These Firmest Props

Tax policy and inequality in America (Part 2 of 2)

2010-03-14T09:00:00.000-07:00

If you haven't read part 1, do so here. :)

~~~

Mellon’s Mark
Anyone taking an objective look at the American economy from 1919 to 1921 would have scoffed at the notion that the decade to come would be known in history as “The Roaring Twenties.” It certainly didn’t start with a roar. The end of World War I brought about a weak agricultural sector, tens of thousands of GIs looking for jobs, high taxes, a high national debt, a slow economy, and a fattened U.S. government (Schweikart and Allen, 2004).
Into this puddle of economic malaise stepped Warren Harding as the newly elected president of the United States in November of 1920. Harding’s secretary of the treasury, Andrew Mellon, immediately began studying the roots of the economic bleakness and sought a solution. Mellon found that the high rate of taxation had driven money underground as the rich invested abroad rather than pay the high taxes on business in the U.S. “Mellon concluded that lowering the rates on everyone, especially on the wealthiest classes, would actually result in their paying more taxes. From 1921 to 1926, Congress reduced rates…on the top income earners…. The tax take from the wealthy almost tripled, but the poor classes saw their share of taxes fall substantially…. The national debt fell by one third…in five years” (Schweikart and Allen, 2004).
When Harding died suddenly while in office, his quiet vice president, Calvin Coolidge, calmly took the helm and continued the restrained and stand-offish economic policies of his late boss. Things went from good to better in a hurry. “Unemployment reached the unheard-of low mark of less than 2 percent under Coolidge, and … union membership shrank... [due to] welfare capitalism preemptively providing employees with a wide range of benefits without pressure from unions.… With government playing only a small role in people’s everyday affairs, American entrepreneurs produced the most vibrant eight-year burst of manufacturing and innovation in the nation’s history.” (Schweikart and Allen, 2004).
Contrary to academics’ assumptions about the interaction of today’s public policies and economic prosperity, history shows that the “rising tide of strong economic growth lifted all boats. At the top end, total income grew as a result of many more people becoming prosperous, rather than a fixed number of high earners getting greatly richer….between 1922 and 1928…the number of taxpayers earning between $10,000 and $100,000 increased 84 percent, while the number reporting income of less than $10,000 fell” (Rugy, 2003). This period of restrained government and exploding wealth and prosperity across classes stands as a bright testament to the ideals of our founding: limited government and the strongest possible protection of personal liberty and the free market system.

Priorities of the Present Political Period
Robert Frank makes a compelling case that inequality does in fact harm the middle class and society as a whole. Demonstrating that the “positional arms race” engaged in by our materialistic society is a root cause of inequality, Frank argues that the estate tax and a progressive consumption tax are essential in the effort toward a more egalitarian society (Frank, 2007).
My contention with Frank is not that his proposals are necessarily wrong in their policy outcomes, but that they are wrong in their philosophical outcomes and therefore ultimately will fail. To borrow his words, I don’t think that a progressive consumption tax is “little more than a political pipe dream;” rather, the socialistic idea that man can create a perfect, egalitarian society is a philosophical “pipe dream” with dangerous consequences.
Friedrich Hayek, in his seminal 1944 work “The Road to Serfdom,” rightly wrote that
“Nobody saw more clearly than Tocqueville that democracy… stood in an irreconcilable conflict with socialism: ‘Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom,’ he said in 1848; ‘socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude’ (Hayek, 1944).
As a society, we must take a sober look the history of government power and intervention in the marketplace, confiscation of personal property and liberty, and attempts to create a perfect, egalitarian society. If the 20th Century’s experiments in the former Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Vietnam, and Cambodia (to name a few), are any indication, an egalitarian “workers paradise” is the ultimate philosophical pipe dream.
“Man,” wrote Declaration of Independence signer James Wilson “is intended for action. Useful and skilful industry is the soul of an active life. But industry should have her just reward. That reward is property.… What belongs to no one is wasted by every one. What belongs to one man in particular is the object of his economy and care. Exclusive property prevents disorder, and promotes peace” (Wilson, 1804). One of the lost values of the present political age is the preservation of private property as essential to a free and peaceful society. The idea that government has the right – and even the duty – to confiscate the property of the wealthy via taxes for the purpose of “equality,” is an assumption that flies in the face of all the written ideals of our founding. Yet, when it comes to tax policy, “the emphasis in Washington, DC, has once again turned to how to split up the economic pie rather than the effect of tax policy on the size of the pie” (Carroll, 2009). For our elected policy makers to continue to view the economic impact of taxation as a zero sum game is an irrational and historically ignorant viewpoint. Assuming that it is their place to allocate the servings of that pie is the pinnacle of political arrogance.
Eliminating the progressive income tax and replacing it with either a flat income tax or a national sales tax for the purpose of funding only the minimum constitutionally legitimate functions of the federal government would be a bold step toward curbing politicians’ insatiable appetite for playing god (Levin, 2009). No matter what the specific outcomes, our society must change its philosophical assumption that the government’s job is to “take care of us.” Returning to the ideas of constitutionally limited government, fiscal restraint, and the “hands off” policies of Harding and Coolidge, holds great promise for increasing the economic prosperity of all Americans.
Our beloved 16th president was dismayed at the socialistic and redistributive ideas of his day, saying, “That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built” (Lincoln, 1864). He knew that the point of taxation “isn’t to confiscate: it’s to raise revenue for things that will benefit society” (Lowenstein, 2007). That which ultimately benefits society more than all else is liberty and freedom from a tyrannical government. It is for these things our founders gave their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor (Declaration of Independence, 1776). Our tax policies and philosophical position towards the redistribution of wealth ought to take such a stance.
~~

If anyone would like a bibliography of the cited material, let me know. :)

Tax policy and inequality in America (Part 1 of 2)

2010-03-13T21:23:00.000-08:00

Studying political science at what might be the most liberal academic institution north of Berkley has given me a lot of opportunities to observe, listen to, and digest a large volume of hyper-liberal ideology. Unfortunately, I have had far less opportunity to respond, as my silence is frequently critical to my grades and even, I suspect, my health.
One of the classes I am finishing up has been focused entirely on the issue of inequality in the United States. I decided to share with anyone who cares to read my thoughts on tax policy and inequality in America. This is the first of what will be a two part series. Your thoughts and comments are welcome. :)
~~~

An Introduction to Inequality
A great academic focus of many in today’s intellectual class is on the distribution of wealth and government policies of redistribution. The literature on the issue of inequality is staggering in its breadth and depth. It is not the purpose of this brief essay – were it even possible in any space of pen and page – to settle or presume to answer in any definitive way the myriad of questions about the extent of inequality in America and what the government might do about it. Rather, this essay will focus specifically on the role of government tax policy and its correlation with inequality in American society. What is the historical relationship between tax policy and inequality across all social strata, and how should these historical relationships influence future tax policy? More importantly, what is the philosophical rationale of government redistribution of wealth policies? No essay this breif could be expected to fully answer such questions, but herein I will make the case for a reduction in government involvement in wealth redistribution policies as the preferable method to increase liberty, economic growth, and societal happiness, these being preferred to the costs associated with the government imposition of a more egalitarian society.

