Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Kentucky's Bill Johnson-a thoroughbred conservative for U.S. Senate

This past weekend I traveled to Kentucky to stand with Bill Johnson, a candidate for the Republican nomination for US Senate. Bill has all the characteristics that ought to make him the candidate of choice for grassroots "tea party" conservatives who understand that American liberty stands presently on the verge of its demise. A U.S. Navy veteran who served with distinction in the first gulf war, Bill believes that the oath he swore to uphold, protect and defend the U.S. Constitution represents a lifelong commitment. Bill isn't one of the politicians who pay lip service to the Constitution while promoting or tolerating the destruction of the unalienable rights from which it derives its purpose and content. As a matter of priority, he defends the unalienable right to life of all persons, from the moment of conception. Like the U.S. Declaration of Independence, Bill is not afraid to acknowledge that those rights are based in the authority of "nature and of nature's God". So he defends the prerogatives of marriage against the assault of those who seek to redefine it without respect for that authority, and who thereby discard its basis in the obligations of family and child rearing that arise from the natural relationship between a man and a woman.

Bill's stands on issues across the board reflect this principled commitment to American liberty. He stands against the Obama faction's determined efforts to push America over the cliff of socialism. As he says on his campaign's website " I want to be a voice for concerned citizens across the Bluegrass State who have 'had enough' of politicians violating our trust. For that reason, I am running in the 2010 Republican primary for the United States Senate. I stand for limited govern, low taxes, strong military, gun ownership, marriage between one man and one woman, and life begins at conception."

Though he competes for the Republican nomination, Bill Johnson is first of all a conservative in the true sense of the term. He refuses to capitulate in any of the areas vital to the moral, economic and physical survival of liberty. He will not sacrifice conscience in order to project phony moderation on issues like abortion. He will not sacrifice individual property rights or free enterprise in order to accept the consolidation of socialism that masquerades as compassion. He will not sacrifice the common sense requirements of our national security in order to curry favor with those who pretend that retreat from America's providential offer of leadership to forces of freedom around the world will somehow make our liberty at home more secure.

Bill Johnson represents, and advocates with passion, the core beliefs of common sense conservatives like those who have gathered at Tea Party events, and Town Hall meetings throughout the U.S. He is precisely the kind of candidate the Republican Party leadership would welcome if they meant sincerely to represent such conservatives. Instead, the Republican Senate Campaign committee has thrown its resources behind a so-called "moderate". This reflects the present Party system's tragic corrosion of representation in politics. The two parties actually represent one power, that of arrogant elites intent on wresting from the people unchallengeable control of the country's resources and its future.

But the Republican primary race in Kentucky also features another choice vital to the resurrection of real constitutional government in the U.S.: the choice between Bill Johnson and Rand Paul. Ron Paul's son is mounting a well funded effort to exploit the rising tide of voters who identify with the conservative name. But like his father, he rejects Ronald Reagan's 'Peace through strength' acceptance of America's leadership for freedom in the world. Like his father, he echoes Barack Obama's illogical willingness to pretend that America is to blame for the hateful attacks directed against us by Middle East terrorists. Like his father, he seeks the support of those who understand that the Constitution cannot survive unless its foundation of respect for unalienable rights is preserved. But, again like his father, he asserts that it can somehow be just and lawful for State governments to violate the unalienable rights of human offspring in the womb or the research laboratory. It's only wrong when the Federal government does so.

Sadly, Rand Paul's stands disregard the common sense requirements of our national security. They also contradict the clear logic of the conservative creed which, like the United States itself, begins with the understanding that the fundamental purpose of government is to secure the unalienable rights which, by God's will, are part of the birthright of our humanity. The U.S. Constitution explicitly requires (Article IV, Section 4) that all of the States of the United States adhere to the republican form of government, which is to say government based on the consent of the governed and limited in its powers to those actions consistent with respect for their unalienable rights. It makes no sense for people to claim that they respect and revere the Constitution, and yet take the position that the State governments can depart. whenever they choose, from the foundational premises of republican government. Whatever their claims, such people are pro-choice on unalienable rights, and in principle no different than those who abuse the rhetoric of 'choice' to camouflage the injustice of their assault against posterity in the womb.

