Dismantling America

Thomas Sowell

Dismantling America

"We the people" are the familiar opening words of the Constitution of the United States-- the framework for a self-governing people, free from the arbitrary edicts of rulers. It was the blueprint for America, and the success of America made that blueprint something that other nations sought to follow.

At the time when it was written, however, the Constitution was a radical departure from the autocratic governments of the 18th century. Since it was something so new and different, the reasons for the Constitution's provisions were spelled out in "The Federalist," a book written by three of the writers of the Constitution, as a sort of instruction guide to a new product.

The Constitution was not only a challenge to the despotic governments of its time, it has been a continuing challenge-- to this day-- to all those who think that ordinary people should be ruled by their betters, whether an elite of blood, or of books or of whatever else gives people a puffed-up sense of importance.

While the kings of old have faded into the mists of history, the principle of the divine rights of kings to impose whatever they wish on the masses lives on today in the rampaging presumptions of those who consider themselves anointed to impose their notions on others.

The Constitution of the United States is the biggest single obstacle to the carrying out of such rampaging presumptions, so it is not surprising that those with such presumptions have led the way in denigrating, undermining and evading the Constitution.

While various political leaders have, over the centuries, done things that violated either the spirit or the letter of the Constitution, few dared to openly say that the Constitution was wrong and that what they wanted was right.

It was the Progressives of a hundred years ago who began saying that the Constitution needed to be subordinated to whatever they chose to call "the needs of the times." Nor were they content to say that the Constitution needed more Amendments, for that would have meant that the much disdained masses would have something to say about whether, or what kind, of Amendments were needed.

The agenda then, as now, has been for our betters to decide among themselves which Constitutional safeguards against arbitrary government power should be disregarded, in the name of meeting "the needs of the times"-- as they choose to define those needs.

The first open attack on the Constitution by a President of the United States was made by our only president with a Ph.D., Woodrow Wilson. Virtually all the arguments as to why judges should not take the Constitution as meaning what its words plainly say, but "interpret" it to mean whatever it ought to mean, in order to meet "the needs of the times," were made by Woodrow Wilson.

It is no coincidence that those who imagine themselves so much wiser and nobler than the rest of us should be in the forefront of those who seek to erode Constitutional restrictions on the arbitrary powers of government. How can our betters impose their superior wisdom and virtue on us, when the Constitution gets in the way at every turn, with all its provisions to safeguard a system based on a self-governing people?

To get their way, the elites must erode or dismantle the Constitution, bit by bit, in one way or another. What that means is that they must dismantle America. This has been going on piecemeal over the years but now we have an administration in Washington that circumvents the Constitution wholesale, with its laws passed so fast that the public cannot know what is in them, its appointment of "czars" wielding greater power than Cabinet members, without having to be exposed to pubic scrutiny by going through the confirmation process prescribed by the Constitution for Cabinet members.

Now there is leaked news of plans to change the immigration laws by administrative fiat, rather than Congressional legislation, presumably because Congress might be unduly influenced by those pesky voters-- with their Constitutional rights-- who have shown clearly that they do not want amnesty and open borders, despite however much our betters do. If the Obama administration gets away with this, and can add a few million illegals to the voting rolls in time for the 2012 elections, that can mean reelection, and with it a continuing and accelerating dismantling of America.

Thomas Sowell's Biography

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of The Housing Boom and Bust.

TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Thomas Sowell and Townhall.com's daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.

©Creators Syndicate

It is not the Party’s Fault; It’s the “Isms”

This is in response to a Letter to the Editor blaming Republicans for all America’s economic woes throughout our history:

I could not help but response to David B. Munsey revisionist history of the role Republicans played in the economy. But in order to fairly represent the true nature of the discussion, the dialogue should really focus on the difference between the “ism” that controlled the debate at the time of the economic up or down. Was it progressivism or conservatism that was the overall guiding principles? By worrying less about the party affiliation, and focusing more on the reining “ism,” you start see an obvious trend.

First, Mr. Munsey ignores the Great Depression of 1920. That’s right 1920, not 1931. The WORSE economic crash to occur in modern record keeping was the crash under progressive Woodrow Wilson (D). Wilson applied a high tax rate (upwards of 70%) and massive deficit spending (spending outpaced tax revenues X 3). The fastest recovery out of a major economic downturn occurred under the great “forgotten” President, conservative Calvin Coolidge (R). President Coolidge reduced the tax rate to 25% and cut spending by a whopping 50%! It is the combination of a fair tax percentage and STRICT spending controls that resulted in higher tax revenues and unprecedented employment (98.1 % employment). Under Coolidge’s conservative leadership we saw the largest increase of the middle class in history.

The next economic downturn, 1929, which contrary to misconception, was not the start of the “Great Depression.” However, the downturn of 1929 was the result of the progressive policies of President Herbert Hoover (the “forgotten progressive”) (R). Hoover ignored the lessons of the Wilson administration and abandoned the conservative principals established by Coolidge. Hoover initially maintained the lower tax rate, but increased spending to record deficit levels (much like we saw under Bush 43). Also under Hoover, we started to see the heavy hand of government being applied to business. Lo and behold, the economic collapsed, eventually leading to the depression of 1929.

I noticed that Mr. Munsey ignored the next two great dips in our economy, 1931 (the Great Depression) and 1938, probable for good reason; they would not play very well into his argument of Democrat (good) versus Republican (bad). The Great Depression was the direct result of heavy taxation, deficit spending, confusing government control, and lastly, Hoover and the Congress trying to “spend” their way into prosperity (sound familiar?). Policies that would be continued under FDR.

1938, America saw another major economic downturn with high unemployment (19% ), out of control spending , a punishing tax code (67%), the heavy hand of government entanglements within the market, and continued attempts by the US government to spend their way into prosperity. In fact FDR’s attempt to “control” the economic resulted in the comment made by FDR’s Secretary of Treasury, "We've tried spending money. We are spending more money than we have ever spent before, and it does not work."

I could go on, but why bother. When our government is guided by progressive policies, economic downturn will follow. Whenever the government is guided by conservative principals, true economic prosperity follows. Mr. Munsey is simply reciting from the playbook of the “new progressives,” which currently exist in both major Parties.

40% of all Americans identify themselves as Conservatives, and for good reason. They understand that both deficit spending and a punishing tax code are immoral. They also understand that government should function the same way a responsible household does; with a balance check book and by not stealing from your neighbors to make up for a lack of fiscal responsibility. It is progressive policies that have failed us, and both the Democrats and Republicans are guilty.

The Tea Parties Born 2009 - R.I.P.2010?

Political truth, like revenge, is a dish best served cold; at least for some in the media. Take for example the recent article by Kenneth Vogel, that appeared on Politico, and was eventual e-mailed throughout the Democratic Party:

Will Tea Partiers turn on each other?
Kenneth P. Vogel November 19, 2009 11:41 PM EST

After emerging out of nowhere over the summer as a seemingly potent and growing political force, the tea party movement has become so rife with internal feuding over philosophy, strategy and money that some supporters fear it will disintegrate before realizing its full potential.

The grass-roots activists powering the movement have become increasingly divided on core questions such as whether to focus their efforts on shaping policy debates or elections, work on a local, regional, state or national level or closely align itself with the Republican Party, POLITICO found in interviews with tea party organizers in Washington and across the country.
Disagreements over those issues have spawned personal and institutional rivalries, at least one highly contentious lawsuit and - perhaps most significantly - resulted in the splintering of local, regional and national groups into a patchwork of hundreds of smaller groups that occasionally seem to be working at cross-purposes.

“These groups don’t play as well together as they should,” said Kevin Jackson, a St. Louis-based conservative author and activist who has spoken at dozens of tea party-type rallies and is traveling across the South with a convoy sponsored by the national Tea Party Patriots group.

“They’re fractured at the organization level, I think mainly because there are a lot of people who have not had managerial experience who all of a sudden are thrust into the limelight and become intoxicated with it. And when a potential rift comes up, instead of handling it and maybe agreeing to disagree, they splinter and go off on their own.”

The movement exploded onto the scene this year as a backlash to what participants contend are the free-spending, overreaching initiatives pushed by President Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress. It is composed of hundreds of independent local groups, many of which are incorporated as nonprofits, and have localized names referencing the tea parties, “9/12” or “We The People.”

Many of their members also belong to national conservative groups, including FreedomWorks, Americans for Prosperity and Grassfire, while the local groups often affiliate formally or informally with loose-knit umbrella organizations, including the Tea Party Patriots and Tea Party Nation.

