Tag Archives: Ronald Reagan

CPAC: Death by a 1,000 Pens

[Part I – “CPAC: Brits Seek Independence (and so should we)[1] – highlighted Britain’s current rebellion against the European Union. Americans would do well to emulate their growing fervor for freedom.]

We have seen why so many Brits seek to flee the European Union, whose centralized, supranational government prevents Britain from protecting itself from the immigration crisis and terrorist threat contained therein.

CPAC2016-11

In the wake of the terrorist attack in Brussels (HQ of the EU), National Review noted the inescapable nexus between the E.U.’s policies and the fruit of those policies. The Editors wrote (emphasis added):

“In one part of the city reside EU bureaucrats who continue to promulgate their fanciful transnational ideals, increasingly against the evidence; in another part are roiling ghettos populated largely by Muslims from North Africa and the Middle East, many of whom have a very different vision for the future of Europe … A half century of effectively open borders, a refusal to require assimilation of immigrants into a robust notion of European culture, and an unyielding fidelity to multicultural pieties have resulted in cities fractured along ethnic lines and, as Brussels officials have admitted in the hours since Tuesday morning’s attack, overwhelmed by potential terror threats.”

Terrorism is not the only threat posed by edicts from the European Union. Freedom itself is at stake!

Prototype World Government

Steven Woolfe, a Member of the European Parliament, offered his insight into the dangers of a centralized government within a supranational context. Those insights are extremely relevant to the ongoing battle for power within the United States between the various branches of government as well as the struggle over federalism vs. statism. Hint: Liberty is losing.

According to Woolfe, the European Union has become a “super state in which control over the power of the laws is held in Brussels by unelected civil servants.” The bureaucratic state – unelected and unaccountable to the People – enjoys an ever-increasing degree of control over the lives of the citizens of the European Union.

I asked Woolfe how that came about. He explained, “After the Second World War, people quite rightly no longer wanted to have their children murdered in wars against each other. So they decided that they wanted to have an organization where countries come together to sort out their differences, a little bit like the United Nations.”

However, the founders of the European Union sought the abolition of “populist governments” who are elected by the people. To achieve that goal, they created “the European Union, in which the body called ‘The Commission,’ made of up civil servants, made the laws for the whole of Europe.”

Vaclav Klaus, former president of the Czech Republic,[2] highlighted the consequence of these “two interrelated phenomena” (emphasis added): “the European integration process on the one hand, and the evolution of the European economic and social system on the other – both of which have been undergoing a fundamental change in the context of the ‘brave new world’ of our permissive, anti-market, redistributive society, a society that has forgotten the ideas on which the greatness of Europe was built.”

Woolfe added, “What they did over a period of forty years, they slowly took powers, through different treaties, from each of the nation-states.” Woolfe contends, “The European Union is becoming like a colonialist empire. It’s almost like the prototype of a world government.”

12938235_497864707067616_986690819924296611_n

The Unbridled Power of Bureaucrats

Who runs this proto-colonialist empire? Bureaucrats!

As Woolfe put it, “Imagine the idea that civil servants – not elected politicians – can make your laws. Imagine that those laws can never be changed, can never be repealed. Imagine that government lobbyists and government affairs are the ones that talk to these civil servants and tell them what laws to initiate. That’s exactly what happens in the European Union. There is no people power. It’s very much bureaucratic power.”

Woolfe argues that the European Union is in embryonic form what globalists have always wanted to achieve. Woolfe almost sounds like a Bernie Sanders because he discerns a collusion between corporate Europe and the bureaucrats who make the laws.

Woolfe put it this way: “Many of us would argue that the fact that you have the large corporations who can game the system by basically negotiating their own laws with civil servants who then pass it down to the nation-states to enact. And if you’re a citizen in Germany who wants to have controlled borders, as you can see people flooding into Europe from all over the world in the migration crisis that we have, you’ve got no one who can stop it because you have no governments who can control it. It’s the EU that does it. If you want to have lower taxation, if you want to have less regulation, you can’t change your politicians to do that because it’s the civil servants – the Commission – that is making those laws.”

