Romney Continues to Win in Blue States and Democratic Strongholds.

Mitt Romney continues to display his ability to win in Democratic States while Conservatives in those states, desperate to rid themselves of Barack Obama, fall for the Republican Establishment propaganda that only Mitt Romney can win in the General Election against Obama. History tells us otherwise. Obama is beatable, and short of massive voter fraud, I believe he can and will be beaten. In fact, if John McCain and Sarah Palin were running against Obama in this election they would beat him handily. If not, then the nation is too far gone for any conservative to make any difference.

There have been few times in history when the American people were given the opportunity to vote for a tri-partite conservative. When they are, they elect them by a landslide. “Tri-partite conservative” is the term I use to designate a conservative who embraces all three aspects of Conservatism; constitution conservatism, fiscal conservatism and social conservatism”. Those that stand out in history are: Thomas Jefferson (1800), James Madison (1808), James Monroe (1816), Calvin Coolidge (1924) and Ronald Reagan (1980). In between, we have tried “moderate conservatives”, “compassionate conservatives”, and republicans masquerading as conservatives. In each case the socialist juggernaut continues to move forward.

We have to face the fact that the Republican establishment is only concerned with who wields the power of government, not with how they use that power. This election is the most critical election since 1860. While we cannot afford another term of Barack Obama’s style of socialism, we also cannot afford to elect a Republican who is likely to play “footsie” with the Democrat socialists, RINOs, and other big government Republicans in Congress. What we must have this go-round is a tri-partite conservative who has the character and the willingness to attack the socialism in our society on all three fronts.

Of the four remaining candidates in the race, only Rick Santorum is a tri-partite conservative.  Ron Paul is pretty good on the Constitution except for the clause, “provide for the common defense”. He is also a libertarian who believes that  social conservatism is fatal to the  future of the Republican Party. —So much for “insuring domestic tranquility”.

Newt Gingrich is the most knowledgeable of the field when it comes to the Constitution and history. However, in several of the debates he has shown himself to be a “big government” conservative who still believes the federal government can solve our problems —If only he were in charge. He seems to be not so concerned with getting rid of Obamacare and the Department of Education, as he is “making them work better for the American people”.

In many ways Mitt Romney expresses the same attitude. There are four reasons given for the support of Romney during the primaries. According to USA Today, 60% of the Romney voters interviewed in yesterday’s primary election in Illinois, gave as one of their main reasons in voting for him was that they believed he was the only Republican who could beat Obama in November. This seems to be more of a tribute to the national media and the Republican establishment’s campaign to once again pick the Republican candidate than to their confidence in Romney. It also shows the gullibility and desperation of too many Illinois voters.

The second reason given for supporting Romney is that he has been a successful business man and investor. But then, so has Warren Buffet and George Soros. That does not qualify them to be President of the United States; neither does it qualify or disqualify Romney from being President. Another reason given for Romney’s appeal, is his success in turning around the Salt Lake City Olympics. These supporters never mention how much of his success was dependent on the financial support of the federal government. The fourth reason given for Romney’s appeal is his “successful” term as Governor of Massachusetts. This is perhaps, the weakest part of his resume.

While Governor of Massachusetts, Romney instituted same-sex marriage when the Massachusetts Legislature refused to do so. It is a mistake to claim that the Mass. Supreme Court mandated gay marriage. It did not. The Court only recommended that the Legislature change its then existing laws prohibiting same-sex marriages. In fact the Court acknowledged that it did not have the power to change the law itself. —So much for social conservatism. While Governor, Romney also signed into law “Romneycare” which has been a total failure.

He gives two excuses for doing so. First, he blames the Legislature and the people of Massachusetts, claiming that as Governor of a progressive state he had to follow “the will of the people” — so much for standing on principle. He also argues that Romneycare is constitutional because it was instituted at the state level and the state’s power to do so is protected by the Tenth Amendment. In this he is correct. However, although it may be Constitutional, experience has shown it to be extremely bad public policy, and will be a major stumbling block when running against Obama. In addition, it will greatly increase the difficulty of getting Obamacare repealed should Romney become President.

Perhaps the most damaging aspect of Romney’s Massachusetts experience is his willingness to follow, rather than lead in critical situations. He followed the Court’s lead in the matter of same-sex marriage and set the precedent for other states to do the same. He followed the lead of the people and the Legislature with Romneycare, and supplied Obama’s advisers with the model for Obamacare. If elected President without a veto proof Senate and a large majority of conservative Republicans in the House, we stand little chance of substantially reversing the hundred-year-old trend toward socialism. The best we can hope for is to slow it down slightly.

