the revolution that wasn't

8/14/2019 The Revolution that Wasn't

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-revolution-that-wasnt 1/39



THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T

by

Laurence M. Vance



Books by Laurence M. Vance

The Other Side of CalvinismA Brief History of English Bible TranslationsThe Angel of the LordArchaic Words and the Authorized Version

A Practical Grammar of Basic Biblical HebrewDouble Jeopardy: The NASB UpdateChristianity and War and Other Essays Against the

Warfare StateKing James, His Bible, and Its TranslatorsGreek Verbs in the New Testament and Their Principal PartsWar, Foreign Policy, and the ChurchGuide to Prepositions in the Greek New TestamentThe Myth of the Just Price and the Biblical Case for Laissez FaireGuide to Nouns in the Greek New TestamentGuide to Adjectives in the Greek New TestamentGuide to Pronouns in the Greek New Testament

The Revolution that Wasn’t



THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T

by

Laurence M. Vance

Vance PublicationsPensacola, FL



The Revolution that Wasn’tCopyright © 2009 by Laurence M. Vance

All Rights Reserved

ISBN: 978-0-9823697-0-8

Published and Distributed by: Vance PublicationsP.O. Box 11781, Pensacola, FL 32524

Phone: 850-937-1970E-mail: [email protected]

Website: www.vancepublications.com

Printed in the United States of America



5

INTRODUCTION

The so-called Republican Revolution began on January 3, 1995,after the Republicans gained control of both houses of Congress in the1994 midterm elections. The last time this happened was the congres-sional elections of 1952. The Revolution officially came to an end onJanuary 20, 2009, when George Bush’s second term as president cameto a well-deserved and much-anticipated end.

It is my contention that conservatives who think the RepublicanParty is the party of conservatism are mistaken, Christians who think

the Republican Party is the party of God are deceived, and anyone whothinks the Republican Party is the lesser of two evils is ignorant.These eight essays chronicle the Republican revolution that wasn’t.

The first essay, “What a Republican Majority Has Not Meant,” waspublished in the July 2004 issue of Freedom Daily, the monthlypublication of the Future of Freedom Foundation. It is actually arevision of an earlier essay called “What a Republican Majority WillNot Mean,” which was written just after the Republicans regainedcontrol of the Congress in 1994. The other essays all originallyappeared on the anti-state, anti-war, pro-market website,LewRockwell.com. Along with their dates of publication, they are:“The Myth of Republican Conservatism” (July 12, 2004), “Four Years

Growth” (Jan. 24, 2005), “Irritating, Lousy, Liberal Republicans”(Aug. 1, 2006), “What Republican Revolution?” (Nov. 11, 2006), “Nota Dime’s Worth of Difference” (Aug. 24, 2007), “Ichabod!” (Sept. 5,2008), and T.G.I.F. (Jan. 26, 2009).

For further reading one may consult the in-depth examinations Iauthored of the legislation passed by the Republican-controlled 108thand 109th Congresses: “The 108th Congress: An Analysis” (Jan. 17,2005) and “Our ‘Conservative’ Republican Congress” (Jan. 14, 2006).On George Bush, see “The Christianity of George WMD Bush” (May23, 2005). All three are in my article archive at LewRockwell.com.

The Republican Party had a chance to roll back the size, scope, andcost of the federal government, but failed miserably. It is truly the party

of Lincoln—the party of war, crony capitalism, pious platitudes, emptyrhetoric, big government, and an imperial presidency.



THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T 6

WHAT A REPUBLICAN MAJORITY HAS NOT MEANT

It has been more than a year now since the Republicans gained anabsolute majority in Congress and the White House. The road to thismajority began in the third year of Bill Clinton’s first term. TheRepublicans gained complete control of the 104th Congress(1995–1997), held on to control in the 105th Congress (1997–1999),and remained in power during the 106th Congress (1999–2001)through the end of Clinton’s presidency.

After 40 years of Democratic rule, the Republican majority in theCongress during most of Clinton’s term in office appeared at the time

to be a welcome sight. But because the presidency eluded them, theRepublicans seemed to have an excuse for not rolling back the welfarestate, even though it is the legislative branch that passes all legisla-tion—not the executive branch. And besides, Clinton made a goodscapegoat. Then, if only for a brief moment, it appeared finally to beofficial—there was an absolute Republican majority in the House, a50–50 split in the Senate with a Republican vice president to break ties,and a Republican president in the White House. But when Jim Jeffords,the Republican senator from Vermont, switched from being a Republi-can to being an Independent on May 24, 2001, the Republican majorityfizzled, giving the GOP another excuse.

But then, no more excuses. The 108th Congress, which took office

in January of last year, was solidly Republican. But since the Republi-cans have gained control of the Congress, the federal budget (over $2trillion) and the federal deficit (over $500 billion) are the highest ever,the national debt is over $7 trillion (and increasing an average of $2billion per day), hundreds of Americans have died on foreign soil, andAmericans have even less liberty now than they had before. This time,however, the Republicans have no excuses. The lame excuse that theyare not responsible because they didn’t control the entire governmentwill not work anymore. And the even lamer excuse that the defectionof Vermont Sen. Jim Jeffords so early in Bush’s presidency didn’t givethe Republican majority enough time to do anything won’t work either.

The Republicans have now had total control—an absolute

Republican majority—for more than a year. And what did they doduring this time? The usual—nothing. No egregious legislation was




repealed. The welfare state was not rolled back an inch. No federalprograms or departments were eliminated. No budgets were cut. In fact,legislation got worse (the USA PATRIOT Act), the welfare state wasstrengthened (a new prescription drug plan), and a new federaldepartment was created (Homeland Security). So now that the initialeuphoria over an absolute Republican majority has subsided and theRepublicans have been in charge for a year, the Republican record canbe soberly addressed.

There is only one way to describe the record of the Republicanmajority during its first year: a dismal failure. To students of politicalhistory, however, this was not only no surprise, it was to be expected

and, in fact, predictable on the basis of the actions of the RepublicanParty in the 20th century, whether they held the presidency, the House,the Senate, or any combination of the three, including an absolutemajority. Because the history of the Republican Party is one of compromise after compromise and sellout after sellout, there are anumber of things that a Republican majority has not meant, and in fact,will never mean.

Republican Sellouts

A Republican majority has not meant any more than it did the lasttime the Republicans controlled both the Congress and the Oval Office,

since the intent of Republicans is not to dismantle the welfare state withits entitlements and income-transfer programs. The 83rd Congress of 1953–1955, which had the advantage of serving under the Republicanpresident Dwight Eisenhower, represented the last time in recentmemory that the Republicans commanded both houses of Congress andthe White House. Before then, it was during the first two years of Herbert Hoover’s presidency that a Republican Congress convenedunder a Republican president. With the Republican Eisenhower in theWhite House, and a Republican majority in Congress, one would think that the entire New Deal could have been repealed and the governmentrestored to at least its pre-New Deal levels. Yet during this period, theBricker Amendment to protect U.S. sovereignty went down in defeat,

the Cold War took shape, and the judicial activist Earl Warren wasappointed to the Supreme Court. This Republican majority was




short-lived, as the voters turned out the Republicans for what was to bethe longest tenure of one-party rule in U.S. history.