Woolfe concluded with a warning to America, one that is, sadly, decades too late. He queried, “And just think how dangerous that is to the United States if this idea crosses the Atlantic.”

Origins of the Statist Welfare State  

In the 1870s, German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck created the modern welfare state, with its byzantine bureaucracies and labyrinth of administrative laws. Bismarck’s model became the blueprint for Western European nations and also for progressives in the United States of America. At the heart of his model is centralized planning by elites made up of the self-anointed “best and brightest” who think that they know better than we do how to live our lives.

Philip Hamburger observed,[3] “This German theory would become the intellectual source of American administrative law. Thousands upon thousands of Americans studied administrative power in Germany, and what they learned there about administrative power became standard fare in American universities. At the same time, in the political sphere, American Progressives were becoming increasingly discontent with elected legislatures, and they increasingly embraced German theories of administration and defended the imposition of administrative law in America in terms of pragmatism and necessity.”

John Daniel Davidson has observed that “The father of American progressivism, Woodrow Wilson, saw this coming.” Wilson “thought the U.S. Constitution was outdated and that America needed a professional, Prussian-style administrative state, and that the chief hindrance to this in America was popular sovereignty.” Wilson believed that “expert administrators” were superior to the will of the People.

This is, of course, the antithesis of the individual liberty for which the Founding Fathers fought and the apotheosis for all those who oppose the Constitution and the framework of our Republic as envisioned by its Framers. Dennis Prager recently noted, “The size of the federal government and its far-reaching meddling in and control over Americans’ lives are the very thing America was founded to avoid.”

Either the rule of law by representative government or law by executive and administrative fiat will prevail. They cannot coexist. Peaceful coexistence is a myth.

Absolute Power Wielded by Statists

In contrast to statists who favor administrative law, our Founders and Framers opposed the exercise of absolute power. Hamburger noted, “They feared this extra-legal, supra-legal, and consolidated power because they knew from English history that such power could evade the law and override all legal rights.”

Consequently, “Americans established the Constitution to be the source of all government power and to bar any absolute power. Nonetheless, absolute power has come back to life in common law nations, including America.”

Administrative law, wrote Hamburger, is extra-legal, supra-legal, and consolidated. It is in defiance of our system of checks and balances which is expressly designed to limit and diffuse power. According to Hamburger (emphasis added):

  • “Administrative law is extra-legal in that it binds Americans not through law but through other mechanisms – not through statutes but through regulations – and not through the decisions of courts but through other adjudications.”
  • “It is supra-legal in that it requires judges to put aside their independent judgment and defer to administrative power as if it were above the law – which our judges do far more systematically than even the worst of 17th century English judges.”
  • “And it is consolidated in that it combines the three powers of government – legislative, executive, and judicial – in administrative agencies.”

Hamburger added, “Administrative adjudication evades almost all of the procedural rights guaranteed under the Constitution. It subjects Americans to adjudication without real judges, without juries, without grand juries, without full protection against self-incrimination, and so forth.”

Power of the Pen, Phone, and Judicial Activism

Jonah Goldberg concurs, writing, “The growth of the administrative state and the encroachment of federal law into every nook and cranny of local life has been a century-long project of the Left.”

What President Obama couldn’t get passed in Congress he has sought to enact through the power of his pen and his phone. He has bypassed Congress through unconstitutional executive actions on immigration and other matters. Further, he has politicized the IRS, EPA, HHS, Justice Department, Homeland Security, and other federal agencies to target his political foes and implement his contra-Congress agenda (the will of the People be damned!).

