Blogito ergo sum.

This morning I heard birds singing.  Does that mean they are thawing out and spring is not far away?

Medicare and Medicaid have $47 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

Social Security is on the brink of insolvency within the next decade.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are in total financial disarray.

And now the federal government wants to regulate the entire health care industry?

Say wha…?

…the guy whose truck turns from Riverview Drive onto Fowler Avenue each morning, pulling the “Hot Donut Co.” kiosk along behind. 

I don’t know where he goes to set up shop, but I know he’s an entrepreneur, a small businessman.  He puts himself out there and offers this service to somebody, somewhere, every day, with no guarantee that a single person will take him up on the offer.  He’ll never get rich doing this, but he’s just as important to America’s economy as bigwigs in boardrooms.

You have to admire a guy like that…

There are three of them on my daily commute, just on 56th St., between Fowler Ave. and Kirby St.

What in the world is a Hookah Lounge?

Have you noticed on the Vonage commercials that the earth is spinning on its axis so that the sun would come up in the west and go down in the east?

I wonder whether it’s: (a) a joke they’re playing on us, or (b) an esoteric symbol of some core value of their company, or (c) just a very dumb mistake.

Based on your own education in American history, what book (after the Bible) was the catalyst and guide for America’s founding fathers to engage in the American Revolution?  Actually, in my own education, even the Bible wasn’t given any credit.  (That in itself is a lie by omission.)  The only book I recollect being mentioned by my teachers and in my textbooks was Thomas Paine’s Common Sense.

Well, the teachers and the textbook writers & publishers here and now must stand corrected by John Quincy Adams, who was there and then.  He wrote: “…Common Sense is a pamphlet just as contemptible, almost throughout just as remote from sound human sense, as ll the others by which, in later times, he has made himself a name.  …If such a work could have produced the American revolution, it would have been best for reasonable men to concern themselves no longer with that event.  But it was certainly at all times, by the wiser and better men, considered, endured, and perhaps encouraged only as an instrument to gain over weaker minds to the common cause.”

OK, if Common Sense was not the political blockbuster it is given credit for, what was being read and absorbed and implemented by the founders?  John Adams (JQA’s father, the 2nd president, who was right in the middle of the American Revolution) named another book as the most influential on the eve of the War for Independence: A Defence of Liberty Against Tyrants.  Adams, ranking right up there with Washington, Jefferson, Henry, and Franklin, should know.

I for one am going to take my cue on all things American Revolution from John Adams and John Quincy Adams over any and all 20th-century textbook writers & publishers, and history teachers.  I have already read Common Sense, so I read A Defence of Liberty Against Tyrants to see what REALLY inspired the valiant and genius men who were America’s founding fathers.

The original Latin title of the book was Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos.  It was a French Huguenot tract, published in the late 16th century (2 centuries prior to 1776), authored under the pseudonym Junius Brutus.  (First, what we call “books” they called “tracts.”  What does that say about our own education and attention span?  But I digress…)

The “tract” asks and answers 4 questions:

1. Whether subjects are bound and ought to obey princes, if they command that which is against the law of God…
2. Whether it be lawful to resist a prince who doth infringe the law of God; by whom, how, and how far it is lawful…
3. Whether it be lawful to resist a prince who doth oppress or ruin a public state, and how far such resistance may be extended…
4. Whether neighbor princes may, or are bound by law to aid the subjects of other princes, persecuted for true religion, or oppressed by manifest tyranny…

The answer to each question is “Yes.”  The first two might have had the most direct application to the various European wars, in which religion and politics were almost inextricably intertwined.  However, for the American colonists, the third question would be paramount.  When you read the “long train of abuses” in the Declaration of Independence, they are not explicitly religious in nature, but political, economic, and social (which, of course, Christians recognize must be grounded in religious principle).  Fortunately, the third question is also the most thoroughly developed argument, and thus afforded the Sons of Liberty and their compatriots with a well-reasoned philosophy of civil disobedience most suited to their situation.  The fourth question’s answer would have been used to appeal to potential allies (like France, which would have been very familiar with the thinking in the document).

