As a historian and admirer of Grover Cleveland, I have been on the hunt for a modern-day version of the 22^nd and 24^th President, someone with like qualities who could clean up the growing, and seemingly insurmountable, mess in Washington.  I now believe that man is quietly emerging in the state of New Jersey.  Governor Chris Christie, with less than a year in office, is now on the lips of many conservatives who are seeking new leadership for the 2012 presidential race.

Neil Cavuto of Fox News recently asked Governor Christie about a possible White House run, pointing out that Woodrow Wilson became President after serving as governor of New Jersey.

“I’m not Woodrow Wilson,” the governor said.  “I think nobody could confuse me with Woodrow Wilson.”

Conservatives in New Jersey may thank God for that.  Chris Christie is nothing like the progressive Wilson, but he can be compared to another reform governor, the Jeffersonian Grover Cleveland, the only president born in the Garden State.

There are amazing similarities between Cleveland and Christie – both from New Jersey – Cleveland born in Caldwell in 1837, Christie in Newark in 1962; both big, burly men of similar build; both governors – Christie of his home state of New Jersey, Cleveland of his adopted state of New York; both lawyers by trade; both politically conservative; both with combative, confrontational styles; and both with the political courage to say what they believe without fear, to take on powerful, entrenched special interests, and to never back down from a fight.

Before the governorship, Cleveland served as mayor of Buffalo, where he fought mass corruption in city government.  In his lone year in office, he saved the city over a million dollars in frivolous spending, a huge amount of money in 1882.  State Democrats took notice of Mayor Cleveland’s reform efforts, which propelled him to the statehouse in Albany.

Christie served as a U.S. Attorney from 2002 until 2008 and fought corruption in one of the most corrupt of states.  He successfully prosecuted 130 dishonest public officials, of both parties, without losing a single case.  The New Jersey Star Ledger called it an “impressive resume” and Christie was praised across the state, a record of achievement that helped carry him to Trenton.

While governor, Cleveland took on the forces of big government and the entrenched special interests of his day, namely the infamous Tammany Hall political machine in New York City.  To defy Tammany Hall was the surest way to lose one’s political shirt.  Cleveland never hesitated.  And he won.

Christie has also fought big government, taking on one of the most powerful special interest groups in New Jersey, the unions, particularly those supporting teachers.  Rather than capitulate to the unions, Christie has taken them on.  And if he stands his ground, he will win.

As governor, Cleveland vetoed 200 bills in two years, upholding the state’s constitution and protecting taxpayers.  Just as he had done as mayor, Governor Cleveland ended the “business-as-usual” mentality in the New York capital and brought needed change and reform.

Christie has also changed the political culture in Trenton, aggressively wielding the veto pen to kill measures that boosted spending and taxes.  Governor Christie recently vetoed a tax hike on millionaires, the so-called “success tax,” just two minutes after it passed the legislature.  He needed no time to decide what he believed about the issue.  He has consistently defied a state legislature that is insistent on more government and higher taxes.

Both men possess similar styles.  Cleveland was criticized because he was confrontational.  In an age before modern mass media outlets, Cleveland laced his veto messages with hard-hitting, and often sarcastic, commentary directed at legislators.  He was not afraid to say who he was and what he believed.

Neither is Christie.  Like Cleveland, Christie has taken heat for his “confrontational tone.”  But he will not back down, stating his positions “directly, straightly, bluntly,” as he said in a recent press conference, “and nobody in New Jersey is gonna have to wonder where I am on an issue.”

Both also expressed a similar reluctance to be considered for President of the United States.  Unlike Governor Woodrow Wilson, who earnestly desired the presidency and pursued it in 1912, Cleveland and Christie shunned the White House.

“I have but one ambition,” Governor Cleveland said in 1884, “and that is to make a good governor and do something for the people of the State.”  He wanted to be governor of New York and an “offer of a second term will satisfy any wish I can possibly entertain, at all related to political life.”

Christie’s reluctance is nearly identical to Cleveland’s.  “I want to be governor of New Jersey.  I ran for governor of New Jersey.  I want to do this job for as long as the people want me to do it,” he told Neil Cavuto.  “I am ready to do the best job I can for the people of this state.  I want to serve the people of the state where I was born and raised,” he continued.  “You have to be really in your gut, and in your heart, ready to be President of the United States if you decide to run for that. And I simply do not have the desire to do it, nor do I think I’m ready,”

Such disinclination might depress some conservatives, but this is precisely the kind of person we need in a President, one who does not earnestly seek the job, exactly the way the Founders desired it.  In Grover Cleveland’s day, it was very unfashionable to pursue the presidency.  To desire it meant you had only mischief in mind.  The office should seek the man.  Not the other way around.

Democrats drafted Cleveland to run for the White House in 1884, after only one and a half years as governor, and he acquiesced.  The nation needed him, he was told.

