The United States, from day one, was a project about principles and ideals.
The super power that emerged and grew from the handful of colonists that began settling here was not the product of where those colonists happened to land, but the ideals and principles in their head and heart – applied in how they lived their lives.
The Republican Party was founded in 1854 to address one great blot on the nation’s founding legacy – the existence of slavery in a nation founded under the ideal of freedom under God.
Runaway slave and self-educated abolitionist leader Frederick Douglass said “I am a Republican, a black, dyed in the wool Republican, and I never intend to belong to any other party than the party of freedom and progress.”
Douglass called Abraham Lincoln, America’s first Republican president, “emphatically the black man’s president.”
When some thirty years ago I told the welfare officer to not bother showing up again at my home – when I decided that my own future would be based on the values of scripture, work, and personal responsibility - there was no doubt in my mind what party would become my political home.
The party of “freedom and progress,” the party of Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass.
But, as longshoreman philosopher Eric Hoffer once observed, “Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.”
It‘s no mystery why the Republican Party is having a hard time today. No matter how hard you squint and try to discern the values of Lincoln and Frederick Douglass, or any values for that matter, in those now wielding the money and power at the top of the party, they’ve disappeared.
These establishment Republican leaders and operatives are not about ideals and values but business – their own business.
The Wall Street Journal reports that the latest estimate from the Congressional Budget Office is that unemployment will “remain above 7.5 percent through next year. That would make 2014 the sixth consecutive year with a jobless rate that high, the longest stretch of such elevated unemployment in 70 years.”
Yet the Republican presidential candidate in 2012 could not defeat the current occupant of the White House.
In the party that is supposed to be about freedom and personal responsibility, party operatives want to blame everyone else for their own failures.
Worse, they want to pin it on candidates who actually take seriously the traditional values of their party.
Karl Rove would like to weed out candidates like former Missouri congressman Todd Akin.
Akin, who was defeated by Democrat incumbent Claire McCaskill in the Senate race in Missouri, was a six term Republican congressman with a flawless conservative record.
For most of 2012 he was ahead of McCaskill in the polls. Then, in August, he expressed himself poorly in an interview about abortion. Despite his apologies and efforts to clarify himself, his own party abandoned him.
McCaskill ran ads, over and over, showing the Republican’s own candidate Mitt Romney questioning Akin’s qualifications. This race could have been saved. But the party elite wasted not a second to dump Akin because they were not comfortable with his conservative values to begin with.
We’re living in a deeply troubled country today. Americans are looking for answers, not a political class feathering its own nest.
There are tens of millions of conservative American patriots who seek an opposition party to represent their conviction that America will not get back on the path to strength and prosperity without restoration of freedom, limited government, free markets, and traditional values.
Today’s big question is whether the Republican Party is going to be that opposition party.
If not, it is not conservative values and convictions that will be abandoned. It will be the Republican Party.
A new poll from Wenzel Strategies shows Rep. Todd Akin leading incumbent Senator Claire McCaskill in the race for the Senate seat in Missouri.
It’s big news that Akin is still alive and kicking despite being abandoned by the national Republican Party leadership.
Akin, who refused to succumb to pressure from his own party leadership to get out of the race after poorly expressing himself in an interview on the issue of rape and abortion, has been left to his own resources and friends to raise funds.
According to the just published fundraising report for the last quarter, going through September, McCaskill outraised him almost four to one.
Yet, it’s still a race.
This contest captures the stark contrasts that delineate the most fundamental, rawest political currents of the country today.
On one side, we have McCaskill mouthing every predictable liberal position on all issues. You wouldn’t really even need her if you could operate a Senate seat off your iPad with an app called “liberal.”
Meet every challenge with more government. Spend, tax, regulate, subsidize, abort.
Meanwhile, in Akin we have a conservative who actually believes that the blessings of freedom depend on traditional values, limited government and personal responsibility. This opens him to caricature from liberals and provokes fear in establishment politicians.
