Monthly Archives: July 2010

Another Shot To The Left Foot

Fortunately for America, the left keeps shooting itself in the foot; this time, with said foot firmly implanted in its mouth. I am talking, of course, about the ruling on Wednesday by activist judge Sarah Bolton on Arizona’s SB 1070 immigration bill. While her ruling might seem to be a setback for patriots opposed to the open borders policy of the Obama Administration, it does stoke the fire in the belly of conservatives and other patriots everywhere. If nothing else, the left seems intent on keeping the passions of patriots white hot until the November elections. We need to thank them for that.

More than 70% of the voters support Arizona’s law and a majority of voters nationwide wants their Legislatures to pass similar laws. That is a large voting block for the left to alienate, and is another bone-headed action that could help lead to the destruction of the Democrat Party in the coming two election cycles.

While the court’s ruling is only a temporary injunction until the full case in presented in court, it does for the time being, neuter the Arizona law. The court forbade the police from questioning the immigration status of suspects picked up on other charges. It also prohibited the enforcement of the federal requirement that immigrants have their immigration papers on their person at all times. It also struck down the part of the law dealing with the illegal immigrant’s ability to seek employment and perform work. It leaves in place, however, the right to bring civil suit against sanctuary cities that refuse to allow enforcement of immigration law in their jurisdiction.

Drug dealers, rapists, muggers, carjackers, and so forth can now be bailed out and put back on the street instead of being turned over to ICE for processing and possible deportation, as has been the custom. I suppose that if an illegal immigrant flags down a police car and confesses to being an illegal immigrant, the officer can still provide taxi service to ICE headquarters, although that might be risky since the illegal can always change his mind and claim the officer demanded his “papers”.

This is by no means the final chapter in Arizona’s fight against illegal immigration. All eyes are now on Sheriff Arpiao to see what he will do. He already has a planned crime and immigration sweep scheduled to take place regardless of the outcome of the court case today. Some have suggested that Arizona officials ignore the court ruling and continue with its enforcement plans. This would trigger a constitutional crisis and no one knows what the outcome would be. Frog marching Governor Brewer out of the Governor’s Mansion would certainly be an attention grabber guaranteed to provide at least a couple of day’s material for our friends in talk radio and the talking heads on TV. Even members of the MSM like the New York Times and MSNBC would find it hard to ignore. The next few days are going to be quite interesting.

Bookmark and Share

Advertisements

So, I Can Change My Mind, Can’t I?

One period of American history that is rarely, if ever, taught in our progressive education system is the Jefferson revolution of 1800. The revolution started a few years earlier and involved the struggle against the Monarchists and statists that dominated the Federalist Party during the administration of John Adams. The Federalist Party, like the Democrat Party today, controlled both Houses of Congress and the Presidency. The opposition party at the time was the Democratic-Republican Party founded by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

Jefferson was Vice President and President of the Senate during the Adams administration from 1797 until 1801 when he became President. Looking back on his career of public service, near the end of his life, Jefferson described this period as “the most important in its consequences, of any transaction in any portion of my life”… In a petition to the Virginia Legislature, February 1826, Jefferson explained his efforts in battling to preserve the Constitution against seemingly insurmountable odds.

“Their usurpations and violations of the constitution at that period, and their [Federalist]  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.

All, therefore, retired, leaving Mr. Gallatin alone in the House of Representatives, and myself in the Senate, where I then presided as Vice-President. Remaining at our posts, and bidding defiance to the brow-beatings and insults by which they endeavored to drive us off also, we kept the mass of republicans in phalanx together, until the legislatures could be brought up to the charge; and nothing on earth is more certain, than that if myself particularly, placed by my office of Vice-President at the head of the republicans, had given way and withdrawn from my post, the republicans throughout the Union would have given up in despair, and the cause would have been lost for ever.

By holding on, we obtained time for the legislatures to come up with their weight; and those of Virginia and Kentucky particularly, but more especially the former, by their celebrated resolutions, saved the constitution, at its last gasp.”
~Thomas Jefferson, “Thoughts on Lotteries”, February, 1826

This incident from Jefferson’s life points up that old adage, “The more things change, the more they stay the same”. It is easy to believe crises in our lifetime have never been faced by others in the past. That is seldom, if ever, true. That’s why a study of history is so important.

