The ramblings of a few deists

Another 4th come and gone. Fireworks. Baseball. Hot dog gorgings (in our case, grilled pizza). I hope that a sizable share of our people took a moment or two to consider what happened 236 years ago when men pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. Perhaps they even step-stoned from here to there upon other events that figure so gravely upon our freedoms.


We hear of history being rewritten, and for many, the concern extends to our children. What kind of country will we leave them if they cannot know nor understand the roots of their nation? Most who fear the alteration of our national heritage worry about America's religious underpinnings being erased from our national memory.


Unfortunately, when Party A raises an issue of concern regarding the conduct of Party B, don't be surprised when Party B turns the tables and accuses Party A of being the real point of concern.


Consider the example of rewriting history. The secularists are trying to prune religion from our national tree, right? Oh, no. It's the religionists who are trying to neuter the secular cornerstones that our Founders laid. Or so says a secularist:

"This country wasn't founded on Christian principles, BTW. The founding fathers were, at the very least, agnostic. Archived letters from Jefferson, Washington, Adams, Franklin, etc all espouse a secular state. They all ridiculed what was happening in Europe. It's unfortunate how our history has been distorted to weave religion into its fabric. I'm all for freedom of religion until it encroaches on my own freedom/rights."

Ah, the threat of archived letters. Such an appeal to authority often comes from those who really haven't looked into the authority to which they are appealing. From stem to stern you'll not find a more godly man than John Adams nor a more godless man than Ben Franklin. At the same time, Mr. Franklin appealed often to the powers of Providence and its (his) affects on the affairs of men. Why would he appeal to Thomas Paine to reconsider his ardently secular writings (here)? Why else would he appeal to prayer during the Constitutional Convention (here)?

I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings that "except the Lord build they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and a bye word down to future age... 

...I therefore beg leave to move -- that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service.

Ah, Ben, you old dotard, you can't say stuff like that!

Apart from Ben and Tom Jefferson, no other Founder has been so indicted as being an anti-religionist as George Washington. "At best, he was a deist," you will heard cast about. His farewell address to our nation, after two amazing terms as our first president, paints a far different picture.


As he listed the pillars upon which our nation must stand, Washington declared:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness – these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, "where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?" And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

That's pretty strong language for a guy who presumably--sort of, kind of--thinks that there's an unnameable, unknowable "deity."


Earlier in his address, Washington described the American people, the audience of his farewell address, in this manner:

With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles.

This supports the conviction that when our Founders spoke of religion, they spoke of Christianity, and when Congress was to make no law respecting an establishment of religion, that it was toward giving preference to a specific denomination that the Amendment referred.


How about ol' Thomas Jefferson, the guy who cut his Bible to pieces? Etched in marble within his memorial for all to see (and about which atheists cringe) are these writings of TJ. On the southwest wall:

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men. We...solemnly publish and declare, that these colonies are and of right ought to be free and independent states...And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honour. 

On the northwest wall: 

Almighty God hath created the mind free...All attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens...are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion...No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship or ministry or shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion. I know but one code of morality for men whether acting singly or collectively. 

And the northeast wall:

God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever. Commerce between master and slave is despotism. Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than these people are to be free. Establish the law for educating the common people. This it is the business of the state to effect and on a general plan.

And to think that Memorial was erected in the middle of the last century. Consider what it would look like if it were built today and the quotes that would be included. 

A Christian nation? We were. As our nation has rejected the authority of Almighty God in its life, our Constitution and our principle documents have become increasingly meaningless. That is not how it began. Yes, quotes can be plucked out of context. You could make Reagan sound like a communist and Obama sound pro-life. Let none say, though, that our Founders were a secular lot. Based upon much of what they wrote, that's just not true.

Thoughts on government (or whatever you call what's been going on in Washington),

Last week, I came across a number of pithy sayings about government. As you read them, you might think someone penned the maxims last week after watching our government act like The Three Stooges. No, they were written a long time ago by one with a keen eye and a unique perspective on the machinations of government.

(I imagined Larry as the Judicial Branch, Moe as the Executive Branch, and Curly as the Legislative Branch though he looks a lot like VP Biden in this shot)

For your enjoyment and meditation. 

ON GOVERNMENT

"When the righteous increase, the people rejoice,

but when the wicked rule, the people groan."

That one may lack the zip of a Letterman zinger, but that truth satisfies to the marrow. Folks might party like its 1999 when a ruler begins his term, but governing is a marathon and not a sprint. At the end of four years (do I hear eight?), it says a lot when folks on your own team wonder what is going on. On the flip side, many decry the religiosity of the pious, but when people govern themselves either apart or within the law, the government has little to do. Dockets are empty. No need for more law when the people are a law unto themselves and they live out love for their fellow man. Peace and tranquility rule the day.

Had to think of this next one this last week.

"By justice a king builds up the land,

but he who exacts gifts (or taxes heavily) tears it down."

And what about the poor? You know the right cares nothing for the poor, right? Everyone says so, right?

"A righteous man knows the rights of the poor,

a wicked man does not understand such knowledge."

"If a king faithfully judges the poor,

his throne will be established forever."

We say much about the impoverished, and unfortunately, most just emote. Heartstrings do little to alleviate problems. These two axioms emphasize justice and rights. Eating is not a right, it's a need. A great and godly man once said, "If you will not work, you will not eat." That's a necessary and a tough love. Notice the latter saying above doesn't suggest that free meals will establish the king's throne. Nor is medical insurance on the table. The one thing the government must secure for the poor is equal justice under objective law.

Next.

