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.

Do your duty sir!

Sincerely,

Tod Perdelwitz

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!

Here are some areas where I believe the Constitution ought to be changed:

1. 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
2. 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.
3. 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.”
4. 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.”

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.

The basic subtext of the Declaration is that rights are bestowed upon men and women by the Creator.  Those rights may neither be granted nor permanently removed from any human being by any other.  By very definition, if an ‘unalienable’ right is withheld from an individual, that person is enslaved by the one holding the usurped right.

The Declaration enumerates some fundamentals where compromise is not an option, prior to spelling out the grievances perpetrated by a distant and overactive bureaucracy upon a free people.  Those grievances, and the unwillingness of free Americans to further bend to the will of a tyrant, compelled the separation from Great Britain and the War for Independence.

These are some of the fundamentals that the Declaration compels us to hold dear:

Life is not negotiable.  Only if your life, your liberty, or that of your family or nation is threatened do you have a right to take life.

If you violate the sanctity of life, you have forfeited your own right to life.  This is true regardless of the age of the victim, from conception through extreme old age.  It is true regardless of the background or circumstances of either the victim or the perpetrator.

This is why abortion is wrong, always, under any condition.  The only possible exception is when the choice is between the life of the mother and that of the child – I will not presume to make that choice for anyone.

Euthanasia is also wrong.  Life is the gift of the Creator, and except in the circumstances that He has condoned, a taker of life has usurped the role of God.

The list of circumstances where taking a life is authorized by the Creator is short, but critical to our understanding of proper government.  Capitol punishment for capitol crimes is authorized by the Scriptures, as are self-defense and the protection of those who cannot defend themselves.

Finally, there is such a thing as “just” war in which it is acceptable to take life.  We should be engaged in one currently, but our Congress is for some reason reluctant to use their power to declare war on enemies that attacked our cities without provocation.

The next Declaration Principle is liberty.  Liberty is the collection of rights and responsibilities given to us by God alone.  These are essential attributes of free men and women, and are not bestowed by our peers or our government.  Neither can they be removed or infringed by any without rendering us slaves.

Essential Liberty includes those rights of man that are enumerated in the Bill of Rights, but is by no means limited to the original ten amendments, nor is it summed up by those that have been subsequently added.  The Bill’s first nine amendments delineate a few of the fundamental rights of free men.  The tenth is intended to ensure that the federal government is unable to trample on the many rights that are not listed.

True God-given Liberty extends to each man and woman unlimited rights to the exact extent that the exercise of those rights does not enslave or impede the Life or Liberty of another.

The right to free of speech, referred to in the First Amendment, does not extend to libel or obscenity.  There is certainly a right to privacy, though it is not mentioned in the Constitution, but that right is not sufficient license to confer the death penalty on innocent human children as the Supreme Court did in 1972.

And along with the blessings and protection of Providence, the right to keep and bear arms, enshrined in the Second Amendment, is an essential and necessary safeguard to every other aspect of liberty in a nation of free men.

When the prerequisites of Life and Liberty are secured, the pursuit of happiness becomes possible.  This Declaration Principle teaches that we are (of right) free to pursue a direction in our lives that we believe will result in our own happiness.  This is quite the opposite of saying that government will ensure (or insure) our happiness, for doing so would necessarily infringe upon the rights of others.

The pursuit of happiness allows the choices of career, place of residence, and a plethora of other decisions that make a life one’s own.  We were created to be unencumbered by coercive intrusion into the areas of life where our decisions are our own.  This freedom includes the ability to serve God according to the dictates of our own conscience.  It includes choosing one’s marriage partner, within the Creator’s definition of that institution.

There is much more light that the Declaration of Independence can shed on the direction our government should take today.  That will be the subject of another article.  Suffice it to say that the right candidate for Congress from Iowa’s Second District will uphold the principles of the Declaration, and will not compromise them any more than he will compromise the clear and direct words of the Constitution.

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.

You may get tired of hearing it, but under which of the delineated powers that the Constitution grants to the federal government do they have the right to levy taxes or pay benefits for these programs?  You know the answer, unless you subscribe the socialist re-write that says everything under the sun is granted by the “general welfare” wording.

The only (Constitutionally granted) power the government has to regulate insurance or medical practice is given through the regulation of interstate commerce in Article I, Section 8.

Here’s my solution to health care reform: Dismantle the federal bureaucracies and watch the free market perform.  Disband the Department of Health and Human Services.  Keep only the portions of the FDA and the CDC that are a legitimate “common defense” and “general welfare” instrument.

Let the states regulate the insurance and medical industries within their borders.  They can even adopt socialized medicine on a state-by-state basis, as Massachusetts has.  (Though I doubt many other states would be interested in repeating that failed experiment.)  Let each state do what its people think best, and you will have 50 individual experiments to find the best solutions, instead of one more huge federal bureaucracy.

On the economic side, its proponents say that ObamaCare (or is it KennedyCare this week?) will get rid of the waste and inefficiencies in the system.  But show me the last government program that is a model of efficiency.

The Washington socialists want to do the largest collectivization experiment in history, on the most successful and beneficial medical sector the world has ever seen.

Along with nationalizing 1/7 of the economy, this power grab will undoubtedly destroy the creativity and ingenuity of our pharmaceutical industry.  Have you ever stopped to think that the huge profits seen by drug companies are the only reason they are willing to expend the time, money, and talent needed to discover and produce the amazing array of modern medicines?

This socialization would also wreck havoc on the quality of care by limiting the wages of doctors, nurse, pharmacists, etc.  We haven’t even begun to consider the ramifications of the inevitable rationing of care, to reserve the scarce program resources for the most vital and necessary (or should I say progressive) members of society.

