Clarion Call to Conservatives

We can argue whether it was real conservatism or faux and mistaken conservatism that lost the last election in November 2008. Regardless, 28 years of a nominally conservative governing philosophy is the proverbial baby that was thrown out with the bath water. Nor is the current crisis only a partisan political thing. The nation’s economy is the worst since the Great Depression, such that capitalism and even the whole idea of having free markets are under siege and, with this president and ineffectual Congress, at risk. Nobody has done anything either to solve our porous border situation or to rein in illegal, much less legal immigration. The military is run ragged and not even completely transformed to its new generation of equipment or training. Equipment breakdowns across the services are increasing at an alarming rate. Tens of thousands of veterans rightly demand long-term care, and now the government talks about an indiscriminate $500 billion in defense spending over ten years!

All this, when foreign policy challenges are quite serious: from Mexican instability and drug violence spilling over the border; to North Korea feeling its oats and shooting off missiles (at the same time it implodes under demographic pressure and famine); from a crazy man in Iran resisting pressure for democratic change, to the tough guy in Russia killing off political rivals (both shades of Evil Empire); and always that Red Chinese dragon lying in lurch—silently building its military, becoming an economic powerhouse too; not to mention those bad guys we call terrorists lodged in failed or failing states, searching for safe havens to launch future attacks against our people; and least perhaps but very sad, our European brethren who inherited directly the great Western tradition, now losing all religion and becoming a mere secular shell, submitting blithely to self-loathing and to the sense of inevitable decline.

Almost the only thing we can agree with President Obama about is, well yes—this is indeed “a critical moment”! Counter intuitively perhaps, this may also be a most auspicious beginning for the next conservative change making political movement in America. Indeed, it is my strong conviction that it is from this great place, figuratively and geographically nearest to the heart of Texas—it is from this place, that Americans will learn what to do and how they ought to respond to the criticality of this moment. It is from Central and North Central Texas conservatism they will be reminded of certain principles and of what it means to be American in key, essential ways. This conviction is born of a faith that we can and will meet the challenges I’ve mentioned, and any other challenge, if we have the heart; if we give it our all; if we live up to the character of our forebears and invoke the name of the same Almighty, who helped them on behalf of the righteous cause of Liberty.

This State whose battle cry is, “Remember the Alamo!” appreciates and understands this better than any other. This place where the Chisholm Trail runs through knows. Central and North Central Texans have known glory in victory, valor in defeat; they have persisted through tough times, drought, fires and floods. They know if you want to get on with it, sometimes you have to get back up and dust yourself off; and if you want to get from one place to another, you’ve got to ‘get a move on.’ Not all trails lead to the same destination, and few are what we’d call totally “Happy Trails.” Bluebonnets have a short season, as it were. And yet the trail you embark on will convey you, through time and experience—and the same trail that takes you to a new place, dotted with a few other places along the way, can also take you back on your journey home.

The conservative leads his or her country home as it were; or the next best thing, the conservative will pack up the relics, the essential tools, seed corn, keepsakes, brands, favorite recipes, and the family Bible. He or she will stow them safely in the wagon as he heads off to parts yonder or parts unknown. When he gets there, the new home will surely bear a resemblance and continuity with the old, even in the midst of a new environment and more changes to come. In this way, the old remains vital and relevant while still moving forward. And it is not a joyless trek either, because part of the kit involves Texas optimism, as big as the Texas sky.

Texans have a penchant for finding the silver lining, as well as adjusting their own attitudes when necessary—in order to bend nature to the will, and to visualize the prize against any background whatsoever, because they know (to borrow a folk song lyric) that ‘everywhere you go, you take the weather with you.’ Texans are funny that way because they’re cock sure they got the best, no matter what it is or what condition it’s in! Their attitude, if you will, is always more than equal to any task. Which is a good thing, because we shall need this quality in spades. Nevertheless, I tell you from a political standpoint, this is ground zero of the next political Revolution, one that rivals the Jeffersonian and Reagan Revolutions—and this is an exceeding great day to be called a Patriot!

The Fear Of God Is Not In This Place

What in the world has happened to America? How has it come to this? The America that we currently see is unrecognizable from the America many of us grew up in. The America that many oppressed people risked their lives to escape to now more resembles the oppressed nations that those people fled. (I’ve had scores of immigrants tell me that personally.) And make no mistake about it, the problem is much deeper than the shallow partisan mantra, “It’s the Democrats’ (or Republicans’) fault.” The root cause of America’s woes is much deeper than that. For decades, we’ve been trading Democrats for Republicans, Republicans for Democrats, liberals for conservatives, and conservatives for liberals, and nothing has changed–except the problems keep getting worse!

To the heathen king, Abimelech, in Genesis chapter twenty, Abraham said, “Surely, the fear of God is not in this place.” Two thousand years later, in Romans chapter three, the Apostle Paul said, “There is no fear of God before their eyes.” I’m inclined to believe that this may be at the root of most of America’s problems. And for the non-religious reader, please don’t stop reading now. Hear me out.

For one thing, a person does not have to be a Christian to possess the fear of God. I’ve met many unbelievers who possess a firm and unmistakable fear of God. Furthermore, from what I’ve seen among professing Christians, most of them do NOT possess the fear of God–their Christian profession notwithstanding!

At the risk of sounding “carnal,” I am literally sick to my stomach with all this talk about electing “Christians” to public office! A thorough examination of the Scriptures teaches us that the Bible itself does not promote the concept of choosing “Christians” to be civil magistrates. A political candidate’s Christian profession or church affiliation means absolutely nothing to his or her fitness for public office. You heard me: NOTHING!

