This Just Announced!
The director of the Institute For Principled Policy and the CEO of Principled Consulting, LLC Barry Sheets will be teaching a session at the 2010 Freedom Action Conference on the subject of “Running a Grassroots Political Campaign on a Shoestring.”
This is just one of the many sessions that will be held at Valley Forge. DON’T MISS IT! Follow the links to FreedomActionConference.com, and register for the conference today to get the Early Bird registration discount.
Are you looking for a chance to network with other freedom activists? Are you looking for answers to questions on a wide-range of liberty issues? Do you want to meet, converse, pick the brains of, and mingle with experts in those widely diverse areas where the battles for the return of liberty are being hotly contested?
Then you need to register for and attend the 2010 Freedom Action Conference in Valley Forge Pennsylvania on August 12, 13, 14, 2010.
So who are these experts, anyway?
Well, how about Dr. Thomas Woods, author of the new bestseller Nullification? How about William Jasper, editor of The New American magazine? How about Sheriff Mack, an expert on the rights, responsibilities and power of the local Sheriff? An important topic in the era of a revival of thinking about the 10th amendment, no?
The Institute For Principled Policy is a co-sponsor of the 2010 Freedom Action Conference and at least one of our board members, Chuck Michaelis, Vice-chairman of the institute and the Director of Camp American, will be joining with Larry Greenley of the John Birch Society to discuss the dangers of calling a new constitutional convention.
There are several GREAT options for registration.
Full conference registration is $270/$480 per person/couple and includes meals, breaks and a 1-year subscription to the DeWeese Report
There is a “Diet Plan” that DOES NOT include meals that costs $100 (you get banquet attendance but no meal or drink)
For students there is a $40 registration that DOES NOT include meals (student ID required)
There is a single day registration for any single day of the conference that DOES NOT include meals for $50
There is a banquet only registration that is $105
There is a registration for the reception for Tom Woods that is $20
There is also registration for display tables (includes full registration for 2) for $350
Please join us for what may well be THE most important conference of the year-
April 27, 2010
By Tom DeWeese
In December, 2008, my American Policy Center (APC) led a fight to stop Ohio from becoming the 33rd state to call for a Constitutional Convention (Con Con) (The Institute For Principled Policy was the first to discover the joint resolution calling for the Con Con and alerted other allied groups including APC- ed). In the 1980’s 32 other states had passed Con Con resolutions for the specific purpose of passing a balanced budget amendment. Had that resolution passed the Ohio legislature, we would have been just one state away from such an event. We argued then that one cannot call a Con Con to discuss just one issue. Once a Con Con is in place, there is no controlling the agenda.
We fought to stop the Con Con because of fear. Today there is massive ignorance among the American people about the Constitution. Worse, there are powerful forces who consider that document to be antiquated and a hindrance to their vision of an all powerful government. These things, and more, make today the worst possible time in our nation’s history to mess with the greatest governing document of all time.
We stopped the effort in 2008, but the battle is on again as an even more determined plan is under way to gather support from the nation’s governors and state legislatures to pass Con Con resolutions. Again, this is not the work of wild-eyed leftists intending to gut the Bill of Rights. This is an effort by conservative legislators who are alarmed by the growing power of government.
The new plan making its rounds in state capitals is much more ambitious than the 2008 Ohio resolution to simply discuss a balanced budget. Now an entire package of ten amendments to the Constitution is being proposed and promoted to state legislatures through a powerful and well funded campaign.
The main groups pushing for a Con Con are the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a conservative association of state legislators; and a new group calling itself the 10 Amendments for Freedom, Inc, chaired by William Fruth, President of POLICOM Corporation, which provides independent economics research
While ALEC is working behind the scenes to build support for a Con Con among state legislators, Fruth and his 10 Amendments for Freedom group has moved into the public eye to sell the Con Con idea to mainstream America. In March, Fruth kicked off his campaign by mailing out a slick, expensive package to conservative leaders and to over 7,000 state legislators. The package contained a book written by Fruth entitled “10 Amendments for Freedom.â€
In the book, Fruth lays out an argument for the need for, not just a balanced budget amendment, but a total package of 10 Amendments to the Constitution including, the balanced budget; repay the national debt in 50 years; government transparency; line item veto; term limits for Congress; control illegal immigration; English-speaking nation; no foreign law shall bind us; government restraint (preventing the Federal Government from growth beyond constitutional powers; and finally, an amendment declaring “in God we trust.†Of course, there is no doubt that these amendments have great appeal for most conservatives, answering their growing frustration and fear of government expansion.
