On the day that the President of the United States groundbreakingly proclaimed his personal support for same sex marriage, and likely not so coincidentally, the day after the people of North Carolina voted in favor of a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage,  it seems fitting to discuss famous words which are invoked time and again in debates such as this. The simple phrase, “separation of church and state.”

These words, embedded in the minds of American citizens are thought to be a cornerstone of the first amendment.  Separation of church and state has become almost a mantra to atheists,  motivated to rid our country of any religious symbolism outside the doors of worship.  It has also become a favorite argument of the left and has been used while citing issues such as the North Carolina gay marriage amendment. They are understandably upset by the outcome of the vote, which put an official seal on the marriage ban. Though no actual same sex marriage laws will change due to this amendment, it will be far more difficult to overturn than the preceding state law, and it gives birth to many grey areas in other domestic circumstances. That being said, the problem is not of their discontent with the amendment but their argument that it violates the separation of church and state.

The phrase is not actually located within any of our founding documents.  It is not an actual law of our land.  The phrase originated in correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, just after Jefferson became President. The Baptists were strongly anti-federalist and were extremely pleased by the election of our first anti-federalist president.  Not only did Jefferson set clear limits on centralized powers, he also advocated for the rights of the Baptists in Virginia.  The separation of church and state was not meant to protect the state from religion, but to protect religion from the state.  Jefferson even feared that placing “free exercise of religion” in the first amendment would leave religious expression vulnerable to future regulation by the government, which currently may be proving a valid concern.  The true purpose of its inclusion was to prevent the rise on a national religion, not to keep religious concerns out of public discussion. Contrary to the misconception that if people vote against same sex marriage due to religious consciousness they are violating the idea of the separation of church and state, they are in reality seeing the very purpose of the idea in action.  It doesn’t mean the outcome of the vote is just, that is a whole other discussion along with the tenth amendment.

Personally, as the author of this article I believe that all citizens of the United States of America should enjoy their right to the pursuit of happiness.  It is not up to me or you to decide what that happiness is. However, I also believe that it is not up to you or me to decide how others should choose to see this issue. We share a beautiful inalienable right, that we have thus far been lucky enough to hold on to in this country.  Our right of conscience may be the most important and precious right we have.  As Henry David Thoreau said, “ Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right.”  We may not always be in agreement with the law.  Our government can certainly be wrong.  We as people have a right to object, and may do so as long as we do it peacefully.  If a mutual respect for rights of conscience can be maintained, then and only then will government become as insignificant as is possible in our lives. With mutual respect for each other, true decisions can be made. In the end, if we are unhappy with our surroundings, we always have the ability to vote with our feet.

The Misconception of the Separation of Church and State is an article from: STATESMAN SENTINEL

On Good Friday, President Barack Obama shone some attention on helping women, yet at the same time sent a warning that women were not to be reduced to a uniform political bloc, or seen as an interest group and “shouldn’t be treated that way.” He went on to say at a White House forum focusing on women and the economy, “When we talk about these issues that primarily impact women, we‘ve got to realize that they are not just women’s issues, they are family issues. They are growth issues. They are issues about American competitiveness. They are issues that impact all of us.”

It is no secret that the female vote is of great importance in the coming November election. The 2008 election exit polls showed a thirteen point victory for Obama over John McCain in the female vote while they split the male vote almost evenly.  A recent USA Today/Gallup poll of voters in twelve swing states shows Obama in the lead among women by eighteen percentage points.  The nationwide gender gap is smaller but does still show a double-digit lead for Obama according to other polls.

These numbers are most likely the cause of the so called “war on women”  that conservatives are accused of waging, which is actually nothing but a way to raise campaign funds for the Obama administration.  The Obama administration has twisted words and stretched the truth on many women’s issues aimed to fuel an angry fire against the Republican party.  From fictional contraception bans, to telling fables of slashed coverage for mammograms and college aid for women, Barack Obama and his administration have sparked a debate that in reality does not even exist.

“There‘s been a lot of talk about women and women’s issues lately, as there should be,” Obama said. “But I do think that the conversation has been oversimplified. Women are not some monolithic bloc.” Though Obama seems to be the only one simplifying women’s issues, the second part of this statement may be rare words of truth spoken by Obama.  Though women have made up a majority of the electorate in each presidential year since 1984, there is a significant split between single and married women, according to the Pew Research Center’s most recent national survey, conducted March 7-11.

Aside from a gender gap, there also is a marriage gap in party identification. In 2011, fully 62% of single women voters identified with or leaned toward the Democratic Party. Just 31% of single women voters identified with or leaned toward the GOP.

Among married women voters, nearly as many identified with the GOP, or leaned Republican (45%), as identified with or leaned toward the Democratic Party (48%). Among men voters, a marriage gap also was evident but it was much narrower.

Armed with these numbers it makes perfect sense for the Obama administration to want to keep a strong hold on the young female vote.  There are new young voters in the pool all the time.  The age of marriage is steadily increasing in this country every year, and the numbers of females on college campuses is staggering compared to past decades.  Young people in this country have been given a steady dose of entitlement crazy, big government throughout their lives. It is the perfect time for a big government president to capitalize on that, and that is exactly what Obama is doing.

Obama may be correct in saying that women are not a monolithic bloc of voters. But, there is a definitive split based on their stage in life. Issues such as contraception and “women’s health” are a great way to incite a movement of younger, more impressionable women to believe in and participate in a movement.  The true validity of the movement unfortunately does not matter when a campaign can convince a group of voters that their opponent is somehow out to get them.  The fictional war on women is exactly the use of that tactic. The ability of Obama to keep this momentum going into November may be the key to winning re-election.  There is no doubt the Republicans must do something quickly to woo female voters of all ages if they want this race to stay competitive.

Obama Continues to Push Women’s Issues is an article from: STATESMAN SENTINEL

For those unfamiliar with the past controversy, Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown law student, testified before Congress in late February to advocate mandating the provision of contraceptives from private insurers. A few days later, Rush Limbaugh talked about her testimony on his radio program, calling her a “slut” for having an expensive sex life and equating her with a prostitute for arguing that taxpayers should cover costs related to sexual health. Naturally, the news media went into a frenzy, the Left was up in arms, and a scandal was born. The scandal has come to be known as “The Fluke Controversy,” “Slut-gate,” and the deceptively sensational “Limbaugh-Fluke affair.”

Now that the dust has settled, many believe Rush Limbaugh is a fool. They may well be right, but that does not make him wrong. I will only point out briefly that, fool or not, Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. He’s paid to be hyperbolic to entice and increase his audience. Rush Limbaugh is simply a fat angry man with a microphone who receives a higher income by making shocking statements and lowering his taxes.

Limbaugh’s remarks might have been beyond the pale, but their indignation is not far off the mark. Sure his remarks were brash, perhaps even vulgar, but were they without reason? With the passing of Obama’s healthcare plan, issues that might otherwise be private are now matters of federal legislation and public concern. I do not presume to depreciate Ms. Fluke’s personal life insofar as her personal life does not presume to depreciate my livelihood.

Limbaugh has been criticized for not realizing that the amount of sex someone has is not proportional to how much they spend. I cannot imagine how much Limbaugh knows personally about contraceptives (nor do I want to) but his point is one of principal rather than proportion. Regardless of how much sex they are having, why should a third party have to pay for someone’s sexual activity at all?

