A Dollar

What is a dollar?  Yes, it is currency and something we call money, but what does it represent?  Where does it get its value?  Why do you want and need dollars?  Who gives a dollar value?

For centuries, nations used gold and other precious metals as currency.  The Bible mentions the gold acquired by Solomon and the kings of other nations.  But while gold has intrinsic value because it is used for jewelry that people want to wear, it was used for currency or for money because it was in very limited supply.

The dollar bill is made out of paper.  Its intrinsic value is nearly zero and in fact dollar bills wear out and each one is eventually incinerated as it is replaced by a newly printed dollar bill.  Up until the 20^th century the value of a dollar was tied directly to gold or silver.  Each one represented a certain amount of gold or silver that was kept in places like Fort Knox, Kentucky.

But really, what does that dollar represent, especially today?  The answer is that it represents goods and services produced by individuals.  Those individuals may own companies that produce those goods and services or they may sell their services to companies that produce those goods and services or they may, on their own, create or produce some goods or service that others find to be of value.  In any case, dollars represent the value that free individuals place upon them.  As one man grows apples to sell, another man builds automobiles to sell.  Once a man sells enough apples, he trades the value of those apples to the fellow who sells automobiles and he now has a car.  The fellow who works for the automobile company uses the money he earns that represents those apples and all the value of all the other goods and services that people produce to buy his home and the other goods and services he wants and needs.  Dollars represent all the goods and services that are produced.  They are just a medium for making it easier for you and I to enter into transactions from which both parties benefit in a free society.  As we work hard and produce more goods and services than we need for our own use, we use the dollars that represent our goods and services to benefit ourselves and others.

Freedom is a marvelous thing. It energizes, elevates and encourages innovation and hard work.  The more goods and services we produce, the wealthier our nation becomes.  Everyone benefits, from those just entering the marketplace with their goods and services to those who have already amassed great wealth.  When the production of goods and services is discouraged or impaired every citizen of the nation suffers.  The economy is pulled down.  Jobs disappear.  Poverty expands.

There are two segments of society who receive dollarsthat do not produce any goods and services.  The independent sector and those in government receive a share of the wealth that others produce to meet their needs and desires.  By independent sector I am referring to those who work for nonprofit organizations, directly or indirectly, like me.  With few very minor exceptions, nonprofits do not produce any marketplace goods and services.  Most of these organizations—from churches to animal shelters—work to build up the spiritual and cultural character of society and they provide direct help to those in need.  In other words, they heal, encourage, support and build up the nation by helping others.  Free citizens willingly transfer the value of the goods and services they produce (in the form of dollars) to help others and improve the fabric of American society.  It’s amazing because no American citizen is coerced into helping others; they do it voluntarily just because they care.  In fact, more than $300 billion is generously given each year by Americans who have compassion for others.  This American legacy is truly unique in the world.  There is no other nation whose citizens give so freely to help others in need.

The other segment of society that does not (in any significant way) produce any goods and services is government at the local, state, and national level.  The federal government fulfills its Constitutional duty of providing for the common defense and of maintaining internal order.  It defends America by maintaining a strong military and it provides order through our justice system and other limited functions.  These are the two specifically enumerated functions of government.  Beginning in the 20^th century, government began competing with individuals providing goods and services, substituting the decisions of bureaucrats and politicians for the choices and selections of free citizens.  While these encroachments on the freedom citizens may have been well intentioned, they were ill advised.  These intrusions have been destructive and costly measures that have sacrificed freedom, reduced self-reliance, and subjected large numbers of Americans to poverty and dependence on government for their survival. 

The reality is that government bureaucrats and politicians, from the White House to your local city council, take a slice of the goods and services that others produce when they collect their paychecks.  They are not producers, they are takers.  They don’t enlarge the cumulative wealth of society, they diminish it.  Every new bureaucrat that is hired reduces the wealth, the prosperity of society.  They are a drag on the economic well-being of our nation. 

Clearly some government is necessary.  We need to maintain internal order.  We must provide for a strong national defense.  These are the essential functions of government at the national level.  Your state government, your county and local government provide necessary functions such as law enforcement and operation of the court system.  In our federalist system, each local jurisdiction can choose to do what the people who live there decide, providing they do not violate the freedoms guaranteed to us in the Bill of Rights.  And if you do not like those decisions you can move to another city in another state.

But that dollar bill represents something more than goods and services.  It is a marker of your freedom.  In a free society it represents your power as an individual.  While some in government think all dollars (and thus all wealth) belong to government, that is an idea that is not only anti-freedom, its roots can be found in every dictatorship that ever menaced the globe.  Every dollar that is taken from you by government (at the point of a gun, the only way government operates) not only limits your choices by diminishing the dollars you have, it further empowers bureaucratic regulators who will make decisions about your life for you.  When that dollar that represents goods and services freely produced is transferred from you to government your freedom has been diminished.  Someone else is now deciding how to use the wealth represented by that dollar for their purposes, not yours.  The wealth of many is now no longer being transferred by free citizens from one to another, but is being expended at the whims and wishes of a few bureaucrats and politicians. 

Because dollars represent the value of goods and services and because each dollar forcefully transferred to government simply divides the economic pie into smaller portions, the amount of dollars transferred to this nonproductive section of society must be kept to an absolute minimum.  Taken to its extreme, socialism, the predictable and inevitable result is universal poverty and destitution.  Socialism continues to divide the fruits of the producers into smaller and smaller quantities as the non-producers in government take from the producers.  There is no other possibility when the number of producers is limited and the number of takers continues to grow.  That is the end results of socialism. 

Of course, government can take over the means of production, take over health care, and run the railroads, but all will be such inefficient entities and operations that they will only drag the economy down further and make those services worse.  From the French Revolution to German National Socialism to Soviet Socialism the story is always the same.  When healthy, free economies that innovate, create and bring prosperity to within the grasp of nearly every citizen, are replaced by socialism that destroys, represses, and enslaves their citizens the result is permanent economic depression.

It’s no accident that socialist systems do not innovate, create, or advance the human condition.  This is not speculation; it is a matter of historic record.  Socialist systems tear the heart and soul out of the citizens of a nation, reducing them to serfs who are subject to the corrupt whims of those in power.

Guard your freedom by guarding your dollars.  Spend and give them away freely, but resist the efforts by government to seize those dollars from you.  When you do, you are fighting to preserve the freedom and opportunity of future generations of Americans.  You are fighting for your children and grandchildren.

This is what the election of 2012 is really about.  Will our children and their children enjoy the freedom that you and I have enjoyed—not only to succeed, but also to fail—or will they be serfs of a Washington run socialistic state?

Harry Reid’s Parallel Universe

A Guest Blog by Peter Hannaford

(Reprinted with permission of The American Spectator Online www.spectator.org)

One year when George W. Bush was president, there was talk of his making recess appointments when Congress would be on holiday. Senate Leader Harry Reid countered by keeping the Senate technically in session by having one or two members show up each day. Bush, with the Constitution in mind, dropped the recess appointment idea.