On the other hand, if Rick Santorum becomes president he may prove to be a disappointment, as have so many other Republican Presidents before him. However, at this point in history we cannot take a chance with the future of our Republic and elect anything less than a tri-partite conservative who will fight for conservative principles on all fronts; social, political and economic. At this point in the campaign, it appears that Santorum is the only one likely to do that.

Advertisement

Who’s Defending the Constitution? Part Two

In part one of “Who’s Defending the Constitution” we discussed numerous examples of attacks on the Constitution at all levels of government, the media, universities, etc… I received several more examples via e-mail and Facebook from readers of the post so now the question is, why the public disdain from so many of our “leaders” in the government, school and the media? We’ll discuss a theory regarding  the constant barrage of attacks in a future post but for now, let’s go over why the constitution has become so easy for the left to knock around.

To begin with, so few people know the contents of the Constitution or the true history surrounding the writing of it. If it is taught in public education at all it is taught as this is the way our government is built, three branches, memorize that and move on. And that’s about all that people really know about the constitution. We have one and it was written a really long time ago. It means absolutely nothing to anyone without the context in which it was written. In fact, since it’s not really possible to understand the Constitution without understanding the true history of the times and the Declaration of Independence, I would suggest that it would be almost impossible to teach correctly in a public school system. It is not possible to teach the understanding of the Constitution without the subject of God entering into the conversation. And in these times, that would almost certainly land in the Judicial Branch of the government. Imagine this in a public education classroom:

• Our Rights are unalienable and come from God.
• The purpose of civil government is to protect our God-given Rights.
• Civil government is legitimate only when it operates with our consent.
• Since the US Constitution is the formal expression of the Will of the People, the federal government operates with our consent only when it obeys the Constitution.

And this segues straight into another reason why the Constitution is losing its’ prominence among our nation and the rest of the world. In the 1962 Engle vs. Vitale case and the 1963 Abington School District vs. Schempp cases, the Supreme Court ruled against school prayer and school sponsored religious activities. This essentially started the highway we’re on now, where every court case is ruled in such a way that it is freed from religion as opposed to the originally intended freedom of religion as stated in our founding documents. The result has been tragic. We are at the point now where we cannot express our religious freedoms on government properly for fear of a lawsuit from the minority of people who believe in no God whatsoever. So the foundational principals of our Constitutional Republic have been ripped out from under us. The Judeo-Christian values and the Ten Commandments. Without a firm understanding of these from the branches of governments that are supposed to protect them, the Constitution is just another “form of government document”.

So now we have multiple generations of people who see their rights coming from the government – not God. And we cannot in reality even teach the fact the sole purpose of government is to protect our God-given rights in a public school. Hence the extreme frustration our country has with our government and its’ inability to take “care” of us in a way that they see fit. This is why we continue to hear cries for democracy despite the fact that democracy is never mentioned in the constitution. And I contend it is a major factor why the increasing power of the executive branch is not just overlooked, but encouraged. (More on that in the future.)

I strongly encourage anyone that is reading this post to understand and study our founding documents and the history surrounding them. One of the purposes of Christian Patriots USA is to have a firm understanding of these and encourage and teach them in every way we can. We believe it is just as critical that we are able to reach and teach our children so that have a proper understanding of what the roles of the government are and what their roles and responsibilities are to keep what our Founding Fathers had intended.

Who’s Defending The Constitution? Part One

By Art Wilson

The US Constitution was put on trial this week in a public way such as I have never seen before. I would say that it has been under attack for quite some time, specifically beginning in 1962, but never before in such a public manner. The week began with the story of Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s January 30^th interview in Egypt regarding the drafting of an Egyptian constitution. The Supreme Court Judge made a couple of statements that, too many Americans that pay attention to what is going on in our government found shocking. Courtesy of MEMRI TV:

“I can’t speak about what the Egyptian experience should be, because I’m operating under a rather old constitution. The United States, in comparison to Egypt, is a very new nation, and yet we have the oldest written constitution still in force in the world.”

“You should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone on since the end of World War II. I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary… It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the US constitution – Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?”

Wait. What? Let’s go back over one of the two Oaths of Office she had to take prior to taking the bench in 1993.

The Constitutional Oath:

“I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.  So help me God.”

How does one reconcile the Oath of Office that she took and the statements that were made in Egypt? It seems quite apparent that for nearly twenty years we’ve had a Supreme Court Justice sitting on the bench that has a complete disdain for the rather old document the she wouldn’t even look at today if she could go back and do it all over again.

