The Best Energy Policy is No Energy Policy

By David Linton

I would hate to count the number of times I have heard over the course of the past year how we need to develop a national energy policy to insure our national energy security.  Sure, this sounds great.  Today the primary sources of our energy are those entities that hate America and its way of life.  We do need to move to a posture in our nation that seeks secure domestic sources of energy so as to prevent constraints to the flow of energy by those who hate us.

We have vast amounts of energy resources: coal, oil, natural gas, petroleum, wind, and solar.  We have been discovering surprising new sources of energy over the past few years.   It is far past time to move in a direction to develop these resources.  What policy should we implement?  What energy sources should we develop?  How should we go about developing them? 

While we talk about developing a coherent national energy policy, we should be clear that we do have a national energy policy now.  It may be haphazard.  It may be a patchwork.  But there is a national energy policy.  Our national energy policy is being forced on us by a restrictive national government.  EPA is threatening power generation with stringent emission limits.  The global warming pseudo science would ban the use of coal.  We subsidize many forms of green power.  The national government is prohibiting the development of the Keystone Pipeline.  Regulations and threatened regulations discourage energy development all across the nation.  Like it or not, this is a national energy policy.

Certainly, there are many voices that champion new energy policies.  The Republican Party is pushing the Keystone Pipeline.  There are those in Oklahoma and in the Dakotas that are encouraging gas development in those regions.  Wind power is making gains in the mid-west.  So which of these policies do we embrace?

I hope in this last question you see the circular reasoning of the whole fallacy of a “national energy policy.”  Any “national energy policy” suggests a policy set by our national regulators.  Discussing a “national energy policy” inherently suggests giving the power to make the call on what to pursue to those who regulate us.  We should have learned the lesson by now that those that regulate our lives do not make the best calls.  Our constitutional republic, for good or ill, is not designed to develop a good consistent policy on anything.  Our system is designed through power checks and balances to guard the liberty of the citizens against the power of the central government.

If we are to achieve a good energy policy that will insure national energy security, we must adopt the goal of having no energy policy at all.  We must approach the problem in a manner that is consistent with the way our system is designed.  We must handle it though government guarding liberty and not the policy developed within the interests of the regulators.  We must remove the regulatory shackles that restrict industry and the ingenuity of a free market place.  Our slave masters in Washington, D.C. are driven by control and reelection.  Our private industries are driven by profit.  Profit motive in this context is a good thing.  Allowing each individual entrepreneur assess the profit potential for each energy source in this nation will be the quickest way to energy independence.  By the very nature of the free market, each entrepreneur will seek to develop the most beneficial, efficient, and profitable form of energy available.   This is the best energy policy and will bring us energy security.

Call to Immediately Fire Jackie Bemboom!

From:  Kerry K. Messer,   www.MissouriFamilyNetwork.net

Call to Immediately Fire Jackie Bemboom!

The Department of Revenue is headed by a Director (Brian Long, since 12/13/2012, and Alana Barragan-Scott (who has worked for Nixon since 1993) Director for the bulk of the scandal timeframe, http://governor.mo.gov/newsroom/2009/Alana_Scott ).  Below the Director is the Deputy Director John Mollenkamp.  From there the Department is subdivided into four (4) Divisions, including Jackie Bemboom, Director of the Motor Vehicle and Driver Licensing Division.

Of all the people (and now other agencies) involved in the rogue DOR scandal – Jackie Bemboom has played the most central part.  At every turn it is her name and direct oversight

that bears the highest connectivity to the many unlawful actions related to this growing scandal.  If there is one key player who has the most involvement it is Jackie Bemboom. 

Her fingerprints are on more documents and details than everyone else combined!

Recap:

·         DOR violates the Driver’s Protection Act which prohibits the collection of personally identifying information.  Scanning citizen’s documents and creating a new database of information violates privacy rights.  Jackie Bemboom created and coordinated the implementation of this new licensing system!

·         DOR violates the State’s anti-Real ID Act which prohibits implementation of Real ID.  Using funds from Homeland Security, they work covertly to create driver licenses that are “compatible” to Real ID knowing the DHS defines “compatible” as the same as “compliant” with Real ID.  Jackie Bemboom was directly responsible for the administration of Homeland Security grants that were ‘hidden’ from the public and the Legislature!

·         DOR violates explicit Statutory prohibition against using biometric cameras.  Under oath it was Jackie Bemboom who had to admit that she had the option of using basic digital cameras, but chose voluntarily to contract (at higher prices) the use of illegal biometric cameras!

·         DOR violates Missouri’s Concealed Carry Weapons law which prohibits the disclosure of endorsees private identification to anyone other than law enforcement on an individual case by case bases.  Utilizing a private vendor for “central issuance” and by creating a database assessable by fee office agents (currently discontinued) violates this provision on two fronts. Jackie Bemboom agreed to the details and signed the contract with the French company Safran’s subsidiary MorphoTrust USA, giving them, and possibly DHS, Missourians CCW status!

·         DOR violates the State Disposition of State Property laws.  Having originally misled everyone to believe the old license processing equipment was only leased, DOR now says that equipment was purchased with taxpayers money.  If this story is the true one (?) DOR has violated State Statutes regarding disposition of State property by allowing the new private vendor to take  possession and destroy that equipment.  Jackie Bemboom signed the contract allowing MorphoTrust USA to take possession of State property for the purpose of destroying it, in direct violation of the law!  

·         DOR violated strict privacy protection laws by releasing the entire list of 163,000 Missouri citizen’s with CCW endorsements!  Jackie Benboom is the immediate Director over the division that had maintenance and responsibility for the confidentiality of this protected list, yet she allowed it to be released!

Jackie Bemboom, who holds a BS in Criminal Justice Administration, has no excuse for playing dumb about her role in this massive muli-year scandal and cover-up.  She has been involved in virtually every step of the conversion from our old and effective licensing process system, to today. She has never once taken the opportunity to speak up!  With multiple violations of State Statutes, she has time and again agreed to conspire against the citizens of Missouri and the elected members of the General Assembly!

Jackie Bemboom serves voluntarily as a director of the AAMVA, the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators.  This is the national group responsible for producing the “AAMVA DL/ID Security Framework, A Package of Decisions Based on Best Practices, Standards, Specifications and Recommendations to Enhanced Driver’s License Administration and Identification Security”.   While organized as a “private” entity, the AAMVA is a foreign international effort working from federal funding to develop, among other things, biometric technology for all of North America!

To complicate Jackie Bemboom’s conflicts of interest and subterfuge as an active leader within AAMVA while serving as Director of the Licensing Division of DOR – AAMVA was involved in

laying the groundwork development and promotion of the passage of the federal Real ID Act!  Certainly her position with both the State of Missouri and AAMVA is a direct conflict of interest!  

(visit: www.aamva.org for evidence and documentation of details in this message.)

Jackie Bemboom was fully aware of the 2011 Region III Information Exchange between states, with a Jurisdictional Showcase on Missouri DMV.  The PowerPoint presentation at that time 10/4/2011) included a “Real ID Communication Plan” including the “12-month timeline”.  Followed by a discussion of the challenges of “sending the right messages to the citizens of Missouri since we are prohibited from changing procedures to be REAL ID compliant”!

Jackie Benboom must be fired immediately! 

