The above link is to my new site. While it may look the same, the name is different and to the point. Please visit my new site and tell your friends.
The above link is to my new site. While it may look the same, the name is different and to the point. Please visit my new site and tell your friends.
|Right Side News
Written by Chuck Hustmyre
|Tuesday, 01 December 2009 20:08|
|The union between the American Left and fundamentalist Islam seems like a marriage made in hell.
The Left hates religion, particularly Christianity, and has succeeded in ripping nearly all vestiges of it from American public life. Through the legal machinations of its lapdog, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Left has banned Christmas from public schools, nativity scenes from City Hall, and the Ten Commandments from courthouses.
In liberal newspeak, “Happy holidays” has replaced “Merry Christmas.” Holiday trees have replaced Christmas trees, and Christmas break has become “fall break.”
Yet a few years ago, seventh-grade students in California were required to participate in a religious studies program during which they were told to wear Muslim clothing, memorize passages from the Quran, and choose an Islamic name for themselves.
Interestingly enough, the ACLU did not file a lawsuit.
The American Left champions causes such as gay rights (including gay marriage), equality for women (suffrage, the right to work, etc.), and religious freedom (usually in the form of freedom from religion). Yet, fundamentalist Islam opposes nearly everything the American Left stands for.
In many Islamic countries, homosexuality is punishable by death. In Iran, a top government official recently said that torture followed by death is the appropriate punishment for being gay.
In Saudi Arabia, women can’t vote, run for public office, or drive cars. Women are routinely jailed and beaten for merely being in the presence of a man not related to them. The Saudi version of Dr. Phil provides televised lessons to men on how to properly beat their wives.
In many Islamic countries, women are forced into arranged marriages and held as property by their husbands, something not exactly in line with progressive Western thinking. In some Muslim countries, women aren’t even allowed to decide what clothes to wear. To reveal even the smallest patch of skin is a crime.
Religious freedom is often nonexistent under Islamic rule. In countries like Afghanistan and Iran, people who convert from Islam to another religion face public execution.
So why does the American Left hate Christianity yet love Islam?
In this country, a shadow army of apologists works tirelessly to provide alternative explanations for faith-based Islamic violence–shootings, bombings, stabbings, and beheadings. These shadow soldiers work in government, media, and on college campuses. Most are members of the American Left. The rest are bureaucrats who have been cowed by the omnipresent specter of political correctness. You hear these apologists every time a Muslim goes berserk and murders people in the name of Islam.
That’s an important distinction I’d like to be clear about. Every week someone goes nuts in this country and commits a sensational crime that captures the attention of the media for a few days. Last weekend, a convicted felon from Arkansas murdered four Seattle-area cops at a coffee shop. Before that, some nut shot up an Orlando office building.
Truly impulsive and insane acts of violence are unpredictable. But when horrific violence is based on a theology that preaches hatred, intolerance, and global conquest, there are usually plenty of warning signs. According to the FBI, imams preach jihad in at least 10 percent of the United States’ 2,000 mosques.
Certainly Army Major Nidal Hasan signaled his intent when he told fellow Army doctors that infidels (those who don’t accept Allah as the one true God) should have their heads cut off and have burning oil poured down their throats. After telling everyone around him that non-Muslims should be killed and that the U.S. Army was engaged in a war against Islam, Hasan murdered 13 people at Ft. Hood, Texas.
Practically before the sounds of the last gunshots had faded, professional apologists in government and the media were saying Hasan was not a terrorist and that the shootings had nothing to do with his belief in Islam. Of course, the exact opposite is true. Nidal Hasan is a jihadist and he committed mass murder because of his belief in Islam.
Nearly a month after the shootings, the American Left is blaming the Ft. Hood murders on everything but Islam. Chicago Mayor Richard Daley took the opportunity of announcing the expansion of the city’s Arabic language program in public schools to blame the killings on America’s love affair with guns.
Other apologists blame the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, claiming Hasan, a psychiatrist, suffered from “secondary trauma” after hearing of the horrors of war from the soldiers he was counseling. Still others invented a new psychological malady, pre-traumatic stress disorder, meaning the mere thought of going into a combat zone so traumatized Hasan that he snapped.
The proof that all of these excuses are just so much hot air is that Hasan himself told us why he shot more than 40 people before he did it.
