Who are The Reagan Lincoln Republicans? The Reagan Lincoln Republicans are an
organization of Republicans who hope to see the vision of good government and
statesmanship of Ronald Reagan and
Abraham Lincoln restored to the Republican Party in order for the Republican Party to
lead the way in healing the political divisions
that so often divide our nation today. Reagan Lincoln Republicans seek
to return this nation to its founding vision to be A Shining City
on a Hill with Liberty and Justice for all. (www.ashiningcityonahill.org)
Below is a text of the
40 page booklet>>>
On Being a “Reagan Lincoln
Statesmanship & Just
Principles of Good
Frank N. Mitchell of The Reagan Lincoln
(A hard copy is
available on Amazon>>>On
Being a “Reagan Lincoln Republican”: Statesmanship & Just Principles of
Good Government: The Reagan Lincoln Republicans: 9798724190763: Amazon.com:
On Being a
Statesmanship & Just
Principles of Good
Frank N. Mitchell of the
The Reagan Lincoln
On Statesmanship & Just Principles of Good Government
for a harmonious interaction of all the member parts of the body politic.
Reagan, Lincoln, & Statesmanship
After George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, probably no two political figures more define America’s founding vision of Liberty and Justice for all than Ronald Reagan and Abraham Lincoln.
Ronald Reagan attempted to restore the lost founding vision of America as A Shining City on a Hill, and Abraham Lincoln was a great nationalist populist over 150 years before our time and the Donald Trump MAGA movement. Lincoln resolved famously that “this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom-- and that government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from this earth.”
One nation, under God, with Liberty and Justice for all
No American statesmen have ever expressed the founding vision as seen in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag better than Reagan and Lincoln. The words of the Pledge of Allegiance are “one nation, under God, indivisible with Liberty and Justice for all.”
These words tell us what it means to be a true statesman after the manner of Reagan and Lincoln and not a mere politician seeking personal gain or mere partisan or special-interest-group advantage, nor does a true statesman pursue one of the many partisan and false ideological agendas of today from the Democrats’ Social Justice to Islamic Sharia to Sustainable Development of the Great Reset.
Statesmanship, Justice, and the Wisdom of Solomon
The purpose of the statesman is to establish Justice for the general welfare or common good as stated in the Preamble to the Constitution. This particular purpose of statesmanship is what the Reagan Lincoln Republicans seek to reestablish as the purpose of good government in America.
Just government is, in essence, creating laws (or rules and regulations) to promote the general welfare or common good of the harmonious interaction of all the truly legitimate parts and members of the body politic in order to “secure the Blessings of Liberty” for all citizens.
Good laws promote and provide for “the general Welfare,” making provision for the least among us as well as restraining possible abuses of power and abuses of the governmental system by the more well-to-do and well-connected. Statesmanship is having the courage and will as well as the Wisdom of Solomon to make such good laws.
The New World Order &
the Fall of the Two Political Parties in America
Since the 1970s, with the exceptions of Reagan and Trump, virtually all major political figures in Washington DC and both political parties have abandoned the Shining City on a Hill vision and its practice of statesmanship.
Democrats and Social Justice
The Democrats have openly sought to do a positive-rights entitlement of Social Justice, which is the exact opposite of the classical Justice of the U.S. Constitution. Socialist “Justice” says one does not have the right to keep the fruits of one’s own labor. Rather, other people have a right to an equal share of one’s labor, and it is the Social-Justice job and responsibility of a large Leviathan state to take the fruits of all people’s labors and to hand them out equally to everyone. This is the height of injustice, and it has defined the Democrat Party of the last 50 years.
At the same time in the 1970s the Republican Party generally became known as RINO or Establishment Republicans that were primarily interested in promoting the interests of corporate globalism. Except for Reagan and Trump, this corporate-globalist RINO Republican position has tended to define the Republican Party for the last 50 years. (RINO means Republican In Name Only.)
