We were knee deep into the middle of the Bush Presidency. We were being attacked from the Left and Right, (but mostly from the Left...)
“...How can we suspend habeas corpus rights to the terrorists? We have not declared war on these people. They are not prisoners of war. And what about Bush’s Patriot Act with illegal wire taps? Bush is NOT following the constitution. He needs to be impeached...”
I was one of the many people who told the liberals: “The US Constitution is not a suicide pact.”
The US Constitution is worth dying for.
However, it was never meant for you to die BECAUSE of the Constitution.
I find myself using that phrase again, (The US Constitution is not a suicide pact) however, this time I am using this phrase with our friends in the Tea Party movement, with libertarians, and some conservatives.
First off, what does that phrase really mean?
I am going to let President Thomas Jefferson explain it, because he wrote much of the Constitution, and I think that he can explain it best:
“...Strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation.
To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the LAW itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means...”
Thomas Jefferson (spoken after charges that Jefferson didn’t follow the Constitution in the purchase of the Louisiana Territory.)
Fact of the matter is; no US president, (or congress) has ever fully followed the Constitution to the letter, including the founding fathers.
To point a finger at Jefferson, or Lincoln, or FDR, or George Bush, is hypocritical because NO PRESIDENT has ever followed that poor document, line by line.
OK, how does all of this play into modern times..??
Today, we have a group of people on the Right who will condemn Republican candidates if they have done anything, or voted in any way, in what they deem is an “unconstitutional manner.”
These people will push for third party candidates, in an attempt to right what they perceive is a wrong. But they will give the victory to the democrats.
Here is the way that I view this, (if anyone cares.) The US Constitution is the greatest document on how to run a country. However, as Jefferson said, there are times that you must sidestep the written law to protect the country and it’s people.
Claiming to support third party candidates because you believe that republicans have lost their way, is your right. However, it is the best way to insure that democrats will win.
Now, if you are wise...
If you are using the “threat of a third party” to shape up the republican candidate in your area. That’s great.
Or if the third party candidate in your area is miles ahead of everyone else, you are doing the right thing, and I might join you. We need to rein in federal spending. We need to stop this health bill. (Aahh, health REFORM bill, as the democrats are calling it.)
But, keep in mind that in many areas of the country, a third party will give the win to the democrats.
CASE IN POINT
The Senate race in Nevada is a prime example of the point that I am trying to make.
Harry Reid should lose his Senate bid in 2010. In my opinion, Sen. Reid is the worst Senate Majority Leader that I have ever seen in my lifetime.
Reid WILL LOSE to one of the three republican candidates who will oppose him in 2010. (That is unless a third party screws things up.)
Let me prove it to you.
Rasmussen Poll (Mar 3 2010)
Sue Lowden (republican)- Ex Nevada Republican chairperson, Lowden polls 51% over Harry Reid who has 38% of the vote. (10% of the people are not sure, or vote- other)
Businessman Danny Tarkanian (republican) has 50% of the vote, Reid 37%, with 13% not sure.
Assemblywomen Sharron Angle (also republican) has 46% to Harry Reid’s 38%.
Any one of these three republicans could beat Harry Reid, as it stands right now.
For this example, let’s use the current leader: Sue Lowden, to make this easy.
Lowden leads Reid in the polls by 51% to 38%. If all of the undecided voters were to vote for Reid- 10% (which would NEVER happen), Reid would still lose, and Reid would be gone from politics.
This would be the END of the story for Harry Reid, except for...
The Tea Party movement has filed a “Certificate of Existence” for a third party in Nevada, and they are going to run Jon Ashjian as their candidate.
When polled, 13% of Nevada voters claim to be in, or have attended a Tea Party rally.
If the Tea Party can steal 10% of the republican votes, and Harry Reid picks up a few undecided voters...
Harry Reid will win.
The Tea Party will give the victory to Harry Reid.
I really wish that this Nevada Senate race was some type of early election, but it isn’t. You can tell people this stuff, but they are never going to learn it until they see it with their own eyes.
It is a shame...
A movement like the Tea Party, who’s goal was to lower federal spending and high taxation, to make congress more aware of the federal intrusions on personal freedom, a movement like this could actually help democrats win elections; it actually makes me sick.
Rush Limbaugh said it best, (and I am paraphrasing) Rush said: “I am not one who buys into conspiracies. But, this anti-republican, anti-democrat movement sure smells like a deception to me. I can’t prove it, but we will see.”
Yes Rush, we will see.
Written by AR Babonie for The Angry Republic
(NOTE) I have been very tough on the political Right with my last three editorials, and I apologize for that. Being a conservative, it is not my nature to go against the political Right. However, I believe that the current democrat party is the biggest threat to American freedom that I have seen in my lifetime.
The only thing that could hinder the removal of democrat politicians is a third political party.
And that is why this topic is so important to me. However, I plan on moving to a different topic this weekend.
On another topic
With two more crashes recently involving Toyota cars randomly speeding up on their own, this problem is not going away. It is reported that 10 cars that had the “recall problem” fixed by Toyota dealers, have had the same problem again. (One just took place in France, as I was writing this.)
Toyota will not admit that they have a problem with the electrical system in their cars. They believe that it is a mechanical system failure, (floor mats, etc.)
I still stick with my opinion on Toyota in the editorial that I wrote, called: “Progressives are trying to kill you with a Toyota.” In that editorial, I point to an electrical system called: “Electronic Throttle Control” as a possible cause of the problem.
WHY..??
If this problem were mechanical in nature, (floor mats sticking, etc) the gas peddle would stick in one position and stay there.
But that isn’t what is happening in some cases.
Some of these Toyota’s are at a standstill, when all of a sudden the car takes off at a high rate of speed without the driver stepping on the gas peddle at all. This would indicate a malfunction of the computer system.
If you are interested in this topic, please read my editorial called:
“Progressives are trying to kill you with a Toyota.”
Thanks for reading
The Angry Republic
