Is the Virginia Governor's Office for sale?

With the Presidential election dominating the news for the past 2 years, I am not sure if we Virginians are ready to turn our attention to yet another political season, but it will be upon us soon as we prepare to elect a new Governor in 2009. It is no secret that the localities with high population density drove VA to the blue side of the slate this year, and that "trend" has opened the door for many Democratic hopefuls to consider this post as a real possibility. I am looking forward to learning more about those considering this office, although it looks like the race may be dominated by spending, positioning and which PR machine can land the heaviest blow instead of a focus on the candidate's positions.

I for one am very concerned with one candidate in particular, Mr. Terry McAuliffe who hails from the state of NOVA. NOVA is a state sandwiched between the Commonwealth of VA, the District of Columbia and Maryland that has produced a wealth of Democratic voters due to the growing high density population. I am not sure when they will petition for state status, but it seems this area in particular is proving an insurmountable obstacle for the rest of the Commonwealth to elect a statewide official other than a Democrat. Now I don't have anything against people from NOVA or even Democrats, I even voted for one in the recent election cycle that was on the VA ballot (I will leave you in suspense on that one...), what I do have issue with are candidates that appear on the ballot that have one main asset: funding. 

The Republican candidate stands alone in the primaries, Attorney General Bob McDonnell. I have met Mr. McDonnell once, although I doubt he would remember it, and I have corresponded through Del. Steve Landes with his office on a recent issue concerning the VA State Police Chaplains. I have a pretty good idea of his stand on many issues (even though I don't agree with all of them), which for me are mainly the sanctity of life and less government intervention in the lives of its citizens, but I have less information on the other candidate's ideas. I am looking forward to learning more about the other Democratic primary contenders Creigh Deeds and Brian Moran, and where they will stand on the issues that are important to me before I have the chance to vote. Mr. McAuliffe, on the other hand, is preparing a campaign that alarms me greatly.

Mr. McAuliffe is not a native Virginian, something I could ignore if his status did not appear to be outright carpet bagging, and his campaign seems to be predicated on one thing and one thing only, money. The numbers promised to help his Democratic "friends" in the state legislature and elsewhere is reported to top 75 million dollars. Here is the layout, if you promise to support Mr. McAuliffe for Governor, then he will help you by providing your campaign with more money that you have ever seen for a local office. Who knows what resources are available for the Governor's race itself. I can only hope that the Governor's office can not be purchased, but just in case it can be I ask all Virginians to take notice of what is happening and join me in a public outcry against this outrageous activity. If the local Democratic candidates start running for office with a lot of "new" money and are supportive of Mr. McAuliffe as a result, I think their campaigns may be in serious jeopardy as the voters begin to recognize what is happening. This is not the integrity that I would expect from elected officials at the local and state level, and that lack of integrity will be hard to hide from the voters.

Mr. McAuliffe has never held a public office in the Commonwealth of VA that I have found, his public credentials seem to stand on his Chairmanship of the DNC (Democratic National Committee) and his claim of raising over 1 Billion dollars to support Democratic candidates. If he really has an aspiration to become the Governor of VA, my suggestion is to run for the State Legislature for a few years, let the people get to know him and what his positions are on key issues, and prepare a run that is based on service the people of VA. I am shocked at the idea that service is not a pre-requisite for this position from a voter's point of view, as a person who can afford to buy this office I do not have the feeling that he will "serve" the interests of our State and its citizens. This is strictly a business deal for Mr. McAuliffe, a short cut resume enhancer for perhaps something even more bold than this. The race for the VA Governor's office will perhaps be the biggest story in national politics in 2009, and we must ensure that we represent VA with our collective voices to prevent Mr. McAuliffe from purchasing that which should never be for sale. 

As for the Republican side, I hope that Mr. McDonnell recognizes that he can not succeed in a campaign that continues the mantra of providing "nothing" as a response to "something." At least the Democrats are working to solve problems like transportation and education, even though I do not agree with most of them that these problems are solved by more programs and more money from their constituents. The Republican side needs to get creative and not respond to every need with the answer "we can't afford to do it." There are people out there that have real needs and are hurting, so let's think about local answers to these issues. Let's discuss local vehicle registration fees, toll roads and higher taxes on those areas that are requesting the greatest transportation funding and leave the rest of the state alone. Let's consider saving education funds by freezing the raises for administrators at higher learning institutions until better economic times come along, and allowing parents to have more say in early childhood education programs that amount to little more than tax paid daycare. Let's talk about supporting our youth by giving a year back in service to the community after school, and getting them into church and youth programs that keep them out of gangs.

These are the issues that will define our future, and it starts with each individual and their choices to be productive their own community. That is what we Virginians must figure out in 2009, Democrats and Republicans alike as Virginians first, and while I anxiously wait to learn more about the candidates who live among us and have real answers to the issues, I also will be asking you to join me in public outrage against money that will buy status at the expense of answers.  

