Are the Democrats Unfit to Govern?

 

Just prior to the '24 election, a friend asked my advice on who to vote for. I told her that the Republicans were the safer choice, because, as was shown in the Watergate scandal, they, or at least some of them, will break ranks when a vital principle is at stake. The Democrats never do that, and they wear it as a badge of honor. That is what makes them unfit to govern.

The latest kerfuffle around Jimmy Kimmel proves the point. Kimmel was suspended from his show for remarks that seemed to besmirch the memory of the recently murdered Charlie Kirk (RIP). What's more, it seemed like the Trump administration had exerted pressure to cause that suspension to happen.

Some Republican leaders, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz among them, loudly objected to that kind of censorious pressure being applied by government. That old saying from Voltaire, that, “I might not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it?” It seems some Republicans actually mean that. Mr. Kimmel was shortly reinstated to his show.

The contrast with the Democrats could not be starker. Even though it has now come to light that many of the COVID restrictions, such as social distancing, and mask wearing, were of little to no use, the Democrats can still not find the voice to say so. More importantly, during the crisis, when it really could have counted, nary a whimper of objection was heard from that quarter.

It is not just about COVID or the latest crisis either. The Democrats seem to be under the mistaken impression that moving in lock step with each other at all times is a sign of political strength. So much so that during the last state of the union speech, they could not bring themselves to applaud a young man courageously facing terminal cancer. Not going to clap for that, not if a Republican, especially not if a MAGA Trump guy, brings it up.

This lock step mentality disqualifies the Democrats from governing for two reasons. First of all, at times like these, when they are in the minority, it causes them to unthinkingly scuttle any and every thing the Republicans try to do, even if it is a good and compassionate thing that is proposed.

For instance, with the rapidly changing situation regarding tariffs, some farmers are getting caught in the squeeze. Specifically, many farmers planted soybeans, but because of the tariff battle with China, the Chinese market for soybeans has collapsed. This is going to really hurt some farmers this year. Next year, if they are still in business, they can plant some other crop, or the Chinese market for soybeans might recover. Nonetheless, this year they could use some relief.

Given all that, it is likely that the Republican run congress will propose some short term relief for the affected farmers. Any such legislation will, however, be dead on arrival because the lock step Democrats will filibuster it in the Senate in the same way they lock step filibuster everything the Republicans propose. They remain in lock step, opposed to any Republican initiative, no matter how important, timely and compassionate it may be. That is why the Republicans had to go with the one big beautiful bill, since the extraordinary path of reconciliation was the only way to get anything past the automatic lock step filibuster the Democrats are dedicated to.

Secondly, when, and if, the Democrats ever get back in control, the situation will be much worse. It has come to light, via testimony from Mark Zuckerburg, that some agents from the FBI, (deep state operatives, since Trump was nominally in charge at that moment) pressured him to have Facebook censor any information about Hunter Biden's laptop just prior to the election in 2020. This is horrendous, 1984 kind of stuff, and yet the Democrats are remarkably silent about it. As though the threat of a king or dictator is serious only if it comes from the political right.

This has to be seen as in addition to them ignoring, at the time, the possibility that COVID grew out of our own (or at least Dr. Fauci's) misbegotten research in to gain of function. Likewise, it seems to have escaped the notice of the Democrats that the so called COVID vaccine might have caused more medical problems than it solved.

In all of that, the lock step mindset of the Democrats looms, in the minds of thinking people, as a great threat. Some will respond that we were in a crisis, so some excess in the name of unity can be forgiven. But “crisis” is always the battle cry of emerging dictators. It is at the moment of crisis that clear thinking, truth guided leadership is most needed.

It is in moments of crisis that the cries to censor “disinformation” will be the loudest. It is in times of crisis that the demands grow that the populace, for their own good, must obey the dictates of government without thinking. It is in times of dire crisis that marching in lock step (which the Democrats pretend is such a strength) becomes the most likely path to tyranny and dictatorship.

That is why this current generation of Democrats, with their lock step mode of thinking, are unfit to govern. We should keep them from real power unless and until they change their thinking.

Liberate Hemp to Revive Small Farms

 

I recently had an epiphany about all the anti marijuana hysteria we are being bombarded with lately. We have all heard the arguments. The smell permeating the air in legal states, the dangerous potency of modern strains, and all that. There might be some validity to those points, but it mostly smells like phony hysteria. Try living downwind from a feed lot, or a sewer works, or a freeway, or just on a typical downtown street. Lots of objectionable smells and fumes there, and yet no one wants to hear about it, or base policies on it..

I bought my first hemp t-shirt the other day and, unexpectedly, it launched an episode of eye opening revelations. I was surprised at what a superior cloth it is compared to the cotton or polyester shirts I am used to. It just feels better. More solid, less sweaty, and all the other things it was advertised to be. So much so that I have started to consider investing in small scale hemp cloth production.