Even before the advent of Obama administration, Hillsdale College President Larry Arnn lamented[4] that “We live in a more liberated age, the age of bureaucratic government. Here rules abound in such profusion that they seem to overbear the laws of nature themselves. So it is with honoring the Constitution these days. We honor it more avidly than ever in the breach of its restraints, but at the same time we pay it the respect of mandatory, hectic, and empty observance. Except for our dishonoring of it, we have never honored it so much.”

Moreover, for decades, several activist Justices have tilted the Supreme Court away from the Constitution and toward unbridled power by non-elected bureaucrats. Goldberg noted, “in many respects the Supreme Court is now more powerful than the presidency. It’s certainly far, far, far less democratic. We appoint justices for life and many of their decisions cannot be overturned by the Congress, or the people, short of a constitutional convention.”

Death of Federalism and Freedom by the Stroke of a 1,000 Pens

Obamacare exemplifies and is representative of all that is wrong with administrative law. Case in point: The whole power of the federal government is intractably opposed to and wielded against charitable work performed by the Little Sisters of the Poor.

David French pointed out (emphasis added) “it’s important to understand that the Sisters are not challenging a law passed by Congress. Instead, the contraception mandate is a rule concocted by bureaucrats. When Congress passed Obamacare it intentionally passed the statute with a number of vague directives that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) interpreted and expanded through the regulatory rulemaking process. Thus, the Obamacare statute itself does not contain a contraceptive mandate. Instead, it merely requires employers to ‘provide coverage’ for ‘preventive services’ for women, including ‘preventive care.’”

These unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats have “exempted vast numbers of employers from its requirements – sometimes for mere convenience. It grandfathered existing plans that did not cover contraceptives, exempted small firms, and exempted ‘religious employers.’”

However, they define that term “so narrowly that it applied mainly to entities such as churches and synagogues, not to religious schools, hospitals, or charities – entities that are motivated by faith, often require employees to share the organization’s faith commitment, and ordinarily receive much the same level of religious-freedom protection as houses of worship.”

A Time for Choosing

Ronald Reagan’s famous 1964 speech, A Time for Choosing, should be revisited by all lovers of liberty. The 2016 election is of paramount importance and freedom itself hangs in the balance. Indeed, this election is about survival.[5] Will we elect a fraud and a mountebank, Donald Trump,[6] or an official Democrat candidate (Hillary Clinton[7] or Bernie Sanders) – statists all?

Or will we choose the only constitutional conservative in the race, Ted Cruz?[8]

[BrotherWatch has endorsed Ted Cruz[9] and the Cruz-Fiorina ticket.[10]]

Update: The current tyrannical nature of the Obama administration and its rule imposed by unelected bureaucrats to force the American people to adopt a radical agenda foisted on them is perfectly illustrated by the Justice Department’s edicts regarding transgender-friendly bathrooms. Rich Lowry calls it the Bathroom Putsch. Lowry decries “middling bureaucrats [who] impose their will on the nation,” writing, “The transgender edict is a perfect distillation of the Obama administration’s centralizing reflex, high-handed unilateral rule, and burning desire to push the boundaries of cultural change as far as practical in its remaining time in office.”

Update: The absurdity of the bureaucratic state is epitomized by federal, state and local governments who are currently waging a war on illegal lemonade stands run by children! Kevin Williamson notes, “We are ruled by power-mad buffoons.”

Update: Wesley J. Smith writes: “The political left loves the Bureaucratic State because it allows unelected and democratically unaccountable “experts” to be in control–for our own good, of course.” Smith exposes how the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is invading your privacy and intruding into your health care!

Endnotes:

[1]               See “CPAC: Brits Seek Independence (and so should we)” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-eT.

[2]               Vaclav Klaus, “The Crisis of the European Union: Causes and Significance,” Imprimis, Hillsdale College, July/August 2011, http://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-crisis-of-the-european-union-causes-and-significance/.

[3]               Philip Hamburger, “The History and Danger of Administrative Law,” Imprimis, Hillsdale College, September 2014, http://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-history-and-danger-of-administrative-law/.