Contact your House and Senate members in Jefferson City to express your concern that Jackie Bemboom must be fired today! 

Call on Director Brian Long to fire her immediately! 

Call Governor Nixon and demand that she be fired now!

The Blackstone Initiative – Declaring the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God

 

 Q.         Who was Sir William Blackstone?

Sir William Blackstone was a renown English barrister, law professor, jurist, legislator, lecturer, and commentator.  But his most notable achievement was the writing of his Commentaries on the Laws of England.  The Commentaries, first publish in 1765, were cited and quoted by the Founding Fathers and by the early American courts more than any English or American authority.  They are, therefore, foundational to any understanding of the American constitutional and legal system.

Q.         What did the Commentaries say about the law?

Blackstone wrote about the Law of Nature, “This law of nature, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other - It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times; no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this: and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.

He also wrote about the Law of Revelation, “The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the holy scriptures.  These precepts, when revealed, are found upon comparison to be really a part of the riginal law of nature, as they tend in all their consequences to man's felicity.”

He concluded, therefore, “Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these.”

Q.       What is the Blackstone Initiative?

The Blackstone Initiative is a public policy organization devoted to this principle that upon these two foundations the law of nature and the law of Scripture depend all human law and that no human laws shall be suffered to contradict these.

Q.       What further principles is the Blackstone Initiative founded upon?

All subsequent and subordinate principles derive from the original principle.  For the present, the Blackstone Initiative proposes the following subordinate principles:

1.        The United States federal government is subservient to the state governments except in those limited enumerated powers granted to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution.

2.       The U.S. Constitution has a fixed meaning as originally written and ratified by the original thirteen colonies.  Any effort to make the U.S. Constitution a “living document” vacates it of all meaning and, ironically, destroying it in its very purpose, causes it to die.

3.       The word “federal,” being in meaning “covenantal,” the federal government was and is a product of a binding covenant between the states, the people and God, namely the U.S. Constitution, and failure of the federal government to be faithful to said covenant makes it null and void.

4.       Education is the process of inculcating a God loving culture in one generation by the prior generation and, therefore, education is not within the authority of the government except and only insofar as it fosters a legal climate in which education can be accomplished by individual families and the church.

5.       God’s primary tool of cultural change is the covenant renewal worship of His people.

Q.       How will these principles be pursued?

1.     By publication of substantive statements of position,

2.    By instruction on the foundational principles of this nation, and

3.    Interaction with Missouri legislators on Scriptural principles pertaining to legislation, and

4.    Dialogue with churches regarding these principles.

Q.       How can you help?

Jesus is "the Supreme Ruler of the Universe"

An excerpt from my speech to the Consent of the Governed Rally, January 4, 2012:

It is refreshing to read the preamble of the Missouri state constitution. It shows the wisdom of the men and women who formed our government. It provides their view of the justification for government. The preamble of the constitution reads as follows: “We the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness, do establish this constitution for the better government of the state.” The foundation for the government of the state of Missouri is reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe. Who is this Supreme Ruler? I would like to address that question, but before I do I would like to discuss one possible objection.


Someone may ask whether this preamble violates the separation of church and state. I suspect that most of you are aware that the language of separation of church and state is nowhere to be found in the constitution of the United States. That language was first applied to the federal government through the First Amendment in 1878 by the U.S. Supreme Court and later applied to the states in 1947 by that same august body. The language itself comes from Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. Jefferson was not even in the country during the debate of the First Amendment. It is a complete mystery to me how his words could be taken as an interpretation of the First Amendment when he was not present for the debate. To now allow that language to be used as a mantra to rid the nation of its Christian heritage is a travesty. And Missouri’s constitution is evidence of that travesty.

Rather than quoting someone who was not present during the debate on the First Amendment, I would prefer to quote someone who WAS there. This man said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” This command, we know as the Great Commission, is worthy of your reflection in this New Year. Consider it in this election year. What does it mean for our state and our nation?

I would like to make several points regarding this pronouncement. My comments will not be exhaustive. Many of you will have to flesh it out in the days to come. But I do have some preliminary comments. First, Jesus is the Supreme Ruler of the Universe. Note that he claims all authority in heaven and on earth has been given unto him. This is no hollow claim, and it is no hollow recognition by the framers of the Missouri Constitution that they hold reverence to the Supreme Ruler o f the Universe as the foundation of Missouri’s government. Therefore, the Missouri constitution is a covenant between God and the people to conduct themselves in accordance with that relationship, to be in subjection to him.

Second, and likely most importantly, Jesus came to make disciples of nations. Notice that he did not say, go and have people ask for me into their hearts. He did not say I have come to create a new philosophy for you. He commanded much more. He came to change the world by making disciples of all nations. He came to create a new world to follow him. The unfortunate thing about speaking of “Christianity” is that it can be portrayed as a philosophy, as simply a matter of the heart. If post-modern culture is successful in portraying the faith of Christ as simply a philosophy it may put Christianity on the shelf with all of the other post-modern philosophies and relegate it to irrelevancy. Jesus did not come to start a new philosophy. He came to change the world by changing nations.

Third, when Jesus pronounced this command, he made it to his eleven disciples. He made it to those who would found his new Church. He made it to the Church. The institutional Church has authority in this world to execute the change that Christ initiated. I am not claiming that the Church should exert some ruling authority over the state. But I am claiming that there is a place for the institutional Church to reassert its role in the dialogue of the proper authority of the church and of the state. For example, the state has no authority in providing charity to the poor. When the state takes responsibility for charity, it does so by law, and charity dies because it becomes legal obligation and no longer charity. The state exists to execute justice. When the state takes the property of some in order to redistribute it to others, it is doing the exact opposite of what it is supposed to do, execute justice. It is unjustly confiscating the lives of its people. Charity is the role of the church and the church should say so.

Likewise, the Church should reengage in its role in education. Education is the process whereby culture is transferred from one generation to the next. Education is by its very nature religious and cultural. It forms the way the next generation looks at the world. It forms the way we say Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays. It informs what we occupy, whether Wall Street, our own homes, jobs and churches. The Church has its very existence in cultural formation as Jesus claimed. And it is time for the Church to say so.

Fourth, YOU have an obligation as well. When you speak to your elected officials, you must remember that you are not seeking your will but the will of Jesus. This requires wisdom. You must keep several things in mind. You are not speaking for yourself. You are speaking for another. You must know his thoughts and desires.

You must also remember that your elected official is ordained by God to his or her position. It is a position of honor that God has given that elected official, and the position must be respected.

There is great honor in being an elected official in the state of Missouri, but there is also great obligation. Jesus expects the nations to bend the knee to his kingship. He expects them to be disciples. That is an awful position to be in as an elected official. How does an elected official carry out that responsibility? Certainly, there are consequences that flow from a proper or an improper execution of that task. Your job is to assist your elected official to fulfill that obligation if they so choose.

In closing, I say I am slow to speak of Christianity. What Christ gave us is not a philosophy. He gave us a culture. We must pass that culture on to the next generation. I prefer to speak of Christendom, the new culture Christ gave us. And I am optimistic about the role of Christendom in the future. Consider the Great Commission once again. Jesus claimed to have all authority in heaven and on earth. He also commanded his church to make disciples of all nations. If he commands us to so act and he has all authority to bring our actions to success, what can possibly keeping him from completing that task?