The organizational chaos - combined with a widening apathy at the edges of the movement - has produced a growing consensus among local, state and national tea party leaders that in order for the movement to evolve from the loose conglomeration of fired-up activists who protests and marches across the country into a sustainable block with the power to shape the GOP and swing elections, it will require the emergence of a national leader, group or structure.
Ned Ryun, president of American Majority, a nonprofit that has conducted organizer-training sessions for many tea party activists, said “the next 3 to 6 months” are going to be critical in determining “what’s going to happen with the tea party movement. Are they going to be a bunch of fingers, or are they going to come together to be a fist?”

Yet, while some tout a planned National Tea Party Convention in February (at which former Alaska governor and tea party darling Sarah Palin is listed as the keynote speaker) as a potentially unifying moment and others point to online coordination efforts, there is deep disagreement about what any national organization would look like and who would lead it.
FreedomWorks, Americans for Prosperity, Grassfire, Americans for Limited Government and a host of other groups have helped organize various efforts capitalizing on the energy behind the tea parties, including providing training, online war rooms that help generate phone calls and ready-to-distribute canvassing literature.

But the groups have also jockeyed - mostly behind the scenes - to take credit for leadership of the movement, which - depending on who’s doing the telling - took its name either as an homage to the 1773 Boston tax revolt that played a major role in sparking the American Revolution or from an acronym standing for “Taxed Enough Already.”

The philosophical and strategic disagreements have been present within the tea party movement almost from the beginning. But they were hidden - or at least overshadowed - by the initial explosion of activist enthusiasm, which has dissipated somewhat, exposing and widening the rifts.

“Some of these groups may burn out, but this is part of this entrepreneurial process and the competition is good,” said Adam Brandon, vice president of communications for FreedomWorks, a nonprofit chaired by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey of Texas.

The group has facilitated some of the efforts demonstrating the potential power of the movement. Those have included the confrontations that erupted at congressional strong support from many tea party groups and leaders.

Brandon stressed that the strength of the tea party movement is in its grass-roots nature and that FreedomWorks’s goal is to help facilitate the movement, not to control it.
“One thing that’s clear is that anyone who says they own the tea party movement is going to get run over because no one owns the movement,” he said.

Brandon acknowledged the “rivalries and turf battles” now gripping parts of the movement but said “that’s normal because people have different ideas about what they want. That’s what’s happening now, and it’s sometimes a painful process.”

Those fights have been waged over issues that go to the heart of the movement’s purpose and strategy as well as more mundane rivalries and personal feuds.

In Myrtle Beach, S.C., disputes within the local tea party about how much to engage in partisan politics and whether board members were profiting from contracts to print paraphernalia emblazoned with the group’s logo prompted the treasurer to resign and join with defectors from a North Carolina “We the People” group to form a new organization.

“There’s a lot of fighting, and everyone wants to be in charge, and that’s why you have so many splinter groups,” said the ex-treasurer Janet Spencer, who charged her adversaries within the tea party with saying “derogatory things about me that were very unprofessional.”
She said her new group, called Patriotic Voices of America/Carolina Patriots, counts about 100 members and will not coordinate with the Myrtle Beach Tea Party, whose treasurer, David Ognek, said the friction is “just group dynamics.”

In Texas, a handful of thriving tea party groups severed their ties from the national Tea Party Patriots group after it ousted, then sued a founding board member who had affiliated with a rival group called the Tea Party Express.

“Our fight is in Congress and not with each other or with these other groups,” said Toby Marie Walker, who was the Texas state coordinator for the Tea Party Patriots and also co-founded the Waco, Texas, tea party.

This Waco group recently drew an estimated 4,000 people to a rally it organized with the Tea Party Express, which travels the country hosting rallies. The month before, it had pulled out of the Tea Party Patriots after the Patriots group extremist rhetoric, and raising questions about the Express’s finances.

The Patriots’ attack and lawsuit worried the Waco group’s board, Walker said, because “if you align yourself with someone who is going to be that malicious, then how do we know they won’t turn on us?”

Other local tea party groups, though, cast their lots with the Patriots, heeding the group’s call to disassociate with the Tea Party Express.

In Granbury, Texas, local tea party organizer Josh Sullivan says he believes the movement’s effectiveness is being compromised by extremism.“You have some interesting folks in the Tea Party movement - some of them I can support, but some of them are kind of out there and radical, and I don’t want to associate myself with them,” he said.

In Northern Colorado, meanwhile, a handful of active 9/12 groups - named for the Glenn Beck-encouraged effort to stage the Sept. 12 Washington march - are unhappy with the state 9/12 group’s aversion to fundraising and with its focus on national issues and have discussed forming their own rival statewide group.

“People are beginning to become a little bit de-energized - they’re starting to feel like they’re fighting a losing battle, because we send a lot of letters into Washington, D.C., and things like that, and people are saying they’re not listening,” said Brian Britton, who heads the Greeley, Colo., 9/12 group.

That fear is echoed by Glenn Galls, a Hot Springs, Ark., tea party organizer frustrated with the focus of Arkansas’ state-level tea party groups on national races and issues such as cap and trade and health care.

Democratic email footer:

“If the tea party movement is going to continue to thrive and to grow and to have influence,” he said, “it must start coming together and coalescing and finding its purpose in life, because if it doesn’t, the excitement will fade like it does from anything else.”

Michael Czin Regional Press Secretary Democratic National Committee Office: (202) 863-8106
BBerry: (202) 286-7654

***** End of E-mail *****

Although there is some truth in the original Politico piece, Mr. Czin should not be so eager in ordering the wreath for the wake, because in the words of Mark Twain, “the reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated,” as is the premature death knell of the liberty movement.

I would caution both the Republican and Democratic Parties from reading too much into some of the observations of this article (just as I would have advised Michael Czin from forwarding the email around the Democratic Party – it is the type of thing that can be used to unite the liberty troops). Infighting can be found with any group, from the Cub Scouts to the UN. It is human nature, why would we expect these groups to be any different?

Many of these groups came together because of their dissatisfaction with all levels of government, and that has not changed. The liberty groups see both parties as the disease (a point I disagree with – a few bad apples do not spoil the whole barrel; nor do a few RINO’s speak for the rest of the crash). Watch what happens if this healthcare monstrosity passes. These groups will put their differences aside in defense of a cause. For you see, it is the cause that serves as the surrogate leader. Every time politicians give these groups a reason to fight, such as healthcare, cap-n-trade, illegal alien amnesty, in a perverted sort of way, they are providing the very leadership these groups need to resist them……..the cause! And right now, it is the Democrats that keep providing the ammunition; ammunition that will be used to put the lame donkey out of its misery.

What we are witnessing are growing pains. But at some point a level of realistic, political maturity must be the order of the day for these groups to be considered viable entities. If not, we will continue to witness our representatives standing before us like the highwaymen of old, yelling “Stand and deliver! Your money or your life.” Individual liberty is the cause, but a communal synergy is means of resistance.

However, to the articles’ point, eventually these groups must rally with a common ally. A new group of Founding Fathers must come forth, concerned less about individual accolades, and committed to the greater good of the “united States of America.” In the words of Ronald Reagan, it is amazing what you can accomplish it you do not care who gets credit for the success.

But to the observations in the originally article, I have some advise for the liberty groups. Do not let petty squabbles divide you. United you stand, divided you will fall. The Democratic Party would like nothing more than to see the liberty groups marginalize, preferring to focus on your potential downfall so as to avoid dealing with their own civil war (Democrats.com - Let's Beat the BlueDogs ). Do not give the Democrats the pleasure by proving them right. Rise above your differences, because the reasons that brought millions of Americans together still exist; and the difference between a country committed to liberty and a country whose people are subjects to tyranny have always rested with the liberty groups throughout history.

The lack of leadership, beyond the cause, is easy to resolve. It is time for the liberty groups to start endorsing candidates. The liberty groups should seek out leaders willing and able to run for office. Leaders with integrity, leaders willing to commit to the principals of the group. Each liberty group should create a common, realistic pledge (or list of key principals they stand for), that each candidate would be required to publicly support. This is how the liberty groups will find their “level of realistic, political maturity.”

A Time for Choosing Again

The following is the text of a speech I gave during two separate appearances before Republican committee’s last week. Depending on the audience members point of view, they either enjoyed it or they were squirming in their seats:

Ladies and Gentleman...thank you for your invitation to speak before you tonight.

