Following are the articles in this section:

  1. An Open Letter to Members and Leaders of the Tea Party Organizations (2020)
  2. In Good Faith (2017)
  3. The Democratic Way to solve the immigration problem (2017)
  4. The Hysteria Continues on Global Warming (2019)
  5. Looking Beyond the Mirror (pleasure vs. contentment) (2020)

An Open Letter to Members and Leaders of the Tea Party Organizations

Lexington, Virginia

13 January 2020

Years ago I joined an organization that called itself the Tea Party.  At its gatherings, members would wear straw hats with tea bags strung from them.  They seemed angry with Washington, especially about taxation, or so the story went.

During the next several years I addressed numerous Tea Party gatherings across the United States, including a standing-room-only presentation at the Tea Party Convention in Phoenix.  I met and talked with hundreds of Tea Party members.  I learned these things:

1.     Tea Party members by and large know little or nothing about our Constitution, and freely admit their ignorance.

2.     Tea Party members usually didn’t know why they had joined the Tea Party except to express their anger and concern about what was going on in Washington, DC.

3.     Tea Party members did not demand an agenda, statement of principles, or even a mission statement from the organization they were supporting with their hard-earned money.  In short, very few people knew the real purpose of the Tea Party, nor whether it was set up to accomplish anything worthwhile besides being a platform for disgruntled voters.

There were exceptions. In Virginia, for example, the Virginia Tea Party Patriots Federation (VATPPF) was formed, and that group has put together several top-notch conventions with speakers among local, state, and national officials.  I applaud their work – but I also look at the results.

At a VATPPF conference at which I was an invited speaker several years ago I had the opportunity to meet the then-national chairperson of the original Tea Party, who was also on the program.  I spoke to her about my work, gave her a copy of both the books I had written to help the Tea Party, among other organizations, and offered my assistance as an unpaid speaker/lecturer at Tea Party gatherings across the U.S.   I never heard back from her.

Recently, when I announced my candidacy for President of the United States, I contacted a good friend who was the leader of a local Tea Party group in Virginia.  I asked for his support in the 2020 election.  He put me off and told me he wanted to discuss the matter with the National Tea Party leaders.

He got back to me a few minutes later with an entirely predictable response; the Tea Party would offer me absolutely no support at all. They no longer wanted me to address their meetings and had no further interest in my activities to defend the Constitution. 

Why was their answer so predictable?  It has become a familiar refrain.  “We have to re-elect Trump.” 

They were kind enough to embellish their rejection of me with statements like “This is a very critical time for America,”  “We must prevent a Socialist from getting into the White House,” and so on.

The sharpest barb was the last; “Perhaps in 2024 we can support a Constitutionist candidate.”

I must admit, I was wrong.  I mistakenly assumed that the Tea Party had been formed to help save our country by people who were at least marginally aware of the real issues we face.  I believed that these “conservatives on steroids” (my description) would work together from the grass roots, build a base, create an agenda, and doing something worthwhile – such as making inroads on fixing a few of the many, many things that are wrong with the Republican Party.

At the very least I had hoped that those who heard me speak and who were paying their dues to the Tea Party organization would at least follow my advice and become educated on the Constitution and America’s founding.  Wrong again.

What should be happening today.

For several years I have encouraged the Tea Party and the Constitution Party to affiliate, thereby strengthening both organizations and giving the Tea Party the one thing it lacks: ballot access.  Now I see why this will never happen.

First, Americans who vote are almost always forced to choose what they believe is the “lesser of two evils.”  This was never truer than in the 2016 election, as I wrote in my Wealth Creation and Preservation newsletter entitled Two Dreadful Choices.  What we seem to fail to realize is that the lesser of two evils is still evil.

Second, political discussions regarding the Constitution are, literally, a dead issue.  The U.S. Supreme Court has reversed itself more than 236 times on Constitutional issues, which is to say that they don’t really know or care about the Constitution – not ours, anyway.  Just witness John Roberts’ surrender to the Democrats when he had it in his power to declare the entire, dreadful Obamacare law unconstitutional (which, of course, it is) – and proclaimed the opposite.

In another, more recent article in Wealth Creation and Preservation  I discussed briefly how each of the ten amendments comprising the Bill of Rights had been negated by Congress and/or the courts – except perhaps the 3rd Amendment.  I don’t think too many Americans are quartering American or foreign troops in their homes. 

Can you name even one piece of legislation that has negated a portion of our Bill of Rights?  You should be able to; there are many.

Third, just about all the problems America faces today have been created by our government, often by meddling in places where it has no business.  Today, the Democrats don’t merely propose (and pass) unconstitutional legislation; they propose and pass anti-constitutional legislation.  Government is not the solution; government is the problem.

Fourth, most Americans are unfamiliar with the philosophy that has been worming its way into our nation through devious and underhanded means for more than a century.  I am referring to Progressivism, a political philosophy akin to both Socialism and Communism.  I have written at length about Progressivism, but most Americans know nothing more than the term itself. The Democratic Party has become the proud champion of this deadly cancer we call Progressivism.

Progressivism has two basic tenets:

1.     There is no truth.

2.     Everything in life must be placed in its historical context.

What does that mean?  It’s frighteningly simple. If there is no truth, there is no God.  There is no basis for society or civilization. That leaves us with the simple philosophy I heard so often in college: “If it feels good, do it!’

Then, setting everything in its historical context means that white men who owned slaves and wore funny wigs 200+ years ago cannot possibly teach us anything about how to live our lives today.  In other words, throw out all of human history, philosophy, religion, and morals.  We are on our own, free to live our lives as we see fit, accountable to no one but ourselves.  If we do stupid things, we have our government to take care of us.  No worries!

We must educate ourselves about Progressivism.  Progressivism has replaced natural rights, which are given by God and enshrined in our Declaration of Independence, with human rights, which come from government and can be withdrawn at will at the whim of the party in power.

I wish every American would read my book Will You Help Save Your Country?, which is a brief overview of Progressivism.  This book explains how and why Progressivism managed to take over and relegate our Constitution to the dustbin.

Here’s the point

The conservative movement has failed in every instance to stop or even slow the tidal wave of Progressivism.  The Tea Party, nominally a part of the conservative movement, has likewise failed to make a dent.

If Americans continue to fail to accept and fulfill their obligations as responsible citizens of our constitutional republic, this great nation will fail.  We will become the laughingstock of all nations, because we failed to create and maintain what could have been the greatest nation under the greatest government in the history of mankind.

How will we fail? By trusting those unworthy of our trust to run this country. We have abdicated our responsibility as American citizens to hold our government accountable.  Our government did not create itself; it was created by “We, the People” through our elected representatives.

We need to decide what our children are taught in public schools.  Our children need to be well enough grounded in the principles of liberty and freedom that when they go to college they will eliminate the Lefsitst indoctrination provided by so many of our once-honorable universities.

We need to stop doing all the things we do that are not authorized by our Constitution.  This includes the federal government’s involvement in public education (K-12 and universities, as well as student loans), “regime change,” “nation building,” money printing by the Federal Reserve, asset forfeiture, and much, much more.

We need to hold our elected officials accountable for their actions.  When they fail to uphold their oath of office, they must be removed swiftly, through recall if necessary. We dare not wait for their re-election, for then we may discover that their bad actions have bought them many votes.

What does it mean to fail to uphold one’s office?  It’s very simple.  At every level of government in the United States, elected officials and judges take a solemn oath to uphold and sustain the Constitution of the United States.  For anyone to declare, for instance, that Socialism or Communism or Progressivism should replace our Constitution instantly disqualifies that person to hold any public office in the United States and any judgeship.  You cannot promote a cancerous, destructive system like Progressivism and uphold the Constitution at the same time.

Where did we go wrong?  We fought a devastating Civil War which resulted in the end of slavery.  We had, over the objections of most Democrats, the Civil Rights Movement, which brought participation in the American dream full circle to all citizens. We saved the world twice during great World Wars; we bankrupted Communism in the Soviet Union.  Shall we then fall victim to the same failed philosophy we so successfully fought to defeat?

Progressivism succeeds through propaganda, emotional appeals, misdirection, indoctrination, fraud, and deception.  Think of Obamacare, where we were told “We have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it!”  That was a massive abdication of responsibility on the part of our elected leaders.  All those involved in that fraud should have been removed from office.

Think of the PATRIOT Act, which had been written years before 9/11 and was just waiting for the moment it could be passed through emotional appeals from our leaders.  (“You are either with us or against us.” – George Bush) You know, of course, that that infamous act enabled indefinite detention of immigrants (remember Japanese-Americans in World War II?), unprecedented spying on the American people, and a horrific violation of the 4th Amendment regarding illegal search and seizure.

Think also of a recent National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), passed by Congress and signed into law, that enabled us to attack and kill American citizens “suspected of being terrorists.”  That violates everything in the Constitution regarding due process of law, not to mention what the Declaration says about “life, liberty, and happiness.”.

