A proposed email to our state Representatives and Senators:
Dear Senator or Representative:
I respectfully request that you support Senators Lembke, Nieves and Crowell in their efforts to return the 189 million dollars in federal education money to the federal government.
Our federal government, created to execute justice among the states and provide liberty to the people, has become the very antithesis of what it was created to be. It takes from some to give to others. This is the very definition of injustice and tyranny. What is injustice has been redefined as justice. This corruption knows no bounds. My children’s children are in debt for the lust of the federal tyrant for power and control. Their seeking after control likewise knows no bounds. There is not one scintilla of authority in the U.S. Constitution for the federal government to become involved in education. Education is the role of the family and the church. If it must fall to the state, so be it, but it is never the role of the fed. Send the tax revenue usurped for unauthorized purposes back to where it belongs and instruct the federal tyrant to reduce the crushing burden of debt on this nation. Thank you.
Monday, February 7, 2011
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Public Education and the Public
Frederic Bastiat, in his treatise The Law, brilliantly outlined how socialism corrupts all things, including the judgments of the culture that embraces it. According to Bastiat, socialism, the imposition of law to take from some to give to others is “legal plunder.” Bastiat advises that you discover legal plunder by seeing “if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.” Bastiat warns:
Bastiat brings this judgment to bear on public education:
The Article IX, Section 1(a) of the Constitution of Missouri declares,
However, the actual practice is otherwise in Missouri. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, are a significant part of the free public school education, and we see home schooled and privately schooled children in Missouri systematically denied access to these programs. Why is that? Why is it you must be a student registered at the school to take part in the sports programs? Is it because, in order to access part of the “gratuitous institution,” you must take the whole of the “gratuitous institution?” Is this justice or is this discrimination? Is there something in home schooling or the private schooling that disqualifies a child from the “free” education of the state that I pay for but do not completely engage? If the system is truly “gratuitous” should it not be gratuitous to those who seek to take a part but not the whole? It appears that what was originally designed as a “gratuitous institution” has become an exclusive club to which others may not apply.
We have seen in the last decade that the state of Florida has provided some justice within this system of legal plunder. Tim Tebow, the 2007 Heisman Trophy winner from the University of Florida and NFL quarterback of the Denver Broncos, was home schooled during high school. Tebow had the opportunity to play football, at least in part, because Florida permitted him to participate in the public school football program at Nease High School in Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. Tebow has become a spokesman and an excellent example of the value of home schooling and the justice provided in the state of Florida.
Other states have undertaken to rectify injustice within their states. Wikipedia reports that both Alabama and Kentucky have bills, referred to as the “Tim Tebow Bill” which would grant access now denied to home school athletes to play for their local high school teams just as Tebow did in Florida. Missouri has a similar bill that has been introduced by state Senator Jim Lembke. SB 37 is known as the “Students First Interscholastic Athletics Act.” SB 37 would provide equal access to public school sports programs to all children of high school age that meet certain health and academic qualifications, whether in public, private or home school.
This is now the third year that Senator Lembke has introduced his bill. There is no reason not to pass this bill into law. Justice requires that these “free” “gratuitous” institutions grant access to their programs to all citizens of the state without regard to the source of their other academic education.
The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly, defending his acquired rights. He will claim that the state is obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that this procedure enriches the state because the protected industry is thus able to spend more and to pay higher wages to the poor workingmen.This system becomes a delusion and a perversion of justice, causing a culture to confuse injustice with justice.
Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests. The acceptance of these arguments will build legal plunder into a whole system. . . . The present day delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of everyone else; to make plunder universal under the pretense of organizing it.
Bastiat brings this judgment to bear on public education:
You say: “There are persons who lack education” and you turn to the law. But the law is not, in itself, a torch of learning which shines its light abroad. The law extends over a society where some persons have knowledge and others do not; where some citizens need to learn, and others can teach. In this matter of education, the law has only two alternatives: It can permit this transaction of teaching-and-learning to operate freely and without the use of force, or it can force human wills in this matter by taking from some of them enough to pay the teachers who are appointed by government to instruct others, without charge. But in this second case, the law commits legal plunder by violating liberty and property.It is not my purpose in this editorial to champion the elimination of the legal plunder of public education. The system is so engrained in our public consciousness that to do so would truly be quixotic. Indeed, it is engrained in the very Constitution of the state of Missouri. While it would be a worthy goal to change this system, it is a goal beyond my simple effort here. Rather, my purpose is to show how the system of legal plunder that is public education has caused a situation in which injustice is declared justice.
