A Legacy of Failure

A Legacy of Failure

 

Ignorance of truth does not prevent or circumvent the consequences of failure and error. Worse, once aware of truth, rejection of it indelibly engraves the responsibility for failed initiative and defeat on the guilty. Intentionally, the Constitution is grounded on the truths revealed in science and history. Politically ignoring or rejecting the ideological foundation embedded in it always will result in a legacy of failure.

 

This past election found America at a crossroads. One road was paved in Constitutional intention, and the other with the lies and deceptions of humanism and the recurrent various multitude of false ideologies / religions repeatedly consumed in the past by the crucible of time. Rejecting true science and valid history, motivated by what they want or choose to believe, the enemies of freedom and justice for all prosecuted the attack on America in the forum of the American political tradition.

 

Calling to the economic “special interests” alluded to in the Federalist and Antifederalist papers, those representing untruth sought support in the jurisdictions populated by criminals and the undeserving. Sustained by the Framers’ wisdom and foresight reflecting their fear of the popular majority, the Electoral College protected America from the same forces that have consumed and defeated past governments throughout history. Those forces feed on and are energized by ignorance, lies, and deceptions spewing untruth from the seething caldrons of greed, avarice, and injustice.

 

With executive orders knowingly violating the Constitution; Congress failing to rein in judicial activism; the tyranny and gross injustice of the administrative state as public enemy number one; unbridled capitalism decimating the middle class and robbing American jobs; political correctness dividing and polarizing; sin, corruption, and evil replacing common sense and decency; murder of the innocent and vulnerable upheld; and the list continues; the legacy of failure was supported by the false propaganda of a media undeserving of First Amendment protection. Raising the question of, “Does any enemy seeking to overthrow the original intention of the Constitution deserve its protection?”, seems to be appropriate. In the not too distant past, some would call such political acts treason, regardless of motives and unexcused by the rationalizations of humanism, other false ideologies or religions, or situation or statistical ethics.

 

Witnessing a political miracle, not unlike the multiple repetitive military, political, and personal miracles displayed in the Revolutionary War, America was granted a reprieve by the grace of “divine Providence“. This past election, at every level – local, state, and Federal, proclaimed a moral imperative. President Washington in his Farewell Address said very clearly “Religion and morality are indispensible supports for our form of government.”. In contrast to recent departing sentiments attempting to ignore and excuse a nearly complete legacy of failure in two terms in the Oval Office, our First President spoke of truth and reality. It remains to be seen whether we as a people, one Nation under God, will protect and defend the original intention of the Constitution by electing and holding those we elect accountable to the original intention of the Constitution.

 

No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency… We ought to be no less persuaded that 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. – Washington’s Inaugural Address, April 30, 1789

CftC

Healthcare in America – Drain the Swamp

Healthcare in America – Drain the Swamp

 

Some prominent political voices of the medical community representing, perhaps, a minority of American physicians have sent letters to politicians in Washington suggesting that there will be a crisis created in the provision of healthcare in America, if the, so called, Affordable Care Act is repealed without a suitable replacement in place. More accurately, the only crisis resides in the payment for the provision of healthcare in America. Prior to the politicization of healthcare resulting in government programs and interference in the healthcare system, healthcare in America was the best in the world, and accessible to all to varying and limited degrees. Moving forward to the brokenness of the current money driven, politicized system, the foundational resources found in healthcare providers – the doctors, nurses, pharmacists, therapists, technicians, etc.; the technology; pharmaceuticals; and all that constitute actual healthcare are still at the ready and have advanced magnitudes beyond what they were even just in a prior year. Allocation or provision of those resources to provide cost effective, quality, accessible healthcare to all regardless of the ability to pay is what is in question and needs correction. Whatever the course, simple charity and caring can stand in the gap.

 

Many years ago, I wrote an article published by the St. Louis Metropolitan Medical Society entitled “Justice For All“. Its premise was that healthcare was not a right, but rather a responsibility. It is not a right any more than health itself is a right. How that responsibility is assumed and distributed has taken on its political character. This was a time that the provision of healthcare began to change. In attempting to constructively address the inevitable change brought by the politicization of healthcare, I also tried to organize doctors to provide guidance and insight to the politicians and bureaucracies with each; in the words of Madison, other Framers, and Founders, as warned of in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers; having and advancing their own “special interests”. Failing to give voice to the real providers of healthcare, the injustice, greed, avarice, and quest for political power and control emanating from those “special interests”, unchecked by righteous legislative oversight and authority, has resulted in the crisis of paying for healthcare in America.

 

Insidiously and persistently, healthcare systems and enterprises comprised of most “non-profit” and for profit hospital organizations, pharmaceutical companies, medical device manufacturers, medical technology companies, insurance companies, and even academic institutions housing the medical schools have promoted and brought about the current broken healthcare system enabled by legislative failure in failing to protect and defend the original intention of the Constitution. The Preamble‘s words “promote the general welfare” have been politically corrupted and perverted to give license to the political agendas offering to provide healthcare.

 

Solutions to the failed provision of healthcare can be found in adhering to the Framers’ intention to “promote the general welfare”. Prior to Medicare, hospitals, medical schools, doctors, and other healthcare providers made the best medical care in the world available to all in need with the exceptions and failures again brought by greed and lack of true caring and compassion. I can never forget the tragedies of coat hanger abortions; the inexcusable delays in critical care encountered as “non-profit” hospitals dumped patients to public and/or truly charitable hospitals; or affluent doctors refusing to treat even a few indigent or working poor patients. Rather than accepting timed payment of what could be afforded; scheduling at the end of regular patients in private offices; or serving as adjunct faculty staffing and teaching in medical school clinics; the past failures distributed across the healthcare system prior to government involvement only displayed what needed to be corrected and addressed. True caring cannot by legislated. Greed and human failure and inadequacy cannot be remedied by laws. According to the Framers’ undisturbed intention; those rich and famous, the Hollywood elite, the liberal progressive millionaires and billionaires, not forgetting the “non-profit” executives with undeserved and unwarranted compensations; could contribute up to 50% of their income to provide healthcare to the unfortunate. Income that should be taxed can be given to the working poor and the deserving avoiding taxation funding the undeserving. Where the Framers’ intention failed, government inadequately stepped in.

 

Looking to constructive solutions to repeal past injustices in healthcare, proven positive successful efforts must not be abandoned or ignored. Preventing exclusion for preexisting conditions, portability, privacy, etc. need to be retained and incorporated. Several years ago, I wrote a paper entitled “The Politicization of Healthcare“ published by this Committee for the Constitution. With approximately 70% of the healthcare dollar costs generated by those covered by Medicare, the Federal government could promote cost-effective quality healthcare by mandating the healthcare database advocated in that article.

 

There are many other just and unburdening alternatives already in place to make the patient responsible for healthcare. Before Medicare, medical schools and various teaching hospital free clinics were statistically shown to to provide the best state of science medical care. The actual provider of that optimal care was the senior resident in the relevant specialty. Now medical schools and faculties divert those residents’ time to higher income generating activities. Governments could mandate that all medical schools and teaching institutions or entities receiving Federal funds in any form be required by law to make free clinic services and all hospital services and facilities available to all those requesting them. Most certainly, profits and administrators’ and maybe  even some doctors’ salaries would have to decline. Patients of every economic condition and circumstance would have access to the best quality cost-effective healthcare.

