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

Blessings of Liberty

10-21-2016-2-19-24-pmThe only reason one would attempt to cheat death is to escape judgment. Without a desire for a heaven to gain, and a hell to avoid, our standard of morality is without true reason. The Judeo-Christian perspective urges mankind to crave life in a way that allows man to experience heaven in the present. Death has the potential to cause torment to the point it can feel like hell on earth. To curb one’s impulse to commit a violation of natural law, there must be a consequence. A punishment ought to be comparable to the violation, but not to the grievance. Such as in the practice of law, proportionate punishment is more essential than the gratification of social justice.


One’s God-given rights are sacred institutions, and mankind is to protect and preserve those rights. The documents on which the United States of America is founded – The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and The Bill of Rights – are precepts prescribed not by man, but by God. Once violated, punishment ought to be imminent, impartial, and prudent.
The 6th Amendment grants the right to a speedy trial by an impartial jury within the district where the incident occurred, and the accused is promised a rigorous defense. Regardless of the ruling, the ‘due-process’ achieved is more vital. Laws, standards, and ethics must not waver in order to gain justice.

When an accusation is inaccurate or excessive, a plea can be presented. That is the mercy; furthermore, if the conviction is unsatisfactory, one can levy an appeal.

Many ask about conviction errors. The truth is that they rarely occur in felony cases. The infrequency is so great that the margin-of-error was last calculated to be less than .03%. Within that margin, wrongful executions are calculated to be less than .1%.

Should that be ignored? No.

Is that unfortunate? Yes.

Is that just? Absolutely, and here’s why: the system did not fail, society did.

The left asserts that mankind made the society that crafted the law. They are wrong. God fashioned the law to govern a society in which man continues to fail to exercise self-control, period.

To insist that one would rather see 97 guilty murderers, rapists, and/or thieves live without reprimand in order to keep 3 innocent persons out of jail is not an argument for compassion, but is a declaration of an immoral and unjust lunacy.

Recently, California voted to allow felons to vote from prison. Leftist politicians expressed that voting is a civic right. They have chosen to ignore the unequivocal fact that once one violates the rights God gave their victims, many of their own rights are lawfully reduced or even lost.

The left argues that felons did not intend to lose certain civic rights. However, their conviction proves intent to break the law. For example, it is illegal to drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs. When one drives under the influence and strikes and kills a human being, the driver is rightfully accused of killing, whether they intended to or not. The fact remains that they have deprived a person of life, when their intent was only to drive while intoxicated.

John Adams, one of the Founding Fathers, stated, “But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.”

Villains and heroes alike portrayed in the Bible did not get to choose the level of suffering their sin caused. Pharaoh did not intend to lose his first born when he refused to free the Hebrews from slavery. Saul did not intend to become insane while attempting to murder David. David did not intend for his sons to assassinate one another when he killed a man to cover up his own infidelity.

Violators do not get to choose the amount of agony their act of lawlessness generates, even unto themselves. Once one infringes even one law, one will suffer judgment.

God is steadfast, and His law resolute; therefore, govern yourself justly in order to discover justice and liberty.
By: Rosemary Dewar

10-7-2016-11-57-42-amPoverty in western civilization has become a padded cell for the mind. America’s practices of capitalism and free enterprise have allowed for the greatest exposition of equal opportunity. Technology and education have never been as accessible as they are today. To ask, “Why didn’t equality happen faster?” is an unfair question. Time is a sensitive element of nature, and robbing anyone of the experience of “learning-with-time” cheapens the worth of that knowledge gained. Giving one the same chance to either fail or succeed is the greatest opportunity America has achieved throughout her history.

For many on the left, equality of outcome is valued more than experience of learning from failure. The existence of failure is unacceptable for leftists. Standards and rules are perceived as discriminatory, insurmountable hurdles. The inability to meet specific, challenging goals is seen as an injustice. The fiscal and societal costs, as well as the risk of lowering standards are rarely evaluated. For example, secondary education institutions are expected to assess diversity of origin over levels of achievement. SAT and ACT scores have been subject to man-made fairness procedures. A Princeton University study, published in 2004, revealed that minorities were receiving an average of 200+ bonus points on their score, just for identifying their ethnicity. Other ethnic groups were deducted points for the same action. The University had hoped to see a dramatic increase in minorities graduating, but the result was nearly static.


Such enforcements of affirmative action are not justice. A merit earned has far more integrity than a favor frantically given. The book of Proverbs asserts, “The plans of the diligent lead surely to plenty, but those of everyone who is hasty, surely to poverty.”