"Scoffers set a city aflame,

but the wise turn away wrath."

Idiots. Hooligans. Our media would rather use the term "disgruntled youth" or "impoverished youth." If it's happening in Europe, you often find an imam in the shadows. Amazing and rare is the man who can get people to listen to and understand ideas. You might call such a man Reaganesque.

"If a wise man has an argument with a fool, 

the fool only rages and laughs,

and there is no quiet."

I'll not even pick a side in this one but offer you a challenge. Pick your favorite cable news network, and watch the discourse for fifteen minutes. Then flip over to the others (think CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC alphabetically), and grant equal time. Then consider who best exemplifies that aforementioned aphorism. Do you see a consistency in the ones raging? Yes, I've seen them on both sides and am ashamed when those arguing my position act like third-graders, but it seems that one team is made up largely of those who cannot make their point without venom and condescension. Who do you think best argues points on the right and the left? Would you like to have coffee with both of those individuals?

Next.

"Bloodthirsty men hate one who is blameless

and seek the life of the upright."

"An unjust man is an abomination to the righteous,

but one whose way is straight is an abomination to the wicked."

George Bush (43) came to mind with these last two. While disappointed with his second term in office and the way he governed, the one thing I could not impugn was his character. I have never heard in my 49 years such loathing toward a person. I even had a Christian friend who, when he spoke of the former President, held such a contempt for the man that it startled me.


Each of these Proverbs--and Proverbs they are*--points in a direction other than the one toward which our nation is hurtling. As we approach our nation's 236th birthday, we would do well to consider where we are going. Once you get the boulder tumbling down a hill, little will slow it down and the destruction can be massive.


We remain a government of the people. While you still have a voice in this process and small though it may be, please, make yours heard in your home, in your workplace, in your neighborhood and in your church. It's time to put the two taboos, religion and politics, back on the table for discussion.


Happy Fourth!

--------------------------------------------------------------------

*Cards on the table. Each of these adages come from Proverbs 29 (vv. 2, 4, 7, 14, 8, 9, 10, 27 in the order above). Truly, blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord (Psalm 33:12-19)

Madison's meltdown revisited

I posted a lament Saturday over what's happening in Wisconsin's capitol here. Just a few more thoughts if I might.

1.  Self-destruction. Perhaps the single saddest part of this whole nightmare is the inability of the selfish to see that they are burning the house down around them. It's from such folks we get the term "cutting off your nose to spite your face." In this case, they seem bent on cutting off their entire head.  

2. Friends. An old proverb suggests that you can tell the quality of a man by noting the quality of his friends. If you knew nothing about what's happening in Madison, you could pick your side just by knowing that Jesse Jackson and Nancy Pelosi yoked up on behalf of the strikers. An aside: I'm always amazed and disgusted at the things that bring Jesse Jackson out from under his rock.

3. Cowardice. Nobody likes the boy who takes his ball and goes home because he does not get his way. "Weenie" comes to mind. Back in 2003, Texas' democrats left the state rather than vote on redistricting. "If we cannot get our way, we'll take the vote away. Damn the constitutional process!" Wisconsin democrats borrowed from that same playbook. In hopes to thwart Governor Scott Walker's plan to balance his state's budget, they beat feet. (The Texans had to go to Oklahoma. Let's hope the Cheeseheads had the good sense to go to Minnesota over Illinois.)

Much like the teachers leaving their post, I would consider my congressman AWOL. While I don't advocate their being shot as would happen in the old school military, there must be some recompense for deserting your duty. You might not like the outcome, but that's your job as an elected REPRESENTATIVE! You vote. You work within your constitutional boundaries. You don't like it? Resign!

By the way, if you're giggling about what's happening under Madison's rotunda, you obviously haven't been peeking in on your government lately.

State of the Union, Part II

I'm jotting this on Wednesday afternoon to be posted Thursday.  Scout's honor, I haven't heard what our President will discuss regarding the state of our United States. 

In the first part of this post (here), I looked mostly outside our borders.  International politics, military, and the economy.  While the last one extends overseas, our understanding of economics and the government's role therein will affect our reach beyond our shores.

Let's turn our eyes inward.

Personal responsibility.  It stinks.  Think back to the settlers who headed west.  Their success or failure depended solely upon...them.  No government bail-outs.  No medicare.  No education.  Zip.  Go further back to those who crossed an ocean to start a new life with little more than the clothes on their backs.  Did they demand that the new land accomodate their foreign language?  No, they found folks of like mind and similar tongue to help them get assimilated into the new country.  Some never left Ethnictown, but most did and became Americans.  Not Italian-Americans.  Not Irish-Americans.  Not Japanese-Americans.  No, the primary label they wore, and wore with pride, was that of American.

All of these folks depended upon their own industriousness and should they need a hand, they did not turn to the government.  They turned to their neighbor.  They turned to their family.  They turned to their church.  And that need was generally brief, until such time as they could return to independent productivity within society.

We have developed a government addiction.  We believe we need a grotesquely obese bureaucracy to ensure folks have medical care, to guarantee an educated populace, and to make sure we don't breathe second-hand smoke.  No, it's my job to keep an eye out for me and my family.  You need my help?  Just ask.  Please, don't pick my pocket.  To our legislators state and national, we must ask them to slay the beast.  Were our governments all quartered, they'd still be too bloated.

Only in our willingness to accept responsibility for our own destinies can we even begin to restore our freedoms.

