More Obama Lawlessness

In our previous article, we pointed out the unlawful actions of President Obama in his use of recess appointments. Two other unconstitutional practices of modern Presidents are the misuse of “signing statements” and “Executive Orders”, and Obama has abused this practice more so than any of our previous Presidents.

Signing Statements

In an era of multi-thousands page “comprehensive legislation” and “omnibus spending bills”, laden with irrelevant amendments that plunder our treasury and expand the control of government over our lives, Presidents started using Signing Statements to express their disapproval of segments of the legislation. Occasionally they will express in the statement their intention to not enforce certain portions of the bill because they either believe them to be unconstitutional or bad policy.

The Constitution is quite clear as to the duty of the President in respect to his approval or disapproval of legislation passed by Congress.

“Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.” (Art. 1, Sec. 7, Para. 2)

A primary responsibility of the President is to defend the Constitution. When a President signs a bill he believes to be unconstitutional or contains amendments that are unconstitutional, he is not fulfilling that responsibility. The same is true if he allows the bill to become law by neglecting to sign it for a period of ten days. If a Signing Statement by the President indicates that he believes any part of the bill to be unconstitutional or that certain requirements of the bill are bad policy, therefore he does not intend to enforce those he disagrees with, he is confessing to an intention to commit an impeachable act. Article II, Section 3 requires of the President that … “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”.

A bedrock principle of a constitutional republic is that all laws apply equally to everyone, not just the peons in the general public. If the President believes any part of a law to be unconstitutional, it is his responsibility to return it to Congress along with his clearly stated reasons why he believes it to be unconstitutional. Once a law is signed by the President it becomes the law of the land until it is either repealed by Congress or declared unconstitutional by a court. The President does not have the prerogative of deciding which laws he will or will not enforce. If Congress overrides the veto of an unconstitutional bill, the members of Congress who voted to override it should be noted by the voters and turned out of office in the next election. These same principles apply to many Executive Orders as well.

Executive Orders

The power of the President to issue “executive orders” is an implied power common to all executives in or out of government. Just as executive orders in the private sector apply only to those employees under the supervision of that executive, executive orders issued by the President are binding only on the employees of the Executive Branch of government. They are not legally binding on the Legislative or Judicial Branches. Neither are they binding on employees of state and local governments or on the public at large. To consider them so is a violation of the constitutional doctrine of “separation of powers”.

Any executive order enforced on the general population by the police powers of the state becomes a despotic decree and should not be tolerated in a constitutional republic. The first sentence of the body of the Constitution clearly states that,

“All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” (Art. I, Sec. 1)

Several of the Republican candidates have expressed their intent to issue executive orders — if elected — nullifying all or portions of laws already on the books. While this may sound good as a campaign promise and is well received by many conservatives; for the reasons stated above, it should be disturbing to all constitutional conservatives and possibly a dis-qualifier in the primary elections.

The unconstitutional use of recess appointments, signing statements and executives orders by Presidents are violations of the Constitution and of their oath of office. In fact, they are serious enough to be considered as impeachable offenses. More on this later.

Obama Flaunts the Constitution With Cordray Appointment

On Tuesday, President Obama announced four “recess appointments” to fill vacancies in the National Labor Relations Board and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. These four appointments are indicative of a growing trend in the Executive Branch of government to circumvent the Constitution and rule by fiat. The appointment that has the Republicans up in arms is the appointment of Richard Cordray to head the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Obama first nominated Cordray to head the agency in July but his confirmation has been blocked by the Senate. In December, the Senate voted to delay the consideration of Cordray’s appointment 53 to 45.

In making the announcement, Obama told a crowd at an Ohio town hall meeting, “I refuse to accept ‘No’ as an answer” showing his growing willingness to bypass Congress and “go it on his own” when Congress stands in the way of his doing what he wants to do. Recess appointments are not new. Previous Presidents have made appointments of judges and other high-level officials in the past with minimal opposition from the Congress. While the Constitution allows for recess appointments there are limitations on that power.

Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 3 says,

“The President shall have power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.”(Emphasis added)

Notice, this clause does not give the President the power to fill any vacancy he pleases, but only those that “happen” (come-up or occur”) while the Senate is in recess. It does not include those vacancies that happened before the Senate went on recess or positions previously created by Congress but not yet filled. Constitutional recess appointments are a logical and practical solution created by the Founders for dealing with unexpected vacancies in important positions such as Cabinet Members, Supreme Court Justices, etc., due to incapacitation, death or resignations that may happen while the Senate in not in session. Vacancies that existed before the Senate recessed and all other Executive appointments are subject to the conditions given in Article II of the Constitution.

“He [the President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, ………….. And he shall nominate, and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministries and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court and all other officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law; but the Congress may by Law vest the appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”(Art. II, Sec. 2, Par. 2, U.S. Constitution)

According to this clause the President does not have the power to appoint someone to maintain his lawn at the White House unless that position has first been established by law and the President or the head of the Grounds Keeping Department has been authorized by law to make the appointment without the approval of Congress.