The Core of Oppression in America

When people hear the word "oppression," they generally think of traditional examples such as slavery or heavy handed taskmasters to define it. The connotation here, however, is much more to the core of the word as it exists in our country today. Oppression has been used most recently to describe acts associated with the financial leaders in our country and the recent Bailout Bill that passed both houses of Congress. It seems that the "Greed is Good" mantra of Gordon Gecko in the 1980's has come home to roost, while greed may be good as it represents the core of capitalism the results can certainly be less than desirable when taken to extremes.

Oppression has also been used by some on the liberal left to describe the lack of compassion shown by conservatives on issues of equality that include social, financial and racial issues. This view represents a philosophical difference between the two schools of thought, and while neither side is always right or always wrong about any individual point of contention, the trend is toward equality in all areas of society. That phrase in itself sounds proper, after all, the rights of life, liberty and happiness for all men who are created equally by our Creator (words of the Declaration of Independence, not mine) are the bedrock of our nation and the foundation of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. While it all "sounds" appropriate, the issue of equality in the sense that it is being represented by the liberal left today is far from foundational thought. The Founders considered self-determinism to be the strength of an emerging America, where each would prosper through their efforts and be picked up again by their neighbors when things didn't go quite right.

Recent comments by Barack Obama concerning the Constitution bring us to the core of the issue at hand, which conservatives including John McCain are totally missing as the focal point of the upcoming election. The issue is not whether Obama is a closet Muslim, or a Socialist, or associated with the wrong people, I believe that Obama is as committed as McCain when it comes to the direction of the country and the common good of its citizens. They both believe their direction is the right one, I can see the passion of both points of view, so this type of attack will only enflame the passions of each side and turn off those in the middle. The current attacks on Obama's character are ineffective because they do not get to the core issue. 

The real issue is much closer to the foundational tenets of our country, and miles away from the peripheral attacks on Obama's character. His questionable associations are a result of his beliefs, not the cause that should actually offend Americans. The more immediate cause of my concern rests in the core issue that Obama and liberals in America believe that the Constitution is a "flawed document" that reflects the "blind spot of our founders that continues in our nation to this day." That is a quote from a 2001 radio interview with Obama when he was commenting that the liberal court under Chief Justice Warren did not go far enough to establish equality outside of social issues evident during the Civil Rights movement. The Warren court was too conservative for Obama, and the apparent intention of the comments was to say that the Constitution had its day but is outdated and in need of reform. I can only assume that his true intent is to "correct" the document to include the basic rights we all are due, including access to health care, retirement and jobs that cannot be taken away. The courts would become a mechanism to accomplish this reform, instead of focusing on the law of the land and ruling on points of law, the court would extend the definition of equality to correct the blind spot of our Founders in all areas of our society.

I have the feeling of a Star Wars movie character, when the Senate voted all powers to the Chancellor the comment was made, "So this is how liberty dies, to thunderous applause." To continue the movie motif, the true heroes of our society (Jedi Knights) are made into villains by the oppressive Emperor who is squashing the rights of all in the name of equality while our individual rights vanish. We will see this evident in the future as we are made to report our personal habits to the Health Care police, any smoking, drinking or obesity will be against the rights of others covered by Universal Health Care and therefore you are not doing your fair share. Expect to have the plug pulled as the government makes decisions on your life based on your importance to them, not your family and friends. That is one example, consider the current financial mess as a result of political manipulation of market forces, and then consider what the effects have been. What will happen when we attempt to manipulate health care markets, and take over 401-K programs and replace them with "safe" government programs that pay 3%? The results will be disastrous.

The real oppressors in our society today are the liberal left, who would rather place government in the rightful position of the community and the church, manipulating people's care for their neighbors into government run programs. We will give people a fish instead of teaching them to fish, squash individual determinism and personal rights in favor of societal equality, giving no encouragement to job creation through business growth and innovation as we take money from those who pay taxes and give it to those who don't through financial equality, all ultimately to move us toward a society that is as far from our Founder's vision as we could possibly be. Even the media will be a part of this oppression, and those who do not participate will simply not be allowed access to the throne room. 

In the most simple illustration, the tax returns of our candidates reflect this difference, McCain and Obama both made a few million dollars last year (subject for another time), McCain and his wife gave over a million to charity and Obama and his wife gave $3000 or so. Obama believes that his taxes should be used for charity since government should take care of those issues, McCain believes it is the responsibility of other people to intervene in situations that need our attention and get personally involved in the solution. The wealthy in America have a different agenda in this election. While the wealthy will support McCain, the super-wealthy will support Obama. I often wondered why this was the case, but now I understand, the super wealthy liberal elite are interested in maintaining a class structure where they have control, by keeping the majority in a situation where they rely on government that is under the control of those super-wealthy. The mere wealthy are interested in getting ahead through ideas and innovation, creating jobs for people and opportunities for the next go-getter to become wealthy. I hope there are a few more Jedi Knights left that can recognize this, before the Emperor begins to consolidate his authority behind the oppressive ideas of his supporters and allow the Harvard Law Review to re-write the Constitution of the United States.  

