One-Dimensional Conservatism Not Enough

America, like all nations of the world is tripartite in its makeup. Socialists seem to recognize this as a natural fact. Most conservatives do not. That could prove to be our undoing in the struggle to take our nation back from the Democrat-RINO (DR) coalition that runs the federal government. As Obama and his socialist backers continue to dismantle the institutions of government, conservatives grow increasingly disgusted with the Republican leadership in Congress. The danger for 2012 is that the DR coalition will succeed in alienating the patriot movement from the Republican Party to the point that conservatives vote for someone other than the Republican Party candidate in next year’s election.

A more immediate danger, however, is that patriots fail to unite behind a single candidate in the primaries resulting in the establishment candidate winning the Republican nomination. If that happens, enough conservatives could cast votes for a third party candidate or simply sit out the election, to return Obama and the DR coalition to Washington in 2013.  November of 2012 marks the outer limits of the “point of no return” for America, as we know it, if we have not already reached that point before then. That is why it is imperative that we nominate three-dimensional conservatives for national, state and local offices whenever possible.

All civil societies are tripartite or three-dimensional by nature. The three parts comprising the essence of civil societies are its culture, its government, and its economy, all arrived at by the subliminal consensus of the people making up that society. In the sequence of development, the culture is first to be formed. From that, the economic and government systems develop. Throughout history, cultures have always been strongly influenced by man’s innate awareness of a supreme being. The predominant element in a society’s culture is the dominant religion practiced by the majority of its members. The economic structure and the organization of government always reflect the religious principles of its culture.

The old America that worked, with a culture based on Judeo-Christian principles, an economy based on the Lockean concept of private property, and a government based on a written constitution, has been deliberately and methodically dismantled over the past several generations and is in the process of being replaced with an American version of Marxist socialism that has failed in every place it has been tried the world over. In spite of this fact, a sizable number of conservatives continue to view our problems from a one-dimensional perspective. Libertarians for example, place their emphasis on the Constitution to the exclusion of cultural considerations. Many fiscal conservatives focus on taxes and spending while criticizing social conservatives for their insistence on preserving the moral basis of our culture.

We have watched for many years as progressives (American socialists) have used a dubious reading of the Constitution and the Chinese Communist concept of “political correctness” to undermine the most important of our cultural institutions: schools, families, churches and charitable institutions. These attacks on the American culture take the form of abortion on demand, the elimination of God from our public forums, the welfare state replacing the role of fathers in many households of the poor, and traditional gender relationships in marriage being looked on as “narrow minded” and bigoted. We have seen the complete breakdown of the traditional cultural values in our sports and entertainment, in our business relationships, and in our political institutions. And for those with “eyes to see” the results are only too evident.

When the culture breaks down, government effectiveness and fiscal stability also breaks down. On the final day of the Philadelphia Convention, Benjamin Franklin expressed his support for the Constitution with the warning that it “can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.” While we may not be at that point yet, if we continue to ignore cultural issues, it is only a matter of time until private and public corruption reaches the stage that it can only be controlled by despotic means. That is one of the major lessons we learn from history. Once a society loses its cultural foundation, anarchy emerges, and eventually reaches the level where the populace will accept, and even welcome tyranny as the only means of personal security.

No society can prosper without objective standards of conduct for its government, culture and economy. The objective standard of conduct for the government of America is the Constitution, which is no longer given even “lip service” by our national leaders. The President and Congress routinely violate the restrictions of the Constitution with impunity; the courts apply its requirements based on populist’s trends rather than impartial law. The foundation of the American culture is rooted in the Judeo-Christian principles found in the Holy Bible. An increasingly oppressive attitude toward Christian principles has existed in America since about 1960 and the Bible, prayer, and Christian symbols have been all but eliminated from the public institutions of our culture. Our capitalist economic system based on private ownership and management of property has been undermined by “crony capitalism” and central planning through the government regulatory system as we transition from a free market economy to a centrally planned socialist one.