Inequality’s Inherency
Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez teamed up in 2003 for The Quarterly Journal of Economics to document the top shares of wages from 1913 to 1998 in the United States. Their work shows that as early as 1913 (and others have shown it to be substantially true even earlier), the wealthiest percentile of capital owners was miles ahead of the middle class and poor, and were still, even after experiencing large and permanent losses during the Great Depression and World War II. They argue that “steep progressive income and estate taxation may have prevented large fortunes from fully recovering” after World War II, but that the gap in equality was still vast, and did grow in the post-war years. Theirs is far from the first study outlining inequality of income or of taxation, but it does make the important case that “long-run inequality trends are the consequence of real economic change, and… a short-run perspective might… attribute improperly some of these trends to fiscal manipulation.” In other words, though government policy is influential, one must carefully consider that inequality is too complex of a social condition as to be contained or controlled by “fiscal manipulation” (Piketty and Saez, 2006).
Other authors and researchers have gone to great lengths to demonstrate a rising inequality in America and its (debatably) harmful affects on American society (see Bartels, 2008; Frank, 2007), arguing for aggressive government intervention in pursuit of a more egalitarian society. Still others (Iyer et al, 2008) have dug into the issues of tax rate progressivity and its affect (or lack thereof) on real inequality, the hidden “excess burden” of high tax rates (Carroll, 2009), the necessity of high employment and union involvement in eradicating inequality (Kenworthy, 2009), and the affect of “changes in labor supply, savings, and portfolio decisions as a result of revisions in the tax code” (Karoly, 1996; Sanyal et al, 2000).
In spite of the vast quantities of time, effort, and money poured into researching inequality and what can be done about it, it strikes this author as rather odd that the basic assumption by seemingly every academic is that the government should do something about inequality, without really making the case that because action is possible, that action is inherently good. For that matter, the basic assumption that inequality is harmful is scarcely argued at all, save for the work of Robert Frank in his book “Falling Behind” (Frank, 2007).
It is my contention that the eradication of inequality by government redistribution of wealth is a fruitless and foolish endeavor. As such, we ought to look to history as a guide on to whether the societal welfare can be maximized without the obtuse intrusion of government on economic affairs and personal liberty and property.

Economic Recovery

2010-03-01T21:38:00.000-08:00

It is a slow day in the small Minnesota town of Marshall , and streets are deserted. Times are tough, everybody is in debt, and everybody is living on credit.

A rich tourist visiting the area drives through town, stops at the motel, and lays a $100 bill on the desk saying he wants to inspect the rooms upstairs to pick one for the night.

As soon as he walks upstairs, the motel owner grabs the bill and runs next door to pay his debt to the butcher.

The butcher takes the $100 and runs down the street to retire his debt to the pig farmer.

The pig farmer takes the $100 and heads off to pay his bill to his supplier, the Farmer's Co-op.

The guy at the Farmer's Co-op takes the $100 and runs to pay his debt to the local prostitute, who has also been facing hard times and has had to offer her "services" on credit.

The hooker rushes to the hotel and pays off her room bill with the hotel owner.

The hotel proprietor then places the $100 back on the counter so the rich traveler will not suspect anything.

At that moment the traveler comes down the stairs, states that the rooms are not satisfactory, picks up the $100 bill and leaves town.

No one produced anything. No one earned anything... However, the whole town is now out of debt and now looks to the future with a lot more optimism.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how the United States government is conducting business today.

That Which is Seen

2010-02-02T19:15:00.001-08:00

I'm discouraged that it is been so long since my last writing. Life has a way of displacing my passions and interests so as to express them in different ways at different times. Though I endeavor to more consistently express my musing upon this thing we call the internet, I seem unable to move these writings from an occasional occurrence and into the realm of habit. Such is life.
This I found to be a quite insightful writing by a frenchman by the name Frederic Bastiat. You can find the entirety of his musings on economics of the state here: http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html

My favorite portion, and quite relevant to the foolish state of perpetually accrediting the undeserving by the credit of the taxpayer, follows.

~ ~ ~

In all times, but more especially of late years, attempts have been made to extend wealth by the extension of credit.

I believe it is no exaggeration to say, that since the revolution of February, the Parisian presses have issued more than 10,000 pamphlets, crying up this solution of the social problem. The only basis, alas! of this solution, is an optical delusion - if, indeed, an optical delusion can be called a basis at all.

The first thing done is to confuse cash with produce, then paper money with cash; and from these two confusions it is pretended that a reality can be drawn.

It is absolutely necessary in this question to forget money, coin, bills, and the other instruments by means of which productions pass from hand to hand; our business is with the productions themselves, which are the real objects of the loan; for when a farmer borrows fifty francs to buy a plough, it is not, in reality, the fifty francs which are lent to him, but the plough: and when a merchant borrows 20,000 francs to purchase a house, it is not the 20,000 francs which he owes, but the house. Money only appears for the sake of facilitating the arrangements between the parties.

Peter may not be disposed to lend his plough, but James may be willing to lend his money. What does William do in this case? He borrows money of James, and with this money he buys the plough of Peter.

But, in point of fact, no one borrows money for the sake of the money itself; money is only the medium by which to obtain possession of productions. Now, it is impossible in any country to transmit from one person to another more productions than that country contains.

Whatever may be the amount of cash and of paper which is in circulation, the whole of the borrowers cannot receive more ploughs, houses, tools, and supplies of raw material, than the lenders altogether can furnish; for we must take care not to forget, that every borrower supposes a lender, and that what is once borrowed implies a loan.

This granted, what advantage is there in institutions of credit? It is, that they facilitate, between borrowers and lenders, the means of finding and treating with each other; but it is not in their power to cause an instantaneous increase of the things to be borrowed and lent. And yet they ought to be able to do so, if the aim of the reformers is to be attained, since they aspire to nothing less than to place ploughs, houses, tools, and provisions in the hands of all those who desire them.