A Republican majority has not meant anything different from thelast time a Republican Congress had to contend with a Democraticpresident, because the Republicans have no desire to rid the country of affirmative-action policies, anti-discrimination laws, or anything elsegranting special privileges based on race, sex, perceived victim status,disability, or “sexual orientation.” Before the Clinton regime, the lasttime a Republican Congress found itself in this position was during the80th Congress of 1947–1949, which assembled during the second half of the first term of the Democrat Harry Truman. One would have to go

back to the last half of Woodrow Wilson’s second term to find a likeoccurrence. It is apparent that a Republican majority in Congress forthe first time since the New Deal would at least have been able to block the legislative agenda of Harry Truman. But ability and willingness aretwo different things. After authorizing $400 million in aid to Greeceand Turkey in 1947 and the $17 billion Marshall Plan in 1948, theRepublicans in Congress were still replaced by Democrats in the nextelection.

A Republican majority has not meant anything different from thelast time the Republicans held a majority in the Senate, because thepractice of appointing and confirming judges and bureaucrats whotrample the Constitution and infringe the liberties of American citizens

has never abated. Throughout Ronald Reagan’s first term, and for thefirst half of his second one, the Republicans had a majority in theSenate under a Republican president. The only other two times thiscentury that this occurred were during the terms of Hoover and WilliamTaft. Although not possessing a majority in the House of Representa-tives, with a majority in the Senate, and the most conservative presidentsince Calvin Coolidge, the repeal of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Societyseemed within reach. Some good was done during the period of thisSenate majority, but Sandra Day O’Connor, who proved to be a dismalfailure to conservatives, was installed on the Supreme Court. TheSocial Security tax rates were also gradually raised throughout thisperiod, something that cannot be blamed exclusively on a

Democratic-controlled House. Further compromise with the Democratsresulted in additional “tax reform.” A Republican House was never




elected to complement the Republican Senate, and the Republicans lostthe Senate for the remaining two years of Reagan’s final term.

A Republican majority has not meant something dissimilar from aDemocratic majority with a Republican president, because theRepublicans have made no effort to eliminate the laws, mandates,regulations, and restrictions that strangle business and burden theAmerican people. The last Republican president to preside over aDemocratic Congress was George H. W. Bush. Every Republicanpresident since Eisenhower has had the disadvantage of serving with aDemocratic majority in Congress for at least part of his term, andusually for the entire duration. It was expected that an attempt would

be made by Bush to block Democratic legislation. But not only weresome horrendous bills passed with the help of Republicans in the Houseand Senate, President Bush signed them instead of using his vetopower. The Americans with Disabilities Act, the Clean Air Act, and theCivil Rights Act are three notable examples, not to mention thedisastrous budget deal that raised taxes.

A Republican majority has not meant any more than business asusual with a complete Democratic majority, because the reckless,globalist foreign policy of the United States is adhered to by mostRepublicans. The total Democratic control of the government, such asexisted under Roosevelt, Truman (second term), Kennedy, Johnson,Carter, and Clinton (first half of first term), has done much damage to

the country. Yet many of the increases in taxes, social spending, andfederal powers, with their assault on liberty and private property, werepassed with the help of Republicans at the time they were supposed tobe the opposition party. Republicans in the House and Senate supportedClinton’s crime bill and the annual multi-billion dollar foreign aidpackage.

The Solution

It is understood that with a Democrat in the White House, apresidential veto can squelch Republican plans. That excuse may haveseemed plausible under the Clinton regime, but it does not hold

anymore. No matter how often Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh singtheir praises, the Republicans cannot be taken seriously. A Republicanmajority in Congress and the White House has meant virtually nothing




positive for liberty, and will never do so, until they undertake asystematic dismantling of the welfare, regulatory, interventionist state.It is not just a matter of enacting more legislation to combat 40 yearsof Democratic rule. Limiting spending increases to the rate of inflationis not satisfactory. A balanced-budget amendment is not the answer.Indexing taxes on capital gains to inflation is not the solution. A freezeon federal spending is not enough. Welfare and Social Security reformare not needed. More crime bills will not do. It is pointless to argue thatthe Republicans will feed the federal leviathan less than the Democrats.Instead of slaying the federal leviathan, bipartisanship, sellout, andcompromise will ensure that a Republican majority feeds it instead.

Unless the emphasis is on the elimination of all facets of the federalmonstrosity, including the repeal of the New Deal of FDR, the FairDeal of Harry Truman, the Great Society programs of LBJ, theblunders of Republican presidents, and the sellouts of RepublicanCongresses, a Republican majority will never mean anything positivefor freedom.

Ultimately, the solution lies in the hands of the American people.The libertarian principles of the Founders, and especially the limitedrole of government in a free society, should be on the lips of everyAmerican. It is then, and only then, that elected representatives canbegin to eliminate the funding and power of the FDA, FTC, EEOC,OSHA, EPA, HHS, HUD, BATF, CPB, NEA, IRS, and all the other

acronyms that rob the American people of their money, property, andliberty.

_______

THE MYTH OF REPUBLICAN CONSERVATISM

The latest “Conservative Index” that has just been published by The

New American, (a biweekly publication of The John Birch Society), isan eye-opener for those who think that the Republicans in Congress are“conservative.” The index once again refutes the myth, based on thevoting records of Republicans in Congress, that the Republican Partyis the party of “conservatism.”

The “Conservative Index,” according to The New American, “ratescongressmen based on their adherence to constitutional principles of limited government, to fiscal responsibility, to national sovereignty,




and to a traditional foreign policy of avoiding foreign entanglements.”The New American views conservatism as an ideology that believes in“preserving our Constitution, the freedoms it guarantees, and the moralbedrock on which it is based.”

This is the third time The New American has published a “Conser-vative Index” of the 108th Congress. For those who have forgottentheir high school American Government class, the U.S. Congress meetsfor a two-year term, divided into two sessions of one year each. EveryCongress since the first one to meet under the Constitution has anumber. Thus, the 108th Congress is the 108th time in this country’shistory that a new Congress has been elected. A new Congress begins

its term in January of every odd year, after elections in November of every even year. After the election coming up in November of 2004,the 109th Congress will convene in January of 2005.

The purpose of this index is to present how all members of Congress have voted on certain key issues. This certainly makes iteasier to see how members of Congress voted than calling their officesin Washington or checking the results of each bill on the Internet. Toget an overall picture of the political philosophy of each congressman(their ideologies actually range from socialist to statist to interventionistto libertarian), the votes they cast on certain key issues are assigned aplus (good) or a minus (bad). Scores from 1 to 100 are determined bydividing a congressman’s plus votes by the total number of votes cast

and multiplying by 100. Thus, the higher the number the stronger thedegree of conservatism of the congressman.

