Helping a Few, Hurting Many

There is a beautiful, new metro rail line being constructed that will run within a couple blocks of my office.  I love the architecture of big construction projects like this one.  I also greatly appreciate the engineering that goes into construction of a major project like this one.  It is truly amazing.

Sadly, however, while this mass transit project is beautiful to behold, it is a nightmare to the taxpayer and to all residents who will be taxed to support it.  The projected annual operating shortfall is $170 million per year for the Silver line.  Of course, the actual shortfall will probably be in the neighborhood of $200 million, if the taxpayers are lucky.  The operating shortfall for the entire system (without the Silver line) is more than $535 million.  In other words, with the Silver line in service, the annual revenue shortfall (covered by a taxpayer subsidy) will be in excess of $700 million dollars.  This does not include substantial annual federal subsidies for capital improvements.

It is true that a few taxpayers will come out on the positive side.  Those who benefit are limited to the less than 10% of daily commuters who actually ride Metro rail.  The other 90% who drive automobiles subsidize those who ride Metro rail so that the fares charged by Metro are low enough to attract riders.  But, the cost is not limited to drivers of automobiles.  In fact, everyone in the Commonwealth of Virginia who pays taxes into the general treasury pays for the few who actually ride Metro.

But, in fairness, DC Metro rail is not an anomaly.  Economists often note that anytime any government entity gets involved in the marketplace it causes dislocations.  What does that mean? 

A simple way to explain it is this.  Whenever government (at any level) provides subsides, tax breaks, tariffs, privileges, or any other benefit or punishment to any individual or enterprise, a few benefit and many are burdened.  Even simpler, any government interference in the free market, no matter how well intentioned, helps a very few, and hurts many.  Sometimes, that interference doesn’t help anyone, but hurts everyone.

Every regulation drives up costs, every single regulation.  I am not suggesting that we should do away with all regulations, but I do believe that we should regulate with our eyes wide open.  We need regulations to protect the public from genuine public health issues.  But, even in this area, regulations are often created not to protect the public, but to protect businesses from competition.  For example, regulating taxi service is proclaimed to be in the public interest, but in reality, it limits entry into the marketplace by entrepreneurs who can provide that service better and cheaper as has been repeatedly shown.  The result is that a few benefit, and many suffer.

Some states regulate barber shops and beauty parlors in the supposed interest of the public.  In reality, the source of these regulations originates from those already in the marketplace who fear that more competition will reduce their charges.  Again, a few benefit, many suffer.

US Sugar producers (like many other industries) receive millions of dollars in subsidies from the federal government to protect them from “unfair” competition.  Without such subsidies, cheaper sources of sugar from overseas would drive down sugar prices.  A few, the sugar producers benefit, while everyone who uses sugar, suffer.

Subsidies never benefit the public, they always benefit a few at the expense of the public.  But, government interference in the marketplace doesn’t just help big businesses at the expense of the public.  Instead of letting the free market function to the benefit of many, government intervenes into affecting wages and benefits with the goal of establishing a “level playing field.”  It sets rules telling businesses that they can’t fire workers if they strike, they must hold organizing elections for unions if petitioned, they cannot hire nonunion workers if their state allows a closed union shop.  And so, by such intervention, what happens?  Because wages are artificially raised, the prices of goods and services produced are higher.  The union workers in those specific industries benefit, everyone who buys those goods and services pays more.  Again, a few benefit, many suffer.

Recently, the State of California raised the minimum wage to $10 an hour.  Sounds great, doesn’t it.  Finally, the advocates say, people will be paid a fair wage for their work.  But, does it really work that way?  Let’s see McDonald’s workers will get $10 per hour, but with that added cost, two things will happen.  First, the price of hamburgers and fries will go up.  There is no other way to stay in business.  So, a few workers will benefit, and many will suffer.  So what, you say, isn’t it better that you and I pay a few cents more for our next Quarter Pounder™ so that those workers will benefit?  That is certainly the way it looks on the surface of the matter, but it’s not reality.  The second thing that will happen is that McDonalds and other businesses that need minimum wage workers will simply shut down some stores, and they won’t build others.  The fact of the matter is that the free market always sets the minimum wage based on the free give and take of the worker, the consumer and the provider.  Politicians can convince themselves that they are bighearted by raising the minimum wage, but such artificial wage increases simply curtail business expansion and, therefore, job creation. 

Worse yet, by setting a minimum wage, government interferes in the marketplace, discouraging and preventing budding entrepreneurs with creative new ideas from starting up businesses.  In addition, it kills “first time jobs” for young people, especially the poor. 

Recently, the District of Columbia City Council passed a bill to raise the minimum wage (they called it the “living wage”) to $17 an hour.  They did this to keep Wal-Mart from building some seven stores in poor communities in DC.  Why did they try to kill off much needed jobs for poor people?  They did so because these city council members depend on union money and support for re-election.  Wal-Mart said they would have to stop construction on the stores and not enter into the District of Columbia if they have to pay a minimum wage of $17.  It almost makes one laugh.  If $10 or $17 is a good minimum wage, why not raise it to $25 or $50 an hour?  When the DC City Council tried to set a minimum wage of $17, it was punishing many to benefit a few.  By driving out Wal-Mart they would not only kill off much-needed jobs for their constituents, but also force them to pay more for the goods and services that they would otherwise purchase at Wal-Mart.  It is just another case of government benefitting a few to the detriment of many.  Fortunately, the Mayor of Washington, DC vetoed the kill Wal-Mart bill, but the City Council is threatening to override the Mayor. 

The other day the United States Postal Service (USPS) announced the intent to raise the price of a first class stamp by 3 cents.  The USPS already loses billions of dollars each year and it will always lose money as long as there is no competition and it is run by government.  The problem is that there is no fair mechanism to set wages and benefits for unionized postal workers.  Because government is doing what a private firm should be doing and has granted itself a monopoly, many suffer, a few benefit. 

The solution is to get government out of the marketplace.  It has no means whatsoever of setting fair wages, benefits, or prices for goods and services.  In every single instance, it makes matters worse for many, while benefitting a privileged few.

Today, we are strangling our economy through government interference into the marketplace.  The result is that each and every American pays above market prices for nearly every good and service we purchase.  Through government interference in the free market, we entrap the poor in poverty and remove opportunities to escape their dire situation.  Through government interference, every sector of our society suffers to benefit the ruling class. 

And, things are not going to get better.  This is not just an accident, it is by design.  Those in the ruling class realize that the more people they make dependent on their handouts, the easier it is to manipulate them.  That’s why you see government pushing food stamps on nearly 50% of Americans.  They even changed the name of the Food Stamp Program to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, but manure by any other name still smells as bad.

President Obama is not worried about the number of people out of work, he wants more people to be out of work.  It is to his political benefit and his continuing goal of reducing America to the same state as European nations.  He has to be careful how he does this, but it is politically beneficial to him to destroy the American dream, and replace it with the soft tyranny of a Socialist state.  The goal is to increase the power and reach of the bureaucracy at the expense of those who fund it. 

Obamacare is not about medical care, it’s about political control.  Socialized medicine is always the crown jewel of socialists because they know that once they control your health care, there is no escape.  At that point, every single American becomes dependent upon the government.  And, if they are willing to corrupt the Internal Revenue Service for political gain, what makes you think they will not corrupt Obamacare for political gain?  Besides which, the ultimate goal is not Obamacare.  The ultimate goal is the failure of Obamacare and replacing it with total socialized medicine that gives the politicians and bureaucrats life and death power over your life.

There is nothing unique or new about the left’s goal for America.  It is to abandon the dream of a free society as created by our Founders and replace it with a top down, autocratic society that benefits the few in power at the expense of many.  The left’s goal is as old as the first sin in the Garden of Eden.  Adam and Eve weren’t satisfied with living in God’s perfect world, they wanted to be like God.  And, that is exactly what liberals want to do today, to play God and rule over everyone who they think is inferior to them.

The solution to our problems is not economic or political, it is theological.  Until and unless we witness spiritual renewal in our land, we will continue to slide toward a cold, brutal, totalitarian state.  As Americans, we inherited the greatest nation in the history of the world.  It was the most free, the most generous nation ever created. 

Can it be rescued?  Or, are we willing to let it slide into just another top-down, autocratic state such as the ones our Forefathers fled?  How much do we really care about the future of our children and grandchildren?  If we are dedicated, if we are willing to get down on our knees and plead for mercy, perhaps, just perhaps, we can rescue this once great nation. 

The Sordid History of the American Progressive Movement

What a great irony.  Those who originally identified themselves as Progressives and later called themselves Liberals like to think of themselves as having higher ethical standards than everyone else in society.  In fact, that’s exactly why they selected the term Progressive to describe their ideology.  Just prior to the turn of the 20th century, men like Richard T. Ely and his student and future President, Woodrow Wilson, decided that certain individuals and certain elements of society had progressed to a higher ethical plane.  These men (and women) were enlightened.  They had taken a step never before taken in the history of the world, becoming men and women with higher ethical standards.  The founders of the Progressive movement (today called the Liberal movement) concluded that they had, in the long march of mankind, finally shaken off the curse of the fallen state of man and were no longer subject to corruption of human nature as understood by the Founders.

It wasn’t that the Progressives thought the Founders were bad people.  In fact, for their time, they conceded that the Founders were quite an amazing group of men.  They might even say that they too had taken a great leap in ethics to form the first successful republic in the history of the world.  But, given the general state of the world in the 1700s, the Founders simply had not yet reached the level of ethics that had been achieved by themselves (Progressives) in the late 1800s and early 1900s. 

