Featured Posts

America's real party system-Part 1

[Every now and then something I read produces a critical reaction that impels me to focus on the background historical and other assumptions that I take for granted  in my thinking.  This article is the first in a series that developed as I took note of my reaction to a piece about the significance and possible future of the Tea Party movement.  Labor Day has traditionally marked the formal kick-off of the "campaign season" in American politics.  It seems an appropriate day to publishing a series that aims to help readers think through the political reality veiled by the appearance of the so-called two-party system. ] Not long ago I read an article signed J. R. Dunn that offered a plausible history of the relationship between conservatives and the GOP.  It portrays a party in which the “liberal” tail has usually been  wagging the  “conservative dog”, the exception being the era ...

Read More

America's real party system- Part 3

If, during eras of elite ascendancy, the two most visible parties are tools of elite manipulation, then there is at all times a third party involved in all our political activities.  It is the populist party, normally divided against itself by successful elite manipulation.  In terms of its potential, it is always the majority party.  The notion that “third parties fail” is therefore less an observation of fact than a statement of elite intention. In the past, some pervasive material or moral passion occasionally roused this third party to unify under its own leadership .  In our current circumstances the unifying impulse comes in reaction against the elite itself.  There is a widespread sense that the nation suffers from a general failure of elite leadership (in particular, the failure of both elite manipulated parties),  a failure connected with the elite's cynical, purely self-aggrandizing ambition.  The Obama faction's open contempt for ...

Read More

America's real party system-Part 2

In the years that followed the Lincoln era, the United States faced a new organizational imperative.  As in the post-Jackson era, it involved continental expansion.  But in addition to this there were  the material challenges of accommodating new technology’s rapid transformation of economic life, and the moral challenge of reconstituting the nation’s unity despite the persistent post-traumatic stresses still reverberating from the Civil War. These challenges allowed the elite to regain a leadership position, this time co-opting the populist moral passion of the Lincoln era with ideas of national destiny and administrative reform. The result was  an era of unprecedented elite ascendancy marked off by the two Roosevelts, the Republican, Teddy and the Democrat, FDR.  Their familiar nicknames represent the complete submergence of elite ascendancy in the streams of populist passion.  They signify the virtually complete success of the elite divisional strategy. The two Roosevelts aptly represent this success.  Their family relationship ...

Read More

Is Lakin’s court-martial an American ‘Dreyfus affair’?

I doubt that most people would be shocked to learn that sometimes the influence of power can interfere with and even derail the course of justice in our legal system.  Behind the scenes, a phone call from a powerful politician, or a corporate mogul often affects the actions or judgments of people whose personal ambitions they are in a position to help or hinder.  Usually though, people giving heed to such considerations have enough sense to cloak what they do with words or actions that give their corruption at least the appearance of probity.  Maybe its the tribute that vice renders to virtue.  Maybe its nothing more than self-serving prudence (the mask of honesty that facilitates corruption.) However, when court officers conclude that such hypocrisy is no longer worth the effort, things are pretty far gone.  The video featured with this post  focuses on the recent decision by Col. Denise R. ...

Read More

Planned Parenthood’s moral insanity

Daily Brief #13 The video featured on this page is a news report out of Texas about a pro-life billboard campaign just launched there by the Radiance Foundation and the Life Education Resource Network (L.E.A.R.N.).  It’s an effort to focus attention on the disproportionate number of nascent blacks being murdered in Texas under the rubric of abortion rights. What especially provoked my interest was criticism of the project from a Planned Parenthood spokeswoman quoted in the report.  “This is about trying to interfere with women making private personal decisions and unfortunately and really shockingly, this group has decided to use racism as a wedge issue,” Rochelle Tafolla said. “We think that  is just reprehensible…” So its reprehensible to focus an individual’s attention on the impact her individual action has on her community.  Could there be a more perfect illustration of Planned Parenthood’s moral insanity? In many U.S. communities today local laws encourage or even ...

Read More

Was Jesus a leader?

Daily Brief #12 “Asked who would be considered conservative Christian leaders today- with Graham in his 90s and the recent death of Jerry Falwell – Land said that “leaders are leaders because people follow them.”  So says Richard Land. Every year as we approach the commemoration of Christ’s passion, crucifixion and resurrection the people Jesus has saved recall his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. And the most part of the multitude spread their garments in the way; others cut branches from the trees, and spread them in the way.  And the multitudes that went before him, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest.” Judging by the multitudes that followed him, and the words of Richard Land, in this grand triumphal entry, Jesus was a leader. But after he drove the money lenders from the Temple, confounded the ...

Read More

A Meditation on Glenn Beck’s Divine Mission

[I have been in prayerful thought about the events taking place this weekend under Glenn Beck’s auspices.  He portrays them as the beginning of a Great Revival of faith in America.  People I know and think well of are involved.  Yet I find I cannot ignore the check in my spirit that prevents me from accepting that the events or their sponsor are what he professes them to be.  This posting is an effort to lay out the elements that contribute to my misgivings, insofar as they are susceptible to articulation.  Herein I attempt to share a train of thought and the destination toward which  it points.   Is it the right one? With God’s help, time may tell.] Glenn Beck: “I mean, the one part of culture that I am doing a lot of is faith.  But general faith.  We have got to get back to our churches, our synagogues, our mosques, ...