If it be objected by libertarians that a congressman scoring a100—a “perfect” conservative score—is not necessarily somethinggood, it should be pointed out that libertarian Ron Paul (R-TX)consistently scores 100 on this index. Therefore, this “ConservativeIndex” is a good indicator of how devoted members of Congress are tothe philosophy of liberty.

Some of the House congressional votes that are counted in thisparticular index relate to extended unemployment benefits (H.R. 3030),child nutrition programs (H.R. 3873), transportation (H.R. 3550),abortion at military facilities (H.R. 4200), and job training (H.R. 444).

Some of the Senate congressional votes relate to gun show backgroundchecks (S. 1805), transportation (S. 1072), assault weapons (S. 1805),




extended unemployment benefits (S. 1637), and extending the Internettax moratorium (S. 150).

As mentioned, this issue of The New American (July 12) is the thirdtime a “Conservative Index” has been published. The other two werein the July 14 and December 29 issues in 2003. Each index used tenkey votes from the House and the Senate. An added benefit this time isthat an average score for all three indexes is also given to assess theoverall philosophy of each member of Congress on a wide range of issues.

The results of the index are shocking. The average score in theHouse was only 46. The average score in the Senate was only 41. The

high score in the House (100) was made by Ron Paul (R-TX). The highscore in the Senate (80) was made by John Ensign (R-NV). The lowscore in the House (13) was made by Diane Watson (D-CA). The lowscore in the Senate (10) was made by two Republicans—John Chafee(R-RI) and George Voinovich (R-OH). The Democratic ticket of Senators Kerry (D-MA) and Edwards (D-NC) have no meaningfulscore since they were out campaigning so much that they hardly voted.Their overall scores are 15 for Kerry and 35 for Edwards.

So how does this index refute the myth that Republican Party is theparty of “conservatism”? Bernie Sanders (I-VT), the only member of the House of Representatives who admits to being a socialist, scored anoverall 47–about average. Former Republican Jim Jeffords (I-VT)

scored an overall 37. But 174 Republicans in the House (76%) and 23Republicans in the Senate (45%) scored less than Sanders. Twenty-oneRepublicans in the Senate scored the same as or less than the 40 of TedKennedy and Hillary Clinton. None of the Republican leadership in theHouse or the Senate managed to score over 50. House RepublicanMajority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) scored a 50. Senate president protempore Ted Stevens (R-AK) and Senate Republican Majority LeaderBill Frist (R-TN) each scored a 40–tying Senate Democratic MinorityLeader Tom Daschle (D-SD).

As should be obvious, the Republican Party is not the hope of America. Nothing has changed since George Wallace said that therewas not a “dime’s worth of difference” between the Democratic and

Republican presidential candidates. It is pro-lifers, grass-rootsconservatives, the Christian Right, and the disciples of Rush Limbaugh




and Sean Hannity who are wasting their votes by voting Republi-can—not conservative and libertarian critics of the Republican Partywho vote for a third party or not at all.

_______

FOUR YEARS GROWTH

“The American people have been overcharged for Government, andthey deserve a refund.” ~ President George W. Bush (The Budget

Message of the President , 2002)

The year 2000 Platform of the Republican Party implied that theRepublican Party was the party that held the supposedly conservativeideas of fiscal responsibility and smaller government:

Since 1994, with Republicans leading the House and Senate,spending has been held to an annual 3.1 percent rate of growth, andthe nation’s debt will be nearly $400 billion lower by the end of thisyear. The federal government has operated in the black for the lasttwo years and is now projected to run a surplus of nearly $5 trillionover the years.

We intend to downsize this mess and make government actually dowhat it is supposed to.

A Republican president will run the federal government much as theRepublican governors run state agencies. Bureaucracy will bereduced and trimmed in size at its upper echelons.

Nothing could be further from the truth, for as has been documented,the idea that the Republican Party is the party of conservatism is amyth. The Republican Party has always been the party of big govern-ment, plunder, and sellouts. A look at the “four years growth” of thefederal government under the presidency of George Bush confirms andamplifies these facts.

The Republicans gained control of the Congress in the third year

of Clinton’s first term. They had complete control of the 104thCongress (1995–1997), held on to control in the 105th Congress(1997–1999), and remained in power during the 106th Congress(1999–2001) through the end of Clinton’s presidency. After George




Bush was inaugurated in 2001, he had a Republican-controlled 107thCongress (2001–2003) until May 24, 2001, when Jim Jeffords (R-VT)switched from Republican to Independent, changing the Senate from50/50 to 50 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 1 Independent. The Houseremained in Republican hands. The 108th Congress (2003–2005) wasonce again solidly Republican, giving the Republicans an absolutemajority in Congress and the White House for the last two years of Bush’s first term.

This means that the Republican Party has no excuse for the size andscope of the federal government as it exists right now. Republicanscan’t blame anything on the Democrats like they did for the fifty years

before they gained control of the Congress.Now that we are at the end of Bush’s first four years, a simple

question needs to be asked: Is the government at the end of Bush’s firstterm in any way smaller or less expensive than the government at thebeginning of his first term. If it is, then Bush and the Republican Partytold the truth, but if it isn’t, then Bush’s rhetoric was just hot air and the2000 Republican Party Platform wasn’t worth the paper it was writtenon.

The Federal Budget

According to the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, the president

must annually submit a budget to Congress by the first Monday inFebruary. The government’s fiscal year runs from October 1 toSeptember 30. This means that the budget submitted in February isactually for the next fiscal year that begins in October. An outgoingpresident is not required to submit a budget. And because it is notpractical for a new president, who takes office on January 20, to submita budget within a few days of taking office, he is given extra time tosubmit a budget his first year in office. On February 28, 2001, PresidentBush submitted to Congress a FY 2002 summary budget plan called A

Blueprint for New Beginnings–A Responsible Budget for America’s

Priorities. In his message to the Congress that begins this document,two comments by the president stand out:

Excessive taxation is corroding our prosperity.Government spending has risen too quickly.




And what did Bush propose to do about these things? He proposedan increase in the federal budget from $1.856 trillion in FY 2001 to$1.959 trillion in FY 2002. That is an increase of $103 billion overClinton’s last budget. Then, on April 9, 2001, Bush submitted his FY2002 budget to Congress. But the actual budget he proposed was up to$1.961 trillion. “A Note to the Reader” at the head of one of thebudget’s accompanying documents, “A Citizen’s Guide to the FederalBudget,” puts this figure in perspective: “Next year, your FederalGovernment will spend nearly $2.0 trillion. Needless to say, that’s a lotof money. In fact, that’s almost $7,000 for every man, woman, andchild in the country; nearly $5.4 billion per day; and about $3.7 million

per minute. And most of that money comes from taxes on the Americanpeople.” But it gets worse, for according to the “Summary of Receipts,Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits” in the FY 2005 budget, the federalgovernment actually spent $2.011 trillion in FY 2002.

In the FY 2002 budget, the estimate for the FY 2005 budget (thelast budget of Bush’s first term) was $2.169 trillion. But by the timethis budget was actually submitted to the Congress on February 2,2004, it had grown to $2.4 trillion. It was only ten years ago that thefederal budget was about a trillion dollars less than it is now. Will thefederal budget shrink or even stay the same during the next four yearsthat Bush is in office? The answer should be quite obvious. Theprojected budget for FY 2009 is a whopping $2.853 trillion.

