Three Cheers for Sarah Palin

Watching the talking heads and reading the scribbling of the Washington wizards concerning the announcement by Sarah Palin of her resignation as Governor of Alaska, I am reminded of an incident that happened a number of years ago.

A friend and I were driving through the countryside of northern Michigan when my friend decided he would like to stop for a beer.  We pulled into the parking lot of a roadside tavern on the outskirts of a small town and went inside.  We walked up to an empty spot at the bar and stood waiting for the bartender to finish with other customers and take our order.

My friend is a rather imposing figure, standing six-feet-four in his size twelve brogans, with hands only slightly smaller than an outfielder’s glove and a physique reminiscent of a Chicago Bears linebacker.

As we were standing there, I noticed two locals engaged in a friendly game of darts, except that my friend and I were standing between them and the dartboard.  I reached up, tapped my friend on the shoulder, and quietly informed him that we were interfering with the men’s game.  Looking around he noticed the dart players for the first time and quickly stepped aside with an apology; “Sorry, I didn’t notice”.

One of the dart-playing duo looked up at my friend with a slight smile on his face and replied, “That’s OK big guy; you can stand anywhere you like”.

That’s about the way I feel about Sarah Palin.  She has served the state of Alaska well in every public office she has held, from the PTA in Wasilla, to the Governor’s office in Juneau, and she gave the Republican candidate, John McCain the only hope he had of winning the Presidency. For the most part she has gotten only grief for her troubles, plus a staggering legal bill from defending herself against a continuing stream of unfounded and unwarranted accusations by her political enemies.

She owes nothing to the Republican Party and any obligations she may have had to John McCain for picking her as his running mate has been canceled out by the behavior of his campaign staffers after the election.  She certainly owes nothing to the political establishment or the uncaring and thoughtless masses that have delighted in the public attacks on her and her family.  If she does retire from politics, it will be a serious but well-deserved loss for America.

Those of us who admire her and appreciate the “All-American spirit” she brought to the political arena will wish her well if she chooses to re-prioritize her life not to include politics.  If she chooses to spend her time as first mate on the family fishing boat, or just helping her family heal from the wounds inflicted on it by a cruel and unfeeling media, so be it.

On the other hand, if she decides to run for Congress in 2010 or for the White House in 2012 or 16, millions of Americans will be in her corner cheering her on and supporting her efforts.

The most frequent advice she has gotten from the wizards of smarts, is to spend the next few years getting to know and understand the issues in possible preparation for a later return to the political stage.

That would be good advice if there was any evidence that experience or knowledge of the issues was of any benefit to the welfare of the nation.  No one in their right mind can look at America today and say that the experienced, ivy-league educated, professional politicians so valued by the political class has done a good job in steering the ship of state.

It seems to me that what America needs is a non-partisan citizen-politician uninfluenced by the decadence of the “Beltway” establishment; that understands the founding principles that make this county great and unique among the nations of the world at the helm.  By coincidence, Sarah seems to have just these qualifications.

I don’t know if she is the right one to carry the Republican banner in 2012; it’s much too early to tell.  However, she stands head and shoulders above any of those most frequently mentioned by the would-be “king makers”.

I for one, am looking forward to the possibility that having removed her family somewhat from the firing-line by resigning the governorship, she will continue in the forefront of political discourse as an example of the true citizen-patriot-politician so desperately needed at this point in our history.

An Expression of the American Mind

The Declaration of Independence is a unique document in world history.  It is the Declaration that provides the foundation for our form of government.  In it we find the primary principles on which the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are based, natural rights and the sovereignty of the people.  It also declares the only legitimate purpose of government.

The Declaration of Independence was adopted in 1776 by the second Continental Congress whose initial purpose had been to explore ways to restore the relationship with Great Britain.  Independence was not universally desired by the colonists.  Historians estimate that only about forty percent of the people were in favor of independence at the time.  A large number of colonists were still loyal to England, even after the outbreak of war, and between thirty and forty percent struggled to remain neutral.

By the time the Congress convened in 1775, hope for reconciliation with England had all but disappeared.  The second Congress met in May, less than a month after the battles of Lexington and Concord in which fifty colonists were killed and thirty-nine wounded.  The British losses were sixty-five killed, 180 wounded and twenty-seven missing.  Benjamin Franklin had just returned from London where he had been sent by the First Congress in an attempt at reconciliation between Great Britain and the Colonies.  At the same time Thomas Jefferson was promoting a plan for America to be governed by King George III with an independent legislature in the colonies.