Major Hasan’s business card identified him as a “Soldier of Allah.” He was in email contact with a militant Muslim imam who fled the United States and now operates in Yemen. He tried several times to contact al Qaeda.
To anyone but an American Left apologist, Hasan’s motive for murdering 13 fellow soldiers and wounding another 30 is quite clear: He did it because he was fighting for Islam. As Hasan repeatedly told fellow Army doctors, he is a Muslim first, an American second.
In unambiguous terms, fundamentalist Islam has announced again and again that it despises the values, culture, and traditions of America. The American Left does too.
Consistent with the Arabic proverb that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, the American Left has formed an alliance with fundamentalist Islam to transform this country into something far removed from its Judeo-Christian origins and ideals.
The mistake the Left is making is that its so-called progressive goals have nothing in common with the medieval tenants of fundamentalist Islam. Militant Muslims have no respect for American progressives, any more than they respect the very existence of Israel.
Fundamentalist Islam is using the American Left to advance its own agenda. Militant Muslims want Islam and sharia law to dominate the West. Their goal is to subvert the U.S. Constitution and our way of life to the will of Allah. The word Islam means submission.
What members of the American Left seem blind to is the fact that in countries where Islam dominates, their progressive ideas would be crushed and many of them would be thrown in jail simply because of their lifestyle choices.
Yet, the American Left continues to serve as apologist-in-chief for fundamentalist Islam.
Because deep down American Leftists are terrified of Islamic fundamentalists.
Last year, publishing giant Random House canceled the publication of Sherry Jones’s novel The Jewel of Medina because it might be offensive to some Muslims. According to its own press release, the publisher feared Muslim violence against its offices and employees. Apparently, Random House’s fears were well founded.
In September 2008, three Muslim terrorists firebombed the home and office of the British publisher who bought the rights to the novel.
In 2006, the Apple computer company drew howls of rage from Muslims who claimed the glass cube the company built outside its midtown Manhattan store was modeled on the Kaaba, the Muslim shrine in the Saudi city of Mecca, and was meant as an insult to Islam.
The American Left’s affair with fundamentalist Islam is essentially a love-fear relationship. The Left loves Islam’s hatred of America and its desire to radically change this country, but the Left also fears what militant Muslims are capable of, especially if they turn their murderous rage on their so-called friends.
So the Left, like Neville Chamberlain with the Nazis, walks a tightrope, appeasing Muslims at every turn, offering excuses for Islamic violence, and hoping Muslim fundamentalists won’t bite the hand that feeds them their excuses.
Chuck Hustmyre is an award-winning journalist and a retired federal agent. He is the author of three books and hundreds of magazine and newspaper articles. For more information visit www.chuckhustmyre.com.
by John Charlton
(Nov. 25, 2009) — It is often asked whether the usurpation of the presidency by Barack Hussein Obama will ever have a remedy in the courts. But the fact is that there already is a remedy in the courts: the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 Cranch 137 137 (1803).
That case was the first to expressly indicate that no action of Congress was valid if it contravened the Constitution. Since the U.S. Constitution requires that a President be a natural born citizen; and since the Supreme Court has in 4 cases used the term “natural born citizen” only in reference to one born in the U.S.A. of parents who were citizens at the time of his birth, it follows inexorably that Obama’s election as president by the Joint Session of Congress, on January 8, 2009, is null and void. Against this legal conclusion there is no argument.
Here is the crucial text of the Supreme Court’s decision in Marbury v. Madison.
The question whether an act repugnant to the Constitution can become the law of the land is a question deeply interesting to the United States, but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognise certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it.
That the people have an original right to establish for their future government such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental. And as the authority from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.
This original and supreme will organizes the government and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.
The Government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the Legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the Constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may at any time be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested that the Constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it, or that the Legislature may alter the Constitution by an ordinary act.
Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.
If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law; if the latter part be true, then written Constitutions are absurd attempts on the part of the people to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.
Certainly all those who have framed written Constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be that an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void.
This theory is essentially attached to a written Constitution, and is consequently to be considered by this Court as one of the fundamental principles of our society. It is not, therefore, to be lost sight of in the further consideration of this subject.
If an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the Courts and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory, and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.
It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.
So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
Those, then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only the law.
This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written Constitutions. It would declare that an act which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare that, if the Legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the Legislature a practical and real omnipotence with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.
