The Democrats’ War on Babies


After years in the political closet, the abortion debate is back in full swing, as Texas passed a restriction on abortion before the 20th week of pregnancy.  The “pro-choice” crowd staged their usual vile protests, complete with used tampons and jars of feces and urine to hurl at pro-life legislators all while shouting “Hail Satan” in the halls of the statehouse.  Such lovely people.

Proponents of life were accused of the usual litany of lies from the Left, opposition to women’s health being the most prominent accusation.  In 2012, the Democrats said the Republicans were waging a war on women, an attack strategy that obviously paid dividends in the end. Hillary Clinton, poised to succeed Obama in 2016, is already ramping up the same rhetoric, claiming that “the clock is turning back” on women in America.

But as with most everything that comes out of the mouth of leftists, there is very little evidence to back their claim, a usual Democratic tactic, the McCarthyites they are.  But one thing is for sure, it is liberals who have engaged in a war on women, and more specifically, a war on babies. Continue reading

The Problem with Gun Control


“Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.”  So said Plato, some 400 years before the birth of Christ.  It is wisdom we should pay close attention to, for it seems that the latest mass shooting in Connecticut will lead to a major federal gun grab.

A new proposal initiated by Senator Dianne Feinstein will be the most wide-ranging gun ban in American history.  It will outlaw 120 types of weapons, including some handguns, and will require gun owners to be fingerprinted and their guns registered with the ATF.  The feds will also be able to determine who can have guns and who can’t, a “no buy” list similar to the TSA’s “no fly” list.  Private gun sales between individuals and a ban on gun shows are also in the works. Continue reading

It’s Time for the States to Strike Back


During his tenure as president, George Washington visited the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. When asked if he would call upon the new chief executive, Governor John Hancock is reputed to have said, “I am the highest ranking public official in the state and he should call on me.”  The humble Washington did so.

Today, every time a president visits a state, we are treated to the pathetic scene of the governor and various state and local public officials waiting on the tarmac for the “King” to emerge from his state-of-the-art aircraft. Sadly, the states have willingly become subservient provinces.  This is not they way it was intended to be. Continue reading

The Truth About Wealth Re-Distribution


A recurring theme throughout this campaign season has been the distribution of the nation’s wealth, stirred by President Obama and the Occupy movement.  A new phrase has entered the American political lexicon:  the 99 percent versus 1 percent.

Mitt Romney stirred up the political waters recently with remarks about wealth distribution and government dependency.

“There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what,” he told supporters at a private fundraiser.  “All right, there are 47% who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it.  [They believe] that’s an entitlement.  And the government should give it to them.  And they will vote for this president no matter what.”

Though what he spoke was truth, the Mainstream Media went wild.  At the same time, a 1998 tape was released of then-state senator Obama speaking in favor of re-distributing wealth.  Yet the media just yawned. Continue reading

When Tyranny Comes to Main Street


“Which is better,” Boston clergyman Mather Byles is reputed to have asked, “to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away, or by three thousand tyrants not a mile away?”

Many loyalists and fence sitters during the very early days of the American Revolution pondered that very point.  It did not mean they were in love with George III by any stretch of the imagination but only that they were just as wary of homegrown despots.

In our present predicament, it seems we have both – a tyrant in the White House and a multitude just down the road in our local courthouses.  We must ever be mindful that local governments can oppress the rights of citizens just as effectively as Washington, DC. Continue reading

The FDA’s War on Health Choice


In 1906, President Teddy Roosevelt signed the Pure Food and Drug Act into law, which eventually led to the creation of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a new regulatory agency that would ensure that the American people would consume only the best food and pharmaceuticals.

To conservatives who distrust government power, liberals are fond of asking, “Why oppose such a benevolent government program?” But if you understand the nature of government, as true conservatives do, then you realize that such a venture could eventually evolve into an instrument of tyranny.

According to recent reports, the Obama Administration is now using the FDA to ensure that “we the children” only choose the foods and medical treatments that our government parents approve of, and they are using the most vicious tactics to see to it that you obey. Continue reading

Safeguarding Our Minds


This column appeared in the Laurel Leader Call (Laurel, MS) on May 22, 2012:

“I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”  So said Thomas Jefferson, the architect of American liberty and its greatest champion.  Throughout his entire life, he fought every attempt by government to control the lives of the people, in thought, speech, and deed.

