Believe me, I've read more than a few excellent books on real estate investing and real estate law, But I am a better Gregory Yates lawyer and dirt guy than I was ten years ago due to practice, practice and more practice. There's just no substitute for experience. Period. If there is a quick and easy solution for how to do this, we'd all do it. Your life, you learn, you move on to the next deal and you (hopefully) better every time.Gregory Yates Attorney
Saturday, December 7, 2013
Sunday, October 20, 2013
How to win an election
“Princeton University Press has made a predictable move in publishing a book called How to win an election: An Ancient Guide for Modern Politicians . . . but they're using a less predictable choice: the words of Quintus Tullius Cicero, brother to the great Roman orator Marcus Tullius Cicero,” says the Los Angeles Times. “The great Marcus Cicero needed his younger brother's advice? Absolutely. In class-conscious Rome, explains translator Philip Freeman, Cicero's bid to become consul was hampered because his family wasn't blue-blooded. His practical brother Quintus stepped in with a letter of advice to him known as the ‘Commentariolum Petitionis.’ Though Quintus' tips are directed at only one person, it is not difficult to find insights here that would help today's U.S. presidential contenders.” Speaking to us from a distance of more than 2,000 years, “Quintus Cicero's words are incisive and revelatory: They remind us that, when it comes to that strange beast known as politics, human nature hasn't changed very much since then.”
Thursday, October 3, 2013
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Book Review of Cool War: The Future of Global Competition, by Noah Feldman
By
Joseph C Gioconda, Esq
Using a breezy, didactic style, Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman's new book Cool War: The Future of Global Competition,
discusses how China's rise as a globally significant economic
superpower has created an increasingly complex dilemma for the United
States from both military and economic perspectives. Consequently,
Feldman aptly coins the term "cool war," to describe a far more complex
set of cooperation, competition and tension between two foes locked in
an uneasy embrace of economic interdependence.
Feldman notes that the two nations' interrelationship is novel by historical standards. For example, during the entirety of the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union were clear military and political rivals, with little or no meaningful economic interactions. In contrast, communist-controlled China is currently the United States' largest trading partner. Hundreds of thousands of Chinese students study in American universities, and the two nations have become stakeholders in a shared cultural and economic experiment.
Further, China quietly amassed a staggering amount of America's sovereign debt. Even in the 20th century, Feldman points out that nations never invested significantly in another country's national debt.
To act as the last remaining global superpower, Feldman correctly points out means having to spend like one. And, after several costly misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. populace is clearly in no mood to spend trillions more on a massive military buildup, especially one that is premised on borrowing from the very nation that you ostensibly seek to defend against, to finance it.
While China has not yet sought to achieve military parity with the U.S., such a strategic goal is not beyond possibility. The end result, Feldman observes, is that a shooting war is not unavoidable, but some form of ongoing conflict clearly is.
He illustrates how Taiwan's status and independence represents a significant potential flashpoint for both nations, as Taiwan's current diplomatic posture involves ambiguity that suits both China and American desires. On one hand, chief among Chinese ambitions is to bring Taiwan back within its own orbit. On the other hand, a visible failure to defend Taiwan in the event of a crisis with China would effectively end any semblance of American global hegemony in the Far East. This imaginative moment may actually arrive sooner than anticipated, as many experts have contemplated that the U.S. may have to realistically abandon any hope of continuing to treat Taiwan protectively, in light of larger global realities involving North Korea and other flashpoints.
China's global ambitions are hidden in plain sight. The populous nation has already invested billions in a conventional military buildup. In practice, China's outward activities are in line with a government intent on eventually bringing its geostrategic position in line with its economic one.
With respect to China's weaponry, Feldman astutely notes that such empowerment occurs over decades, not in a few months. And, unlike the U.S., which confers its powers to officials after a publicly visible election in regular cycles of 2 or 4 years, Chinese military plans can be more gradual, and without the need for sudden policy shifts after a contested election.
Further, China needs only to grow its military capacity to the point where it would be large enough to not have to actually use it. China ends up winning a war without ever firing a shot, as America suddenly finds itself disinterested in waging a serious war that it could actually lose.
Feldman also correctly notes that modern acts of "cyberwarfare" are a form of asymmetrical, non-traditional combat that permit the Chinese to exploit non-traditional weaknesses in the American security infrastructure without a realistic threat of military retaliation. Furthermore, covert cyberwar permits intellectual property theft and corporate espionage, where American companies' trade secrets and other valuable data become compromised and stolen. Feldman predicts that regular, ongoing acts of cyberwarfare arising from within China are likely to continue in this "cool war" phase.
Feldman's book notably does not explore the prevalence of Chinese counterfeiting as a source of ongoing contention with the United States corporate world. Counterfeit products are widely seen by American corporate interests as a serious covert form of economic espionage that are causing significant harm to business interests. While human rights are most certainly an important source of Chinese criticism from the West, China's tolerance of intellectual property theft is a sorer spot for thousands of American companies, who routinely lobby for stronger and harsher penalties against such violations of WTO rules.
Feldman also notes that nationalistic sentiment exists on both sides of the coin, with China's citizens likely to feel pride in China's ascent to global prominence, and Americans' frustration with Chinese currency manipulation and a growing trade deficit, equally robust. He notes that economic interdependence does not remove this tendency toward quiet conflict.
Another interesting area that Feldman discusses is the conflict between American and Chinese ideology, such as it is. The core ideology of the Communist Party today represents an odd experimental pragmatism in economics summed up by Deng Xiaoping's quote: "It doesn't matter if the cat is white or black; if it catches mice, it's a good cat." Even the goal of maintaining the communist party's apparatus is viewed with such hard-nosed pragmatism, putting China is a very different ideological place than Stalinist Soviet Union in the 1960's.
China's ideological pragmatism leads to the result that it will gladly do business with countries such as the United States, as long as the American democracy will respect the way it does things. Therefore, the ideological divide between America and China is far less a moral chasm than the disagreements that separated Kennedy and Khruschev. However, to the extent that Americans perceive China as fundamentally unwilling to compromise on Western values such as human rights and the rule of law, it is difficult to imagine how continuing ideological conflict is not inevitable.
Cool War skirts an interesting issue: Feldman notes that as long as America can preserve the rule of law for itself, it has no absolute need to export it. For example, he notes that Western investors have an interest seeing their investments in China respected, but they would still eagerly invest there if China's legal establishment were coercion-based (or even overtly corruption-based).
The problem with this observation is that it ignores the reality that in this current state of economic and fiscal interdependence, the American rule of law must be exported elsewhere, under the weight of its own legal system. Take, for example, when an American business executive famously invests in a Chinese-managed factory to make his company's widgets. His company is bound by, among other things, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and a wide variety of regulatory, contract and tort-based doctrines, that would be applied in U.S. Courts against him and his company.
Assume that his Chinese-managed factory ends up hiring a few underage workers to make a few substandard widgets, which are later imported and sold to American consumers and his manager pays off a Chinese official to avoid any problems. This situation may be de rigeur in Chinese business, but in America, it can lead to that executive being terminated, sued, even prosecuted. This cultural and legal clash is not academic.
Illustrating this culture clash through diplomatic events, Feldman also discusses the anecdotal example of Wang Lijun, the Chinese police chief who sought asylum from the West after uncovering a murder case involving Bo Xilai and a dead British expat involved in a bribery scandal. The story confirmed several widely-held beliefs: first, that senior Chinese Communist Party officials engage in widespread corruption, and second, that these party officials and their family members act as though they are immune from the rule of law.
The modern twist is that the Chinese party ultimately tried to use this scandal to actually strengthen its own party apparatus, by citing the sordid affair as evidence in the alternative narrative that Chinese corruption will ultimately not stand. Whether any one actually believed the party is another matter entirely.
Feldman notes that the two nations' interrelationship is novel by historical standards. For example, during the entirety of the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union were clear military and political rivals, with little or no meaningful economic interactions. In contrast, communist-controlled China is currently the United States' largest trading partner. Hundreds of thousands of Chinese students study in American universities, and the two nations have become stakeholders in a shared cultural and economic experiment.
Further, China quietly amassed a staggering amount of America's sovereign debt. Even in the 20th century, Feldman points out that nations never invested significantly in another country's national debt.
To act as the last remaining global superpower, Feldman correctly points out means having to spend like one. And, after several costly misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. populace is clearly in no mood to spend trillions more on a massive military buildup, especially one that is premised on borrowing from the very nation that you ostensibly seek to defend against, to finance it.
While China has not yet sought to achieve military parity with the U.S., such a strategic goal is not beyond possibility. The end result, Feldman observes, is that a shooting war is not unavoidable, but some form of ongoing conflict clearly is.