Post 1970s: Bush Senior and his New World Order
The RINO Establishment Republicans strongly opposed Ronald Reagan, and as soon as Reagan was gone and the Cold War over, in 1990 Bush Sr. as president almost immediately declared his agenda to be a “New World Order” for America and the whole world.
Bush’s New World Order would be a combination of UN Social Justice globalism of Agenda 21 (that would come in 1992) combined with the corporate globalism of groups like the Council on Foreign Relations, the World Economic Forum, and the Trilateral Commission. While at the same time, Bush’s New World Order would foolishly bring in an unreformed, totalitarian, and very bloody Red China as an equal and even preferred partner. Apparently this was all done for that green stuff called money.
This RINO globalist “New World Order” agenda of Bush Sr. with corporate globalism working with the UN’s Agenda 21 and Red China was about as far from “A Shining City on a Hill” with Liberty and Justice for all as one could get. In fact, Bush’s “New World Order” was meant to replace a Shining City says Henry Kissinger.
After Bush Sr., Bill Clinton would continue this outrageous globalist agenda while at the same time Clinton would openly appoint far left Justices to the Supreme Court, who, for better or worse, believed that the Constitution lived to mean anything that fits a humanist and far left humanist agenda. This made Clinton even more anti-America to the founders and Reagan’s Shining City on a Hill vision than Bush Sr.
Globalist neocon W Bush
After Clinton, W Bush would openly pursue the “new conservative” vision of the Project for a New American Century that believed, in essence, in American imperialism in the name of spreading American values and furthering American interests. From this we got endless wars throughout the Middle East. This new conservative vision called “neocon” was also meant to replace the old conservative American founding vision of A Shining City on a Hill.
Obama, Black Liberation Theology, Agenda 2030, and Paris Climate Accords
After W Bush we got the very surreal “Black Liberation Theology” of Barack Hussein Obama. To this day there has hardly been a negative word in the mainstream corporate media about the extremely radical globalist agenda of Barack Obama or about his radical Black Liberation Theology coupled with the globalist UN Agenda 2030 and the radical UN Paris Climate Accords.
The outrageously absurd Paris Climate Accords gave America the shaft, and they were legally binding on America, and Obama signed America on for them without a 2/3s vote of the Senate. This is a big no-no, but, again, not a word in the mainstream corporate media.
So, on the international scene Obama pursued a United Nations and World Economic Forum totalitarian global governance agenda based on Sustainable-Development as seen in Agenda 2030 and the Paris Climate Accords. At the same time domestically Obama pursued the Social Justice of Black Liberation Theology, which is “woke” race-based Neo-Marxism in the name of Christianity. Black Liberation Theology openly stands against everything of the American founding and against America as a Shining City on a Hill with Liberty and Justice for all.
Obama combined the clearly toxic cultural Marxism of his Black Liberation Theology with the Sustainable Development Goals of both Agenda 2030 and the Paris Climate Accords, which were both based on a clearly faulty “climate science.”
This all taken together would eventually give us today’s globalist agenda of “woke corporate-capitalism” doing the “Sustainable Development” of Agenda 2030 coupled with the Great Reset in an alliance of the United Nations, the World Economic Forum, and Communist Red China. This alliance can be called the UN-WEF-Red China alliance.
Neo-fascism and the UN-WEF-Red China alliance
The UN-WEF-Red China alliance is a neo-fascism, sometimes called eco-fascism (ecological fascism), seeking world domination and control based on a supposed man-made climate emergency claimed in the false “climate science” of Sustainable Development.
“Sustainable Development” is a pseudo “consensus science,” and it makes for a faulty and totalitarian political and economic ideology to control everything and everybody in the whole world by a select ruling class elite who supposedly know everything and supposedly only want what is “sustainable” best for us.
The false “consensus” on a man-made Climate Crisis
In truth, there is not and never has been a “consensus” among “scientists” that man-made global warming is a crisis or that it is causing serious climate change that in any way threatens mankind’s survival on earth.
In the mid-1980s UN and other totalitarian globalists seeking a justification for setting up unelected and unaccountable totalitarian global governance had a highly respected UN commission (called the Brundtland Commission) come up with the thesis that mankind is soon to perish on planet Earth from bad weather caused by man-made greenhouse gases. This commission interviewed apparently hundreds of scientists with this very questionable view, and this created a “consensus” among these climate science alarmists that there was a man-made climate emergency and crisis.
In truth, there was only a “consensus” among this selected group of scientists and their peers that mankind was soon to perish on planet Earth from bad weather caused by man-made greenhouse gases. This is to say, today there is a “consensus” of opinion among scientists who agree with each other on this issue of a man-made climate crisis.
However, it is a virtually meaningless statement to say there is a “consensus” of opinion among a select group of people who all agree with each other, but this almost meaningless tautology has become the basis for all the hysteria and legislation to save the planet and the climate and so forth with global governance and a totalitarian agenda of Sustainable Development as seen in Agenda 2030, the Paris Climate Accords, and the Great Reset of the UN-WEF-Red China alliance.
There is nowhere close to a consensus among all scientists on this supposed man-made greenhouse gas crisis matter, and the only reason the globalist mainstream corporate media pretends like such a “consensus” exists is to run cover for the totalitarian global governance agenda of the UN-WEF-Red China alliance of the Great Reset and Agenda 2030 and the Paris Climate Accords and so forth.
The Demise of Statesmanship
and the Common Good for the Whole Body Politic
JFK and statesmanship
Shortly after being elected president, John Kennedy gave a speech where he talked about what the responsibilities of a good political figure are doing statesmanship in a nation that is to be a “City upon a Hill.” What is most remarkable about this famous speech by Kennedy is that there is really nothing very remarkable about it. Virtually every president up until that moment in history could probably have given the same speech or a similar one. Without using the word statesmanship, as such, Kennedy gave a standard four qualities needed to be a true statesman in A Shining City on a Hill with Liberty and Justice for all.
They are the courage to do the Right thing for the nation, the Wisdom to do the Right thing for the nation, the personal integrity to do the Right thing for the nation and not for personal ambition or gain, and finally a dedication to doing the Right thing for the national interest or common good.
These characteristics of true statesmanship are as old as King David and King Solomon in the Bible, but after Kennedy, except for Reagan and Trump, these characteristics of statesmanship tended to pass off the scene of American politics for a variety of reasons.
LBJ and the turning point in America
With the election of Lyndon Johnson, the goals of good government drastically shifted from their time-honored common-good or general-welfare statesmanship ends to ideological or special interest ends. Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs foolishly gave out billions and billions of dollars which devastated families and created a massive and ill-conceived charity Welfare State in place of a nation Wisely doing Liberty and Justice for all. (And this was on top of LBJ’s devastating failure in Vietnam.)
Generally speaking, after LBJ American political leaders would no longer seek in courage and Wisdom with personal integrity to do the Right thing for the nation as a whole. With the major exceptions of people like Reagan, Trump and Newt Gingrich, they would not try to do the Right thing for the nation and fail, they would not even try.
In the 1970s Democrats would move on from Johnson’s failed charity Welfare State to a Leviathan positive-rights Socialist-Justice Entitlement State, while in the 1970s the Republicans would seek to serve the ends of the corporate globalists.
Goldwater & the conservative movement
Meanwhile, the conservative movement in America tended to follow the conservative ideology of Barry Goldwater, who did not believe in Liberty and Justice for all but rather in a radical individualism of Liberty and Freedom for all. But individual Liberty and Freedom without the Just rule of law is the anarchy and chaos of no-government radical libertarianism.
Goldwater was, of course, not an anarchist, but he did not realize that he often sounded like a nutcase or anarchist to many people. Goldwater had no theory of government or of the Just rule of law or of the statesmanship or Wisdom to do the Just rule of law in good legislation.
Goldwater and the conservative movement generally got caught up in the common humanist fallacy that the state either does nothing for anybody or the state potentially does everything for everybody as the positive-rights Democrats were advocating.