 

I remember, as a medical student on my obstetrics rotation, going with a senior resident and nurses to deliver a baby to a principal of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra in their Gold Coast home on Lake Shore Drive. By choice, this man and his wife simply wanted a natural childbirth in their home. It was one of the most rewarding experiences of my life.

 

In addition to unbridled capitalism uncontrollably raising the costs of healthcare while at the same time deceasing the quality and access to healthcare, government bears a significant responsibility for the economic disaster encountered in the provision of healthcare. As one example, I have developed a proven, 100% successful in human volunteers, device to regrow the anterior cruciate ligament. Reported and published in peer reviewed forums, the synthetic scaffold allows a person’s own adult mesenchymal stem cells to grow and differentiate replacing the damaged tissue. It has never achieved commercial development because of the financial constraints imposed by the FDA. Another example is seen in a 100% safe material able to aid in the healing of skin wounds such as seen in diabetes and trauma. Without a two million dollar waiver by the FDA and FDA approval, it will never be available to those in dire need. More egregious is the fact that it is so safe and efficacious that it should have been available over the counter at a mere fraction of the cost of anything currently available or in the research pipeline. Perhaps, it should also be mentioned that a doctor can use any FDA approved material, which this material is, with an over forty year clinical history, off-label. But, because it is not paid for or reimbursed, it is denied to patients even in medical school and free clinics. Money and greed have contaminated and infected American healthcare.

 

“Draining the swamp” could alter the provision of healthcare in America.

 

Editors note: This article by the author of The Attack On America and Beyond Reason calls to an experience and expertise held by many members of The Committee for the Constitution. Many of them are academics with doctorates in all areas of science, history, law, political science, etc. Some have chosen to remain anonymous because of the discrimination experienced in their professional activities when addressing the truths confirmed and validated by science and history but rejected in the guise of political correctness and the religion of humanism. Best described in Ben Stein’s film Expelled, they have authored seminal works on such topics as global warming, political science, law, etc.

CftC

More On “Drain the Swamp”

Here’s What the Founders Thought About Term Limits

   The true “permanent political class” . . . . exists in the federal agencies.

Jarrett Stepman / December 16, 2016

            With the sudden dominance of Republicans in Congress, state legislatures, and, of course, the White House, conservatives have an incredible opportunity to restore constitutional principles to government.

            Several lawmakers have brought back the old idea of congressional term limits to “drain the swamp” on Capitol Hill.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Rep. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., wrote an op-ed for The Washington Post suggesting they will endorse a constitutional amendment to limit the number of times a legislator can run for re-election to the same office, an idea that was also popularized by President-elect Donald Trump during his campaign.

Cruz and DeSantis argued, “Though our Founding Fathers declined to include term limits in the Constitution, they feared the creation of a permanent political class that existed parallel to, rather than enmeshed within, American society.”

It is worth examining what the Founders believed about term limits and what, fundamentally, has gone wrong with our modern government that has expanded far beyond its originally intended bounds. That most Americans believe their government to be dysfunctional and corrupt should be a tip-off that there are deep problems at the heart of our institutions.

‘Rotation in Office’

The idea of term limits, connected to the notion of “rotation in office,” was popular during the early days of the American republic.

Founding-era citizens viewed term limits as a means to prevent corruption and distant, entrenched interests staying permanently in power. They worried that a lack of change in higher office could be destructive to republican government.

Under the Articles of Confederation, term limits kept representatives to three terms in any six-year period. However, after considerable debate, the idea was abandoned during the construction of the Constitution because many Founders were skeptical of forced rotation’s usefulness—though there were certainly strong advocates in its favor.

For instance, a 1788 pseudonymous essay likely penned by noted anti-federalist Melancton Smith suggested that while limiting terms in local elections was probably unnecessary, limits would provide a useful check on the power of federal legislators, who were “elected for long periods, and far removed from the observation of the people.”

The essay’s author worried that without a mechanism to push national legislators out of office from time to time, lawmakers would become “inattentive to the public good, callous, selfish, and the fountain of corruption.”

Trump Vows to Back Term Limits. So Do These 48 Lawmakers.

He continued to warn readers that “Even good men in office, in time, imperceptibly lose sight of the people, and gradually fall into measures prejudicial to them.”

Thomas Jefferson was also wary of abandoning rotation, and wrote to his friend Edward Rutledge in 1788, “I apprehend that the total abandonment of the principle of rotation in the offices of president and senator will end in abuse. But my confidence is that there will for a long time be virtue and good sense enough in our countrymen to correct abuses.”

But some of the Constitution’s strongest advocates rejected the notion that sweeping out legislators by law would reduce corruption.

James Madison wrote that term limits might actually lead to government dysfunction. He wrote that frequent elections were a better check on power than forcing legislators out of office by law.

Those who stood against term limits argued that regular elections by the people could be a better check on corruption than constitutional limits and that such restrictions would create their own problems.

Madison wrote in Federalist 53 that the higher proportion of new representatives swept into office due to term limits could lead to poor decisions and corruption from a wave of inexperienced legislators.

Madison surmised that the “greater the proportion of new members, and the less the information of the bulk of the members, the more apt will they be to fall into the snares that may be laid for them.”

Ultimately, the anti-term limits forces won out and the Constitution was ratified without them.

A Return to Term Limits

Even though the framers of the Constitution ultimately dropped term limits, the debate over rotation for federal officials continued into future generations.

Through the 19th century, a regular rotation in office was common as citizens and politicians believed by creed and custom that periodic changes in public office were healthy for the republic. There were also practical limits on time in office, like shorter life spans. In the 20th century, long-term incumbency increased substantially.

Growth in governmental scope produced less turnover and more careerism than previous eras. This led to a movement to curtail the power of near-permanent stays in office.

Anti-Establishment Mood Could Spur Revival of Term Limits

As Americans tried to curb the power of their government, proposals were adopted to circumscribe the executive, legislative, and even the judicial branch with term limits.

Term limits on the chief executive were introduced after the four concurrent elections of President Franklin Roosevelt.

While earlier presidents had served no more than the two-term precedent set by George Washington, FDR stayed in office nearly 13 years, prompting fears of a calcified presidency. So, in 1951, the United States ratified the 22nd Amendment to strictly limit the president to two terms.

Reformers set their sights on legislative incumbency too. A wave of states passed term limit restrictions on their legislators in the mid-1990s, and the reforms attracted broad and bipartisan support.

But the Supreme Court struck down these laws in U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, in which they were struck down over conflict with Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution.

Many states passed term limits for their state legislators too, but according to some research, the results were mixed.

The term limits movement has been essentially dormant for over a decade.

A System Neither Constitutional, Nor Democratic

Unfortunately, over time, the American system of government has changed. The original checks and balances that the Founders incorporated into the Constitution have been twisted and undermined.

A surge of populism that goes hand-in-hand with the idea that the American people need to reassert their authority to “throw the bums out” of Congress will undoubtedly fuel the increase in popularity for term limits.

