Category: Civics

Last night I finished watching The Lives of Others, a German film set in East Germany, mostly before the Wall came down. It has a faithful portrayal of life under a government that has transgressed its God-given role of maintaining peace and defending its people. Behind the Iron Curtain, government was the worst problem, and the individuals suffered.

The United States has been creeping in that direction for some time. Totalitarian advancement is usually promoted only during a crisis like war or extreme economic trouble. It can happen under the watch of either political party, though it seems that the Left is more inclined to seek it out. (Progressivism since the 1920s has been a kindred spirit to Italian and German fascism, which are totalitarian in their own ways, and to socialism in general.) It has disturbed some observers that since last September, the Orwellian creep has been accelerating, now including occasional goose-steps.

I’ve already mentioned the tragic murder of the mass-murderer Tiller. (The link between abortion, progressivism, and eugenics should not be forgotten, either.) There have also been recent, tragic Muslim attacks either planned or carried out in the United States, although the professional media’s political agenda is to suppress the religious and ideological motives of those attacks, while emphasizing the religious and ideological motives of transgressors like the individual who murdered Tiller. My best guess is that this agenda comes from a desire to prove that “we” (i.e. Christians) are just as bad, if not worse, than “them” (i.e. Muslims). The natural response must be hard to understand for those whose worldview is bound by such moral equivalence: Christianity condemns vigilante murder, while Islam demands it. Christian murderers contradict their religion, while Muslim murderers fulfill theirs.

I realize that the last two sentences may be considered incendiary by some, but it’s meant only to be accurate. It can be tested by finding the places in the Bible and in the Koran that dictate morality for the individual practitioner of each religion. Prove me wrong in that way, and I will be happy to retract it, for I wish it were not so. For some to claim that Islam is a “religion of peace” may reflect the personal desires of many Muslims living today, but it does not reflect the source and norm of their doctrine. In fact, it’s a bit orwellian.

Speaking of orwellian things, the concept of “hate crimes” has been gaining traction in the United States for some time. This attempts to criminalize certain thoughts, which become prosecutable when they are acted upon. It’s an orwellian term on several levels. Those who promote it are not really interested in fighting hatred, but in gaining general acceptance for certain classes of people. If they were interested in fighting hatred, then everyone who attacks and kills because of a personal or ideological animus toward the victim and what he represents would be prosecuted with a hate crime. So it’s a purposely deceptive term, like “the Ministry of Love.”

The “hate crime” concept is also orwellian because it attempts to force the populace into thinking a certain way. It’s closely related to the idea of a “thought crime” or a “sense offense” (from the sci-fi movie Equilibrium). This is a totalitarian characteristic.

Perhaps the most disturbing thing about the “hate crime” concept is that it is being put into practice in the United States, land of the free and home of the brave. It’s one more step in the direction of East Germany.

Thankfully, we still have some freedom of the press. Today, that’s exercised more in print by the amateur press than the professional press. However, even that freedom is under attack on the airwaves via federal management of the radio spectrum. Some are seeking to eliminate certain kinds of commercially-successful content, because of the ideas expressed therein. That oppression would be totalitarian, too.

I find it interesting that the East German government required the registration of typewriters. They were able to identify the typewriter used to write a certain thing by analyzing characteristics of the typing. Together with the registry, that made it possible for the Stasi to find out who had written things they didn’t like. Classic totalitarianism.

You may think it could never happen here. Yet in another area, some politicians and bureaucrats today are calling for similar measures in the United States: registration of firearms (including ballistic fingerprinting in some cases, that would identify the weapon used to fire a given round), and the unproven technology of “micro-stamping” to make such registration and identification more practical. As I understand the idea, this technology would somehow make each weapon put its unique mark or serial number on every brass casing it fires. Despite its non-existence, some lawmakers are talking about requiring it in all new firearms. Inch by inch and mile by mile, America creeps away from freedom, but I’m sure the Stasi would have approved.