I have the luxury of not running for office or relying on a pay check that requires me to be polite, or diplomatic in my presentation. It is quite liberating to be able to offer observations unencumbered by who I might offend.

Today (October 28) we mark an important anniversary for conservatisms, and in turn the Republican Party. It was 45 years ago today that Ronald Reagan gave one of his greatest speeches….”A Time For Choosing.” It was in that speech that then citizen Reagan not only defended the principals of conservatism, but put socialism on notice:
“You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We'll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we'll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.”

Most of you are gathered here today because you see your State and your Country at the edge of that darkness. And sadly I must tell you that some in the Republican Party are willing participants in our shared fate. The Republican Party lost its way, becoming nothing more than Democrat-light; interested more in vote harvesting and staying in power. It seems that our party motto became – “Any Republican is better than a Democrat.” But where has that gotten us?

Both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party now share the same predicament, the American people don’t trust either one. The Republican Party forgot the words of Jack Kemp - “You serve you party best, by serving your country first.” It is time for the Republican Party to embrace that statement once again, because God knows the Democrats won’t.

So before we can take back our State and our Country, we must first take back our Party. Because you see, there are those that call themselves Republican and have no clue what that means. Worse yet there are those that call themselves moderate Republican, conservative Republican, and my new favorite oxymoron Liberal Republican.

I actually chuckle when I hear all of these terms, but I am most amused when I hear people describe themselves as a Conservative Republican……….or delineate by stating they are a social conservative or fiscal conservative. Well, I am here to tell you today that the very essence of the Republican Party is conservative. The first Republican platform, its last platform, and all the platforms in-between are the very model of principled conservatism. Don’t believe me, you tell me if this is a moderate, liberal or a conservative statement (from the 2008 Republican Party platform):

This is a platform of enduring principle, not passing convenience — the product of the most open and transparent process in American political history. We offer it to our fellow Americans in the assurance that our Republican ideals are those that unify our country: Courage in the face of foreign foes. An optimistic patriotism, driven by a passion for freedom. Devotion to the inherent dignity and rights of every person. Faith in the virtues of self-reliance, civic commitment, and concern for one another. Distrust of government's interference in people's lives. Dedication to a rule of law that both protects and preserves liberty.

But too many people seem to have difficulty saying the word Conservative out loud. Some whisper it like a mark of shame, afraid that they will be tarred and feathered by the villagers. The only shame is that we have forgotten what we stand for, and thus the country is in far worse shape for our own ignorance.

But there is more hope for the Republican Party than the Democratic Party, and why do I say that?

40% of the people in this country identify themselves as conservative; 36% identify themselves as independent (with center to right leanings), and only 20% identify themselves as liberal. Republicans know how to be conservative, and as we found out in 2006 and 2008, we are terrible at being liberal.

Over the past few months there have been a lot of words that begin with “R - E” thrown about. Reenergize, rebuild, refocus, regroup, and rejuvenate. Folks, these are merely marketing terms that will only cause further mistrust. The Republican Party must be true to itself, which in turn will earn the trust of the people, because there is too much at stake if you and I fail.

In the speech “A Time for Choosing,” Reagan understood that America was the last best hope for the world; that if the torch of freedom was extinguished here, then the warming light of liberty dies everywhere. I say to you that if you believe that America is the last best hope for the world, then it is the Republican Party that is the last best hope for America.

Ronald Reagan did not stand in front of us and call himself a Conservative Republican; he simply called himself a Republican because he understood to be Conservative was to be Republican, and to be Republican was to be Conservative. The only way for us to return the Republican Party to a party that serves the people is to return to the grassroots of conservatism that made us great, and avoid any further watering down of our principals in an effort to come across as more appealing.

The justification for watering down the core beliefs of the Republican Party is the often heard phrase that we are a “Big Tent Party.” There is some truth to that statement…we are the Big Tent Party, and all are welcome. But that does not mean you check your principals at the door before you enter. No…..it means that you enter the tent prepared to stand for something greater than yourself….greater than the next fundraiser…..or greater than the next election!
For you see, this tent stands strong because it is being held up by poles of principals. This tent stands strong because of great Republican leaders such as Reagan, Coolidge, and Lincoln, who stood firm on the principals that made this party great. The Republican Party is strongest when it uses the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution as its firm footing, a foundation to keep us away from the dangers of that darkness President Reagan warned us about. In the words of President Lincoln:

“Be sure you put your feet in the right place, then stand firm.”

There can be no comprise or moderation when the cause is just, when the hope of an entire planet rest with us, you and I, choosing the right course. But with the Constitution as our North Star, always there to point us home, not only as a country, but as a people committed to the cause of liberty. But we must be willing to use it, because if we chose to ignore it, America will be lost at sea until it sinks from the weight of its own ignorance.

So let’s you and I dabble with the suggestion from those who feel we should be more moderate. Where should that moderation be applied? Which of the issues should you and I comprise on? That the redistribution of wealth is fair and just? That higher taxes are there to serve the people? That the chain of debt that is already weighing down future generations is not our problem? That a stronger centralized government is in the best interest of America? That the Constitution is a living, breathing document, open to generational interpretation?

Or is just simpler that the Republican Party take a more “sensible” understanding that “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness……” , that those words do not apply to the unborn, just as some felt it did not apply to those held in bondage over 100 years ago.

Or how about the belief that morality is purely the province of the individual, and that a community has no vested interest in protecting religion, preserving the strength of the family, or promoting a robust patriotism and strong sense of civil commitment.

No I tell you…. that it is not moderation, it is appeasement to oppression. Does it matter that the tyranny comes in the form of 1000 pages bills that no one reads, or by the point of the gun? Our party, the Republican Party was founded on the very principal of Life and Liberty. The Republican Party was founded with the sole purpose to fulfill our country’s promise that all Men are created equal. There are some that have confused moderation with appeasement. This confusion has hurt our country, and our inherent laziness has moved us closer to the abyss of totalitarianism.

Sam Adams once said -

"It is not high time for the people of this country explicitly to declare, whether they will be freemen or slaves? It is an important question which ought to be decided. It concerns us more than anything in this life. The salvation of our souls is interested in this event. For wherever tyranny is established, immorality of every kind comes in like a torrent. It is in the interest of tyrants to reduce the people to ignorance and vice. For they cannot live in any country where virtue and knowledge prevail. The religion and public liberty of a people are intimately connected; their interest are interwoven, they cannot subsist separately; and therefore they rise and fall together.”

We do not win elections by watering down our message; we win election by communicating our principals with pride. We do not win elections by being cowards, afraid to run for office “because” the outcome is not assured. We win elections by understanding that we may lose today, but we win tomorrow in the arena of ideas.

For you see, in the words of President Reagan, the issue for this election is….

Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

The Republican Party, our party, must offer the kind of leadership that grows and takes its strength from the people. Any organization is in actuality merely 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.

Thank-you

Portsmouth New Hampshire Tea Party: A New American Revolution

What a great day April 15, 2009 turned out to be. Estimates put the combined national attendance in excess of 600,000. Not only was I fortunate enough to attended the Tea Party in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, but I was honored to be asked to speak to the group of patriots that had gathered in Market Square. The following is the text of my speech:

A New American Revolution

How appropriate that we gather here tonight in front of the historic North Church, whose parishioners included General William Whipple, signer of the Declaration of Independence, and John Langdon, signer of the U.S. Constitution. This church has also seen the likes of great men such as Daniel Webster, John Paul Jones, and George Washington as they prayed for guidance while leading a young nation in search of its character.

However, the North Church connection to the Revolution that helped form this nation goes much deeper than those who have knelt in its pews. Parishioner Samuel Langdon helped to organize the first Portsmouth Tea Party in 1773, which occurred days before the more famous Boston Tea Party. Much like today, citizens from surrounding communities resolved that they would not pay the tax imposed by a far away, detached government. But unlike their counterparts in Boston, and without firing a shot, the Portsmouth Tea Party politely convinced the captain to sail the tea to Halifax.

And what of the role of the residents of the Seacoast, and beyond, throughout the struggle for independence? They captured Fort William and Mary, and 200 barrels of gunpowder, once again without firing a shot, months before the battle of Lexington and Concord. In addition, a thousand men from the area accompanied that gunpowder to the Battle of Bunker Hill. In fact, the New Hampshire contingent outnumbered the combined troops from both Massachusetts and Connecticut at this pivotal point in history.

