Showing posts with label US Government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US Government. Show all posts

Friday, October 17, 2008

The Man Who Stayed



In a modern world that seems inundated of corrupt, incompetent leadership, there are still patriots and heroes who know what they are doing and continue to execute. These individuals serve on your behalf. Their actions aren't motivated by polls and job security. Gen Patraeus is an example of one of these men.

Read a little about General David Petraeus and where he is going next in the article located here.



"Hard is not hopeless." -Gen Petraeus [Sept 19, 2007]

"And morale, frankly, is an individual thing. And it often comes down to the kind of day that you’re having. I am not immune from those same swings. On days when we have had tough casualties, those are not good days. Morale is not high on those days. And I think the same is true of all of our forces." - Gen Petraeus [Apr 2008]

Friday, September 26, 2008

Giving, Financial Hardship, Hurricane Relief, Government Aid, and the Church

"The apostle wrote to the Christians in Thessalonica, “Aspire to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we instructed you, so that you may live properly before outsiders and be dependent upon no one.” (1 Thess. 4:11-12 ESV). Thus the word of God desires that Christians shall act in such a way that they do not face situations in which they must seek the generosity of “those who are outside”. Hedinger remarks on the words, “That you be dependent upon no one”: “[Neither be dependent upon] the people themselves, or their possessions and assistance. Paul desires that they should work for themselves in blessing so that they need not look to the godless for a handout. That would be to their disgrace, an offence to their faith, and a misleading of their souls through the interaction.” But it is clear, if Christians want to work and eat of their own bread, but are not able, and it is necessary for them to rely upon the kindness of unbelievers, then they don’t bear the guilt for giving offense to the world, or the dishonor which thereby comes to the Gospel."

"The zeal of congregations against the secret societies(1) is completely pharisaic if it is not tied with sufficient concern for their poor and suffering. A Christian congregation can not simply claim that there are state funds for the poor and homes for them, which they also support. No Christian congregation should allow their poor to be cared for in this way. The state should much more see that it need not forcibly impose taxes for the poor in order to maintain poor Christians, but only for those who have been forsaken by all the world. Christian congregations should view it as a disgrace to see their poor cared for by the secular state. In the so-called state churches, in which a confusion of the church and the state existed, it was a different matter. There the state institutions for the poor were essentially those of the church. Here, where church and state are strictly separated, the church should not allow its sole care for its poor to be taken away. If God already called upon the church of the old covenant that: “There shall be no beggars among you!” (Dt. 15:4), how much more does this apply to the church of the New Testament! If it dishonors God, if Christians among Christians have to go about as beggars because they are not provided with the necessities of life, so that Christ in them must go begging, what an insult must it be to the name Christian, if Christians close their hearts to their brothers, and they are forced to go begging from the loveless world!"

-C.F.W. Walther, from The Pastor's Responsibility to Care for the Physical Needs of Members of His Congregation.

(1) Note: In Walther’s day, many people joined secret societies, such as the Masons, in order to establish relationships they could count on in times of need.

Friday, July 4, 2008

Independence Day Gut Check

This Soldier would like to wish you all a happy and safe Independence Day.

Remember that the continued freedom of this great nation depends on two things:

1. The continued vigilance of a strong military who is dedicated to the ideals of liberty and to the mission of providing a common defense against all of America's enemies.

2. The continued vigilance of a well-educated, independent electorate who is dedicated to the ideals of liberty and the mission of providing for America's defense against all who would manipulate this system of government to undermine or pervert her.

As our brothers and sisters serve in despotic parts of the world, the citizens of the United States have a duty to ensure that the fundamental principles of liberty are preserved here at home. Far too many people are not even paying attention. Far too many people are allowing the elite in positions of influence to dictate what they know and how they feel about it.

Everyone has an opinion on Iraq, but most people cannot answer even one of the following questions:

(1) Where is Mosul located on a blank map of Iraq?
(2) What 3 provinces existed before what is now Iraq was unified under British occupation?
(3) What are a few fundamental differences between Sunni Islam and Shia Islam?
(4) What kind of political ideology did the Baathist party embrace? Who founded them?
(5) Why did the British imprison Khairallah Talfah (uncle who raised Saddam) during WWII?

Everyone has an opinion on the economy, but:

(1) Most people fail a 14 question test on the basics of finance.
(2) Most people cannot pass a basic economic test like this one.

So I ask: "Where are these opinions coming from?"

Clearly we are not forming them for ourselves. You cannot make an informed decision if your information is coming from someone who has already decided for you. If you look at the majority of "news" and "reporting" you will find that it is all speculation, polls, entertainment, distraction, and commentary. Come on! We are smarter than this.


"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent."

-Thomas Jefferson
Letter to Francis Hopkinson
March 13, 1789

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

The Evolution of America's Dynastic System

Here is a thought that is having our founding fathers spin in their graves as we speak:

1980... Vice President: George H. W. Bush
[1981... my birth year]
1984... Vice President: George H. W. Bush
1988... President: George H. W. Bush
[1990... the 2008 first time voters are born]
1992... President: William J. Clinton
1996... President: William J. Clinton
[1991... I become a legal voter]
2000... President: George W. Bush [The son of a previous president]
2004... President: George W. Bush [The son of a previous president]
2008... Democrat Presidential Canidate: Hilary R. Clinton [The wife of a previous president]

Scary Thought: There are people who can legally vote this year who have been ruled by executives from only two immediate families. For my entire life, there has always been a "Bush" or "Clinton" in the #1 or #2 slot. Politics aside, if Hilary is elected to even just one term, we will have had Bush-Clinton Presidential regimes for 24 consecutive years... nearly a quarter century (move over Castro, we're catching up!)

Did we really leave our kings and queens behind? Do we now just give them the tacit okay to assume their throne?

Are there no other qualified individuals in this vast and great country? Really?

I am shocked that this does not come up in converstation more often. Orwell was right: we are all sheep.

Monday, February 11, 2008

Who is the "real" conservative?

The "real" conservative is the one that actually conserves the historic view of the American political process and strongly opposes all parties as President Washington did. All others are too "liberal" in my book. I would hazard to guess that our First President would barely recognize this political system. It is a tragic loss.

What is worse, this current political season is marred on all sides by what President Washington called, "a spirit of revenge." In no other election, have I witnessed such blind, retarded sheepery. It is enough to make a true patriot weep. Any group or party whose primary focus is anything other than unity, sacrifice, and fidelity for the whole nation is an enemy of our founding principles. I quote our esteemed founding father:

The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee, that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion, that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.

For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the Independence and Liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.

...

Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the constitution, alterations, which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments, as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard, by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that, for the efficient management of our common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution, in those intrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the Guardian of the Public Weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way, which the constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for, though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.

Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric ?

Promote, then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

-Excerpts from George Washington's Fairwell Address to the Citizens of the United States - September 17, 1796 (look it up and read it in its entirity)

Shame. Shame on us all for being so foolish, lazy, and ignorant.

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

Myth Alert! My Bill of Rights

Apparently, modern Christians know as little about the history of their government as they do about the history of the church. As the election year draws near, I hear all kinds of Christians saying all kinds of silly things about the U.S. Constitution and the Founding Fathers. I blame inept school teachers and lazy parents for not making people read or learn from first hand sources. I will endeavor to set the record straight. Let us start with the myth that the Bill of Rights was originally intended to guarantee individual citizens these freedoms… in particular the universal right for an individual to have "freedom of religion".

Originally, the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution (aka the Bill of Rights) applied in a very limited scope. Anyone who reads the "Federalist Papers" knows that. When these amendments were written, they were limitations that only applied to the federal government. The First Amendment did not universally restrict the governments of the states and only limited Congress from establishing or forbidding religion, speech, the press, etc, etc.

In short:

You did not have these rights objectively as an individual. The Bill of Rights just said that the federal government could not deprive you of these things. Your state reserved the right to decide what your rights were as a citizen and they could freely deprive you of rights "guaranteed to you" in the Bill of Rights.

Consequently, states were free to limit or control the exercise of religion, gun rights, habeas corpus, and free speech as they saw fit. In fact, there were many “state churches” in the United States that held an official religion for that state in those early days. Such an idea offends most modern Americans who believe that their view of America has always been the traditional view.

As an example, Massachusetts did not disestablish its official church until 1833--more than forty years after the ratification of the First Amendment. The state had been officially Congregational until 1780. Massachusetts then moved to a system that was "more fair" which required every man to belong to a church (any church), and even permitted each church to tax its members. This system continued until it was abolished in 1833. It should be noted that the state of Massachusetts continued to have official establishments of religion in local areas for many years after that.

The Supreme Court upheld this understanding of Constitutional Law in Barron v. Baltimore (1833) which stated that freedoms granted by the Bill of Rights were restrictions upon the federal government alone (specifically the 5th Amendment in that case) and that the rights listed did not restrict the operation of state governments.

Other states had official religions:

Connecticut was officially a Congregational state until 1818
Georgia was officially Church of England state until 1789
New Hampshire was officially a Congregational state until 1790
North Carolina was officially a Church of England state until 1776
South Carolina was officially a Church of England state until 1854
Virginia was officially a Church of England state until 1786

It was also this Constitutional understanding that pro-slavery states used to forbid the printing of abolitionist literature and ban the peaceful assembly of anti-slavery organizations prior to the American Civil War.

This view of the function of the Bill of Rights had changed by 1868 with the ratification of the 14th Amendment. That is after the American Civil War for those of you who are fuzzy on the timeline. The authority of the Bill of Rights over the states was further cemented by the Gitlow v. New York decision (1925) which bound states to the First Amendment limitations of the federal government in the Bill of Rights using the 14th Amendment. These developments effectively overturned Barron v. Baltimore and reserved the restrictions listed in the Constitutional Amendments to the state governments as well. So the free exercise of religion at the individual level was not a product of the U.S. Constitution, but rather of the 14th Amendment which became law many decades later.

What does this mean? That means that the country that you live in now is not the one that the Founding Fathers created with the U.S. Constitution. The freedoms that you have always considered to be inalienable rights that are immune to all government intrusion were not originally afforded to you by the Bill of Rights, but rather by the addition of the 14th Amendment. Prior to the 14th Amendment, the Constitution offered you no assurance that your basic rights were protected from the actions of your individual state.

Thank God for the 14th Amendment and those "liberal judges" who deviated from strict interpretations of the Constitution in order to correct a tyrannical system that watched as citizens were deprived of individual liberty.