Cleveland did not actively seek the nomination at the national convention but would accept it if it came his way.  “Every consideration which presents itself to me tends to the personal wish on my part that the wisdom of the Democratic Party in the coming convention may lead to a result not involving my nomination for the Presidency,” he wrote a friend.  “If, however, it should be otherwise and I should be selected as the nominee, my sense of duty to the people of my party would dictate my submission to the will of the convention.”

The result was a two-term presidency that greatly benefited the nation.  President Cleveland brought needed reforms to Washington, serving as the last Jeffersonian president.  He stopped lavish spending, cut taxes, protected the Treasury’s surplus, maintained the gold standard, fought inflation, resisted big government solutions to a financial panic by employing laissez faire policies, helped saved the West from exploitation, and held firm against the growing imperialist tide then rising across the country.  Grover Cleveland accepted the call and served the American people well.

For the good of the nation, let’s hope Governor Chris Christie will do likewise.

In the Age of Obama, America is becoming polarized. The “Anointed One” promised the country that he could bring us all together, but now it seems he is tearing the nation apart.

During the course of U.S. political history, Americans were polarized in a handful of instances, most notably in the 1850s, just before the War Between the States.

Abraham Lincoln warned of this just three years before the war. On June 16, 1858, upon receiving the GOP nomination for a United States Senate seat in Illinois, Lincoln gave his famous “House Divided” speech to the Republican state convention in Springfield.

Quoting the words of Jesus, Lincoln proclaimed “‘A house divided against itself cannot stand.’ I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.”

Obama campaigned on a similar theme and on the night he won the presidency spoke of a new direction in American politics:

“Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long. Let us remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House – a party founded on the values of self-reliance, individual liberty, and national unity. Those are values we all share, and while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress. As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, ‘We are not enemies, but friends…though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection.’ And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn – I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your President too.”

But we now find ourselves not united but as divided as ever. There is little evidence that Obama is attempting be fulfill his lofty campaign rhetoric. He has become a divider, not a uniter.

No president this early in a term has seen the kind of popular uprising that has emerged with the Tea Party movement. Obama has exhibited a total disregard for Republicans and like-minded citizens. He has rammed unpopular legislation through Congress even as polls indicated the nation is against his agenda.

And Democrats are becoming more and more frantic these days to get the attention off their power-grabbing programs and onto something else.

They fear the Tea Party movement and desperately want to destroy it, namely by demonizing it as racist. The media are complicit in the leftwing smear campaign. Major outlets have stated that the underlying motive in the healthcare debate is racism. The Baltimore Examiner even compared the Tea Party movement to a “Klan Rally.”

Supposedly, Tea Party members hurled racist and hate-filled epithets at members of Congress. Supposedly, Tea Party members spat on members of Congress. However, capitol police officers were standing in close proximity to these congressmen and never made any moves toward the Tea Party members.

But, rather than bringing us all together, and speaking out against the race-baiting media, as well as those in his own party who are desperately fanning the flames, Obama has yet to address the issue.

By the end of the Obama presidency, America will be more divided than it has been in decades and race relations will be set back 30 years.

A recent Rasmussen poll showed Obama with a disapproval rating of 51 percent, while 48 percent approved of his job as president. The striking number in this poll was that 99 percent had an opinion one way or the other, instead of the usual 8, 9, or 10 percent who don’t know.

Our House is becoming Divided. But which way will we go?

With the healthcare debate over, and a brand new healthcare law on the books, Republicans stood in complete unison against the liberal assault on the free market. Not one single GOP member of Congress supported the final bill or the reconciliation “fix its” that came afterward. Democrats have been quick to pounce on Republican “obstruction” but the GOP should maintain their stiff resistance and “just say no” when it comes to liberal ideas.

Since losing control of the government, Republicans have been sensitive to charges that they represent nothing more than a ‘party of no.’ But during the furious debate, they unveiled a healthcare proposal of their own. The plan has its merits. Running just 230 pages, as opposed to the 2,200 page monstrosity produced by House Democrats, it relied on the free market rather than government to fix a flawed system. It included tort reforms and, most importantly, allowed health insurance to be sold across state lines, thereby putting an end to state monopolies. In addition, several incentives were built-in to encourage Americans to open healthcare savings accounts, as well as to encourage states to lower health insurance premiums.

If nothing else, the proposal demonstrated the stark contrast between conservative and liberal ideas on healthcare, giving the people a true choice. But Republicans are under no obligation to propose a healthcare bill or any other issue for that matter.

For starters, the GOP does not control either house of Congress or the presidency, so its under no pressure to produce anything. Democrats wanted both a congressional majority and the White House, and voters gave it to them, so its up to them to produce legislation and govern the country, not Republicans.

Democrat complaints would be like a football coach asking his counterpart on the opposing team to suggest plays to run.

A similar situation occurred in the 1890s. The major policy issue was the tariff. Grover Cleveland, a Democrat when Democrats were cool, attempted to lower tariffs during his first term, but his tariff bill was defeated in the Senate and he lost his bid for re-election in 1888. The new president, Benjamin Harrison, and the Republican-controlled Congress, were having trouble passing legislation. Democrats suggested proposing a tariff bill similar to one that was defeated during Cleveland’s administration but the former president had different advice.