There are a number of parallels between Jefferson’s story and our own. Jefferson and the republicans in Congress were in much the same position as the Republicans of today. The Constitution was under attack, and those willing to defend it were in a conspicuous minority. They had to endure personal attacks on their character and on their patriotism because of their opposition to the administration in power. The situation became so untenable that the republican minority abandoned the Capitol and returned to the states to take a stand from there. The states rallied to the defense and eventually won the day.

We have much the same situation today. The Obama administration is waging an all out attack on the Constitution and the Republican minority, in spite of the valiant efforts of the few Constitution loyalists in the Republican Party, seems unable to do more than slow down the Democrat juggernaut. Fortunately, now as then, a number of states are taking up the cause. Jan Brewer of Arizona, Chris Christie of New Jersey, and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, among others are standing up to the progressive statists in Washington and fighting back. A number of state Legislatures are reaffirming their sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment. It is going to be up to us, as voters to send reinforcements next year to put down the attacks on the Constitution in both Washington and the Statehouses around the country. That’s why the November election is so important.

That leads to a dilemma for the Conservative voter. Considering the dearth of Constitution loyalists in the Republican Party, it is tempting to abandon the Party and look elsewhere for support. Two hundred years of history shows that third party candidates, as a general rule, hurts their allies and helps their enemies. Everyone who has followed this site for any period of time knows that I am adamantly opposed to third party candidates. However, recent events have caused me to consider that there may be exceptions.

Are we better off with Republicans who are willing to betray their oath of office and side with the anti-constitutionalists to serve their own ego and attempt to hold on to power, or is it better to concede that seat to a Democrat and adjust our defensive and offensive strategies accordingly? Of what possible benefit can Republicans like, Olympia Snowe, Lindsey Graham, Susan Collins, or even John McCain be to the country when they cannot be counted on in critical situations?

Illinois is going to have to answer that question when we go to the polls in November. Will we vote for Mark Kirk for Senate, or concede that seat to the Democrats? Last Friday Kirk announced his support for Elena Kagan. For me, that was the last straw. Kagan clearly revealed her disdain for constitutional government during her Senate confirmation hearings. Any Republican Senator that votes for her or any would-be Republican Senator that expresses support for her confirmation must be denied a Senate seat in 2010. Right now, we have four Constitution loyalists on the Court and one that occasionally comes to its defense. There is a possibility that another Justice will retire in the next two years. We must have Republican Senators that are willing to take a stand against another progressive on the Supreme Court whatever the cost.

For me and other Illinois constitution conservatives, that creates a dilemma. Do we just not vote for the Senate seat and concede it to the Democrat, or do we vote for a third party candidate?  Either way, the end result will probably be the same. However, by leaving the Senate choice blank, no one will know for sure, the reason we did so. In addition, we run the risk of helping to recreate another fiasco like Florida in 2000. For these reasons, I am seriously considering voting for a third party candidate in November.

Bookmark and Share

The Enemy Within

The next two elections are going to be critical to the survival of America, as we know it, politically, economically and culturally. Domestic enemies threaten America, as founded and represented in its founding documents, as never before. That threat is focused in the Democrat Party that now controls the White House and both Houses of Congress. For generations the Executive and Legislative Branches of government, with the aid of the Judicial Branch at critical junctures of change, have colluded to shift the day-to-day administration of government to unelected and unaccountable bureaucracies.

This departure from the Founders’ concept of government, based on the sovereignty of the people and accountable to them, has placed us on the road to despotism. With the institutions of government gradually shifted to the control of unelected progressives throughout the national bureaucracy, ordinary citizens have less say in the domestic policies of their government.

Our domestic enemies are not exclusive to either of the two major political parties. Both the Republican Party and the Democrat Party are infiltrated with progressive statists whose primary goal is to control the destiny of America. Both parties depend on the active support of voters in order to maintain their power. Historically, voters have supported those whose election seems most likely to benefit them personally rather than the country as a whole. Since most voters only pay attention to politics during the few months leading up to elections, it is easy for candidates to make promises in broad general terms knowing they will be unable to fulfill those promises after election. The promises, which are soon forgotten, become more important than their fulfillment, to both the voter and the official elected.

While both parties are complicit in America’s possible collapse, it is the Democrats and their progressive voter base that bears the primary responsibility for our present political crisis. In order to prevent the complete collapse of our way of life, it is necessary for constitution loyalists to take back control of their government. The first step has to be control of one of the two major parties. Since the Republican Party is less influenced by progressivism than the Democrat Party, it is the logical one to pursue. Progressivism in the Republican Party exists mostly in the professional political class that we most often refer to as the Party Establishment. The Party base is made up mostly of conservatives, but it is the establishment that selects the candidates.