The Article IX, Section 1(a) of the Constitution of Missouri declares,
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.Every taxpaying citizen pays for these “free public schools” through their taxes. I, as a land owner and producer of income, pay for the “gratuitous institution.” However, since I have home schooled and privately educated all three of my daughters, my children never directly benefitted from these “gratuitous institutions.” I have simply benefitted from the “general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence” within the culture. But do I not have a right to directly benefit from these “free public schools?” Should my decision to home school my children prevent my children from directly benefiting from such a “gratuitous institution?” The answer should be obvious on its face. The answer is no.
However, the actual practice is otherwise in Missouri. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, are a significant part of the free public school education, and we see home schooled and privately schooled children in Missouri systematically denied access to these programs. Why is that? Why is it you must be a student registered at the school to take part in the sports programs? Is it because, in order to access part of the “gratuitous institution,” you must take the whole of the “gratuitous institution?” Is this justice or is this discrimination? Is there something in home schooling or the private schooling that disqualifies a child from the “free” education of the state that I pay for but do not completely engage? If the system is truly “gratuitous” should it not be gratuitous to those who seek to take a part but not the whole? It appears that what was originally designed as a “gratuitous institution” has become an exclusive club to which others may not apply.
We have seen in the last decade that the state of Florida has provided some justice within this system of legal plunder. Tim Tebow, the 2007 Heisman Trophy winner from the University of Florida and NFL quarterback of the Denver Broncos, was home schooled during high school. Tebow had the opportunity to play football, at least in part, because Florida permitted him to participate in the public school football program at Nease High School in Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. Tebow has become a spokesman and an excellent example of the value of home schooling and the justice provided in the state of Florida.
Other states have undertaken to rectify injustice within their states. Wikipedia reports that both Alabama and Kentucky have bills, referred to as the “Tim Tebow Bill” which would grant access now denied to home school athletes to play for their local high school teams just as Tebow did in Florida. Missouri has a similar bill that has been introduced by state Senator Jim Lembke. SB 37 is known as the “Students First Interscholastic Athletics Act.” SB 37 would provide equal access to public school sports programs to all children of high school age that meet certain health and academic qualifications, whether in public, private or home school.
This is now the third year that Senator Lembke has introduced his bill. There is no reason not to pass this bill into law. Justice requires that these “free” “gratuitous” institutions grant access to their programs to all citizens of the state without regard to the source of their other academic education.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
The Law, by Frederic Bastiat
The Law and Education
You say: “There are persons who lack education” and you
turn to the law. But the law is not, in itself, a torch of learning
which shines its light abroad. The law extends over a society
where some persons have knowledge and others do not; where
some citizens need to learn, and others can teach. In this matter
of education, the law has only two alternatives: It can permit this
transaction of teaching-and-learning to operate freely and without
the use of force, or it can force human wills in this matter by
taking from some of them enough to pay the teachers who are
appointed by government to instruct others, without charge. But
in this second case, the law commits legal plunder by violating
liberty and property.
You say: “There are persons who lack education” and you
turn to the law. But the law is not, in itself, a torch of learning
which shines its light abroad. The law extends over a society
where some persons have knowledge and others do not; where
some citizens need to learn, and others can teach. In this matter
of education, the law has only two alternatives: It can permit this
transaction of teaching-and-learning to operate freely and without
the use of force, or it can force human wills in this matter by
taking from some of them enough to pay the teachers who are
appointed by government to instruct others, without charge. But
in this second case, the law commits legal plunder by violating
liberty and property.
Friday, January 7, 2011
The U.S. Constitution: Our National Covenant
I made the following comments at the Consent of the Governed rally in the Missouri state capitol building prior to the opening of the 2011 General Assembly to a good response.
