A Viable Third Party

By Keith Snelson

Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson are the Democrats favorites for they represent big government, welfare programs and big debts. The Democrats brought us two undeclared wars, which we did not win, refused to solve the problems they created with social security and our health system and created agencies to write laws.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Elderberry Press
• Release date: Nov 3, 2010
• ISBN: 9781458109309

Book preview

A Viable Third Party

Copyright © 2009 Keith Snelson

Smashwords Edition

Smashwords Edition License Notes

This ebook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This ebook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each person you share it with. If you're reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then you should return to Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author.

Contents

Foreword

Chapter l Presidential Actions

Chapter 2 Past Wars

Chapter 3 Current Wars

Chapter 4 Conclusions on Wars

Chapter 5 Executive Orders

Chapter 6 Big, Bad Super governments

Chapter 7 Illegal Immigration

Chapter 8 Presidential Departments

Chapter 9 Congressional Actions

Chapter 10 The Supreme Court

Chapter 11 Summary

Chapter 12 The American Constitutional Party

Foreword

Under the present circumstances it would take a miracle to elect a third party candidate as President. It is ridiculous, illogical, improbable, unrealistic, and a waste of time and money to try to elect a third party candidate as President. There is lots of past experience to prove that statement. Teddy Roosevelt had previously been president of our country and still could not succeed when he tried as a third party candidate. Ross Perot had enough money but his only accomplishment was to enable Bill Clinton to be elected. Some have attributed the election of George Bush (43) to Ralph Nader and many others have tried as candidates of the smaller third parties. The logical conclusion is that there is no hope for that.

However, that should be reworded to say there is no hope running as they have in the past. When an army engages an enemy in battle they try to attack at the weakest or softest place. The approval rating on President Bush has hovered around 30% that would make him seem vulnerable if he were running for election. The approval rating on the Congress has been around 9% in 2008 and that would lead to the conclusion that there must be some real soft spots there. The place to start a third party is in the Congress.

The first step would be to combine all of the existing third parties into one and thus maximize what power is there. That could be done by designing a political platform to which all of the third parties could agree.

The last chapter of this book contains such a platform.

The next step is to raise money and the recent effort by Ron Paul indicates that money can be raised on the internet for a conservative program. With that the party could be organized and then identify about 30% of the congressional districts that should be open to conservative candidates. Then, concentrate on electing good people to the House of Representatives from those districts. The platform is attractive enough to enable us to elect 65 to 70 members of the House. (Fortunately, the existing parties have made such a mess of immigration, of energy, of wasteful spending and earmarks that this should be possible). That small number of legislators would be enough to influence legislation but would also provide the publicity that is required to reelect them and that many more in the following election. Then in the next election if neither party nominates a worthwhile candidate a president could be nominated and run for election from an existing, viable, successful party.

Is the problem we face really that bad? Let’s review some history.

The Revolutionary War was completed in 1783 and in 1787 the Constitution of the United States was adopted.. A most remarkable document – it was very small and yet complete enough to govern our country for much of our existence. It defined the powers given to the three branches of government and with the addition of the Bill of Rights also stated some of our freedoms.

The story is told that Benjamin Franklin was asked what kind of government was being formed and he replied, a republic, if you can keep it. Franklin and many of the framers of the Constitution were aware of the problem with retaining a republic for there would always be politicians who would like more power and would try to turn the republic into a democracy from which a dictatorship could be put into effect. A republic is ruled by laws and a democracy is ruled by the majority that could overlook the laws. That had been the history of ancient Rome for it regressed from a republic to a democracy and then became a corrupt dictatorship which led to its eventual collapse.

There were some disagreements over the republic that was formed for there were those who desired a bigger government and attempts were made immediately to increase the power and scope of government. Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury, wanted a national bank and in 1791 the First Bank of the United States was established in spite of the efforts of Thomas Jefferson who believed that to be unconstitutional It was dissolved in 1811 but the Second Bank of the United States was incorporated in 1816 and in 1836 it was dissolved by President Andrew Jackson who recognized that the bank was abusing its power and was unconstitutional. In 1913 the Federal Reserve System was established and so once again we have a national bank, but now it is privately owned.

We have seen various presidents ignore and attack our Constitution but none more effectively than Abraham Lincoln when he engaged our country in war and then acted to remove many of our personal freedoms. (More about this later). His unconstitutional war did end and the unconstitutional income tax he imposed was removed but he instituted many dictatorial practices which were improper.

The year 1913 will be looked on as one of the worst for our Constitution. The income tax, which was specifically forbidden by the Constitution was enacted (16th amendment) and the 17th amendment was also enacted which changed the method of electing senators. Prior to this senators had been chosen by the legislature of each state (Article 1, Section 3). The 17th amendment changed that so that senators would now be elected by the people of the state. With that move the states would no longer be protected from the federal government. If the EPA wanted to issue a directive concerning air pollution or direct the composition of the gasoline to be used in the state there would not necessarily be two senators who would object. If the Department of the Interior enforced the Endangered Species Act and demanded that a dam construction be stopped to protect the snail darter (later it was found they were not endangered) there was no senator to protect the state from the government. (many more examples later). Under the previous system the state senator would have tried to stop such actions. Under our present system the state senator may be more dependent upon contributions from outside the state from lobbyists, from environmental groups, from his own political party or control from the president himself and thus not dependent upon the state for his position. So, we took one step toward becoming a democracy wherein the rule of law is less important than their position.

