Becoming Cynical about Government: A Personal Journey

I love America. That’s why I study American history as a hobby. I am amazed at what unbelievable success this great experiment has had. We rose from a rag-tag group of loosely associated states to the world’s greatest and richest superpower.

I first started paying attention to America’s greatness when I was in school. I do not remember what grade I was in but it was early. I remember a particular social studies class in which the teacher began the lesson by asking “Which is the most powerful country in the world?” A few hands went up and the students offered a few answers. I could see that other students were thinking about the question. I raced through all of the great countries I could think of. Let’s see, there’s Russia. It’s really large and didn’t we have a cold war thing with them? And Japan. Like Marty McFly said “All the best stuff’s made in Japan.” England. England’s pretty important isn’t it?

The teacher eventually gave us the correct answer, “The United States of America.” It is strange to say but I was shocked. I can remember this sense of wonder as I thought “Really? My country holds the distinguished honor of the most powerful nation in the whold world?” I had never thought of it before.  And I was blessed to be born and raised here.

Ever since then I have had an extreme pride in my country. I believe the founding fathers were great and brilliant men who understand the grave task they faced in designing a government system that would insure freedom for all. After all they were pledging their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor for the purpose of doing so. I have always prayed for and sought to give my opinion to my elected representatives and have trusted them thinking that they (whether or not their were on the correct side of the aisle) were interested in freedom as much as me and as much as the founding fathers.

However somewhere along the line I become distrustful of the federal government. There was a time when I would scoff at folks (usually older people) who would make wisecracks about crooked politicans. Yes, there are some bad, bad men in Washington but you can not call an entire class of American citizens corrupt. But I have begun to see what they mean. Except for a precious few it seems that every single politician is out for one single solitary goal: Not to insure freedom, not to protect liberty, not to serve Americans, but…

to get re-elected.

It is a sad but true fact. Every government program, every photo op, every spending program, every campaign promise, it seems, is the work of men trying to stay gainfully employed. Nothing more. I can see no other reason for such wreckless dismissal of Constitutional law and principles as we see today. Therefore I have joined the lot of Americans who eye politicians suspiciously. I do want to be this way but I feel that I can not walk through life a blind dolt. And I do not think the President or any members of Congress are actively trying to institute socialism or to erode individual freedoms but their vote-buying schemes and programs lead to that end. They either do not see it or do not care.

Furthermore the modern federal government of America has destroyed the sovereignty of the individual states and governors and legislatures have stood by and let it happen! I am sorry but what is good for Massachusetts is not necessarily good for Georgia. And what is good for Georgia may not be good for Iowa. There are only a handful of issues that would need to be regulated across state lines and these are thoroughly described and outlined in the Constitution. Every other issue should be a state and local decision. If the people of Georgia vote that they do not want abortion performed here then that is the way it should be. This is not a Federal issue. If the people of the Peach State do not want homosexual marriage nor do they want to recognize it then it is their prerogative to vote it to be so and there is nothing the Federal government should have to say about it.

Unfortunately most state governors and legislators seem to be kowtowing to the almighty, all-powerful federal government. As an aside, this is why I am supporting Ray McBerry for governor of Georgia because he not only upholds Conservative Constitutional principles but he believes that a state’s governor should also be the one to protect his state from an encroaching federal government through interposition.

I still believe America is the greatest country in the world and the best place to be and live. This is why I still fight to preserve the Constitution that makes it so. Sometimes that means putting pressure on very ones who have been elected to do that!

Ebryonic Stem Cells Are Not in the Constitution

In August 2001, former President George W. Bush used the presidential Executive Order to restrict federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Today (March 9, 2009) President Obama issued a presidential tag-back with an Executive Order of his own reversing Bush’s Executive Order. Sounds like the White House has its very own nanny-nanny-boo-boo going on.

Why does this story stir up in me the inclination to march around Washington with a sign reading “HAVE YOU ACTUALLY HEARD OF THE 10TH AMENDMENT?” If the First Amendment is the most important amendment (which I think it is) then the Tenth Amendment is a close second:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This wonderful statement basically means the Constitution has told all involved with the government of the United states of America exactly what is required of them. And if there is still any doubt or if any issue arises which the Constitution does not address then let the states or the people decide.