When John F. Kennedy was running for office, I remember all the excitement among Catholics to go out and elect a Catholic president. When Jimmy Carter was running for office, I remember all the excitement among Baptists to go out and elect a Baptist president. When G.W. Bush was running for office, I remember all the excitement among “born-again” Christians to go out and elect a “born-again” president. This year, Mormons are all excited that they can go out and elect a Mormon president. It’s all hooey! Whether our civil magistrates at the federal level are Democrat or Republican, Catholic or Baptist or “born-again” Christian or Mormon, our country continues to spiral into oppression and despotism. Instead of getting all wrapped up in a candidate’s religious profession or affiliation, we should heed the counsel of Holy Writ.

Here is the Biblical requirement for civil magistrates: “Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens.” (Exodus 18:21 KJV)

See it again: “The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God.” (II Samuel 23:3 KJV)

What difference does it make if one is a Democrat or Republican, if he or she doesn’t have the fear of God in his or her heart? What difference does it make if one is a Catholic or Baptist or “born-again” Christian or Mormon, if he or she does not have the fear of God is his or her heart? What difference does it make if they are “conservative” or “liberal,” if they are not men and women of truth, men and women who hate covetousness, and men and women who are just?

No two men were more different than George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. They were opposites in just about every measure of determination. But without a doubt, these two men were two of the most valuable and influential men at the time of America’s founding. It is safe to say that without these two men, the United States of America would not even exist. Though they differed in religious persuasion, background, education, etc., they both expressed the same sentiment in regard to the discussion at hand.

George Washington said, “The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained.”

Thomas Jefferson said, “And 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.”

Christians or unbelievers, churchgoers or non-churchgoers, Federalists or Democrat-Republicans, northerners or southerners, to a man, America’s founders were men that feared God. That doesn’t mean they were without sin. It doesn’t mean that they possessed some sort of super-spirituality. But universally, the founding generation (and many generations afterward) possessed an innate fear of God.

Almost to a man, the founders emphasized that morality was the underpinning of liberty and freedom. And what is morality if it is not the governance of the way people treat one another? Furthermore, morality is something that must come from within; it cannot be coerced or forced externally. And, pray tell, where does morality come from if one has not the fear of God in his or her heart? And, again, this has nothing to do with one’s religious profession or affiliation–or lack thereof!

The fear of God is part of the Natural Law of God written in men’s hearts. The problem is that far too many people’s hearts have grown callused and hard to the “inner voice” of moral consciousness. How else can one explain the conduct of so many people?

The natural fear of God is a predicate for a person’s respect for their mother and father. (Leviticus 19:3) The fear of God is a predicate for a person’s respect for others, especially those who are disadvantaged. (Leviticus 19:14) This passage specifically notes the deaf and the blind.

So, how can TSA agents at the Louisville, Kentucky, airport possess the fear of God when they mockingly laugh at deaf people who were leaving the annual conference for the National Association of the Deaf in that city, calling them “F*%# Deafies”?

See the story at:

http://reason.com/blog/2012/07/10/tsa-agents-at-louisville-airport-steal-d

The fear of God is a predicate for people’s respect for the elderly. (Leviticus 19:32) The fear of God is a predicate for a political leader’s respect for liberty and refusal to engage in or allow oppression. (Leviticus 25:17) The fear of God is a predicate for honest financial and business practices. (Leviticus 25:36) And the fear of God is a predicate for a leader of any kind to not be tyrannical and heavy handed. (Leviticus 25:43)

And, as we are approaching the anniversary of the federal fiasco that took place near Ruby Ridge, Idaho, I am reminded again of how the lack of the fear of God is demonstrated in the way that our political leaders conduct themselves. How could federal agents possess the fear of God when they shot a fourteen-year-old boy in the back, and when one of them took aim through a high powered scoped rifle and shot the brains out of a young mother who was innocently standing in the doorway of her own home holding her infant child in her arms? Furthermore, how could federal agents possess the fear of God when they machine-gunned mostly elderly men, women, and children as they fled the burning buildings at Mt. Carmel outside Waco, Texas?

In addition, how can politicians in Washington, D.C., possess the fear of God when they routinely lie, steal, violate their oaths to the Constitution, and wreak havoc upon the liberties and freedoms of the American people? How can the banksters at the Federal Reserve possess the fear of God when they deliberately rape the US economy and purposefully manipulate the markets so as to destroy the financial well being of tens of millions of families? How can federal government officials at the highest levels possess the fear of God when they engage in international drug running and murder?

For that matter, how can professing Christians possess the fear of God when they engage in deliberate character assassination and slander? How can they possess the fear of God when they steal the honor and reputations of their own brothers and sisters? How can they possess the fear of God when they demonstrate selfishness, greed, and hypocrisy? How can they possess the fear of God when Christian school administrators lord over their staff and students as oppressively as any tyrant? How can pastors possess the fear of God when they willingly allow themselves to become the sheepish slaves of the state by avoiding–or even deliberately altering–the sacred principles of liberty set forth in the Holy Scriptures?

National policies and practices are totally dependent upon the personal fear of God by those who enact these policies and practices. No wonder the Scriptures admonish people to select civil magistrates who fear God. Forget his or her church affiliation! Forget his or her “Christian” profession! Are they people of their word? Do they hate covetousness? Are they people of truth? Are they men and women of character and integrity? Do they fear God?

America is not falling because of its politics. It is not falling because of its financial foibles. It is not falling because of its religious preferences. It is falling because “the fear of God is not in this place.”

Special Request for Electors for Virgil Goode

To those of you who voted in the primary for Ron Paul or candidates in other races we understand. It’s become rare over the years to actually vote “for” a candidate. However, if you are a registered voter and did not vote in the primaries (and don’t intend to vote in runoff elections) you have a rare opportunity to serve as an Elector for Constitution Party Candidate Virgil Goode.

A former six term congressman from Virginia, Virgil previously served several years in the Virginia Assembly. Virgil joined our national committee about four years ago and has been instrumental in helping our national party and many state parties. Virgil supports our platform and represents the party well. For more information, visit Virgil’s campaign website at www.goodeforpresident2012.com.

We need a minimum of 38 electors to qualify Virgil as a write-in candidate for the November election. Serving as a Presidential Elector is considered an honor. Anyone interested in serving should contact me as soon as possible at [email protected].

On a personal note, our party does not officially endorse candidates who are not members of our party. However, for those of you who live in Central Texas in newly redrawn House District 25, I highly recommend Wes Riddle in the July 31 runoff election. Wes is a dear friend and supporter of our Texas Party and clearly the Tea Party favorite over his well-heeled establishment opponent who doesn’t even live in the district.

For God, Family and restoration of our once great republic,

Bob Eoff
State Chairman

Hardcore Conservative Principles

There was this young man who rode a bus to work every day. On the bus he’d always notice a pretty young woman sitting up front. Well the ride lasted about a half an hour, so his mind would typically drift off. He’d wonder what she was like, and he’d think about how they might meet one day and come to know each other better… Maybe she’d get on the bus and come sit by him, maybe she’d smile and say hi, and then he’d ask her name. If things went really well she’d probably start saving him a seat by her every day! If she did, they’d no doubt become close. Well, sure as rain one day this pretty young thing did in fact get on the bus later than normal so that the only seat available was right beside him. Just like in his mind, she came on over, smiled and gently said “Hi”—but instead of asking her name, he blurted something out about getting married and how many kids did she want. She left the bus in a hurry.

The moral of this rather awkward story is that you really do have to take your time and proceed by steps, at least if you expect things to turn out well. It’s true with life and political coalition building too. While it is important to have a vision and keep your eyes on the prize—you can dream and dream big and say “Yes We Can” till the cows come home, but there’s still no substitute for hard work and smart work. What I’m talking about is taking one thing at a time, all things in succession. And one of the first things we have to do as conservatives is to get our act together. It starts by defining what we’re about—after which, we may begin to attract a broad coalition and shape policy positions, and also lead the next conservative change making political movement. In May 2009 I laid out to the Central Texas Conservatives what I believe to be our hardcore conservative principles. We must advance from these six principles with a resoluteness of purpose and deliberate active work if we are to win back America.

To Restore the Republic meaning we demand a return to representative government. For instance we call our country what it is—a republic and not a democracy, a democratic-republic if you must. The national majority does not rule the States or the Nation in fact. Minority rights are never subject to the whim of 50% plus 1. We choose to follow the Founders’ Original Intent—their vision of peace and prosperity, virtue and happiness, that of a ‘Shining City on a Hill.’

To Reinforce adherence to the Constitution, which is to say that words mean something, that the text of the written document itself has a fixed meaning, that while enumerated powers are subject to some interpretation they are also largely defined; and there are constitutional processes for determining how best to interpret the Constitution’s meaning. There are political possibilities based upon the separation of powers amongst branches, and also based upon sovereignty inherent in the states. The Constitution moreover has an amendment procedure, and that’s the only way to legitimately change constitutional parameters. Reduction of the Constitution by the Supreme Court to a so-called “living” document amounts to a gross malfeasance on the part of judges-turned-legislators.

To Reinvigorate Federalism meaning that we recognize implicitly the compound nature of our Republic, the fact that it is and by design was made to be a Republic of republics to preclude tyranny and magnify the possibilities of Liberty. Federalism lies at the heart of the original constitutional edifice and is a primary contribution from the Father of the Constitution, James Madison. States ceded specific, enumerated powers to the federal government while retaining everything else. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments are explicit in this regard. To Respect the Flag, which affirms our commitment to the Union as conceived by the Founders and discretely altered by constitutional amendment or tribunal of arms. We respect the Flag as that primary symbol of our country and that Republic for which it stands, and the nation amongst all others on earth to which we owe primary allegiance and to which we hold the love of countrymen for our native or adoptive homeland. We respect the Flag also, as symbol of the highest ideals to which men and women can aspire and to which the nation has mostly been true, as it has progressed through history at great sacrifice and expense in blood and treasure. We are proud Patriots, who celebrate also those various symbols of national and regional heritage.

To Rigorously exercise Freedom is our commitment to living according to our lights without hypocrisy and with utmost personal integrity, to do as we say and believe, to attempt in this life to implement what we have planned and visualized and worked so hard to accomplish. This is our political commitment too, to do as our ancestors did by pledging ‘our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor’ to the great project before us into which we have enlisted; to walk as freeborn individuals, possessing Rights from Heaven which no man may put asunder or play God to undo, or unduly restrict. Fundamentally this means that we insist upon self-determination, in accordance with those natural and freely chosen responsibilities we should acknowledge—chiefly those to God and conscience and family; and to our various avocations and social networks; to neighborhood and community; State and Nation.

To Remain Steadfast in Faith recognizes the indispensable relation between faith and freedom, whereby they raise and support each other. True faith presupposes a conviction of the heart made freely and without coercion by state or religious authority. Freedom moreover demands that a people exercise self-restraint, the regulation and discipline born of good conscience and drawn to perfect and Higher Law to which man is tenderly and lovingly obliged to choose. We understand that in the order of things, all the Earth is subject to Him and so we trust in the God of our Fathers. Moreover, as Americans we acknowledge the special role the Nation has fulfilled in the advancement of mankind and in the continuous unfolding of Providential Plan.

We Are at a Turning Point

Presently in America, nearly half of all households receive either a salary or substantial benefits from the government. Presently in America, nearly half of all adults pay no federal income taxes. Presently in America, the half that pay no income taxes receive the bulk of their income courtesy of the government, but ultimately from the half that do. This money is extracted involuntarily from the paying half by a permanent bureaucracy that extracts and gives away more each year no matter who is running the government. The recipients of these transfer payments rely upon them for subsistence, so they have a vested financial interest in sending to Washington those who will continue to take your money and give it to them.

It is no wonder that we are now saddled with the micromanagement of health care by the same bureaucratic mindset that mismanages the Post Office and everything else the federal government runs. It should not be surprising to know that presently in America, half of the people actually want the government to take care of their needs. The same was the case under Communist regimes, but here those folks vote.

