part 1

Reagan’s third principle

an unwavering defense of American freedom

Eric LaMont Gregory

Ronald Reagan, the 40th president of the United States, stood by three principles; limited government, free enterprise and, above all, a staunch, unwavering defense of American freedom.

It is the attack on these principles that makes the direction this nation will take as a result of the election in November - so brilliantly clear. 

The assault on limited government stems from a belief, on the part of some, that communism did not fall because of its bad principles, but because of the principles of some bad communist leaders. 

This understanding fails to recognize that it was bad economic principles, most noteably the idea of a planned economy; bad science and a false understanding of the role of inalienable liberties in human progress that led to the downfall of communism and the planned socialist economies. 

And today, a planned economy leaning administration in Washington embraces these same failed policies. 

Human-influenced climate change may or may not be a reality, but we cannot know one way or the other from the faulty science that is at the core of the ‘global warming’ movement.  One might suggest that the association that is assumed to exist between carbon emissions, coal and climate change is too simplistic to be real science.  Especially, in a world where we are increasingly aware of the subtle ways in which the forces of nature interact with one another. 

The forces of nature tend to cascade and blend and do not go into one end and come out an obvious other.  The mere simplicity of the explanation, leads to its disbelief.  Science is a tool for improving the accuracy of our understanding of nature.  The danger here is that faulty science is being used to advance political control over the coal industry in the name of environmental protection.

Scientists in the early 1980’s informed Reagan, that approximately 80% of our air pollution stems from hydrocarbons released by vegetation, and that we should not ‘go overboard in setting and enforcing tough emission standards concerning the much smaller contribution that results from man-made sources’.  Health problems associated with particulates and other pollutants can be addressed while an American clean coal industry flourishes at the same time.

What must be resisted is the intention of this administration, through regulations and sanctions imposed by federal executive agencies, to force the coal  industry out of business, based upon a belief that human-induced climate change is indeed a reality and poses a clear and present danger.  When there is no proper scientific basis supporting the fact that such a threat exists actually.

President Obama, recently signed Executive Order 13575, which is yet another step towards bringing the laws of the United States into accordance with the principles of sustainable development as enshrined in the one world government inspired document, Agenda 21.   

The planned economy driven ‘sustainable development’ movement, poses a threat to the very concept of free enterprise in the American Republic.  The logic behind this movement has all the elements of an organized belief system but none of the pertinent facts associated with it can help make a case for its implementation on the scale its proponents envision.

Take for example the ill-logic behind the educational plank of the sustainable development agenda.  It suggests; that those with higher educational achievement, tend to have higher incomes.  Those with higher incomes, tend to consume more.  Those with lower levels of education, have lower incomes, and consume less.  Therefore, since those with higher educational attainment tend to consume more, and given the goal of sustainable development is to have people consume less and use fewer resources.  Higher educational achievement is a threat to sustainable development.

And now Obama wants to apply the same logic to our health care system.  Those of advanced age, tend to have higher health care needs.  Those with higher health care needs, consume more health care resources.  Therefore, since those of advanced age consume more resources, and given the goal of sustainable health care is to use less health care resources.  Advanced age is a threat to the sustainability of the health care system.

The premise behind what is and is not sustainable defies rational discernment, especially when no definition of sustainability is ever offered.  

Why the public should be surprised by the globalist worldview of the Obama administration is hard to fathom, as all the signs have been there from his first actions as president.  Expanding the G8 without securing agreement by the new members to play by the existing rules, and without any idea whatsoever as to the likely implications on our economy or our ability to steer the world economy out of economic malaise. 

And remarkably, Obama saw the need to apologize to the children and grandchildren of Europeans, for whose parents and grandparents many Americans gave their lives to save from the clutches of fascism.  

And, most disarming is his continued attempt to appease peoples who cheered when planes killed thousands of our people in New York and hundreds in Pennsylvania and Langley on that fateful day, while they espouse hatred for this country and systematically slaughter every element of diversity in their own countries.

Obama’s legislative program of extending the long arm of government deeper and deeper into every aspect of what was hitherto the realm of private initiative can be reversed by a new president and legislature.  The international treaties which he has entered into by executive order committing this nation to bring its laws into accord with United Nations conventions and protocols can be nullified by the US Senate.   

However, it is in the arena of Reagan’s third fundamental principle that this administration may have done its most enduring harm, that is, the idea that the role of the executive is to stand unwavering in its defense of American freedom.

A shot in the dark in Sanford, Florida, propelled this nation into a very public examination of the state of its social relations, in what is an all too often occurrence in every community in this country.  Before the dust could settle on that tragedy however, Ohio, California, and Oklahoma, among others, would have their own lethal acts of inexplicable violence to unravel. 

What is an all too often occurrence in America?, is criminal violence.

Violence, however, is not the greatest threat to American freedom; the primary threat to freedom is intolerance. 

And, this is where Obama failed in his role to protect American freedom.  No matter how unintentional his remarks were concerning the lethal incident in Sanford, the unintended consequence of his remarks was to increase the level of intolerance in this country.

His proper role as a leader was to wait and rely on the facts to make whatever statement he deemed necessary about the incident, and not to add to the controversy by introducing the element of fear as the basis of an argument.

Others have also needlessly fanned the embers of division.  In what may have been an accidental misreading of the words in a speech concerning the numerical distribution of food stamp recipients in Iowa, opened the gates of division and intolerance, and once opened they have remained so.

Violence and intolerance are not the same.  For instance, the notion that ‘violence never accomplishes anything’ is actually false. 

Our constitution cannot be interpreted in a way that would render the sacrifice of every American who fought in defense of this country, meaningless; and the actions of every police officer who uses force to stop a criminal, immoral.         

Intolerance exists when we deny others the very rights that we take for granted ourselves; or exhibit an unwillingness to extend equal freedom, social and political rights to others, or even allow the expression of a different point of view.

Intolerance is the well from which violence in America is drawn, and it is the level of intolerance and not violence itself that is the primary threat to the inalienable liberties that are the foundation of American freedom.

end of part 1