"SPQR"

Ever watch those movies that show the might of ancient Rome? You know, "Spartacus" with Kirk Douglas, or maybe more recently "Gladiator?" When you look behind the Roman soldiers, you'll see banners or standards or buildings with the letters "SPQR" on them.

"SPQR" meant stood for "Senatus PopulusQue Romanus" or in English, "The Senate and the People of Rome."

It meant that whatever was going on supposedly had the approval of the official Roman government--the Senate and the People. In the first 500 years of Rome, the people had a fairly decent balanced, free government (especially when compared with other ancient governments). They had a Senate, which was composed of their leading elders. Supposedly wise men. They had an assembly--or lower chamber of government also--which represented the interests of the more common people.

But about 44 years before Christ, there was a switch in government. Through much intrigue and a civil war, Rome replaced their Senate and Assembly with a dictator--Julius Caesar, then his nephew, Octavian ("Augustus Caesar"), then for the next 400 years a succession of brutal tyrants known as the Caesars. Rome was no longer the Republic. It was the Empire.

The Senate continued to meet and babble and dabble in politics, but they had "punted the ball" of true government to the tyrants. The masses of people ignored the loss of freedom so long as they were fed free bread and circuses.

The signs stayed up--SPQR--The Senate and the People of Rome. But it was all a show, and the industrious, proud people of Rome continued their downward spiral toward invasion, slavery, and destruction.

"Group Workcamps"

I just returned from a mission's trip with an organization called "Group Workcamps." We went down to Lexington, North Carolina for a week. Wow, what a blast. About 400 teenagers and adults from nine states (everthing from Nebraska to South Carolina). We had people representing 18 different denominations, and we were there to fix up the homes of a lot of people who had fallen on hard times.

I can't say enough about the group from my church, my work crew, and the entire organization of Group Workcamps. All week throughout the hot, muggy weather we pulled together and gave some hope to people at 65 worksites in the Lexington area. The people of that town were so generous and appreciative. We met mayors and city councilmen, school officials, and just the average citizen up and down the line. We crossed denominational and political lines just to help people in need. It was a terrific experience.

I could go on and on. But if you are looking for something really transformational to do, please consider Group Workcamps out of Loveland, Colorado, or an organization like it. Plan on a summer of service next year, and enjoy it as you pitch in to help out other people who are in need.

"How Many Czars Does A Free People Need?"

Back in the 1980's I remember the Federal Government creating a position of a "Drug Czar." I'm sure there was a more official title, but that's what the person in charge was called. Then we had the "Education Czar." (By the way, how are they doing? How successful has their work been?)

Now we have 11 unelected "Car Czars" who are answerable only to President Obama, and they are now running GM and Chrysler. In rapid succession we have the "Cyber Czar" who will oversee internet security (I thought that was the job of the Pentagon, the FBI, CIA, NSA, and so on. . . ). Now this week Representative Maxine Waters defended the idea of a "Pay Czar"--someone who will make sure that CEO's of companies that receive federal hand-outs will not make too much money.

Does anybody ask simple questions anymore--like, "Where is this office in the Constitution?" How about: "How can the Federal Government do a good job in these areas when they can't even do the few things they are supposed to do in the Constitution?" How about this one: "What does 'Czar' mean?"

It is the Russian word for "Caesar." The Germans say, "Kaiser." The Russians said "Czar" for absolute ruler or emperor. I thought we had a Republic. There is no place for a Czar or Kaiser or Caesar in a Republic of the people, by the people, and for the people. Right? How many more of these "czars" will we have. . . until there is no more republic. . .of the people, by the people, and for the people?

"An Open Letter to My Congressmen"

Yesterday the U.S. Congress officially turned their backs on private property rights and at least 40,000 innocent Americans. For weeks I have been calling my elected officials in Washington D.C. to please do something to stop the illegal and unjust closing of 789 Chrysler dealerships by 11 unelected "car czars" and an out of control bankruptcy judge. I had a glimmer of hope the past few days that maybe some members of Congress were getting it. But after yesterday, I conclude that the Congress as a whole could care less about you and me.