The control exercised by the Party over the primary process assures that, more often than not, the candidates whose name appears on the ballot is the establishment candidate and not the base’s candidate. In the general election voters choose between voting for a less than desirable candidate, not voting, voting for the opposition candidate or voting for a third party candidate. The despotic nature of progressivism has become so apparent to the average conservative voter during the Obama administration they are no longer willing to tolerate “business as usual” from their elected representatives. The coming elections will either be the turning point in American politics or the end of (small “r”) republicanism. The determining factor will be the conservative vote.

While all Constitution loyalists are conservatives, not all conservatives are Constitution loyalists. However, it is my belief that all conservatives have an instinctive affinity to constitution principles once they understand them. We have to build on that inclination over the next few weeks to make sure that as many conservatives as possible are expressing a loyalty to the Constitution and not a loyalty to the Party when they go to the polls. As the Roman Statesman, Marcus Tullius Cicero pointed out centuries ago,

“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”.

Bookmark and Share

Creating the Crisis

The Cloward / Piven Strategy

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Bookmark and Share

I am America

Vodpod videos no longer available.

I Am America, posted with vodpod


//

America’s Moral Morass

America, since it’s inception has been the most moral country on earth. It still is; however, the gap between moral and immoral societies is constantly growing narrower. America is rapidly losing its position of moral leadership among the nations of the world.  As is the case in most examples of America’s decline, in order to understand the reasons and antecedents, we have to go back and look at how and when the decline began and trace its progress through history.

In colonial America, public morals were set by the local churches in most cases. The early churches in America were usually at least nominally Christian. The Churches and the pastors of those churches, held enormous sway in the life of the community. In most cases, the moral standards of the Church were reinforced by law, with each state having its own established church that provided moral guidance to its lawmakers. While the colonies were not, in any true sense, theocracies, Churches and their clergy were nevertheless, the most powerful influence in most colonies.

The old adage, “power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely,” applies to preachers as well as politicians.  In Christendom, whenever political power is concentrated in the hands of religious leaders, it eventually ends up being just as tyrannical as when it is concentrated in the hands of politicians. The Inquisitions of Medieval Europe and the Salem witch trials in Colonial America are two prime examples. Lesser evils of the church-state relationship during colonial times were evident in laws requiring compulsory church attendance and taxation to support the clergy of the established churches.

The abuses of power by the churches in Colonial America were the moving force behind the third paragraph of Article VI in the Constitution.

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” (Emphasis added)

America was the first nation in history to place a clear distinction between established religion and government. This paragraph in the Constitution and the First Amendment abolished forever the possibility of religious tyranny by American law. However, it is a huge mistake to believe that the Founders were attempting to eradicate the influence of religion in America’s political and cultural life. Neither were they attempting to do away with the influence of Christianity over the moral standards used in governing.

Christian diversity was widespread in the Colonies. Along with that diversity there was also a widespread intolerance for those whose views were at variance with the views of the established church in each Colony. It was this problem the Founders were attempting to address in the Constitution. What they feared most was the establishment of a particular church as the “national religion” and the divisions and intolerance such an establishment would naturally engender.

The Founders were attempting to balance the influence of religion and government, not to exalt one at the expense of the other. Of necessity, government and religion must coexist in this life. Government to maintain order and protect liberty; religion to provide the moral underpinnings for society.  It was this truth Christ was alluding to when he advised the disciples to “render unto Cesar that which is Cesar’s and unto God that which is God’s”. The U.S. Constitution establishes the most effective balance between the two yet devised.

There were certain precepts that were shared by the Founders and a Majority of the American people. They were the sovereignty and providence of God over the affairs of nations, and the moral authority of the Bible. John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Charles Carroll, a signer of the Declaration of Independence declared, “Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure…are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.” Benjamin Franklin said, “God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid…I firmly believe this”? George Washington said, after eight years as President, “It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.”

I could go on, but the evidence from the writings and utterances of the Founders is overwhelming that today’s divide between our government and religion would never be imagined nor condoned by them. For over one hundred and fifty years the balance established by the Constitution between governing and a reverence for God, gave us religious peace in America. Communities were free to publicly express their devotion to God in any way they chose. Governments at all levels displayed deference to the religious sensitivities of their citizens. Today there is an unmistakable animosity on the part of government toward religion in general and Christianity in particular. What Happened?

