I was sitting at my computer mulling over whether I should tweet something. I was concerned that if I posted the tweet I could lose all of my followers. Now, I don't have a lot of followers, and I am not a conceited person, but I want my thoughts and feelings to be heard because I think what I have to say is good for my country and good for every individual in this country that loves freedom and liberty. Then, it occurred to me. Did Thomas Paine wonder if people would like him if he wrote Common Sense? Did our founding fathers wonder if people would like them if they declared independence from Britain? Let's go back further. What about Martin Luther and the Catholic church? Or more recently, what about Winston Church Hill and Hitler? Abraham Lincoln and the south?

History is full of examples of people saying dangerous things at dangerous times. Is history full of crazy people, too? Absolutely! One thing that seems to be lost today is the ability to tell the crazy people from the others. Here is how I think we can tell the difference. The crazy people aren't talking about freedom and liberty for every individual. They want one group of people or another to pay while their group of people run the show. So let's test that theory. Hitler wanted Germany to control the world, and to kill people that he didn't like. That sounds crazy. Abraham Lincoln wanted freedom and liberty for every individual regardless of color. That sounds fair. Oh, here is something to try. Obama wants minorities to have free money, free health care, and any other benefit he can get, but he doesn't want rich people to have any freedom. Hmm, that does sound crazy. Well, I am sure I am just Obama bashing, so lets try George W. Bush. OK, he wanted to give rich people the tax money from hard working people to reward them for the lousy job they did in their banks. No, I don't think I am Obama bashing because that sounds crazy, too. Teddy Roosevelt wanted the rich to subsidize the poor by force of law. That's crazy. A dangerous saying by itself is not a bad thing, if it is dangerous to those that are against freedom and liberty.

Well, I heard Comrade Pelosi saying that it was fair to put people in jail if they weren't willing to get on board with government health care control. To me, that sounded crazy. So this is what I was going to post.

I might lose my followers 4 this, but if HC passes I am not waiting for them to come arrest me. I'll pull a GWB. Freedom is better than PC.

I believe that people will read that who have become so conditioned by society to believe that all violence is bad. Yet, I am one of those annoying people that always ask why. Why is the sky blue? Why can't we walk on water? Why is the Fed so secretive? Why is our government turning so quickly to tyranny? I am that guy. So I asked myself, "Why do we think that all violence is bad?" Wasn't WWII violent? Wasn't the revolutionary war violent? Wasn't the civil war violent? If all violence is bad, then why are we fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan? Isn't that violent?

Well, after those questions I could no longer believe that all violence is bad. It may be unwanted, but it isn't always bad. Violence against freedom is bad; violence for freedom is necessary. Then, I thought about what Thomas Jefferson said.

Well, that made me ask how government can fear the people if it never believes that people will turn violent against it. I mean, haven't the Muslims proved that when the government fear the people they have freedom. Wasn't the government too afraid of the Fort Hood terrorist to stop him from killing fourteen people (there are reports that the woman was pregnant, that means 14 people died, not 13)? Wasn't the government too afraid of being labeled bigots to investigate him? Isn't our President too afraid of Muslims to make a decision in Afghanistan? Isn't our government too afraid to call the Fort Hood terrorist a "terrorist"?

Let's see who the government isn't afraid of. They called our returning military "potential right wing extremists.", didn't they? Didn't they say Christian fundamentalists were the most dangerous group of people in our country? I don't remember any Catholics flying planes into any buildings. Maybe, I overslept that day. The guy that killed a baby killing "Dr.", he was a terrorist, but not the guy that killed fourteen at Fort Hood. Tea party attenders are racist, homophobic, terrorists, but SEIU and ACORN are not. People that love the Constitution are "home grown terrorist", but the people that blow things up for environmental purposes, they aren't terrorists. People that exposed ACORN as criminal, they broke the law. ACORN on video showing possible laws being broken, they didn't break the law. Men that rape little boys, they get probation because they are OK. News channel that exposes judge and prosecutor that gave probation to child rapist, they are evil. Families that don't want their children taught that sex in the butt is wrong, they are evil. Schools that want to teach children that homosexuality is better than heterosexuality are OK. This list could go on and on.

