CRAIGforCONGRESS

Missouri's 7th District, U.S. House of Representatives

  
 

 

 

Congressional Issues 2010
SOCIETY
Radicalism!



Congress should
  • become more radical

The word "Radical" comes from the Latin word for "roots" -- like "radish." According to the dictionary, a "radical" is a person who:

  1. holds or follows strong convictions or extreme principles; extremist.
  2. advocates fundamental political, economic, and social reforms by direct and often uncompromising methods.

A "fundamentalist" wants to get back to the "fundamentals." Sounds like a "fundamentalist" is also a "radical."

What are the "roots" to which a "radical" seeks to return?
The 1950's (Ozzie and Harriet)?
The Pre-New Deal years of Hoover and Coolidge before that?
The Confederate South before that?
The Constitution before that?
The Articles of Confederation before that?
British monarchy before that?
The Lex Mercatoria before that?
The Magna Charta before that?
Unalienable rights in a "state of nature?"
America's Founding Fathers were "radicals" because they went back to the roots of Western Civilization: "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."

"Radical" is also "pejorative," meaning it is usually used by one's opponent to cast aspersions on his opponent's position. They know most voters don't really think about the issues, they just react emotionally to slogans, bumper stickers, and sound bites.

Kevin Craig is proud to be a "radical," a "fundamentalist," an "extremist," and even a "bigot."

If America's radical Founding Fathers were here today, they would take steps to abolish tyranny, just as they did in 1776. Only the tyranny they would seek to abolish is the very government their Constitution allegedly created. Today's government is not in any meaningful sense following the Constitution. It is a tyranny. America's Founding Fathers would seek to abolish it more quickly and more passionately than they sought to abolish the British government, a government far more libertarian and Christian than Washington D.C. is today -- but still a "tyranny" in the eyes of America's Founders.

Now consider this radical question:

¿Who is more radical:

  • A person who wants to "restore the Constitution" or
  • A person who wants to abolish the Constitution altogether.

Consider:

  • Imagine today is March 5, 1789. Yesterday the new government under the Constitution went into effect. As an anarchist, Kevin Craig would call for the complete abolition of this new government. Wow! Is that "radical" or what? That would entail the firing of dozens of people, and cutting several thousand dollars in government spending. ( Patrick Henry and George Mason -- great Americans who refused to sign the Constitution -- would enthusiastically approve of such a "radical" idea! )
  • When our previous Congressman was first elected to Congress in 1996, his party platform called for the abolition of the federal Department of Education. It is by far the smallest cabinet level department, but abolishing it would put thousands of government employees out of work and slash nearly $60 Billion in government spending.
  • In 2016, there are people calling for "the restoration of Constitutional government." They do not call for abolishing the Constitution; they support the Constitution and want all unconstitutional government repealed. But imagine the change! "Restoring Constitutional government" today would involve firing tens of millions of people and cutting trillions of dollars!! This would necessitate more education, more conversions, more regenerated hearts, more transformed worldviews, and a whole lot more footwork than convincing every American in 1789 to abolish entirely the recently-created federal government as it then existed.
  • But these pro-constitution people are called "conservatives" and Kevin Craig is considered the "radical" because he's an "anarchist." Kevin Craig is only a tiny bit more radical than anyone who truly wants to "restore the Constitution."
  • Every single person who signed the Constitution would agree that our current Congressman has no intention of restoring the government to its original Constitutional size and function.

Next: Extremism