And then there was the New York Times piece that came out February 6, 2012 by Adam Liptak; “‘We The People’ Loses Appeal With People Around the World”. The piece references a study to be published in June in The New York University Law Review regarding the “ free-fall of constitutional similarity to the United States”. The study notes that the US Constitution was the most widely recognized and emulated documents for new governments up until the 1980 and 1990s. The writer then goes on to state the possible reasons why he feels this is the case:

“The United States Constitution is terse and old, and it guarantees relatively few rights. The commitment of some members of the Supreme Court to interpreting the Constitution according to its original meaning in the 18th century may send the signal that it is of little current use to, say, a new African nation. And the Constitution’s waning influence may be part of a general decline in American power and prestige.”

He mentions an interview where Professor Law, one of the authors of the study, where he identifies a central reason for the trend: “The availability of newer, sexier and more powerful operating systems in the constitutional marketplace. Nobody wants to copy Windows 3.1.”

Wow! Really? The Constitutional Amendment process isn’t good enough anymore? We just need an “upgrade”? Our Constitution just isn’t “sexy” enough anymore? This sounds eerily similar to the statements made by CNN’s Fareed Zakaria last June that the Constitution is “outdated” and should be “debated and fixed” and in an interview with Charlie Rose that “ America is parochial and there are countries around the world that do things better than we do.”. Then again, what can we expect from a man that lauded Finland for trying to come up with a constitution via Twitter?

We should by now know several examples of what many members of Congress feel about the Constitution. Maxine Waters congressional slip that she was all about socializing companies. Nancy Pelosi in 2009 degrading a CNS reporter when asked if she thought the health care was Constitutional. If they’re not outright expressing their disdain for the Constitution, their ability to ignore it in their actions pretty much sums it up.

While attacks on the Constitution are not new, they really came to light during the 2008 presidential campaign thanks to our current President. Appearing on a WBEZ-FM radio show, January 18, 2001, to discuss “The Courts and Civil Rights”, Obama laments the fact that

“The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society” and “It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution…”

and finally the highly played,

“…the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.”.  In September of that same year on the same radio show, this one titled “Slavery and the Constitution”, Obama stated about the Constitution, “But I think it is an imperfect document, and I think it is a document that reflects some deep flaws in American culture, the Colonial culture nascent at that time.” and “I think we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, and that the Framers had that same blind spot.”

Before we get to far down the “that was then and this is now” path, it’s not too difficult to Google the numerous times the President has bemoaned the fact that he felt constrained by the Constitution and the way our government works. I began noticing it as a constant theme beginning with the La Raza speech last July. And he’s carried this theme in many of his speeches since them included last months’ Presidential Address. (Note: This will be addressed in a future posting.)

So now we’re back to the original question. Who’s defending the Constitution? We have officials in all three branches of government, professors in our universities, the media and apparently the rest of the world that show contempt for the bedrock of the greatest nation in history. If our elected officials in government will not defend the Constitution who will? I believe the answer to that question lies in the preamble:

We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

In the actual Constitution, “We the People” was highlighted and written larger than any of the other words in the document. We are the people that will have to defend our Constitution if we wish for it to remain in place. That means studying the Constitution and understanding it. Only in doing this can we teach our families and friends and hopefully spark a grass roots interest in our founding documents. It is our responsibility to work from the bottom up since it has become quite evident that we can no longer depend on our leaders to defend the Constitution. But then, we should have been involved all along.

Note: This is the first part of a multi-part series regarding the attacks and defense of the constitution. If you would like to learn more about the Constitution, I’d like to recommend the following site: http://illinoisconservative.com/ . At this site, you’ll find the Constitution in both the standard format and the reference format.

America, Weighed in the Balances

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama Presidency Most Lawless in History

The Obama government is the most lawless government in American History. When the fifty-five delegates to the Philadelphia Convention debated and crafted the U.S. Constitution their intention was to write the rules for the operation of the federal government. Their task was to preserve the principles of government identified in the Declaration of Independence, while at the same time, drawing up a plan that would provide the new government with the powers necessary for carrying out their legal functions and preserve the sovereignty of the participating states. A crucial goal of the Constitution was to limit the power and scope of the federal government and prevent it from encroaching on the legitimate powers of the states.

Article VI of the Constitution established the Constitution as the “supreme law of the land”. More specifically, it established the Constitution as the supreme law governing the operations and scope of the federal government. Only to the extent that the government is in compliance with the Constitution can it make any claim to being a government “of laws and not of men”.

The first ten Amendments to the Constitution were adopted to clarify portions of the Constitution and give emphasis to its limited powers. The limit on the powers of the federal government was given further emphasis in the Tenth Amendment. From the beginning, many power-hungry elected officials, tried to expand their powers beyond those granted. For the first hundred years Presidents and the Supreme Court were somewhat effective in defending the integrity of the Constitution. However, in the presidential elections of 1892 and 1896 conscious decisions were made by all the major political parties to begin testing the limits imposed by the Constitution.