The practice of “recess appointments” as practiced by previous Presidents and carried to a new high by Barack Obama cannot be allowed to continue. The fact that it has become a tradition over the past century, in spite of the clear language of the Constitution does not change the constitutional injunction that elected officials honor their oath to defend the Constitution. To paraphrase an old theological question; How long does an error have to continue before it becomes truth?

Obama’s lawless, arrogant and dismissive attitude toward the Constitution and other institutions of the American government that we have cherished for over two centuries only highlights the critical need for us to return to constitutional government at the first opportunity. We cannot afford to nominate a Republican candidate in the 2012 election where there is the slightest doubt as to his or her fidelity to the Constitution and our founding principles.

Executives Orders and “signing statements” are two other common practices of modern Presidents that are just a pernicious and unconstitutional as “recess appointments”. All three have been abused frequently by Barack Obama to circumvent the intent of Congress. These will be discussed in future posts.

Conservative Party USA Endorses Rick Santorum

For Immediate Release

Based on extensive review and comprehensive examination of the issues and candidates, the Conservative Party USA endorses Rick Santorum to be the GOP nominee for President.

“While many of the current GOP candidates are solid contenders and worthy of consideration, CP-USA recognizes that Mr. Santorum best articulates the constitutional, economic and fiscal policies that America needs today.” explained H. M. Hervey, Chairman.  “Like CP-USA, Senator Santorum proudly affirms the concept of American Exceptionalism, supports traditional family values and understands that “Buy American” is the key to reviving the U.S. economy.” continued Mr. Hervey.

CP-USA understands that Mr. Santorum has an uphill struggle to cross the finish line ahead of Michelle Bachmann, Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney. “Ms. Bachmann is a solid, proven conservative who is running a stalwart campaign.  She performed well in the debates and stood toe-to-toe with the big boys.  No fear, no excuses.” said Lisa Michaels, Chairman, CP-Oregon. “Bachmann would be CP-USA’s first choice where it not for Santorum’s close alignment with our Platform.” Lisa added.

CP-USA also believes Bachmann would also be a splendid addition to the next Administration as Secretary of Health and Human Services where she could use her considerable skills and experience to help dismantle ObamaCare.

Governor Romney appears to have the clearest path to the GOP nomination at this stage because his solid business experience will play well in the general election. But Seth Riggio, CP-USA’s Director of Youth Outreach, explains that “While most of the GOP establishment deems Romney as more electable, Romney’s brand of conservatism is a bit more ‘ambiguous’ than other candidates like Santorum and Bachmann.  That precludes him from capturing CP-USA’s nod at this time.”

Richard Rutledge, Chairman, CP Alabama, points out that “Santorum and Bachmann have the right values, temperament and skills needed to defeat Obama and be a good President.  And removing Obama is Job #1 for conservatives in 2012.  The debates also prove that Santorum can hold his own on any stage with Obama. ”

Ron Paul is running strong as he does traditionally at this stage of the race; it’s his third and final try. While his national support is a mile wide, it’s only a yard deep. That renders his long-term staying power questionable at best.  CP-USA supports some of Paul’s domestic monetary/fiscal policies (e. g., auditing the Federal Reserve; serious budget cuts) but rejects his libertarian drug policy as unrealistic and his foreign policy on Iran as dangerous.

Rick Perry flew out of the gate hot as a six-shooter with unbounded fanfare, handsome with lots of promise and good hair.  But then he started talking.  Yikes.  Conservatives need someone who can walk, chew gum, talk and shoot critters..in chorus.  Jon Huntsman is a competent and accomplished diplomat but has never caught the imagination of most conservatives or Republicans primary voters.

Of course that leaves Newt Gingrich.  The imperious Mr. Gingrich is certainly a strong, articulate and well-informed candidate.  However, his considerably flawed personal and political history would make HIM the focus in the general election rather than Obama’s economic failures and global anti-American apology tours.  Newt’s desire to explore for precious metals on the moon may be a vain attempt at making all his political baggage weightless.

In addition, CP-USA believes it takes more to win the general election than out-snarling Obama in debates.

H. Michael Hervey
Chairman, CP-USA

Is Socialism Inevitable?

Reprinted from Christian Patriots

The idea of societies with shared labor and shared property is as old as mankind itself. The first communal societies were made up of family members, then voluntary communities and eventually to involuntary sharing of labor and property enforced by some form of government body. Finally, the idea evolved into the political system known today as “socialism”, a term believed to have originated with Robert Owen sometime around 1825 to describe the collective communities he developed in Lanark, Scotland and later in New Harmony, Indiana. The idea itself has a natural appeal to human nature as a way to satisfy basic human needs with minimum individual responsibility.

Abraham Maslow, a leading behavioral psychologist of the twentieth century and the father of “humanistic psychology” identified five common needs that, according to him, provide the motivation for all human behavior. These needs form a “hierarchy of needs”, the lower level ones having to be satisfied before we are motivated to strive for the satisfaction of the higher-level ones. These needs, listed in their hierarchal order are physical needs, security needs, social needs, ego needs and the highest of all, self-actualization needs. As the name of his field of research implies he did not consider the need all humanity has to know and worship God. However, his research does give us a model for understanding why democracies usually end up with some type of socialistic system of government. Socialism is the natural order of societies without God.