 

Barack Obama, by contrast, went right ahead with a recess appointment last month, despite the fact the House Republicans stayed in session for the same reason -- to prevent such a move. This time, Harry Reid said it was right and proper for Obama to do what he did. Reid saw neither the irony nor the inconsistency in this, for he lives in a parallel universe.

 

The other day he returned to Washington with a warning to House Republicans to eschew Tea Party "extremism." The Tea Party movement was driven by a desire to stop the government's profligate spending and the rapidly growing national debt. In Harry's universe, this is "extremism."

 

In December, the Senate Democrats and Obama wanted a two-month extension of the payroll tax rate holiday and unemployment benefits. The House Republicans said it didn't make sense to come back after two months and re-argue the issue, so they proposed a 12-month extension. Reid wouldn't budge and ultimately the House blinked before the two items ran out on December 31.

 

About this Reid said, "I hope that the Republicans will understand, as they learned in the last week of last year, they can't be led over the cliff by this extremism."

Saying that Senate Democrats had "bent over backwards" to work with House Republicans, Reid declared that all he was asking for was a spirit of compromise. His version of compromise is, you give, I take.

 

Since January 2007, Harry Reid has been Senate Majority Leader. Speaking of bending over backwards, one thousand days have now passed since the Senate last passed a federal budget -- an all-time record, thanks to Harry Reid. By stalling over and over again, he and his Democrat colleagues have not had to make tough choices about cutting the government's bloated spending. Instead, the government operates on "continuing resolutions" that have kept existing spending in place, plus automatic annual increases. The result? Spending grows apace and the national debt is now over $16 trillion.

 

No wonder House members supported by Tea Party groups are upset. Harry Reid -- living off in space -- thinks uncontrolled spending is normal and fiscal responsibility amounts to "extremism."

 

Harry has brought some of his colleagues along into his parallel universe. Democratic National Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, for example, recently said, "I have noticed the tone take a very precipitous turn toward edginess and a lack of civility with the growth of the Tea Party movement." (Translation: Anyone who disagrees with the Democrat playbook is uncivil.) Vice President Joe Biden, who takes frequent trips to the parallel universe, has likened Tea Party members to terrorists.

 

These are the same folks who have extolled the "Occupy" people as earnest exercisers of First Amendment rights. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was one who cooed over the Occupy movement. It is useful to compare its record in recent months to that of the Tea Party groups. For example, arrests: Occupy 4,149, Tea Party 0; rapes Occupy 12, Tea Party 0; anti-Semitic diatribes: Occupy 12, Tea Party 0; murder: Occupy 1, Tea Party 0; head and body lice infestations: Occupy 1, Tea Party 0; scabies outbreaks: Occupy 1, Tea Party 0; suicide: Occupy 1, Tea Party 0. Now if you live in the Harry Reid parallel universe, as so many Democrat office holders and operatives do, that is clear evidence that the Tea Party members are extremists.

 

Most people would say they are extremely well behaved, but the parallel universe people would like you to think they are a danger to the nation. _____________________________________________________________________________________

Peter Hannaford, a member of the Board of Directors of Eberle Communications Group, Inc., was an advisor and friend of Ronald Reagan.  A political strategist and public affairs professional, Mr. Hannaford has authored eleven books, including his most recent: Reagan’s Roots, The People and Places That Shaped His Character.

Bizarre!

I can think of no other word that aptly describes what passes for the modern liberal philosophy of government.  I just shake my head when I hear some of the downright silly ideas and concepts that today’s liberals-progressives believe.

Here’s a short litany of the answers that liberal’s give to straightforward questions:

Q.      Since Ronald Reagan and his policies of low taxes and small government led to the highest employment numbers in the poorest neighborhoods of our society and crossed all ethnic and racial lines shouldn’t we be following those policies now?

A.      Ronald Reagan was the luckiest president of all time.  His policies were racist and actually hurt black Americans and others who are in poverty.  He was just fortunate to be president when the economy recovered.

Q.      Since unemployment rates in poor African American communities, especially among young black men have reached record levels under President Obama, shouldn’t we abandon those policies?

A.      Well, of course, it’s not President Obama’s fault that the unemployment numbers have skyrocketed in poor communities.  He inherited a tremendous economic disaster from George Bush.  Without his brilliant stimulus efforts, the situation would be much, much worse and we might even be in a depression.  President Obama brought us back from the brink.

Q.      With people all around the globe doing everything they can to get into the United States, isn’t it clear that this is the greatest nation in the history of the world?  What better testimony can there be than the fact that people are willing to leave their own country and flee to the US?

A.      The idea that the United States is somehow greater or better than any other nation is arrogant and simply false.  The United States has prospered for a number of reasons including climate, location and from just plain luck.  It’s certainly not an exceptional nation in any regard.  In fact, a relative few Americans have prospered from the labors and property of others.  First, the prosperity came from slavery, then Jim Crow, and ultimately world-wide from the exploitation of less fortunate people in other nations.  We need to get over the idea that the United States is some sort of special or exceptional nation.  The silliest idea of all is that America has been blessed by God.

Q.      What about the fact that Jim Crow and Slavery were imposed by government and in fact that Jim Crow laws were exclusively levied by Democrats with the full support of early progressives-liberals such as President Woodrow Wilson?  Doesn’t the blame for such racist policies fall squarely at the front door of liberalism?

A.      That question is outrageous and racist at its core.  I don’t care what quotes you have by Wilson that are racist, they must have been taken out of context or even be misquoted.  Liberals were at the forefront of fighting for the rights of African Americans while conservatives were pursuing their so-called racist Southern Strategy.

Q.      What about the fact that the Davis-Bacon act was created at the behest of a New York Democrat on behalf of his union constituents with the sole purpose of keeping African Americans from working on government construction jobs?  Or that the star intellectual, Senator William Fulbright, who is still revered by today’s liberals was an outspoken racist?  Don’t those facts give you pause at all?

A.      I know there are racist quotes in the Congressional Record by a New York Democratic Congressman and that Fulbright was misguided in the 1960’s, but Senator Fulbright was brilliant on foreign policy and I’m sure he later changed his views.  As for the Davis-Bacon act, I just do not believe the primary motivation was to keep Black Americans from working on government construction jobs?

Q.      Don’t you believe that the United States is special in that our freedom and our free market system offers every American an opportunity to succeed or fail based on their hard work, God-given talents?  Look at all the people who have risen and continually rise from poverty to become very successful Americans?  How can you deny that reality?

A.      Sure a few people overcome the systemic racism inherent in what is falsely described as a free society, but the deck is stacked against the poor and minorities.  You conservatives always point to exceptions, but the reality is that you are racists and all your policies reflect your racism.  And frankly, most African Americans and other minorities who make it successfully out of poverty do so by being Uncle Toms, especially those who go into business and sell their soul.

Q.      You believe in man-caused global warming or now climate change, and you insist that it is settled science, even though more than 30,000 scientists and engineers have signed a statement saying they do not agree.  In fact, some of the world’s leading climatologists do not agree with the idea that climate change is caused by man.  More recently, so-called “Climategate” revealed that one of the leading institutions supporting the claim that man caused climate change had forged data and lost other data.  Why won’t you agree to a free and open debate among scientists of all beliefs on this critical topic?  Since the current “theories” do not stand up to the scientific method, don’t you think an open scientific debate is called for?

