Truth-Tellers

Today has been a particularly difficult day in the Twitter-verse for me. After assaults from those on both left and right, I decided it was time to voice my concern about the unwillingness on the part of many individuals to think critically, to question established practice and to venture outside the norms that hold us firmly affixed to the status-quo. I, too, have been guilty of holding onto beliefs that kept me preaching the gospel of conformity to help my party gain or retain power, but, over the past year, I've done a thorough researching of what I believe, what I've been told and how those measure up to reality. What I discovered is that I had not really been doing the hard work of finding out the truth ...I had just been accepting the truth that was presented to me by others. Now, I stand alone in many of my views, which isn't always so pleasant. I cannot complain, however, because the amount of grief I might incur from sounding the alarm is nothing compared to the troubles that may befall us if we continue down our current path. It is my calling and my duty to educate any who are willing to learn. It is for this reason I started this blog. 

There are many truth-tellers who have preceded me, who ventured outside the universe of accepted 'truth.' I do not presume to be in the same league as any of these great patriots, but they are my inspiration, and the reason I am willing to stick out my neck and face ridicule. I thought I would share some of my insights about these brave souls. 

Our Founding Fathers were the first to rebel against accepted truth, by taking on the tyranny of Great Britain. There is little doubt this group of brave men understood that their Declaration of Independence was a declaration of war. Having few resources, they stood against the great British Empire knowing that their fight for liberty may just bring them death; but, in spite of this, they proceeded on their quest for a new, free nation. I am sure that God played a hand in the survival of these men and the establishment of this nation. Their bravery and brilliance is lauded today both here and abroad. 

Abigail Adams was an advocate for women’s rights and abolition of slavery long before either were considered politically popular. She penned letters to Congress and spoke out often. No doubt her words began the process that would eventually lead us to freeing the slaves and women’s participation in the political process.

Abraham Lincoln held together a divided country in the face of political strife and personal tragedy. He freed the slaves, won the civil war and managed to keep this country united. He had critics on both sides of the Civil war, but it did not deter him. He issued his Emancipation Proclamation, stood his ground, reunited a divided country, and preserved this nation.

General Dwight D. Eisenhower routinely challenged accepted practice in the military, and often found himself on the losing-side of arguments with his superiors in his early career. But, Eisenhower's masterful leadership during the D-Day invasion of World War II showed his thinking was right. He regularly made tough controversial decisions and had to convince those around him to follow his lead. Thank God they listened.

Martin Luther King, Jr. was considered one of the loudest voices in opposition to the status-quo in  American history. He challenged segregation and discrimination in America, and he refused to accept the common belief of the time that black and white Americans would always remain separate and un-equal. His birthday is celebrated annually and his ‘I Have a Dream’ speech is read in schools across our country each year as a testament to his courage. 

Ronald Reagan unveiled his proposal for a Strategic Defense Initiative, later dubbed "Star Wars," in a national speech and was ridiculed by both left and right for proposing such a crazy idea. Interestingly, however, the Soviet Union’s leaders didn't seem to find this new defense system initiative so crazy. Cabinet and military leaders insisted that meeting with the Soviets was a mistake, but Reagan acted on his diplomatic instincts to initiate dialogue, which ultimately led to the end of the Cold War. 

There were countless times that Reagan challenged the status-quo during his political career, but one particularly memorable event was his speech at the Brandenburg Gate. His advisers were alarmed by the line, “Tear down this wall” and insisted he remove it from the speech because it was too provocative. Reagan ignored their pleas, and here is an excerpt from the historical speech that inspired the world and eventually brought down that wall.

Newt Gingrich began a Republican Revolution in the 90's as an effort to take over the U.S. House of Representatives. Most of the GOP party leadership at that time believed Newt was a dreamer with no hope of success because the Democrats had controlled the House for decades. Newt pressed on in his relentless campaign to re-educate young Republicans into believing they could actually win the conservative argument and win their political races as well.  He succeeded at both by winning the House of Representatives and getting his signature legislation The Contract with America through the Congress in a record 100 days. No one has duplicated the accomplishments of Gingrich.