Some have condemned Limbaugh as hypocritical because Viagra is covered by Obamacare but contraceptives are not. Yet opponents of Obamacare, Limbaugh included, believe that Viagra should not be covered either.

This is not completely a partisan issue either. Liberal comedian Bill Maher, accused of making sexist comments himself, made a rare reach across the aisle to defend Limbaugh. Maher, no fan of Limbaugh, recognizes the importance of “defending living in a country where people don’t have to be afraid that they might go out of the bounds for one minute. Do we all want to be talking like White House spokesmen?”

Limbaugh harangued Sandra Fluke for three straight days. His statements were clearly no slip of the tongue, and only after forty of his sponsors pulled their support did Limbaugh apologize. His apology was an obvious submission to financial pressures. Yet even after Limbaugh apologized, more than fifty sponsors dropped their funding and Fluke predictably ignored him. It would have been better if Limbaugh had stuck to his guns and remained earnest. Indeed, he is recognizing that now and taking his vengeance out on his sponsors. Sleep Train reportedly offered to resume its sponsorship, and Limbaugh refused despite having a close personal relationship with one of the CEOs.

Limbaugh makes a lot of outrageous statements. None of his sponsors fled when Limbaugh explained that a Mexican won the New York marathon because “an immigration agent chased him the last 10 miles.” This issue is different because so long as Limbaugh is lambasted for his comments, there are political gains to be had. The scandal attracts support for federally funded contraceptives not for any logical reason but simply because Rush Limbaugh is seen as a fool, and his opposition foolish. Limbaugh has said a lot of outrageous things but this time this fluke got lucky.

In the Wake of Limbaugh: Senseless Censorship is an article from: STATESMAN SENTINEL

President Obama stated yesterday that it would be “unprecedented” for the Supreme Court to overturn Obamacare. “I am confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld,” Obama continued, “Ultimately I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

There are questions as to whether the president is privy to to the leanings of the Supreme Court and he is trying to knock their credibility, or if this is simply a preemptive strike by the Obama administration in possible hopes of swaying their decision. Obama, being a student of constitutional law suggests that overturning the health care bill would be a radical and unprecedented decision by the Supreme Court. These statements have caused some questioning from a federal appeals court who has ordered the Justice Department to clarify these comments made by the president, and some took special offense to being called an “unelected group.” Judge Jerry Smith stated, “That has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority… And that’s not a small matter.” Of Course President Obama knows this precedent was set over 200 years ago in the case of Marbury v. Madison, making the overturning Obamacare not at all unprecedented.

The question of whether the Supreme Court has the power and authority to overturn Obamacare was answered long ago. What remains on the table is should they use this authority in the case of Obamacare? To decide this we must first understand what judicial review really is.

Judicial review is the process in which Federal courts, and in the case of the current health care bill, the Supreme Court can invalidate a democratically elected law, or bill passed by congress. The right of the Supreme Court to encompass this power was debated when constitution was being ratified and even and it was even written about in The Federalist Papers. It was not until 1803 in the case of Marbury v. Madison that it became a solidified concept. Marbury v. Madison was the landmark case where for the first time the court invalidated a law by declaring it unconstitutional. It formed the basis for judicial review and defined the boundary between the executive and judicial branches of the United States government.

Judicial review has been questioned and battled by presidents in the past such as Thomas Jefferson and FDR. Thomas Jefferson said, “”But, you may ask, if the two departments should claim each the same subject of power, where is the common umpire to decide ultimately between them?”

Our government was designed with a system of checks and balances in place so that no one branch of the government claims too much power. However, similar to what Jefferson asked centuries ago, if they both claim the power who gets the final say? If one branch does not ultimately have the authority to uphold or deny these laws, and be the guardians of the constitution than what good is the constitution? Does it serve as anything more than a suggestion if no one can truly and infinitely protect it and uphold it? If congress steps out of bounds and bends the constitution too far, who do they answer to? The answer simply must be the Supreme Court.

The DOJ lawyer, Dana Lydia Kaersvang agreed that the Supreme Court does in fact have the authority to make this decision, citing Marbury V. Madison. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney also added, “Of course we believe that the Supreme Court has, and the courts have, as their duty and responsibility the ability of striking down laws as unconstitutional,” Carney said Tuesday, according to Fox.  He said Obama was specifically talking about “the precedent under the Commerce Clause” regarding a legislature’s ability to address “challenges to our national economy.”

These statements made by the White House seem to be nothing more than backpedaling away from a veiled threat to the Supreme Court made by President Obama. They are also, still factually inaccurate. Constitutional law student, President Barack Obama has acknowledged the battle between the Supreme Court and President Franklin Roosevelt. FDR passed several laws through the commerce clause that were slowly turned over by the Supreme Court, ultimately setting limits on congress. He also acknowledged the Lochner decision in 1905.  So by acknowledging those decisions and stating that, “… we’re going back to the ’30s, pre-New Deal,” he is also acknowledging that such decisions are in fact not  at all unprecedented.

So is President Obama doing nothing but desperately using a power play to try and discredit or sway the Supreme Court in the media? History seems to tell us that might just be exactly what he is doing. This certainly would not be the first time the Supreme Court has been met with this type of controversy.

Obama’s Supreme Court Power Play is an article from: STATESMAN SENTINEL

On Sunday, Ron Paul shared his reasoning for remaining in the GOP presidential race despite the conventional wisdom that he has no chance at securing the nomination. Paul stated that he is attempting to “save the Republican Party from themselves.”

While Paul agrees it seems likely that Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee, he said “the votes haven’t been counted“ and ”there‘s no way I’m going to give up on the effort to get the Republicans back to their roots.”

The Texas congressman said, “The truth is, I’m trying to save the Republican Party from themselves because they want perpetual wars, they don’t care about presidents who assassinate American citizens, they don’t care about searching our houses without search warrants, and these are the kind of things people care about.” He was likely referring to The Patriot act, the continuing US involvement in several wars, legislation brought forth by the Obama administration such as NDAA, H.R. 347, the assassination of Anwar Al-Awlaki last September, and so on.

Paul criticized the Obama administration and his fellow candidates by saying they “represent the past,“ He stated his views are ”very, very popular. We represent the future.” “We represent the future about what freedom really brings us: Free markets and sound money and civil liberties and a sensible foreign policy.”

Many wonder if Ron Paul will seek a third party nomination, should he not secure the GOP spot. Conventional wisdom states the Libertarian party would hand him their nomination immediately, should he be willing to accept. The fear remains on the right that a third party candidacy for Paul would mean a win for Obama. So the question remaining on the minds of many is simple. Will Ron Paul support Mitt Romney should he succeed in securing the republican presidential nomination? When asked Paul said, “I haven’t made that decision yet, I’m still campaigning.” It seems for now that answer will remain a mystery.

Ron Paul Representing the Future is an article from: STATESMAN SENTINEL

By Jason Weiser
STATESMAN SENTINEL
March 29, 2012

The incident in Florida that has dominated the headlines of late has between a neighborhood watch captain and a Florida teen has reopened the national debate on the right to keep and bear arms. It has inflamed passions on an issue that was, other than fears about President Obama’s leanings, an issue thought won by liberty-loving individuals. Sadly, one shooting may have given the statists a whole new lease on life. And they’ve seemingly done it by making common cause with such odious folks as Reverend Al Sharpton and the New Black Panther Party.

