Monthly Archives: February 2010

The Dallas, Texas Tea Party Invitation to Keith Olberman

Great Video!

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Beck or Brown?

C. Edmund Wright has an interesting article on American Thinker about Glen Beck’s keynote speech at the CPAC convention Saturday night.  His article and a lot of the comments following show that many in the Republican Party have not yet caught on to what all the uproar is about. They still think it is all about which Party is in charge.

It is probably true that most conservatives vote Republican in election after election. It is equally true that conservatives are getting tired of candidates who sound conservative on the campaign trail and then turn into progressive Republicans once they arrive in Washington. The contest for the future of America is not between Democrats and Republicans. The evidence is that either Party can embrace progressive policies so long as the price is right.  The real contest that will determine whether we continue as a Constitutional Republic or as an American version of a Democratic Socialist state is that between Constitution Conservatives and Progressives (American socialists) of whatever party.

Moderate Republicans and most so-called “fiscal conservatives” share the views of Progressive Republicans and “moderate” Democrats on most of the issues facing us today.  In normal times, that might be close enough for government work.  However, these are not normal times. We are engaged in a struggle for the soul of America, and progressives of every stripe must be defeated at every opportunity. McCains, Snows, and Specters can no longer be tolerated. Just a week or so ago conservatives were celebrating the “Massachusetts Miracle”, Scott Brown. Today Brown sided with four other Progressive Republicans to end the Republican filibuster on Obama’s “jobs bill”. This only goes to show that even conservatives can seriously misjudge a candidate in the midst of campaigning.

In Illinois, the majority progressive wing of the Republican establishment succeeded in pushing through the nomination of progressive Republican Mark Kirk for the U.S. Senate. While Kirk claims the label of “fiscal conservative”, there is little in his voting record as Congressman to indicate he is anything but a progressive (American socialist) Republican. Rather than strengthening the Republican forces in the Senate, he is more likely to weaken them.

This state of affairs creates a dilemma for constitution conservatives and conservative Republicans. As a constitution conservative Republican, I could never cast a vote for Kirk under any circumstances.  At the same time, I am undecided whether it is better to accept the enemy you know or the one who may be persuaded to sometimes support conservative principles for political expediency.  In the long run it probably makes little difference.

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend


Email

Take the
Constitution Refresher Course
For Elected Officials, Candidates, and Citizens

Looking Back at Our Future

For most of us, our concept of history begins with our own generation. Consequently, we believe that the problems we face were invented by us and it is up to us to find new solutions for them. That is not the case, however. Many generations have faced the problems we are dealing with today. The reason we are having such a difficult time in solving them is twofold.  First is the idea that it is up to our political leadership, and particularly those in our national government to come up with the solutions. Second is our tendency to view every problem as a separate issue, each with its own unique solution.

Although, on the surface, the problems we face today all seem to be separate issues, they are not. Out of control spending, the looming specter of confiscatory taxes, a burgeoning national debt, health care, energy, the global warming farce, declining quality of education and all the other issues we worry about daily are merely symptoms of our one fundamental problem, a lawless, out of control government.  That, in itself, is not new by any means. It dates back to the beginning of our republic and to some of our Founding Fathers.

President Obama brought nothing new to the table.  His administration is merely the culmination of the hundred year assault on our Constitution that began in the late eighteen hundreds during the Progressive (American socialist) era. Even that was not the first attempt by our elected leaders to circumvent the Constitution. Many of the Delegates who participated in the Philadelphia Convention were in favor of an all-powerful federal government with the state governments subordinate to its will.  That is why it proved so difficult to get a Bill of Rights added to the Constitution after it was ratified by the states.

The lust for power was as strong in the breasts of our Founders as in any of the politicians we send to Washington today. John Adams, for example, one of the leading patriots during the Revolution, and who later became our first Vice-President and then our second President, was a great admirer of the British system of government, as was his close friend Alexander Hamilton. Jefferson relates an incident concerning Hamilton and Adams and their admiration of the British Constitution in a letter to Benjamin Rush, January 16, 1811.

“I invited them to dine with me, and after dinner, sitting at our wine, having settled our question, other conversation came on, in which a collision of opinion arose between Mr. Adams and Colonel Hamilton, on the merits of the British Constitution, Mr. Adams giving it as his opinion, that, if some of its defects and abuses were corrected, it would be the most perfect constitution of government ever devised by man. Hamilton, on the contrary, asserted, that with its existing vices, it was the most perfect model of government that could be formed; and that the correction of its vices would render it an impracticable government. And this you may be assured was the real line of difference between the political principles of these two gentlemen.”

As we pointed out in a previous post, the British constitution is the model for the progressives concept of a “living Constitution”. Jefferson also made the following observation concerning Adams’ Presidency in a 1793 letter to James Madison.

“…If Mr. Adams could be induced to administer the government on its true principles, quitting his bias for an English constitution, it would be worthy consideration whether it would not be for the public good,”…

Today, Adams is esteemed as one of our greatest Presidents, and in many ways, he was.  However, he seemed to possess two of the character flaws that are common among those who aspire to government. First was the belief that only a member of an aristocracy is suited to the role of government, and second was his inability to deal well with opposition. These characteristics coupled with his disregard for the American Constitution caused him to overstep his authority as President and eventually destroyed his Presidency and the Federalist Party he and Hamilton founded.  Jefferson also referred to this aspect of the Presidency of Adams in his “Thoughts On Lotteries” included in a petition to the Virginia Legislature around 1825.

“…[D]uring the administration of Mr. Adams, [t]heir usurpations and violations of the constitution at that period, and their majority in both Houses of Congress, were so great, so decided, and so daring, that after combating their aggressions, inch by inch, without being able in the least to check their career, the republican leaders thought it would be best for them to give up their useless efforts there, go home, get into their respective legislatures, embody whatever of resistance they could be formed into, and if ineffectual, to perish there as in the last ditch…..”

The Federalist Party’s and Adams’ disregard for the constraints of the Constitution, more than anything else resulted in his defeat at the polls in 1800 and the eventual demise of the Party some twenty years later. The electorate could very well deliver the same verdict on the Obama Presidency and the Democratic Party in 2010 and 2012. That, in fact, represents the best and possibly only hope for the survival of our Republic.

Should the present follow the same course as history, displaced Democrats will flock to the Republican Party over the next few decades, transforming it into a progressive party. That would be the proper time for the emergence of a “Constitution based” Conservative Party to preserve the Republic. The current attempts by the media and the progressives to encourage the formation of a third party based on the tea party resistance, is premature and self-defeating.  Its only result would be the continuance of the country in the grip of progressivism, leading to the final destruction of the Constitution.

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend


Email

Text of The Mount Vernon Statement

From: The Mount Vernon Statement. Com

Constitutional Conservatism: A Statement for the 21st Century

We recommit ourselves to the ideas of the American Founding.  Through the Constitution, the Founders created an enduring framework of limited government based on the rule of law. They sought to secure national independence, provide for economic opportunity, establish true religious liberty and maintain a flourishing society of republican self-government.

These principles define us as a country and inspire us as a people. They are responsible for a prosperous, just nation unlike any other in the world. They are our highest achievements, serving not only as powerful beacons to all who strive for freedom and seek self-government, but as warnings to tyrants and despots everywhere.

Each one of these founding ideas is presently under sustained attack. In recent decades, America’s principles have been undermined and redefined in our culture, our universities and our politics. The self-evident truths of 1776 have been supplanted by the notion that no such truths exist. The federal government today ignores the limits of the Constitution, which is increasingly dismissed as obsolete and irrelevant.

Some insist that America must change, cast off the old and put on the new. But where would this lead — forward or backward, up or down? Isn’t this idea of change an empty promise or even a dangerous deception?

The change we urgently need, a change consistent with the American ideal, is not movement away from but toward our founding principles. At this important time, we need a restatement of Constitutional conservatism grounded in the priceless principle of ordered liberty articulated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

The conservatism of the Declaration asserts self-evident truths based on the laws of nature and nature’s God. It defends life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It traces authority to the consent of the governed. It recognizes man’s self-interest but also his capacity for virtue.

The conservatism of the Constitution limits government’s powers but ensures that government performs its proper job effectively. It refines popular will through the filter of representation. It provides checks and balances through the several branches of government and a federal republic.

A Constitutional conservatism unites all conservatives through the natural fusion provided by American principles. It reminds economic conservatives that morality is essential to limited government, social conservatives that unlimited government is a threat to moral self-government, and national security conservatives that energetic but responsible government is the key to America’s safety and leadership role in the world. A Constitutional conservatism based on first principles provides the framework for a consistent and meaningful policy agenda.