[4]               Larry P. Arnn, “A Return to the Constitution,” Imprimis, Hillsdale College, November 2007, http://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/a-return-to-the-constitution/.

[5]               See “CPAC: This Election is About Survival” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-dO.

[6]               See “Coulter Admits Trump is a Fraud” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-cf.

[7]               See “HRC: A Caricature of the Left” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-94.

[8]               See “CPAC: Ted Cruz in Control” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-8b.

[9]               See “BrotherWatch Endorses Ted Cruz” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-dw.

[10]             See “Cruz and Fiorina Are Dream Ticket” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-eQ.

Advertisements

Only Trump Can Lose!

In a farcical column (“It’s Only Trump”), Ann Coulter contends that the GOP’s only hope “lies with Trump and only Trump.” The exact opposite is true!

Donald Trump would be our George McGovern!

Trump Loser

Coulter presumes that people who voted for The Donald in the primaries and caucuses will vote for him in the election, just as she also presumes that Hillary and Bernie voters are locked in to their respective candidates.

If anything, we have seen a remarkable fluidity in voting patterns. On the GOP side, in many states, early voters went with Trump, late voters with Cruz. With an effectively two-man race, anti-Trump votes will be consolidated in the Cruz corner. Had the GOP field, from the beginning, been much smaller than it was, Cruz would likely have been the clear Republican front-runner.

Political campaigns and elections are dynamic, not static.

In the general election, we can expect the Left and the Media to come out with tons of yet-to-be-released opposition research against Trump while continuing to cover-up for Clinton (or Sanders). Trump is, in reality, the one GOP candidate who could lose to Clinton (or, even, Sanders). (Ironically, many of Trump’s positions parallel those of Sanders, vis-à-vis the role of government, the economy, and taxes).

Do the math! Trump has historic and insurmountable negatives, a vast and growing cadre of #NeverTrump Republican opposition, and ephemeral grassroots “support” that will vote Democrat in November.

Throughout her column, Coulter compared current GOP candidates with Romney (who lost!), instead of Reagan or another actually conservative standard-bearer. (Romney – not a conservative – lost, just as Trump – not a conservative – will lose.) Why pit another RINO against a Democrat and expect a different result?

Looking to Reagan as a model[1] (not based on specific issues but, rather, his character, vision, grasp of how the world and government work, and other perspectives), Cruz is the most Reaganesque.[2] Cruz has proven his credentials as a constitutionalist, federalist, anti-establishment warrior, liberty-lover, and moral Christian.

Even if Trump were to win, as Coulter contends is necessary for the salvation of the Republic,[3] we still lose.

Trump and Clinton share ideological beliefs, political persuasions, character flaws (hubris, lying, bullying, corruption, etc.), secular New York values, and a disdain for the Constitution. As president, neither one would govern as a constitutional conservative, but either one would employ their pen and phone to the service of their will, not the will of the People.

As I’ve said from the beginning, a Trump nomination and/or presidency would spell doom for Conservatism and for the Country![4]

May God have mercy on our souls!

Update: Rich Lowry put it nicely, “He’s running against the Republican party from within the Republican party.” In the end, he may well destroy the Party, Conservatism, and the Nation.

Update: David French frames the contrast between Cruz and Trump superbly:

“We have long since passed the twilight-zone stage of the race for the GOP nomination. In one corner is Ted Cruz, arguably one of the smartest men in Washington, a person with unquestioned anti-Establishment street cred, a man who helped block the infamous Gang of Eight’s misguided immigration reform, a constitutional scholar, and a person with intimate knowledge of the workings of every level of American government. In the other corner is a man so completely ignorant – so completely venal – that his best rhetorical tactic is to bury his countless gaffes in an avalanche of insults and lies.”

Endnotes:

[1]               See “CPAC: Reagan’s Legacy Endures” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-e1.