As I consider investing in hemp cloth, some real social benefits of hemp come to mind. First of all, it could produce a lot of jobs, whether in cloth production, paper production, or a myriad of other products. That is in addition to the jobs on the farms that grow it. Most of the jobs, and money, would stay in the local region, and certainly stay in the national economy.

Another benefit would be that it could be grown in small batches by small farmers. That is if hemp were not so tightly regulated (which makes it both risky to grow, and prohibitively expensive). However, with those severe regulations, and the high cost of getting a federal license to grow it, that happy dynamic of small farm cultivation is not likely to get traction. With all the federal regulation it is rendered into just another crop that will be economically viable only when grown in large plots on mono culture agri business “farms.” So the dream of a small scale hemp facility operating in close cooperation with local small farmers will remain just that; a dream, until the reefer madness hysteria around cannabis is overcome.

The big ramification of the anti cannabis hysteria is the THC content allowed in hemp plants. It has to be no more than .3%, and that has to be measured by dry weight, with the tested sample coming from the flowering top of the plant.

To put this in context, top shelf cannabis, sold out of dispensaries in states where it is legal, tests out at between 25-30%. Low end flowers and what is known as popcorn tests out at 10-15%. There is almost no market for anything less than 5%. So .3% is a ridiculously minuscule standard, far less than just one tenth the potency of anything of marketable quality.

What's more, farmers who have tried to raise a compliant hemp crop find that the THC level peaks just at the end of the season. If, just before harvest, (when it must be tested) it goes over that standard, the crop must be destroyed in an expensive process. The upshot is that few farmers will take the risk. So those who would set up hemp processing plants are likewise put under an artificially risky government regimen, with undependable supply lines, and thus are also not likely to enter into the business.

Over the years, “deep thinking” pot heads have conjectured that it was the tobacco and alcohol industries that worked so hard to keep pot illegal, to eliminate that form of competition. Other, even “deeper” thinkers speculated that it was the cotton and lumber interests who were using anti cannabis hysteria to keep hemp from competing with their products.

All of that thinking seems conspiratorial and suspect, because those concerns are run by hard headed business people. Business will, if there is profit to be made in some alternative to their product, usually put some of their eggs in that competitive basket. Tobacco and alcohol producers could, and probably do, buy marijuana farms. Lumber and cotton growers could also invest in hemp production, and would be hyper-aware of any emerging stream of profit.

Leaving those pot induced brain storms behind, there still must be some reason behind the reefer madness hysteria, and that reason does seem to be directly tied to preventing a free market for hemp. It is asserted here the reason is that the quasi prohibition of hemp is a wicked, long term attack on the small, self sufficient family farm.

For someone with a small, self sufficient, farm the traditional practice was to grow most, if not all, of the food for your own consumption, and then sell any excess. It is a feasible plan in most places, but what is needed to make the plan work is a dependable cash crop so that cash needs of the otherwise self sufficient farm can be met.

Hemp was always that dependable cash crop. It is extremely drought resistant, and when it was legal, there was always a ready market for the crop, because paper gets used up, and clothes wear out. In many ways, legal hemp was an economic pillar of the small family farm. It truly appears that ginning up this anti marijuana hysteria has always had the nefarious purpose of making small, self sufficient, sustainable family farms not economically viable.

Which contributes to making healthy rural communities not viable. Combine that with federal farm price subsidies, which drive up the cost of land by making farming less risky for corporations, and the decline of the family farm and rural communities seems inevitable, if not intentional.

All of this seems to have had the goal, long since accomplished, of literally changing the American landscape. The mass of the people have been driven into the cities, making almost everyone dependent on corporate controlled food supplies. Much of that food is artificially unhealthy, which also drives the people into dependence on the dubious blessings of the petroleum based medicines produced by the big pharmaceutical companies. All of this is very bad for the health, of both the people and the natural environment.

We need to rethink this whole system, and we should start by rethinking hemp. Stop allowing the truly hysterical voices opposing marijuana to bamboozle us into effectively prohibiting the cultivation of hemp. Liberating hemp can be a vital first step in re-invigorating the small family farms and rural communities of America.

MAGA Red Wave in '26 and Housing

 

My last post explored the possibility of, instead of just eking out a win, or more probably eking out a loss, in the 26 midterms, MAGA riding a red wave to a permanent cultural shift if we handle the illegal immigration mess with a hard headed, justice tempered with mercy, approach. Similarly, housing is another challenging issue which MAGA could convert into a culture shifting red wave if we could rid ourselves of the fear the establishment Republicans use to blind us to our own best interests.

Wall Street is basically bamboozling Main Street on this because the middle class concern about the housing market is all about preserving property values. That middle class obsession with property values is not only misplaced, but it puts many of the good people of this country on the side of wickedness.

Many of the working people, the middle class, have a large share of their wealth tied up in the value of their property. Because of that, many are scared that if truly low cost housing was allowed, via a truly free market, that the equity in their house might decline, and therefore their wealth,(their old age savings) might be lost, or diminished. So the middle class can be counted on to defend strict, value enhancing, zoning laws. This, even though such laws create homelessness by preventing low cost housing from being built. The moral blindness that drives this thinking doesn't make these middle class folks exactly wicked, but it does make them complicit in wickedness.