  • It applies the principle of limited government based on the
  • rule of law to every proposal.
  • It honors the central place of individual liberty in American
  • politics and life.
  • It encourages free enterprise, the individual entrepreneur, and
  • economic reforms grounded in market solutions.
  • It supports America’s national interest in advancing freedom
  • and opposing tyranny in the world and prudently considers what we can and should do to that end.
  • It informs conservatism’s firm defense of family, neighborhood, community, and faith.

If we are to succeed in the critical political and policy battles ahead, we must be certain of our purpose.

We must begin by retaking and resolutely defending the high ground of America’s founding principles.

February 17, 2010

Edwin Meese, former U.S. Attorney General under President Reagan
Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America
Edwin Feulner, Jr., president of the Heritage Foundation
Lee Edwards, Distinguished Fellow in Conservative Thought at the Heritage Foundation, was present at the Sharon Statement signing.
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council
Becky Norton Dunlop, president of the Council for National Policy
Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center
Alfred Regnery, publisher of the American Spectator
David Keene, president of the American Conservative Union
David McIntosh, co-founder of the Federalist Society
T. Kenneth Cribb, former domestic policy adviser to President Reagan
Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform
William Wilson, President, Americans for Limited Government
Elaine Donnelly, Center for Military Readiness
Richard Viguerie, Chairman, ConservativeHQ.com
Kenneth Blackwell, Coalition for a Conservative Majority
Colin Hanna, President, Let Freedom Ring
Kathryn J. Lopez, National Review

Click Here to add your name to list of signers

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend


Email

The Enemy Within

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.”
~ Marcus Tullius Cicero

On Monday, Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana became the latest Democrat member of Congress to announce they would not seek reelection. Signs of a major pick-up in Republican seats in both the House and Senate continue to multiply.  As things now stand, 2010 could bring a Republican landslide in November and could easily carry over into 2012.  That would be a good start in correcting some of the problems we are currently facing.

If that is the only change however, we have only “kicked the can” down the road, we have not really solved our problems.  As Marcus Cicero points out in the quote above, we can survive our fools, and we have plenty of those.  We can survive the ambitious, and Washington is populated with those. But unless we recognize the real enemy, in the end, we are heading for defeat and the loss of our liberty.

The enemy is not a political party; it is an ideology.  That ideology is progressivism, the American version of socialism.  This cancer on our body politic is not limited to the Democrat Party alone.  It permeates the Republican Party as well. To a certain degree, we can find symptoms of its Machiavellian influence among the conservative movement as well.  Until we face up to that fact, any victory that we eke out in the short term will prove to be illusory and worthless in the long term.

Those who believe me to be a fanatic on the Constitution do not yet understand the political philosophy I am advocating.  I am a fanatic for small “r” republicanism, and for a good reason. Republicanism is the only system of government that has ever been effective in preserving the liberty of its citizens in the four or five thousand year written history of humankind. Republicanism is the newest, most successful and the most fragile of all the different forms of government man has experimented with over time.  Its major competitor for the past hundred and fifty years has been European socialism and its American counterpart, progressivism.

What makes republicanism unique among the governments of the world is its championing of the rule of law and respect for the individuality and personal liberty of its citizens.  What makes America unique among republican nations is its written Constitution.  England, for example, which has been celebrated for centuries for the liberty enjoyed by its people, does not have a written Constitution in the same sense America Does. The absence of a stable written Constitution is one of the factors that have made the United Kingdom susceptible to the rise of socialism.

The English Constitution has long been the envy of American politicians who seek maximum power over the lives of the people. It is looked to as the model of a “living Constitution” they seek to project onto our own Constitution. Laws passed by Parliament, decisions of the courts, and the prerogatives of the Monarch make up the Constitution of the United Kingdom.  It can be changed on any given day by an act of Parliament or a decision by one of its “High Courts”. The American Constitution can only be changed through the Amendment process prescribed in its Article V.

It is our Constitution alone that protects American republicanism and therefore is the only protection for our liberties and against government tyranny. The differences between Progressive Democrats, Progressive Republicans and progressive-conservatives are found only in the strategies advocated to promote progressive policies.  Perhaps the most dangerous of these are the progressive-conservatives because “he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments”.