[2]               See “BrotherWatch Endorses Ted Cruz” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-dw.

[3]               See “Meet Ann Coulter’s Savior” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bM.

[4]               See “Coulter’s Latest RINO Would Give Democrats Victory” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-8t.

CPAC: Reagan’s Legacy Endures

According to Reagan biographer Craig Shirley,[1] the Republican Party is dead. The good news? Reaganism is alive and well and living in a populist-energized Conservative Movement.

CPAC2016-07

In an exclusive interview at CPAC, I asked about Ronald Reagan’s legacy[2] and its relevance today. Shirley replied, “Reagan’s legacy is intellectual conservatism, a belief in the future, a belief in young Americans, and an optimistic outlook – all the things that he brought to the Republican Party which had been missing since the time of Teddy Roosevelt.”

Asked whether there are any leaders on the stage right now who could fill Reagan’s shoes, Shirley bluntly replied, “No.” He added, “Leaders like Ronald Reagan don’t grow on trees.”

But then he offered hope, saying, “in defense of the current crop of candidates, Ronald Reagan wasn’t Ronald Reagan before Ronald Reagan was Ronald Reagan.”

Shirley went on to explain, “by that I mean that very few saw his greatness before he was actually president and then afterwards. He was actually derided by the Eastern elites and by the Republican establishment and by the liberal media in the Sixties and the Seventies. It took time to understand Reagan’s greatness.”

Consequently, “in defense of the current crop of candidates, we can’t peer into the future, so I would say, if they stick to their principles, if they stick to their guns, they make their argument, they might succeed and make history, and, if they do, then they will also be seen in a different light.”

GOP is Dead

Shirley also provided a contrast between the Conservative Movement and the GOP, saying, “The Republican Party is, in many ways, dead as a political party.” He added, “It functions, but it’s on life support, because it really stands for nothing.”

Despite the stunning support for conservatism in the last election,[3] the GOP leadership seems to lack the will to pursue its raison d’être. Perhaps it has lost its way because it has lost faith in Conservatism and in America. Or, perhaps, self-interest has simply steamrollered over national interests, the Constitution, and the will of the people.

Echoing Lincoln’s sentiments at the Republican State Convention prior to Lincoln’s election and the advent of the Civil War, Shirley noted that “The Republican Party has become a house divided against itself.” Those differences are stark and irreconcilable. That house is divided between the Establishment and the Conservative Movement.

Speaking of the Establishment, Shirley charged, “It is half corporate, which is basically corrupt, access-selling.” Lord Acton’s axiom has been proven correct yet again, this time in the heart of our nation’s capital. Power’s corrupting nature is most acutely experienced in arguably the most powerful city on earth.

Conservative Movement Thrives

In contrast to the Establishment, Shirley notes, with a Reaganesque optimism, that the populist-driven Conservative Movement is “where the energy and the intellectualism thrives today.” He concluded by saying, “The Conservative Movement in America, Reaganism in America, are doing just fine. It’s the Republican Party that’s just in trouble.”

[In recognition of his Reaganesque qualities, love of America, and devotion to the Constitution, BrotherWatch has endorsed Sen. Ted Cruz for President of the United States.[4]]

Endnotes:

[1]               Mr. Shirley’s latest Reagan biography, Last Act, is available on Amazon and elsewhere.

[2]               See “Remembering Reagan” at http://t.co/GYAescwhYa.

[3]               See “GOP Triumphs Despite Voter Fraud” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-59.

[4]               See “BrotherWatch Endorses Ted Cruz” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-dw.

CPAC: Veterans Against Trump

Conservative opposition to Donald Trump was strong at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). Brian Hawkins, a U.S. Army veteran, was representative of that opposition.

In an exclusive interview, Brian told me, “I am opposed to Donald Trump because he does not represent any of the values of conservatism, of the Republican Party, or of American values in general.”

