Please tell me just one of the parts of the contract with America that was past into law or even policy....

The only area of sucess was to get more RINOS elected.

I am waiting for Portman and Boehner to start citing the Constitutional authority for the legislation they propose.

As always, on the mark. Now, here's a question. Where can we go to find a full slate of all conservative candidates running for all offices across the country this year? All we really need are names and URLs. But, it's really hard to know where to put dollars when one only hears about the most sensational races. I think it would be a real benefit to voters to provide a guide like this. In addition, there might be a code added to show where a candidate is merely Republican and where she/he is actually a conservative . . Thank you.

I agree this effort is a good 'start.' However, there are clearly things lacking which all American Patriots should be concerned about. These include (and kudos to Joseph Farah, from WorldNetDaily)the following:

1.) There's nothing in the plan about reining in judicial tyranny. The Congress has the power to do this – the power to replace judges, limit judicial rulings, remove certain issues from judicial review. Is this an oversight? Surely judicial tyranny is as much a threat to the Constitution as the actions of an out-of-control legislature.

2.) There's almost nothing in the report about securing the border. This is worrisome given the failure of Republicans in the past to enforce the laws of the land, to follow through on legislation to build fences and to hear the will of the people on plans for sweeping amnesty programs.

3.) There's nothing in the report about protecting the sanctity of marriage as an institution between one man and one woman. Is this a dodge? How long will America remain a prosperous, self-governing nation if its most elemental family foundations are shattered?

4.) There's almost nothing in the report about protecting life at both ends of the age spectrum. Instead there is only a pledge to deny taxpayer funding of abortion. But if we are to take the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution literally, protecting life is indeed a federal responsibility.

5.) There's nothing in the report about eliminating all the unconstitutional programs and departments within the federal bureaucracy that already exist. Our liberties are already imperiled by thousands of breaches of the Constitution that have been tolerated by Congress for decades. What about a rollback beyond health care?

It takes the efforts of patriotic Americans and entities like the Patriot Post, Newsmax, WorldNetDaily and others to keep this message going. Keep up the great work, American Patriots!

Dear Patriot,

This edition of the Patriot is so true of the Republican party. I feel betrayed. I feel sick to my core. I shall spend what time I have left advocating for freedom granted by God.

Live free or die!

esg

Think the GOP will remember this pledge after Nov 2, learn from the past how to effectively govern, and keep their word? If not we'll vote you out too.

I would personally vote to add the following to the pledge made by federal office holders: "...we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

It seems that our military are already doing this.

Only a lawyer could take 21 pages to say what the average person would say in a few short paragraphs. Like all lawyerly documents, this "Pledge" has too many loopholes. It's no wonder our nation's laws are so long and complicated, the average person can't wade through them.

There you go, Mark. Hold their feet to the fire. Their complicity did as much to cause this wreck as anything. I'm convinced it also did a lot to cause the Democratic takeover that the Republicans are trying to overcome. There just wasn't enough difference between the Republicans and the Democrats to delineate them. "Six of one, half a dozen of the other." We need to get away from Republican vs. Democrat, and start looking at conservative vs. liberal. Ever notice how liberals always run as centrist, then go back to liberal when in office? They know as well as anybody that being labeled a liberal makes campaigning much more difficult. Promising to give away the farm tends to make the farmer contribute his campaign donations to the other guy, and the folks with the mast to gain from the liberal ideology don't usually contribute much, either monetarily or any other way.

Unfortunately the majority of the so called conservatives in Congress have no clue as to what the Constitution says or means. I would dare say that the majority of them have not read the document in the past 20 years if then. They are politicians who like spoiled children will say anything to get their way, in this case to get re-elected and their promises will soon be forgotten. If taken to task over their broken promise they will cry and claim that they "did what was best for the country at the time" and "all they could do within their power" to keep their word.

Of course to this I call it barnyard bovine excrement which is par for the course in the world of politics.

The day that WE THE PEOPLE can get those elected to take the Patriot Pledge and live up to it, then perhaps then and only then might this country have the chance to return to the principles upon which it was founded.

Our only other alternative in this years election is to elect those claiming to be "true conservatives" and when they fail we must break out the tar, feathers, pitchfork and the sturdy rail upon which to ride them out of town (DC).

Keep up the good work and pray that we can survive long enough to bring this country back on course.

Ticker

It's a start, but I think it's just a desperate plea for votes. This mid-term election seems to me to be coming down to more of a "incumbent vs. newcomer" than a "Democrat vs. Republican" race. In many ways, it's far too late for any incumbant. The American people are fed-up with the "same-old, same-old" mentality pervasive in the beltway.

Asking them to pledge their Lives, Fortunes (gained from payoffs, kickbacks and lobbyist payments) and sacred Honor (those who have any) is a bit much. Most of the so-called "Pledge" is merely pandering to current voter sentiment, and any substantial support that requires real sacrifice is going to be hard to find. I do not have much more faith in the slate of Republicans than I have in the traitorous Democrats. It seems that once elected they all forget where they came from, regardless of party affiliation.