So what does any of that have to do with today?  Simple...the reason we find ourselves in a perpetual state of decline economically, morally and politically is because we have too few truth-tellers willing to stand up and challenge the status-quo on both sides of the divide. We are missing the leadership that is represented by the brave men and women I've described above. We gather in our separate camps to target our enemy and never realize that enemies reside in our own camps who are perpetuating the very problems we are trying to solve. 

Oh, sure.. there are plenty of loud voices, even obnoxious and vulgar voices who claim they are exercising their 'right of free speech' .. but those are not truth-tellers, they are simply trying to antagonize, because there is no real effort to engage in honest debate or to solve problems. Their noise is just an endless rehashing of arguments and objections that have been handed out by status-quo preservers in their camps for decades.

The only way we can see change is if we change what we are saying and doing. Continuing to support the current practice of always blaming the other side, name-calling, dirty politics, and  using prepackaged arguments is driving us deeper and deeper into the abyss. Don't let anyone manipulate your mind. Read both sides of every argument, look at the data yourself. Don't fret when the opposition isn't truthful, just speak out that truth yourself and encourage other truth-tellers to do the same. We can't take back this process by participating in the very behaviors we regularly castigate. We also won't see any improvement if we ignore problems that exist within ourselves or on our team.

Matthew 7:5 - You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

Are you willing to become a truth-teller? Will you stand up against people you have always respected, examine the truth for yourself, and be willing to reach a different conclusion if the evidence leads you there? Are you willing to take a new path, chart a new course? I hope you'll join me. We need a few more brave men and women to preserve this nation before it is too late.

Scary Times in the U.S.A.

Today I witnessed something that has really put me on edge. A sitting president ignoring portions of our Constitution to enact a new law because Congress did not produce the legislation he was seeking.  I am not sure that most Americans truly appreciate the gravity of this development, so I thought I'd take a few moments to re-visit the events of the day and provide some information about our American form of government. 

President Obama issued an Executive Order earlier today providing children of illegal aliens with defacto amnesty. The provisions of this order mirror legislation known as the Dream Act which has been introduced in Congress in various forms as far back as 2001.  Half a dozen bills introduced in congress related to issues addressing children of illegal immigrants have been rejected.  Because of this, President Obama decided today to unilaterally act to issue an executive order which essentially declares into law what had been rejected in Congress. There is one big problem with this action, however .. the President is not authorized under our Constitution to write law, so where is the authority for such an order?  

Here is what our Constitution has to say ...

Congress has the power to pass laws regarding legalization, naturalization, deportation of aliens according to Article 1, Sec. 8 of the Constitution: "Congress shall have the Power To... establish an [sic] uniform Rule of Naturalization." 

The President has the responsibility of enforcing the laws: Article II, Sec. 3: "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

There is no provision in our Constitution that allows presidents to craft laws unilaterally or refuse to enforce laws they do not agree with.. but this is exactly what President Obama is doing.

What is so scary about this? We have a president that is assuming he alone has the authority to write the laws of this land.  We have three branches of government that were set up to prevent one group or individual from having too much control over the people. Our Congress is the one body granted the task of creating laws precisely because they are the representatives of We the People. But, as a check on the power of Congress, we have a president that must sign legislation to make it law and the courts to rule on the constitutionality of the law. By acting today in this manner, President Obama has bypassed all of these safeguards.  We now have one person who believes he is the sole ruler over the people of this country. This is not the America that is established in our Declaration of Independence or Constitution. We do not elect Kings in America, we elect leaders who represent us. 

What can be done about this? Our Congress must act to demand this order be rescinded. This act is a blatant disregard for the separation of powers established in our Constitution. This must be brought before our Supreme Court and voided. In order to do that, Congress must be willing to suffer the political consequence of opposing an order that is popular with some of our citizens. Will Congress act? Are they willing to take the inevitable criticisms that will accompany a challenge?  Only time will tell.

UPDATE 6/16/2012:

This is President Obama speaking on this issue in March of 2011.

"With respect to the notion that I could just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case... because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed... Congress passes the law, the executive branch's job is to enforce and implement those laws and then the judiciary has to interpret the laws. 

There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system ...that for me to simply, through executive order, ignore those Congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president."

