No, my friends, the term “
second political party” is not a typo. It is not an error. It is not a misstatement. The cooperation afforded to that tall, slim fellow who lives in the White House by those who call themselves Republicans can hardly be viewed as the behavior of what one would normally be referred to as the “opposition party.”
There are a lot of ordinary citizens who object strongly to the idea of a third political party, but these very same people are also complaining that there is little-to-no difference between today’s Democrats and Republicans. Perhaps it’s time for these very same conservative voters to recognize (and admit publicly) that our nation is being controlled by what is in fact a single party of elitists who simply exchange their roles every few years to continue their joint efforts to maintain the illusion that we, the common voter, control our own destinies.
Does this situation really illustrate a “workable” political system? Really?
Even after a massive midterm election victory, incumbent Republicans feel a need to “negotiate” our freedoms away for a chance to sit at the table. They are dead wrong. Their job is to strongly denounce the radical leftward shift that the Democrats and White House are insinuating into the everyday life of average Americans.
Apparently neither Democrats nor Republicans seem to comprehend their role is to not only represent their constituents, but to protect their constitutional rights. Their role is to fight to preserve the liberties of the individual citizen. It is not to negotiate, nor barter, nor “work together” to eliminate the bedrock principles of independence and self-reliance that are the foundation of our nation, and our phenomenal prosperity.
So a significant part of Congress from both parties needs to be sent a message. A simple message. A two word message: “You’re Fired!”
Every member of Congress swears an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, from all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
- These political elitists in Congress have jointly taken our money, and spent it wastefully to get themselves re-elected.
- These political elitists in Congress have drafted legislation that they don’t even read, much less understand.
- These political elitists in Congress have arrogated to themselves privileges and power that hasn’t been equaled since the months just before the French Revolution of 1779 and the bloody end of the French nobility or perhaps the last members of the Romanov dynasty. And this has happened while they ignored their responsibilities as defined in the Constitution, and surrendering their legislative authority to the White House. How many times does the 2,000 page Obamacare magnum opus use a phrase similar to “…and such regulations as defined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services”?
Key to this is remembering that members of Congress are holding “temp” jobs. Think about that for a minute. The Founders thought that two years was enough. They had definitively limited what the Congress was supposed to be able to do, so it wasn’t ever supposed to become a career. In fact the members of the early Congresses were paid on a per diem basis! Never mind that successive Congresses, especially since the dawn of the 20th century and the growth of the Progressive movement have distorted the clear intent of the Constitution (as envisioned by the Founders) out of all recognition. These were supposed to be temp jobs. Each member of Congress was subject to replacement in fairly short order.
Every member of Congress swears an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, from all enemies, foreign and domestic.” The question is,
“Are they defending the Constitution and our form of government?” If so, perhaps they could explain to someone who is not a Constitutional scholar how it is possible for a position to be created in the Executive Branch of the government that will oversee the “reasonableness” of compensation without the appointment of that individual being subject to the “advice and consent” of the Senate? How is it possible for such a position to be created without any authorizing legislation? Perhaps they could point out to me which section of the Constitution allows the government to control, modify, or even invalidate a private contract between an employer and an employee with regard to compensation. Does that mean that any contract can be modified? Say for home purchases, or the construction of a factory, or the dissolution of a marriage.
Republicans were recently elected to massive majorities by ordinary citizens who believe in limited government. These voters have the opinion that you shouldn’t spend money that you don’t have. Candidates said that they agreed with that idea. Except when it came to passing the “Cromnibus” bill, which gave Barack Obama and the Democrats every single thing that they wanted. Why? Because if the government spent less than was demanded by these elitist leftists, Obama would veto the bill, the government would shut down and our brave Republicans would be blamed and they would be kicked out of office – in two years! Not tomorrow, not next week or next month, but in two years. But they still expect to be known as the party in favor of limited government.
That’s why it is time for a new political party to emerge. To those who believe that only the current two party system is workable, what evidence leads them to that conclusion? No matter whether the Democrats or the Republicans, the party that holds a majority of the seats in Congress slips quickly into corruption. And the more corrupt they become, the less able the ordinary citizens are to find the strength and resolve to “toss the bums out.”
All Americans must mobilize to send that message to BOTH parties. “Thanks for coming, but you are no longer needed or wanted. Try not to let the door hit you on your butt as you leave.”
A new political party would, hopefully, deny both Democrats and Republicans the chance to have a majority. A true second party could prevent either currently existing party from forcing legislation opposed by a majority of the citizenry from becoming law simply to please special interest groups or that reflect the bizarre philosophies being espoused by some “czar” who thinks that health care for the very young or the very old should be limited. Harvard faculty lounge philosophers who might argue that since the very young are like eggs that haven’t hatched and have a slight crack in the shell, we can simply toss ‘em out, and the elderly are like milk that has passed its “sell by” date, so they, too, can be relegated to the garbage can.
Many Americans view all politicians with contempt. They pay their taxes, and generally ignore the nonsense that their representatives spout. But when politicians shift from naming new Post Offices to deciding who should be allowed to live and who will be consigned to die, most Americans are ready for some real change. Where in the Constitution is the part that Congress has the authority to decide life or death?
Under the guidance of neither Democrats nor Republicans has any Congress done very much that is useful or successful. They don’t even seem to do anything that (a) expands the protections of our freedoms or (b) does anything that doesn’t waste an enormous amount of our taxes, which results in the enrichment of elected House and Senate nobility or their friends and family cronies. For instance, take the Department of Education. In Obama’s proposed 2015 budget, the Department of Education is assumed to need
$68.6 billion. Generally, the expenditures grow year after year – regardless of which party is in control of Congress. Yet there seems to be a continuous drum beat of “We need more money!” One can only assume that this is not a recent phenomenon, especially since the Department of Education was created as a branch of the Executive Branch some time ago. Specifically it was created 147 years ago in 1867.
Has anyone noticed any startling improvements in education anywhere? If you have, which party was responsible for this improvement? Anyone? Anyone? Is it possible that there is utterly no difference (other than in name) between Democrats and Republicans, with the very same type of self-serving wealth generator?
Wealth for just themselves and their families and friends, that is.
To stifle this sort of elitist, self-enriching tendency a new party is essential.
To stifle this sort of elitist, self-enriching tendency a new party is essential. We see, on a daily basis, that the current Democrats and the current Republicans are by-and-large nothing more than opposite faces of the same coin. These establishment parties, or if you prefer this hybrid party, will scream that the government will collapse if a (horror of horrors) third political party is formed. In a way I might agree, if we actually had two separate parties already functioning. Evidence tends to indicate that reality shows that the existence of two parties that operate independently is as realistic as trying to enter a unicorn in the Kentucky Derby. So it is up to those of us who are nauseated by the failures of our government to function as it was originally designed to as it was originally intended.
Will this be a painful process? Of course it will. But just as childbirth, the creation of new life, even political life, is unavoidably painful. We’ll just have to live with it.