Many people are willing to forego the higher level needs which include self-determination, liberty and freedom, in exchange for the promising possibility of being freed from their own responsibility of providing their own security from hunger, thirst, lack of shelter, etc., etc. As soon as the number of people willing to trade liberty for security reaches a majority, the minority become unwilling servants laboring for the benefit of the majority.  Socialism is often touted as the fulfillment of the Biblical injunction to “care for the poor”. This could not be further from the truth.

Tenth Commandment: “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.” Exodus 20:17

The early churches experimented with a form of voluntary socialism. We read in Acts 4:32

“And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.”

However, the practice was soon abandoned because it did not work. Instead, it created strife and divisions within the church, even though it was practiced within the church family and composed of professing Christians.  The apostle Paul had to deal with the problems the experiment caused in several of the churches, including Corinth and Thessalonica. In his second epistle to the Thessalonians, Paul wrote,

“For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work , neither should he eat . For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies . Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work , and eat their own bread.”
~II Thessalonians 3:10-12

The Plymouth Colony of Massachusetts experienced similar results in their experience with the socialist system imposed by their charter. William Bradford wrote in “History of the Plymouth Plantation”,

“The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years, and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato’s & other ancients, applauded by some of later times;—that the taking away of property, and bringing in community into a commonwealth, would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser then God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion & discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort.

Far from being a fulfillment of Christian principles, political demands for socialism is universally based on covetousness, greed, jealousy and envy, the exact opposite of the Christian principle of caring for the sick, elderly and the poor. Socialism was first introduced into the American political system around 1892 by the Populist Party through its attacks on wealthy industrialists. Since then, the Democratic Party has routinely used class warfare and the people’s envy and jealousy of those who have been more successful than they have in life, to further their socialist agenda. This dubious tactic has been the hallmark of the Obama administration and the centerpiece of his reelection efforts.

History has shown that the good always ultimately triumphs over evil. That being true it might seem that the patriots (good guys) would easily triumph over the socialists (bad guys) in the 2012 elections. However, the key word in the above statement is “ultimately”. There is no doubt, at least in my mind, that socialism will ultimately be conquered. At the same time, we have to consider the possibility that God has condemned America to the misery of socialism as the consequences of its official rejection of His sovereignty and His plan for America for the past fifty years.

I believe as did the Founders, that America came into existence through the providence of God. I also believe, as did the Founders, that the providence of God guided the deliberations of the Second Continental Congress and the Philadelphia Convention to produce the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Based on History, I also believe that our founding documents contain the plan of God for America.  The election of Barack Obama and a socialist Congress in 2008 was the culmination of a hundred year drift away from the Constitution and the principles on which America was founded.

The Apostle Peter in a circular letter to the churches admonishes us to,

“Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme ; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.”  I Peter 2:13-14

This passage has two messages. First, is the obvious command to be good, law-abiding citizens obeying the laws of the nation or locality in which we live. It is also a reminder that God uses political authorities to punish nations and citizens who disregard His commandments and persist in an immoral and ungodly lifestyle. One of the most severe punishments given to the nations of Israel and Judah was by Nebuchadnezzar, the idolatrous king of Babylon. In about 600 B.C., Nebuchadnezzar sacked Jerusalem, destroyed and plundered the Temple and carried the best and brightest of Judah into captivity, leaving only a remnant of the poor and less industrious of the people behind.

The story of Nebuchadnezzar plays an important part in the Old Testament, appearing in the books of 2 Kings, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezra, and Ezekiel. The prophets make it clear that he was used as an instrument of judgment against Judah when its people rebelled against the commandments of God.

“But after that our fathers had provoked the God of heaven unto wrath , He gave them into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, the Chaldean, who destroyed this house, and carried the people away into Babylon.”  Ezra 5:12

“I [God] have made the earth, the man and the beast that are upon the ground, by my great power and by my outstretched arm, and have given it unto whom it seemed meet unto me. And now have I given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my servant; and the beasts of the field have I given him also to serve him. And all nations shall serve him, and his son, and his son’s son, until the very time of his land come : and then many nations and great kings shall serve themselves of him. And it shall come to pass, that the nation and kingdom which will not serve the same Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, and that will not put their neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, that nation will I punish , saith the LORD, with the sword, and with the famine, and with the pestilence, until I have consumed them by his hand.”  Jeremiah 27:5-8

Nebuchadnezzar himself was also judged of God. The most famous judgment was when Nebuchadnezzar failed to give God recognition for the greatness of his kingdom, and as a result was sentenced to seven years of madness, living and sleeping in the fields and grazing with the cattle for his food. (As told in Daniel, chapter 4) Eventually, the Babylonian empire was overthrown by Cyrus the Great, King of the Medes.

Although the daily news stories of the past few years might indicate that God has given America into the hands of godless socialism, it is not inevitable; for we read in 2 Chronicles 7:14,

“If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray , and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.”

If we are indeed to take back our county in 2012, it will be by the providence and grace of God.

