The manner in which one leads is as important as the one placed in leadership. One may lead either by Providence or paranoia. As a leader, he can either make peace with his enemy or he can make an enemy out of anyone. When everyone is the enemy, defense by any and all means can be justified. Monarchies and their kings were always more threatened by the enemies within than with a competing nearby country, and little has changed today. Within a republic, significant incontrovertible logic is essential for the proper functioning of law and order.

If the United States were an aircraft carrier, paranoia would be a hole blown in the hull from the inside-out. Instead of addressing the needed repair, the crew would be left pointing their fingers at each other. The ship would eventually sink. Because of the behavior of the kings and queens of England, the kingdom they were intent upon protecting changed family lines by the means of rumors, paranoia, speculation, and eventually war.

America’s system of government is not so easily manipulated by its leaders. The American mainstream media and the Left continue to behave otherwise. The mainstream media hold fast to the idea that they possess a monopoly on the belief systems of the public. They almost seem to long to become the fourth branch of government, regardless of the approval rating of the administration.

Although the anti-Federalists feared the possibility of accidentally instituting a ruling-class with the implementation of an Executive Branch, many governing structures were developed to counteract that threat. The President is not a king, Congress is not a royal court, and the Supreme Court is not a Parliament. They were not meant to be.

Anti-Federalist Samuel Bryan stated, “…free government, can only exist where the body of the people are virtuous, and… in such a government the people are the sovereign and their sense or opinion is the criterion of every public measure; for when this ceases to be the case, the nature of the government is changed, and an aristocracy, monarchy or despotism will rise on its ruin.”

The American constitutional republic is structured in such a way that law cannot be approved or enforced if it runs contrary to fundamental constitutional precepts. This structure can be weakened and compromised, should a governing branch suspend the original intent of our founding documents. The Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights are meant to stand the test of time, not bend at that the point in time they are being tested.

The Judeo-Christian perspective asserts that a king is installed by those who reject the authority of the Creator. A king brings taxes instead of offerings, war instead of peace, and bondage instead of freedom. Those who wanted a king said they wanted to be like “other nations.”

The Left wants America to be like Canada, Denmark, Sweden, or Australia.

Our Founding Fathers wanted America to be nothing like any government of the past. When they wrote that our rights “are endowed by our Creator,” they were ready to defend a freedom that was unlike any other.

The Left continues to believe that they can serve two masters: the public and themselves. Those that they politically prop up are not divinely appointed royalty, and the press does not hold royal court. The intrigue that they weave and spin in order to influence authority is without substance.

Should centrists and conservatives deign to play the same game the Left has played, they will see the same losses the Left is experiencing.

As expressed by the hero Westley in the classic film, The Princess Bride, “We are men of action. Lies do not become us.”

Choose to lead by Providential wisdom and integrity. A seemingly innocent act of dishonest compromise will gain no reward. Those that talk will only talk, but those that act will reveal what they believe is actually defensible. It is essential to learn that rich and open debate is paramount for the prevention of acting out of fear or indulging one’s paranoia.

If one is to be ruled, it is most beneficial that one rules oneself.
By: Rosemary Dewar

You’re Not A Hero

Self-preservation is one of the strongest forces that drives the way people eat, act, and survive. Before narcissism manifests itself, two characteristics exhibit themselves first: envy and vanity. This is the common chaos with which every human battles. The ability to control such urges is necessary to stabilize the social structure that surrounds the individual. As soon as the individual prioritizes their desires over the needs of the structure, stability begins to deteriorate.

Envy can plague the individual over the smallest thing. Without self-control, an individual will find ways to justify reasons to pursue and obtain the desired object at all costs. The result is vanity. An individual will elevate themselves inappropriately. As soon as they do, the well-being of those around them is compromised. The willingness to sacrifice someone else’s state of security to fortify one’s own is pure selfishness.

Things that humans usually attempt to preserve are either other’s perceptions of them or the state of security they currently hold. They usually surrender a level of liberty in exchange for the security they desire. As U.S. Founding Father Benjamin Franklin stated, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” That type of “sacrifice” isn’t heroism, it’s manipulation. Those that sacrifice fundamental principles for “the sake of the greater good” are persuaded by their own vanity.

We are surrounded by depictions of mythical heroes like Superman, Wonder Woman and Thor. They became more relatable with characters like Batman, Ironman, and the X-men. They are admired for their fictional acts of valor and sacrifice. Their suffering isn’t aimed to position themselves for worship. That’s why they hide themselves. Those that antagonize the heroes are dead-set on their own self-admiration, worship, and domination. They are the villains.

