As the 2008 presidential election approaches, it is both interesting and illuminating to observe the trends of our political discourse: factions, groups, special-interest lobbies, and coalitions rule the day, and all thought of Joe and Jane American Citizen as individuals has fled our minds completely.

Fifteen years later, the Reader is still afflicting the comforted and comforting the afflicted. This is true, thanks in no small part to you, the loyal reader. The Reader began its independent publishing career in October 1993 and was a monthly publication for 20 months before converting to a weekly edition in the summer of 1995. The Reader is picked up at more than 700 distribution locations every week throughout the entire Illinois and Iowa Quad Cities region and enjoys a printed circulation between 17,500 and 20,000 each week.

There are many arguments against voting for an Illinois constitutional convention next month. I thought I'd try to address some of those arguments today.

One of the most devastating indictments of the manner in which political "science" courses are taught in our colleges and universities today is the muck of contradictions that passes for the notion of a "political spectrum."

A "spectrum," according to Webster's, is defined as "a continuous range or entire extent." Observe that this definition does not designate the identity of the phenomenon, but only the manner in which it makes its nature manifest: a varying characteristic that forms a sequence of intermediate values between two opposing extremes.

Without those two opposing extremes the concept of a "spectrum" collapses into insensibility: one would never speak, for instance, of a rainbow with two red edges, or of a thermometer with a boiling point at each end.

"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." - Thomas Jefferson


As I detailed in part one of this article, the next president will inherit more than a financial catastrophe when he assumes office. He will also inherit a shadow government - an authoritarian regime that is fully staffed by unelected officials, fully operational, and ready to take over the running of the country at a moment's notice.

This is all part of the government's Continuity of Government (COG) plan, which was laid out in two May 2007 directives issued by President Bush. These directives, which do not need congressional approval, provide that the president (or his appointees) will take control of the government in the event of a "national emergency" - loosely defined to mean "any incident" that disrupts governmental functions or "severely affects the U.S. population." This could mean anything from a terrorist attack to a hurricane. Particularly significant is the absence of a plan to repopulate or reconvene Congress or the Supreme Court, which would give unchecked executive, legislative and judicial power to the executive branch.

I'm a member of a union. My father was a proud union member. His father was a union member and, for a time, a union organizer. I own a business. My maternal grandparents, whom I cherished more than anyone else when I was a kid, were farmers. My mother was a public-school teacher for several years. Both of my parents are now retired and rely heavily on their government pensions.

What the heck does any of that have to do with anything?

Now that the $700 billion bailout is a fait accompli, it has never been more important to keep vigilant, and to vote in November. It is difficult not to become utterly discouraged knowing that the huge majority of our legislators approved a $700-billion bailout, ignoring unprecedented opposition to the bill, HR 3997, by the huge majority of Americans. But crumbling into a feeling of helpless apathy in the face of this civic betrayal is precisely what we cannot allow ourselves to do, because this is just the beginning of a terrible tide of usurpation of power, assets, and ultimately liberties in this country.

As we are all now aware, the $700-billion bailout has become the law of the land. A lot of people are, understandably, upset about this and are pointing out the flaws of this legislation: that it is, ultimately, unfunded; that it rewards failure and penalizes success; and that it represents an increase in government's control over the economy unseen since the Great Depression.

All valid arguments, of course - and totally irrelevant: Such critiques miss the crucial point completely.

Mount Weather "All men having power ought to be mistrusted." - James Madison

America's next president will inherit more than a financial catastrophe when he assumes office. He will also inherit a shadow government - one that is fully staffed by unelected officials, fully operational, and ready to take over the running of the country at a moment's notice.

Every four years about this time, news stories start to appear about the Electoral College, the constitutionally established system we use to elect the president of the United States. Invariably, pundits use this season to lambast and ignore the important role the Electoral College plays in preserving our republic. Recently the attacks have gotten worse, and they have even convinced four states (Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, and Hawaii) to enact legislation to do away with the Electoral College. Nationally, U.S Senator Bill Nelson (D-Florida) has introduced legislation to abolish it.

But before we discard the Electoral College, we need to understand its importance. As President Lyndon Johnson said of the Electoral College, "Our present system of computing and awarding electoral votes by states is an essential counterpart of our federal system and the provisions of our Constitution, which recognize and maintain our nation as a union of states."

Pages