Professor Tiffany Jones Miller (from whom I have borrowed liberally) has written in National Review…

“The vital core of the turn-of-the 20th century Progressive Movement was a group of social scientists, many of whom had studied in German universities in the post-Civil War era.  Among their most energetic reformers were a group of economists who had studied with members of the German Historical School of Economics, a school whose approach was, as historian Daniel M. Fox observes, ‘deeply influenced by Hegelian concepts of the historical process.’  Richard T. Ely was arguably the most influential member of this group.  Ely played a leading role in the founding of the reform-minded American Economic Association…” 

In fact, Ely is still honored today by the American Economic Association.  Each year an economist is selected to be a Richard T. Ely Lecturer.  The Encyclopedia of World Biography writes, “Richard Ely (1854-1943) is considered the dean of American economics…”  As you will see, this is a rather surprising designation for someone who was such a blatant racist as was Ely.

Ely frankly explained his view that he and others had attained a higher ethical perspective and standard that had others in the past.  He wrote the…

“…ethical ideal which animates the new political economy is the most perfect development of all human faculties in each individual, which can be attained…”

He further explained that this includes…

“…all the higher faculties—faculties of love, of knowledge, of aesthetic perception, and the like…”

And, keep in mind who this quote from Ely sounds like…

“When we speak of freedom as something to be highly prized, we do not mean merely freedom from restraint or compulsion.” 

“True liberty” according to Ely does not consist in “negative” freedom as the Founders’ envisioned, but it is “positive” in nature and “…means the expression of positive powers of the individual [to] make the most and best of [himself]…”

As Professor Jones Miller writes…

“The Progressives believed in ‘progress,’ in short, because they believed that history, as a process of moral growth, has an upward trajectory.”

Professor Jones Miller has correctly identified the point of divergence between progressives (liberals) and the Founders.  It is the progressive/liberal belief that man can progress morally and ethically; indeed that some men and women have in fact progressed to a higher moral and ethical level.  Such a view is a radical departure from the understanding of the Founders and from traditionally held views of the nature of man.

Recently, liberal icons like Hillary Clinton have gone back to referring to themselves as Progressives, but Hillary might want to re-consider the wisdom of such a move in light of the frankly sordid history of the early Progressives.  There is a very good reason that the name Progressive was abandoned in favor of the word Liberal.

The Progressive movement didn’t just deal exclusively with politics.  It insinuated itself into every aspect of society—education (John Dewey), religion (Harry Emerson Fosdick), economics (Richard T. Ely), social policy (Margaret Sanger), arts and entertainment.  And, one of the things that took place was the evaluation by these elitists of every segment of society, not as individuals, but as groups.

The overriding goal of the Progressive movement was power.  They wanted power in every area, in education, in religion, in economics, in social policy, in politics, and in arts and entertainment.  With this focus, they were able to change positions almost instantly, if it advanced their overall goal of achieving power.  And, this is something they have done repeatedly.  Because most liberals of today reject traditional moral values, it is not difficult to follow a practice of the ends justify the means.

In the Progressives’ view, the purpose of gaining power over the lives of other citizens was entirely benign.  After all, because they had achieved a higher ethical plane, they knew, better than the citizens themselves, what was good for them.  They could easily rationalize that what they had on their agenda was best for everyone.

But, accomplishing the Progressives’ goal wasn’t necessarily an easy task.  They wanted to seek unprecedented power in a free society.  They had to deal with the cumbersome democratic process in order to gain power and then curtail the democratic process.  But, they felt that they were up to the task.  And, they were.

After all, they were Progressives and that meant that anyone who did not agree with them was a regressive.  And, in their view, what those who opposed them had in mind was simply not good for a modern society.  They were, after all, inventing something new in the history of the world.

The Progressives’ plan, through the agency of government, was to provide security for every American.  They would provide true justice, they would usher in an era of permanent world peace, and they would cure economic inequities, while still providing a good living for all.  Under the control of the Progressives the arts would flourish, education would expand, society would improve, and the very nature of man would evolve to a higher state.  Such was the vision of the founders of the American Progressive movement.

But, of course, it didn’t work like that.  Human nature had not changed at all.  And, that became abundantly clear with the advent of the worst wars, highest crime rates, worst education, and worst depression in the history of the United States.  Each and every one of these were aided and abetted by the American Progressive movement.  And, the problems created by the American Progressive/Liberal movement continue even today.  There is no learning curve for the misguided leaders of the movement because they still today do not recognize or acknowledge the fact that they have not progressed ethically beyond any other segment of society.  They, too, are subject to the fallen state of man.  God is not dead, his precepts and standards still hold true.  Yet, those in the Progressive/Liberal movement still cling to the idea that they are somehow better people than the other members of the human race.  And, as long as they have power and cling to this falsehood, they will continue to wreak havoc on our society.

If the foundational premise of your movement is wrong, no policy or program you advocate can possibly work.  And, before the current liberals come to the conclusion that the name liberal is so sullied as to be unusable (they do believe this), I suggest to them that they consider the sordid history of the Progressives of an earlier era. 

Woodrow Wilson was born in Virginia in 1856.  As a young boy living in Atlanta, Georgia, he ardently cheered for the victory of the South.  This is not, of course, unexpected in a young man whose family roots were in the deep South.  But, Wilson never outgrew the racism of his childhood.  Throughout his entire life, he considered African Americans to be inferior to white Americans.  It was not uncommon for Wilson to use harsh racist terms as President of the United States, even in public.  It was reported that Wilson’s favorite movie was D.W. Griffith’s “Birth of a Nation.”  This racist movie depicted the KKK as the noble defenders of noble white Americans, and it is said that Wilson used it to justify his reinstitution of racial segregation as official US domestic policy.

Clearly, Wilson was no friend of Frederick Douglass, the former slave and leader of the abolitionist movement prior to the Civil War.  And, although they were not contemporaries, their lives did overlap, with Douglass dying in 1895 and Wilson in 1924.  Douglass was prescient in his fear of what would happen if men like Wilson gained power.  He feared that blacks would lose the rights they gained under the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution that were passed by Republicans.  He wrote about the importance of the black man having the right to own property and compete with the white man in the marketplace, and he also wrote that if the black man lost the right to vote he would once again become…

“…the slave of society… holds his liberty as a privilege, not as a right.”

Beginning in 1890, a wave of disenfranchisement of black voters swept through the South, with the encouragement of men like Richard Ely and Woodrow Wilson.  Historian C. Vann Woodward documented that while there were 130,334 blacks registered to vote in Louisiana in 1896, this number had declined dramatically to only 1,342 by 1904.  The same pattern happened throughout the Old South.  Woodward states…

“In the South, the typical progressive reformer rode to power…on a disenfranchising or white-supremacy movement.”

The racism of the Progressives was not confined to the South.  In 1931, the Democrats pushed through the Davis-Bacon Act.  Here is the story of the Davis-Bacon Act as described by David Bernstein, in his paper, The Davis-Bacon Act:  Let's Bring Jim Crow to an End…

“The story of Davis-Bacon begins, one might say, in 1927 when a contractor from Alabama won a bid to build a Veterans' Bureau hospital in Long Island, New York. He brought a crew of black construction workers from Alabama to work on the project. Appalled that blacks from the South were working on a federal project in his district, Representative Robert Bacon of Long Island submitted H.R. 17069, "A Bill to Require Contractors and Subcontractors Engaged on Public Works of the United States to Comply with State Laws Relating to Hours of Labor and Wages of Employees on State Public Works," the antecedent of the Davis- Bacon Act.”

“Over the next four years Bacon introduced thirteen more bills to establish regulation of labor on federal public works projects.[10] Finally, a bill submitted by Bacon and Senator James J. Davis, with the support of the American Federation of Labor, passed in 1931. The law provided that all federal construction contractors with contracts in excess of $5,000 or more must pay their workers the "prevailing wage," which in practice meant the wages of unionized labor.”

“The measure passed because Congressmen saw the bill as protection for local, unionized white workers' salaries in the fierce labor market of the Depression.  In particular, white union workers were angry that black workers who were barred from unions were migrating to the North in search of jobs in the building trades and undercutting "white" wages.”

“The comments of various congressmen reveal the racial animus that motivated the sponsors and supporters of the bill.  In 1930, Representative John J. Cochran of Missouri stated that he had ‘received numerous complaints in recent months about southern contractors employing low-paid colored mechanics getting work and bringing the employees from the South.’”

The Davis-Bacon Act is clearly a racist law designed to discriminate against African Americans in the marketplace.  Moreover, the Davis-Bacon Act is still supported by liberal Democrats, North and South.  Jim Crow lives on in the marketplace because today’s Democratic Party is more loyal to their Union allies than they are to the principles of equal treatment under the law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.  Why, because the Progressive/Liberal movement is first and foremost driven by the acquisition of power, not the interests of the citizens of our Republic.

The disdain for minorities by Progressives was not limited to African Americans.  They held a similar disdain for all minorities, as proven by the policies of the great liberal hero, Franklin D. Roosevelt.  During World War II, Roosevelt was extremely xenophobic.  While the number of German Americans far outnumbered the number of Japanese Americans, it was those of Japanese descent who became a target of President Roosevelt and fellow Progressive Republican Governor Earl Warren of California. 

Together, Roosevelt and Warren devised and executed a plan that resulted in the internment of Japanese Americans.  There was no greater reason to distrust the loyalty of Japanese American any more than German Americans, but Roosevelt did so only because they were Asians.  Today’s Liberal authors of school text books spend a great deal of time talking about the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II to show how bad America is.  However, they do not properly credit this injustice to Franklin D. Roosevelt.  Worse yet, they do not credit United States Senator Robert Taft (known as Mr. Conservative) as the most outspoken and prominent opponent of this misguided policy.  Of course, to do so would be inconsistent with their message that all Conservatives are racists, and all Liberals are broad minded, compassionate individuals.

And, speaking of compassion, a study by Professor Arthur C. Brooks showed a distinct lack of compassion by Liberals when it comes to donating their time and money to charitable causes.  They love to be identified as a “bleeding heart liberal,” but the facts show something entirely different.  Liberals claim to be compassionate because they advocate spending someone else’s money to help others, but taking money forcibly from someone in the form of taxes is hardly compassion.  Compassion can only be measured by the unforced, un-coerced generosity of an individual.  And, on that score, liberals come up wanting.  Today, 65% of all charitable gifts in the United States come from Christian conservatives.  Donors to all major charities are dominated by conservatives.  Moreover, the giving that comes from the liberals is mostly for nonprofit liberal Foundations that qualify as charities, but deal primarily in promoting liberal causes; so much for the idea of a “bleeding heart Liberal.”

