CIA Gone Rogue

At CNS News, Robert Novak details a "Rogue CIA" which is part of what I've referred to as a "shadow government" operating to undermine President Bush and our national security interest.

In the piece, Novak talks about the CIA destruction of interrogation tapes, Valerie Plame, and the myopic National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) which says Iran is now a good little boy when it comes to their quest for nukes.

Bush has not taken a firm enough hand with these shadow government types. I had hoped he might clean up the State Department and CIA, among others. However, there is little or no evidence anything has been cleaned up.

We cannot afford for liberal elements within our government, which should be accountable to elected representatives, do just do their own thing.

Secession Making a Comeback?

From Yahoo News:

Separated by hundreds of miles and divergent political philosophies, the Middlebury Institute and the League of the South are hosting a two-day Secessionist Convention starting Wednesday in Chattanooga.

They expect to attract supporters from California, Alaska and Hawaii, inviting anyone who wants to dissolve the Union so states can save themselves from an overbearing federal government.

If allowed to go their own way, New Englanders "probably would allow abortion and have gun control," Hill said, while Southerners "would probably crack down on illegal immigration harder than it is being now."

The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly prohibit secession, but few people think it is politically viable.

I agree that it's unlikely to succeed (remember the last attempt some 150 years ago?). But such a strong desire should tell us something: there is deep dissatisfaction all across the country with the way things are going, for a number of often divergent reasons.

There is a solution, though. And while I admit it would also be an uphill battle, it has two things going for it: (1) it would preserve the union and (2) unlike many things that go on today would actually be Constitutional.

It's called "federalism." It's how our country was designed to operate, and it's how we did operate until about 60 years ago when FDR radically expanded the power of the central/federal government.

The serious student of American history knows that for decades after the United States became a nation, the states saw themselves with great autonomy from the government in Washington, D.C. For example, people in Virginia saw themselves as Virginians first, and saw Virginia as their "country." In this, they were not being rebellious or radical, merely reflective of the autonomy guaranteed to the states by our U.S. Constitution.

We see the doctrine of shared powers or co-sovereignty not only in the voluminous writings of the Founders, but in even more concrete pillars of our government.

The Tenth Amendment, after all, states "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." Sadly, in the last 60 years this has been reinterpreted to essentially say, "The powers not prohibited to the United States by the Constitution, regardless of what the states or the people have to say, are reserved to the federal government."

Consider also that the electoral college, the system by which we elect presidents, as opposed to popular vote, is specifically designed to empower the states. Presidents are not elected by an across-the-board vote of all U.S. citizens, but are elected by blocks of electoral votes that belong specifically to each state based on the state's population. The Founders saw the need for the states to have specific and substantive powers in order for federalism to work...and to provide a check on central government.

Recall, too, that prior to the 17th Amendment, United States senators were NOT elected by a vote of the people, but by the state legislatures. This was yet another instance of sway and co-power between the states and the central (federal) government.

But now the states have no direct influence on the federal legislative body, and some are very eager to do away with the electoral college. Beyond that, the 10th Amendment is so much toilet paper, and federalism has devolved from "shared power" to a situation where the only power the states have is in matters that the federal government doesn't deem worthy of it's magnificent consideration. In other words, the states get the crumbs that fall from the table of the federal government.

A return to federalism would be good, not only to disarm secessionist talk like that cited above, but would restore health to our nation. The Founders saw the grave dangers of a powerful central government and accordingly they set up our system of federalism to combat that danger. But this federalist protection has been short-circuited and disabled, and we are suffering for it.

We get one-size-fits-all solutions imposed from Washington that really don't fit the various states well at all (some are populous, some are sparse, some are urban, some are rural, some are manufacturing states, some are ag states, some are liberal, some are conservative). And we have imperial edicts handed down from Washington that were once decided state by state according to the needs and dispositions of each state.

Do I think it'll be easy to return to federalism? No, not at all; in fact, it's sadly unlikely. But all movements invariably start with a handful of people. And they build as people see the need. If we don't turn back to the way things were supposed to be, we're going to end up with the solidification of the shadow of oligarchy we currently live under. Or we'll end up a fragmented continent, as the secessionists want. Or both in succession.

Replacing Weasels with Patriots

There's been talk the past few days that some of the diplomatic staff at the State Department are almost in open rebellion about being assigned to Iraq. Apparently these pansies think it's too dangerous to be posted over there (what about the troops who are not only posted there, but walk the streets and hills of Iraq?).