Culture.  What we have seen happen in our government, that we have ceded our responsibilities and the government has metastacized, has happened in our culture, too.  As we have released the moral leash within our own lives, Hollywood has continued taken that license to inject our entertainment full of such things that would not have been mentioned in our grandparents' day.  Is that a good thing?  No.  Francis Schaeffer emphasized that the arts merely reflect the fabric of the society.  In the 40's we had movies with character, movies that lauded heroism and highlighted the destructive nature of moral laxity.  Now, amoral abandon is the stuff of comedy TV.  Macabre dismemberment and maximal brutality equate to horror or suspense.  Drama today guarantees you'll get full-frontal and fouler language than was heard throughout the battle of Bastogne.  Why?  You and I ask for it.

The acceptance of homosexuality as a normal lifestyle and the disintegration of marriage as a fundamental building block of society merely reflects the moral rot within our own souls.

Should government step in and curb the culture?  No.  They shouldn't have to.  Our government reflects the people and our culture reflects the people.  Motion picture ratings?  What an absurd thought in the 40's.  Today you have parents dragging their tots to see Saw VI or letting their kids download audio-porn for the iPod. Can you imagine the Parker Brothers wondering what rating they would give to Monopoly?  You see the problem?  Personal responsibility among directors.  Personal responsibility among actors and musicians.  Personal responsibily from producers.  Personal responsibility by those buying tickets or DVDs or downloading tunes.  If that well fails to produce, they will eventually stop trying to produce such vileness.

Did our entertainment become so grotesque in a decade?  No.  It won't change in a fortnight, either.  If we want change, it starts with you and me. So what are you going to see or rent or download from iTunes?

Education.  The schools stink.  Sorry, but math, physics, chemistry, literature, grammar, etc. haven't changed a lot since I was a kid.  What's changed?  Our schools and our kids.  Let's start with the latter.  Because we have not disciplined a generation, because we refuse to fail children for poor performance, we've raised a generation with no fear of consequence.  Is it any wonder employers ache to find dedicated workers?  Why is that?  Parents.  Parents have failed to instill discipline within their children.  A child won't self-discipline until he's taught the consequence to ill-discipline as a young child.  If the parents did their job, the teachers wouldn't have a tenth of the problem they have in schools.

What about the schools?  They reflect the insane worldview of higher education than the worldview of the parents sending their kids to the schools.  While universities have rejected right and wrong, the average home still sees thing as pretty black and white.  While PhDs across the land see no difference between cultures equating canibalistic cultures with ancient Greece, Joe and Jan American bleed red, white, and blue.  They tear up during "Proud to be an American" while the Fourth of July fireworks light up the night. 

Whose fault is the deterioration of academia?  Yeah, that's you and me, too.  We let that happen.  If we want our communities to have public schools, then it should be a community decision.  Not a county or a state decision.  Certainly NOT a federal issue.  Mine is the responsibility to make sure my kids know how to add and subtract.  It's not yours.  How I choose to educate my children is my business, not yours.  That's the risk and the beauty of freedom.

I guess that's all I have for now.  I expect no applause.  The more we rely upon our government to solve our problems, the faster we slide into irrelevance as a nation both within and without.  Is it too late?  I hope not. 

But it's got to start in the mirror.

The State of the Union

Tonight our President will address the nation on how things are going.  Frankly, the dog-and-pony nature of the event turns my stomach.  The SotU after 9/11 interested me most.  Beyond that, it has become a cheering session for the party in power and an opportunity for dour faces and British insults for those in the minority.

So, from the deep in the heart of Wichita Falls, Texas, in the land where mesquite abounds and not much else, here's my take on the state of our nation.  Please hold your applause until all points are made.

• The Economy.  How much should you pay for a Big Mac?  Whatever you are willing to pay for it.  Should Mikey D's charge $17 for a 500-calorie gut bomb, few would buy them.  It would not be profitable to the Golden Arches, and so the price comes down.  A free market finds a good price for buyer and seller.  Just because there is a product on the market that you cannot afford, that does not mean the company is evil.  Save up you dineros (that's not too far away, is it?) and buy yourself a seventy-five foot yacht.  Or don't.  Bottom line:  This ought not be addressed in the SotU because it's not government's responsibility.  If a mega-corporation goes bankrupt, it should go bankrupt.  There are other places from which to purchase almost every product.
• The Military.  Still got the best in the world, but we have spread them thinner than than the Detroit Lions' defense.  How would you like to get married and then four years later, figure out that you've only seen your spouse for a year and a half out of that time?  That's what's happening.  You can only run a finely tuned engine for so long before it needs to rest.  Our military needs a rest
  
  It's also that branch of government, seems to be the only branch, that gets cut in its budget every year.  Here is an area where the government must be involved.  Most military offices are now only one deep.  When that person goes on vacation or gets deployed, things grind to the speed of LA at 5 p.m.  Neat computer programs have robbed us of personal interaction and efficiency.  And the government has robbed our military of the personnel and the equipment to get the job done that they are asking of it.
• International Politics.  Who hates us?  Okay, bad question.  Nearly everyone hates us, but most hate us for our success and our power.  Sour grapes.  When push comes to shove, who do they want on their team?  Yeah, US.
  
  Some hate us by nature.  Let's name a few.  North Korea.  Why?  Because we sided with South Korea and helped it become a successful and civilized nation.  Tyranny has driven NK into the dark ages.  Who else?  Venezuela and Cuba.  They're on the same track as NK, they just haven't shriveled on the vine nearly so fast.  Who else?  Russia.  More of that tyranny in the past.  Thought about joining civilization in the late 80's but Vlad the Impaler is taking them back to their Stalinesque heritage.  China?  Hmm...  Really, they creep me out.  Their Maoist roots loom like a spectre over the nation.  Do they hate us?  Hmm...  They sure have taken a liking to the bennies of capitalism, but the free-thought suppression and repression and the social tinkering through one-child policies has left them in a world of hurt.
  