Read More


Elite subversives arrogantly repress the sovereignty of the people

March 21, 2010 · 2 comments

In a previous post (Why GOP leadership doesn’t ring true) I alluded to Former GOP Majority Leader Dick Armey’s infamous boasting about how “When I was Republican leader, I saw to it that Tom Tancredo could not get on a stage because I saw how destructive he was.” Armey called Tancredo destructive because of his strong stand for border security, and his support for stemming the tide of illegal immigration. In today’s Featured Link Congressman Tancredo thoroughly refutes Armey’s slur, including his charge that seeking to secure the nation’s borders will cost the GOP the Hispanic vote. As Tancredo rightly points out, “All the evidence says just the opposite is true, but hey, the truth is not as sexy and won’t make headlines.” Of course, since border security is essential to the defense of the United States the question arises: If GOP leaders like Dick Armey are willing to sacrifice the nation’s security to win votes from Hispanic extremists who don’t care about it; don’t they deserve to lose the support of all the patriotic Americans who do?

The GOP lost control of the Congress in 2006 precisely because, on issues vital to America’s survival (like budget discipline, border security and enforcement of our immigration laws) voters in the party’s support base revolted against the GOP’s cynical willingness to sacrifice the nation’s vital interests in their heedless ambition to get Republicans re-elected. But when Dick Armey flaunts his successful practice of repression he reveals to all what some of us have known from repeated experience for a long time: just like the Obama Democrats, GOP leaders arrogantly subvert the constitutional sovereignty of the people in order to hold on to political power. Here’s the thinking that leads to this conclusion.

Armey says he abused his position as Majority leader to repress Tom Tancredo’s views because Tancredo was “destructive.” But can someone be destructive if they have no impact? If what they say is simply goofy and ridiculous, won’t audiences simply laugh them off the stage? Obviously, Armey took pains to repress Tancredo’s voice because Tancredo spoke to and for the majority of Americans who want America’s borders defended, and the laws regulating immigration enforced. When Armey, and GOP leaders like him, act against outspoken leaders like Tom Tancredo, they do so in order to deprive the majority of a voice. Without a voice, they cannot express their political will. If they cannot express their will, it cannot be heard and or carried out. If it is not heard and carried out, the American people are effectively deposed from the position of political authority they are supposed to exercise as citizens of a constitutional republic. (Q.E.D.)

As I write these words, GOP leaders in the Congress are decrying the open assault on constitutional self-government the Obama faction has launched in order to ram the government takeover of health care down the throats of an outraged majority of the American people. But the Obama faction’s repression of their opponents on this issue is simply the legislative counterpart of the repression GOP leaders like Armey boastfully perpetrate against their opponents on issues like border security and immigration. The GOP leaders seek to deprive the people of leaders who express their will. The Democrats seek to shield from scrutiny the leaders who vote to betray their will. In either case, what they actually repress is the sovereignty of the American people. And what they really aim to secure is a form of government in which the people can no longer act with authority because they have been deprived of the voices needed to express their will, or the accountability needed to enforce it come election time.

As I indicated in my previous posting, my firsthand experience amply verifies the commitment to political repression evident in Dick Armey’s prideful boasting. In my experience, however, the ultimate target of repression is the view, expressed in America’s founding creed, that the people’s right to government based upon the consent of the governed is grounded in the sovereignty of the Creator God. The elite subversives who control both political parties practice repression on particular issues in order to deprive the people of their sovereign right of self-government. But they repress voices that remind people of its foundational principle (i.e., the existence and authority of God) in order to assault and break the good faith of their hearts. Without that they will surely lose the courage to assert and defend their God-given right. This is why we must above all bear witness to its truth, as long as there is hope that anyone will hear us. And there is always hope, for God is listening.

  • Plaxo Pulse
  • StumbleUpon
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Delicious
  • Share/Bookmark

Related posts:

  1. Judge Walker vs. the sovereignty of the people
  2. The 9-12 March- the power elites don’t count people because to them the people don’t count
  3. Does the Tea Party seek to return America to its principles?
  4. Will GOP amnesty sellout cushion Democrats’ fall?
  5. U.S. power elite demands rejection of Creator God?

{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }

Dawg em March 21, 2010 at 3:26 pm

Seeing as how “usurpation” is not merely a Democratic tactic I still say people like Dick Armery need to be booed off the stage whenever and wherever a Tea Party function is held. The “Coffee Party” was immediately taken over by leftisits. Which explains why many folks have not heard of it. Another Tea Party style revolt will also be subverted. Time is short. Kick the usurpers to the curb, now. They are intolerable. Another way to protest this hijacking is to vote in primary elections for the candidates who do NOT have the endorsement of their respective party. Anyone who has such an endorsement is already owned by and beholden to the establishment.

Reply

Chiu Chun-Ling March 22, 2010 at 12:01 pm

Also, do not be fooled by claims involving “electability” or “party unity”. The primary is the arena for the voters to decide who is ‘electable’ and to set the party straight. Anyone attempting to marginalize grass-roots conservatism in the primaries is simply not interested in the will of the people.

Reply

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a
video comment.

Previous post:

Next post: