Constitutional Law Degrees Must Not Be What They Used To Be

I know the biggest takeaway moment from President Obama’s State of the Union address has been his indecorous criticism of the Supreme Court. But I think there was another moment that deserves some attention as well. At one point, he said,

“We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal, that no matter who you are or what you look like, if you abide by the law you should be protected by it; that if you adhere to our common values you should be treated no different than anyone else.”

I find three things worthy of mention here.

1) Um, the Constitution says nothing about us being created equal – that would be the Declaration of Independence, Mr. President. Specifically,

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”

2) The Constitution is designed to protect U.S. citizens, even if they don’t abide by the law. Our civil protection is not jeopardized if we break the law. In fact, much of the law is written to ensure the fair treatment of those who have broken it. That makes us a pretty rare find in the political world. Or, at least, I hope it still does.

3) The President said that if we “adhere to common values”, then we should not be treated differently, and that this is “enshrined in our Constitution”. Again, a search on the word “values” or its synonyms turns up nothing like this in the document. And the idea of “common values” is completely in conflict with the first part of his statement – that “we find unity in our incredible diversity”. Even more disturbing, is he implying that some of us will lose the privilege of equitable treatment if we stray from this generic set of common values? Hmmmm…he may actually be right about that one. I’m thinking of Tim Tebow and the upcoming Focus on the Family Super Bowl ad.

One would think that a Constitutional law scholar from Harvard would have a better grasp of what the document actually says. But maybe, an Ivy League degree isn’t worth as much as it used to be. Perhaps he should consider sitting down for a moment to read the Constitution…

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

If you are interested in learning more about the principles in The U.S. Constitution, please visit the Constitutional Education series.

Radical Environmentalism –The Dubious Results of Copenhagen (Part 12)

Last month, a host of environmentalists and politicians met in Copenhagen to save the world. Were they successful?

The United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP15) met in wintry Copenhagen, with the proclaimed goal to reverse so-called “climate change”. The premises that the conference assumes are that 1) climate change is occurring, 2) the change is bad, and 3) the change is due, in some large measure, to human activity. I have commented on all three of these topics in previous posts (here, here, and here) and it’s fairly obvious to me that anthropogenic global warming is no more than a dubious theory.

The Climategate scandal was no more than a month old – it was being revealed that much of the science behind global warming had been fabricated by people who have placed a social objective above factual study. In addition, it was revealed during the conference that the Climatic Research Unit (the same group that falsified data in the Climategate incident) was shown to be cherry-picking only the warmest temperature data coming out of Russian surface monitoring stations. In essence, the people who have been hired to provide governments with purely scientific data, with which they must make trillion-dollar decisions, are “putting their foot on the scale” in an effort to prove something that they know is not true. They are doing this, because, as their top official has pointed out, it would be a tragedy if we can’t prove that global warming is occurring. Yes, he really said that.

To me, the real tragedy here is the economic damage caused by such arrogance. Because they want global warming to be a result of man-made causes, they seek to limit the achievements that man can make with the resources that God has given us. Like many social causes, the facts have been lost in the stew of feel-good statements. I have pointed out that environmentalism has become a primary religion for many – and history shows that religious fervor often trumps practical actions. Hey, I’m not for burning down all of the rainforests (we should be good stewards of God’s gift of nature), but I also don’t approve of lying about scientific data to push a social agenda.

So, what was the result of this multi-million dollar conference attended by “concerned” heads of state (each of whom created a huge, hypocritical carbon footprint by jetting in and out for a few days)? A limited group of countries agreed to:

· Limit the global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius since “pre-industrial times”
· The United States agreed to give $30 billion to developing nations over the next three years ( to help “cope” with climate change)
· Undeveloped nations would agree to limit deforestation in exchange for cash from richer nations

That’s it. And get this – this agreement was not actually voted on and approved, but the delegates from the represented nations “approved a motion to take note of the Copenhagen accord”. And while the White House was announcing this accord, it was noted that many of the delegate nations had not yet had the chance to read it. Let’s face it – the whole thing is a sham, a desperate and weak political ploy by certain governments to show that they care and they are taking charge of the situation. But, in effect, nothing has happened.

And that is precisely the outcome I had hoped for. Because I believe that man cannot change the temperature of the planet even if he set out to do so on purpose. Our efforts are completely swamped out by the effects of sunspots, ocean currents, and the El Niño phenomena - effects of which God is in control. I am happy that, once again, politicians cannot meet to establish the damaging policies that they seek.

********************************
Do you think my opinion is one-sided and uncaring? Read here what the Washington Times had to say about President Obama, the conference, and the outcome. Wow.

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

Next in this series.......
or
Back to Part 1 of this series...

How (Not) To Perpetuate A Stereotype

I’m not typically one to agree with people who protest out of political correctness. But I can’t keep myself from commenting on this article – which really appeared in my local paper this week.

There’s not much more to say, except this: when I laughed out loud while reading it for the first time at the breakfast table, my kids asked me what was so funny. I read it to them, and then looked up with a smile. All three of them (ages 10 to 16), just sat there and stared blankly at me. “I don’t get it”, one of them finally said.

Which, I guess, is a testament to how not to perpetuate a stereotype. If people would stop pointing out fictional differences between races, the idea of inequality could be wiped out in one generation.

I wonder, do the Denver Public Schools have this in mind?

Worldview Class #2 - Part 2 - Cat Murder and Ethics

While teaching a Sunday morning class at church on the topic of various worldviews, I plan to share some of the more significant findings which our class is learning. The main text for the study is The Battle for Truth by David Noebel. A good deal of this class is also based on personal research.

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

In the last installment, I mentioned how critical it is that we recognize this fact – there is only one truth. To further emphasize the point, let’s consider a premise given by the New Age community – that truth is different for everyone. In this case, the New Agers will contend that each individual has the ability to “define their own truth”. So for one person, truth might be that cats are inherently ugly. Another person will contend that cats are preferable to any other living being, including humans. The New Age worldview will say that both are right, and that there are two truths in play (I recognize that this may be a tough example for some, considering how opinionated people tend to be about cats!).

Moving up the spectrum a bit, let’s leave the topic of feline physical beauty, and put into play whether it is ethical to kill a cat. This example may elicit a different answer from people, as many in our society are invested in the rights of animals. Others have no qualms about drowning cats. Again, New Age says that both viewpoints can be correct, as truth is different for each individual.

So, it’s time to take the example to the extreme. Consider the topic of premeditated human murder and where people might classify it – as an acceptable practice, or an act that must be punished by law? With very few exceptions, people will say it is the latter. The New Age movement will, in general, say that premeditated murder is inherently wrong and against societal norms. We can draw the following spectrum diagram:

There are two questions that beg to be asked here. Number one – where does an issue go from becoming one of personal preference (cat beauty) to one of ethics? And, number two – along the ethical point of the spectrum, where is the concept of multiple truths supplanted by one single truth for all? That is, can I definitively locate the gray arrows in an absolute place – for all people?

But, to do so requires the admission that somewhere there is an absolute truth. And the next question must be, “Where does that absolute truth come from?” The answer from the Christian worldview is obviously, “It comes from God”. But what is the answer offered by other worldviews?

This clearly causes a dilemma for other worldviews, who must struggle under the weight of a changing or arbitrary definition of right and wrong. It is much easier to believe that God set right and wrong in the hearts of men and that, for matters relating to ethics and not personal preference, there is a defined line of good and evil that pertains to all men. “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” (Romans 1:18-20)

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

Next: Worldview #2 - Part 3 - Sacred and Secular
-- or --

Back to the start of this series

-- or --
Back to Worldview Series #1

Worldview Class #2 - Part 1 - Introduction

While teaching a Sunday morning class at church on the topic of various worldviews, I plan to share some of the more significant findings which our class is learning. The main text for the study is The Battle for Truth by David Noebel. A good deal of this class is also based on personal research.

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

A worldview is an acquired and developed “filter” which each person possesses (whether they want to or not). Each person’s worldview may be slightly different, but it is this filter which determines how we view most everything that we experience. When we read the newspaper, our worldview determines how we interpret data and articles, and is the driving force behind the formulation of our own opinions on almost every subject. In our class, we will touch on four different worldviews (though there are more than this which could be considered) – 1) the Christian worldview, 2) the Secular Humanist worldview, 3) the Marxist/Leninist worldview, and 4) the Cosmic Humanist (or New Age) worldview.

Consider this example – Saint Peter reads an article in the newspaper about new abortion rights being granted to mothers and is horrified at the prospect. This rails against his perspective that all life is sacred and should be preserved. Madonna (the singer, not the painting) reads the exact same article and is filled with satisfaction that the universe has reached a new level of progressive achievement. How can two people read the very same article and yet come away with such radically different conclusions? It all has to do with the worldview that they possess.

This subject is timely. The Christian worldview has largely been removed from the public square, and is even condemned at times by our own laws and practices. But our nation did not start out this way. Consider these words from some of our founding fathers:

“Whoever will introduce into public affairs the principles of Christianity will change the face of the world.” – Benjamin Franklin

“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.” – Patrick Henry

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization not on the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” – James Madison, fourth President of the United States

“The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: that it tied together in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.” – John Quincy Adams, sixth President of the United States

“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” – John Jay, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

Can we imagine a politician or Supreme Court justice uttering these words today? Clearly, the worldview lens at the political level has changed in the last two hundred years.

There is much to support a Christian worldview. The idea of a soul is engendered in many other worldviews, including that of New Age supporters, but it is often not thought of as a “real” item to possess, but as more of an ethereal concept. Consider these words from Alexander Solzhenitsyn:

“There is a disaster…which has already been under way for quite some time. I am referring to the calamity of a despiritualized and irreligious humanistic consciousness. If humanism were right in declaring that man is born to be happy, he would not be born to die. Since his body is doomed to die, his task on earth evidently must be of a more spiritual nature.”

Throughout this class, I will reveal several articles of faith to be declared emphatically as elements of a Christian worldview. The first is this:

THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUTH

Once we arrive at the understanding that truth is not different for each individual (a common misperception in the New Age arena), it drives us to seek and understand what this truth is. This element is not an easy one for many people to accept. Many professing Christians will falter on this issue as they unintentionally compromise their belief or their moral position in order to be more accepted by others, and so live to fight another day. But this concept is one that must be adhered to if one is to successfully defend the ideal of Christian Theism.

Next: Worldview - Part 2 - Cat Murder - Ethics and Truth

or

Back to Worldview Series #1

No News Here – Presidential Candidates Lie To Get Elected

You have probably heard the latest flap over the healthcare debate. The media has been pressing President Obama (through his press secretary Robert Gibbs) to keep his campaign promise and allow the Congressional healthcare debate to be televised on C-SPAN. Obama promised this eight times during his campaign to become President (see all eight on video here). He could not have been clearer about avoiding closed-door sessions where “deals” could be made that were not in the interest of the American people.

And yet, once elected, he has absolutely no intention of keeping his promise.

Like the promise that middle-class taxes will not be raised or the one about posting all legislation publicly on the Internet for 48 hours before voting on it, it was a pledge clearly made with only one real objective – to get Obama elected. I actually think Obama is not much worse than any politician who would run for President. In my experience, they all lie to gain their objective – power and self-glory. Lest you think I’m simply an Obama-basher, I’m relatively certain that we would have seen similar actions from McCain. I’ve already gone on record as being frustrated with George W. Bush, who did little to turn our nation from the curse of abortion, even though he had a high popularity rating AND control of both Houses for a time. Rare indeed is the honest politician who would run for this office…and stick to his or her promises once elected.

Commitments and integrity don’t matter. Personal legacy and victory trump everything.

There have been two White House press briefings on this subject this week. Warning – these will probably make you mad. Maybe we need more anger toward our politicians to make a real difference. Here is the transcript from the Tuesday briefing:

QUESTION: C-SPAN television is requesting leaders in Congress to open up the debate to their cameras, and I know this is something that the President talked about on the campaign trail. Is this something that he supports, will be pushing for?

GIBBS: I have not seen that letter. I know the President is going to begin some discussions later today on health care in order to try to iron out the differences that remain between the House and the Senate bill and try to get something hopefully to his desk quite quickly….

Later in that same briefing, a reporter raised the C-Span issue again:

QUESTION: Okay, just lastly, why can't you answer the C-SPAN question --

GIBBS: I did.

QUESTION: You didn't, because you said --

GIBBS: I said I hadn't seen the letter, which I haven't --

QUESTION: do you need to see a letter? I mean, this is something the President said during the campaign and he talked about he wants everything open on C-SPAN --

GIBBS: Dan asked me about the letter and I haven't read the letter.

QUESTION: Well, I'll just ask you about having it on C-SPAN --

GIBBS: I answered Dan's question and I answered this before we left for the break, Keith. The President's number-one priority is getting the differences worked out, getting a bill to the House and the Senate…

QUESTION: There are a lot of reasons not to do it on C-SPAN -- people could showboat. Does he regret making that statement during the campaign?

GIBBS: No.

Now to Wednesday's briefing – with another question from a different reporter:

QUESTION: During the campaign the President on numerous occasions said words to the effect of -- quoting one -- "all of this will be done on C-SPAN in front of the public." Do you agree that the President is breaking an explicit campaign promise?

GIBBS: Chip, we covered this yesterday and I would refer you to yesterday's transcript.

QUESTION: But today is today and --

GIBBS: And the answer that I would give today is similar to the one --

QUESTION: But there was an intervening meeting in which it's been reported that the President pressed the leaders in Congress to take the fast-track approach, to skip the conference committee. Did he do that?

GIBBS: The President wants to get a bill to his desk as quickly as possible.

QUESTION: In spite of the fact that he promised to do this on C-SPAN?

GIBBS: I would refer you to what we talked about in this room yesterday.

QUESTION: But the President in this meeting yesterday --

GIBBS: And I addressed that --

QUESTION: -- pressed for something that's in direct violation of a promise he made during the campaign.

GIBBS: And I addressed that yesterday.

Another reporter took up the questioning:

QUESTION: Well, does the President think it would be more helpful if this process were more transparent, that the American people could see --

GIBBS: Mike, how many stories do you think NBC has done on this?

QUESTION: Speaking for myself --

GIBBS: Just a guess.

QUESTION: That's not the issue. The issue is whether he broke an explicit campaign promise.

GIBBS: So the answer is --

QUESTION: I deal with the information that --

GIBBS: So the answer is hundreds, is that correct?

QUESTION: Right, but that's got nothing to do with it. I deal with the information, however much or little of it, there is. I'm saying would people benefit by having more information?

GIBBS: Have you lacked information in those hundred stories? Do you think you've reported stuff that was inaccurate based on the lack of information?

QUESTION: Democrats ran against the very sort of process that is being employed in this health care --

GIBBS: We had this discussion yesterday. I answered this yesterday. Is there anything --

QUESTION: But the President met with members of Congress in the meantime --

GIBBS: And he'll do so today.

QUESTION: -- and pressed them to --

GIBBS: Do you have another question?

Which, I guess, is a fancy (and lengthy) way to say, “Get lost. We do what we want.” By the way, all three of my children are taking Logic this year in their homeschool studies, and would recognize Gibbs' avoidance technique as the Red Herring fallacy - where a person introduces something irrelevant into an argument and tries to focus only on that.

Here’s the video of this exchange. Gibbs looks very uncomfortable. I hope this story doesn’t die.

New Year’s Resolution Experiment

I typically make New Year’s resolutions. I even keep some of them. This year, I decided to try something different, and invent a new way to go about it. Maybe you’d like to give it a try. Feel free to share yours in a comment if you like.

The rules are pretty simple:

1) Every resolution must begin with one of these two words – “More” or “Less”.

2) Try to keep them brief and not terribly quantifiable – for example, “Less calories eaten - 1000 per day less and substituting fresh fruit calories for empty calories at a rate of two for one is acceptable, as long as….” is NOT what I’m after. You don’t have to be too descriptive – as long as YOU know what YOU meant. As a result, your resolutions may appear to be cryptic to other people – but not to you.

3) Because time is a fixed quantity, for each “More” resolution there needs to be a “Less” resolution. Strive to have the same number of each when you are done (this is not as easy as it sounds). Yes, we all need to do more of certain things- but we only have so many hours in the day, and so we probably need to do less of other things, as well.

Having said that, here’s my list for 2010:

1) More devotional time before leaving the house for work
2) More guitar-playing
3) More non-fiction and biographies
4) More one-on-one time with the kids
5) More dates with my wife

6) Less Facebook and computer time
7) Less buying
8) Less clutter and “stuff” in general
9) Less time with secular influences (books and music)
10) Less time wondering what others are thinking

For My Daughter, On Her Sixteenth Birthday

My oldest daughter, Molly Michele, turns sixteen on this day. The words that I had to say to her at her birthday party were extremely easy to write…
*****************
It’s hard to believe that we are celebrating your sixteenth year already.

The days of “Train up a child”, “Don’t let anyone look down on you in your youth”, and “Spare the rod and spoil the child” are almost behind us. Now, you are approaching the stage of living as the Proverbs 31 woman. Instead of needing daily instruction and encouragement, you are becoming a frequent source of those things for others.

As my oldest child, it is a wonder for me to see you move from the various stages of needing to be taught how to pour milk on your cereal, how to study your Bible, or even how to drive. You are now able to learn things and make discoveries on your own. You can learn and create and be an encouragement to others without being told to do so. You are self-sustaining.

I see this in your daily walk, in how you treat and unselfishly serve others, and in the things that you write. For example, you have written this in your blog:

"I know how hard it is to stay positive all the time, but that is definitely something my generation needs to work on. There is a hole inside each of us that begs to be filled with something. You may choose to fill it with electronics or clothes, but Jesus is the only thing that will fulfill you completely. Choose to be content with what you have so that you may radiate the joy of Christ in everything you do. Although happiness lasts only moments, God’s joy will last forever."

And you also wrote:

"Please understand that because someone calls you a teen does not mean that you have to act like it. Our generation needs to raise the expectations of our world so that we can make a difference for God in everything we do. Make the decision to break the barrier of low expectations so that you can do great things for Jesus now, without having to wait until you are an adult. God does not care if you are 14 or 65…He created you to do big things now."

These are the words of a young woman who is maturing in Christ.

Finally, the gathering of well-wishers at your surprise party is a witness to your life so far. Your fan club is not simply made up of young people of your own age. Since you were very young, you were comfortable with adults of all ages, as well as with toddlers and newborns. Your life has touched many people already, and you are able to socialize, and love and be loved by people of all ages. You know that this sometimes makes you “different” from the average teen, but I believe that you are brave and fully accepting of that role. I want you to know – your mother and I want exactly that reputation for you. It’s not always easy, and it’s not necessarily the world’s view of a popular lifestyle, but you have become a godly young woman. Know this – you are exactly the sixteen year-old daughter that I always dreamed of having.

I love you so very much, Molly. Watching you grow up thrills me and breaks my heart at the same time. It breaks my heart because I love each stage that you have gone through and I often want to simply freeze time so I can enjoy you where you are at forever. But it thrills me because I believe that God continues to have great plans for your life. You are so special – I can’t wait to see where He will lead you next. I love you.

A Renewed Resolve

It’s been a year-and-a-half now that I have been publishing words on topics that are important to me. Some of the articles have flowed effortlessly, and some have been very difficult to write.

I am convinced that this world, and our very nation, are moving away from God – not toward him, and not parked in the same spot. And I believe strongly that Christians are called upon to point out this departure and to make strong statements and pleadings for what is right and true.

Over the past year, I have occasionally struggled with whether I should continue to write about topics related to true Christian living. I have angered some people, and I’ve probably turned off some people from ever reading a PP&P post again. That’s okay. I’ve also found some new friends and kindred spirits, sometimes in the most unexpected of places. Without a doubt, I’ve had some of the most interesting and involved conversations with people on subjects such as abortion, education, finances, environmentalism, and Christian living that I have ever had in my life.

Is it worth it? I have to admit that I have been tempted at times to give it up. There is simply no way to write anything without angering someone – either you are too aggressive and opinionated, or you are too timid. I have been praying that God will reveal to me if this is a profitable venture. Curiously, almost every time that I pray in earnest that He would give me that answer, I find myself in a great conversation or find a new fan that very day – and it makes the whole thing seem worthwhile again.

This Christmas season made me think anew about what is happening to this world, and to our beloved United States. Whether watching Christmas specials on television, or getting a “Holiday” greeting from a sales clerk, I see one overarching characteristic – the majority of this world is purposefully walking down a path that leads away from God. That may not be a new thing, but it nevertheless inspires those of us who have an eternal longing, either for ourselves or for others, to make a statement. How far should our convictions go?

2 Timothy 1:7 tells us that we receive from God a bold spirit – “For God did not give us a spirit of timidity, but a spirit of power, of love and of self-discipline.” My mind comes around to that verse every single time I am tempted to water down my writing. Without a doubt, God has used some very bold people to make progress. Would the civil rights movement have made the progress it did without the daring words of Martin Luther King, Jr.? What about John Hancock’s bold signature on the Declaration of Independence? And didn’t Jesus Christ forsake inclusiveness for audacious words of truth – to the point of death? He said himself, “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own.” (John 15:18)

I know I am not any of these three men in either stature or position. But I feel compelled to say words, after much prayer, about things that I believe are meaningful – words about our nation in its apparent moral decline, or to counteract a world awash in anti-God sentiment. So, I will continue to write forcefully and unapologetically about earth-worship environmentalism, the desirability of home-schooling over public education, the decline of a nation dedicated to the “rights” of abortion but which strips away the founders’ desire for individual freedoms…and to plead for all to recognize the truth of the one God.

Let me end with this. Not everyone agrees with what I have to say, either in the way I say it, or in the fundamental underpinnings of what I believe. But if this past Christmas season meant nothing more to you than giving or getting gifts, if decorating for company was the pinnacle of your holiday, or if this time meant only a celebration of the winter solstice or some time away from work…you are missing out on the greatest joy you could have in this life, and all of eternity. Without Jesus Christ as your Lord, and a desire to live your life for God’s glory above all, you may not realize it, but there is something that you need that is far greater than gifts, wealth, or even family. I beg you to consider this – and contact me or your local Christian church to ask about the saving grace of Jesus and the promises that God has made for those who will accept his free gift. Please – don’t ignore this if you feel a tug at your heart.

Not everyone will agree. But I pray that God will give me the words in this coming year, and that He will use them to help further His kingdom here on earth. God bless you all.

The Real Recipient of the Economic Stimulus?

$787 billion is a lot of money to spend. Most of us, given that amount of cash, would probably find it hard to spend the entire amount. To illustrate - I like Corvettes. They retail for about an average of $55,000 each. There are only about 27,000 made each year, though. So, if I bought every single one made this model year, I would spend about $1.485 billion (not including any discount that Chevy may give me for such a super-sized order). That would be a little less than 0.2% of the whole economic stimulus package passed by Congress last February. I could do that for 528 more years before I ran out of money. Put simply, I could buy every Corvette ever made (starting in 1953) – and still not come close to running out of stimulus money (but, boy, would I be happy!)

How big is $787 billion? Well, if someone paid you $1 million a day every day for the rest of your life, it would take until April 4165 before you collected all of the money (yes, more than 2000 years from now). Never fear, though, as I think the federal government will find a way to spend it.

Near my house, there has been some road construction going on lately. Well, that’s a little optimistic – I’ve rarely seen anyone actually working there, but there are some signs of occasional activity. There are concrete barriers and orange barrels blocking off some lanes of traffic. It’s as if they are going to do something to improve the road. But I can’t figure out what it is. Months have gone by, and my roads (what lanes have been left open) just stay the same.

Before approaching the area, from both directions, the workers installed a sign some months ago. The sign lets us know that funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act are being used to implement this construction. I guess the sign is supposed to make me proud…but it doesn’t. From what I can tell, the only thing that the government is using my tax money for is to provide orange barrels, and erect a sign telling me about it.

I suppose this could be considered to be “stimulating” the economy if one were to evaluate how plastic barrel rental shops and aluminum signmakers are weathering the downturn. Hey, if you want to make a good investment, those look like two market segments whose stock should be on the rise.

I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating: the best way the government can stimulate the economy is to take less money from me at tax time, and give me the decision about where that money should be spent – rather than deciding for me. People are much more likely to consume or invest wisely on their own. We don’t need the government deciding where that should happen.

Because all I have for my tax money today is an obstacle course and some roadside reading material.

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

Want to see some more government “song and dance”? Visit their Recovery.gov website to see exactly where your money is going. There is a state-by-state accounting of where the stimulus money is being spent. I must say, I tend to disbelieve much of what I see here. For example, if you hover over the state of Michigan, they will tell you that they have created (or saved!) 10,073 jobs. Um…my parents live in Michigan, and I’m pretty sure the government is stretching a truth here…..

Christmas Communion Meditation

This is an unusual time of year to bring to memory the death of our Lord Jesus Christ – a time of year when we also celebrate his birth. Indeed, this week we glory both in his birth and in his death. How should we approach our weekly remembrance at this time of year?

It is estimated that Jesus Christ fulfilled over 3000 Messianic prophecies – predictions about him that came true through his birth, his life, and his death. No other period in history contained so much fulfilled prophecy, and no man’s life was ever more predicted by others. That is because the life and death of Jesus Christ are the most important things which have ever happened in history.

I sincerely want to study all 3000 prophecies, and I hope to do so in time. I’m funny that way, but to me, seeing these predictions fulfilled over and over makes Jesus even more real to me. But, instead of doing a study of all 3000 prophecies for this week’s meditation time (you may breathe a collective sigh), I decided to look at one of the earliest ones.

In Deuteronomy 18:15-18, the Bible says:

“The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him. For this is what you asked of the LORD your
God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said, "Let us not hear the voice of the LORD our God nor see this great fire anymore, or we will die."

The LORD said to me: "What they say is good. I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him.”

God tells us that he will raise up a future prophet, one who will be like Moses. If you look at all of the prophets in the Bible, you will find that no other life comes as close to the similarities of Jesus as the life of Moses. Both were delivered from death as babies, both performed miracles, both were leaders, both mediated between God and man, and both offered to die in order to forgive the sins of the people.

Recall that when Moses was born, the king of Egypt had ordered all of the midwives to kill any boys born to Hebrew women. But the midwives disobeyed, and his mother put in motion a plan to rescue him and deliver him to none other than the royal court of Egypt. Twelve-hundred years later, in a fury over being outwitted by the Magi, King Herod condemned to death all of the baby boys born in Bethlehem. Jesus managed to escape. Both little babies were saved from evil kings.

Just as striking, both Moses and Jesus made an offer to die for the atonement of other’s sins. In Exodus 32:30-33, after Moses discovers that the people had built a golden calf to worship, we are told this:

‘The next day Moses said to the people, "You have committed a great sin. But now I will go up to the LORD; perhaps I can make atonement for your sin."

So Moses went back to the LORD and said, "Oh, what a great sin these people have committed! They have made themselves gods of gold. But now, please forgive their sin—but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written."’

However, God chose not to accept Moses’ offer. He had other plans to save the people from their sins.

Which brings us to one major difference between these two prophets - Moses and Jesus Christ. When Jesus made the offer to be an atoning sacrifice, God allowed it to happen – because it was His plan to do so all along. Why Jesus instead of Moses? Because of one other distinctive difference between the two – the sacrifice is so much more meaningful when the offering is the Son of God himself.

And so, while we study the story of Moses on occasion and recall his life – we meet every week to think of Jesus and remember his death.

But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time.... (Romans 3:21-26)

Merry Christmas!