But my favorite story of our revolutionary history is the “sudden” departure of the British Royal Governor Wentworth. When Governor Wentworth woke up one morning to find a cannon pointing at his front door, he opted to join the previously deported tea in Halifax, once again, without a single shot being fired. I don’t know about you, but I think we need to find that cannon because we could sure use it today.

But here you stand today, on this most hallowed ground of liberty, not only as a part of the Second Portsmouth Tea Party, but part of a great American awakening that is occurring all across America tonight; an awakening of the spirit of our founding fathers. An awakening that harkens back to the resolve written in the Declaration of Independence ……..

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it……….

And to those who say this is just about money, and that it’s time to be patriotic, time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, I say, you first! The time for politeness is past, the time for niceties has been exhausted. This is not about money anymore than our original revolution was about money. In the words of Ronald Regan:

Our founding fathers understood…… “A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.”

What we are witnessing today is the resistance to the third great wave of government expansion. But this new wave, unlike the New Deal and the Great Society, will hit us like a tsunami, and many fear it may drown the entrepreneurial spirit of this country. There was a time when we believed in equalizing opportunity. But this new wave of economic tyranny will replace the American way of life with the European model of equalizing results of people’s lives…in one fell swoop our country creed E. Pluribus Unum – Many Into One - will be swept away, replaced with the new order battle cry of the 10 most frightening words in the English language – “We’re from the government, and we are here to help!” I don’t know about you, but when the government says they’re here to help, hold on to your wallets, hide your kids, AND keep clinging to those “bibles and guns,” because, as Thomas Jefferson said, a government big enough to give you everything is big enough to take it all away!

Contrary to how some in the media are portraying these Tea Parties, this resistance to tyrannical change is not a partisan cause. This is not a Democratic or Republican movement, nor is this a Liberal or Conservative movement. What we are witnessing today is an American movement to reclaim the government “of the people, by the people, and for the people….” from a group of far off elites dedicated to the dismantling of our Republic for a false Utopia. These engineers of this wrecking crew that would destroy the American Dream have somehow forgotten the truth that many Americans believe in…….the existence of a free market where both success and FAILURE must occur in an atmosphere of liberty!

In a little over 230 years we have been transformed from a nation shaped by patriots determined to build a new form of government, into a government which thinks it knows how to build cars! In 230 years we have gone from a country which used to refer to our leader as Mr. President, but which now refers to him as Mr. Goodwrench. In 230 years we have gone from a country where our citizens paid for our freedom with their lives, to a government which thinks it can pay other’s mortgages with your money! In 230 years we have gone from a country that fought a revolution in large part because of excessive taxation, to a country where the government thinks that paying excessive taxes is patriotic. Our founding fathers aren’t just rolling in their graves, there are calling out to each and every one of us to stop this lunacy! Our Founding Fathers are screaming ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

Each and every day we wake up prepared to do our part because that is what Americans do. Each and every day we are prepared to carry the burden that comes with being a citizen of the greatest nation that has ever existed on the face of this planet. We do not do this for ourselves. We do it because past generations sacrificed their blood, sweat and tears so that future generations would be better off. We do this for our children so that their lives will be better than ours. But even the strongest among us can only carry so much, and I say to you today….. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

These are the same people who lecture us on what we should do with our money, but have managed to present us with a budget that will raise our debit to 4 trillion dollars in five years, and 10 trillion dollars within ten years. And that’s if their estimates are right….. When was the last time the US government EVER came in at or under their estimates………I will tell you……NEVER! In this present crisis government is not the solution to our problems, government is the PROBLEM. We must return to the invisible hand of the free-market, and break free from the heavy hand of government, because if we wait too long the government’s grip will only grow tighter…...

I know there are people who think that words like tyranny and oppression are mere exaggerations… “just words.” Really? If this current budget is enacted, the second largest expenditure for our government in the future will be the interest on our national debt. This is the legacy we will hand our children if we do not take control of spending, and I don’t mean next year, or in five years, or in 10 years….by then it will be too late. If your child is under the age of 10 years old today, by the time he or she turns 40, their liability to the federal debt will be $154,000.00 DOLLARS, without taking into account interest and inflation….$154,000 DOLLARS.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, if we approve this budget and do nothing to correct the disastrous course we are on, the lower class income tax rate for your 40 year old child will go from 10% to 25%, the middle class income tax will move past 65%, and the upper class income tax (which includes many small businesses) will exceed 92%! Is that what they mean by fair, that all of our children will be equally enslaved to the future debt of this country, so that the politicians of today can satisfy their lust for power? This is not just about money…..NO……this is about our very LIBERTY. You see, those who control our purse strings, CONTROL OUR FREEDOM!

But the waste and out of control spending doesn’t happen solely in Washington. Our own State governments have decided that they know what is best for us, even it is against our will. In NH we thought that last year’s budget, tax and fee increases were irresponsible. This year we have seen a budget increase of 12% in a recession and record unemployment. That is not just irresponsible….I tell you it’s a betrayal of our trust!

Somehow our New Hampshire Representatives have forgotten Article 10 of the New Hampshire Constitution………OUR RIGHT TO REVOLT! However, the revolution will not be fought with bullets, but with the ballot box! I say to our elected officials in Concord, Augusta, and Boston……leave your coats on…….don’t get too comfortable…….because we don’t work for you……….you work for us!

Our Republic is not too complicated to understand, and our founding fathers left us with a map to ensure that we stay on the course to liberty; but somehow our representatives have lost their way. But that’s to be expected, if they couldn’t be bothered to read the bailout bill, why would we ever expect them to read The Constitution. It’s not like they aren’t reminded everyday what this country stands for….one only need look at the very currency they seem so willing to spend like kids in a candy store. Stamped on each of our coins are the words that speak to our greatness. Some would call this the American Trinity:

In God We Trust – a reminder of a greater power than that of individual man. It is a reminder, that even though we are the most powerful nation, we have never been, nor will we ever be an arrogant people.

E. Pluribus Unum – Many Into One – said another way “United We Stand, Divided We Fall.” It is a reminder that our greatest strength does not come from our differences, but from our shared pedigree that we are all Americans. You could move anywhere else in the world and never be a citizen of that country. But you can come from anywhere in the world to this country, and become an American….embraced by all……Many Into One.

And lastly…..

Liberty – A word that some in America take for granted, but has served as a beacon of hope for oppressed people everywhere. Liberty is does not mean undisciplined freedom, but is a birthright that has been won with the blood and lives of past generations….and today by our brave military serving in Iraqi and Afghanistan. Because we are always just one generation away from losing Liberty, we must fight to preserve it.

The Constitution and the American Trinity are our true weapons against totalitarianism. Each of our Representatives should be required to carry a copy of the Constitution in a pocket over their heart to remind them of the ultimate sacrifice many gave to protect that “mere document.” Each of our Representatives should carry a quarter in their pocket to remind them that each coin spent was earned with the lives of our sons and daughters. This is not merely about money…..it is about our identity as the last best hope for mankind on Earth!

Do you want a government that defines patriotism by how much you pay in taxes?

Do you want a government that demands you pay more in taxes, but can’t seem to pay their own taxes?

Do you want a government that thinks it can spend its way into prosperity?

Do you want a government that punishes success and rewards irresponsibility?

They can try to push us around. They can threaten us with the weight of an oppressive tax burden, born from out-of-control spending. But as I look upon my fellow countrymen that have gathered here today, I have but one simple reply. In the words of John Paul Jones….”We Have Not Yet Begun To FIGHT!” We will not let the government bankrupt our country; we will not allow future generations to become enslaved by their reckless spending and the burden of a tax code that punishes success. Today a united America is shouting out to you….Enough is ENOUGH!

If William Whipple, John Langdon, and George Washington were alive today they would have a heavy heart as they sit in the pews just through those doors pondering how the politicians of today are working so hard to destroy everything they fought for. But I know that their spirit would be lifted and that pride would swell up in them if they were to walk out of this church today to find this gathering of patriots. They would say to you that you are the new patriots of a new revolution, a bloodless revolution, but a revolution nonetheless. A new American Revolution to reclaim the very soul of a Nation. A revolution rooted in the very simple belief that “We the People…” are the government. Today is the first day to reclaim the greatness that is America, a greatness that can be found in your hearts and your souls, and not in the dark abyss that has become Washington, DC or Concord, NH.