The Progressive Movement has had a dalliance with utopian concepts like egalitarianism, and with those who promote them.  When the Russian Revolution of 1917, led by Vladimir Lenin, toppled the corrupt régime of the Tsar, it received high praise from American Liberals (by that time they had abandoned the name Progressive due to its association with racism, Jim Crow, and eugenics). 

Indeed, Walter Duranty, who served as Moscow correspondent for the New York Times during Joseph Stalin’s  reign of terror, intentionally sent home glowing, but false, reports on Stalin.  Duranty knew of the bloodthirsty activities of Stalin, but chose to avoid reporting them because he was enamored of the new Soviet State.  Duranty actually received a Pulitzer Prize (yet unreturned by the Times) for his reporting.  But, in fairness to Duranty, he was not alone in his glowing reports on the new Soviet Society.  In fact, many liberals in the media (not all) continued to write positively of the Soviet Union up until the day it was brought down by Ronald Reagan.  And, virtually all liberals decided early on that there was a moral equivalence between the United States of America and the Soviet Union!  There was no fear among liberals of the Soviet Union.  In fact, President Franklin D. Roosevelt once bragged that…

“Some of my best friends are Communists.”

It was this naiveté that allowed the Soviet conspiracy to deeply and dangerously penetrate the Roosevelt Administration.  Several high ranking members of Roosevelt’s administration had pro-Soviet views, including his Vice President, Henry Wallace.  Others, like Harry Dexter White (first chairman of the International Monetary Fund) and Alger Hiss, (Assistant Secretary of State and the first Secretary General of the United Nations), were active Soviet spies as verified by the Verona Papers (released after the fall of the Soviet Union).

The late Walter Lippmann, who is perhaps the most highly praised journalist by liberals, also had an infatuation with the policies of Adolph Hitler when he first came on the world stage.  On at least one occasion he wrote glowingly of the new society that was being created by Hitler.  Later, to Lippmann’s credit, he became an active and vocal critic of Hitler and later of Stalin.  But, the point remains that when you believe that man can evolve his nature positively, you are an easy dupe of those who promise a new utopian order.

And, while Progressives (Liberals) were gaining political power, they were also gaining power over America’s educational establishment, from the elementary school to the graduate school.  The result is that they have demolished the greatest educational system in the world.  They have re-written history to be a distortion of reality that fits their distorted world view.  Today, thanks to the screwy ideas of men like John Dewey, American education ranks at one of the lowest levels among industrialized nations in the entire world.  Thanks to cockamamie ideas like social promotion, a relaxation of discipline, and the degradation of writing, reading, and arithmetic, our children are going uneducated and are unable to compete. 

The social engineering of the liberal movement has decimated the black community.  While early Progressives like Wilson held black Americans in low regard and promoted policies to separate them from the rest of society, liberals later decided that they could no longer maintain that position and gain power, so they reversed themselves after the Republicans had done the heavy lifting.  Well into the 1960’s, however, it was Democrats, South and North, who repeatedly blocked the passage of Civil Rights legislation. 

Professing concern and compassion, Liberals passed seemingly benevolent laws that resulted in a permanent black underclass in society.  But, this worked to their political gain as they have been able to control their votes by promising more handouts.  It is a sad situation, and both Republican and Democrat Progressives/Liberals are responsible for this patronizing approach.  It allows them to think better of themselves, but it belies their real view of African Americans as inferior to themselves. 

At its core, the current welfare state is a racist policy.  It is not a hand up, it is a hand out designed to deny to African Americans an opportunity to participate in the American dream.  Blacks in poor areas are forced to attend some of the worst public schools in our nation, even though laws could be passed to allow them to attend high quality schools funded by tax vouchers.  Through licensing, certification, and minimum wage laws, poor people are denied their opportunity to achieve economic independence.  And, by removing God from our schools, morality has declined and violence and abuse has increased.  This is another gift from American Liberals.

One of the organizations most admired by today’s liberals like Hillary Clinton is Planned Parenthood, founded by the rancid racist, Margaret Sanger.  I do not use the term rancid racist lightly.  She wrote “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population…”  She referred to poor people and immigrants as “human weeds” and “…human beings who never should have been born."  She wanted to eliminate what she called the “feeble minded [mentally ill].”

Sanger wrote in the Birth Control Review, November 1921, that her goal in promoting birth control was "…to create a race of thoroughbreds…"  She believed that for the purpose of “racial purification” the United States should pay blacks and other minorities to be sterilized.  If these policies aren’t rancid racism, I don’t know what is.  But, when you believe that you have progressed to a higher plane than others in society, you can justify almost any policy.  And, Sanger was a hero in the Progressive movement of her time.  So, Mrs. Clinton, you might want to reconsider identifying yourself as a Progressive.  There is a sordid history to contend with.

Henry Emerson Fosdick led the charge of liberalism in the American Christian community.  With the aid of John D. Rockefeller, he founded the interdenominational Riverside Church in New York City.  According to Fosdick, the Bible was less than reliable and authentic, but with Rockefeller’s millions, his influence on Christianity in America was immense.  He challenged the authority of Scripture, and he focused on a social gospel of helping the underclass, while ignoring the traditional Gospel of repentance at the foot of the cross.  Although Detrick Bonhoeffer accepted a funded scholarship position at the Union Theological Seminary, a group closely affiliated with Fosdick, he said of the institution, “The Gospel is not preached there.”  The followers of Fosdick promoted modernism that included relative morality.  Their impact on Christianity in the United States was substantial and damaging.  Today, the mainstream Christian churches, with very limited exceptions, no longer preach the law and the Gospel as taught by Jesus.  Many doubt and even deny the divinity of Christ, and promote a works righteousness theology as opposed to a salvation by grace alone theology of the traditional Christian church.  They also substitute their own moral code for that of the Bible.  As a result, the Christian church as a whole is weakened as a standard of morality and virtue that is crucial to fostering a free society.

The American Progressive/iberal movement has been a scourge on the United States.  It has promoted misguided racist policies.  It has dismissed very real threats to our nation with words like “witch hunt” and “red scare.”  It has denied opportunities to the poor, and sought to manipulate them for political gain.  It has corrupted our morals, and bankrupted our nation.  It is indeed a sordid history that keeps getting worse, not better.  What I have written in this blog is not the entire, sad story of the American Progressive/Liberal movement, it is just a brief overview.  I hope that someday, a true historian will write the ignoble tale of this movement that has worked successfully to destroy the American dream and to eradicate the values and principles of the American founding.

It is a story that needs to be told and understood if we are to reverse course and save our nation.

Political Correctness vs. Free Speech

The first amendment to the United States Constitution, the first article of the Bill of Rights, says…

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The left has a problem understanding the meaning of this first article of the Bill of Rights.  Just as it has a problem understanding the meaning of the second amendment to the Constitution, the one that says “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Actually, I doubt that they really have any problem understanding the clear meaning of these words, they just don’t like them.  And, it is, in their opinion, simply too difficult to change these protections through the prescribed amendment process.  So, they just pretend that these words mean something other than what they clearly mean.

They have re-defined the intended meaning of Article 1 to be a restraint on religion and the free expression thereof.  They prattle on endlessly about “separation of church and state,” yet those words appear nowhere in the United States Constitution.  They have made up a new meaning for what they refer to as the “establishment clause,” i.e. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” and argue that this means that there must be a total separation of church and state.  

In fact, it was Christian leaders who advocated the strongest for the so-called “establishment clause” because they did not want government to interfere with or control religion as it did in Europe.  That was their frame of reference.  The Pilgrims fled to America, as did many others, so that they could worship freely without interference by the government.  They did not want the government to tell them what church they needed to belong to. Nor did they want to be forced to support, through taxes, a state church whose doctrine and practices they did not agree with.  They sought a government that did not make any law that interfered with their open and free practice of religion as they chose to do so. 

The flimsy basis of the idea that the Constitution called for a wall to be built between church and state is a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists.  They had  expressed to him a concern that by including a protection of freedom of religion into the Constitution it was making religion a privilege granted by the state, not an inalienable freedom granted by God.  Jefferson wrote back to the Danbury Baptists, assuring them that the intent of the first amendment was to protect their right to practice their faith without any interference from government.  In his letter of January 1, 1802, he wrote…

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.  Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.”

Clearly, the “wall” that Jefferson is here referring to is the wall that keeps government from interfering with religion, not religion from influencing government, or prohibiting citizens from expressing their views in the public square.  Neither were Americans to be discouraged from using their faith in God and their belief in the Bible as a basis for their political and philosophical views.  Discussion of religious views in public was to be free and open as were all other forms of speech, not to be proscribed by government or in any way regulated or abridged.

But, even more than this, Jefferson did not write the Bill of Rights, nor did he participate in writing the United States Constitution.  In fact, he wrote (The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Volume 10)…

“I was in Europe when the Constitution was planned and never saw it till after it was established.”

Moreover, when he received a copy of the Constitution, while he was residing in France, he wrote back to James Madison (The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Volume 10)…

“On receiving [the Constitution], I wrote strongly to Mr. Madison, urging the want of provision for freedom of religion…”

To have advocated a limitation on the exercise of religion in the public square would have been totally inconsistent with the previous writings and exertions of Thomas Jefferson.  He had championed the ending of discrimination against the Baptists and other dissenters in Virginia by the colonial government.  He opposed any state religion in Virginia.

The fact is, the entire idea of the so-called “establishment clause” prohibiting the exercise of religion in the public square is made up out of whole cloth.  It means exactly what it says, that citizens shall have the right to free exercise of their religion without any interference from government, nothing more and nothing less.