As ideal or seemingly utopian as society could be with zero inequality, that type of structure is unachievable. America dealt with this during its colonial infancy. Colonists experimented with communal ethics and were nearly eliminated by those ethics’ certain failure. The Jamestown, Virginia settlement was reduced by food shortages, disease, and cannibalism that resulted from dwindling community farming. Some of the same occurrences can be observed today. Most recently, Venezuela’s implementation of socialist and communist means of production has completely bankrupted the country. Citizens are hunting dogs in order to eat. Surrounding countries have opened their borders in order for Venezuelans to have access to basic goods, food, and healthcare.

Economic and moral fairness is simply never equal. It never has been. Humanity is too greatly individually diverse in order for everyone to be idyllically equal. The United States’ aim was to give the opportunity for the individual to pursue the level of achievement they were willing to muster without the violation of someone else’s opportunity to do the same. Socialism, communism, and hybrids thereof diminish that opportunity. Karl Marx believed, “From each according to his ability to each according to his need(s).” This is neither moral, nor just. However, the left continues to believe that because they recognize a disparity, they are morally superior enough to correct it themselves. To put it simply, they play God, and fail miserably.

The character Salieri, in 1984’s Amadeus, encounters Mozart’s work and loathes him for his undeniable superior gift. Salieri has status and wealth, but it is not enough. Finally fed up with God’s distribution of talent, he vows to God, “From now, we are enemies… You and I. Because You choose for Your instrument a boastful, lustful, smutty, infantile boy, and give me for reward only to recognize the incarnation. Because You are unjust, unfair, unkind, I will block You, I swear it. I will hinder and harm Your creature as far as I am able. I will ruin Your incarnation.” The left makes the same claims about the wealthy without hesitation or proof. Money, talent, or ethnic origin does not make one evil. Insisting that someone is evil without evidence is to forcibly silence them, and that is what is evil.

Even when given the most free and equal circumstances, it is impossible to predict a level of effort one will exert. One cannot make someone obtain something they do not want for themselves. In the movie, Good Will Hunting, the character Will is a savant with a rebellious streak. He is given the opportunity to greatly succeed without actual merit, and arrogantly blows it for amusement. His best friend, Chuckie, doesn’t understand why he didn’t take it, and tells him, “No. No, no no, no. [Forget] you, you don’t owe it to yourself man, you owe it to me. ‘Cuz tomorrow I’m gonna wake up and I’ll be 50, and I’ll still be doin’ this [stuff]. And that’s all right. That’s fine. I mean, you’re sittin’ on a winnin’ lottery ticket… It’d be an insult to us if you’re still here in 20 years. Hangin’ around here is a […] waste of your time.” (Expletives deleted.)

America’s equal opportunity is based on a free market which is dependent upon voluntary transactions between consenting parties. As long as there is minimal government interference, the results are potentially limitless. Once a government decides they can seize from one in order to aid others who chose to earn less, they have participated in a third-party implementation of immorality.
By: Rosemary Dewar

How the Mighty Fall

9-16-2016-9-21-24-amThe greatest certainty man has attempted to avoid, aside from taxes, is death.Without realizing it, most death kills slowly as a result of self-destructive behavior. When one consistently pursues temporary gratification over long-term discipline, the person perishes little by little with every poor decision. In the movie, The Matrix, the character Mouse states, “To deny our own impulses is to deny the very thing that makes us human.” However, there are natural impulses that ought to be resisted. A culture that yields to and enshrines impulsiveness, instead of restraint, will simply lay waste to its people.

The clearest indication of whether the culture is decaying or thriving is its art. The contrast can be seen in the art of the Dark Ages and the birth of the Renaissance.What a culture hears, watches, speaks, reads, and wears is a gauge for the level at which a society is embracing death. Many times throughout the centuries, there has been a resurgence of the gothic styling of romance, death, gloom, and high tension in art. Most recently, fictional gothic figures have made a prominent reappearance in American culture. Entertainment has made seemingly tempting depictions of vampires, werewolves, witches, zombies, and ghosts. They all give the kiss of betrayal to humanity. Each characterization requires the surrender to harmful impulses that cause the death of man in order to become one of them. Once they are malformed, a blood lust manifests. The rest of man is to become unceremoniously sacrificed to an insatiable being for its hedonism to be sustained.
This is what happens to a culture that feels it is close to the edge of collapse. Society either minimizes the threat, or braces itself for impact. Now, more than ever, one can see society preparing for the apocalypse. Similar to the panic of ‘Y2K’, western culture is sensing doom, but it doesn’t look the same. The crisis is not technological; it is moral. The left indulges the damage caused by nihilistic behavior. The last fifty years of leftist policies have struck at the heart of America’s core: private ownership, capitalism, freedom of religion, preservation of God-given rights, self-determination, and protection from tyranny. A seemingly innocuous bolstering of fascistic regulations with regard toward any one of these American principles ultimately falls prey to socialism, communism, and totalitarianism.