Hence, we have laws that force us to be charitable to those whom the government designates as worthy of our charity, that limit the amount of salt that restaurants can put into our food, that permit the government to watch us on street corners and subways and in the lobbies of buildings, that let the president fight wars of opportunity, that permit the Federal Reserve to print money with no value and inflate prices and destroy savings, that allow the government to listen to us on our cellphones and use those phones to follow us wherever we go, and, according to CIA Director David Petraeus, that let the government anticipate our movements inside our homes.

And as of the last week in June, the government has a vast new power that was brought to us by the Supreme Court’s latest attack on personal freedom. Congress can now lawfully command any behavior of individuals that it pleases – whether or not the subject of the behavior is a power granted to Congress by the Constitution – and it may punish noncompliance with that command, so long as the punishment is called a tax.

Justice Antonin Scalia’s whimsical query during the Supreme Court oral argument on the health care law about whether Congress could make him eat broccoli suddenly isn’t as funny as it was when he asked it, because the answer is: It can fine him for not eating broccoli, so long as it calls that fine a tax.

Quick: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Answer: Four, because calling a tail a leg doesn’t make a tail a leg.

How did we get here?

We got here because voters and the government we elected, and even the courts the popular branches appointed and confirmed, have lost sight of first principles. When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are a part of our humanity, and when we fought and won the Revolution under that premise, and when the first Congress enacted that language as the first federal law, this became the irrevocable recognition of the Natural Law as the basis for our personal freedom and limited government. Since our rights come from our humanity, they don’t come from the government.

But you would never know that from looking at the government. In New York City, where I work at Fox News Channel, we are all embroiled in two disputes this summer over the constitutional role of the government in our lives. The mayor, a self-made billionaire who likes donuts and has bodyguards but wants to tell others how to live in private and in public, is trying to ban soda pop in containers larger than 16 ounces and wants the police to be able to stop and frisk anyone on a whim – and all in the name of health and safety. He is actually banning freedom.

Imagine Jefferson being told what to eat or stopped and frisked on a whim. And then imagine the Supreme Court telling him that he must pay a tax if he fails to comport his personal private behavior as Congress – which doesn’t believe in privacy or personal freedom – commands.

Here is how you can tell that these are bad days for freedom: Does the government need your permission to violate your rights, or do you need the government’s permission to exercise them? The answer is painfully obvious.

Presently in America, what are we going to do about it?

Reprinted with the author’s permission.

A Look At How Democrats And Republicans Differ

It is an absolute fact that no matter which of the two major parties in Washington, D.C., is in power, the freedoms and liberties of the American people continue to be eroded. However, this does NOT mean that there are not basic differences between the two parties. The two parties differ greatly on HOW government will take our liberties. Where they are similar is in the fact that neither of them has any interest in preserving liberty. Until the American people awaken to this reality, whatever freedoms we have left in this country are doomed.

Let me ask you a question: does it really matter whether a free man is enslaved by a socialist state or a fascist state? Are the prisons any more accommodating? Are the lashes from the whip any less painful? Is the agony of losing a loved one any less grievous? Is the persecution any less revolting? What difference does it make to a free man if his liberties are stolen by an Adolf Hitler or by a Joseph Stalin?

Do you want a quick reference to the difference between how the Democrats and Republicans in Washington, D.C., are stealing our liberties? When the Democrats control things, America gets more socialism; when the Republicans control things, America gets more corporatism, which is a polite word for fascism. Socialism requires government to own everything, while fascism requires government to control everything. And remember, too, fascists and socialists have always hated each other. Big deal! Fascists and socialists alike hate freedomists, which is why inside-the-beltway Repubs and Dems can’t stand people like Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and yours truly. (Remember the MIAC report identifying the three of us, and our supporters, as being potential “dangerous militia” members?) So who cares which of these two parties happens to be in power? Our freedoms continue to be under siege. That’s why the battle in Washington politics has nothing to do with preserving freedom, but everything to do with HOW government will take freedom. Will they take it by ownership or by control? And, unfortunately, what we have right now is the worst of both worlds: government is using a combination of both ownership and control to steal our liberties. Why? Because except for a very precious few elected civil magistrates (like Congressman Ron Paul), there is no one on Capitol Hill or the White House who remotely understands–or fights for–the principles of liberty.

Even worse is that when the Donkeys and the Elephants do agree, it almost always is in an effort to point the bayonets at the American citizenry. What does it matter whether government owns it or controls it? What does it matter whether it more resembles socialism of corporatism? What it doesn’t look anything like, is FREEDOM!

Take the Democrat/Republican debate over Obamacare. Even if Mitt Romney and the GOP prevail in the November elections, Obamacare will be replaced with Romneycare. And Romneycare will be 85% Obamacare, with a slight shift toward government control and a slight shift away from government ownership. Again, I say, BIG DEAL! What neither party is talking about is that the federal government has no business being in health care. Period! Just like the federal government has no business being in over 90% of everything it is involved in today. But who do you hear saying that in Washington, D.C., except Ron Paul?

Take the issue of the burgeoning surveillance society. What does it matter which major party is in power in Washington, D.C.? The TSA gets more and more obnoxiously tyrannical; abuses of civil liberties under the guise of fighting a “war on drugs” continues unabated; abuses of the Bill of Rights under the guise of fighting a “war on terror” continues unabated; the federal police state continues to grow exponentially; unconstitutional foreign entanglements continue to proliferate; ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

In a book that I have recommended numerous times, “Hitler’s Cross,” Erwin Lutzer writes on page 72, “Through surveillance, wiretaps, spying, and rewarding those who betrayed their friends, Hitler tried to control the citizens of Germany.” On page 73, Lutzer continues the thought saying, “But Hitler did not have the technology to bring every subject of his realm into line.” So, given the technology that is available today, what would Hitler do differently if he were running things in Washington, D.C.? I ask readers to think seriously about that question. What would Hitler do differently?