In fact, the idea of government secularists restricting religion in any way in the public square is simply censorship.  It’s book burning by any other name.  What we have today is a state sanctioned religion.  That religion is human secularism.  It is just as much a state religion today as was the Anglican Church in the colony of Virginia prior to the American Revolution.

It wants to control what is in school textbooks, excluding the role of religion in our society and any aspect of faith or God in our society.  It wants a total monopoly on learning and on speech in the public square.  That’s not freedom of religion, it is government sanctioned license.

The entire idea of politically correct speech is based solely on shutting up anyone who does not agree with you.  Using the pretext of banning speech that hurts someone’s feelings or that is offensive to them is a clear “abridgement” of the freedom of speech as described clearly in Article 1 of the Bill of Rights.  I am not in favor of hurting anyone’s feelings.  I believe I should be sensitive to the concerns of my fellow citizens, but this is driven by my understanding that all men are equal in God’s sight and that they should be in mine also.

Nevertheless, when government starts deciding what can be said and what cannot be said it is the beginning of government censorship.  It will grow and expand as government always grows and expands at the expense of the individual rights of its citizens.

Freedom is always messy.  In a free society, every individual is free to think, to act, and to advocate whatever they believe, providing what they do does not interfere with anyone else’s freedom of speech or other freedom. 

Freedom is messy in the public square, it is messy in the marketplace, it is simply a messy way of living.  It is imperfect, and I’m sure that’s why the Founders repeatedly talked about the importance of having a virtuous society.  They knew that freedom really would not work unless each citizen restrained his worst instincts.  And, they knew that would only happen if a consensus of citizens feared and loved God and seek to please him.

Today, the exercise of religion in the public square is under attack on all fronts.  The goal of the secularists is to silence all religion in the public square and replace it with an anti-God, humanistic approach.

Some of the examples of the suppression of the freedom of religion include suspending a young girl from a public elementary school because she silently bowed her head and prayed over her lunch.  She did not speak one word out loud, but was condemned for her actions because the “political correctness” policy of the School District proclaimed that for her to do so might offend another student.

How silly and how clearly unconstitutional. 

As Dr. Benjamin Carson said at the National Prayer Breakfast, “Political Correctness is dangerous.”

Today, we are not supposed to say Merry Christmas to anyone because they might be offended.  Merry Christmas, like Happy Easter, or Happy Hanukkah, is simply a blessing.  It is wishing a blessing upon the person. 

We need to be slow to take offense.  As it says in James 1:19…

“Remember this, my dear brothers and sisters: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak, and should not get angry easily.”

We need to get past political correctness.  It is simply censorship of free speech and it has no place in America.  It is dangerous, as Dr. Carson said, because it suppresses open and free discussion that can lead to the honest evaluation and analysis of real societal problems.  Political correctness does not draw us together as a nation, it divides us and encourages us to take offense at the most minor of comments.

Article 52 of the Soviet Constitution reads…

“Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda.”

Yet, freedom of religion was totally and absolutely suppressed in the Soviet Union.  Those who tried to express their faith in God openly were sent to the Gulag.  How could this happen?  The wording of Article 52 seems to be clear and precise.  It even references religious worship.

The answer is simple. Lenin and Stalin, and all the dictators that followed them, ignored the Constitution of the Soviet Union.  The Soviet Union was not a government of laws, it was a government of men.  If something in the law did not suit them, they ignored it or they violated it.  It happens in all top down, centralized governments.  As Lord Acton said..

“Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Yet today, Obama talks about having to bypass Congress and do what needs to be done.  He ignores the United States Constitution and so do at least four members of the United States Supreme Court, as well as our chief law enforcer, Attorney General Eric Holder.  Associate Justice Ginsburg has even used laws in other nations to base her decisions upon.  These four Court members, and the President of the United States, as well as the Attorney General, and most leaders in his party, simply have no respect for the Founders or for the intent of the United States Constitution.

Although the President, the Attorney General, and the members of the Supreme Court, and all members of Congress took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, they daily ignore that oath.  In doing so, it says much about their character and about the danger they pose to our nation.

When we start suppressing freedom of speech because we are offended, we are headed down the road to serfdom.  When there is no longer true freedom of speech, no freedom of religion, no freedom in the marketplace, there is no freedom of any kind.

But, the flame of freedom is not dead in America.  It burns in the hearts and minds of millions of Americans who cherish our Constitution, and respect the wisdom of our Founders.  There is a movement afoot in America to return this nation to the faith and freedom of the Founders, and thereby, to greatness.  The outcome will be close.  It is not guaranteed, and, in fact, the odds are against the preservation of freedom.  In the course of history, periods of freedom are rare, they are the exception, not the rule.  Individual freedom only exists when government is small and restrained, and when citizens exercise self-restraint, as well as compassion for their fellow human beings.

You and I are blessed to live in this wonderful, free society.  But, if we are to preserve it for our children and grandchildren, we will need to have the courage and the determination of the Founders, as well as their faith.  Let us resolve to give our all to this goal.

Ben Carson for President

I know it is a long time until 2016, but Hillary Clinton is already out raising millions for her candidacy.  And, rumor has it that Establishment Republicans like Chris Christie and Jeb Bush, who feel that they are entitled to be the next Republican nominee, are already planning their campaigns.  So, it’s not too early to talk about who our nominee will be in 2016.

I’m a conservative and I am a Christian.  Like the Founders, I believe in limited government, fiscal responsibility, traditional moral values, and a strong, free America.  There’s no doubt about it, there are many fine conservative candidates thinking about running for President of the United States.  Ted Cruz is only 42 and he just got elected to the US Senate in 2010, but he is a great, courageous conservative.  Rand Paul understands the values of the free market system, and treasures freedom.  Like Cruz, Paul was recently elected to the US Senate.  There are many, many more fine men and women who would make a fine President, but can they be elected?  Can they heal our racial divide?  Do they have the maturity and the wisdom to lead our nation out of the precarious mess we are in?

I am not unbiased.  The National Draft Ben Carson for President Committee (www.runbenrun.org) is a client of Campaign Funding Direct, a company I founded.  The President of that company is Tammy Cali, a respected conservative and a very talented leader. 

But, I’m not for Ben Carson due to my connection with Campaign Funding Direct.  I’m excited about a Ben Carson candidacy because he is a wise, dedicated Tea Party conservative and I believe he is a sure winner!  Please let me explain.  In the last presidential election cycle, Campaign Funding Direct raised funds for Herman Cain.  It was very exciting and quite successful.  The campaign raised (via multiple fund raising channels) some $14 million in the first 40 days and was on track to top $30 million in the next thirty days when the campaign imploded.  Had it not crashed, the Cain campaign was on track to win the Iowa caucuses and to match the Romney campaign dollar-for-dollar from that point forward.  It is likely that Herman Cain, not Mitt Romney would have been the GOP nominee for President.

Why is the history of the Herman Cain campaign so important?  Well, what most folks don’t know is that the internal polling of the Cain campaign showed him winning 40% of the African-American vote.  That’s right 40%!  I was incredulous when I heard that Cain was doing that well among the black community, even up against Barack Obama.  But then I thought about it.

While African Americans voted for Barack Obama in overwhelming numbers (about 95% voted for him), he initially had a very hard time persuading them to support him.  The problem was his privileged background as well as the fact that he is not a descendent of slaves.  In reality, Barack Obama has very little in common with traditional black Americans.  He grew up in Hawaii, where he attended exclusive private schools, and then went to college at an elite Ivy League school.  He was never involved with the civil rights movement because he was too young.  It was for these reasons that Obama had a difficult time connecting with the average black American.

Herman Cain, on the other hand, made his way up out of poverty.  His father and his mother worked multiple jobs to support their family and to escape poverty and thereby passed along to their son, Herman, a strong work ethic.  Cain became a very successful businessman.

Herman Cain’s story is appealing, but the story of Dr. Benjamin Carson is truly amazing.  To understand it, you should read his latest book, America the Beautiful, that you can purchase at www.runbenrun.org.  Ben Carson was born into desperate poverty.  His mother got married at 13, could not read or write, but even after she found out that her husband was a bigamist and kicked him out, she refused to go on welfare.  She wisely observed that anyone who went on welfare never escaped it.  Even though she and her two sons lived in one of the worst areas of Detroit, she wanted something better for her children.  It is an inspiring story worth reading.

One son, Curtis, became an aerospace engineer and her other son, Ben, became a medical doctor.  In fact, Dr. Benjamin Carson became a world-renowned neurosurgeon, the first man ever to successfully separate conjoined twins at the head.  No one else had ever developed a way to separate such twins without one of the two dying, but Dr. Carson did it.  A book and movie about this miracle was written and produced called “Gifted Hands.”  You can purchase the movie at www.runbenrun.org.  And, in 2008, President Bush awarded Dr. Carson the nation’s highest civilian honor, the Medal of Freedom, for his medical achievements and for his humanitarian service.

While you and I may only recently be aware of the many accomplishments and accolades of Dr. Ben Carson, he has been a hero in the black community for many years.  He is revered and respected as a great man by African Americans all across America.  And, in fact, he is a great, albeit humble, man.  That being true, I have to ask myself, if Herman Cain could poll 40% of the black vote, running against a black candidate, just imagine what percent of the black vote Dr. Ben Carson would receive?  And, Dr. Carson would not be running against Barack Obama, a black man, but instead he would be running against Hillary Clinton or some other white liberal Democrat.

I personally believe Ben Carson would win more than 50% of the African American vote.  But, suppose Ben Carson would receive just 20% of the black vote?  If he runs and receives just 20% of the black vote, did you know that it is mathematically impossible for Hillary Clinton, or any other Democrat, to win?  If any Republican candidate for President wins as little as 20% of the black vote the Democratic ship runs aground, never to sail again.  That’s why the Democrats are so insistent on stirring up racial hatred.  They know that their dominance of the politics in America hangs by a slender thread.  Snip that thread and their political dominance disappears.  That’s why they are so shrill in denouncing all Republicans and all conservatives as racists.  They know it is a lie, but a lie they must perpetuate if they are to remain in power.