Yet it’s unclear what the ultimate effect of a term limit law would be. It will certainly solve the problem of Americans hating Congress, but re-electing their own congressmen. And it is also encouraging that Americans are starting to look at structural government dysfunction, rather than just focusing on elections and specific policies.

However, term limits will not address the larger problem of persistent big-government incursions of the unelected “fourth” branch of government: the vast federal bureaucracy.

The true “permanent political class” that Cruz and DeSantis warn of exists in the federal agencies.

A combination of the Civil Service Act of 1883, which, over time, has made it impossible to fire or remove career bureaucrats once they are hired, and the Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. Supreme Court case, which ensures judicial deference to the bureaucracy in regard to regulation, has made the fourth branch vastly more powerful and less accountable than anything the Founders conceived.

Progressive Era reformers successfully created a system that left long-term power in the hands of the technocratic agencies that would handle most of the business of government.

As Heritage Foundation legal fellow Elizabeth Slattery noted, the result has been the creation of unchecked agencies that “pok[e] into every nook and cranny of daily life.”

Unfortunately, it’s possible that term limits may further reduce the power of the legislative branch vis-à-vis the agencies, as inexperienced legislators may lack the bill drafting skills to tightly circumscribe agency action.

Term limits may add “rotation in office” to the legislative branch, only to cede additional power to a permanent class of bureaucratic staffers who do not even stand for election.

Additionally, studies on state-level legislative term limits have demonstrated mixed results. The kinds of people holding office generally change very little and the balance of power generally tips toward the executive branch and bureaucracy. Yet the power of party leaders typically declines as well.

How Trump Can Curb the Power of Unelected Regulators

As American political theorist James Burnham wrote:

            The bureaucracy … not merely wields its own share of the sovereign power but begins to challenge the older branches for supremacy. This emergence of the bureaucracy is a creeping growth, expressed most tellingly in the day to day, unpublicized activities of the governmental colossus …

            Perhaps limits on this system—which is neither constitutional, nor democratic—should be the next step for those who want to return to the Constitution and a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

 

Tolerance – The Enemy Of Justice and The Revenge of Sarah Palin, Voth

Tolerance – The Enemy Of Justice

 

    Most of the liberal and “progressive” left are very good at calling for tolerance of their blatant lies and deceptions. Yet, they are intolerant of truth. Be it the adherence to untruths rejecting science holding to the scientific method, or the reality imposed on repetitive human behavior by valid history, those attacking the original intention of the Constitution transmit their prejudice and bigotry to all who challenge their false propaganda. Holding to a guise of political correctness, the enemies of freedom and justice for all have been allowed to heap their vitriol and angst on the undeserving made vulnerable by a Congress failing in its oath of office.

 

No more poignant example of their injustice being tolerated is available than what was generated impacting Sarah Palin. The following article puts their injustice in perspective.

 

CftC

 

December 12, 2016

The Revenge of Sarah Palin

Ben Voth

    Twenty-sixteen may turn out to be the year of the woman after all.  The woman of the year is Sarah Palin, who eight years ago was crucified by assorted media and elites in order to usher in the new transformation of America promised by Senator Obama.  Obama upset the heir apparent, Hillary Clinton, in a bruising Democratic primary fight, where establishment party politics succumbed to the youthful populism of Barack Obama.  His old-guard rival, John McCain, appeared an easy mark until the rogue upstart from Alaska electrified the Republican National Convention in the summer of 2008.  Palin’s feminist populism recharged the Republican connection with populism, even in the political headwinds of an economy heading south with each passing week.

    Tina Fey, Katie Couric, and a punditry arrayed in the classic left-wing formation acted to annihilate the once popular Alaska governor and seared into the popular imagination something Palin never said: “I can see Russia from my house.”  The sexist trashing of Palin is a hallmark of America’s arrogant ideological culture that puts women, African-Americans, gays, and all identity communities in their proper marginalized social place when they fail to adhere to the left’s ideological doctrines.

     One month after Obama’s victory against McCain and Palin, Palin’s Wasilla church was burned around its entire perimeter with women and children inside and temperatures outside at 20 below zero.  It was a political hate crime that got little media coverage.  December 12 is the anniversary of that crime.  Not too long after, Palin quit her position as governor and was roundly mocked as a quitter after being besieged by politicized allegations.  On July 3 of 2009, she explained:

    “In fact, this decision comes after much consideration, and finally polling the most important people in my life – my children (where the count was unanimous… well, in response to asking: ‘Want me to make a positive difference and fight for ALL our children’s future from OUTSIDE the Governor’s office?’ It was four “yes’s” and one “hell yeah!” The “hell yeah” sealed it – and someday I’ll talk about the details of that… I think much of it had to do with the kids seeing their baby brother Trig mocked by some pretty mean-spirited adults recently.) Um, by the way, sure wish folks could ever, ever understand that we ALL could learn so much from someone like Trig – I know he needs me, but I need him even more… what a child can offer to set priorities RIGHT — that time is precious… the world needs more ‘Trigs’, not fewer.”

    Since that time, Palin has played the kingmaker in political races across the American landscape.  The gradual erosion of Democratic Party power in local politics is in large part orchestrated by the political campaign fought by Palin since she stepped down from her post in Alaska.  The decision to endorse Donald Trump over a strong field of conservative Republican presidential candidates in 2016 – one year before his inauguration – may have been one of the most risky yet decisive actions taken by Palin.  At that point, the field was not clearly committed, and many thought she might endorse Carson, Cruz, or some other better known conservative.  Palin was among Trump’s first and most major endorsements that paved a path almost all pundits denied was possible – all the way to election eve.

     In many ways, a woman made Donald Trump.  Palin took the arrows and bullying of an elite class.  Her church was destroyed.  Her family was attacked.  She never stepped out of the spotlight or refused to speak up for her populist vision of America.  Had Palin’s endorsement gone another way, Trump might not have taken flight in the broad field of 19 candidates deployed by the RNC.

     There has never been any sense of remorse or apology from the left about what happened to Palin.  There has been no celebration of the feminism embodied in the female leaders of Trump today such as Ivanka Trump, Hope Hicks, and Kellyanne Conway.  Palin was a forerunner of the kind of countercultural resistance to identity-based politics played by American Jacobins.  The inauguration of Donald Trump will be Sarah Palin’s revenge, and it will pose a long-term threat to identity politics as we have long known it.

Ben Voth is an associate professor of corporate communication and public affairs and director of debate at Southern Methodist University.  He is the Calvin Coolidge Debate fellow and an adviser to the Bush Institute.

To Drain the Swamp, Here’s Where To Start

To Drain the Swamp, Here’s Where To Start

Bryan Fischer

Thursday, November 17, 2016

The starting point isn’t muddled at all: taxpayers want smaller, leaner, more efficient government – but federal government bureaucrats want a bigger and more bloated government.

 

    According to an exposé published in The Hill, federal bureaucrats donate to Democrats at a 90%-100% clip. The problem here is these federal bureaucrats are entirely dependent on taxpayers for their salaries, which creates a massive conflict of interest.

    Their donations to Hillary Clinton represented, if nothing else, a vote for their own job security. These employees, every dollar of whose salaries comes out of the wallets of working Americans, have a vested interest in supporting candidates who are actively working against the interests of those same taxpaying Americans.