This morning I come to talk to you about federalism. I speak to you of federalism because this nation is at a cross roads. There are many in this nation who speak of bipartisanship and compromise. These are veiled terms for the relinquishment of your liberty. Indeed, there are many in this nation that propose that the states give in to any edict the federal government imposes. I come to speak against this idea.
I speak to you of federalism because we must recover the true meaning of federalism, a meaning of relationship and life under God. The meaning of the word “federal” comes from the Latin word for faith or trust. The 1828 Webster’s Dictionary defines federal as “Pertaining to a league or contract; derived from an agreement or covenant between parties, particularly between nations.” These definitions speak of relationship and faith and trust. Why is this understanding of the word important? It is important because we have forgotten this aspect of federalism. It is an understanding that our founding fathers had and drove their actions.
Our founding fathers were students of history and tradition. They were students of western civilization. They looked to the past for enlightenment on their authority to act. They studied history. They read Cicero. They read Locke. But they also read the Bible. And they found their source for the idea of covenant in the Bible and the covenant God who wrote the Bible.
Indeed, western tradition, Christendom as some have called it, took on the unique practice of writing covenants to govern themselves. They bound their kings to such charters. The founders studied these documents. They studied the Magna Charta, the great charter. They studied the Solemn League and Covenant. They knew the Mayflower Compact. These traditions informed them on how they understood their actions during the founding years of this country.
Consider the words of the Magna Charta and how they inform the meaning of our Declaration of Independence:
Many years later, those that settled Plymouth entered into the Mayflower Compact. The same themes can be heard in that covenant:
These two themes of relationship and reliance on God would forge the covenantal ideals of our founding fathers. You can hear these same ideals in our Declaration of Independence.
After securing their freedom from Great Britain, the 13 original independent colonies formed a weak relationship under the Articles of Confederation and struggled with that relationship for a dozen years. It was only with the Constitutional convention that the colonies formed a stronger relationship in these terms:
Many are saying today that the states should give into the federal agent established by the U.S. Constitution. That is not what I see. I see a strong relationship among strong states written in the U.S. Constitution. A strong relationship does not depend on weak parties to the relationship. A strong relationship depends on strong parties giving faith, trust and exercising their best judgments in the relationship for the liberty of the people. I see strong states working together to guide their federal agent in the way it should go.
The state of Missouri joined that union in 1821. What is Missouri’s responsibility as it goes forth this year? The apostle Paul in Romans 13 declares that the civil magistrate is the servant of God. This term servant is the same word from which we get deacon. The service the civil magistrate is to provide to God is to punish the evil doer and defend the doer of good. A civil magistrate has no authority to make economic choices for a people. A civil magistrate must defend the right of all people to make their own economic choices. The state must execute justice and you cannot execute justice when you take from some simply to give to others.
The state of Missouri has one further obligation in these troubled times. When a party to a covenant is unfaithful to its covenant, it is the responsibility of the other party or parties to call the unfaithful one back to faithfulness. The federal agent in our national covenant has strayed from its commitment to the U.S. Constitution. It is time for Missouri, along with the other strong states in this union, to call the federal agent back to faithfulness to the U.S. Constitution.
In closing, I would like to commend my good friend state Senator Jim Lembke for his commitment to these principles. Senator Lembke has a practice in which he almost never fails to take a copy of the Missouri Constitution wherever he goes. He gives witness to the fact that the Missouri Constitution is his guidebook for his job. For that practice, I am grateful. Our Missouri state legislators should add one more practice to their daily routine. They should carry and study the U.S. Constitution. In the days to come, the federal agent will need their guidance on how to bring itself from unfaithfulness to faithfulness. The U.S. Congress will need the aid of the state of Missouri. This is aid we Missourians must provide. God bless America and God bless the state of Missouri. Thank you.
This morning I come to talk to you about federalism. I speak to you of federalism because this nation is at a cross roads. There are many in this nation who speak of bipartisanship and compromise. These are veiled terms for the relinquishment of your liberty. Indeed, there are many in this nation that propose that the states give in to any edict the federal government imposes. I come to speak against this idea.