Soon after the second Congress convened, Peyton Randolph, President of the first Congress and reelected as President of the second was called back to Virginia for a meeting of the Virginia Assembly of which he was the Speaker.  Thomas Jefferson was sent to Philadelphia as his replacement, arriving on June 21.  With the Departure of Randolph, John Hancock was elected as President.  Hancock, along with Samuel Adams, both of Boston and generally considered to be the instigators of the Boston Tea Party, were strong advocates for independence.

The arguments of Hancock and Adams for a declaration of independence finally prevailed as being necessary in order to secure aid from other European nations like France and Holland. A committee consisting of John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, Robert Livingston and Thomas Jefferson was appointed to prepare a declaration of independence.  The committee assigned the task of writing the document to Thomas Jefferson.

Near the end of his life, Jefferson, responding to a controversy seemingly originating with John Adams concerning the originality of the ideas expressed in the Declaration of Independence explained his purpose in drafting the document.

“This was the object of the Declaration of Independence. 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, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take. Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion.”
~Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Henry Lee, May 8, 1825

There can be no doubt that he succeeded in his mission, for in the two-hundred words of the second paragraph he encapsulates, not only an “expression of the American mind” but an expression of its heart and spirit as well.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,  Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

The ideals expressed in these words not only provides the justification for America’s independence and sovereignty, but the principles on which the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are based.  From these ideals the most prosperous nation in history was established and has endured for over two-hundred years.

Throughout its history, America has been a haven of liberty for the oppressed throughout the world.  During the last half of the twentieth century, the principles established in the Declaration of Independence has been increasingly ignored.  With the election of Barack Obama to the office of President and the sharp turn away from the principles of liberty and the rule of law to the principles of statism and autocracy, the traditional role and character of America as the last bastion of liberty and prosperity is under the threat of extinction.

NOTE:  “An Expression of the American Mind” is the first in a series of articles on the founding documents and the principles they embody.

An IDIOT’S Guide to the Obama Agenda

The first thing one has to face if they are to understand the agenda of President Obama is that he does not love America; at least, not as it has existed for the past two centuries.  That does not mean he does not love his country.  I am sure he does, but he does not love its history; its culture; its constitution; its economic system; its political system; its military; its love of liberty; or any of the institutions that has defined America since its founding.  These are the things Obama has dedicated his life to changing.

It’s just that Obama’s mental picture of America is not the same as the one that existed in the minds of the Founding Fathers or in the minds of most Americans today.  His is the one formed under the tutelage of his childhood mentors reinforced by his chosen associates as an adult.

Obama’s picture of America is the one painted by twenty years of indoctrination in the church of Jeremiah Wright.  His vision for its future is one he adopted from his icons, William Ayers, Frank Davis, and other like-minded figures that have affected his life, especially Saul Alinsky.  From these and other left wing thinkers Obama has formed a mental image of what an ideal America would be like.  He has dedicated his adult life to bringing into existence this idealized image, which is in almost every instance the polar opposite of the America established by the Founding Fathers.

He believes the Founders established a deeply flawed system of government that has led to all sorts of social and economic evils over the past two-hundred plus years. The ideal form of government for Obama is one ruled by an elite political class directed by a benevolent, but all-powerful leader of exceptional wisdom and compassion.  In Obama’s mind, the “state” is the ultimate objective of all society.

The Founders believed that the legitimacy of government comes from the will of the people.  Obama believes that the interests of the people are served only by the properly directed power of government.

The Founders believed government should be the servant of the people.  Obama believes the people should be the willing servants of the state.

The Founders believed that rights are endowed by God, equally to all humans.  Obama believes rights can only be granted by the state.

The Founders believed that everyone should be free to pursue their own economic best interest.  Obama believes that government should plan and direct all significant economic activity to insure an even distribution of wealth.

The Founders believed liberty to be the highest of man’s aspirations.  Obama believes community to be the highest of aspirations.

The Founders believed the Constitution should be the “supreme law of land” and all judges should be bound by its precepts.  Obama believes judicial opinions based on subjective values of fairness and justice should be the supreme law of the land.  He believes the Constitution to be an antiquated document whose meaning changes with each passing generation.  It does not need to be amended; its meaning can be adjudicated.

Obama’s image of himself as that wise and compassionate leader destined to bring about the utopian America he envisions, motivates his every action as President.  As borderline psychotic as this may sound, his words and actions over the past four months will allow for no other conclusion.

