You see, when the President takes office he takes the following oath:

I, <name>, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

I am kind of a stickler about things like oaths. I believe if you take an oath you should adhere to the principles espoused in that oath. Oaths are more than mere words; they are positive affirmations to the extent of your belief.

Our founding fathers certainly thought so when they inserted a pledge at the end of the Declaration of Independence. They stated, “And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.”

What did this pledge mean to them? Of the 56 signers to the Declaration of Independence many of them did give their lives, their fortunes and those things most precious to them.

These men were not wild-eyed, rabble-rousing ruffians. They were soft-spoken men of means and education. They had security, but they valued liberty more. Standing tall, straight, and unwavering, they lived up to the pledged they signed in the Declaration of Independence.

These men gave us a free and independent America. They kept their pledge, made the sacrifices and freed us from the tyranny of the British government.

This is what I am looking for in a President, Congressman or Senator. I am looking for the person that means they will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

In order to make this discernment, you have to know what is in the Constitution of the United States. How else would we know if the President, Congressman, or Senator is living up to their oaths?

The first thing you need to know is that the United States Constitution is a document that spells out the limits of the Federal government.  It says expressly what the federal government is responsible for and does not give the Federal government any more power than that. The tenth amendment to the Constitution states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The tenth amendment was part of the Bill of Rights that played an essential role in ratifying the constitution. You see if it is not in the constitution as an expressed power, then it shouldn’t be allowed. To do so would be a violation of the oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Today however, we have politicians that are either ignorant of the constitution or have a complete disregard for the constitution. Perhaps a little bit of both. The first question in every citizen’s mind when they hear about what the Federal government is going to do or in some cases not going to do (i.e. enforce immigration laws) should be; where in the Constitution of the United States do they get that power?

Please read it, and reread it. Know the United States Constitution and then challenge your Congressman, Senator or Presidential candidate on his stance of items like a federally mandated health care system or how is it possible for the President to make recess appointments.

Our current President flagrantly defies the Constitution. He makes no pretense about it. The question then becomes who on the other side of the political spectrum is knowledgeable of the Constitution, and is inclined to follow it?

At this point I would say the field has narrowed to either Ron Paul or Rick Perry as having the best chance to follow the Constitution.  I recognize that neither of these candidates are perfect in every regard, but I would rather have an imperfect President that is trying to follow the Constitution than an establishment politician that employs his unconstitutional version of what is good for this nation.

Almost since the inception of the U.S. Constitution it has been under attack by those that have more faith in the federal government than the individual. In fact, in George Washington’s administration the genesis of this struggle took shape. As George Washington tried to define the Executive he had to balance two divergent lines of thought. On the one hand he had Hamilton (Treasury Secretary) pushing for an expansive federal government and on the other he had Jefferson (Secretary of State) whom aligned with the idea of a limited government. The divisiveness between these two positions went well beyond Washington’s cabinet and sparked the beginning of the two party system of government.

In the early years, most of the national government divided along ideological differences of those that believed in a strong central government (Federalist) and those that were more in favor of individual and state’s rights (Republicans). Today, the Federalist no longer exists as a party but their purpose of a strong central government is the position that has survived. The checks and balances that our fore fathers carefully constructed have succumbed to a relentless assault of self-serving politicians seeking to expand their power over the individual.

In putting together the U.S. Constitution our fore fathers sought to put constraints on the Federal government. In fact, in reading the constitution one will find that it is more a list of limits in which the government should stay constrained than a description in how the government is to carry out their duties. Clearly, the founding fathers were concerned about the excesses of government and did not want to throw off the yoke of one oppressive tyranny for one of their own design.

Our founders were so concerned about limiting the federal government that they included in the tenth amendment language that expressly limits the federal government. The tenth amendment to the constitution states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Pushed as a condition for the states to ratify the U.S. Constitution, the first 10 Amendments were passed by Congress 25 September 1789, and ratified by the states 15 December 1791, and collectively form what is known as the ‘Bill of Rights’.

Many people do not understand the limitations placed on our representative national government. For most, they see nothing wrong when the Federal government creates a Department of Education, Housing and Urban Development or many of the other entities that have been created for the federal government to solve some sort of social problem. In these and in many other instances the Federal government has operated far outside its original charter, the U.S. Constitution. See if you can find the justification for the government to run health care, automobile companies and hold home mortgages in the following powers of the legislature.

The legislature has 21 enumerated responsibilities. Most of those responsibilities can be found in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Those responsibilities are summarized as follows:

1. The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
2. To borrow money on the credit of the United States.
3. To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.
4. To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.
5. To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.
6. To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States.
7. To establish Post Offices and Post Roads.
8. To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
9. To constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court.
10. To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations.
11. To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.
12. To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.
13. To provide and maintain a Navy.
14. To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.
15. To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.
16. To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
17. To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.
18. To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
19. The Senate shall provide Advice and Consent, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law.
20. The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
21. The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution.