Finding what to cut in the federal budget is not a difficult matter.The series of LRC articles by Jim Grichar on “Cutting the FederalBudget To Prevent U.S. Bankruptcy” should be required reading for allmembers of Congress.

The Federal Deficit

The federal deficit is the amount by which the government’sspending exceeds its revenues for a fiscal year. Clinton had a budgetsurplus his last four years in office. When FY 2001 ended duringBush’s first year in office (9/28/2001), there was a surplus of $127billion. Bush turned that into a budget deficit of $157 billion for FY

2002, $375 billion for FY 2003, and $413 billion for FY 2004. TheCongressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated last September that the




deficit for FY 2005 would be $348 billion.

The Federal Debt

The federal debt is the total of all the deficits and surpluses that thefederal government runs each year. The daily change in the debt can beseen on the website of the Treasury Department’s Bureau of the PublicDebt. At the time of Bush’s first inauguration in 2001, the federal debtstood at $5,727,776,738,304.64. At the time of his second inaugurationon January 20, 2005, the federal debt stood at $7,613,772,338,689.34.Thus, the federal debt increased almost $2 trillion under the first four

years of Bush’s reign. The federal debt at the end of the last three fiscalyears is as follows:

Fiscal Year Federal Debt

FY 2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16FY 2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62FY 2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

As anyone with high credit card balances knows, maintaining a highdebt level costs a lot of money in the form of interest payments. Theinterest expense for the last three fiscal years is as follows:

Fiscal Year Interest ExpenseFY 2002 $332,536,958,599.42FY 2003 $318,148,529,151.51FY 2004 $321,566,323,971.29

The interest expense for the first three months of FY 2005 (Oct., Nov.,& Dec.) was $120,248,160,823.07. The interest expense on thismassive debt is the third largest expense in the federal budget.

The Federal Bureaucracy

According to the FY 2005 budget, the estimated total of executive

branch full-time equivalent (FTE) federal employees (excluding postalemployees) at the end of FY 2005 is 1,875,000. This is up substantiallyfrom the number of 1,737,000 at the end of FY 2001. The federal




bureaucracy mainly consists of the executive branch departments, theoffices under the Executive Office of the President (EOP), and otherassorted federal agencies and commissions.

Executive Branch Departments

When Bill Clinton was president, Republicans talked abouteliminating some executive branch departments. As usual, their actionsdid not match their speech. However, at least no new departments wereadded under Clinton’s rule. It is too bad that the same thing cannot besaid about no new departments being added on Bush’s watch.

The following is a list of the executive branch departments alongwith the dates of their creation:

Department of Agriculture (1862)Department of Commerce (1913)Department of Defense (1947)Department of Education (1979)Department of Energy (1977)Department of Health and Human Services (1979)Department of Homeland Security (2002)Department of Housing and Urban Development (1965)Department of the Interior (1849)Department of Justice (1789)

Department of Labor (1913)Department of State (1789)Department of Transportation (1966)Department of the Treasury (1789)Department of Veterans Affairs (1989)

[The Department of Commerce was originally the Department of Commerceand Labor (1903); the Department of Defense was originally the Departmentof War (1789); the Department of Health and Human Services was originallythe Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (1953); the Department of Labor was originally the Department of Commerce and Labor (1903)]

No one is saying that all of these departments should be elimi-nated—just the majority of them. The original four (Justice, State,Treasury, and War) might conceivably serve some useful purpose— if




they were scaled down considerably. But what about the otherdepartments? What did we do in this country without a Department of Education until 1979? Were people not being educated properly untilthen? Is it the job of the government to provide health and humanservices? Is it the job of the government to oversee housing and urbandevelopment? And to those who say that we need the new Departmentof Homeland Security to defend us from terrorist attacks, I say: Whatabout the Department of Defense? If U.S. troops were not scattered allover the globe then perhaps they might be able to guard our borders,patrol our coasts, and defend us from terrorist attacks.

Executive Office of the President

The EOP consists of individuals and agencies that directly assistthe president. The EOP is a New Deal increase in the federal bureau-cracy. It was created by Congress in the Reorganization Act of 1939,at the instigation of President Roosevelt. Here is the official list fromthe White House EOP website:

Council of Economic AdvisersCouncil on Environmental QualityDomestic Policy CouncilNational Economic Council

National Security CouncilOffice of AdministrationOffice of Faith-Based and Community InitiativesOffice of Management and BudgetOffice of National AIDS PolicyOffice of National Drug Control Policy

Office of Science & Technology PolicyOffice of the United States Trade RepresentativePresident’s Critical Infrastructure Protection BoardPresident’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory BoardUSA Freedom CorpsWhite House Military Office

The number and size of EOP agencies varies from administration toadministration. President Bush could have eliminated any one of theabove agencies.




Federal Agencies and Commissions

And then there are the numerous federal agencies and commissions.Here is the official list from the White House “Federal Agencies andCommissions” website:

Advisory Council on Historic PreservationAfrican Development FoundationAgency for International DevelopmentAmerican Battle Monuments CommissionAMTRAK

Appalachian Regional CommissionArchitectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance BoardBallistic Missile Defense OrganizationBureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, & FirearmsBureau of Arms ControlBureau of Engraving & PrintingBureau of Labor StatisticsBureau of the CensusBureau of Transportation StatisticsCenters for Medicare and Medicaid ServicesCentral Intelligence AgencyChemical Safety and Hazard Investigations BoardCommodity Futures Trading Commission

Commission on Civil RightsCommodity Futures Trading CommissionConsumer Product Safety CommissionCorporation For National ServiceDefense Advanced Research Projects AgencyDefense Information Systems AgencyDefense Intelligence AgencyDefense Logistics AgencyDefense Nuclear Facilities Safety BoardDefense Security ServiceDefense Threat Reduction AgencyDrug Enforcement AdministrationEnvironmental Protection Agency

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionExport-Import Bank of the U.S.Farm Credit AdministrationFederal Accounting Standards Advisory Board




Federal Aviation AdministrationFederal Bureau of InvestigationFederal Communications CommissionFederal Deposit Insurance CorporationFederal Election CommissionFederal Emergency Management AgencyFederal Energy Regulatory CommissionFederal Highway AdministrationFederal Housing Finance BoardFederal Labor Relations AuthorityFederal Maritime CommissionFederal Mediation & Conciliation Service

Federal Mine Safety & Health Review CommissionFederal Railroad AdministrationFederal Reserve SystemFederal Retirement Thrift Investment BoardFederal Trade CommissionFood & Drug AdministrationGeneral Accounting OfficeGeneral Services AdministrationGinnie MaeImmigration & Naturalization ServicesInstitute of Museum and Library ServicesInter-American Development Bank Inter-American Foundation