Government is not the solution; government is the problem.  If we continue to vote for the lesser of two evils we will be choosing to destroy this great country slowly or quickly.  It’s time to do something different.

We cannot wait until 2024.  We must educate ourselves, our families, our friends, and everyone we know about our constitutional republic, why it is the foundation for the best and freest country in human history, and about the terrible threat posed by Progressivism, which by now has won an almost complete victory over freedom and truth.

I urge Tea Party members everywhere, along with all conservatives, Republicans, Independents, and Democrats to wake up to what is happening.  Learn about the real issues so that you may make an intelligent, informed decision as to whether you want to live in chains under Progressivism or are willing to work to restore freedom in America.  After all, you are responsible and will be held accountable for the choices you make, even if you just  pay no attention and let things continue the way they have been going since Teddy Roosevelt was President.

Keep this in mind: choosing freedom means getting your act together.  A constitutional republic requires citizens who are men and women of character, honest, decent, moral, and engaged in their communities.  You and I can do that.  The only question is, will you?

In Good Faith

10 May 2017

The question for us is whether our public officials can be held to a standard of always acting in good faith. Can we?  Do we require them to speak and act on behalf of the language of the original Constitution? Or do we tolerate them promoting their own or others’ Progressive ideas of a massive, all-powerful government that controls every aspect of our lives?

A close study of early American history, particularly the correspondence of the major players, reveals something quite rare in human history.  We see it in the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers. We see it in the way George Washington attempted to define a Presidency that had no precedent. 

That something is what we call good faith.  All of the Founding Fathers, as well as many of those who were labeled Tories during the Revolution, agonized over their stand regarding independence and freedom. It took brutal and heavy-handed actions by King George III to bring about the decision for independence.

Certainly, during the debate on the Constitution, positions were established that were declared inflexible, but these were based upon the wishes of those the delegates represented.  The debate on slavery, for example, became the compromise that enabled the Constitution to come into being.  Even in this, however, the players acted in accordance with the positions of their constituents, their firmly held principles, and their own consciences.  In other words, they acted in good faith.

I watched a portion of an interview with Senator Chuck Schumer this morning.  I have seen hundreds of interviews like it, given by both Democrats and Republicans.  In it the Senator discussed the matter of the firing of the FBI chief James Comey.  His comments were laced with innuendo, material misstatements of fact, political posturing, and an antagonism toward President Trump he made no effort to conceal.

Both Republicans and Democrats play this game of political posturing; the Democrats are merely much better at it and their voices, thanks to a heavily biased media, are more pervasive.  As both parties engage in these misrepresentations and distortions the truth is often lost – if it had ever been found in the first place.

Acting in good faith is not something that can be affirmed in an oath of office.  Rather, it is something that must be expected of those who are granted power in our constitutional republic.  To act in good faith one must understand the truth and be committed to acting in its light.

Is there truth in the public sphere?  Of course there is.  It springs from our founding documents, but more from what those documents imply than what they actually say.  The truth is that We, the People of these United States have, at one moment in time, agreed through our appointed representatives to seek the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our families.  In so doing we agreed to create a government and we put severe limitations on its activities.  The primary goal of our government is to protect all Americans in their liberties.  In fact, that about sums up our government as it should be.

If that is the truth, we must ask ourselves if it should still be the truth today.  After all, isn’t the world much more complex than it was in 1787?  Doesn’t our government have to deal with all sorts of issues that didn’t exist then?

The overly simplistic answers to these questions are:

1. By usurping authority and delving into issues prohibited by the Constitution, our government has not only failed to solve the problem they intended to solve, they have created additional problems of equal or greater magnitude.

2. If our government had held to its original mandate, Americans would have vastly more freedom than they do today.  There would be no IRS, no standing army stationed in more than 120 countries around the world, no Federal Reserve, no Department of Education, no Department of Energy, no welfare state, and so much more.

Thomas Jefferson, living in Paris at the time of the Constitutional Convention, commented upon the “assembly of demigods” who met in Philadelphia to draft the Constitution. He recognized that these men were acting in good faith in creating something the world had never seen. 

The question for us is whether our public officials can be held to a standard of always acting in good faith. Can we?  Do we require them to speak and act on behalf of the language of the original Constitution? Or do we tolerate them promoting their own or others’ Progressive ideas of a massive, all-powerful government that controls every aspect of our lives?

What are you willing to do to restore freedom in America?

