by Michael Gaddy, ©2016, blogging at The Rebel Madman

(May 2, 2016) — In 2009, most of the folks who referred to themselves as conservatives decided the answer to the defeat of the progressives and their political change artist was to rejuvenate the Constitution with support, increased knowledge, and understanding of the intent of our founders. Almost everyone who called themselves a conservative was carrying a pocket constitution and attending Tea Party or 912 meetings. Erroneously, they believed adherence to the Constitution could be accomplished by supporting Republican candidates for elected office. In quick order, so-called conservatives began to support and vote for any candidate who mentioned the Constitution regardless of how they had voted or performed in the past. They became known as “Tea Party” candidates.

Now, it is the 2016 election season and a great many of those “constitutional conservatives” are voting for a candidate who I have yet to hear mention the Constitution or what constitutes constitutional government—even once. Yes, I am speaking of “The Donald.”

Is Trump better than Cruz? Of course, he is—Cruz is constitutionally ineligible to be president no matter how often he or his supporters claim fidelity to the Constitution or how many bought-and-paid-for federal judges rule differently. So, how can people support for president a man who does not qualify for the office he seeks according to the Constitution they claim to embrace? Cruz is an avid supporter of neoconservative wars. This guarantees large financial donations from the Israel lobby. Perhaps you have heard of Sheldon Adelson.

Is Trump better than Kasich? Of course, he is. Kasich received all too much financial support from one of the world’s other leading progressive liberals—none other than George Soros himself. Kasich supporters who claim to be all about anti-progressive socialism, don’t seem to notice their own hypocrisy. Of course, Kasich is also a neoconservative warmonger, thus the money from Soros.

Is Trump better than Hillary? Of course, he is. Hillary should still be in prison for crimes committed in Arkansas and then of course as co-president in the 1990s, Senator from New York and certainly as Secretary of State. She is also a supporter of neoconservative wars. Perhaps more so than Cruz or Kasich. Thus her huge support from Goldman Sachs and AIPAC. When it comes to starting and supporting unconstitutional wars, she is way ahead of both Cruz and Kasich.

But, you ask, if Trump is better than all of the others, why would anyone write an article asking others if they are considering Hillary?

Yes, Trump is better than all his opponents, but one flat tire is better than four; one failed engine on a plane is better than all failed engines on an airplane, and, depending on the location, one gun-shot wound is better than 4. Better does not necessarily mean good, it simply means not as bad and certainly does not equate with constitutionality.

In 1964, Johnson was better than Goldwater; in 1968 Nixon was better than Humphrey; in 1972, Nixon was better than McGovern; in 1976, Carter was better than Ford; in 1980, Reagan was better than Carter; in 1984, Reagan was better than Mondale; in 1988, George H.W. was better than Dukakis; in 1992 Clinton was better than George H.W.; in 1996, Clinton was better than Dole; in 2000 George W. was better than Gore (at least the Supreme Court said so); in 2004, George W. was better than Kerry; in 2008 Obama was better than McCain, and in 2012, Obama was better than Romney. These are the ones that have been declared “better” than their opponent by the voters during my adult life. With all these “betters,” are we more constitutional as a country than we were in 1964?

There are millions of Trump supporters right now who would cheer wildly if Trump would reverse some of the idiocy of the progressive left, even if he violated the Constitution to do so. But—isn’t that how we got this tyrannical, oppressive, socialist government—violating the Constitution in order to cater to a segment of the voting public? If Trump violated the Constitution in order to please so-called conservative voters, how would he be any different than Obama and all of the “betters” listed above who violated the Constitution to bring us to the political and economic abyss we are staring into today?

Why is it so-called conservatives are only concerned about constitutional government when the opposition party is in power?

Choosing a “better” candidate over the past several decades has brought us the highly centralized, omnipotent, unconstitutional government we have today—the same government our founders warned us two and one-half centuries ago would destroy our constitutional republic.

A highly centralized government such as the one initiated in this country by Abraham Lincoln eliminates the concept of “consent of the governed” and destroys the people’s input into how their government operates and more importantly what becomes law. Agencies like the CIA, FBI, NSA, BLM, USFS, DOE, EPA etc. quickly become the creator of laws through regulation without any oversight by the people or Congress while agencies such as the Department of Education (DOE) makes emotional idiots of our children. The Congress is neutered and quickly becomes a rubber stamp mechanism for the imperial executive.

We watched as George W. Bush issued signing statements and executive orders which circumvented Congress and the people. Conservatives sat quietly because George W. was “keeping them safe” and he was an “R”. “Constitution—we don’t need no stinkin’ constitution.”

We watched the last 7 plus years as Obama has circumvented Congress repeatedly with executive orders and his latest promise to move forward without Congress on the issue of “Smart Gun Technology.” Liberal progressives are quiet because Obama is one of their own. I believe this makes my point. Neither side really wants constitutional government—they just want their perceived “better” candidate to be in office.

A strong, central, imperialistic, unconstitutional government whose leadership passes back and forth between competitive political parties, neither of which stands strong on constitutional principles, creates a national electorate that will never again elect a small, constitutional government advocate. We saw this in spades in the 2008 and 2012 elections. Ron Paul, who stood more for a government operating under constitutional restraints than any other candidate in the past 100 years was shunned by both political parties because he was a perceived enemy to the goals of both progressives and conservatives. Progressives don’t want a candidate who will stop hand-outs, same-sex marriage, abortion and unisex restrooms while conservatives don’t want anyone who will refuse to unconstitutionally bomb any and all perceived enemies.

Lost on all too many conservative nationalists is the fact sending troops to be maimed and killed in unconstitutional wars is not “supporting” them, their families or our country; it destroys lives and families in order to line the pockets of the military industrial complex.

So, considering the current political climate in this country, a candidate who will truly support and defend our Constitution and Bill of Rights does not have a snowball’s chance in the Arizona desert in July of being elected. Besides, if a candidate gained traction with a constitutional agenda, the military/industrial/national security apparatus would off him or her before the illegals or progressives could hire a qualified hit man.

Simply stated, this country will never again witness constitutional governance because most of the voting public does not want it. In the words of Emma Goldman,

“Most human beings only think they want freedom. In truth they yearn for the bondage of social order, rigid laws, materialism. The only freedom man really wants is the freedom to become comfortable.”

In my humble opinion, considering the facts listed above, the only hope for a return to the principles of our founders is a total collapse of our current political and economic system. The socialist system we have now is embraced by both political parties and the majority of people in this country. We have government bureaucracies which support all ten planks of the Communist Manifesto.

Donald Trump is certainly “better” to millions than any other candidate on the horizon—but he is not constitutional and will see using the imperial executive as a means to promote his agenda. He sees the presidency as a CEO sees his company. Believing Trump will bring us constitutional government is analogous to believing the proper treatment for a malignant tumor is antiseptic and a band-aid. While a Trump administration would certainly be “better” than Hillary, it would eventually reinforce our centralized government and take us farther down the road to a totalitarian form of government, while a Hillary administration would get us there much faster.

So, as odd as it may appear, the fastest way to a complete and total collapse of this flawed system of governance would be to “reconsider Hillary,” because there is not enough knowledge and courage in the national electorate to return this country to the tenets of our Constitution and Bill of Rights on its own.


Join the Conversation

1 Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. Conceding to the demise of the Constitution is no revolution to return to it, but basically adopts a foreign form of governance wholeheartedly.

    It concedes the winner is the first to get there (presumably the Communist State) with no return, as if that is the goal in the first place.