"Swine Flu"

I remember as a kid in junior high in the 70's the threat of swine flu. Yes it made the headlines back then, and everybody was afraid, and no epidemic broke out. Here we go again.

So out of a nation of 310 million people, less than 100 cases of this strain of swine flu has erupted, with only one death. All I hear is panic at every turn, with the UN, our President, the Center for Disease Control, and the head of Health and Human Services all pledging to work hard on this case and help us through this "pandemic" as they call it.

What can government do? Stop and think for a minute. There is no vaccine for this. It is not airborne. But millions of people look to our government for wisdom and safety and they receive such sage advice as this: Wash your hands and don't cough in someone's face. I kid you not. This is the serious advice from our leadership? I thought I learned such hygiene tips from my mother when I was four!

Remember the bird flu that was supposed to wipe us out four years ago? Remember West Nile Virus (which the newscasters always bring out on a slow news day)? Forgive me if I am a bit cynical, but when our government continues to create its own crises only to offer itself as a solution, and when our government continues to politicize things such as the weather ("climate change"), I can't help but be a little skeptical. Cover your mouth when you sneeze, and go about your business, and ignore the professional politicians who can't let a good crisis go to waste.

"James Madison and Democracy"

I have heard several Presidents in my lifetime refer to our nation as a "democracy." In common parlance, most people take it to mean a free country as opposed to an authoritarian nation like Saudi Arabia or a totalitarian government like North Korea.

However, the word "democracy" does not exist in any of our founding documents: the Mayflower Compact, the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Nortwest Ordinance of 1787, and the U.S. Constitution.

To find out more of what our Founders thought of democracy, read James Madison's comments in The Federalist Papers. If you don't have time to read the whole book, here's a quote from Mr. Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," to give you an idea as to where he stood. In Federalist 10 he states:

"Hence it is that democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

Madison, a very good student of history and human nature, understood that while no human government is perfect, the de-centralized, limited, constitutional republic is the best guarantor of freedom, not a democracy.

I hear some clergy expressing the notion that somehow their duties are confined only to things that are "spiritual." Just preach the Gospel. Just bring people into the Kingdom. Stay out of the secular governance of the nation. Politics are dirty. It's always been that way--always will be. And so on.

While I am personally committed to the proclamation of the Gospel, is the intersection of faith and life off limits when it comes to good government? John Witherspoon, the only clergyman to sign the Declaration of Independence did not think so. Witherspoon, also the President of the College of New Jersey (later known as Princeton University) and the mentor of James Madison had this to say in May of 1776:

"I willingly embrace the opportunity of declaring my opinion without any hesitation, that the cause in which America is now in arms, is the cause of justice, of liberty, and of human nature. . . The knowledge of God and his truths have from the beginning of the world been chiefly, if not entirely confined to those parts of the earth where some degree of liberty and political justice were to be seen. . . There is not a single instance in history, in which civil liberty was lost, and religious liberty preserved entire. If therefore we yield up our temporal property, we at the same time deliver the conscience into bondage."

In other words, if people who believe in the biblical Revealer of Truth and Liberty shut their mouths, and confine themselves to the "ghetto" of speaking only about "safe" spiritual topics that will offend no one, then eventually the enemies of freedom will not stop. They will show no tolerance to those who are committed to the biblical revelation. They will not be satisfied until they ultimately remove freedom even to speak about the supposedly "safe" topics.

Let Witherspoon have the last say here: "A Republic once equally poised, must either preserve its virtue, or lose its liberty."

"Frugal and Free"

I really love stories like this. I just read an article in the magazine American Profile (comes in my local paper's weekend edition) about the most frugal family in America. Steve and Annette Economides of Scottsdale, Arizona have four children, live on only $44,000 a year, and they are doing very, very well for themselves. They've been married for 26 years, paid off the mortgage on their home within 9 years (while Steve was making only $35,000 a year), they eat just fine, have nice clothes, drive the same kinds of vehicles everyone else has, and by all appearances look very happy.

