Idioloons



Screen Shot 2019-06-27 at 11.15.10 AM.png

One look at the lineup of Democrat presidential candidates and I have to wonder what we’re coming to – is this the best the party can come up with? Really? If the Democrats make up roughly half the population, then why are these people the cream that’s risen to the top? If they’re the top, what on God’s green earth is at the bottom? 

What’s at the bottom is thoughtlessness – empty, emotional symbolism hardened into a rock-hard ideology. This lack of thought is foundational to the left. You can’t have curious, inquisitive minds mucking about trying to make sense out of things if none of the goals of your organization is sensible. What they must have is a battalion of ideologues. 

That’s an interesting word, ideologue. It’s taken on an unattractive patina over the years. It originated from ideology, a French word that came into use in the 18th century. It meant “the science of ideas.” The word has soured appreciably since then. On the other hand, the word idea is still shiny – we think of ideas as good; every one of the things that make our lives delightful came from someone’s idea. 

But some ideas have not been good. I’ll admit to having had hundreds of bad ideas during my life – I have acknowledged that and abandoned the boondoggles when I recognized them (I have many an unfinished project to attest to that). Evidently, not everyone lets go of mistakes. The 20th century stained history with horrific ideas – the leftist agenda alone proudly produced the Third Reich, the murderous Soviet Union, the Chinese massacre of some 60 million of its own citizens, the Vietnam fiasco, the crumbling of Europe, the impoverishing of Cuba,– and now in the 21st century, we’re staring down the starvation of North Korea and Venezuela and the impossibility of the Green New Deal. The amazing thing is that adherence to the leftist credo is still intact – solidified into an impervious, concrete-hard protective shell continuously promoted by fossilized ideologues.

An ideologue is a person who dogmatically defends and promotes demonstrable failures. It’s a form of sclerosis of the mind – a hardening to the extent that logic shrivels into a dried pea of a thing, useless and ugly.  I am sure that if doctors did thermographic images of liberal brains they’d find this little pebble in a vast blank area formerly known as the left lobe. 

But is it only leftist ideas that solidify into ideologies that produce wild-eyed ideologues? No. It can happen to any idea that’s false. And how do we know which ideas are false? Evidence, evidence so pronounced that it either has to be studiously ignored or seriously twisted, hidden, distorted. Or, believed. 

Right now the hard sciences are in an uproar because the more we learn about our world the clearer it becomes that nothing about it is a random occurrence. Even the simplest cells are micro-cities filled with factories and delivery systems and copying machines. The earth itself is an awesome contraption that circulates water and air, and lends itself to the reproduction of all organisms, often amidst complex inter-species relationships. Science can’t account for the breathtaking beauty and intricacy of all of the Earth’s formations and creatures. Science can’t begin to account for thought. Yet in spite of rapidly mounting evidence to the contrary, the evolutionist digs in and holds on tight, lashing out personally and professionally at those scientists who are breaking rank. 

The same is true of the climate change activist. Evidence keeps accumulating that: 

1. The earth’s warming has slowed to a crawl, 

2. Much of the data produced has been faked, tweaked, and twisted, 

3. We’re in a low sunspot era and it’s looking to be a doozy – no sun spots, much less warmth.  

4. And, instead of high CO2 emissions causing rising temperatures, it appears to be causing luxuriant plant growth. Yet, here in Oregon, our government is fighting to impose an economy-killing $.22 per gallon gas tax to ward off global warming. Ideologues are dangerous. 

But what about religious beliefs? Even religion should be subjected to the verification requirement -- why would we want to believe something false? Any god worth his salt would leave a trail of evidence. As a Christian I have no trouble lining up the historical/archeological substantiation for the claims made by the doctrines of my faith. It isn’t blind. Even the Resurrection stands the test of logical reality (See the writings of J. Warner Wallace or Lee Strobel). Christians have no need to harden into belligerent, dangerous ideologues. We don’t have to kill those who disagree with us. We don’t need to rape their daughters or knife them in the streets. Ironically, the existence of those who do these things merely verifies the Christian doctrine of original sin and the teachings about idolatry. 

In fact. idolatry is a major contributor to the current plague of ideologues. We have made idols out of celebrity, of wealth, of movements (Antifa, Pro-choice, even the Earth itself) and if we can’t achieve whatever we think demonstrates the approbation of these gods we become desperate and frozen, unable to crawl out of the hole we have dug for ourselves. Democrats have made such shibboleth of Trump’s Russian collusion, that even in the face of complete exoneration, they can’t let go – partly because they have always known it wasn’t true. Our craven need for the approval of these demigods turns us into mental statues incapable of movement or curiosity much like what happened to the characters in Narnia who were turned into statuary by the White Witch. 

The most dangerous idolatry of all is the leftists’ tendency to idolize themselves. They shut their eyes to the clearly present God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and place their own puny selves on the altar and then run around trying desperately to prove that they’re deserving of that position. Virtue signaling has become a plague on our society. The worshippers of self don’t care at all if their “good” deeds actually accomplish an alleviation of suffering, in fact their actions can, for all they care, actually make things worse – note the homeless problem as an example.  They just want their “compassion” duly noted and photographed. 

But they will defend to the death (of someone else, not themselves) their right to draft their own rules for living, allowing any activity they find pleasure in and denouncing anything that chips away at their turtled shells of self-righteousness. I suspect that it is this fear of being de-shelled and exposed as the reprobates they are that makes them so hate Donald Trump; he is the symbol of all of us who continue to place God, country, and family above ourselves. If Trump continues winning, they lose not only political power, but the power to believe in their unicorn fairytale; they will have to face the fact that nothing they’ve based their lives on is true. They will have to admit that they’ve been loons. 

Tentopolis

Screen Shot 2019-06-17 at 8.34.33 PM.png

 

Place yourself in San Francisco or Seattle or L.A. It’s rainy, windy. You just got off the bus. You only have $20 cash and you’re hungry and tired. Where do you go? What do you do? Complicate this problem with any of the following: 

 

            

            You have small children.

            You are suffering from a chronic disease –HIV/AIDS.

You suffer from bi-polar disorder, or schizophrenia and can’t afford, or won’t take, your medication.

            You are addicted to heroine.

            You have limited job skills or limited education.

 

You are a symptom of the disintegration of our liberal cities, and they are a symptom of societal collapse. These people live on the tattered fringes of a society that is unraveling, but we make the mistake of talking about “the homeless” in the same homogenous way we discuss “blacks” or “illegals.” Identity politics won’t mend this mess; it islargely a shredding of individuals that we’re watching. 

 

Those on that fringe haven’t much in common other than rooflessness. We know this because in most of the west coast cities where homelessness is epidemic, the powers that be run an annual, one-day-only survey of all available street-sleepers. Officials train hundreds of volunteers who interview and count them.  Then they tabulate and analyze the data attempting to make sense of it, but that can’t really be done. Too many of the designations listed are too intertwined to separate.

 

The data from the 2019 survey in L.A. County shows a wide diversity of tragedies and/or malfeasance. I was surprised to find that by far the most frequent cause of homelessness is domestic violence – and I assume that most of these are women, women who feel safer on the streets of L.A. than in their own homes. Just housing these women does not solve their problems – if such a woman has a permanent domicile, she can be found, and these women don’t want to be found. But this doesn’t imply that they don’t also do drugs, or drink, or are crazy.

 

The next most prevalent cause of homelessness is chronic illness. First, we must ask if these people are really too sick to work? Too injured to function normally? If they are so down and out, why aren’t their relatives taking care of them? Are our families so defunct that we can’t pick up the slack for our less fortunate brothers and sisters? Or have these people just out-lived their welcome with friends and family? Henceforth I’ll refer to this facet of the problem as FFF – friends and family failure. 

 

The next largest group is those with serious mental illness. This issue connects to our laws about the mentally ill – we no longer institutionalize our schizophrenics, our psychotics, depending on medication to control those so afflicted. If they don’t take their meds, however, they can become dangerous as well as nonfunctional, but our lawmaking bodies, often manned by the mentally tilted themselves, would have to revisit the laws and set them right, which seems unlikely. 

 

A large number of the homeless are substance abusers. How many of those are also mentally and physically ill, veterans with PTSD, or victims of domestic violence we don’t know. These people are also tangled in the FFF net – and we have to blame the junky himself for that failure – a family can only handle so much emotional abuse.  

 

We look at the needle-strewn streets though and wonder how drugs can be afforded, but housing can’t. Addiction is of course the answer, but that still leaves the question about the money and its source. Theft is the obvious answer. And prostitution. So the problem goes deeper and starts to affect us all.

 

I know I always thought of the homeless as those who were poor through no fault of their own – the Joads from Grapes of Wrath. And yes, most street-people can’t afford housing; prices in central L.A. are so expensive that even if you worked at an average job you still couldn’t scrape together adequate rent. 

 

This we can address governmentally because it was caused governmentally by ever-increasing real estate and construction regulations. Regulations have cut down on the amount of building, pushing real estate and rental costs sky high. With one-bedroom apartments renting for over $1,000 a month (plus first, last and deposit) an unskilled worker can’t afford it – he’d have to spend over a third of his income on housing. This has pushed those with lower earnings out to the suburbs creating an impossible catch-22: you can afford housing in the suburbs, but you can’t afford the heavily taxed gas in California to drive back and forth from the city where you work. Hence people are stuck on the streets sans shelter and proper sanitation.  

 

That lack isn’t all that makes these homeless encampments so squalid. Some of that is due to the dysfunctional nature of those curled up in grimy tents, and this filth is another issue that affects us all. Mountains of garbage and human feces have resurrected hellish antique diseases. Typhus and typhoid fever have reared their ugly heads. Even bubonic plague is being found in the burgeoning rat population in downtown L.A.. Once the fleas that feed off these diseased rats develop the plague, it will quickly become a human problem. 

 

In spite of the urgency that creates, there isn’t a quick solution. The problem  

is a spiritual, cultural, economic, educational, sociological mess. The homelessness stats don’t even count illegals, so how many of our fringe-folk fall into that category, we don’t know.  

 

Some of this can be solved by governmental intervention – theoretically, but government really isn’t good at solving problems and it’s government that’s caused much of it, pushing housing out of reach, encouraging the decline of the family, abandoning the mentally ill, allowing drugs to stream across our borders.  But the bulk of the mess is lodged in the thinking of the street-people themselves because as parents, teachers, clergy, we haven’t been inculcating true and useful ideas. 

