Another Political Party?

If you are fed up with an out of control federal government that ignores the Constitution; and politicians whose loyalties are to party bosses not to their constituents; If you are fed up with corruption, cronyism, nepotism and incompetence in state and local governments; If you are discouraged by “third party” candidates that seem to accomplish little other than to enhance the candidate’s resume, the Conservative Party of Illinois may be the alternative you are looking for.

Our position is a little different from most alternative parties.  We recognize that in our form of government, third party candidates invariably end up electing the candidate least desired by their supporters.  Multiple parties can only be effective in a parliamentary system with apportioned representation.  In the U.S. “winner-takes-all” system more than two parties, contending for the same office is simply not practicable. For that reason, we will not be attempting to elect our own party candidates, at least not in the foreseeable future.

That does not mean, however, that alternative parties do not have an important function in our political structure.  The value of alternative parties is voter education and issue advocacy.  Our objective in the next two or three election cycles is to help return the U.S. to a constitutional republican form of government based on the founding principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

To this end, we will be identifying incumbent candidates that have demonstrated a disdain for the Constitution, or party biases that prevent them from working in the best interest of their state and the nation as a whole.  We will attempt to defeat them in primary contests by identifying and supporting candidates who honor the founding principles of limited government, limited taxation, respect for private property, and individual liberty.

Most important of all, we will attempt to identify and promote candidates who will defend the Constitution, and attempt to secure the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (prosperity) to all.  From a practical point of view, this will mean, in most cases, working with the conservative base of the Republican Party.

If this makes sense to you, we invite you to join us in helping conservative Republicans take back their party and help curtail the advance of statism.  For those who live outside Illinois, you can check for a Conservative Party in your state by going to the national website at conservativepartyusa.org

Reverend Wright Returns

Jeremiah Wright, President Obama’s pastor for twenty years, spent the day trying to do damage control concerning a statement he made to the Daily Press of Newport News following a sermon Tuesday night.  In the interview, when asked if he had been in contact with the President since Obama became President, Wright said:

“Them Jews ain’t going to let him talk to me. I told my baby daughter that he’ll talk to me in five years when he’s a lame duck, or in eight years when he’s out of office,”

The statement takes on special significance in light of the shooting at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. yesterday.  So far, Obama has made no comment on Wright’s remark.

Obama came under fire during the presidential election because of anti-American remarks by Wright and his preaching “Black Liberation Theology.”  During the campaign controversy, Obama at first defended his association with Wright saying he could “no more disown him than he could his own grandmother” (paraphrased).  However as the controversy heated up he eventually broke with Wright and condemned some of his remarks.

At the time, Obama claimed never to have been present when Pastor Wright made the remarks in question, and the state dominated mass media, Obama supporters, and many conservatives gave him the benefit of the doubt.  Events since Obama took office indicate he may be more in sync with his former pastor’s views then most people think.  Anyone who applied common sense should have known before the election the relationship between Obama and Wright was much more than Obama claimed.

A recently published study came to the obvious conclusion that everyone reads publications and listens to broadcasts that promote views similar to their own.  The readers can prove this fact for themselves by honestly answering one or two questions.

Question One:  If you are a talk radio fan, do you listen to left wing Ed Schultz or right wing Rush Limbaugh (1) to get the news, (2) determine what you should think about the news, (3) get your talking points for the day, or (4) because they validate your own views?

Question Two:  If you are pro-abortion, would you stay in a church for twenty years where the pastor consistently preached sermons condemning abortion as the murder of a human being?  If you are pro-life, would you stay in a church for twenty years where the pastor consistently preached sermons promoting the “pro-choice” point of view?

The answer is obvious.  It is human nature to seek out and associate with those who share our views.  This is particularly true in the personal relationship between a congregant and his or her pastor.  President Obama probably does not agree with every position Pastor Wright takes, but his biography and his actions since assuming office clearly indicates he shares much of Wright’s worldview.

The video below is an audio of Wright’s remarks.  It a little more than one minute in length.  When listening to it pay close attention to the answer to the question; what advise would you give to the President if you had the chance?  His answer is quite revealing about Wright’s perception of Obama’s worldview after twenty years as his Pastor.