There are few people willing to put themselves through levels of suffering to preserve others. Simply having opposition doesn’t make one a hero. What one is capable of sacrificing determines one’s merit.

The Judeo-Christian perspective asserts that vanity is a characteristic of corruption. It is never satisfied for long, and will soon consume all it touches. Unchecked vanity becomes narcissism where one emotionally starves oneself to the point one’s soul dies.

Author F. Scott Fitzgerald said, “Show me a hero, and I’ll write you a tragedy.” Someone who is willing to waive self-preservation, not just once but repeatedly, is heroic. Something has to die in order for something better, stronger, and more beautiful to take its place.

The same must be emulated within a social structure, even a small one such as a family. The truly vulnerable are to be preserved at the willing expense of the formidable. Any process that results in more detriment than virtuous success ought to be rejected. If ignored, societal decay is inevitable.

If one is going to attempt to be a hero, one ought to learn to sacrifice oneself. To expect it of someone else is foolish, and to demand it is fiendish.
By: Rosemary Dewar

Modern Western civilization continues to chip away at the Judeo-Christian foundation upon which it is built. History is either ignored or revised due to the left’s agenda to “liberate” the social constructs they believe are causes for inequality and marginalization. They do not realize they are dismantling the foundation by which they live their lives, regardless of whether they hold religious views or not. Refusing to acknowledge the origins of our social structure leaves people who benefit from it vulnerable. As much as a theocracy is not ideal, neither is an overly expressive secular society. That’s why in the United States, the pluralism they are able to embrace is vitally important.

The existence of this type of complexity is present when explaining the Judeo-Christian worldview. Former British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, expressed it best when he said, “A great city, whose image dwells in the memory of man is the type of some great idea. Rome represents conquest; Faith hovers over the towers of Jerusalem; and Athens embodies the pre-eminent quality of the antique world, Art.” So, let’s break this down.

Rome was the vehicle by which Christianity was able to reach much of what Europe is today. The root of Christian expression and ethics is Judaism, whose eternal home is Jerusalem. Finally, Athens was an origin of philosophical reason and science. All these aspects are elemental and essential to the social structure that gave birth to Europe, England, and the United States. Without consistently balancing these three dimensions expressed in Western culture, society is prone to instability and inevitable self-destruction.

Currently, we are dealing with a culture in the United States that is dead set on pulling down the society they have the privilege of benefitting from. Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias stated, “…We are now standing with our feet planted firmly in mid-air. I would say, while theoretically a person may block God out, logically there will be a breakdown because ultimately all enunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind. And if that moral doctrine is not absolute then the definer himself becomes undefined.”

The idea of a God is integral to the implementation of a moral standard. Without one, it is impossible to give a coherent example of what is right and what is wrong. Jewish radio commentator Dennis Prager stated, “In a secular world, there can only be opinions about morality. They may be personal opinions or society’s opinion, but only opinions. Every atheist philosopher I have read or debated on this subject has acknowledged that if there is no God, there is no objective morality.”

Now, the origin by which that God is defined is just as important as what is implemented on behalf of His authority. Some Christian denominations are dealing with the same relativism issues by attempting to override the Jewish roots from which they spring. Should this continue, the secular world will devastate the logical structure of society in coordination with the religious community dismantling its moral core.

In this case, our Western civilization will continue to decay as we see it is now. If Western civilization is to recover, the current culture must reconcile itself to the historical record that has brought it here. The longer the Judeo-Christian worldview is rejected, it can be concluded that the demise of Western civilization becomes more imminent.
By: Rosemary Dewar

The sanctity of life is the usual cornerstone argument for opposing elective abortion. Human life is a tender and sacred component of society. The Judeo-Christian worldview defends mankind up to the point of being willing to die in order to preserve it. Once a life is criminally extinguished and thereby robbed of its value, that life ought to be vindicated. A failure to validate that life devalues both the perpetrator and the victim, which will cause a weakness in a society.

The defense of the death penalty is being diluted by the fact that it is not a pleasant subject. Ignoring it makes it worse. The idea of ending a human life “before its time” is being framed to be just as equally wrong for the perpetrator as well as the victim. That is far from biblical morality or that of conscience alone. To have the same amount of empathy for a murder victim as well as the murderer is a direct ethical contradiction. A just solution must be resolute.