A.      You are a Neanderthal!  Only someone as anti-science as you would deny the obvious destruction of the environment caused by your precious anachronism called Free Enterprise.  Sure there were some very minor errors, but the overwhelming evidence makes it clear that man caused climate change is indeed settled science.  Now shut up!

Q.      I don’t understand how you can believe in socialism?  Where has it ever worked in the world?  It didn’t work in NAZI—National Socialist Germany, it didn’t work in the Soviet Union, and socialism has kept European economies, even before the current economic mess, far behind the economy of the United States.  What makes you think that just a few people can make decisions about what Americans should drive, should eat, where they should live, what kind of light bulbs they should buy and how much health care they will receive?  Why isn’t it better for free people to choose how to live their lives and make the millions and millions of decisions about what works for them?  Why aren’t they entitled to buy what they want, sell what they want, and live according to their own values?

A.      Now you are really making me mad, you racist, war monger.  And, you jerk, the NAZIs were on the right side of the political spectrum with you, not with the Communists who fought them in World War II.  Sure, I know they called themselves socialists and they got along well with the soviet socialists before the war, and they took over all the businesses and means of production, but that right winger, Hitler, was a typical dictator.  The Soviet experiment just went wrong.  It was a wonderful idea, but the people at the top were corrupt and not really dedicated to socialism.  They aren’t enlightened like today’s liberals who are, if I may say so, the most tolerant, most non-judgmental, most kind, most compassionate, and most generous members of our society.  How dare you compare today’s liberals to that monster Stalin? He ruined everything, and yes he fooled a lot of liberals, but that’s just because of a liberal’s kind nature.  And, be honest, free enterprise only works for a privileged few.  It doesn’t work for everyone.  Besides, our entire environment is at stake.  We are facing the greatest environmental crisis in history.  Freedom is just a label you hide behind.  In times of crisis people have to surrender a little bit of their freedom so that we can survive.  The truth is that freedom just doesn’t work.  We need more regulations and regulators to protect the people. 

Q.      Don’t you realize that the wealth of a nation is measured in terms of the consumer goods and services it produces?  Money just represents those goods and services.  Every person employed by government at the local, state, and national level becomes a burden on those who produce goods and services.  Every dollar they receive represents goods and services produced by someone else.  I’ll say it again, how can you possibly believe in socialism which is just a top down, dysfunctional system to ration what others produce?

A.      You are trying my patience.  There is no free market.  It’s all rigged by the rich.  The rich, the 1% control everything and we have to destroy that control.  All goods and services belong to the government and all money belongs to the government.  It’s not fair or just to letsome over consume while others have less.  The only fair and just economic system is socialism which distributes wealth evenly in society.  You are not entitled to more than anyone else has.  The idea that risk should be rewarded is silly.  You don’t “earn” your money.  You were just one of those who won the lottery of life and only the imposition of socialism can level the playing field.  There is no freedom in free enterprise.  It is a myth.

Q.      Why are liberals so angry and mad?  Why are they so envious and jealous of others?  Isn’t that the true motivation of growing government and making sure everyone lives equally in misery?

A.      Angry!  I’m not angry, but I have a right to be.  You conservatives have taken advantage of others for decades, even centuries.  The Founders didn’t create a special society or a special country; they created a country where they could prosper and the hell with everyone else.  And, I’m certainly not jealous or envious, I’m just a fair-minded person with a passion for the poor and the oppressed.  And I detest greedy businessmen who get rich off of the misery of others.  I am proud to be a liberal who has achieved a higher state of awareness.  You should be ashamed to be known as a stingy conservative.

Q.      Really?  How do you explain the fact that 65% of all donors to charity in the United States are Christian conservatives and that only 35% of liberals only contribute to charity?  What’s so compassionate about that?

A.      You conservatives always oppose the government helping the poor and the needy.  You are stingy and we liberals are the truly compassionate.  The idea of a compassionate conservative is truly ludicrous.  It simply cannot be true.

Q.      So you are saying that compassion is about voting to spend some else’s money to help the poor, but not spending your own money to help the poor?

A.      The rich have plenty of money, but they are greedy and that’s why we have to tax them to help others.  They won’t do it themselves.  And besides, you forget that you didn’t really earn the money you are giving away and you are probably making bad decisions where to give the money.  Government can do a much better job of helping the poor and needy.

Q.      You mean like the Great Society did?  Government has broken up the families of the poor, made an entire class of Americans dependent on handouts and you think that is good?

A.      You idiot!  We just have not been able to spend enough or give away enough money because of people like you.  If you had not held us back there would not be people living in poverty.

Q.      Why do you oppose school choice programs that are proven to lift the poor out of poverty?  Many African American leaders are fully supportive of these programs, yet the Democratic Party opposes them?  What gives?  I thought you cared about the poor and oppressed.

A.      I do care and you don’t.  Don’t act like you care, because a racist like you can never care.  You have simply duped some black leaders into believing that school choice programs work.  They don’t.  I know that because they are opposed by the National Education Association, a group that has done more for America than almost any other institution.  This liberal union is working every day to correct the bad ideas and concepts that have been historically believed in this nation.  Their efforts are crucial to changing America into a truly free, truly just socialist state.  Sure, some of the poor fall through cracks, but it’s better than being brainwashed in a school choice school.

I could go on and on about the silly, anti-intellectual, factually incorrect ideas that liberals have about society, freedom, economics, and you and I, but I won’t.  I assure you that what I have related is very close to what I have been told by liberal friends of mine—I have several—on the topics I covered.  It’s no wonder their philosophy of life and of government is failing to win popular support.  It’s no wonder they resort to attacking people and calling them racists.  Their policies simply do not stand up to close scrutiny.  After all, it’s just luck.

The Morality of Class Warfare

The President of the United States and virtually the entire Democratic Party not only advocate class warfare, they proudly proclaim it from the housetops.  “The rich should pay more,” they say.  “The wealthy aren’t paying their fair share,” they proclaim.  They reject free markets, where one man freely exchanges his services with another man for his goods.  They can’t comprehend the idea that it is not a zero sum game and that both benefit from such a transaction.  They seek not equal opportunity, but equal economic outcomes.  They are OK with the fact that 47% of all Americans pay no federal income taxes.  They say that’s only right and fair, because the lottery of life has dealt some folks a worse hand than others and therefore those in power are entitled to transfer money from those that “have” to the “have nots.”  Let’s not sugarcoat it.  Transfer, of course, means forcefully taking money at the point of a gun from one person and giving it to another person.  That’s what government is—power—and if you don’t pay your taxes someone with a gun on his hip will ultimately come to your door and haul you off to prison.

