General

Webster’s Seventh Collegiate Dictionary

Definitions

1. Patriot: One who loves his country and zealously supports its authority and interests.
 
2. Tyrant: An absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution in the harsh use of authority or power.

Many of us are making phone calls, sending e-mails, staying constant  in prayer—and sitting on pins and needles this week– as we watch the liberal progressives now in charge of our government try to force national health care upon the American people.
 
At least Barack Obama’s obsession with controlling one-sixth of the American economy—which would push the Federal Government near the ominous threshold of 50% control of the US economy—has exposed what many of us feared: that he is a rigid ideologue who has no regard for centrist or bi-partisan politics, but rather is about radical change of our national moorings.

The current president and his allies want the United States to head down the road of European social democracy—what Jonah Goldberg rightly calls the path to smiley-faced fascism.  And they’re willing to bend the US Constitution and use any means possible to get there including:

• Bribing Senators and Congressmen and women on a level never before seen in our Republic. No—this is not politics as usual as the mainstream media would have us believe. It’s “arm-twisting on steroids” that has no equal on a major piece of US legislation.
• Neglecting the American economy, mired in deep recession, while they push, push, push for over a year to pass their Holy Grail of health care takeover.  Yes, they threw nearly a trillion dollars of stimulus money at combating the recession, but don’t think they’re naive enough to believe that would create jobs and bring down the unemployment rate. They know that only tax and spending cuts would accomplish that—but that is not the goal.
• Circumventing the normal check and balances of government to achieve their ends. A fascinating study came out today showing how the Obama Administration has systematically been side-stepping many of the restraints on power that the US Constitution wisely places on human government to achieve their ends.  It’s a frightening abuse of power, and one acknowledged openly by Senator Chuck Schumer in a recent secretly-taped Democratic strategy meeting.
• Refusing to consider the wishes of the American public whom they represent. No matter which poll you look at, there is ample evidence that some 80% of Americans are satisfied with their current health care plans,   70% are against government controlled care, over 60% disapprove of the Senate bill now under consideration in the House of Representatives, and clear majorities want  the government to scrap the current bill and take incremental steps to improve health care in the United  States.
• Using the “nuclear option”—a Senate practice called “reconciliation” with a 50% threshold to pass a major piece of legislation that should require the 60% threshold of a deliberate Senate body.  This choice to bend hundreds of years of legislative protocol was the final ominous sign that foul play is at work here—not normal vote-getting and taking.
  This is a very serious moment in American history.  We are not fighting an agonizing Civil War, nor engaging in World Wars that greatly try the human spirit.

We are facing a government-led cultural war on our faith and freedom-based ideals and way of life that could have immense ramifications for our children and grandchildren.  In the midst of this danger, I am praying for even one patriot—ONE courageous Democratic Congressman or woman who will have the nerve to say NO to the culture of corruption and rise up and defeat this bill.

I’m praying for a modern-day Paul Revere to arise—and warn us again that the Redcoats are coming.

The Redcoats of old—the British Empire in the 18th century—stood for tyranny in the American colonies. That tyranny took the form of over taxation, taxation without representation, use of force to accomplish their objectives, and political intimidation. Not all the American colonists initially saw King George as a tyrant—but those most in tune with biblical concepts of liberty gradually began to understand that their freedoms and prosperity were worth defending.

It was Paul Revere, among many, who stood up on April 18, 1775 to warn the American colonies what lay over the horizon.   Revere had the vision to see that tyranny was coming—in his case, in the form invading armies that would squelch the infant American dream of freedom under God. Revere got on his horse, sounded the alarm, and woke of the sleeping nation to its impending crisis.

Another legendary American hero—Benedict Arnold—did the opposite. He betrayed his nation during their time of need, and attempted to sell out her soul.
 
Let’s state clearly that those voting for a federal takeover of health care should be viewed as the Benedict Arnolds of our day. They may believe they have a noble cause and that they must do their duty whatever the cost–as Arnold did.  But their approach is nothing but economic and cultural tyranny. We must pray they will be defeated.

