Category Archives: Biblical Worldview

Hamilton’s Curse- The Hamiltonian Revolution of 1913

This entry is part 4 of 9 in the series Hamilton's Curse

The American Revolution (incorrectly so-called, at least between 1775-83) didn’t end with the Treaty of Paris in 1783. Once the British were defeated the real American Revolution, the internal battle over the form of the American government would take, began. The real revolution was fought between conservatives (the deliberately mis-named “Anti-Federalists” whom we will refer to as the “true federalists”), who originally wanted to retain but amend the Articles of Confederation and a group of nationalists (whose press-savvy leadership adopted the misnomer “Federalists” who we refer to in this article by their true view- “nationalists”) who desperately wanted to eliminate the state governments as sovereign entities and tried to use the Constitutional Convention, unsuccessfully, to do it. Just to clarify- there were Federalists who were true federalists, mostly in the south. That’s why we use the term “nationalists” instead of “Federalists” to differentiate these two groups using the same party label.

Since the nationalists had failed to eliminate the state governments at the convention they devised a plan under the leadership of Alexander Hamilton to subjugate them by adopting a new constitutional hermeneutic clearly not supported by the text of the document. The hermeneutic they adopted said, in effect, whatever authority is not expressly forbidden to the federal government by the Constitution was permitted to it, including the powers reserved to the states and to the people alone. And the method they chose to impose this hermeneutic on the new federal government was to pack the judiciary branch with its adherents.

The battle to subjugate the states see-sawed for 126 years. From splits over a national bank and foreign policy during the Washington administration to Jefferson’s “revolution” of 1800 to the War of 1812, the Monroe Doctrine, Jackson’s “Tariff of Abominations,” the nullification and secession crises, battle over the Bank of the United States, the Missouri Compromise, the Mexican War, “Manifest Destiny,” the Kansas-Nebraska Act, “Bleeding Kansas,” the Dred Scott decision, the “Secret Six,” John Brown’s raid and state treason trial were all merely the warm-ups to the real showdown between nationalists and true federalists over the Constitution and its proper interpretation- the War Between The States. The military victory of the nationalist northern Union over the federalist southern Confederation seemed to answer the question of constitutional interpretation and the nature of the Union by force. But questions answered by force of arms are rarely actually settled.

Even after a victory by force of arms the nationalists realized that there still existed in the language of the Constitution elements of state sovereignty and stiff controls on the growth of size in the federal government in the form of the minting and value of money and restriction of direct taxation (like income taxes). Nationalists knew that those parts of the Constitution that covered these restrictions intact could not be pushed aside by nationalist judicial reinterpretation, something Thomas Jefferson warned against –

Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.

Nationalists knew this because even a Supreme court packed with their cronies simply could not create by construction an argument that made explicit prohibition of direct taxation impermissible. That was demonstrated when the Supreme court declared the first two federal income taxes unconstitutional in 1872 and 1896. They just couldn’t get the job done by simply declaring they had the power to pass a tax and attempting to justify it by manipulating the meaning of the clear words of the Constitution.

Nationalists also knew that they had to stop the 10th amendment to the Constitution from being used to stifle federal usurpation of state and local authority as had been done before 1861. The only way to accomplish this was to remove the state governments’ representation in the federal Congress. They had to strip the authority to choose Senators from the state governments and place that authority in the hands of a more easily manipulated body with a short memory and nationalize it as much as possible. They were creating a super-representative with a term length guaranteed to keep the average voter from remembering that a Senator was a profligate tax-and-spender for the first 41/2 years of his term, especially if he supported some showy but meaningless legislation that allowed him to claim that he had been a “true fiscal conservative” his whole term (sound familiar?) during the final 18 months of it.

Last but certainly not least, nationalists understood that their grip on power would be tenuous and their ability to manipulate the populace would be limited without complete control of money and credit. They needed a national bank with the ability to nationalize interest rates and a fiat money supply which could be inflated or deflated to help manipulate voters, especially around presidential election years.