Arguing that Congress “will not likely take any action to cause the 10 Amendments for Freedom to become law of the land,†Fruth calls for all ten amendments to be packaged by state legislatures to be passed in a resolution calling for a Constitutional Convention. His package would include specific instructions to Congress as to how the delegates would be selected and outlining rules that would be enforced to assure only the ten amendments would be voted on.
Arguing the advantages of the Con Con, Fruth says, “Can you imagine the excitement in the nation leading up to the Convention? Schools will have to dust off history books which teach how our nation was founded. Many people for the first time will read the Constitution. The issue will be discussed at length, exposing what happened to our country over the years.â€
Fruth then scoffs at our fears of a Con Con and efforts to stop it. He says, “Simply, it is not reasonable to assume there can be enough delegates sent to a convention who will propose amendments which ‘repeal the Bill of Rights’ or ‘legalize socialism.’ Even if they did, the amendments would never be ratified,†concludes Fruth.
Anticipating opposition to his scheme for a Con Con, Fruth says that those who opposed the effort in the 1980’s, to call for a Con Con for a balanced budget amendment, told the American people that the delegates at the convention can “change the Constitution any way they want.†Argues Fruth, “We know that is not true.â€Â He says, “it is both irresponsible and disingenuous for anyone to publicly say that the convention can change the Constitution.†And he says, “any recommended changes must be approved by three-fourths of the states.â€
These are the arguments now being presented to every single state legislator and Governor in the nation as Fruth and ALEC put on a full-court-press to call for a Constitutional Convention. While the intention may be an honest desire to reign in the power of government, the fact remains that every one of these arguments for a Con Con is wrong.
The fact is, once 34 states petition Congress to convene a Constitutional Convention, the matter is completely out of the States’ hands. There is absolutely no ability to control what the delegates do in the convention. Attempting to instruct delegates to discuss only a specific issue like a balanced budget – or the whole package offered by the 10 Amendments for Freedom group — is absolutely impossible. Instead, once the convention starts, the delegates become super delegates which can take any action they desire concerning the Constitution. In short, at the convention the Constitution can be literally put on an operating table and the delegates can take a “scalpel†(pen) to it and change any section or even the entire document if they desire.
What proof do I offer? Here are the exact words of Article V of the Constitution: “…on the application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, (Congress) shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which…shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States.â€
Article V gives absolutely no guidelines as to how it will be run, how delegates can be selected and who can do the selecting. Once the 34 states make the request, the entire matter is in the hands of Congress to decide. It does not matter if the states passed resolutions as Fruth proposes, containing absolute guidelines for delegate selection. The Constitution provides no rules – it is up to Congress to decide how delegates are selected and what qualifications they will have. The guidelines proposed by Fruth carry absolutely no weight in the final process – even if every state passes the exact same resolution including those rules. Again, Article V simply says that when 34 states have called for a Con Con the Congress “shall call a Convention…†Period.
And there is more legal proof in support of the argument that delegates are not bound by any instructions or resolutions from the states.
First, of course, is the famous letter written by former Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger to Phyllis Schlafly, President of Eagle Forum. In the letter Burger writes, “…there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the convention would obey. After a convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the convention if we don’t like its agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the confederated Congress…â€
And there is more legal documentation proving that Congress or the states can control the agenda of a Con Con. Corpus Jurus Secundum is a compilation of State Supreme Court findings. The following is the collection of findings regarding the unlimited power of the delegates attending a Con Con. (From Corpus Jurus Secundum 16 C.J.S. 9) “The members of a Constitutional Convention are the direct representatives of the people (1) and, as such, they may exercise all sovereign powers that are vesting in the people of the state. (2) They derive their powers, not from the legislature, but from the people: (3) And, hence, their power may not in any respect be limited or restrained by the legislature. Under this view, it is a Legislative Body of the Highest Order (4) and may not only frame, but may also enact and promulgate, Constitution. (5)†The footnote numbers after the citation quoted reference the particular cases from which the citations were made. (1) Mississippi (1892) Sproule v Fredericks (11 So. 472); (2) Iowa (1883) Koehler v Hill (14N.W. 738); (3) West Virginia (1873) Loomis v Jackson (6 W. Va. 613); (4) Oklahoma (1907) Frantz v Autry (91 p. 193); (5) Texas (1912) Cox v Robison (150 S.W. 1149).