So, I wrote my Congressmen today. Essentially, this is what was in my three e-mails:

"Dear Congressmen--Can you explain to me how you can stand idly by and watch 40,000 Americans get thrown out of work and call that "strengthening the middle class?" I read your websites often, and there is usually this slogan--"We are strengthening the middle class." Baloney. You watched eleven unelected "car czars" (whose job descriptions are NOT in the Constitution) and a bankruptcy judge cancel the franchise agreements of 789 Chrysler dealerships. You watched as thousands of livelihoods of honest Americans were taken away by government. You watched as private businesses which were no burden to the government, no burden to Chrysler were snatched away, and trampled without appeal.

I suppose this is the dawn of "spreading the wealth" in America. I guess this is your idea of "strengthening the middle class." Confiscate other people's livelihood, and transfer it to others, just because you think you can get away with it.

I never heard a peep of protest from any of you. The Senate had hearings last week and thumped their chests, and said "Tisk, tisk." Then you did NOTHING. You watched as the Constitution you swore to uphold was spat upon. You said and did NOTHING.

We don't need more of your government programs. All we ask is that you leave us alone to be free and for you to do your job according to the Constitution you swore to uphold."

Ladies and gentlemen, I don't know why Congress is not listening. I have to believe that at some point, someone will wake up and do the right thing.

Dick Cheney and Gay Marriage

Just recently former Vice President Dick Cheney gave us his views on gay marriage. Of course it is public knowledge that one of his daughters, Mary, is a homosexual and is raising a child with her lesbian partner, so I assume his comments are colored by this situation in their family.

The former Vice President said, "I think freedom means freedom for everyone. . .I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish." He went on to say that this is a state issue (a la the 10th Amendment) and not something for the federal government to deal with.

I hope the former the Vice President would like to go back and re-think his statement. People should be free to enter any kind of union they wish--any kind of arrangement they wish? You sure about that? Polygamy? I'm tempted to just say to the anti-marriage crowd (the Gay/Lesbian/Transgender groups)--"Fine, go ahead and legalize 'gay marriage.' But then also recognize as legal every single other union that anyone can think up. That means polygamy and multiple marriages." We already have polygamy going in several different religious groups in America, although it is still illegal. Why not multiple marriage--which is a little different. In that arrangement you can marry as many people--of whatever gender--you like. And you're all married! (It doesn't have to be consumated--but it's all called "marriage.") Can you imagine what this would do to property rights? What would this do to custody rights of parents over children?

People can laugh all they want, and snicker,"Oh but that's not what we want." Yeah, but that's what you'll get once you re-define marriage and make it legal for "any kind of arrangement they wish." While we're at it, why stop with unions between consenting adults? In some nations around the world, they don't even have age of consent laws. Why not get rid of age of consent laws too, and bring back forced, arranged marriages between adults and minors?

Once we ignore the "ancient boundary stones" we will be left with something we will wish we had never received. Mr. Cheney would be better served by believing and standing firm on the original design of marriage than by caving in to the "political correctness" of our downwardly spiralling culture.

"Michael Moore's Joy"

I just read Michael Moore's blog entitled "Goodbye, GM." It is really difficult for me to understand someone's joy over the death of a legitimate, legal business that employed tens of thousands of people all over the world, raised the standard of living for millions, and for 100 years attempted to supply a useful product for a free people who wanted the product. Yet in the blog he clearly states: "So here we are at the death of General Motors. The company's body is not yet cold, and I find myself filled with--dare I say it--joy."

He goes on to blame GM for "misery, divorce, alcoholism, homelessness, physical and mental debilitation, and drug addiction to the people I grew up with." A corporation did all this? People are not responsible for their own actions? Does Mr. Moore then admit that his own physical shortcomings are not due to his own lack of self-control but rather to some diabolical scheme of GM?

You just have to read his blog (www.michaelmoore.com). He may have a few good points about some problems that GM brought on themselves. But at the end, GM's demise is the result of more people preferring to buy other products they saw as superior, not because of some government decree. When government operates outside of its constitutional authority, it's decrees, programs, or "reforms" do not make problems smaller or improved.

The long and short of his diatribe is that Michael Moore believes in man-made global warming, and that free markets and private businesses (oil companies) are to blame for all our ills. He contends that we need his ideas and more government to better manage our lives. Only massive federal projects (like "light rail" bullet trains and smaller electric or hybrid cars) are the solution. (I wonder what kind of car he drives. Does he drive a Toyota Prius, or one of other the hybrid cars currently on the market?)

If a free people want something, it will happen faster, cheaper, and better than anything a centralized government can provide. This is the lesson from history. Facts are stubborn things.