Liberal Enlightenment

One thing I have always found perplexing.. is the generally accepted premise that the liberal elite are brilliant thinkers. From Harvard law professors to Washington, D.C. policy wonks we hear all  about their liberal solutions to societies ills, but the hypocrisy and pure non-sense that masquerades as enlightenment in the minds of liberals is nothing short of astonishing. To illustrate some of the most contradictory, outlandish, and confused positions of today's liberals I am sharing a few tidbits for your enjoyment.  

Liberal Abortion Logic:
Use sex-selection abortion to kill girls to uphold women's rights

Buck the trend

I am sure I'll raise a few eyebrows with this post, but seeing that I've never really been one to follow popular trends, perhaps it's time for a conservative to speak up on a few timely topics. Even if you don't agree with my summations, I do hope that you will at least pause and reflect on your position on these issues. Here are what I would consider my top five most controversial positions on the issues:

Marijuana should be legalized:  How could legalizing pot be a good thing?  For starters, conservatives pride themselves as looking at the facts while liberals tend to focus on feelings. With marijuana, the facts just don't support continuing this prohibition.  Marijuana is far less dangerous than alcohol or cigarettes. Many normal productive Americans consume marijuana routinely. One-Billion-Dollars are spent annually jailing marijuana smokers. The underground system of marijuana production/sales supports terrorists. Many claim marijuana is a gateway to more harmful drugs, which may be true; but I'd argue that alcohol can also be a gateway, yet it is still legal. We can't make people behave right by passing laws. We need to stop the war on pot and focus our energies on more evil substances like the soaring addiction to prescription medication, spice, bath-salts, and other illicit drugs.

Voting for Republicans is often no better than voting for Democrats: Historically, Republicans have been the bigger spenders in Washington, D.C. Republican President George W. Bush along with a Republican controlled House and Senate ushered in Medicare-Part D which was the largest entitlement program in history until trumped by Obamacare. I will concede that President Obama has definitely helped the Republicans in their argument that they are the more fiscally responsible party by being the biggest spender to date, but that really doesn't justify the deficits piled up by the five previous Republican administrations.  The truth is, both parties spend too much money, and there is little evidence that that trend will be reversed in the near future.

I am voting for Gary Johnson in November:  This was a tough one for me.  I have voted straight GOP ticket since 1984.  I've never missed a vote, and I've always been a staunch defender of the GOP platform.  However, I can no longer just go along to get along. I've finally come to the realization that the system of governing in this country is so broken, that we can no longer continue voting to sustain it in its present form. I believe the Libertarian, Gary Johnson, is the most fiscally conservative of the three major candidates. He does not share my position on social conservative issues, but after hearing his answers in this video to some of those questions, I came to the conclusion that his position on state's rights trumps any concerns I have about his social policy platform:

Now I know many reading this will suggest that voting for Gary is like throwing away my vote.. or worse..it is tantamount to a vote for Obama, but I disagree. With only 19% of voters believing that Romney and Obama are the best candidates, the political environment could not be better for the rise of a viable 3rd party candidate. Gary is on the ballot in all 50 states and appeals to fiscal conservatives and to many disillusioned Obama supporters. If the mainstream media will lift the black-out on news coverage of Gary, I would not be surprised to see him soar in popularity. Even Ross Perot with his wacky imploding campaign garnered 19% of the popular vote ...I can see Gary Johnson with his no-nonsense appeal doing far better. And the best reason to vote for Gary, is that he will fundamentally shift the power-structure in D.C. to a government that is not directed by party power-brokers.

Politics is all about deceiving voters.  Our government is run by people who don't really answer to the voters. Vast amounts of money are spent by candidates in both parties to paint the most flattering picture of candidates, to attack their challengers, and simultaneously cover up voting records that are inconsistent with their stated positions. Candidates who are groomed and presented to the voters as champions of government reform (by both parties), often get into office and join in with corrupt status-quo government. A few incidents have happened recently that illustrate how the rhetoric of political candidates doesn't match their records:

• Allen West and many Senate Republicans want to hang on to certain provisions of Obamacare.
• Mitt Romney has said he would not be opposed to gay couples adopting children
• Seven House Republicans voted against a sex-selection-abortion ban bill
• Obama said he would close Guantanamo, but he didn't close it and built a $750k soccer field there

