The Democracy Dilemma (Part 1)

The world of politics grows steadily more frustrating to me. Increasingly, it seems to be a circus, not a legitimate authority. With headlines ranging from Rod Blagojevich’s hung jury to the finger-pointing about the Ground-Zero mosque, I have to ask - is there a good politician left out there? Is there a politician that actually cares to govern for the right reasons, apart from the constant desire to posture and accuse in order to get re-elected? So, I recently pondered these questions: As a Christian, am I under obligation to support and vote for the least offensive candidate, in order to do my part to “turn the tide”? Do I have to be politically active with my vote in every circumstance?

Put another way, if we are told to choose between the lesser of two evils, should we choose at all?

My strong answer to this is “No”, and I’ll tell you why. The argument is often made that Christians cannot withdraw from their political duty – voting – unless they are willing to abandon our nation to the worst possible leaders. Common sense says that if Candidate “A” is more godly than Candidate “B”, then a vote for the lesser of two evils – for Candidate “A” – at least tempers the outcome in favor of Christian principles. Failing to vote at all removes one vote from the “good” candidate and swings one more vote in favor of the “bad” candidate. More often than not, this results in Christians simply voting straight Republican on the ticket, sometimes for candidates of which we have absolutely no knowledge. I know, because I’ve done this very thing in past elections.

But I believe there is a third alternative – leave it to God.

This choice may seem uninvolved and escapist. But I ask – does God really need my vote to see His will done? Obviously, he does not. Romans 13:1b says, “for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.” This verse specifically refers to our political and governmental leaders – this chapter even tells us to pay our taxes. So, if I believe that God is ultimately in charge, then I also believe that He is in control of the elections and leaders in our nation. One could make the argument, “Doesn’t God then use my vote for the lesser of two evils to do His will?” Perhaps, but can’t a similar argument be made that God is in control, even if I choose to abstain from voting for a candidate? The verse tells us that it is God who puts authorities in place – not my vote.

I believe that we need to trust in God – not in democracy. Does that seem un-American? Perhaps it does. But is such a view un-Christian? I don’t think so. Do we have faith in democracy and God...or in God alone? And think on this – isn’t a vote for the lesser of two evils still a vote for evil?

Here is a true dilemma – if two candidates were running for President of the United States, and both of them supported abortion, what would you do? See my answer in the next installment – using a real-life, current example in our upcoming Colorado election.

********************
To Part 2 of The Democracy Dilemma

Getting a Constitutional Education – Questions for Student Discussion (Part 12)

It’s important that we educate our children on the topics of politics, government, and the Constitution which governs our nation. This nine-part series reminds us of some basic principles, lest they be forgotten by the next generation. The following questions provide material for homeschool and public school teachers to share, discuss, and test their students on each of the nine topics. The link to each article is included, or you may start through the series beginning at Constitutional Education – Free Homeschool Curriculum (a nine-part series, originally published in January/February 2009). The discussion questions are divided up into three installments, beginning here.

********************

7. Banking and The Federal Reserve Act (Part 7)

· What is the difference between a Silver Certificate and a Federal Reserve Note? [A Silver Certificate was backed by real silver, and could actually be exchanged for the amount in silver at the treasury. A Federal Reserve Note is not backed by precious metal or anything of value, but is only worth the face amount because the government says so.]

· What was the purpose for the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913? Did it work? [The Federal Reserve was created in 1913 with the purpose of being able to expand or contract the money supply if the government decided it was needed. They feared that people might place a demand for their money or that the stock market was too volatile without this “control”. Unfortunately, it did not work, because the stock market crashed in an historic manner just sixteen years later. The economy continues to fluctuate as much or more than it did before the Federal Reserve was created.]

· What economic occurrence happened after the Federal Reserve was created, one that had not happened before? Explain what this occurrence does to prices. [Inflation occurred after the creation of the Federal Reserve. Prior to this, the prices of goods remained essentially the same for over a hundred years. When the Reserve was given the power to print money, the supply of money goes up and the value of each dollar goes down. This causes prices to rise. This continues to happen today.]

· Extra – Go to your library and check out an 1897 Sears catalog or an 1895 Montgomery Ward catalog (these are readily available at most libraries) or locate other old catalogs from department stores. Compare the prices of similar items from back then to prices today. Calculate the percentage rise in prices for different items. Do you observe the effect of inflation?

· Extra – Do you believe the economy would be better served with more or less government intervention? Do you think a return to the gold or silver standard would be beneficial or harmful?

8. (Mis)interpreting the General Welfare Clause (Part 8)

· Where does the General Welfare clause appear in the Constitution? [It appears twice – once in the Preamble and once in Article 1, Section 8.]

· Does the Constitution explicitly give the federal government the ability to collect taxes and distribute them to states for road construction projects? [No, the Constitution is fairly silent about what the government may spend money on. From a previous lesson, we see that they are directed to fund the military for the protection of our nation, but there is little else that is named specifically in the Constitution that the government may fund.]
· In today’s federal government, is there very much debate about whether or not the government should be involved in a spending program? [We still see some debate in a couple of areas – most notably in the areas of gun laws or abortion. People feel passionately about these topics and so they still make arguments about whether or not the government should be involved. But by and large, most people now raise no questions about whether or not the government should be involved in spending for road construction, healthcare, etc. It’s become a foregone conclusion. However, in the era of the founding fathers, there would have been much debate over these issues and whether the government should participate.]

· Extra – How do you feel about the topic of government spending on various programs? Consult today’s news media and make a list of programs where you see the government spending tax money. Are these areas listed in the Constitution or the Amendments?

· Extra – In your opinion, did most founding fathers intend for the amount of government spending and involvement that we have today? You might look up some quotes from Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams and Patrick Henry.

9. The Birth of Judicial Activism (Part 9)

· When Marbury brought his case before the Supreme Court, what exactly was the purpose of his case? [It was simply to get Hamilton to sign his commission, so that he could take on the role of a federal judge. Marbury cited the Judicial Act of 1789 as the basis for his lawsuit.]

· What was the unprecedented (and some would say shocking) thing that the Supreme Court did regarding Marbury’s case? [They referred the case back to a lower court, but at the same time declared that the Judiciary Act was unconstitutional. This was never before done – that is, the Supreme Court had never before declared something to be unconstitutional (nor had they been asked to rule on the constitutionality of something). The shocking part was that the Court decided on its own that it had the authority to make this judgment.]

· State the difference between judicial activism and judicial restraint. [Judicial activists believe that there are implied powers in the Constitution and that the document is up for changing evaluation and interpretation as the times change. This results in the government expanding its powers over more and more topics as time goes on. Those who believe in judicial restraint believe that the Constitution is very explicit about areas where the government should be involved. They believe that where the Constitution is silent about a topic, the government likely has no authority.]

· What fictitious human right did the Supreme Court refer to in the Roe vs. Wade case? [The right to privacy was the basis of their argument. While most people may agree that privacy is a good thing, there is no mention of a right to privacy in the Constitution. The word does not even appear in the Constitution.]

· Extra – What is your opinion on judicial activism versus judicial restraint? Do you believe in one over the other? Give your reasons.

· Extra – Do some research on Justice John Marshall. How do you think he was viewed by judicial restraint advocates such as Thomas Jefferson?

**************
Back to the beginning of the Constitutional Education series....

Getting a Constitutional Education – Questions for Student Discussion (Part 11)

It’s important that we educate our children on the topics of politics, government, and the Constitution which governs our nation. This nine-part series reminds us of some basic principles, lest they be forgotten by the next generation. The following questions provide material for homeschool and public school teachers to share, discuss, and test their students on each of the nine topics. The link to each article is included, or you may start through the series beginning at Constitutional Education – Free Homeschool Curriculum (a nine-part series, originally published in January/February 2009). The discussion questions are divided up into three installments, beginning here.

**************

4. Origin and Curse of the Federal Income Tax (Part 4)

· Name two events in American history which established a federal income tax. [The first, started during Abraham Lincoln’s administration to pay for the Civil War debt lasted from 1862 to 1872. The second came with the establishment of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1916.]

· Describe why the model where the federal government collects taxes and then gives money back to the states is a potential problem? [The federal government is not required to give the money back in any kind of proportion to the number of people in the states. Therefore, the federal government could potentially give money disproportionately, and almost certainly will. Money earned in one state and taxed may not come back to benefit that state or its taxpayers.]

· Write out the words of the Sixteenth Amendment. While it is very short, what problems can you see in the sentence? [“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” First, “from whatever source derived”” means they can potentially collect taxes on any money transfer. Today, taxes are generally not collected on Internet purchases, but there is nothing to prevent the government from invoking such a tax. “Without apportionment” and “enumeration” means once again that tax benefits can be unequally distributed to people, regardless of who earned it. One could argue that this is very close to the definition of socialism.]

· Extra – Describe how a system of federal taxation can shift the balance of power away from states and toward the federal government. In your opinion, has that happened? Why or why not?

· Extra – Look up the definitions of socialism, collectivism, communism, and capitalism. In your opinion, which one most closely aligns with the idea of federal taxation and re-distribution?

5. Secession and Nullification (Part 5)

· How many states seceded from the Union during the time of the Civil War? Which was the first state to secede? Was your state one of the ones that seceded? [Thirteen states ultimately seceded from the United States, with South Carolina being the first in December of 1860. Tennessee was the last to secede in June, 1861. States seceded over perceived violations of the United States Constitution by the Lincoln administration. The list of States who seceded from the Union include South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee]

· Did the people in the Northern states want to prevent the seceding states from leaving the Union and bring them back into the Union forcefully? [According to Horace Greeley, nine out of ten people in the Northern states agreed that the states’ right to secede from the Union was more important than preserving the Union as a whole. It appears that most people understood well the right of states to secede and they supported it.]

· Summarize the “power pyramid” between individuals, states, and the federal government. How did the founders view this pyramid? How do you think it looks today? [The founders believed in individual rights above all else – this was made clear in their writings and in the Declaration of Independence itself. Next were states’ rights, as is also clearly demonstrated in their writings. The federal government was originally designed to be the weakest of the three. In today’s United States, these roles appear to be reversed. From Part 4 of this series, the Sixteenth Amendment probably had a lot to do with this reversal.]

· Extra – Write an essay weighing the good and bad of Lincoln’s decision to enter into the Civil War. Consider both sides - the abolishment of slavery vs. the abridgement of a state’s right to secede.

· Extra – look up the “South Carolina Declaration of The Causes of Secession”. Outline the state’s reasons for deciding to leave the Union.

6. Enumerated Powers vs. Implied Powers (Part 6)

· Define the concept of express (or enumerated) powers. [A person who believes in enumerated powers allows that only what is listed specifically in the Constitution is applicable to government. This is in line with Thomas Jefferson’s thinking – that government only has the authority to do exactly what is listed in the Constitution – nothing else.]

· Define the concept of implied powers. [A person believing in implied Constitutional powers would hold that government authority can go beyond the specific enumerated powers listed in the Constitution. It becomes difficult to define these powers because “implied” can cover a broad range of thinking. It seems that this has happened – consider, does the federal government have the rightful Constitutional authority to mandate healthcare insurance? We are already seeing Constitutional challenges to this recent law.]

· Did the founding fathers believe that the original Constitution would be completely sufficient for the future? Why or why not? [The founders included Article 5 in the Constitution, which allows for an Amendment to the Constitution to be made. Since they did this, it seems evident that they believed the Constitution was not made to be unchanged forever.]

· Extra – What do you think would happen in Congress if Congressman Shadegg’s “Enumerated Powers Act” became law? Would there be changes in daily Congressional business?

· Extra – Form an opinion and write down your reasons for supporting enumerated powers or implied powers.

**************
Next in the series
-or-
Back to the beginning of the Constitutional Education series....

Getting a Constitutional Education – Questions for Student Discussion (Part 10)

It’s important that we educate our children on the topics of politics, government, and the Constitution which governs our nation. This nine-part series reminds us of some basic principles, lest they be forgotten by the next generation. The following questions provide material for homeschool and public school teachers to share, discuss, and test their students on each of the nine topics. The link to each article is included, or you may start through the series beginning at Constitutional Education – Free Homeschool Curriculum (a nine-part series, originally published in January/February 2009). The discussion
questions are divided up into three installments, beginning here.

*****************

1. Presidential Power (Part 1)

· Which Article of the Constitution deals specifically with the powers given to the President? [Article 2]

· Name two of the six specifically named powers given to the President [Commander in Chief of the military, authority over other members of the Executive branch, the power to grant reprieves and pardons, the ability to make treaties (with congressional approval), the power to nominate ambassadors and Supreme Court justices, and the authority to appoint Senate vacancies during recess periods]

· What is one danger of giving too much power to one person in government? [The founding fathers fled this very situation in England, because the king began exercising authority over areas such as religion – preventing personal freedoms]

· Does the Constitution give the Supreme Court the ultimate authority to rule on the interpretation of the Constitution? [Article 3 of the Constitution enumerates the powers given to the Supreme Court, as does the 11th Amendment. Nowhere in there can one interpret such powers as being given to the Court]

· What are your thoughts on the disagreement between Justice John Marshall and President Andrew Jackson on the power of the Supreme Court? [Jackson appears to argue correctly that the Court was exceeding its authority. Nevertheless, to this day, the Court behaves as if it is the ultimate arbiter on Constitutional law.]

· Extra – Look for news articles, postings or telecasts which may demonstrate the assumption of presidential or Court authority which is not given in the Constitution

2. States’ Rights (Part 2)

· A system emphasizing the idea of states’ rights is called what? [Federalism]

· Have United States Senators always been elected by the people every six years? When did this change, and what changed it? How were they previously selected? [No, U.S. Senators used to be appointed by state legislatures until the adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913.]

· Do you believe that the founding fathers would place more importance on power emanating from the states or from the federal government? [It seems clear in reviewing the words of most founding fathers and documents such as the Constitution that they favored states’ rights. They seemed opposed to a great deal of authority at the federal level, probably because of their experience with the monarchy back in England. In fact, it took a Constitutional Amendment to change the appointment of Senators to a direct election. If they had to amend the Constitution to provide for this, it seems clear that it was not the founders intent.]

· Extra – In your opinion, is there an important difference between a state-appointed Senator and an elected one? Describe why. Consider what may influence their decision-making in each case.

3. Government Debt (Part 3)

· Does the Constitution allow the federal government to run a deficit and go into debt? [The Constitution does not specifically prohibit debt at the federal government level, and seems to imply that it can assume debt or establish new debt (as in Article 6).]

· Can we get an itemized tax bill from the government telling us exactly where our tax money is being spent? Why would this be a good idea? [Unfortunately, no. It would be good to be able to get one because it would cause the government to have more responsibility in where it spends our money if they knew they were going to have to tell us where every dollar goes. It is too bad that we don’t have this transparency from our government. Note that it doesn’t work the other way – we have to tell the government where we get and spend every dollar of our money when we fill out our yearly tax forms.]

· Does all tax money that is collected this year go only toward programs that happen this year? [No, the government uses a lot of this year’s money to pay for programs that were implemented years ago. Likewise, they use this year’s money to pay interest on borrowing that that did in the past.]

· Extra – What do you think the danger of an increasing national debt could be? [There may come a time when the debt cannot be paid because of a loss of prosperity. If that occurs, other nations who we have borrowed from (such as China) may feel obliged to get their money back through some other means. It also may mean that the world financial markets will switch from their standard currency – the U.S. dollar. This would put the United States on a lower-status financial footing. It may mean that the United States loses its position as a world superpower.]

· Extra – Do you think government spending and debt should be any different than personal spending and debt? Why or why not?

**************

Next in the series
-or-
Back to the beginning of the Constitutional Education series
....

Brought To My Census – Part 3

One final point of irony needs to be made regarding the census and the American Community Survey that I’ve written about so far. I appear to be one of a very few who is bothered by the personal intrusion of the questions asked in the survey. But the one that confuses me the most is that no outcry has been raised over the following question, found on page eight of the ACS:

Is this person a citizen of the United States?, with the possible answers given as:
· Yes, born in the United States
· Yes, born in Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, or Northern Marianas
· Yes, born abroad of U.S. citizen parent or parents
· Yes, U.S. citizen by naturalization
· No, not a U.S. Citizen

In essence, the question allows the federal government to ask me about my immigration status. And guess what? That is exactly what Arizona’s new controversial immigration law does! The Arizona law allows police to query a person’s immigration status, with possible deportation being the result. Since being passed into law, Arizona bill SB 1070 has garnered huge protests and raised a cry from people all over the country (though a Pew Poll shows that 73% of people surveyed favor requiring people to produce documents verifying their legal status – where is that in the media?). The city of Los Angeles voted to boycott the state of Arizona over the issue. And President Barack Obama called it “misguided”.

Has anyone read his American Community Survey back to him?

It appears that the federal government believes it has the right to ask the immigration question of any American household, but decries a state doing exactly the same thing? Perhaps the “left” hand doesn’t know what the “right” hand is doing…

What Is Missing From A Government-Funded Reading Program?