Seeing the Republicans “getting deeper and deeper into the mire,” he wrote Congressman John Carlisle, “our policy should be to let them flounder.”

“A bill presented by us,” the former president continued, “will give the enemy what I should think they would want: an opportunity to attack some other measure instead of defending their own. In this way they can shift ground and throw more dirt in the eyes of the people.” And even if a good bill were drafted, “nothing really good coming from our side would go through.” So why bother.

Democrats took the former president’s advice and stayed out of the policy debate. Republicans eventually passed several far-reaching pieces of legislation during that session – higher tariffs, the nation’s first antitrust act, and a bill to increase the money supply, which led to inflation. They even tried to place local elections under federal supervision but failed. As a result of the overreach, Americans reacted angrily and Democrats, the ‘party of no,’ regained the House and Senate in the 1890 mid-terms. Two years later in 1892, Cleveland regained the presidency.

History has shown, such tactics can work in the short-term. Remember, Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, and then increased their majorities in both houses while gaining the presidency in 2008, and never did have a positive program for success. They simply ran against George W. Bush and the Republican party. As Sarah Palin exclaimed recently, while campaigning for John McCain, Republicans should not be a party of no, but a “party of hell no!”

When history does not suit the Liberal agenda, the Left will always follow the same strategy – they rewrite it. Whether its delusional thinking on their part or simply a belief that the majority of Americans are ignorant, politicians love to give us their version of history to solidify their questionable and unconstitutional policies.

President Obama’s address to Congress this week did just that. The president told the nation that he rejected the view “that says our problems will simply take care of themselves, that says government has no role in laying the foundation for our common prosperity. For history tells a different story. History reminds us that at every moment of economic upheaval and transformation, this nation has responded with bold action and big ideas.”

This is an unbelievably false statement with no basis in reality. In fact, history tells us just the opposite. Unless you mean “bold” tax cuts and “big” spending reductions, the use of “Bold action and big ideas” to counter an economic depression did not begin until FDR’s New Deal.

“Bold actions and big ideas” have been used to treat the symptoms of every economic recession since the 1930s and the results always end up the same, more economic misery and stagnation. Our greatest periods of economic growth and activity have always come when the government lessened its role in the economy.

Throughout the 19^th and early 20^th centuries, the United States faced economic depressions, called “panics” in those days, in approximate 20-year intervals – 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893, 1907, and finally the big one in 1929.

And until 1929, Washington stayed out of the economy and let the free market regulate and correct itself. Bad loans made in ignorance or greed were simply lost. If bankers mismanaged their institutions, they paid the price, and that price was being out of business. There were no government bailouts to cover mistakes and stupidity. But they knew that going in.

Capitalism is a brutal, cutthroat system, and most liberals refuse to understand it. To be successful, you must be smart, innovative, efficient, hardworking, or otherwise you will lose your shirt. Capitalism is a system for winners and achievers, a system whose rewards are great if you put forth the effort. On the other hand, socialism, to be blunt, is a system for losers. Socialism rewards the slothful, the ignorant, and those with no ideas or initiative. It rewards, to those who do nothing, handouts from the government off the backs of someone else’s hard work. It has never been the American way.

Early Americans understood this perfectly and did not look to government to close the gap between achievers and non-achievers. America was an idea, a place where you were free to pursue your own happiness, so long as you did not infringe on the rights of others. Every American has a right to pursue happiness; no one has any right to demand it.

During the early economic downturns, the federal government reacted with these ideals in mind.

President Martin Van Buren responded to the Panic of 1837 by cutting taxes and reducing government. In his annual message to Congress that year, he reminded the members that the founders “wisely judged that the less government interferes with private pursuits the better for the general prosperity.” He also began the effort to totally separate the government from banks, rather the opposite approach we have chosen today. As a result, the panic did not last nearly as long as it could have.

In 1893 another severe depression struck the nation, which many historians and economists contend was every bit as strong as the 1930s. Unemployment hit 20 percent, 16,000 businesses closed, 150 railroads went into receivership, and 600 banks went out of business. President Cleveland responded with a laissez faire approach that lessened its effects, refusing to use government programs to intervene. As a result, the depression was over quickly and did not last nearly as long as the Great Depression, though it was nearly as bad in many ways. The nation’s GNP stood at $13.3 billion in 1893 and by 1894 had dropped to $12 billion. However, by 1896 the nation had nearly regained all losses, and by the next year, 1897, had surpassed its 1893 level.

Obama went on to list the “bold action and big ideas” we supposedly embarked on in times of economic trouble. “In the midst of civil war,” he said, “we laid railroad tracks from one coast to another that spurred commerce and industry.”

Actually, this took place after the war. The vast majority of railroad track in existence in the United States was laid during the late 19^th century.

