When we suffer one defeat after another, when we clearly see that the demographic future of the western world is inexorably Islamic, when the public discourse is hopelessly slanted in favor of the enemy, surely it is time to surrender.
Consider the plight of Roman Christians in the third century. Forced to pay tribute to the pagan gods, some bribed authorities to lie that they had paid, some paid tribute and prayed to the living God for forgiveness, and some suffered greatly for refusing to compromise their faith.
Consider Polish Jews in 1939, trapped in their ghetto in Warsaw. For them, there was literally no hope on earth.
Consider Americans in 2009 who are faithful to the principles of our Republic: all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We, too, are in mortal jeopardy.
No human force could spare these souls from oncoming misery. So what is the source of their victory?
Are we so distant from our Creator and Savior that we trust only our own strength to save God's people? When in history can we find an example of God's people winning on their own? How many times were the Israelites freed from bondage? How was the Ottoman horde repulsed at Vienna? Did the hitherto undefeated general Robert E. Lee merely experience three turns of bad luck at Gettysburg when the much smaller army of General Meade soundly defeated the Confederates and saved the Union? How could only the Americans produce a working atomic bomb in World War II, when both the Germans and the Japanese had vigorous programs to develop one? For more than 40 years, the US and the Soviet Union stared across a nuclear abyss, yet no one triggered the atomic war so greatly feared. Was any of these victories achieved without God's hand?
Now we confront the remorseless onslaught of a demagogue who acts as if he were The One anointed to transform American society into the nirvana that Sixties socialists sought for more than a generation. He wants to tell us what cars to drive, what to eat, what not to smoke, how to arrange our home lives, what words we may not say, how to spend what we earn, who will succeed and who will fail, how we will obtain health care, and who knows what other aspects of our lives. He says that ours is not a Christian nation, that America is not exceptional, but only one of many nations, that our laws should be influenced by the laws of other nations, and that our greatest allies are no better than our worst enemies.
This dangerous and self-involved man capitalized on the anger and discontent of a nation at odds with itself, took advantage of a fawning media that either loved the idea of a black president or actually sympathized with his views, and profited from disaffected opponents who cared hardly less for him than for their candidate.
Now he is abetted by a ruling party that has no roots in the Constitution of the Republic, that has for decades arrogated powers to the central government that the founders of our nation never intended, and that is driven by morbid hatred of the current president's predecessor. They aim to make their reign permanent by enfranchising a dependent class of tax-takers, by giving citizenship to millions of foreign invaders, and by demoralizing honest Americans who see no way to overcome "liberal" hegemony on public expression, on the public purse, and on the police powers of the state.
Never in the history of our nation has there been a greater need for God's children to call on His power and mercy to rescue us. We will not retake our nation without His help. We cannot overcome this enemy by force, and we are unlikely to recapture it with only the power of reason.
Let us, therefore, employ every power at our disposal to save our nation from this horde of usurpers. Let us cry out to our God for His help. Let us plead with our countrymen to wake from their stupor and turn out these wicked men and women. Let us find and support those who speak for the tradition that made our nation great, and struggle to recapture our legislatures. Let us defy the convention that would force us to be civil to those who would enslave us. Rage against their depredations. Stand up for the right.
This is not a time for the faint of heart. We must draw strength from the belief that our Maker truly granted us the right to be free, to keep what we earn, and to live. No man can rightly take these from us, and no law is just that claims to give one man the right to take from another. We must defend the rights of our fellow men to these same gifts. We must show by word and deed that God is just and loving, and that the wisdom of men is folly.
Our loving Father will not let His people be enslaved forever. Let us serve Him by defeating those who will enslave us.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Pride and Prejudice
Pope Gregory warned the world of seven deadly sins. The gravest of these is pride. Although created in His image, we are not to dishonor God by pretending that we are His equal, nor that anything we have or do can be accomplished without his consent.
Pride, it seems, was the original sin of Eve and Adam, when they took of the forbidden fruit, seeking the knowledge that was God's alone to possess.
Pride is an eternal problem for the human race. A great deal of it is on display today, particularly among governments. The government of the United States is not unique in its foolish overreaching. Just the past week, a government agency proclaimed that carbon dioxide was a dangerous toxin and a threat to the well being of the planet. This ranks right up there with the nonsense argument: "I'll eat a teaspoon of plutonium if you'll eat a teaspoon of nicotine. You first."
Of course, excess carbon dioxide in human lungs leads to death. But it appears that the earth hasn't had a toxic atmosphere for millions of years. So what could the risk of atmospheric carbon dioxide be? It seems that some people believe that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can force the temperature of the atmosphere higher or lower. Actually, the evidence is just the opposite. It seems that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide relate closely to the earth's vegetation, and that vegetation increases after the atmosphere warms (not the other way around).
So some folks have decided (a) that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to higher atmospheric temperatures. These same folks say they believe that human combustion of fossil fuels makes a meaningful contribution to the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Best of all, these same folks believe that the consequence of this activity will be rising sea levels, crop failures, and extinction of many species.
Well, folks, that is a picture post card of pride, the sinful kind. A scientist with the sort of modesty that the Creator blesses would both consider the available facts that dispute this nonsense about anthropogenic global warming and pay attention to the tiny role that human beings play in the equations of global energy and chemistry.
We've just had one of those beautiful spring weather events here in the Colorado Rockies that reminds us of the pitifully small place we occupy on our planet. On April 17 and 18, almost four feet of snow fell - more than we had all winter. Depending on which expert you ask, the weather was (a) abnormally cold, (b) normal, or (c) proof of global warming. It wasn't the biggest or the latest Spring snow here. It was just part of the normal variation in weather that happens from year to year over the centuries. Being the wet, heavy kind of snow we get in the Spring, it was picturesque. But it wasn't a harbinger of anything at all.
The government of the United States is bent - inadvertently - on crippling the economy of the world because the policy makers have the pride to believe they can make better decisions than the marketplace, and that they will replace the carbon economy with another one. The decision of the Environmental Protection Agency to claim the right to regulate emission of carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act is a harbinger of something truly dreadful.