HOW CAN YOU MAKE A DIFFERENCE?

Have your facts straight – do your research and read both your state and federal Constitutions

Call, email, or write your elected officials

Educate your family and friends

Stay on target and focused – don’t lose control

Join a group of like-minded people

Follow the bills in Congress and your state government and be proactive

RUN FOR OFFICE – or support those who share your values and are stepping up to the plate

Speak up! Communicate your values and opinions , including constructive criticism to your legislators – offer solutions.

Educate yourself – what does history teach us about what’s happening today?

Provides solutions and ideas on how we can reduce our taxes

That is how we keep this new American Revolution alive, that is how we reclaim our country!

Thank you very much.

Daniel Hannan: A Voice Of Conervative Reason

Conservatives rejoice, a new voice has stood up and fired the first reasoned attack on the insanity that has permeated governments around the globe.

On March 24, 2009, Daniel Hannan, MEP for South East England, gave a brilliant speech chastising British Prime Minister reckless spending that has greatly jeopardized the financial stability of the UK:



Where is America's Daniel Hannan?

Conservatives: Nothing But A Bunch of Bigots

Conservatives are often falsely accused of “not pay enough attention” to minorities. The truth is that Conservatives are not guilty of ignoring minorities, merely Conservatives are not willing to exploit minorities as Liberals have. Our lack of wiliness to exploit minorities often comes across as uncaring. Nothing could be further from the truth:

Why the GOP Can't Win With Minorities

Shelby makes some valid points. However, what Conservatives really need to do is explain how conservative principals are not about skin color, ethnic background, or gender. Conservative values are not about categories, but about the “content of your character.”

I have always had difficultly even using the word “minority,” mainly because of my glamorized belief that we are all Americans, and as such we are all a majority. E Pluribus Unum, Many Into One, it is not just a slogan on our currency; it is statement of our unity, a testament to our very strength as a nation. E Pluribus Unum is a motto of a nation made up of immigrants from all around the world, brought together by whatever means, to form one nation. Think about it, you can move to Japan, but you will never be Japanese. But you can come to America, and become American.

Conservatives are not bigots, but we are guilty of being naïve. That naivety can come across as being disconnected, or worse, heartless. However, the truth is that the Conservative message does not need to be “adjusted or tailored” to suit the needs of minorities. Simply put, the Conservative message is in need of fusion, a synergy between issue and solution. Which is easy when we not only utter the words E Pluribus Unum, but we live by them.

In Defense Of Reaganomics

From the Wall Street Journal:



Has Reaganomics been replaced by Obamanomics?

Rush Limbaugh at CPAC: The Target On His Back Just Got Bigger

Rush Limbaugh brought down the house at CPAC on February 28, and those on the Left immediately jumped on his speech. In fact, Rush has given the Left enough propaganda ammunition for years to come:

Limbaugh: The Target On His Back Just Got Bigger

We can count on the Left to use sound bites from Rush’s speech to help raise money and create further false controversies. Worst yet, there are some Republicans who will try to distance themselves from not only Rush’s speech, but Rush the man. That would be very unfortunate.

Rush stated facts and made some very important points, proving when they are articulated correctly, they are part of a very powerful message. For those who chose to ignore what Rush said, or who have completely neglected the muscle of the message, you are missing out on an opportunity to recapture the truth of conservatism. Don’t kill the massager because you do not like the message.

CPAC Straw Poll: Romney The “Front Runner”

When you live in a 24/7 news cycle, every story is a big story. The media is making more out of CPAC and the straw poll selection of Romney then they need to. We are four years away from the next Presidential election, and this straw poll should mean very little. Let us remember that this is the third time that Romney has won the straw poll….how has that translated during the primaries?

Right Pundits: Romney Wins Straw Poll

I like Romney, and I believe he would have been the best person to handle this current financial crisis, and this not to say that Romney is not a leading contender………..but come on! This is 2009, we just finish our last Presidential election a few months ago, and our next Presidential election is the last thing conservatives should be worried bout.

Conservatives need to temper their focus and put their energies towards winning local elections (school boards, city councils, and State government) and taking back Congress in 2010! All of our time, money and effort should be at the grassroots level. Grassroots organizing and strong local efforts are the elements that will ensure that we build a strong foundation of influence.

Representative Daniel Itse

For those of us who live in New Hampshire, we have long known of NH Rep. Daniel Itse’s dedication, thoughtfulness, and courage. Recently, the rest of America was given the opportunity to see first-hand why Rep. Itse is so widely respected by both Democrats and Republicans. For many in New Hampshire, Rep. Daniel Itse is one of those legislators who, if his name appears on a piece of legislation, it is a cause worth supporting.

Recently, Rep. Itse became somewhat of a national hero (a distinction he would downplay, but one that is well-deserved) after his appearance on the Glen Beck Show. Rep. Itse was invited on the show to discuss a bill he is sponsoring, HRC06 – State Sovereignty Bill:

General Court HRC6 Text

Jeffersonian principles - what a novel concept!

New Hampshire is truly blessed to have legislators such as Rep. Itse, not just because of this one issue, but for a lifetime of service to the cause of liberty. Rep. Itse is unselfish in his representation of the people who have entrusted him to be their voice in the New Hampshire House. Time and again, he has shown the strength of character and humility that few “politicians” possess, and should be the role model for all who are considering running for elected office (or who are currently actively serving).

NH Liberty Calendar: Rally for NH HRC6 - March 3, 2009

Spendulus: The Monster That Ate America

I haven’t written much on the “stimulus package,” in large part because there is not much I can say that already hasn’t been said, and partly because I am just thoroughly disgusted with the actions of our representatives.

Sen. Nelson (D-Nebraska) stood on the floor of the Senate late Friday night (February 6) and declared: "We trimmed the fat, fried the bacon and milked the sacred cows." Nelson proclaimed that the 100 billion dollars that was trimmed “was a savings to the America people.” A savings, really? Mind you the 100 billion dollars (and more) has been returned to the package as of this writing (February 7). How can Nelson justify calling it a “savings,” when we are looking at a 1 trillion dollar, pork-filled package that is an insult to the American taxpayer?

1 trillion dollars??!!?? How much money is that really? You could spend 1 millions dollars a day from the day Jesus was born, and still have billions dollars left over! This is madness! This bill is filled with so much pork, we should pour some barbecue sauce on it, breakout the sweet tea, and enjoy the feast! It might be easier for the American people to swallow.

Welfare Spendathon: House Stimulus Bill Will Cost Taxpayers $787 Billion in New Welfare Spending

Stimulus Bill Should Not Bail Out Irresponsible States

Gregg Appointed To Commerce: What Does This Mean For New Hampshire?

On February 3, President Obama announced the appointment of New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg:

Gregg Tapped To Head Commerce

Now don’t get me wrong, I think that Judd Gregg is ideally suited to heads the Commerce Department, but where does that leave New Hampshire Conservatives? Try “concerned.”

The rumor at this writing is that Senator Gregg’s former Chief of Staff, Bonnie Newman, will be appointed to the seat. Newman has an impressive resume, but has never held elective office. Newman’s lack of elective experience and low name recognition make her an inviting target when the seat is up for grabs in two-years.

Current NH Congressman Hodes is expected to announce his candidacy for Gregg’s Senate seat sometime in the coming weeks. Prior to Gregg’s departure, Hodes had hinted at a run for the Senate, but Gregg’s departure will most assuredly cinch the deal for Hodes. Hodes has been mediocre Congressman, but sometimes-in New Hampshire, mediocre is the most important attribute; just look at how popular New Hampshire’s ineffective Governor Lynch is (Do nothing and don’t ruffle anyone’s feathers….presto 70% approval rating!). Most of the time New Hampshirians prefer their representatives to be like a New Hampshire winter, ..........dull.

More importantly, Hodes is a friend of NH’s other Senator, Jeanne Sheehan, as well as an early political supporter of President Obama. Should Newman run unopposed in the GOP primary for Gregg’s seat in two years, Hodes has a better than average chance of winning.

How should the NH GOP respond?

The Character of Conservatism Part Four: A Universal Morality

“In what direction can we say that Americans are going? Are we, as a people, going on the high road of the universal morality or on the low road of the universal immorality?”

This was the question legendary Conservative Clare Boothe Luce asked in 1978, but it is also fair to say that each generation has grappled with the moral direction facing America.