Clearly, the position put forth by Fruth, and ALEC, that state legislatures can pass a resolution dictating the rules of the Con Con is simply wrong.
Delegate selection is another dangerous trap waiting to spring. Again, Article V provides no guidelines. The process is left for Congress to decide. That means the current Congress could control the entire delegate selection. Under the rules that Congress could set, States may not even be represented. If the states are allowed to choose delegates, then what would be the method? Again, Congress will decide. Will the governor or the state legislature appoint delegates? Or could it be a bicameral panel or blue ribbon commission?
Or could it be a plebiscite – a vote of the people? If so, then who would be eligible to vote? Would it be all eligible voters? Or taxpayers only? Or would we possibly, in the interest of “enfranchisement,†allow all citizens, and potentially foreign nationals (illegal immigrants) to vote for this “special election?†There are no guidelines and anything is possible.
And what would be the qualifications to be a delegate? Would it be exclusively lawyers? A mix of professionals? So-called “proportional representation†of all special interest groups – NGO’s? Will some be excluded because of “extreme†convictions? Of course, according to the Federal Department of Homeland Security, “extreme convictions†includes those who want to protect the Constitution. So, what will the criteria for eligible delegates be? All of these choices would be made by Congress – that same one now controlled by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
But again, none of that will matter, according to those calling for the Con Con. William Fruth argues that no matter what such a convention does, it still must be ratified by two-thirds of the states, making it very difficult to do bad things against the will of the people. A history lesson is in order.
There has been only one Constitutional Convention in the history of the nation – that was in 1787. At the time, the nation was held together by the Articles of Confederation. The states were having a difficult time performing commerce among themselves. So it was decided to hold a Constitutional Convention to simply discuss how interstate commerce might be better organized. As the delegates were selected, some delegations were given specific orders by their states to discuss nothing else beyond the commerce issue.
However, as soon as the delegates arrived at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, they closed and locked the door, pulled down the shades and met in secret for a month. When they were finished, they had created an entirely new nation. We were very lucky that the convention was attended by men like Ben Franklin and James Madison. They produced the most magnificent document ever devised for the governance of man.
Today, we have Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. These are the people who will decide the rules for the convention, including delegate selection. Keep in mind, these are the people who just managed to ram through a health “reform†bill that the overwhelming majority of Americans opposed. These are the same people who managed to pass the bailout package opposed (according to polls) by almost 80% of the American people.
Do you trust them to follow the rules dictated by state legislatures? Do you think Pelosi and Reid would pass up an opportunity to set their own rules to guarantee a Constitution to their liking? Do you think for one minute that they would take any steps to protect our Constitution? We live in an era when the Supreme Court looks to foreign laws to assure our own laws are worthy. We live in an era when many believe that the Constitution is out of date for our times. Barack Obama has expressed his belief that the U.S. Constitution needs to be interpreted through the lens of current events. Pelosi and her cohorts are itching to get their hands on the old parchment. And as history has shown, once a Con Con is called, delegates (picked though a Pelosi process) can do anything they want to it, including writing a completely new document.
And there is more. Concerning the argument that no matter what the delegates produce, the states still must ratify it – thus serving as a safeguard to tomfoolery, consider this fact: The Articles of Confederation required that any changes be ratified by 100% of the states. That was the document that was the law of the land – until something else was put into place. But, when the new Constitution was put to the states for a vote of ratification, suddenly they needed only two-thirds to approve it. Why? The fact is, Article V of the new Constitution was used – even before the Constitution which contained it was approved. Now, what do you think Reid and Pelosi and company would do with that precedent? What if the new document produced by the Con Con said ratification only required a vote of Congress – or some special commission? The precedent of 1787 says that could happen. So much for protection by the states.
And rather than an excitement in the nation with a rebirth of study of the Constitution, as Furth envisions, there would in fact be a long, hard, ugly and expensive battle over the process, guaranteed to leave the nation split along ideological lines. It’s not difficult to envision civil unrest, riots or even civil war as a result of any re-writing of the current Constitution.