“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

Will Cultural Brainwashing Now Be Mandated To Get A Teaching Degree?

“Whoever controls the schools controls the world.” – Voddie Baucham
**************************
I promise that I am not making this up. Okay, I did photoshop the picture, but really - that’s all. I apologize in advance to the University of Minnesota graduates, but I’m pretty sure Mao would have been proud of what is happening at your school.

A task force at the University of Minnesota is recommending a training plan for future educators that is so Orwellian, you would think that Karl Marx had written it. This group – called the Race, Culture, Class and Gender Task Group – is recommending a multi-step plan of cultural “re-education” for those wishing to get a teaching degree at “the U”.

Under this plan, students wishing to obtain a degree in education must admit - and be willing to go forth and teach - that America’s roots are racist, sexist, and homophobic, and that such attitudes have been the cause of poor minority academic performance in state schools. Put simply, teachers would need to confess their inherent bias, and then pass on to their students that white students have had an unfair educational advantage due to a history of racism in our nation.

The task force’s recommendation comes in two parts. First, a prospective teacher must confess their own history of prejudice. Extra points are given for being self-critical. A sample “confession” is included in the report - "As an Anglo teacher, I struggle to quiet voices from my own farm family, echoing as always from some unstated standard. ... How can we untangle our own deeply entrenched assumptions?" Again – I promise – I did not make that up.

Second, teachers must be able to point out to students the history of racism and how it has led to an unfair bias against non-whites in the educational system. They must be able to teach about “the myth of meritocracy” in the United States – which is a fancy way to say that the people who have been successful in our nation’s history did not earn their position through hard work, but because of racial privilege.

What if a student resists this program at the University? The task force recommendation deals with this specifically. If someone is unwilling to conform to the cultural re-education process, the University must "develop clear steps and procedures for working with non-performing students, including a remediation plan."

The overall direction of this plan is not so different from the reeducation camps used by Mao Zedong during China’s Cultural Revolution. Hitler used similar tactics to brainwash the youth of Nazi Germany. Even if there is a grain of truth in American racism (and there have certainly been isolated examples), promoting this philosophy has nothing to do with becoming a better teacher! It simply arms teachers with an excuse to give their students for underperforming. If you were paying the University of Minnesota a large tuition to turn your child into a quality teacher, would you be happy with this program? Would you like it if a teacher graduating from this program was assigned to your first-grader – to influence their formative years with racial bias and untruths?

We need educators to stand up for what is right and true, and not fall victim to the recommendations of those who wish to corrupt our children. Home educators – Mom and Dad – need to be willing to teach the truth to their children, regardless of social pressures. Public educators need to rise up and stand against the tactics used by “task forces” which aim to offer up our children on the altar of political correctness. Parents of children, whether home-educated or state-educated, should understand the forces which arise to steal our children’s hearts, minds, and souls. They should not be afraid to take a vocal or public stand against the dumbing-down of the American school system. Write an opinion piece for your local paper, get involved with your school’s leadership, contact a Congressman and let them know your wishes for education, or take personal charge of your children’s education by considering homeschooling.

If we don’t, our children’s children will be living in a world far different from the one in which we grew up. And pretty soon, our beloved United States will start to look like Communist China…or Nazi Germany.

What Happens When Congress Gets In A Hurry

There has been a lot of rushing around in Congress lately, as if there is no time to evaluate what laws are being passed.

The economic stimulus bill was rushed through as an absolute necessity. $787 billion was allocated for spending and agreed to in just a few days. And yet, the results are just the opposite of what was expected – unemployment continues to rise far beyond what we were told it would be if we would support the stimulus package. There have been no firm connections made between the stimulus bill and an economic turnaround. Things have become decidedly worse in our economy.

Now, healthcare is being rushed through Congress, even though such a bill has far-reaching and long-lasting effects. Revamping healthcare could have serious consequences – life and death consequences – if not properly done. And yet, thousands of pages are being written, Congress is voting on it without reading it, and our leaders are breaking their promises to allow it to be posted on-line for 72 hours before taking a vote. We are rushing toward something – but what?

The most recent penalty for a hurried attitude came recently when the Internal Revenue Service announced that they had erred in the release of the tax tables in 2009 – a result of President Obama’s signature tax credit offered as part of the stimulus package. The credits were designed to give individuals as much as $400 in “money back” and couples as much as $800. Because of an oversight, the tax tables for many couples were posted incorrectly, allowing them to claim more credit on their 2008 return than they were allowed. It is estimated that as many as 15 million people will now owe the government $250 or more – some as much as $400. Most of those affected are working couples, but the error also spills over onto single students and Social Security recipients (another error in which the government overlooked the possibility that someone might claim a new Social Security bonus and the above-mentioned tax credit – they are eligible for only one of these credits). Affected people in any category will have to make the correction, either through more tax liability for 2009, or in a reduced return. One thing is for sure – the government will get “its money”, even if they were the ones who made the error.

