This did not set well with those waiting expectantly. Police were called to the Instant Tax Service in Charlotte, NC as approximately 75 angry customers descended on their office demanding the refund deposits as promised on the date promised.  They wanted their money! However, was it? There is common thinking that half the people pay taxes and half do not.

This is only partially true. The part that half pay taxes is true, however, through the magic of Earned Income Credit and other creations of an overly generous congress, many who do not pay taxes actually are refunded more than they have paid into the system… thousands more! Liberals and progressives have a term for these, they are called a transfer payments. That means, money is transferred from those who have earned it to those who have not.

The near violence in Charlotte was repeated in Richmond, VA. Given the thirst for government (read taxpayers) money, it would be surprising if these were isolated incidents. This should be a source of concern for all of us as we work for and anticipate the defeat of the Prevaricator in Chief. This great divider has convinced his followers of their right to feed at the public trough at the expense of their fellow citizens. They have bought into his story European socialist vision and are waiting with outstretched hands. What’s worse, they have been deprived of the ability to create their own lives and their own successes.

What will happen when Barack Obama is ejected for the people’s house and the money stops flowing? Or, should the people foolishly keep him in office, what will happen when the money stops because we have simply run out. Denied expectations can promote a response that none of us would like, yet we must be prepared for. The fact is that sooner or later the money will stop flowing and we have a choice of whether it will be a gentle or harsh landing. And… we also have a choice of whether we are prepared for such a response or if it will take us by surprise.

This was just a small skirmish in the quest for what some consider to be rightfully theirs. However, when things begin going badly, we need to consider how we will deal with the situation. We cannot operate a European welfare state, nor should we. However, we have seen the reaction to a delay of funds for just a few days. We cannot ignore this warning and need to be aware that even though we may be doing the right thing, there will be obstacles to overcome and we cannot loose resolve.

As Christians, we need to look beyond the annoyances and the attacks on our country and speak the truth to them that the real source of our security, and the security of those seeking our money, is our Creator, not the folks inside the beltway.

Bernanke’s press conference announcement again booted the stock and bond markets, but did nothing to boost employment.

At his January 25, 2012, press conference, Federal Reserve Bank chairman Ben Bernanke stated that he expects the Fed to continue imposing near-zero interest rates well into 2014 on short-term Treasury securities. In response, the stock market surged, despite expectations of generally lower corporate earnings and reduced consumer spending. Loose credit and low interest rates usually facilitate stock market speculation.

However gratifying this may to individual investors and pension fund managers, it does little if anything to restore production of goods and services or to raise employment. It also continues to penalize increased savings, which alone provides a stable, long-term platform for economic growth. People living on fixed incomes have had their rates of income on saving chopped around 75% since the Fed first cut interest rates.

As Austrian school economists long have observed, central bank manipulation of interest rates and government deficit spending have an uneven impact on sectors of the economy. When unemployment is high and people are yet freighted with excessive personal debt, consumer spending will be among the last sectors to increase.

Instead, deficit spending and loose money lead businessmen to over-invest in long term capital goods, because low interest cost for borrowed money makes even marginal investment projects appear profitable. When business finally revives and costs, including interest rates, increase, those marginal projects collapse and push the economy into recession.

Such was the genesis and progress of the housing bubble and subprime mortgage securities.

Contrary to the aggregate computer models of Keynesian economics, the economy as a whole never has been controllable via government stimulus spending. In fact, as reported recently, the 31% increase in business long-term investment over recent months has been largely concentrated in labor-saving equipment, which ironically adds to unemployment or postpones new hiring.

This article was originally posted in The View Form 1776 blog.

http://www.thomasbrewton.com/index.php/weblog/fed_feeds_distortion/

What has happened is, the US Census Bureau erroneously claims that it “‘is required by the U.S. Constitution count everyone living in this country, regardless of immigration or citizenship status.’” Accordingly, they have counted millions of illegal aliens in the 2010 Census and are using those figures to apportion the US House of Representatives. If this egregious misinterpretation of the US Constitution is allowed to stand, five states (Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, and Ohio) will lose representation in the US Congress to which they are lawfully entitled, while three states (California, Texas, and Florida) will be awarded additional representation in the US Congress to which they are not lawfully entitled. And, of course, this will also directly impact the makeup of the Electoral College, which ultimately elects the President of the United States.