CPAC2016-01

Holding a “Veterans Against Trump” sign, Brian explained that he had “spent four years in the United States Army, most of which was in the United States Cavalry, hence the cavalry Stetson.”

Holding a “Veterans Against Trump” sign, Brian explained, “I am opposed to Donald Trump because he does not represent any of the values of conservatism, of the Republican Party, or of American values in general.”

Echoing the widespread criticism of Trump’s rhetoric during his campaign, Brian said, “A lot of the language that is coming out of Donald Trump is very nativist and very xenophobic and certainly not [in agreement with] American principles.” He urged, “We need to stop this divisive rhetoric, inflaming hatred toward other people of other groups.”

Brian’s own experiences radically conflict with Trump’s message. Brian hails from Los Angeles, “from a community that’s 80% Hispanic.” He said, “A lot of my friends, their parents came to America illegally and they only really stayed because Ronald Reagan granted amnesty in 1986.”

Moreover, Brian’s experience in the military refutes Trump’s nativist perspective. Brian said, “I spent six months in Afghanistan where I worked with Afghan linguists who put their lives on the line to work with the United States Army and help free the country of the Taliban. They applied to get residency here in the U.S.”

Hence, Brian’s disdain for Trump’s hostile language. Brian clarified, “So, for me, it’s very insulting for Donald Trump to say that these people want to come to America to rape, kill, and do drugs. That’s simply not true.”

Brian’s life experiences offer a counter-Trump narrative:

“Every immigrant I’ve ever run in to, growing up in life or in my experience in the United States Army, they want to come to America to work hard and contribute to the American economy. They understand America as the land of hope and opportunity better than a lot of us Americans do. We really take it for granted being able to live here and all the opportunities that we have. immigrants don’t take that for granted. They understand that America is a land of freedom and economic opportunity for all people. They just want to come here and help contribute to the American Dream. We need to welcome them.”

Brian concluded, “That’s why I oppose Donald Trump, because he does not represent those principles of inclusiveness and economic growth that the Republican Party stands for.”

BrotherWatch Endorses Ted Cruz

BrotherWatch is delighted to endorse Sen. Ted Cruz for President of the United States!

BW Endorses Ted Cruz

Sen. Cruz has proven his love for God and country.

His lifelong love of, and fidelity to, the Constitution puts most of Congress to shame. The humble senator from Texas has courageously fought the good fight against the establishment from within the halls of Congress.

Sen. Cruz is a warrior for the Constitution and Liberty, the perfect antidote to a lawless regime which wields a pen and a phone to circumvent both the Constitution and the will of the People.

Sen. Cruz, a faithful Christian, is also a friend and vocal supporter of Israel.

Sen. Cruz is Reaganesque in principles and perspective, prompting Rush Limbaugh to call him “the closest in our lifetimes we have ever been to Ronald Reagan!”

If we want a bright Morning in America again, elect Ted Cruz!

Cruz Defies Expectations

If we want a bright Morning in America again, elect Ted Cruz!

The liberal media and Republican establishment continually strive to diminish Sen. Ted Cruz, portraying him as an extremist and a loser. Super Tuesday was obviously a win for Trump. But Cruz was a winner, too. Cruz defied media and establishment expectations and limited Rubio to a single victory.

Cruz Defies Expectations

In fact, yesterday Cruz won three primaries and placed second in four races. Current delegate count: Trump (316), Cruz (226), and Rubio (106).

The Washington establishment claims that Trump is an outsider opposed to the establishment. That is a lie! Trump is the establishment! Trump has vast political and financial connections to both Wall Street and Washington insiders. Trump wants to grow the scope and power of government. Trump wants to keep entitlements as they are, maintain crony capitalism, and replace Obamacare with Trumpcare. Trump is the epitome of the establishment.

Ironically, Cruz is doing what Trump claims that he would do: ruffle establishment feathers. Cruz is the consummate Constitutionalist, the exact opposite of the current occupant of the White House and a threat to all those who would preserve the status quo.

