In recent weeks I’ve heard claims that the blame lies with television talk shows that cover politics with a mix of news and entertainment. Others say Washington’s rancor is created by political fundraising’s need to tap into each party’s base. And, lately we’ve heard that even redistricting makes political compromise nearly impossible.

All of the above may be elements in the equation, but there’s a basic historical lesson behind any discussion of partisanship. For much of the past century there were plenty of liberals among Republicans; and, until the 1970s, Democrats were the conservative party in more than a few areas of ideology. In other words there was overlap in the dogma of the two major parties. But, all that’s changed.

Since the 1970s, and to a much greater degree in the past 3-1/2 years, the Democrat party has embraced a pure liberal agenda in every sphere. They’ve gone pro-abortion to the point of approving even late-term and sex-selection abortions. Their love for big-spending government programs has given our country its fourth straight year with a deficit of over a trillion dollars. Democrats have shifted their focus to issues like gun control, extreme environmentalism, a weakened national security that depends on other nations and organizations, and an energy policy that subsidizes failed approaches while driving up the cost of proven resources. This has been the direction of the Democrat party for the better part of four decades.

To counter-balance, Americans have increasingly elected into office and called up Republicans to take up for conservative positions – pro-life, limited government, second amendment rights, common-sense conservation, a strong defense, and conventional energy.

When I came to Congress in 2009 the last vestiges of “conservative” or moderate Democrats were the so-called Blue Dog Democrats. They were elected to Congress from relatively conservative districts, by claiming center-right positions, but at least during my tenure, they have served to merely enable the extreme liberal controlling members of the House and Senate. Blue Dogs rolled over and allowed Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to have their way with the passage of liberal legislation. While they talked conservative, they offered no obstacle to Obamacare, the Stimulus, Cash for Clunkers and Cap and Trade. During the Obamacare debate, Republicans reached out to the Blue Dogs for help to defeat the bill, but we were rejected. Americans saw what happened and the few Blue Dogs that remain are retiring or likely to lose their seats.

Recent polling shows that Americans remain center-right. Gallup found that 40% of Americans identify as conservative and only 21% as liberal. Yet, remarkably, the view they get of Washington is through the often-skewed lens of mainstream media and its bias against conservatism. The recent erroneous ABC News report that tried to link the tragic shooting in Colorado to a member of the Tea Party only served to reinforce the sense of many Americans that the media is out of step with their values.

The real scene in Washington is simply this: Democrats operate as if the Constitution is merely a suggestion, not the foundation for our government. They believe we can go on spending beyond our means without consequences, and are convinced that Americans, when left to their own design, will not make good decisions and are in need of a benevolent central government to direct them, even down to the very food they consume.

Republicans, on the other hand, believe the Constitution is the bedrock document of our government and should be respected as such, and only changed with the proper consent of the people. Republicans acknowledge that both Democrats and Republicans have been at fault in excessive spending and believe we must balance the budget through entitlement reforms and spending cuts, while maintaining a strong defense as well as a robust safety net for those who are truly in need of help—but not a nanny state for those who are comfortable living off the sweat of taxpayers. Republicans believe that government’s powers should be limited, as our Founding Fathers believed, and citizens should be left to make their own decisions in life.

What we’re left with is a choice. Democrats remain committed to a big government with unrestrained spending, a heavy hand in regulating the private sector and much more power to micromanage our lives. Republicans want a limited government with less spending and more consumer choices and greater individual liberty. A wide gulf exists between these two ideologies that cannot be simply merged through legislative finesse. Instead, Americans have before them two visions; two pathways to walk, and they will soon have to choose the best for our future. For me, that path must be the one of limited government, more individual liberty and consumer choices, as well as spending restraint that will lead to balanced budgets once again. This is the path I believe our Founding Fathers laid out, and it is the only path available to remain the greatest nation on earth, both in history and going forward.

Dr. John Fleming is a physician and small business owner and represents the 4th Congressional District of Louisiana. He is Chairman of the Natural Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs and is a member of the House Armed Services Committee.

It’s time for wholesale change. The agency that’s supposed to make sure the federal government minimizes costs and runs efficiently is at the center of a fraud and waste scandal. When the General Services Administration burns taxpayers for $822,000 for what amounted to a Las Vegas party, the answer has to be more than outrage. What happened at the GSA is symptomatic of a culture of corruption and government waste in Washington. The problem is massive and costly, and demands a serious response.

Last year I introduced a bill called the Federal Realignment and Closure Commission Act (H.R. 2680). The FRACC Act would begin a fundamental reformation of the federal government by creating a commission to evaluate every federal program, department, and agency to identify which ones are actually functioning efficiently, and which ones are duplicative, outdated, wasteful, or irrelevant. It’s patterned after the Base Realignment and Closure Commission that the Defense Department has used to reorganize its base structure. What is even more unique about the FRACC act is that once the President grants approval to the Commission’s recommendations, the plan takes effect automatically unless Congress acts to disapprove of the plan in its entirety.

The FRACC Act has the potential to put an end to ridiculous and wasteful spending, save billions of dollars to bring down the deficit, and claw back the scope of a government that has grown far beyond its Constitutional boundaries. Imagine a Federal government which must prove that its rules and agencies are actually serving the American people purposefully, efficiently and constitutionally. It can happen, but it will take a majority in the Senate and a president in the White House who believe these are worthwhile goals.