The fact of the manner is; little evidence exists that the Constitution supports the government’s power grab that intrudes into many areas of our lives. Over time we have allowed the Federal government’s power to rise whilst the State’s and the individual’s power have been greatly reduced. In many ways we are in clear violation of the constraints and powers established in the constitution. Unfortunately, the checks and balances established in the constitution have been eroded by the political class that has deemed it more important to stay in power than it is to be faithful to the constitution.

Unfortunately, I offer no quick solution to a government that has grown large and unresponsive to its citizens. We have a fine document to follow that could redeem us from the perilous path we are currently on, but I fear we don’t have leaders that will stand up against the tyranny imposed on us by our Federal government.

Although the founding fathers did not expressly prohibit the number of terms an elected official could serve, it is clear in their writings that they never envisioned that we would have a government of professional politicians. James Madison, author of many of the Federalist Papers, stated that legislatures would be “called for the most part from pursuits of a private nature and continued in appointment for a short period of office.” That assumption, understandable in its day, allowed the Framers to believe that Congress would just naturally remain a citizen legislature, without any Constitutional requirement that those serving in Congress not spend their entire lives there. Unfortunately, that constitutional oversight is haunting us today.

Today we have Senators and Congressmen who have made being a politician their career. For example: Robert Byrd (D-WV) has been a Senator since Jan. 3 1959, Edward Kennedy (D-MA) had been a Senator for over 46 years before recently passing away, Daniel Inouye (D-HI) has been a Senator since Jan. 3, 1963, John Dingle (D-MI) has been a Congressman for over 53 years and John Conyers (D-MI) has been a Congressman for over 44 years. With the exception of Edward Kennedy all these guys are still adding to their record stints in the legislature. Unfortunately, these examples are not exceptions, but appear to be the rule.

Power, money and greed are why they stay so long. Even if they start with little power and money they accumulate much power and financial wealth during their tenure as a legislator. Today, over 30 percent of the congressional members are millionaires. Many of them may start their careers with little but finish with much. While a salary of $174,000 a year is a nice income, it can hardly explain how these citizen representatives become so rich. They surround themselves with large staffs and vote themselves a never ending litany of perks. All this of course is to do the people’s work. It’s really hard work to vote on bills they haven’t read, don’t you know.

After having attained the status of congressman, or senator these men and women become drunk with their own power and importance. Indeed, winning the first election is the hardest for the grand fellows. These modern day aristocrats seemingly breeze to re-election once they have won the first election. In fact, few things in life are more predictable than the chances of an incumbent member of the U.S. House of Representatives winning reelection. With wide name recognition, and usually an insurmountable advantage in campaign cash, House incumbents typically have little trouble holding onto their seats. The reelection rate for House incumbents is well over 90%.

I for one am tired of the political class that is invested in representing their own interest over the nation’s interest. These men and women must be removed from the comfort of their aristocratic perches. In order to accomplish this I believe we need to band together as citizens and remove these poly-tick-ians at every opportunity. We need to replace the legislators with true citizen representatives. Not a Republican or Democrat, but someone who has walked in our shoes and knows what it is like to work 40 hours a week and look at a pay check from which the government has taken a third or more. We need to replace the modern day aristocrats with citizens that will agree to limit their terms of service to three terms in the House or two terms in the Senate. If we can do this, then we stand a chance of getting our republic back from these high-handed elitist. For our country’s sake, I pray we start the move in this direction in the 2010 elections.

I believe that Nancy’s statement is indicative of the view for many of the liberal Democrats. They are disconnected from those they pretend to represent. They have grown use to having control of the message they want delivered to the American public and resent having the general public challenge their message. With most of the traditional media outlets aligned with the liberal positions of the Democrat party, the liberals are frustrated when they are not able to drive a message and set the tone.

The Democrats have a symbiotic relationship with the major networks and most of the nation’s major newspapers. Not long ago, this relationship allowed them to dominate the news cycle and control the perceptions of hard working Americans. But things have been changing over the past decade for these venerable institutions. Three institutions have risen to challenge the dominance of the old guard. Today, talk radio, the internet and Fox News have risen from their limited role to gain enough prominence to impact the news cycle.

The rise of talk radio, Fox News and ubiquitous use of the internet are natural outcomes of Americans choosing to receive their news and commentary from sources that are more closely aligned to their way of thinking. Likewise, the demise of most of the nation’s major newspapers and network news and commentary are indicative of Americans shunning the liberal agenda that is constantly portrayed in the traditional media.

