Politicians, Statesman, and Controversial Matters

The following is a guest article written by my good friend Det Bowers.

“The LORD your God is in your midst, a victorious warrior…” (Zeph. 3:17).

War is not always optional. Oftentimes, one war births another. The difficulty can be determining what war to enter and how to engage in that war (II Sam. 10:12). It is also essential to enter only those engagements wherein the mission is clearly defined and articulated, the time is ripe, the undertaking is achievable, and the exit provisions are agreed upon by those with the purest motives as well as the best knowledge and experience (I Chron. 14:15).

Americans seem to have continuing problems understanding that all societal values are not equal and all nations do not have the same values: Hitler’s Germany, 1941 Japan, Stalin and Putin’s Russia, the Islamic State, et cetera. Think through the nations that do not value life as we do in the western world or who disparage republican democracy, human rights and particularly the position of their own wives, sisters and daughters.

In our 21^st Century A.D., the international community is experiencing civil wars, ethnic wars, sectarian wars, regional wars, religious wars, cultural wars, ideological wars, territorial wars, et cetera. Some nations are positioned to address these wars and others are not (I Chron. 13:14). The problem is that a war in one country can have a significant affect upon other countries outside that region.

Your United States of America has matchless military might because we have developed the abilities gifted to us by “nature and nature’s God.” We have anticipated conflicts and cultivated the armaments vital to securing our own ordered peace (II Chron. 16:9). Other nations have not made the sacrifices necessary to order their own peace. 

There are many reasons why some are powerless to maintain peace and orderliness or address the wars going on within their borders. One of the primary reasons is their failure to apply themselves to the task of statecraft – crafting a nation-state requires all-encompassing sacrifice by her leadership. Therefore, when the sacrifice has not been made and is not being made, when there is a status of dependency, difficulties arise. A struggle associated with assisting less-powerful nations when the war is on their territory is the tendency to give the weak nation a central voice in how the powerful nation will engage on behalf of the unskilled nation.

Powerful nations establish world order and peace – weak nations do not. The weak nations do not have peace because they have been unwise and not made the very best of their human and natural resources (II Sam. 5:24). Sloth as well as the refusal to work early, hard and long must not be coddled by the more vigorous nations that expend scores of resources to make the world a better place for all peoples everywhere. The quandary is that if the strong nation continues to assist the weak nation without requiring it to discipline itself and expend its own resources to secure order within its own region, the strong nation shall strain its resources and can become as ineffective as the nation it is assisting (II Sam. 1:19).

At the close of World War II, Prime Minister Winston Churchill said it could have all been prevented if the western powers would have opposed Adolph Hitler earlier. Politicians rarely move early in controversial matters – statesmen consistently do. Moving early requires the resolve, vision and sacrifice so few will make (I Sam. 2:9). Not only should a wise nation move early, she should be committed to completing the task (II Chron. 26:5).

One of the difficulties of war is that it is not concluded until all agree it is over – including the losing party (I Sam. 15:32f.). Elections do not end wars – decisive victories do. When a nation, state or society is defeated, unless the victor addresses the conquered territory and people, there is a significant likelihood that other vexations worse than the first will assume positions of power in the land (Mt. 12:45).

“In those times there was no peace to him who went out or to him who came in, for many disturbances afflicted all the inhabitants of the lands. Nation was crushed by nation, and city by city, for God troubled them with every kind of distress. But you, be strong and do not lose courage, for there is reward for your work (II Chron. 15:5-7).


de Treville F. Bowers, Jr. is the former pastor of Christ Church of The Carolina's in Columbia, SC and most recently was a candidate for the United States Senate from South Carolina.

 

Impeachment, Separation of Power, Oath, and Duty

I find it very interesting, sad, and pathetic all at the same time how the National Republican Congressional Committee can acknowledge that the President of the United States has committed dozens of impeachable offenses....but yet not advocate for at least one single Article of Impeachment. They advocate for court proceedings that are certainly lawful, but not specified as the correct check for lawlessness in the Constitution.