Railroad corporations were the quintessential “big business” of its day, the Wal-Mart, Microsoft, and Enron of the late 19^th century. They were the beneficiaries of large government subsidies but were also unbelievably corrupt and inefficient. Of the five transcontinental railroads built during that time period, only one did not end up in bankruptcy, and that was James J. Hill’s Great Northern, which operated free of government handouts. It was also the most efficient and the least expensive of the five.

And though it is true that the railroads helped spur the explosive economic growth of that time period, it was also an era of unfettered capitalism. There were almost no regulations or taxes on businesses that would hamper growth. It was this laissez faire approach, and not government aid, that caused the great economic boom of the late 19^th century.

The United States went from being a second-rate economy to the greatest on earth, leading the world in manufacturing, mining, commerce, and agriculture by 1900. Deriving revenue from tariffs and excise taxes was sufficient enough for the federal government to run a budget surplus every year from 1866 to 1893, the year of the economic panic. Though this has been lost on the Left.

“In each case,” President Obama continued, “government didn’t supplant private enterprise, it catalyzed private enterprise. It created the conditions for thousands of entrepreneurs and new businesses to adapt and to thrive.” Yes, Mr. President, the government can be a catalyst, but not with government action. The catalyst early Americans used was government inaction. The more the government stayed out of the free enterprise system, the more prosperous the nation would become. Let individuals pursue their own dreams and the whole of society will benefit.

But Obama and the Democrats do not believe in any economic policies based on laissez faire capitalism. Obamanomics holds, as does its twin brother Keynesianism, that government can stimulate economic growth with spending programs, particularly deficit spending. The catalyst Obama refers to is a massive infusion of cash into the economy through spending, a recipe that has never worked and if used too much will most certainly bring on massive inflation.

During the severe recession of 1919-1920, a downturn that could have very easily plunged the country into a depression, if it wasn’t one already, President Harding and his treasury secretary, Andrew Mellon, responded by massively cutting both taxes and spending, rather than using a government “catalyst” of new programs. The top tax rate under Woodrow Wilson stood at 70 percent, but Harding cut it to 25. The federal budget also saw a cut of 40 percent. We can’t even get a cut of one percent today.

The Harding administration also reduced immigration to cut down on the number of workers available for the fewer jobs available in the market. The result was the greatest economic boom in peacetime in American history. British historian Paul Johnson notes that Harding’s response was “the last time a major industrial power treated a recession by classic laissez-faire methods.”

“Now is the time to act boldly and wisely – to not only revive this economy, but to build a new foundation for lasting prosperity.”

And finally, Mr. President, we need no “new foundation.” The old one worked just fine, as long as it was adhered to. Americans are the smartest, most innovative, creative, and hardworking people in the world. Yes, we can do it, but without government help. Earlier Americans created the greatest engine of economic growth in the history of the planet, all from a frontier wilderness without any help from government. When American know-how is unleashed, so too will be a revival of the American economy.

In one of the unique facts of history, two of the most influential men in world history, Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin, were born on the same day, February 12, 1809. Last week marked their 200th anniversary, to which Lincoln has stolen most of the show, but Darwin should have received his due, as Darwinism continues to exact an enormous amount of influence in the world, particularly when the Left needs a club to bash Christianity.

Make no mistake, Darwinism is the Left’s baby. To a liberal it’s akin to religious dogma and must be taught in public schools. But Christians must wage an all-out fight, including court action, to teach creationism. The Left does not even want public school students to be free thinkers and decide the matter for themselves, after having been presented both sides of the argument fair and equally.

Yet, when it comes to other issues, such as global warming, the environment, and public welfare, liberals conveniently leave out Darwin altogether, seeking to separate them from Darwinism, as if it were distinct from what he intended. This is usually referred to as Social Darwinism – the application of Darwin’s theories to other areas of society.

But, despite the Left’s propaganda campaign, the two are actually one and the same. They attempt to propagate the lie that only a handful of heartless monsters twisted Darwin’s theories to suit their own evil desires. It’s just another example of liberal hypocrisy.

For example, it is often remarked, especially in the world of academia, that Darwin was not talking about humans in his book, On the Origins of Species. This fact is true but human beings were implied if you consider the subtitle of the book – By Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Most professors never bother to point out this brutal subtitle. I found it out on my own when examining an older copy of the book. Newer reprints often do not include the subtitle at all!

Liberal scholars also conveniently forget that Darwin wrote a second book, The Descent of Man (1871), where mankind was the subject.

And if you think Darwin did not apply any of his theories to humans, consider this gem from The Descent of Man:

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.”

Hitler could not have said it better. He was a passionate believer in Darwinism and survival of the fittest. The whole of Nazi philosophy was centered on natural selection. But most of the geniuses constituting the Left do not realize this (or maybe they do but think we are so stupid not to ever find out). These crazies drive around in their cars with the ridiculous Darwin stickers and magnets on the back for all to see, but it might as well be a swastika.