Most 'Conservative' News Outlets are an arm of the GOP.  Most of the online 'conservative' news outlets as well as Fox News parrot the talking points of the Republican National Committee in their news coverage. I don't mind having journalists with an opinion.. especially if I share that opinion, but I do mind journalists pretending they are offering up the best in conservative journalism while simultaneously towing the Republican Party line, even when the GOP is working against groups such as the tea party and other grassroots conservative organizations. It isn't really a secret.. the RNC is not a fan of the tea party. But, the tea party represents many of the ideals of Reagan conservatism that are detailed in the Republican Party platform. In my view, it is the duty of conservative news outlets to point out the inconsistencies that exist between the GOP platform and those candidates calling themselves Reagan Republicans, but that is not happening. Instead, these so-called conservative journalists are routinely dismissing the protests of grassroots conservatives in favor of promoting establishment politicians. These conservative news outlets need to stop calling themselves conservative and start calling themselves Republican, because that is a much more accurate portrayal.

Now that we are in the middle of an election season, I challenge you to reflect on your own stance on the issues. Does your support of a position stem from your own research and reflection? .. or have you always adopted the positions of your family, friends or your party? Is it possible that you've never really thought about why you support certain positions? What matters more to you.. rhetoric or results? Most Americans are nervous about the direction our government is taking us, but few are willing do what is necessary to reverse the trend. Now is the time to stop being paralyzed by fear and to stop being manipulated by politicians. This nation was built on the premise that we the people could govern ourselves. We are the only ones who can turn this nation around and restore what has been lost.

Breaking up is hard to do

I have been a Fox News viewer for years. You can ask my son, who had become somewhat annoyed at my tendency to watch nothing but Fox News for hours on end, I would have been considered quite the Fox News junkie.  I even had the opportunity this past year to participate as a Nielsen ratings viewer, and after filling out my TV diaries was a bit surprised to see that about 80% of my TV viewing included Fox News programming. No doubt that my diaries helped contribute to Fox News' huge ratings. But, all that changed, in a big way, during this 2012 election process. I no longer watch Fox News, but instead rely on my own independent research and analysis to gather my daily news from dozens of different news sources. It has been quite the journey, and it isn't over. But, I must say, I've learned quite a bit about what drives news organizations and news coverage.  Breaking the habit of daily Fox News viewing wasn't particularly easy. Here are some things I've learned about news during this break-up with Fox News.

Every news agency has an agenda.  If you are watching any news programming on television or reading a newspaper, odds are great that your thinking is being directed by those who are writing the news stories. I used to think that bias in news reporting was the sole property of news organizations like CBS and MSNBC and of newspapers like the New York Times, but really, every news outlet has a point of view. In the past, the agendas of particular news writers were held in check by standards of journalism that required those reporting the news to have verifiable sources for their news reports, and it was standard practice to present both sides of an argument on any controversial issue. In the past, on news programs designed specifically to debate the issues (like the McLaughlin Group), you would see an evenly split panel of pundits on the left and the right arguing their positions. These journalistic practices have died out over the past decade with the rise of Fox News and the movement to the far left by cable networks like MSNBC. It is no longer a given that the news you are receiving represents both sides of an argument. It is now your job to figure out what is really news and what is opinion. The lines have definitely blurred.

You have to read news stories from a variety of sources to find out what is really going on.  It has been quite eye-opening to read the news coverage during the 2012 election. I have a long, long list of sites I visit daily to see what is being written/said about the days events, and the differences in the news from one to the next can be stark. I have also learned to appreciate that you really need to hear the opinions on both sides of a news story, because just hearing one side doesn't give you a full picture. Even if I don't agree with the agendas of liberal news organizations, I must say that I would be a lot less informed if I never read their news. 

Conservative news isn't always reported by conservative news outlets. There are lots of news stories that would be of interest to a conservative audience that are not covered. One example that comes to mind are the tea-party rallies of 2012. If you recall, there was a surplus of news reporting done on the tax-day tea-party rallies in 2010, but it is likely you heard little (if any) coverage of these rallies in 2012.  Perhaps this was because the novelty had worn off?  Or, perhaps the numbers participating the rallies had diminished? From my own independent news gathering of these events, I am not convinced either of those is to blame. Participation in tea-party rallies was quite high in some cities, and this will be the first presidential election where the tea-party has been a driving force, so that, of course, should be newsworthy. A more likely reason for the lack of coverage? ..the tax-day tea-party rallies did not serve to advance the agenda of those writing the news this year. Fox News' Sean Hannity was scheduled to speak at a Tea-Party rally in Cincinnati earlier this year, but was pulled by his boss, Rupert Murdoch.  Apparently Fox News no longer supports the aims of the Tea party.