Of course, this manipulation of the 2010 US Census also impacts the election of the US President, as those states that are granted more seats in the US Congress are also granted more votes in the Electoral College as the Electoral College is composed of a “Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress. . . .” (Article. II. Section. I. Clause. 2. US Constitution). And, as everyone knows, under the US Constitution, it is the Electoral College that ultimately elects the President of the United States. Thus, the states of Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, and Ohio, will be unjustly denied their lawful votes in the Electoral College, while California, Texas, and Florida, are being unjustly granted unlawful votes in the Electoral College. Would it not be extraordinary if the margin by which President Obama is re-elected in the Electoral College would be provided by the manipulation of the census data under his control? Again, this would be an outrage!

In essence, the Obama administration is rigging the US Census to steal a congressional seat from the State of Montana. This rigging will keep Montana from having a second congressional representative. If the illegals in California, Texas, and Florida are not included, then Montana will receive two congressional seats and four electoral votes. Under Obama’s rigging plan, Montana will continue to have only one congressional seat and three electoral votes.

Considering the major media and even most “conservative” talking heads have said virtually nothing about this monstrous misallocation of constitutional government is just the latest example of how truly out of touch the people who are entrusted to inform the American people really are.

The plaintiff in this case is the State of Louisiana, which has now been joined and supported by amici U.S. Border Control, U.S. Border Control Foundation, U.S. Justice Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, Gun Owners of America, Inc., Gun Owners Foundation, English First, English First Foundation, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, The Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, Public Advocate of the United States, Policy Analysis Center, Virginia Del. Bob Marshall, Oklahoma Rep. Charles Key, Maryland Del. Don Dwyer, Washington Rep. Matt Shea, Wyoming Sen. Kit Jennings, as well as Candidate for Governor of Montana, Bob Fanning, and Candidate for Lieutenant Governor of Montana, Chuck Baldwin.

Attorneys filing this brief before the US Supreme Court are Herbert W. Titus, William J. Olson, John S. Miles, Jeremiah L. Morgan (of the law firm of William J. Olson, P.C. of Vienna, Virginia) and Gary G. Kreep (of the U.S. Justice Foundation).

As citizens of the State of Montana, and as candidates for Governor and Lieutenant Governor of the State of Montana, Bob Fanning and I are outraged at this unconstitutional manipulation of the 2010 US Census, and the subsequent unconstitutional and unlawful misapportionment of the US House of Representatives.

We are further outraged that our own governor, Brian Schweitzer (the incumbent Democrat governor who is term-limited out of office after the completion of his current term) has done nothing to prevent the people of the State of Montana from being denied the rightful seating of an additional US House member from the Montana delegation to Washington, D.C. He has not served as Montana’s watchman, to make certain that our State is being treated fairly by the Obama administration. Louisiana has been forced to go it alone, as the only State willing to bring this challenge. By not joining the lawsuit against the Obama administration, what Governor Schweitzer in essence is doing is allowing illegal aliens to deny the due representation of the citizens of Montana in Washington, D.C. This is an outrage!

It is a gross misinterpretation of the US Constitution to claim that the US Census is supposed to “count everyone living in this country.” Article. I. Section. I. Clause 3. as amended by Section. 2. of the 14th Amendment authorizes “a targeted decennial census of the ‘respective numbers’ of ‘the People’ of the several States, not a wholesale count of the numbers of persons found ‘living’ in the United States.” The term “the People” is a technical term used in the U.S. Constitution to refer to the polity, that is, the people who constituted the government and who are legal citizens of the nation. Only by such a tailored count can the constitutionally-authorized decennial census serve the purpose for which that census has been required–the apportionment of representation of the people of the several states in the U.S. House of Representatives.

“It is manifestly untrue that the decennial census ordained by the Constitution is to be taken without regard to a person’s ‘immigration or citizenship status.’ The decennial census is conducted for the apportionment of representation in the House of Representatives, the members of which are ‘chosen every second Year by the People of the several States.’ (Article. I. Section. 2. Clause. 1. US Constitution). The first sentence of the 14th Amendment establishes a symbiotic relationship between a person’s United States citizenship and that person’s State citizenship. Thus, whether a person is part of ‘the People’ of a State is largely, if not exclusively, dictated by a person’s ‘immigration or citizenship status.’ Any census that ignores that connection is fatally flawed.”

In the afore-mentioned lawsuit, we are asking the US Supreme Court to preserve the integrity of the US House of Representatives and Electoral College.

I can tell you that the people who want to disassemble constitutional government in this country are hoping that no one notices what the Obama administration is doing to manipulate the 2010 US Census to unlawfully reconstruct the US House of Representatives and Electoral College. Well, I can tell you, Bob Fanning and I (along with the other amici curiae supporting Louisiana in this lawsuit) are not going to let that happen!

