The word "Radical"
comes from the Latin word for "roots" -- like
"radish." According to the dictionary,
a "radical" is a person who:
- holds or follows strong convictions or extreme principles;
- advocates fundamental political, economic, and
social reforms by direct and often uncompromising methods.
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
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.
consider this radical question:
¿Who is more radical:
- A person who wants to "restore the Constitution"
- A person who wants to abolish the
- 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