A Christmas Wish for Our Nation

O. Palmer Robertson, in the fourteenth chapter of his book Christ of the Prophets, makes the point that the core theme of the Prophets of the Old Testament is the working of exile and restoration. Exile and restoration are never completely inseparable.

As we read the Old Testament Prophets, it is often hard to make specific applications to our lives. These prophets wrote to a community long ago, to a culture as foreign to ours as any can possibly be, separated by time and history. What we learn from the Old Testament Prophets is an understanding of how Yahweh thinks and acts, particularly how He acts through His covenant. If we read the prophets in the context of the entire Old Covenant, the concepts of exile and restoration are one particular aspect of the blessings and curses of His covenantal dealings with His people.

If we review the blessings and curses in Deuteronomy, we find that the blessings of the covenant are always given in conjunction with the curses of the covenant. Blessing and cursing virtually always work together. Genesis 1-3 provides a key understanding of how this works out in our labor. Labor or work is simultaneously a blessing and a curse. Ecclesiastes portrays this reality in poetic form.

In the Prophets, Yahweh, the covenant God, executes the blessings and curses in exile and restoration. In some cases, curses are the precursor to blessings. In some cases, the curses to one people are blessings to others. In all cases, curses bring about a radical reorientation in people, nations or the world that allow Yahweh to create something completely new.

The pinnacle of His working of His covenantal blessings and curses is the incarnation of His eternal Son in the person of the Lord Jesus. Jesus submitted to the covenantal curse of the cross and in doing so permitted His Father to create something new. The Father, through His Son, created a new reality, a God-man who was suitable to rule all of creation at the right hand of His Father. He is now seated there with all authority in heaven and earth.

This nation and the entire world have been going through a time of cursing. I am not going to speculate on the extent or length of this cursing. However, as we go through this Christmas season, let us remember that cursing is not without result. Cursing brings blessing in some shape or form, all under His care and supervision. The important thing to do is to remember that Yahweh is sovereign. While we work to change our nation for the better, remember not to give into despair. Be willing to submit to the workings of Yahweh. He is creating something new.

The Uniter vs. The Divider

Peggy Noonan last week in her op ‘Ed “The Divider vs. the Thinker” in the Wall Street Journal, asked the question, what is the glue that has held America together for the past 200 years that now appears to be cracking, threatening to allow the many divisions in our nation to drive us to destruction? Ms. Noonan’s answer:

A love of country based on a shared knowledge of how and why it began; a broad feeling among our citizens that there was something providential in our beginnings; a gratitude that left us with a sense that we should comport ourselves in a way unlike the other nations of the world, that more was expected of us, and not unjustly— "To whom much is given much is expected"; a general understanding that we were something new in history, a nation founded on ideals and aspirations—liberty, equality—and not mere grunting tribal wants. We were from Europe but would not be European: No formal class structure here, no limits, from the time you touched ground all roads would lead forward. You would be treated not as your father was but as you deserved. That's from "The Killer Angels," a historical novel about the Civil War fought to right a wrong the Founders didn't right. We did in time, and at great cost. What a country.

Ms. Noonan is on to something, but what she is on to remains remotely hidden in the background, hidden behind the word “providential.” There is much good in Ms. Noonan’s piece, much worthy in the way of good advice. However, unless what remains in the background is brought forth, her proposition ironically will simply add to the decline. Ms. Noonan has adequately expressed in her piece the modern day, American secular gospel, something that has come to be known as American exceptionalism. But this secular gospel is a cheap, superficial imitation of the true source of social unity.

At the founding of our nation, there was a common consensus that the God of the Bible was the king of the universe. The world and the nation were ruled by a king that had given himself to die for the sins of all those who sought to subject themselves to him. This God of mercy and grace not only made a way for a sinner to obtain a right relationship with God and with his fellow man. He taught his subjects how to conduct themselves in society. Our founding fathers established this nation on the proposition that its people would act as Christians, in the same character of mercy and grace as their heavenly father. John Adams claimed that, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Alexis de Tocqueville wrote that, “The Americans combine the notions of religion and liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive of one without the other.” Patrick Henry proclaimed, "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians not on religionists, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ! For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity and freedom of worship here.”

Scripture is replete with declarations that a man or woman will take on the characteristics of his god. If we are being divided, it is only because we have taken on the characteristic of our god. The secular gospel, American exceptionalism, and the Federal Government have become our god. Who do we turn to for security in our employment? The Federal Government. Who do we turn to for security in our old age? The Federal Government. Who do we turn to for the security in our healthcare? The Federal Government. The Federal Government has become our god. Is it any wonder that we are being divided?

Government as god inculcates the character of litigation. In government, there is no room for mercy or compassion. There is only law. Law begets demands of right and obligation. When confiscation through tax policy becomes law, confiscation becomes justice, greed becomes institutionalized.

The core character of government today is divisiveness. White House advisors recommend that the victor in the White House should reap the spoils of his victory for his followers. The media echoes this refrain. Democrats seek to structure tax policy to take away blessings from the rich. Republicans seek to give tax benefits to select mercantile interests. If an interest can obtain 51% of the vote of the elected legislative body, government can legislate a solution and declare more rights and obligations. With each declaration of rights and obligations, we become more and more slaves to our governments.

Occupy Wall Street is a perfect example of how we have taken on the characteristic of our god the Federal Government. Those who occupy Wall Street have some apparent claim that they are entitled to some interest in Wall Street. However, they refuse to share what they have with the less privileged. They occupy but they do not bless. They claim and commit acts of violence. This attitude is far from the attitude embraced by our founders: “Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need. (Eph 4:28 ESV)”

America is exceptional. It is exceptional because it was founded upon two millennia of a growing and developing Christian heritage. To look to America without looking through America to that heritage will reinforce the American idolatry that is making us a divisive nation. It is better to look through America to the God that gave it liberty in the first place. Benjamin Franklin, no evangelical apologist, observed, “The longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?” Better than depending on American exceptionalism is the praying the third verse of the old hymn of Henry Harbaugh:

Let our rulers ever be
Men that love and honor Thee;
Let the powers by Thee ordained
Be in righteousness maintained;
In the people's hearts increase
Love of piety and peace;
Thus united we shall stand
One wide, free, and happy land.

Using the Right Tool in America

A confluence of events has come together that make it apparent that our governing officials do not know how to use the proper tools in the cultural tool belt. Is it useful to use a hammer on a bolt? Is it effective to drive in a nail with a screw driver? Our carpenters know what tools are useful to build a house but our legislators are not so astute.

Consider that the U.S. government is now in debt in excess of $14 trillion. Social Security is in a shambles. Hurricane relief in New Orleans was a fiasco. More recently, Senators Blunt and McCaskill have complained about relief funds being diverted from Joplin to the east coast. Finally, our state officials have debated whether millions of dollars of tax credits should be given to private enterprises to induce them to make a hub in St. Louis, commonly known as the China Hub or Aerotropolis. Our elected officials have determined that they can do all of these things and they are not doing any of them well.

