Mike has it dead on.
November will tell a lot.
Beyond that, 2012 will determine our direction for the coming decade, perhaps longer.
Since the word "conservative' gets thrown around rather loosely, perhaps we could start using "constitutional conservatives" instead.
Mike asks: what defines a domestic enemy of the Constitution? What would one have to do?
Our constitution “guarantees” us a Republican form; and by that I believe:
“The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen, in his person and property, and in their management. Try by this, as a tally, every provision of our constitution, and see if it hangs directly on the will of the people.”
“I am not among those who fear the people. They, and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom. And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes; have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers.”
“A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, and to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering. Then begins, indeed, the bellum omnium in omnia [war of all against all], which some philosophers observing to be so general in this world, have mistaken it for the natural, instead of the abusive state of man. And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression”
1816, Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval
I submit the halls of congress abound with domestic enemies to our constitution. Stop borrowing, stop spending, stop failing.
When you step back and look at the big picture, it is not so complicated, is it? We do not need more legislation, etc., we need to get back to the beginning basics. Thanks for the Jefferson quote.
What could be more meaningful than acting on one's solemn oath to be loyal and to protect and to defend the law of the land as written in the Constitution? I am more inspired about that now than ever, but I had not realized how much such an oath had become ignored, forgotten and ho-hum. As Jefferson, Washington, Madison and others understood the meaning off an oath to God and how they lived daily with assurance that fellow citizens lived with similar religious regard for one's sworn oath to God; it was that way on American people's minds. Sad to say, these days we can watch people line up all day to put a hand on a Bible or raise their hand and swear allegiance to the truth, 'So help me God," Yes, but maybe a tiny fraction will realize what they are saying and mean it.
What I am pointing out here is meant to highlight painfully how far progressives, the ACLU and lazy judicial servants have been in forcing religion to be squeezed out of public life. High regard for the society benefits of moral standards is sliding. So too is the Christian Church of America guilty of gross negligence about standing tall in America. How much have we forgotten how to contend? How much are we now looking inward in Churches, becoming more insular by the day.
The forces of progressive change meant all along to push religion in the form of Christianity around to reduce us to hiding within the walls serving each other. Church people had always done that, but the people of Jefferson's time also stood out as moral leaders serving their country. Everyone knew it and enjoyed confidence in religion and moral strenght keeping their freedom secure.
So, lets just criticize politicians about not standing up for school prayer, religious education and Christmas worship and Ten Commandment plaques. "Yeah, it their fault!" Are you satisfied with that? Why not ask, "How much should the church leaders have maintained standing among leaders and everyday Christians should have maintained standup defense of major moral standards instead of minor spirituality fads?" Well, has the modern church majored in such minors? Does the secular world see us demonstrating the moral standing of Christ or do they see us standing down?
So, how much might we expect of persons repeating an oath of office?
Charles, Well said! One of the deceptive ways that government silenced the pulpits was the 501(c)(3) IRS status. How many churches can you name that are not IRS approved? When they seek this approval, so we can take tax deductions, they loose the right to speak out against government. The government controls speech in the churches by the threat of fines and the loss of this status approval. The Fed nevers gives away anything unless they see a benefit back to them.
One of the problem with the churches is the people attending them. They want their tax deductions. I have looked the bible all over and I can not find where God said a persons donations the His house should be tax deductible.
This represents a lack of Biblical and Constitutional education of the people. In our country, there is a tremoundous lack of the ability to perform critical thinking. First, a pastor and the church board need to understand the implications of of submitting the church to the IRS. Once they are convinced that this past practice is in error and against God's Word and that they have fallen for a trick of being controlled by the government, they need to make the decision to withdraw from the IRS program. They then must embark on a plan to educate the members of the church to understand why it was wrong and why this church will no longer submit itself to the IRS, making the government have censorship control over the pulpit. I believe that many people will understand if correctly instructed. If it is more important for the church leadership to make sure they do not risk losing some money by pulling away from government control, then they deserve the control over them due to their ignorance and self-serving decisions.
Our country, for a great part, is experiencing an awakening. We are no longer content to just accept what government does to us as there being no choice. We have a choice and we had better start exercising that choice before we are further down this road.
AMEN! But I can not count the number of church people who have patted me on the head and told me the business of the church is to "save souls" - they do not get involved in fighting the government. And then they tell me my true home is in heaven. Yeah, right! Toss out the salt and put a cover over our lights.
You are right - Our people can't think. They don't teach Logic in the government schools. Wonder why.
Great quotes from our brilliant founders! I will copy the quotes for my personal files and look for on-line links.
BUT: "breach of contract" is not applicable here! There is no "contract" between We The People and our "creature", the federal government. Instead, the relation is one of creator and creature. The "creature" was formed by the creator and is entirely subordinate to the Will of the People as expressed by them in the Constitution which they ordained and established. Hamilton refers to the federal government as our "creature" in one of the Federalist Papers (I have cited it several times).
Contract law is a completely different concept which has no application here. Instead, think, "Creator" (We the People) - "Creature" (the federal government). This is important!! Only when one disabuses oneself of the false notion that there is a "contract" with the federal government and replaces it with the accurate concept that the relation is one of creator - creature, can one understand the true relation between the two. Our creature has no right to even exist without our consent!
You and I can enter into a contract for you to paint my house for $1,000. If you breach the contract, I can sue you for damages or rescind the contract. BUT, you still have an independent existence - separate from mine. I may not blot out your existence. But the federal government may not even EXIST if we choose to abolish it. This is fundamental.
The relation between the States is different: sovereign States chose to create a federation for the limited purposes specified in the Constitution. "I'll help defend you if you help defend me"; "I won't tax your articles of commerce if you don't tax mine"; etc.