America, Weighed in the Balances

America today finds itself in its most precarious circumstances since 1775, and our future is far less certain today than it was then. We have a socialist White House and a socialist Senate. Most of our Republican Representatives in the House are incompetent. Four of our Nine Supreme Court Justices are either progressives or socialists. Our economy is in shambles. Our defense policies are the most vulnerable in recent memory. Our culture is fragmented and corrupted. Our political parties’ lust for power has overcome their sense of patriotism to the Country. Our state governments are corrupt and self-serving. Our educational institutions have become little more than socialist indoctrination centers. Our national media has become the propaganda arm of the progressive Democratic Party.

We have forsaken our principles and rejected our founding documents. Worst of all we have also rejected the God of our Founders. Our pulpits are filled with false prophets and teachers, teaching the wisdom of men for the commandments of God. Our public policies foster iniquity and depravity.

We are told that America is not a Christian nation in spite of the fact that 84% of our citizens self-identify as Christian. However, there can be no question that historically America was established as a Christian nation. The first Charter (1606) for both the Jamestown and Plymouth colonies contained this phrase as to their purpose;

“We, greatly commending, and graciously accepting of, their Desires for the Furtherance of so noble a Work, which may, by the Providence of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the Glory of his Divine Majesty, in propagating of Christian Religion…”

It is interesting to note that the plans for a Plymouth colony were significantly altered twice by weather conditions (acts of God?). George Popham, one of the original holders of the 1606 Plymouth charter, established a colony in what is now Maine in 1607 at the same time the Jamestown Colony was being settled in Virginia. A severe winter caused Popham and all the settlers to return to England in the spring of 1608 abandoning the effort. The plans for a second attempt by the Pilgrims in 1620 was again changed by weather. Their original plans called for the establishment of a colony in what is now New York at the mouth of the Hudson River. However, a storm at sea drove them a hundred miles off course and they were forced by weather conditions and a shortage of supplies to establish their colony at Cape Cod in what is now Massachusetts.

One of the most well known of colonial documents is the Mayflower Compact of 1620. In it the Pilgrims reaffirm as their purpose in establishing a colony in America as,

“Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honor of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the northern Parts of Virginia;”

In 1629 King Charles, successor to James, issued a second charter to the Plymouth Company replacing the 1606 charter. This charter was issued to a group of Puritans led by John Endicott and was for a site at Massachusetts Bay some forty miles north of the Plymouth Colony settled by the Pilgrims. Again, the Charter for Massachusetts contained a reference to establishing the Christian faith as their main objective.

“…our said people, inhabitants there, may be so religiously, peaceably, and civilly governed, as their good life and orderly conversation, may win and incite the natives of country, to the knowledge and obedience of the only true God and Savior of mankind, and the Christian faith, which in our royal intention, and the adventurers free profession, is the principal end of this plantation.”  (Emphasis added)

The Christian Faith of these three colonies, Jamestown, Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay, provide the foundation on which the American culture was established and developed over the next three and a half centuries.  While the three colonies differed considerably as to the details of their faith, they were in agreement on the fundamental principles. The Jamestown Colony followed the teachings of the Church of England (Anglican) and their religious practices still closely resembled those of the Roman Catholic Church. The Puritans desired to reform the Church of England to bring it more in line with the teachings of the Bible. The Pilgrims believed the Church of England could no be reformed and therefore advocated a complete separation from it.

Among the principles they all agreed on were the authority of the Old and New Testament Scriptures, the Divinity of Jesus Christ and His atoning work, and the sovereignty of God in the affairs of man. Virtually all of the official documents during the colonial and revolutionary periods acknowledged the sovereignty of God as “God’s Providence” or “the Providence of God”. The Founding Fathers frequently expressed their faith in the Providence of God in their correspondence, the Declaration of Independence and in the Federalist Papers. George Washington, as Commander in Chief of the Revolutionary Army, endured more hardships during the struggle for Independence than any of the other Founders. His conclusion, as expressed in an August, 1788 letter to Thomas Nelson, one of his Generals, was,

“The Hand of Providence has been so conspicuous in all this, that he must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked, that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligations.”
~George Washington

These sentiments were also expressed by Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton and others in their writings. Many Christians and Christian Churches today avoid becoming too involved in the politics of the country, pointing to the fact that Jesus seemed to be a-political during his ministry and will frequently quote Jesus’ statement, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” (Mark 12:17) Many who do actively participate in political matters hesitate to mention God’s plan because of the “politically correct” but historically incorrect application of the doctrine of “separation of church and state”.

We have 4,000 years of recorded history in the Old Testament Scriptures regarding God’s dealing with nations plus another 2,400 years of secular history. In Malachi 3:6 God reminds us, “I am the Lord, I Change not”. In Hebrews 13:8 Paul says “Jesus Christ [is] the same, yesterday, and today, and for ever.”  God does not change. Christians today should not believe that God will deal with America any differently than He dealt with Israel and other nations as recorded in the Old Testament.

In the fifth chapter of Daniel, Daniel tells the story of Belshazzar, King of the Chaldeans as he gave a great feast for a thousand of his lords. As they drank wine and praised the gods of gold, silver, brass, wood and stone a hand appeared and wrote on the wall of the palace, “MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN”.

“This is the interpretation of the thing:
MENE; God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it.
TEKEL; Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting.
PERES; Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.” (Daniel 5:26-28)

That same night, Belshazzar was killed and his Kingdom was taken over by Darius, King of the Medes. In considering the condition of America today the Christian can not help but consider that God may have weighed us in the balances and found us also wanting.