Western Civilization has, at least until the last century, held a common consensus that there are three cultural tools in the world’s tool box: the family, the church and the magistrate. Each of these institutions has been identified with a recognizable symbol. The family is represented by the rod as described in Proverbs. The rod is a symbol for discipline, discipleship and education. The church has been given the symbol of the keys of the kingdom as Christ gave the keys of the kingdom to the disciples in Matthew 16:19. The keys of the kingdom symbolize spiritual, emotional and physical wellbeing. The magistrate or the state has been given the symbol of the sword as described in Romans 13. More particularly, in America, we have taken on the symbol of lady justice, blindfolded, holding the scales of justice. These two symbols communicate protection of the nation and an impartial judgment of right and wrong.

However, in the past century we have seen the federal government and now the states more and more taking the rod and the keys of the kingdom. Simultaneously, we have seen it and the states relinquish the sword and the scales of justice. What have these efforts obtained? In their taking up of the keys of the kingdom, our federal and state governments have created a social security system that is bankrupt. They have obtained our children’s children being saddled with $14 trillion of debt. They have produced low income housing at a cost in excess of $200,000 per unit. In their usurpation of the rod, our state officials have produced an educational system that is dysfunctional, bordering on a culture of crime. By proselytizing our young minds to be good workers for the state, they have enculturated good little wards of the state. All the while, our borders are breached, our defenses are compromised and our citizens must pay the price by invasions of privacy from laws such as the Patriot Act.

It is interesting to compare two recent events. First, both of Missouri’s U.S. Senators decry the recent diversion of relief funds from Joplin to the east coast to remedy disasters. Second, the Missouri Senate has debated the propriety of giving tax credits to private enterprise to induce the Chinese to create jobs in Missouri. The Senate debate is complex. On the one side, liberals decry the possible reduction in benefits to the needy for the benefit of the industrial class of our culture. In many ways, this is parallel to diversion of funds from Joplin to the east coast. Who is to say who is more deserving? On the other side of the Aerotropolis debate, you have some conservatives claiming that we need to make better investments with taxpayers’ money. But how can a government make investments with a sword and its eyes blindfolded? The common wisdom holds true. If you do that, someone will lose an eye.

In America today, governments love to throw money around to accomplish their social designs. Governments only obtain their money from taxation. Frederic Bastiat referred to taxation for such purposes as “legal plunder.” We, as a nation, have embraced such legal plunder. It is our life blood. Without it, even conservatives believe our culture will collapse. However, the flaw in legal plunder can be seen in the recent events of the east coast hurricane and Aerotropolis. Once you give in to “legal plunder” you must accept the directives that control the legal plunder. You may not like where the planners send your money, but having accepted it to begin with you must abide their decisions. If you accept legal plunder for Joplin, you must accept it when Joplin is plundered for the east coast. If you accept legal plunder for the poor, you must accept it when the poor are plundered for Chinese businessmen. Wouldn’t it be better to let the church and the local community attend to the truly needy and let business tend to itself?

A screw driven by a hammer is ineffective and usually destructive of quality workmanship. Compassion driven by law is messy and destructive of human dignity. It is time for our federal and state governments to reassess their roles and their function. It is time for our elected officials to seriously contemplate what they can do well with a sword and a blindfold on and quit pocking people in the eyes.

A Friendly Rebuke to the Missouri Chamber of Commerce

I am a fan of the Missouri Chamber of Commerce. I am a proud member. However, on the issue of investing state money in an International Air Cargo Hub, they are simply wrong. In the most recent issue of the Chamber’s newsletter to its members, Daniel Mehan, Chamber President and CEO, urges “lawmakers to show true leadership and finally put the unproductive tax credit debate behind them, and allow opportunities like these to create jobs in Missouri.”


Mr. Mehan casts the issue for discussion as follows: “We are spending time debating the wrong issue. The question is not whether Missouri should invest funds in economic development initiatives. The real question that we should be asking: How can Missouri best invest these funds?” It is very simple to waive the hand and dismiss a question; it is more difficult to engage an issue and resolve it. The remainder of Mr. Mehan’s piece is devoted to a speculative agenda of how investing “these funds” will bring jobs to Missouri. I hope by asking a few simple questions I will bring Mr. Mehan back to the point of asking the first question of whether Missouri should invest the funds and answer it in the negative.

First, if it is so important to invest “these funds,” would the Chamber be willing to provide these funds in its budget to be funded by Chamber members? (Be clear: if so, I will allow my membership to laps. I do not want to be an investor in Aerotropolis, whether it is by Chamber agreement or governmental fiat.) Remember, government produces nothing. Government produces laws. Through law, government must take funds from its citizens in order to pay for its services. To invest “these funds” it must take “these funds” from others. Is this investment important enough that the Chamber would be willing to invest them directly? Or should the legislature confiscate the property of Mr. Mehan to make the investment? If not, why should I be expected to by paying higher taxes?

Second, if it is not appropriate to debate whether “these funds” should be invested, then in every case the ends justify the means. Suppose that I can put four men to work if I possess a backhoe but I cannot afford a backhoe. If my neighbor has a backhoe that he is not using, but refuses to allow me to take it from him, am I justified in stealing it? After all, I can put it to better use than he can. According to Mr. Mehan’s analysis, I should be able to confiscate the useless backhoe, for it is not appropriate to discuss “whether.”

If we are going to have true economic development, it must be an economic development which is based on justice, not coercion. Economic development that is based on governmental incentives is fleeting and counterproductive. If I have a thousand dollars in disposable income, I have the option to spend it as I see fit. I may buy a new television, a new camera, or new equipment for my business. Each of these economic transactions is an investment in economic development. It is an investment in a product or service which has value to not only me but the individuals that previously invested in and developed the product or service. If the government confiscates five hundred dollars, it has not only deprived me of the ability to invest my full thousand dollars, it has invested in an inherently less valuable investment. If the tax credits are required to induce the investment, it is clear that the investment would not have been made but for the economic bribe needed to increase the investment’s return. And once the incentive ceases, there is no expectation that the investment will continue without the incentive.

The fact that the confiscation is guised in the power of the government for most changes the debate. We live in a culture in which government routinely takes from some to give to others. So it is appropriate to do it in this case as well, correct? NO. This is a mindset that must change. This last year, the Missouri Chamber took positions on labor legislation that was designed to reduce government power exercised by unions over employers. I applaud the Chamber’s positions on such matters. Economic liberty means minimizing or eliminating governmental coercion in economic transactions. However, in urging government to use its legal authority to manipulate economic transactions, the Missouri Chamber is undercutting its own position. Socialism is the abuse of governmental power against some citizens for the benefit of other citizens. The Missouri Chamber’s position as framed Mr. Mehan’s article, while being a different type of socialism from the Obama type socialism, i.e. corporate welfare, it is still socialism. Mr. Mehan should not be using the Missouri Chamber as a mouthpiece for economic injustice. If he expects the legislature to provide economic liberty to Chamber members, he should expect them to provide economic liberty for all.

Substantive Due Process: Calder v. Bull 3 U.S. 386 (1798)

This is a concept in Constitutional Law which must be reclaimed:


I cannot subscribe to the omnipotence of a state legislature, or that it is absolute and without control, although its authority should not be expressly restrained by the constitution or fundamental law of the state. The people of the United States erected their constitutions, or forms of government, to establish justice, to promote the general welfare, to secure the blessings of liberty, and to protect their persons and property from violence. The purposes for which men enter into society will determine the nature and terms of the social compact, and as they are the foundation of the legislative power, they will decide what are the proper objects of it. The nature and ends of legislative power will limit the exercise of it. This fundamental principle flows from the very nature of our free republican governments that no man should be compelled to do what the laws do not require nor to refrain from acts which the laws permit. There are acts which the federal or state legislature cannot do without exceeding their authority. There are certain vital principles in our free republican governments which will determine and overrule an apparent and flagrant abuse of legislative power, as to authorize manifest injustice by positive law or to take away that security for personal liberty or private property for the protection whereof of the government was established. An act of the legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority. The obligation of a law in governments established on express compact and on republican principles must be determined by the nature of the power on which it is founded.

A few instances will suffice to explain what I mean. A law that punished a citizen for an innocent action, or in other words for an act which when done was in violation of no existing law; a law that destroys or impairs the lawful private contracts of citizens; a law that makes a man a judge in his own cause, or a law that takes property from A. and gives it to B. It is against all reason and justice for a people to entrust a legislature with such powers, and therefore it cannot be presumed that it has done it. The genius, the nature, and the spirit of our state governments amount to a prohibition of such acts of legislation, and the general principles of law and reason forbid them. The legislature may enjoin, permit, forbid, and punish; It may declare new crimes and establish rules of conduct for all its citizens in future cases; it may command what is right and prohibit what is wrong, but it cannot change innocence into guilt or punish innocence as a crime or violate the right of an antecedent lawful private contract or the right of private property. To maintain that our federal or state legislature possesses such powers if it had not been expressly restrained would, in my opinion, be a political heresy altogether inadmissible in our free republican governments.

Clueless on Education

In a recent editorial in the Wall Street Journal, Jeb Bush and Joel Kline penned their opinion to return the American educational system to excellence.  In their initial paragraph they set forth the problem:

The success of today's students will determine our nation's destiny. America's economic strength and standing in the world economy are directly linked to our ability to equip students with the knowledge and skills to succeed in the 21st-century economy. Students are no longer competing with their peers in other cities—they are competing with students across the globe. Business leaders have become champions of education reform, recognizing the role that rigorous academic standards have on their success.

Their opinion proceeded to attribute the responsibility for education to the states and to champion the need for common core standards. They concluded with a hopeful eschatology:

It is the states' responsibility to foster an education system that leads to rising student achievement. State leaders, educators, teachers and parents are empowered to ensure every student has access to the best curriculum and learning environment. Governors and lawmakers across the country are acting to adopt bold education reform policies. This is the beauty of our federal system. It provides 50 testing sites for reform and innovation. The Common Core State Standards are an example of states recognizing a problem, then working together, sharing what works and what doesn't.

Unfortunately, Messrs. Bush and Kline’s analysis suffers from no less than three flaws. First, they misunderstand the goal of education, the need to make an economic engine out of our children. Second, they misidentify the institution responsible for education. Third, they misidentify the substance of education.

Common Core State Standards will not correct the woeful education in our government school system. Education is vastly more than a list of things to know. To their credit, they do pay lip service to the need for more when they write, “The literacy standards require students to make arguments with evidence rather than just restate their own opinions or experiences.” However, to truly understand the full import of educational reform, this simple statement is insufficient.

Education consists in teaching a person how to think and inculcating a love for learning. The ancient Greeks had the concept of making the ideal man, the paideia. The early Christian Church expanded upon this concept for the paideia of God. At the core of the paideia of God was inculcating in each person the love for learning. This classical approach to education recognized that children develop in their educational process through three phases: a grammar phase, a logical phase and a rhetorical phase, more commonly known as the trivium. Any parent can see these phases in his or her children. There is a phase during which a child enjoys and is good at simple memorization. As the child matures, he or she begins to think more abstractly and asks the question “why?” He or she begins to interrelate concepts in order to draw conclusions. An understanding of logic becomes critical at this phase. Finally, there is a stage at which a child revels in argument. The goal of education is to teach a child how to marshal all of the knowledge and logic of situation for the purpose of persuasion, to come to a conclusion for one’s self and for others. The ancient Hebrew would have referred to these characteristics as knowledge, understanding and wisdom.

This brings us to the second flaw in Bush’s and Kline’s analysis: the one responsible for education. The family is the God ordained institution for raising and educating children. This is inherent in the created order. When my wife and I brought our three daughters into the world, they were not immediately swept away to become wards of the state. They were given to my wife and me to love and care for, and to educate. My wife and I know our daughters better than anyone else in the world--at least until their marriage. They remain my responsibility to educate.

Although there has been over the course of the last century a progressive movement to make the state the caretaker of our children, it is this movement that has been the downfall of our culture. What is government? Government is an institution created to enforce rights and administer justice. Government acts through the execution of law. Law is a set of standards by which people must live. When government speaks of common core standards that is all it can speak of: “standards.” By its very nature, government is limited in its ability to provide education in that it can only speak to the grammar phase, the mere content of knowledge. It must truncate its education prior to the logic and rhetoric phase. It cannot teach the beauty of a good syllogism or a beautiful poem, because the student must meet certain “standards” of knowledge.

Some will respond that the government can and typically does go beyond teaching grammar. And I will readily admit that it does, but the question remains, can it appropriately do so. Our founding fathers, who were classically trained, understood that one primary goal of education is the inculcation of virtue in accordance with a standard of truth. An understanding of virtue and truth is critical to a right logic and a right rhetoric. However, today we live in a society of enforced relativism. Who defines virtue and truth? Can the state define virtue? Remember that there is a so called “separation of church and state” in this nation. Whose virtue and truth will the government teach? Either the government must truncate its education at the grammar phase or it must violate the separation of church and state it has so carefully built.

This brings us to the third and most significant flaw of Bush’s and Kline’s analysis. The flaw is that the purpose of education is to make our children servants of our economic machine. This concept is foreign to western civilization up until the last hundred years or so. Western civilization grew on the concept of the paideia. The Renaissance was the recovery in medieval western culture founded on classical thinking, founded on paideia. Classical learning, the Renaissance, produced the greatest works of art, literature, theology, and industry in the medieval age. Our founding fathers were great men who were classically educated in ancient philosophy as well as Christian ideas. Many of them were trained in multiple classical languages and read the original thinkers throughout history. We have rejected these characteristics in return for a smug attitude of technological, economic and utilitarian superiority.

The Missouri Constitution provides that, “A general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence being essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people, the general assembly shall establish and maintain free public schools for the gratuitous instruction of all persons in this state within ages not in excess of twenty-one years as prescribed by law.” The first part of the above proposition provides the motivation for the provision of gratuitous instruction. The motivation of the state is to maintain the rights and liberties of the people. Unfortunately, our culture has lost the greater importance of an educated people, the paideia. What should be considered as a safety net for education for the state, has been made the pinnacle of education. What should be considered a last resort has become the paradigm of education.

The paradox of education is that when you design education to achieve a goal, you lose true education. The paradox is similar to the dog and his bone. Upon seeing a reflection of himself in the lake and thinking it was another dog with another bone, he drops his bone in order to obtain the bone of the other dog. In his efforts he loses his bone. As we turn our eyes to a goal of obtaining education for some purpose other than the love for learning, we lose the love for learning and seek only self advancement. By keeping our focus on inculcating a love for learning, we disciple people to love to think. People who love to think can teach themselves to engage in any economic endeavor.