Is it possible to abandon the foundational principles of Constitutional government, and yet still be regarded as a true conservative? Isn't liberty what we seek to conserve? But as our Founders repeatedly admonished, liberty is not the same as licentiousness. It does not mean redefining right to suit our desires. The root of our claim to rights is the idea of right as it is established by the will of the Creator God. We therefore cannot have the right to do what is fundamentally wrong, what contradicts, rejects or violates this basic premise of all justice. Ultimately, this is the basis for the concept of 'limited government'. It is limited not by calculations of human power and inclination, but by the requirements of justice, grounded in the transcendent will of God.

Thus, states' rights cannot trump unalienable human rights. The will of the majority cannot confer on government at any level a legitimate power to do that which contravenes the premise of all governmental legitimacy. If it could, then Cass Sunstein and other Obama faction ideologists might be right when they argue that government has the legitimate power to do whatever those who control the government believe is preferable. The collectivist logic of totalitarian socialist control, though it tramples on individual unalienable rights, could somehow be made compatible with formal respect for the Constitution, despite the consolidation of unlimited power in the hands of government to do as those who control it see fit.

What point is there in maintaining the fa├žade of conservatism while taking stands that pave the way for legitimizing, in principle, every kind of tyrannical abuse?

I went to Kentucky to endorse Bill Johnson, and I will return again and again to help him as best I can. I will do so because he offers the only alternative that does not contradict and betray the common sense conservatives who long firmly to reestablish the simple logic of American liberty, so that it may long endure. I hope and pray that among those of you who read this, there will be many who see fit to visit his web page. Confirm what I have said. And then contribute what you can to the effort to assure that, at least in the 2010 U.S. Senate race in Kentucky, voters will be able to support a candidate who is truly conservative because he first seeks to be true to the American creed.

19 comments:

Spirit of truth said...

It is refreshing to see a fellow Kentuckian, regular guy kind of guy like Bill Johnson running for U.S. Senate. It is time for more citizens to stand up and take our place as "we the people" once again and run for these offices in our government. It seems today hardly anyone in Washington is listening and those that do are few and far between.I have heard it said, "For evil to prevail it only takes good men to stand by and do nothing."I have seen much evil transpire in Washington as of late. I am excited good men like Bill still exists and are willing to step up to the bat.

dixhistory said...

Mr. Keyes,

Do you maintain a list of those that are seeking office that meet your standards?

My own standard in casting my vote. That person has read our United States Constitution and agrees to keep his oath to it as it is written. Nothing more nothing less.

Here in GA my own R. Congress people hardly pay lip service to their oath or those the say they wish to serve. I will do a write in as no others will be running aganist them.

More often than not I can count my vote as it will be a single vote for my voting district.

I've been told a few times I am wasting my vote. I say I only maintain my standards. As soon as the other stop wasting their vote we can get what is needed in office.

http://www.dixhistory.com/

chiu_chunling said...

It is true that "states rights" cannot trump inalienable human rights. But remember that every power arrogated by your national government was likewise advanced on the exact same argument, that the issue was "too important" to be left to the individual states.

Exactly why the national government, with its legions of legislators and regulators far removed from the lives of the governed, should be more likely to use any of these powers more wisely than those elected to the state governments is not clear to me. Indeed, the issue is almost never discussed. But on the issue of abortion, it is a simple matter of fact that returning authority to decide the matter to the states would see a dramatic immediate increase in the legal protections afforded to prenatal children.

Further, reigning in the insane largess of the Federal government would necessarily require that states take serious measures to control their own budgets and exercise real restraint. Again, guess which side of the issue this tends to favor.

The careful division and limitation of government powers is not to be respected simply because "it was good enough for the Founding Fathers." They had very good reasons for the restrictions they put in place. So called expediency has often trumped careful reason, and there is always some "vital" principle which demands the sacrifice of all others. But no such principle can survive once it has abolished all its companions.

Of course, I regard the essential principle of abortion as being a matter of the exercise of absolute power over one individual by another. It is perhaps easier for me to see then how the evil of abortion is directly connected to the evil of concentrating ever greater power into a tiny population with only the most tenuous accountability to the governed. But in that case, consider the history of how abortion advanced to become the plague you now fight.