Humanism & the radical 1960s
The bottom line here is after JFK, American politics no longer sought to do the time-honored general welfare of the whole body politic or commonwealth. This was a result of secular humanism and Liberal humanism in the larger culture and society. Humanism, by definition, does not believe in a Higher Moral Law or the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God on which true Liberty and Justice for all are founded and from which we get our individual rights and freedoms from God as expressed in the Bill of Rights.
For humanism, it is impossible to do statesmanship in Wisdom for the common good or general welfare with Liberty and Justice for all because for all types of humanism true Liberty and true Justice do not even exist! Generally speaking, except for Reagan and Trump, after John Kennedy statesmanship and even the very idea of statesmanship simple passed off the scene of American politics, life and culture; such was the impact and fallout of the radical 1960s.
The decline and fall of the American presidency from LBJ to Obama
Until Donald Trump, with the exception of Reagan, after JFK America saw one failed president after another. LBJ retired as a defeated and broken man, and probably as the worst president America had known to that time.
Richard Nixon was forced to resign. Gerald Ford was a mere caretaker president. Jimmy Carter is almost universally considered a failure, and after Reagan, Bush Senior would give America and the whole world an Orwellian “New World Order” that would be implemented by Bill Clinton and then carried to new Black-Liberation-Theology heights (or depths) by Barack Obama after the failed neocon president W Bush had started endless wars all over the world and crashed the economy with the 2008 crash, the worst since the Great Depression.
From Reagan to Trump
After Reagan both political parties would promote Bush Senior’s New World Order globalist agenda to end American national sovereignty and to end America as A Shining City on a Hill with Liberty and Justice for all. But one must ask, why did this happen? The answer is the Democrats liked the UN globalist Social Justice aspects of Bush’s New World Order while the RINO Republicans loved the corporate globalist aspects of it and the piles of money to be made with Red China.
By the time we get to 2016 and the nationalist populist Donald Trump, the day is pretty much over for America and the world because a careful reading of Obama’s “Sustainable Development” Agenda 2030 shows it is meant to turn out the lights forever on planet Earth by the year 2030 and effectively end all sovereign nation-states and end any and all Liberty and Justice for anyone anywhere in the world. And this is obviously so when UN Agenda 2030 is coupled with the larger Sustainable Development Goals of the UN-WEF-Red China alliance, the Paris Climate Accords, the Great Reset, and so forth and so on.
Trump’s throw-down and his 2021 CPAC speech
Four years of Trump will be, of course, only a slight interruption to these plans of totalitarian globalist tyranny by the UN-WEF-Red China alliance, but be that as it may, before retiring to Mar-a-Lago Trump in his 2021 CPAC speech will do a final act of true statesmanship throwing down the gauntlet to the globalist Democrats and globalist Never-Trump Republicans on the major national and international issues dividing our nation and even our entire world at this hour.
As Rush Limbaugh used to say the key to understanding Donald Trump is that Trump does not think in ideological terms or even in liberal versus conservative terms or in Republican versus Democrat terms because Trump is not a political animal but a very successful real estate developer.
Trump is what is called a common-sense conservative and not an ideological conservative, and he will look at any given problem and ask what is a common-sense solution from build a wall to tariffs on China. In Trump’s very long and detailed 2021 CPAC speech, he played the policy wonk where he laid out common-sense solutions to many if not all of the major issues of our day, and implicitly he gave the two sides to every issue.
This could be seen as Trump’s common-sense conservatism of 1776 nation-states with Liberty and Justice for all versus the globalist positions of both the Democrats and Never-Trump Republicans as these positions are expressed or favored by major media outlets like the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.
For common-sense Trump Republicans, the nation-state is a good thing, and there are good and bad nation-states, but for globalist Democrats and Never-Trump Republicans the nation-state itself is an evil.
For common-sense Trump Republicans, 1776 is a good, but for globalist Democrats and Never-Trump Republicans 1776 is not a good but rather BLM, Critical Race Theory and Project 1619 are goods.