These are the reasons why I, and many others around the nation, adamantly oppose a Constitutional Convention at this time. We fear a Con Con because the subject matter cannot be controlled. And if the worst happens, there is no guarantee that we can stop ratification. There has never been a worse time in the nation’s history to consider changing this grand document. The Con Con delegates could literally put the Constitution on an operating table and use their scalpels to slice it up, creating an entirely new form of government. That new document, as precedence has shown, could be enforced without ratification by the states. Remember, our current Constitution was not ratified by the rules set forth in the Articles of Confederation, but by an Article V that wasn’t yet law of the land. Now that the precedence is there, it can happen again. The Pelosi’s of the nation, proven to have the power and the will to twist any issue or initiative as they desire, are rubbing their hands together at the prospect of a Con Con.
No doubt there is great need for several of the amendments Fruth and his group propose. But he seems to ignore the fact that there is a powerful, organized opposition. Again, I call your attention to the continuing battle over health care. That’s child’s play compared to what will happen in a Con Con. Do Americans really want to risk that in these uncertain times? Every freedom-loving American must stand up against this misguided call for a Con Con. Tell your state legislators NO.
Reprinted by permission of Tom DeWeese
Tom DeWeese is the President of the American Policy Center and the Editor of The DeWeese Report. The DeWeese Report is now available online, for more information click here.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
This was too good to let pass. Though we have not been able to verify whether or not this is real, it is difficult to argue with the sentiment.
In an age where parents are scrambling to avoid their responsibility to properly educate their children and are willing to pay thousands of dollars per year to get others to do it for them, there are still some refreshing responses from educators that indicate that the teachers and administrators “get it” even if the parents don’t.
Unfortunately, this attitude has not yet penetrated the thinking of the majority of educators in the United States. But if Australian teachers have gotten it can we be far behind?
Enjoy!
Can you answer “yes” to any of the following questions:
1. Are you frustrated with the absence of principled leadership in politics?
2. Are you fed up with elected officials who talk the talk, but refuse to walk their talk?
3. Have you grown weary of being handed candidates by political parties who are “electable” instead of principled?
4. Would you like to have elected officials who adhere to our country’s founding philosophy (ie: who adhere to the Constitution)?
5. Are you willing to stand up and run for office yourself or become someone who can effectively “hold up the arms” of someone who will?
If you answered “yes” to any of these, then the training school that is being put on by Citizens for Community Values in Cincinnati on January 14 and 15 is something you just can’t afford to miss.
This candidate training school will be held at the Courtyard Marriott hotel at the Greater Cincinnati airport on Thursday, January 14 and Friday, January 15. Nationally recognized trainers will be putting on this intense campaign training, and it is being provided for free!
This training is not just for candidates and their campaign staff members, but as well as for potential candidates, leaders in politics and the culture, and for grassroots activists and volunteers who want to begin the process of bringing real hope and change to our country.
Check here for more information and for how to register, but be quick, registrations received before January 8th will receive a special “Campaign Jumpstart Toolkit” with materials that will help potential candidates to create a winning edge. Some of the board of the Institute for Principled Policy will be attending, and we hope to see many of you there as well.
This author has been teaching an adult Sunday school class on God and Government (using Gary DeMar’s book of the same name as a guide) at his church. Class members (who are currently viewing David Barton’s The Keys to Good Government) are being convicted of the necessity to examine not just the public lives of those who want to be stewards in high office but to also examine their private lives, as well. They are seeing, some for the first time, that private character matters in the behavior of public officials.And some are awakening to the necessity of electing men who are not just Christian but actually apply their faith to all of their life, including their exercise of duty while in office.
You may think this means a position advocating hiring private detectives to look in bedroom windows and such. You would be wrong. What is being advocated is the examination of the fruit of the faith of candidates and office holders. Many are shocked to learn that the word that is translated as “minister” in some versions (“servant” in some others) is a title used for both civil authority and ecclesiastical authority strongly implying that the admonitions for office holders of Exodus 18 and 1Timothy 3 apply to both offices. The Timothy passages tell us to look to the way a man conducts his family business as an indicator for whether he is capable of handling higher office. That is because how a man manages his family is an indicator of how well a man disciplines himself and maintains his relationship to God. This follows from the idea that a man faithful to God is a man who applies his faith to the management of his family and will also do in the management of his duties that come with higher office, whether civil or ecclesiastical.