The Ron Paul type of libertarianism and a fiscal conservatism that ignores the corruption of our culture is simply not adequate to meet the problems facing us as a nation today. We only need look at the state of California, the “hooligan” riots last week in England, or the “flash mobs” that have sprung up in American cities the past few weeks to see our future if we continue to ignore the cultural corruption that has become rampant in recent years. While the federal government has no constitutional authority over the nation’s culture, we cannot afford to support candidates for national office who refuse to champion publicly the traditional American moral values or who, in some cases, openly undermine them.

Many well meaning constitutional conservatives rightly point out that social issues such as abortion, gay marriage, and a host of others are reserved by the Tenth Amendment to the states and to the people; if you listen closely to their arguments for “states rights”, it is easy to conclude that they confuse morality with legality. Immorality sanctioned by state law is no less immoral than that sanctioned by federal law. That is why in deciding on candidates in the 2012 elections we cannot settle for one-dimensional or two-dimensional conservatives. We must insist they be constitution conservatives, fiscal conservatives, AND cultural conservatives. Anything less and we are wasting our time and only postponing the certain end to America “as we know it”.

Conservative Knees Getting Wobbly?

If you are confused as to what is going on in Washington concerning the looming national debt deadline, you are not alone. Washington politicians, mostly lawyers, are masters of obfuscation. The MSM, propaganda arm of the Democratic Party, are ignoring the CCB proposal from the House that passed yesterday along a party line vote, 234-190 with eight or nine Republicans voting against it. At the same time, everyone seems to be leaning toward a compromise plan being hatched by the “Gang of Seven” in the Senate: This in spite of the fact that details of the plan have not yet been made public.

Advance information on the plan is that it will call for a raise in the debt ceiling while increasing revenue by some $1 trillion, with a reduction in spending of $3.5 trillion over the next ten years. The only certainty in all this is that the American people will eventually be the loser, taxpayers will have to cough up additional taxes and the meager influence of the U.S. Constitution will be diminished even further. It strains credulity to believe future Congresses will honor any budget cutting deals made by the current Congress.

A further test of our gullibility is the insistence by conservatives that they will not vote to raise taxes under any circumstances, but they are not necessarily opposed to increasing revenue through closing tax loopholes and other tax reform measures. To be fair, it should be pointed out that very few conservative politicians have promised not to raise taxes. They have only promised not to raise tax rates. Thanks to the success politicians and the media have had in corrupting the English language, such nuances of speech can easily be slipped by a trusting public.

The claim of increasing revenue without raising taxes is based on closing “loopholes” in the current tax code. A side effect of the class envy promoted by progressives over the past hundred years is that almost everyone is against tax loopholes — until they understand what a tax loophole is. Loophole is the word used by politicians to cast dispersions on certain types of “deductions”. By using the word loophole instead of deduction it is easy to convince the public that “fat cat” rich folks avoid paying their taxes by taking unfair or even illegal deductions. The type of deductions being considered in the Gang of Seven plan are things like deductions for mortgage interest, and deductions for minor children, etc. Very few taxpayers, homeowners and parents would consider these “loopholes”.

The truth is that the ONLY way to increase revenue to the federal government is through raising taxes. Government has no revenue other than taxes extracted from the producing members of society. Other schemes for raising revenue through fees, permitting, tolls, etc., are really taxes on taxes, in most cases. For example, National Parks are owned and supported by the public; when we pay a fee to enter a park we are simply paying an additional tax on top of the taxes we already pay to support the park in the first place. In other words, we are paying an additional tax in order to use a facility we already own. The same is true at the local level when the City Fire Department charges you $800 to transport you to a hospital, two blocks away, after a traffic accident. The Fire Department and the Ambulance have already been paid for by taxes. The idea that revenue can be increased $1 trillion without raising taxes has to be the ultimate oxymoron.

There is no long-term way to get us out of our financial crisis other than “gritting our teeth” and abiding by the Constitution; only spending taxpayer money on programs authorized under the enumerated powers section. In the short term, we need to hold the line on the debt by refusing to raise the limit under any circumstances. That is the only way to force Washington to get their financial affairs in order before the next elections. I do not believe a Balanced Budget Amendment would provide much help with a government that violates the Constitution with impunity on a daily basis. However, a concise, well-written Amendment probably would do little harm.

