Liberty or Bondage?

“…In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, … … and 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”.
~ Ben Franklin on last day of Philadelphia Convention September  17, 1789

The nomination by the Republican Party of Mark Kirk, the liberal, big-government, pro-abortion, anti-family candidate for the U.S. Senate is an insult to every patriotic conservative in Illinois.  His nomination was a repeat of the 2008 Presidential race when the party establishment gave us John McCain as the Party’s choice and cannot be expected to end any differently than that campaign did.

A lot of voters seem to have been taken in by Kirk’s sudden conversion to fiscal conservatism and overlooked his social liberalism considering him a moderate. Fiscal conservatism plus social liberalism does not equal moderation.  It equals a morally confused individual whose views stem from ambition and convenience not principle.

The problem is that so few voters and not enough conservatives understand the fundamentals of republicanism or the role of the Constitution in our form of government.  Too many of us believe that it is the role of government to create jobs and solve our health care problems or any of the other real or manufactured problems we face.  No one would deny that these problems need to be solved, but it is not the role of the federal government to solve them.  There is two reasons why this is important.

One, the government cannot solve problems it created in the first place. The housing crisis, the energy crisis, the education crisis, the health care crisis and the prolonged recession all came about due to well intentioned but ill-advised, extra-constitutional government policies.  Specifically, they were created by policies that fall outside the proper role of government.

Two, the core principle of republicanism is the rule of law.  The Constitution is the law designed to govern the functions of government.  Whenever the government violates that law, the country suffers.  This is the undeniable verdict of two hundred years of our history.  Nowhere in the Constitution is there any authorization for the federal government to be involved in any way in education, health care, housing, banking, insurance, or manufacturing.

The futile expectation of voters for the federal government to fix our economic or other problems is only prolonging their solution, which is to return to the constitutional republican form of government our Founders intended for us to have. If the American People cannot take the time to learn about the mere 4,400 words in the Constitution and continue to sacrifice their liberty for an illusionary security they believe government can provide in their personal and financial life then perhaps we have reached the stage Ben Franklin was speaking of in the above quote.

The choice is simple.  We either return to our Constitution or succumb to the tyranny of socialism.  The two are incompatible and cannot co-exist.

Check out our
Constitution Refresher Course
For Elected Officials, Candidates, and Citizens

Advertisements

10 responses to “Liberty or Bondage?

  1. I agree. I abdicated my responsibilities and for a long time considered myself fiscal conservative – keep gov out of my wallet, and social liberal – keep gov out of my bedroom. The problem of course is that gov, once given an inch, takes a light year. It took the 2005 bankruptcy reform to open my eyes to the idea that gov is the problem – always, everywhere it exceeds it’s Constitutional authorities.

    There in lies the problem and you hit it precisely – WE, as a people, abdicated our responsibilities as citizens and turned them over to a gov unauthorized, but even worse, fundamentally unable to discharge them. All it could EVER do was/is paper over (throw money) at the problems.

    Over the last three years I have embarked on my education as a citizen and finally I think I have reached a point where I believe our Founding Fathers HOPED we would always be. Unlike Michele (please don’t bare arms) Obama, I have always been proud of my country, but now, at least, I am seeing reasons to be proud of my fellow citizens. I, and we, have a lot to make up for….

  2. For anyone looking for a real limited-government candidate to support for US Senate, check out Mike Labno. He may be running as a Libertarian, but really, has the two-party system in Illinois left us any better option?

    http://www.labno4senate.com/

    http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/pages/Michael-Labno-for-US-Senate-IL/147516786919?ref=ts

  3. The American Constitution is not conducive to more than two effective political parties. In our 221 year history there there have been over 150. None have ever been successful other than as “spoilers” for one of the two major parties. For that reason ICAN does not support third party candidates.

    That does not mean however, that we would be adverse to an independent Republican candidate running in the 2010 general election as an alternative to Mark Kirk if we thought he or she had a chance to win, which does not appear likely at this time.