Many in the religious community have a real problem with the death penalty. They believe that once one is killed and another one is to be killed, it is an unending circle of violence. That would make sense if they misinterpreted or completely ignored what is asserted in the Judeo-Christian foundation. Within the Ten Commandments, the sixth commandment says “You shall not murder.” Most English versions poorly translate the Hebrew word for “murder” as “kill.” There is a massive difference. For those who go hunting, people don’t say they murder deer and turkey (Unless you’re PETA).That’s why there are three degrees of murder. Here we are discussing the worst of the three: premeditated murder.The one law that is cited in each of the first five books of the Bible is that murderers are to be put to death. Refusing to carry out the law is considered an additional violation against God and the community.

The astonishing reality is that under the U.S. Constitution the perpetrator holds the same inalienable rights as the victim. As soon as justice is denied or delayed for the victim, the perpetrator is elevated over the victim. This only feeds into the delusion the perpetrator accepted in order to feel justified in violating the victim.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are provisions that government is responsible for preserving. The argument to abolish the death penalty would essentially nullify all three. Human life can’t be preserved without holding it to a standard, as well as knowing when to hold an individual wholly responsible for their actions. Anyone living with unbearable, irreconcilable guilt is neither liberated nor happy. As odd at it seems it is more moral and humane for a violator to face justice.

Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle simply stated, “At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst.”

Now, some assert that the perpetrator should be held in a lifetime of servitude instead of being sentenced to death. Not only is the perpetrator living with their guilt, they are now being worked to death. Most would rather die than to be forced into labor against their will. That is treating someone as if they are sub-human.

The mental health of the perpetrators and miscarriage of justice aside–because those are rare occurrences among felony cases–the death penalty is not only moral, but a defensive measure. A community that does not defend the sacredness of innocent life leaves the community vulnerable to cruelty.

In order to protect the human-value of the victim and the murderer, the perpetrator must die. They are both human, and they are to be treated as such. It is impossible to argue biblical ethics in opposition to the death penalty. A community or society that elevates wrongdoing over innocence ignores basic human decency. Don’t deny humanity to either party.
By: Rosemary Dewar

Pluralism is one of the greatly misunderstood elements of American culture. Each prominent ideology and belief system assumes they can govern more morally than the other. Again, the centralization of power is a situation the Founding Fathers resisted so fervently. Once any ideology or strategy becomes set on driving out another, the culture is ripe for conflict. This may sound like diversity, but it is far from it. In the 1850s, American political diversity was so prominent that it led to the birth of the Republican Party and the ignition of the Civil War.

Diversity is a popular sentiment that has led to great division. Identity has become a device of entitlement. If someone can convince another that they are more deserving because of how different they claim to be, they are rewarded with immunity from consequence while others are not. For those who say, “Life’s not fair,” it becomes all the more so with the adoption of socially engineered diversity.

The Republican Party was created out of the conflict amongst the Whigs concerning the heinous presence of slavery. Whigs in the North did not own slaves; Whigs in the South did. The capital created by northern states with the introduction of industrial technology threatened the farm-based southern states. Slavery was a way for southern states to stay competitive. The majority of American consumers could not accept slavery as a legitimate means to raise national capital. Slave owners saw slaves as sub-human, while industrial capitalists greatly disagreed. The Compromise of 1850 maintained “diversity” to the point that the war in 1861 was inevitable. Capitalism was not a part of the implementation of slavery, but it was an element that overrode the polarization concerning the slavery issue.

Pluralism requires common ground. There must be underlining principles that all are willing to adhere to. That is where the United States gets its motto, “E Pluribus Unum” (From The Many, One). Diversity is the exact opposite. In contrast, it prefers “From The One, Many.” Supremacy groups demanding “separate, but equal” are no different. The desegregation trend of the 1950s resisted by saying “equal, and never separate.” As college campuses continue to agree to race/sex/religious “safe spaces,” the culture will revert to self-segregation. It is an absolute pity.

Within culture, religious institutions deal with the same frailty. Many times pluralism is perceived as secularism. In reality, pluralism gives equal space and protection to religion, as well as the lack thereof. The religious should not interpret that as a threat, unless they are directly infringed upon by an opposing group (religious or not). As long as both are protected and allowed to exist freely, neither one will be limited. Studies may show that religious institutions are beneficial to society, but when a government decides to use theology as an all-encompassing rule of law, one is left with a theocracy. For that very reason the Founding Fathers separated from the rule of the Church of England. That was a contributing factor as to why the Founding Fathers did not establish a national religion.