As a Tea Partier, I am very dubious that the latest GOP thing will amount to much. New and Improved may be fine for laundry detergent and underarm deoderants, but I seriously doubt that many Republicans can turn over a new leaf that will take them out of their confort zones in this day and time. A lot of us Americans have little to no faith in our Federal Government whether it be dominated by the Dems, or the Republicans. We want to throw ALL the bums out and start with REAL people for a change.

We need to identify as early as pssile those Self Serving Republican Senators who are more interested in personal power and lifeiime careers than principle. Some of them have, as far as I am concerned, submitted their letters of resignation when they are up for reelection. In their childish petulance, they have refused to support the choices of the people eg Miller, O'Donnell and others, because their camdidate was defeated in the primary. Personal power before principle. Make notes folks.These Republican hacks have to go.

Mark,

I agree with your analysis of the recent GOP "pledge to America". Frankly, seeing them coming out before the cameras in their obviously contrived attempt to appear in shirt sleeves was a little off-putting. It appeared to me to be merely an act without sincerity. I agree that the pledge does not go far enough and shows that even the Republican congress does not yet "get it"....that the American people want government to get out of our lives; leave us alone to work, prosper and build using our own ingenuity and sweat. I don't want them regulating every aspect of my life and I want the size of government beauracracy reduced...including the number of personnel on the government payroll. I have had enough.

Thanks for the great writing. Keep preaching the message.

Speaking of RINOS we have a Republican Party Backed candidate, Scott Rigell, running for Representative against Dem. Glen Nye. My problem is Mr. Rigell donated $1000 to the Obama Campaign in 2008. Something about he didn't want Hilary to win the Dem's nomination!?! Go figure! Maybe the independent canididate is worthy of our vote?

It's high time all lawmakers roll back their salaries and benefits to some reasonable and sane level. It's also high time Federal agencies roll back their salaries and benefits to be commensurate with similar private sector salaries and hourly wages. It's also a good idea to start looking at holding poor performing federal employees accountable; and fire the ones that consistently underperform and show no improvement. There is no reason why federal jobs should not be highly competitive and filled with employees who take pride in their work and have outstanding work ethic.

A lot of BS IMO.

Also is says nothing about reinstating the parts of the Constitution that have been eliminated or weakened by various means.

Reversing and eliminating Obamacare.

No mention removing the illegal person occupying the White house from office.

They need to institute a policy of removing Supreme Court judges who do not do what they were sworn to do and that is uphold the Constitution in any way.

Thanks everyone. I do want to reiterate the 'missing' components I referenced in my initial post were generated by Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily. I'd thought about them being conspicuously absent; Mr. Farah put them in words far better than I could have!

Keep up the good fight, fellow Patriots!

AMEN and AMEN!!!! Thanks Alexander.

Mark, good stuff. Pardon my skepticism but we are dealing with politicians here. Reduction in the size and scope of government is essential if we are to thrive as a nation. How (and if) they will address this remains to be seen. Unfunded and unsustainable liabilities in Social Security and Medicare must be addressed or we will see an entire generation of senior citizens in poverty with virtually no comprehensive medical care. And to address medical care cost we must address tort reform. We shall see if the courage to examine and change these sacred cows really exists in the "new Republican era". Mark please submit this article and accompanying comments to the RNC...

A contributor stated that "These Republican Hacks have to go".

He could have/should have mentioned a few "Democrat Hacks" as well. ie, Pelosi, Reid, Rangel, Frank, etc. etc. etc..

Also, a few cabinet members are questionable. Some are known tax evaders that have not been properly tended to! If we are going to point the boney finger, we should be careful to notice that there are THREE fingers pointing back at ourselves!

There is no mention of abolishing the Federal Reserve Board, repealing the 16, 17 and several other amendments. How about getting us out of the Ultimate Foreign Entanglement (AKA UN). Oops that would upset the CFR members such as Gingrich. How about going back on the Gold Standard? And abolishing the unconstitutional social security and medicare programs. All I hear from the republican leadership (still an oxymoron) is we have a better idea. If something is unconstitutional how is a better idea Constitutional? And lastly when are the republicans going to get rid of this big tent idea (excuse me while I go puke) and throw the RINO's the hell out?

We really don't need any more pledges or promises from politicians. We have the only promises and pledges we need in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Every year these 2 parties come out with something with a few buzz words in their proposals and then we are supposed to expect them to follow through. This is BS. All sitting politicians are too caught up in special interest groups and lobbyists. Both parties have agendas that they adhere to and they forget about what the American people want when they get to DC. We need new blood to enact measures that will assure that the American people will be heard. We need to limit how long these politicians are able to sit back and draw this cushy welfare program they feel they are entitled to. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to introduce and pass legislation that will benefit the people but it does take a bunch of arrogant lawyers and power hungry politicians to introduce legislation that you have to be an attorney to read and figure out and that has so much pork on it it takes days or even weeks to read through. One piece of legislation one clearly explained topic is what it should be. Vote all incumbants out and vote in people who have no political ties to either party because they are both corrupt.

Why not hold a meeting and hold up the

Constitution as their document? Simple,

proven, trustworthy, and effective! Why

complicate our lives even more? Does GOP

stand for Good Old Pansys?