Another of the Left’s icons, Friedrich Nietzsche, of “God is dead” fame, who was also a Darwinist, wrote that should we “preserve all that was sick and that suffered” then we would “worsen the European race.”

Liberals conveniently forget about these gems.

The Left also dumps Darwin when it comes to issues like the promotion of big business and welfare programs. Applying Darwinism to economics would allow for monopolies and prevent any public assistance to the needy, to which Darwin would have approved.

A British philosopher named Herbert Spencer applied Darwin’s theory to the business world, arguing that the brightest, the most energetic, and the most imaginative business tycoons would survive the brutal rigors of capitalism and the weak would fail and end up in bankruptcy. The strong businesses would become stronger, and as a result, the whole of society benefited. This philosophy found wide acceptance among the wealthy tycoons in late 19th century America, as it seemed to justify what they were doing and how they had arrived at such a high station in life.

A Yale professor, William Graham Sumner, wrote about this philosophy in a 1902 essay entitled “The Concentration of Wealth: Its Economic Justification”:

“What matters it then that some millionaires are idle, or silly, or vulgar, that their ideas are sometimes futile, and their plans grotesque, when they turn aside from money-making? How do they differ in this from any other class? The millionaires are a product of natural selection, acting on the whole body of men, to pick out those who can meet the requirement of certain work to be done. They get high wages and live in luxury, but the bargain is a good one for society.”

Poverty and slums, then, were the unfortunate consequences of this competitive struggle but poverty should only be temporary. Only the slothful, lazy, ignorant, unfit, and defective people would not rise from poverty and the state should not intervene to alleviate or attempt to eliminate poverty because that would negate the good effect of natural selection, where the strong survive and the weak perish. Nature’s process must be allowed to run its course.

During the late 18th century, Europeans were worried that a massive population surge over the previous 100 years could have devastating consequences, namely that there would not be enough food to feed everyone. An economic philosopher, Thomas Malthus, came up with one possible solution in a 1798 pamphlet entitled “Essay on Population.” Malthus believed that the population would grow too quickly for the earth to supply enough food and mass starvation would be the result.

Therefore, the government should not attempt to relieve the condition of the lower classes by increasing their incomes or improving agricultural productivity, as the extra means of subsistence would be completely absorbed by an induced boost in population.  As long as this tendency remained, Malthus argued, the “perfectibility” of society will always be out of reach.  And perfectibility, or Utopia, has always been the ultimate goal of socialists.

But in the 1840’s, it looked as though Malthus might be right, as Ireland experienced a potato famine beginning in the fall of 1845. Ireland had experienced food shortages before, usually lasting a few months, but never anything like this. It came to be known as the “Great Hunger” and lasted until 1849. One million Irish fled to the United States during the famine, while another million emigrated over the next few decades. Records are not available but it is widely believed that anywhere from 500,000 to 2,000,000 died in the famine. Although the British government instituted some assistance programs, for the most part it did nothing to help, believing in the validity of Malthus’ theory, as well as that of Darwin.

During the same time period, the economist David Ricardo, applying Darwin to economics, maintained that the wages of laborers should be kept at the lowest possible level because their high rate of reproduction ensured a surplus supply of labor. In other words, wages should be kept low and government should not set any type of minimum wage.

Ricardo also advocated a restriction of the so-called “Poor Laws.” These had originally been passed by the British Parliament in the early nineteenth century to bring relief to the poorer classes in British society.

But in our modern era, to advocate anything like Darwinism regarding liberal issues would essentially destroy your career.

In 2007, Dr. James Watson, the 79-year-old co-winner of the 1962 Nobel Prize for medicine, saw his tenure canceled at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island, where he taught for four decades, as well as a book tour promoting his latest work. The prestigious Science Museum in London canceled a scheduled lecture, all for a remark that was pale in comparison to anything the Brit Darwin ever said.

Dr. Watson told The Sunday Times in October 2007 that he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really.” He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true.”

His views are also reflected in his newest book Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science, in which he writes: “There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.”

Hadn’t Darwin reasoned much the same way, that there are races that have not been able to measure up to others? This is not to accuse Dr. Watson of being a Darwinist or even a racist, for I don’t believe he is one. He is only drawing conclusions from the scientific data, as was Darwin.

So why is Darwin a God of the Left but Watson a child of the devil?

In today’s society, the slightest instance, the tiniest utterance, however innocent it might be, if directed toward a protected group can lead to being branded a racist, the 21st century equivalent of a Scarlet Letter, which can ruin any career in any field. Ask Dr. Watson, ask Trent Lott, if you think it not so. Though neither can be considered racist, Darwin was every bit as racist as the most vile among us.

The Left invokes Darwin when it is useful, such as bashing creationism and Christianity in general, but conveniently puts him in the closet when it does not suit their immediate political needs in regards to other issues, like promoting victim-hood.

Darwinism is incompatible with Christianity. You cannot be a Darwinian Christian, for Jesus is the very antithesis of Darwin, teaching to help the poor, the weak, and the sick, though I don’t think he meant for the government to do it, only his Church.