This author can only look on in disbelief as on the one hand, modern rap stars glorify a lifestyle of guns, drugs and “life is cheap”, and then watch as those same stars act with surprise as they and those who glorify that culture watch a kid get himself killed because of it. Whatever the events of that day was, it is clear that one thing is true; the left has taken this young man’s memory, for good or ill, and made him a martyr on the altar of gun control.

I would warn liberals about that. It’s already beginning to come out that Mr. Martin may not have been the squeaky clean individual that his parents had portrayed him as.  Mr. Martin was serving a 5 day suspension from school and recent footage may show the head injury that Mr. Zimmerman claimed all along.

But, as I always say, never confuse a liberal with the facts.  To them, it’s all about forwarding the cause you see. And right now, that cause is getting guns out of the hands of their owners, lawfully or not.  Mr. Martin may sadly be yet another martyr to that cause, whatever else that occurred in this case.

This is a very quixotic thing. I say that because of the history of liberals comparing the NRA to the KKK[1] while the opposite was true. The NRA was founded by men like Ambrose Burnside and Phil Sheridan. These were men who had led the war against the Confederacy, and later, the KKK in the post-war South. Also, considering much of early gun control law in this country was aimed at African-Americans, the stance of the NAACP and like-minded organizations (the New Black Panther Party being a singular exception, but then they have issues all their own) is doubly concerning.

The African-American community has much to celebrate; they finally have one of their own sons in the White House. Racism is seen as the last refuge of the ignorant and the foolish. So, why then are men like Jesse Jackson stating things like “targeting, arresting, convicting blacks and ultimately killing us [blacks] is big business.”[2]When crime statistics state otherwise, and one has to remember, we also have a African-American Attorney General, who recently derided the nation with these words:  “Though race-related issues continue to occupy a significant portion of our political discussion and though there remain many unresolved racial issues in this nation, we average Americans simply do not talk enough with each other about race.”[3]

One is left asking, is it really about race? Or is it about guns? I would state the latter. It is no secret the Obama administration and like-minded individuals in this country seek the reinstatement of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. [4] (Considering the wake of the Fast and Furious Scandal, one would be tempted to ask Mr. Holder if the proposed means of implementing the “Son of AWB” is to export all the offending weapons to Mexico, but I digress.)

Liberals hate guns in the hands of a free people. Plain and simple, and nothing can fire up the liberal base in the election year like gun control. Couple that with a liberal president whose numbers are in the tank even with fellow travelers, and you have a sure fire issue that will get the sheep to the polls.  But they have yet to ask themselves that question? Who’s using the memory of Treyvon Martin, and just what are they using it for? I would advise rank and file liberals to start asking that of their leadership.  Somebody should.

About Jason Weiser: I am a 37 year old administrative professional who is concerned as to the path of the nation. I see the Statesman as a chance to express this concern through well written prose and a good turn of phrase. I am married to a lovely Jewish woman and look forward to being a good Jew, and multiplying one day!

[1] http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national/is-nra-squelching-dissent-on-kagan

What Zimmerman Really Means for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is an article from: STATESMAN SENTINEL

By Tim Dunkin
STATESMAN SENTINEL
March 14, 2012

One of the unfortunate things that has come to characterize modern America is the immaturity of so many of our people.  I’ve written before about the infantilization of large segments of the American population by a variety of means – most of them at the behest of their own government.  Every year, more and more Americans are reduced to a state where they “need” the government to do everything for them.  This, I believe, is not an accidental state of affairs, but instead forms a part of the long-term plan of the Left to gain total and unchallenged power in this country.

Politically speaking, the Left has a vested interest in reducing as many of the American people as possible to a state where they cannot think, act, or fend for themselves.  When brought into such a state of dependency, people are then under the control of the “benefactors” who “provide for their needs.”  Instead of being self-supporting citizens who contribute to both society and their own benefit by applying their unique abilities and strengths, they become net drains on both the economy and on society at large.  This is exactly where the Left wants them.  People in such a state are extremely unlikely to vote against the hand that feeds them.  They can always count on a large body of readily-available manpower to mobilize where they need them – to the polls, to the protest, to the riot.

Specifically speaking, what are the characteristics of this infantilization?  There are several inter-related attributes that we can identify that are rendering increasing numbers of people in our nation incapable of operating under the republican, liberty-oriented system envisioned and set up by our Founders.

To begin with, we see that many of our people find the concept of personal responsibility to be completely foreign.  That somebody might have to account for or be responsible to bear the consequences of their own behavior is becoming a lost art.  In a similar vein, self-government – that willingness on the part of the individual to restrain their own behavior to within reasonable and acceptable bounds so that they do not infringe upon the rights of others – is increasingly rare.  Many Americans show neither the ability nor the willingness to provide for themselves by earning their own way through like.  Concurrently, most of these same Americans expect everyone else (i.e. you and I and the rest of the taxpaying, productive citizens of the country) to do everything for them and provide everything to them, whether it be the basic necessities of life or the superfluous luxuries.

The ur-example of this is, of course, the welfare system as it exists in America – a tangled mess of overlapping, redundant programs whose rules are such as to often discourage any sort of upward mobility, and seem designed to keep the participants in a place of permanent recipiency.  It’s is a crying shame – and I mean that literally – to see what two generations of welfare dependency have done to the bulk of our urban populations, as well as an increasingly large portion of even rural, supposedly individualistic and traditional areas.  There are millions in America who not only don’t want to find a job, but who would not take one, even if it were handed to them on a silver platter.  This results from the peculiar rules attached to many welfare programs.  For instance, if a recipient does find a job, but it pays above a certain level (very close to minimum wage), then the welfare is cut off.  The problem is that typically, most welfare programs actually pay more than the jobs that cause the welfare “benefits” to be cut off.  Therefore, from a strictly materialistic perspective, it is to the advantage of the recipient to simply stay on the dole and not look for a job – an incentivization that feeds into the natural human tendency toward laziness and “something for nothing.”

Couple this with the fact that the rules discourage marriage, but encourage large families with extra payments per child, and you see a recipe for the total destruction of the nuclear family, which is the bedrock of stable, non-government-reliant society.  For millions of American women, government has replaced a stable husband bringing home the bacon, and we are reaping the whirlwind from the positive encouragement to throw off the constraints of personal responsibility and self-government.

And let’s be blunt – this welfare mentality applies as well to those who want the government cut and spending curtailed, except for when it’s their particular program from which they benefit.  If you’re a Tea Partier who rails about the government, but then loudly warns the politicians that they better not touch your Medicare, you’re part of the problem.

Another related area where we see the attack on personal responsibility is in the area of public housing.  Simply put, when taxpayers are footing the bill for somebody’s accommodations rather than that person his or herself, many people will treat the housing like it is nothing.  You know how people will often drive rental cars into the ground or will treat hotel rooms carelessly?  The situation with public housing is many times worse.  I’ve heard of brand new apartment complexes that have to be completely gutted and renovated a mere five years later because the inhabitants just tore the places to pieces – punched holes in walls, busted out windows, stripped them of their copper piping, and so forth.  This is what happens when people whose character has already been infantilized by handouts are given a place to live that they have absolutely no investment in themselves.  The wise homeowner keeps their property up, maintains it, fixes things that break, because he or she has a stake in it.  The home is theirs, and its value is directly dependent on how they treat it.  With public housing, this incentive to responsibility does not exist – and it shows.  Instead of being grateful for the provision made by the taxpaying productive members of society, too many times the residents of public housing simply tear their dwelling up, and then arrogantly expect another one to be given to them to replace it, so they can tear it up too.  There is no sense of responsibility, no incentive to show the character to be conscientious, or even thankful, only a presumptuous expectancy of what is “owed” them.