To Sarah V. - If you would like to learn more about conservative candidates through out the US see Brian Walsh's column at TownHall.com. His archives show daily congressional district races.

Two points.

Rather than promote a balanced budget amendment that would more often be used as an excuse to increase taxes to cover profligate spending, it may be better to promote limiting non-defense spending to a set percentage of GDP, with exceptions for defined emergencies.

To be of any use whatsoever, a law requiring proof that a proposed law comports with the Constitution would have to be preceded by agreement on the the meaaning of the commerce clause and the phrase "geeneral welfare". Absent such an agreement, those of the "living Constitution" persuasion will use those as a rubber stamp for anything they want passed.

"Politicians of every stripe should take note: The defense of Essential Liberty was the foundation of the first Tea Party back in 1773, and it remains so in today's Tea Party movement. Millions of Patriots once again avow, 'with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.'"

I will and have pledged, without hesitation, anytime, anyplace, anywhen, period. So has my significant other. We have both taken the Oath in our past lives. It's still in effect.

This was an excellent article but I must take issue with the statement that Bush 41 handed Bill Clinton the presidency in 1992. If anyone handed Bill Clinton the Presidency in 1992 it was Ross Perot. I knew quite few staunch conservatives who threw their vote away buy voting for a third party candidate who didn't stand a chance of winning. A for the 1994 re-election of Clinton, I am confident it was the Republican control of the Congress that improved the economy enough for Bill, "I did not have sex with that woman" Clinton to get re-elected. The fact that the Republicans choose that year to run the old timer just because it was his time was besides the point. That worked for Reagan, but not for Dole and not for McCain. Can we learn from this please?

I'm sorry but this doesn't go far enough. Enough of the vagueries. Enough of "we'll try to do this and work really hard at that". You want me to believe you mean what you say than shoot straight, like this...

1)Illegal Immigration: Their presence in this country is and of itself a crimminal act. Illegals will be treated like the crimminals they are. No anchor babies, no food stamps, no health care, no jobs, no civil rights. Go home or go to jail. Cross illegally and you risk being shot! And build the danged fence!!!

2)Checks and Balances: Repeal the seventeenth amendment.

3)Taxes: Repeal the sixteenth amendment. No fair tax flat tax mumbo jumbo, just repeal the income tax and go back to apportionment.

4) Spending: Eliminate all departments not specifically authorized under the constitution. Start with the dept of education.

I could write a novel here but I think the point is made

I linked over to the 2008 Republican platform. Now I know what Codevilla meant by 'Ruling Class."

This 2008 version of progressive light will not satisfy the resistance movement which is working for drastically limited government, returning power to the individual states and, reviving the Constitution as ratified by those states.

We will not be deterred by either party.

"the Pledge does promise a vote to "repeal and replace the government takeover of health care." This, of course, leads us to ask: Replace it with what?"

Thank you for finally asking this question! No one seemed to pick up on the "REPLACE" comment. We don't need a replacement program, it just needs to be eliminated. Period. Do you hear that GOP?

Interesting your assessment that conservative women are leading the charge. Much is made of the fact that women majorities elected both Clinton and Obama, while male Majorities elected Bush. Liberal women aside, you best stay out of the way of conservative women because we take no prisoners. I know, because I am one of them!

The Patriot Post ranks high among the many net offerings I sample each day for its clarity and dedication to Constitutional principle.

Allow me to share the same observation I made to Ed Crane at Cato some years ago regarding the Constitution: to wit, the fatal mistake was made in February 1913 with the passage of the 16th Amendment.

The founders very wisely set up a system in which there was an effective marketplace in governance, a competition among the states for the loyalty of its citizens. In effect they gave us TWO votes: the one at a ballot box and the more important right to vote with our feet at any time. As a states tax policies become more burdensome, individuals and businesses readily escaped to more congenial locales.

One the vast Federal monopoly on taxing incomes was established, the "foot vote" was essentially closed. Not surprisingly, the Federal monopoly in governance provides poorer service at higher prices than did the competitive states -- which in fact now exacerbate the problem by using the Federal excesses as cover for their own.

Would it not be interesting and sensible for the 37 lowest-tax states to gang up on the high-tax worst offenders by agreeing to repeal the 16th Amendment and substituting a transition mechanism to put the Federal Monster back in its cage? It can be done.

These self proclaimed patriots pledge their lives, fortunes and sacred honor. They are delusional. The founders pledged and paid that pledge in support of their new country. These malcontents pledge no taxes, no government. And sacred honor? What sacred honor? People who lie to achieve what they want have no honor.

I can't trust any politician anymore Democrat, Republican or even independents. I have come to the conclusion that anyone that runs for political office has something inherently wrong with them. They might all start out with the right intentions but somehow wind up going down the same path as the ones that came before them. What happens to them when they get to Washington, I have no idea. I don’t know what the answer is. If the American people don’t come out in droves and vote this congress out, I fear for our country

For anyone who hasn't noticed or hasn't read it, the so-called "Pledge to America" is a pathetic, cynically pragmatic, unprincipled attempt by the neocons in the Republican party to pander simultaneously to the libertarians of the Tea Party and the social advocates of the Religious Right with platitudes, cliches and nearly empty rhetoric. (And let's be serious -- Paul Ryan is a neocon's neocon. A RINO in sheeps clothing who will say anything to get elected to promote the Bush legacy.)