An IDIOT’S Guide to the Obama Agenda

The first thing one has to face if they are to understand the agenda of President Obama is that he does not love America; at least, not as it has existed for the past two centuries.  That does not mean he does not love his country.  I am sure he does, but he does not love its history; its culture; its constitution; its economic system; its political system; its military; its love of liberty; or any of the institutions that has defined America since its founding.  These are the things Obama has dedicated his life to changing.

It’s just that Obama’s mental picture of America is not the same as the one that existed in the minds of the Founding Fathers or in the minds of most Americans today.  His is the one formed under the tutelage of his childhood mentors reinforced by his chosen associates as an adult.

Obama’s picture of America is the one painted by twenty years of indoctrination in the church of Jeremiah Wright.  His vision for its future is one he adopted from his icons, William Ayers, Frank Davis, and other like-minded figures that have affected his life, especially Saul Alinsky.  From these and other left wing thinkers Obama has formed a mental image of what an ideal America would be like.  He has dedicated his adult life to bringing into existence this idealized image, which is in almost every instance the polar opposite of the America established by the Founding Fathers.

He believes the Founders established a deeply flawed system of government that has led to all sorts of social and economic evils over the past two-hundred plus years. The ideal form of government for Obama is one ruled by an elite political class directed by a benevolent, but all-powerful leader of exceptional wisdom and compassion.  In Obama’s mind, the “state” is the ultimate objective of all society.

The Founders believed that the legitimacy of government comes from the will of the people.  Obama believes that the interests of the people are served only by the properly directed power of government.

The Founders believed government should be the servant of the people.  Obama believes the people should be the willing servants of the state.

The Founders believed that rights are endowed by God, equally to all humans.  Obama believes rights can only be granted by the state.

The Founders believed that everyone should be free to pursue their own economic best interest.  Obama believes that government should plan and direct all significant economic activity to insure an even distribution of wealth.

The Founders believed liberty to be the highest of man’s aspirations.  Obama believes community to be the highest of aspirations.

The Founders believed the Constitution should be the “supreme law of land” and all judges should be bound by its precepts.  Obama believes judicial opinions based on subjective values of fairness and justice should be the supreme law of the land.  He believes the Constitution to be an antiquated document whose meaning changes with each passing generation.  It does not need to be amended; its meaning can be adjudicated.

Obama’s image of himself as that wise and compassionate leader destined to bring about the utopian America he envisions, motivates his every action as President.  As borderline psychotic as this may sound, his words and actions over the past four months will allow for no other conclusion.

The facts will only permit two interpretations of the Obama Presidency.  Either he is a bumbling incompetent who “smooth-talked” his way into the White House, or he is a dedicated ideologue determined to tear down all the historical institutions of government in order to rebuild and reshape them to reflect his worldview.

Those who hope that with experience he will moderate his views are hoping in vain.  He has an absolute, fanatical faith in the righteousness of his cause, and will not be swayed by public opinion or political pressure.  Adhering to the Alinsky principle that any means are acceptable that furthers the cause, he is willing to visit any misfortune on the American people in order to accumulate more power for himself as the head of state.

The survival of America as we know it will depend on the extent of his cult following and the influence of the coalition of Democrats, socialists, environmentalists, Marxists, fascists, the state media, and other groups that share his statist goals in the next two or three election cycles.

Blueprint for Revolution

In just four short months, President Barack Obama has unofficially suspended the Constitution and the rule of law.  Without the authorization of Congress or the consent of the people, he has nationalized America’s premier industrial business and placed generations of citizens yet unborn under the burden of unsupportable debt.  In the process, he has declared de facto war on capitalism.

Adhering to the philosophy of Saul Alinsky and Karl Marx and following the lead of Hugo Chavez, he seems to be on a path that will place him in complete control of the government within a very short time.  By appointing a series of Czars, with unprecedented powers reporting only to him, above the heads of Cabinet departments authorized by Congress, he has effectively taken control of the key government bureaucracies, most of which are unconstitutional to begin with.

George Washington, in 1796 warned of the danger of a charismatic leader getting control of a dominant political party in a time of crisis, and using his position as a springboard to despotism, to the detriment of liberty and freedom.  With uncanny accuracy, he described the ascension of  Barack Obama.