He illustrates how Taiwan's status and independence represents a significant potential flashpoint for both nations, as Taiwan's current diplomatic posture involves ambiguity that suits both China and American desires. On one hand, chief among Chinese ambitions is to bring Taiwan back within its own orbit. On the other hand, a visible failure to defend Taiwan in the event of a crisis with China would effectively end any semblance of American global hegemony in the Far East. This imaginative moment may actually arrive sooner than anticipated, as many experts have contemplated that the U.S. may have to realistically abandon any hope of continuing to treat Taiwan protectively, in light of larger global realities involving North Korea and other flashpoints.
China's global ambitions are hidden in plain sight. The populous nation has already invested billions in a conventional military buildup. In practice, China's outward activities are in line with a government intent on eventually bringing its geostrategic position in line with its economic one.
With respect to China's weaponry, Feldman astutely notes that such empowerment occurs over decades, not in a few months. And, unlike the U.S., which confers its powers to officials after a publicly visible election in regular cycles of 2 or 4 years, Chinese military plans can be more gradual, and without the need for sudden policy shifts after a contested election.
Further, China needs only to grow its military capacity to the point where it would be large enough to not have to actually use it. China ends up winning a war without ever firing a shot, as America suddenly finds itself disinterested in waging a serious war that it could actually lose.
Feldman also correctly notes that modern acts of "cyberwarfare" are a form of asymmetrical, non-traditional combat that permit the Chinese to exploit non-traditional weaknesses in the American security infrastructure without a realistic threat of military retaliation. Furthermore, covert cyberwar permits intellectual property theft and corporate espionage, where American companies' trade secrets and other valuable data become compromised and stolen. Feldman predicts that regular, ongoing acts of cyberwarfare arising from within China are likely to continue in this "cool war" phase.
Feldman's book notably does not explore the prevalence of Chinese counterfeiting as a source of ongoing contention with the United States corporate world. Counterfeit products are widely seen by American corporate interests as a serious covert form of economic espionage that are causing significant harm to business interests. While human rights are most certainly an important source of Chinese criticism from the West, China's tolerance of intellectual property theft is a sorer spot for thousands of American companies, who routinely lobby for stronger and harsher penalties against such violations of WTO rules.
Feldman also notes that nationalistic sentiment exists on both sides of the coin, with China's citizens likely to feel pride in China's ascent to global prominence, and Americans' frustration with Chinese currency manipulation and a growing trade deficit, equally robust. He notes that economic interdependence does not remove this tendency toward quiet conflict.
Another interesting area that Feldman discusses is the conflict between American and Chinese ideology, such as it is. The core ideology of the Communist Party today represents an odd experimental pragmatism in economics summed up by Deng Xiaoping's quote: "It doesn't matter if the cat is white or black; if it catches mice, it's a good cat." Even the goal of maintaining the communist party's apparatus is viewed with such hard-nosed pragmatism, putting China is a very different ideological place than Stalinist Soviet Union in the 1960's.
China's ideological pragmatism leads to the result that it will gladly do business with countries such as the United States, as long as the American democracy will respect the way it does things. Therefore, the ideological divide between America and China is far less a moral chasm than the disagreements that separated Kennedy and Khruschev. However, to the extent that Americans perceive China as fundamentally unwilling to compromise on Western values such as human rights and the rule of law, it is difficult to imagine how continuing ideological conflict is not inevitable.
Cool War skirts an interesting issue: Feldman notes that as long as America can preserve the rule of law for itself, it has no absolute need to export it. For example, he notes that Western investors have an interest seeing their investments in China respected, but they would still eagerly invest there if China's legal establishment were coercion-based (or even overtly corruption-based).
The problem with this observation is that it ignores the reality that in this current state of economic and fiscal interdependence, the American rule of law must be exported elsewhere, under the weight of its own legal system. Take, for example, when an American business executive famously invests in a Chinese-managed factory to make his company's widgets. His company is bound by, among other things, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and a wide variety of regulatory, contract and tort-based doctrines, that would be applied in U.S. Courts against him and his company.
Assume that his Chinese-managed factory ends up hiring a few underage workers to make a few substandard widgets, which are later imported and sold to American consumers and his manager pays off a Chinese official to avoid any problems. This situation may be de rigeur in Chinese business, but in America, it can lead to that executive being terminated, sued, even prosecuted. This cultural and legal clash is not academic.
Illustrating this culture clash through diplomatic events, Feldman also discusses the anecdotal example of Wang Lijun, the Chinese police chief who sought asylum from the West after uncovering a murder case involving Bo Xilai and a dead British expat involved in a bribery scandal. The story confirmed several widely-held beliefs: first, that senior Chinese Communist Party officials engage in widespread corruption, and second, that these party officials and their family members act as though they are immune from the rule of law.
The modern twist is that the Chinese party ultimately tried to use this scandal to actually strengthen its own party apparatus, by citing the sordid affair as evidence in the alternative narrative that Chinese corruption will ultimately not stand. Whether any one actually believed the party is another matter entirely.
When Good Men Do Nothing: Speaker Boehner Asleep at the Wheel
By
Bob Duker
There is a time when good men should stand up and say enough is
enough. Today, with new Government scandals coming to light every day, I
thought that time had come to see this take place and like so many like
me, I turned to the good people we elected to see if they would be
those good men.
House Speaker John Boehner once again did not rise to that occasion, instead, he backed into the shadows to become an observer as has been his habit over the past few years. As more and more facts come to light about the massive abuses of power emanating from the White House, Speaker Boehner becomes less and less involved in the process of leading and more involved in the process of hiding.
It shouldn't be surprising really, back during the debate over Obamacare, instead of leading the charge to defund it as a majority of conservatives have been calling for, Speaker Boehner took the opportunity to raise the white flag and called it the law of the land, seeking to appease the President as the people of this nation are sacrificed on the alter of the biggest boondoggle this nation has ever seen.
In the fiscal cliff confrontation, again Speaker Boehner backed down and gave ground, when conservatives across the nation were calling for resolve and strength, Speaker Boehner ran and hid, only coming to speak out after a popular backlash against his aimless attempts at leadership.
At every turn, instead of making a stand and taking bold steps, Speaker Boehner has benched himself and walked away from fighting to represent the will of the people who put him in office to protect their interests.
And more recently, in the midst of unprecedented evidence of misuse of power becoming rampant throughout nearly every branch of the current administration, Speaker Boehner refuses to make any comment and once again takes a back seat in the debate. "When good men do nothing... " makes a good slogan or sound bite, but Speaker Boehner seems to be making it his life's work...
Speaker Boehner has become a laughing stock; a clown dancing to whichever tune moves his feet, ducking and dodging every opportunity to show fortitude or integrity. Leadership, the Republican party doesn't have any, and it shows; as they struggle to find direction and focus and continually fight amongst themselves while the White House runs roughshod over the constitution at every turn with seeming impunity.
Good men and women are indeed doing nothing; unfortunately, a lot of them are your elected officials.
Just my view from the cheap seats.
House Speaker John Boehner once again did not rise to that occasion, instead, he backed into the shadows to become an observer as has been his habit over the past few years. As more and more facts come to light about the massive abuses of power emanating from the White House, Speaker Boehner becomes less and less involved in the process of leading and more involved in the process of hiding.
It shouldn't be surprising really, back during the debate over Obamacare, instead of leading the charge to defund it as a majority of conservatives have been calling for, Speaker Boehner took the opportunity to raise the white flag and called it the law of the land, seeking to appease the President as the people of this nation are sacrificed on the alter of the biggest boondoggle this nation has ever seen.
In the fiscal cliff confrontation, again Speaker Boehner backed down and gave ground, when conservatives across the nation were calling for resolve and strength, Speaker Boehner ran and hid, only coming to speak out after a popular backlash against his aimless attempts at leadership.
At every turn, instead of making a stand and taking bold steps, Speaker Boehner has benched himself and walked away from fighting to represent the will of the people who put him in office to protect their interests.
And more recently, in the midst of unprecedented evidence of misuse of power becoming rampant throughout nearly every branch of the current administration, Speaker Boehner refuses to make any comment and once again takes a back seat in the debate. "When good men do nothing... " makes a good slogan or sound bite, but Speaker Boehner seems to be making it his life's work...
Speaker Boehner has become a laughing stock; a clown dancing to whichever tune moves his feet, ducking and dodging every opportunity to show fortitude or integrity. Leadership, the Republican party doesn't have any, and it shows; as they struggle to find direction and focus and continually fight amongst themselves while the White House runs roughshod over the constitution at every turn with seeming impunity.
Good men and women are indeed doing nothing; unfortunately, a lot of them are your elected officials.
Just my view from the cheap seats.