The most important proposed departures from the original plan was to allow the federal government to collect a graduated income tax, and elect Senators by popular vote rather than by appointment of the state legislators as the Constitution required. The sixteenth and seventeenth amendments ratified in 1913 during the “progressive era” opened the floodgates, allowing for the wholesale violation of the Constitution. The sixteenth Amendment allowed for a direct income tax on individuals, making it possible for socialists and progressives in government to engage in income redistribution through a graduated income tax. The Seventeenth Amendment shifts the election of Senators from the state legislatures to the general population of each state, effectively neutralizing the Tenth Amendment placing the real government power in the hands of political “bosses” of the Parties in power.

Since that time the powers of the federal government and violations of the Constitution have increased exponentially to the point that it is questionable whether we are any longer a Constitutional Republic. Every administration since 1896 has violated the Constitution, both Democrats and Republicans. However, none have so blatantly refused to acknowledge the authority of the Constitution as Barack Obama, beginning with the first sentence of the first Article.

Article 1.1.1 “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

This clause makes it clear that the Executive and Judicial Branches do not have the power to legislate or make laws. Yet, most of the laws enforced by the federal government today that infringe on our liberties originate in the Executive and Judicial Branches and not in the Legislature. The legitimate functions of the various departments in the Executive Branch are to implement the laws and policies established by the Legislative Branch. The Treasury Department, State Department, Interior Department, Justice Department, and Defense Departments exist under the “necessary and proper clause” of the enumerated powers section. Others are unconstitutional because they do not relate to the limited powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution.

Today we have a plethora of Executive Branch bureaucracies, reminiscent of the old Soviet Union, making laws affecting every aspect of our personal and business life. These bureaucracies are headed by “Secretaries” who are illegally authorized by Congress to make laws at their discretion. This is a double violation of the Constitution; (1) Most are unconstitutional because their jurisdictions are not authorized by the Constitution; (2) Congress does not have the authority to delegate its legislative powers to another branch of government.

President Obama has taken this egregious violation of the Constitution to a new height by appointing Czars over the various bureaucracies who answer directly to the President, and have the authority to “dictate” to the Secretaries and department officials the “rules” to be made and enforced by the full power of the federal government. Department Secretaries are confirmed by the Senate and are accountable to it. The Czars are appointed directly by the President and are not confirmed by or accountable to Congress. This situation cannot be allowed to continue if we are to maintain any fragment of our liberty in the future. It is the responsibility of the House of Representatives to cut funding for these unconstitutional departments until they are forced out of existence.

****

Article 1.3.6 “The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.”

This clause makes the Vice President the Chief Executive Officer of the Senate. The phrase, “but shall have no vote” has been interpreted by Senate Political Parties to turn the office of President of the Senate into a ceremonial position with no executive authority. Contrary to the belief of Vice President Biden, The Constitution places the office of Vice President in the Legislative Branch not the Executive; its position in the line of Presidential succession not withstanding. As a matter of fact, Presiding over the Senate is the only duty assigned to the Vice President by the Constitution. The office of Majority Leader, an unconstitutional office created by the Senate in 1921, has been allowed to usurp the authority of the Vice President with impunity for almost a hundred years. The Senate is the primary check on the Executive Branch of government. This departure from the Constitution upsets that balance of power in favor of the Executive Branch. There is no historical or Constitutional justification for the office of Majority Leader in its present form.

****

Article 1.7.1:  “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives;”

1.7.2:  “but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”

This clause gives the House of Representatives the “power of the purse” since revenue can only be raised to fund the legitimate functions of government and all revenue bills must specify the purposes for which the revenue is to be allocated.

Article 1.9.7:  “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”

Since budgets, revenue and allocations are inseparably linked, budgets are to originate in the House although the Senate may propose amendments. The President can make budget recommendations to Congress under Section 2 of the Constitution.

Article 2.3.1:  “He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;”

The undisciplined and often unconstitutional methods of budgeting, allocating funds and raising revenue are a primary culprit in our present financial crisis.

Congressional authority for taxing and spending is further explained in section eight, Article I.

Article 1.8.1:  The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States;

1.8.2:  but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

1.8.3:  To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

Here Congress is given the power to tax and spend for three specific purposes; pay debts, provide for the general welfare and common defense. This is followed by a list of sixteen specific items for which revenue may be raised and spent, clarifying the general phrases “general welfare” and “common defense”.

****

One of the ways Party leaders ensure their choice of candidates for President and Vice President is to manipulate primary dates in violation of Article II of the Constitution. When we cast our votes in a primary election, we are actually voting for an Elector, and only indirectly for the candidate that Elector is pledged to support in the Electoral College. By manipulating the dates on which primaries are held, party leaders are able to influence the outcome through the power of suggestion, with support building for candidates who appear to have the most popular appeal. Article II, Section 1, clause 16, was included in the Constitution specifically to prevent prior voting by one state from influencing the votes in other states.