DiLorenzo explains in this chapter how all of this was accomplished within the span of a single year- 1913. He also explains that this was not the result of recent “progressive” tinkering as some historians have claimed but the result of deliberate and concerted efforts by men dedicated to accumulating and centralizing power in a national government at the expense of state and local governments over more than a century.

He also explains that the movement has had several incarnations during that period. Hamilton and his followers were advocates for a high tariff to “protect infant American industry” and an American form of Mercantilism.

Later, Henry Clay modified Hamilton’s vision into his “American System” of corporate welfare for road and canal building (which bankrupted several states, including Lincoln’s Illinois) and other “vital” industries, a national bank to “create credit” for these schemes and centralization of power in Washington, especially the power to tax.

Lincoln, calling himself Clay’s political heir, then further modified and implemented Clay’s system by claiming that the federal government had the “right” to keep states from seceding from the union by force of arms, thus stripping the 10th amendment of any real meaning, and tacitly claiming that it was necessary for northern corporate welfare that southern tariffs continue to be collected. Since he no longer had southern revenues to pay for the war to coerce them back into the union, he forced a graduated income tax (including withholding) through Congress claiming that it was constitutional because it was an “indirect direct tax,” making a mockery of the constitutional prohibition against direct taxation without apportionment.

I have included some media to illustrate what is meant about how nationalists think about the Constitution. Especially illustrative of the ultra-nationalist “living document” theory of constitutional interpretation is this conversation between Judge Andrew Napolitano and Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) on the constitutionality of the federal health care law. Napolitano is taking the strict constitutional constructionist position (and dropping the ball on federal intervention in education matters).

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00Xcqp46A64[/youtube]

In this article, Republican party “big tent” proponent, self-titled “conservative” and  naturalized American citizen born in Canada, David Frum, completely fails to make the case that the health care law is somehow constitutional. He does, however, expose his position as a nationalist in the Hamilton-Webster-Lincoln tradition as described earlier by adhering to the arguments stemming from the constitutional position described for that group of thinkers.

By the late 19th century it became clear to nationalists that they still had one obstacle in their path; the Constitution. The language in certain sections of the constitution simply could not be adequately de-constructed by re-interpretation and changes HAD to be made.

Hence the concerted efforts by nationalists to get the 16th and 17th amendments passed. Unfortunately, there was such a complete lack of understanding among the citizenry of what money and its purpose and function were, let alone the constitutional restrictions connected with the coining of it and the regulation of its value, that there was very little protest when the Federal Reserve System, a privately owned and operated national banking system, was created by law in complete violation of the Constitution, in the same year that the 16th and 17th amendments were finally passed. Thus, the last vestiges of the original American Republic  disappeared in a single year. The Revolution of 1913 completed what was started in 1861-5. The conversion of the United States from a federated republic of autonomous states ruled by law under a Constitution which limited the powers of the federation government to a single government entity free from limitations of its power by decree of its own courts and driven by the “will of the people” as manipulated by government/media for the “common good.”

DiLorenzo explains how this all took place in the course of a few short months and what the devastating results have been in the years since.

Another Policy Institute Board Member to Teach at Freedom Action

This entry is part 1 of 3 in the series Freedom Action Conference 2010

Freedom Action Conference

This Just Announced!

The director of the Institute For Principled Policy and the CEO of Principled Consulting, LLC Barry Sheets will be  teaching a session at the 2010 Freedom Action Conference on the subject of “Running a Grassroots Political Campaign on a Shoestring.”

This is just one of the many sessions that will be held at Valley Forge. DON’T MISS IT! Follow the links to FreedomActionConference.com, and register for the conference today to get the Early Bird registration discount.

The Institute At The Freedom Action Conerfence

This entry is part 1 of 3 in the series Freedom Action Conference 2010

Freedom Action Conference

Are you looking for a chance to network with other freedom activists? Are you looking for answers to questions on a wide-range of liberty issues? Do you want to meet, converse, pick the brains of, and mingle with experts in those widely diverse areas where the battles for the return of liberty are being hotly contested?

Then you need to register for and attend the 2010 Freedom Action Conference in Valley Forge Pennsylvania on August 12, 13, 14, 2010.

So who are these experts, anyway?

Well, how about Dr. Thomas Woods, author of the new bestseller Nullification? How about William Jasper, editor of The New American magazine? How about Sheriff Mack, an expert on the rights, responsibilities and power of the local Sheriff? An important topic in the era of a revival of thinking about the 10th amendment, no?

The Institute For Principled Policy is a co-sponsor of the 2010 Freedom Action Conference and at least one of our board members, Chuck Michaelis, Vice-chairman of the institute and the Director of Camp American, will be joining with Larry Greenley of the John Birch Society to discuss the dangers of calling a new constitutional convention.

There are several GREAT options for registration.

Full conference registration is $270/$480 per person/couple and includes meals, breaks and a 1-year subscription to the DeWeese Report

There is a “Diet Plan” that DOES NOT include meals that costs $100 (you get banquet attendance but no meal or drink)

For students there is a $40 registration that DOES NOT include meals (student ID required)

There is a single day registration for any single day of the conference that DOES NOT include meals for $50

There is a banquet only registration that is $105

There is a registration for the reception for Tom Woods that is $20

There is also registration for display tables (includes full registration for 2) for $350

Please join us for what may well be THE most important conference of the year-

FreedomActionConference.com

Where Is The Money Coming From?

The video below is a humorous look at the European economic crisis, sometimes called the PIIGS Crisis (Portugal, Ireland, Italy Greece, Spain lending their first letters to the acronym). It’s actually very funny in an extremely unsettling way. Have a look and judge for yourself. From the Australian comedy team Clarke and Dawe.

What’s not so funny is that the question that is asked repeatedly- “But where is the money coming from?”- is THE pivotal question of the day.  Since most economists are Keynsian it is assumed that these countries economies MUST be bailed out in order to keep the world economy from falling like dominoes. But of course that presupposes several things. The primary presupposition is that “failure is not an option.” Well, of course it’s an option.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0a_FA_J6Sw[/youtube]

As any mortgage payer can tell you, if you can’t make your house payment the mortgage company will take it away from you. Well, at least that was the case in the recent past. Many branches of government are now attempting to make it possible for mortgagees to keep their houses without bothering to make the payments. No one is even bothering to try to make any kind of rational argument for why government should interfere with the mortgage contract in favor of the borrower at the expense of the lender. The arguments are all purely emotional, playing on the natural feelings of pity (and as we will demonstrate in a moment, envy) in the listener. But the facts are that it is dangerous and counterproductive to not allow failure. That is because, eventually (paraphrasing Margaret Thatcher) you run out of other people’s money. This principle is exactly the same for governments as it is for individuals and families.

The consequences of failure for families is bankruptcy and damage to the ability to borrow money. This is not necessarily a bad thing because it forces the individual or the family to do what it should have done in the first place; to buy only what is needed and to save for special expenses and pay for them in cash. This can wreak havoc on families who have come to expect to live the “good life” on credit and can lead to marital strife and, often, divorce.

The same can be said for countries, except that citizens of bankrupt countries who have come to expect to live the “good life” in the form of “cradle-to-grave” care with guarantees of food, clothing, housing, transportation, etc. paid for by the public treasury filled in large part by taxes levied progressively against the more productive members of society, rather than by the proceeds of their own labor. As these nations begin to exhaust the capital available from their more productive elements to pay for the support of the less productive elements of society, they have no choice except to either borrow from nations which do still have capital available or default on all obligations. The latter can be accompanied with threats against neighboring nations of impending unrest leading to civil war or  revolution which could cross borders into neighboring nations also on the verge of economic collapse.

The now obvious danger lies in the second major presupposition which is that that there is some large (Marxists and some Keynsians believe inexhaustable) pool of capital somewhere that can be tapped for these bailouts. The nurturing of this idea breeds an attitude of entitlement to the fruits of others’ labors. That is, the successful must be forced to bear a large portion if not the lion’s share of the burden for those who are not successful or refuse to try to become successful because they have no incentive to do so.