I will be holding a press conference to blow the whistle on what is taking place to deny the people of the State of Montana (along with the people of the states of Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina, and Ohio) their lawful representation in Washington, D.C. I am also using the influence and outreach of this column to alert the American people as to how the Obama administration is attempting to manipulate the US House of Representatives and Electoral College.

It is more than interesting also that the “anointed” establishment neocon Republican Montana gubernatorial candidate, Rick Hill, has, himself, not even bothered to alert the people of Montana to this travesty. Why not? Rick is a career politician who once served in the US House of Representatives from Montana. One would think he would want to protect the people of the State of Montana from this outrage. But he has said nothing! Plus, have you heard anything about this from any of the “conservative” talking heads on FOX News? No you haven’t! Why not? Why is it left to this column to alert you to this gross violation of constitutional government?

Therefore, I unashamedly appeal to readers to help Bob and I carry this fight to preserve the integrity of the US House of Representative and the Electoral College to the US Supreme Court. Please go to our web site.

I also highly encourage readers to visit the web site of the law firm filing this brief. William J. Olson, Herbert Titus, et al., have been at the front lines in helping to defend constitutional government for longer than many of us have been alive. Bill Olson and Herb Titus have defended a sizeable number of patriot organizations and individuals against federal usurpation for decades. I don’t know of another law firm with the credentials and track record of fighting for constitutional government, Second Amendment rights, and individual liberty anywhere in the country than the law firm of William J. Olson, P.C.

To learn more about this lawsuit and the Olson law firm…

In the meantime, each of us should be using our individual and collective sphere of influence to trumpet this attempted travesty as loudly as possible! I especially encourage readers in the states of Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, and Ohio to demand of every elected public office holder in their respective states to use every means possible to defend the lawful rights of their states to proper representation in the US House of Representatives and the Electoral College. The people of America simply must not allow this flagrant manipulation of the 2010 US Census to take place! If the Obama administration gets by with this now, think how the states’ representation in Congress will be abused in the future.

For more by Chuck Baldwin go to http://chuckbaldwinlive.com

However, as John Adams told us, “Facts are stubborn things”. The facts in this case, include the Iowa caucus results being reversed to give Rick Santorum the victory. Romney was no longer 2 – 0 in the prior contests. Another fact was that CBS News, in an obvious attempt to swing the election results, made a clumsy effort to damage the former Speaker with a hatchet job interview with his former wife.

As with many ill-conceived efforts to strong arm the public, an aggressive, confident response can turn the entire situation around. John King’s attempt to put Gingrich on the spot with an embarrassing question turned sour quickly as it was met with a surprisingly determined response that called out the network and the questioner for what they were. The crowd cheered. Instead of turning on the former Speaker, they understood this was just an attempt to dredge up old news and remove the effect of any repentance and change of heart the man may have had.

This was just one of many times the Speaker’s refusal to back down from difficult questions accrued to his benefit and endeared him to the the voters in South Carolina, and the rest of the country. With the response from the voters, some have theorized that this was a media attempt to boost a Romney rival. This thinking is based on the idea that they really are afraid of former frontrunner. I’m not sure this is really the case… however some have this mindset… but then, some think Obama is doing a great job.

In any case, a few days before the primary, the polls started to detect rising support for Newt Gingrich. They didn’t really understand the just how strong his support was, and how impressive his win would be. For those satisfied, or at least, not overly upset with the things going on in our country, it is hard to comprehend how horrified many Americans are at the actions of the ruling elites. Four in ten voted for Gingrich, only a quarter voted for the party’s golden boy. A thirteen point spread is pretty impressive for one who had been trailing in the polls only a few short days before.

Rick Santorum had a solid third place finish, with the endorsement from evangelical leaders. Yet such endorsements alone did not help the man, who would do a good job, but fails to excite the electorate. He did, however, finish ahead of the candidate with the most loyal and aggressive support base.

Some Ron Paul supporters have tried to spin the results as voters not voting against their man, but as voting against Mitt Romney. Gingrich just happened to be the lucky beneficiary of this antipathy. It would seem that a vote for the fourth place finisher, Paul, would also have been a vote against Romney… yet the people chose Newt and Rick Santorum over their heart throb. It could be that some voters have found, not the candidate, but some supporters, too much to deal with and looked for another candidate to support. Dedication is fine, but attacking those who are essentially on the same side, is not the way to win them over.

Each one on the ballot is doing their best to make the best story out of the outcome. However, I’m sure many of the good old boys in the Palmetto State have seen the t-shirt hawked at NASCAR events that reads, “Second Place Is Just The First Loser!” There is no way to spin this other than to say that Newt won this round handily.