Clare Boothe Luce was an amazing person. Playwright, author, congresswoman, ambassador and Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient. If it weren’t for the fact that Clare Boothe Luce was a Conservative, she would be hailed as a modern feminist pioneer. But somehow she might consider that distinction as less than a badge of honor.

The truth is that to ensure the acceptance of a universal morality, there must be many more in society that demand its adherence, than there are those that would delight in its demise.

Is the new morality destroying America?

Clare Boothe Luce

I was honored-as who would not be?-by the invitation to address this Golden Circle of remarkable IBM achievers. But I confess I was somewhat floored by the subject your program producer assigned to me. He asked me to hold forth for a half-hour on the condition of morality in the United States, with special reference to the differences between America's traditional moral values and the values of the so-called "New Morality." Now even a theologian or a philosopher might hesitate to tackle so vast and complex a subject in just 30 minutes. So I suggested that he let me talk instead about, well, politics or foreign affairs, or the Press. But he insisted that your convention wanted to talk on a subject related to morals.

Well, the invitation reminded me of a story about Archbishop Sheen, who received a telegram inviting him to deliver an address to a convention on "The World, Peace, War, and the Churches." He replied: "Gentlemen, I am honored to address your great convention, but I would not want my style to be cramped by so narrow a subject. However, I would be glad to accept if you will widen the subject to include `The Sun and the Moon and the Stars."' So I finally agreed to talk if I could widen my subject to include, "The Traditional Morality, the New Morality, and the Universal Morality."

There's another trouble with talking about morals. It's a terribly serious subject. And a serious talk is just one step away from being a dull, not to say a soporific one. So I won't be offended if, before I finish, some of you leave. But please do so quietly, so as not to disturb those who may be sleeping.

The theme of this convention is "Involvement." Now there is one thing in which all Americans, including every one of us here, are already deeply involved. Every day of our lives, every hour of our waking days, we are all inescapably involved in making America either a more moral or a more immoral country.

So this morning, let's take a look at the direction in which we Americans are going. But first, we must begin by asking, "What are morals?"

Morals, the dictionary tells us, are a set of principles of right action and behavior for the individual. The "traditional morality" of any given society is the set of moral principles to which the great majority of its members have subscribed over a good length of time. It is the consensus which any given society has reached on what right action and decent behavior are for everybody. It is the way that society expects a person to behave, even when the law-the civil law-does not require him (or her)* to do so.

One example will have to suffice. There is no law that requires a person to speak the truth, unless he is under oath to do so in a court proceeding. A person can, with legal impunity, be an habitual liar. The traditional morality of our society, however, takes a dim view of the habitual liar. Accordingly, society punishes him in the only way it can-by social ostracism.

The person who believes in the traditional principles of his society, and who also succeeds in regulating his conduct by them, is recognized by society as a "moral person." But the person who believes in these principles-- who knows the difference between "right and wrong" personal conduct, but who nevertheless habitually chooses to do what he himself believes to be wrong-is looked upon by his society as an "immoral person."

But what about the person who does not believe in the traditional moral principles of his society, and who openly challenges them on grounds that he believes to be rational? Is such a person to be considered a moral or an immoral person?

Today there are many Americans who sincerely believe that many of our traditional moral values are "obsolete." They hold that some of them go against the laws of human nature, that others are no longer relevant to the economic and political condition of our society, that this or that so-called "traditional moral value" contravenes the individual's Constitutional freedoms and legitimate pursuit of happiness. Others believe that while a moral value system is necessary as a general guideline for societal behavior, it cannot, and should not, apply to everybody. Every person is unique; no two persons are ever in exactly the same situation or "moral bind"; circumstances alter moral cases. These persons believe, in other words, that all morals are "relative," and all ethics are "situational." They argue that what is wrong behavior for others is right behavior for me, because my circumstances are different. The new principles of right action and behavior which such persons have been advancing and practicing today have come to be called "the New Morality."

But before we undertake to discuss the differences between the traditional American morality and the so-called "New Morality," let us ask a most important question: Is there any such thing as a universal morality? Is there any set of moral principles which apply to everybody-everybody who has ever been born, and which has been accepted by the majority of mankind in all places and in all ages?

There is, indeed, a universal morality. It knows no race, no geographical boundaries, no time, and no particular religion. As John Ruskin, the English social reformer, wrote, "There are many religions, but there is only one morality." Immanuel Kant, the greatest of German philosophers, called it the Moral Law, which, he said, governs all mankind. Kant compared this Moral Law to the Sublime Law that rules the movement of the stars and the planets. "We are doomed to be moral and cannot help ourselves," said Dr. John Haynes Holmes, the Protestant theologian.

When we study the history of human thought, we discover a truly remarkable thing-all the great minds of the world have agreed on the marks of the moral person. In all civilizations, in all ages, they have hailed truthfulness as a mark of morality. "The aim of the superior man," said Confucius, "is Truth." Plato, the Greek philosopher, held that "truth is the beginning of every good thing both in Heaven and on earth, and he who would be blessed and happy should be from the first a partaker of truth, for then he can be trusted." "Veracity," said Thomas Huxley, the English scientist, "is the heart of morality." In Judeo-Christian lore, the Devil's other name is "The Liar."

Another mark of the moral person is honesty. "An honest man is the noblest work of God," wrote Pope is his Essay on Man. "Every honest man will suppose honest acts to flow from honest principles," said Thomas Jefferson.

The moral person is just. "Justice is the firm and continuous desire to render to everyone that which is his due," wrote Justinian. Disraeli called Justice "Truth in action." The moral person is honorable. At whatever cost to himself-including, sometimes, his very life-he does his duty by his family, his job, his country. "To an honest man," wrote Plautus, the great Roman poet, "it is an honor to have minded his duty." Two thousand years later, Woodrow Wilson voiced the same conviction. "There is no question, what the Roll of Honor in America is." Wilson said: "The Roll of Honor consists of the names of men who have squared their conduct by ideals of duty."

If, in an hour of weakness, the moral man does a thing he knows to be wrong, he confesses it, and he "takes his punishment like a soldier." And, if he harms another, even inadvertently, he tries to make restitution. He takes responsibility for his own actions. And if they turn out badly for him, he does not put the blame on others. He does not, for example, yield to the post Freudian moral cop-out of blaming his follies and failures, his weaknesses and vices, on the way his parents treated him in childhood. Here I cannot resist mentioning the case of Tom Hansen, of Boulder, Colorado, a 24-year old youth who is living on welfare relief funds. He is presently suing his parents for 350,000 dollars damages because, he claims, they are to blame for lousing up his life, and turning him into a failure. Adam was, of course, the first man to try to shift responsibility for his behavior onto someone else. As there was no Jewish mom to blame, he laid it on to his wife Eve.

"Absolute morality," wrote the English philosopher, Herbert Spencer, "is the regulation of conduct in such a way that pain will not be inflicted." The moral person is kind to the weak and compassionate with those who suffer.

Above all, he is courageous. Courage is the ladder on which all the other virtues mount. Plautus, a true nobleman of antiquity, wrote, "Courage stands before everything. It is what preserves our liberty, our lives, our homes, and our parents, our children, and our country. A man with courage has every blessing."

There is also one moral precept that is common to all the great religions of history. It is called the Golden Rule-"Do unto others as you would have them do to you." When Confucius was asked what he considered the single most important rule for right conduct, he replied, "Reciprocity."

The "universal morality" is based on these virtues-truthfulness, honesty, duty, responsibility, unselfishness, loyalty, honor, compassion and courage. As Americans, we can say proudly that the traditional moral values of our society have been a reflection, however imperfect, of this universal morality. All of our great men, all of our heroes, have been exemplars of some, if not all, of these virtues.

To be sure, different cultures and civilizations have placed more emphasis on some of these virtues than on others. For example, the morality of the early Romans heavily stressed courage, honor, and duty. Even today we still call these the manly virtues, and we tend to associate them with another value we call "patriotism." In contrast, the morality of the Judeo-Christian cultures of the West have placed their heaviest emphasis on altruism, kindness, and compassion. "Though I speak with the tongue of men and angels, and have not charity," St. Paul wrote, "I am become as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal." Americans, whose traditional morality reflects the Christian virtue of compassion, donated thirty billion dollars last year to charity. Americans also tend to consider compassion for the underprivileged a greater virtue in politicians than either honor or courage.

Now, if all these virtues do indeed represent the universal morality, then what do their opposites represent? Well, lying, dishonesty, dereliction of duty, irresponsibility, dishonorable conduct, disloyalty, selfishness, cowardice, cruelty and hypocrisy represent, of course, the universal immorality.