This is the sort of pride that exiled Adam and Eve from Eden. It will do the same for us all.
Pride, it seems, was the original sin of Eve and Adam, when they took of the forbidden fruit, seeking the knowledge that was God's alone to possess.
Pride is an eternal problem for the human race. A great deal of it is on display today, particularly among governments. The government of the United States is not unique in its foolish overreaching. Just the past week, a government agency proclaimed that carbon dioxide was a dangerous toxin and a threat to the well being of the planet. This ranks right up there with the nonsense argument: "I'll eat a teaspoon of plutonium if you'll eat a teaspoon of nicotine. You first."
Of course, excess carbon dioxide in human lungs leads to death. But it appears that the earth hasn't had a toxic atmosphere for millions of years. So what could the risk of atmospheric carbon dioxide be? It seems that some people believe that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can force the temperature of the atmosphere higher or lower. Actually, the evidence is just the opposite. It seems that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide relate closely to the earth's vegetation, and that vegetation increases after the atmosphere warms (not the other way around).
So some folks have decided (a) that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to higher atmospheric temperatures. These same folks say they believe that human combustion of fossil fuels makes a meaningful contribution to the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Best of all, these same folks believe that the consequence of this activity will be rising sea levels, crop failures, and extinction of many species.
Well, folks, that is a picture post card of pride, the sinful kind. A scientist with the sort of modesty that the Creator blesses would both consider the available facts that dispute this nonsense about anthropogenic global warming and pay attention to the tiny role that human beings play in the equations of global energy and chemistry.
We've just had one of those beautiful spring weather events here in the Colorado Rockies that reminds us of the pitifully small place we occupy on our planet. On April 17 and 18, almost four feet of snow fell - more than we had all winter. Depending on which expert you ask, the weather was (a) abnormally cold, (b) normal, or (c) proof of global warming. It wasn't the biggest or the latest Spring snow here. It was just part of the normal variation in weather that happens from year to year over the centuries. Being the wet, heavy kind of snow we get in the Spring, it was picturesque. But it wasn't a harbinger of anything at all.
The government of the United States is bent - inadvertently - on crippling the economy of the world because the policy makers have the pride to believe they can make better decisions than the marketplace, and that they will replace the carbon economy with another one. The decision of the Environmental Protection Agency to claim the right to regulate emission of carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act is a harbinger of something truly dreadful.
This is the sort of pride that exiled Adam and Eve from Eden. It will do the same for us all.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Death and Taxes
Having just celebrated the day we remember the One person who survives death, let's turn our attention to taxes.
The framers of the Constitution knew that the federal government would need a stream of income to pay for the modest responsibilities allocated to Congress and to fund the operations of the three branches. To this end, they continued the custom of levying duties on imported goods - a logical move since the federal government manages the security of the nation's borders. They also provided for excise taxes. Excise taxes had a history of controversy. They may be collected at a time of transfer before or upon delivery to the end customer on a wide range of goods. It seems the framers felt they were properly levied only on "luxuries," i.e., not commodities. But the practice of taxing commodities was virulent in the land, and - well into the 19th Century - even Thomas Jefferson railed against it. The preeminent Constitutional mandate on the Congressional power to tax was that "all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."
The Constitution is silent on the matter of ad valorem property taxes. But the enumerated powers of Congress do not seem to empower it to deal much with individuals, and the Bill of Rights spends a lot of energy limiting the power of Congress to deprive individuals of rights, property, or other freedoms that derive from a Superior Power. Further, the meaning of the Fifth Amendment is vitiated if all Congress need do to take property would be to enact a law authorizing a taking without compensation in order to invoke "due process."
Comes now the Sixteenth Amendment. "In 1895, in the Supreme Court case of Pollock v Farmer's Loan and Trust (157 U.S. 429), the Court disallowed a federal tax on income from real property. The tax was designed to be an indirect tax, which would mean that states need not contribute portions of a whole relative to its census figures. The Court, however, ruled that the tax was a direct tax and subject to apportionment. This was the last in a series of conflicting court decisions dating back to the Civil War. Between 1895 and 1909, when the amendment was passed by Congress, the Court began to back down on its position, as it became clear not only to accountants but to everyone that the solvency of the nation was in jeopardy. In a series of cases, the definition of "direct tax" was modified, bent, twisted, and coaxed to allow more taxation efforts that approached an income tax.
"Finally, with the ratification of the 16th Amendment, any doubt was removed. The text of the Amendment makes it clear that though the categories of direct and indirect taxation still exist, any determination that income tax is a direct tax will be irrelevant, because taxes on incomes, from salary or from real estate, are explicitly to be treated as indirect. The Congress passed the Amendment on July 12, 1909, and it was ratified on February 3, 1913." (Steve Mount - USConstitution.net)
Thus was opened the door to direct federal taxation of income. It took Franklin D. Roosevelt to deform this abuse of the public weal into a progressive taxation scheme that today exempts the majority of earners from making any contribution to the federal purse (other than Social Security and Medicare "premiums").
If we are to save our republic, we must put an end to this form of taxation.
Taxing production penalizes investment and effort, and does nothing to encourage thrift. Progressive taxation encourages Congress to enact entitlements for many people that are paid for by a few. This will lead to the fall of the republic as surely as free bread and circuses preceded the fall of Rome. We need only watch the hauteur with which the Sultans of Washington treat anyone who disagrees with them to see this pernicious effect today.
Of course, we need to rein Congress in. We need to elect men and women who have read the Constitution and mean what they say when they swear to uphold and defend it. There may be five or six such persons in the House and Senate combined right now. But the power of "free" lunches over the electorate is strong indeed. How shall we make explicit the evils of the current regime to propel voters to make change?
I believe strongly that sales taxes levied at the point of transfer to the consumer are the most fair and effective way to collect what Congress requires and to ensure that voters see the consequences of Congressional action. Such taxes have the added virtue of falling collections when the business cycle turns down, reducing government's power to spend when the taxpayers suffer. When sales taxes are collected, it doesn't matter if you are married, straight, or legal. It doesn't matter if you are rich or poor. It takes the federal government out of the social engineering business. Rich people spend much more than poor people, so they will continue to pay much more tax. But everyone will pay some tax! Since everyone benefits from national defense, the safeguarding of patents, the building of post roads, and the protection by the federal government of our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, it is only fair for everyone to contribute.