Email

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

“Liberal” Banned From Website

In keeping with our new crusade for accuracy in political labeling, we will no longer post an article or comment containing the word “liberal” when applied to a political figure or position.  The word “liberal” has lost all meaning over the past forty or fifty years.  Instead, we will use the word “progressive”. Progressive has a recognized meaning and a long history of use.  In a campaign speech in Madison, Wisconsin, February 12, 2008 Barack Obama remarked, “And where better to affirm our ideals than here in Wisconsin, where a century ago the progressive movement was born”.

His reference was to the work of Senator Robert M. La Folette of Wisconsin, the driving force of the progressive movement at the turn of the nineteenth century. The progressive movement was the political rival of the socialist movement led, at the time, by Eugene Debs of Indiana. La Folette attempted to gain the Progressive Party’s nomination for President in 1912 but lost the primary to fellow progressive, Theodore Roosevelt. The progressive movement eventually found its home in the Democrat party and became the popular voice of American socialism.

Progressivism, the Americanized version of European socialism is more descriptive of the policies of the Democrat party than “liberal” and is more difficult to deny than “socialism” since this is the term Democrats routinely apply to themselves. At the same time, it more accurately describes the political views of “moderate” republicans and many self-identified fiscal conservatives. It is more accurate to use the terms “Progressive Republican” and “Conservative Progressive” or “Progressive-Conservative” to identify these groups.

It is not uncommon to hear someone refer to his or her political views as fiscally conservative and socially liberal. What they usually mean is that they are opposed to the reckless spending and high taxes connected with progressive policies but they support unconstitutional federal regulations and spending on education, energy use, health care and many of the other unconstitutional federal policies prevalent in today’s America.  Many also support abortion, gay marriage, and more liberalized laws regulating recreational drugs.  “Fiscal conservative” is not an accurate label for this political group. “Progressive-conservative” more accurately describes the moral confusion inherent in their conflicted political views.

“Classic republicanism” and “classic conservatism” both refer to the rule of law applied to government and adherence to the governing principles found in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Only those supporting these principles should rightly be labeled conservatives.

Join Today
Illinois Conservative Action Network
Make a difference

Progressive Republican Mark Kirk Leads in Polls

According to a recent Rasmussen Poll, Progressive Republican Mark Kirk holds a six-point lead over Progressive Democrat Alexi Giannoulias in the race for the Senate Seat previously held by President Barack Obama.  Kirk, masquerading as a conservative, enjoys the support of the media and the progressive wing of the Republican Party.  Since progressives dominate the Republican Party in Illinois and considering the backlash against the Obama Administration’s progressive policies, it is likely that Kirk will be the next Senator from Illinois barring intervention by Illinois conservatives.

Of course, it is far too early to forecast the outcome of the November elections and there are two unknown factors still in play. One of the unknowns is whether enough conservative voters are taken in by the “conservative façade” being promoted by Kirk’s backers and the media. A second factor involves whether or not an independent conservative Republican will come forth before the June deadline as an alternative candidate in the general election; should that happen Giannoulias would probably be the next Senator.

This seems to be one of those rare occasions in modern politics when it may be in the best interest of the nation if an openly progressive Democrat wins over a “stealth progressive” Republican posing as a conservative.  If Kirk wins, it will provide the mainstream media the ammunition it needs to moderate the conservative influence in the 2012 elections. If Illinois conservatives are unable to find an independent candidate who has the knowledge and chutzpa to make the Constitution the core issue in the 2010 election, it may be better to openly “throw” the Senate seat to the Democrats as a show of conservative strength, and save the conservative power for 2012 when they throw out the progressive’s “Dear Leader” Barack Obama.

Please share
Email

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Take the
Constitution Refresher Course
For Elected Officials, Candidates, and Citizens

A Call for Truth in Political Labeling

Inspiration for this post comes from Meghan McCain, daughter of John McCain and Rush Limbaugh, talk show host.  Back in March of 2009, during an interview on “Larry King Live” in response to a question, Meghan McCain proudly announced that she was a “progressive Republican”.  Today a caller to Rush’s show wanted to know why he insisted on using the word liberal instead of progressive.  Rush’s answer was basically because the term liberal in recent years has picked up a negative image while progressive still carries the positive image of being forward looking and modern, and he uses liberal because he likes to tweak Democrats.