I think it is clear who the government fears. I think it is clear that they don't fear the majority of U.S. citizens. Why? Well because, it is like those old macho movies when the tough guy cop catches the really, really bad guy and the bad guy turns to him and says, "You won't kill me. You don't have it in you. You're a cop, and the laws won't allow you to touch me. You will arrest me and I will be out by tonight." The government is counting on us putting our guns back in our holster and hoping the law will deal with them. But, let's be real. We know they won't see justice. We know they have paid off the judges and the prosecutors. We know they will be out by tonight. Why do you think they love Hollywood so much? I think it is because they know that Hollywood has convinced us that doing the right thing is the wrong thing, and standing against corruption is too risky and dangerous.

Do I think anyone should go blow up an FBI building? No way! Our government will only be able to discredit freedom loving U.S. citizens in that case. However, we must make it clear that we will not be walked on. We will not be put under the feet of the government. We will resist them, yes, even to the point of violence. If they turn their guns on us, then we will respond in kind. If they come to take away our freedom unjustly, then we will put them down. If they pass laws that are unConstitutional, then we will remove them from office politically first, but without removing any option from the table. The government has convinced the citizens of the United States that acting against a tyrannical, unConstitutional government is illegal, but it is not. It is not only legal, it is our duty.

Without a doubt my words may draw the attention of our government, but I am guessing that since I am not a Muslim it will not prevent them from trying to run me over. I am also confident it will likely lose the ear of many people that I would hope would listen to me, for my sake and theirs. Yet, when I ask myself what my freedom is worth, what my country's freedom is worth, what my family's freedom is worth, I find that it is more valuable than the good thoughts of people or the illusion of safety from our government. When I ask myself if I would have stood against National Socialism if I were in Germany before world war two, I would like to think that I would. The test is whether I will stand against any variation of Marxism in our country today. I will do my part to make our government again fear those who love freedom. I hope I won't be standing alone.

I recently wrote an article about Michael Durbin's article that both compared the anti seat belt argument to the abortion argument, and also claimed that not wearing a seat belt and getting in an accident was a violation of a rescue workers liberties. Here is Michael Durbin's article, and here is my article. Here is the comment he left in regard to my article.

The reason I am titling this article "What Is A Conservative?" in relation to his comments is because I think that they reflect, in my opinion of course, the dilution of true conservative values. Clearly, not necessarily the values of what some people calling themselves conservative retain, but conservative values non the less. I want to kind of take apart Mr. Durbin's comments so we can inspect the values, possibly conservative values, that lead to some of the statements. I am sure that this article will offend, but I think if it can be weathered until the end it will be worth it.

Mr. Durbin asked if I had watched the videos he posted regarding liberty, in particular the one that says a person's labor is a product of their liberty. No, but I did see the one about the trash can controversy. Ya, no government regulations for trash cans, that is super intrusive. Especially, when you have spent $18.00 on your own trash can. Seriously, I do agree with you about the trash cans. Yet, I am curious, are you saying we have the right to make decisions about small stuff like trash can selection, but the decision to buckle up is too important for us to make?

I find it amazing that a person can talk about a person's liberty, especially in regard to their work, and claim to believe it is important, but then turn around and advocate for laws that FORCE a person whose liberty it was to choose the path of a rescue worker to help someone, even if they don't want to. You asked if I would want it another way. Yes! I say yes. A true conservative is a person that holds fast to the values of freedom and liberty, even if the consequences of those values may negatively impact that person. Now, please don't turn this into a shallow exchange by saying that I am saying you are not a true conservative. I can only judge you buy your words. If a liberal sees me in a pool of my own blood and refuses to work on me because I am that jerk that called him a liar last week, well it sucks to be me. Of course, if his boss finds those qualities unbecoming of a rescue worker and fires him, then it sucks to be him. No one has the right to work, only the right to ask to work. More importantly, government has no say in either event.

You asked if I am screaming that my liberties are being lost because my car has to have headlights and turn signals to operate on public roads. See, this is how you tell the real conservatives from the "wanna bes" (not sure how the kids spell that). A conservative knows that his rights, freedoms, and liberties end when they begin to infringe on other peoples rights. Do people have the right to enter public domain and reasonably expect to be safe? The answer seems to be yes since we have police officers enforcing laws that promote public safety. Yet, how does my seat belt help others be safe? Should the law say my child has to be buckled? That argument could be made because my child should have a reasonable expectation of safety when I take them on to public roads. They can't choose not to go in the car with me. Again, I assert that not wearing a seat belt has no adverse effect on other people.