Article 2.1.16:  “The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.”

This clause is a single compound sentence broken only by a semicolon. The rules of English indicates that the Framers intended for the “time of choosing the Electors” and the “day on which they shall give their votes” to be on the same day respectively. The primary system and the primary dates are the creation of Political Parties and not the Constitution. The current primary system often results in candidates being chosen that do not represent the real choice of the voters.

****

Article3.2.9:  In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the Supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.

This clause gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over cases in which a state is one of the parties involved. However, due to the number of cases involving states because of the federal government’s overstepping of its Constitution role, for efficiency, cases involving states are handled in the same way any other federal lawsuit is handled; they are first heard in district courts, then appealed to the appellate courts, and eventually to the Supreme Court. We currently have several cases involving states winding their way through the court system; involving immigration, Obama care, and several other matters. Meanwhile the Constitutional issues these cases relate to continue unabated. The Constitution does not give either Congress or the Supreme Court the authority delegate these cases to a lower court.

****

One of the functions of the Executive Branch is to enforce the federal laws through the Justice Department.

Article 2.3.4:  [the President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

The Obama Justice Department picks and chooses the laws it will enforce and ignores those the President disagrees with.  The most obvious laws that Obama refuses to enforce are immigration laws.

4.4.1 The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,

4.4.2 And shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

By any definition, the yearly influx of illegal immigrants into the U.S. amounts to an invasion. Although “invasion” does not necessarily need to involve a foreign military, there have been several instances where foreign military have invaded U.S. territory while the Justice Department does nothing. There have been many instances where armed criminals have invaded our territory and committed murder and kidnapping, again with only a cursory response from the federal government. Example, instead of supplying protection to the State of Arizona when requested, and as the Constitution Demands, the Justice Department brought suit against the state for attempting to enforce the law themselves.

These are just some of the illegal acts committed by the federal government against the original Constitution. When we add violations of the Bill of Rights and other Amendments, the list becomes too long to discuss in detail in a blog post. They would include violation of the First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of religion, expression and assembly; the Second Amendment guaranteeing the right of self-defense; Amendment Four protecting against illegal searches and seizures; and Amendment Five, the double-jeopardy Amendment. Last and most important is the constant and continuing violation of Amendment Ten.

Amendment 10-0:  “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Choosing the Right Candidate

Before we know it, we are going to find ourselves in the midst of the most important primary race in generations. The number of patriots who recognize the perils facing America has grown exponentially over the past two years along with the continued growth of the Tea Party Movement. A number of patriotic politicians have stepped up to the plate to oppose the reckless and dangerous socialist policies of the current administration. Still, as we survey the developing field of possible “conservative” candidates we see a lot of ambiguity as to what it means to be a true constitution  conservative, both among the people and the potential candidates.

There are only two issues in the next election, one for the people and one for the candidates. The one for the people is; do we wish to continue as a constitutional republic or as a democratic socialist oligarchy?  The answer to that question determines the question we must get a clear answer to before we decide to support any candidate in the coming elections.  If the answer is that we want to continue as a constitutional republic, then the only thing we need to know about the candidate is; will he or she fight for our founding principles and defend our founding documents?

This is not something about which we have to speculate.  We have over four hundred years of history as our guide; 169 years of colonialism under a monarchy, 5 years as independent nation states, 8 years as a confederation of sovereign states, and 222 years as a constitutional republic, including some 130 years of experimenting with socialism. The one lesson we should have learned from our own history as well as the history of other nations of the world is that socialism does not work. Yet, in spite of the clear evidence that it does not, our political leaders continue to attempt to force in on an inadequately informed population.

The number one challenge facing the patriot movement today is a lack of knowledge among the voting public concerning our history, our Constitution and our American heritage. America has become a nation addicted to big government socialism. In order to cure any addiction one first has to recognize it and admit that it is a problem and have a real desire to break the habit.

Illinois Conservative.Com has published a new book, “Philosophy of Evil” especially for Tea Party Members and other patriots to help in understanding who we are as a people, where we are today as a nation and how we got here. It is the result of years of study and months of intensive research in American history and the history of socialism, especially as it took root and grew in American society. Philosophy of Evil traces the history of socialism in America from the early experiments with it in colonial times, through the utopian commune movement, the progressive era and its rapid growth in the twentieth century, culminating in the economic, political and social crises we are experiencing  today.