In passing, hypocrisy, which has been called "the compliment that vice pays to virtue," has been viewed as the height of immorality in all civilizations. "Of all villainy," cried Cicero, "there is none more base than that of the hypocrite, who at the moment he is most false, takes care to appear most virtuous." The English philosopher Henry Hazlitt called hypocrisy "the only vice that cannot be forgiven." Jesus cursed only one category of sinner, saying, "Oh woe to Ye, scribes and hypocrites!" Even the cynic and agnostic Voltaire, cried: "How inexpressible is the meanness of being a hypocrite!"

So now we are ready to ask: In what direction can we say that Americans are going? Are we, as a people, going on the high road of the universal morality or on the low road of the universal immorality?

The question is a crucial one for the future of our country. All history bears witness to the fact that there can be no public virtue without private morality. There cannot be good government except in a good society. And there cannot be a good society unless the majority of individuals in it are at least trying to be good people. This is especially true in a democracy, where leaders and representatives are chosen from the people, by the people. The character of a democratic government will never be better than the character of the people it governs. A nation that is travelling the low road is a nation that is self-destructing. It is doomed, sooner or later, to collapse from within, or to be destroyed from without. And not all its wealth, science and technology will be able to save it. On the contrary, a decadent society will use, or rather, misuse and abuse, these very advantages in such a way as to hasten its own destruction.

Let us then face up to some of the signs which suggest that America may be travelling the low road to its own destruction.

Campus surveys show that one-third of our college students say they would cheat if they were sure they would not be caught. Forty-five percent say that they do not think that it is necessary to lead a moral life in order to be happy or successful. Sociologists note the extraordinary increase in blue and white-collar dishonesty, such as sharp business practices, dishonest advertising, juggled books and accounts, concealment of profits, and the taking and giving of bribes. These are all practices which rip-off the buying public.

Unethical practices in the professions are becoming common. Honorable members of the Bar are today appalled at the increase of shysterism in the practice of law. A recent Congressional investigation of medical practices turned up the horrifying fact that American doctors, greedy for Medicare fees, are annually performing thousands of unnecessary operations. They are dishonoring their Hippocratic oath by inflicting unnecessary pain on helpless and trusting patients for profit. The public's increasing awareness of the lack of professional integrity in many lawyers and doctors is certainly what encouraged President Carter to make his recent attacks on these two professions.

According to the polls, the majority of our citizens think that politics-- and, yes, post-Watergate politics-are riddled with graft, kick-backs, payoffs, bribes and under-the-table deals. Polls also show that our people think that most politicians have no compunction about lying their heads off in order to get elected. A great number of Americans also question the accuracy and objectivity-in short, the integrity-of journalists. They think that far too many politicians and journalists are hypocrites---quick to expose the "immorality" of those who do not hold their own political views, but quicker by far to cover up the wrong-doing of those whose views they favor.

Addressing Harvard University's graduating class in June, Alexander Solzhenitsyn said: "A decline in courage may be the most striking feature an outsider notices in the West . . . such a decline in courage is particularly notable among the ruling groups and the intellectual elite, causing an impression of the loss of courage by the entire society.... Should one point out that from most ancient times a decline in courage has been considered the beginning of the end?"

A recent TV documentary about the morale of our volunteer army and our armed forces in Germany was a shocker. It revealed that one-third of our enlistees quit after a few months, finding service in the best-paid army on earth too hard on their heads or feet. One-third of our troops in Germany freely admit that they would beat it out of the forces as fast as they could the moment they thought a war was coming, and a majority of them felt that they could not trust their comrades in battle. The officer who did the commentary on this documentary said, "What we're getting is an army of losers." The Pentagon has recently told Congress that quotas for the armed services cannot be filled unless more women are taken in, including into the combat forces. So much for the condition of the manly virtues of duty, honor, courage in America's volunteer army.

Now I am sure that we would all agree that a rise in the crime rate indicates a weakening of society's social fiber. The staggering increase in the crime rate, especially in the rate of violent-and often utterly senseless crime among American youth is surely a significant sign of moral decay. An even more significant sign is the impotence of our courts to cope with the enormous volume of crimes being committed. For example, of the 100,000 felony arrests made in New York City each year, 97,000 or more cases are either dismissed, diverted for some non-criminal disposition, or disposed of through plea-bargaining. The average criminal who is sentenced is generally back on the streets in very short order. Studies show that most defendants arrested for serious crimes-including murder-go free. A society indifferent to the pervasiveness of crime, or too weak or terrified to bring it under control, is a society in the process of moral disintegration.

There is one other phenomenon in our society which has historically made its appearance in all decaying societies-an obsession with sex.

Sex-the procreative urge-is a mighty force. Indeed, it is the mightiest force. It is the life force. But since the dawn of history, what has distinguished man from the beasts is that he has made conscious efforts to control his lustful impulses, and to regulate and direct them into social channels. There is no primitive society known to anthropologists, no civilization known to historians, which has ever willingly consented to give its members full reign-bestial reign-of their sexual impulses. Sex morals, mores and manners have varied enormously from age to age, and culture to culture. But sexual taboos and no-nos, sex prohibitions (and consequently, of course, inhibitions) are common to all human societies.

Now the fact that mankind has instinctively sensed that there is a right and a wrong way of handling its procreative energies strongly suggests that there may be a universal sexual morality. And so there is. And when we examine it, we find that it is this very morality that has made all human progress, and what we call civilization, possible. It is the morality that protects and preserves the basic unit of society-the family. The family is the foundation on which mankind has built all his societies. Jean Jacques Rousseau called the family "the most ancient of all societies," and "the first model of political societies."

Humans, like all animals, instinctively mate. And the male instinctively protects his mate and her offspring. If this were not true, the human race would have long since perished. For in the entire animal kingdom, there is nothing more vulnerable than a pregnant human female, or a human female giving birth. The human female carries her fetus longer, and her young remain helpless longer, than the females and young of any other species.

But although humans, like all animals, instinctively mate, or pair-bond, they are not instinctively sexually faithful. Both sexes are promiscuous by nature. They come together naturally, but they do not naturally stay together. Marriage is a man-made institution. We do not know-or at least I do not know-its origins. They are lost in the mists of time. Marriage probably evolved by trial and error, as the most satisfactory way of both controlling the promiscuous impulses of the sexes, and satisfying the procreative urge in an orderly, uninterrupted basis. Bernard Shaw wittily remarked, "Marriage offers the maximum of temptation, with the maximum of opportunity."

Marriage is also the enemy of man's worst enemies-loneliness and lovelessness. In any event, marriage has been the most serviceable, perdurable and, on the whole, popular of all mankind's institutions. Thousands of years ago, the poet Homer spoke in praise of marriage: "And may the Gods accomplish your desire," he sang to the unwed maidens of Greece. "A home, a husband and harmonious converse with him-the best thing in the world being a strong house held in serenity where man and wife agree."

Marriage customs have varied greatly throughout history. But what we know about the ageless custom of marriage is this: Whether a man took unto himself one wife, or like King Solomon, 1,000 wives, whether he "courted" his bride, or bought her from her father like a head of cattle, once he took a woman to wife his society expected him to assume the primary responsibility for her welfare and the welfare of their children. The first principle of the universal sexual morality is that the husband should protect and provide for his wife and his minor offspring as long as they need him. In many cultures, the man has also been expected to assume responsibility for his illegitimate children, or bastards, and for the fatherless or motherless children of his near relatives.

The second principle of the universal sexual morality is, in the words of St. Augustine, that "They who are cared for obey-the women their husbands, the children their parents." St. Augustine adds, however, that "in the family of the just man . . . even those who rule serve those they seem to command; for they rule not from a sense of power, but from a sense of the duty they owe to others; not because they are proud of authority, but because they love mercy."

In all human undertakings, responsibility and authority go-as they must go-hand in hand. In order for a husband and father to discharge his responsibilities, it was necessary for him to have some measure of authority-let us call it the final "say-so"-over his family. The patriarchal family has been, up to now, the family pattern of all of the world's civilizations. It will remain so until the vast majority of women are completely self-supporting.

The third principle of the universal sexual morality is that spouses should be faithful to one another. Certainly this principle has always been more honored in the breach than in the observance for the simple reason that the animal side of human nature is promiscuous. But the fact remains that the faithfulness of both spouses throughout time, has been considered the ideal of marital conduct.