Internal Revenue ServicesInternational Bank for Reconstruction & DevelopmentInternational Labor OrganizationInternational Monetary FundInternational Trade CommissionLegal Services CorporationMedicare Payment Advisory CommissionMerit Systems Protection BoardNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationNational Archives and Records AdministrationNational Bioethics Advisory CommissionNational Capital Planning CommissionNational Commission on Libraries and Information Science

National Council on DisabilityNational Credit Union AdministrationNational Endowment for the Arts




National Endowment for the HumanitiesNational Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationNational Imagery & Mapping AgencyNational Institute of JusticeNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Institute of Standards & TechnologyNational Institutes of HealthNational Labor Relations BoardNational Mediation BoardNational Oceanic & Atmospheric AdministrationNational Park ServiceNational Science Foundation

National Security AgencyNational Skill Standards BoardNational Technology Transfer CenterNational Telecommunications Information AdministrationNational Transportation Safety BoardNeighborhood Reinvestment CorporationNuclear Regulatory CommissionOccupational Safety and Health Review CommissionOffice of Federal Housing Enterprise OversightOffice of Government EthicsOffice of Personnel ManagementOffice of Special CounselOffice of Thrift Supervision

Organization for Economic Cooperation & DevelopmentOrganization of American StatesOverseas Private Investment Corp.Pan American Health OrganizationPatent & Trademark OfficePeace CorpsPension Benefit Guaranty CorporationPostal Rate CommissionRailroad Retirement BoardSecurities Exchange CommissionSecurities Investor Protection Corp.Selective Service SystemSmall Business Administration

Smithsonian InstitutionSocial Security AdministrationSubstance Abuse & Mental Health Services AdministrationSurface Transportation Board




Tennessee Valley AuthorityTrade and Development AgencyU.S. Customs ServiceU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceU.S. Forest ServiceU.S. Government Printing OfficeU.S. Institute of PeaceU.S. Office of Government EthicsU.S. TreasuryUnited States Holocaust Memorial CouncilUnited States Postal ServiceUnited Nations Information Center

Voice of AmericaWalter Reed Army Medical CenterWhite House FellowsWhite House Commission on Remembrance

Women’s History Commission

Are all these agencies and commissions necessary? Are any of themconstitutional? Most Americans have probably never even heard of half of them.

Conclusion

This brief look at the four years growth of the federal budget,deficit, debt, and bureaucracy shows without a doubt that a Republicanpresident and a Republican Congress cannot be trusted to roll back thewelfare/warfare state even one-tenth of an inch. Given their track record, you can count on them to increase it substantially during thenext four years. Never, never, never trust any document written by theRepublican Party or anything that comes out of the mouth of anyRepublican president, congressman, or politician about reducing thesize and scope of government. And yes, the same thing goes for theDemocrats.

George Bush was right when he said a few years ago: “TheAmerican people have been overcharged for Government, and they

deserve a refund.” The only problem with his statement is that it is nowBush and the Republicans who have overcharged the American peoplefor government, and there is no refund in sight.

_______




IRRITATING, LOUSY, LIBERAL REPUBLICANS

National Review is upset with Senator Lincoln Chafee (R-RI). Themidterm elections are coming up later this year, it’s almost primarytime, and Chafee may win reelection. Chafee’s crime is that he is a“liberal” Republican. Not just any liberal Republican, but a “spectacu-larly lousy Republican” who “might be the most irritating Republicanin the Senate.”

Those who paid attention in their high school American Govern-ment class know that an election is held every two years for one-thirdof all U.S. Senate seats. This is in contrast to the U.S. House of

Representatives, where members only serve for two years instead of sixyears like the Senate.

Writing in the August 7 issue of National Review on the midtermelections, John Miller introduces us to Stephen Laffey, the mayor of Cranston, Rhode Island, and a “mainstream conservative” who isrunning against Chafee in the Rhode Island Republican primary onSeptember 12. A surprise Laffey victory “wouldn’t be merely pleasant,but positively exhilarating.”

Is that so? Republicans are forever telling conservative voters thatif they could only get rid of irritating, lousy, liberal Republicans likeSenator Lincoln Chafee then the U.S. Congress would be transformedinto a conservative Republican utopia. But are liberal Republicans like

Chafee really the problem? Miller writes that “a close look at Chafee’scongressional record suggests that the senator would fit comfortablywithin the Democratic fold: The American Conservative Union givesChafee a lifetime rating of 37 out of a possible 100.” But how about alook at the record of the “conservative” Republicans in Congress? Arethey any better than the “liberal” Democrats?

Fortunately, this is an easy thing to do. The latest “ConservativeIndex” that has just been published by The New American, (a biweeklypublication of The John Birch Society). As usual, it is an eye-openerfor those who think that the Republicans in Congress are “conserva-tive.” The “Conservative Index,” according to The New American,“rates congressmen based on their adherence to constitutional princi-

ples of limited government, fiscal responsibility, national sovereignty,and a traditional foreign policy of avoiding foreign entanglements.”The New American views conservatism as an ideology that believes in




“preserving our Constitution, the freedoms it guarantees, and the moralbedrock on which it is based.”

The latest “Conservative Index” is the magazine’s third look at the109th Congress, and was published on July 10, 2006. As in previousindexes, the votes cast by congressmen on certain key issues areassigned a plus (good) or a minus (bad). Scores from 1 to 100 aredetermined by dividing a congressman’s plus votes by the total numberof votes cast and multiplying by 100. Thus, the higher the number, thestronger the congressman’s commitment to the constitutional principles just mentioned. The overall average score for the three indexesprepared thus far for the 109th Congress is also given.

The results of the index show, as usual, that the Republican Partyis not the party of real conservatism at all. It is the party of interven-tionism, big government, the welfare state, the warfare state, plunder,compromises, and sellouts—just like the Democratic Party.

The average score in the House was only 36; the average score inthe Senate was only 26. The high score (100) was once again made byRepresentative Ron Paul (R-TX). Since Chafee is a senator, I will focuson the Republicans in the Senate.

The party breakdown in the Senate is 55 Republicans, 44 Demo-crats, and 1 Independent. The average score for the Republicans was adismal 24. The Democrats at least managed a 29. The lone Independentscored a 30. Ten Republican senators scored a 0. None of the Demo-

crats did. In the fourteen states that have both a Republican and aDemocratic senator, only in four of them did the Republican have ahigher score than the Democrat. Two Republicans were tied for thehigh score of 60, but one Democrat (Byron Dorgan [D-ND]) alsoscored a 60. The Republicans and Democrats each had five senatorsscore 50 or above. None of the Republican leadership managed to scoreover 50. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) received a 20 as didSenate Assistant Majority Leader (the Whip) Mitch McConnell(R-KY). The third in command, Conference Secretary Rick Santorum(R-PA), beat them out with a 22. Senate President Pro Tempore TedStevens (R-AK) received a 0. The Republican leadership all scored lessthan Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Ted Kennedy (D-MA), and John Kerry

(D-MA).The 1994 Republican revolution is a failure. It is such a dismal

failure that despite the Republican rhetoric about the virtues of




conservatism, the benefits of the free market, and the need for lessgovernment intervention in the economy and society, the increasingRepublican majority in both houses of Congress can only be countedon to further increase the size and scope of government. This, of course, comes as no surprise, since the history of the Republican Partyis one of compromise after compromise and sellout after sellout.