So it is with the health care “reform” that we saw forced off onto an unwilling majority in this country.  I think most everyone would agree that there are problems with our health care system in this country.  However, the solutions to these are not found in the “reform” that was passed in ObamaCare.  Indeed, by not pursuing a reduction in the involvement of government in the system and a return to a truly free-market system (anyone who thinks the current system is an example of “free market health care” needs to think again), all this “reform” will do in the long run, besides impoverish the country and destroy the quality of medical care, is to further infantilize the American people.  Which is likely the point.

After all, now getting medical treatment will not be your choice.  It will be the government’s.  Instead of you and your doctor being able to sit down like adults and decide which treatment options are best for you, a government panel will now decide for you – or they may decide against you, if they don’t think you merit the expenditure of Uncle Sam’s limited resources.  Nevertheless, for the young, “free” health care will take on the same aspects of free housing – since the government pays for it, might as well use up as much of it as you can, regardless of whether you really need it, or whether the country can afford it.  We already see this presently, in the way many lower income folks will use hospital emergency rooms like they were their personal clinics – people with serious injuries and illnesses have to wait hours because some kids with sniffles are in line ahead of them.  And of course, the cost gets passed on to you and I via Medicaid, or by simply stiffing the hospital so that the rest of us have to pay for $5 tablets of aspirin to make it up.

Since government-run health care means government-run lifestyles, the infantilization of the American people will continue apace under ObamaCare because, to try to control costs, the government will have to step in and other-govern you in your personal life.  We can’t have you eating all that fatty food anymore, since we’re going to pay for fixing you after your heart attack.  Think not?  It already happens in Britain, where overweight people can be denied health care until they slim down, since they’re more likely to be a drain on resources.  So yes, the government will continue – and with greater “moral” authority – to be able to tell you how to live, what to do, what to eat.  Just ask the four-year old in Hoke County, North Carolina, who had her packed lunch taken away from her and replaced by some processed garbage provided by the school, because her packed lunch didn’t include the government-approved mix of food groups, and therefore was deemed “unhealthy.”    No longer will adults be able to make choices for themselves and their families – those choices will be made for you, and this can do nothing but inure people to a mindset of being told what to do for their own good – the mindset of a serf.  Which is exactly what the Left wants.

Even the recent debate about the government mandating that private, and even religious, insurance providers give access to free contraception highlights this move towards infantilization.  Even aside from the obvious religious liberty problems involved, the simple fact of the matter remains that this is just another government-subsidized lifestyle program that pays for what people could, and ought, to be paying for themselves.  In a free country, if you wanted to obtain birth control, you would do so by paying for it out of your own pocket, rather than forcing everyone else to give it to you for “free.”  And here’s the surprise for all those on the Left who think it’s absolutely great, and is a repudiation of all that uptight religious mumbo-jumbo, to make religious institutions and others pay for their condoms and pill: if the government gives it to you, it can also tell you what to do with it, how much, when and when not.  You had these deluded, irrational nightmares about the “Religious Right” coming into your bedroom and telling you what to do?  Under the contraception mandate in ObamaCare, it will become a reality – but it will be your own leftist government that does it to you.

And since we’re on the social issues for a second, let’s note the fact that in the vast, vast majority of cases, abortion is the example par excellence of complete and utter personal irresponsibility.  What could be more selfish, childish, and lacking in self-control than to seek to avoid the responsibilities of your own actions by killing someone else?  Abortion exists because of a lack of self-control in one’s personal life, or because of a lack of willingness to bear the consequences of one’s own actions.  It is unsurprising that the legalization and continued rabid political protection of abortion as an institution has gone hand in hand with the downward spiral of responsibility and self-government in this country since the 1970s.

Yet another area where the childishness of modern America can be seen is in the attitudes and response of many Americans to firearms and firearm ownership.  Responsible gun ownership is an adult activity.  By possessing and often carrying a gun, you are dealing with an object that has the capacity to be used, accidentally or purposefully, to kill another human being.  This is an awesome responsibility, and one which millions of Americans successfully bear every year without any problems whatsoever.  This is because the responsible gun owner knows that if the gun kills somebody, the owner – not the object – is the cause and responsibility-bearer for it.  However, many on the Left seem to think that guns are magical objects that either kill entirely on their own, or exert some sort of mind-controlling influence on the carrier to make them violent and potentially likely to start firing off random shots willy-nilly at any moment.  This attitude bespeaks a childish mindset on the part of the leftists themselves – they obviously cannot conceive of the idea of responsible behavior, that our actions would not be controlled by some mere object.  Leftists approach this issue from the unspoken assumption that the individual necessarily has no control, and no responsibility, for his or her own actions, but that some outside force is responsible – much the same as they seem to think that criminals are not responsible for their own actions, but that “society” or “their past” forced them to murder ten people with an axe.   The more people fear inanimate objects and want the government to protect them from these object, and the poor mindless robots who are controlled by them, the closer the Left comes to its dreams of disarming the American people.

Lastly, at least for the examples and discussion I wish to provide here, is the fact of how litigious our society has become.  Everybody, it seems, wants to sue everybody else for the least little infraction.  The motive for this, ultimately, traces back to the “something for nothing” mentality that likewise characterizes the career welfare recipient.  There are many people who hope and pray that they can fall down an icy stairwell and hurt themselves just enough that they can convince a jury to grant them a multi-million dollar award – for nothing other than being clumsy.  Who needs to be personally responsible, or take care for their own actions, when big bags full of other peoples’ money await the careless and irresponsible?  The fact that this ends up hurting us all – it drives up the cost of medical malpractice insurance, making our doctor’s visits more expensive; it increases the cost of manufactured goods because of self-imposed preemptive steps for protection against every conceivable source of product liability, and so forth – means nothing to the ones who hope to score big.  The Left loves this, because it helps further their efforts at hectoring and regulating private businesses out of existence.

This is all aided and abetted by the Left-leaning news media, which exist not to inform, but to direct.  Millions of Americans basically cannot think for themselves anymore, but need the talking heads on ABCNNBCBS to fill them in on the daily DNC talking points, so that they will know what to believe, and who to vilify.  Most of the time, when you meet a leftist, it will become obvious within just a few moments that they are simply repeating the bullet points they heard on the nightly news, NPR, or Pacifica Radio the previous evening.

So, what can we do?  Well, in one sense, I honestly don’t know.  I sense that our nation is almost over the tipping point where there are more people who lack the character to be responsible for themselves, who lack the ability or desire to fend for themselves in this big, scary adult world, who even have enough consideration to control themselves enough to not be a burden and a bother to their fellow citizens than there are people who will do these things.  I’d like to say “elect the right people into office,” but we’re at the point where this may not even be possible anymore.  Perhaps the answer is to “go Galt,” to just drop out and stop playing the game, period.  Yet, this seems to me like a response that lacks responsibility as well – it seems too much like giving up, like taking the ball and going home, itself a childish response.  Ultimately, it rests upon those of us who are responsible, who do self-govern, who do take the time to do things right and to own up to our errors to lead by example, and to do whatever we can to force our fellow Americans to return back to the path of personal responsibility and adult behavior.  Elect who we can get into office, use whatever influence we have in our personal spheres, educate and enlighten our fellow citizens – these are the tasks that we must shoulder if the Republic is to be rescued.