Can The Idea Of America Be Saved? By Philip C Johnson Expert Author Philip C Johnson By almost any measure one could say that America's best days have passed. We are hopelessly mired in debt. Millions of able-bodied Americans are unemployed and nearly half our population is now on the government dole in one way or another. We are today as politically polarized as I have seen in my lifetime. We are suffering under the boot of an oppressive regulatory and tax environment. Our fourth estate, the media, has withdrawn from any pretense of journalism or truth seeking. And our moral compass, our 'firm reliance on divine providence' appears all but forgotten. Should I mention that more than 50 million American lives have been snuffed out in the name of 'women's rights'? Or that we incarcerate more per capita than any developed nation? That nearly a third of our children are being raised without a father (15,000,000) and another five million without a mother? Wherever you look - whether public education, government institutions, the political climate, big business, the family unit or the faith community - we are failing. So how is it that our 'shining city on a hill' has lost its luster? To understand our failures we must first understand the causal drivers of our success - what enabled the experiment to work. In the simplest terms, America succeeded due to its embrace of family, faith and freedom. The colonies were populated, in large measure, by those seeking religious freedom. Quakers, Puritans and others established themselves and their governance around Biblical principles and mores. From the Mayflower Compact to the governing documents of the original colonies, all were informed by Judeo-Christian values and truths. Our Founders fully embraced this heritage with its articulation of the laws of nature and of nature's God as the vital threads in defining how man should lead his life and interact with his fellow citizens. The framers' worldview was that these rights were unalienable and universal. They belonged to man, having been gifted by nature's God. The Declaration of Independence expressed a finite definition of these rights. It focused on five principles of the laws of nature and of nature's God. They are: That all people are created by God, and that by virtue of this circumstance are entitled to be treated equally before the law That all people are endowed by God with certain unalienable rights. The people are also endowed with the right to govern themselves according to their written consent. The people retain the right to alter or abolish an unlawful form of government as an exercise of self-government. The people are free to organize the civil government's powers in such a way as to secure their happiness (property). The Constitution embodied this view and served to construct a civil government capable of sustaining these rights. Federal powers were enumerated (limited and finite) and those not specifically granted belonged to the states and the people. This was the idea of America - self-reliance, self-government - a free people secure in their rights to life, liberty and property. The idea of America was the recognition that man was meant to live free to pursue his best and that the role of government was to protect and defend the rights of the individual. The Founders knew that it was the nature of governments to ever creep toward tyranny. They had lived it. And so they went about the work of setting up roadblocks to forestall that eventuality - unalienable rights, enumerated powers, vesting of powers to the states and the people, separation of powers and co-equal branches. But the Founders were equally foresighted to know that the framework they set up through the Constitution was only adequate if the people were good and moral. As John Adams stated, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Fast forward a few hundred years and answer the question - are we still that 'moral and religious people' and, if not, how and why did we lose this critical societal and cultural lynchpin? While governmental erosions of liberty intermittently occurred, most notably during the tenures of the dynamic duo of Woodrow Wilson (the income tax and the Federal Reserve) and Franklin Roosevelt (where do I start?), one could argue that while we were less free, we were in essence still those 'moral and religious people' in the 1950s and into the 1960s. But the seeds of our decline were being sown for all that to change. Civil society was about to convulse. Our nation was in turmoil. Race relations had taken center stage and America needed to come to grips with its second-class citizenry, the blacks. Much of the South remained segregated. The Ku Klux Klan terrorized any blacks that didn't know their place. Jim Crow laws ruled. As Congress debated and eventually passed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, two competing movements were bubbling up, the peaceful civil protests of Martin Luther King and the violence and anarchy of the Black Panthers. At the same time, America was facing an exceedingly unpopular war in Vietnam. The anti-war movement was growing, mushrooming out from our colleges and universities. Coverage of sit-ins, demonstrations and riots filled the airwaves, as did the daily body counts from Vietnam. From Berkeley to the streets of Chicago to Kent State, the intensity of this struggle escalated along with the race war. The Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and the Weather Underground (of Bill Ayers fame) splashed on the scene, railing not only against the war but also violently rejecting the very institutions and mores of civil society. Their calling was violent revolution, foreseeing some 25 million deaths to achieve their ends - some convoluted, quasi-socialist state. Ayers and his 'Alinskyites' were trying to recruit the more radical and violent elements of the race struggle into their fold (Black Panthers, Malcolm X) to rise up and take the government down. Fear, confusion and division had gripped the country as it watched or read the news. President Lyndon Johnson reacted with his 'Great Society' and 'War on Poverty' initiatives. But Johnson, a staunch opponent of the Civil Rights Act, and not exactly a friend to blacks, was building, through these programs, an ever-faithful voting block (the blacks and the poor), a permanent underclass. Johnson succeeded in putting the blacks back on the plantation, only this time a government plantation. Reliance on government and the victim class were born and being well fed. Too, our contemporary race baiters (Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan) were getting their legs. Perhaps the greatest tragedy in those years was the fact that Martin Luther King was succeeding, the right way, by showing the good people of America the injustices perpetrated against his race and appealing to their humanity. Tragically, King's dream of equality and lifting up his people (and all people) was subverted by others who saw more power and fortune in fomenting, twisting and sustaining that victim status. Yes, the sixties gave us the 'Summer of Love'; a rising counterculture; the hippies; flag, draft card and bra burning; a budding feminist movement, a lot of dead bodies, and a rapidly growing government. But it also burned into the progressive 'bible' the effectiveness of playing the victim card and tugging on the good nature (or guilt) of the American people. This cabal has been effective in convincing Americans that abortion is only an assertion of 'women's rights', that 'fairness' means taking from a producer to redistribute to a ne'er do well, that marriage only between a man and a woman is discriminatory, that indiscriminate sex for teens is just fine, and that God has no place in the public square. Their god is moral relativism, entitlement and government. Their goal (as was the case with communism and fascism) is to bury Christianity and morality, to undermine the church and the family, and replace their traditional roles with a behemoth government. They viewed the government as the giver of all things, the moral authority, the definer of values, and the great societal leveler. They have been spectacularly successful. Today a valedictorian that dares utter a word of praise to God or Jesus has his or her mike turned off. Christians are belittled and mocked for their faith. The successful are scorned. Profit is evil. Returning soldiers or those espousing the Constitution are to be put on a terror watch list. Illegal aliens are undocumented aliens. "I'm from the IRS and I am here to help". Face it, folks, our world has been turned upside down, by design. And as it has taken several generations to get us here, it will also likely take the same to reverse. To find the solution, I look to the targets of the Progressives - the churches, the traditional family unit, academia and media. The battle is lost in Washington, D.C. And while we must still engage and fight in this arena, the real battle is local. Prescription #1 We need to awaken our preachers and pastors and enlist them to stand up for nature's God and the laws of nature. We must not allow them to any longer cower in fear of the IRS and their tax-exempt status, or their fear of losing congregants by speaking out against moral relativism and immoral governmental actions. Talk with your feet if your place of worship doesn't align itself with the principles and intent of the Constitution. Let them know why and learn from the experience. The churches have the reach to help turn the tide. And they have an inherent duty to support and defend the principles, as does every citizen. Support the Black Robe Regiment! Prescription #2 Should the current trends continue in the public education system, we could soon be facing an army of little brown shirts. The schools, the textbooks, and the curriculum need to be continually vetted and called out positively or negatively as appropriate. I am also old fashioned enough to think that the Pledge of Allegiance should reenter the schools as should the opportunity to pray (purely optional for my agnostic and atheist friends). Shouldn't citizens of a country founded on the laws of nature and nature's God be permitted (not required) to pray in school? And is a show of respect and allegiance to the symbol of our Republic so distasteful? School Boards and teachers are all locals. Get to know them, or be one. Stop sending your hard earned dollars to the Progressive cesspools that so many of our 'institutes of higher learning' have become. Prescription #3 The mainstream media has abandoned the pursuit of truth and are willingly aiding and abetting the Progressive agenda. Supporting trusted voices is a start. But as pervasive as the media misinformation cartel is, the more directly and personally we communicate with others the better. Blog, speak up and fight the lies. Prescription #4 Get together with others locally that share traditional American values. There is strength in numbers - evangelize. We keep each other informed and aware - there is far too much going on for one person to keep up. Be a force in your local precinct/county group. That's where the political action takes place. This is a cultural war and we must assert and defend the values we cherish. Prescription #5 - My legislative Dream List Get on board to: Abolish the IRS and enact the FairTax; end the Fed; repeal Dodd-Frank and Obamacare; substantially reform Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security; abolish the Departments of Education, Homeland Security, Labor, EPA, and shake up the rest, redefining their goals and stripping out any activity not supportive of those goals; term limit Congress, and end crony Capitalism. So, can the idea of America be saved? Yes, as long as it remains in the heart of one citizen. But restoring our nation will take a generation. Oh, and can we please have a President that believes in, and treasures, the Idea of America.
Can The Idea Of America Be Saved?
By almost any measure one could say that America's best days have
passed. We are hopelessly mired in debt. Millions of able-bodied
Americans are unemployed and nearly half our population is now on the
government dole in one way or another. We are today as politically
polarized as I have seen in my lifetime. We are suffering under the boot
of an oppressive regulatory and tax environment. Our fourth estate, the
media, has withdrawn from any pretense of journalism or truth seeking.
And our moral compass, our 'firm reliance on divine providence' appears
all but forgotten.