Maybe you really do think it could never happen here, and that I’m being overly alarmist. I wish you were right. But like many, I value the constitutional freedoms I enjoy as an American, and if we allow one of them to be taken away, then any of them can be taken away. I don’t cherish the thought of living in East Germany, Soviet Russia, Communist China, the Third Reich, or any number of totalitarian states that have really existed, and some still do. The freedom I would miss the most is my freedom to speak and live according to my Christian faith. That includes teaching it to my children, practicing it daily and weekly in my household, at church, and with my fellow citizens, speaking about it with any of my neighbors, and making it the final determination of all my actions. Because of the increasingly orwellian nature of our government and society, the things I’ve written here make me a “rightwing extremist”, but with the founders of our nation and countless patriots on my side, I’m in good company. Yet that’s just my point, isn’t it?

Please, recognize the orwellian drift of America, and always do what you can legally do to protect the freedoms with which we have been blessed. Talk about them. Defend them. Exercise them. Teach them. This may make you a “right wing extremist” like me, but it’s a matter of good stewardship.

This is why the founders of our country included or assumed the individual right to keep and bear (carry) arms (weapons) in the constitution of the nation, and of each of the founding states.

Don’t be surprised if this non-massacre of college students doesn’t get the same duration of coverage in media and politics as the massacres that were not prevented by the heroic actions of armed individuals. This example demonstrates conclusively the benefits to society of this particular freedom. Unfortunately, there are some who would try to win the argument by depriving the public of information like this, rather than letting the fully-informed public form its own opinion based upon the facts.

This article by a hedge fund manager offers a risky response to the Chicago-style political power plays that have been making “progress” in reforming the auto industry. (BTW, unless something changes drastically, I don’t see myself ever buying a GM or Chrysler product again, used or new.) The author’s words seem to be aimed at the President, but they should really be heard by the elected representatives in Congress, and in every state house. Those representatives are the ones we rely upon to provide the needed checks and balances, in this case.

In addition, the author writes something that every elected representative of the people (including the Senators, since the 17th amendment) should personally take to heart. He applies it to himself as a steward of other people’s money. However, the exact same principle also applies to those responsible for our taxes: the principle of stewardship.

Let’s be clear, it is the job and obligation of all investment managers, including hedge fund managers, to get their clients the most return they can. They are allowed to be charitable with their own money, and many are spectacularly so, but if they give away their clients’ money to share in the “sacrifice”, they are stealing.

He echoes the reported words of a congressman from the early 19th century, Davy Crockett. Like hedge-fund managers, let Congress be charitable with its own money, not with the taxes belonging to the people they represent. Also, let Congress see that this principle is not broken by the other two branches of government.

On an individual level, Christians are stewards too. However, the divine Owner of all our possessions has instructed us to be charitable with them, particularly in ways that “earn friends in heaven,” i.e., that correspond with faith in Jesus Christ. Congress has no similar imperative. Instead, its imperatives are delineated exactly by the Constitution.

I’m an on-demand listener of Issues, Etc., and recently heard this segment, in which Os Guinness, as guest, describes the problem of civility in public discourse. (I’ll try to embed the audio link below.) I suppose the problem is not civility, per se, but a lack of civility. He has a book out on that subject that may be worth reading. At least, I recommend that any Christian concerned about the civic duties of a citizen should at least listen to the IE segment linked above.

<embed src=”http://www.issuesetc.org/mediaplayer/player.swf” width=”400″ height=”220″ bgcolor=”000000″ allowscriptaccess=”always” allowfullscreen=”false” flashvars=”file=http://www.issuesetc.org/podcast/221050409H2p.mp3&image=http://www.issuesetc.org/images/mediaclips.jpg&link=http://www.issuesetc.org&backcolor=”CCCCCC”&screencolor=”000000″/>

If you don’t usually like the talk radio format because you can’t stand listening to the bloviating of the uninformed, then you should try IE anyway. The guests generally do a fine job of describing the issue under discussion, and are usually “subject-matter experts” by vocation.

