Volume 3, Issue 41
I was not directly critical of then candidate Senator Barak Obama. I discussed and ventilated the basic concepts and precepts of progressivism versus individual freedom. In January of this year, I was critical of the President for the first time. It is one thing to believe in a socialistic philosophy that government management and regulation can solve all problems. It is another thing to deny reality and treat the world as you wish it existed rather than how it really exists.
The following paragraphs from the January 27th Nuttle Report summarize the evidence. The President was beginning to base administrative decisions and leadership on a false perception of reality.
“Last Tuesday night, the President of the United States delivered the traditional State of the Union speech. We expected him to propose tax increases and more regulation as elements to jump start the economy. I did not expect him to offer an analysis of the world that I know his advisors are not stating. I’ve been willing to give the President the benefit of the doubt that his policies were simply based on his ideology. He has every right to be a liberal. And in that context, he has a right to believe that only government can provide prosperity. He does not have a right to ignore obvious facts.
Let me explain.
Richard Engle, the NBC Chief Foreign Correspondent, gave live commentary from Istanbul, Turkey. When Brian Williams introduced him and asked him for his thoughts as someone who was close to the action, Richard replied without hesitation saying that, “It sounded like the president was outlining a world that he wishes we were all living in but is very different from the world that you just described.”
And, as to the President’s assertion that we are winning the war against ISIS, Richard Engle said, “That just isn’t the case.” I have never heard a national correspondent take direct issue with a statement in a State of the Union speech offered as fact. Engle went on to say that ISIS is gaining ground in Syria and that the generals there have told him we are losing the battle.
In the elections of 2008, we chose a path of least resistance wherein change alone could solve our problems, even though that change was not defined in real terms. For the last eight years, we have pursued this path of more government, more regulation, and a political philosophy that political correctness is paramount to sound policy needed during these times.
I have just recently completed an additional chapter to the book Moment of Truth as an epilogue to bring the book current to the end of the year 2015. In reviewing the book’s content, there are several predictions that have come true. Most importantly were the assertions that under progressive government, our economy would remain anemic. And without courageous leadership, national security would be threatened.
The leadership of our country is not leading. We have many elected officials, but very few elected leaders. Many of the problems facing our country today were known to the Washington establishment elites far in advance of the problems’ manifestation. Yet they chose business as usual for a policy course rather than structural change and reform. For some undetermined reason, these leaders not only refuse to face reality, they argue in defense of a fantasy reality which they wish existed. Every proposal offered to address immigration, security, and the economy is met with a simple attack, “That can’t be done, it won’t make a difference, it’s unconstitutional, and that is not who we are.”
If our purpose was to secure our borders, enhance our security, stimulate the economy, and conduct and execute a sound foreign policy, we would start by defining a future destination that we desire to reach for ourselves and the generations. As Ronald Reagan said, there may not be easy answers, but there are answers.
It requires determination of will to reach a destination acceptable to our expectations.
For instance, Donald Trump’s call for a ban on Muslims entering the country may not represent who we are as a people, but it is constitutional. Foreign nationals have no constitutional rights in this country. They have rights of decency and rights of moral application, but their rights do not emanate from the U.S. Constitution. The source of their rights comes from the moral foundation of who we are as Americans. We have a problem on national security. Our enemies are using our openness, our freedom, and our emphasis on political correctness to breach our system to harm our citizens. We have a right as Americans, through the Constitution, to expect the federal government to provide for the national defense. We should start there. Instead of attacking Don Trump for advancing an idea that current leadership did not have the courage to suggest, why not work with him on how to devise a policy that does reflect who we are as a people, but that further restricts immigration and visas until our current leadership understands what is really happening?
The establishment elites of the Republican party have come to the conclusion that Don Trump is dangerous as the nominee, both for the party and for the country. They said the same thing about Ronald Reagan in 1979. The New York Times opined in an editorial that if Ronald Reagan got the GOP nomination, he would destroy the party. And if by some chance he won the presidency, he would destroy the nation. The establishment was scared to death of Ronald Reagan because he did not advance business as usual solutions. They were concerned that their advantages of being involved with government programs, from which they made huge profits, would be cut, curtailed, or restructured. Business as usual was their objective. It was their primary focus.
I agree with Dr. Ben Carson. If the Republican party leadership continues to condemn and conspire against Donald Trump to keep him from getting the nomination, without any respect for the will of the people, then it is a party that has left principle and should go the way of the Whigs.
We should all support and protect the wisdom and intellect of the American people at the grassroots. They know something is wrong and they’re no longer buying the argument that nothing can be done about it for business as usual leads to decline, just as predicted in Moment of Truth. And at this moment of reality, ignoring the deafening call for change from the electorate will defeat the entire principle of one man, one vote through democracy.
In 2008, we were at the moment of truth. We still had time to design and implement sound policy. In 2016, we are at the moment of reality. Following the establishment’s example will lead us in a few months to a point of no return. We must decide what we believe. We must have the courage to stand for principle. We must demand that our leaders be accountable to our view of the Constitution.
My name is Marc Nuttle and this is what I believe.
What do you believe?