  4. I think we need to take a stand against Kirk.

    As much as I cringe the idea of a Democrat grabbing that seat for 6 years. The idea of Kirk actually winning that seat is equally frightening – and more damaging to everything conservative.

    Let’s take a look at the two reactions to Kirk’s win or lose.

    KIRK WINS
    He continues to act and vote like a Democrat.
    Conservatives in Illinois are inconsequential to election.
    The IRP will forever more push RINO’s at us.
    Reagan conservatism will be dead in Illinois.

    KIRK LOSES
    The IRP realizes they can’t win elections without us.
    The RNC realizes they can’t win elections without us.
    They will have no choice in the future but to offer up more conservative candidates so they can win.
    Kirk is gone out of politics.

    Sounds like a no bainer to me.
    It’s time for conservatives State-wide to flex our muscle and make our voices and our votes heard.

  5. steve youhanaie

    To Michael Brown:

    Been there; done that; it didn’t work. In the 1984 Illinois Senate race, conservative Tom Corcoran ran against moderate Senator Charles Percy. Corcoran lost the GOP primary to Percy. Conservatives stayed home. Uber-liberal Paul Simon won in the fall. His successor was Durbin. COme up with another plan, please.

  6. 1984 was a different era. Primaries are tough because the IRP taps down challengers against their guy. In this case, Percy had far more name recognition, and as I said, that was a different era.

    Few computers, no internet, no conservative movement to speak of, certainly no tea parties.

    I wish we had another slot for NONE OF THE ABOVE and make them do it all over again with different candidates. But we dont’ have that option.

    A vote for Kirk is a vote against conservatism.

  7. steve youhanaie

    Michael Brown:

    Conservatism in 1984 was at a high point, with Reagan running for re-election. They called it the Reagan Revolution. Besides, my point was that conservatives stayed home, and didn’t vote for Senator Percy (R-Ill), and marxist Paul Simon won the general election. Simon was succeeded by Durbin. In other words, if we duplicated your plan today, by not voting for Kirk, we risk not seeing that seat in Republican hands for decades. Believe me when I tell you that I’ll be holding my nose when I vote for Mark Kirk.

  8. Communication and education is key. We have an active coalition with boots on the ground now.

    I’m not even suggesting we could actually win the Senate seat with an outsider, unless something amazing happens soon.

    I am saying we can keep Kirk from taking that seat. We can ensure Kirk is defeated in the fall.

    Scott Brown just voted for the Jobs bill to the chagrin of many conservatives? Why chagrin, why the surprise? Everyone knew what he was going in. You think Kirk will be any different?

    We can either send a message to the GOP to provide better quality candidates of integrity, character and backbone in the future and defeat Kirk now.

    Or we can line up and pull the lever for Kirk (who is really a democrat in elephant clothing) which will send the signal that we will vote for ANYONE they put up in the future. We will capitulate, we will compromise. The end result is the GOP will abandon all social positions from the platform.

    I understand your desire to fill the Senate with R’s, but we all saw in 2006 what happens when you don’t care about the character of a candidate and blindly vote R. We had a congress that bloated government, spent like Dems and stood for nothing.

    I don’t want any more of the same. Our Country cannot handle the financial burden and the cultural tearing of our fabric anymore.

    The line must be drawn here.

  9. steve youhanaie

    Well, we can agree to disagree, for now. Who knows 8 months from now? I may not vote for Kirk. I will say this though; I will probably not vote for Judy Baar Tostinka. It’s a down the ticket vote, anyway.

  10. I can agree with that Steve. I’m just hoping to drop items to consider for conservatives in Illinois.

    We have a long road ahead of us to bring the Illinois Republican party back to the folks again. Until that time, Illinois will remain quite blue.

    I do not want these kinds of issues to divide us. We all want the same thing. A smaller government that adheres to the Constitutional principles plainly outlined and a party that abides by their very own platform.

    That won’t happen unless we can all work together.