John Adams asserted that, “We should begin by setting conscience free. When all men of all religions shall enjoy equal liberty, property, and an equal chance for honors and power we may expect that improvements will be made in the human character and the state of society.”

The left has its own theology. Government is God, and those not in favor of victimhood status are morally inferior. That is imposing its self-declared righteousness on a society. Everything one is to think, say, and do what is pre-prescribed. If a society were to choose a theocracy, it would revert to an extreme one. Everyone is answerable to one another at all times. Any failure to adhere is punishable without mercy.

The famous atheist philosopher, Christopher Hitchens, stated, “It’s a curious thing in American life that the most abject nonsense will be excused if the utterer can claim the sanction of religion. A country which forbids an established church by law is prey to any denomination. The best that can be said is that this is pluralism of a kind.”

When the individual is made a priority, the need for over-regulation is limited. The priority of one over another will always break down and diminish liberty. Again, when a law is established it ought to result in the neutralization of division. It is the best way to correct division. We either triumph together, or not at all.
By: Rosemary Dewar

The tale of Robin Hood is one of the most misinterpreted stories of the conflict between good and evil. He is usually depicted as the righteous thief, the valiant and defiant defender of the poor. The history of England surrounding Robin Hood’s origin presents a starkly different story. 12th century England was overwhelmed by war and debt. Predictably, the poorest of society began to revolt because many were taxed into poverty. Because the distinction is not clarified, those that advocate for governmental redistribution of wealth attempt to re-frame the ‘Robin Hood’ type of virtue for themselves.

Stealing for the sake of equality is about as moral as stealing bread from a priest. The regressive left attempts to use religious charity as a warped appeal for compassion. If Robin Hood was indeed stealing from King John, it is still immoral. No different than when Les Miserables’ Jean Valjean is stealing from Bishop Myriel. Stealing is wrong. Period.Today, taxing only the rich is presented as a moral and “nice” thing to do. The reality is that the demand for equal wealth is taxing a targeted group at an unequal rate. That is a serious contradiction.

The word “nice” comes from the Latin root word for ignorant. The virtue of niceness is not a Judeo-Christian principle. When the left demands that someone not be offensive, they are demanding that they “be nice.” The Judeo-Christian worldview stresses that one should be wise. It asserts, “Listen to counsel and receive instruction, that you may be wise.” Sometimes that manifests itself as admitting when one is wrong.

Now, Robin Hood may not have been a social justice rebel. He might have simply been a libertarian in a feudalist, authoritarian system. In Feudalism, a serf or vassal was given land to work and fight for a lord or king. King John took advantage of his brother’s, King Richard’s, absence while King Richard was at war. Instead of managing the kingdom on low taxes, so the lords and serfs could efficiently steward the land, he raised taxes and eventually starved the people. Robin Hood’s opposition to King John may not have been theft. It might have simply been refusing to pay exorbitant and unfair taxes.

Democrats want to say they are not taxing the poor, but they are. Obamacare is the perfect example. When someone couldn’t afford “affordable care,” they received an IRS penalty – in other words, another tax. When a government promises a service in exchange for your taxes and they don’t serve you, that’s stealing as well as lying. Furthermore, when a government continues impractical economic practices and accumulates debt, it slowly enslaves its citizens. When a government system fails, their answer is always more taxes.

Founding father John Adams stated, “There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword.The other is by debt.”

Like it or not, socialism and communism use both to conquer not only a country, but the culture as well. Government is a sword, or in the present case a gun. When someone does not pay their taxes, they go to jail like Al Capone did when America was cracking down on the mob. However, someone like Al Sharpton goes untouched because he forwards the left’s agenda. When the law does not judge impartially, it fails morally. It is neither wise nor healthy nor moral to drown a society in debt.
Former U.K. Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli truly stated, “Debt is the prolific mother of folly and of crime.” The deeper the United States has fallen into debt, the more prevalent corruption and unrest has become. It is time to think on Robin Hood as a governmental-libertarian, not a left-wing, socialist advocate.

It is not advised that one not pay their taxes. If the issue is to limit the percentage that someone is taxed, the solution is to continue to work toward relying on the government less. Expressing one’s desire for independence will not come with an increase in government-funded social services. Both cannot and will not coexist.

