Posted By R. George Dunn to Northern Light at 12/25/2009 11:40:00 AM
A group of ordinary citizens from Utah shocked the political world last year by defeating a six-term incumbent and replacing him with a fiscally conservative candidate who was outspent six to one by his challenger. Now they are taking their model nationally with chapters in 45 states, including Colorado. Fed up with politics as usual, these citizens founded the Independence Caucus to replace politicians financed by special interests with fiscally responsible candidates who support Constitutional principles.
During the 2008 Utah Republican primary election, the Independence Caucus targeted U.S. Representative Chris Cannon, a six-term incumbent who had endorsements from President Bush, both Utah senators, three newspapers, and the vast majority of the state GOP establishment. Their goal was to replace Cannon with Jason Chaffetz, a candidate with no significant endorsements and little money. With the grassroots help of 1,000 volunteers, Chaffetz was able to beat out Cannon during the Republican primary by a vote of 60% to 40%. He continued on to win the general election with 66% of the vote.
Riding this success, the organization has gone nationally and has sent requests to more than 1300 candidates to go through their vetting process. This process starts with a candidate filling out an 80-question form followed by an hour-long teleconference where members of the Independence Caucus are allowed to freely ask the candidates questions. The group established the questions based on the fundamental reforms the membership sees as critical in endorsing a candidate. These reforms include fixing the nation's budget problems and taxation policies and restoring the country back to Constitutional law and the Tenth Amendment.
The questionnaire is designed as a simple yes/no format so that candidates must openly state their knowledge of Constitutional law and fiscal responsibility, and whether or not they will pledge to these issues if elected...full article
In a 2008 radio interview, Barack Obama said:
" … the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties."
I tell you, life isn't fair. Why hasn't the Supreme Court ever ventured into the matter of "redistributive wealth?" And what in the world were the Founding Fathers thinking about when they failed to broach the subject?
Surely it was an oversight that they never addressed the issue of taking your assets and giving them to your neighbor. Or perhaps it's just an indication that George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and James Madison were cold, calloused individuals who enjoyed watching people suffer.
In the same interview, Chairman Obama went on to say that the Constitution "[says] what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted … and one of the … tragedies of the civil rights movement was … because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change."
Excuse me? Do on your behalf? Those stupid Founding Fathers again. They didn't even think to put in the Constitution what the government must do on your behalf. And what a tragedy it was that the civil rights movement didn't put together the coalition of powers that could bring about "redistributive change."
Forget the fact that the Constitution never mentions the redistribution of anything. After all, the debate is over: We all know that redistribution of wealth is the only moral way to operate a country, right?
America will go through a fundamental change in 2010 – guaranteed. Either it will be fundamentally transformed into a full-fledged socialist police state, then, ultimately, a communist police state, or those who still believe in freedom will do whatever it takes to overthrow the oligarchy that now rules over us.
If the Republicans, after winning back the House and Senate – or even coming close – continue to act like a branch of the Demopublican Party and ignore the Constitution, it most likely will bring into existence a third party (How about the Tea Party?) that would be the first such animal of the modern era that would have a legitimate shot at of winning the presidency in 2012.
(Column continues below)
| || |
But, as I have so often pointed out, the caveat is that the fascist president and Congress may very well find a Chavezian reason to declare a state of emergency and "postpone" the 2012 presidential election. Regardless of whether that emergency is a total collapse of the U.S. economy or a terrorist attack, don't be fooled. If it happens, it will be aplanned event by those who are now in power.
Via health care, cap and trade and other wildly unconstitutional measures, BHO and the criminal Congress will assure that the economy is many times worse off by next November's elections than it is now. The objective, of course, is to bring people to their knees so they will have "no other choice" but to look to benevolent government for help.
I believe that 20-25 percent unemployment is coming, more massive bailouts of companies "too big to fail," higher taxes, government controlled health care, cap and trade and, yes, jail time for those who do not obey the unconstitutional edicts of the criminal class in Washington.
Could I be wrong? Sure. I thought we'd have runaway inflation and a solidly entrenched police state by the mid '80s, but I underestimated the sheer power of Ronald Reagan's personality – not to mention the government's capacity to print fiat currency and borrow money.
Having said this, the only way that a "fundamentally transformed America" can be avoided is if:
1. Free elections are held in 2010
2. Conservative Republicans sweep into power
3. Said conservative Republicans immediately began to repeal all unconstitutional legislation – including government involvement in health care, welfare, regulation of the environment, government involvement in education … and so on.
In short, get rid of all government functions other than providing a legal system for arbitrating disputes, protecting the lives and property of citizens and providing for a national defense.
4. While all this is going on, those of us who are on the moral high road should be prepared to spend enormous amounts of time and energy educating the anesthetized, sports-crazy, entertainment-crazy, vacation-crazy masses about the wonders of the free market. We must put forth the effort to explain to them why liberty is the most valuable commodity they can ever possess. We must help them understand that liberty, not government handouts, gives them the best opportunity to achieve economic freedom.
The year 2010 will be like no other in American history. It is not just another Carter era of sheer stupidity and incompetence. This is the real thing. This is what progressives have been working toward since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. We are living through a major historical time that may very well shape the destiny of the human race for centuries to come – or bring about its final demise.
But cheer up – it's Christmas. Enjoy your family and the other things in your life that are dear to you. Then, refreshed, come back after the holiday prepared to do battle with the most corrupt government in U.S. history.