The proposed BBA is a good start, provided it is limited to the wording of Section 1.

“Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless two-thirds of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a roll call vote.”

Any additional words only gives politicians the tools to nullify it through imaginary meanings their legal wizards read into the text. However, I find a bit of irony in the term “sworn members” used in the Amendment, when if the member’s oath to defend the Constitution had been taken seriously in the past we would not be having the present debate. By the way, any plan the Gang of Seven comes up with is unconstitutional on its face because it purports to raise revenue. The Constitution requires that all revenue bills originate in the House.

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

Time For Term Limits?

By Jerry McDaniel

For years, I have been against statutory or Constitution term limits for members of Congress, based on the belief that Citizens should have their choice of who will represent them in Congress and that they are entitled to the consequences of their choices. Another concern has been that the country would lose the services of good representatives when their time expired and less effective ones were likely to replace them.

The Founding Fathers wrestled with this question during the Philadelphia Convention without coming to a consensus. Those for term limits arguing that representatives should truly represent the interests of the people and that long-term service in Congress would cause them to lose touch with their constituents and become unfamiliar with the wishes and needs of the people they represented.

Those against term limits put forth many of the arguments concerning choice and the loss of effective representatives mentioned above. Unable to decide they finally “punted” the decision ahead for future generations to decide. These concerns are still valid, however, many things changed during the twentieth century to make the idea of term limits more agreeable. In fact during the twentieth century Congress departed so far from the Constitution and our founding principles that the only way to regain control of government may be through term limits.

One of the more important twentieth century changes was in political terminology. The most frequently used label for the American form of government during the early part of the nineteenth century was “republican”, referring to a government made up of representatives, chosen directly or indirectly, by the people and bound by a standard of law. The most frequently used label in the twentieth century was “democratic” referring to a government made up of representatives chosen directly by the people and bound only by the “will of the people”. The difference between a republican form of government and a democratic form of government appear small at first, but that difference is extremely important.

Another important change that occurred during the twentieth century was the makeup of the electorate. In the founding era, the voting franchise was limited to stakeholders with “skin in the game”, so to speak. Fearing an electorate made up of the uninformed and disinterested “masses” (democracy), the privilege of voting was restricted to land owners or equivalent, generally resulting in one vote per family. Today the franchise is universally available to all adults over eighteen years of age, due to a number of twentieth century Constitutional Amendments. There are no eligibility requirements that would limit voting to those most likely to understand the issues or be familiar with the candidates for whom they were voting. Ballots are printed in multiple languages so that it is not even necessary to speak English, a fundamental necessity for understanding the issues and the candidates’ positions on those issues.

Still another big factor of the twentieth century that led to the out of control, lawless government we have today was the rise in power of the two major political parties. The concept of citizen legislators who served for a few years and then returned to private life where they had to live with the laws they had created gave way to the career politician with many of them holding on to power for most of their adult lives. The result is, as the Founders predicted, a government made up of career politicians and bureaucrats far removed from the everyday problems, dealt with on a daily basis by the average citizen.

Few of today’s politicians know, understand or respect the Constitution. Law schools no longer teach the Constitution. Instead, they teach case law about it, substituting the past opinions of judges and courts for the clearly stated requirements of the Constitution. The sole purpose of the Constitution is to limit the powers of the federal government. Therefore, it is necessary for politicians to ignore its demands in order to expand and hold onto power. Modern political parties exist wholly for the purpose of accumulating and wielding power. The lawyer/politicians who make up the bulk of our congressional membership think of themselves as advocates for the Party rather than advocates of the people.

On any controversial issue, the truth is always slanted to benefit the party, never to benefit the nation or the people, and certainly never as objective truth. The most important asset to any aspiring politician is party loyalty and the most valuable asset for party leadership is the ability to demand and enforce party discipline. The result is a government run exclusively by the Party leadership for the sole benefit of the Party and without the restraints of Constitutional limits. These Party characteristics are bipartisan. It makes little difference which Party is in power other than the severity of the damage done to the Constitution and the nation.

