Tea Party Patriots Ordinary citizens reclaiming America's founding principles.

Saturday, November 27, 2010

And to the Republic, for which it stood

We have all pledged allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. But what is a flag? It is mere thread, stitching and colored dye. It is a mere symbol. What we are pledging allegiance to is the Republic! The Republic, for which the flag once stood.

John Adams wrote, “A republic is an empire of laws, not men.” A republic’s ruler is the law; its ruler is the rule of law. And no law is more supreme in this land than the U.S. Constitution; its subjects are princes and paupers alike.

Yet we have elected representatives to our federal government whose first official act of office is to lie. They place their hand upon the holy bible, and make the most sacred of oaths to defend the Constitution against all foes, both foreign and domestic. Yet they turn around, almost immediately, and break it. They are the domestic foes.

Beware the representative who comes to you touting a staunchly conservative voting record, giving lip service to the Constitution. What you should instead hear is, “I am perfectly willing to discharge my duty to uphold the constitution when politically and ideologically expedient.”

If the tea party movement is to be about anything, it must be about restoring the Republic; it must be about reestablishing the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. But here forth lies our challenge: We must be as willing to oppose unconstitutional legislation or action rooted in conservative ideology, as we are willing to oppose unconstitutional legislation or action rooted in liberal ideology. If not, we are no better than they are. If not, the Constitution will continue to be relegated to a mere relic, and we shall forever be an empire of men, not law.


  1. Matt,
    Once again I agree vociferously. But just how do you suppose we could ever achieve such a thing? I ask of social security recipients all the time if they would vote for me if I proposed cutting their benefits 10@. The answer is always they same ...."Hell no" We both know that SS is unconstitutional and one of our biggest problems, we both know that medicare is the same thing....how in the world do we ever find someone that will oppose those things and yet get elected?

    Ken George

  2. Ken, I think as for SS we have to be forward thinking. In my opinion it would have to be sort of a weaning. For many people now or who are retiring in the near future SS is the only income they will have.

    But for many of us, come retirement age -- there will be no SS for us to draw. I believe for these people they should have an option to start their own private type savings to offset the eventual bankruptcy of SS.

    What do you think the reaction of these people you asked would be if you said you wanted to eventually phase out SS and have it replaced with a private program that would not cost them their due benefits?

    The problem is many of the people working now are paying for the SS being paid out to retirees who have eraned their SS after years of work. If we stopped paying in now -- it would go broke faster. Pretty much the in the near future the gig is up for the Ponzi Scheme Social Security benefits really were.

    We are now facing an encroachment and suggestion the federal government wants to nationalize pension plans. Like SS, this would be another unconstitutional & financial raping of hard working Americans to pay for big government and more entitlement programs

    This $ would problably be put towards the govt. paying of SS benefits. But of course, this stealing of our money would be backed by the paper saying of the "full faith & credit of the U.S.A.". So in short they would back govt- controlled pension funds with future taxes from us they have yet to receive -- just another ponzi scam!

    How do we find someone to get elected that will oppose these things? Continue doing what we are doing in educating the public on how the current officials refusing to address these issues are buying us off with our own tax dollars and the expense of a huge future debt for our children.

    What say you?

  3. I agree with Ralph that there needs to be a weaning. If I were a member of Congress, I would vote against all unconstitutional legislation. However, that's not to say that underlying problems within an existing unconstitutional system should not be addressed.

    But Ken, I think we both know that we're spending ourselves into oblivion so social security isn't going to be there simply because the dollar no longer has purchasing power.


Thanks For Commenting