Redrawing Political Lines

I think it’s very seriously time to redraw the lines in American politics. People are confused as to what makes a person a true conservative. The word has been abused and misused. George Bush isn’t a conservative, nor is anyone who advocates aggressive military action or authoritarian domestic policies. True, conservative is a relative term, as are all political labels, but a conservative must have something to conserve. Often times it’s to maintain a current state or revive an old one they view as "great." But in American politics a conservative is one who seeks to preserve and conserve the Constitution. The Constitution is not a complicated document. It’s quite explicit in what it says. It lays out the proper functions of the federal government, it restrains the government from seizing rights divinely appropriated by God, and it reserves all other rights not enumerated in the Constitution to the states and the people (see the ninth and tenth amendments).

However somehow we have decided in this country that a "conservative" is a warmongering, demagoging mercantilist, this is the label we have currently given the word, or at least the media and political pundits have. And we have somehow decided in this country that a liberal is...well...anything that isn’t the aforementioned. If you’re not a warmongering, demagoging mercantilist you’re a liberal. This is a grossly overstretched blanket of labels and slogans. Much as patriotism has become a series of catchphrases endorsing a militaristic foreign policy. This is part of the reason so many people have a confused view that somehow Nazism is a "far-right" ideology and communism is a "far-left" ideology when they have nothing that truly separates the two forms of government, at least in practical form. Nazism, like communism, is socialism, and anyone honestly willing to claim that the further right you go, you know the group that advocates decentralization of political power and exonerates individual liberty, individual responsibility, and the rights of private property, the more tyrannical, despotic, and socialist you become would have to be insane, ignorant, or insolent.

I think the political lines that really exists in this country, that very few on a national level are willing to admit, is that you have Constitutionalists, authoritarians, and anarchists. This is how we should label people in our political spectrum if we wish to use such a wide brush to paint people with labels of political affiliation. Not to mention it’s really easy to determine which of these categories a person falls into:

If you desire to follow the constitution strictly, as it was meant to be followed, interpreted in context of time you are a constitutionalist, everyone in congress should technically be a constitutionalist based purely on the fact that they swear or affirm, most of the time on the religious book of their choice (you know the moral rules one desires to follow), to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States;

If you are an authoritarian you either seek a loose interpretation of the Constitution by which to mold it to your political advantages or you ignore it all together much as has the current government done (when I say the "government" I mean the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch) and its been doing for the majority of the last 20 years since we first heard about our "new world order" seeking to impose a globalist elitist society on the world;

And if you’re an anarchist you desire to be absolutely free of government, no constitution, no laws, all personal choices (which we all should know by now cannot and will not work and is destined to lead into a massively authoritarian government).

There is only one politician I know for sure is a Constitutionalist, nationally that is, and that is Ron Paul. Love him or hate him he follows the Constitution. Everyone else to my knowledge falls into the authoritarian category. Some seek control, they seek power, some actually believe the things they propose serve the purpose of the greater good although going beyond the bounds of the Constitution will never result in good and just sets precedence for more authoritarian policies. Always remember that often times the greatest evils result from attempts to achieve the greatest good.

We so often define a person politically by what they believe on the issues they espouse and we care about...but what are we comparing them to? We are comparing them to what a person tells us is a certain political label according to their beliefs, we are allowing ourselves to be manipulated by people who are rhetorically not only drawing the lines of politics but are creating them out of nothing but the corner regions of their minds from preconceived notions of times gone by and yet to come. We should be comparing these views and beliefs to the Constitution and anything wavering from a strict interpretation of the Constitution is an authoritarian view and anything absolutely against the Constitution is an anarchist view. The only way to have a free and prosperous society, to be economically healthy, politically active, morally astute, and mentally competent is to follow the Constitution. Granted this isn’t always the case when people are allowed to be free but it’s never the case when people are forced to conform. My recommendation to you is 1 Read the Constitution if you haven’t already, study it and learn it, 2 evaluate any person running for office based solely on their words and action compared to this document, and 3 If they fail to comply remove them as a possibility for office because if they’ve already been elected to office and violate the Constitution they are at the least liars having broken a solemn oath and if they advocate things that violate the Constitution then they are criminals telling you they are going to violate not only their oath but our laws.

I will forever stand with Patrick Henry whose have wrung throughout the halls of time since they were first uttered in opposition to tyranny –“Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

--**A GOOD PLACE TO START...RON PAUL**--

The Fairness doctrine

People, whether pro or con, miss the point of the fairness doctrine. The "fairness docrtine" although billed with the fact it grants you the right to hear both side and while it may not violate rights as of yet, it turns over power of ideas to the government. It grants government the authority to say what we are allowed to hear and logically that also gives them the ability to tell us what we are not allowed to hear, or see. Its an attack on essentially the only freedom we have when all else are gone, that of thought, of ideas, of belief. This is an extrodinary amount of power the government believes it has over the populace when there is nothing to justify this belief short of tyranny and tyranny is never justified. This is just further insolance on behalf of government officals in regards to the Constitution. Always remember the more congress acts the less freedom we have.

Liberty

Government exsists for two reasons and two reasons alone: to protect liberty from invading forces seeking to impose their will upon you, and, more importantly, to protect you from inward forces trying to violate your rights. The only problem is that in our day and age government has become the main catalyst of the latter seeking to "grant" rights those men who run it believe you should have as opposed to being the gaurdian of the rights granted to us by God. This is nothing short of tyranny. Individuals imposing their ideas about your personal life is social tyranny and imposing ideas of use of property is economic tyranny. You see this nation is suppost to be a nation of laws not of men with the head of the law being the Constitution of the United States. The reason for this is that men will always fail and when you instill men with enough power over other men most will succomb to power lust and seize all they can. This is why kings become tyrants. The Constitution is the only law by which the federal government is suppose to function under. This is why every person who is elected to a nationally held public office swears and oath the defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States against enemies both foreign and DOMESTIC. Of course most of them are the enemies of the Constitution ignoring it or manipulating it with the exception of Ron Paul. But we are to blame because we choose our leaders. Lord Acton once said, "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutly." And to this another person once quiped, "Power corrupts the few, while weakness corrupts the many." We've alowed weakness to corrupt us and we continue to make ourselves weaker by sacrificing more and more of our power, that of liberty, to our servants, politicians, and its all in the name of and imaginary thing we call security. True security cannot and will never exsist. Anything a man can conceive to secure something another man can devise a way around it. So we are now in the process of trading rights, which are tangible and concreate, for security which is not; we are trading the real for the imaginary, a vision...for an illusion.

It is a travesty of the highest order that our founding fathers, in the
Constitution of the United States, laid out the few but important
responsibilites of the federal government. Of those few, as Article IV
section 4 states, "The United States shall guarantee to every state in
this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of
them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the
executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic
violence." So as the government ignores this one fundamental concept of
not only our country but that is a key to every country we waste
billions on "programs" that arent legal according to the Contitution, which, in
case you forgot you basic principles of government, is the law of the
land. I propose we vehemently oppose any act or legislation that
caters to ILLEGAL immigrants in anyway. We must close our boarders and protect
them in anyway necessary. In a state of irony most disgusting we
protect the boarders of foreign countries and yet fail to protect our own. This
is an issue an American has to address, not a politician, but unfortunatly this is not in our forseeable future.