As you said, people that don't wear a seat belt have greater injuries than those wearing a seat belt, for the most part. You mentioned that 1 in 4 trauma patients who are not wearing their seatbelt in your town are on medicare, or don't pay the hospital bill after an accident forcing others to spend their money on them. I think this is where we get into a thick section of poop that the politicians have gotten themselves into. Here is my solution. First, get rid of medicare. There is no right guaranteed, no freedom to have, or liberty given that allows the government to give tax payers money to people for medical care. Yes, yes, I know. I am a heartless #@$@%#$#. Whatever. I find it heartless to take the money from hard working people, by threat of imprisonment, and give it to other people in direct violation of the Constitution. Second, acting as a stop loss for hospitals is not the role of any government. Stop trying to pass regulations to help businesses be more profitable. Your seat belt law acts as a lever which allows government to force private industry to treat injured people regardless of means to pay. If a hospital or doctor chooses to adopt that policy, then that is their right, but it is not the role of government, local or federal, to force companies to accept customers without means to pay. Finally, more injuries means more money for the hospital when patients are able to pay. How is that bad for the rescue worker, hospital, or anyone else being PAID to help that person?

Mr. Durbin, no one is forcing you to choose whose liberty you have to take. A free society is one that regulates itself. Yes, we should have laws that protect people from true violations of their freedom and liberty such as murder, theft, injury due to malice or negligence. These laws are reactive in nature, not preemptive. A true conservative understands that you cannot legislate away crime. Punishment, fast, firm, and public, is the only determent to crime.

OK, that is my case against the substance of your argument. Now, you wonder why I think you should be embarrassed, and said your argument was inept. Also, why oh why would I attack another conservative? Well, I am a conservative. More than that, I am a freedom loving conservative so I have no problem calling out oppressive people, regardless of what they call themselves. OK, I sense I need to back up a minute and explain what I mean by oppressive people. Am I saying that you are an oppressor? Well, I have a very black and white view of freedom. If you aren't for it, your against it. If a person is for freedom, then that person is a freedom lover. If a person is against freedom, then that person is an oppressor. If a person makes, passes, or helps to pass a law that infringes on another person's liberty, then that person is an oppressor. That person can choose, at any time, to stop being an oppressor, but at that moment they are an oppressor. That is what infringing on other peoples liberty does, it oppresses them.

An old proverb says that as iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another. If I don't "attack" you, as you say, then I have no method to help sharpen you. Alternatively, I have no opportunity to be sharpened myself. This is one reason our founding fathers placed so much value on freedom of speech. I mean, I don't know if they specifically reference that proverb, but I am pretty sure they knew that freedom of speech was, and is, a foundational principal in the growth and enhancement of our society. If we go around being afraid to speak, or being afraid to be spoken to, then we cannot grow as human beings.

OK, but why blast, ridicule, and laugh at people for their inept arguments? I am glad you asked. It is false to believe that people change when they are comfortable. No one has ever said that comfort was the mother of invention, at least not to my knowledge. No, it is necessity that is the mother of invention. If no need is recognized, then no change can occur. If we, as freedom loving people want to change this country back into the way our founding fathers intended, then we must create an environment that forces people to recognize the need for change. To confront them with the absurdity of their ideology. Yes, to ridicule their ideas. To laugh at their baseless arguments. Especially, to ridicule them for having so low minded thoughts. We have become such a PC society today that an attack on ones ideals, their thoughts, has been equated to a personal attack on the person themselves. Especially, if that attack comes from a member of the group that person identifies themselves with. I am a conservative, but I am not a collectivist. I hold no loyalty to any collection of people. I represent myself and the truth as I see it. I welcome attack. I welcome people ridiculing my ideology, my truth. I look forward to defending myself and challenging others. Frankly, I think you should too.

You state in your reply that you think our efforts would be better served attacking those who take our liberties constantly. Yet, does it matter if those liberties are taken slowly or quickly, constantly or intermittently? Liberty lost is liberty lost. Any effort to take liberty should be fought. Also, how can a conservative possibly defend ones self from those that seek to steal liberty when they have the hypocritical log in their own eye? Can we honestly confront those that want to fundamentally change our country with integrity when there are those on our own team that have been willing participants in the effort, regardless of the degree or speed? Isn't that where that saying comes from about throwing stones when you live in a glass house? Can a person honestly call themselves a conservative because they stand up for the right to pick their trash can, but not the right to choose their own safety habits? Is liberty that limited? Do I not have the right to control my destiny, even if that choice leaves me paralyzed or dead? If not, then do I really control my destiny? Or is the depth of my liberty trash can deep?