The book – er, tract – is not exactly a page-turner, by modern tastes.  It requires sustained attention to the thread of its main argument, which can be easily lost amid the dozens and dozens and dozens of examples and illustrations from the Bible and history. 

Defence turned the usual thinking on the relationship of ruler and subjects upside down, and led, I believe, to the “consent of the governed” idea that ultimately made its way into the Declaration: “The king is established by the Lord God…to the end he should administer justice to his people and defend them…”  The main political covenant is between God and the people, with the king to administer and safeguard it.  If the king usurp God’s law and mistreat His covenant people, then the king loses his right to rule.

Defence (humorously, to me) points out that “…none were ever born with crowns on their heads, and sceptres in their hands.”  Despite the custom of hereditary succession that had encrusted monarchies over the centuries, and citing Biblical examples of Israel’s selections of Saul and then David as their kings, it goes on: “…in some kingdoms and countries, the right of free election seems in a sort buried; yet, notwithstanding, in all well-ordered kingdoms, this custom is yet remaining.”  Kings are merely agents of God and His people: they are delegated authority from God, and they borrow authority from the people.  Then: “To conclude in a word, all kings were at first were altogether elected, and those who at this day seem to have their crowns and royal authority by inheritance, have or should have, first and principally their confirmation from the people.”  You can see how this kind of thinking would cause colonists to protest “taxation without representation,” et al.

Defence does put some limits on the people’s right to revolt.

1. The people must revolt only as a last resort: “Their duty is, first to admonish the prince…(until) the disease…becomes unrecoverable.”
2. The people must act collectively, not individually.  “Therefore, as all the whole people is above the king…yet being considered one by one, they are all of them under the king.”
3. The people must act through other duly constituted rulers: “It is…permitted the officers of a kingdom…to suppress a tyrant; and it is not only lawful…but their duty expressly requires it.”
4. To avoid revolt, the people should even flee, if possible: “But if the princes and magistrates…do not resist him, we must…retire ourselves into some other place.”

It is easy to see how closely the American colonists followed these principles: e.g., the Olive Branch Petition, et al. (#1), the consensus of all 13 colonies (#2), acting through the Continental Congress (#3), and their previous flight as Pilgrims and Puritans (#4).  Examples could be multiplied by better historians than I.

It appears that the historical evidence and the personal testimony of America’s founders agree that Defence, and not Common Sense, was (after the Bible) the main book of the Revolution.  I guess I am going to have to question everything I ever learned growing up about the history of my own country.

Have you ever heard that America’s founding fathers were deists, and that the Declaration and the Constitution have their philosophical roots in the Enlightenment and the Renaissance, while eschewing Biblical Christianity? 

Gary Amos’s Defending the Declaration: How the Bible and Christianity Influenced the Writing of the Declaration of Independence will explode that myth, disabuse you of any notions that America was not founded as a Christian nation, give you a greater appreciation for the breadth and depth of the founding fathers’ religious and political genius, and restore your confidence in American exceptionalism.

 Three factors influenced my selection of this title at this time:

1. I am doing research for my upcoming “Principles of Liberty” course for the Tampa 9-12 Project.
2. The fall semester exam in Logic, reducing the Declaration of Independence to a single syllogism, sparked a lively discussion on the Biblical merits of the American Revolution.
3. #2 above has led me to set up a faculty discussion on this topic in an upcoming faculty meeting.
4. Patsy Hinton borrowed this book from me and returned it with such high praise that she is buying her own copy so that she can highlight and write in it.

Because of #1 above, I haven’t been reading many books cover-to-cover lately, but when #2, #3, and #4 all converged in my experience in the last month, I decided to make an exception in this case – and I’m glad I did.