The "Pledge" makes only one clear statement of principle -- that we all have rights to life/liberty/pursuit of happiness -- and then does everything possible to undermine that principle by defending it in terms any member of the Democratic Party could sign up for: like "sacrifice" and service to the "common good" and the "social fabric". Not just rhetoric, but Marxist rhetoric, because folks, that's where it started.

For anyone who doesn't know: for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to mean anything, it has to mean something. It doesn't mean a litany of concrete issues like "balancing the budget", "restoring trust", or "funding missile defense". That all sounds nice, but in the grand hierarchy of really important priorities, they are so far down the list, and deserve no more than a footnote in this so-called "Pledge" -- if that. (Seriously, if we sent the right kind of people to Washington to defend rights, we don't have to worry that they'll balance the budget, restore trust or fund missile defense.)

If you have a right to your life, liberty and happiness then there is one and only one proper function of government: to protect your individual rights. (There is no such thing as a "group" right.)

In a properly delimited government, the only power politicians should have, besides budget authorizations, is the power to protect individual rights -- freedom of human action in a social context -- meaning: the right of individuals to act in any way they damn well choose without having to seek the permission of a government bureaucrat -- so long as they don't violate the rights of others in the process.

That is a principle you can get your teeth into. That is what the Tea Party is groping to understand about itself -- what it is trying to defend. That is what this Pledge should be pledging. It is the most important underlying meaning of our Constitution, and all else follows from it.

What individual rights?

The right to free speech. To advocate your ideas, beliefs, convictions, observations, or judgments without interference or fear of persecution (of which "freedom of religion" and "freedom of the press" are two forms, and what "campaign finance reforms" so grotesquely violate).

The right to own property without it being indentured to the State for any kind of tax, or stolen from you for any kind of so-called "public good".

The right to defend oneself when the government can't (of which the right to guns is one form).

That's only a start. Those rights not enumerated in the Constitution are reserved to the People -- not the government.

Here's another principle that the old-guard GOP missed entirely in their attempt to usurp the power of the Tea Party: that power corrupts absolutely, and powers not dedicated to protecting individual rights, like the power to tax, regulate and dictate "social policy", are absolute powers corrupting everything about the principle of "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness", not to mention Washington D.C.

(Taxation is the power of a blank check in direct contradiction to the principle of individual rights -- it is the power to destroy lives for undefined ends. A proper government, delimited to its essential functions, can very easily be funded by charging fees for services actually rendered -- police, courts, defense. Taxes, on the other hand, become carte blanche for the government to give your money to others while you get nothing in return.)

You will notice the so-called "Pledge" didn't make one single statement renouncing government's right to tax, regulate or dictate social policy.

It offered to "stop tax hikes", "provide tax deductions" -- but not end taxes.

It offered to "repeal job-killing mandates" -- but not mandates as such.

It offered to limit federal spending -- but not end federal spending for functions the federal government has no business doing.

It offered to "put people back to work" -- somehow. Meaning, via more federal programs, tax incentives, TARP incentives, regulatory "tweaking", ad infinitum -- but not get the federal government out of the business of interfering with business.

So what you see in this so-called "Pledge" is this: some chicken bones with a little gristle, thrown out for people to gnaw on, to fool them into thinking they are being fed, while the essential power of the politicians is preserved -- the absolute power to offer handouts to a people starved for real freedom. Let them eat cake.

If you have a right to your life, then no one (most especially the government) has a right to tell you how to live it. No one has the right to tell you how much of your life, your earnings, your possessions they have a right to. No one has a right to sacrifice your life for any "good" cause, not for the "poor", nor the "disabled", nor the destitute in Africa or the con-artists in Washington. That is for you to choose.

What does sacrifice really mean? The renunciation of a greater value to a lesser one. A person with a right to his life must hold the power to choose how he will spend it -- or it means nothing. To tell him he must sacrifice is to abrogate the very principle of life.

Note: if you choose to help someone you love that is not a sacrifice! If you choose to fight to defend your country, that is not a sacrifice! -- it is giving your highest value for your highest value. But the altruist advocates of self-sacrifice and duty to the collective don't want you to realize that. They want you to believe that you are nothing but a serf to the feifdoms of their ends.

No one has a right to tell you what social policy or "cause" you must support, who you must help, what "common good" you must serve, or how much wealth you can accrue on the way to your happiness. No one has a right to tell you how to live by imposing regulations of any kind whatsoever to "guide" your actions. The government's job is only to punish actual violations of rights, not to presume you are guilty before proven innocent and tie you up in a straightjacket of rules.

So what should a proper "Pledge" uphold? As a start for the next legislative session of 2011 - 2012, we resolve to:

1. Pass a resolution asserting that the government's only function is to protect the rights of the individual and that we will work to end all government functions not dedicated to that principle.