 

We haven’t taught them about God. I suspect that most of these marginal people are depressed and hopeless, grown bitter and angry. That mental outlook will not produce productive, functional citizens. Without God there is no lasting hope, no sense of purpose, no sense of responsibility to something more important than your own satisfaction. Our schools abandoned such instruction sixty years ago, our churches haven’t done their job, and here we are with close to 60,000 people sleeping on the streets of Los Angeles, over a half million in the country at large.  

 

We haven’t taught children duty either – we all have a duty to our families, to our communities, and to our nation.  It’s not just the homeless who don’t know this; way too many of our younger generation don’t either, and add just one of the conditions mentioned above to a non-existent sense of duty and you end up in a tent in downtown L.A..

 

Nor have we taught them how to be happy, how to be proud of their city, their country. We haven’t taught them how to get along with family and friends, how to respect themselves and those around them. We haven’t taught them how to love. 

 

These fringe people are individuals with individual problems that all need addressing, and the solutions belong to us all. They require revisiting law and regulations, but also demand an attitude reversal for all who dwell amongst the dung and needles of our once-great cities. 

 

The data in this article came from the following website: https://www.lahsa.org/dashboards?id=40-2019-homeless-count-by-spa

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Mockingbird Trump Trial

Screen Shot 2019-05-28 at 5.00.12 PM.png

We’ve almost gotten used to the constant accusations being launched at our president. We’ve become numb to it. But we shouldn’t be. Every knife hurled at him is being hurled at us; we elected him and we didn’t do it mistakenly. We were desperate to get our nation back and we knew he was the only candidate who had any chance at all of being, a. elected and b. effective. We need to take to heart the “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” that he endures daily.

Let’s look at it like a trial – and we can accurately do so because the press puts Trump on trial every chance they can, regardless of a lack of evidence. Let’s picture an Atticus Finch courtroom – so much animosity in the air you can taste it. Put our president in Tom Robinson’s place and Rudy Giuliani where Atticus stands. At the prosecutor’s table sits everyone from Obama and Hillary to Strzok and Page. The judge is the mainstream mediaThis trial has lasted now for over two years – even the OJ trial didn’t take that long. Trump sits at the defendant’s table, trying to ignore the proceedings because he’s busy running the country, solving monumental problems, and keeping balance in the entire, unruly world, and he’s doing it remarkably well. Nevertheless, he’s the accused. Months ago the prosecution presented its final exhibit, the Mueller Report. The jury and the gallery (i.e. the American people) thought the lawyers had rested their case. However, since the report proved to be more exculpatory than anything else, they’ve reopened the prosecution and they keep drumming up new accusations. It’s quite a list now:

1. He has been accused of rigging his own election. There exists not one iota of evidence that he did so, but the assumption that he is not legitimately in the Oval Office hangs like a heavy fog in the courtroom. Congress is now calling for an impeachment inquiry (I had thought that was what the Mueller probe was.??). So Trump will be “tried” twice for the same baseless indictment. That has to be exhausting and infuriating, but so far none of his witnesses have been called. The jury, courtesy of the mainstream media – i. e. the judge – has not been allowed to hear any rebuttal arguments.

2. Trump has been accused of being a Russian operative, a spy. His proposed business opportunities in Moscow somehow made that fact. The witnesses have, with straight faces, declared this to be probable, though they present no documentation. 

3. He has been accused of being a serial, pathological liar.  One week I saw a statistic that said he had lied 3,000 times. By the next week the number was up to 6,000. Who tells 3,000 lies in one week? (Who besides Bill Clinton?) I’ve only read one example of this manic prevarication: In the midst of a discussion about the border wall Trump pointed out that the vociferously anti-wall Obama’s had just built a 10-foot wall around their DC property. The judge ate him alive because it turns out the wall is only 8-feet tall.  It must be even more difficult to bear such attacks when they’re that silly and yet get plenty of press coverage, like they were real. 

4. The sexual harassment accusations are just outrageous. Jessica Leads accused Trump of groping her on a plane flight back in 1979 (!!!). That turned out to be false, but women all across the country still see him as a sexually dangerous person. All in all 23 women have publically accused Trump of inappropriate touching even though none have had corroborating witnesses and Trump always had people with him who stood up for him. The judge in this trial – the media -- doesn’t care what the truth is. The Stormy Daniels mess also was thrown at him, and her lawyer, a con man, was lauded and honored as presidential material. That Stormy, a porn star, may have merely been pulling a shakedown didn’t seem to occur to anyone. Now it appears that’s the case. Some in the press have even been gauche enough to hint that Trump has an incestuous relationship with Ivanka. In this trial it is evidently acceptable to level any charge whatsoever, whether or not evidence exists. 

Still Trump sits there in the defendant’s chair attending to the nation’s business. Now and then his legal team stands up and shouts “Objection!”  and is occasionally able to win a retraction from a newspaper, but by and large the Trump team is silent. 

The prosecutors whisper amongst themselves. Obama gets up and walks out of the courtroom muttering that it’s getting too warm in there.  Hillary falls asleep. Strzok and Page are making out in a corner. 


5. The Russian Dossier takes the cake. Who even thinks of those things, let alone accuses a sitting president of such action?  What kind of a nutcase would hire prostitutes to urinate on a bed just because a previous president had supposedly slept there? Even if a person were so petty and sneaky and crude to think of doing such a thing, why on a bed that the Obama’s are unlikely to ever occupy again? How could such an action hurt them? And even if one did want to do such a thing, why not pee on it your self? What do the prostitutes add to the insult? Just on the face of it, the idea is so nutty as to be unbelievable. But the judge takes it all seriously.


6. The judge has labeled him a racist and a sexist in spite of the high number of women in his cabinet and on his staff, and disregarding the remarkable improvements his policies have made for minorities. Witnesses continue to misconstrue any remarks he makes, twisting them into disparagement of whatever victim group is currently in favor.


7. Now they claim he’s obstructing justice -- as if it’s possible to cover up a non-existent crime. 


8. He’s also blamed for the rise of anti-Semitism, for racial divide in the country, and for so-called chaos in the White House.  He’s accused of ties to the Mafia, of not paying his bills, of watching too much TV. There has also been testimony in this trial in which witnesses and the judge complained about his hair and his tan. 


Meanwhile, back at the defendant’s table, Trump continues with his duties, with completing the projects he promised his constituents. Now and then he stops, pulls out his phone and sends off a tweet, but otherwise ignores the testimony. 

…………….

Wait! Bill Barr has just burst into the courtroom. He’s lugging a box of files, which he dumps on Giuliani’s desk. He whispers in the old mayor’s ear and Rudy laughs and slaps the table. He rises to his feet and addresses the judge.  “Your honor, with all due respect, it’s way past time for us to call a rebuttal witness.” 


The judge wipes the sweat from his brow, shakes his head, “There’s nothing you can present that will change anything.” 


“Your honor – you’re wrong about that.” He signals toward the back of the courtroom and through the double doors come an endless procession of men carrying more boxes. 


Trump looks up from his work, smiles at the judge and says, “I just declassified everything.” 


Leftlandia

Screen Shot 2019-04-19 at 6.52.14 PM.png

As children we passed the time pretending to be grown ups. We were doctors or cowboys or ballerinas or truck drivers. We built forts and made up languages. We played school. We imagined our way through grand adventures – and then, little by little, we turned into adults. Even those who actually became doctors and cowboys faced the reality of those challenging professions. Or we didn’t, and took up voting Democrat, ranting around in marches, and running for office instead. 


It’s hard not to notice how little growing up those on the left have actually accomplished. They live in La-la Land, in Leftlandia, saturated in fantasies filled with pots of gold at the ends of LGBT rainbows. They never touch down. Just look at the fairytale multiverse they swoop around in:


1. Leftlandians actually believe that the world’s climate is something they can control, that man is so much greater than the God Who created the world that humans can use so much toilet paper, or so much gasoline that they can undo creation. They also believe that using fossil fuels to generate electricity with which to run our cars is somehow more environmentally sensible than just using the fossil fuels directly. When someone points out the damage – both human and environmental – done by building all those lithium batteries, the Leftlandians just cover their eyes and holler La-La-La-La. 

2. In their unicorn-inhabited world they can pass laws forbidding plastic straws and shampoo bottles and assume that this terrible sacrifice will clean the oceans of the trash dumped into it by billions of people in the 3rd world. 

3. They actually believe they can impose tax hikes on the wealthy and on corporations and said entities will just sit and take it. It doesn’t occur to the left that anyone smart enough to get rich in the first place will be smart enough to hide their money offshore, or move their business to a less onerous tax environment. Remember the little girl in your neighborhood who always wanted to boss everyone around and how mad she’d get when no one would obey her?  That’s the left.  “I’m the boss!”

4. In fact, they continue to pretend that Marxism is a useful worldview.  Evidence, preserved in gruesome history (and the current starvation of the Venezuelan and North Korean people) notwithstanding, they insist on the efficacy of the destruction of capitalism. And they do this while eating food produced by businessmen-farmers, driving cars manufactured by corporations, and wearing clothes created by designer-entrepreneurs.  They fail to see the contradiction there. Bernie Sanders, the consummate socialist, just declared that, “If you write a best-selling book, you can be a millionaire, too,” evidently unaware of the about-face he had just committed.

5. They believe they can tell doctors that they now work for the state and can only earn a state-approved salary. It never occurs to them that many of our doctors will just quit being doctors. Free health care is a delicious fable, but not if there is no health care to be found at any price.  It’s not a magic bean.

6. They believe they can pretend to be a gender other than what they were born with and that if they can brow-beat the rest of us into playing their game, that it will be true. They even believe they can make up new genders no one’s ever heard of before. They might as well imagine themselves to be unicorns as far as reality is concerned, but they’re not concerned with reality. It’s all play-acting. 

7. They believe that they can fake their way into college, go there and spend 4 years sitting in classes like “Vegan Studies,” smoking dope, and drinking beer at frat parties, then walk into the real world and get rich. They think they can do this with college loan debt in six figures and no practical skills. And they think that their plan to soak the rich won’t apply to them. 