That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions — a written Constitution, would of itself be sufficient, in America where written Constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the construction. But the peculiar expressions of the Constitution of the United States furnish additional arguments in favour of its rejection.
The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the Constitution.
Could it be the intention of those who gave this power to say that, in using it, the Constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the Constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises?
This is too extravagant to be maintained.
In some cases then, the Constitution must be looked into by the judges. And if they can open it at all, what part of it are they forbidden to read or to obey?
There are many other parts of the Constitution which serve to illustrate this subject.
It is declared that “no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State.” Suppose a duty on the export of cotton, of tobacco, or of flour, and a suit instituted to recover it. Ought judgment to be rendered in such a case? ought the judges to close their eyes on the Constitution, and only see the law?
The Constitution declares that “no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.”
If, however, such a bill should be passed and a person should be prosecuted under it, must the Court condemn to death those victims whom the Constitution endeavours to preserve?
“No person,’ says the Constitution, ’shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.”
Here. the language of the Constitution is addressed especially to the Courts. It prescribes, directly for them, a rule of evidence not to be departed from. If the Legislature should change that rule, and declare one witness, or a confession out of court, sufficient for conviction, must the constitutional principle yield to the legislative act?
From these and many other selections which might be made, it is apparent that the framers of the Constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the Legislature.
Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies in an especial manner to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support!
The oath of office, too, imposed by the Legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words:
“I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.”
Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the Constitution of the United States if that Constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him and cannot be inspected by him?
If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe or to take this oath becomes equally a crime.
It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.
Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.
By Lloyd Marcus
Eleven months ago, he landed on the shores of America destroying everything in his path. A gigantic fire breathing monster wreaking havoc, consuming private sector industries, crushing institutions which have made America great and destroying lives. With fear and trembling we dare to utter his name…Obamazilla! Though appearing indestructible and unstoppable, millions of brave patriots arose to challenge the beast; vowing not to sit idly by as America as we know it is terminated.
As a patriot, I am totally focused on defeating Obamazilla, America’s true Nemesis. I will not allow myself to be side tracked into participating in Tea Party movement family feuds. We are blessed to have brilliant strong willed strategists on our side who think they know which direction is best for the movement. That is fine. However, it is unfruitful and misdirected to boycott, trash and waste time and resources suing those on our side who have varying opinions.
Nobody or organization can claim ownership or take credit for this amazing historical Tea Party movement. It belongs solely to We The People. It still blows my mind how without media support, but through on-line social networks and word of mouth, 1.7 million patriots showed up in Washington DC on 9-12 to oppose tyrannical government.
Some have even attempted to force me to take sides. They threatened, “Lloyd, if you sing at their tea party, I will no longer be your fan.” Unless a tea party group is wacko, while I may not totally agree with their approach, I consider them an ally. Again, my total focus is on the big picture, stopping the huge monster which is destroying our freedom, liberty and culture.
Back in April, an upset California patriot emailed me after their successful tea party. His local organizers were gung-ho about fighting the battle on the national level. My emailer had a fire in his belly to fight locally. I advised my patriot brother to follow his passion. Our incredible movement was sparked by the passion of one man, Rick Santelli. What began with passion can only be sustained by passion, everyone doing what they feel passionate about doing.
Besides, we need patriot freedom fighters in all areas and on all levels.
Unfortunately, feuding over strategies has become a major distraction in the tea party movement. No, I am not asking anyone to compromise their beliefs or ideas. Quite the opposite. Whatever way you and your group chooses to fight Obamazilla is fine with me. But do not feud with tea party patriots who disagree or do not share your passion. Remember, your target is Obamazilla.
Like everyone else, I have opinions regarding the focus of the movement, but I will not allow my opinions to cause me to break fellowship with my fellow freedom fighters.
For example. Some think the Tea Party movement should remain “pure” not supporting any political candidates. I disagree. We can tea party until the cows come home, but if we do not work to put true conservatives in office, we are simply making noise without achieving anything.
Another source of contention in the movement is talk of a third political party. I believe a third party would insure the election of democrats. Remember how Ross Perot got Clinton elected?
Having said that, you third party patriots, if you feel strongly about starting a third party, go for it. You will not get any flack from me. My efforts are targeted solely on stopping Obamazilla. I only ask that you graciously accept me not wearing your t-shirt.