According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, in its recent endorsement of McCaskill, “Todd Akin…comes out of the new incarnation of the Missouri Republican Party, the one based on peddling simplistic solutions to fearful “values voters.”
The U.S. Census Bureau reports that for the years 2006 through 2010, 26 percent of the population of St. Louis, which is almost half black, lived below the poverty line.
It doesn’t seem to phase the Post-Dispatch that poverty in their own city persists at levels 60 percent above the national rate. They are more concerned about a conservative getting elected, who might actually try to do things differently.
Whereas insanity is doing the same things and expecting different results, doing things differently – like freeing up poor parents to send their kids to church schools and promoting politically incorrect traditional values – is for liberals and the Post-Dispatch editors simplistic.
According to the Economic Policy Institute, black unemployment in St Louis in 2011 was 14.9 percent, the ninth highest black employment rate of metropolitan areas in the country.
In 2010, the graduation rate in St Louis public schools, according to the school district, was 60 percent.
In Education Week’s recently published ranking of public school systems nationwide, Missouri is rated number 41 out of 50 states and the District of Columbia.
These bleak statistics are not new. This has been going on for years.
In St. Louis, and in the nation’s largest urban areas, we see all the same chronic and persistent pathologies.
Poverty, hopeless urban schools, and chronically high unemployment among minorities are becoming a way of life in our country. What really should be provoking fear is not that there are committed conservatives who want genuine change but that Americans are becoming resigned that real change is not possible.
The McCaskill vs. Akin faceoff is really about what is happening in the country nationwide.
Maybe in the best of times views from different political parties can be about splitting hairs. But in times like this, we’re talking about being at a crossroads and recognizing that our problems exist at the core of how we choose to see the world and define our lives.
According to the latest Gallup poll, only 3 of 10 Americans are satisfied with how things are going.
The fact that a persistent, principled and uncompromising conservative like Todd Akin can keep his candidacy viable under such challenging circumstances shows there’s a healthy constituency of Americans who understand that what is wrong is we’ve lost our principles and values.
A French proverb declares: “What is hard to endure is sweet to recall.” I seldom agree with the French, but, as a former professional boxer, I know this to be true.
In 2003 I was fighting Cuban heavyweight Roberto Valdez before thousands at Chicago’s UIC Pavilion. Valdez was big, strong and mean. I was told that, a few years earlier, he had traversed shark-infested waters, alone, on a rickety makeshift raft to enjoy freedom in the land of the free.
This, of course, is the very land Barack Obama seeks to “fundamentally transform.” The American vision he shares with many Democrats – to include Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill – is something not dissimilar to the land from whence Valdez came. McCaskill, of course, is defending her title against embattled Republican Rep. Todd Akin; but more on that later.
At length, and evidently having confused boxing with baseball, Valdez found himself enjoying the freedom to attempt knocking my head into the nickel stands. In the second round he connected with a big left hook, sending me – for the first and only time in my boxing career – to the canvas.
I found myself with a decision to make. As I grasped for the ropes, my head full of cobwebs, and made it to one knee, I seriously considered, for an instant, waiting out the ten-count.
For an instant.
Lucid visions of 4:30 a.m. jogs through miles of Chicago snow came rushing back. Memories of grueling sparring wars with former No. 1 contender Andrew Golota began clearing away the cobwebs.
There was no way I was quitting. There was too much at stake. At the count of seven I was up and – to the roar of the crowd – 30 seconds later, Valdez was down. He, too, rose to the occasion.
Ultimately, I won a unanimous decision. Still, Roberto and I both walked away knowing a little more about one another. More importantly, we learned a great deal more about ourselves. To be sure, “what is hard to endure is sweet to recall,” and my recollection of that trying day is sweet indeed.
In recent months, Todd Akin has endured much. He made an inelegant statement, rooted in outdated science, which the left has gleefully taken out of context and cynically used to paint him as both anti-woman and insensitive to the unimaginable plight of rape victims.
This characterization of Todd Akin the man – as anyone who has known him will attest – could not be further from the truth.
Nevertheless, mine is not to rehash the debate over his words but, rather, to explore Akin’s true character and fitness to lead.
