Is Chuck Norris Joining the Revolution?

In his latest article, "The Coming Revolution," Chuck Norris, a former Mike Huckabee supporter and occasional Fox News commentator, praises Ron Paul and calls for a voter revolution to remove most of Washington's little Caesars from their thrones:

Most Americans have grown cold over partisan politics. They cringe over the political power plays and pollution emitting from the Capitol. They expect that their representatives will stand for special interests or their own, rather than the people's. Americans are sick and tired of politics as usual. And the fact is: Only a voter revolution is strong enough to change the current tides of corruption.

Also, from what I hear, Norris quotes from Ron Paul's book, "The Revolution: A Manifesto," several times in his new book, "Black Belt Patriotism."

Welcome to the revolution, Chuck Norris!

There Stands Schweitzer Like a Stone Wall

The pernicious and blatantly unconstitutional REAL ID Act has met with strenuous objections from many state officials, and, to their credit, some states have actually taken legislative action to forestall the program’s implementation. Even so, as the Associated Press reported on March 21, 2008, only Maine, Montana and South Carolina have not “sought extensions to comply, or already started toward compliance with Real ID.” New Hampshire has asked to be exempted, but the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has deemed that request “not legally acceptable.” So thus far, out of fifty states, only four have had the courage to tell the federales to go jump in a lake.

Now, I understand that, by filing requests for extensions, other states may be trying to drag the issue out until after the general election. Some state lawmakers don’t want to comply, but they’re afraid they’ll be accused of being “soft on terrorism” (or, even worse, breaking party ranks – horrors!) if they oppose it outright, so they’d rather stall in the hope that a new Congress and a new administration might repeal REAL ID and thereby solve the problem for them. But this solution, while pragmatic from a certain political point-of-view, is exacerbating the overall problem of federal usurpation. By filing for a compliance extension, states are playing by the federal government’s rules, and in doing so they are tacitly acknowledging the legitimacy of those rules (and the supremacy of those making them). On the other hand, the non-complying states are sending an entirely different message to Washington. They are denying that the federal government has any rightful authority to impose this program at all. In the process, they are also tacitly arguing that states have a right to interpret the Constitution for themselves, and to decide when the federal government has overstepped its bounds.

Enter Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer.

Schweitzer is not your typical Democrat. Indeed, he has been called the “antithesis of the Democrat stereotype.” In a 2006 article in the New York Times, it was said that Schweitzer has “seized the heartland imagery generally monopolized by Republicans,” and represents a new “Democratic brand of libertarian-tinged prairie populism” that may threaten the GOP’s traditional hold on the western states. I can’t support Schweitzer on every issue but I’ll take his brand of Democrat over Hillary or Obama anytime. For instance, on the topic of guns, Schweitzer has remarked that he owns “more than I need but less than I want,” and says, “In Montana we think gun control is hittin’ what you’re shootin’ at.”

It’s hard not to like a man who thinks that way.

Schweitzer is also a leading opponent of REAL ID, which he has called “another harebrained scheme, an unfunded mandate to tell us that our life is going to be better if we’ll just buckle under on some other kind of rule or regulation.” Among America’s governors, he is easily the most outspoken on the issue, and has promised that Montana will not yield. Regarding the powers-that-think-they-be in Washington, Schweitzer recently told NPR, “We usually just play along for a while, we ignore them for as long as we can, and we try not to bring it to a head. But if it comes to a head, we found that it’s best to just tell them to go to hell and run the state the way you want to run your state.” After hearing Schweitzer on NPR, Matthew Dunlap, Secretary of State for Maine, commented: “We were pretty impressed. We hadn’t heard rhetoric like that in many a year.”

Schweitzer’s impressive rhetoric stems from the fact that he possesses qualities that have become increasingly rare in American politics: namely, principles and guts. He has the courage of his convictions, and, God bless him, he’s doing what he can to inspire others to cultivate brains and backbones of their own.