David Schultz, a Hamline University professor of political science, said “self-preservation” likely motivates their campaign giving. “This means support for their jobs,” because federal employees are likely “more willing to give to somebody who would be more predictable in terms of supporting their livelihood, their jobs, as opposed to somebody who might be less predictable.”

Taxpayers want smaller, leaner, more efficient government. Federal government bureaucrats, on the other hand, want a bigger and more bloated government which already pays them more than the average American worker and makes it virtually impossible for them to get fired, regardless of job performance (you can ask veterans who try to use the VA about that).

According to The Hill (emphasis mine),

Of the roughly $2 million that federal workers from 14 agencies spent on presidential politics by the end of September, about $1.9 million, or 95 percent, went to the Democratic nominee’s campaign, according to an analysis by The Hill.

Employees at all the agencies analyzed, without exception, are sending their campaign contributions overwhelmingly to Clinton over her Republican counterpart. Several agencies, such as the State Department, which Clinton once led, saw more than 99 percent of contributions going to Clinton.

Employees of the Department of Justice, which investigated Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of State, gave Clinton 97 percent of their donations. Trump received $8,756 from DOJ employees compared with $286,797 for Clinton. From IRS employees, Clinton received 94 percent of donations.

    This is quite obviously a pernicious and unacceptable state of affairs. The bias in what should be the utterly impartial Department of Justice is particularly odious (this is the outfit that let Hillary off the hook completely), as is the bias in the IRS. It is no wonder that the political efforts of ordinary Americans to get tax-exempt status for their Tea Party groups was spiked and frustrated at every turn.

The American people have a quite evident interest in seeing that government functionaries are limited in their ability to game the system against the fundamental interests of the American people.

When I served as chaplain of the Idaho Senate, one of the rules I voluntarily agreed to observe was that employees of the state government, even part-time ones, were not allowed to lobby for legislation. Period. This was something I had been accustomed to doing, and the left was ecstatic that I would be on ice for an entire legislative session (some of them wanted me to get a lifetime appointment for that reason).

The point is, the exercise of my freedom of speech and my freedom to petition the government for the redress of grievances was temporarily suspended during my term of service as a government worker.

Why? Because it was considered unseemly for someone being paid by taxpayers to directly influence legislation that would affect their own employ. The conflict of interest was obvious.

I was fine with that policy. My role changed from lobbyist to pastor for that session of the legislature, and I understood the privileges I would relinquish during that time. When my service as chaplain was completed, I put my lobbyist hat back on and went to work to help get a marriage amendment through that same legislature.

So what should be done at the federal level to curb this unseemly and unwise tilting of the political scales by bureaucrats? I floated the idea on my radio program this week – an idea I immediately shot down the next day – that we ask federal bureaucrats to temporarily yield the franchise as long as they are on the taxpayer dole, just as I yielded my constitutional right to freedom of speech and petition while drawing an income from taxpayers.

The right to vote is not absolute. It is reserved for those who are citizens, meet the age requirements, and aren’t convicted felons. But that possible solution is unworkable and unenforceable and would face legitimate constitutional challenges, which is why I scrapped it.

There are perhaps two other possibilities. The Hatch Act was passed to limit the ability of government employees to put their thumb on the political scale. It prohibits government workers from engaging in political activities, including making campaign contributions, while on the taxpayers’ clock.

Perhaps the Hatch Act could be amended in another way, to limit the size of the contributions federal bureaucrats are permitted make to candidates for federal office.

Limiting the size of donations to candidates is an already well-established principle, to keep the uber-wealthy from buying elections. Individuals are limited to contributing no more than $2,700 to one candidate in any election cycle, and even political action committees (PACs) are not allowed to directly donate more than $5,000 to any one candidate. There is no logical reason why that number cannot be reduced for federal bureaucrats, even to zero.

And it would have the advantage of being enforceable. You can ask conservative author and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza all about that. He pled guilty to violating federal campaign limits by using a straw donor, and was sentenced to eight months in a halfway house, five years’ probation, and a hefty $30,000 fine.

The other long-term alternative is to reduce the size of the federal behemoth by putting it in the hands of elected officials who truly believe in smaller government. They will be inclined to hire public servants who, if they donate to political campaigns at all, will be inclined to donate to candidates who will work on behalf of ordinary taxpayers rather than against them.

It’s worth noting again that the workers in 14 federal agencies gave 95% of their donations to a candidate committed to an ever larger and more bloated federal government. Donald Trump was elected to drain the swamp. It looks like the federal bureaucracy is the place to start.

Bryan Fischer hosts “Focal Point with Bryan Fischer” every weekday on AFR Talk (American Family Radio) from 1:00 – 3:00 p.m. (Central).

The Electoral College

Take a Seat — History Class Is In Session

Darrell Huckaby    dhuck008@gmail.com

Nov 15, 2016

 

    Never in the past four years have I wanted so badly to have a class of people to teach. Teenagers or adults or senior citizens — it wouldn’t have mattered. I have seen so much appalling ignorance about our country, its history and its Constitution that I have just wanted to grab the populace and shake them until they understood.

    For starters, I am tired of hearing about our democracy and the popular vote. We are not a democracy, and a whole lot of people should be really glad about that, too, because in a democracy, mob rule applies. The majority is the boss of everybody, and if we had been a democracy in 1865 slavery would have never been abolished. If we had been a democracy in 1920, the women would have never gotten the vote. If we had been a democracy in 1964 and 1965, those historic pieces of civil rights legislation would never have been approved. In fact, if we had been a democracy in 1776, the Declaration of Independence would never have been adopted because the majority of the colonists were afraid to pursue independence, just like a majority of Americans opposed women’s suffrage and abolition and sweeping civil rights reform.

For the record, Abraham Lincoln did not get a majority of the popular vote in 1860, and Bill Clinton did not get a majority of the popular vote in 1992 or 1996.

Most means plurality, y’all. A majority is 50 percent plus one. And while we are on the subject, we are not a democratic republic, either, no matter what the revisionist history books might claim. That’s just a term Andrew Jackson coined for political purposes in the 1820s and it stuck with some people. We are a republic. We have a federalist form of government where the power is supposed to be divided between the states and the central government and neither is subservient to the other. Both are supposed to get their powers directly from the people.

And by the way, the U.S. Constitution does not give any of us the right to have a say so in who becomes president of the United States. Oh, no, it doesn’t. That power is vested entirely in the Electoral College, and under the Constitution states still have the authority to decided how those electors are chosen. It wasn’t until 1842 that the last state started allowing the people to vote for those electors.

If we eliminated the Electoral College people in two-thirds of the states would be virtually disenfranchised when it came to presidential elections. All the time, money and effort would be spent wooing voters in California, New York and Florida.

Now about the transition of power. Political parties are not mentioned in the Constitution and were thought to be a dangerous thing by our founders. But parties arose almost immediately because people have always had differences of opinions about political issues. The first 12 years under the Constitution found the government in the hands of the Federalist Party. But in the election of 1800 — also called the Revolution of 1800 — Thomas Jefferson, leader of the Republican Party, was chosen to be president. When John Adams, his Federalist opponent, stepped down on inauguration day in 1801, it marked the first time in the history of the world that a group in power had relinquished power without violence or threat of violence, simply because the people said that’s what they wanted. It has worked that way ever since.

