Ronald Reagan vs. Barack Obama; a matter of life and death

Ronald Reagan vs. Barack Obama; a matter of life and death

Phil Boehmke

 

Today we celebrate the Ronald Reagan Centennial. Revisionists on the left
have been busy reinterpreting and recasting the life of President Reagan in an
attempt to explain his continued popularity. Time magazine photo-shopped President Reagan with his hand on Barack Obama’s
shoulder for last week’s cover in a curious attempt to link the two polar
opposites.
The gulf that separates Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama cannot be bridged by
media hype and superficial comparisons. Perhaps no issue defines the differences
between President Reagan and Mr. Obama more closely than their views on
abortion. Last month Barack Obama marked the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade by
re-affirming his unyielding support of abortion. During his lack-luster career
in the Illinois Senate, Mr. Obama revealed his extreme and radical pro-abortion
agenda.
On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only Illinois senator who rose to speak
against a bill that would have protected babies who survive late-term
labor-induced abortions…Obama rose to object that if the bill passed, and a
nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was deemed to
be a person who had the right to live, then the law would “forbid abortions to
take place.” Obama further explained the equal protection clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment does not allow somebody to kill a child, so if the law
deemed a child who survived a late-term abortion had a right to live, “then this
would be an anti-abortion statute.” [1]
In stark contrast to Mr. Obama’s radical views on abortion, Ronald Reagan
as a Christian, believed in the sanctity of life and sought ways to educate and
convince pro-abortion supporters to consider the rights of the unborn. In The
Reagan Diaries the president relates that he had received a wire from a woman in
Peoria, Il in response to his State of the Union speech. The woman was unhappy
with his stance on abortion and felt that he wanted to take away her freedom of
choice. Rather than write a response, President Reagan called her on the
telephone and explained that “there were 2 people‘s rights involved in
abortion-the mother‘s & the unborn child.” After what he termed “a nice
visit,” the woman promised to give the matter further thought. Ronald Reagan
noted that “I think I made a friend.” [2]
During his presidency Ronald Reagan was impressed with the new ultra-sound
procedure and predicted that the new technology would have a powerful impact on
the abortion issue. In a meeting with leaders from the Right to Life movement he
viewed a short film which showed an ultra-sound of an actual abortion being
performed. President Reagan related that the Doctor who had performed the
abortion (and some 10,000 others) was so moved by the evidence that he joined
the pro-life movement. He wrote in his diary “The movie (28 minutes long) was
most impressive & how anyone could deny that the fetus is a living human
being is beyond me.” [3]
Of course President Reagan never met Barack Obama. Standing in stark and
bloody contrast to Ronald Reagan, Mr. Obama was never swayed by evidence which
would assert that a fetus is “a living human being.”
More than once, Obama heard Illinois nurse Jill Stanek testify before the
Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee, relating the following story of an aborted
Down syndrome baby who survived a late-term induced-labor abortion and was
abandoned in the hospital’s Soiled Utility Room because the baby’s parents did
not want to hold him. “I couldn’t bear the thought of this child lying alone in
a Soiled Utility Room,” Stanek testified before Obama’s committee in the
Illinois Senate. “So I cradled him and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he
lived.” Stanek reported Obama was “unfazed” by the testimony. [4]
Ronald Reagan embraced life and had a confident and simple way of
expressing the importance of each life. On July 6, 1983 he wrote:
Nancy’s Birthday! Life would be miserable if there wasn’t a Nancy’s
birthday. What if she’d never been born. I don’t want to think about that.
[5]
On Ronald Reagan’s 100th Birthday if we pause to ask, what if he had never
been born? The response would clearly be, “I don’t want to think about that.”
The United States of America was truly blessed to have had President Ronald
Reagan at the helm for eight wonderful years.
[1] Jerome Corsi, The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of
Personality (New York: Threshold Editions, 2008), p. 238.
[2] Douglas Brinkley Editor, The Reagan Diaries (New York: HarperCollins,
2007), p. 217-8.
[3] Ibid., p. 296.
[4] Corsi, The Obama Nation, p. 238.
[5] Brinkley, The Reagan Diaries, p. 164.
February 6, 2010