On January 18, 2008, Schweitzer sent a letter to the governors of seventeen states, appealing for their help in stopping REAL ID. The following are some excerpts from the letter:

Last year, the Montana Legislature unanimously passed, and I signed, a bill to prevent our state from participating in Real ID…We recognized that Real ID was a major threat to the privacy, constitutional rights, and pocketbooks of ordinary Montanans...

Today, I am asking you to join with me in resisting the DHS coercion to comply with provisions of Real ID…I would like us to speak with one, unified voice and demand that Congress step in and fix this mess…

[DHS] Secretary Chertoff’s remarks yesterday, albeit about WHTI, not Real ID, reflect DHS continued disrespect for the serious and legitimate concerns of our citizens. I take great offense at this notion we should all simply “grow up.” Please do not accept the Faustian bargain of applying for the DHS extension. If we stand together, either DHS will blink or Congress will have to act to avoid havoc at our nation’s airports and federal courthouses.

According to the Associated Press, as of March 14, Schweitzer’s office had been flooded with a grand total of two replies, “both simply acknowledging receipt of the letter.” Tragically, this fact upholds my long-standing suspicion that, among America’s elected officials, the women aren’t the only ones wearing panties.

For his part, however, Schweitzer continues to soldier on.

On March 21, Montana’s Attorney General, Mike McGrath, sent a letter to DHS Secretary Chertoff, informing him that Montana’s licensing requirements are already “one of the most secure in the nation,” and that he cannot authorize implementation of REAL ID because the Montana legislature has forbidden it. McGrath also asked that DHS not take any steps that would “penalize Montanans’ ability to use their valid Montana drivers licenses for federal identification purposes and commercial air travel.” DHS replied that it would have to treat McGrath’s letter as “a request for an extension,” to which Governor Schweitzer responded, “I sent them a horse and if they want to call it a zebra, that’s up to them. They can call it whatever they want, and it wasn’t a love letter.”

Principles and guts, ladies and gentlemen. Principles and guts.

The battle over REAL ID is one that we cannot afford to lose. Its implementation would mark the beginning of a new era in America’s decline, and not just because it would limit the average American’s ability to board an airplane or enter a federal building. REAL ID will do far more than that. If successful, it will very quickly become the standard for identification purposes in every area of life and business where the federal government is involved, and there are precious few areas where it is not involved these days, thanks mainly to the war on drugs and the People’s glorious income tax system. You may be required to produce a REAL ID if you start a new job; open a bank account; buy a gun (and most likely ammunition, too); or even to purchase certain over-the-counter medicines, as DHS Assistant Secretary for Policy Stewart Baker recently told the Heritage Foundation. I can even foresee a time when you may not be permitted to vote without the Mark of the Bush on your person.

REAL ID will also become a patriotic shibboleth test and a law enforcement red flag. The Department of Homeland Security, working closely with law enforcement officials in collaborating – er, cooperating – states, will instruct officers to be on the look-out for vehicles with tags from non-complying states. Drivers of such vehicles will be pulled over more often, searched more often, and generally harassed and subjected to thuggery more often. Count on it. DHS and state officials may deny it – or not, in this age of brazen police-state tactics and intimidation – but, either way, it will happen. These people are on a witch hunt, and anyone who dares to challenge their methods is automatically under suspicion of having a broom and a pointy hat hidden away in his or her closet.

In a nutshell, REAL ID will, for the first time, give the federal government real power to destroy the lives of political dissenters; not by direct means, as this would assuredly spark a rebellion, but by indirect means. By simply denying an individual the ability to live a normal life. By blocking them in at every turn. By treating them like outcasts, if not virtual traitors. If you doubt that such things could ever happen here in America, I would encourage you to research civil liberties under Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt, and particularly under Abraham Lincoln. There was a time in this country when it was considered the height of patriotism to harass and imprison those who criticized the government, to burn the towns and fields of dissenters, and to steal food from the mouths of women and children in the name of the flag. Our leaders are openly following in the ideological footsteps of the tyrants of the past, and, sadly, some in the highest courts in the land are prepared to excuse their abuses.