 

The Democratic Way to solve the immigration problem

Charles W. Kraut

14 May 2017

The great blessing of a constitutional republic is that it gives all citizens personal responsibility for their continued freedom and livelihood.  It is incumbent upon us to keep ourselves informed concerning the world around us, so that we may assist our elected officials in making correct and constitutional decisions in all that they do.

During the presidency of Donald Trump the issue of refugees coming to the United States from places like Syria has taken a back seat to the president’s Executive Orders restricting travel from specific nations.  Such immigration of refugees has not necessarily ceased or been restricted; the topic has simply disappeared from the popular news sites.

In my own town of Lexington, Virginia a few local citizens decided that such immigration was a good idea, and they promoted it to the point of welcoming refugees into the area and helping them get settled. The local newspaper covered the story, giving lots of people a “feel good” moment, knowing they were doing something to help those in urgent need.

What all the noise failed to mention is the reason why some other local residents are concerned about such immigration of refugees.  For one thing, the vetting process is badly flawed.  Our government does not have the resources and infrastructure in place to determine the actual origin or the personal history of most of those entering our land.  The possibility of one or more of them being terrorists or terrorist wannabes is extremely high.

Ignore for the moment that the day of Patrick J. Moynihan’s “Beyond the Melting Pot” is over. In recent decades many of those who came here seeking asylum or just a better life had no intention of assimilating into “American” culture.  Our universities began to celebrate “diversity,” helping create an anti-American, pro-nationality-of-origin mentality that spread throughout the country.

Ignore likewise the fact that for decades those coming to our shores have come not necessarily to create a better life for themselves, but rather to partake of the easy life offered by America.  We shower illegal immigrants, refugees, and others with benefits of free food, free housing, free education, free medical care, free transportation, free cell phones, and much, much more. It is little wonder that so many wish to come here by any means, legal or otherwise.

Common knowledge has it that America is a democracy.  This is not true today, nor has it ever been true.  Our presidents believe it; the media believe it; our teachers and professors believe it; but it just isn’t true.  We remain a constitutional republic – but it looks like we are trying hard to morph into a totalitarian, Progressive state.

Let’s give good ol’ democracy a try.  Let’s say that you feel there is nothing to be concerned about when refugees pour into our country who do not speak our language, bring with them diseases and parasites, may be criminals, and may be potential terrorists.  Fine.  Others disagree, and are unwilling to invest scarce tax dollars in such an undertaking. Who decides whether your money will be used to fund these programs?  In a real democracy, all the citizens would be allowed to vote on the matter, and the majority would rule. The minority would be compelled to comply with the will of the majority.

In America, we were not allowed to vote, and we were forced to take on some undetermined number of refugees.  Since our federal government is not permitted to redistribute wealth, by making such a decision the government has violated the Constitution.

In other words, those who do not wish to pay the support of refugees had no opportunity to voice their objections under two scenarios: 1) America today and 2) under the majority rule of a pure democracy.  There must be a better way.  Fortunately, the Constitution provides it.  Article 10 of the Bill of Rights states:

“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.”

Here is how we should have handled the refugee situation under the Constitution:

First, the President informs the states of the refugee crisis, and suggests that all assistance given to the refugees be given at the State or lower level since the Constitution gives no such authority to the federal government.

Second, the states discover that they have no funds to provide services for refugees, and must call upon the counties and, ultimately, the people themselves.

Third, having been made aware of the problem, certain individuals decide that it is up to them to help the refugees.  They accomplish two things, and the flow of refugees begins:

1.      Financial commitments are made by those willing to support the refugees; all costs will be borne by those who choose to assist, and

2.      Those who assist acknowledge in writing that they take full responsibility both for the care and support of the refugees as well as the liability for their actions.  This is essential for the health of the community, or else those opposed to taking in refugees would have little recourse when their rights are violated.  This is a particular problem in our day of “sanctuary cities” and “sanctuary states” where laws are not upheld when they pertain to illegals and other favored classes.

What is accomplished by this action?  There are numerous benefits to this approach, among them:

1.      The Constitution is upheld in that the government performs no wealth redistribution.

2.      The citizens are protected in their rights because those admitting refugees bear full responsibility for them.

3.      The sponsors have a strong incentive to help the refugees become self-sustaining as quickly as possible, which means receiving appropriate job training, language instruction, and instruction to aid in cultural assimilation.

4.      By helping refugees to integrate into American society, future problems of dependency, crime, addictions to drugs and alcohol, and even broken families can be reduced or even eliminated.