Congress will have to levy a national sales tax of about 20% to come close to making up for reduced income and death tax collections. It will be essential to cease the practice of tax withholding upon the imposition of a sales tax. January 1st would be a suitable date. Imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth that will ensue. Those who have formerly paid income tax will see increased take home pay and have no trouble paying more for gasoline, groceries, or clothes. Realtors will rise up in arms as the effect of taxation on new and used homes will be stunning. The same for auto dealers. But the loudest cries will come from those who have paid nothing into the national till under the current progressive tax scheme. Remember, they outnumber those who are currently paying income taxes.
Such a nightmare scenario keeps the Sultans of Washington from even whispering about replacing the income tax with a sales tax. They have engineered so much bias into the current taxation scheme that to unwind it would entail enormous pain and suffering, and might even force them to live on their formidable pensions and free health care, rather than to continue their reigns. Imagine the loss of prestige.
Will we continue slouching toward socialism, fascism, or worse? Will the United States of America become an irrelevant mirror of European statism, losing our cultural identity to the invading horde with the complicity of Congress? Will the bias against hard work, thrift, and self-reliance that is sweeping Washington and our universities triumph? Are we in the twilight of the republic?
I fear the republic must utterly fail before we can reverse this trend. I pray I will be proven wrong.
The framers of the Constitution knew that the federal government would need a stream of income to pay for the modest responsibilities allocated to Congress and to fund the operations of the three branches. To this end, they continued the custom of levying duties on imported goods - a logical move since the federal government manages the security of the nation's borders. They also provided for excise taxes. Excise taxes had a history of controversy. They may be collected at a time of transfer before or upon delivery to the end customer on a wide range of goods. It seems the framers felt they were properly levied only on "luxuries," i.e., not commodities. But the practice of taxing commodities was virulent in the land, and - well into the 19th Century - even Thomas Jefferson railed against it. The preeminent Constitutional mandate on the Congressional power to tax was that "all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."
The Constitution is silent on the matter of ad valorem property taxes. But the enumerated powers of Congress do not seem to empower it to deal much with individuals, and the Bill of Rights spends a lot of energy limiting the power of Congress to deprive individuals of rights, property, or other freedoms that derive from a Superior Power. Further, the meaning of the Fifth Amendment is vitiated if all Congress need do to take property would be to enact a law authorizing a taking without compensation in order to invoke "due process."
Comes now the Sixteenth Amendment. "In 1895, in the Supreme Court case of Pollock v Farmer's Loan and Trust (157 U.S. 429), the Court disallowed a federal tax on income from real property. The tax was designed to be an indirect tax, which would mean that states need not contribute portions of a whole relative to its census figures. The Court, however, ruled that the tax was a direct tax and subject to apportionment. This was the last in a series of conflicting court decisions dating back to the Civil War. Between 1895 and 1909, when the amendment was passed by Congress, the Court began to back down on its position, as it became clear not only to accountants but to everyone that the solvency of the nation was in jeopardy. In a series of cases, the definition of "direct tax" was modified, bent, twisted, and coaxed to allow more taxation efforts that approached an income tax.
"Finally, with the ratification of the 16th Amendment, any doubt was removed. The text of the Amendment makes it clear that though the categories of direct and indirect taxation still exist, any determination that income tax is a direct tax will be irrelevant, because taxes on incomes, from salary or from real estate, are explicitly to be treated as indirect. The Congress passed the Amendment on July 12, 1909, and it was ratified on February 3, 1913." (Steve Mount - USConstitution.net)
Thus was opened the door to direct federal taxation of income. It took Franklin D. Roosevelt to deform this abuse of the public weal into a progressive taxation scheme that today exempts the majority of earners from making any contribution to the federal purse (other than Social Security and Medicare "premiums").
If we are to save our republic, we must put an end to this form of taxation.
Taxing production penalizes investment and effort, and does nothing to encourage thrift. Progressive taxation encourages Congress to enact entitlements for many people that are paid for by a few. This will lead to the fall of the republic as surely as free bread and circuses preceded the fall of Rome. We need only watch the hauteur with which the Sultans of Washington treat anyone who disagrees with them to see this pernicious effect today.
Of course, we need to rein Congress in. We need to elect men and women who have read the Constitution and mean what they say when they swear to uphold and defend it. There may be five or six such persons in the House and Senate combined right now. But the power of "free" lunches over the electorate is strong indeed. How shall we make explicit the evils of the current regime to propel voters to make change?
I believe strongly that sales taxes levied at the point of transfer to the consumer are the most fair and effective way to collect what Congress requires and to ensure that voters see the consequences of Congressional action. Such taxes have the added virtue of falling collections when the business cycle turns down, reducing government's power to spend when the taxpayers suffer. When sales taxes are collected, it doesn't matter if you are married, straight, or legal. It doesn't matter if you are rich or poor. It takes the federal government out of the social engineering business. Rich people spend much more than poor people, so they will continue to pay much more tax. But everyone will pay some tax! Since everyone benefits from national defense, the safeguarding of patents, the building of post roads, and the protection by the federal government of our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, it is only fair for everyone to contribute.
Congress will have to levy a national sales tax of about 20% to come close to making up for reduced income and death tax collections. It will be essential to cease the practice of tax withholding upon the imposition of a sales tax. January 1st would be a suitable date. Imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth that will ensue. Those who have formerly paid income tax will see increased take home pay and have no trouble paying more for gasoline, groceries, or clothes. Realtors will rise up in arms as the effect of taxation on new and used homes will be stunning. The same for auto dealers. But the loudest cries will come from those who have paid nothing into the national till under the current progressive tax scheme. Remember, they outnumber those who are currently paying income taxes.
Such a nightmare scenario keeps the Sultans of Washington from even whispering about replacing the income tax with a sales tax. They have engineered so much bias into the current taxation scheme that to unwind it would entail enormous pain and suffering, and might even force them to live on their formidable pensions and free health care, rather than to continue their reigns. Imagine the loss of prestige.