No where does the Constitution give the President or Congress the right to make laws concerning scientific research (there is also no clause giving government the right to even fund scientific research but that is a discussion for another day). And since the appropriation of federal funds concerns the use of taxpayer dollars then the people should be allowed to vote on the issue.

The issue could be stated on the ballot simply: Allow taxpayer dollars to be appropriated to embryonic stem cell research–yes or no. Voting yes means you are fine with it and voting no means that you do not want your dollars used that way. Count the votes, problem solved, constitutionally. Or if they like it can be on a state by state basis. The same ballot mentioned above may be used in this scenario as well. If a state passes the bill then taxpayer dollars from citizens from that state may be used for embryonic stem cell research funding. If another state does not pass the bill then monies from taxpayers in that state may not be used.

Instead we see President Obama and even former President Bush using the tyrannical and unconstitutional Executive Order which allows a president to be king for a day. A president may issue an Executive Order which must be carried out the same as a law and to which there is usually no Congressional resistance. If it smells like a monarchy…

This issue, along with abortion and gay marriage, should not be decided by politicians or presidents or even self-righteous judges. These federal bodies have no jurisdiction or authority in the Constitution to decide such matters. These and many other issues should be decided by the states or the people.

Politicians, for all their heartstring-plucking, We-the-People rhetoric, do not seem to know much about the most important “We the People” amendment, the Tenth Amendment.

Considering the Rapture and Millennium Through Catholic Eyes

I am always on the look out for materials that express how the early church (the first 3 centuries particularly) viewed certain doctrines that are the topic of debate in the modern church.  I found an article on the doctrines of the Rapture and the Millennium recently that I enjoyed.

Now this article is from a Catholic website.  I am not Catholic nor do I necessarily agree with all Catholic doctrines. I found the site when I performed a Google search to learn more about St. Augustine’s view of the Millennium The reason this site caught my attention is I think it is profitable at times to view some of our teachings (e.g. the Millennium and the Rapture) through non-Protestant Evangelical eyes.

I know that the attitude of many of my Protestant brethren toward Catholicism is a negative one and there may be a tendency to dismiss this article out-of-hand but, let’s face it, some of the greatest men of the faith have been Catholic. I have already mentioned St. Augustine. Surely you recognize the names of Thomas Aquinas, St. Athanasius, Brother Lawrence, Eusebius the Catholic historian, Jerome, and Justin Martyr, to name a few. So we can not reject wholesale any and all doctrines of the Catholic simply because they are held by Catholics. Catholics agree with Protestants on the nature of sin, original sin, salvation through Christ alone, the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, the sacrificial death of Christ, the Resurrection, the Second Coming, Heaven, and Hell among others. They are not wrong about everything any more than Baptists are wrong about everything—though both are wrong about some things, in my humble opinion.

I respect the Catholic church’s view on various topics because of the age of the Catholic church and studying the teachings of ancient Catholics like Augustine can teach us the views of some of the earliest saints.  Of course I admit that just because a doctrine is old does not make it right, for gnosticism is old but is most assuredly false and unscriptural.  However I do look with suspicion upon movements and doctrines that are very recent and I believe this is prudent. Enjoy.

Politicians Can Not Follow Their Own Rules: The Missing Principles

First there was the revelation that President Obama’s selection of Treasury chief Timothy Geitner failed to pay $43,000 in self-employment taxes in 2004 (and it is suggested that there were years prior to that in which he avoided paying taxes). He said it was “an honest mistake”. I suppose he simply forgot to pay that 43 grand. It probably would have slipped anyone’s mind. Then came the debacle of Tom Daschle who for the second time is having to leave Washington with his tail between his legs, the first time being his defeat at the polls during the last mid-term elections. He withdrew as Obama’s health secretary Tuesday when he admitted to owing $140,000 in back taxes. Finally there is Nancy Killefer who was slated to be the first “performance officer”. I do not have to tell you that she too had to withdraw because she was knee deep in tax issues.