Not only can it happen here, it already has happened here. And it can and will happen again unless those in positions of responsibility, like Governor Brian Schweitzer, stand up to tyranny, look it in the eye, and call it what it is, even when it comes wrapped in red-white-and-blue packaging. Furthermore, such brave men and women will need the support – the very loud and public support – of every single American who cares enough about freedom to do something more than complain about its decline. The Washington establishment must know that people like Schweitzer have our active support, and that we will do everything in our power to oppose the overthrow of this republic. Write and call your elected officials. Let them know that REAL ID is an affront to the principles of American liberty and that it must be repealed. Give them the example of Schweitzer. Ask that they not let him be the lone voice for sanity and freedom among America’s governors where REAL ID is concerned. Encourage them to stand with him. Point out that REAL ID was never even debated by Congress, but was attached as a rider to an “emergency” war funding bill! Remind them that states do have the right to oppose unconstitutional federal edicts. In fact, I would go further than that – remind them that they are sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and thus that they are obligated to oppose its violation. And above all, let them know that, if they will stand for you, you will stand with them.

There stands Schweitzer like a stone wall. Rally behind the Montanans!

Robert Hawes is the author of One Nation, Indivisible? A Study of Secession and the Constitution. This article, along with his past writings, can be found on his blog. He lives in South Carolina with his family, and is working on a career as a freelance writer.

Time to Go: the Case for a New Third Party

“Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” – Amos 3:3

With Super Tuesday behind us, and John McCain’s straight-razor express belching smoke with a new vigor, I think it’s time that we conservatives and libertarians were honest with ourselves: the Republican Party can no longer even nominally call itself the home of limited government ideals.

It’s dead, Jim. Stick a tag on its toe and wheel it down to the morgue. And given the way it treated Ron Paul, his ideals and his supporters, I say “Good riddance!”

For awhile, many of us thought that it might be revived. There was hopeful talk among conservatives and libertarians to the effect that, “The spirit of liberty isn’t totally gone yet in the GOP – we can still bring it back.” The patient was in critical condition but seemed to have a faint heartbeat (brain activity is another matter).

Well, I’m now convinced that the heartbeat we were listening to during all of that time was our own. It’s a situation akin to a doctor hovering over a deceased patient, but with the stethoscope pressed to his own chest, all the while muttering, “He’s still in there. I can save him!” We conservatives and libertarians were the heartbeat of liberty in the GOP all along, and it’s time that we realize this and leave the corpse to rot in peace.

But what options do we have if we leave?

Among existing third parties, the Libertarian and Constitution Parties seem the most congenial for homeless conservatives and libertarians of the Ron Paul persuasion; at least ideologically speaking. In reality, however, the Libertarian Party is sagging under the weight of negative perception baggage, and it never has seemed serious about winning elections; whereas the Constitution Party, for all of its commendable points, will probably never have broad enough appeal to be successful, due to the religious language in its platform (and I say that as a Christian).

Consequently, I think the best path forward for homeless Ron Paul revolutionaries is to form a new third party. Now I’m aware that this is not going to be a welcome idea in many quarters, due to the fact that third parties have become virtually synonymous with political futility and kookery. But Americans are unquestionably looking for alternatives, and I can’t help but wonder if perhaps all of those failed, previous efforts might not teach us something about how to do it right.

Here’s what I have in mind:

Key Points:

1. Message

Past third party efforts have suffered from two primary ailments in this area: they have either limited their appeal by adhering to a narrow focus (a single issue or a small slate of issues), or they have simply offered the public a new form of statism, for which the Democrats and Republicans already serve in stellar capacity.

What is needed is a message that is different enough to set us apart from the major parties, and broad enough to draw support from virtually every political corner. For this, I suggest a two-sided approach to policy: federalism at home, and non-interventionism abroad.

Federalism:

My greatest disappointment with the Ron Paul campaign is that it has practically ignored the issue of federalism, which I think is critical, and which could have generated as much support for Dr. Paul as the war issue, if not more. In interview after interview and debate after debate, Dr. Paul consistently stated that he was in favor of “following the Constitution,” and that he wanted to roll the federal government back to its rightful place, but he never really explained what those things mean in a way that would resonate with average Americans. On most occasions, he simply didn’t have enough time, but I do think the issue could have been hit much harder than it was.

