Personally, it can be preferable when one says, “I once held view ‘A,’ but evidence convinced me otherwise and I know hold view ‘B’.” Such a person demonstrates thoughtfulness in their views. Rather than regurgitating the view of a parent, teacher, professor or preacher, they think through issues to find the truth. Those who have never changed any views were either very lucky to be spoon fed perfect truth without error, or (most likely) they have put little thought into their beliefs. Why would we automatically reject the thoughtful converted one in favor of someone who shows no sign of thinking through positions? Simply agreeing with us, is not proof of deep thought or even reasonable views.

Several years ago I was discussing with a friend his childhood in a very strict Anabaptist sect which I won’t name. He told me that his father used to say, “Beware the converted.” Though the Christian gospel requires Christ’s people to reach out to the unbeliever, this group became so untrusting of outsiders that even those responding to the message of Christ and seeking membership among them were held in suspicion. This would shock most Christians, but this is exactly how does this differ from how we treat those who change their political views.

When a candidate stands up and says, “Yes, I was once pro-choice, but now I’m pro-life.” We should celebrate a victory and ask what convinced them. It is possible the argument or experience that convinced them would work on others. Don’t forget, even Ronald Reagan—hero of the conservative movement—was once pro-choice. While I cannot attest to Mitt Romney’s credentials as a pro-lifer, I am not going to spend years working to convince others that life begins at conception and then slap a candidate who says he now agrees simply because he once disagreed. There is a certain place for giving the benefit of the doubt.

It is of course easy to tell what happened. A set number of those attending decided their primary qualification was a sense of electability and held firm for Romney. Then the ideologues were split among Santorum and Paul. Of course, this was inevitable. Santorum appeals more to the evangelical, social conservative, while Paul appeals more to the fiscal conservative. Being libertarian many of Paul’s views on social issues would be seen as libertine and unacceptable to most evangelicals. Sometimes I think I am the only libertarian evangelical in the world—though I know a couple others who may qualify.

Since Iowa is a state where voters can show up at the caucus and change their affiliation to vote, a large number of independents supported Paul. This of course skews the numbers for Santorum because it means the lion’s share of rock-ribbed conservative GOP voters in Iowa must have voted for him. Had Paul not been in the race, it is likely many of his GOP supporters would have selected Santorum as the anti-Romney candidate, giving Santorum a runaway evening.

Last night is a perfect example of what will happen if there is a third party run by a serious candidate. Unfortunately, Paul refuses to take such a run off the table. He did so early in the race declaring that he would not go third party but would run as a Republican, but recently on a late night talk show he said a third party run was still possible. In Iowa, Santorum was the candidate closer to the values of the state. Don’t get me wrong. I am not a Santorum supporter and believe he has much to answer for and could be very vulnerable in a general election, but Iowa is not the beltway. He should have been a shoe-in, but with the addition of another ideologue candidate taking away a large enough number of the base and a good number of independents, Iowans ended up with a candidate they have little in common with—one whom the majority of the state did not want.

This scenario is going to keep playing itself out. State by state, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum (or Perry in some) will split the conservative vote and Paul will bring in enough independents to pad his numbers until we end up with Mr. Romney as the official candidate for our party. I fear the skewed numbers will convince Paul that he has a shot and he’ll leave the GOP at the last moment to run a third party candidacy. If this happens get ready for four more years of Obama.

How to Win a Local Election

Every time a law is passed it chips away freedom. If the law forbids some action then you are no longer free to take certain actions. If the law requires an action then you are no longer free to refrain from acting. For this reason, I often point out that the freest time in America is when Congress is in recess. This nation has, on the federal level, 535 people paid full time to do nothing more than make laws and seek reelection. I know some will point out that the job of our Senators and Representatives includes meeting with constituents, but these meetings are primarily for three reasons: reelection, build support for legislation and get ideas for other legislation. With the majority of their time consumed with keeping their job and enacting laws the greatest threat to the freedoms we so love is Congress.

So what is the solution? Is it to be found in making Congress part time, similar to many state legislatures? This will actually change little. The best thing is to elect officials who understand the Constitution and honor their pledge to uphold it. For example, earmarks would not be a problem if constituents stopped electing people who shell out federal dollars to get reelected. Of course this is hard when many who balk at earmarks attack their own representative for not bringing home enough project money. Most Americans oppose earmarks, except for the ones that come home to line their own pockets. We need elected officials who are statesmen first and foremost. Such people do the right thing, even if the next election means a job hunt.