So either you are a Darwinist or you are not. Either you believe all men are created equal, as Christ did, or you believe that they are not, as Darwin clearly did. We must either use Darwinism in all its sick and twisted ways, or we place him where he truly belongs, on the ash heap of history.

“If a Nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be,” wrote Thomas Jefferson in 1816. “The functionaries of every government have propensities to command at will the liberty and property of their constituents. There is no safe deposit for these but with the people themselves; nor can they be safe with them without information. Where the press is free, and every man able to read, all is safe.”

Jefferson lived in a time when the world was progressing in knowledge and ideas, the Age of Enlightenment. He understood, as well as anyone, the benefits of education and the desire to gain knowledge. These valuable traits were among the most important aspects needed to protect one’s liberty from government encroachment. Prior to this age, however, governments were tyrannical and held on to absolute power by keeping the people mired in ignorance. If the people did not know what was going on, then it was much easier to control them.

America, by contrast, erected a barrier between government and the press, protecting the people’s ability to spread and acquire knowledge. With no television or radio to occupy their time, most early Americans were voluminous readers, devouring newspapers and other periodicals, as well as books on history, government, and economics. Armed with facts, they could keep a close eye on what transpired in Washington.

Now, sadly, we seem to be regressing, hooked on television sitcoms, reality shows, video games, and the internet, rather than reading, learning, and gaining wisdom. And this lack of knowledge is killing our country.

The Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) has conducted a major study on the knowledge of history, civics, and economics among various groups of the American populace. The results have been staggering, that is staggeringly bad. The institute crafted a simple multiple choice exam to be given to three segments – a random sampling of American citizens, college freshmen and seniors, and elected officials. The results have been published in a new report entitled “Our Fading Heritage.”

Of the two college groups, freshmen and seniors, no score was higher than 54 percent, a failing grade. The general public group scored just 49 percent and elected officials tallied the lowest of all at 44 percent. Just 0.8 percent of elected officials scored an “A” on this simple test. Somehow that shouldn’t surprise anyone!

And its not as if these questions are difficult. Here are a couple:

What are the three branches of government?

A. Executive, Legislative, Judicial

B. Executive, Legislative, Military

C. Bureaucratic, Military, Industry

D. Federal, State, Local

Less than half of the general public and only 36 percent of college graduates could correctly answer this basic question – executive, legislative, judicial – which is required on citizenship exams.

The United States Electoral College:

A. trains those aspiring to higher political office

B. was established to supervise the first televised presidential debates

C. is otherwise known as the U.S. Congress

D. is a constitutionally mandated assembly that elects the president

E. was ruled undemocratic by the Supreme Court

The obvious answer is “D” but amazingly 20 percent of elected officials answered “B”!

In the general public survey, only 21 percent knew the phrase “of the people, by the people, and for the people” was taken from Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, but over twice as many, 56 percent, knew Paula Abdul was a judge on American Idol! Only 53 percent knew the power to declare war resides with Congress and 40 percent thought the power to declare war was a presidential authority. This is the obvious result of the Iraq War.

Amazingly, most Americans still do not realize that the phrase “separation of church and state” is not in the Constitution’s First Amendment. In the ISI survey less than one in five knew the phrase came from a letter by Thomas Jefferson, while almost half believed it was in the Constitution. It would probably surprise many to learn that it can be found in the old Soviet constitution but not ours!

Of college graduates, 52 percent believed the phrase “separation of church and state” could be found in the Constitution while just 26 percent knew it came from a Jefferson letter; only 33 percent knew that the First Amendment prohibited the establishment of an official religion; 18 percent could not name a single First Amendment right; 32 percent thought the president could declare war; and only 24 percent knew the main issue of the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates was the expansion of slavery into the federal territories. And speaking of Lincoln, only 24 percent knew that his phrase “of the people, by the people, and for the people” came from the Gettysburg Address.

And on this last point, I don’t know why we should be surprised at this finding. You might recall that Bill Clinton apparently didn’t know it while campaigning for re-election in 1996. He incorrectly said it could be found in both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

The chairman of the ISI’s National Civic Literacy Board, Josiah Bunting, said of the findings, “There is an epidemic of economic, political, and historical ignorance in our country. It is disturbing enough that the general public failed ISI’s civic literacy test, but when you consider the even more dismal scores of elected officials, you have to be concerned. How can political leaders make informed decisions if they don’t understand the American experience?”

The report finds that most of this ignorance can be traced to television. More and more Americans have their heads stuck in the television while fewer and fewer are reading. Even the TV news networks have not aided this problem. This attachment to television, according to ISI, “dumbs America down.”

But how can this trend be reversed? According to Bunting, “Colleges can, and should, play an important role in curing this national epidemic of ignorance.” But they don’t and probably won’t. Our education system has been politically dumbed down and is held captive to political correctness. And its becoming harder and harder for conservative professors to even get job interviews, let alone be hired in many major universities.