The Old Testament is a litany of God’s judgments against the rulers and the people of Israel, Judah, and the nations they dealt with. When they honored God and followed his commandments, God blessed them with peace and prosperity. When they turned to other gods and forsook His commandments he punished them with famine, pestilence and the sword, eventually destroying the nations of Israel and Judah, scattering the remnant of their people over the face of the earth.

With the possible exception of Israel under King Solomon, (970-930 B.C) no nation in history has enjoyed the blessings of God more than America. For some two hundred years America was the wealthiest, freest, and mightiest nation on earth. The dream of the poor and oppressed the world over was to someday migrate to America and become an “American”. Everywhere, “American exceptionalnism” was recognized as being due to the special blessings of God. All that began to change during the past two or three generations.

Prior to the mid-twentieth century the official policy of the American government was to acknowledge the sovereignty and providence of God in our national affairs and to seek His blessings through public prayers. Christianity was encouraged in our schools, and other public institutions. However, as early as 1890, at the beginning of the progressive era, a Wisconsin court ruled against using the King James Version of the Bible in public schools. Opposition to the idea of America as a “Christian Nation” continued to grow, slowly at first, until finally it reached the Supreme Court. A number of court ruling during the 1960s led to the eventual removal of all official recognition of God or Christianity from our public institutions. George Washington could not be elected to public office in twenty-first century America. Any public official delivering a speech with the Christian overtones of Washington’s Farewell Address of 1796 or his Thanksgiving Proclamation of 1789 would immediately be subject to condemnation by the modern American society and calls would be made for his or her resignation.

Along with our official rejection of God’s presence in our public affairs came the inevitable decline of morality in the American culture. Covetousness, jealousy, greed, sodomy, abortion, and various forms of idolatry are not only condoned, but encouraged by public policy. Washington D.C. has become the temple of our new god, the U.S. government. The worship of government, the environment and individual needs have replaced the worship of the Creator God of our forefathers. Virtually all of God’s commandments have been made disreputable by our official public policies and “politically correct” laws.

The Founders firmly believed that our success in gaining our independence from England and establishing our form of government was due to the providence of God. Years of studying history and the Bible has brought me to the same conclusion. Apart from that, history also shows that a society cannot long exist without an objective and enduring standard of behavior and order. For America, that standard is found in our four founding documents, the Bible, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The further we move away from that standard the more our problems multiply. With these thoughts in mind, it is easy to relate our current problems to the sentiment expressed by Thomas Jefferson in 1785.

“Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever..;” ~Thomas Jefferson

Nothing would go further in preserving our republic and reestablishing our lost liberty than another “great awakening” similar to the one from 1720 to 1770 that provided the moral fortitude for our establishment as an independent nation and constitutional republic. Just as Thomas Jefferson credited the state legislatures with saving the Constitution and the Republic during the administration of John Adams, Christians and Christian Churches have the opportunity today of helping to save our nation from the Judgment of God. We can no longer afford to sit on the sidelines and watch our nation slip into godless socialism.

“…If the watchman see the sword come , and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned ; if the sword come , and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman’s hand.”
Ezekiel 33:6

Natural Law and Economic Prosperity

Benjamin Franklin, at age 81, addressing the Philadelphia Convention, June 28, 1787 said, “I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth — that God Governs in the affairs of men.”  After years of studying American History, the writings and biographies of the Founding Fathers, the Bible and America’s founding documents, I came to the same conclusion; as did Madison, Washington, Adams, and Jefferson; and when I consider the changes that have taken place in America, just during my lifetime, I am forced to also agree with Jefferson when he said, “Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever.”

Read More…

One-Dimensional Conservatism Not Enough

America, like all nations of the world is tripartite in its makeup. Socialists seem to recognize this as a natural fact. Most conservatives do not. That could prove to be our undoing in the struggle to take our nation back from the Democrat-RINO (DR) coalition that runs the federal government. As Obama and his socialist backers continue to dismantle the institutions of government, conservatives grow increasingly disgusted with the Republican leadership in Congress. The danger for 2012 is that the DR coalition will succeed in alienating the patriot movement from the Republican Party to the point that conservatives vote for someone other than the Republican Party candidate in next year’s election.

A more immediate danger, however, is that patriots fail to unite behind a single candidate in the primaries resulting in the establishment candidate winning the Republican nomination. If that happens, enough conservatives could cast votes for a third party candidate or simply sit out the election, to return Obama and the DR coalition to Washington in 2013.  November of 2012 marks the outer limits of the “point of no return” for America, as we know it, if we have not already reached that point before then. That is why it is imperative that we nominate three-dimensional conservatives for national, state and local offices whenever possible.

All civil societies are tripartite or three-dimensional by nature. The three parts comprising the essence of civil societies are its culture, its government, and its economy, all arrived at by the subliminal consensus of the people making up that society. In the sequence of development, the culture is first to be formed. From that, the economic and government systems develop. Throughout history, cultures have always been strongly influenced by man’s innate awareness of a supreme being. The predominant element in a society’s culture is the dominant religion practiced by the majority of its members. The economic structure and the organization of government always reflect the religious principles of its culture.