Ladies and gentlemen please permit me to share with you a little about the Constitution and the framers intent on this beautiful Saturday morning from the Great State of South Carolina. If the President has committed this many impeachable offenses....and as one with some level of Constitutional expertise...I believe it is abundantly clear that he has....if the President of the United States has committed lawless acts in violation of his Constitutional oath, our elected members of the United States House of Representatives are DUTY bound to bring about at least ONE Article of Impeachment.

An Article of Impeachment is synonymous with an "indictment". The U.S. House of Representatives is made up of 435 members. 7 of those members represent South Carolina. Each state has a different allocation depending on population. The tool (known as a "check") in the founders system of Checks and Balances is written into our Constitution in Article I, Section 2, the last sentence....it reads: "The House of Representatives ....shall have the sole power of Impeachment".
It doesn't say that the House and "the Senate" have this power....it says that THE HOUSE has this power. Alone. We don't teach our Constitution anymore in our schools....yea, if you're really lucky today....a school might hand out pocket Constitutions on September 17th, but even the basics are not taught anymore. I submit that this is intentional...but I digress.

You see, too many people today completely misunderstand the process of "checking" lawlessness in a branch of the federal government. Sadly even the congressmen that I have spoken to have no in depth understanding of this either. Some of their staffers are even worse....but I digress. I don't mean that to be ugly or disparaging...it is just a fact of life today that since we don't teach this anymore...we have a very large portion of our congress that simply do not understand constitutional principles....and their staff sometimes (not always) reflects the same.

When it comes to the ultimate "check" on an elected or appointed official that violates the United States Constitution, or for that matter...even commits a misdemeanor (since the threshold for impeachment is actually very low)....when it comes to that "check", the framers designed a two step process for removal of that individual from office. There is "Impeachment"....which is not removal...it simply is the process that the framers gave to the U.S. House of Representatives to bring about charges...it does not mean or determine removal. Impeachment is given to the House as I mentioned above in Article I, Section 2. Removal from office can only come from a trial conducted in the U.S. Senate and is outlined for the Senate in Article I, Section 3: "The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments".

Each House under our Constitution, has completely separate and defined powers, the framers intended for one House to act independently of the other. This does not mean that they cannot and should not coordinate....but at the end of the day....each House in our bicameral congress has "swim lanes" of power. In other words, they are to have tunnel vision when it comes to exercising their defined powers. We know this because of the historical record in the debates at the Philadelphia Convention that produced our Constitution. The great "Connecticut Compromise" was part of this...the idea to split our congress into two co equal "Houses"....had to do with representation and also had to do with separating powers to try to prevent collusion on issues of national importance. The House was designed to be closest to the people hence the nickname the "Peoples House". Members of the House would be put on a very short leash (2 year terms) specifically for this purpose. This very same separated function is designed for spending also....but that is another topic for another day...but suffice it to say that spending is supposed to work the very say way...with complete separation of power. The founders wanted to make it VERY difficult to spend the peoples hard earned money. We give them a pass on this too...but alas I must return to my main point here.

Unfortunately, most people today do not know this....because they simply are not taught this (you might begin to see why I believe that it is by design that we don't teach this today). Since we are not taught this....we are quick to swallow hook line and sinker the garbage given to us by our Congressmen that they cannot draw up an Article of Impeachment because they don't have the numbers in the Senate. This answer and line of reasoning has absolutely no constitutional basis whatsoever. In fact, not only does it not have any constitutional basis, it is an affront to the design or our Constitution and the doctrine of Separation of Powers that was so wisely inserted into our very unique Constitutional Republic.

So the President today can pretty much do anything he wants...and our United States House of Representatives will do absolutely nothing of substance. I can list the excuses for you..."we will lose our committee assignments", "we don't have the numbers", "the Dems and media will beat us up and call us bad names".....and on and on....sickening. Yet we continue to cheer for them. Until we are willing to band together...and pressure even our "good" guys....they will do nothing. They have no fear of us because we clap for them doing the minimum for us.