But Rep. Duncan Hunter has a great idea. From WorldNetDaily:

"I said, 'Let's go over to Bethesda and Walter Reed (hospitals) and as we get these new – these soldiers and Marines who are embarking on new careers," Hunter said, "let's recruit them for the State Department; and let's fire these guys that refuse to go, and we'll give the State Department careers to these military guys."

The State Department are about about the biggest bunch of pansies and anti-Americans in our government. The department was full of communists back in the days of FDR (remember the traitor Alger Hiss?) and I'm sure for a long time afterward. There's also a story of how Secretary of State George Schultz under Reagan had to explain to our foreign ambassadors that their allegiance was to the United States, not the country in which they were posted. The State Department has acted like a shadow government for decades, working to undermine any strong foreign policy that stood firm against the Soviet Union or other despots around the world.

Hunter's idea is great! It would not only fill any voids in the diplomatic corps, it would allow former military members--who are otherwise plenty able to function--to continue service to their country, and it would also help clean out a bunch of the weasels in the State Dept and replace them with patriotic Americans.

In the radio interview today, Beck responded enthusiastically to Hunter's idea.

"That is fantastic," Beck said. " … These guys are some of the most remarkable humans I have ever met and none of them, as you know, none of them want to leave service."

Hunter replied, "Exactly. And this would be great service for them. In Baghdad, in the State Department, the embassy, they know the lay of the land. They know the people, and they are professionals, and they are patriotic."

Hunter said Bush indicated he might be open to the idea.

The Education of America's Founding Patriots

Abe Lincoln said, "The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next."

The better we understand the education of the generations that led up to and included our founding fathers, the better we will understand exactly how they wanted us to be governed; and what were the driving ideals and passionate Truths that they were all willing to die for?

There is no doubt that America is the Richest, Strongest, Most Free, and mostgenerous nation that has ever existed. Not 1 in 10 public high school graduates can explain with any clarity why this is so. When many graduate from colleges they have been convinced to hate their Mother Country that still remains Freedom's only substantial hope on earth. This treason is rampant and only widespread knowledge of our true history can keep us free.

Does it not make sense that if the young people of America have no idea why we are special,they will not be able to defend what they do not understand?

Beyond any shadow of doubtthe most important fact of American history is the Christian Faith of our Founding Fathers! They studied the Bible hard as their primary textbook. They believed the Bible was the inspired and inerrant Word of God. They all believed that the 10 commandments were essential to peaceful civilization; and the Golden Rule was the source of the consideration and respect that held families and communities together.

Their belief in Satan and ultimate evil led to the first public education law ever passed in the United States in 1642 called "The Old Deluder Satan Act" because it was a chief aim of Satan to keep children from studying the Bible therefore the settlers made a law to insure that education was based on the Word of God.

The first textbook was published in America in 1690 by Benjamin Harris was called The New England Primer. This sweet book helped millions of American children for more than 200 years to learn their ABC's with Christian Rhymes:

"A" in Adams fall we sinned all.
"B" Heaven to find, the Bible mind.
"C" Christ crucified for sinners died.

The New England Primer also included prayers, lessons, and a catechism that taught the 10 commandments as well as their meanings. Most of the Founding Fathers who signed the Declaration of Independence, fought the Revolution, signed the Constitution and the Bill of Rights started their education with the Bible and the New England Primer.

The schools of higher learning that many of the Founding Fathers attended were based on the Christian Faith. Harvard helped educate John Adams, John Hancock and Sam Adams and declared its educational purpose clearly:

Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider well the main end of his life and studies is to know God and Jesus which is eternal life, John 17:3, and therefore to lay Christ in the bottom as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and learning.

Harvard students were required to read the Bible twice each day in order to give an account of his proficiency therein.

Yale taught many prominent founders such as Noah(dictionary) Webster and those students were required to be present both morning and evening at public prayer.

Princeton produced more Founding Fathers than any other single school: President and Father of the Constitution, James Madison, the Father of American Medicine and signer of the Declaration, Benjamin Rush; and the incredible John Witherspoon who literally mentored James Madison as President of Princeton and also signed the Declaration of Independence.

Princeton's educational policy was articulated by its first president, Jonathan Dickinson who stated, "Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the Cross of Christ."