The thing these “good” people don't see, their blind spot, is that the real value of their house won't be diminished by allowing more low cost housing to be built. Just as in the case of a growing economy, when it is said a rising tide lifts all boats, so a lowering tide will lower all boats. What that means, in this context, is that the real wealth, not the monetary wealth, of middle class housing won't really decline if more low cost housing is built.

By way of explanation, let's be real here. Most of us will live in our house until we either die, or we move into a nursing home. If, when we die and pass that property on to our heirs, it will be worth just as much housing as it is today, even if the monetary value of all housing has declined. So the heirs will be able to use it as housing, or transfer the equity to other housing, at just about the same rates as today.

The same holds true if one must convert that wealth into x number of months in a nursing home (with the government taking over the costs when that equity is expired). The folks working in those nursing homes will be living in housing that is less expensive if the market has declined, and so the number of months (x) that old house will pay for in a nursing home will be about the same.

Ont the other hand, the real bad actors in this scenario, the investors, the developers, and the bankers might lose a great deal of real wealth if the housing market was more free and fair. Since they expect to convert their property wealth in to monetary wealth, a free and fair housing market, with declining monetary value, will probably cut into their vast wealth. Stop and consider the depth of wickedness they are engaged in here, and that they scare the middle class into supporting.

In the name of propping up property values, they move heaven and earth (and zoning boards) to prevent the building of almost all low cost housing. To do so, they enlist the previously mentioned middle class, who happily carry this wicked water. Then we have a situation more cruel and barbaric than the most barbarous cultures in history. The poorest of the poor are denied the God given right to erect the most basic structure to get out of the elements.

“Oh no,” we are pompously informed ,”we can't allow people to live like that.” Meaning, we can't let them build the most efficient housing they can with the materials nature and God provide. Instead, we force them to live in tents, or sleep on urine and feces encrusted sidewalks in the most crime ridden areas of our major cities. How terribly compassionate of us.

If any low cost housing is built, it is way overpriced, owned by the government, and rented out to only the depressed and despairing. Then it is used to micro manage their lives for as long as they will put up with the micro management.

What's more, this greed driven squelching of a free housing market has profoundly negative effects on the morality of our nation. The nearly impossible price of home ownership has driven most young people out of the market. That has resulted in a steeply declining marriage and birth rate as responsible young people put off starting a family until it is affordable. This situation is a dire long term threat to our civilization.

Even further, since young people still have the same sexual drives as previous generations, the seeming impossibility of achieving a stable family life has caused the dubious allure of various forms of sexual deviance, from heterosexual fornication on down, seem reasonable. Thus much, if not most, of the sexual deviance afflicting modern American society can be traced to the greed of property developers, and the middle class dupes that help them.

These days, a lot of well meaning people hoping for a moral revival will quote II Chronicles 7:14

“if my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.”

While some few do take this sincerely to heart and try to refrain from some abiding sin, most are more focused on the wicked ways of the other fellow, including the aforementioned sexual deviance. Certainly, the wickedness of their own obsession with property values escapes their notice, and yet that, on closer inspection, is probably the very thing God is referring to, and wants us to turn from.

It would be relatively easy to change things (God willing), and it wouldn't take any big government subsidies. Just lighten up on some zoning laws, and maybe make some long needed modifications to how we allow land to be owned.

What I am referring to here is a concept I have long advocated, called micro incremental housing. Allow people, usually young people, to buy, not rent, micro plots of land, as small as 5' x8'. And then allow them to build, or have built, extremely small, but expandable domiciles on the plot of land.

With this concept, the house, and land could start very small, but by design be expandable in micro increments, as the probably low paid worker could afford it. That way, a person just getting out of school, even high school, could afford to get started in a house, which they would own and be secure in. In the course of just a few years of regular work and frugal living, they could own a small, two bedroom, two story house.

Any number of building technologies could be used for this, from hay bales, to used tires, to (as I read about) a guy in South America designed a system of adult sized lego style building blocks made from recycled plastic grocery bags. Human ingenuity is the only limit to what new uses of our high tech capabilities (3d printing) could be creatively used in this effort. The only real barrier to overcome is the wicked fear that prevents us from allowing the poor to be free economically.

As said, it won't take government involvement. No socialism needed. Just some good hearted land owners, or some visionary churches or civic organizations, offering the land for sale, by the square foot, for what it typically costs to buy agricultural land. And the original sellers will get that money back when the new owners buy the plots reserved for them.

Yes, in the name of sanitation and health, there will be some zoning required, and some water needed. While that might be a problem, in the face of agri-business use of that water for irrigation at the rate of thousands of gallons an hour, it is reasonable to assert that humans in houses should be a somewhat higher priority..

As in the case of solving the illegal immigration mess, I don't want this blog to sound like a dire warning about what will happen if folks don't listen to my ideas. Rather, think about how much this will benefit us if we would actually do it. Think of the benefits that might accrue to our society if we could do this good thing.