But what about the morality of redistribution of income through the force and power of government, i.e. taxes?  Is the advocacy of conflict between rich and poor moral?  Or, for that matter, is the advocacy and encouragement of conflict between any two individuals moral and just?  That’s the house of cards the modern Democratic Party has built—constructing coalitions built upon envy, jealousy, and division.  They seek to divide people on the basis of age, wealth, sex, education, type of work, geographic location, and, of course, race.  It is a divide and conquer tactic.  They endeavor to cobble disparate groups together into a winning coalition that will allow them to not only govern, but also to steadily give themselves more and more power over the lives of American citizens.  But is such a strategy moral?

What do traditional moral codes have to say about being jealous, having envy, causing division, and about greed and that old word, covetousness?  The Bible, the book upon which the Founders relied for their moral direction, (nearly two-thirds of the signers of the Declaration of Independence had some formal training in the Bible) looks upon jealousy, envy and greed as evil.  For example, 1 Corinthians 3:3 says:  “When you are jealous and quarrel among yourselves, aren’t you influenced by your corrupt nature and living by human standards?”  Mark 7:22 labels “envy” as an “evil thought” and lumps it together with other things that God despises including “…stealing, murder, adultery, greed, wickedness, cheating…” and other sins.  As far as encouraging divisions among people is concerned, Psalms 133:1 advises us that it is good “…when brothers and sisters live together in harmony.” What does it mean to covet something?  One of the definitions in myAmerican College Dictionarysaysto covet is  “…desiring the possessions of another.”  And God says simply, do not covet.  Or to actually quote from the Ten Commandments, “You shall not covet your neighbor's wife. You shall not set your desire on your neighbor's house or land, his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” That pretty well covers it.  Any philosophy, ideology, or strategy based on dividing people into groups and making them envious of each other or jealous of each other is a flawed, immoral plan of action. 

In fact, the Bible encourages us to celebrate the blessings that others receive from God.  Are they wealthy?  Celebrate God’s blessings.  Are they successful?  Be happy for them.  Are they prospering, celebrate with them.  That’s exactly what we will do if we follow Jesus’ admonition to “Love your neighbor as yourself.” (Mark 12:31)

But, what about the “immorality” of some people having more and others having less?  Isn’t that unjust and wrong?  First of all, people succeed and fail in a free market as they strive to produce goods and services that they hope others will be interested in having.  They succeed based on the basis of the hard work, drive, intelligence, and the wisdom with which God has blessed them.  If they acknowledge that reality they will then generously and freely share their abundance with others.  That is the history of America.  The citizens of the United States of America have been the most generous people on the face of the earth and in the history of the world.  This is a part of our Christian heritage bequeathed to us by our Founders.  This is a part of what some call the “goodness” of America.  Charity, of course, means love.  That’s the reason that when the church first created and implemented financial aid to the poor and needy it was appropriately called charity.  True compassion consists of individuals freely helping others in need.  Expressing verbal concern and then using the government to spend someone else’s money and give it to someone else is false compassion.In fact, it is worse than false compassion.  It takes love out of the equation.  It doesn’t uplift the giver or the receiver.  It discourages and demeans both.  By taking away the personal responsibility for sharing with others and replacing it with government, compassion vanishes.  Neither party is enriched spiritually and morally as they are in a situation where one party gives out of love and the other is blessed by that love and caring.  The truth is that true compassion consists of giving your own money cheerfully. 

There is yet another issue—fairness.  Just how fair is it that the rich do not pay more in taxes?  Well, first of all, the premise is false.  The most wealthy in our land—fewerthan 10%—pay more than everyone else combined and yet their benefits from being an American are, at best, only marginally better than those at the bottom rung of the economic scale.  What is fair?  Is it fair that 47% of all Americans pay no federal income taxes while enjoying the benefits of American citizenship?  What standard do we use for defining fair and just?  It if was up to our Founders they would turn to the Bible for guidance.  In Deuteronomy 14:22, we are told that God expects everyone to give one-tenth (10%) of everything they grow, harvest, or earn to Him.  Tellingly, there is no sliding scale.  The rich are not told to give more than 10% and the poor are not exempted from giving their 10%.  Of course, throughout the Bible, believers are encouraged to give generously and while 10% may be an expected amount, everyone is expected to give to the Lord as they are blessed, and many do give much, much more.  But the key word is “give,” not “compelled or forced.”  In fact, Paul says in 2 Corinthians 9:7, “You shouldn’t be sorry that you gave or feel forced to give, since God loves a cheerful giver.”Real compassion is love based and can only come freely from someone who gives because they want to give.  Being forced to pay taxes to give to another is a deadly distortion of the idea of giving to the poor and others in need.  It corrupts something beautiful and turns it into something ugly.  It fractures the beautiful relationship between the cheerful giver and the grateful recipient.  Real compassion lifts up both parties, giving moral strength to both the giver and the receiver.

So what?  Conservatives and Republicans are no less sinners than Democrats and liberals.  As individuals, they both stand as deeply flawed individuals before God and his standards of perfection.  Yes, that is true, but there is something much more dangerous in play.  All men are jealous and envious and have all the other human defects, yet it is very important as to what we believe as individuals.  It is one thing as an individual to fail morally. It is entirely another thing to support and encourage others to act immorally.  It is similarly hazardous to endorse policies and programs that are in conflict with God’s eternal verities.  It is as wrong-headed to be consciously jealous or envious of others and encourage such jealously and envy, as it is to hate, murder or break any other of God’s Commandments.  That’s how serious God is about jealousy and envy.  

So what about the morality of class warfare as it is promoted by our President and by the vast majority of the Democratic Party?  You will have to make up your mind for yourself, but as for me, it seems pretty clear that such an ideology or strategy is clearly immoral and runs counter to the faith and perspective of the Founders.

If…

If I had been raised by a far left mother who really detested America and passed that misguided passion along to me, I might have done a lot of things differently in my life.  If my mostly absent father had been driven by an attitude of strident anti-colonialism and really bought into the Marxist view of society, i.e. class warfare and a belief that everything bad in the world originated with the United States of America and with its Capitalist system, I almost surely would have become an activist dedicated to the radical transformation of America.  

If I was schooled in the far left’s vision of America as a racist, evil, corrupt nation as portrayed in “history” books like Howard Zinn’s, “A People’s History of the United States” I would have wanted to bring social and economic “justice” to the United States.  In believing Howard Zinn and other radicals of the far left, I would have become passionate about righting the wrongs that the evil capitalist system had imposed on minorities and the poor.  Zinn’s vision of American would be my own…

        “Around 1776, certain important people in the English colonies made a
        discovery that would prove enormously useful for the next two hundred
        years. They found that by creating a nation, a symbol, a legal unity called
        the United States, they could take over land, profits, and political power
        from favorites of the British Empire.  In the process, they could hold back
        a number of potential rebellions and create a consensus of popular support
        for the rule of a new, privileged leadership...it was a work of genius…
        They [the Founders] created the most effective system of national control
        devised in modern times, and showed future generations of leaders the
        advantages of combining paternalism with command.”

My understanding of our Founders and my passion would have been inflamed if I studied under or read quotes from professors like Leonard Jeffries who characterized America’s first president as “George Washington the slave master bastard Founding Father.”  Or reading Zinn who said of American patriot, Thomas Paine, 

        “…he lent himself perfectly to the myth of the Revolution—that it was on
        behalf of a united people.  The Declaration of Independence brought that
        myth to its peak of eloquence.”