I am a fan of labels, particularly in the political arena.  The use of a truthful and accurate label to describe someone’s political philosophy is an efficient way to identify one’s approach to the issues that affect our lives.  However, in modern times, the use of labels has fallen into disfavor and using one leaves one open to the accusation of “name calling”.  In addition to that, a major problem with labels is that adherents to an unpopular political philosophy will attempt to hide their true beliefs by applying a misleading label to themselves.  Conversely, they will adopt a popular label in order to hide their true political philosophy. For example, virtually every Republican politician today, from Mark Kirk to John McCain to John Boehner refer to themselves as “conservative”.

Democrats, who for the most part, support a socialist agenda, insist on calling themselves “progressives”.  The result is that the average voter has a difficult time distinguishing a Republican from a RINO or a liberal Democrat from a socialist.  This confusion of labels is what causes many Americans to throw up their hands and declare “a pox on both your houses”, you’re all the same; which brings us to the question, what is the difference between a socialist, a progressive, a Republican and a conservative?

To understand these differences properly we have to look at the history of the terms.  Socialism, as an organized political philosophy began in the mid-nineteenth century, primarily from the teachings of Karl Marx in Germany. Its stated ideals of social and economic equality, a popular democracy and its opposition to the inequities of some segments of capitalism quickly won favor with many Americans.  However, Americans are different from Europeans so these socialists doctrines had to be Americanized. During the last decades of the nineteenth century, the American version of socialism adopted the label, “progressive”.

Political leaders of that era, which ended in the Great Depression, used many of the same tactics used today by the Democratic Party.  One that stands out is the demonization of capitalism. Leading capitalists were labeled “robber barons” and their financial empires were broken up or destroyed amid the cheers of the general public. Theodore Roosevelt became one of America’s most popular progressive leaders, earning the nickname of “Trust Buster” for his success in breaking up some of the largest capitalists institutions of his day.

The twentieth century dawned with progressivism being the most popular political philosophy in America.  The Presidential Election of 1912 featured four progressives vying for the office, representing four different political parties.  William Howard Taft, the incumbent ran as a progressive Republican, Woodrow Wilson as a progressive Democrat, Eugene Debs ran as a Socialist and Theodore Roosevelt ran on the new Progressive Party ticket.  Roosevelt and Taft split the Republican vote giving the election to Wilson.

The 1912 election was the beginning of the end for Constitutional government in America.  No matter who won the election the American people would have elected a progressive President. The one thing all four candidates had in common was the advocacy of a progressive income tax designed to facilitate a more equitable redistribution of the nation‘s wealth. A second similarity of the 1912 candidates was the belief in government’s ability to manage and eventually solve all of the country’s problems, if only its institutions were made more “democratic“.  In 1913 two progressive amendments were added to the Constitution, the Sixteenth, establishing a progressive income tax and the Seventeenth, requiring the popular election of Senators.

Socialism in its Americanized version, progressivism, was instrumental in bringing about the Great Depression.  America was slower than Europe in emerging from the Depression because of the twelve plus year reign of the Democrat Saint of Progressives, Franklin Roosevelt. Today, while the progressives make up the base of the Democrat Party, progressivism also exercises a strong influence on the Republican Party.

Progressive Republicans label themselves as “moderates” or sometimes as “fiscal conservatives”. It pains me to point this out, but many of those in the popular tea party movement would be more properly classified as “progressive conservatives”.  If that seems on the surface to be oxymoronic, let me clarify the term. Many self-identified conservatives are perfectly content with unconstitutional spending by the federal government as long as it is limited to things they perceive as being of personal benefit to them.  Education, infrastructure, and health care for example. They are content with unconstitutional taxation as long as it is not too oppressive to them personally. The same can be said of government regulation of businesses.  Unconstitutional regulations are considered Okay by many conservatives as long as they perceive it to be in their personal best interest.

It is difficult to define true conservatism today because there are so few examples to point to. To understand it properly we again have to go back in history to the first conservatives. During the early-post revolutionary period, the conservatives were known as anti-federalists.  After 1891 and the ratification of the Bill of Rights conservatives were popularly known as republicans.  The identifying characteristics were defense of the Constitution, rule of law, intolerance for government corruption, love of liberty and the sanctity of private property. Conservatism prevailed in America until the progressive era.  The last bulwark of conservatism was lost when the Supreme Court was successfully politicized by President Roosevelt in the mid-nineteen-thirties.

