WhatFinger

Don't give America to the hard left liberal progressive commie bastard democrats because you can't find purity in the Republican Party

Extreme Conservatives in Search of Purity


By —— Bio and Archives--October 4, 2014

American Politics, News, Opinion | Comments | Print Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us

Extreme Conservatives in Search of Purity

A listener to my Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs program on KCAA AM1050, and regular reader of Political Pistachio, emails me often to challenge what he considers to be my oath to the Republican Party.  I have no oath to the GOP.  My oath is to God, and my political ideology is that of a Classical Centrist, which is someone that, without compromise, supports the original intent of the United States Constitution.

.

I wish, I have told Nathan, and a number of others that follow my efforts, that we could just flip a switch, and the United States would be back on constitutional footing.  However, it took us a couple centuries to get to the mess we are in, and I am figuring it may take the unrelenting efforts of a few generations to make a dent in the hard left wall of iron with which we are faced.  It will take a long, continuous effort, to send our country back to the original recipe it was governed under since the writing of the United States Constitution in 1787.

The Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia was a radical act in itself.  To be honest, the framers of the Constitution exceeded their mandate.  They tossed aside the rule of law to protect the rule of law, creating a masterpiece, by the hand of divine Providence, in the process.

We were already being governed under the Articles of Confederation.  The Articles, however, had proven to be a failure.  Fearing the expansion of an overwhelming central government, the patriots of the era surrounding the American Revolution kept the union, and the organization that governed over the loose-knit confederation, very weak, reserving all authorities to the States.  The squabbling States, under the Articles of Confederation, were required to come to a unanimous agreement to get something done, an impossibility in the founder’s search for pure State autonomy.  What was needed was a concept discussed by people like Polybius and Montesquieu, a mixed constitution, that took some characteristics of a national government, and mixed those ingredients with the best traits of a democracy, aristocracy, and a republic.  What they came up with was a Constitutional Republic that uses some democratic processes, giving the federal government strong authorities on some issues, while giving the federal government no authorities, or very weak authorities in some cases, regarding internal issues.

The judicial branch was supposed to be the weakest of the branches, and the 11th Amendment is evidence that the States and the Congress had the power to knock the court a few notches downward, if necessary.  The voice of the people through the House of Representatives, and the voice of the States through the Senate, were the strongest voices in Washington.  Congress was the strongest of the three branches.  The President was supposed to be the face of the nation to the international community, and the administrator and executor of the laws of the United States.  The courts were simply tasked with applying the law, regardless of their opinion of the laws, to the cases in which they heard.

As I go over in my book, “25 Myths of the United States Constitution,” we have been conditioned to believe otherwise.  Those that wish the federal government to be stronger, to control all issues, even the local issues that only belong to the States, have worked for over two centuries to change the system, to interpret the Constitution to mean things it was never intended to mean, and they have indoctrinated us to believe things that the framers never intended.

So how do we turn it around?

Culture drives politics, and politics drives culture.  In a culture where we have abandoned the set standard of morality by Nature’s God, abandoning the self-evident principles of Natural Law, how can we expect our politicians to follow the set standard of the Constitution?  We have created an example of pluralism, and they have responded in kind.  So, first, as citizens, we have to get our own house in order.

Meanwhile, we have to take what we can get, and make advances towards the Constitution when it is possible.  I am not saying we should compromise, or that we should be politically correct.  We need to recognize when we can win a battle, and then go after it when the opportunity presents itself.  We must also understand who we are up against.  They are liars, deceivers, and manipulators.  Darkness never reveals itself as darkness.  Darkness always first appears as an angel of light.

I demand purity, but I am willing to work with what I’ve got.  I hope for the best, and plan for the worst.  I fully expect a hybrid of what I want, mixed with a few things I don’t want.  But, as long as we step closer to the Constitution, I am good with it. . . even if they are small steps.

How do you eat an elephant?  One bite at a time.

Understanding all of this, the listener in Orlando, Nathan, has trouble with my philosophy.  He sees me as someone that is compromising.  Either we demand purity, he essentially tells me, or we walk away from the Republican Party and create our own, pure organization.

A couple of weeks ago,  he sent me a video of Mitt Romney interviewed by Jan Mickelson on WHO Radio in Iowa.  Jan pretty much nails it on his constitutional understanding, but Romney begins to argue with him, taking a “case law” position regarding the federal courts.

As I teach my students, if the federal courts have the power of judicial review, which is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution as being an authority, and was actually seized by the courts in a series of rulings, beginning with John Marshall’s Marbury v. Madison opinion in 1803, then the federal government has the authority to decide for itself what its own authorities are.  How is that in line with the limiting principles of the Constitution?