The 3 main reasons for education were stated as the required educational philosophy for any new states to be admitted to the Union in the Northwest Ordinance:

Religion, Morality, and Knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.

The Northwest Ordinance was passed by the same congress in the same year (1789) as the First Amendment regarding Freedom of Religion (Not Freedom from Religion) I have no doubt that they knew it gave them the right and the obligation to give Biblical Education to All American children.

George Washington was clearly the most important Founding Father and he was truly our spiritual father as well as First President. Many native Americans believed that he could not die in battle and when several Delaware Chiefs brought their children to him to be educated he said," You do well to wish to learn our arts and our ways of life, and above all, the Religion of Jesus Christ. This will make you a greater and happier people than you are."

Noah Webster was called America's Schoolmaster, he published the first American Dictionary in the English Language and it contained the greatest number of biblical definitions given in a secular volume. Noah standardized spelling for the first time in his famous "blue-backed speller" which sold a million copies a year for 100 years.

Noah Webster stated that "the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed...no Truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people." Webster also stated, "The Bible is the chief moral cause of all that is good"!!!

The Bible was by far the most important book to most of our 300 most influential Founding Fathers.

McGuffey's Readers were first published in 1836 and for 100 years they too sold a million copies or more each year. William McGuffey wrote upon publication that, "The Christian religion is the religion of our country." These great books carried the new nation to a character that would abolish slavery because millions believed that God was just and life is eternal so we must be willing to die for Righteousness sake.

The American dream was Freedom with Responsibility; and to lovingly seek and serve God and our fellow man and walk in the one true God's peace that passes all human understanding.

God is the Father of us all and only true source of love in the universe; why have we deprived millions of American children this glorious heritage?

Selfishness and depravity have replaced nobility and altruism because we have taught garbage and lies to American Children for many decades. Are we nuts? We are up against the wall...We are running out of time....We have traded an educational philosophy which works and results in deep satisfaction and eternal security; with nonsense that is an abject failure in millions of wasted lives who have millions of unwanted children.

The American Founding Fathers were right to teach Biblical values because: CHRISTIANITY IS ALWAYS THE BEST POLICY.

We are not a theocracy but one of the most intense battle cries of the Revolution was,"NO KING BUT KING JESUS!" amen

Thank God for another July 4th;
freedompoet

The Shadow of Big Government

This is the latest McCain ad. Government casts too big a shadow already; if Barack Obama gets a chance at the helm, it will darken everything we do.

Newt Gingrich: NIE Was a Hit Job

Newt Gingrich says what I've suspected all along about the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran: that it's a "shadow government" attack on President Bush.

From the Israeli National News:

The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that downplayed the danger from Iran's nuclear program was "fundamentally dishonest," former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Newt Gingrich said in an exclusive interview with Israel National Radio's Tovia Singer.

"If you simply change about three words you change the whole report," Gingrich said, adding that the report seems to have been "deliberately written to maximize the pain to the Bush administration." It was written by three former State Department officials who were "deeply opposed to what President Bush is doing," he said, and who wrote the report "to maximize confusion."

Gingrich characterized the NIE as "very misleading, very destructive and very unfortunate… almost a bureaucratic coup d'etat."

For reasons that aren't quite clear to me, there are a number of bureaucrats and functionaries in the State Department and intelligence community who are out to make President Bush look bad.

The State Department, I kind of understand. Since before World War II, the State Department has been filled with communists and other varieties of anti-Americans. They undermine American prestige, strength and resolve at every opportunity under the guise of "diplomacy."

What I find hard to understand is why similar elements exist and operate within the intelligence community. One might think that those who work in intelligence would understand the threat and nature of evil around the world. Then again, how many spies and moles have we uncovered from within our own intelligence arm--and how many remain undiscovered?

We cannot allow ourselves to be fooled by people with a political agenda, and an agenda that is anti-American. Evil doesn't change its stripes overnight, and it doesn't change them without a direct and forceful confrontation. This has not even remotely occurred with Iran; in fact, only appeasement has occurred.

We would do well to remain wary of this powerful supporter of terrorism around the world, and be ready to respond militarily if necessary.

Shadow Boxing: Blogging Against Theocracy

Looks like Dawnne and some others at Clean Cut Kid will be blogging against something that doesn't exist in the United States and, to my knowledge, no one in the United States is advocating (except maybe a few Muslim extremists who want us to live under Sharia law). Maybe it's these Muslim extremists CCK and the secularists at "Blog Against Theocracy" are blogging against.