"You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting a class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves"-Abraham Lincoln

Can't Separate Church from State...

Why all the fuss about separation of church and state these days? Does the "state" feel threatened by some uprising of faith that will topple our government? Are we in danger of declaring a national religion? Should we not allow people of faith to participate in matters of government? 32 Pastors from across the nation this past week have deliberately attempted to create an issue jeopardizing their 5013C status as tax-exempt institutions by using the pulpit to endorse a particular candidate for office. Immediately following that, a large number of pastors joined a statement to declare this should not be done, and they would not do it in their churches, mostly using the doctrine of separation of church and state in their argument. I can't help but think this last group are the pastors that would rather keep their job than their principles, and are relying on the state to supply them with the very essence of their defense while claiming the 2 entities to be separate. If they really believe in this doctrine, they need to be looking for a faith argument with biblical basis to support their view, not one from the side of the "state." This paradox alone should tell us that as citizens of the United States of America, we can not and should not separate our private (faith) and public (government) lives. 

I am not suggesting that every pastor in America needs to stand up and start using the bully pulpit to endorse a candidate, I think the issue goes much further than that, pastors must first be attentive to the needs of their congregation and their community which more often than not in my experience involves finding areas of agreement and not division to endorse. Christians are biblically mandated in Matthew to "give to Caesar that which is Caesar's" and pray for those in leadership. As the politics of today become more and more divisive, we run the risk of alienating some that could be reached with the most powerful and life saving message in existence, one that supersedes any matter of government including the very rights of religious freedom itself. The message of Christ does not need government to exist and supply freedom, it just makes it easier to enjoy those freedoms, but government does in fact need religion (or some substitute) to create a moral people who are easier to govern. In fact, I could make the case that by securing religious freedoms as central we undermine the power of the Christian message by widening and straightening the path of faith. We are called by Paul to "work out our own salvation with fear and trembling," the connotation here is that the path is by nature rather narrow and winding, or it will be of little value.

In my reading of the Constitution and the Bill or Rights, I don't find any mention of faith other than in the first amendment. This rather brief statement that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is the starting point for our new nation to remove the unnatural, powerfully emotional and coercive tie for Christian citizens emigrating from Europe. The state church in Europe provided the governing bodies with  a means to force obedience to the law of the land, tying it to a citizen's personal salvation and providing a powerful yet imprisoning method of allegiance to the law. In other words, you could only have rights as a citizen if you belonged to the State Church. Shame on the church for ever allowing that to happen, and forcing those seeking religious freedom to the US in the first place. The US model caught on even in Europe, which has now replaced the church with modern social programs of aid and entitlement in order to maintain federal power over the populace. I am afraid we are walking down the same path in America. 

The doctrine of separation of church and state is not part of our Constitution, but rather began as a line in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists over 200 years ago. This letter basically assured the congregants that America would not declare any denomination as the national denomination, but it has been used in an attempt to remove matters of faith from public life. From the point of view of government, the church has little power to help maintain order as we have allowed our core values to become eroded and lifeless, participation in social programs has replaced that institution to satisfy those needs, so better that faith matters have no place in public life to further confuse the issue. Even worse, some church leaders stand up to air their viewpoints on the stage of faith and then further undermine the church by endorsing policies that move our nation even further toward centralizing power in the hands of the federal government and removing our biblical burden to care for others. Our founding fathers knew that centralized government power would only lead to an eventual loss of our personal freedoms, we would forego our personal integrity, accountability and ultimately our freedoms for promises of state run institutions as seen in Europe. Our churches should be standing up in resistance to "social" programs that are replacing our local involvement from faith communities, people are receiving the resources they need but no spiritual support, a double shot at replacing their true spiritual needs with basic human needs and removing the "hunger" that leads people to their only real salvation. We as Christians are enabling people to live feeble, shallow lives while providing their basic needs but not their most innermost ones, and even worse are allowing and even encouraging the "state" to supply those needs in lieu of faith communities. We should be providing those needs, not the government.

Virginia was the last state to ratify the Bill of Rights in 1791, showing little regard for the Constitution as written because of the fear that centralized power would one day overcome the rights of the States and individuals. The argument was that the original Constitution was a step back for the Republican form of government, and we were no better off than in 1776 without an appropriate Bill of Rights. Phrases cementing the idea include "the power of the government rests in the hands of the people," and "any powers not specifically given to the federal government should be returned to the States and the people" were added due to this concern. Over time, we have allowed that very concern to permeate our society as we transform ourselves from self-determinists into socialists, allowing freedom and care for our fellow man to be removed from the individual, church and community and placing it in the hands of our government. This is the very thing that our Founding Fathers feared, and it starts with removing faith and family from our society.