The precepts of socialism are antithetical to the understanding of the Founders concerning the relationship between government and religion. During the last half of the nineteenth century socialism began to infiltrate the American consciousness. Over the next hundred years the influence of socialism spread throughout the institutions of government, culminating in the changed moral standards that came about in the last half of the twentieth century. A secular moral code began to replace the moral code of the Bible, only to be replaced in turn by the amoral code of socialism. A historical reliance on the providence of God began to be slowly replaced by a reliance on government.

“Do your own thing” and “if it feels good, do it” became the watchwords of the 1960s and ’70s, leading to the destruction of families and the destabilization of society. “Free love” and “open marriage” became relatively commonplace. The most destructive trend of that era was the replacement of churches as the arbiters of morality, with our education system. This trend was further aggravated by the gradual domination of the system by the federal government.

Our children no longer learn about right and wrong in Sunday School; now they learn about it in public school. At the same time public education is replacing the Church and parents as the source of moral teaching, educators are prohibited from favoring one code over another. Instead, children are taught that one person’s morality is just as valid as another, and it is up to them to choose the one that “feels” best for them. Any attempt to resist this trend is branded as an “attempt to ram religion down the throat” of others.

As these young creatures of the NEA grow up and become parents themselves the pattern is perpetuated. With each new generation it becomes more difficult to correct the errors of the previous one. That, “in a nutshell” is why America seems to be mired in a moral morass and why our ruling class seems to be devoid of such common moral values as honesty and integrity. If we are to return our country back to its founding principles and a Constitutional government, one of the first things we have to accomplish, is to return the elementary and secondary education system back to parents and the community and the teaching of morality back to the parents and the churches, to be reinforced by education under the watchful eye of the community.

Cross posted at “Christian Patriots”

Bookmark and Share

The 2010-2012 Revolution

America must repeat the Jefferson Revolution of 1800 if it is to survive

America is heading toward revolution. The time, type and nature of that revolution remain to be seen. Our Declaration of Independence expresses an undeniable truth drawn from thousands of years of humankind’s recorded history.

“…Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security….”

Near the end of his life, Jefferson revealed that the thoughts expressed in the Declaration were not original or new, but were intended to be an “expression of the American mind”. The American mind has not changed since these words were written. We are perhaps less tolerant of tyranny than most peoples of the world, and the spirit of liberty still lives in the hearts of every true American. Eventually we will reach the point where the American people will no longer tolerate the continual disregard of our Constitution and infringement on the liberties it protects. Just when that point is reached and what the remedy will be is still an unknown and unknowable factor.

The principles of socialism and the principles underlying our Constitution are mutually exclusive. The cost/benefit ratio between socialist promises and individual liberty must eventually be reckoned with. The level of anger among the American electorate has become palpable and continues to rise with every new outrage committed by the Obama administration. Anger alone is not enough, however, and if not properly channeled could prove to be counterproductive. What we need is a plan and a strategy that has a realistic chance of success.

Fortunately, the founders left us a plan and a model that works without bloodshed. The question is whether the level of dissatisfaction on the part of the people is widespread enough or intense enough to make it happen. Thomas Jefferson faced a crisis similar to our own in the early days of the republic, except on a smaller scale. What most Americans do not realize is that the majority of the Founders favored a strong central government with the states subjugated to its authority. It was only due to the resistance of the Anti-Federalists and the refusal of several states, particularly New York and Virginia to ratify the Constitution without the assurance that a Bill of Rights would be added that allowed the Constitution to be ratified.

Without the Bill of Rights, especially, the Tenth Amendment, it is doubtful the Republic could have survived its formative years with its liberties intact. The first test of the new Constitution came almost immediately after the new government took office, in the attempt to establish a national bank. Thomas Jefferson, then Secretary of State, argued that the establishment of a national bank was not one of the enumerated powers given to Congress. Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of Treasury, argued contrary to his opposition to a Bill of Rights in Federalist No. 84, that any act not forbidden by the Constitution that contributed to the “welfare” of the union was permissible and therefore constitutional. Washington was undecided, but eventually signed the bill into law.

Soon afterwards, Hamilton and Vice President John Adams formed the Federalist Party for the purpose of strengthening the powers of the central government. Jefferson, as Secretary of State and later as Vice President and President of the Senate under President Adams, battled against the statist tendencies of the Federalist Party, culminating in what Jefferson referred to as “the revolution of 1800″ . Abuses of the Constitution under the Adams administration and the Federalist dominated Congress were so egregious that Adams was held to a single term and the Federalists lost control of Congress in the election of 1800.