Is the Republican Party the party of conservatism? Sure, Republi-cans can talk a good conservatism, especially when it comes time foran election. But real conservatives need to wake up: Republicans arenow not only proudly embracing New Deal- and Great Society-likeprograms—they are expanding them at record levels. Conservative

Christians likewise need to open their eyes: The Republican Party is notthe salvation of America—how hard is it to position oneself to the rightof the Democratic Party? As I said on another occasion: The Republi-can Party is not the lesser of two evils, it is pure evil, just like theDemocratic Party.

If you ignore Republican campaign rhetoric about how they are forfree markets and limited government, and focus on Republicanperformance, it is readily apparent that the old adage is true now morethan ever: there is not a dime’s worth of difference between the twomajor parties.

_______

WHAT REPUBLICAN REVOLUTION?

Since the Democrats took control of the Congress in the recentmidterm elections, we have heard and seen numerous references to theRepublican victory in the 1994 midterm elections as the Republicanrevolution of 1994.

What Republican revolution?We can see the results in history of revolutions like the American

Revolution, the French Revolution, and the Russian Revolution, butwhat evidence is there of a Republican revolution?

When the 104th Congress began in January of 1995, it was the firsttime since the 83rd Congress of 1953–1955 that the Republicans had

control of both the House and Senate. They had never controlled theHouse during the forty-year period of Democratic rule, and only brieflycontrolled the Senate, during the 97th through 99th Congresses of




1981–1987.After forty years of being out of power, a revolution was certainly

in order. True, the Republicans did not yet also control the WhiteHouse as they did during the 83rd Congress when Dwight Eisenhowerwas president, but it is Congress that writes the laws, not the president.And unlike the Congress under Eisenhower, which reverted toDemocratic rule in the next election, the Republican control of theCongress under Bill Clinton continued unabated through the end of hissecond term.

When what looked like a Republican revolution seemed to stagnateunder Clinton, excuses began to be made for the fact that the Republi-

cans were acting like anything but the conservatives who voted theminto office. Republican control of the White House, we were told, anda larger Republican majority in Congress, were needed to complete therevolution. After all, Clinton could veto any bills passed by a Republi-can Congress, and the Republicans did not have a veto-proof majority.It turns out that in eight years Clinton only vetoed seventeen bills,making Republican fears unfounded.

And then came George W. Bush.Republicans were ecstatic. A Republican president was once again

elected. This time, however, things were different. When George Bushwas inaugurated in 2001, he had a Republican-controlled Congress. This is something a Republican president had not

had for forty-five years. The millennium was now here. The Republicanrevolution was now ready to be completed.

Enter Jim Jeffords.The Republican controlled 107th Congress (2001–2003) had a

weak link: the Senate. Jeffords was a Republican senator fromVermont. Early in Bush’s first term, Senator Jeffords switched fromRepublican to Independent, changing the 50/50 balance of power in theSenate. Although the House remained in Republican hands, those handswere tied, so we were told, because the Republicans no longercontrolled the Senate. The Republicans always seem to have an excuse.Big government, intrusive government—it is always the fault of thoseevil Democrats.

But then, finally, no more excuses. The midterm elections of 2002gave us a new Congress (the 108th, 2003–2005) that was once againsolidly Republican. This gave the Republicans an absolute majority for




the last two years of Bush’s first term. This scenario was confirmed byBush’s reelection and the further increase of the Republican majorityin the 109th Congress. Republicans could no longer blame everythingon the Democrats like they did for so long before they gained theirabsolute majority.

So, now that the Republicans have controlled the House since1995, now that the Republicans have controlled the Senate for the sameperiod except for about a year and a half, now that a Republicanpresident has been elected and reelected, and now that we have hadseveral years of an absolute Republican majority, a simple questionneeds to be asked: What Republican revolution?

Jacob Hornberger, the president of the Future of Freedom Founda-tion, recently asked some pertinent questions about the Republicans:

! How many departments were abolished when Republicans controlledthe presidency and both houses of Congress?

! How many agencies?! How many spending bills were vetoed?! How many pork-barrel projects were jettisoned?! How much was federal spending reduced?

The answer to every question is, of course, a big fat zero. No egregiouslegislation was repealed, and the welfare/warfare state is bigger andmore intrusive than ever. Some revolution.

Although many Republicans who claim to believe in a limitedgovernment can talk a good conservatism, especially when it comestime for an election, one statistic is all it takes to see that there has beenno limit to the growth of government under the Republican Party.

On the eve of the new Republican-controlled Congress in 1995, thenational debt was just under $5 trillion. At the time of Bush’s firstinauguration in 2001, the national debt stood at $5,727,776,738,304.64.At the time of his second inauguration in 2005, the national debt stoodat $7,613,772,338,689.34. On the day of the recent midterm elections,the national debt was up to $8,592,561,542,263.30.

The Republican revolution is a failure, a dismal failure. Despite theRepublican rhetoric about the virtues of conservatism, the benefits of the free market, and the need for less government intervention in theeconomy and society, the Republican majority in both houses of




Congress did nothing but further increase the size and scope of government.

This, of course, comes as no surprise, since the history of theRepublican Party is not one of real conservatism at all; it is the historyof interventionism, big government, the welfare state, the warfare state,plunder, compromises, and sellouts, as Clyde Wilson and ThomasDiLorenzo have showed us in great detail.

Those who voted for a third party candidate for Congress in therecent election are not the ones who wasted their vote. Republicanswho voted for Republican candidates hoping that “this time” perhapsthe performance of the Republicans might improve are the ones who

wasted their vote. Conservatives who, against their better judgment,voted Republican because they feared what would happen if the“liberals” were in control, wasted their vote on a party that deserved tolose. Evangelical Christians who held their nose and voted Republicanbecause they thought they were choosing the lesser of two evils notonly wasted their vote, but are sadly mistaken.

Do I celebrate the Democratic victory in the midterm elections forCongress? Hardly. The socialist and statist policies of the DemocraticParty are well known, but at least Democrats are usually honest aboutbeing advocates of bigger government and increased governmentintervention instead of masquerading as advocates of smaller and lessintrusive government like the hypocritical Republicans do.

It is too bad that the Republicans did not at least win control of theSenate (the Senate is now 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 2 liberalIndependents). It is great to have gridlock between a DemocraticCongress and a Republican president, but it is better to have gridlock between the House and Senate as well. We can only hope and pray thatthis government comes to a grinding halt—for the sake of the libertiesof the American people.

_______

NOT A DIME’S WORTH OF DIFFERENCE

Not only is there not a “dime’s worth of difference” between the

Democratic and Republican Parties when it comes to just aboutanything, there is certainly no difference at all when it comes to




increased federal spending, the expansion of government power, thedestruction of liberty, and interventionism in general, both at home andabroad.