Page
Printed from:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/02/ronald_reagan_vs_barack_obama.html

at February 06, 2011 – 11:15:54 AM CST

// <![CDATA[//  

Michele Bachmann: The Female Reagan

Michele Bachmann: The Female Reagan

January 24th,
2011

J. Matt Barber, CNSNews.com

From the instant his fruitful eight-year reign ended, Republicans have pined
for the next Ronald Reagan. To date, no man has succeeded in filling the
conservative standard-bearer’s legendary boots. Well, maybe it’s time to swap
boots for pumps. Could he be a she?
Sarah Palin, you say? Perhaps, but there’s actually another outspoken,
attractive, fearlessly conservative Tea Party favorite firing up the
center-right grass roots: Rep. Michele Bachmann, Minnesota Republican.
Forget a Senate run. The buzz inside the Beltway is that Mrs. Bachmann may be
looking to add a woman’s touch to the Oval Office (beyond just sprucing up its
temporary occupant’s eyesore decor). Her spokesman, Doug Sachtleben, has
confirmed to media that the congresswoman is considering a potential
presidential run, saying: “Nothing’s off the table.”
Mrs. Bachmann also hinted at the possibility, recently telling MinnPost.com:
“We’re going to have a deep bench for 2012, I have no doubt, and I think what
people are asking for is a bold, strong, constitutional conservative.”
Read
more
.

Republican congressional candidate says violent overthrow of government is ‘on the table’

Republican congressional
candidate says violent overthrow of government is ‘on the table’


12:00 AM CDT on Friday, October
22, 2010


By MELANIE MASON / The Dallas
Morning News
mmason@dallasnews.com

WASHINGTON – Republican
congressional candidate Stephen Broden stunned his party Thursday, saying
he would not rule out violent overthrow of the government if elections did not
produce a change in leadership.

In a rambling exchange during a TV interview, Broden, a South Dallas
pastor, said a violent uprising “is not the first option,” but it is “on
the table.” That drew a quick denunciation from the head of the Dallas County
GOP, who called the remarks “inappropriate.”

Broden, a first-time candidate, is challenging veteran incumbent Rep. Eddie Bernice
Johnson
in Dallas’ heavily Democratic 30th Congressional
District. Johnson’s campaign declined to comment on Broden.

In the interview, Brad
Watson
, political reporter for WFAA-TV (Channel 8), asked
Broden about a tea party event last year in Fort
Worth
in which he described the nation’s government as
tyrannical.

“We have a constitutional remedy,” Broden said then. “And the Framers say if
that don’t work, revolution.”

Watson asked if his definition of revolution included violent overthrow of
the government. In a prolonged back-and-forth, Broden at first declined to
explicitly address insurrection, saying the first way to deal with a repressive
government is to “alter it or abolish it.”

“If the government is not producing the results or has become destructive to
the ends of our liberties, we have a right to get rid of that government and to
get rid of it by any means necessary,” Broden said, adding the nation was
founded on a violent revolt against Britain’s
King George III.

Watson asked if violence would be in option in 2010, under the current
government.

“The option is on the table. I don’t think that we should remove anything
from the table as it relates to our liberties and our freedoms,” Broden said,
without elaborating. “However, it is not the first option.”

GOP prepares as calls for Steele’s resignation grows

EXCLUSIVE: GOP prepares as calls for Steele’s resignation grows

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele speaks at the Rhode Island Republican Party Convention on Wednesday, June 30, 2010 in Cranston, R.I. (AP Photo/Joe Giblin)Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele speaks at the Rhode Island Republican Party Convention on Wednesday, June 30, 2010 in Cranston, R.I. (AP Photo/Joe Giblin)

By Ralph Z. Hallow

Updated: 12:55 p.m. on Saturday, July 3, 2010

     

With Republican National Committee Chairman Michael S. Steele facing a barrage of calls to resign, North Dakota Republican Party Chairman Gary Emineth, a social conservative, told The Washington Times on Friday he is quitting his post to prepare a possible challenge of Mr. Steele after November’s midterm elections.

Also on Friday, prominent neoconservatives led by William Kristol and Liz Cheney began a growing chorus demands that Mr. Steele step down now, before the Nov. 2 midterm congressional and gubernatorial elections and before he can decide whether to seek reelection to a second two-year term in January.

Mr. Emineth said what moved him to consider a bid for national chairman is what he called Mr. Steele’s dismal failure with big donors who are giving to other, more trusted GOP campaign organizations as polls continue to show Republicans, if adequately financed, stand a good chance of regaining control of Congress.

“I was shocked at the last RNC meeting to learn how little money we got from our major donors,” Mr. Emineth told The Times.

Mr. Emineth said he is resigning as state chairman to devote more time to his expanding burrito-manufacturing business. Resigning now has the added advantage of freeing him to campaign for national party chairman after Nov. 2.

Like other RNC members, Mr. Emineth has refrained from criticizing Mr. Steele until now, and until now no prominent Republican has called for Mr. Steele’s head.

What suddenly triggered resignation demands from the influential neoconservatives wing of the GOP — its foreign-policy hawks — was Mr. Steele’s saying in Connecticut on Thursday that Afghanistan is President Obama’s war and one that should not have been fought in the first place. (Click here to see the video.)