Rosemary is the co-host of 3rd Rail Politics, heard Saturday mornings from 11am to 1pm on WVNN
By: Rosemary Dewar

A day in life is not meant to be lived in order to repeat the day before. Learning to live well is not easy, and in order to live well, one must live by moral standards. The origins of moral standards are constantly debated. As important as the creator of the standards is, it is equally important to question why the standards exist in the first place. Standards have the innate ability to make the mundane into something truly extraordinary. The United State of America, as a result of its founding, was able to create its own standards that allowed it to surpass every other nation before her. The rest of the world continues to criticize America, while unable to recreate its success. Regardless of historians’ refusal to acknowledge our country’s Judeo-Christian core values, there is not another set of standards that parallel its cohesiveness.

To live is to learn what may improve one’s self and the people around them. Although many fail, it is not an excuse to choose to not to continue to strive to better oneself and one’s future. The character Captain Jean Luc Picard expressed fervently that, “Inside you, is the potential to make yourself better…and that is what it is to be human. To make yourself more than you are.” Atheists try to explain this phenomenon away. The Judeo-Christian perspective asserts that man has always aimed to become greater than himself. This is why Satan offered Eve the opportunity to be “like” God, and the tower of Babel was engineered to try to become God. It is impossible to attempt such a feat without standards for inspiration, however misapplied.

Mankind is undeniably imperfect. The father of classical liberalism, John Locke, stated,” All men are liable to error; and most men are, in many points, by passion or interest, under temptation to it.” Again, that is not an excuse to quit. Man consistently fights between two things: what he wants, and what he needs. Man needs guidelines, rules, and ethics. To look towards man for those precepts is to fall prey to inevitable evil. Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks gracefully states that, “When people lose faith in God, they lose faith in people also.” This is well illustrated in the movie It’s A Wonderful Life. When George Bailey reduces his worth to all the things he could not obtain, he wanted to die. However, when he recognizes that his worth is the sum of all the decency he imparted to others, he found the reason to live happily. That purpose is a construct of law that Judeo-Christian values confirm.

The United States’ constitution does not promise happiness, but it promises the liberty to pursue happiness. One must be willing to seek it out. “The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government,” says Thomas Jefferson.

Happiness, and the joy by which it is fueled, can only be achieved by the acceptance of the Judeo-Christian worldview. Christian apologist, Ravi Zacharius explains that, “The world out there will try to provoke you to live in a total violation of God’s law. And you live that way, and you will be on the path to total self destruction. You do it God’s way, and you live a life of perpetual novelty.”

How one walks out a routine can look mind-numbing until one gives it meaning. Eat, drink, work, have sex, sleep, and die are meaningless until you give them purpose. Live, celebrate, achieve, love, rest, and be missed is how one can exist in a state of sustained wonder.

This is the reason why many treat the Christmas/Chanukah season differently than they do the rest of the year. Without standards, this season is just about cute stories, and their commercialization. With application of standards, this season is a representation of a fulfilled promise, and a victory over adversity.

The same goes with the United States. To most, America is the chief power responsible for the spreading and preserving of liberty, justice and hope. Devoid of standards, the United States is just another barbaric, colonial, greedy superpower.

The United State of America and the values on which it was founded are some of the most precious gifts both man and God could give to humanity. Pray that those that come after this generation do not squander them. Merry Christmas and Happy Chanukah from the first world country!
By: Rosemary Dewar

12-2-2016-9-01-38-amThe understanding that stealing is wrong doesn’t seem to make a deep enough case to hold socialism accountable for its warped ideology. There is no doubt that most in Western civilization find slavery utterly despicable. It is puzzling why socialism is not met with the same ire. Slavery is an abusive utilization of labor, and so is socialism. This may seem like an extreme correlation, but fundamentally it is not. Whether the laborer is subjugated by either the whip or the vote does not make its implementation any less immoral.

Slavery is a sinful blot on the history of the United States. It was awful, and inexcusable. The United States also did something that most of the West has not done. America allowed capitalism to validate the efforts of the individual in addition to ending slavery. Instead of the government determining the worth of one’s labor, one has the opportunity to assess one’s own worth. Unlike socialism, true capitalism allows each individual to assert what they believe their skills and labor are worth. A free market, with little government interference or regulation, gives individuals the liberty to negotiate what they are willing to exchange for acquired skills.