George Washington provides some of the best background on this subject, he, along with other Founding Fathers, knew that for citizens to live in a free society with limited government they would have to be able to control themselves or we would need a police state to maintain order. The "moral conditions of freedom" available to the fledgling nation were provided by individual, Christian faith. George Washington notes in his First Inaugural address that "there is no truth more thoroughly established that there exists in the economy and course of nature an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness." He continues with "the foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality." The thought that our Founding Fathers wanted religion to have no place in our society is absurd, rather they included faith matters as so central to our formation that they need not be explicitly mentioned. The Northwest Ordinance, passed by the same Congress that passed the First Amendment, states "Religion, morality and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged." Do you see a trend here? In short, one of the purposes of the first school system was to promote morality, and one of the most important ways to achieve that was to promote religious activity. The two cannot be separated in a properly functioning republican government.

I will leave you with one other quote from Washington, to establish that religion assumes a vital role in public life, and that these 32 pastors are exercising their rights, whether to the benefit of their congregations or not, by declaring for a particular candidate. I certainly would urge caution on their part in order to delicately attempt to move our faith community back into a place of prominence in our social order, lest some would be confused and miss out on the most important message of our time (and any time) in favor of a political statement. Their freedom is sure, the place of faith in matters of government firmly established, yet care still required to present the more important message as paramount.

"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 cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity." George Washington's farewell address to the nation.

Sources: George Washington and Religious Liberty, PBS.org..The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United Staes, Maier..Holy Bible, NRSV.

2 Rights Makes a Wrong.

I was recently "offended" (I don't really get offended that often...) when a member of my church denomination wrote a letter to the editor lambasting President Bush and his policies in favor of a vote for Obama. I am not sure if it was the open support for Obama on the basis of the state taking care of people instead of themselves, the vitriol on Bush's leadership or just the fact that a person of faith was involved at all in matters of politics (to be explored in another blog). I actually enjoy a reasonable discussion on matters of politics and how they relate to a choice for the 2 candidates, I find that to be a better position that widening the rift that seems to exist relative to this election. I have gotten to the point that I can't stand to watch CNN where you will find all reasons relative to Bush as the economic antichrist and why Sarah Palin should have never been chosen by McCain, as well as having Sean Hannity yell at me and look smugly at a Fox News camera when he digs up another obscure connection to Obama and some crook. We have generally reduced a philosophical disagreement over Government's involvement in the life of its citizens to a chasm that is rapidly growing due to the sensational nature of media broadcasting and our attempt to validate those points of view by being intolerant, rude and generally smug at our "rightness." 

I want to make sure everyone knows where I stand on this, there are things that I disagree with re: both candidates, but I find myself falling on the side of less government intervention in the lives if its citizens which leads me to a vote for McCain in November. I feel the same level of commitment from those that support Obama, and personally I think the excitement on the part of his supporters has engaged us in a new era of political interest and activity not seen since the days of Kennedy. The hope and change platform has energized a lot of people that would normally sit on the sidelines, which is always a good thing in a republican form of government, but I do believe that our general direction toward government as the salvation of our society is a wrong direction. Socializing medicine, the economy and our infrastructure is contrary to free market policies and compromises the rights of the individual to make moral, individual choices on key issues of our day such as abortion and homosexual marriage. McCain for me poses less of a wrong turn, but I still am not 100% satisfied with that direction either, differing on key points such as the appropriate use of our military, Patriot Act provisions including the ability of the government to spy on its citizens, using our tax dollars to invest in socialized solutions (instead of reducing our tax obligations and stimulating our economy from the other side that is based on the hard work and determination of the American workers and small business owners).

I am taking my new acquaintance to lunch, so I can better understand his position and explain my own, for the arrogance of our positions is what is leading us to become offended, not the positions themselves. This idea of "I'm right" and by virtue of that statement then "You must be wrong" is affecting us from Congress all the way down to picnic after church. Maybe we could all learn something from a careful, rational discussion of the issues at hand, and how our personal mandate calls us to action as a community and a nation.

Election Observations....

Interesting observations from the election so far:

-Barack Obama sure seems gifted when offering messages of  "hope" and "change," but falls a little flat when on the attack or trying to be sarcastic. If he is going to get back on track, it will have to be behind inspirational and charismatic messages that rely on people's feelings and emotions instead of policies. I think if he focuses on that he will be the next President regardless of his experience, VP pick, pastor or anything else.

-John Edwards wasn't allowed to speak at the DNC Convention, presumably because he confessed to an affair that he lied about previously. Bill Clinton took his spot at the convention, does anyone else see the irony in this?

-Former Presidential candidate and Baptist minister Mike Huckabee was asked if he could vote for a Republican ticket that included Mitt Romney (a Mormon). He answered that he would vote for the ticket based on their public service, and their religion was not a factor for him. I didn't care for Romney personally at the start of the primaries because I distrusted his Mormon background, but I suppose as far as public service records go the Mormons have as good a track record as anyone. It comes down to not expecting Mitt Romney to declare Mormonism as our national religion any more that I would expect Huckabee to declare Southern Baptists as our national denomination. For me, that's the proper usage of the doctrine of church and state.