Guinness also referred to The Williamsburg Charter, something I hadn’t heard about before. When time permits, I’d like to read that too, because it seems Guinness has put his finger on a root problem for Christians in American society, and even in the wider world.

There’s a blog advertisement for IE that I’ve tried to include on The Plucked Chicken, but the Javascript in it produced some wacky behavior. So for now, you’ll just have to take my word for it that I enjoy learning and listenening on demand.

I’d mentioned the deceitful term “Committed Same-Gender Relationships.” Dr. Veith highlights “more language games,” another attempt to re-frame a moral issue to be more favorable to those who would like to change the relevant morality upon which our society is based. He quotes from the WaPo.

So when someone says “This is a civil rights issue,” pushing for “marriage equality,” my first question is this. Who is being denied marriage? Is it those under 18, who must have their parents’ written consent in many places (though ironically, parental consent is not required in every place for pregnant girls to abort their children)? Is it wards of the state, prison inmates, or those proven incompetent to manage the responsibilities of marriage?

Of course, the implied claim is that homosexuals are being denied marriage, which is patently false. There are many people who practice sinful lifestyles — even compulsively, who are allowed to marry. Mobsters, hucksters, thieves, liars, rebellious, abortionists, and yes, even compulsive adulterers and fornicators. I myself am an example of a hereditary sinner who has been afforded the privilege of marriage.

The land of Goshen was the best part of Egypt for herds of animals, so the family of Israel was settled there under Joseph’s administration. The other benefit was that it kept the family of Israel separate from the Egyptians, who considered the herding profession to be distasteful, or worse. It was a great blessing to the family of Israel that Joseph had accumulated such great power for the Egyptian government, because it meant they would flourish through a deep famine-wrought recession. Not long after Joseph died, things changed in Egypt, and the government became repressive toward the Israelites. It used its considerable power to enslave them.

With a somewhat ironic twist, current events in Egypt are imitating history. Only today, God’s people are not necessarily biological children of Israel, but rather spiritual children of Abraham and Sarah. The false religion of Islam traces its own genetic origins through Ishmael, the son of Hagar, claiming that he was the son promised to Abraham. However, the Bible clearly says this is not the case. Islam will always be quite hostile toward Christianity, because of this difference, and especially because of the Gospel. Christians in Egypt have assumed the role of the children of Israel, as the despised animal-herders, but instead of raising sheep and goats, they raise pigs. Pigs are despised and avoided as a matter of law by both Jews and Muslims, but Christians recognize that Christ’s work has freed us from the necessity of observing such ceremonial laws of the Old Testament. So like the family of Israel, Christians have found a profitable economic niche in Egypt.

But now, the Egyptian government, under Muslim control, has taken the Swine Flu scare as a pretext to persecute the Christians, by killing all their pigs. This effort is expressly contrary to the moral law of God, for His injunction against stealing is a protection of private property. If private citizens were doing this, it would be grounds for seeking full reparations from the wrongdoers. However, ’tis the Egyptian government. When a government persecutes like this, it shows itself to be a repressive tyranny. We may see what steps the government takes to make things right with the owners of these pigs.

If it does not make things right, what then? Will the Christians be forced to sell what little they have left and leave their country? But where could they go in today’s world, to find freedom? It’s fast disappearing in the United States, as our own government shows itself to be not entirely different from that in Egypt.

A hallmark of American freedom is the principle that government keeps its fingers out of private life, allowing the citizens to conduct and defend their own businesses, interests, and lives. Though there are still limits to that principle, to keep citizens from harming each other, government intervention is supposed to be limited to that which is absolutely necessary, because our nation is composed of citizens, not of government. That’s why recent actions by American governments (state, federal, and local) have been so troubling. We’ve been taking steps in the direction of Egypt’s example, from the White House to the repressive neighborhood association that measures lawn height to the nearest quarter-inch. On the national level, we’ve seen these examples piling up for some time, but perhaps never as quickly as in the last few months.