For crying out loud patriots, Obama has awarded a terrorist the same legal rights as an America citizen. Reid is muscling through Health Care. Cap and Trade is next on the agenda. In America, we have a “pay czar.” The list of horrors grow daily; and we patriots are fighting amongst ourselves. Please stop it. Stay focused on the real monster, the real enemy, the real threat to America, Obamazilla!
The Tea Party movement has birthed countless grassroots organizations. It is truly a wonderful thing. I find it extremely exciting that patriots all over America are fighting to defeat this monster administration and restore our great nation in their own way. I met many of these committed patriots while traveling on the national Tea Party Express II tour. Conservatives from twenty something to eighty are running for office for the first time. Old ladies are bombarding their congressmen and senators with phone calls and letters. Everyone is doing their part.
As corny and cliché as this sounds, it still holds true, “United we stand, divide we fall.” Let’s stand together brothers and sisters. Let’s stand!
IsraelNationalNews.com is reporting that Barack Obama continues to “reach out to Muslims” by appointing them to key security posts amid charges he wrongly ignored internal Muslim terror. One recent appointee was harshly criticized for appearing on a British-based television station whose host is a member of a radical Muslim group.
Obama has continued to “reach out Muslims,” as he said in his keynote speech in Cairo last June, and this past week he swore in a Muslim rights advocate to the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC), shortly after the Fort Hood massacre. HSAC members are involved in expertise on national security.
The new member is Syrian-born Kareem Shora, who was the national executive director of the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination (ADC), which previously has called on the United States to stop providing Israel with weapons because of alleged “atrocities” against Arabs. Her background for her new security post is having been a legal counsel and advocate for Muslim civil rights.
She also has been a frequent guest on the pro-Hamas al-Jazeera satellite network.
Shora, who has been described as a “devout Muslim, joins another devout member of the faith, Arif Alikhan, who was appointed as Assistant Secretary for Policy Development in the Department of Homeland Security. His qualifications for the job were listed as having been in charge of public safety in Los Angeles during his term of deputy mayor. One of his actions was to remove the plan that tracked Muslims in the city who were suspected of terrorist activities.
Americans have been jolted by several lethal attacks and confrontations with Muslims over the past year, including a plot to attack synagogues and down U.S. military aircraft, the manufacture of bombs, an alleged attempt to explode a Texas skyscraper, a plot to blow up malls in Boston, and last month’s Fort Hood massacre by a Muslim psychiatrist who was an officer in the army.
A desire to avoid the appearance of labeling all Muslims as terrorists lunged out from the shadows last month after Obama faced criticism for not taking seriously the threat of Muslim terrorism within American society as well as in the Middle East, Asia and Africa.
Several months ago, Obama appointed Dalia Mogahed, a “devout Muslim,” to his Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. She quickly came under fire for appearing in a telephone interview on a London-based Muslim television station, whose host is a member of an extreme Islamic group.
She said was unaware of the affiliations of her host, whose program included questions and comments favoring the implementation of Islamic Law (”sharia”).
Mogahed explained that she did not hang up the phone in the middle of the interview because “I assumed that very few people would watch this show but that doing something more dramatic would bring more attention.”
In the current issue of Newsweek, columnist Jacob Weisberg, citing former Secretary of State Colin Powell, wrote that “Obama’s [Muslim] heritage feeds a broader suspicion that he is too casual about the threat from America’s Islamist enemies.”
The journalist added, “With the massacre in Texas, Obama now confronts something that George W. Bush did not face in the years after September 11 — not just a major act of domestic terrorism, but one struck from inside our security apparatus…. America does not face a threat from the perversion of faith in general. We face a threat from the perversion of one faith in particular.”
(Nov. 6, 2009) — Yesterday, House Representative Michele Bachman presided over one of the most unusual gathering of citizens in the country, called on just days’ notice, held on the steps of the U.S. Capitol building. The protest aimed at getting attention of the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi; and communicating to her the profound, grassroots opposition to the Federal Government’s control and mandate of health care coverage.
Cynthia Dizikes of the Minnesota Post reported Bachman’s words, in part:
“You came for an emergency House call,” Bachmann, R-Minn., yelled to the sign-waiving crowd. “And are they going to listen? Oh yeah, oh yeah. They’re going to listen. It was Thomas Jefferson who said a revolution every now and then is a good thing. What do you think?”