We invite our readers to go to our website, check out the subject index and read the sample chapters we have posted there. We believe an understanding of the information found in this book is essential to the restoration of America as a constitutional republic. As Thomas Jefferson said concerning his writing of the Declaration of Independence,

“[Our purpose is] not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent. …. Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it [is] intended to be an expression of the American mind.”  Thomas Jefferson, 1825

New Book
Philosophy of Evil
Socialism in America

Click HERE for more information

HELP WANTED: Prophet

By Jerry McDaniel

America’s founding principles of life, liberty and property are rooted in the Judeo-Christian traditions found in the Holy Bible. I have long believed that our founding documents contain God’s plan for the American government.  No, this was not reveled to me by an angel in a vision and I am not a crazed religious fanatic. Neither am I claiming Divine inspiration for the Founding Documents. I came to this view after many years of study in American History, the Founding Documents and the Bible, particularly the Old Testament which reveals God’s dealings with the nations of the earth. 

We know from history that virtually all the Founders, including Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson had a deep and abiding faith in the sovereignty of God over the affairs of man as expressed in the frequently used term, “Divine Providence.” Thomas Jefferson is the author of “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…” in the Declaration of Independence.  Congress as a whole added the phrase, “with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence”, after extensive debate.  Benjamin Franklin expressed his faith in the Providence of God during the Philadelphia Convention by calling for prayer for God’s guidance on their deliberations; “…The longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth — that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?” He declared. The Founding Fathers fervently prayed for God’s guidance as they debated the new government. The historical evidence is that God heard those prayers and answered them.

Throughout our history, whenever we have strayed from our principles as expressed in our founding documents, we have multiplied our problems. After a century of ignoring the Constitution and corrupting its meaning when convenient, it appears that we, as a nation, have lost our faith in both Divine Providence and America. Our national leaders no longer have faith in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the founding principles or American exceptionalism. Expressions of faith by a political leader, are routinely met with ridicule and derision by large segments of the “elite ruling class” and the popular media. Is it any wonder that we find ourselves on the very brink of losing the liberty so many Americans have sacrificed and died to protect.

In the Old Testament God used prophets to pronounce judgment on Israel and Judah for their idolatrous ways and to call for repentance. From our founding, there have been patriots whose roles in our origin and development as a nation were similar to the prophets of old. Early American prophets like, Samuel Bryan, Melancton Smith, Robert Yates and John DeWitt warned us about the dangers of a consolidated national government, an over-powerful executive, rogue courts with lifetime judges, the danger of internal taxes and the insatiable appetite for power of professional politicians. It is to them we owe the addition of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution.

The Bill of Rights is our protection against an out-of-control national government. In recent generations, we have allowed our internal enemies to use it instead, to deny us the liberty it was designed to protect, through perverted interpretation and application by the courts and rogue congresses. Instead of a shield of liberty, we have allowed it to be used as a tool of socialist tyranny. It is time for us to “bring forth fruit worthy of repentance” as a nation and reaffirm our faith in God, America, and American principles when we go to the polls in a few weeks to elect a new Congress.

Millions of Americans are discovering anew our founding documents and demanding that we return to the principles they espouse. For that to happen we cannot continue to vote for candidates who deny the principles of our Declaration, Constitution and Bill of Rights whatever the excuse. What we need today is a few modern day prophets like those of old who are willing to stand up to the powers that be and declare the judgment of God on America’s idolatrous apostasy from our founding principles.

Reprinted from “Christian Patriots“

Who Enforces The Constitution?

By Jerry McDaniel

The number of people calling for Constitutional Amendments and Conventions seems to be growing along with America’s increasing dissatisfaction with Barack Obama and the direction his administration is taking the country. I have never quite understood the call for adding more amendments to the Constitution, but since so many of our fellow citizens seem to think that would solve our problems, why not give it a try.

We could start with an amendment listing what it is that we want the government to do for us, and then we could add one forbidding them to pass laws not related to those functions. How about one that says government cannot tax us except for what is necessary to carry out the functions listed? While we are at it, why not pass an amendment allowing us to keep firearms for the protection of our families and perhaps even allowing us to carry them when we go out in public? We could also pass an amendment forbidding government to interfere with our right to express our own mind when it comes to politics and religion. In fact, we could just tell the government our religious practices are none of its business. We could also pass an amendment that allows only Congress to make law, not the President, bureaucrats or judges.

My point is that calling for more constitutional amendments is like Mayor Daley of Chicago asking for more gun control laws to control crime. It is obvious that criminals who commit crimes with firearms are not particularly intimidated by laws against robbery, murder, assault and so on. So why would we expect them to be intimidated by more laws against guns. The same thing applies to adding more amendments to the constitution in the hope that they will in some way influence what government does. Adding another amendment to the Constitution is simply adding another law to regulate government to those already contained in the Constitution.