This is a workable system.  It is the American way of doing things.  It once was our official policy, back in the 1970s.  The only reason why it has not been suggested recently is that those in favor of accepting refugees are unwilling to take responsibility for them or to bear their expenses.  Like all Progressives, prospective sponsors want to help people with your money, not theirs.

The great blessing of a constitutional republic is that it gives all citizens personal responsibility for their continued freedom and livelihood.  It is incumbent upon us to keep ourselves informed concerning the world around us, so that we may assist our elected officials in making correct and constitutional decisions in all that they do.

The Hysteria Continues on Global Warming

Lexington, Virginia

22 November 2019

“The evidence is now clear that our sun is responsible for at least 50% of global warming and global cooling.  It is also now clear that worldwide global warming ceased almost 20 years ago.”

In the past couple of weeks Americans have been bombarded with new, urgent and dire warnings about the need to act immediately to stop the global warming/climate change juggernaut.  These warnings have been issued since the late 1970s, ever since the experts stop being concerned about global cooling and realize there is a lot of political power and wealth to be gained by creating a panic over global warming.  Both scenarios were complete fabrications, and both were or are being overcome by 1) history, and 2) good science to replace the bad science or the non-science.

As I often do, I did a little checking.  I read the articles, noted the references, and looked at some of the links. 

The first article I read was published in BioScience, Vol. XX No. X, https://academic.oup.com/bioscience.  This hysterical piece was signed by no less than 11,258 scientists from 153 countries, which is to say that 11,258 scientists all over the world agreed that everything in this piece was correct as of the date of publication, which is November 2019.

Time for a little checking.  As I read through the list I saw the names and titles of numerous scientists, few of whom were working in the field of climate science, Earth science, meteorology, or any other field that might have something to do with global warming.  The other thing I noticed is that many of them were not scientists at all, but medical doctors or other professionals.

In other words, this article was fatally flawed from the beginning because it was based upon a lie.  This lie is very similar to the one that was passed around about a year ago to the effect that 97% of the world scientists agreed that man-made global warming was going to cause the destruction of the planet.

I am getting ahead of myself; but the next article, published in the New York Times in November 2019, continues to warn of exactly the same things.

A little checking into that 97% number reveals something very interesting.  The way that statistic was arrived at is completely flawed and is off by an order of magnitude.  The people conducting the survey manipulated the wording of the questions in order to obtain the answer that they had decided in advance was the correct one.

What is the real number?  The actual number is that 0.03% of the people surveyed were willing to state that humans pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is the primary contributor to global warming, and will cause the destruction of the planet.  There is an enormous gap between 97% and 0.03%.

It is obvious that we are dealing with people who do not mind lying to us.  Global warming/climate change is the meal ticket for tens of thousands of people all over the world, each of whom would lose either a significant portion of their income or even their jobs if they were to change their minds and tell the truth.

Getting back to this article by 11,258 “scientists”, let me quote the very first paragraph:

“Scientists have a moral obligation to clearly warn humanity of any catastrophic threat and to single tell it like it is.’  On the basis of this obligation and the graphical indicators presented below, we declare, with more than 11,000 scientist signatories from around the world, clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency.”

As we used to say back in the 70s, that is heavy.  That is a wake-up call to 7 billion people that we have got to do something or are all going to die.

The rest of the article matches the first paragraph.  There are numerous charts, about 29 in all, that are visually distorted and generally meaningless.  They are intended to convince us that we have a real emergency.  Unfortunately, aside from giving us brief captions to each of the charts, there is no text to indicate why these charts indicate a dire emergency.

The article itself is the same, except that it does not even add anything we did not know since the 1980s.  Much of what it does say has been thoroughly discredited by reputable scientists.

To sum up, then, 11,258 “scientists” are simply wrong.  The article is completely out of date, and there would be no justification for any reputable scientific journal to publish it.

Next, the New York Times runs a column entitled Climate FWD.  This bastion of truth (“All the news that fits, we print”) has decided that man is responsible for global warming and the subsequent destruction of our planet.  They are just as certain of that as William Randolph Hearst was that the USS Maine was destroyed by Spanish saboteurs in 1898.  Hearst was wrong then and the New York Times is wrong now.

Here is the Times’ opening paragraph in the November 20 addition of Climate FWD:

“Sometimes, Thanksgiving dinner comes with a side dish of climate denial.

Whether it is grumbling about ‘the climate hoax’ from your parents, a sibling or that cousin you rarely see, it is time to get ready in case climate myths come up at the dinner table.  Here are 10 resources to refresh your understanding of our warming planet.”

