A year ago, you stated that you would uphold traditional marriage. Last spring the opportunity came to put your rhetoric into practice, but up to this point you have failed to live up to your words.
In April, the Iowa Supreme Court usurped both executive and legislative powers when they ruled that same-sex marriage was to be instituted in Iowa. By your inaction, you have allowed their unconstitutional usurpation to go unchecked.
Now I urge you, on the occasion of Maine’s victory over this abomination of the term “marriage”, to rethink your position. Issue a stay on same-sex marriage in Iowa, until the people have been allowed to vote on a Marriage Amendment. And then work with your colleagues in the legislature to get an amendment passed and presented to the people.
Sir, it is your duty both to uphold your word to the people of Iowa, and to uphold the separation of powers dictated by the Iowa Constitution.
Clearly, the Iowa Supreme Court has no constitutional authority to change law, nor do they have authority to execute law. They did both in ordering the Defense of Marriage Act removed from the state code and in ordering marriage licenses to be issued to same-sex couples.
For some, the Constitution is a sacred document; clear in its meaning and easily understood by all people of good conscience and honest intention. To these people, it is wholly adequate (with or without its subsequent amendments) to provide the best government of, by, and for the people.
For others, it is a tool to be bent to their purposes or ignored with impunity. Usually those purposes are to entrap, enslave, and render impotent the above group which are honor-bound to follow the tenets of the sacred document.
Regarding Barrack Hussein Obama, it is clear that he is firmly in the second group; and small wonder: He is a citizen of Indonesia, by the action of his mother declaring his nationality as such, and by his overt voluntary possesion of an Indonesian passport in the 1980s. (Indonesian law does not allow dual citizenship, therefore his acceptance of their passport is a tacit abdication of US citizenship, regardless of where he was born.)
Under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, Barrack Hussein Obama may not serve as President of the United States. Therefore it is clear that this nation is in actuality no longer governed by the Constitution. We are governed by a usurper posing as chief executive, and a Congress that is a pure mockery of the body that the Constitution established. They are merely biding their time and amassing power before sweeping away the last remnants of the best system of government ever known to mankind.
Folks, we don’t have much time left to re-establish the government under the Constitution. My personal opinion is that the 2010 and 2012 elections are the last peaceful oportunities to reverse this situation. To be successful, Constitutionalists (of whatever party) must obtain a majority in at least one house of Congress in 2010, and both houses plus the Presidency in 2012.
If that does not happen, at best we will have civil war that will trade the blood of patriots (and tyrants) for the liberty of their children. At worst, the great experiment in self-government by the Constitution will be over and our children and grandchildren will grovel under the boot of tyranny forever.
It’s time to stand and be counted. Long live the Republic!
If you’ve read my previous posts, you may think that I am against any change to the Constitution, whatsoever. Actually, I’m only against changes that are either against the original intent of the founders, or that are made outside of the means of the amendment process (i.e. unconstitutional laws and judicial activism).
Here are some areas where I believe the Constitution ought to be changed:
Repeal the 17th Amendment. The founders wisely intended that the U.S. Senate be first and foremost the voice of the States in the federal government. For that reason, prior to the 17th Amendment, Senators were chosen by the state legislatures to represent their interests in Washington. Direct election of Senators flies in the face of the founders’ intent, as well as the very purpose for having a bicameral Congress. It weakens the standing of the United States as a federation of free and sovereign States, and helps to reduce the states to mere administrative regions of the national government
Repeal the 16th Amendment. The founders intent was that the federal government derive its subsistence primarily from the states (in proportion to their population), as well as from duties on imports. It was a good plan, and successfully maintained the federal government at a reasonably small level. Today, thanks to the direct taxation on the citizens of the various states, the federal government has grown deadly obese. We can trim of fat as much as we want in a given session of Congress, but while the source excess nutrients remains the problem will recur. As in other cases of moribund obesity, radical surgery is required to limit the intake of food – repealing the income tax is the operation the government needs to enable the permanent reduction of bureaucratic girth.
Enshrine the sanctity of life. In my article on Declaration principles, I discussed the fact that rights exist because they are granted by the Creator, not because government grants those rights or deprives us of them. The right to life is one such – but in this era when the public has been deluded by decades of judicial legislation and Congressional collusion, it has become necessary to clarify the fundamental protections by an amendment as follows: “Recognizing that life is the gift of the Creator, and the ending of life His prerogative alone, the term ‘person’ as used in the fourteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States shall apply from the time of conception until natural death.”