The local paper article I read today was almost too fantastic to believe.

The Colorado state legislature passed an initial proposal to implement a “Pay To Read” program this week. Under this law, over $1 million of taxpayer money would be used to pay low-income children $2 for every book they read. It’s an effort, theoretically, to get children to read and, thus improve their test scores (based on a Harvard study showing a connection between the program and superior test results).

There is so much I could say about this legislation. Such as why our government feels it can use tax money to bribe children to read? Or why the reward is offered only to low-income children? Or the fact that public libraries full of free books are available to kids whose parents are in any income bracket? Or how such a program puts those low-income children on the government dole early in life? Let’s be honest – one of the lessons that many kids will learn is that the government will pay them just to “show up” or do the minimum required when they become adults. And a lot of those kids will go on to live their lives with exactly that expectation – and find themselves part of the welfare spiral.

I’m tempted to write on all of these topics, but the real issue for me was summed up by the bill’s sponsor – Democrat senator Chris Romer from Denver. He believes that researchers at Harvard “cracked the code” for child motivation and then defended his position with this heart-ripping statement - “It's much cheaper to build children than to repair adults."

“It's much cheaper to build children than to repair adults."…

Why do I think that statement is against all that is right and good and godly? Because Mr. Romer has plainly stated the depths which our society has plumbed. That is – that the parent-child relationship is irrevocably broken, and so we have turned to something else to replace it – the government, acting through federal programs. Rather than fix the very root of the issue, we have decided to spend great amounts of money on an inferior solution. The government believes it now has the duty to “build children”.

In Malachi chapter 4, the Bible tells us that a prophet will be sent to “turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers; or else I will come and strike the land with a curse.” That is the most desirable state for a family to be in. This verse is one of the primary reasons that my wife and I homeschool our children – not because they get a superior one-on-one education, but because it gives us far more hours in a day to turn our hearts toward each other. And it has been a tremendous blessing to our family for these past six years.

The idea of a government paying kids to read because society has given up on good parenting is at the farthest extreme from God’s design. The problem of uninvolved or uncaring parents cannot (and should not) be fixed by a government program. The verse in Malachi tells us that the source of the issue lies in the heart of the individual. And the heart is best changed by one thing – God’s gift of the Holy Spirit actively working in a person’s life.

A Debt Burden for Future Generations

One of the life lessons I continually strive to teach my children is this – don’t get into debt. A modest home mortgage is usually acceptable, but I urge them never to make a credit card charge that they can’t pay off at the end of the month, and not to take on student debt loans which will saddle them with debt precisely at a time when they can’t afford it.

Something even worse than taking on excess debt would be to take it on with no intent to pay it back – but instead, to pass the debt burden on to my kids. What kind of parent would do something like that? Hopefully no one you know.

But this is precisely what the government is doing with yet another spending measure. Oh, they will tell you that the Congressional Budget Office claims that the bill will reduce the deficit. But did you know that the House can send the CBO’s study back to them as many times as they need to – and change the assumptions used until the “facts” fit the story they want? It’s true. And you will note that the CBO’s report was due out last week, but the release kept getting delayed until it was finally produced yesterday, with numbers that Nancy Pelosi said she “loved”? What I want to know is this – what did the CBO come back with the first time? This is no different than hiring a crooked accountant to cook the books for a company until it looks profitable – except that the Congress-CBO game is perfectly legal. Such is the system we live in – but no one will talk about this rule.

The graph above shows that we cannot afford the government programs that we already have in place past the year 2035, and this is only taking into account Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security - three government programs which have been run with poor financial discretion to date (can you say “bankrupt”?). I'm fairly certain that Medicare wasn't sold to the people as a deficit-producing program - but that is exactly what it has become. Add to this the certain deficit that bailout bills and healthcare will accrete, and the conclusion that I draw is that our children will be born into debt slavery. It’s not fair to them – they never had a choice.

Thomas Jefferson suggested a unique approach to the issue of taking on debt. Jefferson believed strongly that any new government debt should be paid off by current taxpayers, so as not to burden the next generation. He favored limiting any government debt terms to nineteen years – precisely to keep the repayment in the generation which enjoyed the benefits. What a brilliant idea! If only we had adhered to that concept after Jefferson proposed it!

Current-generation debt, not next-generation debt…I could live with that. As long as the CBO is obliged to tell the truth.

Aha – What Healthcare is Really About

Yesterday, I made a mental note to write out these words (I guess if I “tweeted”, that would have been my outlet):

“The healthcare bill is no longer about care for Americans or about lowering costs. It has come down to one thing – if it passes, it will be to protect the egos of three arrogant people.”

I pondered the veracity of that, and decided that it is pretty close to complete truth. With all that I read about the bill (which as of this minute STILL has not been published for our review), it seems that the goal has been lost. Still, a part of me thought that the statement above might be a little harsh.

And then Dennis Kucinich, Democrat Congressman from Ohio, changed his mind today and announced his support for the bill. And said these words,

“You do have to be very careful that the potential of President Obama's presidency not be destroyed by this debate. Even though I have many differences with him on policy, there's something much bigger at stake here for America.”

So…..I guess my original statement was true. It’s no longer about healthcare for America– it’s about something much more self-centered. Is that what government was designed for?

Still unsure? Nancy Pelosi revealed the same thinking when she said, “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

Why We Have Three Branches of Government

The whole healthcare debate rages on, and we may see the conclusion this week. Debate can be a good thing. It often allows the free exchange of ideas, especially if those ideas are placed accurately into the market of free thinking. Then others can join in and endeavor to understand the issues, make points, and perhaps vote their wishes through an elected, representative government.

So, what exactly is in the 2,700 page healthcare bill? The truth is – no single person knows. President Obama doesn’t know entirely what all those words add up to, nor do Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid. It was written in a hurry by many, many people, and I don’t see that a great effort has been made to reconcile those pages against each other, or even to boil down what is in there for the purposes of public consumption. The politicians pushing the bill just want a vote on it, and soon. Their vote cannot be made in a wise or knowledgeable way – our senators and representatives cannot know all of the implications or mandates in those 2,400 pages unless they read and study it. None of them has confessed to doing so – so their vote would have to be cast in ignorance. Is that good government?

The issue that bothers me most in this debate is the push being made by the executive branch (the office of the President) to ram this legislation through, with a blatant disregard for balance. While the majority of the American people are now polled as being against the healthcare legislation, the President continues to push for its passage.

He has the right to push for what he believes in - really. But he is also pressing Congress for a “nuclear option” – to pass the bill through the reconciliation process (I won’t cover that process here – suffice it to say the process exists as a little “trickery” to pass legislation with a 50+% vote, accompanied by a promise to change the bill at a later date.) Those future changes promised by the reconciliation process are not guaranteed, hence, the Stupak coalition and the possibility that a distaste for abortion may actually be the death-knell for this bill.

Even more disturbing is a process being discussed called the “Slaughter solution”. Under this scheme, Democratic leaders will pass the bill by simply “deeming” the Senate bill passed in the House - without an actual vote by members of the House. Yes, it’s for real – the Democratic House Rules committee chairwoman is advising on this possibility. Oh, by the way, her name is Louise Slaughter. Ironic, isn’t it?

And this brings me to my point. Our founding fathers designed our current system of government to have three branches – executive, legislative, and judicial. Checks and balances were created between the three to prevent any one branch from “taking over”. It’s a wise system – created by men who saw how a monarch could seize power and govern at his whim. As journalist Bill Whittle recently said,

The modern Tea Party movement is made up of people peacefully protesting tax rates that, taken in total, approach half of all of their income; protesting the takeover by unelected czars of entire sectors of the economy; protesting the drunken orgy of spending not only the present wealth of the nation but the wealth of our children and our children’s children; protesting waste on a scale where a billion dollars – one thousand million dollars – is essentially undetectable, a rounding error… all of that, which its critics decry as mouth breathing paranoia… while the founders, enshrined in the mural surrounding these documents and which these same critics claim to revere – these founders, the greatest minds ever assembled in one place in the history of the world – took their country to war against the greatest military force on the planet because of a one-cent tax on tea.

Think about that! Forget the penny tax! It was never about the tax. It was about the idea of being ruled by people who cared not a whit about your lives but who only saw you as a source of revenue for their own grand ideas.

The why of America – when it’s all said and done – is simply this: we will be governed with our consent, but we will not be ruled.

Does that remind you of anything? For the full text of Whittle’s excellent article, read here.

I am trusting that the founders’ vision will result in a good outcome. If the executive branch twists the arm of the legislative branch to push through harmful, financially unsound, and unpopular legislation, there is always the possibility that the judicial branch will step in to intervene. And ultimately, there is always the possibility of the people of this nation rising up with a little “revolution” on their minds, right?

“King” of Healthcare?

Some form of healthcare will likely pass in the Senate this Thursday.

Every single poll I have been able to research (Rasmussen, Pew, CNN, YouGov, NBC/WSJ, AP, Harris, USAToday/Gallup, ABC/Post, FOX) shows that more Americans DON'T want government-dictated healthcare than the number who want it - some by as much as 15%.

So, what happened to representative government?

Instead of executing the wishes of those who elected them to office, our senators and congressmen appear to be giving in to someone else. Is it their own pocketbooks? The healthcare companies? President Obama? Or all three?

When people get together to pass a law that the people don't want, but which a government leader does – that is called a monarchy. I guess we now live in a country where we should call our leader "King Obama". Oh, by the way, that's what the Pilgrims fled from when they came over on the Mayflower.

A lady asked Dr. Franklin, “Well Doctor, what have we got - a republic or a monarchy?” — "A republic," replied the Doctor, "if you can keep it."

Anonymous, from Farrand's Records of the Federal Convention of 1787

Advice From Jethro

With increasing evidence, our politicians and the systems under which they serve are becoming more and more corrupt. The new Obama administration, having gained popularity and power ostensibly by promising a high standard of ethics, has been a big disappointment. The previous Bush administration can hardly claim to have been any better. The similarities to a “banana republic” grow more evident every week.

Since the November 2008 election, we have seen: a governor impeached for attempting to sell a Senate seat, a Senate appointee get caught up in lying about campaign contributions involving that same governor, and a multitude of pending government appointees who forgot to pay their taxes. Any regular American found guilty of this last offense would certainly have to pay a fine and may even be subject to jail time. Not so the lofty political appointee, who must temporarily endure some negative press, but then is allowed to take the new government position after paying the back-taxes (with no interest penalty). One of those officials was then placed in charge of the Internal Revenue Service – irony, but not of the delicious sort.

When I read these news stories and ponder my increasing distrust of our government, my first thought is that we should sweep all of our current elected officials out of office. Then, start anew with a fresh crop, and allow them to serve one, and only one, term – call it six years. The temptations and waste associated with re-election machinations would be reduced, and we might entreat a group of properly-motivated individuals to govern.

This is a tempting idea, but I’m reminded of some sound advice about governing officials from the Old Testament. In Exodus 18, we see Moses fulfilling the role of political leader for the nation of Israel. His every waking moment is spent as judge and decision-maker, because he indicates that he is the only one to hear cases and make decisions for that entire nation of people. When his father-in-law, Jethro, hears of this (perhaps you were thinking of a different Jethro when you read the title?), he offers some sage advice. He counsels Moses to divide up the duties of governing among a few men, leaving only the more weighty cases for Moses to preside over. Specifically, in verse 21, Jethro names the qualifications of these men – “choose men who fear God and hate bribes”.