The election of Obama to the office of President is shaping up to be the most colossal mistake ever made by the American electorate in the history of our nation.  There are three seemingly insurmountable obstacles to correcting that mistake; (1) the unsupportable optimism of the American people that refuses to believe any President could ever aspire to a position of totalitarian power, (2) seventy-five years of conditioning by the incremental advances of liberalism that prepared us to accept totalitarianism without being aware of it, and (3) the blasé temperament of the average citizen that keeps them in ignorance of political reality.

We can accept the yoke of socialist tyranny, or we can cast off that yoke before it becomes so entrenched it cannot be removed without armed revolution.  Based on the speed with which Obama has moved to consolidate his power during his first months in office, waiting until 2012 or 2014 to take decisive action will condemn future generations to a wretchedness never before experienced in our history. Fortunately for us, the Founding Fathers left us the means of correcting our mistakes in choosing leaders, without the use of violence or resorting to arms.

Success depends on the American people deciding they value their liberties more than the idle promises of socialism.  Reversing the damage administration policies have already done, and will continue to do, to our economy and our freedom will require elected representatives with a level of patriotism not seen since the Continental Congress of 1776.  It will require the replacement of most of our elected officials, including those who “bring home the bacon” to our own communities.

The first step is to elect only candidates with a clear understanding of and fidelity to the Constitution.  In addition, they must have the courage to stand in opposition to those who insist on ignoring or violating the Constitution even when it seems politically unpopular to do so.  If we are to turn control of Congress back to the people, we must reject any elected official of whichever party, that has shown an ignorance of the Constitution or a willingness to ignore it in order to support unconstitutional policies for political expediency.  The 2010 elections are critical to our future as a free republic.

The second step is to establish a very real threat of recall for any elected or appointed official who violates his or her oath of office by violating or ignoring the requirements of the Constitution by usurping authority not delegated to them by the Constitution.  Many states have provisions for recall in their constitutions.  The Founders incorporated a similar provision in the Constitution, although it remains unrecognized by the average citizen and unacknowledged by the average politician.  The recall provision in the Constitution by which officials may be removed from office is seldom used other than in partisan political squabbles between the two parties.  However, that does not mean it is not a valid instrument for enforcing fidelity to the Constitution. The authority for recall is found in Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution,

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Politicians have done a good job of misleading the American people into believing the grounds for impeachment is limited to criminal activities such as treason, bribery and other forms of corruption.  They are able to do this because few citizens understand the meaning of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”  However, those who debated and eventually agreed on the wording of the Constitution were quite familiar with the phrase.

Ilona Nickels, of C-Span gives us some insight into the meaning of the phrase.

“High crimes and misdemeanors” entered the text of the Constitution due to George Mason and James Madison. Mason had argued that the reasons given for impeachment — treason and bribery — were not enough. He worried that other “great and dangerous offenses” might not be covered, and suggested adding the word “maladministration.” Madison argued that term was too vague, so Mason then proposed “high crimes and misdemeanors,” a phrase well known in English common law. In 18th century language, a “misdemeanor” meant “mis-demeanor,” or bad behavior (neglect of duty and corruption were given as examples), while “high crimes” was roughly equivalent to “great offenses.”

In 1974 during the “Watergate Scandal” of Richard Nixon, the House Judiciary Committee identified three categories in which Congress had issued articles of impeachment in the past:  “(1) exceeding the constitutional bounds of the powers of the office; (2) behaving in a manner grossly incompatible with the proper function and purpose of the office; and (3) employing the power of the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.”

The sole purpose of impeachment is for the removal from office of officials who fail to fulfill their oath of office or effectively execute their duties.  That impeachment is unrelated to criminal activity is further indicated by the clause in Article 1, Section 3,

“Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

In the next election, voters need to execute a wholesale replacement of elected officials in both parties, to be followed by holding those elected accountable for enforcing adherence to the Constitution.  Fidelity to the Constitution is not a political question; it is a question of freedom.  Those who argue that the meaning of the Constitution is a matter of interpretation are being intellectually dishonest and endeavoring to advance their own agenda ahead of the welfare of the American people.

Republican Party: A Party of Losers?

Many high profile Republicans are advising conservatives not to put up too much resistance to Judge Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court.  Their argument is that opposition to her appointment would further alienate Hispanic and other minority voters making future Republican gains more difficult.  Republicans taking this position demonstrate their inability to learn from past experience.