Tim Dunkin is a pharmaceutical chemist by day, and a freelance author by night, writing about a wide range of topics on religion and politics. He is the author of an online book about Islam entitled Ten Myths About Islam, and is the founder and editor of Conservative Underground, a bi-weekly email newsletter focusing on foundational conservative worldview and philosophy. He is a born-again Christian, and a member of a local, New Testament Baptist church in North Carolina. He can be contacted at tqcincinnatus@yahoo.com

The American People Need to Grow Up is an article from: STATESMAN SENTINEL

By Tim Dunkin
STATESMAN SENTINEL
December 8, 2011

If nothing else, Carlos Rafael of New Bedford, Massachusetts will always have a whopper of a fish story to tell his grandkids, as he regales them with tales of the 881 lb. tuna that got away from him.  Or rather, was taken away from him, as the truth of the matter really is.  As the recent story in the news goes, back on November 12, a fishing boat owned by Mr. Rafael landed quite a catch when it brought in its nets after doing some deep sea trawling – the aforementioned tuna, a huge fish that would likely be worth close to half a million dollars.  However, when Mr. Rafael’s boat came back to dock, federal agents seized the fish, taking it away from Mr. Rafael without any compensation whatsoever other than the threat of a large fine.  The reason?  The tuna had been caught in a net, rather than by a hook or harpoon, illegal per some subparagraph buried deep in the bowels of the official book of rules and regulations governing American fisheries.  The fish, reportedly, will be sold overseas and the proceeds being given to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, presumably so that that bureaucratic morass masquerading as a scientific research organization can fund more studies purportedly discovering reasons why stricter and stricter regulations need to be further imposed on hard-working citizens like Mr. Rafael for…well, for reasons that nobody really knows.

Now, to most people – including Mr. Rafael himself who is an experienced deep sea fisherman – the arcana of federal regulations form an impenetrable and unfathomable fog that masks all common sense and reason with respect to why government makes many of the rules that it does.  Why is it legal (with a license, of course) to catch tuna with a hook, but it is illegal to do with a net, even accidentally?  Why do people like Mr. Rafael get robbed by bureaucrats with guns, and smacked with fines for catching a fish?  The answer to that question, even if known, probably makes little sense to anyone outside of the small circle of environmentalist busybodies, inside and outside of government, who have made it their life’s mission to destroy any and all human activity that might in any way, shape, or form impinge upon the natural world (i.e. pretty much all human activity).

And therein lies the problem.  The arcane and ridiculous little regulation that Mr. Rafael’s catch ran afoul of doesn’t exist because of government acting within any of its proper roles, such as keeping one citizen from harming another.  Mr. Rafael catching an 881 lb. tuna doesn’t harm anyone else, after all.  No, such regulations exist because of the lobbying efforts of very narrowly focused special interest groups who use their influence and money to craft government policy, both through legislatures and executive regulators, that benefits them or advances their agendas, while detrimentally affecting everybody else who might be a player in that particular realm of economic activity.  Hence, in this case, because animal rights activists and others who are concerned about “biodiversity” and whatnot seek to limit the ability of fishermen to harvest tuna and other types of fish that are deemed “borderline endangered” or otherwise worthy of regulatory protection, these same fishermen end up being hooked and reeled in by federal regulators, being trapped in a net of rules and regulations that they were never even told about, and which exist only for the purpose of destroying their livelihoods so that some eco-terrorists can pat themselves on the back for “protecting” Mother Earth.

If we lived in a perfect world, this is the sort of thing that would get some federal regulators hauled up in front of a judge and tossed into the clink for violating Mr. Rafael’s 5^th amendment rights.  Or better yet, such a corrupt and special-interest driven regulation wouldn’t even exist in the first place.

This is the sort of thing that helps to starkly clarify the distinction between “the rule of law” and “the rule of rules.”

Now, many people tend to assume that these two concepts are the same.  If the government makes some rules, then they should be obeyed unquestioningly, since these rules are laws and if you support the rule of law, then you have to obey any and all government rules without challenging them, right?  Well, no.  Actually, there is quite a large difference between these two ideas.

The “rule of law” – note that the term is singular – presupposes that there are one or more fundamental, underlying bases for the legal system in which the participants are dealing or by which they are affected.  In our system, this underlying basis is the Constitution, though I think there is a good case to be made for broadening this out to understand that our laws and civic practices should be predicated upon the liberty ideology that underlay the formation of our Constitution and the revolution for liberty that the American colonists originally waged.  To give an example of what I mean by this, just take the Interstate Commerce Clause.  This clause in the Constitution does exist, and it is there for a purpose.  Congress is given the power by our founding law to regulate trade between the states.  Nevertheless, the extent to which this clause has been stretched to allow the government to horn its way into basically any and all economic activity (or, in the case of mandating citizens to buy overpriced health insurance, even economic non-activity) goes far beyond anything the Founders ever intended when they included this clause in the Constitution, if their actual words in the Federalist Papers and other primary sources of commentary mean anything.  If the wording of the Constitution on this point were interpreted through the lenses of what the Founders who wrote the document actually meant with it and through the standpoint of maximizing, rather than minimizing, liberty, then about 95% of what the government does that is justified under the “technically” plain wording of the ICC would end, and the clause would be restored to its pristine meaning and intention (which was to prevent states from levying protectionistic tariffs and other duties against each other, or otherwise interrupting free citizen commerce within the several States – believe it or not, the original purpose of the clause was to promote, rather than restrict, economic liberty).

What this all means is that our government should not be free to simply make up rules and regulations, or even properly legislated laws (from a “technical” standpoint), willy nilly as it sees fit.  Laws, rules, and regulations that are not in accord with the Constitution and which do not advance the cause of liberty should be granted no respect or diligence whatsoever.

The “rule of rules” is just the opposite.  It presupposes that the government – legislators, regulators, and other perpetrators – should be able to have carte blanché power to enact whatever sanctions upon the people and their livelihoods that are deemed necessary, for whatever reason.  If a bureaucrat thinks we shouldn’t use a certain type of light bulb because it uses too much power and contributes to their mythological global warming, then Congress should pass a law, despite having no Constitutional authority to do so, and in fact, having the 9^th amendment as a positive block against such undue meddling in the affairs of free citizens acting freely.  If, to the case at hand, some environmentalist ninny thinks that evil, stinky ol’ fishermen shouldn’t be able to take whatever fish they can catch on some spurious greenie concern, then simply lobby various federal agencies to enact regulations that will throw up so many roadblocks to their livelihood that they simply give up and find something else to do.

In short, the rule of law is designed to protect the liberties of the people because each of us would operate on the same playing field, is protected by the same laws that adhere to the underlying liberty framework upon which we were founded, and each has the same expectation as to what the law will or will not, should or should not, say.

The rule of rules, on the other hand, is capricious, depending on the whims of whatever bureaucrat can get into a certain position of power, and what their particular agenda is that they can use their position to advance.

In a rule of law framework, the power of government operates only as far as the foundational law allows it.  In a rule of rules system, it operates as far as bureaucrats with nasty temperaments feel like going in their efforts to craft whatever administrative rules they like.

In a rule of law system, the police follow the Constitution and respect the 4^th amendment right of the people to be secure in their homes and effects.  In a rule of rules system, the police get to bust down peoples’ doors in the middle of the night, like a bunch of Nazi stormtroopers, just to serve a warrant in prosecution of a “War on Drugs” that has no Constitutional authority.