The facts will only permit two interpretations of the Obama Presidency.  Either he is a bumbling incompetent who “smooth-talked” his way into the White House, or he is a dedicated ideologue determined to tear down all the historical institutions of government in order to rebuild and reshape them to reflect his worldview.

Those who hope that with experience he will moderate his views are hoping in vain.  He has an absolute, fanatical faith in the righteousness of his cause, and will not be swayed by public opinion or political pressure.  Adhering to the Alinsky principle that any means are acceptable that furthers the cause, he is willing to visit any misfortune on the American people in order to accumulate more power for himself as the head of state.

The survival of America as we know it will depend on the extent of his cult following and the influence of the coalition of Democrats, socialists, environmentalists, Marxists, fascists, the state media, and other groups that share his statist goals in the next two or three election cycles.

Taxes And Tyranny

“No earthly consideration could induce my consent to contract such a debt as England has…to reduce our citizens by taxes to such wretchedness, as that laboring sixteen of the twenty-four hours, they are still unable to afford themselves bread, or barely to earn as much oatmeal or potatoes as will keep soul and body together.”
~Thomas Jefferson (1816)

According to the latest polls, the American people are not yet aware of the full extent of the creeping tyranny that has been eroding their freedoms for over a century.  President Obama still enjoys an approval rating of 61% after four months of unceasing efforts designed to diminish liberty by transferring more control over individual choices to the federal government.

Granted a large segment of the population does not pay attention to politics on a daily basis and are not up to speed on the day-to-day happenings in Washington.  The truth is though, that most Americans like taxes and tyranny — as long as they are directed toward someone else.

They applaud when that arrogant neighbor across the street is cited by the Home Owner’s Association for displaying an oversized American Flag, because they themselves are not interested in displaying Old Glory.  Ditto the elderly gentleman down the street who doesn’t cut his lawn as often as they think he should or clear the snow from his sidewalk as soon as he should.  They approve of laws banning or taxing foods they consider unhealthy.  The teetotaler approves when the tax is raised on liquor.  The non-smoker cheers when smoking bans are instituted or additional taxes are placed on tobacco.

They do not see the connection between taxes imposed on someone else or the tyranny oppressing others, and their own liberty and freedom.  Most of us do not protest when a tax is added to soda, cigarettes, alcohol, etc., and we do not object when those who live an “unhealthy” lifestyle are taxed on the components of that lifestyle, or charged more for healthcare.  The absurdity of our reasoning does not seem to occur to us.

Following this logic, the person who frequents health clubs, abstains from unhealthy foods, drinking, smoking and gets his or her proper allotment of exercise and sleep, should live to be at least two hundred years old.  Of course, that does not happen.  Everyone dies, and everyone requires a certain amount of healthcare before they die.  The longer they live, the more healthcare they consume.  Restricting the freedom of others on the mistaken notion that it somehow reduces the cost of healthcare or saves on taxes for ourselves is absurd.

Taxes and tyranny are inseparably linked.  Tyranny is measured by the amount of life spent in servitude to the government and the number of personal decisions prescribed by law.  At the present time, the average American spends over forty percent of his or her time working to support the ravenous appetites of governments.  Only after government has been satiated can we then start using the fruits of our labor for ourselves and our families. No person can call themselves free when a major part of their labor is confiscated by government for its own purposes, or when the enjoyment of the luxuries they have earned are limited or prohibited by that same government.

Even in the matter of taxation, we see the same unthinking public dynamic at work.  Low income people are content when taxes are increased on those who earn more, but as people rise on the ladder of success, so does their support for a more regressive taxing system, such as the “[un]fair-tax” and similar tax schemes they mistakenly believe will tax the “underground” economy.  Tax avoidance is as American as apple pie.  From the colonial era smugglers and the patriots participating in the Boston Tea Party to the neighborhood pusher or minimally paid person who works “off the books”, Americans will always avoid paying taxes that are too burdensome or that they perceive as unfair.

Some lawmakers and members of the Administration are beginning to talk about the most regressive tax of all, a value-added tax.  A value-added tax or VAT would add an additional cost of about twenty-five percent onto everything we buy, in addition to the sales taxes, excise taxes and all the “hidden” taxes paid by consumers. Moreover, it would be in addition to taxes on incomes and capital gains.

Those cheering President Obama’s prodigious spending plans “for the people” and “for the children” will probably change their tune when they realize they have mortgaged the fruits of their labor and their children’s labor for more than $540,000 per household.  Unfortunately, by then it will be too late to do anything about it except pay up.