Then, Nathan got critical again, this time after hearing an interview of San Jacinto City Councilwoman Crystal Ruiz, who sat down with me at my live remote site at the San Jacinto AGFest at the Estudillo Mansion a week ago on Constitution Radio.  We talked, she asked a question, and made a few statements.

Nathan, in his subject line, called Crystal a robot of the Republican Party. . . just like Mitt Romney.

Here is my response to Nathan’s latest Email:

Crystal Ruiz is a rising star in the GOP. She is not perfect, and she recognizes that she does not understand the Constitution like she should. That is a part of the reason I have tucked her under my wing, and she attends many of the events that I am a part of. The unfortunate thing is your video of Romney does not show us that Romney is worse than the Democrats, like you try to portray, but like most Americans, be they democrats, republicans, independents, or those that are of some other ideological makeup, Romney has bought into the conditioning that we have been indoctrinated with our entire lives. Romney is typical. He is like most of the cockroaches out there. Therefore, my goal is not to crucify people like him, but to guide them back to where they should be. He doesn’t know what he doesn’t know.

The difference is that most republicans do not hate the Constitution, though they may not understand it. And when exposed to the truth, more often than not they respond in a good way. Most of them love the country, and though they have been misguided, usually their intentions are what they think is best for the country. Democrats, like Obama, abhor the principles of the Constitution because they hate anything that limits the expansion of government. Theirs is not a battle for what is best for the country, but for what is best for their agenda. When they learn the Constitution, if they are exposed to the truth, they react in a negative way because it only confirms what they already think. To them the Constitution, the rule of law, and the consent of the governed is an obstacle to their agenda. They believe they know better than you on how to run your life, and they know better than a bunch of ancient founding fathers who, in their minds, were just a bunch of rich white racists creating a government with the intention to line their own pockets.

The Democrats desire democracy, a transitional form of government that moves republics towards oligarchies. You said shame on me for not being critical of Romney for not properly understanding the Constitution, yet you say people like Obama who purposely stomp on it, knowing that they hate the principles contained within it, are somehow not as bad as Romney. I will take someone who is misguided, carries a few conservative principles in his soul, and loves the country, over a liberal left democrat who is misguided, carries no conservative principles in his soul-less body, and hates the country as founded.

I understand your position. It is frustrating that there are few, if any, pure constitutionalists in government. Even Rand Paul, a couple of times, has left me scratching my head, and he’s about the best out there. So, you get what you can get for now, as you group, and prepare to launch whatever you plan to launch. In my case, I am working on educating the public, and hopefully that will spill over into Washington. I refuse to be a doomsdayer. You work with what you’ve got.

As a sports fan, I understand the need to have a killer pitching staff, great bullpen, speed and power at the plate, with players that hit for average interspersed throughout the lineup. However, perfection is never achieved, so you work with what you have, and you try to teach who you’ve got. You have your team, and tossing them aside and proclaiming you are better off playing without a team not only does not get you closer to the World Series, but knocks you out of any contention whatsoever.

Remember, it is in our human nature to have a two party system. It is an unfortunate reality. If, hypothetically, right now, we eliminated both parties, and proclaimed that we will only vote for the person, and parties cannot exist, the moment an issue emerges, a pro and a con will emerge, birds of a feather flock together, they then will organize, pick leaders and spokesmen, and bam, you have two political parties again. That is reality. We must work inside reality.

Don’t give America to the hard left liberal progressive commie bastard democrats because you can’t find purity in the Republican Party. The GOP may be a mess, but if you are in a horse race, you don’t shoot your horse in the head because he’s not running the way you want him to.

Blessings,

Douglas V. Gibbs

Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

National Gov. vs. Confederation: Did Convention Exceed Its Mandate? - The New American

Mitt Romney Caught on Hidden Camera - YouTube

Mickelson in the Morning - WHO NewsRadio


CFPSubcribe

Only YOU can save CFP from Social Media Suppression. Tweet, Post, Forward, Subscribe or Bookmark us

Douglas V. Gibbs -- Bio and Archives | Comments

Douglas V. Gibbs of Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary, has been featured on “Hannity” and “Fox and Friends” on Fox News Channel, and other television shows and networks.  Doug is a Radio Host on KMET 1490-AM on Saturdays with his Constitution Radio program, as well as a longtime podcaster, conservative political activist, writer and commentator.  Doug can be reached at douglasvgibbs [at] yahoo.com or constitutionspeaker [at] yahoo.com.


Commenting Policy

Please adhere to our commenting policy to avoid being banned. As a privately owned website, we reserve the right to remove any comment and ban any user at any time.

Comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence and death, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal or abusive attacks on other users may be removed and result in a ban.
-- Follow these instructions on registering: