Kidogo's World
... if you have a President who has the support of one-third plus one of the members of one house of Congress, that one President can prevent the money from being spent. If the President says "I will sign no bill that has in it one penny that I disagree with, one penny for foreign aid, one penny for the Federal Reserve or the Internal Revenue Service, one penny for the National Endowment for the Arts," and if he backs up his threat with a real veto, and if he has enough support from the American people to have that veto sustained, the money is cut off; and those agencies go out of business.
Howard Phillips
There is such a way. It is not going to be advanced by the Democrat party, nor is it going to be advanced by the Republican party. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans see the Constitution as a standard by which to measure their performance. The Republicans have supported NAFTA, the World Trade Organization, gun control, The National Endowment for the Arts, expansion of the Federal Department of Education, sending US troops to serve under UN command, higher taxes, unbalanced budget É. The Republicans and the Democrats generally agree on policies and direction. Under the Democrats you can go over the cliff at 100 mph, under the Republicans you can go over the cliff at 70 mph.
It isn't enough for us to continue losing as slowly as possible. In fact, we are losing faster. We need to do more than change drivers. We need to change direction. And the direction in which we need to lead people is the direction George Washington prescribed for us. One of the great things about the Constitution is that it provides various ways in which government power can be restrained.
Back to Top
How Money is Disbursed (and can be cut off)
Under the Constitution there are only two ways in which money can be disbursed from the federal treasury. Only two.
In one case Congress will pass a money appropriation bill and authorization. The President will sign it into law, and the money can be disbursed.
In the other case Congress can pass the money bill, the President can veto it, and by votes of two-thirds of the houses of Congress the President's veto can be overridden. But if you have a President who has the support of one-third plus one of the members of one house of Congress, that one President can prevent the money from being spent. If the President says "I will sign no bill that has in it one penny that I disagree with, one penny for foreign aid, one penny for the Federal Reserve or the Internal Revenue Service, one penny for the National Endowment for the Arts," and if he backs up his threat with a real veto, and if he has enough support from the American people to have that veto sustained, the money is cut off; and those agencies go out of business.
That's not my opinion. That is fact.
Back to Top
More Gain than Loss
But how do we get the support of the American people? One thing we have to do is convince the American people that they have more to gain with money saved for them than they have to lose in benefits lost.
The government is spending $1.5 trillion a year. In 1987 the government was spending 1 trillion a year. If we simply roll back federal spending to what it was in 1987 we could completely eliminate the federal income tax, without increasing the federal deficit. Because the income tax only produces about $500 billion. What we need to do is promise the American people that if they will support our dramatic cut-backs of unconstitutional federal expenditures, not only will they suffer the pain of losing their government grants and their government loans and government subsidies; but, if they are working Americans, they will enjoy the benefit of never again having to pay one cent to the federal government in income taxes, or inheritance taxes.
We need to rally the tax payers -- and make them former tax payers -- against the tax users. That kind of political agenda can rally a solid base of 40 % of the American people, because they recognize either the moral corruptness or that they have a lot to gain from never having to pay income taxes again.
Back to Top
Legitimate Disbursement
People ask "How can you finance legitimate expenses?" What we need to do is cut federal spending, not to one trillion, but to a half trillion dollars which is approximately what it was in 1961.
Most of what the federal government does today it was not doing in 1961. There was no Environmental Protection Agency, there was no Department of Housing and Urban Development, there was no National Endowment for the Arts, no quotas. There was no subsidy to Planned Parenthood, there was no safe sodomy subsidy, no Federal Department of Transportation, of Energy or Education É Those are the things the federal government does today that it was not doing in 1961. You can cover what the federal government was doing in 1961 with less than 1/2 trillion dollars a year.
If you did that, the legitimate functions of the federal government could be supported by tariffs, excises, imposts, and duties; and if there happened to be a short fall, you wouldn't need inheritance taxes, or corporate taxes, or estate taxes, or income taxes, or sales taxes. All you would do is what the founders intended. You would tell the states that you had a short fall. And if you have 10% of the representatives in Congress, you've got to come up with 10% of the short fall. Each state decides how to do it.
The effect of that is: the politicians, instead of arguing for more federal spending will argue for less. Because the voters of New York State, who have to come up with 10% of revenues, would understand that more federal spending would directly mean more federal taxes. So there would be more lobbying for less federal spending.
Back to Top
Constitutional Tools
We need to break the power in government by being prepared to use provisions of the Constitution of the United States to pull our country back to where it was. It can't be done by consensus. The liberals will not surrender power voluntarily. We've got to beat them. Beating them won't be easy. It will be bloody, figuratively and literally. People may be assassinated. They will assassinate them literally, they will assasinate them figuratively. But if enough of us are willing to push this agenda, and if there is enough support -- and I think we can develop support with the crisis that is coming -- then we can achieve victory.
No nation in recorded history, which has fallen as far as the United States has fallen, has ever recovered from that fall. If America is restored it will be only by God's grace.
Our prayer must be that God will permit that restoration. Our goal must be to make ourselves ready to be used for whatever purpose God intends for this country. He has certainly withheld his judgment longer than you or I would have done, given the grievous sins of which you and I in this country have been so guilty.
The hour of decision is coming. Unless people have a good choice, they will choose among bad choices. I'm not under any illusions. I don't think we have the money, I don't think we have media access. I don't think we have the organization to bring a government to power this year or next year, or in 1996. But I do believe with every fiber of my being that we have the opportunity in 1996 to use the presidential campaign to find a candidate that will be seen all over the nation, of whom people will be mindful, and who will spark a reaction on their part as the crisis intensifies.
There are so many examples in history. Churchill was in a political wilderness for most of his adult life. He rose to positions of responsibility in the early part of his life, early 1900's to WWI. Then he was kicked out of government in disgrace because of some things that happened when he was first in office. He was in the wilderness in the 20s and the 30s. He warned of the crisis to come. But in Britain's hour of greatest need, even though he was totally low and despised by people running Great Britain, they nevertheless turned to him because they had no other choice. When the war was over they threw him out on his ear, but his whole life had been a preparation for what he did from 1939 through the 40s. Now he could do that because people knew he was there.
Back to Top
Publish Glad Tidings
Right now, people have no idea of the things I have discussed with you. They don't know anything about our analysis, our strategy, our prescription, or who we are. We have to fashion ourselves as political doctors. Doctors diagnose a disease and prescribe a remedy. We must hope the body politic will become aware of the diagnosis and prescription while there is still time to remedy it.
That's why 1996 is so important. I implore those of you who are here this evening to give the most serious consideration to investing your resources, and time, and talents, and energy, in an effort to secure valid positions in the United States Taxpayers Party in the state of Oklahoma. In 1996 we need to get on the ballot in all 50 states. Oklahoma is one of the most difficult states in the nation in which ballot access is secured. We have to secure upwards of 100,000 signatures. We don't have to wait 'til 1996. I hope many of you tonight will make a serious commitment of so many hours every week beginning now to help us qualify for the ballot in 1996. I believe that in 1996, if we are faithful to our mission, we may have the opportunity to have our message seen. If we are unsuccessful in achieving visibility for our message in 1996 we lose the next four years -- which may be the most decisive four years in the history of our country. I'm not easily discouraged. I am an optimist. I am not saying I will be discouraged if we fail in 1996, but I certainly will be disappointed. I certainly believe that it is worth every bit of resource, time, and energy, that we can muster to make sure that we don't.
America's founders established what became the greatest nation in history. That nation and its government are now headed toward moral suicide and economic catastrophe.
Our job as inheritors of the framers' system and as adherents of the founders' principles is to discern the truth, tell it, and act in terms of it.
- Let it be our vision to overcome America's mounting debt crisis and restore limited government by cutting federal spending down to constitutional limits and abolishing the individual income tax.
- Let it be our objective to make the vision a reality through a president who will use his existing veto authority, with the support of one third plus one of the members in either the House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate, to eliminate unconstitutional regulations, programs, agencies, and expenditures.
- Let it be our strategy to offer the American people a "Grand Bargain" wherein, as special interest spending is eliminated, the general interest will be advanced by defunding the Internal Revenue Service and ending all individual income tax collections.
- Let it be our plan to secure the objective by recruiting and training volunteer activists in each of the 50 states who will create or cooperate with parties which share the vision, thus paving the way for an electoral college victory achieved with a plurality of popular votes in a multi-party scenario.
When the good doctor correctly diagnoses a potentially fatal disease and prescribes a painful remedy, the patient may be reluctant to act. But at some point, hopefully before it is too late, the patient may decide to accept the prescription, and by acting on it, have some hope of recovery. If the doctor fails to warn the patient and offer a cure, premature death is likely.
America is in grave condition. Let us not hesitate to warn of the cancer and offer a plan for its surgical removal.
In doing so, let us accept the advice of George Washington, our first president, who, at a critical moment during the Constitutional Convention in 1787 warned his fellow delegates:
If, to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterward defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair. The event is in the hand of God.
Back to Top
It Could Happen!
Let's say that Mark Clark is elected President in November of 1996, and takes office in January 1997. He proposes a constitutional budget. Congress laughs at him, totally ignores his budget, and gives him the same one they passed the previous year, plus 10%. The fiscal year ends at midnight September 30, 1997, and Mark Clark vetoes Congress' budget. His veto is overwhelmingly overridden. There wasn't enough support to sustain his veto.
In October l, 1997, Mark Clark goes on national television and says "My fellow Americans, I've got good news and bad news. The bad news is that, even though you elected me knowing my response to the economic crisis which confronts our country, Congress is still in hock to special interest groups, and they totally ignored what I wanted. They overrode my veto. That's the bad news.
The good news is that there is an election next year in November, 1998. In each of the 435 congressional districts of the United States we will endorse a candidate who will publicly pledge to sustain the president's vetoes of unconstitutional budgets."
That is how we can create the new party. YouÕll have one candidate who says, "I will override his veto," another who will hedge, and another candidate saying, "I will sustain the vetoes."
The elections are held in November. The bad news is the liberals win 55% of the seats. The good news is that it doesn't matter, because we won 45%. We need only 34% to sustain vetoes.
The new Congress takes office in January of 1999. Once again the President proposes his constitutional budget. Once again, because we're outnumbered 55 to 45, Congress passes its liberal budget. Comes September 1999. This time President Clark's veto is sustained, and there is no budget.
Media starts screaming. Congress starts screaming. There's no money. Nobody's getting the money government is supposed to pay out. President Clark says, "That may be a problem for you, because you are the ones who are losing all those subsidies and benefits and money for other causes. We are taking measures to deal with the real human needs. We are working to privatize the Social Security System. We are working on transitioning people so that there is not any undue suffering. I am perfectly happy to sign any piece of legislation," says President Clark, "to avoid doing harm to people as we go through this transition. In light of the fundamental changes we need, I am not going to sign the same budgets you are used to. Let's sit down and talk."
At that point the President of the United States holds the high cards, and he is able to negotiate -- from a position of strength -- which agencies will be continued, which programs will go forward, which expenditures will be maintained É and at that point you put the left out of business and close down the scores of billions of dollars that subsidize the left in the U.S. By the year 2000 they will have determined that they have to scurry around.
In the election of the year 2000 the people will have the choice of ratifying what the President has done, or rejecting it. If they reject it, well, the people have spoken, but something good will have come of it, because it will take at least ten years to put back what we've undone. And if the people re-elect President Clark in the year 2000, and he gets four years to really do his thing, it will take several decades to put back what we've undone.
Back to Top
Facing the Odds
The odds that we face are not nearly so overwhelming as the odds faced by others. During the war for American independence George Washington faced the most powerful nation on earth. He had virtually nothing in the way of resources. There were people constantly trying to deprive him of his command.
At Valley Forge Washington had 2000 men under his command, without clothing, food or shelter. Just a few miles from where they were camped, the moneyed people -- the society people of Philadelphia -- were entertaining the British enemy. British soldiers were dancing with Pennsylvania women while Washington and his men suffered the cold. But Washington did not give up.
In his biography of Washington, Holmes Alexander said that Washington was not a particularly good general, but he was a man who refused to lose. He was a man who was repeatedly defeated, but every time he was struck down he would rise up. His first words would be "Strike the enemy. Attack, Attack, Attack." No matter how many times he was defeated he would rise again saying "Attack, Attack."