-The main hotels at the DNC convention are using room key access "cards" made of recyclable wood instead of plastic, just one example of many "green" items on display at the convention. I am not sure who declared the Democratic party as having a corner on the environment and science, but regardless it seems they don't have the corner on technology since the cards don't work and there are lines to get them re-coded...why is it OK to ride on a carbon-spewing airplane to Denver, go to lavish parties as long as you eat with a spoon and think it is OK to promote abortions that even doctors don't want to perform as long as we use hotel key cards made of recyclable wood?

-I actually enjoyed the fuss over Jeremiah Wright, it put the focus for just a moment on faith and community. I think Americans recognize that any "faith" tradition rooted in extremism really exploits the true nature of most of those traditions, whether Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, etc. I worry that extremism and terrorism are terms that in the future will define those that do not conform to a stated norm, in order to identify enemies of the state. In my view, Christian leaders (can't speak for other faith traditions) should be taking the mantle off the government and replacing government welfare with community welfare, as long as they are allowed to speak openly about their faith in the process. Turning churches into nondescript social replacements for welfare is hollow unless accompanied with Christ's message of love.

-This may be the first election where the "haves" and "have-nots" are pitted against each other instead of two opposing candidates. I am not so sure that a vote for either Obama or McCain is more of a vote for those who believe the government is their salvation or those who believe that the government gets in the way of their prosperity. Reconciling those two points of view is the real division, not the people that hold those points of view.

-This election will definitely be very divisive, whether Obama or McCain wins. If Obama wins, then the stage is set for more open displays of power from minorities, especially the African-American community, as a sort of new sub-nationalism is created within the US borders. If McCain wins, that same community will be very disappointed and withdraw from the American community that has somehow managed to "cheat" them out of victory. There is great passion on the Obama side reflecting the possibilities that he represents, some of it well founded, but unfortunately there is no Bill Cosby around to inject an air of responsibility into this movement that first calls us Americans.  Obama should have asked Cosby to help his campaign instead of Oprah. 

-Are they really going to let Obama give his speech in a Greek temple? There really isn't a place in American politics for such a display, and if this naked self confidence is allowed to continue people are going to rebel against it. The Obama campaign knows this will be a big deal, but they still think its a good move...are they possibly that arrogant about this campaign?

-Is McCain playing golf or saving up his push for later in the fall? I see some ads here and there, but it seems he is content to let Obama win or lose the election on his own, which may be the smartest move of all. 

-Boy, Obama sure made some interesting choices of "friends"that are coming back to haunt him. I am not sure if that tells us he is an extremist, or just willing to let anyone with resources help him get where he needs to be, or just naive about the whole thing since that is really the "norm" in the South Chicago environment?

-I wish they would show election maps based on population instead of states, I think we would be surprised at the concentration of people that will vote for Obama as being in high density areas that rely on government programs as there source of well being and prosperity, and for McCain where the population density is very light representing people that don't want government intervention in their lives other than the original Constitutional mandates. I mean, out in the middle of of nowhere you have to depend on faith, yourself, your family and your community to prosper, in the cities you rely on the government. Since we are not adding land to the US these days, the long term forecast is for the Dems to take over just based on demographics and perpetuate the program mentality, until the Russians get crazy and nuke the cities, the terrorists get them with a virus or the entire economy collapses under the weight of less than 10% of the population paying for the programs that keep the other 90% under roof.

Cult Kids in Texas, Who's Next?

Watching the news reports from the LDS fringe "church" in Texas gave me the chills. Yes, I was horrified at the reports of child abuse and cult religion, but the thing that gave me the chills was the sight of local and federal agents in SWAT gear making a full assault on the compound. I can't help but think that one day, one day that will be the picture coming toward me as a Christian in America.

There is no doubt that someone needs to go to jail for the improper and illegal treatment of minors, particularly women and girls, and that is why we have laws to protect innocents. I am sure there are a select group of men in that compound that have broken several laws and need to be removed from the situation by the authorities. What struck me is that our government at some level decided to assault this compound and remove children from their mothers to place them in foster care. I can't help but think this is not in the best interest of those children, or the mothers that have done nothing wrong. This smacks of a heavy handed attempt on the part of our government to establish their own sort of dominance over innocents and those people that they do not understand. Who's next?

I do not in any way condone the LDS lifestyle, and count the movement as a fringe cult that attempts to maintain a weak tie to Christianity in order to maintain some level of credibility. This faction is even more fringe than the LDS church in general, but other than the polygamy laws that can trace their origin to an attempt toward eliminating this cult, I cannot see where any laws were broken other than by the men who pushed the young women into something they did not want to do. They should be punished for their actions, but what of the innocent children in that compound? Their lives are forever marked by this incident, one that they had no part in creating.