I speak to you of federalism because we must recover the true meaning of federalism, a meaning of relationship and life under God. The meaning of the word “federal” comes from the Latin word for faith or trust. The 1828 Webster’s Dictionary defines federal as “Pertaining to a league or contract; derived from an agreement or covenant between parties, particularly between nations.” These definitions speak of relationship and faith and trust. Why is this understanding of the word important? It is important because we have forgotten this aspect of federalism. It is an understanding that our founding fathers had and drove their actions.
Our founding fathers were students of history and tradition. They were students of western civilization. They looked to the past for enlightenment on their authority to act. They studied history. They read Cicero. They read Locke. But they also read the Bible. And they found their source for the idea of covenant in the Bible and the covenant God who wrote the Bible.
Indeed, western tradition, Christendom as some have called it, took on the unique practice of writing covenants to govern themselves. They bound their kings to such charters. The founders studied these documents. They studied the Magna Charta, the great charter. They studied the Solemn League and Covenant. They knew the Mayflower Compact. These traditions informed them on how they understood their actions during the founding years of this country.
Consider the words of the Magna Charta and how they inform the meaning of our Declaration of Independence:
Henry by the grace of God King of England, . . . Know that we, at the prompting of God and for the health of our soul and the souls of our ancestors and successors, for the glory of holy Church and the improvement of our realm, freely and out of our good will have given and granted to . . . all of our realm these liberties written below to hold in our realm of England in perpetuity.You should note two things. First, the great charter is a document of relationship. It sets forth the liberties of the people in relationship to the king. Second, the great charter is a document based on God’s authority and prompting. The charter recognized that the people had rights in their relationship to him because the king was prompted by God.
Many years later, those that settled Plymouth entered into the Mayflower Compact. The same themes can be heard in that covenant:
In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James, by the Grace of God, . . . do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation . . .They formed relationship in a Body Politic by the grace of God.
These two themes of relationship and reliance on God would forge the covenantal ideals of our founding fathers. You can hear these same ideals in our Declaration of Independence.
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.The Declaration of Independence is a covenantal law suit setting forth the grounds for which the Colonies would dissolve their relationships with Great Britain and do so in the presence of God. Their actions had profound and eternal consequences and they knew it. It ultimately took a bloody war to expel the invading forces of the tyrant King George, but it was not the war that severed the bands of relationship. It was the covenantal law suit found in the Declaration of Independence.
After securing their freedom from Great Britain, the 13 original independent colonies formed a weak relationship under the Articles of Confederation and struggled with that relationship for a dozen years. It was only with the Constitutional convention that the colonies formed a stronger relationship in these terms:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.With this statement the colonies established new political bonds, a new relationship, one with another. It would be a more perfect union, a strong relationship amongst the former colonies, now states.
Many are saying today that the states should give into the federal agent established by the U.S. Constitution. That is not what I see. I see a strong relationship among strong states written in the U.S. Constitution. A strong relationship does not depend on weak parties to the relationship. A strong relationship depends on strong parties giving faith, trust and exercising their best judgments in the relationship for the liberty of the people. I see strong states working together to guide their federal agent in the way it should go.
The state of Missouri joined that union in 1821. What is Missouri’s responsibility as it goes forth this year? The apostle Paul in Romans 13 declares that the civil magistrate is the servant of God. This term servant is the same word from which we get deacon. The service the civil magistrate is to provide to God is to punish the evil doer and defend the doer of good. A civil magistrate has no authority to make economic choices for a people. A civil magistrate must defend the right of all people to make their own economic choices. The state must execute justice and you cannot execute justice when you take from some simply to give to others.
The state of Missouri has one further obligation in these troubled times. When a party to a covenant is unfaithful to its covenant, it is the responsibility of the other party or parties to call the unfaithful one back to faithfulness. The federal agent in our national covenant has strayed from its commitment to the U.S. Constitution. It is time for Missouri, along with the other strong states in this union, to call the federal agent back to faithfulness to the U.S. Constitution.