8. In Leftlandia folks are comfortable with declaring women’s rights with half their words and supporting Islam, with its wife-beating, woman-hating, girl-mutilating way of life, with the other.  They don’t find it weird that Linda Sarsour, outspoken proponent of Sharia law, should be leading a women’s rally. 

9. They do have trolls and goblins in their world, but they aren’t real. Leftists are afraid of Christians, but not of Muslims – who clearly state they want to kill us all. They are scared of Jews, and white people and men. They evidently see infants as dangerous as well since they seem so comfortable about killing them. 

10. They believe, all evidence to the contrary, that humans are all basically good – not including Christians, Jews, white people, and men. Therefore any failings they’re faced with are the fault of “society” or, in other words, the aforementioned groups – and the NRA. Can’t forget that. As a corollary to this they believe that war and crime can be erased by everyone “just getting along, “ which somehow doesn’t mean that they have to be kind to Christians, Jews, white people or men – especially men who belong to the NRA. 

11. They are staunch defenders of license (not liberty), but even more staunch believers in equality, for which they are willing to ditch freedom – especially freedom of speech. Speech is dangerous and can pop their balloons, so that’s got to go. 

12. Speaking of language, in their post-modern, deconstructionist, intersectional world, words aren’t important. They can mean whatever a leftist wants them to mean. A white nationalist used to be a neo-Nazi skinhead, but now it refers to conservatives in general. A racist used to a person who based his opinion of people on the color of their skin. Now it means anyone who would write an essay like this. Words are bludgeons and no good leftist has any reverence for the sacred contract of language. In their fairytale world no actual truth exists and no moral code either, so there is no needs for honesty.

13. They believe that the color of their skin matters. They believe their country of origin is important and should be worn like a battle scar. 

14. Which brings up another whole facet of their narrative – they pretend that they aren’t really individuals, that they are nothing more than cogs in whatever gear they think they’ve been “oppressed” into. I suppose this saves the trouble of actually having to take responsibility for their own lives, but it also makes them slaves and they don’t seem to notice. They also think they can right the wrongs done to one group of long-dead people by taking from modern day people who had nothing to do with the original transgression.

15. And they believe they can’t lose. The Trump win in 2016 cracked the magical snow-globe they live in and now the emptiness of the Mueller report has dealt it another terrible blow. Not to worry, though. The fantasy must go on. They are sure that if they yell, “Collusion!” loud enough, Trump will dissolve into a flurry of fairy dust and be gone. 


The problem with all this is that it’s impossible to talk to people who live in such a place. They don’t speak the language of truth, of practicality, of reality. They’re still pretending, living in a world where the government is Rumpelstiltskin, endlessly spinning gold out of flax. How can we work to solve problems when all we have to work with are petulant children who are still waiting on their fairy godmother to bring them a dress for the ball? 




Mourning Notre Dame

 

Screen Shot 2019-04-15 at 1.36.44 PM.png

The news this morning that the Notre Dame Cathedral was on fire knocked the breath out of me. I was amazed at my emotional reaction to the destruction of a building I’ve never visited, a building created by the corrupt medieval Roman Catholic church, a building so old that it should be irrelevant – but it isn’t.  We’re all heartbroken. Why?

Notre Dame lives in us all. It is romance, danger, and transcendence. It is there as a backdrop for many of the movies, of the plays, of the novels we’ve loved. I can still access the corner of my brain where Quasimodo is laboring up the bell tower steps. It stands tall in the background of Les Miserables, of The Tale of Two Cities, of Le Crime de Sylvester Bonnard – the first book I read in French.

That takes me back to my high school days and my eccentric, Francophile French teacher whose main curriculum was showing us 3-D color slides of Paris. She’d make us turn in our seats so that we were oriented in the proper direction as we gazed at the shots of the Eiffel Tower, the Bastille, and of course and most often Notre Dame. It sits there as the literal crossroads of France. All distances are measured from a ground-zero plaque on the pavement in front of the cathedral. That place is literally the center of all that is French.

It stands as a monument to Christianity and its foundational role in the stabilization of medieval Europe. It embodies reverence for tradition, for art, for innovation, for beauty, for holiness. It houses nine bells in its almost-twin towers and the lightning rod on the spire – now totally destroyed – held relics from St. Denis and St. Genevieve – Paris’ patron saints. I don’t even believe in patron saints, let alone relics, but I mourn the loss of those tiny bits history.  (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/offbeat/13-facts-about-notre-dame-cathedral/ar-BBVXVhg)

History – time -- is a most frustrating dimension. We retain so little of the past, even though we have this sensation that it’s important, foundational. We have history books, but they tell us little about the daily lives of those who have gone before, of the millions of souls who have knelt in prayer on Notre Dame’s stone floor.  The computer age makes it possible for us to fanatically keep records, but those are more numerical than personal and contain little of what moves us, what worries us, or what brings us joy. One can, however, stand in the midst of such a cathedral, gaze up at its gothic-arch roof and its story-telling stained-glass windows and know that such a building does address those issues. It is three-dimensional time travel, and this fire has just closed that portal.

It is also a peek at devotion, at long-term commitment. The construction of Notre Dame began in 1160 with the demolition of an older church on that site. It wasn’t completed until the 14th century when flying buttresses were added to the apse and choir. We can barely grasp, in our whiz-bang, instant-everything society what it must be like to start building something that won’t be finished for 200 years, to work at completing something that was begun by people long dead. The building was a monument to a slower, more patient, more self-less life. 

It also memorialized a worldview where God was everywhere and always had been. That God had power over every aspect of life and one couldn’t just ignore Him. There He was in that magnificent building that quite insistently pointed upward toward heaven. It was still standing, patiently aimed skyward during the French Revolution and its attendant blood bath. It lived through two world wars. But now, with all of the west struggling to hold onto its meaning and its place in the world, Notre Dame burns. 

We know that Europe is in terrible trouble. It is no longer replacing its population –except for the influx of anti-Christian, anti-Semitic Muslim refugees. We know its cathedrals sit mostly empty for mass. We know that most of Europe bows to government, but no longer to the church. France is fraught with violent behavior from those it has tried to help, and by taxes that are draining its economy. And Europe, including Great Britain, is America’s mother. Europe is family. I can trace my lineage back to a watchmaker in Switzerland in the 16th century, a maid from Copenhagen, and to a tailor from Czechoslovakia. Most of us come from Europe and those homelands caught on fire this morning. It isn’t just the loss of an old building, but the loss of our beginnings. Notre Dame stood proud and tall to remind us of that. 

But she has been dealt a mortal blow. She may be repairable, but she is not replaceable. The craftsmanship that laboriously built her is no longer available and no one today wants to wait 200 years.  It’s as if all those centuries have been erased. 

This fire reminds us that even the most permanent human accomplishments aren’t permanent at all. Even the best we can build can be destroyed. We will be waiting to see what or who caused this disaster, but we also know that we may not be told the truth. 



 







What do we Know and How do we Know it? 


Screen Shot 2019-03-18 at 9.33.55 AM.png

As I sit here writing, a terrible thing is happening. It started mid-week, but there’s nothing being reported on the national news.  No TV cameras or on-the-street interviews. I saw blurbs on Drudge and Breitbart this morning (Sunday), but no big fuss.  As of this moment 54 of Nebraska’s 93 counties have been declared disaster areas.  Seventeen rivers have set flood records and some six million people are affected. Offutt Air Force Base – just outside of Omaha looks more like an inland sea – thirty buildings are closed due to the flooding. South Dakota and Iowa have been affected as well.This was a hard winter and much snow accumulated and ice formed on all the rivers. Then suddenly the weather turned and most of that H2O turned liquid. What didn’t melt floated high-speed in chunks the size of cars, ripping out grain elevators and barns, tearing into houses and businesses. I saw one picture of a kitchen filled to the tops of the counters with dirt-laden ice. 


At the same time heavy rain began to fall. So far hundreds people have had to be evacuated from 29 small farming communities that are now more islands than they are towns. No one knows how many animals have been frozen or drowned. This isn’t warm water – it’s just one step down from ice and there’s a wild wind blowing. One picture I saw showed a cluster of maybe 30 cattle huddled together hopelessly on a tiny hillock in the middle of what looked like a vast, edgeless lake, but was really the Platte River far over its banks. One helicopter pilot said there were many more such tiny bovine islands across the landscape. 


Freemont, Nebraska, is completely cut off – no roads are left. The highways aren’t just covered in feet of water, they’re torn completely out or so littered with ice boulders as to be impassable. Dikes have been breached and many bridges torn out by the rampaging ice.  And this is Nebraska – winter isn’t over. 


Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the bomb cyclone blizzard that hit Denver also hit the western half of Nebraska, dumping feet of snow. On Thursday I-80 from Grand Island, Nebraska to Wyoming was closed. Seventy mile per hour winds were blowing semis over onto their sides. The western half of Nebraska is cattle country, wheat country.  It is sparsely populated by ranchers whose spreads may cover thousands of acres and may well own thousands of head of cattle out on those lonely sand hills. How do you go about protecting your herds in that kind of a storm? You don’t; they just freeze. 


This disaster hits me personally because Nebraska is my home state, and even though I haven’t lived there for over 40 years, the prairie is still in my blood, and seeing my grandparent’s little Garrison-Keillor town covered in 4 feet of water breaks my heart. Hearing that my home city of Lincoln is worried about its water supply – a town of 250,000 souls – scares me. I have people there. 


But what has bothered me the most is the realization that the news tells us so little of what is happening in the world.  The TV news rattles on and on 24-7 and not a single story about the heart of this country and the suffering and struggle of our fellow Americans. Not until the story was three days old does it even make honorable mention. Two people are dead so far – one because he was trying to rescue another victim. There must be, if I know my fellow Nebraskans, many stories of heroism and heartbreak, but if my cousin and her kids hadn’t been filling Facebook with pictures, I wouldn’t know yet that anything was happening. 


This last week, on the other side of the world, 32 Nigerian Christians were brutally murdered by jihadists. Some missionary sources say the number is closer to 200. Has that been on the news? No. We heard all about the mosque attack in Christchurch, but not a word about Nigeria.  In the last few years 6,000 Nigerian Christians have been murdered – burned in their own churches, beheaded, mutilated. But no major news stories. Silence.