The current federal debt of $63.8 trillion plus the amount added every day will be paid, either by taxes or by inflation, and remember, both taxes and inflation are born eventually by the consumer.  A VAT tax would push the amount of labor demanded from the average citizen for use by the government to well over 70%. As the tax burden rises, liberty declines.  Liberty is not self-perpetuating.  It must be diligently defended by every generation.  If we are to protect the liberties left to us, we have to show the same enthusiasm in defending those of our neighbors as we expect in defense of our own.  Today they tax my cigarettes; tomorrow they will tax your latte.

Republican: A Party of Losers?

Many high profile Republicans are advising conservatives not to put up too much resistance to Judge Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court.  Their argument is that opposition to her appointment would further alienate Hispanic and other minority voters making future Republican gains more difficult.  Republicans taking this position demonstrate their inability to learn from past experience.

They are the same Republicans who gave us “moderate” John McCain as a presidential candidate in the last election.  They are also the ones who describe the Republican Party as the “party of the big tent”.  A more accurate label would be the “party of losers”.

Losing is something at which the Republicans have a lot of experience. They have been consistently doing it since the early twentieth century.  The few wins they have experienced have been short lived.  When they do win, they repeatedly fail to build on those victories, and the benefits they gain soon give way to the persistent counter-attacks of the Democratic Party.

Contrast the Republican’s experience at losing with the Democrat’s experience at winning and you get a completely different picture.  Franklin Roosevelt taught the Democrats how to win and they have been building on those wins ever since.  Decade after decade they have persistently advanced their agenda.  They never concede defeat.  Devastating losses, such as those delivered by Reagan and Gingrich are only temporary setbacks.  They always comeback stronger than before, never changing their goals or tactics.

Those who argue that negative criticism of the opposition is counterproductive have not been paying attention to the manifold successes of the Democratic Party, particularly over the past eight years.  Every decision or policy of George W. Bush was consistently criticized and every appointee was demonized.  These tactics drove the popularity of Bush to historical lows with little if any negative consequences to the Democratic Party.

The same techniques were used against Judge Bork, Justices Thomas, Roberts and Alito, as well as Attorneys General Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales and others, all without negative consequences to the Democrats. I am not suggesting that Republicans ought to use the same tactics.  I am suggesting that we need to forget about our fears of repercussions and the mistaken fantasy that we can win over minorities and independents by compromising our principles and accepting the premises behind the Democrat’s socialist programs.

The nomination of Sonia Sotomayor by President Obama presents an opportunity for the Republican Party to make some real headway in the struggle for the loyalty of the American people.  That is, if it has the courage and the smarts to take advantage of the opening we have been given.  Obama and Sotomayor share the same worldview and the same goals.  Both reject the Constitution they are sworn to protect and defend.

Neither understands the meaning of a constitutional government or the historical importance of the Constitution to the continuing liberty and indeed, the very existence of America.  The discussion of Sotomayor during the confirmation process gives the Republicans a rare three-month opportunity to educate the American people about the principles on which the most successful nation in history was built.

While most Americans do not fully appreciate the Constitution as it relates to their daily lives, almost all of them have a reverence for the “idea” of the Constitution.  By using the Sotomayor confirmation process as an opportunity to clearly inform the American people about the importance of constitutional and republican principles such as limited government, elimination of unnecessary taxes, and a strong national defense, we can set the stage for a “wipeout” of Democrats in the 2010 and 2012 elections.

Check out the new Conservative Forum

Still Waiting For That Republican Form of Government?

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…” ~~Article 4, Section 4, U.S. Constitution

Throughout our history, the one thing all American Patriots have agreed on is that republicanism is the ideal political philosophy for our form of government.  The Framers not only believed in this principle, they also knew what it meant.

Like patriotism, freedom, liberty, democracy and deity, republicanism is an abstract term and therefore difficult to precisely define.  Most modern nations lay claim to the label of “Republic”, yet few are governed by republican principles.  It is obvious that the Soviet Socialist Republics that made up the Soviet Union, The Republic of China, and the United States of America do not have the same form of government.  Yet, they all bear the name “Republic”.

If Thomas Jefferson, THE champion of republicanism found its definition elusive, it is no wonder that the average American has difficulty in wrapping their mind around the concept.

“It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language… Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea, I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens. Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township.” –Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816

In searching the Founding Documents and other writers of the era to discover the idea the Framers had in mind when they wrote Section 4 of Article IV, we come up with two principles that seem to define its core meaning: The rule of law, and representative government. Neither of these is adhered to, in the constitutional sense, by our government today.