And now the people have spoken and the message is loud and clear, under the Constitution, that the people want this country to go in a new direction. And no matter how much they hated to do so, Hillary and Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, and President Obama did and said all the right things this week to propel us toward that smooth transition.

And yet in many of our nation’s cities, ignorant young people who have no knowledge of how this Republic is supposed to work, paid for by traitors, are dying to get attention by marching in the streets and generally acting the fool — and, no, these are not the peaceful protests guaranteed by the First Amendment. You must have a grievance to protest. These are spoiled brats and attention-seekers and they should be ashamed.

Electoral College and other links added by the CftC

The Rule and Order of Law

The Rule and Order of Law

 

In the Preamble, the Framers spelled out their intentions for or purposes of the Constitution. Two of the several purposes are to establish justice and insure domestic tranquility. Justice is requisite for all successful human relationships of any size and composition. It is defined by immutable Law and applicable to every society and circumstance. Superimposed on, but subservient to, immutable Law are those laws instituted by mankind. Seeking security, humanity relies on the order of law for domestic tranquility.

 

After the presidential election, protesters or rioters, if you will, violated the order of law. Robbing law abiding citizens of the fundamental civil rights associated with freedom in “pursuit of happiness”, they blocked streets and damaged property. Tolerated by failed government, those violating the rule and order of law illegally stole domestic tranquility. Just as occurred in Ferguson, Baltimore, and across our nation beginning over two years ago, the civil rights of law abiding citizens were relegated to the trash heap of unlawful political activism. Ignoring the Constitutional demand to assemble peaceably, the enemies of justice for all repeat the long train of abuses that many patriots’ sacrifices paid the price to remove. This immediately past presidential election authorized and requires that those we elected to represent us restore the rule and order of law.

 

CftC

Term Limits

Washington Should Be More Concerned About the Next Generation Than the Next Election

Sen. David Perdue

October 26, 2016

The Framers never meant elected office to be a career, nor was it meant to be a vessel for the centralization and maintenance of federal power.

Sen. David Perdue, R-Ga., who has vowed to serve only two terms, says career politicians have focused more on advancing their own careers than helping the people they were elected to serve. (Photo: Gage Skidmore /Zuma Press/Newscom)

    It’s no secret that Americans are fed up with Washington’s lack of results. Less than 20 percent of respondents in a recent Gallup survey said they trust the federal government to do its job.

You know what, they’re right.

Somebody has to be responsible for the mess in Washington. For too long, career politicians have focused more on advancing their own careers than helping the people they were elected to serve. The Washington bubble and an unending cycle of gridlock stand in the way of real results at a time when our country is facing both a national debt crisis and a global security crisis.

Now, more than ever, we should usher in the return of the citizen legislator. It is finally time that we impose term limits on members of Congress.

Politicians should go to Washington, do their best, and then come home to live under the laws they’ve passed. It’s just that simple. Our Founding Fathers never imagined the rise of the career politician. They envisioned citizen legislators. Elected office was never meant to be a career, nor was it meant to be a vessel for the centralization and maintenance of federal power.

Yet right now, 60 members of the U.S. Senate have held elected office for more than 20 years and 36 have held office for more than 30 years.

The broken seniority system in Congress rewards years in power, not results produced. Because of that, Washington has no sense of urgency or focus on results. Too little is being done to deal with our national debt, restore our standing in the world, and roll back the regulations crippling our free enterprise system.

    When I ran for the U.S. Senate in 2014, I promised Georgians I would fight to pass term limits for members of Congress. Immediately after being sworn in last year, I co-sponsored a constitutional amendment doing just that: two six-year terms in the Senate and six two-year terms in the House. I personally have pledged to serve no more than two terms in the U.S. Senate.

For too long, career politicians have focused more on advancing their own careers than helping the people they were elected to serve.

    Imagine citizen legislators coming to Washington — from all walks of life — fighting for the priorities that truly represent the interests of folks back home. They would bring fresh ideas and a new sense of urgency to finally begin to deal with the crises jeopardizing our country’s future.

    Citizen legislators could work outside the political establishment to bring a fresh perspective to how burdensome government policies negatively affect people’s everyday lives.

They could apply their practical experience to solving our nation’s toughest problems, and because they would only serve a short time, citizen legislators could approach solving problems with a sense of urgency instead of kicking the can down the road for the sake of political security.

Support for term limits is bipartisan. Another Gallup survey showed that 75 percent of voters — Republicans and Democrats alike — back legislation limiting the time people can serve at the highest levels of government. Given the polarizing climate crippling Washington today, there is something to be said about an idea that overwhelmingly unites both parties.

Enacting term limits will be an uphill battle because those currently in power thrive on the status quo. There is growing support in Congress, however, for term limits and many members on both sides are committed to going forward, no matter how long it takes.

Career politicians created this moment of crisis America faces today. They aren’t the ones who are going to solve it.

Term limits will help break this vicious cycle of gridlock that is stopping Congress from getting things done. It’s time to finally make sure Washington is more concerned about the next generation than the next election.

The Constitution Versus Humanism / Existentialism / Relativism

The Constitution Versus Humanism / Existentialism / Relativism

The Continental Divide, Tommy Nelson – Sunday, October 23, 2016

The Continental Divide

Tommy Nelson

It’s October. On 8 November, we will have an election. One of the most defining for our future. One of the most controversial in our history. One in which evangelical leaders are divided who have always been united.

I have never spoken on this in 40 years, but we need to get a Christian perspective on what’s about to happen.

So . . . let’s talk politics, biblically. Is that possible? Yes it is.

One of the leading questions of early Christianity was, “How can one be a citizen of heaven and a citizen of Rome?” The New Testament answers this repeatedly.

• Jesus said “render to Caesar…” Pay your taxes.
• Paul said, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.”
• He said to Titus, “Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, ready for every good deed, to malign no one…to be uncontentious…to be gentle” The Christian is to be a model citizen.
AND…
• Peter said, “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake” “For the Lord’s sake,” Not because government deserves it but because you revere God.
• Paul wrote to Timothy, “First of all, pray for kings and all who are in authority.”
• Paul took this from Jeremiah 29:7 as to how Israel was to conduct itself in the Babylonian exile. “Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will have welfare.”
• Joseph influenced Egypt for the good.
• As Daniel influenced Babylon for the good.
• As Nehemiah, Mordecai and Esther influenced Persia for the good.

The people of God are to be a blessing to their cultures.

Not removed from, nor hostile to their cultures.

So, until the government asks us to do what God forbids, we are to be the best of citizens. But our influence in this country can be greater.

We are historically rare. We can be directly involved. We can “vote.” We have a say. We have what virtually none have had throughout history. Until 1776, no one had a say in their rule.

But . . . From 1776 to 1848, in just 70 years, most monarchies were gone. America had started something! France will follow. We were an idea whose time had come, as throughout the world men had had a gutful of the irresponsible authority of kings. Of authority bestowed through birth not merited through character.

And in the place of monarchies there arose constitutions. Official obligations and restraints set forth in writing through theologically informed reason, an absolute law, outside of man, by which he must be ruled, and to which rulers were accountable. A constitution – the incarnation of just rule in paper and ink

− administered through representative leaders
− placed there through an informed majority
− who voted for those they believed the wisest and best of men, whose job was to follow this law.
− Or as Mr. Lincoln said, “A government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
− A leadership bestowed through character not conception. Would it work?