This is usually sold as the more “fortunate” being required to support the “less fortunate” but of course that begs the question. What makes some more “fortunate” than others? Usually it’s a combination of wit, the ability to calculate risk, proper timing, management savvy, knowing the market, filling a need, etc. The word “fortunate” implies that there is luck involved. None of the things listed describing the “fortunate” include luck as a factor, do they? That’s because it’s hard work to make a fortune. But it’s very easy to convince people who had nothing to do with creating the wealth that they are somehow entitled to a piece of the pie that was baked by someone else.

So, after an indefinite period of governments artificially “creating” wealth by inflation (actually a form of confiscatory taxation) and seizing more and more of the capital that would otherwise invested by the wealthy in order to create even more wealth in the private sector we find that there isn’t anything left to confiscate for redistribution. As Gary North demonstrates in this article “There Is No Money,” once that point is reached, and we’re getting dangerously close to that precipice, there is nowhere to go but default and that spells the end of the welfare state gravy train.

Of course, we here in the United States are not in any way inoculated against what is going on in Europe. We owe China billions,  if not trillions, for the US bonds they hold. Yet we have pledged huge amounts of money, over $108 billion dollars, to bail out central banks worldwide. Forty billion dollars of that is going to Greece so that they can continue to provide cradle-to-grave care for a people who have come to expect to be carried by their government whether or not they work. Don’t even try to convince them they should sacrifice by becoming more productive.

Since many of these loans are from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) they must theoretically be repaid for the member states to be able to continue to be eligible to continue to borrow. Let’s ask a question then. Who do you suppose would loan you money at all, let alone at a high interest rate, if you disclosed that not only were you had spent 14%  more than you made last year and that when you already had a personal debt that equaled more than 115% of your entire yearly income and were expecting to spend significantly more than you make this year? No one who had even a rudimentary sense of mathematics would. And yet this is where Greece, and several other countries in Europe stand currently. And this doesn’t include Central and South America, Africa or Asia, each of which have countries at least as bad off.

And so we ask- Where is the money coming from?

An Open Letter To Rep. John Boccieri

To the editor:

Though I address this letter to the editor, I am really addressing this to our 16th district congressman, Representative John Boccieri.  Congressman, it is well known that you first voted in opposition to the recently passed health care bill, but then shortly before the final vote changed your position and voted for this bill.  You have released some public rationale for your change, but since your vote was such a crucial vote in this very important decision affecting many of us in your district I am requesting that you publicly explain some things to your constituents.   Would you please address these issues?  I am sure many others share these questions and concerns:

  1. The administration is calling this health care bill a transition, what President Obama called a “fundamental changing of America” with more to follow.  Could you please explain philosophically what this means to you and how you want America to “fundamentally” be changed?

  2. In supporting this Bill, I assume you believe that health care is a fundamental right that is owed to every American, could you then explain what the basis for this fundamental right is since I do not see it in the Constitution or in Natural Law?

  3. Socialism is defined as central government control or oversight of economics, I’ve read and taught such socialists as Robert Owen, Marx, and Stalin and it looks like socialism to me; do you understand and accept it as socialized medicine, why or why not?

  4. Can you explain how this Senate version of the health care bill is a significant improvement over the one that you voted against in the House?

  5. Since you were a former state house representative how do you expect the financially strapped State of Ohio to pay for the loss of Medicare funding for Ohio that will occur with this Bill?

  6. The Senate version you voted for supports that the government should pay for abortions, that those of us who are pro-life should subsidize abortion.  Can we now assume that you support tax-payer funded abortion?  How do you reconcile that to your Roman Catholic faith?

  7. Physicians are divided on this bill.  Some reports say that as many as 30% of general practice physicians may resign their practices with the activation of this bill.  Can you explain to us how we can increase and improve medical care when there will be more patients and fewer general practice physicians?

  8. Section 52.10 of the Health Care Bill has a provision in it that allows the government to establish a “ready reserve” private army.   Why is this hidden in a health care bill?  As a person with a military background do you really support the establishment of a new private army?