Oh, they included a description of what it is they're against. It isn't any stuff that constitutes a theocracy, but they're apparently so repulsed even a whiff of Christian beliefs being expressed publicly or informing public policy that they're calling it "theocracy":

• religious discrimination (not sure what this means--disparaging those who worship government?)



• end-of-life care (i.e. kill the disabled and infirm at will)



• reproductive health decisions without legal restraint (i.e. kill your baby if it interferes with your sexual fulfillment)



• academic integrity (i.e. vehemently reject anything the Bible says, no matter how much scientific sense it makes, in favor of anything that fits an atheistic worldview, no matter how little sense it makes)



• sound science (i.e. embrace naturalism)



• respect for all families (i.e. whether they're a family or not, let them call themselves one, because feeling good trumps all facts or truths)



• the right to worship, or not (a right guaranteed and enjoyed by all Americans, unless you are a Christian who wants to express your faith in public)

How cute that these people who claim not to be "anti-religious" are doing this on Easter weekend. As long as your religion's god is humanism or government, that claim of not being anti-religion might be true.

Feedback: Shadow Boxing Against Theocracy

Some feedback from Amanda in Carrboro, NC on my post(s) on this "Blogging Against Theocracy" idiocy:

If, as you say, Theocracy doesn't exist, then why are you so afraid of people blogging against it? Anyone in this country should be against the idea of Theocracy - regardless of whether or not they think it's happening.

And, as for religious groups being criticized heavily by the media - haven't we been criticizing Middle Eastern religions, Atheism, etc for a long, long time? Do they not get equal consideration, as religions (or lack thereof)?

There are a lot of religious people who are against Theocracy - most of the people I've heard talk about it are Christian, even. In your case, it seems like you don't see Theocracy happening because it's favoring your religion, but what about those out there who are being denied the rights to worship or not, and to be free from laws that favor particular religions (and hinder others).

I'm just asking that you think about it, and consider that you might be wrong.

I'm not afraid of anyone blogging against theocracy, but I am very concerned about what this group IS doing: attacking public expression of Christian values. I'm not sure whether the people involved in this are genuinely ignorant of the difference between a theocracy and what we have traditionally enjoyed in America until recently ( i.e. a culture influenced--not governed by--Christian values)...or whether they understand the difference and just don't care, as long as it servers their secularist ends.

No one in America is being denied their right to worship (except Christians who choose to do so publicly), and no one is being forced to worship. What we do have is a concerted effort to (a) deny that America was founded on Christian principles by a Christian people; (b) deny that Christian values have shaped our system of government and culture, and (c) purge any expression of Christian faith from public view under the guise of a fallacious doctrine not found in the Constitution called "separation of church and state."

Whether American government and culture SHOULD be based on Christian principles is a valid subject for public debate; if some people believe the United States should be a completely secular nation like France, or even an Islamic country, then let's publicly debate the pros and cons of such a proposition, then put it to a vote--that's the way we do things in the United States.

But attempting to revise history to say the Founders weren't Christians, that they didn't believe religious values should inform and shape public policy, that those values HAVE NOT traditionally shaped American public policy...that's the worst kind of intellectual dishonesty and deception. Beyond being lazy and cowardly, it attempts to short-circuit the public debate of a healthy republic and replace it with a lie foisted on the people without their proper consideration.

I've thought about it, and considered that I might be wrong. But I'm not. The evidence is beyond overwhelming for anyone intellectually honest enough to see it. The fact that this evidence is getting covered up by the dust of history--partially from lack of use, partially from people trying to bury it--should concern all Americans.

I'll be presenting just a few examples of this evidence this weekend, so stay tuned.

Thanks for writing, Amanda.

Empty Arguments Against the Christian Worldview

Looks like my liberal blogger buddy Cory Heidelberger is busy bashing the Truth Project again (have you attended a Truth Project yet, Cory?). This time, Cory treats us to a link to a piece entitled "The Christian Right Goes Back to Bible Boot Camp" by Alexander Zaitchik at a website called AlterNet.

The Truth Project is a 12-week DVD and discussion course on Biblical worldview, or seeing the world through God's eyes as revealed by the Scriptures. It's led by Dr. Del Tackett, who holds several degrees, served more than 20 years as an officer with the U.S. Air Force, and is an adjunct professor at New Geneva Theological Seminary.

