When Southwest Missouri's previous Congressman (Roy Blunt) was first elected in 1996, the Republican Party National Platform promised to change the direction of Washington D.C. from a socialist one to a capitalist one:
As a first step in reforming government, we support elimination of the Departments of Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, Education, and Energy, and the elimination, defunding or privatization of agencies which are obsolete, redundant, of limited value, or too regional in focus. Examples of agencies we seek to defund or to privatize are the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and the Legal Services Corporation.
The National Endowment for the Arts was notorious for its subsidizing of anti-Christian, pornographic “art,” including “art” which featured a figure of Jesus Christ submerged in a container of the "artist’s" urine. These programs mock the idea of "Liberty Under God," and undermine the very heart and soul of America.
But not only have these wasteful, unconstitutional, harmful bureaucracies not been abolished, they are all dramatically bigger than they were before Republicans took control of Congress. The Department of Education, as an example, now has a budget twice as big as it was under Bill Clinton.
These were good promises. They should have been made, and they should have been kept.
They should have been made because Republicans took an oath to "support the Constitution." None of these agencies have any constitutional justification. Everyone who Signed the Constitution would be outraged at their very existence, even if they weren't so wasteful and unAmerican.
But these promises were not kept.
Southwest Missouri needs a Congressman who will follow the Constitution and restore "Liberty Under God."
But if we can't trust Republicans and Democrats to keep these promises (assuming they even make such promises), how can we trust a Libertarian? Simple: the two major parties believe in cutting taxes and shrinking government only if it's politically expedient. So far, the two parties have concluded that promising political largess to voters and campaign contributors is more politically expedient than rigorous adherence to the Constitution. Only Libertarians put principle ahead of political expediency. The Libertarian passionately believes that using government to redistribute wealth is always unethical and immoral. The Libertarian doesn't seek political office for
its own sake, but only to eliminate the violence of government redistribution of wealth. The Libertarian will be elected to office only when a majority of voters share that principle, and seek Liberty Under God more than the government-confiscated property of their neighbor.