Please consider joining the effort to stop giving your congressman, whoever he is a pass on this. In South Carolina, 6 out of our 7 congressmen claim Constitutional Conservatism as their political philosophy. None of them....not one of them will lift a finger to draw up a simple bill to submit on the House floor as an Article of Impeachment. We applaud them for their good conservative votes...and rightfully so. I think it is time that we raise the bar on these folks that we have elected and are paying 174K per year. I think it is time that we quit clapping like seals when they do the very minimum that a Constitutional Conservative should be doing....voting right.

If you do not believe that our President has violated the United States Constitution. Then you are free to disagree with me....honest people can disagree.

HOWEVER....IF you believe that the President has violated the Constitution, the framers gave only one clear way to deal with that kind of lawlessness....the gave the House the Constitutional "check", indeed, they gave them the SOLE responsibility to bring about an indictment....irrespective of whether the OTHER House will convict the defendant. Indictments do not always bring about convictions. But the process designed by the founders simply CANNOT work as designed if the 435 member House of Representatives refuses to do its constitutional duty regardless of their reasoning.

Madison's Final Resort For The States

The Convention of States (COS) Project is a nationwide effort to bring about an amending convention under Article V of the United States Constitution. The historically accurate term for such a convention is a “Convention of States”. In late 2013, I took on the leadership role for the Convention of States Project in South Carolina. After over 15 years of teaching, speaking, and training people on the United States Constitution, the Rule of Law, and Original Intent, I had come to the conclusion in early 2013 (as did many, many others around our nation) that our federal government is so systemically broken that those that hold federal office either cannot or simply will not take the steps necessary to return our government back inside the fence of limited government under the enumerated powers of the federal Constitution.

Because the framers of our great Constitution understood the nature of mankind, they knew there was a strong possibility that a day like this would come when the system that they entrusted to us would grow out of control. Because human nature has a tendency to stretch outside its boundaries, the framers put together a system using biblical principles of government designed to constrain the power hungry tendencies of mankind. The framers also had a keen understanding that the system they designed was not perfect and therefore it would need a process to make necessary changes as they arose. To this end they inserted a rigorous change process that included two methods to amend the Constitution. It is abundantly clear from their own words that they foresaw the need for changes to the document in the future.

Some today tell us that we need to “defend the Constitution as it is” rather than amend it, altogether ignoring the fact that our Constitution has been changed by amendment 27 times. With the exception of two amendments (16 & 17 in my opinion), all of these amendments made necessary changes. The Bill of Rights codified specific individual rights, human slavery was eradicated, women were given the vote, Presidents were limited to two terms in office, etc… So this idea that we never amend the Constitution has no historical or logical basis. An honest look at the historical record and the words of the framers paints a much different picture than the idea that we are somehow disrespecting the Constitution if we propose to amend it. It was precisely because the framers understood the tendency among men to want to stretch, pull, and twist on the limits of their powers; they specifically gave the states a process whereby the people under the principles of self government, and through their state legislatures could bypass Washington D.C. The states would be able to call a convention for the express purpose of proposing amendments to “reset” the text of the Constitution in response to the federal government (all three branches) perverting the original intent of the Constitution. I have spent many, many years teaching the brilliance of this document, indeed the God ordained blessing that we have the longest lasting nation under a single governing document in the history of the world. I have given my adult life to teaching respect for this document. That said, it is prudent for us to understand that the document is not perfect, it was drafted by human beings….and left in the hands of imperfect men, could be and would be twisted and perverted.

Thomas Jefferson made this point very straightforward in his letter to Samuel Kercheval dated June 12, 1816:

“Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it, and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present, but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead.”

So in reality, the correct and Constitutional way to “defend” the Constitution when it is being abused is to amend it.

But let’s dig deeper for a moment. A sober look back at recent history reveals that the twisting, pulling, and stretching of the text of the Constitution, away from its originally intended limited government, has been going on for well over a century. According to the founders/framers, what should have happened is that the very first time the Supreme Court twisted the original meaning of the Constitution in order to expand federal powers…the states should have responded with a call for an amending convention. For instance, it is a well established fact among Constitutionalists that the General Welfare clause and the Commerce clause in Article I, Section 8, are two of the most abused portions of text in the United States Constitution. It is very important to understand that this abuse did not happen all at one time. I often hear people saying that we just need to “enforce the Constitution as written” or “make our elected officials obey the Constitution”. No one has made that argument more strenuously than I have over the last 15 years that I have been passionately teaching and speaking on our great governing document.