For common-sense Trump Republicans, the Constitution as written is a good, but for globalist Democrats and Never-Trump Republicans the Constitution as written is not a good, but rather the Constitution should “live” to mean virtually anything that suits the humanist left or globalist agenda.
For common-sense Trump Republicans, no sex change operations for children is a good, but for globalist Democrats and Never-Trump Republicans sex change operations for children are a good.
For common-sense Trump Republicans, standing up to China is a good, but for globalists Democrats and Never-Trump Republicans standing up to China is not a good.
For common-sense Trump Republicans, voter ID is a good, but for globalist Democrats and Never-Trump Republicans voter ID is not a good.
For common-sense Trump Republicans, defunding the police is not a good idea, but for globalist Democrats and Never-Trump Republicans defunding the police is a good idea.
For common-sense Trump Republicans, ending sanctuary cities is a good idea, but for globalist Democrats and Never-Trump Republicans ending sanctuary cities is not a good idea.
For common-sense Trump Republicans, the Paris Climate Accords are stupid and bad for America, but for globalist Democrats and Never-Trump Republicans the Paris Climate Accords are smart and good for America.
For common-sense Trump Republicans, free speech is a good, but for globalist Democrats and Never-Trump Republicans cancel culture is a good.
For common-sense Trump Republicans, the right to self-defense and to keep and bear arms is a good, but for globalist Democrats and Never-Trump Republicans the right to self-defense and to keep and bear arms is not a good.
For common-sense Trump Republicans, the Russian collusion hoax was an evil, but for globalist Democrats and Never-Trump Republicans the Russian collusion hoax was a good.
For common-sense Trump Republicans, green energy is nutty and utopian, but for globalist Democrats and Never-Trump Republicans green energy is a good and the only thing that will save the planet.
For common-sense Trump Republicans, the UN-WEF-Red China alliance for totalitarian global governance is an evil, but for globalist Democrats and Never-Trump Republicans the UN-WEF-Red China alliance for totalitarian global governance is a good.
For common-sense Trump Republicans, the out-of-control Leviathan Administrative State and the corrupt Deep State are not a good, but for globalist Democrats and Never-Trump Republicans the out-of-control Leviathan Administrative State and the corrupt Deep State are a good.
Endless false narratives on the two basic visions for government
It is not hard to see that for anyone with any common sense that the globalist Democrats and the Never-Trump globalist Republicans with their elite allies in the media, schools, churches, synagogues, and many other cultural institutions are not only totally and completely wrong on virtually every single major issue of our day, but outrageously wrong, and Democrats are only able to maintain their power and get votes by endless false narratives that call evil good in the corporate mainstream media.
The radical divisions in our day almost always go back to the two basic visions for government in our time: Either it is some form of globalism with no sovereign nation-states and with little true Liberty for anyone but constant Social Justice for everyone based on never-ending group identity politics or it is “A Shining City on a Hill” vision with free sovereign nation-states and with Liberty and Justice for all and with individual God-given rights and liberties for everyone, all based on the moral and practical Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God, Wisely applied by the Statesman legislator for the common good or general welfare of the whole body politic.
Statesmanship and Domestic Affairs
Domestically, the issue for each nation-state was starting to become clear by the end of the 18th century. There are essentially two basic choices that confront any nation-state: Is the state to be founded on the moral and practical Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God with Liberty and Justice for all and with individual rights and liberties from God or is the state to be absolute and founded on humanism with no Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God and with Liberty and Justice for no one and with no real individual rights and liberties from God?
The Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the American Revolution of 1776 chose the former, famously, while Charles I and the French Revolution of 1789 chose the latter, also famously. John Locke and Thomas Jefferson give the theoretical or ideological justification for 1776 while Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes give the theoretical or ideological justification for the absolute and totalitarian state with God-given rights and liberties for no one.
In political science, such a massive absolute and totalitarian monster state controlling all aspects of people’s lives in tyranny is called a Leviathan, and it is based on what is called “legal positivism,” where there is no Higher Moral Law and the state can do no wrong since it has absolute authority.