Today, the federal government monitors virtually every piece of electronic communication. The federal government monitors virtually every major banking transaction. It has spies infiltrated in even harmless organizations all over the country. It threatens people with the loss of their jobs or freedom (or both) to betray their friends. It spies on us with satellites; it spies on us with drones. On July 6, 2012, President Obama signed an Executive Order authorizing the federal government to take control of America’s entire communications industry. In 2006, under President George W. Bush, the US military began planning armed confrontation against the American citizenry. (I have the document in my possession.) And, of course, we must not overlook the Patriot Act which has been authorized and reauthorized under both Republicans and Democrats; the Military Commission Act which was signed by G.W. Bush; NDAA 2012 and 2013 which was signed by President Barack Obama, and which was passed by both Republicans and Democrats. And let’s not forget the federal attack against the Branch Davidians under Democrats Bill Clinton and Janet Reno, and the assault against the Randy Weaver household under Republican President George Herbert Walker Bush.

So, again, pick your poison. Both the socialist-leaning Democrats and the corporatist-leaning Republicans in Washington, D.C., meet together in pointing the bayonet against the American citizenry. And you really wonder why nothing significant changes in this country?

And in this regard, the platforms of the two major parties are completely meaningless! I dare say that Barack Obama has never read the Democrat platform and doesn’t care one iota what it says. I also guarantee you that Mitt Romney hasn’t read the Republican platform and doesn’t care one iota what it says either. Can anyone remember when Republican Presidential candidate, Bob Dole, in a rare moment of candor, publicly admitted that he had not read his party’s platform and didn’t care what it said? Party platforms are for the benefit of rank and file party members to make them feel like their ideas count for something to the party leadership. They don’t!

So, do the Democrats and Republicans in Washington, D.C., differ? Yes! They differ on how our freedoms will be taken from us. They differ on the degree of government ownership and control. They differ on the nuances of political tyranny. Where they are twins is in their lust and ambition for power, in their approval of stripping more and more freedoms from the American people, and in their absolute and total disregard for constitutional government.

Without some sort of “Great Awakening” both politically and spiritually, whatever is left of our liberties is doomed–and both major parties in Washington, D.C., are equally culpable.

A Look At How Democrats And Republicans Differ

It is an absolute fact that no matter which of the two major parties in Washington, D.C., is in power, the freedoms and liberties of the American people continue to be eroded. However, this does NOT mean that there are not basic differences between the two parties. The two parties differ greatly on HOW government will take our liberties. Where they are similar is in the fact that neither of them has any interest in preserving liberty. Until the American people awaken to this reality, whatever freedoms we have left in this country are doomed.

Let me ask you a question: does it really matter whether a free man is enslaved by a socialist state or a fascist state? Are the prisons any more accommodating? Are the lashes from the whip any less painful? Is the agony of losing a loved one any less grievous? Is the persecution any less revolting? What difference does it make to a free man if his liberties are stolen by an Adolf Hitler or by a Joseph Stalin?

Do you want a quick reference to the difference between how the Democrats and Republicans in Washington, D.C., are stealing our liberties? When the Democrats control things, America gets more socialism; when the Republicans control things, America gets more corporatism, which is a polite word for fascism. Socialism requires government to own everything, while fascism requires government to control everything. And remember, too, fascists and socialists have always hated each other. Big deal! Fascists and socialists alike hate freedomists, which is why inside-the-beltway Repubs and Dems can’t stand people like Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and yours truly. (Remember the MIAC report identifying the three of us, and our supporters, as being potential “dangerous militia” members?) So who cares which of these two parties happens to be in power? Our freedoms continue to be under siege. That’s why the battle in Washington politics has nothing to do with preserving freedom, but everything to do with HOW government will take freedom. Will they take it by ownership or by control? And, unfortunately, what we have right now is the worst of both worlds: government is using a combination of both ownership and control to steal our liberties. Why? Because except for a very precious few elected civil magistrates (like Congressman Ron Paul), there is no one on Capitol Hill or the White House who remotely understands–or fights for–the principles of liberty.

Even worse is that when the Donkeys and the Elephants do agree, it almost always is in an effort to point the bayonets at the American citizenry. What does it matter whether government owns it or controls it? What does it matter whether it more resembles socialism of corporatism? What it doesn’t look anything like, is FREEDOM!

Take the Democrat/Republican debate over Obamacare. Even if Mitt Romney and the GOP prevail in the November elections, Obamacare will be replaced with Romneycare. And Romneycare will be 85% Obamacare, with a slight shift toward government control and a slight shift away from government ownership. Again, I say, BIG DEAL! What neither party is talking about is that the federal government has no business being in health care. Period! Just like the federal government has no business being in over 90% of everything it is involved in today. But who do you hear saying that in Washington, D.C., except Ron Paul?

Take the issue of the burgeoning surveillance society. What does it matter which major party is in power in Washington, D.C.? The TSA gets more and more obnoxiously tyrannical; abuses of civil liberties under the guise of fighting a “war on drugs” continues unabated; abuses of the Bill of Rights under the guise of fighting a “war on terror” continues unabated; the federal police state continues to grow exponentially; unconstitutional foreign entanglements continue to proliferate; ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

In a book that I have recommended numerous times, “Hitler’s Cross,” Erwin Lutzer writes on page 72, “Through surveillance, wiretaps, spying, and rewarding those who betrayed their friends, Hitler tried to control the citizens of Germany.” On page 73, Lutzer continues the thought saying, “But Hitler did not have the technology to bring every subject of his realm into line.” So, given the technology that is available today, what would Hitler do differently if he were running things in Washington, D.C.? I ask readers to think seriously about that question. What would Hitler do differently?