If I believed this Marxist vision of America and America’s Founders, I would have been outraged and incensed.  I would have dedicated my life to righting this wrong, just as my father had, in my mind, dedicated his life to righting the wrong of colonialism.  And if I was very smart, I would have approached this goal with not only a burning passion, but also the cleverness and cunning that would be needed to destroy this corrupt, racist society that had brought hardship and destitution to so many.  If I believed this, I would have schooled myself in ways to gain power without revealing my true intentions.  I might have studied Saul Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals, and made it my guidebook for ascent to power over the unscrupulous people who were ruling America.  From Rules for Radicals I would have learned about Alinsky Jujitsu, which has a striking resemblance to the dialectical materialism of Karl Marx—three steps forward and one step back.
If I was really angry with the travesty that those malevolent men who imposed slavery on African Americans and servitude on the lower classes through the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, I’d use any and all means to rectify this cruel situation.  I would not be bound by “the rule of law” because the “rule of law” would be understood by me to be a fraud.  English “historian” Christopher Hill aptly summed up the rule of law as something that “…benefited the men of property.”  In other words, as a true believer, I would now understand that the idea of “the rule of law” was just another wealthy white male contrivance to hold down the poor, the underprivileged and minorities.  If I fully bought into this worldview, I would now be prepared to right this wrong by whatever means necessary.  Clearly the privileged class had seized control of government illegally, and therefore any way they could be displaced would now be justified in my mind.  And because I understood just how entrenched and how powerful these evil men (and women) are, I would fully appreciate the challenge I faced.  I’d have to be very clever and shrewd to drive them from power.  I would understand that I couldn’t go right at them and let them know what my true goals really are.  Of course, I could publicly speak in code to my fellow leftists, using words like “change” and “transformation.”  These words would not only be understood by my allies, they would also be put in the best possible light by those who would want to think the best of me.  I could count on leftist allies in the news media—one of the few institutions in America, along with academia, that had not been corrupted by the greed and hate inspired vision of the Founders.

If I believed everything I had heard from my parents, and from those in the schools I attended, that America was perhaps the most corrupt nation in the history of the world, I would have to take a stealthy, yet ruthless approach to gaining power.  If they brought a knife to a fight, I would bring a gun.  I would curry friendship with leftist revolutionaries, especially those who had the courage to resort to violence to overthrow this corrupt and fraudulent government.  I would establish my bona fides at a “liberation theology church” that I would attend for many years.   I would dedicate my first book to the pastor of that church.  That pastor would be totally in sync with my hatred of America and he would say things from the pulpit like, “God Damn America.” I would, of course, deny hearing him ever say such things.

I would also polish my leftwing credentials by being a community organizer, using street protests to gain what I knew would otherwise be unattainable through due process of law, an elongated process that I knew to be just another artifice created by the corrupt ruling class.  I might get a law degree and teach the U.S. Constitution through the prism of one who understood the document to be a contrivance designed to keep down the underclass.  I would pass along my accurate understanding of the Constitution to young people so that the ranks of future radicals would grow and expand.

And, if the timing was right, I would take advantage of an opportunity to run for the state legislature as the first rung in my ladder to give power back to the people. While in the state senate, I’d establish a clearly leftwing voting record so that I could solidify my support from a powerful, financially connected radical minority, and then if the stars aligned themselves correctly, I’d run for United States Senator.

If I got that far and won that race, I’d immediately start designing and planning my run for President of the United States.  I would need to do it quickly before I had established a long track record of leftwing voting that would hinder me from running and winning later.  I would know that my success in gaining power would depend greatly on a stealthy approach and the willing connivance of a friendly news media.  Speed and political jujitsu would be key to my success.  After all, my goal would not be to continue down the road of timid liberalism, but to radically alter the vision and the system of government created by the Founders.  My goal would be nothing less than radical transformation of the United States into a pure, peaceful, and successful socialist state.  I would understand that socialism and communism had failed in the past because flawed people took the reins of government away from those like myself who only want the best for all people. I know that socialist success depends on a clear understanding of what needs to be done and how to do it in a way so that all would benefit equally from a benign redistribution of income.  It requires an understanding that there is nothing special about the United States of America.  It is, as a leading academic said, “Just another country.”  In fact, I would understand that the United States was worse than just another country—it was an unjust, neocolonial empire that not only oppressed the poor and minorities in America, but had also oppressed the poor and minorities all around the globe.  I would know and understand that the United States of America was perhaps the most cruel, most malevolent, most unenlightened nation in the history of the entire world.  It wasn’t a nation to be revered.  Just the opposite, it was a nation to be reviled. 

And if I had an opportunity to run for President, I would make every effort to change and transform America into a good nation, a just nation, a kind nation, a peaceful nation.  But I would not run as a leftist, but rather as a moderate with moderate views and goals.  Along with my radical friends I would realize that this was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to transform the failed vision and failed nation of the Founders into a nation to be truly admired across the globe.  It would be, in short, an opportunity to create a successful socialist state.  If we needed to steal the election we would not hesitate to do so because we would know that our righteous cause justified it.  If I had to lie about my true intentions I would do so.  What other choice would I have, because to do otherwise would invite defeat and the continuation of the corrupt system that had been oppressing the poor and minorities for hundreds of years?  Frankly, I would understand that traditional American morals were just another deception like “the rule of law,” the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence.  They were designed by man to keep down the working poor and to empower the rich and the wealthy.  I knew that the idea of the American dream, the American ladder of success, and America as an exceptional nation were just lies that had been perpetuated to maintain the privileged in power.

Upon my election the gloves would come off.  No quarter would be taken.  I wouldn’t rely on Congress to get things done.  I would go outside of the law and outside of the Constitution, if necessary, in the interest of the people.  After all, the entire idea of a separation of powers into three elements of government was just another fraudulent attempt to keep power from the people.  The people had been held down for too long.  It would be time to free the people from the oppression of the “rule of law” and all the other false constructions of the privileged few.

I would speak for the people.  If Congress failed to do what I knew it should do, I would bypass it and go directly to the people.  The Constitution would not prove a hindrance to me either.  I would appoint “czars” even some who might loudly and proudly proclaim themselves to be communists.  I would appoint fellow believers to the Federal Communications Commission to shut up my misguided enemies.  I would love it when one of my appointees would say, “Freedom of speech is overrated.”  He would be absolutely right—noisy critics are just a nuisance that would impede this one time opportunity to forever transform America into a successful socialist nation with me at its head.

I would ignore Congress and the Constitution and bypass them to appoint my union cronies to the National Labor Relations Board so that we can unionize all workers in America.  My Marxist view of history would allow me to understand that unions have been in the forefront of revolutions around the globe.  I would impose rules and regulations on business enterprises so that they would understand that in order to prosper you have to dance to my tune, giving your full support to keeping me in power.
I would take the opportunity to go around the world and apologize for the oppression and harm that the United States had caused to all people through their power, arrogance and pride.  I’d let fellow socialists in other nations understand that this was a new day in America.  I’d strike up friendships with other men in power who understood that socialism was the next step upward in the ascent of man.  I would show my open admiration and approval of leaders like Hugo Chavez and encourage them to move forward with their socialist revolution.  And I would also show my open disgust with such American allies as Israel and Great Britain.