What else is happening that we don’t know about? How are our opinions and decisions being shaped by what we don’t hear? I understand that it is expensive to send reporters around looking for stories when all you have to do to get viewers is tell yet another tale about what nonsense the latest left-wing nutcase has spouted.  And true, that’s frightening enough, but how are we to form reasonable opinions if we don’t know the half of it? And add to that the demonstrable fact that most of these news organizations will knowingly lie to fit whatever narrative is the going thing. 


I suppose these floods, the worst the state has seen in a half a century, will make the news as soon as the MSM can come up with a way to blame Trump or global warming.  In the meantime, as bad and questionable as it is, social media is all we have to go on, and we know that is being manipulated.  


So we must keep our eyes peeled, search for truth far and wide and stay in contact with people we love. And pray please – for Nebraskans – they’re tough, resilient people, but this is pushing anyone’s limits – and for Nigerians, whose lives must be terrifying, and for all those folks who need help and about whom we know nothing. 





Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

These concepts – life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – are dear, or once were dear, to the hearts of all Americans. These are the sacred rights of all human beings  -- “sacred” because they are God-given and are not derived from government, rather government’s only mandate is to provide cover for those rights. 

Screen Shot 2019-03-08 at 1.04.21 PM.png

However, due to decades of twisted school curricula, and of postmodern, subjective journalism, we’ve arrived at a place where a sizable percentage of our population finds equality, immorality, and environmentalism superior concepts. In fact the left finds these ideas so compelling that they are willing to sacrifice the lives of us all to impose widespread adherence to these new gods.

Equality alone is deadly. Despite its description as “leveling the playing field” there is nothing level, nothing honest about it.  The left openly wants to redistribute wealth as if a cosmic unfairness had declared some rich and some poor and government’s job is to rectify that. That attitude might have made sense back in feudal times, when upward mobility was close to impossible, but it makes no sense at all in a society where millions have manufactured their own wealth and the door of possibilities stands wide open. At least for now.

What’s worse is the audacity of some to think that they are the ones with the right to decide who gets what and that becomes even more audacious when you realize what wealth actually is. Whether we talk about the 1% or the middle class, wealth and property are bought with one’s time, effort, and talents. They are purchased with one’s life. After all, that is all that life gives us – time and the capacity to use it productively. To take my property is to help oneself to my life, to say that my production belongs to someone else, not to me. Once a person has convinced himself that he has a right to my life in that sense, it doesn’t take long to assume that he has the right to also take the life of my body. 

Perhaps this explains the cavalier attitude of the left toward life in general. Leftists appear to be quite comfortable with killing infants. They’re generally in favor of euthanasia, and many have expressed the willingness to erase the elderly a la Brave New World. They are promoting childlessness as a sacrifice to their environmental deity (it seems not to have dawned on any of them that if we fail to reproduce, they’ll run out of people to push around and steal from). The left stomps about claiming that “Black likes matter,” but their policies, from welfare and abortion to gun laws and lousy schools, have caused the loss of tens of millions of black lives. Life – the greatest gift God has given us – means little to the folks who are fond of quoting, “You have to break a few eggs if you’re going to make an omelet.”

God not only gave us each life, but He also gave us free will – liberty. It is necessary that we have untrammeled volition so that we can be free to choose Him. It is also necessary so that we can each become “all [we] can become,” as Harrison Bergeron so tragically declared in the Kurt Vonnegut story. Along with life and liberty, God has given each of us amazing gifts, and freedom is necessary for us to realize our potential. 

We know from Thomas Maslow’s work that we can’t reach our inbred capabilities – he called it self-realization – until our basic animal necessities are met. If we’re starving, or trying to sleep out in the cold, or fighting off an illness, we can’t be painting masterpieces.  We have many rock-bottom needs in order to just survive at an animal level, but a society must be able to provide the structure for us to rise above that or our humanity dies. It isn’t enough for our society to give us food, clothing, and shelter – prisons do that. Human beings are designed to hunt for happiness. 

Happiness and the pursuit thereof is the last of the triune purpose for America. But what is happiness? Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi of the University of Chicago beautifully explained for us in his classic Flow: the Psychology of Optimal Experience. He defined happiness as the state of being when we are so involved in what we are doing that time evaporates – it flows right past us and when we finally stop doing whatever we were engrossed in, we wonder where the time went. We’ve lost track of ourselves, of distractions and moved into a state of “optimal experience.” After 20 years of following his subjects – they each had a small meter with them that allowed them to record those moments when they were feeling happy –Csikszentmihalyi discovered that in spite of all of us wanting the weekend to get here quickly, his subjects most often recorded happiness when they were working. Work – meaningful work -- makes us happy. Not welfare. Not free stuff. Not rest. Not play. Work.  People in Venezuela right now are not only lacking the basic necessities of survival, but they have no opportunity for fulfilling work. 

Note that our American dream is not happiness, but the pursuit of happiness, which confirms what Csikszentmihalyi found. We want to go after it; we know it can’t just be handed to us. Some part of our souls needs the struggle. I don’t have to sit here and write this, but I want to; doing so pleases my inner-most being.  Our president doesn’t have to work. He could just be lolling around his gold-plated penthouse, but he’s working 20-hour days, struggling against horrifying odds, because it is in him to do so. 

But the new left is not at all interested in our individual need for fulfillment. The left is not really even aware of the rest of us as human. We are merely the eggs for their omelet and an omelet doesn’t present each egg separately – they’re all whipped up together, one indistinguishable from the rest, and all of them very dead.

These “Justice Democrats” are after beating us all into an homogenized, manageable mass all in the name of equality – which is ridiculous on its face since none of us is like the other – and these folks like to tout “social justice” and at the same time encourage every kind of immorality and injustice imaginable.  They appear to be on the side of pedophilia, of human trafficking, of terrorism. They appear to be playing fast and loose with immigration and campaign finance laws. They are willing to falsify votes in a dozen different ways and they don’t mind being complicit in America’s slavery 2.0 – illegal immigration. Immorality is their second god. 

But their biggest idol is the environment  -- Mother Earth – Gaia -- their mighty goddess, a goddess so fragile that she’ll self-combust if cattle don’t stop digesting and they believe that all of us – not them -- but all of us should be sacrificed at its altar.  Life be damned.  Liberty be damned.  The pursuit of happiness has no place in this budding dystopia. Earth only has room for the power-hungry to wallow in their useless, miserable might.  

In some way, at some time in the future all this will be rectified.  God, the author of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, will wipe the grins off the faces of the evil and will set His Son on the throne and the Earth will again be what she once was and we’ll all become what He designed us to become – blessedly happy.











Kudos to AOC

Screen Shot 2019-02-09 at 2.06.58 PM.png


I am guilty of speaking badly of the new congresswoman from New York. She is obviously the product of failing educational systems unable to do anything but pump her full of fatuous self-esteem. I’d lay odds she has a large box of participation trophies in her parents’ basement. Though it is fun to bash such a bashable subject, I write to thank her.

 She has made things clear; things that have been vague and foggy are now utterly transparent. Many let slide Obama’s fuzzy promise to “fundamentally change” America. It was a little hazy – he never elaborated on it and the media never asked him to. But AOC has laid it out – very briefly; I understand that her ‘Green New Deal” has been scrubbed from her site and it’s easy to see why.  She’s let the cat out of the Democrat bag. 

She and Sen. Edward Markey opened Pandora’s box this week and 70 prominent Democrats immediately signed on including many of the recent presidential hopefuls. This woman is not a lone nut case, though she may be the only Democrat who actually believes this nonsense can be done. 

What crawled out of Pandora’s box? Everything destructive. 

This young woman wants to shut down American energy – nuclear included. She seems not to worry about how we’ll heat our homes or cook our food or travel from one place to another. She’s utterly unaware that it takes a great deal of energy to grow crops, manufacture goods, and build houses. She plans on – within 10 years – getting rid of 99% of the gasoline-powered cars in this country. 

She wants to stop of air travel and substitute high-speed rail – which we don’t have, which has proved a disastrous waste of money in California, and which will make it tricky to cross oceans. 

She wants the government to provide everyone, whether they work or not, with a guaranteed income, good housing, medical care, free education, and a vegan diet – the latter to cure the problem of cow flatulence, which, if not stopped, will destroy the planet.

She wants – and within 10 years – all buildings in the country stripped down and retrofitted to make them energy efficient -- with what energy and with whose money, she doesn’t say. When asked how she would pay for this she replied,  “We will finance the investments for the Green New Deal the same way we paid for the original New Deal, World War II, the bank bailouts, tax cuts for the rich, and decades of war—with public money appropriated by Congress. “ (Note the word “investments” – like she’s proposing some new business enterprise.)

That clears that up – it’s only government money, which we all know just grows on printing presses and computer hard drives. Venezuela’s 80,000% inflation rate doesn’t strike her as a cautionary tale and evidently her econ degree didn’t require a course in inflation and its causes and effects. 

But I thank her. Her timing was impeccable. The country – at least 72% of it –had enjoyed President Trump’s triumphant State of the Union address earlier in the week. That speech resurrected the pride in being an American. He talked about liberating Jewish Holocaust victims, about storming the beaches of Normandy, about curing childhood cancers, about protecting our southern borders. He reminded us of how prosperous the country has become in just two short years, and better yet, he helped us look ahead at the possibilities appearing on our national horizon. He talked about space exploration, innovations and inventions, medical breakthroughs, and soaring prosperity. 

The speech was heart-warming, encouraging, hopeful, and it stirred again our pride in being a hard-working, imaginative, courageous people. It even opened the door for cooperation in Congress, making it seem like it just might be possible.

Enter AOC and her tribe of dreary henchmen. According to these “Justice Democrats” (justice???), the world will end in 12 years if we don’t plug the cows and quit breathing. That’s a cheery and inspiring vista. In her future America, we will all be some kind of government drones and will spend our days stumbling around town scrounging for food and waiting in lines for our government handouts. We won’t be able to go anywhere, or buy anything because nothing will be available to buy. We won’t be able to invent anything, make anything, or fix anything unless we can do so ex nihilo. We will be cold, bored, and utterly trapped. The government will control what we eat, what we do, what we learn. 

Besides the terrifying future this lays out, nothing on AOC’s list of must-dos is even remotely possible. Rebuilding just the private homes in this country would have to be done at a pace of at the very least 120,000 houses a week for 10 non-stop years. And it would have to be done sans cars and trucks and oil and natural gas and any of the products produced using those items and commodities. And if the government is going to provide you with a living whether you want to work or not, who’s going to do the manual labor? 