The article then proceeds to list 10 different resources including websites, fact sheets, podcasts, videos, and books, all of which faithfully regurgitate the man-made global warming agenda.  Typical of Liberals/Progressives, much of this is done with pointed humor that belittles those who they label “climate deniers.”  The idea is that if you can humiliate someone he will be less likely to come after you again.

Unfortunately, humiliation and belittling are not science.  Of the 10 sources I was not surprised to find NASA on the list.  This website, which costs a lot of taxpayer dollars, is found here: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/.

On the NASA website you would expect to find the world’s best science, the most objective research, and sound conclusions from the top people in their field in the entire world.  Wrong!  The NASA site is dreadfully out of date, just like the article by the 11,000 scientists.  It is as if all the data and the good science, much of which has been generated by NASA itself, did not exist.

One of the big and basic mistakes the NASA website makes is this quote:

“Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.”

Not surprisingly, that quote comes from the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations organization we fund with our tax dollars which was the first to proclaim that the sky is falling.  The IPCC is notorious for a long series of very flawed pronouncements reflecting bad science, or non-science, or manipulation of the data, or a combination of all three.  It was Michael Mann, a newly minted PhD with no experience in the field, who manipulated the data for the infamous “hockey stick” chart, which really got the ball rolling all over the world. 

Many scientists have disproven both the “hockey stick” and just about everything else Michael Mann has had to say.  The reasons why Michael Mann’s science was so bad was that he ignored almost all  the factors that cause climate change.  He also ignored most of the Earth’s history and data that has been gathered through many different types of research.

In 2015 a new book was published in German.  Its English title is The Neglected Sun: Why the Sun Precludes Climate Change.[1]  Basically, if you want to know anything about the current state of climate change science, you must read this book.  If you do not, you really have no fully informed opinions about climate change.  It’s that important.

The Neglected Sun details research by numerous scientists in areas that are far more important to climate change/global warming than CO2.  The evidence is now clear that our sun is responsible for at least 50% of global warming and global cooling.  It is also now clear that worldwide global warming ceased almost 20 years ago.

The Neglected Sun describes the results of research into cosmic rays, the sun’s magnetic field, the great ocean systems in the Atlantic and the Pacific, the influence of the other planets, and the great significance of water vapor as the primary cause of global warming/global cooling.  Water vapor is far more important than CO2 for many reasons, some of which should certainly have been known to Michael Mann when he published his hockey stick.

Why are we being misled?

Why do thousands of academically qualified individuals, almost every major media outlet throughout the world, and the governments of more than 150 nations all seem to agree that the world is coming to an end?

The answer is simple but almost hard to believe.  If you investigate Progressivism, its tenets, its goals, its methodology, and its tactics, you see a powerful force for evil.  Progressivism is anti-constitutional; those who call themselves Progressives, whether knowingly or not, are out to destroy our Constitution, our constitutional republic, and our way of life.  Their goal is to replace what we have with a totalitarian system somewhere between true socialism and communism. 

Of course, if they were to say that they would be ignored.  Instead, Progressivism offers the temptation of power and wealth, and being part of the “elite” of the world’s society.  For some people it is thrilling to think of having the power of life and death over your fellow beings. That is the siren song of Progressivism. 

Hitler was a Progressive.  Stalin was a Progressive.  Lyndon B. Johnson,  Franklin D. Roosevelt,  Mao Tse-Tung,  Woodrow Wilson,  and Teddy Roosevelt were all Progressives.  Barack Obama is a Progressive.  Hillary Clinton is a Progressive.  Bernie Sanders – well, old Bernie is a Socialist.

The list goes on and on.  The great “accomplishments” of Progressivism include these:

1.     The “dumbing down” of American public education.

2.     The sexual revolution.

3.     The “Women’s Liberation” movement.

4.     The gay rights movement.

5.     Human rights (see the 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights for more information).

6.     The Great Society and our modern welfare state.

7.     The War on Poverty.

8.     The man-made global warming scare.

9.     The substitution of Islam for Christianity in our public schools.

10.  A woman’s right to “reproductive freedom,” including abortion.

11.  Regime change, nationbuilding, and assassination as diplomatic tools.

12.  The United Nations Law of the Sea treaty.

13.  The Kyoto Protocols and the Paris Accords.

14.  The United Nations Rights of Indigenous Peoples Treaty.

All these things barely scratch the surface of what Progressivism has accomplished in just a little over a century in the United States and in many parts of the world.  Each of these “accomplishments” has weakened the United States and its constitutional republic.  Many of them have damaged the nuclear family, perhaps our most important institution.