Indeed, his own words knocked him to the canvas, but, unlike the boxing ring, it seems a scant few have failed to kick him while he was down. The “progressive” juggernaut pounced like Elizabeth Warren on a half-priced headdress, while a bevy of weak-kneed Republicans (who needs enemies …) began pressuring him to stay down.
And stay down he did.
For about seven seconds.
Whether his ongoing trials will be “sweet to recall” remains to be seen, but this much is true: When he had to decide whether to get off the canvas and fight, or wait-out the ten-count, Todd Akin chose to fight.
I admire a fighter. I think most do. I admire someone who’s told he can’t do something and then, rather than giving up, takes it as a direct challenge to prove that he can. I admire Todd Akin. He’s a fighter.
But he’s also, as liberals love to say, a champion “for the little guy.”
I’m reminded of an incident several years ago. There was some poor sap who worked for a major company in the Midwest. On his own time, on his home computer, he wrote an article for a conservative website that defended the sanctity of natural marriage.
When the company got wind of the article, it fired him.
Somehow, word of the incident made its way to Washington, D.C., through the halls of Congress and into the offices of one U.S. congressman from Missouri. Todd Akin, with no apparent prompting, then wrote a letter to the CEO of that company defending the fired employee’s free-speech rights. The letter was signed by a total of eight U.S. representatives and mailed.
Ultimately, the company ended up settling out of court with the former employee. There can be little doubt that Todd Akin’s unsolicited intervention led to that settlement.
This is one of the primary reasons I have such high regard for Todd Akin. You see, in case you’ve yet to figure it out, I’m the aforementioned “poor sap.”
Who was I?
Nobody.
Yet a powerful U.S. congressman representing the greatest nation on earth took the time to come to the aid of one of the little guys, someone he’d never even met, someone who didn’t even hail from his home state.
It didn’t matter. He saw a wrong that need righting, and so he righted it. He stepped up.
Isn’t it time we begin placing people of character, true leaders and true statesmen in a U.S. Congress full of politicians?
Todd Akin is a man of character, a true leader and true a statesman.
They call Missouri the “Show-Me State.” Rep. Akin’s support during a tough time for me and my young family, his unblemished conservative record and his fearless determination to do what God has called him to do despite tremendous pressure to stay down, has shown me everything I ever needed to know about him.
Perhaps now, in the wake of the heat that Mitt Romney is taking over the leaked four month old “47 percent” video, he can better appreciate the position of Todd Akin.
Romney is being accused of writing off “47 percent” of voters as not paying taxes and “dependent upon government,” who “believe government has a responsibility to care for them.”
Of course Romney’s words, recorded behind closed doors at a fundraiser, were not, as he admitted, well chosen. No candidate would call half the electorate dead beats.
But when Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin used the unfortunate phrase “legitimate rape” in answering a question about his pro-life stand, the leadership of his own party pulled the rug from under him, despite his immediate clarification and apology.
Akin had a significant lead over his Democrat opponent Claire McCaskill before his own party wrote him off for his bad phrasing.
Now Democrats are having a field day trying to nail Romney for his bad phrasing.
Only thirty percent of Americans, according to a recent Gallup poll, are satisfied with the way things are going in the nation.
Our nation, dangerously, and many fear fatally, is losing its way.
The greatest concern for all at this critical time should be truth. Not word games.
It is fair to say that at this moment Republicans are in a state of disbelief.
How can it be that with things this bad, with Americans this dissatisfied, with a President whose performance has been this dismal, that this presidential race could even be close?
Yet it is.
It appears that, in the true spirit of Groucho Marx, Barack Obama has said “Who are you going to believe – me or your own eyes?” And half the country is choosing him over their own eyes.
Barack Obama has charisma. Mitt Romney doesn’t. And this poses a great challenge to the Republican candidate.
Here is how my dictionary defines charisma: “a special quality of leadership that captures the popular imagination and inspires unswerving allegiance and devotion.”
Is there anything Romney can do? I believe there is. The question is if he is willing.