The Rule of Law

It is true that the rule of law is necessary for an ordered society.  It is equally true that the rule of law has throughout history, been the primary tool of tyranny.  Therefore, it is evident that the Founding Fathers did not simply have in mind a “nation ruled by law and not by men” when they devised a republican form of government for our nation.  What they meant by “republican government” was a government ruled by laws derived from a Constitution written and approved according to the collective will of all the people, clearly setting forth the authority and duties of government and restricting it to those powers only.  Article VI of the Constitution declares it, along with its duly ratified Amendments to be “The Supreme Law of The Land” and “the judges in every state shall be bound thereby”.

In order for a Constitution to be effective as a basis for government it must be (a) written, (b) permanent, and (c) unchangeable other than by lawful amendment procedures.  The claim by our present Administration that the Constitution is a “work in progress” to be altered and “perfected” by each succeeding generation is a contradiction of the very meaning of the word itself.  It undermines the foundation of republican government and places the liberties of our citizens at the mercy of whatever group of politicians that happens to be in power at any given time.

Article I of the Constitution declares, “ALL legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States…”  Through the years, Congress has devised the means for escaping responsibility and accountability for particularly onerous and unpopular laws by establishing bureaucracies and departments within the Executive Branch with “rule making” (legislative) powers.  The torrent of regulations and rules flowing from these bureaucratic, regulatory agencies, sometimes by executive order and frequently by judicial mandate, are direct violations of both the letter and spirit of the Constitution which gives ALL legislative powers to the Congress.

Representative Government

Closely associated with the principle of “rule of law”, is that of “representative government“.  It was clearly the intent of the Framers that law governing the activities and welfare of the people would be made by representatives, chosen by them, to serve in this capacity for a short period of time.  While Congress collectively may be said to be elected by the people, individually each member is elected by less than one percent of the total population.

It is this fact, among others, that prompted the Framers to place strict restraints on the powers of Congress, limiting it to matters of national necessity.  James Madison summed up the powers of the national government in Federalist No. 41.

“That we may form a correct judgment on this subject, it will be proper to review the several powers conferred on the government of the Union; and that this may be the more conveniently done they may be reduced into different classes as they relate to the following different objects:

1. Security against foreign danger;
2. Regulation of the intercourse with foreign nations;
3. Maintenance of harmony and proper intercourse among the States;
4. Certain miscellaneous objects of general utility;
5. Restraint of the States from certain injurious acts;
6. Provisions for giving due efficacy to all these powers.”

These “enumerated powers” are spelled out in Article I, Section 8 and emphasized in the Tenth Amendment.  For a commentary on the more controversial ones click HERE.

The idea of a federal legislature, not accountable to the collective will of the people, making laws affecting the lives all the people regardless of their unique circumstances and needs, was precisely what the Founders were attempting to avoid when they established a republican form of government with clear boundaries between the powers of the national and state governments.

This principle has been so corrupted over the past century that we now find ourselves in the absurd position where citizens of our poorest states are taxed to fund the profligate spending of those in some of our richest states; Where frugal and productive citizens find the fruits of their labor confiscated from them “by law” to provide luxuries to citizens in other states who are less productive and less frugal than themselves.

That a Congresswoman elected by a fraction of the citizens of one state can dominate legislation and spending affecting the citizens of all states, or that a Senator from one of our least populous states can impose his will by legislation on the most minute details of the lives of more than three hundred millions of citizens would be unthinkable by our Founding Fathers.

It is these perversions of government that have led to revolutions in the past and will again in the future, if allowed to go unchecked.  Whether the revolution takes place at the ballot box or in the streets remains to be seen.

Obama’s Flawed Constitution

President Obama has expressed, on several occasions, his belief that the Constitution is a flawed document.  He has also indicated a primary goal of his administration is to change the way things are done in America to match the principles on which he believes the nation was founded.  Millions of Americans cheer his efforts, believing they will make their lives easier and more rewarding.  Since more than sixty percent of Americans approve of his job performance after four months in office, pursuing his goal to remake America, it is important to understand just what the founding principles of our nation really are.

We will not find a definition of those principles in the Constitution although we do find examples of them.  At the same time, we find several places where the Constitution seems to contradict those principles.  The Constitution is a political document.  As such, it reflects compromises on issues that many of the framers did not agree on. The two most important were those between the federalists and the republicans and between the slave holding states and the anti-slave states.