Socialism is the “gateway drug” for government control. To assert that socialism is any less nefarious than slavery would be a complete distortion of the nature of a socialistic system. Imagine the economic system of a local plantation which has expanded into an entire state or country. The individual is forced to contribute, but is not rewarded for the skills they have developed. Over half of what the individual grosses is directed back to the state through taxation. The state will then provide a uniform amount of services, irrespective of one’s contribution. Neither the state nor the individual can negotiate for better quality. The state is limited by what individuals are willing to give, and individuals are unable to increase their net worth sufficiently in order to contribute more to the state. When an individual no longer has the authority to define their own worth, they inevitably become a slave to the system that governs them.

Margaret Thatcher famously declared, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” She couldn’t be more correct. Socialism and communism alike always create limitations by squashing creativity. These systems will never do good by their citizens. Socialism promises equality, and fails miserably. Governments which adopt socialistic and communistic practices produce two classes: those who rule and those who serve. Those who rule live lusciously in exchange for the lack of resistance from those who serve. It is a losing game of acquiescence.
Every revolution is virtually no different than the one before. France, Russia, Germany, Argentina, Cuba, Venezuela were and still are ravaged by their adoption of socialism. How? Through a massive lie that came at the cost of poverty, torture, and war.

Headlining this week’s news is the death of Cuba’s dictator Fidel Castro, a truly despicable human being. Fidel fed off the discontent of the Cuban people during Fulgencio Batista’s control, and led them into a socialistic hell hole. Fidel decided to strengthen ties with Soviet Russia, bringing communism within 90 miles of the United States’ back door. Castro promised equal wealth, security, and health. Instead, Cuba was met with a dictatorship that jailed, tortured, and murdered its citizens. Fidel Castro’s leadership was so harsh that two million people fled Cuba during his rule. How could anyone admire such a man?

What has been even more astonishing is the world leaders’ responses to Fidel Castro’s passing. It can almost be taken as a litmus test for moral reason. Leftists have praised Castro as a “fighter for social justice.” Meanwhile, the conservatives refuse to ignore and omit Castro’s heinous acts of repeated human rights violations.

English Historian, John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton (best known as Lord Acton) simply understood the subjugation that socialism brings, and expressed his disdain for it by saying, “Socialism means slavery.” He continued, “…[N]ow that we have seen a new form of slavery arise before our eyes, we have so completely forgotten the warning that it scarcely occurs to us that the two are connected.”

Fidel’s acts of evil were inarguably gruesome, but to minimize them is to leave generations vulnerable to man’s capability to exploit one another. Be vigilant; be relentless.
By: Rosemary Dewar

11-18-2016-2-40-42-pmThe ability to reconcile one’s emotions with the truth has been lost to an entire generation as illustrated by the recent “protests” over the outcome of the election. Politics and religion have blurred the lines in which feeling good and doing good are mutually exclusive. Taking a closer look at what has fueled this phenomenon is essential if the restoration of truth is going to be successful. In order to do so, a moral argument must be emotionally reinforced. The culture has been emotionally motivated for decades. Leftists have swung the pendulum of expression towards rash behavior. If those on the intellectual right prepare to manage for the upcoming pendulum swing, the ability to manage morality and reason can occur.

Fear and pleasure are two of the strongest influences on behavior. Nothing inspires self-preservation like fear does. Leftists are extremely aware that if they can fabricate a motive to fear something, they can also fabricate the remedy. By contrast, the assertion of pleasure after a desired behavior can perpetuate that behavior. The veneer of virtue has become the reward for those who have adhered to the philosophy of the left. Those who oppose the left are threatened with defamation. Similar to domesticating a pet, the desired behavior is rewarded while the unwanted behavior is disciplined. Conditioning is complete once the pet anticipates a reward and repeats the reinforced behavior.


Within a healthy emotional expression, a thought should prompt a feeling that influences the behavior, but this is not so for most of the millennial generation. They have been conditioned by culture and academia to feel first, then think, and behave without the element of reason which serves to connect them with all three processes.

Reason is vital to processing information. There has to be a root for that reason, and there must be an emotional connection with it. The Judeo-Christian worldview asserts that reason comes from a logical God that loves. A god that only consists of one of these attributes at a time is either brainless or heartless. Followers are urged to worship in spirit and in truth. In other words, they are to show reverence with an emotional connection, as well as with verifiable reason. From the atheistic worldview, reason is rooted in man’s pursuit of perfection through logic. Worship is shifted from the giver of reason to the seeker of reason. Atheistic reason acknowledges that man is imperfect, and worships him anyway. When one worships the imperfect, they end up with the profane.