Sadly, a man’s faith in God is no longer a guarantee that his family, business or duties of higher office will be handled in a godly manner. Modern pietistic Christianity has bought into the secular humanist argument (made popular by Col. Robert Ingersoll a militantly anti-Christian crusader of the 19th century) that a man’s life can be compartmentalized into separate spiritual and worldly spheres of influence. Thus, a man can be a pillar of his church and completely corrupt in the conduct of his personal and business affairs and his duties of higher office.
If you have paid any attention to recent Supreme court justice confirmation hearings, you will have heard nominees questioned about their faith. To a man, these nominees have declared that they were men of faith and, astonishingly, that their faith would have absolutely no bearing on any decision they would make from the bench. Frankly, a man who can compartmentalize his faith to this degree is far more frightening than a man who applies his faith to all aspects of his life as the foundational operating philosophy. That man’s decisions will be predictable based on a knowledge of the law that emanates from his faith. A man who does not apply his faith as a governing philosophy will be like a philosophical nomad traveling from place to place in search of a temporarily green place to nurture his philosophical flock. This seems fine until one day everyone discovers that all of the ground the nomad traveled has been made barren through his abuse of it. Think in terms of modern Supreme court decisions where justices turn every which way, examining European law for example, searching for legal philosophy on which to base decisions when all they need do is apply biblical case law as courts have done since their inception here in the early 17th century.
As part of the Sunday school class, this author made the observation that not only was the average Christian compartmentalizing his faith when choosing candidates for higher office, but that so-called Christian leadership, who should, theoretically, know better, actively participate in making it more difficult to discern which candidates for civil office are worthy of the Christian vote. One of the things I had in mind (though not by a long-shot the only thing) were the things I saw and heard at the recent WRFD town hall meeting.
Several members of the Institute for Principled Policy’s governing board were audience participants at the town hall meeting and we were there from about 2:30 pm for the pre-show until about 5:00 pm. At the outset it should be made clear that the host of the program, Pastor Bob Burney, did his best to make the town hall meeting what he promised it would be; open and informative. How do I know this? The format of the meeting was that the participants would write questions out on a pre-printed form and submit them to one of the programs producers or one of the floor volunteers. They were reviewed for things like language and coherence (I presume) and then handed to Pastor Burney.
It is this writer’s opinion that Pastor Burney is a Christian who is not afraid to ask tough questions of political candidates to ferret out their positions on issues. This is because he read a question that this writer had submitted to find where John Kasich, candidate for Governor, stood on the second amendment. He didn’t change the wording, or soften the question in any way. Why so sure? This writer wrote the question. It read approximately like this-
Keeping the phrase from the 2nd amendment…”shall not be infringed…” in mind- how can a law that prohibits the ownership of a gun on the basis of caliber, firing rate, magazine size or stock configuration not be an infringement? If you agree that it is an infringement then please explain your vote to restrict my ownership of guns on this basis as a congressman
Sad to say, this question was read during a news break and so the radio audience never heard it. But the studio audience did. And they also heard the 2-3 minute long answer which completely failed to address the specifics of the question. The audience present heard Kasich declaim using phrases taken directly from the politician’s rhetorical cliche handbook. Things like “I agree with the NRA (National Rifle Assoc.) more than I do my wife” and “I own a gun.” They also heard Kasich imply that he the had NRA’s endorsement. He doesn’t.
Why does all of this matter? Why should a Christian care one way or another about a candidate’s votes in Congress? After all, Kasich has a “conservative” reputation and his wife and children were there with him, he has his kids in Christian school, doesn’t he? That’s a great question because it aims right at the heart of the issue of how Christians are supposed to evaluate candidates for office. And the sad fact is that Christians have been misled by those in leadership to think about candidate evaluation in completely the wrong context.
Look again at the rationalizations listed above. In every instance they are based on outward appearances. Yes, Kasich is nominally “conservative.” But that word can be defined in many ways by many different people and groups who award that title. One group’s conservative vote might be another’s progressive vote in Congress. The standards are variable. In fact, by a constitutionalist’s (defined as someone who subscribes to a strict literal interpretation of the meaning of the US Constitution) standard Kasich is conservative to moderate on economics (OK on taxes, flawed on spending) with a moderate progressive streak on social issues. In short he is a so-called “big government” conservative. That’s why the second amendment question quoted above is of vital importance.
How so? In order to understand we must look at what it means to be a representative. All government structures of God have certain characteristics. They are both representative and covenantal. Governments of all jurisdictions self, family, civil, church) are representative in two directions. The chosen representative represents the authority of God to those within his jurisdiction and those people in his jurisdiction back to God. With that in mind, it is easy to see that a people who despise God will seek poor representation who also despises God. In return as a judgment God will give them the poor representation of and to Himself that they ask for and deserve.