One quick way to see this is “The Freedom Index,” published aboutevery six months by The New American magazine. This index, whichused to be called “The Conservative Index,” rates Congressman “basedon their adherence to constitutional principles of limited government,fiscal responsibility, national sovereignty, and a traditional foreignpolicy of avoiding foreign entanglements.” The higher the number, thestronger is a congressman’s commitment to these constitutionalprinciples.

The latest “Freedom Index,” which looks at the 110th Congress,has just been released. The average score in the House was a 40; theaverage score in the Senate was a 38. This is just as one would expectsince both houses of the 110th Congress are controlled by the Demo-cratic Party. In the Senate, there are 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and2 Independents who are Democrats in all but the name. In the House,there are 231 Democrats, 202 Republicans, and 2 vacancies.

But how does this compare with the 109th Congress, which wascontrolled by the Republicans? The party division in the Senate for the109th Congress was 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats, and 1 Independent.The party division in the House for the 109th Congress began as 233Republicans, 202 Democrats, and 1 Independent. When the 109th

Congress ended, there were 229 Republicans, 202 Democrats, 1Independent, and 3 vacancies. The average score in the Senate for the109th Congress was 35.5, based on the four times The New American

complied “The Conservative Index” for the 109th Congress. Theaverage score in the House was 37.5, again, based on the four times The

New American complied “The Conservative Index” for the 109thCongress.

This means that the average score is higher for theDemocratic-controlled 110th Congress than it was for the Republi-can-controlled 109th Congress. Barely half of the Republican membersof the current House scored above a 50. And the Republican Party isthe party of conservatism?

Admittedly, “The Freedom Index” is not a comprehensive analysisof the voting patterns of each member of Congress, but if we look at a




key piece of legislation where we would expect a conservative/liberaldivide, it is clear that the Republican Party is not the party of realconservatism at all.

The 110th Congress had barely begun in January when an attemptto raise the minimum wage was undertaken. H.R. 2 passed in the Houseby a vote of 315-116. All the Democrats voted for it, which means thatit didn’t need any Republican votes to pass. So what did the Republi-cans in the House do? Eight-two Republicans voted for it anyway.When the bill was sent to the Senate, only three Republican senatorsvoted against it.

The only real conservative in Congress in the Old Right sense is

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), who scored a perfect 100 on the index in boththe 109th and 110th Congresses. (I should note, though, that those onthe Old Right didn’t call themselves conservatives.)

For the liberty-loving American who wishes that Congress wouldat least try to follow the (admittedly imperfect) Constitution, theRepublican Party is not an alternative to the Democratic Party. They aretwo peas in a pod; they are two sides of the same coin; they are the twofaces of Janus. Yet, in the typical election, millions of “conservative”Americans will vote Republican (especially if Hillary is the Democraticnominee) because they see the Republican Party as the lesser of twoevils instead of the party of the interventionist welfare/warfarestate—just like the Democratic Party.

A more compassionate militarism, interventionism, and statism:Vote Republican.

_______

ICHABOD!

“And she named the child Ichabod, saying, The glory is departedfrom Israel: because the ark of God was taken, and because of herfather in law and her husband.” ~ 1 Samuel 4:21

It’s done, it’s over, it’s official: The Republican Party nominatedJohn McCain to be its 2008 presidential candidate. Conversely, and

more importantly, this means that the Republican Party failed tonominate Ron Paul to be its 2008 presidential candidate.




It wouldn’t normally matter whom the Republican Party nomi-nated. Bigger government and less liberty have always been the result.And if you think Reagan was an exception then you are sadly mistaken.

This time, however, the Republicans had a chance to nominate theonly candidate who embodies everything good that the RepublicanParty has ever claimed to stand for. Ron Paul is undoubtedly the mostpro-life, pro-family, pro-property, pro-liberty, pro-Constitutioncandidate in history.

The Republican Party and its apologists that write for the red-statefascist blogs and magazines and host the reich-wing nationalist TV andradio talk shows did everything they could to persuade people from

voting for Dr. Paul in the Republican primaries.The nomination of John McCain over Ron Paul means that the

Republican Party should never again be taken seriously when it comesto even the slightest pretense of being a friend of liberty, free markets,and limited government.

Ichabod!In the Old Testament book of First Samuel we read of the death of

Eli, who judged Israel for forty years, and the birth of his grandson.During a battle with the Philistines, Israel lost thirty thousand men,including the two sons of Eli, and had their ark of the covenant taken.A messenger ran to the Israelites and, after a tumult was raised, Eliinquired of the man what the problem was. After the messenger told

him what had befallen Israel, his two sons, and the ark of God, Eli fellbackwards and broke his neck. When his daughter in law, who wasgreat with child, heard that the ark was taken by the Philistines, and thather father in law and her husband were dead, she died after giving birthto a child, but not before naming the child Ichabod, because “the gloryis departed from Israel: for the ark of God is taken” (1 Samuel 4:22).

Whatever glory the Republican Party may have had when it cameto liberty and limited government is now departed, and with a ven-geance, judging by the treatment given to Ron Paul supporters at theRepublican convention

I have written about the evils of the Republican Party here, here,here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Others, like Thomas

DiLorenzo, Clyde Wilson, Jacob Hornberger, and Chris Leithner, havedone the same, and in great detail. Here are the Republican Party




campaign slogans that you will never hear this year:

! Interventionism, at home and abroad: Vote Republican.! Nationalism, fascism, and statism: Vote Republican.! Militarism, puritanism, and collectivism: Vote Republican.! Debt, deficits, and a declining dollar: Vote Republican.! Big government, big brother, big budgets: Vote Republican.! The warfare state, the welfare state, the surveillance state: Vote

Republican.! Corporate welfare, the military-industrial and security-industrial

complexes: Vote Republican.! Compromises after compromise, sellout after sellout: Vote Republi-

can.

There is not a dime’s worth of difference between the Democraticand Republican Parties when it comes to peace, liberty, property, freemarkets, sound money, and the size and scope of government. TheRepublican Party is not the lesser of two evils. It is, like the DemocraticParty, stupid and evil. Ichabod!

_______

T.G.I.F.

The Republican Revolution has been gasping for breath since the

Democratic Party won the congressional midterm elections in 2006.After the Republicans were soundly defeated in the 2008 elections, theRevolution was in its death throes until noon on January 20 whenGeorge Bush’s second term as president ceased and the RepublicanRevolution officially came to an end.

Thank God it’s finished.The Republican Revolution began on January 3, 1995, after the

Republican Party had won control of both houses of Congress for thefirst time since the 83rd Congress (1953–1955) under Dwight Eisen-hower. Although a Democrat (Bill Clinton) occupied the White Housefor the remainder of the decade, the Republicans hung on to the Houseand Senate until the election of a Republican president (George Bush)

in the year 2000 gave them an absolute majority.The Revolution had reached its zenith. Republicans were ecstatic.




Although Vermont senator Jim Jeffords soon attempted to derail thespeeding Republican train by leaving the Republican Party—temporar-ily shifting the balance of power in the Senate to theDemocrats—Republican victories in the 2002 midterm electionsrestored the GOP’s absolute majority.