Senator Kurt Schaefer has already expressed his priority for the legislature’s budget next year on the matter of education. Education will become an increasingly significant issue in the years to come. While money is not bad, it should be used in accordance with truly worthy goals and in accordance with appropriate methods. If we are to recover an education system that works, it must inculcate a love for learning, be controlled by parents and produce thinkers, not just those who know things.

Kill All the Lawyers

The phrase "kill all the lawyers," often attributed to Shakespeare as expressing distaste for lawyers, is in reality a complement if the comment is taken in its context.  The following is the text of a portion of Part 2 of King Henry the VI:

Drum. Enter CADE, DICK the Butcher, SMITH the Weaver, and a Sawyer, with infinite numbers


CADE

We John Cade, so termed of our supposed father,--

DICK

[Aside] Or rather, of stealing a cade of herrings.

CADE

For our enemies shall fall before us, inspired with
the spirit of putting down kings and princes,
--Command silence.

DICK

Silence!

CADE

My father was a Mortimer,--

DICK

[Aside] He was an honest man, and a good
bricklayer.

CADE

My mother a Plantagenet,--

DICK

[Aside] I knew her well; she was a midwife.

CADE

My wife descended of the Lacies,--

DICK

[Aside] She was, indeed, a pedler's daughter, and
sold many laces.

SMITH

[Aside] But now of late, notable to travel with her
furred pack, she washes bucks here at home.

CADE

Therefore am I of an honourable house.

DICK

[Aside] Ay, by my faith, the field is honourable;
and there was he borne, under a hedge, for his
father had never a house but the cage.

CADE

Valiant I am.

SMITH

[Aside] A' must needs; for beggary is valiant.

CADE

I am able to endure much.

DICK

[Aside] No question of that; for I have seen him
whipped three market-days together.

CADE

I fear neither sword nor fire.

SMITH

[Aside] He need not fear the sword; for his coat is of proof.

DICK

[Aside] But methinks he should stand in fear of
fire, being burnt i' the hand for stealing of sheep.

CADE

Be brave, then; for your captain is brave, and vows
reformation. There shall be in England seven
halfpenny loaves sold for a penny: the three-hooped
pot; shall have ten hoops and I will make it felony
to drink small beer: all the realm shall be in
common; and in Cheapside shall my palfrey go to
grass: and when I am king, as king I will be,--

ALL

God save your majesty!

CADE

I thank you, good people: there shall be no money;
all shall eat and drink on my score; and I will
apparel them all in one livery, that they may agree
like brothers and worship me their lord.

DICK

The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

CADE

Nay, that I mean to do. Is not this a lamentable
thing, that of the skin of an innocent lamb should
be made parchment? that parchment, being scribbled
o'er, should undo a man? Some say the bee stings:
but I say, 'tis the bee's wax; for I did but seal
once to a thing, and I was never mine own man
since. How now! who's there?

Freedom and not the Patriot Act

For the past few weeks I have been dialoguing with many in the tea party movement about the Patriot Act. Many in the tea party object to a vote for the Patriot Act. They claim the Patriot Act violates the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a serious charge. My perspective has been “who cares?” Don’t get me wrong, the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is critically important, but what is more important is the liberty of all citizens. Indeed, all of the U.S. Constitution is important. And that is the point. It is all of the U.S. Constitution that is important.

The improper expansion of rights granted by the U.S. Constitution can take away freedoms just as easily as the improper retraction of those rights. We know this from the so called right of privacy found within some specious penumbra of rights in the Bill of Rights. The creation of the right of privacy has given us the right of a mother to murder her unborn child. We must think critically about the Fourth Amendment. An inappropriate expansion of criminal rights can harm the rights of law abiding citizens as well as crime victims. The Fourth Amendment states as follows:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The citizens of this great nation are to be secure in their “persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Are our citizens being subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures? I will grant that they are. All you have to do is recall the many recent stories of the groping that goes on at our national airports.

However, the point I continually try to make to those who object to the Patriot Act is that you must distinguish between the law and the administration of the law. The law may be fine, but it may be abused. In that case, it is the abuse of the law and not the law itself that is at fault. It is the execution of the law and not the law that must be changed.

One fine patriot pointed me to a recent editorial by Bruce Fein: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=1439.  This is an excellent article regarding the guarantees of liberty found in our Constitution. Unfortunately, it has very little substantive to say about the Patriot Act. The most substantive charges against the Patriot Act are contained in one brief paragraph toward the end of the piece:

Section 206 of the Patriot Act authorizing roving wiretaps to collect foreign intelligence; section 215 authorizing orders to seize any "tangible thing" like books or computer hard drives to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities; section 505 authorizing National Security Letters to seize customer records of financial institutions, credit bureaus, and telecommunications providers by the government's assertion of relevance to preventing international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities; and, section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 authorizing surveillance against hypothetical "lone wolf" international terrorists are all abusive of citizen liberty because they encroach on the right to be left alone without probable cause to believe the target is implicated in crime.

This is helpful in that it provides specific allegations on particular provisions. I could quibble over the fact that these provisions are primarily focused on foreign terrorism and not citizens. I could quibble over the fact that these provisions related to things that are outside of “persons, houses, papers, and effects” and relate primarily to open communications that people have no right to expect to be private. But I will not. I will grant they permit the conduct which violates the Fourth Amendment, thereby removing the distinction between the administration of the law and the law itself. I will assume that the evil conduct we observed is authorized by the law.

Having made these concessions about the law, I would make a different point. As I read the piece by Mr. Fein, I am reminded of a point that I have been making for some time. Our liberties have been under continuous and increasing harassment for almost a century from the federal tyrant. We are subjected to the straight jacket of regulated compassion in the form of the confiscation of our property for food stamps, employment security, social security, health care security. Our industry has been violated by environmental regulation. Our companies are told where they may locate. Our employees are told with whom they may associate. We are in bondage to our federal slave master. Why should they not also think they can wire tap and search our property?

Those within the tea party movement that quibble over one vote on the Patriot Act are making a point to small. They have lost or never seen the grand vision of the original tea party, liberty for the entire culture. This quibbling over one vote on the Patriot Act is beneath the vision of our founding. It is not the Patriot Act that is denying our people liberty; it is the many different failures and malfeasances of our federal government.  It is the arrogance of the federal tyrant.

Government has a proper authority and it has areas beyond its authority. We lose liberty when government fails to fulfill its proper authority and attempts to usurp authority not granted to it. Some argue that certain breaches of the Fourth Amendment must be accommodated in light of 9/11. I do not make that argument. My argument is that when 9/11 occurred, we had already lost our liberty. Our liberty was lost when the federal government failed to fulfill its proper duty: defend our borders. Our liberty was lost when the federal tyrant, inebriated with its own power and agenda, failed to serve the people by protecting the borders.  The Patriot Act is simply an attempt to cut our losses on liberty already lost. It is like a hockey goalie backing up into the net and kicking the puck out of the net after it is in the net. We can all agree that the puck needs to come out. We can quibble over how the puck should come out of the net, but at that point, the game is already lost. Those good patriots who want to quibble over a vote on the Patriot Act need to expand their vision.