You may be surprised to know that it was not that long ago that Republicans won much more than 20% of the black vote.  As recently as 1956, Dwight D. Eisenhower received 39% of the black vote.  That’s why the candidacy of Dr. Ben Carson terrifies the radicals who control the Democratic Party.  They know they cannot win if Ben Carson is the Republican nominee.

Ironically, Dwight Eisenhower was the last non-politician Republican to win the White House.  And, like Ike, Ben Carson is a national hero.  Of course, Dr. Carson became a hero for something entirely different than winning a world war, but the intelligence, daring, and leadership it took to be the first man to successfully separate conjoined twins at the head is an incredible feat.  It took a medical team of 70 men and women, working on a split second schedule for 22 hours to accomplish this miracle.

But, the Republican establishment is uncomfortable with Dr. Carson because he is a conservative, Tea Party Republican.  And, as the establishment GOP likes to say, he’s not the next one in line.  Senator Bob Dole was the next one in line and he lost.  John McCain was the next one in line and he lost.  Mitt Romney was the next one in line and he lost.  Will the Republican establishment never learn? 

They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.  Well, the way the Republican Party chooses its nominees for President seems to fit that definition.  The truth is that we need a different kind of a candidate in 2016 if we are to get a different result.  We can’t win if we keep sending the same type of candidate up to bat.  We will keep on striking out.  We are headed in the wrong direction.  John McCain lost and then we nominate Mitt Romney and he received even fewer votes than Senator McCain.  They are both fine people, they just don’t have what it takes to win the White House.

Sadly, even a strong conservative candidate for President, who is just another white guy, will almost certainly lose.  This time we need a winner and that winner is, in my opinion, Ben Carson.  But, that means millions of Americans will have to rise up and work for his victory.

I’m not saying that winning is everything, but I am saying that we don’t have to compromise our conservative principles to win if we select Ben Carson as our nominee.  Ben Carson is 100% committed to the United States Constitution, and to the principles of freedom set forth by the Founders.  Ben Carson will insist on a balanced budget, without raising taxes.

Dr. Carson is not some Johnny-come-lately.  He supported the Tea Party movement from the very beginning.  And, he is a man of incredible courage as his speech at the national prayer breakfast showed.  You can see that speech here. With the President and Vice President Biden just a few feet away, Ben Carson said that Obamacare was a disaster, and then offered a free market alternative.  He also suggested that the IRS be replaced.  This is what he said about our tax system…

“When I pick up my Bible, you know what I see?  I see the fairest individual in the Universe, God, and he’s given us a system.  It’s called tithe. Now we don’t necessarily have to [make] it 10% but it’s [the] principle.  He didn’t say, if your crops fail, don’t give me any tithes.  He didn’t say, if you have a bumper crop, give me triple tithes.  So there must be something inherently fair about proportionality.  You make $10 billion dollars you put in a billion.  You make $10 you put in $1 …but now some people say, that’s not fair because it doesn’t hurt the guy who made $10 billion dollars as much as the guy who made $10. Where does it say you have to hurt the guy?  He’s just put in a billion in the pot.  We don’t need to hurt him.”

Dr. Carson also talked about political correctness at the National Prayer Breakfast.  This is what he said…

“…one last thing about political correctness, which I think is a horrible thing, by the way.  I’m very, very compassionate, and I’m not ever out to offend anyone. But, pc is dangerous.  Because, you see, in this country one of the founding principles was freedom of thought and freedom of expression. [Political correctness}…muffles people.  It puts a muzzle on them.  And at the same time, keeps people from discussing important issues while the fabric of this society is being changed.  …we cannot fall for that trick.  And what we need to do is start talking about things, talking about things that are important.”

Dr. Carson, an outspoken Christian, not only verbally supports the right-to-life movement, he has been an active part of it, counseling women to choose life, rather than abortion, and speaking at fund raising dinners for crisis pregnancy centers across the nation.  He recounts his discussion with the head of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in this excerpt from his book…

“A few years ago, I was consulted by a woman who was thirty-three weeks pregnant with a baby who had been diagnosed by ultrasound to have hydrocephalus or water on the brain.  [Later] I was discussing this case with the head of the ACLU, who had made a statement that the purpose of their organization was to speak for and defend those who could not speak for and defend themselves.  I asked whether or not this thirty-three week-old fetus qualified as a human being incapable of speaking for or defending itself.  He artfully dodged answering the question, so I decided to make it easier for him.  I told him that there were many premature infants in our neonatal intensive care unit who were several weeks younger than the baby in question.  These babies were on life support, but in most cases we had every expectation that they would survive.  I asked him if he would speak for and defend the rights of a twenty-eight week old baby who was in an incubator and on life support.  He replied that that was a no-brainer; of course the ACLU would defend such an individual.  …I then asked why it was difficult to defend a baby that was five weeks further along in development and was in the most protected environment possible, but easy to defend a less viable individual who was outside the womb.” 

As this exchange shows, Ben Carson is a man of incredible courage and intelligence, and he understands our Constitution and the principles upon which the Founders created this great nation.  As President, he would expect the government to be responsive to the wishes of its citizens, by repealing Obamacare, and making sure our borders are secure.

While Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama believe in the Marxist concept of redistribution, Ben Carson does not.  This quote is taken from his book, America the Beautiful…

“…in 1795 the Supreme Court of the United States declared, “…The legislature…has no authority to make an act divesting one citizen of his freehold [property], and vesting it in another…It is inconsistent with the principles of reason, justice and moral rectitude…it is contrary to the principles of…every free government; and lastly, it is contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution.”

Only Ben Carson will end the mess that is the welfare state.  He will replace it with a path to self-reliance and success for those entrapped in this horrific nightmare.  He has written…

“A truly moral nation enacts policies that encourage personal responsibility and discourage self-destructive behavior by not subsidizing people who live irresponsibly and make poor choices.”

Dr. Carson proposes “phasing out government assistance” and replacing it with assistance from compassionate citizens who work through nonprofit organizations and churches to not only provide support, but also help to change lives.  He bluntly says of the current system created by the left to keep the poor in an underclass status, it…

“…may seem a bit harsh to many bleeding heart do-gooders, but I submit that what is harsh is continuing to encourage irresponsible behavior and generating a permanent underclass.”

Of the growing national debt, he writes…

“To saddle the next generation with unimaginable debt is not only callous, it is morally reprehensible.  How can we even live with ourselves knowing that we are eroding the standard of living of the next generations with each dollar that we add to the national debt?”

And, as a Tea Party conservative, he doesn’t just blame the Democrats for America’s fiscal mess.  Listen to this excerpt from America the Beautiful…

“Both Democrats and Republicans have strayed so far from the path of responsible financial policy that the concept of balancing the budget is foreign to them.”

To keep the United States from going bankrupt, he advises…

“…have each governmental agency and department trim its budget by 10%—with no exceptions.  In each subsequent year, another 10% decrease would be required and would continue as long as necessary to bring the budget back into balance.”

There is one more important reason you and I need to encourage Ben Carson to run for President, and it may be the most important reason to support him.  I believe that the worst and most destructive aspect of the Obama Presidency has been his efforts to divide Americans…to set one group of people against another—black vs. white, young vs. old, women vs. men, blue collar workers vs. white collar workers, businessmen vs. workers.  Dr. Carson believes that encouraging class warfare and creating envy is immoral, and destructive to America. 

The Democrats, and their allies in the news media, are particularly adept at smearing decent people by recklessly leveling unfounded charges of racism against them for political gain.  This is what Dr. Carson says about racism…

“Although much overt racism has been eliminated in America, there are still too many people who make sweeping generalizations about whole groups of people based on a negative encounter with a person of a different race.  In order to resolve this problem, we must first admit that it exists even in our own families or ourselves—and African-Americans are just as likely to harbor racist attitudes as white people.”

E pluribus Unum is the Latin phrase that appears on the Great Seal of the United States.  It means, out of many, one.  In other words, it means that while we come from different countries to the United States, we are united as one people speaking a common language.  But, that’s not the view of the leaders of the Democratic Party.  They promote diversity, not unity.  Sadly, President Obama has been a divider, not a uniter.  Thanks, in part, to the President’s continuing efforts to divide Americans, we are more divided today than we have been since the Civil War.

I believe Dr. Carson will bring this shameful episode to a much needed end.  We are all Americans.  We love this great nation.  We know our nation has flaws and we know it makes mistakes, but we know that there is no other nation on the face of the earth that is as good and great as the United States of America.  If we are to bring Americans together, we need a man who will unite us, not divide us, and that man is Ben Carson.  I believe he is the one person who can end the rancor, the distrust, the divide that has been crassly exploited by the cynical and unprincipled leftists who control the Democratic Party.

Ben Carson has been a kind, compassionate, and skilled healer his entire life.  And, he is a proud and unrepentant American!  He will be a President who never apologizes for America.  Whereas, Barack Obama does not see America as a great, good, and exceptional nation, Ben Carson sees it exactly that way.  He sums up his view of our nation this way in his book, America the Beautiful…

“…there is no country I’d rather be a citizen of and call home than America.  Where else, but in this land of opportunity, are people given so much freedom to pursue their dreams, with the potential to bring out the best in everyone?”

Ben Carson is a man whose life story defies the liberals’ notion of what a black American can accomplish.  He would make a great President.  While Dr. Ben Carson is not perfect (and, of course, no one is), he is the nearly perfect candidate for President.

No Democrat candidate for President, even Hillary Clinton, can defeat him.  No Republican candidate for President is as articulate, courageous, and as full of common sense as Ben Carson.  And, most important of all, no other candidate for President can heal our broken land.

But, you may be asking yourself, will Ben Carson actually run for president?  You can decide for yourself when you read this exchange he had with a reporter from the New York Times.  The reporter asked him if he was going to run for President and he said…

“Certainly if a year and a half went by and there was no one on the scene and people are still clamouring, I would have to take that into consideration.  I would never turn my back on my fellow citizens.”