What will be next? I'll tell you, more and more religious groups will be"raided" for their aberrant beliefs, today which are quite contrary to law and general accepted standards of living, but tomorrow it will be mainline Christian groups that propose lifestyles that are deemed aberrant by the general population and our government as a result. This country was founded on religious freedom, an escape from government that chose to force its view on those who place faith before anything else. In this country, our ancestors escaped unbelievable persecution in Europe because they placed their personal heirarchy of importance in this order:

1-God (Faith)

2-Family (In the order of spouse, children, grandparents, others)

3-Government

Our founders attempted to place this order into the form of government they created, and our basic rights as citizens. We fought the Civil War over these basic rights, and whether they reside in the governed or the government, that was the beginning of the end for individual rights whether you agree with their legality or not. The only positive outcome of this Civil War was the immediate freedom of the southern slaves, all else signaled the loss of our individual freedoms in favor of centralized government. Our real disagreement in the social order and political arena boils down to a disagreement, or re-writing, of the original intent of our society. This order has eroded to its present day form, which looks something like this:

1-Government (intended to replace self-determinism as the main support of the people)

2-Family (expanded to mean life partner in support of whatever feels right" to me)

3-God (Faith)

Many people today claim to be spiritual, but not religious. The modern church has done a poor job of making faith relevant to people today, and has provided a wall of separation between people that believe there is something else out there bigger than they are and the institutions that provide a very strict and rigid means of finding that "something." The result has been a rebellion of sorts against foundational doctrine, toward church as defined by people searching to ease their spiritual curiousity. We have the Oprah church, the "Black" church, the New Age church and many others variants that take our focus away from the real church, which Christ established for those that place their faith on belief in Him as the Risen Son of God Himself. 

There is no Black Church, only one church that devotes its energy toward fulfilling the commands given by the Savior, to love one another and to go and make disciples of all nations. Anything other than that introduces a human element and dilutes the salvation message of Jesus Christ. We need to introduce more people to Him as the means of their salvation, once that relationship is established we can move forward toward teaching more about His manner of living and how we can emulate that in our lives, and lastly we can determine what kind of life choices are acceptable given that relationship is intact. I think our Christian churches today make a mistake of reversing the order I just gave you, we tell others if you act a certain way, don't smoke, drink and have sex then we will be able to introduce them to Jesus eventually. By doing so we lose the connection toward the person of Christ as the first and only focal point, which people like Oprah and social movements like the civil rights movement are all to willing to step in and replace in "their" church. If we kept our focus on Christ, as He said, there would be no need for laws because we would be operating at a level far above their reach, and these fringe cults would be no more because people would find their spirituality within the church.

Many people today also believe that government is the source of their salvation, their keeper and their provider. We have lost the self-determinist drive that resulted in America becoming the greatest nation on the earth, to be replaced with a needy people that turn to politicians and the government program for their welfare. We are even re-defining the term "family" to mean any person we want, and any situation that we choose to live in that feels right to us. We see business as a means to exploit people instead of the machine that drives us forward into prosperity, soon this process will leave us with scarce few self-determinists forced to pay for those who choose to sit and let the government take care of their needs. The family, church and community should be taking care of those needs in the first place, not the government. This single issue alone will ultimately drive us from poverty into oblivion within a few generations, the replacement of the dollar with the Euro will be the first signal of that ultimate transaction of power and wealth. I suppose that may be a good thing, as we are forced to face our problems through the crises that will develop from our socialism and faithlessness, then we will be forced to return to limited government and people that can take care of themselves, which will lead to a resurgence in faith. This is the most important element of our lives, how we get there is not important. Making feeble attempts to separate church and state are just not possible, they are intertwined for people just as much as spirituality, in a much more complicated issue than just establishing "separation."

For now, that "revolution" has yet to take place, we have slid along for years toward the path of socialism, replacing our faith in God with faith in a government that meets our needs. Because government meets our needs as a replacement for our own courage and conviction, we have allowed it to usurp our freedoms to the point where armed men assaulting a compound of mostly women and children, separating them as wards of the courts, no longer alarms us. We just count that sort of action as warranted to preserve society and its laws, and go about our business. Were we still a nation of self determining Christians, that action would have been condemned, lest we see that very government on the horizon ready to assault our own individual rights.

US Tax System Needs Overhaul

I am not sure who gets the credit as the candidate for tax reform, perhaps it goes back to the institution of the Internal Revenue Service itself and the first person to complain... Did you know that the Income Tax was not included in the original Constitution but added through Amendment in 1913? There was a short flirtation with an income tax during the Civil War (appropriate, don't you think, as the Federal government started replacing the State and local governance), the office of the Commissioner of the Revenue was created in 1862 as a means of paying for the costs of the war. This office lasted about 10 years, I assume until the financial and social crisis was seen to have passed. It was resurrected in the 1890's but deemed unconstitutional within a year by the Supreme Court.

Only in 1913 did the Income Tax "stick," creating the Bureau of Internal Revenue through the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. One assumes that this was another tool of the Federal government to use against those involved in unlawful enterprises as many of the "gangsters" of the day were jailed not due to their activities, but due to their failure to pay appropriate income taxes, as well as providing general income funds. The rates were generally low other than in years of wartime or distress, and the Bureau gradually evolved into the IRS that we know today that is tasked with providing the funds necessary to run our burgeoning bureaucracy. 