Today, the federal government monitors virtually every piece of electronic communication. The federal government monitors virtually every major banking transaction. It has spies infiltrated in even harmless organizations all over the country. It threatens people with the loss of their jobs or freedom (or both) to betray their friends. It spies on us with satellites; it spies on us with drones. On July 6, 2012, President Obama signed an Executive Order authorizing the federal government to take control of America’s entire communications industry. In 2006, under President George W. Bush, the US military began planning armed confrontation against the American citizenry. (I have the document in my possession.) And, of course, we must not overlook the Patriot Act which has been authorized and reauthorized under both Republicans and Democrats; the Military Commission Act which was signed by G.W. Bush; NDAA 2012 and 2013 which was signed by President Barack Obama, and which was passed by both Republicans and Democrats. And let’s not forget the federal attack against the Branch Davidians under Democrats Bill Clinton and Janet Reno, and the assault against the Randy Weaver household under Republican President George Herbert Walker Bush.

So, again, pick your poison. Both the socialist-leaning Democrats and the corporatist-leaning Republicans in Washington, D.C., meet together in pointing the bayonet against the American citizenry. And you really wonder why nothing significant changes in this country?

And in this regard, the platforms of the two major parties are completely meaningless! I dare say that Barack Obama has never read the Democrat platform and doesn’t care one iota what it says. I also guarantee you that Mitt Romney hasn’t read the Republican platform and doesn’t care one iota what it says either. Can anyone remember when Republican Presidential candidate, Bob Dole, in a rare moment of candor, publicly admitted that he had not read his party’s platform and didn’t care what it said? Party platforms are for the benefit of rank and file party members to make them feel like their ideas count for something to the party leadership. They don’t!

So, do the Democrats and Republicans in Washington, D.C., differ? Yes! They differ on how our freedoms will be taken from us. They differ on the degree of government ownership and control. They differ on the nuances of political tyranny. Where they are twins is in their lust and ambition for power, in their approval of stripping more and more freedoms from the American people, and in their absolute and total disregard for constitutional government.

Without some sort of “Great Awakening” both politically and spiritually, whatever is left of our liberties is doomed–and both major parties in Washington, D.C., are equally culpable.

Founders Without Whom America Would Not Exist

As we approach another Independence Day, I think it would be good to remind ourselves of who those men were that counted the cost and paid the price to bring this land of liberty into existence. Unfortunately, the vast majority of Americans today seem to have very little–if any–knowledge and appreciation for the sacrifices that our Founding Fathers made in order to birth this great country. We can thank the vast majority of our schools (including the institutions of higher learning), major media, political institutions, and even churches for this egregious embarrassment. Accordingly, I think it fitting that today’s column will attempt to renew in our hearts the respect and reverence that these great men whom we call Founding Fathers so richly deserve.

George Washington

Called “The Father of His Country,” George Washington was, perhaps, the most important man of the founding era. Supernaturally spared during the Indian wars, Washington became the military leader who held the Continental Army together when it was virtually impossible for any man to do so. Without his leadership at Valley Forge and elsewhere, there is absolutely no doubt that the Continental Army would have fallen apart and the fight for independence would have been lost.

Equally significant is the leadership that George Washington demonstrated in the Continental Congress. Without question, Washington was the glue that held the political bodies of the colonies together. Then, add the fact that George Washington was America’s first President, whose leadership solidified the colonies into a new United States, and his value to the cause of American independence cannot be in any way overstated.

Think of it: George Washington was the commander-in-chief of the Continental Army. And he led that inferior army to victory over the greatest military force in the world at the time: Great Britain. Afterward, Washington rebuffed a strong effort to inaugurate him as America’s king, and led the fledgling nation to embrace republican government instead. Washington presided over the Constitutional Convention that drafted the US Constitution. He was America’s first President. Washington’s Farewell Address formed the compass and rudder of America for at least the next hundred years and, in my opinion, is the greatest political address ever delivered on American soil. Without George Washington, there would be no America.

Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson was the principal author of America’s birth certificate: the Declaration of Independence. In my mind, there is no greater document of liberty ever written by man. When it came to the understanding of human rights, individual liberty, State rights, and enlightenment philosophy, Jefferson had no peer.

President John F. Kennedy once held a dinner at the White House for a group of the brightest minds in the nation at that time. He made this statement: “This is perhaps the assembly of the most intelligence ever to gather at one time in the White House with the exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.” He was probably right.

Jefferson served in the Continental Congress; he was the first Secretary of State; he was the third President of the United States; he commissioned the Lewis and Clark expedition; he was the author of the Virginia Statute For Religious Freedom, which is regarded as one of the greatest declarations of religious liberty ever written; he spoke five languages and could read two others; he knew and influenced virtually every man who would be regarded as a Founding Father today; and he wrote nearly 16,000 personal letters. Had not the British burned much of it in the War of 1812, his library would probably go down as the greatest personal collection of literary works ever collected by one man. Without Thomas Jefferson, there would be no America.

Patrick Henry

Patrick Henry was the colonies’ most ardent advocate of liberty–bar none! In oratorical genius, he has never had an equal. Henry was a self-educated lawyer, successful farmer, devoted father of 17 children, and five-term governor of Virginia. Henry was the first Founding Father to defy British taxes, and in so doing was the first who was willing to risk death as a traitor.

Patrick Henry’s immortal speech at St. John’s Church in Richmond to a gathering of the Virginia legislators in 1775 is regarded yet today as the most influential speech ever delivered on American soil. Probably more people are acquainted with that “Give Me Liberty, Or Give Me Death!” speech than any other public address ever delivered.

Henry’s contribution to the War for Independence cannot be underestimated. As Governor of Virginia (the richest and most populated of the 13 colonies), he supplied the largest share of arms and munitions to the outnumbered and poorly provisioned Continental Army. It was also Patrick Henry and his fellow Anti-Federalists who were primarily responsible for the first ten amendments to the Constitution (the Bill of Rights) being drafted and ratified. Without Patrick Henry, there would be no America.

