The need for a third party is because the DNC is a thoroughly Socialist/Marxist/Communist organization, and is FUBAR. The GOP is so heavily infiltrated by liberals (see the S/M/C reference above) that it would take an effort of YEARS to take it back. Then you would STILL have to fight diligently to prevent other wolves in sheep's clothing (RINO's) from getting in again! What is needed is something new. With a whole new paradigm for a charter.
First I think a good name would be (there is THICK irony at work here!) the Conservative Constitutional Constructionist Party (Yeah... CCCP, I went there! For those who're historically challenged, What we referred to as the USSR was referred to by themselves as the CCCP). Eh, what's in a name, as long as it conveys who we are and what we believe in, Grand Old Party... That really means NOTHING, they can and have supported a LOT of heinous things! In lieu of arguing about a name in this place and at this time, I'll just go with CCCP for now.
Second, some bylaws. If any member is ever found to be on the wrong side of an issue (we can allow an occasional mistake, but if it happens more than once or twice, they should be allowed to be ejected from the Party. There should be no RINO's. They shouldn't have to be primaried They would simply be challenged by a CCCP candidate in the General election, and forbidden by a court injunction to use the CCCP logo, or any mention of affiliation with the Party in campaign material. When Karl Rove worked against Christine O'Donnell, and Karen Angle in the general election, his GOP credentials should have been immediately revoked! RINO problem solved, and to ensure adherence to Party Doctrine, there would be TWO conventions each election cycle, one before the primaries, in which each member would have to re-certify and possibly answer for any 'off the reservation' votes. The reason for this is because sometime you vote against a favorable bill because there's a poison pill rider attached. Voting against a Defense authorization is ok, if there's a rider that forbids any hunting allowed on any US Military installation for instance. But you have to be prepared to use some defense above and beyond political expedience to explain yourself.
Third, negative campaigning in primaries should be greatly discouraged. No need to do the GOP's and DNC's work for them. Each candidate should be contrasting themselves against the opposition (“I would be better against Obama because...”) rather than tearing your fellow Constructionist apart. Why? Because you MAY lose, and any lasting damage you do to your opponent in the primary is done in the general as well.
Fourth, the Party should be flexible as Constitutional Constructionalism allows. There is no term limit on any office except the President. Why impose term limits on those we find capable of doing the job, as long as they maintain sound Constitutionally Correct doctrine? The GOP may find itself hamstrung by the Red States enacting term limits, while the Blue States continue to send the Ted Kennedys and the Nelson Rockefellers, and the like year after year after year? This is designed to allow THEM to learn how to out maneuver your people politically and keep you down. If a State allows endless terms and your candidate maintains ideological purity, leave them there! That's how majorities are built! Gradually.
Fifth, aside from the Constitution itself, decide How to address some of the existing problems and then work those into the platform.
E-Verify, in DoD contractors, all employees have already been required to provide documentation to prove citizenship, either a birth certificate, or a passport. If we passed a law that said OK, ever employee in the US will provide the same to their employer by Jan. 1 2013, there would be a mass migration of illegals to the border, because they wouldn't be able to find work anymore. ICE could sent roving patrols to construction sites and meat packing plants and spot check employees and employers would face a fine of $100,000 per employee per incident for violations. That means if they came today, and caught illegal Juan Valdez working at Tysons Chicken, with 4 others they would be fined a half million dollars, if they decided to come back tomorrow and found them again, they would be fined ANOTHER half million dollars. The job market would dry up, and the illegal would self deport. There are those who see E-Verify as an infringement. There are also those who see asking for a picture ID to vote as an infringement. Why is it an infringement to ask someone to verify that they are who they claim to be?