In a rule of law system, the government is forced to respect the fact that a free people can arm themselves however they like.  In a rule of rules system, the government gets to ban whatever weapons it can get away with politically, and place any number of undue burdens, taxes, license requirements, and other restrictions on private firearm ownership.

In a rule of law system, the government has to respect your 5^th amendment right to enjoy and be secure in your property and to require that due process be followed.  In a rule of rules systems, federal agents with the EPA get to arbitrarily declare your property a wetland – without your knowledge – and prohibit you from using it in any way, shape, or form, without any sort of due process.

In a rule of law system, you can’t be imprisoned for a crime unless found guilty of it by a jury of your peers.  In a rule of rules system, government agencies get to label you a “terrorist” and can direct the military to arrest you and hold you in detention indefinitely without ever charging you or bringing you to trial.

In a rule of law system, you are free to travel unhindered.  In a rule of rules system, the government requires you to be sexually assaulted by its agents before you can board an airplane.

In a rule of law system, free people are free to conduct business with each other so long as they’re not hurting someone else.  In a rule of rules system, you are not free to engage in consensual capitalism without any number of licenses, fees, and prohibitions.

So, the rule of law versus the rule of rules.  Guess which sort of system we have now in America?

The question is, what are we as free people going to do about it?  Are we going to sit idly by and watch our liberties go off into the sunset?  Or are we going to fight for our liberties?  Are we going to get serious about standing up and making our own government respect our Constitution and the liberty basis upon which it rests?  Are we going to continue to vote for the same old set of establishment losers – under whichever Party label, it doesn’t really matter much anymore – or are we willing to support those candidates who will actually challenge the system?  It all depends on whether we’re content to continue to be ruled by rules, or whether we’re going to stand up for the rule of law.  The choice, ultimately, really is ours, regardless of how much the media tries to delude us and the government tries to suppress us.

Tim Dunkin is a pharmaceutical chemist by day, and a freelance author by night, writing about a wide range of topics on religion and politics. He is the author of an online book about Islam entitled Ten Myths About Islam, and is the founder and editor of Conservative Underground, a bi-weekly email newsletter focusing on foundational conservative worldview and philosophy. He is a born-again Christian, and a member of a local, New Testament Baptist church in North Carolina. He can be contacted at tqcincinnatus@yahoo.com

The One That Got Away is an article from: STATESMAN SENTINEL

By Tim Dunkin
STATESMAN SENTINEL
December 8, 2011

As many astute, and perhaps many not so astute, observers have witnessed over the past few years, the Right – as a broad coalition of compatible movements and ideological subsets – has been floundering in its efforts to make any sort of substantial impact on our political system.  This, despite the fact that polling year after year continues to show that self-described “conservatives” (and who knows how many more libertarians, a position that doesn’t get polled typically) make up a fairly substantial plurality among the electorate.  We’ve seen popular movements like the Tea Parties explode onto the scene, representing the spontaneous will of the productive people of this nation, and we have seen them have a great deal of success in getting their candidates nominated and elected. Supposedly conservative Republicans regained the Congress which they had lost just four short years before, and appear poised to make further gains in 2012, especially against a widely distrusted and disliked President leading a broken and corrupt Party.

Yet, the Right – Republicans, conservatives, libertarians, liberty-minded individuals of all stripes – just can’t seem to get it together.  They can’t seem to find the traction needed to actually start making a difference in our public policies, even when receiving majorities.  While at the state level, liberty lovers have managed to make a lot of positive changes, at the national level it seems that the Right is just thrashing around in a rut, unable to get the grip needed to start getting things done.  We’ve held the Congress for two years with a whole slate of fresh-faced Tea Party outsiders who promised to “shake up” the system and start rolling back the fiscal irresponsibility we’ve seen for too long in this country.  Yet, it hasn’t happened.  This Congress has seen its budgets and its shortfalls increase as much as those previous.  The Republican slate of candidates is likewise hopeless – filled either with RINOs of various sorts or with conservative candidates who nevertheless seem determined to shoot themselves in the foot every time they turn around.  Our leaders are completely dropping the ball when it comes to actually making the case for our ideology and policies.  It almost seems like no liberty-oriented candidate or elected official out there has either the knowledge or the courage to speak out loudly against the lies of the Left and to clearly articulate the merits and rightness of our cause.  The Right in America – a giant filled with so much potential ability to roll back government excess and to restore liberty – is not living up to its potential in any way, shape, or form.

So what is missing?  Why does it seem like the Right – conservatives, libertarians, liberty-lovers all – reached the pinnacle of success, only to fail so miserably at making a lasting impact?  Why do we find our country, in many ways, back where it was in the 1970s – broke, socialistic, and looking to the government for the solution?

I would say that a lot of the reason is because the Right has lost the spirit of Reagan – that animating drive to really see this country become a better place for all Americans, even if it meant taking often unpopular steps that went against the short-sighted impulses of his opponents and their constituencies.  As many have remarked, and surely it is true, Ronald Reagan was not perfect.  There were times when he didn’t follow a strictly “pure” line on some issue or another.  There were points at which his policy choices pleased one part of the Reagan coalition, but not the others.  He couldn’t make everyone happy all the time, so he had to make hard choices about what he felt was right.  Yes, Reagan gave us the amnesty of 1986.  Yes, he prosecuted the War on (Some) Drugs vigorously.  Nevertheless, Reagan was an oak of a man and a President who helped to bring prosperity at home and freedom abroad.  We on the Right today profess to hold the same set of ideological and political beliefs as Reagan, yet we do not see the power and force of Reagan at work for us today.  What was it that Reagan understood and embodied that we have failed to emulate today?

I believe we can see four areas where contemporary liberty-lovers have failed to follow in the footsteps of the Gipper.

Reagan understood that government was the problem, not the solution:  At the core of Ronald Reagan’s mature ideology of liberty was the conviction that the citizens of the United States would be their best, happiest, and most free when they were liberated to the greatest extent practicable from the intrusions and regulations of the government.  When Reagan spoke famous sound bites like, “Government is the not the solution to our problems. It IS the problem,” or “Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty,” he was not just angling for a five minute lead-in on the nightly news.  He said these because he actually believed them.  He meant them.  This understanding was what guided his decision-making, his attitudes, his political being.

Unfortunately, too many so-called conservatives seem to have gotten to the point where they look to the government to solve their problems almost as much as those who have been befuddled by the Left do.  Further, too many have gotten into the habit of wanting everything in the budget to be cut…except for the program that benefits them personally.  It’s disheartening to hear even Tea Partiers rail against debt and government spending, but then turn around and in the next breath warn politicians that they dare not even think about touching their Social Security or Medicare.  Which is it, folks?  Do we really want the government smaller, less intrusive, and less expensive, or not?  It’s to the point where we don’t have the “luxury” of economic hypocrisy anymore.

Likewise, there are a lot of conservatives who say they want liberty, but then continue to support government intervention into all kinds of areas in our personal lives where it doesn’t belong.  They never consider that the damage being done to the Constitution and to the framework of liberty by their desire to codify their personal moralities in areas where the participant is not harming someone else is greater than supposed harm caused by the “problem” they’re wanting the government to fix.

Further, too many of our “conservative” politicians are really technocrats whose main goal is to simply “streamline” government to make it more efficient and cost-effective.  They’d rather work to make the EPA more proficient at what it does, rather than restraining it from what it shouldn’t be doing, or better, eliminating it completely.  Too many Republicans and professed conservatives are of the Newt Gingrich mold, more committed to government efficiency than they are government reduction.