In one of the books I’ve been reading, I find it interesting that the anti-federalists of the 1780’s were not opposed to the constitution per se, but to the constitution without a bill of rights that would expressly protect the interests of individuals — and some interests of states — from tyrannical encroachments by the federal government. The federalists argued that the bill of rights was unnecessary, because all rights should be assumed to be protected. I think they were a bit naíve. At least, they were unfamiliar with Chicago politics. Yet the federalists made a good point: when you enumerate certain rights for protection, it implies that the rights not listed are not protected. The anti-federalists did not think that would be such a problem, but that’s where they were wrong.

Though my friend Mary might prefer not to think of these protections as “rights,” and she has a good point, the Bill of Rights has become one of the last friends of the American Citizen in government. Members of Congress are generally only interested in protecting and extending their own influence by spending our tax money. Much of the judicial branch only wants to reshape the country by creating new laws through its supposed interpretation of existing law. Meanwhile, the executive branch bullies private citizens into doing whatever it thinks is right, with the present intention of “spreading the wealth around” in the name of justice. No wonder the Bill of Rights has been under attack: it’s one of the few things standing between American citizens and an increasingly hostile and dysfunctional government. Both federalists and anti-federalists were prescient, at least in their distrust of human nature.

If American voters allow things to continue on the present course (and I use the adjective “American” loosely, because I suspect there have been many voters who are not), the effect of the first ten amendments will be further curbed. Americans will further lose the right to free speech (even on the Internet) and religion, just as our right to petition the government for redress has been practically forgotten. The Second Amendment truly is the original Department of Homeland Security, from both foreign and domestic attack, including domestic attacks upon the United States (i.e. American citizens) by their government. Those who would like to curtail the other rights definitely want to empty this one, as a prerequisite if possible. If and when that happens, American citizens will be in a position not much different from that of the Christian pig farmers in Egypt. Where could we go, then, to find freedom?

I’ve been reading a focused history of events in my native state of Massachusetts, just before the American Revolution. The philosophy of the people at that time, when the frontier was not far away, was pretty much the polar opposite of the way they are today. Imagine being opposed to punitive taxation, and requiring all the men of majority age to own a rifle and a minimum stock of ammunition. That’s not the Massachusetts I know.

Tomorrow is our annual deadline for filing tax returns. (Not for paying taxes, because those are owed the moment we earn an income with which to pay them; no, this is the day when we are supposed to check whether we forgot to pay anything, and when many of us find out what our elected representatives have done lately to buy our votes… using tax money.) With that day in mind, it’s a good time to ponder Tax Freedom Day.

Tax Freedom Day does not fall at the same time every year. It’s calculated based upon the amount the Federal government taxes or spends in each year, and how long it would take, on average, for American income-earners to finish paying it, using 100% of our income, beginning on January 1. It gives us some idea how much of our work must be taken to support the Federal government, and how much is left over for our own interests.

Apparently, this year’s Tax Freedom Day is earlier than previously, because stimulus legislation has reduced the immediate tax burden. That’s good news, but the sword of Damocles hangs just above our heads in the form of the budget deficit, soon to be measured in astronomical units (AU). For our convenience, the folks who calculate Tax Freedom Day have also adjusted it to include the deficit. Click the image below to read more about it.

Security-minded people recommend that we write checks using gel ink, because it resists tampering that leads to forgeries. Oregon form 40, which is our regular State tax form, says that checks sent in for income tax should not be written with red or gel ink.

Things that make you say “Hmmmm.”

This video is new to me, and is worth some careful thought. Certainly, there’s a lot of political posturing here, but between the lines, we can get some idea of the spiritual convictions of Barack Obama, and how they relate to his ideas of public service. I think they also relate to his idea of legitimate “religion.”