The young could plan on owning their own homes, at a young enough age that they can start families at a young age, as God intended. Marriage and child bearing (family formation) would increase, probably accompanied by a proportional decrease in sexual deviance. On a different note, since low paid workers could live, in these low cost houses, on a much lower wage, we would probably be able to attract manufacturing jobs back to these shores. Our workers could live on a wage that would be competitive on the world market.

Combined with tariff and immigration reforms, our economy might get to humming so well that we would want to attenuate it so as to not drive other nations into bankruptcy. That would be a nice problem to have.

All of which brings us full circle back to the mid term elections of 2026. If MAGA could do this, break the thrall that the establishment, country club Republicans have over the party by freeing the housing market, it would benefit us greatly at the ballot box. Sincerely working to break the logjam in low cost housing will attract young voters (MAGA's worst demographic) in droves. Doing it without resort to big government socialism will keep the economic conservatives on board. The only losers would be the ultra wealthy establishment, and who will they turn to? Communists like Mamdani?

To sum up, solving the housing crisis with freedom, like solving the immigration mess with compassion, could both be factors in a MAGA red wave in 26.

Happy (Constitutional) 4th of July

 

With the 4^th of July once again upon us, it is time to put some finishing touches to the reasons to support and revive our Constitution. Coherent thought is long overdue on this subject. In fact, much of our current social breakdown is a result of many folks gravitating toward the numerous half thought out alternatives to our constitutional republic that are being advocated these days.

First of all, many say that our Constitution should be dismissed out of hand; that it was written by a bunch of White male plutocrats to entrench themselves in power. Like all effective lies, there is some truth to this charge, but it is just a half truth. Yes, the founders were White men, and many, but not all, of them were wealthy. In fact though, many of them died penniless.

More importantly, this particular group of plutocrats were caught in a unique set of historical circumstances. This unique set of circumstances impelled them to produce a system of government which served the people far better than any previous system of government ever had. In fact it probably ended up being better for the masses, especially with the addition of the Bill of Rights, than many of the plutocrats probably wanted. Certainly, within ten years, one of the founders, John Adams, was working to defy First Amendment limitations.

In 1787 the Articles of Confederation were falling apart. That was our original constitution, our original basis of government, that had been slapped together during the crisis of war,. That system of government was failing, and we looked likely to slip into 13 different nations, or at best two or three competing nations. It looked as though the newly born nation was going to fall into disunity, and thereby be easy pickings for the powers of Europe (especially Great Britain) to swoop back in and, one by one, dominate the states,. If that happened, those “plutocrats”, our founders, knew that their lives would be shortened, and probably end swinging on a hangman's noose.

So this group of well educated men knew that their only real hope for survival lay in establishing a system of government that could hold all the states together as the United States. Their problem was further complicated because they knew that the people of this new nation were restive, skeptical of bad government, and that they were the most well read and politically astute populace in the world.

So the founders were motivated to apply all their learning and creativity about government, and put together a structure that appealed to the masses, and yet could last over time. They gave us republic, if we can keep it, which has sustained for nearly 250 years.

While our republic has sustained for a couple centuries, it isn't really thriving today. To most of us, it appears to be circling the drain, showing the classic symptoms of the last stages of a declining republic with widespread corruption, forever wars, and poisonous bread and circuses for the apathetic masses.

To fix this mess some propose a new constitutional convention, or at least an Article Five convention to fix this one. Such folks neglect to notice that this is not the same political moment the founders faced in 1787. Those involved in said convention will not have the same motivations as those men did. Sadly, the most likely outcome of some convention for enacting new amendments will probably resemble the latest Democrat or Republican conventions, loaded with corruption and producing the sly tools of entrenched oligarchs.

Most of the utopian schemes of government that are currently advocated by many folks fall to pieces when they come up against those same rocks of real world political opposition. Any scheme or plan will have to be implemented in defiance of a world wide oligarchy that seems intent on controlling everyone.

Socialism (or communism) anyone? That perennially sounds good, with the idea of “from each according to ability, to each according to need.” The unsolvable problem with communism is that in the real world the bureaucracy empowered to determine who should give and receive becomes the seat of elitist power. It is then indistinguishable from fascism and folds easily into the control of that same international oligarchy.

Libertarianism sounds good, with the idea that total economic freedom will bring about socially meaningful freedom for all. However, for that to work we must have a much higher level of social consciousness than is in evidence today. Without that heightened moral thinking, a libertarian society is likely to quickly devolve into a neo-feudal corporatism, which would also, in our modern world, be indistinguishable from fascism, and be easily folded into the international oligarchy.

Anarchy, the idea that we should live without any government, has herds of fans in this era. Mostly though, we should notice that the biggest fans are the kind of strong armed thugs, and their henchmen, who would just love to not have any organized resistance to their having free rein over everyone else. Another strong constituency of anarchy seems to be elderly folks with government pensions. More on that in a bit.