The old America that worked, with a culture based on Judeo-Christian principles, an economy based on the Lockean concept of private property, and a government based on a written constitution, has been deliberately and methodically dismantled over the past several generations and is in the process of being replaced with an American version of Marxist socialism that has failed in every place it has been tried the world over. In spite of this fact, a sizable number of conservatives continue to view our problems from a one-dimensional perspective. Libertarians for example, place their emphasis on the Constitution to the exclusion of cultural considerations. Many fiscal conservatives focus on taxes and spending while criticizing social conservatives for their insistence on preserving the moral basis of our culture.

We have watched for many years as progressives (American socialists) have used a dubious reading of the Constitution and the Chinese Communist concept of “political correctness” to undermine the most important of our cultural institutions: schools, families, churches and charitable institutions. These attacks on the American culture take the form of abortion on demand, the elimination of God from our public forums, the welfare state replacing the role of fathers in many households of the poor, and traditional gender relationships in marriage being looked on as “narrow minded” and bigoted. We have seen the complete breakdown of the traditional cultural values in our sports and entertainment, in our business relationships, and in our political institutions. And for those with “eyes to see” the results are only too evident.

When the culture breaks down, government effectiveness and fiscal stability also breaks down. On the final day of the Philadelphia Convention, Benjamin Franklin expressed his support for the Constitution with the warning that it “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.” While we may not be at that point yet, if we continue to ignore cultural issues, it is only a matter of time until private and public corruption reaches the stage that it can only be controlled by despotic means. That is one of the major lessons we learn from history. Once a society loses its cultural foundation, anarchy emerges, and eventually reaches the level where the populace will accept, and even welcome tyranny as the only means of personal security.

No society can prosper without objective standards of conduct for its government, culture and economy. The objective standard of conduct for the government of America is the Constitution, which is no longer given even “lip service” by our national leaders. The President and Congress routinely violate the restrictions of the Constitution with impunity; the courts apply its requirements based on populist’s trends rather than impartial law. The foundation of the American culture is rooted in the Judeo-Christian principles found in the Holy Bible. An increasingly oppressive attitude toward Christian principles has existed in America since about 1960 and the Bible, prayer, and Christian symbols have been all but eliminated from the public institutions of our culture. Our capitalist economic system based on private ownership and management of property has been undermined by “crony capitalism” and central planning through the government regulatory system as we transition from a free market economy to a centrally planned socialist one.

The Ron Paul type of libertarianism and a fiscal conservatism that ignores the corruption of our culture is simply not adequate to meet the problems facing us as a nation today. We only need look at the state of California, the “hooligan” riots last week in England, or the “flash mobs” that have sprung up in American cities the past few weeks to see our future if we continue to ignore the cultural corruption that has become rampant in recent years. While the federal government has no constitutional authority over the nation’s culture, we cannot afford to support candidates for national office who refuse to champion publicly the traditional American moral values or who, in some cases, openly undermine them.

Many well meaning constitutional conservatives rightly point out that social issues such as abortion, gay marriage, and a host of others are reserved by the Tenth Amendment to the states and to the people; if you listen closely to their arguments for “states rights”, it is easy to conclude that they confuse morality with legality. Immorality sanctioned by state law is no less immoral than that sanctioned by federal law. That is why in deciding on candidates in the 2012 elections we cannot settle for one-dimensional or two-dimensional conservatives. We must insist they be constitution conservatives, fiscal conservatives, AND cultural conservatives. Anything less and we are wasting our time and only postponing the certain end to America “as we know it”.

A Fair Look at the “Fair” Tax

 

There are few things in the political discourse of today that infuriates me more than the sanctimonious, self-serving and misleading propaganda of the proponents of the “fair” tax. Consider, for example, the two following statements.

Statement No. 1: “Everybody should pay their fair share.”
Statement No. 2: “Everybody should pay their fair share.”

The first statement is made by a socialist advocating for more taxes. The second is made by a conservative advocating for the “fair” tax.  Can you tell which was made by the socialist and which by the conservative?  It really doesn’t matter because both are motivated by the same feelings of envy and jealousy. With one the jealousy is directed toward the more productive people who use their time and intellect to raise their income level and increase their wealth. The other directs his jealousy toward those who do not earn enough income to make it more advantageous for politicians to take part of it than to let them keep it, hopefully, in exchange for his or her vote.

Anyway, just what is our fair share? Don’t worry about that. That will be decided by those more knowledgeable about such things. You know, socialists like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid or conservatives like Neil Bortz. Whoever decides, it seems to amount to a large chunk of the money you earn above what is needed for the “necessities” of life. For the socialists, necessity is figured on a sliding scale. Those on the bottom of the income ladder pay no taxes, while those above pay at an increasing percentage rate depending on how far up the ladder they have progressed.

Those touting the “fair” tax are more “fair” in their assessment. Fat Cats like Warren Buffet would pay the same as the single mom with two small children, whose husband abandoned her for a less demanding life with his new “honey”. Oh, but not to worry, the mom is going to get a “pre-bate” check on the first of every month to pay the taxes on her “necessities”. In fact, the “fair” tax is so fair that they are going to send Mr. Buffet the same amount in his pre-bate check. The pre-bate is based on the poverty level. Each family would receive a pre-bate check adequate to pay the taxes on an amount of purchases equal to the government determined poverty level.