No one knew. It had never been done.

It was “The Grand Experiment.”

A government not flawless but CORRECTABLE; through elections and persuasion and amendments, rather than coups and revolts. People putting people in charge. It was called a representative democracy.

And a new vocabulary arose. Politicians, politicking, Political parties, candidates, campaigns, primaries, speeches, debates, voters and mudslinging and corruption.
The system has problems, but I prefer it to monarchies because we don’t have bloodlettings. With the exception of our Civil War where half our country killed the other half over a breach of the Constitution concerning inalienable rights. And I am amazed at our constitution’s invention in Philadelphia in 1787.

A group of 55 men replaced millennia of kings with a constitution in just 112 days and it has lasted for 229 years. And it had never been done before. It is said that as Ben Franklin sat and observed the carving of the sun on the horizon on the headrest of George Washington’s chair, he wondered, “Is that sun rising or setting? Will this be a new day in history or a disaster?” No one was sure. That’s why only 39 of the 55 delegates at Philadelphia signed the Constitution. Sixteen weren’t sure it would work.

The best way to govern? Through Jesus Christ, “righteousness incarnate,” “wisdom incarnate”. He will not be elected. But until He returns a representative democracy is a good way. But two problems present themselves in electing leaders. One is the need of getting elected and staying elected. For this a politician needs “popularity.” The majority must like him. But wise rulers cannot always be popular, thus an “elected official” feels a tension between leadership and job security. Between doing right and preserving a career. This is why some said it would not work, as it would devolve into a popularity contest.

But another problem, just as dangerous, is that proper elected leaders demand an informed and wise voting public.

A proper standard must be present throughout the culture. If not, an ignorant population will get what they deserve. 51% can be as terrible as a tyrant when they are misinformed.

So potentially, “universal suffrage” is dangerous. That is why public mandatory education and universal suffrage emerged at the same time in our country. The Horace Mann Common School movement began just after the Constitution. Every young person – future voters – had to be educated in basic reading and writing, in morals, citizenship and yes, the Bible as only a morally responsible people could select proper leaders. A people and a culture are reflected in their elected leaders.

But, this is the political system, that we have all been born into. And, like it or not, we have the responsibility to be informed and vote. Because the cause of death of a representative democracy is not just ignorance of truth, but also apathy. A-pathos: “don’t care.” An apathy arising from discouragement that says, “I’m just one person,” or “the candidates are flawed,” or “I’ve got other things to worry about.”

But the Book of Proverbs says…

“If you are faint in the day of adversity,
Your strength is small.
Deliver those who are led away to death,
And hold back those stumbling to the slaughter.
If you say, “Surely we did not know this,”
Does not He who weighs the hearts consider it?
He who keeps your soul, does He not know it?
And will He not render to each man according to his deeds?” (Prov. 24:10-12 NKJV)

Meaning, it is in the difficult day that you must be strong. When evil has gained control, that is when you must stand. You must be a hero when heroes must be. And you can’t use the excuse of ignorance.

God knows that you know because God watches over you and cares for you. And you will be accountable for your silence.

And this is where we are in 2016. Two candidates. Both flawed. Seriously. Both children of the 60s. My people. One five years older than me. One just three. Both “true nature’s child. They were born, born to be wild.” One an activist. One a capitalist.

Is it a meaningless election? Will we lose either way? An election called “The Clump.”
No. This election will be enormous in our history. As the Republican and Democratic platforms are headed in polar opposite directions. Not just politically, but theologically and morally. Half of our country will be elated on Nov. 8. Half outraged.

Because an enormous disparity of worldviews has finally surfaced in our country. One that has been brewing beneath the surface for 100 years, ever since our move from modernism to post-modernism in the 50s and 60s. “Modernism” is seeking truth, not through the Bible but through man’s reason. Modernism believes there is truth but it’s up to man to find it. Modernism failed. Because of the prevailing question of “Says who?” There was no final, eternal, infinite, outside of man, divine authority.

“Post-modernism” followed. Post modernism is inventing your own truth. You play God. It’s called Moral Relativity or Existentialism. It is the abandonment of final truth and it has dominated the latter half of the 20th century.

Some have resisted and stayed theistic knowing post modernism won’t work. Like us. Conservatives. Holding to the Bible, a standard outside of man; to biblical right and wrong, moral and immoral.

But post-modernism has affected everything: sexuality, the arts, the family, gender, education, the military, sports, entertainment. Post-modernism laundered sin. And political parties have polarized into the two worldviews. Theistic and Post-Modern.

Republican – Democratic Absolute – Relativistic Traditional -Modern biblically informed – humanly reasoned. God centered laws – man centered freedom. Pro Life – Pro Choice
In a broad sense Christian and non-Christian.

Is there final truth? Is there revealed truth? Biblical, divine truth? Or does man get to make the rules? Is “truth” just a word?

This is the elephant in the room. And I don’t mean the Republican elephant. The elephant that all are aware of but no one speaks of. Is abortion wrong? Is same sex wrong? Is ANYTHING wrong? Why? And how do we know? The elephant in the room is God.
Can we say no? In matters of marriage, sexuality, gender, abortion, or the loss of religious freedom? IS it possible to say , “No, that is wrong?”

Can they enforce compliance to their rejection like France did in 1789? As Communism did in 1917 . . . as Nazism did in the 1930s. Is homosexuality a civil right that one cannot resist for fear of retribution? Can a politician or court set aside a Biblical mandate? Can they determine a human in the womb is not a human? Can they take your gun? Can they redefine marriage? Can they redefine gender? Can they play God?

Make no mistake, this did not start with the Democrats. The furnace consuming us, we as a country have stoked for a hundred years. We are being beaten with our own stick. Reaping our bitter sowing. This didn’t just happen. It was cultivated by our own cultural ideas and the silence of the sentries, the Church.

This election will slow the post-modern trajectory if there is a Republican victory, or accelerate the post- modern trajectory if a Democrat victory. A direction that this present administration has promoted zealously and unashamedly for eight years. A direction with no foreseeable stops. No logical stops.

Because whoever is elected will have a number of Supreme Court appointments that will weight Supreme Court decisions one way or the other and affect this country for 30 years. This is the most powerful aspect of the President; Commander in Chief of the military and appointer of the Supreme Court. Most of what the president does moves like a barge, this is a jet ski. This election will put world views in stone. Scalia is gone. Three more are going. The next president is in control as few have been. Three Supreme Court decisions of late went 5-4 in favor of Conservatives: the Hobby Lobby right to religious freedom in business, the Heller Case, the right of the individual to own a firearm, and of government property having the right to exhibit a cross. Again . . . 5-4! Our historic freedoms were one vote from extinction… That balance will tip with this election…one way or the other.

Because, when you vote as an American you vote not just for a candidate but for a party platform. What it believes. And it is no longer merely a political perspective on economics, defense or foreign policy, but a theological one. What is right? Wrong? And why?
Abortion; homosexual marriage treated as traditional marriage; “gender neutral” These have never been considered right until recent.