Is is not precisely because the power to regulate abortion was taken from the states in the first place that your government has established the worship of Moloch as the national religion? Why, then, would you disparage someone who argues for the reversal of this pivotal decision?

I am, perhaps, not the best advocate for the Pauls. I have no real interest in either of them, after all. But I hope for a more coherent moral vision from you, Dr. Keyes. While my ability to judge morality is impaired by the fact that I have none myself, I am very sensitive to coherence.

Alan Keyes said...

chiu_chunling:
I do not argue that the issue is "too important to be left to the states." I point to the fact that the Constitution specifically requires that the Federal government guarantee the preservation of the republican form of government in all of the States. This is not the consequence of my moral vision, it is a matter of fact.
Unless we mean to abandon the form of government based on the consent of the governed, we must preserve respect for the doctrine of unalienable rights that justifies it.
As a matter of constitutional principle, I do not oppose abortion because it is contrary to my personal moral or religious beliefs. I oppose it as a violation of the unalienable right to life. Such a violation casts aside the premise of republican government. It therefore cuts the ground out from under the right and obligation of the people to insist on government based upon their consent (that is, just government, government that conforms to the right end or aim of government, i.e., to secure unalienable rights.)
In this respect the argument I present isn't about moral vision. It's about maintaining reasonable consistency between the practice of constitutional government (the policies and laws it produces) and the principles of liberty that give rise to it. Once the practices of a people are far enough removed from the principles, they will inevitably lose both the understanding and the spirit (sense of moral purpose and courage) needed to maintain their liberty.
By the way, restoring real respect for the unalienable rights of individuals is one of the prerequisites of halting and reversing the expansion of government power that, as you rightly point out, is threatening our way of life.

gilbertabrett said...

Maybe Kentucky can send VA some help because the governor's race is getting ugly here. It always seems as though no one has any ideas or steadfast records on their positions. They always talk about how dishonest or wrong the other person is in order to make themselves seem the better candidate. Why can't we ever hear the truth about someone who is running for office - from the horse's mouth? Was there ever a time in this country when candidates could just say what they stood for and let that be enough without talking about the bad things the other candidate stood for? Do they REALLY think we are so stupid that we cannot read or make intelligent decisions? Sorry, I forgot we have a man in OUR White House who was put there in part by such nonsense by people who knew NOTHING about him... yeah, I guess we ARE that stupid... May GOD direct the gentleman from Kentucky to fight the good fight. And may GOD send us Virginians some relief too. We are WAY too close to DC... it's rubbing off...

luke said...

you are ridiculous Alan..

Rand Paul is the man for the job.

chiu_chunling said...

I am not fully convinced that republican government necessarily entails any particular protection of inalienable rights, even though protecting such rights is the only legitimate end of government.

I by no means propose that we ought to have no concern that the laws framed in the various states be designed to protect the inalienable rights of the citizens, but rather that we must respect the genius of the mechanism which the Founding Fathers chose to guarantee that the laws might be so designed, namely their being chosen and instituted according to the will of the people in the several states.

Not that we must throw out all progress which has been made by such amendments as the 13th in limiting arbitrary exercises of power at the state and local level. But there is still a need for caution, perhaps even conservatism, in our approach to adjusting the design of the Federal system. Returning the authority to restrict abortion to the states need not be the end of the fight to end such practices, but neither should it be lightly dismissed as a beginning.

In war (and you are fighting one now), one must consider tactics and strategy, not just the final objective. The objective should be a nation where abortion is not merely prohibited by Federal law, but unthinkable to the citizen of good standing.

The situation is already such that an outright ban on abortion cannot be realistically enforced. With commonly available household products and a basic knowledge of prenatal development, any functioning adult can carry out an early term abortion with no risk of detection. Thankfully, disseminating information on how to accomplish this does not serve the true objectives of the abortion industry, but it is a reality you must consider if you are serious about eliminating abortion.

Removing abortion from the national discourse is not merely an immediate expediency, but a long term necessity in the battle to truly eliminate the practice. It also happens that returning power to regulate such medical procedures to the states is what the Constitution as written requires. I do not believe this to be a coincidence, but even on the assumption that it is nothing more than lucky accident, I do believe prudent consideration of the alternatives recommends it.

Ms. Cris Ericson said...

RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AGAINST CHRISTIANS IN POLITICS EXISTS AND MUST BE STOPPED!

St. James the Apostle
Chapter 2
But you have dishonored the poor man.
Do not the rich use their power to oppress you,
and do they not drag you before judgment-seats?
Do they not blashpeme the good name by which you are called?
If, however, you fulfill the royal law, according to the Scriptures, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," you do well.
BUT IF YOU SHOW PARTIALITY
TOWARDS PERSON,
YOU COMMIT SIN,
BEING CONVICTED BY THE LAW AS TRANSGRESSORS.

THE FEC http://www.fec.gov
(FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION)
AND VERMONT REPUBLICANS
AND VERMONT DEMOCRATS
ARE COMMITTING RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION
AGAINST CHRISTIAN CANDIDATES!

The Federal Election Commission and the Vermont Democrats and Vermont Republicans
are allegedly seriously and willfully and intentionally committing religious discrimination
against Christians.

How is that?

Christians believe that even poor people are equal in the eyes of God.
The Federal Election Commission will not acknowledge any candidate for federal
office who has not raised at least $5000. in campaign donations.
A Christians constituents may be all poor people who cannot afford to
contribute to a political campaign and can barely feed themselves and
keep warm in the long, below freezing Vermont winters.
The Vermont Democrats and Vermont Republicans refuse to include
candidates with no or little campaign budget accounts in most debates
and forums.

Clearly, this is a conspiracy against Christian candidates.


Simultaneously, the Vermont Republican Party holds their "straw poll" in the month
prior to the month in Vermont where candidates for the primary election
are allowed to submit their ballot access petition signatures.

The Vermont Republicans EXCLUDE candidate with no or small campaign accounts,
even though in the next month, their ballot access petition signatures will put them
on the official election ballot. It is wrong to hold the "straw poll" prior to the date
that the law allows candidates to submit their ballot access petition signatures,
resulting in
some Christian candidates who believe that every voter,
regardless of her or
his income and lack of ability to contribute money,
has the most valuable contribution of all to give: their vote!!!

If the mega-million dollar business of politics was considered a business
by the government (oh, how blind they pretend to be!) then this would
be a clear prima facie ANTI-TRUST VIOLATION!

VERMONT REPUBLICANS ARE DESTROYING THEIR OWN PARTY!

Ms. Cris Ericson
http://crisericson.com

Alan Keyes said...

luke: I know from experience that that quality of your reasoning in this response is not altogether typical of Ron Paul's supporters. Even if your epithet were accurate, on this site name-calling is recognized by all for the deficiency it clearly represents.
If you can manage something less easily recognizable in future, I will again resist the temptation to remove your remarks.

Alan Keyes said...

chiu_chunling:
I think today's (Sept. 30) posting "The saving grace of the republican imperative" actually addresses your comments here. The issue goes beyond individual behavior, and involves the real meaning of limited government as the founders understood its premise, purpose and substance. Article IV, section 4 is an imperative, not a suggestion.
Prudence must always influence one's choice of actions. However, prudence makes no sense without the context of clear purpose. Taken as a whole, my writing aims to encourage clarity of purpose so that prudent action does not deteriorate into aimless capitulation to force and circumstance.

MGBrewer said...

Luke: you say that rand is the man for the job in Ky, but don't state why. you are another person who is just following the leader instead of doing your own research and putting the facts together.

one reason i will not vote for rand paul is because he claims that abortion is a state issue, while the constitution states that everyone has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. if i'm not mistaken the constitution goes for the whole United States, lol. so, it clears the thought of abortion up right there and apparently rand don't see that.

chiu_chunling said...

The same argument can be applied to health care...and has been.

Conversely, if it is possible for Americans to receive lifesaving medical care without the intrusion of the Federal government, I fail to see why the very same entity is now essential to protecting prenatal children. Perhaps partly because the vast expansion of abortion has almost entirely been driven by the Federal government's direct involvement in the issue.

Alan Keyes said...

chiu_chunling:
The comparison with health care legilation makes no sense. That's like saying that demanding that legislation against murder equally protect everyone is the same as demanding that the government feed everybody. Where's the logic? Providing against the violation of the right to life and providing a living are two different things.

DixHistory-dot-com said...

