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