I think his answer is pretty clear.  If enough American citizens encourage him to run, he will run.  He believes, like the Founders, in the idea of citizen statesmen serving their country, not as a career, but as a duty.  But, he also believes he must be called to serve by American citizens before being entitled to run.  He sees public service as something to be called to, not something to seek for personal gain.

Are you ready to clamor?  I am.  I want to not only win in 2016; I want to elect a genuine conservative as President.  That’s why I have donated to the National Draft Ben Carson for President Committee (www.runbenrun.org) and I have signed the petition asking him to run for President.

If you feel the same way as I do, if you want to win in 2016 and you want to elect a solid, Constitutional conservative, then I urge you to go to www.runbenrun.org and sign the petition encouraging Dr. Ben Carson to run for President.  And, if you feel so inclined, I urge you to support his candidacy with your dollars.

Run, Ben, Run.

The Political Center

There is a new book out by Jonathan Alter by the title, The Center Holds:  Obama and his Enemies.  This book tells the story of the 2012 election from the perspective of someone hailed by The Washington Post as, “One of America’s most highly respected political journalists…”  The promo on the book begins this way…

“The election of 2012 will be remembered as a hinge of history.  With huge victories in the 2010 midterm elections the Republican Party had blocked President Obama at every turn and made plans to wrench the country sharply to the right.  2012 offered the GOP a clear shot at controlling all three branches of government and repealing much of the social contract dating back to the New Deal.  Facing free-spending billionaires, Fox News, and a concerted effort in 19 states to tilt the election by suppressing Democratic votes, Obama repelled the assault and navigated the nation back to the center.”

When I first read the promo information printed above I was a bit incredulous.  I realize that when you have an ideology, right or left, your perspective is quite different, but I must admit that I was surprised that Alter places Barack Obama in the center of the political spectrum.  It’s not that all politicians don’t attempt to characterize their positions as centrist, but rather that Obama has unabashedly characterized his intent and his ideology as from the left.  His hero was Saul Alinsky, who dedicated his book, Rules for Radicals, to Satan.  Since Alinsky was not known for his humor, I think it is fair to assume that his book dedication was serious.  Rules for Radicals is, of course, the book that young Barack Obama read and then taught while some sort of an assistant college professor.  He was and is committed to the philosophy of Saul Alinsky.

What does Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals, have to say about ethics?  Essentially the message is to do whatever you have to do to achieve the ends you desire.  Always tell audiences what they want hear, but do what you want to do.  Here is a direct quote taken from Rules for Radicals…

“…you do what you can with what you have and clothe it in moral arguments. …the essence of Lenin’s speeches during this period was ‘They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot.  When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.’  And it was.” — P.36-37

Saul Alinsky is the man Hillary Clinton worked for.  This is the man Obama reveres.  It so happens that Saul Alinsky spoke on my college campus when I was in school.  He was a far left radical through and through.  He had no ethical or moral principles.  He had no love for America.  He was as cynical, scheming and potentially bloodthirsty as his hero, Vladimir Lenin.  His goal was nothing less than the overthrow of our nation as it was created by the Founders, men whom he openly detested.

That’s why I found it hard to believe that Jonathan Alter would suggest that the views of President Obama are centrist.  Nevertheless, it brings up a good question:  What is the political center of the United States?  Is it defined by winning an election?  In other words, if you win an election in some overwhelming fashion, does that mean you are now the political center?  That seems to be the assertion of Alter’s book, but it’s not totally clear.  Is he saying that his electoral victory defined Obama as holding center ground?  Or is he is saying that the policies and ideas of the Obama presidency were the center and that they succeeded in carrying the day when the votes were tabulated?  Let’s look at the idea that by winning an election you define the political center.

It is true that President Obama won two consecutive elections, both by relatively narrow margins (52.9% of the 2008 vote and 51.1% in 2012).  It was a comfortable margin, but certainly not a landslide of the proportions won by Ronald Reagan in two successive elections (55.3% of the 1980 total vote for both Reagan and Carter; 58.8% of the total vote cast in 1984).  Moreover, while Obama was winning the White House, the Democrats lost ground in races for governor, and made virtually no headway whatsoever in recapturing control of the US House of Representatives or making gains in state legislatures.

In contrast, Ronald Reagan had strong coattails.  His 1980 election swept the Republicans to power in the US Senate for the first time in nearly 30 years.  More recently, the 2010 election was a stunning repudiation of the policies of the Obama Presidency, especially the strong-arm passage of Obamacare.  In 2010 the GOP not only won control of the US House of Representatives, but also flipped control of more than a dozen state legislatures, and turned over seats in local elections that had been held by the Democrats since the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932.  The 2010 election was truly a watershed election. 

Now that we have put a few facts on the table, let’s get back to the Jonathan Alter thesis that Obama policies and the Obama presidency in particular hold the center political ground in America today.  The first thought that comes to mind is; if Obama represents the political center, who is to his left?  The Unabomber is locked up.  Joseph Stalin is dead.  Hugo Chavez is pushing up daisies.  Joking aside, it is hard to imagine any American politician to the left of Barack Obama.

This brings us back to the original question; does winning a national election define the political center of the United States?  Clearly, that is not the case.  If it were the case, it would mean that the center gyrated from Barack Obama in 2008 to the Tea Party in 2010 and back to Barack Obama in 2012.  Alter’s thesis sounds more like wishful thinking than any sort of astute political analysis. 

The review of the Alter book in the mainstream press says a lot more about the bias of those publications, than it does about political and philosophical reality.  Here is what those reviewers said…

The New York Times, “Highly informed…”

The New York Daily News, “A calm, virtuoso work of journalism…”

Los Angeles Times, “Excellent reporting…”

I have not, of course, read the book.  And, the book may contain some very interesting and informative information, but I do take issue with the implications of the title.  It seems a little silly to me to assert that the most leftwing President in history now occupies the political center of our nation.  Yikes!

But, the concept of the political center is worth considering.  In fact, I think it is a topic that should be considered when we hold elections.  What should be the philosophical center of politics in our nation?  The truth is that the left puts their entire political future in peril if the American people consider the true political center of our nation.

What else can be considered the political center of a nation other than the principles upon which that nation was founded?  Politicians come and go, trends come and go, issues come and go, but foundational principles remain constant.

Of course, those principles are open to interpretation.  Strong, honest disagreements can and will take place as to what the Founders intended.  The Founders themselves vigorously disagreed with each other.  One of the leaders of the American Revolution who played a critical role in securing victory over the British, Patrick Henry, opposed ratification of the United States Constitution.  Many other vehement arguments took place between the various Founders.  But, an honest disagreement over the interpretation of founding principles is far, far different than advocating a complete change in principles.  Appreciating the wisdom of the Founders is radically different that rejecting and denigrating those principles.

Using the ideals and principles of the Founders as a yardstick to identify the legitimate political center of the United States is not as difficult as it might seem to be.  The Founders were learned men.  They were well educated and well-read.  And, while they disagreed strongly on a number of issues, there were a number of vitally important principles upon which there was near universal agreement.

Among those principles that gained universal or near universal agreement were…

1. Human Nature.  Men are not angels, they are morally imperfect and subject to corruption if given unlimited power over others.  No man, no matter how enlightened, will always make the right decisions.  Therefore the power of any elected individual must be restrained and limited.  "It is the nature of man to pursue his own interest in preference to the public good."—Thomas Jefferson
2. Government.  As George Washington said, “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force.  Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”  Not one Founder would take issue with this clear warning of George Washington.  The greatest danger to individual freedom is and always will be powerful, centralized government.  In order to create a free society, the overall power of government over the lives of American citizens must be limited.
3. Law.  The nation must be a government of laws, not a government of human whim.  No matter how brilliant or smart or ethical a political leader is, he should never be able to override the law, especially the United States Constitution.  Crossing the line from a government of law to a government of man leads to tyranny.  “Where there is no law, there is no liberty; and nothing deserves the name of law but that which is certain and universal in its operation upon all the members of the community.”—Dr. Benjamin Rush
4. Freedom.  Maximum individual freedom was the overriding goal of the Founders.  They sought to limit the power of government and to maximize the power of the individual.  They realized that there is a direct relationship between the size and power of government and individual freedom.  As government size and power grow, human freedom inevitably declines.  As the size and power of government declines, human freedom expands.  “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.”—Thomas Jefferson
5. Justice.  Justice must be blind and administered equally to all citizens.  The wealth and power of an individual, or the meager circumstances in which he lives, should not impact his treatment under the law.  Similarly, your ethnic background should not alter your treatment under the law.  While slavery certainly existed at the time of the American founding, the Constitution written by the Founders contained the principles of equal liberty and justice for all Americans.  “Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever persuasion, religious or political.”—Thomas Jefferson
6. Opportunity.  The objective of the Founders was opportunity for all, regardless of the circumstances into which an individual was born.  God chose how and where an individual is born; how that individual takes advantage of opportunity is his responsibility.  The Founders would have summarily rejected any idea of government social engineering designed to determine economic outcomes.
7. Fiscal Responsibility.  The Founders repeatedly warned of fiscal irresponsibility.  They warned against indebtedness, especially to other nations.  They expressed fears for future generations if the government did not live within its means.  “I go on the principle that a public debt is a public curse, and in a Republican Government a greater curse than any other,”—James Madison
8. Public Service.  Elected officials are to be servants of the people who elected them.  They are not to be masters and, following the example of George Washington, no man should view elective office as a career.  “[A citizen] must love private life, but he must decline no station [office]…when called to it by the suffrages [votes] of his fellow citizens.”—Benjamin Rush
9. Virtue.  Virtue is an outgrowth of faith in God.  A free society cannot exist if the vast majority of the citizenry are not of a virtuous nature.  This seems to contrast with the idea that men are corrupt, but in reality, it does not.  The Founders believed in the laws of God and knew that if the people had faith in God and humbled themselves before Him, striving to do his will, freedom would thrive.  “Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom. No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.”—Patrick Henry
10. Compassion.  Compassion is an outgrowth of virtue.  The Founders understood that the only true compassion is that expressed and given by one individual to another individual.  The use of government to extract wealth from one man and give it to another is not compassion, and the Founders understood that.  True compassion occurs only when men are virtuous and free.
11. Self-Restraint.  Like compassion, self-restraint is an outgrowth of virtue.  Unless men exercise self-restraint, a free society cannot exist.  When there is a breakdown in virtue, self-restraint declines and mobocracy replaces democracy.
12. Prosperity.  Every man was expected to work and take care of his own family.  The Founders understood that near universal prosperity occurs only when men are free to exchange goods and services without the interference of government.  And they knew that whenever government interferes in the free marketplace someone suffers and someone unfairly gains.