If you were to ask any of the 535 members of the United States Congress and/or the President today why it is that they are not obeying their oaths, or why they are violating the Constitution, most of them would point across the street (from the capital) to the United States Supreme Court and tell you that the Supreme Court of The United States (SCOTUS) has told them that what they are doing is Constitutional. To understand how big the problem is we need to understand that this didn’t start last night, it started with a little stretching of Constitutional meaning here, a little twisting of its meaning there…and today has totally become perverted from what we can clearly understand from the founding documents as its original purpose, scope, and intent. To go even further and give a concrete example of this…we can look at the 1942 United States Supreme Court ruling in the case of Wickard v. Filburn. This case was one of the very first times that the SCOTUS perverted the meaning of the Commerce Clause in order to uphold a federal law that grossly expanded the legislative powers of the United States Congress. It is imperative at this point that we be reminded that anytime the legislative powers of the United States Congress are expanded, the powers relegated to the states under the 10^th Amendment will indeed contract. Ronald Reagan told us that “every time government expands, liberty contracts”.

In effect…today, my friend Michael Farris makes the case that we have two Constitutions. We have the Constitution that was ratified in June of 1788 and its 27 amendments. This is the Constitution that I teach under the interpretive philosophy of “Original Intent”, the one that the founders drafted to create a federal government of limited and enumerated powers. The fact that our Constitution was designed to be interpreted according to Original Intent is indisputable when one honestly looks at the debates from the Philadelphia convention and the ratifying conventions. There was great tension and debate about vesting too much power in a central government.

The second Constitution in effect today is the Constitution that the Supreme Court uses….the one that has been twisted, contorted, abused, and perverted for over a century. I might add that all of that abuse in these past decades was met with little to no response by the states.

James Madison emphasized this point in his letter to Edward Everett dated August 28^th, 1830. Madison by that time was 81 years old and had lived to see his incredible work to draft our governing document begin to bear the brunt of time. He had this to say when queried by Mr. Everett about the proper response by the states to a government that might grow abusive:

“Should the provisions of the Constitution as here reviewed be found not to secure the Government and rights of the States against usurpations and abuses on the part of the United States the final resort within the purview of the Constitution lies in an amendment of the Constitution according to a process applicable by the States.”

So, according to Madison, the right response immediately following the Wickard v. Filburn decision that grossly expanded the meaning of the Commerce Clause…indeed the Constitutional response envisioned by the framers at Philadelphia in 1787 when they inserted the state initiated amendment power into the Constitution, should have been a call from the states for an amending convention (Convention of States) under the provision outlined in Article V.

So to those that say all we need to do is to “enforce” our Constitution, or “hold our elected officials feet to the fire” (which we surely need to do), I submit that it betrays a deep misunderstanding of where we are today and how we got here. Those simplistic responses sound good, indeed I must admit I use to use them myself…but they simply will not suffice for the HUGE problem that we face. Today, we have an enormous problem with a federal government that is completely and utterly out of control. Mark Levin rightly refers to our federal government today as the “federal leviathan”.

It is also noteworthy to step back and realize that the United States Congress, according to the first section in Article V can propose amendments anytime they desire. In other words, for those that fear a congressional takeover of such a convention, the United States Congress for all practical purposes, is really in a perpetual "convention". They don't need anyone's permission to propose any amendments. The reason that they do not propose "rogue" amendments is because they know they could never get them through the 38 state gauntlet required by the Constitution. Those that fear a "runaway" convention from an Article V Convention of States seem to fail to realize that the "runaway convention" is happening every single day right in front of our eyes by fiat. In other words, they don't need a convention, they have become accustomed to perverted interpretations of the General Welfare and Commerce clauses. They are literally changing the Constitution by dictate (fiat)...at will through rogue interpretations that are devoid of historical original intent. The President is using "rogue" interpretations by the Supreme Court to direct unlawful actions via Executive Order. The Congress is using "rogue" interpretations of the Constitution by decades of twisted and perverted rulings by the SCOTUS. Indeed, the real "runaway" convention is happening right before our eyes if we are sober and honest with ourselves.