Once again, a much more elevated moral thinking, on the part of the vast majority of people, would be necessary for anarchy to not fall into chaos. When it does inevitably fall into chaos it will in turn result in the masses clamoring for the international oligarchy to come in and save them.

Another approach, advocated by some very well meaning folks, is the call to a community based society. This idea actually underlies all the other ideas. It arouses strong emotion because the diminishment of community, of the spirit of community, is the leading cause and symptom of our declining republic.

Almost all of us have long yearned for a more sincere and nurturing connection with community. Unfortunately, it seems that the oligarchy knows this about us, and is constantly abusing our striving for community, monetizing it through entertainments, and weaponizing it via religious and political movements. Can you say “cult?” Jonestown and the Branch Davidians are two prominent examples of historic cults and their risks. There are thousands of others.

Even where modern informal community seems to work, where nominal anarchy is observed, it is often facilitated by elderly or disabled members who receive government funding. Without that subsidy, one wonders if such communities will sustain for long, and if they do; if they will continue to have absolutely no government. Frankly, I doubt it but wish them well, and plan on copying them to the degree they discover an approach that works.

Make no mistake, a lot of these ideas actually make some sense, and should be given a fair chance to work. But of course, no matter the idea it stands little chance of making it past our oligarchic masters. That is a truth we simply must acknowledge. Anything that might be done along any of those lines will in reality only be “allowed” by them, so participants will never be more than kept pets. Kind of museum pieces, like some of those “off limits” islands in the Indian Ocean.

If anything starts growing that might actually threaten the ruling status of the oligarchy, it will be systematically eradicated like weeds in a modern corn field. The oligarchy is into mono-cultural agribusiness, and is allergic to self sufficient small farms. Consequently, it is obviously certain that that is the mode in which they intend to farm the human race.

The upshot is that the only way any of our modern revolutionary ideas will be truly established is if we regain control of our own government first. That is the reason the only real play that we, the people, have is to first revive our original Constitution.

It is just as feasible a concept of government as any of the others currently on offer, and it has the advantage that we might actually, if courageous and creative enough, establish it over the opposition of the oligarchy. . This form of political revolution is uniquely achievable because it is based on a conservative return to our liberal Constitution. Kind of going back to the future. That happy coincidence of social forces has historically been America's bedrock advantage, and has always proven to be an unbeatable combination.

The ultimate point to consider, when talking with hopeful revolutionaries, is that when we revive a true use of our Constitution, we will have a form of government within which all the other ideas about government can be tried and proved. We could all organize ourselves, and move to communities of agreement, and freely live out the utopian vision we each believe in. We will be able to learn from our own experiences, and the experiences of other communities as we all struggle to once again take on the powers and duties of free self government.

When we are free, in our own communities, to live out our idealistic visions, we will still be enveloped by a system of checks and balances, preventing the worst of extremist thinking from becoming oppressive on the local (or state) level. As I read it, our national system is idealistically supposed to be a germination bed for LCMSG. Instead of ignoring and squandering that glorious heritage, we should embrace and improve on it. Especially so since, with a long view of our history, we can see that the original American experiment was a raging success.

Where local community was truly empowered, a republican spirit thrived in the hearts of the American people. Regrettably, that didn't really happen in some places, but the aroused citizenry that grew in many communities nationwide is the only true greatness America ever displayed. That citizenry, remaining aroused for generations, grew enterprise and innovation like mushrooms after a rainstorm, and lived out a spirit of political reform the world has never before known. Eighty years after our experiment began, we had become a nation with millions of people who were willing to fight, die, and even kill to abolish legal slavery. Quite the elevation of morality in a very short time.

LCMSG is an architecture of government that tends to produce a citizenry infused with a reform minded republican spirit, and very importantly, no other system of government does that. But let it be quickly added that the United States of America is not the only place with that form of government. A number of other countries have it. Such as Finland, Switzerland, and etc., and in some of them it is working quite well because the people are working their system as designed. Which is what we should do.

The abiding blessing of Local Community Moral Self Government (LCMSG) is that in that structure human beings tend to develop an elevating moral consciousness. Being compelled to wrestle with real decisions about how we govern ourselves tends to motivate individuals to become better people. That is because they then witness how socially harmful immoral behavior is.

Even if that experience doesn't cause folks to change religions, it will tend to impel them to initiate laws and customs designed to get their ideals functioning. Individuals will then tend to be sincere about trying to make their local system work effectively, because they will have a voice in forming that system. They will all (for the most part), that is to say, we will all, become much more morally minded, at least in the light of local moral thinking. That effect, in the long term, will tend to transform us, as a people, into a nation which can make those utopian ideals work. This is the way to evolve toward that enlightened universal mindset our spiritual instincts call us to.

That is why we should all commit to reviving the Constitution of the United States of America..

Happy 4^th of July.

Respect or Consideration

 

There was recently a well publicized case where one high school student stabbed another student to death in Frisco, TX. The stabber let it be known that the victim had “dis-respected” him, and therefore, in the stabber's mind, the victim had it coming. The sickening tragedy of this case sheds light on a much deeper problem afflicting our culture, which can be boiled down to love versus pride.