The crowd met Bachmann’s question with a thunderous roar. Homemade signs that offered suggestions like “No Obama Care,” “You Can’t Fix Stupid” and “Waterboard Congress” were hoisted higher into the air.
And indicated other notables who attended:
Bachmann was joined on steps of the Capitol by many other GOP lawmakers, including Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio, Republican whip Eric Cantor of Virginia and Rep. Tom Price of Georgia.
Actors John Voight and John Ratzenberger, who played Cliff on the TV series “Cheers,” also accompanied the House members and rallied the gathered protesters.
Gateway Pundit, offered pictures and video of the rally, yesterday.
YouTube has 2 videos on speeches given during the rally, Mark Levin:
And John Voight:
If any reader knows of a video of Bachmann at the rally, please send the URL by posting a comment below.
Finally, it should be noted that Congress can pass the bill; but there is no legitimate President to sign it, without whose signature it cannot become law. The Health Care Bill will be, thus, the litmus test of liberty; whether America succumbs quietly to usurpation and tyranny, or breaks free.
In response to the Rally, Pelosi announced merely a 72 hour delay on voting on the bill.
Andrea Shea King, just moments after returning to Florida from the Rally, submitted to The Post & Email this photo of the citizens gathering before it began:
A year ago this week, the American people elected a President who had promised during the campaign that he would: “cut taxes for 95% of workers and their families,” expand the Army by 65,000 and the Marines by 27,000, and enact “a net spending cut” for the federal government. Lower taxes, a strong defense and shrinking the size of government. Those are all core conservative beliefs. Accordingly, President Barack Obama entered the White House with sky high approval ratings.
But since being sworn into office, President Obama has raised taxes, weakened our defenses, and overseen arguably the largest expansion of government ever. As a result President Obama’s approval ratings have steadily declined, and the American people have only become more conservative. According to Gallup, Americans, by a 2-to-1 margin, say their political views in recent years have become more conservative. While independents and Democrats most often say their views haven’t changed, more members of all three major partisan groups indicate that their views have shifted to the right rather than to the left.
And this is before the more radical elements of the Obama agenda are to be forced on the American people. Both the cap and trade and health care legislation currently moving through Congress will transfer unprecedented power from the private sector to unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats in Washington. Search the texts of each bill for the phrase “shall” or “may establish.” Every time these phrases appear in these bills, the left in Congress is empowering unelected Obama Czars at the expense of your liberties. And this is not by accident. The empowerment of unelected bureaucrats is at the very core of Obama’s progressive agenda. Hillsdale College Associate Professor of Political Science Ronald Pestritto explains:
It is the Progressives’ desire to free bureaucratic agencies from the confines of politics and the law that allows us to trace the origins of the administrative state to their political thought. The idea of separating politics and administration–of grounding a significant portion of government not on the basis of popular consent but on expertise–was a fundamental aim of American Progressivism and explains the Progressives’ fierce assault on the Founders’ separation-of-powers constitutionalism.
The Heritage Foundation’s Center for American Studies Director Matthew Spalding details the rise of the progressive movement and their assault on the founding principles of our nation in his new book, We Still Hold These Truths: Rediscovering Our Principles, Reclaiming Our Future. The book is built around 10 foundational principles that created a free, prosperous and just nation unlike any other: Liberty, Equality, Natural Rights, Consent of the Governed, Religious Freedom, Private Property, The Rule of Law, Constitutionalism, Self-Government, and Independence.
The progressive movement represents a threat to these founding principles. For the left, “progress” means fundamentally transforming America with a new form of government that will engineer a “better” society by assuring equal outcomes. It would redistribute wealth through a distant, patronizing welfare state that regulates more and more of the economy, politics and society. President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society were grand steps toward achieving the progressive platform.
We Still Hold These Truths offers a different direction. Spalding makes the case that we don’t need to remake America, or discover new and untested principles. We need a great renewal of the true roots of American greatness–and a radical reapplication of America’s core principles to the great questions of our day.
These core principles can be the source of a new and unified American conservatism, one that reminds economic conservatives that morality and self-reliance are essential to limited government, reminds cultural conservatives that unlimited government threatens moral self-government, and reminds national-security conservatives that energetic but responsible government is the key to safety at home and prominence in the world.