Samuel Adams

Samuel Adams is rightly called “The Father of the American Revolution.” He was a cousin to President John Adams and a graduate of Harvard. He was perhaps the most influential member of the Massachusetts State legislature. He succeeded John Hancock as Governor of Massachusetts. He was a delegate to the Continental Congress and a signer of the Declaration of Independence. He, along with men such as Dr. Joseph Warren, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, Richard Henry Lee, and Josiah Quincy, Jr., created the “Committees of Correspondence,” which became the principle conduit of articles and letters of pro-revolution, pro-liberty, and pro-independence communication between the colonies. Adams was also very influential in the now-famous Boston Tea Party.

Sam Adams was so hated by the British government that they used military force to try and apprehend him, which led to both the Boston Massacre on March 5, 1770, and the “Shot Fired Heard ’Round The World” at Lexington Green and Concord Bridge on April 19, 1775. Without Samuel Adams, there would be no America.

James Madison

James Madison is properly called “The Father of The US Constitution.” He was the fourth President of the United States and was the principal author of the Bill of Rights. Madison authored more than a third of the Federalist Papers. Thomas Jefferson referred to the Federalist Papers as “The best commentary on the principles of government, which ever was written.” Madison served as US Representative from Virginia and as Secretary of State under Jefferson. George Washington considered Madison to be the preeminent authority on the US Constitution in the entire country.

Madison was a fervent proponent of the principle of divided power. He believed government (especially the federal government) could not be trusted with too much power and worked to ensure the separation of powers within the federal government. He also was a major proponent of State rights and sovereignty. Madison broke with Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton over Hamilton’s promotion of the State Bank, and together with Thomas Jefferson, formed what became known as the Democrat-Republican Party. Madison also co-authored with Jefferson two of the most prominent documents of liberty: the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions. Without James Madison, there would be no America.

As we celebrate Independence Day this year, I trust and pray that each of us will reacquaint ourselves with the principles upon which the Declaration of Independence was written, and upon which the United States of America was founded. And while we are doing that, let’s be sure we are passing these principles on to our children and grandchildren, because without their dedication and commitment to liberty, there will be no America!

Market Entrepreneurs

Between the generation of our Founding and World War II, there have been other “greatest” generations too.  Perhaps the least appreciated in our time has been that post-Civil War generation of market entrepreneurs, who led America from being a second tier economic power to being the industrial powerhouse of the world.  In today’s economic downturn, it is perhaps helpful to remember the method that led to the most success before, as well as those ways that did not work in the past.  One distinction that needs to be raised immediately is one between market entrepreneur and political entrepreneur.  Businessmen aren’t angels and neither are congressmen or plain folk, but competition tends to bring out better performance in people, whereas subsidization from public (tax) money risks funding and perpetuating substandard performance and inefficiencies.

Businessmen will often try to get favors or handouts from the government, because it may be easier than gathering together the necessary venture capital.  Very often after that first taste, they return again and again to the same trough rather than wean off the public dole.  The market entrepreneur pursues his business privately through private means.  The political entrepreneur is in league with government, to the extent that he pursues his business semi-privately but through means that are exclusively or partially public.  Then as today, political entrepreneurs are hard to avoid and even harder to get rid of, even though they are a drag on economic vitality and injurious to the wellbeing of the country.  Market entrepreneurs go about their business freely and mostly wanting to be left alone, creating wealth and growing the economy.  Government gets big off taxing productive market entrepreneurial activities, ironically enabling far too many government payouts to leeches in the business community of a political entrepreneurial bent.

Regulated bailouts could be the worst of all worlds if it institutionalizes business dependency on the government over the long haul and/or results in the permanent bureaucratic management by government of a private sector activity.  Some historical examples are instructive.  In the 1840s a political entrepreneur approached Congress to help him develop the U.S. steamship route between New York and Liverpool, and to cut into the business of rival English ships.  Since the British government subsidized shipping, our man Edward Collins said he would need $3 million of taxpayers’ money to construct five vessels and then an annual subsidy of $385,000 to drive passenger fares down low enough to compete.

Playing on congressional fears of British domination in trade, Collins got his money.  He only built four ships, but who’s counting.  While he promised to phase out the annual subsidy, he was soon lobbying for more, and more, and more (up to $850,000 per year).  Cornelius Vanderbilt tried to get in on the action too but by offering a cheaper deal, however the Congress had formed a cozy relationship with Collins so it turned him down.  Forced to compete entirely, he used privately financed and self-insured vessels, slowed the ships’ speed down to save on fuel, and invented a new, cheaper passenger class called steerage.  A year later, Vanderbilt’s operation was flourishing while Collins was even worse off and returned again to Congress asking for higher subsidy.  When two of his ships sank because of poor maintenance and running the engines too fast, Collins had to resort to Congress for their replacement value.  The Senate finally got wise after looking into the management practices, and no doubt comparing results and bottom line with that of Vanderbilt’s operation.  Collins lost his subsidy and within a year went bankrupt, enabling Vanderbilt to pick up more of the business privately, at less cost and far better value to customers—not to mention dominance of the seas from an American side.

A decade or so later Congress began subsidizing political entrepreneurs representing transcontinental railroad ventures: the Union Pacific, the Central Pacific, and later the Northern Pacific.  The government gave these companies tens of millions of acres of free land and tens of millions of dollars, and because the companies had no incentive to be efficient, the railroads evidenced shoddy construction, as well as circuitous routes and uneven grades.  The privately funded railroad called Great Northern, however, was a success that put the others to shame.  James J. Hill built his line for durability and efficiency and without government money, taking the shortest distance, lowest grades and least curvature that he could.  He also supervised construction and imported the very highest quality Bessemer rails.  Although these cost more up front, they also lasted a long time and were more dependable.  He took the same approach to his railroad bridges, constructing the solid granite Stone Arch Bridge 2,100 feet long and 82 feet high across the Mississippi River—a Minneapolis landmark for many decades.