  9. The health care bill has inserted a segment into it that removes the oversight of student loans from the banks into the direct hands of the government.   There are good reasons on both sides of this issue.  The question is, why do you support this hidden in a health care bill without permitting any transparent public debate on the issue?

Thank you for your kind attention to these issues.

Mark Hamilton.

Dr. Hamilton is an associate professor of philosophy at Ashland University where he has taught for 28 years.  He is also the NCAA Faculty Athletics Representative at Ashland University.  He currently serves as the board chairman of the Institute for Principled Policy

Diagnosis on Health Care Vote – A Symptom of a Sick and Dying Nation

The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

John 10:10

The despicable health care vote of March 21, 2010 is not the fault of Barack Obama or the democrats. It’s not the fault of republicans for squandering twelve years of congressional power on federal expansion. It’s not the fault of MSNBC, the SEIU, ACORN, or the G.E. Corporation. It’s not the fault of the American public for electing Obama in 2008, or their collective 70% approval rating at the onset of his term. (It’s not as if everything was fine in 2008 and then suddenly turned south in 2009). It’s not even the fault of the public education system for finally producing a generation of dumbed-down Americans that would gleefully elect a cadre of radical leftists to run the federal government. In fact, this is the exact result one would expect from a sick and dying nation.

It’s easy to curse the darkness and start targeting the above villains that have brought us to this socialist storm brewing on the horizon. It’s easy to treat each of these evils as if they are the real problem, endlessly plugging holes in the dyke only to bolster the flood waters. It’s easy to play “what if” – if only we’d elected McCain – if only the tea party were more organized – if only the media would stop being biased – if only Congress would heed the will of the people – if only the republican party would get its act together, etc. Maybe it’s time to stop trying to treat the symptoms and tackle the disease itself.

What then is the root cause? Why is America sick and dying, with that process now having been accelerated by the advent of a European-style socialized heath care system? It really is a simple answer – THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST IN AMERICA HAS FAILED. The church has failed for decades to be salt and light in the culture, and here we are scratching are heads wondering why the average American doesn’t “get it”. The fact is most Christians don’t get it either. Polling shows that at best, ten percent of Christians evangelize the lost. And a substantial percentage of that evangelism assumes that we still live in the nominally Christianized society of the 19th century. Couple that with the absolute lack of worldview training and discipleship, and the lack of doctrine and biblical literacy in the average evangelical church. Then couple that with the frightening trends among Christian youth in America, a group that almost monolithically rejects absolute truth (to say nothing of the secular youth). This combination makes one begin to realize that socialized medicine is only the beginning of sorrows in America.

Socialized medicine has been decades in the making, it was inevitable. As societal rejection of God increases every year, the state must rise in His place. In fact, the Marxists have telegraphed their plans for the last 100 years, why are we surprised? The church in America has failed to the be the storehouse and beacon of truth in our society. Now a majority of Americans decide for themselves what truth is, and are dumbfounded when the state passes draconian legislation against the consent of the governed. As William Penn stated over 300 years ago: Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants. Outside of a moral society based on Christianity, the principle of the consent of the governed no longer operates. The sinful nature of human beings cannot co-exist with true liberty, the state must fill the void.

Even still, there is much deserved backlash against the passage of so-called health reform. Now there is a “conservative ascendency” in America as people look for a GOP takeover of Congress in 2010 to lead us to the promised land. There other movements afoot as well – Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty and of course the loose coalition of Tea Party groups. However, we had a republican congress from 1994-2006. The anarchist and godless French revolution of 1789 only produced more tyranny. Secular political solutions will at best produce short term victories, delaying the inevitable result of a sick nation – DEATH. Lost people are dead spiritually. Yes the proposed repeal of this legislation and the reassertion of tenth amendment state’s rights are noble endeavors. However, unless the collective spirit of America is awakened, the nation will still riding the long, black train to the graveyard – it will just take a little longer to get there. Only the power of Christ can accomplish the miraculous, and only God’s absolute truth can sustain a free and vibrant nation.