So what is the covenant aspect and why does it matter to civil government? A covenant is a contract. According to a biblical view of government, it is a contract in which God is a party to the contract as both the initiator and arbiter of the contract. God gives the parties to the covenant a choice. Obey the stipulations of the covenant and see earthly and eternal rewards or disobey them and receive earthly and eternal punishment. There is no negotiating the terms of such a contract and neither is there an opt-out. Believers or not, human beings are subject to the terms of the covenant. The covenant applies to all aspects of life including the political.
You might be thinking “I thought there was a separation of church and state, so how can God be involved in government?” Yes, indeed there is a separation of church and state in terms of jurisdictions (spheres of authority). The state is forbidden by God from engaging in or interfering with the jurisdiction reserved to His church. Likewise the church’s jurisdiction is to act in an advisory capacity to government secondarily. Primarily, the church’s responsibility is to teach the tenets of the Christian faith and how to apply those principles to every facet of their lives to believers . That includes the choosing of and acting as good godly representatives as described above. Hence, the secondary responsibility to act as an advisor to godly representatives in a teaching capacity.
Now to why the second amendment question is so important. When John Kasich and Ted Strickland were elected to Congress, and this goes for all Federal representatives, they swore an oath before God to “…uphold, defend and protect the Constitution of the United States of America…” Kasich violated that oath when he voted to give the federal government an authority that the highest law of the land denied to it. The authority to ban the sale of guns for any reason or in other words infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. That makes him a willful covenant breaker.
Now, Kasich could have made an effort to repair his reputation as a covenant breaker by explaining that his bad votes had been mistakes and that he now regretted them on the basis of principles that he did not understand at the time. He made no effort to do so and instead chose to attempt to defend his votes and when it became clear that none of his attempts to side step the question were satisfactory he said simply “It is what it is.” That spoke volumes. He broke his covenant without remorse. To a Christian who has a consistent worldview, this made him someone who could not be eligible to be a representative in civil authority.
While Pastor Burney was as faithful to his promise as possible there were other participants that were not so faithful. The questioning noted above took place before the late arrival of Chris Long of Ohio Christian Alliance. This author had submitted several questions of a similar nature to the one above. All of them designed to determine where the candidate answering the question stood as regards the keeping of his or her oaths before God to “…uphold, defend and protect the Constitution of the United States of America…” All of them were very specific questions about parts of the Constitution very relevant to issues of the day.
After Mr. Long’s arrival the facilitation of the meeting was immediately transferred to his control and its nature instantly changed. Instead of allowing tough questions which were designed to get at the core principles of the candidates it became obvious that questions were being screened to protect candidates from hard ball questions. In fact, this writer watched from the front row just in front of the podium where the hosts and guests were seated as Mr. Long sorted audience questions, removing those presumably deemed inappropriate and handing the remaining soft ball questions to Pastor Burney to use.
You might be asking why this would be in light of what has been explained above. But if you think about this for just a minute you might see what’s happening here. It has already been discussed earlier in this posting. It is the habit Christians have allowed themselves to fall into of considering only the outward appearances of faith in looking for a candidate. And many Christian leaders have allowed themselves to be co-opted by a political party. This is nothing new. The Democratic Party co-opted liberal churches and leaders very early in the twentieth century. Conservative evangelicals, on the other hand, tended to avoid politics altogether during the period from about 1925 until the presidential election of 1976 when many of the were persuaded by Christian leaders to vote for a self-proclaimed “born-again Christian-” Jimmy Carter. Most conservative evangelicals found the policies of the Carter administration completely unpalatable, not to mention decidedly un-Christian and this disaffected new voting bloc was easily convinced to join the Reagan coalition inside the Republican Party. Christian leaders became aware that they had been the deciding factor in the Republican party in both keeping George Bush from getting the Republican nomination (something they had obviously forgotten by 1988 and a fact that was a harbinger of future events with unpleasant consequences) and in delivering the White House to Reagan in 1980. They then began to try to leverage their power inside the Republican party to get some of the social and economic legislation that they believed the nation needed. In the process, many Christian leaders became Republicans first and Christians second. This culminated in the disastrous first and second Bush administrations.