We have managed to allow the IRS to become the most feared government agency in existence, I think we would all rather the FBI was chasing us around than the IRS. We allowed government spending to increase to such a level that taxes are necessary to keep it afloat, but this agency was never a part of the plan of the Founders plan, it is a relatively modern invention, an agency tasked to do whatever it takes to raise funds and with the "teeth" to back it up.

I support those who want to do away with the IRS and the confusing tax codes, so confusing in fact that the CPA's and general accountants and clerks across America don't know much more than we do when it comes down to it, they rely on complex software packages to keep up with the rules. I personally prefer no tax at all other than to provide for the common defense and essential services that no one area can provide for itself, but even then the source of that revenue should be changed to something that makes more sense. 

The buzzword today is the "Fair Tax" or the "Consumption Tax," which has been passed around in elite circles for quite some time. Basically, if you buy a good or service, you would add a percentage to that purchase which would go to the Federal government, much like the Sales Tax that most States use. No muss, no fuss, simple and to the point, you keep all the money you earn to spend as you like with no one checking up on you once a year. I believe this is a much more favorable means of appropriately and fairly raising the funds needed to run the necessary programs, although the actual amount and the programs that would be funded is another subject entirely.

Think of our tax system in this very simplified analogy:

10 friends enjoy each other's company and like going to the movies together on Friday nights (had to pick a reasonable place and use nice, round numbers to simplify this for myself...). Their total cost for the night at the movies is $100. Using recent IRS rates to illustrate:

The first 4 (the poorest of the group) would pay nothing, the fifth pays $1, the sixth $3, the seventh $7, the eight $12, the ninth $18 and the tenth (the richest of the group) $59.

And they were OK with this arrangement, enjoyed their movie and just assumed the disparity in cost was fair. Now let's assume for a moment that the movie theater needed to create income for the snack bar, so they offered a 20% rebate on the cost of movie tickets. The total cost for the Friday night out would now be $80. They all still expected the first 4 to get their tickets for free, but had to decide how the $20 in savings would be distributed among the rest. $20 divided by the remaining 6 people would be $3.33 in savings each, but they quickly realized that they would end up paying the 5th and 6th moviegoer to see the movie which did not seem fair, so they decided to reduce each person's ticket by an amount relative to their current price, so:

The fifth now paid nothing like the first four, the sixth paid $2, the seventh $5, the eighth $9, the ninth $14 and the tenth $49. Pretty obvious that they were all better off than before, but pretty soon someone got out a calculator and figured out that although the sixth person saved 33%, that amount was only a dollar, and although the tenth person only saved 16% that amounted to a whopping $10 in savings.

This situation started a firestorm.

The fifth person was also upset that they only saved a dollar and the tenth person saved $10, the seventh joined in to exclaim how the wealthy get all the breaks! The first four people were up in arms at how this system did not give them anything back and was used to exploit the poor! Pretty soon the whole group was bickering over their own situation, which eventually turned into railing on the tenth person until that person quietly decided to move (the Cayman Islands I guess...) to avoid the whole mess.

The next Friday night at the movies the tenth person did not show up, and the other nine were shocked to find that even with the cost reduction, they did not have enough money between them to cover even half the tickets. Now what to do? 

We are presently right at the point of deciding what to do, how to get the same services (movie tickets) tomorrow that we are enjoying today, before the whole system blows up and we can't even afford half of what we have. Please consider the Fair Tax and its cousins as a viable alternative that is fair for everyone, simple to understand and necessary for the future growth of our nation. Compliments to David Kamerschen, Professor of Economics at UGA for the original premise of the tax illustration.

Student's Pledge of Allegiance

I found something that I thought I should share, I wish I could claim it for my own, but it was written by someone smarter than I, a 15 year old student from Arizona...I don't think I need to add a thing.

Now I sit me down in school,

where praying is against the rule.

For this great nation under God,

Finds mention of Him very odd.

If Scripture now the class recites,

it violates the Bill of Rights,

and any time my head I bow,

becomes a federal matter now.

Our hair can be purple, orange or green,

that's no offense, its a freedom scene.

The law is specific, the law precise,

prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice.

For praying in a public hall,

might offend someone with no faith at all.

In silence alone we meditate,

God's name prohibited by the State.

We're allowed to dress and cuss like freaks,

and pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks.

They've outlawed guns, but first the Bible,

To quote the good book makes me liable.

We can elect a pregnant senior Queen,

and the unwed "Daddy" our senior King.

Its inappropriate to teach right from wrong,

we're taught such judgments do not belong.

We can get our condoms and birth control,

study witchcraft, vampires and totem poles.

But the Ten Commandments are not allowed,

no word of God must reach this crowd.

Its scary here I must confess,

when chaos reigns, the school's a mess.

So, Lord, this silent plea I make

should I be shot, my soul please take.

The Divided States of America

Never since the Civil War (or the War Between the States if you prefer) has America been divided into such a clean division of social and political ideals. That is a bold statement, but if you really stop and think about it you will find it appropriate. We are 2 nations within common borders, without geographical identity so each side is hard to pinpoint, unable to move forward because of the stalemate that exists in our divisions.