Should I mention that more than 50 million American lives have been snuffed out in the name of 'women's rights'? Or that we incarcerate more per capita than any developed nation? That nearly a third of our children are being raised without a father (15,000,000) and another five million without a mother?
Wherever you look - whether public education, government institutions, the political climate, big business, the family unit or the faith community - we are failing.
So how is it that our 'shining city on a hill' has lost its luster?
To understand our failures we must first understand the causal drivers of our success - what enabled the experiment to work. In the simplest terms, America succeeded due to its embrace of family, faith and freedom.
The colonies were populated, in large measure, by those seeking religious freedom. Quakers, Puritans and others established themselves and their governance around Biblical principles and mores. From the Mayflower Compact to the governing documents of the original colonies, all were informed by Judeo-Christian values and truths.
Our Founders fully embraced this heritage with its articulation of the laws of nature and of nature's God as the vital threads in defining how man should lead his life and interact with his fellow citizens. The framers' worldview was that these rights were unalienable and universal. They belonged to man, having been gifted by nature's God. The Declaration of Independence expressed a finite definition of these rights. It focused on five principles of the laws of nature and of nature's God. They are:
This was the idea of America - self-reliance, self-government - a free people secure in their rights to life, liberty and property. The idea of America was the recognition that man was meant to live free to pursue his best and that the role of government was to protect and defend the rights of the individual.
The Founders knew that it was the nature of governments to ever creep toward tyranny. They had lived it. And so they went about the work of setting up roadblocks to forestall that eventuality - unalienable rights, enumerated powers, vesting of powers to the states and the people, separation of powers and co-equal branches. But the Founders were equally foresighted to know that the framework they set up through the Constitution was only adequate if the people were good and moral. As John Adams stated, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Fast forward a few hundred years and answer the question - are we still that 'moral and religious people' and, if not, how and why did we lose this critical societal and cultural lynchpin?
While governmental erosions of liberty intermittently occurred, most notably during the tenures of the dynamic duo of Woodrow Wilson (the income tax and the Federal Reserve) and Franklin Roosevelt (where do I start?), one could argue that while we were less free, we were in essence still those 'moral and religious people' in the 1950s and into the 1960s. But the seeds of our decline were being sown for all that to change. Civil society was about to convulse.
Our nation was in turmoil. Race relations had taken center stage and America needed to come to grips with its second-class citizenry, the blacks. Much of the South remained segregated. The Ku Klux Klan terrorized any blacks that didn't know their place. Jim Crow laws ruled. As Congress debated and eventually passed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, two competing movements were bubbling up, the peaceful civil protests of Martin Luther King and the violence and anarchy of the Black Panthers.
At the same time, America was facing an exceedingly unpopular war in Vietnam. The anti-war movement was growing, mushrooming out from our colleges and universities. Coverage of sit-ins, demonstrations and riots filled the airwaves, as did the daily body counts from Vietnam. From Berkeley to the streets of Chicago to Kent State, the intensity of this struggle escalated along with the race war. The Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and the Weather Underground (of Bill Ayers fame) splashed on the scene, railing not only against the war but also violently rejecting the very institutions and mores of civil society. Their calling was violent revolution, foreseeing some 25 million deaths to achieve their ends - some convoluted, quasi-socialist state. Ayers and his 'Alinskyites' were trying to recruit the more radical and violent elements of the race struggle into their fold (Black Panthers, Malcolm X) to rise up and take the government down.
Fear, confusion and division had gripped the country as it watched or read the news. President Lyndon Johnson reacted with his 'Great Society' and 'War on Poverty' initiatives. But Johnson, a staunch opponent of the Civil Rights Act, and not exactly a friend to blacks, was building, through these programs, an ever-faithful voting block (the blacks and the poor), a permanent underclass. Johnson succeeded in putting the blacks back on the plantation, only this time a government plantation. Reliance on government and the victim class were born and being well fed. Too, our contemporary race baiters (Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan) were getting their legs.
Perhaps the greatest tragedy in those years was the fact that Martin Luther King was succeeding, the right way, by showing the good people of America the injustices perpetrated against his race and appealing to their humanity. Tragically, King's dream of equality and lifting up his people (and all people) was subverted by others who saw more power and fortune in fomenting, twisting and sustaining that victim status.
Yes, the sixties gave us the 'Summer of Love'; a rising counterculture; the hippies; flag, draft card and bra burning; a budding feminist movement, a lot of dead bodies, and a rapidly growing government. But it also burned into the progressive 'bible' the effectiveness of playing the victim card and tugging on the good nature (or guilt) of the American people.
This cabal has been effective in convincing Americans that abortion is only an assertion of 'women's rights', that 'fairness' means taking from a producer to redistribute to a ne'er do well, that marriage only between a man and a woman is discriminatory, that indiscriminate sex for teens is just fine, and that God has no place in the public square. Their god is moral relativism, entitlement and government. Their goal (as was the case with communism and fascism) is to bury Christianity and morality, to undermine the church and the family, and replace their traditional roles with a behemoth government.
They viewed the government as the giver of all things, the moral authority, the definer of values, and the great societal leveler.
They have been spectacularly successful. Today a valedictorian that dares utter a word of praise to God or Jesus has his or her mike turned off. Christians are belittled and mocked for their faith. The successful are scorned. Profit is evil. Returning soldiers or those espousing the Constitution are to be put on a terror watch list. Illegal aliens are undocumented aliens. "I'm from the IRS and I am here to help".
Face it, folks, our world has been turned upside down, by design. And as it has taken several generations to get us here, it will also likely take the same to reverse.
To find the solution, I look to the targets of the Progressives - the churches, the traditional family unit, academia and media. The battle is lost in Washington, D.C. And while we must still engage and fight in this arena, the real battle is local.
Prescription #1
We need to awaken our preachers and pastors and enlist them to stand up for nature's God and the laws of nature. We must not allow them to any longer cower in fear of the IRS and their tax-exempt status, or their fear of losing congregants by speaking out against moral relativism and immoral governmental actions. Talk with your feet if your place of worship doesn't align itself with the principles and intent of the Constitution. Let them know why and learn from the experience. The churches have the reach to help turn the tide. And they have an inherent duty to support and defend the principles, as does every citizen. Support the Black Robe Regiment!
Prescription #2
Should the current trends continue in the public education system, we could soon be facing an army of little brown shirts. The schools, the textbooks, and the curriculum need to be continually vetted and called out positively or negatively as appropriate. I am also old fashioned enough to think that the Pledge of Allegiance should reenter the schools as should the opportunity to pray (purely optional for my agnostic and atheist friends). Shouldn't citizens of a country founded on the laws of nature and nature's God be permitted (not required) to pray in school?
And is a show of respect and allegiance to the symbol of our Republic so distasteful? School Boards and teachers are all locals. Get to know them, or be one. Stop sending your hard earned dollars to the Progressive cesspools that so many of our 'institutes of higher learning' have become.
Prescription #3
The mainstream media has abandoned the pursuit of truth and are willingly aiding and abetting the Progressive agenda. Supporting trusted voices is a start. But as pervasive as the media misinformation cartel is, the more directly and personally we communicate with others the better. Blog, speak up and fight the lies.
Prescription #4
Get together with others locally that share traditional American values. There is strength in numbers - evangelize. We keep each other informed and aware - there is far too much going on for one person to keep up. Be a force in your local precinct/county group. That's where the political action takes place. This is a cultural war and we must assert and defend the values we cherish.
Prescription #5 - My legislative Dream List
Get on board to: Abolish the IRS and enact the FairTax; end the Fed; repeal Dodd-Frank and Obamacare; substantially reform Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security; abolish the Departments of Education, Homeland Security, Labor, EPA, and shake up the rest, redefining their goals and stripping out any activity not supportive of those goals; term limit Congress, and end crony Capitalism.
So, can the idea of America be saved? Yes, as long as it remains in the heart of one citizen. But restoring our nation will take a generation.
Oh, and can we please have a President that believes in, and treasures, the Idea of America.
Should I mention that more than 50 million American lives have been snuffed out in the name of 'women's rights'? Or that we incarcerate more per capita than any developed nation? That nearly a third of our children are being raised without a father (15,000,000) and another five million without a mother?
Wherever you look - whether public education, government institutions, the political climate, big business, the family unit or the faith community - we are failing.
So how is it that our 'shining city on a hill' has lost its luster?
To understand our failures we must first understand the causal drivers of our success - what enabled the experiment to work. In the simplest terms, America succeeded due to its embrace of family, faith and freedom.
The colonies were populated, in large measure, by those seeking religious freedom. Quakers, Puritans and others established themselves and their governance around Biblical principles and mores. From the Mayflower Compact to the governing documents of the original colonies, all were informed by Judeo-Christian values and truths.