The social and neoconservative wings of the party, with their shared concern for the safety of Israel and focus on “Islamo-fascism,” have decided that Mr. Steele — the author of numerous gaffes in the past — has crossed the line this time.

On Friday, Mr. Kristol, editor of the neoconservative Weekly Standard, said in an open letter to Mr. Steele: “Your comment is more than an embarrassment. It’s an affront — both to the honor of the Republican Party and to the commitment of the soldiers fighting.”

Ms. Cheney, the daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, told Politico that the “chairman of the Republican party must be unwavering in his support for American victory in the war on terror — a victory that cannot be accomplished if we do not prevail in Afghanistan. I endorse fully Bill Kristol’s letter to Chairman Steele. It is time for Chairman Steele to step down.”

In his missive, Mr. Kristol pointed out that the “war in Afghanistan was not ‘a war of Obama’s choosing.’ … It has been prosecuted by the United States under Presidents Bush and Obama. Republicans have consistently supported the effort.”

Saying on Fox News’ Special Report that Mr. Steele “has to go,” another prominent neoconservative intellectual, Charles Krauthammer, called Mr. Steele’s apostasy on Afghanistan “a capital offense.”

Skepticism about the war is shared by many traditional conservatives such as commentator George F. Will.

“There are, of course, those who think we should pull out of Afghanistan, and they’re certainly entitled to make their case. But one of them shouldn’t be the chairman of the Republican party,” Mr. Kristol said.

Hinting that Mr. Steele’s stand might undermine the war effort, the Democratic National Committee jumped on RNC chairman’s remarks, circulated on a video of his appearance at a small GOP fundraiser in Connecticut.

Among members of Mr. Steele’s own committee, however, the disappointment with him has grown in proportion to the disappointment with his fundraising efforts.

“I have raised more money per capita for my party in my tiny state than New York or any other big state has raised for its party, but North Dakota gets no financial support from the RNC,” Mr. Emineth said,

“The real contribution from a chairman is the ability to raise money from major donors,” said Mr. Emineth. “We raised $400,000 in a single night in Fargo, North Dakota. Chairman Steele has managed to raise only $2 million from major donors all told.”

“At times his hands-off approach to managing the national committee and his miscues have hurt the party,” Mr. Emineth said. “He has been disappointing to many members.”

In later posting the following words on the RNC’s website, Mr. Steele appeared to eat his earlier words on Afghanistan — and stand by them at the same time.

“As we enter the Fourth of July weekend, I proudly remember standing with Maryland National Guardsmen on their way to the Middle East and later stood with the mothers of soldiers lost at war. There is no question that America must win the war on terror.

“During the 2008 Presidential campaign, Barack Obama made clear his belief that we should not fight in Iraq, but instead concentrate on Afghanistan. Now, as President, he has indeed shifted his focus to this region. That means this is his strategy. And, for the sake of the security of the free world, our country must give our troops the support necessary to win this war.

“As we have learned throughout history, winning a war in Afghanistan is a difficult task. We must also remember that after the tragedy of September 11, 2001, it is also a necessary one. That is why I supported the decision to increase our troop force and, like the entire United States Senate, I support General Petraeus’ confirmation. The stakes are too high for us to accept anything but success in Afghanistan.”

 

 

Calls for Steele’s resignation grow louder

Calls for Steele’s resignation grow louder

Rick Moran

The RNC chairman’s comments about Afghanistan were pretty clueless, but I think the growing chorus from GOP heavyweights for Michael Steele to step down is a cumulative effect of his verbal gaffes rather than this particular instance of idiocy.

Bill Kristol:

You are, I know, a patriot. So I ask you to consider, over this July 4 weekend, doing an act of service for the country you love: Resign as chairman of the Republican party.Your tenure has of course been marked by gaffes and embarrassments, but I for one have never paid much attention to them, and have never thought they would matter much to the success of the causes and principles we share. But now you have said, about the war in Afghanistan, speaking as RNC chairman at an RNC event, “Keep in mind again, federal candidates, this was a war of Obama’s choosing. This was not something that the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in.” And, “if [Obama] is such a student of history, has he not understood that you know that’s the one thing you don’t do, is engage in a land war in Afghanistan?”

Needless to say, the war in Afghanistan was not “a war of Obama’s choosing.” It has been prosecuted by the United States under Presidents Bush and Obama. Republicans have consistently supported the effort. Indeed, as the DNC Communications Director (of all people) has said, your statement “puts [you] at odds with about 100 percent of the Republican Party.”

I think he should have resigned after the fund raising scandals last spring, but GOP insiders thought differently. Now he has not only undercut his own party, but has shown himself to be out of touch with candidates for office who support our mission in Afghanistan.

Steele will likely force the GOP to fire him, knowing how bad it would look for the party to fire one of the few visible blacks in a leadership position. He has banked on this before, but it might not save him this time.