The Presidential race has magnified this divide for me, and while people size up the candidates to see which one fits their value system most closely, the results of that decision will identify a much larger issue. Gone is the day when the US was united in the face of social and political issues, and even threats to our freedom. In the past 60-70 years we have experienced change at a dramatic rate, from our social system that found the need to support our economic systems through programs due to the Great Depression but allowed those programs to continue and grow even after the need had passed, from the institution of an income tax and removal of the US financial system from the gold standard which ultimately will prove to be an issue that erodes our prosperity back to the last century, and from the social upheavals of the 1960's that resulted mostly from the abuse of power in our government and loss of leadership on moral issues. If you are looking for a change in government, you need look no further than our own recent history that is threatening to divide the very institutions of our nation. The real candidate of change will be the one that returns us to the original democratic ideal that brought us to America in the first place. I am not sure that candidate is available to us yet, because the radical change that will be required can only happen when we all realize where we are going (see blog topic-How Long will Democracy Last).

I recently heard someone on talk radio announce that he is voting for the Democratic candidate because "the Democrats give us what we want, and the Republicans just take it away." Seems to me this is a common theme, and while the Republicans certainly have done their part to deserve the stigma of government mismanagement as much as anyone else, I think the idea that was voiced on that radio show is more dangerous yet. It signals a choice of the American people, a demographic shift that we are in the midst of right now, where people feel more comfort and security in allowing the government to take care of their basic needs than they do in determing those needs for themselves. We are slowly becoming the same form of centralized government that our ancestors would do anything to escape, including a 2 month sea passage in horrid conditions away from the place you were born and raised, just to escape government that held control over your property, religion and personal freedom. Think about it, we are voting now to give that control right back to the government that our ancestors abhorred!

I would pre-suppose that the worst areas of the country that are in the midst of the housing turmoil, where in some cases nearly 50% of the homes sold are sold out of bankruptcy, are mostly those areas that will vote Democratic in the next election. I'd like to see an overlay map illustrating that feature. The last election between President Bush and Al Gore illuminated the fact that in simplistic terms the inner cities voted for Gore and the vast areas of the US with lighter density voted for Bush. What is that telling us? It is telling me that the people that expect government to provide for them are mostly centralized in higher density areas, dependent on the public dole in the midst of higher crime and substance abuse issues. Those issues that this demographic faces are not issues that government can repair, only community and the courage to rise to a higher level of personal integrity can provide relief, not more government intervention and support programs. The fact that we are nearing a 50/50 split between those that want the government to provide for them in a relatively small overall area of the US, and those that want government to be diminshed in favor of personal liberty is cause for alarm, but I think we are going to quietly continue to move in that direction until we become a socialist nation before anyone figures it out.

There is evidence on both sides of the aisle that we are moving in that direction, even the Republican leadership is eroding our personal rights by allowing spying and wire tapping in the name of national defense. The fact is, if we choose to remain a self sustaining democracy, then we are going to be open to attacks that we simply cannot defend. In fact, if we are truly a free and open society, we should look on the attacks of others that hate that freedom as an occasion for celebration. We cannot be open to personal freedoms of thought, movement and ownership and closed to attacks from the outside, or we will inevitably lose those freedoms. We have a lot of very good people dealing with national defense issues every day, and I am thankful for them, but as Americans we should have a higher standard than the rest of the world when it comes to personal freedom in all areas of our society. We know who the bad guys are, get the court order to tap their phones and whomever is in contact with them and take care of it, but the rest of the American public should not be subjected to a blanket proclamation. The same is true of the sanctity of life issue, by turning over our rights to the government and its courts we can't be sure that one day national health care means they get to decide who lives and who is too expensive to keep, just as by turning over our private conversations means some degree of added security today may mean you are labled an enemy of the state tomorrow.

John Adams and Thomas Jefferson on their worst day would never trade personal freedom for government intervention, yet some would use their names in defense of government supporting people in need instead of their neighbors supporting that need. The premise that our young Democrats hold today, the same ideals that John Kennedy tried to establish where people take personal initiative in making our country better is not the same ideal that the Democratic leadership exhibits. I admire those that hold on to that ideal on the democratic side, but if they will just take a moment to look at the big picture they will see this is not the case today, they have been duped into something else. We have allowed our welfare system to overcome the position of the church and community in taking care of our own, we have allowed our government to exercise more and more control over our personal lives since the end of the Civil War, and now we have become so used to that control that we are willing to vote it away in the name of national health care.

I am still unsure where my vote will go in November, but regardless of those that even go so far as to say don't vote unless your candidate fulfills all of the "requirements" for your side, I plan to vote for someone. I encourage you to vote as well, and I hope that your vote will go toward uniting a country divided by policies we have allowed to separate us. Our democracy will not last if we allow our government to become what our ancestors risked everything to leave, please take a step back and consider the big picture, before its too late...