Will this begin the momentum that carries him to the White House? Will the media and establishment beat him down so their guy can be McCain 2.0? Is it possible the Santorum or Paul campaign can get a second wind and electrify the voters? I don’t know. Time will tell. I would suggest though, that if your guy isn’t in the first position, it’s time to get to work.

Just don’t try to help your favorite by telling all sorts of disgusting stories about the other competitors. There is very little we have not heard of the nastiness and many of us are tired of it. No one will be convinced of the righteousness of your cause by having their intelligence or patriotism attacked, Remember, we will have to work together as a team to defeat the imposter in the White House when this is over. We can’t do this showing greater hostility to each other than to those destroying our country.

Some will say, but candidate R or candidate G is no different than Barack Hussein Obama. We many not like some, or even many, of their policies, but to say they are the same is utter nonsense. We need to remove the socialistic cancer in our government, then work at fixing the problems it has created. Sure, some will fix them more quickly than others, but we need to stop the bleeding in any way we can… with any one we can!

[We live in a secularized world of nation states in which traditional religion, especially Christianity, is unwelcome. Rooted in the “Enlightenment,” this view supports a secularized and authoritarian public square enforced by government and that progress requires forcing religion ever backward into remote corners of society. In short, America has become a secular theocracy with a civic religion of national politics (nationalism) occupying the public realm in which government has replaced God.]

Continued from Part 1:

During the Enlightenment, nationalism became the new civic religion, in which the nation state was not merely a substitute for the church, but a substitute for God, and political religion benefited from being more tangible than supernatural religion in having the physical means of violence necessary to enforce mandatory worship and funding. Nation states provided a new kind of salvation and immortality; one’s death is not in vain if it is “for the nation,” which will live on.

This “myth of religious violence” lived on with legal theorist John Rawls who claimed that the modern problem is a theological one and the solution is political. For Rawls, since people believe in unresolvable theological doctrines over which they will kill each other, a secular state must rule. Similarly, Stanford law professor Kathleen Sullivan, a secularist, has claimed that as a necessary condition for peace to avoid a “war of all sects against all,” religion must be banished from the public square.

As William Canavaugh notes, “[O]nce the state had laid claim to the holy, the state voluntarily relinquished it by banning religion from direct access to the public square . . . then what we have is not a separation of religion from politics but rather the substitution of the religion of the state for the religion of the church.”

Hence, in Abington Township School District v. Schempp, Supreme Court Justice William Brennan stated that the function of public schools is:

the training of American citizens in an atmosphere in which children may assimilate a heritage common to all American groups and religions. . . . This is a heritage neither theistic nor atheistic, but simply civic and patriotic. A patriotic and united allegiance to the United States is the cure for the divisiveness of religion in public.

In his dissent, Justice Potter Stewart correctly warned that the Abington ruling would be seen “not as the realization of state neutrality, but rather as the establishment of a religion of secularism.”

The reality of today’s secular theocracy is its hypocritical authoritarianism that circumvents the natural-law tradition of Christian teachings. Cavanaugh well sums up the incoherence of the secular theocrat who claims that, “Their violence—being tainted by religion—is uncontrolled, absolutist, fanatical, irrational, and divisive. Our violence—being secular—is controlled, modest, rational, beneficial, peace making, and sometimes regrettably necessary to contain their violence.” The appalling problem with the “myth of religious violence” is not that it opposes certain forms of violence, but that it not only denies moral condemnation of secular violence but that it considers it highly praiseworthy.

In Politics as Religion, Emilio Gentile notes that the “religion of politics” is “a system of beliefs, myths, rituals, and symbols that interpret and define the meaning and end of human existence by subordinating the destiny of individuals and the collectivity to a supreme entity.” A religion of politics is a secular religion because it creates “an aura of sacredness around an entity belonging to this world.” And according to Cavanaugh, “People are not allowed to kill for ‘sectarian religion’. . . . Only the nation-state may kill. . . . it is this power to organize killing that makes American civil religion the true religion of the U.S. social order.”

Among most Christians in the U.S. for example, very few would agree to kill in Christ’s name, while killing and dying for the nation state in war and supporting “our troops” is taken for granted. The religious-secular split enables public loyalty by Christians to the nation state’s secular violence, including invasive wars, torture, and “collateral damage,” while avoiding direct confrontation with Christian beliefs about the supremacy of God and natural law teachings.