Wow – those are words dripping with wisdom. Imagine for a moment a government populated by men and women who not only have agreed ethically to avoid bribes, but who actually hate the practice of lobbying and influence-peddling. This would motivate them to look for truth and wisdom in places other than those which deliver financial gain or power to themselves – a far cry from most of our politicians on Capitol Hill today.

And this source would be the other half of Jethro’s advice – direction and wisdom should come from the fear of the Lord (Proverbs 1:7). Without this, our nation would be left to the ever-changing whim of man - sound familiar? But God is unchanging and wise beyond our wildest imagination. What better source could we ask for?

Perhaps a change is coming. It has before, in this very country. Less than 250 years ago, the founding fathers of America split from a tyrannical king who had clearly renounced God’s ways. We could do it again. Now is the time to proudly advocate for godly government - much like Jethro did - and ready our children to take on the mantle of God-fearing, bribe-hating leadership. I will gladly follow them.

Getting a Constitutional Education – States’ Rights (Part 2)

It’s important that we educate our children on the topics of politics, government, and the Constitution which governs our nation. This nine-part series attempts to remind us of some basic principles, lest they be forgotten by the next generation.

In a recent news article, we see the state of California making clear its desire to self-impose tougher auto emissions standards than are called for by the federal government. The current president is mulling this over (the former president rejected it), while several other states are joining California in suing the federal government for not allowing the state to implement this law.

If you know anything about the Constitution and the original vision of the founders, you will see the incongruity of these stories with the ideals of our forefathers. The truth is that the original states were clearly separate from each other and largely independent of any federal restrictions. In fact, the founders’ vision was that power rested first with the individual, second with the state, and last at the federal level. Each state legislature wielded a great deal of power and independent decision-making ability. If this seems strange, consider this. Before 1913, United States senators were not elected. Instead, they were appointed by each state legislature (see the original Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution), with the intent that they would vote along lines set by each legislature. U.S. senators were not given a very long leash to vote as they wished, because they ran the risk of being removed by the state. Their power derived from the state, which was itself made up of individuals who were fiercely loyal (and uniquely devoted) to their own state. This system of states’ rights, curiously, is called federalism. The attitude behind federalism is still in evidence in many states, many of which still take pride in claiming to be the “Show Me” state or were “First in Flight”. If you live in one of these states, you probably know who you are.

This changed in 1913 when the 17th Amendment was ratified by Connecticut, the last vote necessary to meet the Amendment criteria of thirty-six ratifying states. Specifically, the 17th Amendment allows for the direct election of U.S. senators every six years, rather than being appointed by the state legislatures. If the distinction between the two systems is lost on you, consider this: a U.S. senator now has no direct responsibility to act or vote along the lines directed by his people back in the state. Instead, he or she is now inundated with federal programs that must be managed across many states, and is constantly competing for federal money which may come back to his or her state, so that jobs are “created”, the people are somewhat satisfied, and the senator can gain re-election. This serves to vastly increase the role of the federal government in our everyday lives, while reducing the power and independence of the states. And this is evidenced in today’s headlines when the President is deciding whether or not to allow a state to enact more stringent guidelines than the federal government requires.

Just to state my point of view for a moment, I believe the states should be allowed to make all such decisions, on their own, without interference from the federal government. Montana should be free to set their highway speed limit wherever they like without the threat of the federal government refusing highway improvement money. In fact, they should take all of that federal tax money slated for highway improvements and give it back to the individual who paid it originally. If the state wants to enact a highway improvement, then let them do so through their own legislature, and the votes of the people. Why does the federal government take money from the taxpayer, only to distribute it back to the states? Such a system is inefficient and extremely subject to corruption.

As an example of the way things used to work before the 17th Amendment, consider the case of John Quincy Adams in 1809. His state legislature of Massachusetts made their mind known to him regarding a piece of trade embargo legislation, and instructed him to vote against the motion. He was not of this opinion, and so resigned his seat, rather than oppose his state lawmakers. Similarly, when President Andrew Jackson was censured in 1834 for posturing against the federal bank, seven U.S. senators resigned their post, rather than vote to remove the censure as their legislatures recommended. Can you imagine a senator doing this today? No, today our senators openly rally for campaign funds in other states and foreign countries, making them more open to corruption than ever.

James Madison had it right in Federalist #45 when he said, “each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments, and must consequently feel a dependence”, and in Federalist #46 that the federal government will “be disinclined to invade the rights of the individual States, or the prerogatives of their governments.” Indeed, the Constitution itself was not ratified as a kind of “national” effort. It was studied, weighed and voted upon by individual states – each of which had differing overall opinions and discussions.

It’s important to understand how our government differs today from how the founders envisioned it. Perhaps it’s time to consider a repeal of an amendment or two. Frank Chodorov, author of The Income Tax: Root of All Evil, perhaps said it best when he stated, “The freedoms won by Americans in 1776 were lost in the revolution of 1913.”

Next article: Is it okay for the government to go into debt? Is it constitutional? Back to the main index article.

Getting a Constitutional Education – Free Homeschool Curriculum

As a homeschooling father, I am always looking for ways to teach my three kids a unique, but true, perspective of any subject. I take it as a personal challenge to ensure that I research topics and understand them thoroughly before attempting to pass on any learning. This does require quite a bit of time, and sometimes I wish I had more time to pursue other interests like golf or restoring an old car. But right now, at this stage of my life, nothing is more important than impressing true, meaningful knowledge and wisdom on these three children living in my house.