And how do they intend to effect this?

By making the State security for the loan.

Let us try and fathom the subject, for it contains something which is seen, and also something which is not seen. We must endeavour to look at both.

We will suppose that there is but one plough in the world, and that two farmers apply for it.

Peter is the possessor of the only plough which is to be had in France; John and James wish to borrow it. John, by his honesty, his property, and good reputation, offers security. He inspires confidence; he has credit. James inspires little or no confidence. It naturally happens that Peter lends his plough to John.

But now, according to the Socialist plan, the State interferes, and says to Peter, "Lend your plough to James, I will be security for its return, and this security will be better than that of John, for he has no one to be responsible for him but himself; and I, although it is true that I have nothing, dispose of the fortune of the taxpayers, and it is with their money that, in case of need, I shall pay you the principal and interest." Consequently, Peter lends his plough to James: this is what is seen.

And the Socialists rub their hands, and say, "See how well our plan has answered. Thanks to the intervention of the State, poor James has a plough. He will no longer be obliged to dig the ground; he is on the road to make a fortune. It is a good thing for him, and an advantage to the nation as a whole."

Indeed, gentlemen, it is no such thing; it is no advantage to the nation, for there is something behind which is not seen.

It is not seen, that the plough is in the hands of James, only because it is not in those of John.

It is not seen, that if James farms instead of digging, John will be reduced to the necessity of digging instead of farming.

That, consequently, what was considered an increase of loan, is nothing but a displacement of loan. Besides, it is not seen that this displacement implies two acts of deep injustice.

It is an injustice to John, who, after having deserved and obtained credit by his honesty and activity, sees himself robbed of it.

It is an injustice to the tax-payers, who are made to pay a debt which is no concern of theirs.

Will any one say, that Government offers the same facilities to John as it does to James? But as there is only one plough to be had, two cannot be lent. The argument always maintains that, thanks to the intervention of the State, more will be borrowed than there are things to be lent; for the plough represents here the bulk of available capitals.

It is true, I have reduced the operation to the most simple expression of it, but if you submit the most complicated Government institutions of credit to the same test, you will be convinced that they can have but on result; viz., to displace credit, not to augment it. In one country, and in a given time, there is only a certain amount of capital available, and all are employed. In guaranteeing the non-payers, the State may, indeed, increase the number of borrowers, and thus raise the rate of interest (always to the prejudice of the tax-payer), but it has no power to increase the number of lenders, and the importance of the total of the loans.

There is one conclusion, however, which I would not for the world be suspected of drawing. I say, that the law ought not to favour, artificially, the power of borrowing, but I do not say that it ought not to restrain them artificially. If, in our system of mortgage, or in any other, there be obstacles to the diffusion of the application of credit, let them be got rid of; nothing can be better or more just than this. But this is all which is consistent with liberty, and it is all that any who are worthy of the name of reformers will ask.

Corruption in Washington: The Life and Times of John Murtha

2009-11-19T22:06:00.000-08:00

I'll take Freedom, with a full side of responsibility, please.