Hence, the secular theocracy exalts a sovereign and powerful state that pervades all of life and compels obedience not just to its mandates but to the secular nationalism of the Zeitgeist itself, for which the populace is forced to conform to and fund. This worldview dominates public schools, colleges and universities, elite media, entertainment, and an ever-expanding array of government domains in law, health care, welfare, retirement, transportation, commerce, parks and recreation, etc. Not coincidentally in the modern era when nation states have displaced God, Cavanaugh notes, “it does not matter that the U.S. flag does not explicitly refer to a god. It is nevertheless a sacred—perhaps the most sacred—object in U.S. society and is thus an object of religious veneration.” And worship in the secular theocracy in schools and at public events consists of singing the “National Anthem” and saluting the flag in “The Pledge of Allegiance,” which as described by its socialist author Francis Bellamy, “is the same with the catechism, or the Lord’s Prayer.”

In contrast, C.S. Lewis understood that natural law applies to all human behavior including government officials, and he clearly saw that government power was a dangerous force that needs to be strictly limited.  Contrary to secular interpretations of the Establishment Clause, the issue is not “the separation of church and state” into distinct and conflicting realms but the reduction of state power to micro-minute levels in order to eliminate the establishment of a state-backed church of any kind. Individuals have property rights that are sacred and need to be protected under a uniform rule of law, Christianity instructs us in the civic virtues upon which such law depends, and good ends can only be pursued using good means. The result is the recognition that compelling people into some collectivist regimentation is evil and produces immense human suffering. Lewis noted that:

I do not like the pretensions of Government—the grounds on which it demands my obedience—to be pitched too high. I don’t like the medicine-man’s magical pretensions nor the Bourbon’s Divine Right. This is not solely because I disbelieve in magic and in Bossuet’s Politique. I believe in God, but I detest theocracy. For every Government consists of mere men and is, strictly viewed, a makeshift; if it adds to its commands ‘Thus saith the Lord,’ it lies, and lies dangerously.

The point is that the natural law is rooted in the religio of Christianity and sets the epistemic and moral foundation and context for the existence of all people as individuals and that such laws make the cooperation, norms, and relationships of community possible. To break the natural law in the name of a secular theocracy is to simultaneously break the relational bonds of community that are the basis for the natural rights of all individuals to be free and responsible.

Moreover, the solution is to end secular theocracy by de-socializing the public square, not seek to “take over” this theocracy. This means privatizing government schools, transportation, welfare, retirement, parks and recreation, commerce, civic areas of all types, etc., and allowing covenants and other private institutions and communities to flourish. Those who believe that such government domains are workable and should be exempt from natural law tenets are hubristically fooling themselves and end up embracing the moral relativism of utilitarianism. As Lewis further noted:

[S]ince we have sin, we have found, as Lord Acton says, that “all power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The only remedy has been to take away the powers…. Theocracy has been rightly abolished not because it is bad that priests should govern ignorant laymen, but because priests are wicked men like the rest of us.

Washington DC – The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously decided that under the First Amendment churches are entitled to a “ministerial exception” and thus dismissed a wrongful termination suit against the church. In Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church v. EEOC, the Court recognizes that the ministerial exception applies beyond the head of a religious congregation to others, such as the teacher in this case, who are viewed as ministers or those carrying the message of the Church.

Chief Justice John Roberts stated that, “By requiring the Church to accept a minister it did not want, such an order would have plainly violated the Church’s freedom under the Religion Clauses to select its own ministers.” He also states that to award compensation such as back pay “would operate as a penalty on the Church for terminating an unwanted minister, and would be no less prohibited by the First Amendment than an order overturning the termination.”

This ruling is clear to completely protect the church. It states “The purpose of the exception is not to safeguard a church’s decision to fire a minister only when it is made for a religious reason. The exception instead ensures that the authority to select and control who will minister to the faithful – a matter ‘strictly ecclesiastical,’ is the church’s alone.” The Court rejected the government’s extreme argument that there should be no such ministerial exception, stating: “We cannot accept the remarkable view that the Religion Clauses have nothing to say about a religious organization’s freedom to select its own ministers.”

Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, commented: “This decision is a landmark ruling by the High Court that recognizes the strong protections of the First Amendment Religion Clause with regards to church autonomy. Churches have the right to decide who to employ to communicate their religious message. The government’s extreme view that churches have no right to control who will communicate their message would allow the government to control churches. It makes no sense to tie the hands of a church when the messenger is undermining the message. The Supreme Court rightly rejected the government’s extreme secular argument.”

Responsibility & Effectiveness of Government

The care of human life and happiness, not their destruction, is the legitimate responsibility of a good government.

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government.

That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.

To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

Yes, we did produce a near-perfect republic. But will they keep it? Or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom? Material abundance without character is the path of destruction.

When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe.