The founding documents of America are actually three distinct documents written at different times and for different purposes.  They are The Declaration of Independence (1776), The Constitution (1787) and The Bill of Rights (1789).

The Declaration of Independence, often referred to as the nation’s charter, was based on a republican philosophy and contains the founding principles for our form of government.  The first principle is that a legitimate government receives its powers from the people.  The second is that all men are created equal. The third principle is that of unalienable rights endowed by God, not granted by government.  The fourth is that the only purpose of government is to protect those rights in a secure and stable civil society.

During the Revolutionary War, a Federation of the thirteen states was formed to carry out the war and perform other functions of a national nature, under the Articles of Confederation.  The Federation had no taxing powers, no means of regulating commerce between the states, and no mechanism for enforcing laws passed by the Congress.  The Articles of Confederation proved inadequate as a blueprint for governance, and the states authorized a convention in 1787 for the purpose of amending the Articles to correct many of the defects.

The Convention, meeting at Philadelphia, was dominated by Federalists who wanted a strong central government with the states in a subordinate relationship to the federal government, much like the relationship between counties and towns to state governments.  The minority, known as the anti-federalists, was strongly opposed to the Constitution as written.  Fearing it gave too much power to the central government, they demanded a Bill of Rights.  Many of the Founding Fathers we revere today were on opposing sides in the debate.

Federalists Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, and James Madison, among others, were strongly opposed to a Bill of Rights.  Federalist No. 84 by Hamilton was written in opposition, arguing that adding a list of specific rights guaranteed by the Constitution was not only unnecessary but dangerous to the welfare of the union.  Many of the strongest advocates for a Bill of Rights were not delegates to the Convention. Thomas Jefferson was in France on a diplomatic mission during the debates and unable to contribute personally.  However, in a letter to his friend James Madison he expressed a strong concern that the Constitution did not contain a bill of rights.  Patrick Henry, another strong anti-federalist refused to attend the Convention and therefore did not take part in the debates.

However, after the draft of the Constitution was presented to the states for ratification, Henry became one of the dominant leaders in the anti-federalist opposition along with Samuel Adams, and John Hancock of Boston.  Failing in their efforts to get a Bill of Rights included in the Constitution the anti-federalists worked diligently in their state legislatures to secure assurances that a Bill of Rights would be added as amendments to the Constitution as a condition of ratification.  In this, they succeeded.

The discord in the Philadelphia Convention can be seen by comparing the title of the Declaration with the signing statement of the Constitution.  The full title of the Declaration boldly proclaims it to be “The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America”.  By comparison, the Constitution simply says in the last paragraph,

“Done in Convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the Twelfth in witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names.”

This ambiguous wording was drawn up by George Mason and presented by Benjamin Franklin as a way of encouraging delegates to sign the draft and maintain the impression of unanimity on their behalf.  Notice, it is the Convention itself, not the signing of the Constitution that claims the “unanimous consent”.  On the day of signing only 43 delegates representing twelve states were present, including George Washington, President of the Convention and William Jackson, Secretary.  Three of the forty-three delegates that were present refused to sign; hardly a unanimous agreement.

Five states ratified the Constitution shortly after it was presented to the states.  However, it bogged down in Massachusetts.  Only after Samuel Adams and John Hancock had negotiated “the Massachusetts Compromise”, did the Massachusetts Convention vote for ratification. The compromise, recommending amendments to be considered by the new Congress, should the Constitution go into effect allowed delegates to vote for ratification with the prospect of a Bill of Rights being added later.

The Adams-Hancock compromise probably saved the Constitution from certain defeat.  Other states followed their example in their ratifying conventions.  Without the Bill of Rights, there would be no basis in law to protect our rights and restrict the powers of Congress.  The Tenth Amendment is the cornerstone of our founding documents and the basis for the doctrine of “enumerated powers”.  Even with the addition of the Bill of Rights, there were still contradictions between the principles found in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

These differences were not to be reconciled for another hundred years.  Only after the Civil War at a cost of more than 500,000 lives in battle and the addition of Amendments 13, 14 and 15, was the principle that “all men are created equal” recognized in the Constitution.  Today the Declaration and the Constitution, with its amendments, are in near perfect harmony. Unfortunately, from the beginning, the federal government has seemingly violated the letter and the spirit of the Constitution at will with little if any opposition from the people as a whole.