Will we continue slouching toward socialism, fascism, or worse? Will the United States of America become an irrelevant mirror of European statism, losing our cultural identity to the invading horde with the complicity of Congress? Will the bias against hard work, thrift, and self-reliance that is sweeping Washington and our universities triumph? Are we in the twilight of the republic?
I fear the republic must utterly fail before we can reverse this trend. I pray I will be proven wrong.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Fear Not
I am one of millions who looked forward to retiring with financial security and good health in a nation much like the one in which I grew up. I didn't start out on life's journey thinking of or planning for retirement. But, along the way, I accumulated some material assets. As I neared age 60, I thought about the time that would follow the end of my regular working days.
The last year has surprised me and many my age with the fleeting nature of "wealth." By wealth, in this case, I mean the purchasing power of material assets. The price that my home would fetch if sold has gone down. The sale price of assets held in my retirement accounts has fallen. Perhaps unsurprisingly, those assets I chose directly are worth a larger share of their peak price than those that were managed by others. What's more, experience warns us that the cash we keep on deposit to cope with unpleasant surprises will be stripped of its value by runaway inflation when the current economic program of our national government runs its natural course.
And on the subject of disappointing developments, it's clearer with each passing day that the places human beings gather to live are much less attractive than before they got there. And they get even less attractive as more and more people congregate. I won't deny that the Manhattan skyline is awe-inspiring, so much so that you can't appreciate it unless you have witnessed it personally. No city on earth can match a small fraction of it. But the skyline is only beautiful from far away. Manhattan is a brutal place, and it would be uninhabitable were it not for services provided from miles away. Southern California was a paradise and still enjoys a Mediterranean climate, but overpopulation has made it a miserable place to work and live for many of its residents.
Most people on our planet don't have the mobility to live in a "beautiful" place, and the last two centuries have seen literally billions of our fellow beings crowd into urban living space. Cities have sprawled into once empty prairies, up hillsides, and along the banks of rivers. With the cities have come pavements, sewers, lights, smoke, smells, and noise that are about as far from the garden of nature as one can imagine.
But the most saddening turn of events for my household in the last year has been the decision of our body politic to trash the principles of government that allowed free men and women to develop their potential and - acting individually - to build a prosperous, generous, and thriving nation. We can now look forward to a sad and downward spiraling culture, where political mullahs set the limits of achievement, expression, and expectations for a dependent class, and those rebels among us who still have ambition and choose not to be co-opted into the system will be ostracized and penalized for our faith.
Shall we just give up? Shall we be swept along like sheep by mongrels that lied their way to power and deceived a gullible and illiterate electorate? Shall we "go along to get along?"
No!
We shall overcome. We shall ally with one another to support men and women who believe that God - not government - confers rights on human beings, and that government exists to serve, not to rule, the citizenry. We shall not let our diminished material wealth spoil our relationship with our Creator, not let it reduce our charitable giving to worthy and freedom-focused organizations, not let it ruin our enjoyment of beauty: of the sunrise; of the natural world; and of the spark of God's glory in the eyes of the people we love.
God gave us the freedom to succeed and to fail, to obey and to sin, to seek forgiveness and to reject His grace. God gave us government to defend the rights of the individual. He did not give us government to stand in His place as our provider. Any government that usurps God's role is wrong, and it is up to us to change it.
We shall take back our nation, though it be our grandchildren who see the victory. The Dark Ages lasted a millennium. We don't have to let the current crop of socialists send our culture into such a long, dark night. It is only one generation after the fall of European Communism. We can stop the poison in our schools, fire the bastards we elected, and tell the featherbedders that the free ride is over.
We won't get our country back by watching silently as the current elected government and their bureaucrat allies usurp the market. We won't get it back by writing strong letters to the editor. We will get it back by investing in candidates who support freedom. We will get it by speaking up at work and with our colleagues about the immorality of taking the sweat of one man's brow by the forceful hand of government to give it to someone else who doesn't earn it. We will get it by refusing to be silent when our rights are abridged, when political correctness steals our right to speak, and when smooth-talkers tell us our children can't express their God-given views lest they "offend" others.
Don't let them shut us up! Fear is their weapon against us. Every one of the usurpers has an in box. Deluge their in boxes with the truth. Make it impossible for them to go anywhere without seeing their lies debunked. Stand by your allies in speaking the truth.
We have a long, hard battle ahead. Many who should be our allies do not acknowledge that our nation is in peril. They confuse policies with principles. They would rather be polite than remain free. Like Neville Chamberlain, they have chosen to give up their principles than to wage war, and now they will experience both. Don't give up on them; we need them to see the light, too. We need everyone left who believes that it is better to be free than to be a serf of the political class to rise up in righteous fury against the socialists and take back our nation. Stand up for freedom now.
And while we are fighting for freedom, let us enjoy the individual freedoms God has given us: freedom to love, freedom to give, freedom to thank God for all that He gives us, and freedom to accept the great gift of His forgiveness of our sins. No man can take these freedoms from us.
The last year has surprised me and many my age with the fleeting nature of "wealth." By wealth, in this case, I mean the purchasing power of material assets. The price that my home would fetch if sold has gone down. The sale price of assets held in my retirement accounts has fallen. Perhaps unsurprisingly, those assets I chose directly are worth a larger share of their peak price than those that were managed by others. What's more, experience warns us that the cash we keep on deposit to cope with unpleasant surprises will be stripped of its value by runaway inflation when the current economic program of our national government runs its natural course.
And on the subject of disappointing developments, it's clearer with each passing day that the places human beings gather to live are much less attractive than before they got there. And they get even less attractive as more and more people congregate. I won't deny that the Manhattan skyline is awe-inspiring, so much so that you can't appreciate it unless you have witnessed it personally. No city on earth can match a small fraction of it. But the skyline is only beautiful from far away. Manhattan is a brutal place, and it would be uninhabitable were it not for services provided from miles away. Southern California was a paradise and still enjoys a Mediterranean climate, but overpopulation has made it a miserable place to work and live for many of its residents.