2. Resolve to work towards a plan for a complete Separation of State and Economics, on the principle that the government has no proper function "guiding" the economy or "fixing" it.

3. Commit to repeal the Health Care Act of 2010, and repeal all government regulation of the health care industry.

4. Develop a plan to fully privatize Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

5. Commit to eliminating all "economic stimulus" programs, including TARP, and resolve to prohibit any future Federal bailouts for private businesses or any state in the union.

6. Resolve to place the United States on a gold standard, and prohibit issuance of any more debt by the U.S. Government.

7. Commit, as a necessary measure in the current economic crisis, to eliminate all funding for non-essential government functions, including: HHS, Transportation, Foreign Aid, HUD, Education, Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, EPA, and the "Corporation for National and Community Service". (Savings: $311 billion)

8. Pass legislation eliminating "Fannie Mae" and "Freddie Mac" on the principle that the government has no business dictating housing policy.

9. End "nation building" as a function of the Department of Defense or any other branch of government, and de-fund all activities dedicated to that end.

This is just a start. But it is a start based on solid principles. I would call it that: A New Start for America.

Here is my suggestion for a Conservative Manifesto:

Philosophy of the Declaration of Independence

Thomas Jefferson in June of 1776, serving as a member of a committee to draft a Declaration of Independence of the thirteen colonies, penned these famous words:

“ . . . . We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.” .

In these few words Jefferson named the ideas upon which a new Nation was to be founded, stating both the necessity for a foundation and the principles upon which that foundation was to rest. The essence of this powerful first paragraph of the Declaration is the idea that humans have inherent individual rights and that governments exist solely to protect these rights. The United States of America was the first Nation to be founded explicitly on a philosophy.

Now, on the 234th anniversary of the adoption by the thirteen colonies of that now-famous Declaration, I wish to reflect on the meaning of Jefferson's words. What is the philosophy that serves as the Nation's foundation "most likely to effect [men's] safety and happiness"?

To Jefferson and the other founders it was self-evident that individuals have natural rights. Unalienable means these rights are part of your nature. You cannot divorce (alienate) yourself from these rights even if you wish to be so separated.

Thus, rights that we have because we are human are limited to those that are unalienable, those that are part of our nature. It is not part of nature to own an automobile, to have the benefits of advanced technology, to have a right to economic development or to achieve a single volitional objective. Things that are rights are part of immutable human nature. Things that are the result of human will, human thought, human effort may be desirable, but they are not rights.

The philosophical basis for western civilization comes from Aristotle. He said identification does not permit contradictions. “A is A.” An entity is what it is and cannot simultaneously be anything other than itself. This is the acknowledgment that existence is hierarchically superior to consciousness, that reality is whatever it is regardless of what you may think or feel. To create good (to solve a problem) requires first that you learn the facts, second that you discover connections not previously known and finally that you act on the basis of your thoughts. This means you must be free to think: have a right to Liberty and be free to act: be free to Pursue Happiness. Human freedom is based on the nature of human thought. Thoughts cannot be coerced; hence human action should not be coerced: this is the ethic of a free society and its basis, the conceptual power of the human mind, is the root cause of human progress.

When you think and act and the result is not what you predicted, you must think again. If you root out all contradictions, if you are scrupulous in your commitment to the facts, you may solve a difficult problem. But you may again fail. And fail a third, a fourth or any number of times. Thought is volitional. It is subject to error. But sometimes a genius discovers the properties of radium or invents a vaccine to cure a rampant disease, such as polio. These successes are triumphs of human thought. They are not triumphs of human will. Calculus was not invented by mere whim nor an airplane by refuting the Law of Gravity.

This is a lesson not yet learned by those who favor government-coerced solutions to human problems. Those favoring coercion imagine a "right to economic development," “women's rights," "health-care rights" or “a right to an education.” None of these is a right. Collectives (women, the oppressed, majorities or minorities) have no rights. Individual humans alone have rights. Your rights and mine are identical, only those that are "unalienable" and no others without regard to race, physical condition or gender. This means that government has no moral justification to use coercion to accomplish any social goal. Government's sole legitimate function is to "secure" (protect) "unalienable (individual) rights".

It is proper for government to protect you from me. This is an assertion of your right to Liberty, your right not to be coerced and the right to use your own mind to choose your own values. It is not just for government to protect me from myself. Such protection is a denial of my right to choose my own values.

It is not proper for our government to tax me to provide you with a television set, or to provide you with food and shelter. It is your responsibility to provide your own food and your own shelter, just as I must provide for myself. If you are responsible for your own welfare, you must be free to act on the basis of your thoughts, provided you do not attempt to coerce or to defraud me. It is up to you to select and to pursue the values you need to sustain your own life. Your right to liberty recognizes that you must be free to select your own values; it is a corollary of this right that you must be free to pursue the values you have freely chosen. This corollary is your right to the pursuit of happiness. Successfully acquiring the values you pursue is up to you. Jefferson wisely did not assert your right to achievement of happiness, nor of any other goal that you may pursue.