We need one patriot—at least one Paul Revere-like Democratic Congressman or woman—to vote for liberty and defeat the progressive strategy. That person could be more important to the process of good government in American that the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts or the courageous action of Paul Revere in 1775.

Here’s some current information for your prayers and e-mails.

Where your Congressmen/women stand

 Pierre Bynum who authors the Family Research Council’s regular prayer letter, gives the following information in today’s e-mail alert:

“Democrats need 216 House votes (GOP members will all vote no) to gain a 216-215 majority — only 37 Democrats can defect and the bill still pass. On Sunday, trackers at The Hill newspaper reported that 35 Democrats say they will, or will likely vote no; 73 remained publicly undecided. House Majority Whip James Clyburn also admitted that he does not yet have the necessary votes. USA Today says the bill’s fate “rests with a handful of House Democrats,” in their view: Representatives Jason Altmire (Pa.), Michael Arcuri (N.Y.), Jim Cooper (Tenn.), Raul Grijalva (Ariz.), Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (S.D.), and Bart Stupak (Mich.).”
 
I’m praying this week for one patriot among tyrants. Will you join me?

Now that the showcase health care summit is over, the progressives in charge of the US government are threatening to ram through Congress a federal takeover of medicine via a a little used Senate process called reconciliation. It’s a procedure that’s been used sparingly before, but only to “reconcile” the details of budgetary bills.

The liberals want to use this “nuclear option” to turn America away from free enterprise and toward the embrace of socialism.

Reconciliation in this context is branded the nuclear option because it will probably cause the average citizen in America to go “nuclear” over this abuse of power.  Every poll in America shows that the citizens of our great nation don’t want this 2700 page bureaucratic monster to burden one-sixth of our economy. If our representatives were democratic they would vote the will of the people.

But they’re not.

Barack Obama was the first presidential candidate in the history of the United States to declare that people have a right to health care. His primary opponent, Hillary Clinton, agreed with this amazing statement–never before heard in thoughtful American political discourse.

Why were these words over the top? Because the US Founding Fathers took a 5000 year leap in  understanding in 1776 when they stated in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident. That all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, and 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.”

Notice how, according to the Declaration, our legislators are first of all throwing out the “consent of the governed” in the current health care debate. More importantly, we need to be reminded which God-given rights governments are supposed to protect.

They would be: life, liberty, and property–which is the historical meaning of the phrase “pursuit of Happiness.” These are the ONLY God given rights to be protected and promoted by government. Not health care, not jobs, not homes, not immorality, not sex change operations ad nauseam.

These new kinds of  progressive “rights” are made up by people. They do not come from God and always lead to poverty and tyranny. Pursuing these “rights” starts revolutions in nations.

Championing God-given rights and their corresponding responsibilities, on the other hand, lead to spiritual and moral revivals in nations. Which one of these–revolution or revival–do you really think America needs right now?

We need to ponder this truth about rights in the current health care debate: There is no right to quality of life or choice of lifestyle. If we think that there is, then many multi–thousand page bills will coming out of Washington, D.C. in subsequent years that will destroy our lives, our economy and our freedoms.

On a February 10, 2010 Medved radio program, Michael Medved was discussing with a certain Veronica in New York about her eighteen year old friend who desired to have a sex change operation and have the state pay for it. Veronica was convinced that people should have a “right” to have the government pay for this quality of life or lifestyle choice. If the person wanted it, the government (or someone besides the individual) should pay for it.

Mr Medved tried to explain that’s not the proper concept of rights. Our founders knew well that there were only three basic human rights that God has given to all people. These rights are the only things that governments exist to protect:

Governments are ordained by a Higher Power to provide justice, or protect our:

• Right to LIFE from DEATH
• Right to LIBERTY from SLAVERY
• Right to PROPERTY from TYRANNY

When governments stop protecting basic human rights and start providing all types of quality of life and so-called lifestyle choices, they leave their proper domain and open a Pandora’s box of societal demands that can never be paid for or met. Government was never designed to be your provider–only your protector from evil. Other than writing checks (which anybody can do), government is lousy at providing goods and services for people because of the lack of incentives and accountability that free markets provide.