For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?What good is liberty to dead people?

Mark 8:36

Will the church rise up once again as did in the Great Awakening to shine the light of truth on America, and offer real solutions that will reverberate throughout eternity? Or will she continue to build buildings, play rock concerts, reject sound doctrine, fail to evangelize the lost and disciple the found, while retreating further from the culture? The church has a golden opportunity to disciple the nation is true liberty, and yet she is allowing secular movements to fill the void – much like education has ceded to government schools. If the church will not tell the truth in society, then who will? We are endowed by God with our rights, and yet Americans reject that God in favor of human saviors and self pleasure. Americans therefore have no right to complain as those rights are stolen right before our eyes. As Josh McDowell has pointed out, this could well the be the last Christian generation in America. If that is the case, it will also be the last generation to have any memory of a free society. Government health care will be just the beginning of the nation’s death throes. Is the church ready for CPR yet?

HEALTH CARE: A Biblical Critique – part 1

This entry is part 1 of 1 in the series HEALTH CARE: A Biblical Critique

Dr. Mark Hamilton is  Chairman of the Board of the Institute For Principled Policy, Professor of Philosophy Ashland University and an Elder for Providence Church

Health care is dominating the news and our culture.  It is also apparent that most people want all Americans to be treated fairly and compassionately and that the current costs of health care have burdened many and threaten this desire for fairness.  But the current proposed health care bill presents numerous reasons for concern and there are specific aspects of the bill which are wrong and morally unacceptable.

God cares about our health. The Bible refers to the words heal, healer, healed, health, healthy at least 169 times.  1 Corinthians 6:19-20 states, “Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?  For you have been bought with a price, therefore glorify God in your body.”  We should take care of our bodies as service to God.  Jesus came to heal and redeem, and ultimately we must understand that all healing comes from God and is dependent upon Him.  Jesus alone is our healer.  He came to make us well and bring life.

God cares about our Laws.  Isaiah 10:1 says, “Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees….” But how do we know an unjust law?  As Christian I believe in the “sufficiency of scripture.”  This means that scripture is “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”  Since this is so we must look to Scripture as the supreme standard to evaluate the proposed government takeover of health care. The only standard by which any one can really evaluate any laws is by the standard of Scripture.  In this analysis I will evaluate the proposed Health Care Bill by the standards of Scripture and particularly by the Standard of God’s Law, the Ten Commandments.

The proposed health care bill builds on the modern American trend of statism. Statism is when power is centralized and located in the state not in the people.   In statism, a person’s life and work belong to the state.  For the past 150 years America has become gradually more nationalized in its approach toward government with the state taking more and more control over economic planning and policy including the lives of its citizens.  The American Founding Fathers understood the tendency of governments to move in this direction of restricting freedom so they implemented means to block that movement.  They also understood power ultimately rests in God and that all nations rise and fall by the authority of God.  They often acknowledged the sovereignty of God.  The Declaration of Independence even states, “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge our Lives, Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor.”  They understood that God, not the state, society, class, or church is our security.  God alone is ultimately sovereign and all power and authority rests in Him.  Furthermore only God can be trusted with power.  Human power and freedom is always a threat or danger because of sin.

Because of the effects of sin, whenever God’s sovereignty is reduced, then humans or human institutions step forward and fill that vacuum. For example in theology when God’s supremacy is reduced then individual human authority intervenes and results in Arminian theology and a reduction in God’s work of grace in salvation.  Understanding God’s sovereignty properly leads to an understanding of the limited power and authority of humans and human institutions.  The American Constitution created a government of limited and enumerated powers with a separation of powers because the Founders and Authors understood the nature of God’s sovereignty and the dangers of human autonomy and power.  In this formula no man or department exercises all the power of even a limited government.  God alone is to be trusted with power.  This type of Federalism is based on a presbyterian form of corporate church government with a plurality of leaders and with no monopoly of jurisdiction.  The Christian should understand the need is to fragment and limit political power because of sin so it cannot threaten the lives and liberties of the people.