They are the same Republicans who gave us “moderate” John McCain as a presidential candidate in the last election.  They are also the ones who describe the Republican Party as the “party of the big tent”.  A more accurate label would be the “party of losers”.

Losing is something at which the Republicans have a lot of experience. They have been consistently doing it since the early twentieth century.  The few wins they have experienced have been short lived.  When they do win, they repeatedly fail to build on those victories, and the benefits they gain soon give way to the persistent counter-attacks of the Democratic Party.

Contrast the Republican’s experience at losing with the Democrat’s experience at winning and you get a completely different picture.  Franklin Roosevelt taught the Democrats how to win and they have been building on those wins ever since.  Decade after decade they have persistently advanced their agenda.  They never concede defeat.  Devastating losses, such as those delivered by Reagan and Gingrich are only temporary setbacks.  They always comeback stronger than before, never changing their goals or tactics.

Those who argue that negative criticism of the opposition is counterproductive have not been paying attention to the manifold successes of the Democratic Party, particularly over the past eight years.  Every decision or policy of George W. Bush was consistently criticized and every appointee was demonized.  These tactics drove the popularity of Bush to historical lows with little if any negative consequences to the Democratic Party.

The same techniques were used against Judge Bork, Justices Thomas, Roberts and Alito, as well as Attorneys General Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales among others, all without negative consequences to the Democrats. I am not suggesting that Republicans ought to use the same tactics.  I am suggesting that we need to forget about our fears of repercussions and the mistaken fantasy that we can win over minorities and independents by compromising our principles and accepting the premises behind the Democrat’s socialist programs.

The nomination of Sonia Sotomayor by President Obama presents an opportunity for the Republican Party to make some real headway in the struggle for the support of the American people.  That is, if it has the courage and the smarts to take advantage of the opening we have been given.  Obama and Sotomayor share the same worldview and the same goals.  Both reject the Constitution they are sworn to protect and defend.

Neither understands the meaning of a constitutional government or the historical importance of the Constitution to the continuing liberty and indeed, the very existence of America.  The discussion of Sotomayor during the confirmation process gives the Republicans a rare three-month opportunity to educate the American people about the principles on which the most successful nation in history was built.

While most Americans do not fully appreciate the Constitution as it relates to their daily lives, almost all of them have a reverence for the “idea” of the Constitution.  By using the Sotomayor confirmation process as an opportunity to clearly inform the American people about the importance of constitutional and republican principles such as limited government, elimination of unnecessary taxes, and a strong national defense, we can set the stage for a “wipeout” of Democrats in the 2010 and 2012 elections.

Still Waiting For That Republican Form of Government?

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…” ~~Article 4, Section 4, U.S. Constitution

Throughout our history, the one thing all American Patriots have agreed on is that republicanism is the ideal political philosophy for our form of government.  The Framers not only believed in this principle, they also knew what it meant.

Like patriotism, freedom, liberty, democracy and deity, republicanism is an abstract term and therefore difficult to precisely define.  Most modern nations lay claim to the label of “Republic”, yet few are governed by republican principles.  It is obvious that the Soviet Socialist Republics that made up the Soviet Union, The Republic of China, and the United States of America do not have the same form of government.  Yet, they all bear the name “Republic”.

If Thomas Jefferson, THE champion of republicanism found its definition elusive, it is no wonder that the average American has difficulty in wrapping their mind around the concept.

“It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language… Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea, I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens. Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township.” –Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816

In searching the Founding Documents and other writers of the era to discover the idea the Framers had in mind when they wrote Section 4 of Article IV, we come up with two principles that seem to define its core meaning: The rule of law, and representative government. Neither of these is adhered to, in the constitutional sense, by our government today.

The Rule of Law

It is true that the rule of law is necessary for an ordered society.  It is equally true that the rule of law has throughout history, been the primary tool of tyranny.  Therefore, it is evident that the Founding Fathers did not simply have in mind a “nation ruled by law and not by men” when they devised a republican form of government for our nation.  What they meant by “republican government” was a government ruled by laws derived from a Constitution written and approved according to the collective will of all the people, clearly setting forth the authority and duties of government and restricting it to those powers only.  Article VI of the Constitution declares it, along with its duly ratified Amendments to be “The Supreme Law of The Land” and “the judges in every state shall be bound thereby”.