In fact, the whole labor thing is very unclear in this plan. If you are getting a guaranteed income and you’ll be penalized with a 70% tax if you do something that is really successful, why lift a finger? I have no idea who will be willing to do all this work. Doctors already hate what Obamacare has done to the medical profession – what will they do when faced with full-on socialized medicine? And just how does she think people and goods will get around? 

I suspect she has little understanding of the vast regions of nearly uninhabited land one has to travel to cross this country; it’s not all Brooklyn. Those of us who have crossed the Rockies and the deserts of this great land know that high-speed rails won’t cut it even if they could be built. Neither will electric cars;  I can’t imagine plug-in stations dotting the barren highways in eastern Oregon. 

On the other hand, Trump wants to see everyone working, inventing, producing, enjoying and employing all the gifts God has bestowed on us. He wants us to treat every person with the love and respect due someone created in the image of God. He wants this for all American citizens regardless of race or ethnicity, of age, of religion, whether we’ve been born yet or not. Isn’t that what all Americans want? Isn’t that what decent people want? 

We want freedom – Americans have always wanted, fought, and died for freedom. AOC’s nightmare doesn’t allow for that. For one thing, it takes a certain level of prosperity before freedom means much. AOC’s vision is being played out in Venezuela; it’s not freedom when you have to eat the family dog. It’s not freedom when you can’t go where you want to go and get there the way you want to get there. It’s not freedom when you can’t build what you want to build, imagine what you want to create, or take care of your family how and where you want. 

AOC just laid it out for us and I’m grateful. Now it’s abundantly clear.  We can choose misery, hunger, and hopelessness or we can pull on our grown up work boots and make this country greater than we’ve ever thought possible. We can allow ourselves to be regulated into oblivion, or live up to our potential and in the process help everyone else to do so, too. We can be cowed into submission by an elaborate lie, proven false over and over, or we can recognize that God made this planet for us to live on, to enjoy, to use and develop. We can become the kind of craven, listless do-nothings that will sell their souls for a mess of pottage, willing to believe lies and nonsense – or we can roll up our sleeves, thank Almighty God that we are Americans and start building a glorious future.








Truth or Dare

Screen Shot 2019-01-19 at 12.25.56 PM.png

More and more any foray into the news feels like a trip to Bedlam – rational thought is nowhere to be found; the inmates are screeching inanities, drooling at the mouth, and throwing excrement – both literally and figurative – at anyone who dares to speak truth – at anyone who even dares to say the word “truth.” It’s not fair, however, to point out your opponents’ faults without some back-up. So allow me---

Ravi Zacharias, world-famous Christian apologist and philosopher addresses the issue of truth by breaking it down into 3 requirements:



  • ¥ Logical consistency

  • ¥ Empirical adequacy

  • ¥ Experiential relevance


    Those are a good place to start, but they need some elaboration.  So, what is logical consistency?  Loosely speaking, it means that the argument makes sense – like so many left-wing ideas don’t. Note the mess the rabid feminists are in having become bedfellows with the transgender crowd; now women have to compete with men pretending to be women. They have to compete in wrestling matches, soccer games, track meets. Women are not only being robbed of the chance to win, but are also likely to get hurt. But the feminazis are not walking away from their bad bargain, and so far they don’t seem to notice the even worse covenant they’ve made sidling up to Muslim activists, who will eventually see to it that as many American women as possible will be raped, mutilated, and beaten. 

Is this logically consistent? No. Just recently Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez made the remark that she’d rather be morally correct than factually correct. She fails to realize that being factually correct is part of being moral. To use loose, sloppy, or fictitious “facts” to support something you think is ethically awesome is to undercut your own argument. Truth evidently is not part of her moral zeitgeist. 

You see, a lack of logical consistency leads to divorcement from reality, and that leads to insanity. So we should step aside from Zacharias’ list to look at the three age-old Laws of Logic:

  • • The Law of Identity

  • • The Law of the Excluded Middle

  • • The Law of Non-contradiction

The Law of Identity merely means that a thing is what it is and it isn’t anything else.  In other words, it’s unethical and deceitful to pull a Newspeak definition shift on people. Our language is a contract that we have with others in our society and we mustn’t breach that contract. Remember back during the post 9/11 Iraq war when American soldiers were court martialed for making Muslim captors parade around nude with women’s panties on their heads? Remember that? It was a nasty, disrespectful, and un-American thing to do. But do you remember what the press called it? “Torture.”  That word has historically referred to the act of causing another person maximum pain either as punishment, or as inducement to spill secrets. Torture involved ripping out fingernails, pulling people apart on the rack, nailing them to crosses. Panty-hats don’t even come close. 

The left has been majoring in language re-assignment for decades.  Their favorite is to label absolutely anything a lie. Oh horrors! Trump said Obama had a 10-foot wall around his house and it’s only 8 feet!. Perhaps he should have crept up to the Obama house at midnight, toting a steel tape, and gotten an accurate measurement. But a lie? 

The next of the laws of logic we need to look at is the Law of the Excluded Middle. Both the left and the right have failed to adhere to this and are making less and less sense as the days go by.  The Law of the Excluded Middle merely points out that in most issues there is no neutral.  If you take 5-year-old children and you plug them into a public school system that never mentions God – not in discussions of origins in science class, not in historical analysis, not in psychology classes, not in ethics discussions – and you leave those kids there for 12-16 years, they have been taught, by default, but taught nevertheless, that God isn’t. He has been excised from their world. That is not neutral. If the only teachers a school employs are politically left of center, that’s not neutral. We fool ourselves if we think that news reporters and judges and pastors – or imams -- are neutral. In fact, the clergy’s efforts to be neutral have sadly broken the church.

The last law is the Law of Non-contradiction. A statement cannot refute itself and be true, be logical.  The post-modern mantra, “There is no absolute truth!”   -- usually said with great didactic gusto, is such a statement. “There is no absolute truth,” is an absolute statement and therefore argues against itself. How can one stay sane if one actually believes such tripe? One can’t. College professors love to play this dishonest shell game with their students. Slip ideas around fast enough, which is easy once ideas are distanced from their source, and you can convince anyone of anything. Do we wonder why our young people drink themselves through high school and college? Why the drug overdose problem is what it is? They are being driven to madness. 

Let’s go back to Zacharias’ breakdown of truth. His second standard is empirical adequacy. You can’t find truth without facts. AOC doesn’t grasp that, but most of us do. From its inception the global warming farce was troubled by the lack of information. In order to know what the average temperature actually is we have to measure everywhere – tops of mountains, middle of oceans, the steppes of Russia, the jungles of the Amazon. The temps also should be at ground level, not up in the stratosphere. And we need data from all four seasons, night and day, rain or shine. We need to factor in cloud cover, etc. Since most sampling stations are located in heavily populated areas, that variation has to be factored in as well. And then we need similar data from hundreds of years ago. The best we could do was computer models and they haven’t proven reliable. We need empirical adequacy to know what is going on here and we don’t have it. But the left plows on anyway and since they deny the existence of truth, I guess that isn’t difficult.And what about Zacharias’ third criteria – experiential relevance? What we actually observe in our own lives has to factor in to the concept of truth. I love the leftist canard that people are all basically good.  My experience has taught me that most people are capable of at least brief periods of being nice, but nice is a long way below good.  If we believe that all people are good, then we aren’t worried about MS13 gang members, ISIS warriors, or pedophiles snatching our kids, because they’re all just misunderstood and they just want a better life. The left assumes that all people think like they do, and live according to their standards. But the illegal crime stats tell a different story. So how do you process such data when you start with original goodness instead of original sin? 

I want to close with a standard of my own. Truth must line up with the Word of God because truth is God; it is embodied in the persons of the Trinity. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all incapable of the lie – in fact the head defecting angel, Lucifer (to whom Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals is dedicated) is called “the Father of Lies.”  What God tells us about Himself, and therefore about truth, is the final arbiter, and right now I see a complete distancing of the Democrat party from anything even close to godliness. They booed Him three times at their last convention – and then believed they could win the election. They have walked away from absolute truth and therefore from sensible policy and therefore from sanity. Without truth they cannot prevail – I dare them to try.  













Christian Appropriation

This mess at our southern border is stirring up the Sunday school wannabes again, and as a Christian and a conservative I am getting tired of being schooled by liberal Christians and non-believers about what my opinions should be, about what Jesus would do.  This needs to stop; we Christians need to stand up for our Savior and put an end to the appropriation of our Scripture and misunderstandings of Christ’s commandments. In order to do this we must first establish a couple of principles that are often ignored in this era of super-sloppy thinking:


In the first place, God quite clearly differentiates between individuals and national entities. When Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, implores his listeners to “turn the other cheek” He wasn’t speaking to the leaders of armies or to kings and emperors. (He, Himself, is often referred to as “The Lord of Hosts” – i.e. the Commander of the Armies and His behavior predicted in Revelation doesn’t look very love-your-neighbor.). In the Sermon on the Mount, Christ is giving us excellent advice for handling personal disputes of a low-impact variety. He is not saying not to fight back if someone pulls a knife on us. He’s talking about being insulted, which is what was implied by a slap across the face. He’s telling us not to escalate acrimonious situations, not to be so full of ourselves that we let a little – or a lot - of humiliation back us into a worse mess. 

He is not advocating a pacifist national stance. At one point when taxation came up He said, “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and unto God that which is God’s,” making a clear distinction between that which is national and that which is personal. So, let’s not muddy that water. 


Secondly, the Bible is not a catalog of verses to grab willy-nilly when we want to brow-beat someone into agreeing with us. Both legalistic and liberal Christians are often guilty of doing that. Yes, okay, a proof-text is sometimes necessary, but it should never be taken out of its immediate context, nor out of the context of the entire Bible. Nor should it be used without careful consideration of the historical background against which the verse is set; neither should it be applied without checking the correctness of the translation being quoted. 


When a person who only knows the Book by reputation (from movies, or cheap novels, or anti-Christian professors )  throws a Bible verse at me, I find it very trying. Some of that is pride, which is my fault, but much of it is ire at hearing this astounding Book handled so cavalierly, so belligerently, and so ignorantly.  