Judeo-Christian philosophy asserts its plea to value and prolong man’s life. Man is commanded to obey the principles that preserve life. Deviation results in discipline by principle. If a culture is permitted to completely disregard its pursuit of meaning, it eventually ceases to exist. The Roman Empire fell due to its overindulgence of pleasure. The fictional film, The Gladiator, conveyed it is this way:

Senator: “I think he [the Emperor] knows what Rome is. Rome is the mob. Conjure magic for them and they’ll be distracted. Take away their freedom and still they’ll roar. The beating heart of Rome is not the marble of the Senate; it’s the sand of the Coliseum. He’ll bring them death – and they will love him for it.”

Other, would-be empires of the 20thcentury were no different. Adolf Hitler wanted to build a master race while simultaneously murdering 11 million people. Joseph Stalin abandoned God to justify the murder of approximately 50 million people. Mao Tse-Tung banned God and murdered 45 million people within 4 years.

Adolf Hitler declared, “I want to raise a generation of young people devoid of a conscience, imperious, relentless, and cruel.” What a heinous notion. It is entirely opposed to what the prophet Micah in the Bible asserts, “He has shown you, oh man, what is good, and what the Lord demands of you; but to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.”


The left continues to think that man will only preserve itself in the face of catastrophe. They fear what they can’t expect of themselves. America’s thriving culture challenges one’s self-satisfaction if it comes at the expense of someone else’s liberty. Once one’s freedom is violated, those in the surrounding culture are affected by a diminished ability to thrive. To demand pleasure at the expense of liberty is a leisurely death of the pursuit of happiness. When a society or a government is willing to deny itself the pleasure of power to keep its citizens free, it will thrive. Should a government become drunk on the power it permits itself, it eventually drinks itself to death.
By: Rosemary Dewar

On These Two Hang All the Law

9-2-2016 1-28-43 PMFreedom is always the answer to a society’s preservation. The foundation upon which one builds that freedom is most essential.

The United States Constitution grants two provisions: the freedom of religious expression, and a means by which to defend it. The establishment of our liberties is based on the adoption of the Judeo-Christian ethic, which can be summed up by the two commandments that Jesus asserts: love God with your whole being, and love your neighbor. On these two, in both the political and religious spheres, hangs the law that allows for the greatest expression of liberty.

9-2-2016 1-28-55 PM

Those who sacrificed for America’s independence from Great Britain were denied the rights that are still denied to many in other countries today. The 1st Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” One’s freedom to express every idea in a civilized way is a beautiful permission.

Such a law given to the individual needs self-defense. The 2nd Amendment says, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” A right not worth defending is in itself worthless.

The Founding Fathers understood what was stolen from them, and would not wish that upon another human being. King George III violated his citizens: he stole their profits, stifled their petitions, and nullified their security. How does one defend itself from a government that continues to violate God-given liberty? If a government restricts a citizen’s right to defend themselves to a level that is easily overcome, a citizen’s freedom to petition the government is no longer tenable. America’s armed opposition to Great Britain was inevitable.

King George III confiscated arms in 1774. Joseph Stalin confiscated guns in 1929. Mao Tse-Tung confiscated guns in 1935. Adolf Hitler confiscated privately owned guns in 1938. Each tyrant either held a twisted or non-existent acknowledgement of God.To assume that any other government, including the United States, would be invulnerable to the same outworking of tyranny is a dangerously naïve miscalculation.

The Founding Fathers chose the Judeo-Christian viewpoint as a foundation for the Constitution even though their individual belief systems were different. Jesus commands the adherence to an absolutely moral God in identity, character, deed, and knowledge. Every aspect of one’s life is to be a testimony of one’s relationship with God. To impede anyone’s observance would have negative social effects. Why? When a government enacts laws to oppose a moral absolute, social stability begins to fail.

Jesus went on to command “…love your neighbor, as you love yourself.” This is a tall order. One’s enjoyment of liberty as well as its protection is to extend past the family unit, and onto one’s neighbor. The Judeo-Christian God is not satisfied solely in being worshiped; the lives He says He has created must also be given due and equal security. If the protection of a right is extended to one while denied to another, the system ceases to be just.

The two commandments Jesus gives are an expansion of the 1st commandant God gives to Moses and the children of Israel. God’s first commandment states, “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.” This is crucial to understand. The Judeo-Christian God is one who delivers out of bondage. Therefore, the exploitation of man is a direct offence against God.

Political philosopher John Locke stated, “The end [result] of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings capable of law, where there is no law, there is no freedom.” A law is not made to limit man, but it is enacted in order to free man from violating himself and others.

Liberty is a mutually beneficial agreement between the law giver, the law follower, and between the law followers. Once justice is violated for one, it is violated for all. Pastor Martin Niemöller, in Nazi Germany, wrote, “…Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”
It is impossible to truly love what one is unwilling to defend.
By: Rosemary Dewar