Most people on our planet don't have the mobility to live in a "beautiful" place, and the last two centuries have seen literally billions of our fellow beings crowd into urban living space. Cities have sprawled into once empty prairies, up hillsides, and along the banks of rivers. With the cities have come pavements, sewers, lights, smoke, smells, and noise that are about as far from the garden of nature as one can imagine.
But the most saddening turn of events for my household in the last year has been the decision of our body politic to trash the principles of government that allowed free men and women to develop their potential and - acting individually - to build a prosperous, generous, and thriving nation. We can now look forward to a sad and downward spiraling culture, where political mullahs set the limits of achievement, expression, and expectations for a dependent class, and those rebels among us who still have ambition and choose not to be co-opted into the system will be ostracized and penalized for our faith.
Shall we just give up? Shall we be swept along like sheep by mongrels that lied their way to power and deceived a gullible and illiterate electorate? Shall we "go along to get along?"
No!
We shall overcome. We shall ally with one another to support men and women who believe that God - not government - confers rights on human beings, and that government exists to serve, not to rule, the citizenry. We shall not let our diminished material wealth spoil our relationship with our Creator, not let it reduce our charitable giving to worthy and freedom-focused organizations, not let it ruin our enjoyment of beauty: of the sunrise; of the natural world; and of the spark of God's glory in the eyes of the people we love.
God gave us the freedom to succeed and to fail, to obey and to sin, to seek forgiveness and to reject His grace. God gave us government to defend the rights of the individual. He did not give us government to stand in His place as our provider. Any government that usurps God's role is wrong, and it is up to us to change it.
We shall take back our nation, though it be our grandchildren who see the victory. The Dark Ages lasted a millennium. We don't have to let the current crop of socialists send our culture into such a long, dark night. It is only one generation after the fall of European Communism. We can stop the poison in our schools, fire the bastards we elected, and tell the featherbedders that the free ride is over.
We won't get our country back by watching silently as the current elected government and their bureaucrat allies usurp the market. We won't get it back by writing strong letters to the editor. We will get it back by investing in candidates who support freedom. We will get it by speaking up at work and with our colleagues about the immorality of taking the sweat of one man's brow by the forceful hand of government to give it to someone else who doesn't earn it. We will get it by refusing to be silent when our rights are abridged, when political correctness steals our right to speak, and when smooth-talkers tell us our children can't express their God-given views lest they "offend" others.
Don't let them shut us up! Fear is their weapon against us. Every one of the usurpers has an in box. Deluge their in boxes with the truth. Make it impossible for them to go anywhere without seeing their lies debunked. Stand by your allies in speaking the truth.
We have a long, hard battle ahead. Many who should be our allies do not acknowledge that our nation is in peril. They confuse policies with principles. They would rather be polite than remain free. Like Neville Chamberlain, they have chosen to give up their principles than to wage war, and now they will experience both. Don't give up on them; we need them to see the light, too. We need everyone left who believes that it is better to be free than to be a serf of the political class to rise up in righteous fury against the socialists and take back our nation. Stand up for freedom now.
And while we are fighting for freedom, let us enjoy the individual freedoms God has given us: freedom to love, freedom to give, freedom to thank God for all that He gives us, and freedom to accept the great gift of His forgiveness of our sins. No man can take these freedoms from us.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Bridge the Gap
Everyone I have ever met wants something he doesn’t have. And almost every one doesn’t know how to get that something. There must be a reason why we have these gaps in our lives.
Do you think we have gaps so Billy Mays and Vince will have something to do to fill up their days? Neither do I. These fellows seem to want you to think you need something without which you have, so far, been able to scrape by.
Could it be we have gaps so the government can fulfill the wants and needs of citizen and non-citizen alike? It seems that more than 50 million folks recently voted for a president with this point-of-view. Unless this is your first time at Do Not Shrug, you know I have another take on this topic.
Are our gaps the result of some fault in the make up of the universe? After all, the vast majority of the universe can fairly be described as one huge gap! Even Gaia-worshipers think the universe is fault-free. Only humans have faults. (I expect a crusade to rename seismic faults pretty soon; “fault” is too judgmental a name for a natural phenomenon for us accidents of evolution to use.)
No doubt about it, gaps exist for a reason. They were designed. They are intended. We want something we can’t or don’t have because we need to aspire for improvement.
- If we are hungry, we want sustenance.
- If we lack shelter, we want comfort.
- If we thirst, we want relief.
- If we are lonely, we want succor.
- If we feel empty, we want to fill our void.
Perhaps we have a dream of accomplishment, and we want to fulfill our dream. We want to be fitter, faster, more musical, a better sculptor, a better writer, victorious in the boxing ring, the most accomplished sniper, or even reelected to public office. The unfulfilled dream is just as much a gap as the desire of a derelict for a warm bed on a cold night.
Now, what are our options for bridging a gap?
- We can try alone.
- We can try with help.
- We can wait for help.
Trying alone – isn’t that the story of Robinson Crusoe? Or maybe it’s the western myth of rugged individualism? Well, if you actually read Robinson Crusoe, you know that he had a Bible and a lot of flotsam and jetsam at hand, no to mention his man, Friday. And the voyageurs, trappers, woodsmen, and settlers of the American west turn out to be rooted in social structures, too. It’s difficult to be truly alone in any undertaking.
Trying with help - that's what achievers do. Athletes have coaches. Musicians have teachers. Name a vocation, there is a helper associated with it. Christians who try to follow Jesus have the Bible and their church fellowship. Atheists have libraries, universities, and websites. Politicians have pollsters, advisors, and some even have financial sponsors.
Waiting for help - that can work out. There’s a story of a grizzled World War II veteran, standing on the deck of an aircraft carrier, who took no action during the abandon ship drill. When confronted, he said he would wait till the water reached the deck then and step off. After all, he said, “That’s what I did when the old Hornet sank.”
Most people who wait for help don’t fare so well. If you can’t read this because “your school failed you,” waiting for the ability to read won’t help you earn a living or pay your rent. If you are waiting for God to buy you a color TV or a Mercedes-Benz (as sung by Janis Joplin), you are unlikely to close that gap. Many New Orleaneans during Katrina, Noah’s neighbors, and the average urban street-dweller share a predilection to waiting, and all suffer for it.