Our Founders fully embraced this heritage with its articulation of the laws of nature and of nature's God as the vital threads in defining how man should lead his life and interact with his fellow citizens. The framers' worldview was that these rights were unalienable and universal. They belonged to man, having been gifted by nature's God. The Declaration of Independence expressed a finite definition of these rights. It focused on five principles of the laws of nature and of nature's God. They are:
- That all people are created by God, and that by virtue of this circumstance are entitled to be treated equally before the law
- That all people are endowed by God with certain unalienable rights.
- The people are also endowed with the right to govern themselves according to their written consent.
- The people retain the right to alter or abolish an unlawful form of government as an exercise of self-government.
- The people are free to organize the civil government's powers in such a way as to secure their happiness (property).
This was the idea of America - self-reliance, self-government - a free people secure in their rights to life, liberty and property. The idea of America was the recognition that man was meant to live free to pursue his best and that the role of government was to protect and defend the rights of the individual.
The Founders knew that it was the nature of governments to ever creep toward tyranny. They had lived it. And so they went about the work of setting up roadblocks to forestall that eventuality - unalienable rights, enumerated powers, vesting of powers to the states and the people, separation of powers and co-equal branches. But the Founders were equally foresighted to know that the framework they set up through the Constitution was only adequate if the people were good and moral. As John Adams stated, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Fast forward a few hundred years and answer the question - are we still that 'moral and religious people' and, if not, how and why did we lose this critical societal and cultural lynchpin?
While governmental erosions of liberty intermittently occurred, most notably during the tenures of the dynamic duo of Woodrow Wilson (the income tax and the Federal Reserve) and Franklin Roosevelt (where do I start?), one could argue that while we were less free, we were in essence still those 'moral and religious people' in the 1950s and into the 1960s. But the seeds of our decline were being sown for all that to change. Civil society was about to convulse.
Our nation was in turmoil. Race relations had taken center stage and America needed to come to grips with its second-class citizenry, the blacks. Much of the South remained segregated. The Ku Klux Klan terrorized any blacks that didn't know their place. Jim Crow laws ruled. As Congress debated and eventually passed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, two competing movements were bubbling up, the peaceful civil protests of Martin Luther King and the violence and anarchy of the Black Panthers.
At the same time, America was facing an exceedingly unpopular war in Vietnam. The anti-war movement was growing, mushrooming out from our colleges and universities. Coverage of sit-ins, demonstrations and riots filled the airwaves, as did the daily body counts from Vietnam. From Berkeley to the streets of Chicago to Kent State, the intensity of this struggle escalated along with the race war. The Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and the Weather Underground (of Bill Ayers fame) splashed on the scene, railing not only against the war but also violently rejecting the very institutions and mores of civil society. Their calling was violent revolution, foreseeing some 25 million deaths to achieve their ends - some convoluted, quasi-socialist state. Ayers and his 'Alinskyites' were trying to recruit the more radical and violent elements of the race struggle into their fold (Black Panthers, Malcolm X) to rise up and take the government down.
Fear, confusion and division had gripped the country as it watched or read the news. President Lyndon Johnson reacted with his 'Great Society' and 'War on Poverty' initiatives. But Johnson, a staunch opponent of the Civil Rights Act, and not exactly a friend to blacks, was building, through these programs, an ever-faithful voting block (the blacks and the poor), a permanent underclass. Johnson succeeded in putting the blacks back on the plantation, only this time a government plantation. Reliance on government and the victim class were born and being well fed. Too, our contemporary race baiters (Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan) were getting their legs.
Perhaps the greatest tragedy in those years was the fact that Martin Luther King was succeeding, the right way, by showing the good people of America the injustices perpetrated against his race and appealing to their humanity. Tragically, King's dream of equality and lifting up his people (and all people) was subverted by others who saw more power and fortune in fomenting, twisting and sustaining that victim status.
Yes, the sixties gave us the 'Summer of Love'; a rising counterculture; the hippies; flag, draft card and bra burning; a budding feminist movement, a lot of dead bodies, and a rapidly growing government. But it also burned into the progressive 'bible' the effectiveness of playing the victim card and tugging on the good nature (or guilt) of the American people.
This cabal has been effective in convincing Americans that abortion is only an assertion of 'women's rights', that 'fairness' means taking from a producer to redistribute to a ne'er do well, that marriage only between a man and a woman is discriminatory, that indiscriminate sex for teens is just fine, and that God has no place in the public square. Their god is moral relativism, entitlement and government. Their goal (as was the case with communism and fascism) is to bury Christianity and morality, to undermine the church and the family, and replace their traditional roles with a behemoth government.
They viewed the government as the giver of all things, the moral authority, the definer of values, and the great societal leveler.
They have been spectacularly successful. Today a valedictorian that dares utter a word of praise to God or Jesus has his or her mike turned off. Christians are belittled and mocked for their faith. The successful are scorned. Profit is evil. Returning soldiers or those espousing the Constitution are to be put on a terror watch list. Illegal aliens are undocumented aliens. "I'm from the IRS and I am here to help".
Face it, folks, our world has been turned upside down, by design. And as it has taken several generations to get us here, it will also likely take the same to reverse.
To find the solution, I look to the targets of the Progressives - the churches, the traditional family unit, academia and media. The battle is lost in Washington, D.C. And while we must still engage and fight in this arena, the real battle is local.
Prescription #1
We need to awaken our preachers and pastors and enlist them to stand up for nature's God and the laws of nature. We must not allow them to any longer cower in fear of the IRS and their tax-exempt status, or their fear of losing congregants by speaking out against moral relativism and immoral governmental actions. Talk with your feet if your place of worship doesn't align itself with the principles and intent of the Constitution. Let them know why and learn from the experience. The churches have the reach to help turn the tide. And they have an inherent duty to support and defend the principles, as does every citizen. Support the Black Robe Regiment!
Prescription #2
Should the current trends continue in the public education system, we could soon be facing an army of little brown shirts. The schools, the textbooks, and the curriculum need to be continually vetted and called out positively or negatively as appropriate. I am also old fashioned enough to think that the Pledge of Allegiance should reenter the schools as should the opportunity to pray (purely optional for my agnostic and atheist friends). Shouldn't citizens of a country founded on the laws of nature and nature's God be permitted (not required) to pray in school?
And is a show of respect and allegiance to the symbol of our Republic so distasteful? School Boards and teachers are all locals. Get to know them, or be one. Stop sending your hard earned dollars to the Progressive cesspools that so many of our 'institutes of higher learning' have become.
Prescription #3
The mainstream media has abandoned the pursuit of truth and are willingly aiding and abetting the Progressive agenda. Supporting trusted voices is a start. But as pervasive as the media misinformation cartel is, the more directly and personally we communicate with others the better. Blog, speak up and fight the lies.
Prescription #4
Get together with others locally that share traditional American values. There is strength in numbers - evangelize. We keep each other informed and aware - there is far too much going on for one person to keep up. Be a force in your local precinct/county group. That's where the political action takes place. This is a cultural war and we must assert and defend the values we cherish.
Prescription #5 - My legislative Dream List
Get on board to: Abolish the IRS and enact the FairTax; end the Fed; repeal Dodd-Frank and Obamacare; substantially reform Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security; abolish the Departments of Education, Homeland Security, Labor, EPA, and shake up the rest, redefining their goals and stripping out any activity not supportive of those goals; term limit Congress, and end crony Capitalism.
So, can the idea of America be saved? Yes, as long as it remains in the heart of one citizen. But restoring our nation will take a generation.
Oh, and can we please have a President that believes in, and treasures, the Idea of America.
By
Philip C Johnson
By almost any measure one could say that America's best days have
passed. We are hopelessly mired in debt. Millions of able-bodied
Americans are unemployed and nearly half our population is now on the
government dole in one way or another. We are today as politically
polarized as I have seen in my lifetime. We are suffering under the boot
of an oppressive regulatory and tax environment. Our fourth estate, the
media, has withdrawn from any pretense of journalism or truth seeking.
And our moral compass, our 'firm reliance on divine providence' appears
all but forgotten.
Should I mention that more than 50 million American lives have been snuffed out in the name of 'women's rights'? Or that we incarcerate more per capita than any developed nation? That nearly a third of our children are being raised without a father (15,000,000) and another five million without a mother?
Wherever you look - whether public education, government institutions, the political climate, big business, the family unit or the faith community - we are failing.
So how is it that our 'shining city on a hill' has lost its luster?
To understand our failures we must first understand the causal drivers of our success - what enabled the experiment to work. In the simplest terms, America succeeded due to its embrace of family, faith and freedom.
The colonies were populated, in large measure, by those seeking religious freedom. Quakers, Puritans and others established themselves and their governance around Biblical principles and mores. From the Mayflower Compact to the governing documents of the original colonies, all were informed by Judeo-Christian values and truths.