Any law is effective only when there is a very real likelihood that a penalty will be exacted for its violation. When the criminal knows there is little chance of their being punished for what they do, the fact that it is illegal will not prevent them from committing the crime. The same thing is true with members of government. The Constitution, along with its amendments is the law for government; therefore it applies mainly to politicians and government officials. The only penalty for its violation is removal from office, either through impeachment or through the ballot box. Expecting Congress to impeach its members for violating the Constitution is like deputizing Jesse James to apprehend train robbers or John Dillinger to arrest bank robbers.

The reason illegal immigration is the problem it is today is because those who are responsible for enforcing immigration law are not doing their job. Most thinking Americans realize that simply adding more laws will not correct the problem. The reason government’s violation of the Constitution is the problem it is, is because those responsible for enforcing it are not doing their job. Virtually every elected official who has been in office for any length of time is guilty of violating the Constitution. It is a crime to violate the Supreme Law of the Land, and yet, ninety to ninety-five percent of all incumbent politicians are returned to office by the voters to continue their criminal activities.

It is not the role of the Supreme Court or the Justice Department to enforce the Constitution any more than it is responsibility of drivers to enforce traffic laws. It is their duty to follow the law not to enforce it. When it comes to the enforcement of the Constitution, we, as voters, are the Prosecutor, Jury, Judge and Executioner. We are solely responsible for enforcing the rule of law on government. Until the American people realize and accept this fact, we can add all the amendments we want to the Constitution and it will make no difference. As long as we shirk our duty as the watchdogs of government, we have no right to expect someone else to do our work for us.

The voters of Arizona, while bemoaning the out-of-control problem with illegal immigration, again nominated John McCain as their candidate for Senate in the November elections. McCain has been one of the leading advocates for “comprehensive immigration reform” and amnesty for years. Illinois voters nominated progressive Mark Kirk as their candidate, again one of the most constitutionally criminal republicans on the ballot. Are we really sincere when we demand a return to Constitutional government and then go into the voting booth on Election Day and vote for a candidate that we know from experience, will not honor his oath of office and defend the Constitution?

The Case For Impeachment

A Tea Party group in San Diego, California is holding a rally on August 28, to demand the impeachment of President Obama. On its blog site, the group gives as a reason for impeachment, “loss of public confidence”. It seems our friends in California have confused our form of government with a parliamentary system where heads of government are routinely removed from office by a vote of “no confidence”. Under a parliamentary system, a coalition of the political parties making up the membership of Parliament elects the Prime Minister. When the coalition loses confidence in the PM to lead the nation effectively, they remove him from office and replace him with another.

In America, the people elect the President through the Electoral College in a round-about and complicated process. No President has ever been successfully impeached and convicted in our 221-year history. It is not likely that an impeachment of Obama would be any more successful than those of Andrew Johnson or Bill Clinton. That does not mean the San Diego rally will not be a good venue of protest, and will send a message to politicians that Californians are not happy with their performance. There are plenty of reasons for impeaching Obama; a lack of confidence is not one of them. Evidently, he still has the confidence of the majority in Congress making impeachment by the House highly unlikely and conviction by the Senate all but impossible.

Impeachment for the right purpose and carried out in a proper manner can have a beneficial effect on the nation. I was not around for the Impeachment of Johnson, but I do remember the impeachment of Bill Clinton. That one quickly deteriorated into a political squabble that divided the country and accomplished little. An impeachment of Obama would be even more divisive and would not lead to removing him from office as the San Diego Tea Party wishes.  Any attempt by Republicans to bring Articles of Impeachment against Obama would immediately lead to accusations of racism and political pettiness.

The one thing most needed in America today is an increased knowledge of the Constitution by those inside and outside the government. An impeachment trial could be one of the best methods for increasing our understanding if it was properly focused. An impeachment hearing by the House of Representative is, in many ways, like a Grand Jury hearing, and as has been rightly noted, a Grand Jury “can indict a ham sandwich”. As Gerald Ford observed, an impeachable offense is whatever the House of Representatives says it is at any given time. The Constitution gives as an impeachable offense the commission of “high crimes and misdemeanors”.

The term “high crimes” is a holdover from English common law and has nothing to do with criminal activities in violation of statutory law. The word “high” has to do with the position of the official being impeached rather than the type of “crime”, the higher the position, the more serious the crime. “Crime” has to do with malfeasance in office, including such things as failure to carry out the duties of the office, favoritism, abuse of power, etc. It also might involve criminal activity such as, bribe taking, perjury, treason or other criminal acts. The penalty for an impeachment conviction is removal from office, after which criminal charges can also be filed by the Justice Department if crime is involved. Otherwise, the penalty is only removal from office and the inability to hold public office afterward.

