a home mortgage. If you are not fiscally ready to own a home, rent one instead.
  The Consequences of Failing Your Responsibilities: You will lose your home. No one will save you. Buying another home later in life may be extremely difficult. Alternatively, the government may bail you out, and everyone will hate you.

• The Right to Health Care: You cannot be denied health care based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, age or any other discriminatory measure that violates your civil rights. Additionally, you have the right to not have your health put in jeopardy against your will.
  The Responsibility of Health Care: Take care of yourself. Health care begins with you. Do not run to the hospital every time you need a band-aid (or a drug fix.) Get off the couch. Eat healthy. Plan ahead. Put money aside for any chronic or unexpected conditions. Be smarter with your money. This is your health we are talking about. Why buy the 60-inch flat panel HDTV when you know you could be saving that money for a rainy day? Put your health first. You are the victim of the choices you make. People have been taking care of their families for centuries. Don’t feel entitled. Don’t be spoiled. Be an adult.
  The Consequences of Failing Your Responsibilities: You overcrowd the system. You become a leech on society. The government declares a national crisis and makes you and everyone else a ward of the state. Your rights to health care are now dictated and restricted by the government. You have no options. Your right to health care as it should have been is now gone.

• The Right to Higher Education: You cannot be denied higher education based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, age or any other discriminatory measure that violates your civil rights. Additionally, you cannot be forcibly removed from school without just cause.
  The Responsibility of Higher Education: You have to study hard, work hard, and save a lot. If you can’t save more, study more. Scholarships come to those who earn them. Universities are competitive. If you cannot compete, you will not win.
  The Consequences of Failing Your Responsibilities: You won’t get into college, or you will flunk out of college.

• The Right to Dance Naked to “Billie Jean” In Your Living Room: No one can stop you. You’re a dance machine.
  The Responsibility of Dancing Naked to “Billie Jean” In Your Living Room: Close the blinds. Don’t let the music disturb the neighbors.
  The Consequences of Failing Your Responsibilities: At best, your neighbors just label you a freak, never speak to you again, and post their video of you on YouTube. At worst, you get fined or locked up for any number of reasonably policed infractions.

You can see where I am going with this. My point is simple: every right has a responsibility, and failure to be responsible for your rights leads to consequence. There are no guarantees. There are no free rides. Granted, that last example was a little silly, but it just goes to show how silly it is to try to limit people’s natural rights. Some things are just nobody else’s business. We don’t need to outright ban those things.

Responsible people should be rewarded for their model behavior. Everyone has to live the life they have chosen for themselves. You will find people are much more willing to help you in your time of need if they are left to their own means of taking care of themselves than when you call upon the government to force them to take care of you. When you ask the government to solve your problems, you invite it to chip away at the unlimited natural rights you once had under the Constitution. My other point is that for those of you who claim to be “Constitutionalists” and continue to deny people rights because they are not in the Bill of Rights, it is time to wise up. We can solve the problems we face without government intervention, but we will never get there if we continue to argue inadequately. For those of you who outright reject the Constitution, well, I’m not sure what to say except that it is in fact our main governing document, and if you continue to pass legislation that contradicts it, we will have to hold you accountable for our nation’s spiraling demise.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Guns. Guns. Guns.

It’s pretty much guaranteed that wherever you stand on the ‘gun issue’ you’re most likely one way or the other. Very few people have an apathetic attitude towards firearms. By now we’ve all heard, and come to terms with our elected president’s views and opinions on our right to bear arms.

Now before we even think about jumping down the rabbit hole that is the Obamusnistic gun law ideals, lets take a quick look of the basic pros and cons of gun control.

The pros would be among many things including self-defense, and home protection. The cons are everywhere on the news, ‘murder, death, chaos!’ School shootings, and drive-bys. We’ve all seen the news reports; but what we have yet to consider is that taking away guns is not going to prevent the crimes. People kill people, not guns. If someone wants to commit murder, they’re not going to be detoured by ‘gun laws’ or ‘gun bans’, they’re going to get a gun, and they are going to kill. Now, you have an armed man or woman, with intent, and helpless, unarmed civilians alongside potential victims. You have just made it that much easier for the murderer to complete his plans.