Banished! City forbids Bible studies in homes The city of Gilbert, Ariz., has ordered a group of seven adults to stop gathering for Bible studies in a private home because such meetings are forbidden by the city’s zoning codes.

Banished! City forbids Bible studies in homes

‘This letter will serve as a 10-day written notice to quit such use’


Posted: March 13, 2010
12:20 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

The city of Gilbert, Ariz., has ordered a group of seven adults to stop gathering for Bible studies in a private home because such meetings are forbidden by the city’s zoning codes.

The issue was brought to a head when city officials wrote a letter to a pastor and his wife informing them they had 10 days to quit having the meetings in their private home.

The ban, however, prompted a response from the Alliance Defense Fund, which filed an appeal with the city as the first step in its campaign to overturn a provision it describes as illegal.

 

“The interpretation and enforcement of the town’s code is clearly unconstitutional, ” said Daniel Blomberg, a member of the litigation team for ADF. “It bans 200,000 Gilbert residents from meeting in their private homes for organized religious purposes – an activity encouraged in the Bible, practiced for thousands of years, and protected by the First Amendment.”

Yes, the Bible is completely true, but you may never have heard the spectacular, ultimate destiny God has in store for you. It’s far more glorious than just floating around on clouds in heaven! Find out what you’ve never been told, direct from your very own Bible!

The appeal was filed on behalf of the members, all seven, of the Oasis of Truth Church.

Pastor Joe Sutherland had been told in a letter from code compliance officer Steve Wallace that the people were not allowed to meet in a home for church activities under the city’s Land Development Code.

(There had been no complaints about the meetings, which had been rotating among members’ homes before the officer wrote the letter and ordered the group to “terminate all religious meetings … regardless of their size, nature or frequency,” because he noticed signs about the meetings.

The town interprets its law so that “churches within its borders cannot have any home meetings of any size, including Bible studies, three-person church leadership meetings and potluck dinners,” ADF said.

A city letter confirmed, “Given that the church is considered to be religious assembly, and given the LDC provisions prohibiting that use on Local streets without Use Permits and prohibiting it in single family residential structures, it follows that the church meetings cannot be held in the home.”

“The assembly activities associated with the church, including Bible studies, church leadership meetings and church fellowship activities are not permitted,” wrote Mike Milillo, the city’s senior planner.

“This ban is defended based upon traffic, parking, and building safety concerns. However, nothing in its zoning code prevents weekly Cub Scouts meetings, Monday Night Football parties with numerous attendees or large business parties from being held on a regular basis in private homes,” the ADF said.

The few adults in the church had met for a few hours weekly in members’ homes.

The ADF argues such bans violate the Constitution’s free-exercise clause, and even the state’s Free Exercise of Religion Act protects such meetings.

Further, the restrictions imposed by the city violate the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, which grants significant authority for churches to pursue their ministry goals.

Finally, Blomberg said, “the First Amendment’s free-speech clause prevents the town from stopping the church from holding its meetings on the public sidewalk outside the pastor’s home, yet the town won’t allow him to hold the same meetings just a few feet away in the privacy of his own living room.”

The small church has been forced to halt its regular meetings. It meets now in a local school but only can afford the rental once a week.

A spokeswoman for the city of Gilbert told WND city officials were aware of the concern and planned to address it.

Vice Mayor Linda Abbott told WND the code apparently was adopted years earlier, and there was considerable concern on the city council because of the current issues.

“I’m not in favor of that code. That is something we would want revisited,” she said.

WND reported a similar situation in San Diego County. In that case, officials eventually withdrew a warning letter and a cease-and-desist order they had issued against a pastor who had been holding a weekly Bible study in his home.

“I want to offer my apology to you, your wife and your congregation for the unfortunate events of the past several weeks,” said the letter from Walter F. Ekard, chief officer of the county. “My review of the situation shows that no administrative citation warning should have been issued and that a major use permit is not required for the Bible study you have in your home.”

J.D. Hayworth says he’ll run against U.S. Sen. John McCain

J.D. Hayworth says he’ll run against U.S. Sen. John McCain

Reported by: Associated Press
Last Update: 11:33 am
 
J.D. Hayworth – April 2006 (Getty Images)

PHOENIX — Former Arizona Congressman J.D. Hayworth says he is planning to run against John McCain for his U.S. Senate seat.

Hayworth, a Republican, told The Associated Press late Friday he stepped down as host of his radio program on KFYI-AM, a conservative radio talk show in Phoenix. Legally, he would not have been able to remain host of the program and be an active candidate.

Hayworth was ousted from his Congressional seat in 2006 after 12 years in office by Democrat Harry Mitchell, and has hosted the radio show for the past few years.