Restrain the federal government from usurping the role of religion. Marriage is not an institution of the federal government (nor of the states), but of God. Therefore the federal government does not have the power or authority to alter or abolish the institution or the term. Further, the institution of marriage predates the institution of government by many years, and is a more necessary pillar of society. In that spirit, I offer the following amendment: “The institution of marriage, being outside and independent of government, the federal government of the United States of America shall not recognize in any law or regulation any definition of marriage except that between one natural man and one natural woman, nor shall it recognize any relationship that seeks to confer the benefits of marriage by a different name.”
In a previous article entitled Compromise and the Constitution, I discussed the repugnancy of Congressmen bargaining with the basic law of our land. However, the Constitution is not the only area where compromise is anathema.
After all, neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights was written to grant rights to free Americans. Quite the contrary – our highest laws were adopted to secure the rights that pre-exist the charter of the Union.
Before the Constitution, there was another document, still more basic to our understanding of the American ideal of government. It was written to submit facts “to a candid world,” and as an appeal “to the Supreme Judge of the world.” Of course, I refer to the Declaration of Independence. Read the rest of this entry »
The health care reform currently on the table is so wrong, on so many levels, that the best fix for the 1000+ pages is a good bonfire. If you want a good discussion about the why’s and wherefore’s I suggest the audio recorded by Ronald Reagan in 1961 – socialized medicine is just as wrong today as it was then, and for all the same reasons.
To lift another quote from the Gipper, “Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem.” Too much regulation, too much red tape, too much Medicare and Medicaid, not to mention the newly-minted Medicare Part D – signed into law by a supposedly conservative President. Read the rest of this entry »
Let’s clear something up: The Second Amendment is not about having firearms for hunting, nor for self-defense – though these are both legitimate uses of our right to keep and bear arms.
When the founders adopted the Bill of Rights, they had just been through a long struggle against what had been their recognized government. King George and the British Parliament began with unpopular taxes. They continued with the dismantling of the colonies’ self-rule. Eventually this tyrannical government in a far-off capitol marched its armies on Lexington and Concord to confiscate the American stores of powder, shot, and weapons. Read the rest of this entry »
By the grace of God, I am an independent fundamental Baptist, saved by the shed blood of Jesus Christ.
I’m sure you wonder why I state that so boldly on what is essentially a political website. The answer is that being a Christian, and an outspoken one, is entirely compatible with entry into any arena in American civic life.
You see, there is a fundamentally Baptist doctrine firmly embedded in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. We call it the “Doctrine of Soul Liberty.” Most Americans call it “freedom of religion.” Read the rest of this entry »
Compromise can be a good thing. When a company and a union are able to form a contract, it’s because both sides compromised in order to reach an agreement mutually beneficial to the parties involved. The same is true when an individual buys a car, accepts a job offer, or decides with their husband or wife how to manage the family finances.
In each of those cases, we’re talking about a compromise that deals with opinions, with economic contracts, etc. We’re not talking about compromising bedrock convictions.
Sadly, that distinction appears to be lost on Washington of late. We’ve heard a lot in the last few years about bi-partisanship, about “reaching across the aisle,” about politicians that bargain away this, that, or the other in order to “get something done” and avoid gridlock.
This site exists to encourage discussion about the principles and positions that ought to be held by the next U.S. Representative that we send to Washington. I’ve published a few articles to get started, so please browse and feel free to submit comments if you have something to add.
Let’s cut to the chase: Iowa’s 2nd Congressional District needs to trade in our Congressman for one who understands both the people of the district and the Constitution of the United States of America. Representative Loebsack, as he has proven, does neither.
The present inhabitant of our seat in Congress not only supports unconstitutional legislation, he actually believes that we don’t mind. Check out this audio clip, taken at a town hall meeting in West Burlington on August 15, 2009.
It’s time we band together to let Congressman Loebsack know that real Iowans in his district still care about the Constitution. He needs to find out that we still care about the rule of law in our state and nation. He needs to understand that we consider him to be in violation of his oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.
We need to send the message loud and clear that he will not be allowed to take a seat in Congress as our Representative after the 2010 elections. And we must make certain that no other person with beliefs so repugnant to Constitutional America will ever occupy that seat again.
This site is devoted to returning Iowa’s 2nd District to representation by a Real Iowan that respects our Constitution – and will uphold it. We need a Representative that will go to Washington, D.C. for us, but won’t let Washington get into him.
The posts on this site will detail my vision of the policies that a Real Iowan ought to pursue, and the convictions that an American Patriot ought to hold. Explore the pages here and see if you agree. Then together, perhaps we can find the right person to put into this office of trust.