In order to return the federal government to one limited by the Constitution it will be necessary to break the power of the two political parties. One way of doing that would be to break up the perpetuity of congressional power through term limits.

During the debate concerning the length of service for Senators at the New York state Ratifying Convention, June 24, 1788, George Livingston made the following motion,

“That no person shall be eligible as a Senator for more than six years in any term of twelve years, and that it shall be in the power of the legislatures of the several states to recall their Senators, or either of them, and to elect others in their stead, to serve for the remainder of the time for which such Senator or Senators, so recalled, were appointed.” (This was before the Seventeenth Amendment and Senators were chosen by state legislatures.)

The following day, Melancton Smith in arguing on behalf of the motion said,

“…as the clause (in Article II) now stands, there is no doubt that the Senators will hold their office perpetually; and in this situation, they must of necessity lose their dependence and attachment to the people. It is certainly inconsistent with the established principles of republicanism, that the Senate should be a fixed and unchangeable body of men. There should be then some constitutional provision against this evil. A rotation I consider as the best possible mode of affecting a remedy…”

Livingston and Smith lost the debate in 1788, and their fears eventually came to fruition in both the House and the Senate. The time has now come for us to rethink the issue of term limits, as it may be the only tool the American people have for taking back their government from the Political Parties now controlling it.

Spontaneous Order And The Tea Party Movement

By Jerry McDaniel

A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows that 71% of Republicans are either active in or support the Tea Party movement. These numbers bode well for the Republican Party and the Nation. If the movement does not lose its strength over the next two years, the 2012 elections could see a revival of Constitutional government and our founding principles. However, even though the Republican Party is the chief benefactor of the Tea Party movement, its leadership does not share in the enthusiasm shown by its rank and file membership.

The number one responsibility of political party leadership — both parties— is to expand its power base and retain its incumbent members in their jobs.  The Tea Party therefore, is viewed by the Republican Party establishment as a threat to its power. The movement is not yet fully understood by the governing class or by the Tea Party participants themselves.

The Tea Parties are the visible and vocal manifestations of a much larger patriot movement that has taken root since the election of Obama’s progressive Democrat government in 2008. The patriot movement is spontaneous and stems from a variety of individual motives making it virtually impossible to predict or control. The indications are that the Tea Parties are only the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

Perhaps the best explanation of the patriot movement is the concept of “spontaneous order” used by economists to explain free market capitalism and naturalists to explain the workings of nature. Spontaneous order, as applied to human institutions, is described by Adam Ferguson as “the products of human actions but not human design”. It applies to the unplanned results of the decisions and actions of millions of human beings, each acting independently in their own self interest. The concept grew out of the Scottish Enlightenment and was developed during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries by Adam Smith, Carl Menger, Friedrich Hayek and others to explain the workings of free markets.

Since each individual makes decisions and takes independent actions in his or her own self interest, the result usually culminates in what is in the best interest of the society as a whole. That is, until an outside force attempts to control or manage it. That basically, is where the patriot movement is today. Like any other mass movement, its very nature makes those in power uncomfortable. ; Hence, the efforts to organize it into a manageable force. Enterprising entrepreneurs for a variety of reasons, some for the recognition, others seeing the potential for fame and fortune, still others from a genuine sense of patriotism seek to organize the tea parties into a national organization with themselves as the leaders.

Human nature being what it is; that will eventually happen. The unknown is just what kind of organization it will be. Will it emerge as an activist group, advocating for a constitutional government or will it become another political party? After the November elections we should have a clearer picture of the future of the patriot movement and its many parts, including the tea parties. Considering the propaganda aspects of the mass media it is difficult to know exactly how the movement is affecting the political makeup of America. However, the results in special elections and primaries over the past year clearly show that politics is changing.

There is a real possibility that President Obama and the progressive Democrats have pushed too far, too fast and just as the excesses of President John Adams, during the last four years of the eighteenth century destroyed the Federalist Party, the excesses of the Obama Administration may destroy the Democrat Party over the next two election cycles.  If that happens, a change similar to the one that took place between 1800 and 1830 could occur over the next twenty or thirty years. It is possible that by 2020 or 2024 the Democrat Party could be defunct leaving the Republican Party as the new minority party with the inheritors of the patriot movement organized into a new majority party.