“We will formally announce at a later time, but we’re moving forward to challenge John McCain,” he said. “I think we all respect John. I think his place in history is secure. But after close to a quarter-century in Washington, it’s time for him to come home.”

He said he wasn’t serious about running against McCain until a recent “outpouring of support” from Arizonans asking him to run changed his mind.

“Arizonans have a clear choice — a clear, commonsense, consistent conservative, or they can remain with a moderate who calls himself a maverick,” Hayworth said.

Political experts say they are skeptical that Hayworth can raise enough money to mount a political campaign against McCain.

“Cook Political Report” analyst Jennifer Duffy said Hayworth would need to raise a minimum of $2 million to run a decent primary against McCain, who had already stashed away $5 million for the race by late last month, according to the group Friends of John McCain Inc., in a report to the Federal Election Commission.

Meanwhile, McCain recently announced that Sarah Palin would campaign in Arizona with him in March in their first such appearance since their unsuccessful bid as running mates in the 2008 presidential campaign.

The former Alaska governor is scheduled to attend a private fundraising event in Phoenix on March 26. The next day, she and McCain will appear together at a public event, likely a rally.

‘Clean’ conservatives vs. ‘dirty’ liberals

‘Clean’ conservatives vs. ‘dirty’ liberals

Rick Moran
Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit has the proof in pictures; conservatives clean up after themselves while liberals let the government take care of their trash.

Hoft has a photo essay that shows the aftermath of the Mall following the 9/12 protests compared to the condition of the same venue following President Obama’s inauguration.

The difference is striking.



Washington Mall after 9/12 protest.



Washington Mall after Obama Inauguration

Is it a legitimate point to be made, that the difference in the condition of the Mall following the two events says something revealing about the two sides?

I don’t see how you can escape it. Without getting into a numbers game (and acknowledging that the inauguration crowd was bigger), it should be obvious that one side takes responsibility for their actions while the other does not. This denotes not only respect for public property, but also it reveals that conservatives have a sense of ownership relating to that property. Owners will care for their property more assiduously than non-owners. Conservatives consider themselves stakeholders in the country, seeing it as their individual concern to make better.

On the other hand, liberals don’t see public property as their concern, but rather that of the government. When everyone owns the land, no one is responsible for it in their calculation. Thoughtless littering is simply a manifestation of their belief that it’s someone else’s job to clean up after me. Not my problem since it’s not my land.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/09/clean_conservatives_vs_dirty_l.html at September 14, 2009 – 06:51:51 PM EDT

“Conservatives” Are Single-Largest Ideological Group

 

“Conservatives” Are Single-Largest Ideological Group

Percentage of “liberals” higher this decade than in early ’90s

by Lydia Saad

PRINCETON, NJ — Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This represents a slight increase for conservatism in the U.S. since 2008, returning it to a level last seen in 2004. The 21% calling themselves liberal is in line with findings throughout this decade, but is up from the 1990s.

gcvrk6v1yky1kpfyiqjhvw

These annual figures are based on multiple national Gallup surveys conducted each year, in some cases encompassing more than 40,000 interviews. The 2009 data are based on 10 separate surveys conducted from January through May. Thus, the margins of error around each year’s figures are quite small, and changes of only two percentage points are statistically significant.

To measure political ideology, Gallup asks Americans to say whether their political views are very conservative, conservative, moderate, liberal, or very liberal. As has been the case each year since 1992, very few Americans define themselves at the extremes of the political spectrum. Just 9% call themselves “very conservative” and 5% “very liberal.” The vast majority of self-described liberals and conservatives identify with the unmodified form of their chosen label.

hkh0rqeqgkyisw

Party-Based Ideology

There is an important distinction in the respective ideological compositions of the Republican and Democratic Parties. While a solid majority of Republicans are on the same page — 73% call themselves conservative — Democrats are more of a mixture. The major division among Democrats is between self-defined moderates (40%) and liberals (38%). However, an additional 22% of Democrats consider themselves conservative, much higher than the 3% of Republicans identifying as liberal.

True to their nonpartisan tendencies, close to half of political independents — 45% — describe their political views as “moderate.” Among the rest, the balance of views is tilted more heavily to the right than to the left: 34% are conservative, while 20% are liberal.

Gallup trends show a slight increase since 2008 in the percentages of all three party groups calling themselves “conservative,” which accounts for the three percentage-point increase among the public at large.

cnh492otau2oqckwo6qu2g

Thus far in 2009, Gallup has found an average of 36% of Americans considering themselves Democratic, 28% Republican, and 37% independent. When independents are pressed to say which party they lean toward, 51% of Americans identify as Democrats, 39% as Republicans, and only 9% as pure independents.

Ideological tendencies by leaned party affiliation are very similar to those of straight partisan groups. However, it is worth noting the views of pure independents — a group usually too small to analyze in individual surveys but potentially important in deciding elections. Exactly half of pure independents describe their views as moderate, 30% say they are conservative, and 17% liberal.