Plus, once you believe you have a right to a certain quality of life or lifestyle choice, where does the list end? It doesn’t. That’s the foolishness of the position. If Veronica’s friend has the “right” for the government to pay for his/her preferred identity via a sex change operation, then why not pay for his or her preferred house, preferred job, or preferred entitlements of any type? This is the absurdity of the Obama-Clinton position. It expands human rights to include anything you want that will improve your circumstances.

Let’s see how this works out in the real world. A few years ago I flew to Europe to have hip surgery  through a process not allowed at the time in the United States. My roommate in Belgium was a gentleman named Graham who was part of the socialized medical scheme in Canada that the progressives admire. He, too, needed hip surgery. I paid mine out of pocket. I didn’t have a “right” to the surgery–it was a quality of life or lifestyle choice for me. It painfully cost our family $15,000.

Graham and his nation took a different approach. Graham had been a chain-smoker all his life. In his late forties, his lungs were so destroyed by his lifestyle choices that he needed a double lung transplant to maintain his quality of life. The transplant had been paid for by the Canadian tax payers to the tune of $250,000. Then there was the thousands of dollars that needed to be spent on anti-rejection medicines for the rest of his life. That, too, was covered by the tax-payers. But there was a problem. The anti-rejection medicine caused hip joint deterioration, and so he needed the same surgery that I did to correct the problem. He was looking for the Canadian government-run system to cover it as well. Now they are going broke and rationing care.

I think you get the idea. Graham had bought into the illusion that he had a “right” to a certain quality of life. Never mind that he had smoked himself into bad health. He wanted someone else to fix it. When that fix caused other problems, then he had a “right” for those problems to be fixed too. And on and on.

Now you know why socialized medicine never works but rather bankrupts treasuries. It may be a nice idea to have the government pay for my quality of life, but the truth is, either my choices or circumstances in life determine quality of life–and I don’t have a right to have government improve it. I have a responsibility to seek out private, voluntary or charitable means to meet my needs. I need to learn to trust God, be accountable for my life–and not assume that anybody owes me anything.

Governments were designed by God to protect my right to life, liberty, and property. Nothing else. The moment we expand the list, then we end up in absurdity and societal poverty. 

Can you imagine if I had tried Graham’s right-to-quality-of-life approach in my neighborhood or town instead of the federal government? What if I’d gone door-to-door demanding my “right” from my neighbors to pay for the $15,000 surgery. After, all, I have a right to quality of life! So here’s a bill for your portion of it! Pay up or else.

I don’t think that would have worked because on a local level it’s easy to see that none of us has a right to demand a certain quality of life from others. That’s up to us and the charitable choices of others. I did have some friends contribute to my hip surgery–but it was voluntary–not coerced.  Government power is not voluntary–it’s the power of force. That’s another reason why it should only be only used to protect life, liberty and property.

The progressives are wrong about health care because they don’t look to God as our source of human rights and they want to change the role of government from being a protector to a provider.

That would be a foolish mistake–as unwise and detrimental as believing in a non-existent right to quality of life.

 On February 23, 2010 eighteen American leaders gathered at George Washington’s Mount Vernon estate in Alexandria, Virginia to sign an historic document that calls the United States back to her founding principles.

The Mount Vernon Statement is an reaffirmation of the worldview that made America great–and brought the blessings of God for over two hundred years. America was a “unique experiment in liberty”–a nation birthed in Christian revival and the corresponding principles of the God-given rights of individuals and corresponding restraints on government.

I hope we all know that we live in very precarious times–ones in which the biblical worldview and the freedoms that it brings are in jeopardy. 