So the effective way to bridge a gap is to exert effort oneself and to have help. Is the way to bridge a gap a clue to the reason for their existence? Do we have gaps because it takes a team effort to close them? Do we have gaps because they can’t be closed without effort from both donor and recipient, buyer and seller, God and man?
I think gaps are God’s gift to the people he loves. They keep us humble. They exist because he leads us to aspire to improve. They require us to cooperate. And the greatest and the least of us must acknowledge our shortcomings if we are to benefit from assistance.
Do you think we have gaps so Billy Mays and Vince will have something to do to fill up their days? Neither do I. These fellows seem to want you to think you need something without which you have, so far, been able to scrape by.
Could it be we have gaps so the government can fulfill the wants and needs of citizen and non-citizen alike? It seems that more than 50 million folks recently voted for a president with this point-of-view. Unless this is your first time at Do Not Shrug, you know I have another take on this topic.
Are our gaps the result of some fault in the make up of the universe? After all, the vast majority of the universe can fairly be described as one huge gap! Even Gaia-worshipers think the universe is fault-free. Only humans have faults. (I expect a crusade to rename seismic faults pretty soon; “fault” is too judgmental a name for a natural phenomenon for us accidents of evolution to use.)
No doubt about it, gaps exist for a reason. They were designed. They are intended. We want something we can’t or don’t have because we need to aspire for improvement.
- If we are hungry, we want sustenance.
- If we lack shelter, we want comfort.
- If we thirst, we want relief.
- If we are lonely, we want succor.
- If we feel empty, we want to fill our void.
Perhaps we have a dream of accomplishment, and we want to fulfill our dream. We want to be fitter, faster, more musical, a better sculptor, a better writer, victorious in the boxing ring, the most accomplished sniper, or even reelected to public office. The unfulfilled dream is just as much a gap as the desire of a derelict for a warm bed on a cold night.
Now, what are our options for bridging a gap?
- We can try alone.
- We can try with help.
- We can wait for help.
Trying alone – isn’t that the story of Robinson Crusoe? Or maybe it’s the western myth of rugged individualism? Well, if you actually read Robinson Crusoe, you know that he had a Bible and a lot of flotsam and jetsam at hand, no to mention his man, Friday. And the voyageurs, trappers, woodsmen, and settlers of the American west turn out to be rooted in social structures, too. It’s difficult to be truly alone in any undertaking.
Trying with help - that's what achievers do. Athletes have coaches. Musicians have teachers. Name a vocation, there is a helper associated with it. Christians who try to follow Jesus have the Bible and their church fellowship. Atheists have libraries, universities, and websites. Politicians have pollsters, advisors, and some even have financial sponsors.
Waiting for help - that can work out. There’s a story of a grizzled World War II veteran, standing on the deck of an aircraft carrier, who took no action during the abandon ship drill. When confronted, he said he would wait till the water reached the deck then and step off. After all, he said, “That’s what I did when the old Hornet sank.”
Most people who wait for help don’t fare so well. If you can’t read this because “your school failed you,” waiting for the ability to read won’t help you earn a living or pay your rent. If you are waiting for God to buy you a color TV or a Mercedes-Benz (as sung by Janis Joplin), you are unlikely to close that gap. Many New Orleaneans during Katrina, Noah’s neighbors, and the average urban street-dweller share a predilection to waiting, and all suffer for it.
So the effective way to bridge a gap is to exert effort oneself and to have help. Is the way to bridge a gap a clue to the reason for their existence? Do we have gaps because it takes a team effort to close them? Do we have gaps because they can’t be closed without effort from both donor and recipient, buyer and seller, God and man?
I think gaps are God’s gift to the people he loves. They keep us humble. They exist because he leads us to aspire to improve. They require us to cooperate. And the greatest and the least of us must acknowledge our shortcomings if we are to benefit from assistance.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Have Mercy
“… bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you.”
This passage from Matthew enjoins followers of Jesus Christ to love not only our friends and families but also our enemies. What actions will follow from this love? In particular, if we love our enemies, must we show mercy on them? How do love and mercy differ?
The Oxford English dictionary devotes more than four pages to love (scant effort compared to the Bible, but perhaps the most extensive presence of any word in the OED). Perhaps the most impressive aspect of the definition is the derivation of the word from a Teutonic root that means “hope.”
Paul wrote to the church in Corinth, “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.”
How does love compare to mercy? The OED advises that mercy is forbearance or kindness extended to another who is in one’s power and who has no claim to receive kindness. In particular, it is forbearance where severity is to be expected.
Two points:
1. We need not love someone to whom we extend mercy.
2. We may not owe mercy to someone we love.
Point one is easy. Love is not an operating principle in the legal system, but judges are often merciful to meritless defendants (perhaps much too often). One may argue that excessive mercy harms the unpunished and their past and future victims, too.
Point two is harder. After all, we are told to love everyone. We are told that such love keeps no record of wrongs. And we are told that we are not to judge, for judging is the province of the Almighty. Does it not then follow that we should take no action against those who hurt us?
Is it a fallacy that mercy must follow love? Consider:
You love your child. Your child wants to dart into the street from between two parked cars. You stop your child and speak forcefully about the danger of taking such needless risks.
You love your child. Your child wants to eat cookies all afternoon, and takes some when you are not watching to eat after you have forbidden this. You tell your child that it is wrong to take something without permission and to disobey an instruction you gave. Eventually, you punish your child for these infractions.
You love your child. Your child uses narcotics. You know that narcotic use will lead to illness and premature death, and may endanger others. You intervene to get your child treatment. Eventually, you ask law enforcement officials to intervene.
You may say that you acted mercifully in each case. Perhaps you did not. Is mercy simply forbearance? Would it be mercy to let the child dart into the street, to let the child ignore your instructions and eat the cookies, or to let your child continue to use narcotics? Would it be kind? If mercy is forbearance to those who have no claim on your kindness, then you were not merciful as you were not forbearing. You were loving in what you did – preventing, remonstrating, correcting, punishing.
Now, let’s talk about mercy in our society.