Mr. Buffet can entertain a friend at a five-star restaurant with his pre-bate check, meanwhile, the single mom has to figure out how to stretch hers to cover her loss of buying power since suddenly, the cost of her “necessities” has increased 30%. The one bedroom apartment she has been paying $800 for, now costs $1,040 per month. The baby sitter she has been paying $600 per month, now costs $780, the $3 gallon of milk now costs $3.93 and the gallon of gas for her car to get back and forth to work, now costs $5.20 instead of the $4 she has been paying. I forgot to mention, the mom works as a cashier at the local convenience store at minimum wage. And then there is the homeless man who lost his job and his home and who can’t get a re-bate check because he has no address to send it to.  Before he could always panhandle $1 for the $.99 special at McDonalds or Burger King; now he has to beg for an extra 30 cents to pay the tax.

I suppose we should be grateful for all the advantages of the fair tax. For instance, the IRS will no longer be bugging ordinary hard working citizens, instead they will be policing the local doctor’s offices and landlords to make sure they are passing through all the “fair” taxes they collected to the federal government. Best of all, we will finally be taxing all those deadbeats who work in the “underground economy” and have been getting away without paying “their fair share” in income tax for years. There are a few people, no doubt, who make a good buck off the underground economy. However, the overwhelming majority of people working in it are the working poor, struggling to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table, who work “off the books” for pay that is far below the prevailing wage at a job that would not exist if his employer was forced to pay the prevailing wage in his area.

Best of all, the “fair” tax will not take away any money from the cash strapped government and it will do away with that pesky tax Mr. Buffet and others in his income range have to pay on the interest earned from their saving or dividends on their investments. The “fair” tax is “revenue neutral”, meaning the federal government will still get its same amount of income, it will just be collected in a different way from different sources. For example, all government agencies, religious institutions, and charitable organization will have to pay taxes on every purchase they make. Imagine that; government paying taxes to itself. And, where will it get the money to pay its taxes? Why, from the taxpaying citizens, of course.

Please Mr. Bortz, we don’t want a revenue neutral “fair tax“, we want NO tax. Of course, we know that a certain amount of taxation is necessary to support the essential functions of government. But, how much is a fair amount to pay? Under Old Testament law in the nation of Israel, God required ten percent. That seems fair. In fact, if the federal government followed the Constitution and only levied taxes necessary to carry out the functions delegated to it by the states in 1787, it could probably get by quite well on a lot less than ten percent.

A tax on income is probably the most equitable tax possible, and a tax of five to ten percent on every dollar earned, from the poorest to the richest, would not be a burden on anyone. That amount would also provide enough money to the federal government for it to perform all the legitimate duties assigned to it by the Constitution and everyone would have “skin in the game”, therefore the average citizen would be much more sensitive to proposed tax increases. Now that I think about it, I guess I am in favor of a “real” fair tax after all.

For a more objective treatment of the fair tax see my article of a couple of years ago, “Beware of the Fair Tax”. Be sure to read the comments, they offer even more insights into the issue. If you have read this far you have surely concluded that I could be nothing but objective concerning the “fair” tax.

The All-American Conservative

If conservatives are to prevail in our struggle with the socialist hoards that have taken over our institutions during the past few generations, we must come together in a unity of purpose. If not, we run the risk of returning Obama to the White House and the Coalition of socialist Democrats and RINOs to Congress, the same group that has brought us to the brink of destruction in the past few years. As things now stand, the fiscal conservatives, the values conservatives, and the constitution conservatives make up conservatism’s three main groups.

The values conservatives are criticized by the fiscal conservatives for “trying to ram religion down our throats” and “turning off” secular independents. Many constitution conservatives seem to have a tendency to substitute legality for morality; anything is okay so long as the decisions are made at the state level and not the national. Fiscal conservatives, too often, focus on monetary policy rather than basic principles. The danger is two-fold: First, there is the danger that conservative voters will become so disgusted with both parties that they stay home on Election Day. The second danger is that conservatives, disenchanted with the Republican Party will vote for one of several minor party candidates soliciting their vote, thereby splitting the Republican vote, and giving the election to the socialist Democrats and RINOs.

While most of our problems may originate in Washington, their full impact is felt by citizens at the state and local levels. Most state governments are made up of the same socialist Democrats and RINOs that populate Washington D.C. States like California and Illinois offers undisputable proof that the problem goes much deeper than an out-of-control federal government. If there is one lesson to be learned from our 225-year experiment in self-government, it is that no government, even with the best plan ever devised by man can endure without a sound and solid culture, based on time-tested moral principles.

As we pointed out in our last post, America, like its government, is composed of three separate and equal parts, its government, its culture and its economy. At the federal level, government is based on the principles and rules contained in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, the most nearly perfect plan of government ever devised. However, the best of plans is of little value unless it is faithfully followed. The cultural foundation of America is our Judeo-Christian heritage composed of the Christian principles found in the Bible. Out economy is based on the principles of free-market capitalism.