2009-11-12T15:23:00.001-08:00

Reagan Republicans

2009-10-28T23:18:00.000-07:00

The following is an appeal to conservatives across America to reclaim the Republican party on the principles of freedom, individual liberty, and limited government. Thanks first to Ronald Reagan, who penned these words in 1977 under the title "The New Republican Party" and also to http://reagan2020.us for making them available.

~~~~

We, the members of the New Republican Party, believe that the preservation and enhancement of the values that strengthen and protect individual freedom, family life, communities and neighborhoods and the liberty of our beloved nation should be at the heart of any legislative or political program presented to the American people. Toward that end, we, therefore, commit ourselves to the following propositions and offer them to each American believing that the New Republican Party, based on such principles, will serve the interest of all the American people.

We believe that liberty can be measured by how much freedom Americans have to make their own decisions, even their own mistakes. Government must step in when one’s liberties impinge on one’s neighbor’s. Government must protect constitutional rights, deal with other governments, protect citizens from aggressors, assure equal opportunity, and be compassionate in caring for those citizens who are unable to care for themselves.

Our federal system of local-state-national government is designed to sort out on what level these actions should be taken. Those concerns of a national character -- such as air and water pollution that do not respect state boundaries, or the national transportation system, or efforts to safeguard your civil liberties -- must, of course, be handled on the national level.

As a general rule, however, we believe that government action should be taken first by the government that resides as close to you as possible.

We also believe that Americans, often acting through voluntary organizations, should have the opportunity to solve many of the social problems of their communities. This spirit of freely helping others is uniquely American and should be encouraged in every way by government.

Families must continue to be the foundation of our nation.

Families -- not government programs -- are the best way to make sure our children are properly nurtured, our elderly are cared for, our cultural and spiritual heritages are perpetuated, our laws are observed and our values are preserved.

Thus it is imperative that our government’s programs, actions, officials and social welfare institutions never be allowed to jeopardize the family. We fear the government may be powerful enough to destroy our families; we know that it is not powerful enough to replace them. The New Republican Party must be committed to working always in the interest of the American family.

Every dollar spent by government is a dollar earned by individuals. Government must always ask: Are your dollars being wisely spent? Can we afford it? Is it not better for the country to leave your dollars in your pocket?

Elected officials, their appointees, and government workers are expected to perform their public acts with honesty, openness, diligence, and special integrity.

Government must work for the goal of justice and the elimination of unfair practices, but no government has yet designed a more productive economic system or one which benefits as many people as the American market system.

The beauty of our land is our legacy to our children. It must be protected by us so that they can pass it on intact to their children.

The United States must always stand for peace and liberty in the world and the rights of the individual. We must form sturdy partnerships with our allies for the preservation of freedom. We must be ever willing to negotiate differences, but equally mindful that there are American ideals that cannot be compromised. Given that there are other nations with potentially hostile design, we recognize that we can reach our goals only while maintaining a superior national defense, second to none....

Our task now is not to sell a philosophy, but to make the majority of Americans, who already share that philosophy, see that modern conservatism offers them a political home. We are not a cult, we are members of a majority. Let’s act and talk like it.

The job is ours and the job must be done. If not by us, who? If not now, when?

Our party must be the party of the individual. It must not sell out the individual to cater to the group. No greater challenge faces our society today than ensuring that each one of us can maintain his dignity and his identity in an increasingly complex, centralized society.

Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business ... frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise. They are the residue of centralized bureaucracy, of government by a self-anointed elite.

Our party must be based on the kind of leadership that grows and takes its strength from the people. Any organization is in actuality only the lengthened shadow of its members. A political party is a mechanical structure created to further a cause. The cause, not the mechanism, brings and holds the members together. And our cause must be to rediscover, reassert and reapply America’s spiritual heritage to our national affairs.

Then with God’s help we shall indeed be as a city upon a hill with the eyes of all people upon us.

Thank you, Ted!

2009-10-04T10:46:00.001-07:00

A New Dearth Of Freedom

2009-10-03T23:38:00.000-07:00

One of the prevailing themes early on in the presidency of Barack Hussein Obama was the comparison of him to our nation’s 16th president, Abraham Lincoln. Media members, pundits, and others even went so far as to declare Obama’s inauguration “a new birth of freedom,” borrowing [and I’d say abusively so] the words from Lincoln’s “Gettysburg Address”. Considering the significant investment of emotion, identity, and ego by the media in our new president, it is strange how those comparisons have died down in recent months. It is worth considering that perhaps the policies and practices of Obama and his cronies in Congress are undermining any comparisons to man who preserved our United States.

On November 19, 1863, Lincoln addressed a group of people mourning and remembering the loss of as many as 27,000 lives. In his speech, Lincoln solemnly pledged that the death of so many Americans would give birth to freedom for a long-enslaved population and that the government “of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” Lincoln’s commitment to the preservation of the Union and the abolition of slavery would eventually cost him his very life.

On January 20, 2009, Obama was addressing a massive throng of emotionally invested supporters, willing to believe that the race of a man gave him the presidency as the birthright of a formerly enslaved people. He responded by stoking their belief that “change” had finally come, that there was “hope” for the future, and convincing at least one person that she wouldn’t “have to worry about putting gas in [her] car” or about “paying [her] mortgage.” Indeed, Obama was all set to be the greatest American President of all time.

So far there have only been a few problems; a projected 2009 budget deficit of $1,700,000,000,000 is near the top of the list. The massive failure of 88 [and counting] banks, the firing of General Motor’s CEO [and subsequent takeover by Team Obama], the endless appointment of “czars” to control and run virtually every aspect of American life, and the arrogance of the Obama administration’s forceful oppression of economic freedom under the guise of “environmental responsibility” are a few other problems in the way of Obama’s fantasy as the next Lincoln.

Instead of a new birth of freedom and opportunity, America is facing a new dearth of freedom, the loss on a scale unseen by any previous generation. With the heartbreaking tragedy of tens of thousands of lost lives, Lincoln humbly assumed that the history would “little note, nor long remember what we say here,” preferring to focus on “these honored dead” and “that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion…that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” Like the greatest presidents before him, Lincoln wholly believed in the governing principles of our republic; principles such as the separation of powers and a system of checks and balances to “enable the government to control the governed” and in turn “oblige it to control itself.”

In contrast, Obama has persistently focused on himself, his ambition, and the consolidation of his political power. As has been noted [also see this], Obama can barely restrain his obsession with himself, even in televised speeches. He ardently clings to the “progressive” ideas of state power, state control, and most insidiously, state-given rights [as opposed to unalienable rights given by our Creator]. More recently, Team Obama’s massive failure in securing the 2016 Olympics for their pals [and their egos] back in Chicago is another disgusting display of arrogant self-absorption.

In spite of the doom and gloom that threatens to invade the bright minds of conservatives and Christians all across this great nation, I persist in my optimism. I believe in the resiliency of the American people and the ideals which have made America great. The Bible reminds us that “Pride comes before destruction” and “In his pride the wicked does not seek Him; in all his thoughts there is no room for God.” Though I will respect the office of the Presidency and pray fervently for Obama and the government entrusted with protecting this nation, I do believe that revival and restoration begins in one year. The 2010 elections will reveal and define the heart of America.