Statism is the modern idolatry of the state.  We must understand that the nationalization of Health Care violates the First Commandment which exclaims, “Thou shall have no other gods before me.”  Growing statism makes the state into a deity.  During the medieval periods ecclesiolatry was responsible for much of the world’s suffering.  When God’s sovereignty was reduced prior to the Reformation in Europe, the church emerged as the sovereign entity and an ecclesiocracy was established as the church ruled over the state.   The situation is now reversed.  It is now this crossing of the state into the realm of the Church which has caused the suffering of the 20th century.  “All modern dictators—Communist, Facist, or disguised—have at least one thing in common.  They all believe in social security, especially in coercing people into governmentalized medicine” stated economist Melchoir Palyi in 1949 in Compulsory Medical Care and the Welfare State (Chicago) (quoted from the November 2009 The Trinity Review) .

Here then is a second form of idolatry as the state usurps the role of the Church in its quest for sovereignty. We could say it violates the tenets of separation of church and state causing the state to enter into the realm that is the Church’s.  Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck and Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany, Lenin and Stalin of the USSR, Salazar of Portugal, Mussolini of Italy, Franco of Spain, Yoshito and Hirohito of Japan, Peron of Argentina, Castro of Cuba, Mao of China, and Hitler of Germany all were autocrats and all were advocates of National Health Care (November 2009 The Trinity Review).

Virtue must be voluntary. It is not the role of government to increase the virtues, “Render to God what is God’s.” The government must give opportunity for virtuous men to act appropriately, to get out of their way.  American generosity is the consequence of Christianity and capitalism.  Compulsory charity is an absurdity like involuntary volunteerism.  The state cannot love; It cannot force compassion.  Its role is to wield the sword and punish evil-doers.  Get the state out of the affairs of the Church.  To refuse to do so is to commit idolatry.

When Educators Tell The Truth

PlayPlay

This was too good to let pass. Though we have not been able to verify whether or not this is real, it is difficult to argue with the sentiment.

In an age where parents are scrambling to avoid their responsibility to properly educate their children and are willing to pay thousands of dollars per year to get others to do it for them, there are still some refreshing responses from educators that indicate that the teachers and administrators “get it” even if the parents don’t.

Unfortunately, this attitude has not yet penetrated the thinking of the majority of  educators in the United States. But if Australian teachers have gotten it can we be far behind?

Enjoy!

More Information On Gardasil

Way back in 2007 the Institute For Principled Policy Led the fight to oppose mandatory Gardasil vaccinations for girls as young as 10. Gardasil is a vaccination created to immunize against a limited number of strains of the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV). It was being touted as a cervical cancer prevention method. We cited a complete lack of information on vital statistics regarding length of anti-viral activity, adverse immunological effects, possible adverse reactions (Guillain-Barre Syndrome, etc), actual statistical analysis regarding reduction of cancer, etc. For a complete list of the questions we were asking in the Spring of 2007 you can read our main article HERE.

Now, 3 years later, the bloom is off the “miracle vaccination” rose. It is becoming clear that the objections we raised were more than justified. Merck & Co. the pharmaceutical giant that developed this vaccine and has spent millions trying to guarantee itself indemnity from lawsuit via a little known section of the PATRIOT Act that makes mandatory vaccinations immune from damage lawsuits. That’s what was going on in Ohio in 2007 and we at the Institute For Principled Policy exposed it early, thus killing the bill (HB 81) that would have made the vaccine mandatory.

Since that time there have been nearly 9000 adverse reaction reports, including deaths, paralysis, mysterious pain, immunological impacts, reports of passing out, etc. Now Merck & Co. are trying to get boys in the act, claiming the vaccine will work in them, as well.

Here is a video that gives an interesting overview of the situation including a CBS Evening News report on Gardasil adverse reactions-

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJsEEXDGAsk[/youtube]

There is also a very well done video response to the first video that looks at the problem from a more scientific perspective. It targets both the medical journals and marketing of the vaccine-

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZ32gAb1o-E[/youtube]

As the second video makes clear, there are many questions that MUST be answered about Gardasil primarily but also many other vaccinations. Vaccinations can be wonderful things (polio), but there is an immunological price to pay for their use. The extent of that price is not yet fully known. As consumers we need to be given considerably more information on that price than we now have.