If you look to this liberal cesspool called AlterNet, you'll get what you pay for: a lot of anchor-less liberalism. This article oozes with it.

About the only thing the author was correct on is that not only is our culture woefully ignorant of the Bible and the Christian worldview, so is the church. I sadly couldn't dispute that for a second.

The author says the Truth Project seminar contains "more than a whiff of a Holiday Inn get-rich-quick seminar." Really? I haven't seen a single bit of money-hungry talk, or money talk at all, in the Truth Project. I guess the author just pulled that one out of the air to make it sound bad. He does admit that the Truth Project isn't about "financial independence," but the quick mention is enough (he hopes) to taint the Truth Project in the reader's mind.

He calls Tackett "energetic yet predictably dull." That's odd, since I've always found Tackett and the material he presents to be very exciting. I get pretty worked up by things that are intellectually stimulating, logical, insightful, and increase understanding of life. Maybe those things are just dull to Zaitchik.

The cheap shots continue:

Sitting on stage next to Tackett during the length of the seminar is a serious question of adolescent construction: "Do you really believe that what you believe is really real?"

Or, as a secular humanist might put it: In your heart of hearts, do you guys honestly buy, or even understand, all this Bible crap?

In case the author or a reader of this post misses the meaning of Tackett's statement, what it means is that if we truly "owned" our beliefs, had such faith in those truths that it was like the faith we exercise when we sit in a chair or drive across a bridge, then we would be acting differently (more boldly, more like Christ) than we actually are. But I understand that such concepts are hard to grasp when one is busy mocking truth.

This might be as close as the author comes to actually forming a coherent criticism rather than crass ad hominem attacks:

This text analysis is often ridiculous, with Tackett probing the possible double meanings of Biblical diction, as if the King James Bible had been transcribed directly from the mouth of God, and was not an artistic creation of a team of 17th-century scholars in Oxford and Cambridge.

If Zaitchik knew anything about the Book for which he holds such disdain, he'd know (like Tackett) that the King James Version wasn't "transcribed directly from the mouth of God," and no serious student of the Bible believes that (though the original Scriptures themselves were inspired by God). He might know that the Old Testament was written thousands of years ago, originally in Hebrew. He might also know that the New Testament was written shortly after Christ ascended into Heaven, and was written in Greek and Aramaic. He might know that many copies of the Scriptures were made in the years after the time of the apostles, many of which were translated into Latin. He might also know that the translators of the King James Version looked back to hundreds of these manuscripts, translating them from their original language into the English of the time. He might also know that since the time of the King James translation in 1611, many more manuscripts have been found, providing even more insight into the original meanings of these ancient languages.

He might know these things...if he took more time to learn and less time to mock God.

Even more striking than the production values, though, is how little knowledge Tackett assumes on the part of his committed born-again audience. Even John 3:16 is reviewed as if for the first time.

Well, if surveys have revealed that only 4% of the American population has a Biblical worldview (meaning they understand what the Bible says, and are trying to apply it to their lives), and if only 9% of born-again Christians hold a Biblical worldview, then I think it is quite in order to assume a broad lack of knowledge and conduct a review of the basics. If the basics were better understood, most Christians would have progressed beyond an elementary, pop-definition of Christianity to the "meat" of Christian theology. But they haven't; as Paul points out in 1 Corinthians 3, they're still stuck on the milk.

Zaitchik is predictably critical of the lesson on "The State," but beyond charges that Tackett "rambl[es]," Zaitchik doesn't explain why he thinks Tackett is wrong here. He doesn't say so, but that seems to be the implication. If Tackett is wrong, why not explain why so from a Biblical basis?

Zaitchik also seems critical that Tackett finds a Biblical basis for contending that our current tax rates are too high (if God only demanded 10%, doesn't 39% to the government seem a little outrageous?), a lack of Biblical justification for the welfare state, and the Bible's clear statements that homosexuality is wrong. Again, if Zaitchik believes Tackett is in error, why doesn't he point out the contrary evidence in the Bible?

The author then attempts the predictable and obligatory effort to rewrite history and claim that America was not founded by Christians on Christian principles:

He also provides an orgy of selective quotation from America's overwhelmingly Deist founding fathers, as well as genuinely Christian revolutionary B-listers like Benjamin Rush and Noah Webster.