Eventually God's providence placed him at Yorktown, Virginia. God placed the British Redcoats in Yorktown with their backs to the sea, led by Gen. Cornwallis. Favorable winds brought Admiral deGrasse and the French fleet into the Chesapeake Bay to block the departure of Cornwallis. There was a decisive battle at Yorktown which easily could have been lost even under favorable circumstances, but was won by these brave people who were willing to risk their lives.
The ultimate moment was in Redoubt #10. I don't know if you've ever been to Yorktown, but the redoubt was a fortified mound with spikes that stick out. The Redcoats were secured in the mound, defended by the spikes, looking through holes at the Americans led by LaFayette of France, and Alexander Hamilton. The Americans stormed Redoubt #10, tossing caution to the winds and putting their lives on the line. This forced Cornwallis to surrender. Cornwallis was so humiliated, that instead of following the customary practice of going out to transfer the instruments of surrender to the leading general, Cornwallis stayed in his quarters and dispatched his second in command to do the honors with General Washington.
The British Regulars played a popular British barracks tune as the surrender ceremonies were proceeding. The name of the tune was "The World Turned Upside Down." Truly on that day, October 17, l781, the world was turned upside down. Washington and his ragged band of irregulars, with God's divine intervention, defeated the militarily and economically most powerful nation on the face of the earth. Because of that victory it was possible to have the Constitution.
The sacrifices endured by a few 200 years ago led to benefits of hundreds of millions of people. But now the legacy of that sacrifice is virtually gone, and itÕs time for us to make some new sacrifices so the legacy can be renewed. I invite you to join me in that all-important mission.
God is in charge. God can raise up a David to strike down a Goliath, a Gideon with 300 people in his army to rout a seemingly superior force.
Back to Top
One Third Plus One in One House
There are some horrendous things going on. There are a lot of battles to fight. There are a lot of ways that you can prevent things from getting worse. But there is only one way to win. That is to elect a President who will veto every bill which gives money to the enemy. Cut off their money: you win. Anything else is a holding action. The only way you can win is to cut off their money. And the only practical way to do that is to elect a President that has the support of one third plus one in one house of Congress.
Note:
In answer to a question, Mr. Phillips added to his discussion about rights...
Libertarians say our rights are a product of man's reason rather than from God's revelation. They argue that promiscuity is a victimless crime, but it isn't a victimless crime. Families are destroyed by it. God is offended by it. There is no such thing as a victimless crime. If it's a crime it has victims.
And, while I agree with Libertarians that the role of government should be limited; I don't believe that there is any such thing as a neutral law system. The law says that a thing is either legal or illegal. Abortion is legal or it is not. The law either says that sodomy is to be proscribed or it doesn't. Now there are reasons why sodomy is an abomination in the sight of God. We don't know all those reasons, because God knows things we don't know; but clearly, on the evidence, behavior of that kind is a threat to public health and safety and the failure of the governing authorities in our country to restrict degenerate conduct has led to the spread of disease and to the death of a great many innocent people.
I do not believe that the government should aggress against the rights of individuals. I do not believe that the government should be taking its flashlight and go looking for trouble. But I do believe that on the testimony of two witnesses, if someone has offended against the laws of God as incorporated in the laws of common law and statute law, it is the duty of civil government to take action against that offense.
But I don't think what we are doing will upset the Libertarians. Essentially most of these issues are not federal issues. They are state and local issues. What we are talking about is cutting off the opportunity of the federal government to intervene in state and local government.
To see all the wonderful things that Kidogo has in store for you.
Return to Kidogo's World
Catalog of Essential ePublishing Resources
Kidogo's World: http://www.sonnet.com/usr/kidogo/
This Website designed by WebMaster: Jean Westphal, kidogo@sonnet.com
Backgrounds designed by Bill Lizasoain
Backgrounds Trademark 1996 Jean Westphal
NOTE. Views expressed on this web site
are not necessarily the official views
of the Constitution Party.
The official positions of the Constitution Party
are reflected only in its platform and in resolutions
passed by the National Committee.Please send comments, suggestions, or requests for links to: kidogo@sonnet.com.
(Please put "kidogo's world" in the subject line.)
Last revised: 10 June 2000.