We need a revival in the Church, an understanding of our history, a reformation in the culture and a change in direction in government. The modern day “tea parties” need to give birth to a new American Revolution that can restore the societal foundations now being dangerously eroded.

I encourage you to study the Mount Vernon Statement below and sign this important call to political renewal. We must be patriots all if this nation is to be reborn.

The Mount Vernon Statement on Constitutional Conservatism: A Statement for the 21st Century

We recommit ourselves to the ideas of the American Founding. Through the Constitution, the Founders created an enduring framework of limited government based on the rule of law. They sought to secure national independence, provide for economic opportunity, establish true religious liberty and maintain a flourishing society of republican self-government.

These principles define us as a country and inspire us as a people. They are responsible for a prosperous, just nation unlike any other in the world. They are our highest achievements, serving not only as powerful beacons to all who strive for freedom and seek self-government, but as warnings to tyrants and despots everywhere.

Each one of these founding ideas is presently under sustained attack. In recent decades, America’s principles have been undermined and redefined in our culture, our universities and our politics. The self-evident truths of 1776 have been supplanted by the notion that no such truths exist. The federal government today ignores the limits of the Constitution, which is increasingly dismissed as obsolete and irrelevant.

Some insist that America must change, cast off the old and put on the new. But where would this lead — forward or backward, up or down? Isn’t this idea of change an empty promise or even a dangerous deception?

The change we urgently need, a change consistent with the American ideal, is not movement away from but toward our founding principles. At this important time, we need a restatement of Constitutional conservatism grounded in the priceless principle of ordered liberty articulated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

The conservatism of the Declaration asserts self-evident truths based on the laws of nature and nature’s God. It defends life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It traces authority to the consent of the governed. It recognizes man’s self-interest but also his capacity for virtue.

The conservatism of the Constitution limits government’s powers but ensures that government performs its proper job effectively. It refines popular will through the filter of representation. It provides checks and balances through the several branches of government and a federal republic.

A Constitutional conservatism unites all conservatives through the natural fusion provided by American principles. It reminds economic conservatives that morality is essential to limited government, social conservatives that unlimited government is a threat to moral self-government, and national security conservatives that energetic but responsible government is the key to America’s safety and leadership role in the world.

A Constitutional conservatism based on first principles provides the framework for a consistent and meaningful policy agenda.

    * It applies the principle of limited government based on the rule of law to every proposal.
    * It honors the central place of individual liberty in American politics and life.
    * It encourages free enterprise, the individual entrepreneur, and economic reforms grounded in   market solutions.
    * It supports America’s national interest in advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world and prudently considers what we can and should do to that end.
    * It informs conservatism’s firm defense of family, neighborhood, community, and faith.

If we are to succeed in the critical political and policy battles ahead, we must be certain of our purpose. We must begin by retaking and resolutely defending the high ground of America’s founding principles.

*Please sign the Statement by clicking here.  Your name will be added to the larger list of signers displayed at the Mount Vernon Statement’s website.

The 18 original signers of the Mt. Vernon Statement:

• Edwin Meese, former U.S. Attorney General under President Reagan.

• Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America.

• Edwin Feulner, Jr., president of the Heritage Foundation.

• Lee Edwards, Distinguished Fellow in Conservative Thought at the Heritage Foundation, was present at the Sharon Statement signing.

• Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council.

• Becky Norton Dunlop, president of the Council for National Policy.

• Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center.

• Alfred Regnery, publisher of the American Spectator.

• David Keene, president of the American Conservative Union.

• David McIntosh, co-founder of the Federalist Society.

• T. Kenneth Cribb, former domestic policy adviser to President Reagan.

• Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.

• William Wilson, President, Americans for Limited Government.

• Elaine Donnelly, Center for Military Readiness.

• Richard Viguerie, Chairman, ConservativeHQ.com.

• Kenneth Blackwell, Coalition for a Conservative Majority.

• Colin Hanna, President, Let Freedom Ring

• Kathryn J. Lopez, National Review