For instance, one shouldn’t quote the Golden Rule to defend socialism, when the first thing a socialist country does is outlaw the Bible – don’t liberals know the history here? One ought not quote Jesus if one doesn’t know Him or believe Him. That’s like me quoting Mohammed to prove some moral point. Talk about cultural appropriation! If one knows nothing about the true Christian ethos, one should avoid telling a Christian what he or she should think .


My support of Trump’s early move to cut back on immigration from mostly Muslim countries drew the ire of people I love dearly --  Are we not to open our arms to one and all? Are we not to love our neighbors as ourselves?  (This from those who find conservatives reprehensible.) But are these not biblical mandates? Yes, but in a sense limited by context.

Therefore we cannot take the Golden Rule, which speaks of individual attitudes and behaviors, and apply it to national policy. How do we know it is for individuals only? 

1.Jesus was speaking in this sermon to a crowd made up of Jews, Samaritans, and Roman soldiers – a group of different nationalities. And, He wasn’t speaking to Pontius Pilate or to the Pharisees, the political leaders of the time. 

2. Nations don’t “love.” They can make policies that are fair, but that is different. Jesus didn’t say, “Make nice laws.” Nor did he demand that a nation allow some people to disobey the laws of the land.


We can’t ignore the dangers of people groups who scream, “Death to America!” We are not commanded to do so. From the Tower of Babel on, God has organized the world into separate nations. The prophecies of Revelation paint a terrifying picture of what a one-world, no-borders government would look like. The 20th century showed us a glimpse of that with both Stalin and Hitler. 


Biblically speaking, the blending of cultures is pictured as risky at best. In fact, during the movement of the Jews into the land God had promised them, they were sometimes told to annihilate an entire nation, including its women, children, and livestock.  There was no “Love thy neighbor” in that because these lands contained cultures of incredible evil, cultures that celebrated throwing their babies into the fires of the idols they worshipped. There is no loving a neighbor like that and there is no loving Islam, either. There is no loving MS13. No loving child predators and human trafficking. No loving the poisoning of youth with drugs. 


This caravan mess and the illegal immigration issue in general brings out the hand-wringers all over again. Aren’t we to be hospitable? Shouldn’t we care about the plight of these poor people? Of course, but caring and allowing them to swarm our borders, overloading our educational and health and law-enforcement systems, putting our citizens in danger are two different things. I’m sure that non-Christians have no idea how practical true, biblical Christianity is. When Jesus was giving His disciples instructions about going out into the world to spread the Gospel, He urged them to sell whatever they needed to sell in order to purchase a sword for protection. Yes, we are to rely on God for our wellbeing, but that doesn’t require us to be stupid.  We care about the poor in this country and a huge influx of cheap labor will hurt them. We care about the people who cannot find affordable housing. How will thousands and thousands of unskilled immigrants help that situation? Both Christians and conservatives just want things to work. We don’t hate immigrants; we hate evil, whether it resides in a neighboring country or in our own back yards. Of course, the left denies the existence of evil, which must be most confusing.

And the left hates the rich – Christ didn’t. He noted that they, being dependent on their own power, would have trouble relying on Him for salvation, but Joseph of Arimathea followed Him anyway. The left seems hell-bent (pun intended) on supporting all things the Bible denounces and then, true to the liberal inconsistency, wants us to follow closely what they, erroneously, think the Bible says. 


Enough. 




Five Truths About Elections

Screen Shot 2018-11-02 at 5.41.23 PM.png

Elections are always important because power is always important. We are not only deciding which individuals we will place in power over us, but which ideas we will allow to control our lives. We can hold our noses and say politics stinks, or that Democrats and Republicans are all the same, and both of those attitudes have some basis in reality, but politics will not go away, and left vs. right is the only real choice we have. So let’s peel this back and look at the undeniable truths facing us.

Truth #1 – Elections are binary. Basically all choices are – up or down, right or wrong, to be or not to be, eat your dinner or go to bed. Those who insist that their opinions are so finely honed as to require a third or fourth or fifth choice don’t understand the reality of elections. It always comes down to a race between the top two contenders; any additional candidates merely siphon votes from the top two and create a situation where no one has a mandate. An election is not the time to be a purist – Donald Trump and his remarkable successes should have taught us that. A candidate has to have two weapons – the right ideas and the ability to win. One without the other is useless.

Truth #2 – Elections are the fulcrum on which our unique system of government balances, therefore our elections are crucial. They are also under attack. Whereas the Russians don’t seem to have been very effective, if, in fact, they were tinkering with our presidential choices, forces inside America are working hard to make elections pointless. The integrity of the voting process itself must be protected. We learned that in the hanging-chad election. Without assurance that our votes are not being canceled out by infected voting machines, or dead, illegal, or felonious voters, we lose our ability to choose our future. Without the enforcement of election laws, we make a mockery of the whole system.

Without properly vetted candidates, we lose our ability to make intelligent selections. We still don’t know who Barack Hussein Obama is. We don’t know much about Barry Sotero either, though they appear to be one and the same. We have people running for congressional seats and for gubernatorial offices that have criminal records, are deeply in debt, or have broken election laws, yet our media seem little concerned. We know next to nothing about the names up for judgeships – and we can’t find out much even though those judges are now busy making law.

Our elections are also seriously affected by gerrymandering. If the district boundaries are adjusted just so, one party wins. If not, the other party does. This idea is a lot of what is behind the effort to remove the Electoral College from our presidential elections. The deck would then be permanently stacked for the heavily populated areas and those with more rural concerns would be disenfranchised altogether and freedom would take a major blow.

Truth #3 – Truth is a crucial component of elections. Our nation is now split between those who see truth as variable, open to infinite manipulation and those who see truth as an absolute concept, the foundation of our society. We have seen recently the secret videotapes of Democrat campaign workers copping proudly to the fact that their respective candidates are lying about their positions on issues in order to be elected. They talk as if that kind of prevarication is just business as usual – and for many in government that is the case, as scandal after scandal has recently demonstrated. Half of the Senate Judicial Committee was just fine with condemning a man on the basis of what were unsubstantiated and ridiculous accusations by women of questionable character. The “I believe her” mantra came forth with no corroborating evidence at all, and with no concern for its lack.

We are left standing in the voting booth not knowing which candidate is telling us the truth about ideas, policies, or positions. If these people promise us they will tend to veterans’ affairs, or healthcare, or immigration, or education, or pet licensing and HOA fees, we need to know if these candidates are being truthful about both their intentions and their ability to follow through. If, however, we live in a society where truth is nothing more than the ghost of long-past goodness, then that alone could do in our important elections and therefore our control over our own lives.

Truth #4 – Elections are about ideas. This is more true today than it has ever been. In the early days of our nation most everyone was in favor of freedom. They’d had a taste of it and weren’t about to go back to bondage. There was disagreement over how that was to be accomplished, but not about whether or not it should be done.

Slavery was the main idea our forefathers dug in about and that eventually triggered a civil war.

Now, however, we are fighting “principalities and powers.” This is a battle over all the principles of righteousness and law. We are up against the forces of darkness – of deceit, of envy, of corruption. We have to decide if we are so craven that we are willing to take from those who have earned money in order to provide ourselves with a transient glow of appearing to care about our fellow man. (Those who want to welcome the illegal immigrant into our nation are not inviting these same people into their homes.) We have to decide if we are so infantile as to need our government to provide us with food, clothing, and shelter. Are we willing to elect to high office those we know to be despicable people just so we can salve our consciences or line our own pockets?

The candidates we choose from this election are either Americans who value our heritage, our devotion to truth and freedom, to free enterprise and ingenuity, to independence and self-reliance, or we choose socialism and all the horrors that provides. It is an idea that has disproven itself every time it has been applied, is doing so right now in foreign countries and in some of our own states and cities. It’s not like we don’t know what it does. Yet I talk with people on a daily basis who think it might still be the right answer to all human problems – just add a little more salt, a dash of Worcestershire sauce and it’ll be just dandy. Never mind Cuba or Venezuela. Don’t pay any attention to San Francisco, or Chicago, or Detroit. Socialism is cool, they insist. The problem with the socialist approach is that it requires the confiscation of people’s property, which requires the government have hugely expanded powers, which results in tyranny and most of the confiscated moneys going to those at the top. We’re back to a binary decision.

We have arrived at a cross-roads where we will either abandon the lofty goal of a righteous and free nation, opting instead for greed and sloth, or stand up to immense pressure from every known evil power and fight yet again for the liberty and decency that our forefathers set out to create.

Truth #5 – no matter how this election turns out we must remember that God controls history. How else could Donald Trump have won an election stacked against him? So we’ll pray and we’ll vote and we’ll watch His plan unfold.

The Democrat Ten Commandments

Baal

Baal

The Kananaugh/Ford hearing was excruciating to watch, but nevertheless

instructive. The entire nation came face-to-face with the neon-glare of the nastiness that is now the Democrat party. Decent Democrats still exist, but they either fail to pay attention and, therefore, function on tradition only, or their education has so failed them that they have no idea that the party has gone off the deep end; they don’t know there is a deep end.

The 21st century Democrat is not a new species; he is just a new rendition of the ancient pagan mindset. These new Democrats have more raw power than ancient pagans ever had. They have all the advantages of modern technology; they have phenomenal wealth behind them; they have the leisure to work themselves into twisty fits over any instance of reality that dirties their rosy-pink world.

America has always stood on a sturdy foundation of hard work, honesty, self-reliance, and a reverence for the individual as a creation of God Almighty. American jurisprudence was founded on ancient Hebrew law and on Anglo-Saxon concepts of government. Democrat ideas, as well, come up out of antique concepts, but theirs are the opposite of everything America has ever tried to be.

America built its laws on the basis of the Ten Commandments. Those commandments are good guides for any society. Any civilization made up of people who largely govern themselves along those lines will be a free, peaceful, and prosperous nation. History demonstrates that. But Democrat policies are at odds with the entirety of these guidelines; they have developed their own Decalog.

These they adhere to with a vengeance:

I. Thou shalt have no other gods but human power. Winning elections is the Democrat reason d’etre because power is their god, the party is their church, and its manifestation is large, centralized government. The party may demand Democrats lie, cheat, steal, destroy property, shoot baseball players, or kill babies, but all those activities are for the greater good – power.

II. Thou shalt worship under the direction of these priests: Darwin, Alinsky, Spock, Marx, Dewey, and Sanger – to say nothing of Baal. Child sacrifice is their sacrament. All ideas counter to the thinking of these apostles must be mocked, blocked, and twisted.