  The biggest hater? The Islamic world. Granted we are tolerated by those nations that have tasted the fruit of a free market, but their Islamic roots leave them feeling like they've betrayed Allah.  Jordan and Egypt abide us.  Few others.  They loathe our Western decadence.  They loathe our triune God.  They despise our support for a Jewish homeland in their midst.  They like our money and our muscle if one of their neighbors crosses their border.  Mostly, though, total hatred.  Makes you feel kind of silly going to the defense of the likes of Saudi Arabia.
  
  Those who hate us but want us on their team, they like us if you press them to the mat, those are the folks who should be our buddies. All the other guys, sure, we'll talk to them if they want to play nice, but when they start getting uppity, we need to look out for our people and our borders.  Teddy Roosevelt, baby.  Big sticks!

Eh, you've endured enough for now. We'll call this an intermission, and I'll finish tomorrow. Lots still to cover! Much at stake for our aging nation. Will it endure to the 22nd century?

The Barack who cried "wolf"

One of the most important aspects of leadership is to maintain your head while all about you are losing theirs.  When chaos rules the day, people depend upon their leader to maintain his cool and lead them through troubled waters.

The steady hand calms the troubled hearts.

If everything faced by a people gets elevated to crisis level, they rally to their leader's side during the first, second, and perhaps third sudden catastrophe.  Soon, they become wearied and ache for a return to normalcy.

That's assuming a real catastrophe even existed.  In the event that the people rally only to find phantoms and cardboard cut-outs, they'll weary far sooner.  Disillusionment will set in and it won't take long until the people ignore their leader when he impassions that wolves have entered the fold.

These thoughts ran through my mind as I noted this headline in the Sunday paper (why do I keep finding such stomach turning fare in the Sunday paper of all places?):

Obama declares H1N1 crisis

We're at war with the runs?!?

President Bush started this habit of calling us to arms against windmills in the bank fiasco of a year ago.  President Obama didn't miss a beat when he started the new year bygoing to war again to save our failing auto industry.  And then he took our angst on the road in a world-apology tour.  Then came health care.  Billions and billions dying on the streets of Des Moines!  In recent days, a more demonic percolated to the surface.  The White House sought to neutralize the threat to our nation caused by Fox News.

"This is not time for talk.  We must act now."  Against what?  Most the folks on Main Street look at one another and shrug their shoulders.  Ma and Pa Kettle will take up pitchforks against the hooligans behind the razing of buildings in New York City.  They don't take kindly to being asked to fork over their hard earned cash to give to fat-cats who couldn't keep their books balanced.  Nor do they get giddy over a national battle against network they watch if they want something in the ballpark of objectivity.

And now it's body ache and fever.  Might I recommend a low-cost hand-washing and cup of chicken soup?  Perhaps a few days rest and a close-at-hand supply of toilet paper.

Armchair quarterbacking, how about we resolve Afghanistan?  All in or all out.  What about the cancer which manifested itself on 9-11?  Let's take care of those bananas.  They are nowhere near close to unleashing their anti-American, anti-Semitic malignancy.  How might we defend against that?  A constitutional perspective would lead one to believe that the chief tasking of our government  is to protect the people.  The military oath includes protecting against all enemies foreign and domestic.

At the very least, it would be refreshing to see an issue come to the fore in the next week or two that doesn't immediately go to the head of the national crisis class.  Maybe he would consider waiting until after the World Series is over.  I'm not going to bet my Cracker Jacks on that.

Downsizing the Chicken Heart

As our government continues to grow faster than the Chicken Heart*, I tried to imagine a leader with the courage to cut programs or even whole departments. I know. Pure fantasy.

But that got me thinking. Will our government ever get any smaller than it is now? The answer is without a doubt, "No." For government to shrink, programs and departments will have to come to an end. That means lost employment. What legislator or executive has the guts to say we're going to cut jobs in the government? Yeah, I laughed myself silly, too.

The Defense Department does ebb and flow some, but that's the exception.

Where's that leave us? The non-productive, non-wealth creating segment of our society (i.e. the government) will continue to grow at an alarming rate. Its consumption of private-sector wealth will continue to accelerate until such time that nothing remains to be consumed.

And then the Chicken Heart will swallow the Jersey Turnpike. It will be standing outside of your door! Time to start smearing the jello.

(*The Chicken Heart by Bill Cosby)

History: The Mayflower Compact

When the pilgrims arrived on the east coast, they signed one of the first documents of American governance. On the heels of the birthday of our nation's independence, it's a good read.

In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are under-written, the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign, King James, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland King, Defender of the Faith, etc

Having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one another, covenant and combine our selves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherence of the ends aforesaid; and by the virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape Cod, the eleventh of November, in the year of the reign of our sovereign lord, King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Dom. 1620.

Consider the chosen words.

• "In the name of God..."


• King James as sovereign lord "...by the grace of God"


• "Having undertaken for the glory of God..."


• "...and advancement of the Christian faith...


• They formed their government "in the presence of God"


• They formed it in "submission" to Him and to the government they were forming


• In establishing their government, they understood the need to enact "just and equal laws..."

As our nation dismisses the one true sovereign of the universe from its governance, the one for whom justice is an inherent quality, it will become more difficult with each ensuing day to maintain justice for all much less justice for any.