Until conservatives and other liberty-lovers internalize the idea that government is not your friend, but is a fearful master and a dangerous servant, nothing will ever really get changed in our system.  Until we decide to take the hit and stop being part of the socialist beneficiary network, we won’t see that network go away.  The problem with government is not that it’s inefficient, but that it’s almost always incompatible with natural human liberty.

Reagan clearly articulated the rationale and rightness of the cause: One of the nicknames for Ronald Reagan that almost everyone is familiar with is “the Great Communicator.”  The reason for this is that he was, in fact, a great communicator.  Reagan had a gift for being able to convey complex or controversial ideas to his audiences so that they would be understandable and acceptable.  There’s a reason Reagan is one of the most quotable Presidents in modern history – he had a way with words that put the lie to the accusations of mental disacuity with which his detractors tried to slander him.  Reagan was able to speak well, and could speak and reason persuasively.  This is much of the reason why he won two landslide elections in 1980 and 1984 – he brought into his sphere of influence and support working class and unionized voters, broadly known as “Reagan Democrats,” who were convinced by his explanations and presentation that conservatism was better for them than the economic socialism and continually expanding government that had prevailed for so many decades previous.

This, however, is one of the great failures of the contemporary Right in America.  Too many of us no longer feel like we need to educate our fellow Americans about liberty.  We seem to assume that they should know about it – that the rationale for liberty and the means by which to attain and retain it are self-evident – and we get frustrated, angry, and even insulting with them when they don’t.  We also tend to confuse political victories in elections with real, long-term changes in the culture, hearts, and minds of our fellow Americans. When we win a few elections, like we did in 1994 or in 2000, we sit back on our laurels and go back to sleep – which is when the wolves in sheep’s clothing within our own side of aisle come to the fore and take us right back into the mire of socialism-lite.  We forget what Reagan said,

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.”

We on the Right know how sorely lacking the education system in America really is.  We know that our children are not learning about what made America great.  They aren’t learning civics, or economics, or history, in such a way as to actually square with reality.  And yet, we somehow assume that the up-and-coming generations should be able to understand the Constitution and the liberty ideology that cradled it.  This is a grave and dangerous error on our part.  If we do not fight the propaganda from the government schools and the news media, the cause of liberty will be lost.  If we don’t get back the Reaganesque desire and capacity to articulate our beliefs to the undecided and the educable, we have nobody to blame but ourselves.  Education is the fight we face – so let us grab our Locke and Federalist Papers and Bastiat and Hayek and make the case for liberty.

Liberty-lovers must be willing to have patience and engage our fellow Americans who don’t have the understanding about liberty that we have.  They have been served poorly by the teachers’ unions and ABCNNBCBS, and it is our duty to help them.  Sitting back smugly and looking down our noses at people for not being as “wise” or as “pure” as we are will do nothing but end liberty with our generation.

Reagan had the courage of his convictions to stand firm against his opponents, instead of an instinct to “find common ground” with the enemy:  One of the patterns of Ronald Reagan’s leadership during his administration was that he never lost sight of the “big picture.”  While there were times when he might have to make concessions to the Democrats who controlled Congress to get some component of the liberty agenda advanced, he nevertheless kept in view the overall goal of trying to reduce the size and scope of government.  Was Reagan successful?  I believe he was, to the extent that the actual powers and scope of his office allowed.  After all, under Reagan (and with the opposition of a strongly Democrat-controlled Congress throughout) we saw the tax burden on productive Americans reduced by two-thirds, he began the process of breaking the power of government unions, and many regulations that were strangling the American business climate were rolled back or eliminated.  Reagan ended the price controls on petroleum that the Nixon administration had put into place.  He opposed efforts by Democrats in Congress to impose even more politically-correct regulations on private organizations while hiding these regulations behind the façade of “civil rights.” He worked to reduce fraud and waste by those who were misusing the Social Security and other “safety net” programs.  He also affected real cuts in many government agencies, including a 22% cut in funding for the EPA.  He was able to effect across the board cuts in various welfare programs.

The result of all of this was one of the longest sustained periods of economic growth in modern American history.  Businesses grew, more businesses were started, millions of jobs were added to the economy, and the middle class expanded.  The economy expanded at a tremendous rate, and the policies which Ronald Reagan enacted to remove shackles from the American economy and American entrepreneurship resulted in sustained economic prosperity that weathered the tiny recession in 1992 and fueled prosperity throughout the 1990s as well.

Reagan was able to do these because he knew the difference between tactics and strategy.  Making concessions for the sake of obtaining some of what he wanted was a tactic.  Consistently pushing forward on a liberty agenda of deregulation, economic freedom, and smaller government was a strategy.  A lot of folks on the Right today fail to make the distinction.

Granted, there are some who can’t seem to understand the need for tactics.  They want our agenda passed, they want it passed right now, and if they can’t have it, then they’re going to tune out and drop out – never mind all that “incrementalism” nonsense.  Even more problematic, however, are those, such as the large portion of the Republican “leadership” and establishment, who are great at giving concessions to the Marxists, but not so great at pushing for greater freedom and less government.  They have no grand vision of a strategy for restoring greater freedom to the people of this country.  Their first instinct is always and in all circumstances to “reach across the aisle” and “find common ground” with the haters of liberty.  Further, they’re embarrassed by those who do want to keep pressing for greater freedom and less government.  We’re “radical,” we’re “dangerous,” we’re fanatics.”  Liberty lovers threaten to overturn their apple cart of government goodies and power, and they don’t like it.  So while these folks may, ostensibly, be “on the Right,” they most definitely are not fellow travelers.  Instead, like termites, they try to weaken and destroy the efforts of liberty lovers to make real changes in this country.

Reagan had to deal with them too, of course.  He had a Republican establishment, inherited from two decades of Rockefeller Republicans like Nixon and Ford, who were embarrassed by him as well.  He dealt with it by simply persevering and pressing forward.  He was not wrapped up in caring what other politicians thought about him.  He knew what needed to be done, and he tried to do it.  This is what we need to do – even if it means taking drastic steps to depose our current “conservative” ruling class, and replacing them with leaders who will lead in the cause of liberty.

Reagan understood that the broad Right needed to be united, not divided:  Ronald Reagan wisely understood the benefits of true coalition building, when he formalized the growing “fusionist” movement that sought to bond three broadly related strands of American conservatism together into a stable alliance of those on the Right.  These three strands, the “three legs of the stool of conservatism,” were the Goldwaterite economic libertarians, the growing social conservative movement known colloquially as “the religious Right,” and the “strong America” defense hawks.  This was Reagan’s idea of the “big tent” approach, not the later perversion of this approach where liberty-lovers “reach across the aisle” to those who are often diametrically opposed to the general tenets of pro-liberty, small-government fusionism.  Using his powers of persuasion and communication, he was able to bring all three of these movements together in such a way that they ended up complementing each other and forming an integrated message of American liberty and strength.  He realized that if we wanted to have a free America, then we needed to listen to those who wanted a prosperous America, to those who wanted a strong America, and to those who wanted a good America.

At the same time, Reagan didn’t tip too far one way or the other toward any of the three corners.  He exemplified the type of “movement” conservatism that balanced the concerns of all three “legs” without ignoring any one or more of them.  Yes, this meant that each movement had to be willing to compromise, at least tactically, or at least temporarily, on some of its particular aims and desires.  Nevertheless, he blended these three movements in his own governing character and personal ideology.  The same Ronald Reagan who was libertarian enough to say,

“Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.”