Jefferson won the Presidency in 1800 and with the aid of a republican Congress was able to reverse most of the damage done by the Adams administration. Over the next 24 years, Republicans Jefferson, Madison and Monroe were able to reestablish the nation on a firm constitutional basis.  We need to replicate the Jefferson revolution in the elections of 2010 and 2012.

The task is doable, but it will not be easy. According to Rassmussen’s daily presidential tracking poll, between 45% to 48% of American voters still consistently believe Obama is doing a somewhat satisfactory job. In spite of the anger felt by Conservatives and the frequently expressed confidence that Democrats will be defeated at the polls in the next two elections, there is little room for error and no room for over confidence. Strong independent or third party candidates could easily split the Republican votes and give both houses of Congress and the White House back to the Democrats. If we are going to repeat Jefferson’s revolution at the polls there are four steps we must take.

1. The 2010 Primaries

For those states that have not yet had their primary, it is vital that voters familiarize themselves with the candidates and support and vote only for constitution conservatives. It is during the primaries that a real difference can be made. Illinois had its primary in February to make it easier for incumbents and harder for challengers to get their message out. As a result, we now have a choice between a progressive Republican and a progressive Democrat in the General election for the all-important Senate race. This increases the danger that conservatives will stay home in November or throw their vote away on an independent or third party candidate, “to make a statement”.

In states that have not yet had their primary it is equally important the Tea Parties and Patriot groups get behind a single candidate if possible. Otherwise, we run the risk of splitting the conservative vote and getting a progressive, establishment Republican in the general election. That, to a degree is what happened in Illinois.

2. The 2010 General Election

In the general election we have to play the hand we’ve been dealt. In many cases the choice will be between a progressive Republican (RINO) and a Democrat. As difficult as it might be for some of us, it’s important that we support and vote for the Republican. The task for Republicans in the next Congress is to hold the line on spending and unconstitutional legislation. To the extent possible we also have to rely on Congress to defund the progressive programs established by this Congress and repeal as many unconstitutional bills as possible.

One of the advantages—perhaps the only one—of party discipline in Congress is that if we can get enough conservatives in the House and Senate they can help keep the RINOs in line.  We can “cull the herd” during the 2012 primaries. Retaking Congress in 2010 is absolutely essential if we are going to have any hope of reining in Obama over the next two years until we can kick him out in 2012.

3. The 2012 Primaries

We will be going into the 2012 primary season with two years experience in organizing and motivating Patriot groups. We should be able to recognize conservative candidates better and not repeat some of the mistakes we made in 2010. We need to begin identifying potential candidates for 2012 immediately after the new Congress takes office, even if we believe we have elected a solid conservative to the office in 2010. Washington has a way of changing elected officials once they get in office. Congressmen and Senators who do not live up to their oath of office in 2011 should be challenged and defeated in the 2012 primary. It is important that we make it absolutely clear to those we elect this year, that if they do not honor their oath they will be replaced in 2012.

Conservative Republicans and independents must form a solid voting block against “moderate” Republican establishment candidates. 2012 is the “must win” election at every level. Our objective in ’10 and ’12 is to damage and demoralize the Democrat Party to the extent that it will be years before progressivism raises its ugly head again.

4. The 2012 General Election

2012 is “do or die”. If we fail to defeat Obama in 2012 there will be little chance for America to continue as a free republic. The Democrat Party will be fighting for its life. Voter fraud will be rampant. We can expect the “politics of personal destruction” to be the order of the day. It is important that all of us become more sophisticated in analyzing political propaganda and campaign rhetoric. Conservatives need to become so informed on the issues and so knowledgeable in the Constitution and our founding principles that we cannot be misled by slick sound bites and political spin. We cannot afford to end up with another McCain type candidate in the Presidential election. We need new people, not the same old ones with new faces.

Aftermath

If we succeed in repeating the successes that Thomas Jefferson and the republicans accomplished during the first six elections after 1800, we can then begin considering the organization of an alternative party. Should history repeat itself, as it often does, the Democrat Party will fade away with many of its members drifting over to the Republicans further corrupting that party. That is the time to establish a new party based on conservative, constitutional principles that can preserve out liberties for another couple of hundred years. If we don’t do it now our children and grandchildren will be forced to take up arms to restore their liberty or live in servitude. That cannot be allowed to happen.

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Bookmark and Share