I realize plenty of Americans look at such families and think, "Man--what a bunch of cheapskates. I bet they are miserable." I think to myself, "Can you imagine how happy and free you would feel if you had no debt?" How do they do it? Annette says, "So much of what we do is just common sense. . . It's the way our parents and grandparents lived. People need to slow down and think." How about that--the way to get out of debt, have the money you need when you need it, to live just fine and have what you want--is to use common sense, live within your means, slow down and think.

Think Congress, the President, plenty of corporations, and at least half of America could learn a lesson from this ordinary American family?

"A New Economy Founded Upon a Rock?"

I heard President Obama's speech at Georgetown University yesterday. It's a direct reference to Jesus' parable in Matthew 7 about a wise man and a foolish man building their homes. Of course the foolish man built upon something that shifts and provides no security--sand. The wise man built upon something stable--rock. He mentioned that "we cannot build this economy on the same pile of sand. We must build our house upon a rock."

I was amazed that my President even alluded to biblical illustrations. Of course, this is a free country, and free speech is what we're all about. But he specifically mentioned Jesus' story and tied it to economics. So, I suppose it's alright then to say that in politics it's O.K. to say that biblical principles can be applied to good government and good economics?

However, I must politely disagree with his conclusion that his version of a new economic policy is a policy built upon a rock. How is taking on ten trillion dollars of unsustainable debt building a future for our country upon a rock? More government spending, more government projects, more government control is producing a better economy? He mentions that in times of crisis families naturally cut back, and that is responsible. But President Obama says, "government needs to stimulate demand. Families and businesses have cut spending; government needs to step in." Wrong. Sure, families cut back. That's called common sense. But if the government doesn't cut its waste (when has it EVER cut waste?), but rather expands its spending--that's being responsible and helpful? If I'm frugal and responsible, that gives the government the green light to be irresponsible?

Government does not stimulate economies. Individuals who are left alone to keep the fruits of labor, and spend or invest it as they see fit actually grow an economy.

"A Nation Following Whose Values?"

I saw the youtube video today of President Obama telling the Turkish people that we are a predominantly Christian nation, and also that we are not a Christian nation. Confused? I think what our President was trying to say was that while Christianity in its various forms is the dominant religion in America, it is not the official state religion. I think that is what he meant after I watched the four minute clip of this part of his speech. I also think most everyone would agree with that conclusion. As we look at our nation's history, it is abundantly clear to all that all of the Europeans who came hear to colonize considered themselves Christian. All of our nation's Founding Fathers identified with Christianity to some extant, to the exclusion of other world religions.

However, the other half of President Obama's speech puzzled me. He said, "We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values." But he never identified what those ideals or values were. Where did they come from? What belief system most heavily influenced our nation's ideals, values, laws, concepts of self-government within the framework of a Constitutional government? Buddhism? Islam? Hinduism? None of those had any impact whatsoever on the creation of our country or our values, ideals, laws.

When you actually read the foundational documents of our nation (The Mayflower Compact, The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, The Northwest Ordinance of 1787, and the Constitution), it is certainly clear that Christianity, more than any other belief system--most heavily influenced our nation into promoting the things we all value so highly--freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to own property and to enjoy the fruits of one's own labor. To ignore those facts is to embrace "values" without a foundation and without direction.

"Dream or Nightmare?"

On March 26, 2009 the U.S. Congress introduced a new version of the so-called "Dream Bill." "Dream" is an acronym for Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act." A similar version of the bill failed to pass through Congress in 2007 when the American people realized that Congress and the President were trying to pass an amnesty bill for millions of illegal aliens.

Now, an "upgraded" version is an attempt to grant U.S. citizenship to the children of illegal aliens. Through this bill conditional legal status would be available to students who have completed high school, received their GED, or have been admitted to an institution of higher education. Their status would be valid for up to six years. During that time these people would be eligible for in-state tuition costs, and if they earn a college degree or serve two years in the military, they can receive permanet residence.

My question is why? If we do not enforce our laws, and defend our borders, then we no longer have a nation state. What kind of message do we send to those immigrants who come to our country legally? Why obey the laws at all? Is it wise to essentially create a back door to citizenship to people who illegally enter our country? This bill already has the backing of Democrat Senator Dick Durban and Republican Senator Richard Lugar. President Obama is very favorable to this new attempt at amnesty. Are the American people?