III. Thou shalt bow down to nothing wholesome or productive. Kindness, genuine caring, duty and honor are attributes to fake in order to win elections – see the 1st Commandment – but are never indulged with sincerity. These values can clog with guilt many of the actions necessary for the required political fight-to-the-death.

IV. Thou shalt demonstrate no respect for the universe as God’s creation. Good Democrats must see the Earth as fragile, purposeless, and a god itself. Democrats may show up for church on Sunday, but they are not to take any of it seriously and should choose a church that preaches Marx rather than Paul.

V. Thou shalt destroy all vestiges of family. Democrats believe in taxing citizens so intensely that both parents have to earn a wage. Their public school curricula train children to revere government rather than parents. Democrats champion sexual deviance and prepare children to indulge their sexuality from a young age. They champion abortion at all stages of fetal development, and deny the differences between the sexes to produce maximum societal confusion. When the family fails, then government can take over. One can see the resemblance to the ancient phallic cults.

VI. Thou shalt attack, provoke, ridicule, and kill whomever gets in your way. Even when they don’t physically kill their political opponents, they kill their livelihoods, their reputations, their families. This commandment gives modern Democrats an excuse to run conservatives out of restaurants, out of theaters, out of their homes. Democrats can attack with impunity Republicans’ electronic privacy – Dems can spy, tap, intercept emails – whatever is necessary. This commandment goes so far as to block any attempt their opponents can make to defend them selves --take their guns; take their knives; keep them vulnerable. Remember – winning is everything because winning brings power.

VII. Thou shalt have any kind of sex with whomever, whenever, and wherever. Refer back to 5th commandment. Societal chaos and desperation opens the door to government control – i.e. power.

VIII. Thou shalt legalize theft by authorizing the government to steal. Big government requires big money to bribe voters, to keep them dependent, to be able to import new voters. Under this command, law enforcement must be hamstrung to such an extent that property crimes can’t be enforced. All ideas of private property must be squelched and socialism championed.

IX.  Thou shalt bear false witness against thine enemies. They make up elaborate stories of sexual deviance and financial malfeasance, of drunken orgies and high school shenanigans. Though they condone such behavior amongst themselves, they feign horror and outrage at the supposed missteps of their opposition. They gum up the operations of government with said allegations and erase all remembrance of innocence-until-proven-guilty. Winning, remember, is everything.

X. Thou shalt envy, covet, and indulge all jealous attitudes, hating anyone who has accumulated more wealth, more power, or more fame than you have. This is the engine the runs the whole thing. Without envy there is no discontent. Where there is no discontent, there is little need of government. Where there is little need of government, there is no accumulation of power. If there is no accumulation of power there is none for the party to grab and no wealth for the party to pocket.

What we saw the Democrats do before, during, and after the Kavanaugh inquiry had to have sobered up a lot of honest, honorable Americans because what we saw on display was grotesque. Kavanaugh was damned if he did and damned if he didn’t before he even walked into that chamber. Without one word of testimony Democrats were spouting their “I believe her,” decrees as if they were holy proclamations.

But most Americans are good people – generous and forgiving, honest and hard-working, earnest and dutiful. What we saw in the behavior of the Democrats, both in the committee and around the edges, was the opposite of everything we have been proud of as a nation. The Democrat adherence to these leftist directives, these ancient pagan mandates, proved to be too ugly to countenance. No doubt decent Democrats all over the nation looked in that national mirror and were as horrified as the rest of us were. The voting booth is the only way we have to wash that venomous taste from our mouths.

Advise and Consent

Screen Shot 2018-09-21 at 3.49.51 PM.png

Any thinking person today is hearing alarms going off in all directions over the Kavanaugh accusations. It’s obvious that this is all dirty politics; we can see that in the timing, in the fussiness about Ford testifying, in the nasty rhetoric that swirls in poisonous clouds throughout Washington. But the problem is much deeper.

In the first place, we have no clearly defined morés for sexual behavior anymore. The sexual revolution has opened a multitude of fearful doors. Our young women find themselves defenseless in compromising situations and we have no guidance to give them. We have no way to council them – or our young men – about just where the line is. Sex is now allowed, performed, promoted. Women feel they can behave in any way they wish, wear whatever they wish, and men have to hold that line and read feminine signals with no idea of what they mean. This looseness has been trending for decades and suddenly now we’ve turned puritanical and are horrified at the very thought of sexual advances happening.

We have no clear idea of what, exactly, “sexual assault” means. From the precious little detail Ford has given, we can’t tell whether she’s describing teenaged rough-housing or attempted rape. She obviously wants us to picture the latter, but if she had suffered such a violent attack, would she not have been visibly distressed at the time? Wouldn’t friends have noticed? IF anything happened at all between these two people, how do we know what it was exactly? A hand brushing across a breast? Some pushing and shoving, playful or otherwise, that got out of hand? At what point do we know that a crime occurred? “Assault” is a violent, injury-producing attack. At least it used to be. A quick check with a dictionary defines “assault” as “an unlawful threat or attempt to do bodily injury to another.“ If Kavanaugh had actually committed such an act, wouldn’t that have been noticeable to others? Wouldn’t all the details be burned into her brain? You’d think so.

Secondly, we live in a time in which men, especially white men, are automatically guilty -- of most everything, and in which women are all victims – of everyone male. It is, in part, the vague definitions of sexual faux pas that have made this possible. Almost any advance a man makes can now be interpreted as over the line because no clear line exists. I find this disturbing. I’ve been around for a long time, worked with men for decades and have never known any who were sexually threatening, so this intense enmity between the sexes is incomprehensible to me.

Thirdly, it seems that evidence is no longer of any importance – for anything. Kirsten Gillibrand kept saying in her recent speech on Ford’s accusation, “I believe her. I believe her.” On the basis of what? Guilt or innocence isn’t determined by “belief” but by evidence, but Gillibrand had already made up her mind without meeting Ford, without examining her testimony, without any specifics at all. Even my religious beliefs are based on overwhelming evidence, not on how I feel at the moment. But today, logic and facts garner no respect – every opinion is just based on emotional reaction. How is anyone to get a fair hearing under those circumstances?

Fourthly, all this is happening at a time when few seem to understand how things are done, how our government works. Ever since Trump became president I’ve been aware of this confusion. The left acts as if they can get rid of Trump – evidently by any means – that Hillary will take over. They don’t seem to be aware that losing an election is an actual loss. Even Obama said “elections have consequences”. It means loss of control over administrative agencies; the whole Russia debacle stems from a failure to recognize this fact. An election loss means loss of control over who gets appointed to the Supreme Court and if you don’t have control of the Senate, that’s just done. So the leftists feel justified in throwing every hissy-fit they can drum up. Damn the law and ethics and truth.

According to the Constitution it is within the purview of the Senate to “advise and consent” on SCOTUS appointees. The Constitution says nothing about grilling these appointees half to death, about setting land mines made out of vague and ancient fictions. The concern is supposed to be whether or not the candidate has the education, the clarity, the self-discipline to weigh issues brought before them. It is not about changing the world. It is not about getting the jump on the opposing party. It is certainly not about high school antics – if in fact any happened. The left seems to think that a SCOTUS judge can just haul off and change laws, which explains their hysteria, but a little knowledge about the balance of power would calm those fears. SCOTUS can’t initiate lawsuits; they can only rule on what is brought before them.

We also have forgotten that the FBI doesn’t do this kind of inquiry. Ford wants a special favor – an FBI investigation. But each federal agency has its own job, its own territory. The FBI can only do background investigations, investigate possible federal crimes, and teenage fondling doesn’t qualify -- unless the activity crosses state lines and involves kidnapping. It is also questionable that the FBI is even capable of objectively investigating anything that connects to Donald Trump and his choice for the Court. In the last two years this agency has demonstrated appalling bias and dishonesty in its dealings with our president; it is no wonder Ford is anxious for their support here.

We have also lost track of the concept of innocent until proven guilty -- beyond reasonable doubt. This has been slipping away for quite a while now. The media have become our judge and jury; the more sensational and politically potent an accusation is, the more likely it will be seen as true, and no amount of correction will undo that.

What bothers me the most, however, is that we’ve lost all contact with common sense, with any desire to arrive at the truth. The truth is that Democrats believe they will take Congress in November (The key word here is “believe.”) and they want to put off the confirmation vote until then. So, Ford’s accusations have burst onto the scene in a most orchestrated, obvious manner. She wants to raise a fuss, but not be held to account, which says to me that she is unsure about the whole thing. If it were me, I’d want to get on with it, get it over with, but her hesitancy feels really off. If she didn’t want the attention why write the letter in the first place? And where does she get off wanting Kavanaugh to testify first? Testify to what? This all flies in the face of thousands of years of jurisprudence. Common sense would dictate that we pay attention to policies that have worked for millennia, but common sense is dying.

Eventually the dust will clear and Brett Kavanaugh will be confirmed and things will calm down --until the next appointment comes up, until the next overblown accusation is thrown at the next decent man. How many drama-queen explosions can we put up with? How many lies can we absorb? How many crucifixions can one nation stand?

Believe in Something

Screen Shot 2018-09-09 at 7.54.05 PM.png

Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything. Just do it. Seldom have I heard a sillier string of sentences. I don’t even care whose face it’s plastered across. Nor do I care which half-witted, left-winged company lurks behind it. It is the statement itself that needs scrutiny – that and our predilection for short, dramatic, schmaltzy concepts.

 The first three words sound like a noble command, like we should all square our shoulders, lift our chins, and bravely BELIEVE – like it’s the believing itself – regardless of what we believe – that is the challenge. 

Well, believing is a challenge if what we believe is baloney. What is it that Colin Kaepernick believes? Does he actually believe that cops are just running amuck all over the country shooting down sweet little black kids? Is that true? Not according to actual crime statistics, it’s not. Not according to court decisions it’s not. But, that doesn’t matter; it’s the believing that counts as if believing is hard to do.

Human beings have three ways we learn: we hear; we experience; we think. Our mothers told us the stove was hot. If we were smart, we believed her and learned that lesson. The more curious and recalcitrant among us also touched the stove and learned the hard way. Those of us who could think ruminated on those events – the telling and the doing – and came to a rational conclusion that giving stoves a wide berth is a good idea. 