Is it merciful to use government funds (taxes or fiat currency) to provide housing and food to those who do not provide for themselves? It is a form of forbearance for those who have no claim to kindness. Oh, a great many people say we are commanded to provide “for the least of these,” omitting “brothers of Mine.” On the basis of a giant leap from one’s individual duty to the Maker to a communal obligation exercised through the state, these people claim that those who expect a handout deserve it, and we must pay the government to provide it – or at least the minority of us who earn more than the exempted income will cede progressively more of our earnings to pay for this handout.
Set aside the blatant immorality of taxing one group at a different rate than another. How can it be the proper function of government to provide for the personal welfare of any person that did not enter into a contract with that government to provide a service of value to the government? You will look in vain in our Constitution for such Congressional power.
Suppose for a moment the power existed. How can it be kind to give money that was taxed or inflated from the general population to a “needy” person? How not? After all, they need shelter and sustenance. So do we all. They also need self-esteem that can only derive from accomplishment. They need relationships, and these cannot be one-sided. They need a pathway to improvement, not roadblocks. They need motivation, not disincentive. When has government provided self-esteem, relationships, a path to personal improvement, or motivation to individuals who receive housing, food stamps, unemployment compensation, or publicly funded health care? Never.
A caring society will know that “the least of these brothers of Mine” can only become healthy and accomplished when they are healed by love, guided by the Light, and cared for by other individuals. This healing, guidance, and individual care are the fruits of private charity, not public welfare.
Mercy, then, would be to dismantle the behemoth of state aid to individuals and free up the billions of dollars so misused for private charity. Mercy would stop interfering with the provision of health care so doctors, nurses, and institutions could provide charity care for those who cannot afford it. Mercy would stop inculcating the poor among us with a sense of dependence and godlessness through tax-supported schools dominated by unions that put teacher job tenure ahead of academic achievement.
That mercy would be the greatest outpouring of love our society could achieve in this century, and the merciful would benefit no more than the recipients of their mercy – that is to say bountifully.
“Peace I leave with you; My peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.”
This passage from Matthew enjoins followers of Jesus Christ to love not only our friends and families but also our enemies. What actions will follow from this love? In particular, if we love our enemies, must we show mercy on them? How do love and mercy differ?
The Oxford English dictionary devotes more than four pages to love (scant effort compared to the Bible, but perhaps the most extensive presence of any word in the OED). Perhaps the most impressive aspect of the definition is the derivation of the word from a Teutonic root that means “hope.”
Paul wrote to the church in Corinth, “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.”
How does love compare to mercy? The OED advises that mercy is forbearance or kindness extended to another who is in one’s power and who has no claim to receive kindness. In particular, it is forbearance where severity is to be expected.
Two points:
1. We need not love someone to whom we extend mercy.
2. We may not owe mercy to someone we love.
Point one is easy. Love is not an operating principle in the legal system, but judges are often merciful to meritless defendants (perhaps much too often). One may argue that excessive mercy harms the unpunished and their past and future victims, too.
Point two is harder. After all, we are told to love everyone. We are told that such love keeps no record of wrongs. And we are told that we are not to judge, for judging is the province of the Almighty. Does it not then follow that we should take no action against those who hurt us?
Is it a fallacy that mercy must follow love? Consider:
You love your child. Your child wants to dart into the street from between two parked cars. You stop your child and speak forcefully about the danger of taking such needless risks.
You love your child. Your child wants to eat cookies all afternoon, and takes some when you are not watching to eat after you have forbidden this. You tell your child that it is wrong to take something without permission and to disobey an instruction you gave. Eventually, you punish your child for these infractions.
You love your child. Your child uses narcotics. You know that narcotic use will lead to illness and premature death, and may endanger others. You intervene to get your child treatment. Eventually, you ask law enforcement officials to intervene.
You may say that you acted mercifully in each case. Perhaps you did not. Is mercy simply forbearance? Would it be mercy to let the child dart into the street, to let the child ignore your instructions and eat the cookies, or to let your child continue to use narcotics? Would it be kind? If mercy is forbearance to those who have no claim on your kindness, then you were not merciful as you were not forbearing. You were loving in what you did – preventing, remonstrating, correcting, punishing.
Now, let’s talk about mercy in our society.
Is it merciful to use government funds (taxes or fiat currency) to provide housing and food to those who do not provide for themselves? It is a form of forbearance for those who have no claim to kindness. Oh, a great many people say we are commanded to provide “for the least of these,” omitting “brothers of Mine.” On the basis of a giant leap from one’s individual duty to the Maker to a communal obligation exercised through the state, these people claim that those who expect a handout deserve it, and we must pay the government to provide it – or at least the minority of us who earn more than the exempted income will cede progressively more of our earnings to pay for this handout.
Set aside the blatant immorality of taxing one group at a different rate than another. How can it be the proper function of government to provide for the personal welfare of any person that did not enter into a contract with that government to provide a service of value to the government? You will look in vain in our Constitution for such Congressional power.
Suppose for a moment the power existed. How can it be kind to give money that was taxed or inflated from the general population to a “needy” person? How not? After all, they need shelter and sustenance. So do we all. They also need self-esteem that can only derive from accomplishment. They need relationships, and these cannot be one-sided. They need a pathway to improvement, not roadblocks. They need motivation, not disincentive. When has government provided self-esteem, relationships, a path to personal improvement, or motivation to individuals who receive housing, food stamps, unemployment compensation, or publicly funded health care? Never.
A caring society will know that “the least of these brothers of Mine” can only become healthy and accomplished when they are healed by love, guided by the Light, and cared for by other individuals. This healing, guidance, and individual care are the fruits of private charity, not public welfare.
Mercy, then, would be to dismantle the behemoth of state aid to individuals and free up the billions of dollars so misused for private charity. Mercy would stop interfering with the provision of health care so doctors, nurses, and institutions could provide charity care for those who cannot afford it. Mercy would stop inculcating the poor among us with a sense of dependence and godlessness through tax-supported schools dominated by unions that put teacher job tenure ahead of academic achievement.