QotD: General silliness

Colin Powell is not a conservative. Never was. Perhaps a teeny bit in the military realm. A very teeny bit. Certainly not in international politics. Definitely not in his domestic politics. Catch this up-chucking quote from a former military icon:

"Americans do want to pay taxes for services. Americans want more government in their lives, not less."

What's most troubling is that I believe he is right, but this is only so because I don't believe most people think too well anymore. With a non-stop frenzied assault upon our senses through every possible media imaginable, we are stinker thinkers. Honestly, how many people have spent more time than it takes a single song to conclude in our iPod headphones to think about a single issue? I indict myself with my words.

Thinking birthed America's Revolution, the Federalist papers, and the finest constitutional government the world has ever seen. Thinking brought about the Civil War. Men considered what the Constitution meant regarding states' rights and man's rights. Thinking birthed the Reformation and the Great Awakening as men considered the truth of God's word in light of the world around them.

We don't think much. Is my tummy sated? Who can satisfy my sexual itch? Do I have enough money to party this weekend or maybe get to South Padre during spring break? Is anything getting in my way that might impede me from getting and doing what I want?

That said, is it any wonder folks want the government doing things for them? If they thought through the horrors of letting the government root itself deeper in their personal lives, such a comment from so distinguished a gentleman would serve to dismiss him forever from public life as mindless radical who's not thought through effects of so terrible a cause.

Read Mark Steyn's take on General Powell's comments and the pending doom of conservatism in America here.

Taxing my soul

Our Constitution is a restrictive document. It defines the boundaries in which our government may act. If it is not specified, our government (President, House and Senate, and Supreme Court) may not take it upon themselves to act with regularity and impunity outside that boundary. James Madison declared:

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the are federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The (federal government) will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

Wow, have we gooned up the original intent! Plainly, the Founders (and authors) intended the US Constitution to restrict the federal government

Income tax, one of the forms of taxation protested during the recent Tea Parties, is not enumerated in the Constitution. It is sanctioned in the 16th Amendment ratified in 1913 making it some 130 years older than the Constitution in violation of the direct taxation of the people (Article I section 9). To sustain the ever-growing size of the federal government, William Howard Taft and his ever-growing size proposed congress' ability to tax the citizen's income. And so we have lived with the beast near 100 years.

Here's the rub: if we are going to tax income, how are we going to tax it? This question exposes the mess that is income tax. Three possibilities exist and are known by other names in other sectors. They are:

1. Equal Income Tax. Here every man pays the same amount.
2. Equal Percentage. Here every man pays the same percentage of his income.
3. Proportional (what we live under now). The more you make, the greater percentage of your income is taxed.

I've started a poll at the top right of the blog. Before I continue and argue what a mess income tax is, I ask that you choose which is the best income tax (if we have to live with one...hence no "none of the above" in the poll) for our nation. Feel free to argue your point in the "Comments" to this post. You are more than welcome to do so "Anonymous"-ly.

Let the fun begin.
------------------

ADDED: Mark Steyn has a great look at Tea Parties and income tax in his weekly article here. It might help guide your decision.

Satan's counterfeit: The 23rd Psalm

The government is my shepherd:
I need not work.
It alloweth me to lie down on a good job;
It leadeth me beside still factories;
It destroyeth my initiative.
It leadeth me in a path of a parasite for politic’s sake;
Yea though I walk through the valley of laziness and deficit-spending,
I will fear no evil, for the government is with me.
It prepareth an economic Utopia for me, by appropriating the earnings of my own grandchildren.
It filleth my head with false security;
My inefficiency runneth over.
Surely the government should care for me all the days of my life,
And I shall dwell in a fool’s paradise forever.

—Author unknown

Wish I'd have written it!

QotD: Hannan revisited

"...You cannot carry on forever squeezing the productive bit of the economy in order to fund an unprecedented engorgement of the unproductive bit."

Daniel Hannan, British Parliament

His statement, "You cannot buy yourself out of a recession or spend yourself out of debt," came on the heels of the above quote. This latter quote is the one the media is keying on. This is the tactic currently employed by our President to solve our economic predicament. These two statements together expose a portion of this tactic unconsidered by many.

Our government produces nothing.

Granted, the former quote speaks of "legal plunder" by the government. And sure, government provides services, but unlike the private, productive sector of our society, the services do not produce wealth. When the government spends the dollars to provide that service, it spends my dollars and your dollars, and the money is gone.

Government, by its nature, takes money from its citizenry (you and me) to fund itself. As the government grows, so too grows the taking (stealing) from the productive for its own survival or to fund the unproductive.

Pretty soon, as the productive segment of society withers under the weight of the bureaucratic behemoth, there will be nothing left to take.

Stimulus: The physics of our demise

Stimulus - (n) some act or impetus intended to elicit a response.

Well, here's my response to The Stimulus.

It's absurd.

It's godless.

It portends our nation's demise.

No, it's not multiple choice, but the answer is all of the above.

I cannot believe that the populace hasn't erupted against the ludicrous tax-burden that will crush us. Let's get this straight. I don't blame Barack Obama. He simply waltzed through the door that George Bush blew wide open for him. But, oh, the glee with which he walked.

Let's step through this inch by inch, and it may take a few days. Lousy bankers made lousy decisions with money that wasn't theirs. It was ours. Those lousy decisions lost our money and tanked those banks. Sadly, it wasn't just one bank. When banks begin to heave, folks sit on their money. When folks sit on their money, they don't invest it, and companies don't have the ability to expand and grow (i.e. create new jobs). In fact, if the storm gets bad enough, companies will downsize to protect themselves against an economic downturn.