Similar stories mark the success of Andrew Carnegie in steel, and John D. Rockefeller in oil.  These men were market entrepreneurs not “robber barons.”  They created wealth and propelled the United States to first rank economically in the world.  Moreover, so far as generations go, they stood head and shoulders above the risk-averse, sycophantic and slinking political entrepreneurs, who pass for so many CEOs and leaders in American business today.

Obamacare Ruling Should Be Last Straw for Constitutionalists

Chief Justice John Roberts may have unintentionally given those of us who consider ourselves Constitutionalists a favor.

By doing more damage to the U.S. Constitution in one week than many liberals hope in a lifetime to achieve, Roberts may have finally compelled us to the courage of conviction that will restore the rule of law in America.

Roberts was the deciding in vote in the U.S. Supreme Court telling the sovereign state of Arizona it has no authority to enforce the U.S. Constitution, even though the sovereign states preceded the Constitution, and the Constitution required ratification from the states to become law (government by the consent of the governed).

Then Roberts was the deciding vote in telling the federal government it has unlimited jurisdiction into the lives of American citizens, provided it uses the 16th Amendment as the means to tread on us. Robert is even willing to allow the federal government to tax us for what we’re not doing, which is unprecedented in American history. By positing this Roberts went so far as to re-structure the mandate within Obamacare as a spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down. If that’s not legislating from the bench, I don’t know what is.

These two opinions by Roberts are not just unconstitutional—they are anti-constitutional. They clearly are anti both the spirit and explicit wording of the U.S. Constitution, which is intended to limit the jurisdiction of the federal government in order to maximize the freedom and liberty of the individual (as well as that of these United States of America).

We have done little more than wring our hands on talk radio and blog the American people to death over what the judiciary branch has done to the Constitution for the past 50 years. From infringing on our religious freedom (Engle v. Vitale), to defying the God-given right to life and the death toll that continues to rise as a result (Roe v. Wade), to inventing special rights the Constitution does not grant (Lawrence v. Texas), to undoing 200 years of American political and legal tradition in favor of private property rights (Kelo v. New London)—our freedoms are being trampled on by what Thomas Jefferson would’ve described as a judicial oligarchy.

We no longer have the rule of law, but the rule of man—which is really just the rule of whim.

If now we still won’t reassert the will of the people, the separation of powers, and a true system of checks and balances where each branch has an equal say in what the Constitution says and means, then we deserve everything we get from this judicial oligarchy. For they have not taken any authority from us we have not surrendered.

Nowhere does the Constitution grant the judicial branch supremacy over the other two branches, let alone over the will of the people. There is a reason the Left has used the courts to impose its most heinous schemes and to hatch its most progressive plots against the Constitution, because their plans simply would not survive the scrutiny of the American people at the ballot box. It is no coincidence the Left has to go outside the Constitution in order to impose much of its most unconstitutional policies.

Some reading this will say I am only bringing up these points now because my side lost at the U.S. Supreme Court, but the truth is I have been addressing these issues on my radio show for years, ever since my State Supreme Court violated its oath of office in amending the Iowa Constitution over the issue of marriage. I was an outspoken proponent of voting out the judges responsible for this miscarriage of justice on my local show each day. Iowans responded by making history in 2010, firing the justices up for retention for the first time.

Now on my new syndicated radio program I am taking this fight national. In the days leading up to the Obamacare ruling I warned my fellow Constitutionalists not to perpetuate the unconstitutional paradigm of the Left that courts make law and are the final word on what the Constitution says. There were other Constitutional remedies we could use that didn’t involve doing an end-run around the very Constitution we claim to be defending. For example, the Constitution does not permit a single penny of the people’s money to be appropriated without consent of the House of Representatives, and who controls that?

Why the Republicans with their spineless Speaker John Boehner of course. They could just refuse to allocate any funding for Obamacare. All it takes is the will to defend the republic and the integrity to truly mean it when you swear your oath of office. However, it’s obvious after the last two years the Republican leadership in Washington, D.C. has neither, which means we the people will have to do it for them.

That starts by electing state and local officials who understand what Alexander Hamilton meant when he wrote in Federalist 78:

Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.

It’s time for a rule of law voter’s guide to make sure our candidates understand the Constitutional scheme, and what the Founders meant by the aforementioned words written by Alexander Hamilton. I submit the following questions as just such a guide to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Did our Founding Fathers intend for us to be subject to “laws” passed by people we did not elect?

Is there anything in the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, or any of our founding documents that says that judges have the legal authority to make the law?

Is there anything in the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, or any of our founding documents that says the other two branches of government are inferior to the judicial branch?

Does either the federal or your state Constitution say the ultimate political authority rests with the people or the courts?

Does either the federal or your state Constitution enumerate the power of making law to any branch other than the legislature?

When the courts attempt to impose on our God-given rights, what recourse do “we the people” have? For example, when the court eventually decides it wants to take away our right to self-defense (two recent court opinions only upheld the Second Amendment by a slim 5-4 vote), do we then just hand over our guns because the court said so?

Are the legislative and executive branches automatically compelled to submit to ever court opinion as if it has the force of law no matter what? If you’re in public office, should your first allegiance be to uphold the literal wording of your state and federal Constitution, or a court opinion? Is there ever a moral case to be made for ignoring a disobeying a court opinion, and if so what is it?

What is the “law” and what is it based on? Is the “law” an already determined standard, or does it evolve? If you think it’s a determined standard, what determines it? If it evolves, what do you think evolves it? What is the highest law? What if there is a conflict between the highest law and the law being executed/interpreted? What resolves that conflict?

Oh, and the next time one of these Republicans tells you there’s nothing we can do while the courts pillage and plunder the Constitution other than just vote for anybody with a “R” after their name to get conservative justices, tell them you’ve got two words for them—“John Roberts.”

Then kick them in the shin as hard as you can with a steel-toed boot.