In order for a Constitution to be effective as a basis for government it must be (a) written, (b) permanent, and (c) unchangeable other than by lawful amendment procedures.  The claim by our present Administration that the Constitution is a “work in progress” to be altered and “perfected” by each succeeding generation is a contradiction of the very meaning of the word itself.  It undermines the foundation of republican government and places the liberties of our citizens at the mercy of whatever group of politicians that happens to be in power at any given time.

Article I of the Constitution declares, “ALL legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States…”  Through the years, Congress has devised the means for escaping responsibility and accountability for particularly onerous and unpopular laws by establishing bureaucracies and departments within the Executive Branch with “rule making” (legislative) powers.  The torrent of regulations and rules flowing from these bureaucratic, regulatory agencies, sometimes by executive order and frequently by judicial mandate, are direct violations of both the letter and spirit of the Constitution which gives ALL legislative powers to the Congress.

Representative Government

Closely associated with the principle of “rule of law”, is that of “representative government“.  It was clearly the intent of the Framers that law governing the activities and welfare of the people would be made by representatives chosen by them, to serve in this capacity for a short period of time.  While Congress collectively may be said to be elected by the people, individually each member is elected by less than one percent of the total population.

It is this fact, among others, that prompted the Framers to place strict restraints on the powers of Congress, limiting it to matters of national necessity.  James Madison summed up the powers of the national government in Federalist No. 41.

“That we may form a correct judgment on this subject, it will be proper to review the several powers conferred on the government of the Union; and that this may be the more conveniently done they may be reduced into different classes as they relate to the following different objects:

1. Security against foreign danger;
2. Regulation of the intercourse with foreign nations;
3. Maintenance of harmony and proper intercourse among the States;
4. Certain miscellaneous objects of general utility;
5. Restraint of the States from certain injurious acts;
6. Provisions for giving due efficacy to all these powers.”

These “enumerated powers” are spelled out in Article I, Section 8 and emphasized in the Tenth Amendment.  For a commentary on the more controversial ones click HERE.

The idea of a federal legislature, not accountable to the collective will of the people, making laws affecting the lives all the people regardless of their unique circumstances and needs, was precisely what the Founders were attempting to avoid when they established a republican form of government with clear boundaries between the powers of the national and state governments.

This principle has been so corrupted over the past century that we now find ourselves in the absurd position where citizens of our poorest states are taxed to fund the profligate spending of those in some of our richest states; Where frugal and productive citizens find the fruits of their labor confiscated from them “by law” to provide luxuries to citizens in other states who are less productive and less frugal than themselves.

That a Congresswoman elected by a fraction of the citizens of one state can dominate legislation and spending affecting the citizens of all states, or that a Senator from one of our least populous states can impose his will by legislation on the most minute details of the lives of more than three hundred millions of citizens would be unthinkable by our Founding Fathers.

It is these perversions of government that have led to revolutions in the past and will again in the future, if allowed to go unchecked.  Whether the revolution takes place at the ballot box or in the streets remains to be seen.

Obama’s Flawed Constitution

President Obama has expressed, on several occasions, his belief that the Constitution is a flawed document.  He has also indicated a primary goal of his administration is to change the way things are done in America to match the principles on which he believes the nation was founded.  Millions of Americans cheer his efforts, believing they will make their lives easier and more rewarding.  Since more than sixty percent of Americans approve of his job performance after four months in office, pursuing his goal to remake America, it is important to understand just what the founding principles of our nation really are.

We will not find a definition of those principles in the Constitution although we do find examples of them.  At the same time, we find several places where the Constitution seems to contradict those principles.  The Constitution is a political document.  As such, it reflects compromises on issues that many of the framers did not agree on. The two most important were those between the federalists and the republicans and between the slave holding states and the anti-slave states.

The founding documents of America are actually three distinct documents written at different times and for different purposes.  They are The Declaration of Independence (1776), The Constitution (1787) and The Bill of Rights (1789).

The Declaration of Independence, often referred to as the nation’s charter, was based on a republican philosophy and contains the founding principles for our form of government.  The first principle is that a legitimate government receives its powers from the people.  The second is that all men are created equal. The third principle is that of unalienable rights endowed by God, not granted by government.  The fourth is that the only purpose of government is to protect those rights in a secure and stable civil society.