These are the ideas that define a conservative, at least the way my grandfather defined conservative. He grew up in the great depression and fought in WWII defending the world from a German government that wanted to control or murder every person in the world. When we stop spending ourselves into bankruptcy, move to sound money principals, get government back to the limitations placed on it by the tenth amendment, and stop allowing babies to be murdered under the euphemism of "choice", then I might allow politicians today to tell me what we should say is conservative.

I was reading an article by Michael Durbin about whether it is a right not to wear a seatbelt. He seems to claim that people do not have a right to choose whether to wear a seatbelt, or not. Then, most outrageously he compares it to abortion. Abortion!? I guess if you view an unborn baby as a means to an end, much like a car, you might get that idea. Then he gives the following scenario.

Consider this scenario to justify how someone loses liberty when a person doesn't wear a seat belt. If you have two identical accidents, let's take a truck flipped over while hill topping for example, in one the driver IS wearing their seat belt and the other the driver ISN'T. The overwhelming evidence shows that the driver not wearing a seat belt will suffer more injury than the driver who did wear their belt, most of the time. So the driver who did not wear a seat belt will take more of the liberty of those who have to provide care to him, in the form of their labor. He will require more attention, from the first responders to the hospital staff, because of more extensive injuries that occur.

 He claims that the driver who doesn't wear the seatbelt is TAKING the liberty of the people that come to his aid. Really? Is there a law in Missouri that forces people to tend to other peoples injuries? Is the person that is caring for the injured person at liberty to not do that type of work? Furthermore, isn't that person at liberty to refuse to help that person? Is Missouri a communist state? Are people forced into labor in Missouri?

Oh wait, he compared it to abortion. Perhaps, the injured person will slice the arms and legs off of the rescue worker and cover him with acid in an effort to MURDER that person. Maybe, that is what he means. WOW! If that is what happens to rescue workers in Missouri, then I absolutely do not want to go to Missouri. Sounds like a very dangerous place.

This type of rhetoric is the same stupid political lies and simply stupid illogical...man, I can't even classify it as an argument because it is so worthless. It is a pathetic attempt to guilt people into turning over their freedoms and liberties by creating a false victim.

People, politicians in particular, should be blasted, laughed at, and ridiculed every time they make up these invalid claims as a means to further erode the rights, freedoms, and liberties of U.S. citizens. Michael Durbin should be embarrassed for even making such a inept case in public.

Anyone that has kids or has ever been a kid knows about "the line." Perhaps your parents or you yourself have said the words, "You crossed the line buddy. Now, you are in trouble!" Maybe, you heard the short version, "That's it. You're gonna get it!"

Parents use those phrases to inform kids that there is only so much that will be taken before there is consequences. Like kids, our government has been pushing and pushing. Recently, they seem to have felt that there is no more rules. Just like in our homes, our country has rules. Ever heard, "I'm gonna lay down the law!"? Well, our founding fathers laid down the law when they wrote the Constitution. Unfortunately, our government has gone too long without a "spankin", and they are running out of control.

I, for one, think it is time we "laid down the law." No more warnings, no more time outs, and no more ignoring them hoping they will do the right thing. I think it is time for the "big guns" to come out. It is time to think the unthinkable. It is time to pull every stinking, rotten, corrupt politician out of office. No waiting until the next election. It is time to jerk them by the ear and remove them from office. Whatever the method in your state, gather support, follow the legal path, jerk the politicians out, and replace them with people that will follow the Constitution the way our founding fathers wanted.

If the freedom loving people of the United States of America are serious about following the Constitution and holding our politicians accountable, then we have to be in this for the long haul. We have to do the hard, long, and difficult work of rallying all U.S. citizens to make a difference. Obama swept into power by making people believe he was leading them to something better. Bush stayed in power by making people think he could lead them to safety. They weren't the first, but they need to be the last. We have been betrayed by both parties. It is time to tell the government we have learned that we don't need a leader. We can run our own lives just fine without them. If we, the people of the United States, will put our heads down and work hard, then we can take this country back. We can take it back for our kids, our grand kids, and, you know, we can take it back for ourselves. It is going to take hard work, and it is going to take all of us.

The turn out in Washington was good, but Washington has spit in our face. We don't matter to them. I think we are going to need at least ten million people to drop what they are doing and get in the face of our federal government. Ten million is a lot of people, but these are difficult times. The cancer of collectivism has eaten a major portion of our country. Too many people think that the government is the answer. We need a heavy dose of the patriotic radiation to cure this collectivist cancer. We need all of our freedom loving, hard working citizens to inject the Constitution into our government. This is the only cure that will lead us back to freedom and liberty for all. It's time to lay down the law.