Our Founders fully embraced this heritage with its articulation of the laws of nature and of nature's God as the vital threads in defining how man should lead his life and interact with his fellow citizens. The framers' worldview was that these rights were unalienable and universal. They belonged to man, having been gifted by nature's God. The Declaration of Independence expressed a finite definition of these rights. It focused on five principles of the laws of nature and of nature's God. They are:
This was the idea of America - self-reliance, self-government - a free people secure in their rights to life, liberty and property. The idea of America was the recognition that man was meant to live free to pursue his best and that the role of government was to protect and defend the rights of the individual.
The Founders knew that it was the nature of governments to ever creep toward tyranny. They had lived it. And so they went about the work of setting up roadblocks to forestall that eventuality - unalienable rights, enumerated powers, vesting of powers to the states and the people, separation of powers and co-equal branches. But the Founders were equally foresighted to know that the framework they set up through the Constitution was only adequate if the people were good and moral. As John Adams stated, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Fast forward a few hundred years and answer the question - are we still that 'moral and religious people' and, if not, how and why did we lose this critical societal and cultural lynchpin?
While governmental erosions of liberty intermittently occurred, most notably during the tenures of the dynamic duo of Woodrow Wilson (the income tax and the Federal Reserve) and Franklin Roosevelt (where do I start?), one could argue that while we were less free, we were in essence still those 'moral and religious people' in the 1950s and into the 1960s. But the seeds of our decline were being sown for all that to change. Civil society was about to convulse.
Our nation was in turmoil. Race relations had taken center stage and America needed to come to grips with its second-class citizenry, the blacks. Much of the South remained segregated. The Ku Klux Klan terrorized any blacks that didn't know their place. Jim Crow laws ruled. As Congress debated and eventually passed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, two competing movements were bubbling up, the peaceful civil protests of Martin Luther King and the violence and anarchy of the Black Panthers.
At the same time, America was facing an exceedingly unpopular war in Vietnam. The anti-war movement was growing, mushrooming out from our colleges and universities. Coverage of sit-ins, demonstrations and riots filled the airwaves, as did the daily body counts from Vietnam. From Berkeley to the streets of Chicago to Kent State, the intensity of this struggle escalated along with the race war. The Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and the Weather Underground (of Bill Ayers fame) splashed on the scene, railing not only against the war but also violently rejecting the very institutions and mores of civil society. Their calling was violent revolution, foreseeing some 25 million deaths to achieve their ends - some convoluted, quasi-socialist state. Ayers and his 'Alinskyites' were trying to recruit the more radical and violent elements of the race struggle into their fold (Black Panthers, Malcolm X) to rise up and take the government down.
Fear, confusion and division had gripped the country as it watched or read the news. President Lyndon Johnson reacted with his 'Great Society' and 'War on Poverty' initiatives. But Johnson, a staunch opponent of the Civil Rights Act, and not exactly a friend to blacks, was building, through these programs, an ever-faithful voting block (the blacks and the poor), a permanent underclass. Johnson succeeded in putting the blacks back on the plantation, only this time a government plantation. Reliance on government and the victim class were born and being well fed. Too, our contemporary race baiters (Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan) were getting their legs.
Perhaps the greatest tragedy in those years was the fact that Martin Luther King was succeeding, the right way, by showing the good people of America the injustices perpetrated against his race and appealing to their humanity. Tragically, King's dream of equality and lifting up his people (and all people) was subverted by others who saw more power and fortune in fomenting, twisting and sustaining that victim status.
Yes, the sixties gave us the 'Summer of Love'; a rising counterculture; the hippies; flag, draft card and bra burning; a budding feminist movement, a lot of dead bodies, and a rapidly growing government. But it also burned into the progressive 'bible' the effectiveness of playing the victim card and tugging on the good nature (or guilt) of the American people.
This cabal has been effective in convincing Americans that abortion is only an assertion of 'women's rights', that 'fairness' means taking from a producer to redistribute to a ne'er do well, that marriage only between a man and a woman is discriminatory, that indiscriminate sex for teens is just fine, and that God has no place in the public square. Their god is moral relativism, entitlement and government. Their goal (as was the case with communism and fascism) is to bury Christianity and morality, to undermine the church and the family, and replace their traditional roles with a behemoth government.
They viewed the government as the giver of all things, the moral authority, the definer of values, and the great societal leveler.
They have been spectacularly successful. Today a valedictorian that dares utter a word of praise to God or Jesus has his or her mike turned off. Christians are belittled and mocked for their faith. The successful are scorned. Profit is evil. Returning soldiers or those espousing the Constitution are to be put on a terror watch list. Illegal aliens are undocumented aliens. "I'm from the IRS and I am here to help".
Face it, folks, our world has been turned upside down, by design. And as it has taken several generations to get us here, it will also likely take the same to reverse.
To find the solution, I look to the targets of the Progressives - the churches, the traditional family unit, academia and media. The battle is lost in Washington, D.C. And while we must still engage and fight in this arena, the real battle is local.
Prescription #1
We need to awaken our preachers and pastors and enlist them to stand up for nature's God and the laws of nature. We must not allow them to any longer cower in fear of the IRS and their tax-exempt status, or their fear of losing congregants by speaking out against moral relativism and immoral governmental actions. Talk with your feet if your place of worship doesn't align itself with the principles and intent of the Constitution. Let them know why and learn from the experience. The churches have the reach to help turn the tide. And they have an inherent duty to support and defend the principles, as does every citizen. Support the Black Robe Regiment!
Prescription #2
Should the current trends continue in the public education system, we could soon be facing an army of little brown shirts. The schools, the textbooks, and the curriculum need to be continually vetted and called out positively or negatively as appropriate. I am also old fashioned enough to think that the Pledge of Allegiance should reenter the schools as should the opportunity to pray (purely optional for my agnostic and atheist friends). Shouldn't citizens of a country founded on the laws of nature and nature's God be permitted (not required) to pray in school?
And is a show of respect and allegiance to the symbol of our Republic so distasteful? School Boards and teachers are all locals. Get to know them, or be one. Stop sending your hard earned dollars to the Progressive cesspools that so many of our 'institutes of higher learning' have become.
Prescription #3
The mainstream media has abandoned the pursuit of truth and are willingly aiding and abetting the Progressive agenda. Supporting trusted voices is a start. But as pervasive as the media misinformation cartel is, the more directly and personally we communicate with others the better. Blog, speak up and fight the lies.
Prescription #4
Get together with others locally that share traditional American values. There is strength in numbers - evangelize. We keep each other informed and aware - there is far too much going on for one person to keep up. Be a force in your local precinct/county group. That's where the political action takes place. This is a cultural war and we must assert and defend the values we cherish.
Prescription #5 - My legislative Dream List
Get on board to: Abolish the IRS and enact the FairTax; end the Fed; repeal Dodd-Frank and Obamacare; substantially reform Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security; abolish the Departments of Education, Homeland Security, Labor, EPA, and shake up the rest, redefining their goals and stripping out any activity not supportive of those goals; term limit Congress, and end crony Capitalism.
So, can the idea of America be saved? Yes, as long as it remains in the heart of one citizen. But restoring our nation will take a generation.
Oh, and can we please have a President that believes in, and treasures, the Idea of America.
Should I mention that more than 50 million American lives have been snuffed out in the name of 'women's rights'? Or that we incarcerate more per capita than any developed nation? That nearly a third of our children are being raised without a father (15,000,000) and another five million without a mother?
Wherever you look - whether public education, government institutions, the political climate, big business, the family unit or the faith community - we are failing.
So how is it that our 'shining city on a hill' has lost its luster?
To understand our failures we must first understand the causal drivers of our success - what enabled the experiment to work. In the simplest terms, America succeeded due to its embrace of family, faith and freedom.
The colonies were populated, in large measure, by those seeking religious freedom. Quakers, Puritans and others established themselves and their governance around Biblical principles and mores. From the Mayflower Compact to the governing documents of the original colonies, all were informed by Judeo-Christian values and truths.
Our Founders fully embraced this heritage with its articulation of the laws of nature and of nature's God as the vital threads in defining how man should lead his life and interact with his fellow citizens. The framers' worldview was that these rights were unalienable and universal. They belonged to man, having been gifted by nature's God. The Declaration of Independence expressed a finite definition of these rights. It focused on five principles of the laws of nature and of nature's God. They are:
- That all people are created by God, and that by virtue of this circumstance are entitled to be treated equally before the law
- That all people are endowed by God with certain unalienable rights.
- The people are also endowed with the right to govern themselves according to their written consent.
- The people retain the right to alter or abolish an unlawful form of government as an exercise of self-government.
- The people are free to organize the civil government's powers in such a way as to secure their happiness (property).
This was the idea of America - self-reliance, self-government - a free people secure in their rights to life, liberty and property. The idea of America was the recognition that man was meant to live free to pursue his best and that the role of government was to protect and defend the rights of the individual.
The Founders knew that it was the nature of governments to ever creep toward tyranny. They had lived it. And so they went about the work of setting up roadblocks to forestall that eventuality - unalienable rights, enumerated powers, vesting of powers to the states and the people, separation of powers and co-equal branches. But the Founders were equally foresighted to know that the framework they set up through the Constitution was only adequate if the people were good and moral. As John Adams stated, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Fast forward a few hundred years and answer the question - are we still that 'moral and religious people' and, if not, how and why did we lose this critical societal and cultural lynchpin?