In addition, the banking industry was able to get a law passed which established a national bank. They called it the Federal Reserve to confuse us but it is not a government entity. The Federal Reserve is a very profitable, private banking operation that is owned by the twelve Federal Reserve Banks that comprise it. The head of the Fed is appointed by the President but operates independently from our government.

President Franklin Roosevelt tried to add supreme court justices to the court to overcome the courts overturning many of his programs and was finally able to place enough sympathetic justices on the court to accomplish his objectives.

Possibly the most serious attacks on our Constitution have occurred because of wars. Lincoln attacked the southern states without authority, President Truman did not seek the declaration of war necessary for our engagement in Korea, ( he called that a police action), and President’s Kennedy and Johnson engaged us in war in Vietnam without the proper authorization from Congress. The first Gulf War under George Bush (41) was not authorized and the war in Afghanistan and the subsequent war in Iraq have been waged without a formal declaration of war as is required by our Constitution.

Our presidents have also led the way, starting with the new deal under Franklin Roosevelt, to enlarge our government and LB Johnson was especially effective with his Great Society . After that start the recent presidents have added to and increased the governments role in every phase of our life. The growth in the size of government has been especially huge under the latest President Bush (43).

Our presidents have also started legislating through executive orders and President George W. Bush has started to add signing statements to bills passed by Congress and then acted as if those footnotes were laws.

There have been many acts of commission but President George Bush (43) has added an act of omission that is very troubling by ignoring the invasion of our country from Mexico.

Our Congress has been a big contributor to the increase in our government over the last 60 years. It started under President Herbert Hoover as he tried to solve the Great Depression and the Congress has been a willing participant with the liberal presidents who liked big government. Then Congress invented a new means of spending called earmarks where they add spending items to bills already passed. Those earmarks are never reviewed or debated or voted upon but are placed into effect by liberal presidents who like spending money.

Our presidents and the Congress have also acted together in having us join a bunch of super national organizations (United Nations, WTO, World Bank, Nafta and Cafta) and have other organizations in store for us. In joining we have surrendered some of our sovereignty and incurred much expense.

Our Supreme Court has also made their contribution to changing our Constitution by making abortion lawful, by forcing school busing, by forbidding religious activities in schools and removing religious displays in public places, by authorizing pornography, by protecting criminals and most recently by permitting cities to take property from private citizens if they can increase their tax receipts by so doing.

Thus, we now have a Constitution which has been ignored by all of our branches of government. That has led to a huge increase in our government, wars that are undeclared, government programs that are leading to bankruptcy and a loss of our freedoms. . How long should we permit this to go on? Can we expect either one of our political parties to take us back to the Constitution? We have just finished 12 years with a Republican Party in control , the present Democrat Congress is continuing their normal practices and the previous Democrat Congress was not much better and so the logical conclusion is that both parties are going to continue leading us down this road to socialism. In answer to the question posed before, yes, it is that bad and it will take a different party to correct it.

Many programs depend on timing for their success and I believe the timing for starting a third party has never been better. Recent polls indicate that only 27% of the American people were satisfied with the last Republican Congress and the approval rating for the following Democrat Congress was only 9% percent. President Bush was elected as a conservative (which was clearly incorrect) and we now know that neither party will nominate a candidate that will reverse the present course. Even if we did get a good president he would be ineffective without a good Congress and the chances of a good Congress from either the Republicans or the Democrats is very small or impossible.

This book is written to show why the platform recommended is necessary. The first part of the book relates our experience with war. A president affects many areas but there is no greater problem a president can cause than war. It is the costliest in terms of money, in death, destruction and misery and leads to the concentration of power which never is removed.

Our past wars are considered, then our present wars and conclusions are drawn from those wars. Then international organizations with unelected bureaucrats are evaluated showing the effect they have on us. Presidential executive orders and departments are reviewed and recommendations made to correct them. The problems of immigration are considered and recommendation are made to enforce our laws. Several laws enacted by Congress are examined and recommendations are made to remove or revise them. Congress and the $9 trillion debt are criticized and then the Supreme Court and many of their decisions are related and recommendations made to solve that problem

That defines the problems and logically leads to the political platform that will help solve the problems. The length of the book indicates that the problems are enormous and also indicates that there is much work to be done. Hopefully we can start that work and restore our constitution and our country to be once again a shining city on a hill.

Chapter 1

Presidential Actions

We have had some good presidents,( George Washington was my favorite), some mediocre presidents and a few bad presidents. We have had some presidents who followed the Constitution, some who worked around it and some who ignored it. Each president is sworn in and takes an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States which leads one to wonder if we have had a president who has read that document or if those in our past have just been liars.