7tqbatk2n0mqtwmte30mxa

As reported last week on Gallup.com, women are more likely than men to be Democratic in their political orientation. Along the same lines, women are more likely than men to be ideologically “moderate” and “liberal,” and less likely to be “conservative.”

Still, conservatism outweighs liberalism among both genders.

nkhgm6m82u6qefyp2yx76g

The pattern is strikingly different on the basis of age, and this could have important political implications in the years ahead. Whereas middle-aged and older Americans lean conservative (vs. liberal) in their politics by at least 2 to 1, adults aged 18 to 29 are just as likely to say their political views are liberal (31%) as to say they are conservative (30%).

ytrgcdwnok61vzbhmpkbvq

Future Gallup analysis will look at the changes in the political ideology of different age cohorts over time, to see whether young adults in the past have started out more liberal than they wound up in their later years.

Bottom Line

Although the terms may mean different things to different people, Americans readily peg themselves, politically, into one of five categories along the conservative-to-liberal spectrum. At present, large minorities describe their views as either moderate or conservative — with conservatives the larger group — whereas only about one in five consider themselves liberal.

While these figures have shown little change over the past decade, the nation appears to be slightly more polarized than it was in the early 1990s. Compared with the 1992-1994 period, the percentage of moderates has declined from 42% to 35%, while the percentages of conservatives and liberals are up slightly — from 38% to 40% for conservatives and a larger 17% to 21% movement for liberals.

Survey Methods

Results are based on aggregated Gallup Poll surveys of approximately 1,000 national adults, aged 18 and older, interviewed by telephone. Sample sizes for the annual compilations range from approximately 10,000 to approximately 40,000. For these results, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±1 percentage point.

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

Saving the Republic

Saving the Republic

By Larrey Anderson

“What can we do to win back our country?” Conservatives are asking themselves that question — with increasing urgency — every day.  They are desperately groping for a way to stop the twin avalanches of deficit spending and socialist programs that are hurtling down and shattering the once great mountain of a free republic that was the United States of America.

Most of the conservative remedies offered to date (including mine) have been specific policy recommendations: cutting taxes, imposing term limits, or reforming entitlement programs.

 

Something is missing in these propositions. Conservatives have some good suggestions for how to fix our runaway government — but we have failed to convincingly address the issue of why the government needs to be fixed in the first place.

 

This article is all about the why.[i]  Understanding why America is America (and not some third world country) is crucial knowledge. The why of America is information that must be not only be understood by conservatives; the “why” must be promulgated and shared with all of our fellow citizens before conservatives can convince their fellow citizens the need for the “how”  — for adopting any specific conservative solutions.

 

There are three “whys” that ground America’s historical success and prosperity. They are tradition, the Constitution, and education. These three concepts are interrelated and interdependent. If one of them falls then all three fall. And, at least at this moment in time, all three are in jeopardy — not only of falling — they are in danger of being destroyed.

 

Tradition:  Private Property

 

Stated as simply as possible, America was founded on two truths. Both of these propositions were manifested in traditions that were established initially by the observation and practice of Judeo-Christian principles and then, over several centuries, were further developed under British common law. The first, and the most important tradition, was the right to private property.

 

John Locke, the British philosopher, explained the importance of the right to property as the foundation of any secure and free political regime:

 

Men, therefore, in a society having property, they have such a right to goods, which by the law of the community are theirs, that nobody hath a right to take them, or any part of them, from them without their consent; without this they have no property at all.  For I have truly no property in that which another can by right take from me when he please against my consent.  Hence it is a mistake to think that the supreme or legislative power of any commonwealth can do what it will, and dispose of the estates of the subject arbitrarily, or a take any part of them at pleasure.[ii]

 

Locke stumbled upon a fascinating political truth. The stability of any polity is directly related to the government’s ability to protect its citizens’ rights to buy, sell, own, exchange and/or keep their private property.

 

The Peruvian economist, Hernando de Soto, has done groundbreaking research that has proven the John Locke was correct. Professor de Soto’s monumental book, The Mystery of Capital, explains in shocking detail what happens when governments hinder, refuse to protect, or actively intervene in preventing the free exchange of private property.

 

In his review of de Soto’s great work, Thomas Sowell gives us this insight into the results of incongruous governmental meddling with private property:

 

Third World peoples “have houses but not titles, crops but not deeds, businesses but not statutes of incorporation.” Why then do they not get legal titles? Because it can be an unbelievable ordeal, especially for people with little education and in countries where red tape is virtually boundless.

 

When bureaucracy and frustrating legal systems drive economic activities underground, the losers are not simply those engaged in these activities. The whole country loses when legal property rights are not readily available because investment is stifled.