The ethic of individual rights precludes the initiation of coercion by anyone or any group or collective against any individual. It also precludes fraud, which is the moral equivalent of force. It does not, however, preclude individual charity.

The Declaration of Independence is a declaration not only that men have the right to become independent from a particular government, namely Great Britain, but also of the need for an individual to think and to act independently. This means each person must function independently, pursuing his own happiness, creating his own values and functioning as a member of a free society in voluntary cooperation and trade with other similarly independent persons. This fact of life requires a government precisely because some people do not wish to be independent, to earn their own bread. Jefferson's view was that government exists to protect the rights and the property of the productive from ravishes of the unproductive, dependent and envious.

Not only must each person think for himself but each person can think: the ditch digger can think of ways to make his digging more productive just as the manager of an enterprise can think of new ways to capture business. Witness the United States -- until now. The largest rate of increase in national wealth in world history occurred in North America in the nineteenth century. Why? Because, for a while, the United States was a free Nation. Each person knew he had to produce for his own welfare. This freedom created new, higher standards of living for everyone, even those less productive.

Finally, a truly free society permits each of us to live civilly in close proximity with all others while voluntarily trading to achieve individual values. In a free society there is little propensity to wage war, because governments act to protect individual rights and not to pursue goals chosen by the ruling class. And individuals need not resort to force or to fraud in their private transactions. Government will restrain those who do coerce, because that is government's proper role.

Today it is less obvious that each citizen understands his or her moral responsibility to be independent. Let us hope that we can one day regain our lost freedoms, that each citizen will think independently, while acting to achieve private goals, thus moving Adam Smith's invisible hand to benefit us all.

F. William Ballou

129 John Browning

Williamsburg, VA 23185-8928

We need to get rid of the Republican party and the Democratic- Socialist party and replace them with the Christian-Conservative party...no RINOS, no apologists for muslim terrorism, no multi-cultural crap, one Nation under God,founded and defended for over two hundred years by black and white conservative Christians!

When we are allowed to build a cathredal or temple in Mecca, then you can build a mosque at Ground Zero. Tolerance is a two way street, but not for Islamists.

I couldn't agree with "George" more. The only thing I would add is that the 17th amendment needs to be simultaniously repealed with the 16th. Only then will we begin our return to limited government and the checks and balances established by our founders.

This "pledge" is a sham, a lame attempt by establishment Republicans to cash in on the tea party sentiment permiating traditional America.

I say it's time to vote for term limits by voting out of office anyone who's already served two terms. It's time to clear out the entrenched bureaucracy and replace it with folks who haven't sold their souls.

Couldn't agree more. This is an extremely wobbly bit of paperwork that contains language and ideas that if the founding fathers had used, we would all still be British subjects. I'm afraid the politicians (of both parties) still don't get it. It is obvious that Professor Angelo Codevilla has it right in his great essay "The Ruling Class". There is substantially no difference between Democrat and Republican - they all think they know better than we, the Country Class. A pox on both parties!

I agree with Mr. Alexander's skepticism.

I would add one more measure of veracity and that is the absence of a strong statement to protect private property ownership. They make some comments that seem to support free enterprise and capitalism, but there is no possibility of an economic system based on capitalism if property does not securely belong to the person who owns it.

Hey, at least we've come to realize what the anti-federalists were so worried about.

GOP Pledge to America

"Trust Us"

version 2.0

Why am I laughing so hard? Something so sad shouldn't be this funny.

Maybe by the time they get to version 1775 I'll think it's not the worst joke ever told.

If the Republican Party really wanted to attract the conservatives they promise to satisfy, why stop at rolling back the budget to 2008 levels. Even that budget put us deeper in debt. How about just giving any piece of legislation an expiration date of one congressional term....two years. That way, it would require a congressional renewal vote and may actually start the shrinkage of government. Of course, a balanced budget would be a great start...but cite the budget of twenty years ago for a start.

A moderate amount of fear is good for the human psyche. The Obamcrats are fighting it but they're learning that fact. The RINOs don't feel afraid...yet. What's needed is for both Parties to feel what everybody feels before major surgery. The outcome of the bariatric surgery must be in doubt -- at least long enough for the patients (the Obamacrats and the RINOs) to feel their mortality and the tenuousness of their existence at the beck and call of We, the People. They must feel that gnawing belly-fear that never quite leaves, never quite becomes still. Both Parties must feel what it's like to stand in the open cargo bay of an airplane at 10,000 feet, staring at the ground below, hoping that they didn't anger their parachute packer. They must come to understand Adm. Isoroku Yamamoto's fear of the "aroused Giant" -- and that fear must never go away completely. That's where We, the People, come in.

My hat is off to you once again, Mr. Alexander. What you have scribed is not only very passionate but also and very honest. Voting for someone simply because they have an "R" by their name does not guarantee that your values and beliefs will be represented or preserved. Too many citizens have found this out the hard way. I support the candidates who pledge to serve their constituients and uphold Constitution. Then I do the most important thing--I watch their voting record to see if they ARE doing what they promised. If so, I vote for them again. If not, I work very hard to get them out of office. Momma didn't raise no fool......