Pride is a mind set the world encourages us to have. We are told to be proud of our nation, our state, our sports teams, our community, and above all ourselves. With pride in our hearts, the next thing is to demand respect, the kind of respect that confirms our pride in ourselves. Then anyone who disrespects us must be forced to pay the price; to in some way acknowledge that our pride is justified.

Love, on the other hand, (at least the kind of love the bible defines) is something that is not focused on ourselves, but is instead focused on uplifting others. With love, at least in Christ, our own identity is grounded in God, so we can give of ourselves to others. Instead of demanding respect from others, or even just respecting those we consider deserve it, we can love even those we don't respect. In that perspective, the opposite of respect is the long neglected virtue of consideration. Actually considering the status and situation of the other person.

Jesus gave an unexpected response along these lines when the lawyer (Luke 10:29) asked him (as a way to dodge the obligation to love his neighbor) “Who is my neighbor?” It is clear the man was looking for ways to eliminate people who did not qualify to be loved, people he did not have to respect.

Jesus ignored the baiting question, and instead told the parable of the good Samaritan, which ended with him asking, “Who was a neighbor to the victim?” The obvious answer is that it was the good Samaritan, the one who showed loving consideration to the victim. With that parable Jesus flipped the script, revealing that, at least for those who claim to follow God, it is not a question of how we can rationalize our selfish pride, but do we see the wonderful opportunity we have to live out the will of our heavenly Father?

So it seems we must somehow renounce the worldly values, the two sided coin of pride and respect. If we want, that is, to grow out of the ongoing near riot and mayhem our culture is drifting into. We must instead pick up the two sided spiritual coin of love and consideration, and by wielding it effectively, we might slowly bring our culture back to sanity.

One word should be added about the long neglected virtue of consideration. Most folks will agree that we should love one another, and that consideration is part of that. But it must be emphasized that it is not just being sincere about offering loving consideration to others that is key. Consideration becomes truly alive, and a divine tool, when it is done in a thorough, deeply thoughtful and prayerful way. You know, like the deep and intense way we each consider our own needs. When we make that kind of considerate effort toward others, we are truly loving our neighbor as ourselves. Which is not just a good idea, it is the law.

2 B Honestly Constitutional

 

The mind boggling thing about our vicious national division is that people on both sides claim total devotion to our national Constitution, but that nearly unanimous (supposed) devotion has not, so far, led us to national unity. The fact that this nation of 350 million people can be split because we can't agree about what a six page document means is, indeed, mind boggling and hard to understand. In trying to understand it, we are driven to the conclusion that one side, or the other (or likely both) is not reading our founding document in an honest way.

By identifying one or two of the mistakes folks make in their reading of it, we might hope to move toward uniting America. Further, by conducting an honest examination of our misuse of our founding document, we will undoubtedly help educate ourselves, as a people, in how to properly embrace and use the Constitution we all claim to love.

One of the biggest issues we disagree with each other about is the functions and activities of the federal government. Many argue that the federal government has, over the decades, taken (usurped is the word) many of the powers and responsibilities of government from our state and local governments. Things like education, medical care, welfare, elderly care, drug laws, farm policy, and even such sacred cows as national forests and parks don't seem to have any proper constitutional basis to exist as federal agencies.

Folks on that side of the debate will point to the Tenth Amendment, with it's language that, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This means that the federal government is limited to engaging in things the Constitution empowers it to engage in. Since those listed issues, and many other powers now exercised by the federal government, were never properly delegated to it (which would require a new constitutional amendment to affect), those programs are unconstitutional. It is assumed in their argument that our Constitution was always intended to give us a limited federal government.

Those on the other side of this argument will bring up what they call the “supremacy clause” which is included in Article VI in the main body of the Constitution. It reads, in the second paragraph, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land, and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

Those folks who are in favor of the federal government involving itself in anything it pleases point to this paragraph and say, “See, there it is, federal law is supreme over state law.” This is one of the misreadings that we set out to identify, so let's take a closer look at their position. Theirs is a two fold misreading of the Constitution, based on ignoring one important word. That word is “Pursuance.”

Let's introduce an analogy to explain. Pretend you are watching an automobile chase scene, cops pursuing robbers, in a movie or real life. When the criminals, hoping to elude capture, take a right turn at an intersection, and then the police cars come along and take a left turn at the same intersection, would you say the police cars are still pursuing the criminals? No, of course not.

The word “pursuance” means going in the same direction, or in the sense of a legal meaning, going in an agreeing direction, or even being in compliance with. In other words, when it is used, in Article VI, the founders intended that it limit the actions of the federal government to those things the Constitution empowered it to be involved in. They intended to found a constitutionally limited republic, which is how we should understand it. What's more, they capitalized those words which they intended to carry precise, and profound meaning, such as Law, and State. This faithful to the original quote shows that they intended “Pursuance” to carry extra weight when we interpret the document.