Our culture has made imperfection sacred. Very similar to France’s “Age of Reason” that led to the revolution, they gutted God from culture, and eventually associated virtue with terror. When a society idolizes mediocrity–no matter how lofty–over excellence, it will devour its beauty, stupefy its intellect, and nullify its purpose. People of a purposeless society will constantly contribute that which means nothing to them.

The British evangelist, George Campbell Morgan, stated, “Sacrilege is defined by taking something that belongs to God and using it profanely. But, the worst kind of sacrilege is taking something, and giving it to God when it means absolutely nothing to you.”

Society is the same, in that it loses its validity if its citizens continue to give it what means nothing to them. Much of the millennial generation, and the iGeneration that follows, do not understand what is sacred, or what has inherent value. They do believe that society is important, but they don’t know why.

The founding father, Thomas Jefferson, stated, “Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.”
Advocates for liberty must be ready and willing to give a moral and emotional response to the call for truth and justice. The act of doing good should not be absent from the sentiment of generosity. Preserving one’s freedom should be paired with conviction, and the pursuit of justice ought to be coupled with empathy.

Let us romance a society with both reverence and reason.
By: Rosemary Dewar

11-4-2016-10-18-27-amThe subject of economics has become one of the most easily misconstrued elements of government function. The concept of healthy economic practice is so profoundly self-evident, that children have been able to learn the idea since the first grade without opening a book. A trading post expresses the simplest picture of capitalism: give me what I want, and I will give you what you want. Other than supply and demand, the third element of economics is need. Being able to prudently evaluate that need, as well as its effect on the community’s economy, demands that a moral choice be made in order to alleviate or satisfy that need. Once a government has adopted a practice or policy that superficially addresses the problem, without taking into account any long term detrimental effects, an immoral practice has been enacted.


Ever since our first grade classmate wanted to trade our Snack Pack pudding for their Pringles potato chips, we’ve understood basic economics. The beauty of that interaction is the freedom to say “yes” or “no.” What one desires and another has to offer is the foundation for free market capitalism. The individual freedom to come to a mutually beneficial agreement is nothing short of phenomenal. The interaction is no different than when business owners trade labor for services. Capitalism allows for individual trade to occur without governmental interference, regulation, or taxation. Other forms of monetary governances, such as socialism and communism, directly oppose that liberty to choose. Within socialism, the government makes the choice for the individual, even when it is not wanted or needed.

Social engineers are enamored by government’s ability to intervene in human development; so much so, that they usually request intervention without proper calculation of the cost to a community. Let’s say a town wants to build a tunnel through a mountain side to increase transportation services for its citizens. That is commendable. However, if the government wants to build a tunnel, not to improve transportation but rather for the purpose of creating jobs, the net result will be a significant fiscal shortfall. The tunnel will take $12 million tax dollars to complete and will require the labor of 500 people. The town sees that the tunnel is built, and 500 people had temporary employment, but they do not perceive that they are out $12 million dollars. That same $12 million could have gone toward school development or police force improvements that would now be delayed or forgotten.

Let’s take this a step further. Government taxes are a third party element in an exchange of services. If there is a public project that the government wants to fund, but it does not have enough to complete it, the government will take out a loan. This introduces a fourth party to the transaction. On the surface, it looks like the government is paying off the loan. In actuality, the tax payers are paying off that loan. Quite literally, the government is spending future tax dollars which belong to the tax payers. Should the government continue to approve “projects” that it cannot pay for outright; the deeper it will dive into debt. The more debt the government accumulates, the less the government is able to perform its first purpose: to protect its citizens.

If a government is promoting its ability to keep its programs while continuing to increase its debt, it is lying. Furthermore, the increasing debt is literally stealing from its tax payers. The government’s promises become nothing more than valueless words.

The Judeo-Christian perspective states that, “In all labor there is profit, but idle chatter leads only to poverty.”

To express it even more simply, if the government proposes a program that will not directly produce a profit, the program should not be enacted. When a community, city, state, or country wants or needs a particular service, they should be able to look to the government solely as a means of stop-loss precaution. Once a government aims to act on behalf of its tax payers without considering the actual cost to the tax payers, the government has violated the individuals’ liberty to choose.

Famous French economist, Frédéric Bastiat stated, “Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone.”

This is a lesson too easily forgotten.
By: Rosemary Dewar