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government

Right to Bare Arms

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. (quoting Cesare Beccaria)

Those who hammer their guns into plows, will plow for those who do not.

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

Banks

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.

Courts

One single object … [will merit] the endless gratitude of the society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation.

Press

The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure.

Liberty

When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.

What county can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that its people preserve the spirit of resistance.

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.

I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add “within the limits of the law,” because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Prosperity

Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread.

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

Religion

No nation has ever existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I, as Chief Magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example.

Yet this was not the highest achievement of his life. Considered too old for military service, he still joined the army during the dark days of World War II. He and his band traveled around boosting moral and bringing a bit of home to soldiers fighting Hitler’s fascist monster. He lost his life a few days before Christmas of 1944 on a flight across the English Channel on his way to arrange a concert for GIs in France.

He had a lucrative career turning out some of the greatest swing music of his time. He did not have to leave the comfort and safety of his homeland. Unlike many of the moral midgets we see adored by today’s teeny boppers who spend their time bellyaching, whining and complaining, he stepped up to make the soldiers lives in the field a little more tolerable.

His legacy of great music is well known, but the world have continued to spin without out it. The GIs who had an easier time under difficult conditions were even more of a gift to the world… even though it cost him his life.

Most of us won’t have the musical magic of Glenn Miller and most of won’t be called on to entertain the troops or even join them in battle. What kind of legacy will we leave when we are gone? Will it be a huge stock portfolio, a real estate empire or, possibly, a profitable business. All of these things are great, and would probably be a good thing to leave behind. But the point is, it will all be left behind.

It is the people we leave behind that will be our real legacy. It can be anyone we influence in a positive manner. Psalm 127 describes the value of our children:

Sons are a heritage from the Lord, children a reward from him. Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are sons born in one’s youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them. They will not be put to shame when they contend with their enemies in the gate.

A friend of mine likes to explain it this way: with a sword or a club, you can only carry the fight to an enemy who is only a few feet away. With an arrow you can reach an enemy across a field or river. That is the value of an arrow in the hands of a skilled archer.

Our offspring are not only given to us to replenish the human race, but to continue to the spread of God’s word – they can continue the fight long after we are gone to our reward. That is, if we are guiding our children and grandchildren in the path they should be going. Not liking the Biblical “train up a child in the way he should go” thinking, modern education tells we should just present children with various choices and allow them to make their choices themselves.

This is what we are paying the public schools to do to our youngsters. As bad as this sounds, from what I’ve seen and conversations I’ve had, it’s plain that the disciples of the NEA aren’t quite so pure when it comes to allowing their students to make unguided choices. This is one of the factors at the heart of our nations’ descent into the secular panacea of moral relativism.

Our children are truly a gift from God. The fact that we didn’t snuff out their lives on an abortionists operating table is a good start. But, bringing them into the world and permitting our culture to lead them to lead them down the path to eternal condemnation is not living up the responsibilities that come along with the gift of a child.

Looking at this responsibility with a long term perspective, some have realized that their child’s education is one of the key elements in guiding them to an accurate world view. A good number of parents work diligently with their children to be instill a Biblical understanding of their place in the world. This is great, but the public schools and their friends influence them for so much more time than the family.

But, you say private schools are expensive. In a way, this is true. However, “expensive” is a relative term. Expensive compared to what? I would suggest that if the child needed some sort of life saving surgery or medication, if was at all possible, money would be found to give to the “healing professions”. I would also suggest that your child’s mind is at least as important as his or her body. For even more hands on approach, home schooling is an option for those so inclined

It may mean keeping our cars a little longer, living in a little smaller house or a smaller bank account, but, if our children grow up to understand that there is a source of all good things, and it isn’t Washington, what price can we put on this.

Some have a hard time thinking this way. After all, isn’t building an inheritance for our family something we want to do. It is, yet it isn’t the most important thing we can do for them. Once we have secured a level of comfort for them, time becomes a commodity more helpful to the children in our homes.

In an age where the financial markets are shaky and people see their retirement plans melting away… in an age where the real estate market has be eviscerated by our government and lenders extorted by less than honest community organizers… in an age when the number of businesses closing their doors increases almost daily… people are looking for an investment that won’t be taxed or regulated into insignificance. Our children are such an investment!

There are many reasons the academic elites offer for our inability to live peacefully with each other. It doesn’t seem to matter if the conflict is with people at work, in our neighborhood, or even in our church. We see the same conflicts in our government and among nations. It seems that each of us judges ourselves by our own good intentions… and we judge others by their actions.