By its very nature, conviction in an impeachment case is a highly subjective matter unless it involves an overt criminal act. In order to be effective as a teachable event regarding the Constitution, impeachment would need to be focused on a specific unconstitutional act(s) by a government official. Furthermore, the offense would have to be easily ascertainable by the general public without any legal knowledge. A perfect example was given to us last moth by Judge Susan Bolton and the Arizona Federal District Court.

The overt violation of Constitution Law is found in Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 2:

“In all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make”.

In order to understand the Framers’ meaning and intent, it is not necessary to refer to previous Supreme Court cases, or the Federal Code. Neither is it necessary to have any training in law. In fact, legal training seems to be a hindrance to understanding the clear meaning of the sentences used, as is often the case with Constitution questions. Understanding the motivation of the Framers is also not necessary, although the status of the four parties mentioned would seem to indicate that their motivation was to preserve the sovereign dignity of the parties to the cases singled out by the clause for special treatment.

The meaning of this paragraph stands on its own, independent of any consideration of other parts of the Constitution or other writings of the Founders. The first sentence clearly says that, in all cases in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction. The three most common reasons given by those who either support or accept the usurpation of power by the Arizona District Court are tradition, Congresses’ power to regulate Court jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court’s acceptance of Congressional exceptions.

Neither of the three is constitutionally acceptable. The arguments of tradition and acceptance are reminiscent of the theological question debated by seminarians since time immemorial. “How long does a heresy need to continue before it becomes truth?” If District Courts have routinely ignored this Constitution paragraph since the founding of the Republic, it does not change the meaning or arrangement of the words used. Neither Congress nor the Court has the constitutional power to change the language of the Constitution without an Amendment. In this case, Congress is given the power to make exceptions to cases over which the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction. It is not given the power to make exceptions in cases over which the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction. The second use of the word “shall” in the first sentence precludes the Supreme Court itself from having the power to make exceptions.

This paragraph is clear enough in meaning and sufficiently vague in the understanding of the political class and ordinary citizens that it makes the ideal teaching tool for acquainting citizens with the Constitution and its interpretation. It involves one of the most clearly written and easy to understand passages in the Constitution, a clear usurpation of power by the District Court, and an overt attack on the constitutional doctrine of state sovereignty. The nation clearly needs a debate on the nature, purpose and meaning of the Constitution. We would be hard put to find a better case to start the debate than the one presented by “United States vs. Arizona”.

The Mystery Of SB1070

I’m stymied. For days, I have been pondering the question of why United States vs. State of Arizona was filed in Federal District Court in Arizona instead of the Supreme Court in D.C. I cannot come up with a reasonable answer. Is the fact so obvious that the District Court has no jurisdiction in this case that everyone assumes that everybody connected with the case must be aware of it, and therefore, there must be a valid reason why the case was filed in a District Court instead of before the Supreme Court?

According to the American Bar Association, there were 1,143,358 lawyers in the U.S. at the end of 2007. My guess is that thousands of them have had some exposure to the U.S. Constitution at some time during their career. Many of them may have actually read it, and some of them are surely intimately familiar with its requirements. Yet, from what I can find out, only one lawyer, a retired attorney in Tennessee has raised the question. In an article in the Canada Free Press, Publius Huldah asserts that only the Supreme Court has the authority to hear the Case involving Arizona and its law, SB1070.

Ms. Huldah bases her theory on Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution which reads.

“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.”

The Framers intent and purpose is expressed so concisely and clearly in this clause, it is hard to imagine that even the most skilled lawyer could find a loophole invalidating its meaning. This clause is not affected by the Eleventh Amendment giving states sovereign immunity from suits brought by citizens of other states or countries in federal courts. In fact, this clause has never been amended under the Article V process.

By trying this case before a lower court judge rather than before the Supreme Court, as the Constitution requires, the status of state legislatures and the states in general, is significantly diminished in relation to the federal government. By precedent, it further damages the concept of federalism and state sovereignty. More importantly, it marks the end of Constitutional government in the United States. I cannot think of any case in which the clear wording of the Constitution has been so brazenly ignored.

In most instances of judicial activism, hidden meanings, nuances, or heretofore-undiscovered meanings or principles, are found in the Constitution to lend some justification to the court’s activism. This clause does not lend itself to such speculation. To make matters worse, Governor Brewer has indicated a willingness to “tweak” the law in order to make it more palatable to the federal government.

It seems to me, the best course of action by Arizona would be to simply ignore the ruling of the lower court and continue with its plans for enforcement. Doing so would not be in defiance of “the rule of law”; to do otherwise will be. Since the Constitution is the ultimate authority for or against actions by the federal government, to submit to the authority of a lower court in this case is a denial of constitutional law. If there is no constitutional law there is no law, period; and without law, there can be no liberty.