Recently, I posted an article that was leveled against the 2-party system.  My wife was kind enough to point out that I was much harder on the Republican party than the Democrat party, so with this in mind I decided to attack the question from the other side as well.

For years, the American voter has been sold into the idea that the 2-party system is a method of limiting government. For instance, most people assume (by believing the WORDS that come out of politicians’ mouths, rather than observing their ACTIONS – Perhaps they only pay attention during election time?) that the ‘left’ strengthens civil liberties, and the ‘right’ strengthens property rights. This battle is sold as if respective liberties will steadily advance via this battle! But one has only to look back over the last 30 years to realize of the fallacy of that sale!

How can we be a free country when our elections are between identical candidates?

Surely the Democrat party is true to their word when it comes to the size of government? For instance, they seem to be almost monolithic in their calls for pro-choice policies. Whenever they’re in power, they consistently advance higher taxes on the “rich.” They also support increasing dependency of the poor on state-sponsored welfare entitlements and are opposed to any policy that will require any responsibility for the individual! In general, they err on the side of addressing every problem of society with more and more government largess. All of these policies are in keeping with their rhetoric. It’s always baffling to me how they can ever be elected after carefully considering these policies, but I guess some people still need a Mommy even after they’ve moved out of the house.

The real reason for this article is the fact that the 2-party system needs a “civil liberties party!” (The Democrat party is sold as this party, but is not). Take their champion (Barry the terrible). During the reign of George W Bush, the Democrats were screaming (rightly so) about the violations of privacy rights inherent in the Patriot Act. In 2003, Barack filled out a questionnaire in Illinois saying:

“Yes, I would vote to repeal the U.S. Patriot Act, although I would consider replacing that shoddy and dangerous law with a new, carefully crafted proposal that addressed in a much more limited fashion the legitimate needs of law enforcement in combating terrorism (for example, permitting a warrant for the interception of cell phone calls, and not just land-based phones to accommodate changes in technology).”

Yet, President Barry has renewed the Patriot Act 3 times! Surely one of those times he could have made good on his stated position… even if it was just by accident!? How about “Gitmo?” Before taking office, Barry was quoted in a 60 minutes interview saying:

“Yes. I have said repeatedly that I intend to close Guantánamo, and I will follow through on that. I have said repeatedly that America doesn’t torture. And I’m going to make sure that we don’t torture. Those are part and parcel of an effort to regain America’s moral stature in the world.”

Yet Gitmo is still open. Three and 1/2 years after being elected Obama held some press conferences, and then nothing… Perhaps he’s waiting for the right time, perhaps that will be in.. November? I don’t know, but I don’t think the people who are “black bagged” and incarcerated in the meantime will agree that this delay is warranted. Then there is medical marijuana, and the freedom to eat what we want – (WOW! Never thought I’d be saying that)! Many states have allowed the use of ‘Pot’ to treat medical conditions, and predictably enough dispensaries have been subject to constant raids. While He was running for office, the Obama campaign released the following policy proposal:

“Voters and legislators in the states – from California to Nevada to Maine – have decided to provide their residents suffering from chronic diseases and serious illnesses like AIDS and cancer with medical marijuana to relieve their pain and suffering,” said campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt. “Obama supports the rights of states and local governments to make this choice – though he believes medical marijuana should be subject to (U.S. Food and Drug Administration) regulation like other drugs,” LaBolt said. He said the FDA should consider how marijuana is regulated under federal law, while leaving states free to chart their own course. LaBolt also said Obama would end U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration raids on medical marijuana suppliers in states with their own laws.”

Some might respond with his meager accomplishment in the field of civil liberties, “How about ending water-boarding!?” I would simply ask if his policy of selective assassination of American citizens is a suitable substitute? How can this man be held up as the defender of the innocent!? Not only are suspected terrorists summarily executed on his word alone and without any due process, but so are the family members of any such people who find themselves in the cross-hairs of a Predator drone! Even worse, with the passage of the 2011 NDAA this policy has been codified into law! And every President from now until eternity will be able to assume that such extrajudicial killings are legal…………………….

So, the Democrat party wants civil Libertarians to support them because they will prevent the Republicans from getting into office. Are they kidding? Why should a voter concerned with civil liberties waste a vote on either a Democrat or a Republican! I say a pox on both their houses. If the 2-party system is to be a method of providing a free society governance, then that 2-party system absolutely MUST include a Civil liberties party! Regardless of what the media will tell you, that party simply does not exist right now! For anyone seriously concerned about the loss of civil liberties in America, the ONLY choice remaining is to vote 3rd party! The Democrats won’t put up true civil Libertarians until they lose, and lose badly, with such Statist monsters as Obama!

The coming of the “Civil Liberties Party” is more important than any single election. No matter what they say on MSNBC.   That means the defeat of Obama is key for any progress in this cause.  Civil Libertarians should work tirelessly to unseat Obama (even if a slightly less favorable candidate benefits.)  Any delay for something as trivial as the 2-party gang mentality is hopelessly, shortsighted and just plain petty.

The 10th Amendment

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”



Featured Articles

On the Constitution, history, the founders, and analysis of current events.

featured articles


Tenther Blog and News

Nullification news, quick takes, history, interviews, podcasts and much more.

tenther blog


State of the Nullification Movement

232 pages. History, constitutionality, and application today.

get the report


Path to Liberty

Our flagship podcast. Michael Boldin on the constitution, history, and strategy for liberty today

path to liberty


Maharrey Minute

The title says it all. Mike Maharrey with a 1 minute take on issues under a 10th Amendment lens. maharrey minute

Tenther Essentials

2-4 minute videos on key Constitutional issues - history, and application today


Join TAC, Support Liberty!

Nothing helps us get the job done more than the financial support of our members, from just $2/month!



The 10th Amendment

History, meaning, and purpose - the "Foundation of the Constitution."

10th Amendment



Get an overview of the principles, background, and application in history - and today.