Judicial Review needs to be considered. If the Supreme Court can strike down a State or Federal law based upon it's Constitutionality, why can't the Congress pass a bill stating “No that is exactly what we meant”. If the High Court allowed a law to regulate private ownership of firearms to stand, the Congress could pass a Bill to clarify their definitions of “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” I think there needs to be a set definition of what “Infringement” means. If we allowed our freedom of speech to be trod upon as easily as our right to keep and bear arms, I probably couldn't be writing this! Further, Judges who repeatedly try to “legislate from the bench” should be subject to censure or impeachment much more easily that is currently allowable. There should be a Congressional Committee proposed to review Supreme Court Precedent and by an Act of Congress, signed by the President the SCOTUS should be able to be overruled (yes, that WOULD require a Constitutional Amendment) Currently, the Judiciary is the only branch that has no regular oversight, and no way to rectify wrongs short of impeachment. What if a majority of the SCOTUS is not impeachable, just wrong? Roe v. Wade was a colossal error on various points. First, it took the definition of murder away from the States in violation of the Tenth Amendment. Second in doing so, it violated it's own enumerated powers. Third, it went beyond overturning a State's murder conviction against a Doctor that performed an abortion, but it went into an issue that wasn't even RAISED and found that a woman had a RIGHT to an abortion! We can't simply say that it's no longer applicable, because it exists in legal precedent now. The precedent has to be vacated somehow to invalidate the atrocity that has evolved from it. Again, when a Federal court overturned Proposition 8 in California, they flagrantly violated the rights of the people of California to self determination. The law had NO effect on what two consenting adults could do in their bedroom together, but likewise the two consenting adults have no right to demand that society as a whole recognize it as normal mainstream family activity. Proposition 8 was California deciding what was and was not going to be determined to be “normal family activity”. I'm sorry, but under the enumerated powers of the Consitution I can find NOWHERE that the Federal Government (ANY BRANCH) has jurisdiction in Family Law. Indeed, under the Tenth Amendment it is specifically given to the “Sates and Citizens” both of whom were disenfranchised by that ruling! Once again, the precedent needs to be somehow vacated before the situation can be remedied.
Foreign Policy is one of the few things that the Federal Government has a clear charter to do. The Federal Government is supposed to be the Agent that deals with Foreign governments on behalf of the disparate States. Further, (my apologies to Ron Paul and his supporters) The Constitution has ZERO jurisdiction beyond our own borders. If you disagree with me, try arguing Mirada to a Mexican court. Try getting a defendant out of a Turkish prison for a drug violation arguing “cruel and unusual punishment”. In Nigeria a conviction for marijuana will get you executed,IMMEDIATELY, appeal THAT! If someone has or has been granted American Citizenship and travels beyond our borders and contrived to make war against us, A public call should be issued for them to return and defend themselves against the charge of treason. If that call remains unanswered for a reasonable period of time (30 days should be more than sufficient to find your way to an embassy or consulate and turn yourself in) then that individual has placed THEMSELVES beyond the authority of the US Constitution AND it's protections. That's not a radical concept, it's common freaking SENSE! If the Yemeni Government has no problems with us launching a drone strike IN YEMEN against the head of Al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, why should Ron Paul?
Fiscal policy should be kept at a rational level. THERE WILL BE PAIN! We have a Social Security system that is totally screwed up. It wouldn't be if Congress hadn't spent the money paid into the system on social programs, and replaced it with T-Bills (IOU's) that will now be coming due. Saying they shouldn't have done that wont fix the problem. Social Security is NOT and entitlement, it is a contract. People had their money STOLEN UNDER FALSE PRETENSES for DECADES. We can't simply discontinue the program, but it DOES need to be phased out. We need to find a point at which we will pay out full benefits to people who have gone too far down the road to have the rug yanked out from under them, but stop collections from new entrants so we don't owe THEM still further down the road. This may entail instituting a Federal Lottery to raise some revenue, or redirect some taxes that otherwise may be discontinued until the Last of the Social Security obligations are paid. Cutting some programs that we may otherwise feel worthwhile until those obligations are met. If the Federal Government is to continue to guarantee home mortgages, maybe a percentage or two of the interest should go to the Federal Government to cover it. We should NOT institute more taxes, but utilize some of what we are already collecting to pay it down. Once paid for, the program, and the taxes can be eliminated. OK, here's where MAYBE the Ron Paul supporters will decide not to burn me in effigy. We need to have a committee to figure out how to A) decrease the supply of cash in circulation, and B) re-tie that remaining currency to gold to stabilize our currency and do away with fiat money that represents nothing more than paper and ink. This may be a trick, Ron Paul's demands for an accounting of the Federal Gold Reserve haven't been answered. I've heard estimates that there is probably about 400 billion in gold stored in the Reserve. Considering the Federal Government is spending about 4-5 TRILLION dollars a year, there is a problem. We need to do one or both of two things, DEFLATE the dollar so it is worth more, and we can accomplish our ends with fewer dollars, or accomplish less. Exactly HOW to take currency out of circulation needs to be determined. The easiest way would be to take a percentage of the revenue collected and simply destroy it. But whatever I suggest here is in no way shape, or form binding. I only make a few suggestions to illustrate how it could be done, without freezing the dollar at a miniscule amount of gold, but even if we were to designate the dollar as a microgram of gold, it would at least be tied to SOMETHING concrete. OK, Let's hear what others think of my reasoning!
Comments