The vast majority of colleges and universities don’t require American history, government, or a basic economics class any longer. In regards to history, most institutions are now requiring world civilization survey courses, where the students get a sampling of all the world has to offer. With very few exceptions, U.S. history has been dropped as a core requirement.

In addition, rather than learning that America is an exceptional place with a positive history, college students are more likely to be instructed on the “crimes” America has committed and the cultural equality of all the world’s civilizations. Professors theorize and philosophize in history courses on what should have been rather than on the facts of American history and government. Students are not taught facts so its no surprise when they don’t know any facts.

Though this study may be just mere statistics to many, I have personal experience of this lack of knowledge among college students. In the summer of 2007 I taught a world history survey course at a university and I asked my class to tell me when the American Civil War was fought. Not one single student, among the 60 in the class, could tell me the correct answer, and the few that tried were not even close. One young lady said the 1960s, while another thought perhaps the 1930s. The most cataclysmic event in American history, one that changed the nature of the Union and the country forever, not to mention resulted in the deaths of more than 600,000 Americans, and not one single citizen in that classroom could tell me when it occurred. That’s tragic.

A dearth of knowledge of the Constitution is also prevalent in our society, as the survey indicated. The Constitution is the American Political Bible, and if we won’t read it, won’t study it, and do not understand the history behind it, we risk residing in a political hell. Couple that with elected officials who don’t know anything about our history of freedom and capitalism, and its little wonder we are in serious trouble today.

Either we listen to our Founders and gain knowledge about our great country so we can better protect it while basking in the sunshine of freedom, or fall into the darkness of ignorance and the totalitarianism that goes with it. The choice is ours.

“It is the season to compare Barack Obama to Abraham Lincoln,” they write. “Two thin men from rude beginnings, relatively new to Washington but wise to the world, bring the nation together to face a crisis. Both are superb rhetoricians, both geniuses at stagecraft and timing. Obama, like Lincoln and unlike most modern politicians, even writes his own speeches.”

And, seemingly, Obama is not lost on any comparisons to Lincoln and has sought to use the 16^th President as much as possible.

Obama, it must be remembered, quoted from Lincoln’s inaugural address in his victory speech on that historic Tuesday evening in Grant Park: “We are not enemies but friends … Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection.” But, as the authors point out, this famous line was not in Lincoln’s original draft but was put there later by advisors who thought it best to be conciliatory toward the South. Lincoln’s draft was much more belligerent. So his speech did not reflect his true mindset.

The theme for Obama’s inauguration is also from Lincoln, “A New Birth of Freedom,” taken from the Gettysburg Address. But if Lincoln’s example is any indication of Obama’s course, then Republicans, as well as most of the rest of us, had better run for cover.

One of Obama’s favorite books is Doris Kearns Goodwin’s work on Lincoln and his cabinet, Team of Rivals, which Obama has said will help guide his administration. Lincoln’s cabinet consisted of the smartest and most able the Republican Party had to offer. His secretary of state, William H. Seward, was his chief rival for the nomination for president, and others, like treasury secretary Samuel P. Chase, were influential in the Senate. It was no secret that these gentlemen possessed more intelligence, experience, and ability than Lincoln, and many thought they could handle the duties of president better than their boss. Obama seems to be stacking his administration with former Clinton aides, and perhaps even Hillary herself, as Secretary of State. So much for “change we can believe in.”

There were a few prominent Democrats in Lincoln’s administration, like Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton, but any Democrat who strayed too far from the war policy of the government quickly found himself in more than hot water. Clement L. Vallandigham, who served in the U.S. House until 1863 and was in the midst of a campaign for governor of Ohio, heavily criticized “King Lincoln” and his war policy, particularly the draft. A leader of the peace Democrats known as “Copperheads,” Vallandigham committed the unpardonable sin of believing the South had a right to secede and the Confederacy had a right to exist as an independent nation. To conquer it militarily would be, in his eyes, unconstitutional. For this great crime, he was arrested in the dead of night by U.S. military forces and placed on trial before a military commission, where he was found guilty and sentenced to prison. He would later be banished to the Confederacy by Lincoln in lieu of a prison term.

Yet this was no isolated incident. Many opponents of Lincoln were imprisoned without charges or trial. Historian Mark Neely estimates that some 14,000 Northern citizens were rounded up and sent to prison during the war. In addition, any newspaper that criticized the government was shutdown. Hundreds were closed by military force during the course of the war. Lincoln did not tolerate dissent. And liberals think George W. Bush is bad.

The state of Maryland was overrun by Union forces. The mayor, police chief, and several city council members from Baltimore were arrested, along with secession-leaning members of the Maryland state legislature, to prevent that state from joining the Confederacy, which it was likely to do. Lincoln then had new elections held in the state and rigged them, with military force, to insure a Unionist government.