The dysfunction of one part of this three-part system results in the dysfunction of all. A near perfect Constitution does not work when the moral standard underpinning the culture breaks down. Political corruption and individual immorality among the nation’s population leads to poor economic decisions, self-serving politicians and an amoral citizenry with no objective standard of what is right or wrong. The results, we see all about us today. We have a government that no longer works, an economy dominated by crony capitalism, and a culture that accepts depravity and immorality as something to be tolerated and even applauded.

If we are going to pass down to future generations, the nation of liberty and prosperity handed down to us by our forefathers, we have to put aside our hyphenated conservatism and unite in an All-America Conservatism. As Christ reminded us, “man does not live by bread alone” and “what shall it profit a man [or nation], if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”

The future of America depends on conservatives winning the current struggle with socialism. To do that we have to stop approaching issues based on political expediency and personal financial gain. We have to stop judging policies based on expediency and judge them on the time-tested principles that transformed us from a collection of displaced vagabonds into the greatest nation on the face of the earth.

America’s Second Civil War

Next year marks the hundredth anniversary of the beginning of the longest Civil War in world history, the war between the American Socialists and the American Conservatives. Make no mistake about it; we are in the midst of a Civil War, although most Americans do not recognize it and most refuse to accept its reality. Although its conduct resembles the Cold War between America and the Soviet Union more than it does the Civil War between the states, the dangers to the future of America are every bit as threatening as either of those.

The first serious battle of our second Civil War was launched in the Presidential campaign of 1912 when four political parties vied for the office of President. All four nominated progressive (American Socialist) candidates. The party platforms on which the candidates ran were all slightly different, but all contained the basic elements of the then defunct Peoples Party; a graduated national income tax; popular election of Senators; and protective tariffs, among other things. In 1913, the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments were ratified, paving the way for the Socialist’s primary goals of income redistribution and a consolidated national government through annulment of the Tenth Amendment.

Eugene Debs was nominated by the Socialist Party, Ex-President Theodore Roosevelt by the Progressive Party, Woodrow Wilson by the Democratic Party and William Howard Taft by the Republican Party. Taft and Roosevelt split the Republican vote giving the Presidency to Woodrow Wilson. Since that time a succession of Progressive Presidents and Congresses have waged a relentless attack on the institutions of American Society. It is only since the election of socialist Barack Obama and the rise of the patriot movement, known collectively as the Tea Party Movement, that many Americans have become aware of the nature of the struggle and the possible devastating consequences of its outcome.

The identity of a nation is determined by the nature of its three primary components, its form of government, its common culture, and its economic system. In America, the form of government is drawn from the principles set forth in its Declaration of Independence and codified in its Constitution. The Constitution contains the rules and limitations placed on the federal government, but deals only tangentially with the culture and the economy. The American Socialists are determined to destroy all three components of American society and replace them with the institutions of socialism. For the most part, they have been successful in shredding the Constitution, corrupting our culture and dismantling our economic system outside the conscious awareness of the American people.

Our culture is built on the foundation of its Christian principles. I am not talking about the denominational doctrines quibbled about among America’s 900 Christian denominations, but the principles behind those doctrines, as contained in the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount. Despite the Constitution’s prohibition against the federal government’s involvement in religious matters, not a day goes by but what some atheist group or some government agency attempts to interfere with the religious expressions of citizens and communities; from monuments to the Ten Commandments in local courthouses, to prayers being offered at public events to reminders of Christ in Christmas celebrations.

The Founders recognized the importance of a religious foundation for our culture in order for the Constitution to fulfill the purpose for which it was created. John Adams, our second President, said,

“our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

George Washington reminded America about the importance of religious principles in his farewell address,

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity.”

“Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

Along with the efforts of American Socialists to purge Christianity from our culture, we have witnessed a steady decline in the moral foundation of our politics and economy as well.  We marvel at the equanimity of our elected officials as they look directly into the lens of the TV camera and lie to us with a sanguine belief that the American people will believe their fabricated assertions in spite of the evidence of experience and common sense.

Our economic system rests on the centuries old principles of free market capitalism where individuals make their own economic decisions based on their perception as to what is in their own and their family’s best interest. The system worked fine in the days when “a man’s word was his bond”, and deals were sealed with a handshake. However, the corrupting influence of continuous incremental successes of American Socialism has replaced free market capitalism with “crony capitalism” and is moving us ever closer to the centrally planned economy coveted by socialists the world over.

Both our political and economic well-being are dependent on the moral character of the culture that gave it birth. As Benjamin Franklin Observed on the final day of the Philadelphia Convention,

“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.”

As America prepares for the deciding battle in our second Civil War next year, it is time for a decision; everyone must decide which course they wish follow. One leads to a return to liberty and prosperity, the other to poverty, misery and servitude to the state.  There can be no middle ground. One cannot compromise with an enemy whose objective is to destroy your way of life. It must be defeated. Have we, as Franklin mused, become so corrupt as a nation that we can only be ruled by despotism? Are we so lacking in character that we prefer the false security promised by American Socialists, or are we willing to take the risk proposed by the American Conservatives and battle for liberty, freedom and the blessings of God, settling for nothing less?