You may search through all the great literature of the world and you will find no words extolling marital infidelities. While it is true that the "sins of the flesh" have always been more readily forgiven to husbands than to wives, all human societies have taken a very harsh view of men who seduce-or rape-the wives or daughters of the men of their own society.

When the Trojan, Paris, ran off with Helen, wife of the Greek King Menelaus, Greece fought a seven-year war against Troy, to protest the seduction and abduction of Helen. King David's abduction and seduction of Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah, the Hittite, scandalized his court. It also caused that God-fearing monarch great agonies of repentance. In passing, King David's repentance produced some of the world's greatest poetry-perhaps, an early proof of Sigmund Freud's theory that all the creative works of man, all his art, poetry, architecture, even his proclivity for money-making, political power and Empire building, are au fond, sublimations of his consciously or subconsciously repressed sexual desires.

The fourth, and most important principle of the universal sexual morality is that moral parents, in addition to supplying the physical and emotional needs of their children, should educate them to become moral adults.

"Train up the child in the way he should go; and when he is old he will not depart from it," says the Bible. John Stuart Mill wrote, "The moral training of mankind will never be adapted to the conditions of life for which all other human progress is a preparation, until they practice in the family the same moral rule which is adapted to the moral constitution of human society." In the universal family morality parents who neglect, abuse or desert their young or who fail to train them to become moral citizens are bad parents.

There are several other aspects of the universal sexual morality which should be mentioned. Although incest is natural among all the lower animals, and has correspondingly also made its appearance in all human societies, none has ever considered incest moral. Even in most primitive societies incest is viewed with horror. The 3,000 year-old story of Oedipus Rex is the tragic story of the "guilt complex" of a man who slept-albeit accidentally-with his own mother.

History does tell us, however, that sodomy, homosexuality, and Lesbianism-virtually unknown in the lower orders-have been widely practiced, though seldom condoned, in all civilizations. But history also tells us that wherever incest, perversion, or marital unfaithfulness have become rampant, and whenever sex becomes, as we would say today, "value-free," the family structure is invariably weakened; crimes of all sorts increase-especially among the neglected young; and then more or less rapidly all other social institutions begin to disintegrate, until finally the State itself collapses. Rome is perhaps the most famous example.

In the time of Christ, when Imperial Rome was at the very height of its wealth and power, when the brick structures of the old Roman Republic had all come to be faced with gleaming marble, Rome had become a city obsessed with the pursuit of sensual pleasures. The Emperor Augustus Caesar, seeing the breakdown of the Roman family that was consequently taking place, tried to shore up the institution of marriage by passing laws making divorce more difficult and increasing punishments for adulterers, rapists, and abortionists. It was already too late. Those monsters of iniquity, perversion and violence, Caligula and Nero were already in the wings, impatiently waiting to succeed him, and to hasten the decline and fall of the Empire.

So now let us come to "sex" in America. There is no doubt that what most Americans mean when they speak of "the new morality" is the "new" sexual morality which holds that "anything goes" between consenting adults in private-and that almost anything also goes in public. The English critic Malcolm Muggeridge had America muchly in mind when he wrote, "Sex is the ersatz, or substitute religion of the 20th Century."

The social results of this new American ersatz religion are best seen in statistics most of which you can find in your Almanac. Today 50% of all marriages end in divorce, separation, or desertion. The average length of a marriage is seven years. The marriage rate and the birthrate are falling. The numbers of one-parent families and one-child families are rising. More and more young people are living together without the benefit of marriage. Many view the benefit as dubious. Premarital and extra-marital sex no longer raise parental or conjugal eyebrows. The practice of "swinging," or group sex, which the ancients called "orgies," has come even to middle-class suburbia.

Despite the availability of contraceptives, there has been an enormous increase in illegitimate births, especially among 13-15 year-olds. Half of the children born last year in Washington, the nation's capital, were illegitimate. The incidence of venereal diseases is increasing. Since the Supreme Court decision made abortion on demand legal, women have killed more than six million of their unborn, unwanted children. The rate of reported incest, child molestation, rape, and child and wife abuse, is steadily mounting. (Many more of these sex-connected acts of violence, while known to the police, are never brought into court, because the victims are certain that their perpetrators will not be convicted.) Run-away children, teen-age prostitution, youthful drug-addiction and alcoholism have become great, ugly, new phenomena.

The relief rolls are groaning with women who have been divorced or deserted, together with their children. The mental-homes and rest-homes are crowded with destitute or unwanted old mothers. These two facts alone seem to suggest that American men are becoming less responsible, less moral, and certainly less manly.

Homosexuality and Lesbianism are increasingly accepted as natural and alternative "life styles." Ms., the official Women's Lib publication, has proclaimed that "until all women are Lesbians, there will be no true political revolution." By the same token, of course, until all men are homosexuals, the revolution will be only half a revolution. In passing, the success of the Lesbian-Gay revolution would end all revolutions-by ending the birth of children.

But the most obscene American phenomenon of all is the growth of commercialized sex and hard and soft-core pornography. In the last decade, hardcore film and print porn, which features perversion, sadism and masochism, has become a billion dollar business. It is a business which is not only tolerated, but defended by the press in the sacred name of "freedom of the press." One would find it easier to believe in this noble reason for defending the filth that is flooding the nation if the newspapers did not reap such handsome profits from advertising and reviewing porn. In my view, newspaper publishers who carry X-rated ads are no better than pimps for the porn merchants. Billy Graham may have been exaggerating when he said "America has a greater obsession with sex than Rome ever had." But he was not exaggerating very much.

Now when we examine the "new" sexual morality, what do we discover? We discover that the new sexual morality comes perilously close to being the old universal sexual immorality, whose appearance has again and again portended the decline and fall of past civilizations. Jane Addams once said, "The essence of immorality is the tendency to make an exception of myself." The principle on which the new sexual morality is based is sexual selfishness, self-indulgence, and self-gratification. Its credo is I-I-I, Me-Me-Me, and to hell with what others call sex morals.

In the 1976 Presidential campaign-for the first time in American history-the moral condition of the American family became a political issue. Candidate Jimmy Carter gave the problem particular stress.

"I find people deeply concerned about the loss . . of moral values in our lives," he said. And like Augustus Caesar, 2,000 years before him, he fingered the cause quite correctly: "The root of this problem is the steady erosion and weakening of our families," he said. "The breakdown of the family has reached dangerous proportions." Candidate Carter also saw the relation between good government and weakened families. "If we want less government, we must have stronger families, for government steps in by necessity when families have failed.... It is clear that the national government should have a strong pro-family policy, but the fact is that our government has no family policy, and that is the same thing as an anti-family policy."

It is far too late in the day to review the curious ideas Mr. Carter put forth in 1976 for the steps the Federal Government might take to strengthen the American family, except to say that they largely consisted in programs for more rather than less government assumption of marital and parental responsibilities. In any event, very little has since come of Carter's promise "to construct an administration that will reverse the trends we have seen toward the breakdown of the family in our country." The truth is that very little can be done by government to shore up the family, although a great deal can be done and has been done to hasten its collapse.

But the real cause of the breakdown is the abandonment, by millions of people, beginning with husbands, wives and parents, of their interior devotion to the principles of the universal morality. To ask what can be done to reverse the trend is to ask, what can the individual members of society do? The answer is-everything.

When Goethe, the great German poet, lay on his deathbed, an old friend asked him what farewell message he had to give to the world. Goethe replied, "Let every man keep his own household clean and soon the whole world will be clean."

If not every American, but just every other American man and woman were to begin today to keep their own households clean, this process of moral decay would immediately be halted.

It is certainly not too late to hope that this will happen. There are still millions of good people in America who try, try, try to remain faithful to the American version of the universal morality, and who also bring up their children to remain faithful. These Americans constitute the true Golden Circle of our country. If they will try to strengthen and enlarge that circle, by only so much as one virtuous act a day, a strong and happy America will make it safely into the 21 st Century.

*Where the words man, he, him, his are used, woman, she, hers and her are also meant.

Clare Boothe Luce reminds us that universal morality should be looked upon as an absolute. The greater harm to society does not rest solely with those who lack the strength of character, choosing instead to “redefine” morality to suit their own selfish needs; regardless of the consequences it would have on society. No, the greatest danger is when those who have chosen the high road allow others to take the low road, blazing a highway for future generations to follow.