The entering into and conducting of war is probably the most serious action any president will ever take and so let me begin my evaluation of presidents by considering wars.

Past Wars

The worst action taken by governments is making war. The history of the Romans is mainly about war. Wars were fought with all of their neighbors – with the Greeks, with the Franks, with Carthage, and with all the countries around the Mediterranean Sea. The Greeks fought wars with all of the nations around them. Alexander the Great conquered the mid east to the borders of India and China. The new Testament records the wars fought by the Israelites. The Muslims won control over much of the countries around the Mediterranean sea. Genghis Khan and the hordes from China invaded and defeated many of the eastern European countries. The countries of Europe fought among themselves during the Dark Ages. The Crusades were organized and fought during the tenth and eleventh centuries.

The last three centuries are no different. Our own revolution occurred and then the war of 1812, the Mexican war, the Civil War, World War 1& 2, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the two Gulf Wars were all conflicts we were in and there were many other wars in other countries in which we were not involved. Russia fought with the Turks and Japan invaded Korea and China. In Europe they fought the thirty years war . France and England were in several wars. England fought France under Napoleon for over a decade. I’m sure there are at least as many that have not been listed as are listed.

Wars are part of our history. It would almost seem that wars are desirable. The reverse is the truth. Wars are hell (FDR). There is the loss of life, the crippling of many, the destruction of property, the orphaning of children, and it is difficult to find any justification for the wars. In our own history the estimates of loss of life in a few of our wars is close to 600,000 in the Civil War, 116,000 in WW 1, 405,000 in WW2, 50,000 in the Korean war and 58,000 in the Vietnam war. The economic loss is in the billions of dollars and the destruction of families and children is terrible. Wars are caused for many reasons but in most cases the result of the war does not justify the war. (Our own Revolutionary War would be an obvious exception). The Roman generals were after wealth and land. Alexander was after power. Genghis Khan wanted power and control. Charlemagne wanted power. The Islamic armies that conquered the mid – east and Mediterranean countries wanted control to convert all the infidels. Napoleon wanted to rule the world. The desire for power seems to be a significant factor in all of these wars Were the wars we fought any different?

Let’s review our own history.

The War of 1812

1812 - 1814

We fought the war of 1812 to stop England from capturing (impressing) our sailors, from interfering with our shipping to France and from aiding the Indians who were attacking us on our northern border. While all of that seems justified the war was somewhat unnecessary. England and Napoleon had been fighting for some ten years and that led England to interfere with our shipping and impress our sailors. When England defeated Napoleon those two activities stopped. We fought England on our northern border, on the Great Lakes and in our capital when England burned Washington DC. The biggest battle was fought in New Orleans where Stonewall Jackson defeated the British decisively. (that was actually fought after the war officially ended).

The Mexican War

The next war was the Mexican War (1846 – 1848) which was fought over our desire to gain more land. When Texas revolted against Mexico in 1836 Mexico refused to recognize its’ independence. In 1845 Texas was annexed by the US and Mexico broke off relations with the US. President Polk sent a representative to Mexico to attempt to purchase the areas of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada and California which Mexico claimed for 25 million dollars but that offer was refused. Polk had ordered General Taylor to advance to the Rio Grande. He was met by a larger force of Mexicans and was defeated in a battle. That was enough excuse for the USA to declare war on Mexico on May 13, 1846. Battles were fought in Texas and Mexico and an army invaded Mexico and captured Mexico City in 1847. The peace treaty required Mexico to give up the territory of Texas, New Mexico, and California and Mexico was paid 15 million dollars as well. (Later, in 1853, the Gadsden purchase enabled the US to acquire the other areas of Utah, Nevada and Arizona).

The Civil War

1861 - 1865

Our next (and worse) war was the one started by President Lincoln known as the Civil War. All during his political career, Lincoln had identified himself as a Big Government liberal. He wanted the government to help business, to expand its role in helping people and to fund and promote the building of railroads and canal and roads (which may explain why he has been so favorably treated by our liberal historians). During one of his campaigns he stated, My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman’s dance. I am in favor of a national bank…in favor of the internal improvement system and a high protective tariff. He did not respect negroes nor want to help them. He was able to have $600,000 appropriated by Congress to fund a program to send them back to Africa. In a debate with Judge Douglas he stated, I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. …I am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.

Between 1800 and 1860 many countries ended slavery by compensating owners to free their slaves without any bloodshed. Thus, during the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries slavery was ended in many places such as the possessions of the British, French, Portuguese and Spanish. This practice was well known and could have been used to end slavery in our country if that had been desired.

In indicating his support for the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, Lincoln said, …when they remind us of their constitutional rights (to own slaves), I acknowledge them, not grudgingly but fully and fairly; and I would give them any legislation for the claiming of their fugitives. The ending of slavery was not the reason that we fought the Civil War. Although Lincoln claimed that his purpose was to preserve the union he would have been aware that the founding fathers had recognized that states could secede from the union. Three states had so stated in their acceptance of the Constitution.

The real reason for Lincoln’s attack on South Carolina was because South Carolina had an excellent port and was not going to have a tariff on imports and that would have