Comments on Republican’s Pledge to America

By Jerry McDaniel

Finally, with the release on Thursday of the Congressional Republicans’ “Pledge to America” we have a document we can use to hold the Party accountable in 2012 and 2014. The next step is to require all Republican candidates to sign the pledge and refuse to vote for those who do not. While far from perfect, the Pledge is at least a first step in returning America to the Constitutional Republic envisioned by the Founders. It is also a document that Congress is going to find it politically difficult to follow.

The most important part of the pledge will also be the most difficult to keep. That is their pledge to “honor the Constitution as constructed by its framers and honor the original intent of those precepts that have been consistently ignored – particularly the Tenth Amendment.” That is going to be particularly difficult since other parts are in conflict with it. Along the same lines they also pledge that, “We will require that every bill contain a citation of Constitutional authority”. Congressman John Shaddag has been using this as a campaign gimmick for over a decade. Let’s see if they finally follow through with it.

They also pledge to “repeal and replace” the government takeover of health care.  Some of their proposals are sorely needed; for example, the promise of “tort reform”. I have not studied this part of the plan, however, I cannot immediately think of a part of the Constitution that gives to Congress that authority. It will be interesting to see what they come up with on that. The “repeal” part is a “gimmie”, since there is no constitutional authority given Congress over health care to begin with. It’s the “replace” part that is going to give them difficulty. Since health care is not one of the enumerated powers given to Congress by the Constitution it is going to be difficult to find “Constitutional authority”, for any of the reform legislation they propose.

The one place where they are on solid constitutional ground is in the pledge to “allow individuals to buy health care coverage outside the state in which they live”. This they can legitimately do under the interstate commerce clause, whose original purpose was to insure free trade between the states. However, if they attempt to expand the commerce clause to allow Congress to regulate other parts of our health care system they will be violating their pledge to honor the “original intent” of the Founders.

Another part of their promised health care reform is their promise to ensure access for patients with pre-existing conditions. This involves telling private insurance companies who they must insure and under what conditions. Although, there is ample moral justification for such a requirement there is nothing in the Constitution that gives Congress that power. In the same paragraph they explain that they will “expand state high-risk pools, reinsurance programs and reduce the cost of coverage;” another laudable goal with no Constitutional authority to implement.

Still another pledge they make is, “we will end the practice of packaging unpopular bills with ’must pass’ legislation to circumvent the will of the American people. Instead, we will advance major legislation one issue at a time”. This sounds good, but it would sound better if they passed a rule only allowing single issue legislation, period. The practice of “bundling” legislation should be stopped, no more “comprehensive” legislation on any issue.

In general, the pledges relating to national security and border protection are good. However, no mention is made of illegal immigration, and there is no pledge regarding amnesty. A lot of the sections are written in generalities, with plenty of “wiggle room“. As we said, this is only a first step. Obviously they have heard the American people and have hastily drawn a plan to protect their jobs by telling us what they think we want to hear. If history repeats itself, many will go through the motions and then say they “tried” but simply did not have the votes to get particular items of the pledge passed.

One area that is conspicuously missing is what to do about eliminating some of the unconstitutional bureaucracies such as the Department of Education, National Endowment of the Arts, Bureau of Energy, HUD, and the myriad of alphabet soup departments that continue to clog up the machinery of government, and infringe on the liberties of the people.

In spite of the pledge’s shortcomings, if we just succeed in forcing them to adhere to the pledge they made concerning the Constitution, we will go a long way toward restoring constitutional government. Although, that pledge is simply a different way of repeating their oath of office, and had they honored that to begin with, we would not have the problems we are forced to deal with today.

It Is Time to Quit Being RINO Enablers

By Jerry McDaniel

Unless there is a change in direction, America is on a collision course with two ideologies, both dedicated to destroying the American way of life in any way they can. One is Islam; the other is socialism, operating under the American pseudonym “progressivism”. The final confrontation with Islam may not come before the Battle of Armageddon.  However, the confrontation with progressivism is here now. In just over seven weeks, we will be going to the polls to vote on the makeup of the 112th Congress. The outcome will determine the future of America for generations to come.

A vote for the Democrat candidate is an unequivocal vote for tyranny and despotism. A vote for the Republican candidate is not so clear-cut. The Democrat Party is made up almost entirely of progressives, while the Republican Party is a mixture of conservatives and progressives. The challenge for patriots in the upcoming election is to return control of Congress to Republicans and at the same time begin reforming the Republican Party. It has become painfully clear that the Republican Party cannot survive as the “big tent” party.  As we have pointed out in prior articles, big tents do not do well in major storms, and we are in the midst of a major political storm.

There are eight primaries coming up September 14. In virtually every case, the Republican Party is supporting the establishment candidate and going all out in its opposition to the conservative candidate. Whatever the outcome of these eight primaries, the decision for conservatives in November is whether they will vote as a principled patriot or as a RINO enabler. While the Republican Party has always been the home of conservatives, it is apparent they are not welcome in that home, except on Election Day.

Admittedly, there is a calculated risk in refusing to vote for a progressive Republican. At the same time that is the only way we are ever going to reform the Republican Party. As long as we keep “holding our nose” and voting for the “lesser of two evils” the Party establishment will continue to put up and support progressives, believing that most conservatives will put party above country and vote for the Republican candidate, no matter what. Until we make it clear that we will no longer abide by that theory, nothing will change.

The Republican Party is set to take over both houses of Congress in the November elections. Without the progressives, there may not be enough votes to override Presidential vetoes, but on the other hand, having progressive Republicans in Congress does not guarantee enough votes either. Republicans like Snowe and Collins can always be counted on to vote with the progressives. Those like Graham, McCain, Lugar and others of their ilk will vote progressive whenever they think they can get away with it, especially if they can “make a deal”.

If conservatives refuse to vote for progressive Republicans, the Republican Party will still likely take both houses, only with smaller majorities. More important, it will send a message to the Party that it cannot win without conservative support. That is the first step toward reform. If we do not reform the Party there is a likelihood that it will break apart on its own over the next few election cycles. If we are successful in reforming it, however, in 2010, 12, and 14 there is a chance of returning America to a Constitutional Republic.

It is not going to be easy being a conservative in districts and states where the only viable choices are between a progressive Democrat and a progressive Republican. That is a decision each of us has to make for ourselves. I am fortunate enough to have a fairly conservative candidate running for Congress in my district. However, Mark Kirk is the Republican candidate for Senate. I have struggled with this choice since the primary in February, and have decided that the Senate can do with one less progressive Republican undermining its efforts to get the country back on track. I have no idea at this point who I will vote for in November but it will not be for Mark Kirk or Alexi Giannoulias.

It’s Time To Retire Both Political Parties

The Democratic Party has been in existence since 1825; the Republican Party since 1854. Both have failed the Country miserably.  Perhaps the time has come when we should think about abolishing both parties and establishing a new method for selecting candidates for elective office.

Conventional wisdom among conservatives is that we need to take over the Republican Party and regain control of Congress in the next two elections. That is not something we need do, it is something we absolutely must do if we are to have any hope of changing the direction the country is going.

Assuming though, that we are successful in returning Congress to Republican control in November, and assuming we are also successful in returning the Republican Party to the control of conservatives, then what? Is there any logical reason for continuing to give conservative support to it in the future? Political parties are a lot like service businesses, only with voters instead of customers. The service it provides to the public is finding and publicizing candidates for office. Conservatives have, for generations, given their time and money to the Republican Party with the expectation that its candidates, once in office, would enact legislation designed to protect our liberty and defend our Constitution and way of life. What person, in his or her right mind would continue supporting a business that never delivered the service it had agreed to provide?

Who would patronize an airline that never took them to the destination their ticket called for? Who would continue to employ a security firm to protect their business if thefts kept increasing year after year? That is exactly what we are doing with the Republican Party. Conservatives keep volunteering their time and donating their money, yet they never get what they work for and pay for. We have been conditioned to believe that strong political parties are necessary for the functioning of government. That may be true — but, we need to reexamine that assumption and, at a minimum, rethink what it is that we want our political parties to do for us.