 I remember George Grant at an ACCS conference one summer encouraging all of us, in our reading, to “follow the footnote trail.”  The idea is that if you find an author’s ideas attractive and admirable, and you want to think more like him yourself, then read the authors he referenced in his footnotes, as they would be the influences on his thought.  Then when you read those authors, find and read the authors THEY footnote, and the authors THEY footnote, and so on.

 Well, this fine book by Gary Amos will become a guide for the “footnote trail” for you regarding the Declaration of Independence.  He will point you to the authors that were formative in the thinking of America’s founding fathers:

• The usuals – Locke, Blackstone, Montesquieu, and Rutherford;
• Others of whom I had never heard (or had forgotten) – Sir Edward Coke (pronounced “cook”), Henri de Bracton, John Fortescue;
• Some that might surprise you: Augustine, Aquinas, and Calvin;
• And ultimately, the Bible itself: Moses, Isaiah, Matthew, John, Peter, and Paul.

Mr. Amos lifts key phrases from the Declaration, like “the laws of nature and of nature’s God,” “self-evident truths,”  “unalienable rights,” “consent of the governed,” “judge of the world,” and “divine providence,” and traces the developments of these concepts back through history and literature (i.e., the authors mentioned above) to argue that these ideas were rooted deeply in English Common Law, which was rooted in Medieval Scholasticism, which was rooted in the Judeo-Christian worldview of the Bible, which was rooted in the mind and heart of God Himself.

 While he recognizes that other Christian scholars take the usual footnote trail (unthinkingly, uncritically, in his opinion), tracing these ideas through the Enlightenment and the Renaissance and back to Classical Antiquity (Greece and Rome), he argues convincingly that they have bought the errors and lies of men who do not want American to have been founded as a Christian nation because that would sit in judgment on their secular worldview.  As R.J. Rushdoony has said, “Men cannot give a meaning to history that they themselves lack.”  Mr. Amos takes the position about the secular scholars who desperately want America’s founding fathers to be deists, or worse: Methinks they do protest too much.  He points out, plainly: “The Christian roots of American Revolutionary theory…are historically evident, logically compelling, and easily researchable.”

 Mr. Amos makes tremendous use of footnotes himself, citing profusely, and helpfully, the original works (e.g., Lex Rex) so influential on the founding fathers that he summarizes in his own text.  He makes a very convincing case that the Declaration’s ideas set forth a view of the world in which “political liberty is a corollary of spiritual liberty in Christ,” in which “man exhanges the iron heel of statism for the rod and staff of justice.”  The last page contains this wonderful passage:

                “At different times in different lands, men saw different parts of the vision.  Parts of it were even put into practice in some of their countries, but never before 1776 had all of its ideas been implemented at one time.  The American Revolution is unique because it began by declaring all these ideas as part of the foundation of a nation.  A new political order was born on the earth.

                “Now, however, the Declaration’s ideas are scoffed at by philosophers, misrepresented by historians, attacked by clergymen, ridiculed by law professors, held in contempt by power-hungry politicans, and ignored by the people.  As long as this continues, the American Revolution is not over.”

Want to join the Revolution?  You could start by reading this fine book.

When the Muslim tried to blow up a plane full of “infidels” (mostly, presumably, Christians), the explosive did not detonate, but merely burned badly the would-be terrorist himself.

News reporters called it “a Christmas miracle.”

They meant it metaphorically.  I think it might be literally true.

Maybe Jehovah decided to give a hint to the followers of Allah about who the true God is!

Trying to do my civic duty as a concerned citizen, I sent an email to Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, firmly but politely asking him to vote NO on the healthcare bill in the U.S. Senate.  His polite automated response was: “Thank you for sharing your views with me.”

Trying to continue to do my civic duty as a concerned citizen, I tried to send another email to him the next day.  This time, less than 24 hours later, his automated response was: “Your email is spam.”

How and why did my second email become spam, since it was sent merely a few hours after the first one?

I feel disenfranchised…

What follows is a brutally honest column by Col. Ralph Peters.  I quote it without comment.  It speaks for itself.

On Christmas Day, an Islamist fanatic tried to blow up an airplane whose passengers were mostly Christians. And we helped.