Today we should be just as vigilant, whether a form of tyranny originates in Washington, Jackson, or the local schoolhouse.  We must be ever mindful that state and local governments can be just as tyrannical as Washington, DC. Continue reading

Grover Cleveland and the Same-sex Marriage Debate: State vs. Federal Power


As a historian of American politics, I am most often asked how this or that historical figure would think about modern political issues.  Many times the answer is an easy one, but others not so much.  The issue of gay marriage would certainly fall into the latter category.

So, you might ask, how would Grover Cleveland, as President of the United States, have dealt with the issue in the late 19th century?

The subject of same-sex marriage was certainly not on anyone’s lips in his day, nor can it be found in any letters or papers to my knowledge.  But we can ascertain Cleveland’s probable thoughts on the matter by understanding his political thought.  He was a steadfast Jeffersonian President who believed in the cardinal principles of that philosophy, two of which were the absolute will of the people and respect for the individual states.

As Thomas Jefferson had vowed in his first inaugural address in 1801, his administration would support “the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against anti-republican tendencies.” President Cleveland also swore, on numerous occasions, to maintain respect for the states in their independent and sovereign character.

The state governments control the process of marriage by issuing licenses and sanctioning the procedure.  Nowhere in the US Constitution is marriage mentioned, thereby making it off limits to meddling by Washington politicians.  So for Cleveland, the question should be left up to the people of the states to decide, expressing their will at the local ballot box.

And as of this writing, the people in 32 states have voted down same-sex marriage, many of them overwhelmingly so, representing every region in the country.  Where it has been put to popular vote, not one single state has accepted it.

Mississippi had the highest vote totals against the practice, with 86 percent.  Tennessee and Alabama also had vote totals over 80 percent.  That was to be expected in the Bible Belt South.  But other reliable Republican states have also voted, unsurprisingly, to forbid it, many with totals in the 60s and 70s.

Yet what has been surprising to many is the fact that the mostly Democratic states of Colorado (56 percent), Nevada (69 percent), Wisconsin (59 percent), Michigan (59 percent), and Hawaii (69 percent), overwhelmingly rejected it.  Even California, where one would think it had a fighting chance of passage, voted it down with 52 percent of the vote.

The people of the states have spoken on this issue, and the results of their suffrage should put an end to the debate.  Grover Cleveland would have wholeheartedly agreed.

Paternalism’s Foe: Grover Cleveland


Politicians, pundits, and scholars have wrestled over a central question throughout American political and constitutional history:  What role should the government have in the lives of ordinary citizens?

For Jeffersonian Conservatives, such as Grover Cleveland, the government has no business involving itself in areas outside its limited, constitutional role, and should never take a position as a “custodian;” the people should be free to pursue their own dreams without government interference, to rise as high and as far as their God-given talent, abilities, and determination will carry them.  Success or failure depends on the individual.

washigton dc capitol building

Some liberals on the other side of the political spectrum believe the government should play a vital role in the lives of the people, from cradle to grave. They believe the lowly masses cannot take care of themselves.  For Democrats, government must step in and take up the role of caretaker.  As Nancy Pelosi said in 2011:  “I view my work in politics as an extension of my role as a mom.”[i]  This progressive viewpoint is known as government paternalism, and has been defined as “a policy or practice of treating or governing people in a fatherly manner, especially by providing for their needs without giving them rights or responsibilities.”[ii] Continue reading

Grover Cleveland: the Bedrock of Conservatism


Whenever friends and family find out the subject of my new book, one of the first questions I am usually asked is: “Why Grover Cleveland?” My answer: “Why not?” For Grover Cleveland, who served as both the 22nd and 24th President of the United States, was one of the greatest conservative statesmen in American history, a steadfast advocate of Jeffersonian political principles, the bedrock of conservatism. The Last Jeffersonian: Grover Cleveland and the Path to Restoring the Republic is an examination of the true nature of conservative thought, exemplified by the public life of Cleveland, and a pathway to a restoration of the republic crafted by our Founding Fathers.

During my first semester of graduate school, at the University of Southern Mississippi, I became seriously interested in Grover Cleveland and his political life after reading a less than stellar biography. As I delved deeper into his policies, I soon realized that the career of this forgotten statesman offers answers to modern America’s most pressing political issues, such as the public character and behavior of our politicians, direct governmental assistance to the people, actions during an economic depression, foreign intervention, and upholding political principles. It is only with the study of history, and the solutions Cleveland provided for us, that we can solve our problems and restore the constitutional republic. Continue reading