Charisma in a biblical sense implies divine grace. It is the radiance of an individual who connects to and becomes a vessel for divine truth.
However, there are false prophets. And a false prophet, who truly believes his own personally conjured up vision, can be charismatic.
The only weapon against a false prophet is hard, unvarnished truth.
We have indeed become a government dependent nation. And we have indeed become a nation in which the sanctity of family and the sanctity of life are widely disregarded.
The growth of government dependency, the displacement of personal responsibility for government responsibility, and the unraveling of the American family all have moved in lockstep.
And our moral bankruptcy and fiscal bankruptcy are occurring together.
The fiscal viability of entitlement programs is driven by the assumption that those who work can pay for those who are retired. But as life spans increase while we produce fewer children, as result of self centered lifestyles and abortion, our moral bankruptcy produces our fiscal bankruptcy.
The most recent trustees report for Social Security and Medicare shows the unfunded liabilities of these programs at $63 trillion, four times the size of our GDP.
We have a false prophet leading the nation whose only message is “trust me.”
Democrats want to play with words and spin while the country is drowning. They are selling the status quo by appealing to natural human fears of change.
Entitlements programs as we have known them must change. Moral relativism mistakenly called freedom must be labeled for what it is.
Republicans need to embrace, not run, from the truth and tell it to the American people. This is a time for truth, not word games.
Todd Akin’s grossly irresponsible remarks about “legitimate rape” and conception have received much media attention. As well they should. The sheer weirdness of the remarks calls into question both his intelligence and his personal integrity. How could someone conclude logically that a rape victim’s body has the capacity to prevent conception in the wake of sexual assault? And why would someone assert that the conclusion had been supported by doctors with whom he had spoken? Clearly, Akin contrived the idea on the spot and then contrived the claim that there were doctors who had informed and/or supported his assertion. All of this leads to the unmistakable conclusion that he is unfit for office and should, therefore, suspend his campaign immediately.
As a pro-life apologist, I am more than just disappointed with Todd Akin. I am also angry. Over the course of the summer, I gave seven speeches on abortion - all of which addressed the issue of the so- called rape exception, which first appeared in my native state of Mississippi seven years prior to Roe v. Wade. In all seven lectures, I urged students to use caution when talking about the sensitive issue of rape and abortion. But I urged them not to run from the issue. In fact, I went so far as to say that we cannot win the debate until we make a reasoned argument for banning abortion even in cases of rape and incest.
In the event that there are prospective Republican congressional candidates who want to argue the issue (on CNN or elsewhere), here is how I would advise broaching this difficult subject. I would also request that Todd Akin keep his mouth closed until he has finished reading the following guidelines for discussion of the so-called rape exception:
A. Assess your opponent’s true position. In all likelihood, the person urging a rape exception does not really believe in it. In order for there to be an exception to a rule banning abortions, there has to be a rule banning abortions. That much is obvious. It is also obvious that pro-choicers do not merely want abortion to be available in cases of rape. They want it available in all cases. Call them out on it. Tell them you will write the rape exception into law just as soon as they write the law banning all other abortions. They will never take you up on it. The reason is simple: they are lying.
B. Build a bridge to the central issue. Get to know an adult who is a product of rape. Then, ask the proponent of the rape exception whether it would be permissible to kill your adult friend who is a product of rape. They will, of course, say that it isn’t permissible to kill them now. Ask them why not. They will likely say that killing the unborn is “different” because of size (they are smaller), level of development (they are less developed), environment (placement in the womb), or degree of dependency (the unborn are not “viable”). Each of these arguments is flawed and each tends to undermine human equality. For example, the argument that one’s right to life is contingent upon size means that women have less of a right to life than men. It also means Asians have less of a right to life than Caucasians. As you defeat each “that’s different” argument, you will gradually lead them to conclude that the unborn are indeed innocent human beings and that there is no meaningful distinction between the terms “human being” and “person.”