Some argue that since they are not following the Constitution today, why would they follow any new amendments. This too, like I described above in the section about understanding how they violate the Constitution betrays a lack of understanding of why they can simply "not follow" it now. It sounds like a good question, but it doesn't hold up under scrutiny of the "modern" amendments to the Constitution (women's suffrage, presidential term limits, etc...). The fact is that the modern amendments with clear language today are followed to the letter. Amendments clarifying the General Welfare and Commerce clauses, congressional and SCOTUS term limits, a balanced budget coupled with clear spending restraints, would go a very long way to helping steer us back inside what Jefferson called the "chains of the Constitution". To get a better understanding of other amendments that would be monumental in that regard I encourage you to read Mark Levin's work "The Liberty Amendments".

Anyone that is awake and honest today….and understands any of what I have written above….understands that we are figuratively staring down the gun barrel of a rogue, out of control federal government that is staggering drunk on the intoxicating effects of years of bloated growth in federal power. We have an ENOURMOUS problem. Fears of what "might happen", PALE in comparison to what IS happening right now. Indeed it is such an enormous problem that many have become so discouraged that they have entirely given up. Many citizens today that would normally be engaged in the process have given up because they also believe that the federal government is so out of control that there is nothing they can do about it.

Herein lies the good news (from an earthly perspective), we do have a recourse written right into our Constitution in Article V. This recourse has never been used. It will not be easy. I have heard some say that we are doing this because we think it is an “easy fix”. To the contrary, I believe that most of us understand that quite the opposite is true. We have such an enormous problem that we need an enormous solution. The founders gave us one, but it will not be easy. Amending the Constitution via the United States congress or via a Convention of States is extremely difficult. The threshold is very high. With the COS process, it takes 34 states to pass a resolution applying under the same subject matter in order for the United States Congress to call an amending convention for the states. Then any proposed amendments that come out of such a COS must be sent back to all of the states for ratification. The threshold required under our Constitution for ratification is even higher; it takes 38 states to ratify any proposed amendment coming out of a convention for that amendment to become part of the Constitution.

It is time to get past all of the misunderstandings about the Article V Convention of states. The framers gave us this provision. Madison himself referred to it as the “final resort within the purview of the Constitution”. Finally, we must face the sobering thought that our federal government is so out of control, that Washington D.C. cannot fix itself. On June 11^th, 1787, Anti Federalist George Mason while making the case to add the state convention provision to Article V made the following sobering statement:

“Amendments therefore will be necessary, and it will be better to provide for them, in an easy, regular and Constitutional way than to trust to chance and violence.  It would be improper to require the consent of the Natl. Legislature, because they may abuse their power, and refuse their consent on that very account.”

Carefully consider what Mason was telling us....his words are sobering. He is telling us that if we wait too long, we might risk violence in our nation. He went on to say that it would be wrong to leave all amending of the Constitution up to Washington D.C. [Natl. Legislature] because once they start abusing their powers they will refuse to do what needs to be done to put the beast of tyranny back inside the cage (emphasis mine). Think Congressional and Supreme Court term limits, think balanced budget amendment, think curtailing executive order power, think regulatory agency sunset provisions, think spending limitations, etc…

Right now we have Convention of States Project grassroots organizations active in over 40 states. Last night I had the privilege of participating in a nationwide conference call with all my other State Director colleagues…it was an incredible experience to hear the roll call with state after state reporting down the line. I realized at that moment that we have an incredible opportunity to save our nation right at our fingertips. A real opportunity to actually turn the tide back toward what the founders gave us. Hundreds of citizen patriots are answering the call by the national Convention of States Project to come to the front lines and take up their positions in all manner of form. Some have answered the call to take the leadership role in their state to get their state to pass the Article V Application/Resolution, some have answered the call to take up a position and man the ramparts in their individual legislative districts, others are joining as foot soldiers to help make calls and send messages to their state representatives. If we are successful, this effort will go down in history as the greatest historical event since the founding era.