 

De Soto gives this stunning example:

 

In Egypt, the person who wants to acquire and legally register a lot on state-owned desert land must wind his way through at least 77 bureaucratic procedures at 31 public and private agencies. This can take anywhere from 5 to 14 years. To build a legal dwelling on former agricultural land would require 6 to 11 years of bureaucratic wrangling.
America, until just a few months ago, had a two hundred year tradition of protecting the free exchange of property between its citizens. One of the most important aspects of that process of exchange is called bankruptcy. If a business fails, the property or assets of that business are offered for sale to other citizens or businesses.[iii]

 

In other words, the state, in a self-governed and stable society, does not enter into the business of saving businesses.  In a free society, the government allows its citizens to “sift through” the remains of a failed enterprise and to either restart the business or to salvage whatever valuable assets remain in the failed enterprise.

 

But rather than let the market place sort out the value of the abandoned homes, the heavily mortgaged properties, and the over promised benefits that resulted from the burst of the “housing bubble,” the collapse of the auto makers, and the incompetence of the insurance industry, many Americans seem more than willing to put the federal government in charge of “solving” these problems.

 

In allowing the government to not only intervene, but actually purchase, these failed businesses and at risk assets, Americans have abandoned the most important and cherished tradition that grounds our freedom: the right to property.

 

The ultimate result of this kind of capitulation by the citizens to the state has been known for centuries. Once the government becomes involved in the actual distribution of private assets the result is always the same: corruption, ineptitude, injustice and tyranny:

 

Then the LORD said to Elijah, the prophet from Tishbe, “Go to King Ahab of Samaria.  You will find him in Naboth’s vineyard, about to take possession of it.  Tell him that I, the LORD, say to him, ‘After murdering the man, are you taking over his property as well?’  Tell him that this is what I say: ‘In the very place that the dogs licked up Naboth’s blood they will lick up your blood!’[iv]

 

Read the entire story of the state’s seizure of Naboth’s property. Many citizens of Jezreel were complicit in the king’s successful attempt to kill Naboth and take his vineyard. The parallel between the biblical story of Naboth’s vineyard to our government’s current “bailouts” (rapidly turning into buyouts) is stunning.

 

Tradition: Privacy

 

I have argued at length elsewhere that the right to privacy can only exist in tandem with, as an addendum to, and as a corollary of the right of property. Put as simply as possible — privacy takes place. And it must have a private setting in order to take place. As I have demonstrated, the venue, that is both sufficient and necessary for the existence of the right of privacy, is the right (and the sustained existence) of private property.[v]

 

When people loose their right to property they loose, and they loose it quickly, the right to privacy. We have witnessed, in the last few weeks, dramatic examples of this fundamental political truth.

 

Within weeks of “bailing out” AIG both state and federal governments demanded the release of the names of the employees who worked for AIG who had signed bonus contracts.

 

AIG employees’ lives were threatened and “concerned citizens” picketed some AIG executives’ homes.

 

Within weeks of receiving financial aid from the federal government, the Chairman of General Motors was forced to resign by President Obama. The right of the shareholders to hire and fire the head of the company that they own is an example of the right of privacy that stems from the right to property. (A contract is a private agreement between the owners of the company and their employee — the CEO.)[vi]

 

These are but two examples (there are others) of losses of the right to privacy that have occurred within months of the passage of the first TARP bailout and since President Bush’s infamous declaration, “I’ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market system.”

 

Abandoning free market principles does far more than increase the federal deficit. Abandoning the free market not only devastates free markets … it destroys freedom.

 

The Constitution

 

Our Founding Fathers were well aware of the twin principles of the right to property and the right to privacy. In fact they knew that the two concepts were inseparable:

 

Government is instituted no less for protection of property, than of the persons, of individuals.  The one as well as the other, therefore, may be considered as represented by those who are charged with the government.[vii]

 

If the government protects the right to property, it protects the persons and their rights to privacy within their property (their homes and their businesses.)

 

The Constitution was specifically written to limit the power of the federal government and to protect the citizens’ rights to property and to privacy.

 

For example, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution specifically itemizes the power of Congress. In fact, that’s the name of Article I, Section 8: “The Powers of Congress.”

 

So how many powers does the Congress have and what are they? You can read them here.  There are less than 20 powers and the particular capacities of Congress are fully enumerated in less than 500 words.

 

That’s it — at least according to the Constitution that’s it. No mention in Section 8 of buying up auto companies, or bailing out banks, or providing medical services, or spending money on schools, or windmills, or building bike paths or … well, the list of what Congress has done, compared to the list of what Congress is allowed to do in the Constitution is almost endless.