The Constitution of the United States is one of the most important documents ever created, and likely affects those of us who live in the United States more than any other single paper written entirely by men. It is one of the few mandatory subject requirements handed down by our state board of education. I wonder – how many people have read the Constitution? Do our public schools require the reading of the document, or do they only present the subjective interpretation of what the Constitution means? I have decided this: my children are going to read the Constitution and are going to understand what it means. And I intend to teach them how it can become distorted in our country and in our government so greatly that the principles contained within that document are almost unrecognizable today. Finally, I intend to instruct them on how they can have an effect to reverse this trend in their lifetime.

To this end, I am starting a nine-part series on the Constitution, what was meant in the words that the founding fathers laid out, and how it is interpreted today. I have read several books lately that have helped tremendously on this topic – most notably by David McCullough and Thomas J. DiLorenzo. In the coming weeks, you should expect to read the truth about topics such as (click on the highlighted text to go directly to the article):

1. Does the Constitution give the President as much power as we seem to think? What about the Supreme Court? Are the nine justices that sit on the court really invested with the ultimate authority to interpret the Constitution and how it applies to our freedoms?

2. What was the purpose of the Constitution in regards to states' rights versus central government rights? What did the framers intend in regard to this power struggle? Was the Constitution approved as a nation? How does the Seventeenth Amendment affect this?

3. Is government debt really okay? What are the pros and cons? Is it constitutional for the government to go into debt?

4. What happened to states' rights when the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified?

5. What are the concepts of secession and nullification about? And was Abraham Lincoln really a good president?

6. What are “enumerated powers” versus “implied powers” in the Constitution?

7. What happened to my money when the Federal Reserve Act became law in 1913?

8. What is the “General Welfare Clause” and should I like it?

9. What brought about the birth of “judicial activism”? Was this interpretation intended by the founding fathers?

Consider this to be curriculum suitable for using with your own children – all for free. Two installments per week will be posted, ending in early March. When the series is completed, I’ll put together an official question and answer key that homeschooling families can use. Until then, feel free to share these postings with your children and discuss the overall principles behind some very meaningful Constitutional principles. There will easily be enough material here to count as a quarter’s credit in government.

A Plea for Something Greater Than More Government

I’ve discovered a new source of incredible reading material lately. The Federalist Papers were written in 1787 and 1788 by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. Eighty-five articles were written on various topics, but the primary purpose was to encourage people to support the ratification of the United States Constitution by the thirteen states then in existence.

I would love to expound on each of these eighty-five at some point, but I fear I would quickly lose readers. An article on The Federalist Papers just doesn’t grab most people. That’s a little unfortunate, but also understandable. What I would like to point out is the incredible faith and ability to reason that these men had. They can write on a topic with such grace and beauty that I am left in awe. I intend to give one example here.

In Federalist #51, James Madison is discussing the idea of limited power of the government – a timely subject given the recent news headlines. His point is directed along the lines that government power must be limited, because government possesses the same flaws as man. His words on this topic specifically:

“It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”

Madison’s treatment of this subject using the comparison of men and angels is brilliant. When put in this light, the concept becomes relatively simple. If men had the character of angels, they would not need government oversight because their lives would be pure and free from corruption. Since men are not angels, we require such oversight. But, unfortunately, the government is made up of men – who, once again, are not angels. One look at the day’s news will reveal the corruption that is rampant in our government officials. This flaw in government’s character means that the power of the government must also be limited, because left unchecked, the government will begin extorting the people it is supposed to serve – all for its own ends. Does that sound familiar?

And so we are left with the third choice – that is, a government of men watching over men. And this naturally implies that there will be imperfections and injustice along the way. If you are looking for the government to always do the right thing, or settle things fairly and impartially, you will be left wanting. It is a system which has distinct advantages and often serves very well but it is rooted in the imperfection of man, which means that it will go through periods of injustice and inequity.

What we need is an overseer that is fair, just, good, and who never changes. And for this, we have a solution. The Lord God is exactly who we need in times such as this. We can look to Him for wisdom and instruction – on secular topics such as politics, economics, philosophy, and ethics. If our political leaders would return to this fact, then our nation would once again live under God’s blessing and power. Even a casual observation of the founding fathers words reveals their great faith and belief in God as the Creator and Ruler of all. Patrick Henry said, “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ.” And John Jay, one of the authors of The Federalist Papers and the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court said, “God has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” Imagine how our nation would be changed by leaders such as this today.

Is it too late to expect this to happen in our nation? No – with God, all things are possible. We should be frequently on our knees in prayer for our nation, our leaders, and our fallen world. That is one of my resolutions for 2009.

What Really Caused The Financial Crisis

I don’t get it. I read the papers and the news articles on the web services, supposedly full of wisdom from the financial experts who tell us what we must do to fix the financial crisis. The talking heads on television ramble about how we need to revive lending and free up the credit market. These so-called experts are presented as the unquestioned authority on finances and what is required to get us out of the mess that we are in.



Look, I didn’t get my MBA. I finished college with a simple (!!!) Engineering degree, and enough credits for a minor in Mathematics. The math I waded through didn’t really count toward traditional financial understanding, but I did take classes in macroeconomics and microeconomics, so I’m not a complete dunce on the subject. But more importantly, twenty years after leaving college, I spend less money than I make, and our family is essentially debt-free (discounting a very reasonable amount remaining on our mortgage). I think I have a pretty good practical sense of financial wisdom, even if stock derivatives and short-selling are not topics that I can readily explain. But let me try to detail what I see going on around us at this moment in the financial world.

We are currently in a crisis created primarily due to a number of risky mortgage loans which were made to people who can no longer pay them back. You could blame the “evil predatory lender” for offering the loans in the first place. You could blame the government for mandating that the lender offer loans to people who were not qualified to pay them back. Or you could blame the individuals themselves, who wanted a house they couldn’t afford or a car they really didn’t need. Maybe all three are to blame, but one simple financial rule should overshadow it all. If money is to be borrowed, it should be given to people who demonstrate the ability to repay the loan. It’s that simple. It’s biblical, too. Romans 13:7 - ”Give everyone what you owe him.”