That mercy would be the greatest outpouring of love our society could achieve in this century, and the merciful would benefit no more than the recipients of their mercy – that is to say bountifully.
“Peace I leave with you; My peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.”
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Take No Prisoners
Civil discourse is the hallmark of a wholesome society, or so I have been told. If the absence of civil discourse reveals an ailing society, then it seems the patient is very ill. Consider:
• The President of the United States, when his TelePropTer is handy, makes his case for each new social nostrum by offering rational choice between a non-existent opposing view and his own.
• Whenever a secular humanist failure is so egregious that it can no longer be concealed from public view, its occurrence is “unexpected.”
• Experts are always “surprised” when common sense conservative expectations come to pass.
So what are we who don’t share the popular delusions that human behavior is perfectible, that men will gladly work to pay for those who don’t, and that men who have been conditioned to expect entitlements will somehow throw off their chains and become free – what shall we do to educate everyone who exercises the franchise (that is, “votes,” for those of you who attended compulsory public school during the last 40 years)?
Shall we say, “On the one hand, the Founders clearly understood how to organize government for the general welfare of our nation, and on the other hand, Obama, Reid, and Pelosi may not?” I’m thinking this is both erroneous and unlikely to change many minds.
A left-wing loon recently told me that he believed people should be responsible for their own actions, and that he thought Obama’s redistributionist plans were just and fair. This fellow is a secular humanist – the first clue that his reasoning powers are suspect. When one tries to reconcile the competing notions of individual responsibility and government taking disproportionately from one taxpayer to subsidize a tax-taker, one can see how hard it is to reason with someone who holds such views.
Decades ago, I learned a communication model with five sides to use when the method I normally use doesn’t work. The five sides are Persuasion (by logic), Intimidation, Disclosing, Disengaging, and Visioning. Most of us are familiar with trying to explain the six reasons why you should agree with me (persuasion). Congress is hard at work on Intimidation (the Employee Free Choice Act, under which union goons can intimidate workers to sign a card requesting union certification). I probably shouldn’t tell you this, but when I let you in on a “secret,” that is called “disclosing,” and it can persuade people who are susceptible to joining the “inside circle” (You get those fund-raising appeals in the mail, don’t you?). Disengaging is what you do when you show the palm of your hand to someone who approaches you while you are on the phone. And the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. used visioning when he made the famous “I have a dream” speech.
Since we aren’t likely to persuade committed idiots, er liberals, by logic, let’s try another communication style (take no prisoners). Every time we are asked to look the other way by Obama, John Kennedy, or Bill Clinton to ignore the latest liberal failure, we get an inspirational speech with an unimpeachably inspirational goal (visioning).
So what’s the lesson here? Do as Reagan did. Cheerfully, relentlessly, and optimistically show the merits of faith in God, adherence to the Constitution, and private charity. Humorously show the weakness of liberal propositions. Love everyone, and positively correct those who err and fail. Gladly help those who accept their own responsibility for failure.
Clearly show others a VISION of the America that can and should be: free, loving, decent, honest, charitable, and self-reliant.
Above all, let the healing hand of our Creator shape your life. Accept His mercy, acknowledge His lordship, and study His word. The example of His followers is a powerfully persuasive force for good. His message is clear – there is mercy for those who love God and follow His word, exclusively for them alone.
• The President of the United States, when his TelePropTer is handy, makes his case for each new social nostrum by offering rational choice between a non-existent opposing view and his own.
• Whenever a secular humanist failure is so egregious that it can no longer be concealed from public view, its occurrence is “unexpected.”
• Experts are always “surprised” when common sense conservative expectations come to pass.
So what are we who don’t share the popular delusions that human behavior is perfectible, that men will gladly work to pay for those who don’t, and that men who have been conditioned to expect entitlements will somehow throw off their chains and become free – what shall we do to educate everyone who exercises the franchise (that is, “votes,” for those of you who attended compulsory public school during the last 40 years)?
Shall we say, “On the one hand, the Founders clearly understood how to organize government for the general welfare of our nation, and on the other hand, Obama, Reid, and Pelosi may not?” I’m thinking this is both erroneous and unlikely to change many minds.
A left-wing loon recently told me that he believed people should be responsible for their own actions, and that he thought Obama’s redistributionist plans were just and fair. This fellow is a secular humanist – the first clue that his reasoning powers are suspect. When one tries to reconcile the competing notions of individual responsibility and government taking disproportionately from one taxpayer to subsidize a tax-taker, one can see how hard it is to reason with someone who holds such views.
Decades ago, I learned a communication model with five sides to use when the method I normally use doesn’t work. The five sides are Persuasion (by logic), Intimidation, Disclosing, Disengaging, and Visioning. Most of us are familiar with trying to explain the six reasons why you should agree with me (persuasion). Congress is hard at work on Intimidation (the Employee Free Choice Act, under which union goons can intimidate workers to sign a card requesting union certification). I probably shouldn’t tell you this, but when I let you in on a “secret,” that is called “disclosing,” and it can persuade people who are susceptible to joining the “inside circle” (You get those fund-raising appeals in the mail, don’t you?). Disengaging is what you do when you show the palm of your hand to someone who approaches you while you are on the phone. And the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. used visioning when he made the famous “I have a dream” speech.
Since we aren’t likely to persuade committed idiots, er liberals, by logic, let’s try another communication style (take no prisoners). Every time we are asked to look the other way by Obama, John Kennedy, or Bill Clinton to ignore the latest liberal failure, we get an inspirational speech with an unimpeachably inspirational goal (visioning).
So what’s the lesson here? Do as Reagan did. Cheerfully, relentlessly, and optimistically show the merits of faith in God, adherence to the Constitution, and private charity. Humorously show the weakness of liberal propositions. Love everyone, and positively correct those who err and fail. Gladly help those who accept their own responsibility for failure.
Clearly show others a VISION of the America that can and should be: free, loving, decent, honest, charitable, and self-reliant.
Above all, let the healing hand of our Creator shape your life. Accept His mercy, acknowledge His lordship, and study His word. The example of His followers is a powerfully persuasive force for good. His message is clear – there is mercy for those who love God and follow His word, exclusively for them alone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