Most importantly, let us not forget that Lincoln destroyed the basic concept of self-determination of peoples, the bedrock of the Declaration of Independence, by waging a war against sovereign states. The war changed the entire concept of the Union. No longer would it be a voluntary association of free states but a consolidated government where the states became mere provinces. Lincoln “reinvented” the Union whereby he argued, quite amazingly, that the states were created by the federal government. Incidentally, Adolf Hitler, using the “American Union” as an example, took the same position in Mein Kampf, using it to consolidate Germany once he gained power.

And “Honest” Abe had the audacity to proclaim a “new birth of freedom” at Gettysburg.

But would President Obama’s “new birth of freedom” be any different? He might not throw conservatives in jail but he could institute the Fairness Doctrine and silence our dissent by law. Only time will tell.

Though we can’t really say that Obama would act in any manner reflecting the “Real Lincoln,” since we face no crisis of that magnitude, but by taking into consideration his radical associations, his questionable past, and his extremist views and voting record, who can be sure exactly what the man will do, given the fact that no one really knows that much about him. No one really knew that much about Lincoln either and many found out the hard way that his rhetoric about humility and conciliation did not match his actions.

So when politicians, of either party, compare themselves to Abraham Lincoln, instead of seeing a brighter day, it might be wiser to prepare for the approaching storm.

Now that the dust has settled and we have elected a new president, the GOP must figure out how to re-build itself after a second electoral disaster. 

Where does the Republican Party go from here?  And most importantly, what does the future hold for the conservative movement?

I believe one of two things will happen to the party – either it will move even further to the center and left, and embrace more neo-conservatism and outright liberalism because it thinks the country is at that point, or it will dump its current leadership and embrace the conservatism of Reagan, thereby giving voters a true choice.

Democrats have now united under the banner of extreme leftism; Republicans must unite under the banner of true conservatism.

Consider what has happened to the Republican Party since its historic takeover of Congress in 1994, an electoral triumph of true conservatism.  The party was able to maintain its hold on Congress throughout the remainder of the Clinton presidency by staying true to its principles, then continued control of both chambers and the White House with the election of George W. Bush in 2000.  This hold remained through the 2004 election, when the GOP reached its zenith with 232 House members and 55 Senators. 

During this era of Republican rule, the Democratic Party was on the ropes.  Members were switching parties, they had no strong candidates with a coherent message to speak of, and the party seemed to be loosing its grip and its hope of ever regaining the White House or Congress.  Even many state and local races seemed hopeless.  The GOP dominated in governor’s mansions and state houses.

Oh what a difference a few years, and many bad policies, has made. 

Republicans, under Bush, outspend Democrats and expanded government far beyond anything liberals could have ever hoped to do.  The national debt doubled and Washington grew by 40 percent in just six years.  Voters reacted and now the party finds itself in a worse situation than did Democrats just four years ago.  Many members are dejected and gloomy, candidates have been horrid, and the message has been lost, forgotten, or abandoned.

Yet now is not the time to panic.  There can be a silver lining to this political shipwreck.  The McCain-Bush neoconservative wing of the party has been permanently damaged and should never rise again.  This election was a complete repudiation of those discredited policies – rampant and out-of-control spending, huge deficits, free trade, and wars without end.

I have taken the liberty to list a few items which I think will help bring about the revival of the party and the conservative movement:

1)  Oust the Leadership – This perhaps is the most important step.  If the leadership in the House, Senate, and national party hierarchy are not thrown out, then any meaningful reform is moot.  McConnell, Boehner, and the leaders of the national party have failed and need to go in favor of new, young, and conservative, leaders who can take the party in a new direction.  Paul Ryan and Mike Pence come to mind in the House, as well as Tom Coburn in the Senate.  Moderate-to-Liberal Republicans, Rhinos, and “Obamacans” should all be ousted as well. 

We should follow the example of the Whig Party in dealing with President John Tyler, who assumed office with the death of William Henry Harrison in 1841.  Tyler, a states’ rights advocate placed on the ticket to attract Southern votes, betrayed key Whig principles, thereby provoking party anger.  In 1842 a mass meeting was held in Washington, led by Henry Clay, whereby President Tyler was literally read out of the party.

2)  Craft a New Message – Any new message should be based on old conservative principles – limited government, states’ rights, low taxes, balanced budgets, no public debt, sound money, strong military defense, non-interventionist foreign policy, and fair trade.  Recently emerging reformist conservative ideas, like “heroic conservatism” and the like should be rejected.  Reformers like David Frum and David Brooks seek to make the GOP more like the Democratic Party, but we just lost an election trying that.  To advance in the future we must look to the past.

3)  Rebuild the Party from the Grassroots – A complete overhaul will not be successful simply by making a few changes at the top; the bottom is just as important.  New, young leaders need to rise up in local and state party organizations and vigorously promote the message and recruit candidates.  College Republican groups across the country need to recruit new leaders and work to promote the party and its true ideals among the younger generations.  The people need to be able to trust the “Republican” brand again.

These changes, as well as a newfound respect and promotion of our Founding principles, will revive the Republican Party like nothing else can.  We must offer the nation a true choice, either in the GOP or out of it, or face decades out of power.