We see the president self-righteously declaring his concern for downtrodden. What person with a concern for his fellow man cannot help but feel for those less fortunate. Assuming the purity of his motivation, one can almost understand his recent speech where he declared that if congress would not bend to his will, he would move toward the realization of his ideal society with out them. It doesn’t seem to matter that there are other opinions, other approaches and even other directions that the country could be moving in. More importantly, it doesn’t seem to matter that the Constitution does not grant him that power.

He sees the recalcitrant Republicans – at least those with the courage to stand up to him – as morally depraved in their efforts to keep the poor in his constituency from experiencing the good things our country has to offer. He is assured of the virtue of his course which means, obviously, that those opposed to his schemes are selfishly wanting to use these same constituents for their own evil purposes or, at the least, push them aside and out of the way.

To Barack Hussein Obama, achievement of equality of all Americans… even equality of our country with the rest of the world, is his primary purpose in life. It does not matter to him, nor does it matter to his socialistic groupies, that many people will necessarily be hurt and suffer loss to achieve his concept of heaven on earth.

For those of us who find ourselves on the other side of the issue, not seeing eye to eye with the exalted one with a questionable pedigree, we are up against someone with no concept of the idea that reasonable people can have a different view point than his. Opposition could only come from selfishness, the desire for political gain, or, worst of all… because of his race. For someone with an ethnocentric view of the world, it is not possible to understand that attempts to save the country from his destructive government come from anything other than hatred for people of color.

On the other hand, those of us who value liberty over equality, see the president’s actions in the worst possible light. We take it personally when he says we should be willing to give up more of the fruit of our labor so his powerful government can give it to others to create some sort of fairness in the world. There is evidence of some lack of purity in this pursuit of fairness, as his writings give us fair warning of his desire for retribution for some real and imagined wrongs on a collective basis.

Today our country is a house divided. There are those among us who are working, or wanting to work, to achieve some goal. Then, there are those who are more than willing to take what the workers have created and use it to buy votes and inflict their will on the rest of the country. There are two distinct directions we see for our land. One goes to the right and one to the left. Where is the difference that can be worked out? Where is the room for compromise?

We can follow path A or path B, We can go down one path or the other. One method of working things out, since we don’t want to go in one direction and the other side refuses to go down our path, involves staying where we are as one form of compromise. Whether this option appeals to us or not, that fact that our system is not working should be enough to convince us this choice would not be beneficial.

So we have two competing visions for our country that are really mutually exclusive. If we follow one, we will have a big government taking as much as it can from each of us, creating dependencies where none ever existed and controlling an ever increasing portion of our lives. If we follow the other vision, we will reduce the influence of a self serving government in our lives. Somehow, we can’t have a government increasingly controlling our lives while we reduce its influence on the way we live. It just doesn’t work that way.

One or the other side will win out. Often the builders and producers are concerned about others and try to work amicably with everyone. The takers have no such concern for the niceties of human relations. It may be our desire to get along that ultimately leads to the downfall of our nation. We need to rid ourselves of the illusion that we can have freedom by compromising with those who want to control us.

II Corinthians 6:14b asks, “For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?” Freedom and dependence on a government cannot exist in the same space.

As much as we would like to be liked by all, and as much as we like the idea of compromise, in practice these concepts to not really work in this part of the world. The late comedian George Carlin understood what happens when we see two incompatible sides working together “for our good”, “Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out.”

The answer, then, should be obvious. We need to recognize that these domestic enemies of liberty are just as dangerous, if not more so, than those overseas who would destroy us… and they need to be treated, and defeated, as such.

An evolutionary psychologist asserts that evolution in the ways humans use their brains, influenced exclusively by external, materialistic conditions, has made our era the least violent period in history.

Professor Steven Pinker’s latest book, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined, raises two important questions: has the world in fact become less violent, and has there been an evolutionary change in ways humans use their brains?

Read The Precious Steven Pinker, a critique by David Bentley Hart posted on the First Things website. For a larger picture of Professor Pinker’s views, see this video of an interview with Stephen Colbert, this New York Times opinion article, this New York Times profile, and Professor Pinker’s letter to the editor in Commentary Magazine.

Has the world in fact become less violent?

Professor Pinker’s argument is largely based upon statistical analysis that shows a declining ratio of violent deaths, excluding accidents, to the world’s population. In effect he agrees with the position attributed to Joseph Stalin: “One death is a tragedy, but a million deaths is just a statistic.”

He admits that millions of deaths occurred in the First and Second World Wars, the latter a product of Hitler’s National Socialism. He also acknowledges that Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot liquidated hundreds of millions of their subjects.