The time for the states to act to defend themselves from the tyranny of the federal government is now. The Article V Convention of States is the lawful and orderly process by which we begin to turn this ship around.

An Article V Convention of States is not a silver bullet, but according to James Madison, it is the last bullet we have.

You can join this historic effort by visiting the Convention of States Project website.

Bob Menges was the very first State Director for the COS Project nationwide starting the effort in SC in Sep of 2013 and leading it through July of 2017. He spent 9 months working full time in 2015 as a Regional Legislative Director on the staff of the national Convention of States Project managing the effort in 12 states.

This Day (September 15th) 227 Years Ago.

Permit me to share a very Important Constitutional history lesson with you. The delegates to the Philadelphia Convention (today referred to as the Constitutional Convention) had been going over every section of every article in the final months of the Convention in 1787. 227 years ago, on a Saturday, just two days before the Convention in Philadelphia completed its work, we find a gem in the notes of James Madison, who took extensive notes just about every day of the convention. This item that I refer to as a “gem” is little known and hardly talked about today. On September 15, 1787, George Mason of Virginia (referred to in Madison’s notes as Col Mason), was alarmed that in the text of Article V (the provision for making Amendments to the Constitution), Congress would have sole power to propose amendments; Mason insisted, as he did earlier in June, that the states have authority to call for conventions. Mason explained that an oppressive Congress would never agree to propose amendments necessary to restrain a rogue, tyrannical legislature. James Madison recorded that “Col: MASON thought the plan of amending the Constitution exceptionable& dangerous. As the proposing of amendments is in both the modes to depend, in the first immediately, in the second, ultimately, on Congress, no amendments of the proper kind would ever be obtained by the people, if the Government should become oppressive, as he verily believed would be the case.” (See Madison’s notes 15 Sep 1787).

To make sense of that, you must understand that earlier in the summer when the issue of even having an Amendment process was first brought up as a provision in the Constitution, many of the delegates thought it unnecessary. Madison’s notes record the following on June 11^th: “Col. MASON urged the necessity of such a provision [Amendments]. The plan now to be formed will certainly be defective, as the Confederation has been found on trial to be. Amendments therefore will be necessary, and it will be better to provide for them, in an easy, regular and Constitutional way than to trust to chance and violence. It would be improper to require the consent of the Natl. Legislature, because they may abuse their power, and refuse their consent on that very account…”.

By the time the convention reached its final days in mid September, the Amendment provision had been added as Article V, and the provision had two methods; the national legislature (Congress) could propose Amendments and Congress could call for a Convention of States for the purpose of proposing amendments. However, both methods were left in the hands (power) of the national legislature, that’s what Mason meant when he referred in the first quote above as “both the modes to depend, in the first immediately, in the second, ultimately, on Congress”. Mason had objected to this back in June and now as the convention drew to a close, he rose to his feet to forcefully object with his reasons stated above (“It would be improper to require the consent of the Natl. Legislature, because they may abuse their power, and refuse their consent on that very account”). Madison’s notes of 15 Sept tell us that Mason’s motion was accepted and the language was changed in order to require [mandate] Congress to call a convention upon application of 2/3 of the states.

It is noteworthy to point out that this process does not call for a Constitutional Convention; the language specifies calling a convention for the purpose of “proposing amendments”…to the existing Constitution…it would still require 3/4ths of the states (38) to ratify any amendment proposed in this convention.

We owe George Mason and the other framers a huge debt for this...they had the foresight to understand first of all, that we needed an orderly process in which to amend our Constitution (“regular and Constitutional way than to trust to chance and violence” – Mason 11 June). Secondly we owe them a huge debt for recognizing and understanding the depravity of man and the extremely intoxicating effects of years of power in the hands of the same people (hence a need for term limits) and that these power intoxicated occupants of the United States Congress would “abuse their power, and refuse their consent” (Mason 11 June) to any amendments that would “injure” themselves and return powers never intended for the national legislature or any of the other branches for that matter, they would never take steps to return that power on their own to the rightful owner, the states/people (“no amendments of the proper kind would ever be obtained by the people, if the Government should become oppressive” – Mason 15 Sep).

