Mark Levin is a talk radio show host who, like his colleague and friend Sean Hannity, prides himself on being a “Reagan conservative.” From as far as I can determine, it is with justice that he describes himself as such. The problem, however, is that a “Reagan conservative” isn’t a real conservative at all; for all practical purposes, “Reagan conservatism” is just another name for neoconservatism. This is an attack against neither Ronald Reagan, “Reagan conservatives,” nor neoconservatives. That Reagan never succeeded in eliminating a single government program, much less an agency, and that federal spending increased exponentially under his watch are just a couple of the considerations that some have invoked to argue, quite persuasively, that Reagan was not a real conservative. At the very least, if he was a conservative, his presidency didn’t prove to be all that successful as far as his conservatism was concerned. But Reagan aside, judging from the policy prescriptions endorsed by Levin and all self-avowed “Reagan conservatives,” the verdict that “Reagan conservatism” is evidently synonymous with neoconservatism is inescapable.
The optimism and patience of the Congressional Black Caucus, after two and a half years of Obama-rule, has finally given out. They are now accusing the Obama administration of failing to adequately address a veritable epidemic of African-American unemployment. "Can you imagine a situation where any other group of workers, if 34 percent of white women were out there looking for work and couldn't find it?" asked Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, a Missouri Democrat and chairman of the caucus, in July 2011. "You would see congressional hearings and community gatherings. There would be rallies and protest marches. There is no way that this would be allowed to stand.” Unfortunately for them, the first black American president has no credible answer for the caucus. The trouble is that for decades black leadership in and out of Congress has done nothing to tackle the problem of what might be termed "the black underclass."
A recent Gallup poll reveals that many “pro-choice” Americans hold beliefs about abortion that are sharply at odds with the abortion industry — and are, in fact, more closely aligned with pro-life views on a number of crucial issues. According to Gallup senior editor Lydia Saad, the survey found that self-described pro-choice and pro-life Americans “agree about nine major areas of abortion policy,” including requiring informed consent for women (86 percent for pro-choice, 87 percent for pro-life respondents), and banning partial-birth abortion (63 percent for pro-choice, 68 percent for pro-life respondents). According to the Gallup poll, majorities of both pro-choice and pro-life Americans also believe that:
The Reality Church in Olympia, Washington is considering filing suit against the state government for denying its request to perform a baptism in a public park. Over the weekend, the church had hoped to use Heritage Park, a public park near the state Capitol, for a baptism ceremony and a barbecue. So as not to use the park's 260-acre manmade lake to conduct the baptisms, they planned to use a portable baptistry; but their request was denied. The church is now examining its legal options to determine whether the state has violated its own constitution.
The University of North Carolina at Wilmington has put out a list of “gay friendly” churches in the area to assist students and faculty in choosing a politically correct place of worship. According to FOX News, the list is part of a “broader guide to gay-friendly businesses, nonprofits, health centers and other services in the area.” But one professor has questioned why the university should be making recommendations to anyone about where they should go to church. “It’s just amazing,” criminology professor Mike Adams told FOX. “It appears to me to be the height of not just silliness, but government waste.” The university’s LGBTQIA (that’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning, intersex and allied) Office described the list as a “local resource guide [for] lgbt staff and faculty.”
As law enforcement agencies around the world continue to round up adults who prey on children, a small group of mental health professionals appears to be trying to facilitate a change in how pedophilia is defined and diagnosed. In fact, as reported by the Daily Caller, just such a group used an August 17 conference in Baltimore to discuss how “pedophiles themselves could play a role in removing pedophilia from the American Psychiatric Association’s bible of mental illnesses — the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), set to undergo a significant revision by 2013.” The conference was sponsored by B4U-ACT, which the Daily Caller described as “a group of pro-pedophile mental health professionals and sympathetic activists.” According to information provided on the group’s website, the focus of the conference was to bring together researchers and mental health professionals — as well as “minor-attracted persons” — in order to discuss, among other issues, ways in which pedophiles “can be involved in the DSM 5 revision process.”
Further evidence that the unions have resorted to thuggery can be found in Ohio, where business owner John King was shot and almost killed for being non-union. While unions have been found to engage in shakedowns and bullying tactics, this most recent incident represents a new chapter in union thuggery. Reports indicate that King had been harassed repeatedly prior to the shooting. Union thugs often threatened King with violence. According to The Blaze: John King owns one of Toledo’s largest non-union electrical contracting businesses. With 25 employees and an A+ rating from the Better Business Bureau, King’s business reportedly often thrives while other unionized electrical contracting businesses fail due to their higher rates.
Rick Perry’s self-propelled entry into the contest for the Republican presidential nomination is creating a bit of a stir among conservatives. He missed the debates and straw polls in Iowa and yet immediately emerged as one of the front runners before even facing a Tea Party audience. The fact that Michele Bachmann won the straw poll (barely squeaking by runner-up Ron Paul) and that Pawlenty pulled out of the race, means that there is plenty of time for all sorts of things to happen in the months ahead. According to the latest poll, Perry has come out ahead of Romney and Bachmann and Paul. But it is unlikely that Mitt Romney will play dead and not do some research into Perry’s record and find a way to demolish this new threat to his candidacy. Romney’s strategy is to get as many delegates at the Republican convention as possible to vote for him. After all, it’s the delegates who will pick the next President of the United States. But already, conservative Republicans in Texas are sending out email messages warning us about Rick Perry.
I’ll be the first to agree that politicians and bureaucrats have no principles. But government itself does; like other entities, it operates according to certain precepts. We who loathe the State do well to understand these laws the better to combat its wickedness. Perhaps first among them is Jefferson’s famous dictum, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground” — an unanswerable argument for anarchy, and one whose proof this country’s history amply supplies. Even the most strictly, constitutionally limited government will explode into a totalitarian nightmare; those yearning for a permanently small State crave the impossible. They are as foolish as parents who expect their child to remain three years old for the rest of his life. We owe a second axiom to Lord Acton: “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Voters who believe “good” politicians can save the country ignore the fact that every elected sociopath gained office precisely because enough people mistook him for our rescuer (presuming American polls are as open and honest as Our Rulers pretend).
Beginning in 2000, with the election to the presidency of George W. Bush, the Republican Party enjoyed control over both the legislative and executive branches of government. Election Day, 2006, however, marked the beginning of the end of this era, and by November of 2008, voters had long since resolved to bring the Republicans’ reign to a decisive close. While watching the Iowa Republican presidential primary debate, one could be forgiven for thinking that none of this had happened. With the sole exception of Ron Paul, there wasn’t a single other candidate on the stage who so much as signaled regret over, much less repudiate (as Paul did), the very Republican Party agenda with which Americans became thoroughly disenchanted three years ago — an agenda to which, judging from the candidates’ utterances, Republicans remain committed today. To put it in terms of our contemporary political vernacular, President Bush’s “Compassionate Conservatism” is apparently alive and well in the Republican Party of 2011.