Those who still want the Constitution to say what it doesn't say will likely continue to gloss over that one word,(it IS slightly difficult to understand) and still argue for an unlimited federal government. They will usually then assert that since Article VI is in the main body, and the Tenth Amendment is merely an amendment, it should take precedence.

They could not be more mistaken. Here I must insert some special knowledge, gained by independent research. Years ago, while investigating the wording of the First Amendment, I was reading through the “Congressional Record” from September of 1789. (Very interesting reading in general: there are found the debates in Congress after Madison introduced the “Bill of Rights“).

I stumbled upon the first reaction to the idea of the Tenth Amendment. One of the members objected that the subject of limiting the federal government was already covered in Article VI, so why was there a need for another such limitation? Others responded that the language in Article VI was too sparse, and that some folks might later misread it, and thus we needed further clarification. That, as subsequent policies proved, was a reasonable concern.

The Tenth Amendment was ultimately adopted, so we know how that debate ended. We also know that the 10^th wasn't intended to contradict Article VI, but rather to clarify it. And the 10^th came later, which would actually give it precedence if there WAS a conflict between the two.

That approach, simply ensuring we take every word seriously, ought to settle much of the division around our Constitution, providing us a way to move froward with it together. Sadly, that is not likely to happen, because the fall back position of those who want a powerful, unlimited federal government is to then assert that the Constitution is a “living document.” By that term they mean that the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means. So since the Supreme Court has never ruled, at least since 1937, that the Tenth Amendment limits the range of federal powers, then those limitations, although actually written in the document, no longer apply.

This issue, of who interprets the Constitution, has been around since at least the time of Thomas Jefferson. Since that power largely has to fall, in the interest of orderly government, to the Supreme Court, the question becomes how far we should let them drift from the original meaning in their reading of it.

Abraham Lincoln, who had been incensed by the Court's ruling in the Dred Scott decision, said this at his First inauguration, in front of Chief Justice Taney who had written that odious and racist decision.

”The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by the decisions of the Supreme Court, . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

With that quote in mind, let's conclude with two key points about how we, the people, should embrace our Constitution, and how that approach might lead us back to unity. While we must usually accept the constitutional interpretations of the Supreme Court, we should always remember that they can and do get it wrong on occasion.

So first and foremost, we should familiarize ourselves with the Constitution, understanding what it actually means, and then behold how far we have strayed from it (To our great peril). Getting back to an honest use of it will take a great deal of effort, but we should be grateful that somehow, miraculously, such a revival is still within the realm of possibility. With that understanding, and the conviction that we should return to a strict originalist reading as much and as soon as possible, we as a people will be able to put effective pressure on the Court to read it as honestly as possible.

Secondly, for all of us who have to take an oath to the Constitution, from enlisted military personnel, to local and state officials, to presidents, and senators: ask yourself one question. Are you taking an oath to defend the Constitution, or are you taking an oath to defend the Supreme Court? If you want to pretend that they are the same thing, then you should read some more history, from Dred Scott, to Plessey v Ferguson, to as recently as the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v Wade. The Supreme Court has often shown itself to be imperfect. The Supreme Court of the United States, and the Constitution of the United States, are not synonymous.

So we must present ourselves with one last proposition. Since we all, as citizens, and as oath taking officials in particular, are actually the first and last line of defense of the Constitution, something almost all of us profess a reverence for; How can we, with any degree of integrity take an oath to defend it if we never even read it and certainly don't understand it. Or worse yet, if we are eager to allow it to be clownishly twisted into incoherence by the dubious doctrine that it is a “living “ document?

In other words, isn't it high time, and way past time, that we once again studied it for ourselves and thereby started overcoming the mediocre education we have been subjected to about it for decades? By doing this we can start using our sincere and mutual love of our Constitution to regain our unity and rebuild our nation. That will undoubtedly work better than what we've been doing, which is throwing it at each other as a meaningless, infuriating insult.

Time for Revolution

 

With the election of Donald Trump to his second term, many of us conservative, Constitution loving Americans are tempted to think we have finally won the day. We have but to sit back and let Trump and his administration, and the Republican dominated legislature, fix what ails our nation. Nothing could be further from the truth, because while Trump's election has given us a reprieve, our national decline is so extreme, and been going on so long, that what we really need is a revolution.

The dictionary informs us that a revolution is a rotating or turning around some other object, such as a planet has a revolution around the sun. It can also be used in regard to a machine cycling around, such as a car's engine can run at some revolutions per minute. That same sense of the word applies to political revolutions; it merely means a turning, from one government to another. It can be a turning from the entire system of government and attaining a new one, or it can be simply exchanging one leader for another, a non violent revolution.

Even with that harmless sounding definition, the idea of having a revolution is still very frightening. That fear of revolution is easy to understand because so many times of violence and war, calling themselves revolutions, have totally failed to turn their societies in a better direction. This has happened in so many nations that they are too numerous to list here. They generally call themselves revolutions, but are in reality just one local dictator, or war lord, overthrowing and replacing an older dictator.