C-SPAN is probably the best source for unbiased news coverage. If you want to hear political speech directly from the mouths of the politicians, you will get much more of it on C-SPAN. Coverage of political events on TV news channels is diminished to small sound-bites that really don't fairly represent what is being said. C-SPAN offers live coverage of campaign events where you can hear full-length speeches of candidates and town-hall events. Tuning into C-SPAN instead of network news during this presidential election has been really educational. It may not be as flashy or entertaining, but if you are seeking information, there really isn't a better alternative. Another site where you can find every campaign speech and ad for the presidential candidates is ElectAd - full length speeches and a peek at the commercials that you may not get to see in your local market.

Twitter is one of the fastest ways to hear about breaking news. If you want to know what is happening at this very moment, the best way to find out is to follow all the various new organizations on Twitter. The story of Whitney Houston's death broke on Twitter a full 27 minutes before it was broadcast on the cable news networks. News for other national and world events regularly is tweeted before it appears on the news. But, with the fast paced release of news on Twitter comes the inevitable false alarms.. reports that Joe Paterno had died came 12 hours prematurely on Twitter. Similarly, there were reports the Gabriel Giffords had been killed in the Arizona shooting incident. So, faster is not always better when it comes to news; it is a good practice is to seek out original news sources before believing any breaking news story on Twitter.

I have had to do a bit of re-arranging of my daily routine since I quit watching Fox News. I do tune in occasionally just to see what they are reporting these days, but today I haven't even turned on my television. I can go weeks without watching any television news at all and often rely solely on online news sources. I have noticed the coverage of the presidential race on CNN this year has been much better than I would have expected. I hear much less open critique of candidates and far more coverage of actual events and data. For election night returns coverage, I think the team at CNN has done a stellar job. I've never been a fan of CNN, so I was a bit surprised to discover I actually preferred their coverage of election news. There are times I miss the days when I actually enjoyed watching Fox News around the clock, but I think I am far better off and more informed now that I've pulled the plug. This election is a big one, and I think any responsible citizen owes it to themselves and this country to find out all they can about the candidates in the 2012 race. To do that, we can no longer rely on television news to learn what is necessary. We must seek out the news in new and different ways.

Battle for the Soul of the GOP

The fight for the GOP nomination appears to be winding down as journalists in the mainstream media turn their attention to the battle between presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama. Even though Romney has amassed only 727 bound delegates (short of the 1144 needed to seal the nomination), he has moved on to the next phase in his campaign; which, if history is any predictor, will be a shifting of strategy and position to appeal to moderate voters in the general election. Much was made of the Etch-a-Sketch slip by Romney campaign spokesperson Eric Fehrnstrom. I guess the theory that Mitt Romney is a shape-shifter may now be put to the test.

Meanwhile, a large number of passionate backers of Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum are hard at work attempting to stop the nomination of Mitt Romney. In spite of  the withdrawal from the race by Santorum and then Gingrich, and in spite of loud calls from those within the Romney camp and the Republican Party leadership to get behind the presumptive nominee, these grassroots activists are not slowing down; In fact, they may actually be showing increased intensity and determination as they battle to deny Romney the nomination, which comes down to a mere 417 remaining delegates.

What drives these people?  Why keep fighting? What is at stake that fuels their drive to deny Romney? I think the answer is simple: A future with a Barack Obama or Mitt Romney presidency does not bode well for their survival as a viable voice in American politics or in American government. This race for the GOP nomination boils down to a conflict in vision by those in the GOP party leadership and the grassroots activists that breathe life into GOP politics. What is this difference?

GOP Party Leadership Vision

• Recruit, nominate and elect moderate candidates who appeal to independents in the general election
• Tap down the influence of tea-party activists who disrupt the nomination process
• Keep conservatives in the fold by promising whatever is necessary and delivering as little as possible with respect to socially conservative GOP platform planks.