So these are the folks that President Obama thought were worthy to lead this nation? Politicians past and present (like Daschle) have the gall to levy a complex, arcane, crushing tax system against us when they themselves can not see fit to obey it? And it is not just Obama’s recent cabinet issues. Throughout the 20th century and now the 21st century the White House and Congress have been riddled with embarrassing unnecessary scandals.

Separation of Church and State? You Wanted It, You Got It

So-called progressives never let us forget that fateful letter once written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danville Baptists concerning the establishment of a religious denomination at the federal level. Today Jefferson’s phrase “separation of church and state” is taken out of context and misused to flush all remnants of religious sentiment from government. Unfortunately integrity, honesty, and virtue have been flushed away as well. Indeed if I were in charge there are several principles from the Judeo-Christian value system that I would be clamoring to recapture.

1. Bad company corrupts good morals. It is sad that many aspiring politicians can not live up to their ideals once in office. They become corrupted. The number of back room deals and under-the-table favors is disgraceful. If I were president and any of my people were caught in any deal that was not above board then they would cease to be “my people” on the spot. That goes for staff and associates.

2. With all thy getting, get understanding. Wisdom is knowing when to change something and when to let it alone. Wisdom is also not rushing into a decision to please the impatient majority but it involves care and foresight, and the maturity to live with a decision.

3. Your sin will find you out. Geitner and Daschle have been sitting pretty assuming their tax cheating was slyly executed and undetected. I am sure it never crossed their minds that it would be made so humiliatingly public to the embarrassment of one of their own party’s shining stars, Barack Obama. It pays to simply do the right thing every time. Not even politicians are above the law.

4. The laborer is worthy of his hire. Let businesses alone to run their companies in the most efficient, profitable, and responsible way possible. A company should not be forced to pay a worker a $7.25/hr minimum wage when the worker is doing $4.00/hr worth of work. By the same token a worker has the right to leave a job for a better job at any time. Any individual has the right and opportunity to get a quality education (even if it is just a high school education) and thus find better employment opportunities,. but too many throw those educational opportunities away and expect others (such as government) to pick up the slack.

5. Ask for the ancient paths wherein is the good way. The Constitution is a good document yet is being subverted. Let’s follow it. The founding fathers sacrificed their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor for the sake of the liberties that it protects therefore we can be sure that they poured every bit of their good sense, logic, and understanding into it. And they were no dummies. If politicians are going to claim to follow and submit to the Constitution then they had better do it. If they do not believe that it accomplishes the task then they should write a new one. But they should not parade around as upholders of the Constitution all the while ignoring the delegated powers it enumerates.

Josh H.

Sovereignty in the Life of Baby Moses

Exodus chapter 2 tells of the birth of Moses. Pharoah of Egypt had begun to see how the desendents of Jacob grew numerous and mighty. This was a new Pharoah who had not known Joseph and had no respect for his people. Out of political fear Pharoah began to oppress the Israelites and forced them to build with brick and mortar subduing them under tyranny to keep them from rising up or growing too powerful. However the Hebrews continued to grow and thrive.

The next step was a bloody one whereby Pharoah commanded that all male children born to Hebrew mothers were to be killed upon their birth by their Egyptian midwives. The midwives feared God and did not do so and lied to Pharoah about it. So the children of Israel multipled all the more.

Then a man of the tribe of Levi married a Levite woman and she bore him a son. But because she feared the Egyptians she placed him in a basket covered with pitch and placed the basket among the reeds of the Nile River. It so happened that the daughter of Pharoah came with her maidservants to bathe in the river where she spotted the basket with the child in it. She took pity on him and decided to resuce him. But she could not nurse him.

So she sent her maidservant to bring her one of the Hebrew women for she perceived that the babe was one of the Hebrews’ children. The maidservant brought a lady, but not just any lady. Unbeknowst to herself, as far as we know, the maidservant brought the child’s own mother. Pharoah’s daughter gave the child to his  mother so that she might nurse him until such time that he could come and live in Pharoah’s house.