The least we can do as citizens of this great nation today, citizens that do not seem to want to be bothered with taking the time to understand the underpinnings of their liberty, the least we can do is take the time to understand what the framers of this amazing document did for us. When the framers agreed on September 15^th, 1787 to change the text in Article V, they in effect were telegraphing a message to us in 2014, a message to us showing us the way back inside the fence of the Constitution, a way back to what Thomas Jefferson called the “chains of the Constitution”.

It is time to answer the call of the framers....it is time to step up and exercise what our founders put into place for us in the words of Col. George Mason when he said "It would be improper to require the consent of the Natl. Legislature, because they may abuse their power, and refuse their consent".

Click on the Convention of States link below to join the national effort to reign in the runaway leviathan federal government.

The "You Hate Teachers" Card

Recently I was "observing" someone “engage” on his facebook page about the utter failure of the public education system and the amount of $$ that are spent and continue to be spent at incredible rates per pupil. No surprise that he is taking flak/fire. The USAF has an old saying about that...."if you’re taking flak, you must be right over the target".

Permit me to share some observations.

 First of all, there are many wonderful people who have dedicated their lives to the government education system. Many of my friends, godly people working tirelessly to help children get an education. For that as a citizen, I am extremely grateful.

Herein lies a major rub….the problem is….no one is allowed to bring up anything negative about what we see going on in our country that is directly related to our government run education system. It’s almost like a “race card”….as soon as someone brings up the government education system….someone slams down the “I am a good teacher”, “my mother was a teacher”, “I worked in the public school system for XX years”…..this is done either intentionally or unintentionally to silence any critic. A Saul Alinsky tactic….used by many who don’t even know who Alinsky was.

It does not follow that all is well simply because “I went to public school”, or “my kids went to public school and they all came out well”. The standard of measurement for a Leviathan system like our government education system has become cannot be anecdotal evidence. A true standard for a behemoth government system like we have today has to be broad, consistent evidence. When we hold up a measuring stick like that…..the answers are obvious to anyone wanting to give it an honest look. So….it is wonderful that many of us survived the system….can we now move on to an honest discussion about the blatantly obvious?

Again, let me caveat…the issue is not all teachers…..we have wonderful, wonderful people doing their very best in a system that is stacked against them.

It is simply incomprehensible to me that anyone that is breathing….and can read or listens to the news…and is coherent and can look around them….and not see what is happening as a direct result of our government education system.

How much history has to be re written and espoused in textbooks today before Christians wake up and take a stand? How much godless indoctrination must be shoved down the throats of children before Christians take a stand?

I would submit to you….that the government education system is a complete and utter success today! By "success" I mean, it is doing exactly what it was designed to do. Most people that defend this system have never taken the few minutes that it takes to just do some simple research into the founders of the modern education system. Men like Charles Potter, John Dewey, going back to the 1920s, both kingpins of the modern education system…and both signers of the Humanist Manifesto. Neither of these men hid their motives…. Listen to Potter: ““Education is the most powerful ally of Humanism, and every American public school is a school of Humanism. What can the theistic Sunday Schools, meeting for an hour once a week, and teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teaching?”

So we have a system doing exactly what it was designed to do….it is a machine that cranks out for the most part….a statist….a citizen that has been indoctrinated into a humanistic worldview who has been taught for the most part that the state (government) is the answer to all of our ills as a society. Not everyone comes out that way….there are many schools around the nation that are exceptions, there are many who graduate that are exceptions due to differing influences on their lives…..but to deny the obvious….the overwhelming evidence all around us that our system is producing a government dependent statist…with leftist ideology defies all reason. The evidence is all around us.