Was yet enough of a Religious Righter to also say,

“Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged.”

And he did not find anything at all contradictory in those statements.  This is because he knew that liberty depends on self-control, and cannot exist where this is lacking and where “other-control” takes its place.  He was also wise enough to avoid some of the excesses of rhetoric and caricature that others on the Right never were able to get over.  He knew enough to know that the “Religious Right” wasn’t really trying to install a morality policeman in every bedroom.  He understood that libertarians weren’t pot-smoking hippies trying to destroy traditional American civilization.  He didn’t agree that defense hawks just wanted to invade everybody who didn’t swear allegiance to the American flag.  His temperance in dealing with people helped to cool down a lot of hotter heads and bring them to the table.

Contrast this with the state of America’s Right today.  Everybody wants to push their agenda to the exclusion of the rest of the broad rightist coalition, and condemns everyone else as “RINOs” (a term which doesn’t even make sense when used against those who aren’t registered Republicans) for not lining up 100% with their particular group’s program.  In short, we’re seeing a fragmentation of the Right at just the time when we need to be emphasizing our common ground and working together on that 80% or so of issues where we’re all in perfect accord.  Libertarians think “the time is right” to finally push out of the picture the social conservatives with whom they personally disagree, and social conservatives say that if this happens, they’re going to sit out elections from now on.  Everybody thumps their chests, but nobody seems willing to figure out how to actually start winning elections with leaders who want to advance liberty on all fronts.

All this can do is continue to ensure that hard-core socialists keep getting elected, laughing all the way to Congress or the Oval Office while we cut each other off at the knees with infantile caricatures and adolescent behavior.  The Right needs to exhibit some political maturity; we don’t need to pitch a fit and go home because our favored agenda items aren’t being addressed right this minute.  This applies across the board – social conservatives, don’t stomp off in a huff because abortion isn’t the topic du jour; and libertarians, don’t stomp off because somebody mentions abortion.  It’s that simple.  We can multitask.

In conclusion, we see many on the Right today who long for a second Reagan, someone who will take his mantle, pick up the standard, and press forward in the struggle for liberty that we seem to be losing so sorely at the present time.  Yet, while there are politicians out there who could fit the bill, and perhaps would if they had the chance, we do not see them rising to the occasion.  Why?  I would judge that it is because of the systematic flaws within the liberty movement itself, as outlined above.  Many potential leaders are dismissed because one faction or another isn’t willing to accept an 80% friend against a 100% enemy.  Others perhaps despair at the seeming incapacity for conservatives and libertarians to ever get it back on track.  Ultimately, however, the responsibility lies with us – liberty lovers ourselves – to make it happen.  WE need to take the mantle of leadership and start guiding this country back to where it should be.  WE need to make the case for our cause, WE need to work smarter and harder to get every advancement of our agenda that we can get, WE need to unite instead of fragmenting into mutually recriminating factions.

When we do this, we’ll have recaptured the spirit of Reagan, and may well recapture the success of Reagan as well, and go beyond them.

Tim Dunkin is a pharmaceutical chemist by day, and a freelance author by night, writing about a wide range of topics on religion and politics. He is the author of an online book about Islam entitled Ten Myths About Islam, and is the founder and editor of Conservative Underground, a bi-weekly email newsletter focusing on foundational conservative worldview and philosophy. He is a born-again Christian, and a member of a local, New Testament Baptist church in North Carolina. He can be contacted at tqcincinnatus@yahoo.com

Recovering the Spirit of Reagan is an article from: STATESMAN SENTINEL

It has become more and more apparent to seemingly everyone of late, that the American economic system is not based on capitalism, but a twisted hierarchical system of special interests and government favors commonly known as “crony capitalism.”

The distinction is very important, because crony capitalism in America – especially during the last century – created a toxic environment that has only recently spilled over into the mainstream understanding of the economy, but has long been under the surface, guiding the tides of public policy.

Crony capitalism grows out of an environment where policymakers focus so much on striving to make their country “productive” and they listen so intently to the pleas of special interests, that legislation is nothing more than government sanctioned monopolization, subsidization, or wealth redistribution to “encourage” a productive economy, or to make the economy more “fair.”

Take a piece of legislation from recent history: Obamacare.  Under this health care overhaul, the American people are forced by threat of fees and taxation, to buy health insurance from private companies.

Another example can be clearly seen in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which gave large sums of taxpayer money to companies that politicians hoped would have a positive impact on employment and economic growth.

Agriculture, the military-industrial complex, the financial industry, energy firms… These are all areas of the economy that are under heavy regulation and supervision, and they are – unsurprisingly – all industries that are rife with crony capitalism, special interest lobbying, and government favoritism.

The common complaint is that crony capitalism is unfair because it involves the government picking winners and losers.  This gets to the core issue of why crony capitalism is a bad model, but the problems run deeper.  Cronyism complicates the market as a whole, because it undermines free market rationality, creating a dependency on government help to merely stay relevant and competitive in the market place.

Koch Industries has become the villain to the progressive American left because its owners, Charles and David Koch, helped start Americans for Prosperity, and are now seen as the “funders” of the Tea Party movement.

After Koch Industries was accused of benefiting from ethanol subsidies, which the brothers have spent millions lobbying against over the years, Charles Koch wrote a very effective piece discussing their reasoning for accepting subsidies.

“Because every other company in a given industry is accepting market-distorting programs, Koch companies have had little option but to do so as well… our refining business is essentially obligated to be in the ethanol business.”

The key subtext here is: rationality.  The government skews the market by undermining free and equal competition, by engineering the economy to be productive in an “acceptable” way.  If one hopes to make it in the energy business, they must embrace subsidies and regulation in order to survive.

As more and more regulations pile on, it becomes harder and harder for new companies to become involved in these industries.  It becomes even harder for those companies whose leaders are hesitant to accept success at the cost of the taxpayer.

Even people whose political views keep them skeptical of cronyism cannot and – in their mind – should not, keep themselves from taking a piece of the pie.

Robert Lutz, the former Vice-Chairman of General Motors Company, exemplified this perfectly in his recent interview with Charlie Rose.

“To a very large extent a lot of government regulation we had and the exchange rate that the US granted Japan after the war which gave Japan a $4,000 cost advantage, the fact that corporate average fuel economy was enacted… I tell myself, the government caused a lot of the problem, I don’t mind accepting government assistance as repayment.”

He explicitly said earlier in the interview that he does not believe in the government intervention beyond basic regulation, but he emphasizes that government interference in the car industry made it legitimate for the government to bail out General Motors.  Regulation and cronyism creates such a twisted environment that bailouts are not only seem acceptable and necessary, but are actually deserved.

Crony capitalism is so rampant and blatant – as can be seen with all of Bush’s and Obama’s major initiatives – that a truly free market economy seems impossible to grasp.  It has become almost a dream, an illusion of what America could have been in a perfect world.

But this dream is attainable as long as people appreciate the power they have over their own lives, and become more skeptical of the desires of politicians, corporate heads, and bankers, who try to perfect the world using central planning and government coercion.

Christopher is a graduate from George Mason University, where he received his BA in Economics. He has worked in financial and broadcast journalism. He currently lives in northern Virginia.

The Rationality of Cronyism is an article from: STATESMAN SENTINEL