In closing, I would like to commend my good friend state Senator Jim Lembke for his commitment to these principles. Senator Lembke has a practice in which he almost never fails to take a copy of the Missouri Constitution wherever he goes. He gives witness to the fact that the Missouri Constitution is his guidebook for his job. For that practice, I am grateful. Our Missouri state legislators should add one more practice to their daily routine. They should carry and study the U.S. Constitution. In the days to come, the federal agent will need their guidance on how to bring itself from unfaithfulness to faithfulness. The U.S. Congress will need the aid of the state of Missouri. This is aid we Missourians must provide. God bless America and God bless the state of Missouri. Thank you.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
A More Perfect Union
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Some claim that the U.S. Constitution is a grant of power to govern directly from the people to the national government. They claim that the phrase “we the people” reveals this intent in the framers. There are many reasons this is wrong, including the historical development behind the U.S. Constitution, particularly the Declaration of Independence and its proclamation that the states are of right independent entities. There is also the process by which the Constitution was ratified. It was ratified at state conventions or by state legislatures. It was not ratified by popular vote of all people in the nation.
There is an additional reason found in the very words of the preamble for understanding the Constitution as providing for an entity which serves the free and independent states. The reason is in the word “Union.” A reader must ask, “a union of what?” Is it possible that the preamble means a union of individuals? That idea is quite bizarre. The problem which brought the delegates from various states to a convention was the need for the states to work more closely together, a situation that the Articles of Confederation was powerless to accomplish. So it is in the words of the preamble that the “States” are “United,” not individuals.
Many will reply that in the union of the States there was a giving up their independent authority to the federal government. Is that what “union” means? When I married my wife and became united to her in the covenant of marriage, did I relinquish my identity? Did she? Certainly, we have to work together for each other’s good. Sometimes one of us will give up his or her rights for the good of the other. We do so for the other individual, not because we are a collective whole. A union only exists for the joining of distinct beings in a mutually beneficial relationship.
The states have for many years ignored their role in forming “a more perfect Union.” The federal government for decades has usurped the authority of the states and actually worked against this union for the goal of merging all things into it. This is not a union. The states in the years to come must engage together and work together to reestablish this more perfect Union.
From the Hon. Ed Emery: Wise Words
“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” Benjamin Franklin
New TSA airport security rules have been frequently in the news. Perspectives vary from demands for increased security to concerns over invasion of privacy and assaults on modesty. The Christmas travel season plus my own recent venture to Washington DC make it timely to comment on the appropriateness and effectiveness of this latest government intrusion. I was also asked by a close friend to offer some comments. First, let me say that in my trip to DC, I didn’t set off any metal detectors so I was not forced to endure a pat-down or digital disrobing. Nevertheless, that this preposterous policy would be conceived in America, much less tolerated by Americans is a testimony to several cultural phenomena:
One-size-fits-all security – As Americans abandon independence and personal accountability, travelers have fallen to depending on for protection. Government might seem the appropriate institution except that fundamental principles of security are being ignored. Name a successful law enforcement agency or security company that does not profile for likely suspects. They rely on highly trained profiling experts to aid in protecting the innocent and apprehending the guilty. It works! I guarantee you that if airlines were in charge of security instead of our infamous Homeland Security Dept., profiling would be vital, not criminal. No intelligent person would choose random selection as the answer to airport security – only the federal government. Rejecting the truth makes one prey for foolishness.
Motivated by fear over reason – “Don’t panic” is the notable advice in every emergency. Panic may motivate lots of activity but seldom effective resolution. Panic makes us open to unreasonable and even harmful ideas that reason would reject. What thoughtful person really expects an airline to be hijacked with a 1 ½ inch fingernail file? A delegated function of our government is to make and enforce rules for the common good. A measure of its power over its citizens is the amount of absurd and futile rules we will endure. Panic empowers government, not people.
Panacea of a harmless society – Americans have been brainwashed that with enough power, government can produce a harmless environment. If that were true, there would be no crime or injury in China, Iran, or Illinois. Justice anticipates offense and provides for a response. For a free people to remain free, that society must accept that offenses will come and be prepared with just responses that range from fines to jail to the electric chair to stealth bombers.