Will we reject corruption and cronyism? Will we stand for righteousness, integrity, humility, and the principles and values that are foundational to the preservation of the Union? Will we elect governors, congressmen, and senators in the mold of “Honest Abe?” Time will tell. Until then, I will pray that the hearts and minds of Americans will be awakened to the real and present danger facing our constitution, our republic, and our very way of life.

Psalm 33:12 “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.”

Embracing Community Organization

2009-09-16T16:02:00.000-07:00

In recent weeks, the new media has diligently uncovered and exposed the depths of corruption at the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now – commonly known as ACORN. One year ago, most Americans didn’t know what a “community organizer” was, much less what one did. Today, Americans of every political affiliation are finding out more and more about the corruption and cancer that is ACORN than we could possibly have imagined. The purpose of this author is not to blast ACORN, Obama, his Czars, Congress, or any of the other radicals bent on destroying – no wait, Obama is deconstructing language too, so we ought to use his words and call it “fundamentally transform[ing]” – America as we know it. Indeed, there is plenty of damning information to be had to demonstrate the cancerous rot these radicals are fomenting in communities across the country.

My contention is that, far from rejecting idea of “change,” “hope,” and community organizers, we ought to embrace their structure as the IV by which we insert the chemotherapy of right thinking to eradicate the cancer of the radical statists.

As I’ve written in previous posts, the preeminent purpose of this blog is to cause you, dear reader, to think carefully and rightly about the most fundamentally important ideas, or “pillars,” upon which our country was founded. I would like here to build upon that.

It is time for the long silent majority of moderate, temperate, and politically disinclined Americans to get off the couch and stand for something. If you refuse to stand for something, you will be made a serf, a pawn, and a statistic to be manipulated and used by politicians for their own personal gain. Enter the “community organizing” template.

By taking seriously the grave condition our Republic* finds itself in, Americans can begin to speak out. It remains to be seen what people motivated by a common goal, a sense of urgency, right thinking, and a fearless regard for the truth can accomplish. Although most of us are “too busy” to think about politics, much less DO something, I cannot stress enough how desperately urgent this time is. It is that very same attitude that has allowed radical statists to high-jack our government. It is time to take it back.

So, although this is far from a complete list, here are a few simple steps that you can take to join the rest of the silent majority and reclaim the America that was:

1) Get informed! This means broadening the sources of media that you expose yourself to. To any objective person, it is clear that the “old media” [CBS, NBC, ABC, NY Times, MSNBC, WA Post, etc] have a distinct political objective. Embracing the “new media” [FoxNews, talk radio, and internet news sites such as breitbart.com] is a key first step in getting informed.
2) Think! Stop spewing political talking points and start thinking! Buy books on logical thinking, or take a course at a community college, I don’t care, just teach yourself to think rationally and logically!
3) Speak! Exercise your Constitutional rights to assemble peaceably and speak freely. DO NOT BE COWED by those whom your speech threatens! Whether it is talking to a neighbor, writing a blog, writing to your local newspaper, calling a talk radio show, or organizing a community forum to discuss local or national issues, do it without fear!
4) Call your congressional representatives in the House and Senate. Demand accountability! Demand that they uphold their oath of office!

By embracing local, social involvement as the primary means by which the greatest majority of Americans can influence the national political debates, America CAN be restored, one voter, one family, one community at a time.

*If you have been brainwashed by your public school teachers, the media, or anyone else into thinking America was founded as a democracy, it’s time to do some research. Seriously. That lie in and of itself has been unbelievably destructive in American civic education. I may just have to write a complete post on this later.

Our Broken Nation Cries for Truth

2009-09-11T15:38:00.000-07:00

Eight years. 96 months. 416 weeks. 2922 days. 2,998 innocent dead. September 11, 2001 is as fresh in my mind today as it was nearly a decade ago. My mind still reels from the images and my heart breaks for the innocence lost. More than that, my anger burns against political people whose love of power, lack of principle, and loss of conscience in the ensuing years has been an enemy every bit as deadly as the 19 young men who high-jacked airplanes and, with hearts deceived by hatred, shattered American illusions of security.

As the political battle between Republicans and Democrats has been slowly and consistently ratcheted up over the last eight years, an insidious evil has been growing in American politics: hatred. Where once reasonable people could agree to disagree, the American community is mostly marked by bitter political anger, name calling, and rhetorical aggression that often seems on the verge of erupting into physical violence.

This division is destroying our ability to remember who we were on 9/12/2001, a people united in defense of our beloved country. Darryl Worley’s lyrics in his song “Have you Forgotten” seem more appropriate with every passing year:

Have you forgotten how it felt that day?
To see your homeland under fire
And her people blown away
Have you forgotten when those towers fell
We had neighbors still inside goin' through a livin' hell
And we vow to get the ones behind Bin Laden
Have you forgotten?

It would seem we have forgotten the truth that an ideological enemy of the most dangerous kind is waging a holy war with us, yet we insist on calling it an “overseas contingency plan.”

In the spring, summer, and fall of 2008, a manipulative and politically savvy (yet inexperienced) junior senator from Illinois seized the opportunity afforded by the atmosphere of division and manipulated a majority of the populace into believing he was a moderate and benevolent leader who would unite a divided people. Alas, this new president's power strategy of “divide and conquer” worked with stunning alacrity as he muscled his agenda through a complacent and complicit congress. Devoid of the courage, character, or principle to defend the people and Constitution of the United States against its biggest domestic enemy of all time, Congress has been unwilling to check the federal government’s increasingly corrupt and powerful executive branch, threatening every good part of Americana that has made us who we are today.

In recent weeks, the people of America have begun to take their stand against corruption and for the Constitution. Glenn Beck has led the charge in reporting and exposing the corruption by asking “reasonable questions for an unreasonable time.” This has been an encouraging and desperately needed sign of life for the defenders of the Constitution, but more is needed.

I believe that the key to winning back the principles of the Constitution and restoring integrity to our government lies with the Christians of every denomination in these United States. More than any other group of people, with them lies the responsibility to defend the 12 values identified by Glenn Beck as key to restoring and preserving the integrity of this government: Honesty, Reverence, Hope, Thrift, Humility, Charity, Sincerity, Moderation, Hard Work, Courage, Personal Responsibility, and Gratitude. These values are a reflection of the scripture we possess and the Savior we confess. It is time to put our faith into action and live for the only change that can make a real difference: lives transformed by the grace and power of Christ.

As Christians, we have too often neglected the power of Christ to transform not only people’s lives, but entire nations and societies. So caught up are we in theological debates, doctrinal differences, and petty squabbles over irrelevant things, we have forgotten the preeminent purpose of Christ in our lives: to make disciples of all nations!

Under the direct hit and intense heat of political pressure, Truth is falling into the streets in much the same way the twin towers crumbled under the impact of airplanes and the heat of jet fueled fires. As we remember today the many lives lost, it is time to run from corruption and political lies. It is time to cling to the truth, and not just politically. Apart from the Truth that is Jesus Christ, we cannot expect to maintain truth in politics and government.

The lyrics of a popular Christian song seem an appropriate rallying cry:

It is not a human right
To stare not fight
While broken nations dream