Unless we’re asking a very stupid question, the health care reform measures on the table right now are not the answer.  And no, Mr. Senator, we most fundamentally do NOT want the same thing the Democrats do here.

The right candidate for U.S. Representative from the Second District will stand four-square against ANY nationalization scheme, and for the dismantling of the current unconstitutional government forays into healthcare and insurance.

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.

The intent was clear.  Removing the means to resist tyranny or aggression renders a man or a nation subject to the will of whatever tyrant or criminal possesses superior force.  The right of freemen to keep and bear arms is inherent and inviolable, because if this right is suppressed the man is no longer free.

The founders sought to avoid a repetition in our time of the tyrant’s attempt to enslave the continent by enacting the Second Amendment, which reads:

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

The amendment contains two clauses:  The first deals with the accepted truth that a citizens’ militia is the best bulwark against a despot turning the military power against his own people.  The second clause provides the only certain way that the first can be ensured – the people must not be restricted from owning and carrying firearms.

The meaning of the phrase “shall not be infringed” is abundantly clear.  The founders intended that no law should ever be passed that would restrict the People of the United States of America from owning, carrying, and using arms.

This is especially true of military small arms.  In many cases, the colonists possessed weapons superior to the British infantry, and were generally more adept in their use.  The long rifle is the best example of this.  It is a near certainty that if the colonists didn’t have access to some of the best weapons of their time, our nation would never have been born.

The truth is that every federal law on the books that deals with small arms (the kind a man can bear) is absolutely, positively, unconstitutional.  Congress is barred by the Second Amendment from dealing with firearms.

From the National Firearms Act of 1934 to the 1968 Gun Control Act, to the Brady Bill, these laws are an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.  They must all be repealed.

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.”

To quote from the website of the First Baptist Church of Boston,

Words like “crusades” and “inquisition” make Christians blush with shame. They point out to us what some religious zealots have done to people throughout history. We who are Baptists, however, have tried to be consistent – from our very beginning – in standing firmly for the rights of all individuals to seek and pursue their own faith, or for each to decide to be without faith if that is the choice. We have been the recipients of religious oppression ourselves – as when our Church doors were nailed shut by the Puritan Authorities here in Boston in 1680. But we have never sought to use the power of the State to suppress others.

That doctrine was communicated to James Madison by the General Committee of the Baptists of Virginia, expressing the fear “that our religious rights were not well secured in our new Constitution of government.”

The result, as I’ve mentioned, was the first clause of our venerable First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Interestingly, it is President Thomas Jefferson’s correspondence with another group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut, that resulted in the oft misused phrase, “the separation of church and state.”  I’ve included the whole text of the letter from which that phrase was lifted, copied from the Library of Congress:

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

Notice that in the very letter from which the phrase “separation of Church and State” was lifted, this learned President – the very author of the Declaration of Independence – offers his own prayers to the Creator.  He saw no contradiction as the highest elected official in the federal government in so doing.  How can that be?

It is because the wall of separation is to protect Soul Liberty from the intrusion of the government, not to protect government from those who exercise their God given right to Soul Liberty.

To that extent then, I have no qualms about saying that I would like to see a fellow Baptist elected as our next U.S. Representative.  However, I would be nearly as well pleased to see a Methodist, an Episcopalian, even a Deist such as Mr. Jefferson, elected as our next Congressman — provided that they uphold the Doctrine of Soul Liberty that is enshrined in our First Amendment (along with the other positions I’ve espoused on this website).

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.

Compromise is fine when we’re discussing how many F-22s to buy, or what salary an official at the State Department should make.  But my elected representatives must not compromise my Constitution!

Our recent President, George W. Bush, ended his tenure in office (and any respect I once held for him) by declaring, “I’ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market system.”

I’m sorry.  Where in the Constitution did the people of the United States of America give the power to the President or Congress to make welfare payments to banks or insurance companies?  Go ahead and look.  You won’t find it.  What you will find is the Tenth Amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

On the Constitution, there’s no compromise.  A bill is either within the strict bounds or of our highest law, or Congress is usurping power that doesn’t belong to it.

Our former Congressman, Jim Leach, was a compromiser – and not only on the Constitution.  Our current Congressman, Dave Loebsack, is far worse.  He believes the Constitution is outmoded and obsolete.  When asked where the Constitution authorized the health care bill currently under debate, his reply was:

“No, there are a lot of things that we’ve decided on as a society that are not in the Constitution, that we should have.  And we’ve done that throughout our history.

If we go back to the Constitution itself, which I know some people want to do, but there would be a lot of things that we do that wouldn’t get done.  And I think all you have to do is start thinking about the sorts of things.

I know for a lot of people that’s a good thing, but I appreciate there’s nothing in there, exactly, about what you’re talking about.  There’s nothing in the Constitution, per se.  That’s right.”

This kind of attitude from a man who has sworn to uphold the Constitution is simply not acceptable.  It borders on treason.

Iowa’s Second District needs a Congressman who refuses to sell out our basic law, as our current Representative has done.  But Congressman Loebsack was right about one thing:  Congress has already gone a long way beyond the powers granted by the Constitution.

We need a Representative that will not only uphold the Constitution in new law, but will seek to return the federal government to it’s lawful boundaries.  Yes, that means a lot of departments and programs get cut.  All the way from the New Deal to the Great Society, through Medicare part D, bank bailouts, and government ownership of car companies.  It’s time to roll back the federal behemoth.

I’m not fool enough to think that this could all be done overnight, but we need a Congressman (as well as a federal judiciary and executive) that will stand up for the rule of law, and begin to dismantle the unconstitutional programs, departments, and bureaucracies.

Is there something that the American people truly want the government to do, that the Constitution doesn’t allow for?  The amendment process is open.  Let’s not allow any more lawlessness in our highest legislature.

No compromise on the Constitution.

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.