 Our government gets no thanks for preventing a tragedy. Only the bomber’s ineptitude preserved the lives of nearly 300 innocents.

How did we help Umar Abdulmutallab, a wealthy Muslim university graduate who decided that Allah wanted him to slaughter Christians on their most joyous holiday?

By continuing to lie to ourselves. Although willing — at last — to briefly use the word “terror,” yesterday President Obama still refused to make a connection between the action, the date and Islam.

Abdulmuttalab: Chose Christmas for a reason.

Was it just a ticketing accident that led to a bombing attempt on Christmas? Was it all about blackout dates and frequent-flyer miles?

It wasn’t. You know it. And I know it. But our government refuses to know it.

Despite vast databases crammed with evidence, our leaders — of both parties — still refuse to connect Islamist terrorism with Islam.

Our insistence that “Islam’s a religion of peace” would have been cold comfort to the family members of those passengers had the bomb detonated as planned.

Abdulmutallab’s own father warned our diplomats that his son had been infected by Islamist extremism. Our diplomats did nothing. Why? Because (despite a series of embassy bombings) the State Department dreads linking terrorism to Islam.

Contrast our political correctness with Abdulmutallab’s choice of Christmas for his intended massacre. Our troops stand down on Muslim holidays. A captive terrorist merely has to claim that a soldier dog-eared a Koran, and it’s courts-martial all around.

We proclaim that the terrorists “don’t represent Islam.” OK, whom do they represent? The Franciscans? We don’t get to decide what’s Islam and what isn’t. Muslims do. And far too many of them approve of violent jihad.

It gets worse. Instead of focusing on the religious zeal and inspiration of our enemies and how such motivations change the game, our “terrorism experts” agonize over whether such beasts as Abdulmutallab or Maj. Hasan, the Fort Hood assassin for Allah, are really members of al Qaeda or not.

As a Sunday Post editorial pointed out, al Qaeda’s far more than a formal organization; it’s an idea, a cause. If a terrorist says he’s al Qaeda, he is, even if he doesn’t have a union card from Jihadi Local 632.

We’re dealing with a global Muslim movement, not a Masons’ lodge.

And that “global” aspect is especially worrying. Despite limited Special Operations strikes beyond our recognized combat zones, we still don’t accept the nature of the threat from jet-set jihadis. Our leaders and our military are obsessed with holding ground in Afghanistan — even though al Qaeda’s growth areas are in Yemen and Africa.

We voluntarily tie ourselves down, while our enemies focus on mobility. Worse, we’ve convinced ourselves that development aid (the left’s all-purpose medicine) is the key to defeating al Qaeda.

That’s utter nonsense. Abdulmutallab’s a rich kid. He didn’t come from a deprived background, bearing the grievances of the slum. He’s a graduate of a top English university. And Osama bin Laden’s from a super-rich family. How does building a footbridge in Afghanistan deter them?

Most of our home-grown Islamist terrorists hail from middle-class families — such monsters as Maj. Hasan or the Virginia virgin-chasers under arrest in Pakistan (where jail conditions are a lot worse than at Guantanamo — can’t we just leave ‘em there?).

This isn’t a revolt of the wretched of the earth. These terrorists are the Muslim-fanatic versions of Bill Ayers and the Weathermen, pampered kids unhappy with the world. Al Qaeda’s big guns are re- belling against privilege. There’s a lot of Freud in this fundamentalism.

Spoiled brats remade their god in their own vengeful image. And we have to kill them. This one really is a zero-sum game.

We’re not just fighting men but a plague of faith. Until Washington accepts that, we’ll continue to reap a low return on our investments of blood and treasure.

On Christmas Day, a Muslim fanatic attempted to butcher hundreds of Christians (dead Jews would’ve been a bonus). Our response? Have airport security analyze the contents of grandma’s mini-bottle of shampoo — we don’t want to “discriminate.”

With our lies, self-deception and self-flagellation, we’re terror’s little helpers.