Believing, which we usually relegate to religious and philosophical realms, is really the most basic and useful of our brains’ operations. Most of what we learn, we learn by faith. So having faith is no great accomplishment – it just means accepting as truth what someone tells us.

But how do we validate that what we learn is true? By the other two methods. We observe and we do. We try it out. We think logically about it. Our faith, our believing is no more valuable than that in which we believe. Yet, Nike wants us to just randomly have faith – in any old thing, as far as I can tell, AND to believe it to the extent that we’re willing to sacrifice everything. So I guess I’ll believe in the Great Pumpkin. I’m going to wear a pumpkin costume to work every day even if I get fired. Is that a reasonable policy?

No. If I’m going to give up everything, I’d want to know that what I’m standing behind is real. I believe in the resurrection of Christ because the people who walked and talked and ate with Him afterward were so sure that they were willing to die terrible, torturous deaths defending the idea. They didn’t just believe; they knew.

A lot of people believe in socialism in spite of the mountains of economic, historic, and psychological evidence to the contrary. We can give them no credit for believing because their faith is rooted in ignorance and guilt, not in fact. Some sociology professor told them it would work and they just bought it with no more questioning than they did when their mothers told them that the hairy thing on the couch was a cat. Colleges used to teach their students to do that follow-up thinking, but they don’t anymore and now we’re faced with a couple of generations of people who just have faith. Period. No knowledge. No logic. Just grab the slogan and go. 

If we’re going to be a culture of aphorisms, if we must take our wisdom in nanosecond bursts, let us at least get it from somewhere more accredited than Nike and a second-string quarterback. 

Let’s try G. K. Chesterton, for starters. He’s the king of the bon mot. How about this one, “Comparisons are odious.” We’d do well to have this tattooed on our forearms. Maybe then we’d quit whining, “They’ve got more than we have,” whimper, whimper, whimper. Chesterton is so right; we can’t profitably compare our lot to others’ because we can never really know what anyone else’s lot is. And yet we have an entire political party that is based on fact-less, baseless, self-pitying comparisons. 

Or maybe C. S. Lewis – “We are all fallen creatures and all very hard to live with.” The Apostle Paul said it this way, “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” Now that’s an aphorism we can all get behind. Even young children have lived long enough to know how true that is. If we all said that to ourselves once a day we’d stop expecting too much of our friends and family. We’d know that no one, not parents, not teachers, not government officials, not even grandchildren are perfect. This will make us disappointment-proof and far less cranky. 

What about Socrates’s famous line? -- “An unexamined life is not worth living.” That would be a productive mantra that would urge us on to more thoughtful living. It may not be zingy enough to sell running shoes, but it is true. Life is too much trouble to not have a reason or a purpose. Such a line would push us to figure it out.

Since we live in a competitive and driven society maybe Woody Allen’s line, “Eighty percent of success is showing up,” would be worth memorizing. That thought would help us face Monday mornings, push us to get the dishes done, or to mow the lawn. 

Or we could emblazon on our foreheads Booker T. Washington’s completely race-less advice, “If you want to lift yourself up, lift up someone else.” That might go further toward ending our national tensions than calling up the specter of men on a football field kneeling to whatever god they kneel to.  Quit whining and just do it. 

Or on an even more powerful note, Mahatma Gandhi’s statement, “Be the change that you wish to see in the world.”  This is far more direct than “Believe in something” and yet it gives the reader as wide a selection. It is a little more daunting because if we want the world to be better, then we must change as well – it’s not all about the other guy. Making a spectacle of oneself doesn’t quite get there. A professional athlete could open a sports center for young men in one of our deadly cities. He could pay for a lawyer for a person he thought had been wrongly accused. A person with fame and money could actually make improvements and not just throw temper tantrums.

Of course, if you want to stick with sports we could have as one of our core beliefs Wayne Gresky’s rousing injunction, “You miss 100% of the shots you don’t take.” That would get people into their gear and out onto the ice.  Logically speaking, it’s always going to be a true statement, and all it asks of you is to go play whatever game you’re in. Give it a go. It doesn’t require you to make a fool of yourself. It doesn’t require you to sacrifice something you don’t really even have. 

Lastly, we could even go with an Oprah quote – “You become what you believe,” though I see that as more of a cautionary concept than an inspirational one. In the first place, I’m not at all sure that it’s true. I’ve had students who believed they were A pupils, but were very wrong about that assessment. Besides which, what if, like our starting quarterback wannabe, the thing you believe is just nonsense? According to the Oprah, you too would become nonsense. 

I believe in something. I believe in the Trinity and in the founding concepts of this country. The evidence for the reality, logic and power of these is overwhelming. For these I’d sacrifice it all. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Legalizing the Constitution  

Screen Shot 2018-08-28 at 5.54.41 PM.png

 I once had a bumper sticker that read “Legalize the Constitution,” and occasionally I would find myself having to explain it, and often to defend it. Really? Not only is the Bill of Rights no longer understood or venerated, but confusion reigns. The most important, the First Amendment seems most prone to misuse. It reads:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Seems simple, yet we find ourselves at a point in our history where its import is ignored, repudiated, or twisted all out of proportion. 

 

The First Amendment starts with the phrase “Congress shall make no law…” So this limits the activities of Congress – not of states, or individuals, or schools, or any other group.  Just Congress. A community can pass a law against obscene language in public if it wants to. A teacher can limit the amount of speech and its contents in her class – she isn’t Congress. A pastor should be able to say anything from the pulpit that his congregation will tolerate.

 

Secondly, it keeps Congress out of the business of setting up a national religion – common at the time of writing. It keeps Congress – not anyone else – out of regulating religious practice. Nothing in this statute prohibits states, or cities,  from doing so. I suspect that, if Michigan continues its march toward Islam, that at least some of its cities will take advantage of that freedom. 

 

Thirdly, Congress is forbidden to make any law that abridges freedom of speech. This is where we are up against a hard wall. There can be, in this country, no national law enforcing political correctness. Which means that federal law enforcement cannot arrest, incarcerate, try, or convict anyone for an utterance just because it is offensive to someone. If I fail to utilize the correct non-gendered pronoun, I could be imprisoned in Canada, but the First Amendment prohibits that here.

 

So, does that mean that a company can’t fire a person because he was overheard bad-mouthing the boss? Or propositioning a female employee? Or calling someone the n-word? No. The business belongs to those who own it and since private ownership of property is another of our cherished rights, the business can hire and fire whom it will. There are social and financial consequences and the Bill of Rights doesn’t protect us from those. If Facebook and Twitter keep offending conservatives, we’ll just leave – life without them is possible – but the government has to stay out of it.

 

Does it mean that the president can’t remove the top secret security clearance from some ex-bureaucrat? No. A security clearance gives a person the right to know, not the right to speak about what he knows – that’s why the word “secret” is involved. 

 

Fourthly, “freedom of speech” just means that no federal legal action can be taken against you for something you say. That is not an absolute – threatening to kill or harm someone is illegal, inciting to riot is as well. Shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater will land you in some trouble. Lying under oath can cost you. Common sense prevails. 

 

“Freedom of speech” does not protect you from the negative social consequences of being linguistically obnoxious. It does not abrogate laws against slander and libel. It merely means that the federal government can’t grab you out of your bed in the middle of the night and throw you in a dungeon for complaining about the powers that be. 

 

I like a Jordan Peterson quote I recently ran across: “Free speech isn’t merely the right to criticize those in power, and it’s also not only the right to say what you think. It’s actually the right to think.”  And I would add that is also the responsibility to think – before you speak. Every right has a concurrent duty, and the more important the right, the more onerous the obligation. It is horrifying to hear elected officials and other limelight individuals saying in public that our president should be killed. If they don’t like Trump’s policies, then argue against them, but don’t advocate his death.

 

It is embarrassing to hear our fellow Americans screaming obscenities, which are neither thought nor speech.  Taboo words and phrases are linguistically interesting in that they don’t originate in the language center of the brain, but rather in the limbic system – they come boiling up out of the brain stem without a single cogent thought behind them. https://harvardsciencereview.com/2014/01/23/the-science-of-swearing/

 

 

What’s more, actions are not the same as speech, though courts have disagreed with me. Burning flags, throwing rocks through windows, burning effigies are not discourse – they are temper tantrums. If a person can’t articulate his grievances in actual language, then he hasn’t thought, hasn’t convinced anyone in power of the rightness of his cause, and it’s likely he doesn’t even know what his cause is. 

 

The First Amendment keeps the government from denying us the right to gather in groups, carry placards, chant slogans, sing songs – yes, but the key word in the amendment is “peaceably.” Demonstrations we are seeing in the streets these days are not peaceable. Nor are those assembling speaking in any coherent sense. In fact, lately, many of such protests have been attempts to deny others their rights to freely assemble and to speak.  

 

The First Amendment does not protect us from hearing things we find objectionable. We have no right to go through life without being offended. We have no right to be shielded from those with whom we disagree. We have no right to coerce others to agree with us. I am a Christian and as such, I have an obligation to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ with my fellow man. That is the “practice” of my religion. Yet many today think that the expression of my gratitude for my free salvation is an effort to “force” my religion on them. “Force” involves violence, not speech. 

 

Speaking of which, does “freedom of religion” apply to jihadi activity? Is Islam even a religion? One of these days SCOTUS will have to figure that out. The First Amendment really doesn’t protect us from anything but the federal government, however the federal government does have the responsibility of protecting its citizens from “all enemies, foreign and domestic.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_(United_States) We’ll have to wait and see.

 

How does the First Amendment affect education? It should not have limited what I as a teacher could say in my public school classroom – my atheist colleagues could say what they thought, but these days Christian teachers must be very careful. Those who think there is any such thing as neutrality, are mistaken. If we limit our children’s view of the world by excluding God from the classroom, we have taught them, by default, that God isn’t. Schools have hidden behind that sloppy thinking for generations. 

 

Look, we cannot protect the Constitution if we don’t take the time to think it through, if we don’t even know what it says. It is not a bludgeon with which to accost or silence our opponents. It is not an invitation to lie or manipulate. It is meant to defend honorable citizens from a government’s tendency to become dishonorable. Our Constitution – the most astounding covenant outside of the Bible – deserves not only “legalization,” but reverence, care, and protection.