That happened last spring through last fall. Here's where the former President stepped in. Rather than let than let the storm pass and let folks slowly, and wisely, begin to reinvest the money they had left, George Bush and many lawmakers (law makers, mind you!!!) figured we needed money in the marketplace NOW! No prudence. No wait-and-see. Hundreds of b-b-b-billions pumped into the economy.

Now here's the "absurd." Who got the money? Corporates who ran their ship aground!! That's like giving the captain of the Titanic the helm of the Love Boat. You might as well make Benedict Arnold the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "You ruined your company? Here's $500 million." That's like giving the man in debt for $10,000 playing the slots another $8000 dollars to walk back in the casino. Are you kidding me???

Absurd, Part II. Who's money? Here's where things get vague, but I'm thinking the Saudi shiekdoms aren't coming to the rescue. Probably not Vlad Putin, either. Pry open that wallet, boys and girls! It'll be you and me. Taxes. Taxes and more taxes. Those hundreds of b-b-b-billions are coming out of our pockets!! And get this: If we pay more taxes, we have less money to invest in the economy. If we're not investing, companies aren't growing. Jobs are not being made, and again for preservation's sake, they're likely paring.

Absurd, Part III. Presidents Bush and Obama believe government slathering our money about will stimulate the economy. I asked the question to some co-workers, "Outside the military, what has the government done well." Cricket. Cricket. "The interstate highway system," one young man finally offered. Okay. That's one. Who do you think has a greater interest in seeing that your money earns interest, you or your congressman? Hmmm?

Our Founders did not create our federal government to dance in the economy. Even good brokers will only clear you 15% growth annually on a regular basis. Walter Williams wrote a great column the other day on the how buffoonish (and unconstitutional) the government is when it comes to matters of economics (read it here, it's a great read as Williams always is). How do bureaucrats determine who gets the money?

These folks didn't and won't invest our cash. Our elected officials steal when they take money from one group and give it to another.

That takes us to the godless nature of The Stimulus...next time.

President Obama: Day one

In case you missed the inauguration, you can read what our President said here. My two cents:

• Epic history. When our parents were born, a black man becoming POTUS was inconceivable. Now, it is reality. NFL coaches keep their jobs when they win and get canned when they lose. Sad, but race remains a consideration when hiring. If a black man isn't considered among the list of potential coaches, many label the owner as racist. I long for the day when we start assessing the man based upon what he does rather than his skin tone. That goes for our current President.
  


• Brilliant rhetoric. He knows how to deliver when it comes to public oratory.


• God. Wow. Had a Republican included that many references to God or the Bible (despite twisting Paul's words way out of context, the "...setting aside of childish things"), the left would be in the middle of a collective spleen rupture. So this begs the question: why the almost over-emphasis on things biblical?


• Stand and cheer moment. "We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you." I hope that will be the case.
  


• "Grab your wallet" quotes. The purple comments are mine. I included the bold-type to emphasize a few points.
  


• "Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age." Does that mean I haven't been taxed enough yet?


• "The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified." Sounds Kennedy-esque, doesn't it? But what happened to whether or not something is right or wrong? "Does it work" is utilitarian. It's pragmatism. And often, it leads to corruption. And, by the way, it's not the government's responsibility to ensure I get a decent wage. It's mine. My family is my responsibility. BACK OFF!!
  


• And the kicker... "What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility - a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task. This is the price and the promise of citizenship." Everything in bold can be loosely translated, "There will be no griping when we bleed you of your income to socialize our nation." What will be the final price? We'll see in eight years (yes, I said eight).
  

• Rick Warren. Unashamed about Christ. Sweet! Long-winded, though. Seemed like a mini-sermon (read it here).


• Joseph Lowery. He's the guy who did the benediction. If you think Warren was picked to appease conservatives, this gentleman sounded like he would be welcomed heartily in Jeremiah Wright's church of race and class delineations. Read his oratory here.
  


• Ted Kennedy. Pray for him. Collapsed during lunch having convulsions. Seems to be doing better this evening though still hospitalized.
  


• George Bush. Booed. Can you believe it? Like the Lakers vs. the Pistons. "Na-Na-Na-Na. Na-Na-Na-Na. Hey-ey-ey. Good-bye." At a change of power in the greatest nation on the earth?!? You've got to be kidding me. He served his nation for eight years and that's the send off he gets? I can think of a few gestures that I'd have wanted to return, but he remained the dignified man he's been for his entire tenure in office. Not that his eyes will ever make this blog, but "Thank you Mr. President for your faithful service to our nation. I and most of my readers appreciate your enormous sacrifice."

So what's it all mean? Not much. Day one is pomp and circumstance. Tomorrow implementation begins. It turns out that day two, in a bit of tragic irony, is the thirty-seventh anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

QotD: Lazy fare

"The trouble with the social-democratic state is that, when government does too much, nobody else does much of anything."

Mark Steyn from "America Alone"

Change

It's been the buzzw0rd for the 2008 election. The word, though, is not synonymous with "good."

Last night we watched "Abbot and Costello Meet Frankenstein" (pretty humorous that the three iconic monsters of the 30's and 40's would be spoofed in such a light-hearted film). In the film, Lawrence Talbot (aka the Wolfman) tries to stop the reanimation of Dracula and Frankenstein's monster while at the same time, dealing with own his nasty requirement to "change" every time the moon gets full (which unlike celestial norms, happens just about every day in the movies). For Larry Talbot and Bud & Lou, change is not good.

Come November, we're going to have served up to us a heaping helping of change. Should Barack Obama win the White House, he will secure a democratic helm to the executive branch for the next eight years. Nancy Pelosi predicts a 250-seat democratic majority in the House of Representatives (of the 435). Most predict the Senate to swing to a filibuster proof democratic majority, too. The legislative branch and the executive branch will steer our nation to the left.