Did I miss the part where the Repubs will simplify the tax code because I only scanned the 'PLEDGE' or because it wasn't there????

What about the part where they are going to remove all the Bureaucrats that Obie-wana-money put into the 'gubmint'??? Color me skeptical....

Joe Brad

The scam artists are still at it. As long as Washington is controlled by Wall Street this kind of deceptive bullshine will be the norm. They are banking on the point that they think the people are still that ignorant, or they will accept this rubbish, and go back to sleep.

Robb and Bill, great posts guys! Couldn't have said it better, so I won't be redundant.

What is the plan of the Republicans for health care when they repeal Obamacare?

Please go to www.4pagehealthplan.com for a common sense health care plan written by a concerned an astute American patriot.

As the Tax Code is the ultimate destructor of this country, factually, categorically and principally, I divested myself of the so-called requirement to file/pay their "income tax". I did so through education, petition for redress of grievance before tax and insistent demand through a series of interrogatories to see the published, enacted statutes with their implementing regulations that would evidence any so-called requirement to file/pay. If you are an American Patriot and are interested in your freedom from the fraud, hoax and tyranny that is the irs, contact me.

As a former life-long Republican and a strong fiscal Conservative, I'm actually annoyed at the superficial and banal attempt by Republicans to pander. The Republicans are making the same mistake the Democrats make, they think we're stupid. It's sound-bite politics.

We needed an infusion of Washington or Jefferson and we ended up with Lindsay Lohan. In fact, the music analogy is timely because they were like these rap groups who steal melodies from great bands like the Police and rap on top of it. It might sell to the kiddies but not the adults who have to clean up this mess.

The message the Republicans should take to heart - especially the RINO's - is that this is it. In management terms this is their final written warning, termination is the next step. Take heart.

Here sir, the people govern; here they act

by their immediate representatives.

-----Alexander Hamilton (1755-1804)

Ask Terri Schvaio when a person's (citizens) rights end, oh, that's right you can't, She is dead. Ms. Schiavo could not speak for herself yet she had no individual counsel! The primary witness against her was her own physical/mental condition! She was held as though a prisoner in the hospice while repeated petitions for Writs of Habeas Corpus were denied! (Art. I, Sec.9, Pgh 2). This happened to her and the next time it could happen to any one else [under provisions of ObamaCare]. Next time the person’s condition may not necessarily include comatose. The President and The Congress were correct to interfere, however inarticulately, they reacted as they should have by interjecting a call for judicial review. However, they seemed to be unable to make a coherent argument as to why they acted, as though somewhere in the distant past they had read somewhere that a person shall not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. Now where did I read that, and where did I put it? Yes, this was and is a US Constitutional issue, no death of a person may be sanctioned by The State or Federal government in this nation without due process [& I don't mean a panel of government bureaucrats] and the Constitutional principle is clear, despite qualifying phrases like "criminal prosecutions" or "capital offenses". The Founder’s did not foresee a situation arising where an innocent would be at risk of essentially being “put to death” by the State. The 5th, 6th, 7th, and 14th Amendments all say the due process required is the concurrence of twelve disinterested and impartial laymen citizen jurors impaneled to hear all arguments and evidence. Only a Jury of Twelve persons may pronounce the Death Penalty on any United States born or naturalized citizen.

The Infringement of Terri Schiavo’s Rights under the 5th Amendment was that SHE was held to answer by Capital Penalty, that is, Her Death, though SHE had committed no infamous Crime, and with No Presentment or Indictment before a Jury, Grand or Trial. And though no person may be compelled to be a witness against themselves, Her own physical and mental condition was used as witness against Her to justify depriving Her of Her Life without Due Process.

The Infringement of Terri Schiavo’s Rights under the 6th Amendment was that SHE was never accused of any crime, was denied personal Counsel, and a speedy trial by a Jury in the State and district of her residence. SHE was not formally accused, nor was SHE informed of the nature of the cause of action, though the public was aware of the verdict and Her execution. And SHE unable to confront the witnesses against Her, or obtain witnesses in Her favor. Factually, eye witnesses to Her plight were placed under a ‘gag order.’

The Infringement of Terri Schiavo’s Rights under the 7th Amendment was that SHE was denied a Trial by Jury of her peers. A Jury trial, mentioned in three Bill of Rights Amendments, is a fundamental Right and protection against arbitrary government. The British people fought for centuries to secure this Right and Our Founders fought for them as well, “For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury; For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses; For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries, so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these colonies” the Declaration of Independence- July 4, 1776.

The Infringement of Terri Schaivo’s Rights under the 14th Amendment was that She, being a citizen of the United States by birth, was entitled to all the privileges or immunities inherent to her status as citizen of the United States. The State of Florida denied Her all those privileges and immunities, including equal protection of the laws, by depriving Her of Her Life without due process of law, under the 5th,6th,7th, and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Ah, yes, "The Pledge"!! Please let me know when they include in the pledge a promise to reduce Senatorial, Representational and Congressional staff salaries and expense accounts by 20% across the board, effective immediately and permanently.

Then I shall think they may be serious.