I’ll close with this….I am extremely grateful for all the wonderful teachers and administrators (well maybe not administrators so much)…and so many more that I know have worked tirelessly for years in this system. Deeply grateful. I remember a conversation with a friend who was a public school teacher years ago where she was explaining to me all the things that she had to do during a single day….that were government mandates…that kept her from …teaching. This is not news to anyone much less anyone that is inside the system.

What Christians need to do…those inside and outside the system…what they need to do is face the reality…and start pushing back against the system. As Christians we are called to engage the enemy …wherever he shows himself in our culture. We are feeding a public school system that has been in enemy hands for decades if not a century…..and more than platitudes are needed from Christians that have chosen the Public School system as their mission field…what is needed is for real engagement from within the system. It is not enough to repeat the mantra that “I’m going to be a light”….what is needed is for Christian Warriors to start pushing back and taking back territory that rightfully ought to be in the hands of those that have the words of life. And I’m not talking about Christianizing a government school system….I’m talking about leveling the playing field. I know many Christian teachers that are doing just what I described above…..they are pushing back and engaging…praise God for them!

To deny the reality and look away because we don’t want to hurt someone’s feelings does none of us any good, least of all the children that must attend these schools.

Constitutional Ignorance in Congress

Republican Representative Bob Goodlatte or Virginia is the Chairman of the House Judiciary committee. Over the weekend, he stated that there would be no impeachment for the President because "no criminal act" had been broken.

Folks, here's what I want you to see if you're interested...here we have the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee....of all the members of the U.S. House of Representatives, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee OUGHT TO KNOW WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS!

Goodlatte, makes the claim that it takes a "criminal act" to warrant impeachment. He is either ignorant of our Constitution or he intentionally misstates the Constitutional threshold because he thinks your stupid. I have said for a long, long time...that the vast majority of those serving in the Congress are absolutely clueless to our United States Constitution. This man is an embarrassment.

Article II, Section 4 clearly states the following:
"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

The Constitutional threshold for impeachment is actually pretty low....it has NOTHING to do with "criminal acts" although criminal acts would certainly meet the threshold if they occurred. Impeachment can even occur for "misdemeanors".  We need look no further than the founders to see what they meant...and for what purpose is the process of impeachment.

Alexander Hamilton wrote the following in Federalist 65: "those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust."
In other words, the Impeachment is the vehicle for removing those that "abuse or violate public trust".  Impeachment has ABSOLUTLY NOTHING to do with "criminal acts".  Representative Goodlatte is nothing more than a feckless, ignorant politician....or he is a liar. Either one of those options are not good.

"Sweeping away key textual limitations"

"On its way to that result, the majority sweeps away the key textual limitations on the recess-appointment power." - Justice Antonin Scalia, Concurring Opinion (Presidential Recess Appointment Abuse)

These are the words Scalia uses in his concurring opinion....look at them...see the reference to "textual limitations"....you don't hear the "Living Constitution" justices (the Libs) talking like that. Scalia and Thomas ALWAYS talk like this in their court opinions....they hold to the original text as best as humanly possible....that is the VERY HIGH calling of a federal judge (especially on the SCOTUS). The only way our Constitution works as an "anchor" and "limiter" of government power is when we do our best to be faithful to its original meaning and intent. This is called "Constitutional Originalism" or "textualism". The alternate philosophy is what is known as the "Living Constitution"...that is where you make it mean whatever you want it to mean. One can easily see the danger and fallacy of that philosophy. There is no limit to what you can do with the text. The "Living Constitution" is how we have arrived at where we are today....the documents text has been stretched, pulled, contorted, twisted, and perverted for so long....that major portions of the limiting powers have been made to mean something entirely different than originally intended. Another reminder of the absolute failure of Senator Graham on SCOTUS confirmations. He never talks about this requirement for a SCOTUS justice.

 A bigger reminder that we need clear amending language to reset the decades long perversion of textual meaning of key limiting powers. The founders understood this tendency among men....to stretch and pull on the limits of power....and they gave us a specific process to deal with it in Article V of the Constitution. The states can do what the Congress will not do....and propose amendments to the United States Constitution in order to reset the modern perverted interpretation back towards the founders intent.