During the Revolutionary War, a Federation of the thirteen states was formed to carry out the war and perform other functions of a national nature, under the Articles of Confederation.  The Federation had no taxing powers, no means of regulating commerce between the states, and no mechanism for enforcing laws passed by the Congress.  The Articles of Confederation proved inadequate as a blueprint for governance, and the states authorized a convention in 1787 for the purpose of amending the Articles to correct many of the defects.

The Convention, meeting at Philadelphia, was dominated by Federalists who wanted a strong central government with the states in a subordinate relationship to the federal government, much like the relationship between counties and towns to state governments.  The minority, known as the anti-federalists, was strongly opposed to the Constitution as written.  Fearing it gave too much power to the central government, they demanded a Bill of Rights.  Many of the Founding Fathers we revere today were on opposing sides in the debate.

Federalists Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, and James Madison, among others, were strongly opposed to a Bill of Rights.  Federalist No. 84 by Hamilton was written in opposition, arguing that adding a list of specific rights guaranteed by the Constitution was not only unnecessary but dangerous to the welfare of the union.  Many of the strongest advocates for a Bill of Rights were not delegates to the Convention. Thomas Jefferson was in France on a diplomatic mission during the debates and unable to contribute personally.  However, in a letter to his friend James Madison he expressed a strong concern that the Constitution did not contain a bill of rights.  Patrick Henry, another strong anti-federalist refused to attend the Convention and therefore did not take part in the debates.

However, after the draft of the Constitution was presented to the states for ratification, Henry became one of the dominant leaders in the anti-federalist opposition along with Samuel Adams, and John Hancock of Boston.  Failing in their efforts to get a Bill of Rights included in the Constitution the anti-federalists worked diligently in their state legislatures to secure assurances that a Bill of Rights would be added as amendments to the Constitution as a condition of ratification.  In this, they succeeded.

The discord in the Philadelphia Convention can be seen by comparing the title of the Declaration with the signing statement of the Constitution.  The full title of the Declaration boldly proclaims it to be “The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America”.  By comparison, the Constitution simply says in the last paragraph,

“Done in Convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the Twelfth in witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names.”

This ambiguous wording was drawn up by George Mason and presented by Benjamin Franklin as a way of encouraging delegates to sign the draft and maintain the impression of unanimity on their behalf.  Notice, it is the Convention itself, not the signing of the Constitution that claims the “unanimous consent”.  On the day of signing only 43 delegates representing twelve states were present, including George Washington, President of the Convention and William Jackson, Secretary.  Three of the forty-three delegates that were present refused to sign; hardly a unanimous agreement.

Five states ratified the Constitution shortly after it was presented to the states.  However, it bogged down in Massachusetts.  Only after Samuel Adams and John Hancock had negotiated “the Massachusetts Compromise”, did the Massachusetts Convention vote for ratification. The compromise, recommending amendments to be considered by the new Congress, should the Constitution go into effect allowed delegates to vote for ratification with the prospect of a Bill of Rights being added later.

The Adams-Hancock compromise probably saved the Constitution from certain defeat.  Other states followed their example in their ratifying conventions.  Without the Bill of Rights, there would be no basis in law to protect our rights and restrict the powers of Congress.  The Tenth Amendment is the cornerstone of our founding documents and the basis for the doctrine of “enumerated powers”.  Even with the addition of the Bill of Rights, there were still contradictions between the principles found in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

These differences were not to be reconciled for another hundred years.  Only after the Civil War at a cost of more than 500,000 lives in battle and the addition of Amendments 13, 14 and 15, was the principle that “all men are created equal” recognized in the Constitution.  Today the Declaration and the Constitution, with its amendments, are in near perfect harmony. Unfortunately, from the beginning, the federal government has seemingly violated the letter and the spirit of the Constitution at will with little if any opposition from the people as a whole.

For the past seventy-five years we have witnessed the wholesale violation of the Constitution by Congresses, courts and Presidents, none more so that our current President and Congress.  When President Obama speaks of “perfecting” the Constitution or “remaking America” he is really talking about discarding the Constitution and tearing down all the traditions and customs that have made America great.

The warning uttered by Benjamin Franklin at the close of the Philadelphia Convention has an ominous ring to it today.

“Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.