Equally important, each of the things listed above accrue power to a specific group of individuals.  Most of them also allow enormous wealth to accrue to the same individuals, all at the expense of the taxpayers, the middle class, those who have been struggling because they have not gotten a pay raise in real dollars in almost fifty years.

What is this power? It is control over our lives.  It is the elimination of our individual freedom in favor of an all-knowing, all -wise dictator. The dictator exercises full control because he knows that we are not intelligent enough to make our own decisions.  We are not intelligent enough because our schools have been “dumbed down.”

Global warming/climate change is the latest, but not the last, of these immense power grabs.  If the people of the world, and specifically their governments, can become convinced that global warming is an emergency and is being caused by human emissions of CO2, the only available solution is the reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere.  The way to do that is to take charge of the entire economy of the world, and reshape it in ways for which the technology does not yet exist.

Regarding technology, solar cells are far too inefficient to be an effective solution.  Wind generators are likewise inefficient, but they also kill birds by the millions and are unsightly.  The Progressives’ refusal to allow the construction of safe, efficient nuclear power plants is a great hinderance preventing a fuller transition away from fossil fuels.

All these arguments about the dangers of CO2, all of this false data has been shouted to the world to get us to surrender control over our individual lives.  Think about being unable to own a gasoline powered or diesel car.  Think about having your thermostat, your gas meter, and your water meter all monitored by the government, which would have the ability to shut any or all of them off without any notice.  (That kind of sounds like PG&E with their scheduled power outages, doesn’t it?) 

Think about being forced to either use public transportation or walk or bicycle to work because you are not allowed to own a car.  (In case you have not noticed, cities all over the country are allowing companies to place rental scooters on city sidewalks for the use of pedestrians.)  Look at Agenda 21, the Progressives’ master plan for rebuilding our cities in accordance with their dictates.  No private homes, no privately-owned vehicles; just cheerless, identical high-rise apartment buildings like those in the New Territories area of Hong Kong.

Power and control.  That’s the agenda here.  We have yet to learn whether any control of our CO2 emissions will have a measurable impact upon global warming or global cooling.  One thing we do know is that if we were to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the air to its pre-Industrial Revolution levels, we would not be able to feed more than about 85% of those of us alive today.  Crop yields flourish with CO2 above 350 ppm. 

Carbon dioxide is essential to all life on earth.  If we were to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to 150 ppm or less, all life on earth would eventually cease.  Why doesn’t the media talk about that?

 

[1] Vahrenholt, Fritz, and Sebastian Lüning, The Neglected Sun: Why the Sun Precludes Climate Catastrophe, The Heartland Institute, Arlington Heights, Illinois, 2015.

 

Looking Beyond the Mirror   (pleasure vs. contentment)

January 2020

What makes America great?

Is it our technology, that has enabled us to eliminate privacy and sacrifice our ability to communicate face-to-face?

Is it our vast natural resources, that have enabled us to achieve a standard of living once enjoyed only by monarchs and despots?

Is it our political parties, which have abandoned the principles of our founding and separated Americans into three opposing camps? (Republican, Democrat, and Independent)

It is our great cities, whose inhabitants are heavily burdened with taxes and regulations, and who have in many cases been victimized by venal and power-hungry politicians who care not for the people they were hired to serve?

Is it our financial system, which has abused its influence to create the greatest disparity of wealth in human history?

The answer is, of course, none of the above.

Alexis de Tocqueville put it this way:

“America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”

All right. Let’s modify the question. What makes America good?

There can be only one answer to that question, and it is the answer de Tocqueville had in mind. It is the people who make a nation great. More specifically, it is good people who make a good nation. Only a good nation has the potential to achieve true greatness.

What makes people good?  Being a good person involves doing those things that pertain to the foundation beneath our founding documents. The Founding Fathers knew, and John Adams expressed it best, that a constitutional republic requires moral, ethical, decent, and honest citizens of good character who are that way because they choose to be.

That’s what self-governance is all about. Self-governing people – what we would call responsible citizens – do not need a government in the usual sense. They are well educated, act in good faith in all their dealings, believe in God, and keep God’s commandments. They hold themselves to high personal standards of character, personality, and behavior.

Are such people found in America today?

There are more responsible citizens in the United States today than ever before. Ignored by the media, they live their lives in service to their families, their communities, and their God. They support organizations they believe in, support the Constitution, and fulfill their obligations as responsible citizens. They don’t draw attention to themselves because they do occasionally come under fire, particularly from the Left, and in recent decades they have found it increasingly difficult to explain their positions on the issues of the day in the garish light of the prevailing Progressive philosophy. .