Open up our eyes, so blind
That we might find
The Mercy for the need

It is not too far a cry
To much to try
To help the least of these
Politics will not decide
If we should rise
And be your hands and feet

Only You can mend the broken heart
And cause the blind to see
Erase complete the sinners past
And set the captives free
Only You can take the widows cry
And cause her heart to sing
Be a Father to the fatherless
Our Savior and our King
We will be Your hands, we will be Your feet
We will run this race
On the darkest place, we will be Your light

Our broken nation cries for truth, blind eyes need to be opened, and politics will certainly not inspire the change that only Christ can bring. May we truly be the hands and feet of Christ. May we run with perseverance the race set before us, to be the change in a nation divided.

Never Forget. Never Surrender. Run the race set before you.

Have You Forgotten? I haven't... I never will.

2009-09-11T12:28:00.000-07:00

Pillars of Prosperity

2009-08-07T12:54:00.000-07:00

History has a way of making prophets of the wise and fools of the rash. Take Benedict Arnold: he was broke, it was unlikely the rebels would defeat the British, and the Crown promised to make him a wealthy man if only he would betray his fellow Americans. We know how that worked out.

Or take Martin Luther King: he struggled for the equal treatment of all races in the face of great opposition, losing his own life for a cause many of his day spat upon. Now we have a national holiday celebrating his life and legacy.

But what of our most beloved founder and president, George Washington? We have lost touch with the ideas of our founding, content instead to print faces on our coins, memorize the list of presidents, celebrate “Presidents Day,” and give the obligatory “God Bless America” on the 4th of July. Unfortunately, we fail in the most important aspects: we dishonor their legacy by forgetting the reasons for their sacrifice.

Washington’s last gift to his country was his “Farewell Address,” in which he implored the young nation to consider “some sentiments which are the result of much reflection…and which appear to me all-important to the permanency of your felicity as a people.” He laid out what he thought to be the most critical issues pertaining to the support of “your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize.” He was keenly aware of the many dangers and snares which would seek to destroy his beloved country.

The first “main pillar in the edifice” of American independence, said Washington, was the unity of the people and of the government. Because our regional, religious, racial, and economical differences are great, we must fight constantly against “the batteries of internal…enemies [that] will be most constantly and actively” working for our destruction. If only Americans would recognize the destructive power of the politics of division. Those politicians who thrive by dividing the people one against another serve “to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and…to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by the common counsels and modified by mutual interests.” Washington’s prophetic ability has been greatly underappreciated.

Continuing his discussion on that which our great country’s security and future rests, Washington taught that “of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.” More than that, said Washington, in vanity would a man claim patriotism “who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician…ought to respect and cherish them.” So strong was Washington’s conviction that he further instructed that “reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” Prophetic, considering the correlation the eradication of religious expression in the workplace, in the public schools, and in government buildings has had with the increase in divorce, immorality, violent crime, and government scandals in the 40+ years since the “cultural revolution” of the 1960’s.

Knowing that an ignorant public will be more easily swayed by empty rhetoric and spineless campaign promises, Washington encouraged as an object of primary importance the creation of “institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge.” For those of the reading audience with an aversion to old-English, he was speaking of schools. Unfortunately, Washington assumed incorrectly that Americans would cherish education as a virtue and a privilege as he did.

The fourth column in Washington’s construction of American prosperity and security, public credit was to be cherished and indebtedness avoided "by vigorous exertion in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned.” Americans decry governmental irresponsibility and fiscal waste for political gain. But then, what right do we have to complain? According to the Department of Health & Human Services, 96% of American retire financially dependant on the government, family, or charity due to a lifetime of financial mismanagement. Is it any wonder that our economy has a one way ticket to recession? Fiscal (ir)responsibility starts at home and continues in the ballot box.

Washington’s fifth pillar of prosperity was “just and amicable feelings toward all.” At the time, the United States was but a kitten among the big cats of the world, but Washington knew that irresponsible attachments to other nations would enslave America “to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead [the US] astray from its duty and interest.” America is now at war with an ideology that breeds hatred, but is that which we are fighting not infecting us like a virus? Wisdom would dictate that we strive vigorously to fight for our interests, not for our pride.

The other side of the coin, of course, is that we be not so blinded by chants of “ No War!” that we submit our national interest to the “illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists.” What commonality do we share with those who seek our death and destruction? Certainly it is in our interest to fight and defend our freedom, our liberty, and our security of person and property. Indeed, this is a difficult and treacherous road upon which we travel. It is then in our best interest to “steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world….there can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation.” This should strike a chord with every American wary of our permanent entanglement with the United Nations, whose noble goals are thwarted by the very structure of these rather disunited nations’ fallacious harmony.

Finally, dovetailing on his fifth pillar, Washington beseeched his fellow citizens to be not unduly influenced by voice of the international community. This sixth pillar, wrote Washington, is that “the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake” against “the insidious wiles of foreign influence,” for their outcry against us is surely based on their own interest, not ours. Our current “apologist in chief” has so rejected American Exceptionalism that it would behoove American’s with any shred of patriotism to stand and proclaim the goodness of the America that was and can be again.

No man sacrificed more to accomplish so great and noble a goal, yet we have so quickly forgotten Washington’s prudence, so foolishly spurned his wisdom, and so ignorantly pretended to be the masters of our own destiny, as if history were not a teacher, oracle, and prophet. America is now marked with disunity, misguided by a compass devoid of the morality and religion on which it depends, ignorant by complacency, drowning in debt incurred by foolish spending, shackled by international entanglements, and subverted by international public opinion. Can America truly be great again? I say it can, but it will take a focused, dedicated effort by all freedom loving citizens in America.

As Americans begin to wake up to the tyranny we have elected for ourselves, we should consider “these firmest props” of liberty, and ask ourselves how we can restore the strength to these six pillars of American independence. Will we continue to apathetically allowing our great nation to be eroded by a torrent of selfish politicians grasping for power? Or will we take hold of the reigns and return the power of our government to the people for whom it was created? Will we cast our next votes not on emotion and empty rhetoric, but with the wisdom of history as our guide? Only time will tell. It is my hope that this generation will rise up in wisdom to reset the pillars of our future, instead of rashly reacting in intellectual poverty and voting for empty promises of “change.”

Americans can and should think realistically about our national identity and vote accordingly. Do we want to be constantly pandering for the approval of the international community? Do we want to be shackled by the chains of international treaties that ignore our best interest? Do we want fiscal irresponsibility masked by tax increases; do we want crumbling schools, and undefended borders? Do we want the evisceration of our Christian heritage, and a morally bankrupt leadership without concern for human life and the unborn generations to come? Or do we believe strongly enough in a moral America to vote for a future where fetuses are babies, government officials are held morally and fiscally accountable, where our borders are secure and our interests defended, where the family is preserved not perverted, where religious freedom extends to Christians, and where politics is for the people, not in spite of the people? By the grace of God, may we as a country discover again what it is that made America great, and by the grace of God may our generation be remembered as prophetically wise, not foolishly rash.