While this list is not necessarily comprehensive, there is nothing in the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, the Federalist Papers, or the writings of the Founders that is in conflict with the statements listed above.  Yes, the Founders disagreed on the precise form of government, how much centralization of government was necessary, but none would disagree with the foundational principles listed above.

If, indeed, the Founders are the political center of our nation, who is closest to this political center, the followers of Saul Alinsky or those in the Tea Party who advocate a return to Constitutional principles?

Character

Why is character important in our leaders?  What’s the big deal if a President commits adultery?  Why is honesty so important?  Are these virtues simply out of date?  Are having the right objectives more important than the character of the individuals who seek to achieve those objectives?

It’s true, there are no perfect people.  You and I are imperfect.  We lie, we cut corners, we break all of God’s commandments.  But, do we still strive to follow the Ten Commandments?  Do we accept them as absolutes, and as true virtues, or do we pick and choose which ones we will follow and which ones we think are antiquated?

In the apocryphal story of George Washington cutting down a cherry tree, and then telling his father about it, he says, “I cannot tell a lie.”  Abraham Lincoln was known as “Honest Abe.”  And, while the founders of our nation often disagreed vigorously, they were fairly circumspect in not launching personal attacks against each other.  That is not to say that their followers did not do this.  In fact, when Thomas Jefferson ran for President, the followers of John Adams circulated absolutely false and erroneous attacks on Jefferson.  Yet, the leaders of our nation believed in truth and they sought to tell the truth.

Today, however, lying seems to be an art form among politicians.  When, during an interview at the White House, President Bill Clinton answered a question from the grand jury about whether or not he lied to his top aides when he told them there was nothing going on between himself and Monica Lewinsky, he responded, “It depends on what the definition of is is.”  Most saw this response as evasion and dissembling.  It was an effort to avoid directly answering the question and telling the truth.  Yet, one observer said that Clinton’s response “brilliantly sends the questioning in a new direction.”  In other words, he praised Clinton for evading the question and successfully avoiding telling the truth.

The current occupant of the White House, Barack Obama, has, with the help of a compliant news media, taken prevarication to a new level.  There are so many examples of the dishonesty of President Obama it is hard to sort them all out.  One of the most bald face lies was his treatment of the tragedy in Benghazi.  We now know that within an hour of the attack on our embassy in Benghazi the White House knew it was a terrorist attack.  In that attack, four Americans were killed, including our Ambassador, Chris Stevens.  While the President was off the grid at that time, he soon learned the facts.  But, because it was politically inconvenient, he denied it was a terrorist attack.  In fact, for several weeks thereafter, he kept saying it was a video that caused the attack, although he knew that was a lie.

The President denies any involvement in the Fast and Furious scandal, the Benghazi scandal, the IRS scandal, and the Associated Press/Fox News scandal.  His denials strain credulity.  Now, in a change of plans, he calls the scandals, that he once proclaimed to be serious, “phony scandals.”  The President can’t be trusted and many of his top advisors and Cabinet members, such as Eric Holder, can’t be trusted.

I don’t mean to pick on Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.  Lying in politics is not limited to one political party, but, in fact, when the ideology of a particular political party rejects traditional moral values, truth becomes a common victim.  There is a price to be paid when your active efforts include speeches and policies designed to set one group of people against another.  Encouraging jealousy and envy is morally wrong, unless, of course, you reject traditional moral standards such as the Ten Commandments.  Intentionally dividing people instead of uniting them is morally wrong.  The Bible has nothing good to say about people who create disharmony.

It may be smart politics in the 21st century to reject historic moral concepts such as marriage between a man and a woman, but when our society does so, it erodes the foundation of our nation.  Marriage is an institution that God created between a man and a woman.  We can reject God’s definition of marriage, but we do so at our peril.

We can dissemble and talk about the reproductive rights of a woman, but those words are no more valid than those of the slave owner who tried to use the Bible to justify having slaves.  Can anyone seriously believe that the United States could have continued with some citizens living free and others living in slavery?  Similarly, how can character and virtue exist when the lives of the unborn are snuffed out for our convenience, and when we thumb our nose at God’s Commandments?  Today, we are a divided nation, a situation encouraged by our President when he identifies his political opponents as his “enemies.”  Division and disharmony are never good for a nation.

As Abraham Lincoln said…

“A house divided against itself cannot stand.  I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free.”

We can use all sorts of fancy words designed to evade the truth, and we may be hailed as “brilliant” by today’s commentators, but in the end, the truth is still the truth.  We can call taxes “contributions,” government spending “investments,” and reductions in the rate of spending growth “cuts,” but those are just intentional efforts to confuse and mislead American citizens.  These are thinly disguised lies.

When lawyers and politicians pretend that the United States Constitution means things that are not expressly written, they are simply making it up.  When we were children, and other children did that, we would say “you are lying.”  Indeed, that is exactly what is going on when men and women take an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States and then ignore what it says and simply rule on the basis of their own views.  That is when we cross the line from being a government of laws to a government of men.

Character is important in any relationship.  Who wants to be married to someone you can’t trust?  Who wants to have a friend that is not reliable?  Honesty is the bottom line in any lasting relationship.  When honesty is skirted or fails, only a contrite apology and forgiveness holds the relationship together.

Character counts in the business world.  Who wants to buy a product or a service from someone who can’t be trusted?  No one would do that.  And, those in the business world who persist in trying to con the buyer are doomed to eventual failure. 

Character should count in our political leaders.  It should be their compass, their guide in all their dealings.  It takes character to accept the fact that as an elected official you are a public servant.  You are someone who was elected by the people.  You are not the master, you are the servant.  You are beholden to the people of the United States to be honest and to do your very best to serve them. 

Our founders certainly felt this way.  George Washington said…

"Human rights can only be assured among a virtuous people.  The general government...can never be in danger of degenerating into a monarchy, an oligarchy, an aristocracy, or any despotic or oppressive form so long as there is any virtue in the body of the people."

And, Benjamin Franklin said…

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.  As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."

Franklin also said…

"Laws without morals are in vain."

Thomas Jefferson counseled…

"No government can continue good but under the control of the people; and... their minds are to be informed by education what is right and what wrong; to be encouraged in habits of virtue and to be deterred from those of vice…These are the inculcations necessary to render the people a sure basis for the structure and order of government."

James Madison stated…

"To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea."

John Adams advised…

"The only foundation of a free constitution, is pure virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People, in a great Measure, than they have it now, they may change their rulers, and the forms of government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty.

And, to further emphasize his point, Adams said…

"Liberty can no more exist without virtue and independence than the body can live and move without a soul."

George Mason concurred…

"No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles."

Signer of the Declaration of Independence and, after Washington and Franklin, perhaps the most highly regarded leader of his time, Dr. Benjamin Rush wrote…

"The only foundation for... a republic is to be laid in Religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments."

But, perhaps Patrick Henry summed it up best when he wrote…

"Bad men cannot make good citizens.  It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains.  A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom.  No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles."

Were the founders alive today, what would distress them the most?  Would it be the huge government that inserts itself into the lives of every citizen?  Or perhaps it would be the willful disregard of the intent of the Constitution?  Would they be shocked most by the diminution of individual freedom?  Or would they be appalled by our military adventurism?  Would they be most concerned by the restraints on opportunity for individuals who are born into the lowest economic state, or the near financial bankruptcy of the government?  Would they be most upset by the heavy tax burden on the citizens of the United States? 

I’m sure all of these serious issues would greatly trouble them, but I am equally sure that the lack of virtue and character in our society would distress them the most.  They understood that virtue among the people, that we would define today a character, was essential to maintaining a free society, a republican form of government.  It was, as you can see from their stated opinions, the bedrock that made a free society possible.

When we elect men and women to office without character, without virtue, and without commonsense, we are electing the demolition crew to public office.  You cannot build or maintain a free society with a wrecking ball.  We need responsible citizens who seek to serve, who are dedicated to maintaining a free and just society based upon the founders principles.

Ronald Reagan had it right…

“There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.”

The Future Confronts the Past

Who is Thomas Massie?  What does he have in common with the Founders, with men like Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and George Washington?  Mr. Massie was the subject of a front page article in the Wall Street Journal on Friday, August 02, 2013.  He is a freshman Republican member of the United States House of Representatives from Kentucky.  He is a healthy, tea party conservative who has not yet come down with Potomac fever, that insidious disease that corrupts well-intentioned and principled men and women who are elected to Congress.  Potomac fever muddles their mind and causes them to forget their principles, their idealism, and the very reason they were elected to Congress in the first place.  Potomac fever causes their head to swell, their ego to expand and grow to proportions that blind them to the principles they formerly held.  They then lose their direction and forget that they are not to be masters of the people, but servants of the people.  They no longer think of themselves as residents of their home town, but residents of Washington, DC.

But, Thomas Massie has, thus far, avoided catching Potomac fever.  In fact, he helps those recovering from this disease regain their ideals and commonsense.  Who is Thomas Massie?  Mr. Massie and his wife are both graduates of MIT.  Thomas has degrees in both Mechanical and Electrical engineering from MIT.  While at MIT the Massies started up a company in their apartment, using 24 patents that Thomas Massie had developed.  By 2003 they had 60 employees and had raised $30 million from investors.  At that point, the Massies sold their share in the company and moved back to their hometown in Kentucky.  Thomas Massie is smart like Thomas Jefferson, wise like George Washington, and principled like Patrick Henry.