The Leviathan Administrative State
What will happen in America over the course of the 20th century is the Administrative State will grow into a massive and out-of-control Leviathan state, a virtual fourth branch of government that is unelected and unaccountable and with virtually no Congressional oversight.
The Leviathan Administrative State can crank out endless rules and regulations, and there is virtually nothing anyone can do about it. And, what is worse, frequently it can also set its own agenda given the way it is constructed with little or no Congressional oversight.
However, in truth, the massive out-of-control Leviathan-Frankenstein Administrative State is a creation of Congress, and Congress still has the Constitutional authority to rein in and reconstruct the Administrative State and to make it more accountable to Congress.
Reagan Lincoln Republicans believe in limited Constitutional government, and getting control of the massive and out-of-control Leviathan Administrative State is the only way that is going to happen. This is probably the biggest issue in domestic affairs in our time.
There are, however, several other major issues to be addressed by the statesman legislator in our day and chief among these is fiscal responsibility. Both political Parties of today’s professional politicians hold that “deficits don’t matter” and a sound dollar is not necessary for a strong America. This thinking is absurd.
Traditionally, Wise use of the nation’s finances in taxes and spending was considered a central role of the statesman as was creating good legislation to meet the needs of the nation for the general welfare and the harmonious interaction of all citizens.
The issue is not high or low taxes, as such, but rather fiscal responsibility in spending and a tax structure that does not inhibit economic activity and that provides adequate money for limited social programs for those truly in need. This issue is determined and resolved yet again by statesman legislators acting and legislating Wisely for the general welfare of the whole commonwealth.
Quite simply Wisdom is needed to have good and effective rules and regulations to promote the harmonious interaction of all parts of the body politic and to have limited and effective programs to help those in true need. This is best achieved by eliminating altogether the entire notion of socialism’s “positive rights.”
Positive Rights and Entitlements
There are no “positive rights” and, hence, there are no “entitlements.” Technically, the state or government does not owe anybody anything simply because they are an American citizen. FDR and today’s Democrat Party are utterly, totally and completely wrong on this.
Socialist Justice “positive rights” are utopian, irrational and undesirable, and self-evidently so. The state cannot guarantee everybody a good job, house, education, paid vacation time, etc., as basic “human rights” whether they work or not. Without question the government should enact laws and policies that promote these ends and social goods. However, attempting to provide everything “equally” for free for everybody is called Socialist “Justice,” but in truth it is not only utopian demagoguery but also the height of injustice in seizing and equally redistributing the fruits of the labor of all citizens.
The civil rights of Martin Luther King dealing with desegregation dealt with the Liberty and Justice for all of Thomas Jefferson, where one is judged by “the content of one’s character” and not by “the color of one’s skin.” This American ideal is known as “equality of opportunity” and not “equality of outcomes.”
“Equality of outcomes” is the Social Justice of an undesirable egalitarianism. It is the opposite of what King and Jefferson advocated, but tragically this faulty view of civil rights as “equality of outcomes” has completely taken over today’s Democrat Party with its constant group-identity politics, but Republicans in the tradition of Reagan and Lincoln stand proudly and unwaveringly with Jefferson and King and, yet again, for Liberty and Justice for all and against today’s truly misguided Democrat Party on civil rights.
Black Lives Matter, Critical Race Theory and Project 1619 are inherently racist and even a type of cultural Marxism. The Democrats’ Project 1619 stands against the 1776 founding, and it is not just offensive but in substance and by definition un-American.
Open Borders and Amnesty
Reagan Lincoln Republicans seeking the Just rule of law hold that amnesty for illegal immigrants or a so-called “pathway to citizenship” for all is clearly not in the best interest of the nation as a whole, and it rewards lawbreaking, and citizenship is most certainly not a human right or a civil right as today’s Democrat Party often holds. Today’s lawless open-borders Democrat Party is simply wrong on this.