The conservative movement, which counts among its number a great many of these responsible citizens, has failed to properly and fully defend those principles it holds dear. As a result, those principles have been largely superseded and overwritten by new human “rights” created by government under pressure from special interest groups.

In recent decades great divisions have arisen among us. Despite the legislative and judicial successes of the Civil Rights Movement, there remain those who believe that one race is inferior to another, or that one race has the right to rule others.

We are also divided by the notion that sexual orientation is what defines us, motivates us, and inspires us, and that it determines the type and quality of life we will live.

These beliefs and notions are falsehoods. Their propagation endangers all of society.

In his book The Hacking of the American Mind, Dr. Robert M. Lustig discusses the two paths humans may pursue in life. He defines them as pleasure and contentment. Each is achieved by a different approach to life, and each is measured by a different set of receptors in our brains.

Pleasure, of course, is moment-to-moment, transient, and of no permanent effect. It is sought through various means, including sex, alcohol, drugs, and sugar.

Contentment is almost the polar opposite; it is sought through commitment, faithfulness, diligence, and intellectual honesty. It is achieved during and after significant effort, and its effects are long-lasting and life-changing.

There is an easy comparison to be made between these two approaches to life and the bottom line positions of our two major political parties. At least, it once could be said that the Republican Party was the party seeking contentment; that may no longer be true. At the very least, the Republican Party is desperately trying to overcome its own internal conflicts and find some point of relevance in a sea of Progressivism.

The Democratic Party, on the other hand, has increasingly chosen the path of pleasure. In the past fifty years the Democrats have adopted Progressivism to a very high degree, adopting horrors like the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which denies that humans have any responsibility for their own lives. From this we have witnessed a sea change in behavior all over the world. Hundreds of millions have abandoned the faith of their fathers. They have drunk the Kool-Aid and wear the shackles of the welfare state. They have allowed foreign and demeaning philosophies and behaviors to be taught and promoted to their children. They have diminished the institution of marriage and the propriety of birth within the bonds of matrimony. They have embraced illegal drugs, alcohol, sexual misconduct, child and spousal abuse, road rage, violent video games, and much more in a long, downward spiral that is robbing them of their humanity and stealing from them their birthright as children of God.

All of this is both saddening and reprehensible to responsible citizens. Bad conduct in our communities affects us all. Labeling it acceptable conduct is even more harmful.

The Sexual Revolution, the gay rights movement, women’s liberation – all these events have diminished us in one way or another. They have changed our ideas about what it means to be human. They have challenged the foundation upon which our civilization, and particularly our constitutional republic, is based. They have encouraged us to live for ourselves as individuals while forcing us into a collective as a group of “victims” seeking our “freedom.”

In another essay I will consider the proper role of government in all of this. For the moment, suffice it to say that the role of the United States Government under our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights, has no authority in making legal determinations of sexual preferences or personal lifestyle. Those things are part of the power reserved to the people themselves, or to the states. The states have the authority to govern the conduct of marriages and to punish abuse and drunk driving, but they do not have the authority to control our thoughts or the attitudes that promote our bad behaviors.

These “new” ideas are not new, and they are not valid. If we are indeed children of God, we have a responsibility to seek Him out and discover His truths for ourselves. We do not have the right to choose to live in a way that violates those things our consciences would teach us – if only we would let them.

We used to say that the “new morality” is the old immorality. That is a true statement. Today such talk is, in far too many venues, punishable as hate speech.

The seeking of pleasure turns us inward. We seek pleasure for ourselves, often to the exclusion of others. We become self-serving. We care less and less for those around us, including our families, as we focus on the things we want. We look at the mirror and declare that we have rights, and that no one can take those rights away from us. We declare ourselves the master of our fate – and then fail to properly prepare for a life worth living.

We can abandon the pursuit of contentment, and seek pleasure for the sake of pleasure, only if we also abandon the foundation underlying our constitutional republic. That foundation includes the principles that empower the idea that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

There it is. Happiness. Does happiness come from seeking pleasure?  If so, we receive it only momentarily. True happiness is developed through the choices we make, the character we develop, and our willingness to look beyond the mirror and step up to our responsibilities as spouses, parents, and citizens of the greatest nation the world has ever seen.

There is a God, and He loves all his children. If America is to become great, we must become good. We must undergo our own personal search for God and truth, confident that we will find both as we live our lives in the way He always intended.