Good lending practice is pretty straightforward. A lender gives money with the expectation that it is returned over time with interest. They will plan for a certain percentage of borrowers to default on their loans, but this is never the most desirable end. To make the whole system work together, the lender will develop complex models that measure the ability of the applicant to repay the loan. And when the numbers don’t add up, the lender should refuse the individual’s application. It’s painful, but necessary for sound business practice.

Designing rules for the borrower is much more difficult. Many people fail to “count the cost” before applying for a loan. Instead, they are often blinded by the prospect of a new car or a larger house, assuming that their financial situation will improve enough over time to allow them some financial flexibility. How many people wish they had never taken on the loans that they possess, choosing instead to wait for some of the things that they desired? I’ve been there in the past.

The bottom line is this – a sound financial environment relies on good financial stewardship -- not on risky loans made to financially strapped individuals who will eventually default on their debts and leave the burden to other taxpayers. So, here is where I get to the part that I don’t understand.

Several weeks ago, our government approved over $700 billion of “bailout” money to give to financial institutions, wishing them to lend this money to people. These institutions were suddenly hesitant to loan money to people under risky circumstances. Imagine that… And recently, I read that the government desires to give an additional $800 billion to the lenders to encourage them to loan even more money to people. These actions beg several questions. Should we continue to make loans to people who shouldn’t be applying for them? Is it wise to float so much credit into the market instead of encouraging personal savings? And finally, is the government simply perpetuating the crisis by loaning even more money to people who will likely default on their obligation in the future?

It seems to me that loaning more money does not solve the problem – it only makes it worse. We have reached a point in our beloved America where we need to take a step back from the wealth and affluence which crowds out the system that God designed. The Bible is full of references to economic principles, most of which discourage excessive borrowing and living beyond our means. God does not promise that we will enjoy wealth or a life free from worry if we follow Him. However, He does promise an eternity with Him and the benefit of other non-financial blessings in this life. But God wants us to follow Him first and foremost, and His principles revolve around that relationship. God knows more about economics than any man, committee, or political system. If we design a financial system that forgets this basic principle, then we are doomed to fail. And, sadly, it appears that we are doing just that.

Luke 16:11-12 gives us Jesus’ view on the proper handling of money and debt – “So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches? And if you have not been trustworthy with someone else's property, who will give you property of your own?” Many of us have made financial mistakes in the past, me included. Let’s not allow our government to make the financial problems even worse. Tell them to keep their loan money away from bad borrowers. Or better yet, give it back to the place where they got the money in the first place. Where did they get an extra $700 billion anyway? Hmmmmmm…

Undivided Leadership

The link between good leaders and successful ventures is undeniable. In corporate America, the best companies do not take leadership for granted, but spend a great deal of time and money promoting those with leadership skills and grooming the best leaders to take the reins at the right time.

In the same way, nations need leaders who are undivided in their ways. And nations that have undivided leadership themselves remain undivided. Even more, nations who rally under the banner of God enjoy His blessing – not randomly but in a focused and targeted way. God gives blessing to righteous nations who vow to follow Him.

For proof, look no further than the Israelite nation of the Old Testament. Though they started out relatively small and they had no place to call their own for a time, God gave them victory after victory to overcome enemies who should have defeated them easily. This was not a chance event – God gave them success because they were His chosen people. However, the Israelites eventually grew jealous of the leadership structure of other nations and asked their God-appointed leaders for a king. Though he clearly did not like the prospect, Samuel anointed Saul as the first king of Israel, and things began to worsen.

Saul did not turn out to be a good king, and faltered in his governing, losing sight of God to the point that he called on a witch to predict his future. That event led directly to his death (1 Samuel 28:19). Saul was followed by David, a much better king overall, and the nation of Israel enjoyed God’s blessing for a time. At the end of David’s reign, Israel enjoyed a peace and prosperity that they had never known before.

David’s son, Solomon, took over the throne, and though he started out strong, his final years signaled the beginning of the downfall of God’s chosen people. 1 Kings 11:4 says, “As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the Lord his God.” When Solomon had finished building the temple, God promised that the nation of Israel would be cut off and rejected if he ever turned away from God. Isn’t it interesting that this promise hinged on the faithfulness of one man in the entire nation – the leader? The result of Solomon’s divided heart was a divided people. Israel would soon split into two nations and would never attain her previous glory. God is faithful to all of His promises.

Proverbs 14:34 tell us that “righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people.” Indeed, it seems the leaders of our own beloved United States have plunged us into the same state as Israel after Solomon’s rule. In nearly every area, our nation’s leaders equivocate on truths that should never have been placed in doubt. The role of government vs. the family, education, the loss of individual freedoms, abortion, and even the current high state of taxation all rail against the principles set out by God in his word. We are witnessing a presidential election in which both political parties have thrown out many of God’s basic tenets as outdated or inapplicable.

What would happen if just one voice in politics stood up and proclaimed to follow God’s laws, strictly and fully, while in office? That candidate would be the object of ridicule, cast aside as out-of-touch and possessing a skewed mindset. But that attitude is exactly what God demands of our leaders – an attitude that is undivided, unwavering and humbled to God’s laws. And if we were to elect such a candidate, the blessings of God would return and righteousness would exalt our nation, just as it did over two centuries ago.

And that can happen. It requires the faithfulness and efforts of God’s people to bring about that change, just as it has throughout history. If there is one thing that the Bible teaches us, it is that God is willing to forgive and start anew with His people. Pray for our country, that we might return to living (and leading) under God’s laws and that His blessing will return to us.