Citizenship as a human or civil right or positive right simply for standing on the soil of a nation is a ridiculously absurd notion, and though blanket citizenship for illegals might be a very compassionate thing to do (as some argue), compassion alone, as such, is simply not a standard to use for Wise and Just legislation for the good of the nation as a whole.
Others hold amnesty will be good for big business. This is possibly true, but, regardless, on this point conservative Republicans, as the party of Lincoln, hold “good for big business” or even good for big labor for that matter (as with any other special interest group) is also not a standard to use for Wise and Just legislation for the good of the nation as a whole.
Further, some well-meaning Christians pull various Bible passages on agape love out of context and try to use them as justifications for blanket amnesty in a completely inappropriate manner. True Biblical concepts of compassion, Justice, Righteousness, and Liberty support the conservative notion of Wise legislation for the general well-being of the nation in dealing with the problem of illegal immigration as with all other problems.
Social Security is incorrectly and falsely labeled an “entitlement.” Social Security is a mandatory retirement and disability insurance plan. Its money belongs to those who paid into it, and that money is in the Social Security Trust Fund.
Unfortunately, the career politicians of both parties have spent the Social Security Trust Fund money of the American people on their special-interest and their little and big pet projects. This is virtually criminal, and presumably one would go to jail for doing such a thing in the private sector.
Voting all corrupt professional politicians of both parties out of office is completely possible, desirable and realistic. Rare will be the American citizen for whom this squandering of the Social Security Trust Fund money is not an outrage when the facts become known? All the spent Trust Fund money will have to be replaced out of general revenues thus turning Social Security into a wealth redistribution scheme. This was probably by far the greatest financial scandal in the history of the nation, but it is now far surpassed by the close to thirty trillion in debt.
It takes a family, not a village
Obviously we exist in local communities which we are a part of, and they are where we live and interact and raise our families and have meaningful and fulfilling lives with their various activities and seasons of life from youth to old age.
There is ideally a harmonious interaction of individuals, families, businesses, schools, churches, community groups, and so forth. But it does not take a village, the federal government or the United Nations to raise a child. Reagan Lincoln Republicans in the tradition of Washington, Jefferson, and the American founders totally and completely reject this current collectivist Democrat Party goal and ideal.
The Constitution as Written
Reagan Lincoln Republicans hold to an understanding of the Constitution as envisioned and intended by the American founders, and they totally and completely reject the notion that the Constitution “lives” to mean virtually anything as held by today’s Democrat Party. This is a ridiculous and even absurd idea. Reagan Lincoln Republicans hold no judge is fit to sit on the bench who holds the Constitution “lives” to mean anything on the Democrat political agenda.
Religious Faith and Freedom
Reagan Lincoln Republicans believe in the separation of church and state as defined and intended by the Constitution’s framers, and we reject entirely the radical secularists and humanists’ false views on this matter to keep God out of the public square. The right to freely practice one’s religion should not be infringed.
Homosexual marriage, abortion, and the death penalty
By the moral and social standards of the last 4000 years in Western civilization, marriage is between a man and a woman, abortion is taking innocent life, and the death penalty is justified in appropriate cases.
The Preamble, Statesmanship, Justice,
and the General Welfare
Reagan Lincoln Republicans are for a return to traditional American values and limited government based on the moral and practical Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God, Wisely applied by the statesman legislator for the common good. This represents a return to the original vision of the founders as so beautifully and wonderfully expressed in the Preamble to the Constitution: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
This Shining City on a Hill vision is clearly far preferable to the humanist out-of-control Leviathan entitlement state of today’s globalist Democrats and Never-Trump Republicans. Only a vision of A Shining City on a Hill with Liberty and Justice for all has any hope of bringing the nation together in a way we have rarely seen since JFK. America stands at a crossroads today: Do we pursue the vision of Reagan, Lincoln, and the American founders of one nation, under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all, or do we not? If we cannot agree on this as a nation, we cannot agree on anything, and America as intended and founded will cease to exist in the annals of history.
+ + +