What I had hoped to hear during one of the debates was something like this:

“Americans are clearly not of one mind on every issue, so why should we have to live under the same laws? Imagine an America where California and Virginia could agree to disagree on the issue of abortion. Imagine if Massachusetts and South Carolina could agree to disagree on the issue of gay marriage. Imagine being able to go to the polls and cast a vote on such important issues without having to worrying about being overruled by a federal judge!

“Our founding fathers understood that not everyone wanted to live under the same laws. That’s why they crafted our Constitution so that the federal government had only certain, specific powers, and everything else was left up to the states, to be decided as their people saw fit. Today, though, politicians in Washington use our tax dollars to try and force us all to live by their edicts, by what they and their special interest friends want for us, instead of how we ourselves would choose to live. They want power. They want control. But they can only have these things if we let them. We can take the reins of our lives back again, if we will. By disempowering Washington we empower ourselves. Your choice is clear tonight (points to the other candidates): you can choose his plan for your life, or his plan for your life, or his plan for your life, or my plan to give you back your life.”

There is real dynamite in the message of federalism. It’s a simple, appealing idea. Show the blue staters how they can protect themselves against the red staters, and vice versa, and I think the argument will almost sell itself.

Non-interventionism:

We all know that Americans are sick of the Iraq war, and have no interest in repeating the mistake elsewhere, so the message of non-interventionism has a lot going for it. Ron Paul has been preaching this sermon consistently, and it was the issue that really catapulted his campaign into the national spotlight. Given that none of the establishment candidates are going to do anything substantive to change our failed foreign policy, I expect public disenchantment to continue to grow in this area, especially among the young (they don’t like being sent off to die for other peoples’ legacies – who knew?).

To see more on how these principles could translate into a party platform, see the American Freedom Party.

2. Grassroots level outreach and growth

Third parties typically squander their meager resources on promoting long-shot presidential candidates, when they should be working to spread their message among average Americans instead. Think about it for a moment: when was the last time you saw a newspaper ad for the Libertarian Party, or heard a radio spot for the Constitution Party? When was the last time either of them canvassed your neighborhood and left material on your doorstep? Or set up a billboard in town? Or sponsored a rally?

Whatever the long-term results of the Ron Paul Revolution might prove to be, I think the most significant to date is that is has put tens of thousands of like-minded individuals in contact with one another, in meet-up groups and chat rooms from coast-to-coast. If a new party came together, these groups could quickly become its affiliates. They would be a tremendous basis upon which to continue to spread the message of peace and freedom, far more so than anything available to any existing third party…and they’re already present in every state.

Consider what such groups have already accomplished to date. Reflect on the millions of dollars this grassroots revolution has raised. Consider the effectiveness of our writing and telephone campaigns, of how we have repeatedly made the establishment squirm over the last few months. Rudy Giuliani couldn’t go anywhere without Ron Paul supporters heckling him; and Fox News will surely never regain the credibility (or the audience) it once had.

All of this with so little formal organization! To call it inspiring would be an understatement. Given the powerful forces arrayed against us, the progress we’ve made is nothing short of incredible; and we must not let that momentum slip away. By all indications, we have difficult times ahead of us. We’re going to need one another’s support if we’re to defend what is left of our freedom, and we’re going to need to be ready with answers on those occasions when the establishment falls on its face.

Objections:

What about ballot access issues and getting into the debates?

Again, the meet-up groups scattered across the country are potential state affiliate parties, and I think they could organize and get enough signatures to obtain ballot access before the mid-term elections. They’ve already demonstrated that they can canvass effectively, so I don’t think that’s an unrealistic expectation at all.

Once ballot access is achieved, the key to maintaining it with the least amount of effort and expense will be to target the right elections, particularly those where a major party candidate is running unopposed. Third party candidates can pick up a lot of protest votes in such races. For instance, the Wyoming Libertarian Party was able to gain major party status a few years ago, due to just such a scenario.

We should also make it a goal to highlight the unfairness of current ballot access laws, and to press for change. A little pressure can go a long way, and, if anything, this movement has demonstrated that it can apply pressure and get results.