Since that time, conservatives have been in the minority, as they are today. A recent Gallop poll is being touted as evidence that conservatives are the largest voting block in America today.  Forty percent of those polled identified themselves as conservative, thirty-six percent as moderate and only twenty percent as liberal.  Before you break out the Champagne, consider the fact that most of those who identified themselves as conservatives were simply expressing their dissatisfaction with the excessive progressive policies of the Obama Administration not an ideologically understood preference for true conservative principles.

No one can rightfully claim the label of “conservative” who tolerates and often encourages the wanton violation of the Constitution by their elected officials whether they considerer themselves as fiscal conservatives, social conservatives or blue dog Democrats. When I hear self-proclaimed conservatives call for bipartisan federal solutions to things like health care, education, alternative energy and so forth, I fear for my country.

Progressivism is the American version of socialism.  Socialism and our Constitution are mutually exclusive. Constitution based conservatism cannot compromise with progressivism. It must defeat it or perish.  The call for bipartisanship is nothing more than a call for surrender, one battle at a time and can only lead to despotism. True conservatives do not want “smaller government”; they want a constitutionally limited government.  They do not want “lower taxes”; they want constitutionally authorized taxation only. They do not want a “less intrusive government”; they want the federal government out of their personal lives, period.

Take the
Constitution Refresher Course
For Elected Officials, Candidates, and Citizens

Fixing Health Care

President Obama is calling for a “health care summit” including the Republican Leadership in Congress.  House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) has challenged the President to scrap the proposed House and Senate bills and start over.  If there was some way to convince the President and Congress to face three unquestionable facts concerning health care we could save months of divisive wrangling in Washington, save taxpayers billions of dollars, and slow the steady erosion of our liberty.

1. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OVER HEALTH CARE!

2. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO SPEND TAXPAYER
MONEY ON HEALTH CARE!

3. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO LEGISLATE ON THE SUBJECT OF  HEALTH CARE!

See “The Limited Powers of Congress

We challenge anyone in or out of government to refute these three facts.



SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Bookmark and Share

The Constitution, Defend it or Lose it

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “CNSNews.com –“, posted with vodpod

The above video — Thanks to CNS News TV — is just another colossal example of the constitutional illiteracy of too many of our elected representatives in Congress.  This time it is Senator Conrad of South Dakota, but he is only one of dozens of Congressmen and Senators CNS has questioned on this point and only a small percentage of them evidence any knowledge at all of the document they are sworn to defend.

The Constitution places only one individual performance requirement on members of Congress.  That is found in Article VI, “The Senators and Representatives …shall be bound by oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution [of the United States]”.  Every member of Congress is obligated, after being elected or re-elected to serve in Congress to take an oath of allegiance to the Constitution before taking office.

The actual oath members of Congress take is even more stringent than the Constitution requires.  In it, they swear to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic“. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the Constitution as to what to do when they discover, as Pogo Possum did, that “we have seen the enemy and he is us“.

Seriously, though, is it too much to ask of an employee we pay a base salary of $169,000 per year as of 2008, that they at least read and have a working understanding of their job description? Senator Conrad, as did Senator Landrieu of Louisiana and others plead ignorance and expresses a dependence on staff attorneys to insure they are acting within their Constitutional responsibilities.

Staff attorneys are not permitted to take the Oath of Office on behalf of their bosses and should not be allowed to assume the responsibility when their bosses violate that oath. The Constitution contains 4,494 words including Article and Section titles.  The average person reads and comprehends with 60% efficiency, about 200 words per minute.  That means the average reader can read and understand the main points of the Constitution is less than 25 minutes.  There is no excuse for any government official, or citizen for that matter, not to take the time necessary to familiarize themselves with the requirements of the Supreme Law governing our government.

As citizens, it is our responsibility to require adherence to the Constitution on the part of our elected officials.  Unless we ourselves are familiar with it, we are not going to know when it is violated.  Every day that passes, we are one day closer to tyranny and all because not enough of us have taken the time to understand what government is all about.  We are now to the point where we have to defend the Constitution or lose it, along with all the rights and liberty it protects.