This might just be the biggest lie in the whole article (most of the others are couched in ambiguity and veiled insinuations).

While there were a handful of deists among the founders, and Tom Paine did pretty much walk away from the faith later in life (and Benjamin Franklin took him to the woodshed for some of his anti-Christian writings during this time), all the rest were committed Christians beyond a shadow of a doubt. This includes George Washington, John Adams, Patrick Henry, James Madison, and a host of others. Even the lesser-religious ones such as Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin at the very least recognized the Christian religion and worldview as the best one and paid it every respect.

Anyone who says the Founders were not overwhelmingly Christian in their faith and worldview is either profoundly ignorant or a brazen liar.

We also receive the obligatory bashing of business and the free market from Zaitchik:

The Truth Project devotes much energy to warnings about the greedy state becoming a monster, but the modern corporation makes not even the briefest cameo.

As I have endeavored to point out to a number of socialists who never miss an opportunity to bash the free market while singing the praises of the "Government God," the Bible does not condemn business or the free market, and you will find businessmen and entrepreneurs spoken of favorably throughout the Bible--not because they are entrepreneurs, but because they were men of character. God condemns evil business practices, but not business. The Bible does warn about oppressive governments, though. And the Founders, who had a solidly Christian worldview, had much to say about the dangers of powerful government, but little to say about the dangers of business. Maybe because business do not make the law and exercise police authority, but governments do?

The author gets in a jab at opposition to unionism and minimum wage laws. The Bible clearly indicates that God recognizes and honors property rights and authority. When the state forces a business owner to negotiate with a group of workers against his will, or forces him to pay more than the labor may be worth, property rights and authority go out the door. The Bible admonishes bosses to be fair with their employees, but it does not does not advocate using the power of the state to extort property from the business owner. After all, the employee is free to go find another job if the wages aren't to his satisfaction.

Again, Zaitchik somehow misses the opportunity to tell us where Tackett has departed from the Bible in this view of market and state. I wonder why?

You know what I find most humorous (and sad, at the same time) about this writer's tirade, and Cory's apparent embrace of it? He spends 2,141 words telling us he doesn't like the Truth Project. Not a single time does he explain where Tackett and the Truth Project have gone astray theologically or Biblically.

Zaitchik is entitled to his opinion, of course. But if an opinion can't be backed up with some kind of evidence, it's pretty much worthless. And if a theological opinion can't be backed up by Scripture, it's not only worthless, it's heresy, which is dangerous to one's life here on earth and to one's eternal soul.

If I told you I'd been elected King of America, you'd want some evidence before you'd believe me, right? Without evidence to back up my claim, I'm either a monumental liar or a nut. Zaitchik doesn't present any evidence whatsoever that the Truth Project is not in harmony with Biblical teaching. What does that say about him?

Could it be that there is really nothing amiss in Tackett's presentation or the Truth Project itself? It seems that the only thing really wrong with the Truth Project, from Zaitchik's perspective, is that it doesn't fit very well with his secular, socialist worldview.

But that's the whole point of the Truth Project: helping Christians develop the discernment to tell the truth from the lies.

It looks like the author badly needs to sit through the whole Truth Project, with an open mind instead of one struggling to justify his hate of what God has to say. He might need to sit through it a few times in order to get it, but it'd be worth it.

As a wise man once said, "What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul?" (But He was a little more than just a "wise man," wasn't he?)

Obama: Jimmy Carter Reborn

Time magazine came out with a piece yesterday from Ramesh Ponnuru entitled "In Carter's Shadow."

Ponnuru points out the similarities between that Barack Obama and John McCain have with the presidency of Jimmy Carter, arguably the worst presidency in American history.

While I don't really disagree with any of Ponnuru's descriptions of the McCain/Carter similarities, I think Obama's resemblance to Jimmy Carter is much more direct and and much more striking:

Of the two likely nominees this year, Obama is closest to Carter in background and policy leanings. The parallels between his campaign so far and the one Carter ran in 1976 are striking. Like Carter, Obama had little national experience when he started to run. Neither was given much chance of winning the nomination. Instead of running on a detailed platform, Carter told crowds that what Washington needed was "a government as good as its people"—just as Obama promises "change we can believe in." Carter's message sold well after Richard Nixon's disgrace, and press accounts from the time suggest that people found the born-again Carter to be charismatic. That parallel is a promising one for Obama.