__

Congressman John Fleming, M.D., represents Louisiana’s 4th District. He is Co-Chair of the Congressional Values Action Team, Chairman of the Natural Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs, and is a member of the House Armed Services Committee. He is a physician and small business owner.

He has been aggressive on three fronts: Energy, defense, and religion.

In January, Mr. Obama baffled even his union allies by rejecting the Keystone pipeline project, with its estimated 20,000 new jobs. He placated his enviro-liberal base at the expense of jobs and energy. Keystone, however, will still build its pipeline… for China. Canada is now likely to go west and build a pipeline that will send billions of barrels of North American oil to China.  It’s akin to moving a life-sustaining IV from one patient to another.

The Obama Administration’s deliberate obtuseness offers another benefit to China. While China builds up its military at an alarming pace, President Obama is slashing U.S. defense. His latest scheme? Reduce our nuclear capability by up to 80% unilaterally, even as potential foes around the world are increasing and modernizing their nuclear stockpiles. As far back as 1983, Mr. Obama said he wanted, “a nuclear free world.” That kind of thinking always sends a dangerous message to the bad players of the world that the U.S. is in appeasement mode and is deliberately weakening its ability to deter attacks.

Next up? Religious freedom. Apparently Mr. Obama’s thinking hasn’t changed since he mocked people who, he said, “cling to guns or religion.” Now he’s flatly disregarding conscientious objections they may have to abortion-inducing drugs. Deeply held beliefs that are protected by the First Amendment are being trampled by the administration in an unprecedented way.

What is the goal behind all this hardball politics?  Could it be his only chance for reelection? Or, is this a last, desperate push to deploy his transformational socialistic agenda? General Patton once said, “Never let the enemy pick the battle site.” Obama appears to be trying to gain a tactical advantage by seeking to divide and preoccupy his opponents, while obfuscating his real record. It’s a ‘Let’s Change the Subject’ playbook, and these aren’t small-ball diversions. That’s how bad his record is.

We should not assume his strategy will fall under its own weight. There’s determination behind these destructive policies, and it must be met by greater determination from conservatives.

__

Congressman John Fleming, M.D., represents Louisiana’s 4th District. He is Co-Chair of the Congressional Values Action Team, Chairman of the Natural Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs, and is a member of the House Armed Services Committee. He is a physician and small business owner.

The House Judiciary Committee has given the Justice Department until this Friday, November 4^th, to produce documents and witnesses that are necessary to shed light on whether Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan is qualified to render an impartial judgment on Obamacare. Justice Kagan was the Obama Administration’s Solicitor General and she may have had a role in preparing a legal defense for Obamacare before taking her seat on the Supreme Court. In June, I led a group of 49 House members in requesting a Judiciary Committee investigation. A limited number of Department of Justice emails, which were released through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, have already raised serious questions about whether Justice Kagan has an inherent conflict of interest related to the President’s health care reform, should it could come before the Supreme Court.

As a result of our letter, Judiciary Committee Chairman, Representative Lamar Smith, wrote to Attorney General Eric Holder on July 6^th. He asked the Justice Department to turn over any documents related to the health care legislation that also mentioned or involved then-Solicitor General Kagan. It took almost four months for the Attorney General’s office to reply, which they finally did on October 27^th. In that letter an Assistant Attorney General characterized the request for information as “unseemly.” Without offering any legal basis, the Justice Department refused to cooperate. Chairman Smith rejected this stonewalling and wrote back, giving the Justice Department until Friday, November 4^th to produce the documents and make two former colleagues of Solicitor Kagan available to be interviewed.

Before the Supreme Court Justices meet to discuss whether to hear the case against Obamacare, it is imperative that the American people know whether one of those Justices had any role in helping to prepare the Administration’s legal defense for Obamacare. If Justice Kagan was offering guidance to the Administration on how to withstand legal challenges to Obamacare, then she cannot be impartial and should recuse herself from any of the Supreme Court’s official decision-making about this critical issue.

__

Congressman John Fleming, M.D., represents Louisiana’s 4th District. He is Co-Chair of the Congressional Values Action Team, Chairman of the Natural Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs, and is a member of the House Armed Services Committee. He is a physician and small business owner.

I am a true social and fiscal conservative. Unlike many so-called politicians today, I am standing firm on my conservative values and traditions. My top priority is helping our economy by supporting tax cuts and drilling to create American jobs.

I am endorsed by Governor Bobby Jindal, Senator David Vitter, Representative Charles Boustany, Representative Steve Scalise, Representative Rodney Alexander and Representative Jim McCrery.

I am also endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, NFIB, Gun Owners of America and has received an A rating from the NRA. I have signed the ATR’s “No New Tax” pledge and have gained the support of Eagle Forum for my willingness to fight for the unborn.

I have been married to my wife, Cindy, for 29 years and am the father of four adult children. My background as a Medical Officer in the United States Navy laid a path for my future small business medical practice. My background as a family physician awarded him the Louisiana Family Doctor of the Year in 2007.

I have served as a Deacon, Sunday School teacher, and School Department Director at First Baptist of Minden. My medical practice, which is a small business, and several non-medical businesses that I own provide over 500 jobs to Louisianians.

I am facing a liberal Democrat endorsed by Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Charlie Rangel and Steny Hoyer. This election is the start of us taking back the House and is critical to moving Congress back to the center from left leaning leadership intent on pushing through a liberal agenda.

I am asking for your help today. Join my campaign. Visit my website and if you agree with my vision and values, please consider making a donation at www.flemingforcongress.com.

Thank you and God Bless!

John Fleming