Dakota Beacon

Congressman Justin Amash (R-MI), on the Laura Ingraham program, has asserted that the disconnect between the people of America with the two major parties – who seem to be colluding in one more issue – the proposed war in Syria – is fueling the movement for third parties.  I would suggest a common-sense alternative.

If we quit voting for either the “man” or the “party” and start voting on their votes, American voters might begin to reclaim some degree of control over the government they are funding and which they have come to call their “master”.  I am advocating turning out of office any office-holder at any level whose vote goes contrary to the public opinion of his jurisdiction.

This means that we must unplug from the rhetoric which has burdened our editorialists and polemic commentators – on both sides.  If both the Right and the Left of the general public are opposed to this imminent war with its concurrent financial cost and commitment, the certain loss of life (of both Americans and Syrians) and the reward of further erosion of foreign regard for America, and yet both Democrats and Republicans holding office are signing on in full-support mode for going to war, then we must use the next election to remember their names and vote for the candidate of the major party opposing him.  So, however gut-wrenching it might seem for a solid, God-fearing Conservative to vote for a Democrat, he must do so if his incumbent Republican Congressman or Senator is flipping him off on the war issue – or on any other issue of great importance.  

By sticking with the two-party system we can punish rogue members of Congress or the Senate (or the President).  By going for a third party we will dissipate our power in a thousand little pieces of political confetti - and the elitists can laugh at us again.   Personally, although I strongly supported Congressman Kevin Cramer, and even was one of the earliest people to urge him to run, I would not hesitate to vote for his Democrat opponent if he betrayed his supporters on any major issue – one is enough.  Any one of the major issues before Congress right now is enough to destroy America!  Should we give him a pass on Obamacare?  No.  What if he’s right on something else?  IT DOESN’T MATTER WHICH ISSUE DESTROYS US!  

Similarly, Democrats should vote against their party’s candidate if that person voted for war in Syria against the will of the public. Lifelong Democrat union members should likewise not be standing by watching helplessly as they and their families lose their health care policies to Obamacare and their livelihoods  to "comprehensive immigration reform".  They, too, must take themselves out of the "take for granted" column.  We are at a place we've never been in our history - our own government is contemplating implementation of several programs, any one of which can finish us as the America we know.  Obamacare is certainly one of them.  By itself it will destroy our economy and our Constitution.  The immigration issue is another - by itself it will destroy us, bringing an intensification of our socialisti policies, increasing crime and rendering our "homeland security" a joke.  What is a nation without borders?  What it is NOT is a nation.  We cannot tolerate any - ANY - Congressmen or Senators who will not work around the clock to end these two progams at once.  Waiting on either is not an option.  They must be defeated. 

War in any region where our sovereignty is not under direct threat is out of the question.   Here is another case which proves the point that party affiliation means nothing.  George W. Bush's "nation-building" was a fiasco, leavin us worse off than before, not to mention the worse plight of the innocent people who live there.  Obviously we cannot allow the current holder of that office to lead us, like lemmings, into yet another stupid war.  If Afghanistan wasn't enough, either Egypt or Libya should have been.  I do like the idea of holding the vote on whether we should go into Syria to bail out Al Qaeda on September 11.  That should help us to sort out who needs to go.

There was once a time when party affiliation had real meaning with regard to issues of government.   These party affiliations no longer have any meaning as the official leadership of those parties begin to have more in common with each other than with their constituents.  This is what we mean by the “elite” vs. the people.  In effect, we now have one political party.  The only difference it really makes is one of personality.  “Which guy do you like better?”, not “Which policy or philosophy do you like better?” has become the “way things work in Washington”. 

When we question these people we are given a patronizing pat on the head and told we just don’t know how it “is” in Washington.  Well, as a matter of fact, things cannot be allowed to “be” different in Washington.  That whole premise is very, very dangerous.  We need to tell Washington, rather, how things “are” in the REAL WORLD.  We can no longer accept the condescending toss-away line from the people we send to Washington with our votes and our money.  And the only way to send that message when they aren’t listening to our voices is to vote for their realistic opponents – by that I mean the candidate who could BEAT them.  If John Boehner tells the President that he will support any old war Obama serves up, regardless of the will and interest of the people, it is not going to suffice to vote for a third party.   What must be done is a true Conservative must be run against him in a primary.  If that candidate does not defeat Boehner at the primary level, then Conservatives MUST vote for the Democrat who runs against him.

This sounds draconian and it is.  It is a drastic action, but tell me the truth – what other solution IS there?  A third party will not win.  But a Democrat who is the winner will also have been given fair warning that he is on probation as well.  If he defeats a sitting Congressman, the Speaker of the House, even, he will know that any candidate who ignores and insults his constituents will not last in that office.  The same formula must also be used by Democrats to purge their own party. 

There are many reasons to stay with a two-party system.  In the event of a strong third party, we could end up with control in the hands of even less than a majority of voters. 

Here’s another one:  if we feel very, very strongly about an issue and, say, our Republican representative sells us out because “that’s how it works in Washington – don’t worry about it, I’m  really on your side”, our whole issue goes away – likely forever.  If we favor the right to life and our Republican decides to compromise that away because that’s how it’s done, where do we find a champion?  He’s joined the enemy.  This keeps happening to us because that’s how it’s done. 

We can change that.  Only we can do that.  And the only way we can do it is to use the stick and the carrot given us by our Founders.  We can vote them out of office.  We can say “no” to the virtual blackmail that the other guy is “worse”.  We must no longer fall for that one.  That is the beginning of the trip to nowhere.  We will lose our freedom and our country in that way.  And we all know what a third party is good at doing. 

So, I would say, today, call your man/men in Washington and tell them how it’s done out here in flyoverland.  Tell him that you will vote against him regardless of who is running, that we must exercise our right to govern ourselves even if we must vote for another “bad guy” to get rid of him if he does not vote in accordance with the will of the American people.  We must not allow ourselves to be governed against our will.  And this is the only way.

We, the humble American voters and taxpayers, can defeat elitists who think they know better than we, who think they can ignore us and vote against our will on important issues.  This nuclear option should not be used for minor issues, where there is reasonable difference of opinion and outlook,  but when America finds itself in $15 trillion of debt, when our servicemen are dying more frequently through suicide than through any act of war, when 80% want to defund a program which will destroy our economy, when we have made it clear that we do not want open borders, that we value our own nation’s sovereignty, when the issues before us are final, do-or-die issues – then this option is the only reasonable response