Everything I would do would be for the good of the American people, at least those who have been oppressed for so very long.  The enlightened men and women assembled around me would make decisions for our citizens about what they eat, where they live, their transportation, how and when they heat and cool their home, even what light bulbs they can use for lighting.  They would do this because they would know what was better for American citizens than they do themselves.

But my biggest plan would be the most important of all.  It would be the key to completely transforming America.  Yet it would not be understood by the media and the American people thus giving it the greatest chance for success.  If I was a smart person, I would have studied history and know that the advent of a large crisis is necessary to make true transformational changes.  The bigger the crisis, the greater the opportunity.  As my aides might say, “Never let a crisis go to waste.”My goal would be to create such a crisis without anyone ever understanding what I was trying to do.

My leftist ideology would permit me to understand that it is only when the United States collapses financially that the real transformation to a socialist-Marxist state can occur.  While I would know that it would be painful, even to my most ardent supporters, it would be a necessary event.  With my knowledge of the French Revolution, I would understand how to bring a great crisis about.  The French Revolution really began in 1788 when Bourgogne government was spending 62% of all revenues on interest from the money it had borrowed.  Revenues could not keep up with expenditures.  It was a financially unsustainable situation. What did the Crown do to solve this problem?  It raised taxes and devalued the currency.  Taxes became so high and so punitive that people took to the streets in open revolt.  Runaway inflation added fuel to the fire and thus began the French Revolution.  Unfortunately, the French Revolution was too bloody.  I would not seek to see blood run in the streets.  With any luck, such violence would be avoided. 

How would I create a crisis great enough to give me the power to transform America? Following the model of the French Revolution, I would intentionally spend the United States into bankruptcy.  By doing so, I would destroy the economy creating runaway inflation and a worthless currency.  Panic would grip the heart of every American.  But I would be presented with an opportunity to accumulate the power I would need to establish a socialist America.  Mobs would take to the streets in Washington, DC and in cities all across America, burning cars, destroying businesses, and taking over buildings.  Instead of being angry, I would express sympathy for the plight of the rioters, and urge understanding and restraint by the authorities.  As the far left mob moved to occupy the Capitol Building, blocking Congress from operating, I’d express my solidarity with these oppressed people.  I would portray them as the victims, and blame right wing extremists in Congress and my predecessor as the cause of their anger.  I’d become more strident and more demanding as the unemployment rate climbed from 9% to 15% to 25%, and the inflation rate rose above 50%.  I would damn the capitalist system for the economic crisis.  I’d indict my opponents as insensitive racists and patrons of the rich.  I’d show courage by meeting with the mob and commending them for their restraint.  I’d clearly label my enemies as the originators of the crisis facing the nation and demand that they step aside in the time of crisis so that the necessary changes might be made to create a new and better society.  I’d announce to the American people that in light of the unprecedented crisis I was suspending the next election. Furthermore, I would announce that in the interest of the people and as provided for in the Constitution, a new Constitutional Convention would be held to make critically needed systemic changes to end injustice and inequity in America.  This would be the beginning of a new era in our land.  It would be an era of fairness, of redistribution, of a new ethical and moral code that would lead the United States to a nearly utopian state.  All would benefit equally and all live modestly.  Out of necessity, there would be exceptions, of course.   Leaders such as myself and others who had sacrificed so much for the revolution would need special privileges and benefits to sustain them as they take on the massive burden of remolding the United States into the most just, most kind, most tolerant, and most understanding nation in the world.  In the interest of the people, critics would need to be silenced and perhaps some detained for their own good. The crisis would make it necessary to temporarily abandon state granted privileges such as free speech, freedom of travel, freedom of assembly, and due process of law.  Even freedom of religion would need to be curtailed and monitored lest citizens be tempted to regress into their former lower state of enlightenment.  These state granted privileges would be re-instated as the citizenry showed that it was enlightened enough to once again exercise with restraint these special liberties. Those who resisted would be re-educated fairly and humanely.

The new, all-powerful, central government would be led by rational and tolerant men and women with a new vision of America as a truly just nation, not as a false beacon of hope to the world.  Coming from the academy, from nonprofits, and even the church, this special enlightened class of Americans would bring the right vision to our land for the first time.  The United States would no longer puff itself up and take pride as being something that it never was—better than the other nations of the world.  It would be just another nation, but a more fair and just one where the long oppressed prosper and their benevolent leaders now decide what is in the best interests of the people.

If I had a far leftwing vision of the world, this is what I would do.

Handicapping the GOP Race

In some ways, the first two states in the 2012 contest for the GOP nod for President have created more confusion and indecision than they have clarity.  The problem is that Iowa is not a bellwether indicator of Republican preferences nationally and New Hampshire is even less so.   Iowa is a bit of a conundrum because it is an atypical Midwestern state.  It regularly re-elects far left Senator Tom Harkin and elects an odd assortment of Republicans and Democrats to state and federal office.  While other heart of America states like Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, and Indiana have a core conservative base, Iowa is schizophrenic at best.  Yes, you probably heard much about the evangelical voters in Iowa who propelled an underfunded Rick Santorum to a tie with Mitt Romney.  But in fact, Iowa has a sizable RINO block of Republican voters.  All this is compounded by the fact that the caucus process is cumbersome and unreliable in predicting who the leading Republican choice for President should be.

The situation is New Hampshire is even worse.  While the Republican Party is a private organization that puts forth candidates for public offices across the nation, New Hampshire allows independents to vote in the Republican  primary.  What a mess.  This sloppy system allows folks who will never vote for your candidate for President in the general election to choose who your nominee will be.  Years ago New Hampshire was far more representative of the Republican Party, but today the voting constituency of New Hampshire looks a lot more like Massachusetts than the New Hampshire of old.  Thankfully it has been a long time since the New England Eastern Establishment of the GOP has had the power to choose the Republican nominee for President. 
But in recent years this minority bloc of the GOP has once again picked RINO losers in the tradition of Tom Dewey—men like the 2008 nominee, John McCain.  Who are these candidates?  They stand to the farthest left in the GOP (admittedly much farther to the center than the far left crazies of the Democratic Party).  They are also the folks who are the most likely to lose.  Why vote for an imitation liberal when you can have the genuine thing?

All of which brings us to Mitt Romney.  Don’t get me wrong.  Mitt Romney is far, far different than the man in the White House.  He is proud to be an American, he loves and reveres his nation, he generally believes in free markets, he believes in traditional moral values, and he honors the legacy of the Founders.  But the problems with a Mitt Romney candidacy are many.  

Would he be better than the current incumbent of the White House?  Of course he would, but that’s a pretty low standard.  A better question is would he be more like Ronald Reagan or more like George Bush ’41?  That’s the real question.  Being a President of Ronald Reagan’s caliber is a very high standard.  No one can really claim that mantle, and just saying you are a Reagan Republican does not make it so.