After enjoying this absolute majority for the last two years of Bush’s first term, Republicans coasted to victory in the 2004election—retaining the presidency and further increasing their controlof the Congress.

And the country is worse off for it. So worse off, in fact, that I, aconservative Christian who has nothing but contempt for the Demo-

cratic Party, much prefer the presidency of Bill Clinton the fornicatorin chief to that of George Bush the warmonger in chief, spy in chief,and spender in chief.

The Republican Revolution was a failure from the beginning. TheContract with America that was introduced by the new Republi-can-controlled Congress in 1995 was bogus because it focused onreforming government agencies and programs instead of eliminatingthem. It was pointed out in 2000 that “the combined budgets of the 95major programs that the Contract with America promised to eliminatehave increased by 13%.”

I remember speaking with Joe Scarborough, my congressman at thetime, on a local call-in radio talk show in late 1994 or early 1995. I

asked him about the new Republican-controlled Congress repealingsome of the legislation passed during the first two years of the Clintonadministration. He would have to stand in line to introduce suchlegislation, he said, because of everything his fellow Republicans hadplanned.

Okay, let’s take two of the worst pieces of legislation passed duringClinton’s first two years. Did the new Republican majority in the 104thCongress repeal the Family and Medical Leave Act (PL 103-3) or theBrady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (PL 103-159)? Of course itdidn’t. Just like it didn’t repeal the Motor Voter Act (PL 103-31) or theViolence Against Women Act (PL 103-322).

And what did the Republican majority in Congress do throughout

Clinton’s terms? Sure, there were a few good things that Congressdid—like repealing all federal speed limits in 1995—but how manymajor federal agencies, programs, or regulations were actually




eliminated? How much really egregious legislation was repealed? Howmany pork-barrel projects were denied funding? How much was overallfederal spending reduced? Was the government any less intrusive at theend of six years of Republican control of the Congress? What wasactually done to limit the government to that prescribed by theConstitution?

The size and scope of the federal government were not reduced byone inch during the first six years of the Republican Revolution. All weheard during the six years of a Republican-controlled Congress underClinton were excuses about needing a larger majority, a veto-proof majority, or, better yet, a Republican president to really complete the

revolution.But what happened when the Republican-controlled Congress

finally got a Republican president? We got an unprecedented increasein the welfare/warfare/surveillance/nanny state. First came the ignobleUSA PATRIOT Act (PL 107-56). This was followed by the No ChildLeft Behind Act (PL 107-110). Then came the Authorization for Useof Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (PL 107-243), whichgave us the senseless, immoral, unconstitutional, unjust war in Iraq thathas already cost the American taxpayers about $1 trillion. Although theseed of the Iraq War was planted by the Iraq Liberation Act (PL105-338), that was also passed by a Republican-controlled Congress.And then there is the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and

Modernization Act of 2003 (PL 108-173)—the largest expansion of thewelfare state since the Great Society. Even LBJ would be shocked atthe cost of this welfare scheme. And who can forget the increase infarm subsidies, the crony capitalism, the mockery of the Constitution,the Republican acceptance of the neoconservative agenda, and theimperial presidency. No wonder Republicans earned the wrath of votersin the recent election. They deserved to lose as bad as they did, andmore.

As I pointed out the following in my article on how bogus theRepublican Revolution was, one statistic is all it takes to see that therehas been no limit to the growth of government under the RepublicanParty—the national debt. Consider the following:

! On the eve of the new Republican-controlled Congress in 1995, thenational debt was just under $5 trillion.




! At the time of Bush’s first inauguration in 2001, the national debtstood at $5,727,776,738,304.64.

! At the time of Bush’s second inauguration in 2005, the national debtstood at $7,613,772,338,689.34.

! On the day of the 2006 midterm elections, the national debt stood at$8,592,561,542,263.30.

! On the last day of Bush’s second term, the national debt stood at$10,626,877,048,913.08.

Who is responsible for this tremendous increase in the federal debt?Not the Democrats. Not Bill Clinton. It is the party that laughingly saidin its 2004 platform that it was committed to “lower taxes, limitedregulation, and a limited, efficient government.” Yes, the same partythat helped the Democrats pass the Emergency Economic StabilizationAct of 2008 (the Bailout Bill).

But is this really a surprise? Not if one knows anything about thehistory of the Republican Party—a history of state capitalism, milita-rism, presidential power, big government, plunder, compromise, andsellout.

Just look at the Republicans latest outrage: the confirmation of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. Since the day her husband becamethe president, the personification of evil according to all Republicanshas been Hillary Clinton. So, what did the Republicans do when Mrs.Clinton appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee toreceive the first vote toward her confirmation as secretary of state?With but one exception (David Vitter of Louisiana), the Republicanson the committee voted for Hillary. Then, when the full Senate took avote on Clinton’s confirmation on January 21, only two Republicansenators (the aforementioned David Vitter and Jim DeMint of SouthCarolina) voted against her. During the presidential campaign, beforeit became evident that Barack Obama would get the Democratic Partynomination, John McCain never ceased to remind us how bad it wouldbe if we voted for Clinton instead of him. And then he turns around andvotes for her confirmation for secretary of State.

This, of course, does not mean that I prefer the Democratic Party.There is not a dime’s worth of difference between the Democratic andRepublican Parties. Neither party is the lesser of two evils; they areboth pure evil.




Nevertheless, I rarely bother to write about the evils of theDemocratic Party. The socialist and statist policies of the DemocraticParty are well known. And since the Democrats don’t masquerade asadvocates of smaller and less intrusive government, it is pretty obviousthat the Democratic Party is the party of liberalism, socialism, orga-nized labor, environmentalism, affirmative action, wealth redistribu-tion, the nanny state, and increased government intervention in theeconomy and society. Another reason I don’t bother is that RushLimbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and Michael Savage needsomething to rant about.

Strom Thurmond was right. He left the Democratic Party because

the party was “leading the evolution of our nation to a socialisticdictatorship.” I would just go a step further: The Republican Partyduring the so-called Republican Revolution was leading the evolutionof our nation to a faith-based, compassionate, fascist dictatorship.

When bad revolutions have run their course, they often lead tosomething just as bad or even worse. The Republican Revolution, likethe French and Russian Revolutions, was an absolute disaster. And justas these revolutions gave the world Napoleon and Lenin, so theRepublican Revolution has given us Barack Obama—a man with aradical left-wing congressional voting record, with even more radicalassociations, with a life spent in the service of racial preference, withan aberrant vision of Christianity, and with plans to further redistribute

the wealth of taxpayers to tax eaters. That being said, whether he canpossibly top George Bush in the “one of the worst presidents ever”category remains to be seen.

The Republican Revolution failed because it was not based on anyreal principles. Contrast this with the Ron Paul Revolution, whichcontinues unabated because it is based, not on empty Republicanrhetoric about the benefits of the free market and the need for lessgovernment intervention, but on the bedrock principles of peace,nonintervention, economic freedom, personal liberty, sound money,and a drastically limited state. Any Republican who really believes inthese principles should abandon the GOP’s sinking ship of war, statism,and fascism.

_______

the revolution that wasn't

Documents