While governmental erosions of liberty intermittently occurred, most notably during the tenures of the dynamic duo of Woodrow Wilson (the income tax and the Federal Reserve) and Franklin Roosevelt (where do I start?), one could argue that while we were less free, we were in essence still those 'moral and religious people' in the 1950s and into the 1960s. But the seeds of our decline were being sown for all that to change. Civil society was about to convulse.
Our nation was in turmoil. Race relations had taken center stage and America needed to come to grips with its second-class citizenry, the blacks. Much of the South remained segregated. The Ku Klux Klan terrorized any blacks that didn't know their place. Jim Crow laws ruled. As Congress debated and eventually passed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, two competing movements were bubbling up, the peaceful civil protests of Martin Luther King and the violence and anarchy of the Black Panthers.
At the same time, America was facing an exceedingly unpopular war in Vietnam. The anti-war movement was growing, mushrooming out from our colleges and universities. Coverage of sit-ins, demonstrations and riots filled the airwaves, as did the daily body counts from Vietnam. From Berkeley to the streets of Chicago to Kent State, the intensity of this struggle escalated along with the race war. The Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and the Weather Underground (of Bill Ayers fame) splashed on the scene, railing not only against the war but also violently rejecting the very institutions and mores of civil society. Their calling was violent revolution, foreseeing some 25 million deaths to achieve their ends - some convoluted, quasi-socialist state. Ayers and his 'Alinskyites' were trying to recruit the more radical and violent elements of the race struggle into their fold (Black Panthers, Malcolm X) to rise up and take the government down.
Fear, confusion and division had gripped the country as it watched or read the news. President Lyndon Johnson reacted with his 'Great Society' and 'War on Poverty' initiatives. But Johnson, a staunch opponent of the Civil Rights Act, and not exactly a friend to blacks, was building, through these programs, an ever-faithful voting block (the blacks and the poor), a permanent underclass. Johnson succeeded in putting the blacks back on the plantation, only this time a government plantation. Reliance on government and the victim class were born and being well fed. Too, our contemporary race baiters (Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan) were getting their legs.
Perhaps the greatest tragedy in those years was the fact that Martin Luther King was succeeding, the right way, by showing the good people of America the injustices perpetrated against his race and appealing to their humanity. Tragically, King's dream of equality and lifting up his people (and all people) was subverted by others who saw more power and fortune in fomenting, twisting and sustaining that victim status.
Yes, the sixties gave us the 'Summer of Love'; a rising counterculture; the hippies; flag, draft card and bra burning; a budding feminist movement, a lot of dead bodies, and a rapidly growing government. But it also burned into the progressive 'bible' the effectiveness of playing the victim card and tugging on the good nature (or guilt) of the American people.
This cabal has been effective in convincing Americans that abortion is only an assertion of 'women's rights', that 'fairness' means taking from a producer to redistribute to a ne'er do well, that marriage only between a man and a woman is discriminatory, that indiscriminate sex for teens is just fine, and that God has no place in the public square. Their god is moral relativism, entitlement and government. Their goal (as was the case with communism and fascism) is to bury Christianity and morality, to undermine the church and the family, and replace their traditional roles with a behemoth government.
They viewed the government as the giver of all things, the moral authority, the definer of values, and the great societal leveler.
They have been spectacularly successful. Today a valedictorian that dares utter a word of praise to God or Jesus has his or her mike turned off. Christians are belittled and mocked for their faith. The successful are scorned. Profit is evil. Returning soldiers or those espousing the Constitution are to be put on a terror watch list. Illegal aliens are undocumented aliens. "I'm from the IRS and I am here to help".
Face it, folks, our world has been turned upside down, by design. And as it has taken several generations to get us here, it will also likely take the same to reverse.
To find the solution, I look to the targets of the Progressives - the churches, the traditional family unit, academia and media. The battle is lost in Washington, D.C. And while we must still engage and fight in this arena, the real battle is local.
Prescription #1
We need to awaken our preachers and pastors and enlist them to stand up for nature's God and the laws of nature. We must not allow them to any longer cower in fear of the IRS and their tax-exempt status, or their fear of losing congregants by speaking out against moral relativism and immoral governmental actions. Talk with your feet if your place of worship doesn't align itself with the principles and intent of the Constitution. Let them know why and learn from the experience. The churches have the reach to help turn the tide. And they have an inherent duty to support and defend the principles, as does every citizen. Support the Black Robe Regiment!
Prescription #2
Should the current trends continue in the public education system, we could soon be facing an army of little brown shirts. The schools, the textbooks, and the curriculum need to be continually vetted and called out positively or negatively as appropriate. I am also old fashioned enough to think that the Pledge of Allegiance should reenter the schools as should the opportunity to pray (purely optional for my agnostic and atheist friends). Shouldn't citizens of a country founded on the laws of nature and nature's God be permitted (not required) to pray in school?
And is a show of respect and allegiance to the symbol of our Republic so distasteful? School Boards and teachers are all locals. Get to know them, or be one. Stop sending your hard earned dollars to the Progressive cesspools that so many of our 'institutes of higher learning' have become.
Prescription #3
The mainstream media has abandoned the pursuit of truth and are willingly aiding and abetting the Progressive agenda. Supporting trusted voices is a start. But as pervasive as the media misinformation cartel is, the more directly and personally we communicate with others the better. Blog, speak up and fight the lies.
Prescription #4
Get together with others locally that share traditional American values. There is strength in numbers - evangelize. We keep each other informed and aware - there is far too much going on for one person to keep up. Be a force in your local precinct/county group. That's where the political action takes place. This is a cultural war and we must assert and defend the values we cherish.
Prescription #5 - My legislative Dream List
Get on board to: Abolish the IRS and enact the FairTax; end the Fed; repeal Dodd-Frank and Obamacare; substantially reform Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security; abolish the Departments of Education, Homeland Security, Labor, EPA, and shake up the rest, redefining their goals and stripping out any activity not supportive of those goals; term limit Congress, and end crony Capitalism.
So, can the idea of America be saved? Yes, as long as it remains in the heart of one citizen. But restoring our nation will take a generation.
Oh, and can we please have a President that believes in, and treasures, the Idea of America.
Death And The Maiden By Ariel Dorfman
By
Mtutuzeli Nyoka
Almost two decades since it was published Death and the Maiden
remains fresh and topical. The story starts with Paulina Calas seated on
the terrace. She is married to a human rights lawyer, Gerardo Escobar,
who has been appointed to the country's commission to investigate human
rights abuses of the previous regime in a country that is not stated.
Paulina then imprisons the house guest of her husband, the seemingly benign and even amiable Dr. Roberto Miranda because she thinks he tortured and raped her when she was a political prisoner. The book mostly consists of an on-going conversation among the trio.
Paulina's nightmare started on April 6th, 1975. Three got out of a car and one stuck a gun to her heard and said: "One word and we'll blow you away Miss." She was then taken to prison, tortured and repeatedly raped. One of her torturers was a medical doctor. Though she could not see him because she was blindfolded, she never forgot his voice. When she hears Dr. Miranda speaking in her house, she is certain that he was her gaoler.
It seems the doctor was at first hired by the torturers to alleviate the suffering of the prisoners. But with time the brutality he witnessed transformed him into a monster. He became less interested in the welfare of his patients, and their pain became a drug that excited him.
He became more concerned with how much a tortured human being can endure before he dies. He was keen to know how torture, including the use of electric current, affects a woman's sexuality.
By the time Paulina Salas was arrested it was already too late, and the doctor's virtue had been supplanted by sadism. He had become the embodiment of evil and was a willing participant in the mass rapes of female prisoners.
Death and The Maiden is an obvious reference to several regimes in South America. Dorfman's native Chile was ruled by General Pinochet for almost two decades until he stepped down in 1991. His rule was a monument to brutal intolerance and persecution of dissidents. However the unmistakable parallels to regimes in our own continent also cannot be missed.
It seems impossible to detach the author from the character of Gerardo, the humane human rights lawyer. The character's role seems to have a submerged affinity to the author's message. The author also forces us to ask ourselves what caused Dr. Miranda to become a monster. He is an educated and even a refined man with a deep love of music. However when anarchy ensued, his coarser instincts and the evil side of his nature asserted themselves.
Perhaps Ariel Dorfman is an advocate of the rule of law applying even to the best among us. Since when no restrictions exist and everything is allowed, even the most virtuous are capable of total degradation.
The book also skilfully shows the human forces that are unleashed when the victims finally face their tormentors. It shows how this confrontation can sometimes lead to healing. I found the political message in the book to be only a marginal dividend. Dorfman is a natural reconciler and the last paragraph in the story is a demonstration of that.