The Wall Street Journal editorial board took a look at what change means to our nation in "A Liberal Supermajority" (here). It's a sobering prospect. Please give it a read.

But even the WSJ fails to address the enormity of the problem. It's not just the executive and legislative branches that will be affected. Considering two and possibly three Supreme Court seats will come open during an eight-year presidential run, a liberal SCOTUS would begin to adjudicate law with even less consideration given to the Constitution and its original intent than it currently receives. International law will become folded more and more into our jurisprudence, and the whims of other nations will begin to affect our land. The bench will no longer be blind.

It's not just the White House; all three branches of government will change. It makes Lawrence Talbot's dark side seem like nothing more than a frisky puppy.

Taxes: Grab your wallet!

Today's Parade Magazine, the Sunday paper insert, included an insert titled "How Much Would You Pay in Taxes?" (linked here). Here's the table copied out of Parade.

	Obama	McCain
If you make...	you'd save...	you'd save...
less than $19,000	$567	$21
$19,000-$37,600	$892	$118
$37,600-$66,400	$1118	$325
$66,400-$111,600	$1264	$994
$111,600-$161,000	$2135	$2584
$161,000-$227,000	$2796	$4437
If you're in the top 5% of earners...	you'd pay an extra...	you'd save...
$227,000-$603,400	$121	$8159
$603,400-$2.87 million	$93,709	$48,862
more than $2.87 million	$542,882	$290,708

A few things to note. Both men vow a reduction of income tax if you earn less than $225,000. Again, this is income tax, what you have taken away from you from the government of what you earned. We didn't have an income tax until the 1860's and then it was 3%.

John McCain would like to reduce the taxes of everyone, giving the larger tax breaks to those who not only make more money, but to those who pay significantly more taxes! Barack Obama would like to increase the tax burden upon those who already live in the ridiculously higher tax brackets.

Many in the heart of the first half of the table think to themselves, "Yeah! The rich should pay more!" My question in return is "Why?"

Consider the man who makes $2.87 million. He lives in the 35% tax bracket. One of every three dollars he earns is taken by the government. His annual tax burden? $983,097! I don't care that he still clears nearly $1.9 million, having one-third of your income taken is akin to robbery.

Let's return to Senator Obama's desire. Let's slap him with an additional tax burden of $543,882. That takes that "millionaire" to $1,526,979 in taxes paid and he gets to keep $1,343,021! He pays more in taxes than he gets to take home. Senator Obama wants to increase the tax burden to 50% in some cases!

You may still be thinking, "He's still making a million and a half more than what I make." First, what a tragedy that we would revel to see our fellow man gouged so. Second, what do the wealthy generally do with their money? Most of them reinvest it. What does that mean? More money available for companies to open new markets, do more research, or perhaps reduce prices or increase wages. In other words, the little man, you and I, are blessed when the wealthy invest their money.

Another thing the wealthy do with their money is give. Philanthropers bless our communities with schools and hospitals, parks and theaters. They give to orphanages and missions. They give to churches and ministries. The wealthy have blessed America greatly. Tax them higher and there will be fewer dollars going to charitable organizations.

I've said this before; it's not a zero-sum game. If the rich have money, it does not mean that they have it at the expense of others. Wealth creates wealth. America has been blessed by its wealth. Our poor would be considered among the wealthy in some nations. Nearly anybody who is willing to work can find shelter. That's just the way it is. Goods and services in America are ridiculously affordable.

With a larger tax burden, there will be less money to invest and it will stunt growth in the economy. Less money in the hands of the wealthy equals fewer jobs and fewer raises. Most folks just don't understand that if the folks in the upper tiers get thumped, it will roll down hill and we're going to get thumped, too.

Under McCain's plan, the $2.87 million dollar guy will still be paying $692,389. You think that's a good deal?

The more we want the government to do for us, the more we're going to pay (generally through the sinus cavities), and the poorer the quality of the product we'll get in return. You can bank on that! Er, maybe you'd better not.

Christians & politics

Why can't pastors endorse candidates from the pulpit?

Chew upon that question for a bit. Please. In your own mind, formulate a biblical and/or constitutional reason that pastors cannot or should not discuss politics and government from the pulpit. Don't read on just yet.

What do you think? Ah, but more important, what do you know?

The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), the conservative version of the ACLU, has encouraged pastors to challenge a 1954 law which stated that non-profits could not endorse politically. It seems that congress, at the impetus of then Congressman Lyndon Baines Johnson, made a law abridging the free exercise of religion by determing what a pastor could and could not say. Church's had been non-profits long before this law; LBJ's twist simply curtailed what could and could not be said.

The Constitution was never intended to limit civil freedoms but to limit government excesses. Amendment one in the Bill of Rights specifically targeted Congress about making laws that restricted or limited religion. Period.

The ADF gave the push to pastors to preach away in the face of an unconstitutional law, and that they would cover any legal consequences.

Why can't pastors weigh candidates from the pulpit in the scales of biblical truth? They can. And biblically speaking, they must. Why haven't they? Fear that their tax-exempt status would be revoked. The IRS specifically forbids the attempt to "influence legislation" and to "intervene in political campaigns." The IRS pamphlet (and thus the law) specifically states:

...(P)ublic statements of position (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise tax.

The point behind church tax-exemption is two-fold. First, it's income is not for profit. It is to sustain the pastorate and to further the ministry. For the Christian, it is to glorify God. Because no one seeks wealth through the church (perfect world), the government has not taxed the church.