Thank you for pointing out the critical difference between the Preamble of the Republicans' Contract from America and the Preamble of the Constitution, noting that our duty is to not replace "agendas" but to replace "governments". It's a distinction I wouldn't have noticed without your commentary, which makes me especially appreciative. Please continue to point out these important differences to the untrained eyes and ears of the voters!

With due respect to ALL.

TERM LIMITS by voters at the ballot box would in time solve most problems.

Eight years as a Representative.

Twelve years as a Senator.

Time alone corrupts too many in such positions.

Link to Mark Levin's Epilogue to "Liberty and Tyranny":

http://citadelcc.vo.llnwd.net/o29/network/Levin/hosted_files/liberty_tyranny/epilogue.pdf

Well said in the previous comments. Compared to recent feeble attempts by the GOP and the RINOs, the Pledge is a step in the right direction, but is certainly not as bold, audacious, or sincere as the Original Declaration. It certainly is amusing to hear the wholesale condemnation by the Obamacrats, as it contains several items from his long-forgotten campaign promises, like posting laws online for review prior to voting.

The TEA party movement is animated by those of us who have taken the oath "to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic", some of us on multiple occasions. I thought all of our elected officials have taken a similar oath, but must obviously be mistaken, because the enemies of the Constitution are out in full force and must be defeated through the ballot process if possible, or by other means, in von Clausewitz's terms, and as advocated by the Signers of the Declaration, as an OBLIGATION to throw off the shackles of tyrannical oppression. "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Those who have produced the train of abuses need to be held accountable, and we don't see anything in the Pledge to do that, regardless of party affiliation. Barney Frank, Franklin Raines, and Chris Dodd come immediately to mind for their respective roles in the housing bubble, and the resistance to Congressional Oversight and Regulation while lying to the assembled Congress about the looming crisis while lining their pockets with taxpayer loot.

Government must once more become accountable to We, the People, and both parties have lost sight of that. The GOP didn't get the memo in the 2006 election, when the big spenders got the old heave-ho, and pushed a moderate neocon as their candidate in 2008, to enable a man who considers the Constitution of the United States a document of "negative rights', which doesn't go far enough to outline what the government should be doing for the people.

"However, the most important element of the Pledge is this: It assures that Republicans will pass legislation requiring "the specific constitutional authority upon which the bill is justified" for any and all legislation ... which will most assuredly put the contest between Rule of Law and the so-called "living constitution" front and center, where it belongs."

Dear Mr. Alexander:

I wish more commenters had noted this remarkable and laudable aspect of the Pledge. I would have supported the document had this been the only promise. The unwieldy bureaucratic mess now governing us could not not have evolved had we insisted that our elected officials adhere to Constitutional limits

I couldn't agree more with the Tea party. Will it be on the ballot as such?

If it is, I'm afraid that will split the vote between the Tea Party and Republican Party on our side and the damocrats will get in - again

You nailed it again...

@Mark Walker re: 09 30 10 at 11:56 -- I was unable to find anything in the enumerated powers of Congress to suggest their authority to rein in judicial tyranny - replacing judges, limiting their rulings, removing issues from the jurisdiction of judicial review - and, though I agree with you that these are blights on America, I am constrained to secure Constitutional authority before settling on any course of action.  Again, it is to God's wisdom and to the Founders' original intent we must appeal for our answers.  I would greatly appreciate any guidance toward the congressional authority alluded to; I cannot abide laboring in error, and would be most thankful if you or some other could help me.

As to the preservation of life being a federal responsibility - I would not trust government to tie its shoes correctly three times in a row!  I believe that, when life is the matter at issue, it is the duty of men - not the creatures of men - to determine its preservation.  Men may be removed from God by more-or-less degree, but the creatures of men - institutions, governments, committees - must always be so much moreso that they are invariably insufficient to the task.

I leave border security, families, and limited government issues untouched; these are matters with which I have neither question nor qualm.  Further, my propositions on these matters are far lengthier than would be polite and proper to occupy this forum.  Let it suffice to say that we are agreed as to the problems involved in these issues.   

I pray that we may, in the months and years to come, learn again how untrustworthy this dragon of government is, how invariably ravening and destructive of all ends but its own.  I pray God that Americans again learn that the best hands into which they may entrust their future happiness, prosperity, and peace are those of The Almighty, or - wanting of Godly faith - their own.   

@ Carl M re: 09 30 10 at 13:51 -- I think it was more at Greedy Old Pogues...;-j

Guy L W Hardy look at Article 3 Section 1, "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, . . .". I would say not following the Constitution is not good behaviour. How do you say impeach?

This is perhaps a good start. How about term limits, like on the President? How about a 5% pay cut every year the budget isn't balanced? How about a defined date on the closing of our borders? How about an answer,FINALLY,to the ILLEGAL ALIEN problem? These are a start! Thank you Gov. Mike Huckabee!!!

Anything that John Boehner is tied to will be loser.

Boehner has got to go. Boehner has zero leadership

capabilities. Boehner and Michael Steele need to step down for the good of the Republican party!

I am restrained as to further comments!!