Given all of the free airtime extended to Trump, the media’s ostrich-like ignorance of Trump’s liberalism, and attacks on Cruz as an extremist, it is remarkable that Cruz has done as well as he has.

The Media Research Center reports that Trump’s campaign is “being fueled almost entirely by free TV air time.” Most of that coverage ignores Trump’s liberal connections and policies.

MRC also notes, “On the night before Super Tuesday voting, the networks obsessed over Trump with more than 15 minutes of coverage, compared to just two for Rubio and less than a minute for Cruz.”

Americans recognize that Cruz is a true conservative. They also see many Reaganesque qualities in Cruz: a love of God and America, fidelity to the Constitution, and a commitment to life and liberty.

If we want a bright Morning in America again, elect Ted Cruz!

Update! On March 5, Cruz won two more states (Kansas and Maine) and decisively won the CPAC presidential straw poll! Expect more victories in the near future!

Obama and Reagan on Jesus

In Matthew 10:34, Jesus made a seemingly enigmatic statement: “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword.” Jesus graphically depicted how differing views of Jesus would divide people.

Obama & Reagan on Jesus

The contrast between views could not be starker between the Left and the Right. One party removed God from its 2012 platform while the other is derided by the Left for its embrace of the Religious Right.

As usual, Jesus is the pivot point, the demarcation line, or, as He put it, the sword which divides. Jesus is either a rock of offense or the foundation of one’s faith.[1]

The head of the Democrat Party, President Obama, views Jesus as a dead social justice activist, while President Reagan, the model for most Republican candidates, viewed Jesus as both alive and divine.

Obama’s Jesus – Social Justice Activist

President Obama’s Christmas message in 2015 was simple and secular. Obama said (emphasis added),

“Today, like millions of Americans and Christians around the world, our family celebrates the birth of Jesus and the values He lived in his own life. Treating one another with love and compassion. Caring for those on society’s margins: the sick and the hungry, the poor and the persecuted, the stranger in need of shelter – or simply an act of kindness.”

With his very next words, Obama watered down the significance of both Christ and Christmas, saying,

“That’s the spirit that binds us together – not just as Christians, but as Americans of all faiths. It’s what the holidays are about: coming together as one American family to celebrate our blessings and the values we hold dear.”

Actually, no. Christmas is about worshiping the newborn Babe and risen King.[2]

While people of all faiths can certainly enjoy this festive time of year, and Americans of all faiths should certainly strive for peace and harmony, only one faith – and, in particular, one Person[3] – is the reason for the season.[4]

God blessed America because people of the Christian faith sought His will in establishing this great nation. Our political, cultural and spiritual heritage is distinctly Christian in nature.[5]

Reagan’s Jesus – Divine

In contrast to Obama’s view of Jesus as a dead social justice activist, Reagan viewed Jesus as both alive and divine.

President Reagan’s 1983 Christmas Eve address (emphasis added):

“We celebrate the birthday of the Prince of Peace who came as a babe in a manger. Some celebrate Christmas as the birthday of a great teacher and philosopher. But to other millions of us, Jesus is much more. He is divine, living assurance that God so loved the world He gave us His only begotten Son so that by believing in Him and learning to love each other we could one day be together in paradise.”

Speaking of our nation’s Founder, George Washington, Reagan said (emphasis added),

“The image of George Washington kneeling in prayer in the snow is one of the most famous in American history. He personified a people who knew it was not enough to depend on their own courage and goodness; they must also seek help from God, their Father and Preserver.”

Endnotes:

[1]               See “Attacking the Faith: Did Jesus Say that He is God?” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-P.

[2]               See “Celebrating Christmas” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-ct.

[3]               See “Jesus, the Prince of Peace,” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-6J.

[4]               See “Not a Dickens Christmas” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-cq.

[5]               See “CPAC: America’s Christian Heritage Denied” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-8E.