On the flip side, if people are able to have guns, (and are properly trained and licensed if they wish carry them,) then we have a means of prevention. Imagine if the teachers at Columbine had had guns? If there had been some kind of armed guard on duty. How many lives might have been saved? When an armed burglar breaks into your home, would you or would you not want the right, the God-given American right, to bear arms. To protect you, your family and home?

Taking away guns is not the answer. In fact it is a clear contradiction to the Constitution, but then again if you truly believe that gun control will stop gun crimes, then perhaps you’ve never felt threatened enough to have the need to defend yourself; or perhaps you trust that our government is capable of protecting you from speeding bullets. If so, I’ve got sad news: it’s not. Not even the mighty-and-holy Obama can stop gun crimes.

I don’t know about you, but I find a president who is willing (even desiring,)  to rid, or even just highly complicate our ability and right to own guns, as well as making nice with many of our country’s enemies, a very disturbing notion. The fact that he would so willingly desire to twist the constitution, and pervert our bill of rights, is a disgrace. It is unsettling to me to think that the same people who flew planes into our world trade center, are enamored with, and love our current president. I also find it terrifying to think that he may someday intend to neglect our nation’s interests and safety in the name of extending a hand; and if that day comes, if ever my freedom is compromised, my safety threatened; you can bet that I sure as hell will want to utilize all my rights, especially my right to bear arms.

After all what more can I do but cling to my guns and religion?

Whether or not Obama is successful in changing gun laws, and whether or not he says whatever need be said to appease the current crowd before him; the fact will always remain: he is trying to compromise our rights. No president, nor any one man, should have the power to distort the constitution to his own vision and ideals, no matter how ‘good’ the intentions be.

Never.

– — – — – — – — – — – — – — – — – –

Check out ‘GunbaNObama‘ dot com

Click Here to see a brief bi-partisan record of Obama’s gun control voting record, as well as his basic stance on the issues.

Well it didn’t take long to find someone interested in blogging about the state of the nation. I’d like everyone to extend a warm welcome to Imjetta, who has posted her very first Obamunism.us article. Read Preamble to the Constitution. You can find Imjetta’s other works on her personal blog, My Book Of Common Days. I will try to create an author’s bio page shortly so you can learn more about her (if she’s ok with that, of course.) Meanwhile, feel free to start the discussion on Preamble to the Constitution. Want to become an Obamunism.us blogger too? Let us know.

I am passionate about a few things, and one is the Constitution of the United States of America. I wonder how many of Americans have actually read it, or hopefully, the entire Constitution.

Most of us had to memorize the Preamble in high school:
“WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

I was struck by how much our Founding Fathers wanted this preliminary paragraph to tells us.
Not only do they by the first three words tell us who’s in charge,  they spell out all the things that they planned for the Constitution to do. They want to secure all these blessings to their posterity–to you and I; then comes the interesting part to me, they “do ordain and establish this Constitution…”
Now, ordain means to order, I understand that, but I belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and in my faith, ordain has a different meaning, as I believe it does in many ecclesiastical circles; to ordain means to set apart for God, or for God’s work.

It struck me that the Founders wanted us to know that THEY believed the Constitution was a Divine document; that they wanted this nation set apart for God.
We have a book of modern revelation called the Doctrine and Covenants. I know this book to be of Divine origin. In section 101 verse 80 the Lord says “And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.”
The Lord has told us straight forwardly that HE established the Constitution; He raised these men up for this purpose. The Constitution IS of Divine origin; the Founding Fathers KNEW this, and their wording suggests that they wanted US to know this; to remember this.

We have pushed God out of every arena in our so called modern society. We worship things instead of Him. We can allow condoms in school, but not Prayer. We have allowed the secular humanist movement to have a larger voice, despite Christianities larger numbers. We Christians tend to take a pacifist attitude, and in so doing have let the minions of the Adversary walk all over us and force God out of the center of society. 

My point here is to help us all to remember that God ordained this country by the raising up of wise men to establish the Constitution of the United States of America. We have an obligation as the beneficiaries of these blessings and liberties to learn, teach and uphold the Constitution.
Then, we have to speak up, write letters, and get involved in even the smallest way. We can no longer sit back and be silent. This is the only way we can combat the rising tsunami of Socialism/Communism/Fascism that continues to wash over the country.