C. Capture the moral high ground. People often say there is a double standard is displayed by those who support the death penalty and oppose abortion. But that is absurd. A double standard exists when one applies two different standards to the same thing. Clearly, an unborn innocent is not “the same thing” as a convicted murderer. True moral inconsistency exists among those who would execute the product of rape while allowing the rapist to live. That moral inconsistency is enshrined in our current constitutional jurisprudence. The rape victim has a right to abort the product of rape because the unborn have no rights regardless of the circumstances of their conception. Yet the rapist has a constitutional right to be spared execution. It is simply morally indefensible to execute the innocent product of rape instead of the guilty perpetrator of rape. Ask the proponent of the so-called rape exception to defend killing the innocent and sparing the guilty.
Getting in the driver’s seat on the abortion issue is important. Staying in the driver’s seat is just as important – especially when the conversation takes a turn toward the difficult cases of rape and incest. But you can do it without concocting false arguments that really only avoid the issue. It’s just as easy as learning your ABCs.
Republican Party operatives, who wasted no time indicting their Missouri Senate candidate Rep. Todd Akin for his interview faux pas on abortion, may bear more responsibility than Akin himself for the mess that has been created.
Akin’s statement, suggesting low probability of conception in cases of ‘legitimate rape,” was barely coherent and was said with neither force nor conviction. He said it was a view he “understood from doctors.” And soon after, he apologized.
Akin has served six terms in Congress with a consistent, unblemished conservative record. The fact that leaders of his own party joined hands with liberals, thereby legitimizing them, and body slammed Akin microseconds after his unfortunate and easily disabused remark, shows there’s more going on.
What’s going on is these influential Republicans don’t want any kind of discussion about abortion. This campaign, in their view, is supposed to just be about the lousy economy.
But for Republicans to turn away from moral issues doesn’t neuter the campaign from them. It cedes the high moral ground to the other party. And suggesting that fixing the economy is like fixing your broken air conditioner – that it’s not fundamentally a question about human behavior, choices and values – makes Republicans amoral on this central issue.
Far from hiding from moral convictions, or lack thereof, Democrats showcase their values with pride.
Word is that the president of Planned Parenthood, Cecile Richards, has a prime speaking slot at the Democratic Convention. Democrats are proud to associate publicly with the largest abortion provider in the nation. There is no shame that a few weeks ago a young black woman bled to death, lying neglected for five hours in a Planned Parenthood clinic in Chicago, after a botched abortion.
Democrats showcase their cruel, soulless materialism with no response from Republicans. Amidst this silence, the New York Times brands Republicans the “mean-spirited and intolerant” party.
How ironic can this be when the leader of the Democratic Party, our president, not only aggressively embraces abortion, which terminates almost half the pregnancies of women of his own race, but who also stood in opposition to the Supreme Court’s 2007 ban on partial birth abortion.
Let’s recall that partial birth abortion is the murder of a fully formed baby – infanticide.
In the words of a nurse who described the procedure, as reported by Supreme Court Associate Justice Kennedy in the opinion he wrote on the partial birth ruling: “The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head…”
The leader of the Democratic Party, the President of the United States, thinks this should be legal in our country. And Republicans don’t think we should be talking about this?
John Mueller, of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and a former economic advisor to Congressman Jack Kemp, has written about the impact of abortion on the economy.
Mueller has estimated that, as of 2000, legal abortion reduced the US population by about 11 percent. Reduction in population translates into an equivalent percentage reduction in economic output, according to economists. This means that abortion has cut today’s 15 trillion economy by at least $1.7 trillion.
The core of our entitlements crisis lies in dropping population growth rates, resulting in an aging population. This places a growing tax burden on a smaller labor force to cover the retirement and health costs of our elderly.
Mueller attributes the current deficit in Social Security to this shrunken work force, diminished in size due the ravages of legal abortion.
Whether or not Todd Akin bows to pressure to exit his Senate race will not change the fact that the core problem in our country is moral and the poor economy reflects this.
When Republicans try to hide from morality and abortion, they hurt their party and our country.
The United States, from day one, was a project about principles and ideals.