Paul Lake wrote a wonderful little story, Cry Wolf. Cry Wolf, after the genre of Charlotte’s Web, describes a community of farm animals. Upon the death of the farmer, the farm animals enter into covenant to protect the community. However, one day, an injured deer happens to come upon the farm. A debate ensues as to whether the farm animals should give aid and comfort and ultimate membership to the injured deer. The owl advises that it is beneath the dignity of the community to deny the deer admittance. What follows are a number of circumstances which test the covenant and expand the list of animals permitted in the community, until, at last wolves are admitted. The story continues without one farm animal ever recognizing that their advice is coming from an owl, one who was never a member of the original covenant. The community is ultimately destroyed because it has lost sight of its original covenant.

We have a national covenant. It is found in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. We have lost our vision of our national covenant. Our national legislature is infested with those who flaunt our national covenant as of no consequence. There are advisors in our midst that deny that we are, “One nation under God.” We must oust those who are not committed to the covenant. The tea party should regain and champion the vision of the founding of the nation and quit quibbling over small matters such as votes over the Patriot Act. Our founders were radical thinkers. They sought liberty and they gave their blood for it. There is a memorable line in Mel Gibson’s movie Braveheart. After some disputation with the nobles regarding strategy in responding to the king Longshanks, William Wallace makes the following statement to the nobles: “You're so concerned with squabbling for the scraps from Longshank's table that you've missed your God given right to something better. There is a difference between us. You think the people of this country exist to provide you with position. I think your position exists to provide those people with freedom. And I go to make sure that they have it.” I call on the tea party to remember this admonition. Look beyond the one single vote and develop a strategy for freedom.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9AG3Z9Nyu0.

From Carol Bloomberg

The only thing I will contest is that the whole thing started in 2010:

Thanksgiving 2020

"Winston, come into the dining room, it's time to eat", Julia yelled to her husband. "In a minute, honey, it's a tie score," he answered. Actually Winston wasn't very interested in the traditional holiday football game between Detroit and Washington. Ever since the government passed the Civility in Sports Statute of 2017, outlawing tackle football for its "unseemly violence" and the "bad example it sets for the rest of the world", Winston was far less of a football fan than he used to be. Two-hand touch wasn't nearly as exciting.

Yet it wasn't the game that Winston was uninterested in. It was more the thought of eating another Tofu Turkey.

Even though it was the best type of Veggie Meat available after the government revised the American Anti-Obesity Act of 2018, adding fowl to the list of federally-forbidden foods, (which already included potatoes, cranberry sauce and mince-meat pie), it wasn't anything like real turkey. And ever since the government officially changed the name of "Thanksgiving Day" to "A National Day of Atonement" in 2020 to officially acknowledge the Pilgrims historically brutal treatment of Native Americans, the holiday had lost a lot of its luster.

Eating in the dining room was also a bit daunting. The unearthly gleam of government-mandated fluorescent light bulbs made the Tofu Turkey look even weirder than it actually was, and the room was always cold. Ever since Congress passed the Power Conservation Act of 2016, mandating all thermostats "which were monitored and controlled by the electric company" be kept at 68 degrees, every room on the north side of the house was barely tolerable throughout the entire winter.

Still, it was good getting together with family. Or at least most of the family. Winston missed his mother, who passed on in October, when she had used up her legal allotment of life-saving medical treatment. He had had many heated conversations with the Regional Health Consortium, spawned when the private insurance market finally went bankrupt, and everyone was forced into the government health care program. And though he demanded she be kept on her treatment, it was a futile effort. The RHC's resources are limited, explained the government bureaucrat Winston spoke with on the phone. "Your mother received all the benefits to which she was entitled. I'm sorry for your loss".

Ed couldn't make it either. He had forgotten to plug in his electric car last night, the only kind available after the Anti-Fossil Fuel Bill of 2019 outlawed the use of the combustion engines for everyone but government officials. The fifty mile round trip was about ten miles too far, and Ed didn't want to spend a frosty night on the road somewhere between here and there.

Thankfully, Winston's brother, John, and his wife were flying in. Winston made sure that the dining room chairs had extra cushions for the occasion. No one complained more than John about the pain of sitting down so soon after the government-mandated cavity searches at airports, which severely aggravated his hemorrhoids. Ever since a terrorist successfully smuggled a cavity bomb onto a jetliner, the TSA told Americans the added "inconvenience" was an "absolute necessity" in order to stay "one step ahead of the terrorists". Winston's own body had grown accustomed to such probing ever since the government expanded their scope to just about anywhere a crowd gathered, via Anti-Profiling Act of 2017. That law made it a crime to single out any group or individual for "unequal scrutiny", even when probable cause was involved. Thus, cavity searches at malls, train stations, bus depots, etc., etc., had become almost routine. Almost.

The Supreme Court is reviewing the statute, but most Americans expect a Court composed of six progressives and three conservatives to leave the law intact. "A living Constitution is extremely flexible", said the Court's eldest member, Elena Kagan. "Europe has had laws like this one for years. We should learn from their example", she added.

Winston's thoughts turned to his own children. He got along fairly well with his 12-year-old daughter, Brittany, mostly because she ignored him. Winston had long ago surrendered to the idea that she could text anyone at any time, even during Atonement Dinner. Their only real confrontation had occurred when he limited her to 50,000 texts a month, explaining that was all he could afford. She whined for a week, but got over it.

His 16-year-old son, Jason, was another matter altogether. Perhaps it was the constant bombarding he got in public school that global warming, the bird flu, terrorism or any of a number of other calamities were "just around the corner", but Jason had developed a kind of nihilistic attitude that ranged between simmering surliness and outright hostility. It didn't help that Jason had reported his father to the police for smoking a cigarette in the house, an act made criminal by the Smoking Control Statute of 2018, which outlawed smoking anywhere within 500 feet of another human being. Winston paid the $5000 fine, which might have been considered excessive before the American dollar became virtually worthless as a result of QE13. The latest round of quantitative easing the federal government initiated was, once again, to "spur economic growth". This time they promised to push unemployment below its years-long rate of 18%, but Winston was not particularly hopeful.

Yet the family had a lot for which to be thankful, Winston thought, before remembering it was a Day of Atonement. At least he had his memories. He felt a twinge of sadness when he realized his children would never know what life was like in the Good Old Days, long before government promises to make life "fair for everyone" realized their full potential. Winston, like so many of his fellow Americans, never realized how much things could change when they didn't happen all at once, but little by little, so people could get used to them.

He wondered what might have happened if the public had stood up while there was still time, maybe back around 2010, when all the real nonsense began. Maybe we wouldn't be where we are today if we'd just said "enough is enough" when we had the chance, he thought.

Maybe so, Winston. Maybe so

Why I Support Todd Akin for U.S. Senate

This is a piece that I have wanted to write for some time. However, it is hard to write. In some senses it is too simple. In others, it is too difficult. Simply put, Todd Akin is the right man for the United States Senate. His commitments to the U.S. Constitution are firm. His track record is faithful to his commitments. And he is a man of continuing faithfulness to his commitments. More complexly, well, where do I start . . . ?

There are certain men who seem to cut across popular culture who refuse to let popular culture affect them. Ronald Reagan was such a man. In a time when many spoke of an expansion of the federal government and appeasement of the Soviet Union, Reagan spoke against both. As to the latter, his policies brought the Soviet Union to an end. And as to the former, his philosophy still holds sway in a significant portion of our culture. The tea party’s philosophy of limited government finds its heritage in Reagan.