For the past seventy-five years we have witnessed the wholesale violation of the Constitution by Congresses, courts and Presidents, none more so that our current President and Congress.  When President Obama speaks of “perfecting” the Constitution or “remaking America” he is really talking about discarding the Constitution and tearing down all the traditions and customs that have made America great.

The warning uttered by Benjamin Franklin at the close of the Philadelphia Convention has an ominous ring to it today.

“Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.

Have the American people been so corrupted by the allure of socialism as to be incapable of any form of government other than despotism, as Franklin suggested?  The next few months and years will answer that question for many generations to come.

The Republican Outreach

There is no shortage of advice to the Republican Party regarding the need to “reach out” to Hispanics, Blacks, women, moderates and younger voters.  Conventional wisdom says that the way to do that is to moderate our position on social issues and offer an equal or better program to solve the problems of healthcare, education, energy and the environment.  However, they do not answer the two primary questions: Why, and How?

At first glance the question of, why? would appear easy.  If the Republican Party is to have any influence over the affairs of state, their candidates have to be elected first.  On the other hand,   who would benefit, and what would that benefit be, if the Republican Party gained office by catering to voters who would otherwise vote for a socialist/democrat candidate?  There would be a definite benefit to the professional Republican politician in advancing his or her career goals.  The Republican Party would benefit by increasing its power in the Federal government. But, what about the rank-and-file Republican and the general welfare of the country?

The rank-and-file Republican would benefit only in that the advance toward tyranny might be slowed to a degree and the payment for irresponsible spending might be postponed for a generation or two, but in general, the average republican voter would profit little.  The general welfare of the nation would suffer greatly.  By moving the Party left in order to attract more moderates, independents, and liberal voters, the only obstacle to the eventual transition from a Constitutional Republic to an Americanized Social Democracy would be removed.

We have faced the threat of federal tyranny throughout our history.  Rarely have we succeeded in hindering its progress for more than a short time.  The three most notable examples were the revolution of 1800, the Reagan revolution of 1980, and the Gingrich revolution of 1994.  In none of these were the principles of the Republican Party altered to attract “moderates” or “liberal voters”.  Instead, the American people were reminded of who we are and what we stand for, and in each case the American people responded.

The voters the Republican Party needs to win over is the uninformed voter, whether they be Hispanic, African American, moderate Democrats or Independents.  Republicans, especially conservatives need to focus in the next eighteen months on educating the American people on the founding principles that made America the most prosperous and free nation on the globe.  Instead of allowing the MSM and the Democrat Party to identify us as the “party of NO” and the “party of the rich”, we need to establish a new image as “the party of the Constitution”.

The first step is to school our Republican leaders and elected representatives in the founding documents.  Too may of them are more concerned about increasing their personal power than in defending the liberty of their constituents.  The Republican penchant to “go along to get along” has to be jettisoned in favor of a firm stand in defense of our founding principles.  All Americans understand the importance of a constitutional government when it is properly explained.

The 2010 race for congressional seats is already shaping up to be a contest between “squishy” Republicans on our side and dedicated socialists on the Democrat side.  We need to start now to identify candidates who understand, promote and defend the founding principles.  A good example of the problems Republicans will face in 2010 is the Florida Senate race.

According to an article in the Los Angeles Times, “top GOP officials today took the unusual step of inserting themselves into a party primary, picking a moderate U.S. Senate candidate (Gov. Charlie Crist) over a conservative in Florida.”  “…in doing so, the top Republican officials also are aligning themselves with a candidate who has broken with party orthodoxy on environmental and voting rights issues and even appeared with President Obama to support the economic stimulus plan being lambasted by conservatives.”

Running against Crist in the primary will be Former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio, a conservative of Cuban descent.   In many ways the Florida race will be a harbinger of just how serious conservatives are going to be in taking back the Congress from the socialists currently in charge.  The future of America depends on the 2010 primaries every bit as much as on the general election.  It goes without saying that the Republican Party leadership is going to be more concerned with protecting the seats of incumbents that have proven their ineffectiveness than in reforming the party to comply with the principles that have made America great.

Republicans who have shown themselves to place party above country and power above principle need to be challenged and defeated in the primaries.  That will only happen if the grass-roots movement that began with the “tea parties” continues into the 2010 primaries.

Marketing the Republican “Brand”

Recently, the mass media, TV talking heads, and the political wizards of both parties seem to be obsessing over what the Republican Party needs to do to revive its tarnished “brand”.  The overwhelming consensus of these clairvoyant readers of the voter’s mind is that the Republican Party needs to dump its conservative base and become more “moderate”.  To put it another way, they are advised to go with the flow, just paddle a little slower.