There is no legitimate reason, based on our Constitution and founding documents, for allowing political parties to exercise the amount of power they have today over our government and the choice of leadership we have as citizens. When the Founders were designing our government with its balance of power, they designed it to balance the powers between the different branches of the federal government and between the federal government and the states. They did not and could not have envisioned that the stability of our nation and the security of our liberties would depend on a balance of power between two political parties.

For diagrams depicting the differences between the government established in 1989 and the government existing today see here and here.

The power of political parties has increased concurrently with the decline of federalism in our national government. The founders did not establish the United States as a consolidated “nation state”. The federal government was established by the Declaration of Independence as a federation of nation states, primarily for the purpose of mutual defense and international relations. The nature of the United States is described by Thomas Jefferson in the final paragraph of the Declaration.

“…These united colonies are and, of right ought to be free and independent States;…that as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.”

This is the last occurrence of the word “colonies” in the official documents of the U.S. From that time forward, citizens of the various states considered their state to be their “country”. Whenever the word “country” appears in the personal writings of that era, it almost always refers to an individual state, rarely to the “United States” as a whole. The Declaration declares the states, in their individual capacity, to be free, independent, sovereign nation states, equal to any other nation state such as Spain, Great Britain, Germany, Poland, etc. It does not present them merely as parts of a larger consolidated “nation state”. Later governing documents, based on the Declaration of Independence does not change the fundamental nature of the states described in the Declaration. The essential and fundamental nature of the states in their declaration of independence, and in their successive governing documents is state sovereignty and independence.

Recognizing the shared threats to the individual states posed by other nations, and the common interest of the states in a few other issues, they organized an “umbrella” government for the common defense and certain other matters of common necessity. The Articles of Confederation, ratified by the states in 1781 describes this federation as,

…“A firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.” (Article III)

To preclude any attempts by the Federation to impinge on the individual sovereignty of the various states, they included this statement in Article II:

“Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”

With the Articles of Confederation the states relinquished a small portion of their sovereignty to the “umbrella” government, namely, the powers of war and peace and the unfettered right to form alliances. All other powers were retained by the states.

Our second governing document, the Constitution of the United States, did not alter the fundamental sovereign nature of the states. The only additional sovereignty, of any consequence, relinquished to the federal government was the power to directly tax citizens rather than assessing the State Legislatures for the tax monies necessary to administer the federal government; granting the federal government the right to regulate interstate commerce to insure free trade between the states; coin money and operate the postal service; and the establishment of a national judiciary. The previously delegated powers of war, peace, and international alliances were also restated. Other than that, the states retained their full sovereignty.

Either by malicious intent or oversight, the statement of sovereignty contained in the Second Article of the Articles of Confederation was omitted from the Constitution. However, it was added at the insistence of the Anti-Federalist, with the Ninth and Tenth Amendments ratified in 1791.

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

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.”

With the formation of the Democrat Party, organized by Andrew Jackson in 1825, the real power of government began to shift from the people to political parties. For the past hundred and eighty-five years the two major political parties have competed with each other for the reigns of power. Party power has increased until today we are ruled over by an oligarchy consisting of the Speaker of the House, the Majority Leader of the Senate, the President, and the so-called “swing vote” of the Supreme Court, each representing the needs of their respective parties rather than the needs of the people and the states. Lip-service is given to the “sovereignty of the people” by allowing them to choose which of the two political parties will rule over them for the next two, four or six years. The constitutional form of government established by the Founders has all but been forgotten.

If we are ever to regain the liberty and freedom left to us by the Founding Fathers, it is imperative that we throw off the power exercised over us by political parties. This cannot be accomplished in one or two election cycles. Because of the six-year term of Senators, multiple election cycles will be required. However, it can be done with the concentrated and focused efforts of the American people. We can pass on to the next generation a free republican form of government envisioned by the Founders or we can pass on a socialist oligarchy, the choice is up to us.

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.

Looking Back at Our Future

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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