With this short history in mind we have to ask ourselves why Christians continue to allow themselves to be used and, yes, seduced into supporting nominal and pseudo-Christian candidates by a political party which ignores, insults and does their level best to make sure that Christians stay home for primaries but insists they show their loyalty to the party and vote for candidates whose policies are repugnant to them in general elections. We also have to wonder how Christian leaders have come to the conclusion that they must either support and even work to protect exclusively Republican candidates who are openly covenant breakers.
The answer lies in simply denying that they are indeed covenant breakers. The best way to do that is by maintaining a state of plausible deniability. If you never ask the tough questions you can easily deny knowledge that the candidate in question’s policies are in conflict with his oath of office. Sadly, this doesn’t often stop Christians from defending these candidates when their shortcomings are made public. Many will stop at almost nothing to protect their chosen candidates because they are nominally Christian (outwardly) and have the added ability to win elections. Winning with a nominal Christian candidate who may be an oath breaker has become more important than providing a candidate with a consistent Christian worldview who could be a true oath honoring representative. Earthly power beats godly covenant. Not hardly.
May you and yours have a blessed Thanksgiving celebration, from the Board and staff of the Institute for Principled Policy!
“The Holy God having by a long and Continual Series of his Afflictive dispensations in and by the present Warr with the Heathen Natives of this land, written and brought to pass bitter things against his own Covenant people in this wilderness, yet so that we evidently discern that in the midst of his judgements he hath remembered mercy, having remembered his Footstool in the day of his sore displeasure against us for our sins, with many singular Intimations of his Fatherly Compassion, and regard; reserving many of our Towns from Desolation Threatened, and attempted by the Enemy, and giving us especially of late with many of our Confederates many signal Advantages against them, without such Disadvantage to ourselves as formerly we have been sensible of, if it be the Lord’s mercy that we are not consumed,
It certainly bespeaks our positive Thankfulness, when our Enemies are in any measure disappointed or destroyed; and fearing the Lord should take notice under so many Intimations of his returning mercy, we should be found an Insensible people, as not standing before Him with Thanksgiving, as well as lading him with our Complaints in the time of pressing Afflictions:
The Council has thought meet to appoint and set apart the 29th day of this instant June, as a day of Solemn Thanksgiving and praise to God for such his Goodness and Favour, many Particulars of which mercy might be Instanced, but we doubt not those who are sensible of God’s Afflictions, have been as diligent to espy him returning to us; and that the Lord may behold us as a People offering Praise and thereby glorifying Him; the Council doth commend it to the Respective Ministers, Elders and people of this Jurisdiction; Solemnly and seriously to keep the same Beseeching that being perswaded by the mercies of God we may all, even this whole people offer up our bodies and soulds as a living and acceptable Service unto God by Jesus Christ.”
On June 20, 1676, the governing council of Charlestown, Massachusetts, held a meeting to determine how best to express thanks for the good fortune that had seen their community securely established. By unamimous vote they instructed Edward Rawson, the clerk, to proclaim June 29 as a day of thanksgiving, our first. That proclamation is reproduced here in the same language and spelling as the original.
Prepared by Gerald Murphy (The Cleveland Free-Net – aa300) Distributed by the Cybercasting Services Division of the National Public Telecomputing Network (NPTN).
One of the effects of the downturn in the economy is the decrease in divorces. From 2007-2008 there were 300 fewer divorces in Cuyahoga County (Cleveland). It’s also been hypothesized that this occurs because the financial challenges presented to families force them to converse more and possibly helps them to restore communication and trust. Should we look to see the divorce rate rise as the economy rebounds? If so, does this mean that we should pray for a greater economic recession and failure so that families might be saved? Oh well, never mind. I suspect that Congress will remove this option from us. I’ve just heard that they are proposing a bill that would bail out the divorce lawyers who are suffering the loss of business, so that couples who want a divorce but who cannot economically afford one can get the needed divorce. After all, we all know that there is a right to divorce. Pardon my sarcasm.
I want to commend my Democratic congressman, John Boccieri. He voted his conscience, not the party line in voting against the “Pelosi†Health Care Bill. Afterwards, his public comment was that it was too expensive to support. I agree, though there are many more problems than that, including the fact that philosophically it moves the United States closer and closer to a socialist and authoritarian governmental structure. The question this expense rationale presents, however, for Congressman Boccieri is this: How can the Health Care Bill be considered too costly or too expensive when you voted for the Cap and Trade Bill? Why wasn’t the Cap and Trade Bill also considered too expensive for you?