How stunned the mother must have been! When she was summoned she may have even thought that her scheme had been found out. It would seem that God, in His purpose and foreknowledge, arranged for that child to be with his mother again during those early years. How much that must have blessed the mother. Or maybe Pharoah’s daughter somehow knew that this particular Levite woman was the mother and this was an act of mercy on her part. Either way the sovereignty of God in rescuing, protecting, and providing for Moses is clear.

And we know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to His purpose…What then shall we say about these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? (Romans 8: 28, 31)

Josh H.

Rights and Wrongs of the War Between the States

I love history. The American War for Independence and World War II are typically my favorite periods to study (and why is it that times of war are the most interesting?). However I have avoided the most hotly debated and most talked about era, that of the War Between the States,being often mislabeled as the American “Civil War”. I have avoided it because it is a most complicated and multifaceted topic which would require much research and even soul-searching to come to a conclusion over. WWII is simple. Some nutcase wanted to take over the world and the rest of the world had to stop him. But the War of Northern Aggression (sorry, I couldn’t resist) is vastly different. It involved so many “yes, buts”. There is a lot of “This, however that also” which causes it to be a confusing topic especially when you try and discuss the causes.

This is not a cut-and-dried topic and it ruffles my feathers when people treat it as such. So many folks try to paint the War Between the States as “evil Southerners wanted to enslave a people, and the heroes of the North led by Lincoln had to come and defeat the Southern powers of darkness.” It was hardly as simple as all that. Both sides overstepped the bounds of law and decency and there were atrocities committed by the Union as well as the Confederacy. No, Lincoln should not have sent American troops to march on American states but also the Confederacy’s attack on Fort Sumter was unprovoked. I have only been studying this topic for a few weeks now but here I want to list a few events that are rarely taught in school and that opened my eyes to the complexity of the issues at the root of the War Between the States.

It Wasn’t Fought Over Slavery, But Over States’ Rights!

Yes, however the right to own slaves was the state right in question. Southern politicians and Southern plantation owners needed slaves. Plantation owners needed slavery to support Dixie’s socio-economic status. Southern politicians needed new states to have slavery so as to maintain the slaveholding South’s political clout.

There is something interesting I have discovered however. The large slaveholding plantation owners were not the majority, at least not in numbers. Most Southern farmers were small fries who could barely support their families much less a house full of slaves and servants. And as a result most middle- and lower-class Southern whites didn’t give a rip about the slave issue. By the same token most Northern folks didn’t either. It was an argument for politicians and aristocrats mostly. But what did get the attention of middle- and lower-class Southern whites was a Northern invasion of the South which resulted in the first battle of the war, the Battle of First Manassas (also called Bull Run).

Abraham Lincoln was the hero of the slave and his purpose was to free blacks.

No, Lincoln’s self-declared purpose was to maintain the Union. The founding fathers formed “a more perfect union”. How would you like to go down in history as the man who let it go down the drain? Yeah, Lincoln didn’t like that prospect either. He even said that if freeing the slaves would save the Union, he would do it, or if maintaining slavery would save the Union, he would do it. He no doubt believed slavery was wrong and he wanted to see it end but that is not why he invaded and fought the Confederacy.

The Emancipation Proclamation Freed the Slaves

Well, partially. The Emancipation Proclamation (EP) freed Confederate slaves. The slaveholding Union states outlawed it legislatively. And the EP was not given as some sort of idealistic “let my people go” edict. As mentioned above, the end of slavery would mean curtains for Southern socio-economic strength. Without slaves, the rich, economically-necessary plantations could not operate. Lincoln knew that freeing Southern slaves would harm the Southern war effort.

Lincoln’s EP also had another political effect and thus arose from a political motive. It kept Great Britain out of the war. Britain was close to entering the war on the side of the Confederacy. However, having recently undergone abolition of slavery herself (thanks to William Wilberforce), it would have been a conflict of interest for Britain to join a war fighting against a nation (the United States) which had taken a formal stance against slavery (the EP). The EP produced a most desirable effect (the freedom of Southern slaves), but the motivation was purely political.