Observations on the Healthcare Summit

By Dr. Mark Hamilton

Due to my own medical issues I load up my teaching on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday with a Tuesday night class. This keeps Thursdays free for medical appointments. This meant that I was fortunately (or maybe unfortunately?) able to take in the televised spectacle of the health care summit with President Obama entertaining the leaders from the Senate and House of Representatives in mortal verbal combat last week. This short expose’ will be my personal reflective thoughts on the day. Be reminded that due to my own illness, I read and reflected on the entire bill last summer and have been judiciously following the debates and discussions. Regarding this recent summit, I have been careful not to listen to many “post-game” pundits so that I can attempt to give my own untainted response to the nefarious activities of that day.

First, the sessions, especially the morning one was a good introduction to the health care debate. The primary issues were revealed and the ground clearly staked out by each side. The Democratic position was first laid out by the President followed by a clear eloquent Republican response by Lamar Alexander and Tom Coburn. After hearing their reply anyone who says the Republicans do not have a proposal for health care is badly mistaken. These men put forward specific Republican plans.

Second, the morning session, while accomplishing nothing in terms of resolution was a great educational time. My wife who understands many of the issues but who has not studied the bill in depth like I have was very attentive to much of the morning session because of the striking philosophical differences revealed.

Third, obviously President Obama was trying to find common points of agreement. Each time a Republican point would be made he would try to restate the discussion and frame it in a way that minimized the differences and magnified the agreement. I now know what Mr. Obama’s real calling is, a professional facilitator. For those of you who have been to professional planning sessions you know what I mean. These are people who are blind to disagreement and violate the law of non-contradiction by seeing all sides as part of the same side. I suspect his plan is to use this grasp at common ground as fodder to attempt to push through his bill while publicly saying the Republicans agree with much of its content.

Fourth, if the summit accomplished one great deed it was revealing the obvious differences in the sides. The Democrats want government to oversee the health care industry and to regulate it wherever possible while the Republicans want more freedom and less government control. Because there are some points of agreement, some will be persuaded to think the two sides are not far apart. They are completely polarized because they have different world views.

Fifth, the Republicans at the summit were much more eloquent and succinct in their points than the Democrats were. Senators Alexander and Coburn, and Representatives Ryan and Cantor were all very eloquent and persuasive; none of the Republicans looked confused or uncertain. I was very impressed at how fluent and philosophically consistent these Republicans were. In the past decade I have been quite critical of many of the leading Republican because of their pragmatic unprincipled approach to governing. That was not observable on Thursday. Democratic Senator Reid looked like a weasel as he denied the concept of reconciliation while networks were showing recordings of him and other Democrats mentioning the idea over the past few months. His denial of reconciliation made him look like a kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar saying to his mother that he was not going to eat any cookies. Speaker of the House Pelosi spoke as she always does, irrationally and haphazardly. If I ever hear of another liberal calling Palin dumb while supporting the mindless idiocy of Pelosi, I will pull my hair out. The Democrats must have used twice the time as the Republicans to say less than half of the content.

Sixth, Obama himself tried to be conciliatory and at times it worked. But his disdain for the Republicans obviously manifested itself in his rebukes of McCain and Cantor and the way he wanted to respond to each Republican directly after they spoke. Mr. Obama is the most defensive president I’ve ever seen. I’m sure he lectured and cajoled the Republicans for more time during the summit than all the combined speeches of all the Republicans.

Seven, finally it became obvious that the central issue is one of statism. The Democrats believe in it and hold fast to its tenets. Though some Republicans have been statists, like the Bushes and McCain, the emerging Republican leaders who were spokesmen at the summit are moving away from this outdated, idolatrous position. Healthcare is drawing the line in the sand and the summit painted this line in florescence green.