On Character, Virtue, and Politics

2009-06-29T20:51:00.000-07:00

Much talk has been made of late about the “character” of South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford. As most people by now know, Gov. Sanford recently admitted to having an extra marital affair; a revelation which most pundits think is the death blow to his once bright political future. These recent events have only strengthened my conviction that virtue, character, and moral excellence are essential measuring sticks for the worthiness of any aspiring politician.

Character, as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is “moral excellence and firmness.” Virtue is “a particular moral excellence.” Properly understood and applied, I believe that these two measuring sticks can bring a new, moral excellence to civic life in America.

George Washington, in his Farewell Address [which has been and will continue to be a foundational inspiration for this blog], wrote that he would “carry it with me to my grave, as a strong incitement to unceasing vows” of God’s continued blessings upon America, that the administration of the Constitution “may be stamped with wisdom and virtue.” Washington saw rightly that religion, morality, wisdom, and virtue could not come to be sneered upon as the crutch of “bitter” people who “cling to guns” without the loss of “security for property, for reputation, for life”.

So what then is virtue? What should be the character traits and qualities of the men and women we elect to govern these great United States of America? I would submit the following list virtues as essential measuring sticks of the worthiness of a person to undertake the deep responsibility to govern rightly.

Temperance: moderation in action, thought, or feeling.
Orderliness: the quality or state of being regular, ordered, methodical, governed and peaceful.
Resolution: Determined and committed to a stated goal; decisive.
Frugality: Characterized by or reflecting economy in the use of all resources.
Sincerity: Be honest!
Justice: The quality of being just, impartial, or fair. Conformity to truth, fact, and reason.
Chastity: Purity in conduct, intention, and integrity.
Humility: The quality of being humble. As Benjamin Franklin put it, “Imitate Jesus.”

Look for more in depth discussion of virtue, character, and politics on “These Firmest Props” in the near future. Your thoughts and commentary are welcome.

"Does not wisdom call out? Does not understanding raise her voice? ...I, wisdom, dwell together with prudence; I possess knowledge and discretion. ...By me kings reign and rulers make laws that are just; by me princes govern, and all nobles who rule on earth... whoever finds me finds life and receives favor from the LORD.But whoever fails to find me harms himself; all who hate me love death." Proverbs 8

Geo. Washington's Farewell Address

2009-06-12T08:00:00.000-07:00

It is my strongest opinion that one of the most forgotten, under-appreciated, and neglected speeches in American history is George Washington's Farewell Address to the young nation he helped birth. Written to the citizens of the infant country and appearing in many American newspapers on September 19, 1796, Washington's "Farewell Address" contained his observations and reflections, which he thought to be "all-important to the permanency of your felicity [fruitfulness; happiness] as a people." It is from this speech that this blog draws its name.

Washington's advice to America emphasized the importance of unity, checks and balances, the education of the populace, and especially of the primacy of religion and morality. He warned of the danger presented by political parties, foreign influence, and uncontrolled government debt.

It is most troubling to think that the issues and advice of such grave importance to our greatest founder are the very issues most ignored and rejected in America today. In the coming weeks I will be writing on many of the issues discussed by Washington and their relevance and authority for today. I hope you will follow along and chime in with your thoughts, research, perspective, and questions. But most of all, I hope you take the time to read Washington's words for yourself. You can find a copy of his Farewell Address here.
Let us purpose never to forget the ideas upon which our great nation was founded. As a house without a foundation is dangerous for its inhabitants, so too is a nation devoid of principle.

Forgiveness and Freedom

2009-06-11T08:00:00.000-07:00

One of the root causes, in my perspective, of division, hatred, and discontent in American politics is the unwillingness of people to forgive each other. We cling to our own ideas, agendas, and pet peeves, unwilling to exercise the most liberating gift one can give.

Forgiveness. That unique quality of the saint in Christ Jesus where the Holy Spirit of God allows and enables him to make a decision to release another person from an offense. Not to release them from responsibility for the sin or offense, but to transfer that responsibility from oneself to God. A lifestyle of forgiveness destroys any roots of resentment, bitterness, hatred, contempt or spite. It is being willing to forgive the same offense “70x7 times” in the same day. A lifestyle of forgiveness enables us to live at peace with God, in right relationships with other people, and to be genuine channels of the love of God to saints and sinners alike. Rather than freeing the offender from justice, it frees us from a heart of resentment, to live fully in the grace of God, trusting in His perfect justice instead of the sinful vengeance of our own flesh.

Forgiveness is a powerful, beautiful, humbling thing. It is a gift that only God can fully give. It is a gift He has given us, to share with a hurting world, full of fear, resentment, and hatred. The psalmist wrote that “If you, O Lord, kept a record of sins…who could stand? But with you there is forgiveness; therefore you are feared.” Did you catch that? The forgiveness of God should strike a holy sense of reverence, awe, honor, trust, and worship in the hearts of all who receive His forgiveness.

If God were unforgiving, we would be justified in our terror, hatred, bitterness, and resentment. But the fact that God offers forgiveness ought to give us pause. Pause, because His forgiveness empowers His justice. Pause, because His forgiveness cost Him the life of His own Son. Pause, because to scorn that gift is to put oneself under His judgment. Pause, and tremble, because living to the high calling we have in Christ is a mighty and difficult thing. Let us not scorn the forgiveness of Christ. Let us examine ourselves; to allow the Holy Spirit of the living God to convict us of sin, and to come in holy repentance to His feet, to receive again His forgiveness and then to extend it to all.

Now let’s get practical. I’m a conservative, right-wing Christian nut. I cling to my guns and my God. I believe in the Bible and the Bill of Rights. I care for the Constitution and weep for the genocide of the unborn. I believe that AID’s is the scourge of those who embrace sexual perversion, and that homosexuality is the scourge of the nation whose god is self and whose sacred book is the philosophy of the “politically correct.” I believe that private property is the wellspring of the democratic-republic, that free markets are its lifeblood, and that a free press should be its watchdog. [Our press is currently more like a parrot, shouting out whatever the liberal establishment tells it to repeat.] I believe taxes should support only those necessary and minimally essential government functions, not to underwrite an ever-expanding role of government intruding into our private lives nor enlarging the welfare state. I believe in personal accountability where I am responsible for my own actions and where I will not blame the shortcomings and disappointments of this life on someone else.

I believe the unique American ideology transcends and binds the racial, ethnic and religious diversity in America and offers hope for millions of oppressed people around the globe. I believe in the honor and revere the courage of the brave men and women who have given their lives and spilled their blood in every corner of a jealous world, fighting for freedom, family, and faith. I believe that the extreme islamofascist theocracies that have perverted a peaceful people and control nuclear weapons and the vastest supplies of oil are the gravest threat to the families, freedoms, and faiths of our finest young men and women in uniform who die at their hands and the hands of those who do their bidding. I firmly believe that the fountain of liberty, from time to time, must be refreshed by the blood of patriots and tyrants.

I believe in limited government, the sovereignty of the 50 states, the constitutionally affirmed right and responsibilities of the individual states to reject and protect their citizens from an expansive, over-reaching federal government. Most of all, I believe in Almighty God who shed His grace on this great nation, from the beginning, and who would pour His blessings upon us and our descendants if only we would turn from our sin and embrace His forgiveness.

