A long-time friend of mine, who retired some years ago after serving as a Republican congressman for 18 years, called me last week. He said he was concerned about protecting his assets in the event the current soft dictatorship in Washington evolves into an out-and-out police state.

During our discussion, I asked him, if the Republicans win control of both houses of Congress, did he believe they would have the courage to seriously start cutting back on entitlements and trying to repeal every unconstitutional bill the Obamaviks have passed? To which my cynical friend responded, “If the Republicans take over the House and Senate, it’s not going to make a tinker’s dam bit of difference.”

He went on to say that one of the hardest realities he had to come to grips with during his tenure as a congressman was that most Republicans lack courage. He said they live in fear of being accused of being calloused, cruel, uncompassionate or – worst of all – racist. When he was a congressman, he was notorious for stubbornly sticking to the Constitution when it came to voting on legislation – which, of course, resulted in his being labeled an extremist.

The recent Senate debate over yet another extension of unemployment benefits was a perfect example of the RINO problem. Most Republicans were careful to say they supported the extension of jobless pay, but argued that the costs should be “paid for” rather than added to the federal deficit.

Attention Republican senators: There is no provision in the Constitution for the government to provide unemployment benefits – period! Yet, this obvious fact was never part of the debate. And so it is with virtually every congressional debate. Such time-wasting debates are almost always based on a false premise – usually that the government has a right to engage in activities that are not spelled out in the Constitution.

In the case of unemployment benefits, the false premise is that Congress has a right to give money to people who are unemployed. The debate then centers around whether the money should be borrowed or printed or come directly from taxpayers in the form of higher taxes, or by cutting an equal amount from some other transfer-of-wealth program. What many Republicans still do not understand is that a majority of Americans (meaning tea-party people) want politicians to abide by the Constitution.

Compassion is a good thing, but it’s not a collective experience. It’s a very personal issue. To be sure, a majority of Americans are compassionate, but they do not want the government to force them to pay for what politicians think they should be compassionate about.

Though 30-plus percent of Americans actually do want socialism (so long as they believe they will get the better of the scam), I believe that a majority of Americans want an end to socialism. Most so-called Republican conservatives don’t understand that their constituents want them to stand tall and fight against all entitlement programs and business subsidies – no comprising.

Amazingly, when someone like a Sharron Angle (running against Harry Reid in Nevada) says she wants to privatize Social Security and get rid of the Department of Education, Reid feels confident he can win votes by calling her an extremist. It is this type of absurd charge that throws fear into the hearts of so many Republicans.

Thus, through doublespeak, progressives have succeeded in changing the parameters of every debate. For example, when someone suggests that the Bush tax cuts should stay in place, progressive politicians and pundits have become fond of asking, “How are you going to pay for those tax cuts?” Their premise is that the money people would be able to keep as a result of a tax cut really belongs to the government. It is, of course, a totally false premise.

So, the big question remains: If we actually have elections in November, and if Republicans can overcome Democratic fraud and voter intimidation and win both the House and Senate, will enough of them have the courage to stand up and talk tea-party language?

If they are fearful, all they need to do is follow closely behind Superwoman (a.k.a. Michele Bachmann), Jim DeMint, Ron Paul and a host of other tea-party House and Senate members. Bachmann is a woman who never ceases to amaze me with her ability and courage to zero in on the real issues. She doesn’t buy into false-premise debates, which drives the far Left crazy. In a recent interview, she said:

“I think that all we should do is issue subpoenas and have one hearing after another, and expose all the nonsense that has gone on.” The only word I would take issue with is “nonsense.” I would be inclined to call it blatant criminal activity. But I agree with her that a tidal wave of subpoenas should be issued.

Along with a growing group of her colleagues, Bachmann not only understands what a majority of people in this country are upset about, she actually believes in the same things they do. But it would all be for naught if she didn’t also possess the courage to say what she believes.

Join Michele Bachmann in September at WND’s Taking America Back Conference

She’s absolutely right – subpoenas should be the first order of business, because so long as progressives know there are no serious consequences to their actions, they will continue to defy the Constitution and engage in criminal activity.

It’s time for Republicans to clean out their tent (meaning, invite progressives to leave the party), put an end to the cushy, clubby atmosphere in Washington and get in step with Michele Bachmann and other tea-party folks in the House and Senate.

I really believe this is the last train out for the Republican Party. Think of it as the Courage of Conviction Train, and hope that enough Republicans have the courage to get on board and prove my ex-congressman friend wrong about his tinker’s dam comment.

If not, look for the formation of an official Tea Party in the not-too-distant future.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.