As someone once said, “Ronald Reagan could have governed from a closet.”  What does that mean?  It means that in spite of the power of the White House, the isolation of the Presidency is so great that if you do not have a firm understanding of foundational free society values you can be swayed by the last articulate advisor that speaks with you.  This was the failing of Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and George H.W. Bush (’41).  Smart men all, these men were less than stellar Presidents and all left office with the tail between their legs.  The one common failing of Dewey, Nixon, Ford, Bush ’41, Bush ‘43, John McCain and Mitt Romney is that they do not have the coherent philosophy of government that was shared by the Founders and by Ronald Reagan.  It is this philosophy that enabled the founders and Ronald Reagan to do great things.

What is this philosophy?  It begins with an understanding of the frailty of the human spirit, an appreciation that if not constrained, man will always devolve into self-interest that will limit the freedom of the citizens of the United States.  Or as Lord Acton said, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”  In essence all great American leaders have understood the tendency of human nature to personal corruption.  Because they understood this truth, all great American leaders have feared the centralization of power in the federal government which left unchecked always leads to tyranny.  There are no exceptions in history.  And as long as humans exist, there will be no exception.
But so-called "moderate" Republicans did not and do not have this understanding. Republicans like Nixon, Ford, Bush ’41, Bush ’43, John McCain and Mitt Romney can be persuaded to move toward more government power in the lives of American citizens.  They design and support legislation like Romneycare and praise Obamacare.  They raise taxes without understanding that any tax increase is a decrease in individual freedom for American citizens.  They provide support for continuing failing institutions like Social Security and Medicare instead of replacing them with more effective, more just, and more sound free market solutions.  After all, it was Dwight Eisenhower who created the forerunner to the Health and Human Services Department.  It was Nixon who created the Environmental Protection Agency and the Consumer Protection Agency.  It was George Bush ’41 who approved the zero wetlands bill, raised taxes, and signed the Americans with Disabilities Act into law.  And they did it all with the intent and belief that they were doing good.

But doing good has to do with limiting the power of government over the lives of its citizens.  It has to do with ensuring the freedom of the American people by adhering to a government of laws and by providing for a defense that protects US citizens from foreign enemies.  Freedom is such a priceless treasure that it can never take second place to any other perceived “good.”

On a practical side, liberal Republicans are losers.  Dewey was a loser.  Nixon lost to Kennedy.  Ford lost to Carter.  Bush ’41 lost to Clinton.  McCain lost to Obama.  As it says in 1 Corinthians 14:8 “…if the trumpet doesn't sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle?”  That’s the problem.  A RINO Republican cannot sound a clear call to battle or even to fight the right battle if he does not understand the battle plan or the enemy of freedom.  And any candidate that does not sound a clear call will be defeated.  On March 1, 1975 Ronald Reagan spoke to the annual CPAC Conference in Washington, DC.  He said, following the defeat of Gerald Ford…

        “I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed
        into print saying, "We must broaden the base of our party” - when what
        they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between
        ourselves and our opponents.
        Our people look for a cause to believe in. [We must raise] a banner of no
        pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we
        stand on all of the issues troubling the people.
        Let our banner proclaim our belief in a free market as the greatest
        provider for the people.
        Let us explore ways to ward off socialism, not by increasing government's
        coercive power, but by increasing participation by the people in the
        ownership of our industrial machine.
        It is time to reassert our principles and raise them to full view. And if
        there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go
        their way." 

Five years later Ronald Reagan was President of the United States.
That needs to be said again…

Five years later Ronald Reagan was President of the United States.

Have we learned nothing?  Principled conservative candidates with clear views and who hold foundational principles succeed and are victorious.

Those who wander from left to right, sometimes supporting socialist programs like Romneycare and other times espousing freedom in the marketplace lose.  They lose because they do not sound a clear trumpet, and when they do not they confuse and diminish the ardor of the troops that are needed to win the battle.

Yes, Mitt Romney would be far, far better than the current occupant of the White House, but if elected in spite of his confusing and sometimes conflicting positions, he will be a disappointment.  Worse yet, you and I will have squandered a wonderful opportunity to shrink government and expand personal freedom.  We may save our nation from bankruptcy and from the great depression into which President Barack Obama is surely leading us, but we will not have made any advancement toward expanding freedom for this and future generations.  We may dodge a bullet, but we will have missed the opportunity to expose socialism as the fraud it is.

And on the political front, we will miss an opportunity for a Reagan-like sweep and substitute for it a slim political victory.

Fortunately, right now the Republican nomination is still up for grabs.  Romney and Santorum tied in Iowa and not surprisingly Romney handily won Massachusetts II (New Hampshire), but bigger and more reliable tests lie ahead.  In no poll or contest, statewide or nationwide, has Mitt Romney topped 40%.  It is fair to say that 60% of Republicans do not want Mitt Romney as their standard bearer in 2012.  They want a true, consistent conservative with an understanding of foundational limited government principles.
It’s not going to be Ron Paul.  That’s a fact regardless of your passion for Ron Paul.  It’s not going to be Huntsman.  Who will it be?

The Romney nomination hangs by a thread.  If and only if he can convince Republican primary voters that he is the inevitable nominee can he win the nomination.  That’s why there is so much ballyhoo from the news media and from the RINO republicans that he is now the “presumptive nominee.”

It’s simply not true.

Ironically the only chance the 60% Republican majority has of selecting their candidate is for the choices to narrow rather quickly.  Gingrich and Perry need to quit attacking Romney from the left, complaining about Bain Capital and how some folks fail in a free market.  The freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail are critical to maintaining the power and purpose of an economic system that has created the most effective wealth generating system in the history of the world.  It is the free enterprise system that is the envy of the world.  It is a system that puts financial success within the reach of every American and has provided prosperity on a scale and to more citizens than any other system ever tried by man.  It is the fairest, most free, and most just economic system ever devised.  So knock it off Gingrich.  Knock it off, Perry.

Sound a clear trumpet.  Rick Santorum needs to remind people that he never supported any form of Romneycare or Obamacare.  He needs to remind voters that while Mitt Romney supported the TARP bail out, he opposed it.  He needs to sound a clear trumpet of conservative principles.

Perhaps the candidate will come out of the primary process, perhaps not.  Personally, I prefer a candidate selected via state conventions, not primaries in which those outside the Republican Party can participate.  I want the nominee to be the choice of rank and file, committed Republicans, not of the news media or of independent voters.

I want a winner like Ronald Reagan.  A man of principles.  Please, no more loser Republicans like Dewey, Nixon, Ford, Bush ’41, McCain or Romney.  I’ll support Mitt, but sadly, knowing that it will be an opportunity lost.

How Was Your Year? What Will 2012 Mean for You?

These are difficult, economic times so when someone asks you how your yearwas, the economic challenges you faced may come to mind. Maybe you or someone close to you lost their job or even their home. That’s rough. Maybe you lost a loved one or you or someone close to you had some difficult health issues.  There are all sorts of problems and they never cease to come our way while we are still on this earth. And even if the economy improves in 2012, you and I both know that the troubles will keep coming.  It’s a product of the fall of man. Or, some might say, it’s just the way things are.