My fear is that the government will, under the guise of ensuring safety, move to limit the freedom of the media. Or should I say, more specifically, the media that doesn’t march lock step with the liberal agenda. When politicians start making comments like those made by Nancy Pelosi I feel they are trying to create the pretense for action against the forms of media that are not favorable to their agenda. In fact, based on some of the actions taken by the Democrats there is reason to fear government action. The government is working on legislation in which they can take control of private internet networks and the Obama administration is working to neuter talk radio through regulation.

Fox News reported, “A Senate bill would offer President Obama emergency control of the Internet and may give him a “kill switch” to shut down online traffic by seizing private networks — a move cybersecurity experts worry will choke off industry and civil liberties.” It is not hard to conceive how a “crisis,” in which the American public will not be given the details, will be used to shutdown certain private networks for the purpose of ensuring America’s “safety.” Hum, I wonder if the government felt a certain website that was inciting people against the interest of the government would qualify.

The Obama administration has appointed a new FCC Associate General Counsel and Chief Diversity Officer Mark Lloyd (FCC Diversity Czar). It is very likely that he is going to use the power of FCC regulation to silence conservative and Christian talk radio. Under the guise of `diversity’, the FCC will pressure broadcasters to diversify their ownership which will lead to drastic programming changes not consistent with marketplace demands. These backdoor FCC regulations will achieve the same goals as the misnamed `Fairness Doctrine’.

Mark Lloyd has expressed disturbing ideas against free speech. Check out Mark Lloyd in his own words. Glen Beck has a video clip that shows you exactly what type of person this guy is.

In times like these I believe it is essential to remember the words of our forefathers. Ben Franklin stated, “They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security.” When the government says that they need to curb our freedom of speech for the sake of our own safety it would be good to remember the words of Ben Franklin.

After WWI, Germany was strapped with an overwhelming burden of debt. The Treaty of Versailles had stripped them of productive land and required the government of Germany make reparations for WWI. This made Germany the biggest debtor nation in the world. Payment on their debt consumed a large amount of their GDP and created social and political unrest. This unrest led to the formation of the National Socialist Party (Nazi) in 1923. Fermenting the social unrest caused by a people that had been enslaved to a massive debt burden, the Nazi party continued to gain influence and grow. Led by an influential leader, Adolf Hitler, the Nazis party grew too strong to be ignored. By 1933 the Nazi party had become the second largest party in Germany and Hitler was invited by German President Hindenburg to become Chancellor in a coalition government. Over the next six years, Hitler consolidated his power, first through political manipulation and then through the military. Hitler used the crisis caused by the massive debt to increase the influence and control of the government. The solution to every problem was an expansion of the government. Hitler also used class warfare to galvanize and consolidate his support. His focus on the Jews as the root to many of Germany’s problems gave the government an open excuse to loot an entire class of people. Later, this hatred for a class of people would grow into a need to exterminate the Jews.

In 2009, I wonder if the conditions that caused Germany to accept a brand of socialism that was trumpeted by a charismatic leader exist in the United States. Some parallels certainly do exist. First, like the German government the United States is the number one debtor nation in the world. At the end of 2008, the United States had an external debt of 13.6 Trillion dollars. This external debt, coupled with a national debt of 11.8 Trillion, and 100 Trillion in unfunded liabilities has harnessed the American public with a debt structure that is likely to put our current economic under a severe stress. Even when the debt is put into the perspective of a 14.4 Trillion dollar economy the debt numbers are staggering.

Another parallel can be found in the opportunistic use of a crisis and class warfare. Crisis and class warfare promoted by a relatively obscure charismatic leader led Germany down a socialistic path to destruction. Hitler was a union organizer that became the Germany’s Dictator in a little over a decade. Today, we have a president that has come from relative obscurity. President Obama ascended from community organizer, to Illinois State legislator and then a one term U.S. Senator before becoming president of the United States. President Obama’s political ideology seems to align with socialist ideals. Since becoming president, Barak Obama’s administration and the democrat majorities in both legislative branches have managed to take over the nation’s banking system, two automobile companies and are working feverishly to control our energy use through a massive energy tax scheme. If that weren’t enough, they are trying to grab control of 14% of the economy by promoting a national health care scheme that puts the government in control of all the decisions. The class warfare parallel piece is undeniable in the administration’s attack on the rich. The attacks are relentless as they don’t miss a chance to decry the greedy rich person who makes too much and doesn’t pay a fair share.

What is our country’s path going to be? Am I being paranoid when I note the parallels with a pre-WWII Germany? Are we going to repeat the history of pre-WWII Germany? Perhaps noting these parallels make me sound like a kook, but in my opinion, the parallels have some merit.