It feels to me that we are rushing to our own economic destruction. The tax credit was given to Americans with the instructions to “spend the refund in order to stimulate the economy”. How long can that tactic work? Is such a design sustainable? Isn’t there another route we can take – namely, to require the government to spend less, resulting in a lower tax burden, and allowing each individual to keep more of their own money to invest and use as they see fit? Imagine the economic strength of a nation where everyone was free from the worry of debt, and could concentrate on superior products and innovative ideas.

What is lost in nearly every news article that I read is that the tax money started out as ours. We work hard for our paychecks and we make many decisions about how to spend and save. And yet, the assumption made by so many is that the government has a right to take it from us at their whim. True – per the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution, Congress can collect taxes at will. What may have been forgotten is that before 1913, they did not have the right to collect taxes from our incomes (see a previous article here). They continue to abuse this law, taking more and more of our money to fund their own unread and poorly crafted laws. And we continue to send them cash with every pay stub.

I came across this interesting quote recently, from Herbert Hoover:

“Every collectivist revolution rides in on a Trojan horse of 'emergency'. It was the tactic of Lenin, Hitler, and Mussolini. ... And 'emergency' became the justification of the subsequent steps. This technique of creating emergency is the greatest achievement that demagoguery attains.”

The “emergency” has certainly been declared again, and we are falling for it just as surely as economic ruin awaits us if we continue on this course. What should we do? It’s time to get involved – write a Congressman, elect leaders who understand this principle, or work to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment. Without our income tax to spend, Congress just might get downsized. Would that be a bad thing?

What If I Tell Them I Refuse To Pay Abortion Taxes?

During the recent passage of the House healthcare bill, there was a lot of uproar over whether or not public funds would go toward financing abortion on demand (the debate now swings to the Senate). Some more conservative House leaders introduced the Stupak amendment – a measure which limited (but did not completely eliminate) healthcare funds from being used for abortion. As I read the news, a thought occurred to me - what would I have done if the government had placed an abortion free-for-all in the bill, effectively being paid for with my taxes?

Is there a time when we say, “Enough! I refuse to pay for that!” Is there ever a time when we would be justified in NOT paying our taxes?

The Bible tells us to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and also that God puts government officials in their place at his bidding. Jesus told us in Matthew 22 that it was right to pay taxes to Caesar. But it makes me wonder - what were taxes used for by the Roman government two thousand years ago? Did they spend tax money on the same things that our government spends it on today?

In ancient Rome, the tax rate varied between 1% and 5%, with a 1% sales tax being the norm (the higher rates up to 5% were levied on one-time events, such as inheritance taxes). And where did this tax money get spent? I can only find reference to the tax money being used to fund the Roman legions – the military used by the emperors to provide national security and preserve order. The Roman government, the one we hear about as being controlling and oppressive, did not use tax money for public healthcare, arts endowment…or to fund abortion.

Is there a difference today? If Roman taxes were being used to fund abortions, would Jesus’ answer have been different when asked about paying taxes? The point that Jesus was making in Matthew seems to be more about the concern of individuals and their love of money. This event was also a simple ploy that the Pharisees were using to try to trap Jesus into being arrested. Would he have given the same answer if the subject was about what the tax money was being spent on? Would Jesus have felt outrage and decry the payment of taxes if the Roman government had been funding abortions?

It angers me to the point of tears that some of my tax money – right now – goes to fund abortions in instances of rape, incest, or “the health of the mother”. Money that I work hard for is collected by a government which legalizes and even promotes the murder of our nation’s children. To this I say, “Enough!”

I wonder what would happen if I sent in my taxes next year with this note:

Dear U.S. Government,

I have calculated my taxes for last year to be $20,000. I have also calculated that $1,200 of this money will be allocated, proportionally, to the funding of abortions. You should be made aware that the practice of abortion is morally reprehensible to me. I cannot in good conscience allow you to spend my tax money on this procedure. I believe it is tantamount to murder. Please accept this short-payment of my tax debt with the understanding of why I am refusing to pay the full amount. To assist you in any budget shortfall, I will be doing everything in my power over the next few years to help reduce the number of abortions taking place – through discussions, volunteer work, or political activism. I hope that this more than makes up for the amount of my money that you would have spent on abortion had I not been working diligently to teach people about the outrage of this practice. I encourage you to get out of the abortion business and look to God for forgiveness and direction.

Well, I would probably be risking some jail time. I’ve probably guaranteed myself an audit just by posting this.

Pray for our nation.
***********************
Previous posts on abortion - here, here, and here.