And why does it always have to be people like me who have to sacrifice why are we always the ones who have to make concessions when something has to be conceded, why always me who has to bite her tongue, why?
In Paulina, her anger notwithstanding, there seems to be a grudging acceptance of the need for forgiveness. It is both a human and a pragmatic need.
What do we lose by killing one of them? What do we lose? What do we lose?
With these last words Paulina is finally freed from her tomb of anger, and seems to be actually asking herself: What do we gain by killing one of them? What do we gain? What do we gain? With this, the largeness of her soul and the profundity of her mind are revealed. It is as if she realises that sometimes the battle between good and evil can end in a truce.
Paulina is the central character in the story. It is her portrait that shines, and the other characters are only marginal. She is aware of the importance of her decisions. It is her ordeal, her rage, and it is her ultimate response that frees the others to get on with their lives.
Death and the Maiden, though sad, is a thoughtful, profoundly subtle, and marvellously entertaining read. It exposes the appalling and extremely disturbing face of a dictatorship, and raises the moral issues of justice, retribution, and forgiveness.
Paulina then imprisons the house guest of her husband, the seemingly benign and even amiable Dr. Roberto Miranda because she thinks he tortured and raped her when she was a political prisoner. The book mostly consists of an on-going conversation among the trio.
Paulina's nightmare started on April 6th, 1975. Three got out of a car and one stuck a gun to her heard and said: "One word and we'll blow you away Miss." She was then taken to prison, tortured and repeatedly raped. One of her torturers was a medical doctor. Though she could not see him because she was blindfolded, she never forgot his voice. When she hears Dr. Miranda speaking in her house, she is certain that he was her gaoler.
It seems the doctor was at first hired by the torturers to alleviate the suffering of the prisoners. But with time the brutality he witnessed transformed him into a monster. He became less interested in the welfare of his patients, and their pain became a drug that excited him.
He became more concerned with how much a tortured human being can endure before he dies. He was keen to know how torture, including the use of electric current, affects a woman's sexuality.
By the time Paulina Salas was arrested it was already too late, and the doctor's virtue had been supplanted by sadism. He had become the embodiment of evil and was a willing participant in the mass rapes of female prisoners.
Death and The Maiden is an obvious reference to several regimes in South America. Dorfman's native Chile was ruled by General Pinochet for almost two decades until he stepped down in 1991. His rule was a monument to brutal intolerance and persecution of dissidents. However the unmistakable parallels to regimes in our own continent also cannot be missed.
It seems impossible to detach the author from the character of Gerardo, the humane human rights lawyer. The character's role seems to have a submerged affinity to the author's message. The author also forces us to ask ourselves what caused Dr. Miranda to become a monster. He is an educated and even a refined man with a deep love of music. However when anarchy ensued, his coarser instincts and the evil side of his nature asserted themselves.
Perhaps Ariel Dorfman is an advocate of the rule of law applying even to the best among us. Since when no restrictions exist and everything is allowed, even the most virtuous are capable of total degradation.
The book also skilfully shows the human forces that are unleashed when the victims finally face their tormentors. It shows how this confrontation can sometimes lead to healing. I found the political message in the book to be only a marginal dividend. Dorfman is a natural reconciler and the last paragraph in the story is a demonstration of that.
And why does it always have to be people like me who have to sacrifice why are we always the ones who have to make concessions when something has to be conceded, why always me who has to bite her tongue, why?
In Paulina, her anger notwithstanding, there seems to be a grudging acceptance of the need for forgiveness. It is both a human and a pragmatic need.
What do we lose by killing one of them? What do we lose? What do we lose?
With these last words Paulina is finally freed from her tomb of anger, and seems to be actually asking herself: What do we gain by killing one of them? What do we gain? What do we gain? With this, the largeness of her soul and the profundity of her mind are revealed. It is as if she realises that sometimes the battle between good and evil can end in a truce.
Paulina is the central character in the story. It is her portrait that shines, and the other characters are only marginal. She is aware of the importance of her decisions. It is her ordeal, her rage, and it is her ultimate response that frees the others to get on with their lives.
Death and the Maiden, though sad, is a thoughtful, profoundly subtle, and marvellously entertaining read. It exposes the appalling and extremely disturbing face of a dictatorship, and raises the moral issues of justice, retribution, and forgiveness.
The Meaning of "This Town"
By
Tim Bryce
Perhaps a more apt title for author Mark Leibovich's new book,
"This Town," would be "Mad Money," as he makes it clear our nation's
capitol is about money and power and little else. While the rest of the
country suffered through the recession, Washington's unemployment rate
was one of the lowest in the country and the city became a money-making
engine for its residents, which is unusual for a town without any major
industry (aside from politics and press). Leibovich is the Chief
National Correspondent for "The New York Times Magazine." Although I was
initially suspicious of the author's intentions, he has actually done
the country a great service by spelling out what is wrong with politics
in the capitol.From a journalist's perspective, Leibovich reveals the true culture of DC, where an incestuous relationship exists between Government, Journalists, and Lobbyists. All scratch each other's backs in order to climb their respective totem polls and grab as much money as possible along the way. He paints a picture of unadulterated collusion. He makes it clear Washington exists not to solve the problems of the country but to line the pockets of the residents there. From this perspective, we shouldn't be surprised other than how widespread the problem really is. Whether you are a government official, lobbyist, or a member of the press, it's about making money and control of the system. All three parties require love to stroke their ego, lots of it, and sees themselves as celebrities on the same level as Hollywood (or higher) which explains why they get along so well. They are so consumed by climbing the tree of power, they have lost sight of why they were sent to Washington.
Publicity and the press play a vital role in Washington, not so much to represent the nation's interests but those of government officials who spend more time on re-election as opposed to administering or governing. It is not so much important to report on what is accomplished in Washington, but who said what about whom which, of course, is indicative of an irresponsible sensationalist press. Instead of a 24 hour news cycle, journalists today make active use of social media (e.g., Tweeting, blogging, Facebook, etc.) to report anything of insignificance instantaneously. Through Leibovich, we begin to see how the media perceives themselves as elitists and the American public as cattle. They are above it all. They are megalomaniacs, smug, in love with their brilliance, and herein lies their Achilles' Heel. They have no true perception of reality, no ethics, only how witty and politically correct they can be and whom they can either build up or take down in Washington. If this isn't "Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic," I do not know what is.
Pandering to the media, politicians do likewise and concentrate on facade, not substance. They focus only on those topics that make fodder for the press, not to those topics that might help the American public, such as balancing the federal budget. Being fully cognizant of their power, a sense of thugery has emerged in the press. Leibovich himself often refers to the press as "The Mob" and reporters as "Wise Guys." Understand this, most of the political rhetoric being produced from Washington, particularly during the 2012 presidential campaign, is by Millennials trying to make a name for themselves, not veteran reporters.
Prior to his 2008 election, Barack Obama promised to become the most transparent president of all time, where lobbyists would hold no sway and the administration would come forward with all pertinent news, facts and figures. Even Leibovich admits this didn't exactly happen, but rather, lobbyist influence continued to grow unabated and the administration became more secretive with the press. He also reveals, both political parties have secret "Opposition Files" used to smear politicians, which is reminiscent of those possessed by J.Edgar Hoover.
Through the book, Leibovich slips and reveals the Democratic bias of the press. Regardless of President Obama's problems, he can do no wrong in the eyes of the mainstream media. In their eyes, the president is blameless for everything and genuinely the most brilliant president there has ever been. This is only surpassed by the media's love affair with the Clintons. For some unknown reason, they are totally in awe of Hillary as well as her husband. Through the book it becomes rather obvious who the press will be working for in 2016.
On the other hand, Republicans are held in contempt and portrayed as foolish bumpkins, particularly by Leibovich. Sarah Palin and the Tea Party are favorite targets, probably because the press feels most threatened by them. Conservatives are dismissed outright without listening to their side of the story. During the 2012 presidential election, Leibovich constantly refers to the "Romney-bots," meaning Romney supporters are unthinking and clueless as to how the country runs. Again, we see how the press "knows better" than the public. Throughout the campaign, the press focused on what Governor Romney said, as opposed to the president's track record.
Leibovich is also an unashamed name dropper, thereby providing a "Who's Who" of Washington, DC, and by doing so, reveals the identities of the liberal left in the media, particularly within NBC and its affiliate MSNBC. Prominently mentioned are: Andrea Mitchell, David Gregory, Tom Brokaw, Savannah Guthrie, Chris Matthews, and many others. The book begins with the funeral of Tim Russert, the appointed "Mayor" of "This Town." Remarkably, Leibovich has little to say about Fox News and conservative talk radio.
If the book teaches us anything, it is that the system is broken and in need of major repair. The only way to fix it is to somehow stop the money flow. This can be done several ways, such as term limits for politicians, prohibiting politicians and their aids from joining lobbyists, capping campaign spending, or requiring a 50/50 split of all campaign spending between the media and charities, or paying off the federal debt.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)