Neglect of our national identity – Liberty will always be opposed by those who demand submission. America is the central planner’s worst nightmare because we prove daily that influence, prosperity, success, and fulfillment come from individual freedom, not central government control. Our commitment to personal freedom is both substance and proof of American Exceptionalism. America is anathema to elitists and dictators. But the abandonment of our rich national identity hinders our response to terrorist acts because we fail to treat acts that target citizens (instead of armies) as national offenses. President Reagan’s targeted bombing of Libya is a case in point of how to deal with terrorists. It has changed world politics and protected Americans for decades.
Part of American exceptionalism is that we have the government we chose (some would say we deserve). Walt Kelly, cartoonist, in his “Pogo” comic strip coined the phrase “we have met the enemy and he is us.” If we don’t like the path our government is choosing, we can change it, and it doesn’t take a revolution – it takes an election. The 2010 election proves we can still take charge, and it was another testimony to American exceptionalism. But is America falling victim to a thousand cuts, and are new TSA regulations one of those cuts? I think so. The question is not so much what will I do the next time I fly, but what will I do in 2012 when I vote.
New TSA airport security rules have been frequently in the news. Perspectives vary from demands for increased security to concerns over invasion of privacy and assaults on modesty. The Christmas travel season plus my own recent venture to Washington DC make it timely to comment on the appropriateness and effectiveness of this latest government intrusion. I was also asked by a close friend to offer some comments. First, let me say that in my trip to DC, I didn’t set off any metal detectors so I was not forced to endure a pat-down or digital disrobing. Nevertheless, that this preposterous policy would be conceived in America, much less tolerated by Americans is a testimony to several cultural phenomena:
One-size-fits-all security – As Americans abandon independence and personal accountability, travelers have fallen to depending on for protection. Government might seem the appropriate institution except that fundamental principles of security are being ignored. Name a successful law enforcement agency or security company that does not profile for likely suspects. They rely on highly trained profiling experts to aid in protecting the innocent and apprehending the guilty. It works! I guarantee you that if airlines were in charge of security instead of our infamous Homeland Security Dept., profiling would be vital, not criminal. No intelligent person would choose random selection as the answer to airport security – only the federal government. Rejecting the truth makes one prey for foolishness.
Motivated by fear over reason – “Don’t panic” is the notable advice in every emergency. Panic may motivate lots of activity but seldom effective resolution. Panic makes us open to unreasonable and even harmful ideas that reason would reject. What thoughtful person really expects an airline to be hijacked with a 1 ½ inch fingernail file? A delegated function of our government is to make and enforce rules for the common good. A measure of its power over its citizens is the amount of absurd and futile rules we will endure. Panic empowers government, not people.
Panacea of a harmless society – Americans have been brainwashed that with enough power, government can produce a harmless environment. If that were true, there would be no crime or injury in China, Iran, or Illinois. Justice anticipates offense and provides for a response. For a free people to remain free, that society must accept that offenses will come and be prepared with just responses that range from fines to jail to the electric chair to stealth bombers.
Neglect of our national identity – Liberty will always be opposed by those who demand submission. America is the central planner’s worst nightmare because we prove daily that influence, prosperity, success, and fulfillment come from individual freedom, not central government control. Our commitment to personal freedom is both substance and proof of American Exceptionalism. America is anathema to elitists and dictators. But the abandonment of our rich national identity hinders our response to terrorist acts because we fail to treat acts that target citizens (instead of armies) as national offenses. President Reagan’s targeted bombing of Libya is a case in point of how to deal with terrorists. It has changed world politics and protected Americans for decades.
Part of American exceptionalism is that we have the government we chose (some would say we deserve). Walt Kelly, cartoonist, in his “Pogo” comic strip coined the phrase “we have met the enemy and he is us.” If we don’t like the path our government is choosing, we can change it, and it doesn’t take a revolution – it takes an election. The 2010 election proves we can still take charge, and it was another testimony to American exceptionalism. But is America falling victim to a thousand cuts, and are new TSA regulations one of those cuts? I think so. The question is not so much what will I do the next time I fly, but what will I do in 2012 when I vote.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
A More Perfect Union
Peter Leithart writes in his Intro to The Four: Survey of the Gospels: "To get it right, we need to distinguish between person and nature, know the difference between substance and subsistence, know that there can be union without mixture and distinction without seperation, and believe the Word is en-hypostatically related to an anhypostatice human nature." What a great beginning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