Grassroots GOP Activists' Vision

• Recruit, nominate and elect conservative candidates who will challenge the status-quo; reduce the size and scope of government, and cut spending
• Increase the voice of grassroots activists (including the tea-party) within the GOP at all levels of government
• Galvanize the conservative base to battle against the GOP establishment, restore respect for the culturally conservative GOP platform planks, and demand that GOP nominees enthusiastically embrace conservative positions.

What the GOP establishment failed to realize is that their dirty little secret has been uncovered by many conservative activists. Grassroots conservatives in the GOP have begun to realize that the conservative GOP party platform was just a clever ruse and was never intended to be a guiding principle or a framework for governing. The GOP platform, drafted primarily during Reagan's ascendancy, was merely a tactic by GOP leadership to draw in large numbers of conservative voters for the GOP. There were some candidates, of course, who adopted and faithfully followed the planks in the GOP platform during the past few decades, but a larger number of GOP candidates have essentially ignored the GOP planks that didn't suit them, particularly those dealing with life, guns and marriage. 

How does this bear on the 2012 race? What this means is that many in the conservative base have suddenly come to the realization that the party they have called home since Ronald Reagan was president, never really wanted them at all. Conservatives have simply been used as a tool by those in GOP leadership to get the numbers of votes necessary to defeat Democrats; there never was an interest or actual pursuit by those in GOP party leadership (except for Gingrich in the '94 GOP revolution) to reduce the size/scope of government or to pass legislation to deal with culturally conservative issues. These grassroots activists are leaving the GOP in large numbers and finding new homes in smaller parties including the American Conservative Party, the Constitutional Party, and the Libertarian Party. Some of these grassroots conservatives have decided to hold their nose and vote for Mitt Romney if he eventually seals the GOP nomination, but others have decided they'd rather take their chances with another four years of Barack Obama, or they will pin their hopes on a 3rd party contender (like Gary Johnson, Libertarian). This explains why many GOP grassroots activists haven't backed down in the fight to stop Mitt Romney; because, at this point, they feel they have little to lose. They feel that neither Democrats nor Republicans have a real  interest in the core conservative principles they steadfastly support; that both major parties are defenders of the status-quo, both are guilty of massive over-spending, and both have failed to make any meaningful attempt to address the cultural ills that plague us related to abortion and marriage.

The next few primaries could prove interesting. What will be the reaction if votes continue to come in for Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul in the remaining primaries?  Will the mainstream media ignore the uprising? Will the GOP leadership pretend these people don't exist? Will the grassroots conservatives rally the base enough to hold back Mitt Romney from the elusive 1144 delegates? ..and, if they succeed, what will the convention in Tampa look like?

This election could be the most predictable, boring cycle to date..  or it could be the most dramatic, consequential election in my lifetime. I am looking forward to seeing how the conservative base responds in the next few weeks. Stay tuned as the battle for the soul of the GOP continues...

“Necessity, the tyrant's plea” - John Milton

America was born as a refuge from tyranny: Pilgrims traveled here to escape religious tyranny; protesters challenged the tyranny of the British Parliament at the Boston Tea Party; the Declaration of Independence was a poetic derision of the tyranny of King George of Great Britain over the states. It declared that God had endowed every person with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our National Anthem proclaims we are the land of the free and the home of the brave, and our Constitution was crafted to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity" Abraham Lincoln stated in the Gettysburg address: "..that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

Freedom from tyranny is not just a serendipitous consequence of our form of government, but it is the very foundation on which our nation stands. Understanding Freedom and  tyranny is paramount to understanding who we are as Americans. It is this reason I am writing this ..It is this reason I am sounding the alarm.

Our liberties are under siege in America: not from some foreign dictator, nor from terrorists, but from within the halls of power in Washington, D.C. The very persons we have selected to represent and lead us have ushered in a brand new form of tyranny which is not limited to one political party or group; it is permeates every level of government in both major parties. 

The Republican Party, over the last several decades, has often challenged the over-reach of the Democratic Party in producing excessive regulation and taxes on citizens under the pretext of helping them. Democrats often support laws that regulate what we eat, where we live, what cars we drive, how we obtain credit, how we educate our children, and what sources of energy we use. Democrats have created laws that diminish personal responsibility and have replaced them with government welfare programs that trap citizens in poverty and balloon the national debt. Many in the Democratic Party believe that average Americans are too inept to care for themselves, their families, their environment, their finances or their communities without the assistance of the government.

