- Text smaller
- Text bigger
I’m heartened by the commitments many people are making in response to the challenge to build a network to support the demand that candidates for election to Congress (the U.S. House and Senate) in 2014 commit to support impeachment and removal of officials in the U.S. government who are conducting or collaborating with the Obama faction’s war on the U.S. Constitution.
But some of the comments I’ve read in response to my articles on the subject prove that, when it comes to politics, the elitist faction’s political propaganda has successfully induced a condition of “learned helplessness” in some Americans. They feel the degradation of their status as free people. They respond by expressing feelings of grief and anger. But fear, rooted in a sense of powerless vulnerability, makes it impossible for them to see or even consider actions they are free to undertake to remedy their situation.
Some respondents reject the political/constitutional strategy I propose because “the Democrats in the U.S. Congress will never vote for it.” Others do so because they rightly surmise that the existing cowardly/quisling GOP congressional leadership will never implement it. Both these groups adamantly refuse to look at the fact that every national election is an opportunity to change the composition of the U.S. Congress. They refuse to consider what may happen if enough patriotic voters visibly insist that candidates pledge to implement the demand for impeachment and removal. They refuse to think through the impact if a sufficient number make it clear that they will not vote for anyone who does not pledge to do so. The 2014 election could result in a congressional majority, in both Houses, committed to carry out the pledge.
Another type of respondent wallows in the thought that our politics is now dominated by voters who are dependent on government handouts. They assume that there are just not enough people left willing to take on the responsibility for themselves and their communities that decent liberty requires. They know from their own experience that neither of the so-called major parties any longer represents this decent constituency. They are intelligent enough to realize that their failure to do so (and especially the failure of the GOP) means that recent elections have been structured to make sure this constituency was not represented. (This is why the mantra of the GOP has focused on voting for the lesser of evils, which takes it for granted that there is no choice for good.)
These sham elections offer a “choice” rather like the choice of colors reportedly offered for the first Ford cars. “Any car any color so long as it’s black.” Voters are offered the alternative of their choice, so long as it’s God-hating socialism. People who supposedly abhor God-hating socialism moan and whine about it, but won’t even consider taking up the challenge of pitching in to support an alternative that truly represents the God-endowed rights and constitutional liberty they want to uphold.
Most of the respondents I’m talking about probably identify themselves as conservatives. They probably claim to support limited government, free enterprise and personal responsibility. They probably lament the rising population of Americans dependent on government assistance, passively waiting for their next welfare check, or relying on their “independence card” or other proof of eligibility for some government assistance program. Yet for all their conservative talk, when it comes to the self-initiative and enterprise required to prove, by political action, that they are still free men and women, they themselves exhibit all the symptoms of the dependency-minded welfare state mentality.
These “conservatives” and “patriots” won’t work to identify and build the network of liberty-minded voters who share their commitment to the U.S. Constitution and to the God-acknowledging principles on which it’s based. Instead they are content to wait for the so-called “major” parties to fabricate another sham election in which to offer the latest “same-difference” alternatives of evil. As voters they live on leadership handouts in much the same way as the welfare dependents whose mentality they claim to reject.
Worse still, they are willing to accept laws, policies and results that fall far short of what they could do for themselves, if only they were willing to be the activist constituents of representatives they lifted up by themselves. Such representatives would be bound to act for them because they were elected on account of the pledge they made to do so. Thus, instead of living in the shabby tenements of welfare state “politics” they would once again inhabit the house of liberty. They would no longer be subject to the arbitrary rule of the forces that produce, and therefore control, “leaders” appointed to rule, rather than represent the people.
This politics of liberty is nothing new. It was, once upon a time, the natural course of political action in America. Its vestiges are still recognizable. Today, for example, the platforms of the so-called major parties are little more than PR exercises intended to goad support from gullible voters. Especially in the GOP, candidates often go out of their way to make it clear that their party’s platform will not inform their official actions.
It was not always thus. As the term implies, the platform once represented the common stand all the candidates of the party were pledged to support. It represented the common sense of priorities and objectives of the people rallying in support of the party’s candidates, which they came together to promote for the common good of their community, state and nation. The common bond of loyalty that brought and held people together was not the shifty thong of ambition for power. It was the pledged commitment to act in pursuit of goals dictated by the security, strength and righteous conscience that constituted their goodwill toward themselves and their posterity.
Today the Obama faction and its collaborators are waging relentless political war against the unalienable rights and constitutional liberty of the American people. They are attacking on many fronts. If the people roused to defend against them do so only in view of the attack they experience, the war will be lost, along with everything they defend. But if they are roused to take united action against the seat of political power that coordinates and supplies that political warfare, they stand a good chance, most probably the only chance, of curtailing the war at its root. And, by the same token, they will revive the spirit of active, responsible citizenship that best serves the restoration of their character and sovereignty as a free people. This is the whole purpose of the impeachment strategy I propose for the 2014 congressional (U.S. House and Senate) election.
Will you help build the network of active, self-actuated citizens the impeachment strategy demands? If so, let your yes be yes. Answer the challenge with a simple action: Reply to me at firstname.lastname@example.org. A simple “yes” will do. Then demonstrate your resolve by sharing this challenge with as many people as you can.