We also need passion on the floor of the Senate and House where those who believe strongly for and against any legislation are encouraged to fight it out tooth and nail—verbally of course. Instead of pandering to the CSPAN cameras, let’s have heated debates with partisans (yes, I said partisans) fighting to the point of exhaustion to prevent anything unconstitutional from leaving either floor. Breaking a sweat in defense of one’s beliefs has been replaced with looking good for the cameras.

The next thing we need is an informed electorate that will hold its representatives responsible by demanding for each vote the constitutional grounds upon which that person voted. If a politician is unable to give good constitutional reasons for a vote he or she should look for other work. Until the American people realize that this is our government that has been allowed to rob us of wealth and chip away at our freedoms there will be no meaningful change. I hear complaints all the time about how bad politicians are. Can you imagine any business owner having nothing but complaints about an employee continuing to employ that person? We must realize that the politicians are our employees and if they are not performing up to standards (the Constitution) then we must fire them.

For too long we have been quiet and polite. While the left has shouted us down with vitriol and hatred we have politely stood by—too busy punching the clock and feeding for our families. Now the federal government is coming after those we love—the elderly and infirm—with a program that worsens their care while muddling ours and saddles our employers with much of the cost. It is time those who love this country and believe as the founders did that the worst enemy of freedom is a large intrusive government to act as the founders would have. Politics in the founding generation were far from gentle or genteel. In the days of Jefferson and Adams politics was a contact sport.

For the last few years there have been calls for bipartisanship and getting along from many of the more lily livered segments of our society. I have always responded to these calls by pointing out that the founders intended that our political system involve a verbal blood bath every two years or so to prevent a literal one every twenty years. We are the only nation with over 230 years of self-rule with only one instance of turning to guns and bombs to settle an issue. This alone should be proof that such a divisive, mean and abusive system works. Some out there will point out that the founders were opposed to political parties and will quote from Washington’s Farewell Address his views on the “baneful effects of the spirit of party.” I get sick of hearing these arguments because those making them overlook history. The same founders who spoke against political parties quickly found parties essential. Even Washington, who tried to appear above such, was more aligned with Hamilton’s Federalists than Jefferson’s Democratic Republicans.

People, it is time to take off the gloves and bloody our knuckles. It’s time to take to the streets and shout about what is being done to our nation. Leave Miss Manners behind and go after those who would reduce our nation to despotism. Of course we don’t want blood or physical violence and rather than running the left down with pitchforks and torches we will run them out with the ballot box. However, if we do not make our voices heard this great experiment in peaceful self-government will end in a blood bath as those who love freedom are forced to fend for themselves against a government who in an attempt to provide all physical needs find it necessary to rob its people of property and liberty. A peaceful future requires us to act and do so now.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiGuuYkl7kw

If the Republican members of the House have come back to party principles then four years in the political desert is worth it. While stopping Obama and the Hip-pocket Congress, we must rebuild the party with honest committed conservatives and libertarians. The party faithful are loyal to the principles of the party more than to specific candidates or precious majorities. Start pitching for the other team and you too will get benched. Our principles are what will put you in office and return you to a majority, not good press or entitlement voters.

Mr. Pence, I hope what you say about the Republicans in the House is true. Forgive us if we don’t take your word for it. We will watch and see. As the old saying goes: “Fool me once shame on you; fool me twice shame on me.” Principled Republicans must not be fooled again.

The people who are angry now are the producers. These people have responsibilities–kids to feed, mortgages to pay, taxes to file. This is why you don’t see the huge crowds; the folks on our side are busy trying to keep food on the table in the face of a confiscatory government.

People will get angry. But I am not sure it will be channeled the right way. We have long ago stopped being the nation that so distrusts government. We as a people have been indoctrinated to look for government help from cradle to grave and to believe that the government was our friend. Even our last Republican president and his cabinet believed this—look at the expansion of entitlements under Bush and the TARP fiasco that started with him. As the economy worsens it is likely that it will drive people even farther into Keynesian deficits or even into blatant socialism. We see the majority of Americans accepting the new regulatory climate of Geithner’s Treasury Department and hear the demands for more from certain sectors.

The only thing that will change this view of government is abuse. Once people realize that the nanny state has too high of a liberty cost they will either rise up and shake it off, or lay down in comfort as the government handles their medical care and retirement. It will all depend of whether we as a people are still motivated by the spirit of Washington, Jefferson and Madison or if we have accepted the shackles of fiscal slavery.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk4Ekbpn_Pc