Some of the larger, and more well known of these kinds of revolutions were the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution under Mao, and the Islamic Revolution in Iran. What all of those revolutions have in common is that they began in a time of great crisis, and because of that chaotic birth, never developed the kind of social dynamic which marks successful revolutions. They were born in times of great social and material upheaval, and consequently when the people turned away from the existing order they had to make that change while chaos and disorder prevailed. The foundations of a new order, chosen in such conditions, proved to not be stable and enduring.

The American Revolution had a different genesis. While it undoubtedly started with a war for independence from Great Britain, the leaders who launched it were not under immediate physical threat when they did so.

Even in 1776 they could take the time to consider the best way to form together as a nation. Later, after the War of Independence was over, they could take even more time, although they did have to move with deliberate haste, to put a truly workable system of self government together.

Thus was our constitutionally limited democratic republic born, out of a time of orderly revolution. Since the Founders could take time to incorporate many lessons from history in their plan, it has proven much more durable than other revolutions.

So as we think about revolution, it is good to note that revolutions which start for ideological reasons, in times of relative peace, tend to last longer and have better effect, than revolutions that start in rushed chaos, with a need to patch something together quickly. The rule of thumb seems to be that crisis driven revolutions are bad, and ideologically driven revolutions are good.

With that in mind, we should proceed with our revolution, because we are not in a time of immediate crisis. Things aren't coming down around our ears, and if we do conduct a successful revolution, there won't be a crisis. We simply have to ensure it is the good kind of revolution, the ideological kind.

Now we can come up with a new definition for revolution, or at least a new technique with which to conduct a good revolution. Basically, it should consist of taking a long, honest look at history; Figure out what we did wrong, and quit doing it: Figure out what we did right, and do more of it, and then carry on. By carrying on is meant that these deliberations have to go from just the merely ideological to actually being implemented in the real world.

The most important thing about having a discussion to separate the good from the bad in our history is that it has to be both honest and thorough. Take, for instance, how we must address that most difficult of subjects: “racism.” If we allow a superficial opinion to dominate, we will never come to a good result. The quick, easy and wrong opinion would be to say that racism is something really bad that White people do. The solution, if we adopt that view, is to squelch and discriminate against White people.

That will never work, because it is not the truth. The truth is that racism permeates all of humanity, and has been manifested in every group in this nation. While it is true that it manifested as a worse problem among White people, it wasn't exclusively their problem, so curing that disease can't focus solely on that one group. Rather, the problem of racism should be dealt with like a contagious disease, and attacked with equal honest fervor wherever it manifests.

That then is an example of the kind of thinking our new American revolution must employee if it is to be successful. It has to be, and can be, a thorough and honest long term conversation about what kind of nation we want to be.

Some might scoff and say that if we don't have a time of a real shoot em up, violent war, it isn't a revolution. Think about it though. If we can arrive at that time of an open hearted, honest dialogue, would that not accomplish a true turning in another direction of our society, even if we got there without a lot of people dying.

On the other hand, if we did have some kind of major bloody struggle, and never actually got to that time of honest dialogue, would it really turn us in another direction? Would it not probably just install some even more corrupt regime on us, and we continue on the same down ward path. Needless to say, we would have to continue with even more death, maiming, resentment, and hate.

In a lot of ways, we should realize that this is just calling us back to being true Americans. Our revolution merely commenced with the Declaration of Independence, with its call for liberty and justice for all, and for governments to have the consent of the governed. Those were undoubtedly revolutionary sentiments, but our revolution actually got fired up later, in 1787. At that time our Founding Fathers got together to formulate our constitutional government. Admittedly, some of them were rich enough to be considered potential oligarchs, as some accuse them of, but they were oligarchs with a difference. The difference was that this particular group of oligarchs knew that their necks were on the line. If they didn't formulate a government that was strong and stable enough to endure, the British were very likely to return and gather back up their empire, one state at a time. The Founders would then have undoubtedly been hung for their troubles. What's more, this particular set of oligarchs also knew that any government they devised would have to gain the acceptance of the people. The American people at the time were the most astute and politically engaged people on Earth. So the Founders knew they had to do a good job.

Therefore, they started our Republic on a revolutionary basis, looking at the long sweep of world history, as they could see it, and incorporating what had worked well in the past, and rejecting what had not worked well. Truly revolutionary thinking.

Then, the American Revolution really got started, once the people as a whole began to wrestle with the concepts of self government. Not only did we decide to end the scourge of slavery withing our first ninety years, but we ended property requirements for voting, established schools and universities, and accomplished many other revolutionary goals. In fact, while we have lost much of that early revolutionary zeal, it is still with us, and needs merely to be infused with new life.

The next American revolution, the one we must initiate now, also promises to be a years, if not decades, long process. Let it be. It is long past time that the people, the citizens of this nation, reclaimed their revolutionary zeal, and started to engage in the revolutionary debates that this nation, indeed this whole planet, so desperately needs.