Even though the troubles continue, it is also easy to be thankful for many things.  Living in the greatest nation in the history of the world, where we have the freedom to succeed or fail, is certainly one of the things we can be thankful for.  But really, I wonder what will happen in 2012? Will it be a “good year” for you and me and for our nation?

I’m certainly optimistic.

And truthfully, one of the things that makes me optimistic is the strong likelihood that our nation will get back on the right track in 2012. Did you know that in early 1980, the polls showed that Ronald Reagan trailed President Jimmy Carter by some 30 points? And, in fact, although Reagan defeated Carter in a landslide, the weekend prior to the election, the polls showed that the race was too close to call.  Ultimately, Reagan carried the Electoral College 489 to 49. Carter only carried five states and Reagan carried in with him the first Republican Senate since Eisenhower. It was a huge victory for Republicans and for America.

Don’t forget how difficult the situation was that Reagan inherited from Carter.  The Soviet Union was expanding around the globe. American respect was at a nadir. Our military had been unilaterally reduced in the face of a Soviet military buildup. Overspending, over borrowing, and over taxing had wrecked the American economy.

Due to Carter policies, inflation soared past 16%, interest rates topped 20% and unemployment was over 13%. Thanks to the misguided policies of Carter, our economy was in a shambles.

Yet Reagan’s commonsense policies were able to turn the situation around at home and around the globe. His free market approach ushered in the longest history of economic expansion in the history of the US and the Reagan Doctrine forced the Soviet Union to retreat and eventually collapse.

The Reagan victory was predictable in hindsight. After the fact, pundits refer to Carter as “incompetent”, “bumbling”, and other less-than-positive adjectives.  But that’s not what they were saying prior to the election. No, Carter was their man and they were effusive in their praise for him.  And most thought he would win. 

The fact is that there is not much difference between 1980 and 2012 in terms of the Democrats hope for a comeback from 2010 and for re-election Barack Obama. It should not be hard for the media to understand why the American people are ready for a change in leadership.

While many on the left think the American people are stupid, they are wrong.  Americans understand reality. They see the huge mess created by this President…

*    Unemployment of nearly 9%

*    Corruption like Solyndra

*    Injustice in the Department of Justice which created the Fast and Furious

*    Job destruction by a President who is unwilling to immediately create 20,000 private sector jobs in building the Keystone Pipeline

*    The creation of artificial shortages of energy which drive up the price of fuel to the highest level in the history of the US

*    Bowing and scraping to foreign dictators and potentates, combined with a worldwide apology tour

*    Out of control spending that threatens to bankrupt the United States and has already caused a downgrade in our bond ratings

*    The passage of a socialist monstrosity called Obamacare, that will ruin the best health care in the world and further restrict our freedom

*    Blocking companies like Boeing from building new plants in another state (and creating thousands of jobs) just because the unions demand it

*    Celebrating Islam at state dinners and,at the same time, attacking the faith of the founders of the Republic

*    Filing lawsuits against states for trying to protect their citizens while failing their Constitutional responsibility to secure our borders

*    Circumventing the Constitution and appointing dozens far left “czars” like self-proclaimed Communist Van Jones

*    Obama breaking his oath of office by refusing to enforce and support the law of the land, the Defense of Marriage Act

*    Ignoring the Congress and the Constitution by having the Environmental Protection Agency issue “Cap and Tax” rules that impose huge costs on our economy on the basis of unsettled science

*    Creating an imperial Presidency that spends more on personal travel for the first family than any other previous family in the White House

*    Having the EPA shut down coal mines when people need jobs and the poor need inexpensive energy

*    Working to block a huge “Fracking” breakthrough that could make America energy independent

*    Buying million dollar busses and blatantly campaigning for re-election on the taxpayer’s dime

*    Consorting with dictators like Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega while dissing our long ally and friend, Great Britain

*    Worrying about the rights of alien terrorists while prosecuting those at the CIA and in the Armed Forces who are trying to defend our nation from another 9/11

This list could go on and on. The Obama administration is full of crony capitalists, like General Electric, that want to “buy” special privileges and use the government to shield them from open competition in the marketplace. It is the most radical, the most left wing, the most dangerous Administration in the history of the United States.

And come Tuesday, November 6, 2012 you and I are going to send them packing! The depth and scope of the conservative victory in 2010 was never reported by the news media. We didn’t just take control of the US House of Representatives and add a few good Senators in the Senate. We won from the courthouse to the state house. It was an unheralded landslide of historic proportions and it was just a precursor to 2012.

Whoever the Republican nominee is, and I’m confident that ultimately it will be a solid conservative, we will win a big victory. If, unfortunately, we nominate another RINO like John McCain, it may be much closer than you and I would like. If, however, we select a man or woman of principle, like Ronald Reagan, it will be a landslide victory.

I believe that will happen and that we will not only maintain control of the House of Representatives, but will add to our numbers. Remember, because we control more state legislatures and more governorships than the Democrats, we also control re-districting in a majority of states. I also believe we have an opportunity to top the 60 seat majority we need in the US Senate to repeal what’s left of Obamacare once the Supreme Court has ruled the personal mandate unconstitutional.
If you doubt me, consider the fact that in Virginia, where I live, the Republicans won 69.7% of the popular vote for the State Senate in 2011 (even though they only won half of the seats due to extreme gerrymandering by the Democrats).  This took place in a state that Obama carried in 2008. The Democrats are still making noise in Virginia, but in reality, the smart politicos in the Obama campaign have written off Virginia for 2012.

We can talk about the problems of the Obama campaign in individual states, but, in reality, 2012 is going to be another wipeout. And the wipeouts will continue as far as the eye can see until this once great party of Truman and Kennedy retreats from the far left. The Democrats’ charade of being in touch with the American people and with historic American values is over.

So don’t become discouraged. With God’s blessing, you and I, and our faith in the Constitution, and the wisdom of the Founders, will carry the day. It won’t take long to get America back on track with a commonsense conservative in the White House. By cutting taxes, balancing the budget, shrinking government, reversing the onslaught of government intrusion into our lives, the economy and individual freedom will rebound. By giving companies confidence that they can spend and grow without threat of higher taxes and job destroying rules and regulations, we can prosper again. 

More than that, a big conservative victory in 2012 opens the door to rolling back decades of socialism that has all but destroyed the American dream. By introducing free market solutions to solve the Medicare crisis, and giving our young people a chance to establish their own retirement accounts, we can create an atmosphere of opportunity that has been the hallmark of the United States since the founding of our Republic. By appointing judges that believe in the original intent of the writers of the Constitution, we can roll back Roe vs. Wade, and end the war on traditional moral values. We can promote harmony between the races and make the ladder of opportunity available to all Americans, regardless of race or ethnic background. This is the America our founding fathers envisioned, and it’s the one you and I must work to preserve for our children and our grandchildren.

2012 may well usher in a new era of hope, prosperity, and American leadership around the globe. Let’s work hard and pray fervently for such an outcome. May God continue to bless America.