Todd Akin is such a man, quiet and unassuming, infinitely approachable, generous in his time and conversation. Todd has been a champion of principled government for as long as I have known him, which approaches thirty years now. His principled conservatism permeates his discourse, whether it is his humorous sparing with my father on who received the lowest ranking on the River Front Times legislative ranking to his challenging the U.S. military on its obligation to respect the institution of marriage.

Todd speaks the principles of the Founding Fathers in the language of the founding of the nation. His annual celebration of the nation’s birthday at his home is a celebration in our heritage in liberty. At such celebrations, he typically dresses in the uniform of a continental soldier and rehearses the history of our national founding, one based on the themes of “One nation under God” and “No king but King Jesus.” Congressman Akin spoke in the language of the tea party movement before there was a tea party movement.

Congressman Akin remains true to these founding principles against progressive forces within both the Republican and Democratic parties. When personally prompted by President Bush to vote in favor of the expansion of medicare, he voted against it because constitutionally it was the right thing to do. He has voted against federal bailouts under both Republican and Democratic administrations. He is a tireless advocate against the tyrannical usurpation of authority over our health care. Todd has drunk the water in Washington, D.C. and is unaffected.

Will there be times when principled constitutionalists will disagree with Senator Akin’s votes? Of course, even principled constitutionalists disagree on the priority of principles and method. This is to be expected. Will Senator Akin error? Of course, but we know from experience that it will not be due to a compromise in principle.

Do votes matter? Yes, they do. But are they the most important thing? No, they are not. We live in a world that is constrained by covenant. We live in a world built on relationship and community. We have lost this idea in our individualistic country. We live in a selfish culture where my so called “rights” are elevated even at the expense of future generations, my comforts enhanced at the burdening of my grandchildren. This is a trend that must be reversed. We must regain a community and discard the straight jacket of regulated compassion. The most important thing is to change our culture for the better and through liberty enable our people to be truly compassionate. It is critical that we change the national dialogue from a focus of selfishness to one of liberty and community. It is the message that matters. Senator Akin is equipped to communicate the message of liberty and is willing to do it, and he has the moral fiber to follow through.

Our founding fathers consistently warned against elevating a man who appears too eager to elevate himself. This is a warning well heeded. Such men, too eager for self promotion, often succumb to self interest. Todd, in typical fashion, has been measured in his response to requests to seek the U.S. Senate seat, seeking God’s will in the matter. This response too recommends him highly.

There are others out there who are qualified for the post for U.S. Senator. However, based on my view, few have the principles, the commitment to those principles, the proven track record proving those principles and the moral fiber to fulfill the duty of U.S. Senator as does Todd Akin. I pray for him in his decisions and in the campaign before him.

Reading Scripture

It is hard to read the Prophets in the Old Testament with the question how do I apply this to my life. It is hard because the circumstances are so different from today. The messages are to a different people, not to me. As I read more about the Prophets, it strikes me that they should be read a bit differently. The Prophets foreshadowed Christ. They also reveal a dialogue between the prophet and Yahweh. Therefore, when we read the Prophets, we should be reflecting on the character of Yahweh and of His Christ. The next question is not how each passage apply to my life but how does the character of Yahweh that I find in the Prophets affect my life. This impacts directly what man is to believe concerning God but only indirectly what duty God requires of man. And then again, maybe this is not any different from the way I should read the rest of Scripture.

LOL at Dr. Berwick and Obamacare

LOL is the only way that I can respond to Dr. Berwick’s recent editorial in the WSJ “The Right Way to Reform Medicare.” After observing that Medicare costs are growing, he summarily dismisses the Republican plan to have customers pay for their own insurance, eliminate guaranteed Medicare benefits and limit choices. He says the right way to bring down costs is to make care better and improve our healthcare system. This observation begs the very basic question he asks. He observes that we should use the automobile, computer, television and telephone industries as examples to follow in making health care better. What follows is a long list of unsupported promises, vacuous claims and socialist utopian platitudes as reasons why the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) is the solution to our health care problems. This vacant reasoning is the same reasoning supporting Obamacare in the first place, “we must pass the bill to find out what is in it.”

I will agree with one statement in Dr. Berwick’s analysis. We should look to private industry to find our solution to our health care problems. If Dr. Berwick had initiated a reasoned analysis on this proposition, he would have come to a completely different conclusion. What is it about these industries that has made them successful in making their products better and more efficient? It is the very thing that Obamacare is removing from the healthcare industry: freedom, competition and market forces.

When someone goes to buy a car, a television or a computer, he has a multitude of choices. Technology is changing dramatically in each of these industries. The technology is changing dramatically because the many competitors are motivated to make a better and cheaper product that is attractive to customers. This is particularly true in the telephone industry. It was only after the deregulation of AT&T decades ago, when companies were able to compete for customers, that the technology advanced to give us the technologies we have today.

Market forces impacting costs and prices drive producers and consumers to make commercial choices which they deem to be the most beneficial and efficient. Removing market forces and price signals removes the incentive to be efficient. One example should suffice. Anyone who has been the beneficiary of a good health insurance plan at work should recognize that when there is no cost to visiting an emergency room, there is no incentive to minimize the use of that valuable service. When emergency room treatment of a cold or flu or a splinter has no cost, there is no incentive to seek an appropriate alternative yet less costly form of treatment, such as chicken soup or a tweezers. Price causes customers to make efficient and cost effective decisions.

Obamacare, by removing market forces and price signals from the market place, will cause the healthcare system to operate in an increasingly inefficient manner. Dr. Berwick is correct to observe that Medicare costs continue to grow. However, a reasoned analysis would cause him to conclude that that very fact contradicts his conclusion that Obamacare will improve the health care system. Medicare is a federal program that has removed market forces from the health care industry. What Medicare does in a small way, Obamacare does in a big way. If Medicare costs are increasing, Obamacare costs will increase much more. Obamacare is a big problem designed to solve a small problem. The actual solution should be to eliminate the small problem. Government is the problem. Therefore, government should be removed from the system.

Dr. Berwick’s reasoning is also internally inconsistent. Consider the following paragraph:

Under President Obama's framework, we will hold down Medicare cost growth, improve the quality of care for seniors, and save an additional $340 billion for taxpayers in the next decade. These policies don't shift costs to seniors or deny care to people in nursing homes or people with disabilities. Instead, they focus on improving the quality of care and lowering costs by putting patients first.

Who is “we?” One can only conclude it is Dr. Berwick and the Obama framework. They will “hold down” Medicare cost growth compared to what? One can only conclude that these central planners will hold down Medicare costs compared to actual costs. However, artificially holding down costs compared to actual costs does shift cost. It also makes a service more attractive than it actually is, causing an increased demand on the service. If the demand exceeds the supply in a centrally planned system, care will be denied because there will be no market forces—due to the actual cost being artificially held down—to incent the expansion of the service. If you artificially hold down the price of a television that costs $1,000 to make to $500, there will be cost shifts, there will be a reduction in service, or there will be no service, i.e. bankruptcy.

Obamacare scared me in its inception and its final passage. I am even more frightened by this kind of reasoning behind its implementation. With this kind of reasoning, we have a government that will bankrupt us all if they don't kill us first.