But his Carterish echoes come with two potential dangers. The first is that running as the embodiment of hope can lend itself to a certain self-righteousness—what critics have already started to call elitism. The second danger is that the public will come to see Obama as naive about America's enemies abroad, as it eventually concluded Carter was. Ever since Obama said he was willing to negotiate with those enemies directly and "without precondition," Republicans have been trying to tag him as the son of the Georgia governor.

Many liberals have long put George W. Bush's presidency right down there with Adolf Hitler and Satan (only they don't believe in the latter guy). But either they are too young to remember the Carter years, or have very selective memories.

Carter's socialist policies and gross incompetence led to a sad state of affairs domestically and America becoming a laughing stock around the world. Remember the high unemployment, the double-digit inflation, the interest rates over 20%, the high gas prices, Carter's impotence as a bunch of Iranian radicals took our embassy staff hostage for more than a year, gave up the Panama Canal, left several South American countries to the communist dogs, smooched with the Soviets, and displayed more impotence when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan?

I was still a kid during this time, but I recall it was a pretty sad time to be an American (something that should never be). It was Ronald Reagan's reversal of this state of affairs that made me realize that I was a Republican, despite having come from a family of registered Democrats.

My greatest fear for the near future of America is that if Obama does get elected, we'll have a Carter redux both at home and abroad. And in many ways, the world is a more dangerous place now than it was when Carter was in the White House.

BATS: Insight on the First Amendment

Blogging Against Theocracy Silliness


In "honor" of "Blogging Against Theocracy," a.k.a. "Marginalizing Christianity on its Most Sacred Holiday", a post on "Insight on the First Amendment."

This information provides some insight on the First Amendment as it deals with religion. Most of the information here is from David Barton’s “Original Intent.”

Did Thomas Jefferson say that religion should have no influence on the state? Not in the least. He did, however, point to the true scope and intention of the First Amendment prohibition preventing CONGRESS from making a law respecting an establishment of religion:

Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in any religious discipline has been delegated to the General [federal] Government. It must then rest with the States. – Thomas Jefferson

From the Annals of Congress from June 8, 1789 to September 25, 1789, containing the records of the discussions of those who drafted and approved the First Amendment:

AUGUST 15, 1789. Mr. Sylvester had some doubts…He feared it [the First Amendment] might be thought to have a tendency to abolish religion altogether…Mr Gerry said it would read better if it was that “no religious doctrine shall be established by law”…Mr. Madison said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that “Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law.”

This record gives us some insight as to how the Founders wrestled with the wording of the First Amendment, in the hopes that it wouldn’t be interpreted to “abolish religion altogether” as it is being interpreted by many today.

We are not to attribute this [First Amendment] prohibition of a national religious establishment to an indifference to religion in general, and especially to Christianity (which none could hold in more reverence, than the framers of the Constitution) – Joseph Story

The real object of the [First A]mendment was not to countenance, much less to advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects. – Joseph Story

All men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others. – George Mason

The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established. – James Madison

The whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the State governments to be acted upon according to their own sense of Justice and the State constitutions. – Joseph Story

The Founders were wise men, typically educated far beyond the eduation of most people today. They were also a people of morality and integrity, I doubt they fully realized what might be done with the Constitution by a people that were no longer educated OR moral, but instead wanted to substitute the wisdom of their own lusts for power and pleasure for that of the original intent.

Regarding that, one final bit on the interpretation of law and the Constitution (this applies to current law, and especially the Constitution.

The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it. – James Wilson, signer of the Declaration, member of the Constitutional Convention, and nominated by President George Washington as an original Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court

The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is to construe them according to the sense of the sense of the terms and intentions of the parties. – Joseph Story

In other words, if you wrote a letter to someone, would you want them to interpret it as you meant it…or would you want them to interpret it in a “living” sense, based on their perceived needs and their own agenda?

I think we know that answer to that one, so why should the interpretation of the Constitution, our nations’ highest law, be any different? And it is obvious what the Founders intended with the First Amendment: not the exorcism of faith from public policy, but the prevention of an establishment of a national religion.

And no one is advocating a national religion, which probably would be a theocracy, so that’s why all this bunk of “Blogging Against Theocracy” is shadow-boxing at best, but is more likely just a veiled attack on the influence of Christian morality in public policy.