When Thomas Massie ran for a seat in the US House of Representatives in 2012 Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy and other old bulls of the Republican Party contributed $50,000 to now Congressman Massie’s opponent.  Perhaps that’s one reason why Mr. Massie doesn’t feel beholden to the Republican leadership.

While the Republican establishment is dedicated to maintaining the status quo and enjoying their careers, Thomas Massie is a man of principle.  In short, he can’t be bought.  Thomas Massie is the future of the Republican Party; the old bulls, Boehner, McCarthy, etc. are the past of the Republican Party.

The old bulls profess that they are against Obamacare and that they will do anything in their power to derail Obamacare.  However, their opposition to Obamacare is driven less by principle and an understanding of Constitutional principles, and more by the reality that it is good politics.  The Republican leadership is big on symbolic votes to defund Obamacare, but when push comes to shove, they run for cover.

The old bulls counsel patience, and promise that victory will come in the future, if we will only bide our time, and wait for the right opening.  But, the right time never comes.  Socialism rolls forward, crushing freedom, stopping progress, perpetuating poverty, restricting prosperity, and remaking America into something the Founders hated—a powerful, centralized government that pries into and controls every aspect of our lives.  In reality, the Republican establishment lives in fear.  They fear the news media.  They fear failure and defeat.  Unlike those who signed the Declaration of Independence, they are unwilling to take risk in the defense of freedom.  They calculate, they ponder, they wait, and they eventually cave.

If the current Republican leadership had been living at the time of the Declaration of Independence, you would not have found their names on that document.  They would have been the ones counseling patience with King George III and they would have promised that if we only wait, King George III would come around.

But, this is not the time to shrink from the task before us.  Now, is the time to defund Obamacare.  What use is a majority in the US House of Representatives if it is not used to block funding of Obamacare by removing funding for it from the Continuing Resolution that comes before Congress this October?  But, the leadership is scared.  Karl Rove is scared.  Their knees knock together as they fear the wrath of the news media.

The media evokes visions of 1995 when Bill Clinton shut down the Federal Government.  Of course, the left stream media characterized it as a shutdown of government by the Republican controlled House of Representatives.  That is simply untrue.  Here is what happened.

The Congress (House and Senate) passed a spending bill that cut wasteful spending from the budget.  It provided for funding of all essential functions of the government, but President Clinton vetoed it, thus shutting down the government.  There was another, more lengthy shutdown in 1996.  Clearly, these shutdowns were caused by Clinton, not the Republican controlled House and Senate.  They were simply fulfilling their Constitutional responsibilities of sending a spending bill to the President for his approval.  Because the news media were cheerleaders for Clinton, they falsely portrayed it as a Republican shut down of government. 

So what happened?  Politics aside, the 1995 and 1996 shutdowns of the government led to the first balanced federal budget in 1997.  That was the first balanced budget in more than 50 years. 

But, what happened politically?  Well, as Karl Rove, Senator Saxby Chambliss and the news media tell it, the Republicans were “handed their heads” in the 1996 election.  Sadly, that is political revisionism.  It is a fabrication.

In 1996, a very weak Republican candidate, Bob Dole, was nominated to run against Bill Clinton.  Bob Dole had once been a very principled conservative when he was first elected to Congress.  He was in the vanguard of Congressmen who were idealistic and driven.  But, Bob Dole caught Potomac fever.  By the time he was elected to the US Senate, and eventually became the leader of the Senate, he was no longer a public servant, or a resident of Russell, Kansas.  He was an entrenched, establishment Republican who was a resident of Washington, DC.  He was a member of the ruling class.

In spite of Dole’s weak candidacy, the results were not at all as they are recounted by the news media or the RINOs in Congress.  In 1994, the GOP won a smashing victory, taking control of the United States House of Representatives for the first time since Dwight Eisenhower was elected President in 1952.  They picked up 54 seats in the House and eight seats in the Senate.  Because it was such an exceptional year for the GOP, they won almost all marginal races, some in districts where they were heavily outnumbered by Democrats.

According to the news media and Saxby Chambliss they overreached in 1995 and were handily defeated in 1996.

Not so!

In the 1996 elections, Democrats did gain nine seats in the House of Representatives, but the Republicans maintained their majority.  The seats lost were less than expected.  The losses were in extremely vulnerable districts.  And, while the GOP experienced minimal losses in the House of Representatives, they added two additional seats in the US Senate, increasing their majority in that body!

The story of the 1995 government shut down as told by the RINOs and the news media is a far cry from the reality of what happened.  By having backbone and standing firm for fiscal responsibility the Republicans not only held their own, but just one year later were able to force Bill Clinton to sign the first balanced budget in more than 40 years!  The 1995 and 1996 government shutdowns are a story of success, because the Republicans showed courage and leadership.

It’s that type of courage and leadership that is dearly needed today if we are to save this nation from total financial collapse.  If you think the deficit is dangerous today, consider the fact that if Obamacare is fully implemented the deficit will more than double over the next few years!  That’s right, double.

That’s why it is so important for the Republicans to stop fooling around and get some backbone.  It’s time to defund Obamacare now.  As Charles Krauthammer and others have noted, this is the last opportunity to stop Obamacare.  We will not have another chance.  Why?  Because once they start enrolling millions in Obamacare it will be too late.  Socialism has never been repealed once it becomes entrenched.  Like opium, it is addictive and destructive.  Obamacare will drive our economy into a permanent, never-ending recession.  What’s more, Obamacare will destroy the best, the most universal health care coverage on the face of the earth.  And finally, it will end opportunity and prosperity for your children and your grandchildren. 

To stop Obamacare we must defund it.  We can do that via the Continuing Resolution that comes before Congress in October of this year if Congressmen and women like Thomas Massie succeed.  Massie and others personify Jefferson, Adams and Washington who had the courage and the character to put their names to the Declaration of Independence.  We are in a time much like that described by Thomas Paine who wrote on December 23, 1776…

“THESE are the times that try men's souls.  The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.  What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly:  it is dearness only that gives everything its value.  Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated.”

Men like Saxby Chambliss tremble with fear that they might offend the mighty news media.  He and others counsel caution and patience.  They simply do not have the courage of their convictions.

Our nation deserves our prayers, but it also deserves our help.  We don’t have to sit idly by and let the Republican Establishment once again cave to the Obama juggernaut.  Although members of Congress don’t like to be reminded of it, they are not our masters, they are our elected public servants. 

Between now and October there will be a giant rally held on the mall in Washington, DC.  You will hear ads on the radio and even television ads calling for the Republicans in Congress to stand up and be counted.  Nearly 70 members of the House of Representatives have already pledged to vote against any Continuing Resolution that does not defund Obamacare. 

The Republicans in Congress wonder why their standing in the polls is so low.  It’s not because they have opposed Obama, it’s because they have not had the courage to refuse to go along with him.  Romney did not garner 2 million votes less than McCain in 2012 because he was too conservative; he lost because he was an ineffective, cardboard conservative candidate.  His performance as Governor of Massachusetts, passing Romneycare, and other non-conservative legislation made him suspect.  That’s why millions of conservatives stayed home and did not vote.  It takes more than conservative words to make a conservative, it takes courageous action!

You and I need to stand up and be counted.  We can do that by…

1. Refusing to support the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Senatorial Committee until and unless the Republican Party regains its will and its principles.
2. Attending any and all rallies in support of the courageous conservatives in the House and the Senate who are fighting to defund Obamacare, not just symbolically, but in reality by removing funding from the approaching Continuing Resolution.
3. Letting your Congressman and Senator know that regardless of whether they are a Republican or Democrat you will not contribute to them or vote for them in 2014 unless they vote to defund Obamacare.

Believe me, if even a few hundred thousand, or better yet, a few million conservatives tell members of Congress they will lose votes if they fail to defund Obamacare, they will change their tune quickly.  Those without conservative values and principles have one inviolate principle—getting re-elected.  Anything that threatens their cushy lifestyle and threatens their career will be treated with the utmost seriousness.

These times are really no different than those faced by our Founders at the time of the American Revolution.  The Virginia House of Burgesses was dominated by cronies of the British Governor.  They were our first crony capitalists.  Just like the crony capitalists of today, they received special economic privileges from the Colonial Government for kowtowing to the wishes of King George III.  King George wanted to continue slavery because he was personally benefiting from it, and the slave owners fell into lock step.  When George Mason and George Washington and Patrick Henry tried on several occasions to stop the slave trade, these crony capitalists blocked their efforts.

And, when Patrick Henry gave his speech in the House of Burgesses opposing the stamp act, concluding with the words…

“Caesar had his Brutus, Charles the First his Cromwell and George the Third — .”

At that point he was interrupted by cries of “Treason!” from Delegates who easily recognized the reference to assassinated leaders.  Henry paused briefly, then calmly finished his sentence:

“...may profit by their example.  If this be treason, make the most of it.”

Those interrupting Patrick Henry and charging him with treason were the same Delegates to the Virginia House of Burgesses who were the crony capitalists who strongly supported the continuation of slavery, and who were willing to accept the curtailment of individual freedom in order to feather their own nest. 

There will always be men (and women) like those who accused Patrick Henry of treason, who falsely charge conservatives as being racist and against the poor.  There will always be small, timid men who know what is right, but do not have the courage of their convictions.

But, the future of the Republican Party, indeed the future of the Republic is in the hands of those who will dare and challenge and stand for principles.  Today, young men like Thomas Massie are challenging the old bulls in the Republican Party.  They are standing up courageously against those who are satisfied with half-measures and compromises and who quail in fear of losing their seat as a member of the ruling class.

We must support them with our dollars, our volunteer efforts, and our prayers.  They are the hope of America.  They are, God willing, the future of our nation.