Despite the horrific nature of these mass slaughters, professor Pinker sticks to his statistical analysis as proof that the world has become less violent. While he doesn’t so state, the callousness of his position supports the prejudice of many people that more than six million Jews killed in Hitler’s Holocaust wasn’t a big deal.

Pinker’s optimistic assessment is a throwback to the 19th century idea of Progress, the burgeoning faith that liberal-progressive-socialism, guided by an academic elite, was inevitably propelling humanity toward social and political perfection.

Millions of deaths on the battlefields of Europe between 1914 and 1918 rudely shattered intellectuals’ naivete. More recently Islamic jihad has been a call to look reality full in the face.

Has there been an evolutionary change in ways humans use their brains, a change that leads to reduced violence?

Harvard experimental psychologist Steven Pinker argues that every aspect of thought and emotion is rooted in brain structure and function, i.e., there is no such thing as the human soul. Humans certainly were not created in the image of God.

Eliminating humans’ spiritual dimension eliminates the possibility of God’s existence. If Professor Pinker and his atheistic colleagues can reduce the human soul to a large mass of physical nerves and synapses, they will have made humans little more than phenomenally complex computers contrived entirely by chance.

The probability of that evolutionary chance, as a critic famously observed, is on the order of a tornado passing through a junk yard and producing a completely finished, fully functioning Boeing 747.

Professor Pinker implicitly espouses the liberal-progressive-socialistic faith that the world is evolving toward a single world government guided by an intellectual elite representing the best of brain-use evolution. He explicitly credits evolving diplomatic policies among nations and creation of international organizations such as the League of Nations and the United Nations as the agents making our world less violent.

He characterizes evolving brain-use as a process of learning to see issues from other people’s viewpoint. This, of course, is an attribute of amoral multiculturalism, which preaches “tolerance,” meaning the absence of standards of conduct. One can’t condemn Hitler, for example; one must see Nazi barbarity from his viewpoint. One can’t condemn the 9/11 terrorists; we must see their actions from their viewpoint.

Evolutionary psychology, a materialistic philosophy, is the field of study in which Professor Pinker conceives his thesis.

Evolutionary psychology’s basic elements are, one, that human psychology first evolved in the late Paleolithic era, dubbed the era of evolutionary adaptation. Evolutionary psychologists offer no explanation for how or why human psychology is supposed to have made its evolutionary appearance at that time. As with all things evolutionary, things just happen by chance.

Two, in that Paleolithic period all human basic strategies for coping with getting food, clothing, shelter, and sexual relations for procreation appeared as the foundation of human behavior.

Three, those strategies, overlaid by materialistically evolved modifications, persist today as the underlying foundation for all human behavior. That’s another way of stating that humans are just receptors of pleasure-pain stimuli from external conditions, that morality and individual responsibility are illusions imposed by those external conditions.

Professor Pinker does not recognize the pervasive and powerful pressure of Judeo-Christian morality in softening the barbarisms of European life after the 6th century fall of the Western Roman Empire. He charges that Judeo-Christianity historically was responsible for genocide, toleration of slavery and rape, and prescription of the death penalty for idolatry, homosexuality, blasphemy, and working on the Sabbath.

Christianity, as a matter of historical record, was the greatest source of steady improvements in Western life for more than a thousand years. Among Judeo-Christian accomplishments were hospitals, education, food and shelter for the poor, as well as transformation of Roman latifundia across Europe from slavery into the feudal system that gave peasants hereditary rights to occupy and cultivate their family land. 19th century abolition of slavery in the British Empire and in the United States was the product of decades of Christian agitation.

David Berlinski, in The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions, notes that there is absolutely no evidence whatever for the assumption that basic human psychology emerged via an evolutionary process in the Paleolithic period.

It is an assumption plucked out of thin air. It is a variant of the standard justification for all of evolutionary doctrine: “it might have been,” or “we can speculate that this must have been,” or that “it must have been this way,” the rationalizations offered by evolutionists like God-hating Richard Dawkins.

Yet so-called scientists, who savagely condemn the faith of religious Jews and Christians, have no trouble taking the assertion of evolutionary psychology on blind faith. Why? Because it conforms to their preconceptions that God does not exist and that humans are the product of blind, material forces combining with random genetic variation to evolve new species.

Another aspect of evolutionary psychology is scientists’ never ending struggle to demonstrate that they are so intelligent that they don’t need God as the Creator of the universe. They can handle everything in their own minds, thank you; it suffices to gaze upon themselves worshipfully in the mirror every morning, congratulating themselves as lords of the universe.

[This article was originally published in The View From 1776 blog.]