The use of the word “brand” indicates they see the issue as a marketing problem.  I suppose a marketing model is as good as any in developing a plan for expanding the Republican’s share of the American vote. Marketing was not one of my best subjects, but I did get the idea that successful marketing involved understanding the customer’s need and designing your product to fit that need.

After eliminating the voters who will “buy” whatever happens to be on the shelf or those who always “buy” the most popular product in vogue at the time, we are left with the primary political market. Competing for shares in this market are two major products, brand “D” and brand “R”.  Of course, there are always a number of lesser “niche market” brands that appeal to the “special” needs of single-issue voters.

If we look at the voters who make up the primary political market, we find they are about evenly divided between those who prefer a “nanny state” government designed to relieve constituents of the responsibilities and risks inherent in life, and those who prefer a less intrusive government allowing for more personal autonomy, freedom and opportunity . “Brand D” caters to those voters who fall into the former group.

The price voters pay for “brand D” products is a sacrifice of personal liberty and the surrender of an exorbitant share of the “fruits of their labor”.  A deadly side effect of product “D” is that it is addictive, requiring an ever-larger dose just to maintain stability.  Those addicted are not only willing to surrender their own liberty and labor, but those of their neighbors, their children, and even their future descendents in order to sustain their “habit”.  Ultimately, the “D” addict is reduced to a position of servitude to the state.

“Brand R” advertises its product to the latter group preferring autonomy, liberty and opportunity.  The problem is that it has failed to deliver the product advertised.  In recent years “Brand R” has been attempting to market a “D” knock-off in the mistaken belief that it will be more appealing to the “buy anything” and “fad” voters.  In using this strategy, they alienate a large segment of their customer base, because it either refuses to buy a substitute product or they decide to buy one of the lesser brands that come closer to meeting their needs.

If we apply this analogy to the Republican Party, we should see that attempting to win over the “brand D” addict by offering them a watered-down, substitute “fix” simply will not work.  Instead, they should be trying to shore up their customer base and build “brand loyalty” by providing the quality product they advertise. History has shown that when the Republican Party delivers the products it advertises, limited government, national security, protection of property and individual liberty, they not only enjoy greater support from their customer base, they also attract enough non-addicted Democrats and uncommitted “others” to reach their marketing goals.  Remember Ronald Reagan.

Supreme Court Justice Wanted: Social Work Experience Preferred

With the upcoming retirement of Supreme Court Justice David Souter, speculation naturally turns to the type of person President Obama will nominate to replace him and who that person will be.  Since the primary responsibility of the Supreme Court is to apply the Constitution to laws passed by Congress, to determine its constitutionality, it is also natural that the subject of the Constitution would be a major topic of discussion.

Invariably when it does come up, we are reminded that Obama is a constitutional scholar and a Professor of Constitutional Law.  He did teach constitutional law part time at the University of Chicago, but his title was instructor not professor.  It also seems to me that “scholar” is an exaggeration of Obama’s dept of knowledge concerning the Constitution.

I have no doubt that he understands the Constitution; he just does not accept it.  Obama often professes a love for his country.  I cannot see into his heart to know his feelings, but I can listen to his words and watch his actions.  The evidence is that he rejects America as it is currently constituted and has been for the past 220 years.  He rejects its history.  He rejects its culture. He rejects its historical values and he rejects its Constitution.

In an interview with WEBZ-FM radio in Chicago, September 6, 2001 Obama had this to say about the Constitution.

“I think we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, or that the Framers had that same blind spot.  I do not think the two views are contradictory, to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way to where we are now, but that it also reflects the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.”

More recently, he explained the criterion he would use in selecting judges to the federal courts.

“We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old–and that’s the criterion by which I’ll be selecting my judges.”

At a press briefing on Friday President Obama announced the decision of Justice Souter to retire in June.  In discussing the type of person he would look for to replace him, Obama said,

“I will seek someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook; it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives, whether they can make a living and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation,” Obama said. “I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people’s hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.”

It is obvious from these and other statements by Obama that he bears no allegiance to the Constitution.  The political class of both parties has used the rulings of rogue courts and the application of the English Common Law doctrine of judicial precedent to reduce the Constitution to a meaningless document in limiting the powers of the federal government.  Unless we can find some way to reverse this trend, liberty will become something our grandchildren only dream of as they slave away their lives in servitude to the state.