Where the presidential debates are concerned, the requirement is that a candidate be polling at 15% in order to be invited; and, truth be told, if we aren’t polling near that level, we probably shouldn’t be running anyone for president. The key there is to do our job at the grassroots level, working to spread the word and build the party to the point where we’ll have the numbers we need. Ross Perot was able to do this as recently as 1992. During the general election he received more votes than George Bush in Maine, and more than Bill Clinton in Utah, and might have done even better had he not dropped out of the race for a time (and if he had had a better Vice Presidential running mate).

What about the perception that third parties can’t win?

No mistake about it, this will be a public relations battle, and what needs to be emphasized is that anyone who wants change must be willing to work for it, and to take a chance on it: “We will never have change if we keep electing the same old people who will continue to do things the same old way,” etc. It should also be emphasized that this perception serves the interests of the major parties, both of which would like us to think that we can’t do without them. This point should be incorporated into the overall call for freedom from Washington. The more we equate the major parties with Washington and its corruption, the more people will be willing to send their votes elsewhere; and the more noise we make, the more influential, and thus viable, we will appear to voters.

What about how long it will take to build influence?

If we concentrate on getting the word out to the extent that we should, I think we’ll be surprised by how quickly we’ll grow. There are significant numbers of Americans that either do not vote or else have fallen out of the system; the Ron Paul campaign has demonstrated that these people are reachable and winnable. It has also demonstrated that America’s young people are very much open to the message of peace and freedom, and that they are politically homeless and frustrated.

Finally, bear in mind that it will not be necessary for us to capture the White House or majorities in Congress in order to have influence. The more the merrier, of course, but votes in Congress are sometimes close enough that even a couple of congressmen or a single senator can wield considerable power. The same holds true with state legislatures.

What about the fact that so many Americans like statism just fine?

Unfortunately, many Americans do like statism, but the good news is that statists are divided into camps, and they don’t get along. Liberals tend to want to control our wallets, while conservatives would usually prefer to invade our bedrooms (when foreign countries aren’t available, anyway). These are generalizations, of course, but they’re reasonably accurate; and I believe that such differences present us with the very real potential of breaking up the cartel in Washington D.C. Again, it’s a matter of showing the blue staters how they can protect themselves against the red staters, and vice versa.

Under a return to federalism, states could make their own policies concerning issues like abortion, gay marriage, medical marijuana, etc., and the potential for this kind of freedom will appeal to both sides of the aisle. Some will use it to commit outrages against liberty, while others will use it to protect liberty. If, on the other hand, the federal government retains its current powers (and expands on them), the likelihood is that all we’re going to see is a continuous stream of outrages, and there will be no escaping them. For instance, under federalism, if New York ever decided to outlaw home schooling, home school families could flee elsewhere. If, on the other hand, the federal government ever started to regulate it, they would be trapped no matter where they were within the United States.

Thus the potential of what I’m suggesting here is the ability to better preserve our liberties by forcing statists to fight us for control of fifty state governments, rather than one national government. Additionally, as I pointed out under the “influence” question, we don’t necessarily need majorities to have an impact on the system. Every single person we send to an elected office has potential to obstruct the decay of our freedoms.

Summary

I started this article with a quote from the Old Testament book of Amos – “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” It is evident that the friends of freedom can no longer pretend to walk in agreement with the GOP establishment. The party has set itself intractably against the Jeffersonian principles of non-interventionism, limited government, and individual liberty, and it has done everything in its power to silence contrary voices.

How much longer will we continue to allow the GOP elite to stymie us? In many ways, Ron Paul style conservatives and libertarians are already operating like a third party within the GOP. I’m suggesting that we just go ahead and make it official. We have the right message at the right time in history. The question is: do we have the vision and the will?

Even more fundamentally, given the enormity of what is at stake, do we have a choice?

"An army of principles will penetrate where an army of soldiers cannot...neither the Rhine, the Channel nor the ocean can avert its progress. It will march on the horizon of the world, and it will conquer." – Thomas Paine

Click here to digg this article.