The second reason is more important. If the church is not beholden to the state in its taxation, the church remains free and unencumbered to speak freely and against the state if necessary. Our Founders saw what happened when the state intervened in the Church of England; it became a puppet and a mouthpiece for the government, neutered of all ability to speak against it. In recent past, the impotence of most churches during World War II evidences the dangers of churches beholden to the state.

In the last century, as the distortion of "separation between church and state" began to metastasize, the state began to muzzle the church. Ironically, it was in 1934 that Congress first stated that the church could not "influence legislation."

Because the church is the chief organization by which the state is held morally accountable, it's imperative in our nation and by its Constitution that churches be free to comment on all aspects of life.

It's not surprising that the secular would attempt to mute the church's microphone, but it's discouraging when it comes from within the church. Earlier this week, Cal Thomas wrote a piece titled "Pulpit Bullies" where he took pastors and the ADF to task for preaching the political. Sadly, he takes very important parts of the Bible out of context. Certainly, the Christian is to obey government...as long as government does not counter God's word. When that occurs (i.e. muzzling the pastor), the Christian must decide whether they will obey God or man (Acts 4:18-20, 5:29).

Alan Sears gives a much better look at the Christian and politics in his piece "When government gets a hold of our churches" Here's a taste.

"Shouldn’t a group devoted to the “separation of church and state” want the IRS kept out of places of worship? Shouldn’t a group dedicated to civil liberties want a stake in securing the freedom of religious leaders to speak freely? The fact that groups like AU (Americans United for the Separation of Church and State) and the ACLU won’t support this Pulpit Initiative says much more about their agenda than the intent of ADF."

Please don't believe that pastors must be silent about politics. It's not biblical and it's not constitutional. Encourage your pastor and your parishioners to speak!

**Note: My pastor's been covering the distinctives of our denomination. His last two Wednesday night messages (here and here) have covered this very issue. A nutritious listen!

Is the sky falling?

One of my biggest gripes with evolution rests in the fact that secular universities have proclaimed it as fact for so long that most Christians concede to some form of transitional evolution. I'm not speaking of species adaptation but the reptiles-to-birds, apes-to-men evolution.

The same insidious deceit has crept into government. Prior to the Great Depression, government tinkered with the economy. It could only tinker because it kept getting its knuckles rapped by that pesky Constitution. Meddling in the economy does not exist within any of the constitutional Articles.

Economic catastrophe and economic panic caused the citizens to bow to the saviors in government who promised to get our nation back on its feet again. Pandora's box was not cracked, FDR threw the box wide open and then busted it into a million tiny bits. The demon unleashed, government dependence through legal plunder, would not be recaged.

Here we are today and our nation's knees are knocking. What do we do?

There are no guarantees.

Despite FDIC, your money is not 100% secure in any bank. It's not. You don't know what tomorrow will bring.

Well, land is a secure investment, you'll counter. It's not. Has land ever been seized in the past with an unjust compensation returned to its owner? You don't know what tomorrow will bring.

Gold and silver. They always keep their value, right? I remember in high school when a few friends purchased silver. They were going to get rich. They bought it at its price apex in the late seventies. Silver (and gold) lost nearly all of their value. You don't know what tomorrow will bring.

Here's the deal: There are worse things than failure, far worse. I say, let them fail. Our nation was built upon those who overcame failure and poverty. That's the American story.

When our brothers and sisters are down and out, it's incumbent upon us to reach out a hand, not to have government reach in its hand to remove our wallet and then give it to the down and out. That's thievery. Welfare without holding the recipients responsible does nothing but umbilical them to the state. We create welfare junkies.

What about me? My future financial investments have lost thousands in recent weeks, but my future investment, my real investment is secure.

“Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."

This is not a happy platitude. It is the truth, a sure anchor during times like these. Let us trust our God alone (therein is peace). Let us help our fellow man as He commands us (therein is love). Let us NOT cede those responsibilities to any government (therein is our hope).

Checkbooks

As I sit hear reading about the federal government wanting to spend $700 billion (that's with a "B") to prop up a fractured monetary system, I thought about a joke I'd heard a few years back.

A newly wedded husband, who upon opening his bank statement, had a conniption. The account rested $970 overdrawn.

He approached his bride with the statement and asked how it could be that after only two months of matrimonial bliss, they could be approaching one thousand dollars in debt.

She pulled her checkbook out and exclaimed, "It's not my fault. I still have checks in my checkbook."

The United States still has checks in its checkbook, but the account was overdrawn decades ago. The CPR required to keep these failing companies, banks, etc. from dying today (no telling whether they'd survive through 'til tomorrow) requires a financial burden from the population of $2333 per person. No, not per adult person. Not per wage earning person. Per every person.

If I were writing checks (does anyone write checks anymore?) on money I did not have, the government would soon terminate my check-writing in favor of rock-pounding. They'd give me a nice set of clothes, three hots-and-a-cot, but it would be in a local penitentiary.

So why can the government do this? Why can they spend beyond their budget, and then go out and spend even more?

Why? Because we let them. Really, it's our fault. You know, "...of the people, by the people." How do we let them? Silence. No letters to our congressmen. No letters to the editor. Votes. Cast for same-old, same-old without a clue how same-old has voted in the last term on issues of fiscal responsibility (or any issues). Ignorance. We don't know our own Constitution. Neither nor do we hold our legislators and executives accountable to nor do we restrain them in their responsibilities

So Uncle Sam is about to pitch $2333 of your dollars at failing companies with no promise of any return on any of your dollars. And you're going to let him.

Oh, we are a cluster of fools.