Why? Because something changed. Because we have changed! We now believe differently. Our lenses have altered. Our worldview shifted from God to man. Theistic to Modern to Post Modern. Our previous assumptions of 200 years have vanished. Will that be good and liberating? The Democrats say, “yes.” The Republicans say, “no.” Will it be wrong and corrupting? The Republican says, “yes.” The Democrat says, “no.”
So you vote for what you believe will be a party’s consequences, direction. A party’s trajectory. You don’t just vote for a candidate.

How will it affect my kids? Grand-kids? Our future as a people? Our future hangs in the balance as never before.

Because there are three points of conscience that this election deals with. By that, I mean points that are not essentially political. Not the economy, foreign policy, the national defense or even health care – but points of the national violation of the Bible’s teaching. They are abortion, the sanctioning of sodomy or gay marriage, and the religious liberty to resist without reprisal or prosecution.

These are the legitimate fears of the Christian concerning the Democratic platform. Things not perceived as bad politics but historically as evils. Things that the Christian believes, that I believe, will corrupt us and will incur God’s wrath. Bad politics are irritants, these are self destructive.

First, the Democratic platform wants abortion on demand. Over the counter. The Republican platform wants the repeal of Roe v. Wade, or at least the continuance of stipulations and restraints that Christians have fought for since 1973: parental consent, sonograms, waiting period and the like.

Also, the Democratic platform wants gay rights treated as civil rights. Meaning the illegality of opposing and of refusing to participate in anything of same sex. Just as one does not have a right to oppose service because of race so one now cannot oppose and refuse a service because of homosexuality. In other words the removal of the Christian freedom to obey God and His Bible. Ben Carson recognized the fallacy of this “apples to apples” equating when he said to the gay community, “Do not regard your sin as my skin.” If I were black, I like Carson would be enraged at such an equating. The Republican platform wants homosexuality to remain as it has always been. A freedom and a personal right but not a law of civil compliance. And the freedom to say, “I will have no part in such actions.” I will not provide flowers for your gay wedding, a cake for your gay wedding or t-shirts or pizza for your same sex rally. Or “You can’t make me facilitate what my faith condemns.”
All of these will make or break upon Supreme Court rulings:

As Roe v. Wade in ’73 concerning abortion.

As Engle v. Vitale in ’62 prayer in schools.

And as of last July concerning same sex marriage regarded as a civil law.

Supreme Court law forms trajectory . . . as 60 million dead since ’73 would agree if they could speak. Or generations of public school kids who have never heard a prayer in school. Or as Christians who have now lost businesses over the loss of religious freedom. Or as the state of North Carolina understands in saying, “No,” to the Supreme Court on gender neutral restrooms and are now being punished by the NCAA. That’s why they’re called “Tarheels.” Or Christian teachers who are now quitting rather than submitting to a requirement to not refer to boys and girls as “he or she” but by a gender neutral term. The Supreme Court has created a world gone mad.

Why do you think Christian and private schooling and home schooling have exploded in the last 40 years? To escape the inferiority, enforcement, and encroachments of secularism.

And I will make a prediction – 2 of them. If Hillary wins and the madness grows and the irrational spreads, private and Christian and charter education and home schools are going to explode… and the government will begin to inhibit.

And mind you the Democratic agenda is not a conspiratorial thing or behind the scenes. The Democrats generally are proud and open concerning their progressiveness, their tolerance and open mindedness. They are proud of their intolerance of Christian morality and of you!

When Michelle Obama speaks as she did at the Democratic National Convention four years ago of woman’s freedom to do what they will with their own bodies and the freedom to “love who you will love and marry whom you will marry” – the response was and is an ovation. They glory in their shame. As Jeremiah said, “They have lost the ability to blush.”
One of our female staff read the Democratic platform and said it was “sin in writing.” That is the Christian perception of the Democratic platform.

The Republican candidate is flawed partly because he has never been a politician so has seen no need to cover things up. He is a 60’s pagan.

He’s had bad marriages

And a bad demeanor . . . like a hard pragmatic businessman. I think that’s why he’s popular.

Because, he’s not a politician and can tend to hold politics in contempt. He’s one of us in that we are tired of politicians, of political correctness, of playing to the media, and weakness in leaders. But he has rough edges. Each week brings new surprises, because he just does not care! Things that make you good in business can make you bad in politics. Ten years ago he was immoral and employed filthy, unguarded and suggestive language. But then bad language did not kill 60 million babies, enforce sodomy, take your firearm or take your religious freedom.

He is as unpopular for his directness and assertiveness as the Democratic hopeful for her liberality.

But if elected, Trump has submitted 11 possibles for Supreme Court nominations that have been called by fundamentalist theologian Wayne Grudem “a conservative dream team”. And he has chosen as a running mate, Michael Pence, the poster boy for conservative Christian values.

He has plans for Islamic immigration and illegal immigration so decisive that they have drawn criticism. And some of his references, his generalizations, have been offensive to the Hispanic community. He does not weigh his words.

He plans to create jobs by freeing up businesses to expand by lessening taxation. Our government punishes successful businessmen . . . to the tune of 40%. We have the highest taxation of business in the world. Government need not create jobs. I know that much. Business does, but they won’t when they are continually punished for succeeding. Like communism, our government stifles ambition. Government should protect business.

He also plans to get the government out of the church’s business and to restore religious freedom and to protect the 2nd amendment.

And to halt the Democratic trajectory on abortion and same-sex marriage which demands Supreme Court decisions.

Pence has been quoted as saying,

1. “Let me assure you, the Trump-Pence administration will stand for sanctity of life and defend the unborn from the first day we take office.”
2. “We will end late term abortions nationwide. As my running mate said not so long ago, ‘We should not be one of the few countries that allow elective abortion after 20 weeks.’”
3. “The days of public funding for Planned Parenthood are over when the Trump-Pence Administration arrives in D.C.”

The issues of abortion and same sex are not political. They are spiritual; revealed in scripture. When violated they summon God’s wrath. And I believe they have done so already in our society full of perversion, racial unrest, and violence within as well as ISIS and terrorism without. We have been, as Paul said, “given over to a depraved mind to do those things which are not proper.”

We are now a reflection of the book of Judges, Israel’s Dark Ages, where “every man did what was right in his own eyes.” Existentialism

Because without a theological base we have no moral base, thus people are either helpless or out of control. Thus government must now not just govern us but parent us . . .
To a Christian, all other political issues must be subservient to these. Meaning no matter how he may disagree on immigration, welfare, the military, or foreign policy, taxes, or the economy, he must not fail to resist infanticide, sodomy, the destruction of traditional marriage, and the loss of Christian freedom.

If Trump is successful . . . for eight years . . . his VP would be the logical follow up. That could possibly be 16 years of halting the direction of an administration that has made the most radical rulings since Roe v. Wade and the Fugitive Slave Law that forbid the resisting of slavery and helped foster the Civil War.

How can this happen? It is easy. The sleeping giant must awake. Twenty five million evangelicals did not vote in the last election. We lost by 4 million. We are the largest demographic in our country. If Christians, our sentries, the conscience of our country, step up, if they vote and vote wisely, not for Utopia but for that candidate that will support through Supreme Court appointments the historic Christian and American values, the rights and wrongs we were built on, we will win and regain a sense of control. We can slow the madness for 30 years. We can’t stop it because the madness is not political.
It’s from man’s rebellion against the Almighty God. A madness of the soul.