  

The lines between Democrats and Republicans have blurred somewhat, in recent years, as more Republicans join with Democrats in supporting Federal programs to help people, but generally, the Republican Party stands in opposition to many of the over-reaching Democratic policy proposals that interfere with the free-market or personal responsibility. This does not mean that tyranny is the exclusive province of the Democratic Party, to the contrary, the Democrat's form of tyranny may be more obvious to those who want the Federal Government out of our personal affairs, but it is the tyranny in the Republican Party that is more akin to the type practiced by King George of Great Britain ...that is because the tyranny in the Republican Party works to remove government 'of the people, by the people, for the people.' 

GOP leadership is comprised mostly of highly educated lawyers who have spent their entire adult life working in government. About half of GOP members of Congress are classified as millionaires while only 9% in the general population. Leaders of the Republican Party include:

• Reince Priebus, Chairman of the RNC: Has worked his entire career in politics. Holds a Doctorate from the University of Miami School of Law.
• Mitch McConnell, GOP Senate Minority Leader: The longest serving U.S. Senator in Kentucky history and has spent his entire working life in government; holds a law degree from the University of Kentucky Law School. 
• Eric Cantor, GOP House Majority Leader: Holds degrees from George Washington University, Columbia University and holds a Doctorate in Law from William & Mary.  Has worked in Politics since 1982.
• Christine Todd Whitman, Co-Chair of the Republican Leadership Council: Holds a degree in Government from Wheaton College. Worked on Nelson Rockefeller's presidential campaign. Was the Governor of New Jersey and EPA administrator for George W. Bush and has spent her entire career in government.
• John Danforth, Co-Chair of the Republican Leadership Council: Holds degrees from Princeton and Yale (doctorate of law).  Served as Missouri's attorney general in 1968, was elected Senator in 1976 and retired from the Senate in 1995. Was an envoy to Sudan and representative to the U.N.

This list is just a small sampling of the types of individuals who pull-the-strings inside the Republican Party.  The resumes of these people do not resemble that of ordinary Americans. These are not the types of people our founders envisioned would be our leaders. Our founders envisioned a citizen's legislature that was in tune with the lifestyles and wishes of those they represented. I don't see that I have much in common with any of the individuals on this list. I doubt I am alone.

I am not suggesting that being highly educated or wealthy isn't laudable, but I am suggesting that leaders who listen to lawyers, pundits and wealthy elites instead of ordinary Americans that make up their constituencies break the bonds of trust in our government. The distrust that has built up over the years between the citizens and the government in America is now at an all-time high. Approval ratings for those in congress is in single-digits. Who are these people? Why and how do they keep getting elected?

The answer is.. the Republican Party doesn't trust you to govern. They believe that the ordinary citizen is not educated enough or wise enough to make the best decision about who should lead this country. They set up party rules that make it very difficult for an ordinary citizen to rise up within the party without the consent of the leadership. They believe that only a small group of very well-educated elite (that have spent their  entire careers in government) are best suited to make decisions about which candidates will succeed and which will fail. It is not an accident that nearly every GOP nominee for the President has been correctly predicted at the beginning of the contest by political pundits. It is also why over 80% of incumbents win re-election. There are lots of rules and huge sums of money spent to keep the machine running in Washington, D.C. They do allow citizens to vote in elections, but they also do a really good job of duping average Americans into perpetuating the status-quo through fear-tactics, false advertising and by discouraging participation in the process. They'd really rather you just stay out of their way.

The tyranny of the GOP is the most dangerous form of tyranny. If ordinary citizens are no longer directing this country, then we no longer have government "of the people, by the people or for the people".. we no longer have representative government. 

The two-party system in America is dangerous. Both parties have grown too large and too powerful. The voice of the common man is being silenced. It is time for the citizens of this country to actually start doing the job that was given to them by our founders..

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed                                     - The Declaration of Independence

Blindly choosing candidates based on party affiliation, slick advertising, or name-recognition needs to stop. We have more resources than ever to learn about those who seek elected office in this country. It is time to turn off the television, quit listening to mainstream media who have a vested interest in maintaining the current Washington, D.C. power structure, and get to work learning about and choosing those who would lead us. If we don't resume this responsibility now, we may not have the opportunity to do it later.