I blame the educational system of America for the current crisis in the health care debate. The American people cannot recognize socialism when they see it. Prior to the 2008 election I wrote that Obama is a socialist, but with his support for the banking bailout McCain proved himself to lean in that direction as well. More and more I hear people regurgitating the theme that capitalism is the cause of the economic problems. If people knew history, they would know that this is an echo of Karl Marx. Educated people know that socialism is absolutely devastating to a culture.
The other night I was lecturing to a class about postmodernism and the class was reading Os Guinness’ book Time for Truth. The book has on its cover the unforgettable picture of the young man boldly confronting the row of military tanks in Tiananmen Square. As I was pointing out the picture one of the young men in my college class said to me, “I was born on that day.â€Â And it immediately struck me how important it is to teach our young people an accurate understanding of history. They don’t know what happened in Tiananmen Square, they don’t know Viet Nam, and many of us have forgotten how tens of millions were murdered, executed and destroyed by the Socialist regimes of Mao, the Soviets especially under Stalin, and the Nazis. Socialism inevitably leads to conformity, intolerance, and totalitarianism. History unquestioningly confirms this.
Speaking of freedom, this week we celebrated the twentieth anniversary of the dismantling of the Berlin Wall separating Germans, Berliners, and families from one another. It’s still hard to fathom and I’ve walked through Checkpoint Charlie. Ask the young people you know whether they know why the Wall was constructed and see what they say.  In most cases they do not. They have not been taught that it was built not to keep people out, but to keep people in, to keep people from freedom, to keep them from escaping to freedom. This is socialism. This will be the consequence of the health care bill and is the same philosophy which says that those who do not have health insurance will be arrested and either jailed or fined as the already passed congressional health bill proposes
It’s levy season once again. The time when school boards attempt to defraud taxpayers into voting themselves massive tax increases on the basis of the impending collapse of western civilization if the latest combination of renewal, replacement and new millages are not passed. The terminology of these appeals to emotion are deliberately misleading and/or deceptive.
What exactly happens to my taxes with a renewal that includes “no new taxes” and why do my taxes increase anyway when the renewal passes? Why do my taxes increase when the replacement levy was sold as a decrease in my old millage? Will this levy ever expire?
Have you ever asked these questions and been completely stumped by the rhetoric from the school officials and the news media who have closed ranks with school officials in an attempt to make sure levies pass?
This spring we ran a series called Tax and Spin- Undersanding Property Tax Levies. It is an attempt to unravel the mystery of property tax levies and explain why what looks like a decrease in rate actually causes an increase in taxes.
Don’t continue to be fooled. Read the series. This post will be a “sticky” until the election. New articles will post below it.
Most grassroots movements have the same fundamental parts to them, with the tea party movement being a notable exception. Understanding those parts will help activists and candidates to generate and sustain momentum and support for your issue.
Chris Faulkner from Faulkner Strategies discussed the keys to a grassroots movement. You have to have ‘The “IT”‘, ie. the key root basis of your movement: the idea, issue or value(s) that define your movement, identified clearly and succintly. Think abortion for the pro-life movement, war opposition for both the Dean campaigns and the Paul campaigns, etc.
You also have to have “The ‘Host'”, the person or group that becomes the avatar and carries the “IT”. Most “hosts” have been too weak to carry the “It” effectively (think Howard Dean) but sometimes a “host” is strong enough to carry the “It” (think Barack Obama carrying the “Move ON” idea).
The “Host” can’t do it alone; in come the “Evangelists”: those who are opinionated, well-informed, and more interested in the “It” than in the “Host”. These folks are the ones who really drive and make the movement happen and catch fire. Sometimes they may be “sneezers” who push information out (think bloggers, talk radio, etc.). Next you need the “medium” of how the message is going to be delivered. In our Founding era, it was Committees of Correspondence and the Federalist Papers; today it is the Internet and social media.
All of this is focused on getting the message, and the momentum, to the “Crowd”, ie. everyone else. The Tea Parties seem to have found a way to effectively do this and also bypass the need for a “Host”, thus decreasing the likelihood of a personality eclipsing the message or turning off those who otherwise could and should be part of the movement.
Maybe the conservative movement can learn some lessons. The time is now, and the resources are available.