Have the American people been so corrupted by the allure of socialism as to be incapable of any form of government other than despotism, as Franklin suggested?  The next few months and years will answer that question for many generations to come.

The Republican Outreach

There is no shortage of advice to the Republican Party regarding the need to “reach out” to Hispanics, Blacks, women, moderates and younger voters.  Conventional wisdom says that the way to do that is to moderate our position on social issues and offer an equal or better program to solve the problems of healthcare, education, energy and the environment.  However, they do not answer the two primary questions: Why, and How?

At first glance the question of, why? would appear easy.  If the Republican Party is to have any influence over the affairs of state, their candidates have to be elected first.  On the other hand,   who would benefit, and what would that benefit be, if the Republican Party gained office by catering to voters who would otherwise vote for a socialist/democrat candidate?  There would be a definite benefit to the professional Republican politician in advancing his or her career goals.  The Republican Party would benefit by increasing its power in the Federal government. But, what about the rank-and-file Republican and the general welfare of the country?

The rank-and-file Republican would benefit only in that the advance toward tyranny might be slowed to a degree and the payment for irresponsible spending might be postponed for a generation or two, but in general, the average republican voter would profit little.  The general welfare of the nation would suffer greatly.  By moving the Party left in order to attract more moderates, independents, and liberal voters, the only obstacle to the eventual transition from a Constitutional Republic to an Americanized Social Democracy would be removed.

We have faced the threat of federal tyranny throughout our history.  Rarely have we succeeded in hindering its progress for more than a short time.  The three most notable examples were the revolution of 1800, the Reagan revolution of 1980, and the Gingrich revolution of 1994.  In none of these were the principles of the Republican Party altered to attract “moderates” or “liberal voters”.  Instead, the American people were reminded of who we are and what we stand for, and in each case the American people responded.

The voters the Republican Party needs to win over is the uninformed voter, whether they be Hispanic, African American, moderate Democrats or Independents.  Republicans, especially conservatives need to focus in the next eighteen months on educating the American people on the founding principles that made America the most prosperous and free nation on the globe.  Instead of allowing the MSM and the Democrat Party to identify us as the “party of NO” and the “party of the rich”, we need to establish a new image as “the party of the Constitution”.

The first step is to school our Republican leaders and elected representatives in the founding documents.  Too may of them are more concerned about increasing their personal power than in defending the liberty of their constituents.  The Republican penchant to “go along to get along” has to be jettisoned in favor of a firm stand in defense of our founding principles.  All Americans understand the importance of a constitutional government when it is properly explained.

The 2010 race for congressional seats is already shaping up to be a contest between “squishy” Republicans on our side and dedicated socialists on the Democrat side.  We need to start now to identify candidates who understand, promote and defend the founding principles.  A good example of the problems Republicans will face in 2010 is the Florida Senate race.

According to an article in the Los Angeles Times, “top GOP officials today took the unusual step of inserting themselves into a party primary, picking a moderate U.S. Senate candidate (Gov. Charlie Crist) over a conservative in Florida.”  “…in doing so, the top Republican officials also are aligning themselves with a candidate who has broken with party orthodoxy on environmental and voting rights issues and even appeared with President Obama to support the economic stimulus plan being lambasted by conservatives.”

Running against Crist in the primary will be Former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio, a conservative of Cuban descent.   In many ways the Florida race will be a harbinger of just how serious conservatives are going to be in taking back the Congress from the socialists currently in charge.  The future of America depends on the 2010 primaries every bit as much as on the general election.  It goes without saying that the Republican Party leadership is going to be more concerned with protecting the seats of incumbents that have proven their ineffectiveness than in reforming the party to comply with the principles that have made America great.

Republicans who have shown themselves to place party above country and power above principle need to be challenged and defeated in the primaries.  That will only happen if the grass-roots movement that began with the “tea parties” continues into the 2010 primaries.

Marketing the Republican “Brand”

Recently, the mass media, TV talking heads, and the political wizards of both parties seem to be obsessing over what the Republican Party needs to do to revive its tarnished “brand”.  The overwhelming consensus of these clairvoyant readers of the voter’s mind is that the Republican Party needs to dump its conservative base and become more “moderate”.  To put it another way, they are advised to go with the flow, just paddle a little slower.

The use of the word “brand” indicates they see the issue as a marketing problem.  I suppose a marketing model is as good as any in developing a plan for expanding the Republican’s share of the American vote. Marketing was not one of my best subjects, but I did get the idea that successful marketing involved understanding the customer’s need and designing your product to fit that need.

After eliminating the voters who will “buy” whatever happens to be on the shelf or those who always “buy” the most popular product in vogue at the time, we are left with the primary political market. Competing for shares in this market are two major products, brand “D” and brand “R”.  Of course, there are always a number of lesser “niche market” brands that appeal to the “special” needs of single-issue voters.

If we look at the voters who make up the primary political market, we find they are about evenly divided between those who prefer a “nanny state” government designed to relieve constituents of the responsibilities and risks inherent in life, and those who prefer a less intrusive government allowing for more personal autonomy, freedom and opportunity . “Brand D” caters to those voters who fall into the former group.

The price voters pay for “brand D” products is a sacrifice of personal liberty and the surrender of an exorbitant share of the “fruits of their labor”.  A deadly side effect of product “D” is that it is addictive, requiring an ever-larger dose just to maintain stability.  Those addicted are not only willing to surrender their own liberty and labor, but those of their neighbors, their children, and even their future descendents in order to sustain their “habit”.  Ultimately, the “D” addict is reduced to a position of servitude to the state.

“Brand R” advertises its product to the latter group preferring autonomy, liberty and opportunity.  The problem is that it has failed to deliver the product advertised.  In recent years “Brand R” has been attempting to market a “D” knock-off in the mistaken belief that it will be more appealing to the “buy anything” and “fad” voters.  In using this strategy, they alienate a large segment of their customer base, because it either refuses to buy a substitute product or they decide to buy one of the lesser brands that come closer to meeting their needs.

If we apply this analogy to the Republican Party, we should see that attempting to win over the “brand D” addict by offering them a watered-down, substitute “fix” simply will not work.  Instead, they should be trying to shore up their customer base and build “brand loyalty” by providing the quality product they advertise. History has shown that when the Republican Party delivers the products it advertises, limited government, national security, protection of property and individual liberty, they not only enjoy greater support from their customer base, they also attract enough non-addicted Democrats and uncommitted “others” to reach their marketing goals.  Remember Ronald Reagan.

Supreme Court Justice Wanted: Social Work Experience Preferred

With the upcoming retirement of Supreme Court Justice David Souter, speculation naturally turns to the type of person President Obama will nominate to replace him and who that person will be.  Since the primary responsibility of the Supreme Court is to apply the Constitution to laws passed by Congress, to determine its constitutionality, it is also natural that the subject of the Constitution would be a major topic of discussion.

Invariably when it does come up, we are reminded that Obama is a constitutional scholar and a Professor of Constitutional Law.  He did teach constitutional law part time at the University of Chicago, but his title was instructor not professor.  It also seems to me that “scholar” is an exaggeration of Obama’s dept of knowledge concerning the Constitution.

I have no doubt that he understands the Constitution; he just does not accept it.  Obama often professes a love for his country.  I cannot see into his heart to know his feelings, but I can listen to his words and watch his actions.  The evidence is that he rejects America as it is currently constituted and has been for the past 220 years.  He rejects its history.  He rejects its culture. He rejects its historical values and he rejects its Constitution.

In an interview with WEBZ-FM radio in Chicago, September 6, 2001 Obama had this to say about the Constitution.

“I think we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, or that the Framers had that same blind spot.  I do not think the two views are contradictory, to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way to where we are now, but that it also reflects the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.”

More recently, he explained the criterion he would use in selecting judges to the federal courts.

“We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old–and that’s the criterion by which I’ll be selecting my judges.”

At a press briefing on Friday President Obama announced the decision of Justice Souter to retire in June.  In discussing the type of person he would look for to replace him, Obama said,

“I will seek someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook; it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives, whether they can make a living and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation,” Obama said. “I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people’s hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.”

It is obvious from these and other statements by Obama that he bears no allegiance to the Constitution.  The political class of both parties has used the rulings of rogue courts and the application of the English Common Law doctrine of judicial precedent to reduce the Constitution to a meaningless document in limiting the powers of the federal government.  Unless we can find some way to reverse this trend, liberty will become something our grandchildren only dream of as they slave away their lives in servitude to the state.