For these things I am labeled by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and her hacks at the DHS as a potential terrorist threat, a “radical right wing extremist,” someone the local authorities must be warned about. My concern for national security in the face of nuclear armed mad-men in Iran and N.Korea is labeled "paranoia." [see pg 6, par. 4 of the DHS report in previous link]. My President and Congress have mortgaged my future on an ideological worldview that denies my Creator, strips me of “unalienable rights” given to me by God in heaven. They claim to have the authority and power to decide how much water I can flush in my toilet, what kind of car I'm allowed to drive, that my lifestyle is threat to the environment, that I can’t live by morals that might offend other people, that my earnings are to be shared with those who didn’t work for it, that I ought to pay my neighbors mortgage, and that citizens shouldn't have the right to bear arms, the Constitution be damned.

So I seethe. I read all I can to be as informed as I can to make right judgments on the state of things. I dream of the day a patriot will step to the forefront, pick up the torn and tattered flag, pull the Constitution from the ash heap the courts and congress have cast it upon, and restore the moral compass in America; to lead us back to economic stability, out of debt, and return to us military, and political strength. I want someone to tell me that “it’s morning in America” and to make me believe it as much as he believes it himself. But Reagan himself has "slipped the surly bonds of earth" and "touched the face of God." Conservative America has yet to find another leader to lead like Reagan led, to believe in the essence of conservatism like Reagan believed, and have the courage to face America's enemies like Reagan faced the Soviet Union. That next great American patriot is not yet on the scene. So I seethe.

And now I have come full circle. On the one hand, my faith and my God have forgiven me, and I can forgive my neighbors… but can I forgive my government? It’s a hard thing, forgiving when I see no justice on the horizon.

I realize that I can relate to a Muslim friend of mine. He said that it is impossible [and he meant it in the most total, final, and complete sense of the word… impossible] to forgive Israel. “Why?” I asked. His answer befuddled me for some time. “We cannot forgive, because forgiveness is in the hand of the powerful. We have no recourse, no power by which we can bring justice and reclaim our land.” So I can finally relate. I have no power to fix the US federal government any more than my friend can reclaim his family’s land in the West Bank. But I do have something greater.

I have the power to forgive, because I have been forgiven. The veil has been removed from my eyes and I have seen the darkness of my own soul. I have experienced the love of Christ, and the freedom He offers in His outstretched, nail-pierced hands. Forgiveness. Such a beautiful, awesome, empowering, and freeing gift.

So today I choose to forgive. I choose to release the lost souls running my country – my country, which I love and for whom I weep – from my own craving for justice. I choose to live each day in the freedom I have in Christ. I choose to pray for my elected officials, to believe that it is darkest just before dawn, and to wait patiently on the Lord, my redeemer, my friend, my king, my father, and the final jury and judge of all men.

Who is God?

2009-06-09T15:06:00.000-07:00

If you believe Newsweek editor Evan Thomas, President Obama is "sort of God." In another example of how far America has fallen from her God-fearing foundation, this short clip is but a microcosm of the perverted and godless thinking of the mainstream American media.

Defining Change

2009-06-09T13:24:00.000-07:00

They say a new age has begun. They say that “change” has come to America. Obama himself pledged, in his inaugural address, to lead us in “the work of remaking America.” The question we must ask ourselves is “what will we remake America into?” There are a great many conflicting ideas, religions, philosophies, and ideologies that war against each other for the hearts and minds of the American people. Thanks to a mass media that regularly confuses the role of cheerleader and reporter, Obama’s vision of America is not so much murky and secretive as it is unexplored and unrevealed. It is likely that only time will reveal the true nature of his vision of the America of “change.”

Christians and conservatives across America are even now waging their own war of ideas amongst themselves, uncertain of how to respond to the new administration, and even less certain of whom -- if anyone -- is leading the conservative movement inside the beltway.

And that is precisely the problem. Conservative Americans have been far too complacent in the last 8 years. Content with a capital “R” after “George W. Bush,” we have failed not only to stand for our ideas on fiscal, social, and foreign policy, but more importantly, we have failed to believe that we need to stand. Our failure to elect conservative leaders instead of Republican politicians has resulted in the obliteration of Reagan’s conservative revolution and replaced it with weak hearted bipartisanship that fails to lead conservatives, and leads Republicans to failure.

Change must come from the bottom up. Larrey Anderson, writing on the internet publication “American Thinker,” argued well that conservatives “must dump [their] current crop of congressional leaders. These men seem to be comfortable being in the minority. They know how to say "bi-partisan" and "compromise" -- but they have no clue about how to say the simplest of words: ‘No.’” Conservatives need only to look to our nations founding to find the moral courage to argue effectively for a change that conservatives can believe in; a change that will energize the passionate conservative and empower leaders, not politicians.

Moral certitude and ideological passion in the era of our great nation’s founding was not in short supply:

“If we wish to be free – if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending – if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained – we must fight!”

So spoke the oft quoted statesman, preacher, and patriot Patrick Henry on March 23, 1775, at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia. Credited with single-handedly convincing Virginia to commit troops to the Revolutionary War, Henry closed this famous speech with the immortal words “I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” Like Henry, we must passionately believe in and fight for our cause, or she will most certainly die at the hand of “change.”

The Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution, ratified in December of 1791, declares that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.” This is perhaps the strongest statement by the founders for their desire that the sovereignty of the states should check the sovereignty of the federal government and that ultimately it is the people of those states who empower the government to which they submit.

Not wanting to risk the tyranny of an over-zealous executive, the founders wanted the national government to “exert supreme authority only within the limited scope of its enumerated powers” and leave the states to exercise the remaining sovereign authority. This division of power “was not created for the benefit of the states but for the benefit of the American people. According to the Framers, the principle of dual sovereignty would prevent any distortion of the balance of power that in turn would subject the people to a tyrannous federal government.”[1]

It seems conservatives have forgotten that it is their responsibility to fight the abuse of power, the ever expanding reach of the national government, and the destruction of the most fundamental principle of separation of powers. If these changes – which began long before Obama – are not fought passionately, eloquently, and doggedly, the America of “Change” will not be one we recognize, nor want. As Patrick Henry put it, “The battle…is not for the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave…why stand we here idle?”

If we continue to stand idly by while our so-called representatives reject the strength and wisdom of conservative ideals, we will have none to blame but our own cowardice and inaction. The colonial physician Benjamin Rush observed in 1785 that “the American war is over: but this is far from being the case with the American Revolution. On the contrary, nothing but the first act of the great drama is closed.”[2] One wonders which act we are in now. The founders knew that “the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained.”[3] America is indeed at the dawn of a new day. Whether that day is to end in peace and prosperity, and under the “propitious smiles of heaven” will be determined by how seriously conservatives take their “lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.”[4]

-----
[1] Garry, Patrick M. “A One-Sided Federalism Revolution: The Unaddressed Constitutional Compromise on Federalism and Individual Rights.” Seton Hall Law Review 36 (2006): 851, 856

[2] Rakove, Jack N, ed. Founding America: Documents from the Revolution to the Bill of Rights. New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 2006.

[3] Washington, George. First Inaugural Address to Both Houses of Congress. Federal Hall,New York, NY. 30 April 1789.

[4] US Declaration of Independence