Colin McNickle’s column isn’t a breath of fresh air. It’s a blast of fresh air common sense. Here’s what I’m talking about:

It was in 1774 that John Adams reminded how the “most sensible and jealous people are so little attentive to government that there are no instances of resistance until repeated, multiple oppressions have placed it beyond a doubt that their rulers had formed settled plans to deprive them of their liberties.”

And that’s not merely to “oppress the individual or a few,” the father of the Constitution added, “but to break down the fences of a free constitution, and deprive the people at large of all share in the government, and all the checks by which it is limited.”

Mr. Adams, of course, would have been labeled a “right-wing extremist” or a “militia maniac” by today’s “progressives” in Congress who have been working so assiduously to soil the fabric of America. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would dismiss Adams’ sentiment as “un-American” and tap dance around its implications of unconstitutional freelancing.

But on the cusp of a new year and the second decade of the 21st century, this is where America finds itself: Constitutional perverts and rule of law scofflaws are in charge, the once-creeping crud of socialism has broken into a trot and an increasing number of good and decent people really are mad as hell and not willing to take another centimeter of the shaft.

And perhaps, just perhaps, revolution is nigh.

“Revolution” is a dicey word in any era. Indeed, it can be accomplished by the ballot and not the bullet. But the Founders and the Framers had no qualms about the latter. How soon today’s “leaders”, supposed custodians of the Constitution but merely unionized garbagemen, seem to forget that America was born in armed revolt and that the luminaries of the era acknowledged its necessity in the defense of natural rights.

Let’s be blunt about something. This administration isn’t interested in following the law if it doesn’t serve its purposes. And rarely does the law serve this administration’s purpose.

Remember Speaker Pelosi’s reaction when a reporter asked what constitutional authority she had for health care? Here’s her reaction:

CNSNews.com: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”

Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

CNSNews.com: “Yes, yes I am.”

Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter. Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandated that individual Americans buy health insurance as not a “serious question.”

“You can put this on the record,” said Elshami. “That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.”

Later, Pelosi’s office gave this reply to CNSNews:

Pelosi’s press secretary later responded to written follow-up questions from CNSNews.com by emailing CNSNews.com a press release on the “Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform,” that argues that Congress derives the authority to mandate that people purchase health insurance from its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce.

The ICC is the liberals’ crutch upon which they rest all their arguments for expanding the federal government’s authority. the liberals’ argument essentially says that the Tenth Amendment isn’t a counterbalance to the ICC. That’s nonsense, especially since the Tenth Amendment hasn’t been repealed.

Mr. McNickle’s statement that “perhaps revolution is nigh” isn’t preposterous. If you talk with TEA Party activists of all politicial persuasions, you’ll find out that they’re all worried that government has gone into maniac-drive. Sensible center-leftists like Doug Schoen and William Daley notice the leftward drift and are worried about it. Based on what Schoen said during an interview with Mark Steyn, it’s obvious that he’s a big TEA Party fan. There are lots of independents who see government as out-of-control. They don’t see President Obama or congressional Democrats exercising any fiscal discipline.

The thing that’s making revolution likely, in my opinion, is watching Democrats ignore what We The People are saying, especially on health care. Dr. Frank Luntz said that the phrase that most accurately describes voters’ mood is they’re “mad as hell and they’re not going to take it anymore.”

There’s another part to this TEA Party revolution, too. Not only are people in a foul mood over the Obama administration’s policies but they’re upset that the Democrats don’t care about the Constitution. Tenth Amendment groups are popping up nationwide. They’re afraid that this administration would trample their state’s ability to govern.

In years past, frankly, they didn’t care because we weren’t in the dire straits that we’re in now. This administration’s policies and their overreaching is telling people that the Obama administration is deeply incompetent and power hungry. Simply put, people are worried that this administration wants to ruin everyone’s lives, not just a few people’s lives.

Americans and Pennsylvanians faces a crucial test in 2010. They can either continue traveling down the road to serfdom or return to liberty’s boulevard. The republic’s future hangs in the balance.

Mr. McNickle’s framed it perfectly. The choice is our’s. As Ronald Reagan once said, “it’s a time for choosing.”

Let’s hope we choose liberty over comfortable nanny state serfdom.

Technorati: Serfdom, Liberty, A Time For Choosing, Reagan, TEA Parties, Activism, Constitution, Tenth Amendment, Conservatism, President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, Nadeam Elshami, Health Care, Democrats, Election 2010

Cross-posted at California Conservative