I have been looking for Constitutional Conservatives to vote for in the 2010 cycle.

I think I have found one running for Governor in my home state of GA. Mr. Ray McBerry.

Please look into his agenda at below link.

http://www.georgiafirst.org/governor/workofgeorgiafirst.shtml

Tex

chiu_chunling said...

You bring up the issue of legislation against murder...on which subject state laws are rather important.

More particular to my actual comments, my point is not that health care and the legal protection of prenatal children are particularly similar or related, only that the arguments that either is the domain of the Federal government are identical in form.

If you reject an argument for one thing, it is poor forensic practice to accept an identical argument in favor of something else. It shows that you don't really care about how the argument and conclusion are related, but only about the conclusion to which the argument has been connected in a particular instance.

Which basically invalidates all appeals to argument. I don't think that arguments can resolve all disagreements (though it would be nice if they could), but there is no point in arguing at all if your arguments depend on the audience's prior agreement with your conclusion.

It may be the case that no argument can persuade the adamant opposition. Nor is there much benefit in arguing among those who already agree (unless one or more of them are skilled in the role of Devil's advocate). The utility of arguments is in persuading the undecided. Thus all arguments ought to be constructed with that audience in mind.

Curran said...

Alan, abortion is not a federal issue! I am very much a pro-lifer. However, there's simply no authority for the feds to step in and legislate on this issue. Regulation of medical decisions about maternal or fetal health is best handled at the state level. After all, the federalist system intended by the founders left issues of morality to be decided at the state level. Besides, the states are the ones who pass laws on murder, etc...

The federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue, as this is not in the spirit of the ninth or tenth amendments. For all criminal laws, the states should retain jurisdiction - not the federal government.

And it was, after all, Congressman Paul that introduced the Sanctity of Life Act!!! C'mon, Alan, by attacking Paul, you're dividing the movement. He is the best guy in Washington right now. By attacking him, you are perpetuating the continual control by status quo politicians who ignore their oath.

mortgageguy66 said...

Hello Mr. Keyes! Thank you for openly supporting Constitutionally based candidates! Please do myself and the nation the extreme favor of providing a side-by-side comparison/breakdown of the pros/cons on issues between Mr. Johnson and Dr. Paul, either here in this section OR better yet, posted on your webpage in PDF format which can be utilized by folks for said purposes when campaigning or decidiing upon which candidate to support. Thanks! Jeffrey H. Jones, Madisonville KY

michael said...

i absolutely agree with curran. how do you expect the federal government, which can't even oversea the postal service, regulate the lives of 330 million people and our coming children unborn and in the womb of their mothers? not only would i not want this kind of neo gestapo regulating this nation as a red nation state, one which will always be unwilling in the first place to prohibit abortion, but it is completely against the 10th amendment to the constitution! the states must prohibit abortion, not rely on the homeland security gestapo to oversea a drug war style operation with the intent to prohibit abortion. it is unconstitutional and bound to fail. i would never want precious unborn lives to be subject to a federal bureaucracy!

John Jay Myers said...

I had no idea that Alan Keys was against States Rights.
and then:
"Like his father, he echoes Barack Obama's illogical willingness to pretend that America is to blame for the hateful attacks directed against us by Middle East terrorists."
Okay... so umm why do terrorists hate us? Because we are free? Is anyone still buying that? Or is it because we are not Muslims? Is anyone buying that?
Look at the Netherlands and look at Switzerland, and ask yourself....are those countries not free? They are very free... so what is the difference?
The difference is Switzerland and the Netherlands are not in their countries installing puppet dictators and trying to spread democracy through the barrel of a gun.
We are the United States of America not The United States of Eurasia, and we need to bring our troops home and stop policing the world.

When 19 people attack you from one country you do not send in 100's of thousands of troops to a country that had NOTHING to do with it.
It's so strange... I wonder how so many people can be so completely misled.
There is nothin Conservative about War, this country is going broke and we can no longer afford to be the worlds police.

Post a Comment

Be advised that this comment section is moderated in order to assure respect for civil proprieties. Posts that use obscenities, scurrilous epithets or that are gratuitously disrespectful of others will be removed ASAP. If you think a comment offensive in this way, report it in an email to alan@loyaltoliberty.com.