A problem arises:

“Both are flawed, so I will not vote.” OR
“ I’m voting for a write-in candidate with no chance of winning as an act of conscience
an expression of Christian indignation – a political sitdown.

You say, “I can’t support Trump.”

Can you endure Hillary and the Democratic platform, and an imbalance in the Supreme Court for 30 years? The loss of your Constitutional freedoms? Can you endure that?
Because, when all three branches, Executive, Judicial and Legislative, swing one way, “it is Vegas.” It is a trifecta. It is total takeover. There is no checks and no balances. Not in just politics but this time in outlawing traditional freedoms, Constitutional freedoms.

One that will curse your children and curse your grandchildren long after you’re gone.

Does that bother your conscience? You don’t fight the enemy by firing into the air.
Francis Schaeffer said 30 years ago, “If we as Christians do not speak out as authoritarian governments grow, eventually we or our children will be the enemy of society and the state. No truly authoritarian government can tolerate those who have real absolutes by which to judge its arbitrary absolutes.” George Orwell saw this before his 1984.

In Presidential elections you vote for the better of the two. You vote for a platform; for possibilities. In 2012, I voted for Mitt Romney, a Mormon. We have idolized John and Bobby Kennedy both of whom held marriage in contempt. All leaders are flawed to some extent.

It must be said that probably few of us had Donald Trump as our first choice. He wasn’t mine. I was Cruz, Rubio, then Carson because they were open Christians. Most of us said, “What would you do if it came down to Trump?” Well it did, because the Republicans Party chose Donald Trump and entrusted him with their platform. We all recognize that he’s somewhat unlikeable. We also recognize that it’s somewhat scary to have a fellow as hard-nosed as he is to be in discussions with foreign leaders who can be on the edge. And we recognize that he is untested in politics and we could all have egg on our faces in the coming years. I assure you I will be praying earnestly for Michael Pence to guide him in the civility of politics. But those things “might be”, as indeed in all elections there is a “might be” involved in all leaders. But the Democratic platform is not a “might be”. It’s a “gonna be”. A “will be “. Donald Trump is scary because of the unknown. Hillary is scary because of the fear of the known. Maybe I was just raised different than some current evangelical leaders. I was taught not to lie down. I will vote to oppose the loss of our freedom and the loss of life and the loss of the traditional family.

If the Democratic platform is enacted which their candidate supports with zealous passion, the country we had will be no more. Secularism will have eaten into our viscera. Political analyst, Eric Metaxas, in the Wall Street Journal wrote, “If Hillary Clinton is elected the country’s chance to have a Supreme Court that values the Constitution – and the genuine liberty and self- government for which millions have died – is gone. Not for 4 years or eight but forever. Many say Mr. Trump can’t be trusted to deliver on this score but Mrs. Clinton can be trusted in the opposite direction. For our kids and grandkids are we not obliged to take our best shot at this? Shall we sit on our hands and refuse to choose?”

Christian . . . Your freedoms are seen by this party as bigotry. Your beliefs are seen as bigotry. Your rights as wrongs, and the Democratic Party wants to legally remove them by unconstitutional judicial activism – to accelerate the erosion that has been creeping onward in our post-modern culture for 50 years. The river has eaten away at the bank and it’s about to collapse. They will not stand your standing. If Hillary wins, this election can be called “The Empire Strikes Back” as 60s radicalism, underground since the 70s, will live again. “I have fought for children all my life,” Hillary says, “and I will fight for them until the end.” Ovation!! “How about, let’s don’t kill them in the womb. How’s about let’s don’t invade their safety in a restroom. Let’s don’t confuse their sense of gender, or allow children to decide what they are, or forbid the 10 Commandments and moral law to be spoken in their classroom, or forbid the name of God and Christ. How’s about let’s insure a normal set of parents, or not assault their souls with perversion on the internet. Then tell me you fight for our children.”

If the Democratic ideology wins, the echoes of Philadelphia will fade to silence to the delight of these people. Who say, “Speak to us no more of the Holy One of Jacob.”

My fear is two-fold: First that we are outnumbered. They may now be too many.

Democrats are easily and naturally produced. Any who wish to cast off the restraints of divine laws can be Democrats and the arts, entertainment, the media, the colleges, and the culture surrounds and nurtures them. I fear we may be as the English at Dunkirk about to be pushed into the sea by sheer numbers. I also fear it may be too late. The blood of a generation of the murdered cries out. The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah has reached the ears of heaven and God has come down to see. Winter may have descended upon Narnia. The last 100 years may have come due. And as Habakkuk said, “I must wait quietly for the day of distress. For the people to arise who will invade us.” Thomas Jefferson said, “Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just.” God may want Hillary Clinton in the Presidency as the rod of His chastisement, even as Jezebel in the days of Israel’s sin. She is the embodiment of the thinking of the last 70 years.

Basically Christians in this country have found themselves at the Red Sea with no rational way of escape. All we can do is all we can do, and then, as a people, cry out for God’s might from outside our logic and limitations. God must intervene sovereignly in great might and open a way where there is none.

Christian, the barbarians are at the gate. It is an ancient conflict beginning in the Garden of Eden. “I will put enmity”, o devil, “between your children and the seed of the woman.”
Vote. Vote your conscience. And vote your brain. There is one person who I think of and am pressured by when I vote. A little fellow I can’t see. [PUT UP SONOGRAM] A little fellow who just wants a chance. A chance to breathe on his own. Who doesn’t ask for much. Just for tomorrow. And who would appreciate the adults around him to not invade his sanctuary and obliterate his right to life. It was not his doing that put him here.
I think of him. And of standing between him and those who seek his life because he’s inconvenient. To do that I am left with one choice.

And I think of those little guys he will grow up into. [MY GRANDKIDS PICTURE] Like these guys. Do they look familiar? They’re my grandkids. I would like them to have the freedoms and the protection that I had. A semblance of a country that I knew as a boy. This election is a symptom of our nation’s ills. Meaning:

water does not rise higher than its source

effects are not greater than their causes and you do not gather grapes from a thorn bush.

You will not find peace and the right from a theological and moral vacuum. Our fountain has run dry.

Do you know this hymn?

“My hope is built on nothing less Than Jesus’ blood and righteousness; I dare not trust the sweetest frame, But wholly lean on Jesus’ name.On Christ, the solid Rock, I stand; All other ground is sinking sand.”

“disqualified from holding any office under the United States” – U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2071

U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2071

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record,  proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book,  document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes,  mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroy  the same, shall be fined under  this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

Editor’s Note:    A member of the Committee for the Constitution served in the same platoon in the Marine Corps with James Kallstrom in 1966 as they went through OCS as enlisted men and The Basic School as Lieutenants at Quantico MCB. They then overlapped service in federal law enforcement, one in the Secret Service guarding politicians and the other in the FBI. Mr. Kallstrom retired as Assistant Director of the FBI. According to our member, “He [Kallstrom] is one of the finest individuals and patriots you would EVER want to meet. We see eye-to-eye in our opinion of the dangerous direction and assessment of the looming dangers for our country … “

CftC