 

So who has the power to do all of the things that Congress now does — powers that are NOT specifically listed in the Constitution? You do. And I do. And, to a certain extent, so do the individual states and local governments in the United States.

 

To emphasize and to make it perfectly clear that the new federal government was a limited government intended primarily to protect the property and the persons of the new nation, the Founders added a list of ten amendments that we call “The Bill of Rights.”

 

Of particular interest in our discussion are the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.  Here is what the Ninth Amendment says:

 

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

The list of rights granted to Congress in Article I, Section 8 (the enumerated rights of the Congress) contains all of the “Powers of Congress” granted under the Constitution.

 

If any particular right is not granted to the Congress in Article I, Section 8, then that right belongs to you and me. We, the people, retain all of the rights that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

 

In order to make the Ninth Amendment absolutely explicit, the Founders added the Tenth Amendment. I like to call the Tenth Amendment the “And We Really, Really Mean It” amendment. Here is what it says:

 

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

 

The Founding Fathers really, really did mean it.

 

Education

 

America is founded on the right to property and the accompanying and complimentary right to privacy. Our Constitution was written to protect these two most precious forms of freedom  — the joint liberties from which all other rights and human dignities flow. These are the two simple truths that, for more than two hundred years, made America the most powerful and prosperous nation on the face of the earth.

 

We have failed as a nation to teach the majority of at least the last two generations of our citizens these fundamental truths. This is why we a loosing our republic. The Founders warned time and time again that they had given us a free republic “if you can keep it.”[viii]

 

The first step conservatives must take to preserve our republic is to understand the importance of these truths and to teach them to our children, our friends, and, yes, even to our political opponents.

 

Start with our children. Millions of Americans study the scriptures with their children — some on a daily basis. How many of these same Americans study the Constitution with their offsrping? The Bible and its message are available in almost every country in the world (including autocracies like Cuba and Venezuela). But God blessed only America with the Bible and with our majestic Constitution.

 

My advice for the millions of religious conservatives in America: read your kids the Bible and the Ten Commandments but don’t neglect reading them The Constitution and the Ten Amendments.

 

There are some great resources available for teaching our children the history of the founding of America. National radio talk show host Mike Church has produced an entertaining series of recordings on compact disc that tell the story of the struggle for independence and the founding of America. The series includes The Road to Independence and The Fame of Our Fathers.

 

These fascinating, and historically accurate, CDs are a must for home school history classes. Children who attend public schools would greatly benefit listening to these CDs. New citizens, or adult Americans who don’t know much about early American history, will enjoy them as well.[ix]

 

Take the time to sit down with your like-minded friends and study the Constitution. Are you in a book club? Insist that the Federalist Papers be included on the reading list.

 

Learn the Constitution. Understand the wisdom of our Founding Fathers. In an argument with any one on the far left, being able to refer to specific sections of the greatest political document ever written is the most effective debating tool you can possess. Be able to show them that the Constitution is all that stands between their inalienable rights to property and privacy … and tyranny.

 

Larrey Anderson is a writer, a philosopher, and submissions editor for American Thinker. His latest award-winning novel is The Order of the Beloved. His memoir, Underground: Life and Survival in the Russian Black Market, has just been released.


[i] My suggestions in this article for solving the current crisis in our republic are very simple and straightforward. But the principles behind these ideas are not so simple. My proposals are based on philosophical premises that I have published over the last several months here on American Thinker. I suggest that the reader review these articles before considering the manifesto that follows: (1) Privacy and Property Rights; (2) The Myth of Relativism and the Cult of Tolerance; and (3) Intellectuals and Philosophy vs. Conservatives and Tradition.

 

[ii] Second Treatise, Section 138.

 

[iii] The state’s role in the redistribution of the assets of a failed enterprise is fair and just judicial oversight of the sale of the remaining holdings. It is also important to realize that a corporation is a legal fiction created to be able to allow a business to act as a single “person” to buy and sell property, to provide goods and services, and to enter into the contractual obligations to do so.

 

[iv] I Kings 21: 17-19. See also Exodus 22:1-4.

 

[v] Here was the summation of that argument: “Whenever the state restricts a private activity, thus limiting the activity to a specific site, if there is no private property (no specific site) then there is no place in which that activity can occur.  Prisons are not private.”

 

[vi] See note 3. The traditional (and constitutional) role of government in contract law is to act as a referee (once again through the judiciary) when one side or the other fails to keep its part of the contractual agreement.

 

[vii] The Federalist, Number 54.

 

[viii] The Federalist, Number 10 outlines the need for continuing education and the frailty of a free republic to be captured by “factions.”

 

[ix] Professional actors read from the actual historical letters and documents. The CDs were recorded with convincing sound effects and a stunning musical score.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/04/saving_the_republic.html at April 17, 2009 – 10:51:12 AM EDT

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 55 other followers