Yes, but saving the Union was the right thing to do!
Was it? I suppose this is a matter of opinion. It all depends on how you view states’ rights. The question of states’ rights is still a debate. Just because the Civil War-era debate over states’ rights involved the question of slavery does not mean it was or is a non-issue. The United States is just that: an agreement, a pact among sovereign states. Just read the Declaration of Independence which declares that these are “and of right ought to be free and independent states.” The Declaration also states that when the bonds that have tied one state to another no longer serve the purposes of those involved then such bonds should be dissolved. That is the right of every free and independent state and is the very right that South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Virginia, Tennessee, and North Carolina were attempting to exercise when Lincoln sent American troops to attack American states. Was that action just?

Then again, was it just that the Confederacy attacked Fort Sumter without provocation?

In the final analysis, I would have to say that both sides should have left well enough alone. The Union should have honored the South’s right to secede and the South should have simply seceded and went on its merry way. It is my personal belief that these states are stronger united than separate and that even without a war both sides would have seen their mutual need of one another and the Union would have been restored through the natural course of time. By the same token, there had already been great moral concerns over slavery and since only a small aristocracy had any personal advantage in keeping it around, I believe that slavery would also have come to an inevitable demise. Abolition was already winning the day in other parts of the world so it was only a matter of time before it would come to American shores (in the same way that American segragation eventually ended on its own). But Lincoln forced the issue and thus economic harm and years of resentment resulted. Also Lincoln’s efforts made the federal government too strong and today we pay for it economically and in terms of states’ rights. Thankfully we have been able to overcome the resentment and the economic woes of Reconstruction and the South is strong and so I believe we will eventually overcome the harm done to states’ rights and sovereignty through the natural course of time.

Josh H.

Happy Australia Day, Mates!

 

G’day! Many Americans may not know that today, January 26, is Australia Day. This is Australia’s national day in which the blokes down under celebrate “what’s great about Australia and being Australian.”

 

On this day in 1788, the British Naval commander Arthur Phillip landed in Sydney Cove (of course it wasn’t called that then) and set up the first European colony in Australia, New South Wales. He was subsequently appointed governor over New South Wales, which was to serve as a penal colony. In addition, Phillip also founded the city of Sydney.

So let’s join our Australian mates in celebrating Australia Day. So who wants to take me to Outback?

Josh H.

On This Day In 1978

Today is Friday, December 8. It is my birthday today. So in celebration of this happy occasion, I have decided to list a few historical events that have happened on December 8. Some of these I already knew, some are new to me. I hope you enjoy reading them as much as I enjoyed researching them.

Eli Whitney Born, 1765

The inventor of the cotton gin was born in Westboro, MA.

Southern Reconstruction, 1863

President Abraham Lincoln unveiled his plan of Reconstruction for the South.

U.S. Enters WWII, 1941

The United States declares war on Japan, thus entering World War II. This was the day after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

“I Love Lucy” Pregnancy, 1952

A pregnancy was acknowledged on a television show for the first time.

Phil Collen Was Born, 1957

Lead guitar player for the rock band Def Leppard (not the pop singer, that’s Collins) was born. Rock on!!

Elvis on TV, 1968

The famous “Elvis” television special aired on NBC.

John Lennon Dies, 1980

The singer/songwriter/former Beatle was shot outside his NYC apartment by Mark David Chapman, a crazed fan.

Bryan Adams on American Bandstand, 1984

Bryan Adams performs “Run to You” and “Kids Just Wanna Rock” on American Bandstand. Sorry, ladies, this was way before “Everything I Do (I Do It For You)”.

New O.J. Trial Jurors, 1994

Twelve alternate jurors were chosen for the O.J. Simpson murder trial.

Snipes Surrenders to Authorities for Tax Fraud, 2006

Actor Wesley Snipes surrendered to authorities to face the charge of tax fraud. He was released on $1 million bond.

Josh H.